Why couldn't Sherrill have given up his first run when the Dodgers had a multiple-run lead or something? At least he didn't give it up in a tie game. The first truth is Sherrill wasn't really pitching well enough not to be giving up no runs, so this was coming. Though I guess it was coming no matter how well he was pitching, since everyone gives up runs occasionally, even the best.
Is my revulsion for the relievers? Or is it for the expectation that they must always be perfect, and that if they are not they will take the blame? The second truth is the Dodger offense was the primary culprit for that loss last night. They were the prime movers, or the prime non-movers, actually. It was Archimedes who said, "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I will move the world". And it is I who says, "Give me a Dodger team who stops hitting for long enough, and a sofa on which to place my butt, and I will fall asleep on the sofa while they lose in extra innings".
I did not actually fall asleep. That wouldn't have happened even if there hadn't been all the exciting trade news. Thome! Garland! You could have knocked me over with a Mark Hendrickson fastball after Vinny announced the Thome trade over the air. Whether the trades end up working out or not at least I always enjoy the initial rush of getting a name player. I do --- perhaps I should be ashamed of that. I'm a sucker for name players, for the thrill of imagining what great things that player will do. Wow, Thome, he'll play first base and hit 20 home runs! He's still just 30, right? Maybe they could put him in the outfield if Manny needs a day off! And so on. The third truth is Thome will be a near non-factor for the Dodgers if all he does is pinch hit. Unless they get to the World Series and he gets his chance to hit without fielding. The Dodgers didn't really give up anything to get Thome, and it does improve the bench, so I do approve of the trade, but the final effect of the trade is likely to be closer to zero than some would imagine.
I'm excited to get Garland because years ago the Dodgers were rumored to be interested in trading for him and I kind of wanted him then and I figure better late than never. I'm not excited about the prospect the Dodgers probably had to give up to get him, whoever it is. I don't care about the salary relief the Dodgers get along with Garland. I'm sure management loves that, but it's not my money so I'd rather the Dodgers kept the better prospect, paid for Garland's salary themselves, and gave up a lesser prospect. The fourth truth is that money is the most important consideration for team owners. Most of them, anyway. I can't really blame them for that, I guess.
Game 132 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )
McDonald -- 1
Ethier -- 1
Blake -- 1
It's the fault of the Dodger offense that the game was lost, but even so McDonald can't avoid an unfair loss share after giving up two runs and nearly a bushel more in the tenth inning. A dishonorary unfair loss share goes to every Dodger hitter who meekly went out in the bottom of the tenth inning, preventing even the false hope of Ethier coming up as the tying run.
Game 132 Unfair Win Shares ( Snakes )
Vasquez -- 1
Upton -- 1
Ojeda -- 1
If not for Justin Upton, Andre Ethier would be the best right fielder in the National League this year. I have a great big post coming up later today in which I rank all the National League starting players by position. It's gonna be fun on the bun!