Site Presented By
Monday, Oct 6, 2008
Jerry L. Gale: I have long maintained that the best sport of all sports is rugby. It is far, far superior to the second best sport to watch, which is football, because everyone has to touch and run with the ball and because they play without a suit of armor.
C. Manion: Have to disagree with you on hockey being a faster sport [than lacrosse]. Sure, the use of skates means the players move down the field/ice faster, but as a general rule, a lacrosse ball moves much, much faster than a hockey puck.
Last year, at the NHL skills competition, I believe the hardest shot was around 99 mph I think it is safe to say that every professional (indoor and outdoor) lacrosse team, as well as any good Division I or Division III college team, has a player that can hit 100 mph or more. Not sure what the record for the hardest hockey shot is, but David Evans of the Boston pro lacrosse team hit 108 last year. Also, check out the padding -- or lack thereof -- worn by lacrosse goalies vs. hockey ones.
King replies: Yeah, but I'm talking about the speed of the players. And anyway the hardest hockey shot was 105.2 mph. So, do you really say that lacrosse is a faster sport than hockey because they can shoot 108 instead of 105?
Comparing Eric Gagne's save streak to other famous baseball streaks
Jason Owens: I hate to break it to you, but Gagne's streak is far more impressive than either Joe DiMaggio's [56-game hitting streak] or Cal Ripken Jr.'s [2,632-game appearance streak] from an on-the-field, actually affecting games perspective. A save might be a seriously flawed statistic, but at least it means something in the context of an actual game.
Contrast that to DiMaggio's streak. As impressive as 56 games is, what's more valuable to a team: all those consecutive games with a base hit or 56 consecutive games where DiMaggio went hitless three times, yet also hit six more homers, drove in 15 more runs and got on base 10 more times than he did during his hitting streak? If I'm a manager, I'm taking the non-streak with the extra production since that equals wins. Remember wins?
Chris Railey: On the question of which of those streaks is more impressive, I wholeheartedly agree with you that Orel Hershiser's [59-inning shutout] streak is the tops. Theoretically, a hitter can put together a bunch of 1-for-5's in a row and it's a streak (for the record, Joe D. was 91-for-223 during the streak, an average of .408). And Ripken's streak: well, fuck that guy. But all those zeroes Orel was piling up -- that's dominance.
Another point: Hershiser's streak, more than both DiMaggio's and Ripken's, is more obviously tied to that player's team winning games. In other words, Hershiser's streak transcends individual accomplishment in a much more profound way. For pure drama's sake, I think the hitting streak ranks first, if only because of situations like a guy being on-deck in the ninth inning without getting a hit yet, and things like that. I doubt Hershiser's streak is in much danger in the Steroid Era.
Yajur Parikh: You state, "Ripken's was remarkable, but all he had to do to keep it alive was show up, not perform." I'd have to disagree here. If Ripken hadn't performed well both at the plate and on the field, its unlikely he would have been playing every single day for such a long period of time. I always thought what was really astonishing about Ripken's streak is not just that he avoided injury for so many years, but that he was good enough for his manager to put him out there for so long as well.
King replies: Of course Ripken was a great player. You can't put together that kind of streak without being one, but he had some pretty sub-par years in '92, '93 and '95, the year he broke Lou Gehrig's record late in the season. You don't think he'd have had some pine time if he hadn't had the streak?
The streak absolutely kept itself going, independent of any normal baseball judgment of his performance. To have a streak like that in the first place, Ripken had to be great. To keep it going once he was within sight of the record, all he had to do was show up.
Dusty Baker's one-game-a-week comment
Stephen Hope: Aren't you mistreating Dusty Baker's "game a week" quote? [Baker had said the Cubs, down by seven games in the N.L. Central, only had to make up a game a week. This column's response was that that statement is always a white flag in the division race, code for "Hang in there, boys, there's still the wild card."]
All the guy is doing is turning a large deficit into something that seems manageable. In something as streaky as baseball, it's not like this means he's really expecting to gain exactly a game each week of the rest of the season -- Dusty knows that. But the point that a performance differential of a game a week between two teams can be sustained over a half-season is perfectly valid.
King replies: I've been in the doghouse with my boss ever since that column. It's a Dusty Baker-autographed doghouse, by the way. Doggedly pursuing the matter, she pointed out that Baker made the game-a-week comment in 1997, and his Giants won the division. In fact, he says it every year his team doesn't go wire to wire.
I give. Uncle. I was totally wrong about this. I take it all back.
But the next time you hear a manager making this statement, even if it's Dusty Baker, and you want to bet on that team's chances of winning the division, you know where to find me.
Previous column: Shaq to the Heat
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Get Salon in your mailbox!