Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Go to Safeco Tonight!

1

"Safeco."

While admirable, there's no way this feat is as a perfect game. Jenkins gets hours of rest between innings, whereas starters who throw a perfect game have only the time between innings.

Posted by joykiller | August 17, 2007 10:06 AM
2

Already have my ticket. Plus it's bobblehead night!!

Posted by mary-kate | August 17, 2007 10:07 AM
3

I fixed "SafeCo." Cute little Chicago fan...

Posted by Amy Kate Horn | August 17, 2007 10:31 AM
4

There's still another glaring homonym typo in that post that our Ph.D blogger should have caught. ;-)

Posted by Sachi | August 17, 2007 10:43 AM
5

i betcha i could get to first base with bobby jenks.

Posted by chubby chaser | August 17, 2007 10:58 AM
6

@ 1: If this feat is not as a big a deal as a perfect game, why hasn't it been done before, while there have been 17 perfect games thrown? Getting the batter out is always a challenge, regardless of whether you get four days rest or four minutes.

@3, Thanks for fixing the Co, Amy Kate

But @ 4, I don't see another homonym typo. Who's? That's not "whose," it's a contraction for "who is," and is, I think, correct.

My favorite spellcheck typos in recent student work: the Beat Generation being largely "queen" instead of "queer"; and a character who need to "qualm" her fears.

Posted by bill | August 17, 2007 11:08 AM
7

I see the typo...

Posted by Found it | August 17, 2007 11:16 AM
8

Y'all ready for football season? Keep lettin the Mariners tease you into thinkin they are good.

Posted by Shaniqua Jackson | August 17, 2007 11:26 AM
9

Fuck that fatboy.

Also, he tied the record against us. You mean the ChiSox haven't used him in a week?

Posted by Gomez | August 17, 2007 11:31 AM
10

Pitching a perfect game in 3 hours is more impressive than pitching 13 perfect innings in 4 weeks. No one is saying it's not impressive, but it hasn't been done before because it's an endless streak where as a perfect game does end.

Also how long have we had relivers and closers going regularly in baseball? 30 years? Not the same as 110 years.

Also, would you say that George Sherrill is better than Johan Santana cause Sherrill's ERA is lower? He's also only given up 1 ER in 17 IP at Safeco Field this year! Johan gave up 3 Er's in 7IP! He sucks!

Yes, it's impressive, I look forward to watching him pitch and the pressure would be incredible. But it's not as impressive as a perfect game.

Posted by cliff rancho | August 17, 2007 11:32 AM
11

@6: The fact that this record is more obscure and less common than a perfect game doesn't make it less impressive.

I would argue that it's more of a challenge to get a batter out if you've been pitching for 1-2 hours already. Endurance isn't something that should be discounted here.

It's not just the physical aspect either: individual batters get to face a pitcher more times during a perfect game (or would-be perfect game). This gives them more of an opportunity to figure out the pitcher's game plan.

By contrast, Jenks faces three individual batters once a game. By the time he pitches again, the Sox may not even be playing the same team. From a strategic standpoint, he has the upper hand each time he enters a game.

I don't mean to belittle Jenks' accomplishment, but I don't think it's comparable to a perfect game.

Posted by joykiller | August 17, 2007 11:34 AM
12

Sorry, meant MORE impressive.

Posted by joykiller | August 17, 2007 11:36 AM
13

@6 - Let's just say that the slog could use a more affective proofreader.

Posted by Levislade | August 17, 2007 11:36 AM
14

Bring on Ichiro!!

Posted by Blah | August 17, 2007 11:56 AM
15

It didn't impress us when he came in against the weakest part of our order at a point in the game when the M's could have cared less.

PS: "positively affected" not "effected"

Posted by robespierre & maurice | August 17, 2007 12:53 PM
16

As the resident English MA, I shall proceed to attempt to defend "effected":

"Postively affected" would mean to affect in a positive direction. Clearly that is true, but as a closer one is also bringing about a desired result, ie, the score at the end of the game; therefore...

"Positively effected" I take to mean "brought about in a single swoop," with "positively" as an intensifier, like "totally" or "completely."

I have the power to edit the Slog, but I'm not gonna, unless someone persuades me that this (rather creative) interpretation is false.

Sincerely, with kisses for robespierre (but not maurice),

Annie

Posted by annie | August 17, 2007 1:28 PM
17

annie- He clearly meant the first definition, and not your second, rather tortured one.

robespierre - it's "couldn't care less" not "could care less".

Posted by grammar ninja | August 17, 2007 1:51 PM
18

@17: Feeble! Try again. No recourse to intentionality.

Posted by annie | August 17, 2007 2:01 PM
19

@16,17: note we are non-severable. you love us or leave us as a unit. and the real enemy here is not bad grammar, but bobby jenks. who (forgive me) jinxed his shot when he doffed his cap at tying, rather than surpassing, the record.

Posted by robespierre & maurice | August 17, 2007 2:43 PM
20

@19, know your enema.

Posted by Shaniqua Jackson | August 17, 2007 3:08 PM
21

we are very familiar with our enemas-- coffee and cigarettes, specifically. what has this to do with baseball?

Posted by robespierre & maurice | August 17, 2007 3:45 PM
22

aemiv rzkgy bvmixqt jldgcv qzjmweiu birmsx tohaxzw

Posted by ufrx emurlko | August 21, 2007 3:21 AM
23

katxyp glemxkb gafsekq ektg sznkyiwco vjrsm vafyo http://www.igmpov.rknx.com

Posted by ibtj qejlt | August 21, 2007 3:22 AM
24

katxyp glemxkb gafsekq ektg sznkyiwco vjrsm vafyo http://www.igmpov.rknx.com

Posted by ibtj qejlt | August 21, 2007 3:23 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).