The Warning Track: The Nail in Pete Rose’s Coffin

The Warning Track is a blog that covers all things Major League Baseball on a weekly basis, from discussing why some teams are getting hot, who’s in line for awards at season’s end and who is getting ready to make the leap to contender status, as well as off-the-field issues like first-time Commissioner Rob Manfred, which players could be headed to new homes, and A-Rod’s latest conundrum. 

If you have anything MLB-related that you would like to see discussed in the upcoming edition of The Warning Track, or have any comments at all, you may suggest/comment/rant/agree/disagree/tell me I know nothing about baseball at any time on Twitter @RealDavidLynch. 

 

A Dagger in a Legacy

One of the most polarizing topics in the baseball world for years has been whether or not to reverse Pete Roses’ banishment from the sport – effectively legitimizing his place in the Hall of Fame – given the caliber of history that the all-time hits leader’s name holds, set against the weight of committing major league baseball’s cardinal sin: betting on your team.

Heck, the debate itself is probably worth entry into Cooperstown.

But the tides have finally shifted in the favor of the faction that opposes his entry into the Hall, in light of new reports that Rose bet on games as a player, and not just as a manager, something which he has denied vehemently for years.

The Rose Dilemma, which has been woven into the very fabric of major league baseball culture in regards to safeguarding the integrity of the game, is one of sports’ greatest dichotomies.  On one hand, you have Pete the Player, the 17-time All-Star who led the Cincinnati Reds to two world championships en route to becoming the only player in major league history to amass 4,000 hits in his major league career, ultimately ending with 4,256.

Then there’s Pete the Gambler, the figure who conjures up images of devil horns and secret intentions banned from the sport for life after being accused of betting on Reds games while he was manager of the club in the mid-‘80s. Up until now, many thought that was the extent of it – an icon of the sport whose priorities unjustifiably changed when he stepped off the field and into the dugout.

And that was the basis of many arguments endorsing Rose’s place in the Hall of Fame – he is still an enormous part of baseball history, and if we can’t recognize his time as a gambling manager, we could at least hold his accomplishments as a player in high regard.

But with the news that at some point in his career, he was as illegitimate a player as he was a manager, those arguments have been silenced. The quiet is even louder considering how strongly he argued assumptions and accusations for years about what he may or may not have done while playing for the Reds.

Earlier this year Commissioner Rob Manfred gave Rose his blessing permission to participate in some – emphasis on some – All-Star Game activities in July, seeing as this year’s festivities will be held at Great American Ballpark. No arguments there; it would be incomplete without him in a sense. At least for one weekend, Rose, still revered by many in Ohio, and his presence will be something to celebrate in the city he helped to put back on the baseball map. Now, unfortunately, that weekend will be blighted in a overbearingly awkward way.

Some may despise Rose for corrupting the integrity of the game and his role in it, but those same people may also argue that the Hall of Fame is just as much about the history of the game as much as those who have played or managed their way into it. They have much in common to arguments supporting the entries of players like Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and others from the steroid era; the Hall is about the history of the game, and it would be wrong to look over that time as though it never happened. When it comes to Rose, his name is nothing if not historic, despite his tarnished reputation that is all but shattered now.

But then again, if those enshrined in the Hall are honored for their upholding the integrity of the game…well, then it’s obvious why Rose continues to stay out of it, and that’s not even taking his banishment into consideration. So it shouldn’t even be considered…right?

That debate is certainly all but over now. No matter what Rose says from here on out about whatever illicit activities he may have participated in, we’ll have trouble believing him. He may not have taken steroids, but by betting on games during his tenure in Cinci as a manager and a player, his loyalty to not only the organization that is the MLB, but the very spirit of the sport, will forever be questioned, more and more until we can only reach one conclusion: he may have been special on the field, but he isn’t special to the game.

He was, at one point. He was the pride of our national pastime. But not anymore.

rose

 

Innovation of the Greatest Kind

Amidst all the changes introduced to the sport over the last couple years – pace of play rules, instant replay, the abolition of home plate collisions – meant to usher in a new era for the game, the greatest one of them all might still be on the way.

In fact, from the way she plays, it might already be upon us.

It was recently reported that 16-year-old French shortstop Melissa Mayeux has at least a shot to become the first female to play for a big league club. There are several ways that such an event could be described, including, but not limited to: huge, game-changer, H-I-S-T-O-R-I-C.

She’s well on her way to at least being looked at by MLB teams, something that may have been deemed unprecedented fifteen years ago. Arguably the toughest step in the process has been checked off for Mayeux: getting on MLB’s international registration lis, becoming the first female to do so. As of July 2nd, any major league club will be able to sign her.

16-year-old Mayeux currently plays on Frances under-18 national team, and is also a member of the senior national team.

16-year-old Mayeux currently plays on France’s under-18 national team, and is also a member of the senior national team.

Your move, Mo’ne Davis.

Over the course of its existence, major league baseball has overcome institutionalized obstacles – barriers that, more often than not, reflect societal norms. The idea that talent knows no skin color was established with Jackie Robinson, and over the coming decades as the sport spread oversees, the notion that talent knows no ethnicity was also born.

The very fact that Mayeux can even be considered by clubs is an enormous step forward not just for the game on a global scale, but for society. Her eligibility alone proves that talent knows no gender.

What makes Mayeux so special? As MLB Director of International Game Development Mike McClellan puts it, “she makes all the plays and is very smooth and fluid in the field. She swings the bat really well and is fearless.”

In other words…she sounds like has potential to play in the big leagues, at the very least. And why not? Her gender shouldn’t hold her back, especially not in 2015. That’s not even on the list of things to be considered, as it shouldn’t be. Instead, the ideal player has:

  • Talent
  • Integrity
  • Passion for the game

At first glance Mayuex fits the whole package. “I’d like to stay in the game for as long as possible,” Mayeux reportedly said. She’s also pretty damn good, as she has a shot at making the French national team for the World Baseball Classic in 2017, an event usually dominated by men.

It isn’t a given that Mayeux will get picked up by a team. But she’s already made an impact by starting to break down a barrier that has no place standing in American sports or culture. Talent knows no gender. We know that now.

Mayeux has proved it.

 

 

David Lynch likes to talk about and write about movies, sports, and important happenings around the world. He can be reached at alex.695@hotmail.com or on Twitter @RealDavidLynch.

Advertisements

Jurassic World is one attraction to avoid at all costs

Nostalgia is a commodity being fully exploited by Hollwood in 2015, with modern installments to such classic franchises like Star Wars, Terminator, Mad Max and, of course, Jurassic Park being released.

A smart film producer knows that while nostalgia can bring in the big bucks just with a title and release date, it must be delicately utilized to prevent going so far as making an original look bad.

Simply put, director Colin Trevorrow and his staff of writers fail on all fronts when it comes to being delicate with the throwbacks in Jurassic World. They bombard you with them, and thus take two steps back while they believe they’re leaping forward as they sacrifice the process of trying to make something refreshing but familiar for the sake of mind-numbing spectacle that really isn’t that spectacular.

Oh, to to be sure, the throwbacks are there. John Williams’ epic score, implemented at the most inopportune times. The old red, black and yellow logo of Dr. Hammond’s original dream, seemingly forced in. Even some fan favorite dinos make an appearance, but they just don’t feel like an old friend we so desperately want to embrace. Such is the way of the modern blockbuster, which is exactly what Jurassic World aspired to be, I suppose.

Don't pretend like you don't know what happens next.

Don’t pretend like you don’t know what happens next.

But Jurassic Park was a blockbuster, too. One of the most successful in history, in fact. And it wasn’t all just scary dinosaurs; it was the memorable characters, the eloquent script, the believable scenarios and character motives and imaginative direction.

Those are vital components of every movie, and Jurassic World doesn’t deliver on a single one, save for the a few – yes, just a few – cool action set pieces involving the prehistoric threats.

Instead, those things are all made expendable, in hopes that the audience doesn’t notice. Except it’s pretty hard not to. Everyone’s here for the dinos, and while the CGI creations (*sigh*, we’ll get to those in a minute) are cool and popcorn fare-y, we get impatient waiting for them to finally come on board and take over.

Yes, there are humans storylines too, there has to be. Claire is the big bosslady running things at Jurassic World, trying to get potential investors/sponsors to come on board with a new attraction while “supervising” her visiting nephews, Gray and Zach.

She’s also one of the most static, dull, painfully stock characters to grace the big screen this year, and probably in recent memory. She’s unbelievably stereotyped, the very definition of a trope, one caught in a world where character development just doesn’t exist. She gets her small, tiny, minuscule moment at film’s end, but otherwise she just doesn’t offer anything new as the preoccupied aunt caught up in the madness. It doesn’t help that Bryce Dallas Howard (The Help, The Village, Spider-Man 3) plays her like a zombie. C’mon, open those eyes a little!

Haven't we seen your character in, like, any other movie, ever?

Haven’t we seen your character in, like, any other movie, ever?

Unfortunately, the film’s other characters aren’t much better. The nephews are an obvious attempt at a conduit for the audience to connect and sympathize with, in the same way that we fell in love with Jurassic Park’s bickering siblings Lex and Tim Murphy as they hid from velociraptors in the kitchen, climbed over electric fences, shuddered in terror in the Jeep. You just don’t care for Gray and Zach, no matter how hard you try. They’re just more stock characters – in the form of immature teenage brothers who are nothing alike yet must bond in the face of death – that we’ve come to know for years.

And everyone else…my goodness. How spent over two hours longing for the humble charisma of Sam Neill’s Alan Grant, the lovable skepticism of Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm, the gentle egotism of Richard Attenborough’s John Hammond.

Thank God for Chris Pratt (Guardians of the Galaxy, Parks and Rec), playing the snarky dinosaur supervisor Owen. Can we get that man in Indiana Jones’ fedora already? He embodies what little charm and belief Jurassic World holds for the audience, and even then – even then – he is static. Never-changing. Stock. At least he has a knack for making two or three of his one-liners bearable. Other than that, his personality – the one we saw on display in last year’s smash hit Guardians of the Galaxy – feels restrained.

Characters are born from script, and the writers certainly didn’t do them any favors. It’s so much a disservice to the franchise, how unoriginal these characters are, that you almost have to cringe when the end credits read “Based on characters by Michael Crichton”, the novelist who wrote the original Jurassic Park. This isn’t what you had in mind, Michael, that much is true.

Welcome to a world without cinematic rules.

Welcome to a world without cinematic rules.

The script isn’t jumbled, it’s just guilty of committing a great number of cinema’s cardinals sins. It’s predictable, utterly predictable, like a skeleton of an idea from film school. Characters never learn from their actions. It chooses to inexplicably venture into other genres just for the hell of it. It embarrasses itself so many times throughout the film when it tries to be something it knows it isn’t…moments of just sheer incredulity and awkwardness, almost like it’s trying to parody itself. It’s more frustrating than standing in the longest lines at Jurassic World would be.

BUT ENOUGH ABOUT THE HUMANS! We all came for the dinosaurs! The mayhem and madness! The wizardry of modern special effects!

Of course, the movie for the most part delivers on that front. There’s tension… the dinosaurs look pretty.

What, you were expecting more? Aren’t ALL man-eating monsters scary to you?

The fact of the matter is, the film even manages to stumble with most of its big action set-pieces. They feel rushed and stuffed with illogical choices and almost constantly recycled choreography, which characters making stupid decisions and certain scenes you are literally almost expected to already imagine in your head as you sit down in the theater. Things finally get good at the end when the pterodactyls wreak havoc on the park, while the film’s big baddie – the Indominus Rex – is basically a 50 foot tall serial killer with scales and a tail.

Owen trains his pets.

Owen trains his pets.

Dare I say it, I missed the animatronics of yestercentury; the more practical effects of Jurassic Park, as compared to the requisite green screens and “ultrarealistic” majesty of modern CGI made for creatures that were hard to really feel awed by. And just imagine how tough it is for the actors, who have to pretend to be terrified while staring at…nothing at all.

The writers obviously felt they had a hill to climb as far as making a refreshing, new beast. Which is why, I guess, they chose to give the damn thing the ability to camouflage. “Nobody is impressed by a dinosaur anymore,” Claire says early in the movie. Apparently not. Whatever inhabits Jurassic World feels incredibly far from the dinos that gave us nightmares in Jurassic Park.

Over 1,000 words of my thoughts on Jurassic World and I didn’t even get to the worst part.

Overload.

Of.

Product.

Placement.

Seriously, it’s embarrassing for Universal. You don’t even have to look for it. In one scene all you need to do is listen. It’s so unbearably bad that the movie resembles the Super Bowl: any and every scene with dinos are the entertainment (ostensibly) while the parts in between where characters drive product placement, hide in product placement, make fun of the movie’s own damn product placement is the commercials in between that you just want to get through to get back to the action. It’s horrid. Nothing less.

I could go on and on about how Jurassic World fails to live up to the expectations set by even today’s most overdone summer blockbusters. I could talk about its blatant-at-times sexism – including one seemingly never-ending exchange between Owen and Claire that is almost straight out of a ‘’60s workplace. I could talk about the downright laughable attempts at humanity and intimacy between characters and dinosaurs, with absolutely zero chemistry between pretty much anyone. I could talk more about the throwbacks, some of which could literally be shot-for-shot remakes from Jurassic Park, but I fear it would just make me change my mind about that original film and its artistry. But there is no redemption for Jurassic World.

Its cinematic morals are long extinct.

 

In a Nutshell

There was a single, dominating (Indominus?) thought I had as the final battle in Jurassic World played out before me, to the swell of an ominous chorus that belongs in something like Lord of the Rings, no less: this isn’t Jurassic Park. This isn’t at all what made Spielberg’s classic so fantastic, so intimate, an inspiration for countless future sci-fi franchises. Rather, it is a project so devoid of passion, direction and charm that itt almost falls into Transformers territory.

This isn’t Jurassic Park. But I suppose we were warned – it’s right in the title: Jurassic WORLD. And it isn’t a world I intend on returning to.

2.5 / 10

 

Jurassic World is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of science-fiction violence and peril

Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard

Directed by Colin Trevorrow

2015

 

 

 David Lynch likes to talk about and write about movies, sports, and important happenings around the world. He can be reached at alex.695@hotmail.com or on Twitter @RealDavidLynch.

The Warning Track: Power Rankings, Week 10

The Warning Track is a blog that covers all things Major League Baseball on a weekly basis, from discussing why some teams are getting hot, who’s in line for awards at season’s end and who is getting ready to make the leap to contender status, as well as off-the-field issues like first-time Commissioner Rob Manfred, which players could be headed to new homes, and A-Rod’s latest conundrum. 

If you have anything MLB-related that you would like to see discussed in the upcoming edition of The Warning Track, or have any comments at all, you may suggest/comment/rant/agree/disagree/tell me I know nothing about baseball at any time on Twitter @RealDavidLynch. 

 

All statistics are entering play on Saturday, June 13th

Fab Five

It was a week of regression for many teams who have been off to scorching starts through the first two months of the season as we are just past the one-third mark of the 2015 campaign, inevitably leading to some fresh faces among the Fab Five.

The Redbirds hold on to the top spot once again, but just barely. After dominating the Dodgers last weekend, taking 3 of 4 from the team with the second-best mark at home, the Cardinals stumbled a bit in Colorado, winning only one of three games in that set while giving up 17 runs. They’re off to a good start back home against the AL-leading Royals, having won the first game of that series 4-0 on Friday to become the first team in the majors to 40 victories.

Time will tell whether the Cardinals will be able to weather yet another injury, this one arguably the most impactful.

Lance Lynn, one of the Cardinals’ most durable starters, is also experiencing some forearm tightness and will be out for at least a couple weeks, leading to some more starts by Tyler Lyons that the offense may or may not have to win.

Meanwhile, the Houston Astros have fallen plummeted back to Earth after their surprising start, losing six straight before halting that streak against Seattle on Friday. A couple of blown leads by the bullpen as well as a rough offensive stretch where they only managed to score more than two runs once over that 6-game losing streak has them out of the Fab Five for the first time in quite a while, being replaced by a Pirates squad that has been on fire for a month now as they make their 2015 Fab Five debut.

The Bucs will arguably be the NL Central club that will give the Cardinals the most fits in the long run, and the only way they’ll be able to do that in the short term will be to keep winning, seeing as they don’t face the Cardinals again until mid-July. Their pitching has been incredible, tossing three shutouts over the past week to lower their team ERA to 2.90, only one of two teams in the bigs to have a team ERA besides….who else, the Cardinals at 2.66.

A 9-game winning streak by the Toronto Blue Jays has them holding the honor of being the hottest team in baseball by far as they make a move in the ultra-tight AL Eas. Toronto leads the majors in offense by 60 total runs, having scored 338 to the Yankees’ 278. They’ve scored 6 or more runs in 8 of 10 games in June, and double-digit runs twice in their last four runs. Oh and they’ve only given up more than three runs twice over that span. Those numbers will you to make your debut on the Fab Five.

Despite being 5-5 over their last ten games, the Royals stay in the Fab Five due to most of those being tight contests; 6 decided by two runs or less. A sweep of a strong and surprising Minnesota Twins team on the road reasserted them as top dogs of the American League after dropping two consecutive series. Salvador Perez (8-for-26) and Mike Moustakas (10-for-23) had strong offensive weeks for Kansas City, but they’ll need their bats to show up in St. Louis this weekend if they want to make a statement against the best record in the bigs.

A medicore couple of weeks by the Nationals (2-8 in their last ten, 3-11 since May 29th) has dropped the team many have pegged to win the World Series out of the Fab Five, reflecting the relative struggles of Washington’s star Bryce Harper (3 home runs and 6 RBI in 11 games in June compared to 5 dingers in the last 11 games in May).

So their place in the rankings is swapped with the Yankees, who reenter the Fab Five after reemerging as a force in the AL East by sweeping the Mariners and Angels to begin the month. They’ve given up only 2.6 runs per game to opponents in 7 June victories (out of 9 total games) and are scoring 5.4 runs in those same matchups.

Alex Rodriguez (.275, 11 home runs, 30 RBI) continues to be a surprisingly pivotal component of the Yankees lineup as his march to 3,000 hits continues, but it’s Brian McCann (6-for-18, 5 RBI over last 4 games) and Mark Teixeira (8-for-26, 4 runs, 5 RBI over last 7 games) that have helped spark the Bronx Bombers’ offensive surge of late. Upcoming series’ against the slumping Tigers and Astros will give the Yankees a chance to get some breathing room in the AL East, where just 3 games separates New York, Tampa Bay, Toronto and Baltimore, all playing at least .500 ball.

1. St. Louis Cardinals (40-21, 1st in the NL Central)

Ranking two weeks ago: 1

Last ten games: 7-3

Telling stats: MLB-best 2.66 team ERA, MLB-best 2.99 starter ERA, second in MLB in bullpen ERA (1.97), 4th in the NL in team average (.262), 3rd in MLB in doubles (113), 5th in MLB in WHIP (1.21), MLB-best 23-7 record at home    

 

2. Pittsburgh Pirates (33-27, 2nd in the NL Central)

Ranking two weeks ago: Not ranked

Last ten games: 7-3

Telling stats: 4th in MLB in doubles (111), 2nd in MLB in team ERA on the road (2.90), 2nd in MLB in ERA with RISP (9.13), 1 epic shutout  

 

3. Toronto Blue Jays (32-30, 3rd in the AL East)

Ranking two weeks ago: Not ranked

Last ten games: 9-1

Telling stats: MLB-best 338 runs scored, 4th in MLB in batting average (.268), 3rd in MLB in average with RISP (.295), 1st in MLB in average against lefties (.310), 4th in MLB on home runs (76), MLB-best .782 team OPS, MLB-best 131 doubles,

 

4. Kansas City Royals (34-24, 1st in the AL Central)

Ranking two weeks ago: 3

Last ten games: 505

Telling stats: 6th in MLB in average with RISP (.288), 5th in MLB in doubles (108), 3rd in MLB in triples (14), 5th in MLB in team ERA (3.38), 2nd in MLB in batting average against (.232), 4th in MLB in average on the road (.267)

 

  1. New York Yankees (33-27, 1st in the AL East)

Ranking two weeks ago: Not ranked

Last ten games: 7-3

Telling stats: 2nd in MLB in runs scored (278), 3rd in MLB in home runs (77), 3rd in AL in runs scored on the road (136), 3rd in AL in average with the bases loaded (.333)

 

Flawed Five

  1. Philadelphia Phillies (22-40, 5th in the NL East)

Telling stats: MLB-worst run -89 differential, 27th in MLB in batting average (.239), MLB-worst 36 home runs, MLB-worst 194 runs scored, 29th in MLB in OBP (.290), 26th in MLB in Team ERA (4.22), MLB-worst .355 winning percentage, 26th in MLB in opponent batting average (.268)

 

  1. Boston Red Sox (27-35, 5th in the AL East)

Telling stats: 29th in MLB in team ERA (4.76), 29th in MLB in starter ERA (4.76), 28th in MLB in opponent batting average with RISP (.290), 1 downright heartbreaker

 

    1. Seattle Mariners (27-34, 4th in the AL West)

Telling stats: Tied for MLB-worst .235 batting average, 29th in MLB in runs scored (208), 1 missing Felix Hernandez

 

  1. Milwaukee Brewers (24-38, 5th in the NL Central)

Telling stats: Tied for MLB-worst .235 batting average, 26th in MLB in runs scored (232), MLB-worst .287 team OBP, 28th in MLB in errors (51)

 

  1. Miami Marlins (26-36, 4th in the NL East)

Telling stats: 27th in MLB in opponent batting average with RISP (.281), 27th in MLB in ERA with the bases loaded (37.45), 25th in MLB in ERA in innings 7-8-9 (4.01), 1 failed managerial experiment

 

 

David Lynch likes to talk about and write about movies, sports, and important happenings around the world. He can be reached at alex.695@hotmail.com or on Twitter @RealDavidLynch.

 

The Warning Track: An Oddly Annual Celebration By The Bay

The Warning Track is a blog that covers all things Major League Baseball on a weekly basis, from discussing why some teams are getting hot, who’s in line for awards at season’s end and who is getting ready to make the leap to contender status, as well as off-the-field issues like first-time Commissioner Rob Manfred, which players could be headed to new homes, and A-Rod’s latest conundrum. 

If you have anything MLB-related that you would like to see discussed in the upcoming edition of The Warning Track, or have any comments at all, you may suggest/comment/rant/agree/disagree/tell me I know nothing about baseball at any time on Twitter @RealDavidLynch. 

 

A couple weeks after Shelby Miller of the Braves came one out away from pitching the first no-hitter of the 2015 season, Giants hurler Chris Heston indulged baseball fans with (finally) the first no-no of the year, becoming the first rookie to do so since Clay Buchholz in 2007.

But the more astounding feat? It’s the fourth year in a row that the Giants have thrown a no-hitter, following Matt Cain in 2012 and Tim Lincecum the last two years. That’s more than 7 MLB franchises have in their respective histories, with the San Diego Padres being the lone club yet to throw a no-no.

If there’s one thing the Giants of this decade are known for, too an almost comical extent, it is their consistent inconsistency. Everyone knows about the whole odd-year, even-year dichotomy, with the Giants winning the Fall Classic in 2010, 2012 and 2014 while failing to make the playoffs in the sandwiched seasons of 2011 and 2013.

They’ve even been difficult to figure out this season alone. After going 9-13 in April, the return of Hunter Pence spurred the defending champs to a spirited 15-4 run in late May, enough to propel them to the division’s summit for a short time. But they’ve slid back to a game behind the Dodgers after going 4-6 in their last 10 while giving up five or more runs six times in that span.

Nothing like a no-hitter to halt that streak, huh? By your rookie starter who has given up 16 runs over his last four starts entering the day, no less. Baseball has come to expect the unexpected from the Giants – fulfilling that unwritten mantra of the sport – whether in June or October, so perhaps we shouldn’t really be surprised at all by the caliber of Heston’s performance, or even its odd nature.

No-hitters do tend to be completely unexpected, coming at the most unusual points and, at times, for teams not known for their pitching. Exhibit A: the Giants themselves. Over the last three seasons of their no-hitter streak they’ve ranked 10th (3.50), 21st (4.00), and 7th (3.68) in the bigs in team ERA. They’re currently 13th for the 2015 campaign with a 3.78 mark.

And a pitcher can be destined to throw a no-hitter on any given day, or any given season. Tim Lincecum was among the league’s best from 2008 through 2011. It wasn’t until 2013 and 2014, when he had ERAs of 4.37 and 4.74, respectively, that he decided, seemingly out of the blue, to remind the baseball world what made him so good in years prior.

 

So no-no’s in four consecutive seasons? That hasn’t happened for one team since Sandy Koufax – who else? – took it upon himself to do it for the Dodgers every season from 1962 -1965. In fact, that’s the only other time it’s happened in major league history, making the feat all the more fascinating and strange.

But perhaps it isn’t as strange as it sounds for the oddball, consistently inconstent Giants, as much as it is a treat for a loyal fanbase that has ranked in the top 4 in ballpark attendance each year since their remarkable run of championships began in October of 2010. But the fact that every other year a no-hitter might be the highlight of the season when they celebrated a World Series win the fall before must take some getting used to.

It’s looking like that might be the case this season. It is an odd-year after all. But until we know for sure, Giants fans can celebrate – once again – a dominant performance by their pitcher, one of such a caliber that many teams haven’t seen from their own arms in years or decades.

But then again, they might be getting tired of it four years running. World Series championships and no-hitters. What more can a fan ask for?

 

David Lynch likes to talk about and write about movies, sports, and important happenings around the world. He is the assistant news editor at The Daily Lobo, the independent student newspaper at the University of New Mexico, and can be reached at lynchdavid695@unm.edu or on Twitter @RealDavidLynch.