SI's Game of the Year
No surprise - it had to be the 4+1 game. And to top it all off, Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated quotes Dodger Thoughts commenter Xeifrank in his story.
Dodger Stadium was refilling, and the fans were going berserk, a reaction that echoed through cyberspace. One blogger, following the game on mlb.com, reported with gleeful sarcasm, "GameDay seems to be broke. It keeps on saying every Dodger hitter is hitting a home run."
It was comment No. 604 in this Dodger Thoughts thread.
I wish Verducci hadn't gone the tired route of talking about fans leaving the game before the comeback, a route that writers only seem to take in Los Angeles even though it is wide open in every other ballpark in the U.S. (At least Verducci didn't say that only Dodger fans leave early.)
In any case, it's fun to relive the game - why wouldn't it be?
With the Dodgers down 9-8, Marlon Anderson, already with four hits, stepped to the plate. (Bruce) Bochy grumbled in mock humor, "I hope we try something other than a fastball here." But (Trevor) Hoffman threw another fastball. Anderson smacked it into the rightfield seats to tie the game. "It's got to be only 10 seconds after the last one, and I can hear all the pounding and yelling going on again," (Padres general manager Kevin) Towers says. "I'm thinking, What? A single? Maybe a double? I turn the channel. You've got to be kidding me!" ...
(Nomar) Garciaparra hit his home run at 2:05 a.m. Eastern time, with most of the country asleep. It didn't change the course of the season. Both teams finished atop the NL West at 88-74 and, thanks to the wild card, both made the playoffs. Yet the game was one of the most powerful reminders this side of October of why baseball gives the most breadth to possibility.



1. And I was worried that they would pick Texas vs. USC.
It was a great choice - I love that it was more than just a regular season game in May (it had post-season implications), but that it didn't have to be a World Series game to be recognized.
Posted by: Colehouse | December 20, 2006 at 07:36 AM
2. Not having an internet connection at home, I "watched" 4+1 (at 2 a.m. - I'm an east coaster) on ESPN's ticker. Every time the LA/SD game would come up in the rotation of games, the Dodgers were one run closer. Silent screams of joy so as not to wake the baby.
Then the top of the 10th and I "watched" the Padres go ahead by one. Silent screams of agony at LA's wasted comeback.
Then Nomar rocks the baseball world and I could contain myself no longer. I wake my wife and she smiles politely before going back to sleep. The next day I check Dodger Thoughts and relive the magic.
I had the same experience "watching" Steve Finley's walkoff, division-clinching Grand Slam against the Giants in 2004 on ESPN's ticker. What a frustrating way to keep up with a game. Nobody was home to babble to, so I called my brother in law. He wasn't home, but my sister agreed to listen to me go on and on.
Posted by: katysdad | December 20, 2006 at 07:43 AM
3. As a personal choice the "4+1 game" would likely finish in a tie for game of the year. My other choice would have to be a CFL contest between Winnipeg and Edmonton. Winnipeg led late in the game until fumbling with under a minute left on their own 20 yard line. Edmonton goes into score to lead by one point. Winnipeg gets the ball back and on the last play of the game, Milt Stegall catches a pass at the midfield, breaks free and romps down the sideline for a 100 year touchdown. The Bombers win 25-20. Another 2006 classic.
Posted by: Colehouse | December 20, 2006 at 07:45 AM
4. Err make that a 100 yard touchdown!
Posted by: Colehouse | December 20, 2006 at 07:47 AM
5. 1 - It was the baseball game of the year, not game of the year for all sports.
Posted by: Jon Weisman | December 20, 2006 at 07:56 AM
6. The other thing about that game was that it wasn't just the bottom of ninth that made it such a memorable night.
Again, the Dodgers were tied with the Padres for first place going into the game and before the seats got warm, they were quickly behind. But they clawed back and tied the game (for the first time that evening after trailing by 4 runs).
The bottom of 6th saw the frustration of loading the bases and then not scoring.
The reliable Broxton and Saito both had rough outings that saw the Padres take that 4 run lead.
But, despite all that, the large crowd (the Dodgers had set an all-time attendance record for a 4 game series that weekend) was buzzing and there was a sense that something could happen.
Finally, you know you love DT when despite being caught up in all the excitement at the Stadium, you think to yourself, "I wonder what is going on Dodgerthoughts right now?"
Posted by: bhsportsguy | December 20, 2006 at 08:03 AM
7. 6 Didn't winning that game tie the teams? I didn't think the Dodgers went ahead by a game with that win.
Posted by: gpellamjr | December 20, 2006 at 08:35 AM
8. [1] i don't know why people keep bringing up texas vs. usc. it wasn't that great a game, though there were a couple of neat highlight-reel plays. and to top it all off, the officiating controversy (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=jo-replay111006&prov=yhoo&type=lgns), suggest the outcome possibly wasn't the right one. and national powerhouse texas wasn't that big an underdog. just, not a great sports moment.
Posted by: Vishal | December 20, 2006 at 08:39 AM
9. xei, was your comment "gleeful sarcasm", as verducci suggests, or was it honest incredulity?
Posted by: Vishal | December 20, 2006 at 08:40 AM
10. After the game, the Dodgers were 79-71 and the Padres were 78-71.
Posted by: Bob Timmermann | December 20, 2006 at 08:47 AM
11. 7 Nope they went ahead. Remember Scully's call? "Oh by the way, I forgot to tell you: the Dodgers are in first place"
Posted by: Greg S | December 20, 2006 at 08:51 AM
12. I still left this game early =(
We were at the game the Saturday prior when Billingsley came back and got absolutely shelled and we were down something like 8-1 in the 4th. That was the first game I left early all year and I guess it was contageous going into the regular week.
Posted by: still bevens | December 20, 2006 at 09:00 AM
13. I dont know if this was in the other thread, but some poor Angels fan gets smacked down in the Angels Q&A section of the LA Times.
Q: Why does the Los Angeles Times print so many more stories about the Dodgers? I hate the Dodgers. I'd prefer that The Times only write about the Angels.
Rob Simpson
A: Haven't discussed this with my sports editor, Rob, but my guess is that since the Dodgers draw more than 3 million fans annually, garner solid television ratings, have won five World Series titles in Los Angeles, have one of the game's greatest broadcasters in Vin Scully and are located in the heart of the paper's circulation area, which happens to be the second-largest market in the U.S., we might want to drop a few paragraphs about them into The Times every now and then.
Posted by: still bevens | December 20, 2006 at 09:09 AM
14. Wow, another indicator that the best writers in baseball know where the best baseball blog is. Keep up the awesome work Jon.
(Oh...and hello Tom, I loved your piece last year on playing for the Bluejays..)
Posted by: Jason in Canada | December 20, 2006 at 09:35 AM
15. 13
LOL, LOL, LOL.
Posted by: Midwest Blue | December 20, 2006 at 09:55 AM
16. 15 I feel bad to have mischaracterized this guy as a 'poor Angels fan' as I didnt read his intial letter close enough. 'Jerk Angels fan' is more apropos.
Posted by: still bevens | December 20, 2006 at 10:03 AM
17. No fan of any team likes the way their local paper covers the team. No fan of any team likes the way the beat writer works.
That's because the average fans want to read a newspaper that covers an event and has writers who reflect a viewpoint that is 99.5% in accord with theirs.
Posted by: Bob Timmermann | December 20, 2006 at 10:27 AM
18. 17 Yeah...?!? ..And the problem with that is...?
Posted by: Jason in Canada | December 20, 2006 at 10:32 AM
19. whooohooo!!! I made SI.Com, now my resume is complete. How to get access to the article, subscribe$$$?
9. I'm pretty sure it was "gleeful sarcasm", as I am pretty much all about sarcasm. The gleeful part, I had to think about for a few seconds, but overall I am pretty gleeful about the description. It's just too bad he didn't quote one of my anti-tv/movie talk posts. Those are true classics! :)
vr, Xei
Posted by: Xeifrank | December 20, 2006 at 10:34 AM
20. I think most beat writers have a thick skin since a lot of the players and coaches they cover don't like them and then the people who read them don't like them.
And now the internet gives us all a place to make fun of them.
Posted by: Bob Timmermann | December 20, 2006 at 10:36 AM
21. Congrats to Xeifrank! So cool!
Posted by: Greg Brock | December 20, 2006 at 10:39 AM
22. I think you're all looking at this situation in reverse. The big honor is not that Xeifrank's comment was included in the SI article. The honor is that the SI article was linked from Jon's DT blog. I read DT way more than I read SI, therefore it has more influence and more prestige.
Congrats to Tom Verducci for getting his article linked. It would have meant even more if the article wasn't pay-per-view so that I could read it. Maybe one day I'll run across the magazine in a doctor's office and get a chance to read it, but I don't get sick much.
Posted by: Daniel Zappala | December 20, 2006 at 10:51 AM
23. is the article in the magazine too? Or just the "for your eyes only" online site?
vr, Xei
Posted by: Xeifrank | December 20, 2006 at 10:54 AM
24. 22
Maybe one day I'll run across the magazine in a doctor's office and get a chance to read it, but I don't get sick much.
Well, you're cursed now. I hope your affairs are in order.
Posted by: Bob Timmermann | December 20, 2006 at 10:55 AM
25. 24 I'm only cursed if they put me on the cover. Fat chance.
Posted by: Daniel Zappala | December 20, 2006 at 10:56 AM
26. 25 You're not on SI's cover, but you are on the cover of Time Magazine. Congratulations!
Posted by: Ken Arneson | December 20, 2006 at 10:58 AM
27. I haven't recieved this week's SI, but I'm pretty sure it's a "Best of 2006" issue. Verducci is the senior baseball writer at SI, and I doubt he going to pen an entire piece like that just for a small portion of the online readership.
It's great stuff. I still remember watching the game sorta-live the next morning on the mlb.tv archive.
Posted by: Disabled List | December 20, 2006 at 10:58 AM
28. Note that Verducci forgot to add the "vr, Xei" footer in his quote.
Posted by: TellMeTheScoreRickMonday | December 20, 2006 at 11:00 AM
29. I was checking out reviews for "We Are Marshall" over at rottentomatoes, and I dont think I can remember such contrasting opinions on a movie. Either people loved it or hated it.
I'll probably see it bc I'm a sucker for inspirational sports movies.
"Wildcats" was one of my favorite movies growing up, and its no classic by any means.
Posted by: JoeyP | December 20, 2006 at 11:07 AM
30. 28 What does that mean anyway?
Posted by: Midwest Blue | December 20, 2006 at 11:08 AM
31. 30 Very Respectfully
I believe
Posted by: Marty | December 20, 2006 at 11:10 AM
32. 30 Very Respectfully, Xei.
I thought we'd get a NVR during movie talk, but Xeifrank is always respectful, even when he wants to ductape our keyboards.
Posted by: Greg Brock | December 20, 2006 at 11:12 AM
33. 31,31 --
I'd never seen that before. I should try that. Maybe VTR (very truly yours) or RY (respectfully yours).
VTR, MB
Posted by: Midwest Blue | December 20, 2006 at 11:16 AM
34. 33 No disrespect to xei here, but why not "YIP?"
Yours in peace. ;)
It's got the advantage of being pronounceable.
Posted by: Linkmeister | December 20, 2006 at 11:24 AM
35. Not to twist any arms but you'd all be doing me a favor if you'd click on the "Chess in a Box" ad that is currently featured in the DT blog ad area to the right just below toaster.tv. Trying to win a bet and help a friend.
Posted by: ToyCannon | December 20, 2006 at 11:24 AM
36. Huh.
I always thought "vr" stood for "VORP Rules!"
Posted by: Terry A | December 20, 2006 at 11:25 AM
37. 34
That is better then RIP:)
Posted by: ToyCannon | December 20, 2006 at 11:25 AM
38. Congrats XeiFrank! I just might have to go buy that issue now...if you and your family leave any copies for the rest of us, that is.
...and now you guys know I am not the only PSUer who hangs out here at Jon's house ;)
Posted by: das411 | December 20, 2006 at 11:27 AM
39. 35 Done and done
Posted by: Greg Brock | December 20, 2006 at 11:29 AM
40. I clicked on both the read more and on the link the UCLA blood site. Not sure which one you wanted.
Posted by: Marty | December 20, 2006 at 11:31 AM
41. I just realized that "very truly yours" should have been VTY, not VTR.
DUH, MB
Posted by: Midwest Blue | December 20, 2006 at 11:47 AM
42. 41 I just realized that "very truly yours" should have been VTY, not VTR.
Oh. And here I thought it was Talk Like Scooby Doo day!
Posted by: Johnson | December 20, 2006 at 11:50 AM
43. Again for fun, look at the summary of the dueling Padres/Dodger blogs during that game from Hardball Times article.
http://tinyurl.com/yje3n8
Not only was XeiFrank's entire entry quoted but many others. It does capture what was going on in the blogosphere.
Posted by: bhsportsguy | December 20, 2006 at 11:59 AM
44. 43 Read that story and tell me that blogs like DT are not the best source of immediate analysis and emotional outbursts.
Posted by: bhsportsguy | December 20, 2006 at 12:01 PM
45. 43 - Hmm - It may well be that that's where Verducci got it.
Posted by: Jon Weisman | December 20, 2006 at 12:02 PM
46. 35 - World Chess Champion. Now that's Hot!
Posted by: Sushirabbit | December 20, 2006 at 12:35 PM
47. 43What kind of name is Ducksnorts anyway? Sheesh...
Posted by: Jason in Canada | December 20, 2006 at 12:36 PM
48. Also, I much prefer a blog that tends toward Beowulf references, rather than profanity, during a historic moment.
Posted by: Daniel Zappala | December 20, 2006 at 12:40 PM
49. I think the ideal blog would be one with profane Beowulf references.
Posted by: Eric Enders | December 20, 2006 at 12:46 PM
50. "In the other clubhouse the Dodgers were childish in their euphoria"
I'm hoping Verducci meant "childlike"
Posted by: Paul S | December 20, 2006 at 12:56 PM
51. One of my favorite DT threads:
http://dodgerthoughts.baseballtoaster.com/archives/393628.html
Start at 115 and go to 136. Beware of extraneous, though not profane, Beowulf references.
Posted by: Daniel Zappala | December 20, 2006 at 12:58 PM
52. One of my biggest nightmares involved Rudy Law trying to give me a ham:
http://tinyurl.com/yn4muk
It was true!
Posted by: Bob Timmermann | December 20, 2006 at 12:58 PM
53. 52
How generous of the Dodgers to hand out food donated by someone else.
Three hundred preselected families received a complimentary holiday ham donated by Farmer John and fixings provided by Ralphs and Food4Less.
Posted by: D4P | December 20, 2006 at 01:04 PM
54. 51. How many commenters here were medieval literature majors in college? Or was 1000 year old poetry required reading in high school at every school but mine?
Posted by: robohobo | December 20, 2006 at 01:17 PM
55. 54 - I never read Beowulf - I just picture the Big Bad Wolf when I hear the name and it makes everything sound interesting.
Posted by: Jon Weisman | December 20, 2006 at 01:25 PM
56. I think I read Beowulf in high school, but everything farther back than 10 years all starts to blur together.
Posted by: Daniel Zappala | December 20, 2006 at 01:26 PM
57. I had friend who majored in medieval literature. The only math class he needed to take to complete his coursework was entitled "Dealing with Math Anxiety" or something like that. I always thought that was pretty funny. Of course, now he is a computer network administrator.
Posted by: robohobo | December 20, 2006 at 01:27 PM
58. 56 - Everything blurs together. I find that I consume so much media that I need to return to something to remember more than broad details. Blogs really upped the ante by adding a thousands of words on every subject everyday.
Posted by: Benaiah | December 20, 2006 at 01:28 PM
59. 54 Yes to the second question. It was a staple of freshman English.
Posted by: Eric Enders | December 20, 2006 at 01:29 PM
60. 53 Ebenezer Scrooge! I was wondering when you were going to show up.
Posted by: Robert Daeley | December 20, 2006 at 01:40 PM
61. Everytime we refer to the game as 4+1 it makes me think of some boyband name.
Posted by: trainwreck | December 20, 2006 at 01:43 PM
62. I just read on Wickipedia that Chrichton's "Eaters of the Dead" and the movie "The 13th warrior" were loosely based on Beowulf.
Posted by: robohobo | December 20, 2006 at 01:43 PM
63. 62 Both of those highly recommended. The part of Grendel played by not-quite-extinct Neanderthals. This is not at all like Crighton's other writing, except maybe The Great Train Robbery.
Posted by: Bill Crain | December 20, 2006 at 01:48 PM
64. I have no idea what you people are talking about.
Who likes ketchup on waffles?
Posted by: Midwest Blue | December 20, 2006 at 01:51 PM
65. 64
Dodgers -> Baseball -> Guys with sticks -> Beowulf -> Michael Crichton.
QED
But I'm pretty sure any waffles discussion would violate Rule #4.
Posted by: Bill Crain | December 20, 2006 at 01:56 PM
66. 55. Sounds like when I used to think of a 70's rock band when I heard the name "Steppenwolf". Turns out is was first a interesting/strange novel by a German living in the early 1900s.
Posted by: robohobo | December 20, 2006 at 01:57 PM
67. Beowulf was not on my junior high book list. But Grendel had just come out I think, and we had to read that. Sympathetic to the monster's point of view as I recall.
When you have to coddle the monsters in medieval literature, the terrorists have won.
Posted by: Marty | December 20, 2006 at 01:59 PM
68. 64- Sounds like something from Sartre's cookbook.
http://pvspade.com/Sartre/cookbook.html
Posted by: Andrew Shimmin | December 20, 2006 at 02:00 PM
69. 61 Makes me think of Cartman's Christian rock band, Faith+1
Posted by: overkill94 | December 20, 2006 at 02:07 PM
70. Beowolf is about to be a major motion picture directed or produced by Robert Zemeckis and starring Angelina Jolie.
Posted by: still bevens | December 20, 2006 at 02:09 PM
71. Deadspin is featuring an absolutely horrendous 1987 video feturing Mets Gary Carter, Mookie Wilson, and Roger McDowell.
On the list of lazy pre-Christmas time videos to whittle away the remaining office hours with, this one might be the most cringe-inducing. It's part 1 of a half-hour "musical adventure" -- here's Part Two and Part Three -- involving the 1987 Mets, some extremely annoying children and a "nerd" who illustrates that the "Moneyball" debate has been going on for an awfully long time. Your actors are Gary Carter, Roger McDowell and Mookie Wilson.
Think Rockie Horror meets the Super Bowl Shuffle. It is nausea-inducing. Enjoy.
http://www.deadspin.com/
(scroll down a story or two)
Posted by: Midwest Blue | December 20, 2006 at 02:14 PM
72. In this version, Beowulf becomes a football star playing for Bear Bryant and also invents the pet rock.
Posted by: Eric Enders | December 20, 2006 at 02:15 PM
73. Further down in Deadspin, they have a great story on Mrs. Matsuzaka:
Because the former Miss Shibata is significantly older than Matsuzaka (she's 31, he's 26), she was viciously criticized in the Japanese media for "seducing" Matsuzaka when the couple began their liason in 2000 when he was only 19 years old. Because of the difference in their ages, they began dating in secret, and a huge scandal errupted when it came out that Matsuzaka's car had been towed for being illegally parked overnight in front of Shibata's house (it was such a big scandal that the Seibu Lions even suspended Matsuzaka for a few games).
Wow. Suspended by the team for sleeping over at your girlfriend's house? What would the Japanese do with Lindsay Lohan? Or Demi and Ashton?
(BTW: Did I mention that I get a fee for every person I link to Deadspin?)
Posted by: Midwest Blue | December 20, 2006 at 02:20 PM
74. 73
(BTW: Did I mention that I get a fee for every person I link to Deadspin?)
No, but I think that violates rule 11.
Posted by: Sushirabbit | December 20, 2006 at 02:23 PM
75. Wasn't there some guy here spouting middle english the other day?
Posted by: Sushirabbit | December 20, 2006 at 02:24 PM
76. 71 That is the greatest thing ever.
By which I mean, I threw up in my mouth a little.
Posted by: Humma Kavula | December 20, 2006 at 02:25 PM
77. Keep scrolling down on Deadspin. You'll get to a link of all the Rocky fights. I pity the fool who watches all of them.
Posted by: Marty | December 20, 2006 at 02:28 PM
78. 75 Middle Earth Rules!
Posted by: bhsportsguy | December 20, 2006 at 02:32 PM
79. 76 - Humma, this is not to single you out - the whole point of what I'm about to say is that many have been doing it.
But can we have an unofficial ban on the throwing up in your mouth line? It's just turning me off in a big way.
Posted by: Jon Weisman | December 20, 2006 at 02:36 PM
80. Sorry. It is a bit overplayed.
Posted by: Humma Kavula | December 20, 2006 at 02:38 PM
81. 79
I think we've actually found the new Rule #11.
Posted by: Midwest Blue | December 20, 2006 at 02:46 PM
82. 80 - No problem :)
Posted by: Jon Weisman | December 20, 2006 at 02:48 PM
83. Most days I don't, but today I kind of wish I'd ever gone to law school. It is deeply curious to me that people who had their computers potentially ruined by Sony are entitled to $7.50 and a free download from iTunes, and the State of California is entitled to 100,000 times that much (but no free downloads).
http://tinyurl.com/y6ttle
Posted by: Andrew Shimmin | December 20, 2006 at 02:49 PM
84. 81 - I think the Rule #11 was the honorary Bluebleeder rule. So this can be #12.
What's wrong with me that I still think of #11 as Pat Haden and #12 as Joe Namath or Terry Bradshaw?
Posted by: Jon Weisman | December 20, 2006 at 02:49 PM
85. 84
#11 Thou shall not post while drunk -- and brag about the experience?
Posted by: Midwest Blue | December 20, 2006 at 02:52 PM
86. 79 to 82
I'm about to be able to have the line "I just got a little spitup on my shoulder". Baby due Dec 31st by C-section. Boy (we're pretty sure). Benjamin. Jon, was a close second, sorry 'bout that. Just kiddin' (would that get me in BoDT2?)
Posted by: Sushirabbit | December 20, 2006 at 02:53 PM
87. I think of Spinal Tap when I think of # 11.
Posted by: trainwreck | December 20, 2006 at 02:55 PM
88. 85 I thought it was thou shalt not post while pretending to be drunk.
Posted by: Eric Enders | December 20, 2006 at 02:56 PM
89. 87 Shhh. We're honoring Xeifrank today.
Posted by: Sushirabbit | December 20, 2006 at 02:58 PM
90. 88 - 11b.
Posted by: Jon Weisman | December 20, 2006 at 02:59 PM
91. 88
Right
vr, MB
Posted by: Midwest Blue | December 20, 2006 at 03:00 PM
92. Spinal Tap is a fantastic movie and I still can't understand why my wife doesn't like it.
Posted by: Daniel Zappala | December 20, 2006 at 03:01 PM
93. Joe Sheehan said he believes Zito will go to Angels because he heard he wants to stay out west.
Posted by: trainwreck | December 20, 2006 at 03:01 PM
94. And yet the LA Times reports, directly from Stoneman, that they're not pursuing Zito. Since Zito is a Boras client, I'm expecting him to sign with whoever offers the most money.
Posted by: Daniel Zappala | December 20, 2006 at 03:04 PM
95. 94
Well I guess he is a Met waiting to happen. I do not think he wants to go to the Rangers.
Posted by: trainwreck | December 20, 2006 at 03:06 PM
96. 92 I know what you mean, but not with Spinal Tap. The bride likes it well enough... but...
I love A Confederacy of Dunces, whereas my wife gets two paragraphs in -- the description of Igantius Reilly's clothes and his views on the ways others dress -- and quits every time. I can't figure it out.
Posted by: Humma Kavula | December 20, 2006 at 03:08 PM
97. I likewise think he'll be a Met. Just a matter of them haggling over the deal once the market is set.
Posted by: Daniel Zappala | December 20, 2006 at 03:08 PM
98. I hope KC outbids everyone for Zito.
Posted by: Sushirabbit | December 20, 2006 at 03:09 PM
99. 98 A team could do worse than a starting rotation anchored by Zito and Hochevar.
And Meche, of course.
Posted by: Humma Kavula | December 20, 2006 at 03:11 PM
100. There's not much left out there for FA's is there?
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6290182
Posted by: Midwest Blue | December 20, 2006 at 03:11 PM