| time: | 7:15 p.m. PT |
| tv: | 4SD |
| sp: | Brett Tomko (4-11, 5.36) vs Matt Cain (7-16, 3.68) |
| pre: | Padres.com, B-R.com |
Brett Tomko is an anagram of Bottom Trek. Matt Cain is an anagram of Attic Man.
I wish there were a super hero called Attic Man and he played for the Padres…
Tunes: Joe Pass, Kenny Burrell.
We just won a Brett Tomko start, and we have Peavy going for us tomorrow. For one night at least life looks good.
Rox will NOT go away…
Geoff… but that now begs the question no one wanted to ask. If it means the postseason… do you go with Peavy on three days rest again?
Muy Bien.
#203: I would think so, Rich. He’s the man.
I agree, GY… especially considering the recent troubles of Young and Maddux.
201: Havent we won all of Tomko’s starts?
206 … let’s be clear about the options … here’s the rotation …
Wednesday = Peavy
Thursday = Cassel
Friday = Maddux
Saturday = Young
Sunday = Tomko
… so the issue is not Peavy vs Young or Maddux … it’s Peavy on 3-days rest vs Tomko on normal 4-days rest … Tomko who has now pitched 6 innings in each of his 3 starts … compared to Peavy who lasted 4 innings during his last 3-day-rest-start (Sep 5 vs DBacks) … he ain’t any more “rested” now then he was then …
It’s my understanding the decision’s been made by the Padres FO … Peavy will pitch “if needed” … not sure what “if needed” means … but I don’t care what it means … I’m saying I think Tomko gives the Padres a better chance to win on Sunday than Peavy … I bought into the “Peavy can pitch on 3-days rest” theory back on Sep 5th … been there, done that … I thought that was a good/right decision then … lesson learned … that’s not a mistake to be repeated …
#208: I see where you’re coming from, LM, but a sample size of one start isn’t enough for me. It would make for an unbelievably long winter if the Padres missed out on the playoffs because of Brett Tomko.
I don’t think we can look at just one of Peavy’s starts and compare it with three of Tomko’s. We need to consider the larger body of work, which pits the Cy Young Award front-runner against a guy who was released by a team then in playoff contention.
I’m thrilled with what Tomko has given us, in the same way that I was thrilled with what Justin Germano gave us earlier in the year or Mike Thompson gave us last year, but when the season is on the line, I want the ball in Peavy’s hands.
208: I don’t think one bad game is enough to conclude that Peavy can’t pitch on three days rest, just like his previous one start on three days rest where he pitched well was not enough to conclude he would be great on three days rest. If you apply the same drop in effectiveness to Peavy as the average starter has experienced the over the past few years on short rest, then he’s still a better pitcher than Tomko on full rest. (I’m not sure what exactly the drop is, but I’m basing my comments on a study in The Book that looked at short rest starters and their effectiveness.) So if you absolutely need to win that game, I think Peavy is a better option than Tomko.
There are reasons to think Peavy would be less effective than the typical starter on three days rest. His stats with five days rest are much better than with four over the course of his career. But I don’t think we can conclude based on one bad start that Peavy just can’t hack it on three days rest.
I’ve been sick and hadn’t watched since Thursday’s game. Guess I picked a good time to start watching again.
208: Nothing really to add beyond what Geoff and Ben said, but I’d definitely have to go with Peavy again on short rest. Even leaving the small samples of Tomko’s recent success and Peavy’s bad short rest start out of it, just think of it from the perspective of the team. Imagine going down without one of the top 5 pitchers in the game on the mound, in favor of Brett Tomko. Imagine the fan outcry there …
That being said, I’m still of the opinion that the team should do whatever gives them the best chance of winning that game. But I think when you boil it down, Peavy certainly does that.
208: Wasn’t Peavy hit in the leg by a line drive in that game?
213: yep, in the 1st inning too