Matt Cain started and won Game 5 of the NLDS against the Reds. He got the ball again in Game 7 of the NLCS versus the Cardinals. Now he’ll try to close out a third straight series for the Giants in Game 4 of the World Series on Sunday evening.
That Cain had to wait until Game 4 to face the Tigers was something of a surprise, and manager Bruce Bochy did indicate that fatigue played some role in his decision. Cain was one of the NL’s top five starters this year, and if he were still throwing like he did in September, there’s little doubt that the Giants would have lined him up to pitch Games 3 and 7 of the World Series.
Cain, though, hasn’t looked like a world beater in the postseason. While he’s come up with the two big wins, he’s lost his two other starts. In Game 7 against the Cardinals, Bochy made the call to remove him with a shutout intact in the sixth inning. In all, Cain has pitched 23 innings in his four starts and amassed a solid 3.52 ERA. However, it’s come with a decreased strikeout rate and four homers allowed. He allowed a homer every 10 innings during the regular season. In 2011, he allowed a homer every 25 innings.
On the plus side, Cain will get to face an ice cold Tigers offense in poor conditions for hitting. The temperature was 47 degrees at the start of tonight’s game, and the forecast calls for a similar Sunday. Plus, he has a pretty rested bullpen behind him after Tim Lincecum took care of business tonight. One imagines the Giants will aim for six innings from Cain in Game 4, with Jeremy Affeldt, Santiago Casilla, Javier Lopez and Sergio Romo matching up from there. It’s been a winning recipe so far.
Ben Schulman wrote a long, interesting article about stadium architecture over at The Hardball Times today. He asks us to consider the old concrete donut stadiums — multipurpose parks like Three Rivers and The Vet — and to think about what we have gained by their near-extinction. And what we’ve lost.
The article starts out with what I feared would be too much misplaced nostalgia for the Brutalist, functional places that no longer exist outside of Oakland, with the now de rigueur references to astroturf and weird 1970s baseball. It backs away from that early on, though, and presents what I feel is a thoughtful look at the various approaches to building a ballpark. Stadium geeks and architecture geeks will find much to love here.
From a personal perspective, I have a love/hate relationship with newer parks. I spent a good deal of time going to places like Riverfront Stadium when I was a kid and do not miss them at all. But I also think there have been a lot of missteps in the last 25 years or so too.
Most new parks are pleasant and comfortable places to take in a ballgame, but so many of them are totally unimaginative and uninspiring from an architectural point of view. I am not fan of nostalgia, and so many of them — particularly the ones built in the 90s — were fueled by a great deal of misguided retro-ism that looks backwards. I suspect this is the case because either (a) no one had the guts or vision to look forward; and/or (b) they felt they could make easier bucks by catering to people who think everything went to hell once Eisenhower left office than by doing something bold. To be fair, there are examples of newer parks that eschew the faux old-timey vibe to greater degrees — Target Field in Minneapolis and Marlins Park in Miami come to mind — and I tend to prefer those to more backward-looking places. Again, architecturally speaking.
I think the sweet spot — and the linked article touches on this a bit — are ballparks which think bigger than the bland and dreary functionalism of the 1960s and 70s but which eschew derivative, traditionalist approaches. Parks which were built with then-modern sensibilities and saw their vision through without compromise. Dodger Stadium is a fine, modernist example of this. So too is Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City, about which I wrote a few years ago. They had a great opportunity to do this in Chicago in the late 80s but muffed it. I think Marlins Park could fall into that category if (a) there is ever anything approaching memorable baseball there; and (b) if they stop being afraid of its bold aspects and stop trying to turn it into a vanilla monument to its vanilla owner. The common denominator, I suppose, is that these parks weren’t and aren’t trying to cater to the childhoods of local fans.
Anyway, good read on a slow news day.