sycasey said:

---

I can't believe it's June 1st and the Giants have the best record in the National League.

Maybe they're getting lucky, but unlike other teams that usually manage this with a not-so-impressive roster they aren't getting lucky in one-run games or something. Their run differential is at least in the same realm as that of the Dodgers and Padres (slightly worse, but close). The underlying metrics are pretty good. They're actually winning by playing well.

Maybe it doesn't keep up for the whole season, but it appears the record isn't some massive fluke.

---

There was an interesting column in the Athletic yesterday where it said SF doesn't have the best 1-9 players vs another team, but that they're winning games by having better players in the 10-26 roster spots. (and a manager and coaching staff that are making the right decisions in leveraging that advantage) It may not work the whole season, but it's certainly done well against the rest of the teams and they've done ok vs LA and SD. (Still think they will need to do something about that bullpen)

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I can't believe it's June 1st and the Giants have the best record in the National League.

Maybe they're getting lucky, but unlike other teams that usually manage this with a not-so-impressive roster they aren't getting lucky in one-run games or something. Their run differential is at least in the same realm as that of the Dodgers and Padres (slightly worse, but close). The underlying metrics are pretty good. They're actually winning by playing well.

Maybe it doesn't keep up for the whole season, but it appears the record isn't some massive fluke.

---

There was an interesting column in the Athletic yesterday where it said SF doesn't have the best 1-9 players vs another team, but that they're winning games by having better players in the 10-26 roster spots. (and a manager and coaching staff that are making the right decisions in leveraging that advantage) It may not work the whole season, but it's certainly done well against the rest of the teams and they've done ok vs LA and SD. (Still think they will need to do something about that bullpen)

---

It's worth noting that Farhan Zaidi's history is that at his previous stops he found ways to not only draft new talent but also to get his existing players to improve. It seems to be happening in SF as well.

sycasey said:

---

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I can't believe it's June 1st and the Giants have the best record in the National League.

Maybe they're getting lucky, but unlike other teams that usually manage this with a not-so-impressive roster they aren't getting lucky in one-run games or something. Their run differential is at least in the same realm as that of the Dodgers and Padres (slightly worse, but close). The underlying metrics are pretty good. They're actually winning by playing well.

Maybe it doesn't keep up for the whole season, but it appears the record isn't some massive fluke.

---

There was an interesting column in the Athletic yesterday where it said SF doesn't have the best 1-9 players vs another team, but that they're winning games by having better players in the 10-26 roster spots. (and a manager and coaching staff that are making the right decisions in leveraging that advantage) It may not work the whole season, but it's certainly done well against the rest of the teams and they've done ok vs LA and SD. (Still think they will need to do something about that bullpen)

---

It's worth noting that Farhan Zaidi's history is that at his previous stops he found ways to not only draft new talent but also to get his existing players to improve. It seems to be happening in SF as well.

---

Farhan is big into a) versatility, and b) depth.

It isn't just about the Giants being better at the 10-26 slots, it is about the Giants being better at the 27-35 slots. Farhan kind of likes a AAA shuttle to begin with, but when you get hit with the injuries the Giants have had this year (playing games with its #5 option choice at first base, and having 4 of the major league second basemen on the IL?), and it isn't a disaster, you know some things are working right, and having plenty of guys who can play multiple positions is one of the things that has ben working right.

The pen is the biggest problem. There was enough depth there on the left side to make the Tauchman deal. (Tauchman is a guy who gets less playing time as Duggar is doing well -- Tauchman continues to hit about like you'd expect Mike Tauchman to hit, and in spite of his big moment catch, he may not last as others get healthy. It will have been worth it, however, to get him for the number of games where he has made a difference.) Overall the organization has enough guys capable of pitching in relief at the major league level, but the quality of 7th through 9th inning guys doesn't match the quality of the starting rotation. We'll see if and how Farhan fixes that.

The Giants are feasting on an incredibly favorable schedule, as they should. So far they've played an astonishing number of their games against teams below .500 (35 out of 54, or 65%). Against .500 or better teams they're a below .500 team. Against the only team they've played with a better than .600 record (Padres) they're a .400 team (although an admittedly small sample size). Contrast this to the Padres who entering today find themselves a half game behind the Giants despite playing only 22 of 55 games (40%) against teams below .500. They're a winning team (.545) against .500 or better teams, and a .600 team head-to-head against the Giants. Setting aside common opponents the Giants have played the Marlins, Phillies, Reds, and now Angels (sans Trout) whereas the Padres have played the Brewers, Cardinals, Astros, and now Cubs. This is great news for Giants fans, as this was essentially the blueprint for their World Series winning years. It remains to be seen whether they can get hot again in the postseason and make a run, but the easy schedule should at least give them the chance.

WalterSobchak said:

---

The Giants are feasting on an incredibly favorable schedule, as they should. So far they've played an astonishing number of their games against teams below .500 (35 out of 54, or 65%). Against .500 or better teams they're a below .500 team. Against the only team they've played with a better than .600 record (Padres) they're a .400 team (although an admittedly small sample size). Contrast this to the Padres who entering today find themselves a half game behind the Giants despite playing only 22 of 55 games (40%) against teams below .500. They're a winning team (.545) against .500 or better teams, and a .600 team head-to-head against the Giants. Setting aside common opponents the Giants have played the Marlins, Phillies, Reds, and now Angels (sans Trout) whereas the Padres have played the Brewers, Cardinals, Astros, and now Cubs. This is great news for Giants fans, as this was essentially the blueprint for their World Series winning years. It remains to be seen whether they can get hot again in the postseason and make a run, but the easy schedule should at least give them the chance.

---

Wait, doesn't it then follow that the Giants should have a tougher schedule going forward?

WalterSobchak said:

---

The Giants are feasting on an incredibly favorable schedule, as they should. So far they've played an astonishing number of their games against teams below .500 (35 out of 54, or 65%). Against .500 or better teams they're a below .500 team. Against the only team they've played with a better than .600 record (Padres) they're a .400 team (although an admittedly small sample size). Contrast this to the Padres who entering today find themselves a half game behind the Giants despite playing only 22 of 55 games (40%) against teams below .500. They're a winning team (.545) against .500 or better teams, and a .600 team head-to-head against the Giants. Setting aside common opponents the Giants have played the Marlins, Phillies, Reds, and now Angels (sans Trout) whereas the Padres have played the Brewers, Cardinals, Astros, and now Cubs. This is great news for Giants fans, as this was essentially the blueprint for their World Series winning years. It remains to be seen whether they can get hot again in the postseason and make a run, but the easy schedule should at least give them the chance.

---

Lol. First, the Giants have a winning record against San Diego (5-4). Nice try.

Second, the Giants have also played an "incredible"
32 games on the road vs 22 at home. Meanwhile, San Diego has played 28 at home and 27 on the road. What an incredibly easy schedule.

Third, the Giants are 8-8 against their division rivals (SD/LAD), showing they can hang with the supposed front runners.

It's a long season and claiming anyone has had an easy schedule in such a small sample is ridiculous, especially when you change some facts and leave out other relevant facts. As it is, the Giants have closed both months of the season in first place.

Sorry for the miscalculation against the Padres. I figured this would upset the usual suspects, but that wasn't my intent. As I said, I think this is all good news for you guys. Even moreso with the error you pointed out.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Sorry for the miscalculation against the Padres. I figured this would upset the usual suspects, but that wasn't my intent. As I said, I think this is all good news for you guys. Even moreso with the error you pointed out.

---

Not upset. As I pointed out, lots of season to play. I remember 2016, when we had the best record in MLB in early June and then fell apart, and barely stumbled into the playoffs. Maybe that happens this year. Or maybe we cruise to the division title. Who knows. But nothing from the schedule so far can tell us anything definitive.

The rankings I can find for MLB Strength of Schedule have the Giants near the middle of the pack, not among the easiest. That probably comes from them playing LA and SD a lot, but if they've managed to split those games that's not bad.

GMP said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

The Giants are feasting on an incredibly favorable schedule, as they should. So far they've played an astonishing number of their games against teams below .500 (35 out of 54, or 65%). Against .500 or better teams they're a below .500 team. Against the only team they've played with a better than .600 record (Padres) they're a .400 team (although an admittedly small sample size). Contrast this to the Padres who entering today find themselves a half game behind the Giants despite playing only 22 of 55 games (40%) against teams below .500. They're a winning team (.545) against .500 or better teams, and a .600 team head-to-head against the Giants. Setting aside common opponents the Giants have played the Marlins, Phillies, Reds, and now Angels (sans Trout) whereas the Padres have played the Brewers, Cardinals, Astros, and now Cubs. This is great news for Giants fans, as this was essentially the blueprint for their World Series winning years. It remains to be seen whether they can get hot again in the postseason and make a run, but the easy schedule should at least give them the chance.

---

Revisiting this less than one week later, to underscore my point that trying to draw broad conclusions like you did was foolish:

Since your post, the Padres got swept in 3 games by the Cubs (+.500) and then saved a four game series split with the Mets (+.500). The Giants then took 3 of 4 from those same Cubs (and narrowly missed a 4-game sweep).

The Giants are now 11-9 against +.500 teams. The Padres, meanwhile, are 17-19 (Dodgers are 13-16). The Giants have no record against +.600 teams by virtue of the fact they cannot play themselves - no other team in the NL is above .600.

---

The only broad conclusion I drew was that the Giants look to be in very good position to make the playoffs. The fact that you continue to take issue with that because I pointed out that they have an easy schedule only underscores your own insecurities. The Padres haven't had a day off since May 20th. In that time, they've played the Mariners (.492), @ Brewers (.559), @ Astros (.559), @ Cubs (.559), and Mets (.558). Three straight road series against winning teams, and another at home. No days off. They still have to play the Cubs again at home before they get another day off. 20 straight games, almost all against teams well above .500. Over that same stretch the Giants played the Dodgers (.576), @ Diamondbacks (.328), @ Dodgers (.576), Angels (.458), and Cubs (.559). So each series against a winning team was followed by one against a losing team. What's more, they had 2 days off during this stretch (May 24 and June 2), the latter one at home and not even a travel day right before they played -- you guessed it -- the Cubs. They get a third day off today to travel to Texas to play the juggernaut Rangers. So yeah, I'd say they should be winning more than the Padres over that stretch. And it doesn't look to change much. The Padres next 5 opponents are the aforementioned Cubs (.559), @ Mets (.559), @ Rockies (.400), Reds (.491), and Dodgers (.576). 3 winning teams out of 5. Meanwhile the Giants will play @ Rangers (.377), @ Nationals (.429), Diamondbacks (.328), Phillies (.483), and @ Angels (.458). No winning teams. So I'd expect the Giants to win more of those games too. Like I said, they have an easy schedule.

Of course the schedule matters (why do we regularly talk about even and odd year schedules here? why do we look for byes? why did the Pac change its policy around Friday night games?), particularly in a race that looks to be close and hotly contested down to the wire. It could very well come down to one or two games, both to win it and to see who gets the last wildcard spot. I'm not sure why that's so controversial with you guys. I'm not saying you should apologize for it. I'm not saying the Giants are a terrible team. I understand you didn't make the schedules. All I said is it looks good for you because it should help the Giants make the playoffs. Then, as they've shown, anything can happen. Most fans would love that scenario. Tell me Cal will have a scheduling advantage to edge out the competition and I'll take it, gladly. The fact that you guys take it as an insult is very telling. At the end of the day though I guess it was pretty rude of me to barge onto this Giants forum to post my outside perspective. Maybe I should just stick to the Cal board.

Wait, shouldn't all the NL West teams play basically the same schedule in the end? In MLB the differences are across divisions, not so much within divisions.

sycasey said:

---

Wait, shouldn't all the NL West teams play basically the same schedule in the end? In MLB the differences are across divisions, not so much within divisions.

---

It's actually an interesting question. I haven't analyzed it all but it looks like the opponents are similar but the number and timing of games is significantly different. A couple more advantages for the Giants I have noticed are 1) end of season series - Giants and Dodgers will have a huge advantage over the Padres playing the Rockies and Diamondbacks while they play the Braves and Cardinals; and 2) long road trips - Giants have no true 3 city road trip (their only one includes @ Oakland to start) while Padres have 3 and Dodgers have 2.

WalterSobchak said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Wait, shouldn't all the NL West teams play basically the same schedule in the end? In MLB the differences are across divisions, not so much within divisions.

---

It's actually an interesting question. I haven't analyzed it all but it looks like the opponents are similar but the number and timing of games is significantly different. A couple more advantages for the Giants I have noticed are 1) end of season series - Giants and Dodgers will have a huge advantage over the Padres playing the Rockies and Diamondbacks while they play the Braves and Cardinals; and 2) long road trips - Giants have no true 3 city road trip (their only one includes @ Oakland to start) while Padres have 3 and Dodgers have 2.

---

The road trip point would be valid. Whether you play the Braves at the end of the season versus the middle probably is not. Wins count the same whenever they happen.

usually, there is a difference in schedules for interleague play. SF always plays the A's, LA always plays the Angels, etc. This year, since it's the NL West vs the AL West, there may not be a significant difference.

Other than that, I'm pretty sure the schedules are relatively the same as far as who everyone plays.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Of course the schedule matters (why do we regularly talk about even and odd year schedules here? why do we look for byes? why did the Pac change its policy around Friday night games?), particularly in a race that looks to be close and hotly contested down to the wire. It could very well come down to one or two games, both to win it and to see who gets the last wildcard spot. I'm not sure why that's so controversial with you guys. I'm not saying you should apologize for it. I'm not saying the Giants are a terrible team. I understand you didn't make the schedules. All I said is it looks good for you because it should help the Giants make the playoffs. Then, as they've shown, anything can happen. Most fans would love that scenario. Tell me Cal will have a scheduling advantage to edge out the competition and I'll take it, gladly. The fact that you guys take it as an insult is very telling. At the end of the day though I guess it was pretty rude of me to barge onto this Giants forum to post my outside perspective. Maybe I should just stick to the Cal board.

---

Comparing a 162 game balanced schedule v. a 12 game unbalanced schedule in a different sport makes no sense.

sycasey said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Wait, shouldn't all the NL West teams play basically the same schedule in the end? In MLB the differences are across divisions, not so much within divisions.

---

It's actually an interesting question. I haven't analyzed it all but it looks like the opponents are similar but the number and timing of games is significantly different. A couple more advantages for the Giants I have noticed are 1) end of season series - Giants and Dodgers will have a huge advantage over the Padres playing the Rockies and Diamondbacks while they play the Braves and Cardinals; and 2) long road trips - Giants have no true 3 city road trip (their only one includes @ Oakland to start) while Padres have 3 and Dodgers have 2.

---

The road trip point would be valid. Whether you play the Braves at the end of the season versus the middle probably is not. Wins count the same whenever they happen.

---

Statistically that's true of course, but in practice sequencing and luck play roles too. For example it's generally harder to win games in a stretch like the Padres are currently in than what the Giants are in. Take the Cubs specifically. The Padres played them on the road to close a tough 3 city trip against all solid winning teams, and now get them again at home to close a 20 games in 20 days stretch. The Giants got to wait at home on an off day (right after playing the Angels with Trout on IR and one game that Otani took 1 PH AB, probably because he was suffering PTSD from taking BART to the Coliseum) while the Cubs traveled to them after playing the Padres. The Giants will play at the Cubs later in the season, but it will be to close a 2 city trip that starts @ Rockies and has an off travel day to go from Denver to Chicago. So even though it's the same opponent scheduling and a little luck made it easier for the Giants. Again, that's just how it goes sometimes. After they take their off day Thursday to fly across the country to play the Mets again, the Padres do have a much easier stretch of games coming up. But right now they're clearly grinding and it shows. How quickly they can recover might make or break their season. And the Giants do have one stretch in mid-August that looks to be more challenging. So we'll see, maybe it will all even out. If I remember and have time maybe at the end of the season when we have final winning percentages I will break down opponent winning percentages for the teams, including whatever non NL West team takes or misses the last WC spot. I'm interested because it seems MLB is doing what the NFL does (or at least used to do) in terms of ranking schedule difficulty based on previous year performance. Although, if that were true I'd expect the Dodgers to have a harder schedule than the Padres, which to me at least does not appear to be the case.

WalterSobchak said:

---

sycasey said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Wait, shouldn't all the NL West teams play basically the same schedule in the end? In MLB the differences are across divisions, not so much within divisions.

---

It's actually an interesting question. I haven't analyzed it all but it looks like the opponents are similar but the number and timing of games is significantly different. A couple more advantages for the Giants I have noticed are 1) end of season series - Giants and Dodgers will have a huge advantage over the Padres playing the Rockies and Diamondbacks while they play the Braves and Cardinals; and 2) long road trips - Giants have no true 3 city road trip (their only one includes @ Oakland to start) while Padres have 3 and Dodgers have 2.

---

The road trip point would be valid. Whether you play the Braves at the end of the season versus the middle probably is not. Wins count the same whenever they happen.

---

Statistically that's true of course, but in practice sequencing and luck play roles too. For example it's generally harder to win games in a stretch like the Padres are currently in than what the Giants are in. Take the Cubs specifically. The Padres played them on the road to close a tough 3 city trip against all solid winning teams, and now get them again at home to close a 20 games in 20 days stretch. The Giants got to wait at home on an off day (right after playing the Angels with Trout on IR and one game that Otani took 1 PH AB, probably because he was suffering PTSD from taking BART to the Coliseum) while the Cubs traveled to them after playing the Padres. The Giants will play at the Cubs later in the season, but it will be to close a 2 city trip that starts @ Rockies and has an off travel day to go from Denver to Chicago. So even though it's the same opponent scheduling and a little luck made it easier for the Giants. Again, that's just how it goes sometimes. After they take their off day Thursday to fly across the country to play the Mets again, the Padres do have a much easier stretch of games coming up. But right now they're clearly grinding and it shows. How quickly they can recover might make or break their season. And the Giants do have one stretch in mid-August that looks to be more challenging. So we'll see, maybe it will all even out. If I remember and have time maybe at the end of the season when we have final winning percentages I will break down opponent winning percentages for the teams, including whatever non NL West team takes or misses the last WC spot. I'm interested because it seems MLB is doing what the NFL does (or at least used to do) in terms of ranking schedule difficulty based on previous year performance. Although, if that were true I'd expect the Dodgers to have a harder schedule than the Padres, which to me at least does not appear to be the case.

---

Yes, and injuries can make a difference as to how good a team is when you play them (or how good you are). But with a balanced divisional schedule in the end I doubt it makes much difference for comparing SF/SD/LA.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31604634/how-did-san-francisco-giants-become-best-team-baseball

71Bear said:

---

GMP said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GMP said:

---

71Bear said:

---

bonsallbear said:

---

It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?

---

San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....

As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......

---

75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.

---

Regression to the mean...

They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.

---

As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.

---

...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).

Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......

Addendum...

In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......

---

Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.

Do you still think 75-85 is the number?

GMP said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GMP said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GMP said:

---

71Bear said:

---

bonsallbear said:

---

It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?

---

San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....

As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......

---

75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.

---

Regression to the mean...

They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.

---

As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.

---

...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).

Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......

Addendum...

In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......

---

Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.

Do you still think 75-85 is the number?

---

Great question...

I'll bump the floor up to 80 and the ceiling to 87. The bullpen is the big question mark. To avoid another second half collapse (see 2016), Zaidi has to make a deal or two at the trade deadline to secure more pitching.

I have full confidence in SF in the years to come (the combination of a loaded farm system and Zaidi's ability to spot talent that others overlook is something that will put the parade planners back in business) but I still think 2021 is a bit too soon.

*The Padres fans have exited the chat*


(Pads gets swept by the Rockies)

GMP said:

---

*The Padres fans have exited the chat*


(Pads gets swept by the Rockies)

---

No one should take the Padres seriously until they make some noise in the postseason. They are a classic "all hat, no cattle" kinda franchise.

71Bear said:

---

GMP said:

---

*The Padres fans have exited the chat*


(Pads gets swept by the Rockies)

---

No one should take the Padres seriously until they make some noise in the postseason. They are a classic "all hat, no cattle" kinda franchise.

---

Padres being all hat and no cattle?

I think that described the Dodgers until last year.

Padres have been no hat and no cattle.

dimitrig said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GMP said:

---

*The Padres fans have exited the chat*


(Pads gets swept by the Rockies)

---

No one should take the Padres seriously until they make some noise in the postseason. They are a classic "all hat, no cattle" kinda franchise.

---

Padres being all and no cattle?

I think that described the Dodgers until last year.

Padres have been no hat and no cattle.

---

I would disagree. The Dodgers are a cornerstone franchise with a long history of futility (until '55) and success (ex. the McCourt years) since then. The Giants, Dodgers and Cardinals are the Big Three in the NL (the three have combined for 45% of all the pennants won by NL teams in the league's history).

The Padres? They talk a good game (every couple years, we hear about how they have overhauled their team and are ready to make a run) but have produced nada since their founding in '69.

71Bear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GMP said:

---

*The Padres fans have exited the chat*


(Pads gets swept by the Rockies)

---

No one should take the Padres seriously until they make some noise in the postseason. They are a classic "all hat, no cattle" kinda franchise.

---

Padres being all and no cattle?

I think that described the Dodgers until last year.

Padres have been no hat and no cattle.

---

I would disagree. The Dodgers are a cornerstone franchise with a long history of futility (until '55) and success (ex. the McCourt years) since then. The Giants, Dodgers and Cardinals are the Big Three in the NL (the three have combined for 45% of all the pennants won by NL teams in the league's history).

The Padres? They talk a good game (every couple years, we hear about how they have overhauled their team and are ready to make a run) but have produced nada since their founding in '69.

---

The Padres have two NL pennants (1984 and 1998).

sycasey said:

---

71Bear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GMP said:

---

*The Padres fans have exited the chat*


(Pads gets swept by the Rockies)

---

No one should take the Padres seriously until they make some noise in the postseason. They are a classic "all hat, no cattle" kinda franchise.

---

Padres being all and no cattle?

I think that described the Dodgers until last year.

Padres have been no hat and no cattle.

---

I would disagree. The Dodgers are a cornerstone franchise with a long history of futility (until '55) and success (ex. the McCourt years) since then. The Giants, Dodgers and Cardinals are the Big Three in the NL (the three have combined for 45% of all the pennants won by NL teams in the league's history).

The Padres? They talk a good game (every couple years, we hear about how they have overhauled their team and are ready to make a run) but have produced nada since their founding in '69.

---

The Padres have two NL pennants (1984 and 1998).

---

Yep. 2 for 52. And zero World Series championships. Well done, Friars........

The real question is whether the Diamondbacks will win 40 games to at least tie the Mets for worst MLB record since it went to 162 games. It's gonna be close.

WalterSobchak said:

---

The real question is whether the Diamondbacks will win 40 games to at least tie the Mets for worst MLB record since it went to 162 games. It's gonna be close.

---

LOL!

*logs off* pic.twitter.com/mt2LABARGa

— Arizona Diamondbacks (@Dbacks) June 17, 2021

At least they've still got a sense of humor. After starting the season red hot with an 18-22 record the Diamondbacks now find themselves mired in a 2-28 freefall that includes their current 0-14 "slide." They finish the first half against the Dodgers, Brewers, @ Padres, @ Cardinals, Giants, Rockies, @ Dodgers. Better "get well" in that Rockies series to bank some extra wins.

WalterSobchak said:

---

At least they've still got a sense of humor. After starting the season red hot with an 18-22 record the Diamondbacks now find themselves mired in a 2-28 freefall that includes their current 0-14 "slide." They finish the first half against the Dodgers, Brewers, @ Padres, @ Cardinals, Giants, Rockies, @ Dodgers. Better "get well" in that Rockies series to bank some extra wins.

---

2-28?! I thought the 23 straight road losses was bad. Holy moly. 2-28 seems impossible.

GMP said:

---

*The Padres fans have exited the chat*


(Pads gets swept by the Rockies)

---

Only winner in a padres jersey was this guy (I know... this happend a month ago).

Another angle of the Padres fan knocking out the Rockies fan pic.twitter.com/MzPvSexx9j

— Jomboy Media (@JomboyMedia) May 14, 2021