The Angels had their guts ripped out on several occasions on Saturday night and finally had the emotionally deflating loss after thirteen innings when they had the chance to win on several occasions. Their closer blew the save. They left a million guys on base. And they lost the game on an error. The Dodgers on the other hand, knew they had lost after the first inning. Are both losses the same? Or is a blowout worse? Or is a gut-ripping game like Saturday night's worse?
The Fan got to pondering this after watching the drudging the Patriots put on the Tennessee Titans. The score was 52-0 at halftime. Is that better for the Titans than having a lead with 30 seconds to go and giving up a field goal with two seconds left on the clock? The Fan doesn't know. What do you think?
They call a lopsided win a "Laugher," sometimes spelled, "Laffer." During such a drubbing, which team is doing the laughing? The Fan would imagine that both teams could laugh at that point. Once a game is lopsided and all but over, both teams can relax and play it out stress free and wait to go at it again the next night. The Titans certainly looked pretty grim when the score was 59-0. But wouldn't you naturally relax after that and sort of play it like a free-for-all?
The Fan's instinct is that the Angels' loss was worse than the Dodgers' loss. After it was 8-0 by the fifth inning, couldn't the Dodgers conserve their energy and relax the rest of the game? The Angels on the other hand, played their hearts out for five hours and still came away with a loss. The former seems preferable than the latter. A blowout can be considered a fluke. A close loss can be indicative of a glaring weakness or two.
Many would say that both kinds of losses would be equally bad. In a seven game series, any loss is problematic and gets the other team closer to the ultimate goal. But the Fan still thinks he'd rather be in the Dodgers' shoes than the Angels.