Sep 6, 2010, 11:01 AM EST
After beating the Diamondbacks on August 25 the Padres had a 76-49 record and 6.5-game lead in the NL West. They’d won three games in a row and 13 of their last 16, and their odds of winning the division were over 90 percent.
And they haven’t won since, dropping their 10th consecutive game yesterday while being swept by the Rockies. San Diego’s lead in the division is down to one game over San Francisco and 4.5 games over Colorado, and now various projections have their NL West-winning odds at around 55-60 percent.
Only two teams in baseball history have made the playoffs after a 10-game losing streak, with the most recent being the 1982 Braves and the most famous being Bobby Thomson and the 1951 Giants.
Also working against the Padres is a very tough remaining schedule that includes six straight series against above-.500 teams before finishing the season with a four-game set against the Cubs. They’ll try to snap the streak tonight against the Dodgers, in San Diego, and then face the Giants, Rockies, Cardinals, Dodgers again, and Reds.
In other words, there will be no backing into the playoffs for the year’s most surprising contenders.
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 64
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 22
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 23
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 63
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” 85
- Trea Turner’s agent is unhappy his client is in limbo after trade to Nationals 48
- Nexen Heroes accept Jung-Ho Kang posting fee from unidentified MLB team 37
- Giants acquire Casey McGehee from the Marlins 16
- Bud Selig will get a $6 million a year pension. Which is obscene. (145)
- The United States will seek to normalize relations with Cuba (144)
- Rays, Padres, Nationals agree to 11-player trade (97)
- St. Petersburg City Council votes down deal to allow Rays to look for new stadium site (90)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)