Padres play the Giants leading series 2-1
San Diego Padres (35-25, second in the NL West) vs. San Francisco Giants (34-28, third in the NL West)
San Francisco; Thursday, 3:45 p.m. EDT
PITCHING PROBABLES: Padres: Dylan Cease (1-4, 4.66 ERA, 1.29 WHIP, 78 strikeouts); Giants: Robbie Ray (7-1, 2.43 ERA, 1.11 WHIP, 78 strikeouts)
BETMGM SPORTSBOOK LINE: Padres -115, Giants -104; over/under is 7 runs
BOTTOM LINE: The San Diego Padres lead 2-1 in a four-game series against the San Francisco Giants.
San Francisco has a 34-28 record overall and an 18-11 record at home. The Giants have an 11-3 record in games when they hit at least two home runs.
San Diego has gone 15-15 in road games and 35-25 overall. The Padres have a 25-6 record in games when they out-hit their opponents.
Thursday's game is the sixth meeting between these teams this season. The Padres have a 4-1 advantage in the season series.
TOP PERFORMERS: Matt Chapman has 10 doubles and 11 home runs for the Giants. Heliot Ramos is 12 for 42 with a double, a triple and two home runs over the last 10 games.
Fernando Tatis Jr. has eight doubles, a triple, 13 home runs and 28 RBIs for the Padres. Manny Machado is 12 for 40 with two doubles, three home runs and seven RBIs over the past 10 games.
LAST 10 GAMES: Giants: 4-6, .220 batting average, 1.94 ERA, outscored by two runs
Padres: 7-3, .230 batting average, 3.68 ERA, outscored opponents by two runs
INJURIES: Giants: Jordan Hicks: 15-Day IL (toe), Justin Verlander: 15-Day IL (pectoral), Tom Murphy: 60-Day IL (back)
Padres: Xander Bogaerts: day-to-day (shoulder), Michael King: 15-Day IL (shoulder), Jason Heyward: 10-Day IL (oblique), Mason McCoy: 10-Day IL (finger), Bryan Hoeing: 60-Day IL (shoulder), Logan Gillaspie: 15-Day IL (oblique ), Jhony Brito: 60-Day IL (forearm), Yu Darvish: 15-Day IL (elbow), Joe Musgrove: 60-Day IL (elbow)
___
The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
31 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Tarik Skubal stars as the Tigers top the Cubs 3-1 in a matchup of division leaders
DETROIT — Tarik Skubal pitched one-run ball into the eighth inning, and Detroit Tigers beat the Chicago Cubs 3-1 on Friday night in the opener of a weekend series between two of the majors' best teams. Skubal (6-2) allowed eight hits, struck out six and walked none in 7 2/3 innings. In his past 11 starts, the reigning AL Cy Young Award winner is 6-0 with a 1.61 ERA, 95 strikeouts and three walks.
Forbes
33 minutes ago
- Forbes
Simone Biles And Riley Gaines Clash Over Transgender Athletes In Women's Sports
Simone Biles took aim at conservative pundit and former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines Friday. Biles, the most successful gymnast of all time, called out the former swimmer for her recent comments advocating for the exclusion of transgender athletes in women's sports. Since tying for fifth place with transgender female swimmer Lia Thomas at the 2022 NCAA Swimming Championships, Gaines has transitioned from athlete to conservative activist, with her views staunchly focused on the opposition of transgender inclusion in women's sports. Lately, Gaines' commentary has included spotlighting and vilifying transgender children and teens for their involvement in women's and girls' sports. On Friday, Gaines spouted off at a children's softball team on X, mocking the team's moderators for turning off the post comments. 'Comments off lol,' Gaines commented in a quote tweet. "To be expected when your star player is a boy,' she added. Biles quickly vilified Gaines' comment, putting the conservative commentator on blast in front of Biles' nearly 2 million followers. 'You're truly sick, all of this campaigning because you lost a race,' Biles said, referencing Gaines' fifth-place finish. 'Straight up sore loser. You should be uplifting the trans community and perhaps finding a way to make sports inclusive or creating a new avenue where trans feel safe in sports,' she continued. ' bully them. One things for sure is no one in sports is safe with you around!' Gaines was quick to fight back and diminish Biles' years of advocacy for mental health and safety in the sport, labeling Biles 'a male-apologist at the expense of young girls' dreams." The former swimmer then attempted to deflect and insert transphobic talking points, insinuating that Biles should partake in men's gymnastics due to the gymnast's viewpoints. 'Maybe she could compete in pommel horse and rings in 2028," Gaines said. Gaines gained notoriety for her fervent anti-trans views following a 5th-place finish at the NCAA Swimming and Diving Championships. Since the disappointing result, the former Kentucky Wildcat has become fully immersed in her chosen cause: preventing transgender women athletes from competing in women's sports. She has testified before Congress, joined a lawsuit against the NCAA, and founded an advocacy center focused on what Gaines believes is 'fairness in women's sports.' The 25-year-old frequently aligns with conservative political figures, including current U.S. President Donald Trump. Ultimately, Gaines has achieved media success as a sports figure despite minimal success within her sport. Conversely, Simone Biles has staunchly advocated for athlete well-being throughout her historic career. Biles champions mental health awareness and changed the narrative following her withdrawal due to 'The Twisties' during the 2021 Tokyo Olympics. Additionally, as one of the most prominent survivors in the U.S.A Gymnastics Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal, Biles used her platform to advocate for accountability and the establishment of safe environments in women's sports. Together, the two figures could not be more at odds – both in terms of success within their sports and in their treatment of others.
New York Times
37 minutes ago
- New York Times
Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes
By Ralph D. Russo, Stewart Mandel and Justin Williams A federal judge Friday granted final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, a watershed agreement in college sports that permits schools to directly pay college athletes for the first time. The settlement, which resolves a trio of antitrust cases against the NCAA and its most powerful conferences, establishes a new 10-year revenue sharing model in college sports, with athletic departments able to distribute roughly $20.5 million in name, image and likeness (NIL) revenue to athletes over the 2025-26 season. Previously, athletes could earn NIL compensation only with outside parties, including school-affiliated donor collectives that have become instrumental in teams' recruiting. Advertisement The NCAA and the power conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC), as defendants in the settlement, also agree to pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were not allowed to sign NIL deals, dating back to 2016. The damages will be paid out over 10 years, with most of the money expected to go to former power-conference football and men's basketball players. Universities can begin directly sharing revenue with college athletes starting July 1. Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who previously ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon and Alston cases, granted approval roughly a year after parties agreed to settlement terms and nearly two months after a final approval hearing on April 7, where Wilken heard testimony from more than a dozen objectors. Lawyers for both the plaintiffs and defendants noted that the number of objections and opt-outs in the settlement represent a tiny fraction of the nearly 400,000 athletes in the certified class. However, some of those objectors delayed approval, largely citing the settlement's new roster limits. These limits, which replace sport-by-sport scholarship limits, cap the maximum roster size per team while allowing for every roster spot to receive a scholarship. Schools can offer scholarship funds — partial or full — as they see fit, which creates more potential opportunities. But as schools preemptively prepared to comply with those new limits, they removed roster spots for thousands of walk-ons, particularly in football, and partial scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. In late April, Wilken offered an ultimatum, instructing the settlement parties to revise the terms in a way that mitigated any lost roster spots as a result of schools preparing for the new roster limits, or she would deny the whole agreement. Settlement lawyers responded with an amendment that allows for voluntary 'grandfathering' of any athletes who lost roster spots as a result of the roster limits, a status that will follow those athletes through the remainder of their eligibility, whether they return to their original school or transfer elsewhere. Advertisement The initial House v. NCAA case — brought by plaintiffs Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, and Sedona Prince, then an Oregon women's basketball player — was filed in June 2020. It challenged NCAA policy at the time that prohibited athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their NIL rights or from sharing in the revenue generated from NCAA and conference television contracts. The case was later consolidated with two similar suits, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. The cases had not gone to trial. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences, fearful a verdict might result in much higher damages, agreed to a settlement in May 2024. Wilken granted preliminary approval in October 2024. The NCAA's traditional amateurism model, in which athletes could not receive any compensation beyond a scholarship, began to crumble in 2014 when Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a suit brought by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, who objected to his image being used in an EA Sports video game without his permission. Wilken ruled for the plaintiffs, but after an appeals court struck part of her decision, the only tangible effect was that schools began offering cost-of-attendance stipends. The next major case, Alston v. NCAA, made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 9-0 against the NCAA. Often mischaracterized as a case about NIL, Alston's main impact was that it allowed schools to provide athletes $5,980 a year in academic expenses. However, the lopsided decision left the NCAA vulnerable to additional legal challenges regarding rules that limited compensation, and it was delivered on June 21, 2021, nine days before numerous state laws allowing NIL payments were set to go into effect. The NCAA quickly scrapped most of its intended restrictions on NIL. In the years since, many athletes have entered into deals with local companies and struck lucrative endorsement deals with national brands like Gatorade and New Balance, as intended. But a far more common practice involves boosters using purported NIL deals to lure recruits or players from the transfer portal to their favorite school. The NCAA's enforcement division initially sought to punish schools that used NIL as a form of 'pay for play' or recruiting inducement, but when the University of Tennessee came under fire in early 2024, the state's attorney general sued, and a judge issued an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing those rules. Advertisement The amount of money being spent in the NIL arena has skyrocketed since 2021. Last year, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said the Buckeyes football team — which later won the national championship — was earning $20 million in NIL. CBS Sports recently reported that a number of men's basketball rosters have already topped $10 million for next season. To this point, collectives supporting specific schools have ruled the market, but administrators are hoping the House settlement will curtail that influence. In addition to schools being allowed to make NIL deals themselves, the new model also requires all outside NIL deals of more than $600 to go through a clearinghouse that will determine whether the payments are for a valid business purpose and reflect fair market value. Meanwhile, the settlement establishes an enforcement arm that will penalize schools that go over the $20.5 million cap. All of this will be overseen by the newly established regulatory body, called the College Sports Commission, which is in the process of shifting considerable oversight and control of college sports away from the NCAA and to the power conferences. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors recently approved a series of proposals, pending settlement approval, that will strike 153 rules from the association's handbook and clear the way for the settlement terms to be implemented. The settlement represents a significant shift in college sports, but it will not mark the end of the NCAA's legal challenges. Among numerous ongoing cases, Johnson v. NCAA was filed in 2019 in Pennsylvania and seeks to have athletes classified as employees who are entitled to minimum wage compensation. The NCAA's efforts to dismiss the case have thus far been denied. Revenue sharing and third-party NIL constraints could also invite additional lawsuits on the basis of Title IX, antitrust violations and conflicts with state laws. NCAA and power conference stakeholders continue to pursue antitrust exemptions in the form of Congressional intervention, in hopes of codifying the settlement and its effectiveness moving forward. President Donald Trump has explored a new commission focused on the issues facing college sports, led by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban and billionaire Texas Tech board chair Cody Campbell, though it is paused as members of Congress pursue legislation.
