Subject: Statistical anomaly in baseball
Date: Sun Jul 28 03:41:24 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:So......the delightful Yankee bashing continued tonight. The Sox kept their bats alive, and drubbed the pinstripes 9-5. But the most recent record now is that the Yankees have now given up 73 runs in a week (7 games). Most runs scored against them in 7 games in their entire history as a club - going back to 1903 when, as the original Baltimore Orioles, they moved to NYC and became the Highlanders. [For those who don't know their baseball history, if there are any here of that persuasion.]
To my knowledge, no one hit 3 Homers tonight for anyone, ending that crazy streak at 4.
Link: Sox give no quarter
Date: Wed Aug 14 10:08:24 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:In other BoSox news, Chris Sale became the "fastest" (requiring the fewest number of innings pitched, and besting Pedro Martinez by about 85 innings) pitcher to reach 2000 career Ks, as well as only the 5th in major league history to record 200 Ks in 7 straight years. See who he joins in that stratus within the article. He's averaging 13.2 Ks per 9 innings, which is just bringing smoke.
Link: Chris Sale sailing along
Date: Wed Aug 14 10:54:30 2019
User: The_Interpreter
Message:Today's pitchers are striking out more batters than in the past. It is not because they are throwing harder or are better than pitchers in the past, but rather, it is more the style of the batters concentrating on "launch angle" (even with two strikes) in attempts to hit home runs. The harder you swing, the more likely the result will be a home run or a strike out. The harder you throw, the more likely the result will be a strike out or a walk. That is what baseball is today - home run, walk, strike out.
Small ball is a rare thing in today's game. Strategy has given way to sabermetrics.
Date: Wed Aug 14 11:04:58 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:Oh, I know. But still. The game always evolves (or devolves). It's become much more about bigger risk/bigger reward - as you interpret. That said......and or course you're more than entitled to your 'interpretation'......but other than a few select players from days gone by (Left Arm of God, Feller, Gibson, Dean Chance, Duren, and Score, to name just a few, a strong case could be made that more pitchers are "throwing harder" (greater velocity) these days. Aided by the practice of using more short-stint relievers who can really bring it.
Date: Wed Aug 14 13:40:53 2019
User: The_Interpreter
Message:And, more Tommy John surgery. Pitchers are throwing harder, but throwing fewer pitches. Complete games are a thing of the past. It's six innings or 100 pitches. Won/Lost records are meaningless. Finesse, with the exception of a Greinke and a couple others, is becoming a thing of the past. Home runs and strike outs can be exciting, but like anything that is too repetitive, it has become boring.
Squeeze bunt, hit and run, even stealing a base, are becoming things of the past. Wait for the home run. Yawn.
Date: Wed Aug 14 15:40:01 2019
User: Klepp
Message:Livening or deadening the ball is all that seems to need be done to affect the game sufficiently...though I'm unsure if the ball has been "deadened" since 1920 (live ball era)...(and of course a 100-mph pitch rebounds a dozen or so feet more than a 94-mph pitch)...
Date: Thu Aug 15 01:53:56 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:I was having an in-depth discussion about this stuff with someone just 3-4 days ago (even tho I don't follow baseball nearly as much as I used to). Just to start off.........I present this article, which I won't hyperlink because it's a bit too esoteric for most here.
https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2018/12/27/18156635/sale-chris-innings-pitched-threshold-mlb
I post it not for the idea he espouses, nor the sabermetric stuff; only for the expose for what we all know and allude to above - pitchers, esp. starters, don't pitch nearly as much as they used to when ol' Dizz was around. But it's 'worse' than I knew. Noteworthy is this tidbit:
"In 2018, just 57 pitchers threw more than 162 innings. That is down from 96 pitchers in 1998."
---------------------
"Back when I was a boy".............(after all the uphill snow melted)........pitchers were real men. So I went back and did a bit of digging into the annals. And here's some of what I found, as if we didn't know it intuitively:
The Big Unit with 271 IP 20 years ago in '99 was the only one over 270 'til you go back to Clemens in '91. Have to go back to Lefty in '80 to see 300. (And curiously. .......(Phil, of course) Neikro was over 340 each of the 3 years before that, but of course he's a special case.) [extra credit to any girl who knows why - lol]
I was wondering what Lolich's numbers mite be before I decided to take a gander. He went 376 in '71.
Feller threw 371 in '46. Looks like most of the leaders each season were in the hi 300s going back to ~1919 or so, and you don't see 400+ 'til 1908.
Old Hoss Radbourn went 678 in 1884. Now *that* qualifies as a "hoss".
Not sure what all that means, exactly..........but I bet there are some pitchers today who could easily handle 300+ if given the chance. Another big factor is the transition (in the '80s?) from a 4-man rotation to a 5-man rotation. Are 'they' saying that today's athletes, with theoretically better training regimens, etc., can't do what their fathers and grandfathers could? As a corollary, could Greg Maddux even make it as a rookie in today's game? It's doubtful he'd be able to ramp up to what he became without the leeway he had at the start. Just a thought....
End of today's baseball history lesson.
I'm with you guys. I'd much rather see a 1-0 or 2-1 game than a 10-7 slugfest. Tiny nuances are what makes baseball (or *used to* make baseball) the strategic, intellectual entity it for so long was. Like Klepp, I'd be for deadening the ball slightly. Not sure raising the mound back to what it used to be would be preferable. Gibson and Marichal were terrifying enough to watch on TV back then, much less step into the batter's box against.
Oh, by the way..........did you all hear that because of all this pitch count stuff, and specialization, that Nolan Ryan is going to be making a comeback?
Ok, that last thing is a joke, but if anyone could, it'd be him. But I came across this stuff from him from 3 years ago:
"Ryan, 69, has been outspoken against the idea that pitch counts and innings limits are a deterrent to injuries. “I’m not a doctor and I’m not a scientist. All I am is a guy who threw over 5,000 innings,’’ he said. “I know what pitchers go through and I know what it takes to do that and I really believe we don’t condition our pitchers for what they are asked to do. And because of that, I think we increase our chances of injury on them.
“I believe when an organization puts those kind of random restrictions on their pitching staff, they don’t take advantage and utilize the talent that they have. I think everybody has a pitch limit, but I think also you can tell when a guy’s reached his pitch limit by watching him. That’s what pitching coaches used to do. Now they look at the number of pitches and at around 100, they get somebody up and that pitcher comes out of the game no matter whether he’s having an exceptionally good game or if he struggled. Obviously, they put pitch limits to try to protect people, but I think it’s worked just the opposite.’’
Ryan is fifth on the all-time list of innings pitched with 5,386. Asked if his record seven no-hitters would have occurred under the current climate of safeguards, Ryan said: “I used to average 150 to 160 pitches a game because of the nature of pitcher I was. Would it have impacted my effectiveness? Yes. I think it probably would.’’
https://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/are-pitch-counts-innings-limits-really-helping-pitchers-1.12391521
Date: Mon Sep 2 02:05:57 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:Yet more Verlander being Verlander.....
Tonight he (finally, after several close calls) got his 3rd no-no, whiffing 14 Blue Jays along the way. A walk in the second is all that separated him from a perfect game. So.......3 puts him in rare company, tied with Larry Corcoran, Bob Feller, and Cy Young, behind only Left Arm of God's 4 and Ryan's ridiculous 7.
Oh, and Justin Verlander is a mere 36 years young. Ryan threw his 5th at age 34 - then 'waited' almost another 9 and 10 years, respectively, for his 6th and 7th. So is Verlander good for another couple-3 more? Why not? He's said he wants to pitch 'til he's 45.
And just for good measure......................since he was traded to the 'stros from the Tigers late in the 2017 season, he leads the AL in: innings, wins, ERA, WHIP, strikeouts and opponent batting average. He must be pretty good.
Further, not that this is all that noteworthy, but it's the first time a pitcher has no-hit the same team, as a visitor, twice. And ironically......Canadian native Abraham Toro hit a 2-run homer in the 9th to provide the only runs of the game, allowing the complete game no-no. And for good measure, fielded a grounder successfully to end the game. It was only Toro's 8th major league game.
---------------------------------------------------------
[See Aug. 22 recent Verlander news in this other thread for additional recent Verlander info, altho not this context.]:
https://www.freecell.net/f/c/disctopic.html?code=12048&replies=176
Date: Mon Sep 2 17:20:20 2019
User: mrbuck
Message:On the same day the Washington Nationals became only the 2nd team in MLB history to have three pitchers with 200 or more strikeouts in a season. Max Scherzer, Stephen Strasburg, and Patrick Corbin each have over 200 strikeouts this year. The only other team to accomplish this was the 1969 Astros with Larry Dierker, Tom Griffin and Don Wilson also striking out over 200 batters each.
mrbuck
Date: Mon Sep 2 23:40:53 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:Actually saw that, too, and should have mentioned it. Quite remarkable. One could have imagined that some of the Indians' teams with McDowell, Siebert, el Tiante, et al, OR the Orioles' teams with Palmer, McNally, Cuellar, etc., OR the Dodgers' teams of Koufax and Drysdale, OR the Tigers' teams with McClain and Lolich, but I guess not.
Wonder how close any others were?
I know one of those Weaver years ('70 or '71?) the O's had 4 hurlers win at least 20, and at least another year in that time frame 3 won 20. I bet somewhere in there they were close. Probably not gonna take the time to look for that, but I'm curious.
Date: Tue Sep 3 00:05:24 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:Just very, very quickly........the '61 and '62 Dodgers were pretty close. The '70 O's were fairly close, with 3 being between 185 and 199. The '68 Tigers not all that close. Not gonna dig deeper - at least not now.
Date: Tue Sep 3 00:47:37 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:'03 Yanks had 3 between 180-195.
Date: Tue Sep 3 01:55:26 2019
User: joeygray
Message:McNally, Cuellar, Dobson, and even Palmer to a lesser extent, were pitch-to-contact pitchers. Those teams were built around sterling infield defense, the relative spaciousness of Memorial stadium, and the concept of throwing strikes and letting them hit outs. You should look at strikeouts per innings pitched for a truer gauge. It is astounding by today's standards what percentage of innings those 4 20 game winners ate up out of the total.
Camden yards was built smaller. It was probably the perfect sized ballpark for the ball then being used. But ball-livening made it into a bandbox and, I believe, placed the Orioles under a permanent handicap. Pitchers don't want to sign here, good pitchers already here are anxious to free agent to somewhere else, and hitters who are home-run-but-nothing-else are attracted to the team. Colorado has the same problem. For sure I'd like to see the ball deadened up again but they have to consider the uneven effects of doing that.
Date: Tue Sep 3 03:12:16 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:Of course those things you say about those O's teams are accurate, and I was aware of all that. Cuellar, for example, altho not slow, was what they sometimes called "crafty" back then - tho he certainly wasn't the ideal prototype. Sure had a vicious breaking ball. Dobson certainly didn't bring heat.
And yes, I did look at K/IP. I just decided that was just a bit esoteric for this crowd. But I actually considered posting some of those numbers. And of course that data would confirm what we already know about the hi risk/hi reward mindset of today's hitters. If you throw 250-300 innings in a season, you're gonna get some Ks.
So..... how many colonies will we have on Mars before another team has 4 20-game winners?
Date: Tue Sep 3 08:40:39 2019
User: The_Interpreter
Message:"just a bit esoteric for this crowd" means "don't worry your pretty little heads about it".
Date: Wed Sep 4 01:29:06 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:Prior to tonight........the Mets were 806-0 when leading by 6 runs or more going into the 9th. They're now 806-1, as the Nats stormed back to stun them.
It's also the first time either team has come back from 6 or more down (at any point in the game) in their long series with each other.
Date: Wed Sep 4 11:39:43 2019
User: mrbuck
Message:Also last night the Mets AAA team, the Syracuse Mets, gave up 8 runs in the bottom of the ninth to blow a 7 run lead.
Must be a franchise thing.
mrbuck
Date: Wed Sep 4 11:53:48 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:Stunning. "Can't make this stuff up", as they say.
Ok, so who's got the voodoo doll?
Date: Wed Sep 4 21:00:46 2019
User: BuzzClik
Message: "Can't make this stuff up." So true. And speaking of which, you folks in Tennessee okay after Dorian moved out of Alabama and into your fair state? Stay safe!
Date: Wed Sep 4 21:02:24 2019
User: BuzzClik
Message:But, back on topic: Did you know that the Nats were 0-775 when trailing in the 9th by 6 runs or more? Lots of trends being reset.
Date: Thu Sep 5 03:07:24 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:I did not know that. But that matches up, doesn't it?
And, tonight, there were yet more "statistical anomalies".....
(And in case someone is wondering, I do NOT go looking for these things; they just 'pop up'.)
The Dodgers have now set the NL records for HRs in a season, with 250 (so far).
----------
[And this is again one of those times where you dear readers have to go back and forth between this thread and the "Recent sports oddities" thread. The MLB HR record the Twins set Sunday belonged there, because the whole game was so strange - but it certainly could have gone in this thread, too. So..........to help out the non-fascinated readers, if there by chance are any, I cross-copy this section from that thread, from this past Sunday:
"The Twins lost to the Tigers tonight, 10-7, but in the process smacked 6 HRs, breaking the previous MLB record for HRs by a team in a season, previously set by the Yanks last season with 267. And this happened in *August*, which just ended."]
---------------------
So.......267 > 250, and it was accomplished a few days earlier, but what is going on here?!? (I know, we've discussed at some length.)
FURTHERMORE............(and meanwhile)..........
The list of players in MLB history who, in the same game, have: hit a HR, won the game as pitcher, and played in the field, has now jumped from 1 (Babe Ruth), to 2, with the addition of the Reds' Michael Lorenzen.
Link: Michael Lorenzen joins the Babe
Date: Thu Sep 5 03:16:05 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:And yes, us hillbillies are SO thankful we don't have the Dorian jeopardy those poor folks in 'bama do. But "speaking of who/which"..........one never knows what *tomorrow's* "map" will show. And no, "you can't make this stuff up" - and yet someone went and did just that. What a very, very, strange, strange ____________________.
Date: Thu Sep 5 09:31:20 2019
User: The_Interpreter
Message:The Michael Lorenzen "anomaly" is a non-event since there have been literally hundreds of times over the years that a manager could have moved his potential winning pitcher who hit a home run to another fielding position, and didn't.
Date: Thu Sep 5 10:30:23 2019
User: mrbuck
Message:The Mets were 806-0 in games when the were leading in the 9th inning by 6 runs or more. Add that to the trends.
mrbuck
Date: Thu Sep 5 11:36:05 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:Date: Wed Sep 4 01:29:06 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Prior to tonight........the Mets were 806-0 when leading by 6 runs or more going into the 9th. They're now 806-1, as the Nats stormed back to stun them.
----------------------------
----------------------------
And as for The_Interpreter's "interpretation"..........while it's obviously true it *could* have happened many, many times, it didn't. Which is what makes it an anomaly. Is it a "manufactured stat"? Hmmm.......one could make that argument (as apparently you are), but it also shows the value the manager sees in the player. Back in days of yore when pitchers actually used to swing the lumber (a la ol' Dizz), and even rarely pinch-hit, one would think it *should* have happened quite a few times. Or more recently, with someone like Rick Ankiel or even someone like Shohei Ohtani, for example, it could well have happened. But it didn't - since 1921, after 100's of thousands of games, so that makes it an anomaly.
Date: Thu Sep 5 13:09:15 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:I don't see that specific number from your link, but a quick mental-gymnastics calculation comes up with something like 150,000-170,000, very approximately.
So, ok, ~1.6 X 100,000 - which in some parlances would be "100's of thousands". I accept that your point is made, but mine still stands, I think you'll agree.
From your link, the closest thing I can see is:
Years: 144 (since 1876)
Games: 219,174
......which would indeed represent well less than 200,000 since 1921.
Date: Thu Sep 5 16:54:40 2019
User: Klepp
Message:I wonder how many baseball addicts there are who use the Information Age with serious leverage to watch/review *every single* baseball game of the entire MLB season (albeit w/some FF use, of course).
(I tried once, a decade back or so, but quickly realized the folly...then enjoying four/day, since having cut back to two/day, on average...I'll leave the 16 hr./day baseball lifestyle to those who actually earn a living at it--playing/analyzing.)
I posit: Somebody, somewhere has truthfully seen ~35,000 games--but the addiction has likely reduced the individual to something akin to Dr. Mabuse, à la his scribbling, babbling.
Date: Thu Sep 5 17:25:08 2019
User: The_Interpreter
Message:There are 30 major league teams playing 162 games each year. That totals 2430 games. Assuming, with FF (which does take some time) each game can be reduced to two hours. That makes 4860 hours of playing time (most of it waiting for the pitcher to throw the goddamn ball). With a fantastic DVR which could spread the watching over 365 days, this Titan of Trivia would have to watch for about 13 1/2 hours each day of the year. Also, to watch 35,000 games in this manner, the Sultan of Stamina would need 14 years, 147 days, and 5 hours.
A worthy pursuit.
Date: Thu Sep 5 21:14:01 2019
User: joeygray
Message:On the Michael Lorenzen thing: I wonder how many pitchers have a blown save, a home run, and a win in the same game. Even if he hadn’t taken the field, still might be a once a century kinda thing.
Date: Fri Sep 6 23:05:43 2019
User: JackK2019
Message:I think that if the strike zone was reset to what it was supposed to be we would a much faster game, more swinging for contact, less of a launch angle approach and a more enjoyable game to watch. But less home runs, which is what MLB thinks will attract viewers. Boy are they wrong. Look at the ratings.
Date: Tue Sep 10 21:48:33 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:Referring back to the innings pitches, relievers, etc., from above.....
"As pitch counts and bullpens have become bigger parts of the game, we’ve gone from 1,034 complete games pitched in the 1978 season to 266 in 1997 to just 42 last year. From 1871 to 1953, a period that includes at least part of the careers of about two-thirds of Hall of Fame starting pitchers, starters accounted for more than 80 percent of all innings pitched every season. In 2018, that share was 60 percent."
I'm a bit surprised it was even 60%. 42 CGs, in all of baseball last year?!? That's pretty astonishing. That's like barely more than 1 per team. Crazy.
And.....just as a footnote (and not from that link):
Bob Gibson’s June/July 1968 stats:
12 starts
12 complete games
12 wins
8 shutouts
6 runs allowed
0 concerns about his pitch counts
Link: more pitching esoterica
Date: Sun Sep 22 00:12:16 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:These are not so much true anomalies (altho they are that), but noteworthy benchmarks:
The Astros' Justin Verlander's teammate Gerrit Cole a couple of nights ago became the second fastest pitcher to strike out 300 batters in a season, in 198 1/3 innings; while the Big Unit did it in 197 2/3 in 2001. He's also now only the 3rd Astro to get 300 Ks in a season (along with Mike Scott and J.R. Richard), the first Astro since 1986, and only the 18th major leaguer to do so since 1900. Who wants to face that tandem in the playoffs?
And then just last night, the Mets' Pete Alonso became only the second rookie to hit 50 HRs in a season, following Aaron Judge in 2017.
Date: Sun Sep 22 08:26:07 2019
User: The_Interpreter
Message:Strike outs and home runs.
Yawn.
Date: Mon Sep 30 13:38:31 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:To follow up on the Sept. 22 story above about Alonso, he did break the record for HRs by a rookie on Saturday, ending up with 53. Gee, and that used to seem like a fantastic number. At least he understood the gravity of the moment (see link).
Link: new rookie HR record
Date: Mon Sep 30 15:08:28 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:As to team records, there's a bunch, and I'm sure I'll not get them all. And even tho this thread is for baseball anomalies, we really only want to get into the really noteworthy stuff, I think.
First(?) of all............going back to my (first) post from Sept. 5 above, about team HRs......
The Twins edged the Bronx Bombers yesterday, hitting 3 dingers to the Yanks 1, to win that 'contest' 307-306, obliterating the old record of 267, set just last year by the Yanks. I'm sure there's quite a few standard deviations there, but maybe not as many as some other noteworthy stats on this board. Oh, and now they tangle with each other in the ALDS.
The Twins Nelson Cruz (mentioned on page 5 of this thread) got the most homers for the Twins this year with 41 - two more than his age in years. Thus becoming only the third player in major league history to hit 40 or more HR after age 39 - the other two being Bonds and Aaron. Noteworthy, he only was able to play in 115 games this year because of injuries. That's impressive. The next lowest amount of games played by those with more home runs than Cruz was 130, belonging to the Brew Crew's Christian Yelich, who is now out for the year.
Records were also set by MLB collectively, with 4 teams EACH winning 100+ games, and losing 100+ games. The Tigers lost an amazing 114, 6th worst in MLB history - and that includes some BAD teams. Beside those 4 100-loss teams, 5 more lost at least 90! Jeez Louise. It is no coincidence these things happened in the same year, as good teams feasted on bad ones. But this year was extreme, and it's not a pretty look for the game.
Justin Verlander got to 3,000 career Ks on Saturday, along with reaching 300 for the year.
Along with Gerrit Cole, they are the first pitching duo to rack up 300 Ks on the same team since 2002.
I'm sure there's more remarkable stuff I'm missing or forgetting, but you get the picture.
[Footnote to the previous post above. Alonso also racked up 120 RBIs, second most by a rookie in NL history, as well as franchise records for total bases and extra-base hits.]
Date: Tue Oct 1 07:49:02 2019
User: BuzzClik
Message:"But this year was extreme, and it's not a pretty look for the game."
Indeed. None of it.
Date: Thu Nov 14 13:24:19 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:Not surprisingly...........Justin Verlander and Gerrit Cole finished #1 and #2 (respectively) in the AL Cy Young award voting. But that's not the "statistical anomaly". This is only the 5th instance of teammates finishing 1-2. Also, only Pedro Martínez in 2000 had a better single season WHIP (.80) than Verlander among qualifying pitchers over the last 100 seasons. That's a lot of seasons. And opposing batters could only muster .172 facing him. Kinda a nice balance to go with his 0-6 record in W.S. starts.
Meanwhile.......over in the senior circuit........Jacob deGrom won his 2nd straight Cy Young. Nor is that really much of a statistical anomaly. But the fact that he's one of only 6 players ever to post consecutive seasons with at least 250 strikeouts and an ERA below 2.50 is. And the other 5 are all already enshrined in Cooperstown. Those being, in chronological order......Left Arm of God, Bunning, Gibson, the above-mentioned Martínez, and The Big Unit. And that's going all the way back to 1913, when earned runs became official and codified.
Date: Thu Nov 14 13:47:40 2019
User: IINII
Message:deGrom had 32 starts, but only had 19 decisions (an 11-8 record) and averaged 6 1/3rd innings per start. You can have all the stats in the world, but the object is still to win games.
Date: Thu Nov 14 14:17:18 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:Well, I agree. But that can be accomplished lots of ways - and moreso by using the pen than in the past - as I'm sure you know. He finished with more than double the voting points (and 29 of 30 1st-place votes!!) of second-place Hyun-Jin Ryu. Which doesn't *necessarily* mean a lot - but the voters *overwhelmingly* thought he was the best pitcher this year. I see your point, of course, but then why did all the voters select deGrom to the degree they did? I think WAR and ERA tell a more complete story than just wins - and deGrom shone in both those metrics.
Date: Thu Nov 14 14:27:37 2019
User: BuzzClik
Message:In the days leading up to announcement, all the baseball talking heads that I heard render an opinion were 100% certain deGrom would win. That was reflected in the voting.
Date: Sat Dec 14 16:28:04 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:Have been seeing some amazing stats for Babe Ruth that I hadn't really encountered before. The most discussion herein I can find about The Babe is on page 3 of the "recent sports oddities" thread, but since this isn't all that recent.....
In his historic 1927 season, his 60 HRs was more than any other AL complete team!
When he hit 54 dingers in 1920, that was higher than any other ML entire team - except the Phillies' 64.
In that same year ('20), his slugging percentage was .847 - a record that still stands. Second is Ruth in 1921, with .846. (Barry Bonds technically beat that one year with a .863, but I think we can view that with extreme suspicion.)
Also, Ruth's career slugging percentage is the highest of all-time, a ridiculous .690, with Ted Williams a distant second at .634.
In that 1921 season (only his third as an every-day player in the outfield), Ruth's career HR total exceeded the previous career record of 136 by Roger Connor.
When he retired, his famous 714 was more than twice as much as anyone else (who I think was Gehrig, but I'm not sure). Think about that. That's..........well..............that's Ruthian.
In 1932, Babe had his pay cut $5000, despite hitting .373, slugging .700, tying for the HR lead with 46, and knocking in 161 RBIs in 1931.
And here's one I'd never heard about from ESPN:
"On June 23, 1917, Ruth walked Ray Morgan, the first Washington batter, and was ejected after protesting the call and assaulting umpire Brick Owens. (Ruth had to be led off the field by a policeman.) Ernie Shore relieved and after Morgan was thrown out stealing, Shore retired the next 26 batters and made Ruth a footnote to an all-but-perfect game."
And of course one could go on and on about such. It's sometimes easy to lose perspective in this day and time. Just amazing stuff.
Date: Sat May 28 04:28:45 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Well, this Verlander dude is finally making a comeback from Tommy John surgery -- and what a comeback it is. Can there be any more superlatives written about the guy? Well, here are some more. Spend a few minutes absorbing these numbers. They're truly "statistical anomalies" (although this could just have easily gone into the "Recent sports oddities" thread, and if one wants to look at that discussion, it's way back on page 4 of that, but some depth there so it's worthwhile). I'm tempted here to pull out several nuggets, but let's leave it at a 1.22 ERA (before last night). But then in an utterly classic SI jinx (spoiler alert), the Mariners jumped on him in the first inning and smacked two taters off him. Ended up surrendering 4 of them to tie his career high. Nevertheless..........an absolutely remarkable story of a remarkable pitcher.
Link: Justin Verlander update and look-see
Date: Sat May 28 22:49:37 2022
User: Klepp
Message:I've heard of kids readily taking the knife knowing they'll gain two to three mph after the TJ surgery, with the required eighteen months rehab...
First ballot HOF Verlander, sure...and he gets to jump on buxom whats-her-name after work, not bad at all...
Date: Sun Oct 30 15:41:02 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:So...........after getting hit hard the other night in Game 1.......Justin Verlander, one of the greatest pitchers of this generation, and almost certain to pick up yet another Cy Young Award this year, is 0-6 in the 8 W.S. games he's started -- the most W.S. starts in baseball history without a win. Just astonishing. [And that right there was almost enough to have me choose to put this post in the "sports oddities" thread. But I chose this one because I think it has the most Verlander subject matter.]
Further............his W.S. ERA is now 6.07 -- the worst ever among starters with at least 30 innings pitched therein. Also astonishing.
Date: Fri Nov 4 00:30:47 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:So Verlander finally got his first W.S. victory tonight. And despite this being his first one of that variety............it gives him 16 postseason wins total - passing Greg Maddux and now second only to Andy Petite's 19.
Date: Wed Jun 7 08:12:07 2023
User: TNmountainman
Message:Some further deGrom/Verlander stuff........
The oft-injured deGrom, currently on IL yet again and facing Tommy John surgery, now a HIGHLY-paid Texas Ranger...........has only pitched 254 innings this *decade* (beginning in 2020). Ferguson Jenkins might say something like "well, I made it through August".
Of the seasons this decade, the most IP by deGrom in any season is 92. In other words, for Marichal, Gibson, Lolich, etc.............10 starts. And speaking of Marichal..........he had the terribly unfortunate experience of throwing 244 complete games(!), including 52 shutouts(!), and over 3500 innings before it was discovered that arms wear out. Poor ol' Bob Gibson had it worse. He went 255 CGs and 56 SOs, toiling over 3800+ innings. Still worse, if you can imagine.........Warren Sphan somehow struggled through to complete 382 complete games, with 63 shutouts 😯😳. Over 5200+ innings 😳😯😳.
Just imagine.............those guys might have been able to make some sort of career for themselves had more been known about how to rest arms. 🙄 (deGrom has 4 total CGs in his career 😯.)
Meanwhile.............taking deGrom's place in a Mets uniform........Verlander just keep chugging along. While he has 'only' 26 CGs..........he's thrown 3200 innings (with a tad over 3200 strikeouts). While only 2-3 so far this year, he has announced his intention of pitching well on into the future. Last year, at age 39, his ERA was a career-best 1.75, whilst picking up his 3rd Cy Young.
I'm not *really* dissing deGrom, as apparently when he's available he just might be the best there is right now, as many have testified. Just last August --> Sept., for example, he retired 12 or more consecutive batters six starts in a row; no one had done that more than 4 times in a row in 40 years.
I'm just more pointing out yet again the disparity between pitching philosophy 'then vs. now'. Really an amazing dichotomy.
Date: Wed Jun 7 08:47:57 2023
User: joeygray
Message:Innings vs pitches. The classic pitcher's CG might comprise just 90 pitches or so, not that there weren't 140 pitch outings but not often. Currently, a great part of the typical batter's skillset, and philosophy, is spoiling tough pitches by fouling them off. It is rare anymore to be able to get through 6 innings with less than 90 pitches.
Date: Wed Jun 7 11:30:11 2023
User: BuzzClik
Message:You may have this dead on, joey. Total pitches thrown each game was not tracked earlier to 1988, but the trend we see is that even though the number of pitches per game has increased a ton since 1988, the number of pitches per starting pitcher has stayed steady near 95. We also know that the number of plate appearances per game took a big leap when the mound was lowered; this would lead to more pitches per game.
Link: https://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7533.html
Post follow-up