Comments on: Random recap for Wednesday: Stanton a HR champ at 21? http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14141 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14141/comment-page-1#comment-141878 Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:25:52 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14141#comment-141878 Brett -- I'm sorry, but your attempt to post search results as tables in a comment are not going to work; the system won't accept "share" tables from commenters.

Some of the bloggers are allowed to do that, but I'm not there yet.

]]>
By: Brett http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14141/comment-page-1#comment-141760 Sat, 27 Aug 2011 12:48:45 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14141#comment-141760 Now that I've learned how to use the search tools on the "Play Index" page, I'd like to use this (by now, largely forgotten) space to practice with the "Sharing Toolbox".

Below is a subset of games from "2009 to current" where relief pitchers earned wins despite the recommendation in the rulebook that they should be deemed ineffective. (2/3 or fewer innings + 2 or more runs, including inherited runners allowed to score, IS). This is a subset because it excludes cases when all runs scored in the appearance are from inherited runners.

Player
Date
Tm
Opp
Rslt
App,Dec
IP
H
R
ER
BB
HR
IR
IS

Hideki Okajima
2009-04-25
BOS
NYY
W 16-11
7-8 ,BW
0.2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2

Joe Nelson
2009-06-21
TBR
NYM
W 10-6
6-6 ,BW
0.2
1
1
1
0
1
2
2

Scott Schoeneweis
2010-04-26
BOS
TOR
W 13-12
5-6 ,BW
0.1
2
1
1
0
1
2
1

Denny Bautista
2010-07-03
SFG
COL
W 11-8
6-6 ,BW
0.2
2
1
1
0
0
2
2

Jeremy Affeldt
2010-08-29
SFG
ARI
W 9-7
7-8 ,BW
0.2
3
1
1
1
0
2
2

Chad Qualls
2010-09-15
TBR
NYY
W 4-3
7-7 ,BW
0.2
1
2
2
0
1
0
0

Ronald Belisario
2010-09-28
LAD
COL
W 9-7
7-7 ,BW
0.2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1

Brayan Villarreal
2011-04-15
DET
OAK
W 8-4
9-10 ,W
0.2
3
3
3
0
0
1
0

Brian Wilson
2011-07-01
SFG
DET
W 4-3
8-9 ,BW
0.2
4
2
2
1
0
2
1

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool UsedGenerated 8/27/2011.

]]>
By: Brett http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14141/comment-page-1#comment-140183 Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:04:46 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14141#comment-140183 Thanks JohnBoy...

Actually here is the irony of all ironies. In the Yahoo play-by-play of the Wheeler/Shouse game, where it is supposed to say "Nelson relieves Shouse", it actually says, kid you not, "Percival relieves Percival".

Troy Percival, believe it or not, was actually eduring a brief stint as the Rays closer, but was probably getting a day of rest after pitching in 4 of the previous 5 games. On 5/3, 5/5, and 5/6, he earned saves, including two against... you guessed it, Baltimore.

Johnny Twisto: I had a hard enough time finding this post! There's a more recent one?

]]>
By: Johnny Twisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14141/comment-page-1#comment-139843 Tue, 23 Aug 2011 03:01:49 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14141#comment-139843 Thanks for the follow up Brett. I did read about that Wheeler game a couple weeks ago when I was researching instances where the rule had been applied.

Sorry to inform you that I think very few people will see this. I actually meant you should post it in the most recent game recap thread. Once these threads move onto the second page, I think they get seen by very few people. Hell, I'll post a link to your post on the most recent recap thread.

]]>
By: JohnBoy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14141/comment-page-1#comment-139714 Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:12:04 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14141#comment-139714 Outstanding post Brett! Just as judgement is required by the official scorer in ruling a hit or an error, it should be utilized more often as it was in the first scenario with Percival, to determine wins - based on a pitcher's effectiveness. Yes, Hasegawa lost the save but the standings are determined by wins, not saves. There are many situations where a pitcher simply enters the game at the right time to vulture up a win when his team follows his entrance by scoring the winning runs in their next at bat. That is part of the luck of being in the right place at the right time and contributing positively, even if only a brief period. But the idea that a pitcher can back into a win because he blew a save opportunity is ludicrous. It would be interesting to discover why the scorekeeper, if indeed it was the same scorekeeper, would offer two contrary rulings for seemingly identical situations. If they were different scorekeepers, is it possible that the second might actually not have been aware this rarely used option?

]]>
By: Brett http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14141/comment-page-1#comment-139711 Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:03:07 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14141#comment-139711 I take back the last thing I said about the Slocumb win in 1993. (at least for now). Does anyone know what year the recommendation for "brief and ineffective" was written into the rule book? If after 1993, then I don't believe Slocumb's win should be handed over to Lilliquist.

]]>
By: Brett http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14141/comment-page-1#comment-139710 Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:56:41 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14141#comment-139710 The following is a very recent example where I have no-doubt that the notion of a save influenced the score keepers judgment pertaining to rule 10.17(c). Ironically, this time, it provoked rule 10.17(c) to be used instead of ignored.

Nugget 2:
Just 2 seasons ago, On May 7, 2009, Dan Wheeler of Tampa Bay gave up 2 runs on 2 hits in a full inning vs. the Yankees (3 outs, a single, and a homerun). Despite Wheeler being the pitcher of record, Brian Shouse was awarded the win for subsequently pitching two-thirds scoreless innings (retiring the only two batters he faced) with the Rays already ahead by two runs. Joe Nelson was awarded the save after getting the lone out remaining in the game.

In this case, I believe the score keeper took the win away from Dan Wheeler (using rule 10.17c), and awarded it to Brian Shouse only because Joe Nelson (not Shouse) was in line for the save. Had Shouse stayed in to get the last out in the 9th, then I have no doubt, the score keeper would have stuck with Wheeler as the winning pitcher and credited Shouse with the save.

I like the Wheeler/Shouse example because it is the opposite extreme to the Heath Slocumb case (Indians vs. Angels, July 2, 1993 - mentioned by Pete). In this game, Slocumb gave up 5 runs (4 charged to him) in 2/3 of an inning. Derek Lilliquist followed Slocumb with 2 (effective) flawless innings, yet Slocumb was awarded the win.

I feel like the Wheeler/Shouse game (in as far as the rule is written) is ok since 2 runs in 1 inning is fairly close to the recommendation for "brief and inneffective". However, it does bother me due to the incosistency between it and the hundreds (if not thousands) of games with identical situations in which 1 inning + 2 runs was sufficient for the win despite a deserving subsequent and effective reliever. It also bothers me becuase it is clear to me that the save statistic should never influence which pitcher is awarded the win.

Like the Wheeler/Shouse game, what bothers me about the two Percival games is the incosistency. To me, one inning + 3 runs is a natural extension to the "2/3 innings + 2 runs" recommendation for "brief and inneffective." I therefore, do not feel like rule 10.17(c) was incorrectly applied in the first game nor do I feel like it needed to be applied in the 2nd game - unless, in this game, the notion of a save influenced the score-keeper's decision.

Perhaps score keepers should use precedence when a ruling requires judgment? Otherwise, inconsistencies in judgments will always exist.

The Slocumb win, in my mind, is an egregiuos error that should be corrected.

]]>
By: Brett http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14141/comment-page-1#comment-139707 Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:46:38 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14141#comment-139707 Johnny Twisto recommended that this post is a good place to post info related to the recently closed post: "Rulebook Corner: Who gets the win?"

I have a couple of nuggets that I found (background is provided to give context)...if interested in this topic, definitely read through the aforementioned post.

"Double Diamond" referenced a game in Baltimore (July 21, 2001) in which Troy Percival failed to save the lead (ahead by 3) in the 9th inning. In this game, Percival pitched the full innning but gave up exactly 3 runs. The Angels took a 1 run lead in the top of the 10th, and Shigetoshi Hasegawa (effectively) preserved the lead by pitching the full bottom of the 10th. The official scorekeeper deemed Percival's appearance, "brief and inneffective" and deemed Hasegawa's subsquent effort, "effective". By rule 10.17(c), this took the win away from Percival, awarding it to Hasegawa. Particularly of note in this case, is that Hasegawa would otherwise have earned the save.

Nugget 1:
Three years later, on May 14, 2004, Percival again found himself in Baltimore trying to close out a game when ahead by 3 runs. Percival pitched the full 9th inning and again gave up exactly 3 runs. Again, the Angels took a 1-run lead in the top of the 10th. This time, Scot Shields (effectively) closed out the game in the 10th inning. Identical in every way to the game 3 years prior, but this time, Percival was awarded the win and Shields awarded a save.

Different score keepers, different opinions? Or was it the same score keeper in Baltimore who had a change of heart, perhaps influenced over the years by the umpire's union, league statisticians, or players themselves?

In either way, was the score keeper of the 2004 game influenced by Shields's eligibility for a save? In other words, did he stick with Percival as the winning pitcher because he didn't want to take a save away from Shields?

]]>
By: Neil L. http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14141/comment-page-1#comment-138751 Sat, 20 Aug 2011 00:17:38 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14141#comment-138751 @64
"And don't you remember how he'd magically stop letting people on base once his lead was cut to a run? That really should have made more of an impression on you."

I know you well enough to appreciate the sarcasm, JT, but I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek about Morris's 1992 season.

My recollection of following the team closely that year was that Jack Morris hardly ever had a clean inning and was chronically working with runners on base.

I couldn't understand why he just didn't go after batters and get them out instead of nibbling and, as I said, making Pat Borders get his uniform dirty by blocking pitches in the dirt all night.

The answer, I guess, was that he couldn't get batters out consistently.

But the anomaly of Morris's won-loss record that year, in light of everything else, begs further dissection.

]]>
By: Johnny Twisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14141/comment-page-1#comment-138481 Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:10:31 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14141#comment-138481 It's an interesting thought about Morris. I've heard that argument made about Schilling; pitching on his busted ankle vs the Yankees in '04 ruined his '05 season. It makes some sense to me. Never heard the claim made for Morris, but it's possible. I find it hard to believe that one game, followed by a long rest, can cost a player so much, especially if there's no injury involved. But who can know how different bodies react to different stresses.

]]>