Comments on: Batting Trivia Hero Quest

By: rpbrpb2002

rpbrpb2002 — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:57:58 +0000

One thing is clear from these stats: It sure helped to be juiced. I wonder what they'd look like if you excluded the cheaters. Sorry, "alleged" cheaters.

By: JohnnyTwisto

JohnnyTwisto — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:46:43 +0000

If you drop the minimum to 700 IP, you can get Mariano Rivera in there.

More data showing how weird the '80s were...despite being a moderate-scoring era overall, no great pitchers seemed to excel over that entire decade. A lot of great careers began and ended during that time, but didn't manage to encompass it.

By: eorns

eorns — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:17:30 +0000

JohnnyTwisto: I was with you on Pedro. Also, tho, because he was the only pitcher in the 2000's to post an ERA under 3.00...at a precarious 2.99. Despite his success this year, it's now at 3.0041. Assuming it stays this way, this will be the only modern decade besides the 20's without a sub-3.00 pitcher: 1900's: 50 1910's: 62 1920's: 0 1930's: 3 1940's: 10 1950's: 3 1960's: 18 1970's: 9 1980's: 2 1990's: 3

By: Raphy

Raphy — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:41:09 +0000

Rico - Who picked 11?

Why do you assume that the 20th century is synonymous with the 1900's? The 20th century can very well refer to 1901-2000 and the 1900's to 1900-1999 (or 1900-1909 depending on context).

By: rico petrocelli

rico petrocelli — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:36:27 +0000

Ladies,

You really have to pick TEN years not eleven, no matter how you slice it.

The millenium ended 12/31/00 by definition*.
The Yankees are "0 for CENTURY" and so last-century by definition.

*End of the 20th century
It is commonly-held misconception that the 20th century ended on December 31, 1999. The 20th century actually ended on December 31, 2000, its centennial year. See ref (end of Yankee dynasty)

Start and end in the Gregorian Calendar
According to the Gregorian calendar, the 1st century AD started on January 1, 1 and ended on December 31, 100. The 2nd century started at year 101, the third at 201, etc. The n-th century started/will start on the year 100×n - 99. A century will only include one year, the centennial year, that starts with the century's number (e.g. 1900 is the final year in the 19th century).

By: DavidRF

DavidRF — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:49:31 +0000

"I know Carew did, and I'm sure Gwynn did, but not too many since '54 I'd bet." Add to that Boggs, Williams and Musial. Thought I think you mean '54 for play-index purposes which would cut off Williams and Musial.

By: JohnnyTwisto

JohnnyTwisto — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:04:17 +0000

Wow, very cool about Ichiro. (Very) tangentially related, a part of me didn't want Pedro Martinez to come back because I think it's great to look at his career record and see more than 200 wins and fewer than 100 losses. But what do you know, he has yet to lose this season, so he's still sitting on 99 losses. Of course, as effective as he's been, one would think he won't have as much trouble finding a job next season, and then he's almost certain to lose that 100th game. His career ERA is also creeping up towards 3.00; I'd really like it to stay under, but it's gone from 2.80 to 2.92 just since the end of '07. And continuing my stream-of-consciousness, I was sort of relieved when Rickey Henderson finally ran out of major league suitors, as it allowed his career OBP to remain just above that magical .400 level.

By: JDV

JDV — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:24:46 +0000

eorns Says:Anyone notice that after his first AB in yesterday's game, Ichiro was exactly 2000-for-6000 in his career?

Yes. In fact, I was wondering how many players had reached 2,000 hits before their 6,000th at-bat, as he did. I know Carew did, and I'm sure Gwynn did, but not too many since '54 I'd bet.

By: eorns

eorns — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:31:05 +0000

Anyone notice that after his first AB in yesterday's game, Ichiro was exactly 2000-for-6000 in his career?

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:59:26 +0000

I like how 23% of Bonds' HR for the decade came in one season.