38 Responses to “4+ BB In 9-Inning Games 5+ Times Since 1919”

1. Voomo Zanzibar Says:
   June 8th, 2011 at 9:17 am

   I say this, again, from a place of absolute love for this website:

   The Boston Red Sox are NOT in first place this morning.
   The Yankees are .002 ahead.

   This is correctly indicated on the "Full Standings" page, and it is backwards on the homepage. How can a site that analyzes the effect of Yogi Berra's nose hairs on ground rule doubles to six decimal places make this mistake?

2. nightfly Says:
   June 8th, 2011 at 9:45 am

   @1 - Boston comes in front of New York alphabetically. Simple as that.

   I know it sounds dumb, but a lot of tables and spreadsheet-y sorts of programs will automatically sort that way. No doubt it could be changed and the sort made first by percentage points, but I can't think of a time when MLB has made percentage points a final determination; it's all wins and losses and games behind. According to them, at this point they're tied. So the first team listed comes first in the alphabet, that's all.

3. Voomo Zanzibar Says:
   June 8th, 2011 at 10:16 am

   Drunk Irish Retards do not come alphabetically before Cash and Championships.

4. Mark Says:
   June 8th, 2011 at 10:39 am

   It's been a while since I've seen someone so incorrect about how funny they think they are.

5. statboy Says:
   June 8th, 2011 at 10:39 am

   @2,

   Who comes first alphabetically would only matter if they were tied. They are not. MLB officially has the Yankees in first place.

6. Voomo Zanzibar Says:
   June 8th, 2011 at 10:56 am

   Exactly. And please, understand that i am taking on the persona of the entitled (pun) yankees fan quite tongue-in-cheeky.

   I would be equally enraged if the mariners 2/1000 of a %. lead over the angels was incorrectly indicated (joke). Really.

   In this very stupid world one of the only things left that we can count on (pun) is baseball statistics. Looking at the standings first thing in the morning is a ritual that brings order to things for some of us. I'm kind of adrift without it from Novermber to March.

   And Im sorry if I offended any Bostonians who are not currently drunk or irish or retarded.

   And I apologize to Steve for hijacking his 4+BB post.
   Nice to see all the high OBP Eddies together in a chart.

7. Richard Chester Says:
   June 8th, 2011 at 10:58 am

   Percentage determines the first place team, games behind is a stat of convenience.

   The contrast between the players at the top of the list is interesting. There is a set of players such as Ruth, Williams, Bonds. Ott, Foxx and Gehrig who received many walks because they terrified pitchers. At the opposite pole we have guys with much lower BA and power numbers such as Yost, Bishop, Joost, Stanky and Morgan who received high numbers of BB because of their innate ability to lay off bad pitches.

8. bluejaysstatsgeek Says:
   June 8th, 2011 at 11:05 am

   They say that the worst arguments are ones where so little of real value is at stake, and we have one new datapoint in support of this position.

9. Cheese Says:
   June 8th, 2011 at 11:23 am

   Max Bishop is awesome in historical baseball sims...

   That .423 OBP before Ruth/Gehrig is real nice.

10. Cheese Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 11:28 am

    Also, please look up the definition of pun...

11. Paul E Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 11:49 am

    @ Voomoo Zanzibar:
    Dude,
    Apologies aside, I couldn't agree with you more.....sick of this Red Sox Nation BS. When those gloating handjobs won in 2004, you would have thought they won it EVERY year for the previous 86 years....two words: Curt Schilling. Easy to dislike, particularly with Yukilis holding that bat like it's a violin

    Steve,
    Sorry I don't have anything to add to the post, except it's interesting to see Ruth and Foxx topping the list in strikeouts with so few strikeouts per PA...

12. John Autin Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Count me with Mark @4, but I'm not satisfied to leave the point so implicit, so:

    @3, Voomo -- Many people consider that particular use of the word "retard" offensive. Please knock it off.
    http://therword.org/2009/12/13/retard-as-offensive-as-racial-slurs/

    Also, it's clearly juvenile, so even if you don't think it's offensive, you might consider that it makes you sound about 14 years old.

13. Thomas Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Words only are given weight by people... if no one replied, he might have not used retard again. But because he got the reaction he was looking for, he's going to keep using it. If you want him (and others) to stop, then stop giving the words weight, and it'll stop being used.

14. John Autin Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Thomas, I think that point of view on the weight of words and the optimal reaction to offensive speech is a little too simplistic.

    Think of how the mother of a developmentally delayed child feels when she hears kids (and even adults) call one another "retard" as a joke. Then tell me I should stop giving the word weight.

15. Thomas Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    So you are admiting that you don't have any connection to the word, such as a child or sibling or anything of that nature? Because if you don't, then you've just given the weight. You don't know me friend, you don't know that my wife works with developmentally disabled children in a group home. Don't tell me using logic is too simplistic. Your over reaction to some internet troll using a word you didn't like becasue of some random 'mother somewhere' is why people still use the word like that.

    Don't feed the troll, JA, he'll just keep coming back for more.

16. Thomas Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    Sorry, let me be more concise. Because he wasn't calling someone with developmental issues a retard, he used the word to get a rise out of people. And you gave him that rise that he wanted. That's my only point.

    He was being a troll (trying to get a rise out of a group of people by stating something non-factual) and you (and @4) fed him (by giving him said rise).

    Sorry if any other meaning could have been inferred from that.

17. bluejaysstatsgeek Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    At bluebirdbanter, we have our house rules. Use offensive language the first time and you get a warning. Use offensive language twice, and you get banned. Trolls don't last long and we have quite civil discussions and arguments.

18. Brendan Burke Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    By the way, percentage points have been used once, if you count the 1915 Federal League as a major league.

    Also, I notice Juan Pierre isn't on the list up top, since he sucks even more than A-Roid sucks Adolf Hitler's dead ballsack.

    Finally, Jeter passed Sam Rice with his 2988th hit, assuming you consider Rice to have 2987 hits instead of the 2985 that's been going around recently.

19. Thomas Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    Here is a list (if I ran the reports correctly) of guys with 4+ BB in consecutive games:

    Pete Runnels 1959
    Eddie Yost 1955
    Eddie Stanky 1950
    Babe Young 1941
    Max Bishop 1934
    Don Hurst 1928

    Bishop, Stanky and Yost are on the list in the post too...

20. Mark Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    For the record, I was not offended by Mr. Zanzibar... I only accused him of thinking that some of the most tired jokes in all of baseball/sports culture were actually *funny*. 🙂

21. John Autin Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    @15, Thomas -- I assure you that I made no assumptions about you. Nor did I say (nor will I say) whether I have any direct connection to developmentally disabled people. Do I need a direct stake in the matter before I may remark that something is unkind to someone?

    I stand by my position that cold logic cannot prescribe the best response to an emotional situation. I have a very high regard for logic; but we are not computers. We cannot, in the short term, reprogram ourselves to eliminate the emotional impact from certain words. We cannot treat language as communicating only facts, with all else given null value.

    And I don't go in for the sharp dichotomy of "troll / non-troll." The person I replied to is a frequent commenter on this site. Based on my own reading of his or her comments over time, I have not put this person on a "pay no heed" list.

22. Voomo Zanzibar Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    Hey guys, easy. I'm not a troll.
    I was taking on the persona of a "childish" Yankees (or Red Sox) fan to poke fun at how blown out of proportion the rivalry is.

    Im 38 years old, educated and actually kinda sensitive.
    And my professional life is often in the company of comedians who make a point of pushing the envelope, offense wise, so I get into trouble occasionally outside of that community. I respect this site and I promise not to use that word anymore. Sorry.

23. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    I think Voomo is a valuable contributor if only to keep pointing out that B-R's standings are, indeed, wrong. THE YANKEES ARE ALONE IN FIRST PLACE.

    There was once a time, early in the season (I want to say this happened in the '70s or early '80s, but I'm not sure -- maybe it's happened more than once), when the first-place team was actually games behind the second-place team, because they had played such a dissimilar number of games. For example, if one team is 1-0, and another 3-1, the first place team will be 1/2 game behind.

24. Richard Chester Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    @23
    I can't give you specifics but it has happened more than once.

25. Richard Chester Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    @23, @24

    I found one. On 4-15-69 the Pirates were 5-0, the Cards were 3-0 and the Giants were 5-1. The Cards were 1/2 game behind the 3rd place Giants. The standings as listed in B-R show the Cards in 3rd place when they should actually be in second.

26. Richard Chester Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    @25
    Make that 4-15-62, sorry.

27. Jahiegel Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Only players with career walk rates better than that of Max Bishop (minimum 2000 PA): Ted Williams and Barry Bonds.

28. mccombe35 Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    Randy Milligan???

29. RichardKC Says:
    June 8th, 2011 at 10:28 pm

    A walks list without Bonds on top. That took some effort (or luck) to find.

30. Doug Says:
    June 9th, 2011 at 12:10 am

    Foxx got 6 walks in one of his games - a unique achievement for a 9-inning game.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SLA/SLA193806160.shtml

    There have been 48 other 5+ walk games, with Mel Ott leading the way with 3 of those games.

31. Richard Chester Says:
    June 9th, 2011 at 12:40 am

    @30
    One of Ott's 5 walk games occurred in the next-to-last game of the 1929 season. The Phillies walked him on purpose so that he could not wrest the HR title from Chuck Klein.

32. John Autin Says:
    June 9th, 2011 at 12:57 am

    @23, etc. -- My favorite instance of a team being ahead by percentages, but behind by games:

    In the wild 1908 NL pennant race, after games of Sept. 25, the Giants had the best W% at .629 (88-52) but had played 5 games fewer than the Cubs, who were at .628 (91-54). As a result, the Cubs were half a game "ahead" of the Giants. And the Pirates were 91-55, tied with the Giants in games but 6 percentage points back.
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/standings.cgi?date=1908-09-25

    The W% / GB discrepancy between NYG and CHC persisted through Sept. 27.

    P.S. There were also several years in the dead-ball era wherein the pennant was decided by virtue of rainouts not made up. Detroit won the 1908 pennant by 1/2 game over Cleveland; both teams had the same wins, but the Tigers had one less loss. There was no rule at the time requiring postponements or ties that hadn't been made up during the course of the schedule to be made up afterwards. To rub salt in the wounds of the Naps fans, Cleveland won the 1908 season series against Detroit, 13-9.
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/1908.shtml

    Detroit also won the 1907 pennant with the help of rainouts. They finished 1.5 games ahead of the A's; Detroit played 150 games, Philadelphia just 145.

    The 1904, '05 and '06 AL pennants also could have changed hands if all rainouts were made up, and I believe there were others as well.

33. John Autin Says:
    June 9th, 2011 at 1:01 am

    @28, Mccombe35 -- Randy "Moose" Milligan averaged 103 walks per 162 games for his MLB career, and had a .391 career OBP.

34. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 9th, 2011 at 1:12 am

    When I was young I read a book which included some "crazy" early-season standings where the team in 1st was actually games behind the 2nd-place team. It didn't seem like it should necessarily be *that* rare, but I inferred from the book that it was. Thanks John and Richard for finding more examples.

    And meanwhile....B-R still shows the Yankees behind (or "tied") with the Sox. Look Sean, we're gonna be legitimately behind in tomorrow's standings, no need to keep screwing us for all our rainouts.

35. nightfly Says:
    June 9th, 2011 at 10:52 am

    I don't know whether to be kind of flattered or kind of sheepish that my reply to Voomo started all that. Maybe both. I actually think it's cool that "such mighty contests rise from trivial things."

    FWIW I'm a Mets fan (facepalm), and have no interest in the topic other than academic. I can remember seeing times where teams in first place have been a half-game "behind" the second-place team. I also know that by the end of the season, when everyone has gotten to 161 or 162, that such issues always resolve themselves - or at least, for as long as I can remember. (For the record, I'm Voomo's age.)

    My only thought was to theorize how the BR standings were listed, not why, or even whether or not it was twenty-hundred percent correct.

36. John Autin Says:
    June 9th, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Getting back to Steve's theme: The biggest surprise to me is Barry Larkin. I never thought of him as a big BB guy, but he drew 96 walks in 1996 and 93 in 1999.

    Three of the six games listed here came in '96, the year he hit 33 HRs (which somehow was not the year he was named MVP).

37. Paul E Says:
    June 9th, 2011 at 11:58 am

    @36
    John :
    If you'll notice both Larkin and Moseph Vaughn (1995 AL MVP) had better years in 1996 and their respective teams didn't do as well. I think a strong argument could have been made for John Valentin and maybe even Reggie Sanders as 1995 MVP's.
    By the same token, perhaps how Albert Belle didn't receive the 1995 AL MVP award could probably be tied to a strong dislike by sportswriters

38. John Autin Says:
    June 9th, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    @37, Paul E -- I used to think that Albert Belle got jobbed in '95. And probablyo there were a few votes he didn't get because of personal animus.

    But now I think that both Edgar Martinez and John Valentin got an even rawer deal. Edgar led the league in BA, OBP (.479, 2nd highest mark in the years 1963-2000), OPS and OPS+, Runs, Doubles, Games, and Offensive WAR, but placed 3rd in the vote.

    And nobody was more underrecognized than John Valentin that year.

    Speaking of Reggie Sanders, is there any official measure of peripateticness(?) among MLB players? Sanders played for 8 different teams in the 9 years from 1998-2006 (with a combined 110 OPS+). If there is a "record," it probably belongs to Kenny Lofton -- 8 teams in 7 years (2001-07), closing it with a bonus stint with Cleveland, where that string started.

    (I love baseball!)