Comments on: Sunday roundup

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:56:48 +0000

You're using an awfully narrow and specific definition of a word first employed in the game more than 120 years ago. He DID bat, he just got on base without putting the ball in play. Why can't the 'batted' in RBI refer to a player who came to bat instead of a player who touched the ball with the bat? It's not Runs Hit In or Runs Scoring While Ball is in Play.

By: Vidor

Vidor — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:40:14 +0000

"re: bases-loaded walk---you're BATTING aren't you? You're AT-BAT aren't you? You're the BATTER aren't you? So why shouldn't get a run BATTED in?" Because you did not bat the ball.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 05 May 2010 12:20:30 +0000

Andy, I understand your point about Santana; I was just quibbling with your judgment that he's no longer an "ace." Just arguing semantics I suppose.

By: DoubleDiamond

DoubleDiamond — Wed, 05 May 2010 03:44:16 +0000

I can understand the RBI on a bases-loaded walk, since the batter presumably exercised good judgment in not swinging at the bad pitches. This is what Jamie Moyer did in Sunday night's game against Santana, no doubt. Getting an RBI on a bases loaded HBP is less logical, although maybe it's a consolation prize for depriving the batter of the chance to get an RBI had he not been hit. Then again, first base is only supposed to be awarded if the batter made an attempt to get out of the way of the pitch. The most famous bases-loaded situation in which a batter did not get award first base because the umpire decided he didn't attempt to get out of the way was probably the one involving Dick Dietz against Don Drysdale in 1968. It extended a hitless inning streak that Drysdale had going and which eventually developed into a record-setting one (since broken).

By: Vorp Opiescu

Vorp Opiescu — Wed, 05 May 2010 00:37:30 +0000

Regarding Varitek, Ortiz, and the events of Monday night ... a post from Baseball Think Factory: "I can see a solution to base runners running wild on Red Sox catchers. The Red Sox could get Kevin Youkilis a Taser to hide in his pocket. When the runner on first tries to steal 2nd base, he pulls it out and *crackle* ... stolen base prevented."

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 04 May 2010 14:51:40 +0000

re: bases-loaded walk---you're BATTING aren't you? You're AT-BAT aren't you? You're the BATTER aren't you? So why shouldn't get a run BATTED in?

By: Vidor

Vidor — Tue, 04 May 2010 14:43:35 +0000

As I said, I'm aware of how MLB counts complete games. But eight innings is not "going the distance", and getting wistful about an eight-inning complete game (much less a five- or six-inning "complete game", as two of the examples above are) seems a little bit weird to me. Actually, this is one of MLB's stranger scoring rules. It directly conflicts with the requirement that a no-hitter has to go nine innings to be an official no-hitter. How can Andy Hawkins get credit for a complete game in which he allowed zero hits but not be credited for a no-hitter? It would make more sense if credit for a complete game was withheld for outings of less than nine innings. Then, once we've taken care of that, we can do away with the practice of not charging an at-bat for a sacrifice fly (how is it a "sacrifice" if you swing away?) and the equally bizarre custom of crediting an RBI on a bases-loaded walk (you get a run BATTED in when you don't bat the ball?).

By: DoubleDiamond

DoubleDiamond — Tue, 04 May 2010 02:00:37 +0000

I was also going to point out that all of the complete game losses were eight innings on the road plus one rain-shortened game. If any were walk-off 8 1/3 innings, 8 2/3 innings, or 8 innings with winning run scored in the bottom of the 9th with none out, would they show up in the list as 8 or as 8 and some fraction? I'm actually surprised to see two National League games in the list. If an NL team is losing that late in the game, they're almost certainly going to hit for the pitcher at some point. Most likely, the pitcher's spot didn't come up in the top of the 7th or 8th, and if it then came up in the top of the 9th, they did hit for him then, without at least tying the game. Yes, a pitcher gets credit for a complete game if he was lifted for a pinch hitter in what turns out to be his team's last at-bat.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 04 May 2010 00:34:45 +0000

Dave, I think you might be reading more into my comments than I really intended. Santana is not as good as he used to be but it still a very good pitcher. He's experienced the normal decline expected for a guy of his age. He's had some injury scares and has sprinkled more bad starts since the trade. That's all I really mean. I'd be curious to see the top QS fractions over the last few years. Maybe I will look that up and post about it.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 03 May 2010 21:47:35 +0000

Andy, in saying that Santana is "just not an ace anymore," what standard of "ace" are you holding him to? We all know that he's no longer as dominant as he was in his prime with the Twins, when he was a 230-strikeout, sub-1.000 WHIP, 5/1 K/BB pitcher. Even still, in 65 starts with the Mets, he has a 143 ERA+, a 1.184 WHIP, and a 3.18 K/BB. That's a decline, but still superb. He's 49/65 in quality starts (and only six of those QS have been the "cheap" 3-in-6 kind). Coming into last night's game, he had a 2.08 ERA with 28/9 K/BB in 30.1 innings to start the season, and had given up one run or less in four of his five starts. Sounds like he's still an ace to me, and one brutal inning doesn't change that. If you really want to keep things in perspective, note that Pedro Martinez had a game score of 8 on a July 18 start in 1999--a season in which his average game score was 69 and his ERA+ was 243. Even the best can be the worst for one day.