The Baseball Bulletin

Catching at Ceti Field

2010-07-07T10:10:00.004-04:00

The Wall Street Journal had a good article today on the three catchers vying for time with the Mets. Included in the article were pictures of the three, Rod Barajas, Josh Thole and Henry Blanco. I've been struggling all year to figure out who Henry Blanco looks like. Today's picture helped jog my memory.

This is Ceti Alpha Five! Citi Field exploded six months after we were left here. The shock shifted the orbit of this stadium and everything was laid waste. 'Admiral' Minaya never bothered to check on our progress. It was only the fact of my genetically-engineered intellect that allowed us to survive. In the NL East, two hundred years ago, I was a prince with power over millions...

Settling a Score

2010-01-06T18:25:00.001-05:00

The Wall Street Journal's daily sports page features a set of projected scores from AccuScore. Today's scores had the following two college men's basketball games:

NCAA Basketball: (5) Duke 77.1, Iowa St. 74.4

NCAA Basketball: (10) Michigan St. 68, (17) Wisconsin 63

I don't know how AccuScore makes projections, though I intend to find out. But I find it curious that Duke, the 5th ranked team in the country, is projected to beat unranked Iowa State by a mere 2.7 points, while 10th ranked Michigan State is expected to beat 17th ranked Wisconsin, its Big Ten rival, by 5.0 points. So Michigan State is projected to beat Wisconsin by a wider margin than Duke is projected to beat Iowa State, even though Michigan State is ranked lower than Duke, and their opponent, Wisconsin, is ranked higher than (unranked) Iowa State. As I said, I don't yet know how AccuScore makes these projections (or why one game has decimals in its projections, while the other does not). But something doesn't figure.

One Hall of a Problem

2010-01-06T13:24:00.007-05:00

Later today, the inductees for the Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2010 will be announced. I have long wanted to cover this upcoming ballot and discuss the pros and cons of several candidates, but time, like youth, has escaped me. So what I will do instead is share a few brief thoughts in advance of the announcement, and revisit this topic later with some more depth attached.

Before starting with mentions of individual players, one topic that I'd really like to explore is that of the extremely good player vs. the best-in-class player. The Hall of Fame has both types, and I'm not sure there's necessarily a mathematical relationship, but there's certainly an implied relationship between those players who get in on the first ballot, and those who make it on their eighth, twelfth or even fifteenth try. The latter group appears to be judged differently than the former, and I think there are inconsistencies between how people vote for those late ballot players and how their statistics compare to those who got in on early ballots. This distinction will frame some of the discussion in the more in-depth follow-up to this post.

Quick thoughts on players:

Fred McGriff: I always liked McGriff, but I don’t think he’s a first ballot guy (more because of the way the voting is done, than as an indictment of his worthiness, though I do think first ballot guys should be Lou Gehrig-esque, no doubters). I do think he belongs in, because his career numbers are really, really good. His numbers are reasonably comparable with Reggie Jackson’s and Reggie got in on the first ballot with over 93% of the vote. McGriff never had the signature moments Reggie did, which always seems to hurt candidacies of the long-term producers like McGriff. The Crime Dog should get in, maybe in year four.

Edgar Martinez: I think Edgar Martinez is a Jim Rice-type candidate. A guy who was a feared hitter for 10+ years, whose numbers look a lot better post-juice. I think he won’t get in now, but will someday, just because some writers will scoff at his DH role. But you give me a near .420 career OBP over that many years, and I give you my vote (or will should I get one).

Andre Dawson: Now that Rice is in, Dawson should be in, too.

Roberto Alomar: No doubter for Hall of Fame, but will need another year. Voters will hold the spitting incident against him, and say, "he's great, but because of that, I'm not letting him in on the first ballot." Ty Cobb's voters had lower character standards, perhaps.

Tim Raines: I think Tim Raines is a Hall of Famer, coke vials notwithstanding. He was dominant in his time, AND he was a compiler. He’s Rickey-lite, but Rickey was first ballot. And Rock had a better stolen base percentage than Rickey, by 4 or 5 points. Also lacks signature moments, which of course, is partly a reflection of being on some non-playoff teams.

Dale Murphy: I think Dale Murphy should be in. He won’t be, because his numbers look so bad cumulatively. But when he played, he was neck-in-neck with Mike Schmidt statistically for the bulk of his injury-shortened career.

Bert Blyleven: Blyleven is a compiler, and the compilers have gotten in (Don Sutton, for example). He was never the most dominant pitcher for even one season. To me, his strikeout/walk ratio is his most truly outstanding stat. I think there are other compilers who shouldn’t be in, but since they are, Blyleven should be with them.

Barry Larkin: I think Larkin was/is underappreciated. He’s not noticeably that much worse in terms of total career package than Yount or Ripken, both of whom were first ballot guys (Yount not by much). Taking 3 straight Gold Gloves while Ozzie Smith was still in the league is no small feat either. I’m amazed how many All Star teams Larkin made, and I know that carries weight with some voters. The Hall of Fame really isn’t for just the Piazzas of the world, based on prior votes. It appears to also include the consistently really good. Larkin was that, and I find it hard to prove that Larkin doesn't belong in the same general category as Yount and Ripken. So while he's not likely a first ballot guy (or even second or third, based on how Raines has fared these past two years), he could be an eighth or ninth ballot guy.

More to come.

I'm Just Getting Warmed Up

2009-10-08T18:46:00.002-04:00

I'm not saying it's never happened before, I'm just too tired to look right now. But have you ever seen a team use its Game 3 starter AND its Game 4 starter during the sixth and seventh innings of Game 2 of a playoff series, let alone a five game playoff series? Well, if you saw today's Phillies-Rockies game you did.

Phillies' starter Cole Hamels pitched five unspectacular innings, giving up four runs on seven hits, though he did strike out five and didn't walk anyone. One of those hits was a 2-run, 2-out home run to catcher Yorvit Torrealba, who had two home runs all year. Could Hamels have used more focus? Well, he left the stadium right after he left the game for a pinch hitter in the 5th inning, because his wife was in labor. Certainly understandable why his focus might not have been sharp.

But what happened next should give Phillies fans pregnant pause. Manager Charlie Manuel used Game 3 starter Joe Blanton for an inning. Fine, you say, he's just getting in work that he would have gotten in during a bullpen session anyway. Ok, I guess, but he is starting in two days, so you better hope he doesn't get hurt. Which brings us to the next decision, to use Game 4 starter J.A. Happ in the 7th inning. One line drive off the leg later, and the Phillies starting pitching is suddenly as iffy as the back end of their bullpen has been.

So now you have a team that doesn't know who's getting the ball to close games (Lidge? Madson? Bueller?). You don't know whether Happ will be able to go in Game 4. You don't know whether Hamels will regain his on again, off again crispness. The defending World Champs now head to Colorado, with the series tied 1-1, and Manuel has burned his ships to stay in the New World. As Lt. Colonel Frank Slade would say, "Now here's Charlie. He's come to the crossroads. He has chosen a path...Let him continue on his path."

Schill Out

2009-03-24T15:14:00.006-04:00

Fitting for a guy who made a lot of noise, yesterday's retirement announcement by Curt Schilling has generated a lot of discussion about Schilling's place in baseball history. I have only read a few pieces today, and heard some radio chatter this morning, but I think the whole Hall of Fame debate is being viewed too narrowly. There are a lot more guys he needs to be compared to besides John Smoltz and Tom Glavine. I think Schilling's career numbers are very good, but if his candidacy is to be based on his career, then I think you have to ask: Is Kevin Brown a Hall of Famer? Is Orel Hersheiser a Hall of Famer? Is David Cone? Is Dwight Gooden? Chuck Finley? Bob Welch? Vida Blue? Not to mention another bunch of guys viewed as being light on the win totals (Jimmy Key, Frank Viola, Dave Stewart and Bret Saberhagen). And a bunch who are still going (Roy Oswalt, Roy Halladay, Tim Hudson, Johan Santana, Brandon Webb, Jake Peavy, CC Sabathia and Josh Beckett).

I'm not including Andy Pettitte because he's much closer to the end than the beginning relative to these other current guys, and I don't think he's got a shot (unless it's being administered by Brian McNamee).

And then compare Schilling to the guys you would say were more dominant #1 pitchers during the same era: Greg Maddux gets in before Schill. Pedro Martinez does too. Randy Johnson gets in before. Ditto John Smoltz, and he wasn't always a #1, courtesy of being teammates with Maddux and Glavine (nor always a starter, with his years of brilliance as a closer). Roger Clemens would have, but he's more likely at this point to be incarcerated than inducted. Mariano Rivera, elite closer, will also get in before Schilling. Glavine likely gets the nod with that group. So that's six, maybe seven, before Schilling. The Hall has 63 Major League pitchers (not including Satchel Paige, who is in with eight other Negro League pitchers), over 140 years of history. So that's roughly a new pitcher every 2.2 years, and there are six or seven that will go in very close to each other. Seems like a crowded field.

And the one that seems to keep getting overlooked in terms of comparison: Mike Mussina. Schilling, to me, was certainly not "better" than Mussina for the lengths of their careers. Schilling had more BOOM! TAKE THAT! moments than Moose, and he outshone him in areas like WHIP and Strikeout/Walk Ratio, but Moose still had excellent numbers in those categories. Moose clearly dominates in wins, 270 to 216. In general, I don't like basing pitching success on win totals because of the role that the offense plays in determining whether a pitcher has enough run support to win the game. But part of the reason why Moose has more wins than Schilling is because he was a great starter from day one. The first part of Schilling's career is filled with blech: he had a few years coming out of the bullpen and a bunch of single win years that seem to have been glossed over like the early topless roles of current A list Hollywood stars. So his total numbers, particulary when it comes to wins, are just not there, Hall-wise (though it makes his strikeout totals particularly impressive). And suffice it to say, when Schilling puts up supporting video on his website for his Hall candidacy, he will probably leave out his brief stint as Red Sox closer. Yeesh.

Now some may say, well Sandy Koufax had some stinkers for the first bunch of years, too, and is really a Hall of Famer because of his last four years. But oh, those four years were the best four consecutive years EVER for a pitcher, and they brought his otherwise non-extraordinary (though better than ordinary) career numbers the benefit of averaging down. And despite his late career success, no one would confuse Schilling for Koufax. Schill never even had one truly dominant, all-time great season, but he had a few really good ones.

Anyway, the Class of 2014 will have Maddux and Mussina eligible for the first time (oddly, though Schill got paid for last season without playing, he will be eligible in 2013, a year before two guys, Maddux and Mussina, who retired before he did). Maddux will likely challenge Tom Seaver's all-time voting percentage (98.84), perhaps getting in on 100% of ballots. The baseball writers may hold back votes on Mussina to give Maddux the day to himself, but Moose will get there. Also eligible in 2013 with Schilling? David Wells...a larger, less disciplined, lower strikeout version of Schilling. And Wells won't come anywhere close to getting in. And really, on the baseball greatness spectrum, is Schilling closer to Maddux or Wells?

Looked at 10 years from now, I think Schilling will be grouped with Dave Stewart and Jack Morris, two guys with fantastic postseason memories, but whose careers were shy of sustained greatness.

You Orange Going to Believe It

2009-03-13T07:50:00.005-04:00

Any basketball game that goes to six overtimes is likely to have its share of "can you believe that?" moments. The UConn-Syracuse quarterfinal last night (and into this morning) at the Big East tournament certainly did. The Huskies and Orange played the second longest game in Division I history, trailing only Cincinnati's seven overtime victory over Bradley, 75-73, in December 1981 (while I haven't seen the box score from that game, I have to believe that part of the reason why that score in seven OT's is so much lower than yesterday's six OT game is because the three-point shot wasn't introduced until the 1986-87 season).

Any game that goes on as long as the UConn-'Cuse game will have its share of shocking numbers, simply because they continue to accumulate throughout the game: points, minutes played, players who fouled out, etc. But the one that really stands out: Syracuse, which won the game 127-117 in the sixth overtime, never led once in any of the first five overtimes. Not for one second. Of course, UConn's inability to score in the waning seconds of a few of the overtimes gave Syracuse that chance, but nonetheless, can you believe that?

A More Perfect Union

2009-02-27T10:24:00.004-05:00

If the media rumors are correct, we wish congratulations to Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen on their marriage (the Brady Bundchen?). May he have better success in love than he did with this union:

A-Rod Tells It Like It Is...Or Might Be...Or Should Never Be

2008-02-22T16:24:00.000-05:00

If only Alex Rodriguez would miss reporters' microphones as much as he misses pitches with men on the base in the playoffs, he'd be much better off. On Thursday, according to the Associated Press, A-Rod tried to come out in support of Yankee teammate Andy Pettitte, who recently admitted taking human growth hormone in 2002 and 2004.

He started off strong: "Andy is one of the greatest human beings I've ever met." Quite a compliment, even for a guy whose reference set includes a stripper in Toronto.

But then he goes on. "I have two daughters -- well, I have one and one on the way. If I had a daughter, I would want 'em to marry Andy Pettitte. The age difference might be a little awkward, but in today's day and age anything is possible."

And he wonders why he caught flak for exaggerating how many times he was tested for drugs last year. Early Thursday he said, "Last year, I got tested 9-to-10 times. We have a very, very strict policy, and I think the game is making tremendous strides." But, later that day, through a statement put out by the Yankees, "My quote from earlier today was taken literally. I was not tested nine or 10 times last year. I was just using exaggeration to make a point."

He can't even directly state how many daughters he has! I have two. I have one. If I had one. And while the age difference between either his toddler daughter or his soon-to-be-born child and the 35-year-old Pettitte might be awkward, apparently giving Andy Pettitte a second wife would not be awkward.

Yankees brass are hard at work on a statement. "I do not have two daughters. I was exaggerating to make a point that if my unborn child were born, I would approve of her marrying Andy Pettitte. Of course, that was also an exaggeration, as Andy Pettitte is already married, and I am not condoning polygamy. I do, however, believe that Major League Baseball is making tremendous strides towards removing the use of polygamy from the game of baseball. I also exaggerated, but this time without making a point, when I said 'if I had a daughter.' In fact I do have a daughter, and I realize now that it would be best to check with the current Mrs. Pettitte before recommending such a union. Further, I have no evidence that Andy Pettitte ever told my daughter about his conversations with Roger Clemens regarding the use of HGH. But Andy Pettitte, being one of the greatest human beings of all time, probably would have, because he's so honest. In today's day and age anything is possible."

Getting Warmer

2008-02-06T14:44:00.001-05:00

Is the Hot Stove getting warmer every year? New scientific studies have cast further doubt on the fullness of the scientific claims of Al Gore's Oscar winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. New evidence, confirmed after extensive analysis by the world's foremost photograph experts, suggests another significant reason why Al Gore feels so much warmer since he left the White House.

Playoffs In Sight for Padres?

2006-09-16T12:46:00.000-04:00

In 1990 the long-awaited sequel to "Chinatown" was released, sixteen years after the original. In "The Two Jakes" Jack Nicholson returned as Detective J.J. Gittes to solve mysteries in Southern California. Though the third film in the trilogy was never made, sixteen years later a mystery worthy of Mr. Gittes is playing out in San Diego. Curiously, this one also involves two Jakes, who happen to be the same person.

In the prior two seasons, the Padres' Jake Peavy was one of the best pitchers in baseball. In 2004, at 23 years of age, he led the National League in ERA at 2.27, while going 15-6 for the Padres. Despite his great season, he didn't get one vote for the Cy Young Award. In 2005, he led the league in strikeouts with 216 while going 13-7, and his 2.88 ERA was sixth best. Again not one Cy Young vote. Despite the modest ERA dropoff, he showed improvement in a number of key stats from '04 to '05. Namely, his hits/nine innings dropped (7.90 to 7.18), his strikeouts/nine increased (9.36 to 9.58), his strikeouts/walk ratio increased (3.26 to 4.32) and his WHIP (walks plus hits per inning pitched) dropped considerably (1.20 to 1.04). All of this foretold a tremendous 2006 season.

So how's he doing? He's 9-14 with a 4.19 ERA, and his WHIP is back up to 1.22. Even though his season has improved recently (just six weeks ago, he was 4-10 with a 5.15 ERA and a 1.31 WHIP). it's still a considerable step back from the success of the past two seasons. What's the reason for the turnaround? How did the '04-'05 Jake become the '06 Jake? Bad luck, bad advice and a bad vision plan. The obvious three.

As for bad luck, Peavy had four no decisions (not a win, not a loss) in which he gave up only one run, and in three of those, the team won the game in the 10th inning, after Peavy had left (they lost the fourth). The Padres have averaged over 4.0 runs in the games Peavy has started, so ordinarily, those efforts would be rewarded with wins. But their run support for Peavy has been so erratic (hit or miss?) that in 10 of his 29 starts, they scored NO runs while he was in the game. Zero. In fact, in his 14 losses they've scored just 27 runs, less than 2.0 per game. That's the kind of support that makes a guy feel unwanted.

His won-loss record isn't all about bad run support, as he did have a few terrible starts, in which he gave up 8 runs once, 7 runs twice, and 6 runs four times (one of which he won). So what else is going on?

In late July Peavy moved back to pitching from the third-base side of the rubber. Though he had pitched from that side during his ERA title season in 2004, he moved to the first-base side because he felt this spot allowed him to better locate his tailing fastball against lefties. But after two straight seven run stinkers this year, his pitching coach suggested he switch back. In this age of extensive video analysis and managers who won't pee without knowing what time of day the urinal works best, how could an All-Star pitcher's changed location go uncorrected for so long? The coaching staff weren't the only ones who didn't see something big.

Peavy is legally blind. He had his prescription changed during Spring Training, but until August 16th, wasn't able to get contact lenses to match that new prescription. Said catcher Rob Bowen, "I thought we were going to have to go to smoke signals...I was putting signals everywhere, but Jake was having trouble picking them up.” So one of the game's top pitchers couldn't see what pitch to throw and his team didn't correct this until there were six weeks left in the season? How is that possible? Major League players can get same day MRIs (try getting that on your health plan, if you still have one), surgeries done before games even end...the best and fastest treatment money can buy. Apparently this doesn't extend to vision plans.

The Padres are 1.5 games behind the Dodgers for the division lead, and are ahead in the Wild Card standings by 1.5 games over the Phillies. They may still make the playoffs, but if they had corrected their star pitcher's pitching location and vision during Spring Training, they'd be in the driver's seat towards consecutive division crowns. As for the Cy Young race this year? "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

Fruits of Your Labor Day

2006-09-01T09:45:00.000-04:00

Thanks for all of your responses to the trivia question. The answer is...

The five switch hitters to have hit 40 home runs in a season in Major League Baseball history are:
Mickey Mantle, NY Yankees, 52 HRs, 1956; 42 HRs, 1958; 40 HRs, 1960; 54 HRs, 1961
Todd Hundley, NY Mets, 41 HRs, 1996
Ken Caminiti, San Diego Padres, 40 HRs, 1996
Chipper Jones, Atlanta Braves, 41 HRs, 1997; 41 HRs, 1999
Lance Berkman, Houston Astros, 42 Hrs, 2002

I don't have a particularly good reason why three of the four players happened to have accomplished the feat in 1996 and 1997. Well, Caminiti admitted to using steroids during that time, but still, it seems like just a statistical quirk that they were bunched together. Mantle (1956), Caminiti and Jones (1999) all won MVP awards during those seasons, while Hundley finished 18th, tied with teammate Lance Johnson. How three members of the 1996 Mets (Bernard Gilkey was 14th) finished in the top 18 in the MVP race, when the team finished in fourth place, 25 games out, is beyond me. Though pointing these things out is certainly not beneath me.

Bonus Answer: The Mets' Carlos Beltran, with 39 home runs, should become the 6th player to enter this group sometime this month, and Lance Berkman will repeat.

Switch Hitters: Not the Movie

2006-08-29T14:17:00.001-04:00

Who are the five switch hitters to have hit 40 home runs in a season in Major League Baseball history?

Bonus Question: Who's about to be the sixth player to join that club?

The Geekly Restored

2005-11-23T11:50:00.000-05:00

Some of you may remember the old days of the Baseball Geekly, some statistically-oriented baseball blabberings I wrote in 2000-2001. Some of you have had paid help to strike them from your mind, but for those who are interested, I have placed some of the old columns on The Brolin Bulletin, which you can access through the archives section on the right.

Jeter Signs with New Team

2005-11-22T17:02:00.000-05:00

Shameless sensational headline, I know, but it is Hot Stove season. While I'm as intrigued by the "Who's on Third next season?" question as the next guy (actually the guy in the next office doesn't know much about baseball, so I might have him beat), I'm currently fixated on the "Who's on the radio?" question.

Yesterday's announcement that XM Satellite Radio signed a deal with Derek Jeter has me wondering what's next. The Olsen sisters' restaurant guide? I mean, Jeter's an excellent player (yes, yes, yes) who won a few World Series at the end of the last century, and consistently leads the league in awkward fist pumps, but putting him on the air? Have you heard him talk? Oh, his grammar and diction are fine, but there's no English on his English. He may be the most boring quote in baseball.

This may well be intentional, of course. Playing in the media zoo of New York, there's no good reason to push for the back pages by spewing lunacy (attention Gary Sheffield: leading the league in menacing glares does not constitute leading). There's no reason to come to the media capital of the country and use every available microphone to speak so much nonsense that everyone knows you're a phony (see, Rod, A-, describing his role as a team player after a first round playoff loss this year: "I had a great year, something I'm very proud of." Nice work. Maybe you can take that MVP Award into the field to knock down a few of those stray grounders, Mr. Complete Player).

No, it's safer to play it safe. Why'd we lose? The other team scored more. What do we need to do differently tomorrow? Score more than they do.

The press release announcing the deal had some of those standard quotes which are attributed to a principal player in a deal, but which are really written by a PR guy using his Vanilla machine. Note Jeter's "quote": "To help extend the lead of a winning team like XM is a terrific opportunity, especially since I am a huge XM Satellite Radio fan. I am excited to share my enthusiasm for XM's unmatched Major League Baseball programming and unprecedented choice in news, talk, entertainment and, of course, commercial-free music." Oh yeah, that's vintage Jeter. "I am excited to play the Chicago White Sox and face their unprecedented combination of speed, power, pitching and, of course, defense."

According to the release, "The deal also includes a partnership with the Turn 2 Foundation, the non-profit organization founded by Jeter to promote healthy, drug-free lifestyles and academic achievement for young people. " Maybe he can get XM host Snoop Dogg to co-host a show about healthy, drug-free lifestyles.

Coincidentally, XM also announced a deal with Napster yesterday to provide a service for purchasing and downloading music on XM. Hugh Panero, President and CEO of XM described that deal as follows: "It takes the promotional impact of radio and puts it on steroids." So Jeter's going to be on XM, Major League Baseball has its games exclusively on XM, and now XM's going to be on steroids one week after MLB announced its new drug testing policy? You cannot be Sirius.

You Could Look It Up

2005-08-24T17:08:00.000-04:00

Over the past few weeks, that old Casey Stengel adage, "You could look it up," has popped up more than Kevin Millar. As much baseball as I watch, I still see something now and then that I've never seen before, or that I didn't know could even happen. But lately, it seems as though there have been more nows than thens.

Two weeks ago in Los Angeles, the Phillies and Dodgers were tied 0-0 heading into the bottom of the fifth inning. Phillies pitcher Robinson Tejeda walked the leadoff batter, Cesar Izturis. Next up: a rookie to keep an eye on, Oscar Robles. With a one ball, one strike count, Izturis took off for second base, and Robles smacked a single to left field, with Izturis ending up on third. A well executed hit-and-run play? Even better than that--the pitch that Robles hit bounced in front of the plate before he hit it. Put aside the hand-eye coordination needed to successfully hit the ball off a bounce in such a way as to not put the base runner in jeopardy. Put aside the team-first attitude that says, "I'm going to follow the third base coach's signs, no matter what." I had never before seen a player get a hit off a pitch that bounced before reaching the plate. I didn't even know that you could. As it turns out, you can. Check out the clip, "Robles singles off a bounce" listed under August 9th (click the 350K; if you're still using dial-up, you can probably wait for the year-end highlights video to come out):
http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/multimedia/tp_archive.jsp?c_id=la

That very same night, during the Yankees-White Sox game on YES, Yankees announcer Michael Kay made me question what was possible in the game of base. Now this wasn't a typical Kay bombastic call, making a routine ground out sound like the final out of Game Seven of the World Series (been a while). Nor was it one of his shameless promotions of the Yankees and Yankee programming ("No true Yankee fan will want to miss Yankeeography: Scott Proctor, playing in an endless loop between the Nissan postgame show and tomorrow night's pregame."). Kay, who more and more tries to provide analysis along with his (greatest) play (you'll ever see) by (greatest) play (you'll ever see), said of the White Sox, roughly, "They won't beat you by outscoring you." Is that right? All smoke and mirrors then? Though it's an admittedly small sample size, I went back through the White Sox season, and in all 75 of their wins so far, they have outscored their opponents, while in all 47 of their losses, they have been outscored. Perhaps it's a coincidence.

Later that week, the Mets were in San Diego, playing an afternoon game against the Padres. Tied 1-1 entering the bottom of the 7th, the Padres pinch hit for starting pitcher Woody Williams with David Ross. With a 2-2 count against Tom Glavine, Ross took a swing. I was following the game on MLB Gameday, and the text came across as: David Ross triples (1) on a pop up to second baseman Kazuo Matsui. The screen didn't update for a long time after this, leaving me to wonder how a pinch-hitting catcher hit his first triple of the season on a pop up to second. While waiting for the screen to update, I shared this with a Mets fan at work, and asked him how that could happen. His response: "Matsui stinks." When all was finally updated, the real reasoning for the strange play description was hardly funny, as this was the play on which right fielder Mike Cameron and center fielder Carlos Beltran collided in the outfield, chasing down Ross's shallow pop. But because of the limited options that the game editors at MLB.com have to describe the action on a given play, for a few minutes, given all the bizarre things that have happened to the Mets this year, it seemed like it might actually be possible to triple to second. Ya gotta believe.

Last week, the New York Daily News reported that the Yankees were close to signing Ruben Rivera to a contract. The one-time can't miss prospect will be getting his third crack at the Yankees, the last one cut short when Rivera couldn't miss stealing Derek Jeter's glove and selling it to a memorabilia dealer during Spring Training in 2002. He was also caught stealing twice that year while a member of the Texas Rangers, though that had more to do with the opposing catchers. Trying to allay concerns of a recurrence, Yankees' GM Brian Cashman said, "[Rivera's] been in Derek's house since then." It's unknown whether Jeter was home at the time.

Lastly, I want to point out a multi-talented player. Playing baseball at the Major League level requires such commitment, such focus, that it is always impressive when a player can achieve mastery of another field at the same time. Bronson Arroyo and Bernie Williams are accomplished guitar players who have released records. John Burkett was a renowned (to the extent that's possible) bowler, with multiple 300s attached to his name. Mike Piazza is an ardent supporter of heterosexual rights. And during last week's Mets-Pirates series at Shea Stadium, we saw that last year's National League Rookie of the Year has some non-baseball talent as well. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jason Bay, king of ballet:

JARring Results

2005-08-03T15:05:00.000-04:00

I certainly was surprised, not to mention extremely disappointed, when I found out that Rafael Palmeiro had tested positive for steroids. I had always thought of him as one of the better people in the game, and his testimony before Congress earlier this year seemed to support my suspicions that he was, indeed, a decent man who achieved his success through hard work and natural ability.

Palmeiro was, before this year anyway, an underrated player who shone somewhat less brightly than the upper echelon of stars. This was partly because of his reserved nature, and partly because despite his impressive career totals and consistency, he never dominated in any one season or facet of the game. I used to think that this lack of a superstar year or years was because he didn't take steroids. He didn't expand suddenly, or have the boom and bust cycles of others who suddenly muscled up in the offseason with a fresh 25 pounds of steak. Of course, half of the players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs this year have been pitchers, so there's clearly more involved than bulk (recovery, drugs other than steroids, etc.).

Now Palmeiro's star has fallen, and the Hall of Fame caliber numbers that he has produced with that sweet lefty swing are being consumed by the black hole of his mouth. Every time he speaks, and tries to qualify one of his prior statements about things he has never done, he shrinks further in stature. The more he protests, the less flukey this seems.

Of his testing positive Palmeiro said on Monday, "It makes no sense. I would not put my career on the line. I would not put my reputation on the line. I'm not a crazy person. I'm not stupid." That certainly makes it seem like this was all an accident, that he unintentionally digested something that tripped the test wires. But if it's an accident, why is he apologizing?

And here are some other questions about Raffy: When did this test occur? When did he appeal? When did the arbitrator hear his case? How was he able to focus during the media spotlight leading up to his 3000th hit? Was that bittersweet? When did he take the substance? Has it impacted this current season (though his numbers are pretty decent for the year, .280 batting average, 18 home runs, 59 runs batted in, through May 9th, he was batting .222, with 1 home run and 7 runs batted in)? How many Palmeiro jerseys were sold around the time of his historic hit, and did that have anything to do with holding up the result?

It may be unfair to speculate like that, but he has opened a can of worms, a neverending inquiry into all he's accomplished to date and all those who knew about his positive test before this Monday. He's like an A student getting caught cheating in his final semester. It makes you wonder about that freshman biology grade.

We may never get full answers to these questions, and Major League Baseball's process does not make it any clearer. Who has been tested already, and how many results have yet to be processed? What have they actually tested positive for? Steroids or another banned substance? Who controls this information, and its flow? This question is key, because as the results drip in slowly, you can see an interesting pattern developing. Look at the people who have been caught, chronologically: Alex Sanchez, Jorge Piedra, Agustin Montero, Jamal Strong, Juan Rincon, Rafael Betancourt, Rafael Palmeiro, Ryan Franklin.

Notice anything? All of the players' first names start with either A, J, or R. Now it's an admittedly small sample size, but could MLB actually be going alphabetically here, testing/releasing/announcing in a less than random pattern? The last three...Rafael, Rafael and Ryan...where's Random?

I have no idea how MLB administers these tests, or how many have been done, or how many remain to be announced, or whether anyone with a name starting with B, K or S has been tested yet. And that's just the point. MLB needs to open up this process, and give more information about where they are, what remains to be done, and how it is being done. Until then, there will be nothing but wasted speculation. Major League Baseball has a bitter pill to swallow. It should come clean about how it is cleaning up the game.

Devil May Care

2005-07-28T11:25:00.000-04:00

WARNING: THIS POSTING CONTAINS REFERENCES TO THE TAMPA BAY DEVIL RAYS, AND MAY THEREFORE DISCUSS PEOPLE YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF.

Here was the situation yesterday: third game of a three game set between Tampa Bay and Boston. Series tied 1-1, somehow. Top of the fourth inning, game tied 0-0. Pitching for Tampa, Seth McClung. Who?

The unheralded, unheard of, and unbelievably, pitching in the majors, Seth McClung, that's who. No offense to the McClungs of Lewisburg, West Virginia, but he did come into yesterday's game with a 7.07 ERA, and had given up at least one home run per start, suggesting that another 707 was in his future, ready to fly him back to Double A. Having now slighted him, he will no doubt wind up on the Yankees someday, coming out of the bullpen to shut down the Sox for five innings while his overpriced teammates stage a comeback.

But through three innings on Wednesday, he was perfect. Nine men up, nine men down. While a rash of injuries and one mood swing led to the Red Sox using a somewhat makeshift lineup, perfect is perfect. So give the man his due. Or was someone, or something, else responsible?

While toiling away diligently at work, I happened to notice that an open browser on my computer had the in-game box score for this game, updated every pitch. Weird how that happened, but there it was, so I took a look. I noticed that when the inning started, McClung's ERA had fallen (for the uninitiated, the numerator for ERA, earned runs allowed times 9, stayed the same, but the denominator, innings pitched had increased by three, so ERA down).

What caught my eye was where his ERA was exactly: 6.66, the number of the beast, the Antichrist. So here was a pitcher, for the DEVIL Rays, mind you, with a 6.66 ERA, pitching a perfect game against the slayers of the Evil Empire, the Red Sox.

Who strides to the plate? Leadoff man extraordinaire, Johnny Damon, who, despite his nearly nefarious sounding last name, is worshipped as a savior in New England. With his long flowing hair and sometime beard, he bears a striking resemblance to another savior often worshipped in those parts. What would Johnny do?

Reminiscent of the final scene of "The Final Conflict," the third chapter in "The Omen" series, one man stood in to do the devil(rays)'s work against the second coming (it was Damon's second at bat that game). Damon (too close to Damien from "The Omen" for my taste) struck first, with a single to left. ERA still a devilish 6.66, but perfection gone, McClung no longer clung to the strike zone, walking the next two batters; but with no more innings (each out is 1/3 of an inning) pitched, or earned runs allowed, McClung's ERA was still 6.66. John Olerud next grounded into a double play, which allowed Damon to score. ERA now 6.75. Order restored.

Next up, the Sox return to baseball heaven, Fenway Park, to host the Minnesota Twins, who will be fresh off a series with the Yankees. The Yankees next opponent? The Angels. How fitting.

_____________________________________

Extraneous Superfluous A-Rod Bashing Note: A-Rod celebrated his big 3-0 by going the big 0-for-3 on Wednesday, though he did have two walks. A-Rod may well finish with most of the coveted (by him) offensive records in baseball. When he turned 30, he had more home runs than Hank Aaron did by that age, and was similarly ahead of the 30th birthday pace of a number of other record holders. But on that one day, he was tied for last place for the worst batting average of all time for players from their 30th birthday on. Happy Birthday, big guy.

Olympic Proportions

2005-07-08T15:59:00.000-04:00

On Thursday, I was looking at a map of London that showed the sites of the various Olympic events. Of course there were more important things to focus on in London on Thursday, but the Times' Sports section showed the map, so there I was. One site in particular stood out: baseball. How quaint. How veddy, veddy quaint. I thought that if I could manage to find myself in London in the Summer of '12, I'd go catch a game, and enjoy the return of rounders to England.

But my hypothetical trip has been cancelled thanks to the International Olympic Committee. The IOC voted in Singapore on Friday that baseball and softball would be dropped from the 2012 Games, the first sports dropped since polo 69 years ago. Their replacements? The sports of nonexistent and not enough votes. Even though baseball and softball have been kicked out, none of the five sports trying to get in (golf, rugby, squash, karate and roller sports) were deemed worthy replacements.

All of this, mind you, was decided courtesy of secret votes. The UN holds votes on economic sanctions and military interventions in the wide open, but the IOC needs a secret vote to keep out roller skating. Heaven forbid the world knew that the Finnish IOC representative voted against All Skate.

Baseball has only been an "official" Olympic sport since 1992. It was an "exhibition" sport in 1912 (Stockholm), as well as in 1936 (Berlin), 1952 (Helsinki), 1956 (Melbourne) and 1964 (Tokyo). Baseball became a "demonstration" sport in 1984 (Los Angeles), a title it held until 1992 (Barcelona), when Anthony Garciaparra (soon to be Nomar), Jason Giambi, Jason Varitek and others played on the first "official" US Olympic baseball team.

So why, in the 100th anniversary year of its first appearance is Olympic baseball on the outs? Two of the commonly cited reasons for keeping baseball out are the lack of Major League stars on the roster and the steroid scandal that has enveloped the sport over the past few years.

According to British IOC member Craig Reedie, "The lack of the MLB players--I think people have looked and said, 'Well, all right, if there's to be a change, that seems to be the logic of it.'"

What does that mean? If there's to be a change? Does that mean that they were told to drop it, and then come up with a reason? I'm not even sure where the logic is there, but he seems to be focusing on the lack of MLB players.

But why? The US Olympic basketball team, stocked with NBA players, was awful in 2004. We'd be better off with motivated college players who trained together for a while, and hadn't tasted the stupefying effects of guaranteed NBA millions. Besides, the Olympics are conveniently held after the NBA season ends, but they are right in the middle of the baseball season. Yes, NHL players do stop playing in order to participate in the Winter Olympics, but Olympic hockey is arguably better than a midseason NHL game, when they have them.

As for steroids, Australian IOC member John Coates said, "Problems with doping in U.S. baseball probably cost the sport dearly." Dear sir, exactly who's on drugs now?

First of all, the IOC is complaining that there are no major leaguers in the Olympics. So why should they care if there are/were drugs in MLB? Given that the roster would largely be made up of minor leaguers (at least the US squad), there's no real cause for concern, because the minors have had a more stringent policy in place for some time. And, the Olympics will conduct their own testing program, so what gives? Are they afraid that a nearly 50-year old Barry Bonds will try to make the 2012 squad? And why drag softball down with it?

Second, does the IOC have any evidence that international/Olympic play has been infiltrated by drugs? Because if not, they certainly have plenty of other areas to clean up first. How many more track and field stars will test positive for doping? Or swimmers? Or cyclists? Will they ban sprinting in the Olympics because some Americans have been caught doping? This seems like too harsh a tactic for sprinting, so why punish baseball globally? And in case they hadn't noticed, the US baseball team didn't even make the 2004 Olympics. Not exactly the product of a performance enhancing drug culture.

IOC president Jacques Rogge said, "We are now an Olympics of 26 sports." These sports include judo, where it's legal to choke someone into submission. Surely an international game of baseball would do more to improve global affairs than two adversaries choking each other.

And Then There Were Two

2005-05-27T14:49:00.000-04:00

There's a popular but inaccurate bit of baseball trivia flying around these days. This misnomer (the Red Sox sure do) involves major league players who never spent a day in the minor leagues. While it's not true that there have been only three such players in history prior to this week, it is true that since the amateur draft began in 1965, 17 players went straight from the draft to the majors, without riding the bus to Altoona. Further, three of these 17 players never played a day in the minors. Until this week that is. Dave Winfield is still on that list. Bob Horner is still on that list. But John Olerud makes that list no more.

Olerud played three games this week with the Pawtucket Red Sox before being called up just prior to the start of the latest Yankee-Red Sox brouhaha, starting Friday night in the Bronx. Last year Olerud was on the Yankee side of this fracas, but wasn't on the field for most of the excitement after hurting his foot in Game 3 of the ALCS in a freakish bat-into-foot accident.

When you think about that list of three players, does Olerud's name stand out? Is it surprising that Olerud joins those other hitters?

Winfield became a Hall of Famer, and was such an amazing athlete, that he was also drafted by teams in the NBA (Atlanta Hawks), ABA (Utah Stars) and the NFL (Minnesota Vikings, despite not having played college football). He went straight from the University of Minnesota, where he was MVP of the 1973 College World Series, to the San Diego Padres. So his inclusion on this list, and uninterrupted major league stay makes sense.

Horner was the College Player of the Year when he was drafted out of Arizona State in June, 1978. Eight days later he joined the Atlanta Braves and hit a home run in his first game, on his way to 23 that year and the Rookie of the Year award. By the end of the 1980 season, just past his 22nd birthday, Horner had 91 home runs. That matched Ted Williams for sixth most at that age, despite having almost 600 fewer plate appearances than Williams in that span. But wrist injuries and weight problems plagued Horner's career, and he finished in 1988 with 218 home runs (four of which came in one game). Though his wrist and weight problems never led him to the minors, he did play one season in Japan for the Yakult Swallows, fittingly.

Olerud, the only lefty in the group, wasn't a first round pick like Winfield and Horner; he was taken by the Toronto Blue Jays in the third round out of Washington State in 1989 after a stellar college career (note that all three were college stars long before Billy Beane made college players a draft focus: kids, stay in school). He set school single season records with a .462 average and 23 home runs, went 15-0 as a pitcher and was the NCAA Player of the Year in 1987 and 1988.

So how could he not have been drafted in the first round? In his senior season, Olerud suffered a brain aneurysm. He recovered and still hit .359 with 30 RBIs in 27 games, and has since always worn a batting helmet in the field to protect his head.

Olerud, with one of the sweetest swings (and dispositions) in baseball, went on to have an excellent, often overshadowed career. He chased .400 in 1993, finishing at .363, and was only the 20th player to have 200+ hits and 100+ walks in a season. He won back-to-back World Series with Toronto ('92-'93) before being traded to the Mets after the 1996 season. In 1999 he set the Mets' single season batting record, with a .354 average, and had on base percentages of .400, .447 and .427 in his three seasons in New York. He then spent four and a half seasons with his hometown Seattle Mariners, where he won three gold gloves as a sure handed first baseman.

Olerud, with the funny helmet and the unassuming manner, may not garner the same attention that the first baseman of his era did (at least one of whom was a performance enhanced behemoth). But he quietly put together a consistently excellent career. He had an on base percentage better than .370 for 11 years in a row. His .399 career OBP ranks him 14th amongst active players behind a pretty impressive list entering this season:

Barry Bonds, Todd Helton, Frank Thomas, Lance Berkman, Bobby Abreu, Brian Giles, Jason Giambi, Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, Jeff Bagwell, Larry Walker, Chipper Jones and Gary Sheffield.

That's decent company (actually there are a bunch of surly guys on that list who wouldn't make great company, but this isn't a tea party).

He's also:

Fourth in active doubles hitters, behind only Rafael Palmeiro, Craig Biggio and Bonds.
Fifth in walks, behind Bonds, Thomas, Bagwell and Palmeiro.
Fifth in intentional walks (respect), behind Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr., Palmeiro and Thomas.
Seventh in sacrifice flies, behind Ruben Sierra, Palmeiro, Thomas, B.J. Surhoff, Bagwell and Sheffield.
Eighth in games.
Tenth in hits.
Tenth in runs created (don't ask).

There's also the one not so good category: he's grounded into the second most double plays amongst active players, with 226, behind Julio Franco. That list is mostly filled with players who hit hard and run slowly. And for a slow guy with only 13 career triples (12 at the time he did it), he amazingly hit for the cycle twice, easily the fewest triples for a guy with more than one cycle.

So while he won't get into the Hall of Fame without a ticket (or a museum membership card), the game has been bettered by his presence. His quiet professionalism in an age of yakkers (please stop talking, Schilling), his grace with bat and glove, and his consistent excellence (or at least really goodness) are what baseball should be about.

Horse Feathers

2005-05-06T12:26:00.000-04:00

George Steinbrenner's horse, Bellamy Road, is running in this Saturday's Kentucky Derby. With his New York Yankees in last place in the AL East, despite a staggering $200+ million payroll, many have suggested that the Derby will provide the distraction Big Stein needs. Don't count on it.

Bellamy Road, at 5-2 odds, is the clear favorite to win the Derby. The Yankees, at 5-2 odds, were the clear favorite to win the 2005 World Series, according to Vegas.com. The Yankees still have 133 games to go, so they haven't spit the bit just yet, but those odds appear to have been too generous. And if the same oddsmakers were involved in those predictions, I would hold off on buying any "Bellamy Road for Triple Crown" t-shirts just yet.

Steinbrenner clearly thought he had the horses to win the AL East for the 8th straight year when he acquired Randy Johnson, Jaret Wright and Carl Pavano to join the starting rotation. A curious move, when it was the bullpen that did the team in during the playoffs last year (see ALCS, Games 4-7, aka the Greatest Comeback of All Time).

Rather than addressing its most glaring weaknesses, however, the Yankees' cure for postseason hangovers has been to mimic the strengths of the teams that beat them. In 2003, the Yankees lost to the Marlins in the World Series, and George was infatuated with the speed and small ball skills of center fielder and leadoff man Juan Pierre. So the Yankees got Kenny Lofton. So what if Lofton is ten years older than Pierre, and had exited his prime, while Pierre was just entering his? GET ME LOFTON. And when Lofton performed below expectations in his first season with they Yanks? GET RID OF LOFTON.

In 2004, it was the Red Sox starting pitching that caught Big Stein's eye. You can just hear him saying, "That Curt Schilling is a warrior," much like Kevin Brown was a warrior for Big Stein, before he declared war on the clubhouse wall last September (not wanting to kick a man while he's down, I'll refrain from commenting on the much more generous pitching syle of Brown so far this season). So starting pitching it was, and in came Johnson, Wright and Pavano. GET ME STARTERS.

The Yankees' embarassment of riches has been embarassing. They're not just losing, they're losing badly, getting blown out by teams with payrolls 1/7 the size of theirs (Tampa Bay). They've now lost four series in a row, including three in a row to their cellar dweller roommates, the Devil Rays.

The losing has certainly led to some interesting moves. Tony Womack, the 35-year-old speedster who had a good postseason for the Cardinals in 2004, was brought in to play second base, the only position at which the Yankees didn't have a one-time All-Star last season. Why struggle when you don't have to?

Womack's been moved to left field as part of the domino effect of Bernie Williams moving out of center field (and into a hybrid bench/DH role) and Hideki Matsui moving from left to center. Now in his 12th season in the majors, Womack had never before played left field until Tuesday. Should work out fine. In his place at second? A rookie with zero Major League at bats prior to this week. Wouldn't it have made more sense to find someone else to play left field?

Two more rookies were thrown into the rotation this week in place of the possibly injured Johnson (groin) and the definitely injured Wright (shoulder, ego, chances for another big contract). With all of these rookies, they're starting to look like Tampa Bay. They're certainly playing like it. Both rookie pitchers, Sean Henn and Chien-Ming Wang, got bashed around this week. With Bellamy Road running in the Derby, one of Steinbrenner's farm systems is clearly in much better shape than the other.

Whatever happens in the race, King George will likely have made one of his best investments in a while. Steinbrenner paid $87,000 for the horse, roughly what Jason Giambi makes per game. So while Steinbrenner watches jockey Javier Castellano in the Run for the Roses on Saturday, and his fans run for the exits, don't be surprised if more changes take place. If Bellamy Road finishes out of the money, it'll be Castellano batting leadoff next week, Brown to the DL and the ever shrinking Giambi atop Bellamy Road for the Preakness. Big Stein's not horsing around.

How Grand He Is

2001-05-02T11:25:00.000-04:00

FROM THE BASEBALL GEEKLY FILES:

The Grand Salami. No, not the guy that played with Gomez and Coolidge on “The White Shadow.” And not the big stick of cured meat that hangs in Satriale’s on “The Sopranos.” I’m talking about the Grand Slam, one of the most majestic events in baseball, in which a batter hits a home run with the bases loaded, driving in four runs to aid his team’s cause, while deflating the opposing team.

Grand slams are particularly exciting (and deflating) when they win a game, turning the post-game macaroni salad into risotto for the winners. Statisticians love to argue over what defines clutch hitting, looking at all sorts of averages with runners in scoring position, etc. But nothing makes Jim from Queens say, “Now dat guy’s clutch, ya know?” faster than a grand slam.

On Tuesday night, Jim had plenty to talk about, as the Mets’ Robin Ventura turned a 4-3 deficit into a 7-4 lead with one swing of the bat, en route to a 7-5 victory over the Houston Astros. It was Ventura’s 15th career grand slam, moving him into ninth place on the all-time list, and breaking a tie with the Reds’ Ken Griffey, Jr.

So, is Ventura a clutch hitter? Certainly those timely home runs would suggest that he has a knack for coming up with big hits, but do the numbers hold true? It depends on your definition of clutch hitting. Some would argue, and not without merit, that hitters who do well in the postseason are clutch, as they are producing for their teams at the most important time. In that sense, Ventura has as much in common with clutch as a car with automatic transmission. In 107 postseason at bats with both the White Sox and Mets, Ventura has 18 hits, for a .168 average. During that same span, his on base percentage (OBP) is .315 and his slugging percentage (SLG) is .299, for a composite on base plus slugging (OPS) of .614. Not only are these numbers unusually low, his SLG is actually lower than his OBP, which is quite rare, particularly for a guy who can hit for power (albeit not in the postseason).

For comparison’s sake, for his career (through Tuesday), Ventura has a career batting average of .273, an on base percentage of .365 and a slugging percentage of .450, all significant improvements over his postseason numbers. While some might choose to focus on the postseason, it is also true that a team must win a sufficient number of its regular season games even to make the postseason. In that sense, clutch hitting during the regular season is crucial.

It is in this light that Ventura truly shines, particularly with the bases loaded. For his career, he is 49-for-139, or .353, with the bases loaded. As previously mentioned, 15 of those 49 hits were home runs; five were doubles, with the other 20 hits being singles. So his lifetime slugging percentage (total bases/at bats) with the bases loaded is .712. But he hasn’t just done his damage by swinging. He has also drawn 19 walks with the bases loaded and been hit once by a pitch. Now, his career on base percentage is .381 with the sacks juiced. Put those numbers together and his OPS with the bases loaded is 1.093. That’s a big number.

But if you only focused on OPS, you would be missing RBI generated by sacrifice flies. That is, with fewer than two outs, the batter hits a fly ball to the outfield that is caught for an out, but is hit deep enough for the runner on third to tag up and score. The batter has sacrificed himself for the good of the team. You see, on base percentage is calculated as follows:

(Hits + Walks + Hit By Pitch)/
(Hits + Walks + Hit By Pitch + Sacrifice Flies)

So a hitter’s OBP is actually hurt by driving in a run via the sacrifice fly, but the name of the game is scoring runs. Well, the name of the game is baseball, but I digress. In total, he has 166 RBI in 181 total plate appearances (139 at bats, plus 19 walks, plus one hit by pitch, plus 22 sacrifice flies) with the bases loaded, or .92 RBI/plate appearance.

How does Ventura compare to other active players with a penchant for grand slams? As was mentioned, he was tied with Griffey prior to Tuesday’s heroics. Griffey is a career .339 hitter with the bases loaded (39-for-115), with a .783 SLG and a .366 OPB. So his OPS is a bit higher than Ventura’s (1.149 vs. 1.093), but how about his RBI per plate appearance? He has 132 RBI in 131 plate appearances, averaging just over one RBI per plate appearance with the bases loaded. That is clutch.

But while his OPS with the bases loaded is 1.149, his career OPS in all situations is .946, so his OPS is .203 points higher with the bases loaded. Ventura, on the other hand, has a career OPS of only .815, so his 1.093 with the bases loaded is actually .278 higher with the bases loaded. So, creating a new statistic here, Ventura’s RCE (or relative clutch enhancement) is actually considerably higher than is Griffey’s. That is, relative to his usual performance, Ventura actually does better with the bases loaded than does Griffey relative to his usual performance.

We’ll just check a few more noted active grand slam sluggers, namely those with 10 or more career grannies through Tuesday. For simplicity’s sake, we’ll only use players whose careers began in 1987 or later because our statistical database at this point only carries the situations (bases loaded, two men on, etc.) back until 1987. As we can see, the three added contestants, Manny Ramirez, Mike Piazza and Ellis Burks all have higher OPS with the bases loaded (which is part of the reason they are on the grand slam list). Ramirez clearly does the most damage with the bases loaded, driving in 1.275 runs per plate appearance. But once again, Ventura is the dog who has his day, as his OPS jumps the most with the bases loaded relative to these other players in the same situation.

Ventura is already in the record books for his grand slam feats. He is the only player in history to have hit a grand slam during both games of a doubleheader. He is also the only player to have twice hit two in a day, the doubleheader with the Mets in 1999 and once with Chicago in 1995 in the same game.

Where will he wind up on the all-time list (UPDATE: He retired after the 2004 season with 18)? Well, he’s in 9th place now, but that’s a lot different than being in 9th place in other categories. For instance, entering the season, the Rangers' Andres Galarraga was in 9th place all-time in strikeouts. Through perseverance, and his insistence at swinging and missing, Galaragga has already surpassed Dale Murphy and Bobby Bonds this year, to move into 7th place with 1,768 for his career. Despite his best efforts to not make contact, he will never catch Reggie Jackson, who sits safely (for now) at the top with 2,597.

On the other hand, Ventura is 9th with his 15 grand slams, while Lou Gehrig sits at the top of the list with 23. In front of Ventura sits one of the most awesome gathering of sluggers in the game’s history: Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Dave Kingman at 16; Ted Williams and Jimmie Foxx at 17; Willie McCovey at 18; Eddie Murray at 19, and Gehrig at 23. All are Hall of Famers except for Murray, who will be in a few years when he becomes eligible, and Kingman, who has the most home runs (442) of anybody eligible, but not yet elected, to the Hall (soon to be surpassed by Jose Canseco, who will someday be eligible, but won’t make it). In addition, Ventura’s grand slams are a much higher percentage of his total home runs (6.5%) than those ahead of him, with Gehrig next at 4.7%. At his current pace of one grand slam per 378 at bats, Ventura would need another 6-plus years of 500 at bats to catch Gehrig. Given his recent health issues, that’s an iffy proposition. But as we’ve seen, Ventura tends to perform much better under pressure.

Teddy Ballgame, Part One: 1941

2001-03-01T10:55:00.000-05:00

FROM THE BASEBALL GEEKLY FILES:

In our last column, we served up a take on the popular barroom debate topic: what makes someone a Most Valuable Player in Major League Baseball? As we learned, since the inception of the present form of the award in 1931, the MVP in each league has played for a playoff-bound team roughly 70% of the time. We saw that pure offensive dominance is not always enough, as we examined the cases of the Phillies' Chuck Klein in 1933 and the Yankees' Lou Gehrig in 1934, two players who won the Triple Crown Award by leading their leagues in batting average, home runs and runs batted in, but did not win the MVP award.

Think that's unlucky? At the intersection of baseball and unlucky is an institution known as the Boston Red Sox, whose most famous inmate was Ted Williams. The Red Sox' Ted Williams holds the dubious distinction of twice winning the Triple Crown and losing the MVP race in the same season. Today we begin the first of our four-part series on Williams, primarily focusing on the 1941 season of magic.

The 1940s were a golden decade for Williams, a native of San Diego. After his stellar rookie season in 1939, in which Williams hit .327, with 31 home runs and 145 RBI (the greatest rookie season ever?), he stormed into the 40s, racking up as many hitting accolades as nicknames. Named "The Kid" for his youthful exuberance, he applied all of his energy towards becoming a better hitter; his critics maintained that he and the Red Sox might have been better served if he had applied some of that energy to becoming a better outfielder.

Though Williams' home runs and RBI dropped off a little in 1940, he began to show increasing discipline at the plate, striking out less and improving his average to .344 (his career average, by the way). That season also featured the only pitching performance of The Kid's career. On August 24th, Williams pitched the final two innings of what would be a 12-1 loss to the Detroit Tigers, giving up one run on three hits, and striking out Tigers' first baseman Rudy York, who was in the midst of his best season. In a sweet bit of baseball symmetry, Williams' catcher that day was Joe Glenn, the same catcher who caught Babe Ruth's last pitched game, a complete game victory in 1933 for the Yankees.

The next season, 1941, would come to define Williams. With his scientific approach to hitting and his sweet sing, "The Splendid Splinter" launched an assault on American League pitching. After a May 2nd game against at Cleveland, Williams' average reached its lowest point of the season, at .308. After an 0-for-5 performance against Chicago on May 14th at Fenway Park, Williams was at .336. The next day, May 15th, began one of the most exciting periods of individual achievement in baseball history. Like the Yankees' Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris in 1961 (or for those of you under the influence of the Recency Effect, like the Cardinals' Mark McGwire and the Cubs' Sammy Sosa in 1998), Williams was not alone in his pursuit of excellence that summer.

After an early season slump, the Yankees' Joe DiMaggio, the two time defending batting champion, went 1-for-4 on May 15th with a scratch single off his bat handle. He did not stop hitting safely for over two months. Though DiMaggio captured more attention during the early part of that summer, Williams was certainly not just an also-ran. Between May 15th and June 7th, DiMaggio hit safely in 22 consecutive games. During that same period, Williams hit safely in 23 consecutive games, to lift his average to .431 (he had been as high as .436 through June 6th).

With the help of several favorable scoring decisions, DiMaggio kept the streak going into July. On July 2nd, against the Red Sox, DiMaggio hit a home run, running his consecutive games streak with a hit to 45, breaking Wee Willie Keeler's 1897 record of 44. DiMaggio broke the record using teammate Tommy Henrich's bat, as someone had stolen DiMaggio's favorite bat the day before during a rain delay. His record-breaking home run off Boston's Dick Newsome flew over the head of Ted Williams as it traveled into the left field stands. By the end of that game, Williams' average was at .401.

Going into the All-Star break, Williams was at .405 and DiMaggio's streak had grown to 48 games, through July 6th. The All-Star Game belonged to Williams. On July 8th in Detroit's Briggs Stadium, Williams came to bat in the bottom of the ninth against the Cubs' Claude Passeau. The score was 5-4 in favor of the National League, there were two out and two men on base. Williams won the game, 7-5, with one of the most dramatic hits of his career, a home run to the upper deck in right field. DiMaggio did double in the game, though it did not count towards the streak, as it was not a regulation game.

After the break, the attention quickly shifted back to DiMaggio. He kept hitting for eight more games, before the Cleveland Indians shut him down on July 17th, thanks mostly to the great defense of third baseman Ken Keltner and shortstop Lou Boudreau. DiMaggio's streak of 56 consecutive games with a hit stands to this day, and will likely never be broken; the closest anyone has come was Cincinnati's Pete Rose, whose streak hit 44 games in 1978.

During the streak, DiMaggio hit .408, with 56 singles, 56 runs scored and 55 RBI. Overall, he had 91 hits during the period, 15 of which were home runs. It should be noted, that in 34 of the 56 games, he had only one hit, thus truly relying on a combination of luck, generous calls and pure determination to keep the streak alive. After it ended, he then hit safely in 16 straight games, or 72 out of 73 games. This streak, too, will likely never be broken.

While DiMaggio continued his road to immortality after the All-Star break, Williams temporarily stumbled off the path. He went 0-for-5 in his first two games back, and then missed six of the next seven games due primarily to an ankle injury. After some limited play for three games, which included a pinch-hit home run, he missed another game. Entering play on July 22nd, Williams was at .396. The time off proved invaluable, as Williams resumed the race for .400. By the end of July he was up to .409 and by the end of August he was at .407. He had one more month to become the first player since the Giants' Bill Terry in 1930 to hit .400 for a season (Terry hit .401).

As the Red Sox were too far back to catch the first place Yankees, Red Sox manager Joe Cronin suggested that Williams sit out on September 27th in Philadelphia in order to maintain his average, which had "fallen" to .401. Williams played on, and went 1-for-4 to lower his average to .3995. Knowing that The Kid's average would be rounded off to .400, Cronin again offered Williams the chance to sit down in the season-ending doubleheader against the A's on the 28th. Again, Williams refused to sit out and rest on his record. Williams went 6-for-8 in the two games, ending the season with a .406 average. Williams, who turned 23 on August 30th that year, became the youngest player ever to hit .400 for a season. No player has since reached that lofty plateau, but perhaps this year, on the 60th anniversary of the feat, another Red Sox player from Southern California, Nomar Garciaparra, will make a run at .400 (UPDATE: Not quite, but Nomar did hit .372 that year).

After the season, the baseball writers voted DiMaggio the league's Most Valuable Player, edging out Williams 291-254. The 26-year-old DiMaggio, who had previously won the award in 1939, was favored largely on the strength of his 56-game hitting streak and the Yankees' berth in the World Series. Was Williams snubbed? Here are their major statistics for the season:

DiMaggio R 122 HR 30 RBI 125 BA .357 OBP .440 SLG .643 OPS 1.103
Williams R 135 HR 37 RBI 120 BA .406 OBP .551 SLG .735 OPS 1.286

Looking at the first four categories, we see that Williams bested DiMaggio in runs scored, home runs and batting average, while DiMaggio drove in more runs. But take a look at the next two "less glamorous" columns. Williams far surpassed DiMaggio in On Base Percentage, a measure of a hitter's ability to reach base safely (via hit, walk or hit by pitch) and Slugging Percentage, a measure of a hitter's ability to hit for power (total bases divided by at bats). The composite measure, OPS, which takes both into account, shows that Williams blew DiMaggio away.

But sportswriters in 1941 did not look at OPS as a measure of production, and barely do today either. But they should. What's truly amazing about Williams' OPS in 1941 is where it ranks all-time. Of the top eight OPS seasons, Babe Ruth holds spots 1-3, 5 and 7-8. Not too shabby. But Williams' 1941 season holds spot number 4 and another stellar year of his that we'll hear about later is at number 6. DiMaggio's 1941 season is good enough for 95th place on the all-time list. We might see someone with a .400 batting average again before we see someone duplicate Williams' 1.286 OPS (UPDATE: Barry Bonds has since taken hold of 4 of the top 8 spots, and Williams' 1941 season ranks 7th). The closest player since 1941 (other than Williams again) was Mark McGwire in 1998, who finished at 1.222, good for 12th place all-time. Of course, McGwire didn't win soakMVP that year either,soaking out to Sammy Sosa and his 1.024. Why? Sosa's Cubs made the playoffs, a recurring theme.

Value Play: Determining the MVP Winner

2000-12-22T10:42:00.000-05:00

FROM THE BASEBALL GEEKLY FILES:

What makes someone a Most Valuable Player in Major League Baseball? Is it based purely on overall individual statistics, or is it based on whether a certain player’s team makes the playoffs? Lately, the emphasis seems to be on a player’s perceived role in driving his team to the postseason.

This year the top three vote recipients in the American League played on teams that made the playoffs. This meant that the A’s Jason Giambi edged out not only the Blue Jay’s superstar Carlos Delgado, but also fellow playoff contenders Frank Thomas of the White Sox and Alex Rodriguez, formerly of the Mariners (prior to his signing with the Sultan of Brunei).

So what separated Giambi from these other great hitters who led their teams into October? A strong finish. While their statistics were fairly comparable, Giambi propelled the A’s into the playoffs with a phenomenal final month, in which he hit .396 with 13 home runs and 32 RBI.

In the National League, the top four finishers were all on playoff bound teams, with the Giants’ Jeff Kent beating out teammate Barry Bonds, the Mets’ Mike Piazza and the Cardinals’ Jim Edmonds. In this case, it appears that a slow finish hurt Piazza and to a lesser extent, Edmonds. But is there something odd about Kent and Bonds coming in 1-2? If both players were so valuable in helping their team reach the playoffs, then was either player really that valuable by himself? While the Mets could not have withstood the loss of Piazza, the Giants likely could have stayed alive without one of Kent or Bonds. Even though Kent did drive in more runs (125) than any of these competitors, he was likely rewarded for what he has done over the past four years rather for a particularly strong 2000 season. His 475 RBI since 1997 are the most ever in a four-year span for a second baseman, and when Giants’ manager Dusty Baker publicly voiced his preference for Kent over Bonds, he may have influenced the voters.

Certainly this year the playoff component proved important in both leagues’ MVP races, but has this always been true? The current form of the MVP award dates back to 1931, when the Baseball Writers’ Association of America began handing out the award. From 1911-1914, the most valuable player received the (Superintendent) Chalmers Award and from 1922-1929, the League Award. We will focus on the winners from 1931-2000.

In the American League, 70 players won the award in that span. Of those, 21 played for teams that did not make the playoffs; in fairness, though, we should not count 1994, as there were no playoffs that year due to the misbegotten players’ strike and the Commissioner’s resultant canceling of the playoffs. So then we have 20 out of 69, or 29%, of the winners whose teams did not make the playoffs. In the National League, 71 players won the award during the period, as the Cardinals’ Keith Hernandez and the Pirates’ Willie Stargell shared the award in 1979. Disregarding 1994, we have 70 players, 22 of whom did not play for playoff teams (31%). Therefore, since the inception of the award, voters have chosen a player on a playoff-bound team roughly 70% of the time.

Now, someone could write a sizeable book (and for a sizeable advance, I’d be happy to) about who did or didn’t deserve the MVP award in certain years. While we won’t conduct such an exhaustive survey in this forum, we will take a look at some interesting MVP winners and non-winners.

In 1933 the A’s Jimmie Foxx won his second MVP award in as many years, becoming the first back-to-back winner. He topped that off by winning the Triple Crown that year, leading the American League in batting average, home runs and RBI, at .356, 48 and 163. He had actually had a better year in 1932, at .364, 58 and 169, but lost the batting title to Dale Alexander, who after hitting .250 in 23 games with the Tigers that year, hit .372 the rest of the way with the Red Sox, to finish at .367.

Across town, the Phillies’ Chuck Klein was bidding for his second consecutive MVP award as well. After hitting .348 with 38 home runs and 137 RBI in ’32, he won the Triple Crown in ’33 at .368, 28 and 120 (joining Foxx as the only co-winners in the same year, let alone the same city; neither of their teams made the World Series, as the playoffs were then simply known, in their MVP years). But Klein’s feat was dwarfed in the eyes of the voters by Carl Hubbell’s masterful year on the mound for the Giants, in which he went 23-12 with an astounding 1.66 ERA. “King Carl” would be even better three years later, claiming the MVP again after going 26-6 with a 2.31 ERA, and beginning a string of consecutive victories that would end in 1937 at the still unbeaten number of 24.

So, overall how well does winning the Triple Crown serve as a proxy for winning the MVP award? If you lead your league in batting average, home runs and RBI, are you a lock? Not necessarily. Since 1931, only two National Leaguers, Klein and the Cardinals’ Joe Medwick, in 1937, have won the Triple Crown, and only Medwick won the MVP. In the American League, there were four “double winners,” including Foxx, the Yankees’ Mickey Mantle in 1956, the Orioles’ Frank Robinson in 1966 and the Red Sox’ Carl Yastrzemski in 1967 (with thanks to Al Weis, as we learned in our last column).

But two of the best hitters in the history of the game were denied such fates. In 1934 the Yankees’ Lou Gehrig continued the tradition of exceptional slugging first baseman established by Foxx. He put together what might be the greatest Triple Crown season, hitting .363 with 49 home runs and 165 RBI (these numbers are actually all lower than Foxx’ from 1932, but Foxx lost the batting title and thus, the Triple Crown). Gehrig’s stellar season was passed over by the voters in favor of that of Detroit’s sparkplug catcher, Mickey Cochrane.

After leading the Philadelphia A’s to three straight pennants from 1929-1931, Cochrane was sold to Detroit prior to the 1934 season; he then led the Tigers to consecutive pennants in 1934-1935. What makes Cochrane’s selection as MVP in 1934 so curious is that it was neither his best year, nor was he necessarily the most valuable Tiger that year. For the year, Cochrane hit .320 (his career average, by the way), with 2 home runs and 76 RBI. During that three-year stretch with the A’s he hit .331, .357 and .349. His home run total for the year was a career low, and he had driven in almost forty more runs just two years prior. His teammates Hank Greenberg and Charlie Gehringer were well ahead of him in batting average, home runs, RBI, runs scored, hits, doubles, and triples that year.

So was it defense that won him the award? Boston’s Rick Ferrell actually had a slightly better year behind the plate than Cochrane, but not nearly as good a year at the plate. Like Kent in 2000, maybe Cochrane was rewarded for several outstanding years as opposed to one single exceptional year. Fans of the Yankees might have a good argument that their own catcher, Bill Dickey, put up pretty comparable numbers over the same period, and never received the award. With Cochrane beating out Gehrig for the year, and Dickey for the period, you might think that Yankees’ fans would be pretty down on Cochrane. In fact, they would cheer his namesake for years to come. Mickey Mantle’s father named his son after Cochrane, not realizing that Cochrane’s actual name was Gordon, not Mickey. Mantle’s father’s name was Mutt; it’s unclear whether Mickey’s grandfather’s family dog had a more formal name.

New York Weis Guy Responsible for Big Hit

2000-11-16T18:20:00.000-05:00

FROM THE BASEBALL GEEKLY FILES:

In our last column, we took a look at some of the more unusual no-hitters in baseball history. In the recently ended Subway Series, there were no such feats, and regardless of how well the Yankees’ Roger Clemens pitched in Game Two, he could not duplicate the perfection achieved in 1956 by Don Larsen. If anything, Clemens may have been paying homage to Ted Williams, inviting the Mets’ Mike Piazza to discuss Teddy Ballgame’s other nickname, the Splendid Splinter. Speaking of hitting, while Derek Jeter was named MVP of the Series, it was the timely hitting of two less celebrated Yankee infielders that won Game One and the Series-clinching Game Five. Mid-season pickups Jose "at least I can reach first base on a throw" Vizcaino and Luis "they should name a neighborhood in New York after me" Sojo delivered the game winning hits in their team’s final at bats in those games. Their performances bring to mind another unheralded New York second baseman from days gone by who made a name for himself during the Fall Classic.

The New York Metropolitans were the joke of Major League Baseball for almost the entire decade of the 60s. From their founding year in 1962 through 1967, the Mets managed to lose fewer than 100 games only once, when they lost only 95 in 1966. After the 1967 season, the Mets sought some additional help at second base, a position that had been less productive for the Mets in ’67 than an Oklahoma farm during the Dust Bowl.

What they found was decent fielding, light hitting second baseman Al Weis, whom they acquired from the Chicago White Sox. Weis was a switch hitter until 1969, which really just meant that he couldn’t hit from either side of the plate. Prior to coming to the Mets, Weis was perhaps best known for colliding with Baltimore’s Frank Robinson on a play at second base in 1967, giving Robinson double vision and causing him to miss 28 games. Red Sox fans should thus include the name Al Weis in any talk of their Impossible Dream season of 1967.

Robinson was the reigning American League MVP when he was hurt. He had won the Triple Crown in 1966, leading the league in batting average, home runs and RBIs, and had led his Orioles to a sweep of the Dodgers in the World Series (where he was also the MVP). He was on his way to a second Triple Crown as well, but his injuries opened the door for the Red Sox’ Carl Yastrzemski, who won both the MVP and Triple Crown himself, en route to guiding the Red Sox to the 1967 World Series, where their Impossible Dream was indeed just that, as they fell to the Cardinals in seven games. The Curse of Weis continues, as nobody has won the Triple Crown since. History would later find Weis putting the hurt on Robinson one more time, as well.

Weis was a career .238 hitter before the Mets acquired him, but hey, the Mets had only hit .238 themselves in 1967, so how could they do any worse? Weis would never come within 20 points of .238 again, and retired in 1971 with a career average of .219. But what happened in between was magical nonetheless. Well, not all of it.

Weis did drop down to .172 in 1968, when he struck out three times as often as he walked. He also had the dubious distinction that year of being the last out in the longest shutout in Major League history, when the Mets lost 1-0 to the Astros is 24 innings. In 1969, he picked up his average to .215 while platooning primarily at second base and shortstop. Magic was in the air that year, however, as the Miracle Mets took advantage of a Chicago Cubs’ collapse (9-17 in the final month) and won the National League East. The Mets then swept the Atlanta Braves in the playoffs, despite home runs in each game from the Braves’ Hank Aaron, to become the first expansion team to make the World Series.

Though Weis had only one at bat during the series with the Braves, he saw the bulk of the playing time at second base in the World Series against the Baltimore Orioles, and he took advantage of it. Weis led his team with a .455 batting average, which included the game winning hit in the ninth inning of Game Two in Baltimore. He saved his biggest hit for Game Five, though.

The favored Orioles came into Shea Stadium for Game Five down 3-1 in the Series. The Orioles had jumped out to a 3-0 lead before the Mets scored two in the sixth inning, thanks in part to Cleon Jones’ propensity for clean shoes. No, they weren’t giving away runs for the best-dressed players. Jones claimed to have been hit by a Dave McNally pitch. His shoe polish on the ball proved that he had been struck, and Donn Clendenon’s subsequent home run brought the Mets within one run.

In the seventh inning, Weis did something that he’d never done before in his career. Weis did have six career home runs going into that game, but he had never hit one before his home teams' crowds in Chicago or New York. Maybe it was the electricity of being a Long Islander playing in Queens. Maybe he could feel the crowd’s excitement for the game (or for a recently opened mall!). Either way, Weis took McNally deep, and tied the score at 3-3. The Mets would go on to win the game and the Series.

The story of the Series would prove to be pitching, however, not hitting. The Mets held the Orioles to five runs in the last four games behind the strong pitching of young phenoms Jerry Koosman, Tom Seaver, Gary Gentry and Nolan Ryan. The great Frank Robinson was barely a factor, as the Mets walked him four times to keep the bat out of his hands. But Robinson and the Orioles would endure, as the O’s reached the World Series again in 1970 and 1971, winning it all in 1970. Weis would have 132 more at bats over the next two seasons before he was out of the game for good. His legacy endures, however, for Bob Costas, keeper of the flame, invokes Weis’ name during every postseason telecast. Maybe next year he’ll say "Sojo." Maybe next year the Red Sox will win the World Series.

Can't Buy a Hit: Notable No-Hitters

2000-10-19T21:02:00.000-04:00

FROM THE BASEBALL GEEKLY FILES:

In our last column, we examined the career of Virgil Trucks, with particular emphasis on the two no-hitters that he pitched amidst an otherwise dreary season for him and his team, the Detroit Tigers of 1952. This season that just ended featured another rarity regarding no-hitters: the absence of one. For the first time since 1989, no pitcher in Major League Baseball threw a no-hitter. The year was not totally void of pitching perfection, however: the Red Sox’ Tomo Ohka pitched a perfect game for Triple A Pawtucket, prior to his emergence as a member of the starting rotation in Boston.

When it comes to no-hitters, certain ones tend to stick out more than others. Certainly the most impressive form of no-hitter, the perfect game, gets a fair amount of attention. No talk of the impending Subway Series is complete, it seems, without somebody mentioning Don Larsen’s perfect game for the Yankees in Game Five of the 1956 World Series against the rival Dodgers, the only no-hitter in postseason history. Perhaps this was payback for the Dodgers, as their own Carl Erskine had thrown a no-hitter earlier that year against the subway-accessible New York Giants.

Some no-hitters are memorable due to sheer volume, mainly Nolan Ryan’s seven no-hitters (four for the Angels, one for the Astros and two for the Rangers) and Sandy Koufax’ four for the Dodgers. Others are simply more famous because they fell on certain days: the Indians’ Bob Feller threw the first of his three no-hitters on Opening Day in 1940 against the White Sox, the only Opening Day no-no; for the second of his two no-hitters, the Phillies’ Jim Bunning threw a Father’s Day perfect game in 1964 against the Mets, a team that only their mothers could love after they lost 109 games that year; and, the Independence Day no-hitter that the Yankees’ Dave Righetti threw against the Red Sox, a team that had clearly been granted freedom from their bats. And then there were Johnny Vander Meer’s consecutive no-hitters in June 1938, a feat that will likely never be broken.

Today we will take a closer look at a few other no-hitters that have something particularly unique about them. On October 15, 1892 (yes, American League fans, there was professional baseball prior to 1901!) Cincinnati’s Bumpus Jones made his major league debut. In what might seem like an auspicious beginning, Jones pitched a no-hitter against the Pittsburgh Pirates, winning 7-1. He was not perfect, as he gave up four walks, and he did not pitch a shutout, as an error led to an unearned run. But it was quite a start, and was his only start outing of the season. Surely this must have led to an illustrious career? Well, not exactly. Jones split the next year between Cincinnati and the New York Giants, appearing in seven games overall, while going 1-4 with an ERA over 10. Jones would never pitch in the majors again. He remains the only player in major league history to throw a no-hitter in his first game. He also holds the record for the latest no-hitter thrown in a calendar year.

Bobo Holloman began his major league career in 1953 with the perennially challenged St. Louis Browns. After spending the early part of the year failing as a relief pitcher, Holloman convinced his manager, Marty Marion, to let him start. Marion probably figured that if Holloman started, at least he couldn’t blow the game in relief. In his first start on May 6, he threw a no-hitter, beating the Philadelphia Athletics 6-0. His career night included three RBI and two hits, the only hits of his career. He would win two more games that year, but neither Holloman’s career nor the St. Louis Browns would be around after 1953. The Browns became the Baltimore Orioles the next year and Holloman became an ex-major leaguer.

Ted Breitenstein of the St. Louis Browns also pitched a no-hitter in his first start (but not first game) in 1891, but somehow avoided the fate of these other chaps. He would throw another no-hitter in 1898 for the St. Louis Cardinals, and won 160 games over 11 seasons. In 1998 the Blue Jays’ Roy Halladay was one out away from throwing a no-hitter in his second major league game, giving up a solo home run and walking none. Interestingly enough, Halladay had an ERA over 10 for the 2000 season. A Bumpus in the making, perhaps (UPDATE: WOOPS)?

On June 23, 1917 the Washington Senators were in Boston to face the Red Sox. The starting pitcher for the Red Sox that day was Babe Ruth, who was on his way to his second consecutive 20-plus win season. The first batter facing Ruth, Ray Morgan, reached on a walk, but Ruth did not agree with umpire Brick Owens’ call. Somewhere in between "Keep your eyes open" and "What did I do?" Ruth slugged Owens and was tossed from the game. Surely the Senators must have been relieved to have the great Ruth out of the game. Well, in came Ernie Shore, pitching on two days rest. Two years earlier, Shore had asked for a room reassignment because his roommate, Ruth, had poor sanitary habits. Yet again, Shore was asked to clean up Ruth’s mess. He promptly retired Morgan on a steal attempt; his day was just beginning. Shore proceeded to then retire 26 consecutive Senators’ batters, pitching the only perfect game in relief in major league history. Ruth, tired of walking batters, would later be known for doing a few things at the plate, including walking more than any other player in history, 2,062 times. That record though, will fall next year, as Rickey Henderson is at 2,060.

Our last no-hit oddity is bit more recent. It has been no secret in baseball the past few years that the thin air in Denver has led to some inflated hitting statistics for members of the Colorado Rockies. The ball tends to travel farther and pitchers’ breaking pitches tend to break less, giving hitters quite an advantage relative to other ballparks. So it’s no surprise that the Rockies have put up some otherworldly hitting statistics while playing at Coors Field. When the Dodgers’ Hideo Nomo came in to face the Rockies on September 17, 1996, the Rockies were hitting .348 at home, had scored a then-major league record 632 runs at home and had the highest home-field winning percentage in the league. Nomo, perhaps used to pitcher-friendly Dodger Stadium, pitched like he was at home. In his backyard. Pitching against the neighborhood kids. After a long rain delay, Nomo no-hit the Rockies that game, yielding four walks and striking out eight. Interestingly enough, Nomo claimed that because of the condition of the pitcher’s mound, he actually had to change from his usual windup to pitching from the stretch (which tends to slow down pitches) for better balance. The Dodgers seemed to have no problems with the weather, however, as they won 9-0. Bob Dole, seeking a late season push in his presidential campaign, told Southern California voters after the game that he wanted to be like Hideo Nomo of the "Brooklyn" Dodgers. Ouch. Saying "Los Angeles" there might have made the top listing on his resume "President, United States" instead of the current posting of "Spokesperson, Erectile Dysfunction." At least he now understands why the Rockies had trouble scoring that night.