Tim McG Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 If I were a praying man, I'd pray the Giants never win another game. And that is what the rivalry is all about. Quote
PHILLYQ Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 From wiki: July 21, 1945: Les Mueller put on one of the greatest pitching performances in major league history. Mueller pitched the first 19-2/3 innings for the Tigers and left having given up only 1 run. No pitcher has thrown as many innings in a major league game since Mueller's feat. The game lasted 4 hours and 48 minutes before umpire Bill Summers called the game a 1-1 tie due to darkness at 7:48 p.m. (Shibe Park had lights, but the American League had a rule against using the lights during a scheduled day game.) What was his pitch count? Quote
papsrus Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 I was wondering that, too. Didn't see it. Quote
JSngry Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 I don't think they even took pitch counts back then. Quote
Dan Gould Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Posted July 21, 2011 Not only were pitch counts not so important, but I would hazard a guess that working counts and getting on-base weren't as important either. Which implies that while "old time" pitchers pitched deeper into games and more often (because of the four-man rotation), its also probably true that they got away with throwing fewer pitches per batter. Makes the innings pitched just slightly less impressive. but only slightly. Quote
JSngry Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 ...I would hazard a guess that working counts and getting on-base weren't as important either. An interesting notion. Any grounds for that, or just a hunch? Quote
papsrus Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 I think it's safe to assume he would have been well north of 200 pitches. Assuming 15 pitches per inning X 19.66 innings = 294 pitches. I have no idea if 15 per is a valid average, but even assuming 12 pitches per inning, that = 235. Quote
Dan Gould Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Posted July 21, 2011 ...I would hazard a guess that working counts and getting on-base weren't as important either. An interesting notion. Any grounds for that, or just a hunch? Mostly a supposition based on the fact that perceptions of OBP changed so drastically so recently, so extrapolating backwards, how common was the batting approach to hack at the first good pitch? Obviously the best hitters had high OBPs both because they were selective and because they were pitched-around. But your average major leaguer - did he work a pitcher to get into the soft-underbelly of the bullpen? I don't think so ... Then again, the phrase "a walk is as good as a hit" has existed since time immemorial, so who really knows, right? Quote
JSngry Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 Pretty much! My hunch is that whatever the baseball equivalent of a "palooka" might be, it is indeed devolving its way out of the game, especially since a good OBP can wield much leverage at contract time, But like all devolutions, there'll always be vestiges, and there will have always been those who were there before the general trend began. Tell you what, though, the reflexive/compulsive first-pitch swinger cannot be gone from the baseball gene pool soon enough for me. Make the pitcher WORK for cryin' out loud! I'm wondering what Ty Cobb's lifetime OBP was... Quote
papsrus Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Link. Ty Cobb had a .432 career on base percentage. Another link says .431. Edited July 21, 2011 by papsrus Quote
Quincy Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) I think the key to that game stat is that it was 1945. The war years produced some funky stuff. Deception and working the count are ancient concepts that started as soon as the game was invented. Trying to get batters to chase bad pitches lead to bases on balls being introduced. In the game's beginning (1860s) for a time it was considered more manly to get a hit than a walk. A guy like Youk would be called "a waiter at the bat." By 1876 taking a walk had gone from "moral cowardice to the epitome of courage." [p 84, A Game Of Inches - Peter Morris] Also very early on pitchers and managers paid attention to how a batter's feet were positioned as a sign of what type of pitch he was expecting. Observation and keeping a book on hitters didn't need no stinkin' computer or vidya recorder 'n' such. Pitch counts [p.366 same book] date back to the 1860s but they were kept by scorekeepers and not much was done with them. Robin Roberts say Paul Richards kept track of them in the 1950s with Baltimore. Roger Angell in 1971 also noted that "one team limits its youngsters to maximum of 100 pitches per game." That said, the widespread severely anal adherence didn't happen until the '90s. Edited July 21, 2011 by Quincy Quote
BERIGAN Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 From wiki: July 21, 1945: Les Mueller put on one of the greatest pitching performances in major league history. Mueller pitched the first 19-2/3 innings for the Tigers and left having given up only 1 run. No pitcher has thrown as many innings in a major league game since Mueller's feat. The game lasted 4 hours and 48 minutes before umpire Bill Summers called the game a 1-1 tie due to darkness at 7:48 p.m. (Shibe Park had lights, but the American League had a rule against using the lights during a scheduled day game.) What was his pitch count? Hey may still be alive! Someone should ask him... Also, they may want to find out if that game played a part in him not pitching the majors after 1945 http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/muellle01.shtml Quote
PHILLYQ Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) Mueller may have been one of the WW2 era players who wouldn't have made the majors except for all the regular players who were in the war. Edited July 22, 2011 by PHILLYQ Quote
papsrus Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 My dad asked me a baseball question the other day I had no answer for. (He likes asking those kinds of questions). Why is home plate shaped as an irregular pentagon? Why does it have five points while all the other bases are square? Nearest I can figure is that it was designed that way for the purpose of exactly measuring out all the other distances on the diamond (pitcher's mound, etc.) -- a point being a much more specific spot to measure from than the flat edge of a square. A quick web search turns up a few arguments that the shape makes it is easier for an umpire to judge whether a pitch crossed the plate, but I'm not sure why that would be. In fact, intuitively it seems like it could make it more difficult (four corners being a more distinct shape than five). Anyways, curious. Quote
Dan Gould Posted July 22, 2011 Author Report Posted July 22, 2011 I'd rather talk about the wonders of baseball - like Sabathia getting beat by the Rays when I was certain the Sox lead would be cut to one game last night. Now could unlikely outcomes continue and we'll see Lackey beat King Felix tonight? That's got to be less likely than James Shields outdueling Sabathia, but hope springs eternal. Until it doesn't. Quote
JSngry Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 It's got the square in front to define the strike zone, and the triangle in back to generate the foul lines http://www.aluminumbats.com/baseballdiamond.aspx Quote
papsrus Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Ah, there it is. Thanks JSngry. On Shields vs. Sabathia last night -- very enjoyable game to watch. Quote
JSngry Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Back in my high school days, I was a little league groundskeeper one summer. Believe it or not, they gave me a book of really specific guidelines as to exact measurements, placements of lines, and all that. Sometimes when it's not too hot, I like to get out to the ballpark early, watch some BP, and then watch the grounds crew prep the field for game time. Truth be told, I think that being on a big league grounds crew might be one of the hipper jobs going. Don't know how much it pays, but think about being at every home game at field level, with your only real work being before/after the game & between innings. How cool of a gig is that? Quote
Dan Gould Posted July 22, 2011 Author Report Posted July 22, 2011 I'd rather be batboy. You're in even closer to the action, and you get to slap hands with the players when they score or hit a homer. And you don't get on Youtube or SportsCenter because you couldn't hold down the tarp in a typhoon. Clubhouse attendant would have its advantages and disadvantages. You're hanging around the clubhouse but also picking up disgusting jocks, etc. And I'm sure you get the pleasure of catering to the whims of those players who are world-class a-holes to the hired help. If you like being a gopher you're helping out your favorite players but overall I would think the coin is pretty good. In the visitor's clubhouse each player is supposed to tip the attendant(s) so you're getting that nice bonus about 25 times a season and I would think that if you work on the home clubhouse you get a real nice tip at the end of the year from a lot of people. Quote
Neal Pomea Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Truth be told, I think that being on a big league grounds crew might be one of the hipper jobs going. Don't know how much it pays, but think about being at every home game at field level, with your only real work being before/after the game & between innings. How cool of a gig is that? It beats selling beer in the seats! Looks like a back-breaking job! Quote
papsrus Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 I'd like to own one of the concession stands. Quote
MartyJazz Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 I'd rather talk about the wonders of baseball - like Sabathia getting beat by the Rays when I was certain the Sox lead would be cut to one game last night. Now could unlikely outcomes continue and we'll see Lackey beat King Felix tonight? That's got to be less likely than James Shields outdueling Sabathia, but hope springs eternal. Until it doesn't. Yeah Shields, who is a very good pitcher BTW despite a mediocre record, outdueled CC but what really bugged me about this loss was the sight of Farnsworth getting a save by striking out the side in the 9th, all KOs resulting on 3rd strike swings at pitches out of the strike zone. Ugh! Quote
Dan Gould Posted July 22, 2011 Author Report Posted July 22, 2011 Imagine how Yankee and/or Red Sox fans will feel if somehow Farnsworth is the closer on the AL Champions. Quote
Dave James Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Mark Teixeira finished June with 25 home runs and 63 RBI's, a .243 average, .351 on-base percentage and .541 slugging percentage. Those numbers have dropped dramatically in July, as he is hitting .238 with no home runs and only four RBI's in the first 16 games of the month. His on-base percentage is .314 and he's slugging an anemic .302, further evidence of a power outage. More great news. This has all the earmarks of another questionable long term investment. Teixeira has 5 1/2 years left on a $180 million deal. Swell. Quote
papsrus Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Yeah, shame about that championship, too. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.