THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews

Buy The Book from Amazon


SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Monday, November 02, 2009

“The Pedro I know”

By Tangotiger, 11:29 AM

Jonah gives it to us.  And, as far as I’m concerned, I call it a perfect game.  I don’t like the idea that HIS TEAM has to score a run for PEDRO to get credit for a perfect game.  And I know all about what a “game” is.  No need to state the obvious.


#1          (see all posts) 2009/11/03 (Tue) @ 12:00

I think this is waht you mean by not stating the obvious, but I can’t resist.  He didn’t pitch a perfect game.  He pitched a perfect 9 innings.  Since his team did not score, it was not a game, any more than pitching to one batter is a “game”.  Really?  You think pitching an incomplete game is a perfect game?

I know you’re a hockey fan - if a game is scoreless and goes into that shootout (that’s what they do if it ends tied, right?) do the goalies get credit for shutouts (is that even a hockey stat?).  Serious question.


#2    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2009/11/03 (Tue) @ 12:08

Jon: that is exactly the obvious that didn’t need stating.

How about a 5-inning regulation game that ended because of rain.  That is a “game”, and you can be “perfect”.  How about the distinction between an 8-inning and 9-inning game?

If it makes you happier, he pitched a “perfect 27”.  Are we THAT hung up on the definition of words that I am not allow to alter the definition that I am forced to create a new word?  Really?  That’s what I have to do?

***

NHL: yes, shutouts are a stat, and YES, both goalies get the shutout, if the game gets into a shootout.  However, if it gets into overtime, and ends in OT, prior to shootout, then there’s only one shutout.

I’d have no problem giving both goalies a shutout.  There was a playoff game, I think it was 0-0 Hasek/Brodeur that finally ended in triple OT.  If someone wanted to call that two perfect games, I’d be ok with it.


#3          (see all posts) 2009/11/03 (Tue) @ 13:26

Perfect 27 would be great.  A game is clearly defined, and there is no ambiguity whatsoever in that definition, so that’s why I’m opposed to calling this a perfect game.

I would have no problem whatsoever with 5-inning rain-shortened game being considered a perfect game.  Anecdotally, of course, people would say “oh, yeah, that’s the guy that got one because of rain”, etc.  But it was an official game, and the pitcher was perfect.

Is it “fair”?  Of course not.  Just as it’s not “fair” for me (the pitcher) to get a loss if I allow zero hits or walks, but my SS drops 15 popups and I lose.

This is no different than awarding the team a win for winning a 5-inning rain-shortened game, a hitter winning the batting title with 502 PA over someone with 800 PA.

My problem is that why should this stat be treated any differently?  How about shutouts?  If the game is scoreless going into the 10th, and I (the starting pitcher) give up a run in the 10th and lose, do you think I should still get credited with a shutout?  (again, a serious question...)


#4    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2009/11/03 (Tue) @ 14:15

Well, jon, MLB doesn’t agree with you:

“On April 21, 1984, [David] Palmer made an unusual kind of baseball history when he threw a five-inning perfect game in the second game of a doubleheader at Busch Stadium against the St. Louis Cardinals. Officials called the game on account of rain, and major-league baseball officials later struck the game from baseball’s official list of perfect games since it only lasted five innings.”

So, MLB has already decided to tinker with the definition of “game”.  If they can change the definition, so can I.

(Palmer was actually in the record books.  They retroactively removed it.  I don’t see why MLB or Elias Sports Bureau have to be the arbiters of history.)


#5          (see all posts) 2009/11/03 (Tue) @ 14:53

Right, and I disagree with that.  As well as the removal of 8-inning no-hitters, etc.

My point is that it’s hypocritical to require pitchers to pitch the entire game (including extra innings) to get credit for a shutout, for example, and not for a perfect game. 

“If they can change the definition, so can I.” - with this, I respectfully disagree, but it’s up to you if you want to make things up on blog that’s supposedly driven by facts.

I don’t like that they changed it, but they did.  I don’t like that they are arbiters of history, but they are. 

Things said in court are stricken from the record all the time, right?


#6    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2009/11/03 (Tue) @ 15:15

"I don’t like that they are arbiters of history, but they are. “

Ah, but they are NOT the arbiters of history.  They are the arbiters of history for those who choose to rely on them for that.  They have self-interests to be that.

History is truth.


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional; WILL be published)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

Feb 11 20:29
Who is Jeremy Lin?

Feb 11 20:11
Clutch analogy

Feb 11 20:11
Fighting leads to goals?

Feb 11 19:55
Why do players get crappy caps?

Feb 11 19:12
Hero of the month: Brittney Baxter

Feb 11 17:59
MGL: Today on Clubhouse Confidential

Feb 11 16:48
Reader Mail of the Day: Why do we need X years of fielding data?  And what about outliers?

Feb 11 10:29
Dwight Evans

Feb 11 02:12
Performance through the ages

Feb 10 23:01
For Your Soul