Frayed Knot

I got all four answers in tonight's trivia contest. I can't prove that of course but you're just going to have to trust me. Or don't, what do I care.

From 1969 (when the save became an official stat) through the end of the 2009 season, the Mets played 3,085 regular season games in which a pitcher was credited with a save. In 561 of those games, the guy who got the save was the only pitcher for his team in the final inning and faced exactly three batters and gave up zero hits, walks, or hit batters. It's possible that in some of those games a batter reached on an error and was erased by a CS or a pickoff or a double play, so the 561 may be a little off. But the margin of error shouldn't skew the percentage by much. Even assuming that the 561 number is at least close (barring the few oddities you mentioned) the problem here is the denominator. Those 3,085 cases could include all kinds of one-out saves, three-inning blow-outs saves, and other assorted nonsense. What I'm looking to find out (and it isn't something I expected you'd have - although someone must) is of those saves when a closer is brought into the game for the now standard 1-inning/fresh-inning close - what pct of those saves are converted? and - what pct of those are saved in 1-2-3 fashion? I mean we can all bitch and moan about the save rule all we want but it's not going away and it's not going to be redefined. Besides, the bigger problem is not that it exists but that it's both treated too seriously and that all saves are treated as if they're the same. But while the idiots running baseball telecasts manage to come up with nonsense like what a batter's record is during day-game Wednesdays when it's at least 83 degrees while facing a lefty - and put that stuff up on a graphic as if they're telling you something meaningful - they manage to miss a ton of stuff that might actually inform us. Telling us how many saves a closer has is silly if you're not telling us what rate he's saving them at and how that compares to his peers. And, at the same time, complaining about how your closer makes you nervous with runners is just white noise when hardly anyone has any idea if their guy is better or worse than normal. What I suspect is that the overall blown save pct of these one-inning attempts is lower than many fans expect (my guess is around 75%) while the 'perfect inning' portion is considerably lower (less than half) but I'd like to find out for sure.

Maybe Johan can try getting the leadoff hitter once in a while so he's not pitching out of the stretch all the time. Dude's thrown like four pitches out of the wind-up the whole game.

ESPN game tonight for youse outta towners. Or at least it'll be a partial game telecast as they work it around all the cut-ins for ARod's ABs. Plus, there's no way of knowing whether any T.O. news will pop up.

btw, how cool was the advice (demand?) Gary claimed Cashen gave him prior to hiring him for the NYM radio (later TV) job? - on radio, Cashen said, the ball should always be described at being hit to a position not a person, whereas on TV the direction is obvious so the announcer should use the player's name. Now I never thought about that before but it's a good point. A description of "Line-drive towards Pagan ..." might cause the radio listener to have to think back to who was sitting (Beltran, Francoeur, Bay) that particular night and therefore where Pagan was playing. "Liner to Left, Pagan coming in on it ..." on the other hand negates that problem. On TV, "Lined to Left" is obvious since you're watching and the announcer still has to tell you who's out there. But "Lined to Pagan" says the same thing in a shorter time.

I rarely hear him on radio either for more than a few innings here and there so maybe he just hasn't had enough time to get on my nerves. What I do think is over the top is that a lot of the criticism I hear almost inevitably gets around to "he's not a Met", as if his lack of NYM pedigree and dearth of stories about romping around old Shea as a youth like Howie & Gary automatically disqualifies him from the booth.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, I can tell you this: from the first game the Mets played in 1962, through yesterday's game, and including post-season games (a total of 7,823 games) the Mets have played a total of 140,871 half innings. In 104,233 of those innings, the team at bat failed to score. That's just a shade under 74 per cent of the time. That "shade under 74%" mark was just about where the TV crew claimed the lg avg "shut-down" stat was -- IOW, little or no different (as I expected) from scoreless innings as a whole assuming these two samples are within normal range. You stat is the larger sample coming as it does from nearly half a century of data although does come from a traditionally lower scoring/good pitching team and also across eras that had lower scoring as a whole. Theirs comes presumably from just this year but combines all teams' games not just one.

Edgy DC wrote: This probably exists too, I'd like to see what perecentage of games featuring the winning team scoring more in one inning than the losing team scores in nine. If that number is impressive enough, it may serve as a meaningful warning against one-run strategies. I've actually seen that one although I don't have the specifics in front of me. IIRC it was around 2/3 of the time that the winning team scored as many or more runs in one inning than the losing team did in the whole game. And, yeah, it was presented as a kind of counter-argument to 'little-ball' although I'm not really sure it does that all that well. For one thing, the as many part of the clause guarantees every time the losing club is held to 0 or 1 run it applies, and virtually every time they score 2 runs it works also (the winner would have to put up a 'picket fence' at least 3 separate '1 and only 1' run innings for it not to). Take all that as a whole and I think it's less a pro- 'big inning' message than it is one that tells you that you win a lot if you hardly let the other guys score. What you really want to do is take out the 'as many' portion and also see how it still applies once you subtract the shut-outs and near shut-outs. I suspect it'll be less definitive then.

Now that this age of baseball is drowning in stats there's still a few I'd like to see but haven't. Maybe they're out there but I haven't looked in the right places. Either that of it's one of those things Elias has but will only tell you if you pay them. - What pct of innings (half-innings really) are scoreless? ML games have averaged around 9 runs/game in recent years or about 1 run per two half-innings. But the fact that runs are often scored in multiples means that more than half of the time a team fails to score during each "up" ... but what portion? This sort of came up the other day when someone flashed a stat (I think while Pelfrey was pitching) about how he was just under the league average for 'shut-down innings', counted as pitching a scoreless inning after your team scores. I believe the lg average was close to 75% and the implication was that this 'shut-down' number was some sort of "clutchness" stat for pitchers, that those with the built-in gene were better at tossing scoreless innings when they really, really wanted to. I suspect the 'shut-down' inning pct is in fact right around where all scoreless innings are but of course they didn't show that part meaning that by seeking to inform us they're really just further muddling the situation. - How many 9th inning saves result is a "perfect" inning? IOW, in those cases where a reliever is used in the now-standard "closer situation" [9th (or extra) inning, ahead by 1, 2, or 3 runs and comes in at the beginning of the inning with bases empty and 3 outs to get] how often does he not just save the game but do so with a 3-up/3-down inning? I mean if we (and by we I mean those in the sport and the media) are going to put so much emphasis on saves and the need for a designated closer, it would be nice to know how their guy is faring as compared to the universe of closers. As it is, it's bad enough that the pct of all saves that are blown is rarely discussed (I think it's near 20%) and I suspect the number of perfect ones is lower than most fans think (I'd bet under 50%) - something which likely contributes to fans thinking their guy is specifically a high-wire act.

Cora - 0.6 Davis - 0.8 Beltran - 0.5 Pagan - 0.8 JFeliciano - 0.5

Well, Braves lost and the Yanx lost (he says looking for silver linings). Phils headed to the 11th tied at 4 in the D of C

I'd be more inclined to just chalk this game up to one of those 'Suck Days' you have every once in a while -- y'know, if you're going to not hit, not field, and not pitch, you might as well not do them all at the same time -- if it weren't the 5th loss in 6 games against one of the bottom-feeders.

Ashie62 wrote: I am dissapointed that the Wilpons are distracted to the point where Sterling Mets is secondary. I don't even know what that means. Also not sure I want to. Lost in the deadline deals was the BoSox finally landing their catcher, sending several pieces to snag the mercurial Jason Saltalamacchia. No word whether the Rangers included numerous sew-on lower-case 'a's to go along. I guess 'Salty' gets to compete for the #1 catcher's job next season what with Victor Martinez headed for FA-gency after this year and Jason Varitek to the glue factory, but for now it gives them a third lousy defensive catcher. They also sent reliever Ramon Ramirez - the one rumored to be available for Barajas - to SF for a AA arm. Don't know anything about the guy - Dan Turpen - but his numbers don't look all that exciting and there's a big difference between a minor league reliever and the starting, or even platoon, catcher they supposedly wanted.

Takahashi - 2.8 Acosta - 0.4 PFelicano - 0.2 Rodriguez - 0.4 Pagan - 1.4 Wright - 1.9 JFeliciano - 1.6 Reyes - 0.8 Beltran - 0.5

Acosta - 0.5 Dessens - 0.5 PFeliciano - 0.5 Wright - 4.5 Reyes - 2.0 Pagan - 0.6

OK, I got around to this one via DVD in the last week --and thought it was pretty decent. It's really the Cherie & Joanie story, with the two stars representing why the band worked but also why it could never last. Joan, who formed the band because she had nothing to live for except rock and roll is in contrast to Cherie who - especially with the manipulations and marketing from their sleazy manager - was a main reason for the band's success but, unlike the others, was never really a R&R animal and, like the Bowie lip-sychs she did in HS talent shows, is more playing the role rather than living it. Jett has obvious affection for Currie, perhaps in part because they were occasionally swapping spit and who knows what else together, or perhaps because Jett is behind the story and gets to make herself look good. Either way, she realizes that Currie's presence gave the band life, but at the same time has a different long-term agenda. The rest of the band, as Soupie mentions, are pretty much background. Drummer Sandy West - as a "founder" with Jett - gets some early lines while Lita Ford gets to occasionally yell and scream in her role as the toughest chick in the room. Stewart's Jett is good. Fanning's Currie is portrayed more often as wasted and over-her-head and only occasionally projects the raw power combined with the jail-bait/sex-kitten appeal that was a big part of the band's early fame. Mgr Kim Fowley's role is sufficiently creepy. The movie's main attempt as re-creating a stage scene was 'Cherry Bomb' from a tour of Japan where the band briefly had an intense following: real: movie:

Huge Motherclucking* hit from Jesus. And let's not forget the nice inning for Frankie. * Keeping with the thread subject heading trend.

I'm monitoring three separate games at the moment [Mets-Snakes, Yanx-Rays, & Nats-Phils] and all three are tied up 4-4 in the 8th. I'd say that's pretty unusual.

How 'bout a big 2-out hit for our side for a change?

So this gives the Yanx a set of LH & RH DHs (Berkman switch-hits but isn't so good vs LHP) plus a matched set of fat, hard-throwing, under-achieving, former golden-boy RH set-up men. On the other hand, now the gimpy Posada can't DH as much and no more off-days for the aging left side of the IF as their DH-ing days are gone too unless & until they clinch a playoff spot.

Yanx are also paying (Off) Kei Igawa $4mil or so a year to pitch in the minors even though he hasn't been close to helping them anywhere and had the bulk of his money up front. Eating that deal would be a diet lunch compared to Luis's yet they somehow haven't been anxious to dine on it.

Rockies in bottom 8th inning vs Chicago Rox lead 5-2, Sean Marshall on the mound C. Barmes - Double M. Mora -- Single D. Fowler -- Strikeout R. Spilborghs -- Strikeout Looking OK, so it's 1st & 3rd with two outs, Rox have Huston Street warming up for the save ... but then C. Gonzalez -- Single (1 run) T. Tulowitzki -- Double (1 run) B. Hawpe -- Double (2 runs) That's enough of Marshall, Andrew Cashner in to relieve C. Iannetta -- Triple (1 run) I. Stewart -- Home Run (2 runs) C. Barmes -- Single M. Mora -- Double (1 run) D. Fowler -- Home Run (2 runs) R. Spilborghs -- Single Out goes Cashner, in comes Brian Schlitter C. Gonzalez -- Single T. Tulowitzki -- Double (2 runs) B. Hawpe -- Walk (ending a run of [u:pqtjljnv]ELEVEN[/u:pqtjljnv] straight hits - ML record) C. Iannetta -- Walk and finally ... I. Stewart -- Flyout leaving the bases loaded Your final: Rockies 17 - Cubs 2 Thank you and please arrive home safely And you wonder why Lou is retiring.

The guy they got for Capps is a catcher because Flores's rehab is not going well at all. Don't think he can be counted on for much of anything anytime soon. Harper too is at least 3 years away - and that's from being a 20 y/o rookie. Strasburg & Zimmerman are a good start of course, but that's two. Who knows what the team looks like when Harper is near ready.