Ceetar

I'm curious now what percentage of innings are no-hit innings. and how that relates to the 51% of finishing it after 8th.

1627,696,331,169 I'm 99% confident in those numbers. I'm pretty sure my query is correct. I calculated 169 no-hitters through 9 and Wikipedia lists 166 from 1952-2013 on the no-hitter list page. Must be 3 that didn't end there due to tie score. you got me curious. Oddly enough, I saved the file in stats/retrosheet and named it nohitterafter7.sql from 1952-2013 there were 1627 no-hitters through 6 innings, 696 through 7, 331 through 8 and 169 through 9 10.38% of no-hitters through 6 finish through 9. (you can ignore those 3 that didn't end, since that's really an argument about the offense) jumps up to 24.28% if you make it through 7. and 51.06% if you make it through 8. my query is on an innings level, I could probably tabulate based on outs somehow but that requires some though.

a ran a query a few years ago for someone about total no-hitters through..6,7,8 innings. Can I find it? (I found my Twitter DM about it. 32 games in 2012 got through 6 innings and 1593 since 1952) If I can find the query itself in one of my .sql files I can rerun through 2013 and change that to 7, 8, 9 innings and do a little math to see percentages.

Mariners still trying to kill Tejada. beaned this time, out of the game. walked off under own power though. Concussion test time.

#wor Here's some buzzwords about weather and summer and fuel economy now buy a Honda.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I don't feel like we're playing our very best at the moment but to say this is a Big Game for the SHaMs is to insult all other Big Games. Gotta get right before a 4-gamer in Beertown. Indeed. If we can muddle along at .500 by winning today between 8-2 stretches we'll be alright.

Edgy MD wrote: Please pick a selection below that best represents your general attitude. Feel free to elaborate below. but but the selections are ABOVE Don't do anything. These situations often resolve themselves in some ways. And if the Mets don't actually climb into a pennant race, you can do whatever you want in late August/September. 6-7 man rotations, bullpen, early shutdowns for some, etc. Especially if he/they starts to look gassed.

NL Rookies, fWAR Billy Hamilton 3.2 Chris Owings 1.9 Jacob deGrom 1.3 .. d'Aranud 0.7 .. Eric Campbell 0.4 Jeurys Familia 0.4

Matt was with Shannon Rusbuldt and others in a private karaoke room. Katy shouted hi to them and Matt got flustered or broke concentration or something. Just scathing stuff. Whoever ran to the press to report that tidbit has a bright career in journalism ahead of them.

Frayed Knot wrote: 9.075 is shorthand for 9 years plus 75 days (days, not games) and with 172 days making up a full season* that's just shy of a year and a half so the elapsed time since opening day 2014 gives David the full 10 years (give or take a day or two). He's never been sent down since his call up and DL time counts as service time as long as you were on the ML roster at the time of the injury. * I believe it's 182 days technically that make up a complete season but there's some clause that allows players within ten days of that to get credit for a full season (hence late April call-ups for some young players - it won't delay arbitration but it can delay FA-gency) Yeah, I knew the math was close but timing and calendars and who knows. Why does baseball insist on using fake decimals that you only understand if you get it? 3.2 IP is poor too. Especially when most of that stats DO correctly use decimals so it's confusing. argh. Probably a boxscore/space constraint thing?

Gwreck wrote: Gwreck wrote: Not that we would ever think of such a thing but David now has no-trade rights. I'm sure he's had them at least since he signed the big contract. Cot's Contracts does not reflect this. Can't find any reference to a clause when I google his new contract. the 10-5 rights are a service time thing though right? Baseball Reference says he had 9.075 or something as of January, so he might not be quite at 10 yet.

This was okay. It was a little slow and awkward at times though. But rarely when the "drinking buddies" were together which I guess helps emphasize the point. The resolution seemed very forced and abrupt though. Particularly when they're moving the couch and then when they're done with all the moving and have that little fight. Just seemed rather plodding and then all of a sudden "here you are, some resolution" and done. Made me want a beer though.

Frayed Knot wrote: The Angels acquired San Diego closer Huston Street and a prospect for four minor-leaguers on Friday night, potentially ending Los Angeles' search for relievers less than two weeks before the trade deadline. ESPN.com's Jim Bowden and FoxSports.com's Ken Rosenthal reported the news via Twitter. Prospects Taylor Lindsey, R.J. Alvarez, Jose Rondon and another Minor Leaguer will head to San Diego while the Angels will also get right-hander Trevor Gott. Then Angels Got gott!

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Found the hole. This is probably his best game ever. That's what she said.

Ceetar wrote: okay Duda, let's not mess around with extras after everyone's rested. Drive. Him. In. Come on Travis, let's not mess around with extras after everyone's rested. Drive. Him/Them. In.

okay Duda, let's not mess around with extras after everyone's rested. Drive. Him. In.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I assume all the sane people happily went to bed when this game wasn't a nailbiter. Two great plays keep this one tied, as Tejada and Lagares really earn their Schaef geez, it's the ninth already? it's 1am? yikes. having company tomorrow so I've been making baked ziti, potato salad, and tiramisu. listening on the radio app and now that it's 3 seconds ahead of the TV it's nice, because I can look up or head over to see the big plays.

3-0! dunker! Seems fair to give Nieuwenhuis a shot. imo he's shown that he can probably do what you expected Young to do, strike out way too much but deliver some serious SLG/speed/defense otherwise.

TransMonk wrote: I took 30 and see I'm the only one going that low so far. Where is all of the second half improvement going to come from? Wright, d'Arnaud, Wheeler, Syndergaard, LF trade/promotion, some run differential regression

I picked 86 wins, and I also pick 86 wins as the number of wins needed to win the division. There are always teams going crazy the second half Last year, Dodgers were 47-47 at the break. Went 45-23 (.662) 2012 OAK was 43-43 went 51-25(.671) 2012 BAL 45-40, went 48-29 (.623) 2011 DET 49-43 went 46-24 (.643) 2011 MIL 49-43 went 47-23 (.671) 2011 LAD 41-51 went 41-28 (.594) tons of examples of teams playing at over .600 from the ASG on.

I think I saw Tremors 1 and 2 years ago. 10pm. that's just cruel.

Sorta like 2001. RkPlayerIBBGPAHROPS1Sammy Sosa37160711641.1742Barry Bonds35153664731.3793Manny Ramirez25142620411.0144Jason Giambi24154671381.1375Luis Gonzalez24162728571.1176Vladimir Guerrero2415967134.9437Carlos Delgado2216270439.948 8Chipper Jones20159677381.0329Cliff Floyd1914962931.96810John Olerud1915967921.87311Mike Piazza1914157336.957 12Rey Ordonez17149505=#FF0040]3.635 13Todd Helton15159697491.116 14Moises Alou1413658127.949 15Brian Giles1416067437.99416Jim Thome14156644491.04017Fred McGriff1314658631.93018Gary Sheffield13143618361.00019Mike Sweeney1314763229.91620Jim Edmonds1215060830.974 Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used Generated 7/17/2014.

Edgy MD wrote: Seaver-in-his-prime could probably be better described as a cold fish than an asshole. But he sure was ahead of his time with regard to carefully planned image management. well my impressions of Seaver are mostly filtered through his work as a broadcaster. I was thinking of a quote that I can't find that Seaver uttered about acting like winners or not tolerating losing or something like that in 67 or 68. It was portrayed like Seaver willed the Mets to be winners with bravado.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Edgy MD wrote: But come on. He TOTALLY plays into it. Cashes in that stupid CLASSY brand for all it's worth, giving more time, effort, and thought to massaging the image than actually living up to it. Oh, this. So VERY much this. . Yes, yes. But the success of this bullshittery depends in large part on a medium willing to swallow it -- or unwilling to reject it. And maybe his success at selling it is what they reward in contrast to Arod whom they gleefully shoot down for the crime of desiring to be percieved as Jeterian. People are stupid, and they buy what the media sells. Especially before the social media age. It's a lot of chicken/egg stuff, they swallow so the media covers it that way, and the media spews the stuff because they swallow it, etc. And at the time there wasn't a lot of blogs/twitters/etc preaching other lines of though, it was just the mainstream guys. And then he won, which is sorta which Deadspin mentioned, that it reinforced a narrative about how ballplayers are supposed to behave and holds up guys who have won to a different standard. And like Edgy said, they shoot down Mets, in part because the Mets being losers is the narrative right now. But just wait, if the Mets go to the World Series next year with Harvey being a brash out-going Seaveresque asshole, you might as well deify him.

d'Kong76 wrote: He probably has a staff that massages it as well. And a different staff for a different sort of massage. But he's so self conscious about his image he says as little to the media as possible and retreats, drops "This is the only time I'm talking about this" ultimatums (AND THEY LISTEN?!) and bans cell phones from his friends when he has parties at his house.