19 Responses to “Sunday roundup”

1. Andrew Says:
   May 3rd, 2010 at 10:23 am

   Santana just hasn't been the same guy since the Mets acquired him.

   Um... you do realize that the most of the poor outings that show up in your lists above were when he was with the Twins?

   I would say his performance may have decreased somewhat in the last year or so, but in 2008, his first year with NY, he led the league in ERA and IP.

   In any case, his 2010 hasn't been that bad except for two unfortunate innings-- he gave up 12 in those two innings and only 4 in the remaining 32 that he has pitched this year.

   So, unless you were expecting Cy Young-quality Santana circa 2004 (and who is?), I'd say Mets fans don't need to worry at all about their ace.

2. Andy Says:
   May 3rd, 2010 at 10:30 am

   Yeah I realize that. I also realize that he had a lot more years with the Twins to amass that number of poor starts, but those 2 at the top are by far the worst.

   I agree that a less effective Santana is still a good pitcher. He's just not an ace anymore.

3. DavidRF Says:
   May 3rd, 2010 at 10:44 am

   Santana was notorious for being a slow starter when he was in Minnesota. In his aforementioned amazing 2004 season, his ERA was over 5.50 as late as Memorial Day.

   Plus this is just a lone fluke start. His ERA was 2.08 yesterday morning.

4. DavidRF Says:
   May 3rd, 2010 at 11:21 am

   Also on Sunday, Wilson Ramos did something that ESPN and MLB reports has only been done 21 times in modern history.

   A play index search "From 1920 to 2010, In first 1 games, (requiring H>=4)" finds twelve of them (including Ramos). Does anyone have information on the other 9?

5. Andy Says:
   May 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 am

   I will post it later today.

6. Vidor Says:
   May 3rd, 2010 at 12:15 pm

   This is nitpicking, and I do realize that they count as CGs, but it's hard to describe a pitcher as going the distance when they threw less than nine innings, as all the CG losers in your list above did.

7. Andy Says:
   May 3rd, 2010 at 12:16 pm

   They count as complete games by official stat rules of MLB. Period.

8. Rich Says:
   May 3rd, 2010 at 12:27 pm

   Yeah, it's not the pitcher's fault that they couldn't pitch the 9th since the game was over.

   Some people I talked to said Santana's pitching motion looked really odd last night. I say "odd" because I don't remember the exact terminology they used, perhaps 'dropping his elbow' and so forth.

   Anyone else notice this?

9. Austyn Says:
   May 3rd, 2010 at 2:15 pm

   That was Greinke's second complete game L when only giving up 1 ER run, it happened last year versus the Angels for his first L of the season.

10. Dave Says:
    May 3rd, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    Andy, in saying that Santana is "just not an ace anymore," what standard of "ace" are you holding him to? We all know that he's no longer as dominant as he was in his prime with the Twins, when he was a 230-strikeout, sub-1.000 WHIP, 5/1 K/BB pitcher. Even still, in 65 starts with the Mets, he has a 143 ERA+, a 1.184 WHIP, and a 3.18 K/BB. That's a decline, but still superb. He's 49/65 in quality starts (and only six of those QS have been the "cheap" 3-in-6 kind). Coming into last night's game, he had a 2.08 ERA with 28/9 K/BB in 30.1 innings to start the season, and had given up one run or less in four of his five starts. Sounds like he's still an ace to me, and one brutal inning doesn't change that.

    If you really want to keep things in perspective, note that Pedro Martinez had a game score of 8 on a July 18 start in 1999--a season in which his average game score was 69 and his ERA+ was 243. Even the best can be the worst for one day.

11. Andy Says:
    May 3rd, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    Dave, I think you might be reading more into my comments than I really intended. Santana is not as good as he used to be but it still a very good pitcher. He's experienced the normal decline expected for a guy of his age. He's had some injury scares and has sprinkled more bad starts since the trade. That's all I really mean.

    I'd be curious to see the top QS fractions over the last few years. Maybe I will look that up and post about it.

12. DoubleDiamond Says:
    May 3rd, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    I was also going to point out that all of the complete game losses were eight innings on the road plus one rain-shortened game. If any were walk-off 8 1/3 innings, 8 2/3 innings, or 8 innings with winning run scored in the bottom of the 9th with none out, would they show up in the list as 8 or as 8 and some fraction?

    I'm actually surprised to see two National League games in the list. If an NL team is losing that late in the game, they're almost certainly going to hit for the pitcher at some point. Most likely, the pitcher's spot didn't come up in the top of the 7th or 8th, and if it then came up in the top of the 9th, they did hit for him then, without at least tying the game. Yes, a pitcher gets credit for a complete game if he was lifted for a pinch hitter in what turns out to be his team's last at-bat.

13. Vidor Says:
    May 4th, 2010 at 9:43 am

    As I said, I'm aware of how MLB counts complete games. But eight innings is not "going the distance", and getting wistful about an eight-inning complete game (much less a five- or six-inning "complete game", as two of the examples above are) seems a little bit weird to me.

    Actually, this is one of MLB's stranger scoring rules. It directly conflicts with the requirement that a no-hitter has to go nine innings to be an official no-hitter. How can Andy Hawkins get credit for a complete game in which he allowed zero hits but not be credited for a no-hitter?

    It would make more sense if credit for a complete game was withheld for outings of less than nine innings. Then, once we've taken care of that, we can do away with the practice of not charging an at-bat for a sacrifice fly (how is it a "sacrifice" if you swing away?) and the equally bizarre custom of crediting an RBI on a bases-loaded walk (you get a run BATTED in when you don't bat the ball?).

14. Andy Says:
    May 4th, 2010 at 9:51 am

    re: bases-loaded walk---you're BATTING aren't you? You're AT-BAT aren't you? You're the BATTER aren't you? So why shouldn't get a run BATTED in?

15. Vorp Opiescu Says:
    May 4th, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    Regarding Varitek, Ortiz, and the events of Monday night ... a post from Baseball Think Factory:

    "I can see a solution to base runners running wild on Red Sox catchers. The Red Sox could get Kevin Youkilis a Taser to hide in his pocket. When the runner on first tries to steal 2nd base, he pulls it out and *crackle* ... stolen base prevented."

16. DoubleDiamond Says:
    May 4th, 2010 at 10:44 pm

    I can understand the RBI on a bases-loaded walk, since the batter presumably exercised good judgment in not swinging at the bad pitches. This is what Jamie Moyer did in Sunday night's game against Santana, no doubt.

    Getting an RBI on a bases loaded HBP is less logical, although maybe it's a consolation prize for depriving the batter of the chance to get an RBI had he not been hit. Then again, first base is only supposed to be awarded if the batter made an attempt to get out of the way of the pitch. The most famous bases-loaded situation in which a batter did not get award first base because the umpire decided he didn't attempt to get out of the way was probably the one involving Dick Dietz against Don Drysdale in 1968. It extended a hitless inning streak that Drysdale had going and which eventually developed into a record-setting one (since broken).

17. Dave Says:
    May 5th, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Andy, I understand your point about Santana; I was just quibbling with your judgment that he's no longer an "ace." Just arguing semantics I suppose.

18. Vidor Says:
    May 5th, 2010 at 10:40 am

    "re: bases-loaded walk---you're BATTING aren't you? You're AT-BAT aren't you? You're the BATTER aren't you? So why shouldn't get a run BATTED in?"

    Because you did not bat the ball.

19. Andy Says:
    May 5th, 2010 at 10:56 am

    You're using an awfully narrow and specific definition of a word first employed in the game more than 120 years ago. He DID bat, he just got on base without putting the ball in play. Why can't the 'batted' in RBI refer to a player who came to bat instead of a player who touched the ball with the bat? It's not Runs Hit In or Runs Scoring While Ball is in Play.