Fireworks in Denver
Posted by Andy on July 5, 2008
Last night, the Rockies became the third team since 1956 to win a game in which they allowed 17 or more runs:
Cnt Date Tm Opp GmReslt IP H R ER BB SO HR Pit Str IR IS BF AB 2B 3B IBB HBP SH SF GDP SB CS Pk Ptchrs ERA +----+-------------+---+----+-------+----+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+--+--+---+---+--+--+---+---+--+--+---+--+--+--+------+------+ 1 2008-07-04 COL FLA W 18-17 9 22 17 17 6 4 2 189 117 5 3 56 47 7 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 6 17.00 2 1979-05-17 PHI CHC W 23-22 10 26 22 19 3 4 6 2 1 59 56 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 17.10 3 1969-08-03 CIN PHI W 19-17 9 21 17 17 4 6 3 97 65 6 5 51 47 4 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 5 17.00
It's the first such game (since 1956) not involving the Phillies.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Why limit yourself to "since 1956"? Since 1901, the only teams to allow 17+ runs and win are the three above, the 1932 Athletics, and the 1922 Cubs. The Athletics game is very famous. 10 July 1932, their starter got knocked out of the box early, Eddie Rommel came in to relieve and stayed in, pitched 17 innings (Connie Mack had only brought two pitchers with him for the one-game road trip to Cleveland), and won, 18-17, his last career victory. The Cubs beat the Phillies, 26-23, on 25 August 1922. So a Philadelphia team was involved in all but the most recent game.
It probably happened a few times in the 19th century, too, but I don't have an easy way to find those games.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
This page is called the Baseball-Reference.com Play Index Stat of the Day, so every post incorporates the Play Index. Because the index doesn't have data from individual games before 1957, the stat often requires the "since 1956" qualifier. Simply ignoring the Play Index and looking at all of the games would be counterintuitive to the site's purpose of using the index.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
BunnyWrangler, I don't think gerry was criticizing Andy. Gerry seems to be the biggest proponent of the often overlooked games index available on baseball-reference.com. Since Sean posted with it yesterday, I assume that it is legal for use on the SOTD. The tool can be used to find out this information, although I think it takes more than just one search.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
If the purpose of the page is to show off the Play Index, then maybe contributors should be careful not to submit studies that can be done even better with other tools. Though I hope it doesn't go that way - I was very happy to see Andy's contribution. I would have been even happier if he had gone the extra mile and asked himself whether he could get more out of it, but a great thing about this site is that it lets random people like me go that extra mile and share what we find with whomever is reading here.
The existence of the pre-1956 games can be found with one search of the games index. The information on the exact dates took a little more work, and of course the extra details on the 1932 game were found offsite.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Everybody needs to take a deep breath.
The purpose of the blog is not so much to "show off" the PI. Sean enabled a few interested people like me the opportunity to use the PI and post stuff. I myself am a paid subscriber. I get no compensation from B-R.com other than the enjoyment of getting to post and interact with you folks. Nobody is getting paid for this, nor has Sean ever tried to get us to "push" the PI or try to convince people to buy a subscription.
Gerry--the reason why I didn't show those games from before 1956 was that I didn't know the games index existed. I don't have an infinite amount of time and haven't explored everything that is available. I also have other blogs (such as 88topps.blogspot.com) not to mention a real full-time job and a newborn baby at home. You are absolutely right that this is a collaborative environment and it's great that you took the time to add more information to my post through your own research. Your attribution of me not going the extra mile is, however, inappropriate. Most of the other authors here barely ever post, and I am going the extra mile by trying to keep fresh content here. I'm sorry if you don't appreciate that. I would assume, as well, that you've seen other posts I've made where I've taken PI data and manipulated and graphed it in Excel. Does that qualify as going the extra mile?
And meanwhile, the debates of whether posts should use only the PI or use external sources are moot. The point of the site is baseball and baseball stats. The only other content that I see as relevant is discussion of what is specifically available through the PI, otherwise on B-R.com, and in other places. Philosophical discussions about this blog seem, however, pointless.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Andy, keep up the good work.
And I'll keep challenging you to do even better.
And if sometimes I make an inappropriate choice of words, and cause offense, don't take it personally - it's just me, hitting out blindly at a cruel world where my Yankees haven't won a World Series since the year 2000.
I feel much better now. Thanks.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Check out the Chicago Cub bullpen from the '79 game.
Four pitchers who went on to accumulate at least one 30 save season and 681 career saves- including the starting pitcher, Dennis Lamp, who later enjoyed success as a reliever...most notably a 11-0 record for the '85 Jays !