Friday, October 8, 2010

Halladay and Lincecum

Game Score is a Bill James invention, a little statistic that gives you a quick and easy, single-number look at how well a pitcher pitched. My sense is that it has always supposed to be little more than a bit of shorthand fun ... but I think it has turned out to be one of Bill's more delightful inventions. The numbers just FEEL right.

In Game Score, a 50 is just about an average game.

In Game Score, a 100 is pretty much perfection. It's a crazy hard thing to get a 100 Game Score. No pitcher in the history of the baseball postseason has thrown a 100 Game Score. There have only been 63 Game Scores of GREATER than 100 in all of baseball history, and only three of those happened in nine-inning games:

1. Kerry Wood's 20-strikeout, 0-walk game (105 Game Score).

2. Nolan Ryan's 16-strikeout, no hitter in 1991 (101 Game Score).

3. Sandy Koufax's perfect game in 1965 (101 Game Score).

All the other greater-than-100 Game Scores were extra inning performances -- Joe Oeschinger's 26-inning, 1-run game in 1920 has the highest Game Score ever at 153. Well, the man pitched 26 innings ... give him his due. Carl Hubbell's 18-inning shutout against the Cardinals scored a 132. Gaylord Perry's 16-inning shutout against Cincinnati scored a 112. Juan Marichal's 16-inning shutout against Milwaukee scored a 112. Those Giants have had some long shutouts.

Harvey Haddix's 12 2/3 inning, one-hitter -- which began with 12 perfect innings -- scored a 107.

So, 100 is just about perfect. In fact, Randy Johnson's perfect game in 2004 scored precisely 100. So did Nolan Ryan's no-hitters in 1972 and 1973.

A 90 or better is pretty close to legendary. Roger Clemens' 20-strikeout game scored 97. Tom Seaver's 19-strikeout game scored 96. Clay Buchholz's no-hitter scored 93.

An 85 or better is sensationally good. Edwin Jackson's 8-walk no-hitter was an 85. Complete game shutouts usually score in the 80s, though there are exceptions. Milt Gaston's rather remarkable shutout in 1928 -- when he allowed 14 hits and struck out only two -- only scored a 59. In the last five years, there have been 275 complete-game, 9-inning shutouts thrown. Of those, 233 scored at least in the 80s. The lowest Game Score was Pat Misch's shutout against Florida in 2009. He allowed eight hits, walked three, struck out only two and scored a 70 Game Score, which is still very good.

The best Game Score of 2010 was Brandon Morrow's complete-game one hitter where he struck out 17. That scored exactly 100 on the scale. Roy Halladay's perfect game scored 98. Dallas Braden's perfect game scored score 93. Armando Galarraga's imperfect game scored 88.

Again, I don't think Game Scores are supposed to be considered gospel; but they are fun ways to compare some of the great pitched games (and, frankly, a fun way to compare some of the lousy ones -- Scott Kazmir's 5-inning, 11-hit, 13-run game this year scored a minus-8 for instance). And figuring them is pretty easy.

-- Start with 50 points.

-- Add a point for each out, and two more for each inning completed after Inning 4.

-- Add one point for each strikeout.

-- Take away two points for each hit, 4 points for each earned run, 2 points for each unearned run and 1 point for each walk.

That's it. That's the whole thing. It really is an elegant little formula.

OK, so all of this is just another way to put into perspective the two remarkable pitching performances we saw the last two days. In the long history of postseason baseball there had only been had only been 11 Game Scores of better than 90. Remarkably two of those performances were by Randy Johnson in the 2001 postseason. He had a pair of 91s, one of them against Atlanta in the NLCS (9 innings, 3 hits, 11 Ks, 1 walk) and one of them against the Yankees in the World Series (9 innings, 3 hits, 11 Ks, 1 walk -- eerie).

The best ever postseason Game Score was recorded by Roger Clemens against Seattle in 2000 -- he threw a 9-inning one-hitter with 15 strikeouts. That scored a 98. After that you had Dave McNally's 11-inning shutout against Minnesota in the 1969 ALCS and Babe Ruth's 14-inning, one run performance against Brooklyn in the 1916 World Series. Both of those scored 97.

Then there was Don Larsen's perfect game (a 94) and Ed Walsh's 9-inning, 2-hit, 12-strikeout game against the Cubs in the 1906 World Series (also a 94).

Which brings us to 2010. On Wednesday, Roy Halladay threw that no-hitter against the Reds. What was most remarkable to me about the no-hitter was the same thing that was so remarkable about Halladay's perfect game early in the year -- his overwhelming brilliance choked the life out of the baseball drama. That is to say: Once he got going, as a baseball fan I never had any doubt that he would throw the no-hitter. No doubt at all. I wasn't on the edge of my seat wondering if the Reds would get a hit. I knew they wouldn't.

Halladay's no-hitter was so dominating that when he walked Jay Bruce, my only thought was: "Oh, that's too bad. Now he will only throw a no-hitter instead of a perfect game." And that was in the fifth inning. And that was two or three innings AFTER I felt sure that the Reds would not get a hit.

In my lifetime, only Halladay has given me that sense of certainty. Pedro Martinez at his peak is the best pitcher I ever saw. Greg Maddux at his peak was my favorite pitcher, the closest thing to an artist I ever expect to see on a baseball diamond. Roger Clemens' dominance, Randy Johnson's dominance, Dwight Gooden's dominance in 1984 and '85, Johan Santana's dominance in the middle part of this decade, Steve Carlton's dominance, Tom Seaver's dominance, Ron Guidry's dominance ... they all had their own special character.

But only Halladay -- for me, anyway -- pitches with what I call "retroactivity." When Halliday is on, like he was against the Reds, it honestly feels like I'm watching him on replay, in a Ken Burns documentary, like the thing has already happened and it's already famous like the Thrilla in Manilla or the Texas-USC game. I feel like I'm watching it for the fifth or sixth time. It's a bit like a new song that sounds like you have already heard it a hundred times before.*

*In case you were wondering, the new Ben Folds-Nick Hornby album is out. I have been waiting for it for months and months -- I'm a huge fan of both Folds as musician and Hornby as writer -- and I have been DYING to see how this collaboration would work. I bought the thing on release day. And, well, I'm not going to lie to you: It's not as good as I hoped ... maybe it will work better for me after a couple more spins. Maybe I'll give it a full review then.

But I can tell you there's one great song on there -- a song called "Belinda" about a one-hit wonder singer who is asked nightly to sing the popular love song he wrote for someone he left many years ago.There's a song within the song which Ben Folds tried to make sound like an old song that would sound unnaturally familiar. I think he did a pretty remarkable job of that. The song within the song sounds like something you heard years ago even though, of course, you did not. Somehow, some way, that connects to Halladay for me.

Halladay's genius against Cincinnati drew a 94 Game Score ... same as Larsen's perfecto. Halladay struck out eight, walked one, broke bats, broke Cincinnati hearts, left them all in helpless heap and scored the second-highest postseason Game Score of the last 40 years.

And one day later ... Tim Lincecum outscored him. Watching Lincecum for me sparks very different emotions from watching Halladay. Everything about Lincecum is fresh, new, unpredictable, alive. Halladay's greatness (and I love this about him) feels like it is in grainy black and white, like we are watching Christy Mathewson or Three Finger Brown or Pete Alexander. Lincecum's greatness is in 3D, it pops off the screen, it drops your jaw.

At one point in Thursday's mind-blowing game, Lincecum struck out on Brooks Conrad on some sort of ridiculous super pitch -- Conrad seemed to literally swing through the ball (he foul tipped it). Bob Brenly called it a change-up. I shouted, "Come on Bob, that wasn't a change-up. That was a curveball." And so I rewound the thing and watched it. And I said, "Oh wait, maybe he was right. Maybe it was a change-up." I rewound again and watched and said, "No, that wasn't a change-up. That was a slider." I rewound again and watched and said, "No, wait, I think that WAS a curveball." I rewound again and finally settled on it being a slider. But really it was some sort of shape-shifting pitch. It could be whatever you wanted it to be.

That's the sort of pitch Lincecum throws several times a game -- the sort of pitch that made Satchel Paige say: "I never threw an illegal pitch. The trouble is, once in a while I toss one that ain't been seen by this generation." Lincecum threw 10 or 15 generation pitches on Thursday, sliders that burned out and disappeared like they were entering the earth's atmosphere, change-ups that sputtered and coughed on the way to the plate like old Buicks, fastballs that seem to skip double-dutch just as they arrive at the plate. Maybe the skateboard-dude persona adds a little to the act. Maybe the crazy motion that convinced too many scouts to pass on him in the draft adds a little to the act.

Whatever ... watching Lincecum pitch is like watching Magic Johnson in his prime, like watching Gale Sayers when he was healthy, like watching John McEnroe when he was in shape and at the top of his game. There's the greatness part, and then there's something a little extra, this buzz of hope that you will see something that you have never seen before. Lincecum struck out 14, walked 1, allowed two hits and so electrified the San Francisco crowd I could feel AT&T Park shaking from 1,500 miles away. I have never seen that before. Not quite that.

Lincecum's 96 Game Score ranks fourth all-time in postseason play. It also scores higher than Halladay's no-hitter. There will be some people who don't like the way Game Score weighs strikeouts and walks, who think no-hitters and perfect games should ALWAYS score higher than non-no-hitters and non-perfect-games and I get that. But there is another side to the issue. There are people who believe that these are the only things a pitcher has any real control over: Strikeouts, walks and home runs allowed. There is a lot of fascinating statistical evidence on the subject.

Not that it matters. I don't know which was the better-pitched game. It's hard to pick against a no-hitter. But it's also hard to pick against a 14-strikeout shutout. It's hard to pick against searing, inevitable dominance. It's also hard to pick against buoyant, overpowering pitching joy.

In the end, they were two of the greatest postseason performances ever in the postseason. There has been a lot of Year of the Pitcher chirping all year, and I'm not sure I ever really bought in. There have been dozens and dozens of better years for pitchers in baseball history. Put it this way, pitchers had a lower ERA every single year between 1954 and 1986 than they did this year.

Still, unquestionably, there was a shift this year. Pitchers did record their lowest ERA since 1992. We did have two perfect games. We did have a whole bunch of no-hitters and near no-hitters. We did have a serious drop in batting -- hitters hit only .257 and slugged only .403, and you have to go back to before the strike to find hitting numbers that low. There are countless off-the-cuff explanations for this which you can find all over the Internet.

But it's fun when you can move beyond the explanations and just enjoy the moment. We are in an era of some pretty remarkable pitchers -- Felix Hernandez, Justin Verlander, Ubaldo Jiminez, Josh Johnson, Adam Wainwright, C.C. Sabathia, Cliff Lee, Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz, Matt Cain, David Price, Cole Hamels, Roy Oswalt, Jered Weaver, Zack Greinke, Francisco Liriano and so on, I'm not going to name them all.

And in this remarkable era, we got to see perhaps the two best, Halladay and Lincecum, on back-to-back days throw playoff games for the ages. Not bad. Not bad at all.

46 comments:

  1. I managed to catch the last four innings of Halladay's game, and TBS had that strike zone diagram on the screen the whole time, the one that shows all of the pitches of each at-bat. It showed just how zoned in he was. The number of pitches that crossed the plate right on the edges of the strike zone was staggering. It was an amazing display of control.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're brilliant, Joe. And I just had finished a comment on your previous blog, advocating instant replay despite being a Giants fan, because the "call" was taking away from Tim's epic performance. And here you are, eloquently giving both him and Halladay their credit. Made my day. Www.paapfly.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. MLB Network ran a clip of all 14 of Timmy!'s strikeouts this morning, and say what you want about Wild Thing Mitch Williams -- he was right about the locations. Lincecum got WAY more "swinging at balls" strikeouts than I have ever seen in one performance. It's like Joe said: the hitters of this generation hadn't seen pitches like that before. Mind-blowing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Timmy was on. The only question while watching was whether the Giants would be able to score in the 9 or 10 innings he would be able to pitch. The Braves' hitters (almost as much a misnomer as saying "the Giants' hitters", every game in this series could be 1-0) didn't have a chance. The leadoff double was a bad, fat 3-1 fastball, McCann's double was about the only good swing by a Brave in the game and he got a fastball, too. Other than those, I was amazed how many swing-and-miss strikes Timmy got. The five straight K's of Lee through Conrad in the 1st and 2nd was as good as I've ever seen any pitcher be, and then he just kept it up. His ball was alive and there was no way to tell which pitch was coming.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One more thought -- I've heard that batters are trained to look at the pitcher's cap logo to get the right height to pick up the ball and release point. Does Lincecum's neck crane throw them off, and is that part of the secret of his swing-and-miss stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The "retroactivity" term and description is brilliant. It's stuff like this that makes you the best in the business, Joe.

    You're not alone in your feelings watching that Halladay game. I always expect no-hitters to get broken up but with Halladay I felt certain he'd do it as early as the sixth. The way he was going in the eighth and ninth, it felt like he could have gone 12 or 13 if he needed to.

    The last out and celebration was almost anti-climactic in a way, as strange as that sounds for such an amazing feat. At the end of most no-hitters, there's a huge emotional release of tension and a feeling that the pitcher has escaped the pressure by finally getting through that ninth inning. In this case, he was so dominant that the final three outs felt automatic. Instead of the pitcher escaping the pressure it felt like he would have had to throw three more innings to even get to the point where there would be a lot of pressure, where there would be any doubt if he could do it or not. Incredible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Perfect description of Halladay. But the Lincecum thing is even MORE than what you say.
    It's the 17-year-old kid mop of hair, the how-does-he-throw-so-hard-with-no-build frame, the funky motion, the how-did-I-get-here smile, the... Well, you get the drift.
    But for me, it's a simple thing: Time. With his (lack of?) mechanics that must put a bone-bending amount of torque on his elbow, and the genre-defying pitches that dart, dive, rise and roll, I always have the thought that that day may be it. Of course, I hope to be wrong, and Big Time Timmy Jim has a 20-year career full of wonder and amazement.
    Halladay is the opposite. He just... is. He's the lingering moment between relaxing and napping. A yawning masterpiece.
    Watching Halladay pitch is like watching Crosby skate. The glitz and glamour, if present at all, is buried under a blue collar. The maximum effort as casual as a sweatshirt.
    Lincecum is SportsCenter's dream. A man-child that throws a Corvette fastball, a Pinto change and a variety of clown-car whiffle-balls.
    Halladay is CSPAN. The highlights buried under glazed stares and ho-hum procedure. Only when the process ends, when a hit fails to fall, does the man get his moment. Not a highlight, because there was really nothing to see that one hasn't seen before.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Halladay = Rembrandt. Lincecum = Van Gogh

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Take away two points for each hit...and 1 point for each walk."

    So Bill James believes hits are twice as valuable as walks?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great post Joe. Two other differences stand out: Lincecum did give up a couple of rockets, where the Reds couldn't manage to square up anything on Halladay. There weren't even any hard-hit outs. Also, Halladay was pitching against the best lineup in the National League, while Lincecum faced a pathetic Braves squad missing two all-star regulars.

    That said, I agree that both games were remarkable, and you can't really go wrong choosing between them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Roy Halladay's no-hitter was the finest effort on the mound that I have ever seen EXCEPT for Jack Morris throwing a 10-inning complete game shutout to edge John Smoltz and the Atlanta Braves, 1-0, in game seven of the 1991 World Series.

    Morris, who went all 10 that day, and Smoltz, 7.1 scoreless innings before giving way to Mike Stanton and Alejandro Pena, excelled in the final game of a World Series. Morris scattered seven hits and two walks, but never had a respite due to the outstanding efforts of Smoltz and later Stanton.

    Morris shined on three days rest, against another pitcher stringing up zeroes, and in the final game of the World Series with everything on the line.

    Make no mistake: Halladay threw a no-hitter. Morris did not. But Halladay did so in the opening game of the first round of the playoffs and with the benefit of a 4-0 lead.

    The reasons put Morris's superb effort just an eyelash ahead of Halladay's outstanding performance.

    ReplyDelete
  12. i really want to see a top 32 ben folds (five) songs post.

    belinda is clearly the best song on lonely avenue, but i think there are a few other gems on there, too. i've warmed up to it more after 5 or 6 listens. but i was equally dissapointed, probably because i had my hopes up so high.

    this coming from a guy who starts his stories about where he was on 9/11 with... 'it was a pretty good day at the start, when i got up early to go to wal mart and got my copy of rockin the suburbs before the guys had even put them on the shelves.'

    ReplyDelete
  13. OK, I'll say (write) it:
    Where did the runs go? Where did the steroids go?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Matt: have you ever seen a runner score from 2nd on a walk? So yeah, hits are more valuable.

    stcloudgopher: find the archived SI article about Lincecum, about how his father (an engineer) taught him to pitch and how his motion puts almost NO stress on his arm at all. Fascinating read.

    ReplyDelete
  15. game score is an interesting metric, but i'm not sure i like a metric where a 9 inning, 27 strikeout perfect game gets a 114.

    the fact that hits are worth twice as much as walks has to do with the fact that hits can be more than one base, but walks can't. right? i'm sure bill james was using some sort of averages to make that distinction.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think the only distinction James intended to make between hits and walks in this context is that it seems more dominant and more impressive when a pitcher doesn't allow a hit.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @gBayemporium: Or have you ever seen a batter get to 2nd (or 3rd, or home) on a walk?

    @Anonymous 11:39AM: Bingo! You got it!

    It's just a fun toy to give SOME idea of the quality of the pitcher's performance.

    It only adds to the fun that it is astonishingly (especially for something James just slapped together one day) accurate. IIRC, the average game score for all of 2009 was 50.4, so pretty much half the games were worse than 50 and half were better, whic is exactly what you would want that metric to show.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jack Morris pitched to the score. Halladay obviously did not.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Matt, David, Anonymous and gBay...you are all missing the point, and the last 3 of you are missing Matt's original point.

    Matt's original point, I think, was meant sarcastically. As in how could the ultimate abremetrician claim that hits are twice as valuable as walks when sabremetricians are known for screaming at the top of their lungs that walks are either just as good or very nearly as good. I think Matt was expressing his belief that indeed hits are much more valuable than walks.

    But here's the thing. Walks are very nearly as good as singles. Nobody has every contended that they're almost as good as extra-base hits. But game score treats singles, doubles and triples exactly the same. They're all -2. So that is why hits are -2 and walks are -1.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I just looked it up and Jack Morris's game score on October 27, 1991 was 84 (7 hits [2 of them doubles] and 2 walks). A very, very good game by a resident of the Hall of Very Good.

    Let me point out again to any Davids that the All-Dave All-Star team has two pitchers who tossed perfect games, four others with no-hitters to their credit, and David Price (for starters).

    I do not believe that batters (even a reborn Willie Keeler) can swing against Halladay or Lincecum in top form and place the ball in between fielders. I think the difference between Halladay's no-no and Lincecum's 2-hitters was luck, and that belief does not in any way depreciate what Halladay did.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I just looked Joe Oeschger (82-116) up. Despite that great 26-inning 153-GS performance on May 1, 1920, he led the NL only in bad things: losses (1918), earned runs and homers (1920), walks and HBP (1921), and wild pitches (1922). But he lived to be 94, and he had one hell of a story to tell about the old days.

    In the same game, Leon Cadore also pitched 26 innings, with a game score of only 127. His bio on baseball-reference includes, "It is said that Cadore faced 96 batters and spent the next 36 hours in bed."

    ReplyDelete
  22. David,

    Unfortunately, Mr. James's statistical formula does not account the setting in which a game was pitched.

    Hence, Mr. James gives more credit to Kerry Woods's 20-strikeout masterpiece in a meaningless regular season game and less credit to Jack Morris's 10-inning shutout in the seventh and deciding game of the World Series.

    If you wish to assert that an athlete's performance should be viewed separate and apart from the setting in which the athlete performed, feel free to do so. However, you should be aware that, for example, Alex Rodriguez was viewed by many as an underachiever until his performance in the 2009 playoffs and World Series and that Bobby Cox, while a Hall of Fame manager, has always been seen as something of an underachiever for his teams' repeated inabilities, despite making the playoffs 16 separate times, to win more than one World Series.

    Excellence, I submit, has much more to do with merely an athlete's performance; instead, excellence is based on the setting or environment (title game, etc.) in which the athlete triumphed. Unfortunately, Mr. James, like many statisticians, cannot quantitatively value or analyze pressure and/or separate the regular season from the postseason.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Seeing you again, anon,

    I don't think Bill James gives more credit to the Woods game than to the Morris game. I think his shorthand formula allows one to calculate quickly how dominant a pitcher was in any particular game. The quality of the opposition and importance of the game are, as you say, for our further consideration.

    When every pitcher has the opportunity to start a WS game seven, we can compare them on the basis of what they accomplished in that setting -- if we believe that what a pitcher happened to do in one game is a fair evaluation of his greatness. (I will be partial to Bob Gibson's 81 innings pitched in 9 games over 3 World Series, regardless of how all the game 7's turned out or the particular BJ game scores.)

    84 is very, very good, and in the setting of October 27, 1991, a great game. First Blyleven. Then Morris.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Unfortunately, Mr. James's statistical formula does not account the setting in which a game was pitched."

    @Anonymous: True.

    Now, name one statistic that does.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Speaking in favor of Jack Morris's 1991 game 7:

    He didn't just breeze through the game, or completely dazzle the opposition with shape-shifting pitches. Morris had runners on base in 5 innings, two in the 3rd and 5th, the bases loaded in the 8th. Five times he got the Braves 1-2-3, but he also battled and persevered through 126 pitches (7 more than Lincecum, 22 more than Halladay).

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Anonymous: True.

    Now, name one statistic that does.

    @David,

    No statistic does. That's why baseball remains, at its very core, a subjective game with a single object: victory.

    Statistical analysis in baseball is little different than Efficient Market Theory. Numbers used to inform can be the basis for a decision. Numbers used as gospel will make you look like a fool.

    That's why value added investment and the baseball scout remain vital today and in the future. The late-Bill Walsh said it about great quarterbacks. It can be said about most great athletes. You cannot measure the great ones, but when you're there, when you see them in action, you get a feeling, a feeling of greatness.

    I respect Bill James. Mr. James, however, can only ask questions and provide portions of answers. He has caused us to again consider how the game is and should be played. But Mr. James and the various individuals who attempt to quantify greatness in some mathematical formula, cannot measure neither the mind nor the heart. No one can. So applaud their efforts. Just don't believe they have all the answers or that their postulates are beyond scrutiny and, yes, even error.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Favorite part of the wood 20 K game: the astros' 3-4-5 went 0-9 with 9 Ks

    ReplyDelete
  28. see...

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHN/CHN199805060.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hudson Valley SlimOctober 8, 2010 at 4:54 PM

    "Lincecum threw 10 or 15 generation pitches on Thursday, sliders that burned out and disappeared like they were entering the earth's atmosphere, change-ups that sputtered and coughed on the way to the plate like old Buicks, fastballs that seem to skip double-dutch just as they arrive at the plate."

    Writing like this rivals Lincecum's ridiculous pitching. Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Is a baseball game supposed to be exciting for its spectators? If that's one of the purposes, surely that helps to explain our esteem for Jack Morris's 1991 game seven.

    Inning eight, Twins' win probability plunges from 50% to 24% and roller-coasters back to 61%. Morris gives up a single, then a double. Ron Gant's grounder fails to score a run. An intentional walk loads them up. No place to put speedy Sid Bream. And the strategy works, double play, no score! Whew!

    Is this BETTER than Halladay's 8th inning (K, 1-3, K) or Lincecum's (6, K, K)? What is the "better" definition of "better"? It was game 7, it had a wider audience, it will be remembered more than Lincecum's game. It caused more heart attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Some observances about the Kerry Wood game:
    It was against a bat-heavy Astros line-up that was in the middle of winning 3 straight division titles...they won 102 games that year (1998). The lineup featured future HOFers Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio in their primes, along with Moises Alou, who came in 3rd in the NL MVP voting that year. IOW, it was a pretty stacked, playoff-calibre lineup.

    It was a one-hitter, and that one "hit" was a highly controversial one...a weak tapper at 3rd baseman Kevin Orie that he misplayed. It could have easily been ruled an error.

    To add to the "buzz" factor, Wodd was only 20 years old, and this was, I think, his 5th start ever. He was thought of at the time, exactly as Stephen Strasburg is thought of today.

    Twenty K's, against that lineup. Worthy of the #1 Game Score of all-time.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think it was start #6 for Kerry not 5. And the ball to Orie probably should have been an error. It was in the hole a bit, but it should have been an out. I bet it would have been ruled an error if it happened later in the game rather than the 3rd inning.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @ David,

    Halladay loses, Phils trail best-of-five 1-0.

    Lincecum loses, Giants trail best-of-five 1-0.

    Morris loses, Twins lose World Series.

    Morris did it with no tomorrows, all the money on the table, and history as his lone measuring stick.

    Halladay and Lincecum, while superb and slightly less superb, had history as their only variables. Each had a tomorrow. Each had money in reserve. Take nothing away from their outstanding efforts. Halladay joined Don Larsen in the major league history books. Lincecum wrote yet another chapter in the Giants' storied existence.

    But Morris. Game seven. Ten innings. Matched zeroes for nine with Smoltz and Stanton. No greater pressure. Win or lose a World Series. Morris won. With 10 straight zeroes. That's why, in my opinion, Morris pitched the best game I ever saw.

    ReplyDelete
  34. What an excellent post.

    I was at this place called the Saki bar—or maybe that’s just what we call it?—in New York with my buddy JJ. The great thing about the Saki bar is that it’s really Japanese, like you’re stepping into Japan for a minute. I think Bourdain did a bit on this place. Anyway, you’re reminded that Japan really loves baseball in this place. Every seat in the place has an angle on a flatscreen showing the playoffs. I think they had the sound turned up too, but the place was noisy enough that’s it hard to say.

    And JJ and I sat there and ate this great Japanese food and drank Saki out of a little box and chuckled at Tim Lincecum throwing what looked like yoyos (but throwing the yoyo over-head off the back of your palm) at the Braves. What struck me most were a few of those strikeouts where he got guys to swing at pitches that, by time they actually reached the catcher—or the dirt—just seemed nowhere near the strike zone. I mean how the hell do you get someone to swing at that? And we just chuckled. What a great night. What a great playoffs.

    ReplyDelete
  35. From NPR's All Things Considered today:

    "So both performances were exquisite. Lincecum more bombastic, I would say. It was like Halliday crafted a Brahms symphony that was subtle and complex. And then Lincecum comes with the "1812 Overture," and the cannons are blaring, and the bells are ringing, and it's that much more dramatic because it's a one-to-nothing game. Pretty amazing."

    ReplyDelete
  36. Umm... no mention of the fact that the Reds lineup is far more impressive than Atlanta's? That seems like it's sort of really important when you compare the two.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Linkmeister,

    Only George Will writes in a more inept fashion about Major League Baseball than National Public Radio.

    ReplyDelete
  38. On a lazy late-summer weekday evening in 1991, recently graduated, not yet employed, back living with my family, sitting on the couch in my mom's living room - the most complete possible definition of someone with nothing to do - I tuned in to watch the White Sox play the Royals.

    Bret Saberhagen's first pitch to Tim Raines - delivered smoothly, in perfect rhythm, in perfect balance, with consummate ease - looked at least 100 mph. Aroldis Chapman doesn't look faster to me than that pitch, or others that followed it. It was a good pitch, but a bit low and inside - until it suddenly, explosively swerved about six inches back to the inside edge of the plate, and simultaneously seemed to actually hop back up to the level of Raines's knee.

    Raines straightened his knees, as if to avoid a near-miss pitch. But the umpire wasn't fooled, saw the ball all the way into the glove, and called strike one.

    At that moment I called out to my mom, in the kitchen fixing dinner: "Saberhagen is going to throw a no hitter." As a Sox fan, I said it calmly, unemotionally, matter-of-fact. It was just so obvious that Saberhagen's incredible arm, for reasons no one will ever know, in a meaningless game between also-rans, that day was having the best day of its life.

    He only struck out five. He pounded the up-and-in, down-and-in, and down-and-away corners so predictably, so unfailingly, that any major league hitter could get some wood on the ball.

    But they weren't going to do anything with it. And they didn't.

    And I can honestly say that I knew it from the very first pitch. A pitch I can still see in my mind's eye at this moment, twenty years later.

    Mom doesn't remember my remark. Too busy with the meatloaf, I guess. And if your mom can't corroborate your story, what chance do you have?

    But it happened, all the same.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I love your stuff Joe. You are always fresh and exciting. But, how can you name 16 great pitcher, and not include Johan santana?

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Anonymous @Linkmeister: Agree on George Will. Not on NPR. I like the Brahms-Tchaikovksy comparison. Classical, effortless, understated excellence versus crazy messy genius. Works well.

    ReplyDelete
  41. For the Morris Game 7 lovers:

    I guess Johnny Kucks' shutout in the 1956 WS was more impressive than Larsen's too. Right?

    No tomorrows in Game 7.

    ReplyDelete
  42. And BTW, Morris only pitched a shutout in that game because Lonnie Smith had what can be only described as a Lonnie Smith moment on the basepaths. To compare Morris's performance to Halladay's is just a joke.

    He pitched well, yes, BUT HE WAS LUCKY!!!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Was anybody else amazed by the "crappy" pitches the Atlanta hitters swung at in Lincecum's gem? I must have seen Atlanta hitters swing at 20 pitches in the dirt that day. I've certainly seen big league hitters swing at pitches in the dirt before, but (from the tv perspective) these pitches looked low coming out of Lincecum's hand. Were his pitches really moving that much? How else to explain all the terrible swings?

    ReplyDelete
  44. I've been a huge Braves fan since they moved to Atlanta in '66, but I'm really hoping SF puts them away in four games for one reason and one reason only...The NLCS game 1 match-up betwen Lincecum and Halladay. Talk about can't miss, appointment TV.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Based on measured stress, Lincecum's pitching motion is acceptable. It's not that it puts no stress on his elbow (at least not according to the linked article above), but that the level is typical of other dominant, durable MLB pitchers. The significance for Lincecum is that there is no way his frame would allow him to be an effective and durable power MLB pitcher with a standard delivery. Were scouts right to be skeptical? Perhaps so. But his father definitely made the right coaching decision in developing that unorthodox delivery.

    The downside for Lincecum is that the complexity of the motion requires more dexterity to duplicate repeatedly and consistently. Perhaps this is what lead to a drop in Lincecum's power this season (95ish to 91-92ish). Or maybe he was just dealing with some nagging foot injury or something. Either way, his performance as an MLB pitcher is impressive to me because it requires more skill than what his peers require and he is working in uncharted territory with no other examples to look towards for guidance.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anon: It was Jack Morris's gritty determination and steely-eyed stare CAUSED Lonnie Smith to mess up on the bases. It was his WILL to win that made it happen. If a player WILLS it hard enough, he can make the other team screw up. Tough American guys named Jack have that kind of will, but Euros named Bert do not.

    Also, a young Derek Jeter was watching that game, and he was cheering for the Twins. That made the difference.

    ReplyDelete