Master Index of Archived Threads


Goose Eggs

TheOldMole Sep 06 2006 02:22 AM

For the first time in more than three decades, there were seven shutouts in the major leagues on one day yesterday. In the American League, Boston beat Chicago, 1-0; Minnesota defeated Tampa Bay, 8-0; and Kansas City blanked the Yankees, 5-0. In the National League, Arizona defeated Florida, 4-0; St. Louis beat Washington, 2-0; Cincinnati defeated San Francisco, 3-0; and Milwaukee blanked Los Angeles. 9-0. According to the Elias Sports Bureau, it was the most shutouts on one day since there were a record eight on June 4, 1972, when 16 games were played. Thirteen games were played yesterday. Milwaukee’s Doug Davis (four-hitter) and Cincinnati’s Bronson Arroyo (three-hitter) had the only complete-game shutouts. Among those who pitched complete-game shutouts on June 4, 1972, were Bob Gibson, Catfish Hunter, Tom Timmerman, John Curtis and Don Wilson. There was one similarity: Bruce Froemming, who umpired at third base in Milwaukee last night, worked at first base when Wilson pitched a two-hitter in Montreal.

MFS62 Sep 06 2006 07:17 AM

Yikes! Bruce Froemming was umpiring before Julio Franco was a rookie. That boggles the mind. Later

Willets Point Sep 06 2006 07:29 AM

Thanks to the rain the Mets weren't one of the teams being shutout since they've been not scoring much lately. Lets shutout the Braves twice today.

Rockin' Doc Sep 06 2006 08:18 PM

They came damn close to doing it too. Good call Willets.

dinosaur jesus Sep 07 2006 09:56 AM

On June 4, 1972, sixteen games were played: four doubleheaders, including a sweep by the A's in which both games were shutouts. The Mets and Jon Matlack were roughed up by the Braves, 9-3. Despite the loss, they finished the day with a record of 31-13, the best in baseball. That year started off so well. What happened?

Willets Point Sep 07 2006 09:59 AM

Rockin' Doc wrote: They came damn close to doing it too. Good call Willets. Lets no-hit the Dodgers today!

Edgy DC Sep 07 2006 09:59 AM

Injuries. dino.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 07 2006 11:23 AM

The 1972 Mets had so many injuries that only one player, Bud Harrelson, had enough plate appearances to qualify for the batting title. I recently added some of the "percentage" stats to the text on the UMDB page that shows which categories a player led the team in. Bud's status as the lone qualifier in 1972 led to some pathetic verbiage: Led Mets in batting average with .215 in 1972. Led Mets in slugging percentage with .266 in 1972. Led Mets in on base percentage with .313 in 1972. Led Mets in on base plus slugging with .579 in 1972. Tommie Agee just missed the required number; he fell short by a fraction of a plate appearance. His numbers would have looked much better than Harrelson's do.

Willets Point Sep 07 2006 11:26 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Injuries. dino. B-b-but the 2006 Yankees have had severe injuries to Matsui and Sheffield and are still succeful. We Mets fans must be pathetic losers to make such excuses!

Edgy DC Sep 07 2006 11:29 AM

I'm glad you did that, despite the funny 1972 results. Perhaps you'd do well to "award" the title to the player who would have won, had he gotten enough at-bats to qualify and made out each time. Bill James gave Duffy Dyer the most win shares on the 1972 Mets. The CPF has Jon Matlack as our top 1972 Met.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 07 2006 11:30 AM

Ohhh, stammering! (Or is it stuttering?) Haven't seen so much of that around here lately.

Willets Point Sep 07 2006 11:31 AM

It's a good alternative to SC.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 07 2006 11:40 AM

="Edgy DC"]I'm glad you did that, despite the funny 1972 results. It's been on my to-do list for a long time. I still want to add ERA and will hopefully get around to that soon. ="Edgy DC"]Perhaps you'd do well to "award" the title to the player who would have won, had he gotten enough at-bats to qualify and made out each time.. If there was an actual award to be given, I might consider doing that. I once had someone write to me and argue that I should give Mike Piazza the award for best slugging percentage of the 1990's on this page even though he didn't have 1,000 at bats. (This guy was really passionate about it, too!) If Piazza had gone 0 for 72 his .546 percentage would still be better than John Olerud's .515. But Piazza really slugged a .588, and it would be misleading to say he led with a .546 when he really slugged .588. What displays on the UMDB pages is often a result of the pure numbers that are stored in the database. I don't generally make exceptions to that unless I can see a compelling need to go to that effort. It's probably just a matter of time before I hear from an irate Tommie Agee fan. ="Edgy DC"]Bill James gave Duffy Dyer the most win shares on the 1972 Mets. The CPF has Jon Matlack as our top 1972 Met. Duffy Dyer? Wow. No wonder the 1972 Mets didn't win anything.

MFS62 Sep 07 2006 11:51 AM

]Led Mets in slugging percentage with .266 in 1972. Then that Baseball Digest rookie report on him was correct when it said he had "good power for a shortstop". Later

dinosaur jesus Sep 07 2006 11:57 AM

One alternative would be to list Piazza because he would have had the highest percentage given enough at bats, but to give the true percentage, not the adjusted one. That's what the record books do with, say, Ted Williams in 1954, when he's listed as leading the league in slugging percentage because he'd still be in front if you gave him enough at bats to qualify, but the figure given is the true .635, not the adjusted .613. (That looks weird with batting average, though, where he finishes second to Bobby Avila despite hitting four points higher.) Looking at the 1972 Mets, it's a little hard to pick an MVP even if you gave them the at bats. Everybody had a terrible year. How about the Hammer?

Edgy DC Sep 07 2006 12:04 PM

Kranepool had a nice little comeback year, but if you want an MVP, it's not going to be among the batsmen. The only argument is about Seaver vs. Matlack vs. McGraw.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 07 2006 02:09 PM

dinosaur jesus wrote: One alternative would be to list Piazza because he would have had the highest percentage given enough at bats, but to give the true percentage, not the adjusted one. But since the page is built by the data itself, and not by me, that would require actually coding the exception, and that's not something I want to be doing. Back to the small print I referenced above, with Bud Harrelson. On Carlos Beltran's page, this is listed as his only accomplishment: Led Mets in sacrifice flies with 6 in 2005. I have a feeling the list will be a little bit longer when the final totals for 2006 are in.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 07 2006 02:12 PM

This guy has a much more impressive looking list than Beltran currently has: Led Mets in games with 156 in 2003. Led Mets in runs with 73 in 2003. Led Mets in hits with 146 in 2003. Led Mets in doubles with 36 in 2003. Led Mets in triples with 6 in 2003 and with 2 in 2004. Led Mets in runs batted in with 71 in 2003. Led Mets in slugging percentage with .396 in 2003. Led Mets in on base plus slugging with .714 in 2003. Led Mets in strikeouts with 124 in 2003. Led Mets in total bases with 227 in 2003. Anyone recognize who it is?

Edgy DC Sep 07 2006 02:17 PM

Gotta be Wiggy.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 07 2006 02:23 PM

Wiggy it is. I didn't think that one would require Twenty Questions.

Edgy DC Sep 07 2006 02:28 PM

I half thought Alomar, but he went mid-year.

seawolf17 Sep 07 2006 05:07 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: This guy has a much more impressive looking list than Beltran currently has: Led Mets in games with 156 in 2003. Led Mets in runs with 73 in 2003. Led Mets in hits with 146 in 2003. Led Mets in doubles with 36 in 2003. Led Mets in triples with 6 in 2003 and with 2 in 2004. Led Mets in runs batted in with 71 in 2003. Led Mets in slugging percentage with .396 in 2003. Led Mets in on base plus slugging with .714 in 2003. Led Mets in strikeouts with 124 in 2003. Led Mets in total bases with 227 in 2003. Anyone recognize who it is? [sal]I can't believe we traded this guy and kept that Wright kid!! Someone call Tampa (or Cincinnati, or Houston, or whoever pays him these days) and see if we can correct this mistake.[/sal]