Terry Larkin

Just a weird and sad story.

Ron Rollins, wonderful author of Baseball Over Here, is a very good person to me. He sends me emails with random little articles. The other day, he sent me this article about Terry Larkin. Haven't heard of him? Well, let's get to the story.

Debuting for the New York Mutuals in 1876, Terry Larkin threw a complete game in his only appearance of the season. Over the course of the next three seasons, Larkin would be one of the best pitchers in the National League and extremely consistent. He notched seasons of 29, 29, and 31 wins. His ERA's over that time were 2.14, 2.24, and 2.44. All of those seem very impressive, but his ERA+'s in those years were 114, 108, and 106 (a little above average). As for the type of pitcher that he was, he didn't strike out a lot of guys, not topping 2.9 K/9 (not all that uncommon), but he was very accurate with BB/9's below 1 and as low as 0.4. In addition, Larkin seems to have been one of the first pitchers to utilize the curveball, and Jack Lynch reported that he learned the pitch from Larkin. Oddly, he threw the pitch with his two middle fingers.

Unfortunately, an arm injury in 1879 would derail his career. It's not all that surprising considering he had thrown over 500 innings in each of the past 3 seasons (sidenote: for all the talk about modern pitchers not throwing all that many pitchers, someone should really do a study on the attrition rate of earlier pitchers versus new because a lot of these guys go down quick). Larkin pitched 28 ineffective innings in 1880, but he would be out of baseball later in the season. He would reappear four years later as a second baseman in the American Association.

But the most fascinating, if not morbid, part of the story is what happened off the field. On the field, Larkin seemed to be a model of consistency, but off the field, he was the opposite. Prone to drinking, Larkin was uneasy at home, but after one night in 1883, his wife, Catharine, couldn't take it anymore and berated him for coming home drunk. Not having any of that, Larkin shot Catharine. When the cops came and under the belief he had just killed his wife, he threatened to kill himself and then slit his throat with a razor. Miraculously, neither he or Catharine died. Even more miraculously, Catharine didn't press charges. While institutionalized, he tried to commit suicide again but failed.

Later after he had been released from Richmond (where he played in 1884), Larkin threatened his father and was arrested again. Larkin later became a bartender, but he was fired in 1886. Unhappy, he came back to the bar and forced the bar owner to duel him. The owner refused, but Larkin pushed a pistol to his forehead. Hurriedly, the owner walked out of the bar and locked the former player inside, and then, he raced to find a policeman. The policeman came and arrested him. Seeing his life in complete shambles, Larkin finally succeeded in committing suicide while in prison in 1894.

Wow.

This Day in Baseball History: May 19th, 1933

The brothers Ferrell (Rick on the left with Wes on the right).

On May 19, 1933:

Wes and Rick Ferrell go yard.


Yep, you guessed it. These two are brothers. Richard Benjamin Ferrell was born on October 12, 1905, and Wesley Cheek Ferrell was born on February 2, 1908. Besides these two brothers, they had another brother, George, who spent 20 years in the minor leagues. Rick was a catcher while his brother Wes was a pitcher. Wes, however, was the first to break into the big leagues at the age of 19 in 1927, but he only pitched sparingly the first two seasons. Rick would break into the majors in 1929, but he wouldn't really be a regular for a couple more seasons.

Rick began his career as a St. Louis Brown, but after several seasons of playing well behind the plate, Tom Yawkey, the owner of the Boston Red Sox, traded for the young backstop in 1933. A year later, the Red Sox acquired Wes who already had 4 20+ win seasons under his belt but was coming off a down year. The two brothers both played very well with Boston, but Wes would seem to have the better Boston stop as he had 2 more 20+ win seasons. In the middle of the 1937 season, the two would be traded in the same deal to Washington.

Though Rick would be the one elected to the Hall of Fame (in 1984 as a Veterans Committee selection), Wes may have been the better hitter. Well, at least, he had more power. In 6028 career at-bats, Rick hit 28 home runs. In 1176 at-bats, Wes hit 38 home runs (1 as an outfielder). In fact, Wes holds the major-league record for most home runs in a season (9 in 1931) and a career (37). But on one day, the two would be on equal footing as they both hit home runs in the same game on this day in 1933.

Several things make this fascinating and improbable. First, Rick just didn't hit a lot of home runs. Second, Wes had to be pitching. Third, they weren't even on the same team in the game. It wouldn't be for another season that the two would be on the Red Sox together. Fourth, Rick hit the home run off of his brother. And a couple innings later, Wes would hit one with his brother behind the plate. I smell conspiracy!

Not to be forgotten, this was the first time in major-league history that brothers hit home runs in the same game. The LaRoches, who have not done it, could do some serious damage if Andy would start hitting. Then again, Adam is off to his customary slow start.


Trivia Time
Who is second on the career home run list for pitchers?

Yesterday's Answer --> Josh nailed it. Bob Meusel, of course.

Baseball Needs a Lesson in the Dialectic

It is a vast improvement, but I'm not convinced that sabermetrics have answered all the game's questions and are not ignoring others.

It’s November 16^th, 2008, and the election results are coming out tomorrow. On one side, we have the conservatives behind stalwart Ryan Howard, who stands for everything they love about baseball – traditional counting numbers and intuition. On the other side, we have the new liberals using their new “statistical analysis” to back Albert Pujols. Lines have been drawn. Insults have been thrown. And the Baseball Writers Association of America has taken its annual beating from both sides. But, tomorrow, democracy functions as designed, and a winner will be announced.

We know what the election was for – the National League Most Valuable Player Award – and what those results were – Pujols won –, but this article is not one that will try to argue one way or the other. This article is more interested in the last few sentences of its own first paragraph. Today’s baseball headlines are filled with new rumors and stories of which player used steroids and which have not. But this article is not worried about that, either. It is worried about a new problem facing baseball. Actually, it is not exactly a new problem, but it is a problem becoming more visible every day. That problem? The battle between that “new ‘statistical analysis’” – sabermetrics – and the traditional statistics – counting numbers and intangibles – mentioned above.

I have been a baseball fan for years, but I cannot (or maybe I just did not pay as much attention) remember another MVP debate as bitter as the one over Albert Pujols and Ryan Howard. Phil Sheridan called baseball nerds (those generally associated with sabermetrics) “seamheads” (in a derogatory manner though the word itself does not seem all that negative) and railed against OPS and VORP in favor of Howard’s HR and RBI numbers. Murray Chass added his take on why Howard should win the award and took a shot at OPS as well. Thomas Boswell received probably the most criticism for his criticism of the same statistics.

But before you think it was one-sided, it takes two to tango. Matt Snyder attacked Chass and his argument and essentially called him “stupid”. Rob Neyer, during a chat, essentially relegated those who do not believe in VORP to the “Flat Earth Society”. Finally, Tom Tango recently declared:

All of the defenders of the “world is flat” simply don’t stand up to the scrutiny. They make lazy excuses, or simply want to remain in a pool of ignorance because it gives them comfort to keep doing things their way. Good. The world is big enough for all of us. Join us if you want. Just don’t stand in our way.

Ouch.

Again, this article is not about debating who should have won the MVP Award. It is about how we debate. Arguing and debating is a great tool, an amazingly effective way to learn. Karl Marx, famous for communism, should be more known for his more brilliant discussion of the dialectic. In the dialectic (this is the short, simplified version), you have two opposing forces/ideas (in this case, sabermetrics versus counting numbers). The idea is to rationally argue both sides, and through time and more evidence, the sides whittle the debate down to a higher truth (the measurement of a player’s value). Then, an opposing idea develops against the newly-formed idea, and we begin the process over again, slowly getting closer to that higher truth. I believe each journalist (all fine, smart people) is trying to find this higher truth, but instead of arguing and compromising, they each take a stiff, stubborn stance defending themselves, getting us and this debate nowhere.

Neither side is completely “stupid” and ignorant. Those who follow counting numbers have a point (among many). Baseball revolves around the run. It determines who wins and who loses. Therefore, should you not pay attention more to runs, RBI’s, and home runs? Home runs automatically score a run (making them slightly important) and bring in whoever is on base (making them more important). If the point of the game is to score runs than the other team, home runs and RBI’s are awfully darn important, which gave Howard the edge. However, just because they are important, it does not mean they are the be-all-say-all. Baseball is a game of statistics, with each one describing a different part of a player’s value (stolen bases are useful, right?). One needs to look at more than just home runs and RBI’s to see a player’s value. Just looking at two or three statistics is just lazy when you have a wealth of information that is readily available and easily accessible, but I think we have devalued many “traditional” stats to the point that they are believed to be obsolete and insignificant.

Those who devote themselves to sabermetrics also have a point (again, among many). Guys like John Dewan and Bill James are not Joe Average. They are ridiculously intelligent human beings who have spent their lives deriving new stats to take advantage of new technology and come ever closer to that “higher truth”. Incredibly, they have even come up with statistics that measure how many wins each player is worth. And if the object of the game is to make the playoffs, should not the wins each player helps a team win decide his worth, which gave Pujols the edge? Now, I am sure that the math (which I do not understand) is perfect and the addition and subtraction has been double-checked, but how exactly do you really measure how many wins a player brings to the team? Do those stats take into account how much Chipper Jones helped Brian McCann with his swing in order to become a three-time All-Star? Chipper’s advice helped McCann, which helped McCann get better, which helped the team get better, and which finally helped the team win. Did VORP get that, too? Sometimes, all the math and science in the world misses the mark. Believe it or not, there are "intangibles" that need to be accounted for (not that they're extremely significant or the most significant, but they do exist).

This is just the tip of the iceberg of this complicated debate, but it at least shows you that each side is neither perfect nor baseless. Both sides have something to contribute, but the name-calling gets in the way. Being called a moron does not make you more receptive to the other person’s argument. Actually, it does the opposite. It makes you more defensive. As a result, we go nowhere. The debate over the NL MVP is just one example. We had the same debate over the NL Cy Young Award when the sabermetricians supported Johan Santana and Tim Lincecum over Brandon Webb, who had the most wins by far. We had the same debate over Gold Gloves while the traditionalists looked at fielding percentage and errors instead of the Fielding Bible or Dewan’s Plus/Minus System. Instead of coming to a better solution, we will probably have the same arguments this off-season. In order to make progress, we cannot continue to have the same argument over and over again.

Whose fault is this? No one’s really. Or both sides if you prefer to have someone blamed. The cause of this is the perfect storm. As both sides compete for readers and (ultimately) their jobs, they try to denounce the other side to make themselves better, just like in politicians trying to be elected or re-elected. Newspaper journalists, largely the traditionalists, are losing their jobs at a rapid pace (expedited by the current recession). Where are the readers going? The internet. Who is writing on the internet? The internet writers who support sabermetrics. In order to keep readers, the journalists attack sabermetrics and stick to proven methods.

But sabermetricians are not innocent. They smell blood. Newspapers are dying, and they realize momentum is on their side. Sabermetrics, around since James began writing in 1977, are finally getting some credit and exposure. Newspaper journalists and the traditionalists are the last obstacles in their path. In the process, stats such as RBI’s are belittled to the point where we see them as meaningless, but they are not meaningless. You just cannot look at it as the one stat that determines value. However, you cannot just look at WARP and VORP as the be-all stats, either. Understanding is key, and to fully understand, you must understand the argument’s and your own limits.

Maybe the old-school thinkers will just die out (literally and metaphorically). But I still think there's a lot of things that can be learned by both sides from each other. Sabermetrics need to understand that there are influences on the game that can't be put in a stat book. Traditionalists need to learn that just because we've been doing one thing for a long time, it does not mean it is the best way to do it.



Note: Much longer than my usual post, this was my submission for the BP Idol competition. It's probably not exactly what they were looking for, but it's something that's been on my mind. Anyway, I figured I would share it.

Appearances Can Be Deceiving

No longer a "Star Rookie" or even in the rotation, Jo-Jo Reyes may find his niche in the bullpen. With 39 appearances by the age of 24 (his age for the rest of the season), he could do some damage.

About a week and a half ago, I went to a Cincinnati Reds game. Nothing really special. I'm not much of a Reds fan, but I'm always happy to watch a baseball game. The Reds were kicking butt and taking numbers before David Weathers came in and gave up a few runs. Although it was by far his worst appearance of the season (a 0.00 ERA kind of makes that easy), Weathers did bypass Cy Young for the 19th spot all-time in appearances. At first, I thought that was fairly impressive (and honestly, being able to pitch long enough to make that many appearances is fairly impressive), but then, I came to quick (and obvious) realization that Weathers' accomplishment is nothing like Cy Young's. Yet, because I didn't know much about the all-time appearances list, I figured I would look and share it with all of you.

Of the 911 appearances made by Weathers, only 69 are starts. Making 70 relief appearances a year tends to propel one up the leaderboard. But of the 906 appearances Cy Young made, 815 of them were starts as he averaged around 40 or so starts a season, which just goes to show the disparities in the real accomplishments. Of course, Weathers wasn't as good of a starter as he had a 5.53 ERA as a starter, but his 3.75 ERA as a reliever, while good, isn't really a great ERA for a reliever. But it is plenty good enough to keep him having a job for a number of years, and to his credit, he has stayed healthy (and actually really consistent, remarkably) enough to keep going.

So the question has to be asked -- who has the most appearances all-time and does Weathers have a chance of getting there? Jesse Orosco has 1252 appearances (4 starts), which makes him 341 ahead of Weathers. At 70 appearances a season, Weathers would have to pitch about 4 more years after this one and maybe a part of another. Considering he's almost 40, he probably won't, but Orosco did pitch until he was 46.

What about the rest of the leaderboard?
Orosco -- 1252 (4 starts)
Mike Stanton -- 1178 (1 start)
John Franco -- 1119 (0 starts)
Dennis Eckersley -- 1071 (361 starts)
Hoyt Wilhelm -- 1070 (52 starts)
Dan Plesac -- 1064 (14 starts)
Mike Timlin -- 1058 (4 starts)
Ken Tekulve -- 1050 (0 starts)
Jose Mesa -- 1022 (95 starts -- really?)
Lee Smith -- 1022 (6 starts but a record 802 games finished)

Well, that's the top 10. Trevor Hoffman leads all active pitchers with 940 appearances (17th). Weathers is second. No one else is particularly close that is young enough to really challenge unless you really want to count Kyle Farnsworth (33 and around 700 behind) or Dennys Reyes (32 and further behind).

But here's my question. As relievers become more specialized, will they be able to reach Orosco's record? As relievers have become more specialized, they make a lot of appearances per season, but in a lot of ways, they're a dime a dozen and treated that way, not really staying anywhere for very long and not really staying healthy for that long. Also, they don't really come up to the majors until later in their careers, curbing the amount of appearances they make. Still, most of these guys on the list (you'll note that all were primary relievers as Cy Young is the leader in games started) started as starters as younger players, and if you were good enough to make the majors at such a young age, you probably can at least survive as a reliever, one would hope.

No, this isn't that important of a record, but I thought you should know. Considering that it takes some talent and longevity, it is still rather impressive, even if Cy Young's is much more so.

This Day in Baseball History: May 18th, 1931

Not to be confused with George Herman "Babe" Ruth.

On May 18th, 1931:

Babe Herman hits for the cycle.


So how many of you have heard of Floyd Caves "Babe" Herman before today? Well, I wasn't one of them, but I imagine several of you have. Born in Buffalo, New York, Herman would move to Glendale, California with his family early in his life, but when he decided to play baseball professionally, he made another long trip, this time north, to Edmonton, Canada. Herman spent a few years with the Boston Red Sox and Detroit Tigers farm teams, but the Brooklyn Dodgers would sign him in 1925 on the advice of a scout who said he was a mess in the field but could really hit.

The scout was on the mark. Herman, who made his debut and found steady work in 1926, could really hit. His .324/.383/.532 career line is pretty nice and his 140 OPS+ isn't too shabby either. The first baseman/right fielder's best seasons came in 1929 and 1930 when he hit 21 and 35 home runs, respectively, with OPS+'s of 158 and 170. However, just as the scout said, Herman wasn't a good fielder, and he led the league in errors in 1927, and after the bank told him that someone was issuing bad checks in his name, Herman quipped, "Hit him some fly balls. If he catches any, it isn't me." But Herman may best be remembered for a particular double that he hit in 1926. He smashed the ball off the wall, but a slow Dazzy Vance could not make it home. The man on first had headed to third thinking anyone could make it home on a double, but caught in a run-down, Vance had to go back to third. Not paying attention, Herman came bounding around second looking for a triple. All three ended up caught at third, and the third baseman tagged all of the players to make sure he got the most outs possible (2). Herman would receive some ridicule, but he reminded everyone that he did knock in the winning run on the play.

What he is less known for but the reason he now has a special place in my heart is that he is one of two players with a major-league record 3 career cycles. On this date in 1931, Herman hit his first of three in a 14-4 victory over the Cincinnati Reds. Even better, he repeated the feat two months and a week later against in the Pittsburgh Pirates in an 8-7 loss. He is the only one in major-league history with two cycles in the same season. Two years, two months, and a week later, he added his third while with the Chicago Cubs in 1933. I love useless information.


Trivia Time
Who is the other player with 3 career major-league cycles?

Reading for the Week

This should be fun.

I will be trying to read a few books while on vacation, but for the rest of you who are perfectly content in the blogosphere, here are a few sites (all on the right) to check out after you look through the rest of the posts on here.

- Shysterball because that's probably where most of you came from anyway.

- It IS About the Money, Stupid! because he's one of the few sane and rational Yankee fans out there, which endears me to him more than most even though he does like the Yankees of all teams.

- Jorge Says No! because you need your random pictures and videos to get you through your Post-Manny Stress Disorder.

- Baseball Over Here because you don't know enough about baseball in the rest of the world, and Ron does.

- wezen-ball because he always has awesome posts.

- The Common Man because Random Thursdays are always random and on Thursdays.

- DMB World Series Replay because even though it mostly "didn't happen", you learn a lot about baseball history along the way, like who was William Sunday?

Rounding the Bases

There's the David Weathers we know and can't hold a lead.

You probably noticed that the Sunday lineup is on Saturday this week. Tomorrow, my family and I are off to Las Vegas for about a week, and I plan to get drunk, lose all my money, and wake up married to a snaggle-touthed stranger. Okay, maybe not, but I don't plan on posting here. This is unfortunate because there have been a few more readers over the past few weeks, but all I can ask is that everyone return because I should be back next Saturday or Sunday. Anyway, on to random thoughts from the week.

- Manny got suspended. I was shocked. I am over it.

- I went to the Reds-Cardinals game last night, and every time I see Great American Ballpark, I like it a bit more. "Familiarity breeds contempt" does not apply here. It's actually a pleasant place to go see a game. As for the game itself, it was the first game that Arroyo didn't pitch, and instead, I had the joy of watching Johnny Cueto dismantle the Cards, just pounding the zone (67 of 98 pitches for strikes). Then, David Weathers became David Weathers and tried to cough up a five-run lead in the eighth. I have to question Baker here. He had Arthur Rhodes and a 5-run lead in the eighth to face Shane Robinson to start the inning. Then, Tyler Greene strolls to the plate, and he yanks Rhodes. I looked at my dad, and we both had puzzled looks. You have a five-run lead! Just let him pitch. Instead, Weathers coughs up Greene's first big-league homer and two more runs. LaRussa, not to be topped, then kills a rally in the ninth by trying to get Joe Thurston to steal second while down by 2 with no outs. I have no idea why you would do that. Best part of the night? Getting a police officer to break into our car because we decided to lock the keys in the car. Nice man, and it was kind of cool to watch.

- On the positive side, David Weathers is now 19th on the career appearances list with 907, passing Cy Young. That's about the only positive for Weathers. Look for an "Appearances" post when I get back.

- Oddest note from last night? Laynce Nix with a .317/.356/.610 line, but it is only 40 at bats.

- Pittsburgh (1-9 in last 10 games) is regressing to the mean.

- For all the talk about how bad Oakland's pitching should be, it's second in the MLB in ERA, but it has been the bullpen (2.67) doing the heavy-lifting.

- Todd Helton (.351/.400/.495) is trying to make a comeback.

- Alberto Callaspo (.344/.402/.542) is still hitting for Kansas City.

- NL All-Star catcher? Soto? McCann? Molina (either)? No. Jesus Flores of Washington (.314/.388/.535). Interestingly enough, the Nationals (at this point) should have two All-Star starters as Ryan Zimmerman (.339/.391/.554) is living up to his new contract. Heck, Adam Dunn (.295/.444/.582 with 8 HR and 24 RBI) might even be a decent selection. Too bad the pitching is still terrible (26th in MLB).

- Johnny Cueto (1.59 ERA) and Wandy Rodriguez (1.80) have had really nice starts as under-the-radar NL Central starters.

- Jered Weaver (2.66 ERA with 31 K and 9 BB) has been really nice for LAA, but his .230 BABIP and 86% LOB% probably means he'll come crashing down eventually. Good thing Ervin Santana and John Lackey should be back soon.

- If not for Jason Bartlett and Marco Scutaro, the AL shortstops would be light-hitting wussies. I can't believe I just said that. Bartlett and Scutaro?

- After a rough start, Justin Verlander has been flat-out dominant in his last three starts (23 IP, 1 ER, 13 H, 5 BB, 31 K), capped off with last night's masterpiece.

Saturday Frivolities

Left-hander's Day is August 13th. Who knew? When's Right-hander's Day? Every day is right-hander's Day!

Random information is always a good thing, and today is definitely one those things that you can post under "trivial".

Have you ever wondered what percentage of players were right-handed or left-handed? Switch hitters? I wonder about these things, and of course, Baseball-Reference has the answers for me. A few things to keep in mind before I go into it. One, only 7-10% of the general population is left-handed, but it is slightly more common in males (why? I have no idea). Two, high rates of exposure to testosterone can make it more likely to be left-handed (Again, no idea, but considering the recent stories ...). Three, just for fun, the word "left" came from the Latin word for "sinister" because it used to be thought that being left-handed meant that one was possessed or evil. Being left-handed was an illness, but now for baseball parents, it's a blessing. Interesting. Anyway, on to random factoids.

Hitting
1900-2009 --> 64.7% (Right), 23.7% (Left), 6.7% (Both), 1.3% (Unknown)
1900-1909 --> 54.9% (R), 24.7% (L), 6.3% (B), 12.1% (U)
1910-1919 --> 64.3% (R), 27.2% (L) 6.4% (B), 2.1% (U)
1920-1929 --> 64.7% (R), 29.8% (L),5.2% (B), 0.2% (U)
1930-1939 --> 68.1% (R), 27.0% (L), 4.9% (B)
1940-1949 --> 66.8% (R), 29.0% (L), 4.2% (B)
1950-1959 --> 66.3% (R), 30.0% (L), 3.6% (B)
1960-1969 --> 66.3% (R), 27.5% (L), 6.2% (B)
1970-1979 --> 65.1% (R), 26.4% (L), 8.5% (B)
1980-1989 --> 62.8% (R), 27.4% (L), 9.8% (B)
1990-1999 --> 66.3% (R), 25.3% (L), 8.5% (B)
2000-2009 --> 63.1% (R), 28.9% (L), 8.0% (B)

Not too much variance in the numbers, which could be interesting but maybe not. The only real jump is from the 1950's to the 1970's. It jumped a whole 5 percentage points. Considering Mickey Mantle started in 1951, could he have influenced people to go back to switch-hitting? I doubt it. Could one person have such an influence or are we just seeing statistical variance? The other notable thing is just how many more people hit left-handed than should. Only 10% should, but the average is usually three times that. I've heard people think it's not unnatural for righties to hit from the left side, and considering the vast right-handedness of pitchers, forcing oneself to hit left-handed may not be a bad idea. Any thoughts?

Throwing
1900-2009 --> 79.5% (Right), 19.9% (Left), 0.5% (Unknown)
1900-1909 --> 78.9% (R), 17.0% (L), 4.1% (U)
1910-1919 --> 82.6% (R), 16.5% (L), 1.0% (U)
1920-1929 --> 81.4% (R), 18.4% (L), 0.2% (U)
1930-1939 --> 82.2% (R), 17.8% (L)
1940-1949 --> 81.3% (R), 18.7% (L)
1950-1959 --> 80.4% (R), 19.6% (L)
1960-1969 --> 79.2% (R), 20.8% (L)
1970-1979 --> 78.9% (R), 21.1% (L)
1980-1989 --> 78.0% (R), 22.0% (L)
1990-1999 --> 78.0% (R), 22.0% (L)
2000-2009 --> 78.4% (R), 21.6% (L)

Handedness stays pretty level for throwing, which isn't surprising because no new positions have popped up for lefties. I wish I could figure out the handedness of pitchers because it seems as though there is more of a focus on getting lefties now, but maybe not. It's also pretty cool that the percentages from the 1980's and 1990's are identical.

Again, I don't really think these things really get us anywhere, but I thought it would be an interesting thing to know.

This Day in Baseball History: May 9th, 1888

I wonder where "Icebox" came from.

On May 9, 1988:

Icebox Chamberlain made the Kansas City Cowboys look silly.


Elton "Icebox" Chamberlain was a right-handed pitcher for the Louisville Colonels, part of the American Association, in the late 1900's. Chamberlain was a decent pitcher for a few years, but from 1888-1890, Chamberlain was actually really good. His 1889 season was actually pretty impressive. Chamberlain went on to win 34 games while pitching an amazing 421 innings as a 21-year old. His main problem seems to have been his control. His K/BB rates never topped 2.02, and for the most part, they stayed around an even one, even dropping below it here and there.

But for a fun day in 1888, Chamberlain was the man. A little known fact is that Paul Venditte is not the first pitcher to throw with both hands, even in one game. On May 9, 1888, the Louisville Colonels were playing the Kansas City Cowboys, and after 7 innings, the Colonels were throttling the Cowboys in what would eventually end up a 18-6 ballgame. Chamberlain decided he would pitch the last two innings left-handed and to great effect as he shut them out in those final innings. This wasn't the first time he had done something like this. Four years before, he alternated arms for four innings.

As an interesting extra story, ten years after his 1884 ambidextrous appearance, he pitched a complete game. The cool part? He gave up 20 runs in a 20-11 loss. Why? I have no idea, but people did things like this back then. If you suck, there's no early exit. You have to deal with it. Nice.


Thursday's Answer --> New York Highlanders and Boston Pilgrims (though Americans is also acceptable as an unofficial nickname for most AL teams at the time, but the Red Sox were not officially the Americans until 1908) played the first Red Sox-Yankees game, but it was not broadcast on ESPN.

Update on Trivia Answer: For the most part, it seems the "official" nickname of the New York team was the Highlanders, but as a result of playing in Hilltop Park and no one really having "official" nicknames, Hilltoppers is also an acceptable answer. Actually, because all American League teams were originally nicknamed the "Americans", New York and Boston Americans are correct, but the Yankees, even as early as 1904, were called the "Yankees" as a play on the word "Americans". In 1913, "Yankees" became official. Thank you to Ron, history extraordinaire, for aiding in the discovery of this truth. I saw the Baseball-Reference page and didn't really look it up otherwise, but we learn and that's why we're here.

See: Article referring to the team as both the Hilltoppers and Yankees interchangeably.

Pedro Martinez Circa 2000

August 29th, 8 Rays ejected, 2 skirmishes, 4 hit batters.

This will be the last in the Pedro series for now. I have to pack and go home tomorrow after exams, and then, we're headed to Cincinnati for a Reds-Cardinals game. Should be fun, but that means that I can't get up anything really tomorrow. Just in case you were wondering, 2002 and 2003 were also outstanding seasons (I don't include 2001 because he only pitched in 18 games, but nonetheless, he was outstanding then as well) for Pedro. But 2000 was a special season, there are some debates as to whether 1999 or 2000 were the better season, but even considering he won 5 fewer games, 2000 has to be Pedro's masterpiece.

Following up his fantastic 1999 season, Pedro came back and was both dominating and consistent. Over the course of the next 6 months, he would have two starts in which he gave up more than 3 runs, not just earned runs. It all began with a jolt on Opening Day. Facing the Seattle Mariners, whom he owned the previous season, Pedro decided to be efficient and deadly. He went 7 innings giving up 2 hits and 2 walks while striking out 11 in 108 pitches. Derek Lowe came up with a two-inning save, and Pedro was off and running. Anaheim was his next victim as he struck out 12 in 7.1 IP while giving up one run, which Lowe (who went 1.2 IP this time) actually gave up. Three more solid 7 inning starts, and Pedro was 5-0 with a 1.27 ERA.

May was a bit of a hard-luck month, but it was also Pedro's finest. It began on a sour note on May 6th with a loss against the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, but the loss wasn't Pedro's fault. He gunned down 17 hitters making Greg Vaughan, Kevin Stocker, and Vinny Castilla cry for their mothers, but a Vaughan single in the 8th gave the Devil Rays the only run they needed as Steve Trachsel outmatched Martinez, going 9 for the 1-0 shutout. Martinez faced off against Sidney Ponson the next game, but the Orioles had no chance as Pedro struck out 15 more and gave up only two hits. The Red Sox gave Pedro 9 to work with and he had his 6-1 record. On May 23rd, Toronto gave Pedro another tough loss. He wasn't as sharp giving up 7 hits and 3 walks for 3 runs, but the Red Sox only mustered 2 off a young Chris Carpenter. But by the end of May, Pedro was a cool 8-2 with a 1.05 ERA after his 0.86 ERA month.

June was a bit more frustrating. The Indians saw a tough Pedro as Martinez threw 8 1-hit innings and struck out 10, but the Yankees gave the Red Sox two tough losses in his following starts as the offense sputtered scoring only 1 run total. Pedro's worst start of the season followed as he matched up again with the Blue Jays. This time, the Blue Jays rapped 5 runs off Martinez as Shannon Stewart, Brad Fullmer, and Tony Bautista hit home runs. Pedro escaped the loss as his offense came back to get five, but the Red Sox ultimately lost the game. Pedro was 9-3, but his ERA had climbed to 1.44 (poor guy).

Pedro got mad again in July. After not pitching in the All-Star Game due to an injury, he came back strong. He would only allow 4 runs the entre month (4 starts) and struck out at least 10 in each start. July 23rd saw the White Sox make a futile attempt. Martinez went off, striking out 15 in a complete-game 6-hit shutout. The offense only gave him one, but he didn't need anymore, dispatching the 61-36 White Sox. Add three more wins and a 1.06 ERA for the month, and Pedro was on his way to another Cy Young Award.

August was a long month as he had to go out for six starts. He won 3 more, but his only loss was another toughy. He went 8 innings against the Angels, but Ramon Ortiz outdueled him, going 9 and only giving up 2 to Martinez's 3. Again, the offense let him down, but they covered for him later in the month. Facing the Royals, Martinez got off to a rough start. The Royals grabbed four singles and two doubles for five runs, but after that, they got one more run on a Mike Sweeney homer. The Red Sox fought back and won the game in the 10th. Surviving his toughest month, Martinez was 15-4 with a 1.68 ERA.

In three of his final five starts, Pedro gave up one run or fewer, but he gave up three each in two others. The odd thing is that Pedro only gave up 4 hits in each of those starts and only walked 3 total. Five of those came on homers (a three-run shot for Scott Brosius and a two-run shot for David Segui.

By the end of it, Pedro had his 3rd Cy Young and 2nd unanimous. And why not? He was 18-6, but that wasn't the impressive part. He grabbed a nifty 1.74 ERA which was the best since 1978 when Ron Guidry also had a 1.74 ERA. His 8.88 K/BB ratio was the best of his career and just remarkable anyway. Oh, and he had a 0.737 WHIP. That's amazing. In fact, it broke a major-league record held by Walter Johnson who had a 0.780 WHIP in his amazing 1913 season. What about the slash stats against him? A .167/.213/.259 line ain't bad. Ain't bad at all. The batting average and on-base percentage set major-league records as well. He decreased his walks to 1.3 BB/9, but his strikeouts did go down to 11.8 K/9. Just awful. 1999 was impressive, but 2000 was a notch above.

But let's take a look at FanGraphs. Pedro's 1999 FIP was actually much, much better than his 2000 season. He had a startling 1.39 FIP in 1999 with only a 2.17 FIP (I continually find it ridiculous how good he was) in 2000. What accounts for the difference? Well, his BABIP shrunk from .343 (how the hell did he pitch that well with a .343 BABIP?) to .253. He stranded an amazing 86.8% of baserunners. Unfortunately, there are no win values for 1999 and 2000, but it seems that Pedro was actually a better pitcher in 1999, and he took advantage of some really good luck in 2000 while still being one heckuva pitcher. Maybe he was better in 1999. What do you think?