427 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/16/rangers-give-matt-harrison-five-year-55-million-contract/

May seem like a lot, but he was probably going to get $6M in arbitration this year and $9M or so next year. So it's really just a 3/$40M extension, or really about $13-14M a year over a 5-year deal (discounted for his arb years). I think if he was a FA, that Harrison probably would have gotten 5/$70M or more. He's two years younger than Sanchez, with more recent success but less long term history of success and consistency.

[BSLChrisStoner]

RotoGraphs: Rangers Rotation Depth Chart
http://www.fangraphs...rt-discussions/

[Oriole85]

ESPN: Rangers hire Ivan Rodriguez

http://espn.go.com/d...ront-office-job

[Oriole85]

Star-Telegram: Nolan Ryan could leave Rangers by the end of spring training, sources say

http://www.star-tele...ve-rangers.html

[BSLChrisStoner]

NBC Sports / Hardball Talk: Andrus, 8 yrs $120M extension
http://hardballtalk....lion-extension/

[Chris B]

Darvish perfect through 8th. Tune in to MLBN.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Yu is perfect through 8 in Houston. Up to 107 pitches, but will be given the chance to complete his perfect game I'm sure. Nasty outing from him tonight... 14 K's too.

[The Epic]

Right through the wickets.

Dude was magic tonight. Now, it WAS the Astros, but still...

[Oriole85]

Call me cruel, but I'm happy he didn't get the perfect game and even the no-hitter. These things used to special. I still remember the Kenny Rodgers one was the first perfecto and how big of a deal it was when ESPN cut away and then he appeared on Letterman (actually on the set as opposed to the satellite stuff they do now). Also, bothered me it was being done against the Astros else I wouldn't have felt as strongly.

[Bosibus]

Not arguing but why wouldn't this be special?

[Mackus]

It would be absolutely as special. That's an awful argument, IMO. It's happened a few times over the last couple seasons, but even with the downturn in offense it's still an amazing feat. As low as offense is right now, it's not as low as it was in the 60's, and yet there were only 3 perfect games in that entire decade. The fact that there have been several over the last few years isn't making them less amazing. It's quite the opposite, it's absolutely incredible that so many have occurred recently. Three last year, two in 2010 and one in 2009. That's 6 perfect games in the last four seasons plus two days. There were only 17 ever prior to that and never more than 3-4 in any decade.

And yet offense isn't at some all-time low. There is no coherent argument that can support it being easier to throw perfect games now than it was before. It's still just as improbable, and probably even moreso given the lowered pitch counts and how rare it is simply for a pitcher to throw 9 innings yet alone 9 perfect ones.

This is an amazing statistical longshot we're seeing. Something incredibly rare happening at a rate that is still very low, but several orders of magnitude higher than it usually occurs. I think any argument that tries to downplay how difficult and amazing and improbable a perfect game is grossly over-simplifying the case.

[Oriole85]

Not arguing but why wouldn't this be special?

It would be special, but it's not as special as it once was. The fact it happens with much more regularity compared to some years back, devalues it.

[Oriole85]

It would be absolutely as special. That's an awful argument, IMO. It's happened a few times over the last couple seasons, but even with the downturn in offense it's still an amazing feat. As low as offense is right now, it's not as low as it was in the 60's, and yet there were only 3 perfect games in that entire decade. The fact that there have been several over the last few years isn't making them less amazing. It's quite the opposite, it's absolutely incredible that so many have occurred recently. Three last year, two in 2010 and one in 2009. That's 6 perfect games in the last four seasons plus two days. There were only 17 ever prior to that and never more than 3-4 in any decade.

And yet offense isn't at some all-time low. There is no coherent argument that can support it being easier to throw perfect games now than it was before. It's still just as improbable, and probably even moreso given the lowered pitch counts and how rare it is simply for a pitcher to throw 9 innings yet alone 9 perfect ones.

This is an amazing statistical longshot we're seeing. Something incredibly rare happening at a rate that is still very low, but several orders of magnitude higher than it usually occurs. I think any argument that tries to downplay how difficult and amazing and improbable a perfect game is grossly over-simplifying the case.

So there have been 6 in the last four years and only 17 before that. Over a quarter of the perfect games have taken place in an under half-a-decade period of time.

Yes, it's rare but it's not as rare as it once was. And when you have 2-3 a year, instead of 2-3 a decade there's a big difference. It's an achievement, but it's not as big of a deal as it once was.

[You Play to Win the Game]

So there have been 6 in the last four years and only 17 before that. Over a quarter of the perfect games have taken place in an under half-a-decade period of time.

Yes, it's rare but it's not as rare as it once was. And when you have 2-3 a year, instead of 2-3 a decade there's a big difference. It's an achievement, but it's not as big of a deal as it once was.

Ehh, I disagree - but I do see your point. I don't think it'll continue to happen at such a pace though, and therefore we should be able to enjoy it all the same. I hope the baseball God's reward my life long obsession by letting me see one in person. That would be amazing.

[Oriole85]

Ehh, I disagree - but I do see your point. I don't think it'll continue to happen at such a pace though, and therefore we should be able to enjoy it all the same. I hope the baseball God's reward my life long obsession by letting me see one in person. That would be amazing.

I tend to agree with that, I think it will tail off. But it's definitely affected my enjoyment. Yesterday was the first time I was rooting against it. If it were a better team, I probably root for it. I would love to see a perfect game, but I'll settle for a no-hitter.

[Mackus]

You can poo-poo it all you want, but I think you're pretty clearly wrong. And I assume nearly everyone who pays attention to baseball disagrees with you.

It's not devalued at all. It hasn't gotten any easier.

If you can make an argument that it is easier now to get 27 straight guys out than it was previously, then maybe you'd have a leg to stand on. But it's not any easier. It's always been the difficulty of it that is amazing. That it was so rare was simply because it is so difficult, a byproduct. It's not like hitting for the cycle, which is just a very specific combination of a really good night for a hitter. It's an amazing difficult feat to get 27 straight guys out on one night, and it's the single most impressive thing that can happen for a pitcher (and a defense).

[Oriole85]

You can poo-poo it all you want, but I think you're pretty clearly wrong. And I assume nearly everyone who pays attention to baseball disagrees with you.

It's not devalued at all. It hasn't gotten any easier.

If you can make an argument that it is easier now to get 27 straight guys out than it was previously, then maybe you'd have a leg to stand on. But it's not any easier. It's always been the difficulty of it that is amazing. That it was so rare was simply because it is so difficult, a byproduct. It's not like hitting for the cycle, which is just a very specific combination of a really good night for a hitter. It's an amazing difficult feat to get 27 straight guys out on one night, and it's the single most impressive thing that can happen for a pitcher (and a defense).

I didn't say it was any easier and still is an amazing feat. All I'm saying is when it happens with regularity like this, it's not as big of a deal. And I think that's clearer when it's no longer on the cover of SI when it happens, lead story on SportsCenter, and just in general less interest on the subject.

Bottomline is this, Phil Humber didn't get the attention that Kenny Rodgers or David Wells did. If we went another 4-5 years without a perfect game, it would be a bigger deal than one thrown tomorrow.

[Mackus]

Kenny Rogers wasn't on the cover. At least not as the main story. Wells and Cone pitched for the Yankees, but neither of them got the SI cover either.

I absolutely still think it's the lead Sportscenter story.

You're simply wrong on this, IMO.

[Mackus]

Here's the only SI cover I can find about any Perfect Game:



Cone, Wells, Johnson, Rogers, and others don't appear to have gotten a cover after theirs. Just one of the more recent ones, 2010's Dallas Braden.

So I think that using the argument that it's no longer the cover of SI to support your theory that perfect games are devalued is irrelevant.

[Oriole85]

Kenny Rogers wasn't on the cover. At least not as the main story. Wells and Cone pitched for the Yankees, but neither of them got the SI cover either.

I absolutely still think it's the lead Sportscenter story.

You're simply wrong on this, IMO.

I was just using those two mediums as levels for gauging interest. I would've thought he would've been on it.

I'm not sure how to accurately measure this, other than to take a poll and ask "do perfect games just capture your attention the same way they did in 1995." And the answer for me, would be no. Clearly, you aren't phased by having 2-3 a year in recent years as opposed to 2-3 a decade in the 100+ years of baseball before. I don't think the achievement itself is that as much different than it was two decades, it's still a remarkable accomplishment.

To me, the more frequent something happens, the less of a "wow" factor there is. As I said if we went 5 years without a perfect game, I think people will be more mesmorized by it, JMO.