WWTBAM Bored

Last night's game between the New York Yankees and Atlanta Braves, which the Yankees won 5-1, marked the first time since 1901 that two teams with nine-game winning streaks or longer met in an MLB game.

Another rarity - I just read about a pitcher who was struck by lightning 102 years ago. He lay unconscious for 5 minutes, then finished off the final batter with a groundout.

Ray Caldwell of the Indians.

Another rarity:

The Mets have a one-game winning streak.

Ritterskoop wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 24, 2021 8:44 am

Another rarity - I just read about a pitcher who was struck by lightning 102 years ago. He lay unconscious for 5 minutes, then finished off the final batter with a groundout.

Ray Caldwell of the Indians.

These days that would earn an immediate trip to the injured list, then Tommy John surgery just to be on the safe side.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 23, 2021 10:31 pm

Last night's game between the New York Yankees and Atlanta Braves, which the Yankees won 5-1, marked the first time since 1901 that two teams with nine-game winning streaks or longer met in an MLB game.

The sportscasters here are putting on a different spin... the Braves have won 13 consecutive road games... and that streak is still alive.

Of course, that was known going into the game.... the fun rarities are when you see something during a game that's never happened before or since.

One of the two games I attended in Denver back in the 90's had just such a unicorn performance. I wonder if our crack baseball experts can spot it from the boxscore:

https://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/199 ... OL1997.htm

It only involves two criteria, so it's not something totally obscure....

Edit: Actually three, but it's still nothing obscure... and it might surprise you that it's a unique occurrence.

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 25, 2021 12:28 pm

Of course, that was known going into the game.... the fun rarities are when you see something during a game that's never happened before or since.

One of the two games I attended in Denver back in the 90's had just such a unicorn performance. I wonder if our crack baseball experts can spot it from the boxscore:

https://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/199 ... OL1997.htm

It only involves two criteria, so it's not something totally obscure....

Edit: Actually three, but it's still nothing obscure... and it might surprise you that it's a unique occurrence.

lb13

Spoiler

Wetteland finishing the game by entering the game in the bottom of the 9th, facing 7 batters without retiring any of them, and taking the loss as a result?

--Bob

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:15 pm

littlebeast13 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 25, 2021 12:28 pm

Of course, that was known going into the game.... the fun rarities are when you see something during a game that's never happened before or since.

One of the two games I attended in Denver back in the 90's had just such a unicorn performance. I wonder if our crack baseball experts can spot it from the boxscore:

https://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/199 ... OL1997.htm

It only involves two criteria, so it's not something totally obscure....

Edit: Actually three, but it's still nothing obscure... and it might surprise you that it's a unique occurrence.

lb13

Spoiler

Wetteland finishing the game by entering the game in the bottom of the 9th, facing 7 batters without retiring any of them, and taking the loss as a result?

--Bob

Yep! And taking the loss is a given (well, except for odd rain-shortened games), so it doesn't even need to be a factor...

And only four other pitchers have ever finished a game with 0 innings pitched and faced exactly six batters...

Spoiler

lb13

I don't know how rare this is, and it is not even an official play, but I enjoyed seeing Odor's "time out" 3 run home run called back and then seeing him strike out. Nothing against him personally, it was just such a huge swing from 3 run homer to strike out, because of an ill-timed time out call. The fact that it was Ángel Hernández behind the plate was just icing.

One thing I should add about Wetteland's feat is that 7 batters is the maximum amount a pitcher can face when entering in the 9th inning or later in a save situation and finish the game without retiring anyone. Since proven closers in save situations are the only pitchers who would be allowed to rack up this kind of damage without eventually being replaced at that point in the game, that makes this a feat that is very unlikely to be broken barring a major shift in managerial stategies...

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:27 pm

One thing I should add about Wetteland's feat is that 7 batters is the maximum amount a pitcher can face when entering in the 9th inning or later in a save situation and finish the game without retiring anyone. Since proven closers in save situations are the only pitchers who would be allowed to rack up this kind of damage without eventually being replaced at that point in the game, that makes this a feat that is very unlikely to be broken barring a major shift in managerial stategies...

lb13

When Wetteland was pitching, teams usually carried about ten pitchers on the 25 man roster, so pitchers tended to go longer. There's no way a manager today would allow a closer to face seven batters if he didn't have his stuff. Last night, Aaron Boone pulled Aroldis Chapman in the ninth inning in what was probably a similar situation to what Wetteland faced.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 25, 2021 7:03 pm

littlebeast13 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:27 pm

One thing I should add about Wetteland's feat is that 7 batters is the maximum amount a pitcher can face when entering in the 9th inning or later in a save situation and finish the game without retiring anyone. Since proven closers in save situations are the only pitchers who would be allowed to rack up this kind of damage without eventually being replaced at that point in the game, that makes this a feat that is very unlikely to be broken barring a major shift in managerial stategies...

lb13

When Wetteland was pitching, teams usually carried about ten pitchers on the 25 man roster, so pitchers tended to go longer. There's no way a manager today would allow a closer to face seven batters if he didn't have his stuff. Last night, Aaron Boone pulled Aroldis Chapman in the ninth inning in what was probably a similar situation to what Wetteland faced.

Chapman's been shaky for months, now. If he'd been solid in the recent past, I doubt he'd have been pulled, particularly since he probably should have gotten the penultimate batter twice, once on a phantom foul tip and once because the throw should have (but didn't) beat the runner to first.

For example, can you imagine a manager pulling Mariano Rivera in his prime under those circumstances? --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 25, 2021 7:03 pm

littlebeast13 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:27 pm

One thing I should add about Wetteland's feat is that 7 batters is the maximum amount a pitcher can face when entering in the 9th inning or later in a save situation and finish the game without retiring anyone. Since proven closers in save situations are the only pitchers who would be allowed to rack up this kind of damage without eventually being replaced at that point in the game, that makes this a feat that is very unlikely to be broken barring a major shift in managerial stategies...

lb13

When Wetteland was pitching, teams usually carried about ten pitchers on the 25 man roster, so pitchers tended to go longer. There's no way a manager today would allow a closer to face seven batters if he didn't have his stuff. Last night, Aaron Boone pulled Aroldis Chapman in the ninth inning in what was probably a similar situation to what Wetteland faced.

That's part of the bullpen usage evolution that may make this feat even more untouchable. But from the early 90's until just a few years ago, when the established closer came in during a 9th inning save situation, he was wasn't leaving until he got or blew the save...

Back in 1997, AL teams generally carried 12 pitchers (and sometimes 13) on their roster. There probably hasn't been a 10 pitcher 25 man roster in MLB since the early 90's and maybe even the 80's. I love going back and looking at some of those teams from back then and seeing they had maybe only 15 or so different pitchers pitch for them the entire season, let alone using 15 in a span of a few weeks as is standard practice now...

lb13