Indians win the AL pennant.
2016 MLB Regular Season - It's an Even Year...
- Thread starter tomalak301
- Start date
- Status
One question: Why does Shaw get credit for the Cleveland win, and not Merritt? Indians were already ahead when Merritt was taken out. 
Last edited:
Haven't watched the movie in a while, but as I recall they're pretty bog-standard horn-rimmed glasses with larger frames for the lenses. You should be able to find something like that in any drug store for ten bucks, then just use some Wite-Out to paint the lightning bolt on the temples.
Blue Jay fans can now put down their beer cans. 
Yeah. I once saw Randy Johnson throw 17 strikeouts and still got handed a loss. It's meaningless.
...and this is a Cubs thing for sure. I saw Greg Maddux give up one hit, a homer, and lose 1-0.
Don't forget the skull and crossbones on the bridge.
I found a pair of the glasses on eBay, so hopefully I'll have them in time. I'll buy a knock off jersey at the sports store, but it'll have to be without the name and number, and I already have a cap. My wife thinks that we can cut up a cheap black wig for the veg-a-matic haircut. I just need the back to look ok since I'll be wearing the cap.
The worst. Personally hate when the starter goes 4 2/3, reliever gets one batter to close out the 5th, and the reliever is the guy to eventually win. Why does the starter not get credit for 14 batters, but the 15th batter is the guy that determines the win again? Always hated that stupid rules.
Way better example (or worse usage of the rule, if you prefer): in 1995, Pedro threw a perfect game. Except his team didn't score any runs either. Went back out for the 10th, and gave up a hit, got pulled, next guy finishes the inning. Expos ended up winning 1-0, so could have been worse if he'd been handed a loss, but doesn't get credit for a perfect game, no-hitter, or anything. He DID at least get the win, I guess.
Want to go really ugly: Harvey Haddix in 1959 pitched 12 perfect innings. Went back out in the 13th and lost the perfect game, no hitter, and took a loss all at the same time.
yeah, wins/losses are really important stats, and tell you something meaningful about how pitchers performed
Or, for a more recent Cubs example, Ryan Dempster was by any objective metric one of the best pitchers in baseball in the first half of 2012, but because the team's offense was a tire fire, he didn't get his first win until June 5.
Dice-K went like 18-3 one year (2007? 2008?), but pretty much pitched 5 horrific innings each start and made you die a little inside watching them. It's just a completely worthless stat.
That said, going 4 2/3 only to have the reliever throw one pitch and get the win right after is up there on the annoyance list for baseball scoring...
That said, going 4 2/3 only to have the reliever throw one pitch and get the win right after is up there on the annoyance list for baseball scoring...
A lot of traditional baseball scoring and the numbers focused upon is just completely moronic because the BBWAA is obsessed with sucking the desiccated dicks of Henry Chadwick and Ernie Lanigan. Almost as meaningless as pitcher wins, for example, is RBI for batters.
well, MOSTLY out of their control, could always just hit a HR and guarantee one RBI 
Batting AVG with RISP at least gives you a slightly better look at it, as it's just seeing how you perform in that situation, not penalizing you for there not being anyone on 2B in the first place.
And yeah BBWAA is one of the most archaic, backwards groups. Hate their process/influence on things. HoF voting being high on the list. I at least like how the NFL handles that part (mostly). Much more selective, you get a group together and have to argue/defend your choice, it at least feels like it wasn't arbitrary or too political. or people not voting for someone because someone 100 years ago didn't get 100%. or the guys whose votes go up every year (if you weren't HoF worthy last year, what changed? shouldn't be momentum in voting, it's a yes/no question). *sigh*
Batting AVG with RISP at least gives you a slightly better look at it, as it's just seeing how you perform in that situation, not penalizing you for there not being anyone on 2B in the first place.
And yeah BBWAA is one of the most archaic, backwards groups. Hate their process/influence on things. HoF voting being high on the list. I at least like how the NFL handles that part (mostly). Much more selective, you get a group together and have to argue/defend your choice, it at least feels like it wasn't arbitrary or too political. or people not voting for someone because someone 100 years ago didn't get 100%. or the guys whose votes go up every year (if you weren't HoF worthy last year, what changed? shouldn't be momentum in voting, it's a yes/no question). *sigh*
- Status
