gehringer_2

Charle with a QS and a nice play by Gleyber.

I'll maybe beat a dead horse a bit here, but this aspect doesn't bother me. There are better stats to tell me who the 'best pitcher' which you note, Every stat doesn't need to tell you the same thing, Some can just reflect the historical record and I think that's fine. It doesn't have to be a measure of who is the best pitcher to still have stats that catalog actual game history. Good luck/bad luck history is cooked into so many baseball stats already that I don't see that part as a particular knock on some kind of win/loss record. e.g. The guy that finishes with the most HRs may or may not have hit the most balls the hardest. We still follow who has the most actual luck/success. The whole movement to advance stats was to try and separate 'event recording' stats from better performance metric stats. So now we have better performance measure stats, there's no needs to jettison recording stats - the history is still the history. All that said, I won't defend the current W/L stat. It's a nearly information free from either standpoint.

The defensive limitation is certainly a consideration, but OTOH, he is such a perfect example of the way the Tigers want hitters to work pitchers that I think they'd be glad to have him back from the player standpoint, but still probably not from the contract standpoint!

I don't disagree the current stat is worse than useless, particularly the 5 inning minimum given current starter use patterns. So is there a simple way to give pitchers credit/liability for their actual game accomplishments? (as apart from performance stats like ERA/FIP do nothing to record their game success failure). I don't know if there is. I know a suggestion like mine would never be adopted just because it's too big a change and would create too big a break in the statistical history. What I suppose would be better would just a new stat. Leave W/L as a historical artifact and record some other measure of game success/failure. And since everything is in the books somewhere a new stat can be back calculated for what players have done in their careers.

Of course, 50 years ago it would have been pretty unusual for 12 teams to score 6 runs or more in a game on the same day like happened yesterday.

Diaz is really bad back there. Doesn't move his body at all, just tries to glove everything.

you can get away with less brute throwing velo if you can get your throws off quickly. There aren't that many plays you need to be Andrelton Simmons to make (though that kind of arm/range to the right is pretty nice!)

I love what McKinstry has done this season but I wouldn't pencil him in to be able to repeat it very long, maybe not even next season. His bio says "short career arc" to me.

Initial reporting about McGonigle was 'he'll be a 2B at MLB at best". More recently people say he might be able to stick at SS. But the Tigers have a long history of telling us we have great defenders in the minors who turn out to be not-so-much when they get here (Kriedler, Jung etc). They're playing him exclusively at SS so far this season, so they are trying, but we probably won't find out for real if he can cut it as an MLB SS until he gets here.

It a counting stat though, not a performance measure. A guy LH hitter hits 30 HRs in Yankee stadium, 15 of which would be outs at Kaufman. It just what happened, not what a great hitter he is. So lots of stats in baseball work that way. That doesn't really bother me. I don't think it's bad for there to be a counting stat for the pitcher who most contributed to a win or loss. And like all counting stats, it would only approximate a player's performance level. So the complaint to my rule would be that a guy could go 4, give up 4, the next guy comes in and pitches 3 shutout innings. I'd still have to give the win to the 1st guy even though the 2nd guy pitched better because I'm measuring outs - and the 1st guy got them. And the 1st guy is still liable for the loss if his mates don't bail him out. But at least you know what the stat means (got outs in a win vs gave up runs in a loss), which I don't think you can still say about wins/losses today at all.

The rowboat battles between the two on the Black Sea front must have been epic. Well, give guy a break, it's only 1300 miles from Tirane to Yerevan.

The ideal solution for this despondency is for Morton to give up one in the 1st and the Tigers to win 6-1. Problems solved both ways.

given the shifts in how pitchers are used, my suggestion for a simple system more appropriate to this era would be that if your team wins the game, whatever pitcher got the most outs gets the win. If your team loses, whatever pitchers gave up the most runs gets the loss. TBH, the idea that a particular run is a 'winning run' or that when it is scored matters has never made any sense in baseball.

Yup. Getting it in the books without having to see who was in Holton's skin tonight was a very good thing.

Sadly, probably an easy day tomorrow for Toronto. They go against Johan Oviedo who has thrown exactly one inning since coming off the DL from his TJ surgery last year. It's shapes up as a bullpen day for Pit with Oviedo as opener.

OTOH, Framber has had a lot of success against the Tiger the last two seasons. Long term trend, meet short term trend.

Vest was pitcher of record when the run was scored. He got the win.

If they close out the season at .586 that would be 94 or 95 wins. That's probably a soild #2 seed. 97 probably gets them the #1 seed.

28 scoreless for the Astros.

Ump is pretty terrible for both sides

Astros trying to give it away, not quite succeeding.

Good for Tork for not stopping on that .

Hinch's strategy may be correct but snake eyes so far tonight. Used his RHH and got nothing out of them

If that bat doesn't break, that probably clears the IF. Game of wood grains.

I think I would let Colt hit, but we'll see.