Quality Pitching and Offense
I have come up with a new way to analyze a team's offense and defense (well, at least it's new to me.)
Quality Offense -- Offense scores more than four runs.
Quality Pitching -- Pitching holds opposing team to four runs or less.
If pitching holds the other team to four or less runs, the team is in the game. If the offense scores more than five runs, they've given the pitchers a good chance to win. Of course, in the steroid era, I probably would have had to select a number like eight instead of four.
For my team, the Twins who have played 61 games, here are the numbers first for their wins and then their losses:
Wins 36
QP 30
QO 26
Loss 25
QP 11
QO 2
Total 58
QP 41
QO 28
Based on this, the Twins pitching has been pretty effective, while their offense has under performed.
In a loss, it is impossible for a team to have both a quality pitching performance and a quality offensive performance. Therefore, the Twins had ten losses where neither pitching nor offense performed well. Over the last 17 games, the Twins are 11-6. It's been all an offensive struggle in that all six losses quality pitching performances.
Look at the Houston Astros who keep blowing games for Clemens. Their pitching is nearly as good as the Twins, but their offense is nonexistant.
Wins 25
QP 22
QO 13
Loss 36
QP 17
QO 4
Total 61
QP 39
QO 17
Gonzalez vs. Raich
I was very interested in this case. For years, I have been an Interstate Commerce Clause interpretation fanatic. Even before the decision was made public, I knew about Wickard vs. Filburn, United States vs. Lopez, and United States vs. Morrison. I am not a lawyer. (I am of a higher class: engineer.) But one need not be a lawyer to understand the abuse of interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Incidentally, it does take a law degree to spew the B.S. justifications for the abuse of the Interstate commerce clause.
Interstate Commerce is business that crosses state lines. Lawyers out there will correct me in my definition, but there correction changes little. Back in 1942 with Wickard vs. Filburn, the Supreme Court said something could be considered interstate commerce if it had an effect on interstate commerce. Boy! What a loophole!
Then, in the mid 90’s, the Federal Government passed a law creating gun free zones around public schools. The problem is how to justify it. Police powers are a state issue. So, the government used the old cure all… you guessed it… the interstate commerce clause.
The government came up with this: kids who go to public school may one day work in the area of interstate commerce. Hence, guns around schools have an effect on interstate commerce. This is obviously pretty awful logic. Here is the big difference between engineers and lawyers two groups I consider to be polar opposites. Lawyers make their arguments to produce a desired outcome. Engineers make their arguments in order to find the truth. Otherwise, things fall apart, blow up, etc… There is no way an engineer can look at this logic and not laugh. However, lawyers being of a lower caste can say this with a straight face.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument but only 5-4. And now with Kennedy getting more and more loopy, one wonders if the votes are there in the future to hold back the federal government.
The Morrison case had to do with the violence against women. Here lies the rub. It is difficult to discuss these cases because the discussion withers into “why would you want guns around schools” or “why are you for violence against women”. You see the problem.
What is different about the Gonzalez case involving medical marijuana is that there is a sympathetic case against the Federal government intrusion. Hence, one need not understand the Interstate Commerce Clause to be against Federal Law trumping State Law.
So remember:
When it comes to cases decided upon the Interstate Commerce Clause, one’s support or non-support for a decision usually has nothing to do with one’s personal view about the law.
End of 300 wins?
I have heard talk of whether or not Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux will be the last 300 winners of all time. I disagree.
I’ve often heard that it won’t happen because of pitchers starting fewer games than they used to. It is true that pitchers started 40-50 games regularly in the 1800’s and dead ball era of the early twentieth century. But once the dead ball era ended, it wasn’t really until the season was lengthened from 154 games to 162 that 40 starts became a common event. Simple math shows the following.
Assuming three days rest and no days off,
154 / 4 ~= 38 games started
162 / 4 ~= 41 games started
Currently, 35 – 36 starts per season are still reached by a couple pitchers each year. Believe it or not, Warren Spahn (who I consider the best pitcher of all time) never started 40 games in a season.
I would say the biggest difference between the old days and today is not the number of starts, but the fact that there were more complete games, which gives the start more of an opportunity for a decision and that starters used to relieve between starts which gave them an opportunity to pick up an easy win.
Note the list below shows 300 game winners for different era’s. Note that there were more pitchers with 300+ wins during the start of 162 game schedule than there were during the deadball era!
Note that if Glavine makes it to 300 wins, the present era (the last 20 years) will have matched the total of those pitchers who pitched mainly between the deadball era and the 162 game schedule.
From the 1870’s to the present, there have only been 22 pitchers who have had the talent and the durability to make it to 300 wins. And when you’re seeing pitchers nearly 40 years old winning 24 games (Randy Johnson – 2002), there is no doubt that the list of 22 will expand.
http://www.baseball-reference.com
1800’s
Cy Young
Pud Galvin
Kid Nichols
Tim Keefe
John Clarkson
Charley Radbourn
Mickey Welch
1901 – 1920 (Deadball era)
Walter Johnson
Pete Alexander
Christy Mathewson
Eddie Plank
1920 - 1960
Warren Spahn
Lefty Grove
Early Wynn
1960 - 1985
Steve Carlton
Nolan Ryan
Don Sutton
Phil Niekro
Gaylord Perry
Tom Seaver
1985 - Present
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
