Carlos Rodon shhhhhhh

[rhd]

Broken up w 1 out in the 7th by Eric Haase of all players.

[rhd]

Rodon's bid today made me wonder how many times a pitcher has thrown 2 no-hitters in one season. If you count only the regular season the answer is 4: Johnny VanderMeer in 1938, Allie Reynolds in 1951, Virgil Trucks in 1952 (he went only 5-19 that year!) and Nolan Ryan in 1973. If you include the post-season, then there is one more: Roy Halladay - 1 in the regular season and 1 in the NLDS in 2010.

[Sour Masher]

Wow, the Trucks stat is a hell of a trivia question. Going 5-19 while throwing 2 no hitters is a crazy stat. Forty percent of his wins for no hitters.

[Ken]

Wow, the Trucks stat is a hell of a trivia question. Going 5-19 while throwing 2 no hitters is a crazy stat. Forty percent of his wins for no hitters.

He had the 2 no hitters and the other 3 wins were:

7.2 IP with 1 ER.
A complete game shutout with 6 hits allowed.
A 1 hitter.

[Sour Masher]

He had the 2 no hitters and the other 3 wins were:

7.2 IP with 1 ER.
A complete game shutout with 6 hits allowed.
A 1 hitter.

That is bonkers. Did he suck in the 19 loses or did he just have run support that even make DeGrom grateful?

[Ken]

That is bonkers. Did he suck in the 19 loses or did he just have run support that even make DeGrom grateful?

A little of both.

7 of his losses were of the QS variety. But he had several really, really bad starts too (for example, 5 ER while getting just 1 out in his last start of the year). Overall he was a below average pitcher for the year (95 ERA+).

[Sour Masher]

A little of both.

7 of his losses were of the QS variety. But he had several really, really bad starts too (for example, 5 ER while getting just 1 out in his last start of the year). Overall he was a below average pitcher for the year (95 ERA+).

Just looked him up. yeah, not super great overall. The K rate was particular poor, which makes the 2 no hitters all the more surprising.

[Ken]

Just looked him up. yeah, not super great overall. The K rate was particular poor, which makes the 2 no hitters all the more surprising.

For '52 that was a good K rate. Spahn led the league in Ks with 183, posting a 5.7 K/9. Trucks' 5.9 was elite (6th overall).

[Sour Masher]

For '52 that was a good K rate. Spahn led the league in Ks with 183, posting a 5.7 K/9. Trucks' 5.9 was elite (6th overall).

I knew K rates were lower back then, but that is surprising. I always assumed that increased K rates correlated with more no hitters, but I am guessing that may not be the case, if K rates were so low back then and there were still no hitters happening at a decent clip.

[Ken]

I knew K rates were lower back then, but that is surprising. I always assumed that increased K rates correlated with more no hitters, but I am guessing that may not be the case, if K rates were so low back then and there were still no hitters happening at a decent clip.

K rate is certainly a big factor. But another factor may be BABIP. In '52 league wide BABIP was just .271 vs modern baseball seeing rates closer to .300.

[rhd]

...In '52 league wide BABIP was just .271...

This really jumped out at me. So I looked at MLB Babip rates going all the way back to 1900. They were in the .270 to .284 range for a long time, from about 1940 to 1978. From 1979-1993, they went up a bit. But they didnt really reach recent levels until around 1994, when they reached .300 for the first time since the 1930s. They've been around the .290-.303 range ever since, except they've gone down some the last 2 years. You could surmise that the rise in Babip roughly coincided w the onset of the steroid era. Opinions vary widely on when the steroid era started. I always thought it was the late 80's to early 90's and the fact that steroids first made the banned substances list in 1991 would generally agree w that. However, Babip remained at the same relatively high level even after steroids testing for MLB was implemented in 2003. So evidently, unless PED testing has been mostly ineffective, which I dont think is the case, something else is affecting Babip besides steroid use. I dont really know what that is.

The lowest Babip I saw I think was 1968 (the "year of the pitcher"), which was .269. The highest was 1930 (the "year of the hitter"), which was .312. The highest Babip in recent years was .303 in 2007, which was after they implemented PED testing.

[Sour Masher]

This is interesting, because I would have thought all the data on spray charts and the increased use of data driven shifts would lead to lower BABIP, all other things being equal.

[Ken]

This is interesting, because I would have thought all the data on spray charts and the increased use of data driven shifts would lead to lower BABIP, all other things being equal.

It likely does, all other things being equal. But compare the body of an average 1950s hitter to an average 2010s hitter and you'll note that all other things are not equal. We don't have exit velocity data for historical periods, but I suspect if we did it would be notably lower on average.

[Sour Masher]

It likely does, all other things being equal. But compare the body of an average 1950s hitter to an average 2010s hitter and you'll note that all other things are not equal. We don't have exit velocity data for historical periods, but I suspect if we did it would be notably lower on average.

Yeah, but that works both ways, doesn't it--better athletes make for better fielders, I would think, although I guess the strength gains leading to harder hit balls must far outpace the increases in fast-twitch athleticism leading to players getting to more balls than before. It is a little surprising to me that the hard hit rates would not only even out all the defensive gains and all of the positioning gains, but do so significantly. But I suspect with so many three true outcome players, I guess BABIP rise is inevitable based on increased HR rates alone. If we take the HR differences out of the equation, and BABIP is still higher, I'd be flummoxed.

[Ken]

Yeah, but that works both ways, doesn't it--better athletes make for better fielders, I would think, although I guess the strength gains leading to harder hit balls must far outpace the increases in fast-twitch athleticism leading to players getting to more balls than before. It is a little surprising to me that the hard hit rates would not only even out all the defensive gains and all of the positioning gains, but do so significantly. But I suspect with so many three true outcome players, I guess BABIP rise is inevitable based on increased HR rates alone. If we take the HR differences out of the equation, and BABIP is still higher, I'd be flummoxed.

I hear you on better fielders, but I don't think it evens out. Think of it this way - a hitter can hit a hard shot in the hole that is hit fast enough that no fielder can get to it. A fielder can't have so much range that no hitter can hit it past him. The athleticism curves aren't even between hitting and fielding IMO. They both are trending up, but harder hits beat even the most elite fielders.