Matt Garza threw the fifth no hitter of '10 on Monday, shutting down the Tigers
What's that phrase about too much of a good thing?
Matt Garza no hit the Tigers Monday, pitching the 5th no hitter of 2010 (Note:
Yep, that's not a misprint. 5 no-hitters in 2010, and we only just had the All-Star break. Does this officially establish 2010 as the year of the pitcher? Will this mark the start of a decade of pitching dominance?
Don't worry, long-ball enthusiasts, I don't think that's the case at all. That's it, deep breaths. We'll get through this together.
I know what you're thinking. "Get outta here. You can't get off that easy. Stop all the tomfoolery. Where's the
Quick note. I only took no hitters after 1900 (arbitrary only in so much as dates prior to 1900 are a hassle in Excel), and I only took no hitters thrown by 1 pitcher, which leaves us with 217.
So, back to our 5 no hitters this year. A lot? Yeah. Most ever? Not yet. Between 1900 and 2010, there were 4 years when there were 6 no hitters (1908, 1915, 1969, and 1990). 2010 marks the 6th year there have been 5 no hitters in the same year. Quick interesting tidbit, 3 of the 4 "6 hitter" years were within 2 years of a "5 hitter" year. In fact, in '68-'69 and '90-'91 there was a 5 no hitter year and 6 no hitter year next to each other! What do you think Vegas odds are on +5 no hitters next year?
But this year could still prove to be historic. Of the 214 no hitters I looked at, 84 of them (or 38.7%) came after July. I guess the "dog days of summer" are really only felt by the hitters.
But let's get back to what we were first investigating. Do no hitters trend by decade? Is this the pitching comeback after the long ball so dominated the game?
The short answer is, no. The long answer is, not by a long shot (oh me and my puns).
Below is a list of how many no hitters were thrown each decade:
1900's 20
1910's 28
1920's 9
1930's 8
1940's 13
1950's 18
1960's 33
1970's 29
1980's 13
1990's 27
2000's 14
2010's 5
That goes ahead and addresses the first part of the answer. There really aren't any clear "trends" here (even for my powers of inference). So, fans of the long ball, live easy. This somewhat strange frequency of no hitters is no sign of the apocalypse for home runs.
But I'm not going to stop there. I don't think the statement is even close. Why? One of the peaks for no hitters was in the 90s. Ring any bells? How could a decade which saw a high number of no hitters also be a decade of a lot of home runs? Well, no hitters are somewhat of an anomaly as in while some pitchers are thought of to have the "stuff" to potentially throw one at any point, no manager is betting on it for any given game. In fact, more times than not, we've seen no hitters (and perfect games) from just okay pitchers, not All Stars. And because managers don't bet on any of their pitchers throwing a no hitter at any given time, opposing managers don't adjust their strategy because of "predicted no hitters." No manager sits there thinking, "this guy's gonna pitch a no-no today, let's try bunt singles from the whole team."
So why did I write this whole post if nothing is there? If this isn't a sign of some potentially
Well, the most interesting part this particular no hitter isn't applicable to all teams or the leagues or future performances (doesn't mean I won't bet someone there will be 5+ no hitters next year), it has to do with just the Rays and the theme of this blog. Prior to this, the Rays had been no hit 4 times in their 13 years of baseball existence. There's something nice about redemption (which is why I want to reprogram slow-pitch softball pitching machines to occasionally throw a fastball high and tight), and the Rays deserve watching a no hitter from the right dugout for once.
Call me crazy, but for some reason I like the idea of "the 5th time's the charm." There's something hopeful about watching a team be on the losing end 4 times before finally being on the right side the 5th time. But maybe that's just me...
No comments:
Post a Comment