IndianaTwin

I don’t have opportunity to see games on TV, but they were on FS1 last night. Several things I think I saw: Miranda hustling for a diving stop in the first that he turned into a double play. Farmer looking focused when he jacked the homer. Lewis hustling down the line when he had a chance to beat out a grounder to first, where the pitcher made a nice play. Guys making poor choices on pitches to swing at, but generally erring on being overaggressive rather than cautious with their swings (including Miranda when he was the tying run in the fourth). Henriquez looking good for five batters before the wheels came off for a few batters, but settling after the mound visit. His body language after the homer seemed very much of, “Dangit, I let people down.” Tonkin looking good for two innings. Unless I’m forgetting something, no real defensive or baserunning miscues. For those who were able to (or chose to) actually watch last night (not just read the game report), was I reading things/body language right? I ask because the actual look of last night’s team felt different to me than the way things sounded on the radio the last week.

They finished this past Sunday (8th). Wichita finishes the regular season this coming Sunday (15th). And St. Paul the Sunday after that (22nd). And the Twins the Sunday after that (29th).

If you can guarantee it, sign me up! 😀

I'm doing my best to come up with a line that will lead to "Jabba, Jabba do."

And in watching, he did indeed take plenty of time.

FS1 guys said that a part of the rule is also that you have to come back to the base in a "timely fashion." That was a new one for me.

Easy out on the challenge.

FS1 guys giving a hard time to the fan down the right field line who missed the liner, noting his "You're killing me, Smalls" t-shirt.

Looking forward to those yearend games with the Orioles when we have a Helman-Mayo sighting.

Sick, according to the FS1 announcers.

Here we go again. Another "if only the front office hadn't reduced payroll" article...

Speaking of, when do AFL participation lists get named?

I agree. Though I do wonder if the CBA rules encouraging teams to bring up their top prospects at the beginning of the year has them at least keeping that option for 2026 in their minds. That would be an argument for starting at Wichita rather than parking him in Cedar Rapids for a few weeks. There are few players for whom that's a serious consideration, but he's potentially be one of those few.

Buxton has a no-trade clause that would have to be bought out by someone.

Let’s find out.

I’m not suggesting they should pack it in. I’m just noting that the whole batch of six current qualifiers is very tightly bunched and that there’s a clear break between 6 and 7 in the overall standings right now. And for what it’s worth, the Twins aren’t the only team that has feasted on the White Sox. Kansas City is also 12-1 against them. Among the other current playoff teams, the Orioles and Yankees are 5-1 and 6-1 respectively, and Houston is 4-2. And I suppose you could say, “Cleveland is an imposter. They’ve lost five games to a team that is only 27-104 (.206) against everybody else. And with three games to play, they are even in danger of losing the season series to Chicago.” 😄 And if you look behind the Twins, Detroit is 9-1 (three to play), Seattle 6-1 and Boston 2-2 (also three to play). So if you take the take the White Sox out of the picture, guess where the Twins would be sitting right now. Still with the 2nd Wild Card.

And two starts against Atlanta's lefties last week...

And what hasn't been mentioned often is that they are also only 4.5 behind the Orioles for the No. 1 seed. I know it's a very uphill climb given the injury situation and needing to pass three teams (though they play two of them yet), but it's worth noting for context.

But if it’s a Mr. Ham on Line 5, I’d hold the Mayo.

I'm more like at 90 percent radio. Atteberry hasn't particularly grown on me, but the biggest win of the radio season has been that the "regular" color guy seems to have had a lot more days off this year. Hopefully that's a sign of things to come.

Castro and Santana are likely to be the only two players with enough plate appearances to qualify for the batting title. But on the baseball-reference.com page, it seems almost a certainty that Castro will not appear as a starter.

I'm liking having Perkins on the radio.

I know others who share your perspective. I don't consider it the best stat for measuring overall excellence, but rather a quick-and-dirty way of considering whether the guy has done his job. In general, good pitchers are going to have a higher percentage of QS than bad pitchers. It's a bit like save percentage in that regard. It's kinda helpful, but doesn't give a full picture of how good a reliever has been. Or even wins. We can point to all kinds of reasons why wins isn't the best indicator of pitcher success, but in general better pitchers are going to have more wins that bad pitchers. So while not a sole indicator of any kind, I think there is some value of having such a quick-and-dirty measure of effectiveness. In that you'd accept the modification of it being two runs in six innings, it seems you agree at some level. So if it has some level of helpfulness, the question is what to use as the standard. If I'm remembering the original premise, there were a couple of key questions Bill James was trying to get at. The first is the definition of "quality." I highlighted your words "standard of excellence." I don't think he was intended it as something to count "excellent" stats. That's where the OP started to go with the notion of a "strong" start. Rather, I think he intended to consider "quality" as "kept the team in the game, gave the team a chance to win, both that day and in the future." And if you think about it, a starter that gives up 3 runs in 6 innings has generally done that. Hopefully the team's offense can score that many, and he generally hasn't overextended the bullpen in a way that affects future games. The second part is that as a "quick-and-dirty" stat is has to be easy. To be, it has to use round numbers rather than partial innings. So then, the reasonable permutations to consider are probably 3 runs in 7 (3.86 ERA), 3 in 6 (4.5), 3 in 5 (5.4), 2 in 6 (3.0) or 2 in 5 (3.6). Mathematically, 3 in 7 or 2 in 5 may be the best of the bunch as minimums. In practical terms, however, few pitchers go 7. Almost by definition, going a full 7 in today's game, even if you give up four runs, is some level of excellence, just for the fact of saving the bullpen. Conversely, only going 5 is going to overextend the bullpen if it happens regularly, even if you never give up more than two runs. So 6 innings feels like the standard to use in terms of length. If that's the case, the next question is whether to use 2 runs or 3 allowed as the standard, and here it goes back to the definition -- are we measuring "excellence" or are we measuring "kept the team in the game and didn't shoot the bullpen." If it's the latter, I think 3 is okay. A final comment that I have found helpful from others is to think of what a season would look like if every start was a quality start. Not "every start was the minimum for a quality start" (i.e., each start was 3 in 6), but rather a season where the worst start was a 3 in 6. That starter would almost certainly end the season with good overall numbers, because they would have had some starts where they went 6+, even 7 or maybe an occasional 8. They also would have had starts with just two runs, even some ones and maybe an occasional 0 runs. Each of those would push the overall ERA down. I'm sure it's out there somewhere, but I wonder what the ERA is for pitchers if you only count their "quality starts." I wouldn't be surprised it's 3.50 or better.

I’m traveling for work, so I did actually stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

This was the first time I've seen Matthews, and I would concur. During the broadcast, they named that the most pitches he's thrown in a professional game is 92, so I suspect he'll be on a short leash, but I agree -- he could be a diamond in the rough.