Mark Buerhle Throws No Hitter by Pretending He's Pitching for the Cardinals
>> Thursday
In what was certain to cause Zuch to have a sudden and powerful "no-touch orgasm" last night (that's right, that's the image I want in your head for the rest of the day), Mark Buerhle threw a no-no for the Sox against the Rangers, the only blemish a walk to Sammy Sosa that he later erased by picking Sosa off of first base.
There isn't really much to say about this, but what the hell, I needed to make that Zuch/orgasm joke and since I put my two weeks notice in at work, it's slow goin's.
One thing, though -- Doesn't Buerhle seem like the absolute prototype of a pitcher that would throw a no hitter? I mean, he's not all that spectacular overall, but he's just one of those guys with the kind of above-average strikeout stuff that it seems like this isn't much of a huge surprise. To me (and I believe Vinnie agrees on this), no hitters are kind of inherently overblown by the fact that 9 times out of 10 the guys that throw one (emphasis one and not guys like Nolan Ryan) are the guys with pretty much only above average stuff that get some breaks one night and everything seems to fall into place. Look at the kid that threw one last year, Anibal Sanchez from the Marlins - though he's still young and could probably go on to have a great career, at this point he just looks like a pretty decent pitcher with a good K/9IP rate. It's kind of a microchosm (there's no way I spelled that right) for the concept of small sample size in baseball, much like the guys that hit for the cycle (Chad Moeller!).
No real point to this post, just thought I'd get that out there. What do the rest of you think?
Posts
4 comments:
Microcosmic.
I think especially in the case of a guy like Buehrle, some excellent luck is at hand. His game is letting guys put the ball in play, not walking people, and accepting the acattered hit. There's definitely an art to allowing contact and minimizing solid contact, and when guys like Buehrle are on, I find it as enjoyable (but in more of a 1920s-like way) as watching a guy ring up hitter after hitter.
The flip side of that is this: when power pitchers dominate, they'll do it by giving up much less contact than what Buehrle did last night. But when a guy puts it in play off that type of pitcher, it's generally much tougher to field and tend to go for more bases. I think people tend to gloss over this fact a bit, and I think the stereotype Sabermetric fan tends to underrate the Buehrle type for this reason. They put too much emphasis on avoiding contact and underrate the ability to induce soft contact.
Basically, that's my long-winded way of saying, yes, there's lots of luck in a no-hitter because let's face it--no matter which type of pitcher you are, is there really a difference between no-hit stuff and two-hit stuff? Theoretically, you could have "two-hit stuff" and have luck on your side and get a no-hitter. With theoretical "no-hit stuff," variance can only work against you.
And by the way, I'm glad to see you're treating your last two weeks just as I'd expected you to.
If you haven't already, I guarantee you have a new job lined up well before I'm gainfully employed.
At least that cushioned the blow of the Bulls choking away the #2 seed. Plus, when the Sox are 45-53 at the trade deadline, this may make a team greatly overpay for him.
Post a Comment