Only a fun-hater wouldn't enjoy a no-hitter

I've had it.

I consider myself a "stathead." I love, to varying degrees, all of the little measurements that people a lot smarter than I am have come up with over the years. I love the fact that baseball fans, and baseball teams, act a lot more sensibly than they did 15 years ago, not necessarily because they are smarter, but because they have access to better information and better understand non-baseball concepts. The randomness in statistics is one good example.

As fans have becomes smarter regarding the inherent randomness, though, there's thing that's happened that I just cannot stand for. Every time there is a no-hitter, some smarty-pants commentators, particularly the type who use the insipid comment function on various websites, seem to feel the need to inform the rest of us that it was all "chance" or "luck" that a no-hitter happened. One such commenter, who I won't link to here, stated that a three-hitter is just as good as a game where a pitcher throws a no-hitter and allows two walks and a hit batsman. 

So what??

Seriously. Everyone knows that no-hitters require luck. Even the late Bob Feller, who the guy who invented the wheel would've considered "old school," stated as much. On the contrary, it's the luck involved in the no-hitter that makes them so cool. The confluence of good fielding, bad hitting, maybe a lucky call or fortunate bounce, and great pitching that results in the opponent having a "zero" in the H column is so awesomely cool that I can't understand why someone who likes baseball wouldn't be able to appreciate it.

So here's the deal. While I can't stand it when people tell others how they should enjoy something - it's one of my main pet peeves when a grouchy columnists at one of the dying newspapers around the country breaks out his annual "statheads and people who play fantasy sports aren't REAL fans like I am" rant - I'm going to go entirely against my usual inclination. If you don't like no-hitters, you're a fun-hating jerkface.

Johan Santana's no-hitter is a good reminder that he's awesome

As just about all of you already know, Johan Santana threw the first no-hitter in New York Mets history this past Friday. It was also the first no-hitter of Santana's excellent career. While no longer considered one of the ace pitchers in the game, Santana has been fantastic in his comeback this year. He only has three wins because of the sometimes-anemic Met offense, which had, until Friday's gem allowed Santana to fly somewhat under the radar, he now has a 2.38 ERA (6th in NL), 68 strikeouts (8th), a 1.029 WHIP (8th), and is the only pitcher in the majors with two complete games. He ranks tied for fifth (with fellow Met R.A. Dickey) in Baseball-Reference's WAR calculation.

Johan Santana (Credit: slgckgc)

Perhaps it's hard to imagine because of all the other stuff that went on around him during his time in Queens, but the trade for Santana may have been the best the Mets have ever made. Compare Santana, with a 2.80 ERA (144 ERA+) in 668 innings, giving him a 16.4 WAR, to David Cone, with his 3.13 ERA (113 ERA+) in 1209.1 innings, good for a 9.6 WAR. The theft of Cone from the Royals was cited by the MLB Network's Prime Nine program (not necessarily a bastion of objective analysis, but certainly an idea of the general consensus) as the 8th most lopsided trade in all of baseball history. Objectively, the Santana trade was better for the Mets.

Of course, we don't always consider these things objectively. The Mets were an elite team when Cone pitched for them, and Cone was a workhorse, pitching 200+ innings in each of the years he was in the rotation. Meanwhile, Santana got a huge contract and spent a bit of time on the disabled list, during a time when lots of Mets signed big contracts and spent time on the disabled list. It seemed like he was viewed as part of the problem more than part of the solution, which was unfair - it wasn't Santana's fault that Jason Bay broke down.

With a WAR over 50.0, two Cy Young Awards, and now a no-hitter, Santana may very well be the most difficult decision for the Hall of Fame of any active player. With only 136 wins and only two with more than 16, he doesn't have the traditional statistics voters tend to look for, so it's my guess that he won't get in. Still, no eligible player with two Cy Young awards has ever missed out on the Hall. It's hard to imagine Santana having enough left in the tank to get the 64 wins he'd need to reach 200, but it was also hard to imagine Santana carrying a 2.38 ERA through two months of the season. 

With that in mind, since he doesn't have the traditional stats, and HOF voters are far behind season-award voters when it comes to advanced stats, it's going to take a great narrative to get Santana into the Hall. With a no-hitter as part of a season that sees the Mets, improbably, in first place two months into the season, maybe he's getting that chance.

Photo Credit: By slgckgc on Flickr (Original version) UCinternational (Crop) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Your Friday morning Pearl Jam

Pearl Jam performs Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town at Buffalo's HSBC arena, May 2, 2003. I was lucky enough to be at this one.

SoxProspects.com: Cup of Coffee: Brentz, Bradley finish impressive May on high note

6/1 Cup of Coffee: Appropriately, May ended with big nights by the two players in the system who had the most dominant months - Bryce Brentz went 5 for 5 to lead Portland in a morning game, while Jackie Bradley, Jr. had a 4 for 5 evening that helped propel Salem to victory.

Continue to SoxProspects.com to read the rest of this article.

An evening at Fenway: Red Sox 6. Tigers 3

I was lucky enough to get to go to the Red Sox game last night. A friend called last week and said he had extra tickets, which made me excited. Then I found out that Justin Verlander was scheduled to start, which made me even more excited. Then the Red Sox won on Monday, meaning that a win on Tuesday would bring them above .500 for the first time all season, and that made me apprehensive. After all, they'd been .500 six times already, and were 0-6 in games that would put them over the hump. With the seeming mismatch of Daniel Bard vs. Verlander, it seemed like they could be in line to make it 0-7.

Anyhow, my fears were allayed as the Red Sox won. The lessons from the night are that a) you don't pitch against the opposing starting pitcher, you pitch against the opposing team - this is important, because the Red Sox offense is excellent, and the Tigers really stinks, b) David Ortiz is really, really good, once again. 

From our seats up in the right field roof boxes, it was tough to tell how sharp either pitcher was. Verlander didn't get the results he normally does, but his fastball was hard, and it seemed like he had a good changeup. It looked as though the Sox really just did a good job hitting. The same cannot be said of the Tigers, baseball's most disappointing team right now at 23-26. After the signing of Prince Fielder, it looked like they were to be one of the better teams in the game, but they are eighth in the American League in scoring while allowing the fourth most runs in the league. While the pitching should come around - Scherzer is pitching better after his usually early-season troubles, and the rest of the starting rotation seems sound - the offense may be in more trouble. After Cabrera, Fielder and the injured Austin Jackson, they haven't received that much of an offensive contribution elsewhere. Alex Avila was in an awful slump but has brought his slugging percentage back over .400. The bigger issues are the sub .300 OBPs from right-fielder Brennan Boesch and designated hitter Delmon Young, along with the vortex that has been their second base position. Led by Ryan Raburn and Ramon Santiago (combined -2.1 WAR), Tigers' second sackers are batting .175/.253/.250, which probably has 55-year old Lou Whitaker interested in a comeback. The Tigers have built a pretty deep hole for themselves, and without some upgrades, will not be able to dig out of it.

As far as Ortiz, it's really a treat getting to watch him. My guess is that this won't actually be his last year in Boston, but it could, so I'm glad I got the chance to see him again. Ortiz went 3 for 4 with two doubles and a laser beam home run over the Green Monster. He's been one of the best hitters in the American League this year, and now has 331 home runs in a Red Sox uniform. I'm lucky to have had the chance to see him so many times.

Daniel Bard, who I wrote about this past weekend, had a nice game, though it's hard to say anything definitive. He was generally throwing about 93, where he's been all season, but did seem to have a few more topping out in the 95-96 range. It took him 94 pitches to get through 5.1 innings, and he allowed two home runs after only allowing three in his first nine games. Without Jackson in the lineup, the Tigers lineup wasn't Bard's toughest test, but it was a solid outing.

As far as the experience goes, the game was a blast, as Fenway Park almost always is. We had about a 45 minute rain delay as some pretty crazy thunderstorms moved through in the eighth. After that, it took only about 15 mintues to close out the game. I like the right field roof box seats, which give a nice open view of the field at a reasonable price. It's amazing to walk through and look at the changes made in the 10 years since the new ownership came on. Some of it is obvious to those watching at home, like the Green Monster seats and the roof deck over where the retired numbers are. 

My personal favorite is the concourse and picnic area in what used to be a storage area between the grandstand in the bleachers. It's a wide open area filled with food vendors and maintains the feel of the park, while also fixing what was once the biggest flaw of Fenway - the fact you couldn't walk all the way around it. If you had bleacher tickets, you were stuck either in the bleachers, or the area underneath. Now you can enter in any gate. 

My least favorite improvement is the shutting down of Yawkey Way on game day. It detracts from the whole "downtown ballpark experience" in my view. Part of the fun of having a park in a busy city location is all the people who don't have tickets walking around, enjoying the area - and just living. People who live over on Brookline Ave. or Boylston Street are just there. Now, though, if you want to get around the park on the outside, you have a pretty long route to navigate, making a miserable experience for the neighbors. I agree with closing the street to vehicle traffic, but you shouldn't need a ticket to walk down Yawkey Way.