The Phillies' pitchers will have a chance to show how good they are over the rest of the home stand. After the starting staff picked it up a notch through the last few rounds of the rotation, the bullpen took a hit when closer Brad Lidge went on the disabled list last week.
After three-straight extra-inning games and the loss of starter Antonio Bastardo after just one inning on Saturday, due to a 95-minute rain delay, Philadelphia played musical relievers over the weekend just to have a fresh arm in the 'pen. Kyle Kenrick and Sergio Escalona got one-day promotions from Triple-A Lehigh Valley. Each pitched two innings on Friday and Saturday, respectively, and both were sent back after their appearances.
Veteran Tyler Walker was added to the bullpen on Sunday and was still with the club when the Toronto series began. The 33-year-old brought a career record of 20-17 with an earned-run average of 4.62 in 230 games over six seasons with several clubs.
My big concern now is Lidge. Statistics show that pitchers have had some of their best years while playing for a contract. Lidge was so dominant last season that the Phillies extended him for three more years about midway through the campaign.
I'm afraid that Lidge might have had his season in the sun. And I'm afraid that that season might have been 2008.
I had an interesting exchange of e-mails a few days ago. It began when a fellow named Mac wrote about pitching statistics and asked what some of them meant. Games started, complete games, etc., were self-explanatory, but he didn't understand "HLD" nor "WHIP."
Baseball Steve jumped in to say that a "hold" is when a reliever holds a lead but yields to another pitcher without getting a save. This stat would apply mainly to middle relievers and set-up men.
"WHIP is walks plus hits allowed divided by innings pitched," he wrote.
I didn't know this one, but since Steve is into one of the popular fantasy baseball leagues, I guess it's a statistic that means something to numbers crunchers.
It was Steve's contention that a complete game meant nine innings pitched that prompted my reply. He wrote that a visiting pitcher can get a complete game by throwing only eight innings in a loss because the home team wouldn't bat in the ninth. He claimed that most people didn't know this quirk in the rule for complete games.
I guessed wrong on the pitcher, but I recalled that somebody threw a five-inning no-hitter against the Phillies in a game that was called by the umpires after a long rain delay. I wrote that the pitcher got a win, a complete game AND a no-hitter.
At the time, I remember thinking that it was a cheap no-hitter for two reasons. It is highly unlikely that a starter would return to the mound after a long rain delay. (See Antonio Bastardo.) Also, had the starter returned after such a delay, the likelihood that he still would be effective enough to hold a team hitless for the last four innings was pretty slim.
Baseball Steve responded that Montreal Expos' hurler Pascual Perez did indeed win a five-inning game against the Phillies without yielding a hit on Sept. 24, 1988, but it was not a no-hitter.
"Major league criteria requires nine innings pitched (for a no-hitter)," he wrote.
Then Mac chimed in again by asking if there might have been a rule change in the interim.
"Maybe it was originally classified as a no-hitter and later revised with a rule change," Mac wrote.
Steve replied that the rule was changed in 1991.
"Prior to that, shortened games, as well as games where a pitcher went nine innings and then lost the no-hitter (in extra innings) were considered no-hitters," Steve wrote. "When Perez did it, it was (considered) a no-hitter until the rule was changed."
That response brought two things to my mind. As a youngster, I can recall reading about a pitcher who held an opposing team hitless for nine innings, but he gave up at least one hit in extra innings and lost the game, yet he was still credited with a no-hitter. I don't remember who it was. Can anyone help me on this one?
Also, why can't a pitcher get an eight-inning no-hitter, based on the same premise as the complete-game rule? Here's my scenario.
Two pitchers are battling in a duel that ends up in a 1-0 decision. The home pitcher gives up a few hits but works out of a few jams without allowing a run to score. He gets the win, a shutout and a complete game.
The visiting hurler allows one, two or three runners in one inning — on walks, hits by pitch, errors, etc. One runner circles the bases using any combination of additional walks, stolen bases or errors. In this case, the visiting pitcher would get the loss and a complete game, but why couldn't he also be credited for a no-hitter?
That's my opinion. What do you think? Click on the "Comments?" link below and let me know.
Next post: July 1.
© 2009 www.Bill-McFarland.com
Visit the Phillies Web site.