Liriano throws first no hitter of season

[ThomasTomasz]

We've seen a couple pitchers throw six innings so far this season, but Liriano threw the first one of the season against the White Sox, going up against none other than Edwin Jackson.

Its probably one of the worst no hitters too- Liriano gave up six walks, only struck out two over 123 pitches (57 balls to 66 strikes- wow.) Its also improbable, as I read an article where it said Liriano has never even thrown a complete game, much less a shutout. And, he's been one of the worst pitchers in April.

But, a no hitter is equal parts skill and luck, so congrats to Lirano and the Twins. Hopefully that jumpstarts them to playing better baseball.

 

[spiker]

Fan-fucking-tastic.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

With the Reds being blown out, and Liriano on my fantasy team, I watched the last 5 or 6 innings of this.

He still has no fastball. He was, however, dropping that little curve ball neatly into the zone all night. Hitters were off balance, as evident by the multitude of pop ups and the fact nothing left the IF after the 5th.

His walks came when he tried to get ahead with fastballs, which he was keeping down but mostly in the dirt. All of his success came off the breaking stuff.

Denard Span got a great jump on a gaper in the 5th, with a man on, and saved not only the no no, but maybe even the game.

 

[Woy]

My one friend told me he dropped Liriano from his fantasy team just yesterday. :rofl:

 

[spiker]

Besides getting no-hit, the fact that Liriano only struck out two on his way to a no-no is the most damning idictment of White Sox hitting about this whole shit escapade. They suck so much dick, even Cubs fans are jealous.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Good for the Twins, completely unexpected that they'd be the worst team in MLB at this point and maybe it gets them going now. Guess it kinda shows how much they really rely on Mauer though.








You should probably look into making more than one friend at some point.

That Twins lineup is atrocious.

 

[NAHSTE]

Hilarious that he pulled an Edwin Jackson with none other than Edwin Jackson as the opposing pitcher. Jackson pitched a good game himself, only really making one mistake.

It's cool to see. but let's think how improbable it really is to pitch a no hitter when you are that wild/ineffective and continuously pitching from behind in the count. The White Sox put the ball in play 25 times, and their team bapip is .250 ... Not sure the odds for 25 balls put in play to not fall in for a hit but they have to be long. The final at bat was clutch as hell. With a runner on 1st and a 1-run lead, he came back from 2-0 and 3-1 counts to retire Dunn. I thought for sure when it went 2-0 Dunn was going to snap his slump and deposit a ball in the seats. Oh well, he didn't, Liriano made the necessary pitches to battle back and record his own bit of history.

I like Franky, so I was happy for him. Just found it to be an odd/flukey no-no.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Hilarious that he pulled an Edwin Jackson with none other than Edwin Jackson as the opposing pitcher. Jackson pitched a good game himself, only really making one mistake.

It's cool to see. but let's think how improbable it really is to pitch a no hitter when you are that wild/ineffective. The White Sox put the ball in play 25 times, and their team bapip is .250 ... Not sure the odds for 25 balls put in play to not fall in for a hit but they have to be long. He was behind in the count a lot too. The last at bat was clutch though. With a runner on 1st and a 1-run lead, he came back from 2-0 and 3-1 counts to retire Dunn. I thought for sure when it went 2-0 Dunn was going to snap his slump and deposit a ball in the seats. Oh well, he didn't, Liriano made the necessary pitches to battle back and record his own bit of history.

I like Franky, so I was happy for him. Just found it to be an odd/flukey no-no.

I haven't commited fully to that stat yet. Id like to see it expanded to include 'solid' & 'weak' contact for balls in play.

Using last night as an example, Liriano was a bit wild early, but no balls left the IF after the 5th. Every inning featured at least one weak pop up. The only solid hit ball was Dunn's final out.

Isn't inducing weak contact by keeping hitters guessing indicitive of good pitching? Not really making a case for Liriano (eh, maybe I am), but bekng economical, particularly with leads, is something veterans do, and it skews those ball in play numbers.

 

[Woy]

You should probably look into making more than one friend at some point.

Swing...















...and a miss.

 

[NAHSTE]

I haven't commited fully to that stat yet. Id like to see it expanded to include 'solid' & 'weak' contact for balls in play.

Using last night as an example, Liriano was a bit wild early, but no balls left the IF after the 5th. Every inning featured at least one weak pop up. The only solid hit ball was Dunn's final out.

Isn't inducing weak contact by keeping hitters guessing indicitive of good pitching? Not really making a case for Liriano (eh, maybe I am), but bekng economical, particularly with leads, is something veterans do, and it skews those ball in play numbers.

Definitely, but even weakly hit balls fall in/through for a hit sometimes. I'm not indicting Liriano's performance so much as marveling in the improbability that none of those balls put in play avoided a glove. Still a great accomplishment, I just think that the odds in baseball are that eventually shit falls for a hit if you continuously make contact.

If Dunn's liner is 5 feet in either direction ...

edit- as for the merits of BAPIP, I think it's one of those stats that can best be used to confirm what you think your eyes have seen.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Definitely, but even weakly hit balls fall in/through for a hit sometimes. I'm not indicting Liriano's performance so much as marveling in the improbability that none of those balls put in play avoided a glove. Still a great accomplishment, I just think that the odds in baseball are that eventually shit falls for a hit if you continuously make contact.

If Dunn's liner is 5 feet in either direction ...

edit- as for the merits of BAPIP, I think it's one of those stats that can best be used to confirm what you think your eyes have seen.

One of the best hidden stats to look at in terms of balls in play, is K/9 for pitchers in the first few years of their career. If it under 4.0, they will likely not have long term success. Lew Burdette is probably the most successful P who didn't strike out batters at an average pace. Then its guys like Scott Erickson, Chien Ming Wang, etc. Wang was starting to get K's, but got hurt.

It sounds like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm not. I agree in principle that a high rate of balls in play will eventually equal lack of success. But where the BAPIP falls short, is players like Gary Sheffield, who almost always made solid contact but also had plenty of K's, or David Eckstein, who never struck out but hardly ever made hard contact in comparison to someone like Sheffield.

Maybe when someone has a high BAPIP, it just means he hit well that year. Everyone assumes he benfitted from bleeders and 'luck'. I don't buy it. On the flip side, a low BAPIP may not be bad luck, but actually bad contact.

 

[NAHSTE]

Maybe when someone has a high BAPIP, it just means he hit well that year. Everyone assumes he benfitted from bleeders and 'luck'. I don't buy it. On the flip side, a low BAPIP may not be bad luck, but actually bad contact.

Definitely. Which is why I think it's one of those supplemental stats that you can only use when you already know the context of a player. If you already know someone is good, it can help tell you whether or not he's underperforming because of mechanics/approach or some unusually bad luck.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I also don't like how the stat does not count a HR as a ball in play. I understand why, but its bullshit. I consider a pop up that goes over the wall in Cincy or Philly far more "lucky" than slapping bleeder through the hole with a man on first. But because we can't really put a measure on park effect HR's in terms of calculating the BAPIP stat, its just easier to disregard completely.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

And its BABIP, isn't it? We keep typing it wrong.

 

[NAHSTE]

And its BABIP, isn't it? We keep typing it wrong.

GOD DAMN THESE FANCY ACRONYMS!

 

[FirstTimer]

VORP

Excuse me.

 

[FedEx227]

Maybe when someone has a high BAPIP, it just means he hit well that year. Everyone assumes he benfitted from bleeders and 'luck'. I don't buy it. On the flip side, a low BAPIP may not be bad luck, but actually bad contact.

I think you're looking at BABIP intoo much of a small or year-by-year window, you shouldn't do that.

It's a noramlizing stat, it's not meant to be looked at just as a 1 year deal. More times then not a good players BABIP will normalize or at least a trend will begin to exist with most players. Where BABIP throws up a red flag (and you can not buy it but every major league team does) is when a player with a historically establishd BABIP line goes way above or way beyond what he normally does.

With that being said, even the best players tend to hover around .300. The only players that are significantly higher then that on a yearly basis are guys with either ridiculous line drive rates (and more times then not they become home run hitters as they mature) or fast guys that can outrun grounders.

I sort of get what you mean and that is true, but that in a small way still deals with "luck" and bounce back. If someone like Nick Swisher has a ridiculous low BABIP one year after establishing career norms with a slightly higher BABIP there's a very good chance at his age with his background that he "bounces back" whether he was unlucky or had a mediocre year at the plate.

 

[manchild24]

Fuck Liriano. Dropped him from my team last week with his beautiful 7+ ERA

 

[KnightNoles]

Fuck Liriano. Dropped him from my team last week with his beautiful 7+ ERA

I'm rooting for the guy but...

don't worry, he won't continue to miss bats very often