CAN WE GET "SLOPPY JOE" TO SHUT UP ABOUT SHUTOUTS?

IN two words: probably not. The one thing we know about Joe the P. is that when he gets the bit in his teeth, he will run with it for as long as he can.

It's true that shutouts are up thus far in 2025. And this is creating consternation in some quarters--specifically, that semi-elite niche of "veteran punditry" that fashions itself as a bulwark of "cutting-edge minutiae" that is all-too-often over-represented as being of oracular significance.

Such obsessive territoriality, as practiced with overly-energetic gusto by Joe (and, in a less egregious vein by Jayson Stark, avuncular avatar of the "it's never happened before, folks!" beat) is mostly a way to generate what we all have taken to calling ''content" (but with a diminishing sense of just how useful it actually is).

"Hold the pickle, Joe!"

SO how are these two handling the uptick in shutouts we mentioned? They are following an approach that has created an ongoing malaise in statistical analysis in the festering world of "baseball numberology" (and, yes, in case you were wondering, we are once again being sponsored by our long-time buddies at frightquotesrus.com). 

What is that malaise, exactly? It's the use of a counting stat to characterize a situation when a rate stat is actually needed to create proper historical context.

Joe the P. has, as a result, turned into one of his most maddening alter-egos--"Sloppy Joe"--as he milks this story even more shamelessly than we did ten years ago when we documented the diminuendo of the complete game. (Thankfully, that particular diminuendo got so dim that we could abandon it entirely...)

Now it's true that we might see the highest number of shutouts in history this season. (Also, the greatest number of 1-0 games--a subset that Joe has staked a claim to by following in the dubious "naming rights" approach pioneered by Bill James.) For Joe, such games are now called "Blylevens"--even though Walter Johnson actually participated in many more of them. That's the curly-Q approach that epitomizes the appropriative hubris of ''popular sabermetrics"--a brazen breeziness that dovetails into the clickbait world with a special brand of odious precision (but, as it turns out, is sloppy as hell).

Jayson Stark at least recognizes a nuance that has been left in the crockpot by Sloppy Joe: namely, that not all counting stats are equal. The 82 1-0 games in 1968 (and, yes, we're sticking with the term "1-0 game"...) occurred over a season span with about a thousand less games in a season than is the case now. That tells us that 82 such games in 2025 are a proportionately smaller percentage of total games played than was the case in 1968.

The same is true for shutouts in general. The 204 that we've seen thus far in 2025 represent 7.8% of all games; the 1-0 games are about 17.5% of all shutouts. We can generate such rate stats for these categories for all of the seasons in baseball history, and by doing so we can see where those rate stats reside in the data set. (Sloppy Joe could have done the same thing, of course, but the counting stat is what creates clickbait.)

WE can even do something that looks like actual analysis--and here is an example of that: a correlation between the percentage of shutouts in a season with the average runs per game (R/G) in the corresponding year.

Sloppy Joe suggested that the rate of shutouts in 2025 was at an all-time high: the diamond marker shown in red (OK, actually orange, the lighting is a bit dim in here, folks!)--the percentage of 7.8% mentioned above--gives the lie to such a claim. While that percentage is above the historical average for shutouts per total games (which is 6.5%), it is not close to the highest such yearly percentage in baseball history--a record set in 1908 (11.9%).

NOTE the diamond marker colored in yellow: that's the data point for 1968--the season of eternal trauma for those invested in defending the sabermetrics-to-analytics klatch from the nagging criticism that this twenty-year process has deformed the game on the field as it evolved into a runaway juggernaut. Any time anything starts to remotely look like what occurred in 1968, a barely-suppressed sense of hysteria starts to well up in these folk, who then start picking at the scab of the never-quite-healing wound that has continued to problematize the game for the past twenty years.

But let's look at that "red diamond" again, noting that it sits almost exactly in the center of our scatterplot. Is it both intriguing and harrowing that baseball is currently centered in its range of historical distribution with respect to R/G? Our expectations for run scoring have still not quite adjusted from what took place during the long "offensive explosion" (1993-2009), and the ping-pong effect that we saw during the initial phase of the "launch angle era" (2015-2021) seems to be subsiding into an ungainly phase of pitcher domination (as we predicted would be the case back in 2012). 

That red diamond (4.37 R/G, 7.8% ShO), representing 2025, shares one nearly identical data point with the previous year (4.39 R/G), but note that shutouts were a good bit lower in 2024 (6.6%). What the scatterplot suggests is that there is a random effect that comes into play in the middle ranges of R/G:  the distribution of such games can simply vary. While there is a generally linear correlation between R/G and ShO%, it is neither absolute nor monolithic in nature.

(And before we move on--what about that black diamond at the bottom of the scatterplot--representing the second-lowest percentage of shutouts in a season? What year is that, anyway? It's 1930...)

WE can see the variation at work more starkly (no pun intended...) when we look at how 1-0 games fluctuate as a subset of shutouts. The red diamond again represents 2025 (to date), with 18.6% of all shutouts being 1-0 games. That's merely above average relative to the historical average (17.5%). The pale green diamond represents 1968, where nearly a fourth of all shutouts were 1-0 games. The black diamond represents the ultimate extreme instance of this--30.4%--which happened in (that's right) 1908.

BUT this scatterplot also reveals another reason for the undercurrent of panic in Sloppy Joe's presentation of the counting stats. While this data has fluctuated up-and-down across time, the general direction it has moved is downward, a pattern that is particularly pronounced beginning in the late 1970s. Note also that the numbers have clustered at an all-time low for 1-0 games relative to shutouts in recent years. (Some of that might be traceable to the HR/G spikes we had in alternating seasons from 2017-21.)

We can see that clustering in the ''most/least" table (at right), which shows that four of the top ten years for the lowest percentage of 1-0 shutouts have occurred since 2017, with 2024 being the third lowest percentage in all of baseball history.

It's that pervasive recent decline in 1-0 games that has been turned around (thus far) in 2025, about a 40% jump from 2024. But 2025 doesn't have anything close to the highest rate of 1-0 games in history: in fact, it doesn't even have the highest rate in the 21st century (that belongs to 2014). 

AND it's really that sudden, unexpected uptick that has kerfuffled the feathers of Sloppy Joe, who's apparently decided he only knows from counting stats and erroneously inflated the situation by using those counting stats to overdramatize what is (at least partially) a random effect.

Others who've picked up on this in the media (that particular grapevine is thick and well-tended...) have asked for some kind of explanation as to why this is happening. But their attempts to do so (bad teams bloating the totals, the apparent deadening of the ball) did not bear fruit. The likely answers are: a) some of it is truly just a random effect; b) the continuing emphasis on hitting homers has created a strategic vacuum where teams in 1-0 games remain stubbornly reluctant to employ one-run strategies due to the lingering effect of the "launch angle hegemony," which causes extra games to fall into the 1-0 bracket. (Interestingly, though it's a small sample size, it appears that teams do attempt to steal at elevated levels in such games--but the success rate for SBs is lower than average.)

The situation is not without some interest, but Joe is employing sloppy methods to exaggerate its significance. While having him bound and gagged is tempting (especially as the Orange Menace goons attempt to normalize suppressive tactics ahead of an even more unseemly power grab...), we think there's at least some chance that this will self-regulate.

MOST important, though, is the maxim that a rate stat is more useful than a counting stat. Sloppy Joe needs to hold that thought instead of "holding the pickle"...

INTERLEAGUE STANDINGS AS OF 6/30/25

ONE of the oddest things about baseball in the 2020s is the simultaneous expansion of interleague play and the disappearance of data anatomizing the results of those games. We'll eventually reconstruct that data in total here (as time permits), but it is rather vexing to note that this subset of competition (now comprising almost a third of the overall schedule) continues to be given such short shrift. 

A key aspect of this will be evident in the interim 2025 results (shown below). The old model of interleague play was circumscribed in a way that did not create a random effect in the seasonal results--the games were played in monolithic chunks within the season. The new model creates a perpetually uneven distribution across the entire season. This will be evident in the data...

WE organized the data by league/division to show this randomness that insinuates itself even at the most granular level. For example: note that the NL West (near the bottom of the display) shows a massive range between the number of interleague games played by team in the division.

It's also important to capture the differences in distribution of games according to opponent quality, an area that has been almost completely ignored by fans, media, and analysts ever since the inception of interleague play. Our tripartite column structure summarizes individual team results by opponent quality (.500+, .499-, and overall) to show how opponent quality factors into this subset of game results.

IT shows a number of interesting things, of course--and you are invited to explore it all at your leisure. One of these that its noteworthy, however, can be seen in the interleague record of the San Diego Padres when broken out in this way. Among NL teams, the Padres have faced the most "good" opponents in the AL, and (as Jeff Angus would say if he were here...) have had their asses handed to them--a visual image that can be saved from pornographic associations only by substituting "donkeys" for "asses". Their current 3-15 record against good AL teams contributes mightily to the distance they find themselves behind the Los Angeles Dodgers (a nine-and-a-half game difference, which as of this writing constitutes the entire difference in the standing between the two clubs).

We leave you to examine this data in your own way, but let's close with a note about the uneven distribution of opponent quality between the leagues. So far AL teams have played far more games against good NL teams than vice-versa. They are playing better against such opponents than their NL counterparts have done against good AL teams (.458 WPCT to the NL's .423). But the distributions we see in the summary data at the bottom shows that there is a randomness skewing how these games are affecting the overall standings.

In the second half of the year there will be a great preponderance of AL teams playing bad NL opponents...what to watch for is a possible, even quite likely shift in the overall interleague results (bottom right of the figure) where the NL currently holds a slight advantage (184-180).

WE will revisit this data at the end of August to see if such is the case. Stay tuned...

WHO'S THE BEST NINTH INNING HITTER OF ALL TIME?

 DO you have a guess? Or do you already know the answer in your bones, based on that increasingly rare American commodity (common sense...)?

Ah, yes. We always hit a trough in this time of year, uncanny as it is (even after eighteen years). Our lifeline to the greatest ninth-inning hitter (who is still the greatest hitter of all...), the man who gave us our names, passed away on this day in 2007. There is something in the enduring afterlife of a seriously complex relationship that passed through DNA into the limbic system that organically takes us into a world more melancholy than the one described by Brian Wilson in his heartbreakingly beautiful, autobiographically-charged ballad, "'Til I Die." 

(As you know, Brian passed away a week ago, leaving behind a trove of tunes with a musical and emotional range beyond any & all of his fellow songwriters. Brian famously loved baseball: his favorite baseball player is #7 on the list of best ninth-inning hitters--which is incredibly serendipitous, since #7 happens to be his uniform number. Yes, that would be Mickey Mantle...)

IT turns out that there are three Yankees in the top 7 ninth-inning hitters. In between we have the battle between two left-handed hitters who are each being paid more than the GDP of 94 world nations. Right now Shohei Ohtani is #4, while Juan Soto is #6. (In between them is the only man we know of who hit over .400 in the ninth inning--Ty Cobb.)

That leaves two right-handed hitters left out of the three not-yet-named:  #2--Joe DiMaggio, whose .690 SLG in the ninth is still dwarfed by the lone man in front of him. #3? Hank Greenberg, who seemed to specialize more in ninth-inning doubles: his ratio of 2B to PA is the highest of all. 

But let's not ignore the last three in the top ten while we remind you that Dad saw all of these guys save for Ohtani and Soto--and one other slugger, whose presence here at #8 on the list will likely be surprising: Pete Alonso. He most certainly saw eventual teammates Ted Williams and Jimmie Foxx--Williams making the list despite a shockingly low batting average (.282). Who knew that the game's first scientific hitter went for the downs in the ninth?

SO that leaves only #1, and while he didn't really have a candy bar named after him like Reggie Jackson--who, somewhat shockingly, ranks #400 on the list(!!)--he's so far above everyone else that it is truly laughable to contemplate. He ranks #1 in HR (55), #1 in RBI (172), #1 in OBP (.489), #1 in SLG (.770!), #2 in hits (behind Cobb and Mel Ott, who's #12 on the list). 

Of course it's Babe Ruth! We neglected to include his rank in OPS, which is (duh!) #1...but look at the actual number: 1.259. (Well, yes, you could've added that up from what was provided above, but who has time for that when ICE is playing a pestilential form of paintball with America?) 

That's 131 points of OPS above Joe D., 202 ahead of Ohtani, and (using the abacus behind my back like Jimi Hendrix...) 463 points higher than Mr. October. 

HERE are the top 20 hitters in the ninth inning as ranked by OPS. Some surprises await in the 11-20 slot:

Our break line is at 1.000 OPS, which creates a population of just seven hitters, including Brian's Mickey, who walked the most in the ninth inning. But in the .950-.999 range we have some names that will raise eyebrows (possibly due to a semi-relaxed sample size, which searched for those with as few as 150 PAs in the ninth inning--hello, Yordan Alvarez...but it's impressive nonetheless, n'est-ce pas?).

AND Bill Terry (.370 in the ninth!) ...Roy Campanella...and two more Hall of Famers (Chuck Klein, at #11 just a fraction behind Foxx;  Larry Walker at #19). Possibly Joey Votto (#19) will join them (possibly). And a little shout-out to Dave Justice, definitely at his best in the late clinches (as Halle Berry might still admit if you caught her in a forgiving mood). 

But give it up for the two WTFs here: Larry Sheets and Chet Laabs. A couple of non-descripts who nevertheless stood tall in (what is usually) the final frame. 

WE'LL pick through some of the lower depths in this breakout and show you some shocking ninth-inning numbers in a subsequent post. Of course, not all ninth inning at-bats are charged with the drama of a game on the line but there's enough romance here to give this breakout some sizzle. Especially when it reinforces an assessment that nearly a century after the Bambino played, is often subject to quibbling. 

And thanks for the stories, Dad. The way you told them, it was just like being there with you... 

CATCHING UP WITH THE MONTHLIES: 7+ TRIPLES IN A MONTH

Would you believe?

YOU knew we would return to this...and you knew, sooner than later, that the subject (or is that the sub-subject?) would turn to triples.

But before we give you the data on most triples in a month, some context that might even prove relevant to what you'll shortly see. We saw that the record for most doubles in a month and the record for most homers in a month is the same: twenty. The seasonal record for both of these stats is a bit over three times as many as the record for a month: 20/67 for doubles, 20/73 for homers (or, 20/62 for folks who want to eliminate all of the hitters in the 1998-2001 time frame from consideration). 

We won't turn this into a diatribe against all that flat-earth stuff (even if we advertise ourselves as embodying "the lost art of the diatribe"). Instead, we invite you to work backwards with us--definitely not our usual modus operandi!! 

NOTE that the record for most triples in a season is 36, held by Maxwell Smart's boss: Owen "Chief" Wilson. (And if you got that joke, our condolences.) So if the ratio we've seen for doubles and homers holds true, what would that seasonal total "ratiocinate" down to for the most triples in a month?

Have you got the answer? It's 11. And it just so happens that the record for most triples in a month is 11. (It's not held by either the Chief or Maxwell Smart, either.)

The record-holder (or the culprit, depending on what mood you're in...) is Larry Doyle--"Laughing Larry" to his friends...and he must be laughing even now as he realizes (posthumously, of course!) that he holds the longest-standing record in baseball history. He set it in 1911, one season before Max's boss set the seasonal record. 

It was May 1911 to be exact--and it was doubly (er, make that triply) impressive because Doyle did it in a month where his team, the New York Giants, played only 24 games. (Many monthly records tend to cluster around months where extra games were played due to the uneven nature of the baseball schedule in "olden times.")

It wasn't even that great of a month for Doyle at the plate--not bad, mind you, but (as we'll see below), some of the also-ran contenders for most triples in a month were simply astonishing offensive performances--including three in which the batters hit over .500 for the month in question. 

AND, of course, you'll never have heard of those guys...just Shoeless Joe Jackson and Ty Cobb, that's all. They had those months back-to-back in 1912--yes, the year Max's boss hit 36 (and also managed to hit nine triples in a month, which rates a twelve-way tie for third place). Three hitters banged out 10 triples in a month--Mike Donlin in 1903, Joe Cassidy in 1904, and Amos Strunk in 1915. But let's honor the heavy hitters who posted stellar overall months when hitting at least seven triples...

THERE are several Hall of Famers on this list: Cobb, Rod Carew (the second-to-last hitter to hit 8 or more triples in a month), Edd Roush, Enos Slaughter, Al Simmons, Goose Goslin), but there are also a few folks who are considerably more obscure: Freddy Leach, Cy Seymour, Frank "Wildfire" Schulte, Al Wickland, Pete Reiser, Cozy Dolan and Carl Reynolds. 

As you can see from the numbers, however, they all raked in these high-triples months.

That was not quite the case for Larry Doyle--though his month wasn't exactly bad, it was just...a bit lesser. However, he's the record holder...and likely to stay that way for the rest of recorded time.

WE close with our TimeGrid™ chart (at left) which will confirm that the monthly triples record is an artifact of baseball's deep past. 86 of them (and 86 was Maxwell Smart's "agent number"...) occurred from 1901-1930, with just 25 more instances in the past ninety-five years.

THE last hitter with seven triples in a month? Jose Reyes, in 2011--exactly a century after Doyle set the record. The last hitter with eight triples in a month? Carl Crawford, in 2004. The last with nine in a month? Pie Traynor in 1931.

We are not quite sure how to compute the odds that we will see anyone hit seven triples in a month within not only our own lifetimes, but in the lifetimes of our generation's grand-kids. And, as Max would say, would you believe it even if you saw it with your own eyes? 

We think not...

WHO'S THE BEST 9TH INNING HITTER (ACTIVE PLAYER DIVISION)?

SPOILER alert: the answer to our question is not going to be particularly surprising.

But we thought this sub-category of hitter performance would be intrinsically interesting: it's part of the seemingly endless array of "splits" breakouts, but is one that's been systematically overlooked in favor of more specific "situational" notions.

While it's a bit nebulous compared to such other breakouts, the "ninth inning" has its own aura, a kind of romantic resonance that conjures up the game's more consciously structured narrative--it's the kind of thing that semi-fabled faux-phenomenoligst Sam Miller might swoon over (though there's probably too much data available to provide those "Husserlian goosebumps" he seems to covet most). 

It's that "last chance" thing that injects something at least akin to romance into the limbic systems of baseball fans--a longing for drama, for clutch performance, for the twist ending. And it makes some of us hope for empirical results within the data that create surprise and wonder (even if the odds of such occurring are even more remote than the prospects of a last-minute change of fortune).

SO we now present to you the hitters who hit well in baseball's "end state"--the active hitters, that is. (We'll return shortly with a similar list for those who are no longer playing.)

We've limited the list to those with at least 150 plate appearances in the ninth inning, with color coding that breaks at various OPS levels (.975, .900, .875, .850, .800). (The full list contains nearly 250 active players, though we're obviously not going to display it all.)

The two names at the very top--Shohei Ohtani and Juan Soto--are, as noted earlier, quite unsurprising (but impressive nonetheless). Pete Alonzo's presence in the topmost reaches of this ninth-inning pantheon might be more of an eyebrow-raiser, though. (As might also be the case for Christian Yelich, whose .323 batting average is noticeably more robust than his overall lifetime BA.) 

And what about Tyrone Taylor? (We suspect sample size will rear its head in his case...but you never really know, now, do you?)

The romance of the ninth inning injects a twinge of sorrow when we see the performance level of Anthony Rendon--the possessor of the highest ninth-inning BA of anyone still currently on (or at least adjacent to) a 40-man roster. 

WE can also see why the Dodgers would feel confident that they might create what was called "four o'clock lightning" in the Bronx during the late 1930s/early 1940s as Yankee hitters (led by guys named Joe DiMaggio, Charlie Keller and Tommy Henrich) would often turn around ballgames in their latter stages (with a good bit of it happening in the ninth inning). The elevated ninth-inning performances of Ohtani, Mookie Betts and Freddie Freeman (#1, #8 and #9 on the list) suggest that a similar "late lightning" effect has descended upon Chavez Ravine.

(Though we should note that there's no current way to look at ninth inning performance in terms of home vs. away games--one of the lingering limitations in the data readily available at Forman et soeur, etc. Which is odd, because given the romance of the "ninth-inning turnaround" you'd think that its occurrence would be more definitely documented--how many times does the visiting team turn the game around in the ninth? (We know that it is quite rare--but since we track "walkoff wins," why don't we have the analogous quantification of the "visitor turnaround" inning?)

THE surprises in this "ninth inning data" are to be found far from the top performers. The more pedestrian performance of Aaron Judge, for example, raises at least one eyebrow. More shocking, though, is the discovery of big-name hitters who seem to crumble in the ninth inning, as shown below:

Cal Raleigh, currently tearing things up in the AL with a homer spree eclipsing even the mighty Judge, looks much more like his old self in the ninth. And it's surprising to see stalwarts like Nolan Arenado and José Ramirez down in this region, along with sluggery types such as Jorge Soler, Anthony Santander and Kyle Schwarber. 

YOU are now officially encouraged to ponder who will be at the top of an all-time "ninth inning hitter" list (for those who are more definitively retired than Anthony Rendon). That will be coming to you soon...

THE A's HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BY SIGNING TREVOR BAUER

IT is long past time to jettison the ongoing hypocrisy that has prevented the embattled Trevor Bauer from a chance at redemption. 

That has been made more manifest than ever with the recent decision by shyster commish Rob Manfred to reinstate the formerly "unholy eighteen" (with Pete Rose leading off, and Joe Jackson batting third) for Hall of Fame eligibility. 

The pyramid of "moral offense" that was baseball's ironclad perimeter has been breached. But what happened to Trevor Bauer has much more greyscale than baseball's (thankfully crumbling) black-and-white pseudo-pieties. If gambling is now an offense similar to the use of illegal substances, then it's clear that Bauer--who served his ban and was then ostracized from MLB, should long ago been given a chance to resume his career in American baseball.

It goes without saying that Bauer has rubbed many people the wrong way from the dawn of his baseball career: he created conditions that resulted in his ostracism. And the actions that created a firestorm of controversy over what now can more than credibly be seen as a sexual blackmail scheme continue to unfairly prevent him--virtually alone amongst all his peers--to resume his career.

(YES, there is the case of Julio Urias, a repeat offender of domestic violence. And, of course, Wander Franco, embroiled in a queasy-at-the-very-best transactional sexual "arrangement" that has all the fragrance of a leaking septic tank. Franco's legal fate is still TBD: he may well be looking to play baseball in prison. Urias, who pled no contest to charges brought against him, will come off the MLB restricted list next month: the jury is out as to whether anyone will give him a chance to redeem himself.)

It's now getting very late in the game for Bauer, who's 34 and may not have enough left in the tank to be the top-flight pitcher that he was in 2020-21. He's currently back in Japan, after a stint in Mexico last year. He's pitching well, and it's clear that there are teams with gaping holes in their pitching staffs who could easily give him a chance to redeem himself, both on the mound and in the clubhouse. 

One of those teams, ironically: the Dodgers, whose relentless skein of pitcher injuries in the recent years can be seen as a kind of payback for their shattering lack of empathy and rush to judgment regarding Bauer. (The monolithic, stuffed-with-money organizational behemoth is a troubling analogue to the plutocratic malaise currently enveloping an imperiled American democracy; while the Dodgers stop short of overt criminality, they embody an unseemly monopolistic approach to talent acquisition: it is no wonder that they have wrested away the "Evil Empire" monicker from the Yankees.)

IT would be wonderful if the Dodgers, persistently plagued by what is now approaching an entire roster's worth of pitchers residing on the injured list, would somehow be forced to turn to Bauer. But even we know better than to think it could ever come to that, as perversely appealing the notion is. No, the two 2025 teams who have absolutely nothing to lose by giving Bauer a chance are the Colorado Rockies (currently 12-50) and the FCG Athletics. (FCG is not a location: it's an abbreviation for "Floating Crap Game," which perfectly describes the slowly escalating, claustrophobically bizarre limbo of the former Oakland franchise, now ensconced in a minor-league park where their ballpark bunkmates, the Sacramento Solons, who--in another cruel irony--are the AAA affiliate of the San Francisco Giants, whose long-ago veto of the A's bid to build a stadium in San Jose was a key piece in the A's ever-exploding puzzle.)

Clearly the A's are a perfect psychological fit for Bauer, though they are highly unlikely to admit it. And, for those still wanting to punish Bauer further, assigning him to a team whose current ballpark is a living hell for pitchers should add some poisoned sprinkles to his ice cream cone of "forgiveness." 

AND it's also clear that Bauer would, in fact, willingly embrace such a scenario (we stop short of calling it a full-fledged "opportunity"). We suspect that he knows that whatever surfaces for him will be some form of a "stacked deck." That said, both parties have nothing to lose--and the A's current battle fatigue (given that in the last 30 games, they have matched the Rockies with a 6-24 record) should prompt them to try just about anything/anyone to stop the bleeding that oozes from the pitching mound whenever they play.

So, yes--Bauer the banned pariah resurfaces with baseball's vagabond team. It's a peculiarly American story, isn't it? But we know that A's owner John Fisher--the Coddled & Deluded One--would never stand for it. It would involve actually owning the travesty he has created (and what those directing things within the septic tank of baseball's uniquely "fragrant" form of plutocracy have callously enabled). 

WE hope that Bauer gets his chance--but we are not holding our breath. 

W(H)ITHER THE ROCKIES??

Note: the "C" here does not stand for "Colorado"--read on!

COULD the lowest of the low turn out to be the team that plays at the highest altitude?

That's what a larger & larger slice of the baseball media is surmising, as they unerringly zero in on the "catastrophe scenario" that has become legion in all aspects of American life--reaching its nadir last November, bringing us the punctuated disequilibrium of chaos on top of travesty.

Thus the Colorado Rockies--always the game's square peg--have become the latest franchise catastrophe in a roundelay that no longer insulates large markets from baseball's version of the "drunk tank." They've been bad for quite awhile, but in a low-key way: given that they seem to exist apart from everyone else, creating cartoon-like games in the thin air of their home park, it seems that everyone (including the Rox' owners) have just considered their foibles to be fait accompli.

BUT now they've gotten so bad--and the timing of their badness is in sync with a recent epidemic of catastrophic teams, all seemingly intent on eclipsing the gauntlet of ineptitude thrown down by the 1962 Mets--that they can no longer be ignored. As of June 2 in this catastrophic year of 2025, they've started the season by winning just nine times in fifty-nine games--the worst start of a season by anyone.

And the media is all over it, with the requisite allusions to the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, who won just 20 games in a year where 95% of their talent had been strip-mined away from them by something that we are witnessing in full force in 2025: massive, pandemic-level corruption.

But even the Spiders won 11 of their first 59 games. Of course 11-48 was the best part of their season...after that it was le deluge: the ravaged creepy crawly folk went 9-86 (!!!) the rest of the way. They finished with an inverse flourish, losing 40 of their last 41 games. (Those with a serious masochistic bent are directed to J. Thomas Hetrick's Misfits! for an exhaustive exhumation of this singular travesty. "Exhausting" might be the better adjective, however...)

It's so convenient: our wise guy only has to change one letter
in order to re-use this sign in 2025...

IN keeping with the malingering malaise that is cascading through America at this moment, though, it appears that a not-insignificant portion of the media is beginning to root for a kind of "Spiders redux" outcome for the Rockies. It's easier to get into this variant of "doomscrolling" when it kicks in at the start--none of this "collapse at the end" nonsense...if you're going to stink up the joint, fold early and stay folded, goddammit! Even though some folk were ready to invoke the star-crossed Spiders last year when the White Sox found themselves in a endless "flush cycle," the problem for the wise guy in the picture was that the Sox waited too long to metastasize--they'd already won too many games when they went into free-fall. 

SO here are the Rox (not the Sox...) doing it from the get-go and keeping the foot off the pedal as their opponents rip them apart. Some folks are going to be really annoyed if they emerge from their acute catastrophe phase and become merely bad. But that's what is likeliest to happen: unlike last year's catastrophe model, they cratered too early to wallow in decrepitude for an entire season. 

How do we know this? Admittedly, the data is not 100% foolproof, but it has had an unwavering pattern when ineptitude is the sole reason at play--remember, the Spiders' season in Hell was arsoned into inferno status by corruption. That's not in the picture for the Rox.

AT left, here are all the teams with 59-game collapses in the same forlorn region as Denver's high-flown low-lifes. It turns out 9-50 isn't the worst such skein, even leaving the Spiders out of it. The 1916 Philadelphia A's had the worst of it--four times, bottoming out at 4-55. Last year's "catastrophe model," the White Sox, went 8-51 from July 4 to mid-September and looked like a lock to get under those fabled Metsies--but they only got half the job done, losing one more than "Casey Stengel's follies" but winning one more as well. 

The 2021 D-backs also had a 9-50 stretch from May into July, but they won 52 games and wound up being merely bad. Same with the 2012 Astros. The pattern is the same for all the other teams in this same region of 59-game collapse: the 1969 Padres, the 1949 Senators, the 1932 Red Sox, the 1923 Boston Braves, and a troika of A's teams (1915, 1937, 2023). 

WHAT happens, as the "Outside Span" column demonstrates, is that all these teams have an inverse regression to the mean and become merely bad over the balance of the season. Taken as a group, and adjusting the end-of-year projection up to apportion 162 games to the reeling Rox, these teams went 39-64 in the remainder of the season. (As you can see, that's exactly the record that the 2023 A's posted after their eye-popping start that season.)

When we apply that aggregate to the Rox, and add it up, it suggest that they will finish the season with a 48-114 record. Granted, that is somewhat worse than merely bad, but neither is it an all-time record for futility.

TO give you the other side of the range--the worst "worst case scenario"--we point to the Rox' "Pythagorean Won-Loss Record" or "PWP" thus far in '25 (which is figured by a formula using their runs scored vs. their runs allowed). Right now, that works out to a .220 WPCT. If they can hold that pace from now to the end of the season, they'd finish with a record of 36-126, which would indeed be the worst since 1899.

There are twelve teams shown in the table above: ten of the eleven on it before the Rox joined them all cleared the 1962 Mets' .250 WPCT with relative ease. Last season's Sox pulled out of a mid-season free-fall (7-44 over July and August) to post a merely bad 10-15 record in September to partially evade a desiccated date with destiny. Chances are extremely high that the Rox will do the same over the balance of the 2025 season.

BUT, then again..."now batting third for the Rockies, Arthur Rimbaud"...

Stay tuned!

MONTHLY KETCHUP-DATE: OHTANI 50TH TO HIT 15+ HRs IN A MONTH

 WE told you back on May 20th that Shohei Ohtani was on pace to hit at least 15 homers in May...

...and Friday night (5/30), when the Dodgers hosted the Yankees in LA for what turned into an eerie echo of their last meeting (Game 5 of last year's World Series), Sho-time answered a first-inning homer from Aaron Judge and hit another later in the game as the Bronx Bombahs blew a 5-1 lead, winding up as 8-5 losers. (Judge hit two homers in today's game, but those were the only runs the Yankees managed in what quickly became a frightful rout, thanks in large part to a 7-RBI game from Max Muncy. Final score: Dodgers 18, Bombed-Out Bronxsters 2.)

BUT we digress...the two homers on Friday night made it exactly 15 in May for Ohtani, making him (as it says in the headline above...) into the 50th instance of this still-rare feat. He was also the 49th such "event", achieved in June 2023. 

He is the first player to have adjacent events on the list since Mark McGwire did so in 1998-99. Of course, he's still behind Big Mac's total of five 15+ homer months, Babe Ruth's total of four, and Hank Greenberg's hat trick. (These can all be viewed at that May 20th blog post, along with the other sluggers to have two 15+ HR months, Rudy York, Albert Belle, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds.)

HERE is the updated list for the 21st-century portion of this (now) 50-strong 15+ homer in a month fraternity...

Those stat totals aren't updated to include Ohtani's performance in today's game, but we'll do so with all deliberate speed just in case he does this again in June. (After all, as we've mentioned previously, June has been Ohtani's best month, as that stat line from June 2023 above will attest.)

We will pull out the ketchup bottle for more monthlies while we await the next tsunami from Sho-Time...

MONTHLY KETCHUP CONTINUED: 10+ DOUBLES IN A MONTH...

WE expand your horizons...or perhaps we'll just be expanding the amount of data you'll be seeing: we'll let you decide.

The first "monthlies" we've showed you focused on the rarefied achievements: 49 instances of 15+ homers in a month; 114 occurrences of 15 doubles in a month. But we told you we'd be expanding from that, eventually providing a tabular guide to the frequency distributions of each event level.

So to start that off, we will tell you (rather that show you just yet) that there are 1307 instances of 10+ homers-in-a-month--from Babe Ruth in 1920 to Aaron Judge, Cal Raleigh and Eugenio Suarez in 2025.

That's a lot of 10+ HR months, actually, and we'll show you the TimeGrid™ chart for that in a subsequent post. Right now, however, we want you to focus on the ratio between 15+ HR months (just 49, remember) and 10+ homer months (1307). That's just under 27 times as many 10+ HR homer months: if we use that "multiplier" to extrapolate how many 10+ double months there are compared to 15+ double months, we get a total of just a few more than 3000 instances since 1901. 

AND how does estimate stack up with reality? See the TimeGrid™ (at left) for the answer,

As always, this display provides its version of the essential offensive history of the game, from the descent into the Deadball Era, the sharp uptick in all kinds of hitting with the one-two punch of the lively ball and Babe Ruth, followed by the "golden age of doubles." Then: doubles decay as homers and strikeouts begin their inevitable incursion on the overall balance of the game, with an offensive explosion in the nineties that ushers in a renaissance for the double, which sustains itself for fifteen years until we enter our present "sine-wave" era, where the two-base hit became a careening pinball in an entropic game where the angle of the pinball machine kept shifting until it was tilted both vertically and horizontally at the same time, narrowing the range for the double as the ability to hit for batting average continued to decay.

The 2020s might just see a drop in "10 doubles a month" incidences that is almost as dramatic as what occurred in the 1940s, which led to a half-century drought. At the moment, doubles per game in the AL is at a level (1.5 per game) that's the lowest it's been since 1989. 

But we'll always have that great fin de siecle explosion to wax nostalgic about, right? Well, only partially: keep in mind that the raw numbers we've displayed above don't tell the whole story--we need to adjust that data by the number of teams in MLB. We need to acknowledge that  70 "10+ doubles-per-month" incidences in 1930 (with 16 total teams) are not the same as the 70 occurring in 2009 (with 30 teams). In order to see the true levels, we must adjust the raw numbers to a common scale, which is "average number of 10+ doubles in month incidences per team in any given year."

When we make that adjustment, we see that the "incidence uptick" during the offensive explosion--while still a serious uplift from a very long fallow period--actually pales in comparison to what happened between 1925-1940.

The "heat map" approach in the TimeGrid™ provides us with an easy visual clue regarding whether we're in a "drought" period for doubles. We're not quite there yet, but when 2025 is in the books, there's a good chance that we will be...

Hitting 10 doubles in a month might not sound like much of an accomplishment, given that it's happened nearly four thousand times. But remember that such a pace, if sustained over a season, would result in 60 doubles for the year. Hitting that many doubles in a season has happened only six times--five of them in the 1930s. It hasn't happened since 1936--three 21st century hitters have come close: 59 for Todd Helton (2000) and Freddie Freeman (2023); 58 for Nick Castellanos (2019)--but those look like anomalies in a time frame when doubles are clearly in decline.

LET's close with two quizzes. 1) Just who are those six hitters with 60+ 2Bs in a season, anyway? If you read assiduously here, you'll know that the name of the record holder (Earl Webb, with 67 in 1931), because we mention him occasionally (he and Owen "Chief" Wilson, the triples record holder, are the two great unknowns in the so-called "marquee records"). But who are the other five? We mentioned one of them--Paul Waner (63 in 1932)--in our last post. But would you have guessed that Hank Greenberg (63 in 1934) was one of them? Possibly only Gracie Allen knows (or at least used to know...) that her husband  George Burns hit 64 doubles in 1926 to briefly hold the record ("so that's where he was all those months!" she exclaimed). 

That leaves the two hitters who did it in the same season (1936)--Charlie Gehringer (60) and Joe Medwick (64), apparently creating a "curse of the double" which foiled both Freeman and Helton (how many times did each of them get thrown out at second trying to stretch a single into a double?). 

2) It has finally dawned on us that the TimeGrid™ can function as a quiz...if you just leave off the title on the chart. 

And so that's just what we've done with this one (at right). Your mission (if you choose to accept it...) is to figure out just what this time sequence of numbers is actually describing. 

We realize that such a quiz is 99.9% hopeless without a clue, so we will take pity on you and provide one. And we'll be uncharacteristically succinct when we do so--it's a rate stat.

(Oh, and yes it's a month stat, as you can see.)

The heat map pattern here is similar to the 10-doubles-per-month, except the total number of incidences is a great deal lower, and the uptick in recent years is not so strong. 

We'll tease this one again in the series, and overlay some other info into the TimeGrid™ to give you a fighting chance...stay tuned!

CATCHING UP WITH THE MONTHLIES: 15+ DOUBLES IN A MONTH...

GETTING back on track for what we're tracking as we chase down the never-discussed, so-unknown-they're-not-even-dismissed-out-of-hand "most in a month" statistics...sometimes you just have to give in to your impulses, n'est-ce pas? (And let's face it: what these stats convey are legitimate micro-extremes, as opposed to the faux-phenomenology of a Sam Miller, currently in the mode of counting inchoate, involuted baseball "things" that actually become more ephemeral when counted...which is a project that's refreshing and harrowing all at once.)

What we count here won't change theories/explanations about how teams win, or zero in on which players are "the best," or produce one iota of predictive utility. We will, however, gain an understanding of the relative scarcity or plenitude of various peak performances, captured at a level where significant statistical separation is still visible. 

At the end of all this, we'll provide a guide to the "frequency distribution" of all these "monthlies" we'll keep plucking from Forman et soeur. It may be useful, or it might prove to be as gauzily surreal as what Sam is doing. If we're lucky, it will be both...

SO remember that we found a total of 49 instances of 15+ home runs hit in a month. We're not going to find 15 triples hit in a month by any single individual, so we will leave that in abeyance and move on to doubles (which are at last glance are still more plentiful than home runs in the current game). The ratio of doubles-to-homers over the full ripeness of time in MLB since the introduction of the lively ball is about 1.8 to 1. (Of course, it's lower that that over the past fifteen years; but since we're looking at all of the incidences of "x number of events in a calendar month" and we look for those all the way back to 1901, we can use the 1.8  to 1 ratio to predict how many times someone has hit 15+ doubles in a month.)

Thus: 49 instances of 15+ homers in a month times 1.8 gives us a rough estimate of 85-90 instances of 15+ doubles in a month. How well does that hold up when we look at the TimeGrid™ chart?

As you can see (at right), the estimate is on the low side (by about 20%). The actual number of 15+ doubles in a month instances since 1901 is 114. Some of this is likely due to the clustering effect that's visible in the TimeGrid™: the "golden age" of doubles in the 1930s seems to have produced an outsized number of monthly peaks, possibly aided by the nature of the baseball schedule at that time, with its truncated April "balanced" by extra games in June, July and August. Still, it's interesting that we had a recent year (2023) with another uptick in "monthly peaks, something that didn't manifest in the odd-year offensive spikes that occurred in 2017, 2019 and 2021.

NOTE we haven't mentioned the actual record for most doubles in a month...if they are a good bit more plentiful than homers, does it stand to reason that the record-setting number will be significantly higher than the single-month record for homers (20, held by Sammy Sosa)?

It might stand to reason, but the actual results simply do no bear that out. The record for doubles in a month is, oddly, exactly the same as the record for homers in a month. As you peruse the partial list below (the 33 times hitters have hit 17+ 2Bs in a month...) you'll run across the record-holder...

That is correct: the record (20 doubles in a month) is held by Paul Waner in 1932, a record that has stood for more than ninety years. (Waner is also one of just four hitters with 17+ 2Bs in a month to have hit zero homers in the month where--for these hitters, at least--it was raining doubles. The other three? Joe Dugan, in 1920; Kiki Cuyler, in 1930; and George Kell, in 1950.

Waner's total is particularly impressive because he played in fewer games during his big two-bagger month: those 20 doubles came in just 25 games in May 1932. If "Big Poison" could've maintained that pace, he would have hit...wait for it...123 doubles in the 154-game schedule used at that time. (Earl Webb, the Red Sox outfielder who'd hit 18 doubles in July of the previous year, had set what remains the record for the most doubles in a season, with 67...clearly, record-setting performances were created with the help of these "beyond peak" stretches within a season, a phenomenon we could call "career months." It's a circumstance we could document by listing the seasonal total of doubles for many/most of the players on the above list alongside these "beyond peak" "career months"--and maybe we'll do just that in a little while: stay tuned...)

But, for now, note that 24 of these 33 "beyond peak" performances showcasing the pinnacle of monthly doubles feature batting averages higher than .350; the same number--which is just under 75% of the entries in the chart--also have OPS values in excess of 1.000. That's a heady level of performance for a collection of months where the 23 of the 33 stat lines include home run totals that are minuscule by our post-modern standards, ranging in that slice from 0 to 2....needless to say, that's a far cry from what we saw in our last examination of "peak" (15+ homers in a month).

It's here where those of us with a nostalgic desire for the "high batting average" period of the game that flourished most consistently from 1920-1941 can access that particular performance shape, which was still a vibrant memory in the early 1970s, when a gaggle of semi-shiftless college kids in St. Louis gathered round to create their own set of baseball myths--and were marked for life by its meaning--one that was inexorably eroding away even as we celebrated it. Such shapes live on only in these sub-seasonal snippets, and we celebrate the "throwback moments" that still occasionally occur, such as Freddie Freeman's stat line in May 2023, en route to his 59 doubles for the season--a number that, in the present day, is simultaneously wondrous and irrelevant...

Interesting, though, that despite the vast difference with respect to the sense/shape/aura of offense that doubles and homers embody, their supreme achievements, both in terms of the season as a whole and its monthly accumulations, would be so similar in nature (20 each for a month, high 60s/low 70s for a season). Feel free to ponder that as we get ready to go further down the rabbit hole with "monthlies"...

CATCHING UP WITH THE MONTHLIES: OOPS! 15+ HOMERS IN A MONTH...

OK, so we misspoke...but when does habit become tradition? Or heartbreak become psoriasis?!

We need to up the ante on homers here, just one more time, before we move on to the "lesser" stuff. 

It's all part of an increasingly unescapable fascination with this "in a month" measurement: when does a calendar become a curse? Or vice-versa? 

WHAT it's about is the relative scarcity of certain events...we aren't quite as far gone as Jayson Stark, down in the reedy weeds of this has never happened before! (and Jayson, you really need to compile a book about all of those singularities before the men in the white coats tap you on the shoulder and crook their fingers at you)...but perhaps it's really worse, much worse. (Someone will write a PhD thesis about this, and will be "rewarded" by being named general manager of the Colorado Rockies.)

This could be a Sumimoto sister...but we're not telling!

That's right: relative scarcity. Occurring naturally, without the idiotic imposition of tariffs, or the latest variation in planned obsolescence. We don't want to be able to count it on the fingers of one or two hands, but we don't want to have to bring a wheelbarrow with us, either. Just two or three figures worth (maybe those saucy Sumimoto sisters and one of their disposable frisky friends, frolicking in ways that will get us--not them--arrested: after all, that's why pseudonyms were invented.)

OK, enough foreplay. We're on the other side of the orgasm, in the home run trot, and as our flushed face fades back to its customary semi-pasty shade, we remind you of those posts we reminded you of last time: the 10+ homers in a month material...it's all interesting and all that, but there are more than 999 instances of it, thanks to the offensive explosion and its decadent "launch angle" aftermath (hmm...seems like everything is becoming vaguely pornographic now...sign of the times, apparently). 

So before we totally exhaust your attention span, here's the wrinkle (in case you didn't read the title before plunging in here). We know that there are over 1300 instances of hitters slugging 10 or more HRs in a month. For all of you inveterate carnivores out there, that's not even medium rare. But what about 15 or more HRs in a month? How often does that happen? Could it be in the sweet spot we're looking for--not gonzo Starkian in singularity, but not so proliferate that it won't burn the house down if you accidentally set it on fire? 

DO you remember how many times hitters have hit 50 homers? It's right at the spot where it should stop for all time (though, sadly, it won't)--it's happened exactly 50 times. Thus it's a record that has reached its perfect symmetry. It happened last year (one of the few good things that happened last year), thanks to Aaron Judge and Shohei Ohtani. And one of those two will quite probably destroy that symmetry this year...

But there's another HR feat that's in the same neighborhood: four dozen instances of four-baggers...not quite as perfect a construct, but you've got to go with what they give you. Yes, yes, it's that 15 homers-in-a-month thing--we admit it, already! It has happened just 49 times, just the right amount to carry in a Sumimoto sister handbag. (And don't get too grabby with that one sister: she's got a black belt.)

15+ homer months have a convenient caesura that permits us to divide them, like all Gaul, into two parts. Here are the first 22 instances, from 1923 to 1968:

The relatively unknown Cy Williams was the first to do it, a surprising discovery when one considers the two 50+ HR seasons turned by Babe Ruth in 1920-21. Of course, later in the 20s Ruth would turn the 15+ a month thing into an annual occurrence (1927-30), including the 17 he hit in '27 to hit that magic round number (60) that is much lamented for having been surpassed by a pack of panting hyenas during the end times.

We single out Joltin' Joe for his proliferation of extra-base hits--the only such player to have more doubles and triples than homers in a 15+ HR month. (OK, Jayson, there's your singularity!) Some of you knew that Rudy York slipped past the Babe with 18 HRs in a month in 1937, but did you know that he hit 17 in August 1943, when the balata ball was something less than buoyant and bouncy?

It's true that these "big fly months" are light on other extra-base hits: our 22 instances here produced 342 homers, but only 120 doubles and just 22 triples. (This ratio will be even more pronounced in Part Two...)

Props to Hank Greenberg for his three entries on the list--including his "tandem" tateration with Harlond Clift, making those two the second to have 15+ HR months in the same year. (Joe and Rudy were the first to do so, the year before.) It happens again in 1956, with Mickey Mantle and Joe Adcock, and a fourth time with Roger Maris and Jim Gentile in 1961.

And it's a nice surprise to see Frank Howard (in his "Capital Punisher" incarnation...) produce a 15-HR month in 1968, proving that pitchers during the "year of the pitcher" did sometimes suffer the truth of consequences...

HERE's part two, picking up in the 1980s...

Of our 27 instances from 1985-2023, five of them belong to Mark McGwire, who becomes the first to have two 15+ homers months in the same season (in 1998, of course). It seems that in order to hit 70+ HRs in a season, such a double-up in monthly HR hitting is necessary--and, sure enough, Barry Bonds did the same when he hit his 73 HRs in 2001. 

Most of the names here won't be surprising--though the "explosion" and its decadent sister tendency of "launch angle" do bring in several that might raise at least one eyebrow (Greg Vaughn, Troy Tulowitzki, Edwin Encarnacion, even Kyle Schwarber). Schwarber gets us to the pure extinction of other extra-base hits, with nothing but HRs--another moment of singular "Starkian ecstasy." (This gang of 27 combined for a total of 427 homers, but only 115 doubles and just 14 triples.)

Note that it's Sammy Sosa who winds up with the current record for most HRs in a month (20). He and Rafael Palmeiro are the first sluggers with 15+ HR months occurring in the same month (August 1999); this feat will be duplicated by J. D. Martinez and Aaron Judge in September-October 2017.

And here's our shout-out to Albert Belle for his two appearances on the list (1995 and 1999)--he is all-too-often overlooked due to his short career. 

WE conclude this installment of "homer porn" with our trademarked TimeGrid™ (it's trademarked because we say so...) depicting all 49 instances of 15+ HR months. 

When might number fifty occur? It could be as early as May 2025: Shohei Ohtani has 10 HRs in 17 games this month, which paces out to 15 or 16 (and it's a month with 31 days, too--something that those Sumimoto sisters are known to live for...too bad for them that Sho-time already has a wife and a dog). 

Now we promise not to write about the long ball in our next post...

CATCHING UP WITH THE MONTHLIES: 10+ HRs IN A MONTH

LAST year we started a series on monthly data--10+ homers in a month--which stalled in the 1990s. (The uptick in the frequency of that feat was frankly a bit flummoxing, plus we had a book of French noir to finish.) 

We'll be getting back to the rest of that series next month, after we cover some other "monthly" events that are unrelated to homers. (We get what they used to call "tired blood" when we are forced to talk about homers all the time...)

So first we'll have monthly doubles, then triples (what a surprise that is!) and we will even get gob-smackingly generic and look at plain old hits before we condescend back into home runs...

EXCEPT for today's post. Here we correct an omission in the 10+ HRs in a month data set by catching you up with all of those incidences in 2024, plus the first three 10+ HR monthly mashers for April 2025. As you'll see there are a couple of names on this list that have a habit of recurring...

WE figure you know which folks we were referred to when we made that last remark...those two homer-hitting behemoths in 2024 who met in the World Series and didn't continue their outsized exploits in what some folks have taken to calling the "Fall Fizzle."

But Aaron Judge and Shohei Ohtani each had three 10+ HR months last year, with four of the six being real barnburners of a month (as those monthly OPS averages demonstrate). Judge's 14 HRs last May was the highest total in any month during 2024, with Anthony Santander the runner-up with his 13 big flies in June. (Ohtani hit 12 HRs in a month twice--in June and in August--but it was his September that caught folks' imaginations--"only" 10 HRs, but .393 BA for the month plus sixteen stolen bases without being caught as Sho-Time became baseball's first 50-50 player.

August was the big month for 10+ HRs--a total of eight. There were two sets of teammates who hit 10+ HRs in the same month: the A's Brent Rooker and Lawrence Butler did it in July, while Judge and Juan Soto matched the A's duo in August.

WE'VE also tacked on the three 10+ HR achievers for the first month of the 2025 season. Judge had another monster month, hitting over .400 and massing a 1.282 OPS to go with his 10 HRs. Eugenio Suarez tacked on another 10+ HR month despite hitting just .200 in April '25. (He'd hit much better in July '24, with a BA of .333: April '25 was more like the usual Suarez performance: 10 HRs and just six singles for the month.

Ohtani seems to have a jump on another 10+ HR month in May; he's sitting on nine for the month as we type this. Stay tuned...

HOW DO THE BALLPARKS LOOK THUS FAR?

WITH those two minor-league parks entering the scene (and a minor-league roster attempting to fend for itself in Denver), we could be seeing some unusual numbers across the game's thirty parks this season.

Let's take a look at the summary data as of Sunday, May 11:

WE have sorted the data here in descending order of runs per game--remember that average rep the runs per team per game: to get the average number runs scored by both teams, you must remember to multiply by two. 

The range of offense across the parks is exceptionally wide right now: history tells us that there will be a reasonable amount of convergence occurring between now and the end of the season.

WHAT the Orioles did to their pitching staff by moving the left-field fence in (again) might involve a class action suit--that 1.91 HR/G total is beyond surreal. Camden Yards is neck-and-neck with Coors Field when it comes to robust offense.

Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City is the polar opposite, with 1968-like offensive levels (3.24 R/G, 0.57 HR/G). 

Another way to put this: so much ballpark bifurcation, so little time...

Meanwhile, the two minor league parks are taking different paths in terms of run scoring. The A's temporary (?) home in West Sacramento is keeping within striking distance of Denver and Baltimore, and the A's pitchers are showing the difference in their performance (8-13, 5.81 ERA at home; 14-7, 3.61 on the road). 

IN Tampa Bay, Steinbrenner Field is shaping up to be a pretty neutral park. The thought was that its cozy Yankee Stadium-like dimensions would bring it in as a homer haven; but their current rate (1.16) is merely above average (it's 1.40 HR/G in the Bronx). 

Note that the color coding is heat-map oriented: extreme above or below average values are shown in blue or yellow-orange respectively. 

Remember that we calculate our park factors differently from the rest of the analytical mob--we calculate using both aggregate park OPS and R/G, then average them together. We like to show the differences in each measure, which is why you have the three figures to look at, with the rightmost column being our "final word" on the subject. 

AND yes, we put the HR/G in red because someone keeps reminding us that chicks dig the long ball. Enjoy it, ladies!

NO RUSH, BUT ROSE (AND SHOELESS JOE) SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY IT'S SO...

...EXCEPT, of course, they'll never actually be able to do that, for obvious reasons. 

But Rob Manfred's ruling, regardless of any influence provided by Ye Olde Orange Menace--which opens the door for possible induction into the Hall of Fame for Pete Rose, Joe Jackson and sixteen other folks whose names rarely get mentioned*--is the right one...given the circumstances. 

Shoeless Joe Jackson: tragedy.

Baseball has moved into the 21st century's elevated relativism, ethics-wise (and otherwise-wise). It has taken the first step in realizing that it's better to exorcise its ghosts, because by doing so they remove the squidgy echoes that haunt the game's margins. The legalisms that Manfred contorted into his decision were downright annoying, but fortunately the bald logical facts hold: neither Rose nor Jackson are "threats" to the game's "integrity" at this point. 

And while the sport rightfully needs to keep gambling out of the clubhouse, keeping two players out of the Hall of Fame due to those transgressions is not something that requires the same draconian rigor that seemed necessary in the past. Rose and Jackson have been punished by their lifetime bans from the game and from any honors they might have received due to their on-field play. 

NOW it's up to the Hall of Fame's capricious bureaucracy to determine if/when the two men will make it onto a "Veterans' Committee" ballot and then receive a sufficient number of votes for induction.

This same set of rules--a lifetime ban for gambling--should still be a sufficient deterrent to major league players. Since that is still intact, some posthumous mercy can be leavened for the two players in baseball history who truly deserve enshrinement but whose transgressions were sufficiently serious to deny them such an honor while they were still alive.

LET's hope that we won't see some special effort made to expedite this process--it would be unseemly that this matter could accelerate simply because a convicted felon with undue worldly influence whose ethical transgressions dwarf the ill-considered actions of these two players decided to meddle in areas that have nothing to do with affairs of state.

Perhaps this is baseball's way of throwing the "mongrel Menace" a bone to chew on, a kowtow that is more cosmetic than cowardly and cloying. At least we can hope that such is the case.

Pete Rose: farce.

The process can now proceed, but--as noted--there's no rush. Rose and Jackson won't know the difference.

 And the bureaucratic foibles of the Hall should work in favor of a more deliberate pace in rectifying this matter. 

As Jayson Stark noted in his article about the eighteen-player reinstatement, there are ramifications for a group of modern greats who have been blacklisted from the Hall. The limbo those players have experienced for more than a decade will need to be addressed, and it would behoove the Hall to at least start contemplating how they will approach permitting them to appear on Veterans' Committee ballots in the future. (We expect that this won't happen until after Rose and Jackson go through whatever process will emerge.)

DEDICATED readers of BBB probably know that both Rose and Jackson were inducted into the Baseball Reliquary's Shrine of the Eternals. The Reliquary's exercise of forgiveness exceeded MLB's, since Rose received the honor while he was still alive. While it seemed a bit like grandstanding at the time, it now looks rather prescient in its acknowledgment that, on balance, Rose deserves to be one of a select group of exceptional baseball players accorded special recognition. 

(Of course, the Reliquary enshrined the tragic Jackson first, as they should have. In addition to a lifetime of shame for his murky actions during the maelstrom of the 1919 World Series, Shoeless Joe lost at least five more seasons in a time when offense revved up. Ty Cobb hit .401 in 1922 at age 35, and there's every chance that Jackson would have exceeded .400 again in that environment. )

Our view is that Jackson should be inducted first, with Rose in the following year--but the Vet Committee's bureaucracy will probably make that impossible--all of which provides us with a perfect chance to practice our French: plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. 

ALL in all, an odd victory for two ghosts in a strangely macabre time that continues to swirl around us like a shape-shifting whirlwind. We now must consider a course of action we might call "exorcism by enshrinement": it seems to be the fizzy form of fatalism that we might need to embrace, just as we've learned to turn a blind eye to the more odious phenomenon of "failing upward." Tragedy and farce leer at us in tandem: they raise an eternal shroud over us as we gaze upon their cynical, eternally recurring one-night stand...

--

*Of the sixteen others, the only name worthy of mention in a discussion of the Hall of Fame is Eddie Cicotte, whose numbers get him within whispering distance of Cooperstown. But he's simply just not great enough to deserve dispensation: there are some folk who really do need to stay in their assigned circle of Hell...