How must the Reds feel today?

[Houston]

After being no-hit last night by Roy Halladay, how much the Reds feel knowing their #1 arch enemy, Roy Oswalt, is the next pitcher they'll face?

[Limey]

After being no-hit last night by Roy Halladay, how much the Reds feel knowing their #1 arch enemy, Roy Oswalt, is the next pitcher they'll face?

Like the Astros in '97, '98, & '01.

[Travis]

Hm. Check out #'s 9, 13, 14, 20. All heartbreaking in their own way: http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/345

(FYI, new ranking puts Halladay's game last night at # 4: http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8582)

[Bench]

How did the Reds getting no-hit result in us kicking ourselves in the balls?

[Limey]

How did the Reds getting no-hit result in us kicking ourselves in the balls?

It's all part of growing up and being British.

[rifraft]

So how high does Lincecum's masterpiece, tonight, rank?  9 innings 2 hits 0 runs 1 bb 14 k.

[Arky Vaughan]

So how high does Lincecum's masterpiece, tonight, rank?  9 innings 2 hits 0 runs 1 bb 14 k.

One ahead of Halladay's no-no. Lincecum's game score was a 96 vs. Halliday's 94.

If they both keep this up, Game 1 of the NLCS might be one of the best duels of all-time.

[MusicMan]

One ahead of Halladay's no-no. Lincecum's game score was a 96 vs. Halliday's 94.

Which is why "game score" seems pretty arbitrary as far as pitching performances go.

If they both keep this up, Game 1 of the NLCS might be one of the best duels of all-time.

Did Koufax and Gibson ever get to square off in the playoffs?  (Likely no, as I don't think Sandy made it to 1969).

[BizidyDizidy]

Never had heard of game score before. Nice to see the astros are part of the highest one ever.

[Bench]

I still don't understand what Game Score is.

[BUWebguy]

From Wikipedia:

Game Score is a metric devised by Bill James to determine the strength of a pitcher in any particular baseball game. To determine a starting pitcher's game score:
Start with 50 points.
Add 1 point for each out recorded, so 3 points for every complete inning pitched.
Add 2 points for each inning completed after the 4th.
Add 1 point for each strikeout.
Subtract 2 points for each hit allowed.
Subtract 4 points for each earned run allowed.
Subtract 2 points for each unearned run allowed.
Subtract 1 point for each walk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_score

[Travis]

More: http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/10/08/halladay-and-lincecum/

At one point in Thursday’s mind-blowing game, Lincecum struck out Brooks Conrad on some sort of ridiculous super pitch — Conrad seemed to literally swing through the ball (he foul-tipped it). Bob Brenly called it a changeup. I shouted, “Come on Bob, that wasn’t a changeup. That was a curveball.” And so I rewound the thing and watched it. And I said, “Oh wait, maybe he was right. Maybe it was a changeup.” I rewound again and watched and said, “No, that wasn’t a changeup. That was a slider.” I rewound again and watched and said, “No, wait, I think that WAS a curveball.” I rewound again and finally settled on it being a slider. But really it was some sort of shape-shifting pitch. It could be whatever you wanted it to be.

[Arky Vaughan]

Which is why "game score" seems pretty arbitrary as far as pitching performances go.

No doubt it's arbitrary to crudely assign values to things like strikeouts, hits, walks and runs. But game scores do tend to correlate with the perception of what is a great or lousy pitching performance. Which makes sense, since that's how James devised it in the first place. Anyway, it's just a toy to play around with.

While a no-hitter is an exceedingly rare and amazing feat, it's not like a 14-strikeout, two-hit shutout pales in comparison.

[OregonStrosFan]

Strikeouts skews it. I know the theory behind why strikeouts count for more, but even though more balls were put in play against Halladay, only 1 was even remotely squared up on, and it was a harmless liner.  Lincecum had 2 no-doubter doubles hit on him.  That, and the Braves offense is anemic, whereas the Reds offense was the best in the NL.  Halladays was simply a masterpiece!

I appreciate tools like 'game score', but it is just that, a useful tool and nothing more...   

[hostros7]

Strikeouts skews it. I know the theory behind why strikeouts count for more, but even though more balls were put in play against Halladay, only 1 was even remotely squared up on, and it was a harmless liner.  Lincecum had 2 no-doubter doubles hit on him.  That, and the Braves offense is anemic, whereas the Reds offense was the best in the NL.  Halladays was simply a masterpiece!

I appreciate tools like 'game score', but it is just that, a useful tool and nothing more...   

This article really highlights how nasty Halladay's stuff must have been

http://www.slate.com/id/2270321/

[Arky Vaughan]

Strikeouts skews it. I know the theory behind why strikeouts count for more, but even though more balls were put in play against Halladay, only 1 was even remotely squared up on, and it was a harmless liner.  Lincecum had 2 no-doubter doubles hit on him.  That, and the Braves offense is anemic, whereas the Reds offense was the best in the NL.  Halladays was simply a masterpiece!

I appreciate tools like 'game score', but it is just that, a useful tool and nothing more...   

Useful tool may be too strong. Again, just a toy to play around with. An improvement would be to count those doubles as two points each, which puts Lincecum's game score behind Halladay's.

[austro]

This article really highlights how nasty Halladay's stuff must have been

http://www.slate.com/id/2270321/

From that article:

The other kind of great pitcher takes a more modest approach. For him the point is not to master a given hitter but to master the game—think of Greg Maddux, Mike Mussina or Robin Roberts. ... They are rarely seen trying to impale opposing players with splintered bats.

Excellent.

[Uncle Charlie]

Today they feel like the rest of the teams on the outside looking in.