Josh Hamilton has hit four homers ...

The ad his Strangers stuck by Washington when the relevations of drug use came out, so it's in their character.

 

Jeter, along with everyone on this board, is also "on track" to live forever. But I doubt it happens ...

 

http://deadspin.com/5908781/despite-hitting-four-home-runs-josh-hamilton-could-not-secure-a-majority-of-the-player-of-the-game-vote

 

I find myself really rooting for Hamilton to do well. I know he still struggles with his addictions, but his turnaround has been one of the better stories of redemption we've had in a long time... Plus, the whole deal with throwing the ball to the guy who fell and died was just fucking awful.

 

Rangers have re-opened contract negotiations:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/josh-hamilton-s-record-tying-four-home-runs-add-intrigue-to-renewed-contract-talks-with-rangers.html

Wonder what he gets? Seven years, $150 million?

 

Four homers > perfect game.

 

Did anyone get a save?

 

That's an interesting one... If you go based on number of players who have had the opportunity to hit four HR in a game compared with those who did, you can definitely make the argument that it is happens less often than a perfect game.

 

Four homers: 16 times (once since 2003)

Perfect game: 21 times (five times since 2003, including four since 2009)

 

I just think it's a more impressive feat because it comes down to one guy with a bat and what he can do with it on any given day or night. It relies on no one other than himself once the ball is hurtling toward the plate. If he doesn't hit the ball just right when he swings that bat, 98 per cent of the time, he doesn't hit a home run.

And if a pitcher doesn't want to throw to him, doesn't want to give him anything decent to swing at, it can be very easy for that pitcher to prevent him from hitting one home run, let alone four.

A pitcher throwing a perfect game depends on some timely pitch calls by his catcher, solid and at times stellar defence, a friendly call or two from an umpire, etc. The pitcher is only one factor in that perfect game. The home run hitter, though, is often all alone in accomplishing his feat. That's why I think four home runs is more impressive.

 

If Len Barker can pitch a perfect game how impressive can it be?



In all seriousness it appears that the 4 homer game is more difficult.

At the start of every game there are only two players with the potential to pitch a perfect game, both opposing pitchers.

At the start of every game there are in most cases 3 or maybe 4 hitters on both teams with the potential to hit 4 home runs.

Despite the better odds of a 4 homer game, there have been 5 more perfect games than there have been 4 homer games.

I did not use the number of 9 batters with the potential to have a 4 homer game because in most line ups there are usually 3 or 4 heavy hitters that could do it. Of course the batter would have to step in to the box at least 4 times.

Have not given it much thought and there may be something I've missed, but on the face of it, the odds seem to favor the 4 homer game but that has not been the case.

 

I read in a book, either Alan Schwarz's book or "Moneyball," that at some point someone ran simulations of baseball's history 1,000s of times. Everything that happened, which I presume would include the number of four-home run games, number of perfect games, etc., etc., were typically right in line with how it has really played out.

The biggest anomaly: Nobody came close to a 56-game hitting streak in the simulations.