Kevin Mench ended his quest for the all-time consecutive game home run record last night, falling just one short. He did become one of six men all-time to homer in seven consecutive games, which after all aint bad.

Here are all streaks of six or more games:

I thought it might be interesting to look at the players with the best odds of homering in six or eight consecutive games using logic similar to what I used in the Rollins' hit streak earlier this month. Here were the best player years:

Bonds in 2001 had the best odds of getting a six-game streak, and you'll notice that he did it twice. Now here are the odds for the players who did in fact hit a home run in six or more straight games:

News Bulletin—The Phils Need Pitching!

I love John Kruk's stuff. I used to think he was just a hack baseball writer, but I now have to admit I was wrong.

He's now become a caricature of a hack writer.

Kruk, the man who championed Chone Figgins for the 2004 AL MVP about the same time he discovered that David Eckstein was the "scrappiest" player in the majors, two years after his team won the World Series, now sets his sights on the Phils' woes. Let's let the down-to-earth smarmy hubris fly.

The first problem with the Phils was their lineup. Wow, what a revelation! When a team is batting Ryan Howard sixth and seventh and especially when they have three instant outs (Bell, Lieberthal, and the pitcher), there's a problem. Utley was ping-ponging between the cleanup and #5 spot. Well, sure, he is a prototypical cleanup hitter.

The basic problem is that manager Charlie "I Need A" Manuel did not understand why his lineup worked last year nor did he know how to deal with losing one starter (Kenny Lofton) from the top of the order last year. The Phils essentially had two leadoff hitters last year, Rollins and Lofton. They were both successful at getting on base and that was the key to the Phils' offensive success in 2005. The rest of the lineup at the end of last season was Utley at number three, then Abreu, Burrell, Howard, Bell, and Lieberthal.

For some reason, losing Lofton threw a monkey wrench in Manuel's approach to the lineup at the start of this season. Rowand replaced Lofton in center, so ol' Chowlie figured, hey, let's just let Rowand take Lofton's spot in the lineup. It is beyond me how a team can take a player from a different league who is coming off a down year offensive and owns just a .337 career OBP and put him in the number two hole, especially when they have better options.

What Manuel should have done to replace Lofton was just shift the numbers three through six hitters up one spot and put Rowand in the number six spot. It just took him the better part of a month to figure that out.

But I digress…I came to bury Kruk, not Caesar, er, Manuel.

Even Kruk can see that jumbling the lineup was needed and yes, he's correct that moving Utley to #2 was the most significant single change. But he misses the larger point. Sure, lineups are not as important as some would have you believe, but when a lineup is dysfunctional like the Phils was at the start of the season, it needs to be fixed. That was most important change to the lineup, to finally put players in positions in the order that made some semblance of sense.

Next Kruk opines:

But the Phillies need to start changing their philosophy, as well. Right now they play like an American League team in that they just wait for the home run and that's a mistake for this team. They have guys like Utley, Jimmy Rollins and Aaron Rowand who can run, and it's time to start using them to manufacture runs and to put pressure on opposing pitchers.

Let me get my waders on to delve into this pile of BS. Rowand and Utley are good baserunners, but the only time either of them cleared twenty steals in a season in their professional careers was when Rowand swiped 22 in Double-A in 2000. They are good bets at a dozen to eighteen steals a year, which is nice but is nothing to build an offense around.

Rollins and Abreu (whom Kruk neglected to mention) are legitimate stolen base threats. Abreu already has 4 steals (and projects to 32 on the season) so he has had no problems swiping his share of bases. Rollins has just three stolen bases this season (projecting to 24), which is off his usual pace, but the problem with him is that he's not getting on base. His on-base percentage is the lowest it's been in three years (.322) and the Phils are 19th in the majors in leadoff hitter OBP (.330 overall).

Compare the Phils ratios to their opponents overall. Kruk is correct that too much of their offense is based on home runs, but the problem is not stealing bases. It's getting on base via the single or double that's plaguing them:

Kruk next comes out with this major revelation, "They also need to find a way to get some quality starting pitching". No, really? This is a team that has not had a real number one pitcher since Curt Schilling left town. I guess Kruk just got the bulletin—keep in mind that he was a commentator for the Phils prior to his current ESPN gig. This is the baseball equivalent of Bush telling us, as if he's the first to discover this, that "Hey! We're addicted to oil!" Well, almost, it lacks the hypocritical causal link, but you get the idea.

Beyond overstating the painfully obvious, Kruk then goes on to single out individual problems with the rotation that have nothing to do with the real problem and are factually incorrect. He avers, "[T]he Phillies [are] relying for the time being on young pitchers like Gavin Floyd and Ryan Madson, who both don't have the experience pitching beyond 150 innings that is necessary".

First, the problem with the rotation is that they just don't have the talent. They don't have a legitimate number one or two pitcher on the staff. They are relying on sub-par retreads like John Lieber and Corey Lidle in two of the top three spots.

As for Madson and Floyd, they may not reach 150 innings each, but it is more likely to be a result of their on-field performance than some innate inability to pitch beyond 150 innings. Both have ERAs in the 8.00's and are getting pulled so early they are projecting to under 150 innings for the year.

Before you play Krukie advocate and offer that they just don't have the arm strength to pitch deep into their starts and that's what Kruk meant when he said they won't pitch well past 150 innings, I have to point out that both commonly pitched at least 150 in their previous professional career. As a matter of fact, in Floyd's four professional seasons, he has missed 150 innings just once (by just 12 in 2003) and he has average 163 innings per season. Madson was a long reliever in each of the last two seasons with the Phils, but in both of his previous two (mostly) minor-league seasons he reached 150 innings (171 in 2002 and 167 in 2003).

I'm not as concerned about their ability to pitch beyond 150 innings. I'm concerned as to whether or not they are legitimate major-league starters, and whether they can show that this season.

The gist of Kruk's argument is that the Phils need to make some changes because, "[T]he NL East is there for the taking right now". Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Mets are 4.5 games ahead of the (currently) second-place Phils. That's the largest lead in the majors. Three last-place teams are closer to first than the Phils (in the AL East, AL West, and NL West). Keep in mind that they are just 2.5 games out of last.

The problem with the Phils since the glory days of Schmidt and Carlton have been short-term solutions. What they need to do is right their ship. They need to determine if they have any starting pitchers besides Brett Myers who have a legitimate shot of being in the rotation next year. They need to devise a strategy at third and behind the plate after the rapidly aging Lieberthal and Bell's contracts are up at the end of the season—and how Kruk can analyze the Phils' woes without mentioning these two albatrosses is beyond me.

What they don't need is reactionary changes driven out of some misdirected believe that they are a legitimate playoff contender. Charlie Manuel was a reactionary selection. He was brought in to appease the players after the Vicksburgian siege that was the Larry Bowa era. He was also made the heir apparent to the managerial throne after Mike Schmidt realized that he didn't enjoying paying his managerial dues by riding a bus in the minors for five months out of the year. Manuel was also a good buddy of Jim Thome, who you might recall is no longer in town.

Kruk finishes up his magnum opus by offering that the next dozen or so games will help the Phils decide whether to fire Manuel. He's right: these games will be critical if Manuel's to keep his job. But really, the Phils need to take a look at the job Manuel has done and determine if he's the man to lead him. I have my own opinion.

The biggest problem with the Phils, and Kruk is remiss in not mentioning this, is their mercurial front office style. It reminds me of the old story of how the Mets went from a Series winner to one of the worst teams in the game by trying to resolve who their center fielder was. They traded Lenny Dykstra to the Phils, made a series of trades as a result of that one and the rest was history.

The Phils are still reeling from the Scott Rolen fiasco from years ago. The Burrell contract, David Montgomery has said publicly, was a direct result of the failure to sign Rolen. The Rolen deal is woven deep into the fabric of this team.

What the Phils need to do is decide what they do well and what they don't do well. They need to take advantage of the things they do well, and improve the things they do poorly. Otherwise, we will get more of the floundering mediocrity that has plagued them basically since they surprising won the NL pennant in 1993.

Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe that's the start of the Phils' problems. They put together a mismatched bunch of players and somehow won a pennant. They have been trying to get the quick fix to again capture lightening in a bottle ever since. What this team needs is an identity, but unfortunately, the only man in the organization who has enough baseball talent to help develop one (Pat Gillick) may be well past his prime.

In a game almost as improbable as the Tampa Bay forest green, softball uniforms, the Yankees lost, 4-2, in ten innings to the Devil Rays tonight. The D-Rays broke the game open in the top of the tenth with Mariano Rivera on the mound, and the Yankees left the bases loaded in the bottom of the tenth.

However, the oddest thing about the game was that the Yankees drew 14 walks. Fourteen! Every spot in the order walked. Jason Giambi walked four times. And just one of those fourteen was an intentional walk. Of the five Tampa Bay pitchers, four threw at least one walk, and starter Seth McClung walked seven in five innings. He has issued 22 walks in 22.1 innings this season. Tampa Bay threw 206 pitches on the night.

To put it in perspective, the AL record for walks in a game is 20 by the Red Sox (or rather issued by the Tigers) in a 14-13 twelfth-inning loss on September 17, 1920. It's 16 in the NL. The nine-inning AL record is 18 (Detroit vs. Phila., May 9, 1916 and Cleveland vs. Boston, May 20, 1948). The NL record is 17. So it was not a record, but it wasn't that far from being one.

Tim McCarver, take note. Those walks don't always come around to haunt you.

Fourteen of the 48 men who came to the plate for the Yankees walked. The Yankees batted .188 and slugged .281 on the night but had an on-base percentage of .435. The Yankees drew 3.5 times the expected walk total based on last years major-league numbers.

Now, given that the odds of drawing a walk in any given plate appearance using last year's numbers was 8.16%. So what's the probability of drawing 14 walks in 48 plate appearances? It's 0.0016% or about one in 64,226. I can't imagine what the odds of drawing 14 walks and scoring two runs are at 1 AM, but they're somewhere in the neighborhood of David Bell returning as the starting third baseman for the Phils next year. And Leon is getting laaaaaarger.

Last night, I ran across an article on Yahoo saying that home runs are up this year (and not just in Jim Thome's stat line).

Then I moseyed to ESPN and was told that an AP-AOL Sports poll found that 53 percent of baseball fans feel that "Baseball has fallen short on keeping the sport drug-free." They also found that two-thirds of fans are down on Barry Bonds though more than half would still put him in the Hall of Fame.

To quote my dad, "What the hex!" What's going on here?

The fans are correct in being suspicious of baseball's intentions where it comes to a drug policy. Both the players union and the owners profited by the inflated offensive numbers of the past dozen or so years. Both were slow to address the issue, but they now have a policy that appears effective. I mean, at least there have been a handful of minor leaguers already suspended for almost a full season (100 games).

But some will question why home runs are up if the drug policy is working so well? Oddly, those are the same people rejoicing over Barry Bonds' painfully slow start this year. I have trouble with this sort of cognitive dissonance myself.

Then again, there's the next level of cynics who say that the drug testing is academic since major-league players have switched to untraceable types of enhancements like HGH (Human Growth Hormone) or prolonged sessions on Howard Stern's sybean [sp?]. Minor-leaguers get caught using steroids because they can't afford the good stuff.

Finally, your trek through the baseball cognoscenti caste system, you will reach nirvana. That is, you will realize that there are many, many other factors that have conspired to prolong the home run inflation.

Expansion and tinkering with the strike zone and the ball have all been factors. However, in my opinion, the largest factor is the high turnover in baseball stadiums, usually from the old standard tin can-type parks to today's revenue-generating bandboxes. The new stadium boom, you might notice, coincides almost perfectly with the current offensive boom.

OK, so it's just a theory, but maybe we can test it…

First, let's verify that there is an issue. The numbers look impressive in the Yahoo article, but what do they mean? Let's look at the numbers for Aprils in the last twenty years and see what they mean as compared to the season as a whole (current stats through last night's games, for all years stats are through April and may include March stats):

Balls are flying out of the ballpark more quickly (i.e., in 3.52% of all at-bats) than in any other full season. However, April 2006 ranks behind 2000 and is just ahead of 2001. In those seasons, homers fell sharply after April.

However, on average April home run rates are slightly below the season average (i.e., at 99.10%). One would expect if this holds true that then homers will comprise 3.55% of all at-bats by season's end, the highest percentage ever.

Ok, so there seems to be a potential issue here, but could this season just be an aberration? Homers had been falling in previous seasons, right?

Well, yes, home runs were slightly down last season, but it wasn't 1968 or anything. Besides slight downturns happen, how does the current decade compare with the past? Let's see…

So where's the change coming from? St. Louis has a new ballpark. Could that be skewing the data?

Here is a comparison over the last two seasons of ballpark factors using ESPN.com data (based on PF = ((homeRS + homeRA)/(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)/(roadG))). The table is split to fit in the column:

Now last year's data with the difference between the two:

What happened to Coors? And moving the left field back two feet in Philly really mattered? Hmm… And what happened to PETCO and the BOB, former pitcher's parks?

Could it be this is what happens when you use a small sample of data, like what we have so far? Sure, but I'm too impatient to wait for the season's end.

Do stadiums really change that much from year to year? Well, for historic ballpark data we are left with Baseball-Reference.com/Sean lahman data, which unfortunately uses a different format from ESPN. However it is useful for looking at annual changes to data.

Here are the greatest increasex in ballpark factor (BPF) from a previous season. You'll notice new ballparks are a factor:

Now, here are the greatest decreases:

Let's just look at stadium changes (i.e., not just stadium name changes). I'm including all new stadiums since the dawn of time since I love this stuff:

Now, here are stadiums for new ballclubs since 1901:

You'll note that almost all of the new stadiums in the last 15 seasons have had ballparks that have BPFs greater than the league average. You may also notice that some parks have more ups and downs than Jason Giambi on a rollercoaster. I thought it might be fun to look at the standard deviation and variance for BPFs:

I think a couple of things are happening: As more homers are hit, the variation among team stadiums as well as for a given stadium from year to year goes up just because we're dealing with bigger numbers.

The other thing is that teams are building a number of idiosyncratic stadiums, and as each is built a cookie-cutter tin can stadium bids adieu. With the old Busch gone, Shea's the last one left, right? These throwback stadiums create throwback instability. This decade's BPF changes are closer to the 1890s than the 1990s.

The end result? Get used to the homers, and don't expect that a hitter's park one year will necessarily be one the next. Is it steroid use? Doubtful. Oh, and get off Barry Bonds' back.

Julio Franco became the oldest player to hit a home run last Thursday, connecting in the Mets 7-2 victory over the Padres. He nabs the record from pitcher Jack Quinn who homered once in 34 at-bats at the age of 46. Quinn had held the record since 1930—boy, must he be ticked off at Franco. By the way, Franco hit 9 last year at age 46, but was still edged out by Quinn.

Quinn hit only eight homers in 1349 at-bats. His second-to-last homer came eight years earlier when he was 38. He recorded 472 at-bats in those intervening eight seasons, and never recorded fewer than 46, and yet he hit his last in 34 at-bats. He collected just 35 at-bats in his final three seasons, before retiring at age 49.

Franco plans to play until age 50, and will be 49 when his current contract expires (if he doesn't first). If Franco can last that long, he'll be just the sixth man to do it, and given that none of them played more than 3 games in any season past 50, he can very easily collect the most games after turning 50.

Here are all the players to last in the majors to age 47, oldest to youngest:

Note that all of the previous players have amassed just 261 at-bats after turning 47. Franco could equal that before his current contract is done, and of course, he's already out-homered the entire group.

There are 224 player seasons in which the given player was over 40 and hit at least one home run, four of which come this season (Franco, Craig Biggio, Steve Finley, and, finally, Barry Bonds). Altogether those players have collected 1289 taters in 52202 at-bats or a dinger in 2.47% of those player at-bats. Below are all the players to homer past age 44:

Now, here are the most per season after age 40:

And finally, here are the players with the highest percentage of home runs in their at-bats:

As for the most home runs past age 40, Franco, largely a role player late in his career, barely cracks the list of leaders:

And he comes nowhere near the leaders in home runs per at-bat post-40:

Franco does, however, own the post-45 homer list:

Given the number of post-40 players to homer this year, you won't be surprised to find that the 2000s, or whatever we call the current decade, project to the most home runs after turning forty in baseball history. However, Franco and his aged compatriots will have to double their efforts to top the Fifties homers per at-bats after turning forty:

Freddie Garcia beat the Twins yesterday, 9-2, to help the White Sox Sweep Minnesota in a three-game series. It was also the seventh win in their current eight-game winning streak. It was also Garcia's 102nd win in his eight-year career.

That might seem the most meaningless of the three consequences of the Saturday win, but of course that's the one I am going to bloviate upon. You see, by winning 102 games Garcia ties Wilson Alvarez for the all-time wins for a Venezuelan pitcher.

If that seems a bit low, it is, sort of. The Venezuelan co-leaders come in at just 14th if you rank the win leaders by country, behind such baseball hot beds as Ireland, Germany, and Holland.

Here are the all-time leaders for all countries:

It's odd to think that no 300-game winner has come from a foreign country, and even odder to realize that Chili Davis constitutes Jamaica's only major-league pitcher.

All of this made me wonder how various countries rank overall in certain categories. Here goes…First, number of pitchers:

Now wins:

Winning Percentage:

Games:

Saves:

ERA:

WHIP

And finally strikeouts per nine innings:

We are all born mad (dog). Some remain so.
— From "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel "Don't Call Me Josh" Beckett

Not all players in their forties are struggling to achieve mediocrity. Two ex-Braves are leading the National League in ERA. They are, of course, Greg Maddux (1.33) and Tom Glavine (1.38).

Maddux, with Roger Clemens on hiatus, becomes the active leader in wins. He is now reminding fans that until the last few years, the debate as to whom was the best pitcher of his era, him or Clemens, was a hot topic. Maddux, a sure-fire Hall of Famer, saw his star tarnish the last few years but seems reborn this year.

With three wins, he no projects to—what?—forty or so for the season and comparison's to Old Hoss Radbourne abound. However, realistically a return to twenty wins is a definite possibility for Maddux. It would be his third twenty-win season but his first since 1993 (even though he has won two Cy Youngs since then).

That made me wonder what was the longest gap between twenty-win seasons for a pitcher in baseball history. Would 13 years be a new "record"?

The answer is that ten seasons is the most and it was down twice, once recently by a player who won twenty the first time with the Mets and the second time with the Yankees (Who else can say that?). There have only been 25 gaps of five seasons or more. Maddux's ex-teammate Glavine makes the list as does Phil Niekro, another ex-Brave…twice!

Bert Cunningham, you might recall, was Richie's brother in the original Happy Days lineup. I've never heard of this Cone guy though.

Back to Maddux: If he wins twenty, it'll be just the eighth time in baseball history that a forty-something pitcher has done so:

Even if Maddux does not win twenty, he seems like a lock to win at least 15. If so, he will tie Cy Young for the most 15-win seasons ever:

Speaking of which, there was a time when it seemed that the Cy Young Award would be renamed the Greg Maddux. If he wins one this year, it'll be one for Jerome Bettis's thumb, or words to that effect. Here are the multiple Cy Young winners:

So as Maddux and Glavine return to their old glories, the Braves top winner—and the league's—is reliever Oscar Villarreal. He could become the first twenty-game winner to never start a game. Here are the most wins without a start in season:

The Phils came back from a three-run deficit in the eighth to beat the Nationals, 7-6 in ten innings, tonight. It was just their second win at home against six losses so far this season. It was the first Phils comeback in the final three innings in eight tries.

It was also Ryan Franklin's first win as a Phils, an inauspicious event to be sure. However, I had to mention it since any win by Franklin might be his last and at least they'll get this compensation for their $2.6M investment.

The Phils do own a 4-2 record on the road, which is probably nothing more than dumb luck at this stage of the season. But let's say the Phils are awful at home and great on the road this year. Would such a feat be unprecedented?

I looked up the greatest differences between a team's road and home records and here goes:

OK, there are some teams who weren't bad at home, just not as good as on the road. Let's look at just those teams with a winning record on the road and a losing record at home. There are just 63 in baseball history, the Cubs and D-Backs last year being the latest. Their average record was 80-82, which so far, seems about right for this uneven team. Here are the most lopsided of that group:

And if the Phils remain this bad at home, they will challenge for the all-time worst record at home (at least since 1901):

Boy, am I glad that this team has the estimable Charlie Manuel there to guide them toward abject mediocrity. How long is it until Stand Pat Gillick starts moving veterans who will be free at the year's end? That is, if he can.

Tonight Chris Shelton goes for his tenth home run of the season in his first fourteen games as his Tigers face the A's in Oakland. He currently projects to 112 on the season, which is slightly behind projecto-Albert Pujols at 116. Take that McGwire and Sosa, you wimps.

Coming into this season, Shelton had just 19 career homers. Even if he fails to reach his projected 112 homers, one would expect him to very easily double his career home run total. He's almost halfway there now and has 149 games left to go.

That made me wonder what was the most a player, who already had some major-league experience under his belt (at least 100 games and 15 home runs), upped his career home run total in a single season while doubling his career home run total. When Shelton hits 112th this year, whose "record" will he be breaking?

The answer would be that pitcher-cum-outfielder named Babe Ruth:

Shelton would also be increasing his homer total fivefold. What was the greatest percentage increase for a player's career home run total in a single season:

Kiner had 23 in his first season (1946) and then 51 in his second, a 122% increase. That's measly compared to Projecto-Shelton.

One last thing, Shelton will be 26 this season, which made me wonder who was the oldest player to double his career home run total. Let's ask Mr. Owl:

I love lists like this. What's great, besides the awesome array of names, is that there are three men from the 1957 Cincinnati Reds, excuse me, Red Legs. They are the top two guys on the list, Crowe and Thurman, and Don Hoak (29). I guess cowering in the face of abject McCarthyism helps a team open themselves up to playing old, untried guys by the truck full. I guess it was a senior outreach program, and it worked in the short term as the Reds finished 80-74 for the season.

You'll also note that recent players include late-career revelations like Casey Blake and Melvin Mora—where's Mike Easler?—and Japanese import Hideki Mastui.

By the way, the only two men to make the list twice, that is double their career home run totals in one season two times, were Babe Ruth (1919-20) and Johnny Bench (1969-70). Also, two generations of Earl Averill make the list (in 1930 and 1961), and both had 37 career home runs at the time.

Albert Pujols today became the 35th man in major-league history to hit four home runs in four consecutive at-bats and the 21st to do it consecutive plate appearances.

Here is the complete list:

Home Runs In Consecutive At-Bats (*= in consecutive plate appearances)

One Game: Carlos Delgado, TOR, Sept. 25, 2003*
Mike Cameron, SEA, May 2, 2002*
Mike Schmidt, PHI, Apr. 17, 1976*
Rocky Colavito, CLE, June 10, 1959*
Lou Gehrig, NYY, June 3, 1932*
Bobby Lowe, BOS May 30, 1894*
Two Games: Albert Pujols, StL, April 16-17, 2006*
Troy Glaus,:ANA, Sept. 15-16, 2002*
Andruw Jones, ATL, Sept. 7-10, 2002
Shawn Green, LA, June 14-15, 2002*
Barry Bonds, SF, May 19-20, 2001
Manny Ramirez, CLE, Sept. 15-16, 1998*
Bob Higginson, DET, June 30-July 1, 1997
Benito Santiago, PHI, Sept. 14-15, 1996
Tuffy Rhodes, CHC, Oct. 3, 1993-Apr. 4, 1994
Bo Jackson, KC, July 17-Aug. 26, 1990*
Larry Herndon, DET, May 16-18, 1982*
Mike Schmidt, PHI, July 6-7, 1979*
Don Baylor, BAL, July 1-2, 1975
Deron Johnson, PHI, July 10-11, 1971*
Mike Epstein, OAK, June 15-16, 1971*
Bobby Murcer, NYY, June 24, 1970 (DH)
Art Shamsky, CIN, Aug. 12-14, 1966*
Stan Musial, STL, July 7-8, 1962
Mickey Mantle, NYY, July 4-6, 1962*
Willie Kirkland, CLE, July 9-13, 1961
Charlie Maxwell, DET, May 3, 1959 (DH)
Ralph Kiner, PIT, Sept. 11-13, 1949*
Ralph Kiner, PIT, Aug. 15-16, 1947
Bill Nicholson, CHC, July 22-23, 1944
Hank Greenberg, DET, Jul 26-27, 1938*
Jimmie Foxx, PHI(AL), June 7-8, 1933*
Three Games: Jeff Manto, BAL, June 8-10, 1995
Johnny Blanchard, NYY, July 21-22-26, 1961*
Four Games: Ted Williams, BOS, Sept. 17-20-21-22, 1957

Some list, eh? Mike Epstein, Jeff Manto, AND Tuffy Rhodes. You'll notice that Schmidt and Kiner are the only two to make the list twice, and Schmitty is the only one to ever do it in consecutive plate appearances twice.

Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to look at the probability of accomplishing such a feat (based on a player's career totals, through 2005). Here are the players with the best odds of hitting four straight homers in any four given at-bats:

Now, here's the same thing based on four straight plate appearances:

You'll note that guys who recorded a bunch of homers in a limited set of at-bats/plate appearances do very well in these lists. If you would prefer to examine the expected four-homer streak per player, here are the players you would most expect to accomplish such a feat:

McGwire comes in at number one, but never hit four home runs in consecutive at-bats. Then again, one would expect that there would be no more than 15 or 16 players to accomplish it (based on the sum of the expectations for all players). Also, one would expect about 11 to hit four dingers in four straight plate appearances.

Albert Pujols come in at number 51, by the way. Tuffy Rhodes comes in at 1924th among the 3998 players who qualify (i.e., a min of 5 career home runs). I believe he had the worst odds of anyone who actually accomplished the feat. Rhodes' expectation is 0.00014. I think it appropriate to say, "Well, how about that!" and leave it at that.

Yesterday, the Phils improbably beat the Rockies, 1-0, in only the second one-zip game in Coors Field's eleven-plus-year history. A solo shot by Ryan Howard in the seventh was the difference. Brett Myer somehow escaped unscathed after scattering seven hits in 7.2 innings.

Meanwhile, the Tigers behind Mike Maroth's pitching and a homer by their first baseman, Chris Shelton, won 1-0 over the Indians at Comerica.

That's two 1-0 games in one day. There have been only two others this season, an Astro win at home and a Cards loss at the new Busch Stadium, in only the fourth game held there. Even so, until yesterday it had as many 1-0 games as Coors.

The odds of getting two 1-0 games in a full slate of fifteen games (based on last year's numbers) is 3.25%, if I remember my combinatorics correctly.

So far in 2006, there have been four 1-0 ballgames out of 182 played or about 2.20%, which would be the highest since 1992 if t keeps up. Here are the numbers per decade starting in 1901 with the home team record for 1-0 games:

As far as Coors being a difficult park to get a 1-0 pitchers duel, here are the parks that have been the hardest since 1901 (note that it's divided by ballpark name):