A Special No-Hitter for "BB" Jackson

I love this new nickname that I just invented for him. BB Jackson. This is all self-congratulatory italics, but let's dissect for a moment. One: "BB" is a great nickname. There can no be argument here. Two: The cool nickname juxtaposes with the rather insulting insinuation that Jackson earned the nickname by walking so many people. Three: Yet in a great double entendre, a pitcher who is pitching excellently to the point that he is essentially impossible to hit is said to be "throwing BB's", like the little things you shoot out of a BB Gun. In all, we are left with a perfectly apt nickname that is also really cool sounding. Spread the word.

2009 Topps #AST-39 Edwin Jackson Platinum (1/1)

I'm not sure if it qualifies as "One-of-a-Kind" the way this card would, but Edwin Jackson's no-hitter last night was really...something. His no-hitter took him all of 149 pitches, something no pitcher has done since Livan Hernandez threw 150 in 2005. It also included 8 walks and a batter reaching on an error.

What's incredible to me, is that he walked all but one of the batters in the first three innings--he was at 68 pitches after three--and then went on to only allow two more baserunners for the rest of the game. That's some stamina. In the words of Joe Maddon (via Hardball Talk):

"He throws 68 pitches after just three innings and settles in and pitches like he did? You've got to give him a lot of credit. He's a horse and a great athlete. He's a great kid and he deserved to do that tonight. Hats off to him; he's a wonderful man."

I just thought that would be a nice quote to include from a former Manager. He's right though, Jackson is a horse. Even if he doesn't always pitch as well as you would like, he has that ability to come through when needed. Kind of like he did last night.

Amidst all the hulaballoo about this, the OMG 149 PITCHEZ! has been getting the most play. Ruin his arm, you will. Or, you just left him in to try and get the no hitter, even if it wasn't in the best interest of the player or the team, to which, responses abound, the best of which is from the Dbacks manager himself:

You do want to make smart decisions, but you do have a chance at history and you don't want to take it away from him. And that's for everybody involved, from the team, to the fans, to anybody that was included in this game.

And I think that's exactly the right way to look at it in most cases, including this one. But what about the pitch count that everyone's huffing and puffing about? Leave it to Sports Economist JC Bradbury to assuage our fears:

On average, every pitch thrown raises a pitcher’s ERA by 0.007 in the following game. Jackson’s ERA was 5.05 going into Friday’s game averaging 104 pitches per game; thus, based on the historical response of pitchers to pitch counts Jackson’s expected performance in his next start is about 5.37. So, Jackson can be expected to pitch worse, but not that much worse

This claim is backed up by, you know, math and stuff, but is really just a short sweet post worth checking out. However, you do wonder whether this regression (a "fractional polynomial regression"), like so many, fails at the extremes, of which 149 pitches is definitely one, so that even if it holds true in 99% of cases, it's not necessarily true in cases where there are so few modern data points available. I don't know, I'm not a doctor.

Regardless, congratulations to Edwin Jackson, who was an excellent first-half pitcher for the Tigers last year and by all accounts was an excellent teammate and first-rate Tiger. I hope his future holds continued success, perhaps in the form of a lower ERA, fewer walks and his arm not falling off. I'm not sure that any of those are likely after last night's no-hitter, but no one ever said that he's not capable of such excellence.

Great Moments In eBay Listings

It's always pleasant to return home from a trip only to see a mailbox stuffed with non-junk mail, don't you agree? It took me until tonight to sift through the take, but there were some nice things in there. You see, I was the beneficiary of some tremendous pre-Black Friday sales. They came in the form of eBay steals, and not because I was particularly vigilant, but more because the listings were unnecessarily non-descriptive.

Number One
Ok, maybe "steal" is too generous a term here, so let's call it a bargain:

2009 UD A Piece Of History #SS-CG Curtis Granderson Red Jersey (#071/180)

This is a game used jersey card in parallel form numbered sub-200. It also happens to be a pretty decent jersey card, with a picture of everyone's favorite standing professional downtown Detroit stadium in the background. So how does that come for $.99 when the card typically sells for closer to $3? It was the listing's fault. 'fraid so. The card is buried in the picture among some other, nicer cards and no where in the title does it mention that it is serial numbered. Not a terrible mistake for this seller, but it might have cost him a buck or two.

Number Two
It gets worse. Steal.

2009 SP Authentic #67 Curtis Granderson Titanium (#13/19)

SP Authentic is a popular brand, but they kind of mucked up the parallels in this release by making them hard to distinguish. "Titanium" parallel? What does that mean? How is it any different from these other ones? What does the listing say?

2009 MLB SP Authentic Titanium Parallel #67-Granderson

If you weren't just hit with a sense of pity for the seller than you have no soul. Here they are, trying to give some good information and throw in unnecessary items like "MLB" and "#67" and "Parallel." Nobody knows what a Titanium Parallel is, but if they see Titanium, they'll probably guess parallel. Of course, the key mistake is leaving out the fact that this card is only numbered to 19. So, I was able to grab it for $.99 as the only bidder and walk away a happy man.

Number Three
Last but not least. Let's start with the listing first:

EDWIN JACKSON 2009 TOPPS UPDATES ALL STAR JERSEY NICE!!

Hey, that does sound nice! Given that the description is just a repeat of the title, I'll just have to take his word for it. How does it look?


Boy, that's odd, I thought all of the All Star Cards were red. Gee, I wish there were some more information in the description that could help me figure it out. Or maybe a picture of the back which would have showed...


Oh, oh I see. Yeah, that would have been stupid to include in the listing somewhere. No, I didn't get it for $.99, as it escalated to $7 at the last minute. If that seems like a lot just remember, the regular all star jersey cards of Edwin Jackson sell for about $3 and all of the Tigers have sold for crazy escalated prices. To that I say, $7 for a 1/1 jersey card is a Win.

And that is it. Three cards, three darn good deals, one happy collector. What about the rest of you--picked up anything special at a low low price thanks to the seller leaving out some key tidbids?