No-Hitters are Bullshit

[djf750]

Kevin Milwood pitches a no hitter BUT WALKS THREE BATTERS.

As far as I am concerned any one of those three could have gotten a hit off of him.

Also someone almost hit one out but the ball was caught at the wall.

No-hitters get way too much publicity and it seems the pitcher gets all the credit when usually there are some great plays to save the no hitter, yet the fielder is rarely mentioned.

Last year a Dodger pitcher allowed one INFIELD hit and faced the minimum 27 batters yet it was barely publicized because of the one hit, yet Millwood walks 3 and everyone hears about it.

I agree that they are rare so it makes them interesting but save the hoopla for a perfect game, even though they also can be caused by luck.

I read that Don Larsens World Series perfect game had a play where a ball was hit hard and deflected off the third baseman's foot right to the shorstop who threw him out. Also Mickey Mantle made a great running catch to rob a hitter of an extra base hit.

Now when a pitcher strikes out 20 batters , that is extraordinary.

Any thoughts from other baseball fans?

[Troy McClure SF]

You're right, but remember, just about every stat represents more than a given player's objective skill, rather, all of the (internal and external) elements that surround that player, and how they interact with the player, and in turn, how they interact with each other.

Walks- intentional walks ordered by the manager
Strikeout- umpire has a strike zone that changes pitch by pitch
Errors- official scorer has hemorrhoids
Home run- ball hit three feet short of the wall bounces of Canseco's head and over the fence
Perfect game lost- see above

There are just too many maybes and could'ves to baseball, and to pay them any heed would be missing the point, to put it mildly. Baseball Tonight would be eight hours long, if they covered all the almosts. All we can do is notice what did happen, and recognize that.

And in conclusion, as a Giants fan, F#$% Kevin Milwood.

[Snooooopy]

I think "bullshit" is a little harsh.

The story that I read in the paper gave nearly as much attention to Ricky Ledee, the guy who scored the game's only run AND made the great play you're thinking of, as to Millwood.

And I can't recall ever reading a story about a no-hitter where the pitcher didn't credit his fielders.

[jehovah68]

During the 20th century, 198 no-hitters were pitched in 152,364 regular-season games, meaning there was 1 every 770 games. (Adding in post-season play, we have 199 no-hitters in 153,333 games [1 post-season no-hitter in 969 post-season games during the 20th century (564 World Series, 200 A.L. playoff games, 205 N. L. playoff games)]; counting post-season games, the frequency of a no-hitter is still 1 every 771 games.) Of course, in every game there is a chance for two no-hitters, one by either team. So, for a particular team, we have to cut that probability in half, 1 every 1,540 games, about the equivalent of every nine-and-a-half seasons.

Major League No-Hitters of the 20th Century By Decade
(Games Played/Complete No-hitters of at Least Nine Innings)

1901-10
American League 5,998/12 1 every 500
National League 6,020/ 9 1 every 668
Total 12,018/21 1 every 572

1911-1920
American League 6,031/16 1 every 377
National League 6,035/ 7 1 every 862
Total 12,066/23 1 every 525

1921-30
American League 6,164/ 4 1 every 1,541
National League 6,159/ 4 1 every 1,540
Total 12,323/ 8 1 every 1,540

1931-1940
American League 6,154/ 6 1 every 1,026
National League 6,159/ 4 1 every 1,540
Total 12,313/10 1 every 1,231

1941-50
American League 6,181/ 5 1 every 1,236
National League 6,198/ 7 1 every 885
Total 12,379/12 1 every 1,032

1951-1960
American League 6,183/10 1 every 618
National League 6,189/ 9 1 every 688
Total 12,372/19 1 every 651

1961-70
American League 8,426/14 1 every 602
National League 8,243/20 1 every 412
Total 16,669/34 1 every 490

1971-1980
American League 10,292/13 1 every 792
National League 9,675/15 1 every 645
Total 19,967/28 1 every 713

1981-90
American League 10,951/12 1 every 913
National League 9,386/ 7 1 every 1,341
Total 20,337/19 1 every 1,070


1991-2000
American League 10,874/12 1 every 906
National League 11,046/12 1 every 920
Total 21,920/24 1 every 913


Totals: 1901-2000
American League 77,254/104 1 every 743
National League 75,110/ 94 1 every 799
Total 152,364/198 1 every 770
No-hitters 1973-2000 (era of designated hitter rule):
American League 37 in 30,222 (1 per 816 games)
National League 28 in 28,187 (1 per 1,007 games)

Counting post-season games, the total is 199 no-hitters in 153,333 games during the 20th century-1 every 771 games.

Courtesy of:

Major League No-Hitters of the 20th Century
By Stew Thornley
Halsey Hall SABR Chapter Meeting, October 13, 2001

I disagree that the fielder who makes an outstanding play is rarely mentioned when no-hitters or perfect games are thrown. The fact that they occur on average fewer than three times each season makes it extraordinary.

[Tomcat]

Side-note:

It's funny to try and explain to ferners how exciting a game can be when nothing happens.

"You mean NOTHING happened?"
"Yep, a no-hitter. It was awesome..."
"Sounds like football (soccer) without all of the action...you 'mericans are strange..."

[Munch]

Originally posted by djf750
Kevin Milwood pitches a no hitter BUT WALKS THREE BATTERS.

As far as I am concerned any one of those three could have gotten a hit off of him.

Yes, but the point is that they didn't get a hit off of him.

Also someone almost hit one out but the ball was caught at the wall.

Keyword: almost.

That's the ENTIRE point of baseball! You do realize that some pitchers try to get outs by getting the batter to pop the ball up, or to ground out, don't you?

[Pashnish Ewing]

Originally posted by djf750
[b]Now when a pitcher strikes out 20 batters , that is extraordinary[b]

[Crash Davis]"Strikeouts are boring, besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic."[/Crash Davis]

Pash

[Marley23]

Yes, great fielding plays often figure into no-hitters. They figure into ALL games: sometimes you win based on a great catch. Does that mean the win was "bullshit?" No, that's baseball. Actually, it's life.
Sometimes you/your team/a pitcher/whoever gets a good break. He walked 3 hitters and was the recipient of a great play. But he still retired the other 26 and took advantage of those breaks. To say a no-hitter doesn't count because a few of the 27 outs were tough plays is silly. Likewise, a walk may be as good as a hit in some situations, but it's not the same. Those batters COULD have gotten hits, but then, so could the 27 he got out. You have to DO something for it to count.
Facing the minimum and giving up one infield hit is also remarkable. But I imagine more pitchers face the minimum than throw no-hitters, and scarcity is part of what makes it such an achievement. 198 no-hitters in 100 years is less than two per year. You can't say that's not worthy of attention.

[BobT]

According to the OP, the only meritorious pitching achievement would be a guy striking out all 27 hitters.

That just isn't going to happen in the majors.

Yes, a no-hitter has luck involved. But Millwood was pitching very well in that game. Against a very good hitting team. Barry Bonds was in that lineup.

Kerry Wood probably pitched the most dominating game in major league history when he struck out 20 Astros in a game in 1998. He hit one batter with a pitch and another batter reached on an infield single that the third baseman could have easily been charged an error on.

But it was ruled a hit. So Wood had to settle for just having a 20 K game, instead of a no-hitter.

[ftg]

I am taken aback by the OP's use of "almost" in regards to baseball. Don't people realize how tiny a change in how the ball hits the bat can convert a foul/pop-up/to-the-wall nothing into a base-hit/homerun? Millimeters and milliseconds are involved. And to have all those tiny differences to go your way a whole game is amazing.

Forget how close it came to the wall. Think how close it came to the right spot on the bat.

[PatrickM]

Marley23, surely you realize that baseball and life are the same thing, don't you?

[Ol'Gaffer]

Originally posted by Tomcat
Side-note:

It's funny to try and explain to ferners how exciting a game can be when nothing happens.

"You mean NOTHING happened?"
"Yep, a no-hitter. It was awesome..."
"Sounds like football (soccer) without all of the action...you 'mericans are strange..."

I just had this conversation with Mrs. Gaffer while watching Millwood's no-no.

"Why are you watching the Giants? You don't even like them,"
"The Phillies pitcher is throwing a no-hitter."
"You mean no one has hit the ball yet?"
"Yes."
"That sounds pretty boring."
"No. It is very exciting because it is so rare and difficult to do."
:opout by one of the Giants::
"That guy hit the ball."
"Yes, but he didn't get a hit."
"But he hit it. Is it still a no-hitter?"
"Yes."
"Baseball is strange."
"Yes it is honey. Yes it is."

[RealityChuck]

As far as the fielder's getting credit, every article on a no-hit game mentions the plays that could have been hits, but weren't.

Ultimately, there are plenty of games where the fielders make great plays to rob players of hits (I'd guess you'd probably find one in every game played in the majors). But no-hitters don't happen every day, even with the plays.

[SmackFu]

Originally posted by Tomcat
It's funny to try and explain to ferners how exciting a game can be when nothing happens.

Maybe compare it to a penalty kick save. Cause nothing happens there either. Right?

[Parrothead]

originally posted by TomcatIt's funny to try and explain to ferners how exciting a game can be when nothing happens.

You know, it is weird.

I kind of collect (through pure luck) strange sports occurrences. I have seen the Stanley Cup awarded (not to my team, however ), I have seen the biggest comeback in Texas high school sports history, I have seen Ed Belfour and Andy Moog get their 300th win, I have seen Nolan Ryan strike out 17. I have seen Wayne Gretsky, Magic Johnson, and countless others reach certain milestones.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, compares to have been sitting right behind the Rangers dugout for Kenny Rogers' perfect game. That was the single most exciting sports event I have ever seen. Looking at the scoreboard and seeing ALL THOSE ZEROES after the game... just incredible.


<bitter aside>And the bimbo I was once married to has the tickets... ARRRG!</bitter aside>

[djf750]

I used the word bullshit just to get the thread some attention. Sorry.

I'm sure Millwood pitched well, but my point is that the pitcher more often than not gets too much of the credit in a no-hitter. As mentioned already, there are many things that can affect a game. And to me a walk is a single. The runner is on first base.

Now a perfect game would be something to see, even if it was 90% defense and 10% good pitching. Parrot, I envy you.

I grew up watching Koufax, Juan Marichal, and Bob Gibson. They would pitch every FOUR days and would not be relieved after 7 innings unless they were hurt or pitching badly. Now , Kevin (15 million and a private jet) Brown is tired after 6 innings.

Koufax would pitch 2 hit shutouts, walking 0 or on a wild day, 1 batter.

I'm spoiled and I live in the past.

PS Again, a walk is a single. Man on base.

[vl_mungo]

Originally posted by BobT
Kerry Wood probably pitched the most dominating game in major league history when he struck out 20 Astros in a game in 1998.

I'd agree with you there... but I also think that Sandy Koufax's 1965 perfect game is another example of extreme dominance.
LOS ANGELES IP H R ER BB SO
Koufax (W) 9 0 0 0 0 14

And he did this against a not too bad Cubs team that had Ron Santo, Ernie Banks and Billy Williams on it. As well, the opposing pitcher, Bob Hendley, pitched a one-hitter and only walked one guy (the winning run was unearned).

[Munch]

Originally posted by djf750
PS Again, a walk is a single. Man on base.

That's the most absurd statement I've read all day. There are seriously fundamental differences and end-results between a BB and a single. What about catcher interference? What about errors?

You can bitch all you want about how pitchers nowadays aren't what they used to be, but the fact remains that the rules have remained the same since that time. But if you do make that argument, please be advised that the argument of "hitters back then weren't what they are now" will be countered, and this whole mess will be the biggest clusterfuck of a thread!

[djf750]

Now here is a REAL no-hitter

Anybody spot the mistake in that box score?

[robgruver]

Originally posted by BobT
Kerry Wood probably pitched the most dominating game in major league history when he struck out 20 Astros in a game in 1998. He hit one batter with a pitch and another batter reached on an infield single that the third baseman could have easily been charged an error on.

I watched that game on TV here in Houston. An amazing performance by Wood. Sadly it was his last amazing performance as he used up his arm in that one game. He was never the same. Where is he now? Double A?

Rob
Who is not bitter that the Astros let NOLAN FREAKING RYAN go. Bastards.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

When a guy pitches a one hit shutout, it gets alot of publicity within the baseball community- a little bit less publicity then a no-hitter would have. See, because the guy gave up no hits, which is less than one. If you were watching Baseball Tonight on a night when, say, Millwood had a no-hitter and Curt Schilling had a two-hit, 13 K, no BB shutout, they'd both be made a big deal out of. I think the whole "way too much publicity" thing occurs outside of the baseball world- on local news radio or something. That's just because the non-baseball public cares about the extremity of a NO-hitter more than they do about whether or not Millwood almost gave up that single up the middle in the fifth. Zero hits is a notable extreme that people, baseball fan or not, can understand and latch onto. Nobody who actually follows and understands the game would make that much more out of Millwood's game than they would have out of one of your Koufax gems.

[djf750]

Originally posted by Munch


That's the most absurd statement I've read all day. There are seriously fundamental differences and end-results between a BB and a single.

I don't understand what you mean by the end result difference between a BB and a single. In both cases the batter WON (unless it is intentional to set up a play, or it's Barry Bonds who would just hit it out anyway) and is now standing on first base and the pitcher has to worry about him AND the batter. What is the end result difference? I really don't understand your point.

[iampunha]

A walk is a single? What bizarro world are you on, djf750? Let's clarify this:

1. A walk is where before 3 strikes to a batter are accumulated, same batter in one plate appearance gets 4 balls.

2. A single is where the batter, before accumulating 3 strikes or 4 balls, hits the baseball safely such that he is able to reach first base without being called out.

So in order to get a walk a batter must *not* hit the ball into fair play, and in order to hit safely 4 balls cannot accumulate. Looks like they aren't the same thing.

"PS Again, a walk is a single. Man on base."

You cannot use the end "man on base" to equate a walk and a single, else you would also have to equate these other things:

1. third strike dropped
2. Fan interference
3. Catcher interference
4. Ball lodged in catcher's gear
5. hit batsman

Hell, using your logic two doubles equal a home run. But a run scores on the latter and not necessarily on the former (runner stranded each time).

Hit != walk.

[djf750]

Originally posted by Jimmy Chitwood
When a guy pitches a one hit shutout, it gets alot of publicity within the baseball community- a little bit less publicity then a no-hitter would have. See, because the guy gave up no hits, which is less than one. If you were watching Baseball Tonight on a night when, say, Millwood had a no-hitter and Curt Schilling had a two-hit, 13 K, no BB shutout, they'd both be made a big deal out of. I think the whole "way too much publicity" thing occurs outside of the baseball world- on local news radio or something. That's just because the non-baseball public cares about the extremity of a NO-hitter more than they do about whether or not Millwood almost gave up that single up the middle in the fifth. Zero hits is a notable extreme that people, baseball fan or not, can understand and latch onto. Nobody who actually follows and understands the game would make that much more out of Millwood's game than they would have out of one of your Koufax gems.

BINGO!

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Robgruver, Kerry Wood is pitching pretty damn well since his surgery, although he's a little less nasty since he can't throw that power slider anymore. Looky here.


djf750- a walk doesn't give a runner on second a chance to score, it doesn't score a runner from third unless the bases are loaded, it can't be stretched into a double, and it doesn't put pressure on the defense to make a play.

[Munch]

Originally posted by djf750
I don't understand what you mean by the end result difference between a BB and a single. In both cases the batter WON (unless it is intentional to set up a play, or it's Barry Bonds who would just hit it out anyway) and is now standing on first base and the pitcher has to worry about him AND the batter. What is the end result difference? I really don't understand your point.

1. What happens to a batter's batting average/slugging when he gets a hit?
2. What happens when he gets a BB?
3. What happens to a pitcher's statistics when he gives up a hit?
4. What happens when he gives a walk?
5. What happens to the opposing team's confidence when their teammate gets a hit vs. a walk?
6. Is there the possibility of a fielding error when a batter receives a walk?
7. Can a runner on 2nd score easily when a walk is issued? How about 3rd base?
8. Get my drift?

[djf750]

Originally posted by iampunha
A walk is a single? What bizarro world are you on, djf750? Let's clarify this:

1. A walk is where before 3 strikes to a batter are accumulated, same batter in one plate appearance gets 4 balls.

2. A single is where the batter, before accumulating 3 strikes or 4 balls, hits the baseball safely such that he is able to reach first base without being called out.

So in order to get a walk a batter must *not* hit the ball into fair play, and in order to hit safely 4 balls cannot accumulate. Looks like they aren't the same thing.

"PS Again, a walk is a single. Man on base."

You cannot use the end "man on base" to equate a walk and a single, else you would also have to equate these other things:

1. third strike dropped
2. Fan interference
3. Catcher interference
4. Ball lodged in catcher's gear
5. hit batsman

Hell, using your logic two doubles equal a home run. But a run scores on the latter and not necessarily on the former (runner stranded each time).

Hit != walk.

Oh my God, I didn't mean it literally. We are talking about no hitters and strong pitching performances. Unless you are walking a guy intentionally, the goal is to get him out. If the pitcher doesn't throw strikes, for whatever reason, THE BATTER WINS and goes to first base JUST AS IF HE HIT A LINE DRIVE TO CENTER. He is now standing on the base. He can now steal. The pitcher has to pitch differently (from a stretch).
Of course there is a difference (it is not even an official at bat) . My point is the batter won. The pitcher lost. When a pitcher gets all batters out ( a perfect game) , that is a real accomplishment.

[djf750]

Originally posted by Jimmy Chitwood
[b]

djf750- a walk doesn't give a runner on second a chance to score, it doesn't score a runner from third unless the bases are loaded, it can't be stretched into a double, and it doesn't put pressure on the defense to make a play.

We are way off the point I was trying to make. A no hitter is interesting because they are so rare. But to me if a pitcher walks one batter and allows no hits, it is like a one hitter. That hitter got on base, just as if he hit a single and is now a threat.

Still very good, but not like a perfect game. In a perfect game, the pitcher doesn't even have to pitch from a stretch! He challenged and retired every batter. He didn't get cute and walk anyone.

MILLWOOD still pitched a dominant game, but he didn't get THREE guys out.

[BobT]

Of course a perfect game is more dominating than a run of the mill no hitter that has walks or HBPs in it.

But it's still quite an accomplishment. Even teams with very high walk totals (like Oakland) want to get hits.

Baseball has so many events that are pure chance. A pitcher go out and give up 27 straight line drives all hit directly at infielders. This does not imply that he was pitching well, but rather that he got lucky.

And some baseball researchers have started to study how well a pitcher does on balls in play, i.e., how well do batters hit a pitcher on plays that aren't strikeouts, walks, HBPs, or over-the-fence home runs.

Initial studies seem to indicate that even the best pitchers see their rate of batters reaching base on balls in play to vary widely between seasons.

[SCSimmons]

Originally posted by djf750
Now here is a REAL no-hitter

Anybody spot the mistake in that box score?

Boy, that was a pain, djf. But I think I have it ... According to the recap, the run was scored by Felix Mantilla, who reached base on an error. That run should have been scored as unearned, not earned ... To think that Haddix was spared two earned runs by Aaron's and Adcock's baserunning screwup. Weird game.

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by robgruver
Where is <Kerry Wood> now? Double A?

Worse than that. He's still with the Cubs.

Seriously, though, as Jimmy Chitwood says, he's actually doing reasonably well so far this season.

[Munch]

Originally posted by djf750
Still very good, but not like a perfect game.

Exactly. Otherwise, they would call no-hitters "perfect games".

Has a pitcher pitched more of a dominant game if someone got on by error, or a dropped third strike? What if that runner stole a base, putting him on second? Does a single=walk in this instance, where on a single that runner maybe scores?

No, it doesn't. And it perfectly illustrates exactly why a single != a walk, and why a no-hitter (with 3 walks) is, on average, better than a 1-hitter (no walks).

[Marley23]

djf, obviously a perfect game is more of an achievement than a no-hitter. Nobody would disagree with that. That's not the same as your loopy comment that a no-hitter is bullshit. Few people have ever done it. And let's not forget he threw it against a very good offense. Barry Bonds wasn't even the recipient of one of those walks.
The fielders ALWAYS get credit in a no-hitter. They get less credit than the pitcher individually, but that only makes sense, since none of them does as much. None of them is *pitching.* It sounds like you think pitchers shouldn't be awarded any credit for an out unless it's a strikeout.

But to me if a pitcher walks one batter and allows no hits, it is like a one hitter. That hitter got on base, just as if he hit a single and is now a threat.

Well, that's how you see it. The runner isn't much of a threat when the pitcher doesn't allow any hits - barring errors, he has to allow four walks for that run to score. Walks and hits aren't the same thing, and there's a reason. There's a lot of luck and blurry distinctions in baseball, but that's the way it is. Unless you want to make different categories for solid hits (credit the batter), luck/bloop hits (credit nobody), earned walks (batter earns it), bad walks (pitcher is wild, batter just stands there), intentional walks (blame it on the manager, I guess), and break everything up into super-tiny distinct categories, you just have to accept that this stuff happens. You can walk nobody, not give up a single solid hit, and lose. Baseball is all about those small twists that mean a lot.
If you want to argue that facing the minimum is harder, fine. Nobody will agree, but at least that's a position. Right now it comes across like you have something petty in for Kevin Millwood. Like anybody here could come even close to throwing a no-hitter?

[djf750]

Originally posted by Marley23
Right now it comes across like you have something petty in for Kevin Millwood. Like anybody here could come even close to throwing a no-hitter?

Yeah thats it. That fucking Millwood kid used to be my paperboy and the little prick would throw the G. D. paper in the bushes every single day.

And I know he had a good arm, he would just do it to piss me off.

[djf750]

Originally posted by SCSimmons
Boy, that was a pain, djf. But I think I have it ... According to the recap, the run was scored by Felix Mantilla, who reached base on an error. That run should have been scored as unearned, not earned ... To think that Haddix was spared two earned runs by Aaron's and Adcock's baserunning screwup. Weird game.

Sorry SC, I was talking about how they have BREWERS instead of BRAVES. They were the Braves back then.

Yes, that was a wierd game. Can you imagine 12 perfect innings? Against a team with Aaron in the lineup?

[djf750]

Originally posted by Munch
Exactly. Otherwise, they would call no-hitters "perfect games".

Has a pitcher pitched more of a dominant game if someone got on by error, or a dropped third strike? What if that runner stole a base, putting him on second? Does a single=walk in this instance, where on a single that runner maybe scores?

No, it doesn't. And it perfectly illustrates exactly why a single != a walk, and why a no-hitter (with 3 walks) is, on average, better than a 1-hitter (no walks).

And a walk doesnt equal a single in at bats or batting average or fielding percentage or how the box score reads.

I was talking about it in relation to a pitcher pitching a no hitter. The pitcher is obviously pitching carefully to some batters and not challenging them completely, or his control isn't that good but he is throwing hard.

That is my point. Whenever I hear "no hitter" I think "how many did he walk?" It is usually 3 or more. It is still a well pitched game, but it gets too much credit. Uh oh, Here we are again.

If I hear "perfect game" I am very very impressed. I watch Sports Center twice and then read about it the next day.

In fact if I hear 2 hit COMPLETE GAME shutout with NO WALKS, I am very impressed.

I should have said overrated instead of bullshit.

[Payton's Servant]

[quote]Originally posted by Munch
[BYou can bitch all you want about how pitchers nowadays aren't what they used to be, but the fact remains that the rules have remained the same since that time. But if you do make that argument, please be advised that the argument of "hitters back then weren't what they are now" will be countered, and this whole mess will be the biggest clusterfuck of a thread![/b]/QUOTE]

Actually the rules have changed, and the changes hurt the pitcher and the changes have a direct link to Bob Gibson's dominance in the 1968 season. After the 1968 season the height of the pitchers mound was lowered, which has ended up giving an advantage to the hitter. Plus the baseball, while not being juiced has been changed in some manner so that it travels farther.

[Cyberhwk]

Originally posted by BobT
But it was ruled a hit. So Wood had to settle for just having a 20 K game, instead of a no-hitter.

Which is still brought up from time to time, eventhough it wasn't a no-hitter.

Cyberhwk
^{Who's seen a perfect game, if only in Single-A ball.}

[Barks' dog food]

Question: If noone got a hit but one of the walked players scored a run would it still be a no-hitter?

[Flymaster]

Maybe. Matt Young of the Red Sox lost a no hitter 2-1 (I think that was the score) in about 1990 or so. Unfortunately for him, it was a road game, so he only had to pitch 8 innings, as the home team was winning going into the bottom of the 9th. He gets a mention in the HOF No-Hitter exhibit, but it is not officially counted as a no hitter. If he had gotten to pitch the 9th, though, it would be a no hitter officially.

[Flymaster]

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/boxscore/04121992.shtml

And there is the box score from that game.

[Barks' dog food]

So if you really wanted to throw a no-hitter and had nothing to play for at the end of the season you could walk everyone but one batter (a pitcher or catcher maybe) as long as he struck out and this would count as a no-hitter?

[ElwoodCuse]

Andy Hawkins of the 1990 Yankees also lost a no-hitter. The White Sox scored a couple runs on errors, and the dreadful Yankees lineup of that year couldn't manage any run support.

[Flymaster]

Sure, if it was a home game. But your manager would pull you long before that. And after an inning of pulling that, there would be the biggest bench clearing brawl in history as your first 7 batters get hit in the head.

[Barks' dog food]

Why would it have to be a home game?
And why would the first 7 batters get hit in the head?
I understand that the manager won't let it happen, I was just wondering.

[Flymaster]

Because you need to pitch all 9 innings to make it a REAL no hitter If you didn't pitch the 9th inning, (as would be expected, if you walked the first 8 batters of each inning), then you don't get credit for an official no-hitter, in the record books. Unless your team scored 40 runs, you wouldn't get to pitch the bottom of the 9th.

Your first 7, or 8, or 4, or 5, or some ridiculous number of batters would get beaned because the opposing team wouldn't put up with that kind of bullshit. They want to play baseball, and they'd send a message any way that they could. Retaliating for disrespecting them like that would be done through a hail of beanballs the likes of which the world has never seen before.

[Flymaster]

Actually, I just realized, if you strike out the pitcher 24 times, and walk everyone else, you'll give up 21 runs per inning. Thus, in order to pitch the bottom of the 9th inning in a road game, your team would have to have scored at least 168 runs, to make it a tie.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by Cervaise


Seriously, though, as Jimmy Chitwood says, he's actually doing reasonably well so far this season.

Wow, a 3-1 record with an ERA of 2.77 is only reasonably well?

Tough crowd here.

[djf750]

Originally posted by Barks' dog food
Question: If noone got a hit but one of the walked players scored a run would it still be a no-hitter?

YES! And that is why I started this this thread.

This is how the headlines should have been for that no hitter:

San Francisco:
GIANTS GET ONLY THREE MEN ON BASE VIA WALKS. NO HITS. PHIL PITCHER MILLWOOD SHARP IN COMPLETE GAME.

Philadelphia:
PHILS HOLD GIANTS TO THREE WALKS, NO HITS. MILLWOOD PITCHES COMPLETE GAME GEM.

So, a quick poll:

What was the most impressive?
A. Kerry Wood's 20 strikeout game.
B. Koufax's Perfect Game.
C. Harvey Haddix's 12 perfect innings (although he lost)

Although Koufax is a god, I have to pick C. To do that against that Brave lineup was a masterpiece. And Haddix wasn't a power pitcher like Woods and Koufax. He had only 8 strikeouts so he must have been in complete control and had all the Braves off balance for 12 innings.

That is almost inconceivable that he pitched 12 perfect innings. Today the starter wouldn't be left in that long.

[emulsified]

BobT wrote:
Kerry Wood probably pitched the most dominating game in major league history when he struck out 20 Astros in a game in 1998. He hit one batter with a pitch and another batter reached on an infield single that the third baseman could have easily been charged an error on.

I just had to jump in here to say that I go to one or two Cubs games a year and in 1998, that was the one I went to.

Still have the ticket. It was an amazing display. Too bad about the elbow, but he's doing very well this year, I hope he keeps it up.