Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-27-2018, 09:53 PM
Mangosteen Mangosteen is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Namche Bazaar
Posts: 2,379
Ruth Actually Hit 718 HRs and Maris had 62 HRs in '61.

Ruth Actually Hit 718 HRs (lifetime) and Maris had 62 HRs in '61, but the home runs were hit early in a game that was either rained out or for some reason called before the game was "official". Thus all the stats are thrown out.

On July 17, 1961 in Baltimore Maris hit a home run that was nullified because it started raining in the fifth inning. Had his July 17 home run counted, Maris would have hit number 59 during his game 154 (still missing Ruth's record) and number 60 during his game 158. And eventually go on to hit 62 that year.

Ruth lost two HRs to rain outs and two more when his home run balls bounced out of the stands and back on the field. The umpires mistakenly called the plays a "double" instead of a home run.


How many strikeouts did Nolan Ryan really throw. Certainly more than the 5,714 he is credited with.

IMHO this is BS. How does MLB justify this injustice?
,
__________________
Its only funny until someone gets hurt, then its fuckin' hilarious!
  #2  
Old 02-27-2018, 09:59 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 35,285
Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game.
In 1991, MLB changed the rules of what defined a no-hitter, wiping out 31 no-hitters including Haddix's 12 perfect inning effort because he gave up a hit in the 13th.. Yet, they couldn't go back 24 hours, with video evidence and the umpire's admission to his mistake, to fix a "blown perfect game" that was the fault of a league official.
  #3  
Old 02-28-2018, 10:27 AM
kunilou's Avatar
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 23,844
Let's not forget Hank Aaron.

Quote:
Pelekoudas, in his sixth season as a National League umpire, ruled that Aaron’s left foot was in front of the batter’s box and thus Aaron had hit the ball illegally.
I'm willing to be that virtually every professional athlete can point to an "injustice" with the rules.
  #4  
Old 02-28-2018, 10:42 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
How many strikeouts did Nolan Ryan really throw. Certainly more than the 5,714 he is credited with.
A strike is only a strike when the ump calls it a strike. There is no other definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
IMHO this is BS. How does MLB justify this injustice?
I'm not seeing any injustice. Can you clarify?
  #5  
Old 02-28-2018, 10:59 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 39,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
How many strikeouts did Nolan Ryan really throw. Certainly more than the 5,714 he is credited with.

IMHO this is BS. How does MLB justify this injustice?
,
This strikes me as being rather easily justified; a player's statistics in a game that does not count should not count.

The sum total of all statistics should be an accurate total of the statistics accumulated in championship games, that is, games that actually count as wins and losses in the standings. If a team goes 88-74 and in those 162 games accumulates 143 home runs, the of all individual home run totals should be 143.

I don't know if you like this justification - personally, I like it - but there it is.

I do not understand how this constitutes an injustice. Players are not entitled to statistics or records or particular numbers. The numbers simply are what they are.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #6  
Old 02-28-2018, 11:10 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,136
I don't see it as an injustice as long as the method for counting records is clear and it's applied to all players. If Ruth and Maris and Ryan "lost" some of their accomplishments because of the way records are counted, then other players lost some of their accomplishments as well.
  #7  
Old 02-28-2018, 11:11 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 29,988
Bob Feller might well be among the top ten all time leaders in wins if it wasn't for WWII costing him several years of playing time (figure 20 wins a year, carry the 2, hmmm).

How can MLB justify the injustice of not adding to his numbers?

Last edited by Jackmannii; 02-28-2018 at 11:11 AM.
  #8  
Old 02-28-2018, 11:12 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,598
How many homers did Ted Williams lose to his WW2 and Korea service, in his prime years? Of course, Ted didn't consider those years lost.
  #9  
Old 02-28-2018, 11:12 AM
mhendo mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
This strikes me as being rather easily justified; a player's statistics in a game that does not count should not count.

The sum total of all statistics should be an accurate total of the statistics accumulated in championship games, that is, games that actually count as wins and losses in the standings. If a team goes 88-74 and in those 162 games accumulates 143 home runs, the of all individual home run totals should be 143.

I don't know if you like this justification - personally, I like it - but there it is.

I do not understand how this constitutes an injustice. Players are not entitled to statistics or records or particular numbers. The numbers simply are what they are.
Yep, this is pretty much my take on the matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game.
In 1991, MLB changed the rules of what defined a no-hitter, wiping out 31 no-hitters including Haddix's 12 perfect inning effort because he gave up a hit in the 13th.. Yet, they couldn't go back 24 hours, with video evidence and the umpire's admission to his mistake, to fix a "blown perfect game" that was the fault of a league official.
What happened to Galarraga sucked big time, but there's an important difference in principle here.

Changing Galarraga's outing to a Perfect Game would require actually altering the in-game boxscore. A perfect game is 27 batters up, and 27 batters down, with no-one reaching base. But in that game, when the bad "safe" call was made at first, a runner reached base and another hitter came to the plate. That next hitter then recorded an out. In order to give Galarraga his due, you would have to turn a base hit into an out, and you would have to actually erase an out from the game's data.

None of that was required for MLB's 1991 rule change.
  #10  
Old 02-28-2018, 11:20 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 35,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Bob Feller might well be among the top ten all time leaders in wins if it wasn't for WWII costing him several years of playing time (figure 20 wins a year, carry the 2, hmmm).

How can MLB justify the injustice of not adding to his numbers?
Mays would have almost certainly passed Ruth if he hadn't served. And look at the time Williams lost.
  #11  
Old 02-28-2018, 11:35 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 33,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
How does MLB justify this injustice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibition_game#Baseball
  #12  
Old 02-28-2018, 12:25 PM
John DiFool's Avatar
John DiFool John DiFool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 18,108
Ruth lost one when he hit a game winning homer out of the park, but where the rules of the time only let the winning run score-he got credited with a double.
  #13  
Old 02-28-2018, 12:30 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,994
Up until 1931, a ball that bounced over the fence on one hop was considered a home run. These are now considered ground-rule doubles.

Apparently none of Ruth's homers were such "bounce" home runs. But they certainly must have contributed to the totals of many other players.
  #14  
Old 02-28-2018, 03:56 PM
OldGuy OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 4,909
To put it another way. If a team has a rainout, the game is rescheduled. So a batter has 162 + a fraction games to hit home runs in. Why should he get this advantage over another palyer with no rainouts?

And let's not get into the asterisk hullabaloo when they changed the schedule to 162 games from 154.

The thing that does bother me a bit is when they describe postseason records and compare current players with three post-season series to the oldtimers with only the World Series.
  #15  
Old 02-28-2018, 04:16 PM
Robot Arm Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
What happened to Galarraga sucked big time, but there's an important difference in principle here.

Changing Galarraga's outing to a Perfect Game would require actually altering the in-game boxscore. A perfect game is 27 batters up, and 27 batters down, with no-one reaching base. But in that game, when the bad "safe" call was made at first, a runner reached base and another hitter came to the plate. That next hitter then recorded an out. In order to give Galarraga his due, you would have to turn a base hit into an out, and you would have to actually erase an out from the game's data.
I maintain that Galarraga is more famous for missing the perfect game than he would be if he'd gotten it. If the ump had gotten the call right, everyone would have cheered, and we'd all know what an awesome game he pitched that day, and SportsCenter would say "that's the 20th perfect game in MLB history". As amazing and rare as that feat is, it would have been just another perfect game. But as it happened, everybody knows he deserved a perfect game, but didn't get it. I checked Wikipedia; there were two other perfect games that season and there have been three more sense then. Without looking, can you name any of those pitchers?

I don't know if that's any consolation to Galarraga, but I think it's an interesting way to look at it.
  #16  
Old 02-28-2018, 04:24 PM
kunilou's Avatar
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 23,844
In 1929 the St. Louis Browns put an 11' fence above the right field wall. It's pretty well accepted that at least one of Ruth's home runs in St. Louis in 1927 would have hit the fence, while at least one of Jimmie Foxx's 1933 doubles in St. Louis would have gone into the stands.

If that had happened, Foxx and Ruth would have each ended up with 59 home runs in their best seasons.

Last edited by kunilou; 02-28-2018 at 04:25 PM.
  #17  
Old 02-28-2018, 05:16 PM
jaycat jaycat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 914
One of the funnest games I ever watched was Red Sox Matt Young's 1992, 8-inning, no-hitter against the Indians. He gave up 7 walks and 6 steals and lost the game 2-1. The woulda-been no-hitter (totally legit IMO) was erased by the rule change.

I mean, what was he supposed to do? Insist that the Indians take their last at-bat in the bottom of the 9th?

Last edited by jaycat; 02-28-2018 at 05:17 PM.
  #18  
Old 02-28-2018, 05:35 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 35,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycat View Post
One of the funnest games I ever watched was Red Sox Matt Young's 1992, 8-inning, no-hitter against the Indians. He gave up 7 walks and 6 steals and lost the game 2-1. The woulda-been no-hitter (totally legit IMO) was erased by the rule change.

I mean, what was he supposed to do? Insist that the Indians take their last at-bat in the bottom of the 9th?
I've often heard the phrase "facing the minimum" meaning 27 batters. It's possible to do that and not pitch a perfect game, a walk and caught stealing or a double play will do it.
I agree you have to do the full nine innings/27 outs to qualify.

23 no-hitters and three perfect games lost with two outs in the ninth.
No idea how many with 0 or 1 out.
That's why you play nine.

Last edited by running coach; 02-28-2018 at 05:35 PM.
  #19  
Old 02-28-2018, 07:05 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycat View Post
One of the funnest games I ever watched was Red Sox Matt Young's 1992, 8-inning, no-hitter against the Indians. He gave up 7 walks and 6 steals and lost the game 2-1. The woulda-been no-hitter (totally legit IMO) was erased by the rule change.

I mean, what was he supposed to do? Insist that the Indians take their last at-bat in the bottom of the 9th?
Ha ha, I missed that one. That was only two years after the Yankees' Andy Hawkins lost an eight inning "no hitter" 4-0 to the White Sox. I was listening to the game on the radio at the time, but I couldn't tell you all the things that went wrong. Those were some dark days.
  #20  
Old 02-28-2018, 09:22 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
I maintain that Galarraga is more famous for missing the perfect game than he would be if he'd gotten it. If the ump had gotten the call right, everyone would have cheered, and we'd all know what an awesome game he pitched that day, and SportsCenter would say "that's the 20th perfect game in MLB history". As amazing and rare as that feat is, it would have been just another perfect game. But as it happened, everybody knows he deserved a perfect game, but didn't get it. I checked Wikipedia; there were two other perfect games that season and there have been three more sense then. Without looking, can you name any of those pitchers?

I don't know if that's any consolation to Galarraga, but I think it's an interesting way to look at it.
Harvey Haddix is probably more famous for having pitched 12 perfect innings than if he had won a 9 inning perfect game.
  #21  
Old 03-01-2018, 06:26 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,537
Ernie Shore threw a quasi-perfect game in 1917 for the Red Sox. Babe Ruth started the game, walked the first batter and promptly got ejected. Shore came on in relief, retired that base runner and the next 26 batters. Should have counted for a perfect game in my opinion.
  #22  
Old 03-01-2018, 07:20 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,170
I find it astounding that there is still an asterisk next to Maris' record, but no asterisk next to the home run record of Chemical Man Barry Bonds. By the way, I still and always will recognize Henry Aaron as the home run king because he is the greatest home run hitter of all time who wasn't a chemically enhanced human being.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #23  
Old 03-01-2018, 07:26 AM
Munch Munch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 22,095
Wait until the OP finds out that playoff/World Series game stats don't count either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
I find it astounding that there is still an asterisk next to Maris' record, but no asterisk next to the home run record of Chemical Man Barry Bonds. By the way, I still and always will recognize Henry Aaron as the home run king because he is the greatest home run hitter of all time who wasn't a chemically enhanced human being.
You mean other than the amphetamines he juiced up on? Barry Bonds has the most homeruns hit in MLB history. Get over it.

Last edited by Munch; 03-01-2018 at 07:27 AM.
  #24  
Old 03-01-2018, 09:07 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 39,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
I find it astounding that there is still an asterisk next to Maris' record, but no asterisk next to the home run record of Chemical Man Barry Bonds.
Well, you need not be astounded about there being an asterisk next to Maris's record, because there isn't and there never was.

The asterisk thing is a myth. At no point, ever, from 1961 to 1998 was Maris's home run record ever conditional in any way. Until Mark McGwire hit his 62nd home run in 1998, the record for home runs in a season was recognized as 61, by Roger Maris in 1961. No asterisk or anything else.

In fact, in 1961, MLB didn't exactly have official records at all, and there was really no official way of stating such things. If you had published a book in 1970 called "The Big Book of Baseball Records" it'd have been as official as anything else. Ford Frick mused the record should be distinguished, but he was Ruth's friend and was just talking.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 03-01-2018 at 09:11 AM.
  #25  
Old 03-01-2018, 09:09 AM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munch View Post
Wait until the OP finds out that playoff/World Series game stats don't count either.

You mean other than the amphetamines he juiced up on? Barry Bonds has the most homeruns hit in MLB history. Get over it.
Cite for Aaron using amphetamines? He admitted that he tried them once and they made him feel ill. Is there any evidence to the contrary?
  #26  
Old 03-01-2018, 09:10 AM
Munch Munch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 22,095
And even if there was, it’s not there anymore, because that record has since been broken.
  #27  
Old 03-01-2018, 11:09 AM
Munch Munch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 22,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
Cite for Aaron using amphetamines? He admitted that he tried them once and they made him feel ill. Is there any evidence to the contrary?
That's all the evidence that I need to know that Aaron used amphetamines, even if it was just once. Yes, it's a bullshit "one drop" test, but it's just as bullshit as all the nonsensical hate tossed Bonds' way. I honestly don't believe Aaron when he says he just tried it once - it's as believable as "I didn't inhale". I don't blame anyone in that era for making use of an enhancement that was widely available, widely used, and universally ignored by the league. Descriptions that perfectly fit was Bonds was doing as well, I might add.

What Aaron did was a monumental feat. He sustained a level of power hitting in an age of power pitching, in the midst of a racially-charged hostile environment, and broke the biggest record in sports. I offer my thoughts and prayers to anyone that can't deal with the fact that Barry Bonds came along and beat it.
  #28  
Old 03-01-2018, 01:23 PM
ekedolphin ekedolphin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 4,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
I find it astounding that there is still an asterisk next to Maris' record, but no asterisk next to the home run record of Chemical Man Barry Bonds. By the way, I still and always will recognize Henry Aaron as the home run king because he is the greatest home run hitter of all time who wasn't a chemically enhanced human being.
Obligatory xkcd reference.
  #29  
Old 03-01-2018, 01:35 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Well, you need not be astounded about there being an asterisk next to Maris's record, because there isn't and there never was.
Okay, but I'm TRULY astounded by the fact that I have been astounded my entire life for no real reason at all.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #30  
Old 03-01-2018, 02:28 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 39,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munch View Post
That's all the evidence that I need to know that Aaron used amphetamines, even if it was just once. Yes, it's a bullshit "one drop" test, but it's just as bullshit as all the nonsensical hate tossed Bonds' way. I honestly don't believe Aaron when he says he just tried it once - it's as believable as "I didn't inhale". I don't blame anyone in that era for making use of an enhancement that was widely available, widely used, and universally ignored by the league. Descriptions that perfectly fit was Bonds was doing as well, I might add.

What Aaron did was a monumental feat.
The thing about baseball records is they're all contextual. If you want to argue Aaron's 755 home runs is more impressive in context than Bonds's 762, maybe there is an argument there; people didn't hit quite as many homers when Aaron played.

I think almost anyone would agree that Doc White's 27-win season in 1907 was not actually nearly as remarkable as Steve Carlton's 27-win season in 1972, because what White did with a good team in the dead ball era isn't the same as what Carlton did with a bad team in the live ball era. I would further guess that most people would agree that when Carl Yastrzemski hit .301 in 1968, that was a remarkable thing (no one else in the league hit .300) whereas when Taylor Douthit hit .304 in 1930 that was a far less impressive feat (the LEAGUE hit .303.)

But surely no one is going to question the fact that Doc White really did win 27 games and Taylor Douthit hit .304, right? Those are records. A record is just a fact, nothing more. Of course, in sports we must define what it is we are going to count and how we will count them, and you can argue about some of those distinctions; if a player hits a ball with no men on base and is he thrown out trying to stretch a single into a double that is counted as a hit though it is indistinguishable from striking out in terms of the effect on the game; if the same player later hits a ball that a fielder bobbles and he safely reaches base that is counted as an out even though there wasn't actually an out. You can argue those don't make a lot of sense (I strenuously believe they don't) but in terms of comparing players what does matter is the rules apply the same to everyone.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017