Dave Righetti lost a game he pitched a no hitter in for the Yankees. Late 80’s/early 90’s.
No. Righetti pitched only one no hitter in his career, on July 4, 1983, which he won. You are thinking of Andy Hawkins, who pitched 8 no-hit innings but lost against the White Sox (due to some bad outfield play, as I recall) on July 1, 1990.
Zev Steinhardt
Just as a matter of interest, the other formerly-credited “perfect game” besides Haddix’s that was demoted by retroactive rule changes was Ernie Shore’s perfect relief appearance for the Red Sox on June 23, 1917. Babe Ruth was the starting pitcher. I believe he walked the first batsman and then was ejected for arguing the call. Shore came on, picked the runner off first, and then retired the next 26 batters in order. So even though Shore got 27 outs in a row he is no longer credited with a perfect game (but was at one time); it’s now considered just a “combined no-hitter” for Ruth and Shore. But like Haddix’s perfoemance, it really should have a category of its own.
56 Homers and 191 RBIs. Amazing, specially considering that he was only 5 feet, 6 inches, if memory serves.
BTW, the year was 1930.
In any case, that is different since the change was due to a statistician mistake and not to a rule change. My point is that you should be subjected to the laws that govern baseball ONLY while you are actively taking part of it. Future “legislative” changes should not affect the conceptualization of your past performances.
Just imagine the impact that a generalized interpretation of that thinking could have on society. Let’s say the Supreme Court rules that from now on the maximum incarceration period will be established at 5 years. They decide to make that modification in the penal justice system retroactive, so it will directly affect previously convicted criminals. Can you picture the chaos when who knows how many scumbags are back on the streets doing what they do best, stepping on the good citizen’s God-given rights?
That will suck big time, wouldn’t it? Well, MLB’s amendments to the rulebook suck big time also, at least from this loyal fan’s point of view.
2001, the year of The Tribe. 
(Instead of this smilie, imagine the laughing Indian from the Cleveland Indians logo).
Bryn was so unexciting to watch, but so consistent. He was a very effective pitcher for a lot of years for the Expos. In about 1987, Pascual Perez was very exciting to watch pitch (7-0 record) - with his famous Pascual-pitch (a slow over the shoulder softball-type pitch which messed up the timing of many a slugger). But Bryn did his job quietly, but well.
Of course, Bryn once complained to a local newspaper that he was forced to drive to Plattsburgh, NY to get a special kind of Doritos that weren’t available in Montreal at the time.
Them was the days…
The rule change was in 1991. My 1993 Ninth edition of The Baseball Encyclopedia gives the updated list of no-hit games, revised according to the rule change. If there have been no further changes in the rules since 1991, this list is still valid.
According to the list, there have been 4 complete, 9 inning games in which the team that had no hits won the game (not counting no-hitters broken up in extra innings or games of less than 9 innings).
Ken Johnson, 1964, Hou vs Cin, 0-1
Steve Barber/Stu Miller, 1967, Bal vs Det, 1-2
(**BobT[b/] cited these in his response to the OP. These two are the only “official” no-hitters that have been lost, according to the 1991 definition.)
In addition, as others on the thread have previously mentioned:
Andy Hawkins, 1990, NYY at Chi, 0-4
Matt Young, 1992, Bos vs Cle, 1-2
As these were away games, Hawkins and Young only pitched 8 innings although they were complete 9 inning games. The pitchers are credited with 8 no-hit innings, but not an official no-hitter.
Beyond these, there are plenty of other instances in the list in which the team that was no-hit scored one or more runs.
So unless there is a new rule since 1991, there is no requirement that the pitcher win the game, or that no runs have scored against him. The basic requirements for a no-hitter are that the pitcher(s) give up no hits in the game (including extra innings if any) and pitch at least 9 full innings.
I can’t find it anywhere, but isn’t there a pitcher who pitched a perfect game, but didn’t win?
IIRC, the original pitcher gave up a HR on the first at bat, he was pulled for some reason, and the reliever pitched 9 full innings, 27 batters, perfect game, but the team still lost because of that 1st at bat HR.
Can anyone back this up? I have a baseball encyclopedia at home, but unfortunately that doesn’t do me much good here at work.
I don’t believe there are any relievers who have retired 27 straight batters except for Ernie Shore.
The least “offensive” game in major league history may have been Sandy Koufax’s perfect game against the Cubs in 1965. Koufax’s mound opponent, Bob Hendley, only surrendered one hit in the game and that hit didn’t score. The Dodgers won the game 1-0 on a run that came without benefit of a hit.
I don’t believe that that particular game took very long to play.
Never happened.
Even if it did, it’s still not a perfect game. Retiring 27 batters in a row does not qualify you for a perfect game. You get a perfect game only if the other team does not allow a runner to reach first base at all.
As an example: Imagine a scoreless game. Pitcher Blaze Fastball comes into the game in the 7th inning. Unfortunately, his team hasn’t scored either. Blaze pitches and pitches until the 15th inning. He has retired 27 batters in a row. Blaze has not, however, pitched a perfect game. Nor will he get credit for one.
Zev Steinhardt
quasar, I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t quite agree with you. I’ll try to explain why.
Statistics are, really, meaningless. I say that in the sense that they do not actually affect the play of the game. Example: Did that guy just get on base because of a hit or an E-6? Well, the batter probably cares, and the pitcher cares, and the shortstop cares (but only because it will affect their next contract negotiation), and it will show up in the box score, but…so what? There’s now a runner on first, and how he got there (hit, error, BB, HBP, whatever) has no bearing on anything within the context of the real goal of each team - winning the game.
If a manager wants to draw inferences from what just happened (should he pull the SS 'cause he’s having a bad night?), he’s of course free to do that, and in that sense exactly how the batter reached first matters. However, a manager could just as well evaluate things without the help of an “official scorer” to tell him whether the SS should have made the play.
While the official definitions of statistics like perfect games, no-hitters, and what-not may be in the rules, I personally don’t hold them on the same level as the rules that actually govern what happens on the field. The game of baseball could be played, completely accurately, if nobody kept track of errors, or who the winning pitcher was, or batting averages, or ERA’s. Those are quite different from, say, not keeping track of outs.
Statistics are purely tools for interpreting/analyzing what happened. Retroactively changing statistical definitions will never affect the outcome of a game, or a series, in terms of the only thing that should matter to the people taking part - which team scores the most runs.
BobT – sounds like you’re misremembering the Ruth/Shore no hitter.
Adding an extra RBI for Hack Wilson isn’t making a retroactive change; it’s merely correcting the record, since the box scores clearly indicate that Wilson had 191 RBIs, even if the tally showed differently. However, baseball was much less willing to take away Ty Cobb’s 3rd .400 season (there was a disputed hit that would have changed his average to just below .400).
There was also an attempt a few years ago (before Aaron broke the record) to give Babe Ruth three more home runs. The rules used to credit a walk-off home run in the bottom of the 9th only if no one was on base – i.e., if you hit a grand slam, you were only credited with a single (and, of course, it’s been a very long time since that happened – a year, at least. :)). Ruth had three HRs taken away on that basis, but the move to reinstate them raised such a furor that the change was rescinded.
Techincally, Shore only retired 26 batters in a row and had the runner on base when he came in erased on a caught stealing.
I don’t know how I particularly misremembered it.
There might have been other relievers who have had stretches of 27 batters retired in a row, but not in one game as Shore did.
I believe the most consecutive batters retired by any pitcher is 41 by Jim Barr, which I believe was the end of one game and the beginning of his next start. John Montague had a 27+ stretch of batters retired in the AL back in 1978 or 1979
BobT said:
To which Reality Chuck replied:
BobT
That is only a nitpick on his part. He means that Shore retired 26 batters and 1 runner, not 27 batters.
Perhaps Shore retired the next batter he faced in his next relief appearance…
OK, I’ve done some searching and can’t find the game I was referring to, it wasn’t the Ernie Shore relief appearance. IIRC, it wasn’t a reliever that came into the game, but another starter who got the call. Maybe I misremembered things, but I’ll check my book when I get home from work today and post the game I was thinking of tomorrow.
Shore had only two relief appearances in 1917, a win (obviously his “perfect relief appearance”) and a save. So if the save was afterwards, it’s a fair bet. Shore didn’t pitch in 1918.
Crunchy Frog, you are misremembering the Ruth/Shore game. The difference is that the first pitcher gave up a walk, not a homer, and Shore won the game. Shore lost his perfect game, in the sense of no longer being credited for it, because the game itself was not perfect, although Shore’s performance was. Perhaps you heard someone say that he “lost” the perfect game in this sense.
Colibri - I must be misremembering that game. I looked through my book last night at home and can’t find any reference to what I was talking about. I was nearly positive something had happened the way I described it. Funny how the mind deceives itself, huh?
Incidently, Shore’s other 1917 relief appearance seems to have been a bit strange as well. In Bill James’ Historical Baseball Abstract he mentions that Shore’s 1917 relief record was 2 games, 15 innings, 1 win, no losses, 1 save, 1 earned run given up. Since we know in the “perfect game” he pitched 9 innings, got the win, and gave up no runs, in the other he must have pitched 6 innings, given up one run, and been credited with a save.
James himself was puzzled by this. He says, “How is it possible to pitch six innings and get a save?” (Implying that in most cases the reliever would get the decision rather than a save.) I was stumped by this myself for a while. But after thinking about it, the answer seems obvious, although it means the game was somewhat unusual.
Anyone care to take a crack at a question that stumped Bill James?
How do you pitch 6 innings and still get a save?
You got me.
If Shore came into relief in the third and pitched 6 innings, he would have gotten the win, since the starter didn’t go 5 complete innings. For Shore to get the save, his team needs to have the lead before he takes the mound.
My first thought would be that the game went into extra innings, but if that is the case, the teams would need to be tied. Considering that Shore gave up a run, but still got the save means that his team had the lead before he came to the mound. Had he let the game get tied while pitching, and then his team won, he would have been credited with the win.
So I’m stumped here. What’s your answer?
I think I have an explanation for the 6 inning save by Shore. Starting pitcher is horrible; he gives up a bunch of runs and doesn’t make it out of the first. Relief pitcher number 1 comes on. Red Sox storm back to grab the lead while reliever 1 is on the mound. This puts him in line for the win. Reliever 1 is yanked after the end of three innings (or earlier). He didn’t pitch 5 innings, but since he is not the starter, he doesn’t have to. Shore comes in to start the fourth and finishes the game. He gets a save on the virtue of pitching at least 3 solid innings in relief without giving up the lead. Sound plausible?