This article is interesting, not because of the feat referenced (two immaculate innings in one season), but because of the fact that these feats are increasing almost exponentially, while no-hitters are apparently falling off by comparison. I think baseball is changing in a way comparable to the change in the NBA that resulted from having so many able to dunk combined with the adoption of the three-point line. Will we even recognize the game in twenty years?
For anyone else unfamiliar with the term, it’s apparently three strikeouts in nine pitches.
You’d see more no-hitters too, if there were still complete games.
New stat! New stat!
Pitchers pulled after 7th inning with no-hitter in progress.
ETA: OK. not so new.
: grump :
I’m sure some of the increase in immaculate innings is due to more focus on slugging % and HRs, which also leads to more Ks.
I was reading an article yesterday on thefly ball revolution of the last couple of years. The game will obviously be recognizable in 20 years, but manufacturing runs with single, steals, and bunts will be a lot rarer.
Some announcers get very excited when teams put together an inning where they get some base runners and move them around one or two bases at a time (known as “small ball” or “manufacturing runs”). As often as not these innings end with runners left on base and no runs scored. I’m pretty sure that the teams would rather get a run or two from a home run than use up a bunch of at bats in a futile effort to push someone across home plate, though it does have the side benefit of eating up lots of pitches (but sometimes all that gets you is an express ticket to another pitcher who throws 98 MPH on a bad day). The fact that they find these innings so remarkable points out just how rare they are these days.
So, if a pitcher retires three batters on three pitches, is that even “immaculater?”
Nope, because the batters put the ball in play. Maybe three popup fouls?
The only way that happens is if the batter [del]hits[/del]collides the bat with the ball to send the ball flying. And while an out’s an out, it’s the pitcher’s primary job to prevent that from happening. Retiring three batters on three pitches would be to the credit of whoever caught those flies, not to the pitcher’s.
But immaculate innings include foul balls for strikes 1 and 2. An “Immaculater” inning would have to be 9 strikes where the batter never touches the ball. In Sale’s latest II the fifth pitch was a foul - the only one a batter touched.
It’s a pretty arbitrary achievement since pitchers can have better hitless innings. Ending an inning with just 3 pitches is far more impressive to me, whether it’s 3 foul pop-ups or 3 outs any other way. If we’re talking about 9 strikes called or fanned that would be pretty damn immaculate, but 6 of the strikes in the inning could be foul balls that might be more due to the batter than the pitcher. There should be a lot more types of innings that count as immaculate.
Trivia: I was at that game and didn’t notice. I just though everyone was cheering so loudly (And yes it was an away game) because he struck out the side.
Not quite true. There are many pitchers who have no intention of causing “swings and misses”, and would rather induce ground balls.
You were probably correct that a minority of the crowd probably recognized the “immaculate inning” occurred. That is, unless there was some kind of announcement or something.
Dunno.
Immaculate innings are increasing simply because strikeouts are higher than ever, and an immaculate inning is by definition three strikeouts without a ball. More Ks, more IIs.
No hitters are slightly falling off because pitchers don’t generally pitch complete games. It’s less uncommon than it once was to yank a pitcher who has given up no hits, but that said much of the decline is probably just random. There really isn’t any compelling reason why it should be harder to throw a no hitter now; the MLB batting average is at a relatively normal level.
This is not exactly true. In fact all pitchers are trying to induce swings and misses; that is the primary skill of a pitcher. The more the batter misses by the better you have done. Of course pitchers do try to pitch in such a way as to induce poor contact if contact is made; if the batter is going to hit it you’d much rather he jam a popup or roll over a ground ball to the shortstop.
The best single indicator of whether or not a pitcher will succeed in the major leagues is if he can strike men out. A pitcher who strikes out 11 men per nine innings will probably succeed. A pitcher who strikes out seven men per nine innings (which is few now, but used to be really good) had better do something else well. A pitcher who strikes out three men per nine innings has no chance of long term success. No very little chance; none, zero. It is not physically possible to pitch is a way that gets you just 3 strikeouts per nine innings in modern baseball but induces enough outs to be successful. Can’t be done.
The ballooning strikeout totals are in part BECAUSE of this fact. Prior to thirty years ago the centrality of strikeout ability to a pitcher’s success was not well known. Teams tended to assume, incorrectly, that a guy who was 15 games or had a good ERA would likely keep doing that even if they had very few strikeouts. Over and over a guy would have a good year, like Pete Vuckovich in 1982 or Jeff Ballard in 1989, and everyone would think well this guy’s great and then the next year they’d explode in flames and everyone would wonder what happened.
The realization that making the batter miss the ball is the best indicator of pitching ability did not really take hold until 15 years ago, tops. Since then teams have prioritized pitchers who gets strikeouts; Jeff Ballard today would not make the majors at all, or if he did it’d be as a lefthanded relief pitcher specialist type. Teams have further emphasized development programs and in game strategies meant to get strikeouts - that’s why they chew through so many relief pitchers now and why there’s a lot of guys who throw incredibly hard, even if for just one inning.
Certainly K/9 is an indicator of a pitcher’s ability, but the end goal is to not let runners on base. Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine were not strikeout pitchers, but they were awesome at not letting runners on base. Conversely, Nolan Ryan is perhaps the greatest strikeout pitcher of all time (definitely one of my favorites) but damn did he walk a lot of guys. I think his walks are the single reason he’s not unanimously considered the greatest pitcher of all time and why he never won a Cy Young.
Sure feels like the days of guys like Maddux, Glavine or Mark Buehrle are long gone. There is zero chance a guy gets to MLB topping out at 89mph these days.
Has there ever been an “immaculater” inning in which the batters had nine swings and nine misses?
There have definitely been II where batters never made contact, but didn’t swing at some pitches. Dellin Betances had one in 2017, I’m sure there were others.
I saw that Bob Gibson has an immaculate inning. Has he ever hit nine batters on nine pitches?
Dock Ellis had the three hit batters version of an immaculate inning. His intent was to hit every batter in the Cincinnati lineup.