OOPS! I mean SHE walked, then stole 2nd, 3rd and HOME. (No hits by either gender, and NO errors).
Probably happened at Ripley’s annual 4th of July barbecue. 
W.Shott of Cleveland pitched a nine-inning game without allowing a hit, or a man to reach first, and his team made no errors yet he lost 1-0.
answer: Because W. Shott’s opponent were women.
W.Shott of Cleveland pitched a nine-inning game without allowing a hit, or a man to reach first, and his team made no errors yet he lost 1-0.
answer: Because W. Shott’s opponent were women.
W. Shott walked the winning run in.
I was in the wrong sport - in football 1-0 is a forfeit.
However, I believe I do have the answer to the 1-0 score. A run was scored before any outs were recorded and before Shott took the mound.
Any number of baserunning combinations can answer the first one. We’ve gotten a bunch of good ones already in this thread. There’s no real “true” answer to that one.
As for the Shott one, the only thing I can think of is that it was a wild pitch (which does not count as an error) that pinballed around the stadium without anyone touching itlong enough for the batter to score.
It did indeed happen once, and it had to do with a runner on second base “stealing” back to first, hoping to confuse the catcher and draw a throw, thus allowing a runner on third to steal home.
But after that one incident (which didn’t work - the catcher didn’t throw), the rules were changed to forbid stealing backward. So no, it isn’t legal anymore, and hasn’t been for a long time (I forget exactly when it occurred, but it was decades ago, anyway).
You guys are fantastic! Obfusciatrist, I believe you have solved problem #1. I never thought of your play #6 because realistically an umpire would never award a hitter a triple, but it works perfectly and it is possible. Granted, there’s a LOT of bad base-running going on, but that’s not the point.
By the way, for those whose answers depend on runners ‘stealing’ in reverse, I believe MLB rules do address this and make that an automatic out (rule 7.06i).
On problem #2, I would tend to discount the idea that another pitcher came in to pitch the tenth and lost the game. Ripley knew sports and wouldn’t make such a mistake (the 10th inning pitcher, of course, gets credited with the loss). For the same reason, I doubt that Ripley would have had in mind a game called because of darkness, lack of players, etc. That would not appear in the records as a 1-0 loss but simply a 0-0 forfeit (rule 10.03e2).
On the other hand, a mixed gender game does allow this situation to happen, and Ripley doesn’t say a word about it being a major league game. I think that might be the answer.
Thanks all!!
Mondo bizarro, but this could technically work as well. If the batter swung and missed, and the pitch got away in this highly improbable way, it’d count as a run. But I think that would violate the “not allowing a man to reach first” thing, wouldn’t it?
Eureka!
I figured out the Shott pitching puzzle. Shott was the second pitcher in the game - the starting pitcher let in a run in the first and never got anyone out. Shott replaced him then and pitched the full 9 innings, 27 outs, perfectly, but lost 1-0.
Of course!
Because the old rules for assigning wins and losses was much more arbitrary than today and the decision would go to the pitcher that pitched the majority of the game whether they were responsible for the runs or not.
Germany Schaeffer is the name usually cited (on September 4, 1908), though it looks like others did it before him. In any case, it was outlawed.
Schaeffer was a real wise guy and this wasn’t the only rule change he was directly responsible for. For instance, just prior to the 1907 World Series, the league was discussing the players’ payment, explaining that they’d be played from the receipts from the first four games (to prevent them extending the series to make more money). Schaeffer asked what would happen if there was a tie in the first four games. The league officials said the gate for that would be part of the player’s share.
Sure enough, there was a tie in game 1 of the series. The next year, the league ruled that the players would be paid only from receipts of the first four games – ties or not.
Didn’t Babe Ruth once do something similar? First pitcher walked a batter, got thrown out for arguing. Then Ruth came in, picked off the runner, and retired the next 26 hitter.
Would this work for #1, although it is even more bizzare and has even worse base running.
Batter #1 single, steal second, steal third, picked off at third.
batter #2 triple, picked off at third,
batter # 3. triple.
batter #4 double, third base runner thinks it was caught and just stands there pouting.
batter #5 hits a single, both runners stand pouting.
batter #6 hits a triple. Runner on third called to never touch home, Guy from second twists ankle and hasn’t made it home yet, guy from first hasn’t passed guy from second, turns to run back to third. When batter hits third he gets credit for the triple, but when guy originally from first runs back by him at third,third out is made.
Never mind, it’s the same thing, thing Obfusciatrist posted, but in a different order, and a slight variation on batter #6.
Excellent work!
jiggs, do you have a date for the cartoon?
I like the answer, but we’d have to determine how the rules for assigning the loss have changed over time. Under current rules the loss would go to the first pitcher.
Unless, of course, by “lost” it just meant his team lost, not that he was credited with the loss.
[small hijack]
A football (NFL) forfeit is 2-0. I don’t know how long this has been the case but it spoils one of my favorite, trivial trick questions:
What numerical score is impossible to achieve in the NFL?
Oh, well…
It was from the late 20s, don’t have the exact date. In reply to another post, though, the phrasing I gave is exactly as Rip phrased it originally.
I think Rip would say that his puzzler didn’t say the pitcher was CHARGED with a loss, just that he did lose the game. Splitting hairs, yes, but Ripley specialized in such things.
Just for the heck of it, here’s another puzzler from the same source. I don’t know much about bowling, so I don’t have a clue about the answer:
- C. Rioux bowled 302 without making a perfect score.
Any serious bowlers out there?
It was from the late 20s, don’t have the exact date. In reply to another post, though, the phrasing I gave is exactly as Rip phrased it originally.
I think Rip might say that his puzzler didn’t state that the pitcher was CHARGED with a loss, just that he did lose the game. Definitely splitting hairs, though.