Would this count as a perfect game?

Here’s the scenario:

A starting pitcher with revenge on his mind throws the first pitch of the game at the head of the leadoff batter (but misses) and is immediately ejected from the game. A relief pitcher comes in inheriting a 1-0 count and then proceeds to retire all 27 batters.

It certainly counts as a perfect game for the team, but would the relief pitcher get credit for having thrown a perfect game?

I would think the starting and reliefpitcher would be given credit for a combined perfect game.

I don’t think it would be official.

This actually happened to none other than Babe Ruth, although not those exact circumstances. Ruth walked the first batter of the game on 4 pitches, then attacked the umpire because he disagreed with the calls. Ernie Shore came in to relieve him (after Ruth was ejected and forcible removed by the police), the baserunner was almost immediately thrown out stealing, then Shore went on to retire the next 26 batters. It used to be considered a perfect game, but has since not met the current criteria.

There have been a few other similar occurrences, none of which are “officially” perfect games.

The Ruth game is a little different, though. A batter reached base even though Shore was not responsible for him. In total, there was no perfect game. In this hypothetical, the starter just throws one ball. The question is really whether or not it’s a complete game, and I don’t know the answer to that one. My guess is that isn’t not.

I would think that in order to get credit for a perfect game, the player must be the starting pitcher. I don’t know for sure though, it’s just an assumption.

I think this is correct. (For obvious reasons, there’s never been a combined perfect game.)

According to Wikipedia.

“A perfect game is defined by Major League Baseball as a game in which a pitcher (or combination of pitchers) pitches a victory that lasts a minimum of nine innings and in which no opposing player reaches base.”

The scenario in the OP meets this definition.

Why is it obvious?

Obligatory Harvey Haddix reference here:

I met him and have his autograph on a Topps card commemorating the near-perfect game. Harvey even told me the name of the umpire who was depicted on the card (which I’ve long-since forgot). He said that it was better that he lost his bid for a perfect game, as it made for a far better story. He was right. It’s my favorite baseball-related story.

This was not in question. The question was whether the pitcher who retired all 27 batters gets credit as having pitched a perfect game. Of course, a related question (in Post 4) is whether an individual pitcher’s perfect game must also be a complete game (which it isn’t, in the situation that I described).

Barring injury or ejection (as in the OP), nobody’s going to pull a pitcher throwing a perfect game. And injuries and ejections are sufficiently rare that you wouldn’t have expected one to come up in the 18 perfect games that have been pitched in the modern era.

I guess if somehow another Harvey Haddix game comes up, the starter might be pulled in the tenth or eleventh inning.

Kevin Slowey got pulled from a no-hitter last year after the 7th inning and 106 pitches. The linked article also mentions the same for Damian Moss and David Cone. Granted, those weren’t perfect games, but…I dunno, even if you had a perfect game, I still think you’d get yanked if you had thrown enough pitches.

You could say the same thing about no-hitters, but there have been many combined ones. I guarantee that if a rising star 22-year old pitcher tossing a perfect game is at 120 pitches through the 8th inning, most if not all managers would pull him.

Yeah, but a perfect game pretty much by definition is also going to involve a minimal pitch count.

Clay Buchholz pitched a no-hitter in his second major league start back in 2007. 115 pitches, when he had previously never gone beyond 98. After the game, Terry Francona admitted that he & Epstein agreed that if Clay reached 120, he’d get pulled, even if he was down to the final out.

Huh? I’ve seen guys need 15 pitches to get out of an inning despite not allowing any baserunners.

To average the 15 pitches an inning you’d need to get to 120 by the end of the 8th, he’d be going to 2-2 on pretty much every batter; I have a hard time seeing someone doing that consistently but not giving up a single walk. Possible, yeah, but unlikely.

Only a handful of the perfect games we have pitch counts for have taken more than 100 pitches, the highest being David Wells’ 120, but it could happen. Addie Joss did his in 74 (while Ed Walsh struck out 15 but dropped to 39-15 on the season thanks to an unearned run, which would’ve been a fun game to see).

To the OP’s question - no, since it’s combined, it isn’t the reliever’s. No-hitters and perfect games are complete games, which relief appearances can’t be.

Who said anything about the 8th? If I were managing Stephen Strasburg on a pitch count, I wouldn’t care if he had one out left by the time he hit it. I’d pull him.

But regardless, you are correct that it is a priori unlikely, but what I think you are overlooking is that by the time someone is in the 8th inning with a perfect game, he already is the one person who HAS done that consistently without giving up a single walk. What you’re saying is akin to being skeptical that someone would ever win the lottery because the individual odds are so low. I don’t remember what that error is called.

At any rate, I don’t think a perfect game has a low pitch count “by definition.” The last few have been well over 100 pitches. I don’t think it’s that hard to imagine 1 or 2 extra fouls or balls per inning.

By “only a handful,” do you mean more than half? If Wikipedia is to be trusted, I count 9/17 for games in which pitch counts are available.

ETA: I failed to notice one was exactly 100, so 8/17, but I still don’t think that’s anything to sneeze at.