MLB 2009

AlphaSigma · 07-11-2009, 01:43 AM

Oh so you mean, he faced more than the maximum number of batters allowed? Because he faced 28 when he needed to face 27.

**thesteve** · 07-11-2009, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaSigma

Oh so you mean, he faced more than the maximum number of batters allowed? Because he faced 28 when he needed to face 27.

Yes. The technical definition of a perfect game is 27 up, 27 down with no runners.

***Art*** · 07-11-2009, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesteve

Yes. The technical definition of a perfect game is 27 up, 27 down with no runners.

Which, if you ask me, is kind of nonsense. He did everything right. Nobody reached base on him. The runner reached on Uribe. But hey, that's just my opinion.

**thesteve** · 07-11-2009, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art

Which, if you ask me, is kind of nonsense. He did everything right. Nobody reached base on him. The runner reached on Uribe. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Even though a ton of credit goes to the pitcher, it's pretty hard to call a game a "perfect" game when there's an error, regardless of who it is on. Otherwise, the only difference between a perfect game and a no-hitter would be walks, and it'd be possible to lose a perfect game, which would be even more nonsense.

AlphaSigma · 07-11-2009, 11:07 AM

If I was Urbine, I'd be kicking myself just knowing that my teammate was so close and it was my fault that his perfect game was nulled.

Ax · 07-11-2009, 11:11 AM

Perfect games and no hitters are flukes anyways. Steve and I had this discussion a week or two back. If you look at the list of pitchers with no hitters, most have high ERA's and very few wins. Most of the time they just happen to be the right guy at the right time, in the right place.

AlphaSigma · 07-11-2009, 11:17 AM

You make it sound almost arbitrary. Why does the pitcher have to be great with a low ERA and a high win to loss ratio? Why would it be a fluke just because someone doesn't have the career stats to complement the outing? Isn't just about pitching an outstanding game?

**thesteve** · 07-11-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaSigma

You make it sound almost arbitrary. Why does the pitcher have to be great with a low ERA and a high win to loss ratio? Why would it be a fluke just because someone doesn't have the career stats to complement the outing? Isn't just about pitching an outstanding game?

The point of our conversation wasn't that it's arbitrary, the point is that there are plenty of pitchers who aren't known for anything else than one amazing game. Having a no-no or a perfect game in your resume isn't an indication that you are a great pitcher, but simply that you had one game where everything worked into your favor. There are some pitchers that flirt with the no-no on a regular basis, and there are others that have their one amazing game and never really come close to it again.

I would not go as far to say that "most" had high ERAs and few wins, but there are definitely plenty of players on both the no-no and the perfect game lists that will never be considered great pitchers.

Ax · 07-11-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaSigma

You make it sound almost arbitrary. Why does the pitcher have to be great with a low ERA and a high win to loss ratio? Why would it be a fluke just because someone doesn't have the career stats to complement the outing? Isn't just about pitching an outstanding game?

Numbers don't lie man. No hitters are impressive but generally speaking, they don't say much at all about the pitcher himself. There are exceptions however, Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax, and Cy Young who all pitched 3 or more no hitters. However Roger Clemens, Steve Carlton, Eddie Plank, Greg Maddux, Lefty Grove, and MANY MANY MANY more pitchers considered to be some of the best of all time never had one.

AlphaSigma · 07-11-2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ax

Numbers don't lie man. No hitters are impressive but generally speaking, they don't say much at all about the pitcher himself. There are exceptions however, Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax, and Cy Young who all pitched 3 or more no hitters. However Roger Clemens, Steve Carlton, Eddie Plank, Greg Maddux, Lefty Grove, and MANY MANY MANY more pitchers considered to be some of the best of all time never had one.

Quote:

Perfect games and no hitters are flukes anyways

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted that, but when someone calls perfect games and no-hitters flukes, it seems as if there was little actual skill in completing those feats.

I understand the argument that most no-hitters don't speak about a pitcher's career entirely, rather it's a rare and excellent occasion that should be celebrated because regardless of whether or not the pitcher is of Hall of Fame caliber or not, they still turned out a fantastic outing, which is anything but a 'fluke'.

**tmlfan123** · 07-11-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaSigma

I understand the argument that most no-hitters don't speak about a pitcher's career entirely, rather it's a rare and excellent occasion that should be celebrated because regardless of whether or not the pitcher is of Hall of Fame caliber or not, they still turned out a fantastic outing, which is anything but a 'fluke'.

It is undoubtedly a fantastic outing, but a LOT of luck goes into pitching a no-hitter. The pitcher cannot throw every pitch perfectly, but in a no-hitter the difference is that those pitches he didn't throw perfectly were hit right at someone or the batter just missed it.

Pitchers will tell you they have thrown better games than their no-hitter, and still lost.

I could go into probability theory here to explain this, but I think I've made my point.

AlphaSigma · 07-11-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmlfan123

It is undoubtedly a fantastic outing, but a LOT of luck goes into pitching a no-hitter. The pitcher cannot throw every pitch perfectly, but in a no-hitter the difference is that those pitches he didn't throw perfectly were hit right at someone or the batter just missed it.

Pitchers will tell you they have thrown better games than their no-hitter, and still lost.

I could go into probability theory here to explain this, but I think I've made my point.

I understand, but even if the batter doesn't hit a bad pitch (that he should've cranked), or flies out. That wasn't luck, that was the batter not doing his job. There is nothing unlucky about a batter missing their opportunity for a base hit. It's just poor provided competition. You can't knock the pitcher for the batter not taking advantage of bad pitches.

***Art*** · 07-11-2009, 12:53 PM

In Sanchez's case, I think he owes a lot of credit to Eli Whiteside, his catcher last night. Sanchez has had a history of dominating the first time and sometimes even the second time through the lineup, then getting absolutely destroyed in the 5th, 6th or 7th. Whiteside called a great game, mixed up the pitches and kept the batters guessing. And yes, some good defense and a little bit of luck was definitely there.

AlphaSigma · 07-11-2009, 12:56 PM

Rowand really saved him in the 9th as well. Great catch.

***Art*** · 07-11-2009, 01:01 PM

Yes... I had mentioned to my roommate that I was a bit surprised that they didn't put Fred Lewis in left field, and Andres Torres in center for the 9th, instead only putting Torres in left. Then, Rowand made that catch, and I said, "Well, that's why Boch left Rowand in center."