04/19/24
May 03, 2011
Francisco Liriano no-hits White Sox : Liriano walked 6 but came up with clutch pitches in a 123-pitch effort. In the 9th, Juan Pierre drew a walk with one out. But Liriano got Alexei Ramirez to hit a soft pop to short, and then induced Adam Dunn to hit a hard line drive at shortstop Matt Tolbert to complete the no-hitter.
posted by tommytrump to baseball at 10:29 PM - 28 comments
However... That's the worst official no-hitter ever thrown.
Andy Hawkins might disagree with you on that. (OK, technically, that wasn't a no-hitter, but that's because the rules about no-hitters are messed up.)
The call in the 8th was atrocious, but that wouldn't have been a hit, anyway. Good work, Francisco! Maybe this will turn his and the Twins' seasons around.
posted by TheQatarian at 12:47 AM on May 04, 2011
Congrats to him. For someone who had never thrown either a shutout or a complete game before, this was a bit of a step into new waters. Let alone the fact that he started this game with an ERA over 9 and with rumblings of being pulled from the rotation if he didn't have a good start.
posted by boredom_08 at 02:20 AM on May 04, 2011
That's the worst official no-hitter ever thrown.
I think worst is the wrong word there, lowest scoring on the "game score' rating system perhaps, but heck of a game.
Hope the Twins can build on this...need something to kick start this bunch.
posted by dviking at 02:25 AM on May 04, 2011
Why are we taking this accomplishment down a peg?
Look, six walks is not great... but he still threw a no-hitter, he still won a tight, 1-0 game, and from the MLB "condensed game" version, he got 24-25 very weak outs out of 27, which is pretty damned good. Other than one or two places, they were quiet outs: shallow pop-ups and bouncy ground balls to infielders.
It was a hell of a game, made all the more impressive that he had to pitch with a 1-0 lead; one mistake and you can lose the no-hitter, the lead, or even the game on a single pitch.
posted by hincandenza at 05:30 AM on May 04, 2011
The no-hitter that Nolan Ryan threw against the Twins, he allowed eight walks.
posted by beaverboard at 08:47 AM on May 04, 2011
Why are we taking this accomplishment down a peg?
It's only being taken down a peg if you placed it that high to begin with. Dan Haren's one hit, two walk, eight strikeout performance against the Indians is more impressive than Liriano's performance last night.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 10:00 AM on May 04, 2011
Yeah, I am of the belief that many no-hitters are basically a fluke. When several batters are walked, then what's the difference than if they were actually hits? Often the games include quite a few hard-hit balls that result in great plays. Next time out, all these balls may find their way to the holes and Liriano will again justify his lofty ERA. As YYM mentioned, Haren's game was better, actually, but gets relatively no attention. Sure, Liriano threw a good game, but I'm not sure this means the Twins (and Liriano) are now off and running towards a championship.
posted by dyams at 10:16 AM on May 04, 2011
The no-hitter that Nolan Ryan threw against the Twins, he allowed eight walks.
But he also struck out 15 batters, so for more than half the outs his defense (except the catcher) wasn't even involved.
posted by grum@work at 10:23 AM on May 04, 2011
That's the worst official no-hitter ever thrown.
Maybe so, maybe so, if you're a purist or statistics geek. I look at it in this way: the worst sex I ever had was pretty damn good and satisfying. Don't run a good thing down just because of some technical flaw.
posted by Howard_T at 12:42 PM on May 04, 2011
I look at it in this way: the worst sex I ever had was pretty damn good and satisfying.
So when I sober up I'm going to be disgusted with myself?
posted by tron7 at 03:05 PM on May 04, 2011
Don't run a good thing down just because of some technical flaw.
You did see the part where I congratulated him, right?
When you have a list of similar accomplishments (but not identical), there is always going to be one of them that is the least impressive/amazing. That's how lists work. In this case, Liriano's accomplishment is the least impressive/amazing out of all the other accomplishments that are similar.
It's like being the slowest gold-medal winner in the 100m dash. Or the least accomplished Hall of Fame football player.
posted by grum@work at 04:31 PM on May 04, 2011
I'm with grum on this one. Sometimes a well pitched game is just a well pitched game. It also happens to be a no hitter.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:20 PM on May 04, 2011
Sometimes a well pitched game is just a well pitched game. It also happens to be a no hitter.
Long way from that to "worst". My point is that when we're talking about pretty significant achievements, calling one that happens to be the lowest rated on one statistical analysis "the worst" is a bit out of line. "The worst great game?"
Checking grum's link, one of the games that supposedly ranks as better to him was a game in which the pitcher walks the bases loaded to start an inning, and then gives up a sac fly and an earned run? Couple more strike outs give it a higher ranking? Not to me.
posted by dviking at 06:23 PM on May 04, 2011
My point is that when we're talking about pretty significant achievements, calling one that happens to be the lowest rated on one statistical analysis "the worst" is a bit out of line. "The worst great game?"
Worst means "most unfavorable." It's relative to whatever it is you're talking about. It's not "out of line" to use it to mean the least great of something, like the girl who finishes 50th in the Miss America pageant.
posted by dfleming at 08:03 PM on May 04, 2011
Sure, pick on Ms. Maine, like it's her fault they don't put fluoride in the water.
posted by yerfatma at 08:17 PM on May 04, 2011
whatever dfleming...I'd take the 50th best girl in the Miss America pageant every year. Again, you're calling someone that achieved a very high level of success the "worst".
To say something is the "least great", therefore it is the worst is not how most people use the word. Most people don't look at a top ten list, and consider number 10 to be the worst.
posted by dviking at 08:37 PM on May 04, 2011
To say something is the "least great", therefore it is the worst is not how most people use the word.
Yes they do. Have you ever heard the phrase "worst case scenario"? It's not used to describe the absolute worst case scenario that could possibly happen (i.e., the world explodes and we all die). It's used to describe the least favorable scenario given a set of parameters.
Often, people use it to describe a situation that is no-lose, i.e, "worst case scenario, we get back what we invested in the first place." In that scenario, it's not a bad situation, it's just the least favorable situation given a good set of parameters.
posted by dfleming at 09:52 PM on May 04, 2011
That analogy is not valid as it (usually) is only considering a few alternatives, and the worst case scenario could be really bad. You're comparing a phrase to a word.
We're talking about an achievement that most pitchers would consider a crown jewel of their careers. Even if I buy the ranking linked to (I don't for the reason pointed out earlier) I wouldn't call any of the games the worst no hitter. No one says "he's the worst third baseman in the Hall of Fame" though, statistically someone is the lowest ranked third baseman. They are all great, and should be celebrated as such.
Hey, how about those Twins? A winning streak!
Now, if we can just keep this pitching and Kubel's hitting going for another 5 months, we might have something.
posted by dviking at 11:14 PM on May 04, 2011
dviking, do you understand the concept of lists?
As in, if there is a set of people/places/things/events that occur, they can be formed in a list.
In that list, they can be ranked by many different factors.
If someone/something is at the top of the list (based on the ranking), they are considered "the best".
By the same definition, someone at the bottom of the list (based on the ranking) is considered "the worst".
How you can possibly argue against the definition of a word is beyond me.
If you have a ranked list of anything, something has to be "the best" and something has to be "the worst".
There is simply no argument to be made about this.
No one says "he's the worst [position] in the Hall of Fame" though, statistically someone is the lowest ranked [position].
Oh, really?
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
I understand that you are a Twins fan, so you assume I'm insulting one of your favourite team's players. I'm not. He still got a no-hitter. It's still a memorable accomplishment. It's something that will forever be part of his record, and he'll always be on that list of pitchers who have performed this rare (and great) baseball feat.
Let's choose a player from my favourite team.
Fred McGriff led the league in home runs in 1989, with 36
Jesse Barfield led the league in home runs in 1986, with 40.
Jose Bautista led the league in home runs in 2010, with 54.
I can say McGriff had the worst home run season by a Toronto Blue Jays player while leading the league in home runs.
It doesn't mean it's not an amazing accomplishment for McGriff.
posted by grum@work at 11:43 PM on May 04, 2011
That analogy is not valid as it (usually) is only considering a few alternatives, and the worst case scenario could be really bad. You're comparing a phrase to a word.
Comparing no-hitters is only considering a few alternatives. The worst case scenario, depending on the alternatives, can be anywhere on the spectrum of good to bad, and the phrase is dependent on the word.
You're focusing on this being an insult; if I said "Andrew Raycroft is the worst goalie in the NHL", I'm saying he's the worst goalie in the elite people who play in the NHL. He's still a great goaltender to have made it that far, and his accomplishment is great, but he's still the worst one of the group who made it to the NHL, just as Liriano's may have been the worst statistical no-hitter.
You sound like you have a personal definition for how and when you use it, and that's fine, but I think you're looking a little silly telling people how to use a word they seem to understand better than you do.
posted by dfleming at 06:23 AM on May 05, 2011
Oh, and in case he's watching, in that instance, Raycroft I meant it as an insult.
/Leafs Fan
posted by dfleming at 06:23 AM on May 05, 2011
Tim Hudson, Atlanta, last night: One hit, complete game shutout versus Milwaukee, with 1 walk. No big headlines.
posted by dyams at 10:40 AM on May 05, 2011
Next thing you'll tell me is that hitting a single, double and two homers is better than hitting for the cycle.
posted by rcade at 11:26 AM on May 05, 2011
Oh, okay, a few other stat geeks put together some worst of the best lists...my bad.
I still question your ranking on no-hitters due to the flaw of ranking a game where the pitcher gave up an earned run ahead of others.
Fleming, fuck off with the insults...you're the one that threw out "worst case scenario' as being the same as worst. I fully understand the word, and your phrase, my issue with calling any great achievement the worst.
yeah, I suppose I wouldn't have responded to you if this were a Cardinal pitcher (team picked at random, no need for Cardinal fans to get riled). But, hey, the way the Twins season is going we have to fully celebrate any achievements we can.
posted by dviking at 12:30 PM on May 05, 2011
With all due respect dviking, I think the severity of what I said (you don't understand what worst means) is nowhere near as insulting as being told to fuck off, so I'm done with this whole subject.
posted by dfleming at 01:56 PM on May 05, 2011
umm, no, you called me silly, but whatever, don't throw out insults if you're thin skinned, as you're bound to get replies on this site.
Anyway, I'm off to San Antonio for a few days of golf and relaxation, so you don't have to worry about this thread.
Though, I do plan on using the "worst" analogy to try and get a better price on the golf. The course is ranked #10 in the state, so I plan arguing that they're really the worst of the top ten. I'll update you on how that goes.
posted by dviking at 02:52 PM on May 05, 2011
Sorry, I gotta back dfleming on this one. Andrew Raycroft can fuck right off.
And Hudson's game was significantly better than Lariano's.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:23 AM on May 06, 2011
Congrats to Liriano!
However... That's the worst official no-hitter ever thrown.
His game score is tied for the lowest recorded game score (83) for someone throwing an official no-hitter.