12/26/24
June 29, 2008
Dodgers beat Angels without a hit.: The Dodgers became the fifth team in modern major league history to win without getting a hit. Because they didn’t have to bat in the ninth, the game doesn’t qualify as a no-hitter.
Not listed as an official no hitter. Thank you Commissioner Fay Vincent. Watching today's Dodgers Angels game. Dodgers announcer Vin Scully said he spoke to Angels Manager Mike Scioscia beforehand. Told Scioscia it was 18 years ago today he'd caught a no hitter thrown by Fernando Valenzuela. (A 6-0 victory over St. Louis.) Scioscia replied "At least we won that game."
posted by Newbie Walker at 05:10 PM on June 29, 2008
To Hal Incandenza; Your question about it being a complete 9 inning game should be answered no. The Angels only pitched 8 innings, The Dodgers pitched 9. Who's to say if the Dodger's batted in the ninth that they would not have gotten a hit? I agree with the 'not a no-hitter' ruling, especially with the scoring error being made by the pitcher. The error could have been covered up better (and no hitter given) if the pitcher wouldn't have offered up a pitch that was able to be hit for a sacrifice fly to score.
posted by jmurphyin at 07:46 PM on June 29, 2008
full required amount of innings without a premature ending is . This recockulous game lasted the full 9 innings; Hal, please give definition of word in bold type.
posted by giveuptheghost at 08:04 PM on June 29, 2008
Hal, please give definition of word in bold type. Hal, please don't...
posted by bobfoot at 09:36 PM on June 29, 2008
giveuptheghost: Hal, please give definition of word in bold typeIt's not just ri-dic-ulous... it's re-COCK-ulous! Meaning very ridiculous... :) Adam Carolla said that often on Loveline, as I understand it.
jmurphyin: To Hal Incandenza; Your question about it being a complete 9 inning game should be answered no. The Angels only pitched 8 innings, The Dodgers pitched 9. Who's to say if the Dodger's batted in the ninth that they would not have gotten a hit?But then by that logic, what if every other 9-inning no-hit game went to extra innings? Who's to say the pitcher throwing a 9-inning no-hitter could sustain it in extra innings... because that has happened? My point is that this game was a complete game; no cancellation due to weather/natural events, a full 9 inning game was played, and one side failed to get a hit. Those who made the "at least 9 innings" rule should have considered the possibility of pitching the full 8 innings required of a losing team. That they didn't shouldn't penalize Weaver et al. They crafted that rule to avoid cheapie no-hitters such as 5 or 6 inning weather-shortened games; but this wasn't a shortened game, was it? This was, again, a fully played 9 inning game. In effect, the Angels "discovered" a problem with the current scoring rule, because clearly those who envisioned it hadn't considered that you could pitch a no-hitter as the visiting team and lose. That's why I say not calling it a no-hitter is unfair; it violates the spirit of the rule.
posted by hincandenza at 01:30 PM on June 30, 2008
I suffered through the last one as young Red Sox fan. I'd like to thank both teams for dredging up some awful memories.
posted by yerfatma at 02:12 PM on June 30, 2008
I'm with hal on this one. The game was a fully completed game and had Jered Weaver pitched eight innings it should have been considered a no-hitter.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:24 PM on June 30, 2008
I'm with Hal and YYM on this one as well. Full game + no hits = no hitter.
posted by TheQatarian at 06:23 PM on June 30, 2008
OK. Call it a no hitter if you want. But Weaver didn't pitch past the 6th, so if the comfort of saying I was part of a no hitter is needed, take it. It was an error by the pitcher that allowed the score. I would be more focused on the team loosing the ball game than saying the pitching was perfect.
posted by jmurphyin at 06:44 PM on June 30, 2008
It's not just ri-dic-ulous... it's re-COCK-ulous! Meaning very ridiculous... :) Adam Carolla said that often on Loveline, as I understand it. Thanks Hal :) Made my day.
posted by giveuptheghost at 07:34 PM on June 30, 2008
At least my son (the Angel fan) can say to his friend (the Dodger fan) -- my team no-hit your team!
posted by Monica Poland at 10:12 AM on July 01, 2008
I have always wondered why if a run scores because of a error by the pitcher, the run is an unearned run. Since the pitcher was the one who made the error, shouldn't the run be the pitcher's fault and thus be an earned run?
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:20 PM on July 01, 2008
Watching today's Dodgers Angels game. Dodgers announcer Vin Scully said he spoke to Angels Manager Mike Scioscia beforehand. Told Scioscia it was 18 years ago today he'd caught a no hitter thrown by Fernando Valenzuela. (A 6-0 victory over St. Louis.) Scioscia replied "At least we won that game." Hey. I was at that game. On topic: It does seem unfair that a home team can be credited with a no-hitter and lose but a visiting team can not. Here's some info from Wikipedia on it: Unlike a perfect game, in which no batters reach base, in regular no-hitters batters can reach base in other ways, such as a walk, an error, or a hit batsman. Thus it is possible to lose a no-hitter. On April 23, 1964, Ken Johnson of the Houston Colt .45s became the only pitcher to lose a complete game no-hitter in nine innings when he was beaten 1-0 by Cincinnati. The winning run was scored by Pete Rose in the top of the ninth inning via an error, groundout, and another error.[8] In 1967, Steve Barber and Stu Miller of the Baltimore Orioles pitched a combined no-hitter, but lost 2-1 to the Detroit Tigers.[9] Because the home team does not bat in the ninth inning when it is already leading, a visiting pitcher (or pitchers) may complete a full game without allowing a hit but not be credited with an official no-hitter because they pitched only 8 innings. This happened most recently on June 28, 2008, when Jered Weaver and José Arredondo of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim threw 8 no-hit innings against the Los Angeles Dodgers at Dodger Stadium, but lost the game 1-0 and are not credited with a no-hitter. This is the first near no-hitter of this kind in which more than one pitcher was involved. Previously, Silver King (1890), Andy Hawkins (1990), and Matt Young (1992) pitched complete games without allowing a hit, but pitched only 8 innings as the losing pitcher from the visiting team, and thus are not credited with a no-hitter. Young's feat was accomplished on Opening Day.[10][11]
posted by cjets at 01:33 PM on July 01, 2008
I see both points, and baseball has always been rigid so I agree with the ruling. I don't think it's fair because its not the pitchers fault that his team sucks. But Weaver pitched a great 6 innings lost got talked about so that's how it goes. Plus he can only blame himself field the ball and the run doesn't score.
posted by Adan at 01:53 AM on July 03, 2008
I think the rules that call that "not a no-hitter" are absolutely bogus. It's one thing to say you don't get a no-hitter if the game is called on account of rain after 5 IP, but Weaver and the bullpen combining to no-hit the Angels through a full nine-inning game; it just so happens that due to the error, they never had to pitch the bottom of the ninth.
- Was it a complete 9-inning game? Yes
- Were the Dodgers prevented from getting a hit in any inning? Yes
- This game contained a no-hitter. QED
I think the "at least nine innings" rule is unfair, because it simultanously ripped no-hitters that were 9+ IP that were lost in extra innings from the record books, as well as 5 no-hitters that never had a bottom of the 9th pitched. If "9" is the magic number that disqualifies 5IP games, then why didn't Pedro Martinez get a perfect game for his 9 perfect innings that went into extra frames? You can't fairly have it both ways. Now that said, I can sort of understand why someone who is no-hitting through 9 but goes to extra innings and gives up a hit doesn't get a "no-hitter"... even though through no fault of their own they pitched just as many no-hit innings as any other no-hitter that is in the books. And I can understand certainly why a 5-inning abbreviated game no-hitter shouldn't really qualify. But to not give credit for a no-hitter when your staff combined for the full required amount of innings without a premature ending is recockulous. This game lasted the full 9 innings; had Weaver pitched those 8 innings, he'd have been credited with a complete game as well. So why not a combined no-hitter? I also thinking pulling Weaver was a stupid, stupid move- he has a no-hitter going, let him stay! It's insane to me how NL-style thinking infects people. The pitcher is just one at-bat, and he's not so much worse a hitter than most pinch-hitters that it's worth taking him out after 6. Just today I shouted at the screen when Brandon Moss came in to pinch-hit for Josh Beckett in the top of the 7th of a 2-2 game and promptly struck out. Hey, the pitcher could have done that and still been in the game.