Pitch a Perfect Game and Lose

[Dodger1]

I haven’t seen it, and likely won’t, but it is possible. Pitcher A throws a 9 inning perfect game, but his team doesn’t score. A goes out for the tenth, with the ridiculous “imaginary runner” on second. The runner is sacrificed to third and scores on a sac fly. A then retires the next guy, but his team again fails to score and they lose. Result-Pitcher A faced 30 batters, retired all 30, and lost 1-0.

I know this is extremely unlikely, especially in today’s “yank ‘em after five” world, but the mere possibility of it just reinforces the ridiculous nature of the extre innings rule in my mind.

[Curve Ball Dave]

You scenario could happen, it's totally plausible.

In 1959 Harvey Haddix was perfect for 12 innings, but that wasn't good enough in a game against the Braves.

[fuzzy_patters]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

You scenario could happen, it's totally plausible.

In 1959 Harvey Haddix was perfect for 12 innings, but that wasn't good enough in a game against the Braves.

At least Haddix eventually stopped being perfect. Under the current rules, you could be perfect for the entire game and still get beat.

[fcabanski]

A perfect game requires a victory by the pitcher.


No need to even argue if allowing a runner to advance even on a sac fly breaks the perfect game - it would. However, without a victory, there can be no perfect game.

[Ty Cobb]

MLB says, "An official perfect game occurs when a pitcher (or pitchers) retires each batter on the opposing team during the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings. In a perfect game, no batter reaches any base during the course of the game."

In that scenario, no batter does reach base, nor is a victory required. There's a loophole there!

Where's Armando Galarraga these days? He was the last one to get ripped off for a Perfecto...

[Mancandy]

Originally Posted by Ty Cobb

MLB says, "An official perfect game occurs when a pitcher (or pitchers) retires each batter on the opposing team during the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings. In a perfect game, no batter reaches any base during the course of the game."

In that scenario, no batter does reach base, nor is a victory required. There's a loophole there!

Where's Armando Galarraga these days? He was the last one to get ripped off for a Perfecto...

No matter reaches first, but it says no batter reaches any base. I feel like advancing on a sacrifice definitely counts as reaching a base.

No loophole, IMO. I think it would only count as a perfecto if the pitcher strands the runner at second, given the way the rule is written. But there would be daaays of Discourse about whether or not it should count, if this were to ever happen.

Never ceases to amaze me what people will find ways to get angry about...

[nightfly]

Here's a kicker - if the game reaches extra innings, is the perfect game *automatically* lost? Because if the requirement is that no runner reach base... well, there he is standing on second. So he can advance and score and a pitcher could lose a perfect game, OR you could also argue that he could leave the runner stranded at second, win in the bottom half of the inning, and have a victory but *not* a perfect game.

(This is a more likely scenario when you add in the absurdity of 7-inning doubleheaders, making it more likely to send out the starter for the first "extra" inning if they've retired the first 21 batters.)

A flute with no holes is not a flute... is a perfect game with a baserunner perfect?

[KBLover]

Originally Posted by Mancandy

No matter reaches first, but it says no batter reaches any base. I feel like advancing on a sacrifice definitely counts as reaching a base.

Not a batter though?

I.e. he didn't face a pitcher and reach. He was just "put there"?

He's basically a different version of a pinch runner, imo. On base, but didn't take a PA to get there.

No hits, no walks, didn't RBOE or HBP or any other means during a PA. I think the perfect game would still be intact, by rule.

[RchW]

Not sure but does the current rule count any runs scored by placed runners as earned?

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by RchW

Not sure but does the current rule count any runs scored by placed runners as earned?

Nope, that runner is unearned if he scores. Any others are earned if there are no errors involved.

[Boomcoach]

I thought that they changed the official definition of a no-hitter to require a win, as well as be 9 innings. I would think that would also include perfect games.

[Threnodas]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

I thought that they changed the official definition of a no-hitter to require a win, as well as be 9 innings. I would think that would also include perfect games.

Source? Because MLB doesn't mention needing a win:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info...ine%20innings.

Ty Cobb already pasted the definition above. In the language of the MLB rulebook, "retires each batter" is pretty clear. The runner placed at second to start an extra inning is not a batter. If the starting pitcher retires every batter in a game of at least nine innings, he has pitched a perfect game, even if runners who were not batters manage to advance and/or score in the process.

[fuzzy_patters]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

I thought that they changed the official definition of a no-hitter to require a win, as well as be 9 innings. I would think that would also include perfect games.

From the MLB’s website:

Perfect games and No-hitters:
An official perfect game occurs when a pitcher (or pitchers) retires each batter on the opposing team during the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings. In a perfect game, no batter reaches any base during the course of the game.

An official no-hit game occurs when a pitcher (or pitchers) allows no hits during the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings. In a no-hit game, a batter may reach base via a walk, an error, a hit by pitch, a passed ball or wild pitch on strike three, or catcher's interference.

[fcabanski]

I see the rule - nothing about a victory.


Tomorrow I will ask the official scorer at the Astros game about this. It's an interesting situation.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by fuzzy_patters

From the MLB’s website:

Perfect games and No-hitters:
An official perfect game occurs when a pitcher (or pitchers) retires each batter on the opposing team during the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings. In a perfect game, no batter reaches any base during the course of the game.

An official no-hit game occurs when a pitcher (or pitchers) allows no hits during the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings. In a no-hit game, a batter may reach base via a walk, an error, a hit by pitch, a passed ball or wild pitch on strike three, or catcher's interference.

My memory must have added "needed the win" to the 9 innings change. I remember they took away a number of no-hitters from the books a few years back.

[ojoe]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

My memory must have added "needed the win" to the 9 innings change. I remember they took away a number of no-hitters from the books a few years back.

In 1964, Ken Johnson of the Colt .45s lost 1-0 to Cincinnati, at home:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/b...96404230.shtml

And in 1967, Steve Barber and Stu Miller of the Orioles combined to hold the Tigers hitless in Baltimore, but lost 2-1:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/b...96704301.shtml

Both games are still officially recognized as no-hitters. The games that were removed from the list were either winning pitchers who played in games that, for whatever reason, did not go a full 9 innings, or losing pitchers who only pitched 8 innings because they were on the visiting team and so there was no bottom of the 9th.

They may also have removed games where no-hitters were complete through 9, but then lost in extra innings - like the Harvey Haddix game from 1959.

[fuzzy_patters]

Originally Posted by ojoe

In 1964, Ken Johnson of the Colt .45s lost 1-0 to Cincinnati, at home:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/b...96404230.shtml

And in 1967, Steve Barber and Stu Miller of the Orioles combined to hold the Tigers hitless in Baltimore, but lost 2-1:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/b...96704301.shtml

Both games are still officially recognized as no-hitters. The games that were removed from the list were either winning pitchers who played in games that, for whatever reason, did not go a full 9 innings, or losing pitchers who only pitched 8 innings because they were on the visiting team and so there was no bottom of the 9th.

They may also have removed games where no-hitters were complete through 9, but then lost in extra innings - like the Harvey Haddix game from 1959.

Correct. If I recall correctly, the rule change was made in 1991 as a response to Andy Hawkins lost no-hitter from the year before. He was stripped of his no-hitter because he only pitched 8 innings because the home team (White Sox) were leading in the ninth.

[nightfly]

Originally Posted by fuzzy_patters

Correct. If I recall correctly, the rule change was made in 1991 as a response to Andy Hawkins lost no-hitter from the year before. He was stripped of his no-hitter because he only pitched 8 innings because the home team (White Sox) were leading in the ninth.

I always thought that was bogus. Andy didn't commit all those errors, nor was he part of the lack of offensive effort from the Yanks. It wasn't shortened by rain, so it's a regulation game. It's considered a complete game loss, with no hits permitted, that is NOT a no-hitter.

Honestly, just give him back his no-no. One exception in 150 years is hardly an open invite to record-keeping anarchy.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by nightfly

I always thought that was bogus. Andy didn't commit all those errors, nor was he part of the lack of offensive effort from the Yanks. It wasn't shortened by rain, so it's a regulation game. It's considered a complete game loss, with no hits permitted, that is NOT a no-hitter.

Honestly, just give him back his no-no. One exception in 150 years is hardly an open invite to record-keeping anarchy.

There were actually 4, but I agree that it was a solution in search of a problem.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Don't forget, the mandatory runner is there on a team error. So a new Harvey Haddix would have had three runners on with three team errors charged.

This is an area that needs clarification, but that won't happen until MLB is forced to rule on this.

To cite precedent for this not being a perfect game, I submit the case of Ernie Shore in 1915,

https://www.mlb.com/cut4/ernie-shore...on/c-132245176