Umpire steals perfect game from Armando Galarraga

[UMFan83]

selig should have just sacked up and made a "a play can be reviewed and overturned by the commisioner if it is the potential final out of a perfect game" rule

 

Kind of like how he changed the "World Series can't end in a rain shortened game" rule on the fly a couple of years ago?

[illiniguy]

See! No downside!

 

The 1985 St. Louis Cardinals make me disagree.

 

Make them replay the game with the original players.

They kind of did a couple weekends ago here. By"kind of", I mean they played softball at the K. Jack Clark is in fine shape these days.

[erik316wttn]

selig should have just sacked up and made a "a play can be reviewed and overturned by the commisioner if it is the potential final out of a perfect game" rule

 

One of the little details that came out of this story I found most shocking was Fay Vincent throwing out hundreds of no-hitters in the record book.

 

Anyone have information on how or why this happened without backlash?

 

They standardized the rule on what counts as an "official" no-hitter. Guys were getting credit for no-hitters in 5-inning, rain-shortened games and games where they gave up hits in extra innings. Also, the stupid game where Babe Ruth walked a guy, got thrown out for arguing the call, and his replacement came in and got 26 straight outs after a caught stealing. That guy used to get credit for a "perfect game."

 

The one thing I hate about the new rules that you can't get credit for a no-hitter if you lose. So if you lose 1-0 on a hitless run, you don't get your no-hitter.

 

Actually I think that one should still count.

 

No hitter? Absolutely.

 

Perfect game? No. I have no problem with either Shore's or Haddix's place in history.

 

I think he should have the perfecto, too.

 

Say Marmol comes in the 9th with a runner on base. That runner is caught stealing or is picked off. Marmols ERA goes down because there was 1/3 of an inning recorded while he was on the mound. Same applies here. Shore came in the game, got credited for 9 full innings pitched, gave up no runs, no hits, no walks, no errors. There were 27 consecutive outs recorded while he was on the mound. Only 27 batters came to the plate in the game that day. Also, Ruth didn't give up a hit to the first batter, so there woudln't be some funky way Shore would be credited with a perfect game while the other team recorded a hit. Sounds like a perfect game to me.

Edited June 5, 2010 by erik316wttn

[imb]

except for the part where a guy walked

[erik316wttn]

except for the part where a guy walked

 

Shore didn't walk him. Ruth did. He was then retired trying to steal 2nd, then Shore set down the next 26 batters in a row.

[imb]

yeah, i read. still not a perfect game. a guy reached base.

[NCCubFan]

except for the part where a guy walked

 

Shore didn't walk him. Ruth did. He was then retired trying to steal 2nd, then Shore set down the next 26 batters in a row.

But that's not how it works. If more than one pitcher pitches NONE of the pitchers can allow a hit (for a no-hitter) or base runner (for a perfect game). Based on your logic the starter could, for example, allow 6 hits and 5 runs without retiring a single batter, then a relief pitcher could retire 27 straight and be awarded a perfect game even if his team loses.

[sweetpeteman]

 

I think he should have the perfecto, too.

 

Say Marmol comes in the 9th with a runner on base. That runner is caught stealing or is picked off. Marmols ERA goes down because there was 1/3 of an inning recorded while he was on the mound. Same applies here. Shore came in the game, got credited for 9 full innings pitched, gave up no runs, no hits, no walks, no errors. There were 27 consecutive outs recorded while he was on the mound. Only 27 batters came to the plate in the game that day. Sounds like a perfect game to me.

 

By this definition, Mark Buerhle has 2 perfect games.

 

(In his no-hitter, he walked Sosa and then picked him off)

[erik316wttn]

 

I think he should have the perfecto, too.

 

Say Marmol comes in the 9th with a runner on base. That runner is caught stealing or is picked off. Marmols ERA goes down because there was 1/3 of an inning recorded while he was on the mound. Same applies here. Shore came in the game, got credited for 9 full innings pitched, gave up no runs, no hits, no walks, no errors. There were 27 consecutive outs recorded while he was on the mound. Only 27 batters came to the plate in the game that day. Sounds like a perfect game to me.

 

By this definition, Mark Buerhle has 2 perfect games.

 

(In his no-hitter, he walked Sosa and then picked him off)

 

27 consecutive outs.

 

If he walked Sosa that broke the consecutive outs streak, even though he faced the minimum. AND he allowed Sosa to get on base. Shore didn't allow any baserunners.

Edited June 5, 2010 by erik316wttn

[erik316wttn]

except for the part where a guy walked

 

Shore didn't walk him. Ruth did. He was then retired trying to steal 2nd, then Shore set down the next 26 batters in a row.

But that's not how it works. If more than one pitcher pitches NONE of the pitchers can allow a hit (for a no-hitter) or base runner (for a perfect game). Based on your logic the starter could, for example, allow 6 hits and 5 runs without retiring a single batter, then a relief pitcher could retire 27 straight and be awarded a perfect game even if his team loses.

 

No, it wouldn't. In my post I said "27 consecutive outs were recorded, and only 27 batters came to the plate that day."

 

Under your scenario that doesn't happen.

[imb]

lol what part of perfect "game" do you not understand? i cant believe this is a real argument

[erik316wttn]

lol what part of perfect "game" do you not understand? i cant believe this is a real argument

 

And I can't believe you have nothing better to do than to respond to every single post I make without even really saying anything at all.

[Sammy Sofa]

I can't believe he ate the whole thing.

[UMFan83]

lol what part of perfect "game" do you not understand? i cant believe this is a real argument

 

And I can't believe you have nothing better to do than to respond to every single post I make without even really saying anything at all.

 

Erik you can't really believe this can you? A perfect game is a game that is perfect. A walk is not perfect regardless of whether the runner gets picked off or whatever.

[erik316wttn]

lol what part of perfect "game" do you not understand? i cant believe this is a real argument

 

And I can't believe you have nothing better to do than to respond to every single post I make without even really saying anything at all.

 

Erik you can't really believe this can you? A perfect game is a game that is perfect. A walk is not perfect regardless of whether the runner gets picked off or whatever.

 

If the game wasn't perfect, then Shore was. We can agree to disagree and move on.

[NCCubFan]

If the game wasn't perfect, then Shore was. We can agree to disagree and move on.

If the game isn't perfect it obviously isn't a perfect game. It's called a perfect GAME, not a perfect individual performance.

[imb]

lol what part of perfect "game" do you not understand? i cant believe this is a real argument

 

And I can't believe you have nothing better to do than to respond to every single post I make without even really saying anything at all.

 

Uhh, can you not read? Or is it just understanding that's your problem?

 

hahah, just kidding, that's rhetorical.

[Tracer Bullet]

lol what part of perfect "game" do you not understand? i cant believe this is a real argument

 

And I can't believe you have nothing better to do than to respond to every single post I make without even really saying anything at all.

 

Your argument makes no sense at all. That's why literally everyone else is in disbelief.

[erik316wttn]

lol what part of perfect "game" do you not understand? i cant believe this is a real argument

 

And I can't believe you have nothing better to do than to respond to every single post I make without even really saying anything at all.

 

Your argument makes no sense at all. That's why literally everyone else is in disbelief.

 

Makes about as much sense as everyone who is arguing that Galarraga's game should be changed to a perfect game, yet that's a good argument and this one isn't?

 

For the record, I'm in favor of the game being changed, BTW. But arguing this point further makes no sense as nobody's mind is going to be changed.

[Tracer Bullet]

lol what part of perfect "game" do you not understand? i cant believe this is a real argument

 

And I can't believe you have nothing better to do than to respond to every single post I make without even really saying anything at all.

 

Your argument makes no sense at all. That's why literally everyone else is in disbelief.

 

Makes about as much sense as everyone who is arguing that Galarraga's game should be changed to a perfect game, yet that's a good argument and this one isn't?

 

For the record, I'm in favor of the game being changed, BTW. But arguing this point further makes no sense as nobody's mind is going to be changed.

 

discussing differing reasonable opinions over which no one here has any control is completely different than the argument you were having with everyone else.

[erik316wttn]

lol what part of perfect "game" do you not understand? i cant believe this is a real argument

 

And I can't believe you have nothing better to do than to respond to every single post I make without even really saying anything at all.

 

Your argument makes no sense at all. That's why literally everyone else is in disbelief.

 

Makes about as much sense as everyone who is arguing that Galarraga's game should be changed to a perfect game, yet that's a good argument and this one isn't?

 

For the record, I'm in favor of the game being changed, BTW. But arguing this point further makes no sense as nobody's mind is going to be changed.

 

discussing differing reasonable opinions over which no one here has any control is completely different than the argument you were having with everyone else.

 

Over a game that will not go down in history as perfect through no fault of the pitcher? Apples and oranges, I tells ya!

 

That's ok, I got it now

 

Runner reaches base because of umpire error = perfect game

 

Runner reaches base because starter walked him, relief pitcher comes in, runner gets immediately wiped out trying to steal then the next 26 guys are put down in order = not a perfect game

[Guest]

This couldn't be any simpler.

 

If the call is overturned, NO ONE REACHED BASE THE WHOLE GAME. It is a perfect game.

 

If you walk someone and then pick him off, NO MATTER WHAT SOMEONE HAS REACHED BASE. It is not a perfect game.

[erik316wttn]

This couldn't be any simpler.

 

If the call is overturned, NO ONE REACHED BASE THE WHOLE GAME. It is a perfect game.

 

If you walk someone and then pick him off, NO MATTER WHAT SOMEONE HAS REACHED BASE. It is not a perfect game.

 

And as I stated previously, I may be willing to concede that the game, by definition of a perfect game, wasn't. If it goes in the record books, it should absolutely have an asterisk. I just think it was crappy that it was in the record books for many decades as a perfect game, then was suddenly wiped out, as if the definition of perfect game had somehow changed in that time.

 

However, if it doesn't qualify, I can certainly see the case for it. But there is no arguing that Ernie Shore was perfect that day, and turned in the greatest relief performance in the history of baseball. There is no debate there.

[NCCubFan]

But there is no arguing that Ernie Shore was perfect that day, and turned in the greatest relief performance in the history of baseball. There is no debate there.

Granted.

 

I really see two different issues here. Shore shouldn't have been credited with a perfect game in the first place since, even though he individually was perfect, the team wasn't (team pitching statistics were charged with one walk, and a no-hitter or perfect game is a team effort regardless of whether there was one or more than one pitcher involved). Given that he was credited with a perfect game under the rules that existed at the time, though, I don't think it should be taken away when the rules are changed. New rules should apply to the future, not retroactively to the past.

[erik316wttn]

But there is no arguing that Ernie Shore was perfect that day, and turned in the greatest relief performance in the history of baseball. There is no debate there.

Given that he was credited with a perfect game under the rules that existed at the time, though, I don't think it should be taken away when the rules are changed. New rules should apply to the future, not retroactively to the past.

 

And we can agree on that.