erik316wttn

Is Lou just drawing names out of a hat at this point?

I would love to see you expound on this. It seems pretty simple, it's an extremely rare feat for someone to strike out 20 batters through 9 innings. For someone to strike out 21 would be even more amazing. Regardless of a particular pitches skill set, the chances between two elite pitchers are pretty much a tie as it is. You can give the slight edge to Strasburg because he is young and throws 100 mph, but I think that edge is also negated by the fact that we really can't be sure what his future will look like, where as we can for Lincecum. so basically, a dumbed down version of what the guy above you said Just for you imb That way he can understand it.

I would love to see you expound on this. It seems pretty simple, it's an extremely rare feat for someone to strike out 20 batters through 9 innings. For someone to strike out 21 would be even more amazing. Regardless of a particular pitches skill set, the chances between two elite pitchers are pretty much a tie as it is. You can give the slight edge to Strasburg because he is young and throws 100 mph, but I think that edge is also negated by the fact that we really can't be sure what his future will look like, where as we can for Lincecum. so basically, a dumbed down version of what the guy above you said Do you contribute anything to stimulate discussion here other than insults and jabs at other posters?

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.

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.

I liked Coach K's quote about him, about Mr. Wooden being not just the gold standard of coaches, but the gold standard of people. If I can positively affect just half of the people in my life that Mr. Wooden did in his, I will consider myself a success. I also had no idea that he was a big baseball fan, specifically of the Pirates. In fact, back in the 1960's he had lunch one day with the Pirates owner and he was offered the managerial job. Wooden turned it down because he thought the players wouldn't respect him.

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

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.

There it is folks, the solution to our offensive problems. The best offense is a good defense I always say! Which is funny because Soto has been hitting decently over the last 7-10 days (at least according to OPS). Oh, also funny because Koyie Hill sucks, and it doesnt matter how often the opponents run if you can't score runs. Geez. Maybe he plans to hold them scoreless until they pass out from exhaustion and have to forfeit.

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.

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.

Many of us are hoping Lincoln comes up to face him. Just an odd baseball trivia question here, but I'm curious to know when was the last game in which both starting pitchers were making their Major League debuts.

What? About being sent to the pen. Be glad you're not on a AAA bus somewhere.... What did he say besides that he doesn't think that the way he's pitched doesn't merit being sent to the bullpen? He got sent to the bullpen because he has a long last name that's kind of hard to spell. That's why Shark didn't make it as a starter, either.

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.

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.

Jermaine Dye is in Jermaine Dye territory because Jermaine Dye is an outfielder who can't play the outfield and teams aren't looking for a 53 year old DH. Jermaine Dye. That and he wants a guaranteed starting spot and last I heard a contract in the $10m range. I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you that he hasn't hired a 2nd agent just to field the barrage of phone calls that he must get every day from MLB teams.

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.

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.

Half the members here might not know that the site is back up. What happened? Was it a lapsed annual subscription or was it a bandwidth issue? hacked by Pakistanis no really Any particular reason or did they just go around hacking random websites?

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.

Nice to have Z back in the rotation where he belongs.

That's one hell of a pull. That's the allure of baseball card collecting nowadays. Back in the 90's you never pulled a card worth $10,000. These low print runs really jack the prices up, and turns a hobby into a profession. Yea imagine the guy who pulls that Longoria card. Hard to believe nobody has pulled it yet Baseball card collecting was one of my favorite things about being 10 years old. My prized possession was an Andre Dawson 1980 Topps card when he was with the Expos. I'm sure it's not worth double-digits now, but it has a lot of sentimental value to me. I also have a Willie Mays Topps card from when he was with the Mets. That was really the only one i could afford. Haven't bought a pack of cards in probably 10 years or so, though.

I was on the road, so I had the entire site account suspended from the server for the bulk of the day while I worked with the hosting company to assess the damage. I'm not complaining. I was like a junkie in withdrawl, though. Great job getting it back up and running so quickly. I was thinking probably a few days at least.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I couldn't get onto the forums, either.