No hitter alert

[Major Nikon]

Rangers at Oakland. Colby Lewis perfect through 23 hitters, walked #24. #25 fly-out.

[Major Nikon]

1. It's a bust

Right fielder just missed a fly to right

[Enrique]

4. you jinxed it

[Brother Buzz]

2. I witnessed a similar game many decades ago at Oakland

Randy Johnson, pitching for Seattle, went eight perfect innings, then lost it in the ninth.

[Major Nikon]

3. I love watching a well pitched game

Even better when you're there, although something of a bummer when it's to the benefit of the other team.

[OriginalGeek]

5. Never saw anything close to a no-hitter

but I did see Bobby Bonds hit back to back 3-run homers in Texas for the Rangers. I remember him coming up to bat the second time and I said to my dad "You think he can do it again?" and my dad said, "nahh, not likely" and I said "I bet he does it again" and damned if he didn't do it again. That was the first time I ever heard my dad say "Holy Shit!" which made me laugh uncontrollably.

[clarice]

14. Might I suggest a show for you?...It's called "Fast Ballers". I think it's on HBO....

It's about pitchers of the past and present who threw/throw EXCEPTIONAL heat and how they did it.
What I found interesting was when they analyzed some of the old pitchers.. Walter Johnson, Bob Gibson Nolan Ryan etc
and the technology available at the time that their pitches were recorded. They might have been throwing MUCH harder
than the speed gun actually recorded.

[Major Nikon]

16. I haven't seen that one

There was a documentary on knuckleballers that was on not too long ago. I don't remember which network, but I thought it was quite good.

"The way to catch a knuckleball is to wait until it stops rolling and then pick it up."
-- Bob Uecker

[clarice]

18. I saw that one too. It was very good.nt

[malthaussen]

6. There are some classic no-hitters on YT...

... shame how many get broken up in the ninth by some cheap hit. It's especially infuriating when the batter bunts for a base hit, which does happen.

Nothing, however, compares to the idiocy earlier this year, when the LA manager took out Ross Stripling after 7 1/3 no-hit innings. The Dodgers went on to lose as the Giants rallied, which is just.

-- Mal

[Major Nikon]

7. I never really understood the stigma against bunting

It's a completely valid and useful strategy, especially today when teams are using all sorts of statistical models to determine where to place defensive players. If the 3rd baseman is playing deep or excessively shifted and a batter punts one down the good side of the 3rd base line, then shame on the defense for not being prepared for an easy trip to 1st.

The manager is ultimately responsible for deploying the best strategies to win the game. Those don't always work out. Stripling was already past 100 pitches and had walked 4. LA was only up 2 runs. Colby Lewis had a fairly low pitch count going into the 9th and has performed well >100 many times. The Rangers also were 5 runs up. So had he been taken out late in the game it would have been a major pissor, but I don't really see Striplings case as all that controversial. His chances of pitching a complete game were pretty much nil with or without a no-hitter.

The reason why no-hitters are so wonderful is they happen so rarely. I don't really expect managers to tip the scales so that they happen more often, especially when they are taking a big gamble.

[malthaussen]

8. The stigma would be against bunting just to spoil the no-hitter.

If the game is close, then a bunt might have merit, but if there is a fairly decent lead going into the ninth, bunting is just being a spoilsport. Not trying to bunt for a base hit is scarcely "tipping the scales" in favor of a no-hitter, since a bunt for a base hit is a rare enough play to begin with (especially these days, when hardly anybody even knows how to bunt properly. Ty Cobb or Jackie Robinson might have a different view).

The reasons for pulling Stripling are good enough as far as they go, and certainly the manager couldn't know that the Giants would bomb his reliever (or that Stripling would blow up his arm later anyway, so much for keeping him healthy). Sometimes, however, one makes a sub-optimal choice because it is morally the right thing to do, unless, of course, one thinks heart has no place in sports. With 162 games in a season, one might argue that trying for a sub-optimal outcome early in the season is not going to hurt much, right up to the point one loses a playoff spot by half a game. But after all, it's not like baseball is a perfect science, SABRmetrics notwithstanding. If it were, no one would ever be issued an intentional walk or bunt to advance a baserunner.

Had Stripling been left in and bombed, I'd have said "that's too bad, but worth the try." Had he been pulled and the Dodgers won, I'd still object to the call. Mind you, I'm not a big LA Dodgers fan. A manager calls them as he sees them, that's why he's paid the big bucks, but that doesn't mean I agree that he always considers all the relevant factors in making a call.

-- Mal

[Major Nikon]

9. I think most players know how to bunt properly

It's not a hard skill to learn, which is why some consider it a "cheap" play. Getting on base can and should be the strategy in almost all situations. Short of doing something against the rules, every legal strategy can and should be employed, especially when defensive postures lend themselves to certain strategies. If infielders are playing well into the outfield, then they are inviting the bunt. Even significant leads can be and are given up past the 8th inning, and every player and manager should be expected to give their all, all the time. That's what they are getting paid the big bucks for.

[malthaussen]

10. As for the bunt, I think you may be mistaken.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/17/sports/baseball-the-lost-art-strategy-of-the-bunt-no-more-easy-outs.html?pagewanted=all

There are quite a few articles about the lost art of bunting. This one is from 2003, but I don't believe the situation has changed materially since then.

-- Mal

[Major Nikon]

11. There's lots in that article which says otherwise

And not that much which contradicts it. Certainly there are players in the majors who just aren't going to bunt, not because they can't, but because they just can't get to first base that quickly. There are others who just never want to, or think they don't need that skill, and there's teams that think they don't need it to win games. But bunting just ain't going away, if for no other reason than to keep defenses in check, and there's lots of other reasons as well.

For at least every Soriano, there's an Odor...

[malthaussen]

12. Yes, there are a few players still who bunt.

But the number of bunts/team have distinctly declined over the years, and I don't mean compared to 1901, I mean compared to 2001. Some managers still would like to use it, but fewer players can pull it off. Bunting correctly is not easy. Just watch players try, the angle of the bat is all wrong, they don't try to deaden the ball... last year, the whole Oakland team sacrificed just 14 times, and the league leaders Miami only sacrificed 71 times. The trend has been downward for years. Two reasons: players don't like it (some exceptions apply), and SABRmetrics claims sac bunts are counter-productive. It is the latter that is most relevant to my original point, which is that sometimes managers do things that might be statistically sub-optimal, because they feel right.

-- Mal

[Major Nikon]

13. The claim that sabermetrics proves anything just isn't that solid

It's a tool that provides data and like all tools that provide data the interpretation isn't always cut and dried. For instance, how does sabermetrics account for what effect the threat of the bunt creates? Answer, it can't. Not to mention that sacrifice bunts aren't the only reason or outcome for bunts. The video I posted previously wasn't a sacrifice bunt.

Regardless of what the statistics say, lots of players are still bunting, and they are still doing it enough that it's a skill worth honing for most. All sorts of skills just aren't used that often, but they are still practiced to a fine art. That's what separates the big leagues from the minors. You can never have too many arrows in your quiver. Regardless, a well orchestrated bunt is a beautiful thing.

[malthaussen]

15. Which is why I didn't say SABRmetrics proved anything.

I said they "claim" something, and many managers accept that claim.

Are you of the opinion that bunting plays as large a role in baseball as it did in previous years? Or are you of the opinion that, despite what managers and coaches say, players are as good at bunting, and do it with the same facility, as they did in a time when runs were scarcer? I ask because I have seen numerous claims to the contrary, but this is the first time I have encountered what may be a claim that it does.

-- Mal

[Major Nikon]

17. Neither did I claim bunting is as common today as in years past

Which is also true with a lot of things in baseball. Does it still play a large role? Absolutely it does.

[clarice]

19. I agree....but I think that it is more...

due to the "unwritten code" in baseball. It is deeply frowned upon for a team/player to break up a no-no in the 8th or 9th with a bunt. Especially if that team is losing by 4-5 runs. If it's a tie score or the batting team is down by 1 run, then all is fair. IMHO

[Major Nikon]

20. I understand there is a stigma against bunting

I just don't understand it. If a player gets on base because of a bunt or any other reason, why does that stigma exist? If someone gets to base fairly, then by definition it's fair.

There's all sorts of stigmas in baseball. Some make sense and some make no sense.