PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of CC's "no-hitter"



kaldaniels
08-31-2008, 10:31 PM
Ned Yost seems pretty fired up by this. I'd rule it as a hit on an ordinary play...but an unwritten rule is that the first hit of a game needs to be a solid hit in case of this sort of thing happening.

I know I shouldn't think like this, but being that it is CC, and being it was in the 5th inning of a no-no...I'd have ruled the play an error.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=280831123

OnBaseMachine
08-31-2008, 10:34 PM
If he fields it cleanly he's out at first base IMO, so I'd rule it an error.

Crosley68
08-31-2008, 10:34 PM
I believe it would be called a hit 90% of the time.......probably no one would have said a word if it were not the only one. A bummer for CC but I would have said hit too.

RedlegJake
08-31-2008, 10:36 PM
Hit. CC threw a heck of a one hitter.

RedsManRick
08-31-2008, 10:48 PM
It's pretty clearly an error in my book. But bottom line, if CC wanted the no-no, he should have made the play.

KronoRed
08-31-2008, 10:52 PM
Error, but since he made the error count it as a hit.

cincinnati chili
08-31-2008, 11:05 PM
Error. Whether there was a no-hitter or not, that's an error.

OnBaseMachine
08-31-2008, 11:05 PM
If you watch the replay of the play, Sabathia grabbed for the ball and was in throwing position while LaRoche was still 30+ feet from first base. LaRoche would have been out by five feet if Sabathia had fielded it cleanly. It's clearly an error in my opinion. Official scoring around major league baseball has become a joke. Just look at recent Reds games for an example. Brandon Phillips botched a groundball on Friday night yet it was ruled a hit in order to keep Phillips error total down. Last weekend Aaron Cook was credited with a bunt single when he would have been out by 20 feet if Bako had made a decent throw. I wish MLB would do something about it.

Matt700wlw
08-31-2008, 11:24 PM
Error. I said it before I knew the circumstances. I stand by it.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-31-2008, 11:43 PM
Sign him, Bob.

Do it.

SteelSD
08-31-2008, 11:45 PM
That's a clear Error.

Chip R
08-31-2008, 11:56 PM
They won't change it.

WVRedsFan
09-01-2008, 12:13 AM
Agreed, Chip, but I just looked at it again. It's an error, but it was Pittsburgh where the embarrassment of a no-no is too much for them to bear after a 10-game losing streak. Simply shameful. Regardless, a wonderful game for CC. Human error and it's something I hope is never taken out of baseball.

kaldaniels
09-01-2008, 12:54 AM
From the ESPN article this sentence is key...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=280831123

Despite the Brewers' protests, the play in question is routinely called a hit and fielders often get angry when they are called for errors on easier plays.

That is a true statement. The premise behind it may be incorrect, but to watch that play...that same play is many,many times called a hit. If the play happened in the Reds-Giants game today there would not be a second thought about it had it been ruled either way. However, in a no-no situtation or even in the first inning where this play would be the first hit of a game, the official scorer must use discretion, and on a borderline play like this...call it an error.

And that said...human error is part of baseball, love it or hate it. I don't want to open the proverbial can of worms and have MLB overrule the scorer on this one.

top6
09-01-2008, 12:55 AM
Sign him, Bob.

Do it.

Yes, let's sign the overweight pitcher currently throwing 500 pitches a game, which he will probably be doing well into October.

Oh, wait, Bob - do NOT do this.

kaldaniels
09-01-2008, 12:58 AM
Yes, let's sign the overweight pitcher currently throwing 500 pitches a game, which he will probably be doing well into October.

Oh, wait, Bob - do NOT do this.

Having started this thread, I'd just rather not start another one today (anyone want to?)...but a thread regarding the ethics (I don't know if that's the word I'm looking for) of the way the Brewers have handled CC and the aftermath would be an excellent discussion I think.

Jpup
09-01-2008, 01:20 AM
it looked like an error to me, but it really doesn't matter.

camisadelgolf
09-01-2008, 02:01 AM
If the Brewers win the appeal, does that mean Sabathia throw a 9.1 inning no-hitter?

Reds/Flyers Fan
09-01-2008, 02:40 AM
I hate Pittsburgh, so it's an error

MrCinatit
09-01-2008, 02:56 AM
Looks to me like he would have been out - though it would have been a close play. I would have ruled it an error - but then again, there are many reasons why I am not an official scorer.

flyer85
09-01-2008, 07:00 AM
don't think you can go back and retro a no-hitter. The tension of an actual no-hitter was missing because of the ruling, rightly or wrongly.

RFS62
09-01-2008, 08:14 AM
If he could make that play without any "undue effort", it's an error.

If he has to make an above-average play to get the out, it's a hit.

It comes down to the question "is he expected to make that play?"

blumj
09-01-2008, 08:17 AM
don't think you can go back and retro a no-hitter. The tension of an actual no-hitter was missing because of the ruling, rightly or wrongly.
Right, you can't decide after the fact that a game's a no-hitter if the pitcher didn't have to finish the game with the knowledge that he hasn't allowed a hit yet. It changes everything.

Dom Heffner
09-01-2008, 10:13 AM
It's an error, and all these attempts at "it's how they do it" are ridiculous.

That guy would have been out by 5 feet.

Dom Heffner
09-01-2008, 10:15 AM
If the Brewers win the appeal, does that mean Sabathia throw a 9.1 inning no-hitter?

Not sure I follow here- the ruling goes from a hit to an error. Nothing else should change.

corkedbat
09-01-2008, 11:12 AM
I think if they I saw that play as a highlight and didn't know the context, I'd have to say hit. When the defender has to hustle to try and get the ouot like that and it gonna be a close play, I'd say hit.

redsfan30
09-01-2008, 11:30 AM
Not sure I follow here- the ruling goes from a hit to an error. Nothing else should change.

If it's overturned, he would have gotten 28 outs.

kaldaniels
09-01-2008, 11:32 AM
I think if they I saw that play as a highlight and didn't know the context, I'd have to say hit. When the defender has to hustle to try and get the ouot like that and it gonna be a close play, I'd say hit.

I agree with that. Why? Not because it is a by-the-book hit, but because we see balls like that ruled hits all the time. Official scorers are very generous in handing out hits, like it or not.

However, to rule that as a hit as the first hit of a no-no in the 5th...thats wrong if you ask me.

BCubb2003
09-01-2008, 11:34 AM
How is the more common four outs in an inning counted? As four thirds of an inning? Or as simply one whole inning?

mth123
09-01-2008, 11:45 AM
If it's overturned, he would have gotten 28 outs.

NO. He was still safe and only got 27 outs. He'd simply be safe on an error and not on a hit.

Degenerate39
09-01-2008, 02:48 PM
It looks like it should be a hit to me.

Highlifeman21
09-01-2008, 06:11 PM
E all the way.

That was some hometown cookin' by the official scorer.

BuckeyeRedleg
09-01-2008, 08:01 PM
Yes, let's sign the overweight pitcher currently throwing 500 pitches a game, which he will probably be doing well into October.

Oh, wait, Bob - do NOT do this.

Slightly over dramatic there, don't you think?

*BaseClogger*
09-01-2008, 08:08 PM
If he could make that play without any "undue effort", it's an error.

If he has to make an above-average play to get the out, it's a hit.

It comes down to the question "is he expected to make that play?"

The above is exactly why I think it was correctly called a hit...

RedFanAlways1966
09-01-2008, 08:58 PM
The way it is level... Hit. We see plays like this ruled hits all the time. It will be ruled a hit more times than error. If the exact same play happened 100 times (and there IS NOT a no-no involved), then I'd say it will be ruled a hit 80 times.

The way I actually feel... Error. It is truly an error that is called a hit more times than not.

Just glad it was C.C.'s doing and not another fielder on his team. He only need to look in the mirror to see why he did not get the no-no. I'd feel bad if it was another player that messed up a pretty routine play that ended up ruining a no-no.

VR
09-01-2008, 11:00 PM
I say sign CC next year.

Reds/Flyers Fan
09-02-2008, 01:37 AM
I say sign CC next year.

Then trade for Matt Holiday. And bring Kevin Youklis back to Cincinnati.

:cool:

*BaseClogger*
09-02-2008, 08:39 AM
CC is going to get at least a Zito-esque contract this offseason...

Danny Serafini
09-02-2008, 01:36 PM
That was a pretty clear error. The fact that it's often incorrectly called a hit isn't justification for incorrectly calling it a hit in this case.

Sea Ray
09-02-2008, 02:32 PM
Obviously just from the fans on this board, the call could have gone either way. Therefore it wasn't an egregious error on the part of the scorer. At this point I don't think it would be right for MLB to overrule the scorer and "create" a no hitter. That wouldn't be right. Might be interesting to post a poll and see what us RZs think. Looks to be like it's pretty much 50:50

Boss-Hog
09-02-2008, 05:27 PM
Obviously just from the fans on this board, the call could have gone either way. Therefore it wasn't an egregious error on the part of the scorer. At this point I don't think it would be right for MLB to overrule the scorer and "create" a no hitter. That wouldn't be right. Might be interesting to post a poll and see what us RZs think. Looks to be like it's pretty much 50:50
Done

Sea Ray
09-02-2008, 05:31 PM
Done

I like the idea but it needs to be re-done. Choice two is incorrect. It was scored a hit, not an error, thus the problem. Right now you don't have a hit choice. Personally I'd just leave it as two choices, but it definitely isn't right as it is.

Boss-Hog
09-02-2008, 05:35 PM
I like the idea but it needs to be re-done. Choice two is incorrect. It was scored a hit, not an error, thus the problem. Right now you don't have a hit choice. Personally I'd just leave it as two choices, but it definitely isn't right as it is.
Whoops, thanks for catching that...I fixed it.

VR
09-02-2008, 07:18 PM
Then trade for Matt Holiday. And bring Kevin Youklis back to Cincinnati.

:cool:


There, we fixed the Reds in three sentences!

:beerme:

camisadelgolf
09-03-2008, 01:37 AM
Seeing as how it was the first 'hit' of the game, I think it should have been called an error. If it were the second hit of the game, then I would have just padded the hitter's stats and called it a hit. I try to be a nice scorer.

blumj
09-03-2008, 07:04 AM
Seeing as how it was the first 'hit' of the game, I think it should have been called an error. If it were the second hit of the game, then I would have just padded the hitter's stats and called it a hit. I try to be a nice scorer.
See, to me, that's the worst of all worlds. Make it a hit, or make it an error, I don't care that much which one. But, if it's a hit in one situation, it should be a hit in every situation. If it's an error in one situation, it should be an error in every situation. I don't want "nice" scorers, I want consistent ones.

camisadelgolf
09-03-2008, 07:36 AM
See, to me, that's the worst of all worlds. Make it a hit, or make it an error, I don't care that much which one. But, if it's a hit in one situation, it should be a hit in every situation. If it's an error in one situation, it should be an error in every situation. I don't want "nice" scorers, I want consistent ones.

But I'm consistent with it!

kaldaniels
09-03-2008, 09:25 AM
Some links for everyone about this play and official scoring in general. The third link is especially interesting to me. It mentions how decisions have been changed mid-game. Could the Brewers have lobbied the call before the game was over?

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2008/09/01/a1c_scorer_0902.html

http://www.niagara-gazette.com/sports/gnnsports_story_189225540.html

http://milkeespress.com/officialscorers.html