It's times like this that I wish I were rich enough to be more powerful.

If I was, I would have quickly purchased a fainting couch specializing furniture company, bribed MLB to uphold the Mets protest, and then gotten even richer.... at which point, I'd buy MLB, reverse the decision, and point out the "no returns" policy we have on fainting couches.

I had something to say on this, but after reading #1 I'm really just confused.

With the way he's been pitching, he'll come close to another no-hitter again really soon.

That's an interesting notion, can a league sell itself or is the league owned collectively by the owners are members?

We wouldn’t have had to wait another 50 years.

Good Lord, don't even say that.

well, they still haven't had a no-hitter.

I KEED.

This seems dumb. You were already gifted one no hitters, why push your luck. Call it even and move on.

This entire thread seems afflicted with dysphasia.

I can't help but root for R. A. Dickey, he seems like the anti-Swisher.

"There's nothing wrong with a 1-hitter there, Barbie. In fact, it's miraculous. And I won't have you, of all people, cheapen what should be an endless pursuit of perfection just because you want the world to laugh with you tonight. Now, call it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIXBYZzBgus

+1 for Scrubs reference.

I can't figure out which is dumber: the idea that the Mets protested, or the idea that the Mets thought it was an error.

That was a hit 100%. It's not even the slightest bit debatable. Wright tried to make the only play he thought he could make: the barehand. Failing to barehand that ball is never an error.

Never. Ever. Ev-ah.

I can't figure out which is dumber: the idea that the Mets protested, or the idea that the Mets thought it was an error.

That was a hit 100%. It's not even the slightest bit debatable. Wright tried to make the only play he thought he could make: the barehand. Failing to barehand that ball is never an error.

Never. Ever. Ev-ah.

I couldn't agree more, and was surprised so many people thought it was an error after the game (and I'm a guy who thinks that way too many balls are scored hits that should be ruled errors).

But in this case, I don't see it. It's possible that Wright didn't need to make a barehanded stab to get Upton. But that decision isn't one the scorekeeper can evaluate (at least in a case like this). So the scorekeeper is simply left with a third baseman trying to make a barehanded play, which is never called an error (an assessment I'd agree with).

And Boteman's use of the Perry Cox quote really is on point when it comes to my distate for the Mets' protest. I'm glad R.A. wasn't comfortable with it either.

+1 for Scrubs reference.

Indeed. That show had a two or three year run of the most consistently and witty show on TV. Then it faded fast.

I think the Mets should get an Appeal Without Merit penalty and have Johan's no-hitter taken away. It's the only way they'll learn.

I couldn't agree more, and was surprised so many people thought it was an error after the game (and I'm a guy who thinks that way too many balls are scored hits that should be ruled errors).

But in this case, I don't see it. It's possible that Wright didn't need to make a barehanded stab to get Upton. But that decision isn't one the scorekeeper can evaluate (at least in a case like this). So the scorekeeper is simply left with a third baseman trying to make a barehanded play, which is never called an error (an assessment I'd agree with).

Well, I score games all the time, and I disagree. And certainly just because a player tries to make a barehanded play doesn't mean it couldn't be an error. That's some horrific logic (and I know you were just going along with Ray).

Could the play be made with ordinary effort? I think yes. It is not wholly unreasonable to say Upton beats the throw so it isn't error, but I don't think it is wholly unreasonable to think he doesn't.

We've heard it said, if the same play happens in the 7th (or 8th or 9th) inning and the play gets scored as an error, because its a no-hitter. That so many people can be so sure it was a hit and would always be so, but also so sure that it would be scored an error at a different point in the game - well, I don't know how they live with that kind of internal inconsistency.

...but I don't think it is wholly unreasonable to think he doesn't [beat the throw].

Not wholly, but mostly? If he has an 85-95% chance of beating the throw, that's a damned easy scoring call as a hit.


That so many people can be so sure it was a hit and would always be so, but also so sure that it would be scored an error at a different point in the game - well, I don't know how they live with that kind of internal inconsistency.

I guess I don't know the percentages of how many people think this sort of thing, but no matter how many do it's a rather stupid set of things to take as complete facts.

Chris, #13, there is no way in hell that play is an error. It is ludicrous to suggest it.

It would be a hit in the first inning. It would be a hit in the ninth inning. If someone scores it an error because there happens to be a silly no-hitter going on, then shame on them.

Upton hit the ball, he's a fast runner, and he had a great chance of beating it out no matter what Wright did. Wright knew that, which is why he tried to barehand it.

That. Is. A. Hit. And the _only_ reasonable way to score it is as a hit. It would _not_ be reasonable to score it as an error. Some plays could reasonably be scored either way. This was not one of them.

Well, I score games all the time, and I disagree. And certainly just because a player tries to make a barehanded play doesn't mean it couldn't be an error. That's some horrific logic (and I know you were just going along with Ray).

And I said that "in a case like this." If a second baseman tries to make a barehanded play on a routine groundball and botches it, by all means its an error. But that wasn't the case here.

Was Wright's belief that he needed to make a barehanded play reasonable? The answer is clearly yes (that belief may have been wrong, but it was a reasonable assessment of the play at hand). With that in mind, was this an error? And I don't care what inning this is, what the pitcher is doing or any other nonsense, a ballplayer who tries to make a barehanded stab and fails to do so is never charged with an error, and for good reason. It is not considered ordinary effort.

+1 for Scrubs reference.

Yes sir. "Scrubs" is up there with "Seinfeld" and "The Simpsons" in my personal canon.

If Upton had hit that ball in the seventh or eighth inning of a no-hitter, Wright would have made sure to really kick it badly so that it wold be scored an error. Not sure that's much basis for an appeal, though.

The official scorer should be replaced by a robot!

Hit all the way. I just don't know what their point was, especially since Dickey didn't seem to want it pursued. They just looked dumb. It seemed like a George Steinbrenner thing to do.

Scrubs had excellent characters, jokes, and lots of visual humor (to this day, sitcoms don't exploit the visual dimension as much as they could; the generic sitcom is still a radio show at heart). It jumped the shark, but what sitcom didn't? (Barney Miller and WKRP, I know …)

I'll never understand what it was that people saw in "Seinfeld". But I liked "Scrubs" for a while.

I'll never understand what it was that people saw in "Seinfeld".

Themselves.

That. Is. A. Hit. And the _only_ reasonable way to score it is as a hit. It would _not_ be reasonable to score it as an error. Some plays could reasonably be scored either way. This was not one of them.

Still no.

Not wholly, but mostly? If he has an 85-95% chance of beating the throw, that's a damned easy scoring call as a hit.

Okay, but is that nit really necessary to pick?

Was Wright's belief that he needed to make a barehanded play reasonable? The answer is clearly yes (that belief may have been wrong, but it was a reasonable assessment of the play at hand). With that in mind, was this an error? And I don't care what inning this is, what the pitcher is doing or any other nonsense, a ballplayer who tries to make a barehanded stab and fails to do so is never charged with an error, and for good reason. It is not considered ordinary effort.

Lots of things aren't considered "ordinary effort".

Wright was slow to judge the ball hop. He judged that he needed to barehand it. He then dropped it. Maybe he didn't need to barehand it.

Wright was slow to judge the ball hop. He judged that he needed to barehand it. He then dropped it. Maybe he didn't need to barehand it.

Still no.

Seattle just called up Oliver Perez. Exciting times to be hitting in the AL West...

I just watched the video for the first time. After reading about the play a lot, I am genuinely surprised to find that I agree with Dial. I don't think it was a "hit all the way" by any means. That was an easy hop and very few men would have barehanded it. I know that Upton's fast, but it looks to me that a normal effort could have easily made the out. I think it's pretty solidly in the territory of "could've been called either way." I think it's Wright's poor decision in barehanding it that is prejudicing people into thinking that it was a tougher play than it really was.

Scrubs had excellent characters, jokes, and lots of visual humor

And Sarah Chalke.

If Upton had scored that inning, I bet it would have been changed to an error a few innings later.

Since errors are subjective, a batted ball cannot be wrongly called as a hit vs. Error.
But in any case i think that play is called a hit by typical scorers 9 times out of 10

Since errors are subjective, a batted ball cannot be wrongly called as a hit vs. Error.

This is nonsense.

If Upton had scored that inning, I bet it would have been changed to an error a few innings later.

I seriously doubt that. It could have been changed to an error a few innings after that when it was the only hit Dickey yielded, and there's no any evidence the scorekeeper considered changing it. I can't see why he would have done it for a simple earned run.

I think the first season of Scrubs is the best season of a comedy in television history.

I think the first season of Scrubs is the best season of a comedy in television history.

Everyman is entitled to his opinion , but can I am going to have to go and disagree there !!!

Sarah Chalke is a underrated hottie. Alison Brie on Community is another one.

I know that Upton's fast, but it looks to me that a normal effort could have easily made the out.

I just don't think these two sentiments reconcile at all. It is because Upton is fast that a normal effort would not easily make the out.

Not again! Ervin Santana is perfect through six.

Not anymore.

Thank heavens! Justin Upton broke up the perfect game with a clean single with one out in the seventh.

Through 6.2 now. And Hammel threw a one-hitter for Baltimore today.

Yeah, someone flirting with a no-hitter once a week reduces the uniqueness of it.

Its on the hitters to get more hits. We need to see more cycles, just like the old days.

Its on the hitters to get more hits. We need to see more cycles, just like the old days.

Holliday screwed it up today, needed the triple for the cycle and hit it a little to far inside the line that it wasn't able to get into the corner and was stuck with a double.

I know that Upton's fast, but it looks to me that a normal effort could have easily made the out.

I just don't think these two sentiments reconcile at all. It is because Upton is fast that a normal effort would not easily make the out.

Allow me to rephrase the first: even acknowledging the fact that Upton is fast, it looks to me like a normal effort should have had him.

Allow me to rephrase the first: even acknowledging the fact that Upton is fast, it looks to me like a normal effort should have had him.

And it looked to David Wright -- the actual expert on fielding third base in the major leagues, reacting to the batted ball in real time -- like a normal effort would not have had him.

And it looked to the official scorer -- considering the play contemporaneously without visions of a silly, dime-a-dozen no-hitter dancing in his head -- like the ball was a hit.

This isn't actually debatable, to anyone but a contrarian, or to someone who is unable to read the play objectively because of the silly no-hitter issue. There _are_ some instances where appealing to authoritiy (here, to David Wright on the question of whether the only way to get the speedy Upton was to try for a barehand) is valid.

Even MLB Network has switched into silly mode by publicizing "Pitcher X has a NO HITTER going into the 5th inning..."

I think what's getting lost in the clamor to claim a no-hitter or a perfect game after 5 or 6 innings is that, just like we were instructed by our forefathers in 1991, it really doesn't amount to the same thing as a complete game no-hitter or perfect game. THAT is what makes it so special.

Consider that the hitters have seen the same pitcher 3 or 4 times around and know what he is throwing, how well is throwing it in this game, what his arm slot looks like, what his sequencing is (some of this includes the catcher as well), and probably other things of which I'm not even aware. Getting through 9 innings like that seems to require a "perfect storm" of a pitcher who is dead on his game and 9 or more hitters who are off their best game. I submit that this is much easier and therefore more common, as evidenced by recent proclamations of no-nos through, 5 or 6 innings than it is to carry through the entire game.

I have a pet theory that the top shelf pitchers sometimes (often times?) struggle to get through the first inning, then settle down in the 2nd or 3rd inning and actually appear to get stronger and better through the later innings. I can really sink my teeth into such games. Strasburg and Zimmermann both come to mind in recent games, Verlander was throwing 101 mph to his final batters last week, other examples exist I'm sure. If a pitcher can get through the early innings and keep cranking it up, then you're watching yourself one heck of one hell of a ballgame.