I just want to say that it is crazy to me that both of Braves and the metastases most likely went over 100 games and 1 of them is not going to when the division.

Also, the Braves are going to be a team to reckon with over the next decade. They are not only really good but really young as well.

I was concerned he was even going out for the 6th.

This going down to the last day is going to give me an aneurysm.

But a missed opportunity at a perfect game surely stings nonetheless.

"Nah. No big whoop." -- Clayton Kershaw.

Three years ago, Scherzer would have broiled Showalter with laser beams shot from his eyes and then eaten the carcass on the mound if he tried to take him out.

Hard to overstate how much Max was dominating the Crew. Guys had no clue

There was so much howling in the wake of the Kershaw affair but barely any noise after Max exited last night.

What a difference a few months makes...

#6 L'affaire Kershaw established the new normal.

There was so much howling in the wake of the Kershaw affair but barely any noise after Max exited last night.

I think the "return from injured list" is holding down the uproar.

I think the "return from injured list" is holding down the uproar.

Max's street rep as the ultimate competitor plays into the equation as well. If he appears ok with the decision, then even the back-in-the-day crowd will hesitate.

The Kershaw thing was very different. I thought it was appropriate to take Max out there. He's had dead arm
Twice in the last 12 months and he's old.

The Kershaw thing was very different. I thought it was appropriate to take Max out there. He's had dead arm
Twice in the last 12 months and he's old.

Plus this race is insanely close and the Mets have no other options if he implodes... I don't think there are any particularly good criticisms of this and if anything, they should be commended for taking care of their pitcher. Another kind of decision that is so much easier for a manager like Showalter who doesn't buy into the theatrics of the game and is genuinely invested in his players.

There was so much howling in the wake of the Kershaw affair but barely any noise after Max exited last night.

What a difference a few months makes...

We no longer expect transcendence and joy from modern MLB. They've worn us down.

Twins rookie Joe Ryan had no hits through seven last week. The bullpen got five more outs but gave it up with two outs in the ninth.

We no longer expect transcendence and joy from modern MLB. They've worn us down.

Scherzer starting the 8th inning would have given me the exact opposite of transcendence and joy. It's a team sport. The team winning playoffs and World Series is the transcendence and joy I expect.

In pre-modern MLB we saw things like Mark Fidrych coming back from injury in the middle of his second season, pitching 7 wonderful complete games in eight starts, and then disappearing forever. I kind of prefer the modern regimen in many ways.

The Kershaw thing was very different.

No it wasn't. I'd say it was pretty much the exact same thing. Kershaw's start was his first of the season, after a brief spring training (12 innings in 4 GS). Kershaw is a famously fragile pitcher who, a mere 4 weeks later, hit the IL for over a month and missed another month later. The Dodgers were ahead 6-0 at the time. Even in terms of individual accomplishments, adding a no-no or perfect game (hardly guaranteed with 2 innings to go) wouldn't matter one iota to Kershaw's (or Scherzer's) place in history. Like Scherzer, Kershaw raised no fuss about being removed.

"As much as I would have wanted to do it, I've thrown 75 pitches in a sim game," Kershaw told reporters. "I would have loved to stay, but bigger things."

"Later in the season, when he's a little more built up, I think he goes out there," Barnes said to Mike DiGiovanna of the Los Angeles Times. "But I think that's the right call, taking him out there. It was the right move, for sure. I think he was getting a little tired."

Kershaw didn't crack 90 pitches in a start until July, a month in which he averaged 95 pitches per start ... coincidentally, he hit the IL a second time after his next start.

Finally, while one might easily claim that the Dodgers already knew they'd be making the playoffs (true IMO), they also had finished 2nd in the NLW in 2021 depite 106 wins, a situation much like the Mets face now. They had as much motivation to keep Kershaw healthy in April as the Mets do keeping Scherzer healthy in Sept.

Mature decision-making takes the fun out of everything!

Scherzer starting the 8th inning would have given me the exact opposite of transcendence and joy. It's a team sport. The team winning playoffs and World Series is the transcendence and joy I expect.

Perfect games are considerably rarer than World Series wins. Also, I don't believe those next three innings are any more dangerous than the first three of his next start.

coincidentally, he hit the IL a second time after his next start.

Also coincidentally, he hit the IL a first time when he averaged 81 pitches per start.

We no longer expect transcendence and joy from modern MLB.

In 2021, there were SEVEN complete game no-hitters. Despite the shortened season in 2020, there were 2. There were 4 in 2019. Just one this year.

Quiz time for you folks who experience transeendental joy from such events. I figure every one of you should be able to name at least 10 of those 14 pitchers. (You can police yourselves.)

Is this another one of those things you're going to insist we don't enjoy or notice?

Perfect games are considerably rarer than World Series wins. Also, I don't believe those next three innings are any more dangerous than the first three of his next start.

Oh, well, you have a belief. That changes everything!

I figure every one of you should be able to name at least 10 of those 14 pitchers.

OK. (I named them all "Bob".)

Oh, well, you have a belief. That changes everything!

And what beyond belief exists to the contrary?

In 2021, there were SEVEN complete game no-hitters. Despite the shortened season in 2020, there were 2. There were 4 in 2019. Just one this year.

Quiz time for you folks who experience transeendental joy from such events. I figure every one of you should be able to name at least 10 of those 14 pitchers. (You can police yourselves.)

You do realize there have been more than 10 times as many no-hitters in history as perfect games?

Perfect games are considerably rarer than World Series wins.

But when it came to the idea of potentially seeing the first female MLB umpire you said, "does anyone really care who gets one of 60 jobs in a super-niche profession?" So... some individual, rare accomplishments are good by you, others not. If there's logic to be found here, I can't divine it.

You do realize there have been more than 10 times as many no-hitters in history as perfect games?

Well, okay. But for most teams a WS win is just as rare as a perfect game. Possibly more. Not everybody is the Yankees or Red Sox.

So... some individual, rare accomplishments are good by you, others not. If there's logic to be found here, I can't divine it.

I certainly wasn't part of the ridiculous Anti-Woke Brigade in that thread, but I think you can divine the logic here if you really put your mind to it.

Quiz time for you folks who experience transeendental joy from such events. I figure every one of you should be able to name at least 10 of those 14 pitchers. (You can police yourselves.)

Madison Bumgarner is the only one I can name and he doesn't count.

Perfect games are considerably rarer than World Series wins.

And far more pointless. He could have shared the immortality with Philip Humber.


Also, I don't believe those next three innings are any more dangerous than the first three of his next start.

Thanks, doctor.


And what beyond belief exists to the contrary?

My ballet teacher wife recovering from ACL repair and achilles tendon surgery; general physical therapy procedures.

No it wasn't. I'd say it was pretty much the exact same thing. Kershaw's start was his first of the season, after a brief spring training (12 innings in 4 GS). Kershaw is a famously fragile pitcher who, a mere 4 weeks later, hit the IL for over a month and missed another month later.

I mean, the obvious rejoinder here is "if he got hurt anyway, how much did pulling him early help?"

I'm not posing it as a serious question, necessarily. But it's not obvious to me that removing Kershaw from a prospective perfect game so he would be healthy enough to throw 109 innings this year was the right call.

And far more pointless. He could have shared the immortality with Philip Humber.

I never pegged you for the joyless Brian Kenney type fan.

My ballet teacher wife recovering from ACL repair and achilles tendon surgery; general physical therapy procedures.

Obviously, pitching is inherently dangerous. But I've yet to see any study showing where lower pitch counts has resulted in keeping pitchers healthier than before. Have you?

I get why a Mets fan is more concerned about advancing in the upcoming postseason than any individual player doing something special. I get that. But we're all baseball fans. And we like to see players do great things, and a perfect game or a no-hitter is a great thing. It's far from pointless.

If I were at a game and a pitcher was working on a perfect game or no-hitter and the manager lifted him after seven innings, I'd be pissed at the lost opportunity to see something special. I can't even fathom the fan who wouldn't.

But when it came to the idea of potentially seeing the first female MLB umpire you said, "does anyone really care who gets one of 60 jobs in a super-niche profession?" So... some individual, rare accomplishments are good by you, others not. If there's logic to be found here, I can't divine it.

Because I don't give a damn about umpires. They should be anonymous; we shouldn't even know their names, if they all did their jobs right.

A woman MLBer would be a huge story, rightfully so if she gained it on merit. Of course at this point we're more likely to see man win a bunch of women's Olympic gold medals.

I never pegged you for the joyless Brian Kenney type fan.

I already told you were my joy comes from! I consider this assessment of "you must not care about injury to your players in favor of statistical oddity or you have no joy" to be simply faulty.


But I've yet to see any study showing where lower pitch counts has resulted in keeping pitchers healthier than before. Have you?

I'm not talking about pitch counts in general. I don't understand how one can just say "you can do whatever you want in this type of intense physical activity occupation while recovering from injury". To me it makes no sense in the slightest.


I get why a Mets fan is more concerned about advancing in the upcoming postseason than any individual player doing something special. I get that. But we're all baseball fans. And we like to see players do great things, and a perfect game or a no-hitter is a great thing. It's far from pointless. If I were at a game and a pitcher was working on a perfect game or no-hitter and the manager lifted him after seven innings, I'd be pissed at the lost opportunity to see something special. I can't even fathom the fan who wouldn't.

Sure. But I didn't come after anyone for saying they want that, that they don't care about injury, that they have an inferior priority of concern. I'm being called joyless for wanting a healthy pitcher instead, and I'm simply defending that.

Because I don't give a damn about umpires. They should be anonymous; we shouldn't even know their names, if they all did their jobs right.

So you don't care about umpires but you extend that to wondering why anyone cares if a woman becomes one in MLB. What arrogance, to frame your opinion as the thinking for all.

I already told you were my joy comes from! I consider this assessment of "you must not care about injury to your players in favor of statistical oddity or you have no joy" to be simply faulty.

You said perfect games were "far more pointless." That's BK territory, and that's what I was challenging.

I'm not talking about pitch counts in general. I don't understand how one can just say "you can do whatever you want in this type of intense physical activity occupation while recovering from injury". To me it makes no sense in the slightest.

But we are specifically talking about pitch counts. The reason you lift pitchers in these situations, in general*, is because of a rigid adherence to pitch counts in a desire to protect pitcher health, without the evidence that the extra pitches lead to a greater risk of injury.

Sure. But I didn't come after anyone for saying they want that, that they don't care about injury, that they have an inferior priority of concern. I'm being called joyless for wanting a healthy pitcher instead, and I'm simply defending that.

You said the perfect game was pointless. You dragged in Philip Humber to diminish the accomplishment. You weren't simply defending the idea you want your pitcher healthy.

* In the specific case of Scherzer here, it may be a different story as he's coming back from injury (and he may very well have said he was done, in which case a pitcher should always come out). But snapper is right that the sport has traded the desire for seeing these instances of individual excellence in an effort to protect pitchers without any evidence that the additional pitches lead to greater risk of injury. We see it all the time.

I have a friend who was at the game. He was disappointed to see Scherzer get pulled, but this is the way the game is played in 2022. I just pointed out that he got to see Max Scherzer, who has a date with Cooperstown when his career is over, at his absolutely most dominant peak! That's something to remember.

Do we even know that the MLB executives have primary control on issues like this? I'd think, just like many insurance contracts (and I'm sure Scherzer's is insured given its short length), the insurer has some ability to encourage "positive risk-averse behavior". I know this is the reason the playground my kids used to play at was functionally neutered since removing the "dangerous" items was nearly immediately after a single relatively minor payout because a kid fell off something. I mean, my kids don't play there anymore since they're teens. But, it was still lame and not the borough's call in the end. I called them and the borough manager was like "yeah, we had to remove some items to keep our insurance premiums from going up this August."

Those of you who do not believe that higher pitch counts can translate to higher risk of injury. How sure are you? 100%? 75? 50? Because I don’t know the answer for sure, but if you’re skeptical and acknowledge some possibility you could be wrong, that should change your judgment about what to do too. So do you acknowledge some possibility you could be wrong?

How sure are you? 100%? 75? 50? Because I don’t know the answer for sure, but if you’re skeptical and acknowledge some possibility you could be wrong, that should change your judgment about what to do too. So do you acknowledge some possibility you could be wrong?

Of course we could be wrong. But nothing I've seen actually supports the idea that limiting in-game pitch counts has kept pitchers healthier. So sure, take reasonable precautions when it makes sense.

But don't be a slave to it.

Let me turn this around. Do you acknowledge that you might be wrong? If so, does that change your view on letting a pitcher chase an accomplishment he'd love to get?

* In the specific case of Scherzer here, it may be a different story as he's coming back from injury (and he may very well have said he was done, in which case a pitcher should always come out). But snapper is right that the sport has traded the desire for seeing these instances of individual excellence in an effort to protect pitchers without any evidence that the additional pitches lead to greater risk of injury. We see it all the time.

This should not be a footnote/aside, as this is my entire premise. I'm talking about THIS situation, not random conditional non-recovery situations.


But nothing I've seen actually supports the idea that limiting in-game pitch counts has kept pitchers healthier.

I'm asking legitimately, I haven't kept track, has the whole "Dusty Baker ground his pitchers to dust" narrative been discounted/disproven?


letting a pitcher chase an accomplishment he'd love to get?

Scherzer didn't say boo.

I'm asking legitimately, I haven't kept track, has the whole "Dusty Baker ground his pitchers to dust" narrative been discounted/disproven?

Considering Dusty's actual track record of mincemeating his pitchers isn't particularly notable, it damn well should have been.

Scherzer didn't say boo.

And I haven't made this about Scherzer, who was making his first start after an injury. I know you, as a a Mets fan, are only concerned about him, but what snapper and I are talking about extends beyond him.

To me, the practice of lifting pitchers who are chasing something great, without any evidence to support the increased risk that comes with a high-pitch count game, is just one more example of how the game is becoming a lesser entertainment product.

To me, the practice of lifting pitchers who are chasing something great

If Scherzer went two more innings and pulled himself for feeling a twinge in the side he was put on the IL for fatigue in, would you have thought less of Scherzer for doing the pulling? Would you blame Scherzer or the modern game and, well, me?

If Scherzer went two more innings and pulled himself for feeling a twinge in the side he was put on the IL for fatigue in, would you have thought less of Scherzer for doing the pulling?

I never think less of a pitcher (or any athlete) who takes himself out of a game because he feels fatigue or injury (and, in fact, I said that above). I applaud his good sense.

That's kind of the opposite of what we're discussing here.

I do wonder if the handling of pitchers has convinced them that they are putting themselves at risk if they go past xx number of pitches even if they don't feel fatigued, but I don't think you can necessarily unring that bell.

Anyhow, I get we're talking past each other. With the number of no-hitters over the last five/ten years - even with the obvious greater care and pitch-count watching - I suppose I have a hard time seeing how your joy over this particular accomplishment is under threat.

I suppose I have a hard time seeing how your joy over this particular accomplishment is under threat.

My joy is not threatened at all. I stopped watching three years ago.

But I don't find it difficult to put myself in the shoes of a fan at the game, excited at the prospect of seeing something special happen (and yes, given how pitchers still react to no-hitters and perfect games, it is indeed something special, your personal indifference notwithstanding) and then have yanked away.

I stopped watching three years ago.

- nonplussed face -


But I don't find it difficult to put myself in the shoes of a fan at the game, excited at the prospect of seeing something special happen (and yes, given how pitchers still react to no-hitters and perfect games, it is indeed something special, your personal indifference notwithstanding) and then have yanked away.

Since (and including, so I could get Johann Santana's in there) the 2012 season there have been 36 no-hitters. If you (plural) are upset because you didn't get one, I don't know what to tell you.

Since (and including, so I could get Johann Santana's in there) the 2012 season there have been 36 no-hitters. If you (plural) are upset because you didn't get one, I don't know what to tell you.

Have you ever seen one at the park?

If not, do you think if a pitcher was working on one and the manager lifted him in the eighth because he had reached some pitch count number, you wouldn't be ticked at all?

Have you ever seen one at the park?

Nah. Biggest event I ever was present for was Piazza's 9/11 HR; best pitching performance in person was this combined one-hitter by Jae Seo, Weathers, and Benitez. Seo was removed after 7.1 innings for a split fingernail.


If not, do you think if a pitcher was working on one and the manager lifted him in the eighth because he had reached some pitch count number, you wouldn't be ticked at all?

I would like to see the numbers for no-hitters lifted in the 7-9th innings, actually.

Have you ever seen one at the park?

If not, do you think if a pitcher was working on one and the manager lifted him in the eighth because he had reached some pitch count number, you wouldn't be ticked at all?


I had that happen to me this year. It was Christian Javier vs the Yankees. It wasn't my team, but it still would have been something really special. If he had stayed in, I would have rooted for the no-hitter, and against my team. Of course they pulled him, and the "combined no-hitter" was not special AT ALL.

I would like to see the numbers for no-hitters lifted in the 7-9th innings, actually.

So, I can chalk that up as an "I'd rather not answer."

Perfect games and no hitters (at least solo no hitters) are fun. Combined no hitters are less so. But obviously when Scherzer, we're talking about going for the solo perfect game or no hitter and as a completely neutral third party, and pulling him (and Kershaw and others) is part of the trend that has made baseball far less interesting and joyful.

I was there for Jered Weaver's no hitter for the Angels and I'll never forget it. I think fans deserve that chance. Of course, I do agree with the notion that if a pitcher wants to be pulled, I don't have a problem with the manager pulling him. If that was the case here, then so be it. More likely they had a set pitch limit for Scherzer coming off of an injury. I'm a bit more sympathetic to that, but the general notion to limit starters' innings and pitch counts in the name of health is detrimental to the fun of the game, and seems not to result in fewer injuries.

I doubt I would be ticked off, because I wouldn't know a thing about what the pitcher thought. There is certainly the possibility I COULD be ticked off, but I feel like a have a somewhat wider range of acceptability for reasons to remove a pitcher; just look at what I've written in this thread. And I haven't left baseball fandom in the huff that you have, so I'm not inclined to be as annoyed as you've obviously become.

My position is that the frequency of instances you speak of regarding no-hitters getting pulled at the expense of fans is inflated. This is why I responded as I did with the frequency question, and this is why I think this - So, I can chalk that up as an "I'd rather not answer." - was a bad-faith, "my psychic powers" response.


I had that happen to me this year. It was Christian Javier vs the Yankees. It wasn't my team, but it still would have been something really special. If he had stayed in, I would have rooted for the no-hitter, and against my team. Of course they pulled him, and the "combined no-hitter" was not special AT ALL.

Based on his pitch count average per inning, Javier would have needed 148 pitches to complete the no-hitter. The ESPN recap called him "clearly tired". He was at 91 pitches through six innings and needed 24 pitches to get through the 7th. I just don't feel like your (or all the people on Twitter who agreed with you) opinion on what should have happened has more merit that those playing the game for a living. I'm sorry you all are disappointed, but I do not think it is an empirically superior position over what ended up happening regarding Scherzer, Kershaw, or Javier.

And, to repeat: I don't think you shouldn't be bothered, be as bothered as you want. I just think I (or others) shouldn't be docked for not being bothered. (And I admit, in Scherzer's specific case, being happy he came out.)

Especially by you Junior Circuit fans (or former, I guess, in SoSH's case) who whined and bitched and chipped away enough with your inferior product so long that the magic of Dae-Sung Koo and Bartolo Colon has been lost to us forever!

My position is that the frequency of instances you speak of regarding no-hitters getting pulled at the expense of fans is inflated. This is why I responded as I did with the frequency question, and this is why I think this - So, I can chalk that up as an "I'd rather not answer." - was a bad-faith, "my psychic powers" response.

It wasn't at all.

It was a simple question. You didn't answer it. I don't know why you would need to know the frequency of it happening to know whether you'd be disappointed at the moment. I still don't.

And I don't really understand why you would need to know what the pitcher was thinking - that level of omniscience would seem to preclude you from forming an opinion on a wide range of subjects. You can always revise your opinion of something as more information comes in (you're disappointed at the time, but later find out the pitcher suffered a sudden onset of gout so you say, "Ah, OK. I get it."), but it shouldn't keep you from feeling just because you don't have all the information at your immediate disposal.

And I haven't left baseball fandom in the huff that you have, so I'm not inclined to be as annoyed as you've obviously become.

Not really a huff, just a gradual erosion of interest because of changes in the game I abhor. The snail's pace. The all-or-nothing approach at the plate that leads to lots of Ks, lots of homers and few things happening on the bases. The blow torch to the minor leagues. Playoff expansion. Zombie runners (pretty much the entire Manfred Experience). And when the Sox decided they just had to save some scratch and dumped Mookie, the most likable and talented player the club has produced in my lifetime, I kind of lost my interest in following at the team level as well.

But please keep in mind, I haven't left baseball. I've left MLB. The two aren't the same.

Especially by you Junior Circuit fans (or former, I guess, in SoSH's case) who whined and ####### and chipped away enough so that the magic of Dae-Sung Koo and Bartolo Colon has been lost to us forever!

Oh yeah. That one too.

How the hell is anyone still an MLB fan?

By the way, you picked the wrong two AL fans to single out as pro-DHers.

How the hell is anyone still an MLB fan?

I'm still a fan, but I rarely watch or attend games. I follow it almost entirely through "print" media, and my roto/dmb leagues. The game on the field just sucks as entertainment, for a myriad of reasons.

By the way, you picked the wrong two AL fans to single out as pro-DHers.

Yup, I'd abolish the DH if I could.

Noted.

Of course we could be wrong. But nothing I've seen actually supports the idea that limiting in-game pitch counts has kept pitchers healthier. So sure, take reasonable precautions when it makes sense.

But don't be a slave to it.

Let me turn this around. Do you acknowledge that you might be wrong? If so, does that change your view on letting a pitcher chase an accomplishment he'd love to get?

Of course it could be wrong, but if you might be wrong you also have to acknowledge that this is a situation that screams for erring on the side of caution: Ace-level starter on a team heading to the postseason in two weeks, just off the IL, they were up five runs, Scherzer already has a no hitter (though no perfect game). Don't be a slave to your speculative view either.

Of course it could be wrong, but if you might be wrong you also have to acknowledge that this is a situation that screams for erring on the side of caution

Already acknowledged multiple times. This is not just about him.

Not really a huff, just a gradual erosion of interest because of changes in the game I abhor. The snail's pace. The all-or-nothing approach at the plate that leads to lots of Ks, lots of homers and few things happening on the bases. The blow torch to the minor leagues. Playoff expansion. Zombie runners (pretty much the entire Manfred Experience). And when the Sox decided they just had to save some scratch and dumped Mookie, the most likable and talented player the club has produced in my lifetime, I kind of lost my interest in following at the team level as well.

But please keep in mind, I haven't left baseball. I've left MLB. The two aren't the same.

I'd like to co-sign every word of this and include first and foremost MLB jumping into bed with Big Gambling (or is that just part of "the entire Manfred Experience"?).

But thanks to Topps and Strat-O-Matic, I can get all the baseball fix I need while paying negligible attention to contemporary MLB.

Not really a huff, just a gradual erosion of interest because of changes in the game I abhor. The snail's pace. The all-or-nothing approach at the plate that leads to lots of Ks, lots of homers and few things happening on the bases. The blow torch to the minor leagues. Playoff expansion. Zombie runners (pretty much the entire Manfred Experience). And when the Sox decided they just had to save some scratch and dumped Mookie, the most likable and talented player the club has produced in my lifetime, I kind of lost my interest in following at the team level as well.

I will not dispute the validity of these complaints. I'm just not driven away so far.

I'd like to co-sign every word of this and include first and foremost MLB jumping into bed with Big Gambling (or is that just part of "the entire Manfred Experience"?).

Yes, but it absolutely deserves its own sentence.

MLB deciding to copulate with gangsters - i mean gamblers is the most seriously bad thing that the manfred gang has done. i mean, even worse than getting the stupid dh in the NL. yall ever think youd hear me say THAT???

i mean, us uns here are the definition of baseball die-hard fans. and look at us. i don't know who is watching any more. who even has cable any more? so many people are blacked out of their team it is DUMB. if i travel north of huntsville i can't watch the astros (i mean, if i was still a fan) the pace is SOOOOOOOO boring. i miss roy oswalt/mark buehrle games. yes. my lawn is needing folks offn it. they better hope that the new pitch timer helps

they have GOT to make broadcasts available to more people. people under 50 don't use cable and old folks are dying out. WHO do they think is watching????

#63 This is the kind of thing cricket faced a while back. Young people were increasingly not watching test cricket. I think cricket adapted intelligently with limited overs format. Test cricket is still a big deal, but the limited overs format (I think) got people in the habit of watching and a lot of them stayed with the game.

No idea what baseball is going to do, and I suspect the game will continue to do well financially for the foreseeable future. But they do have to be concerned about the long run. (For the reasons you mention)

Or maybe not. Failing to think about the long run is pretty common after all.

But I don't find it difficult to put myself in the shoes of a fan at the game, excited at the prospect of seeing something special happen (and yes, given how pitchers still react to no-hitters and perfect games, it is indeed something special, your personal indifference notwithstanding) and then have yanked away.

Why does this particular something special warrant these sorts of dramatics? Why not the rarer feat of 21 strikeouts, which pitchers are pulled from all the time, a feat they and the fans could certainly react to?

If he's sitting at 699 home runs, under what circumstances could the Cardinals pull Albert Pujols from a game without inspiring these "the people in the park had a historical moment yanked away" concerns?

Or how about this: Judge goes absolutely nuts and after a HR in the 6th inning of the last game of the season is sitting at 72 HRs with the Yankees up 15-0. But that hit also gives him a .001 lead in BA for the triple crown, and every other game is over.

Pulling him means everyone in the ballpark doesn't get a chance for him to see him try for the special 73 (and possibly 74) home runs. But, leaving him in means he could lose the Triple Crown, which would retroactively take away the special moment we just witnessed where he secured the Triple Crown. Which special moment gets priority?

Why does this particular something special warrant these sorts of dramatics? Why not the rarer feat of 21 strikeouts, which pitchers are pulled from all the time, a feat they and the fans could certainly react to?

That sucks too.

Does that help?

If he's sitting at 699 home runs, under what circumstances could the Cardinals pull Albert Pujols from a game without inspiring these "the people in the park had a historical moment yanked away" concerns?

It's not the same. Albert sitting at 699 homers will still be sitting at 699 homers the next time he plays, rather than a single-game accomplishment that gets wiped out at game's end. That being said, I'd probably be disappointed if he was pulled and I was at the game.

Or how about this: Judge goes absolutely nuts and after a HR in the 6th inning of the last game of the season is sitting at 72 HRs with the Yankees up 15-0. But that hit also gives him a .001 lead in BA for the triple crown, and every other game is over.

It depends. Did everyone in the stadium know before his last at bat that a hit would win him the Triple Crown? Retroactive understanding is not quite the same as the thrill of knowing you're watching history as it unfolds.

I know you really don't share this feeling, but the truth is most baseball fans and baseball players love no-hitters/perfect games, and they do so in a way they don't feel about big K games. We can tell that by how they react to the successful completion of them (Go watch the Cubs players' reaction to Wood's 20 Ks. It's not the kind of celebration that a no-hitter/perfect game typically gets).

From a fan's perspective (and maybe from the players as well), it probably has something to do with the fact there is pressure on every single pitch, every single PA in no-hitters/perfect games, a tension which doesn't exist in all of those other things you mention. If you're at 19 Ks and you give up a two-out single, it does nothing to hurt your chances of getting 20.

From the hitting side, I think the pursuit of a consecutive hit streak would be the closest thing to a no-hitter/perfect game for that kind of tension, but it's been a long time since we've seen a decent-sized one.*

* That's something I just realized. When was the last time there was a relatively long hitting streak?

Edit: Giving it more thought, speaking for me, I'd want to see Judge go for 73 even if it cost him the Triple Crown. It's the tension and the anticipation that you might see something historic that appeals to me, not being able to brag to others I saw it. But I don't know how many others would share that POV.

Why are different things different?

Pulling him means everyone in the ballpark doesn't get a chance for him to see him try for the special 73 (and possibly 74) home runs. But, leaving him in means he could lose the Triple Crown, which would retroactively take away the special moment we just witnessed where he secured the Triple Crown. Which special moment gets priority?

If he gets to 73 he wins the triple crown too.

If he fails to hit 73 he deserves to lose the triple crown because he sucks.

I know you really don't share this feeling, but the truth is most baseball fans and baseball players love no-hitters/perfect games, and they do so in a way they don't feel about big K games. We can tell that by how they react to the successful completion of them (Go watch the Cubs players' reaction to Wood's 20 Ks. It's not the kind of celebration that a no-hitter/perfect game typically gets).

Eh, I don't think that's necessarily right. A no-hitter celebration is built on the suspense and subsequent release - no one knows for sure if it's going to happen until the second it does. Whereas with a big K game, it's something that builds throughout the game, and everyone knows it's happening as they go along. I think that accounts for a lot of the difference in celebration.

EDIT: I see you already kind of addressed that. Half a Coke to you.