Sorry you missed it - there's always the MLBTV archives right? Or someone surely taped it. Or... well, I guess you had to be there.

Baseball's a crazy game. Dodgers have been on the frustrating, wrong end of things quite a few times this season; nice to be on the right end for once.

Tonight was only the third game in Dodger Stadium history in which the Dodgers did not get a hit (Mercker, Martinez).

Besides, you have a perfect monument to this game in the last comment thread. Many's the time I missed a special game, but got to experience it vicariously through the words of our little DT-Town's denizens.

And as I also said before but this time mean it, night all! Go Minotaur.

This stuff about not calling it a no-hitter is just stupid. I understand not giving someone a no-hitter when they allow a hit in extra innings. But if it's no hits over a complete game, it's a no-hitter.

"I'm pretty excited. It's like we're going to the playoffs or something."

But I do kind of see the point here about not calling it a no-hitter. The Dodgers did not make 27 outs. They made 24. If a pitcher pitches no-hit ball for eight innings and comes out of the game, he hasn't pitched a no-hitter. I don't know that I agree with it, but I'm just making the point.

Does your generosity of spirit in the update above extend as far as this?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BOS/BOS200610010.shtml

Still, i suspect the dodgers and snakes will separate themselves from the rest and might actually catch up in the wild card race.

Personally, this is the closest to a no hitter I've ever watched live. Now I just gotta see an official one once.

289 "I'll give credit to Kemp for have the skill set of Pierre. But he made the play at the plate much closer than it should have been. If he continues to play that casually he's going to have a moderately successful career in Kansas City or Pittsburgh."

Well, maybe. But the thing you're criticizing Kemp for is something that affected the game not one whit. And thus doesn't support an argument that Kemp didn't help win the game.

Should Kemp have run harder on the sac fly? Yeah, maybe. I don't think the play was as close as you seem to think it was. Guerrero made the best throw humanly possible and still there was no semblance of a play at the plate. Kemp had zero chance of getting thrown out on that play.

And the notion that Kemp isn't a hustler is false, anyway. "Casually" is the word that best describes the exact opposite of Kemp's playing style. When was the last time he didn't bust his butt on an actual play? The guy hustles. A lot. More than most guys on the team. And often hustles too much for his own good. The idea that lack of hustle will land him in Pittsburgh or Kansas City is laughable. His attitude, if it gets worse, might land him in one of those places. His poor plate discipline might, also. But a lack of hustle? Not a chance in the world.

(Our man, incidentally, just got referred to on SportsCenter as "Matt Camp.")

The important thing is not that we didn't get a hit but that we have won two games in a row against an AL team, a division leading AL team, the best road record in baseball AL team, our interleague rivals, and we did it by holding them to zero runs over two games.

Good thing because Lackey might throw a real no no at us.

Just my opinion though.

The rule already says exactly that, actually. "A game of at least 9 innings." The official interpretation of which is, games like tonight's don't count. But it's just another of the hundreds of examples of baseball rules that are poorly or ambiguously written.

They need to blow up the whole rule book and start over, basically.

that said, I agree with 25 's logic.

10 Jon, why is it "stupid"? In both instances, the pitcher is being "punished" for his hitters not having scored enough so that he might simply do his 9 and be done with the thing. The "lost the no-no in extras" has a better case since, well, how many no-hitters have been lost in the 9th?

"Lost in the Ninth
No-Hitters Broken Up in the Ninth Inning Since 1961"
http://milkeespress.com/lostninth.html

http://milkeespress.com/lostninth.html#summary

Is a dog with three legs not a dog? Do the Angels get .889 losses tonight? No. It's a game. They allowed no hits. It's a no-hitter.

And unless they change the rule to prevent complete games and shutouts being allowed for games less than nine innings, there is truly no argument that a no-hitter should be nine innings.

As for it being a rare achievement, it's not as if baseball would be flooded with no-hitters that weren't nine innings.

He can do a 10 minute Mickey Rivers shuffle walk to the dugout after he scores the run for all I care.

Just focusing on shortstop and Furcal, some quick and dirty numbers indicate that if Furcal plays about 65-70 games and has about 250 AB's-decent probabilities, and hits 300 during that time, he would have 75 hits and based on his career ratio of hits to extra base hits his extra base hits would equal 25. It would then work out to about 14 2b, 7 HR and 4 3b's. I am not factoring in walks.

If he even comes close to these numbers, even 10% less this is a big upgrade over the current SS situation. If Jones can just add some power and Nomar can add a total of 25-35 hits as a PH and utility, hopefully replacing Sweeney, the Dodger hitting improves dramatically without doing too much damage to the team.

Obviously the outfield will be the most complicated, and JP will still get too many AB's, but if Jones were to hit 15 HR's in the remaining 60 or so games he will play that would be a net plus for a team that is power starved!

9/24, Dave Stieb, Toronto at Cleveland, Julio Franco (2 out-1 hit total)
9/30, Dave Stieb, Toronto vs. Baltimore, Jim Traber (2 out-1 hit total)

In my mind, shutouts and complete games should have to go 9 innings as well. I'm not sure why they are not for the same reasons I list for a no-hitter.

Ten since 1956, to be exact. Tonight was actually the first time it's happened and the pitcher hasn't finished the game.
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/VJgX

Jon will keep on fighting the good fight to restore the Perez brothers to their rightful place in the baseball universe.

Sorry I don't mean to be testy but the odds are high that if 27 batters were faced it would not be a no hitter. Just think of all the no hitters that have been broken up in the 9th inning.

Has Weaver commented on coming out yet? Not that he would have ever been in the position, but Jeff Weaver would have had a tizzy if he were taken out in that situation.

"Since 1961, approximately 50 percent of no-hitters carried into the ninth made it through the ninth. After the first out of the ninth is recorded, the percentage increases to between 60 and 65 percent. And no-hitters that are still alive with two out in the ninth have a survival rate of nearly 80 percent"

Free Harvey Haddix!

You can't give up a hit and pitch a no-hitter. It's, like, a rule or something.

and boy do I love beating the angels

Look, if it bothers people that I call the rule stupid, I apologize. But it is a big inconsistency in the rulebook. You guys talk about fairness, but it's an unfair rule. You're penalizing a pitcher or a pitching staff who did everything possible to not allow a hit.

I suppose you're right, but my lord. 36 up, 36 down. Wow.

I'm on the side of calling it a real no hitter if the game goes the official distance or more precisely the winning team gets 27 outs. No rain-shortened no-hitters but in my opinion this one should count.

This may sound low, but it's not something that should be unexpected. Assuming the average hitter gets a hit 26-27% of the time, the chance of a hit in a given inning would be around 60%. Of course, given that the pitcher made it to the ninth without giving up a hit, it is more likely that they are a good pitcher, so 50% sounds about right and history shows evidence of that.

Haddix walked Hank Aaron intentionally to face Joe Adcock. The righty slugger finally collected the Braves' first hit when he launched a walk-off homer over the fence, making Haddix the hardest-luck loser of all time. Adcock's hit was confusing, however, because County Stadium had two fences, one that served as the outfield fence and another behind it. Aaron "saw the ball hit a fence and thought it was the front fence and assumed the ball was still in play," Burdette recalled. Thinking he could stop running once the winning run scored, Aaron peeled off toward the dugout. Adcock was thus called out for passing him on the bases. Instead of 3-0, the official score became 1-0.

A few observations and shout outs, met Ken Noe and his wife and son, Ken was wearing his official gear. We had a nice chat at the Top of Deck store. I'll let his describe his first thoughts as entered Dodger Stadium for the first time, all I can say is that it would be something for me to capture that first feeling I had when I saw it.

The Dodgers did do a good job of working the count and seeing pitches against Weaver through the first 4 innings, the inning they scored actually went pretty fast.

I mentioned this to a few folks but I'll repeat here for everyone, as some may know, today the Dodgers had their salute to the 1970's Dodgers and several were at the game (and an earlier lunch).

One who was not at the earlier event was Bobby Welch. When they introduced the players, they all went out to their positions, and some of them as they walked out, they would wave towards the visitor's dugout since several members of the Angel's coaching staff are former Dodgers.

So Bob Welch walks toward mound to greet the other 70's pitchers and then he makes right turn and starts walking toward the Angels' dugout.

I'm watching this from my seat and I notice a figure clad in a red jacket, walk out of the dugout and meet Bob Welch a few feet onto to the field. It was Mike Scioscia, who proceeded to give Welch a huge bear hug and Mike was genuinely happy to see Welch. Welch greeted Ron Roenicke and the others and then he went back onto field.

I was really touched by that gesture by Mike Scioscia and it will be lasting memory of seeing Mike hugging Welch that I will take away from today's game.

I also saw Bill Russell greet Duncan before heading out onto the field.

I just feel that it's unfair to a pitcher who gives up a hit in the 9th to lose a no-hitter when another pitcher lucky enough not to have to pitch 9 innings does get credit for one. And I'm simply waiting for evidence that would refute that feeling.

To me it's akin to Weaver pitching 8 no hit innings tonight and leaving after 8 innings (leading 5-0) because of a high pitch count and still getting credit for a no-hitter whatever the outcome of the 9th were to provide.

And who cares, he only pitched six innings so your feeling bad for a guy who was only able to pitch 6 innings. 6 innings. A gazillion pitchers have pitched a no hitter for 6 innings. A combined no - hitter should mean squat. Hardly an accomplishment.

Did Don Sutton have any broken up in the 9th? I seem to remember he pitched several one hitters.

-- Kemp's squib could have been fielded and Weaver could have thrown him out. He didn't because Weaver took his eye off the ball watching Kemp race to the bag. If it had been a slower runner, Weaver could have made the play with time to spare. It was an error, but an error forced by a baserunner's skills.

-- As great as Vlad is, he had no chance whatsoever to catch Kemp. Kemp ran fast enough to assure the run, and wouldn't have needed to slide.

To sum up:

Official scorer: Correct
Kemp: Manufactured the run with speed and aggressiveness.
DeWitt: Hit the fly ball far enough so that Kemp's run was unavoidable.

Your Weaver analogy doesn't work because a no-hitter is a full game. No one on either side of this debate is saying that it isn't.

And as long as you don't feel it's unfair for a pitcher to pitch nine shutout innings but not get a shutout if it goes into the 10th, I also don't think your argument holds water. You're making arbitrary judgments instead of looking at things objectively. Game played. No hits allowed. Therefore, no-hitter.

I mean, what's less fair - a team getting credit for no-hitting the Dodgers over eight innings, or a team not getting credit for allowing one hit to the '27 Yankees over nine innings. You seem to be concerned with posterity, but throughout baseball history, it's always been this: You play the cards you're dealt.

I would like it interpreted that way.

You're making a subjective judgment about no-hitters - and that's fine. Anyone can decide for themselves the worth of an achievement. For that matter, A's fans can decide that tonight's Angels win doesn't count because it came against the lowly Dodgers.

But the record book should be objective. The record book counts a win against the Reds the same as a win against the Red Sox. If it's an official game, then everything in it should be official. You shouldn't get to say that this counts but that doesn't.

Did anyone see Lou Pinella's little "pep talk" to his pitcher Sean Gallagher today? Wow, that was a fast little "What the bleep are you doing?!" kind of one-sided chat.

--

84 On SportsCenter Tim Kurkjian said he thought Scioscia made the right call, fwiw. Obviously if they were tied, he would've left him in there, but he had to get something going and Weaver isn't exactly Babe Ruth at the plate. I think he made the right call.

Okay, one more time... night all!

4 games
Sept 1966 (starters were Osteen, Drysdale, Koufax, Moeller, all against Houston)

3 games
July 1991 (Ramon, Orel, Ojeda; these were the 3 games preceding El Presidente's perfecto)
Sept 1988 (Tudor, Orel's 4th straight SHO, Belcher; this streak started 2 games after Tom Browning's perfect game)
May 1983 (Welch, Fernando, Pena)
July 1960 (Drysdale, Craig, Williams, all against Philadelphia)

I suspect Martin's going whether he's elected or not.

I don't see it that way. No one is taking a win or a loss (as you say the most important thing) away because it didn't go 9 full innings. They are saying that it simply is not a no-hitter if ithe pitcher does not pitch 9 full innings and have the game end after 9 innings.

You're making arbitrary judgments instead of looking at things objectively. Game played. No hits allowed. Therefore, no-hitter.

I'm not making arbitrary judgements. I'm simply looking at the rule. A pitcher has to record a minimum of 27 outs for it to be a no-hitter. More if the game go's longer then 9 innings. ANd mind you, that rule applies to every pitcher. Not just some.

For some of us, it's the 27 outs that separates the no-hitter from not being a no-hitter. When you consider 1/2 of all no-hitters taken onto the 9th have been broken up, it only magnifies the justification of this rule.

You seem to be concerned with posterity, but throughout baseball history, it's always been this: You play the cards you're dealt.

And the cards say a minimum of 27 outs. Every pitcher gets those same cards.

Stan from Tacoma

I have no problem with this. Sometimes you lose the no-hitter because you give up a hit in the 9th. Sometimes you lose it because your team didn't score any runs. It's a team sport and sometimes personal stats are dependent on other people.

2) But just for argument's sake, let's say they changed it and it said "a no-hitter is any official game with no hits." Five innings, eight innings, whatever. Would you guys then support that side "because that's the rule"?

Stan from Tacoma

1) By this rule, a pitcher who throws fewer than nine no-hit innings...is not credited with a no-hitter

2) No, I would not supoort it.

Let's leave it at that.

Have a good night all!

1) 9 innings = 27 outs. The rule certainly implies the team throwing the no-hitter has to pitch 9 innings at least. I would support ammending the rule to clarify that.

Kemp just shakes people up when he is on the basepaths. Last night the third baseman made an ill advised throw trying to get Kemp at second base. Tonight, the pitcher hears Kemp coming up the basepath to first and the pitcher takes his eye off of the ball because Kemp is near and Kemp is safe at first. Then Kemp attempts to steal second and the catcher overthrows to center field and Kemp winds up on third base. That's plenty of hustle right there. DeWitt with the sac fly and Kemp scores easily.
What a fun game tonight. It's always more fun when you win.

Eric is otherwise correct, as the game only is supposed to go 9, ie., the rule appears to concern only the shortened game.

And from Plaschke, we get this:
"The Dodgers did not bat in the ninth inning, thus they did not get 27 plate appearances, thus it is not an official no-hitter."

He's right, of course. The Dodgers didn't have 27 plate appearances. They had 29.

I agree. His strikeouts have been very low since coming back which tells me his stuff isn't up to where it was pre-surgery. Hopefully today's outing is indicative of him coming back strong in the second half. If he does, he definitely regains top prospect status in the org.

However, I had about the best possible excuse. I was watching Jason Schmidt's rehab start with the 51s in Fresno. A few scattered thoughts on the game and Schmidt:

It was my first time in Chukchansi Park. I loved it. Nice tight fit within the urban grid, and with modern amenities. It's a great place to watch a game.

It was an odd game. Three hit batters in the first two innings. The first Dodger run scoring on a balk. The first Fresno run taken off the board when the homeplate umpire ruled that a runner at first had been doubled up before the lead runner crossed the plate. A 9-6 force play. It was a fun ballgame, filled with curiosities.

I have absolutely no scouting skills, so take this with appropriate skepticism, but I thought Schmidt looked fairly well along in his rehab. He spotted the fastball moderately well. When he missed, he missed within the strike zone. Some of those misses were hit hard, and his defense came to his rescue, but he wasn't far off. His breaking ball didn't bite a couple of times, staying well high, but still not bad for a month-long layoff.

Oddly, Jason Johnson, who replaced Scmidt in the third, pitched similarly, missing in the zone with the fastball and out of the zone with the breaking pitch, although his breaking balls were more likely to miss low.

I've seen Jason Repko twice this season, and each time he played out of his head. Three-for-five tonight with a pair of doubles, each hit a solid line drive. Another ball barely foul down the third-base line that would have been a third double. A bit sloppy in center, but he still looked like someone who could help as a fourth outfielder. I'd swap him for Pierre tomorrow.

Good night for John Lindsay with two long homeruns. The first was probably 380 feet. It was the second that was really impressive, perhaps traveling 440 feet. It hit the top of the restroom in left-center, about 50 feet beyond the wall. It struck the skylight on top of the restroom, throwing years of dust in the air which was illuminated by the light coming up through the skylight. Sort of a mini-version of "The Natural".

Overall, a great night to be a Dodger fan. And then I learned what I had missed.

Sometimes in life, you miss things like this. Oh well.

He's like Silent Bob, but different.

Since everyone has weighed in on the no-hitter definition, I will decline comment for fear of getting someone angry.

There you go.

We have issues we need to work out.

I think I will refuse to listen to the song "Hang on, Sloopy," which is the official rock song of Ohio, as a sign of protest.

That'll show 'em.

Oh, and Bob, according to Rule 10.22(c)(2), one Akinori Iwamura was last year's American League fielding champion at 3B given that he had enough qualifying games and had the highest fielding average of all who qualified at 3B.

Interesting debate: my gut instinct is to say it "should" be a no-hitter, but 81 for instance is rather persuasive. But as Haddix and Ernie Shore indicate, we can still recognize great/amusingly noteworthy achievements without "official" backing...What's the 4+1 game?

if it was the Red Sox or the Yankees, ESPN would be all over it, and MLB would recognize it...that's just the way things are these days

It makes me wonder on a mass level why these players generate such disdain.

regulation games include: full 9 inning games (home team loses); extra inning games (either team wins after the 10th inning or beyond); or 8.5 innings (need not bat in the bottom of the ninth, or uses only part of it's inning).

The way I read it, there are three ways for it to be a regulation game, the minimum requirement for a regulation game is that the game get through the top of the ninth.