Bunt!!!

[FollyFollyToo]

What? Not that big of a deal? You're kidding right? It's not like this is something that gets done all the time. A no hitter is something special, that's why the HOF has an ongoing exhibit for no hitters exclusively.

A no hitter is a big deal. If an Oriole had thrown one, this board would be ecstatic!!! (Me included).

No, I'm not kidding, I'm sorry if my sentiment offends you. I mean, basically it means the guy pitched a really good game, and all of the hard-hit balls went right to a fielder. I don't really place a no-hitter any higher than any other really well-pitched game. And I'd say the same thing if it was an O's pitcher who threw it. I mean, think of how ridiculous it is that someone COULD bunt and end the no-hitter, or someone could hit a blooper that drops over the shortstop's head. If one of those things happen, did the pitcher have a WORSE game? No.

[ElToro75]

No, I'm not kidding, I'm sorry if my sentiment offends you. I mean, basically it means the guy pitched a really good game, and all of the hard-hit balls went right to a fielder. I don't really place a no-hitter any higher than any other really well-pitched game. And I'd say the same thing if it was an O's pitcher who threw it. I mean, think of how ridiculous it is that someone COULD bunt and end the no-hitter, or someone could hit a blooper that drops over the shortstop's head. If one of those things happen, did the pitcher have a WORSE game? No.

If you say that, it's like saying throwing a perfect game is a pretty good game. In your eyes, what is a GREAT game?

[FollyFollyToo]

If you say that, it's like saying throwing a perfect game is a pretty good game. In your eyes, what is a GREAT game?

Any complete-game shutout is a great game. I don't care if a couple of guys get hits, or if you walk a couple of guys. When you pitch the entire game you give your bullpen rest, and when you don't give up any runs you guarantee your team a win.

[ElToro75]

In your eyes, what is a GREAT game?

Any complete-game shutout is a great game. I don't care if a couple of guys get hits, or if you walk a couple of guys. When you pitch the entire game you give your bullpen rest, and when you don't give up any runs you guarantee your team a win.

So you are lumping all complete games, no hitters, AND perfect games into one category?

[FollyFollyToo]

So you are lumping all complete games, no hitters, AND perfect games into one category?

Yeah, there's just too much flukey stuff that differentiates them from one another.

[ElToro75]

Yeah, there's just too much flukey stuff that differentiates them from one another.

So what "flukey" stuff separates a complete game from a no hitter from a perfect game?

[FollyFollyToo]

So what "flukey" stuff separates a complete game from a no hitter from a perfect game?

No, what I'm saying is that a complete-game shutout is just as good as a no-hitter or a perfect game. If an umpire makes a bad call on a 3-2 count and sends someone to 1st base, that's a fluke that ruins a perfect game, whether it happens in the 1st inning or the 9th inning. If someone bloops a ball into the outfield, or chops it off the plate, and reaches on a "cheap" hit, and it ends a no-hitter, I wouldn't say that it was the pitcher's fault. His job is to allow the least amount of runs. His job is NOT to pitch a perfect game or a no-hitter. In fact, sometimes walks are a necessary evil. If he pitches 9 innings and allows no runs, he had a great game, whether someone got on base or not.

[ElToro75]

No, what I'm saying is that a complete-game shutout is just as good as a no-hitter or a perfect game. If an umpire makes a bad call on a 3-2 count and sends someone to 1st base, that's a fluke that ruins a perfect game, whether it happens in the 1st inning or the 9th inning. If someone bloops a ball into the outfield, or chops it off the plate, and reaches on a "cheap" hit, and it ends a no-hitter, I wouldn't say that it was the pitcher's fault. His job is to allow the least amount of runs. His job is NOT to pitch a perfect game or a no-hitter. In fact, sometimes walks are a necessary evil. If he pitches 9 innings and allows no runs, he had a great game, whether someone got on base or not.

I understand what your saying, that a complete game shut-out is a great game for a pitcher, and I agree that it is quite an accomplishment to do so. I just don't understand how you lump all three together, that's all. I also understand what your saying about the bad call and cheap hits, but that's part of the game. Many things need to come together for a no-hitter to be thrown and even more for a perfect game.

No hitters are rare, only 255 thrown in the history of the game. Perfect games are even more so, with only 17 ever thrown. More people have orbited the moon, than have thrown a perfect game (I borrowed that from Wikipedia ). I think you belittle the accomplishment of those two feats by saying a complete game shutout is "just as good as a no-hitter or a perfect game"

There are 72 pitchers that have as many or more complete games thrown then all 255 no-hitters ever thrown (Link to MLB).

I think we'll both agree that complete games are quite rare these days though, with managers and pitching coaches always too worried about pitch counts and such.

[Jagwar]

I came into this thread late, so forgive me if this has been covered already... but I'm just wondering.

If the O's were up 10-0 against the Red Sox, and Liz had a no-hitter going... How would this board react if Crisp or Pedroia broke up the no-no in the ninth with a bunt?

[JTrea81]

I came into this thread late, so forgive me if this has been covered already... but I'm just wondering.

If the O's were up 10-0 against the Red Sox, and Liz had a no-hitter going... How would this board react if Crisp or Pedroia broke up the no-no in the ninth with a bunt?

If I'm a Red Sox fan, what do I care? My team didn't get no-hit and that's all that matters.

[jjnono]

If I'm a Red Sox fan, what do I care? My team didn't get no-hit and that's all that matters.

JTrea81 -

This is not meant to be personal, but you're sentiment is dead wrong here. Have you ever played the game at a high, competitive level? If you were in the on-deck circle in the 9th inning of a 10-0 game, and the guy in front of you chose to break up a no-hitter with a bunt, you might as well start rubbing your exposed shoulder cuz you're going to get plunked. Simple as that. Down 10-0, bunting is about as low as you can go, a move that would be respected by neither your opponents nor your teammates. The O's may be a very bad team right now, but at least they don't stoop to things like that, just for the sake of not being no-hit. Good for Trembley.

Now, if it were a 1-0 game, or even a 2-0 game, and you have the chance to bring the go-ahead or tying run to the plate, then by all means, do what you can - bunting in that situation is completely justifiable. But down 10-0, a bunt might have incited a riot. Getting no-hit isn't anywhere near as bad as stooping to childish tactics to save nothing more than your own ego. And this sort of stuff gets taught at a fairly early level.

Given the O's level of ineptitude these days, I can certainly understand your sentiment - I didn't like the O's getting no-hit, either - but I'm still glad they went up there in the 9th and took their hacks, rather than try to break up the no-no bid with a cheap and selfish tactic.

[CrimsonTribe]

Heck, why not just keep our bats on our shoulders for the last 3 innings to respect the guy's no-hitter? Sheesh.

[JTrea81]

Heck, why not just keep our bats on our shoulders for the last 3 innings to respect the guy's no-hitter? Sheesh.

After all if you respect the game it treats you right.

So somebody gets plunked, I find that to be sour grapes as my team used the situation and players that it had to its advantage to not be no-hit. But some of you care about the game itself than the Orioles, I think that's obviously clear. I put the Orioles first and the game of baseball itself and all it's unwritten rules second so that's where I am coming from. So that's why I find it extremely disturbing to hear that fans would rather see the Orioles get no-hit then "dishonor" the game.

[CrimsonTribe]

I wouldn't say it cheapens the accomplishment at all. If it were a 1-0 or 2-0 lead, and we still didn't bunt with Roberts or Patterson then that would have cheapened the feat. But the guy pitched a no-no in his 2nd start ever, that's quite an accomplishment.

Can you imagine what Curt Schilling (who lost a perfect game in the 7th when the Padres catcher bunted) would have to say about the Orioles and Trembley if we bunted in the 9th down 10-0? Not to mention what the Red Sox loving ESPN guys would said about our team.

The day I give two @#$%s about what Curt Schilling or ESPN have to say about ANYTHING is the day I jump out my 14th story window.

[Fairfax Bird]

JTrea81 -

This is not meant to be personal, but you're sentiment is dead wrong here. Have you ever played the game at a high, competitive level? If you were in the on-deck circle in the 9th inning of a 10-0 game, and the guy in front of you chose to break up a no-hitter with a bunt, you might as well start rubbing your exposed shoulder cuz you're going to get plunked. Simple as that. Down 10-0, bunting is about as low as you can go, a move that would be respected by neither your opponents nor your teammates. The O's may be a very bad team right now, but at least they don't stoop to things like that, just for the sake of not being no-hit. Good for Trembley.

Now, if it were a 1-0 game, or even a 2-0 game, and you have the chance to bring the go-ahead or tying run to the plate, then by all means, do what you can - bunting in that situation is completely justifiable. But down 10-0, a bunt might have incited a riot. Getting no-hit isn't anywhere near as bad as stooping to childish tactics to save nothing more than your own ego. And this sort of stuff gets taught at a fairly early level.

Given the O's level of ineptitude these days, I can certainly understand your sentiment - I didn't like the O's getting no-hit, either - but I'm still glad they went up there in the 9th and took their hacks, rather than try to break up the no-no bid with a cheap and selfish tactic.

I agree with this ... I don't distinguish between a no-hitter and a one-hitter with a bunt single.

Too many people here are wasting too much emotion on being no-hit. It happens to several teams each year. It isn't that embarrasing. Buchholz is a stud prospect and we had never seen him before so it isn't that suprising that he would have success. A no-hitter is surprising, but he did a great job of keeping his emotions in tact and shutting us down. Good for him.

Now, lets sweep the D-Rays.