Psssssssst 2021

Ford Frick's Asterisk

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
896
No I know it's never called, I just wanted to get it on the record that I think that guy's a dick.
The pitch wasn't in the strike zone nor was any part of Perez, so the only thing to call was a hit by pitch. Also, Perez didn't know he'd broken up a perfect game until after he was hit. He was only aware Rodon had a no-hitter going.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
35,582
Hartford, CT
The pitch wasn't in the strike zone nor was any part of Perez, so the only thing to call was a hit by pitch. Also, Perez didn't know he'd broken up a perfect game until after he was hit. He was only aware Rodon had a no-hitter going.
Yeah, Perez didn’t do anything wrong.

But no effing way he wasn’t aware of the perfect game, regardless of what he says.
 

Ford Frick's Asterisk

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
896
It's what he said to the Indians broadcast team immediately after the game. I don't think he cares about making any sort of PR points in that scenario. Players have said the same thing after similar games... it's not like they're listening to the broadcast or looking at all the stats throughout the game and the opposing catcher has other things on his mind. It's really not that surprising.
 

GrandSlamPozo

lurker
May 16, 2017
45
The pitch wasn't in the strike zone nor was any part of Perez, so the only thing to call was a hit by pitch. Also, Perez didn't know he'd broken up a perfect game until after he was hit. He was only aware Rodon had a no-hitter going.
The batter can still be refused first base if he doesn't try to avoid being hit, regardless of whether the ball or the batter is in the strike zone

This is the MLB rulebook wording:
6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when—

(b) He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (1) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (2) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball;

If the ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a strike, whether or not the batter tries to avoid the ball. If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a ball if he makes no attempt to avoid being touched.
 

Ford Frick's Asterisk

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
896
The letter of the law is kind of irrelevant when it's enforced 0% of the time. Just a few innings earlier in that very same game, Adam Eaton stuck his arm in the strike zone to successfully get a HBP. You can't call it when there's no reason to other than a no-hitter is going on after you just ignored an egregious case of it less than an hour earlier. Eaton's already done it again today and was rewarded again. He shouldn't even be in the game after he caused both benches to clear in the first inning today by grabbing Andres Gimenez's leg and then jumping up and shoving him after he was thrown out trying for a double.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
53,892
In case anyone isn't paying attention, Gallen and Bumgarner both pitched against the Braves today, seven inning games obv. So the Braves totalled one hit and no runs in 14 innings, that is a seriously frustrating day.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,340
Nashua, NH
In case anyone isn't paying attention, Gallen and Bumgarner both pitched against the Braves today, seven inning games obv. So the Braves totalled one hit and no runs in 14 innings, that is a seriously frustrating day.
In high school I played in a 14 inning game that I was DH'ed for. 14 innings in left field with no at-bats. At least they got to try.
 

Brand Name

make hers mark
Staff member
Dope
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 6, 2010
3,454
The Land of Thomas Cecil
The history of the faux-no: This is the 38th such instance going back to 1884. This is game number four nullified due to planned shortened IP, joining Fred Dupree Shaw in 1885, 5 IP, Jake Weimer in 1906, 7 IP, and Ed Karger in 1907, in a 7 IP perfect game.

Hearing talks MLB wants to give MadBum his today. If they do, that’s fine, but they also need to award these again too, as they did before 1991. Literally the same circumstances of designed doubleheaders meant to go seven innings in each game. I don’t agree with the overturn based on weather and darkness cases. But they’re opening a huge statistical can of worms if they do this.

To clarify because it’s complex to me: I think the rule is horseshit. But based upon existing criteria, unless you overturn the criteria too, I don’t think you can/should overturn.