A Pitcher Ejected While Pitching A No-Hitter

[EvanJ]

Before Cleveland's Jeanmar Gomez was ejected with no outs in the third tonight, who was the last pitcher to be ejected while pitching a no-hitter?

[Dave Visbeck]

Before Cleveland's Jeanmar Gomez was ejected with no outs in the third tonight, who was the last pitcher to be ejected while pitching a no-hitter?

Seems like a little bit of a stretch to consider a guy that faced seven batters as being on his way to a possible no-hitter ... especially when the game is something like 9- 9 at the moment. Now ... if you're taking about one that was ejected and then the game continues on to end up being a no-hitter, that would be a lot different. I know of the most famous for having had happened. You probably know of that game also.

[JL25and3]

Seems like a little bit of a stretch to consider a guy that faced seven batters as being on his way to a possible no-hitter ... especially when the game is something like 9- 9 at the moment. Now ... if you're taking about one that was ejected and then the game continues on to end up being a no-hitter, that would be a lot different. I know of the most famous for having had happened. You probably know of that game also.

In fact, if we're thinking of the same one, it's considered a perfect game, though it probably shouldn't be.

[hellonewman]

In fact, if we're thinking of the same one, it's considered a perfect game, though it probably shouldn't be.

Actually I don't think that game is officially considered a perfect game anymore. May have been a victim of the early '90s no-hitter/perfect game rules overhaul? Now it's listed as a 2-pitcher no-hitter, I believe.

[Ram Man]

Actually I don't think that game is officially considered a perfect game anymore. May have been a victim of the early '90s no-hitter/perfect game rules overhaul? Now it's listed as a 2-pitcher no-hitter, I believe.

That is correct. Perfect games must be just that ... perfect. No more leadoff walks, followed by a caught stealing and then 26 consecutive outs.

[JL25and3]

Actually I don't think that game is officially considered a perfect game anymore. May have been a victim of the early '90s no-hitter/perfect game rules overhaul? Now it's listed as a 2-pitcher no-hitter, I believe.

Good. In general, I wasn't a fan of that overhaul, but in this case they got it right.

[Jersey Yankee]

Actually I don't think that game is officially considered a perfect game anymore. May have been a victim of the early '90s no-hitter/perfect game rules overhaul? Now it's listed as a 2-pitcher no-hitter, I believe.

Which game are you folks referring to? Details, please.

Also, what would the 6-pitcher no-no that the Yanks endured at home in 2006 during Interleague vs the 'Stros, be called? A 6-pitcher no-no?

[JL25and3]

Which game are you folks referring to? Details, please.

http://miscbaseball.wordpress.com/20...ction-in-1917/

Arguments with umpires just ain't what they used to be.

[Jersey Yankee]

http://miscbaseball.wordpress.com/20...ction-in-1917/

Arguments with umpires just ain't what they used to be.

So Babe Ruth smacked an ump in the back of the ear after being tossed. Wow.

Now if you happen to touch the ump by mistake, they have this ridiculous language of "made physical contact", as if the Heavens had opened up andbecome all hell.

The only other thing I've heard of him being "way out there" was that he should've had more than 714 jacks. I've heard that back in the days, if you hit a walk-off HR and, say, the bases were loaded but your team was only down by 1 run, then the score became only what the team needed to win. So instead of being 8-5, it's only 6-5, and that despite the longball, the hitter got credited with only a double in that case.

[Big_E]

So Babe Ruth smacked an ump in the back of the ear after being tossed. Wow.

Now if you happen to touch the ump by mistake, they have this ridiculous language of "made physical contact", as if the Heavens had opened up andbecome all hell.

The only other thing I've heard of him being "way out there" was that he should've had more than 714 jacks. I've heard that back in the days, if you hit a walk-off HR and, say, the bases were loaded but your team was only down by 1 run, then the score became only what the team needed to win. So instead of being 8-5, it's only 6-5, and that despite the longball, the hitter got credited with only a double in that case.

I believe also, if a HR landed foul (that is curved around the foul pole) it was a foul ball.

[Dave Visbeck]

So Babe Ruth smacked an ump in the back of the ear after being tossed. Wow.

Now if you happen to touch the ump by mistake, they have this ridiculous language of "made physical contact", as if the Heavens had opened up andbecome all hell.

The only other thing I've heard of him being "way out there" was that he should've had more than 714 jacks. I've heard that back in the days, if you hit a walk-off HR and, say, the bases were loaded but your team was only down by 1 run, then the score became only what the team needed to win. So instead of being 8-5, it's only 6-5, and that despite the longball, the hitter got credited with only a double in that case.

Brad, maybe give this a click:

#2292

Did you know that what would have been the very first walk-off grand slam hit by a Yankees player happen on 7/18/1917. Problem was the score against Detroit was 2- 2 when Home Run Baker hit the ball out. He lost 3 RBI and only got credit for a single in the 3- 2 win.

[ymike673]

I believe also, if a HR landed foul (that is curved around the foul pole) it was a foul ball.

At one time if a fly ball hit the foul pole it was only a home run if it landed in fair territory after it hit the pole. If the ball landed in foul territory it was ruled a double. I know this because Ralph Houk once said he was deprived of a home run because of that rule and he never hit a HR in his career.

[hellonewman]

I believe also, if a HR landed foul (that is curved around the foul pole) it was a foul ball.

There's a book from a few years ago called "The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs" that theorizes that the rule you cite cost him, if memory serves, something like 15-20 HRs in 1921. (Don't hold me to that figure, I only skimmed the book. But the author's research suggests that rule cost Ruth dearly during his career.)

[Big_E]

There's a book from a few years ago called "The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs" that theorizes that the rule you cite cost him, if memory serves, something like 15-20 HRs in 1921. (Don't hold me to that figure, I only skimmed the book. But the author's research suggests that rule cost Ruth dearly during his career.)

Yeah, that's the book I learned the rule from. I also only skimmed it.

[JL25and3]

Yeah, that's the book I learned the rule from. I also only skimmed it.

There's a book from a few years ago called "The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs" that theorizes that the rule you cite cost him, if memory serves, something like 15-20 HRs in 1921. (Don't hold me to that figure, I only skimmed the book. But the author's research suggests that rule cost Ruth dearly during his career.)

This book clearly belongs in "The Official 2012 What Are You Only Skimming?" thread.

[Big_E]

This book clearly belongs in "The Official 2012 What Are You Only Skimming?" thread.

Well played.

[Jersey Yankee]

Brad, maybe give this a click:

#2292

Did you know that what would have been the very first walk-off grand slam hit by a Yankees player happen on 7/18/1917. Problem was the score against Detroit was 2- 2 when Home Run Baker hit the ball out. He lost 3 RBI and only got credit for a single in the 3- 2 win.

Thanks. I'd wondered about the accuracy of that info, but since we were in trivia, I figured I had to ask.

What's the name change of that rule? Did they amend some players' contract? Since the rule change occurred in 1920 (or was this 1921?), how many players lost HRs and RBIs?

[Jersey Yankee]

I believe also, if a HR landed foul (that is curved around the foul pole) it was a foul ball.

I may be missing something. Isn't a ball that goes foul of the HR pole always been a foul ball? I thought that anything hitting the foul pole (whether it lands "fair" or "foul" thereafter) was a HR.

[Dave Visbeck]

Thanks. I'd wondered about the accuracy of that info, but since we were in trivia, I figured I had to ask.

What's the name change of that rule? Did they amend some players' contract? Since the rule change occurred in 1920 (or was this 1921?), how many players lost HRs and RBIs?

There is a list of sorts. Have you ever seen it? Lists the players that lost home runs due to the rule, which was a one-run win. They call them Game Ending Hits. Here they are:

Game-Ending Hits

[Jersey Yankee]

There is a list of sorts. Have you ever seen it? Lists the players that lost home runs due to the rule, which was a one-run win. They call them Game Ending Hits. Here they are:

Game-Ending Hits

Thanks, Dave. So Ruth only got one GEH changed from his stats? And that should've been a HR but was dubbed a triple? So he should really have 715 jacks by today's standards then, correct?

[EvanJ]

I may be missing something. Isn't a ball that goes foul of the HR pole always been a foul ball? I thought that anything hitting the foul pole (whether it lands "fair" or "foul" thereafter) was a HR.

What was posted is that now the only thing that matters is whether the ball went in between the poles (HR), off a pole (HR), left of both poles (foul), or right of both poles (foul). Before, a ball that went in between the poles or hit a pole and landed foul after that would be foul. An example is the first ever reviewed home run hit by Alex Rodriguez at Tampa Bay. The ball was fair and the line on the back wall that's an extension of the fair-foul border is irrelevant. Back then, the line on the back wall would have mattered but Tropicana Field didn't exist back then.

[Jersey Yankee]

What was posted is that now the only thing that matters is whether the ball went in between the poles (HR), off a pole (HR), left of both poles (foul), or right of both poles (foul). Before, a ball that went in between the poles or hit a pole and landed foul after that would be foul. An example is the first ever reviewed home run hit by Alex Rodriguez at Tampa Bay. The ball was fair and the line on the back wall that's an extension of the fair-foul border is irrelevant. Back then, the line on the back wall would have mattered but Tropicana Field didn't exist back then.

A ball going between the poles is foul? You'd meant fair, correct? Or did I misread you?

Which line on the back wall? The distance marker showing how deep from home plate? Or some horizontal line designating that any ball passing over it is a HR ball?

[EvanJ]

A ball going between the poles is foul? You'd meant fair, correct? Or did I misread you?

Which line on the back wall? The distance marker showing how deep from home plate? Or some horizontal line designating that any ball passing over it is a HR ball?

I meant that according to somebody else in this topic, a ball going between the poles used to be fair if it landed fair and foul if it landed foul. The line on the back wall I'm referring to is on a stadium wall outside the field, not a line on the wall of the field. You can watch the first ever reviewed home run at https://secure.mlb.com/video/play.js...16587&c_id=nyy and you can see the back wall I'm talking about at the 1:20 point of the video and in more detail at 1:42. At 2:18, Al Leiter pointed out the line I'm talking about.

[Dave Visbeck]

Thanks, Dave. So Ruth only got one GEH changed from his stats? And that should've been a HR but was dubbed a triple? So he should really have 715 jacks by today's standards then, correct?

By today's standards, yes. Ruth would have 13 walk-off home runs made during regular season play, which would put him on top by himself. Jimmie Foxx, Stan Musial, Mickey Mantle, Frank Robinson, and Jim Thome all have 12 regular season walk-off home runs ... as does Ruth. And, as you probably know, Mickey Mantle also hit one in post-season play.