Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
June 29, 2008
No-Hit Loss
Jered Weaver

Jered Weaver
Photo: Icon SMI

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim suffered a 1-0 loss at Dodger Stadium last night, despite collecting zero hits. Jered Weaver and Jose Arredondo combined for eight no-hit innings, but only get credit for a no hitter less than nine innings as the Dodgers score on two errors and a sacrifice fly in the fifth inning.

Chad Billingsley held the Angels to three hits and three walks over seven innings, and all told the Dodgers hurlers struck out ten Angels. That's two days in a row 10 or more LAnaheim players went down on strikes, unusual for a team that prides itself on putting the ball in play.

A no hit loss of less than nine innings happened just three times in the 52 year history of the Day by Day Database. Matt Young lost to Cleveland on 4/12/1992. He walked seven and gave up two runs, both earned. Andy Hawkins threw one on 7/1/1990. He walked five, but three New York errors allowed four unearned runs to score.

It was about that time that Major League Baseball decided that only games that finished with no hits and were at least nine innings would officially be considered no hitters. The record books now make special note of games like the Harvey Haddix and Pedro Martinez contests where they lost no hitters in extra innings (in both cases, perfect games) and put the rain shortened and lost on the road no-hitters into the no-hitters of less than nine innings category. In the history of baseball, this was just the fifth no-hitter loss.


Jeff Weaver wasn't happy about being the answer to a trivia question:

"It's tough, any loss," Weaver said. "It doesn't matter what the line is."

I'm guessing Matt Young is a little happier.

Update: I clarified the no-hit losses I was examining. I was looking for losses where the game didn't qualify for a no-hitter because the team was on the road and the no-hitter didn't go nine innings.


Posted by David Pinto at 08:23 AM | Games | TrackBack (0)
Comments

David, your database should also include Barber-Miller in 1967 and Matt Young in 1992.

MLB's definition of a no-hitter, adopted in 1991, is ambiguous: "An official no-hit game occurs when a pitcher (or pitchers) allows no hits during the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings."

This game DID go nine innings. It says nothing about the pitcher(s) having to pitch nine full innings. A lawyer would have an easy time pressing this argument.

Posted by: Tor at June 29, 2008 09:21 AM

Sorry, you mentioned Young and the total of losing no-hitters (5). But are Barber-Miller 1967 and Johnson 1964 not in the database?

A bit of trivia about the famous Hawkins game: it was double-perfect for 29 outs, making it the second longest double-perfect game on record. Greg Hibbard was the White Sox pitcher.

Posted by: Tor at June 29, 2008 10:08 AM

Tor, your argument makes sense, but Fay "The Power-Abusing Moron" Vincent addressed this specific question at the time, IIRC; apparently, Vincent and the people he put on this terribly important issue decided that the ninth inning was so special and sparkly that a no-hitter couldn't be considered official without it, even if the pitcher(s) had completed the game without recourse to rain or other premature stoppage. Yet another reason to remember the Vincent years with barely restrained nausea and contempt.

Posted by: M. Scott Eiland at June 29, 2008 03:16 PM

I think we're on the same page. I have to agree there's no reason to get too excited about a 5-inning no-hitter, for example. They are a dime a dozen: the odds of a 5-inning no-hitter being completed are roughly 1 in 22. So it's hard for me to justify including on a list of immortal events something that depends on an accident of nature.

However, not including no-hitters that are "short" simply because the home team did not bat in the ninth inning seems wrong to me.

As far as I have heard, no one has weighed in on the following still hypothetical situation: A pitcher loses the game, but not the no-hitter, in the bottom of the ninth (say with 8.2 innings pitched).

Posted by: Tor at June 29, 2008 08:57 PM

M. Scott Eiland:As far as I have heard, no one has weighed in on the following still hypothetical situation: A pitcher loses the game, but not the no-hitter, in the bottom of the ninth (say with 8.2 innings pitched).

Since the game didnt go a full nine innings (54 outs) it is not considered an official no hitter.

Posted by: Jason W at June 29, 2008 10:26 PM

Lots of no-hitters don't go 54 outs, so that's not the right answer. The question is whether a pitcher has to record 27 outs, or whether it would be good enough for the pitcher to pitch in the ninth inning (and not record three outs). I suspect I know the answer, but no one has been able to point me to any official statement.

Adding one more thought to the mix: Throwing out the "long" (extra-inning) no-hitters, where a hit was allowed after the ninth inning, was the real outrage.

Posted by: Tor at June 30, 2008 09:01 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?