Unwritten Rule

[Kevin]

5 hours ago, Hot Damn! said:

Thanks for the recap. I feel like I’m all caught up now. 

Not quite. You need to read the thread Geoff created about how his work trip to Chicago was ruined due to some guy and he had to order room service. Shouldn’t take you more than a week. Week and a half tops.

[Torridd]

17 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

I personally 100% reject any validity of a "combined" no hitter.  The bottom line is neither pitcher pitched a no hitter.

It is about as stupid and meaningless as a "combined cycle" for the starting LF and the guy that replaced him in the 8th.  The bottom line is neither hitter hit for the cycle.

Combined no-hitter means literally nothing to me.  Nothing.

I would agree if the starter only pitched a couple of innings because of injury and then a load of relievers continued the game. But if the starter pitches 6 or so and the reliever finishes it off, I think that's legitimate.

[the dude abides]

Holy crap!  HD sighting.

[red321]

Looking forward to people crying about someone breaking up a no hitter by taking the ball the opposite way against the shift to break up a no hitter.

[Torridd]

12 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

It doesn’t surprise me that the majority of fans don’t give a shit unless it happens to one of their own players. 

Suppose Trout had the opportunity for a Historic Night (all-time RBI record in a single game only needing a hit in his last AB) and the game is a blowout ... then the pitcher decides to put him on intentionally for no reason at all but only to deny him. 

There are unwritten rules in baseball  ... like it or not

That's different, Troll. That's just being spiteful. The hitter just wants a hit.

[floplag]

12 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

It doesn’t surprise me that the majority of fans don’t give a shit unless it happens to one of their own players. 

Suppose Trout had the opportunity for a Historic Night (all-time RBI record in a single game only needing a hit in his last AB) and the game is a blowout ... then the pitcher decides to put him on intentionally for no reason at all but only to deny him. 

There are unwritten rules in baseball  ... like it or not

any player that has a chance to do something historic, should do so based on the full effort of the other team.... no part of it at any times first of 9th inning should be assumed or handed to them... if it is then it has no meaning. 

[Stradling]

13 minutes ago, floplag said:

any player that has a chance to do something historic, should do so based on the full effort of the other team.... no part of it at any times first of 9th inning should be assumed or handed to them... if it is then it has no meaning. 

Are you saying that if a team doesn’t try to bunt against the pitcher late in a no hitter the team isn’t giving a full effort?  

[floplag]

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Are you saying that if a team doesn’t try to bunt against the pitcher late in a no hitter the team isn’t giving a full effort?  

Not specifically trying to bunt of course not, I expect a team to do whatever they have to do to not get no-hit, whatever that means in that situation.   If they cheat back thinking you wont bunt because of some unwritten rule, then bunt.   Do whatever it takes to break it up.   

[Troll Daddy]

52 minutes ago, floplag said:

Not specifically trying to bunt of course not, I expect a team to do whatever they have to do to not get no-hit, whatever that means in that situation.   If they cheat back thinking you wont bunt because of some unwritten rule, then bunt.   Do whatever it takes to break it up.   

Sounds like butthurt logic ... the only reason to bunt is to to try and break up the no hitter. Why not just man up and try to get a hit. There would be more satisfaction in breaking up the no hitter imo. 

Btw I’m not referring to the posted article. That wasn’t a individual no hitter. 

I’m not understanding your opinion on the Trout example?

What’s important is the players and managers  understand the unwritten rule. I believe they all do. 

[arch stanton]

Only a true simpleton would think the only reason to bunt is to break up the no hitter. It takes base runners to score runs and it takes runs to win games and YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME 

[Troll Daddy]

1 minute ago, arch stanton said:

Only a true simpleton would think the only reason to bunt is to break up the no hitter. It takes base runners to score runs and it takes runs to win games and YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME 

Yet the unwritten rule lives on in today’s game 

[floplag]

30 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Sounds like butthurt logic ... the only reason to bunt is to to try and break up the no hitter. Why not just man up and try to get a hit. There would be more satisfaction in breaking up the no hitter imo. 

Btw I’m not referring to the posted article. That wasn’t a individual no hitter. 

I’m not understanding your opinion on the Trout example?

What’s important is the players and managers  understand the unwritten rule. I believe they all do. 

That isnt the only reason, but if the guys stuff is THAT good it may be the only way.
Its not in a vacuum... you do whatever it takes, whatever that means.  bunting is within that scope.

[Troll Daddy]

21 minutes ago, floplag said:

That isnt the only reason, but if the guys stuff is THAT good it may be the only way.
Its not in a vacuum... you do whatever it takes, whatever that means.  bunting is within that scope.

You may be right but players see things differently 

[floplag]

Just now, Troll Daddy said:

You may be right but players see things differently 

I dont think they do... pitchers might, batters dont.  Thats the pitchers problem if he thinks people shouldnt do everything possible to ruin his no-no then hes asking for a handout. 
When i played this is how i thought and those who i played with thought, of course i never got near the pros. 
If a pro thinks hes owed an easy path to history, he needs to get over himself .

[HaloMilliVanilli]

2 hours ago, red321 said:

Looking forward to people crying about someone breaking up a no hitter by taking the ball the opposite way against the shift to break up a no hitter.

Exactly.  Don't care what the score is, what inning, etc.  Opposing batters job is to get on base.  If bunting will do that, I'm all for it.  You never know what little thing will start a rally.  Can you imagine telling Vince Coleman (or some other legendary speedster leadoff type who could bunt well and utilized it frequently) you can't bunt this time.  Just make sure you don't bunt.  Might've been just as successful bunting and getting on as swinging away.

[Torridd]

1 hour ago, arch stanton said:

Only a true simpleton would think the only reason to bunt is to break up the no hitter. It takes base runners to score runs and it takes runs to win games and YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME 

What's wrong in just trying to break up a no-hitter even if you can't win? Hitters do that all the time in blowouts.

[Torridd]

Also, I played a lot less ball than floplag and I would not want to make the last out in a game. 

[arch stanton]

4 minutes ago, Torridd said:

What's wrong in just trying to break up a no-hitter even if you can't win? Hitters do that all the time in blowouts.

There’s no game you can’t win. As long as you have outs you have life 

[WeaverFever]

Picture this.... 9-0 game and the home team is leading with two outs in the top of the ninth. Jared Weaver is looking for his for his first perfect game. The trouble is he can’t find the strike zone. The count is 3-1 and the pitch is way outside. Does the batter swing? 

[floplag]

41 minutes ago, Torridd said:

Also, I played a lot less ball than floplag and I would not want to make the last out in a game. 

Not sure what i have to do with that one but i dont think anyone wants to do that in any game at any level.

[Dtwncbad]

9 hours ago, Torridd said:

I would agree if the starter only pitched a couple of innings because of injury and then a load of relievers continued the game. But if the starter pitches 6 or so and the reliever finishes it off, I think that's legitimate.

Nope.  6 innings of no hit ball is not a no hitter.  And neither is 3 innings of no hit in relief.

A no hitter is a pitcher pitching a complete game and giving up no hits.

Can you hold your breathe for 2 full minutes?  Doesn't count if you hold your breath for 90 seconds and your buddy then takes over for the last 30 seconds.

Honestly I can't imagine how anyone can see it any other way.

[Troll Daddy]

6 hours ago, floplag said:

I dont think they do... pitchers might, batters dont.  Thats the pitchers problem if he thinks people shouldnt do everything possible to ruin his no-no then hes asking for a handout. 
When i played this is how i thought and those who i played with thought, of course i never got near the pros. 
If a pro thinks hes owed an easy path to history, he needs to get over himself .

Pro’s know there’s no easy path to ML baseball ... what’s that go to do with unwritten rules. I’m not to so that laying down a bunt to break up a no hitter will get them any farther in their career. 

I get your point but the unwritten rule still stands with players. 

[floplag]

58 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Pro’s know there’s no easy path to ML baseball ... what’s that go to do with unwritten rules. I’m not to so that laying down a bunt to break up a no hitter will get them any farther in their career. 

I get your point but the unwritten rule still stands with players. 

Some, obviously not all or we wouldnt be having this discussion 

[Stradling]

13 hours ago, floplag said:

Not specifically trying to bunt of course not, I expect a team to do whatever they have to do to not get no-hit, whatever that means in that situation.   If they cheat back thinking you wont bunt because of some unwritten rule, then bunt.   Do whatever it takes to break it up.   

They cheat back to have wider range on balls hit to prevent base hits.  So no, they don’t really play back because of some unwritten rule.

[floplag]

9 hours ago, Stradling said:

They cheat back to have wider range on balls hit to prevent base hits.  So no, they don’t really play back because of some unwritten rule.

i wasnt suggested they did due to the rule, you are looking for something to argue about here. 
bottom line i have no issue with a team doing anything possible to not get no hit whatever the circumstances.