1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

1917 on this date entry for June 23

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Big Buckin' agate_monkey, Jun 22, 2007.

  1. Big Buckin' agate_monkey

    Big Buckin' agate_monkey Active Member

    Buckweaver, can you provide more info about this?

    1917 -- In baseball’s greatest relief effort, Ernie Shore of the Boston Red Sox retires all 26 batters for a 4-0 victory over Washington. Shore relieves Babe Ruth with nobody out and a man on first, who was cut down stealing.
  2. Birdscribe

    Birdscribe Active Member

    Actually, I can. BBAM.

    Ruth walked the Senators' leadoff hitter, Eddie Foster. Ball four apparently pissed the Babe off, since -- according to sportswriter Fred Lieb's account -- Ruth walked toward the plate and went off on umpire Brick Owens.

    "What was wrong with that last one? Can't you see, you blind bat?"

    Owens told Ruth to get back to his position. The Babe wouldn't let it go, finally punching Owens in the neck. Naturally, this got Ruth tossed.

    Enter Ernie Shore... and exit Foster, who was thrown out trying to steal second. Shore then retired the next 26 batters for a "perfect" game. Originally, it was considered a perfecto, but when baseball revised its rules several years ago, it somehow ceased to be one, since Shore didn't retire 27 batters.
  3. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    It is, however, still considered a combined no-hitter. Definitely the most unique one.

    It's not a perfect game because, well, a Washington runner reached base. Not Ernie's fault, but hey, a rule's a rule.

    Speaking of those rules, baseball revised (clarified, actually) its rules on no-hitters in 1991. To be official, a no-hitter/perfecto:

    1) has to finish as a no-hitter/perfecto (this rules out Harvey Haddix's gem, Pedro vs. Padres in '95, etc.)

    2) has to go 9 innings (ruling out Andy Hawkins' 8-inning loss in 1990, and various other rain-delayed 5-, 6- or 7-inning no-nos.)

    Doesn't diminish their performances, by any means. But some people got in a snit about it anyway.
  4. CentralIllinoisan

    CentralIllinoisan Active Member

    I disagree with baseball's ruling that an eight-inning no-hitter isn't considered a true no-hitter. It certainly should have an asterisk, but he allowed no hits in every inning he had the opportunity to pitch. Same with rain-shortened, etc. They should be marked somewhere in the record books.
  5. chazp

    chazp Active Member

    1917 is also the year, the White Sox, before they became the Black Sox won the World Series. Shoeless Joe was on world championship team.
  6. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    You don't say?
  7. pallister

    pallister Guest

    Shut up, Doc. You're just jealous!
  8. yes, it's true. In other news, there was also a war going on.
  9. Big Buckin' agate_monkey

    Big Buckin' agate_monkey Active Member

    Didn't some boat sink that year too?
  10. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Ahh, nobody's going to forget Andy Hawkins, no matter what the "official" book says.

    Besides, who has a copy of "the record books" anyway? ;D
  11. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  12. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member

    Well damn.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page