Re-Mark-able night in Chicago: Buehrle no-hits Rangers

You have to wonder which Buehrle is going to surface each time he comes to the mound. I seriously doubt he could continue to be as bad as he was last year, and maybe this proves he's back on track. On another note, I'm always amazed when a team with the offensive punch of the Rangers can look so pathetic. Some of these slow starters need to get on the ball, literally.

Posted by dyams at 2007-04-19 07:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm always amazed when a team with the offensive punch of the Rangers can look so pathetic. Some of these slow starters need to get on the ball, literally. But when a pitcher is 'in the zone' like Mark Buehrle was last night, he's practically un-hittable. No team would've gotten a hit against Buehrle no matter how much "offensive punch" the team had. He just threw some filthy stuff~

Posted by BornIcon at 2007-04-19 07:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

I was pretty impressed by what Buehrle did against the Rangers. He faced the minimum thanks to a great pick-off of Sammy and had some great defense behind him. The no-hitter truly was a team effort. Buehrle was just absolutly in command of all his pitches. True the Rangers are off to a slow start offensively, but you cannot take away from Buehrle because of it. He kept the Rangers off-balance and used his fastball well with both his cutter and slider.

Posted by bedgraynexl at 2007-04-19 08:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Mark Buehrle hurled the 16th no-hitter in White Sox history, coming within just one Sammy Sosa walk in the fifth inning of a perfect game, during a 6-0 victory over Texas. Holy shit... Sammy walked?

Posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 2007-04-19 08:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well, to be fair, I'm pretty sure Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory could throw a no-hitter against the Rangers right now. /disgruntle

Posted by Ufez Jones at 2007-04-19 09:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

After watching all 27 outs, I don't think he was unhittable, though he did make almost all of a strong-hitting Rangers lineup look inept. Three or four plays required strong fielding from the third basema and one fly to right field was a well-timed leap that appeared to prevent a home run. Great game. Anyone know if the postgame fireworks were planned? They seemed like a response to the no hitter, which is cool as hell.

Posted by rcade at 2007-04-19 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm always amazed when a team with the offensive punch of the Rangers can look so pathetic. Some of these slow starters need to get on the ball, literally. No team would've gotten a hit against Buehrle no matter how much "offensive punch" the team had. Not diminishing the game Buehrle threw, but look at the Rangers lineup's stats so far this season: Michael Young, .175; Frank Catalanotto, .152; Mark Teixeira, .204, 2 RBI; Hank Blalock, .245, 1 RBI; Kenny Lofton, .240; Gerald Laird, .132; Sammy Sosa, .196. The team is struggling, big-time, no matter how you cut it or who's throwing. A lot of pitchers can appear to have better stuff than they actually do when the other team is slumping. An example is Jeff Weaver last year against Detroit in the World Series. He's a turd but looked like Jack Morris in that series.

Posted by dyams at 2007-04-19 09:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

I can appreciate the stats that you posted dyams but what I actually should've said was that Mark Buehrle was 'lights out' last night. I understand that with the stats the Rangers have so far early in the season, people may interpret that it wasn't necessarily Buehrle's doing in making history but more or less that the Rangers just plain can't hit. Buehrle isn't a strikeout pitcher but he caused so many easy grounders and fly popups that you do have to give him credit for hitting his spots and having very good control. The Rangers may not be the best in the league but they are still a major league team with some credible players that can pretty much get at least one hit a game. Unfortunately for them, they just couldn't produce against him~

Posted by BornIcon at 2007-04-19 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Only two Texas batters even reached a three-ball count.

Posted by Brett at 2007-04-19 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Shame about the one walk- a no-hitter is fantastic, but a perfect game is legendary- there have been what, 16 of them in history?

Ufez Jones: Well, to be fair, I'm pretty sure Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory could throw a no-hitter against the Rangers right now.

I completely agree that absolutely no one could actually hit a pitch from Mark Mallory! Except maybe the right-field ball boy

Posted by Hal Incandenza at 2007-04-19 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Its so weird. Not to belittle Buehrle's stellar feat, but you have to wonder about Texas. Traditionally the Rangers would knock your lights out at bat but the staff was very weak. Last year they finally got decent pitching but the hitting was subpar most of the season.And now, as many of you have pointed out,the deficit continues.

Posted by sickleguy at 2007-04-19 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

there have been what, 16 of them 17. I'm always intrigued by the distribution across years, but I suppose it's actually random and just my human mind trying to dig for patterns.

Posted by yerfatma at 2007-04-19 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

First no hitter in the designated hitter league in five years. Somebody wake up the purists!

Posted by Newbie Walker at 2007-04-19 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wake up the purists for what,Newbie?No hitters and perfectos tend to go in cycles and in April and September. I love to see pitchers bat. Most great pitchers were and are decent hitters.

Posted by sickleguy at 2007-04-19 07:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I completely agree that absolutely no one could actually hit a pitch from Mark Mallory! Except maybe the right-field ball boy Dollars to donuts he could strike out Brad Wilkerson. On four pitches.

Posted by Ufez Jones at 2007-04-19 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Most great pitchers were and are decent hitters. I'm sorry, but that's not true. Based on the Lahman Statistical Database (the 2006 version, I think), the OPS (On-Base + Slugging) for every single player (pitcher or otherwise) in the history of MLB to step up to the plate is .704. Here is a list of every single pitcher (min 500 IP and 300 AB) with a career OPS greater than the league average (out of the 914 that meet the minimum requirements): Name (Birth Year) OPS ----------------------------- Babe Ruth (1895) 1.162 Elmer Smith (1868) .827 George Van Haltren (1866) .800 Wes Ferrell (1908) .797 Rube Bressler (1894) .787 Bob Caruthers (1864) .786 Jack Stivetts (1868) .780 Tom Parrott (1868) .767 Doc Crandall (1887) .767 Joe Wood (1889) .763 Erv Brame (1901) .752 Cy Seymour (1872) .749 Reb Russell (1889) .735 Charlie Ferguson (1863) .734 Ad Gumbert (1868) .724 Jack Bentley (1895) .722 George Uhle (1898) .721 Fred Klobedanz (1871) .711 Schoolboy Rowe (1910) .708 That is 19 out of 914, or just a hair over 2% that qualified. Remember, that .704 OPS value includes pitchers, part-time players and cup-of-coffee appearance from every season, so it's not really a true reflection of an "average" MLB player. It's been almost 100 years since since a decent hitting pitcher has been born (assuming the steady trend of poor-hitting pitchers continues as it has for the last 80 years, and one hasn't been born in the last 20 years that hasn't made it to the majors yet).

Posted by grum@work at 2007-04-19 11:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

I should point out that OBP was calculated with the non-exact formula of (H+BB)/(AB+BB) since sacrifice numbers were often not tracked in the early times of MLB.

Posted by grum@work at 2007-04-20 08:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is what Baseball is all about Buerhle in a contract year goes out and nails a no-hitter way to go

Posted by luther70 at 2007-04-20 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's been almost 100 years since since a decent hitting pitcher has been born That is totally unbelievable. Really. I expected to see a Rick Rhoden or Mike Hampton or Dontrelle Willis on this, but they're not even really close. I guess it really goes to show how much of the talent of hitting comes from repetition -- there have to be pitchers in the majors who at some point in their careers were also better than average hitters even among the population of players who would eventually crack a big league roster. Particularly converted position players like Victor Zambrano (who has 9 career hits). Thanks for the effort, grum. I am blown away by this. Where have you gone, Brooks Kieschnick?

Posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 2007-04-20 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think the biggest issue is that it takes a great deal of practice and dedication to become a quality big league hitter. Travis Hafner will go into the clubhouse to take swings and watch film after his at bats rather than sit on the bench. Pitchers don't have the time to do that. The way the game has developed, pitchers spend all of their time working on their pitching and occasionally fielding. They just don't put that much effort into becoming solid hitters.

Posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 2007-04-20 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Comments