Ernie Shore Perfect Game?

[Brian McKenna]

It was a combined no hitter. That is all.

What's the confusion? As KCGHOST says this is all it ever was or will be.

It doesn't matter if Shore retired 27 straight men. He didn't start the game - ergo there is no question that he can't obtain anything but a shared so and so. No complete game could be registered the moment Ruth was tossed out.

Ruth put the first man on; hence, it never was nor could it ever be a perfect game. That day a man reached first - the opportunity for a perfect game died at that momemt. No way, no how can a perfect game be logged.

Fortunately for Shore Ruth walked the first batter (keeping the no-hit possibility alive) or he wouldn't even be mentioned today except as a side note.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

im unfamiliar with this game, how did Ruth do before being ejected and how long had he been in there?

and who threw the walk, Ruth?

Let's get you familiar.

It was June 23, 1917 at Fenway Park against Washington. In the outing before this one, also umpired by Owens, Babe threw a complete game 3-1 victory with six strikeouts and no walks. In previous outings, he had began to complain about bad calls though. So...Babe throws three balls and has some words for Brick Owens, who, no doubt, had words back to Babe. So Babe got back on the mound and threw the fourth pitch, also called a ball. Babe walked toward the plate and said something to the effect of "Keep your damn eyes open!", to which Owens replied something like, "Get your ass back out there and pitch or I'll run you out of the ballpark!" Ruth then said that if Owens ran him, he'd take a punch at him on the way out of the yard, and Brick immediately threw him out of the game. That's when Babe charged at him, but at this time, it wasn't just the two of them. Infielders had come in, and catcher Chet Thomas (who also got thrown out), was there as well. Babe threw a wild punch that most accounts say glanced off the back of Owens' head. So, Thomas was replaced behind the dish, and the manager asked Shore, who had just thrown two days earlier, to fill in while another pitcher had time to warm-up. We know what happened from then on out.

[rugbyfreak]

[QUOTE=bkmckenna;958234Ruth put the first man on;[/QUOTE]

For the record, the leadoff hitter was Ray Morgan.

[Yankwood]

Absolutely not!!! And the simple logic is, "If I'm on the Senators and got a man on base, that means you didn't pitch a perfect game against me. Hence, how can you have pitched a perfect game?"

[Wade8813]

Was it a perfect game? No. Was it close enough that he gets just as much credit IMO? Absolutely.

I'd also give him just as much credit if it was a 2-2 tie and he came in the 4th inning, and pitched 9 complete innings of perfection because they went into extra innings.

[rugbyfreak]

Absolutely not!!! And the simple logic is, "If I'm on the Senators and got a man on base, that means you didn't pitch a perfect game against me. Hence, how can you have pitched a perfect game?"

Except for one thing: That man (Morgan) got on base against Ruth. So yes, the Bosox didn't pitch a perfect game against the Senators, but Shore, having retired 27 men in a row himself, IMO, gets a personal perfect game.

So it isn't the straight, conventional perfect game, the way the others are. But an allowance has to be made for this unique case, which doesn't fit the usual mold, but qualifies in every other way. I think MLB had it right all those years, giving it to him. Now, I believe, they have taken it away, right? (With that "redefining" process that took place a few years ago.

I believe they also took away Haddix', which has always been a real heartbreaker, but understandable, since he didn't win the game. Shore won his, in nine innings. Give the man what's his!!