The most useless thread in the history of ever.

[Dash Riprock]

I doubt I will ever see a 54-hit complete game shutout, where the winning pitcher did not retire a single batter, but it is entirely possible.

[johnnyg08]

Lock it up.    

[Rich Ives]

I doubt I will ever see a 54-hit complete game shutout, where the winning pitcher did not retire a single batter, but it is entirely possible.

 

I can get to the 54 hit shutout but not the winning pitcher bit. 

[Replacematt]

I have a hunch that the winning pitcher never sets foot on the mound.

[Dash Riprock]

He starts the game, goes the distance, gives up six hits per inning (but no runs), and strands 27 runners.  The opponents bat 1.000 against him.

[Replacematt]

Ahh. I was not appreciating the semantic choice of "batter." That would have been easy to catch.

[Rich Ives]

He starts the game, goes the distance, gives up six hits per inning (but no runs), and strands 27 runners.  The opponents bat 1.000 against him.

 

So in the records it shows he pitched 0 innings?  He was the beneficiary of the 27 outs was he not? 

[Replacematt]

 

He starts the game, goes the distance, gives up six hits per inning (but no runs), and strands 27 runners.  The opponents bat 1.000 against him.

 

So in the records it shows he pitched 0 innings?  He was the beneficiary of the 27 outs was he not? 

 

 

See my post above. He never gets a batter out--just runners.

[Dash Riprock]

If a batter singles and is out trying for 2, did the pitcher retire that batter?