
In all seriousness, does anyone recall a worse offensive team than the 2014 Padres? I can't.
Mike
The Padres are hitting .213 as a team. Only the 1968 Mets have hit that poorly (.214) in the last 100 years. This is a historically bad Padres team, but no-hitting them with only one walk is still an amazing feat. Kudos to the man with the cool moustache!!Bronx Yankees wrote:Should Tim Lincecum's no-hitter today get an asterisk because it was against the Padres?![]()
In all seriousness, does anyone recall a worse offensive team than the 2014 Padres? I can't.
Mike
Greg Ambrosius wrote:The Padres are hitting .213 as a team. Only the 1968 Mets have hit that poorly (.214) in the last 100 years. This is a historically bad Padres team, but no-hitting them with only one walk is still an amazing feat. Kudos to the man with the cool moustache!!Bronx Yankees wrote:Should Tim Lincecum's no-hitter today get an asterisk because it was against the Padres?![]()
In all seriousness, does anyone recall a worse offensive team than the 2014 Padres? I can't.
Mike
ToddZ wrote:Padres average 7 hits a game, not 4-5.
Here's a list of all the other pitchers that have no-hit the Padres this year and last.
.
The pressure on the pitcher builds as he gets deeper into a no-hitter because everybody dreams about throwing one. Also, teams don't particularly enjoy the attention that accompanies being no-hit, so they're bearing down to try and break it up.GetALife wrote:Greg Ambrosius wrote:The Padres are hitting .213 as a team. Only the 1968 Mets have hit that poorly (.214) in the last 100 years. This is a historically bad Padres team, but no-hitting them with only one walk is still an amazing feat. Kudos to the man with the cool moustache!!Bronx Yankees wrote:Should Tim Lincecum's no-hitter today get an asterisk because it was against the Padres?![]()
In all seriousness, does anyone recall a worse offensive team than the 2014 Padres? I can't.
Mike
They get two hits out of every ten at bats on average. This would be 6 hits in 30 at bats. Essentially, all Lincecum did was prevent about 4-5 hits they would normally get per game from happening. Is this really such a feat?
I totally agree.ToddZ wrote:For a short spell, I was in the "no-hitters are more luck than anything else" crowd.
Then I remembered I really, really love baseball.
Granted, there's some luck, for sure. I believe a 20-K, 0 BB, 3-hitter is a better pitched game than most no-hitters.
But I really, really love baseball.
And one reason is baseball has more of these unique game events than any other sport. Others are more into the history of the game than I but no one derives as much pleasure from simply watching a game as I do. Stuff like a no-hitter embellishes that.
That said, the attention given for hitting for the cycle is goofy.