Talk:List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have thrown an immaculate inning

Untitled

On August 23rd, 2001, Randy Johnson pitched a 5-1 loss to the pirates, not the Cubs. I can't tell from a box score at baseballreference.com if he struck out the 3 batters in the 6th on 9 pitches or not, but the score does say they all struck out. On the 18th, he pitched a 5-3 win over the cubs, but the 6th inning did not end in 9 pitches. This article should be cross-referenced more thoroughly as this is the second error in data I've seen. Found another error, Magnete pitched vs. the Rockies.... Mtxchevy 15:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah dude,i was reading randy's wiki page(says 2),followed the link and he only has 1(on here) and its not the same year,i'd fix it but i aint wiki-compatable.

On August 23, 2002, Johnson struck out 3 batters on 9 pitches in the 6th inning of a 3-2 win over the Chicago Cubs, becoming the 30th pitcher in major league history to accomplish the nine-strike/three-strikeout half-inning.(randy johnson RULES!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Johnson

Where's Gibson on the list?

The trivia section mention's Bob Gibson a couple of times, yet he's not listed on the chart, is there a reason for that? Darwin's Bulldog 07:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Im not one to talk, but is this

?

Lynn McGlothen's Immaculate Inning

I was attempting to use www.retrosheet.org to fill in some of the missing opposing batters information. It turns out that on August 19, 1975, McGlothlen did strike out three batters in the second inning [1]. However, because Tony Perez singled to begin this inning, I do not feel that he has truly acheived this feat, which requires complete nine pitch domination in one, immaculate, inning. I have e-mailed the errors department at Baseball Almanac about this potential error. Until that issue is resolved, I have deleted McGlothen's inning from this page.Mehmattski 04:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I reduced the total count to 39. --Xenod 06:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hod Eller

I found some more information on immaculate innings via this 2004 article in Baseball Digest: [2]. From the text:

"Hod Eller of the Reds is listed in the Baseball Record Book as having fanned three batters on nine pitches in the ninth inning on August 21, 1917, but research in the New York Times box scores for that date indicates that New York Giants outfielder Joe Wilhoit led off the inning against Eller with a bunt single."

The article also has information on Lynn McGlothen's supposed immaculate inning, as well as hitters for Rube Waddel's feat. So now, the only immaculate innings for which the batters are unavailable are Clarkson's and Ragan's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmattski (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No fouls and no swing

Does anybody have any information on in which of these occurrences the batters didn't even touch the ball once? Additionally, occurrences where the batters didn't even attempt to swing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.51.233 (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ryan/rookie

Wasn't Ryan a rookie when he accomplished it in 1968? He was only up for a cup of coffee in 1966, and did not play in the majors in 1967. In fact, I thought 1969 was his official rookie year.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

just saw "immaculate inning" for 1st time

I do not recall seeing that term before. My only question is: Is there any name given to going through an inning (getting 3 outs) on just 3 pitches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

1985 World Series

It says at http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Danny_Jackson that Danny Jackson struck out the side on nine pitches in Game Five of the '85 series, bottom of the seventh. This would be the only time it happened in a World Series. Can someone come up with a corroborating citation? Ellsworth (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the boxscore from Jackson's immaculate inning, proving he did indeed fan the side on 9 pitches: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SLN/SLN198510240.shtml ereaven 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Preposition?

I known nothing whatsoever about baseball, but from an English-language point of view, "struck out three batters on nine pitches" sounds wrong to me. Is this some special baseball lingo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.220.139 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Inadequate Definition

Striking out three batters on nine consecutive pitches is the definition given for an "immaculate inning". However, if the first pitch thrown in an inning was a ball, or even a hit, and all subsequent pitches were strikes, the definition given would still be satisfied. I suggest that the first paragraph be revised to stipulate that the pitcher only threw nine pitches during a half-inning, each of which was a strike, thus striking out the only three opposing batters. TCav (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not true – the pitcher would not be able to strike out three batters in that inning if that were the case. Every single one of those nine pitches, therefore, needs to be a strike. There's no need for further stipulation, as it is already implied by the fact that a pitcher needs to throw only strikes to get the 3 Ks. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If the first batter got a hit off the first pitch, and the next nine pitches were all strikes, striking out the next three batters, the definition of an immaculate inning given in the body of this wiki would be satisfied. Therefore, the definition is inadequate unless it specifies that ONLY nine pitches were thrown during the inning.TCav (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The definition in the list is "three batters on nine consecutive pitches in a half-inning". Under your hypothetical situation, there would be 10 pitches needed to be thrown in a half-inning, which is not what the definition entails. Unless, of course, you're trying to argue the Chris Stewart method of striking out on two pitches. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If the intent of this page is to describe pitchers who threw an immaculate inning, why is that not the page title? – Muboshgu (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who gave the list its title. But I'm assuming it's because the everyday reader (non-baseball fans unlike you and I) would not know what an immaculate inning was. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The definition "three batters on nine consecutive pitches in a half-inning" doesn't preclude something else happening in the same half-inning. My point is that the definition of an immaculate inning should prelude something else happening in the same half-inning.TCav (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the current definition does preclude anything else happening in the same half-inning. When there are nine consecutive pitches in that half-inning, which results in 3 batters striking out, please tell me what else could have happened in that half-inning? Other than a bird being killed by a ball deemed "no pitch", I'd have to say nothing else. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A first pitch, that is, a pitch thrown to the first batter prior to the nine strikes that ultimately struck out three batters, could have been a ball, and the definition of an "immaculate inning" would still be satisfied. That is, the first batter could have been struck out on a 1-3 count, followed by the next two batters who were struck out on a 0-3 count. Thus, three batters would have been struck out on nine consecutive pitches, yet it wouldn't have been an "immaculate inning" even though the definition in the article would be satisfied. TCav (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you're changing the definition to suit irrelevant hypothetical situations. In your above example, that would be striking out on ten (not nine) consecutive pitches. Of course you're right when you choose to ignore the first pitch ball, but that's not how the game works – ever heard of "striking out on four/five/six pitches"? All pitches in the at bat sequence must be counted. You would've also been correct if the definition said "striking out on nine consecutive strikes", but again that's not what the definition entails. It says pitches, not strikes, and since the definition limits the number of pitches in that half-inning to nine, anything over that is outside the scope of the definition of the immaculate inning. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the definition does not limit the number of pitches in that half-inning to nine. It limits the number of pitches required to strike out three batters in that half-inning to nine. Within the same half-inning, anything could happen. The first pitch could have been a ball, or a hit, or a series of batters could have each had a hit. But as long as the pitcher threw nine consecutive pitches, striking out three batters, the definition given in the article is satisfied. There is nothing in the definition that states that ONLY nine pitches were thrown in the half-inning, only that three batters were struck out on nine consecutive pitches in the same half-inning. Three strike-outs would retire the side, but the definition doesn't restrict what might have happened in that half-inning before those nine pitches were thrown. TCav (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

[Yawn], now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Your comment "anything could happen" is again a sign of your reliance on irrelevant hypotheticals and willfully ignoring a key part of the definition – immaculate. The single-game record wouldn't be called an "immaculate inning" if your hypothetical situations occurred. It would simply be known as just an "inning", since it's just been spoiled by balls, walks, hits, etc. Just look at the definitions on Merriam-Webster and the Oxford Dictionary. "Free from flaws, errors, mistakes," in other words, perfect. Three up, three down. Anyone who actually needs to have it spelled out that immaculate means only three batters on only nine pitches either doesn't know the definition of immaculate (a commonly-used word) or simply chooses to look at part of the definition and add whatever hypotheticals suit them. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

... which is why the definition of "immaculate inning" is inadequate. I know what "immaculate" means. I know what an immaculate inning is. The definition given in the article doesn't cover it.

I presume we can agree that if the first batter swung on the first pitch and got a hit, but the second, third and fourth batters were all struck out on the next nine pitches, that would not be an "immaculate inning." I presume we can also agree that, if the first pitch were a ball, but the next nine were strikes, striking out the only three batters to come to the plate during that half-inning, that would also not be an "immaculate inning." However, the definition of an "immaculate inning" given in the article doesn't exclude those possibilities, which makes it inadequate. TCav (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't follow baseball I'm sort of leaning towards TCav on this one. I presume the definition should mean the first 9 pitches of the inning, so nothing could happen before the 9 consecutive strikes? Or am I missing something? SPACKlick (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing Carlos Contreras

128.135.100.108 (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Change Article Name to "List of Major League Baseball Immaculate Innings" or variation thereof

As illustrated in the above exchange between TCav and Bloom6132, the title of this article is at least confusing, if not incomplete or inaccurate. For being confusing, the title is also overly verbose. As the article states, this feat is "commonly known as an immaculate inning"--why not simply use the common name as the article title? The introduction could then be focused on first defining the requirements of an immaculate inning: when a single pitcher strikes out the side using only 9 pitches in the inning.

Renaming this page would also bring it into conformance with articles for similar baseball accomplishments, such as: Perfect game and List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle.

Msherby (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• I support this proposal. The current title is needlessly verbose and potentially misleading. Lizard (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting a requested move as that would likely get more input. Lizard (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• I initiated the move for the reasons stated above and because "immaculate inning" already redirected to this page. (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Since we're just moving featured lists willy nilly without proper move discussions, I picked a better title. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Photo collage

Max Scherzer just threw his second immaculate inning (in his career and in as many years), so we're going to need to figure out a new way to address the photos now that five MLB pitchers have recorded multiple immaculate innings in their careers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Three-Pitch Inning

We need a page about the Three-Pitch-Inning, also a very impressive pitching feat. The Baseball Reference has a list of pitchers who have done it. It does not explain the curious gap between 1920 and 1969 in which there were almost no such innings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.21.214 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

American League vs National League

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of American League vs National League. Obviously, it would be easier to through a 3 pitch strikeout vs a pitcher than vs a fielder. As American League pitchers never throw against pitchers, presumably it is a harder feat for them. However, in the 4 or 5 cases that I looked at, none of them had a pitcher as one of the victim batters. It would be interesting to see a full breakdown on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.208.30 (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Update needed for Sale

Chris Sale got his second Immaculate Inning last night on June 5th, 2019. He's the first pitcher since Lefty Grove to have 2 in one season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.209.30 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Roger Clemens

There seems to be some controversy over whether Roger Clemens should be included on this list or not for a game in September 1997.

These sources say he did throw an immaculate inning:

• MLB.com's list
• Baseball-reference's boxscore (see Play by Play). This one does acknowledge its not always accurate.

Immaculateinning1 has mentioned these sources as evidence that Clemens does not belong on the list:

• Boston Globe article (there's a paywall here, I can't verify)
• Highlights from ESPN from that game

I actually don't believe Clemens did throw one, but MLB's list is harder to argue with.

Looking for consensus on this. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 20:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The highlight video shows pretty conclusively that all three batters had at least one ball (at 5:20). When's the last time you saw three consecutive incorrect ball-strike counts on TV? No immaculate inning.

Where does this silly phrase originate?

The link (to the first mention in the article) is broken. It seems to me that a truly "immaculate" inning would not include such things as a 350 foot foul ball or for that matter, any contact with the ball, yet this is not part of the definition. BrianAlex (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Immaculate inning" article

Well, just an easy question ... shouldn't there be an article about immaculate innings (ii) itself, instead of only one about MLB ii records?

I mean, there's an article about home runs in general. And about home run records. There is an article about what a perfect game is. And an article about a list of perfect games. Another article tells me what a no-hitter is and another one explains hitting for the cycle. And two different articles give a list of no-hitters and cycle hitters.

But there is no article about ii in general. Just an article with a ridiculously long name called List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have thrown an immaculate inning (seriously, wouldn't List of ii in MLB suffice?). But this article doesn't tell me anything about ii, it just gives me a quite long introduction of what an ii is (could be skipped if there would be an ii article) followed by a list of MLB pitchers doing so. NPB? Yeaaaah, no. MiLB? Nope. History of ii? Nada.

It's like having an article about home run records without an article about what a home run is. Hell, it's like having a list of World Series winners without an article of what baseball is. 95.90.251.172 (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Mike Mussina's immaculate inning

Baseball Reference's pitch-by-pitch data seems to indicate that Rich Butler, the last batter faced by Mike Mussina in his May 9, 1998 immaculate inning, was actually thrown a ball on the first pitch, although the count is listed as 0-2. Can anyone corroborate whether there was actually a ball thrown, or if this is just an error on Baseball Reference's part? I wasn't able to find any video evidence myself about this. GalacticShoe (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like this one might be fictional. This MLB highlight video doesn't show every pitch in the inning, but does clearly show the count on the final strikeout as 1-2, backed up by the announcers. https://www.mlb.com/video/moose-k-s-side-in-9th-gets-win-c2522261383 Sbb618 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to uncover this. In a similar vein, it turns out that Randy Johnson's supposed first immaculate inning on Sep. 2, 1998 is also fictional; at 1 hour and 22 minutes in a Youtube recording of the full game entitle 'Astros vs Braves (9-2-1998)' (I can't link it directly here), Johnson tosses Greg Colbrunn a ball to make the count 1-1. Baseball Reference seems to have forgotten to include this pitch. GalacticShoe (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

And in the Tampa Bay Times recap for the game, Mussina's total pitch count is given as 127 while adding that heading into the 9th he had thrown 117 pitches Sbb618 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

As a follow-up to the two sources of information uncovered above, I emailed Baseball Reference to let them know, and as it turns out, they first learned about the issue last year. The reason why Retrosheet (and thus Baseball Reference) keep the count listed at 0-2 is because they're not entirely sure which pitch in the at-bat was the ball. The Baseball Reference rep furthermore let me know that Retrosheet did ask a volunteer to try to find the pitch, but if they are unable to locate anything further, they may just keep the ball listed as the first pitch. In any case, I think this immaculate inning is effectively busted.

(Also, I let them know about the Randy Johnson ball; they've emailed Retrosheet about this too, and it will be updated some point in the future.) GalacticShoe (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this here; Baseball Reference rep got back to me shortly after this, and confirmed that the ball took place on the ninth pitch of the inning on a checked swing. Retrosheet will be updated soon after to confirm this, as will Baseball Reference's database. GalacticShoe (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The citation ought to stand for as long as the Major League Baseball website recognizes the game - thus otherwise there would be no need to dispute if both BBR and MLB grants nothing. Badgogetter (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Robert Stephenson

He pitched an immaculate inning on September 2, 2023 with the caveat that a batter reached base on an intentional walk. 2A00:7C40:C680:6C3:CC34:B53C:90E9:5F83 (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe a requirement of the immaculate inning is that the pitcher must face precisely the minimum of three batters, and strike them all out in the minimum number of pitches. After all, intentionally walking someone is, in spirit, failing to strike the batter out, which would be an argument against "immaculacy." MLB's official list also says "three up, three down", so it stands to reason that a pitcher intentionally walking someone and facing more than three batters would not count. GalacticShoe (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

"Dispute" on Randy Johnson's inning

@SproikyDoiky and Badgogetter: Johnson's inning was marked as disputed in two edits here: [3] , [4]. The reference to this is an image, and that image no longer loads and isn't backed up on the Wayback Machine. I see that the official scoreline still lists 9 strikes in a row at [5]. Can I ask where exactly this dispute is coming from, and if there's a replacement reference? If this dispute can't be referenced to a secondary source, it shouldn't be marked as disputed at all. SnowFire (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You can see the inning play out (with the 1-1 ball at 1:22:00) in the full game video at this moment. Also, while BBRef hasn't updated their information yet, I believe Retrosheet's pitch data has, with BBRef just taking some time to catch up. I have to check the version of Retrosheet's data I have downloaded, but I remember seeing it when I look recently. GalacticShoe (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Of course, I don't think we can actually link that recording as a reference without the express written consent of Major League Baseball blah blah under WP:ELNEVER. So... kind of have a problem as far as WP:V is concerned. It doesn't look like Retrosheet has pitch-by-pitch data for this game? Or am I misreading it? Is there some other secondary source on this perhaps? SnowFire (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah unfortunately I'm not sure if there's a way to find pitch-by-pitch data on the Retrosheet website itself, you kinda have to dig in the actual source data to find it. It's a pain, but in the events folder, in 1998ATL.EVN, you can find the at-bat at line 10794 (you can get to that game's section by searching for "id,ATL199809020"), where it says "play,6,1,colbg001,12,SBFS,K" GalacticShoe (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@SnowFire BBRef has just updated, and now the counts for Johnson and Mussina have the corresponding extra pitches. GalacticShoe (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@GalacticShoe: Thanks for the heads up. I updated the list given that they're no longer backed by references, but feel free to adjust if I missed something. SnowFire (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Marking Hall of Fame players separately

As it stands, Hall of Famers get a special dagger marker and a different background shade in the list. Can I ask the logic behind this? There are lots of places where HOF membership is relevant, but this doesn't appear to be one of them - it's not like Hall of Famers do immaculate innings in just 8 pitches or something. None of these players were members of the HOF when they pitched these innings. I'd say the special marking should be removed unless there's a clear reason for it (e.g. if secondary sources tie these facts together). SnowFire (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)