Why isn't a no-hitter in baseball considered a team stat?

Because the rules of Major League Baseball state as follows:

“An official no-hit game occurs when a pitcher (or pitchers) allows no hits during the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings.”

You are right, @jeff3157… If fielders help a pitcher achieve a no-hitter, there should be a stat for them, too!

That could be, and perhaps should be argued, but the reason it’s not a team stat now is that the rules say so at the moment.

they do! fielders get assists for making defensive plays. It’s not really such a well known stat, but they do get the credit.

Thanks @photographcrash .

Wins and loses are thrown just on the pitcher as well (no matter how well or poorly the pitcher actually pitched that game). Yes, the teams get credit in the standings, but it’s the pitcher of record who has it put in his individual stats.

It’s just the way things are.

Because it really all falls on the pitcher’s ability to make the batter miss or hit a bad one. I don’t think the whole team should get credit just because some boob caught an easy pop-up.

. . Well perhaps I wasn’t very clear. Let me be more bold by putting the question as more of a statement. I don’t believe a pitcher should get ANY no-hitter credit for a game that consists of no hits, given the TEAM aspect of getting outs. Only to make the point . . if rather the pitcher struck out every player or at worst yielded a couple of easy routine choppers to the infield for outs, I might budge from my perspective. Certainly I wasn’t looking for a definition of a no-hitter from the rule-book, as indicated by my opening statement that I thought no-hitters attributed to pitchers are over-rated.

I didn’t think you needed to have “No-Hitter” defined, I merely meant to point out that the rules of Baseball, the way they stand now, give credit by definition to the pitcher. @photographcrash provides at least a parial solution to the problem, within the rules of baseball.

Ok, let’s think about it for a second then. Who is going to decide if a defensive play is routine enough then?

Even if we did go that method, routine plays are messed up all the time. Also, what is considered routine would vary for each player.

Besides if someone said that a team threw a no hitter one of the first questions people would ask is who the pitcher was.

. . well that’s the wrinkle . . who is really “allowing” hits in a game. My point again is that a no-hitter attributed to the pitcher is over-rated. Let’s jump to Buerle’s “so-called” perfect game. Was it Mark Buerle who provided the masterful catch in the 9th by Dwayne Wise? I’m just tired of the fan-fare seeminlgy only given to the pitcher. And certainly the record book won’t have an asterisk next to the latest “perfect” game by Buerle, because of Dwayne Wise. In my world it’s a team stat in most instances if not all.

Perhaps it’s time for you to write a very, very firm letter to the Sunday Times of London, protesting this objectionable state of affairs.

. . pdworkin you sound like my brother, it feels like talking to a wall to him too.

@jeff3157 LOL…Lurve on that, dude!

In almost every perfect game or no hitter there is at least one amazing play. Do you want to go back and put an asterisk next to all of them?

Do you want to take away wins and loses? A pitcher can have a loss without giving up an earned run. Or he can get a win without throwing a pitch.

Gosh how complicated several of you respond to the point I’m making.

I’ll try again . . I’m not asking for reviews to determine if a play should be considered routine. I’m not asking for asterisks for amazing fielding plays in so-called no-hitters. Those statements were only trying to emphasize my idea. I’m just saying no-hitters are best considered team stats, and certainly over-rated as attributed to the pitcher involved.

Wow! I get it now! Thanks!

. . where’s that wall?