No, no no-no, sorry

Trivia: Who was the last Red Sox pitcher to throw a no-hitter?

Answer: Devern Hansack, October 1, 2006 against the Orioles.

But wait, that's not what MLB says. Even though Hansack pitched a complete game without allowing a hit, which in the eyes of many is what defines a no-hitter, he does not get credit for one in the eyes of the powers that (ML) be. Ah, semantics, how I love thee.

You see back in 1991 Fay Vincent et. al. decided that the definition of a no-hitter as it always had been was no longer satisfactory, and tacked a small but meaningful addition onto the list of conditions a game was required to meet to be considered a no-hitter: the game had to be at least 9 innings. This decision wiped out almost 50 no-hitters from the books and made it so that (for some as of yet unknown inane reason) baseball writers had to describe such games as "5 innings of no-hit ball" or "a complete game without getting a hit". Anyone else think this is cumbersome?

So why do it? Why change what a no-hitter is? I can think of 2 reasons.

The first is probably the more obvious of the two; many consider a 9-inning no-hitter as being more of an achievement as a less-than-9-inning one. We have seen this type of argument before in other areas of baseball stat-land. Baseball nation in general feels compelled to constantly qualify achievements (um, asterisks next to home run records, anyone?). The problem here is that sometimes the inverse is true. For an example look no further than one-time Boston Red Sox pitcher Matt (sigh) Young, who in 1992 somehow managed to pitch a complete game no-hitter and LOSE. Since Boston was away and the home team Cleveland Indians were up 2-1 in the final frame, no bottom of the 9th was required, leaving Young with only 8 innings pitched and thus no "official" no-hitter. Way to go Matt. Why'd you ever leave us?

The second reason I could see is that by shorteneing the no-hitter list you increase (or reenforce) the prestige with which throwing a no-hitter comes. Note that this change in definition came after a year (1990) with an unbelievable 9 no-hitters thrown (7 in the AL and 2 in the NL). Might the fact that 2 of those were less than 9 innings have been a factor in the sudden want for redefinition? Maybe. All I'm pointing out is that it was a time when no-hitters seemed more common (if you can believe it, another 7 were thrown in 1991).

Let's say for a moment that this second reason did act as some sort of impetus for taking away all those no-hitters. Why, then, when the home run totals started to pile up did MLB not redefine what a home run is (which has been done before, by the way. Before 1931 balls that bounced over an outfield fence were considered homers, not ground rule doubles.)? The answer is simple: MLB execs believe that fans like big scoring games, not well-pitched ones (for more on this argument see any article about the sudden post-strike surge in power hitting and think back to the Brady Andersons of the world. Musta been the sideburns.).

Well, whatever the case may be, Devern Hansack, you pitched a hell of a game out there yesterday, gave up 1 walk and no hits, and became the most recent Red Sox pitcher to throw...dare I say it....yes, to throw a no-hitter.

It also means you'll probably be traded soon to the Pirates.