Jump to content

Talk:John Fulgham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

39 pitches, all strikes

[edit]

This is not only a major league record for most pitches for strikes, it is also the fewest pitches in a complete game. [1] The opposing team, the San Francisco Giants, were very unhappy with certain decisions made by manager Joe Altobelli[2], and were apparently trying to get him fired. Aardvark92 (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be included, it's very noteworthy -- really only noteworthy thing about the guy. Vegaswiki (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true though. Fulgham did not throw a complete game with only 39 pitches. http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/bird-land-the-fulgham-riddle/article_23242aa6-b1fa-11df-84ab-0017a4a78c22.html 76.180.234.90 (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for the 39-pitch complete game is only a link to the Baseball-Reference box score, which does not support the claim. Every at bat Fulgham pitched is listed with Unknown pitch sequence data (i.e. a "U" in the pitch sequence field), which means the full pitch sequence and pitch count are not recorded. 39 is just the total of the pitches whose result was known (as either a ball in play or a strike) because of the result of the at bat, not the total number of pitches thrown in the game. There are other games from that season with the same pattern, such as an Eric Rasmussen complete game with only 42 recorded pitches (which was also the minimum number of possible pitches given the outcome of each at bat). The same pattern exist in several Giants games that season where the only reliable pitch count data is for the Giants' starting pitcher. Relievers and opposing pitchers often have the minimum number of pitches recorded and have their pitch sequence data marked with Unknowns. Contemporary news accounts of the game also make no mention of any such abnormalities. Given that the citation does not support the claim and that Fulgham himself denies that this happened, the claim cannot be considered factual. Kitikami (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Fulgham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]