Skip to content

Jeremy Guthrie loses no-no on controversial infield hit

Aug 19, 2012, 4:12 PM EDT

Eric Hosmer, Paul Konerko

White Sox first baseman Paul Konerko was credited with an infield hit with two outs in the seventh inning Sunday, costing Kansas City’s Jeremy Guthrie his chance for a no-hitter.

The slow-footed Konerko hit a grounder into the hole at short. Alcides Escobar grabbed it, but made a poor throw that bounced high off the dirt and well to the right of the bag at first base. Eric Hosmer was still in good position to make the scoop, but the ball bounced off his glove, and even though the game was in Kansas City, it was ruled an infield single.

Here’s the video.

Personally, I’d have given Escobar an error on the play. While he did have to range to his right for the ball, he still had plenty of time to get a runner as slow as Konerko.

That said, if there hadn’t been a no-hitter at stake, no one would have questioned it being called a hit. That’s likely how it would have been ruled 90 percent of the time. It wasn’t a routine play for either Escobar or Hosmer, and it pretty much has to be a routine play for an error to be called in this day and age.

Guthrie went on to allow a clean single to Dayan Viciedo with two outs in the eighth.

  1. hittfamily - Aug 19, 2012 at 4:17 PM

    Freaking official scorers. They should have been more concerned about Guthrie’s no hitter than the integrity and impartiality of their positions. Jerks.

  2. samu0034 - Aug 19, 2012 at 4:35 PM

    Not everything that a few people disagree with is “controversial”. Quit with the sensationalism of needing to shine a journalistic spotlight on every single little thing that you think isn’t perfect. It’s tiring and distracts from things that people should be legitimately concerned with. Umpires or official scorers making a call that you wouldn’t have made isn’t controversial. Umpires continually inserting themselves into the action of the game? That’s a controversy that we can discuss, and which as a journalist (if it’s something you’re passionate about) you should rail against. But a call that’s different than you would have made? C’mon…

  3. taltphoto63 - Aug 19, 2012 at 4:38 PM

    Why even write this article? It is a moot point given the subsequent base hit. There is no controversy.

  4. paperlions - Aug 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM

    Fixed the headline for ya: “Jeremy Guthrie loses no-no on a play that is always ruled an infield hit”

  5. qacm - Aug 19, 2012 at 4:40 PM

    It definitely looked like an error to me. I’d guess major league shortstops would convert that play into an out 90% of the time, especially with a turtle like Konerko running.

    • superpriebe - Aug 19, 2012 at 7:31 PM

      I couldn’t disagree with this comment more. The guy ranged to his right and was three steps into the outfield grass, and had time to field it and release slowly. In my opinion, the ONLY reason he had a chance to get Konerko at first was that Konerko was taking it easy down the line, knowing that losing a no-no on an infield hit really sucks. Watch the play again and observe Konerko leaving the box.

      See paperlions comment above.

      • nothanksimdriving123 - Aug 20, 2012 at 2:51 AM

        super, perhaps he doesn’t sprint because he knows that routine fielding will nail him, hence the belief by many of us that it should have been an error. No one can or ever will know if Guthrie would have then gotten his no-no. Whatever did follow might well not have.

  6. xpensivewinos - Aug 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM

    What’s gotten in to Guthrie?

    Maybe he’s been checking out the same “website” as Melky Cabrera? :)

  7. nofunleague - Aug 19, 2012 at 4:47 PM

    And the world goes on…….

  8. hotkarlsandwich - Aug 19, 2012 at 5:49 PM

    “Suck it, Royals” – Don Denkinger

  9. bigleagues - Aug 19, 2012 at 7:20 PM

    That play, by definition, is a routine play for the SS, and Escobar should have been charged with an Error. In fact, that used to be a clear Error. That it has somehow morphed into a ‘tough, non-routine’ play is rather controversial . . . in scorekeeping circles I suppose. It certainly bothers me.

    But that many of you seem to have gotten accustomed to poor official scoring is what is really concerning to me.

  10. byjiminy - Aug 20, 2012 at 1:00 AM

    How about the ball bouncing out of the first baseman’s mitt? Escobar got the ball there in plenty of time, and he got his glove on it, he just blew it. Why no error on Hosmer?

    • Senor Cardgage - Aug 20, 2012 at 11:37 AM

      The first baseman pretty much never gets the error if the other fielder bounces the throw.

  11. mqcarpenter - Aug 20, 2012 at 8:12 AM

    Escobar? That is easily an E3. This guy is a professional and should have easily scooped that. That was bush league

  12. hisgirlgotburrelled - Aug 20, 2012 at 9:29 AM

    At first view it looked like an error. Then I watched it a couple times. This has to be a throwing error on Alcides Escobar. Fielding the ground ball was routine. It’s a nice play, but the ball didn’t take a bad hop and did not take “exceptional effort” considering the speed of the runner. The throw beat Konerko by several feet. If fielding that ball was not routine then the standard for fielding SS has really dropped. But I don’t think it has. The definition of routine doesn’t only include balls hit right at you.

  13. sportsdrenched - Aug 20, 2012 at 11:02 AM

    As a Royals fan I’m not all that upset about him losing the No-hitter to a contriversial call. I think the REAL story here, and what I’m excited about, is Guthrie has put together 3 dominant starts in a row. I think Planet Zack’s 2009 Cy Young campaign is the last time a Royals fan has been treated to that.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who's to blame for Cubs tarp fiasco?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (3103)
  2. M. Cuddyer (2899)
  3. A. Garcia (2270)
  4. J. Werth (2156)
  5. W. Myers (2124)
  1. A. McCutchen (2106)
  2. K. Bryant (2099)
  3. Y. Molina (2021)
  4. T. Frazier (1888)
  5. M. Fiers (1851)