HELP! Fr. Z needs some sports equivalents

Cricket and Baseball batsI am comparing the forthcoming Instruction Universae Ecclesiae to a baseball no-hitter, rather than a perfect game.

What would be the equivalents for perfect game and no-hitter in other sports?

I am especially interested in analogous accomplishments in cricket and in soccer/football or perhaps rugby.

For cricket: BOWLING, not batting.  Perfect game and no-hitter are the accomplishments of the defense.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, I'm just askin'..., Lighter fare, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, Universae Ecclesiae and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Rellis says:

    For American football, a quarterback can have a perfect passer rating of 158.3. That would be perfection.

    Anything over 100, though, is considered out-of-this-world good. The single season record is Peyton Manning’s 121 passer rating in 2004.

    “Universae Ecclesiae” is not a perfect passer rating, but it is a better-than-100 passer rating.

  2. Archicantor says:

    Hockey has shutouts (Papa Ratzinger as goalie?).

    In cricket, which is inevitably high-scoring, the stakes are smaller: a “maiden” is an “over” (six balls delivered by a single bowler) in which the batsman scores no runs. More dramatic is the exceedindgly rare “hat trick”, in which a bowler gets three batsmen out off three consecutive deliveries (Australian leg-spinner Shane Warne offers a marvellous example: A batsman has had a really great match if he “makes a century” (scores a hundred runs). Only a truly great “all-rounder” could get both a hat-trick and a century.

  3. sawdustmick says:

    Cricket – Hmm ! If you’re the bowler then Bowling a maiden over. (An over = 6 balls bowled with no runs scored from them)

    If you’re the batsman, then knocked for six (Over the boundary without touching the ground = 6 runs)

    Football (you may call it soccer, but how can football be a game in which you use your hands – I DIGRESS !). Scored a hatrick = Player who has scored three goals.

    I’ll leave it there !

  4. revs96 says:

    In football (the round one), a no hitter would be equivalent to a clean sheet. A perfect game would be equivalent to a clean sheet where the other side does not even register a shot on goal. The same analogy can be used in ice hockey. I am curious as to what the equivalent is in basketball.

  5. Christopher says:

    In American Football the analogy could be “the defense didn’t allow any first downs”, or “the offense never needed to use the punter.”

    Basketball has the triple double.

    In billiards it is possible to play your entire game without allowing your opponent a single shot.

    The last point is also possible in Trivial Pursuit, substituting “shots” for “questions.”

  6. MarkDes says:

    There are different degrees of hat trick in soccer/football:

    Conventional parlance would call 3 goals of any sort in a game a hat trick.
    A “natural” hat trick happens when the player scores his 3 goals in succession without anyone else scoring a goal for either side.
    A “perfect” hat trick happens when the player scores one goal with his left foot, one from his right foot, and one with his head. [I’ve never heard that one.]

    So perhaps those degrees will work, but I’m not really sure how different soccer cultures treat those distinctions, so that may only apply to Britain and not to Germany and Italy

  7. De Tribulis says:

    Erm, Father (or anyone), what would “no-hitter” translate into for those of us who don’t speak sports? I’d say the term was Greek to me, but if it were Greek I’d have at least a fighting chance of working it out! :)

  8. David Homoney says:


  9. I played rugby for St. John’s in Collegeville, and for three years for a team in the Twin Cities. Rugby does not have the equivalents of baseball’s “perfect game” or “no hitter,” nor does rugby have any one position on which much of the game rests, such as baseball’s pitcher or football’s quarterback. The closest thing in rugby is the scrum half, and, in fact, as American football comes from rugby, the quarterback has his origins in the scrum half.

    So unless Universae Ecclesiae is a shut-out, I don’t think you’ll find any adequate sports analogies in rugby. Unless… will it have the effect on the National Catholic Fishwrap that the famous Haka of New Zealand’s All Blacks has on their opponents?

  10. contrarian says:

    We might also assess whether to use ‘offensive’ instead of ‘defensive’ idioms.
    We are on the offensive, after all.
    A hat trick?
    Hitting for the cycle?

  11. B Haley says:

    You said the cat was out of the bag. I know you meant the instruction, but perhaps the fishwrap may be likened to a cat with bells on as demonstrated in the video below?

    Blind Cricket:

  12. Perfect 10. (Although I’m not sure gymnastics and ice skating do that anymore.)

  13. Alex says:

    In basketball, there are double-doubles, triple-doubles, quadruple-doubles, etc. when a player achieves double digit stats in two, three, four, etc. of the following five categories: points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocked shots. This is all in one game. Quadruple doubles are rare, I think only a handful in history.

    The closest to a no-hitter I suppose would be either a double-double or triple-double.

  14. Iowander says:

    If I’m looking for offensive baseball equivalents, I’d go with the four-home-run game (i.e. 4 HR by one player). It happens less often than a perfect game. Three home runs in a game happens slightly more often than a no-hitter, so that would be my no-hitter equivalent.

    Hitting for the cycle happens at about the same frequency as no-hitters, and while it is indicative of a productive day, it’s not as good as even having a 2 HRs, a single, and a double. We don’t want to give the impression that Universae Ecclesiae is only rare because it’s fluky.

  15. Tony Layne says:

    @ De Tribulis: A no-hitter occurs in baseball when a pitcher pitches all innings of the game and none of the opposing team is able to take a base: each either strikes out or hits the ball to a player on the pitcher’s team who catches it fairly (because it’s caught, putting the batter out, it doesn’t count as a hit). [No one get’s on base by means of a hit. A batter who is hit by a pitch takes a base, a batter takes a base on four balls, etc.]
    I don’t know, Father Z … in American football, nothing’s really been established as perfect; the closest I can think of would be a “Hail Mary” pass resulting in a touchdown that starts from the scrimmage line in one’s own red zone. Bowling, of course, has a perfect game: twelve successive strikes. Theoretically, you could have a perfect tennis match by beating your opponent in the minimum number of games possible (18?). And in figure skating, you could also theoretically score all 10’s … if you’re Michelle Kwan. But nothing really matches the no-hitter for sheer drama, especially as it happens so infrequently.

  16. disco says:

    Bowling a 300 or shooting 59 for 18 holes of golf would probably be the equivalent of a perfect game.

    For hockey or I guess any sport where goals are scored a hat trick is equal perhaps to a no hitter and a natural hat trick (where all three goals are scored consecutively without answer by the opponent) to a perfect game.

  17. Martial Artist says:

    I am somewhat new to the game of soccer, but have become an enthusiastic fan since 1999. I would think that the perfect offensive game in soccer might consist of having a player score a hat trick (especially a perfect one) combined with the team having kept a clean sheet (i.e., shut out the opponent). As an American fan of Arsenal, I know I would consider that about as near perfect a result as I could imagine in a match against another Premiership team.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  18. Marc says:

    In collegiate wrestling style wrestling (sometimes called Folk-style Wrestling)
    The scoring is like this:
    • Win by “Fall”: (also known as a pin)
    • Win by “Technical Fall”: If a wrestler can secure an advantage of 15 points over an opponent.
    • Win by “Major Decision”: If a wrestler can secure an advantage of 8 to 14 points over an opponent.
    • Win by “Decision”: Win by 7 points or less over an opponent.

    We’ll see where Universae Ecclesiae “scores.”

  19. Theodore says:

    Kendo – ippon.

  20. Tony Layne says:

    Had to re-think my reply a little bit ….

    Okay, yeah, the four-HR offensive game is a little more rare, but it’s still not quite as dramatic as the no-hitter, because while the batter may have only four opportunities to hit a homer, the pitcher has twenty-four to twenty-seven opportunities to blow the no-hitter. And with scoring 10’s in skating, the judging is a little more subjective, whereas everyone can tell whether the left fielder caught the pop fly or the batter swung and missed.

  21. jaykay says:

    “No hitter” in snooker: when one player scores 147 in a frame from the break, by potting the black ball after each of the reds and then all the colours in proper order, so that the other player never gets a chance to get near the table. [Like: “run the table”.]

    As to soccer and rugby, being contact sports (obviously rugby to a much greater extent), there isn’t really the concept of “no hitter”, unless you had the unreal situation where one team so dominates the other that they don’t even let them gain any possession of the ball.

    Leaving aside the improbability of denying the other team any possession at all, a game where one side totally dominates the other and finishes with a very high score compared to none by the other side (“nil”) would be called a “whitewash” in both soccer and rugby. It would also be called “perfect” by the winning team (and maybe a “perfect whitewash” by the losers!).

  22. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:


    Why do we want DEFENSIVE analogies? Surely with Summorum Pontificum His Holiness went on offence?

    That said, I’ll ask my baseball-fanatic son for some good metaphors when I see him next.

  23. Soonerscotty says:

    In footy (i.e. soccer) there’s the “clean sheet” which would come closest to a “no-hitter” and refers to holding an opposing team goalless.

    Also, as mentioned above, a standard for an exceptional performance by a player is the “hat trick” when a player scores 3 goals in a single game.

  24. cnaphan says:

    In chess, a checkmate in the first few moves with all pieces left on the board is called a “fool’s mate”, but in that case, it’s not really a matter of skill so much as a foolish opponent not recognizing the configuration and blocking it.

  25. JPManning says:

    In the Northern hemisphere the annual international rugby tournament is the Six Nations. If you beat the other five countries you have won the Grand Slam. For the nations in the British Isles, if you beat the three other home countries you earn the Triple Crown. So the analogous expression might be, ‘It’s not a Grand Slam, but it is a Triple Crown.’

  26. We could, on the other hand, focused on what I presented at the opt?

  27. sawdustmick says:

    What about:-


    Which is great (though expensive) if you’re talking about Golf, but not so good if you’re referring to your socks !!!!

  28. Nathan says:

    OK, Father, here goes for cricket. I defer to the actual experts to tell me if I’m washed up or not. I found these terms on cricket websites and they seem to a Yank like something similar:

    no-hitter: a triple wicket maiden. Can’t we have terms like this for American sports? Doesn’t happen every day, very unlikely to lose when your bowler gets one of these.

    perfect game: a double hat trick. Apparently this is the pinnacle for a bowler to achieve, very seldom especially in international play.

    I really like “bowl the maiden over,” although it sounds a lot like what university fellows try to accomplish every so often.

    In Christ,

  29. ajurban says:

    For hockey, the best triumph could be coming back from an 0-3 deficit in a best of seven series and then win in overtime. Another good one is when both goalies get a shutout and only one goal is scored in the shootout.

  30. That’s why baseball is thee sport. Oh baseball, how I love thee. I don’t think it can equate to hat trick or perfect passer rating or triple-double. Especially if you consider Liriano’s no hitter, it’s not necessarily a pitchers flawlessness but defense, blown call, dumb luck, ect. A perfect game on the other hand, a pitcher really does need to be perfect(and maybe catch a few breaks). Maybe that is the equivalent of a perfect passer rating(if they throw 100 plus passes!). But a no-hitter as opposed to the perfect game, it really is unique I think.

  31. RichardT says:

    In cricket, a “maiden over” would work.

    That’s where the bowler bowls a full over (6 qualifying balls, after which they change ends) without the batsman scoring anything.

    This fits with your “no-hitter, rather than a perfect game”, because, like the no-hitter, there’s something better than a maiden over – a wicket maiden. That’s where you bowl 6 balls, the batsman doesn’t score anything, and you bowl the batsman out. (There can also be a double or treble maiden over, although very rare; theoretically you can get 6 batsmen out in one over, but I don’t think that’s ever happened).

  32. Richard: A maiden over would be better than taking all ten wickets? Would it depend on the type of match it is?

  33. Mark Pavlak says:

    How about the Gordy Howe hat trick? A goal, an assist, and get in a fight.

    Goal: Summorum Pontificum
    Assist: Universae Ecclesiae
    Fight: Knocking the heads of the liberal dissenters.

  34. Okay, friends. Enough of of the knocking heads stuff. Infra dignitatem, for one thing. Unrealistic for another.

    Let’s live in the real world when it comes to these documents.

    I was looking for an analogy to the no-hitter, especially in Cricket, so that non-Americans in the Anglophone world can better get what I was expressing.

  35. pseudomodo says:

    In Mah-Jong when the east hand takes thier 14 tiles and can go out with this hand they get maximum points and then it is called “The Going out of the Gods”.

    I like Mah Jong…

    I had a girlfriend 40 years ago whose mother was born in Hong Kong and didn’t speak english until she was 16. Her mother was a red haired Irish woman so it is quite a story. They brought a solid ivory Mah-Jong set in a mahogany case with them to North America. That’s what we played with.

    The “Going out of the Gods” is equivalent to being dealt a royal flush in poker – all in spades.

  36. JeffTL says:

    It’s not cricket, but in golf it might be an eagle but not a hole in one?

  37. Gregg the Obscure says:

    How about a tennis match won 6-0, 6-0, 6-0?

  38. RichardT says:

    Father, you’re right, for a single bowler to take all 10 wickets is much better than a maiden over. But taking all 10 is so rare (I think it’s only happened twice ever in Test matches) that it seemed too good to be equivalent to your ‘no-hitter’.

    But I’ve looked up no-hitters, and apparently they usually only happen once or twice a season. That’s not as rare as taking all ten wickets (twice in 120 years), but it’s still much rarer than a maiden over – you’d expect to get several maiden overs in a match.

    So sorry, I think I was wrong; a maiden over isn’t good enough to be equivalent to a no-hitter.

  39. Mark Pavlak says:

    Sorry, Father.

    Maybe it’s a Game 7 victory in the Conference Championship? Not quite the Stanley Cup, but it’s one step closer.

  40. RichardT says:

    Perhaps a cricketing equivalent to a no-hitter would be for the bowling side to force the batting side to follow-on.

    This happens in a 2-innings match (typically a full 5-day match).

    The usual order is that Team A bats first (their first innings), then when they’re all out Team B bats, then when they’re all out Team A bats again (their second innings), and then finally Team B bats again. This is a disadvantage to Team A, because they can’t win unless they get all of Team B out by the end of the 5th day – even if Team A has scored the most runs by the end of the 5 days, if Team B aren’t all out by the end it’s only a draw.

    But if Team B on their first innings gets at least 200 fewer runs than Team A on their first innings, Team B can be forced to ‘follow-on’, i.e. to have their second innings straight after their first, before Team A’s second innings. That gives Team A a better chance of winning rather than drawing, because they have time to get Team B out twice, then they have their own second innings, and stop (‘declare’) as soon as they’ve beaten Team B. It takes some of the time pressure off Team A.

    But even better than forcing a follow-on is to win by an innings. So in our example Team B is forced to follow-on, but even after their second innings their total score still hasn’t matched Team A’s first-innings score, so Team A has won the match without even having to start their second innings. Alternatively it could happen without a follow-on (Team A bats, then Team B, then Team A again, after which Team B is still in the lead so wins without needing their second innings).

    So I think forcing a follow-on is probably the closest cricket equivalent of a no-hitter, in terms of level of difficulty and the fact that there’s still something even better (winning by an innings).

  41. Gaz says:

    A “dot ball” is one that the batsman makes no runs from. (A dot is the mark made on the scoring sheet). I sense that this is a test match and 20/20. That means that the Holy Father is patiently bowling good line and length. This isn’t bodyline.

  42. pseudomodo says:

    Let me explain this better…

    You have two sides, one facing ad orientum [orientem] and one facing versus populum. Each one that’s in the side that’s facing ad orientum goes versus populum, and when he’s ad orientum he comes in and the next man goes ad orientum until he’s versus populum. When they are all versus populum, the side that’s ad orientum comes in and the side thats been versus populum goes out and tries to get those facing ad orientum, out. Sometimes you get men still facing ad orientum and not versus populum but for the past forty years mostly versus populum.

    When a man faces ad orientum, the men who are versus populum try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are men called Bishops who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are ad orientum are out. When both sides have been ad orientum and all the men have been ad orientum, and both sides have been ad orientum twice after all the men have been versus populum, including those who are not versus populum, the Pope invokes Universae Ecclesiae and that is the end of the game!

  43. BLB Oregon says:

    A friend of mine was asked if he could describe his dissertation work in 25 words or less. His answer was, “No.”

    I don’t think there is an analogy to a perfect game and a no-hitter, because I don’t think there is a sport where a decent opponent risks so many ways to suffer offensive futility as there are in baseball. Besides, excepting baseball and theology, in how many sports does the defense control the ball?

    I think I’d go the route of translating: “Instruction Universae Ecclesiae may not be a perfect game, but it is surely a no-hitter. To translate the baseball analogy: while it can be argued that the text has a few places where the execution is not perfect, the reasoning is still so taut that it leaves no opportunities for opponents to assault. There is not a loophole in it.” [But that is NOT an accurate description of what I said with my baseball analogy. It is not perfect. It is very good.]

  44. RichardT says:

    I suspect Father Z won’t ask for cricketing analogies in the future.

  45. RichardT says:

    I just thought of a problem with the follow-on analogy – it’s possible for the team forced to follow-on to win. It’s rare, but England have managed to beat Australia a couple of times after being forced to follow-on (the last time quite recently – certainly within my lifetime).

    So by using the follow-on analogy, we’d be saying that the opponents of the Old Rite could still crush it, even after Universae Ecclesiae.

    Depends whether you think that’s correct.

  46. Tom A. says:

    Dont know cricket, but perhaps a better analogy would be basketball’s “slam dunk.”

  47. dcs says:

    you may call it soccer, but how can football be a game in which you use your hands

    Association football (i.e. soccer) originally allowed players to use their hands to catch the ball. Of course it was called association football to distinguish it from other games also called football which also allow the use of the hands (e.g. rugby). So traditionally football allows the players to use their hands; it is soccer that has broken with the tradition.

    In any case, soccer is an inappropriate vehicle for analogies of the Church, since it is a game based on deceit. :-)

  48. cregduff says:

    Could we appeal to a horse racing term, which is a sport practiced pretty much globally and nationally? Being in NY near Belmont Park, I saw a race occurring as I returned home on the railroad tonight which made me think. Hmm.
    There are surely run-away victories, winning by many lengths. But to win/loose by a nose, carries with it also a very good connotation. It was a race run well. But what else does it say? It says there was another horse right there. The horse that showed. From one point of view, the horse that won was a perfect winner, but the horse that showed, or placed, especially in a large stakes race; and let’s face it, this is a stakes race, still is in a very good place.

    Wadda ya tink, Fadda?

  49. forzajuv says:

    I can chip in a little on cricket. If you are looking at the rarity of event, I think an equivalent of a baseball’s perfect game would be for a bowler to take all 10 wickets in an innings. This has only happened twice in international cricket (by Jim Laker against Australia in 1956 and Anil Kumble against Pakistan in 1999). A better feat would be to take the maximum 20 wickets available in a match although nobody has ever achieved that in international cricket.

    A maiden over (a bowler bowling 6 balls without conceding any run) is good, but hardly as difficult and as rare as a baseball’s no-hitter because a no-hitter is achieved through longer period of play. In fact, a few bowlers can achieve a few maiden overs in a single innings.

    Again, if you are considering the rarity of the event, a hat-trick (described by Archicantor above) is rare, has been achieved only 37 times throughout the years in international cricket. That would correspond to the rarity of a no-hitter.

    That being said, a hattrick and taking 10 wickets in an innings is not related to each other: one can achieve one without achieving the other, unlike in baseball where getting a perfect game always involves getting a no-hitter.

  50. RichardT says:

    dcs said “traditionally football allows the players to use their hands”

    I think it depended on which school you went to in the nineteenth century. Some allowed limited handling (as you say, the original Association rules allowed you to catch the ball, put it on the ground and kick it), some allowed full running with the ball (notably of course Rugby school), but some didn’t allow you to handle the ball at all.

    Just to be perverse, I’m told that the Scots played a ‘football’ which did not allow you to kick the ball at all.

    Of course they all started as games played within each school. The standardised rules came in the late 19th century, as travel became easier and schools wanted to play against each other.

  51. RichardT says:

    dcs said “soccer is an inappropriate vehicle for analogies of the Church, since it is a game based on deceit”

    That’s cricket out then, especially slow bowlers.

  52. Alan Aversa says:

    By the way, the Oxford English Dictionary defines “no-hitter” as:

    A game (or occas. part of a game) in which a pitcher allows no base hits.

  53. Alan Aversa says:

    The Oxford English Dictionary defines “no-hitter” as:

    A game (or occas. part of a game) in which a pitcher allows no base hits.

  54. EWTN Rocks says:

    I was going to say a “perfect 10” in gymnastics but I noticed that was already posted. The only thing left, perhaps in the realm of obscure, is badminton. I believe “21” is a perfect score.

  55. EWTN Rocks says:

    Ugh, I didn’t say that the right way. I believe 21-0 is a perfect score…

  56. Stephen Matthew says:

    21-0 also is perfect in some forms of volleyball. For that matter 21, being blackjack, is obviously the ideal hand in the game of the same name.

  57. BLB Oregon says:

    I guess I would use a bowling analogy, then: It wasn’t a 300, it has to pick up a spare here and there, but in the end there were never any pins left standing.

  58. BLB Oregon says:

    “But that is NOT an accurate description of what I said with my baseball analogy. It is not perfect. It is very good”

    Are you sure you mean a no-hitter, and not just a shut-out? If it leaves an opportunity for action by the offense, I’d say it was shut-out, not a no-hitter. With a no-hitter, the offense only gets on base because the balls were unhittable AND unfairly out of the strike zone, resulting in a walk or a it batter.

    OK, I’ll cop: I am uncommonly nitpicky about analogies. A no-hitter does sound better than a “mere” shut-out.

  59. michelelyl says:

    Shutout in the Stanley Cup Finals in the final game is the ultimate in sports, in my humble opinion, of course.

  60. dcs says:

    Are you sure you mean a no-hitter, and not just a shut-out? If it leaves an opportunity for action by the offense, I’d say it was shut-out, not a no-hitter. With a no-hitter, the offense only gets on base because the balls were unhittable AND unfairly out of the strike zone, resulting in a walk or a it batter.

    Back in 1991 the Phillies’ Tommy Greene pitched a no-hitter against the hapless Expos in which he allowed seven walks. The next game he pitched was also a shutout — a three-hitter — that was probably a better pitching performance than the no-hitter — zero walks and two times retiring 13 batters in a row. That was a rough time for the Phillies; bright spots like these help carry fans through those years. And maybe that is how it will be with Universae Ecclesiae. Not a panacaea, but a bright spot that will give the Faithful hope for the future.

  61. Austin says:

    In cricket, the batsman is the defender and the bowler the attacker. So, theoretically, the best accomplishment of the defence would be to end the game with the opening batsmen not out, no wickets falling. That would, however, give you only a technical draw.

    The usual course in these circumstances is for the captain of the stronger team to “declare” — voluntarily end the innings and allow the opposition to bat, in order to get the clear win. Scuttling the opposition all out for less than your opening batsmen amassed would be a signal victory.

    Both defence and attack are needed for an optimal result.

  62. Austin says:

    And, in test cricket, where there are two innings, the opposition could be forced to “follow on” (bat twice) and still fail to match the opposition’s total. A complete rout.

  63. jjoy says:

    I’d like some curling analogies.
    With UE, Papa has swept the stone into the house and right on the button!

  64. (X)MCCLXIII says:

    Might I respectfully offer the following analogies, which might have some utility?

    In 1888-89, Preston North End won the Football League without defeat. In the same season they won the FA Cup, without conceding a goal.

  65. RichardT says:

    Austin said “Scuttling the opposition all out for less than your opening batsmen amassed would be a signal victory.”

    I think that’s too good. Father wanted something that was very good but not quite the best, but winning without losing a single wicket has happened – what – once ever in English First Class cricket?

  66. John Nolan says:

    There are occasions in cricket where a spin bowler might bowl over after over without taking a single wicket and yet concede few runs; this could be classed as defensive bowling, although it is really the batsman who is being forced onto the defensive. In a Test match a good opening pair will aim to bat through the first session of the first day when the ball is new and the bowlers are fresh and fired up, and if there are only 20 runs on the board by lunch it is of no consequence. Sooner or later, however, the batting side need to score runs, and they can only do this by attacking the bowling. I see Benedict XVI as a Geoffrey Boycott (albeit far more modest). At the beginning of his pontificate there were many who criticized his run-rate as being too slow; he was in fact laying the foundations of a solid innings. We are now midway through the afternoon session. The opposition have failed to dislodge him and he has started hitting boundaries.

  67. ghp95134 says:

    According to Fr. Finigan:

    “…Fr Zuhlsdorf has described the document as a “No Hitter” which sounds negative to those who are not familiar with baseball. I find via Wikipedia that in fact a no-hitter is a very good thing. Using a dynamic equivalence approach to translation, I suppose I would have to say it was something like “middle stump” or “back of the net.

    –Guy Power

Comments are closed.