Talk:Perfect game (baseball)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Explanation of recent revert

The reversion I just made was based on several grounds:

• irrelevance (why among all perfect-game pitchers must we learn of Richmond's post-baseball career?)
• poor writing ("beginning" twice in one sentence)
• outright error (SIX perfecto pitchers are Hall of Famers; five MODERN-ERA perfecto pitchers are Hall of Famers)
• poor structure (division between premodern and modern pitchers, which reflects conceptually sound division in subsequent game table, is undermined by reintroduction of Richmond)—DCGeist (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Integrating the trivia sections

God knows this article is weighed down enough by minutiae. The "no-walk, no-hit, no-hit batsman" section appears to be impossible to remove, much like a tumor that's wrapped itself around an artery. At least it isn't metastasizing. Anyway, I suggest that the "game notes" section be integrated into the "history" article, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines to avoid trivia sections. I would do it like this: have a "history" section that starts off with a Lee Richmond subsection. You could tell in that subsection all the interesting bits about Lee Richmond: that he had a losing record for his career, that there was a 9-3 putout in his game, etc. The Monte Ward section would include the bits about Monte Ward: made the HoF but more as a shortstop, last perfect game in the NL for 84 years, etc. The David Wells section would say that he and Don Larsen went to the same high school. This would make the article less ugly, more readable, and more in compliance with Wikipedia style guidelines. Vidor (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This strikes me as a very intelligent proposal. It will take some work to figure out how to handle the General notes, but that's hardly an insurmountable obstacle. Vidor's suggestion that this restructuring "would make the article less ugly, more readable, and more in compliance with Wikipedia style guidelines" is surely correct. The one alteration I'd make to the proposal (or perhaps this is a clarification) is that the History section could still begin with the paragraph that currently opens it, followed by some of the general material. I also think that this reconceived History section should follow the Major League Baseball perfect games section.—DCGeist (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good plan. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okey doke, then I'll do it. I am working three 12-hour night shifts in a row so that should be enough. Vidor (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Game notes suggestion

Well, it looks a million times better after Vidor's change. Persuing it now, it would be nice to dispense with the Game notes section, which Vidor successfully pared from fourteen points to eight. I've already taken the material in one note and merged it into the applicable individual subsections. Vidor, I've come around to your view that the note about the Wells and Johnson trades doesn't add much, and I've never understood the significance of noting whether the winning runs were unearned. That leaves us with five bullet points. They might be combined in a paragraph like this:

Three perfect-game pitchers had RBIs in their games: Hunter (3), Bunning (2), and Young (1). Hunter had three hits; Richmond, Ward, Bunning, and Martínez each had one. No pitcher has ever scored a run during his perfect game. Barker, Witt, Rogers, Wells, and Cone did not bat in their perfect games, as the American League adopted the designated hitter rule in 1973. The latest the winning runs have been scored in a perfect game is the seventh inning—this occurred in the games of Hunter (bottom), Witt (top), and Martínez (top). Although by the latter part of the 20th century, major league games were being played predominantly at night, four of the last seven perfect games have taken place in the daytime. No first-year player has ever pitched a perfect game. Richmond and Robertson were classified as rookies, but were second-year players; each had made a single appearance in a previous season. Five perfect-game pitchers have also thrown at least one additional no-hitter: Young, Joss, Bunning, Koufax, and Johnson. Witt participated in a combined no-hitter. Koufax has the most total no-hitters of any perfect-game pitcher with four.

It could be placed at the bottom of the History section intro. It's a hodgepodge, admittedly, but I think it's an improvement over the remaining bullet-point section. Thoughts?—DCGeist (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The remaining items are "group" items that can't be attached to specific games. Several of them have to do with when winning runs scored and the extent of pitchers "helping their own cause" - which could be a good sub-section heading. Including them at the end of "History" sounds like a good idea. I was just thinking about how Nolan Ryan threw 7 no-hitters but never a perfect game. But paradoxically, he was an unlikely candidate for a perfect game, due to his tendency to walk a lot of batters. Koufax, a power pitcher like Ryan, had much better control. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this the whole point of Baseball? Minutia and statistical trivia are central to the game - especially here, a detailed article on one of the finer points of the game.99.142.10.147 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"New York Clipper" source query

Do we have any source for this quite specific claim, which was added a few months ago?

Similarly, the New York Clipper described the "perfect play" of Providence's defense when writing up Ward's perfect game.

I just searched as best I could, and found nothing.—DCGeist (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't vouch for the Clipper, but I do have the 1975 book, The Scrapbook History of Baseball, p.14, which describes both of the 1880 games to a fair extent:

There's a "special dispatch to the Sunday Herald" (presumably the New York Herald) that describes Richmond's June 12 game as "the most wonderful game on record [that matches the statement attributed to the Chicago Tribune in the wiki article], and one of the shortest", and describes the lone run of the game by the Worcester club as coming "on Dunlap's double error, the only lapse from perfect play made by the Clevelands during the game", although Worcester also had 3 hits and a walk, so their use of "perfect" in that context referred more to the defense. It doesn't call Richmond's game "perfect", though. The article also says there were 700 people present and that the game time was 1 hour and 27 minutes, which matches the info in the table. It also says that rain interrupted the game for eight minutes in the eighth inning. One more note of interest is that Richmond was batting second in the lineup.

There's a "special dispatch to the Enquirer" (the Philadelphia Inquirer?) that describes Ward's June 17 game in various superlatives, none of which contain the word "perfect". It gives the game time as 1 hour and 50 minutes before 1,800 persons. Ward batted sixth.

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom Browning

The following text has been removed because it is inaccurate:

"Browning's perfect game was thrown for the team that eventually won that year's World Series, the first time that occurred since Don Larsen's World Series perfect game and the only time that has happened until Wells' and Cone's perfect games in 1998 and 1999 for the eventual champion, New York Yankees."

Browning's prefect game was in 1988, not 1990 when the Reds won the World Series. The Dodgers, who were the losing team in the game, eventually won the World Series in 1988, but that was not the point of comparison with the 1956, 1998 and 1999 Yankees. --69.77.183.2 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Browning's game was thrown against the Dodgers, and yes that is the only time something like that has happened. But you're right that there are many other cases where a team to benefit from a perfect game has gone on to win the World Series. This is just the only case where it's the other way around. szyslak (t) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain clearly the difference between a no-hitter and a perfect game?

Aren't all no-hitters also a shutout? How does anyone score without first getting a hit? I know the concepts are different since there are 263 no-hitters but only 18 Perfect games, but I do not get the difference.

May I suggest that this be clearly explained in the article? 38.104.186.254 (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

All perfect games are shutouts, but not all no-hitters are. There are at least three ways to reach base without being credited with a hit: a walk, a hit batsman or an error. In the latter case, it's important to remember that if you reach base on an error, you usually don't get credit for a hit. Ordinary no-hitters allow for walks, hit batsmen and errors, but perfect games do not (except for a misplayed foul ball, which doesn't allow a baserunner). I hope this clears it up for you. I'll look through the article and see what I can do to stem any confusion. szyslak (t) 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A perfect game is a special case of a no-hitter, in which no opposing batter reaches first base safely. In a "regular" no-hitter, at least one batter has reached by means other than a hit: base on balls, hit by pitch, fielding error, interference of some kind - or fielder's choice if a preceding runner is forced out; none of which are considered hits. Various combinations of those things can eventually lead to runs, and mathematically there is no limit to the number of runs a team could score even while suffering a no-hitter. Several no-hitters have been losses, thanks to the no-hit "victim" scoring more runs than they yielded. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How does anyone score without first getting a hit? One hypothetical example: batter walks, advances to second by stealing second, advances to third on a wild pitch, and scores on a sacrifice fly. So yes, it is possible to lose a no-hitter, and in fact it has happened twice in MLB. Vidor (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Negro League game

I deleted the citation for Bob McClure's Negro League perfect game. The reason is this: it was not an official Negro League game. Organized Negro League play began with the Negro National League of 1920 and another league, the Eastern Colored League, in 1923. McClure's game did not occur in either of those leagues but in something called the "Florida Hotel League". I believe that the Negro Leagues were at least as good as MLB and probably better, and if anyone had ever thrown a perfect game in organized Negro League competition I'd support adding it to this article, but since this game did not occur in organized Negro League play it doesn't belong. Vidor (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In effect, it would be like throwing a perfect game in the Cactus League. Nice effort, but that's about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I was the person who added the citation. It took me some time to figure out how to register, fill out my talk, fill out talk apge and it was only today that I am viewing the reason the citation was deleted. It makes good sense. I am sorry I was getting hot and bothered about I appreciate Vidor and his cool headed, objective approach. Now how the hell do I sign my name on this??? I will try. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminsp (talk • contribs) 06:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

4 tildes. The squiggly thing near the upper left on your keyboard. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Second try Benjamin Spector 06:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, just type 4 tildes and hit save. Then see the magic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be shocked if we did find out about a legitimate Negro League perfect game one day. The quality of play in the Negro Leagues was superb, but the league administration and record-keeping was terrible. Vidor (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Has there ever been an all-strikeout perfect game?

I know there hasn't in Major League Baseball, but has it ever happened at any other level? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I know this much: If that happened, the members (and especially coaching staff) of the "victim" team might want to pursue another line of work, given that it never occurred to any of them to at least try to lay down a bunt. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It almost happened in a Class D minor league game in 1952. Ron Necciai recorded 27 strikeouts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Necciai

But it's not as if he struck out everybody. There was one groundout, and he needed (and got) a four strikeout inning to compensate.WHPratt (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unofficial perfect games

Wouldn't Mark Buehrle's no-hitter against the Texas Rangers on April 18, 2007 constitute an "unofficial perfect game"? He walked Sammy Sosa with one out in the fifth inning, then picked him off at first base. In the end, he faced 27 batters, the same as a perfect game. 70.70.29.193 (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Craig 07/24/2009

No, because the walk instantly nullified the perfect game, although it was still a no-hitter at that point, as walks are not hits. A perfect game means "no baserunners". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Americo-centric

Apparently there have been some perfect games in Japan, as well as perhaps elsewhere. They should probably be mentioned in some pertinent way, since the article is on perfect games in baseball, not just the US major leagues. Just my $/50. 71.194.207.192 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to research the matter. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is about major league baseball, so yes, it is "americo-centric". There are no citations for minor-league perfect games, perfect games in college baseball, perfect games in international competition, perfect games in exhibitions, or perfect games in international leagues. The proper thing to do would be to have "see also" links to other articles, such as the link to Nippon Baseball. Vidor (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the IP. Either this article should be titled "Perfect game" and include all perfect games at the major league level (including NPB), or it should be titled "Perfect game" and include no list of perfect games (splitting them to a separate list), or it should not be titled "Perfect game" at all, with the title reflecting its limited scope. I'd prefer the first option - NPB is generally considered hitter-friendly, so it's useful to contrast the fact that they've had 16 perfect games just since 1950. Moreover, there's no reason for an article at the present title to have a limited scope. Just my 2¢, of course. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There is only one true major leagues, and that is the one in the USA. All other leagues in the world feed MLB. It is not the other way around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

NPB is not a "major league" on the level of Major League Baseball. Major League Baseball is the highest level of professional baseball, with the best players in the world (except Cubans, I guess). If anything, the name of the article could be changed to 'Perfect game (Major League Baseball)'. But I don't think that's even necessary. Vidor (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ultra trivia

Am I the only one with an urge to trim stuff from this article? I glanced over the Perfect game#General notes section and looked for User:Ron liebman socks in the history! How is it pertinent how many hits each pitcher collected? Is it really necessary to remind about the DH rule in 1973? Liebman's Baseball Wikia is thataway. Wknight94 ^talk 15:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm the one that added the stuff about the pitchers batting in the middle of the lineup and helping their own cause, in the 1880 perfect games. That was probably when I was looking up missing info and seeing whether they used the term "perfect" or not. I found it interesting that the pitchers in those games actually knew how to hit. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't in that General notes section. That section, other than having only one reference, has a few Liebmanesque points. "No pitcher has ever scored a run during his perfect game". Okay, none of them had a last name beginning with Q either... The context of pitchers helping their own cause while pitching a perfect game is good, but listing every one which had a single hit or didn't bat at all in their perfect game seems a bit much. If someone lists their favorite music, I'll go Harry Caray! On the other hand, DH in general is a good point as far as who pitched perfect games vs. 9 regular hitters as opposed to 8. Maybe I'm just cranky....... Wknight94 ^talk 18:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, 19th century fans were called "kranks". I'm not married to those details. Feel free to exercise your excise. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The batting data is also relevant to a consideration of what constitutes the best all-around performance in baseball history. Hunter's perfect pitching plus 3 hits and 3 RBIs batting is arguably the greatest single game ever played by a major leaguer.—DCGeist (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Roy Hobbs! I wonder, then, if a separate section on all the pitchers' batting could be justified? Maybe a table of typical box score stats, including where they batted in the lineup. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally, an ally. I have long argued, and you will find threads about this in the discussion, for trimming down this article. The "no-hit, no-walk, no-hit batsman" section should be deleted in its entirety, as pointless and irrelevant. A perfect game can be spoiled in six different ways as far as I know (base hit, walk, HBP, error, passed ball/wild pitch on strike three, catcher's interference) and I will never understand why this article has an entire section devoted to just one of those ways. I agree that the business about which pitchers got hits is also irrelevant and should be deleted--this article is about perfect games, and perfect games are about PITCHING, and whether or not Pitcher Y had three hits and drove in a run and Pitcher Z went 0-5 with three strikeouts is irrelevant. I would, however, note the adoption of the DH rule, as that in theory made perfect games more difficult in the American League. Vidor (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The theory behind that one section is that the other three items are "not the pitcher's fault". As for the DH, well that didn't bother Mark Buehrle, did it? :) The frequency of perfect games has increased since the DH, especially in the AL. There were 9 in total during 1876-1972. Since 1973 there have been another 9 -> 6 in the American, 3 in the National. What does that say? Ironically, if the NL had the DH, and had it earlier than 1970, Preston Gomez wouldn't have had to decide whether to lift 2 different pitchers that were pitching no-hitters (not perfect games). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But, as we've discussed, perfect games are in fact a team effort, by definition, unlike a no-hitter. Vidor (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm only explaining that one item, not justifying it. And if there were any doubt, consider the circus catch made by centerfielder Wise in the Buehrle perfect game. He saved the perfect game, the no-hitter and the shutout, all in one play - and if he had dropped the ball, the heat really would have been on the official scorer: hit or error? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Base hit all the way. Vidor (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So now comes the next obvious trivia question: Buehrle has tossed 2 no-hitters, facing 27 batters in each. I wonder, for pitchers throwing no-hitters, which one has faced the fewest average number of batters? For Buehrle it's 27. For a pitcher who might have had 3 no-hitters and faced 28, 29, and 27 batters, his average would be 28. Follow? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll rejoin the splitter (parsimony) vs inclusionist (hang the storage cost!) debate for a bit. Unlike all (?) other games, baseball offers the prospect of complete analytic information about player and team performance. It is of course only an illusion, as the statitical measures introduced by Chadwick very early on have had the considerable virtue of longevity, but the considerable vice of insufficiency (Bill James and the Sabremetricians would certainly have it so). But the illusion is enough for those of a (perhaps with a trace of autism or obsessive compulsive disorder) orderly cast of mind. Perhaps especially children who are exploring the possibility of mastering details of their new world.

On the other hand, there are those delighted by the oddities thrown up (or made possible of discover) by all those facts nad figures the obsessed maintain.

In neither case, is the interested Gentle Reader well served by a lean and mean, we don't need no stinkin' trivia, approach to this article.

On these psychological grounds, I must come down on the side of the inclusionists. Though I have a considerable interest in good writing, but this is a purely stylistic (however important0 consideration. ww (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Small restructuring

I made a small change to the article's structure that I think makes the article read much better. The old structure after the Table of Contents had a table of the perfect games, then a history section with a textual summary, then notes about each pitcher. I've moved the textual summary (History section) before the table of games. Now the table of games is immediately followed by the notes about each pitcher. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfect games with at least one error

I don't know if it ever occurred to me before that if a fielder muffs a foul ball, that's an error, but it doesn't break up a perfect game because it doesn't put anyone on base. Have there been any MLB perfect games, in which the winning team committed at least one error? I guess it's theoretically possible it could even be the pitcher who commits the error, but he'd still get a perfect game. Has that ever happened? Might be an interesting addition to the article. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No errors were committed in any of the 18 major league perfect games.—DCGeist (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's theoretically possible, yes, but it hasn't happened yet in any Major League baseball game. If it ever does, I'd agree with you that it would be notable enough to mention (especially as it hasn't happened ever in MLB history up to now. The first time it does, if it ever does, would certainly merit a mention.). 67.190.122.158 (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Temporary Lock

Can this page be locked? I have a feeling that over the next few days/hours anger at the Detroit Lions *almost perfect game will result in heavy vandalism of this page. Can an admin lock it? 128.208.115.71 (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

-- That'd be impressive if a Detroit Lion threw a perfect game.97.83.16.138 (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Gonna be some non-NPOV edits, methinks.

A perfect game for the Detroit Lions would be one where their QB was sacked less then three times. ;) (and yes, article semi-protected for a day) SirFozzie (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fozzie 128.208.115.71 (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. If you guys see any articles that need to be looked at let me know. And somehow, I think this may be needed for more time :P SirFozzie (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The page should be locked again. A IP address did foul language about the blown perfect game and was reverted. Do you think this should be locked again? P.S. Jim Joyce has been locked again by my recommendation. Thanks! Isabella and Lego Liker _{Whatcha doin'?} 02:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.226.158.134, 3 June 2010

Please add the Armando Galaraga (would have been) perfect game if it wasn't for Jim Joyce's horrible call

76.226.158.134 (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. It's already in the article. SirFozzie (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It should also be in the list of Unofficial Perfect Games. User:209.22.88.90 13:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No. It doesn't fit the criteria. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Joehosophat, 3 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In light of Jim Joyce's admitted blown call costing Armando Galarraga a perfect game in the Tigers-Indians matchup on June 2nd, 2010, this page should be updated to reference Galarraga's performance.

Joehosophat (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It has properly reflected Galarraga's performance for at least an hour before you filed this request.—DCGeist (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Armando Galarraga

Armando Galarraga's Perfect Game was not spoiled by the 27th Batter. It was spoiled by a stupid umpire. Because of this I feel that Galarraga's perfect game, should be mentioned in the Unofficial Perfect Games section. I do believe Major League Baseball will reverse this call, and award Galarraga the perfect game, if he, and the Tigers protest. I know that has never happened before. However there is always a first time for something, and this is as good a time as any.--Subman758 (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A team official can protest the umpire's interpretation of a rule, but not an umpire's decision. The decision has to be respected. If the commissioner caves in and overrules here, he's opening quite the cannister of worms.WHPratt (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If I were the ump, I'd have probably taken the situation into consideration and decided to call a close play in favor of the defense. You might have done the same. A professional umpire can't see everything at once, so what he does is to watch for the contact of the runner's foot and the base and listen for the impact of the ball and the glove of the man covering first -- probably with his own correction for the fact that light travels faster than sound. ;) Based upon years of experience, he's got to make that call consistently, whether it's in the sixth inning of an 18-3 game or the 27th out of a no-hitter.WHPratt (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. It was a perfect game and it needs to be classified as such. This is the case regardless of whether Bud Selig for once does the right thing and issues an "official" pronouncement.

Relatedly, the article should mention that (1) 2010 was the first season with three perfect games pitched, and (2) there were, in fact, 3 perfect games in the span of less than one month. Hbomb1947 (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Sorry, no.—DCGeist (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Coulda, shoulda, woulda" isn't an argument. Galarraga retired all 28 batters. That is an objective fact; Jim Joyce has even admitted as much. You can quibble with whether it's "official" or not, but at the very least, this is an unofficial perfect game. Hbomb1947 (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as bad bounces are a part of baseball, so are bad calls. Joyce's bad call is part of the game and, therefore, is no reason to call this a "perfect game". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.32.62 (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly right. The "objective fact" is that Donald was not retired at first. Joyce could have called him out. We can all agree that he should have called him out. Both he and Galarraga are surely thinking how much better life would be if only he would have called him out. But he didn't. Which means Donald was safe. That's not a quibble. That's a sad fact. This is no more an "unofficial perfect game" than Wiltse's 1908 game, in which the home-plate umpire admitted he should have called strike 3 on the 27th batter the pitch before Wiltse hit him, or Pappas's 1972 game, in which the home-plate umpire's call of ball 4 on the 27th batter was disputed.—DCGeist (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw the play with my own eyes, he WAS out, no question. however I saw that in replay, to Joyce's credit, it looked very close. however that is no excuse, he misssed the call, and Galarraga should be the 21st person on this list. Tu-49 (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe he will be # 21. Right now MLB is under a lot of heat to reverse this call. I believe that is what will ultimately happen.--Subman758 (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing the call does is make it not official. The only way it would be spoiled by the 27th batter is if, in fact, he HAD been safe. He was obviously not and there for it was an unofficial perfect game. Galarraga retired every single batter and we have the proof of this. That's what unofficial means, he obviously did it but its not official because of the call. Novadestin (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

True the umpire has the final say, but we all know and even he knows that Galarraga retired 27 batters! and if (more or less when) the call is reversed, i think Armando Galarraga will become the first offical perfect game pitcher to record 28 consecutive outs. Tu-49 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this game be added to a new section entitled "Perfect Games Spoiled by an Umpire"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.209.58 (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I understood this as a joke, but someone actually tried to add such a section, which I have reverted. There are two glaring problems with it:

• We have no objective standard for determining where the line is for umpire "spoilage". Do the Wiltse and Pappas games mentioned above get moved to such a section? Do we require a significant dispute over a call? In that case, the Pappas would move but the Wiltse wouldn't. Do we require an explicit admission of error by the umpire? In that case, the Wiltse would move but the Pappas wouldn't. The fact is, when an umpire makes a call, whether its on the first batter or the (woulda-been) last, that's what happened according to the record books. There's no asterisks for umps.
• We currently have three cases where a perfect game was lost on the 27th batter possibly or definitely because of an umpire's mistake. What about all the "perfect games" lost because an umpire made a mistake on the 26th batter...and the 25th...and the 24th... We define perfect games lost after the first 26 batters were out without reaching base because that's a category baseball historians and journalists recognize. They don't recognize the category (yet) of "Perfect Games Spoiled by an Umpire".

That said, things could change. It is possible that, from the perspective of history, this umpiring error will seem flagrant, Joyce's admission so unambiguous that reliable sources will effectively or literally describe the Galarraga game as a special case, an "unofficial perfect game". But we are not allowed to make that assumption at this point.—DCGeist (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the controversy for a moment, please note that with the latest perfect games and near-perfection as of June 2, 2010, that there have been 20 perfect games and 10 that were spoiled by the 27th hitter. Therefore, 30 pitchers have gotten through the first 26 batters, and 20 of these completed the perfect game.

The 27th hitter is always going to be the #9 slot for the afflicted team, ergo, their own pitcher, or at least the worst hitter in their starting lineup. Naturally, they'll be using a pinch-hitter at this juncture. [Whoops: He wasn't a pinch hitter! I wonder how often that's happened in a candidate perfect game? You could argue that they weren't trying very hard to break it up. WHPratt (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)] If we assume that the pinch hitter has a good-but-not-great on base percentage of .333 then the results are just about exactly what we'd expect. You get him out 2/3 of the time; he gets on 1/3 of the time. Involved is a time period of well over a century, but some very small numbers; still, two-thirds of the pitchers who get 26 also get #27. A third of them do not. Anything else would require some explanation. WHPratt (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. A couple thoughts:

• On the one hand, you might expect significantly fewer of those pinch-hitters to get on because the pitcher is obviously having an exceptional night. On the other hand, you'd expect the pitcher to be tiring out some at that point, so those two factors might tend to balance out. On the third hand, until the mid- to late 1980s, pitchers arms didn't fall off when they hit the mystical 100-pitch count!
• Topic for further research: We've seen in three of the ten cases where a perfecto was spoiled by the 27th batter that umpire error might have been (or, in this most recent case, definitely was) involved. Now, in how many of the 20 perfectos was the 27th out actually gifted by an ump?—DCGeist (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Larsen's may well have been, and Mitchell argued the call with Pinelli. But ball-and-strike calls are debatable and are very, very unlikely ever to be subject to review. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Unlike previous controversial perfect game spoiling calls that had to do with balls and strikes, instant replay CLEARLY shows that the baserunner was out. It is not a perfect game until the Commissioner deems it so, but I believe that it should have a much larger spot on the article. I think that a section should be created for controversial calls that spoiled a perfect game.

Mìthrandir (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cardinals fans would argue against this being the "most egregious call", given what happened in Game 6 in 1985, although it's certainly debatable whether that turned the Series around, because you can't say what would have happened had he been called out. One thing not publicized enough is the remarkable graciousness of both the pitcher and the ump in this circumstance. How often have you heard an umpire admit he was wrong? And the pitcher had a bemused grin after the call, when he had every right to be angry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That World Series call, 25 years ago, is precisely the one Kepner describes as "the last call that was so important and so horribly botched."—DCGeist (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

They were showing it on ESPN Classic today. From the totally objective standpoint, the World Series one was worse, because it "may have" affected the outcome of the game and the Series. The Tigers lost the perfect game, but they won the game, and the only stat that really matters is team wins and losses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to play perfection's advocate. In the 107 years since the first World Series winner, there have been 104 more and there is a 99.99% chance there will be another this year, and another next year, and another the year after that... (when's the union contract up?) In the 130 years since the first perfect game, there have been just 19 more and despite the recent spate, on average it will be six or seven years until another one occurs, and we might have a period where 20 or 30 years go by without one. Conclusion: A perfect game is more precious than a World Series victory.—DCGeist (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe more rare, but not more precious the way I use the word. A perfect game is just a game. A World Series win is a championship. That reporter has kind of a short memory, and the Tigers as a team weren't harmed as they won the game anyway. In 1985, the bad call was on the first batter of the inning, and soon after that the Cardinals messed up and failed to catch a foul ball. So whether that one call cost the Cardinals the Series is highly debatable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible MLB review of the call in Armando Galarraga's game

On thursday morning June 3, MLB are still deciding whether to review umpire's call.http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/2351150,jim-joyce-blown-call-perfect-game-mlb-review-03.article http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/sports/pro/baseball&sa=MLB&eid=5246454 Mijcofr (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we hold off on mentioning any possible review unless (a) there actually is one and until (b) an official judgment results from it. Before that, it's not really an encyclopedic matter.—DCGeist (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Get Bud to look -- while he's doing this -- at that famous steal of home in the 1955 World Series. The film clearly shows that Jackie Robinson was out by quite a step! WHPratt (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. Another Bud, named Greenspan, in his book Play It Again, Bud, found a series of still photos taken from the opposite side which indicated Jackie got his toe on the corner of the plate and that the ump made the right call. Furthermore, in a Tim Russert interview several years ago featuring Yogi, Whitey Ford and Phil Rizzuto, Yogi commented again about that play, and his own teammate Phil piped up and said, "He was safe! You didn't get the glove down!" Phil was, of course, on the left side of the infield and had a good look at the play. Which just goes to show that relying on one camera angle can lead to incorrect conclusions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not, of course, being serious here. Thanks, however, for the detail!WHPratt (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't singling you out by any means. That film has been shown many times as a supposed example of an ump missing a call. Bud Greenspan was trying to point out things that contradicted conventional wisdom. Another interesting one is a serious mental mistake by the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1951. They were holding the runner close at first despite leading by 2 or 3 runs, and a Giants batter hit one through the hole at right. If the first baseman were playing off the bag, it well could have been a rally-killing double play. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but, why this is listed in the end and not on top? I think the whole Armando Galagarra's game is THE issue right now Mijcofr (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

New threads on all Wikipedia Talk pages properly go on the bottom of the page. That's what we've determined works best to preserve the chronology of discussions. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout.—DCGeist (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Mijcofr meant. Or maybe it was. This game is listed last on the page because the list is chronological. Huw Powell (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 208.75.77.65, 3 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the description of Galarraga's missed perfect game, it would be useful to include the fact that the blown call happened on the last out of the game.

208.75.77.65 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That fact is already perfectly clear from the title of the section, Perfect games spoiled by the 27th batter, and the passage that introduces the list that culminates with the Galarraga game: "On ten occasions in Major League Baseball history, a perfect game has been spoiled when the batter representing what would have been the third and final out in the ninth inning reached base. Unless otherwise noted, the pitcher in question finished and won the game without allowing any more baserunners."—DCGeist (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about baseball. I watch football, BUT This was all over the news and I heard nothing of this Gallaraga 'perfect game' being foiled by a 27th batter (and would it have end up on the news and been a whole fiasco if it were? I think people like me wouldn't have ever known.) The only reason someone like me even heard of this story is because the perfect game was ruined by an erroneous call on the field. Shouldn't this be put in a category where everyone understands it, and in a context everyone learned of it? Like in the 'unnoficial perfect' section, or 'near perfect', or heck even an "honorary perfect" because the State's own Governer declared it perfect. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.192.180.235 (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

MLB won't reverse call in Armando Galarraga's game

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/sports/pro/baseball&sa=MLB&eid=5248118 Mijcofr (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

i cant believe this, bud why aren't you changing that? i mean he deserves it! why? >:( hell i'm a yankee fan and i no he deserves it. i mean look at this, if this happened durning a twins-tigers game, or worse a Yankees-Red Sox game, bud would get seven ear fulls of this! GIVE him the perfect game, please! Tu-49 (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Selig is a stickler for rules, and unfortunately the rules do not allow for counting this one as a perfect game. He could theoretically invoke his "best interests of baseball" authority and reverse the call, although I suspect that's exactly what he thinks he's doing by not reversing the call. What he ought to do is have a conference with the umpires and let them advise him whether special dispensation should be given in this one instance. I wouldn't count on that happening, but we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Another perfect game spoiled by the 27th batter

I'm kind of surprised this one isn't up there, but Roy Halladay had an 8 2/3 game back in 1998. You can find details halfway through this article about his recent perfect game... http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=300529128 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.156.201 (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Read it again. It says he was one out away from a no-hitter, not a perfect game. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Missing an instance of retiring 27+ in one game

Walter Johnson retired 28 batters in a row in the middle of a game on May 11, 1919, vs. Yankees. Check p74 of the Elias Book of Baseball Records.

The washington post of 5/12/1919 shows the play-by-play in detail; I won't reproduce it, but Peck singled for the Yanks with 1 out in the first; Johnson retired the next 2 batters in that inning. Then he retired all 3 batters in the 2nd thru 9th. In the 10th, Peck struck out, Pipp flew out, but Baker walked (and was CS). That's 28 in a row. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.250.95 (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Once the appropriate sources are assembled, we'll put that in.—DCGeist (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Waite Hoyt

play-by-play is available for the first 9 innings. Baker was the last Yankee to bat in the 9th, which means that there was NOBODY out when Pipp tripled in the 13th:

9th: vick out; peckinpaugh out; baker out 10th: pipp out; pratt out; lewis out 11th: fewster out; ruel out; shawkey out 12th: vick out; peckinpaugh out; baker out 13th: pipp tripled; pratt SF

...due to the batting lineup, Pipp would've had to have led off the 13th. Thus, Hoyt had retired the last batter of the 3rd inning and then the next 27 batters before a trip to Pipp. He had 28 in a row, no more. Attached is the PBP for innings 1-9:

Game of Wednesday, 9/24/1919, game 2 -- Boston Red Sox at New York Yankees (D)

Starting Lineups:

  Boston                        New York                      

1. F.Gilhooley rf S.Vick rf 2. O.Vitt 3b R.Peckinpaugh ss 3. B.Lamar cf F.Baker 3b 4. B.Ruth lf W.Pipp 1b 5. S.McInnis 1b D.Pratt 2b 6. M.McNally 2b D.Lewis lf 7. N.McNeil c C.Fewster cf 8. E.Scott ss M.Ruel c 9. W.Hoyt p B.Shawkey p

YANKEES 1ST: S.Vick grounded out (W.Hoyt to S.McInnis); R.Peckinpaugh popped to O.Vitt in foul territory; F.Baker grounded out (S.McInnis unassisted); 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Red Sox 0, Yankees 0.

YANKEES 2ND: W.Pipp singled; D.Pratt singled [W.Pipp to second]; D.Lewis singled [W.Pipp scored, D.Pratt to second]; C.Fewster grounded out (O.Vitt to S.McInnis) [D.Pratt to third, D.Lewis to second]; M.Ruel lined into a double play (S.McInnis to O.Vitt) [D.Pratt out at third]; 1 R, 3 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Red Sox 0, Yankees 1.

YANKEES 3RD: B.Shawkey grounded out (W.Hoyt to S.McInnis); S.Vick flied to B.Ruth; R.Peckinpaugh singled; F.Baker popped to E.Scott; 0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Red Sox 0, Yankees 1.

YANKEES 4TH: Hoyt did not allow a hit from the 4th through the 12th innings; W.Pipp grounded out (M.McNally to S.McInnis); D.Pratt grounded out (W.Hoyt to S.McInnis); D.Lewis flied to F.Gilhooley; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Red Sox 0, Yankees 1.

YANKEES 5TH: C.Fewster grounded out (M.McNally to S.McInnis); M.Ruel grounded out (W.Hoyt to S.McInnis); B.Shawkey struck out; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Red Sox 0, Yankees 1.

YANKEES 6TH: S.Vick grounded out (S.McInnis unassisted); R.Peckinpaugh grounded out (O.Vitt to S.McInnis); F.Baker grounded out (E.Scott to S.McInnis); 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Red Sox 0, Yankees 1.

YANKEES 7TH: W.Pipp grounded out (M.McNally to S.McInnis); D.Pratt struck out; D.Lewis grounded out (O.Vitt to S.McInnis); 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Red Sox 0, Yankees 1.

YANKEES 8TH: C.Fewster flied to B.Lamar; M.Ruel popped to N.McNeil; Ruel ran into his own batted ball; B.Shawkey struck out; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Red Sox 0, Yankees 1.

YANKEES 9TH: S.Vick grounded out (E.Scott to S.McInnis); R.Peckinpaugh grounded out (E.Scott to S.McInnis); F.Baker grounded out (S.McInnis to W.Hoyt); 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Red Sox 1, Yankees 1.

Final Totals R H E LOB

Red Sox          1   6   0   7
Yankees          1   4   2   2  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.250.95 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 

The argument is convincing, but you haven't provided a source for the play-by-play for the first nine innings. Please tell us what your source is.—DCGeist (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Source is retrosheet play-by-play. It's not on their website yet. Not sure which paper they pulled it from. For what it's worth, I'm vice-chair of the SABR Records Committee. I'm working with Elias to get Hoyt's mark added to Johnson's as the AL record for consec. batters retired in a game. Haddix of course holds the NL record (followed by Rick Wise).--Trent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treant985 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. We can't use it directly until it appears on Retrosheet, but I'll find a way to reword our piece so we don't violate the source we do have at the moment yet don't say "at least 29".—DCGeist (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Armando Galarraga's almost perfect game need its own section?

My opinion, is no. Yes, it's a big deal right now. But we cannot and should not let recent-ism decide how our articles should read. As far as I'm concerned, it's in the right section, and should stay the way it is. SirFozzie (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The game in question is currently listed under "Perfect games spoiled by the 27th batter". That's plain and simply false. The 27th batter did not spoil the perfect game. It was the umpire with what has been called by all accounts a mistaken call that spoiled the game. However whatever (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The ump made a bad call, yes.. but as it says in there.. he was charged with a single . Not the umpire. So the batter ruined/spoiled it, he was just assisted by an umpire who missed the call. The text has it, anyway. SirFozzie (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Officially Galarraga was charged with a single, but the fact is that he was incorrectly charged with the single (and that's not disputed), which is why this game needs to be listed separately from other games in which the pitcher was correctly charged with a hit on the 27th batter. However whatever (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I heard about this on the radio the other day. It made me sad. And, yes, if the "permanent record" charges him with the single, it's in the correct section. Huw Powell (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless Selig reverses himself, it will remain in the books as just another game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just rename the 27th batter section to a less POV title and this will fit in easily. "Perfect games through 26 batters" for example. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree and can't say it any better than that. If I were writing a book about them, I might call it 26 Up, 26 Down but this isn't the place for clever allusion to inside talk. --P64 (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Galarraga's "story" is definitely significant regarding the subject of a perfect game. The rarity of the feat is great. It is even more rare (and thus noteworthy) that a clearly missed call would be the spoiler to such a performance. If I was researching the topic of "perfect games", I would consider this information of huge interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalydose (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Curt Schilling

I made this edit, adding a mention of the game in which Curt Schilling would apparently have had a perfect game if not for Julio Lugo's error. It was reverted with the comment, "no, without the error in the game, Schilling MIGHT have proceeded to give up five home runs--fact is, it was a one-hitter plus an error--hardly qualifies under any notable category)." The same logic used by the reverter could be used against any of the other games with an error in the middle. Could we get a consensus on this one way or the other? Ma^t_chups 01:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, quite different. In all of those games, the fact is that the pitcher threw a no-hit complete game that was perfect aside from one or more fielding errors. Schilling did not. He threw a one-hitter that also happened to have an error earlier in the game. The discussion of the games currently covered involves no hypotheticals, just facts. The Schilling game is a maybe woulda-coulda case. In essence, what you've discovered is a potential no-hit, no-walk, no–hit batsman game 'spoiled' by the 28th batter. That's a step too far.—DCGeist (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As the game details indicate [1] the error in Schilling's game came in the middle innings. The OP's theory is that the guy who got the hit never would have come to bat in the 9th. However, as you suggest, we cannot assume anything that follows some incident prior to the 27th batter. In fact, listing games that are "perfect except for an error" is also misleading, for the same reason: You can't make any assumptions about what "would have happened" had the batter been out instead of safe. The only time you can properly talk about a busted perfect game is the Galaraga or Pappas situations, i.e. where it's busted on the 27th batter after the first 26 were retired. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Completely agreed. The important distinction is that in the no-hit, no-walk, no–hit batsmen games, the pitcher pitched flawlessly, so they constitute a special class of no-hitters that relate more significantly than others to the perfect game class. That is borne out by the sourced discussions of the individual games, as well as Baseball Digest's 2007 discussion of the category.—DCGeist (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That gets into a touchy area, because those writers are making the same mistake - they're assuming the pitcher would continue to retire everyone he faced if they had gotten that batter out. But that is not a valid assumption in general. The only way it kinda works is if he then retires that runner somehow (as with Ernie Shore, in relief of Babe Ruth) and then gets everyone else out. Otherwise it's just an ordinary no-hitter. I say again, while the "perfect except for an error" result is anecdotally interesting, it's only statistically significant if that error occurs on the 27th batter - because that's the only condition under which you can definitively state, "Had he gotten that out, he would have had a perfect game." Because the game would have ended at that point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

But virtually none of the writers we cite make the baseless assumption that the pitcher would have continued to retire everyone he faced if they had gotten that one batter who reached on an error out. They focus on the verifiable fact: that the pitcher pitched flawlessly, to a degree significantly beyond the "ordinary no-hitter."—DCGeist (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. It's a fine distinction. In the Schilling case, maybe if the one guy had been retired, then that 28th guy wouldn't have come to bat. But the fact is that he did, and that Schilling did not retire him. That's how the ball bounces. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything that results in having to come up with arbitrary guidelines should never be listed. There is no way you can come to a NPOV decision on what near means. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• The only clear criteria if we're going to include this (and I'm not sure we should) are 27th batter lost perfectos. ANYTHING else leads to the rabbit hole of assuming the same progress. If someone throws a perfect game other than an error on the first batter you don't know how different energy levels and different information (in terms of seeing pitches and batters) would alter decision making. With 26 outs you know it's a perfecto if they get the 27th. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• That's simply incorrect. No assumption is made about what would have happened. Authoritative sources have identified this delimited subset of no-hitters as noteworthy according to what verifiably did happen: the pitcher pitched flawlessly, but one or more errors were committed.—DCGeist (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• He pitched flawlessly except for the error - but it still implies that he would have pitched flawlessly even without the error. It's an interesting game - but it's not a "near-perfect game" unless the error happened on the 27th batter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm with DCGeist--as long as we are clear that we are describing what actually happened, and not speculating on what would have happened, then the content is appropriate and encyclopedic. (That does not necessarily resolve whether it is sufficiently notable.) With regard to Staxringold's comment, an error on the first batter is no different from an error on the seventh--maybe he only got the second batter out because the defense was shifted differently with a baserunner. Yes, there is a category of "27 consecutive outs," but that is again based on actual facts and a game could qualify even if those were proceded by three walks and a grand slam. Ma^t_chups 01:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• If they say, "He pitched flawlessly while his team made an error," that's one thing. If they say, "If not for that error, he would have had a perfect game," that's vaporware and can't be used in the article. It's not a "near-perfect game". It's either a perfect game or it isn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's near perfect but I don't see why cover lots and lots of near-perfect games in the perfect games article.

Of course Gala's near-perfect game will remain notable. It is a near-perfecto that will go down in history, not that I expect the early 21st century ever to indulge the baseball storytelling that did go down in history from the early 20th. --P64 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's more of a "near perfect" game than those games in which the only baserunner reached on an error in some earlier inning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs on the 27th batter thing. "Changing" something in the middle of the game (error to out) changes everything that comes after it. Huw Powell (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Spring Training

The Spring training on March 14, 2000 has no merit for this article. Spring training games are exhibitions that give big league players the opportunity to get in shape for the season and allow young players, aging veterans and amateur invitees an opportunity to try out for a spot on the big league roster for a given upcoming season. The point of playing games in spring training is not to win, but to try-out and get in shape. That being said, pitching a "perfect game" in spring training can not be considered equal to pitching a perfect game during the regular and/or postseason. Therefore, it has no merit for this article. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph states what you stated above, that it's exhibition. Obviously it has no standing as a record. But given the frequent lineup changes, it seems all the more remarkable that a perfect game could be achieved in spring training. Notice I said seems. I am currently searching to see if I can determine the relative rarity of spring training no-hitters vs. regular season no-hitters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Bugs. Dog, you state "pitching a 'perfect game' in spring training can not be considered equal to pitching a perfect game during the regular and/or postseason." I agree...and so does the article, which does not present it as "equal" but as a closely related event of interest.—DCGeist (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Googling spring training no-hitters yields only spotty results. No-hitters do occur in spring training, but they are rare. The Tigers were no-hit in a spring training game and manager Jim Leyland said in 47 years of going to spring training, that was the first one he'd seen. Obviously there have been others, but they do seem to be rare. And a perfect game is certainly an oddity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's great that it's odd and that you guys find it interesting. It's still not worth mentioning. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this would be a good question to bring up at the Baseball project page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. If this "needs" to be included, then that opens the flood gates to every odd and "interesting" event in Spring training games to be included in other baseball articles as well. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? This datum—about the one known major-league spring training perfect game—has been included in this article (without any previous controversy) for over four years. What's come surging through the flood gates in that time?—DCGeist (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is that its continued inclusion in this article sets precedent. Any odd, interesting or rare feat accomplished in a Spring Training or exhibition game can now be included in other articles: Hitting three home runs in a game, hitting for the cycle, striking out three batters on nine pitches, etc, as they would each fall into the same category as this game. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A perfect game is a lot rarer than any of those items you mentioned. Now, if someone hit FIVE homers in one spring training game, that would be something. Maybe you could take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball and see what the broader audience thinks. Besides, it would be a nice change from the ongoing Danny Valencia dispute. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, they don't fall into the same category. The subject of this article is (a) extremely rare to begin with, (b) of exceptional significance as a baseball feat, and (c) this spring-training example is evidently unique. That the fear that's been expressed is unfounded is, once again, evidenced by the fact that in four years the "flood gates" have apparently not opened at all, in part because our contributors are able to distinguish between events that are unique and those that are not.—DCGeist (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hitting 3 homers in a game is not all that rare. 4 in a game is a rarity on the order of a perfect game. As is an unassisted triple play. Hitting for the cycle, 3 strikeouts on 9 pitches, etc., are not all that rare. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I love how this is being qualified as an exception. I'm not going to continue to argue against this as I see anything I mention will be argued against and I have not the time or the patience to deal with it. I have made my points, and as valid as they are, I see they will just continue to be argued against for the sake of keeping this irrelevant bit of information in the article. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not cast in stone, and consensus could change. However, your comparison of a perfect game with 3 homers in a game, for example, is really apples-and-oranges, and those kinds of things could easily be fended off as being unextraordinary. A perfect game in spring training, by comparison, is quite unusual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)