Talk:Perfect game (baseball)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This article is biased in favor of baseball

OK, the discussion title is supposed to be a humorous, tongue-in-cheek comment. :) But I do have a serious point. Jennie Finch of the Chicago Bandits is on my watchlist and the other day she pitched a perfect game against the Akron Racers.[1] I was going to add a WikiLink from the Jennie Finch article to this one, but then I realized that this one doesn't mention anything about softball. In softball, a normal game is 7 innings, and so pitchers face 21 batters, not 27. I was wondering if we should add a paragraph or something about perfect games in softball? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, we could have articles for at least three sports under perfect game, baseball, softball, and a 300 game in bowling (also called a perfect game). One could also call a victory in tennis where they don't give up a single point a perfect game. Is there support for breaking it down further? SirFozzie (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The article Perfect game (bowling) already exists. To maintain the current level of both focus and sourcing, I believe this article should not further expand its scope. The primary use—it strikes me, the overwhelming use—of the term "perfect game" in the English language is to refer to perfect games in Major League Baseball. Perfect games are, of course, possible at any level of baseball or softball, but I don't believe there's adequate sourcing to address the topic in most other areas. Note that Nippon Professional Baseball has a section listing all the perfect games in that league. Next to MLB, NPB almost certainly has the most complete and best-maintained statistical records in organized baseball/softball, yet even that section is unsourced.

The one possibility I could see in terms of altering the present structure of this article would be adding a section of a general nature that would discuss perfect games at other levels of baseball and softball. It would have to address in some way: the U.S. minor leagues; the professional leagues in all the other countries where baseball is played; college, high school, and other organized amateur baseball in all the countries where the game is played; softball of every level in all the countries where the game is played. I don't see such a section as having much encyclopedic value, but if someone wants to draw up a sandbox version, I'm open to being convinced otherwise.—DCGeist (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that I can find appropriate reliable sources regarding perfect games in softball, is it OK if I add a paragraph about this in the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any professional softball that's considered to approach the major leagues? I'm thinking there could be thousands of perfect games in fast-pitch softball, just as there have likely been thousands of perfect games in bowling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. But if they're not covered by reliable sources, they're not notable. I'm not interested in creating a list, just an explanation of what a perfect game is in softball. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be the same as it is in baseball, except it would be only 7 innings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Except we need to explain it in slightly more detail and cite reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Very astute, because it turns out it's not that simple, according to this:[2] The place to look would be the official rules for the International Softball Federation, wherever that might be. Because softball often has rules that end a game early when the scoring margin reaches a particular level, apparently a pitcher could get credited with a no-hitter or perfect game after pitching as few as 3 innings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that wiki.answers.com counts as a reliable source, nor am I sure what your point is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend it as a reliable source, only as an idea of what to look for. Here[3] is a set of definitions used by the ISF, which includes definitions for both perfect game and no-hitter. And the other point being that softball often has, for example, a 20-run rule. The game could end after as few as 3 innings, and if the pitcher threw a complete game, they would credit for the no-hitter or perfect game. Or so it seems. (By contrast, in major league ball at least, you have to not only pitch a complete game, but also at least 9 innings, to get credit for a no-hitter.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt Garza

Should Matt Garza's July 26, 2010 no-hitter be included in the "near perfect game" section? The game was technically a "27-up, 27-down" game, as the only baserunner (walked) was eliminated in the next batter by a double play. [4] Notorious4life (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I vote "no". I think that's happened numerous times, right? Wknight94 ^talk 03:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just an ordinary no-hitter. And it wasn't 27-up, 27-down. The guy got a walk to get on, and then was erased in a double play. If the 27th batter got on by a walk, then they got the final out, that would qualify as a near-perfect game. That's a special case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but ESPN was raving that a "27-up, 27-down" no-hitter that was not a perfect game hasn't happened in like 40 years. It was a "27-up, 27 down" game, because "[Garza] faced the minimum 27 batters, allowing only a second-inning walk to Brennan Boesch... After Boesch walked, he was erased on a double play." [5] That sounds remarkably similar to the Babe Ruth/Ernie Shore game in 1917 where the only baserunner was quickly eliminated. I haven't done my research yet. I guess we'll have to wait and see what other news sources say when they analyze the story. The game did just end when I posed the question. Depending on the circumstances, I don't have a vote at this time but a definite mention (at least in the no-hitter article) can be made if this is truly a unique scenario. It was a pretty ugly game too. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 03:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a similar scenario to the Ruth-Shore no-hitter, which was also once somehow considered a "perfect game in relief", but good sense prevailed eventually and it's just an ordinary no-hitter. What they are apt to say in a case like Garza's is "he faced the minimum" of 27, which is true. But it's not a "near-perfect game", since it was not on the 27th batter and it was his own action rather than an errant fielder that put the man on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

@Notorious4life, I don't know where you saw 40 years - look at Buehrle's first no-hitter in 2007 where he walked Sosa but then picked him off.[6] Worse, Mulholland's no-hitter in 1990 where the only baserunner was on an error - who was then erased on a DP. According to a blog, a pitcher faces the minimum 27 batters more than once every two years on average. Wknight94 ^talk 11:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with the Cubs, that can sometimes occur in just the first few innings before the pitcher is lifted for the next poor sap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't say I said it. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 00:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

ESPN has been known to get facts wrong before they do some research. When there was a perfect game earlier this year (4 days before the one that got away), they had a list and forgot about the two from 1880. Later they had those two in the list also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, Yogi Berra's here!!!! WHPratt (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC) [That was a reference to "I didn't say I said it" just above.] WHPratt (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Do perfect games really have to be shutouts?

Doesn't a shutout need to be achieved by a single pitcher? And can't a perfect game be pitched by more than one pitcher? Hence, isn't the assertion "a perfect game is by definition a shutout" wrong? --Jlpspinto (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't thought about that before... but I've always thought of a perfect game as being a complete game, and something you can't combine on, like a no-hitter. They call it "27 up, 27 down". --Muboshgu (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Historically, perfect games have invariably been complete games, but there is no such requirement under the rules. If a pitcher in the midst of a perfect game suffered an injury and was replaced by another pitcher or pitchers who closed out the game perfectly, it would be a 100% official perfect game...shared. As the second paragraph of our article points out, there have, in fact, been nine such shared no-hitters in major league history.

I think I understood your point of confusion, Jlpspinto: An individual pitcher gets statistical credit for a shutout only if he completes the game (you don't get a personal shutout credit if you pitch, say, only the first 8 2/3 innings of a shutout), but a team's scoreless pitching effort is still defined as a shutout whether it requires one, two, three, or more pitchers to finish it.—DCGeist (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing is I was doubtful about whether a game could be called a shutout or if it was a statistic assigned only to the pitcher's performance. The rules are not very clear on that, although they do mention "two or more players [combining] to pitch a shutout", so I guess you're right. Thanks. --Jlpspinto (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And in vernacular discussion of baseball, there is no question at all that a scoreless game—whether resulting from the work of one pitcher or multiple pitchers—is conventionally, almost invariably, referred to as a shutout.—DCGeist (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspected that was the case. You see, I'm from the remote land of São Paulo, Brazil, where people have barely heard of baseball, so I'm not that familiar with baseball talk.--Jlpspinto (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Baseball rule 10.18 (in the official scorer's segment of the book) discusses the shutout stat. A shutout is both a team event and a player stat. If there's more than one pitcher, it's a "combined to pitch shutout", as mentioned earlier. There's one exception, and that is if a pitcher is brought in from the bullpen in the first inning with no outs yet. If the reliever manages to get out of the inning without allowing any runs, and shuts out the opposition through the close of the game, he gets credit for a shutout even though he obviously did not pitch a "complete game". A prime example of that is Ernie Shore's effort in relief of Babe Ruth back in 1917 or so. Of course, that pitcher could give up any number of hits and still get credit for a shutout if the other team fails to take advantage of their opportunities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page already moved by Baseball Bugs. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Perfect game (baseball) → Perfect game – Restore heavily trafficked article to long-standing name, reversing entirely undiscussed move. By far the most widespread usage of the phrase "perfect game" is in the context of baseball.—DCGeist (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support It is highly irregular and inappropriate that this article was moved today without any prior discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Ditto. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, no reasoning given for baseball usage being the primary topic. The fact that it was already there was something in need of correction, so I was bold and fixed the issue. What proof do you have to offer that the most widespread usage is in baseball? I'd say it's in bowling, where it actually happens more than once every 10 years, if anything. However, several sports have perfect games and we should let readers decide what they want to read themselves. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Lacking articles on those other sports versions of perfect games, there is no need to disambiguate this article. This is a totally unnecessary move, imnsho. Resolute 22:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• So what would this be then? Not to mention the two films. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Since the bowling article doesn't say, do you happen to know when the term "perfect game" was first used in bowling? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• The perfect game in baseball is by far the most prevalent usage of the term. Since that was the established version, a reason should be given to demonstrate why this change should be maintained. Besides, Perfect game presently redirects here, so what was the point in the move in the first place? Okay that's not the case any more, but my point about the prevalence of "perfect game" as a baseball term remains. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Googling [first perfect game in the history of bowling] turns up various references that say the first sanctioned perfect game in bowling occurred in 1930. I might be inclined to take a guess which sport they borrowed the term from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Who borrowed what doesn't even matter, it has no bearing on significance (unless it was recent, in which case recentism applies). What matters is what our varied readers would be looking for, which is something termed "perfect game". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You had no business making that move without discussing it first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure I did. Being bold is a guideline, and a fundamental building principal of Wikipedia in general. You're also avoiding what I said. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Floydian. We all know where it's appropriate to be bold and where discussion is called for--and moving a well-established, high-traffic article clearly falls into the latter category. You've done a bang-up job at causing unnecessary disruption for no compelling reason.—DCGeist (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps amongst a few baseball heads; baseball isn't the only sport we cover. Indeed, my edit was completely within reason, as I can't find any discussion that resulted in the current set up of one sport having bias over another. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, things are getting a bit heated here, I'd like to remind folks to remain cool and civil. My personal thoughts is that a perfect game is most identified with baseball, at least in my experiences, they don't say "he bowled a perfect game", they say he "Bowled a 300". SirFozzie (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the whole reason I clicked perfect game and investigated this further (from the featured article) is because, at least from my experience, the former is what's said. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Floydian asks, "What proof do you have to offer that the most widespread usage is in baseball? I'd say it's in bowling."

Let's see about that. We all know blanket Google searches aren't of great value in addressing such questions, as they yield untold numbers of low-quality sources. However, we do have two excellent, broad-based search tools that yield almost entirely high-quality sources: Google Books and Google News. Let's see what we turn up:

Google Books

• "perfect game" baseball: 14,500 results
• "perfect game" bowling: 2,010 results

Google News

• "perfect game" baseball: 1,449 results
• "perfect game" bowling: 189 results

So, bold Floydian, of course, is entirely wrong, extremely wrong--by a factor of over 7 in both books and current professional new sources. I look forward to reading Floydian's acknowledgment that his odd presumption was wildly incorrect.

Meanwhile, while we wait for an administrator to vet this undiscussed, weakly motivated, and disruptive move, I've changed the redirect on the "perfect game" page that Floydian blanked to "perfect game (baseball)". That's as close as we can get to restoring the status quo for the moment, and I believe reflects the consensus on this page as well.—DCGeist (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

DC, please tone it down a bit? More light, less heat. SirFozzie (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, you blanked the page ; ) Let me do some research on my end and I'll get back. However, trying to declare how many magnitudes of wrong I am is entirely inappropriate, and you should know that given how long you've been here. I'm sorry that I've placed such a burden on your time, but that is wikipedia for you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I believe I've brought a considerable amount of light...and the math is the math. It would have been so nice, Floydian, if you'd bothered to do a little research before moving a well-established, heavily trafficked page without discussion. You're in no position to lecture anyone about what's appropriate or not, but if you ever care to apologize sincerely, rather than sarcastically, I'm ready to accept.—DCGeist (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What research would that have been? Google hits? Or just the common sense that if readers could be looking for either, we should provide that to them? I used the latter to make a bold move, based on the fact that there was no discussion to establish the current setup (and thus no consensus, or the weakest form of it). Please stop being so condescending with your replies, its not necessary. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You've forgotten the middle step of the BRD cycle. You took the B and we jumped to the D. Someone needs to revert this unilateral move NOW, and then discuss whether it should have taken place, not whether it should be moved back to where it always has been. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't do the R step myself thanks to Floyd's shenanigans, so I've asked an admin to do that step for us. THEN we can do the D step. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The admin cleared the path to let me do it. NOW we can talk about whether to move the page to Perfect game (baseball), or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We're discussing whether or not it should remain the primary topic. Baseball needs to justify that position, as DC has started above. You can't just rely on the status quo argument to squeeze out of it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"Common names" wins out here, and that's baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose There are many types of perfect games. I can't for the life of me see baseball being the chosen article to own the namespace. I've seen the discussion again and again regarding a particular article that receives more activity than the others. I went through this with IOS, and today that namespace remains a disamb page as it should be. I personally have absolutely no problem with disamb pages. I don't know why editors are even trying to get rid of them. The whole purpose of disamb pages is so that an individual understands that there are other articles/topics of the same name. Let the reader make one more click to his chosen article - that's basically what the Internet and hyperlinking is all about. Go ahead and slam me with a ton of Wikipedia guidelines/policies pointing out this and that - I'm just stating my opinion. Groink (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Honestly, since Floydian's move was obviously controversial, and therefore ill advised, the status quo ante should be restored, and the move discussion should begin at his end trying to justify his preferred move. In either case, I am quite well satisfied that baseball's perfect game is the primary topic. Resolute 13:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, but both sides must justify why the status quo should remain or why one article should have the primary topic over another, otherwise it should be a disambiguation page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  • So start justifying. When a perfect game is pitched, it makes national headlines. When a bowler rolls a perfect game, it might make the local newspaper. A perfect game in bowling is commonplace. It's exceedingly rare in baseball. Your apparent dislike of baseball is not relevant to the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

    • I think its odd to declare a primary topic based on the rarity of something. I have no quarrel with baseball, just with primary topics where there is no need for one, which I believe this is a case of. I am doing research to make a case and I'll be back with that, but I don't want the other side to think they can just lean against the wall and keep the status quo. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The "other side" has not "just leaned against the wall." The "other side" has done something Floydian's "side" has not—done research and presented evidence. Perhaps he missed that part of the discussion. Here's the evidence...again:

Google Books

• "perfect game" baseball: 14,500 results
• "perfect game" bowling: 2,010 results

Google News

• "perfect game" baseball: 1,449 results
• "perfect game" bowling: 189 results

Floydian, what is "your side"'s response to this evidence that, by a large factor, "perfect game" is primarily a baseball term in high-quality sources? And, pray tell, what sort of "research" are you conducting? Are its premises as neutral as the examination of closely parallel search strings whose results you see here?—DCGeist (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment- While the media discusses perfect games mostly in baseball, which has a major following, far more occur in bowling (but are unlikely to ever be reported unless a professional bowler); a fairer metric would be how many are recorded each year, or page views of baseball pages vs. bowling pages. Not indenting as an overall comment, and remaining neutral. Dru of Id (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The commonplaceness of bowling perfect games is one reason why they are not particularly notable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My Google results are a little different, but I'll explain how (also the delay was because I was busy with other stuff). First of all, I reversed the search and searched for perfect game -(sport) to get the number of results excluding that sport. Secondly I used &pws=0 to get legitimitely non-localized results with no regional or personal-search-history bias.

• "perfect game" -baseball — 9,550,000[7]
• "perfect game" -bowling — 12,500,000[8]
• "perfect game" -baseball -bowling — 8,790,000[9]

The third search clearly shows that the usage beyond baseball is far more widespread than the usage within baseball. The first two show that there really isn't that noticeable of a difference; a ratio of 3:4. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for giving us these to take a look at. A few observations:

(1) These are general Google searches, not Google Books or Google News searches. The vast majority of results are not high-quality sources and are thus, by both the letter and spirit of our Verifiability policy, irrelevant. I believe it is generally recognized on Wikipedia that webwide Google searches are not particularly compelling evidence.

(2) Regardless of that, the value of these exclusion-based searches are questionable on other grounds. Just look at the first one, which nominally excludes "baseball": Even leaving aside the baseball-themed movie that tops the results, two of the first nine items are unambiguously baseball-related.

(3) I'm unclear on the logic of how the third search "shows that the usage beyond baseball is far more widespread than the usage within baseball", but on closer inspection, this one only reaffirms how weak these webwide Google searches are. Searching on "perfect game" while excluding "baseball" and "bowling", as you did, yields 8.79 million results. Yet a simple search on "perfect game", excluding nothing, yields only 3.4 million results. Obviously, these searches are in no way to be trusted.

I encourage you to vet the Google Books and Google News searches in similar fashion. Aside from the all-important source quality factor, where their results clearly trump those of the webwide Google search, I believe you will find that they are far more reliable.—DCGeist (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Google Books and Google News searches only show news and books (including novels and other works of fiction which wouldn't qualify here as a reliable source). It's great that there are hundreds of novels called "The Perfect Game" that are about baseball (how many novels do you think are written about bowling?), but it doesn't make a case for the primary topic of a sports article on an factual encyclopedia. Likewise, news searches don't indicated anything except that the baseball version is much more likely to receive press coverage. Big reason behind that is that baseball is a national sport and one of the big three in the US (or big two is more like it). Bowling is a hobby sport, played professionally, but not televised. It just doesn't make the news.

These are all indicators of the notability of baseball, and that baseball perfect games are more newsworthy events. They do not indicate at all that one is more likely to be searched for, that one is more common, etc. Notability isn't inherently passed through all things baseball. Likewise, novels and children's books don't indicate much except that one sport is more narratable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The lack of coverage of bowling perfect games is a key factor in notability or lack thereof. We have to go by sources, not by the fact that somebody here thinks, or wants to believe, that bowling is equal to baseball as common usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Several people here think the same way as I do. None of the coverage on baseball make any claim to being more notable or recognized than a bowling perfect game. The 6pm daily news covers sports each day: Baseball, football, hockey, basketball. Bowling is not. Its completely biased to say therefore that baseball supercedes bowling because it's a more widely covered sport in general. Again, this notability doesn't filter through all things baseball. It gets more coverage, hooray. This still doesn't offer any proof that its "much more likely to be the term a user is searching for, just that those events happen more often.

From WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box.

Note the lack of reference to "happens more often", "rarer", "more coverage", or anything to do with the concepts we'd use to determine if a topic is notable for inclusion. Rather, the reference is to "being sought when a reader enters that term in the search box", in which the primary topic must be highly likely-much more likely than any other and more likely than all the other combined. Pageview stats would be impossible to determine until there was the even playing field of a dab page, so the page views for Perfect game wouldn't be determinite of anything (despite a minority of editors trying to perform complicated math on the "well they didn't click the hatnote so they must have been happy where they landed" logic). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What stats do you have to show that bowling is sought on an equal par with baseball? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that they are two very well recognized sports with history dating back to the stone age is enough to bypass any thought of making one ambiguous over the other; they don't have to be equal. Baseball has to be much more likely, not just more likely. It's a shame there is no way to count the number of clicks for each link on the dab page, as that would be concrete evidence. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Bat-and-ball games probably go back to the stone age also. The term "perfect game" for baseball first appeared in 1908. The term in bowling first appeared about 1930. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The observation that TV news, a widely consulted source of information that reacts to users' demands as measured by viewership ratings, covers baseball but not bowling adds weight to the former's claim, not the latter's.PRRfan (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Perfect games are fairly commonplace in bowling, and very rare in baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose there are many kinds of perfect games. I think a disambiguation page is best. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Baseball's perfect game appears to be by far the most common usage, as demonstrated by DCGeist's Google evidence and as not refuted by Floydian, for the reasons cited in DCGeist's response. PRRfan (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

27 up, 27 down?

I think this should be explained. I read this article to find out what a perfect game was, and I came to a section that says "in short, 27 up, 27 down." That makes no sense to someone who doesn't know anything about baseball, e.g. me. So really, it's not "in short" if it makes absolutely no sense. This should be edited to say something like: "a perfect game is also known as 27 up, 27 down referring to the 27..." I don't know what the number 27 is referring to, so I can't suggest anything that would be appropriate to replace the ellipsis in the above example. In short, edit the first paragraph so people who don't know baseball can read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syaoran2001 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

27 refers to the minimum number of batters a team sends up to the plate in a game (if they're all retired, 3 per inning and 9 innings makes 27). I agree that's not written clearly and should be removed or expanded upon. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that a version of your comment could precede the "27 up 27 down" comment, and then it should be clear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We can certainly make that passage more accessible.—DCGeist (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on "Perfect games spoiled by the 27th batter" and "Other notable near-perfect games"?

If a perfect game is "spoiled" by the 27th batter, then it wasn't a perfect game. So, why is this section included in this article. As for "other notable near-perfect games", those also are not perfect games, and there seems to be some items in there that do not belong. Retiring 27 consecutive batters after allowing the leadoff batter to get on base means it was never possible for it to be a perfect game. The sources are box scores, which add no descriptive information that demonstrates why that particular game merits inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For better or for worse, I've frequently seen and heard expressions like, "Joe Schmo took a perfect game into the seventh inning", or that the same pitcher "threw seven perfect innings". When people use such expressions, I don't think they're asserting that such contests are perfect games. On the issue of sourcing, I agree that these claims need to be backed up by more than just a box score, which is a primary source. Non-primary sources, such as news articles, shouldn't be hard to come by. I'd imagine most of these games received media attention beyond the usual routine write-up in the sports section. szyslak (t) 23:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The "p word" gets thrown around an awful lot, so much so that not every usage of it is notable. I was listening to John Sterling calling tonight's Yankees game, and he started calling CC Sabathia "perfect" after he had recorded only 12 of the necessary 27 outs. Just because people use the term liberally doesn't mean that getting "close" to perfect means anything other than that you had a good game. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is Perfect Pitching until somebody gets on base. Every game begins that way. But it isn't a Perfect Game until and unless you extend it the length of the contest. I think that "perfect through six" is reasonable, but it's only a potential perfect game. WHPratt (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Correction: the sources are not merely box scores. Each of the three sections or subsections in question—Perfect games spoiled by the 27th batter, Nine or more consecutive innings of perfection, and No-hit, no-walk, no–hit batsman games—cites a secondary source that establishes the collective notability of the category and its relevance to the notion of the perfect game—respectively, Holtzman (2003) (and, implicitly, Coffey [2004]), Arnold (2006), and Vass (2007). In addition, the descriptions of each of the individual games described in the third category, No-hit, no-walk, no–hit batsman games, cite in addition to boxscores, secondary sources that affirm that specific game's notability and relevance to the perfect game. I agree that it would be helpful to supplement the sourcing for the individual game descriptions in the preceding two sections in a similar way.—DCGeist (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the section about "No-hit, no-walk, no–hit batsman games" is pointless trivia and has been begging to be deleted for a long, long time. There is no justification for a section listing all the games that were spoiled by fielding errors. We might as well have a separate section for every would-be perfect game spoiled by a base hit, every game spoiled by a walk, every game spoiled by a hit batsman, and every game spoiled by catcher's interference. I sympathize with Muboshgu and the post above. I think a case can be made for deleting all the material that Muboshgu suggests, but there is absolutely no doubt that "No-hit, no-walk, no–hit batsman games" needs to go. That section has been a big ugly blot on this article for a long time. Vidor (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. In discussing perfect games, it's a natural question as to which pitchers have performed "perfectly" (with regard to not putting anybody on base themselves) but failed to make the elite list via a teammate's error. Those who gave up a hit or walk don't have the same argument. By describing near misses, we sharpen the definition. WHPratt (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Perfect games are a team effort. Even if a pitcher strikes out all 27 batters (the record is 20, by the way), his catcher has to catch the third strikes or throw out the runner at first base following the third strike. In reality the high mark for K's in a perfect game is 14 by Sandy Koufax, so Koufax needed his teammates to make thirteen outs on balls put into play. Addie Joss struck out only three batters, so he needed his teammates to make 24 outs. It's a team game on defense, and a team effort. Not to mention that besides being unjustifiable, that section is pointless clutter. Vidor (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you this much--this article will never, ever improve above B-class until that section goes. Vidor (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reiterating your opinion. Your familiar assertions that the section is "unjustifiable" and "pointless clutter" are belied by the facts. Once again, Vass (2007) establishes the collective notability of the category and its relevance to the notion of the perfect game. In addition, the descriptions of each of the individual games described in the category cite in addition to boxscores, secondary sources that affirm that specific game's notability and relevance to the perfect game.—DCGeist (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reiterating your opinion No problem, I'm here for you! belied by the facts Really? What "facts" justify a section, in a Wikipedia article about perfect games, detailing one variety (and only one variety) of games that weren't perfect? I think this is you presenting your opinion as fact. Vass No idea who this is. Don't care. But it bears noting that this is you resorting to the Argument from authority. secondary sources that affirm that specific game's notability This, again, is you presenting your opinion as fact. In any case I am heartened to see that at least one more Wikipedia user, the person who started this section, sees this article more clearly than you do. Unfortunately, as I noted above, this article will never advance past B-Class until you release your death grip on it and it gets the pruning that it desperately, desperately needs. Vidor (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That would presumably be George Vass, an author whose work includes several sports volumes,[10] though I don't know which specific 2007 citation DC is referring to. It's possible the Chicago-based Vass was talking about Milt Pappas, who in his 1972 effort retired the first 26 men and the 27th was a base on balls called by Bruce Froemming. The 28th was retired on a pop fly. To this day Pappas insists he was robbed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit removing internal reference

In this edit, I removed a parenthetical "(see above)" for the following reasons. First, as a matter of general writing style, it is usually preferable to avoid "see above" and "see below" references, which are vulnerable to becoming out of date as articles get copy edited, and are vague, making it difficult to know what is being referred to. Second, there is no directly related information above related to the spring-training game. If the editor wanted to point out that Martinez nearly threw a perfect game previously, then this information should be spelled out. However, given that this fact is just a few paragraphs above, I do not believe it warrants repetition again. I propose removing the parenthetical clause, "(see above)". isaacl (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Resolved

 – Will split the article instead of moving. Muboshgu withdrew his move request—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfect game → List of Major League Baseball perfect games – Per discussion here, which I am just now getting to working on, this page as it stands is not currently a description of a "perfect game" so much as it is a list of MLB perfect games. NPB perfect games, for instance, aren't listed here, but are merely linked in the "see also" section. What I envision here is similar to what we did when User:Killervogel5 spun List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle off of Hitting for the cycle. But, I don't want to do this boldly and alone. I would then suggest replacing the current content with a more thorough description of what a perfect game is, and linking it to the appropriate MLB and NPB pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I propose to just split this article and use the {{copied}} tag. Otherwise, you will first need to 1) move the article 2) create a new Perfect Game article (which assumingly will reuse most of the existing lead) and add a link to the moved MLB article. —Bagumba (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a much better idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps it's just a matter of semantics; I don't support renaming this page and starting a new perfect game article from scratch, but rather spinning out the list of MLB perfect games and possibly some other MLB-specific information. With the large contribution of MLB to the history of professional baseball, this article would fail to illuminate its readers on the rarity and significance of perfect games without also discussing its place within the historical context of MLB. Absent this history, there isn't much of a "more thorough description" of a perfect game to be included (and to be honest, I'm not a big fan of the amount of detail that has been added to the "Hitting for the cycle" article; it seems redundant with the hit-specific articles). isaacl (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support the move/split. The purpose of the perfect game article should be to inform generally on what the event is, why it's rare, commentary on it, etc. Yes this will overlap with the List of MLB players, but this is another in a long line of steps in removing MLB-bias in Wiki's baseball coverage. Anyone from Little League up to the Majors, NPB, World Baseball Classic, etc can throw a perfecto. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Great. I just started the split. More can be added to this article as appropriate. I'll do more of that next week. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And I just reverted it. Ridiculous: four hours of discussion here, referencing a thread on another page that dried up two months ago is very far from determining a consensus basis to split a well-established article with nearly 3,000 edits on it.

Oppose split, at least for the time being. I believe the article as it currently stands serves the vast majority of English-language readers interested in the topic of the perfect game very well. Any potential split needs to be carefully discussed, its content and structure determined, and the question of whether there is sufficient sourcing available to support a viable lead perfect game article stripped of "MLB-bias." Along with myself, the other editors who have contributed extensively to this article—Vidor and Baseball Bugs—also need to be given an opportunity to weigh in. We can give this discussion a good week before taking major steps, if we reach a consensus that any are needed at all.—DCGeist (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we forgetting someone?

Wasn't there a near perfect game June 2, 2010 pitched by Armando Galarraga that really was a perfect but wasn't recognized due to error made by the first base umpire Jim Joyce which isn't a requirement for a team to have a perfect game: no hits, no walks, no hit batters, no errors and at least one RBI, considering all this doesn't it merit a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfamousQ (talk • contribs) 20:37 January 25, 2012

That game is not recognized as a perfect game. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Multi-Pitcher Perfect Game -- Contradiction in Definitions?

I may be missing something here, but the article says both that there can (theoretically) be a multi-pitcher perfect game and that a perfect game is necessarily also a shutout, which according to the shutout article is defined as pitched by only one pitcher. Is this contradictory? If so, what _is_ the actual definition -- one, or can be multiple? (From my little research, it seems that a perfect game can have multiple pitchers, and in that case it would not be a shutout (?) -- I am not sure enough to change anything in the article, so thought I'd raise the issue..) Rschnall (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A perfect game can definitely be pitched by multiple pitchers, though it has never happened. The confusion here is caused by different understandings of the term "shutout": (a) a pitcher must throw a complete game to be officially credited with a shutout, but (b) obviously when one team does not score against another, how ever many pitchers were involved, the result is a shutout and is conventionally referred to as such.—DCGeist (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"An official perfect game occurs when a pitcher (or pitchers) retires each batter on the opposing team during the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings. In a perfect game, no batter reaches any base during the course of the game." [11] The official definition does not explicitly require the game to meet the conditions of a "shutout" - although it does do so implicitly require that no runs are scored, as to score, you must at least first reach first base safely, and any batter who reaches first base safely by any method whatsoever negates a perfect game. As for when a perfect game would have multiple pitchers, the only viable scenarios for that I can think of would be either an injury to the starting pitcher, or a tactical decision to pinch hit for the pitcher relatively early or relatively late in the game (or into extra innings); no manager is going to just casually lift a pitcher throwing a perfect game in the 7th through 9th innings, but I could see it happening in the 5th or 12th (or in a literal must-win game, such as a game 7 situation). TLDR version: Perfecto does mean no runs score, it does not mean it must be a "shutout." --VegasHombre (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No runs scored is, by definition, a shutout. A shutout can be accomplished by multiple pitchers. Note last year's Phillies, for example,[12] whose pitchers show only 7 shutouts individually but the team total is 21 - and there's a line just below the team stats that says, "Team shutouts may be more than the composite totals for all pitchers due to instances in which more than one pitcher combined for a shutout." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The phrase "by definition" in this case does not mean "explicitly according to MLB's official definition"; it means what it commonly and customarily means: "by inescapable logic". Again, "shutout" has not been used here in its narrow, explicitly MLB-authorized meaning but—as Bugs has excellently explained—in its common and customary sense: a game in which the opposing team fails to score. However, to minimize any confusion, I provisionally edited the phrase in question so instead of "shutout" it now reads "team shutout." Do you think this is an improvement or not, Bugs?

VH, I think your analysis of the various scenarios for how a perfect game might someday occur with multiple players is exactly right.—DCGeist (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the official major league rules,[13] in which section 10.18 makes the following statement: "A shutout is a statistic credited to a pitcher who allows no runs in a game. No pitcher shall be credited with pitching a shutout unless he pitches the complete game, or unless he enters the game with none out before the opposing team has scored in the first inning, puts out the side without a run scoring and pitches the rest of the game without allowing a run. When two or more pitchers combine to pitch a shutout, the league statistician shall make a notation to that effect in the league's official pitching records." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The official MLB team stats for 2011 likewise credit the Phillies, as a team, with 21 shutouts.[14] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bugs. So, in fact, even MLB officially recognizes that the basic meaning of a shutout is that the opposing team failed to score. I'm going to restore our long-standing, plain language and think about editing the shutout article so it doesn't overemphasize the individual-citation definition.—DCGeist (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Living legends

I have no intention whatsoever of putting this in the article, but I just figured it out and I love it, for some odd reason:

When Don Larsen threw his World Series perfecto in 1956, he became one of only two men alive who had ever thrown a major league perfect game, along with his "immediate" predecessor, Charlie Robertson, who tossed his in 1922.

Yesterday, Philip Humber became the sixteenth man alive to have thrown a major league perfect game (including 82-year-old Larsen).—DCGeist (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And, it appears that Robertson lived long enough that he was still around when the perfecto-club membership had swelled to six. WHPratt (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There are more and more of them. We had 3 in 2010, minus the ripoff. It says something about the hitting as much as the pitching. In theory, there should never be a no-hitter at the major league level. But with everyone swinging as hard as they can, they're like sitting ducks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

The second paragraph reads:

"By definition, a perfect game is both a no-hitter and a shutout."

The wording is confusing, because a reasonable interpretation is that any game that is a no-hitter and a shutout is a perfect game, "by definition".

Instead, something like "The definition of a perfect game implies that it must be both a no-hitter and a shutout" would be much clearer and unambiguous. Even better would be to also add something like: "But not every game that is a no-hitter and a shutout need be perfect."Daqu (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A no-hitter that is a shutout where there was a walk is not a perfect game. I disagree about guarding against a reader's illogical reasoning. If we wrote that "A dog is a four-legged animal", we would not expect to have to say that "not all four-legged animals are dogs."—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your comment about the sentence "A dog is a four-legged animal."

But please allow me to point out the distinction between the clarity of saying "A dog is a four-legged animal" and saying "By definition, a dog is a four-legged animal."Daqu (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that saying, "By definition, A is B and C" does not imply that all things that are B and C are A. I do not believe it is necessary to explicitly state that the inverse is not true. isaacl (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That phraseology was added in October of 2004,[15] to replace a seemingly less-encyclopedic statement. Maybe it's time for another change? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

isaacl, you are technically correct. But as I said, one reasonable interpretation is that what follows "By definition" is the definition. It is our job as Wikipedia editors to ensure that that wording will be as clear as possible, not merely technically correct.Daqu (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the statement really doesn't help the definition (apparently it confuses some readers), and thus doesn't warrant being in the second paragraph. It's more of a by-the-way thing, and could be more reasonably tacked on to the end of the article. You also have to qualify that the perfect game is a no-hitter and a shutout "at the team level of statistics," because a multi-pitcher perfect game would result in no individual pitcher being credited with a no-hitter or a shutout. WHPratt (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Similar to the individual level, There is a concept of team no-hitters and team shutouts as well. I think we can remove "by definition" as it isn't adding much (aside from possible debate).—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The latest edit has removed the "team shutout" clarification and thus reintroduced the confusion. I agree that the sentence needed work, but expect further debate. WHPratt (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Most recent perfect game

The most recent perfect game was pitched by Matt Cain of the San Francisco Giants. The game was played and completed on June 13th 2012 according to local time where the game was played. The game did NOT take place on June 14th. This should not be changed. Official records will record June 13th so June 14th is not accurate. --Jimv1983 (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clear up any confusion I have added a reference to the official MLB website that shows June 13th 2012 as the official date.--Jimv1983 (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

GO CAIIIIN!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.101.89 (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ted Barrett was at Humber's perfecto, but he was at 3rd base, so technically he didn't "call" Humber's game, did he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.9.12 (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a technicality. He simply didn't call the game. Only the plate umpire does that. We could say, however, that he "worked" Humber's game. But that's not significant enough to mention in the article.—DCGeist (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)