Talk:Perfect game (baseball)/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Since designated Hitter
In modern era, first 80 years there were 7 perfect games. Next 30 years, 14 perfect games. The only difference I see from those two eras is the Designated hitter rule. Notably 9 of those 14 came while the pitcher used a designated hitter. Of course I didn't make that assumption in the article, but its' not a far leap to say that there were 14 since the DH was implemented.--JOJ Hutton 04:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- There have been a lot of changes in the game that have influenced offense and defense: new ballparks for nearly all teams, fluctuating strike zones, changes in players' physical conditioning and diet, elimination of scheduled double-headers, the ever-increasing specialization of pitching, and a shift to a five-man rotation, to name a few. Nonetheless, some reliable sources indicating the notability of the number of perfect games during the period when the DH has been in effect is needed before it should be mentioned in this article. (Presumably the primary effect, if any, would be on the AL? However given that there are so many other factors to consider, I think pinning down the specific influence of the DH is tricky at best.) isaacl (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well I didn't make the assumption that the DH influenced the number of perfect games. Only stating a fact that is already verified within the body of the article. Are you challenging the fact that there were 14 perfect games in MLB since the DH rule? Is there another number?--JOJ Hutton 14:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Only the fact that it is true does not mean it is suitable for an article - it must also be notable, which it isn't if it has little effect on the frequency of perfect games. I notice that perfect game frequency increased drastically in both leagues while the DH is only being used in one. Thus, the DH rule is a much lesser influence on perfect games. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, in terms of using "21 times since the modern era began in 1900" would also fall under the same argument. I was only using the same logic for inclusion. And as far as PG frequency, 9 have been thrown while using the DH, 5 while not. In terms of "near perfect games" (27th batter gets hit), there have been 6 since the DH rule. 5 of those have been while using the DH. So in terms of discrepancies 20 perfect/near perfect games, 14 while using the DH. In or out doesn't matter at this point, but I bet your thinking about that 14:6 discrepancy now.--JOJ Hutton 15:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay... but then why shouldn't "21 times since the modern era began in 1900" also be removed? As for these discrepancies, it would be original research to include this without a source that shows it is notable. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- The article discusses the conditions of the game under which the first two perfect games were tossed, how the essential conditions of the game since then have remained the same, and then gives a count of how many perfect games have been thrown under these circumstances. The count is well-integrated into the prose and explained. isaacl (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay... but then why shouldn't "21 times since the modern era began in 1900" also be removed? As for these discrepancies, it would be original research to include this without a source that shows it is notable. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, in terms of using "21 times since the modern era began in 1900" would also fall under the same argument. I was only using the same logic for inclusion. And as far as PG frequency, 9 have been thrown while using the DH, 5 while not. In terms of "near perfect games" (27th batter gets hit), there have been 6 since the DH rule. 5 of those have been while using the DH. So in terms of discrepancies 20 perfect/near perfect games, 14 while using the DH. In or out doesn't matter at this point, but I bet your thinking about that 14:6 discrepancy now.--JOJ Hutton 15:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Only the fact that it is true does not mean it is suitable for an article - it must also be notable, which it isn't if it has little effect on the frequency of perfect games. I notice that perfect game frequency increased drastically in both leagues while the DH is only being used in one. Thus, the DH rule is a much lesser influence on perfect games. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well I didn't make the assumption that the DH influenced the number of perfect games. Only stating a fact that is already verified within the body of the article. Are you challenging the fact that there were 14 perfect games in MLB since the DH rule? Is there another number?--JOJ Hutton 14:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Since the DH first used, AL threw more perfect games than NL despite AL having more offense than NL. There is the cause in my opinion, the more offense there is in the league, the more frequently perfect games are thrown. That's strange because more offense means higher batting averages (making no-hitters thrown more difficult) and higher on-base percentages (making perfect games thrown more difficult). I'll call it 'offensive perfect game paradox,' which is a subtype of 'hard is easier than easy paradox.' This is like an ice age triggered by global warming, called 'warming equals cooling paradox.' Another paradox related to perfect game is 'perfect game paradox.' What is the probability that two or more perfect games were thrown in one day? The same definition is applied to 'no-hitter paradox.' The latter paradox has happened twice in MLB history, April 22, 1898 and June 29, 1990. The former paradox has yet to occur, but the closest occurrence was in June 1880 when two perfect games were thrown five days apart. Far more recently in 2010, two perfect games should have thrown only four days apart because of Galarraga. These paradoxes are in the same family as 'birthday paradox' (What is the probability that two or more people in a room or a household celebrate birthday on the same day?)PlanetStar 18:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you said, which is a paradox too I suppose, but I think I understand where you are trying to go. But as a matter of comparison, there have also been 50 no-hitters by pitchers using a DH, as opposed to 37 by non DH pitchers. Another paradox? Not if you remember the fact that in a game with a DH being used, the pitcher doesn't need to bat. The pitcher can concentrate only and solely on pitching. And as anyone who is familiar with baseball, good pitching beats good hitting any day of the week, which will trump the extra .243 hitter. So theres no paradox there.--JOJ Hutton 18:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- The key issue is that we would need to find articles written by notable figger filberts who might have some informed theories on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't pushing this theory in the article, since it can't be currently cited. It is an interesting discussion however. It was worded in the article so as to avoid any conclusions. We could say that 14 PGs have been pitched by American League pitchers and 7 by NL pitchers. I assume that is notable?JOJ Hutton 20:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps the explanation is that with the DH, pitchers are freed up to concentrate their training/practice on pitching and not bunting/hitting. To a lesser extent, perhaps not having to bat or run the bases during a game saves the pitcher's energy for pitching. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's my opinion as well. Common sense would say that having an extra specialized hitter in the lineup would lead to the opposite effect, but good pitching beats good hitting every time and when you factor in the fact that the pitcher doesn't need to exert energy into batting, it makes even more sense. JOJ Hutton 20:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Now I learn! American league pitchers during the DH era only need to focus solely on pitching, that's why AL pitchers pitch perfect games more easily than NL pitchers, even though AL pitchers have higher ERAs and opponent's batting average than NL pitchers. Designated hitters tend to be best hitting position on the team because they don't worry about fielding baseballs. The reason is, AL pitchers work harder than NL pitchers about not giving up hits and runs because it contains a DH. But once AL pitchers allow a baserunner such as a hit, these pitchers try too hard and can easily give up more hits and runs since they never face opposing pitchers. But NL pitchers take time with runners on base, especially about face opposing pitchers every so often. So in conclusion, more perfect games in AL than NL since DH rule took effect in 1973 is not much of a paradox, instead it is a psychological effect caused by worrying about a DH rule in one league. PlanetStar 21:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- How about the impact of expansion and dilution of talent? How about the change in hitting philosophy? No doubt it's an interesting discussion, but it's risky drawing conclusions or writing stuff in the article that leads the reader to a conclusion that might not be provable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Now I learn! American league pitchers during the DH era only need to focus solely on pitching, that's why AL pitchers pitch perfect games more easily than NL pitchers, even though AL pitchers have higher ERAs and opponent's batting average than NL pitchers. Designated hitters tend to be best hitting position on the team because they don't worry about fielding baseballs. The reason is, AL pitchers work harder than NL pitchers about not giving up hits and runs because it contains a DH. But once AL pitchers allow a baserunner such as a hit, these pitchers try too hard and can easily give up more hits and runs since they never face opposing pitchers. But NL pitchers take time with runners on base, especially about face opposing pitchers every so often. So in conclusion, more perfect games in AL than NL since DH rule took effect in 1973 is not much of a paradox, instead it is a psychological effect caused by worrying about a DH rule in one league. PlanetStar 21:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's my opinion as well. Common sense would say that having an extra specialized hitter in the lineup would lead to the opposite effect, but good pitching beats good hitting every time and when you factor in the fact that the pitcher doesn't need to exert energy into batting, it makes even more sense. JOJ Hutton 20:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps the explanation is that with the DH, pitchers are freed up to concentrate their training/practice on pitching and not bunting/hitting. To a lesser extent, perhaps not having to bat or run the bases during a game saves the pitcher's energy for pitching. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't pushing this theory in the article, since it can't be currently cited. It is an interesting discussion however. It was worded in the article so as to avoid any conclusions. We could say that 14 PGs have been pitched by American League pitchers and 7 by NL pitchers. I assume that is notable?JOJ Hutton 20:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- The key issue is that we would need to find articles written by notable figger filberts who might have some informed theories on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you said, which is a paradox too I suppose, but I think I understand where you are trying to go. But as a matter of comparison, there have also been 50 no-hitters by pitchers using a DH, as opposed to 37 by non DH pitchers. Another paradox? Not if you remember the fact that in a game with a DH being used, the pitcher doesn't need to bat. The pitcher can concentrate only and solely on pitching. And as anyone who is familiar with baseball, good pitching beats good hitting any day of the week, which will trump the extra .243 hitter. So theres no paradox there.--JOJ Hutton 18:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Many MLB records are based on the "modern era", as the game prior to that was quite different. There are many points from which one could choose to start counting perfect games, such as the power era after the 1994 strike or after the second expansion wave. It gives undue weight to single out one such tally without any particular reason, and as stated above, without reliable sources illustrating the notability of this particular accounting, it isn't appropriate for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- That may explain why there are more PGs and NO Hitters than before "overall", but why the discrepancy in the number per league? Counting PG and Near PG, its a 14:6 discrepancy of DH to non DH games. Not even close enough to call it a coincidence.--JOJ Hutton 22:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- DH vs. non-DH is not the single condition that has changed. Nonetheless, all of this personal opinion is besides the point; if some reliable, independent, notable sources can be found that discuss the number of perfect games since the introduction of the DH in a way that illustrates the relevance of this particular count, let's examine them. isaacl (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's the only significant change that can explain the discrepancy between the two leagues, since one league adopted and the other did not. I wasn't trying to add the theory however, only a significant and notable reference point. Your right though, theres no source for inclusion of the theory, yet found.--JOJ Hutton 23:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if anyone has determined if the difference in perfect games between the two leagues is statistically significant. However, just to list a few differences between the leagues that can help or hinder the occurrence of a perfect game: the ballparks are not the same, the level of quality between the two leagues has differed, and the umpiring crews used to be different. isaacl (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Curiously enough, the American League got a head start on perfect games even way back at the beginning of the "modern era", i.e. 1900, or really 1901 when the AL started ciphoning talent away from the NL - including guys like Cy Young. By the time Jim Bunning tossed his gem in 1964, several had been pitched in the AL over the years, but none in the NL since the two in 1880, which were at the 55.5 foot distance (it went to 60.5 in 1893). And that was obviously well before the DH came along. It used to be said that the NL was more of hitters' league and the AL was more of a pitchers' league. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- In the old days, players were loyal to their team. They had to be, as there was no alternative. This would foster fierce competition. Beginning in mid 1970s, we had strong player unions and free agency (and incidentally The DH). The players all belonged to the same big brotherhood, did commercials and ran camps together, and an opponent could very well be a teammate the next year or so. Under those circumstances, just how hard is one player going to try to deny another a personal achievement? (Remember Sammy Sosa taking time off to embrace Mark McGwire for smacking one off his own pitcher-teammate? Can you imagine Ty Cobb doing that?) My guess is that, unless there's a personal grudge involved, many players would offer only token resistance to being no-hit or otherwise victimized by a record-setter. Quid pro quo and all that. WHPratt (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if anyone has determined if the difference in perfect games between the two leagues is statistically significant. However, just to list a few differences between the leagues that can help or hinder the occurrence of a perfect game: the ballparks are not the same, the level of quality between the two leagues has differed, and the umpiring crews used to be different. isaacl (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's the only significant change that can explain the discrepancy between the two leagues, since one league adopted and the other did not. I wasn't trying to add the theory however, only a significant and notable reference point. Your right though, theres no source for inclusion of the theory, yet found.--JOJ Hutton 23:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- DH vs. non-DH is not the single condition that has changed. Nonetheless, all of this personal opinion is besides the point; if some reliable, independent, notable sources can be found that discuss the number of perfect games since the introduction of the DH in a way that illustrates the relevance of this particular count, let's examine them. isaacl (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- That may explain why there are more PGs and NO Hitters than before "overall", but why the discrepancy in the number per league? Counting PG and Near PG, its a 14:6 discrepancy of DH to non DH games. Not even close enough to call it a coincidence.--JOJ Hutton 22:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Split
The following has been copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball because the discussion was archived there without a resolution being reached. Op47 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone ever noticed that List of Major League Baseball perfect games and Perfect game are pretty much the same article? Except for the spots were they contradict each other:
Over the 135 years of Major League Baseball history, there have been only 23 official perfect games by the current definition.
That's from List of Major League Baseball perfect games. On perfect game we see:
Over the 143 years of Major League Baseball history, there have been only 23 official perfect games by the current definition.
The next sentence in both articles is:
More people have orbited the moon than have pitched a major league perfect game.
And it goes on like that. The prose is substantially similar on both articles. It appears that perfect game sees more regular editing attention as the correct statistic
During baseball's modern era, 21 pitchers have thrown perfect games.
appears there, while on "List" we see
During baseball's modern era, 19 pitchers have thrown perfect games.
Perfect game also has a lead section that "List" does not, but other than that, the two articles are nearly identical. And forgive me if this is controversial, but do we need two virtually identical articles? I would say redirect one to the other, but as perfect game is in better shape of the two and List of Major League Baseball perfect games is hardly a likely search term, the latter article should simply be deleted. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 18:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Muboshgu had intended to split out the MLB-specific information from the "Perfect game" article into the list article. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 27#Perfect game for the related discussion thread. isaacl (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, the idea was to do it the way we did the hitting for the cycle and List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle, and the no-hitter page and List of Major League Baseball no-hitters. I've gotten distracted with other things and haven't gotten to this one. Anyone else can step in. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Seems that after the split, the content was restored by the edit, hence the duplicate info.—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is this still going to happen? Because having two separate, (somewhat) simultaneously maintained articles that are functionally identical...I just don't see the point. 75.94.63.254 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, the idea was to do it the way we did the hitting for the cycle and List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle, and the no-hitter page and List of Major League Baseball no-hitters. I've gotten distracted with other things and haven't gotten to this one. Anyone else can step in. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Neither do I. The article is currently tediously and unnecessarily long. Redundant information must be removed at the earliest TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I suggest deleting the List of Major League Baseball perfect games article and merging its content into this article as appropriate. The "list" article is pointless. Vidor (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The best bet might be to simply put it back the way it was. The split was done on the grounds that there could be other leagues' perfect games listed. Never mind that MLB is the top league in the world. Well-intentioned, but not really a good idea in the longer term. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Don't tell that to the people in Japan or Korea. The way the no-hitter thing is handled is that we have a no-hitter page that describes it and a List of MLB no-hitters page for the, well, list of MLB no-hitters. I'm assuming other leagues have had perfect games, and so for the global perspective, we shouldn't restrict the perfect game article to MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sure we should. Major League Baseball is the highest level of baseball play on Earth. So the Perfect Game article lists MLB perfect games. Japan, Korea, whatever, can have their own list articles. Agree with Baseball Bugs above that we should revert to the way it was. Vidor (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The page should definitely not be restricted just to MLB. The list of players should be removed from the perfect game article since they are in the more appropriate list article. Top league or not, the perfect game article is about the subject in general and the list is about the MLB players specifically. -DJSasso (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- We got to remove list of perfect games contents from perfect game article per WP:Duplicate. PlanetStar 18:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- It was all in one article and someone decided to split it out, on the grounds that other countries might have lists also. So who's writing those other list articles? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Check in revision history of list of Major League Baseball perfect games, it was Muboshgu (talk · contribs) who duplicated on 2 December 2011 @ 20:41 UTC. If we already have that listing page, I would delete duplicate from perfect game page, just like we don't have list of Major League Baseball no-hitters in no-hitter article. PlanetStar 21:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are a lot more no-hitters than there are perfect games. And are there companion lists of no-hitters from anything other than MLB? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- There isn't yet, but there will be. I will make a List of NPB perfect games when I get a chance. The perfect game article definitely needs to be and will be league neutral. --TorsodogTalk 06:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- There are a lot more no-hitters than there are perfect games. And are there companion lists of no-hitters from anything other than MLB? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Check in revision history of list of Major League Baseball perfect games, it was Muboshgu (talk · contribs) who duplicated on 2 December 2011 @ 20:41 UTC. If we already have that listing page, I would delete duplicate from perfect game page, just like we don't have list of Major League Baseball no-hitters in no-hitter article. PlanetStar 21:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- It was all in one article and someone decided to split it out, on the grounds that other countries might have lists also. So who's writing those other list articles? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- We got to remove list of perfect games contents from perfect game article per WP:Duplicate. PlanetStar 18:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- The page should definitely not be restricted just to MLB. The list of players should be removed from the perfect game article since they are in the more appropriate list article. Top league or not, the perfect game article is about the subject in general and the list is about the MLB players specifically. -DJSasso (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
When I saw that this article had been gutted and butchered, I didn't guess that it was Muboshgu that was to blame, but I should have. Vidor (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
"No-hit, no-walk, no–hit batsman games"
Is there any particular reason why this article is spending more real estate covering games that are not perfect games, and therefore not relevant to the scope of this article? I would argue this list belongs at an article related to a no-hitter, since that is all these are. Resolute 04:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. That whole section should get moved out. Cshay (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
List?
Why doesn't this article have a list of the perfect games - date, name of pitcher, team, opposing team? There aren't too many of them to list, and that seems like basic information for an article like this. Is it just that no one has gotten around to doing it? Or has there been some past consensus not to list the games? --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. I see that there is a separate article List of Major League Baseball perfect games, which goes into considerable detail, but I still think a basic list should be included here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- See the discussion in the section "#Split". isaacl (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I take it you interpret that to mean there should NOT be a list here - not even a basic simplified one? --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just pointing to the previous discussions on this topic which address your questions in your original post. I'm not strongly opinionated on whether or not there should be separate list articles, but given their existence, I don't think having a list in this article is warranted. isaacl (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I take it you interpret that to mean there should NOT be a list here - not even a basic simplified one? --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- See the discussion in the section "#Split". isaacl (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Non-perfect games
Regarding these edits: it's been discussed a number of times on this talk page whether or not non-perfect games should be mentioned in this article. Most recently in the in the section immediately above; before that, Talk:Perfect game#.22No-hit.2C no-walk.2C no.E2.80.93hit batsman games.22; and in other places in the archives. I appreciate that this type of trivia has an appeal to various fans, but due to the nebulous nature of trying to determine what non-perfect games are sufficiently significant to warrant inclusion, I'm a bit wary of re-introducing this information into the article. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. This page is about perfect games, not about "almost" perfect games. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: I'm not necessarily against the inclusion of some discussion of non-perfect games. However since the list of things that could have happened but didn't is very long, there needs to be a fairly high threshold of significance for this type of information. I'm not quite sure where this line should be drawn or how to draw it. In our statistics-obsessed sports world, many bits of trivia garner some attention, but it's difficult to evaluate when that attention has reached a high enough level to become a key aspect of the topic of perfect games. isaacl (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Based on the comments on this thread, I have removed descriptions of non-perfect games from the article. More discussion of this topic is welcome. isaacl (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully 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. An encyclopedia ought to be, well, encyclopedic. Where else could one go to find this information? WHPratt (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- By definition, a perfect game means nobody reaches base at all. It is irrelevant that the runner(s) reached due to an action independent of the pitcher. If one gets on, it is not a perfect game. IMO, what you propose is little different than mentioning a bunch of people who threw one-hitters in List of Major League Baseball no-hitters. Resolute 19:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Do you not see a difference at all? No one's arguing about what a perfect game is—but the adjective "perfect" refers to the pitcher—whose performance is no less perfect because of his teammates' error. As I see it, that makes this very different from one-hitters vs. no-hitters: "no" does not mean "one", but "perfect" does mean "perfect". The better comparison, I think, would be to a reliever who takes over in the first inning with no outs but one (or more) men on base. Even if he does his job perfectly from there and retires the next straight 27 batters—it's not counted as a perfect game, presumably because the pitcher didn't pitch the entire game himself. As for whether cases of that sort should be noted in this article, I can see both sides of the question. JudahH (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not quite clear about your reasoning of the difference: the adjective "perfect" in "perfect game" refers to the entire defensive team performance, as illustrated by your example of a non-perfect game. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I began to write that I believed perfect in "perfect game" referred specifically to the performance of a single pitcher, as evidence for which, I was going to note that your definition would include games with multiple pitchers (which I believed were not counted as perfect games). However, when I checked the official definition to confirm, I saw that games with multiple pitchers can indeed be counted as "perfect games". The evidence running against me, I concede the point to you. JudahH (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not quite clear about your reasoning of the difference: the adjective "perfect" in "perfect game" refers to the entire defensive team performance, as illustrated by your example of a non-perfect game. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Do you not see a difference at all? No one's arguing about what a perfect game is—but the adjective "perfect" refers to the pitcher—whose performance is no less perfect because of his teammates' error. As I see it, that makes this very different from one-hitters vs. no-hitters: "no" does not mean "one", but "perfect" does mean "perfect". The better comparison, I think, would be to a reliever who takes over in the first inning with no outs but one (or more) men on base. Even if he does his job perfectly from there and retires the next straight 27 batters—it's not counted as a perfect game, presumably because the pitcher didn't pitch the entire game himself. As for whether cases of that sort should be noted in this article, I can see both sides of the question. JudahH (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding where you can find information on games without any hits or walks, Baseball-Reference.com's play index function will let you find when this has occurred. List of Major League Baseball perfect games also has lists of near-perfect games. isaacl (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to sneak people in to sully the "Perfect" club via back-door action. Rather, I'm arguing that the reader who comes here to learn about exactly what a perfect game is could benefit from negative examples. It's all about information! WHPratt (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestion and your passion, User:WHPratt. But many of those cases are spelled out in detail at List of Major League Baseball perfect games. IMO that is where they belong. Not in this article, which as you suggest is "about exactly what a perfect game" is. I also agree with Isaac that although the pitcher is given the credit for pitching a "perfect game", it actually describes the defensive performance of the entire team. If one of them makes a mistake - sorry, the game was not perfect. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to sneak people in to sully the "Perfect" club via back-door action. Rather, I'm arguing that the reader who comes here to learn about exactly what a perfect game is could benefit from negative examples. It's all about information! WHPratt (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Perfect game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140723214420/http://www.10news.com/sports/david-wells-field-gets-renovated to http://www.10news.com/sports/david-wells-field-gets-renovated
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090728024219/http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1081538/index.htm to http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1081538/index.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090728024039/http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1008868/index.htm to http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1008868/index.htm
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1124496/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)