Master Index of Archived Threads


No-Hitters and Perfect Games

metirish May 14 2010 06:31 AM

I thoroughly enjoyed this article today in the NYT, a lot of stuff that I would never have even given thought to. No-Hitters Become Rarer, Perfect Games Less So By STUART MILLER Published: May 13, 2010 Dallas Braden’s perfect game for Oakland has generated plenty of press, and only partly because of his feud with Alex Rodriguez. A perfect game is celebrated with bold headlines because it is one of baseball’s rarest achievements. But somehow, without anyone noticing, the perfect game has started to become more common, while no-hitters over all have become harder to come by. Before 1998, only 6 percent of no-hitters were perfect games, but from 1998 to 2003, 20 percent were, and since then 27 percent have been. From 1900 through 1980, baseball witnessed only seven perfect games, including two in the dead-ball era and three during the glory days for pitchers in the mid-1960s. But in the 30 seasons beginning with 1981, nine pitchers have achieved perfection. And, oddly, regular no-hitters have decreased in frequency while becoming more erratic in their appearance. “There is probably a fair amount of chance involved” in the jump in perfect games, said Rob Neyer, a baseball columnist with ESPN. He says the rise of free-swingers helps because strikeouts mean fewer balls in play and thus fewer possible hits and errors — although he noted that fewer balls in play should also mean more no-hitters. Improved fielding has probably helped as well, he said. In the 20 years before Babe Ruth and the live ball era of 1920, no-hitters were far more common, with pitchers hurling 48 of them. In the two decades that followed — the most explosive offensive period before the steroids era — there were just 16 no-hitters, one of which was a perfect game. Baseball found an equilibrium in the 1940s and ’50s and that span yielded 30 no-hitters. Not surprisingly, the swinging (and missing) ’60s produced an astonishing 30 no-hitters, along with three perfect games, but even after baseball lowered the pitching mound, pitchers churned out 31 no-hitters in the 1970s. In other words, from 1960-1979, baseball averaged more than three no-hitters per season yet only one perfect game about every seven years. Since then, the pattern has shifted: There have been 48 no-hitters over the past 30 years, meaning it now takes two seasons to produce three no-hitters. In the last decade, there were only 13 — none in 2000 and only one (a perfect game) from June 11, 2003, through Sept. 6, 2006. That decline might make sense considering that the strike zone, the ballparks, the ball and steroids all conspired to boost offense, yet there have been 10 perfect games in that span, meaning they are now coming along every three seasons on average instead of every seven. In fact, perfect games before this year were fairly evenly spaced out, appearing in 1981, 1984, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2004 and 2009. As for this year’s big events, it makes sense that Ubaldo Jimenez would pitch the no-hitter and Braden the perfect game — 25 of 35 no-hitters since 1988, including Jimenez’s, have been pitched by right-handers while six of the eight pitchers to retire all 27 hitters they faced, including Braden, have been southpaws. The only question now is whether Braden can live up to his place in baseball history. While pitchers of all stripes have pitched no-hitters — Justin Verlander pitched one in the last decade but so did Anibal Sanchez and Bud Smith — the perfect-game club is more selective. Of the 17 members, five are Hall of Famers (Cy Young, Addie Joss, Jim Bunning, Sandy Koufax and Catfish Hunter) while Charlie Robertson (who never had a winning season) is forgotten and Don Larsen is remembered only for his one magical day in the 1956 World Series. And while the 1980s had one undistinguished pitcher (Len Barker) and two solid but unremarkable ones (Mike Witt and Tom Browning) pitch perfect games, that has changed since 1990. For in the last two decades, every perfect game has come from a pitcher with an impressive résumé. Randy Johnson is headed for a first-ballot election to the Hall of Fame. (He also pitched a no-hitter.) Dennis Martinez won 245 games and an earned run average title; David Wells won 239 games and had a 10-5 record with a 3.17 E.R.A. in the postseason; David Cone had two 20-win seasons, one Cy Young Award, two strikeout crowns and five All-Star Game appearances. Even Kenny Rogers, who is despised by many New York fans, won 219 games. Last year’s perfect-game pitcher, Mark Buehrle, has a chance to end up in that circle, having already racked up 137 wins and four All-Star Game appearances at age 31. So while we await the next perfect game, which might be here sooner than we think (pay attention to those lefties), keep an eye on Dallas Braden: given that his E.R.A., walks, hits and home runs per inning pitched have steadily declined over the past four years, this perfect game may not be an aberration but the start of something big. That last bit on Braden is interesting , especially because some in the media dismissed him, heck the Daily News had an editorial that was not at all good to him.

Chad Ochoseis May 14 2010 07:15 AM Re: No-Hitters and Perfect Games

Rob Neyer wrote: The rise of free-swingers helps because strikeouts mean fewer balls in play and thus fewer possible hits and errors Not fewer balls in play, I wouldn't think - some of those free swingers are going to manage to connect on a bad pitch. I'd go with many more strikeouts and a few more balls in play, at the cost of fewer walks. That could explain the increase in perfect games relative to all no-hitters. Still, though, small sample size, as Neyer implies with his "fair amount of chance" comment.

Edgy DC May 14 2010 07:22 AM Re: No-Hitters and Perfect Games

I've got to think it has something to do with the decline in complete games, though I can't connect all the dots. But it may be that the only ones who are programmed to make every effort to pitch deep into games any more are the team's aces, so it's going to more typically be the studs pulling the trick off. If a secondary pitcher gets through the sixth unblemished, he's in uncharted territory, and has maybe left all he has on the field after the sixth. So excellent pitchers are still able to elevate their games to pitch the perfectos, but merely decent-to-good pitchers are lesser able to elevate their games to pitch the no-nos. Just a thought, but why ask a Met fan about no-hitters? What do we know?

metirish May 14 2010 07:32 AM Re: No-Hitters and Perfect Games

Edgy DC wrote: I've got to think it has something to do with the decline in complete games, though I can't connect all the dots. But it may be that the only ones who are programmed to make every effort to pitch deep into games any more are the team's aces, so it's going to more typically be the studs pulling the trick off. If a secondary pitcher gets through the sixth unblemished, he's in uncharted territory, and has maybe left all he has on the field after the sixth. So excellent pitchers are still able to elevate their games to pitch the perfectos, but merely decent-to-good pitchers are lesser able to elevate their games to pitch the no-nos. Just a thought, but why ask a Met fan about no-hitters? What do we know? It's a good thought, interesting to look at the list of perfect games , Koufax had 14 K'S in his....wow....the attendance in several games was under 10,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_game

Nymr83 May 14 2010 07:49 AM Re: No-Hitters and Perfect Games

Even Kenny Rogers, who is despised by many New York fans, won 219 games we still hate you Kenny. Even the Yankee fans don't like you!

Gwreck May 14 2010 07:55 AM Re: No-Hitters and Perfect Games

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Still, though, small sample size, as Neyer implies with his "fair amount of chance" comment. My reaction is similar -- that the difference isn't statistically significant given the sample size.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 14 2010 10:53 AM Re: No-Hitters and Perfect Games

Sudden early-season seeming increase in prickitude aside, that Braden's been pretty good and getting better has been apparent to anyone with eyes who's looking at more than the wins column. Which, y'know, is why this... Irish wrote: heck the Daily News had an editorial that was not at all good to him. ... ain't no surprise at all. And, yeah, while these might be interesting thoughts, presented somewhat thoughtfully... small sample size, small sample size, small sample size. As a would-be analyst, Stu Miller is an excellent feature writer. I mean, an inordinate number of the perfecto club "members" are also white millionaires. Wanna draw some causative links there?

metirish May 14 2010 11:01 AM Re: No-Hitters and Perfect Games

Here's that Editorial Nowhere to go but ...: Braden's perfect game doesn't guarantee a great career Editorials Tuesday, May 11th 2010, 4:00 AM Until Sunday, Dallas Braden of the Oakland Athletics was best known as the stickler for etiquette who took umbrage that Alex Rodriguez trespassed on the mound while he was still in occupancy. Then, Braden, whose career record is 18 and 23, threw a perfect game, only the 19th perfecto in big league history. In doing so, he joined giants of the game like Sandy Koufax, Jim Bunning, Catfish Hunter, Randy Johnson and Cy Young, whose 511-316 lifetime mark put his name on the award baseball gives its best pitchers each year. Hearty congratulations are in order - with an asterisk. Other perfect games bear out a baseball version of the theory that enough monkeys pecking brainlessly and artlessly at enough keyboards would sooner or later produce the works of William Shakespeare. For example, Charles (Who!?) Robertson of the White Sox hurled a perfect game against the Tigers in 1922 en route to a career record of 49 and 80. Only time will tell whether the chimps have bestowed upon Braden the same trivia-game immortality. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/201 ... z0nvMJPmii