PDA

View Full Version : Amazing stats about perfect games


Fenway
05-31-2010, 04:24 PM
Roy Halladay pitched a perfo only 20 days after Dallas Braden - the shortest period in modern baseball.

There were 2 perfect games in 1880 in the NL - FIVE days apart - when Providence and Worcester were in the NL

There were NO perfect games between 1922 and 1956 - 12,580 days and in the regular season it would be another 8 years (Jim Bunning 1964)

There were none in the 70's

JermaineDye05
05-31-2010, 04:28 PM
I seriously thought Buehrle was gonna pitch a second perfecto against the Twins when he broke the record for consecutive batters retired. That would have been a first certainly. Have there ever been back-to-back no-hitters? I know there's never been back-to-back perfect games given the record.

SephClone89
05-31-2010, 04:30 PM
I seriously thought Buehrle was gonna pitch a second perfecto against the Twins when he broke the record for consecutive batters retired. That would have been a first certainly. Have there ever been back-to-back no-hitters? I know there's never been back-to-back perfect games given the record.

Johnny Vander Meer, 1938.

slavko
05-31-2010, 06:41 PM
Roy Halladay pitched a perfo only 20 days after Dallas Braden - the shortest period in modern baseball.

There were 2 perfect games in 1880 in the NL - FIVE days apart - when Providence and Worcester were in the NL

There were NO perfect games between 1922 and 1956 - 12,580 days and in the regular season it would be another 8 years (Jim Bunning 1964)

There were none in the 70's

Since no one has guessed why, I will: Hitting changed for too many players to a matter of "swing for the fences" instead of "put the ball in play."

Brian26
05-31-2010, 07:00 PM
Since no one has guessed why, I will: Hitting changed for too many players to a matter of "swing for the fences" instead of "put the ball in play."

I'll throw a theory out there: Astroturf. Quicker infields, more balls shooting between the infielders for base hits.

TDog
05-31-2010, 07:01 PM
Johnny Vander Meer, 1938.

Ewell Blackwell, while pitching for the Reds in 1947, came within two outs of pitching back-to-back no-hitters in 1947. Eddie Stanky got an infield single when Blackwell failed to cover first on a ground ball to the right side. This was 10 years before I was born, but I am told this was because his motion left him falling toward third base. With two outs, and the game extended, Jackie Robinson got a hit, and Blackwell ended up with a two-hitter.

slavko
05-31-2010, 09:17 PM
I'll throw a theory out there: Astroturf. Quicker infields, more balls shooting between the infielders for base hits.

The trouble is, quicker infields would mean less perfectos.

SephClone89
05-31-2010, 09:26 PM
The trouble is, quicker infields would mean less perfectos.

I think he might have been referring to the age of artificial turf as being one that is past?

Brian26
05-31-2010, 09:52 PM
The trouble is, quicker infields would mean less perfectos.

I was trying to come up with a possible reason why there were none in the 1970s. The cookie cutter stadiums and artificial turf came into play in the mid-late 60s.

SephClone89
05-31-2010, 09:55 PM
I was trying to come up with a possible reason why there were none in the 1970s. The cookie cutter stadiums and artificial turf came into play in the mid-late 60s.

That's what I thought you meant.

DumpJerry
05-31-2010, 10:24 PM
No 'roids=pitcher's advantage.

doublem23
05-31-2010, 10:36 PM
No 'roids=pitcher's advantage.

Pitchers don't take roids?

DumpJerry
06-01-2010, 09:41 AM
Pitchers don't take roids?
They did, but it was for endurance, not performance reasons.

One fact that runs counter to my no 'roids comment is that you need a flawless defense behind you. This is a factor outside the control of the pitcher even if he induces nothing but ground balls since some are going to be "seeing eye" grounders that make it through.

kjhanson
06-01-2010, 12:16 PM
They did, but it was for endurance, not performance reasons.


Maybe, just maybe, they wanted endurance so their performance didn't suffer.

cards press box
06-01-2010, 01:33 PM
Roy Halladay pitched a perfo only 20 days after Dallas Braden - the shortest period in modern baseball.

There were 2 perfect games in 1880 in the NL - FIVE days apart - when Providence and Worcester were in the NL

There were NO perfect games between 1922 and 1956 - 12,580 days and in the regular season it would be another 8 years (Jim Bunning 1964)

There were none in the 70's

Have there ever been three in two years prior to 2009-2010?

TDog
06-01-2010, 02:13 PM
They did, but it was for endurance, not performance reasons. ...

Performance and endurance are really the same thing. Endurance was likely the difference in the big home run seasons for hitters. The season wears players down, and it shows more with hitters because hitters are reactive, which is why teams with strong pitching are more likely to find postseason success (There are teams like the 2003 Cubs whose star pitching suddenly hits a wall, but usually it is the hitting, as with the 1969 Cubs whose hitting hits a wall.)

Former players have said it wasn't just that steroids-doped players could hit the ball harder and farther. When people countered by saying such hitters still had to hit the ball, the detractors pointed out that they weren't as worn down by the season and played fresher.

Curt Flood charged in his autobiography that the World Series is a "joke" because the players are too tired to play, and it would be worse now with two rounds of playoffs before teams get to the World Series. I've never heard anyone else make such a strong claim, but everyone recognizes that the grind of the season is one of the opponents in winning a baseball championship.

downstairs
06-03-2010, 03:38 PM
Have there ever been three in two years prior to 2009-2010?

Nope. Only twice before were there two:

Jim Bunning - 1964
Sandy Koufax - 1965

David Wells - 1998
David Cone - 1999