PDA

View Full Version : Theory on the rash of perfect games/ NoHitters


Moses_Scurry
06-03-2010, 08:51 AM
Mike from Mike & Mike made an interesting theory on why there have been so many perfect games and no-hitters in the last year. He speculated that the removal of amphetamines plays a big part. He went on to present that each of the losing teams for the three perfect games (counting last night) were all done against teams that were in the middle of lengthy road trips. I'd have to look up Tampa's schedule from last year for Buehrle's game, but I thought it was interesting.

Could it be true, or is this perfect game cluster just a fluke?

DumpJerry
06-03-2010, 09:04 AM
The umps are no longer hourly employees, they get a flat fee. Hence the incentive to speed up the games.

Coops4Aces
06-03-2010, 09:06 AM
The Marlins were the home team FWIW

chisox616
06-03-2010, 12:54 PM
However could you argue that the perfect games were against young teams who would more likely show a lack of patience and get frustrated with their performance easier?

areilly
06-03-2010, 01:01 PM
Maybe, in a bid to drum up interest and pry open wallets in these times of so little disposable income, MLB has gone the way of the NBA.

(Where's that tinfoil icon when I need it?)

Coops4Aces
06-03-2010, 01:09 PM
Keith Law: "It would be crazier if there had been 21 perfect games evenly spaced throughout history. Don't be fooled by randomness."

Marqhead
06-03-2010, 01:25 PM
Keith Law: "It would be crazier if there had been 21 perfect games evenly spaced throughout history. Don't be fooled by randomness."

Yep. It's all a matter of chance.

downstairs
06-03-2010, 01:29 PM
Keith Law: "It would be crazier if there had been 21 perfect games evenly spaced throughout history. Don't be fooled by randomness."

Exactly. Perfect games are so rare that there cannot be a trend. None. Its all random.

Heck, I'd argue that a perfect game is more luck than anything. There's very little difference between a perfect game and a 1-hitter, a 1-run 1-hit performance, etc. Those tiny things that make a great game into a perfect game are just luck.

Great game = skill
Perfect game = lots of luck + skill

voodoochile
06-03-2010, 01:51 PM
I think the change in the bats and the removal of PED's (for the most part) has had an impact.

CWSpalehoseCWS
06-03-2010, 02:16 PM
Keith Law: "It would be crazier if there had been 21 perfect games evenly spaced throughout history. Don't be fooled by randomness."

That makes sense.

Frater Perdurabo
06-03-2010, 07:55 PM
Exactly. Perfect games are so rare that there cannot be a trend. None. Its all random.

Heck, I'd argue that a perfect game is more luck than anything. There's very little difference between a perfect game and a 1-hitter, a 1-run 1-hit performance, etc. Those tiny things that make a great game into a perfect game are just luck.

Great game = skill
Perfect game = lots of luck + skill

Yes, I agree with this.

However, there has been a confluence of numerous specific factors that together make no-hitters and perfect games more likely now than they have been in the past, and many of those factors are listed in this thread. In addition to all of those factors, another thing to consider is that there are fewer hitters who can bunt for hits compared to earlier, pre-PED decades.

BadBobbyJenks
06-03-2010, 07:57 PM
Randomness is randomness.

NDSox12
06-03-2010, 09:24 PM
Mike from Mike & Mike made an interesting theory on why there have been so many perfect games and no-hitters in the last year.

Heh. Mike from Mike & Mike? Sorry, that made me laugh.

mzh
06-03-2010, 09:25 PM
I think the change in the bats and the removal of PED's (for the most part) has had an impact.
In the 70 years before Maple bats and PED's were rampant, perfect games were just as rare. I'm sticking to the total randomness theory. I'm no probability expert, but given the odds of a perfect game I'd think it's just one of those things where there is just no regularity or pattern.

Hitmen77
06-03-2010, 11:04 PM
Keith Law: "It would be crazier if there had been 21 perfect games evenly spaced throughout history. Don't be fooled by randomness."

There's a bit of truth to that, but it's not entirely accurate to the question of perfect games. The distribution isn't just "random". There indeed is a trend to having them more frequently.

Noneck
06-03-2010, 11:15 PM
It would seem to me if this was more than a random occurrence, there would be more no hitters, 1 hitters and 2 hitters which I dont believe there are.

DSpivack
06-03-2010, 11:18 PM
Maybe, in a bid to drum up interest and pry open wallets in these times of so little disposable income, MLB has gone the way of the NBA.

(Where's that tinfoil icon when I need it?)

:rolleyes::dtroll:

october23sp
06-04-2010, 01:29 AM
Yeah, PEDs make you a better power guy and stronger, not have the ability to get a seeing eye single or two.

voodoochile
06-04-2010, 01:47 AM
Yeah, PEDs make you a better power guy and stronger, not have the ability to get a seeing eye single or two.

They make you hit the ball harder, period. Now some of those harder hit balls get through the infield faster or bounce of the wall instead of landing in the OF glove on the track or turn softly hit looping liners that get caught into longer looping liners that find the gap.

daveeym
06-04-2010, 07:50 AM
It would seem to me if this was more than a random occurrence, there would be more no hitters, 1 hitters and 2 hitters which I dont believe there are.

I have to agree with this. Sure the reduction in ped use will have helped pitching stats but I'd figure it is still an offensive game now when historically compared. Randomness plain and simple.

Moses_Scurry
06-04-2010, 09:28 AM
I think the point was that with the removal of amphetemines, teams in the middle of long stretches with no days off are unable to "get up" for the game.

I agree about no-hitters, 1 hitters, and 2 hitters, though. They don't seem to be any more prevalent. It could be that we just don't remember the 1 and 2 hitters, though. I'd have to look it up.

Paulwny
06-04-2010, 01:54 PM
FWIW, MY take.
Back in the day the majority of hitters were contact hitters. The HR was almost non-existant. More balls were put into play, this would lead to more errors and the greater possibility of a walk, making it harder to pitch a perfect game.

In the 50's the HR was on the increase however, many teams had 4-5 players who were considered Punch and Judy hitters. Again, more balls put into play, more errors and the possibilty of a walk to spoil a perfect game.

Over the last 20+ years more and more players are free swinging, fewer balls put into play and an increase in strikeouts.

LoveYourSuit
06-04-2010, 02:06 PM
I don't buy it that PEDs has anything to do with. A good portion of ML hits come on balls not hit hard at all.


To me, it's just a fluke.

TheVulture
06-04-2010, 09:39 PM
Yeah, PEDs make you a better power guy and stronger, not have the ability to get a seeing eye single or two.

That's a myth. Steroids can be and are taken to improve eye sight, that would definitely help with a seeing eye single.

I'd still think the whole PED thing would be irrelevant, though, but who knows. If there's another three perfect games in the next year or two that might raise my eyebrow, but as of now it just seems like chance.