And with that, I’ll close debate on the issue. Sorry for bringing it up. This should be about Braden and the hell of a game he threw, not something that might happen a month from now.
Funny–casual fan that I am, I’ve been wondering to myself for the last few days whether the much tighter restrictions on pitch count and such these days spelled the end of the perfect game, by making it essentially impossible for a starting pitcher to finish a game. Even thought about posting a thread here. Guess not. 
The closer attention to pitch counts, and the greater use of bullpen pitchers, have dramatically reduced the number of complete games over the years.
But they will never reduce the number of No-Hitters or Perfect Games, because as long as a starting pitcher has not conceded a hit in the game, there’s no way in hell that a manager is going to take him out. Furthermore, in those types of games, the very fact that no-one (in a perfect game) or almost no-one (in the case of a no-hitter) is getting on base means that the pitch count doesn’t climb as quickly as it does in games where batters are getting hits.
All other things being equal, a pitcher will throw fewer pitches in facing 27 hitters, as Braden did today, than he will facing 30 or 33 or 36 hitters. Braden threw 109 pitches for his PG today; that’s basically 12 pitches per inning, which is a very good rate.
Those hignorunt furriners amongst this mesageboard of enlightenment are long reconciled that the phrase “the only game” really means “the only professional US domestic sport”. That’s the only reason there is the Olympic games, to remind Americans every four years that other countries do play sport, and that sport can be played against other countries.
I would have thought softball would used the same nomenclature.
There are other games where the team in possession of the ball is the attacker e.g. soccer, hockey, lacrosse, polo and a nil all score is relatively common (or rarities in the rugby codes) but that’s a draw not a perfect game. My son once played in an AFL match where there was no score.
In cricket the bowlers are usually referred to as “the bowling attack”, however in the second innings, the fielding side are also “defending their total”. The bowling side is definitely in control of the ball. But the ball actually belongs to the batting side.
:rolleyes:
I was at this game, scoring it the way I always do. One of the best things about a game like this is how the tension gradually increases. No one goes to the ballpark expecting to see a perfect game. I went to the game hoping that the A’s would take the series from a really tough team. There is no instant at which I realized that I was watching a perfect game in progress - every game starts as a perfect game for both teams, yet how many of them end this way? As the game went on it became clear that I was witnessing something special. By the end of the fifth inning I guess everyone in the ballpark was thinking about the possibility. I believe it was just before the start of the seventh inning when the woman in front of me turned around and asked me whether Braden had given up any walks. In the ninth inning everyone was on edge, and when Kapler grounded to short to end the game the place just exploded.
Braden pitched well, and he also got some breaks. At the start of the first inning he was helped a lot by Kevin Kouzmanoff’s nice play on a hard line drive down the third base line. None of the Rays gave Braden much trouble again until, with two out in the sixth, Kapler had a twelve-pitch at-bat, fouling off pitch after pitch until he finally popped up to Kouzmanoff in foul territory. Kouzmanoff made another nice play with one out in the eighth on a foul pop-up that he caught at the lip of the A’s dugout. With one out in the ninth Navarro hit a line drive to left field that would have been a hit except for the fact that he hit it right at Eric Patterson.
Since today was Mothers’ Day a lot of the A’s had brought their mothers with them to the game. Braden had lost his mother to cancer in his senior year of high school, so he brought his grandmother instead. When the game ended the team brought her onto the field, and she and Dallas embraced for a long time. Quite a scene.
When I got home I put my ticket in an envelope for safe keeping. I’ve never asked anyone for an autograph, but I’m considering asking Braden to sign it.
“I don’t believe in superstitions. They’re bad luck.” - Bobby Valentine
Lucky bastard! It would be awesome to be at a perfect game.
Last July, i was in San Francisco and went to a Thursday night Giants-Padres game. The following day, i thought about going to the Friday night game, but decided against it because it was our last night in SF, and i wanted to hang out with family. Of course, that was the night that Sanchez threw a no-hitter. That night, Sanchez was one Juan Uribe error from a perfect game.
Yeah, i saw that play on Baseball Tonight; it was a sharp catch. Kouzmanoff had a busy day, making 6 of Braden’s 27 outs.
If the ball belongs to the batting side, why do the bowling side decide when to change it?
But… but… chicks still dig the long ball, right? 
One of 12,000 or so. How long 'til the A’s get out of that dump? Anyhow, lucky ducky! I’ll take credit for preserving the perfecto since I didn’t hear about it until it was over.
More players have 500+ career homers and more players have hit 50+ homers in a season then have thrown a perfect game. Almost as rare as the unassisted triple play (15 in the modern era).
Cheers to Braden. Unbelievable performance.
As a lifelong A’s fan I’m fully cognizant of their past success, and I realize that I don’t share the heartache or pain of the followers of many other teams (although Game 3 of the 2001 Divisional playoffs against the hated Yankees was a particularly bitter pill regardless of past success). Still, the A’s are a small market team playing in an ancient stadium in an area that skews heavily towards the other local team and were 60-1 longshots to win the World Series at the beginning of the season. That said, this was just…just…unbelievable.
It seems to me that the incidences of perfect games (PG’s) has actually increased over the past 20 years, with 7 of 19 PG’s coming since 1991 (1/3rd of all PG’s, or one every 2.7 seasons). Previous to that there were 12 PG’s in an 111 year span, or about 1 per decade.
More steroids at work?
15 is also the number of players who have hit 4 homers in a single game.
You want a really rare feat? Try “Hit by Pitch twice in the same inning”! It’s happened 4 times. Link (scroll to bottom)
Good point about pitch counts, though. In a true “divine” game like this, there’s probably no reason for the manager to go for the hook.
I don’t have much respect for Lew Wolff, the current owner of the A’s. He seems clueless about how to encourage people to come to the games. He’s done things like close the upper deck (where the cheap seats used to be), close half the parking lots (the ones that have exits leading to the freeway, which makes it slow to get out when the game ends), close many of the concessions when a small crowd is expected, and get rid of ticket vendors inside the ballpark (there are now automated kiosks where the vendors used to be, and there is a service fee where there used to be none).
Wolff had a plan to move the team to Fremont, where he was going to build a 34,000 seat ballpark. The location was two miles from the nearest public transit, and the parking lot was going to hold only 9,000 cars. I was at a meeting of the Oakland A’s Booster Club once where Wolff spoke about the plans for the new park - he said, “I know some of you here are going to sue me” - a really nice thing to say to the team’s most dedicated fans. The ballpark deal fell through when the economy tanked, which was probably a good thing since there wouldn’t have been a good way for people to get there.
For years the A’s were on a powerful radio station, KNEW, but when that station converted to a religious format and dumped the A’s, the team spent a couple of years on a several low-power stations at a time. Each station was receivable in only a small area - you had to know which station to tune in depending on where you were. This was terrible for PR - part of the purpose of broadcasting is to publicize the team. The team is now on a single station, but there are places in the Bay Area where that station doesn’t come in well.
TV is almost as bad. The A’s were on broadcast channel 36 until this season. Hardly anyone but A’s fans know about this channel - there’s little chance of stirring interest among those who aren’t already fans if the team is carried on a channel that no one ever looks at. This season the A’s aren’t on broadcast TV at all - they’re on cable only (I guess this is the wave of the future).
All of this behavior is typical of a team that’s getting ready to move - they don’t see much point in trying to keep the current fan base. But Wolff doesn’t want to move far - he tried to go to Fremont, and San Jose is trying to lure the team. At least some of the current fan base would continue to follow the team if the A’s go to either of those cities, so it seems pretty stupid to me to give up on promoting the A’s where they are now.
There could be something structural in the game that makes a perfect game more likely now than it was, say 50 years ago. One thing that comes to mind is the quality of the fielding, a result of increasingly rigorous training regimens and increasingly consistent ground qualilty.
Fielding in the early days of baseball was a complete crapshoot. Small, almost useless gloves combined with poorly maintained fields meant that the sort of plays we take for granted today were almost impossible. While gloves improved quite quickly, along with the grounds themselves, fielding has continued to improve due to larger and more mobile players spending hours and hours practicing their craft.
I really doubt that any increase in the number of PGs would be due to steroids. First, you would need to make a case that steroids are likely to lead to the sort of single-game performance required by a perfect game. I’m no expert on steroid, but it seems to me that, of all the claims i’ve read about what they can do, there is nothing that stands out as making a perfect game more likely.
Steroid might improve your recovery time from injury, but that is hardly likely to improve your chances of throwing a single perfect game. Steroid can make you bigger and stronger, but it’s far from clear that steroid-induced power is the key to a perfect game. Hell, neither of the last two PG pitchers, Braden or Mark Buehrle, are overpowering fastball pitchers. Braden’s fastball topped out yesterday in the low 90s, and he got quite a few outs with his slower sliders and change-ups. Buehrle also isn’t a Roger Clemens or Nolan Ryan style power pitcher.
While you are right that over one-third of all perfect games have come over the last two decades, that’s still only 7 out of a total of almost 50,000 games (or almost 100,000 starting pitchers; two per game). I’m no statistician, but i’d be surprised if we can draw any significant conclusions about the likelihood of perfect games based on such a small percentage.
I was aware of those games, but you’ll notice that most of the combined no-hitters resulted from unusual circumstances that essentially forced the manger’s hand. In one case, the starter was ejected; in another the starter pitched 9 complete innings and the manager clearly didn’t want to risk injury by letting him pitch extra innings; and in another the starter left due to injury.
While it’s not unheard-of for a manager to simply remove a guy who is carrying a no-hitter (like the Langston/Witt game), it almost never happens. And i’d be very surprised if any manager has ever pulled a starter who was working on a perfect game. I still believe that the increasing use of relievers hasn’t contributed, and never will contribute in any meaningful way, to a reduction in the number of no-hitters and perfect games.
To John T’s point, I can think of two things.
One is expansion–there are simply more games played in recent seasons because there are more teams, and thus a greater likelihood of perfect games happening.
The other is the emphasis on “power” vs. “punch” hitting. Increasingly, every hitter in the lineup is swinging for the fences. You don’t see much of the Nellie Fox/Phil Rizzuto just-get-on-base mentality anymore; most everyone is looking for some offense in one at bat. I’m not complaining, mind you, and this type of mindset may well be more effective overall, but if everyone is begging off of marginal pitches looking for the home run (or at least well-driven) ball, you’re more likely to see strings of 27 outs as well as 15-run games.
But they don’t.
Any decision to change the ball is taken by the umpires and the batting side.
If the ball is out of shape, the captain of the fielding side can ask that the ball be changed. The flaw needs to be due to the ball itself, not a consequence of the play. For example if the field is wet and the ball becomes sodden, it’s play on. If the ball is out of shape because it was scuffed up after being hit into the grandstand, the umpire will trim any loose bits of leather and it’s play on.
If the ball is out of shape they tell the batsman a replacement ball is required. The replacement ball must be in shape and in the same condition as the old ball. The replacement is first shown to the batsmen who agree with the replacement. Then it is given to the bowling side to use. They have no say in replacement.
If the batsmen consider that the ball has been tampered with by the fielding side they can ask the ball to be changed. The same procedure applies.
A new ball is allowed after 80 overs (min 480 deliveries) but again the umpires give the bowling team a new ball that the batting side has approved at the start of the game.