Talk:Perfect game (baseball)

Requested move 12 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

• Perfect game → Perfect game (baseball)
• Perfect game (disambiguation) → Perfect game

– WP:NOPRIMARY with the bowling term. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Your reason being? I don't see how a "Perfect game" in baseball is the primary topic compared to the same concept in bowling, or various other types of perfect games like a nine dart finish._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. This is clearly a situation where for one group or sport fans, the term would be a primary, and for others, the other. Dab page is the best solution. --Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. No primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Perfect game is definitely a thing in contexts other tha baseball. That doesn't mean that the application in baseball isn't a primary topic. By any measure I can come up with (search results - baseball bowling and the similar trends, total book mentions for the last 100+ years, and scholar baseball bowling) the evidence, at least for me, points to baseball being the primary topic. I would suggest our current arrangement follows WP:PTOPIC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. A mostly ambivalent support, for whatever that's worth, but the current page views show perfect game isn't outstripping perfect game (bowling) by a significant amount (it's 65% for perfect game this year, if my calculation is correct, and IMO 75+% is the sweet spot for a primary topic). So it seems a disambiguation page in this case probably doesn't hurt. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. A simple google search directs to baseball. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support...bowling is far more superior.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support no clear primary topic given that the bowling term gets around as many views most of the time [[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale: Careful: over the longer term, the same graph [2] shows a different story. 20:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  Even still you get nearly a 3rd as many views which probably doesn't pass the "much more than any other". In addition there's also Solved game#Perfect play which its a bit surprising that "Perfect game" doesn't go to the generic meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per my page views over the long term (above). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  I'll just point out that guideline on this suggests page views are only one of several metrics to be considered which is why I linked to others above in saying why I oppose it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yep. Several editors responding to this spate of RMs by Zxcvbnm have been incorrectly asserting pageviews as a be-all-and-end-all rationale when it definitely is not. Most often this is a WP:RECENTISM failure, but in this case it's an encyclopedic-significance failure, as neither sport is more important than the other. While baseball is heavily commercialized and makes more money for corporations, bowling is actually engaged in on a regular basis by at least an order of magnitude more people, even in the US, and baseball is only significant at all in a few countries, while bowling in one form or another is common worldwide. (That said, I'm not certain how many countries use this phrase or a direct translation of it with any regularity, and it might actually be a North Americanism. The point being, we have no actual research before us to make a case either way, so this is another reason that disambiguation is the proper solution.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support, per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom and per Gonnym, who is of course exactly right about this being a pissing match between fans of different sports.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2020 perfect games

While there will be fewer opportunities for perfect games to occur this season, given the reduced schedule, Major League Baseball posted an article regarding the criteria for no-hitters and perfect games during the 2020 season. In the article, MLB's official stats group, the Elias Sports Bureau, stated that when a game is a part of a doubleheader, seven innings won't qualify as an official no-hitter/perfect game; the game must go into extra innings and the ninth inning must be completed. The article further states that the placed runner on second base in extra innings won't count against a pitcher because "A perfect game is a game of at least nine innings where no batter reaches base safely. In the case of a runner on second to start the inning he is not a batter to reach safely. Therefore it is a perfect game.”

While not meant to treat this like a forum, in the situation where the home pitcher completes seven perfect innings, yet the score is 0-0 after the home team bats, then the game would go to extra innings. He completes the top of the eighth inning perfect, and his team still fails to score in the bottom half. In the ninth he gives up two sacrifice flies, allowing the placed runner to advance to third, and then to home. He strikes out the last batter to end the top of ninth inning. In the bottom of the ninth his teammate hits a walk-off two-run home run to win the game.

Does this article from MLB postulate that, for the 2020 season, perfect games can have the losing team score runs? No-hitters allow for this and have already happened in prior seasons; I'm not aware of any such allowance for perfect games in the non-COVID ravaged seasons. If this is to be that case that a perfect game is not spoiled by the placed runner, since he was never a batter, then it might be worthy of some sort of note in the article. While potentially trivial, other articles state rules used during different seasons that do not necessarily apply to all seasons (walks counting as hits in 1887, for example).2601:205:4100:B40:A828:D07C:9771:2526 (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Perfect Game

In 2020 since in extras a runner starts on 2nd base, could a pitcher throw a perfect game this year. If so could a pitcher lose a perfect game because of a few passed balls.Would it still be a perfect game since technically it’s still 27 up 27 down. Chisfoostair (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's still a perfect game. If they retire all 30 batters in a 10-inning perfect game, it would still be a perfect game even with man on second base at start of the inning. It would need to allow a batter to reach base in order to spoil a perfect game. PlanetStar 03:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It could have happened to Harvey Haddix in his notorious 1959 game. He retires the first 27 batters. With the score 0-0, he pitches the bottom of the 10th with the freebie runner at second. A bunt and a sac fly, and he loses the game, despite 29 consecutive outs. WHPratt (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Umpire errors

Shouldn’t umpire errors be added to one of the requirements for a perfect game? 96.75.44.74 (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

When you only have one umpire I believe no errors apply or just one umpire behind the plate and the other one just standing around by second base the whole game with his hands in his pockets. 2601:2C5:201:75D0:D5C2:4A1C:9820:8D7A (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)