June 04, 2004
More Perfection
Keith Emmer at NY Sports Express examines why there have been an increasing number of perfect games.
The truth is, a perfect game is more of a statistical anomaly than the mark of a great pitcher. Which is why when the commentators are saying expansion is a prime factor in the recent run of perfect games, they may be right—but for the wrong reasons. In 1904 there were 16 teams in the two leagues; a full season had 1,232 games. In 2004 there are 30 teams; they play 2,430 games in total. With twice as many games, there are twice as many chances for a perfect one. The simplest answer is sometimes the perfect one.
The more opportunities, the more likely an unlikely event will happen. I'd also hazard that two other factors have a big impact. Error rates for fielders have been steadily decreasing since the early part of the 20th century. If the chance of an error decreases, the chance for a perfect game increases. Also, strikeout rates have been rising. The more batters strike out, the less chance that a ball in play will go for a hit.
Posted by David Pinto at
01:06 PM
|
Feats
|
TrackBack (0)
And error rates have been falling because? I hesitate to automatically assume it's larger gloves, but...After all, the dimensions of the infield haven't changed any.
My guess is that the larger glove theory in overblown. Second basemen still tend to wear very small gloves so they can feel the ball. And their error rates have gone down also. Playing surfaces are better than they used to be, and that has something to do with it. But mostly, players are just better today. Batting and pitching tend to balance each other out, so there's an illusion there that players aren't that much better than they were 80 years ago, because BA and ERAs aren't that different. (Although they flucuate.)
But fielding is a different story. And error rates have gotten better and better as time has gone on. It's the one tangible thing we can point to to show that players today are much better than their predecessors.
