Talk:Perfect game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Flag
Portal
 Perfect game is maintained by WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Baseball To-do:
edit 
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents

[edit] missing info

The table is missing some important information. Eg, who won. As well, there is no score, no note as to whether a night or day game (important since lights came in), and so on. I'll try to come back and add more when I can get the data together. In the meantime, Johnson's game brings this stuff to mind now, so if anyone else wants to ... ww 18:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Randy how old??

All the news reports had Johnson as the oldest ever to pitch a perfect game, so 30 sounds too young. Thoughts? ww 13:32, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's right. Randy Johnson was born on September 9, 1963, making him forty years old. See the Arizona Diamondbacks : Player Information page for details. I'll fix the page now. -- TomPreuss 19:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] numbers in the table

Okay, forget about the Sep. 9th/10th thing, I figured it out. Now then, on to something else. The second number after the slash there is the pitch count. Before it had just the number of strikes that he threw. I fixed it to show the total pitches, according to the box score. Why is the page formatted in this way, meaning "age/pitch count" ? Is this format used anywhere that I don't know about? I think we might need to clarify that the first number is age somehow. Thoughts? -- TomPreuss 12:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

TP, It's my doing. It's formatted that way because both numbers were of interest, and I was trying to cram the information in. No other reason. It's also why day/night is included also. I did consider confusion between the two, but no one's ever come close to pitching a perfect perfect game (ie, 27 pitches) and so I expected there would be little prospect of confusing a pitch count in the 80s+ with a world class athlete's age (under 40, I thought, would last forever). There's other interesting stuff which might be included, such as the list of players in perfect games, there is some overlap. And Vin Scully has announced three.
Does that help clear up some questions? ww 14:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Much better, thanks ww. So should there be something like "(team) age/pitch count" somewhere? I noticed that the pitch count is the only number to have a description after it (pitches), while the other numbers, like the score and attendance, do not. Being a baseball fan, I know that numbers like 3-0 and 2-0 are perfect game scores, and numbers in the thousands are attendance. But does the casual Wikipedia user know that? I don't think it would hurt to add "teams, stadium, day/night, attendance, final score" in some how. -- TomPreuss 16:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I just wanted to add that I understand the size limitations of using tables. To bad our words are so big, you should see how nicely everything fits in Japanese. -- TomPreuss 16:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
TP, I thought about labeling the nrs, maybe even in a title line in the table, but ya run out of space real fast. And I was trying to keep in mind those with small displays or peculiar behaving browsers (ie, all of us, I guess). I changed all (except the first two) to teama at teamb rather than teama vs teamb to make clearer where the game was played. Couldn't find where the first two were played. Any ideas about how to do this while not deranging folks' displays?
BTW, I've added indented to the discussion here so I can follow what's going on. Hope that's all right. ww 17:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The indents are great. Regarding the format of the table, it seems like a difficult task. I'm open to suggestions. I think Richmond's game was played at the Worcester Agricultural Fairgrounds. See [1]. Also, this page of the Baseball Almanac seems to be on point. But I'm not really sure, and need someone else to take a look. I can't easily find any other information on those two games, and this copy of the eighth edition of The Baseball Encyclopedia on my lap sure isn't doing any good. -- TomPreuss 02:21, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I corrected the name of the Worcester team - they had none! See a letter by a local sports writer and guru [here]. I also added Richmond's first name, and made pages for him, the Worcesters, and the Fairground. I used to live across the street! --Sfoskett 01:25, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

<--- to many : for me, let's start over at the left.

TP, I finally looked at the Japanese link you gave above. ! Wish I read the language, but vertical sequence sure helps. Too bad all I studied was Japanese history and literature (in trans, of course). Your baseball almanac link includes some additional information, especially on the 'almost' games, that would be well if included here. Do you want to take it on? I've tried to find more on the two 1880s 'perfect' games, but w/o much luck, either. Surely someone knows? ww 15:29, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] format assist much better

Wow, an amazing improvement in that table. Nice job there by User:Minesweeper. I'm still looking up stuff on those old games. Nothing yet. And now there's all those other things to look up too. Fun stuff. -- TomPreuss 17:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree and have left him a note saying so. Now we have room to add stuff without making an unreadable mess. ... Opposing pitcher(s), catcher(s), notable events maybe... Did you know that after Joss died the (next?) year, the first 'All-Star' game was arranged to benefit his family. Ban Johnson was agin' it, but it looked as though players were going ahead anyway, so he finally gave permission. Joss was widely liked. ww 18:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bison problem

I'm from the West and I know bisons. And the Buffalo Bisons linked here in the 2nd perfect game aren't the right Bisons. This is a minor league team, are still playing, and can't be the team that played in Ward's perfect game. Unless it's that stuff I was smoking.... Help someone!?? ww 16:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to my research there was indeed a National League team known as the Buffalo Bisons who were in that league from 1879 through 1885. A second team known as the Buffalo Bisons played in the Players League in 1890 and a third Buffalo Bisons team played in the Western Association from 1892 through 1900, eventually moving to Boston, joining the new American League and, after several years, becoming known as the Boston Red Sox.--rwhempel 02:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boston Pigrims

Research has shown the name 'Boston Pilgrims' was not used in the early 1900s, and was invented sometime after the fact. See Boston Red Sox for links to the research of papers of the day. Changed team name to 'Americans'. Econrad 16:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Burdette or Spahn?

I checked one reference which claims the Haddix game was against Spahn. Can anyone check to be sure it's Burdette? At least we don't have anyone claiming it was their third starter, Rain (remember, "Burdette and Spahn and pray for rain"). Thanks. ww 21:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a book about perfect games, and it says that the opposing pitcher was Lew Burdette. He's also listed as the Braves pitcher for the game on baseball-almanac.com. (BTW...it didn't go "Burdette and Spahn and pray for rain" the phrase was "Spahn and Sain and pray for rain.")

Actually, the phrase was "Spahn and Sain and two days of rain."

Really? The version I've always read went "Spahn and Sain and pray for rain." The lines from the poem are different, but the chant/cheer/phrase from the fans was always quoted as "...and pray for rain."

[edit] Around the world perfect games

What about perfect games in other nations that play baseball (such as Japan)? And also what about little league and the minor leagues?

In principle, I'm all for it, but Little League stuff seems to me to be too vaiable in the level of competition (kids have a good bit of variance in how rapidly they mature). And there's the lack of any info (generally) other than score and perhaps game location. I can't see how it could be done. Perfect games in Carribean or Japanese or whatever leagues would seem reasonable, but how to collect the data?? ww 09:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
On the same note, what about minor league Perfect Games? I believe Bronson Arroyo pitched a perfect game for the PawSox of the International League. Kntrabssi 06:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
He did, and so did Tomokazu Ohka. I agree that minor league perfect games (The International League has had four) should be included, since the article is Perfect_game, and doesn't specify Major Leagues only. Counterfit

[edit] Substantial editing

Just a baseball fan here. I hadn't felt like I spend enough time on Wikipedia to make an account (although I am going to) but my casual browsing brought me to the perfect game page and I saw several inaccuracies on the almost-perfect list and took the liberty of researching and updating them. I don't want to mess up the page by incorrectly adding a links heading or any such thing I don't trust myself to do for fear of ruining something, but for the sake of completeness, I put it to one of you good users to add, as appropriate, the following links from where I found most of this information:


Baseball Fever forum thread: http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?threadid=9017 Some of the date information on this page is incorrect; however, the player-vs-player information is in order.

Events of 7.4.1908 Wiltse: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/07041908.htm

There was no box score, or even a line score, kept for this game as far as I know. Interestingly it was the front end of a doubleheader and I recall reading somewhere that Wiltse pitched both games, although I do not know if this is true.

Events of 8.5.1932: Bridges http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/08051932.htm

No box score was found.

Events of 6.27.1958: Pierce http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/06271958.htm

Nor was there a box score for this one.

9.2.1972 Pappas: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B09020CHN1972.htm

4.15.1983 Wilcox: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B04150CHA1983.htm

5.2.1988 Robinson: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B05020CIN1988.htm

8.4.1989 Stieb: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B08040TOR1989.htm

4.20.1990 Holman: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B04200OAK1990.htm

Notes about Stieb and Holman: Originally the page stated that Stieb had lost a perfect game as one of two consecutive no-hit bids broken up in the ninth innings of two games in 1988. This is somewhat true: Neither one was perfect in the ninth (there were walks and hit batters before the ninth) but he did indeed lose two no-no's. Holman's, also stated to be in 1988, was in 1990.

5.30.1997 Mussina: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B05300BAL1997.htm

5.6.1998 Wood: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B05060CHN1998.htm

No play-by-play in any box score I found, although surely there is one somewhere. The page stated Wood having thrown a would-be perfect game, save for a third-inning infield single. In a somewhat unsurprising turn, Wood hit Craig Biggio - two players with notoriety for HBPs - therefore making that claim false, although it would have been a no-hitter.

9.2.2001 Mussina: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B09020BOS2001.htm

If I missed and/or messed up anything, I apologise, and I'll check back tomorrow for any comments - hopefully by then I'll have got around to making myself a username.

anon,
No apologies needed. You've done good work, just exactly in the spirit of WP. Keep it up! WP relies on exactly such folks; most of my work has been in other fields (crypto and such), but I'm a fan, just not so well informed as you. I'm glad you've improved the work I did here. Thank you. ww 16:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I see a user named Misfit Toys chose to undo some of my edits and reinsert extraneous material that does not belong in an article on perfect games. This is unfortunate. The listing for Wood's game does not belong in this article, becuse it was not particularly close to a perfect game: Wood gave up a base hit AND hit a batter. The listing for Mussina's first game does not belong because it was not particularly close either: it was lost with one out in the 9th, not two. If the standard for near-perfect games is 25 batters retired and not 26, this article would be a lot longer. Thus I have deleted those games again, because they have no place in an article on perfect games. Please understand that I am not making these corrections out of spite or stubbornness but because I think the article is most clear and most concise if the "near perfect" listing is limited to games that made it to the 27th batter, and that to include more is to invite clutter with several more games that went only 24 or 25 batters, or only had one baserunner at some other point in the game. The near-perfectos of Young, Joss and Koufax don't really belong in this article either, but I included them because all three of those pitchers did indeed have a perfect game at another time. Also, Misfit Toys incorrectly changed a factual correction I made to the article: Ron Robinson was listed as losing his perfect game to the 26th batter, when it was actually the 27th. I have again changed that back. The retrosheet play-by-play, which I'm including the URL for below, clearly indcates that there were two out in the 9th inning and not one when Johnson singled to ruin the perfect game:

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B05020CIN1988.htm

[edit] Math?

I'm wondering how the line that states that there is roughly a perfect game every four years is valid.

According to my math, with 17 Perfect games to date, divided by 103 years of MLB equals (approx) .1650 Perfect games per year. Then, by dividing the number 1 by my answer equals 6. From this data, I would assume that a Perfect Game every six seasons is a more accurate answer when compared to one every 4 years. Darwin's Bulldog 23:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there have been 131 years of MLB, counting this one; the National League began play in 1876. 131/17=7.7, so I guess the answer is that there's a perfect game every eight years on the average...I will change the article accordingly.
  • Cool, because a perfect game every four years just didn't sound right to me. I was basing my math from the 1901 season (even then, I made a small error: should've been 105 years instead of 103). Regardless, using 131 years is probably the best anyways! Darwin's Bulldog 02:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capricious move

This page was moved from perfect game to perfect game (baseball) for no apparent good reason. This move breaks the longstanding guidelines on naming articles.

Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

There is no other article disambiguated at perfect game; it is only a redirect. The only articles which point there are baseball-related articles. The only other sport I know of with perfect games is bowling, but there is no perfect game (bowling) article -- and if there were, the baseball article would still be considered the most common usage. There is no conflict with any other name, nor a need for disambiguation. The only possible justification might be a Wikiproject with the intent of marking all baseball-related terms with the disambiguator (baseball) (which would be an astonishingly bad idea). --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one that moved it but I can see why they did:

There are several other sports/games with the concept of a perfect game, e.g. softball and ten pin bowling. Therefore the current article name does "conflict with the names of other people or things."

For an example of this, see the article on a perfect game in ten pin bowling 300-point game (which the article states is "more commonly known as a Perfect Game"). If someone was looking for an article for a perfect game in bowling they would find the baseball perfect game article without any hint that the bowling article exists.

Further, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) guideline seems to be in favour of the move:

"Be Precise (when necessary)
Convention: Please, do not title articles ambiguously as though that title had no other meanings! ... If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase (unless it is unlikely that the related usages deserve their own article). For example, use Apollo program, Nirvana (band), smoking pipe; rather than simply Apollo, Nirvana, Pipe."

The absolute least we should do is change the name of this article to 'Perfect game (baseball)', and redirect 'Perfect game' to 'Perfect game (baseball)'. Then put a disambiguation link to a perfect game in ten pin bowling at the top of the page.

In summary, this article title is ambiguous and should therefore be moved to 'Perfect game (baseball)'. Joaq99 14:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I may have been harsh some months ago, but the problem remains -- non-baseball uses are much less common. We still do not have an article on perfect game (bowling). I tend to dislike pre-emptive disambiguation, and when there is a clear primary topic (and I argue this is such a case), that topic should be at the name and other topics can be reached through a disambiguation hatnote (if just one more) or a disambiguation page. I have absolutely no objection to the creation of perfect game (bowling) or perfect game (disambiguation).
When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.
Even Merriam-Webster offers only the one definition.--Dhartung | Talk 23:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've created those pages and appropriate hatnotes. Given that many more Wikipedia baseball articles link to perfect game than bowling articles that link to 300-point game, this shouldn't be a major problem. --Dhartung | Talk 23:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. This seems like a reasonable compromise Joaq99 09:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-baserunner errors

I changed the entry to reflect that an error that doesn't result in a baserunner still invalidates a perfect game.

Who changed it back and why? The information oyu have there is wrong. You could ask major league baseball directly and they would tell you it is wrong. An error, no matter what results from it, obviates a perfect game.

I did, because I don't think you're right. A perfect game is a game where a pitcher throws a nine-inning complete game without allowing any baserunners--27 up, 27 down. That's it. Whether or not a fielder drops a foul pop-up is not relevant. And now that I look it seems that MLB's definition agrees: "An official perfect game occurs when a pitcher (or pitchers) retires each batter on the opposing team during the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings. In a perfect game, no batter reaches any base during the course of the game." It says nothing about a team having to play an error-free ballgame.
I agree, since it's not possible reach base on a foul ball, a dropped fly foul ball would simply be a strike (unless the batter has two strikes already).

[edit] Notes to references?

What was the motive in placing all the trivia notes in the 'references' section? A trivia fact, such as the fact that Wells and Larsen went to the same high school, is not the same as a 'reference', which would be an external authority such as a book or magazine that deals with the topic. I'll have to change it all back.

OK, I've changed it back. I think the article looks much better this way. Better to have the trivia and notes in its own section rather than shoehorned in the References section. I also am not sure if the section on Japanese baseball belongs. Logically, if you're going to include Japanese league perfect games, then you should list perfect games from Korean baseball leagues, Mexican leagues, Cuban leagues, and so on and so forth. I think a better thing, if the info on Japanese perfect games is deemed useful, would be to have a separate article or perhaps enter the info into another article on Japanese baseball. However, since I've already heavily edited this article, I'll leave that alone for others to edit.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vidor (talk • contribs) .

I like your way much better. Sorry for the misunderstanding -- I found a section under the table somewhat bothersome. Your way was much better. Sorry for any misunderstanding. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 10:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Gave me something to do tonight. What do people think about relocating the section on Japanese perfect games?-User:Vidor
What I'd like to do is to convert the Japanese table to include as much information (and notes too, like does the definition differ in Japan?) as the American list. And I'd like to include data from other leagues (comparable in lineup stability to MLB) from Cuba, etc. The reason for considering stability is that a pitcher who sees mostly the same batters all year is a different pitcher than one who hasn't. And the same is true for batters in the other direction. So the American minor leagues (including collegiate summer leagues; a no hitter was !lost! a day or two ago in upstate New York) don't qualify. The rosters are changing rapidly as players are clalled up and sent down, ... These are, in the US anyway, more correctly instructional leagues. Other than that, the more the better as I see it. ww 21:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should clutter up the article with lists from lots of different leagues. There are obviously players from leagues in Japan, Cuba, Korea, etc, that are of MLB caliber and have had successful careers in MLB, but I don't think anybody would dispute that the overall level of play in MLB is higher than in other leagues. But even if one chooses not to make that distinction, the article would be too cluttered. It's supposed to be a list of MLB perfect games, not every perfect game thrown in every international league ever. I would make a page for Japanese baseball perfect games and attach it to the existing entry on Japanese baseball. Ditto perfect games from other leagues, if anybody wants to make such a list. Link them all to this page, but don't let this page get too long and unwieldy. Vidor 15:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edited "other notable near-perfect games"

I took several entries out of the section for other notable near-perfect games. The note on the minor-league game does not belong in an article on MLB perfect games. That one was the one that drew my attention, but, upon further consideration, I didn't think there was any justification for the one-hitters by Lackey, Lowe and the others. Re: Lackey and Lowe--one could, if one chose, compile a long list of pitchers who threw one-hitters, pitchers who faced the minimum, or pitchers who allowed the leadoff man on and retired the next 27 in a row. I don't see any reason to note a couple of those games and not note the rest. Similarly, I took out the near-perfect games by Young, Joss, Koufax and Ward. While they are somewhat more relevant--no pitcher has ever thrown two perfect games, and it's interesting to note how close those pitchers came to doing so--those games were not perfect, and, like the Lackey and Lowe games, I thought that there was no justification to include those games and not include other one-hitters.

I left three. The spring training game was an MLB perfect game, even though it was only an exhibtion, so its inclusion seemed appropriate. The other two are the games of Hoyt and Wise, who were both perfect for MORE than nine innings, so it makes sense to note their efforts. Vidor 15:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the games you delelted were not the one-hitter type with baserunners on in every inning. They were, in fact, one hit, or one walk, or whatever, away from perfection. Just like, in fact, the more dramatic ones in which perfection was lost with the last batter. Or in Ruth's case, with the first batter... I think they should be retained, if only as an illustration of the tantalizing quality of these. By the criterion in your prior comment here, the exhibition game should be deleted along with all but MLB games.
Not sure I agree with that, as the standard of play elsewhere is very high, if not perhaps usually as high as in MLB. Comment? ww 16:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
What I was getting at, is that there have been lots of one-hitters, and several no-hitters where the pitcher allowed only one baserunner. Terry Mulholland had a no-hitter in 1990 where he only allowed one baserunner, on an error by the third baseman. And that guy was erased on a double play, so Mulholland only faced the minimum 27 batters. It wasn't listed in the article. Why wouldn't we list that game, if we mention the games by Lackey and Lowe, Young's no-hitter with the walk, etc, etc.? I don't see justification for listing only some of those games and not all of them, which is why I took them out. And if we list every game where a starting pitcher allowed only one baserunner, this article could get very, very long. The "27th batter" section is better because those pitchers got all the way to the end, and only had one guy left to face.
Regarding the other leagues, all I'm saying is that they shouldn't be in this article. They should have their own articles, preferably attached to articles about that particular league. Much as with the problem of 'one baserunner' games, if we start listing the Cuban league and the Korean league and Mexican League perfect games and such, the article could get very unwieldy. Vidor 19:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with Vidor, what would be good near-perfect MLB games are MLB exhibition games (though the Blue Jays team was on the losing end of that one) and games that were perfect for more than nine innings in a row, but were not actually perfect because of runners on base in either early or late innings. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 19th Century Comparison

"It should be noted that perfect games were no easier to achieve in 19th century baseball than they are today. There were only two perfect games recorded during twenty-five seasons of 19th century baseball, as opposed to seven between 1984 and 2004."

This comparison is fraught with difficulty due to far fewer games played in 19th C etc. etc. E.g. there were 9 teams in 1871 and 8 teams in 1900 (although the number jumped above and below those numbers in between those yrs.) So I'll cut that. Joaq99 10:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect Game Pitcher Meetings

Game 3 of the 2006 ALS had Kenny Rogers start against Randy Johnson, probably the only time perfect game pitchers have met in the post season. This got me wondering, how often has this happened before during the regular season? Does anyone have stats on this? Allegrorondo 13:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Men on the moon

There are 17 perfect games listed, including two in the 19th century which apparently aren't always counted. Twelve men have walked on the moon (Armstrong, Aldrin, Conrad, Bean, Shepard, Mitchell, Scott, Irwin, Young, Duke, Cernan, Schmidt).

Whether or not you include the games from the 1800s, 12 is less, not greater, than either 15 or 17.

I believe it reads orbited the moon, not walked on it.

[edit] Title?

Shouldn't this be "Perfect game (Baseball)"? Applejuicefool 17:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion in Talk:Perfect game#Capricious move thread above.—DCGeist 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes Applejuicefool, if we were strictly adhering to then guidelines the article name probably should change (see my comments at Talk:Perfect game#Capricious move). But since:
  • they are only guidelines
  • it's fairly common practice on Wikipedia not to follow them in this regard
  • it's not a particularly important issue
  • the disambiguation page means people can find the article they're looking for
I reckon it's ok as it is.
Having said that, we may have to convince those voting on its featured status in the future that this approach is the correct one. Joaq99 09:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of 'tweaks' edit

These multiple edits were in several cases wrong (removing wikitext comment, for instance), in many cases reinstitued partial sentences, or in still others, misused subjunctive tense in the 'foreboding' mode. Changes of xxx -- yyy to xxx-yyy were reverted as well. We can do better if any of these things actually needed changes. ww 10:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, ww, but there are many more errors and infelicities in the version you reverted to. For instance:
  • Major League Baseball's so-called modern era did not begin "around" 1900; it is officially regarded as beginning in 1900.
  • This is a wildly improper dash style: -— (space, hyphen, em-dash, space); it appears repeatedly in the version you prefer. The proper em-dash style that appeared throughout for months and which I've restored is simply an unspaced em-dash approach. Please familiarize yourself with WP:DASH#Dash_guidelines_for_Wikipedia_editors. You'll note that "Tight (unspaced) em dashes" is the first acceptable style listed.
  • The hidden note pointing out the incorrectness of the statement "The combined hit total for both teams -— 1 -— is the major league record for the fewest in a game" is well taken. The sentence in the version I've reverted to is both correct and has proper dash style: "The combined hit total for both teams—1—is the major league record for the fewest in a perfect game."
  • The phrase "have a perfect thrown against them" is clearly misstated. The team either had a "perfect game" or a "perfecto" thrown against them, not a "perfect."
And so forth... There are many small points of grammar and style we might debate, but it's clear that your preferred version is riddled with more errors than the one to which I've reverted.—DCGeist 07:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I plead guilty to typos, as in leaving out game after perfect in your last point. But, the xxx-yyy dash style is too easily confused with a hyphenated word, don't know what the official WP is. And most of that edit was English anyway, correcting partial sentences and such. The wikitext was superfluous as there was included in it an answer to the question it was posing of editors. You're right we adisagree on stylistic points. I'll come back and see if I can satisfy your objections while still addressing mine... ww 20:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/r/Talk%7EPerfect_game_54f3.html"