Quote:
Incidentally, I don't see how a game can be called "perfect" if it's "broken up" in extra innings.
It's not, of course, and it doesn't get recorded as one in the stat books, but the pitcher performed just as well as a perfect game pitcher -- his teammates just didn't score for him.
I don't know why there are more perfect games now. As ADK suggests, the sample size is hard to trust because perfect games are, by their very nature, extremely aberrant.
I do have a theory, though. Individual pitchers have gotten better because of improved training and conditioning, but pitching overall has become diluted by the need to fill five rotation slots on more MLB clubs. In the pre-expansion era, there were fewer pitching jobs available and thus hitters were more likely to face the best pitchers of their era in any given game. So why would that mean
less perfect games back then? My theory is that hitters today are more inclined to swing hard in general because of the diluted pitching pool, but they'll be making outs when they do face a good pitcher on a great day.
On the other hand, baseball is currently in its longest no-hitter drought since WWII. The last no-no -- perfecto or otherwise -- was Randy Johnson's perfect game on May 18, 2004.
This MLB.com story also notes that there were 37 no-hitters in the 1990s, but only seven so far this decade.