Since Randy Johnson authored a perfect game on May 18th, pundits and talking heads have been bombast in their assertion that expansion and a decline in hitting skills have led to the increase in perfectos in recent seasons. Christian at All-Baseball.com links to an article by Keith Emmer at New York Sports Express that debunks this particular myth.

Great pitchers like Randy Johnson will get close to a perfect game more often than poorer pitchers, but to be “perfect” there is also a large element of chance. Unless a pitcher strikes out 27 batters, he still has to rely on his fielders to save some outs (like the Big Unit had to) and he has to hope the ball is hit in the right place when it is hit. Every so often, fortune smiles; even mediocre pitchers like Charlie Robertson and Len Barker have had one spectacular day.

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.

It is an excellent piece of writing that does a thorough job of refuting the nostalgic assertions made by mainstream baseball analysts. I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist attempting to position himself as an “outsider,” but there is a definite need for increased peer review and reference to proof in contemporary baseball writing. When columnists or commentators write or cite “evidence” that is patently untrue, they need to be “called out.” Kudos to Keith Emmer for taking on this particular myth.