Talk:Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game

Play-by-play

"Donald then reached first base on a soft infield hit, though video replay shows that Cabrera's relay throw to Galarraga, covering first base, beat Donald to the bag."

The word "relay" really doesn't belong here. Picky, but this IS the controversial play!

I tried to find the final score and couldn't, not without counting up the runs myself!WHPratt (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're trying to count the score.... why? It was a 3-0 game. Any box score or summary of the game mentions this. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The article didn't give the score explicitly when I first read it (it's been expanded since). Even if it's available elsewhere, it is essential information. WHPratt (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Any facts and statistics related to this, or any, baseball game can be readily determined at [Baseball Reference]. Boteman (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Rename Page ?

I blieve it would be far more accurate to call this page "Armando Galarraga perfect game controversy". By all accounts - including that of the umpire who blew the call, this WAS a perfect game, it simply won't be counted as such in the record books (at least the official ones). It would be far more accurate to describe the event as a "perfect game controversy", rather than a "near-perfect" game, which appears to take a side on the issue. 76.230.58.80 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the name you suggested is what is actually taking a side. The name "perfect game controversy" implies that there was a perfect game pitched and that somehow it was controversial. Except the official ruling prevented it from being a perfect game. The name must indicate that the perfect game did not take place from a official scoring perspective, which is all that counts for the record books. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. By deffinition, a "controversy" is something where they are at least two sides to the issue. Keep in mind, this is not something we are talking about from years ago, the debate is still on-going, and there are actually moves within the US Congress to get it recognized. This is not over, and it probably won't be for a while. Even after that, what will live on is not whether or not a perfect game is recorded, but the debate surrounding what happened. Consider all the sides that could be taken, about whether or not it was a perfect game, whether it should be scored, whether Selig should reverse the call, etc. What happens with this article if the call gets overturned at some point? It becomes out of date, with the name no longer reflecting the reality. By calling it the "perfect game controversy", the page (and its title) can stay mostly the same no matter what happens. Mburn16 (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is later called a perfect game, then we can move the page then. For now, it makes most sense as it is currently titled. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding of this game, in all honesty it should be named Armando Galarraga's near-perfect, now yes i want baseball to come to its senses and over turn the call. but right now in all fairness the name should be kept. Tu-49 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a perfect game, unless Selig reverses himself, so it can't be labeled as a perfect game. The current title appears to be good enough. The "controversy" is not whether the call was correct or not; it's what to do, if anything, about that call as well as future questionable calls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this up for deletion?

Resolved

 – Kept.

This page was beautifully written and a great article. Please keep this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.207.21 (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"the 28-out perfect game"

All the media is calling it "The 28-out perfect game." This event deserves a separate article because there has been nothing like it before and I honestly don't think it will ever happen again. It cannot fall into the the section of "perfect games spoiled by the 27th batter" in the "Perfect Game" article because it WAS NOT SPOILED BY THE 27TH BATTER, it was spoiled by the UMPIRE. There have been other pitchers that have retired 28 batters and more, but they have lost the game in later extra-innings because the pitchers' teams couldn't score (Harvey Haddix case). So this is not the case either because Armando Galarraga retired all 27+1 batters, and won the game, thus, a 28-out perfect game.

It shouldn't fall under controversy either because there is no controversy after the umpire declared he made a mistake. The controversy is on the non-use of video by MLB, which is another article.

I actually came here looking for the article under the name "28-out perfect game" because I'm going to use the case for a conference, and to my surprise, it's under discussion for deletion and all the details will be gone, only to leave a small mention in the article "perfect game". That's as wrong as calling an out safe. The principle of Wikipedia is that it is limitless in the breadth and number of the articles. This case is unique in baseball history. If "Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)" referring to Bobby Thomson's homer has it's own article because it coined the phrase in sports, and it was "just" a home run, then why wouldn't the "28-out perfect game" have it's own article? It's not just a game anymore, it's a sports phrase now, based on an event that is unique and extremely improbable of ever repeating itself. There have been 20 perfect games in all baseball history, but only ONE 28-out perfect game, just ONE. It deserves its own article. I am glad to the poster of the article´s information, and it was well written too. This article will serve me well in my conference on conflict resolution. I want to make the comparison between Miguel Cabrera, who was all over the umpire after the call and losing concentration on the batter at that moment, versus pitcher Galarraga, who kept his poise, decency, and sportsmanship, and went on with his game to make the 28th out, later having history prove him right. I plan to point my audience/conferencees to this article here, so keep it! Nelven (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Confused as to why its up for deletion.

Resolved

 – Kept.

This game is going down as one of the most famous events in the history of sports. It is completely deserving of its own article and is very well written. That's all. Unless somebody can explain to me in detail with good arguments as to why the article deserves deletion, then I will remain very confused as to why its up for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejilvin (talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it permits the article on Perfect Games to be stabilized, at least in a relative sense, with the debate raging on here. WHPratt (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Source for statement about Instant Replay

"Notably, if instant replay had been in use for all 27 outs, the game would not have been perfect; three outs were called incorrectly in the field during the game and at least 2 critical third-strike calls were clearly out sided of the strike zone."

There is no source listed after this statement, and the next sources listed say nothing about whether or not replay would've overturned any of the outs or strikes called, so I don't see why this is in there. Does anyone else know? Mischlings (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Right after I asked this, I see that it was removed and was the work of a vandal. I didn't remove it myself, but mostly because it was removed by the time I could remove it. So never mind then. Mischlings (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP user who was being disruptive in adding this information has been blocked for 31 hours. See here. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Categorization

I just reverted this back from Category:MLB perfect games to Category:Major League Baseball games because officially it wasn't the former. – ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Title

After reading some of the view-points above, I still feel as though the title of this article should be changed. The current title "Armand Galarraga's near-perfect game" implies that only his pitching performance will be discussed. However, the article talks about the game in its entirety, we have the box score, the line score, game summary, and historical context, things that have little to nothing to do with "Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game." Perhaps if all this will be discussed, it should be called something like "June 2, 2010, Cleveland Indians vs. Detroit Tigers."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thus ensuring that no one will find it. Every perfect game has two teams in it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also, under what logic do they have nothing to do with the game (which is, as evidenced by the article name, the subject)? Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Those four things have little to do with his individual performance, which is what the title is based on. Therefore, the majority of the article is (at least somewhat) unrelated to the title.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You could create a redirect from you idea of the title over to the current title. I think the current title would more likely pass muster under the "common names" rule than the bare indication of date and opponents would. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, how would one do that?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Create a new "article" under the name June 2, 2010, Cleveland Indians vs. Detroit Tigers or whatever. Have the "article" consist solely of a pound sign followed immediately by the word REDIRECT, then a space, then Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game contained within pairs of square brackets. Then save it. Let me know if it doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it worked, but shouldn't there be a message at the top of this article that says June 2, 2010, Cleveland Indians vs. Detroit Tigers redirects here?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It did work, and I don't think there's a need for that explanation because there's no ambiguity - If you type the info for the redirect, there's only one place you could end up. Note how it's handled in Perfect game, for example. There's more than one type of perfect game. But there was only one Cleveland-Detroit ball game on June 2, 2010. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Video clip

I don't know how to work little video clips into articles, but I suggest that the current one in this article should be longer. Its really annoying to see it immediately restart when the runner tags the bag, it should be made a bit longer after that to "take it in".

Why not be happy that there is a video clip at all? Take that in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.23.84 (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect information?

The article says: On June 2, 2011, exactly one year after the near-perfect game, Major League Baseball put a rule into effect that Joyce cannot umpire any games in which Galarraga’s team plays. Due to the book release, the two are now business partners, and this relationship could affect Joyce's impartiality while umpiring Galarraga's team.

Right now, however, Jim Joyce is umpiring the Braves vs. Astros game. Last night (August 3, 2012), Galarraga even pitched in the game and Joyce was an umpire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.247.62 (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 16:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I will be starting a review of this article immediately. TCN7JM 16:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have just two comments.

1. If I remember correctly, it's actually recommended on Wikipedia to put the punctuation outside of parentheses of it's wasn't originally there. Specifically, I'm referring to the nicknames for the game in parentheses in the lead.
2. The first sentence in the second paragraph doesn't really flow contextually with the rest of the paragraph, and it's kinda random. What I mean is that you have that one sentence about instant replay being speculated, then the rest is about reactions from inside MLB to the call and the sportsmanship of those involved. Perhaps you could put this in a better spot?

I have also made a couple of minor fixes myself, most involving punctuation. Otherwise, this is a really great effort overall. I'll put this on hold. TCN7JM 17:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Both issues addressed. I just took the instant replay sentence out since it's just a minor point, so it didn't really need the lead mention. Wizardman 02:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, looks great. Passing. TCN7JM 08:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607052435/http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/04/perfect-sportsmanship to http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/04/perfect-sportsmanship

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Box Score

It mkight be a good idea to lower-case the position designations. Or put a player's initial; at the start of his name. Or use additional punctuation. However such is usually handled. As it reads now ...
Guillén, C, 2B
... suggests that the guy started at catcher and moved to second base later on. WHPratt (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, as it's in fact an ad hoc partial box score anyway, why not eliminate the Detroit batting summary? Instead, have the Detroit players listed in defensive order with only the putout, assist and error columns. It's the Cleveland batting and Detroit defense that are relevant here. Create a new standard for no-hitter summaries.
WHPratt (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)