The Hardball Times

Visualization: How Matt Cain’s perfect game stands in baseball history

by Dan Lependorf
June 21, 2012

If a pitcher strikes out 14 batters in a single game, it'll be the lead story on every sports news program of the night. After all, it's only happened a few hundred times in baseball history. If a pitcher throws a perfect game, it's one of those landmark events that'll be sold on DVD in the MLB.com store. And people will buy it, because hey, it's a perfect game. Only 22 of those.

But both of them at the same time? Congratulations, Matt Cain. You just had one of the best nights from any pitcher in the history of Major League Baseball.

Baseball statistician Bill James created a statistic for measuring the strength of a starting pitcher's outing, called Game Score. It's a bit like a good version of football's Passer Rating. James set up the scale so that the average start generally sits around 50, and that zero and 100 correspond to awful and fantastic on a historic scale, respectively. To give an idea where those extremes lie, a Game Score of zero or less has been achieved by 277 lucky pitchers from the end of the deadball era of baseball (1919). A Game Score of 100 has only been achieved 10 times since 1919 in a regular nine-inning game. Clearly, it's easier to be bad than good.

With Matt Cain's perfect game last Wednesday, not only did he become the 10th pitcher ever to record a triple-digit Game Score in nine innings of work, he also tied the record for the highest mark in a no-hitter. That mark of 101 was previously set by Sandy Koufax in 1965, and matched by Nolan Ryan in 1991.

As a testament to how rare a game like Cain's really is, here's every no-hitter since 1919 by Game Score. Click to enlarge.

image

Congratulations again, Matt Cain. You've earned it.

References and Resources


Dan can be contacted here (email) or here (twitter). He welcomes all comments, even offers for cheap male enhancement pills and winnings from lotteries he didn't realize he had entered. (He really wishes you wouldn't, though.)

<< Return to Article