![]() |
|
Your Take When is a perfect game not a perfect game?
CNN/SI asked users to respond to concerns that David Cone's perfect game against Montreal was somehow tainted by the fact that the Expos have a payroll that, in its entirety, wouldn't pay for the three top Yankees. We received hundreds of responses, most supportive of Cone's feat, but many expressed concern that perfect games are occurring with increasing frequency.
David Cone's perfect game was a lifetime achievement no matter whether it
came against the lifeless Expos or outstanding Indians. To be the 14th or
16th (depending on who you are listening to) player to ever pitch a perfect
game in the Major Leagues says a lot about who you are and what you did.
Anybody that would take this moment and try to lessen it because the Expos
are not a quality team needs to have their head examined. David Cone, I
take my hat off to you.
Yes, his masterpiece should carry an asterisk. It's the salary debate
that makes baseball (among other pro sports) way too predictable. The team
with the highest payroll is almost always in the championship series. Of
course, there is Baltimore, which is a good example of a bad investment.
Anyway, when you're pitching against AAA teams, you're going to do well.
The Expos have been a AAA team since the strike season. Just look at all
of the players that have been 'called up' since then and are now all stars.
What David Cone did yesterday should not lose any of its luster because
it was against the Montreal Expos. The
Expos may not be a team of New York's caliber but there have been a lot of
teams in the history of the game that were less talented than this team is.
This Expo team has a ton of potential. If you don't believe so, just want
five years when these guys are stars for playoff caliber teams across the
country. Haven't you paid any attention to the kind of players this
franchise has produced the last ten years?
Yes it was against the Expos but last I checked they had 27 people go up
to the plate with bats and take their swings. All it takes is one crack of
the bat and there goes a perfect game. So I don't think there should be any
downplaying of who Cone got his perfect game against.
How about the Dodgers and Orioles? I don't think there is a financial
gap. It is more of a talent gap. What the Yankees have done is manage to
keep important parts of a team together for a few years with the addition
of some players here and there. The money spent is not an issue with what
has happened this year in Baltimore and Los Angeles. Chemistry and
teamwork makes a champion -- not dollars.
I have to side with Adam Smith and his free market economy on this one.
Teams generate money by being popular commercially and within the game
itself. How do they do that? By winning! Granted not every team has the
same financial capacity, but money does not necessarily produce talented
and successful ballclubs. I do feel however that Cone's perfect game is
somewhat tainted being that it came against a team whose combined salaries
are lower than John Travolta's paycheck for "The General's Daughter."
Baseball is in a terrible state and the product being put out on the
field is a joke in some markets compared to others. David Cone should be
happy with himself, but perhaps not thrilled.
All of the criticism surrounding baseball as focused on the dilution of
talent in the pitching ranks. Now, you are trying to say turn that around?
I find that any perfect game, whether thrown against the Expos or the Tulsa
Drillers, is an incredible feat. I guess the perfecto tossed by David Wells against
Minnesota last season was a farce. Perfect games are the result of a
pitcher being in an incredible groove and being incredibly lucky. David
Cone deserves all the accolades that accompany an effort such as the one he
gave yesterday.
Cone still had a perfect game. When he faced the batters in the 8th
inning, he was probably pretty nervous. And that increased as the 9th
inning started. He still had to stay calm as the last batter came to the
plate and as he pitched the final pitch. He could have spoiled the whole
game by giving in and walking the last batter, but he didn't. He stayed
focused. He remained perfect.
I think this perfect game is as perfect as any of the other no-hitters.
Throwing pitches for nine whole innings and not making a single mistake is
incredible. I don't think that anyone should question why there have been
more no-hitters this decade. To accomplish such a feat is remarkable and
it just shows that there are many pitchers nowadays who can dominate a
game. And since this decade is known for the large jump in batting
averages and home runs, there is no question that a no-hitter is as
impressive as it used to be.
I guess if you want to throw an asterisk on this perfect game, lets go
back to last year and start labeling the number of home runs Mark and Sammy
hit from teams with lousy pitchers or just from lousy pitchers themselves.
You can argue that they still had to hit the pitches out, but a lot of
those seemed to be put on tees for them, and given enough tries, they
should hit some out. There are no asterisks on their numbers (and there
shouldn't be) even though the pitching in the Major League hasn't been
overly spectacular at times. You can't judge the pitchers throwing to these
men and you cant judge the batters or team hitting against David Cone
yesterday.
David Cone is one of the best pitchers in baseball. The fact that he
pitched a perfect game against a team which has a payroll just over twice
what he makes, does point to the widening economic gap in baseball, between
large market teams like the Yankees, and the small market Expos. That
still doesn't mean it should take all of the credit away from Cone. He
pitched a masterpiece, and we shouldn't take for granted the difficulty in
pitching a perfect game against any team, even the Expos.
I will agree that over-expansion of base has watered down the game to a
degree. However, at any level, a perfect game is a feat so rarely
accomplished that it should not be demeaned in any way. This is especially
true when you consider the atmosphere of Mr. Cone's performance. Yankee
Stadium. 98 degrees. All the legends staring over your shoulder including
Don Larsen. On an average day one could expect that even a college team
would muster up a couple of hits. So to say that a game like that was a
result of watered down teams is not well thought out.
Just as there have been powerhouse teams throughout the entire history of
baseball, so have there been the corresponding historical doormats. The
Cleveland Spiders, Washington Senators, and St. Louis Browns are amongst
the more famous examples. Those teams either dissolved or moved on to
different cities in order to try to better compete. As a San Franciscan, I
remember how close we were to losing our team, but I think that a franchise
moving on to a new city is far preferable to seeing it fold entirely.
Moving teams, however, should be an absolute last resort. And high payrolls
don't always correlate to automatic success on the field: just ask the
Dodgers and Orioles.
A perfect game is a perfect game no matter who it is against. With
thousands of games played in the history of professional baseball, the most
prestigious reward for a pitcher is a perfect game. There have been worse
teams than the '99 Expos to play in MLB yet there are only 14 perfect games
ever.
Defensively the Expos stink, but offensively they are a fairly talented
young team. This was a case of a veteran pitcher against a young Expos
lineup that still should have had a chance to score some runs. I take
nothing away from David Cone.
As a Canadian citizen I have definitely noticed the Gap between rich and
poor teams. The Expos have produced some of baseballs best players for
example Larry
Walker, Moises
Alou, Pedro
Martinez and other but because of the Canadian dollar being worth
almost half as much of the American dollar the players were lost to Free
Agency. Just another example of big city teams fleecing smaller market
teams of their superstars.
| ||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1999 CNN/SI. A Time Warner Company. Terms under which this service is provided to you.
| ||||||||||||||||