Even with the 11 K's, I'm not sure I'd say Sanchez was better. Buehrle was facing one of the AL's best lineups with a DH, while Sanchez beat a bad offense and got to face the pitcher a couple of times. Not to mention the ball Rowand caught in the 9th of Sanchez's no-no is way out at Comiskey. Not to take anything away from Sanchez, but if we're going to compare, I'd still give Buerhle the edge.

I too give the edge to Buerhle. Sanchez was awesome but not perfect. While we can argue that HE was perfect and Uribe was not, it's a team sport and almost all perfect games AND no hitters requires great plays and a bit of luck. Obviously to be perfect it also requires that ALL routine plays be made. In Sanchez' case they were not.

But is there not something to be said for the fact that although no-hitters are an extreme rarity they are plentiful when compared to perfect games? I'm not defending the blathering at ESPN or even addressing these two games in particular but below (above?) all the metrics that we love so much is an aesthetic or even an eternality (insert Field of Dreams hyperbole here) that makes baseball the best game in the world. My point being, that ESPN's fetishization of the perfect game is our way of acknowledging that something weird has happened when a perfect game is thrown. Not necessarily better or more dominant, but very particular. The pitcher did it, the team did it, the cut of the infield grass, the prevailing wind, the roar of the crowd, the position of the heavens, etc. did it.

Arguing what "is" is?

There is an explicit definition for a Perfect Game (TM - MLB). So why argue semantics? Better to argue something else, in this case :)

What Sanchez did was more rare. There are 18 "perfect games" in baseball history. There are only 8 perfect-game-marred-by-one-error games.

So there's our talking point :)

I would add that the national media is very celebrity oriented, if it isn't Manny, the Red Sox or Yankees, they are pretty much not interested. Buerhle was an All-Star (deservedly so), in a bigger media market, playing last year's world series contender who is in the AL East. Was Buerhle a better interview? Blather on, Garth!

One more item worth mentioning here: E-Uribe's E-5 blemish in the 7th marked the latest that an error has accounted for the only baserunner in a no-hitter that coulda/shoulda/woulda been a perfect game.

How about that Pirates pitcher who was perfect for, like 12 innings, but then lost it in the 13th? He was even more perfect, until he wasn't.

Hard to say who had the better game. Both lucked out with the defense. Most no-hitters are a bit flukey in that the defense has a big hand in the outcome. That grounder to Uribe was going to be tough for him anyway, even if he had fielded it cleanly, I thought, the error might have been the best result, as it could have been an infield hit.

Obviously, with no hits and no walks, it makes Sanchez's no-hitter the better one since he had 11 strikeouts to Buerhle's total of only 6. By sabermetric evaluation.

Still a strong bit of luck involved with any no-hitter, so I don't see why we should make a fuss over it, they are basically equal.

It is just that the media like to hype unique events that connotes accomplishment. A perfect no-hitter is one, but a no-hitter is another, over say a one-hitter when the pitcher might have struck out 17 and walked none vs. a no-hitter with 7 walks and no strikeouts. It's unfair and unequal, but that is how the media works.