Johnny Vander Meer

Only one player in the history of the sport has ever done it. My bold prediction is that will never change. I am talking baseball and, more specifically, Johnny Vander Meer. Those reading this right now might be wondering, "Huh?" Nothing to be embarrassed about. Let me solve your puzzle. Vander Meer was a so-so pitcher mainly in the 1930s in the National League. His great claim to fame is that in 1938 he is the only pitcher in baseball history to pitch two perfect, no-hitters back-to-back. This means over the course of those two games he retired 54 batters in a row. There were no walks and nor did any better get on base via a fielding error. For those two games, Vander Meer was literally perfect.

While most would agree this is a fun piece of information, I would be shocked if readers were not wondering what this has to do with communication. Let me try and connect the dots:  Vander Meer's feat revolves around the concept of perfection. In baseball, such a notion is clearly defined. Vander Meer met the criteria. In acts of communication, the so-called score board is much more fuzzy. Is an act of communication "perfect" when the sender of the message is able to put forth their point of view? Is the act of communication "perfect" when that message is adequately received and understood. Or is it "perfect" when the message elicits the kind of response the sender was seeking?

Wrestling with these questions showcases the notion that perfection as it applies to communication is far from clear-cut. One main reason for this is the fact that a "yes" response to any of the above questions could arguably be an acceptable measure as to whether an act of communication was, indeed, perfect. Does that then mean the idea of a perfect act of communication has multiple possibilities? Or would it be more logical to conclude communicating perfectly is not nearly as defined as, say, pitching back-to-back no-hitters?