Extending the Quick Note from Yesterday

October 17, 2018
                   Extending the Quick Note from Yesterday

 

Regarding the question from a reader. ..the formula for "Game Equivalents" is Plate Appearances divided by 4.3, plus Games Played, the total of the two being divided by 8.6.   The highest "Game Equivalent" in baseball history is 171.5, by Jimmie Rollins in 2007 (162 games, 778 Plate Appearances).   These are the top 10 of all time; four seasons by Pete Rose:

 

First

Last

Team

YEAR

Game Equv

G

PA

Jimmy

Rollins

Phillies

2007

171.5

162

778

Pete

Rose

Reds

1974

171

163

770

Maury

Wills

Dodgers

1962

170.8

165

759

Lenny

Dykstra

Phillies

1993

170.4

161

773

Dave

Cash

Phillies

1975

170.1

162

766

Pete

Rose

Reds

1975

169.8

162

764

Pete

Rose

Reds

1976

169.3

162

759

Ichiro

Suzuki

Mariners

2004

169.1

161

762

Omar

Moreno

Pirates

1979

169

162

757

Pete

Rose

Reds

1965

169

162

757

 

              The issue raised by the reader was whether the high figures of the 1960s characterized that era generally, or only for starting pitchers.  To test that, I looked at the top 1X, 2X and 5X players of each decade, with X being the number of teams in that decade.   In other words, since there were 16 teams through the 1960s, I looked at the top 16, top 32, and top 80 totals of the 1950s.   Since there were 20 teams through most of the 1960s, I looked at the top 20, top 40 and top 100 totals of the 1960s.  X was 24 for the 1970s, 26 for the 1980s, 28 for the 1990s, 30 for the 2000s, 27 for the current decade because it would be 30 and we are 90% of the way through the decade.  These are the averages decade by decade: 

 

 

 

Top 1X

Top 2X

Top 5X

 

 

Average

Average

Average

1900 to 1909

16

158.2

156.7

154.1

1910 to 1919

16

159.9

158.7

156.6

1920 to 1929

16

162.1

160.8

158.8

1930 to 1939

16

163.6

162.2

160.1

1940 to 1949

16

161.7

160.5

158.3

1950 to 1959

16

161.6

160.4

158.2

1960 to 1969

20

166.3

165.0

162.8

1970 to 1979

24

166.9

165.1

162.3

1980 to 1989

26

165.6

164.4

161.8

1990 to 1999

28

165.8

164.8

162.2

2000 to 2009

30

166.9

165.5

163.3

2010 to 2019

27

164.4

163.5

161.5

 

              So the short answer is:  No, it is not GENERALLY characteristic of the 1961-1966 era to have the highest averages of all time (batter workload).   It was not generally true of all hitters; it is merely true of ROOKIES, as noted in the other article.  

 
 

COMMENTS (9 Comments, most recent shown first)

myersb
nettles9: Wilson's GE in 1980 was 167.1. I can't tell you where on the all-time chart it would fall... but in looking at Wilson's career again (I was a devout Royals fan growing up in the 70s and 80s, the franchise golden years), I was surprised to see, through the lens of modern analytics, how great a career he compiled. Not a HoFer by any reasonable measure, but better than recent inductee Harold Baines, and FAR better than Trevor Hoffman or Lee Smith. I knew he'd had a good career, but not quite how good.
1:36 PM Jan 13th
 
nettles9
Bill, if it’s not any trouble, what does 1980 Willie Wilson come out to be in this formula? Thank you for your time.
3:30 PM Oct 20th
 
CharlesSaeger
To hit 800 times in a 162 game schedule, there would need to be a lot of runs scored. It’s possible, however. The leadoff men for the 1999 Indians (scored 1009 runs) had 805 plate appearances.
12:01 PM Oct 18th
 
MarisFan61
Bill: What about the "starting pitchers" thing? Is that not a glitch too?
10:45 AM Oct 18th
 
MattGoodrich
Odd there are so many National League teams.

Will someone ever hit 800 plate appearances? If a game's last batter was evenly spread through the lineup, then 18 times Jimmy Rollins would have been the ondeck batter when his team made their last out. 18 times he was "in the hole".
10:32 AM Oct 18th
 
bjames
You are all correct that I screwed up the formula. I think you got what I meant. . . sorry about the math.
8:40 AM Oct 18th
 
MarisFan61
......and I think there's another glitch too -- not a big thing, but (assuming it's really an error) it makes the reader stumble and it causes confusion.
Anyway that's what it did to me.

In the 2nd paragraph, I think there's gotta be something wrong/unintended about "or only for starting pitchers" -- among other reasons because the Comments in the first article make no reference to starting pitchers.

11:00 PM Oct 17th
 
jgf704
Yeah, is looks like he has a typo in his explanation. The formula is actually:

GE = 1/2 * (PA/4.3 + G)

or "Plate Appearances divided by 4.3, plus Games Played, the total of the two being divided by 2".

If you multiply through by the 1/2 factor, it's

GE = PA/8.6 + G/2
10:53 PM Oct 17th
 
MarisFan61
Bill: Looks like there's some mistake in how you describe the formula, unless I'm seeing something wrong, which of course is usually the case in such situations.
But, here's how I see it:

It says......

"the formula for "Game Equivalents" is Plate Appearances divided by 4.3, plus Games Played, the total of the two being divided by 8.6

Well, just eyeballing it, the first part of the formula -- PA's/4.3 -- is just about equal to the number of games, more or less.

The second part -- games played -- is the number of games.

So, "the total of the two" is, more or less, just double the number of games.

If you divide that by 8.6, you get numbers that are a lot lower than the actual stated results.

-------------

If past experience is any guide, I'm the one who's wrong. :-)
But how????
10:13 PM Oct 17th
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy