The Doubles Record
Tris Speaker has held the career record for doubles for 95 years, or since 1925. Before Speaker the career record for doubles was 657, by Nap Lajoie. At the end of the 1920 season Ty Cobb was ahead of Tris Speaker, 460 to 445. Cobb was a year and a half older than Speaker. In 1921 Speaker hit 52 doubles, moving into a tie with Ty Cobb for fifth on the all-time list, behind Lajoie, Wagner, Anson and Delahanty. Speaker hit 48 doubles in 1922, moving into third place (as Cobb moved into fourth). He added 59 two-baggers in 1923 and 36 in 1924, putting him in a tie with Honus Wagner for second, and claimed the record in 1925. Ty Cobb also passed Lajoie in 1926, putting Speaker in first all time, Cobb in second. They stayed One and Two until Rose passed Cobb in the 1980s.
Some time ago—ten years ago, maybe 12—I speculated that doubles were now common enough that within 20 years or so, some player might break this ancient record. I had a question in "Hey, Bill" two or three months ago as to whether I still thought this was true; I’m sorry, I don’t remember who asked the question. Anyway, I said that before I could study that I would have to update the data file that I use to study questions of that nature, which I would do after the season ended.
I am working on updating that file, not done with that yet, but I have now reached the point of that process at which I can address this issue.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
In the 2021 Bill James Handbook, I reviewed the process by which I estimate each player’s chance of getting 3,000 career hits and reaching similar career goals—the method that I used to call The Favorite Toy, although the people who run the data now call it something else. I reached the conclusion that, with regard to 3,000 hits, the method works fantastically well—so well that you absolutely could not improve upon it, given the inherent limitations of the data. If that system says that a player has a 57% chance to get 3,000 career hits, you’ll lose money betting 56 or 58.
But the process does not work as well for Home Runs; it slightly over-estimates a player’s chance to hit 750 or more home runs. Studying the issue a little more, I concluded that the reason for this was that the ratio of Home Runs to Hits decreases as a player ages—thus, a system that makes good guesses about hits runs a little bit high with respect to Home Runs. I adjusted the Home Run part of the process to reflect this.
But what about doubles? Do I also need to make a parallel change with respect to doubles?
The short answer is "No, I don’t." A player’s ratio of doubles to hits also declines, eventually, but on an entirely different scale. A player will have as many doubles as a percentage of hits after age 36 as he does up to age 36; his doubles as a percentage of hits don’t decline until he is 38, on average. But he will hit 7% fewer home runs (as a percentage of hits) after age 36, because his home runs as a percentage of hits start declining at age 33. I’ll report those studies at the end of the article. For now, I want to stick to the issue of the record being broken.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
OK, so each player has an "Established Doubles Level" after every season. That’s step one of The Favorite Toy, or whatever they call it now. The formula for the Established Doubles Level after an ordinary season is:
1 times the number of doubles hit 2 years ago,
Plus 2 times the number of doubles hit last year,
Plus 3 times the number of doubles hit this year,
All divided by six.
For the strike-shortened 1981 and 1994 seasons, we modify the method. Here again, post-2020, we have to modify the method, which we do by dividing the total not by six, but by 4.11. That puts the doubles/games ratio back in the right ratio. The highest established doubles level in history was by Joe Medwick post-1937. Medwick hit 46 doubles in 1935, 64 in 1936, and 56 in 1937 (when he also won the Triple Crown), giving him an established doubles level of 57.0. The highest level of the last 80 years was 53.1, by Todd Helton after the 2001 season; he had hit 39-59-54 over a three-season span.
These are the highest established doubles levels in the major leagues each year since 1931:
First
|
Last
|
Team
|
YEAR
|
EDL
|
Earl
|
Webb
|
Red Sox
|
1931
|
44.7
|
Babe
|
Herman
|
Dodgers
|
1931
|
44.5
|
Heinie
|
Manush
|
Senators
|
1931
|
44.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
Waner
|
Pirates
|
1932
|
48.0
|
Chuck
|
Klein
|
Phillies
|
1932
|
46.2
|
Dick
|
Bartell
|
Phillies
|
1932
|
43.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
Waner
|
Pirates
|
1933
|
45.5
|
Chuck
|
Klein
|
Phillies
|
1933
|
44.3
|
Joe
|
Cronin
|
Senators
|
1933
|
44.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charlie
|
Gehringer
|
Tigers
|
1934
|
46.3
|
Earl
|
Averill
|
Indians
|
1934
|
43.2
|
Hank
|
Greenberg
|
Tigers
|
1934
|
42.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hank
|
Greenberg
|
Tigers
|
1935
|
49.5
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
Cardinals
|
1935
|
43.0
|
Billy
|
Herman
|
Cubs
|
1935
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
Cardinals
|
1936
|
54.0
|
Billy
|
Herman
|
Cubs
|
1936
|
51.0
|
Charlie
|
Gehringer
|
Tigers
|
1936
|
49.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
Cardinals
|
1937
|
57.0
|
Billy
|
Herman
|
Cubs
|
1937
|
46.0
|
Charlie
|
Gehringer
|
Tigers
|
1937
|
45.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
Cardinals
|
1938
|
52.8
|
Joe
|
Cronin
|
Red Sox
|
1938
|
42.5
|
Beau
|
Bell
|
Browns
|
1938
|
41.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
Cardinals
|
1939
|
49.0
|
Red
|
Rolfe
|
Yankees
|
1939
|
40.7
|
Joe
|
Cronin
|
Red Sox
|
1939
|
40.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me break in here with a little bit of explanation. History shows that if the ratio between the league-leading numbers in an area and the all-time record is less than 15-1, then that record is doomed. It WILL be broken. In the mid-1980s, for instance, the all-time record for stolen bases was 938—but the leading base stealers were stealing 100 bases a year. That’s a ratio of 9 to 1. There is no way in hell that that record could stand, with a 9 to 1 ratio, because the best players in every generation sustain their ability for (the equivalent of) 17 or 18 league-leading seasons. If the league leader in hits each year is about 200, then somebody in that generation will get 3400, 3500 hits. A ratio less than 15 to 1 basically indicates a record that WILL be broken, if those levels persist over time.
If the ratio is in the range of 15-1 up to about 18-1, then the record is relatively vulnerable. If the ratio is 18-1 to 21-1, it is relatively safe. If the ratio is higher than 21-1, then the record is absolutely safe. The record cannot be broken as long as the league-leading numbers stay in that range, although there is a counter-example or two in history.
For doubles, the record is 792 or 793, depending on who you believe; let’s say it is 792. Divide that by 15; you get 52.8. That means that, if the league-leading numbers are 53 or higher, as a regular thing, somebody will break the record. Divide by 18, it is 44. If the league-leading numbers of doubles are typically 44 to 53, the record is relatively vulnerable. If the league-leading numbers of doubles are 38 to 44, the record is relatively safe. And if the league-leading numbers are 38 or less, then the record is absolutely safe.
We can see then that in the mid-1930s, when players like Medwick, Greenberg, Gehringer and Billy Herman were hitting 57 to 62 doubles in a good year, Speaker’s record was quite vulnerable. If those levels had been sustained over time, somebody would have broken the record.
Medwick faded quickly, however, and after 1940 the highest Established Doubles Levels dropped sharply:
First
|
Last
|
Team
|
YEAR
|
EDL
|
Hank
|
Greenberg
|
Tigers
|
1940
|
42.8
|
Frank
|
McCormick
|
Reds
|
1940
|
42.3
|
George
|
McQuinn
|
Browns
|
1940
|
38.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lou
|
Boudreau
|
Indians
|
1941
|
40.3
|
Ted
|
Williams
|
Red Sox
|
1941
|
38.2
|
Johnny
|
Mize
|
Cardinals
|
1941
|
37.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dom
|
DiMaggio
|
Red Sox
|
1942
|
35.7
|
Harlond
|
Clift
|
Browns
|
1942
|
35.3
|
Stan
|
Hack
|
Cubs
|
1942
|
35.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Billy
|
Herman
|
Dodgers
|
1943
|
36.8
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1943
|
35.3
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
Dodgers/Giants
|
1943
|
32.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1944
|
46.8
|
Ken
|
Keltner
|
Indians
|
1944
|
36.5
|
Lou
|
Boudreau
|
Indians
|
1944
|
36.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy
|
Holmes
|
Braves
|
1945
|
43.0
|
Dixie
|
Walker
|
Dodgers
|
1945
|
38.7
|
Augie
|
Galan
|
Dodgers
|
1945
|
36.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1946
|
50.0
|
Mickey
|
Vernon
|
Senators
|
1946
|
40.8
|
Tommy
|
Holmes
|
Braves
|
1946
|
40.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1947
|
40.2
|
Ted
|
Williams
|
Red Sox
|
1947
|
38.0
|
Lou
|
Boudreau
|
Indians
|
1947
|
36.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ted
|
Williams
|
Red Sox
|
1948
|
41.5
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1948
|
41.3
|
Lou
|
Boudreau
|
Indians
|
1948
|
37.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1949
|
40.8
|
Ted
|
Williams
|
Red Sox
|
1949
|
40.8
|
Del
|
Ennis
|
Phillies
|
1949
|
37.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Medwick era the highest Established Doubles Levels were in the 50s. By 1942 the highest Established Doubles Level on the chart was 35.7, by Joe DiMaggio’s little brother. That made Speaker’s record safe—and the fact that most of the best hitters of that era lost several prime seasons to World War II made it extra-safe. The only player from that era who could conceivably have threatened Speaker’s record was Musial. Musial continued to be the leading doubles hitter in the majors through most of the 1950s, but with numbers dropping off enough that he would fall about 10% short of matching Speaker:
First
|
Last
|
Team
|
YEAR
|
EDL
|
George
|
Kell
|
Tigers
|
1950
|
44.7
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1950
|
41.8
|
Jackie
|
Robinson
|
Dodgers
|
1950
|
38.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
|
Kell
|
Tigers
|
1951
|
43.0
|
Al
|
Dark
|
Giants
|
1951
|
36.3
|
Jackie
|
Robinson
|
Dodgers
|
1951
|
35.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1952
|
37.8
|
Red
|
Schoendienst
|
Cardinals
|
1952
|
37.8
|
Ferris
|
Fain
|
Athletics
|
1952
|
35.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1953
|
45.5
|
Mickey
|
Vernon
|
Senators
|
1953
|
37.5
|
Al
|
Dark
|
Giants
|
1953
|
37.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1954
|
45.2
|
Red
|
Schoendienst
|
Cardinals
|
1954
|
37.3
|
Duke
|
Snider
|
Dodgers
|
1954
|
36.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1955
|
37.5
|
Duke
|
Snider
|
Dodgers
|
1955
|
36.3
|
Harvey
|
Kuenn
|
Tigers
|
1955
|
33.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Duke
|
Snider
|
Dodgers
|
1956
|
34.3
|
Hank
|
Aaron
|
Braves
|
1956
|
33.8
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1956
|
33.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1957
|
35.0
|
Minnie
|
Minoso
|
White Sox
|
1957
|
32.0
|
Harvey
|
Kuenn
|
Tigers
|
1957
|
32.0
|
|
|
|
1957
|
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
Cardinals
|
1958
|
35.7
|
Harvey
|
Kuenn
|
Tigers
|
1958
|
34.8
|
Al
|
Kaline
|
Tigers
|
1958
|
32.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harvey
|
Kuenn
|
Tigers
|
1959
|
39.0
|
Hank
|
Aaron
|
Braves
|
1959
|
38.8
|
Willie
|
Mays
|
Giants
|
1959
|
36.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
You will note that there are a relatively few parks which account for most of the leaders—Tiger Stadium in Detroit, Sportsman’s Park in St. Louis, Fenway Park in Boston. Hitting doubles is park-sensitive. Anyway, in this era the numbers of doubles being hit by the leading doublers was so low that Speaker’s record was absolutely or near-absolutely untouchable. Putting Ted Williams in uniform again helped keep it that way. The 1960s:
First
|
Last
|
Team
|
YEAR
|
EDL
|
Orlando
|
Cepeda
|
Giants
|
1960
|
36.0
|
Vada
|
Pinson
|
Reds
|
1960
|
35.3
|
Willie
|
Mays
|
Giants
|
1960
|
34.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vada
|
Pinson
|
Reds
|
1961
|
37.2
|
Hank
|
Aaron
|
Braves
|
1961
|
33.8
|
Al
|
Kaline
|
Tigers
|
1961
|
33.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank
|
Robinson
|
Reds
|
1962
|
41.7
|
Willie
|
Mays
|
Giants
|
1962
|
33.5
|
Vada
|
Pinson
|
Reds
|
1962
|
33.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl
|
Yastrzemski
|
Red Sox
|
1963
|
39.5
|
Dick
|
Groat
|
Cardinals
|
1963
|
37.0
|
Vada
|
Pinson
|
Reds
|
1963
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dick
|
Groat
|
Cardinals
|
1964
|
37.5
|
Billy
|
Williams
|
Cubs
|
1964
|
35.2
|
Carl
|
Yastrzemski
|
Red Sox
|
1964
|
35.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl
|
Yastrzemski
|
Red Sox
|
1965
|
38.8
|
Zoilo
|
Versalles
|
Twins
|
1965
|
38.7
|
Billy
|
Williams
|
Cubs
|
1965
|
38.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl
|
Yastrzemski
|
Red Sox
|
1966
|
39.3
|
Tony
|
Oliva
|
Twins
|
1966
|
36.5
|
Frank
|
Robinson
|
Orioles
|
1966
|
34.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl
|
Yastrzemski
|
Red Sox
|
1967
|
36.0
|
Rusty
|
Staub
|
Astros
|
1967
|
34.7
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
Reds
|
1967
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
Reds
|
1968
|
38.0
|
Rusty
|
Staub
|
Astros
|
1968
|
37.8
|
Lou
|
Brock
|
Cardinals
|
1968
|
37.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lou
|
Brock
|
Cardinals
|
1969
|
37.2
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
Reds
|
1969
|
35.8
|
Matty
|
Alou
|
Pirates
|
1969
|
33.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Robinson in 1962 hit 51 doubles, making him the only player from the 1960s to get his established doubles level over 40. After 1972, with artificial turf parks, the numbers started to creep up:
First
|
Last
|
Team
|
YEAR
|
EDL
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
Reds
|
1970
|
36.5
|
Tony
|
Oliva
|
Twins
|
1970
|
35.0
|
Wes
|
Parker
|
Dodgers
|
1970
|
34.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lou
|
Brock
|
Cardinals
|
1971
|
33.7
|
Tony
|
Oliva
|
Twins
|
1971
|
33.5
|
Bobby
|
Bonds
|
Giants
|
1971
|
32.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cesar
|
Cedeno
|
Astros
|
1972
|
36.3
|
Billy
|
Williams
|
Cubs
|
1972
|
31.7
|
Bobby
|
Bonds
|
Giants
|
1972
|
31.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cesar
|
Cedeno
|
Astros
|
1973
|
37.2
|
Ted
|
Simmons
|
Cardinals
|
1973
|
35.3
|
Willie
|
Stargell
|
Pirates
|
1973
|
35.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
Reds
|
1974
|
39.7
|
Willie
|
Stargell
|
Pirates
|
1974
|
37.5
|
Al
|
Oliver
|
Pirates
|
1974
|
36.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
Reds
|
1975
|
44.5
|
Al
|
Oliver
|
Pirates
|
1975
|
38.5
|
Willie
|
Stargell
|
Pirates
|
1975
|
35.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
Reds
|
1976
|
44.2
|
Steve
|
Garvey
|
Dodgers
|
1976
|
36.5
|
Hal
|
McRae
|
Royals
|
1976
|
35.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hal
|
McRae
|
Royals
|
1977
|
44.7
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
Reds
|
1977
|
40.8
|
Dave
|
Parker
|
Pirates
|
1977
|
37.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
Reds
|
1978
|
45.2
|
Hal
|
McRae
|
Royals
|
1978
|
43.2
|
George
|
Brett
|
Royals
|
1978
|
38.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
Reds
|
1979
|
43.3
|
Keith
|
Hernandez
|
Cardinals
|
1979
|
41.5
|
George
|
Brett
|
Royals
|
1979
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the end of the decade the leading doublers were hitting 40 a year, which is enough to take the "absolute" off of the "absolutely safe" designation. The doubles record was still relatively safe. Pete Rose, from that era, got closer to Speaker than anyone else has. The numbers stayed in that range through the 1980s, with Boggs and Mattingly being the notable names:
First
|
Last
|
Team
|
YEAR
|
EDL
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
Phillies
|
1980
|
42.8
|
Keith
|
Hernandez
|
Cardinals
|
1980
|
40.8
|
George
|
Brett
|
Royals
|
1980
|
38.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill
|
Buckner
|
|
1981
|
44.2
|
Cecil
|
Cooper
|
Brewers
|
1981
|
43.0
|
Keith
|
Hernandez
|
Cardinals
|
1981
|
41.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Al
|
Oliver
|
Expos
|
1982
|
38.3
|
Hal
|
McRae
|
Royals
|
1982
|
37.2
|
Robin
|
Yount
|
Brewers
|
1982
|
36.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hal
|
McRae
|
Royals
|
1983
|
39.7
|
Robin
|
Yount
|
Brewers
|
1983
|
38.8
|
Al
|
Oliver
|
Expos
|
1983
|
38.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cal
|
Ripken
|
Orioles
|
1984
|
39.5
|
Johnny
|
Ray
|
Pirates
|
1984
|
36.7
|
Robin
|
Yount
|
Brewers
|
1984
|
35.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don
|
Mattingly
|
Yankees
|
1985
|
41.2
|
Wade
|
Boggs
|
Red Sox
|
1985
|
38.7
|
Bill
|
Buckner
|
|
1985
|
36.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don
|
Mattingly
|
Yankees
|
1986
|
49.8
|
Wade
|
Boggs
|
Red Sox
|
1986
|
42.7
|
Bill
|
Buckner
|
Red Sox
|
1986
|
38.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don
|
Mattingly
|
Yankees
|
1987
|
44.7
|
Wade
|
Boggs
|
Red Sox
|
1987
|
42.7
|
Von
|
Hayes
|
Phillies
|
1987
|
38.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wade
|
Boggs
|
Red Sox
|
1988
|
43.7
|
Don
|
Mattingly
|
Yankees
|
1988
|
40.0
|
Kirby
|
Puckett
|
Twins
|
1988
|
37.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wade
|
Boggs
|
Red Sox
|
1989
|
47.2
|
Kirby
|
Puckett
|
Twins
|
1989
|
41.8
|
Tim
|
Wallach
|
Expos
|
1989
|
38.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mattingly hit 44-48-53 doubles in a three-year span, giving in an established level of 49.8. That’s in range. If he had been able to stay healthy, Mattingly probably would have hit 700 or more doubles. Most of the numbers from the decade were still not in range.
In 1999 Craig Biggio became the first player since Stan Musial to have an Established Doubles level of 50:
First
|
Last
|
Team
|
YEAR
|
EDL
|
Wade
|
Boggs
|
Red Sox
|
1990
|
46.5
|
Kirby
|
Puckett
|
Twins
|
1990
|
42.0
|
Jody
|
Reed
|
Red Sox
|
1990
|
40.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wade
|
Boggs
|
Red Sox
|
1991
|
44.2
|
Jody
|
Reed
|
Red Sox
|
1991
|
43.0
|
Bobby
|
Bonilla
|
Pirates
|
1991
|
41.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edgar
|
Martinez
|
Mariners
|
1992
|
39.2
|
George
|
Brett
|
Royals
|
1992
|
38.3
|
Ken Jr.
|
Griffey
|
Mariners
|
1992
|
38.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
John
|
Olerud
|
Blue Jays
|
1993
|
41.3
|
Ken Jr.
|
Griffey
|
Mariners
|
1993
|
39.0
|
Frank
|
Thomas
|
White Sox
|
1993
|
38.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craig
|
Biggio
|
Astros
|
1994
|
49.2
|
John
|
Olerud
|
Blue Jays
|
1994
|
44.6
|
Frank
|
Thomas
|
White Sox
|
1994
|
44.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Albert
|
Belle
|
Indians
|
1995
|
46.2
|
Mark
|
Grace
|
Cubs
|
1995
|
42.0
|
Dante
|
Bichette
|
Rockies
|
1995
|
39.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edgar
|
Martinez
|
Mariners
|
1996
|
47.2
|
Albert
|
Belle
|
Indians
|
1996
|
42.2
|
Mark
|
Grace
|
Cubs
|
1996
|
40.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Albert
|
Belle
|
White Sox
|
1997
|
43.8
|
Edgar
|
Martinez
|
Mariners
|
1997
|
43.5
|
Jeff
|
Cirillo
|
Brewers
|
1997
|
41.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Albert
|
Belle
|
White Sox
|
1998
|
45.3
|
Edgar
|
Martinez
|
Mariners
|
1998
|
43.8
|
John
|
Valentin
|
Red Sox
|
1998
|
42.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craig
|
Biggio
|
Astros
|
1999
|
51.2
|
Albert
|
Belle
|
Orioles
|
1999
|
41.5
|
Carlos
|
Delgado
|
Blue Jays
|
1999
|
40.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biggio had the only serious injury of his career in 2000, an injury which probably cost him 60 to 70 doubles, as it took several years for Biggio to get completely back where he was. He missed Speaker’s record by 124, so he wasn’t quite there even without the injury. Biggio had very high numbers, but he was way ahead of anybody else at that time. One player reaching that level is a lot different than 10 players reaching that level over a period of five years.
By the year 2000, Coors Field and Camden Yards were part of the game, and for the first half of the decade players were using steroids:
First
|
Last
|
Team
|
YEAR
|
EDL
|
Todd
|
Helton
|
Rockies
|
2000
|
48.7
|
Carlos
|
Delgado
|
Blue Jays
|
2000
|
48.7
|
Nomar
|
Garciaparra
|
Red Sox
|
2000
|
45.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Todd
|
Helton
|
Rockies
|
2001
|
53.2
|
Jeff
|
Kent
|
Giants
|
2001
|
44.8
|
Bobby
|
Abreu
|
Phillies
|
2001
|
43.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby
|
Abreu
|
Phillies
|
2002
|
48.0
|
Garret
|
Anderson
|
Angels
|
2002
|
47.7
|
Todd
|
Helton
|
Rockies
|
2002
|
47.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garret
|
Anderson
|
Angels
|
2003
|
49.7
|
Albert
|
Pujols
|
Cardinals
|
2003
|
46.7
|
Todd
|
Helton
|
Rockies
|
2003
|
46.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Albert
|
Pujols
|
Cardinals
|
2004
|
49.2
|
Todd
|
Helton
|
Rockies
|
2004
|
47.3
|
Craig
|
Biggio
|
Astros
|
2004
|
44.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Todd
|
Helton
|
Rockies
|
2005
|
47.0
|
Miguel
|
Tejada
|
Orioles
|
2005
|
45.3
|
Albert
|
Pujols
|
Cardinals
|
2005
|
44.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael
|
Young
|
Rangers
|
2006
|
44.8
|
Miguel
|
Cabrera
|
Marlins
|
2006
|
44.5
|
Lyle
|
Overbay
|
Blue Jays
|
2006
|
43.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt
|
Holliday
|
Rockies
|
2007
|
44.0
|
Chase
|
Utley
|
Phillies
|
2007
|
43.8
|
Freddy
|
Sanchez
|
Pirates
|
2007
|
43.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian
|
Roberts
|
Orioles
|
2008
|
45.2
|
Alex
|
Rios
|
Blue Jays
|
2008
|
43.3
|
Chase
|
Utley
|
Phillies
|
2008
|
43.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian
|
Roberts
|
Orioles
|
2009
|
52.0
|
Dustin
|
Pedroia
|
Red Sox
|
2009
|
48.5
|
Nick
|
Markakis
|
Orioles
|
2009
|
45.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was about the point, about ten years ago, at which I thought that the numbers were getting high enough that somebody had a chance to make a run at Tris Speaker. It hasn’t really happened yet.
First
|
Last
|
Team
|
YEAR
|
EDL
|
Nick
|
Markakis
|
Orioles
|
2010
|
45.5
|
Billy
|
Butler
|
Royals
|
2010
|
43.2
|
Evan
|
Longoria
|
Rays
|
2010
|
42.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Billy
|
Butler
|
Royals
|
2011
|
45.5
|
Miguel
|
Cabrera
|
Tigers
|
2011
|
44.7
|
Robinson
|
Cano
|
Yankees
|
2011
|
44.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson
|
Cano
|
Yankees
|
2012
|
46.2
|
Adrian
|
Gonzalez
|
Red Sox
|
2012
|
44.0
|
Miguel
|
Cabrera
|
Tigers
|
2012
|
43.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson
|
Cano
|
Yankees
|
2013
|
44.2
|
Dustin
|
Pedroia
|
Red Sox
|
2013
|
40.2
|
Adrian
|
Gonzalez
|
Dodgers
|
2013
|
39.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miguel
|
Cabrera
|
Tigers
|
2014
|
41.3
|
Robinson
|
Cano
|
Mariners
|
2014
|
40.2
|
Jose
|
Altuve
|
Astros
|
2014
|
39.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt
|
Carpenter
|
Cardinals
|
2015
|
42.2
|
Michael
|
Brantley
|
Indians
|
2015
|
41.8
|
Jose
|
Altuve
|
Astros
|
2015
|
40.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel
|
Murphy
|
Nationals
|
2016
|
42.3
|
Jose
|
Altuve
|
Astros
|
2016
|
42.2
|
David
|
Ortiz
|
Red Sox
|
2016
|
40.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jose
|
Ramirez
|
Indians
|
2017
|
45.7
|
Mookie
|
Betts
|
Red Sox
|
2017
|
44.0
|
Daniel
|
Murphy
|
Nationals
|
2017
|
43.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mookie
|
Betts
|
Red Sox
|
2018
|
45.8
|
Jose
|
Ramirez
|
Indians
|
2018
|
45.3
|
Anthony
|
Rendon
|
Nationals
|
2018
|
42.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick
|
Castellanos
|
Cubs
|
2019
|
50.3
|
Xander
|
Bogaerts
|
Red Sox
|
2019
|
46.3
|
Anthony
|
Rendon
|
Nationals
|
2019
|
43.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick
|
Castellanos
|
Reds
|
2020
|
47.4
|
Freddie
|
Freeman
|
Braves
|
2020
|
44.0
|
Rafael
|
Devers
|
Red Sox
|
2020
|
43.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since then, the numbers have not really faded. The number of doubles being hit by a few players remains high enough that somebody could conceivably do it. Remember what I said; at 53 doubles a year for the league leaders, the record would have to fall. At 44 doubles a year for the leaders, it is relatively safe. But a player has to sustain very high levels in this area over the course of a career. Let’s look at who might do that.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
A player’s chance of reaching a goal is a product of:
a) How far he is from the goal,
b) How fast he is moving toward the goal, and
c) How much time he has.
We represent these in our formula as:
a) How many doubles he has hit so far in his career,
b) How many doubles per year he is hitting, and
c) How many years he has left.
We know how many doubles each player has hit, so that’s easy. We use the Established Doubles Level to represent how many doubles per season he is hitting. For how many years he has left, we subtract his age from 42, and divide by two. A 20-year-old player, we figure he has 11 years left in his career. A 25-year-old player, we figure he had 8.5 years left, eight and a half. At 30, he has 6 years left; at 35, three and a half. At 40, he has one year left. Some players will go OVER that estimate; some players will fall short. That is what is meant by the concept of "chance". We just don’t know; we estimate based on what we do know. We also use a "special case rule" that if a player has 400 plate appearances in a season, his years remaining cannot be less than 1.50, regardless of age, and that no player’s years remaining can be estimated at less than 0.75, regardless of age.
We multiply the player’s Years Remaining times his Established Doubles Level, and the result is what we will call "Expected Remaining Doubles." The highest number of expected remaining doubles for any player since 1931 was 486, by Joe Medwick after the 1936 season. He actually hit 338 doubles after that.
If the player’s expected remaining doubles are larger than the number of doubles he needs to hit to break the record, then his chance is over 50%. No player since 1931 has been over 50%.
If the player’s expected remaining doubles are the same as the number he needs, then his chance is 50%, since he may do better than that, or he may do worse. No player since 1931 has been AT 50%, either.
If the player’s expected remaining doubles are 75% of what he needs, then his chance of breaking the record is 25%.
If the player’s expected remaining doubles are less than half of what he needs, then he has no established chance to break the record.
The highest established chance to break the record, since 1931, was 41%, by Ducky Medwick after the 1937 season. The highest established chance by anyone other than Medwick was 23%, by Albert Pujols in 2004. Pujols chance was still 22% as recently as 2012. Stan Musial also got to 22%.
Pujols’ chance has gotten away from him; he is still six years away from breaking the record, and he’s 40 years old and will retire after the 2021 season. This chart gives, for each season since 1931,
a) The player in the major leagues who had the best chance of hitting 792 career doubles,
b) His age,
c) How many career doubles he had at that time,
d) His Established Doubles Level (EDL),
e) His Estimated Remaining Doubles (ERD),
f) How many doubles he would need to hit from that point forward, and
g) His estimated chance to hit 792 career doubles.
You will note that a few seasons are missing, because no player at that time had any established chance to break the record.
First
|
Last
|
YEAR
|
AGE
|
2B
|
EDL
|
ERD
|
Need
|
Chance
|
Red
|
Kress
|
1931
|
24
|
155
|
43.7
|
393
|
637
|
12%
|
Dick
|
Bartell
|
1932
|
24
|
171
|
43.7
|
393
|
621
|
13%
|
Joe
|
Cronin
|
1933
|
26
|
215
|
44.2
|
353
|
577
|
11%
|
Hank
|
Greenberg
|
1934
|
23
|
96
|
42.5
|
404
|
696
|
8%
|
Hank
|
Greenberg
|
1935
|
24
|
142
|
49.5
|
446
|
650
|
19%
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
1936
|
24
|
202
|
54.0
|
486
|
590
|
32%
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
1937
|
25
|
258
|
57.0
|
485
|
534
|
41%
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
1938
|
26
|
305
|
52.8
|
423
|
487
|
37%
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
1939
|
27
|
353
|
49.0
|
368
|
439
|
34%
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
1940
|
28
|
383
|
38.8
|
272
|
409
|
16%
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
1941
|
29
|
416
|
34.5
|
224
|
376
|
10%
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
1942
|
30
|
453
|
34.5
|
207
|
339
|
11%
|
Joe
|
Medwick
|
1943
|
31
|
483
|
32.8
|
181
|
309
|
8%
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
1944
|
23
|
135
|
46.8
|
445
|
657
|
18%
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
1946
|
25
|
185
|
50.0
|
425
|
607
|
20%
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
1947
|
26
|
215
|
40.2
|
321
|
577
|
6%
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
1948
|
27
|
261
|
41.3
|
310
|
531
|
8%
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
1949
|
28
|
302
|
40.8
|
286
|
490
|
8%
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
1950
|
29
|
343
|
41.8
|
272
|
449
|
11%
|
George
|
Kell
|
1951
|
28
|
253
|
43.0
|
301
|
539
|
6%
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
1952
|
31
|
415
|
37.8
|
208
|
377
|
5%
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
1953
|
32
|
468
|
45.5
|
228
|
324
|
20%
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
1954
|
33
|
509
|
45.2
|
203
|
283
|
22%
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
1955
|
34
|
539
|
37.5
|
150
|
253
|
9%
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
1956
|
35
|
572
|
33.3
|
117
|
220
|
3%
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
1957
|
36
|
610
|
35.0
|
105
|
182
|
8%
|
Stan
|
Musial
|
1958
|
37
|
645
|
35.7
|
89
|
147
|
11%
|
Hank
|
Aaron
|
1959
|
25
|
205
|
38.8
|
330
|
587
|
6%
|
Vada
|
Pinson
|
1960
|
21
|
91
|
35.3
|
371
|
701
|
3%
|
Vada
|
Pinson
|
1961
|
22
|
125
|
37.2
|
372
|
667
|
6%
|
Frank
|
Robinson
|
1962
|
26
|
228
|
41.7
|
333
|
564
|
9%
|
Carl
|
Yastrzemski
|
1963
|
23
|
114
|
39.5
|
375
|
678
|
5%
|
Carl
|
Yastrzemski
|
1965
|
25
|
188
|
38.8
|
330
|
604
|
5%
|
Carl
|
Yastrzemski
|
1966
|
26
|
227
|
39.3
|
315
|
565
|
6%
|
Carl
|
Yastrzemski
|
1967
|
27
|
258
|
36.0
|
270
|
534
|
1%
|
Rusty
|
Staub
|
1968
|
24
|
156
|
37.8
|
341
|
636
|
4%
|
Cesar
|
Cedeno
|
1972
|
21
|
100
|
36.3
|
382
|
692
|
5%
|
Cesar
|
Cedeno
|
1973
|
22
|
135
|
37.2
|
372
|
657
|
7%
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
1975
|
34
|
441
|
44.5
|
178
|
351
|
1%
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
1976
|
35
|
483
|
44.2
|
155
|
309
|
<1%
|
George
|
Brett
|
1978
|
25
|
169
|
38.8
|
330
|
623
|
3%
|
George
|
Brett
|
1979
|
26
|
211
|
41.3
|
331
|
581
|
7%
|
Robin
|
Yount
|
1980
|
24
|
193
|
37.0
|
333
|
599
|
6%
|
Keith
|
Hernandez
|
1981
|
27
|
217
|
41.4
|
311
|
575
|
4%
|
Robin
|
Yount
|
1982
|
26
|
254
|
36.2
|
289
|
538
|
4%
|
Robin
|
Yount
|
1983
|
27
|
296
|
38.8
|
291
|
496
|
9%
|
Cal
|
Ripken
|
1984
|
23
|
116
|
39.5
|
375
|
676
|
6%
|
Don
|
Mattingly
|
1985
|
24
|
107
|
41.2
|
371
|
685
|
4%
|
Don
|
Mattingly
|
1986
|
25
|
160
|
49.8
|
424
|
632
|
17%
|
Don
|
Mattingly
|
1987
|
26
|
198
|
44.7
|
357
|
594
|
10%
|
Don
|
Mattingly
|
1988
|
27
|
235
|
40.0
|
300
|
557
|
4%
|
Wade
|
Boggs
|
1989
|
31
|
314
|
47.2
|
259
|
478
|
4%
|
Wade
|
Boggs
|
1990
|
32
|
358
|
46.5
|
233
|
434
|
4%
|
Ruben
|
Sierra
|
1991
|
25
|
196
|
40.2
|
341
|
596
|
7%
|
Ken Jr.
|
Griffey
|
1992
|
22
|
132
|
38.2
|
382
|
660
|
8%
|
Ken Jr.
|
Griffey
|
1993
|
23
|
170
|
39.0
|
371
|
622
|
10%
|
John
|
Olerud
|
1994
|
25
|
156
|
44.6
|
379
|
636
|
10%
|
Albert
|
Belle
|
1995
|
28
|
185
|
46.2
|
323
|
607
|
3%
|
Ivan
|
Rodriguez
|
1996
|
24
|
158
|
37.3
|
336
|
634
|
3%
|
Alex
|
Rodriguez
|
1997
|
21
|
100
|
39.0
|
410
|
692
|
9%
|
Alex
|
Rodriguez
|
1998
|
22
|
135
|
39.8
|
398
|
657
|
11%
|
Craig
|
Biggio
|
1999
|
33
|
389
|
51.2
|
230
|
403
|
7%
|
Todd
|
Helton
|
2000
|
26
|
137
|
48.7
|
389
|
655
|
9%
|
Todd
|
Helton
|
2001
|
27
|
191
|
53.2
|
399
|
601
|
16%
|
Todd
|
Helton
|
2002
|
28
|
230
|
47.3
|
331
|
562
|
9%
|
Albert
|
Pujols
|
2003
|
23
|
138
|
46.7
|
443
|
654
|
18%
|
Albert
|
Pujols
|
2004
|
24
|
189
|
49.2
|
443
|
603
|
23%
|
Albert
|
Pujols
|
2005
|
25
|
227
|
44.5
|
378
|
565
|
17%
|
Miguel
|
Cabrera
|
2006
|
23
|
145
|
44.5
|
423
|
647
|
15%
|
Miguel
|
Cabrera
|
2007
|
24
|
183
|
42.8
|
386
|
609
|
13%
|
Albert
|
Pujols
|
2008
|
28
|
342
|
40.2
|
281
|
450
|
12%
|
Albert
|
Pujols
|
2009
|
29
|
387
|
43.5
|
283
|
405
|
20%
|
Albert
|
Pujols
|
2010
|
30
|
426
|
41.8
|
251
|
366
|
19%
|
Miguel
|
Cabrera
|
2011
|
28
|
346
|
44.7
|
313
|
446
|
20%
|
Albert
|
Pujols
|
2012
|
32
|
505
|
41.2
|
206
|
287
|
22%
|
Robinson
|
Cano
|
2013
|
30
|
375
|
44.2
|
265
|
417
|
14%
|
Miguel
|
Cabrera
|
2014
|
31
|
464
|
41.3
|
227
|
328
|
19%
|
Miguel
|
Cabrera
|
2015
|
32
|
492
|
35.7
|
178
|
300
|
9%
|
Jose
|
Altuve
|
2016
|
26
|
204
|
42.2
|
337
|
588
|
7%
|
Jose
|
Ramirez
|
2017
|
24
|
126
|
45.7
|
411
|
666
|
12%
|
Mookie
|
Betts
|
2018
|
25
|
189
|
45.8
|
390
|
603
|
15%
|
Nick
|
Castellanos
|
2019
|
27
|
229
|
50.3
|
378
|
563
|
17%
|
Rafael
|
Devers
|
2020
|
23
|
108
|
43.8
|
416
|
684
|
11%
|
Essentially, from 1935 to 1958 the candidates were Medwick and Musial, and since 1958 the leading candidates have been Yastrzemski, Rose, Mattingly, Pujols and Cabrera.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The question which animates this research, however, was not "WHO has a chance to break the record?" or "Who had a chance to break the record years ago but didn’t do it?" The questions are:
1) What is the chance that the record will be broken by some player now active, and
2) Is that number going up or down?
To answer THOSE questions, we need to look not at the number for any one player, but at the sum total of the chances for all active players.
Since 1931, a total of 309 players have had some small chance to break the record. . .not 309 different players, but like Robinson Cano after the 2007 season, Robinson Cano after 2008, Robinson Cano after 2009, etc. I think Cano appears on the list seven times. There are probably about 100 different players who had some small chance at some time.
Technically, if two players each have a 10% chance of breaking the career doubles record, the chance that the record will be broken is not 20%; it is 19%, and there is a 1% chance that it would be broken by two people. We’re not going to worry about that; we’re just going to add them up.
This chart tracks the sum score of the chances that the record will be broken, by year, since 1931:
YEAR
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
1930
|
|
45%
|
67%
|
34%
|
24%
|
39%
|
85%
|
73%
|
62%
|
39%
|
1940
|
32%
|
32%
|
22%
|
13%
|
8%
|
18%
|
0%
|
20%
|
6%
|
11%
|
1950
|
19%
|
19%
|
7%
|
5%
|
20%
|
22%
|
9%
|
3%
|
8%
|
11%
|
1960
|
6%
|
6%
|
6%
|
9%
|
7%
|
0%
|
6%
|
6%
|
1%
|
4%
|
1970
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
5%
|
7%
|
0%
|
1%
|
0%
|
4%
|
13%
|
1980
|
12%
|
12%
|
5%
|
4%
|
9%
|
8%
|
5%
|
17%
|
10%
|
4%
|
1990
|
4%
|
4%
|
11%
|
12%
|
16%
|
36%
|
3%
|
3%
|
14%
|
19%
|
2000
|
42%
|
42%
|
23%
|
30%
|
53%
|
49%
|
46%
|
51%
|
61%
|
56%
|
2010
|
75%
|
75%
|
56%
|
61%
|
22%
|
42%
|
19%
|
15%
|
31%
|
50%
|
2020
|
39%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the simple answer is: the chance that the record will be broken is higher now than it has been for most of the last 90 years—but lower than it was in the era 2007 to 2011, when I speculated that the record was in trouble.
In the first few years after Speaker retired, the chance of his record being broken was generally over 50%. Players hit 60 and 60+ doubles several times in that decade. That chance faded steadily through the 1940s and 1950s. From 1960 to 1978 there was never as much as a 10% chance of the record being broken by an active player.
In the 1980s and 1990s there were a few players who looked like they might have a chance, putting the probability generally in the range of 10 to 20%. In the first eleven years of the 21st century, due to steroids and a couple of doubles-friendly ballparks, that number grew dramatically, reaching 75% in 2010 and 2011.
*****************
This is sort of a confession, or something that I learned from doing this research.
I should have based the Established Doubles Level on a four-year history, rather than a three-year history. A three-year history works fine for hits, but the numbers of hits are much larger than the numbers of doubles. When you have smaller numbers you have more instability in the data, thus need to survey a broader landscape in order to get accurate measurements. If I had used a four-year history rather than a three-year, players’ estimates would not bounce around as much, and also, the highest estimates would tend to be a little bit lower, thus the estimated chance that the record will be broken would be somewhat lower.
Oh, well. Live and learn. Do research and learn; that’s kind of the point.
*****************
The last thing I need to do in this article is to report on the research about doubles and aging.
To look at the question of whether doubles as a percentage of hits decline as a player ages, I created a file which just has the career records of all players in baseball history who played 2,000 games or more. The reason for doing that is that only long-term players are relevant to the question. If you study ALL 23-year-old players and all 33-year-old players, for example, you’re dealing with two different sets of players, for the most part. I wanted to look at the SAME players over time.
For all of those players as a group, I then recorded:
1) How many hits they had through each age,
2) How many doubles they had through each age,
3) What that percentage is,
4) How many home runs they had through each age,
5) What that percentage is,
6) How many hits they had AFTER that age,
7) How many doubles they had after that age,
8) What that percentage is,
9) How many home runs they had after that age,
10) What that percentage is,
11) What the ratio is of the doubles percentage after that age to the doubles percentage through that age, and
12) What the ratio is of the home run percentage after that age to the home run percentage through that age.
This, for example, would be the data for players through age 25:
AGE
|
H
|
2B
|
2B Rate
|
HR
|
HR RATE
|
|
|
25
|
142974
|
24558
|
.172
|
13518
|
.095
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R H
|
R 2B
|
2B Rate
|
R HR
|
HR RATE
|
Ratio 2B
|
Ratio HR
|
|
446324
|
80028
|
.179
|
49371
|
.111
|
1.044
|
1.170
|
Through age 25, the players in the study had 142,974 hits, of which 24,558 were doubles, which is 17.2% doubles. After the age of 25 they had 446,324 hits, or which 80,028 were doubles, which is 17.9% doubles. Their doubles rate increased by 4.4% AFTER the age of 25. Their home run rate increased by 17% after age 25.
I’ll present all of the data from the chart, because I might as well, but the chart is large enough that I’ll have to break it down into three charts. This one is doubles:
AGE
|
H
|
2B
|
2B Rate
|
R H
|
R 2B
|
2B Rate
|
Ratio 2B
|
17
|
41
|
3
|
.073
|
11620
|
2021
|
.174
|
2.377
|
18
|
427
|
64
|
.150
|
32421
|
5504
|
.170
|
1.133
|
19
|
2636
|
411
|
.156
|
119839
|
21011
|
.175
|
1.124
|
20
|
9519
|
1614
|
.170
|
220962
|
38353
|
.174
|
1.024
|
21
|
23532
|
3967
|
.169
|
360162
|
63418
|
.176
|
1.045
|
22
|
45054
|
7499
|
.166
|
445988
|
79362
|
.178
|
1.069
|
23
|
73895
|
12407
|
.168
|
473700
|
84534
|
.178
|
1.063
|
24
|
105746
|
17927
|
.170
|
478917
|
85822
|
.179
|
1.057
|
25
|
142974
|
24558
|
.172
|
446324
|
80028
|
.179
|
1.044
|
26
|
180730
|
31144
|
.172
|
410381
|
73587
|
.179
|
1.041
|
27
|
218795
|
37799
|
.173
|
377846
|
67736
|
.179
|
1.038
|
28
|
257496
|
44844
|
.174
|
341640
|
61181
|
.179
|
1.028
|
29
|
295299
|
51637
|
.175
|
303837
|
54388
|
.179
|
1.024
|
30
|
332453
|
58322
|
.175
|
266254
|
47691
|
.179
|
1.021
|
31
|
369340
|
64992
|
.176
|
229852
|
41010
|
.178
|
1.014
|
32
|
406297
|
71531
|
.176
|
192815
|
34439
|
.179
|
1.015
|
33
|
441464
|
77821
|
.176
|
157691
|
28115
|
.178
|
1.011
|
34
|
474629
|
83699
|
.176
|
124614
|
22325
|
.179
|
1.016
|
35
|
494909
|
87449
|
.177
|
93440
|
16650
|
.178
|
1.008
|
36
|
492798
|
87142
|
.177
|
66150
|
11830
|
.179
|
1.011
|
37
|
461913
|
82321
|
.178
|
43588
|
7801
|
.179
|
1.004
|
38
|
389528
|
69396
|
.178
|
27963
|
4929
|
.176
|
0.989
|
39
|
337420
|
60444
|
.179
|
16038
|
2762
|
.172
|
0.961
|
40
|
266557
|
47987
|
.180
|
8161
|
1336
|
.164
|
0.909
|
41
|
165077
|
29167
|
.177
|
3570
|
563
|
.158
|
0.893
|
42
|
102538
|
17620
|
.172
|
2024
|
317
|
.157
|
0.911
|
43
|
55785
|
9338
|
.167
|
1018
|
159
|
.156
|
0.933
|
44
|
28795
|
4750
|
.165
|
447
|
73
|
.163
|
0.990
|
45
|
18030
|
2895
|
.161
|
129
|
25
|
.194
|
1.207
|
46
|
2521
|
394
|
.156
|
65
|
13
|
.200
|
1.280
|
47
|
2566
|
404
|
.157
|
20
|
3
|
.150
|
0.953
|
48
|
2586
|
407
|
.157
|
0
|
0
|
.000
|
0.000
|
As players retire, they drop out of the data, so the number of hits, etc., begins to decrease as a raw number. It’s not PERFECTLY the same set of players; it is just GENERALLY the same set of players.
We can see, then, that doubles as a percentage of hits INCREASE until a player is 37 years old, and decrease after age 37 (ignoring the small-sample-size data beginning at age 44.) This is the same chart for home runs:
AGE
|
H
|
HR
|
HR RATE
|
R H
|
R HR
|
HR RATE
|
Ratio HR
|
17
|
41
|
1
|
.024
|
11620
|
1357
|
.117
|
4.788
|
18
|
427
|
19
|
.044
|
32421
|
3749
|
.116
|
2.599
|
19
|
2636
|
162
|
.061
|
119839
|
12559
|
.105
|
1.705
|
20
|
9519
|
762
|
.080
|
220962
|
24847
|
.112
|
1.405
|
21
|
23532
|
1933
|
.082
|
360162
|
40420
|
.112
|
1.366
|
22
|
45054
|
3820
|
.085
|
445988
|
49143
|
.110
|
1.300
|
23
|
73895
|
6548
|
.089
|
473700
|
52980
|
.112
|
1.262
|
24
|
105746
|
9686
|
.092
|
478917
|
52908
|
.110
|
1.206
|
25
|
142974
|
13518
|
.095
|
446324
|
49371
|
.111
|
1.170
|
26
|
180730
|
17596
|
.097
|
410381
|
45391
|
.111
|
1.136
|
27
|
218795
|
21960
|
.100
|
377846
|
41622
|
.110
|
1.098
|
28
|
257496
|
26354
|
.102
|
341640
|
37400
|
.109
|
1.070
|
29
|
295299
|
30711
|
.104
|
303837
|
33043
|
.109
|
1.046
|
30
|
332453
|
35068
|
.105
|
266254
|
28753
|
.108
|
1.024
|
31
|
369340
|
39140
|
.106
|
229852
|
24643
|
.107
|
1.012
|
32
|
406297
|
43112
|
.106
|
192815
|
20504
|
.106
|
1.002
|
33
|
441464
|
46777
|
.106
|
157691
|
16608
|
.105
|
0.994
|
34
|
474629
|
50746
|
.107
|
124614
|
13083
|
.105
|
0.982
|
35
|
494909
|
52518
|
.106
|
93440
|
9646
|
.103
|
0.973
|
36
|
492798
|
53028
|
.108
|
66150
|
6721
|
.102
|
0.944
|
37
|
461913
|
49500
|
.107
|
43588
|
4354
|
.100
|
0.932
|
38
|
389528
|
41904
|
.108
|
27963
|
2704
|
.097
|
0.899
|
39
|
337420
|
36652
|
.109
|
16038
|
1412
|
.088
|
0.811
|
40
|
266557
|
28909
|
.108
|
8161
|
646
|
.079
|
0.730
|
41
|
165077
|
16322
|
.099
|
3570
|
251
|
.070
|
0.711
|
42
|
102538
|
10536
|
.103
|
2024
|
104
|
.051
|
0.500
|
43
|
55785
|
4244
|
.076
|
1018
|
39
|
.038
|
0.504
|
44
|
28795
|
1725
|
.060
|
447
|
22
|
.049
|
0.822
|
45
|
18030
|
991
|
.055
|
129
|
12
|
.093
|
1.692
|
46
|
2521
|
170
|
.067
|
65
|
3
|
.046
|
0.684
|
47
|
2566
|
172
|
.067
|
20
|
1
|
.050
|
0.746
|
48
|
2586
|
173
|
.067
|
0
|
0
|
.000
|
0.000
|
The home run data has the same patterns, but at a much more volatile level. Doubles as a percentage of hits increase as a player matures, and Home Runs as a percentage of this increase as a player matures, but home runs increase much, much more than doubles do. Looking at 24-year-olds, there is a 6% increase for doubles, but a 21% increase for home runs.
AGE
|
Ratio 2B
|
Ratio HR
|
17
|
2.377
|
4.788
|
18
|
1.133
|
2.599
|
19
|
1.124
|
1.705
|
20
|
1.024
|
1.405
|
21
|
1.045
|
1.366
|
22
|
1.069
|
1.300
|
23
|
1.063
|
1.262
|
24
|
1.057
|
1.206
|
25
|
1.044
|
1.170
|
26
|
1.041
|
1.136
|
27
|
1.038
|
1.098
|
28
|
1.028
|
1.070
|
29
|
1.024
|
1.046
|
30
|
1.021
|
1.024
|
31
|
1.014
|
1.012
|
32
|
1.015
|
1.002
|
33
|
1.011
|
0.994
|
34
|
1.016
|
0.982
|
35
|
1.008
|
0.973
|
36
|
1.011
|
0.944
|
37
|
1.004
|
0.932
|
38
|
0.989
|
0.899
|
39
|
0.961
|
0.811
|
40
|
0.909
|
0.730
|
41
|
0.893
|
0.711
|
42
|
0.911
|
0.500
|
43
|
0.933
|
0.504
|
44
|
0.990
|
0.822
|
45
|
1.207
|
1.692
|
46
|
1.280
|
0.684
|
47
|
0.953
|
0.746
|
As the player moves into his 30s, his doubles eventually start to decrease (as a percentage of hits), and his home runs do, as well. But doubles don’t start to decrease until the player is 38, whereas home runs start to decrease at 33. By age 39, doubles are decreasing by 4%; home runs, by 19%. It’s a different thing. You can ignore it for doubles; you can’t ignore it for home runs.
Thanks for reading.