Quick Hit 1
Manny Machado
Manny Machado has hit 31 doubles through the Orioles’ first 71 games. At that pace he would hit 73 doubles this season, which would break the major league record for doubles in a season, which is 67 (Earl Webb, 1931). What is the chance that he will break that record?
As best I can estimate it, it’s about 3%. Although Machado has been hitting doubles at an incredible pace, he is only 6 games ahead of the record pace at this writing. He would still have to hit 37 doubles in 91 games to break the record—a formidable assignment.
To estimate his chance of breaking the record, we need to estimate two things:
1) The number of at bats he will get the rest of this season, and
2) How many doubles he should hit per at bat.
Machado has 307 at bats through 71 games. At that pace he would have 700 at bats on the season. Only four players in history have had 700 at bats in a season, so that’s asking a lot.
Let’s assume there is an array of possible numbers of at bats for Machado in the rest of the season, like this:
390 more at bats 30%
380 more at bats 10%
365 more at bats 10%
350 more at bats 10%
335 more at bats 10%
320 more at bats 10%
305 more at bats 10%
290 more at bats 10%
Of course these ten possibilities are standing in for a more scattered array. . .there is a chance that he could get 384 more at bats, and a chance that he could get 383 more at bats, etc. We’re simplifying the problem by reducing the number of possibilities that we have to deal with.
How many doubles per at bat will he hit?
Well, let’s assume that his propensity to hit doubles is the equal to that of any young player in baseball history. If we take all players in baseball history who have 800 at bats (career) by the age of 22, the only one who has averaged .075 doubles per at bat (as a young player) is Ted Williams. Stan Musial and Albert Pujols were at .074 doubles per at bat, and Joe Jackson, A-Rod and Lou Boudreau were at .072. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Machado is at .075.
If Machado hit doubles with the frequency of a young Ted Williams, his chance of hitting 37 more doubles in 390 at bats would be 8.5%. If he had 380 more at bats, his chance of hitting 37 more doubles would be 6.4%; 365 at bats, 3.9%; 350 at bats, 2.3%; 335 at bats, 1.2%; 320 at bats, 0.6%; 305 at bats, 0.28%; and 290 at bats, .01%.
Combining those into one number, then, the chance would be 4%. . .(.30 times .085, plus .10 times .064, etc.)
So that method says four percent, but that method is perhaps a little unrealistically optimistic. It assumes that his propensity to hit doubles is the equal of Ted Williams and greater than any other player (and greater than Williams if you measure it per plate appearance, rather than per at bat), and it assumes that he has a 30% chance of getting 697 at bats this season, which would be the 8th highest total of all time. So… .4% seems high; let’s say 3%.
Quick Hit 2
Opposition Adjusted Winning Percentages
I had an idea to "normalize" a pitcher’s won-lost record for the quality of the opposing team. It works like this: Suppose that a pitcher earns a win against the 1984 Detroit Tigers, who finished the season 104-58. Because he beat a team that won 104 games, we credit that as 104 wins—whereas if he were to lose to that team, we would charge that as only 58 losses, since most people lost to that Tigers team most of the team.
What this does, in essence, is to make every opponent a .500 team. The winning percentage against every team for the season, regardless of their won-lost record, will be .500. Take Terrell Wade, 1998. Terrell Wade in 1998 made two starts, getting one win and one loss—but the two starts were against the Yankees (114-48 that year) and the Red Sox (92-70). He beat the Red Sox, which gives him 92 points, but lost to the Yankees, which cost him only 48 points, so his won-lost record was 92-48, a .657 winning percentage. If you face teams of that quality and you break even, you’re doing OK. On the other end of the scale is Bob Anderson, with the 1962 Cubs. He also was 1-1 as a starting pitcher (in four starts), but he beat the 1962 Mets (40 points) and lost to the Cardinals. The Cardinals were 84-78, so that’s 78 points. His winning percentage was .339.
If a pitcher has only one decision, his opposition-adjusted winning percentage is always the same as his actual winning percentage (1.000 or .000). Among pitchers with two decisions or more, Terrell is the one is gains the most (+.157) and Anderson is the one who loses the most (-.161).
What do we learn from doing this?
It doesn’t make any real difference. Everybody’s winning percentage winds up about the same as it was anyway, because "quality of opposition" is not a very significant variable among starting pitchers.
I’ve noticed this before. . .it seems like it could be a big deal in some cases, but it never actually is. Among all pitchers in the study, the biggest "gainer" in winning percentage in a season was Roy Halladay in 2008. That is, Terrell Wade (1998) is the biggest gainer in terms of winning percentage, but Roy Halladay is the biggest gainer in terms of win impact. Halladay was 20-11 in 2008, a .645 winning percentage, but if you adjust for the quality of teams against which he pitched, his winning percentage jumps to .684. That’s a difference of 1.22 wins; Halladay was 20-11, but if you adjust for the quality of his opposition, he was really 21-10. Among all of the tens of thousands of pitchers in the study, that’s the biggest gain in a season. Joe Kennedy in 2002 was second (1.161), followed by John Montefusco in 1976 (1.132) and John O’Donoghue in 1964 (1.072). You will notice I kept the list going until I hit one of the Kansas City A’s of my childhood.
The biggest loss in opposition-adjusted winning percentage is for Tom Murphy in 1970; he went 16-13 (.552) with the California Angels, but his winning percentage drops to .512 if you adjust for the quality of the teams he pitched against. That’s a net loss of 1.15 wins, followed by Dave Burba in 2001 (1.14), Freddy Garcia in 2004 (1.11) and Ismael Valdez in 2002 (1.04). Nobody else loses a full game.
With regard to career numbers, same thing; the changes are so small they are hardly worth mentioning. The biggest gainer, when you adjust for the quality of the teams he pitched against, is Phil Niekro . Niekro’s winning percentage as a starting pitcher was .535; adjusting for the quality of opposition, it increases to .543. That’s 3.97 wins.. ..4 wins, over the course of his career. Second on the list is Gaylord Perry (3.52 wins), and third is Josh Beckett (+3.38 wins).
The note about Beckett is kind of interesting, because
a) Beckett’s career is much shorter than the other pitchers at the top and bottom of the list, and
b) We have observed. .. .many of you have observed. . .that Beckett has pitched extremely well against good teams. His career winning percentage against teams with winning records is .607; against teams with losing records, .547.
That’s unusual, and this is a manifestation of it, but still. ..it’s 3.38 wins. It’s not a big deal.
The pitcher whose loses the most in this analysis is Steve Carlton (-4.24), followed by Jeff Suppan Sandwiches (-3.90), Kyle Lohse (-3.78), David Cone (-3.65) and Blue Moon Odom (-2.97.)
There are two related questions here, the quality of the opposition and the quality of the support. The quality of the support for a pitcher is a big thing, because there’s a consistent bias from start to start. The quality of the opposition. . .it pretty much evens out.