do pitchers try harder for their 20 th win?
DESCRIPTION
Do Pitchers Try Harder for Their 20 th Win?. Phil Birnbaum www.philbirnbaum.com July 31, 2009. Do pitchers try harder for their 20 th win?. Bill James, "The Targeting Phenomenon" Historically, there are more players who finished with one win than with two - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Do Pitchers Try Harder for Their 20th Win?
Phil Birnbaumwww.philbirnbaum.com
July 31, 2009
Do pitchers try harder for their 20th win?
Bill James, "The Targeting Phenomenon" Historically, there are more players who
finished with one win than with two More with 2 than with 3. More than 3
than with 4 … Every number is harder to hit than the
previous, except: There are more pitchers with 20
wins than 19.
Do pitchers try harder for their 20th win?
Why? Bill James: "players WANT to wind
up the season hitting .250, rather than in the .240s. They tend to make it happen."
But HOW do they make it happen?
Do pitchers try harder for their 20th win?
Clutch pitching? Do players actually try harder
when they can win their 20th? That would mean they wouldn't be
trying their hardest in other games Not a nice theory
Season win totals, 1940-2007
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
wins
freq
uenc
y
Maybe it should look more like this
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
wins
freq
uenc
y
Why? Five possible factors I could think
of There could be more
Take them one at a time
Factor 1: extra starts
Maybe pitchers are given an extra start late in the season to try to get to 20
In that case, those pitchers would have a larger proportion of starts in September
Percentage of starts in September for pitchers who eventually finish with:
16 wins: 17.53% 17 wins: 17.77% 18 wins: 18.36% 19 wins: 18.49% 20 wins: 18.47% 21 wins: 18.15% 22 wins: 18.18%
-- A little bulge at 19-20, maybe 0.25%
Percentage of starts in September
The 19-20 win pitchers had 9229 starts
An extra 0.25% means an extra 23 starts
Maybe 10 wins By this analysis:
19-win pitchers, circumstances created 10 fewer (-10) of them
20-win pitchers, 10 extra (+10)
Factor 2: relief appearances
Maybe 19-win pitchers got a relief appearance to try to reach 20
Check the historical record Big metaphorical wet kiss to
Retrosheet
Factor 2: relief appearances Eventual 20-game winners with relief wins:
1951: Early Wynn wins 18th
1951: Mike Garcia wins 19th
1956: Billy Hoeft wins 20th
1957: Jim Bunning wins 20th
1966: Chris Short wins 20th 1991: John Smiley gets 19th
1997: Randy Johnson gets 20th
7 extra wins
Factor 2: relief appearances
Eventual 19-game winners with relief wins: 3
Eventual 20-game winners with relief wins: 7 (previous slide)
Eventual 21-game winners with relief wins: 6
Take these numbers at face value, since they're exact historically
Factor 3: clutch pitching
The obvious question: did they just pitch better with 19 wins, with the 20th on the line?
How did the pitchers actually perform with various numbers of wins?
Team RA and win pct. for pitchers 17 wins: 3.72 RA, .658 18 wins: 3.54 RA, .652 19 wins: 3.54 RA, .655 20 wins: 3.62 RA, .615 21 wins: 3.53 RA, .676 22 wins: 3.34 RA, .774
(Note: RA is for team, not just the starter; wins are at the time of the start, not at end of season)
Only a tiny bit of difference – maybe .08 RA? I feel better; pitchers are still team players
Team RA and win pct. for pitchers
Move the 20-win group from 3.62 to 3.54
Difference: 39 runs over 490 starts – 4 wins
Four 20-win pitchers "should have" moved to 21 wins
So four extra 20s, four fewer 21s
But wait!
The 20-win group's RA was only a bit higher than you'd expect …
But their winning percentage was much, much too low!
18 wins: 3.54 RA, .652 19 wins: 3.54 RA, .655 20 wins: 3.62 RA, .615 How come? Run support.
Factor 4: run support
19 wins: 3.54 RA, .655, 4.45 RS 20 wins: 3.54 RA, .615, 4.05 RS 21 wins: 3.62 RA, .676, 4.46 RS Holy crap! After achieving their 20th win,
pitchers' batters let them down in their tries for 21
A huge 0.4 run per game shortfall!
Factor 4: run support There were 490 starts by pitchers with
exactly 20 wins 0.4 runs per game is 196 runs That's 20 wins! Maybe 15 of those wins
would have gone to the starter So 15 pitchers got "stuck" at 20 wins
instead of moving to 21 That's an extra 15 twenty-game
winners, and 15 fewer twenty-one-game winners.
Factor 5: more decisions Maybe when a pitcher is going for 20,
the manager will leave him in longer Looks like it! Wins per start, 17 to 22
wins: .484, .496, .521, .463, .505, .554 Suppose they should have been .505.
That's 11 extra wins. So we have an extra 11 twenty-game
winners, and 11 fewer nineteen-game winners.
Totalling it up
Starts Relief Clutch
Support
Decisions
Total
19 –10 +3 –11 –18
20 +10 +7 +4 +15 +11 +47
21 +6 –4 –15 –13
One last adjustment However: some of these pluses and minuses
need to "move up" a category Example: a manager gives his starter an extra
relief appearance; he wins his 20th. But five days later, he wins his 21st.
We think that should be a move between 19 and 20, but it really wound up as a move between 20 and 21
I'm arbitrarily going to adjust 19s: from –18 to –16 20s: from +47 to +37 21s: from –13 to -7
Final score
Final total: 19 game winners: –16 20 game winners: +37 21 game winners: –7
If we back all these effects out of the original data, there should be no more bulge at 20
Not perfect, but not bad
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
wins
freq
uenc
y
Summary By this estimate, there were 37 "extra"
20-game winners compared to expected. 10 because of extra starts in September 7 because of relief appearances in
September 3 because 20-game pitchers didn't pitch well
enough to get to 21 11 because 20-game pitchers got such bad
run support that they couldn't get to 21 6 because managers left the pitchers in
longer in hopes they'd get their 20th that day.
Summary
So is it because pitchers want it to happen?
No; it's mostly because managers want it to happen.
Broken down: +23 manager decisions; +3 pitchers pitching worse when already at
20; +11 run support luck.
Reference Bill James, "The Targeting
Phenomenon," The Bill James Gold Mine 2008, p. 67