Extra inning ramifications

by ilikeike on May 25, 2011 9:13 PM PDT

So the crazy frequency with which we've been playing extra innings has got me thinking. And the frustrating nature of tonights game thus far has given me time to work on this. So:

We've played 49 games so far (not including tonight). 12 of them have gone to extra innings.

This means that approximately 25% of our games are going into extras so far. If we keep it up at this pace (perhaps unlikely given the losses our rotation has suffered recently) we'll play approximately 39.5 extra inning games this year.

According to this post the mlb average from 1997 - 2011 is 8.34 % per year or 13.5 extra inning games per year. So at 39.5 we're well over the average.

So the question is, assuming we continue at this pace, how many actual extra innings will we play?

More after the jump...

According to this post this is the breakdown for extra inning games on average:

44.22 % of extra inning games will have 1 extra inning
25.06 % of extra inning games will have 2 extra innings
13.65 % of extra inning games will have 3 extra innings
7.44 % of extra inning games will have 4 extra innings
4.39 % of extra inning games will have 5 extra innings
2.33 % of extra inning games will have 6 extra innings
1.31 % of extra inning games will have 7 extra innings
.73 % of extra inning games will have 8 extra innings
.42 % of extra inning games will have 9 extra innings
.19 % of extra inning games will have 10 extra innings

For us this means:

(44.22 % of 39.5) 1 = 17.4669
(25.06 % of 39.5) 2 = 19.7974
(13.65 % of 39.5) 3 = 16.1753
(7.44 % of 39.5) 4 = 11.7552
(4.39 % of 39.5) 5 = 8.6702
(2.33 % of 39.5) 6 = 5.5221
(1.31 % of 39.5) 7 = 3.6222
(.73 % of 39.5) 8 =  2.3068
(.42 % of 39.5) 9 =  1.4931
(.19 % of 39.5) 10 =  .7505

This makes for a total of 87.5607, so we'll say 88 extra innings.

An average number of extra innings per year would look like this:

(44.22 % of 13.5) 1 = 5.967
(25.06 % of 13.5) 2 = 6.7662
(13.65 % of 13.5) 3 = 5.5283
(7.44 % of 13.5) 4 = 4.0176
(4.39 % of 13.5) 5 = 2.9632
(2.33 % of 13.5) 6 = 1.8873
(1.31 % of 13.5) 7 = 1.2380
(.73 % of 13.5) 8 =  .7884
(.42 % of 13.5) 9 =  .5103
(.19 % of 13.5) 10 =  .2565

This makes for a total of 29.9219, so we'll say 30 extra innings.

This means that, if they continue at their current pace, the A's will play 58 innings more than average this year.

For comparison, this is approximately the same number of innings pitched by Andrew Bailey and Brad Kilby(?) last year.

It's only a couple less than Brad Ziegler pitched last year.

This is cause for great concern. Where this probably matters most is in the bullpen which'll be handling these innings. We apparently need an entire additional reliever over the course of the season.

There are definitely other ramifications of all this extra baseball, (extra at bats for lower tier players, less rest on a somewhat regular basis) some probably more quantifiable than others. But just starting here in the bullpen, this seems pretty ominous to me…

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

which means 100 years from now we will have played 383,202, 200,110 games

and will probably be .500

I got nothin'

by OptimistPrime on May 25, 2011 10:43 PM PDT reply actions

And Barton will still have 0 home runs

NEED MOAR DINGERZ!

2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too

by elcroata on May 26, 2011 1:37 AM PDT up reply actions

plus or minus a game

by ilikeike on May 26, 2011 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions

Thanks for this.

This is actually really interesting.

by danmerqury on May 26, 2011 10:06 AM PDT reply actions

I agree.

It sort of reminds us yet again that we’re gonna need better bullpen management to get through this year.

by LoneStranger on May 26, 2011 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions

Hey cool!

by ilikeike on May 26, 2011 12:33 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

Thanks for the post

I was very aware of all the extra inning games, but I hadn’t thought that if we kept it up, we’d need a whole new pitcher worth of innings.

by RLangford on May 26, 2011 3:04 PM PDT reply actions

You're measuring the wrong thing.

Innings are just a grouping. What matters is total at-bats.

If our pitchers allow fewer men on base then they face fewer batters. Sure, adding an inning adds three or more plate appearance, but being a sucky pitching staff that gives up lots of hits adds even more.

For example, last Friday in the 2-1 extra-inning loss to the Giants the A’s pitchers faced 40 batters in 10 innings. Yesterday in the 4-1 loss to the Angels the A’s pitchers face 38 batters in 8 innings.

Think of the same thing in the other direction and the fallacy is more obvious. If we have more extra-inning games then our hitters should have more innings in which to pad all their counting stats, right? So our hitters can look forward to ending the season with more hits, HRs and RBIs than the Yankees, since they’ll have so many more innings in which to garner them.

Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.

by iglew on May 26, 2011 3:38 PM PDT reply actions

That's a good point

and I guess it’s true that it’d make more sense to talk about extra outs required of a pitcher and a defense than to talk about innings as such.

But it seems to me that the incremental nature of the game has relevance, too. The tenth inning is almost certainly going to be pitched by a reliever, and there’s a fair chance it’s a different one than pitched the ninth. Because of the do or die nature of extra innings, the better pitchers get used first. (well actually I have no idea, with Geren in charge, who pitches when. Whoever it is is probably the closer). And tomorrow they’ll be less effective because they were used today.

I guess I’m saying that I’d imagine these kind of at bats probably wear harder on a pitching staff than regular at bats do.

I wonder if this is testable?

by ilikeike on May 26, 2011 3:55 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions