Angels celebrate following Weaver's no-hitter / PRESSWIRE
Jered Weaver threw the 10th regular-season no-hitter since in the majors since 2010 last night, defined as team pitching performances of at least 9 innings with zero hits allowed. Are no-hitters becoming much more common? Is pitching becoming much more dominant? Click through for some analysis.
There have now been 184 no-hitters dating back to the 1918 season. Note that this figure doesn’t include Roy Halladay‘s NLDS no-hitter or Don Larsen‘s World Series perfect game.
Since the beginning of the 2010 season, there have been 10,448 starts by pitchers and 10 have resulted in no-hitters. That’s a rate of about 1 every 1,045 starts.
From 1918 to 2009, there were 307,008 starts by pitchers and 174 no-hitters. That’s a rate of 1 every 1,764 starts.
So, yes, it seems that no-hitters have been more common in the last few years. However, there are two things to keep in mind:
1) Ten games is still a very small sample size. With a few bloop hits, that number could have been just 7 no-hitters, and the rate would have been 1 no-hitter every 1,493 starts, which is not too different from the historical rate. Something that depends so heavily on a few bloop hits in unlikely to be much more than random chance.
2) The rate of no-hitters should be tied at least somewhat to the overall rate of hitting in the majors. In a low-hitting environment, no-hitters are probably slightly more likely to occur, although they are still so rare as to be quite subject to random fluctuation. Hits per game over 2010-2012 is about 8.7, a much lower figure than during the steroids era when it hovered around 9.2 per game. The last time hits/game was so low was in 1988-1989, but over those two seasons the only no-hitter thrown was Tom Browning‘s perfect game. From 1963 to 1972, though, H/G was below 8.63 every season (and as low as 7.9 in 1968), and there were a whopping 35 no-hitters over than 10-year span. Those came in 34,830 pitching starts, or 1 no-hitter every 995 starts, even more common than what we’re seeing today.
Conclusion? Yes, no-hitters are more common these days, but it’s only because the hit rate is lower than it has been in recent years, and what we’re seeing is consistent with baseball history.
When you said “tenth regular season no-hitter,” do you mean in Angels history?
Or rather since 2010?
Yeah since 2010. Forgot that initially.
The rate of strikeouts in the majors has increased every seasons since 2005 and this season is running about 15% higher than the full season rate in 2005. More Ks means fewer balls in play that have a chance to fall in for hits, ergo a higher likelihood of no-nos.
ESPN.com has a couple of polls tied to Weaver’s no-no. I think the voting thus far reflects just how much the typical fan doesn’t get:
“Which is more surprising?”
26% — A no-hitter and a perfect game already occurring this year
74% — Albert Pujols still homerless
Do they really not know how rare a perfect game is? — let alone having another no-no this early? Or that Albert had a 26-game homerless streak JUST LAST YEAR, and has had 3 others of 20+ games in his career?
I think intelligent sports fans avoid ESPN’s horrible website, thus skewing the figures.
there have been 5 perfect games since pujols started his career. it’s understandable, then, that people are more surprised to see a homerless streak this long
You could just come out and say, “John, you ignorant slut!”
If the question was worded a little differently I probably would vote for Pujols too:
“Which is more surprising, that there has been a no-hitter and perfect game before Mother’s Day or that Albert Pujols is making 2011 Adam Dunn look like (any other year) Adam Dunn?”
BTW, Andy … I thought that punny headlines were MY department! 🙂
Don’t you have trademark infringement issues with the Elmer Fudd people? beWeave? Wascally Wighthander?
I am beweft of witty retorts.
Surely you meant “wetowts”.
How can you guys leave “What’s up Doc?” Halladay out of this discussion?
One of the Baseball Tonight analysts said that it might be a result of no more PEDs, so the players are more tired than they used to be.
The word “analyst” should not be used with anyone appearing on Baseball Tonight, especially John Kruk.
I think Orel Hershiser, Chris Singleton and especially Doug Glanville are pretty good on ESPN BBT (also Tim Kirjian as an “Insider”); the rest don’t bother me anywhere as much as they seem to bother you.
The one ESPN baseball person I have little use for is Rick Sutcliffe, it’s an un-ending flow of cliches and truisms from him.
Yesterday was an amazing day, what with the three walk-off HRs (Rockies/ Nationals/ Braves) AND a no-hitter – it’s hard to mess that up.
MikeD is right. Casual fans like names they know, so former ballplayers and managers get the jobs. However, being a good or great baseball player doesn’t mean the garbage that comes out of your mouth is ‘analysis’.
I only give PEDs about half the credit for the increase in homers, and testing for them half the credit for the decrease. Like every sport, baseball evolves, and the history of baseball shows us that pitchers and hitters adapt to high or low offense eras (along with the occasional rule change to facilitate the end of a particular era). Baseball was one of the slowest to PEDs of the major sports but it was also by far the slowest to increasing muscle mass of all the sports. Lifting and getting big was coming to baseball regardless of PED use; players today look like their steroids-era counterparts rather than the very average-looking and often not very athletic-looking dudes of yesteryear. So guys are still swinging for the fences, strikeouts are still on the rise, and I think that pitchers have adapted and wrested away a bit more of the edge hitters had in addition to the edge testing removed. After all, if it was all PEDs, offensive levels should’ve plummeted faster, I think (although I am aware that some pitchers used PEDs as well).
As Andy noted in his post, offense is down and that makes no-hitters more common. But I think it’s erroneous to attribute offense going down entirely to PED use. Dare I say had we legalized PEDs, the high offense of the PED era surely still wouldn’t have had even 50% more life to its length.
I only give PEDs about half the credit for the increase in OFFENSE*
On a tangent … Any no-no is surprising, but if Weaver was ever going to get one, the odds are it would be as it was, (a) early in the year and (b) at home.
Weaver’s career splits to date:
– First half: 53-25, 2.88, .222 BA
– Second half: 33-22, 3.70, .250 BA
– Home: 45-18, 2.59, .224 BA
– Away: 41-29, 3.90, .246 BA
It’s interesting that the Angels also have Dan Haren, who also has been markedly better in the 1st half (3.20/4.05 ERA, .234/.270 BA).
That’s great. So when do the Mets finally get around to throwing a no-hitter. What are the odds of going 7900+ games without one if a no-hitter happens every 1764 games? Does this make the Mets ~4.5 times more randomly unlucky than any other team? Damn you Jimmy Qualls! Damn you!!!
(Sorry, we Mets fans become increasingly irrational when it comes to this subject…)
I believe the Mets will forever have to deal with the Curse of the Franchise, or the Curse of Tom Terrific, as the baseball gods will punish the Mets for M. Donald Grant trading away Tom Seaver, a move that still annoys me to this day. It’s a more mild form of the Curse of the Bambino!
Not only that, but after the Mets got Seaver back from the Reds in 1983, the White Sox in 1984 chose him from the Mets roster as a free agent compensation pick. They had him and lost him, again!
True, He could have at least been on the Mets for his 300th Win.
Then he could have spent his final days as a ball player (1986) NOT pitching in the playoffs for the Mets instead of NOT pitching in the playoffs for the Red Sox.
Well if we assume that the likelihood of a particular game not being a no-hitter is 99.9433% (that’s 1763/1764), then the probability of that happening 7,900 times in a row is .999433 taken to the 7900th power, which comes out to about 1.1%. So the probability that the Mets would have gone 7,900 games without a no-no, given an average of 1 no-no every 1764 games, was about 1 in 90. That means it has been an unlikely thing to happen but by no means ridiculously improbable.
This is assuming every pitcher is league-average at allowing hits? However, the Mets have had a number of pitchers who were _considerable_ better than that, such as Seaver, Koosman, Gooden, Cone, Santana, and the stingiest pitcher in MLB history for giving up hits, Nolan Ryan (6.55 hits/9 innings).
Yes I simply used Andy’s overall average for the calculation, and although the fact that the Mets have had some great, low-hit pitchers is certainly relevant, I suspect that the overall odds would not be enormously different based on that. Some of the benefit is probably offset by the extremely poor pitching the Mets had in their earliest days. Also note that Nolan Ryan only started 74 games for the Mets, and his control was bad enough in those days that he seldom pitched deep into games, averaging less than 6 and a third IP per start with the Mets (compared to over 7 and a third per start in the next eleven seasons after he left the Mets).
The walk to Willingham in the 7th prevented us from seeing the first near-perfect game spoiled only by a batter reaching on K-PB.
I did a post on some interesting perfect games last year: http://stealofhome.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/interesting-perfect-or-near-perfect-games/
Prior to Weaver’s, the Angels had 8 no-hitters in 7 different seasons — and never made the playoffs in any of those years.
Yes with a few bloop hits, it could’ve been 7 no hitters, but with a correct call at first base, it should’ve been 11.
It’s no surprise that no-hitters are more common right now. Players strike out more now than they ever did before. You can’t get a fluke blooper or nubber when you strike out.
There were 2 foul balls from yesterday’s game that were very close to being hits. I know one of them the batter subsequently fouled out (in the 8th), but I’m not sure what happened in the other at bat – I think it was in the 5th and the batter may have struck out. My point is that foul balls are hit during the course of many strikeouts that may only be separated from hits by the same arbitrariness that separates outs from hits on fair balls and we ignore foul balls at the peril of our own ignorance.
Evan could you clarify?
“My point is that foul balls are hit during the course of many strikeouts that may only be separated from hits by the same arbitrariness that separates outs from hits on fair balls and we ignore foul balls at the peril of our own ignorance.”
I got a little lost at what you were trying to say with that part of your post, in the context of no-hitters.
Are you saying that no-hitters are inordinately dependent on luck and the human element? And what is the arbitrariness that separates outs from hits on fair balls? An umpire’s judgement at first base? A checked-swing infield single or bloop pop fly?
Not being critical, I hope, just seeking clarification.
2 walk off hr’s were hit yesterday by players over the age of 40. I bet that’s probably a first in mlb history.
It is the first time, Jimbo; I was just about to post that in the chat room as I heard it while watching Braves-Phillies on DVR not 60 seconds ago.
It’s funny, I remember just a few years ago, many observers were concerned because there was such a long gap in between no-hitters – two or three seasons, if I remember correctly, or something close to that. It can be so easy to get caught up in the “OMG, THIS IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN!” feeling of the moment.
Joe Blanton: 3-hit shutout (all singles), no walks, 88 pitches, 67 strikes, tied his career high with an 87 game score.
Beweave dat!
Blanton’s game was also the second “Maddux” of the year!
http://groundballwitheyes.blogspot.com/2012/04/maddux.html
If you haven’t chosen a namesake for the anti-Maddux, may I suggest Ollie? Twenty-two of his 195 career starts — one in nine — lasted no more than 5 IP but still had 100+ pitches.
Ha! Scott Kazmir and Jonathan Sanchez are also fine candidates, but Perez may take the cake.