Owing to the screen size of your device, you may obtain a better viewing experience by rotating your device a quarter-turn (to get the so-called "panorama" screen view).
owlcroft logo
An Owlcroft Company web site
Click here to email us.

The Owlcroft Baseball-Analysis Site

Baseball team and player performance examined realistically and accurately.

Search this site, or just roll your cursor over the colored boxes below the pictures.

  Advertisement:


  Advertisement:


Tigers 2021 Projected Pitching Performance


All raw data supplied courtesy of Baseball-Reference.com.
They do a wonderful job, and deserve your support.

2021 Tigers Projected Pitching

Through games of Monday, 21 June 2021.
All results are from true, unadjusted data.

Explanation of the Table

The Table below shows two lines for each pitcher and for the team as a whole: Actual and Projected. The Actual lines are just what it says: the actual stats for this season to date; the Projected lines want a little explanation.

The projecting has two steps. The first is simple: for each man, we calculate the ratio of his current-season-to-date BFPs (Batters Faced Pitcher, the equivalent of Plate Appearances for batters) to his career BFPs, then multiply all his career stats by that ratio to get what one might call his “raw” career-performance data pro-rated to his current-year number of BFPs. So, as a hypothetical example, a man with 5,000 career BFPs and 250 BFPs this season would have a ratio of 250/5000, or .050; so, if he had yielded, say, 1215 career Hits, his raw projected Hits number for this season would be 1215 x .05, or 61 (if the calculated number is fractional, as with 60.75, we round it off to the nearest whole number).

That much is simple and, we hope, clear. The second adjustment takes a little explaining. It derives from the fact that—for a team or for an individual man—the number of BFPs that will be had for a given number of Outs made (which is to say “innings played”) depends exactly on the on-base percentage: the higher the on-base percentage, the more BFPs the man or team will see in any given number of innings.

To clarify: imagine a staff with a great .250 on-base percentage; that number means that, on average, one man in four that they see at the plate will get on safely. The converse of that is that three men in four will make out. (For simplicity’s sake in this elementary example, we ignore outs made on the bases.) So, in an average inning, the batters, to make the three outs that constitute an inning, will send 4 men to the plate. If we next imagine a staff with an equally absurd .500 on-base percentage, only half the batters it faces make an out: thus, to make the three outs that define an inning, the batters would have—again, on average—to send 6 men to the plate. So (as should be intuitively obvious anyway), for a given number of innings, a higher OBP means more PAs.

The consequence of that is that each man’s “raw”stat projections, which were based on his BFPs for this season, are slightly inaccurate, because his—and the team’s—BFPs would be different (perhaps higher, perhaps lower) from what they are if all the men were performing at their career rates. To correct for that, we calculate each man’s career "outs rate" (all Outs made per plate appearance, which does include outs made behind him on the bases) and multiply it by his percentage of the staff’s total BFPs; we then sum up those outs rates to get a projected team Outs rate, and from that—holding Outs made (which, again, is just innings played) constant—we can reckon the projected team BFP total. We can then adjust each projected stat line by the ratio of expected team BFPs to actual BFPs (which normally yields a number fairly close to, but not equalling,1.0), giving us the true projected stats for each man and for the team.

(For this season for this team’s pitching, the adjustment factor, rounded to three decimal places—the actual calculations use many more decimals— is 0.996)

Incidentally, that last adjustment is the reason that even rookies, whose whole “career” is just the current season, can have “adjusted” lines that differ slightly from their actual data lines, and why the TPP numbers here may differ slightly from those on other pages here.

You can see the overall “win-capability” of the team (its wins projected from these team numbers and the corresponding team batting numbers) at our “Projected Team-Performances” page.

The Table

Pitcher (alphabetical by last name) PA AB H 2B 3B HR TB BB SH SF HBP CI TPP
Tyler Alexander, actual: 136 129 36 6 0 7 63 6 0 1 0 0 869
Tyler Alexander, projected: 135 127 37 6 1 6 64 6 0 1 2 0 879
Matthew Boyd, actual: 298 269 66 13 1 6 99 19 1 3 6 0 633
Matthew Boyd, projected: 297 268 70 14 2 12 124 22 1 2 3 0 805
Beau Burrows, actual: 9 7 2 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 1219
Beau Burrows, projected: 9 8 2 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 1134
Harold Castro, actual: 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 14
Harold Castro, projected: 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 14
Jose Cisnero, actual: 131 117 26 6 0 3 41 11 1 1 1 0 565
Jose Cisnero, projected: 130 114 29 7 1 3 46 13 1 1 2 0 767
Buck Farmer, actual: 79 65 21 1 0 6 40 11 0 0 3 0 1617
Buck Farmer, projected: 79 68 18 4 1 3 32 8 0 1 1 0 964
Jason Foley, actual: 22 19 4 2 0 1 9 0 0 0 3 0 811
Jason Foley, projected: 22 19 4 2 0 1 9 0 0 0 3 0 811
Michael Fulmer, actual: 164 150 37 3 0 4 52 11 0 0 3 0 609
Michael Fulmer, projected: 163 148 37 7 0 4 58 11 1 1 2 0 618
Kyle Funkhouser, actual: 91 78 18 1 0 2 25 9 2 1 1 0 620
Kyle Funkhouser, projected: 91 77 21 2 1 3 32 11 1 1 1 0 936
Bryan Garcia, actual: 124 103 24 6 0 2 36 17 2 0 2 0 779
Bryan Garcia, projected: 124 105 25 5 0 1 35 16 1 0 1 0 644
Rony Garcia, actual: 12 10 1 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 455
Rony Garcia, projected: 12 11 3 1 0 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 893
Derek Holland, actual: 78 68 22 8 0 2 36 9 0 1 0 0 1419
Derek Holland, projected: 78 70 18 4 0 3 31 7 0 0 1 0 768
Joe Jimenez, actual: 72 52 11 3 0 2 20 17 0 0 3 0 1122
Joe Jimenez, projected: 72 63 16 4 0 3 28 7 0 0 2 0 863
Alex Lange, actual: 80 71 23 3 0 5 41 9 0 0 0 0 1402
Alex Lange, projected: 80 71 23 3 0 5 41 9 0 0 0 0 1402
Matt Manning, actual: 21 19 4 1 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 390
Matt Manning, projected: 21 19 4 1 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 390
Casey Mize, actual: 333 298 68 10 1 13 119 24 1 1 9 0 601
Casey Mize, projected: 332 294 69 11 1 14 124 26 1 1 10 0 706
Daniel Norris, actual: 116 102 31 7 0 4 50 12 0 0 2 0 917
Daniel Norris, projected: 116 104 28 6 1 4 47 9 0 1 1 0 846
Wily Peralta, actual: 29 26 7 2 0 2 15 3 0 0 0 0 1045
Wily Peralta, projected: 29 26 7 1 0 1 11 3 0 0 0 0 761
Jake Rogers, actual: 6 5 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 2041
Jake Rogers, projected: 6 5 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 2041
Tarik Skubal, actual: 291 256 65 15 0 16 128 31 1 1 2 0 913
Tarik Skubal, projected: 290 256 63 13 0 17 128 29 1 2 3 0 890
Gregory Soto, actual: 124 105 22 4 0 2 32 18 0 1 0 0 599
Gregory Soto, projected: 124 106 28 5 0 3 43 16 0 1 0 0 874
Julio Teheran, actual: 20 17 4 1 0 1 8 3 0 0 0 0 707
Julio Teheran, projected: 20 18 4 1 0 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 626
Spencer Turnbull, actual: 201 182 37 7 1 2 52 12 1 1 5 0 429
Spencer Turnbull, projected: 200 177 44 10 1 3 66 18 1 1 4 0 685
Jose Urena, actual: 294 261 74 19 2 7 118 30 0 1 2 0 895
Jose Urena, projected: 293 260 68 14 2 9 111 24 2 2 4 0 751
Tigers, Actual: 2738 2415 605 120 5 88 999 260 9 12 42 0 762
Tigers, Projected: 2730 2420 620 122 11 98 1056 243 10 15 40 0 793
Pitcher (alphabetical by last name) PA AB H 2B 3B HR TB BB SH SF HBP CI TPP


Assorted Team Stats:
Stat Actual Projected
Batting Average: 0.251 0.256
Slugging Average: 0.414 0.436
Walks (per PA): 0.095 0.089
SOs (per PA): 0.214 0.207
On-Base Average: 0.332 0.332
Power Factor: 1.651 1.703
OPS: 0.746 0.769
TPP Runs (to date): 354 349

Runs differential:
Actual Runs 5 greater than Projected Runs.





  Advertisement:


  Advertisement:



Want detailed, careful, unhysterical analysis of the effects of “Performance-Enhancing Drugs” in baseball? Click here to visit the Steroids & Baseball web site.

All content copyright © 2002 - 2021 by The Owlcroft Company.

This web page is strictly compliant with the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) Extensible HyperText Markup Language (XHTML) Protocol v1.0 (Transitional) and the W3C Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Protocol v3 — because we care about interoperability. Click on the logos below to test us!



This page was last modified on Tuesday, 22 June 2021, at 1:38 pm Pacific Time.