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:


Dodgers 2021 Projected Pitching Performance


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

2021 Dodgers Projected Pitching

Through games of Sunday, 20 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 1.012)

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
Scott Alexander, actual: 45 43 7 1 0 1 11 1 0 0 1 0 385
Scott Alexander, projected: 46 40 10 1 0 1 14 4 0 0 0 0 556
Trevor Bauer, actual: 378 341 58 11 2 14 115 32 2 0 3 0 479
Trevor Bauer, projected: 383 340 78 17 2 11 132 34 1 2 5 0 646
Phil Bickford, actual: 43 37 8 3 0 0 11 5 0 0 1 0 442
Phil Bickford, projected: 44 35 10 3 0 1 15 4 0 1 3 0 1135
Walker Buehler, actual: 349 322 63 10 0 11 106 19 4 1 3 0 419
Walker Buehler, projected: 353 325 67 12 1 10 111 22 2 2 3 0 479
Andy Burns, actual: 6 6 3 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 3306
Andy Burns, projected: 6 6 3 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 3306
Garrett Cleavinger, actual: 39 33 9 0 0 2 15 5 0 1 0 0 1162
Garrett Cleavinger, projected: 39 34 10 0 0 3 18 5 0 1 0 0 1350
Tony Gonsolin, actual: 44 36 9 3 0 0 12 8 0 0 0 0 798
Tony Gonsolin, projected: 45 40 8 2 0 1 12 3 0 0 0 0 459
Victor Gonzalez, actual: 96 84 16 2 0 1 21 10 0 0 2 0 414
Victor Gonzalez, projected: 97 87 16 2 0 1 20 7 0 1 3 0 392
Brusdar Graterol, actual: 9 7 3 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 2903
Brusdar Graterol, projected: 9 8 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 275
Kenley Jansen, actual: 114 92 9 1 0 1 13 19 1 2 0 0 261
Kenley Jansen, projected: 115 105 19 3 0 3 31 8 0 1 1 0 431
Nate Jones, actual: 37 34 8 1 0 4 21 2 0 1 0 0 1051
Nate Jones, projected: 37 33 8 1 0 1 12 3 0 0 0 0 602
Joe Kelly, actual: 58 55 14 5 1 2 27 3 0 0 0 0 814
Joe Kelly, projected: 59 52 13 2 0 1 20 6 0 0 1 0 640
Clayton Kershaw, actual: 355 334 74 16 1 9 119 15 2 0 3 1 494
Clayton Kershaw, projected: 359 331 69 13 1 7 106 23 3 1 1 0 414
Mike Kickham, actual: 12 10 5 1 0 1 9 1 0 0 1 0 3301
Mike Kickham, projected: 12 11 4 1 0 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 1679
Corey Knebel, actual: 24 21 3 1 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 240
Corey Knebel, projected: 24 21 5 1 0 1 8 3 0 0 0 0 753
Dustin May, actual: 93 86 16 2 0 4 30 6 0 0 1 0 537
Dustin May, projected: 94 87 19 2 0 3 31 6 0 0 1 0 518
Jimmy Nelson, actual: 90 77 11 4 0 0 15 12 0 0 1 0 279
Jimmy Nelson, projected: 91 80 21 4 0 2 32 8 1 1 2 0 771
David Price, actual: 109 100 32 6 0 3 47 7 0 1 1 0 991
David Price, projected: 110 102 24 5 0 3 38 7 0 1 1 0 591
Dennis Santana, actual: 74 60 18 2 0 0 20 11 0 0 3 0 989
Dennis Santana, projected: 75 62 17 2 1 2 27 9 0 0 3 0 1030
Blake Treinen, actual: 117 106 24 2 0 3 35 9 0 0 2 0 606
Blake Treinen, projected: 118 106 25 4 0 2 35 11 0 1 1 0 567
Edwin Uceta, actual: 63 55 14 3 0 2 23 6 0 2 0 0 909
Edwin Uceta, projected: 64 56 14 3 0 2 23 6 0 2 0 0 875
Julio Urias, actual: 334 312 71 12 0 11 116 13 5 1 3 0 489
Julio Urias, projected: 338 305 71 12 1 7 107 26 3 1 3 0 547
Alex Vesia, actual: 48 35 4 1 0 3 14 11 0 1 1 0 807
Alex Vesia, projected: 49 36 7 1 0 4 19 12 0 1 1 0 1258
Mitch White, actual: 68 58 15 3 0 1 21 8 0 2 0 0 944
Mitch White, projected: 69 59 14 3 0 1 19 8 0 2 0 0 807
Dodgers, Actual: 2605 2344 494 92 4 74 816 208 14 12 26 1 546
Dodgers, Projected: 2636 2361 534 95 6 69 847 216 10 18 29 0 589
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: 0.211 0.226
Slugging Average: 0.348 0.359
Walks (per PA): 0.080 0.082
SOs (per PA): 0.273 0.258
On-Base Average: 0.281 0.297
Power Factor: 1.652 1.586
OPS: 0.629 0.656
TPP Runs (to date): 270 263

Runs differential:
Actual Runs 7 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 Monday, 21 June 2021, at 1:39 pm Pacific Time.