Oakland’s One-Hit Wonder
Something wacky happened in Tampa Bay on Wednesday night. When something wacky happens in baseball, @cantpredictball is usually on the case. I’ll let them (him? her?) begin the storytelling:
The A’s had one hit tonight. They won 3-2.
— YCPB (@cantpredictball) May 22, 2014
You don’t need me, or cantpredictball, to tell you that’s rare. According to the Baseball-Reference Play Index, teams that get one-hit have won just 62 baseball games in 100 years. That’s just the ninth time it’s happened in the last decade. Oakland had never done it in its 45-year tenure as a franchise.
What’s funny about the game, besides the Athletics being victorious with one hit, is that if you look at the win expectancy chart, you really can’t even tell when that hit came. Go ahead, see if you can tell:
Source: FanGraphs
In fact, let’s use that win expectancy chart to see just how this game unfolded. Follow along on the interactive chart, if you wish.
Tommy Milone took the mound for the Athletics. Erik Bedard got the start for the Rays. The game, as all do according to the win expectancy model, started out with each team having a 50% chance to win. Once Bedard struck Craig Gentry out looking to lead off the game, the Rays, obviously, became the slimmest of favorites. Bedard retired the Athletics in order and then Wil Myers led off the bottom of the first with a single for the Rays.
At this point the Rays’ win expectancy, in the first inning of a game in which they allowed one hit, was the highest it would ever reach at 58.1%. After Milone retired the next three batters and neither team had done any damage in the first, the win expectancy again became a break-even 50/50. The Athletics, then, were favorites for the next seven innings and went on to win, despite being no-hit until the fourth.
Here’s how the top of the second started off and what gave the Athletics their first edge in the ballgame:
Yunel Escobar has earned a reputation for, among other things, being one of the better defensive shortstops in baseball. This was already his eighth error of the season after committing just seven all of last year. The Rays television broadcasters mentioned that the Rays have been playing him deeper in the hole this season, and that he has struggled with this very throw, moving to his right and planting off his back foot. Whether or not there’s any evidence to support that, Escobar certainly struggled with it here and Yoenis Cespedes reached base to start the inning.
Bedard walked the next two batters to load the bases with no outs, bringing the Athletics win expectancy to 68% without a hit or a run. Alberto Callaspo struck out swinging for the first out of the inning, but then this happened to give the A’s the lead:
Sean Rodriguez has also earned a reputation as a pretty solid defender, but made a pretty costly mistake here. Josh Reddick was batting. Rodriguez had time to plant his feet and deliver a good throw to Escobar to turn an inning-ending double play. Instead, Rodriguez quickly turned and fired off his front foot while fading away and threw it into left field. Cespedes and Derek Norris each scored, and the Athletics took a 2-0 lead, increasing their probability of winning to 74.5%. The Athletics still did not have a hit. Rodriguez’s error was about a 14% swing.
The next batter, Nick Punto, actually did ground into a double play to end the inning, but the A’s already had their lead. The next inning, the Rays got a couple guys in scoring position with one out and looked like they were in a prime position to respond. But Josh Donaldson did at third base what the Rays defenders couldn’t up the middle:
Logan Forsythe smoked a ball down the third base line, but Josh Donaldson made a great snag and saved at least one, if not both runs, from scoring. Milone got the next batter to pop out and the Athletics escaped the inning without surrendering a run.
Nothing much to see in the next couple innings, until this happened in the top of the fourth:
If you’re only going to get one hit in a baseball game, it’s probably best if you can make that hit be a home run. Bedard badly missed his spot with a curveball, leaving it out over the middle of the plate and Brandon Moss hit his team-leading 10th home run of the season. Just like that, the no-hit A’s with a win expectancy of 72.4% became the one-hit A’s with a win expectancy of 81.8%.
Bedard went back to not allowing any hits for the Rays and Milone pitched well for the Athletics until he scuffled a bit in the sixth inning. RBI singles by Escobar and James Loney scored two for the Rays, and closed the deficit to 3-2. A couple innings later in the bottom of the eighth, something interesting happened. Loney and Matt Joyce each got one-out singles and David DeJesus walked to load the bases, the Rays still trailing 3-2. With the bases loaded and Escobar up to bat, the Rays actually retook the title of favorites in the game, with a 54% chance to win. A sacrifice fly would tie the game. A hit would probably give them the lead. Instead, this happened:
Again, the Athletics defense did what the Rays defense earlier could not and turned the inning-ending double play. It almost didn’t happen with that throw to first, but it did. This was the single biggest change in win expectancy throughout the game, as the Rays went from 54% favorites to 15% underdogs with the swing of a bat.
Sean Doolittle then came on to close things out for the A’s in the ninth and did so, earning his fourth save of the season.
The Rays defenders didn’t execute, the Athletics defenders did, Erik Bedard walked a few guys and Brandon Moss hit a dinger. Add it all up and that’s how the Oakland Athletics beat the Tampa Bay Rays by a final score of 3-2 while getting just one hit. You can’t predict baseball.
August used to cover the Indians for MLB and ohio.com, but now he's here and thinks writing these in the third person is weird. So you can reach me on Twitter @AugustFG_ or e-mail at august.fagerstrom@fangraphs.com.





I can’t help but wonder what Jed Lowrie’s line drive rate was during this game and how many of his hits did not drop.
I enjoyed the article and enjoy your style of writing, which may be generic but interesting to read. However, I don’t believe the topic was articulated enough to point out the one hit and the specific importance of the hit. I suggest some historical background of the hit and concentration rather than point out some (personally) uninteresting and unimportant parts of the game.
Historical background of the hit? Concentration? Unimportant parts of the game like run-scoring fielding debacles? Eh?
seriusly. the hit in itself didnt matter too much, just that it did happen only once
I don’t know what you’re talking about either.
what what what? so you’re saying that (a) he deserves a back-handed compliment; (b) you didn’t notice the Moss dinger gif (that was the hit, fyi); (c) and then… and then… I have no idea what the rest of your’e post says….
well put together
“The game, as all do, started out with each team having a 50% chance to win.”
The model begins with each team having a 50% chance to win. In reality, the chances are not actually even, and probably no game starts this way.
Thank you for your wonderful insight
Thank you for your sincere compliment.
I’m not sure about your hostility here, he’s pointing out a very important point that seemed to be skipped.
Yes, I should have put “according to the model.” Thought that could be assumed.
…I thought that could be assumed too!
August,
I don’t think that is a safe assumption at all, because the sentence, as written, is factually incorrect. This is the sort of thing that gets flagged straight away during peer review in science writing. The line between model and reality is extremely important and should not be blurred with imprecise language.
That said, I very much enjoyed the article. Thanks!
Yup, my mistake. Thanks for your feedback.
I agree with DNA about the imprecise language. Far too often, other fangraphs authors commit the same error.
Thanks to August for being open to constructive criticism and responding in a positive manner.
Christ… pedant much?
I always prefer “in accordance with The Prophecy,” but have it your way.
what has happened to these posts! this jackass (DNA+) nit-picks something that is technically correct but understood by all – and certainly understand by himself. He then backs the author (August) into a corner. He then feels good about what he did…
DNA+, I look forward to critiquing your writing someday! Also, when AS AN FYI… when they refer to WAR they are not ACTUALLY REFERRING TO WINS!!!! It’s just a model!!!
My writing is critiqued all the time by co-authors and by anonymous reviewers. Sometimes it is annoying, but it always improves the final product.
Ah come on DNA+ reviewer comments don’t ALWAYS make the final product better, do they?
“My writing is critiqued all the time by co-authors and by anonymous reviewers.”
Such hubris to fancy yourself a peer reviewer here.
I come here to read discussion about baseball, and debate about actual points made by the writers. The brazen folks who pounce on the authors, over minutiae, often startlingly fast, and as if there was any scenario in which they’ve been asked to, are my least favorite thing about the community here.
I don’t think the difference between model and reality is minutiae. I think it is a fundamental point that often gets lost here.
“I come here to read discussion about baseball, and debate about actual points made by the writers.”
Excellent. Me too. As part of this, I try to avoid making comments solely about other commenters.
Sorry, why wouldn’t every team have a theoretical chance of 50% to win? As far as I know every team is able to use the same amound of players and every team has to get the same amount of outs to end the game and every team has the same opportunities to score at the beginning. Most important thing: There is only a two way outcome, no remis is possible.
So at the beginning, either team has a chance of 50% to win the game.
If you want to point ou that one of the teams has proven to be the better team going into the game and therefore has a better chance of winning you are widening the sample size and aren’t looking at that specific game anymore but at a context rather larger than that of the game. To be more clear: Then, YOU are using a different model which does not suit the point the author was making: How rare it is in played games, just looking at every game itself, that the specific outcome of this game happens…
Home field advantage.
Of the 45 games where 1 hit was enough to win, how many games had the losing team score 2+ runs?
Well it was 67 times that this has happened. But the losing team in those affairs has scored more than one just seven times.
This game was only the 11th time in which the team with one hit scored three or more runs. Twice (including the Mariners last year) did the winning team score four runs on just one hit.
Maybe I don’t understand the rules correctly on this particular case, but if on that A’s DP (the last GIF) the man who had been on 3rd crosses the plate before the 1st baseman makes the tag on the batter/runner, doesn’t that run count? Or does that rule not apply to batter/runners before they have reached first?
No the run doesn’t count because the runner is forced at first. If, say, the play had gone to first base initially and removed the force play at second, then the run would count if the runner was tagged out after the runner from third had gotten home.
Well stated (and clears up the confusion that developed down below)
But he wasn’t forced out: it was a wide throw and the first baseman tagged him. I know it doesn’t count on a force out, but since the first baseman tagged him I don’t understand why it didn’t count (assuming he crossed homeplate earlier than the tag, which it seems like he probably did).
How the out is recorded for a forced runner makes no difference (i.e. whether he is tagged out or whether the ball beats him to the bag). The pertinent point is that the runner is forced to go to first base. He has no option of retreating to the prior base.
I think the force/tag is only irrelevant for the batter-runner. I could be wrong, but the way I read the rules if there was a scenario where:
1. runners on 1B and 3B
2. ground ball to 2nd baseman
3. batter-runner and runner on 3B reach/advance their bases
4. runner from 1B is tagged out subsequent to #3 above
I think this would result in a run… But I am quite sure that there are precedents and other subtleties that I am missing…
Doesn’t count because the batter didn’t reach base. In the instance with Reynolds, he was already credited with a single as he was on base, all the other moving parts were still happening.
The batter not reaching base is irrelevant. Force or tag out is the determining factor.
He was tagged out. Forced or not forced is the determining factor.
As Jon stated, the third out was a tag out. I looked at the rules, and my previous statement was incorrect. Jon is correct, force (which includes some tag outs) or not forced is the determining factor.
Rule 4.09(a) from the official rules basically states that the batter-runner has to reach 1st base safely – notice the exception (1) doesn’t specify force or tag.
4.09 HOW A TEAM SCORES.
(a) One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first,
second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning.
EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a
play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches first
base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by a preceding runner who is
declared out because he failed to touch one of the bases.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2014/official_baseball_rules.pdf
Thanks for the clarification – guess I should have just looked up the rulebook myself!
I remember watching Andy Hawkins pitch a no hitter and lose 4-0 back in the early ’90’s when the Yankees were really awful. I think MLB officially took away the no-hitter after the fact, as well.
I believe the no-hitter was taken away because he was the away pitcher, so the home team did not come out in the bottom of the 9th.
Yes, that is correct. He only got to pitch 8 innings.
That seems odd. Don’t losing pitchers that go all 8 innings in an away game still get a complete game?
Teams with one hit all time are 68-1310 including this one.
So, about even with the latter-day Red Sox.
Obviously the way to look at it is that teams with good, old-school veterans who really bear down and pitch to the score while concentrating on clutch, situational hitting are 68-0. #grit.
#TWTW
I’m sort of amazed that teams that are 1-hit win nearly 5% of the time. That’s much higher than I would have guessed.
seconded
Where does the Andy Hawkins 0-hit, 4-0 loss for the Yankees fit into something like this. Now THAT was impressive.
Matt Young also lost a no-hitter, though that was only 2-1.
And of course there’s Harvey Haddix, who would’ve lost a one-hitter 3-0 in the thirteenth if Joe Adcock hadn’t passed Hank Aaron on the bases.
Great article. A’s franchise has been around for a lot longer than 45 years though. I don’t get why it’s important to denote when they moved from Kansas City to Oakland.
Because it happened when they were in Kansas City but its the first time its happened since coming to Oakland. Just thought it was a thing worth noting.