Say what you will about the Mariners over the years, but at least they’ve thrown the American League’s last three no-hitters. And, say what you will about the significance of a no-hitter, but they’re undeniably exciting and cool, sometimes little oases of elation in a year that’s otherwise lost. You don’t need to overthink it. People like no-hitters. People like them because they’re neat. Hisashi Iwakuma just threw one, Wednesday afternoon in Seattle against the Orioles. The Orioles can hit pretty well!
It wasn’t the biggest surprise in the world, because Iwakuma has a history of being pretty good. It still qualified as a legitimate surprise, because Iwakuma had never before completed a major-league game, and this year he hasn’t entirely been himself. Much like Robinson Cano, it appears that Iwakuma has only righted himself too late to save the Mariners’ season. The best to hope for now is the occasional cool moment, and Iwakuma delivered as much as he could.
This article was originally developed as an oral presentation given by the author to the Society for American Baseball Research at their SABR 45 Convention in Chicago on June 27, 2015. The presentation, which featured the innovative use of video, audio and transitional animation embedded within a PowerPoint deck, was awarded the annual Doug Pappas Research Award as the best of the 32 oral presentations made during the convention that weekend.
This article has been repurposed from that deck. Since the Retrosheet play-by-play data on which this study was predicated were updated just days before the original presentation, all the data provided during the oral presentation have been updated for this article.
In yesterday’s installment of Little League Home Runs in MLB History, we reviewed the proposed definition of the Little League home run and found both the earliest recorded incidence of the event, and the earliest use of the term. In today’s post, we’ll examine some of the numbers and oddities surrounding historical Little League home runs.
But first, let’s enjoy another highly entertaining Little League home run (LLHR), coincidentally by the same guy who made the second error on the Cabrera LLHR we saw in Part I:
The fans in Milwaukee didn’t sound too happy to see that, did they? And Wilin Rosario really looked a little worse for the experience, didn’t he? He should probably consider hitting the treadmill more…
Little League Home Runs: Data and Oddities
In any event: out of the 148,390 games available to us to query on through the end of the 2014 season, we discovered, according to our simple definition, a total of 258 Little League home runs in Major League history, which works out to about 1.74 Little League home runs per 1,000 MLB games. So if we were to look just at the historical average outright, that would mean that in a typical modern season of some 2,460 or so games, including All-Star Game and the postseason, it should work out to a little more than four Little League home runs per season, on average. But there’s more to it than just that, as we’ll see shortly.
Of the 258 Little League home runs in total, 253 of them occurred during the regular season. Four occurred during postseason play, including that earliest known one from the 1911 World Series that we shared with you yesterday; and also one that occurred during the 1919 World Series. OK, now, I know what you must be thinking, but counterintuitively, that LLHR was not given up by the cheatin’ Black Sox in order to satisfy their gambler patrons, but instead by the Reds during Game Two of the Series. The batter, Ray Schalk, came around to score on a single to right and two Reds throwing errors, one by the right fielder to second and another by the third baseman to home in a futile attempt to nail Schalk at the plate. (And I’m sure Schalk received a rousing reception in the dugout from his Black Sox teammates once he arrived there, amirite?)
And then there’s the one Little League home run that occurred during an All-Star Game, hit by Leo Durocher in 1938, involved a couple of other Hall of Famers, and was called by WGN Radio’s Bob Elson, who was broadcasting the game throughout the Mutual Network that day:
Pretty exciting stuff, huh? That’s the earliest broadcast of a Little League Home Run I could manage to locate, and I’m fairly certain that’s the earliest radio clip of any Little League home run that’s available. But you’re the crowd, so I invite you to source an earlier example than this if you can, so we can acknowledge its existence.
Let’s take a look at a few stats and oddities in the history of the Little League Home Run. Broken down by how many were hit in how many seasons, here are how the numbers look:
But it actually gets more interesting when you step back and look at the forest a bit, instead of staring at a succession of trees. If you break it down by era, you can definitely a pattern at work:
You see a really high rate of Little League home run incidence taking place before 1929, which may or may not be an anomaly. But either way, there is a definite trend of Little League home runs diminishing over time, which you can tell because I asked Excel to add a trendline to the data, and there it is, in bright red dots below, and since Excel is pretty good at math, I will trust that it’s accurate:
The main takeaway here is that, even though there looks like a lot of up and down between eras, the highs and the lows are both going lower over time, and in fact the five-year period we just concluded saw the lowest rate ever for Little League home runs.
My theory about this drop in number is that, quite straight, players play better defense today overall than they ever have in history. Fielding is simply better. Yes, you could talk about, “Well, nobody playing today is as good a defender as Willie Mays was”, and OK, that’s fine, I’ll give you that one for the sake of moving the discussion along. But even so, that’s only one guy. I’m talking about defense overall.
What can’t be disputed is that there are many fewer errors per game today than there were a few decades or a century ago, and whether that’s because of better instruction today’s players received starting with — ironically — Little League, or because of better equipment, better gloves, better fields, or even that official scorers aren’t handing out errors on questionable fielding plays like they used to — whatever the reason is, the overall trend in baseball towards fewer errors is also reflected in the declining incidence of Little League home runs over the years.
Here’s an analysis across time by month of year:
This basically shows flatness across months, except that March-April looks unnaturally low and I’m not sure why. The number is roughly a third of any other month, and even taking into account a higher percentage of off days and weather postponements, I don’t believe there are only about a third the games played in the season’s first month versus the other months. I’m not even sure it’s a fluke. Maybe there’s something going on there? Thoughts, anyone?
By inning might make a little more sense:
You can see that the 3rd through 7th innings have the highest numbers of incidence, and then you start to see fewer from the 8th inning on. This might be because teams become more conservative, perhaps especially when they have small leads to protect or small deficits to overcome, so maybe there’s more putting the ball in their pockets. In the ninth and beyond, of course, teams tend to play even more conservatively. We see fewer Little League home runs in the 9th and extra innings combined than in the 8th inning alone, and that makes intuitive sense.
Little League home runs started by play type strikes me as interesting:
I didn’t expect to see singles making up more than half of all Little League home runs, and doubles almost a quarter. I would have bet money I would see Little League home runs started by infield errors composing a much bigger portion of the total, maybe even more than half overall.
But when I looked closer at the Retrosheet event descriptions, more than a third of those 134 singles were specified as starting on infield hits. So there apparently have been more infield Little League home runs than it might look like at first glance, and in my opinion, the infield Little League home run is definitely the purest form of the art.
Note that of Little League home runs started by infielder errors, the most were by pitchers with 16, and then by third basemen with 12. But out of the 148,390 games available to query on, only one started on a catcher error! Isn’t that wild? You’d think a lot more errant throws by catchers on bunts or dribblers in front of the plate would end up deep down the right field line, sending the batter-runner to third easily and leading to more overthrows of third that would send him home, wouldn’t you? But no…
One last thing about that table: you must be asking yourself, “How the hell can anyone hit a Little League home run on a walk?” Yes, it is absolutely as crazy as it sounds. This one was uncovered just this year with the mid-season update of the Retrosheet play-by-play archives, and occurred with the Yankees’ Lou Gehrig at bat in the fifth inning of the first game of a doubleheader against the White Sox on July 14, 1930. An account of that play shows up in the Retrosheet play-by-play for the game thusly:
Gehrig walked [Lazzeri scored (error by Mulleavy) (error by Tate) (unearned) (no RBI), Gehrig scored (unearned) (no RBI)]; the White Sox argued about the walk; Greg Mulleavy flipped the ball to the mound; Bennie Tate picked up the ball and threw it away
Isn’t that play nuts? More to the point, how can this play be called a Little League home run, even satisfying the definitional requirements of two errors and the batter scoring on the play? That’s a discussion we can take on in (spoiler alert) the third and final post of this series, going up tomorrow.
Here are Little League home run totals by franchises hitting them:
…and by franchises giving them up:
The thing to note here is that, obviously, practically all the top franchises on both lists are “Original 16” franchises (denoted in blue). The top expansion team on the Hit It list is the Astros, and then the Angels and Mets, all welcomed to the big leagues in the early 60’s. The top expansion franchises on the Gave It Up side are the Brewers-parentheses-Pilots, circa 1969, and, again, the Mets (1962) and Padres (1969).
You will note that Arizona has never hit one, and Tampa Bay has yet to give one up, and each have a “2” on the other side of their ledger. Both are 1998 teams.
But because these lists are biased towards the Original 16 and other clubs who have been in the majors longer, a better list for comparison might be one that shows Little League home runs per 1,000 games played by each club, which is what these tables, ranked by rate per 1,000 games from highest to lowest, do:
When you closely examine the rates by team, you start to see more expansion franchises float toward the top. But I do find interesting that even when analyzing rate per 1,000 games, Original 16 teams are still better represented than mere chance would dictate. Here’s what I mean: original 16 teams make up a little more than half of all teams — actually, 53%. But six of the top seven clubs which have Hit It, by rate, are Original 16s, and that’s 86%; and ten of the top 12, or 83%, which gave it up are Original 16s.
This, I believe, is directly related to the chart we saw earlier showing that rates of Little League home run were way higher in the early eras of the game, since the Original 16s were the clubs that were around when those rates were so much higher.
Home teams appear to have a minor advantage in hitting the Little League home run, the inexplicability of which is augmented by the realization that they don’t have to hit in their half of the ninth inning in about 45% of games:
Size of foul ground available might be a contributing factor to higher rates of Little League home runs. The Ballpark Database at Seamheads.com allows us to download a zip file that includes a spreadsheet indicating, by ballpark/by year, whether the amount of foul territory in a given “ballpark year” is large, neutral or small (L, N, S) or, for modern parks, how much foul territory it has in thousands of square feet (ranging from 40.700 at the various iterations of O.co Stadium, down to 18,100 at Fenway Park). While the inexactitude of the L/N/S scale renders this a less than an airtight analysis, the results are still logically directional:
This table indicates that, among ballparks characterized by descriptive nomenclature for foul ground size, large (+8.3% more versus average) and neutral (+12.8%) are more likely to experience Little League home runs, making up 76% of total incidents, with small parks (-22.3%) far less likely to see such plays. However, among the 63 incidents occurring in ballparks which report their foul ground territory in numbers, the typical Little League home run occurred in parks with roughly 2% less foul ground than average. Twelve Little League home runs occurred in ballparks without any available data.
Here’s a neat little oddity I came across, which I can’t really explain:
National League teams have hit far more, and have given up even more far more (if that’s a thing), than American League teams. NL teams hit +35% more and gave up +41% more than AL teams. Really odd, right?
But this table is even better, I think:
When you break it down by era, you see that in the vast majority of eras, the NL gave up more, and sometimes a lotta lot more, than the AL, right up to the last two periods combined in which NL teams gave up 15 total and the AL gave up just six. So if we initially thought the DH thing might have had anything to do with the difference in Little League home run rates between the leagues, we’d apparently be wrong.
There might be some other non-performance reasons why this difference should exist — harsher official scorers in the NL? Bigger ballparks in square footage in the NL overall? I don’t know — but what is clear is that this is a persistent thing.
The record for the player with the most career Little League home runs — how many would you think that would be? Would you think that it’s two? Or maybe three? How about four or more? When I made this presentation and asked the audience to guess, about half thought it was four or more, and the other half was split between two and three.
Well, the answer is: two. And these are the sixteen players with two:
You will notice some pretty good base stealers here: all of them except one have at least 65 career steals. (If you can tell right away without looking which one it is, then you’re really good.) This kind of suggests that you have to have a somewhat long career to get two, although Tony Fernandez got his two Little League home runs on back-to-back days against the Tigers in 1988. By contrast, Jim Gilliam’s twotimes came ten years apart from one another.
And tied for second in career Little League home runs, with one, is 226 other guys.
The last piece of trivia — as if this entire subject weren’t trivial enough already — is this: out of the 258 Little League home runs found in major league history so far, only six of them came on three errors. All the rest came on two.
And here are those six:
You might be asking yourself, exactly what does a three-error play look like? Let’s take a quick look at the earliest one on the list, which was hit by the exquisitely unibrowed Cardinals rookie Wally Moon in 1954. With a runner on third, Moon hit a grounder to the second baseman who exercised his fielder’s choice by trying to nail the runner advancing to the plate, but instead threw wildly past the catcher for the first error; Moon then tried to advance to second, drawing the throw from the catcher who instead heaved it into center for the second error; Moon then chugged around third toward home as the center fielder picked up the ball and threw wildly past the plate to allow Moon to score. And that’s one way in which you can commit three errors on a play.
My favorite three-error Little League home run, though, is by Jeff Leonard in 1988, the only such play during which all three errors were committed by one player: Tommy John.
Yes, they could give him three errors on the play! And they did! And thank God for that, because that helped me for this article.
In the next and last installment, we will contemplate the current proposed definition of the Little League home run and discuss whether it should be reconsidered, and if so, how.
This article was originally developed as an oral presentation given by the author to the Society for American Baseball Research at their SABR 45 Convention in Chicago on June 27, 2015. The presentation, which featured the innovative use of video, audio and transitional animation embedded within a PowerPoint deck, was awarded the annual Doug Pappas Research Award as the best of the 32 oral presentations made during the convention that weekend.
This article has been repurposed from that deck. Since the Retrosheet play-by-play data on which this study was predicated were updated just days before the original presentation, all the data provided during the oral presentation have been updated for this article.
Let’s start off this article the way I started off my presentation to SABR: with a quick poll. And you might as well be honest, now, because otherwise you’re just bullshitting yourself, and that would just be pathetic.
How many of you played Little League when you were a kid? Hands up, please. OK… keep them up. Now:
How many of you ever hit a home run in a Little League game? If you did, keep your hands up. OK… now, finally:
How many of you hit an actual home run clear over the outfielders’ heads and were able to trot all the way around the bases in a Little League game?
Not so many of you, right? Only the very best players on any given Little League team ever hit that kind of home run. If you’re like me, and like most Little Leaguers, if you ever hit a home run in Little League, this is what it probably looked like this:
As we head into mid-August, there are roughly 50 games left for each team on the schedule, and we’re reaching the point of the season where we can begin to cull the list of potential candidates for the three major awards. So, today, let’s take a look at the legitimate MVP candidates in both leagues, and handicap how this might play out over the next six weeks.
Just before the trade deadline, the Braves, Marlins, and Dodgers struck a big deal, at least in terms of quantity of players and money being moved around; 13 players changed uniforms, and when the dust settled, the Dodgers came away with a trio of pitchers to upgrade their staff: starters Alex Wood and Mat Latos, along with reliever Jim Johnson. While they had been a heavily-rumored destination for frontline pitchers like David Price, Johnny Cueto, and Cole Hamels, the Dodgers ultimately decided to with depth over star power, adding multiple good arms rather than one great one.
Of course, a large driver of that decision was the relative cost, as they could acquire these kinds of pitchers without surrendering any of their best young talents, and they’ll also control Wood’s rights through the 2019 season; he won’t even be eligible for arbitration until after next year, so he’s going to make something close to the league minimum next year. So, while no one thinks Wood is on David Price’s level as a pitcher, he offered a better value when future years of control and financial obligations are factored in.
But choosing Wood and Latos over one better pitcher wasn’t just about getting a cheaper pitcher, or even just about getting a guy they could control for multiple years. In Alex Wood, the Dodgers were attempting to buy low on an asset with significant upside, which is exactly the kind of move that they’ve been making ever since Andrew Friedman and Farhan Zaidi took over the baseball operations department last winter.
If you want to know why the Braves were willing to trade a 24 year old pitcher with four years of control remaining after this season, you can essentially sum up their reasoning in one easy table.
The first inning of a debut is a sweaty time. Just look at Henry Owens as he stepped to the mound for the first time in the big leagues this past week. Your heart strains for him — not only in sympathy, but also because it’s just so obvious that his blood is racing through his veins and his vision is blurry. You can almost feel it just watching him.
You can see plainly that that the major league debut was full of butterflies for Owens. And so it was for Luis Severino. Just in a different way than most.
Why yes: performance. If you want to argue that Carlos Correa is already baseball’s best shortstop, you can simply point to his performance, and to the performances of the other shortstops. What could be easier? Correa, of course, hasn’t played a full 2015 season, but he has batted a couple hundred times, so let’s look at the numbers and keep them all above a common, 600-plate-appearance denominator. Do that and Correa comes out as a top-10 position player. The closest shortstop, by WAR, is Brandon Crawford, who trails by just about two wins. Whatever you think of the error bars in WAR, two wins per 600 plate appearances is a big margin. The argument, in other words, has decent support.
Why no: projections. Statistics reflect talent, but they can also mislead. It can be better to refer to the projections, as they can be a decent proxy for current estimated true talent. Projections don’t suffer from recency bias. They don’t suffer from hype, and they don’t suffer from any sort of overreactions. Looking at the shortstop depth-chart projections, and putting WAR over 600 plate appearances, Correa is basically tied with Crawford and Jhonny Peralta, a win behind Troy Tulowitzki. Some months ago, Tulowitzki was the unquestioned best shortstop in baseball. How much should we really reconsider, after part of one season?
If you choose to believe Tulowitzki remains the best shortstop, that’s fine. It’s totally justifiable, and Correa still doesn’t have an extended track record. Could have a slump just ahead of him. Could be a bad one. But as absurd as it might sound, Correa really does have an argument of his own. He’s been that good to date, and if you don’t believe he’s better than Tulowitzki yet, it seems only a matter of time until the trend lines intersect. One of them turns 31 in two months. One of them can finally buy his own drink in a month and a half.
The Yankees rotation is looking rather thin these days. After losing Michael Pineda to a forearm injury, the team was left with a gaping hole in their rotation behind Masahiro Tanaka, Nathan Eovaldi, Ivan Nova and CC Sabathia. Even before Pineda’s injury, the team already had a hole at the back of their rotation in Sabathia, whose days as a productive pitcher appear to be well behind him. Overall, that’s an underwhelming rotation for team that’s likely headed to the playoffs.
Somewhat curiously, the Yankees didn’t acquire any rotation help at the trade deadline. Even more curiously, it doesn’t seem like they made much of an effort to do so. Instead, they seemed more interested in fortifying the back of their bullpen, which is already one of the best in baseball.
The imminent arrival of top prospect Luis Severino may have been the primary reason for the Yankees’ inaction. Minutes after the non-waiver trade deadline had passed, Brian Cashman revealed the 21-year-old’s next start would be in the big leagues. He debuts tonight against the Red Sox.
Severino has little left to prove in the minor leagues. The hard-throwing righty split time between Double-A and Triple-A this year, where he recorded FIPs of 2.34 and 2.53, respectively. Severino was similarly dominant last season, when he rattled off a 2.46 ERA and 2.46 FIP across three minor league levels: Low-A, High-A and Double-A. Read the rest of this entry »
Heading into the season, Kris Bryant enjoyed favored status when it came to predicting a National League Rookie of the Year. When FanGraphs writers were polled before the season, 20 of 36 votes went to the Chicago Cubs’ third baseman; seven went Joc Pederson; six were cast for Jorge Soler; Noah Syndergaard, Jung Ho Kang and Raisel Iglesias each got one. A couple months into the season, Pederson inserted himself into the race with 13 home runs by the end of May. As the year has moved on, Bryant and Pederson have come back to the pack a bit while Matt Duffy, Kang and Syndergaard have moved into the conversation for the NL’s top rookie. The award is no longer a two-horse battle, and all the players who have risen up are sure to see plenty of exposure since each of them is in the middle of a pennant race.
As Owen Watson wrote, this season has been a historic one for rookies, particularly position players. With Bryant and Pederson leading the way, the rookie class is producing at a greater level than any in the past decade. It’s likely the best class in nearly 30 years, back when Barry Bonds and Jose Canseco were rookies. In the past month, Bryant and Pederson have allowed a few other players to enter the race. Pederson — a three-true-outcomes player to begin the season — has removed the two positive outcomes over the past month, walking just 3% of the time and hitting only one home run. Bryant hasn’t fallen quite as far. He’s still drawing walks, but he is striking out nearly one-third of the time and has a wRC+ of 58 over the past 30 days. Read the rest of this entry »
Three years ago, a struggling Red Sox team dumped a big part of their roster — and their payroll — on the Los Angeles Dodgers, shipping Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, and Josh Beckett to Los Angeles in exchange for a few prospects and a lot of financial relief. The deal freed up the team to reallocate a bunch of that money to free agents a few months later, and after hitting on signings like Shane Victorino, Mike Napoli, Stephen Drew, and Koji Uehara, the team celebrated a World Series title in 2013.
Things have fallen apart again since, however, and last winter’s free agent spending spree looks like a total disaster at this point. Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval have combined for -1.8 WAR while pulling in $40 million between them, and there’s no way the team can go into 2016 with this same defensive alignment. Ramirez is clearly not an outfielder, and Sandoval has been a bit of disaster at third base this year as well, leading to speculation that one of the two may move to first base next year. And that probably is the path of least resistance, but as rumors percolated of Red Sox-Padres trade discussion before last week’s deadline, I started wondering if there wasn’t an August deal to be made that might actually make sense for both sides.
