Game Two Was So 2017
Wednesday night had just about everything you could want in a baseball game. Game 2 is on the list, somewhere, of greatest World Series games in history.
There were dramatic swings in win probability in the late innings for each the Astros and Dodgers. Some of the game’s greatest stars produced signature moments. There was Yasiel Puig being Yasiel Puig, licking his bat and slamming his glove after nearly completing a five-star catch. There was the bill of Chris Taylor’s cap perhaps saving a run early. There was Justin Verlander returning from the visiting clubhouse to the dugout to implore his team to do something. There was this generation’s Rivera, Kenley Jansen, enduring a rare misstep. There was poor Josh Fields. There was a rare test of roster depth, with Austin Barnes becoming the first player to appear at catcher and second base in a World Series game.
There was even this:
Truly a great baseball moment pic.twitter.com/NAkXY8gs8N
— Deadspin (@Deadspin) October 26, 2017
Game 2 was weird.
Game 2 was dramatic.
Game 2 was controversial, too — although Dave Cameron saw the logic in Dave Roberts‘ pitching decisions and rightfully so.
Game 2 compelled many to declare their love for baseball on social media. Game 2 had heartbreak and ecstasy — for both clubs.
And there was also this: if Game 2 was anything, it was a reflection of where the game is in 2017.
The affair included tandem pitching, multi-inning appearances by closers, a veteran broadcaster and ex-player (John Smoltz) citing — somewhat begrudgingly, it seemed — Statcast data. It had elite velocity (Kenta Maeda sitting 95). And, more than anything, it had launch angle and juiced balls. Game 2 had home runs.
In fact, Game 2’s two innings of extra play accounted for nearly a quarter — a quarter! — of all extra-inning World Series homers in the sport’s history.
22.7% of all extra-inning homers in #WorldSeries history were hit tonight.
— Ryan M. Spaeder (@theaceofspaeder) October 26, 2017
Think about that. Outside of 1904 (thanks, John McGraw) and 1994 (thanks, Don Fehr and Bud Selig), there’s been a World Series every fall since 1903. There were five home runs hit in extra innings, eight total in the game. The Marine Layer was nowhere to be found. For pure shock value, here are the GIFs of those home runs in their chronological order of appearance ———>
In 2017, the game’s smallest player is lifting and driving. Sorry, Fields, that was not an easy fly-ball chance.
Correa is a beast.
George Springer inside-outs a home run. These Astros are historically good, after all.
The #Astros had 12 batted balls 100 MPH+ yesterday. Tied for 2nd most in a game by them in 2017. #Dodgers only allowed 12 1 time all season
— Daren Willman (@darenw) October 26, 2017
Has Puig ever showed more restraint?
Did poor Charlie — arms extended like wings flying around first base — think he had tied the score?
The Dodgers had five hits. Four were home runs.
One of the stories of 2017, a story dating back to the second half of the 2015, is how the ball is playing differently. Alan Nathan, Ben Lindbergh, and Rob Arthur have been the leading researchers on the subject. Namely, it appears, the seams are lower, reducing air resistance and bumping average fly-ball distance up slightly, but significantly.
After what he witnessed in Game 2, Dallas Keuchel told Bob Nightengale of USA Today that he’s a believer.
“There are really powerful guys in this league,’’ Keuchel said, “and they’re going to get theirs. But where you can tell a difference is the mid-range guy who’s hitting 20-plus home runs now.
“That doesn’t happen. That’s not supposed to happen. … That’s what Major League Baseball wants. They want that exciting two home-run lead, and then they (the Dodgers) come back and hit another home run, and everybody’s still watching. That’s what they want. That’s what they’re getting.’’
Maybe Keuchel is right. Maybe MLB is behind a juiced ball. The league, for their part, has repeatedly denied it. But could MLB have asked Rawlings to slightly lower seams in an effort to retrieve the game from a depressed run-scoring environment that existed as recently as 2014? It’s plausible. Fans generally like home runs and run scoring.
Nathan’s study, presented back in August, found that, while the ball changed in 2015, it hasn’t changed from 2016 to 2017.
So 2017 is in part about the ball, but it’s also, this author suspects, more about the hitter.
More players have begun to try to launch the ball in the air including a number in this series: Altuve, Taylor, Alex Bregman, Cody Bellinger, and Justin Turner among them.
The league’s average launch angle has inched up each year in the Statcast era from an average of 10.1 degrees in 2015, to 10.8 degrees in 2016, to 11.1 degrees in 2017. The Dodgers have reduced their ground-ball rate by 3.5 percentage points. There is an air-ball revolution.
Baseball is changing. Baseball has perhaps never changed so fast — or maybe not, at least, since it went from a dead to live ball nearly 100 years ago. Baseball is different in 2017. But “change” and “different” do not have to take on negative connotations. There is perhaps nothing wrong with 2017 baseball. Perhaps there is something wrong if these extremes continue to grow at this rate. But no one, save perhaps the pitchers involved, seemed to have a problem with Game 2.
Said Bregman to USA Today:
“It’s the craziest game I’ve ever been a part of but it’s also got to be the greatest game I’ve ever played in. And I know privately everybody in here thinks the same. It was ridiculous.’’
Thank you, 2017 baseball.
A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.
“It’s the craziest game I’ve ever been a part of but it’s also got to be the greatest game I’ve ever played in…’’
Millennials like dingers CONFIRMED
Best world series game in the last…two games
I’m dismayed by the constant references to the SECOND HALF of 2015 as the start of the homer surge. There’s no significant cause to distinguish the halves of that season. The surge was clearly underway in the FIRST half, and did not substantially accelerate over that in the second half, if you view everything in light of the CONTINUED RISE in HR% through the last 2 years. “Second half of 2015” is just a false inflection point, based on actual HR data, and I don’t understand why it keeps being repeated.
The published ball study suggesting a change in mid-2015 is based on (necessarily) very limited sampling, but that’s a whole different issue.
The numbers though tell a different story….. look at the hr/fb% in 2015/hr %-
Apr 10.2- 2.39%
May 11.3- 2.63%
Jun 10.6- 2.54%
Jul 11.1- 2.61%
Aug 12.2- 2.88%
Sep 12.3- 2.88%
The numbers clearly show the number of fly balls being homers went up starting in August of 2015- along with the percent of pa’s winding up as homers. if that’s not actual HR data, i don’t know what is.
THOSE numbers tell a different story. But they introduce one unknown variable — the accuracy of distinguishing flyballs from line drives (or the consistency of that method from year to year) — and they ignore line drives, which comprise a significant number of homers.
I’m using B-R’s trajectory data, which show that line drives in 2015 were 44% of all HRs — BY FAR the highest share in the last 5 years. The other shares ranged from 17% (this year) to 33%. The HR/LD rate that year was also highest of the last 5 years, as was the LD/FB ratio.
All of which makes me a bit skeptical of the FB/LD classifications, ESPECIALLY for 2015, and thus inclined to rely just on the overall HR%.
even if you look at the overall HR%, it was a huge jump up the final 2 months of the season. I found this piece talking about the homers the last 2 months of the ’15 season-
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-baseball-mystery-the-home-run-is-back-and-no-one-knows-why/
really interesting especially in the context of what’s happened the last 2 years.
It’s just clear looking at the data that something changed the last 2 months of the 2015 season- and it’s not changed since.
WHAT hasn’t changed since the last 2 months of 2015? The HR rate has gone up dramatically since then, by every possible measure.
By simple HR% of PAs, 11 of the 12 subsequent months have been higher than the last 2 months of 2015.
And since contact rates have gone down, HR/batted ball have risen even more sharply.
B-R’s trajectory data, by the way, show the following progression since 2013:
HR/FB: 9.1%, 7.7%, 8.0%, 10.3%, 13.5%
HR/LD: 3.2%, 4.1%, 6.3%, 5.7%, 3.3%
HR/all air balls: 6.6%, 6.0%, 7.1%, 8.1%, 8.8%
I see nothing there to distinguish 2015 from subsequent years.
P.S. I don’t understand the HR/FB rates you posted. Since the HR% of all batted balls is over 4%, and all HRs come from the air-ball subset, how are you getting figures below 3%?
Lastly … Those who would show something significant in LATE-2015 should explain that within the broader context:
— HR rates already rising in the first half of 2015; and
— HR rates continuing to rise through the next two years.
I just don’t see a mid-2015 ball change as a plausible explanation of all that.
The theory of a late-2015 ball change just hasn’t been explained rigorously, anywhere that I’ve seen. In particular:
— No one tries to pin down the date or particular month of the change, except by ex-post-facto reference to the HR rates.
— Everyone ignores the known fact that August is USUALLY the best month for HRs. August has easily the highest HR% for the last 10 years combined. And if you lump August-September together, it’s still above that for all other months combined, by 2.72%-2.65%.
So, as far as I’ve seen, the late-2015 ball-change theory is both cherry-picking the cutoff line AND ignoring an organic rise in HR% for those two months.
Puig didn’t even drop his bat, he placed it gently on the ground. The AntiFlip.
Watched the ball, stared at the pitcher for about half a second, then set it down demonstratively. I don’t think it’s restrained, except insofar as it’s performatively restrained. It was to celebrations as John Hodgman is to comedy. It was awesome.
um, this generations Rivera? Jensen is a great releiver but he’s in year 7. Rivera at this point in his career had already thrown in 5 world series with 4 rings He had thrown 79 playoff innings with only 7 er. Jensen has also given up 7 er- but in only 31.1 ip. Far too early to crown him as this generations Rivera. Don’t think that’s really fair for Jensen. Lets see a ring before we start that.
Are you saying that to be the greatest reliever of your generation you have to play on a team with rotations featuring David Cone, Orlando Hernandez, Andy Pettite, and either Roger Clemens or David Wells, while simultaneously getting run support from a lineup featuring Derek Jeter, Paul O’Neill, Bernie Williams, Tino Martinez, Chuck Knoblauch, and Jorge Posada? You make it sound like closing down the ninth inning is what won those world series for the Yankees.
IMO, most generations don’t have a Mariano Rivera, who along with Dennis Eckersley and Goose Gossage are unquestionably the greatest relievers of the post-WWII era. If Craig Kimbrel or Kenley Jansen are dominant for the next few years maybe we can talk about them someday too but man I just don’t think “throwing in 5 World Series with four rings” is the right metric for a reliever. By that logic Ramiro Mendoza was a Hall of Famer.
I’m saying just 1 even. He’s had 2 World Series appearances so far. I think Rivera/Eck/Gossage are on a whole different level from anyone else. Don’t really think it’s fair for Jensen quite frankly to be called this generations Rivera.
Rivera had 22 saves for those 1st 7 years.. In those 22 saves- a good 18 of those were over an inning long. He also had 4 wins in that period where he went in all 4 of those 2 innings or more.
That group doesn’t have 4 rings in 5 years w/o Rivera.
I just don’t think you can say that Jansen is this generation’s Rivera yet. I mean, like you bring up with Kimbrel, there’s question is Jensen is even the best one of this generation. I just think the post saying Jansen is this generation’s Rivera is way too early. If they’re dominant for the next 5-10 years- then we can say it. But right now? I just don’t think so.
Alright, I agree with that.
As long as we’re at it, I think that there’s going to be some buyer’s remorse over Trevor Hoffman’s HOF induction if Kimbrel or Jansen continue dominating. Trevor Hoffman definitely is in the next group after the top three, but it may be very difficult to justify Hoffman over Kimbrel/Jansen if they keep vaporizing hitters like this and putting up 2.5-3 WAR seasons.
yeah I’d say especially Jansen if he can keep up the postseason success he’s had. Like I said earlier he’s already #4 in MLB history in postseason saves. With 5 of those saves being longer than 1 inning.
Sadtrombone, of course it’s not fair to compare other closers to Mo on the basis of championships. But I do think you underrate Mo’s contributions to those titles.
Consider these postseason totals for New York during his career:
— Rivera, 11.7 WPA
— All other pitchers, 11.3 WPA
WPA isn’t the ideal metric, but it gives some context. This was amassed in 166 team games, just over 1 regular season’s worth. There’s only one pitcher season in MLB history that scored over 10 WPA. The top WPA year by a reliever was 8.4 (John Hiller, working 125 IP). Mo has 3 of the top 4 single-postseason WPA totals by a reliever (Wetteland the other).
Rivera pitched in 96 of 166 games, finishing 78, totaling 141 IP — a colossal workload for a closer — and with breathtaking success. In the WS alone, he pitched in 24 of 38 games, a 162-game rate of 102 games and 155 IP. With an 0.99 ERA.
In all those PS games, Mo had just 2 that scored as bad as -0.15 WPA. Giles has 2 of those just this year, and 17 other RPs have one. LA had 2 in Game 2 alone.
One last point of reference: For all postseason games from 1995-2013, from the 8th inning on, with a lead of 1 or 2 runs or a tie game:
— Yankees yielded a rate of 62 runs per 1,000 PAs.
— Other teams yielded 94 runs per 1,000 PAs.
The vast bulk of that Yankee advantage was Rivera.
I can’t guess how many titles they’d have won with a merely good RP in Mo’s place. But I’m pretty sure it’s not 5.
This assumes that WPA is useful as an individual-level statistic. How much of this is just him pitching the ninth inning? How much of this is that his team was really good and he made the playoffs for a long time, and had a lot of longevity? More to the point, how much of that WPA was in championship years?
I am pretty high on Rivera and think he’s HoF caliber but relievers just aren’t as valuable as everyone thinks they are. You have to come up with some really specific and problematic statistics to explain how relievers win games, much less the World Series.
and a lot of what Rivera did in postseason was done prior to 2003(which is this point in Jansen’s career). Rivera had thrown 80 of his 141 postseason innings.
There’s a reason why Rivera is considered by a lot to be the greatest post season pitcher ever. #1 in playoff ERA(0.70) in the 9th most innings pitched in playoff history. And so much of Rivera’s narrative is based on just that- the playoffs. Jansen has had a great start in the playoffs- 12 saves is already #4 all time in MLB playoff history. Rivera by this point though already had 25(on his way to 42- a good 24 more than #2 Brad Lidge).
Maybe i was a bit too harsh on Jansen. Don’t think he’ll get close to what Rivera was like- but then again- don’t think anyone ever will.
Only people who have rings measure success in rings. Not everyone is lucky enough to play for a TEAM that wins enough games to play in the World Series/Super Bowl, etc.
Both are excellent closers that primarily throw a cutter. Don’t use championships (which is a function of the teammates they lucked into having) as an argument that they aren’t similar pitchers.
Great game, and I won’t waste breath arguing for my personal baseball aesthetics.
But I sure do miss stolen bases, so I was thrilled when Maybin swiped one last night.
After the lowest regular-season SB attempt rate since 1971, the steal has almost disappeared this postseason — 0.38 SBA per team-game, the lowest since when “postseason” meant World Series.
Maybin’s theft was important, at the time, to reach 2nd with no out in the top of the 11th. It helped soothe my frustration with Correa’s holding fast at 1st base against the eminently runnable Jansen during the last 2 batters of the 8th, down by a run.
totally agree…. Totally didn’t understand the Correa thinking- given that if he gets it- he’s on 2nd with a single scoring him at that point most likely.
I know Correa only attempted to take 3 bases this year, presumably in part because he injured his left thumb and they didn’t want to risk it sliding into a base. But he’s been back since August so I don’t think it’s that anymore. It raises a question for me: how long does it take to relearn the timing of stealing a base? Because yeah, Jansen seems easy to steal on. Doesn’t seem like your timing would need to be all that good.
Replay has killed the SB. That is where the fix is, if it ever gets fixed.
Another “so 2017” aspect was the wide distribution of the 8 HRs:
— 8 different batters;
— 7 different spots in the order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7 (and the #5 was a guy who’d normally hit 8th or 9th).
‘ Maybe MLB is behind a juiced ball’
the situation is worse than that
way way way more worse
for stats dudes you folks will be disappointed you didn’t figure out what is really going on
ask Nikola Tesla
google loosh
Namaste
This one was unquestionably an awesome game, and it was built on home runs. But in general with HR-heavy scoring I’m starting to miss the experience of runners in scoring position, bases loaded situations, first-and-third double steals.
At least I feel like that. Should check the actual numbers, hmm…
I miss rallies too.
Guess I’m the only one who didn’t think it was an all-time classic.
It was exciting at the end, weird, and unpredictable… but the HRs started to feel absurd and not in a good way.
There weren’t any real rallies. There weren’t great defensive plays. Something started to feel cheap about all those home runs at the end.
I agree completely. Baseball is a better game when there are baserunners. You can add the hit and run play, an action filled play to your list. Contact, or the difficulty in making same, has driven it into extinction and the game is lesser because of it. Baseball has tried to come up with a solution to a very difficult problem. Keeping scoring high enough to give the impression that some apparent action is taking place in the game, and not have a repeat of 1968 when scoring stopped, period. High strike out rates, along with shifts and gloves that snare everything and lead to low BABIP’s would stifle scoring without the HR and the game would become a monotonous series of 1-0 and 2-1 games that would become very obvious in no time.
We’ve had just three 2-run singles so far this PS, so … Yes, the proportion of HRs to men stopping on bases has never been higher, both in the regular season but even more strikingly in this postseason.
We’ve seen almost 18.6% of all hits leave the park, where the prior PS high was 16.4% (in 2015). And the current rate of just under 6 non-HR hits per team game is the lowest since ’74 (a PS that saw 3 runs per game).
We’ve had more HRs than doubles, which has never happened in a multi-round PS.
The share of runs coming from HRs this PS is way up (51.3%) from the already-record-high rate of the regular season (42.3%).
Clearly, lots of folks like this style. But it’s certainly extreme.
Too bad almost all kids in school on the east coast would be asleep before the end of the game. Baseball wants to attract young fans, but the playoffs won’t do that with games finishing in the early morning on weekdays.
Honestly these home runs are ruining the baseball experience for me, it’s ridiculous, boring, and diminishes the impact of a homer. (and I am a “millenial”)
I don’t like basketball for that same reason-ish. When everything is a highlight, highlights become a lot less exciting. MLB has undermined the value of HR by promoting them. They are still cool in my book though.
Obviously it was an incredibly exciting game. But with each home run–especially each SOLO home run–there was also this increasing feeling of ‘wow, this is really the direction baseball is going. A team can score 6 runs in 11 innings on only 5 hits. Who cares about baserunning? Who cares about double plays? Who cares about getting big hits with runners in scoring position? Who cares about stolen bases? Who cares about pitching from the stretch? To some extent even, who cares about fielding, if teams are going to score their runs by just hitting the ball over the fence?’ It’s depressing.
Are all the defensive shifts to blame for it? If the defenses hadn’t started doing all the shifts, wouldn’t the offenses have continued like they had before? Not trying to find an answer to beat the shift?
The question that I have now is this. Given that the toothpaste is out of the tube with the homer explosion, and everything with the launch angles, etc.- even if shifts stop now- is it going to be too late?
I like the shifts. They encourage hitters to spray the ball more instead of just pulling everything. And if there were more baserunners, they couldn’t shift so much. They need to deaden the ball and do something else to help the hitters, make the strike zone smaller or something.
I don’t think that they would do enough to the balls where it would counter act the approach the batters are taking. And I don’t think that approach is going to change.
I don’t think so. Aren’t shifts in decline? They are becoming less prevalent because they are not as effective as people wanted them to be. BABIP is not down in the post-shift era, which tells you a lot about their impact on balls in play, which is what they are for. I watch baseball every day and I don’t think that over-shifts are valuable except in rare, David Ortiz-ish, situations. I have an impossible time believing that shifts take away more hits than they give away… then there are the errors and unturned DPs that they create, which don’t show up in the data. I don’t think defensive alignment has fueled the HR surge, juiced balls on the other hand…
No, BABIP hasn’t really changed since shifts became more prevalent. All they’re doing is taking away grounders up the middle and a few more grounders to the pull side, and they’re being deployed on hitters that often hit the ball in the air or strike out often anyway.
Unpopular suggestion alert: I have never read this, but I wonder if pitching is just worse. That could have an impact on the hitting as well. With the emphasis on velocity over pitch-ability, wouldn’t you expect a bunch of HR, K and BB? This is what you see out of stuff-first guys – basically a bunch of poorly executed pitches that hopefully miss bats due to velocity or lack of being in the strike zone. I have long wondered if baseball is not in a negative feedback loop where bad pitching helps make bad hitting successful, which in turn feeds bad pitchers, which helps fuel even worse hitters… Of course better and worse are completely subjective, but you can see it in the comments below. Some people like bats on balls, base-running – the kind of stuff that baseball has always been. Some people like to see gorillas hit the ball 500 feet and don’t really care about the strikeouts or anything else. If you don’t like baseball, then different is better and that is a context-independent statement. I am sure lots of real fans like the muscled-up game, but I am not sure that the players are better at baseball than what they used to be. Are the Harlem Globetrotters good at basketball? I don’t know but they are fun to watch.
And Game 3 for Houston at least was more so definitely not 2017, but rather so like 1977. Brad Peacock making out like Goose Gossage.