The Strike Zone Was Huge Last Night
Last night, the Yankees and Indians combined to strike out 31 times, the most strikeouts ever recorded in a playoff game that didn’t go extra innings. And during our live blog, complaining about the size of Jeff Nelson’s strike zone was a common occurrence. Accusing the home plate umpire of malfeasance is a regular thing fans do, especially in the postseason when the stakes are the highest, but in looking at the data today, there is some validity to the arguments. Last night, Jeff Nelson called a pretty huge strike zone.
For instance, let’s look at this second inning at-bat from Austin Jackson. He struck out on four pitches. He didn’t swing the bat once.
The first two pitches of the at-bat were at the top of the zone, one called a ball, one called a strike. The last two were both near the outside corner, the 1-1 pitch being closer to the plate than the 1-2 pitch. All of these pitches are in that gray area where some umpires call them strikes, some call them balls, and no one calls them all the same thing every time.
Last night, Nelson just called more of those pitches strikes than hitters are used to.
Baseball Savant has a detailed strike zone grid where they break up the zone to include all the borderline areas. That lets us search for just pitches in those edges. For instance, here’s every pitch in one of those borderline zones that has been called a strike during the postseason.
There’s 487 called strikes in those zones, representing 23% of the 2,138 pitches that have been classified as landing in one of those boxes. That’s up slightly from the 22% strike rate for these pitches in the regular season, which, as Jeff noted yesterday, is evidence that the strike zone gets a little bigger in October.
Last night, there were 126 pitches thrown in those zones; Jeff Nelson called 39 of them strikes. That’s 31% of those borderline pitches going the pitcher’s way. Nelson has one of the biggest strike zones during the regular season, but last night, he was particularly generous, which is one of the reasons why CC Sabathia was able to strike out nine of the 18 batters he faced.
But despite highlighting Jackson’s at-bat, Cleveland fans can’t really blame Nelson for last night’s loss. Their pitchers benefited just as much as the Yankees did.
| Player | Borderline Pitches | Called Strikes | Called Srike % |
|---|---|---|---|
| CC Sabathia | 36 | 10 | 28% |
| Bryan Shaw | 12 | 7 | 58% |
| Corey Kluber | 27 | 6 | 22% |
| Cody Allen | 11 | 5 | 45% |
| Aroldis Chapman | 16 | 4 | 25% |
| David Robertson | 9 | 4 | 44% |
| Andrew Miller | 14 | 2 | 14% |
| Joe Smith | 1 | 1 | 100% |
21 of the 39 borderline called strikes were thrown by Cleveland pitchers. Kluber, Allen, Miller, Shaw, and Smith had 33% of their borderline pitches called strikes, while Sabathia, Robertson, and Chapman had 30% of their borderline pitches go in their favor.
Now, you could argue a bigger zone in general perhaps helps Sabathia more than it does Kluber, since Sabathia relies more on location and less on stuff, and a larger zone neutralizes some of the advantage Cleveland thought they had in starting pitching heading into the night. Of course, the flip side is that a smaller zone probably would have led to Sabathia leaving the game earlier, which would have likely meant Chad Green pitching some of the innings Sabathia threw, and Green doesn’t need a large strike zone to dominate opposing hitters.
So I wouldn’t say that Nelson’s large strike zone strongly benefited one team more than the other. It definitely was a factor in why the two teams combined for 31 strikeouts, though. And if Jeff Nelson gets an ALCS assignment, the hitters should probably go up there swinging.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.


their
Maybe he’s saying they should increase their swing rate. “Go up their swinging.”
As long as it’s consistent, I’m fine with a big zone or a tiny one.
“We respectfully disagree” -Robo Umps of the Future
A bad zone =/= An unfair zone
I want to watch fair games. That’s what I most want.
Will robo umps provide a good and fair zone? Yep.
I’m just saying…
If you’re complaining about the strike zone because you want the strike zone to be better, I’m right there with you.
If you’re complaining about the strike zone because you think it’s unfair…you’re probably governed by some bias or other.
probably, but not in this case
I think Nelson’s season is over. I read once that an umpire can appear in one post-season series.
Not so, actually. They do not work in consecutive series (LDS/LCS or LCS/WS), but the World Series umpires are chosen from the ranks of LDS umpires. Check the roster for 2016: every umpire working Game One between the Cubs and Indians had been in the LDS round.
The NFL seems to work a similar way, from what I recall, and if that interests this particular audience.
The NFL refs are graded on some type of rubric. So only specific teams of refs are allowed to work the playoffs. Not sure how they cycle through in the playoffs but at least that appears to be the gist of it.
“So I wouldn’t say that Nelson’s large strike zone strongly benefited one team more than the other.”
You seem to be considering only the differences between pitchers. The biggest effect of an unusually large or inconsistent strike zone is to penalize the team with more disciplined hitters. The best countermeasure when facing Frank Thomas is to put Eric Gregg behind the plate.
You say that 23% of the borderline pitches have been called strikes this postseason (31% last night), vs. 22% in the RS. But Jeff’s article said it was 48% in the PS this year, vs. 46% in the RS. And over the past ten years, according to Jeff’s graph, the proportion of called strikes in that zone has been consistently > 40%. If it really is a borderline area, you expect the called strikes to be somewhere fairly close to 50%, not 20-30%.
In fact, one might wonder why the % of strikes is not 50% or slightly more. I’d guess it’s because about half of the borderline zone is in the nominal strike zone, and half is out, and pitchers, to the extent they can be this accurate, probably aim more for the half that is out of the zone. So probably > 50% of pitches in that area are actually outside the zone and should be balls. There are presumably the data available to evaluate this guess.
Finally, of course, if we’re really going to make something of this, we would need to consider the framing abilities of the catchers involved. Sanchez is supposed to be a very good framer, for the rest I don’t know.
Unless I’m reading statcorner wrong, Sanchez appears to be 3.8 runs worse than average over the season, while Perez was worth 9.9 runs above average.
Perez was worth about 1.5 calls per game more than Sanchez. Over the four games they both caught (Gomes caught one for the Indians), that would suggest an expected six more calls favoring the Indians. It’s probably too small an effect to test for statistically, but if the zone was called evenly, then that’s better than expected for the Yankees.
Does statcorner also take into effect passed balls and errors? Or is it simply the frame value? Because I too have read that Sanchez is an above average framer.
As far as I know, it’s framing only. The strike zone definition they use is…sharp. The zone is ~circular, but a given pitch location is either 100% a strike or 100% a ball. So getting a call on the outer edge of (but inside of) the zone isn’t earning half a strike, it’s just an in-zone strike.
That’s based on skimming http://www.statcorner.com/exp_PreliminaryCatchingFramework.php
BP has a much more accurate pitch framing statistic.
baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1899425
Sanchez is #10 at 9.7 framing runs. Perez is #9 at 10.5 framing runs.
That was probably the worst umpiring I have seen in a long time. It was obviously bad, consistently.
You said, “Nelson has one of the biggest strike zones during the regular season, but last night, he was particularly generous”.
What was the difference between the percentage of borderline pitches Nelson calls strikes in the regular season vs the 31% he called strikes in the playoffs?
Seems to me that would the pertinent stat to back up any claim that he was particularly generous last night.