Keuchel, Verlander, and Facing These Yankees Twice
If we know anything about Dallas Keuchel it’s that he possesses some of the best command in the game. No starting pitcher more often targets and hits the lower third of the zone — and the borderline, 50-50 area at the bottom of the zone — according to Baseball Savant’s pitch data. Keuchel located 29.4% of his total pitches in these zones this season, tops among MLB starting pitchers.
The following graphic shows what and where Keuchel threw pitches in his stellar Game 1 start against the Yankees.

Below are the results of the Yankee plate appearances. Not surprisingly for a pitcher who’s recorded a 1.41 career ERA against New York in the regular season, they were basically all good for Keuchel:

This is what and where Keuchel threw pitches in his less-than-stellar Game 5 start against the Yankees on Wednesday night:

And the results from that start:

Quite different, in this case. Ultimately, the No. 4-seeded Yankees knocked Keuchel out of the game in the fifth inning and took a 3-2 series lead against the Astros.
This is of interest to this author because Keuchel pitched, if not exactly the same way, then at least in a similar one. Keuchel generally hit his spot, and they were generally the same spots he’d hit in Game 1. This time, though, the Yankees did far more damage against him.
Consider these run-scoring hits against Keuchel on Wednesday night, and also consider the location of the pitch, and the movement — or lack thereof — of Brian McCann’s glove.
If McCann’s glove is any indication, it doesn’t appear as though any of the three pitches here represents a mistake of execution. It’s just, in his second time facing the Yankees in a short window, his opponent was responding much differently. Maybe that’s that just baseball, just small-sample randomness. Or, perhaps, it’s evidence of the Yankees becoming more familiar and comfortable with a starting pitcher upon seeing him a second time. Did New York hitters have a better plan? In examining the locations where the Yankees swung and damaged Keuchel, the swings were more concentrated down in the zone. The Yankees did a better job of zeroing in.
Did the Yankees adjust?
We know hitters are adaptable creatures. We know hitters generally perform better the more times they face a pitcher in a specific game. We know hitters have evolved to a degree to combat the increasing velocity in the game. Perhaps some hitters and teams are also capable of adapting relatively better than others within a postseason series. And perhaps these Yankees are highly adaptable.
But what’s interesting to this author is that, since 2002, starting pitchers have fared better against opponents — according to FIP — when meeting them a second time in a postseason series. The numbers are about equal according to xFIP. Consider the following data compiled by FanGraphs’ Jonah Pemstein:
| StartNum | FIP | xFIP | AvgIP | Starts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First | 4.23 | 3.96 | 5.8 | 223 |
| Second | 4.04 | 3.98 | 5.5 | 223 |
(In the limited sample of two third-time starts in a series since 2002, pitchers produced a 5.89 FIP.)
Keuchel told the Houston Chronicle and other reporters one of few mistakes he made was when Castro doubled in the second inning on a cutter that drifted out over the middle of the plate.
“[It’s] the only pitch I’d like to have back,” Keuchel.
Said Astros manager A.J. Hinch to reporters afterward: “They’ve hit some pretty good pitches.”
Said Chase Headley to ESPN’s Buster Olney: “You can’t go after his pitches. I thought we grinded him out.”
Only the Yankees did hit his pitches.
And it’s not the first time the Yankees have accomplished such a feat this postseason, improving in their a second attempt against a quality starting pitcher.
In the ALDS, the Yankees knocked potential AL Cy Young-winner Corey Kluber out of a Game 5 start — his second of the series — in just the fourth inning. Of course, there might have been some mitigating factors. Kluber, for example, had also struggled in his first start. Also, he admitted he wasn’t 100%, and Indians manager Terry Francona said Kluber was searching for his arm slot late in the season.
The Yankees also performed much better against Trevor Bauer in their second look against him, in Game 4, after Bauer was masterful in Game 1.
Like Keuchel, Bauer seemed to largely throw what and where he wanted to Game 4 of the ALDS against the Yankees.
Just as he’d done over the final four months of the season, Bauer leaned heavily on one of the game’s best curveballs in his stellar Game 1 ALDS outing versus the Yankees. Bauer played his four-seam fastball off his curveball, throwing it up the zone.

Bauer carried a no-hitter into the sixth inning and pitched 6.2 shutout frames.
Against the Yankees in Game 4, Bauer had the same fastball-and-curveball, north-to-south approach.

The results were not as favorable for Bauer. The right-hander was charged with four runs in 1.2 innings.

But in speaking to reporters after the outing, Bauer said he felt better than he had in his dominant Game 1 start. His velocity was up in Game 4.
“I thought my stuff was better,” Bauer said after the Game 4 loss. “The velo was up. The curveball had better depth. I thought I located well. It was just a couple little things.”
Was one of those little things that became big things that the Yankees were getting too many looks at Bauer’s biting curve in Game 1? Of his 98 Game 1 pitches, 35 were curveballs. Of his 55 pitched in Game 4, 21 were curves. Did the Yankees become more familiar to their benefit?
It’s possible. And it’s relevant to this evening’s Game 6 contest in Houston, where the Yankees face a pitcher in Justin Verlander who overwhelmed them in Game 2. In a complete-game effort last Saturday, the Houston right-hander struck out 13, walked just one, and ultimately allowed only a single run. He was masterful.
Of course, Bauer was masterful in his first appearance against the Yankees this postseason. Keuchel was masterful, too. Their second appearances? Not so much.
The question might once again be how well the Yankees adapt — or, conversely, how well Verlander anticipates New York’s adjustments. Here’s his pitch chart from Game 2:

There seems to be a strategy present here — in particular with Verlander’s use of the slider just under and just off the zone. It worked wonderfully in Game 2. Given his opponents’ previous success with second looks, however, it might not work wonderfully tonight.
The Yankees are a really, really good team. They finished second in the majors in run differential in the regular season. They have the game’s top power bullpen and power throughout their lineup. They have frontline starting pitchers. But they might do something else unusually well: they learn and adapt.
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.
Yankees over the Dodgers in six.
I don’t know if they’ll win the WS (I’m a Yankee fan BTW) but if they make it there, it’ll go at least six games much like I thought the ALCS would.
For this postseason…Bauer’s not that great a pitcher and his game 1 performance is a bit of a freak outlier, we should’ve expected him to regress in a game 2, particularly in Yankee Stadium. Kluber wasn’t himself or very good at all in either game he started. So you’re down to Keuchel as your body of evidence that this is a skill, and I can’t find his FIP, BABIP and so forth from that game, but with 8Ks to 1 BB in 4+ innings of work I suspect he pitched better than the box score suggests.
I’m not sold that this isn’t anything more than one hot game against Keuchel + some favorable matchups, I know that conclusions in the above article are couched in somewhat cautious terms, and for good reason, since the potential for statistical noise here is extremely high.
True, I’d be interested in seeing some regular season statistics to back this up. Speaking just anecdotally, Yanks barely mustered much in Sale’s first 3 starts against them, but hit him hard in the 4th and 5th starts. Perhaps there’s more evidence of this, which would point towards the Yankees’ ability to make adjustments
how about this….. in game 3 for Sale @ Yankees- on 8/13- he goes 7 innings with 1 run, 2 walks, 4 hits, and 12 k’s. On 8/19 home- so similar situation as in a playoff series- he goes 7 innings- with 4 runs, 7 hits, 1 walk, 9 k’s, and 2 homers.
1st 3 starts for Yankees vs Sale were spread out- 4/27, 7/15, and 8/13. Last 2 starts where he got lit up- 8/19 and 9/3.
I wonder if the people silently disapproving of this post are simply Yankees fans or if they have something to contribute?
Not to be harsh, but the article seems like an attempt to squeeze out some meaningful commentary during a time of the season when there aren’t a lot of broad conclusions to be drawn because there just isn’t much data. It’s an interesting idea, but it’s fair to point out that it’s more speculative than it is data driven, which is a bit unusual on this site.
Really interested in hearing the counter-argument for why we should consider extrapolating a skill from at most two data points, when we all know the degree to which BABIP and strand rates can fluctuate over that sample.
I mean, all we can know is that the Yankees tried to adjust (since presumably everyone tries to adjust) and that the games worked out for them. This isn’t football where you can see adjustments play out in game strategy and congratulate the coach accordingly. Though, one way into this might be to say that staff drives adjustments and maybe Girardi’s a maven at it, but a cursory glance over his full post season record is a pretty solid mixed bag.
“seems like an attempt to squeeze out some meaningful commentary during a time of the season when there aren’t a lot of broad conclusions to be drawn because there just isn’t much data”
Yes. This is what happens when you insist on publishing 4-5 pieces a day.
One difference though, is the Yankees couldn’t handle Verlander’s FB in the zone. Not like he was baiting them into swinging at borderline fastballs.
But, you’d think the Yankees would be more aggressive early in counts and hope to make a little more contact. A few first pitch curves early might be enough to really baffle them again.
I know Keuchel said he only made the one real mistake to Castro, but he just didn’t look nearly as sharp to me facing them the 2nd time. Yanx were also not chasing as much the 2nd time, plus Keuchel wasn’t getting as many of those 50/50 borderline calls (at least according to the FS1 K zone). Look at those 2 Keuchel charts again (the results): game 1 they made 11 outs on pitches below the zone; 2nd time only 3.
However I’m thinking JV will get the best of them again tonight, assuming he’s just as sharp as he was the first time which is of course a big assumption. It seems sensible to try to hunt early count FBs from him but what if he knows they know this and pitches backwards the first time through? His stuff just seems filthy even if you know what’s coming, and he’s been largely untouchable the past 2 months. The cool thing is the Yanx have a guy on the mound that looks a lot like young JV and is definitely capable of matching up with him.
It did feel like some adjustment vs. Keuchel. Apparently the Astros didn’t get the memo about seeing Tanaka a second time…
The story that Kluber was hurt or searching for his release points need to be put to bed. He had a 0.84 ERA in September with 50 Ks and 3 BBs in 43 innings. His OPS against was .520. Maybe it all feel apart in the ALCS but he was in peak form in his last 6 plus regular season starts.
kind of interesting with Kluber- his final start of September he goes only 5 innings(planned I’m sure) but only has 3 k’s. Hitters that game went 6-20. Would hardly call that peak form.
Looks like it’s a lot tougher to adjust to Justin Verlander.
I wonder if pitchers fare worse in a first start in a series because they’re more likely to be pitching after a long layoff, vs going on regular rest in their second start. Any way to account for that?