NLCS Game 3 Review: Philadelphia
Cody Ross isn’t bald, he just emits Awesome from his head. – chatter Tony
Cody Ross is the answer to every question. – chatter TexasRanger
Ah, but this is the Philly review, so that will be enough of the Ross love here. Which is good, because we don’t have to cover the Great Bruce Bochy Lineup Disaster either, especially since it turned out okay for the Giants. Instead, we’ll reach back into the chat to find a couple quotes that offered real-time feedback on Ted Barrett’s strike zone:
Aren’t you noticing a completely different strike zone being called for both pitchers in this game. Matt Cain is getting inside, outside, and low. Have not seen those same pitches call for Cole Hamels – chatter T Barrett
Maybe the complaints are based on when Cole get squeezed rather than quantity. The non-strike 3 to Sanchez was a big call (like Halladay’s against Burrell in game 1). – chatter Andy
So we turn to the pictures – from Brooks Baseball – to try and get the full story:
At first glance, there’s reason to doubt Barret’s zone. There are five clear strikes on the outside the zone for the Giants, and only two that are as far outside the zone for the Phillies. If we count all of the “wrong” calls inside and out, we get eight called strikes that weren’t strikes and four strikes that were not called strikes for the Giants. Then there’s four called strikes that weren’t strikes and five strikes that weren’t called for the Phillies. It’s the sort of thing that seems both real and yet somehow not completely significant. But a lot of this is in the eye of the beholder, as these chat responses to the posted strike zone show:
looks pretty even to me – chatter Evan
Whole camels could fit inside Cain’s sz – chatter bowie
mostly shows me that cain did a better job of hitting that left side of the zone. he peppered a lot of pitches very close to the line – chatter Giants
Ah-hah. The truth is in the eye of the beholder often, but let’s try to say something true about this game: “Though the strike zone may have favored the Giants in a slight way and put pressure on Cole Hamels in key moments, the game was won by timely hitting by the Giants and the failure of the Phillies’ batters to come through in similarly tough situations.” You can quote me on that.
Let’s end this with a look at the highest leverage moments in the game, and the results of the at-bat.
With a phone full of pictures of pitchers' fingers, strange beers, and his two toddler sons, Eno Sarris can be found at the ballpark or a brewery most days. Read him here, writing about the A's or Giants at The Athletic, or about beer at October. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris if you can handle the sandwiches and inanity.
The zone favored the Giants, but it wasn’t the crazy zone that Sabathia/Pavano got in the LDS.
this strikezone was reminescent of the zone that the umpire had for the Burnett game last year in the WS. consistently calling the lower outside curve a strike the entire night and it was never in the zone.
while you say that it doesn’t have much to do with the outcome of the game i disagree. it completely changes how players approach their AB’s. if they are forced to start swinging outside of the zone then the are generally not going to make solid contact.
they still gotta put together better AB’s though. cause regardless it was horrendous last night.
To me it looks like Hamels was only squeezed on two calls that Cain was consistently getting. Other than that it seems that Barrett’s zone was a little wider on the left side and Cain dropped a bunch of pitches in there (five, specifically), while Hamels only placed one in the same area.
What’s with the lack of Giants analysis? For all three games this series, you guys only analyzed the Phillies performance, and just to let you know, a lot of us Giants fans hate the Phillies right now.
Despite the title of this article, I thought the analysis touched on both teams’ performances equally. Besides…you guys are up 2-1 with 2 more at home and Blanton pitching tonight. No need to hate.
I’ve noticed this too. The NLCS has consistently gotten less coverage here, and the SF reviews are pretty much nonexistant. Way to extend the east coast bias BS, fangraphs!
Each team got assigned a writer — it’s just a matter of whether that writer submits his write-ups. I believe Klaassen is responsible for the Giants.
fercrissakes, somebody wake up Klassen!
The fact that the strike zone was wide enough for the Giants to get 8 clear non-strikes forces hitters to swing at bad pitches and puts the hitters in bad ball/strike counts throughout the AB in which it happend. An incorrect non-strike call actually decided Game 1 (the pitch to Burrell was a clear strike and the Giants scored the decisive runs as a result of the blown call). I’m not sure that the bad ball/strike calls here decided the game, but the Giants scored at least one run as a result of it (strike three to Sanchez), and benefitted even more defensively from it. It’s wrong that this keeps happening, and I hope it stops soon.
I have to disagree. While there is an objective rulebook definition of what the strike zone is (and that is what these BBB plots are based on), there is a difference between a “normal” and “real” strike zone. Umpires have always been individual arbiters of what the zone for the day is. Every ump has his tendencies, and it is incumbent on players of both sides to know those tendencies and to adapt. (Note that I’m not stating whether or not this is fair or right — just that it’s an objective fact.)
As these plots demonstrate, Cain/Posey did a better job of taking advantage of what Barrett was calling than did Hamels/Ruiz. This is critical to success, and it is different than the excuse that “the ump wasn’t calling a good game.”
It’s a given that umps have different strike zones. It may not be “right,” but it’s a fact. And in that situation, all one can ask from umpires is that they be consistent with the zone.
Also, with particular regard to game 1: the non-call to Burrell appeared to be strike three. (I say “appeared” because it was a very close pitch, and I don’t think calling it a ball was completely out of left field.) But focusing on that one pitch — while easy to do — really overemphasizes one moment to the detriment of the larger context. When a zone is as wonky as Cousins’ was in game 1, it dramatically impacts the way each pitcher is able to proceed. In addition to the obvious mistaken calls and non-calls, there are also more invisible changes, as each pitcher tries to adapt their pre-game strategy to what the umpire is giving and not giving. The call to Burrell was clearly big, but I think to focus on it as some cosmic intervention that robbed the Phillies is really a mistake.
Umpires are not allowed to “give” strikes, and they are not allowed to be arbiters of the strike zone. The strike zone is defined by the rule book, and any deviation from that zone is a mistake by the umpire. That’s not always been the case, of course, but the old system proved unsustainable. The worst part of the old system was that the umpires were clearly biased towards pitchers with good command. That system was clearly ripe for abuse, and it’s not something that we can just accept as the way things are.
If you’re going to talk about a single pitch to Burrell then I think it is fair to talk about a bases loaded at-bat in which Johnathan Sanchez walked Jimmy Rollins in game 2. According to the PitchFX chart for that at bat (dunno if we can do HTML here, so here goes) http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/numlocation.php-pitchSel=456043&game=gid_2010_10_17_sfnmlb_phimlb_1&batterX=9&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=3.gif Rollins should have been called out on strikes. At the very least, the count should have been 3-2 as pitch 5 was clearly a strike. This was a run-scoring call, and was objectively incorrect.
I’m not going to sit here and actually complain about the call. As Evan says, the calls have gone both ways over several games and as Graham says umpires interpretations of the strike zone vary (but are hopefully consistent over the course of a game). Lets not focus on one pitch or one at-bat and instead realize that the Giants have been getting key hits when they’ve needed them and key outs when they’ve needed them while the Phillies haven’t.
Perfectly fair to discuss both calls, and I agree that Rollins should have been struck out on that pitch. Had both calls been correct the Phillies would have had one fewer run in their five-run win and the Giants would have had two fewer runs in their one-run win. It doesn’t take a great deal of math to figure out which team benefitted from the exchange of bad calls there. I am not sure how you distinguish your statement complaining about a bad call that went against your team from “actually complaining,” but either way, both calls may be fairly critiqued and complained about. Only one directly impacted the outcome of the game and so that one seems to be the more important one.
@Andy — see, this is exactly what I was trying to say: there is a huge continuum in baseball, and one pitch or one at-bat produces repercussions throughout the rest of the game. Sanchez not getting that call against Rollins made him throw extra pitches — maybe he gets the call and he pitches the 7th, and the ballgame is 2-1 going into the 8th and the whole scenario looks totally different.
I just think it’s pointless and somewhat irritating to dwell on these kinds of things. Look, every baseball game has dozens of little moments where a difference of a couple inches can dramatically alter the outcome. That’s part of the reason the game is so fun to watch. Ultimately, one team wins when the combination of skill and luck aggregates in their favor — and for every “what coulda been” that went the wrong way, there are doubtless counter-examples for things that went the right way. A batter just gets under one. A catcher doesn’t have a perfect grip on a throw to second base. A ball is just fair or just foul, or called just fair or foul when it’s really the opposite.
This has been an awesome series – I’ve enjoyed nearly every minute of it. I hope the majority of fans will agree, and will refuse to let sour grapes about a couple of tough umpiring decisions ruin their enjoyment.
@Graham – I couldn’t have said it better myself.
@Andy – I wasn’t complaining. I was pointing out an instance where objectively incorrect calls influenced an at-bat and, ultimately, influenced the game. The same is true for Burrell’s at-bat. Clearly, the Phillies were the better team on Sunday and I don’t begrudge them the win. The Giants were better on Saturday and Tuesday.
As a fan of good pitching, I’ve been enjoying this post-season immensely. I look forward to seeing which team takes advantage of the opportunities given them tonight.
The non strike calls have went both ways, especially in game one. The difference is that one team capitalized and one didn’t.
I believe that the fact that I can’t watch the games, due to Cablevision/Fox ruining my life, is jinxing the Phils. They need me watching in order to win.
Honestly you can’t complain about the strike zone when you score zero runs. I’m sorry, but the Phillies had a number of good opportunities to score runs in that game, and they just didn’t. Disappointing, really.
From a Philly fan, you’re dead on. It’s not like they didn’t have opportunities to score. Doesn’t matter how good the pitching is supposed to be if you get SHO.
I toss you all for arguing balls and strikes.
It’s worth noting that Hamels went out of his way to call the strike zone consistent and fair in his post-game comments.
Watching live, the only one I thought Barrett clearly botched was one of the 2 strike pitches to Sanchez, before his “hit” that Utley butchered to make it 3-0
So not a real issue in the game IMO (Phils fan). Also I think some of those borderline strikes for Cain to Barrett’s right were changeups, so the fact that those were moving left to right should probably be considered as well as the final location
Cole “missed” to his arm side on those close calls mostly with cutters + straight fastballs