Power Leaderboards, With the Old Ball
Are you nostalgic for 2015? There are a few reasons to be, not the least of which is Fetty Wap’s Billboard dominance. Or, you know, when home runs were more rare. Back when the ball’s seams were probably higher and balls didn’t travel as far. Back when hitting 20 homers by the half was tough to do, and there weren’t 24 players that had done so by the All-Star Game.
What if we could go back?
Well, thanks to the help of Andrew Perpetua, we might be able to. We know, for example, that exit velocity is up for the entire league since May 2015 (1.02 mph). We also know that the league is hitting the ball about 5.6 feet further on average, probably reduced to less drag on a ball with lower seams. The ball is going farther at the same exit velocities.
In order to put these two effects together, we can express that extra distance in exit velocity again, just for the purposes of this exercise. In other words, what sort of exit velo would produce 5.6 extra feet? Turns out it’s another 1.11 mph. Then we can take the summed exit velocity changes (2.13 mph) and remove those from 2017’s balls in plays. Then we take those de-juiced numbers and run them through the same rubric that powers Perpetua’s xStats metrics to get an expected line. An expected line for this year given those adjusted inputs.
All of this is to answer the question: how would the league’s bats look if they were hitting the 2015 ball?
Here are the top 20 in expected home runs given the same kind of exit velos and batted-ball distances we saw back in the halcyon days of May 2015.
| Name | PA | xAVG | xOBP | xSLG | xOBA | yHR | xHR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aaron Judge | 366 | 0.272 | 0.405 | 0.570 | 0.421 | 29.9 | 19.0 |
| George Springer | 378 | 0.299 | 0.375 | 0.603 | 0.408 | 26.3 | 18.9 |
| Joey Votto | 384 | 0.313 | 0.428 | 0.615 | 0.443 | 28.4 | 18.5 |
| Khris Davis | 368 | 0.235 | 0.329 | 0.497 | 0.352 | 23.9 | 16.9 |
| Joey Gallo | 291 | 0.184 | 0.309 | 0.472 | 0.346 | 23.6 | 16.2 |
| Miguel Sano | 345 | 0.245 | 0.343 | 0.510 | 0.362 | 21.3 | 16.2 |
| Paul Goldschmidt | 381 | 0.310 | 0.428 | 0.577 | 0.428 | 23.7 | 15.8 |
| Giancarlo Stanton | 369 | 0.262 | 0.348 | 0.512 | 0.372 | 21.4 | 15.6 |
| Cody Bellinger | 292 | 0.257 | 0.340 | 0.558 | 0.385 | 22.6 | 15.3 |
| Salvador Perez | 315 | 0.279 | 0.308 | 0.550 | 0.358 | 19.9 | 14.9 |
| Justin Smoak | 333 | 0.282 | 0.350 | 0.547 | 0.383 | 23.7 | 14.8 |
| Eric Thames | 329 | 0.233 | 0.365 | 0.502 | 0.374 | 21.9 | 14.5 |
| Adam Duvall | 355 | 0.260 | 0.305 | 0.522 | 0.351 | 21.2 | 14.5 |
| Manny Machado | 365 | 0.269 | 0.331 | 0.516 | 0.366 | 21.0 | 14.2 |
| Matt Davidson | 257 | 0.215 | 0.255 | 0.488 | 0.306 | 18.6 | 14.2 |
| Nolan Arenado | 388 | 0.307 | 0.356 | 0.570 | 0.386 | 20.4 | 14.1 |
xHR = expected homers with the early 2015 adjustment to the batted ball stats
yHR = expected homers with current-batted ball stats
There’s quite a bit of data here, but it’s actually not that bad. All the metrics preceded by an -x- represent an estimate of the relevant player’s numbers were he facing the old ball. The one metric preceded by a -y- (yHR) represents the player’s expected home-run total for the current season (under 2017 conditions, that is).
According to the numbers, last night’s Derby winner has earned every one of his home runs this year. Aaron Judge leads the majors with 30 long balls. The batted-ball data suggests he “should have” hit 29.9 so far. Basically identical.
Applying the 2015 adjustment, however, we see that Judge would have “only” put up 19 homers by this point. That’s still impressive for a rookie, obviously. But he likely wouldn’t be on pace for 60 homers. And he’d have ranked only 13th in 2015’s actual results.

This is probably also where the caveats should come in. We left park factors out of this, because they were impossible. We’re applying a blanket adjustment even though Judge seems to have shown us that he hits the ball harder than anyone ever born. This is not science.
But it is a way to try and imagine today’s game, which now sees at least 25% more home runs per fly ball than it did in early 2015, with yesterday’s ball. Imagine a season in which Joey Votto might just hit 30 or so home runs, it’s easy if you try. Imagine a season in which Miguel Sano is beasting, but has 16 homers right now.
Jeff Sullivan showed us that this batted-ball boost has most benefited the “middle class of would-be power hitters.” Can we look at the players with the biggest deltas between their current expected homers and their early 2015 version, and put some faces and names to that class of player? Yes, we can.
| Name | PA | xAVG | xOBP | xSLG | xOBA | yHR | xHR | Delta | Delta/yHR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrelton Simmons | 369 | 0.283 | 0.335 | 0.410 | 0.327 | 8.2 | 3.8 | 4.4 | 0.54 |
| Nick Markakis | 376 | 0.278 | 0.360 | 0.389 | 0.335 | 5.0 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 0.52 |
| Gerardo Parra | 172 | 0.336 | 0.359 | 0.529 | 0.384 | 6.5 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 0.51 |
| Orlando Arcia | 317 | 0.257 | 0.297 | 0.376 | 0.295 | 5.7 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 0.49 |
| David Freese | 262 | 0.243 | 0.377 | 0.376 | 0.346 | 6.2 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 0.48 |
| Michael Brantley | 278 | 0.317 | 0.378 | 0.475 | 0.370 | 5.9 | 3.1 | 2.8 | 0.47 |
| Scooter Gennett | 226 | 0.277 | 0.330 | 0.473 | 0.347 | 11.2 | 5.9 | 5.3 | 0.47 |
| Jason Kipnis | 283 | 0.250 | 0.308 | 0.412 | 0.310 | 8.1 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 0.47 |
| Josh Harrison | 368 | 0.269 | 0.351 | 0.409 | 0.337 | 9.6 | 5.1 | 4.5 | 0.47 |
| Yunel Escobar | 303 | 0.297 | 0.354 | 0.428 | 0.340 | 6.2 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 0.47 |
| Victor Martinez | 286 | 0.264 | 0.332 | 0.386 | 0.320 | 6.5 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 0.46 |
| Asdrubal Cabrera | 256 | 0.278 | 0.358 | 0.434 | 0.348 | 7.4 | 4.0 | 3.4 | 0.46 |
| Yangervis Solarte | 289 | 0.275 | 0.356 | 0.392 | 0.337 | 6.1 | 3.3 | 2.8 | 0.46 |
| Yasmani Grandal | 280 | 0.254 | 0.307 | 0.412 | 0.313 | 9.6 | 5.2 | 4.4 | 0.46 |
| Derek Norris | 198 | 0.208 | 0.264 | 0.351 | 0.267 | 5.9 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 0.46 |
| Stephen Vogt | 199 | 0.230 | 0.298 | 0.392 | 0.305 | 7.0 | 3.8 | 3.2 | 0.46 |
| Maikel Franco | 347 | 0.272 | 0.324 | 0.419 | 0.324 | 9.7 | 5.3 | 4.4 | 0.45 |
| Alex Bregman | 329 | 0.275 | 0.357 | 0.445 | 0.352 | 9.3 | 5.1 | 4.2 | 0.45 |
| Tyler Flowers | 224 | 0.274 | 0.372 | 0.393 | 0.341 | 5.1 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 0.45 |
| Jordy Mercer | 332 | 0.267 | 0.347 | 0.398 | 0.338 | 6.0 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 0.45 |
Here, we divided the difference between the two expected homer totals by 2017’s expected homers. We did this because we wanted to adjust for sheer quantity. Hit tons of hard fly balls and you’ll gain more from the ball, but who’s really gaining the most per opportunity?
Here, the names really pop out at you. When you hear an announcer bemoaning the fact that middle infielders are hitting 20 homers a year now, left and right and willy nilly, they’re talking about Andrelton Simmons and Scooter Gennett. And Yunel Escobar. And Jordy Mercer. Even if those guys don’t all hit the 20-homer threshold this year, they’ll end up closer to it than seems right to some.
There might be better ways to do this, but then again, maybe it shouldn’t be done better. After all, these things don’t happen in a vacuum. For example, the average league-wide launch angle is up about a degree, perhaps as a response to the shift, or because the ball started flying. Who knows. You see the ball fly better, you adjust to take advantage of it.
In other words, we can’t go back. This is where we are now. But we can wonder what things would be like, if the ball acted like it used to.
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.
If the ball has lower seams, then shouldn’t that be resulting in less break on breaking balls? idk if it is or not – but any change in the ball should also change the way it moves when pitched – not just the way it moves when hit.
The problem with looking at movement is that we transitioned from PitchF/x to Statcast in the time frame, and that transition is probably not done yet. Movement is not measured exactly the same way and I’m not sure all of our corrections are done yet.
How much of a conspiracy theorist does one need to be to think the move to confound all pitching measurements while denying changes to the baseball was intentional?
I’m in on that.
Put it in an email under an “unknown name” then I think we will buy it
can we conjure up some involvement of a Russian?
Not too much of one. A little bit of one. That’s Kennedy assassination level conspiracy.
Not moon landing conspiracy. Certainly not infowars reptillian Clinton pedophiles levels of conspiracy.
“As for how the changes to the ball might affect pitches, we still don’t know. Hurlers generate movement on breaking pitches by orienting the seams to spin the ball. If those seams are lower, as Lindbergh and Lichtman found, pitchers could be less able to grip the way they’re used to. It’s difficult to see any effect on pitch spin in the data, however, and according to Nathan, for a given amount of spin, small changes in seam height aren’t likely to change the aerodynamic properties of breaking balls very much.”
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/in-mlbs-new-home-run-era-its-the-baseballs-that-are-juicing/
However further up in the article it’s also mentioned: “…the average pitch loses about 7.4 mph on its way to the plate. The exact amount of velocity lost depends on the thickness of the air (which varies with temperature, weather and elevation), but a high-drag ball tends to lose about 8.7 mph on the way to the plate, while a slicker ball would lose only 6.5 mph.”
So the juiced ball would lose less velo on the way to the plate. I wonder if this would have increased SwStr% on certain pitch types, helping to lead to more K’s?
Wait, why do we sum the exit velocities? Isn’t the additional average distance already, at least partially, a result of the increased exit velocity?
The ball is going further at the same exit velocities, so we added them to reflect that the ball is going faster and then further at the same speeds.
Oh, the 5.6 feet is considering same exit velos? (i.e., a ball hit at 100mph at 20-degrees is now travelling at 380 ft. vs. 375 feet before? [made up figures])
Here’s a sampling. at 95-97 mph, 32-34 degrees 2015: 357.6ft, 2017: 363.5ft. We did this for a few bins and used the overall average in the end.
That’s huge. That’s pretty much the difference between a warning track fly ball out, or a game tying dinger. I love baseball (and juiced balls)
so you are controlling not just for exit velocity but launch angle — that is, the whole vector? because that is clearly important, given the attention we’ve paid to the fly ball revolution — balls with similar velocity should be flying farther thanks to increasing launch angle. (sorry if my question is elementary, i’ve been out of this discussion.)
if so, considering the aerodynamic drag of the ball is a good next option. what other aspects can we consider? park effect changes. variance in weather conditions. measurement method changes. there are likely more — real world physics can be very complex.
haha yeah, these guys don’t go that deep. they just add and multiply. they think they can solve “real world” physics problems with exit velocity and launch angle statcast data. this is extremely funny to me.there are so many variables not being considered.
this community is wrapped up in the whole “pseudo-intelligent” movement. All these geniuses in one place, what are the odds.
oh look now the juiced ball is commonly accepted theory 2 years after being laughed about as a conspiracy.
I thought everyone agreed that they amazingly adjusted their swings to hit more FBs…strangely, something not tried by hitters in the prior 175 years of baseball
occams razor – much easier to change the setting on the machine that makes all the baseballs than it is for 200 hitters to make adjustments to swings
I don’t think anyone laughed at it as a conspiracy, it was just pointed out that there was no direct evidence for a juiced ball, which at the time was true. Now we do have direct evidence, in addition to the circumstantial home run increase.
when we say evidence, we mean the increase in fly ball distance from the same initial velocity conditions?
Nope, that part is the “circumstantial home run increase” which is technically evidence, but Ryan DC did not use the term “evidence” to describe it. I believe what Ryan was referring to as “evidence” is this:
https://theringer.com/2017-mlb-home-run-spike-juiced-ball-testing-reveal-155cd21108bc
And then also this:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it-looks-like-the-baseball-is-behind-mlbs-power-surge/
Heck, I thought “everyone agreed” that it had to be the balls given the sudden onset of the change.
it is possible but i’m not sold, for one. there’s plenty of room for skepticism — especially after having lived through a few cycles of “they changed the ball!” now only to find it was doping.
if it were the adoption of new doping methods (which remains the most likely explanation, as it has been demonstrated more than hypothetically across many professional sports over time), how could we explain the data we are seeing? that is a question that must be answered carefully, avoiding the reflexive denial that many fans who want to be seen loving a clean and moral game (and there are many, as we also have seen historically) will resort to.
we have to acknowledge, with apologies to occam, that real world physics is very complex. there are many possible sources of the delta we are seeing. ball aerodynamics is one. so too is measurement error. net deviations in weather conditions. changes in park effects. these error sources all have to be studied carefully, as the changes in net distance are not large. i haven’t seen a proper accounting of all of these, and could be persuaded if there were one.
Well argued.
Are we just going to go every week now with an article that analyzes the different home run environment but has to spend its first few paragraphs bitching about it before moving into the analysis?
I guess we have to give the juiced ball group a place to whine each week, but I’d enjoy the analysis more without the attempt to bemoan it’s necessity.
I hear you, but I do need to figure out how to put in all the links. Maybe from now on I just have a quote box with related links and move on haha.
There’s differences and they’re important. I just dislike how most of thr articles about them have to spend the time implying the changes are negative (or positive). We had an article last week that did the same.
Sabermetrics matters because baseball always changes. It will change again. It doesn’t stay the same. That’s why catching them fast and adapting is what matters for teams.
I wish we spent less time on whether we like those changes. Our liking is immaterial.
You do you, Eno. That Fetty Wap link was absolutely essential.
The seams are pointed to as having a major effect on drag, but reduced seams would also be affecting spin rates for pitchers. Is there evidence for that. Would a smaller ball with less surface area also create less drag, enough so to carry further at the same exit velocity?
The second question is totally true, follow the link at the top of my piece for more on that. Lower seams means less drag, and the ball is carrying further at the same exit velos. The first… deserves more attention probably.
did you do this with the actual homerun batted balls, or just a model mapping exit velo to expected homers?
We used a model to map faux 2015 exit velos and launch angles to 2017’s expected outcomes.
It will be interesting to see what implications this might have on mid- to late-career guys that have a borderline HOF case. Now, they might end up with 50 more career homers (spread over the next 5-10 years) than they’d otherwise have, which might make it easier for some voters to check their box.
In my opinion, 2017 has been as fun a year as I can recall in a long time. I’ll take that over 2015 or whenever.
If they juiced the ball, here’s hoping they keep it juiced.
The stealth Lennon reference is impressive.
That’s only stealth to someone who’s never heard of John Lennon. Imagine a world where we could use the word imagine without referencing that song. You hoo ooo ooo ooo.
So, let’s say the “Steroid Era” hadn’t happened and Judge was chasing the 61HR record. Would we asterisk it? Serious question.
To follow up on that idea, how many HRs do we think Bonds would have hit in 2001 with these baseballs? I know there’s no Statcast, but maybe the 7ft thing would help estimate.
Lastly, do we think there are points in time where the ball was changed and we got results like this? Makes you really think about “the numbers” and “the eras” through a different lens.