Taking Home Runs Back to 2015
If you’re reading this article, you’re probably not dead, and if you’re not dead, you’ve heard all the fuss about soaring home run rates. I’m not here to judge your perspective on it — I think reasonable people can disagree on how they like their baseball, though I will say that I love a good strikeout and feel pretty neutral about home runs. But I think one thing everyone wonders about is who this all helps.
It’s not the pitchers, clearly. It doesn’t seem to be the big boppers — despite the stupendous home run totals, no one is threatening to hit 73 home runs any time soon. Heck, no one has approached 61 since Giancarlo Stanton’s chase in 2017, and that was a singular event rather than a wave of history-chasing sluggers. Is it the little guys? Freddy Galvis has 20 dingers on the year — that has to count for something.
There’s a lot of chicken-and-egg going on here and no real answers to the answer of who benefits the most from the livelier ball. That’s why I looked to the minor leagues to see which players were most affected by the new ball. That study was basically inconclusive, aside from showing that players with absolutely no power are barely affected.
I thought I’d take a different look at it today. It’s hard to say who has benefited the most from the new ball, but what if we could answer a different question: who would be most affected if the league surreptitiously replaced today’s baseballs with old ones overnight?
There’s been plenty of research about what’s changed with the new balls, but the general consensus among scientists is that the key change has been to the drag coefficient of a baseball in flight. In other words, a ball hit at the same angle and speed will carry farther, on average, now than it did before.
If the only thing that has changed is how far the ball carries, we can use that data to do a little mathematical trickery. I recently came up with expected home run rates based on exit velocity of line drives and fly balls, which lets us know how many home runs a player “should” hit based on the actual balls they hit, rather than just using average exit velocity or ignoring that data altogether. That data, of course, is based on how often balls of a given velocity leave the park in 2019.
There’s no reason we have to leave it that way, though. We have launch angle and exit velocity data going back to 2015, when there were 4,909 home runs all year — we’re at 5,274 (as of Monday) this year already, on pace for 6,835. As you would expect given the changing aerodynamics, hitting a ball in the air is a lot more valuable this year.
To explain just how valuable, I took all the balls hit in the air this year and refined them a little bit — I defined the balls that could become home runs as anything hit between 15 and 45 degrees, essentially line drives and fly balls excluding low line drives. This is slightly different than the Statcast definition (10 to 50), but it only excludes regions with almost no home runs, so it should make the study work somewhat better.
With that in mind, let’s look at how often air balls at each exit velocity turn into home runs, both in 2015 and now:
| Exit Velocity (mph) | 2015 HR% | 2019 HR% | Increase |
|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | 0.50% | 0.90% | 0.40% |
| 91 | 0.80% | 1.40% | 0.60% |
| 92 | 2.00% | 3.50% | 1.50% |
| 93 | 2.40% | 4.00% | 1.60% |
| 94 | 4.40% | 6.10% | 1.70% |
| 95 | 6.20% | 6.80% | 0.60% |
| 96 | 8.50% | 9.40% | 0.90% |
| 97 | 10.70% | 11.70% | 1.00% |
| 98 | 13.80% | 17.00% | 3.20% |
| 99 | 17.70% | 21.00% | 3.30% |
| 100 | 24.20% | 29.40% | 5.20% |
| 101 | 28.60% | 36.10% | 7.50% |
| 102 | 41.20% | 43.40% | 2.20% |
| 103 | 46.70% | 48.80% | 2.10% |
| 104 | 48.60% | 52.40% | 3.80% |
| 105 | 52.90% | 53.30% | 0.40% |
| 106 | 56.70% | 57.50% | 0.80% |
| 107 | 57.00% | 61.00% | 4.00% |
| 108 | 61.90% | 66.30% | 4.40% |
| 109 | 64.70% | 68.30% | 3.60% |
| 110 | 70.40% | 71.60% | 1.20% |
The data isn’t perfect, of course: we’re excluding the exact launch angle of each ball, as well as any back- or top-spin. It’s still a good approximation though, and it shows that every ball hit in the air is more likely to become a home run now than it was in 2015; even the puny 90-mph bucket gets a boost.
With that transformation done, we can take every air ball hit this year and apply 2015 expected home run rates to it. Then we simply compare to the 2019 expected home run rates, and we have our biggest losers if the ball were to be rolled back. There doesn’t appear to be much of a pattern:
| Player | 2019 xHR% | 2015 xHR% | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mitch Moreland | 24.07% | 21.75% | -2.32% |
| Brandon Lowe | 25.98% | 23.68% | -2.31% |
| Nelson Cruz | 35.77% | 33.51% | -2.26% |
| Josh Donaldson | 29.45% | 27.23% | -2.22% |
| Marcell Ozuna | 31.05% | 29.03% | -2.03% |
| Ryon Healy | 17.06% | 15.04% | -2.02% |
| Lourdes Gurriel Jr. | 21.84% | 19.84% | -2.01% |
| Miguel Sanó | 34.15% | 32.15% | -2.01% |
| Wil Myers | 27.97% | 25.97% | -2.00% |
| José Altuve | 19.16% | 17.19% | -1.96% |
There are a good number of big boppers in there; Nelson Cruz and Miguel Sanó don’t exactly seem like the kind of people begging for a little extra juice to let them hit the ball over the wall. Donaldson and Ozuna are interesting names: my pre-2015 brain still thinks of them as well-rounded offensive players who hit 20-30 home runs a year, but Donaldson has 41 and 37 home run seasons in the past five years, and he will probably settle in around that range again this year. Ozuna launched 37 in a power-mad 2017, and if it weren’t for injury this year, he’d be threatening that mark again.
Altuve is the player we all expected to see on this list: he’d never hit more than seven home runs in a season before 2015. Though the ball was already jumping in 2015, he only hit 15 that year. Since then though, he’s had 24, 24, 13 in a down year, and 22 (and counting) this year. That seems like the kind of player who should be affected most. Still, no one’s losing more than 2.5% — it’s not a sea change by any means.
How about the other end of the spectrum, the hitters who aren’t getting any value out of the newly explosive baseball? It’s basically who you’d expect, with one exception that we’ll get to in a minute:
| Player | 2019 xHR% | 2015 xHR% | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Billy Hamilton | 0.81% | 0.60% | -0.21% |
| Nicky Lopez | 3.60% | 3.15% | -0.46% |
| Dee Gordon | 2.62% | 2.08% | -0.54% |
| J.P. Crawford | 6.64% | 6.06% | -0.58% |
| David Fletcher | 3.75% | 3.17% | -0.59% |
| José Peraza | 3.92% | 3.32% | -0.59% |
| Tony Wolters | 4.37% | 3.74% | -0.63% |
| Eric Sogard | 4.20% | 3.49% | -0.71% |
| Ender Inciarte | 4.24% | 3.50% | -0.74% |
| Hanser Alberto | 4.21% | 3.46% | -0.75% |
Wait — Eric Sogard? He’s the kind of person who you’d expect to be helped most by the new baseball. You can’t tell me that Eric Sogard having 13 home runs isn’t due to a change in the baseball. Here’s the thing, though — even with the 2019 baseball, Sogard’s air balls shouldn’t lead to this many home runs. Per my xHR%, he would only have 4.8 home runs on the year. Whatever he’s doing, it’s not picked up by exit velocity. Maybe it’s luck, maybe it’s backspin, maybe he’s hitting the ball on the perfect trajectory. Whatever it is, this model isn’t picking it up in either 2015 or 2019.
Rates are only part of the game. Let’s look at the most-hurt list again, only with home runs as the sorting mechanism rather than home run rate change. This is another interesting thing to consider; if the ball changed, launch angle changers might be left high and dry:
| Player | xHR’s Lost | xHR% Decrease | Air Balls |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anthony Rendon | -2.89 | -1.90% | 152 |
| Cody Bellinger | -2.88 | -1.81% | 159 |
| Freddie Freeman | -2.80 | -1.74% | 161 |
| Mookie Betts | -2.78 | -1.60% | 174 |
| Eduardo Escobar | -2.74 | -1.27% | 216 |
| Justin Turner | -2.65 | -1.71% | 155 |
| Alex Bregman | -2.60 | -1.70% | 153 |
| J.D. Martinez | -2.53 | -1.70% | 149 |
| Brandon Belt | -2.50 | -1.52% | 165 |
| Nicholas Castellanos | -2.47 | -1.55% | 159 |
Okay, so the effects on expected home run rate aren’t huge. Two or three home runs is a big deal, but no one’s losing 10 jacks or anything. Rendon has become much more of a fly ball hitter over the years, so he seems like a reasonable biggest loser.
The other side of the ledger is uninteresting, so I’ll skip it. Hamilton only loses .15 home runs of expectation, for example, but he was only expected to hit .5 in the first place, so he’s bounded by zero more than anything. More interesting, to me, is that even with speed translating to home runs at the decreased 2015 level, we’d be on pace for 6,422 home runs this year, easily a record. The 2015 season wasn’t exactly the dead ball era, but this year’s batted balls would produce a lot more home runs regardless of the ball.
That leads us to a question: hey, didn’t the baseball change during 2015? The general narrative is that there was a clean break in home run rate at the All-Star break. That checks out — HR/FB% went from 10.7% in the first half to 12.1% in the second half. Despite that, increased carry doesn’t seem to be to blame — I ran both halves separately, and the exit velocity buckets were nearly indistinguishable.
Why is that? Alan Nathan to the rescue again — his study showed that exit velocity increased by roughly 1 mph for relevant batted balls in the time period in question. The cause of that increase is tough to pin down, and there’s no clear evidence that the exit velocity boost was caused by the ball rather than by something else — batters getting better, the grip making pitchers throw more hittable pitches, or anything else you can think of.
It could be, unlikely as it seems based on Nathan’s and Meredith Wills’ later studies, that the changed balls somehow increased exit velocity, rather than only decreasing drag. The evidence doesn’t point that way, but it’s certainly not impossible. Fine then! Let’s cut 1 mph off of every batted ball this year, then translate those batted balls through our 2015 exit velocity buckets. Now the list of home runs lost is getting serious:
| Player | xHR’s Lost | xHR% Decrease | Air Balls |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anthony Rendon | -7.64 | -5.02% | 152 |
| Cody Bellinger | -7.37 | -4.63% | 159 |
| Mookie Betts | -6.99 | -4.01% | 174 |
| Nicholas Castellanos | -6.76 | -4.25% | 159 |
| Freddie Freeman | -6.63 | -4.12% | 161 |
| Alex Bregman | -6.49 | -4.24% | 153 |
| J.D. Martinez | -6.42 | -4.31% | 149 |
| Justin Turner | -6.41 | -4.13% | 155 |
| Eduardo Escobar | -6.16 | -2.85% | 216 |
| Ozzie Albies | -6.05 | -3.58% | 169 |
Though the names are mostly the same, the losses are deeper. There are a collective 1,174 home runs lost across the sport in this hypothetical. Being a fly ball hitter would be significantly worse in this environment. And yet, we’d still be on pace for 5,535 home runs this year. That’s more than were hit in 2015, even after average exit velocity ticked up in the second half. It’s nearly as many as were hit in 2016 and 2018.
What this says, to me, is that the cause of all these home runs isn’t as simple as a changing baseball. Players have changed what they do pretty markedly, trying to lift more balls in the air in the velocity bands that most translate to home runs. Pitchers have done their part too by leaning more on pitches with low ground-ball rates and less on sinkers. At the current pace, hitters will end the year with nearly 3,000 more balls that fit my criteria — exit velocity over 90 mph, launch angle between 15 and 45 degrees.
Almost all of those come in the super-high-value band of balls hit more than 100 mph; in fact, even if you took 1 mph off of every hit in 2019, there would still be a thousand extra-high-velo air balls in 2019 as compared to 2015. Hitters are hitting more balls with the potential to become home runs, and the rabbit ball is launching those potential home runs into the stratosphere, both literally and figuratively.
As is often the case in baseball, the story isn’t quite as simple as “the ball changed, and home runs exploded.” Those two things happened, sure, and the ball has caused a lot more home runs, but it hasn’t caused all the extra home runs. Hitters aren’t dummies, and they’ve started trying to hit more long balls. Pitchers have compensated by going for more whiffs, and the pitch at the forefront of that movement, the four-seam fastball, happens to allow a lot of fly balls.
I set out, in this study, to show which home runs the ball had created in the last four years. I think I’ve accomplished that, but the real revelation is that hitters have done their part to add to the dingerization of baseball. Strip away exit velocity, make the ball less aerodynamic, and they’d still be out-homering 2015 by a decent amount. In idyllic first-half 2015, batters hit an annualized 4,361 home runs. This year’s batters, even arbitrarily robbed of a mile of speed and using a less aerodynamic ball, would hit an extra 1,200 home runs. It’s the ball, but it’s not just the ball.
Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.
Has anyone looked into the effect that ball usage has had on the home run rates? One thing that has changed recently is that every time a ball touches the dirt or touches a bat it is taken out of play and a new ball is used. Thus, every single ball that is put into play now is a brand new baseball. In the past the same ball was used until it was hit out of play or a pitcher requested a new one. Thus, balls would get softer and more scuffed the longer they were used. They probably carried less distance the longer they were used.
Excellent point, and a good example of why this is one of the few sites where it pays to read the comments.
Somewhat related: I was recently talking to a woman who runs the booth at an MLB stadium that sells game used baseballs and she said that the demand for game used balls was way higher than they expected when they started selling them. I also went to a Cubs game where they were selling a game-used baseball (a HR into the basket) for $1,500. I’m sure that sort of demand incentivizes teams to take balls out of games more quickly than they once did.
I came to the idea from a conversation initiated by Paul O’Neill (of all people) during a Yankees broadcast. He was commenting on Gary Sanchez automatically chucking balls away if a pitch happened to touch the ground. O’Neill noted that back in his day balls used to regularly last whole innings. David Cone responded that as a pitcher he ALWAYS wanted the ball back if it had been put into play. He thought it gave him an advantage and especially if it had gotten scuffed since he could get it to break more.
Replacing pitched balls that hit the dirt has happened for many years, not recently. I quickly found a 2012 article (https://www.foxsports.com/other/story/major-league-baseballs-have-a-short-shelf-life-062912) referring to the practice . Replacing balls that have been hit into play is something that I have noticed this season, but I have not noticed that it is universally the case — seems to me sometimes the ball stays in play and sometimes not (which I always found a bit odd). I’ll pay more attention now .
Indeed, thanks for sharing that. I wonder when it changed, or if it was a gradual change?
Living in England I’ve gotten to experience a bit of cricket and the ball usage is very different than baseball. They basically use two balls per match. Each team bats once in cricket and they begin the side with a new ball. The condition of the ball changes a lot over the course of play and teams choose the order of their batters and bowlers accordingly. Generally fast bowlers go first when the ball moves less, and the best batters go earlier when the ball carries further. Also the bowlers are allowed to polish the ball and they generally polish one half on their trouser leg so that half the ball is smooth and shiny and the other half is not. This makes the ball break considerably when it is bowled.
And it’s likely even earlier than 2012, because I remember as a kid reading that the average baseball had a “life expectancy” of around 7 pitches, so that would have been around the late ’90s and early 2000s.
It’s been many years already that balls have been taken out of play after coming in contact with bat or dirt.
I have a question; is it possible the bats are better? My dad pointed out to me recently that (anecdotally) we haven’t seen very many broken bats, and I wonder if EV can increase due to that? I’ve got no evidence to back that up, but it’s something I’ve been wondering about.
The bat makers put a crap ton of lacquer on bats and my guess is that it’s the equivalent of making bats from a petrified forest. You can really see it on bats used during all star games/home run derbies with air brush designs etc. I don’t believe those designs are just decorative.
Another possible reason for less broken bats is bat makers are not making the handles so extremely narrow.
MLB eliminated (or close to eliminated) the use of maple bats, which were breaking more frequently than other bats.
Really enjoyed the article, but I don’t think using percentage points for change in xHR% is the only way the go.
e.g. Hanser Alberto being in the least affected group by going from 4.21% to 3.46% – but that’s nearly a fifth of his expected home runs. While Nelson Cruz goes from 35.77% to 33.51% – a large percentage point drop, but he goes from Great to Slightly Less Great.
This argument comes up a lot when percentages get discussed, and in things with linear weights, I don’t really buy it. I certainly can’t tell the difference between Hanser Alberto hitting 4 (2015 weights) and 5 (2019 weights) home runs, or between .5 and .35 Billy Hamilton home runs, even if those are the biggest percentage changes.
There’s a discussion to be had about the right time to use each, but saying Hamilton is the highest percent-of-original-rate loser (he is!) feels like the wrong conclusion to take away from this study. Percentage points feel like the better metric to me here, though I understand that they’re not always right — this just seems like a place where they make more sense.
I largely agree – it’s more interesting to know the effect on Cruz or Trout; but I’d also be interested in where the overall shift in home runs is coming from. Is it from a lot of guys hitting 12 instead of 10, or a few guys hitting 37 instead of 33
It’s pretty uniform, but the more home runs you’ve hit this year, the more you’d tend to lose if we went back to the old ball. Almost everyone loses between 1 and 2 home runs, though. Only nine batters project to lose more than 2.5 home runs, and only 9 project to lose less than 0.5.
If you used a finer breakdown of launch angle you would get larger individual changes. Of course at some point those changes would be overfitting, and the best bin size isn’t obvious.
Excellent article and confirms what I’ve thought for awhile – it’s not just the ball.
Anecdotally at least, there is some evidence especially from statements made by pitchers that the baseball feels harder than it has in the past. If the ball is in fact harder then it likely that the modulus of elasticity has increased. A herder ball would likely compress less as it is struck by a bat. This would result in lower energy losses during the collision and allow more momentum to be transferred into the ball thereby increasing exit velocity.
That’s definitely not impossible. That said, the report that Dr. Nathan submitted found no significant change in the coefficient of restitution. It could happen, but when they tested the baseballs, they only found the changed drag, not any increased elasticity.
As I recall (haven’t reread) that was in the context of finding a rather large spread of COR within each batch, seriously game-affecting differences between balls. I know the confidence interval included zero, i.e. they couldn’t claim there was a change, but when I have a chance I’ll go see what the 95%th upper bound was, i.e. how large a change they can exclude.
I’m no expert on the subject, but I caught a foul ball 3 weeks ago and it was significantly more rubbed down than the first foul ball I caught in 2007. The seams were far smoother. Maybe that could make a difference? Or it could be just a difference from ball to ball. I don’t know.
Random thoughts on the perfect storm:
1. The baseball’s: a) cover is smoother with lower seams, b) winding fabric is tighter, c) pill is more perfectly centered. These are some things I have read over the course of the season.
2. Players are focusing much more on launch angle and hitting the ball hard with less concern about striking out (frequently mentioned in Fangraphs) – TTO impact.
3. Pitchers are focusing more on velocity with less concern about walks (or more concern about HRs) – again TTO impact.
4. London Yank brings up an interesting point about how frequently the balls are replaced. That may not have much of an impact, but I’m guessing it does contribute to the perfect storm.
5. Anthony Calamis brings up another interesting point about the bats. I wonder how tight the parameters are for approved MLB bats and if there has been any recent changes to the materials (to include the coating) or the manufacturing process (e.g. is the wood being treated?).
Again, these are just random thoughts. Overall, I think the ball is overwhelmingly having the greatest impact (as evidenced by Ben’s minor league (AAA) study).
BTW, Ben has been pumping out a lot of great articles – thanks Ben!
While pitchers are throwing with greater velocity I don’t believe that there is less concern about walls. Free baserunners are more problematic than ever when everyone is a homerun that.
Just curious:
If ball aerodynamics are changing the ball’s travel, shouldn’t it affect travel across the board? Deeper popups and less catchable fouls?
Deeper flyouts?
Harder line drives turning singles into doubles?
Any of that happening? Or is it just homeruns? A gated/threshold effect?
And what about thrown balls?
Is 60 ft too short a distance to see a difference?
Also, pitchers are throwing harder; more energy going should mean more energy going out if the coeficient of restitution is unchanged, right?
Maybe there’s more going on than just better aerodynamics?
It affects how the ball travels across the board. Rob Arthur has a couple of articles on calculating the drag coefficient using pitch velocity from release to the time it crosses the plate. Numbers are close to MLB’s report and definitely match the change in drag coefficients. The homers are by far the greatest significant effect and easiest to see and measure. The change is probably still less than 10 feet on homers. Sure, it may cause a ball to move just out of an OF’s reach, but also makes some balls that would drop between the IF and OF reach the OF. Considering the change to how OF and IF positioning is implemented, it would be very tough to determine how much the drag coefficient change has had an effect on balls in play.
On pitcher velocity, I think it makes up a near insignificant amount of the exit velocity.
Definitely more going on than just aerodynamics. Hitters and pitchers have changed. From what I’ve calculated (on league wide scale using bigger buckets than this article, but incorporating launch angles), Hitters are hitting batted balls more frequently into buckets of EV and LA that are more likely homers. Pitchers are striking out more batters to negate this some of the effect as there are fewer batted balls. From what I’ve calculated, the change in homers from 2018 to 2019 is mostly the ball. The change from 2017 to 2019 in homers is mostly the hitters as ball incredibly juiced both years with 2018 being only decently juiced.
A few feet more travel would lead to more fouls going out of reach, right?
That would lead to more pitches and fewer innings completed.
More pitches seen would also affect second and third time through the order effectiveness.
I used to work for Inside Edge. When I started in 2015, it was rare to get a 6+ second hang time on balls in the air. My last year (2018), 6+ sec. wasn’t unusual anymore and then it was 7+ sec. that was seemingly occurring as often as 6+ sec. when I had started four years earlier.
I don’t know a good way to search this so I’m throwing it out there.
So the balls in AAA have changed this year, leading to a huge increase in home runs.
Is there any evidence that there is further increase in June/July compared to March/April as hitters have figured the advantage of going for dingers?
Of course, to do it right, you would need to adjust for seasonal changes.
EV and launch angle could also be looked as supplementary evidence.
There’s going to be some noise as home runs naturally increase as the weather becomes warmer.
I feel as if MLB saw the trend across the other sports of more scoring and decided to join in on the fun, but didn’t factor into the equation, or didn’t accurately determine the true effect. For example, when you center the game around the big fly, it creates more strikeouts, walks, time between pitches, etc. and a lot of dead time. In the NBA they replaced action with more exciting action with the three ball becoming more prevalent.
I can tell you what isn’t helping Sogard via his wife
I can assure you
@EricSogard
won’t be getting popped anytime soon 🤤 #4kidsandcounting
Quote Tweet
Jeff Passan
@JeffPassan
· Aug 21
The use of gas-station sexual-enhancement pills in baseball is so prevalent that MLB sent out a memo warning players that their use could lead to positive PED tests, as at least two players have claimed this year, sources tell ESPN. News: https://es.pn/30mRZch