The Astros’ Bewildering Offensive Approach
Last night, the Dodgers’ domination of the postseason continued. Winning a World Series game by two runs isn’t exactly steamrolling your opponent, but given what Clayton Kershaw, Brandon Morrow, and Kenley Jansen did to the Astros offense, the game never really felt in doubt. Houston got their only run on an Alex Bregman solo home run and never really threatened again.
The rest of their offensive production consisted of a pair of singles, but neither runner would get past first base. The Astros didn’t put a single runner in scoring position all night long. There were no rallies, no trouble out of which a Dodger pitcher had to work. Just outs, and most of them quick outs.
It took Los Angeles just 107 pitches to face 30 batters. Usually, when you see low pitch counts and quick innings, it’s because a team was overly aggressive, swinging at pitches early in counts and making quick outs. In Game 1, though, the Astros seemingly made it easy on the Dodgers by just not swinging at strikes.
Obviously, there’s no great gameplan for Kershaw, Morrow, and Jansen. You’re going to lose most nights you face those guys. Kershaw’s the best pitcher alive. Jansen might be the best reliever alive now. Morrow has turned into a dominant reliever pumping 100 mph gas. I don’t want to suggest that the Astros’ failure was simply because they had a poor approach: those guys dominate regardless of what their opponents try.
But, with all due respect to the Dodgers for executing, I have to say that I don’t really know why the Astros hitters decided to take so many pitches down the middle.
On the night, Houston took 27 called strikes. One out of every four pitches prompted umpire Phil Cuzzi to his right arm. And most of them weren’t exactly controversial calls.

Jose Altuve was called out on a slider below the knees, and he let Cuzzi know about it on his way back to the dugout. From that reaction and the score, you might think that it was a pitcher’s zone all night and that the Dodgers just took advantage, but besides a generous 0-1 call against Josh Reddick and a first-pitch fastball to Alex Bregman that probably didn’t catch the corner, these were all pretty clear strikes.
Let’s start with George Springer, the team’s leadoff hitter, who somehow managed to stare at five hittable pitches in four at-bats. In the first inning, Kershaw threw Springer an 0-1 curveball. Here’s a rough estimate of where it crossed the plate.

There are obviously some impediments to understanding the precise location of this pitch. We’re looking at a two-dimensional image of a ball entering a three-dimensional strike zone from an off-center outfield camera. Those concerns aside, however, the ball appears to be pretty much in the middle of the plate. Springer started to swing but held up, taking strike two instead.
Then in the third inning, Kershaw once again got a called strike on an 0-1 count. This time, it was with a fastball. A fastball that crossed the plate about here.

That’s a middle-middle fastball with Springer already down a strike. I know it’s Kershaw, and he’s really good, but that’s probably not a pitch he expected to sneak in there for a called strike.
Then, in the sixth inning, Springer came up to face Kershaw a third time. He got ahead 2-0, then chased a slider before getting a 2-1 fastball. This one, I’m not blaming Springer for. This one was just a great pitch.

That’s a tough pitch to hit, even if it’s somewhat centered over the plate. Tip your hat to Kershaw there for stealing a strike. He would then proceed to strike Springer out for the third time.
In the ninth, Springer had to face Jansen, about as dominating as a right-handed pitcher in baseball gets these days. Understandably, he didn’t go up there hacking. Understandably, Jansen took advantage.

Once again, there’s no question that’s a strike, and Springer quickly found himself down 0-1. Not that I could do any better against an elite reliever throwing 94 mph cutters with pinpoint command, but that’s probably not a pitch you want to take too often.
Then, after working it to a 2-2 count, this was the last pitch Springer saw on the night.

You can’t locate a pitch much better than that. Jansen painted the outside corner at the top of the zone. Springer again thought about swinging, decided to hold up, and then was called out anyway. He walked away shaking his head, clearly disagreeing with the call and probably frustrated with his performance on the night. But like everything else at which he stared in his four at-bats last night, it was a strike.

This wasn’t just about George Springer, though. He took five called strikes; his teammates took 22 more. The plot of the pitches Josh Reddick took is even worse.

There are two first-pitch fastballs from Kershaw there that quickly put Reddick in a hole and an 0-2 fastball down the middle that Reddick actually protested.
Every Astros starter took at least two called strikes tonight. And since they were constantly behind in the count, it was pretty easy for Kershaw to rack up the strikeouts. Of the 27 total called strikes, 11 came on the first pitch. That’s just not a recipe for success.
Overall, the Astros swung roughly as often as they normally do, going after 50 of the 107 pitches they faced. But a bunch of those swings came on chases out of the zone in two strike-counts, counts in which the Astros found themselves because they gave up an early strike by staring at a pitch in the zone.
Tonight, with Rich Hill on the mound, a patient approach might pay off; Hill’s not exactly known as a strike thrower. But against Kershaw, Morrow, and Jansen, it certainly didn’t work. While “swing more” is an oversimplified suggestion to hitting some of the best pitchers in the world, I would suggest that the Astros should try not to stare at so many pitches down the middle the rest of this series, or else the Dodgers will be hosting a parade pretty soon.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Kershaw throws loads of strike right over the plate, he should be getting slaughtered rather than getting a Cy Young….. 🙂
Why does Fangraphs advocate subtle statistics then write articles for a single game/series lottery fest… It is luck now… The Astros couls still win 4-1 just by chance..
Because its the World Series and you do the best you can
I don’t think you really understand anything fangraphs is doing. Maybe move on to an easier to digest site. I hear ESPN is pretty simple, I bet you could understand that.
Fangraphs probably also doesn’t understand anything peakbear is doing, so it likely goes both ways. At least, I don’t understand it at all.
The playoffs are an absolute crapshoot, though. He’s not wrong about that. Just because we happened to get (arguably) the best two teams in the World Series this year doesn’t change that.
That was a premise, though, not his point.
His point was, because the playoffs are a crapshoot, fangraphs are a bunch of hypocrites for writing up an article about them.
I’m guessing that your reading this article is an indication that you disagree with the idea that it’s dumb to write articles about the postseason (whether they’re a crapshoot or not).
Can you explain why, if you understand stats you would know this article is bullshit. SSS.SSS.SSS.SSS.SSS. this doesn’t matter now?? you’re a fuck-tard in real-life…
This is pretty condescending post. Is this necessary?
Heck, 90+ down votes! I’d take pride in that!! Dang that’s a healthy number.
Because this author says really insane stuff just to see how many sheep will fall in line.
It’s more of a study in the stupidity of humans or how humans feel smart by agreeing with someone they view as smart.
And then the readers will say “you don’t understand”…but it’s not like they can explain why…because they don’t even know.LOL
I think the thing that’s most truly astonishing is that the actual AJ Preller is more likable than you are.
Is there an equivalent to Godwin’s Law that argues that all internet disagreements eventually devolve into a declaration that the other side must just be sheep?
Also known as the Kyle Schwarber approach.
Seems like every team has their own. We here in Baltimore know this is the J.J. Hardy School of Hitting.
I guess Starlin Castro must’ve been a student for a bit too!
Up in Cleveland, it’s the Yan Gomes Academy of What Are You Doing Please Swing NO NOT NOW.
Springer had both the lowest O-swing% *and* the highest Z-swing% of anyone on his team in the regular season. It’s a shame the reputation he might garner for consistently looking so lost on such a huge stage.
That YouTube play button is really throwing me off
I fell for it and clicked on the first picture too.
Wish I could say I only clicked the first picture.
Dave forgot to call it “The World Series presented by YouTube TV”
Anybody know if the ad is there when watching on YouTube?
It is. You can see in the postgame stuff on MLBN or Fox that the left side ad is a green screen but the right side ad is an actual physical sign. YouTube.tv is always there.
The whole lineup didn’t seem to have the same confused approach that Spring and Reddick had, even if they did take a number of called strikes. A more appropriate title would be “Springer’s Ridiculous Offensive Approach,” or something like that.
Agreed, and I also think Springer might be a poor example because he hasn’t looked right for the entire post season. Something is out of whack with him in general.
Altuve and Correa on the other hand seemed rather aggressive, they each posted at least one one pitch at bat.
Agreed. He has looked lost.
I know it’s a small sample size, but normal Springer has elite plate discipline, and he has just not looked himself. He’s not Votto or anything (only Votto is Votto), but I’ve heard Lunhow say that according to the metrics the Astros look at, Springer makes some of the best swing decisions in baseball.
Normally it shows. He had both the lowest O-swing% *and* the highest Z-swing% of anyone on his team. That just doesn’t seem like the guy I’ve been watching so far this postseason.
The odd start time may have something to do with the hitters looking off. 4pm-5pm is the worst time to play a game for a hitter.
Springer looks bad in all the screen shots, which also may indicate that he had a hard time tracking the ball. A hitter doesn’t stay back like they used to, but Springer is off balance in those shots with his keyster sticking out and his hands dropped and pushed forward. It is hard to picture a good, hard, snap of the bat resulting from Springer’s position in any of those pictures. Springer is already opened all the way up in the first photo and apparently he did not even swing at that pitch.
This was my first thought. Between the heat and odd start time, I figured that the conditions would play heavily in favor of the pitching. Dodger Stadium has a difficult batter’s eye, particularly with a full house, and evening shadows make it even trickier.
Pace of that game also helped the pitching as well. I’d suspect the Dodgers hitters will get locked in more quickly for game 2 and this could be a runaway.
Fly balls travel significantly farther at Dodger Stadium when the sun is up and the temperature is over 90. I think that would more than negate any shadow effect.
Hey, it worked for Aaron Ju…dammit!
In all seriousness, I blame the umps calling low balls strikes at twice the league average on Judge for that problem. Kershaw is really, really good at pitching, though. I think their framing goes a long way to help, as the LAD staff seems like they have found the formula to expand the zone.
Oops, I forgot the reference: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/expect-the-world-series-strike-zone-to-favor-the-dodgers/
it’d be nice to see some context for these rates. 29 called strikes out of 107 pitches, and 11 called strikes for the first pitch in 30 batters both seem like solidly more than average, but we’re talking about Kershaw to Morrow to Jansen here. I think seeing how that rate differs from their typical results would be more informative
i did some back-of-envelope calcs to answer my own question, and using their zone% and zone swing%, weighted for number of pitches thrown yesterday, the combo of Kershaw, Kenley, and Morrow on can be expected to get called strikes on 14.5% of all pitches thrown, or 15.6 pitches out of 107.
with the normal approximated binomial standard deviation of sqrt(n*p*(1-p)), the standard deviation of this estimate would be around ~3.6, so the astros results were a significant outlier(~ 3 standard devs above mean).
now, these calcs make some perhaps unreasonable unassumptions. for one, (zone%*(1-zone swing%) is not necessarily representative of called strike rate, especially when taking in account Barnes’ strong framing ability. On top of this, I used raw number of pitches to get an expectation of called strikes, but did not check the number of pitches the astros saw in the strike zone. Not only would this change the expectation, but changing the % of pitches thrown in the zone would likely also change rate of swings on pitches in the zone.
TL;DR, this was an exceptional amount of taken strikes in 107 pitches, also baseball is complicated.
In many of these analyses, I don’t think Barnes is getting enough credit: kudos to you, for noting that.
Phil Cuzzi is on the list, with Angel Hernandez and C.B. Bucknor, of poor umpires. It is difficult to forget his foul call on Joe Mauer’s ball that landed 18 inches fair down the LF line in the 2009 ALDS, but the chart shows that he had a good night. One miss on Altuve is the only bad call so Barnes really did not have much influence on the calls.
If Cuzzi is usually a poor umpire and he only made one mistake last night, maybe that’s an indication that Barnes DID have an influence on the calls.
Actually, Cuzzi’s zone looked very fair and consistent, from Brooks Baseball strike zone plots.
Don’t forget to add Laz Diaz to the list, thank goodness he’s not going to call balls and str….oh crap, he’s behind the plate in game 4.
If it so easy to hit why didnt you play in the majors then huh spreadsheet man?
Lol why is everybody downvoting you this is honestly hilarious!
Sabre dudes are pretty tightly wound.
I think I know what happened to the Astros: Clayton Kershaw is awesome and makes batters look silly.
(I know Dave does issue that caveat as well but sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one)
Added, since I realized I wasn’t totally clear:
Let’s just remember that you have to make your decision on whether to swing before you know exactly where it is going to be. Frankly, it’s a miracle anyone can hit a baseball given when they have to decide to swing, and Kerhsaw is the best. What we would really want to see is what the ball looks like at the point where Reddick et al have to make the decision to swing.
Kershaw is the best, and Barnes makes pitchers look even better: Occam’s razor cuts to the quick.
Yeah the real reason is that judging where a pitch will end up out of the hand of lefties is fucking hard. Those fastballs the Astros were taking for strikes look exactly the same as the slider that dives towards your back foot and ends up ankle-high and a foot off the plate. Astros were doing some mix of guessing / being conservative and it just didn’t work
I yelled at the TV more than a handful of times – mainly at Correa and Springer as they watch meatball hittable pitches and then proceed to swing at balls out of the zone.
Try hitting against Kershaw’s “meatball hittable pitches” and get back to me.
The man throws a slider with almost the same arm speed as his fastball. And his release is consistent. Good luck being able to distinguish between the two pitches. You have about one-tenth of a second to make up your mind. And Kershaw’s curve ball is basically unhittable. Unless he hangs it, hitters might as well just take the pitch and hope that it breaks out of the zone or the home plate umpire gets fooled as badly as the hitters get fooled. I don’t think anyone hits Kershaw without guessing correctly. Kershaw won the mind game last night.
Don’t take my word for it. Ask Joey Votto. Votto has an approach to hitting against Kershaw that is different than every single other pitcher in baseball. And that includes lefties that throw a lot harder than Kershaw. Kershaw has great stuff, great command, and great deception. He also can out-think hitters.
What the Astros did last night is expected.
I remember someone asking Votto about his choking up all the time. He picks up a bat and holds it choked up 2 inches ‘This is normal’, goes up to 4 “this is 2 strikes”, up to 6 “This is against lefties with 2 strikes”, then up to 8 “This is Kershaw”
Every time Kershaw throws a slider and the pitch speed flashes on the screen, my first reaction is surprise that he threw a hard changeup. The angle of his arm and the ball out of his arm are just so perfectly in line with his fastball that I only remember it’s a slider after I’ve processed that 1) Kershaw mostly doesn’t throw a change, and 2) the catcher caught the ball to the glove side of where it crossed the plate, not the arm side. I know it’s a pitch with serious break so I would like to think it’d be obvious, but it fools me almost every time.
Dave, your colleague Jeff Sullivan appears to have provided at least a partial explanation in his post this morning:
“Pitching is about two things: locating well, and messing up the hitters’ timing. When Kershaw froze Gonzalez, he did both… Kershaw’s timing was so disruptive that Correa locked up in a swinging count. Kershaw won here with timing alone.”
As a long time Mets fan, my instinct is to say “Dave Hudgens!” but the Stros did have a terrific offense this season. Now, that goes to the very notion of how much influence an HC has. Ultimately, the HC isn’t the one up there at the plate. And since Hudgens was well known for his “hunting strikes” mantra, what DC is describing is more or less the opposite of that, so this is about the Astros lineup having a bad night or just facing some real difficult pitching.
“But, with all due respect to the Dodgers for executing, I have to say that I don’t really know why the Astros hitters decided to take so many pitches down the middle.”
Perhaps advance scouting and analytics could be playing a role here. Do players have certain counts they are less likely to swing on?
Praised Heyward last year for swinging at balls in the dirt last year, remember? Of course you don’t because that’s what the sheep wanted to hear last year. This year they want to hear about the Dodgers, Sheperd those sheep MF, they need it.
Heivard boasted last year for playing soccer last year, remember? Of course not, because last year they want to hear. This year they want to hear about the Dodgers, sheep, Shepherd, MF, they need it.
Unless a whole lot of guys died between the end of Game 1 and this afternoon, please tell me “best pitcher alive” is a case of early-morning hyperbole. Active, yes. Alive? Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Ryan, Blyleven, Perry, Carlton, Seaver, Sutton, Martinez, Gibson, Mussina, etal might have something to say on your very own starting pitcher career WAR page. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2013&month=0&season1=1871&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0
“Local Resident Takes Figure of Speech Literally, Assumes Everyone is Dead” would be an excellent Onion headline.
Be honest, which of those would you pick to start over Kershaw in four days time? Because unless you have a time machine, the answer is none.
And if you have a time machine, what are you doing on fangraphs?
I hear you can waste a lot of time on comment sections if you have a time machine.
“There are two first-pitch fastballs from Kershaw there that quickly put Reddick in a hole and an 0-2 fastball down the middle that Reddick actually protested. ”
I am wondering if he was actually protesting the pitch BEFORE that one, which was the one where the dot was just outside the zone. He was probably still mad that the call put him in a hole in the count and then he struck out on the next pitch.
The playoffs being a crapshoot doesn’t mean that the games are decided by luck. At a given night the winning team usually really did something better and that made the difference and you can analyze it.
The crapshoot thing just means that there is little predictive value in in, the next night it could be vice versa – or not.