The Ball Threatens to Overshadow Baseball

With the postponement of Wednesday’s scheduled ALCS Game 4, the de-juiced baseball remained a hot topic of discussion, particularly in New York, where the Yankees appeared to catch a game-changing bad break on Didi Gregorius‘ fifth-inning fly ball that instead of becoming a three-run homer that would have swung the lead in their favor, was caught at the warning track. Players and managers are talking about it, fans are talking about it, analysts are talking about it — here in New York City, even on the 10 pm local news. Like it or not, it’s an issue that won’t go away, in part because of MLB’s stubborn insistence that nothing has changed, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, as well as the reality that the league actually owns about 25% of Rawlings, the manufacturer of the baseball (the other 75% is owned by Seidler Equity Partners, founded by Peter Seidler, the leading investor of the Padres). While none of this invalidates what the players on the field are accomplishing, everybody is suddenly playing or watching a very different game than we’d grown accustomed to during the regular season.

On Saturday, our own Craig Edwards reported that Cardinals manager Mike Shildt said that his team’s analytical department had noted that fly balls are traveling four-and-a-half feet less far than normal. ESPN’s Jeff Passan reported on Wednesday that officials from two unnamed teams (quite possibly those of the Astros and Yankees, since Passan was reporting from New York) “concurred that whatever batch of balls has been used during October is not performing the way the ones in the regular-season did.”

The change concerns the drag on the baseball, which according to the work of Baseball Prospectus’ Rob Arthur has increased sharply relative to the regular season, strongly suggesting that different balls are being used. Arthur estimated that 50% more homers would have been hit if the regular season ball were being used. On Thursday, Arthur published a new piece showing that the postseason baseballs are also affecting pitchers, producing slightly less vertical break (by about 0.4 inches) on curveballs, and that “Sliders are cutting across the zone a little less; sinkers staying a little more buoyant… [The changes] all seem to hover on the border between just large enough that baseball’s tracking system can detect them and just small enough that a major-league hitter probably wouldn’t care.”

I don’t doubt Arthur’s math or modeling, but I do wonder if certain pitchers might feel differently, particularly when he writes this:

These results may also suggest that previous episodes of juicing (2017) and de-juicing (2018) the baseball didn’t do much to pitchers either. Perhaps whatever way the baseball’s drag is varying simply doesn’t affect a pitch grip very much. Maybe it’s only a few thousandths of an inch of seam height, or a very slightly tweaked surface texture–these kinds of alterations, microscopic though they may be, might have been enough to propel massive spikes and falls in the league’s home run rate.

As Dr. Meredith Wills noted in connection with her findings regarding the 2019 regular season baseball’s construction, we’ve heard numerous complaints from pitchers such as Sean Doolittle, Jon Lester, and Noah Syndergaard regarding the surfaces of the balls, and stories such as the one about Masahiro Tanaka struggling with his split-finger fastball due at least in part to the lower seams. That said, those pitchers’ complaints probably have more to do with their overall command of their respective pitches than the modest effects of reduced or increased drag.

Arthur’s latest piece also updated the expected home run tally; “An improved model of batted balls that takes into account temperature as well as exit velocity, launch angle, and park effects shows the same takeaway as before. There have been 64 home runs in the playoffs versus a total of 100 the algorithm predicted.”

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed. We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member. 1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other. 2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off. 3. Dark mode and Classic mode! 4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them. 5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects. 6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.) 7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only. 8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO. 9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members. 10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features! We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-Members
✓Full postseason coverage

My own less rigorous research showed that even in the face of Arthur’s findings, average fly ball distances and exit velocities had increased relative to the regular season. After a closer look at that, keyed by a dialogue between the two of us as well as a larger sample size of fly balls, it appears that my distance issue has come out in the wash.

Through games of October 9, fly balls had averaged 328 feet, up from the major league average of 324 feet during the regular season. However, the latter average probably isn’t the most apt figure to use for comparison, particularly considering that only one team from the bottom half of the rankings (the 18th-ranked A’s, who lost the AL Wild Card game) made the postseason. The fly balls of the 10 teams that reached October averaged 327 feet during the regular season. Weighting their regular season fly ball contributions by the actual number of fly balls they’ve hit in October, we would expect an average distance of 326 feet thus far, but instead, with another week’s worth of games underfoot, they’ve averaged 324 feet, about 0.7% less than expected.

We can even take this a little bit further by considering the fact that the playoffs feature the teams that are also better at suppressing fly ball distances. In this case, nine of the 10 teams ranked among the majors’ top 21 (the NL Wild Card-losing Brewers were 27th), and those 10 teams allowed fly balls averaging just 322 feet. Weighting their regular season fly balls by the actual number of fly balls they’ve allowed in October yields more or less the same figure. If we can infer based upon Arthur’s finding that hitters have about five times the influence over exit velocities as pitchers that the same is true for distance (Arthur hasn’t specifically studied that but said he expected it to be true), we would expect an average distance of 325 feet; the drop is about 0.5% from what’s expected.

While those figures don’t exactly jibe what Shildt said, it’s a safe bet that teams have more data to bring to bear with regards to direction, temperature, and their own models. As for exit velocities, the playoff teams are similarly concentrated away from the bad ends of both the hitting and pitching leaderboards. The 10 playoff teams, which all rank among the majors’ top 19 in batter exit velocity on fly balls, averaged 92.6 mph off the bat for such drives, compared to the overall major league average of 92.0. Weighted by teams’ number of postseason fly balls hit, we’d expect an average of 92.5 mph, while we’ve gotten 93.0 mph. Bringing the pitchers into this, the 10 playoff teams ranked among the majors’ top 20 in pitcher exit velo on flies, averaging 91.7 mph. Weighted by teams’ number of postseason fly balls allowed, that drops to 91.6 mph, and if we again use the 5:1 ratio, we get an expected exit velo of 92.3 mph, 0.7 mph less than what we’ve actually seen. So that sign is still pointing in the wrong direction relative to Rob’s model, but the gap is now less than half of the 1.5 mph difference from my previous piece.

I want to circle back to the Gregorius fly ball, as well as another from the same game that had players talking, a fourth-inning drive by the Astros’ Martín Maldonado that — based upon the conditioning we’ve all received by intently watching a season in which a record number of home runs were hit — looked like it was going out, but wound up a double off the left-center wall.

Recall the situation: with the Yankees trailing 2-0 in the fifth but with two on and two outs — the fourth time in five innings that they had at least one runner in scoring position against Gerrit Cole — Gregorius hit a 98.6 mph fastball from Cole that at first looked to be yet another short porch special given the cozy dimensions of Yankee Stadium’s right field, which is 314 feet down the line. The drive momentarily elevated the hopes of the Yankees and their fans but it wound up settling into right fielder Josh Reddick’s glove just in front of the wall for the third out of the inning. The Yankees would never get a better opportunity, and lost 4-1. Here, again, is the drive, which according to Statcast (Baseball Savant’s search feature, rather than the in-game feed, which produced slightly different estimates) left the bat at 101.4 mph, with a launch angle of 41 degrees and traveled an estimated 342 feet.

As Alex Bregman told reporters after the game, Maldonado had two drives to left field that similarly raised the hopes of the Astros’ dugout, the aforementioned double and a sixth-inning fly out. The former was aided by what might charitably be termed an adventurous route to the ball — whether due to the wind, changed expectations caused by the differing postseason ball, or simple human error — by left fielder Brett Gardner:

Maldonado’s drive, which ultimately went for naught as far as the scoring was concerned, was measured at 101.5 mph off the bat, with a 36.4 degree angle, and an estimated distance of 378 feet.

Rather than cite the percentage of drives with similar specs that wind up home runs — a rate that obviously can be affected by the direction of the ball, since the distances down the foul lines are much shorter than those to center field — I drilled down into Baseball Savant to get a better idea of the average distance of such drives, bracketing them somewhat so as to increase the sample sizes and produce what is hopefully a truer read of how far we could have expected the balls to travel.

Let’s start with Gregorius’ drive, considering only fly balls with similar Statcast specs:

Didi Gregorius’ 5th Inning Fly Ball
Split Exit Velo Launch Angle # Avg Dist
Didi 101.4 40.9 1 342
2019 101-102 40-41 18 359
2019 101-102 41-42 19 350
2019 101-102 40-42 37 354
2015-19 101-102 40-41 95 356
2015-19 101-102 41-42 77 350
2015-19 101-102 40-42 172 353
SOURCE: Baseball Savant
All data except from Gregorius’ drive uses only regular season statistics.

The Savant search interface can be daunting, and it has some quirks. For one, when you’re specifying the metric range, you can’t just set it to equal a single number; you need to use greater than or equal to one number (or less than or equal) or a range of two numbers. For a metric such as exit velo, which is generally cited to the first decimal, one can use the two nearest whole numbers. Launch angle is generally reported as a whole number, though in Savant queries, decimals exist. To enlarge the samples, I went one degree in either direction, and then combined them. I did this for both 2019 data and for 2015-19 data, and as you can see, the end results weren’t terribly different; the two average distances are 11 and 12 feet longer than Gregorius’ drive.

We can improve upon this, obviously at the expense of sample size, by limiting the search to fly balls that were pulled, either by righties to left field or, as was the case with Gregorius, lefties to right field:

Didi Gregorius’ 5th Inning Fly Ball, Pull Only
Split Exit Velo Launch Angle # Avg Dist
Didi 101.4 40.9 1 342
2019 pull 101-102 40-41 7 365
2019 pull 101-102 41-42 4 355
2019 pull 101-102 40-42 11 362
2015-19 pull 101-102 40-41 42 359
2015-19 pull 101-102 41-42 29 351
2015-19 pull 101-102 40-42 71 356
2015-19 pull, 20-27 LD 101-102 40-42 11 351
SOURCE: Baseball Savant
All data except from Gregorius’ drive uses only regular season statistics.

Ignore that last line for a moment. What we see here is that pulled fly balls in this range do travel farther, by an average of eight feet using 2019 data (albeit a pretty small selection of drives) and by an average of three feet using 2015-19 data — all of which suggests the likelihood that Gregorius got hosed.

For that last line, I’ve used a metric hidden within the dropdown menus, launch direction, which measures the degrees to the left (negative) or right (positive) of the axis running from home plate to second base. Through an iterative process — which basically means I kept banging the keyboard until I found something — I bracketed Gregorius’ launch direction at somewhere between 23 and 24 degrees. As it turns out, over the past five seasons just three balls have been hit to similar specs in the regular season, which clearly won’t do for a sample. Widening to 22-25 degrees gives us six drives, going from 21-26 degrees gives us 10, and from 20-27 gives us 11, ranging from 338 feet to 374, with an average of 353 feet. Even with that wider range, Gregorius’ ball is the only similar one from the postseason.

While each of those searches leads to a similar conclusion — that Gregorius’ drive traveled significantly less far than expected — the same isn’t true for Maldonado’s drive, which was also pulled (with a direction between -17 and -18 degrees, which is to say to the left of second base).

Martin Maldonado’s 4th Inning Fly Ball
Split Exit Velo Launch Angle # Avg Dist
Martin 101.5 36.4 1 378
2019 101-102 36-37 38 375
2019 101-102 37-38 30 373
2019 101-102 36-38 68 374
2015-19 101-102 36-37 152 376
2015-19 101-102 37-38 123 372
2015-19 101-102 36-38 275 374
2019 pull 101-102 36-37 8 385
2019 pull 101-102 37-38 14 373
2019 pull 101-102 36-38 22 378
2015-19 pull 101-102 36-37 45 382
2015-19 pull 101-102 37-38 54 374
2015-19 pull 101-102 36-38 99 378
2015-19 pull, -21 to -16 LD 101-102 36-37 15 380
2015-19 pull, -20 to -17 LD 101-102 36-38 19 376
SOURCE: Baseball Savant
All data except from Maldonado’s drive uses only regular season statistics.

As the Savant results put the launch angle at 36.4 degrees (compared to Gregorius’ 40.9 degrees), it seems acceptable to go with a narrower range in the search. All of the methods I used produced larger sample sizes than for Gregorius, and only a couple of them produced average distances longer than his drive. In other words, it’s less clear that Maldonado lost out on a home run relative to what we could have expected during the regular season, but that’s not to say that the Astros haven’t occasionally gotten the short end on fly balls in other games.

Given the home run-dependent nature of scoring in the postseason — 41.4% of this October’s runs have scored via the longball, slightly ahead of the 1995-2018 average of 39.6% — and our increased understanding of the changed baseball’s influence on home run rates, it’s inevitable that all of this remains a topic of discussion while the spotlight is shining most brightly. That shouldn’t detract from our enjoyment of what the likes of Gerrit Cole, Max Scherzer, and others are doing, but so long as MLB fumfers its way around the issue, the consequences of their lack of oversight and/or vision won’t go away.





Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.

29 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Clock
6 years ago

Should’t we also account for that the ball will travel a shorter distance in the cold weather?

Monsignor Martinez
6 years ago
Reply to  Clock

I was about to say the same thing, but I re-read the article and stumbled upon:

“An improved model of batted balls that takes into account temperature as well as exit velocity, launch angle, and park effects shows the same takeaway as before. There have been 64 home runs in the playoffs versus a total of 100 the algorithm predicted.”

SucramRenrutMember since 2017
6 years ago
Reply to  Clock

Maybe wind effects at different heights too.

Jdruc00Member since 2026
6 years ago
Reply to  SucramRenrut

It would, in theory. There’s lots of environmental factors that come into play: wind, humidity, temperature, barometric pressure.

Jay, have you seen Alan Nathan’s model? Some of the writers whom you referenced steered me towards it earlier today. He has a spreadsheet that allows us to plug in assorted variables to calculate expected distance. According to his model, a ball hit 101.4 mph at a 40.9 degree launch angle is expected to travel 347.9 feet. That’s when the temperature is 52 degrees and there’s 60% humidity. Had the temp been 82 degrees, the expected distance would be 360 feet. I’m not sure what the wind was doing at the time, but even a 5 mph wind blowing in would knock the expected distance down to 320 feet. Or if it was blowing out at 5 mph, the ball should’ve gone 374 feet.

RonnieDobbs
6 years ago
Reply to  SucramRenrut

What about the realities of wind? some 7 mph SSE reading at one point in a stadium is a far cry from what will actually impact the balls flight. There is also spin and a lot of other factors that are likely ignored or miscalculated. Consider that effective spin is what really matters on a pitch and we struggle with that. It is my understanding that batted ball models are very close to absolute trash.

Original Greaser Bob
6 years ago
Reply to  Clock

Except the weather was warm in the WC and LDS games and the roof was closed in Houston so temp effected 3 out of 27 games. Not to mention the Astros, Rays, Twins, and Brewers all play in closed stadiums.

Anon21Member since 2018
6 years ago

The Twins don’t.

BenjaminMember since 2019
6 years ago

Target Field does not have a roof

stever20Member since 2017
6 years ago

Yeah, the Twins don’t. But there again- only played 1 game there.

The weather has been cold in very few games this postseason. And like was said- the numbers take it into account.

It’s really interesting that some folks want to totally deny this like it’s not happening. When EVERYTHING indicates that something has changed.

Original Greaser Bob
6 years ago

Yup was thinking about the Metrodome. Regardless there were 3 “cold” games weather truthers.

RonnieDobbs
6 years ago

Weather definitely matters a lot. I think it is greatly understated in batted ball models. You ever play baseball at a level high enough where there was some level of consistency? If so, I am sure you cared quite a bit about what the weather was like on a given day. In reality things like the direction of the wind change from inning to inning. Environmental factors are not well accounted for in batted ball models. They never will be as everything is more complicated than is convenient. It is best to just understand the limitations of what we are talking about. it doesn’t render it useless, but we certainly should not take it too seriously.

Fredchuckdave
6 years ago

The ball concept as a topic is interesting and very “Old Fangraphs”-esque (as opposed to game-by-game coverage of the playoffs); but assuming you want to cover both presumably the density of the ball could be discussed in innumerable offseason articles with various tangents about players not signing.

John Elway
6 years ago

Hay, with all the 2019 edition baseballs leaving the park, maybe they ran out and had to use 2018 baseballs for the playoffs.

Just neighing.

carterMember since 2020
6 years ago

Something I saw late yesterday:

https://twitter.com/incarceratedbob/status/1184604229547241473?s=20

If that is true, that is a very, very bad look for the MLB.

Wonderful Terrific Monds
6 years ago

So the evidence regarding Maldonado’s drive shows that the ball isn’t different….

Also, what’s the range of the distance of the balls that comprised the sample of balls that were similar to Didi’s hit?

Last – what do you think is more likely?

MLB specifically and secretly de-juiced this year’s playoff balls right on the heels of all of the scrutiny about the ball and no one knows about it and there are no leaks about it .

OR

There is and always has been more far more variation in the manufacture of the balls, and in different batches of balls, than people assumed before statcast, scientific testing of the balls, and people paying attention to these things.

losdiego
6 years ago

It feels like it’s too big of a coincidence that the drag coefficient changed THAT much. You’d think with all of the increased scrutiny around the ball this year, they’d be much more likely to pay closer attention going into the most important games of the year. To me that implies either a specific direction to change the ball, or a worrying lack of control over production of the product to allow for these kinds of wild swings.

Sure, we’re all paying attention to these things now, but we’ve had statcast data for what, 5 years, you’d think MLB would be aware that people would pay attention to massive, seismic shift in the way the ball behaves. It’s either a willful change in the ball, or a worrying lack of control over the product and lack of foresight as to what kind of response the wildly fluctuating ball would create.

RonnieDobbs
6 years ago

I agree with you… but that makes poor clickbait. I don’t think MLB would tinker with balls at this point in the season. They for sure implemented a scandal in 2015, but they haven’t demonstrated the competence in my book to think that they would be this capable. I don’t know why they would intentionally do it for the playoffs. They are busy marketing HR and LA. MLB has made every mis-step for a decade now, so maybe they will just because they need to keep that going. I guess since the two big FG community teams are out we are in the off-season content at this point. It is strange to me as I was more than anyone in this community committed to exposing juiced baseballs when almost everyone here was committed to sweeping it under the rug. On one hand, it is cool to go from being accused of conspiracies to being absolutely right, but this feels dirty to me. When there was evidence or every variety, this place was not involved, but now they are pushing some flimsy data. Part of me likes exposing the scandal that I was passionate about, but on the other had I don’t really think that is what is happening here. Make no mistake that de-juiced balls will also be sold as some sort of progressive narrative as well based on the science of most likely pitching or defense.

Are we going to go the route of demonizing the juiced ball era? We basically erased the steroid era from history and I think that was a mistake. If we are going to obsess over baseballs, I don’t see how we don’t have to asterisk this entire period. This feels like it might be the part where we begin to turn on MLB and juiced balls. MLB has two smart courses of action. 1) Slowly begin to de-juice and never admit to anything. I’m skeptical of the realities of this. 2) De-juice overnight and erase all the asterisks – embrace different eras. 3) Asterisk this era – that would be the most damaging to baseball. This does feel like a turning point though. Whatever MLB decides, I am sure it will be egregious. If FanGraphs decides to trumpet the conspiracy charge, then I think change will happen quickly because FG is just so influential… which I think is really weird when you consider that just about everyone who built this place is long gone – AKA the SportsCenter, SNL, MNF effect of influence exceeding relevance.

Everyone on a baseball field always understood the variance from baseball to baseball and that has absolutely nothing to with Statcast. This isn’t an emerging science. In slowpitch softball, they explicitly make balls to different standards depending on how many HR you want to hit. Manipulating balls is and has always been well understood. They implemented a humidor quite a while ago in COL to address these sort of factors. My point is that this is only a new discussion to people that are new to the discussion. For people with close to no understanding of some of the subtitles of the game, Statcast data can provide an introduction, but it has probably not contributed anything of substance to any of what has happened or will happen in terms of ball studies. When I was a kid I had a bucket of baseballs and we signed player names on them, then went and played HR derby. The same balls would come up short or end up in the trees more than others. Even a twelve year old kid knows that all balls are not created equal and manipulating them goes back way beyond batted ball data. Bats and balls have been tested in independent labs for decades.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
6 years ago

The “fact” that the pitches are moving less is absolutely counter-intuitive. If there is more drag then the balls should move more if all other factors remain the same. When spin is applied and the object encounters greater resistance, then the effect of spin on the object is increased and the object will be deflected more. There appears to be three possible causes for increased drag, higher seams, a less smooth cover on the ball or the core displaced from the center of the ball. Two of these possibilities can be easily tested by touch and feel but it is very possible that poorly constructed balls could react as has been observed. Manfred said, early in the year, that better consistent construction of the balls was the reason for the greater carry. Could he have ordered off-center balls? Conspiracy theories abound. This isn’t rocket science but simply Physics 101.

RonnieDobbs
6 years ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

Lets not give MLB too much credit. They have played the part of the bumbling fool for years now. Do you really think they could manage something this intricate if they wanted to?

RobinMember since 2016
6 years ago

The variance between baseball “batches” has always been an issue – even during a game.

When two ace starters get killed to begin a game and then the mop-up men mow down lineups the rest of the game – you could just conclude it was just a coincidence. But I’ve often speculated that it was just a likely a bad batch of baseballs (which is a coincidence itself) followed by a “good” batch mid-game.

It would seem that instead of relying on just dimensional specifications, each baseball “batch” should be sample tested to meet a specific performance specification using a pitching machine to spit the baseballs out in a prescribed manner and measure expected/desired spin, deflection and distance. It doesn’t seem that hard given current technology to come up with a performance specification that can be applied to batches of balls (4 per 144 or whatever makes sense).

bglick4
6 years ago

I love statistical analysis and all, but this is stupid. Certainly somebody could get a playoff ball and a regular season ball and do an actual analysis of the ball. Like most conspiracy theories, this is hard to believe because of the high number of people who’d need to stay quiet to keep this secret. I highly doubt, as insinuated here, that this is some cabal between mlb and Peter Seidel (George Soros is involved too, right?). Also, I bet we’d be hearing a lot less about this if the Yankees were winning. Hard evidence is right there. Until it’s actually looked at, I’m going to be very skeptical.

RonnieDobbs
6 years ago
Reply to  bglick4

A ball is not representative of anything grater than a sample size of 1. “Investigations” of balls like this is always pretty inconclusive as far as I know. Heck, MLB found that balls were not juiced several times! The year that MLB did change baseball was the same year they got in bed with AWS, better known as Statcast. I also remain skeptical that MLB would implement changes without millions of incentives to do so. Know what is kind of odd? They have been flashing up EV and HR distance immediately without the AWS branding in the live broadcasts. I knew that wasn’t Statcast data lol…. well, it is in the “Freedie Freeman led the league in hits to the opposite filed, brought to you by Statcast” sense but not in a real one. Statcast and AWS has not been pushed nearly as hard this post-season. Last post-season, every commercial spot had an AI advertising spot in it. Think about how relevant juiced baseballs are to Statcast and the LA revolution and by extension FG. It pretty clear why MLB found the baseballs to be un-juiced – they basically just tried to clear themselves of a scandal. It is not clear to me why they would un-juice balls at this point in the season. They would be best-served to work out the profit angle in the off-season. before implementing a change.

stever20Member since 2017
6 years ago

It’s interesting….. looking at the stats April had 1.3 hr/9. May-September all months were at 1.4 hr/9 except for August when it was 1.5 hr/9.

well looking so far this year in the playoffs, it’s down to 1.23 hr/9. 68 hr in 497.2 ip. For the whole season it was 1.40 hr/9. So -.17 hr/9 down 12.1%

doing some looking to last season thru the LCS stage. 57 hr in 509.1 ip. 1.01 hr/9. Compares to whole season 1.16 hr/9. So -.15 hr/9- down 13%

So maybe not as big of a difference as we would have thought after you look at the numbers???

bohknowsbmore
6 years ago
Reply to  stever20

Some combination of colder weather and better pitchers in the playoffs?

stever20Member since 2017
6 years ago
Reply to  bohknowsbmore

weather maybe….. But last year had cold weather also(may have had more cold weather quite frankly- this year we’ve had only like 4 cold weather games. ) And again, the calculations take this into account.

The pitching staffs that made the playoffs each year- pretty darn close to the same. I would wonder if the fact that this years pitching staffs more starting pitcher heavy vs last year being relief pitching heavy has something to do with it.

RonnieDobbs
6 years ago
Reply to  stever20

Don’t trust “the calculations” too much. They will be revised and they will reflect more accurate data in the future… at which point the models will still be estimates. Granted it has been a few years since I had real conversations with real experts on the subject, but temperature was not even close to well accounted for as of a few years back. It was a variable, but a small weighted one which I figured was just because they didn’t know how to account for it, so they minimized it… while wanting to say they included it.

sempergumby
6 years ago

These are variances in the batch production of baseballs that have likely been with us for decades. The only recent difference has been in our ability to recognize it and quantify it based on statistical research and evidence. When I was a teenager in 1987 and Wade Boggs hit 24 HRs, people said that MLB was intentionally juicing the baseballs. In 1996, the year Brady Anderson hit 50 HRs, people resurrected the MLB juiced baseball conspiracy theory. Even as players were juicing themselves in 2000 and 2002, research was being done to blame it on the ball. And if you Google for MLB juiced ball conspiracy articles you’ll find ones written in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Can different batches of balls play slightly different? Absolutely – they can and have at different points in history. Is there a conspiracy to make it happen? Probably not.

RonnieDobbs
6 years ago
Reply to  sempergumby

What happened in 2015 was a real thing… unprecedented in the post-segregation era. This isn’t one year we are talking about…. unless you are just talking about the post-season – in which case I would apologize for the unnecessary reply. It wasn’t a bad box of baseballs, it was an intentional change. I think it was a bigger change than MLB intended, but they knew what they were doing and the HR immediately followed…. as did the LA vultures. At some point long ago they were very much juicing balls as they were attempting to find the right baseball. You can find articles if you try – they are a cool read.

RonnieDobbs
6 years ago

Its like there are a huge group of people that want to talk about baseball, but don’t actually want to talk about baseball games. I don’t understand how this is the point in time where we are obsessing about baseballs. MLB does not admit it and the sample size is going to be too small – batted ball models are not great and there a lot of variables. This is just juiced ball click-bait essentially. When there was actually a mystery to solve, there was zero discussion. I wonder if we would be talking about this if the Rays or Braves were still in the hunt. When those two got eliminated, most of the pseudo fans probably tuned out and have turned their attention to headlines. That is my guess at least.