The Early At-Bat That Changed the Whole Game
The biggest at-bat of Game 6 was when Chris Taylor doubled. Whether it was a good pitch or not, whether it was a good swing or not, Taylor made contact and the ball found the grass, and the Dodgers evened the score. Just as importantly, they moved runners to second and third with nobody out, and, that quickly, the home team became the obvious favorite. The Dodgers’ chance of winning increased about 24 percentage points. Corey Seager followed with a sacrifice fly, and the lead was never surrendered. The game flipped in the sixth. That fast, the Astros were forced to prepare for Game 7.
At the end of the day, you need to score to win. Justin Verlander blanked the Dodgers through five, and, for a time, it looked like it might not even matter if the Astros added on. Perhaps George Springer’s home run would be enough. But, to me, there was a turning point, before the major turning point. Going into the bottom of the sixth, the Dodgers were still down 1-0. Yet it could’ve been an awful lot worse. But for the sequence in the top of the fifth.
As Rich Hill started the inning, Brian McCann ripped a single, and Marwin Gonzalez ripped a double. Josh Reddick dug in with two runners to score, and there were all of the outs to play with. Reddick was in position to provide some insurance. Then Hill started him off with three balls.
It’s not as if Hill was terribly wild. His first pitch, a curve, didn’t miss by that much.
The next pitch, a fastball, didn’t miss by that much.
The next pitch, another fastball, didn’t miss by that much.
Hill’s three pitches were close to the zone. It took some restraint for Reddick to watch. But Reddick stood still, and Hill fell all the way behind. There are very few counts worse than a 3-and-0 count. They are any four-ball counts, when the batter has walked. Already, the Dodgers’ win expectancy had reached its low point. But our win-expectancy calculations don’t take the count into consideration. When Reddick got ahead, the Astros’ chances looked only better.
There was one important, additional factor. Reddick wasn’t up there in isolation. He was up there with Verlander standing on deck. It was way too early for A.J. Hinch to think about going to his bench, at least in his own mind, but, Justin Verlander can’t hit. Not even by pitcher standards. Hill knew if he could just get through Reddick, he might find a way mostly out of the inning. If Reddick were to score a run, that would be bad. If Reddick were to get on base, that would be bad. If Reddick could be retired, then, presumably, Verlander could be retired. Then it would be a matter of facing Springer or Alex Bregman. Nothing easy, to be sure, but better to get there with two outs than one. With two outs, the pitcher’s always the favorite.
Hill needed to focus on getting rid of Reddick. That was going to be his way out. That was going to keep the Dodgers alive. A second run would be crushing. A third run would be a debacle. Ball one. Then ball two. Then ball three.
In theory, Hill began with an advantage. Hill is very good, and he’s a left-handed pitcher. Reddick is fine, but he’s a left-handed hitter. Therefore, Hill had the platoon on his side. Yet, this season, Reddick was unusually productive against other lefties. And Hill was most certainly not. He had nearly as many walks and hit batters as strikeouts. By wOBA allowed, only four other southpaws were worse. Lefties have pushed Hill out of his comfort zone. This wasn’t your ordinary left-on-left showdown.
And then the three balls. The three half-decent balls, but still, balls, the lot of them. Do you know what happens after 3-and-0 counts? Let me tell you what happens after 0-and-0 counts. Batters walked 9% of the time. They struck out 22% of the time. They managed a .321 wOBA. And, after 3-and-0? Batters walked 60% of the time. They struck out 7% of the time. They managed a .544 wOBA. Reddick this season went through 31 3-and-0 counts, and he struck out just twice. Hill went through 19 3-and-0 counts, and he registered two strikeouts. At 3-and-0, Reddick was likely to reach. Which meant, even if Verlander made an easy out, the top of the Astros’ order would come up with one down. That was going to spell trouble.
Hill’s margin of error had been reduced right down to nothing. If he walked Reddick, the game wouldn’t be over, but the Dodgers would be in dire straits. Hill didn’t want to concede. He just had to be perfect. He had to be perfect, beginning with pitch number four.
Reddick was taking all the way, which was probably the right thing to do. He was taking all the way, and he took a borderline pitch. He tried to mosey his way down to first, but it wasn’t going to happen. Hill’s pitch just nicked the prism.
You could say that Hill should’ve just gone down the middle. If Reddick wasn’t going to swing, why not just groove it? It’s because, of course, you can’t know if Reddick is going to swing. This season he swung at one 3-and-0 pitch. For his career he’s swung at nine 3-and-0 pitches. That’s not very many, but you can’t take a chance. Not with looming elimination. So Hill looked for an edge. There’s safety in the edges. He was granted his call.
And here it becomes clear Reddick didn’t just throw this at-bat away. Ultimately, Reddick failed, but he made the right decision at 3-and-0. That wasn’t a pitch worth chasing. And, beyond that, the pitch barely caught the plate, if it caught it at all. In an 0-and-0 count, or an 0-and-2 count, that pitch is very possibly called a ball. At 3-and-0, the zone tends to be bigger. Hill got to 3-and-1. He got there by the slimmest of margins.
Perfect. Hill still had to be perfect. He went in search of the same edge again.
He found the edge he wanted. Reddick’s swing did anything but intimidate.
Reddick didn’t go with the powerful swing you usually see at 3-and-1. Often, hitters are looking for something to drive to the pull side. Reddick didn’t get a pullable pitch, so maybe you could say he should’ve again left the bat on his shoulder, but he went with what he was given. His swing was oriented to hit the ball to left, and hit the ball to left he did. He hit it in the air, and he hit it fairly deep. As Joc Pederson closed, the idea occurred: Should he catch it, or let it drop? Brian McCann is incredibly slow. Could Pederson possibly keep him from scoring?
I don’t know what might’ve happened, had the ball stayed over the grass. If Pederson had to make a catch by the boundary, McCann was likely to score, especially if Pederson fell into the stands. It’s always a fascinating case to play out, as players make mental calculations on the run, but Pederson’s brain was given a break. He didn’t have to make any decision, because the ball fell into the seats.
Reddick was feet away from a potential sac fly. At least, he was feet away from blame being shifted to McCann’s old tired legs. Hard to fault the hitter when the runner’s simply too slow. Yet Reddick wound up with a regular strike. He had lost most of the advantage he had.
Still, Hill couldn’t make a mistake. Reddick could spot a mistake. Reddick can get the bat on the ball, and he’s also familiar with walking. Hill had to be perfect. He’d already forced himself into a corner.
With the 3-and-0 pitch, Reddick saw a chance to walk, and so he nearly walked. With the 3-and-1 pitch, Reddick saw a chance for a sac fly, and so he nearly hit a sac fly. With the 3-and-2 pitch, there was nothing for Reddick to do. Sure, by some miracle, he might’ve been able to stick the bat out and hit a fair ball. But Hill threw the breaking ball that’s the whole reason LOOGYs exist. As a left-on-left curveball, that pitch was lethal, and Reddick was out the instant the ball spun off of Hill’s fingers. Not a lefty in the game would’ve done better. We usually talk about at-bats as being a battle between the guy on the mound and the guy at the plate. Hill’s 3-and-2 pitch was a cheat code. Reddick might as well have been holding a bread loaf. The outcome was taken clear out of his hands.
When you look at the Gameday readout, you can see how effectively Hill stayed on the edge. For three pitches in a row, he was right where he wanted.
And on top of that, you can get some kind of idea of how hard Hill can be to face. In this GIF, you see Hill’s six approximate release points.
Four of them are pretty similar. Hill’s first curveball came out a little lower. The second curveball came out lower still. Hill didn’t drop all the way down to sidearm, but he did still show Reddick a wrinkle. A pitcher who can manipulate his release point is a pitcher who can manipulate his pitch movements, and that makes a pitcher who’s tough to square up.
For the Astros, the inning spiraled out of control. Reddick struck out, and Verlander struck out. After Springer was intentionally walked, Bregman hit a bases-loaded grounder to short. They emerged still clinging to a 1-0 lead, but it could’ve been more than that. It should’ve been more than that. They’d had Reddick up with second and third, and he’d worked his way to a 3-and-0 count. There was going to be some insurance. And the Dodgers were starting to run out of time.
Reddick failed. Two more Astros failed, but Reddick failed first. He failed not even through so much fault of his own — he failed because, with a 3-and-0 count, Rich Hill suddenly threw three perfect pitches. They’d be three of the last pitches of Hill’s abbreviated outing, but he did enough to keep it close enough. Close enough that an other-way two-strike double could swing the odds of Game 6, and of the entire World Series.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.







Beautiful article. You don’t get analysis like that on Fox Sports.
You DO get David Ortiz in a Fox mask…saying “I’m a fox!”
No…seriously. That is what you get.
Thanks Jeff for this amazingly indepth article with some quality vids. Great morning read.
Yeah… I’ve been dissapointed with Papi’s broadcast talents in general. I hate to say it, but he just doesn’t add that much.
Well he literally cannot speak English so…when someone says “predicate” he hears “pretty cat”
It’d be super-cool not to see racist crap like this here. (Besides, “predicate” has a perfect cognate in Spanish, no sea bárbaro monolingüe.)
there was not much to say… McCann was at third base, explain how in hell he makes it home?
If you look at Brooks Baseball that 3-0 pitch was really a ball.
That bad call changed the outcome of the game.
Gameday makes umpires look better the next day. Look at the still frame in this story. That 3-0 pitch was off the plate. Gameday shows it catching the corner, Brook’s Baseball shows it off the plate.
Iassonga only missed four balls that he called strikes the whole game.
All four favored the Dodgers but none bigger than that 3-0 pitch.
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/pfx.php?s_type=3&sp_type=1&year=2017&month=10&day=31&pitchSel=448179&game=gid_2017_10_31_houmlb_lanmlb_1/&prevGame=gid_2017_10_31_houmlb_lanmlb_1/&pnf=&prevDate=1031&batterX=30
Not a dodgers fan here but after the preceding three pitches, hill deserved a break.
Take a look at Jeff’s article after game 5 if you want to see some called strikes that didn’t go the Dodgers way
Also take a look into Jeff’s man-cave to see dozens of Dodgers bobble heads, and a Hideo Nomo fathead in full stretch position, so yeah objective much.
I root for the Mariners, who are terrible
Don’t fall into the trap of AJ pro-Preller, an internet troll that makes the actual AJ Preller seem likeable.
Remember that the baseball has its own diameter. It’s bigger than the little Brooks Baseball icon. And, at least as importantly, that’s a very common 3-and-0 strike. That’s a very common *regular* strike, against a left-handed hitter. But your complaint is still somewhat valid! Perhaps the game shouldn’t work like this, but it does and probably always has.
That call cost 0.16 runs, hardly the whole outcome of the game.
If you go into the Brooks page that records all the strikes and balls for that umpire during the game (thrown to players of both teams) it shows you a shaded box indicating where the strike zone was for that umpire throughout the game. It serves as a kind of “error bar” if you will in interpreting how Iassonga called the game, and his strike zone was consistently skewed in the same way that the Reddick pitch was just outside of the Robot Umpire Strike Zone. As in Game 5, when more missed calls favored the Astros, it comes down to a) the subjectivity of having humans call balls and strikes; b) the internal consistency of that strike zone, regardless of its relationship to the plate and batter; and c) and which pitchers throw the ball on the edge of the zone more. In this at bat, Hill walked that tightrope, but if you look at the other pitches Iassonga called strikes in that same area, they were all further outside the “hard box” than the fourth pitch from Hill. Enjoy humans for the frailty and sport for their humans.
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/zoneTrack.php?&game=gid_2017_10_31_houmlb_lanmlb_1/&innings=yyyyyyyyy&month=10&day=31&year=2017
The overall point is valid, but to be clear that shaded box from Brooks isn’t “where the strike zone was for that umpire throughout the game”. It’s the typical strike zone called across the league.
To be precise, per Brooks (noted at the bottom of the chart) it’s the 2015 zone as called to RH and LH hitters.
For whatever reason, Brooks only shows the rulebook strike zone on that plot.
The game plot also shows the typical zone, and you can clearly see that called strike as within the typical zone for LH hitters – http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/zoneTrack.php?month=10&day=31&year=2017&game=gid_2017_10_31_houmlb_lanmlb_1/&prevDate=1031
Based on Brooks, that pitch wasn’t even really a “give the pitcher the 3-0 pitch” called strike. It was simply a close to the edge pitch that’s normally a strike to a LH hitter.
(FWIW, I’m a fan of neither the Dodgers nor the Astros who would like the Astros to win this series.)
Run expectancy in that situation 1.98 (http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/feda/datasets/expectedruns.html).
Yes, and an 85% chance of at least 1 run scoring in the inning per the similar table from Tango Tiger – http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html
I think it’s very reasonable, though, to back that off a bit for Verlander being such a terrible hitter. He has a -57 wRC+ (yes, the negative sign is correct and not a typo) and .167 OBP in his admittedly small sample career total of 53 PA’s.
If we call him an automatic out and therefore assume that the situation is closer to 2nd and 3rd with 1 out, then it’s a run expectancy of 1.38 runs with a 68% chance of scoring at least 1 run in the inning.
Even knowing the outcome of that at bat, I felt the same anxiety and thrill reading this that I had watching it in real time. If I had an r. angell award to pass out, this would do it.
There are three counts worse than 3-0, not just one. 4-1 and 4-2 are just as good as 4-0, in that you take your base all the same.
dang it
To nitpick the nitpick, there seems to be more to this problem. In order to accurately evaluate a 3-0 count, wouldn’t we need to weight all the possible outcomes for their impact on the game?
The article noted that a 3-0 count resulted in a wOBA of 0.533. But this doesn’t consider the additional runs that could be driven in by a ball in play vs. a walk.
My guess is that if we calculate the WPA on an average game basis over all possible runner on base configurations, a walk will still come out ahead. But given that there were runners on second and third, I think the comparison could be close.
This is such an amazing and cromulent nitpick. Might have to 5150 Sullivan after this one.
Great analysis. This, by the way, is why I don’t like statistics that weight individual-level contribution by inning of the game. You could very easily say that this sequence “decided” the game more than what happened afterwards.
To be fair, though, getting these 3 outs moved the Dodgers’ win expectancy from 20.4% to 39.7%. The only larger half-inning swing in the game was when the Dodgers scored 2 runs in the 6th inning
The leverage index for the PA’s by Reddick, Verlander, and Bregman were 1.41, 1.65, and 2.96, respectively.
The only three higher leverage index PA’s than Bregman’s in this inning were Taylor in the 6th (down 1, runners on 1st and 2nd with nobody out) and both Bregman and Altuve in the 7th (both down 1, both with 2 runners on, Bregman with 1 out and Altuve with 2 outs).
Each of the PA’s by Reddick, Verlander, and Bregman in the 5th had a higher leverage index than every PA pitched by Jansen in the 8th and 9th innings.
So I think that win expectancy and leverage both do a reasonable job of telling us that this sequence in the 5th inning was very important in the game.
Excellent analysis of a pivotal moment in the game.
That being said, the uninteresting, perfunctory, non-MLB competition that took place between the first and third outs, when Justin Verlander went up to the plate to pretend to hit, does take away from the inning on the whole and the impressiveness of the Dodgers’ escape for survival.
Pitchers pretending to hit is NL baseball at its worst, followed by dominating starting pitchers getting pulled from the game because his spot in the order is due.
No way. Pitchers hitting is good baseball. #BanTheDH
Maybe Hinch should have pinch hit and then found a way to win with his bullpen. Roberts did it.
Uh, the one making it perfunctory was Verlander, though. With an assist from Hinch, who could’ve chosen to send up a pinch-hitter, and was forced to balance the pitching and hitting sides of the game strategically at a crucial moment, and arguably (though by no means certainly) made the wrong choice!
Then to rub it in, the Dodgers had the same situation, runners on second and third with no outs, and a 1-2 count on Seager, and he got that run in.
Amazing work on this article. It’s a reminder that merging deep analysis and live gameplay makes baseball infinitely more interesting
Great work Jeff. You and the rest of the writers have provided such great insight and entertainment throughout this post season. Thank you.
If the Dodgers win tonight, that 3-2 beauty of a curveball from Hill to Reddick will be the most important pitch Hill has ever thrown in his life. Did I mention how beautiful that curve was? My Lord.
Hill struck out someone who has been struggling for his last 50 AB…hey what a great article idea!!!! NOT…HOLY CRAP NOT
Reddick is the same fellow who during the season had a wOBA of .331 vs LHP and if you like cherry picked granularity, had a WRC+ of 129 vs LHP away from home. He has struggled this post-season, but there is every reason to think he might have made a productive out in this position. And it is a great story because he should have done better. I thought the top 7th was an interesting situation as well. Reddick DID walk this time vs Maeda. Verlander is pulled for Gattis who grounds into a forceout. Springer singles, Bregman flies out advancing the runner to 3rd. 1st and 3rd two out Altuve has a chance to at least tie the game, but grounds to Turner who throws low and wide only to have Bellinger- who struck out four times- scoop it out brilliantly on the stretch and end the threat. The game was close, and this article tells that story.
“He has struggled this post-season, but there is every reason to think he might have made a productive out in this position.”
Aha OK,so then you must know how many double-plays he has hit into this post-season??
Hard to do so with first base open
I’m not sure we’ll ever agree on whether there is “being clutch”, but I hope we can all agree, that assuming the premise that a player can be “clutch”, that player is not Josh Reddick.
With Brain freaking McCann at third base even if he hits a grounder the run WILL NOT SCORE!!! he doesn’t exactly have the speed to force a throw in order to hold him…omg IDK if anyone here watched the game or baseball in general.
I’m going to have to disagree here and I have no numbers to back it up but I felt the Utley at-bat was the turning point. Verlander hit him on the hop in a 2-strike count to put runners on 1st & 2nd with no out, I believe? If he gets that out, we’ve still got a runner on 1st with one down, a very manageable scenario and they’re sitting even prettier if he gets the GIDP. At the worst, outside of Utley getting a base hit, he grounds into an out while moving the runner along – again, a runner on 2nd with one down & a one run lead, still a very manageable situation.
When Chase walked to the plate sporting that 0 for his last 29 in the the World Series (or was that post-season), I immediately had a funny feeling that this would be a pivotal at-bat because Chase was either due or Justin was going to potentially end his series with that doughnut-for hanging around his neck and once JV hit him, I would have been willing to bet my last dollar that the Dodgers were going to do something with it. You could feel it coming.
The HBP was definitely huge. Massive swing in the energy, so to speak. Good number of turning points! It was the HBP that pushed the Dodgers’ win expectancy back over 50%.
Yes, 9.9% win expectancy gained by the Dodgers on that Utley PA.
Also, similar to the Reddick PA, I think that context probably moves the needle toward looking at the change as a bit more than WE% before and after the PA. 1-2 count on Utley, as Garreth notes. Top of the Dodgers order (Taylor, Seager, and Turner) due up after Utley.
This is great. Sometimes the pivotal moment happens early! This out, and Morrow’s managing to secure the next one, were clearly the pivotal moment in this game.
Hypothetical – I assume if Reddick had walked for bases loaded with no outs, the right move for the Astros would have been just to tell Verlander never to swing the bat and accept a called strikeout (or walk, if Hill inexplicably melts down and can’t throw three strikes)?
Particularly with a very slow runner on third, there would seem to be very little chance of anything good happening from a Verlander ball in play (hit or sacrifice fly) and a not insignificant chance of something really bad happening (ground ball home to first double play).
Sullivan still on top of his game at the end of a long season!
I certainly wouldn’t have pinch-hit for Verlander once Reddick whiffed. But what about hitting for Reddick? His good numbers off lefties this year were a BAbip miracle; his career BA is .229, and last year was .155 with the exact same K/BB data as this year.
Trouble is, Gattis is Houston’s only good bench bat for a LHP, and that would mean using 2 players for one move. (Nobody wants to see Gattis play outfield.) The alternative was Maybin, who’s “meh” against lefties and an extreme ground-ball guy to boot.
I’m nitpicking, but this is one consequence of rostering (a) a third catcher, (b) a pinch-runner/defensive OF (those two have combined to bat once all postseason), and (c) a pure DH who now hits like a third catcher. (Sorry, Beltran, but you look overmatched.)
Very interesting post overall, thanks Jeff.
While I’m admittedly nit-picking a small part of a great post, though, could you and Fangraphs writers as a group please stay away from statements like “Yet, this season, Reddick was unusually productive against other lefties. And Hill was most certainly not”?
I feel like it’s part of the reason that we have people in the comments arguing that players are “true talent reverse platoon” when the best analysis appears to be that (1) we know that one year is much too small of a sample size to make that determination, (2) our best estimate is that it’s close to 100% never true for hitters, and (3) it’s possible for pitchers but highly unlikely to be the case just based on what we see in one year’s numbers.
I realize that a typical post includes neither the preparation time nor space to go into a long dissertation of using stabilization points to calculate players’ expected platoon splits, but I believe there’s a middle ground between that and gratuitously referencing information that (I think) you agree should have very little influence on prediction and managerial decision-making.
I don’t intend for this point to come off as arrogant or a rant, so my apologies if it does. It’s intended in the spirit of constructive criticism from someone who enjoys the work of the authors here, has learned a lot from reading this site, and still does learn a lot from reading this site. I can recall a time a few years ago that statements such as the one that I quoted would have misled me and sent me off looking at uninformative rabbit holes.