The Least Consequential Pitch of 2018
You may have heard of a statistic called “championship win probability added” (cWPA), which measures the extent to which any given baseball play contributes to a team’s chances of winning a championship. It’s a neat little statistic that can be used to write articles like this one, which identified Hal Smith’s three-run home run for Pittsburgh in Game 7 of the 1960 World Series as the biggest baseball play of all time. Joe Carter, Kirk Gibson, and Sid Bream also made it onto that list. cWPA is the type of statistic that conjures up, merely by its reference, vivid images of confetti-filled ballparks, raucous crowds, and men made high by glorious deeds. This article is about whatever the opposite of that is. Today, I’d like to take you on a journey to find the least consequential pitch of 2018.
How would someone even go about identifying the least consequential pitch of 2018? I’m sure there are a lot of answers to that question, some of which you will no doubt point out in the comments, but here’s mine: The least consequential pitch of 2018 is the pitch that least affected the outcome of the least important game of the season. A pitch that swung a late-season game between two eliminated clubs, however inconsequential that game might be to you, me, and Bobby McGee, cannot be the least consequential pitch of 2018 because, well, players on eliminated teams are players too, and a tree that falls amidst a Royals-Orioles game still falls for those players and for those fans. No, this pitch should be so inconsequential that even players with nothing left to play for decline to grasp at it for a taste of something once lost.
The first step is to find all the games played late in the season between teams that had by that point been eliminated from playoff contention. But this by itself is not enough of a standard, because teams like the Diamondbacks, while out of contention on the final day of the season, had as recently as September 1 had playoff odds of 37.4% (and higher before that). The sheen of consequence for Arizona was too bright to include the Diamondbacks. No, the game we are searching for should have been between teams that had been out of contention for a long time, ideally effectively since the beginning of the season. It should have been played between teams that had so long ago last tasted the sweet elixir of a playoff race that all the little things players do to keep themselves motivated during a long season had fallen aside. I present to you the playoff odds of the White Sox, Royals, Tigers, Marlins, Reds, and Padres, plotted over the course of the season, with the Red Sox’s odds thrown in there just for comparison’s sake:

I suspect some of you will note at this point that there’s a reasonable case to be made that a game between two teams who have locked up a playoff spot for most of the season (like, say, the Red Sox) deserves to be considered alongside games between bad ones as the least consequential game of 2018, as it is equally irrelevant to the outcome of the season. But any game between two contending teams is consequential insofar as it can be used to glean information about the nature of the playoffs to come, and brings with each pitch an injury risk to players who might determine the course of a seasons’ future. No game featuring the 2018 Red Sox could be considered the least consequential of 2018. The champions were playing. No, the game we want is one played, as late in the season as possible, between the six teams who never really sniffed contention at all in 2018.
Unfortunately for us, none of the final series of the 2018 campaign featured any of these six teams playing against each other. But the second-to-last series did. September 25-26 witnessed a two game set between the Reds (who entered 66-92) and Royals (54-102), in Cincinnati. The first game was a relatively taut affair won by the Royals 4-3 with a ninth-inning run; that game was too tense to work for our purposes. The second game, however, saw the Royals win 6-1. This game, I think, is a strong contender for the least consequential of 2018. You may disagree. But I’d argue that it was. All that was at stake — and it was a relatively low stake at that — was the Reds’ position in the 2019 draft order, and the 2018 Reds were not sufficiently bad that a win or a loss was the difference between the first, second, or third picks, where order really matters. I think, after some consideration, we have found our game:

But what of the least consequential pitch of that least consequential game? This one’s easier. The Royals scored in the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh innings; the Reds scored in the first. That means the top of the ninth inning, in which the Royals had a chance to add on a seventh run before the Reds got one last chance at a comeback, was clearly the least consequential of the game. Winning by six isn’t that much different than winning by seven; I hope we can agree on that. So the pitch we’re looking for is in the top of the ninth. And the least consequential pitch of the top of the ninth inning was the one that ended it — a sinker from Jared Hughes to Adalberto Mondesi that changed the outcome of a meaningless game not at all; after all, with two outs, the chances of adding on a meaningless run in a meaningless inning in a meaningless game were very small, and even if such a run had been added, the chances of it then mattering later, when the Reds had said their piece, were smaller still. Here it is:
What I love about this pitch, and why I wanted to write about it today, is how much everyone involved seems to care about it. There is, of course, a good case to be made that it is the least consequential pitch of a season of tens of thousands of pitches. The pitch didn’t matter. The game didn’t matter. The season didn’t matter. And yet there was Adalberto Mondesi, sprinting down to first, trying just as hard as he could to make it to first base in time, and there was Joey Votto, stretching his legs out to beat him. The pitch didn’t matter, when you think about it. But when you don’t think too hard about it, it’s just another opportunity to do well however you can. And that’s something. Life, too, doesn’t really matter one little bit, when held up to even the slightest scrutiny. But of course, it still does.
Rian Watt is a contributor to FanGraphs based in Seattle. His work has appeared at Vice, Baseball Prospectus, The Athletic, FiveThirtyEight, and some other places too. By day, he works with communities around the world to end homelessness.
I legitimately cannot believe this isn’t a Jeff Sullivan article.
It’a true; I am Jeff’s alt.
I’d put that on my resume! Might warrant a raise. Rian, fun article.
Just finished reading the whole thing assuming it was.
I enjoyed the article but also wondering what a search for least consequential article would turn up (time of year, etc). Glad you still hustled.
Surely we can end the search here!
This site’s fallen apart without Dave Cameron.
If you can offer constructive criticism in a non-insulting manner, I’m sure FG will be all ears.
No miracles in San Diego yet? This is a solid off-season article. I’d guess the choice of game was right. But, as mentioned above, a foul ball may have been less consequential. Dave was great, but a single editor does not a website make!
How can a pitch that resulted in an out be the least consequential? Wouldn’t a ball in an at bat that resulted in an out (or vice versa) be less consequential, as it didn’t even affect the result of the at bat? This pitch at least registered an out and ended an inning.
A fair consideration. Maybe I’m looking for a foul in the previous few at bats.
A two-strike foul, so not even the count was affected.
So Rian’s approach is roughly to look for lowest leverage (before the pitch), and nmrsmr is saying what about lowest probability change resulting. Which in general will point you to two different pitches, so there’s theoretical tension even in this place.
Perhaps a scatterplot of the cWPA and cLI of every pitch of the season — wouldn’t that be a cool year-end portrait — zoom in on that bottom-left corner and discuss.
Further, I might stipulate a two-strike foul by the first batter of this inning would be the least consequential, because the pitch is such that even if it were put into play, it would result either in only the first out or, at most, one run (the batter himself). For any other batter in the inning, a two-strike foul put into play would either move the inning closer to its final out, or because at least one runner would be on base, result in more than one run.
Perhaps the least consequential ball in play?
Why were the Orioles not included in the group of 6 bad teams?
There was a brief period at the beginning of the year in which the projections had them with a small but nonzero chance of making it. Reality intervened. Perhaps they were worth an exception.
See, I think you need to add a wrinkle here in requiring that not only the teams but the players themselves have nothing to play for.
Mondesi is trying to establish himself, as are any number of younger guys in September. Get me a 9th inning 0-0 pitch for a called ball in a 5+ run game from a journeyman mop up guy to the backup catcher or something, on a team that’s eliminated, bonus points for low fan turnout. That is nonimportant as I can imagine
Will add for the least consequential pitch of 2019!
The fan turnout is pretty key, IMO. Professional baseball is fundamentally about entertainment, after all, and if there’s 50,000 people there, clearly it matters to them. A seven year old watching on TV badly wants his team to win, no matter the situation or context.
Get that rain-delayed, 58-degree September night game that ends up at 1 am with 19 people in the stands.
I like this take on it. The game that the fewest people cared to see, and the point in that game where the most people have left early or turned it off. (Or are still there but most willing to get up for another bag of pretzels from the basement?)
It points to a Marlins game of course. The end of a big blowout. Fans are more likely to stay at a blowout if their team is winning, so we want the smaller fanbase winning — Marlins.
But are we looking for the pitch that the fewest people cared to watch (the accumulated effect), or the pitch that made people stop caring? (the rate of change) I think the second, which is trickier.
A pitch that makes people stop caring is pretty significant. The reverse … a pitch that has the least effect on viewership … is likely impossible to measure accurately.
or any Marlins game?
I was surely hoping to see a calculated Championship Leverage or Probability Added figure ending with “ten to the minus thirteenth”.
Of course, somebody would have to run those calculations down to the pitch level of detail, which would be fun to have for game WPA and LI graphs.
Once a team has been eliminated from playoff contention, the championship probability of any of their plays is obviously a flat 0. This (smallest absolute change in championship probability that’s still strictly greater than 0) would point to a different metric, calling for both teams in the game to be almost (but not quite) mathematically eliminated. Of course, late in a blowout game would be ideal, and bonus points if scoreboard-watching the other games taking place on the same night has one of them also shaping up to be a blowout in favor of a team that would hasten one or both eliminations.
Oh little town of Covington
Across your river lies
Two homely mirthless seasons’ worth
Of featureless fouls and flies
Yet in dark Cincinnati
Where Reds and Royals flail
Our Rian Watt despaireth not
And generously spins a tale
Legitimate community statistical objections notwithstanding, this is precisely what this reader comes to Fangraphs for. Thank you, kind sir, may we have another?