Which Home Run Was Worse?
After the way that Game 5 played out, I knew I had to give this some breathing room. There are things you want to talk and read about right after a game is finished, and there are things you want to talk and read about much later on. This is hardly the most important content about the Astros’ tie-breaking victory in their final home game of the season. I just have a question, and I’d love to see how you respond. I’ve been thinking about this since before I fell asleep.
In the bottom of the seventh inning, Sunday night, Carlos Correa faced Brandon Morrow and knocked a two-run homer out to left field. The Astros went ahead 11-8. In the top of the ninth inning, Yasiel Puig faced Chris Devenski and knocked a two-run homer out to left field. The Dodgers tightened the gap to 12-11. By the rules, both home runs were legitimate. There’s no question that the balls left the yard on the fly. Live by the Crawford Boxes, and die by the Crawford Boxes. Correa and Puig both hit two-run home runs. They were significant. But, in your own personal opinion, which home run was worse?
Maybe you don’t think there’s any such thing as a “bad” home run. Maybe you don’t think about baseball like this, in which case, I guess this isn’t for you. For everybody else, I’d like to record the community opinion, because, at least to me, there are better home runs and there are worse home runs. Minute Maid Park just allowed a couple cheapies.
Let me show you something, first. I’ve borrowed from Baseball Savant. Statcast has recorded batted-ball information stretching back to 2015. Here are all the home runs, by exit velocity and launch angle, excepting a few obvious data errors. The Correa and Puig home runs from Game 5 are in yellow. Puig’s is tucked in there, barely visible, but it does exist. It’s easier to find Correa’s moon shot.
Puig is around the lower-left boundary. Correa is more or less at the upper boundary. We can review the Puig dinger first. Here it is!
The argument against Puig’s home run, I think, is an argument about aesthetics. This actually might be a display of fine hitting. In a two-strike count, Puig stayed on a changeup away, and he hit the ball 96 miles per hour. More than that, he hit the ball on a line, and in another ballpark, this could easily be a double. Or maybe even a home run, in some places. Puig’s batted-ball result was just fine. Devenski didn’t even throw that bad a pitch.
But:
Puig’s form was terrible. It’s kind of similar to that Todd Frazier home run from the other week, except that Frazier’s home run went the other way. Puig pulled the ball, and it was all upper body. He didn’t even appear to swing with that much force. Obviously, he did swing with that much force — he must have — but, to put things simply, there are swings we expect to hit homers, and there are swings we don’t. This doesn’t look like a home-run swing, for whatever that’s worth. This doesn’t look like a home-run follow-through. This looks like a desperation swat, and still Puig got his four bases. Plus the other three, for the guy already on first. That swing, that swing, gave the Dodgers new life.
I don’t want to be too critical of a swing that led to this result. But this is precisely the sort of home run that makes people think the baseball is juiced. Puig hit the ball 96 miles per hour. *Should* he have hit the ball 96 miles per hour? Did the ball come off the bat with too much life? This has all the feel of a very 2017 home run. Not everyone is a fan of the era baseball’s entered.
Okay. That’s Puig’s silly-looking homer. Here’s Correa’s silly-looking homer.
You can’t deny the actual batted-ball quality, here. The ball left Correa’s bat at 106 miles per hour, which means the contact was terrific. But the ball also left Correa’s bat at roughly 48 degrees above the horizontal. We can even ignore how bizarre it is that Correa made that contact at that angle in the first place. This season, when batters hit the ball between 47-49 degrees, they slugged a collective .050. They batted .033. The Correa home run has the highest launch angle for any home run in 2017. It’s the fifth-highest launch angle for any home run on record. The highest is higher by just two degrees. Bryce Harper hit a higher home run in 2015. Here’s how he responded after making initial contact.
Correa’s home run isn’t unprecedented. Very, very rarely, one of these towering flies escapes down the line, or gets caught in the wind. Correa’s home run, specifically, got out because of the stands, which are unique to the stadium. Elsewhere, that’s probably a routine fly ball. Brandon Morrow didn’t seem too concerned off the bat. Then he turned around and remembered where he was. Carlos Correa hit a very Houston home run. Thankfully for him, that’s where the game was being played.
Once again, to make sure it’s clear: both Puig and Correa made strong contact. They delivered into the baseball a whole hell of a lot of energy. But their home runs were nothing like, say, George Springer’s. Their home runs were comparatively underwhelming. The argument that Puig’s home run was worse is an argument that maybe the baseball’s too lively. It’s an argument that some swings should keep the baseball in the yard. The argument that Correa’s home run was worse is an argument that stadium-specific home runs are a bug, and not a feature. It’s an argument that architecture is in part responsible for the devaluation of the longball. Every home run counts just the same. Not every home run is hit just the same.
It’s out of my hands, now. Now it’s all up to you. Thank you for your participation.
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.


Minute Maid Park was the best pitcher’s park for 2017 (more than Petco, AT&T, anywhere) and has been a pitcher’s park for several years now. I know it has a gigantic centerfield that turns a lot of homers into outs, and it also appears to have poor visibility (or at least something is responsible for much higher than average K’s). That said, watching the above clips still makes me wonder how that’s possible.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but what is your claim for “best pitcher’s park” based on?
http://www.fangraphs.com/guts.aspx?type=pf&season=2017&teamid=0&sort=2,d
That chart says 2015?
The latest analysis from Tony Blengino through 1H 2017 shows Houston as a solidly pro-hitter park, and greatly above average for fly balls.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mid-season-park-factor-update/
I don’t know about “best” pitcher’s park, but it undoubtedly WAS a pitcher’s park this year. The marks for HOU batters and pitchers combined:
— Home: .252 BA, .430 SLG
— Away: .270 BA, .456 SLG
Both their batters and pitchers had higher BA and SLG on the road.
It’s not because it suppresses home runs. It just suppresses everything else: http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor
ESPN park factors are really not good
I not sure that it matters. Both are exhibits A & B in the case to prove the ball is juiced.
I don’t know how the case can be made that baseball is better when these hits are home runs.
In case anyone misunderstands, I’m not saying that the article is happy with these home runs. I’m just saying that no one looks at these hits and says yes, this is how baseball should be.
@phattonez – you came to fangraphs today to proclaim, and subsequently die on, your hill. while I might not agree with you, I certainly see you doing it.
so, uh, there you go.
Baseball has tried to come up with a solution to a very difficult problem. Baseball is a better game when there are baserunners, but they were disappearing in 2015. I believe they saw the danger of offense disappearing as it had in 1968 with strikeouts rising dramatically and shifts becoming routine. To keep scoring high enough to give the impression that some apparent action is taking place in the game, and not have a repeat of 1968 when scoring stopped, period, the powers that be decided that a juiced ball was the solution. They have succeeded in keeping run production at a reasonable level but they have made the game less enjoyable. I miss the hit and run which has disappeared. Still the greatest game of all but just less so.
Of course it doesn’t matter. Have you ever read a Jeff poll article before? It’s an interesting thing to hear people’s opinions on. No more, no less.
I don’t have a well-reasoned argument either way, so I voted my reaction live off the bat. My reaction when I saw Puig’s was “jeez, that ball might have a chance”; to Correa’s it was “well, that’s obviously a fly out… what?”
Mine was the opposite. I saw Puig’s and was like “that looked pretty weak- what. What.” I was pretty sure Correa got just enough, but I wasn’t expecting a Crawford Special, or at least not such a short one.
When they showed the slow-mo side angle of Piugs swing, you can clearly see he had one hand on the bat at contact AND the bat vibrated a good amount…which almost always results in a loss of pop. The man is very strong but, yeah, that was bad.
Puig’s would go for a double in virtually any park. Correa’s would be a flyout in most parks, although it would likely travel far enough in some cases (Coors, wind blowing out at Wrigley, Fenway, etc..) that it would sometimes be a HR.
Not sure which one would be a HR in more parks, but the batting average on Puig’s would be almost 1.000, which given the circumstances is all he actually needed. That it left the park there was just a little bonus (although you could argue in that case that a double might have been better, to keep the pressure on).
Thanks, Jeff.
Was that Harper home run in a game at Wrigley with the wind blowing out?
I’m willing to bet the wind wasn’t blowing in, that’s for sure.
Kyle Hendricks has only given up one home run to Bryce Harper, which was on May 26, 2015. The field conditions listed for that game: “71° F, Wind 17mph out to Centerfield, Sunny”. So…yeah.
The Cubs ended up winning that game by the clearly juiced score of 3-2, after that homer itself tied the game at 1 in the 7th.
Thanks!
Four HR’s in that game (all solo), which sounds about right for a 3-2 game at Wrigley with the wind blowing out.
Look at the crowds. Puig had to reach for that but he’s one of the strongest guys in baseball and people knew that ball was trouble as soon as it left the bat. It clearing the wall was a surprise, but he got all of that. But look at the crowd behind home when Correa makes contact– as subdued a reaction you’ll ever see for a homer in that big a situation. Everyone thought that was a flyout and then it just kept carrying.
Correa’s was worse, but man I loved his celebration and home run trot.
Can someone tell me if Correa’s would have been out at Fenway?
ESPN says it wouldn’t; it would have needed to clear the fence by at least 18 vertical feet where it went out.
The main reason Corea’s is worse is that the alternative was very likely an out. Puig’s alternative was a double. I’m not sure Puig’s would have been an out in any stadium.
The juiced ball, and it’s obviously juiced, has ruined these entire playoffs for me. That Puig HR is the perfect example of what I hate about the game right now. Hell, 5 of Game 2 HRs were at the first row or didn’t even make the stands. Every HR just feels cheap now. I don’t understand how this isn’t a bigger scandal.
Have you seen the list of scandals the world is working with right now?
Puig is a titan. His stretching home run is an expression of that titanic power.
Leave it to Mr. Sullivan to write about a less important aspect of the game, yet, to make it so relevant and fun.
We send our regards to Mr./Ms. Crawford.
I voted Puig’s home run. A pitch like that, with a swing like that, only goes out with aid (read: juiced ball). Correa’s required ballpark assistance, but that didn’t change freakishly mid season with mlb denying the change…
I see it this way. Given his swing, it was ridiculous that Puig’s ball left the bat how it did. But once it left the bat, that’s a double anywhere.
Given the way the ball left Correa’s bat, it was ridiculous that it left the yard. It literally looks like a popup!
It is a weird one, for sure. But Correa swung up at it and hit it squarely at that angle – no other way to get 106mph exit velocity.
This is interesting question for sure. Correa put a good swing on a inside pitch and crushed it. In a game that featured 7 homeruns, only Springer’s was hit harder. Out of all 67 balls in play, only Springer’s homerun and Altuve’s double was hit harder. Very different from Puig, who swung off-balanced on a good pitch, which makes me think Puig’s was worse.
On the other hand, Puig was miraculously able to get is swing in line with the ball to generate a line drive, where Correa had a pretty strong uppercut, which exacerbated hitting slightly under the ball. So as many of people already pointed out, the crawford boxes helped Correa more so than Puig, since Puig still likely gets a double.
I think if you reset the universe to the moment after the pitch is released, I think Correa has a better outcome than Puig more times than not, but I ended up voting Correa’s homerun being worse because if you reset the universe to immediately after contact is made, Puig’s hit is definitely better in every universe where this game isn’t being played at MMP.
I just wonder why MLB won’t just admit to a change in the ball when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
MLB has (1) denied intentionally juicing the ball, and (2) has verified that the balls are within MLB specifications.
Neither of those things is inconsistent with the ball having changed in a way that leads to more HRs.
And MLB doesn’t even have to juice the balls. All they have to do is make the seams a tiny bit less prominent on the ball, then the ball will travel farther when hit, AND pitchers will have a harder time getting a grip on it. The thing that pirchers are complaining about is that they can’t grip the ball well enough to throw the slider. And Major League hitters who don’t have to worry about sliders are going to be blasting home runs all over the place.
They were both great in their own way.
I’d like to know the situations behind those outliers on the left of the graph with exit velo < 90.
Yes. And I’d like to know the guys who were pounding extremely high, Springer-like fly balls, but at 115+ MPH. Those balls must’ve been be absolutely monstrous blasts!
Yeah the one > 120 with 25 degree launch angle must have been fun to watch