Locked in: Adrian Gonzalez homers on 3 consecutive pitches
Posted by Andy on August 26, 2011
Thanks to Tony Massarotti for this tibdit--Adrian Gonzalez hit homers on 3 consecutive pitches over the Red Sox's last 2 games.
Those homers came on the 4th pitch of his 9th-inning at bat in Wednesday's game followed by homers on the next two pitches he saw in Thursday's game.
That brings back memories of the 1977 World Series, when Reggie Jackson actually homered in three consecutive single-pitch at-bats in the decisive Game 6.
August 26th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Binge homering is much better than binge drinking.
August 26th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Jackson homered at the end of game 5 too. He homered on 4 consecutive swings.
August 26th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
@ JT
Actually Jackson flew out in the ninth in Game 5. He homered in the sixth.
August 26th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Suck it, JT.
🙂
August 26th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Jackson HR'd off of 3 different pitchers too
August 26th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Aramis RamÃrez has hit 12 first-pitch homers so far in 2011.
August 26th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Actually Jackson flew out in the ninth in Game 5. He homered in the sixth.
Actually, that happened in Game 4.
August 26th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Jackson homered on the first pitch in the top of the 8th in Game 5 off Don Sutton. Jackson did not bat in the 9th inning.
In his first at bat in Game 6 he walked on four pitches.
He homered in the bottom of the 4th on the first pitch off Burt Hooten.
Again he homered on the first pitch from Elias Sosa in the bottom of the 5th.
Then, for the third time of the game in the bottom of the 8th, he homered on the first pitch from Charlie Hough.
Johnny Twisto is correct in his statement that Jackson homered on 4 consecutive swings.
August 26th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Suck it, everybody!
🙂
August 26th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Awesome Adrian G! Do we know of any other times in history that such a thing had happened? Or are these the only two documented cases?
August 26th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Andy- in the spirit of Orlando Cabrera, would like to make a suggestion for a Blog post: The worst statistical leadoff hitters in the history of MLB.
August 26th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
I was looking at some first pitch home runs and found this game:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TEX/TEX200207260.shtml
In the bottom of the 7th Carl Everett saw 2 pitches and homered on both.
August 26th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Romodonkulous @ 11
Omar Moreno and Bobby Richardson are going to be somewhere very high on that list. They make Juan Pierre look like Rickey Henderson.
August 26th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
@Andy
I sent you an email about a possible topic but didn't get a reply. Maybe it went to spam, but it was from my Yahoo account. What's the best way to contact? First I tried using the link on the right side of this page, but the mail settings weren't friendly.
August 26th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
I've posed this question before and don't think I ever got a completely satisfactory answer.
Why is Adrian Gonzalez's WAR so "low" at 6.1, given his gaudy traditional statistics, compared to say Bautista's or even his teammates Pedroia or Ellsbury? Bautista owns him by 1.9 in WAR
Can GIDP alone rob one of MVP consideration? I realize he leads the AL in GIDP.
So Gonzalez leads Bautista by 0.031 in BA, by 52 in hits, by 29 in total bases, by 20 in RBI and by 2 in times on base and yet is nowhere close to Bautista in WAR. Go figure.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining about Bautista leading in so many offensive categories and I would like Jose to win an MVP over Gonzalez or Granderson, but are Gonzalez's statistics so greatly diminished in WAR by the park he plays in?
It can't be a WAR deduction for defense because his defense is solid.
August 26th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Mick, I'm sure I got it--I get so many that I don't have time to respond to everything.
August 26th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
No problem Andy.
August 26th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
@11
Romodonkulous, the first term you should define in your post before asking for the blog is "worst statistical leadoff hitter". Least power? Fewest walks? Most caught stealing? Fewest runs scored? Lowest BA?
Not meaning to make light of your post, but the point is a leadoff hitter is defined by who bats in the spot, not by some non-existent statistical ideal.
Hartvig, @13, Omar Moreno and Bobby Richardson notwithstanding.
August 26th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
[...] Nugget #2, for tonight’s entry … While we’re not expecting a duplication of the Adrian Gonzalez effort, it should be noted that Osprey outfielder Jeremia Gomez has hit a home run on each of the last two [...]
August 26th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
@15 Neil
I still can't figure out how WAR is calculated, and in my opinion it's so nebulous that it goes beyond true statistical analysis.
How can Jacoby Ellsbury have a WAR of 6.3 and Curtis Granderson have a WAR of 5.2?
Or how does Dustin Pedroia show a 6.3 WAR as opposed to Robinson Cano's WAR of 3.9?
August 26th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
I don't know about the bs u guys r talking about, but the bottom line is that gonzo got a 3 run homer,
August 26th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Neil L @ 18
" but the point is a leadoff hitter is defined by who bats in the spot, not by some non-existent statistical ideal."
Then why don't managers fill out line-up cards in random order?
The job of a lead off hitter is to a) get on base b) preferably in scoring position c) without making a ton of outs.
August 26th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
how about that .348 he's raised his career BA by 9 points this year....
August 26th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
so here's a completely unrelated question: why is tommy bond not in the hall of fame?
August 26th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
@15
A 6.1 WAR is very high. Bautista has a higher WAR because he has been much more productive at the plate. Ellsbury and Pedroia have had weaker years at the plate but make up for it with better baserunning and playing exceptional defense at premier positions.
@20
It's broken down quite clearly on the player pages. Granderson has been rated as 9 runs better than Ellsbury at the plate, but Ellsbury has been rated as 16 runs better defensively.
Pedroia is rated as 5 runs better than Cano at the plate and 15 runs better in the field.
Without really looking at the other categories, that accounts for most of the difference between those players.
August 26th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
I still can't figure out how WAR is calculated, and in my opinion it's so nebulous that it goes beyond true statistical analysis.
Start here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6063
If you have specific questions, ask and people will try to answer them.
I'm not sure what you mean by "nebulous." There are assumptions and estimates involved. If you don't think a player's performance can be distilled into a single number, you should ignore it. If you don't think it has any use, you should ignore it.
How can Jacoby Ellsbury have a WAR of 6.3 and Curtis Granderson have a WAR of 5.2? Or how does Dustin Pedroia show a 6.3 WAR as opposed to Robinson Cano's WAR of 3.9?
For the most part, defense.
But that question is a bit too broad to really answer. If you want to know where a player's WAR comes from, all the components are laid out for you.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/ellsbja01.shtml#batting_value::none
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/grandcu01.shtml#batting_value::none
Where do you think it is going wrong?
August 26th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Devon -
Are we talking consecutive "swings" or consecutive pitches? Because on July 17th 1990 Bo Jackson homered on 3 consecutive swings against the Yankees.
He homered on a 2-2 pitch in the first inning.
He homered on the first pitch he saw in the third inning.
He homered on a 1-0 count in the fifth inning.
So 3 consecutive swings, but 4 pitches.
He then was injured and went on the DL.
He then homered on the first pitch he saw from Randy Johnson on August 26th.
August 26th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
i've been surprised at gonzalez's season. i thought he would hit more hr and have a lower avg than at sd, but the opposite has happened.
bold prediction for gonza;ez going forward: three or more 50+ hr seasons in boston, and a triple crown when he combines one of those with a lineup as loaded as this year's and an average like this year's. you heard it here first!
but i think most years he will hover right on the .300 line.
August 26th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
i'll go .341, 54, 148 for his triple crown year
August 26th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Neil, a significant component of WAR is a position adjustment. 1Bs as a group hit better than just about any other position. So even though Gonzalez has a much better OPS+ than Pedroia or Ellsbury, that's pretty much irrelevant to WAR.
Second, I think the presumed replacement level -- which is the basis of the WAR comparison -- is even higher at 1B than is suggested by the previous paragraph, because the pool of players considered capable of playing 1B is much larger than it is for 2B or CF.
I don't know what the actual replacement level is, so just for fun, I'll compare those 3 BoSox' OPS+ to each other and to the median of hitters at their position with at least 300 PAs:
Gonzalez, 162 OPS+
Ellsbury, 138 OPS+
Pedroia, 133 OPS+
-- Gonzalez is about 17% above Ellsbury and 22% above Pedroia in OPS+.
1B median, 116 OPS+
CF median, 100 OPS+
2B median, 98 OPS+
-- Gonzalez is about 40% above the median, Ellsbury 38%, and Pedroia 36%.
So just when comparing their OPS+ to the median at their positions, those 3 are much closer than their raw OPS+. And if I'm right about the replacement-level pool question, that explains the rest.
August 26th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Well, there I go, not realizing that others had already done a better job than I could....
August 26th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
@24, Jim -- Putting aside the fact that Bond never pitched from the modern distance, and that his final season (his 10th, which made him HOF-eligible) was mostly in a very marginal league ... let's just compare his IP and ERA+ to those of all modern pitchers (since 1893):
Bond had 3,629 IP and a 115 ERA+.
So let's look at all pitchers with 3,400 to 3,900 IP and an ERA+ between 110 and 120.
There are 7 other pitchers who meet those criteria.
Two are in the Hall -- Jim Bunning and Waite Hoyt. And Hoyt was a weak Veterans Committee selection who never got 20% of the vote when he was on the regular ballot.
Five have been rejected -- Wilbur Cooper, Luis Tiant, Rick Reuschel, Mel Harder and Jerry Koosman.
Now, if Bond were really as good as Bunning, he might deserve to be in the Hall. But he wasn't. Bond pitched in a time when lots of pitchers racked up 500+ IP per year, so his total IP are similar to Bunning's and Hoyt's. But really, Bond had just a 5-year stretch as one of the top pitchers in baseball, and led the league in ERA+ once. Bunning had more years at that level.
Even with just a 5-year prime, Bond might qualify if he was as dominant in those 5 years as, say, Sandy Koufax. But he wasn't. Bond's ERA+ for his best 5 years was 133; Koufax's was 167.
Finally, the most statistically comparable player to Bond is his contemporary, Will White. White's not in the Hall, and it's hard to see that Bond was any better than White, who had a better ERA+ (121-115) in only 85 fewer IP.
August 27th, 2011 at 5:41 am
Regarding Bond, I would just add that in the season that I checked (1874) his numbers superficially look pretty impressive: 2.03 ERA (5th in the league), 497 IP (4th in the league), 22 wins (6th in the league) and so on. What you need to keep in mind is that that season there were 10 pitchers in the entire league who pitched more than a handful of innings the entire season. The next season the league expanded (sort of) and there were a total of 21 pitchers who the more than 100 IP. Bonds 1.41 ERA was good for second in the league that years but there were 9 pitchers who's ERA was below 2.00 plus 2 more who pitched more than 100 innings but not enough to qualify for the ERA title. And that doesn't begin to address the caliber of competition in the 1870's.
Overall, just not that impressive.
August 27th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
@ #26 Johnny Twisto
August 27th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
And it appears I just failed my first attempt at using HTML tags.
I was looking at the Rfield stats for each player, so where you see a capital R, I meant for it to be Rfield. I tried to italicize "field", and I tried to blockquote @26 Johnny Twisto.
Where did I go wrong? LOL...I need help!
August 27th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
@34, Brooklyn Mick -- Why must they be "arbitrary" values that translate the comparable defensive counting stats for Ellsbury and Granderson into a large dWAR edge for Ellsbury?
Just to take one simple, hypothetical example -- If they have a similar number of Fielding Chances, but there are a lot more fly balls in play in Granderson's games than in Ellsbury's, wouldn't that suggest that Ellsbury is doing a better job running them down?
August 27th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
@36 John:
August 27th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
In Reggie's first stadium at bat in 1978, April 13, he came to bat
against Wilbur Wood with 2 men on.
He took the first 2 pitches, and then on his first swing since the 3rd
homer in game 6, Reggie hit a home run. That made 4 homers on
his last 4 swings in Yankee Stadium!
August 27th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Brooklyn Mick, there's no question the defensive ratings are the most questionable part of WAR. There is simply no perfect way to evaluate defense. Any system is going to have some results that some people think are crazy. (Which doesn't mean those results are "wrong," though they may be.)
This is the reason why B-R broke WAR into oWAR and dWAR. If you don't trust the fielding ratings, for Granderson, or for every player, you can stick your own number in there. Use UZR instead. Or use your own opinion.
As I've said in here a few times, I think Granderson's played a solid CF this season, and the advanced stats are "missing" something on him. (UZR and DRS rate him even worse than Total Zone (Rfield).) I'm not sure what that is. Maybe playing next to a superb left fielder and a pretty good right fielder, he's lost some chances to them? Maybe there have been a preponderance of balls hit to the edges of what are classified as his zones of responsibility, instead of more easy chances? Maybe my eyes are lying to me, and he is a poor defender.
Here is an introduction to how the defensive ratings are calculated:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/total_zone.shtml
The problem lies in accounting for chances. We know how many plays a fielder makes, but we don't know how many he could/should have made. Assumptions have to be made, depending on how much detail is available in the play-by-play logs. But anyway, the number of plays made is compared to how many the average player would have made given the same estimated chances, and the difference is converted into runs (based on the linear weights run-values of hits, I think).
I guess this is as good a place as any to promote the Fans' Scouting Report:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/scouting_report_2011_by_the_fans_for_the_fans/
I encourage anyone who watches a lot of games to submit their opinions. I look at the results of that along with the statistical measures to get a better idea of how good defenders whom I don't see regularly really are.