3+ HR In A Post-Season Game
Posted by Steve Lombardi on October 12, 2011
In the post-season, when a team has 3 or more homeruns in a game, their record in these contests, to date, is 136-38.
Here are the winning games. And, here are the losing games.
Memo to all teams: If you want to win a post-season game, it's really good to hit at least 3 homers in it.
October 12th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
I am shocked - shocked! - to learn that there is power hitting in the winning establishment! (Collects winnings and leaves in a rush)
October 12th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
In 10 of those games, both teams hit 3+ homers.
October 12th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
It's kind of odd how rare hitting 3 HR in a loss was before the wild card was introduced. Maybe it had something to do with steroids and the added number of HR that were hit in general. It only happened 10 times from 1903-1993 and then it happened 28 times from 1995-2011.
The Royals 3 HR game in a loss is even more odd in that George Brett hit all 3 HR. I think Brett was the only player to hit 3HR in a post season game and the team lost. Another odd thing about Brett's 3HR is that he was batting in the lead-off spot.
I kind of forgot that the Phillies were up 14-9 going into the top 8th in game 4 against the Blue Jays. Oh man, what a terrible loss.
October 12th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Another terrible loss were the Red Sox in 2008 in game two of the ALCS against Tampa. They actually had 4 HR, 10BB, and 12 hits and still lost the game. And to top it off, Beckett was the starting pitcher in that game!
October 12th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Exactly 3 HRs: 90-34, .726
Exactly 4 HRs: 42-4, .913
Exactly 5 HRs: 4-0, 1.000
6+ HRs has been done 308 times in the regular season (more than half of those since 1993), but never in the postseason. I guess good pitching kinda slows down good hitting? 🙂
October 12th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Following up on #5....
No HRs: 438-787, .358
Exactly 1 HR: 468-358, .567
Exactly 2 HRs: 272-131, .675
Exactly 3 HRs: 90-34, .726
Exactly 4 HRs: 42-4, .913
Exactly 5 HRs: 4-0, 1.000
October 12th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
@6
In other words, hit a HR, win a game.
October 12th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
@3 - I thought that the increase of games would account for it, but it doesn't. I didn't search for how many games were played, just how many potentially could be played. My math may be off a bit, but from 1903-1994 there were potentially 895 games. So, one every 89.5 games. From 1995-2011 there were potentially 697 games. So, one 3+ HR game every 24.9 games. That's a big difference!
October 12th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Are any of these rates being thrown around really that different from the same stats in the regular season?
October 12th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
John Q @ 3:
My memory of that game in 1978 is that both Brett's fly ball to center in the 7th and his fly ball to left in the 9th were deep enough to have this 9 year old KC native thinking he hit 4 in the game. But alas, both fell short.
October 12th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
@10,
What's odd about those Royal playoff teams from 1976-1985 is that the '85 team was probably the weakest overall team out of the bunch and that was the team that won it all! The '85 team was basically George Brett and a great young pitching staff with Dan Quisenberry. That lineup aside from Brett was definitely one of the weakest to win a WS.
The 1980 A.L. pennant club was basically just Brett And Willie Wilson. The '81 team is hard to gauge because of the strike.
I think the 1976-1978 teams were the best Royals teams out of the bunch and the 1977 Royals were the best team in Franchise history. I don't think those Yankee clubs were better than those Royals teams but they always seem to win in the end. Chambliss hits the HR in the bottom of the 9th in '76, The Royals blow a 2 games to 1 lead with a 9th inning lead in game 5 in 1977, Brett hits 3 HR and they lose the game in '78.
October 12th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
@9 - You can ignore my previous post. I'm finally comparing apples to apples now and I did full research instead of guesstimates to see if you were correct or close to being so.
Postseason: 1919-1994 games: 694. Reg: 116,392
3+HR: 10. 2,450
Average: 69 gms/occurence 47.5
Postseason: 1995-2011 games: 536. Reg: 40,550
3+ HR: 28. 1808
Average: 19 gms/occurence 22.4
I think it shows that pitching was better in the "early days" up until 1994 because you had fewer teams with fewer poor pitchers throwing in the postseason. Aces of great teams threw Games 1, 4 and 7 of series instead of getting 5-8 good innings of your ace before the bullpen takes over. Playoff games in the modern era more closely resemble regular season games. Hence the difference between regular and postseason is closer than 1994 and earlier.
October 12th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
And html fail! My charts were vertical. 🙂
October 12th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
3 of the first four games with one team hitting 3 HRs involved the Yankees with one George Herman Ruth hitting multiple HRs each game (8 of 11 total HRs hit by Mr. Ruth)
October 12th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
@5: I had exactly the same question. So I checked. Not surprisingly, there is essentially no difference in the winning percentage of teams with 3+ HRs in the post-season compared to 3+ HRs in the regular season. The 136-38 post-season record Steve identified in the original post is a .782 winning percentage. The PI shows, if I've calculated correctly, that over the whole period 1919-2011, teams with 3+ homers in the regular season have a winning percentage of .779. It's the nature of major league baseball generally, not of the post-season in particular, that is showing up in these results.
October 13th, 2011 at 1:23 am
My point above should have been addressed to Mosc @9, not @5.
October 13th, 2011 at 3:19 am
wait, home runs are good? woah.
October 13th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Johnny Mize: Six regular-season three-HR games. His teams' record in those six games was 1-4-1.
Mize's only three postseason HRs came in the 1952 World Series for the Yankees. The Yankees lost two of those games.
Strange.
October 16th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Most times there is little to no ewffect i think but this is interesting stuff to participate in.
October 16th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
@17 - not as good as walks, but they are all right. (/mccarver)