The Astros and Nationals square off in this year’s edition of the Fall Classic. The oddsmakers have Houston as the favorite, but how well do they match up against the upstart NL champs? I’ll take a look after the jump.
This is Houston’s third World Series, after losing as the NL champions in 2005, and winning as the AL champions two seasons ago. For Washington, it’s their debut World Series. But, that doesn’t figure to be a huge handicap; expansion era World Series debutantes have thus far posted a 5-6 series record.
Washington has a nice mix of youngsters, players in the prime, and experienced veterans, with perhaps too many of the first and last and not enough in the second group. The Astros are more homogeneous, with most of their players in or near their primes. And, they have a wealth of post-season experience that the Nationals, for the most part, are clearly lacking.
Starting Pitching
If any team can match the Houston trio of Verlander, Cole and Grienke, Washington probably comes the closest with Scherzer, Strasburg and Corbin. You might even give the Nats a slight edge on the strength of having an experienced fourth starter, Anibal Sanchez, whose effectiveness is enhanced by being so different from the other three fireballers. Game 4 might prove to be the pivotal contest in this series with Corbin or Sanchez at home against the Astro bullpen, a matchup that should favor the home side.
Relief Pitching
To beat a dead horse, the Nats are really thin in the bullpen, but somehow they’ve managed to make it work thus far. The formula has been 7+ innings from their starters, then going to Doolittle and Hudson, with support from Rodney and Rainey, to bring the game home. The danger, though, is having those same three or four going every night; they’ll likely wear down and, even if they don’t, Astro hitters will be accustomed to them by the middle of the series.
The Astro approach is similar, with 7+ IP from Verlander and Cole, and hopefully six from Greinke, with Harris, Smith and Osuna the preferred trio to wrap up games. But, Houston has a deeper and better supporting cast in James, Pressly (apparently he’s good to go after rolling his ankle in the finale against the Yankees), Devenski and Rondon. There’s even Peacock and Urquidy, who both showed well in their brief ALCS appearances, for a bullpen game or if there’s a game that goes deep into extras. Give the edge to Houston, especially if Washington’s starters falter.
Batting
Houston has a big power edge, but most of those power hitters (Bregman, Correa, Springer, Alvarez) have been scuffling thus far this post-season. But, despite those struggles by top players, Altuve, Brantley and Gurriel have been able to fill the void and provide just enough offense to support Houston’s dominating pitching. Bottom line is that this is a deep, deep lineup that can win even if one or two or more players are off their game.
Unlike the Astros, Washington’s best players (Rendon and Soto) have been their best players for the wildcard and first two post-season rounds. Add in over-achieving veterans (Kendrick, Zimmerman), some capable role players with speed and a little pop (Turner, Eaton, Robles), and a experienced bench (Dozier, Cabrera, Parra) and it can be a potent mix when everyone is contributing. The Nationals’ confidence is sky-high right now; time will tell whether they can continue to ride that high against Astro pitching. Give the edge to Houston, but probably not as big an edge as it might appear.
Catching
Both teams have experienced and capable catchers. The difference is Houston’s backstops are just better, offensively and defensively. If the Astros want to run, Suzuki will have little chance of slowing them down. Gomes would provide stiffer resistance and, unlike Suzuki, has shown well offensively in his brief appearances to date. But, Suzuki is evidently the Nationals’ choice. Sizable edge to the Astros with the tandem of Chirinos and Maldonado.
Defense
Both teams feature slick fielders at SS and 3B, and converted third baseman (thus, good fielders) at first base. Difference is at 2B, with Altuve having the edge over the veteran tandem of Cabrera and Kendrick, both of whom have lost a step or two. Houston has the edge in the outfield with capable and experienced veterans at each position. For the Nats, Soto plays an “adventurous” game (sometimes brilliant, but sometimes not) and Robles, while clearly talented, might lack the experience to be relied on to consistently make the right decisions. As mentioned above, the Nats are vulnerable defensively behind the plate. Overall, give the edge to the Astros.
Strength of Schedule
Houston has the extra home game and play very well in their cozy confines (an historically excellent 60-21 mark). They’re also really good on the road at 47-34, as would be expected of a 107 win team. But, are they really as good as that record would suggest? The Astros blitzed their division with a 56-20 record, compared to 51-35 against everyone else. But, against the AL’s best teams (Yankees, Twins, Rays, Indians, Red Sox), Houston was only 18-16. A small sample size of better teams, but perhaps shades of the 1954 Indians.
Washington won 14 fewer games than Houston, so their results are obviously less impressive by comparison, but a 50-31 home record is still a solid result to pair with a creditable 43-38 mark on the road. As has been mentioned countless times, the story of the Nats season is that it was really two seasons, an awful first 50 games (19-31; only the 2005 Astros had fewer wins among pennant winners) and a spectacular finish (74-38) that matched the Astros record over that same period. The NL was more balanced than the AL, with only one .600 team (the Dodgers) and only one team below .400 (the Marlins). The Nats did make hay against Miami (14-5), but there were clearly fewer soft spots on the Nats schedule than was the case for Houston.
Conclusion
If my analysis holds water, the Astros should be fairly easy winners, perhaps in 5 games. But, Washington is really on a roll, and the Astro hitters aren’t. My hunch is this series goes 6 or 7. I’d still give the edge to Houston, but wouldn’t be hugely surprised if it goes the other way.
Many of the Nats made their WS debuts in game 1. Soto became the second youngest (after Andruw Jones) to homer in his debut, and second youngest with three hits (again after Jones) in his debut. Zimmermann became the fouth oldest to homer in his debut, behind Barry Bonds, Larry Walker and Bob Watson.
Matt Scherzer’s 112 pitches in game 1 are the most (since pitches have been counted) for a WS starter getting a win while pitching 5 innings or less, and second most for such a start in any post-season game. Scherzer topped the previous WS record holder (Ramon Ortiz, 2002) by a whopping 25 pitches.
Don’t think Astros in 5 is going to happen, Doug. 😉
As Doug mentioned, after starting the season 19-31, the Nationals went 74-38 over their remaining games. In THEIR final 112, the Astros went… 74-38. I think that’s actually pretty cool. I also think it’s caused the Nationals to be severely underrated. I also think that the relative merits of the two leagues should be taken into account. Doug mentioned this a little above, but I think it bears repeating in a little different analysis.
Let’s say you group a league into three groups: Group A is playoff teams. Group B is teams that finish .500 or better, but fail to make the postseason. Group C is sub-.500 teams. Since, by definition, 5 teams make the playoffs, and since there are 15 teams in each league, a perfectly balanced league could have 5 teams in each group. The 2019 NL had… 5 teams in each group! The AL… that’s a different story:
Group A – 5 teams (again, that’s how it always works)
Group B – 2 teams (Boston & Cleveland)
Group C – 8 teams (ouch!)
The majority of the AL was sub-.500. That COULD be seen as a function of a few strong teams on top artificially deflating the records of their own league. So how do we check? We can look at interleague records! As it so happens, the NL absolutely trounced the AL this year, to the tune of a 166-134 record this season. That .553 winning percentage is among the most thoroughly dominating performances ever. In 23 seasons of interleague play, that ranks as the 5th-highest winning percentage of one league over the other, and is in fact the largest-EVER advantage for the NL over the AL (I happen to be a believer that the NL is actually at a systematic relative to the AL, due to the DH; if you’re a fellow believer, you may even want to argue that this season represents an even WIDER gap between the leagues than the numbers show).
I admit that this takes a little bit of mental gymnastics – you could even call it cherry-picking, if you were so inclined – but I see a strong reason to believe that IF you regard the NL as the better league, and IF you’re willing to throw out those first 50 games, the Nationals actually proved themselves the better team over the course of the regular season, and could reasonably be regarded as the favorites, in spite of the fact that they won 14 fewer games, and lack the star-power and pedigree of the Astros.
—
Also, the starting pitching… wow. Let’s say that we pretend Zack Greinke was in the AL all season. By my proprietary WAR system (which is very simple and which I’ve outlined here a number of times, so I’m not going to again), the Nationals had the #2 (Scherzer), #3 (Strasburg), #5 (Corbin), and #21 (Sanchez) pitchers in the National League. The Astros had the #1 (Cole), #2 (Verlander), #4 (Greinke), and #13 (Miley) pitchers in the American League (I have Cole, Verlander, and Greinke, in fact, as #1, #2, and #5 in all of MLB, in fact, with Scherzer #7, Strasburg #9, and Corbin #11). This is arguably the most stacked starting pitcher matchup in the history of the World Series. While you might argue that there’ve been single teams as impressive as this lot, there’s never been a two-team field that’s this strong and this deep at starting pitcher.
My allusion to the ’54 Indians may be closer to the mark than I imagined.
The other example that comes to mind is the Mets and Orioles in 1969. Despite their “amazing” finish and dominating pitching staff, people discounted the Mets because they hadn’t been there before and because, well, they were the (formerly) hapless Mets. Going up against the 109 win Orioles and their stellar pitching, the O’s were the clear favorites (nobody knew it then, but the Orioles were 18 wins better than New York in Pythag). I see that, Andy Etchebarren, catcher for the ’60s and ’70s Orioles, died a few weeks ago.
Hopeful Astro fans would prefer the comparison to the 1996 Yankees. That team was pummeled at home to start the WS, losing 12-1 and 4-0 to the defending champion Braves. But, New York then won the next four to claim their first WS title in 18 years.
I’ve thought about the ’96 Series, too. That was really the first one I ever paid any attention to, and I remember the 2-0 Braves lead well. ’69 is not a bad comparison. They were, like the Nats, not very good at the start of the year. They rallied from 19-42 to close at 81-39 over the final three-quarters of the season. That’s, like this year, the same pace as the heavily-favored AL champs.
Doom, The Mets’ nadir was 18-23, after which they went 82-39 (winning just one game less late than they won total in each of the two following seasons). However, your larger point holds, since the O’s were 28-13 after 41 games and 81-40 thereafter.
What I (and maybe a few others: say fifty million) missed was the importance of the O’s lazy finish: they clinched early and then went 8-8, with a 1-5 final stretch. The Mets finished with a 38-11 run (or 23-6, if you like), with a final stretch of 9-1 (4-1 after clinching).
But still, it’s hard not to see the O’s as winning 109 games on the basis of talent (they won 108 the next season, and then 101), while the Mets won 100 on the basis of mirrors (which is why they reverted to 83 and 83).
The eight O’s regulars generated 38.6 WAR; for the Mets’ 18.6 (if you substitute the late-added Clendenon for the perpetual mediocrity Kranepool). The Mets’ advantage was in the three Series starters for each team: O’s: 11.0 WAR; Mets: 15.7 — but it’s dwarfed by the offensive gap.
(What’s even more ridiculous was how the Mets swept Atlanta in the league series by winning three slugfests where their pitching fell apart, against Aaron, Cepeda, and Co. I didn’t watch an inning of those games, because I was so mad that the Mets had to win a playoff when they had the NL best record: I was sure they’d be stomped.)
You know, Doug, those Mets were hapless. Apart from Seaver and Koosman, and a couple of relievers (including a yet-to-be-Nolan-Ryan Nolan Ryan) the team was a collection of also-rans. They fell to 83-79 the next two seasons and stayed at that level. And, of course, prior to ’69, they were the original Mets, with their 73-89 record in ’68 celebrated as an amazing success. They should have been a .500 team in ’69.
If you follow the history of that season, the Mets’ turnaround is not so much a matter of the team blossoming in hitting and pitching, as the team pulling off key plays game after game: timely hits, although their hits were few, and great clutch fielding. The team surpassed its Pythagorean record by 8 games. (Look at Sept. 15, when Steve Carlton struck out 19 Metsies, and the team still won on two two-run HR by Ron Swoboda, who hit only seven others that year.)
In the Series, the same thing applied. Game 5’s apparently dominant 5-0 score was the product of two absurd circus catches by Tommy Agee, saving five runs; Game 4 was saved by a Swoboda (!) circus catch (an absurd phrase in itself) and an instance of what really does count for luck on the ball field: a walk-off umpire mis-call. The final game turned on a game-tying HR by Al Weis, who hit 7 HR in an 800-game, 59-OPS+ career.
I believe no one should have bet on the Mets in that Series. I expected them to be swept, and the nature of their success was such that after they took a 3-1 lead, I was certain they’d lose in seven (and, as an all-in fan, I was ok with that, because it was already so far beyond what the team warranted).
I’ve always suspected that the real difference in that team was Gil Hodges, whose moves that year always seemed prescient. He had a rag-tag group of regulars–ninth in the league in offense–and only two players had more than 400 AB because Hodges platooned and substituted so actively. Of course, Seaver and Koosman made it all possible, but they could equally have made possible a .500 team, given the rest of the talent. (And if the Mets had actually finished with a .500 record, I would have been thrilled, as I was on June 2, when they recovered from a lousy–but for the Mets a solid–sub-.500 start to hit .500 post-first-week for the first time in their slapstick history.)
From some numbers I ran, using BB-Ref WAR, the Top 3 starters for both teams combined for 38 WAR. The only total I could find higher searching manually was the 2001 WS, where they combined for 38.1 WAR. That was more top-heavy, though – Johnson and Schilling were amazing, but 3rd starter Miguel Batista was nothing special. On the Yankees side, Mussina and Clemens were great and Petittte was very good. Add in the 4th starters, and 2019 pulls ahead – Miley and Sanchez are quite a bit better than Brian Anderson and Orlando Hernandez.
One of my friends said that the 1995 WS comes close when you account for the 144 game season. In fact, the Indians had such a strong bullpen that their prorated team pitching WAR (29.7) is higher than any of the four teams in the 2001 and 2019 WS. But their rotation falls short, even when you adjust for the strike.
I think the 2001 WS still comes out ahead on starters + bullpen, because the Yankees had a very impressive bullpen (Rivera, Stanton, Mendoza) and the D-Backs had a couple good relievers.
1912:
10.1 .. Smokey Joe
5.6 … Ray Collins
5.3 … Buck O’Brien
…
7.7 … Mathewson
6.0 … Marquard
5.2 … Jeff Tesreau
______
39.9
Doom, This seems like a very good analysis to me, and changes the way I’m looking at the Series.
In game 1, Kyle Tucker became the 9th player aged 22 or younger with a pinch-hit in his WS debut. Tucker and Rafael Devers last year are the only two to do so since 1982. The 1947 Yankees had two such players (Bobby Brown, turning 95 on Saturday, and Yogi Berra).
In game 2, Michael Taylor became the 13th player with a pinch-HR in his WS debut (the first was Yogi Berra in 1947), Nine of the first twelve played for the series winning team.
During the 7th inning of game 2, Houston intentionally walked Juan Soto, after having issued no IBBs during the season. In fact, the Astros broke their own record of 4 IBBs, set last year. Of the 10 teams with 10 of fewer IBBs in a season, 9 made the post-season, 6 were pennant winners, and 3 won the WS (or 4 if the Astros come back to win it this year). The 1974 Dodgers are the only one of those 10 teams from before the 2013 season.
That was the year Mike Marshall pitched 106 games and 252 innings in relief. Hope I remember that right. He was not a fan of the intentional walk. Flat out refused to do it.
It was actually 208.1 IP and he did have one IBB that year. Marshall had 39 IBB in 6 seasons before joining the Dodgers (36 of those for the Gene Mauch-managed Expos), but only 13 for the last 8 seasons of his career, incl. only 7 in LA.
Houston has tied the WS record set by the 1968 Tigers with three straight road wins allowing one run or none. But, the Tigers’ three wins were separated by home games, so the Astros are the first with this particular three-peat. Five road wins by both teams ties the WS record, achieved 14 times previously, but this is just the third time that the first 5 games have been won by the visitors.
Four home runs in game 5 were hit by players from four different countries (or territories). Two were by players aged 22 or younger, the first time in a WS game.
Speaking of road wins… there have been 5 such games so far this Series. Here are the ones I can find with 5+ road wins:
1903 (best of 9 series)
1906
1919 (best of 9 series)
1921 (best of 9 series)
1923
1926
1934
1945
1952
1968
1972
1979
1996
2016
2019
No Series has ever begun with 5-straight road wins before. I did not find any World Series with 6 or 7 road wins, so maybe that’s something to look out for: whether there’s a “road-field advantage” in this particular World Series. 🙂
Doug, I missed which ones BEGAN with five straight road wins… do you know which ones did that? I thought I had paid close attention, but obviously not close enough…
The visiting teams won the first 5 games of the 1906 and 1996 series.
Jose Urquidy’s 41 IP in the regular season is the lowest total of 22 pitchers to start and win a WS game in their debut season.
Quiz #1: which three pitchers had wins in two WS starts in their debut season?
Quiz: #2: who is the only pitcher to start and win a clinching WS game 7 in his debut season? (Hint: he’s one of 7 pitchers to start and win two WS clinching games)
Quiz 1: Spec Shea of the Yankees in 1947 is one.
Also Paul Dean in 1934.
And, finally, Dickey Kerr in 1919.
Kerr’s career was cut short when he was blackballed for playing semipro ball during a contract holdout. He’s one of 5 pitchers since 1901 to post a .650 W-L% in 20+ decisions in each of his first two seasons; Dwight Gooden is the only expansion era pitcher among that group.
I guess John Lackey may be your Quiz #2 answer. (I had to look for the answer; it didn’t come to mind.)
“Debut season” isn’t a term I’m used to, and I thought originally you were just referring to rookie season, in which case Babe Adams would have been one of the answers to #1, since he went 3-0 in the Series as a 27 year-old rookie (including a game-seven starting win). Adams went into the 1909 Series with a career record of 12-6 over 156 IP, and went 3-0 in 27 IP in the Pirates’ win over the Tigers.
Two of Richard’s trio of answers are new to me: I had no idea about Spec Shea’s role in ’47, and I really never registered that Kerr was a debuting rookie for the Black Sox. It says even more about Kerr’s guts in that Series, and also about how shabby baseball’s conduct towards him was.
Lackey is correct. He’s the only pitcher to start and win a WS clinching game for two franchises, for the Angels in 2002 and the Red Sox in 2013. That 11 year gap is the largest between such starts, matching Andy Pettitte who closed out the 1998 and 2009 series for the Yankees.
Here’s a WS factoid that I stumbled across while browsing on my computer. Yogi Berra, Joe DiMaggio and Johnny Mize form the only trio to be on base for a bases loaded HR and a bases loaded triple. Each event occurred in the 1951 WS (Gil McDougald HR and Hank Bauer triple, games 5 and 6).
Tucker, Springer and Brantley have an opportunity to tie that record.
Here’s a thought about the effects of baseball realignments on being a fan.
As HHS posters know, my baseball loyalties were shaped as a small but ardent Brooklyn Dodger fan in the mid-1950s. Consequently, I was an NL fan, the built-in exception being that I would root for any team, regardless of league, over the Giants. (That was put to the test in 1962, when I attended my only Series game to root, in a melancholy way, for the richly-hated Yankees over the most-hated Giants.)
When the Mets became a team in 1962, I doubled my loyalties, rooting for the Dodgers in a serious way, and the Mets in an affectionate way (until the world turned around in 1969). Founding Mets fans will understand why this brought with it a new nemesis: the Houston Colt 45s, who embarrassed Mets fans in the early years. Of course, Houston was never for the Mets the arch enemy that the giants were for the Bums.
I was also part of the generation who grew up with the Broadway musical, “Damn Yankees,” which celebrated a fantasy triumph, where Washington’s cellar dwellers rose up to steal the pennant from the Yankees. I listened to the album over and over, and I’d make up fantasy 154-game AL standings with the Senators in first place. In real life they were always near or dead last, but a boy can dream.
Now, here we are in 2019, with Washington not only finally triumphant, but in the NL to boot, and my old, second nemesis, Houston, representing the hated AL. I’m all in for the Nats, right?
Except I’ve been astonished to discover that I’m actually, passively rooting the other way. It confounded me through games one and two: why in the world was I feeling down to have the Colt 45’s . . . Astros being pummeled by the Senators . . . Nats?
I figured out the answer. My cerebral cortex may know perfectly well that the Nats are in the NL and I’m an NL fan, but the limbic system that guides my emotions still lives in my childhood, where Washington is an AL team and Houston is an NL team. When I grew up, you didn’t just toss teams from league to league, as if their identities were plastic, the way that Houston was tossed over to the AL, and the idea of a seven-decade AL-only city popping up later in the NL was unthinkable (Milwaukee had jumped leagues, but only after a single season in the AL and a half century gap to wipe the slate clean). I’m trying to root for the NL, but MLB has screwed things up.
As I write, the NL team has taken a 5-2 lead in Game 6, looking to stave off elimination. I should be thrilled, but I’m feeling down. One more reason Bud Selig’s election to the Hall was an outrage.
Bob, you’ve gotta have heart.
It’s only 7:30am, Richard, and now that thing’s going to go through my head all day . . .
It’s now 930, and Bud Selig’s election to HOF remains beyond an outrage. Thumb placed on scale for Friends of Bud, the incredibly questionable contraction and franchise swap with Expos/Marlins/Red Sox/looking the other way as PEDS use became rampant/and the synthetic league swap for no rational purpose are just some of the “highlights”
Selig’s HOF induction may have been an outrage, but it was also inevitable. While I don’t disagree with the things you’ve said, commissioners get inducted. Some things you missed: when MLB took over the Expos under Bud’s watch, the team basically froze salaries, set assets adrift (Colon, Guerrero, etc.), and made no good-faith attempt to win. That basically forcibly removed them from Montreal, with Bud using the mechanisms of MLB to do it once he could.
Another thing Bud always gets crap for that you forgot was the infamous tie in the All-Star Game. Ugh.
Worse than that, he was the interim commissioner during the ’94-’95 strike, probably the single most damaging thing to happen to baseball since (and second only to, in my opinion) the Black Sox scandal.
Also, as a current Minnesota resident, I live in the US state that probably has the MOST hatred for Bud, given his contraction threat in… I wanna say 2002 – right before the Twins got good, anyway. To the baseball fans here, Bud’s name is worse than any expletive or ethnic slur you could ever dream up.
On a personal level, he was also a terrible owner during his “interim” commissioner stint, and then appointed his absentee daughter to run the Brewers in the interim. Mark Attanasio buying the Brewers has been the best thing to happen to Milwaukee baseball since Robin Yount’s retirement. The Brewers have posted nine .500 or better seasons (and and just one 90-loss campaign) in the Attanasio era – in the Selig/Selig-Prieb era, which lasted 35 years, Brewers fans suffered through 13 seasons of 90+ losses, with only 11 seasons of .500 or better. Two playoff appearances in 35 years of the Selig dynasty – four under Attanasio. I realize that a large chunk of that is the fact that the rules for playoff teams have changed – but the Brewers have won their division outright just as many times (2) as they did in the Selig era. Also, the Brewers’ overall winning percentage for the Selig era: .472, or 76.5 wins. In the Attanasio era: .507, or 82 wins per year. That may not sound like a big difference, but as a fan, knowing that my team will probably be competing is HUGE. I can usually count on the Brewers to fill my summer with delight, as opposed to the team I grew up with, in which I spent one summer watching the team, feverishly hoping that Fernando Vina would lead the league in Double Plays Turned, because that was literally the only thing to hope for; or perhaps more emblematic is when Jose Hernandez was loudly booed AT HOME for being held out of the lineup in the final days of the season, because he was about to break Bobby Bonds’ single-season strikeout record. We wanted to see SOMETHING historic, and that was really the only chance. The only positive thing I can say about Bud’s tenure at the helm of the Brewers is that he brought baseball back to Milwaukee, which was a good thing (and I don’t even have to feel TOO bad about stealing a team from another city, because they got one – a BETTER one – within a decade). Everything else that happened in that era – including one of the great offensive teams of all-time, the 1978-1983 club – I credit to others.
That said, Bud DID oversee a huge growth in baseball’s monetary bottom line, and he DID (at least help) to find marketing ways to get people over the 1994 strike and the cancellation of the World Series. The next time there was labor strife, he was able to strike a deal to avoid a work stoppage. He oversaw expansion twice, which has been, I think it’s now safe to say, a good thing (though I don’t know why we have ANY teams in Florida, much less two of them).
Overall, I can see how people would say that the (incredibly long) list of sins outweighs the merits, and I don’t know that it’s possible to level a strong disagreement against that point. But it was never going to happen that a commissioner who oversaw baseball’s biggest period of growth since the 19th century was going to be passed over, regardless the myriad sins that came therewith.
On another note, I don’t know if I’ve told my funny Bud Selig story on here, but I will now. The best man at my wedding and one of my closest friends is now a rabbi. But when he was an undergrad at the University of Wisconsin, he was chosen as a student graduation speaker. The celebrity guest speaker was none other than Alan H. “Bud” Selig. As they waited to go onto the dais together, Bud engaged my friend Josh in some conversation. Bud asked Josh what he studied, and what he was going to do after graduation. Josh told him, “I’m starting rabbinical school in the fall.”
Bud replied, “Well, that’s just great. My dad always wanted me to be a rabbi!”
Without missing a beat, Josh retorted, “Yeah? Well, my dad always wanted me to be commissioner of Major League Baseball.” Bud got a good laugh out of that one. I do not view Bud positively, but this story always does make me a little happy.
A very nice personal account, Doom. If commissioners get inducted, let’s hear it for Faye Vincent, who considered Bud a crook, and whom Bud successfully conspired to oust, free of the ethical constraints of the rabbinate.
Milwaukee is the real outlier in my fan psychology. I really admired the Milwaukee Braves (Spahn, Burdette, Mathews, Aaron)–a team that never had a losing season. Their move to Atlanta seemed to me to be almost as crass as O’Malley’s perfidious treachery. By the time the Brewers displaced the sad-sack Pilots (the irony of the Milwaukee Brewers displacing the only one-year team other than the Milwaukee Brewers) I was happy to see the city restored a franchise, even if it was in the AL. And in 1982, a little like this year, I also had a hard time rooting in the Series, because I’d always liked the Milwaukee Braves better than the Cardinals (I maintained discipline, though, and was sort-of-happy when Harvey’s Wallbangers bit the dust). Then Selig & Co. came along and simply tossed the Brewers back where Milwaukee really belongs, in the NL–but as part of the whole, “We’re done with leagues being meaningful” thing that brought us interleague games, uniform umpiring, and other signs of descent towards the inevitability of the Apocalypse (the universal DH).
By that time, I had no idea how to root when it came to Milwaukee–it was a problem repeatedly until Doom came along with a projection of Deep Fandom that I hadn’t really felt myself since Koufax retired (well, maybe in ’69, since I remember trembling while watching last two games), and I decided to borrow it. So now I root for Milwaukee whenever the issue comes up, and get to share the experience of perpetual near-miss disappointment that made my mother so determined to bring my brother and me into the Church of Charlie Ebbets in the pre-1955 years, instead of risking our being lured into the more proximate pews of the Polo Grounds (to the real-life credit of my Hubbell-worshiping Giant-fan father, who decided that this would be a good battle not to fight).
Doom, this was great. It captures every nuance.
Hey MLB officials, I know you read our conversations, this being the most insightful and civilized place on the internet.
That Trea Turner interference call last night is easily avoided.
Simply integrate a double base system like they having beer league softball. One bag right where it is now, the other bag on the foul side. Done.
Either that, or get the call right
It certainly seemed that the umpire got the call right. At no point did Turner move into the runner’s lane on the foul side of the line. You might not like the rule, but can’t fault the umpire for that.
I may be wrong but It was always my impression that the reason for making the batter run to first on the outside of the foul line was to avoid interference with a throw from the catcher to the first baseman. That was not the case for Trea Turner so he should not have been called out.
Certainly would seem to apply for balls in front of the plate. But if strike three gets beyond the catcher, isn’t he throwing into the runner in foul territory when trying to complete the strikeout at 1B? I dunno….I’m sure it’s in the rule book, somewhere.
The IRS has something like 1,143 forms and booklets to explain the forms. Fannie Mae has approximately 1,370 pages in their selling guide (as of Feb 2016)……I’m sure the umpires’ rulebook is an even thicker tome
Another situation is bases loaded with less than 2 outs. The batter hits a ground ball to one of the infielders and there is a force out at home. The catcher then throws to the first baseman.
The rule makes no distinction about which fielder is making a throw. The batter is out simply for interfering with the first baseman’s attempt to field the throw.
5.09 (a) A batter is out when:
…
(11) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;
The Turner play would seem to be a textbook example of 5.09 (a) (11), inasmuch as he was clearly running in fair territory when he knocked the glove off the hand of the first baseman trying to catch the throw.
#RoadFieldAdvantage
I feel like that should’ve been trending.
BTW, I’ve loved/hated hearing announcers/pundits ask if there’s “meaning” to why road teams were winning. Uh… baseball is weird and random? That’s pretty much the reason. Two pretty evenly-matched teams (see my post above) played a tight series. There’s really not much more to it than that. And like 5 of the games were absolute blowouts, anyway, and those don’t really matter as far as who’s the home team and who the road.
If I had to pick an historical precedent for this series, my go-to would be outside of baseball, actually: the 2016 NBA Finals. That was the won where the Cleveland LeBrons defeated the Golden State Warriors. The first six games were total snoozers – blowouts by 15, 33, 30, 11, 15, and 14. OVERALL, though, the series was tied, not only by games but by POINTS heading into Game 7. In fact, it was tied by points with under a minute remaining in Game 7! Similarly, this was not the most exciting set of games, but the series was competitive, and at least Game 7 gave us some intrigue. (Another similar one, after I gave it a little thought, was the 2014 Series between the Giants and the Royals. That also featured a bunch of stinkers and a legendary Game 7 – but that Game 7 was better than last night’s… as was the NBA one I brought up.)
Either way, congratulations to the Nationals!
(BTW, all the featured players on Baseball Reference’s homepage right now are Nationals. That’s a pretty cool little tribute, I think!)
Doom,
I’m no Warriors’ fan but, if Dramond doesn’t have his spastic fit, the Cavaliers go home early. But, the better team doesn’t always win and that’s why they play the game. At the risk of going all Calvinist here, some things are just meant to be – a hemophiliac heir and Rasputin, the ’69 Mets, the ’64 Phillies’ collapse…..Miami over the 1984 Nebraska Superteam in the Orange Bowl. It happens
Well, the World Series is over, and since for most of my life I thought the notion of Washington as World Champs was an impossible fantasy, in my view it’s a remarkable outcome. The games weren’t particularly close overall, but they felt closer because the scoring tended to come late, and a seven-game Series is always close.
But to me, the most memorable aspect of the Series is that it was an all-away affair. That is something I had expected never to happen in the Series. The odds are very high against it. It can only happen in a full seven-game Series, just for starters. If the teams are closely matched, the home field advantage has to be overcome seven consecutive times, and if one team is dominant, its greater strength has to be overcome when it is enhanced at three or four consecutive opportunities.
By my count there have been 115 Series and 38 that went seven games. The odds of a seven-game Series being all-away are 63-1 without factoring in home-field advantage. During the regular season, averaging the records of Houston and Washington, these teams won at home 22% more frequently than on the road. (At least, by my calculation.) That suggests odds more like 248-1 against an all-away series.
Saw Doom’s comment after posting mine, and one portion caught my eye: “5 of the games were absolute blowouts, anyway, and those don’t really matter as far as who’s the home team and who the road.” They may look that way in retrospect, but the scores of all the games after six or seven innings were:
Game 1: 5-3 (after 7)
Game 2: 2-2 (after 6)
Game 3: 4-1 (after 7)
Game 4: 4-1 (after 6)
Game 5: 4-1 (after 7)
Game 6: 3-2 (after 6)
Game 7: 3-2 (after 7)
So although some of these turned into blowouts (although not 1960 Series type blowouts), they were all competitive until the late innings, especially the games in Houston. If home field is an advantage, I think you’d expect it to disappear most often because of an unbalanced match-up between starters, and that’s where you’d also expect blowouts to occur. Where I think you might expect the advantage to kick in most frequently is in games that stay competitive through the early innings. In this Series, over the 6-7 early innings (I’ve cherry-picked 6 or 7, but I think it’s valid here, since we’re looking for a real-world dynamic of these games) the composite score was: Away Team 25, Home Team 12 (that may look like a blowout, but not when divided into seven games). In the 2-3 late innings, the score was: Away Team 24, Home Team 2 (that’s a blowout no matter how you cut it up, especially on a per inning basis).
Maybe the crowds simply didn’t root root root for the hoooome team the way they were supposed to.
Bob,
A really good point about the scores in late innings. Still not terribly close, but it’s unfortunate that the bullpens seemed so fundamentally broken (last night included!) that those late games couldn’t have been held a bit closer.
As a Brewers fan (I had to get there eventually, right?!), it’s so upsetting to think that we were TWO OUTS away from knocking the World Champs out in the Wild Card game, with the NL’s best reliever on the mound. Yet, so it goes.
Yeah, well, Doom, as a Brooklyn fan I have my own regrets. But my team (a phrase I’d also use if it were the Mets) had its Series shots these past two years, so maybe watching Kershaw blow up in the NLDS spared me watching him blowing up later, when I might actually have been watching. . . .
Bob,
“The odds of a seven-game Series being all-away are 63-1 without factoring in home-field advantage.”
Interestingly enough, If the “road underdogs” were catching $180 on a $100 bet, 1.8 to the 7th power is about 61.222 – 1.
For the record, I called the all-road victories after the Nats won the first 2. Even texted my Astro fan buddy saying how hilarious it would be when it happened…… I should probably start gambling on this stuff.
Though I have trouble spelling my nom de e-plume
Obviously, a most unusual WS, starting, of course, with the away team winning every game. Biggest differences between the clubs:
– Washington was 4-0 with their top two starters going, compared to 1-3 for the Astros
– The Nats bullpen (4.03 ERA) outpitched the Astro relievers (5.72) in virtually the same workload (one out difference)
– Nats were 4-0 in games in which they led at any point; Houston was only 3-3.
Some other factoids:
– Teams to win WS with 14+ fewer season wins than opponent: Nats (14), 1954 Giants (14), 1906 White Sox (23)
– Teams to win best of-7 WS with wins in last two game on the road: Nats, 2016 Cubs, 1979 Pirates, 1968 Tigers, 1958 Yankees, 1952 Yankees, 1934 Cardinals, 1926 Cardinals
– Teams to win best-of-7 WS despite scoring 1 run or none in 3 games: Nats, 1996 Yankees, 1918 Red Sox
– Teams to win best-of-7 WS despite losing three games when scoring 1 run or none: Nats
– Most WS starts by age 35+ pitchers: 7 – 2019; 5 – 2014, 2001, 1925
– Most WS decisions by age 35+ pitchers: 5 – 2019, 1991, 1952, 1925
– Best-of-7 WS with game 7 having two starters aged 35+: 2019 (Greinke, Scherzer), 2014 (Hudson, Guthrie)
– World Series having two games with two age 35+ starters: 2019, 2014, 1926
– Fewest recorded pitches by WS game 7 losing pitcher: 5 – Will Harris (2019), Ralph Terry (1960)
– Fewest IP by WS game 7 losing pitcher: 0 – Will Harris (2019), Hank Borowy (1945); 0.1 – Calvin Schiraldi (1986), Bob McClure (1982), Ralph Terry (1960)
– Most IP by WS game 7 winning relief pitcher (excl. relievers with GF): 4.0 – Ray Kremer (1925); 3.0 – Patrick Corbin (2019), Allie Reynolds (1952)
Doug, You can knock the 1918 BoSox off of: “Teams to win best-of-7 WS despite scoring 1 run or none in 3 games”: that Series ended in six.
Whoops . . . Just realized you meant “best-of-7” as opposed to “best-of-9,” not a 7-game Series.
Maybe someone is going to start a new thread on World Series aftermath, but I can’t wait to hear your reactions.
1. Who did you have as the MVP? I don’t think Strasburg was a bad choice, but I wouldn’t have been surprised to see Soto or Rendon win it. Even Kendrick has an argument (perhaps) on the strength of that huge, momentum swinging home run.
2. Was anyone else surprised that they took Greinke out after only 80 pitches? He was pitching a phenomenal game and looked totally in control. One mistake pitch to Rendon, then a terrible call by the ump led to the Soto walk. Why not let him finish the inning and then have Cole ready to pitch the 8th? That seemed like a big mistake to me. And it didn’t turn out well for the Astros. I sound like a Monday morning quarterback, but I thought the same thing at that moment — why are they taking him out?
I’m with you Josh. Greinke had something special going, absent one poorly located pitch. I certainly felt he should have stayed in the game, especially given that Astro relievers had been anything but a lock in previous games. Greinke was miffed at the ump on the bad call on the Soto pitch, and that may have influenced the ball 4 pitch. But, manager should then come out to the mound, settle your guy down, build up his confidence a bit, but then let him keep going. Certainly, Greinke wasn’t tired after a stress-free 80 pitches.
Complete agreement. The guy is throwing a 2-hitter in the 7th.
I actually left my baseball-watching party in disgust after Hinch gave Zack the attaboy slap on the ass.
Told my friends:
“Well, enjoy the unraveling. Hinch just lost the series like Torre did in ’01.”
….I really should start gambling on this stuff.
Well, my reaction was a little different. I thought Greinke’s pitches had lost something as soon as he came out in the 7th, and I was surprised, because his pitch count was so low and his control had been so terrific. I felt like everyone else about the Soto AB, and I also thought the best option was letting Greinke show he could recover, but I thought Hinch had observed the way I had, and, knowing Greinke better, might be able to predict where this was headed. Of course, the decision turned out to be wrong.
I think the sixth through ninth innings of Game 7 turned out to be the only innings I actually watched this season. Boy I hate baseball announcers!
Bob Eno,
“Boy I hate baseball announcers!”
If it’s because they talk too much, I imagine that loquacious delivery has its roots in Brooklyn’s own, Vin Scully. Alone in the booth, he did it all – non-stop, incessant jabbering about batter backgrounds (minors, draft, trades, hometown, etc….), pitch selection, fielder positioning, manager’s moves, etc…. He knew so much and was so well prepared and informed, he couldn’t help himself. And, they all do it nowadays. Only they do it with an annoying, swarmy, honey-voiced sililoquy suitable for the quarterly corporate board meeting. Are you listening, Joe Buck and Matt Vasgersian?
And, how about me spelling the Armenian surname correctly on the first try?
and sililoquy” incorrectly 🙂
My habit is to mute the television and enjoy the game in silence (silence, only if my daughters are in bed at that point). Although I will say, I don’t mind John Smoltz. He has a lot of interesting insights, a real head for the game, and a former player’s perspective.
I agree with you about Smoltz, Josh. I wish they’d let him broadcast solo. But I hate muting the tv because for me the crowd is the air which the on-field game breathes.
You say that, and you don’t even have John Sterling….
Just FYI, everyone. As I have the last two years, I wrote up some awards voting posts. I emailed them to Doug aaaaaand I’m sure he’ll post them when he gets the time. So that’s something to look forward to.
Terrific, Doom! Thanks for doing this again. In the past some of the discussions on those posts have been really focused and challenging to join.
Doom’s first post should be up by end of day on Sunday.
More unusual facts from the just completed World Series.
– Adam Eaton becomes the first player with two WS games having both a HR and a sacrifice bunt. That’s the first player with two such WS games in a career, and he did it in the space of 7 days. Eaton is also the first outfielder with such a game since Tom Tresh in 1962.
– Juan Soto becomes the youngest player with three HR in a single WS, two years younger than Charlie Keller in 1939.
– George Springer becomes the first player with 7 career WS home runs batting in the leadoff position, passing Lenny Dykstra and Hank Bauer, each with six. Springer’s career .839 SLG in the WS is the highest of any player with 30 WS PA, while his 1.295 OPS is the highest of anyone with 45 PA (Springer has 56 PA in his WS career).
– Three different catchers homered in this WS, the most ever. And, four different catchers had an extra-base hit, tied for the most with the 1960 and 2001 series.
– Washington used 5 different starting pitchers, the first team to do so in the WS since the 1980 Phillies. The most is 6 starters, by the 1947 and 1955 Dodgers, and the 1971 Pirates. In the 34 WS from 1947 to 1980, 12 teams (18%) used 5 or more starters.
– Pitchers aged 30 or older recorded 88 IP in this series, the second highest total since the age 30+ crowd recorded 88.2 IP in the 1951 series. The highest total is 102 IP in the 2001 series.
– With his 2-0 record in the WS, Stephen Strasburg becomes the first pitcher to compile a perfect 5-0 record for the post-season. Strasburg joins nine other pitchers with a perfect 4-0 record in post-season starts. Quiz: who is the only pitcher in that group who did not play for a WS champion?
I’ve retired from commenting, but a correction here is necessary.
Lefty Gomez was not only 5-0 but 6-0 in the post season—all in the World Series.
No one of your depth should retire from commenting.
I think Doug meant in a single post-season, nsb, but I’m sure he’d be willing to cede the point to you if you unretire. George Washington unretired when his country was in need and called upon him. Now it is HHS in need, and the call is for you.
I wholeheartedly agree. HHS needs nsb.
I suppose I should, out of curtesy, make a response.
Bob: Wrong General, wrong year. Try Sherman 1884.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND BASEBALL, PARALLEL CATASTROPHES.
Climate change, despite actually rather cautious projections from most scientists, is by now irreversible without the kind of effort, financing, and general willingness to sacrifice—not merely in the U.S, but world wide—that is beyond the capability of humanity, much less that of governments and free market capitalists who might actually exert some power. A couple of examples: Florida will be mostly under water with the lifetime of anyone younger than thirty or so today. Increasingly irregular weather such as the past year’s will make crop production a much bigger crapshoot than it already is, and food demand will far outstrip supplies on an increasingly regular basis. Whole populations will be forced to migrate, but it is ludicrous to think that other populations will welcome them.
Meanwhile the leaders of the world’s two biggest economic engines are the worst deniers of the effects of global warming and its attendant problems because, in the short term—and they only think in the shortest of terms—they think they can kick the can down the road some more and go on doing business, very profitable business, as they generally have in the past with no consideration for long- or even short-term environmental and climactic consequences. I won’t go into this depressing view of the future any further except to say that everything significant militates for its happening and nothing significant militates against it.
The game of professional baseball runs parallel to climate change. The three true outcomes underpinning of strategy in our time has turned a pastime of beauty and elegance into a contest of raw power, pitcher versus batter, with the players in the field as standbys in case the unthinkable, the ball in play, might transpire. Commercialism dictates the slowness of the action even more than long at bats to decide on whether a K or a W goes on the scorecard. While the players have grown larger and stronger with gloves the size of bushel baskets and bats with toothpick handles, the diamond has remained the same size and the parks have actually shrunk, the better to jack up the number of home runs. We all are aware of these things and the several others that have turned the game we once loved into a bore except for the stats, only we may not all be aware that it is the stats that have developed in the past twenty-five years that drive how the game is being played today. I am, and I see the same future for baseball under this philosophy as I see for the world faced with climate catastrophe. It’s too late even to try to make changes, and those who have invested in things as they are or have gradually become will go on with what appears to them as the status quo because to do otherwise would be too costly in the short term, and they only think in the short term.
Dig around in this screed if you want to, and you may find my reason for retiring from comment.
Many thanks for wishing me to begin again, but the answer’s no.
Sadly, I believe your climate prognosis is likely very accurate. An enormous challenge bequeathed to our children and grand-children, with the added insult of wasting untold trillions on pointless efforts to undo what cannot be undone, rather than preparing for the response and adaptation that will be required.
But, nsb, HHS has never called for Sherman, a great general, but only when guided by a greater superior. It is Washington we need, a general capable of leading the way with long, detailed analogies that no other leader has ever conceived of before (or likely will again).
On my part, I can’t dispute what you have identified as the future of baseball. If you’ve been lurking, you know that my participation has been down too, and many times I do wonder whether I have enough interest in today’s TTO game to support HHS comments. But remember that the coming off-season will include CoG discussions and likely HoF debates as well–good opportunities to escape into the game we remember, just like your recent series on possible HoF rejects.
And, just a side comment, I think you may want to check up on China’s environmental policies under Xi Jinping: I don’t think they match what you suggest. On the other hand, given that the other great economy is pulling hard in the opposite direction, people will indeed likely bear witness to that anthem of the ban-the-bomb era, “We will all fry together when we fry.”
NSB, short-term thinking is the only kind of thinking that has influence these days. As to your climate change comment, I suspect those that haven’t convinced themselves it’s a fraud, think somehow it’s not going to impact them. But it’s all intertwined…arable land, inhabitable cities, migration, rising anger and social dislocation. One small observation I heard made by Richard Sennett–citing a projection of 83 million climate refugees from Africa over the next few decades, he simply asked where they would live, when Europe reacted so violently to just 1.5 Million.
Still, baseball is an escape, and while I agree with the downsides of TTO, it’s better than no baseball.
Cliff Lee was 4-0 for the Phillies in the 2009 post-season.
Indeed he was.
The other nine with a 4-0 record in starts in one post-season all played for WS champions: Strasburg (2019), Carpenter (2011), Pettitte (2009), Hamels (2008), Beckett (2007), Schilling (2001), Wells (1998), Morris (1991), Stewart (1989)
Grumpy Old Man here.
First: Get off my lawn! (Ah. . . . . . . I needed that.)
Second: I can’t get too excited about any of these 4-0 or 5-0 post-season records. They include no 3-0 series, either league championship or World. Look at Pettitte: he makes this special list, but he was in 18 (18!!) best-of-seven post-season series and never managed three wins in any one of them.
Only six pitchers have ever gone 3-0 as starters in a best-of-seven series, all in the World Series: Mathewson ’05, Adams ’09, Coombs ’10, Burdette ’57, Gibson ’67, and Lolich ’68. Coveleski (’20) did it in a best-of-nine that went only seven games. All of these starters (including Covey) pitched three complete games. A couple of other starters copped a relief win to go 3-0 (Brecheen in ’46, with two CG, and Unit in 2001, with one), which is how Strasburg hit 5-0.
But compare: Strasburg’s first win was on October 1 and his fifth on October 29: basically, he had a month in which to go 4-0 / 33.1 IP as a starter (in 8 starts!–more starts than there are WS games) with a relief win on top, and his team played 17 games. As for the 3-0 / 27 IP Series starters: Mathewson and Coombs had six days (their teams played only five post-season games); three had nine days, Burdette had eight (Coveleski, who really should count, also had eight).
Strasburg had a terrific post-season, despite being pointlessly robbed of a CG in Game 6 (what was Dave Martinez thinking?). But his “record” W-L stat is simply the product of the steady expansion of the “post-season”; his performance was not really outstanding in historical terms, and I have no doubt we will see it again. I confess to feeling something is very wrong when contemporary records are celebrated without explicit acknowledgment that they are principally the products of changes in the game, not unprecedented performance quality.
. . . is anyone still on my lawn? I’m coming out there with a loaded flashlight . . .
For educated orneriness, this one is the best I’ve read. Well done, Bob.
As you say, the game has changed. Only four pitchers in the past 31 World Series have started three games in the same WS: Carpenter, Schilling and Morris from the list above, and Corey Kluber in 2016. Only one CG among those four, by Morris, the only extra-inning CG in the WS in the past 50 years, and the only extra-inning CG win ever in a WS winner-take-all game.
Nats pitchers in the first game of the playoffs: Scherzer for 5, Strasburg for 3, and Hudson to close it out.
Nats pitchers in the final game of the playoffs, with Strasburg all but unavailable: Scherzer for 5, Corbin for 3, and Hudson again. At least they’re consistent.
Another curious thing about that first game: *Every* batter who stepped to the plate for them in the entire game did so while trailing (by 2+ runs in fact), and they not only pulled out the win but had a pitcher earn a save in the same game (something that wouldn’t be possible in, say, a walk-off win). Is that the first time in major league history that this combination has happened, regular or post?
Not sure I’ve understood you RM. In game 1, Washington tied the game in the 4th inning and took a lead in the 5th. Every batter after that batted with the lead.
Only scenario I can think of with a team winning a game, but having every batter bat while trailing in the game, would be a walk-off win with the visitors taking the lead in the top of the first, as occurred in game 4 of the 1947 series won by Cookie Lavagetto breaking up Bill Bevens’ no-hitter (there are 59 other walk-off games in WS history, so there could be more than this one game). A visiting team would bat in the top of the first with the game tied. So, they could only win, with every PA tied or trailing, if they took the lead in the 9th or later inning and had the third out occurring: on the same play in which the go-ahead run scored; or while the following PA was in progress (thus, negating that PA).
Suppose the visiting team scores 2 runs in the top of the first inning and maintains a 2-0 lead going into the bottom of the 8th inning. The home team loads the bases with 2 out. The next batter hits a bases-clearing double and is thrown out trying to stretch it into a triple after the runner on first has scored. The home team now leads 3-2 and the visitors do not score in the top of the 9th. I did a search with the event finder and could not find any such game.
Right you are, Richard. Did you mean, you couldn’t such a World Series game, or you couldn’t find any such game at all.
I meant any regular season game since 1925 and any post-season game since 1901.
The “every batter trailing” phenomenon was in the first game of the playoffs overall (the WC game), not WS game 1.
This is a test.
Name G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB HBP
Bobby 1865 8028 7093 1094 2042 381 89 223 1247 809 608 0.288 0.362 0.461 0.823 3270 11
Gil 1336 5398 4676 697 1291 187 51 112 576 559 623 0.276 0.356 0.410 0.766 1916 36