You may be doubting that the Nats can come back. They look terrible and they are heading back to Houston. But to cheer you up - or at least not kill your hope - let's see what history says.
Has a team every come back to win 2 games on the road to win a series?
Yep. Sure. It happened just a couple years ago when the Cubs won it all winning the last 2 in Cleveland. Before that it happened a handful of time 1979 (Pirates over Orioles), 1968 (Tigers over Cardinals) 1958 (Yankees over Braves), 1952 (Yankees over Dodgers), 1934 (Cardinals over Tigers), and 1926 (Cardinals over Yankees)
No that isn't a lot but a lot of World Series don't end up 3-2 to begin with, closing out at 4-0 or 4-1 so onto the the next question
How many times has the series ended up 3-2 with the home team needing just one win and what happened then?
By my count it has happened 27 times. 7 times then the road team was able to come back and win which is just over 25% of the time (25.9%). This kind of makes intuitive sense because if you discount homefield and assume the teams are equal a team will win two in a row about 25% of the time.
Out of the remaining 20, 15 times the home team won game 6 (last time was 2013 Red Sox over Cardinals) and 5 times the home team lost game 6 only to win game 7 (last time 1997 - Marlins over Indians).
So overall the home team wins it in game 6 about half the time, loses the game 6 about half the time then splits Game 7 results. All what you would think would happen given a large enough sample.
How many times has a team lost three in a row and won the last two?
Three times by my count. The 87 and 91 Twins and the 01 Diamondbacks.
How many did it happen on the road?
I need more time, perhaps you'd like to ask another question?
Are you avoiding answering?
Ha! hahahaha. What makes you say that? Me avoid answering... ha! It is to laugh!
maybe
So it's zero.
Yes, it's zero. I mean you can work it out yourself as none of the teams in the two groups I mentioned are in both. In fact the whole 5 game road team sweep is very rare. It was done, as you have probably heard, in 1996 when the Braves won the first two in Yankees stadium only to get swept in Atlanta and then the Yankees won Game 6 at home to win the series. And that's it.
Ok. So what are you saying.
In the history of baseball no team has ever won two games on the road to win a World Series after losing three in a row at home.
OK but they have won two on the road.
Yes see above, first question.
And they have won two in a row after losing three in a row
Also yes, that was just a few questions ago
So it's not impossible
Not at all. We've only been in the position for this to possibly happen once before so doesn't tell us much. Really I'd go back to just winning two in a row and figure your odds from there.
And what do you figure the Nats odds are?
Around 20%. I like Strasburg better than Verlander but the Astros have been playing better and are at home so I make that 50/50. I give the Astros a slight edge in G7 with Greinke, et al. looking better than Sanchez/Corbin et. al. .50 *.40 = .20. The full guess would be
Astros in 6 - 50%
Astros in 7 - 30%
Nats in 7 - 20 %
OK I'll get out of my fake conversation here to talk about odds. I feel like this is how most people view odds.
50-55% : Coin Flip
56-59% : Gaining Confidence
60-80% : Calling it
81%+ : Would take a miracle for the other outcome to happen
As someone who works with odds and numbers all the time this is very frustrating because that's not even close to how I think of it. I'd say it's more like
50-59% : Coin Flip
60-75% : Gaining Confidence
75-95% : Calling it
95%+ : Would take a miracle for the other outcome to happen
Like at 75% you are at a 1 in 4 chance that the other outcome happens. That's like flipping a coin twice and getting two heads. It's not rare at all. In fact it'll happen 1 in 4 times. But something is broken in the collective public's head and they hear "Seventy-Five percent? That means you think there is no WAY the other thing happens!" and when the other thing does happen (which will occur on such things again about one in every 4 times) you get "You're so stupid! You don't know what you are saying!" It's frustrating because we know exactly what we are saying. It's the public that doesn't understand it and doesn't try to.
Sigh.
Ok. Back to the series so I give the Nats a 20% chance of winning it. To me that's in the early stages of "calling it". What does that mean? It means I would bet on the Astros but I wouldn't feel great about it. It means I'd be very mildly surprised if the Nats pulled it off. That's what it means.So if you are looking the other way - you can bet on the Nats and there is still hope. The Nats winning it all would only be a mild surprise. That's the reality of the situation.
Now that still isn't good. You don't want your team winning to be a mild surprise. But it's not bad. The Nats making the playoffs after their start was a bigger surprise than this would be.* It happened. You've gone this far.
What do I worry about tonight. Like I said two days ago, I worry about Stras' heavy workload. I'm a pitch count guy, not a days off guy** and those pitch counts are among the highest he's had in his career in back to back games, maybe the highest. I worry that Hudson doesn't look good and Corbin didn't look good and the Nats are basically down to Doolittle in terms of relievers they trust at like 90% or better right now. So to win the Nats are either going to have to get what to me would be an unexpected pitching performance from at least two guys or they have to beat down Verlander. Honestly, I think the latter is more possible.
Why, if I feel this way is it still at 50%? Well like I said I don't like Verlander, so I think the beat down potential is real even with this offense struggling. I also think, it's baseball. The worst starter on the worst team against the best starter on the best team probably wins that game 1 out of 10 times. Line drives for them don't go where they need to. Seeing eye hits for you do. And this is nowhere close to the worst starter on the worst team. It's a maybe slightly tired great starter on a struggling but very very good team.
Anyway there you go. Enjoy it as much as you can. Hopefully the Nats win and if not, they don't fade out early though that's more my wish. I don't know how you'd prefer a loss.
*I don't buy the crazy low odds you hear for the Nats playoff odds nadir but I was hovering around the 10% level where not quite a miracle was needed but I could have been pretty easily convinced to bet against the Nats. We were pulling out "OK here's the ONE path to playoffs" which even thn only existed under the theory the NL would be bad enough to put a ~90 win WC team out there, which we were assuming would happen but had no guarantee. Then it did! But the Nats didn't need it! Anyway...
**I've said with the 100 pitch count nearly universal now MLB should go back to a four man rotation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
'But something is broken in the collective public's head and they hear "Seventy-Five percent? That means you think there is no WAY the other thing happens!"'
I see this all the time, in the other direction, with weather forecasts. Playing golf this past weekend, some rain started falling, my friend was all "But it said only a 10% chance!"
Not sure if this provides hope or not, but after Game 2, 538 gave the Nats an 81% chance of winning the series, so basically the Nats have the same odds now that the Astros had after game 2. If the Nats can win tonight, then it puts a ton of pressure on the Astros not to choke. If they're going to lose, I'd prefer they get blown out, and blown out early. Rip the band-aid off and get it over quickly. Still, the Nats need some hits, Trea Turner needs to stop swinging at breaking balls in the dirt. Rendon seems a tick off and has been for the last 3 games, since he's not one for prolonged slumps, expect him to turn it around tonight. Either way, it's been a great run.
Re: something being broken in the collective public's head: my uncle no longer trusts polls because of the 2016 election. I've tried explaining the concept of margin of error over and over again, but it doesn't work. He's a smart guy, too, at least in other ways.
Nats can beat Verlander. Just gotta hope Stras keeps his pitch count down, so he can go deep.
I was thinking about this whole "Davey's bullpen usage will depend on Max's health" thing, and have decided it's bogus. Even if Max can throw, you can't expect to get more than a few innings out of him, so you still need to save someone for Game 7 regardless (probably Sanchez, since he'd be on regular rest). If they win tonight but had to use Corbin, and Max can't go tomorrow, then they'd really need a miracle from Sanchez. But, stranger things have happened.
Mr. T - to be fair to your uncle a lot of the prediction models were bad - I want to say the NYT one had Hillary at 98% or something. You won't see that again as they admit their variance was way too small. Polls are generally fine but you have to read everything about them - along with the MOE, the population being polled, and how they are doing it - before evaluating what they say. That's why aggregates are a little better to look at. That's more than what a lot of people want to do.
Don't bother pushing it with your uncle now anyway. Polls a year away are pretty meaningless. Even months away I don't like. Look at Iowa and NH after the new year. Look at the presidential one like after Labor Day
I don't know that we will win tonight, but I do know that I would love to see the Nats knock around Justin Verlander. His complaining about the juiced ball this summer just rubbed me the wrong way, and would love to see 2-3 HRs hit off him early.
Nats deserve a G7. Would be a fitting end to the season, win or lose.
After several decades on this planet I have determined that the odds of anything happening are 50/50...it either will or it won't. It's 50/50 that the Astros will win tonight and wrap up the series, but if they don't it's 50/50 that they would win tomorrow. The Nationals have a 50/50 chance to win tonight, but that would only get them to game 7, where they have another 50/50 chance. Accordingly, I give the Astros a 75% chance to win the Series, and the Nationals 25%.
I remain wholly confident in Stras to hold Houston to a couple of runs at the worst. I am not confident at all in our offense's ability to push any runs across the plate....much less enough runs. But still, hope springs eternal. Our guys are in familiar territory--backs to the wall. Maybe there's some comfort in that. If we can pull it off tonight, I actually like our chances to become the first team to win the World Series by winning all four games on the road.
Its like I was in a dream for 8 post-season games and I woke up and then going to sleep again tonight hoping that same dream can continue. Has it ever happened? I am sure there is a Stat for that. Predicting baseball games with Stats is a tricky thing.
I will do all my superstitious activities/routine so that Nats get another chance or two. I did the same for Caps, and it worked out okay.
Go Nats!
Aren't the first two questions the exact same question worded differently? Sorry.
Keys to tonight:
1. Trea stops swinging at junk
2. Rendon stops swinging at first pitch
3. BABIP luck turns around
4. Stras goes 6
If all those happen, I think the Nats win handedly. A mixture of the above, and it's a crapshoot. None of the above, and I'll be throwing balled up socks at the TV
@Harper - Really like this post. From the stats to the history to the "hit it where they ain't." Thanks.
Oh and for the last bit, the Nats have to not only it it where they ain't, but they have to hit it in the first place. Seems there's been a lot of Nats hitting the ball right at somebody altogether too many times, like Zimm did last year (?). ...and the Nats have to be where the Astros hit the ball, of course.
We'll see and how they're doing after two hours is my "red line" on going to bed or suffering at work tomorrow.
This might be a darned good game.
Nerd - the first question is a more specific subset of the second one. Or if we read in order, the second question is an expansion of the first one.
I don't trust political polls, not because of the math, but because of how they collect data. Essentially garbage in, garbage out. But also because people are liars and often say what they think other people want to hear, instead of what they actually believe. People even lie to themselves and think they are something they're not, which makes some lies especially tough to spot. For example, Epstein didn't commit suicide. So there's that.
JWL - that's silly because you are essentially discounting hundreds upon hundreds of polls that have done a strong job of gathering data and representing what people are actually thinking because of some inherent bias you have. Missing out on 99.9% of good usable information bc 0.1% isn't right. The more inflammatory the topic of course the more variability should enter into your equation but we have decades of polls suggesting that the amount of lying to pollsters is minimal. Even the more famous polling "errors" (Clinton in the midwest in 2016, The Bradley effect) end up being 5-10% (less so if you account for MOE in there) meaning 90-95% of the respondents didn't lie. So only in close measures on certain topics would this even be a thing. But I'm going off here.
Tell me more about Theo Epstein's supposed suicide! (here's where there would be a winky face if such things could be entered)
I've been lucky enough that my vacation has overlapped with most of the WS! But I'm just looking to go 1-0 tonight, I'll worry about tomorrow's problems, tomorrow...I love to hate it and hate to love it, but freaking baseball baby!!
Harper, Most of that was a joke to get to the Epstein part. However, I am skeptical of modern polls in part because of how data is collected. For example, due to laws in different states some polls require people to have a home phone which would discount a huge portion of the population. Others are only done online, which is likely to discount the views of older people who spend little time online. Like you said upthread, it's important to read up on their methodology. However, I often don't have time to read up on methodologies, so I'm skeptical of certain polls--mainly political--based on who does the poll and what they have to gain or lose from the poll. But I don't ignore them either.
Seldom talked about tidbit: tonight may be both Strasburg's last game in a Nationals uniform. Savor it everybody
Well, I wasn't going to go there here, but since the can of worms has been opened:
2016 polls pretty much nailed the popular vote. The best political forecasting website by a landslide, FiveThirtyEight, had Clinton with like a 20-30% chance of losing. It was the same chance, at that time, of the Cubs coming back to win the World Series. Both things happened. About the same as the Nats chances now.
I have the same frustration with how people read percentages as Harper. I know smart people who insist the polls were all completely wrong and when I patiently explain, they still think I'm wrong and like blame the pollsters for Clinton losing or something. I donno. People are weird about statistics. And I am including STEM majors here in this, sadly.
I hope the Nats win the next two games and I don't really have a preference on how. Baring that, I hope they win tonight and Strasburg's last start of the year is amazing. Baring that I hope they win tonight any way possible. Baring that, I hope they put up as good a fight as possible. A humiliating blowout like the NLDS Game 5 for the Braves would be the absolute worst outcome. I'm going to Nats Park to watch the game tonight and will stay until the bitter end no matter what and I definitely don't want to sit through that.
I went to all the postseason games at Nats Park except Saturday and Sunday this weekend and Game 3 of the NLDS was abysmal cause Corbin and Suero got lit up so bad and there was little other hope in the game after that but I had to stay and sit through it all anyway. I did get on the jumbotron cause I was one of the few remaining Nats fans willing to cheer. And I was in the 400 section that night, lol.
Friday (WS Game 3) was not a great game, but at least the Nats were in it. I also caught a batting practice home run which I've never done before. Pity the BP balls don't say World Series on them, though! I enjoyed being there for the first World Series game in DC in my lifetime, though, and they were still up 2-1 at the end so things were still looking good - they just couldn't score with RISP.
So, yeah, please no blowout by Houston tonight. I wouldn't mind a Nats blowout cause that's basically a nine inning party. But Houston is one of the best teams of all time so we'll see. Their lineup is ridiculous and it'll take an amazing start by even Strasburg to get through it. But there is a game 6 and the Nats are still in it on October 29!!!!
As for strategy, I would treat it like the Wild Card Game or Game 5 of the NLDS. Do everything you have to do to win. Go 1-0 today and figure out tomorrow tomorrow. If worst comes to worse, Max can go on the IL and Voth can start tomorrow. But you have to get to tomorrow first.
I was thinking about that for Game 2 as well, CP. It's been a long ride and I hope he signs a new contract with the Nats after he opts out. I think he likes it here and the Lerners like him and I hope both sides can make it work.
But still more commonly talked about than the fact that only white players were allowed to play in the 1924, 1925, and 1933 World Series. I am getting sick to death of videos and articles talking about the history of the world series in DC without mentioning this. Some historic moments are not being recognized this year as well. First integrated DC team in the World Series.
There will be no losing today!
Let's go 1-0 today!
After throwing in the outfield at Minute Maid Park on Tuesday, Scherzer told a group of reporters, "I’m good.”
Cass is right, you have to treat this like a Wild Card game or Game 7 because if you don't win today, there's no more games.
@Chaos: Goosebumps.
After seeing the struggles that our offense has gone through the past three games, it made me think back to the narrative prior to the conclusion of the ALCS: "regardless of who the Nats play, how are they going to handle all that down time before the WS?" Good for pitchers because they get the much-needed rest, hitters are at a disadvantage because they lose their timing. Our lineup's collective woes at the plate have existed throughout this series, even in our G1 and G2 wins. I don't know what makes a team all-of-the-sudden click and turn things around, but I'm hoping it happens tonight. G6 will be about our timely hitting, not about Strasburg.
Turner swinging at breaking balls? Definitely bad. Rendon swinging at the first pitch? Yeah, whats with that? But am I the only one seeing every single Nats hitter completely whiff on 94 down the middle? THAT is what has kept me up at night.
Have a client dinner tonight at a restaurant with likely no TVs. Agony. But I'll be praying and checking my phone constantly that our Nats can pull off a shocker. Always in the fight!
Rendon swinging at the first pitch 3 of 5 at-bats in Game 3. In at least one of the at-bats, the previous batter had been walked with Greinke unable to find the strike zone. I don't see how a long lay-off, followed by 2 WS games, can ever explain what Rendon did. Maybe he was just trying to do too much? An uncharacteristic brain cramp (but 3 times)?
Wow that interference call is one of the worst things I have ever seen in any baseball game, let alone a World Series game. You can argue balls and strikes but that was just absolutely pathetic. Rendon giving a middle finger to the situation is the only thing that makes it tolerable.
Holy Shhhhhhhhazam!
Guess there's a first time for everything.
Max Scherzer starting game 7 in the World Series. If you'd told me at the beginning of the year this would be the scenario I'd've taken it in a second. If you had told me when the Nats were 19-31 this would be the scenario, I'd've never believed it. But here it is. WOW!!!!
Absolutely. Amazing.
Nothing better than breakfast in Juba over a World Series win in game 6.
Harper, can you recalculate the odds again?
Stras. What an amazing performance. Astros offense used tipped pitches in the first, then Stras hid his setup and done, they had nothing.
Stars is just a freaking workhorse!! Game 7 baby!...here we go!
@Nattydread According to 538, Nats now have a 48% chance of winning the World Series. According to Fangraphs, they only have a 39.7% chance of winning. Personally, I'd put their odds at a coin flip.
It'll be interesting to see how MLB revises the baseline rule in the offseason. If a right handed hitter can't run to first in a straight line, something is wrong. Almost felt bad for Joe Torre having to defend that nonsense.
In the meantime... the hands on the clock need to hurry up!
From Reddit:
Interference Rules
1) You can't just be up there and just doin' an interference like that.
1a. Interference is when you
1b. Okay well listen. Interference is when you get in the
1c. Let me start over
1c-a. The runner is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, fielder, that prohibits the fielder from doing, you know, just trying to catch the ball. You can't do that.
1c-b. Once the runner is going to first, he can't be over here and say to the fielder, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna get in the way! You better watch my butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that.
1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to make it to first and then don't yet step on first, you have to still step on the bag. You cannot not step. Does that make any sense?
1c-b(2). You gotta be, running away from the motion of the ball, and then, until you just are safe.
1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have your body up here, like this, but then there's the ball you gotta think about.
1c-b(2)-b. Interference was a terrible movie.
c-b(2)-b(i). That guy from 300 was in it.
1c-b(2)-b(ii). "THIS IS SPARTA" -- Leonidas "300" Haha, classic...
1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. Interference is when the runner makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the baseball and field of
2) Do not do a interference please.
So extrapolating your odds Harper 60/40 with Grienke? I think it's fair to stick with them because we honestly have no idea what to expect from Scherzer. Omg am I excited for tonight.
I like how the TV announcers were really concerned that the fans in the stadium had no idea what was going on. You show the clip of that interference play with the sound off to 95% of baseball watchers and they will have no idea what is even being discussed. Thankfully for MLB, it didn't end up having a decisive impact on the game. I hope Davey's heart is okay after that (completely justified) blow up.
Strasburg has had a monster postseason. What an amazing pitcher. I'll never forget listening to his first start on the radio and everyone just losing their minds at his 14 strikeouts. I know people have given him a hard time at various points throughout his career, but in my mind he has absolutely lived up to his billing, and has anchored this rotation longer than anyone else. One of the bummers about Bryce leaving is that I always felt like they were two sides of the young Nats star coin, and I thought it would be cool to watch these two completely different guys grow into veterans together. But baseball doesn't work that way, Bryce moved on, and I wish him the best (disclaimer, I do NOT wish the Phillies the best. Boo Phillies.) I hope Strasburg stays and becomes the next "Mr. National" after Zimm is gone.
So here we are, game 7. Max Scherzer starting. Everyone but Strasburg available out of the bullpen. The offense back clicking again, and the opposing side's main aces burned. You'd love to do this one at home, but other than the homefield advantage (which has notably NOT been such an advantage this series), there's not a lot more you could ask for situationally to set up a Game 7 for the Nats. You'd like Scherzer to not be coming off what sounded like a pretty serious injury. Maybe you could ask for Altuve to accidentally close his fingers in a car door.
Anyway, we've all said this a number of times at this point, but regardless of tonight's result, it's been a great ride. Taking it to game 7 shows that the Nationals obviously belonged in this series with the Astros. The end result will be more or less up to a coin flip, but the franchise's first World series will be memorable, full of legendary performances and intense moments, and that's an awesome thing we as fans didn't really have a lot of before. Thanks to Werth for his Game 4 2012 NLDS homer, but it has mercifully moved way down the list of great Nationals moments. We have banished the ghost of Pete Kozma, demolished the curse of Kershaw, and everyone got to be part of something special.
But boy would it be AWESOME to win the World Series at the end of all that.
(sorry for the novel. I'm working through a lot of feelings about this, and I deleted my Twitter account)
So Trea ran into Gurriel's glove and knocked it off and that is what Torre/Umps/MLB is claiming is interference. But isn't Trea being interfered with as a runner when Gurriel sticks his glove out right in Turner's path to the base? Why isn't it interference on the 1st baseman? Trea made no movement towards Gurriel, but Gurriel did make a move towards Turner. I know it doesn't matter at this point but it makes no sense.
Gonna revise my wish list to switch Bregman to the one who closes his fingers in a car door because, well you know.
Go 1-0 today, guys.
First let me start by saying that I have no problem with bat flips. Don't want guys to celebrate, don't give up dingerz. However, if there is a more smug and unlikeable guy in MLB than Bregman, I can't think of who it is. There's a youthful exuberance to the way guys like Soto and Acuna celebrate, whereas with Bregman it's more of a smug arrogance. Maybe the guy just has Resting Dick Face, but he doesn't seem excited about what he's done, moreso he just seems smugly arrogant. I know I keep saying smug, but it really defines him for me. I hope he goes 0 for 4 tonight with a big sombrero.
I don't think the ball was catchable at all. From what they were saying it makes no difference and I think that shows the absurdity of how the rule is written; you airmail it into right and the base runner is out? Come on. I appreciated Soto carrying that bat to first . . .
Kenny B, Stras has 1 more inning left in him. They took him out at 104 pitches. He could have finished that game by himself. That was very smart of the manager. I wouldn't rule him out for 4 outs.
TT need to set the table at the beginning and try to unsettle Greinke. He cannot stay there more than 3 innings. We had 9 hits in game 3 against him. Lets do clutch this time.
GO NATS!
I've seen a few of Bregman's interviews, and he seems fun enough. I think he really does just have resting dick face. Not that I want him to have the opportunity to do it again, but I have zero problem with really any home run celebrations. Straddle the bat and ride it around the bases like a toy horsey for all I care. Let the kids play.
Yeah, I mean it's not impossible that Strasburg gets called out to pitch, but I think it would be a terrible idea and it's extremely unlikely to happen, especially when there are so many other pitchers available. I also think Strasburg himself would not like it, and that matters if we're still hoping he will stay in DC.
If you can't get through 9 with Scherzer, Corbin, Sanchez, Doolittle, and Hudson, then you're probably in a level of trouble that an inning of Strasburg cannot solve.
I'm with Kenny B, the only way I'd use Stras tonight is in extra innings. I mean, if you've already used all your other good pitchers first and it comes down to Strasburg or Fernando Rodney, by all means, use Strasburg, but I'd use everyone else Kenny mentions first.
I think Strasburg does pitch tonight. Randy Johnson won game 6 throwing 104 pitches. He came into game 7 and got the win. The main thing is how far can Scherzer go. Is this inning or two, hope the Astros load the line up with lefties, and then bring in Corbin kind of thing? The key is the first two or three innings. If someone can grab the lead it might get tough late. I have no idea what will happen. Just hope the umpires can do a halfway decent job. They've been horrible the entire play offs.
@JWLumley - Do you think the Nats even brought Rodney to Houston? Or the BP at all, with the exception of Doolittle and Hudson?
Raises the point that the Nats have gone 3-0 without the benefit of a bullpen. (and 0-3 with a bullpen but without hits.)
Sometimes I think you take this "soulless automaton" thing to be deliberately contrarian. Whatever works for you.
But to say that Trea was deliberately running inside the baseline is not actually true. Look at the replay. His *left* foot hits the *middle* of the bag. He's supposed to touch the bag, by the way. He has to do that to be safe. And he does it with his left foot, not his right foot. At least half his body is in fact in foul territory, but he can't keep *all* of it in foul territory because he has to, you know, touch the bag to be safe.
He could have run in a circular arc to come back to the bag, but batters are generally trained to establish a lane directly to the bag and follow that lane. Watch Altuve in a play in the same game--he does exactly the same thing only he's farther into fair territory than Turner was.
At best, one can argue that baseball should either put a separate colored bag in foul ground for the runner or to simply make the judgement call on whether the runner deliberately interfered a la Alex Rodriguez in 2004 taking a swipe at the glove of a fielder. In this case, the call penalized the player *who did nothing wrong* in favor of the players who botched what should have been a tough but routine play. Rendon bailed out MLB, big time.
Post a Comment