Nationals Win 7-2, Rendon, Strasburg Force Game 7
Through seven minutes after the 8 pm E.T. Wednesday night, when Justin Verlander threw the first pitch of Game 6 to Washington’s Trea Turner, the 2019 World Series had recorded one lead change, zero home wins, and the lowest TV ratings in series history. What it needed, at least from the perspective of a non-partisan observer, was a little action, a little controversy, a little red blood in its veins. It got precisely that. This World Series is going to Game 7 tonight in Houston, and all it took to get there was two lead changes, five RBI from Anthony Rendon, a six-minute “replay” review, a managerial ejection, and quite possibly the best-traveled bats in Fall Classic history. That and 8.1 terrific innings from Stephen Strasburg.
In a moment of what we in the writing business call “foreshadowing,” the very first play of the game — a Turner groundball to Alex Bregman at third base — resulted in a replay review. The call on the field (out at first) was swiftly and uncontroversially overturned, and Turner took his base — and then a second — on his way to scoring the first Washington run of the game on an Rendon single to right (also, as it turns out, a sign of things to come). In a less eventful game, or one in which the final score was reversed, we might make more here of Dave Martinez’s decision to use Adam Eaton (and a bunt) to move Turner over in this inning; as we are consequentialists, we will not.
That first Nationals lead was itself overturned fewer than 10 minutes later, when a José Altuve sacrifice fly and a mammoth Bregman home run in the bottom of the inning put Strasburg on his heels and the score at 2-1 going into the second. Somewhat more importantly, given what was to come, Strasburg took just 13 pitches to get through his inning; Verlander threw 17. The next inning, which was scoreless for both clubs, added 7 and 12 to those totals. The third — also scoreless, though featuring a lively threat from Juan Soto — added 15 and 25, and by the time the fourth inning drew to a close, Verlander had thrown nearly 40% more pitches than his counterpart, and 75 on the game. He was, quite clearly, tiring.
That wear became evident when Eaton — no longer limited by the bunt sign, apparently — and Soto homered in turn in the fifth to put the Nats up 3-2 and make Game 6 the first World Series contest since last year’s Game 3 with multiple lead changes:
From that point forward, the game continued much as it had before until the top of the seventh inning. Verlander kept popping Nationals hitters up. Strasburg kept gutting it out near the bottom of the strike zone. And then, with nobody out, Trea Turner came to the plate for the fourth time on the night with Yan Gomes on first base and Brad Peacock on the mound for Houston. It only took one pitch for all hell to break loose, and to kick off the action-packed segment of the only inning from this game we’re likely to remember a decade from now:
What followed was complicated enough that we’ll be writing an entirely separate post about it for you to read later today (Update: Here it is!), and infuriating enough — at least for the Nationals and their fans — that Martinez went to the trouble of getting ejected from the game over it even after his team ended up exiting the inning with a three-run lead. For the purpose of this recap, know only this: Turner, despite conducting his journey from home to first much like most every runner does, was called out. That left Gomes back at first (he had advanced when the ball skittered away) with one out, rather than having runners on second and third with no outs, for Adam Eaton and then Anthony Rendon.
Eaton popped out against Will Harris, who came in to relieve Peacock, but Rendon — who already had an RBI on the night — took the second pitch he saw from Harris out to left for what had to be among the most satisfying home runs in Nationals history. It was the first home run — indeed the first run of any kind — allowed by Harris since August 30 (!), and constituted the middle third of what turned out to be a historically productive night for Rendon. After a relatively weak start to the series — just four hits in 20 at-bats, and no home runs — Rendon ended up becoming only the second-ever third baseman to drive in five in a single World Series game. This, of course, after Alex Bregman earlier this week. Baseball, folks! Quite simply the best.
That homer, like two-run, add-on double provided by Rendon again in the top of the ninth, turned out to be inconsequential to the final result (the Soto homer was the difference in the game). But the pause in the action allows us to reflect for a moment on the other star of this game: Stephen Strasburg. The 31-year-old was good but not great in starting Game 2, allowing two runs and seven hits across six innings, but he was brilliant last night, retiring the last 10 Astros he faced and seeming to improve as the night went on. Strasburg relied heavily on his curveball, throwing the pitch 42% of the time, and supplemented that pitch with a changeup (16% of the time, almost exclusively down) and his usual two fastballs about a quarter of the time each. He looked particularly impressive going change, curve, curve to strike out Altuve swinging in the bottom of the fifth:
It’s not in that highlight reel, but Washington played terrific defense all night, substantially contributing to the Nationals’ win. Crucially, with runners on second and third and two outs — after that brilliant strikeout of Altuve — Strasburg got Michael Brantley to hit what looked like a sure base hit up the middle on the third pitch of the sequence. It wasn’t to be: Turner, who seemed to be in the middle of everything, got to the ball in time and threw to Ryan Zimmerman in time to record the out and end the inning. The game was only one run apart at that point; without Turner’s strong play, and Strasburg’s pitch to generate it, this game could easily have turned the other way. But the Nationals’ ace came through.
His team could not have needed it more. The Nationals’ series and season seemed lost Sunday afternoon when Dave Martinez announced that Max Scherzer wouldn’t be able to start, and when Joe Ross gamely but predictably gave up four runs in six innings of work to send the team to a 3-2 deficit. Strasburg’s long and brilliant outing has reversed that dynamic, saving the Nationals’ bullpen from all but 11 Sean Doolittle pitches and setting up Scherzer for a start Wednesday night against Zack Greinke. It remains to be seen whether the neck and shoulder spasms that kept Scherzer out Sunday will play into his performance tonight, but at least on paper, that pitching matchup seems as close to a push as you’re going to get in Game 7 of the World Series. (The ZiPS Postseason Game-By-Game Odds have the Nationals’ odds of winning at 48.2% compared to the Astros 51.8%.) It makes for great television.
Speaking of great television, one final note before we wrap this thing up: If you didn’t catch the game, you may see some news today about Alex Bregman, Juan Soto, and bat-holding. That’s because Bregman, for reasons not entirely obvious to most but in any event none of our business, held onto his bat all the way past first base after hitting his first-inning home run, then dropped that self-same bat in the dirt near first base before continuing to round the bases. That prompted Soto, in turn, to hold on to his bat after hitting his home run, and generated much discussion and hilarity online thereafter. Bregman, somewhat oddly, apologized for his behavior after the game, which in the view of this author was wholly unnecessary. If I hit a home run in the World Series, I’d be holding onto the bat a decade later. Let the kids play.
Juan Soto on copying Alex Bregman's home run bat carry to first base:
"I just thought it was pretty cool. I wanted to do it."
— Anthony DiComo (@AnthonyDiComo) October 30, 2019
That’s exactly what they’ll do tomorrow night. Same time, same place, same teams. Game 7, for all the marbles. For a chance at a first-ever title for the Nationals. For a second title in three years for Houston. After all the drama of Game 6, that’s what the Nationals and Astros earned for all of us in Houston Tuesday night: One more day of baseball before we head into a cold winter without it. One more tomorrow. Good. I don’t want to go home just yet.
Rian Watt is a contributor to FanGraphs based in Seattle. His work has appeared at Vice, Baseball Prospectus, The Athletic, FiveThirtyEight, and some other places too. By day, he works with communities around the world to end homelessness.
If such a simple rule is going to be misinterpreted constantly, baseball just needs to switch to the dual first base that softball does and say that if you’re hit by the ball while inside of the line, you’re out.
But agreed, last nights game was fun. Hoping for a repeat tonight
Yeah, Kyle Schwarber tweeted that out last night actually.
Joe Girardi said it on Dan Patrick’s show this morning. It’s such a simple fix, how does it not happen?
Agree. Hope they let them play tonight instead of turning it into Ump Show for a third game in a row.
Not me. I’m excited to see how the Blüe Crüe botches this one tonight. Will it just be a boring inconsistent and awful strike zone? Will they go topical and toss Soto for grabbing his crotch at the pitcher? Maybe bring back a classic like a Jeffrey Maier-esque HR interference boundary call? I can’t wait to find out!
Crotch grab? Did that happen? I didn’t see as much of that game last night as I would have liked.
The double 1B bag is a no-brainer from a safety standpoint. While we’re at it, let’s make the bases softer & less slippery when wet.
And bigger!
Lol. Lets get one of those mats that they use in slow-pitch softball at home plate. How about peg outs?
Disagree. If anything, baseball needs more, not less, Bon Jovi
Or we can not have a rule that bails a fielder out from making a terrible throw?
I understand on a bunt when a catcher is forced to field the ball out front – he needs a throwing lane. Last night was not that, at all. Peacock had a ton of real estate to throw the ball but made a poor Throw and it hit the runner. That’s a trash call.
If you do not deviate from a direct path to the base you should not be called out, period. Lefties already have a big advantage out of the box, and now they have arguably a bigger one since their swing will pull them inside the line instead of outside so their direct path to the base is more likely to be in foul territory. A right handed batter cant be expected to take an unnecessary step towards foul territory out of the box.
Adding another base doesn’t help the situation.
Or we can not have a rule that bails a runner out from running outside the running lane?
I understand on a bunt when a batter is running to first – he needs a running lane. Last night was that. Turner had a ton of real estate to run in the running lane but made a poor route and he hit the 1B’s mitt. That’s a correct call.
If you do not deviate from the running lane towards the base and make the last stride towards’s first, you should not be called out, period. Last night was not that, at all. Lefties have a big advantage out of the box, and they have arguably one since their swing will pull them inside the running lane instead of outside so their direct path to the base is more likely to be in foul territory. A right handed batter can be expected to take a step towards foul territory out of the box.
Adding another base does help the situation.
Adding another base doesn’t counteract the fact that a right handed swing is going to pull them into fair territory. Period.
Tell me how Turner – who took a straight line path to the base – ran out of the running lane? A right handed batter should be expected to take a step that isn’t directly towards first base just to assure they are in foul territory? That’s absurd.
Imagine if football had a rule that required a subset of players to go 101 yards for a touchdown instead of 100.
This is what this rule does to right-handed batters, and it’s infuriating.
But most RHH just run where Turner was (and many lefties, too) and take the chance. Most likely, they’ll be out by a lot or safe, so it’s a safe risk.
But rules should reflect how the game is played, and if every RHH is running to the left of the foul line, they should protect that.
Essentially all of baseball’s lefty/righty advantages/disadvantages stem from the fact that there is a net angular momentum: base order is counterclockwise (as viewed from above). This amounts to a de facto rule that lefties don’t get to play 2b/3b/SS. Maybe that’s ‘unfair’, but it’s baseball.
Football/basketball/soccer/hockey/etc. lack this handedness precisely because they are back-and-forth sports. This makes them ‘fairer’ with regard to handedness, but to my mind also makes them far less interesting.
It’s not a rule that lefties can’t play 2B/SS/3B. They technically *could* play, but it’d be last resort.
The nature of baseball dictates what is the norm, hence why lefties don’t play those infield positions. But it’s physics that dictates that, not baseball’s rules.
The case of the running lane is not based on physics. The players are at a disadvantage because of the rules… the rules literally force a subset of players to play differently than another and that rule then puts them at a disadvantage.
If a rule puts a subset of people at a disadvantage, it’s time to change the rule.
Right-handers *could* bat from the left side, there’s no rule saying they can’t…
“If a rule puts a subset of people at a disadvantage, it’s time to change the rule.”
Sorry but that is absurd. All rules to all games favor certain subsets of people. There is a reason tall people make better basketball players. There is a reason short people make better middle infielders. There is a reason the strong-armed make better pitchers. Etc. etc. etc. Should these reasons be eliminated in the name of fairness? We are not talking about human rights here…
None of those are “rules”. Not a single one. There’s not a rule in basketball that a 6-3 point guard would violate that a 7-0 center wouldn’t. In baseball, a right-handed batter who runs directly to the base violates a rule that a left-handed batter doesn’t. The LHH can run directly to the base and be completely within the running lane and never have to step towards foul territory first. That’s the problem.
Heck, if you want an example from basketball: when basketball allowed the three-pointer, it allowed more shorter players to compete and hold value. They literally changed their rules to prevent one subset from holding all the advantage.
What I’m suggesting from baseball isn’t even that drastic. It’s not difficult for baseball to open the running lane to the fair-side of the foul line. It won’t affect plays, and you can make reasonable rules surrounding plays where contact is made and it doesn’t change the game in any way. You likely wouldn’t even notice it.
Letting RH batters run inside the line would suddenly give a disadvantage to LH batters, whose natural path to first base would not obstruct a catcher’s throw to first. Thus RH bunters gain an advantage over LH ones. Your proposed rule change merely places the shoe on the other foot, it doesn’t increase fairness.
When did I say LHH can’t run on the inside lane?
Many do, seeing as the base is in fair territory, and it’s a straight line there.
um, but then in order to run inside the line, LH batters would then need to run an indirect route, so there’s the same disadvantage you’re decrying now. There’s simply no getting around baseball’s L/R asymmetries, a fact that I choose to embrace.
Jesus, are you being obtuse on purpose or is it natural?
They don’t have to run on the inside. They can run on the outside lane. They can do pirouettes the whole fucking way down the baseline.
Let the runner take the path they feel is best. Make a call if/when interference exists.
I guess it’s natural.
Your laissez faire proposal is still going to favor RHs, since their most direct route to first is also the one that obstructs throws from fair territory. But I guess it changes last night’s call, if that’s the goal.
“It’s not a rule that lefties can’t play 2B/SS/3B. They technically *could* play, but it’d be last resort.”
hence the qualifier ‘de facto’
We aren’t discussing “de facto” rules. You can’t change that without drastically changing the game.
We are discussing a rule that can easily be changed to minimize the disadvantage a right-handed hitter has. And a rule that isn’t grounded, at all, in how the players actually play the game.
You’re missing the forest for the trees, and it seems you’re doing it intentionally.
You’re proposing to change forest-wide legislation based on a rare event that happened last night to one tree.
With how important positioning is these days, I wonder if we will ever see a lefty at a non-1st position. With positioning now it almost feels as if a lefty could play 2nd.
Solved! When RHH, run clockwise (if runners at corners they need to re-orient to the opposite bag), 3B become the 1B, the 1B becomes 3B, etc. When LHH, run the conventional counter clockwise. OK all in jest, but kinda fun to think how this be to watch and the changes in skill sets for 1B/3B (not that much).
Unless RHB can run to third, he has to run farther than LHB. I like the idea of adding a base in foul territory to fix the problem of 1st baseman trying to catch balls in fair territory, and runner running to 1B being in fair territory.
There is no rule that mandates any player bat (or throw) right handed or left handed.
Running lane is between the base line and the line 3 feet in foul territory for the last 45 feet to first. It is not a straight line from batter’s box to first base. He was not in the lane. Period. He did not exit the lane with last stride to touch first. Period.
Whether you think it is absurd or not, the rule clearly specifies the expectation for the runner to be in the running lane, but will only be called for interference if he actually interferes with the play.
The rule doesnt clearly define anything – hence why it’s a judgement call. Regardless of how many times you say it’s clearly defined, it obviously isn’t as it is a rule that has a lot of human interpretation involved and theres thousands of people arguing about it because, once again, it’s not clearly defined and it’s nonsensical.
It is unnatural to hit a baseball and bust it down to first while thinking about having to take a step that isn’t directly towards the base.
“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 rule clearly defines where the runner is suppose to run whether or not it is unnatural. The only murkiness is what constitutes interference and whether a runner is protected from interference call in his last step regardless of whether he was in running lane or not prior to the last step. Clarification to rule only explicitly specifies this protection when exiting the running lane to touch bag on last step, stride, slide.
On runner’s rounding 1st, they typically use the runner’s lane and don’t interfere with a throw to first. Runners run out of the running lane at their own risk.
I’m a Nats fan (at least over the Astros) and I agree that they made the right call based on the rules. I feel like a lot of people are losing sight of the rules here. It is a horrible, horrible rule, but it is in fact a rule. Thus, they called it directly. I would imagine in someway this will be changed this off-season because it doesn’t make a lick of sense. Enos twitter explained it pretty well, the right handed batter is simply not allowed to run in a straight line as stupid as that rule sounds.
A lot of the people arguing here seems silly. You can have a rule and have it be a stupid rule, those things aren’t mutually exclusive. You can also have a rule and not have it be enforced all the time, but that doesn’t make it less a rule. The correct decision would be to change the rule, but you cannot do that in the middle of a playoff game.
100% correct! The rule doesn’t clearly say the batter must be called out — it’s a judgment call on whether he interfered with the first basemen. Which is why this was a terrible call. It was obvious that Turner was a half step from being ON THE BASE — and where the heck else should he have been? — when he “interfered” with Gurriel, who made a poor attempt at catching a terrible throw.
So runners should be called out for being outside of the running lane while they round first base?
Hey, hey, hey that is way too rational! There are a lot of reasons that the inside of the baseline should not be an illegal path. Every right-handed hitter is on the illegal side at some point, so its not like crossing some line is illegal. Anyone rounding first goes well outside of some defined path to first. It has never made sense to pretend that runners need to stick in a little 2 foot wide path because they don’t and sometimes we call them out? There is no possible scenario where the defensive player doesn’t have a throwing lane.
Well, then change the rule. I’d prefer rule changes between the seasons rather than on the fly. The umpire at least arguably called the play correctly. Turner was running inside the line and interfered.
The extra first base idea is the obvious move here. It will look stupid for 6 weeks and then everyone will forget about it.
1. He didn’t interfere – his foot beat the ball to the base.
2. Adding a base does nothing to solve the issue that righties will be pulled to the left side of the line naturally with their swing.
3. The rule wasn’t made to allow pitchers to throw at batters intentionally on their way to first.
Why do people continue to say he made the correct judgement? It may be your opinion but stating it as a fact is flat out wrong.
Turners leg hit Gurriel’s glove, which kept him from catching the ball. The ball struck Turner almost simultaneously with Turner touching first. If Turner were a ghost, Gurriel would have possibly caught the ball before he reached first, as he would catch it closer to home plate.
The interference was with the glove of the first baseman, not with the thrown ball.
1. He hit Gurriel’s glove..
2. It would not change the distance the RHB is asked to run either way. It only prevents some collisions.
3. Rule was created for safety to prevent collisions.
The only thing unclear about rule regarding last night’s play is whether the last stride while running outside the running lane receives the same protection from interference call as the last stride exiting the running lane specified by the sentence: “The batter-runner is permitted to exit the threefoot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base.”
Ah yes… the continual march of MLB baseball towards slow-pitch softball rules. I used to thing that was an irrefutable argument not to implement a rule, but that has not proved to be the case lol.
If we actually want to fix the rule, then you can’t be out from getting hit by a thrown ball. You are not out at any other base by getting hit by a thrown ball. There is no good reason a runner cant run straight to first base. The solution is simplicity, not a giant book full of complex scenarios which is where this came from in the first place. One of the most fundamental drills that a catcher works on is throwing inside and outside of first base – you can throw around runners. Peacock had a huge lane to the inside of the bag – pitchers are terrible at defense and that was just a bad play by Peacock. I think a better 1B may have caught that ball as well – a left-handed 1B certainly would have. Look at how far back Gurriel’s glove is when he catches the ball. I think that is just a tough play and less than stellar defense. If the play is made, then I don’t think anyone calls that play anything but when the glove comes flying off and the circus music starts playing calls get made sometimes.
Worst things about that Turner replay:
#1 -How long it took. That was clearly someone trying to interpret the rule, not a replay.
#2 – The call didn’t get reversed. All that for nothing.
#3 – The bad call on the field. This actually wouldn’t have been that big a deal without the MLB’s demonstration of the world’s worst replay process on national television.
NOTE: The Rendon homer did not turn out to be the difference in the game. The Nats were up 3-2 at the time….and the game ended 7-2.
Quite right—updated, with thanks!
It put the game out of reach. I would say that. To say that debacle sucked the life out of HOU and the crowd would be accurate!
I’m sorry I am going to go on a bit of a rant here. These kind of sloppy mistakes have been far too frequent recently. I understand that mistakes happen and this one is as minor as it gets, but the frequency is starting to verge on carelessness. I’m not singling out Ryan nor do I believe it is the editor’s main job to catch these. I also understand that a lot of talent was lost but even if you aren’t able to come up with a creative innovative article every week, you should put some time and effort into proofreading and basic fact checking.
I bet they never thought of this! No doubt your critique will change everything.
As long as we’re here discussing the finer points of describing things with precision, saying you’re sorry about something you’re about to do and then doing it anyway makes that seem like an insincere apology. You wrote 103 words after you wrote “I’m sorry”, or else you added “I’m sorry” after you wrote a substantial number of those words. At any point in that process, were you so moved by your sorrow, you could have chosen simply to delete the comment and not submit it for all of us to read as we peruse the generally thoughtful input of Fangraphs commenters. This isn’t spoken language, in which once you have said some words you can’t unsay them. This is writing. Don’t express sorrow you don’t feel.
Or perhaps you really did feel sorrow but you felt this was necessary as a sort of “for Fangraphs’ own good” thing. Fangraphs might suffer for lack of you having said it. That’s an understandable and charitable thing to think. I wish now to put you at ease. Given the grace with which Fangraphs writers routinely accept and respond to input from reader comments—as Rian did with chazf’s comment just a few spots above yours—I am quite confident that is not the case. So from here on in, feel free to stand down, and ease your soul of the burden of your sorrow.
Mocking the usage of a commonly used phrase “I’m sorry but” by feigning ignorance of how it is used colloquially is one of those things that makes you look clever at first glance, but not really.
Play stupidly, needlessly pedantic games, win stupidly, needlessly pedantic prizes.
Asking for less basic factual errors is being needlessly pedantic? Okay.
Fewer basic factual errors. Fewer. <– Now that's needlessly pedantic!
Look at me bitching about free content
If you watch Davey’s ejection, he was set off by the crew chief making (soft) contact with him. Before that it was just yelling.
Why does the ump escalate by staring him down? Why not just walk away, the umps blew it. No need for that false bravado.
I agree but how tired is it to watch a grown man throw a temper tantrum like a 5 year old? We get it. You didn’t like the call. Move on.
I actually love it. That crew deserved an earful and he got ejected. That is how it is supposed to work. You think that is tired? I think everyone on the team and the crowd loves it. Its funny how I would describe HR celebrations like you would an ejection. Different strokes for different folks.
The crowd was busy singing “Take Me Out To The Ballgame”, LOL
Hell, I like them both!
Jayson Stark is reporting that Cederstrom picked the fight by telling Davey, as the players were walking on the field to start the next inning, to “control his dugout”.
I guess he was jealous of all the attention Holbrook was getting.
so yet another rather mediocre Justin Verlander start in the World Series. I still think the Astros made a huge mistake starting him on short rest in game 4 of the LDS. Got lit up in game 4 of the LDS and in the 4 starts since he has a 4.74 ERA and a FIP over 5.
That’s what i was saying at the time. Repeatedly. Too many managers think they can just jerk their starters around.
what’s been amazing with the Nats- while theres this perception the Nats have done that-
Strasburg- only abnormal thing was after 34 pitches in WC game, going in game 2 of LDS.
Scherzer- only abnormal thing was the 1 inning in LDS game in between WC game and Game 4 of LDS.
Corbin- been jerked around some
So fr Stras and Scherzer- really not that much at all… Nothing like Verlander.
Ever since the giants won in 2014 without deviating from traditional usage at all in terms of resting starters and relievers.(before game 7 vs kc) i’ve been watching it carefully and it really makes a difference. In terms of evaluating bochy, that’s pretty much the only positive thing i’ve got to say about his managing, but it’s huge.
Can you imagine that using the players the way that they spend their entire lives preparing for works best? What other crazy idea are you going to come up with next?
I think a lot of that stems from FG discussion that they would use Corbin like that. They have not actually jerked anyone around in the WS, but the FG perception was that they would. FG pushes progressive bullpen usage hard.
That isn’t the same thing. They’ve been mainly using corbin as a reliever. That’s what happens to lower-end-of-the-rotation starters in the postseason. Using starters on short rest is a different matter.
Lifting Verlander certainly proved costly to HOU. They managed to burn their bullpen and blow the game out of reach in the process. Not refuting your point, but I wanted to throw that in there somewhere.
he wasn’t going to be long for that game anyways. Nats had his pitch count up to 93 and in all but 1 inning he had thrown at least 18 pitches…. Maybe he can get thru Cabrera, Zimmerman, Robles but already being down 3-2- not sure they wanted to chance that.
You could make the case the bigger mistake was leaving Peacock in to start the 7th. You put Harris in there from the get go- and maybe he can keep it 3-2.
not sure if it’ll post- but Eno Sarris had a great tweet today-
https://twitter.com/enosarris/status/1189407084258873346
so how much do you think Joe Buck wanted a guy like Mike Pierera or Dean Blandino on the telecast last night???
There’s no chance the MLB would be on board with that… not with how much the Umpire’s Association whines and bitches about anything that challenges them.
yeah it’s sad. Definitely thought watching that last night how it would be nice to have someone explaining from an umpires perspective what was going on….
I sure hope MLB tels the UA to pound sand….
On a related note, how bad is MLB at communicating umpiring calls/decisions? NFL refs communicate to the entire stadium via microphone about what call they are making. Sometimes they’ll even describe why a call is or is not overturned. NBA refs will go to the scorers table to communicate what is going on. Meanwhile in MLB, we get 4 minutes of announcers commenting on how they aren’t sure what is going on. While the commentators eventually figured out what was happening, if you were at the game, you wouldn’t know until you got home.
exactly. Didn’t find out exactly what happened until they interviewed Torre AFTER the game!
Have you listened to the MLBUA or read anything they ever write? They write every statement like a 70-year-old arguing on Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/MLBUA-2102580646620724
You don’t want them in the business of explaining calls to tens of thousands of people.
Well, they don’t make the call either so explaining it is a bit of a weird idea. What if they don’t agree or if the call is just bad? The idea of some guy in NY making the call is a terrible idea to start with and at the heart of a flawed review process.
I don’t hate anything more than I hate an extra official in the broadcast booth. That would have made things worse in some way I am sure. Officials ruin the game and adding another fake one and giving them a microphone is the worst idea in the history of broadcast.
I am totally here for the road team winning all seven games. Just when I think we’ve seen everything, we get a chance for something new.
Wasn’t the most amazing factoid what they showed last night- this series is already the first series ever in MLB, NHL, or NBA where the road team has won the first 6 games.
I hope I’m wrong but it seems likely Scherzer is going to gut game 7 out on painkillers at less than 100%. At full health, I’d have to make the Nationals slight road favorites in this matchup vs. Greinke. As it is, ZiPS’ 52/48 Astros sounds about right to me.
Yeah. I can’t see how he’s vintage Scherzer tonight after not being able to dress himself a couple of days ago. I surely hope that Anibal Sanchez is getting warm from the start, to jump in if those first few batters don’t go very well.
I’ve had neck issues before where the day after i couldn’t turn my head and two days later its fine….so speaking from experience it is at least plausible he’s ready to go
I have had them last a year and I have had them last days. There is no telling… Mad Max doesn’t strike me as a softie looking for excuses so I am worried about him.
I assume he had something similar to what I had once: I woke up and literally could not move my head from where it was on the pillow, looking down and to the left without excruciating pain. It loosened a bit that night, next morning all good.
And you feel much better and then you make one slight wrong move and suddenly BAM! Back on your back.
Anibal has to approach tonight like he’s the starter you’d think. Hope for best prepare for worst sort of thing.
What’s amazing is Scherzer doesn’t have more neck issues, he has a seriously violent delivery…not as bad as early in his career but he really really snaps his neck on each pitch.
Scherzer has not been vintage Scherzer for months. He spent an entire month on the DL this year. His performance after the DL stint has been bad and this is another chapter in that saga. Sure, it was his back last time, but as the song goes – the neck bone connects to the back bone… This isn’t vintage Greinke either so its a crazy match-up. I can’t imagine we don’t see a little Corbin. All the more reason that they should have started Corbin in game 3!
Playoffs Scherzer this year has been really good though. 2.16 ERA/3.37 FIP. Better than Greinke this year at 5.30 ERA/5.79 FIP.
Might get Corbin for a hitter or 2- but not long. He’s close to a LOOGY tonight.
Scherzer has still been pretty solid this postseason 2.1 era, 3.3 fip, 12+ K per 9. Also the thing about postseason is for obvious reasons you are facing better competition generally. I’d imagine this is his game to win/lose barring health. If the game is close I don’t think pitch count matters at all. I also think there is a pretty good chance we see Cole tonight.
Applying that rule in that case makes no sense. If a throw beats the runner but the runner knocks the fielder’s glove off, the runner is safe. Why would the runner be out specifically because he beats the throw and knocks the fielder’s glove off? Isn’t it supposed to be better to beat the throw?
Juan Soto is super fun. Anthony Rendon is just the best. Scherzer is always entertaining. Strasburg’s introversion and associated antics of his teammates are always hilarious. These Nationals are great to watch and I’ll certainly be rooting them to pull off a Game 7 win tonight!
I agree. Amazing what removing bryce harper does for increasing the likeability of a team.
what was funny about last night with Harper was after Davey got ejected he sent out a tweet saying “Next @roughnrowdy for @barstoolsports! Davey vs. The Umpires in this series. #natsvsastros” With a picture of the Rock.
So you tell me, steve. What was your honest opinion of bryce harper as a nats fan?
I liked him. Although this year doesn’t happen with him IMO- I just can’t imagine him doing the baby shark routine. This years clubhouse by far the best the Nats have had in ages.
Aha! So psychologically addition by subtraction? I’ve often thought that the key to the Giants 2010-2014 run was something about chemistry because it sure wasn’t the product of enormous talent and/or Bochy’s brilliant managing, and it was too striking to be pure luck. My untestable theory is that particularly the combination of Sandoval and Pence–very similar in some ways but very different in others– created an environment where everyone else was pretty much happy and relaxed come playoff time. Most obviously, just look at the two of them at the plate, Pence with a billion twitches, taking a wild swing, beating the ball into the ground and legging out an infield hit anyway, Sandoval swinging at pitches a foot out of the strike zone in all directions and not infrequently getting hits off of them. With the two of them around, it was just impossible for anyone to be uptight about anything, including teammates who were just not temperamentally suited for each other. When Sandoval left after 2014, a lot of the tensions came to the surface.
I saw that you had a down-vote prior to me coming along… this is absolutely a great point.
I’m pretty sure that Eaton’s first inning bunt was not a sacrifice attempt (at least not primarily). And bunting for a base hit there is a fine play. He squared late, and put the ball right on the 3b line. Took an amazing play from the Astros C to barely get him.
(I haven’t read anything, so maybe he gave an interview to the contrary, but that was my thought at the time)
hey it allowed Eaton to be first guy in WS history to have a sac bunt and homer in 2 different games ever(let alone same series).
And first guy in postseason history to have a homer, sac bunt, and HBP in the same game. Only 80 of those in regular season history.
Always wondered how is it that people find those stats. Is there a way of filtering to do that sort of thing?
baseball reference play index.
That was an amazing play – probably a hit greater than 50% of the time and probably more like 90%. Most sac bunts are intended to be a semi-hit attempt – its one of the reasons that they are not as bad as people like to pretend.
Bregman’s “mammoth” home run that went all of 355 feet? Soto’s was the true “mammoth”….
I recall reading that Bregman took advantage of his ballpark this year in a way basically no one else has ever. If anyone has a link, I’d love to read it again.
After his home run Soto should have carried his bat all the way to third base and dropped it at Bregman’s feet.
Baseball should treat the bases as the NFL treats a ball in flight, i.e. the offense and the defense have equal right to the base. Interference will always be a judgement call but it should be reserved for when a player deliberately attempts to interfere irrespective of his location on the field. Calling Turner out last night unjustly rewarded the Astros for an otherwise incompetent play. That shouldn’t happen.
I think the rule isn’t written that way, but totally agree. Many rules aren’t enforced as written, I’d put this on the list as a candidate for that.
You can give the bunt commentary a rest – just a suggestion. Your bias and contempt for bunts is abundantly clear. Don’t feel obligated to find a reason to say something about it in every article – I don’t think you are doing yourself any favors by doing that. The fact is it has not played any role in this series yet.
I am glad you mentioned Bregman holding the bat down the line – I thought I saw that happen, but wasn’t quite sure. Is that not against the rules? It seems like carrying the bat to first base would be some kind of rule violation – it should be. When do players get to carry bats vs not? I think there could be some weird things that could happen if you allow players to run around the filed carrying bats. They are not intended to be props. One thing is for sure, those guys both enjoy acting like fools.
Let the kids play – the nonsense pitch to non baseball fans. I have heard it for years and I have no idea what it could possibly mean. I think it is promotion of HR celebrations… I think that is what it is promoting. If you are watching baseball for the HR celebrations, then you definitely are not watching the games at all so it is misguided in my opinion. I think it is more generally a pitch to a younger audience based on nonsense – the standard idea of demonizing tradition and promoting undefined progressive values. I don’t think the slogan actually means anything – I think it is just a generic progressive appeal to a younger audience that MLB is desperate for. It seems like the slogan gets applied to every situation where a player embarrasses himself, which is a weird take on selfish, shameless behavior which is what it generally is. Those are quite simply values that a healthy society does not embrace – they don’t need to be criminalized (they aren’t), but celebrating them is debatable. Clearly I associate elaborate celebrations as self over team, but other people see the world through other eyes and I get that. It is rightfully a divisive issue as it is rarely a simple situation. There are absolutely negative repercussions at times like the idiot standing in the box while the ball bounces off the wall and sometimes it is all in good fun. Sometimes people get their feelings hurt and we say some nonsense slogan and demonize the offended party. That slogan is intentionally divisive and probably intended to offend a pretty large demographic – it implies that one group is holding another back which isn’t true. The older generation is not holding the younger generation back from anything – as I said I don’t even know what it means. It certainly should not be used as a blanket statement the way it is. If you want to see what an “I guy” looks like and why it isn’t a great thing, exhibit A is Bryce Harper – the founding father of playing for himself and showcasing his brand at every chance. Perhaps if he was more concerned with being a team player he would have developed further? I think the development is probably a big part of the issue. When your priorities begin to include what people think of your brand and your celebrations that probably is right about where it becomes a negative thing. I think it is worthy of a discussion, which is what simply using a meaningless slogan isn’t. It is an attempt to turn a complex issue into a simple polarizing issue.
What if I told you it was more than HR celebrations.
What if I told you it was about showing emotion and how fun the game of baseball is. Its about allowing each individual player to be an individual. A game full of all Juan Sotos & Bryce Harpers would be boring, a game with all Brian McCanns & Justin Verlanders would be boring.
You can have fun and put the team first. You can be humble and only care about yourself.
Great game, watched by too few. Main reasons are: games start too late and take too long to complete.
Although I sacrificed sleep to watch to the end, the majority of my most ardent baseball fan-colleagues didn’t watch past 10-10:30pm. Which is too bad, because it is after that point that the most compelling baseball was played.
However, people who get up in the morning to go to work have to make a judgement call of their own, when presented with the decision of sleep vs. baseball on night before a workday.
You missed the best part about game 6.
The fact that the guy who got a foul ball in game 5, depsite having beers in both hands- already had a commercial ready for last night.
While analyzing the controversial play at first base last night, John Smoltz said something that sounded particularly absurd to me.
Smoltz said that on plays like the one in question, where the runner is running inside the line, pitchers and catchers are taught to throw at or near the runner, in the hope that they’ll get the kind of call the fielding team got last night.
Does this make any sense at all?! Aren’t pitchers and catchers taught to throw the ball to the 2nd base side of 1st base, so the first baseman can actually catch it?
The lesson is throw it inside the line if you can, hit the runner if you can’t.
My HS coach told us this one in pitcher drills: On squeeze plays, throw it right at the hitter’s face. Because it’s very difficult to bunt a ball fair that is traveling towards your face, and a hit batter sends the runner back to 3rd. Genius, in sort of a sociopathic way.
The Bregman homerun had a 94mph exit velo with a .160 xBA! It looked mammoth only because of the stadium.
The absurdity of the whole Turner situation was this, per the rules, had the exact same interaction between Turner and Gurriel occurred at first base, but instead, Turner had been running legally in the runner’s lane the entire time, then Turner would not have been out for interference.
So there was a scenario in which Turner could have made contact with Gurriel and not be out.
That’s like saying, you can drive drunk, but only if you use the carpool lane.
If Turner had been in the baseline, he would probably not have hit Gurriel’s glove with his leg.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But that’s not the point. The point is, the scenario exists, which suggests that the emphasis isn’t so much avoiding contact between the runner and 1B, but the path that was taken.
So long as it’s not malicious contact, you can still “interfere” with the 1B, and not get called for it, so long as you were in the runner’s lane. That’s beyond dumb.
For what it’s worth, I’m fine with the call. It was the right call. And Turner definitely interfered, but that should be the distinction, not where it happened.
I don’t get this. The runner has a lane and should have a lane. Turner just wasn’t in the lane. If Turner is in his lane, he should not be punished if he interfered with the throw.