Game 4 Preview

40 Replies

After the twists and turns (and stumbles) of game 3, it’s on to game 4. What other series have run the same course of this one?

This is the 52nd World Series in which the the first two games were split and, of those, the 27th in which the home team won game 3. That game 3 winner went on to win 17 of those 26 earlier series, a .654 winning clip. While there have been 26 previous series that fit this year’s mold, this is only the 5th time it’s happened since another memorable series involving the Red Sox – their 1975 tilt with the Big Red Machine.

More after the jump on other series that have followed the pattern of the 2013 Classic.

This year’s series is now tilted in the Cardinals’ favor, and not just because of that .654 winning percentage.

St. Louis won game 3 at home to take a 2-1 World Series lead in 2006, 1967, 1934 and 1926, and won all of those series.
For Boston, it’s their 3rd time in this position, following 7-game series losses in 1975 and 1967.
The home team winning game 3 of a tied World Series has won that series the last 8 times this has happened, in 2008, 2006, 1992, 1984, 1975, 1974, 1969 and 1967.

For teams in the Cardinals’ position, after winning game 3 at home:

The first-ever World Series titles for a franchise were won by Toronto (1992), the Mets (1969) and the Cardinals (1926).
A series loss in their only World Series appearance by the St. Louis Browns (1944) (the Browns may have batted last, but the fan support was likely solidly behind their opponents for every game of that series)
The Dodgers won their first west coast World Series in 1959. Cleveland won its last World Series in 1948.

For teams in the Red Sox position, after losing game 3 on the road:

The first-ever World Series titles for the Indians (1920) and the Senators (1924)
The Pirates scored a come-from-behind series win in 1960 at the expense of the Yankees. The Bombers did the same against the Giants two years later.
The Cardinals have won 3 times, in 1944, 1946 and 1964, the last time a team in the Red Sox position came back to win the series.

Enjoy the game.

0 0 votes

Article Rating

40 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

I like the “first-ever titles” angle.

Re: the 1944 Series between St. Louis teams, I really don’t know anything about which team had more fan support at those games. But the Browns out-drew the Cards that year by almost 10%, as the fans responded to the unexpected pennant run, lifting the Browns from dead last in ’43 attendance to about average in ’44. And the Browns owned the stadium; the Cards were their tenants.

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Tenants or not, the Cardinals consistently outdrew the Browns, often by 2:1 margins. Until 1944, when the novelty of the Browns’ pennant drive no doubt drove up attendance to more than double the 1943 level. In 1945, the Browns had a 13-3 run in August to climb back into the pennant chase, no doubt helping to retain their new fan base from the previous season, though they were nonethless outdrawn by over 20% by the Cardinals. But, in 1946 they went back to being the Browns and the Cardinals again approached a 2:1 margin in fan support. It goes worse… Read more »

11 years ago

Anyone up for a quick quiz? Inspired by last night’s PA by Brandon Workman.

Who’s the last pitcher to have two extra innings PAs in the same World Series game?

Your hints are:

1) He had a long career (19 years), mostly in relief.

2) He only pitched for two teams his whole career, both in the NL. He appeared in one World Series with each team.

Solace

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Without looking, and based on the hints, I’d guess McGraw

11 years ago

Reply to Solace

You’re on a roll Solace! It is indeed Tug McGraw. In this game here:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/OAK/OAK197310140.shtml

Note that McGraw had a -0.123 WPA as a pitcher but +0.113 as a hitter.

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Came in to start the 6th, blew the lead with 2 outs in the 9th, lasted into the 12th for the win.

The 1972-73 Series were both classics.

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

BTW, McGraw wasn’t the only pitcher to hit in extra innings in the ’73 series. Paul Linblad also did it:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN197310160.shtml

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

How much F.A. money is Ellsbury costing himself with these defensive miscues? Plus the fact that he has no arm.

P.S. Buck identified Ellsbury’s bobble on Carpenter’s hit as his first of the postseason. I know the last play of Game 3 wiped out a lot of our memory banks, but … there was this matter of a dropped pop-up.

11 years ago

BTW, on the radio here in the UK we have former Colorado Rockie and 165.2 inning veteran Jason Hirsh providing analysis between innings. He seems nice enough but I can’t imagine a much more esoteric choice of analyst.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hirshja01.shtml

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to RJ

Well, RJ … Hirsh has, um, been to a Series.

BTW, while googling “Jason Hirsh radio commentary,” I found this little gem from 2009. (For context, Mike Francesa is a bigtime sports radio host in NYC.)

http://nybaseballdigest.com/2009/08/12/francesa-and-the-fictitious-jason-hirsh/

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

John, that link is hilarious.

Looking at Hirsh’s b-ref page I was surprised he didn’t feature in Colorado’s 2007 postseason run, but he just mentioned that he broke his leg during the season.

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to RJ

Still couldn’t be worse than McCarver.

I think it was the 7th inning when did this long story- including graphics- about how almost everyone who had come up with a big hit for the Cards & Sox in the LCS and Series was doing pretty abysmally up to that point- mostly but not all “0 fors” and after it’s all over and there’s a couple second pause and the McCarver chimes in with “Most of those were big hits too” as if he didn’t have a clue as to what the entire point of the story had been.

Kingturtle

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

While McCarver definitely makes some lame comments, and while I agree that the “0 fors” graphic was useless and impossible to read for the 10 seconds it was on the screen, the fault here goes to the statistician (for thinking this was interesting or that it mattered) and the producer (for forcing it onto the screen, and giving only 10 seconds for anyone to read it). I think McCarver had no choice to try to force some sense into it, on the fly.

Hub Kid

11 years ago

Reply to RJ

RJ, which UK radio station is broadcasting the Series?

11 years ago

Reply to Hub Kid

It’s on BBC 5 Live Sports Extra. They use the home-team radio coverage for the play-by-play, cutting back to analysis between innings (no adverts on the BBC). The television coverage is on a pay TV channel, which is a shame as it used to be free-to-air until a few years ago. The great thing about old the free-to-air baseball coverage was a) the lack of adverts (the viewership at that time of night is so low that advertising is pointless) and thus plenty of time for analysis and features and b) the enthusiasm of the presenters. Baseball has such a… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Lance Lynn, pitches 76-100 this season:

.224 .301 .348 .648

11 years ago

This is the sloppiest World Series of all time. Probably.

Kingturtle

11 years ago

Reply to RJ

Probably not. Do you remember Brandon Inge’s two errors on one play in a World Series game and all the talk in that Series about sloppy play? The 1966 Dodgers had 6 errors in Game 2, 3 by one player (in one inning!). The 1906 White Sox had 15 errors. In the 1925 World Series Roger Peckinpaugh made 8 errors, leading to 8 unearned runs. Babe Ruth made the final out of the 1926 World Series trying to steal a base. Or there’s the The 1916 World Series, in which Dodger SS Ivy Olsen made four more during the Series,… Read more »

Jeff B

11 years ago

Walk off pick off on a meaningless run, maybe even stranger than a walk off obsruction call. Kolten made the Wong decision.

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Poor kid. I mean, yeah, it’s a colossally dumb play with absolutely no excuse. But I can’t help feeling bad for him. That kind of thing can get in your head.

JasonZ

11 years ago

Poor kid indeed.

Post season walk off pick off.

Those words have never been uttered before.

This felt like a seven game series going in.

I would be shocked if someone wins in six.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Why, why, why?
Why, after last night’s amazing baserunning,
why would you ever pinch run for Allan Craig?

ReliefMan

11 years ago

What was Matheny thinking leaving Lynn in to pitch “to” Ortiz, especially if he’s going to get instructions not to throw anything near the zone, and if they’re going to the bullpen for the very next batter? I mean, isn’t this exactly the kind of situation that’s supposed to justify Choate’s spot on the roster?

zafrom

11 years ago

Reply to ReliefMan

No, not for a LOOGY. At that time Ortiz was 7 for 10 in the World Series, and Gomes (next up, and a rightie) was 0 for 9. It’s surely better to have the soon-departing pitcher throw nothing really hittable to the hot hitter rather than to waste another pitcher here. The Red Sox also still had other lefties, like Ellsbury (batting leadoff), available to bat. Also (so I’ve heard over the years) asking a new relief pitcher to throw balls to the first hitter can make it more difficult for that pitcher to then throw strikes to the next… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to ReliefMan

Yeah, I would have liked to see Choate pitch to Ortiz, rather than Lynn basically walk him on purpose. I have two problems with the notion of “don’t let the red-hot Ortiz beat you”: 1) If being red-hot for a span of 14 PAs during the World Series requires consideration, then mustn’t we also consider that he was ice-cold during the ALCS, except for one colossal hit? Papi was 2 for 22 in those 6 games, with no other RBI or runs. If he can get hot that quickly, couldn’t he turn cold just as quickly? 2) Hot or cold,… Read more »

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Well said.

No point having a loogy if you’re afraid to use him.

JasonZ

11 years ago

Someone wake Fred Merkle.

After 105 years you may rest easy.

The Wong Boner is better on numerous levels.

Editor

birtelcom

11 years ago

The average win probability of a team batting in the bottom of the ninth trailing by two runs with two outs and a man on first is about 4% (25 to 1 odds against). Sure Beltran is at bat and he’s an excellent hitter with a great post-season record, but Uehara is pitching and he has been excellent lately. So the average win probability is a useful estimate here. The reduction of 4% in the Cardinals’ win probability resulting from the pick-off was less than the 5% reduction resulting from Carpenter’s pop-up that immediately preceded it.

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

… and the pickoff was just marginally more damaging than the walk to Ortiz in the 6th.

I’m more concerned with whether the pickoff gets in the Cardinals’ head. I don’t expect that it will; the Cards shook off their embarrassing defense in Game 1, so I’d think they’ll shake this one off, too. In that respect, better that it happened to a rookie than to a star.

Editor

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Fred Merkle’s famous mistake, in contrast, cost his Giants about 50% in win probability (about 12 times as much as the pick-off). If Merkle had touched second the Giants would have won the game (100% win probability); his failure to do so left the game tied (approximately 50% win probability).

Jason Z

11 years ago

Win probabilities aside, getting picked off to end a World Series game
when the tying run at the plate is one of the top post season performers
in baseball history…

Editor

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Jason Z

I do agree, getting picked off was a really stupid thing to do there. I just think it should be kept in perspective.

Jason Z

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

In a different time, Kolten Wong’s life may have been defined
by his gaffe.

Fred Merkle’s was.

He went through his life with the nickname
“Bonehead.”

He was a rookie too.

This story paints a good picture of what he and his
family endured.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=3604289&type=story

The good thing is that it is kept in perspective today.

11 years ago

Reply to Jason Z

I’m not so sure sports fans are so level headed these days. What about Buckner? Bartman? Both horrendously scapegoated for things that were only partially their fault. I think Wong will avoid that level of opprobrium because both teams have been successful in recent years and it was only Game 4. But imagine it was Game 7 and he was playing for, lets say, the Indians. I have a hard time imagining he’s allowed to forget that in a hurry.

Editor

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to RJ

Fred Merkle trivia: Until the World Series this season, I believe Merkle had been the only player ever to have played in Fenway Park during a World Series as a visiting player in two different years (1912 for the Giants, 1918 for the Cubs). Now Yadier Molina and Matt Holliday have joined that small club.

Author

Doug

11 years ago

What does everyone think of Farrell bringing in Lackey to pitch the 8th, instead of leaving his setup man in the game? Tazawa had only faced one batter (and thrown just two pitches), so should have been good to go another inning. I am always leery of putting players in unaccustomed situations and expecting they will be perform just as well as they do in their accustomed roles. That said, at least Lackey was coming in to start the inning. I did, though, like Farrell’s move to double-switch when he brought in Lackey. That move might seem superfluous since Lackey… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to Doug

I think Farrell brought in Lackey specifically to prove that he could execute a double-switch. And I’m mostly serious about that. The other rationale offered for that move was that Napoli is a better defensive first baseman than Ortiz. Presumably true, but by how much? dWAR liked Napoli a bit — this year — but FanGraphs, not so much. He’s looked better than I expected for most of this postseason, but he didn’t look so hot handling the Bogaerts misfire. Also, since 2 of the first 3 STL batters would be lefties, maybe Farrell was putting a lot of stock… Read more »

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Interesting thoughts, John (as always).

Whether for show or not, still think it was a shrewd move, if only to give Farrell the flexibility the use Uehara in the 8th and keep him in the game for the 9th (without further embarrassment for Farrell).

Still, having to go to Lackey just screams the question of why do you have 8 men in the bullpen if you’re not willing to use them. One or two fewer relievers and one or two more bats on the bench seems like the better way to go.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Actually, John, fangraphs thought (or told us that UZR indicated) Napoli was the best defensive first baseman in the game this year.

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

Bryan O, thank you for that correction! I made a hasty, uninformed reading of the “-0.6” in the “Def” column of Napoli’s player page on FanGraphs, and thoughtlessly contrasted it with his +0.4 dWAR on B-R, without compensating for their scale. I’m glad you caught it.