Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 546: The Wildest Wild Card Game

Episode Date: October 1, 2014

Ben and Sam discuss the thrilling AL wild card game.

So don't look back, the past is past, the future is coming fast You better make room, we're coming through, loud and clear We got the hands to turn this around, we got the plans to make it go down We got the boys feeling this room, we got the minds, the minds to go boom Get up, get out, get on that train, it's becoming so insane This tiny blue marble is rolling away Good morning and welcome to episode 546 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Perspectus presented by The Play Index at BaseballReference.com

I am Ben Lindberg of Grantland, joined by Sam Miller of Baseball Perspectus Hello Hello Lindberg of Grantland, joined by Sam Miller of Baseball Prospectus. Hello. Hello. So we are recording this in the aftermath of an incredible AL wildcard game. Our plan for the podcast today was to push listener emails back and talk about the NL wildcard game, and maybe we'd mention the AL wildcard game at the end. Just, you know, go over some of the highlights for a few minutes. But I think we could probably talk about this game for an episode or marvel at this game.

I don't it just ended. So my thoughts are not collected other than just being on kind of a playoff baseball high. collected other than just being on kind of a playoff baseball high. Yeah, I had this moment as the Skype was ringing where I thought, wait, what happened? Like I couldn't think of like any center to this game. It's just this swirl of, you know, like celestial rocks that haven't yet congealed into a star or whatever stars are. Yeah.

What are stars, Ben? Gas? Yeah. But where does gas come from? I think you're thinking of planets that start out as rocks. Probably. That's the astronomy minute. They do, because gravity.

All right, good. Yeah, though I was looking at the Facebook group during the game and there were 20 different threads started. It was almost a support group for people who were watching this game. And I feel fortunate that I didn't really have a rooting interest in this game. So I could just completely enjoy it without necessarily worrying about the outcome. I would have been okay with whatever way that game had gone. So I was able to just enjoy the back and forth and the back and forth again. And it was one of the most enjoyable games I can recall watching.

It was one of the most enjoyable games I can recall listening to. You weren't watching? You were radioing it? I don't know. TBS. Who has TBS? What are you, fancy? You can't afford that Will and Grace channel? Is Will and Grace on TBS? It's on Wii, isn't it? I don't know. George Brett was interviewed during the game,

and he said he watches TBS for friends in Seinfeld. I watch TBS a lot because Family Matters at 2 and 2.30. And so I watched that. But no, I don't have TBS and you knew that. You knew that was coming. Yeah, I guess I did. I wasn't thinking about it. So I don't know where to start with this game.

There was so much. It was an experience. It's hard to talk about it and capture any of it. There were sacrifice bunts everywhere. There were stolen bases everywhere. There were a million pitchers used. There were bad bullpen decisions or bullpen decisions that provoked Twitter rage on both sides. And that seemed like it would be the story for a while.

But then the game kept going and going and going for so long that I don't even know if that's the story anymore or if that's just part of the story. By the way, it's not as though I heard lots of raves about the TBS production. It's not like everybody was talking about how great the stats were and how the announcing was just totally on point. And the camera work was sharp and illuminating or anything. Oh, and the commercials probably too. I mean, I bet you went out and bought every product and are happier for it. They did show the baseball players though. I enjoyed that part. I know, I bet you went out and bought every product and are happier for it. They did show the baseball players, though. I enjoyed that part.

I know what they look like. You didn't get to see Luke Gregerson's dastardly mustache as he was spinning sliders three feet away from the plate that Sal Perez was swinging at. But who even remembers that? Because he was the hero

in the end. Everyone who was the goat in this game was the hero at some point. Oh, he was a hero. Yeah. Who is the hero? Who would you say is the hero in this game? Ned Yost does not get to come out of this the hero, does he? Probably not. Although I guess he gets to come out of it alive with a job.

Does he get to say he's vindicated? I think that would be a stretch, probably. Although, you never know, because he still had Holland, and he still had Davis later on, and those turned out to be important innings, too. But that would probably be a stretch. Let's talk about the six. All right, yeah, we have to do that.

So my experience listening to the radio was that Shields puts on One Runner and then Ventura gets up in the bullpen, and they mention it, and they say, wonder what that's about. Must be his throw day. Right. They didn't think he was available. I mean, he said after his last start that he was going to be available, and he was on the roster, and he was clearly available.

I mean, I assumed he was available. If it was his throw day, if it was his natural throw day, then I would consider him to be an option. And if he's an option, they wouldn't waste his throw day throwing in the middle of the sixth inning. They would wait until after the game when they saw they didn't need him. So anyway, one batter, they figure he's not going to be used. He's just working.

And then the second guy gets on and he starts looking he's paying attention to the field and so they decide that he is and so then the uh yost pulled shields uh ventura comes in and one announcer says to the other what do you make of this and it's just silent and he goes i don't know't know. How do you assess this, is basically what he was saying. It wasn't like, at least my reading of it, it wasn't like, boy, there goes Crazy Ned again. I don't know what he's thinking. It was genuinely like, what am I supposed to say?

I don't know if this is a good or bad move. And I feel like that was the appropriate sentiment. I thought that, first of all, pulling Shields, undeniably a good move. Yes, gutsy. Exactly, exactly what we said Ned wasn't going to do yesterday. It is exactly the thing that we said James Shields and Ned Yost are going to get this team in trouble in the sixth because they're going to leave him in there to get out of that mess,

and that's not going to work. And they didn't. It was like this incredible moment where Ned went off script. It was incredible because he has a slow hook. I mean, people complain about how he's rigid with his relievers, but he also lets his starters go a long way. I think the Royals starters had the third highest average pitch count this season. And Shields, of course, is a guy who goes deep in every game.

And he had only thrown 88 pitches and he was pitching pretty well, too. It seemed like he had gotten into the proverbial groove before he gave up those couple base runners. And big game James and all of that. Big game James and all of that. I mean, it seemed certainly like a situation where Yost and where most managers probably would let the guy pitch out of the gym. I mean, even Melvin later in the game let Lester go forever. Well, hey, you're getting it. Wait, you're getting it.

But if anything, you might argue that they should have pulled shields before the inning started. Just knowing that the penalty that the pitcher has seen the lineup multiple times and how good bullpens generally are, you could argue that he should have pulled them before he even put a runner on in the sixth. That's the super aggressive way, but not one manager in the history of the sport pulls any stretched out starter in that situation. Or you could say that if he was that close if his

leash was so short that he only got two batters uh then in that case yost sort of should have had someone else start the inning clean but you're right i don't think anyone would have done that um okay so then so let's let's put that decision. There is nothing to bash Yost about for that. You can argue that it's not a good move. Fine. But it is certainly not bashable. Second move is he brings in Ventura. Okay.

So the premise for Ventura being a terrible decision is, I guess it's threefold. One, he pitched on Sunday. Two, he's young. And three, you could just stretch out your three bullpen guys to get four innings. And the last one I think is legitimate. You could have done that. Now, you might argue that if we're so worried about using pitchers in roles they're not used to, then maybe using one of those guys who, as you have shown,

Ned Yost has established an extremely rigid plan for using them throughout the year, might be stretching them. You could also, by the way, say Finnegan would be the option there. And I'd be fine with that as well. But then if Finnegan gives up the home run, then you know everybody's bashing him for bringing in Finnegan, who's young and has like seven innings of experience. Anyway, so then there's the he pitched Sunday.

Well, that's not actually that uncommon. Pitchers, starters pitch on their throw day in the postseason quite a bit. It's kind of common. It's a thing that you do. You're throwing anyway. You don't do it throughout the season, presumably for fatigue reasons, but it's kind of common it's a thing that you do right throwing anyway you don't do it throughout the season presumably for fatigue reasons but it's pretty common john lackey did it last year multiple people will do it this year i found it took like 12 seconds for me to find a box score of randy johnson in 1995 coming in on one day's rest in the division series against the Yankees, having thrown 110 pitches a day

earlier, and then throwing three innings and getting the win. And so if it had worked, it would have looked incredibly bold and really smart. And he would have been praised for not sticking to his predictable Ned Yostian patterns. Now, the youngness, you know what? You could just as easily argue that since Ventura was relieving last year that he's prepared for this kind of a role, whereas if you bring in a veteran, like if you had done this with Jeremy Guthrie

who hasn't relieved in 17 years or something like that, you could argue that that would make... I mean, there's always going to be some detail that you can pick at if it fails and say, that's the reason it failed. But the test is, was it wrong before you knew what was going to happen? And I think in this case, it was particularly hard to say. It was scary. I agree. It was scary. It was a tense thing. You might have been nervous. You might have opposed it before it happened. It was a tense thing. You might have been nervous.

You might have opposed it before it happened. However, I don't think that is... The reason that it's scary and the reason you might have opposed it is because we basically have no idea what a pitcher like Ventura is going to do in a situation like that. That doesn't mean that he's going to give up a home run. He could very easily have been really good. He is a better pitcher than Finnegan. He is a better pitcher than Herrera.

He's a better pitcher than Finnegan. He is a better pitcher than Herrera. He's a better pitcher than all those guys, generally speaking. And if he'd come out and thrown, you know, 301 mile an hour fastballs past Moss, then it would have looked like a genius move. So anyway, but I'm fine. I'm fine with criticizing the Ventura thing. I'm not fine with saying that Yost is an idiot for it, but I'm fine with criticizing it. It is a debatable move. If you're moving on, I have some numbers. I'm not moving on.

Anyway, I was excited that Yoast took Shields out because it seemed smart. I was excited that he brought Ventura in because it seemed bold. And so he gives it the home run, and the announcers immediately, the announcers who were silent, had no analysis, immediately start destroying Yost for pulling shields. And bringing in Ventura, but pulling shields too. Twitter was people were praising Yost for making the move and maybe sort of agnostic about the pitcher choice or not saying a whole lot about Ventura until the home run happened. And then, yeah, it was the worst move ever. And people were writing that it was one of the most terrible managerial decisions in recent history. And even in some cases, some of the same people who had seemed

to say something positive about the decision moments earlier came down and crushed it. And I felt sort of the same way. Maybe if you're going to complete some accounting of Ned Yost's managerial career and his managerial mistakes, I don't think this would be anywhere close to the top. Maybe it would be the most momentous, or it seemed like it would be. But in terms of how it was expected to work out, I didn't have a huge problem with it. And I see the objections, too. But I looked up some numbers, and Rob McEwen at BP looked up some numbers for me. And so from 1995, so the wildcard era through 2012, we didn't have 2013 postseason data handy. four instances of a starter in the regular season who made at least 95% of his regular season appearances as a starter pitching in relief in the postseason. And in those games, they tended

to pitch about one run better ERA wise than their regular season stats as a starter and that's against good offenses too good good hitters for the most part so and that's kind of what you expect when a when a starter pitches in relief you expect him to be better he's pitching in short bursts and everything and so shave about a run off the era for those guys at least, in this fairly small sample. And if you do that for Ventura, then suddenly he looks like a really face, like the people that people were clamoring for Yost to bring in. And I emailed Mitchell Lichman also during the game to ask him what his projections were for the other options that Yost had available because he was tweeting some stuff about how

it was a defensible decision that looked awful in retrospect and when you looked at the outcome of it. And so according to his projections, where an average pitcher allows four runs per game, so that's the baseline 4.00 ERA, the options that Yost had were leaving Shields in, and Shields normally would be a 4.01 versus a lefty, and this was his third time through the order, so Mitchell said probably like a 4.15 or so. Finnegan, 3.36. Herrera, 3.48. And Venturaura 3.96, but that's as a starter. And Mitchell says that he takes half a runoff usually for a starter who's relieving. And so that would put him at 3.46, which is basically exactly where Finnegan and Herrera were. So, and Ventura is a guy with a reverse split also in a small sample, but doesn't seem to be a huge platoon split guy.

So just looking purely at the numbers and the projections, you could make the case that Ventura was about as good an option as anyone, save for Davis and Holland, which you almost have to rule out because there's just no way that Jost would do that. It's just not even on the table. And really, realistically, probably no manager would do that. Maybe someone would. Certainly there are managers that would have gone Haaland 8-9 from minute one. I mean, Girardi would have used Mariano. I guess maybe Girardi would have used Mariano, I guess maybe Torre would have used Mariano Rivera 8-9,

and last year, O'Hara would have gone 8-9, just like that would have been expected. And so everybody gets bumped up an inning. But I don't think a two-inning from Davis, two-inning from Holland plan would have been in any manager's binder going into that game. I think that's true. Right. And it maybe looks even worse, uh, given how great Finnegan looked later in the game. But then again, I mean, if you want to make the argument that Ventura is not a

good choice because of uncertainty or lack of experience, You're talking about someone with even less of that with Finnegan, a guy who is pitching in college this season. So, I mean, it doesn't go on the big board of worst managerial mistakes for me. I can see why it would not have been the optimal decision, just given some uncertainty about a guy who doesn't have a whole lot of experience pitching out of the bullpen and why would you ask him to do that here when you have other options that seem to be just as good if not better so so fine yes um the great thing sorry go ahead well i was gonna say the great thing is that pedro martinez right now is is also crushing that yes i heard the beginning of right. It's not like any manager's ever been fired

for leaving a starting pitcher out too long. Yes, and people were making gritty little comparisons immediately after that move. So I guess the fact that Yost won the game, he is now immune to that, whatever else happens, I would think. But so I think if they had ended up losing the game, probably he would have gotten more criticism for that move than he deserved. And so I'm sort of glad that that didn't end up happening because now that is part of the story, but it, and the Royals' whole exciting season to that one managerial decision. Maybe there will be another managerial decision.

Yost now has a five-game series to play with, so he might surprise us and do something else that makes us kind of crazy. But this probably will not go down in history now because of the way that this game ended. So what else is there to say about the rest of the game? All the, well, the bunts were a story.

We should just note that, that the Lester thing was exactly what we're worried about. It did end up being exactly what we feared would happen with Lester Shields types where Lester went long. Although you could argue that the A's bullpen is, did not have the manager's full faith and confidence. But anyway, yeah, so what else? What else happened in this game?

By the way, I was walking around today, and I decided that in answer to the question yesterday that we asked, which GM has more to lose in this game, I don't actually think that it was Billy Bean. And upon further reflection, I don't actually think that it was Billy Beane. And upon further reflection, I don't think it was even close. I think it was completely Dayton Moore had more to lose in this. And the Royals as a franchise had more to lose.

So revising my answer to that. Okay. Well, I don't know what there is to say about this game. Everything was exciting. I mean, on Twitter, everything seems to get boiled down to either exclamations after something exciting happens or second guessing and first guessing of managerial moves and non-moves. So that ends up sort of being part of the story if you were following it that way.

And every opportunity to pinch hit that is not taken becomes a thing briefly. And every sacrifice bunt becomes a thing briefly. And there were plenty of those. What happened? So I saw a gif of the Hosmer triple. But it happened very fast in gif form um you saw replays what what happened was it catchable if if the crowd had been quiet and somebody called the other off would they have caught it what what was up with this ball yeah that was a tough play I mean there were some

there were some Gomes tweets after that because Gomes had come in to replace coco crisp and people had made jokes about how it's all going to come down to a fly ball to gomes now and then there was sort of a pivotal fly ball that gomes got near i don't think it was a ball that a better outfielder would have caught necessarily i mean maybe the fact that he was a defensive replacement, maybe they hadn't synchronized as well. Maybe they weren't as aware of where the other outfielder was standing or they hadn't worked out how they were going to call the ball, that sort of thing. But it was a difficult play. It would have been a very good catch if they had made it because it bounced high off the wall. It was right back there and

kind of in between the positions so it it didn't the fact that they collided always makes it look you know as long as no one's heard it looks more comical that way or it looks like the keystone cops kind of thing where they are just running into each other and can't figure out who's supposed to get what but to me it didn't look like a ball that would have been caught most of the time uh okay um poor adam dunn is a thing yeah all the sacrifice bunts is a thing the complete inability to keep the royals from stealing i have to say that while I generally like stolen bases and I generally dislike sacrifice punts and I generally roll my eyes a little bit at small ball focused teams, I do respect that the Royals actually execute it. actually execute it you know like it's not just that they steal a lot so they don't get caught and it's not just that they lay down a lot of bunts it's like there were i kept waiting for the sacrifice bunt attempt back to the pitcher force out at second i mean that's when it really kills you to see a team playing small ball look the fact is that a sacrifice bunt sure by win

probability uh models usually seems to knock a point or two off of your win probability. But there are all sorts of other factors at play that are kind of hard to totally encapsulate in the math. There's the potential for an error. There's the pressure you put on your defense. There's the sort of, you know, the competence of the batter might be below average. You know, there's, of course, there's the sort of game theory of having it in your quiver and not ruling it out completely. And then on the flip side, you might be giving away a strike,

or you might be forcing the, you know, the pitcher might be changing his routine and he might give you a ball. I mean, there's all sorts of things that make it kind of hard to really get a true number on what a sacrifice bunt attempt is worth, right? So while I do kind of roll my eyes, if you lay one down, it's not going to kill you. It's probably not. If it's a bad idea, it's like the equivalent of batting a guy sixth who should be batting eighth or something like that. Sure, it's slightly wrong, but it's like the equivalent of batting a guy sixth who should be batting eighth or something like that sure it's slightly wrong but it's not that wrong and uh but what kills you is the the team that bunts and bunts into force outs or bunts you know and can't get it down and the royals they execute really well like this is a team that if you just get past your revert your

revulsion to the way that they that they deliver their signs to the batter. And you appreciate the execution. It's kind of a competent team that does things. Like, they're good at defense. They're really good at base running. They don't strike out. It is a fun style of play to watch. It is enjoyable.

It is probably admirable. And so, you know, more of this, less of the other stuff would be just fine with me in a kind of meta baseball landscape sense. Yeah. And the steals were great and thrilling to see, particularly Dyson's. But sabermetrically speaking, some of those steals were in spots where, I mean, it's, you know, run expectancy wise, it seems unwise to go. Well, you're never going to get caught. Right. Well, they were stealing down, I mean, what was it, four runs at least? Three runs? They were stealing in times when you need base runners, not one guy in scoring position who could get thrown out.

baserunners, not one guy in scoring position who could get thrown out. And I think it was Mitchell tweeted something about how the break-even point for one of those steals must have been 90%. But when you watched, it kind of looked like probably they would be safe at that rate. I mean, it's a great baserunning team. Lester does not throw over to first base. Literally, he has not thrown over to first base all season. And he's allowed something like the fourth most steals for a lefty starter this season. And the Royals have stolen the most and also stolen at one of the highest success rates. And they were getting great jumps. And it just looked like there was no way that they would not steal those bases. And so when you look at the numbers and what the stats would say about those steals, some of them would seem ill-advised. But if you were watching, maybe the typical numbers don't really apply because the Royals really seem to have him timed so well that it would

have been difficult to throw him out. And people were pointing out that maybe in the wake of what happened, the loss of Giovanni Soto was one of the more pivotal moments of the game. And maybe it was. Soto, of course, started the game. And part of the reason why he started the game, Norris, who came in to replace him, had caught Lester for most of the year, but he hasn't hit at all, and Soto is regarded as the better thrower, the better catcher at restricting the running game. Now, I think that has been overblown a bit. Giovanni Soto is not Pudge Rodriguez. In fact, if you look at his historic caught stealing stats, they are league average, exactly league average. His caught stealing rate is 27% over the course of his career, and league average over that time was also 27%. Before he came to Oakland this year, he was throwing guys out with Texas in a small sample, 17%.

And then with Oakland, he was very good. And he threw out nine guys in 17 attempts, which is awesome. If you can do that all the time, then you're Pudge Rodriguez. But history does not suggest that he is. His career cut stolen base rate is only slightly higher than norris's actually so unless there's some some more recent difference there where oakland changed soto's mechanics or something and now he's suddenly amazing or vice versa if norris is right back back back ailment uh makes him much worse than his career record. But yeah, I agree, overblown. It seemed overblown.

Yeah, I would guess that, I mean, the pitcher sort of determines more of whether a stolen base attempt is successful and whether there is a stolen base attempt than the catcher does typically. So I would guess that many of those steals would have happened no matter who was catching, but it's possible. It's a wrinkle that you could consider when you tell the story of this game. So just curious, what do you think the Royals' true stolen base, I don't know how to phrase this,

if the Royals played this game a million times and stole nine to seven million bases or tried how many times would they be caught like what are they what is their true stolen base ratio against the a's with you know a combination of lester and norris and gregerson and whoever else got stolen off of i mean are they a 90 success rate in this scenario i would think it's got to be pretty close to that because they were they were 80 on the season yeah and with lester on the mound and not a great throwing catcher and yeah i think i think so with guys like dyson and gore and just super fast and super efficient base dealers i think they actually are that good. So the Leicester thing, this was the weirdest part of baseball Twitter all day, was the Leicester not throwing over thing, which somehow had escaped all of our notice.

Like when I saw it. I'm so mad that I didn't write about that first because I did a thing. I did a, yeah, I did a thing about pitchers throwing over when I was writing about Jordano Ventura and how neat. He never allows stolen bases. And I sorted some list and I saw Lester at the bottom and no pickups and I was going to do something on it. But I didn't. That's a huge, that would have been a huge piece, Ben. I don't know about that.

Nothing else, a fun fact. It's definitely a fun fact. It was the best fun fact I've ever seen. It's a good one. And in fact, so useful and non-lying that it's not even a fun fact. It's actually, it's just gospel. It's just, it is the good news. So anyway, I guess John Rogel discovered it.

And I didn't believe it. John Rogel discovered it, and I didn't believe it. I mean, I could not believe that a pitcher could go a year without throwing over to first. And so anyway, he could partly because he's, when I heard that, I thought, oh, that must mean he's really good at stopping the running game because he doesn't need to throw to first. He's super quick. He's indefensibly quick to first. All right, which is, you know that there's some truth to it he is very quick to first and uh he you know that's a reason that everybody doesn't steal every time against him however i was shocked like once it once it

became something that the world was aware of i was shocked that he kept on not throwing to first and like there seemed to be times uh one of the uh one of the let's see one of the a's announcers in fact mentioned this that it there seemed to be times where the base runner just had a huge lead and was like daring him to throw to first it was mentioned on the broadcast as something that the Royals were aware of. And, I mean, you'd think that would be the sort of thing that would be in an advance report, and you wonder how that didn't get around earlier.

Why wouldn't you throw to first? Does he have the yips? Does Jon Lester secretly have the yips? Because otherwise, why don't you throw to first? I mean, I know that he's been... So there was an article two weeks ago that said he was working on his pickoff move. And so maybe that's code for he's not comfortable throwing in a different direction. Yeah, he did say something.

There was a Buster-only article about it at least where uh he wrote that evaluators had concluded that lester is not comfortable throwing to first and um and jeff sullivan found an article from 2012 where he lester said he had been doing some work on his pickoff move and how they kind of got away from him and And that's the hardest part, just knowing I've got to throw the ball over to first and doing the same stuff to it. So it does seem like he is not comfortable with it entirely. Although you would think that, I mean, even just lobbing it over is... Did this game come down to Lester's inability to throw the ball 60 feet twice?

Like, is that the game right there? Yeah, I mean, it could be. You could point to many things that were. But sure, you would think that if you're not comfortable, I mean, just. I need a simple goat. Just roll it over there quickly. Cespedes would have thrown the first. That's right.

So, yeah. I don't know that rolling it the first would have helped, to be honest. Quickly rolling it, not a slow roll. Well, maybe not. But it is hard to understand why when another team is aware of it and seems to be, I mean, the worst that can happen really is that you give the guy a free base because you throw it past the first baseman and if you're giving up a bunch of free bases because

the runners know that you're not going to throw over there then that's even worse so you have nothing to lose crazy yes that is the craziest it is the craziest fact and the fact that it held up for the biggest game of the year is even crazier. Crazy. That is the craziest part of this game. That is what I'll remember from this game, is that John Lester didn't throw the first. Crazy. Anyway, it was a good game. It was a great game. Yeah, so I don't know what else to say about it.

It was great. There were a lot of managerial moves to discuss. There were exciting baseball plays to discuss. Lots of fun lead changes. Someone tweeted that it was not good baseball, but it was exciting baseball. I saw a few of that. I don't know. I don't even know if I agree with that.

I mean, there was bunting, but was it poorly played? Not really. There weren't a bunch of errors. There weren't any errors. I mean, is it literally just that if you see a bunt, you can no longer like the sport? Is that where we're at? I did see some tweets to that effect, yeah.

If that was bad baseball, then I wish that all baseball were bad because that was great okay we'll talk about the Giants tomorrow yeah I guess so they have a tough act to follow they better deliver a game as good as that one so that we can talk about it for a whole episode

and we will get to emails at some point so keep sending them in to podcast at baseballperspectives.com and please support our sponsor, Baseball Reference. I used Baseball Reference Play Index during the game to look for the

record for most sacrifice bunts in a postseason game. The Royals were one away from equaling it. I was accused of using Play Index for the fact about how the Royals tweeted, tweeted, how the Royals bunted four times in 11 innings and the A's bunted four times through May. But I did not find that through Play Index.

Okay. However, I could have found it through Play Index. It would have been, it actually would have been slightly harder just given the nature of the query. But you should use the Play Index. You should tweet fun facts from it. And you should use the coupon code BP to get the discounted price of $30 on a one-year subscription. So that is it for tonight. We will be back tomorrow.