‘Real’ Buehler helps put Dodgers on cusp of title
-
Alden Gonzalez, ESPN Staff Writer
NEW YORK — Walker Buehler had spent all year wondering if he’d ever recapture who he was, when his fastball was overpowering and his confidence was unrivaled. By the time he took the mound for Game 3 of the World Series, he had evolved from searching to accepting to surviving over these past six months. If he was going to give his Los Angeles Dodgers a chance in the biggest of games, Buehler thought, he’d basically have to reinvent himself every time he toed the rubber in October.
And then, somehow, in what might be his last game as a Dodger, the old Buehler showed up.
In front of a hostile Yankee Stadium crowd and against a desperate-yet-overpowering New York Yankees lineup, Buehler cruised through five scoreless innings, riding a suddenly lively fastball and setting the tone in a backbreaking 4-2 victory on Monday night. The Dodgers have now taken a commanding 3-0 lead in this World Series, sitting just one win away from their first title in four years and their first full-season championship since 1988. Buehler’s best self showed up just in time to put them there.
“There’s a lot of questions about him,” Dodgers right fielder Mookie Betts said. “But when those lights turn on, this is the real Walker Buehler.”
Freddie Freeman, looking healthier than he has all month, gave the Dodgers an immediate two-run lead with a first-inning homer, his third in a stretch of six at-bats. Betts continued his stirring October, working a nine-pitch at-bat to drive in a run in the top of the third and making a sprawling catch in the bottom of the fourth. As a whole, the Dodgers continued to be sound on defense and stingy on offense.
But it was Buehler who set the tone, allowing just four baserunners — two via hit, two via walk — and striking out five. It was surprising, but it also felt familiar. Buehler previously pitched seven scoreless innings against the Boston Red Sox in Game 3 of the 2018 World Series and six innings of one-run ball against the Tampa Bay Rays in Game 3 of the 2020 World Series. His 0.50 ERA is the sixth lowest for a pitcher’s first three World Series starts since earned runs became an official statistic in 1913. It might not be a coincidence.
“I think, as kind of brutal as it is to say, it takes that adrenaline and stuff to really get me going mentally,” Buehler said. “I wish I would have felt that all year. I could tell you I’m excited to pitch every single game I’ve ever gone out there, but there is something different in the playoffs.
“At least long term for me, to get through the playoffs in the way that I have, it’s really encouraging for me personally because I know it’s in there and I’ve just got to unlock it a little bit. But that feeling of there’s an organization relying on me today to win a playoff game — I think it’s the weight that I like feeling and gets me in a certain place mentally that it’s kind of hard to replicate.”
Buehler, a free agent at season’s end, generated six swing-and-misses on his fastball, his most since 2021. That year, Buehler finished fourth in National League Cy Young Award voting, going 16-4 with a 2.47 ERA. He was 27 and looked like one of the game’s best pitchers. Then he struggled through the first 2½ months of 2022 and underwent a second Tommy John surgery that didn’t place him back atop a major league mound until May of this season.
Buehler posted a 5.84 ERA in his first eight regular-season starts and a 4.93 ERA over his last eight regular-season starts. In between, he landed on the IL with a hip injury and went on hiatus to a private performance facility in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, in hopes of rediscovering himself.
Buehler’s inclusion on the Dodgers’ postseason rotation was a product of the injuries that prevented the likes of Tyler Glasnow, Clayton Kershaw and Gavin Stone from contributing. But October has brought out something different in him. It began in Game 3 of the National League Division Series, during which Buehler gave up six runs in a second inning that saw the Dodgers’ defense make a multitude of mistakes but followed with three scoreless innings to save the bullpen. In Game 3 of the NL Championship Series, he rode a highly effective curveball to continually get out of jams and keep the New York Mets scoreless through four innings. In Game 3 of the World Series, that fastball was back. So was everything else.
“I thought his stuff was as good as it’s been all year,” Dodgers manager Dave Roberts said. “I thought the fastball had life. The cutter was good. The curveball was good. He pitched all quadrants and kept those guys honest, kept them at bay. There was no stress.”
Buehler found comfort in pitching from the stretch during his last start from Citi Field. It’s far more tiring than pitching from the windup because he has to exert more force to throw at his normal velocity, Buehler explained, but it keeps his mechanics tight. It also can be a tool to mess with opposing hitters’ timing.
“I think, as kind of brutal as it is to say, it takes that adrenaline and stuff to really get me going mentally. I wish I would have felt that all year. I could tell you I’m excited to pitch every single game I’ve ever gone out there, but there is something different in the playoffs.”
Dodgers Game 3 starter Walker Buehler
Buehler began Game 3 with a leadoff walk but followed by retiring Juan Soto, Aaron Judge and Giancarlo Stanton in order. Shortly thereafter, he struck out four consecutive batters on four different pitches — a fastball, a curveball, a sweeper and a sinker. The Yankees threatened with a Stanton double and an Anthony Volpe single in the fourth, but Teoscar Hernandez gunned Stanton down at home to end the inning. Buehler then cruised through the bottom of the order in the fifth, handing the game over to the Dodgers’ high-leverage relievers.
Starting pitching was by far the Dodgers’ biggest concern, both in this series and throughout the playoffs. And yet Jack Flaherty, Yoshinobu Yamamoto and Buehler have combined to post a 1.62 ERA, stifling the Yankees’ biggest advantage and putting L.A. one win away from its first title since the pandemic-shortened 2020 season. Buehler won his last two starts in those playoffs, blanking the Atlanta Braves with the Dodgers’ season on the line in Game 6 of the NLCS and coming back to pitch six innings of one-run ball against the Rays the following round.
Four years later — after a stretch that saw him go from dominant to bad, injured, recovering, ineffective and, lastly, uncertain — that man reemerged at the most important time.
As Buehler said, “It makes the regular season worth it for me.”
-
Greg Wyshynski, ESPN
No, the Winnipeg Jets haven’t already won the Stanley Cup, although one can be excused for feeling that way.
The Jets started the season 12-1-0, becoming the sixth team in NHL history to win 12 of their first 13 games of a season. They’ve outscored everyone in front of the player whom many consider the best goaltender in the world in Connor Hellebuyck. Things are certainly trending in their direction.
Some early-season trends in the NHL stick. Others are a distant memory by the end of the season: Please recall the Edmonton Oilers‘ horrific first month that preceded a resurgent run to the final game of the season in the Stanley Cup Final.
Injuries and slumps happen. Fans get their hopes up, only to be let down.
Here are trends for all 32 teams from the 2024-25 season thus far that we’re testing with our patented (OK, patent-pending) “Trend-o-meter” to see how valid they are — from certain to stick (10) to probably just a blip (1).
Jump to a team:
ANA | BOS | BUF | CGY
CAR | CHI | COL | CBJ
DAL | DET | EDM | FLA
LA | MIN | MTL | NSH
NJ | NYI | NYR | OTT
PHI | PIT | SJ | SEA
STL | TB | TOR | UT
VAN | VGK | WSH | WPG
Atlantic Division
Jim Montgomery will keep his job (by any means necessary)
Despite preseason platitudes from his bosses, Bruins coach Jim Montgomery does not have a contract with Boston beyond this season. That led to some “hot seat” speculation when the Bruins stumbled out of the gate, although they were 6-6-1 by the end of October.
It’s a pressure-packed situation in Boston, as the optics have underscored. Bruins fans have seen Montgomery tear into captain Brad Marchand on the bench after a turnover and bench leading scorer David Pastrnak in the third period of a recent game. Boston players, including Marchand himself, treated the situations like nothing out of the ordinary. But it certainly feels as if Montgomery is desperately trying to get the attention of his team early.
And why not? He’s not the reason that Jeremy Swayman is playing as if he didn’t have a training camp or that management felt Joonas Korpisalo could replace Linus Ullmark. He’s the not the reason that a good complementary player like Elias Lindholm was imported to be a No. 1 center or that they didn’t sufficiently replace Jake DeBrusk‘s offense. It’s his job on the line, though. Do as you will, Monty.
Trend-o-meter rating: 10
In the new 12-team College Football Playoff format, there is an added emphasis on conference championships. The four highest-ranked conference champions receive a first-round bye and a fifth conference champion is guaranteed a spot in the field. Those champions will be determined by conference title games held Dec. 6-7.
But in a college football landscape that has mostly done away with divisions and with some conferences expanding to as many as 18 teams, it can be difficult to figure out who is in line to reach those conference title games.
We’re here to help out. Below are the list of tiebreakers for each league to help determine conference championship game participants.
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)
4. Combined win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by the ACC commissioner
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.
1. Combined head-to-head win percentage among the tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)
2. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
2a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated
3. Win percentage against common opponents
4. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings
5. Combined win percentage of conference opponents
6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
7. Draw administered by the ACC commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against the next-highest common opponent in the conference standings; in case of tied teams in standings, use each team’s win percentage against all of those teams
4. Combined win percentage in conference games of conference opponents (strength of conference schedule)
5. Total wins over the 12-game season (only one win against teams from FCS or lower division will be counted)
6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
7. Coin toss
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams. When reduced to two tied teams, the two-team tiebreakers will be used.
1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)
1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
1b. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated
2. Win percentage against all common opponents
3. Record against next-highest common opponent in conference standings; in case of tied teams in standings, use each team’s win percentage against all of those teams
4. Combined win percentage in conference games of conference opponents (strength of conference schedule)
5. Total wins over the 12-game season (only one win against teams from FCS or lower division will be counted)
6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
7. Coin toss
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by the Big Ten commissioner
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams. When reduced to two tied teams, the two-team tiebreakers will be used.
1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams
1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
2. Win percentage against all common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by the Big Ten commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams: if a two-team tiebreaker will not break a tie, combined records against tied common opponents will be used)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher relative total scoring margin against all conference opponents (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Random draw
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.
1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)
1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
1b. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated
2. Record against all common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams; if a two-team tiebreaker will not break a tie, combined records against tied common opponents will be used)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher relative total scoring margin against all conference opponents (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Random draw
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. If one team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings (and didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season)
2a. If one team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings and lost in the final weekend of the regular season, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
2b. If both teams are ranked, the higher-ranked team that didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season (if both lose, a composite average of metrics)
2c. If neither team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
3. Win percentage against common conference opponents
4. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) excluding exempt games
5. Coin toss
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.
1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)
1a. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams
2. If the highest-ranked team in the latest CFP rankings that didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season
2a. If the highest-ranked team loses in final weekend of regular season, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
2b. If multiple ranked teams in the CFP rankings, the highest ranked team(s) that wins in the final weekend of the regular season
2c. If all ranked teams lose on the final weekend, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
2d. If no teams are ranked in the final CFP rankings, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
3. Win percentage against common conference opponents
4. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) excluding exempt games
5. Coin toss
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie and three-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Highest CFP rankings going into the final weekend (if team wins in the final weekend)
3. Highest average ranking of four computer rankings (Connelly SP+, SportSource, ESPN SOR, KPI Rankings)
4. Highest average ranking of two computer rankings (SportSource, KPI Rankings)
5. Highest most recently published multiyear football Academic Progress Rate (if same, most recent year)
6. Draw administered by commissioner’s designee
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents based on MAC finish (breaking ties) from top-to-bottom of conference
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by Team Rating Score metric (SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by MAC commissioner
Three-team tie:
1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)
2. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams
3. Win percentage against all common opponents
4. Win percentage against all common opponents based on finish (with ties broken)
5. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
6. Higher ranking by Team Rating Score metric (SportSource Analytics)
7. Draw administered by MAC commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Highest CFP ranking (if team wins in the final weekend)
2a. If only or both CFP ranked teams loses in the final weekend (or if there is no ranked teams), an average of metrics will be used
3. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference)
4. Record against the next-highest team in the conference standings (tied teams will be lumped together if tied teams played all those teams)
5. Win percentage against common conference opponents
6. Coin toss conducted virtually by the commissioner
Three-plus team tie:
1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)
2. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams
3. Highest CFP ranking among teams to win in the final weekend
4. Average of selected metrics (if ranked team loses or if no teams ranked)
5. Overall win percentage against all opponents (conference and nonconference); maximum one win against FCS or lower-division team
6. Record against the next-highest team in the conference standings (tied teams will be lumped together if tied teams played all those teams)
7. Win percentage against common conference opponents
8. Drawing conducted virtually by the commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie
1. Head-to-head
2. Overall win percentage
3. Win percentage against the next-highest team in the division standings (lumping together tied teams)
4. Win percentage against all common nondivisional conference opponents
5. Higher-ranked teams in the CFP rankings (if it wins in the final regular season week); if the highest-ranked team loses, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)
6. If no team is ranked in the CFP rankings, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)
7. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) against FBS teams
8. Coin toss
Three-plus team tie: (Teams will not revert to two-team tiebreaker once three-plus team tiebreaker is trimmed to two.)
1. Combined head-to-head
2. Divisional win percentage
3. Win percentage against the next-highest team in the division standings (lumping together tied teams)
4. Highest-ranked team in the CFP rankings (if they win in the final weekend of regular season); if that team loses, an average of selected computer rankings
5. If no team is ranked in the CFP rankings, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)
6. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) against FBS teams
7. Draw lots (conducted by commissioner)
Check out the ESPN college football hub page for the latest news, analysis, schedules, rankings and more.
-
Jesse Rogers, ESPN Staff Writer
SAN ANTONIO — Juan Soto will take his time surveying the free agent market before signing with a team, according to his agent Scott Boras.
Speaking at the general manager’s meetings Wednesday, Boras indicated that Soto desires a “thorough” vetting before making a decision.
“Due to the volume of interest and Juan’s desire to hear [from teams], I can’t put a timeframe on it, but it’s going to be a very thorough process for him,” Boras said. “He wants to meet people personally. He wants to talk with them. He wants to hear from them.”
That includes ownership, even for the New York Yankees, for whom he played in 2024 and hit 41 home runs with a league-leading 128 runs scored. Soto helped New York to a World Series appearance, but that doesn’t necessarily give the Yankees a leg up on the competition to sign him.
“He wants ownership that’s going to support that they are going win annually,” Boras said. “Owners want to meet with Juan and sit down and talk with him about what they’re going to provide for their franchise short term and long term.”
Soto’s overall deal is likely to be at least the second largest in MLB history behind Shohei Ohtani‘s 10-year, $700 million contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers.
Boras refused to compare the two players, but stressed Soto’s age (26) as a distinctive factor in teams’ pursuit of his client. Ohtani was 29 when he hit free agency.
“I don’t think Ohtani has much to do with Juan Soto at all,” Boras said. “It’s not something we discuss or consider. … He’s in an age category that separates him.”
Both New York teams have spoken to Boras already, though there are a handful of other big-market franchises that could be in play for his services, including the San Francisco Giants and Toronto Blue Jays.
Boras was asked how the competitive balance tax on payrolls could impact Soto’s free agency.
“I don’t think tax considerations are the focal point when you’re talking about a business opportunity where you can make literally billions of dollars by acquiring somebody like this,” Boras said.
Boras and Soto are only at the beginning stages of what could be a drawn-out process. One thing going for the player, in Boras’ estimation, is that Soto is “pretty well known” considering he has already been on three teams and played in 43 playoff games, including twice in the World Series.
In his agent’s eyes, every winning team should be interested.
“They’re [team executives] called upon to be championship magicians,” Boras said. “Behind every great magician is the magic Juan.”
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports7 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway