World Cup: Midcourse Corrections

I feel that this is an opportune moment to review the World Cup: the past (games so far), present (today’s games), and future (the rounds to come, and some recommendations for future tournaments). My policy for the blog requires also that I review the (generally sad) state of my forecasts, as well.  At this moment, 44 of the 63 competitive games have been played; 13 teams have qualified for the Round of 16; 11 teams are eliminated, while the eight teams playing today (Thursday) will decide the remaining three spots (Belgium is guaranteed a spot, but whether it finishes first or second is yet to be determined).

State of Play:  I have to say that that the competitive level and entertainment value of the tournament so far has been a rousing success.  Without researching the statistics on this, I would guess that the number of goals is up from 2010 by 20-30%, but even more importantly, there have been very few games where teams just showed up, gave a halfhearted effort  and settled for a result—even the 0-0 games have had their moments (such as Brazil-Mexico).

Another factor making this year’s version a success is the evident parity, and resulting in increased possibility of surprising outcomes.  Only two teams will exit without gaining at least a standings point from a win or draw (Australia and Honduras), and only three teams have won all three of their games (Colombia, Netherlands and Argentina, with Belgium’s third game today).   It seems that all the teams are good enough to have had at least one competitive game, and all the strong teams have enough weaknesses to have had at least one game in which they were not dominant (definitely true for Argentina, vs. Iran; Colombia and Netherlands had to come from behind to win in one of their games.

Then there have been the group-level-result surprises.  Costa Rica’s winning its group was a complete surprise—most would have predicted the Ticos for fourth place, behind three past winners (Italy, England, and Uruguay).  Spain’s unexpected collapse, of course, has to be mentioned.  Algeria and Iran showed more than expected.  After barely making it out of qualifying, Mexico’s strong first-round performance counts as a surprise. Despite having finished as runner-up in 2010, few saw Netherlands’ superior performance coming—or France’s, after their disastrous 2010.  Only a few spotted Belgium’s potential to emerge so strongly (I, in a contrarian failure, saw it, and decided it was overstated).

Finally, we need to acknowledge the strong performance of the Americas in the tournament so far.  In the six groups that have concluded play, 7 of 9 teams from the Western Hemisphere have gone forward (only Honduras and Ecuador, both from Group F, did not do so), while 10 of 15 teams from the other continents did not qualify for the next round.  There is only one team—the United States—from the Americas among the eight teams playing today, but I give thenorteamericanos a better-than-even chance of advancing (see below).  Geography may have contributed—there is the well-known fact that a team from the Americas has won every time the event has been conducted there—but the rigorous battle to qualify in South America has produced nothing but quality, while the North/Central America (plus Caribbean) region, called CONCACAF, has earned new respect as well. 

My performance in the prediction bracket competition (mine on ESPN) has not been so scintillating; the errors above were among the many.  I generally did OK in picking group winners (with the exception of Costa Rica and Holland) but quite badly in picking the second-place teams.  So, my mediocre ranking may rise a bit if things return more to form later (see below).  With regard to the other contest ESPN has, in which you pick every game (in the first round, you either pick the favorite to win or the underdog to win or draw; I like the format) I am doing much better, in the high-90's percentile (and at the top of the two groups I joined, "Fans of San Marino" and "Fans of Taiwan")*.  I went a bit more outside the normal bounds of expected results and was rewarded, though I am still not anywhere near the prize-winning levels. 

Today’s Games

Two groups play their final first-round games, and all eight teams have, at least nominally, something to play for.   In each group there is one game of primary importance and one more secondary.

 

In Group H, with the late games, the key one is the game which is basically for second place, between Algeria and Russia.  The significance of the other game, Belgium-South Korea, depends almost entirely on the outcome of Algeria-Russia:  if Algeria doesn’t win, and win big (by at least two goals), Belgium has nothing to worry about to claim first place in the group.  If Algeria does win, South Korea can do nothing.  If Russia can win or get a draw, though, then the other game comes into play more:  If Russia draws with Algeria, it is out, but South Korea can get second with a big win over Belgium (which will have no stake in its game); if Russia wins, South Korea could edge it out with a sufficiently large win.  The most probable outcome is that the Algeria-Russia winner (or Algeria, in the case of a draw) will get second and Belgium gets first.

In Group G, the so-called “Group of Death”, the most salient question (with all due respect to the others’ fates) is what will happen to the United States, and that depends mostly (but not entirely) on the game of Germany vs. the USMNT (the awkward official initialization—US Men’s National Team—which the press has adopted given the proliferation of other “American” teams).   The other game, Ghana-Portugal, is of secondary importance:  Ghana has a chance depending on certain US-Germany outcomes, while Portugal needs both to win big and get lucky with the other game to have a chance.

The range of outcomes, and my estimate of their likelihood, is as follows:

• US defeats Germany (any score):  US gets first and Germany gets second, unless the Germans get beaten by a lot of goals (US first – 10%, Germany not second – 0.1%)
• US and Germany draw:  Germany gets first on goal difference, US gets second (25%)
• US loses, Ghana wins, and the sum of US margin of defeat and Ghana margin of victory >2:  Germany gets first, Ghana second (15%)
• US loses, Ghana wins, and the sum of US margin of defeat and Ghana margin of victory =2:  Depends on the number of goals scored by US and Ghana in today’s games.  The US has four goals in two games, Ghana has three, so if Ghana scores two more than the US, it gets second. (5%)
• If (US loses, Ghana wins, each by one goal, and…) Ghana scores one more goal than the US, the US advances based on its head-to-head record (a win) vs. Ghana; (9%)
• If (given US loss, Ghana win, each by one goal) Ghana scores the same number of goals as the US, or less, the US advances—same standings points, same goal difference, but a higher number of goals scored.  (10%)
• US loses, but Ghana doesn’t win—Germany gets first, US gets second, unless the sum of the US margin of defeat and Ghana’s margin of defeat> 4.  (24%)
• If that sum>5, Portugal goes through as second (1%)
• If it’s 5, then goals scored (US has 4, Portugal 2, so far) would be next, head-to-head wouldn’t help, and it could actually come down to a random drawing of lots.  (1% for all those possible outcomes)

This adds up to the following:  First place: Germany - 90%, US - 10%; Second place:  Germany 9.9%; US – 68% (plus a little); Ghana 20% (plus a little); Portugal 1% (plus a very little), those three little bits adding up to 1.1%.  I will check later (and put in comment) what Nate Silver’s estimates are on Fivethirtyeight.com.

This (78%+ chance of advancing) is a pretty decent situation for the US, and they earned it.  The win against Ghana was an extremely tough test of their will which they passed with flying colors.  The draw against Portugal was disappointing in the end, due to the magnificent, Beckham-esque crossing pass made in the fifth and final minute of second-half stoppage time by Cristiano Ronaldo (who had an otherwise bad game:  he seems to have trouble, whether a knee problem or a brain one, getting his shots off), but I thought the US strategy was excellent (midfield press, coordinated forward movement, long Klinsmann-esque passes down the flanks), and they dominated all but the first ten minutes and the last half-minute.  But sometimes that gap is enough to lose the game, so the US shouldn’t feel cheated.

The problem for the US, which I hope emerges clearly from the analysis above, is that a defeat vs. Germany is quite probable, while Portugal has little hope to gain anything from its game with Ghana. (If you follow through with all the numbers above, I’ve got Ghana winning 60% of the time within the 65% of the probability in which its outcome matters.) We US backers (I avoid the term “USA” at all costs) must hope for Portugal to play well out of pride and that we avoid disaster vs. Germany.  This suggests the US may be cautious, but that would be a mistake:  goals scored could be a decisive factor.  The best strategy is to come out aggressively, contest the Germans, then, if things start to go bad, don’t overcompensate, hunker down, take a one-goal defeat, and hope Ghana doesn’t win big.

Looking Ahead—Remainder of the 2014 Tourney

If we look at the Round of 16, it is set up so that a group winner faces a runner-up in each match.  Picking the favorites in those (and assuming Groups G and H play out as they currently stand), we would get the following matchups in the quarterfinals:  Brazil-Colombia, France-Germany, Holland-Costa Rica, and Argentina-Belgium.  That would, in my view, lead to expected semifinals of Brazil-Germany and Holland-Argentina, and to the Brazil-Argentina final I have always expected.  (The big change is the disappearance of Spain, with Holland the mostly likely winner from that quarter of the bracket.) Based on experience to date, I would expect about 25% of those individual game predictions to be wrong, from the Round of 16 to the Semifinals. 

So, where are the upsets most likely?   In the “top left” quarter we have four South American teams—Brazil-Chile and Colombia-Uruguay in the Round of 16.  These teams are all familiar with each other; established history of the various matchups might give a clue, but I would say that Colombia-Brazil in the quarterfinals could be the place for one of the most consequential upsets in the whole tourney, one that upsets all the conventional thinking (the equivalent of Holland over Spain in the first round).  Holland-Mexico appears to be a very interesting Round of 16 matchup, but I maintain my skepticism with regard to Costa Rica in that quarter.  Obviously, if Germany does not finish first in its group it will have a great effect, as they would (probably) then play Belgium and likely face Argentina in the quarterfinal.  Finally, either France or Belgium has shown the potential to go far in the tournament, though they would probably have to go through Germany or Argentina, respectively; though, inversely, I think the US would present a serious threat to Belgium in the Round of 16 if it ends up second in its group (and Belgium first in its one).

Longer Range Thinking

The international soccer sponsoring body, FIFA, may feel reduced pressure because the tournament has satisfied, but I think they should not be let off the hook.  In particular, their approach to selection of locale and follow-through on the host's execution was deficient in the case of Brazil and, so far, looks even worse for the next two places they have selected (Russia/Poland in 2018, and Qatar! In 2022).  Unfortunately, in these matters they seem to answer to no one.

In terms of lessons from this tournament, it is obvious that the referees need the help which is available through instant replay for critical decisions.  I would propose something like the challenge system which exists now in tennis, American football, and baseball, which allows for a severely limited ability to challenge coming from the team which feels it has been hurt by a referee or line judge’s ruling.  The challenge must come “immediately” (say, within 10 seconds). These would be mostly for decisions that were called, or that should have been called, for: offsides, fouls resulting in a penalty kick or a red card. (Replay is already used to determine whether the ball crosses the goal line in the case of a possible goal.)  One challenge per team, per half, maximum, with a two-minute break for the referees to have one of their own consult the video replays and make a decision, overturning the originaldecision only when there is definitive evidence.

Finally, the Third Place Game has always been a bugaboo for me—it violates the general spirit of professional soccer and is basically a glorified exhibition game.  With these highly paid athletes, the risk of injury is too high to waste on a meaningless game.  They should cancel this one, but I would take it further and suggest consideration of cancellation of any game which cannot have an effect on the group-level qualifications:   due to the parity I discussed before, there has only been one this year which, in advance, was known not to have any possible effect—Spain vs. England (several others ended up having no effect, but they might have had some conditional on differing outcomes in the other game held simultaneously).  In those cases of useless games, they should give all the ticket-holders a voucher for the value of the ticket and let them spend them in the country.  The tourism industry will benefit, and no one will be hurt. 

*Don't ask why; basically they were chosen as small groups where I could find easily where I stand. 

Hillary Clinton - The Polk Option

A few days ago, I was at an event for Bernie Sanders.  The inevitable subject came up of a possible Sanders run for President, and Bernie said, quite reasonably, "All who say they want to be President are certifiably insane."  This by way of saying that, while he has no desire to be President--and the experience of President Obama, but pretty much any other President, would serve as evidence of the difficulty, and the undesirability, of the Presidency as a lifestyle--he may end up deciding to run, because he would feel the country would benefit from a vigorous discussion of the issues, as he sees them, in the course of the 2016 Democratic nomination campaign.

With all due respect to Senator Sanders, though, his decision is a different one than that which (Secretary?/Senator? which is the more appropriate honorific title?) Hillary Clinton will need to make, because Sanders has absolutely no chance of winning the Presidency and having to serve the country in that awful, awesome capacity.  It has been reliably reported that Hillary is having some trouble with leaving her life as a private citizen to make the run, though we all know that, in the end, she will end up going for it (publishing her book is only the latest evidence of the ultimate decision).  Having run for President once, it would be hard to imagine a hard-core politica like her passing up a gold-plated brass-ring opportunity to take the Democratic nomination--against some token forms of opposition, which may or may not include VP Joe Biden--and to rout whichever Republican loser allows himself most successfully to be shoehorned into the right wing-tip in order to survive his party's ridiculous nomination process.

Clinton would be both a highly popular Presidential candidate and an extremely controversial one. She will face dug-in, fanatical opposition from the day she announces, but also will be able to draw on a broad and deep base of support which any other national candidate could only envy.  If she plays her hand well, she would have the possibility of dealing a mortal blow to her opponents--those who she once infelicitously, if not inaccurately, characterized as a "vast right-wing conspiracy".  She could win a wave election of such magnitude that it would sweep away the current concerns which have dogged President Obama since 2010: those of a divided Congress, of the lack of a filibuster-proof majority.  Her win could even recall the power which FDR had in 1936 after his re-election, when not even a hostile Supreme Court could stand in opposition to his reforms; his threat to "pack the Court" with his supporters caused the cowed Supremos to make peace with the Administration's goals, and a rousing Clinton victory could do the same, either by bringing the Waverer, Justice Anthony Kennedy, over to grudging support, or by inducing despair, an early grave or resignation, to one or more of the hardcore four right-wingers on the Court. Either of those would be all that she would need.

I would suggest that she take as a role model the winner of one of the most heatedly partisan Presidential elections in American history, the 1844 election that elected James K. Polk.  Polk's route to the Presidency was completely different from the presumed Hillary coronation stroll--he was a compromise choice of a divided Democratic convention; however, his campaign had a powerful theme which unified his party and its fellow travelers--in this case, the US' Manifest Destiny, meaning an aggressive approach to settling the dispute over the Oregon Territory, and in particular, an aggressive approach toward defying Mexico's claims and admitting Texas to the Union--and that strength allowed Polk and the Democrats to overcome determined Whig opposition to their aims.

In the event, after some political chicanery involving lame-duck President Tyler and a narrow victory over Henry Clay, Polk's election gained the campaign's aims--statehood for Texas, agreement on the Oregon Territory--even before he was inaugurated.  He went on to pursue with great success the Mexican War, which produced incomparable gains of territory and wealth for the country, and he fulfilled his campaign promise by resisting all appeals and refusing to run for re-election. Historians rate Polk's administration very highly for its accomplishments, even if he himself has become, to the average American, just one of many unrecognized pre-Civil War Presidents.

OK, I'm not suggesting Hillary start a war with our neighbors to pursue Manifest Destiny; that has already been done and dusted, and I will give no credit for the motives, or for any beneficial short-term results, of the slave-owning Democratic warmongers' policies, such as those of Polk or hardcore pro-slavery Senator John C. Calhoun.  The relevant points I want to suggest to Hillary and her entourage as they consider their options are: 1) she should announce that, if elected, she promises not to run for re-election in 2020; and 2) she should have a clear theme and a popular program that can be achieved in one term with sufficient electoral success in 2016.

So, what is the theme and program that Hillary should propose?  My answer is that she should aim at the completion of the task which her husband started, which Al Gore and John Kerry were denied the chance to pursue by Bushite neocon reaction, and which Barack Obama was frustrated in completing due to 18th-century House of Orange-style Tory intransigence:  the transition of this country into a 21st-century model of a multi-racial, non-imperialist, progressive democracy.  The program needs to be both practical and highly political, with sensible economic and foreign policy aspects.   A few basic elements to specify:

1) A Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United*, and support for a variety of measures--such as ease of registration, Federal control over redistricting abuse, absentee or early voting- to open up and facilitate popular (as opposed to elitist) participation in the political process;
2)  A new set of environmental measures suited to addressing the challenge of climate change;
3) Investment in infrastructure, education, and retraining for a competitive future economy;
4) Settling the long-term budgetary issues of the retirement and healthcare programs in a way that deals equitably with each generation's concerns and assures the programs' long-term survival; and
5) Continuing the successful foreign and defense policies of the Obama Administration, which have replaced interventionism with thoughtful, multilateral engagement and reduced the cost in American blood and treasure.

This last one may seem to be a stretch today, as we "watch" Putin mess with the Ukraine, the Arab Spring give way to a seemingly endless long, hot Arab Summer, and endure various indignities from resurgent Chinese and from uncooperative Iranians, Israelis, Iraqis, Afghans and, no doubt next, ambitious Indians. The point is, retaining influence while staying out of direct involvement in conflict is a challenging task.  Based on her record, though, Hillary can enter into strategic debate with a presumed neocon Establishment Republican adversary without seeming wimpy, but she can also (unlike some new Bush, or Bushite, President) govern as a peacemaker, utilizing effectively the many connections she made as an active Secretary of State.   And there will be plenty of opportunities to make peace.

Then, after smashing the glass ceiling--accomplished merely through winning the election--and achieving a definitive defeat of this wayward, schizoid version of a national Republican party--one which will either re-orient it more constructively or seal its doom as a viable national party--followed by a successful re-focusing of the nation's energies on a positive future vision, she can avoid the ugly question of "oldest President ever?"** and yield to a new generation of youthful Democratic leaders who can carry us boldly and proudly into the uncertain times waiting for our future.

 "Vision 2020" is a slogan just waiting for them to take up.  For that matter, it would be a good campaign slogan for would-be President Hillary Clinton.

 *Although the Clintons in particular, and the Democratic party establishment in general,  have done well in this massive fundraising/massive spending political environment, the chance to revenge the Citizens United group which targeted her specifically should be appealing from a vendetta standpoint.   
**Technically, she would end a hypothetical second term in January, 2025 a few months younger than Reagan did, but I hope you get my point about her seeking to avoid the bitter old lady meme as insistently as Obama has avoided the angry black man one.

The Whole World's Watching...

Brazil has led with its chin, but that's legal, although painful, in soccer.  With a well-developed domestic league, it could have simply designated its largest eight stadiums for renovation and presentation for the World Cup games.  Instead, it has created some massive boondoggle--a stadium in the jungle that will be used for four games and then possibly left to rot,  another new one that will not be ready for the games--and some bad P.R. amongst its citizens.  I suspect that--like similar problems for the Olympics, or with South Africa for its 2010 games--these will recede once the actual games begin tomorrow.  The message--you listening, Poland, Russia, and Qatar?--is don't bite off more more than you can chew (or handle, if you prefer).

In terms of my predictions for the tournament, there have been a lot of changes in the anticipated personnel (due to injuries and such), but not much change in the big picture since my posting when the groups were announced last fall.  If the task is to identify the final four teams, I find there is little to debate:  any logical, probabilistic look at the brackets and the talent would come up with a clear, most-likely pair of semifinal matchups:  Brazil-Germany, and Argentina-Spain.  The winning teams from within those could be debated endlessly, and the finals as well, with plenty of room to make cases for any outcome, but it's hard to argue that those are not going to be the final four. 

And yet:  The whole thing could get upset in the second day of the first round, if Netherlands could pull off an upset of Spain.  If Spain finishes second in its group (and Brazil first in its), then Brazil and Spain would meet in the round of 16, which would inevitably leave an opening for some other team in that spot in that upper-right corner of the bracket (and the possibilities would be many).  So, that would be something that would immediately make the whole first three rounds a lot more interesting and thus something to root for, regardless of your preference (unless it's for Spain).   Is it possible?  Yes; likely, no.  Netherlands and Spain met in the finals of the last World Cup, but Spain's national fortunes remain extremely strong, while the Dutch performed poorly enough to lose their seeding among the top eight (they are currently ranked 15th). Simple factual evidence that Spain has the strongest national league comes from its Liga having produced the two finalists in this year's Champions Cup as well as the winner of the Europa Cup; granted, many of the players are from South America and elsewhere, but it does mean that Spain's players, in general, are in the fray at the highest level week in and out.  There is also another contender in the group to consider:  Chile has been looking very strong, and the Chileans could also throw the calculations of that group into disarray, by defeating either Netherlands or Spain. 

Besides the broadly and accurately lamented "Group of Death" with Germany, Portugal, the US, and Ghana, there is another complex and interesting group competition, one that could bear on that upper right corner: Group D has Uruguay (semifinalist in 2010), 2006 champs Italy, and England, along with a respectable, though probably overmatched, team from Costa Rica.  Uruguay has the top striker from the 2013-14 Premier League, Luis Suarez (Liverpool), but he may not be 100% for the tournament, and also some other top players.  Italy will have its usual tough defense and a set of question marks up front, while England looks decent and could pull a surprise. 

So, like a men's tennis Grand Slam these days, there is plenty of good competition in the early rounds, even if we all know who it's most likely to boil down to in the end (i.e., Nadal and Djokovic).   There are a lot of groups in which there's a likely winner but plenty of doubt about the selection of the second-place team which will get through.

Here are eight other first-round games (besides Spain-Netherlands on June 13) of intrinsic interest which should have some bearing on the teams which will advance:

England - Italy (June 14)
Russia - South Korea (June 17)
Uruguay - England (June 19)
US - Portugal (June 22)
Netherlands - Chile (June 23)
Croatia - Mexico (June 23)
Greece - Ivory Coast (June 24)
South Korea - Belgium (June 26)

In terms of my "official" predictions for the record, I went mostly with the chalk (based on FIFA rankings) or with very credible substitutions (France over Switzerland for first, Ivory Coast over Greece and South Korea over Russia for second places).  You can see them at 'chinshihtang2' on espn's bracket game (easily found in the group "Fans of Singapore").   Still thinking Brazil-Argentina in the final.  I'm hoping the US can dislodge Portugal, but I wouldn't (didn't) bet upon it happening. 

      

Cali Chrome for the Crown?

In the Belmont Stakes Saturday California Chrome will attempt to be the first horse to win the Triple Crown for 3-year-olds since Affirmed in 1978.  Amazingly enough, since then 11 horses have won the first two races, the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness, but come up short in this, the extreme test.  The combination of three races in five weeks and the longer distance (1 1/2 miles, vs. the 1 1/4 miles of the Derby and 1 3/16 of the Preakness) has been a tough challenge for modern-day thoroughbreds to overcome.

California Chrome has been installed as a 3-5 favorite (five chances in eight) to win.  I would have to say to bet against that; not that I don't think the horse can win, but the odds should not be that short.  I am no expert on the field, but surely there are other top horses, most likely there are ones who are bred and trained more specifically for the longer distance.

What I will be looking for, and what the horse's trainer must insist upon to jockey Victor Espinoza, and he then to the horse, is not to make its move too soon.  That home stretch seems to go on forever (the 1 1/2 mile race is once around the track--Belmont Park's track is longer than most), and when the inevitable challenger makes a bid coming around the bend, C.Chrome must hold off.  It should stay in contact with the leaders, as is its habit and form in prior races, but hold back from that early move, which has been the downfall of a couple of the recent First Two'ers, instead keeping a bit in reserve for the final quarter mile. It should be a great race.

NBA Update
After some dramatic first-round series, things took a more predictable turn, with the final four teams being the first two in each conference.  Of my two upset picks, the Nets did well to win their first series but folded up against the Heat, and something got in the way of Houston's second-round upset of San Antonio:  a first round defeat by Portland.  The surprise of the playoffs was the Washington Wizards, led by John Wall, who is maturing into  top point guard and team leader.  The saga of the Los Angeles Clippers goes on and on, but with new ownership they may finally be ready to live up to expectations.

In the final, the rematch of the Heat and Spurs has plenty of attraction.  I am looking for the Spurs to pull this one out in what must surely be the last go-round at the top for Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili, but it won't be easy.  The first game's result, tainted by the faulty air conditioning which sapped LeBron James of his ability to dominate the fourth quarter, should be discounted, but it's still a win, and the Spurs have the home-court advantage.

Baseball Update
Not too much has emerged so far, through one-third of the year, except that pitching has re-emerged on top this year, and injuries are leading the news items day after day.  There are more pitchers with top form, but their ability to stay healthy with this great stuff seems somewhat weaker.  I don't think it's primarily the passing of the steroid/PED phase (which had generally already happened).  Now, the pitcher who can't control the opposing offense is more the exception, rather than the one who can do (which was the exception--think of Pedro Martinez, Cliff Lee) a few years ago.

Two teams have broken out of the pack (in the positive direction) with moves that seem sustainable:  the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A's.  This could be the year when MoneyBall goes all the way.  I'm not yet convinced on the Toronto Blue Jays' validity as a top team, certainly not on the Milwaukee Brewers'.  We should still look for Detroit, St. Louis, and Washington to emerge as division winners.

In terms of players, Troy Tulowitzki has once again shown that he is the best spring player in baseball.  It seems that his team, the Colorado Rockies, is quickly learning to lose despite his heroics, and we shall see if he can stay healthy for a full season, which should earn him an MVP.  In the AL, Miguel Cabrera is having another Albert Pujols-in-his-prime kind of season, and "rookie" Masahiro Tanaka of the Yankees has been the best pitcher in the (North American) majors.  Let's see if the league can figure him out soon.