• U.S.

Baseball: Four for One

2 minute read
TIME

The Sept. 7, 1967, American League standings may some day rate a niche of their own in baseball’s Hall of Fame.

Standing of the Clubs

W. L. Pc. G.B.

Chicago……78 61 .561 —

Minnesota….78 61 .561 —

Boston……79 62 .560 —

Detroit……79 62 .560 —

California……72 67 .518 6

Washington……66 74 .471 12½

Cleveland……65 76 .461 14

Baltimore……62 75 .453 15

New York……62 78 .443 16½

Kansas City……57 82 .410 21

After five months and 698 games of baseball, four teams were virtually deadlocked for the league lead, separated by a single percentage point. Nothing like that had ever happened before. Just suppose, somebody asked League President Joe Cronin, that all four should still be tied at season’s end. Sighed Cronin: “I guess we just keep playing right on through the winter.”

They may have to, because none of the four teams seems capable of launching a winning streak that would allow it to pull away in the final three weeks. The Chicago White Sox have solid pitching, but they also have a team batting average of .229. The Boston Red Sox can hit, but their pitching is so shaky that Manager Dick Williams is talking about using his lone ace, Righthander Jim Lonborg (record: 19-7), every two days. The Minnesota Twins and the Detroit Tigers need heavy slugging from their superstars, Harmon Killebrew and Al Kaline. Yet as of last week, Minnesota’s Killebrew had clouted only three home runs in his last 68 times at bat, and Detroit’s Kaline had collected only four base hits in his last 24 trips to the plate.

The bookies’ favorite (odds: 7-5) is Boston, because the Red Sox play most of their remaining games in Fenway Park—and all of them against second-division teams, except for a two-game series with Minnesota. The Twins (odds: 8-5) still have three games left with the Chicago White Sox (2-1), who in turn must play two against the Detroit Tigers (2-1). Whichever team wins is practically certain to be a solid underdog in next month’s World Series against the St. Louis Cardinals.

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com