Jasson Domínguez becomes youngest player in Yankees history to post 3-HR game
New York Yankees rookie Jasson Domínguez entered Friday with two homers in 31 games on the season. He more than doubled that total against the Athletics, and made some history in the process.
At 22 years and 91 days old, the former top prospect became the youngest player in the storied century-plus history of the Yankees to post a three-homer game. He not only went deep three times, he also did it from both sides of the plate and capped it off with his first career grand slam.
He finished the game 3-for-4 with seven RBI in a 10-2 win.
First career 2-homer game ✅First career 3-homer game ✅Jasson Domínguez is out of this world! pic.twitter.com/ssyNNOiTto
— MLB (@MLB) May 10, 2025
Becoming the youngest Yankee to accomplish the feat is especially notable, given that Domínguez is outpacing the shadows of Hall of Famers like Mickey Mantle, Lou Gehrig and Joe DiMaggio. For reference, Aaron Judge split his age-22 season between Single-A and High-A.
Domínguez began his night striking out swinging against A's starter Osvaldo Bido before getting his revenge with a solo homer in the third inning, then scored another run in the fifth inning with a sacrifice fly.
Against the A's bullpen, Domínguez got his second dinger against Hogan Harris then broke the game completely open with the grand slam in the eighth against Elvis Alvarado.
And that's how you add nearly 100 points to your slugging percentage in one game.
Domínguez began the game slashing .231/.328/.365 and exited it at .250/.339/.463. It was easily the best game of his young MLB career, showcasing the power that kept him on every top-100 prospect list for five years, from his time as a freshly signed teenage prospect to his days punishing Triple-A pitching.
At 22 years old, Domínguez still has plenty of time to add to his game, but the raw power is clearly there already.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
7 minutes ago
- New York Times
Why NBA fans shouldn't be mad about teams' strategy of fouling when leading by 3
I'm having some cognitive dissonance about the 'foul-up-three' ploy the Oklahoma City Thunder used Monday at the end of Game 4 of the Western Conference finals. All I'm reading on social media is that the NBA needs to do something to penalize this strategy because it's too much of an advantage. And all I'm thinking is that the league needs to stop coaches from using this strategy because they keep screwing it up and botching a hugely favorable win-probability scenario. I'm spending the last 20 seconds of every game screaming, 'What are you guys doing?!' at my TV. Advertisement Before we go forward, let's back up. I'm a bit surprised that now is the moment we've decided this is horrible, because the foul-up-three ploy has been around almost as long as the 3-pointer itself. Notably, the Houston Rockets used it at the end of their Game 7 'kiss of death' game against the Phoenix Suns in 1995 after Mario Elie's shot put them up three with 7.1 seconds left. (I'll go more retro: My opponents in a 1989 high school game were trying to foul up three — in only the second year my state had the 3-point line!) Generally speaking, a team with a three-point lead in the final seconds of a game is in an incredibly favorable position. Not only does the opponent have to make a 3 to extend the game, but the opponent knows it has to make a 3 to extend the game. Thus, the 3s you end up seeing in those situations often look like this one, from when the Indiana Pacers conspicuously did not foul up three at the end of Game 2 against New York when the Knicks gained possession with 14.1 seconds left: An opponent 3 doesn't result in a loss; it results in a worst-case scenario of the game being tied and continuing. And often, even in these situations, the opponent 3 comes before the buzzer, which means the team with the lead still has a possession to respond. In the NBA, where a team can advance the ball with a timeout, this can be particularly powerful if a team has a timeout left. As a result, the foul-up-three isn't quite the life hack some people seem to think. However, there is one particular situation where it is valuable: the old Stan Van Gundy rule of fouling up three when the clock is inside six seconds. Even then, it can be difficult to execute. If the opponent is inbounding from the frontcourt after a timeout and can go straight into a shot, it brings the risk of a three-shot foul. Teams are probably better off defending in that situation. Here's a scenario where the Pacers didn't foul because of the risk of the player shooting immediately and were less fortunate: Jaylen Brown's shot from Game 1 of the 2024 Eastern Conference finals. Watch Pascal Siakam conspicuously not fouling as Brown's heave finds the net: Indiana then couldn't score itself with 5.7 seconds left and lost in overtime, eventually being swept by the Boston Celtics. (Indiana, I will note, also did not foul up three in overtime of Game 1 against New York, with 15.1 seconds left. New York forced up a similarly wild miss from Jalen Brunson; an offensive rebound produced a better look for Karl-Anthony Towns, but he missed too. Even if he had made it, Indiana would have had roughly five seconds to respond and retake the lead.) Advertisement So, back to Game 4 of Thunder-Timberwolves. Minnesota's last possession slammed into the golden Van Gundy Rule scenario where fouling up three makes the most sense: having no timeouts and needing to advance the ball the length of the court, with only six seconds left. Oklahoma City's Alex Caruso could give the foul and be relatively certain that Anthony Edwards wouldn't pull up from 60 feet and make it a three-shot scenario. (While we're here: The other foul-up-three loophole nobody has tried exploiting, courtesy of Ken Pomeroy, is to foul up three in the waning seconds and then continuously commit lane violations on the second free throw until the other team makes it — thus eliminating the intentional miss and put-back scenario. A smart ref might eventually hit the team with a delay-of-game violation, two of which result in a technical foul.) However, Oklahoma City's earlier strategy — fouling Naz Reid when Lu Dort had him bottled up in the corner with 7.0 seconds left — was much more questionable. The reason why is contained in the two previous playoff games where this strategy overtly failed — the early foul-up-three introduces more possessions, and thus more variance, into a game where the team up three had an overwhelming advantage. The success of the Thunder's strategy depended on a clean inbound pass against a pressing opponent, and then matching the opponent's success at the free-throw line to maintain the three-point lead and foul once again. This is particularly true when teams foul with more than 10 seconds left on the clock, as the Thunder did in Game 1 against the Denver Nuggets and the Knicks did in Game 1 against Indiana. The Thunder's strategy worked out so well that they lost, in regulation and by two. Great work, everyone. The Knicks would have also lost in regulation had Tyrese Haliburton's foot been half a size smaller; they ended up losing in overtime instead. Advertisement The key problem was that Oklahoma City began fouling ridiculously early, with 12.2 seconds left on the clock. Denver ended up with three possessions in 10 seconds, where it normally would have had one, making four free throws and then an Aaron Gordon 3-pointer with 2.8 seconds left. Ditto for the Knicks, who fouled Aaron Nesmith with 12.2 seconds left in regulation in Game 1 and defensive ace OG Anunoby draped all over him. When Anunoby missed a free throw at the other end, the Pacers were only down two and still had 7.1 seconds left, taking away the foul-up-three on the last trip and leaving just enough time for Haliburton's shot to touch the sky and fall through the net at the buzzer. It's a point I've made over and over, but I will make again: The foul-up-three, especially with more than six seconds on the clock, is the only realistic way the leading team can lose in regulation. With all that said, let's circle back to the main point. There's an idea out there that something needs to be 'done' about the foul-up-three because it ruins the end of games. Right now I'd argue more the opposite: That it's making the end of games more exciting, because coaches keep screwing it up and giving away games they shouldn't lose. Also, the instances where it is truly advantageous are so specific — defending team up three, less than six seconds left, opponent not in a position to get into a shooting motion — that I wonder what a rule to address this would even look like and how often it would come into play. That said … I wanted to see Edwards make a bull rush up the court and fling up a desperation 3 for the tie Monday just like everyone else. Also, casual fans can probably appreciate that type of play more than his near-perfect free-throw miss that yielded a mayhem rebounding situation (10 guys went all out for the board, and it hit the ground before anyone got it) and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander eventually flinging the ball from his back to an eager fan sitting courtside. The foul-up-three also drags out the end of games, which might be good in some ways (sponsor dollars!) but is probably more of a negative in the big picture, especially since the league seems pretty concerned about fitting games into a two-and-a-half-hour window. Advertisement So, if we really wanted the league's competition committee to legislate this, one possibility is to say that, if the offense is in the bonus, a take foul by the winning team up by three points in the last six seconds (or eight or 10, whatever the committee thinks is appropriate) is one shot and the ball out of bounds. But the league needs to be very careful about the wording of any rule, given the huge potential for unintended consequences. Either way, the thing I can't emphasize enough is that A) we're legislating an extremely specific situation, and B) thus far this postseason, coaches inadvertently have done more to create excitement by fouling up three than they have to remove it. We only got Haliburton's and Gordon's shots because coaches screwed up the scenario. That's why, for me, the story isn't that the foul-up-three needs to be addressed by the rules committee; it's that it needs to be addressed in coaches' meetings. Indiana is doing it right; Oklahoma City and New York, not so much, even if the Thunder ultimately hung on in Game 4.
Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Best Knicks vs. Pacers Game 4 Player Props: Can Pacers Slow Down Towns?
Is Karl-Anthony Towns poised for yet another big night vs. the Pacers in Game 4? Or will Indiana be able to keep New York's All-Star center in check, as it did in Game 2 and throughout most of Game 3? Is Karl-Anthony Towns poised for yet another big night vs. the Pacers in Game 4? Or will Indiana be able to keep New York's All-Star center in check, as it did in Game 2 and... Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Going into tonight's pivotal Game 4 matchup between the Knicks and Pacers, there's plenty of intrigue around not only whether New York will tie the series at 2-2, but also the various player prop options. On the surface, Knicks stars Karl-Anthony Towns and Jalen Brunson seem like good bets to have big nights, again, but they'll need to put up massive numbers to cash their points props. With the Pacers giving at least 10 players significant minutes in Games 1-3, will Game 4 mark another breakout for one of Indiana's reserves? Karl-Anthony Towns 25+ Points (+160 at bet365) -- 1 unit Starting with the obvious, yes, we expect betting on Towns to once again pay off in this matchup. He posted underwhelming point totals, at least compared to what he did vs. Indiana in the regular season, in Games 2 (20 points in 27:41) and 3 (24 points in 32:59) of this series. But in the fourth quarter of Game 3 on Sunday night, he once again showed that outside of exploiting his defense so badly that the Knicks have to bench him, the Pacers simply don't have an answer for him. While Towns isn't going to become a defensive stopper any time soon, he should be serviceable enough on that end to stay on the court. As long as that happens, he should continue to take advantage of whoever Indiana throws at him, whether that's Myles Turner, Pascal Siakam or Tony Bradley. Towns has also been a consistent force on the glass in this matchup, including a 15-rebound night in Game 3. That makes Towns 35+ Points + Rebs (+105 at DraftKings) tempting after he piled up 47 P+R in Game 1 and 39 P+R in Game 3, including a 20-point, 8-rebound fourth quarter that changed the outlook of this series. Ben Sheppard 1+ Made Three (-135 at bet365) -- 1 unit For our second prop bet in this game, we're looking at backup Pacers guard Ben Sheppard, who could be one of the top beneficiaries in terms of playing time and shot volume if Aaron Nesmith is limited by his sprained ankle. Sheppard's minutes have already increased throughout the series -- from 7:15 in Game 1 to 12:42 in Game 2 to 17:08 in Game 3. Even if Nesmith gets the start tonight, I think we'll see an uptick in playing time for both Sheppard and T.J. McConnell. Sheppard has quietly knocked down over 40 percent of his 3-point attempts in the playoffs. That includes his 3-of-5 3-point shooting in this series, including 2-of-3 in Game 2. Though it's important to acknowledge that as of Tuesday afternoon, Nesmith is questionable (not out) tonight, Sheppard's production when he played without Nesmith in the regular season is notable. In 22 regular-season games where the second-year man out of Belmont was in the lineup and Nesmith was not, Sheppard averaged 3.27 3PA per game and hit 24 of 72 total treys. Based on his hot shooting in the playoffs, if Sheppard gets a handful of 3PA tonight, he should be good for at least 1 made three, if not two. In fact, Sheppard 2+ Made Threes (+320 at bet365) is as tempting a 3-to-1-or-longer prop bet as you'll find. Remember, he's knocked down two 3-pointers in two of Indiana's last five games, and both those performances came in games where Nesmith was at full strength. Newsweek may earn an affiliate commission if you sign up through the links in this article. See the sportsbook operator's terms and conditions for important details. Sports betting operators have no influence over newsroom coverage.
NBC Sports
18 minutes ago
- NBC Sports
Red Sox at Brewers Prediction: Odds, expert picks, starting pitchers, betting trends and stats for May 27
Its Tuesday, May 27 and the Red Sox (27-29) are in Milwaukee to take on the Brewers (27-28)—Aaron Civale is slated to take the mound for Milwaukee. The Brewers won the first game of the series. Jackson Chourio homered in the first inning for the Brewers. They added another run in the fifth inning and never looked back. DL Hall picked up the win for the Brewers. Lets dive into the matchup and find a sweat or two. We've got all the info and analysis you need to know ahead of the game, including the latest info on the how to catch tipoff, odds, recent team performance, player stats, and of course, our predictions, picks & best bets for the game from our modeling tools and staff of experts. Follow Rotoworld Player News for the latest fantasy and betting player news and analysis all season long. Game details & how to watch Red Sox at Brewers Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 Time: 7:40PM EST Site: American Family Field City: Milwaukee, WI Network/Streaming: FanDuel Sports Network Wisconsin, NESN Never miss a second of the action and stay up-to-date with all the latest team stats and player news. Check out our day-by-day MLB schedule page, along with detailed matchup pages that update live in-game with every out. Odds for the Red Sox at the Brewers The latest odds as of Tuesday: Moneyline: Red Sox (+101), Brewers (-120) Spread: Brewers -1.5 Total: 8.0 runs Probable starting pitchers for Red Sox at Brewers Pitching matchup for May 27, 2025: Undecided vs. Aaron Civale Brewers: Aaron Civale, (0-1, 9.00 ERA) Last outing (Pittsburgh Pirates. 5/22): 4.0 Innings Pitched, 2 Earned Runs Allowed, 4 Hits Allowed, 2 Walks, and 3 Strikeouts Brewers: Aaron Civale, (0-1, 9.00 ERA) Last outing (Pittsburgh Pirates. 5/22): 4.0 Innings Pitched, 2 Earned Runs Allowed, 4 Hits Allowed, 2 Walks, and 3 Strikeouts Rotoworld still has you covered with all the latest MLB player news for all 30 teams. Check out the feed page right here on NBC Sports for headlines, injuries and transactions where you can filter by league, team, positions and news type! Top betting trends & insights to know ahead of Red Sox at Brewers The Red Sox have won 12 of their last 20 games against teams with losing records The Brewers have covered in 4 of their last 5 games showing a profit of 3.50 units If you're looking for more key trends and stats around the spread, moneyline and total for every single game on the schedule today, check out our MLB Top Trends tool on NBC Sports! Expert picks & predictions for tonight's game between the Red Sox and the Brewers Please bet responsibly. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, call the National Gambling Helpline at 1-800-522-4700. Our model calculates projections around each moneyline, spread and over/under bet for every game on the MLB calendar based on data points like past performance, player matchups, ballpark information and weather forecasts. Once the model is finished running, we put its projection next to the latest betting lines for the game to arrive at a relative confidence level for each wager. Here are the best bets our model is projecting for Tuesday's game between the Red Sox and the Brewers: Moneyline: NBC Sports Bet is staying away from a play on the Moneyline. Spread: NBC Sports Bet is leaning towards a play ATS on the Boston Red Sox at +1.5. Total: NBC Sports Bet is recommending a play on the over on the Game Total of 8.0. Want even more MLB best bets and predictions from our expert staff & tools? Check out the Expert MLB Predictions page from NBC Follow our experts on socials to keep up with all the latest content from the staff: Jay Croucher (@croucherJD) Drew Dinsick (@whale_capper) Vaughn Dalzell (@VmoneySports) Brad Thomas (@MrBradThomas)
