Printable View
I have to agree with MetsGuy on this one. Hamels only won 1 game, only pitched in two, and certainly at least one of the everyday players had a bigger impact on the World Series as a whole. Ryan Howard won two games almost by himself, at least equalling Hamel's two games he contributed in.
No way would I have voted for Hamel's. His overall postseason stats interfered with the voters judgement, IMO, since this was supposed to be based only on the WS.
I stayed up till 3 AM for THAT? Oh well...when do pitchers and catchers report?
Congrats to the Phillies fans... and to Pat Gillick, Jamie Moyer, etc.
I didn't know Cole Hamels had such a high voice.
ARE YOU SERIOUS? Did you happen to...I don't know...watch the decisive game?Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Also. No. That's not all that matters. Once again, the award is for the entire series.
He didn't get a "win" today because the pitcher after him gave up a home run. That's his fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
He had one great game.Quote:
and certainly at least one of the everyday players had a bigger impact on the World Series as a whole. Ryan Howard won two games almost by himself, at least equalling Hamel's two games he contributed in.
13 innings, 4 runs. That's great.Quote:
No way would I have voted for Hamel's. His overall postseason stats interfered with the voters judgement, IMO, since this was supposed to be based only on the WS.
If the rain didn't stop the game, and Hamels continued pitching for one inning (he probably would've gone more), and thus was 2-0, would you guys be saying he shouldn't be the MVP?
More importantly we don't have to listen to McCarver for several months
Everyone, make sure to bid on official 2008 World Series Game 5 RAIN!
No, not his fault, but that means the game was decided after he was no longer a factor. It's not his fault, but it's not to his credit either.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
No, the one great game was the 10-2, 2 HR game. His 3 run shot in another close game basically clinched it (game 4???, sorry memory failing me again). So, IMO, he helped big time in two wins (as did Hamels, though to a lesser degree in the second), and therefore ANYTHING contributed in the other games would put him ahead of Hamels. IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Probabaly so, but it did rain. And he didn't pitch. And the game was tied and decided after he was gone. You know what they say about IF; IF a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his a$$. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Hamels never hit... a home run in this series... that was BlantonQuote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
He certainly was a factor in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
He had that one 2 HR, 5 RBI game in the 10-2 game, and hit a solo home run in Game 3.Quote:
No, the one great game was the 10-2, 2 HR game. His 3 run shot in another close game basically clinched it (game 4???, sorry memory failing me again). So, IMO, he helped big time in two wins (as did Hamels, though to a lesser degree in the second), and therefore ANYTHING contributed in the other games would put him ahead of Hamels. IMO.
Outside of Game 4, he was 3 for 17 with 9 strikeouts.
Hamels was in line to get the win until a reliever let the game be tied. That is not Hamels fault, and that also doesn't erase the 6 innings of 2 run ball that Hamels pitched in the first part of the game, which were absolutely instrumental in the win.Quote:
Probabaly so, but it did rain. And he didn't pitch. And the game was tied and decided after he was gone. You know what they say about IF; IF a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his a$$. :)
He's talking about Ryan Howard...Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
OK, yeah, I think my memory is screwing with me again. The three run shot opened up the game that eventually resulted in the 10-2 game. For some reason, I was thinking that 3 run, left field shot was in the other game. My bad. Still, he almost single handedly won that game, and the solo shot in the other game was huge since the final score was 5-4.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I realize he was IN LINE to get the win, but he didn't. And yes I give him some credit for keeping them in the game, and winning game 1. I give Howard credit for the big, two HR game, and some credit for the solo shot in the one run win. Therefore, it's basically even, and if Howard did ANYTHING in the other games, my vote goes there. And I seem to recall a couple of good defensive plays on his part as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I'm sorry, I'm a firm believer in games and championships are won first with pitching, and I think Hamels had a very good series. But it wasn't anything nearly as dominating as someone with more IP and more than one win, which has certainly occurred in many world series. I still think he got votes based on the overall postseason (which was amazing) while his WS was only very, very good, but also very short. 13 innings out 45 innings is less than a third.
Still, with two wins and a couple more IP I probably would've been on the bandwagon too. But Howard had as big a hand in two of the wins as Hamels did. Jason Werth quietly had a very good series, and Utley scored some runs, stole some bases, knocked in some runs, and made some great defensive plays. Hamels, Howard, Werth, Utley, probably couldn't have gone wrong with any of them. Me, I just wouldn't have picked Hamels. *shrug*
That is because the "Win" doesn't tell you anything about how he pitched, or, more importantly, the value his pitching had, and using it to decide something like who was the most valuable player in a 5 game set is well extremely ...limiting, to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
I don't recall any good defensive plays. I call a handful of botched defensive plays though. Howard is very poor defensively.Quote:
Therefore, it's basically even, and if Howard did ANYTHING in the other games, my vote goes there. And I seem to recall a couple of good defensive plays on his part as well.
Which is irrelevant. He can only be compared to the other Phillies this series.Quote:
I'm sorry, I'm a firm believer in games and championships are won first with pitching, and I think Hamels had a very good series. But it wasn't anything nearly as dominating as someone with more IP and more than one win, which has certainly occurred in many world series.
Maybe he did, I doubt it. I'd give him the MVP based solely on the World Series, and I'm sure (evidently, considering he won it) many others would say the same.Quote:
I still think he got votes based on the overall postseason (which was amazing) while his WS was only very, very good, but also very short. 13 innings out 45 innings is less than a third.
I'm still not sure what the fascination with wins are.Quote:
Still, with two wins and a couple more IP I probably would've been on the bandwagon too.
If he got the win tonight (ie. if the reliever didn't give up a home run), he'd still have had pitched the same amount of innings, allowed the same amount of runs, provided the same exact value, etc.
WowQuote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
So basically the MVP award that is meant to go to the best player in the WHOLE World Series is supposed to go to the player which helped the most in the deciding game? So let's just say someone who was hitless and had 2 errors in the previous World Series games got a game hitting hit in the deciding game. Would he deserve the World Series MVP?
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com...5/facepalm.jpg
Anyone with a game winning hit to win the whole damn thing should be a no-brainer for the WS MVP.Quote:
Originally Posted by defense
Than you have a very flawed understand of what it means to be the most valuable player in a World Series.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Because the World Series consists of more than just one game.
Also, what about the player that got on base FOR that later player to drive in? Why do the guys that set up the plays never get any credit?