Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
He certainly was a factor in it.
He had that one 2 HR, 5 RBI game in the 10-2 game, and hit a solo home run in Game 3.
Outside of Game 4, he was 3 for 17 with 9 strikeouts.
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
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.
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.
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*
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OldFatGuy
I realize he was IN LINE to get the win, but he didn't.
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:
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.
I don't recall any good defensive plays. I call a handful of botched defensive plays though. Howard is very poor defensively.
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.
Which is irrelevant. He can only be compared to the other Phillies this series.
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.
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:
Still, with two wins and a couple more IP I probably would've been on the bandwagon too.
I'm still not sure what the fascination with wins are.
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.
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metsguy234
Because he wasn't instrumental in then winning the decisive game. That's all that matters IMO...
Wow
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
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
defense
Wow
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.
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metsguy234
Anyone with a game winning hit to win the whole damn thing should be a no-brainer for the WS MVP.
Than you have a very flawed understand of what it means to be the most valuable player in a World Series.
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?
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
I'm still not sure what the fascination with wins are.
That's because you're looking at it from a reverse angle from me, and this is probably because of my age and preference to old school baseball. You're looking at the fact that the bullpen blowing the lead shouldn't matter because the starter would've won if they hadn't blown up. Me, I look at like if you're a really good pitcher, you go deeper into a game and don't let the bullpen have as much of an impact.
Take Pitcher A who leaves 20 games after 6 innings with a 1 run lead, and Pitcher B who leaves 20 games after 8 innings with a 1 run lead. Both have similar ERA's, WHIP's, etc.
The only major stat that would end up much different in this scenario would be wins, as Pitcher B is almost certainly (I'd be willing to bet lots of money on it) going to end up with quite a few more wins. Now, it wasn't Pitcher A's fault, right? The bullpen blew it, right? Well, yeah, true, but Pitcher B is still better IMO. Much, much, much better IMO.
In the case of Hamels, it's not the lack of WINS that turns me off, its the lack of innings. Yeah, I know, it wasn't his fault it rained, but it did rain. And I know today's game is different. And to me, that just proves the pitchers like Seaver, Maddox in his prime, Carlton, etc. who pitched more deeply into games (thus minimizing chances of blown leads) had better chances of more wins, and were, IMNSHO, much better pitchers.
But, Hamels won, it's over, and I'm wrong again. No big news there. I'll be wrong again. But given the chance, I still just wouldn't vote for Hamels even though it wasn't his fault it rained and it wasn't his fault the bullpen blew the lead. But, I'm on the minority side of opinions on almost everything anyway.
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OldFatGuy
That's because you're looking at it from a reverse angle from me, and this is probably because of my age and preference to old school baseball. You're looking at the fact that the bullpen blowing the lead shouldn't matter because the starter would've won if they hadn't blown up. Me, I look at like if you're a really good pitcher, you go deeper into a game and don't let the bullpen have as much of an impact.
Which Hamels would've done if Mother Nature hadn't interfered, and could've (and likely should have) done in Game 1, as he was at just 102 pitches after 7.
Quote:
The only major stat that would end up much different in this scenario would be wins, as Pitcher B is almost certainly (I'd be willing to bet lots of money on it) going to end up with quite a few more wins. Now, it wasn't Pitcher A's fault, right? The bullpen blew it, right? Well, yeah, true, but Pitcher B is still better IMO. Much, much, much better IMO.
Yes, he's better because throwing more innings at the same level is better, not because he has more wins.
Quote:
In the case of Hamels, it's not the lack of WINS that turns me off, its the lack of innings. Yeah, I know, it wasn't his fault it rained, but it did rain. And I know today's game is different. And to me, that just proves the pitchers like Seaver, Maddox in his prime, Carlton, etc. who pitched more deeply into games (thus minimizing chances of blown leads) had better chances of more wins, and were, IMNSHO, much better pitchers.
What I bolded is really essential to this discussion. Pitchers of today have to be judged against pitchers of today.
Quote:
But, I'm on the minority side of opinions on almost everything anyway.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
Anyway, as for this specific award, no pitcher in this series threw more innings than Cole Hamels. There was no position player that really really stood out on the Phillies, either. Yeah, Ryan Howard had that one fantastic game, but was horrible outside of that. Ruiz and Werth had great series. But still, Hamels was absolutely essential this World Series for Philadelphia. He was the best starting pitcher on either team, and he performed as such.
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metsguy234
Anyone with a game winning hit to win the whole damn thing should be a no-brainer for the WS MVP.
So in 2001, Luis Gonzalez deserved the award over Johnson and Schilling?
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metsguy234
Cole Hamels... bad choice, man... bad choice
What series were you watching? He definitley deserved it!
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OldFatGuy
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.
Did you watch the games? He had great control in SUBPAR weather on Monday. In game one he really did hold Tampa at bay (no pun intended).
Look at his record. For some reason, he just does not get run support. But he still wins games.
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
phightinphils
What series were you watching? He definitley deserved it!
He didn't get the game-winning hit in the final game, so he's no MVP!
:rolleyes:
metsguy, question. Every deciding World Series game has a player that got the hit that put his team up for good. According to you, that player should be the MVP? The entire first 3-6 games in the series mean nothing, and only the batter that got the go-ahead and stay-ahead RBI deserves the MVP? Really?
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
He didn't get the game-winning hit in the final game, so he's no MVP!
:rolleyes:
I would have to say the whole team should get the MVP award in this case. Everyone did contribute from top to bottom.
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
phightinphils
I would have to say the whole team should get the MVP award in this case. Everyone did contribute from top to bottom.
It's called a World Series Ring. :) :p
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
It's called a World Series Ring. :) :p
Very good point!
On another note, Charlie Manuel is probably now the most popular manager ever in Philadelphia. Let's just say that "Uncle Charlie" went from goat to a legend in two years in this city. God, I love Philadelphia! :D We can be brutal, but when things go our way, we just love everyone!
Re: World Series Game 5 Discussion
