What was with Leyland just turning his back and walking out of the dugout immediately upon the game ending? That seemed a bit…tacky…
He can’t smoke in front of the cameras.
Romo’s inning was just amazing. Slider, slider, slider, slider…and then he sneaks a fastball by the Triple Crown winner. That took some serious balls.
I think Romo should’ve been MVP.
Yay Giants!
To me it seems like getting out of the way while the other team celebrates. I’m not sure what the tradition is, but I don’t recall seeing much of the other losing team after a championship is decided in any sport. The only unusual think is that Leyland was on camera getting out of the way.
It’s interesting to look at the Series game by game (any series, really) and ask who should have been MVP. I’m a Blue Jays fan and still remember my amazement when they gave the 1992 WS MVP to Pat Borders, who on paper had a great Series (9 for 20 with a homer) but who made very little impact on any of the four games Toronto won; two of his three RBIs were in a game they lost 7-2, and he had a lot of blank singles and his defense was memorably well-criticized. But at the end of the Series they saw .450 next to his name and gave him the trophy; in terms of actual game impact, Jimmy Key was quite obviously the most valuable player of the Series.
The tendency is to just hand it to the guy who had a really high batting average or who hit a pile of homers, but in a short series, unlike a long season, overall stats sometimes don’t tell you who had the biggest impact in the game you actually won. Of course the Giants won all the games so that makes this exercise a little easier, so:
GAME 1: Sandoval is obviously the player of the game. His first two homers were the two biggest plays of the game. The other big contributors were Barry Zito, Tim Lincecum, and Marco Scutaro.
GAME 2: Madison Bumgarner was The Man in Game 2, with assists from Casilla, Romo, and Pence. Sandoval had a good game but only slightly figured into the offense.
GAME 3: Vogelsong pitches 5.2 scoreless, though he didn’t actually pitch that fantastically. Lincecum, really, held this one together, plus some hits from Penco, Blanco, and Crawford. Romo again with the save.
GAME 4: Posey’s homer is the play of the game. Scutaro is offensively central as well and some other guys got big hits. Cain pitched well, but so did Affelt and Romo.
All in all this is one of those series where there really is not a single dominant player. Sandoval’s overall Series is amazing, 8-for-16 with 3 homers, but he had almost nothing to do with winning after Game 1. His hits were all blank hits; he did not score or drive in a run, and he didn’t even figure in to anyone else scoring or driing in a run.
Logically, Bumgarner was just as valuable; he only played in one game but he had more to do with winning that game than anyone did winning any of them. Romo was shutdown good in his 3 saves, but Lincecum’s two appearances were extraordinary.
I think you could make an argument for any of Sandoval, Lincecum, Romo, or Bumgarner. I don’t have time to run through all the play by plays but Crawford’s defense had a lot to do with this win as well; he was all over the field, making plays like he was in a hurry to get his ring.
That was an amazing pitch. Right down Main Street, but you could replay that at bat 100 times, and he’d watch it go by 100 times. Nobody expected that.
Don’t forget his defensive contributions at third. Sandoval made some key plays to snuff out potential rallies.
RickJay: your analysis is spot-on. No one offensive player carried the team (like Scutaro did in the NLCS), so this is the kind of series where the MVP would normally be a pitcher. If it went beyond 4 games, it would have gone to the starter with 2 wins.
He must have read your reprimand back in Post #358 and stepped up his game!
While we’re talking defense, let’s not forget Gregor Blanco in left. He saved several runs with great catches and his relay to Scutaro to get Fielder at the plate.
I honestly cannot remember a single one. Can you point to any particularly good plays he made?
Crawford, on the other hand, seemed to make a big and important play twice a game.
Something that occurred to me last night, but nobody on TV seemed to question (but which I’ve heard brought up on the radio in San Francisco today):
Why didn’t Austin Jackson (the Tiger center fielder) dive for that ball in the 10th? Wouldn’t you think that would be the one time that you’d give every possible effort?
I can’t get a tape of it right now, but on TV balls that fall in front of the outfielder, especially the center fielder, often fall much, much further in front of them than the camera angle suggests. A ball that looks like Jackson could have dove for it might actually have hit the turf 20 feet in front of him.
In that case, Jackson would have been crazy to take an .01% chance of saving one run in exchange for the 99.99% chance of giving the Giants a much better chance of scoring more runs.
To add to something I said in another thread, look how the overall records turned out (regular season and playoffs):
Giants 105-73
Nationals 100-67
Reds 99-68
Yankees 98-73
Tigers 95-80
Cards 95-80
The Giants have 5 more wins than the next highest total. Even if we only considered playoff games equal to regular season games, the Giants would be considered a half game up on the Reds, and a half game back of the Nationals. That’s not luck… it’s not even small sample size. That’s the best (well, half game back) record over the course of the whole season. 178 games! And if playoff games are more meaningful, then it is the best overall record for the year.
Somehow the Giants seem to get stuck with the “small sample size” label for a 178 game season. Should have played 250. And somehow the media picked against them in the world series against a team with a far worse record and worse OPS+ in the regular season. But I’ll take a 105 win season and a championship.
Crawford and Blanco were the defensive stars, but Sandoval was good too. IIRC:
Game 2, 4th inning: Sandoval snags a hard hit drive from Cabrera with a runner on first, Cabrera is visibly frustrated.
Game 4, 3rd inning: Sandoval makes a nice play to throw out Berry on a bunt, nearly colliding with Cain. The very next batter hits a home run.
I remember two or three times he speared line drives - they may not all have been in this series, one might have been in the NLCS. Both were, as I recall, good plays for a good fielder, but spectacular for a 275-pounder. He’s considered weak, but I’ve seen or heard every single game he’s played, and he plays, IMO, above average despite his size. If he can hold 230 for a full season, he will be an excellent fielder.
Crawford is already great, but has has two or three multi-error games this season. I think we’ll be seeing a lot fewer of those.
Joe
I understand this for the same reason I always like the Giants in the playoffs - they can throw out serious starting pitching at you, which can be advantageous in series like these. People were assuming the Giants’ arms were dead. I knew they were tired, but I knew that they all had the potential to throw a gem, and we got 3 gems and one solid Cain start.
Joe
Two jump out, and I’m pretty sure there were another 1-2 more defensive gems:
Game 2, 4th inning: Sandoval robs Miguel Cabrera of a hit when he snags the hot line drive.
Game 4, 3d inning: Sandoval’s bare-handed grab of Quintin Berry’s bunt, avoids Matt Cain (who did the more acrobatic move there) and throws out Berry.
Thanks, Carmady, I just saw this.
Within reason, errors don’t matter. I know that sounds weird, but look at it this way; Crawford made 18 errors all year. The average shortstop, in the same amount of play, makes about.. well, 16. So the difference between Crawford and another shortstop is an error every three months.
But the difference between Crawford and most shortstops in *terms of the balls he can get to *is really, really huge. A lot of plays - at east fifty plays a year. Crawford’s one of the best defensive shortstops in the game, and you can see it in the stats and on the field; his range is great to both sides AND coming in AND his throwing is just lovely, picture perfect footwork and a strong arm. He’s one of the ten best defensive infielders in the National League.
Sandoval’s not bad, and I do remember that nice play on the Berry bunt now, but to watch him it’s pretty obvious his weight is a serious problem. I agree he could be very good if he was lighter. He has good hands and a good arm and he knows the position, but his lateral range sucks; when he does make a really awesome looking play it’s often on a ball a lot of third basemen could have gotten to without looking spectacular about it. There’s a reason Bochy was yanking him for defense. He’s got the talent but you just can’t be a good defensive infielder when you’re really fat.
All this comes back to the point that was made before, which is… why was everyone picking Detroit as the favourite? I know it’s hindsight but I found it puzzling six days ago, too. San Francisco won more games. They have a pitching staff where the worst pitcher on the team was TIM LINCECUM. I mean, that’s a pretty strong team. Everyone was gushing over the fact that Tigers had the immortal Justin Verlander, plus of course the 1-2 punch of Cabrera and Fielder. But gosh, didn’t the Giants have a lot of advantages? And one of the most glaring, to me, was infeld defense. The Giants have a terrific infield; Sandoval is OK at third and he’s easily the worst guy out there, and he’s certainly better than Cabrera. At the other positions it’s no contest at all. That’s gonna count for something. The Giants had a much, much deeper bullpen, depth in the rotation. What else can you ask for?
Carmady’s point about combined record is pretty convincing to me. The Giants were simply the best team in baseball.