FanDuel - WFBC

November 01, 2010

San Francisco Giants Win The World Series: ...in five games over the Texas Rangers. They won Game 5 3-1 on the strength of eight innings of three hit, 10 K pitching from Tim Lincecum and a three-run homer in the seventh inning by Edgar Renteria.

posted by boredom_08 to baseball at 11:09 PM - 29 comments

That could have gone better.

For the record, Brian Wilson and the Giants have stopped being delightful. I hope they are eaten by seals.

posted by rcade at 11:50 PM on November 01

Only 115 days left 'til spring training.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:07 AM on November 02

After what the Giants just did to the Padres and Rangers and after what Renteria did to the Indians in '97, them seals will have to get in the chow line behind Mike Hargrove.

posted by beaverboard at 12:14 AM on November 02

Ron Washington: "I told my team that it's not always the best team that wins but the team that plays the best".

The team that plays the best IS the best team. Ron Washington hurts my brain.

I watched every game of the series, and usually by 5 games I can find a team to pull for, but for some reason, I neither had bad nor good feelings towards either team.

I guess I wanted the rangers to win tonight just to have more baseball to watch. On the other hand it was nice not having to hear Josh Hamilton thank Jesus for the victory. Guess he was busy.

posted by justgary at 12:35 AM on November 02

Rangers' Josh Hamilton, Vladimir Guerrero are goats of the Series

That didn't take long.

I was really hoping the last batter Cruz would get on so Kinsler would have a chance to tie it up. No such drama however.

posted by justgary at 12:40 AM on November 02

The team that plays the best IS the best team. Ron Washington hurts my brain.

Not always.

No one really believes that the NY Giants were better than the New England Patriots, but the Giants played better (during the Super Bowl) and won.

The 2001 Seattle Mariners were (by far) a better team than the New York Yankees (by 21 games, which over the course of a season is well beyond any "statistical anomaly"), but the Yankees played better in the 2001 ALCS.

On March 24, 1996, the rookie franchise Toronto Raptors (21-61 at the end of the season) beat the Chicago Bulls (a record-setting 72-10 at the end of the season). No one in their right mind would honestly believe the Raptors were the better team...

posted by grum@work at 01:59 AM on November 02

I don't speak American, but I also understood what Washington was getting at.

The best team on paper and all that...

posted by owlhouse at 02:43 AM on November 02

No one really believes that the NY Giants were better than the New England Patriots, but the Giants played better (during the Super Bowl) and won.

Other than the difficulty of comparing different sports the Super Bowl is one game, not a best of seven. It's certainly easier to raise your level of play or catch a few breaks in 60 minutes than multiple games.

On March 24, 1996, the rookie franchise Toronto Raptors (21-61 at the end of the season) beat the Chicago Bulls (a record-setting 72-10 at the end of the season). No one in their right mind would honestly believe the Raptors were the better team...

Again, one game (in the regular season). I fail to see much value in the comparison. When I was a kid I got into bowling one summer. I averaged 130, except for one game out of a hundred where I bowled 200. One game.

The 2001 Seattle Mariners were (by far) a better team than the New York Yankees (by 21 games, which over the course of a season is well beyond any "statistical anomaly"), but the Yankees played better in the 2001 ALCS.

There's no prize for having the best record in the league. We're talking about teams in different divisions. Perhaps one team had injuries that it fought through and got healthy in september. Maybe one team was in a weak division and coasted the last third of the season. Rosters change during the season (Giants) so maybe a team jells right before the playoffs.

But you picked an extreme example (the 96 Cardinals were another). I'm not claiming that the Yankees were a better team than the Mariners during the regular season (and to be fair, I don't remember that post season at all). But I'll say that in my opinion the regular season and post season are two different seasons in baseball. It levels the field, allows for setting up your pitching staff perfectly, putting the best lineup on the field with no need to rest players. I don't believe that having the best regular season record makes a team the most dangerous in the post season.

Before today's game I read that the Rangers still had a chance because on paper they were the better team. On paper. But Josh Hamilton's stats don't mean anything if the Giants have pitchers that know how to pitch him. Having Cliff Lee doesn't make the Rangers a better team if the Giants have his number.

Are the Rangers a better team on paper? Yep. What's that worth? The paper.

There are certainly going to be exceptions, and teams can get hot, but I have no doubt the best post season team generally wins. The Giants won both games at home, and then 2 of 3 in Texas. The Giants outscored the Rangers 29-12. The Rangers were shut out in 2 of their losses and scored 1 run in a third loss.

This series wasn't close, and for Washington to come out with that line is comical to me. The best team in the majors at this point in the season won, the team with the best pitching won.

posted by justgary at 03:22 AM on November 02

And it's probably worth mentioning that the Giants actually won more games than the Rangers during the regular season (and finished with a better run differential).

Now his comment seems even more ridiculous to me.

posted by justgary at 03:40 AM on November 02

I just love watching Lincecum pitch.

posted by NoMich at 07:01 AM on November 02

I question whether the Rangers were the better team, seeing as how good pitching generally beats good hitting in the postseason. The Giants had a great pitching staff. The Rangers had a good one (and one great starter), but their bats were so outmatched it was a moral victory to get a runner to second base.

One factor to this series that didn't get a lot of attention was Buster Posey's arm. It kept the Rangers from moving runners, which was a big part of their game. The Rays and Yankees couldn't deal with all the running.

Last night, Washington made two big mistakes. He didn't have Andrus bunt in the fifth or sixth with a runner on first, and he didn't have Lee walk Renteria when the count was 2-0 to face Roland. Washington also never pinch hit anybody to try and get to Lincecum. Credit to the guy for getting the Rangers to unknown heights, but I think he undermanaged this series.

posted by rcade at 07:55 AM on November 02

There's no prize for having the best record in the league. We're talking about teams in different divisions. Perhaps one team had injuries that it fought through and got healthy in september. Maybe one team was in a weak division and coasted the last third of the season.

...

And it's probably worth mentioning that the Giants actually won more games than the Rangers during the regular season (and finished with a better run differential).

Now his comment seems even more ridiculous to me.

Well, you can't say that regular season means nothing in the previous comment, and then use regular season record to declare Washington's statement "even more ridiculous", can you?

The statement Washington made is true.

Whether it actually applies to the Rangers is a different matter, and one that I don't actually state as true/false in my original comment.

posted by grum@work at 08:27 AM on November 02

But you picked an extreme example (the 96 Cardinals were another).

I'm missing something obvious, but what was it about the 1996 Cardinals that applies here? They beat a Padres team that had more wins, but lost to a Braves team that had more wins.

[On edit]: I'm thinking you meant 2006 Cardinals (possibly the weakest team to win a World Series), who beat teams with 12 and 14 more wins than them.

posted by grum@work at 08:29 AM on November 02

I simply loved watching Bush scowl. If only that fence in front of him was a prison cage. Ah, well . . .

posted by afl-aba at 08:59 AM on November 02

The best team in the majors at this point in the season won, the team with the best pitching won.

I think that's what Washington is saying. If the best team always wins then is there no such thing as an upset? I think Washington is wrong in this case but I don't find it all that strange that he thinks his team was better and they let the series get away.

posted by tron7 at 11:02 AM on November 02

Yeah, don't we have this discussion every time an underdog wins?

posted by DrJohnEvans at 11:05 AM on November 02

the team with the best pitching won.

The Giants pitchers dominated. They won the series easily in five games (winning two on the road).

The Rangers, on paper, may have better hitting, but doesn't pitching win championships?

The Giants are the better team, played like it and won easily.

posted by cjets at 11:33 AM on November 02

2 (nearly 3) shutouts. The best team won.

posted by slackerman at 11:54 AM on November 02

I just love watching Lincecum pitch.

That's got to be the ugliest man boy in baseball.

posted by smithnyiu at 12:08 PM on November 02

I agree with Cliff Lee: "We didn't beat ourselves. They flat-out beat us."

Lee seems to have competely embraced Nolan Ryanism and was not going to pitch around anybody, which cost him, cost the Rangers, and most importantly cost me: "I don't want to walk anyone. In that situation, yeah, there's a base open, but that's the competitive side of me. I want them to earn it. I want them to swing their way on base. Looking back, maybe I should have made a different pitch. Obviously I wish I could have thrown it in a better spot. But it is what it is."

Maybe you should have made a different pitch? Maybe?

posted by rcade at 12:08 PM on November 02

That's got to be the ugliest man boy in baseball.

Did you see him in the prom jacket and bow tie before the game?

posted by rcade at 12:09 PM on November 02

Did you see him in the prom jacket and bow tie before the game?

WTF? Is that a prom jacket and bow tie? Think classy, you'll be classy. If you win 20 in the show, you can wear any Dennis Rodman outfit you want and the press'll think you're colorful. Until you win 20 in the show, however, it means you are a tool.

posted by smithnyiu at 12:22 PM on November 02

Did you see him in the prom jacket and bow tie before the game?

Whatever he did, it worked.

posted by slackerman at 03:14 PM on November 02

I forgot to do this earlier:

"People ask me what I do in the winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." -- Rogers Hornsby

posted by rcade at 03:37 PM on November 02

I left the big flat screen in the family room and listened to the bottom of the ninth on the radio, just like I listened to the games growing up. Krukow with one last "grab some pine, meat!", and Kuiper with the call I have waited my whole life to hear, and I wanted to hear him and only him say it. It doesn't get any better than this.

posted by irunfromclones at 07:16 PM on November 02

Yay! Texas didn't win! (I cannot root for another AL west team to win the WS.)

Seriously, though, the Giants are the best team in baseball for the 2010 season. That's the point of championships, no? To find out who is the best? This should be an easy one to decide. The Rangers were outmatched offensively and defensively at home and away and there were no controversial officiating mistakes or other outside influences. Heck, they were even outmanaged. The end. See you in the Spring.

posted by THX-1138 at 07:17 PM on November 02

Congratulations to the Giants and their fans!

posted by Joey Michaels at 08:34 PM on November 02

Well, you can't say that regular season means nothing in the previous comment, and then use regular season record to declare Washington's statement "even more ridiculous", can you?

You brought up the regular season to show that sometimes a team that is clearly better does lose, which supports Washington's statement. I'm saying that even if you're correct, it doesn't apply here.

The statement Washington made is true.

Taken in a vacuum, taking out the circumstances, maybe so. But he was referring to HIS team and THIS series, not making a generic statement. And in that light, I don't find any truth to his statement.

The point of the regular season is to get to the post season with a team that's capable of winning. Being better in August doesn't mean you're the better team in October. Take for example Vladimir Guerrero. He was a great story during the first half of the season, slipped during the second half, and was awful at the plate and in the field during the playoffs. So overall stats and record doesn't necessarily show the strength of a team in the playoffs.

I could give you the series stats, but I'm sure you know them better than I do. The Giants were dominant. They're a team with better ptching, better defense, and a better manager.

So sure, sometimes the best team doesn't win, but that phrase has become a cliche almost to the point it's meaningless. It doesn't apply every time a team with slightly better stats on paper loses.

The best team won, and Washington can tell his team that's not the case if he wants to make them feel better, but for that to be his first comment, to me, shows a manager in denial. They were beat, and beat convincingly by a better team.

* and yes, I meant that 2006 cardinals.

posted by justgary at 08:56 PM on November 05

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.