premium blogad:
blogads:
advertisement:
sitemeter:
|
|
|
April 20, 2008
What wins championships?
I originally posted this over at my place a few days ago and I’d like to see what you guys thought… While I was naming Wright and Pelfrey Tuesday’s co-Studs of the Game, I got to thinking about which of the two’s contributions was more crucial to winning the game. I mean, Wright drove in five of the six runs the Mets scored, which is phenomenal… but because the Mets shut the Nationals out (largely owing to Pelfrey’s brilliant effort), one run would have been sufficient. Which I thought would lead to an interesting discussion: people always say “pitching wins championships” but it’s my philosophy that that’s an impossibility (anyone remember when Andy Hawkins pitched a no-hitter for the Yankees in 1990 and still lost 4-0?). Granted, you probably won’t win a championship with lousy pitching (think Glavine’s 1/3 inning) but unless you score at least one run more than your opponent, you definitely won’t win (think Beltran looking at strike three in 2006). Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? 2 Responses to “What wins championships?”Leave a ReplyYou must be logged in to post a comment. |
|
There is no real set formula. People can say “pitching wins championships” but so does batting and offensive production as well.
I think what wins is a good balance of both. Obviously, overall talent is the big thing……the more overall talent you have compared to other teams, the more likey you’ll win.
I agree with you- the majority of the time, a complete lack of one makes the other moot, and for a team to be successful, it truly has to be a team effort (in other words, you can’t just pitch and hit well, you also have to field your positions well and be smart on the basepaths)… but does anyone think that the job just cannot get done without any of the above?