Good Phortune
As the calendar flips past Halloween and marches on toward Thanksgiving, it's worth taking a moment to realize that, like all champions--and I'm still adding a mental !!! every time I type that word--the 2008 Philadelphia Phillies were quite lucky as well as very, very good.
It starts, as poster char6587 wrote the other day, with health. The Phils had fewer players on the Disabled List than any other team but the Brewers, whom they tied with nine. The only regular who missed significant time was Jimmy Rollins, out for the better part of a month early in the season; otherwise, Shane Victorino, Jayson Werth and Pedro Feliz were all out for the minimum 15 days or barely more. Perhaps most staggering, NO PHILLIES STARTING PITCHER WENT ON THE DISABLED LIST THIS YEAR--despite the rotation including a 45 year-old, Jamie Moyer, and two players with extensive previous injury histories in Cole Hamels and Adam Eaton. (Eaton eventually pitched himself out of the rotation anyway, of course.) For that matter, the only reliever who missed extensive time was Tom Gordon, whose injury was widely foreseen and whose absence in the 8th inning only stung until Ryan Madson asserted himself as the team's setup man.
But the Phils were favored by timing as well as health. Pedro Feliz didn't have a great year at the plate, but his contributions always seemed to come at the right time: the single that plated the Game Five game-winner was only the last of a series of huge hits the third baseman delivered. In 80 "close and late" at-bats, Feliz hit .313/.368/.575, including five home runs. Feliz's full-season numbers were .249/.302/.402. Without getting into the larger debate about whether "clutch hitting" exists, suffice it to say that Feliz's close and late numbers in 2007 were .238/.284/.396; for 2006, they were .228/.282/.376.
Finally, from the last weekend of September through the clincher, things set up perfectly in terms of the starting rotation. If the Phils hadn't managed to hold on for that division-clinching 4-3 win over the Nationals on the last Saturday of the regular season, Cole Hamels would have had to start the regular season finale on Sunday--probably rendering him unavailable to pitch in the Division Series until Game Three in Milwaukee. If you don't think this is important, consider how much more formidable the Brewers might have been with CC Sabathia set to pitch twice in that series, on full rest. Then by closing out the Brewers in four games, the Phils were able to keep Hamels on track to begin the NLCS against the Dodgers--and, given the long lag between the end of that round and the start of the World Series, to work back-to-back games a week apart when he won Game One of the Series to seize home-field advantage for the Phils.
None of this is to take anything away from the performance of the guys in uniform. Hamels' excellence is independent of his availability, of course. And his good work might have gone for naught if it weren't for the great performances of non-superstars like Shane Victorino and Ryan Madson. But no team wins it all without a smile from the baseball gods; as you're sitting down to turkey in a few weeks' time, that's probably worth a silent thank-you.
15 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
No doubt we were fortunate as all championship teams are. But I would say it was a normal level of good fortune, not a level that was so unbelievably high that it would make a repeat impossible (as some of the haters in the national media are already saying). I think the rotation could be better next year. I think J-Roll, Howard, and Ruiz can play better than they did this year. We can maintain this success if we play our cards right.
Yeah, that’s a silly article. It’s hard for anyone to repeat and the odds will be against them, but the Phils aren’t really “older” than the consistency strong teams of recent years like the ‘04-’08 Red Sox or ‘04-’06 Cardinals, or for that matter the last repeaters, the ‘98-’00 Yankees.
I think you’re correct that the level of good fortune was about typical for world champs—and probably well below, say, that of the ’93 pennant winners.
Not saying that can’t repeat next year but it’s not going to be simple – it’s still a very important offense.
by jemagee on Nov 1, 2008 7:57 PM EDT reply actions
OT, but hey I had no idea Doug Glanville was writing a running guest column all season for the New York Times. I thought his very personal take on Game Five was pretty neat.
I know Glanville wasn’t a very good player but he did have one good year in a Phillies uniform, and he was a super nice guy (I met him once). I wonder if he would make a good broadcaster. He has some (off the field) similarities to Richie Ashburn: a very intelligent, understated guy with a good sense of humor. Whitey used to write a column too for the Bulletin when he first came back to Philadelphia in the 1970s.
He'd be great as a broadcaster
I remember the pithy/funny quotes Stark used to get from him.
maybe...
Being a smart, witty guy and a good quote doesn’t necessarily make one a good broadcaster. Sandy Koufax was a terrible broadcaster.
Of course, Glanville could be terrific. I guess we won’t know until he tries. But I think baseball in general is shying away from putting bright guys in the booth in lieu of wacky ones (Mark Grace, Krukker, Eric Young, etc.).
http://www.thegoodphight.com
WHY CAN'T US?
Adding...
I guess what I’m saying is that Doug Glanville might be too cerebral for mainstream sports media. Think Dan Quisenberry (RIP).
http://www.thegoodphight.com
WHY CAN'T US?
I get you. But cerebral guys don’t necessarily have to come across that way on the air. See Joe Morgan (oh, wait…)
Bob Costas does a fine job – if only NBC hadn’t given away most sports
by jemagee on Nov 4, 2008 7:19 PM EST up reply actions
wow
I knew Doug was a contributing columnist to the NYT and I’ve mildly enjoyed his pieces throughout this year. But I missed that one. Fantastic—as a piece of writing, and as a validation of the same Phillies philosophy that has so exasperated some of us over the years.
That really made me feel good about the organization—for its values as well as its success. Thanks for posting it.
On the other hand, I was shocked and appalled to read in one of Glanville’s columns that his all-time favorite musical act is Hall & Oates. My admiration for Glanville as a person was shaken to its core that day.

by 























