When you have to win four games -- and can lose just three -- there's no time to waste. Game One of a best-of-seven takes on added significance because teams usually have their best starting pitcher on the mound, for one, and because there are tactical and strategic advantages to having that one-game lead. Winning the first game of a World Series is a strong indicator of future success. The last five World Series have been won by the Game One victor, and all-time, the winner of the first game is 63-40 in the Series.
Whatever history dictates, increase it for the Phillies. Their chance to beat the Rays over seven games may come down to whether they beat them in one. Game One. Tonight's game, pitting Philadelphia's
The game plan for the Phillies is fairly simple: win both of Hamels' starts and steal two other games. I'm not sure -- no, let me make this stronger -- the Phillies cannot win the World Series unless they win tonight's game. The only time they even might have the better starting lineup is when Hamels pitches.
Given the importance of Hamels to the Phillies, his superiority over their other options and the importance of the games, then, wouldn't it make sense to treat Hamels like the ace he is and get him three starts in the World Series? We've taken to regarding this kind of usage as unusual, or even abusive, but that's another example of how we've gone too far towards conservativism in the handling of pitchers. Hamels doesn't have to throw 140 pitches in a start, and he isn't being asked to make 40 starts in a season. But with four months of rest ahead of him and a title on the line -- one that no player or team is guaranteed another chance at -- isn't this the time to modify his usage just a bit to maximize the Phillies' chance at it?
The risk isn't even as great as it sounds. Yes, Hamels would definitely have to make one start on short rest, Game Four. The second start on short rest would only come into play if the season were to come down to one game, and I think we can all agree that making such a start is, to some extent, why Cole Hamels picked up a baseball in the first place. At 24 years old -- 25 in eight weeks -- Hamels is past the point where you have to be hyperconservative about his workload. The entire reason you nurture a pitcher like Hamels is so that you can win a championship on his back.
Is Hamels on short rest still an ace? Is he better than
What would it look like? Well, one problem with starting your ace in Games 1, 4 and 7 is that you need someone to start Game Five. That's your No. 4 starter or your No. 2 on short rest. I don't think Myers on short rest is better than Blanton, so I would use Blanton in Game Five and Myers, on a short leash, in Game Six. More creatively, you could start Moyer in Game Six and turn to Myers after one time through the order or so, turning the Rays' lineup around and gaining whatever benefits may be gained by switching from the soft-tosser to the hard thrower. The entire bullpen, coming off of an off-day, would be available behind the two.
Starting Hamels three times in the World Series maximizes the Phillies' chance of winning by getting their best pitcher -- by far -- to the mound as much as possible. With not much data to go on, the safest assumption is that he would lose some effectiveness, but not enough to make him worse than the other options. Hamels' upside is also a bit higher than that of the other pitchers. The threat to Hamels' well-being is not much more than it would be in a normal start, and the pursuit of a championship is the time to take that risk.