Some Not-So-Random Thoughts for the Day

by David S. Cohen on Dec 20, 2006 10:13 AM EST in News

There's actually a lot going on these days with the Phils for late December, so it's time for . . . a bullet point list! (AKA, the lazy-man's blog entry.)

Yesterday, the Phils signed Rod Barajas as a backup catcher. The good news is that the Phils got a backup catcher with a bit of pop in his bat. Over the past three years, in just about 1100 at-bats, Barajas has hit 47 home runs. However, what's horrible about this signing is that Barajas has a career .282 OBP. Yes, you read that right. I'm not confusing on-base percentage with batting average here. He gets on base only 28% of the times he appears at the plate. To put that more dramatically, he makes an out 72% of the time he steps up to bat. I guess Pat Gillick thought that Barajas would help bring back the 2005 black hole at the bottom of the Phils' lineup.
The Phils also signed outfielder Jayson Werth yesterday. With his goatee (at least on his ESPN picture, I have no idea if he still has one), he has the requisite gritty Phillies' look. (He also has the required skin color for the current crop of Phils' outfielders. Is there a whiter outfield in baseball than Pat Burrell, Jeff Conine, Jayson Werth, Aaron Rowand, and Shane Victorino? Yeah, Victorino is Hawaiian, but very light-skinned.) Werth has some moderate power and moderate on-base skills, but he also has an injury history to put JD Drew to shame. Is this what the salary flexibility of trading Bobby Abreu gets us in the outfield?
I often don't like his columns because they're too cliche ridden and doom-and-gloom, but Phil Sheridan has a very good column today about Philly teams trading or throwing away superstars. The list he has is impressive and sad: Charles Barkley, Allen Iverson, Wilt Chamberlain, Reggie White, Randall Cunningham, Eric Lindros, Dick Allen, Scott Rolen, and Curt Schilling. Conspicuously missing from the list, although not surprisingly so, is Bobby Abreu, who is every bit as good as the players on the list. His trade also accomplished just as much for the Phils as all these other trades did: nothing. Don't these GMs look at the track record and see that trading superstars has never achieved the desired result of getting the team over the hump? I guess it's easier to blame the superstar than to blame team management for being incapable of bringing in the right spare parts to complement the superstar. (On a side note, do other teams in other cities do this so often?)
Finally, lots of commentators have noted that the Phils' offense led the league in runs scored last year so it should be the least of the team's off-season concerns. I've done so myself at times. But, the more I think about it, the more I'm concerned that the offense just won't be as good this year. Yes, Utley, Howard, and Rollins should continue to improve, and Burrell, if he remains here (as it seems now), will be solid, if still disappointing. But, all those parts were here last year with one other part - Bobby Abreu. He'll be missing this year, and the team has not done anything to compensate. Wes Helms getting significant playing time over Abraham Nunez and in place of David Bell will help a bit, but whoever fills in for Abreu from the melanin-deprived outfield crew will definitely not produce the way Bobby did. Over the entirety of the season, the team is going to miss him.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

A few thoughts

I agree on Abreu. I think the late season surge without him last year is not something they can sustain all year. Over the course of a long season they'll miss those cumulative stats. Hopefully the upgrade in the rotation will counterbalance the loss of offense...

As far as Werth and his injury history... I'm inclined to give him a bit of a pass on some of it. I think anyone getting hit with an AJ Burnett fastball on the wrist is going to miss some time.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Dec 20, 2006 11:06 AM EST reply actions

the abreu trade was worse

The thing about the other trades is that at least for many of them, they had to be made. Schilling was going to leave as a free agent. Barkley was demanding a trade. Iverson demanded a trade. We didn't get equal value for these guys but if we had held onto them, we wouldn't have had equal value either since they were either on their way out or unhappy.

The Abreu trade was singularly stupid because it didn't need to be made. Abreu had time left on his contract, and would have stayed here, boos notwithstanding. It's also the worst trade because we the fans of Phillies Nation were fully complicit in it. Not many fans cried when the trade was made. The majority called into WIP and celebrated it as "addition by subtraction." Not only was this fiasco completely unnecessary, but, in a collective sense, we'll deserve it.

by taco pal on Dec 20, 2006 7:45 PM EST up reply actions

Werth and the offense

For $850k, I think he represents a chance worth taking. (Please note: I resisted the pun.) The walk rate throughout his whole pro career is exceptional--almost Burrell-esque. Rare that the "pure athlete" types that Gillick likes also have that skill. And I wonder if his wrist injury was handled appropriately by the Dodgers training staff--the history indicates a lot of potential bad decisions.

You're right that it's unlikely the offense will be as good as it was last year. Realistically, Howard has no room for further improvement, and while I think he's likely to keep an OPS in the .950-1.000 range, that still represents a dropoff. Utley could smooth out some of those highs and lows that seem to dot his seasons, but I wouldn't expect it. Rollins? Same deal. I keep thinking he might have a season when everything falls in and he hits .320, but there's no guarantee. Ruiz/Barajas might out-homer the 2006 catchers, but I doubt they'll outproduce the three-headed backstop beast overall. Helms will produce, but at best what he does over Nunez might make up for whatever decline there is from the MVP.

In the outfield, Burrell could be a bit better, or fall apart entirely. It becomes increasingly clear that Rowand had his career year in 2004; whoever overpays for him next winter can get seduced by those numbers, but I don't see him putting them up again: dude just doesn't walk enough. Victorino was pretty solid the last two months; if he's the CF and there's some job-sharing arrangement between Werth and someone like Trot Nixon in one of the corners, with Rowand shipped out of town, that could work, but it still won't match Abreu plus "Kenny Michaels" from 2005.

Overall, it's still going to be a good offense. Just probably not quite as good as last year's. If the pitching is as improved as we hope, though, I think it will be good enough.

by dajafi on Dec 20, 2006 1:33 PM EST reply actions

good news/bad news

I agree on Werth.

I also agree on Rowand. Whoever overpays for him next winter is an idiot. Sadly, I fear that we may end up being that idiot.

by taco pal on Dec 20, 2006 7:47 PM EST up reply actions

bench

So who's on the bench this year? Conine, Werth, Barajas, Coste, Nunez? It'll be interesting to see how they divy up the PT.

1B, 2B, SS are all locks.

3B - imagine it'll be at least 60/40 for Helms/Nunez

C - I hope it plays out like this (75/25 for Ruiz over Barajas), but imagine it'll be closer to 65/35

OF - Not sure how this will play out, but I imagine Victorino and Burrell will get the majority of the time (with the Flyin Hawaiian manning center when Rowand sits). So how's this:
Burrell - 80% LF
Victorino - 20% CF, 65% RF
Rowand - 70% CF
Werth - 10% CF, 20% LF, 5% RF
Conine - 30% RF

So we should be better overall at 3B and C, which should offset whatever slide happens at first/second/short. So I guess it all comes down to how the OF situation plays out. If the pitching staff performs up to par, I think the team will be fine. Even if the Phils drop to 5th or 6th in terms of runs scored, the runs saved by the staff should more than offset that. I forget where I read it, but I remember something stating that a run saved is worth more than a run scored, so that a big improvement by the pitching staff should more than compensate for a dropoff in runs scored.

by Alex Falzone on Dec 20, 2006 3:19 PM EST reply actions

07 Offense

Last year, the Phils' C, 3B, and RF posted a .347 OBP/.409 SLG in 1,768 AB. For context, Bell, as a Phillie, had a .345/.398 OBP/SLG.

Here are the 07 Bill James projections for the guys likely to take over:

Helms .345/.458
Victorino: .319/.401
Werth: .336/.427
Conine: .331/.382
Ruiz: .352/.469
Barajas: .288/.417

Barajas is terrible and Victorino's on-base skills are concerning, but if they add a guy like Aubrey Huff (projected to .346/.472) they'll be ok offensively. Add to that a much improved starting rotation and presumably another bullpen arm to be used in high-leverage situations and I think they've improved significantly.

This offense has always been very top heavy, as the Phillies have apparently never understood the opportunity cost that comes with playing OBP sinkholes, and while that's frustruating, they scored 865 runs last year.

by enterpsmith on Dec 20, 2006 3:38 PM EST reply actions

The Navigator

I've been salivating at the prospect of adding Huff, but is there any chance of that happening now? We've got two third basemen (3 depending on how Coste is used I suppose) and five outfielders - wouldn't we have to drop someone we just signed if we added Huff? I wish we would, but I presume the signings of Helms and Werth were an indication that Huff was out of reach. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

by The Navigator on Dec 20, 2006 5:02 PM EST up reply actions

Makes sense to me

Although I suppose Werth or Coste could always be sent down...

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Dec 20, 2006 5:04 PM EST up reply actions

I think you're spot on

Why did they just sign Werth and Barajas (pushing Coste from backup C to backup IF) if the plan was to bring in Huff too? There's already 5 guys on the bench, and that's not including Bourn or Roberson.

by Alex Falzone on Dec 20, 2006 5:07 PM EST up reply actions

Huff was more of a hope than a prediction.

But I don't think Huff--or any other left-handed hitting outfielder--is too far-fetched of an idea. You have to assume that Gillick realizes that right-field needs to be addressed in more of a substantive way; Victorino, even if he plays at the level of his most optimistic projection, won't provide enough offense for a corner spot and giving significant time to Conine, Bourn, and Roberson is a bad alternative.

by enterpsmith on Dec 20, 2006 5:44 PM EST up reply actions

and that prediction may now come true...

they just traded Conine! This could either mean Bourn and/or Roberson is going to see a lot more time, or - it could mean that Huff is a real possibility. It's almost Christmas - I'm gonna be optimistic.

by The Navigator on Dec 21, 2006 3:48 PM EST up reply actions

Outfield

I'd certainly hope they haven't finished "solving" the outfield. Whatever combination they decide to put in RF full time would clearly be subpar giving the choices available. They are also decidely right-handed in the outfield (only switch-hitter Victorino can bat form the left side and he, I beliive, is a better hitter as a righty). I don't really like any outfield that has Rowand, Werth and Conine -- that's superfluous players. Personally, I hope they get rid of Conine or Rowand (in fact, i think you can make a case that signing Werth was a concession that they are considering moving Rowand).

Getting some lefty hitter who can play against RHP would be key, whether it's someone like Huff or Nixon or even via trade like Church or Jenkins.

by Laaaaazzz on Dec 20, 2006 9:55 PM EST up reply actions

What we know

Is there's a massive amount of budget space that has not been used. We know what they were going to pay for Soriano and only a fraction of that money has been used.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Dec 20, 2006 11:47 PM EST up reply actions

Don't sell the outfield short

I've read some of the previous comments and I think some of you are a little pessimistic. I'm not a cock-eyed optimist by any means (remember, I'm a Phillies fan) but I think what Rowand and Victorino bring to the game defensively makes up for what you see as their offensive shortcomings. And I think you potentially undervalue them offensively anyway.

If Burrell is still here in '07 he's a defensive liability. This can be offset somewhat with Rowand in center and especially Victorino in right. Victorino's ability to cover well into the R/C gap gives Rowand the ability to cheat somewhat towards left and make Burrell better by allowing him to play closer to the line.

As Alex Falzone said in an earlier post, "I forget where I read it, but I remember something stating that a run saved is worth more than a run scored". An adjunct to that from the Bill James 1988 Abstract is "A great deal of what is perceived as being pitching is in fact defense."

Part of the reason the pitching improved at the end of last season is that one of the defensive liabilities in the corner outfield spots was replaced by someone who was a defensive plus.

The starting pitching has improved dramatically from last year (on paper), but having a good defense behind them will make them even better.

As for the offense, I predict it will score just as many runs this year as last. WITHOUT ABREU.

Here's why:

Before the Abreu trade the offense averaged 4.91 RPG vs 6.05 RPG after he was shipped out.

Clearly something changed, and it was more than Howard going on his tear. The makeup in the clubhouse and the lineup changed.

Utley was moved to his natural #3 spot and trived.

Victorino got more time, excelled defensively, and, I'm not suggesting he's anywhere near the force offensively Abreu is, but statistically outperformed Abreu in some offensive categories last year - runs/plate appearance being one of them. He may not have gotten on base as much as Abreu, but he did more once he got there. Speed kills.

As for Rowand, he was having near as good a year offensively - .310 BA, .356 OBP, .516 SLG as he did in '04 before he ran into the wall. The injury obviously affected his play the rest of the season. The question is whether he can get back to that point or somewhere close to it. I'll bet at his age he can, unless the facial injuries permanently affected his eyesight.

The infield - Helms/Nunez platoon is a definite upgrade from Bell, and the rest of the infield are All-Star calibre. Do I need to go over the numbers?

The two unknowns are catcher and Burrell.

Burrell has a history of up and down years. If the pattern holds, he's due for an up year at the plate. It's actually more important for him to hit for average than it is for him to crush the ball. In the #5 spot, he'll drive in 120+ runs if he hits .280 again. We just don't know whit Burrell will show up.

Like the rest of you who commented, I'm not sold on Barajas, especially at the plate. I would have been happy with a platoon of Ruiz and Coste, especially with the stick Coste swings, but I guess management sees something in them that they weren't comfortable with. Maybe they don't like the way Coste handles pitchers.

I'll predict here that they'll be happy enough with Ruiz and Coste(if he gets the chance) by the trade deadline that Barajas will finish the year elsewhere.

Lastly, remember they just had a turnover in coaches, and Davey Lopes has been brought in specifically to help improve the running game at the top of the order. Any improvement there will just add to the threat, and add distraction to and pressure on opposing pitchers. It should also improve the numbers of the hitters behind them.

Alex H

by AWH on Dec 21, 2006 12:33 AM EST reply actions

Post Abreu

I think the Abreu trade shook up the team and for the stretch run last year was probably a good thing. However, I think it's hard to expect the team to play with the same kind of desperation and urgency all this year as they did post Abreu last year.

I really feel that over the course of a full season the loss of his numbers will be felt. Like I said before though, hopefully the improved pitching will counter that.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Dec 21, 2006 10:47 AM EST up reply actions

actually, first-half 2006 Nunez

was not an upgrade over Bell at all. Nunez needed a good surge at season's end to wind up with almost-acceptable season stats; through July his OPS was something like .400. Bell was bad, heaven knows, but if Nunez gets 60% of the ABs and hits halfway between his June and September performances from last year, then I don't think we have an upgrade over Bell, Nunez's defense and Helms' offense notwithstanding.

by The Navigator on Dec 21, 2006 3:53 PM EST up reply actions

runs/plate appearance

Alex H said: "Victorino got more time, excelled defensively, and, I'm not suggesting he's anywhere near the force offensively Abreu is, but statistically outperformed Abreu in some offensive categories last year - runs/plate appearance being one of them. He may not have gotten on base as much as Abreu, but he did more once he got there. Speed kills."

Is runs/plate appearance actually meaningful? I mean, obviously, scoring runs is not a bad idea, but I can't see it saying that much about a player because it depends so much on who's hitting behind a guy.

For the record, last year, Abreu had 672 plate appearances and scored 98 runs; Victorino, 439 and 70. Isn't that .15 versus .16?

Victorino may be fast; but, unless Lopes can really help him, it doesn't help him steal bases (4SB, 3CS in '06). I'm not a huge fan of stolen bases, but Abreu (30 SB, 6CS in '06) certainly did more in that area once he got on base.

I don't think people are selling the outfield- as it stands now- short. It's just not that great.

by Ace on Dec 21, 2006 8:42 PM EST up reply actions

Split the Stats

Ace,

You have to look at what Abreu did with the Phillies last year, and separate what he did with the Yankees. Do that and you'll see that Victorino scored more runs per plate appearance in the Phillies lineup.

Is it meaningful? I thought getting on base and scoring runs was what you wanted the top of the order to do.

They're different players, and Abreu is certainly superior offensively, but Victorino is a + outfielder.

Alex H

by AWH on Dec 22, 2006 1:40 AM EST up reply actions

ok

If you want to restrict it to only Abreu's time with the Phils... he scored 61 runs in 430 plate appearances (.14). And yes, in my years of watching baseball, I have discovered that getting on base and scoring runs is important, but a player, except for a homerun, can't do it by himself. When you combine both getting on base and scoring runs, it makes it even sillier to try and give Victorino an actual and meaningful edge.

This is not a knock on Victorino, who you are alternatively supporting and knocking on different threads here. He's probably my current favorite player on the team, though I am still accepting applications to fill that gap.

by Ace on Dec 22, 2006 10:14 AM EST up reply actions

Applicant

Clay Condrey needs your support!

by WholeCamels on Dec 22, 2006 4:41 PM EST up reply actions

clean-shaven

Not to be discriminatory, but I think anybody with facial hair that imposing will not lack for fans.

by dajafi on Dec 22, 2006 6:17 PM EST up reply actions

ok II

As I've said, I love watching Victorino play, and I believe he is talented enough to play every day IN THIS LINEUP.

And my statistically limited comparison of him to Abreu was only done to point out that trading Abreu and playing Victorino in right was not completely subtractive, as he brings things to the table, even offensively, that Abreu doesn't.

My problem with many of you is the seemingly kneejerk desire at this juncture to get rid of Rowand (a proven commodity, good clubhouse influence, and slightly above average offensive player) and replace him with someone who has only had limited ML experience.

Alex H

by AWH on Dec 22, 2006 10:06 PM EST up reply actions

no...

The problem is playing BOTH Victorino and Rowand will have detrimental effects on the team. In another thread you stated that you think I underrate defense. Call it a hunch, but for Rowand or Victorino to make up for their well-below-average offense as corner outfielders, they'd have to catch damn near everything hit into right field. There are simply not enough plays that either could make above that of an average right fielder to make up for the hit that the offense would take by having either of them start in right. A corner outfielder's defense is simply not nearly as important as what he brings to the table offensively.

The obvious solution is to trade one, but which one? The older one with just one year left on his contract, or the younger one who is under the team's control for several years at a much lower price?

In summation:

Rowand OR Victorino starting for the 2007 Phils: Good.

Rowand AND Victorino starting for the 2007 Phils: Bad.

by WholeCamels on Dec 23, 2006 10:24 AM EST up reply actions

from no to yes

Mr. Baker Sir,

Wee jest bee dizageein' on diz.

You want perfection in a team that you'll never get with this budget. Even the Yankees can't afford it.

You are isolating each individual position on the team and going for the ideal, rather than looking at the overall makeup of the team.

Look at the 2001 Phils who won 86 games. They hit 164 HR of which 70 came from the infield. The light hitting Rollins/Anderson hit #2.

The '03 team won 86 games and hit 166 HR of which 73 (75 if you count Utley) came from the infield. The light hitting Polanco/Rollins hit #2.

Last years team (85 wins) hit 216 HR of which 123 came from the infield (counting Nunez). They scored more runs per game AFTER the Abreu trade when Utley was moved from #2 to his natural #3, and Victorino was moved to the #2 spot.

Clearly, last year's team did not lack for power or offense.

Victorino fits into this offense as a #2 hitter, and, yes, he needs to improve. But he does not HURT the team.

Look at all the playoff teams the last several years. Almost invariably they are teams that are near the top of the league in ERA.

This team needs to keep other teams from scoring. Period. Spending the money on a stick in right field rather than pitching will not improve the results.

by AWH on Dec 23, 2006 1:15 PM EST up reply actions

Missing playoffs....

You are referring to a bunch of teams that seemed to hit well and have decent records. But they all have some things in common -- they all missed the playoffs. Replace some of those weaker hitters in the lineup and we win more games. Win more games and those years where we missed the playoffs by 1 or 2 games become October fun.

Playign Rowand or Victorino in RF is basically hoping that an 86-88 win team squeaks into the playoffs. It's settling to mediocraty unnecessarily. I'd much prefer the team try to actual improve to a 90+ win team and coast into the playoffs.

by Laaaaazzz on Dec 23, 2006 8:49 PM EST up reply actions

And they'll miss 'em again....

unless they pitch better.

I know more hits and runs are fun to watch, and it's frustrating for all of us to watch a K with the bases loaded and the team down 7-6 in the bottom of the 8th, but this team's problem last year was not that they didn't score enough.

Go to a reference sight and look at the teams that made the playoffs. Every National League team that made the playoffs scored less runs than the Phils. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

So why didn't they win more games than those teams? Why didn't they lead the league in wins?

Simple.

Every single NL team that made the playoffs GAVE UP less runs and had lower team ERAs. Adding another hitter doesn't solve that problem. They need to improve their pitching, and good defense is a part of that.

As I said in a previous post, a point Bill James makes in his abstracts is that "A great deal of what is perceived as being pitching is in fact defense."

You don't want to settle for mediocraty. Well, settling for a mediocre defense is unnecessary also. And if last year is any guide, the pitching staff is going to need all the help it can get.

Go ahead, dump Rowand. Sacrifice defense for more scoring and it will be 2006 redux.

The 2006 Padres scored the third FEWEST runs in the league, 134 FEWER than the Phils, and made the playoffs. Why? Maybe because they gave up by far the lowest number of runs in the league.

The 2006 Phils lost numerous games last year after leading in the 7th inning. It wasn't the lack of hitting that lost the leads.

by AWH on Dec 24, 2006 1:29 AM EST up reply actions

Well...

"I know more hits and runs are fun to watch, and it's frustrating for all of us to watch a K with the bases loaded and the team down 7-6 in the bottom of the 8th, but this team's problem last year was not that they didn't score enough."

Not one person here cares about what is fun. Please, keep those comments to yourself. We only care about what wins ballgames.

"Go to a reference sight and look at the teams that made the playoffs. Every National League team that made the playoffs scored less runs than the Phils. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

So why didn't they win more games than those teams? Why didn't they lead the league in wins?

Simple.

While factually true, it is intellectually dishonest.

NL playoff teams:
Mets: 108 OPS+
Cardinals: 102 OPS+
Dodgers: 104 OPS+
Padres: 102 OPS+

Phillies: 107 OPS+

So, 1 team did perform better when adjusting for park than the Phillies. In addition, the other 3 teams all performed above average, with the Dodgers ranking 5th and the Padres and Cards tied for 6th.

NL Playoff teams:
Mets: 104 ERA+
Cardinals: 97 ERA+
Dodgers: 108 ERA+
Padres: 109 ERA+

Phillies: 100 ERA+

Phils had an average pitching staff last year, park adjusted. One playoff team had a worse team ERA and still made the playoffs.

If you are keeping track, the team with the best offense of the playoff teams AND better than the Phillies had the best winning percentage in the NL. The team with the WORST pitching staff of playoff teams AND worse than the Phillies won the world series.

What does that tell you? Most likely nothing since much of this is statistical feedback. But it also shows that there is likely just as much corelation to a good offense making the playoffs as good pitching/defense. Even if pitching/defense is slightly more important, the offense is MUCH easier to improve since we have glaring weaknesses.

"You don't want to settle for mediocraty. Well, settling for a mediocre defense is unnecessary also. And if last year is any guide, the pitching staff is going to need all the help it can get."

You have to look at where it is more valuable. The Phils play in a small ballpark than most in the NL. Thus, the need for superior defense isn't as important. It is pretty simple.

"The 2006 Padres scored the third FEWEST runs in the league, 134 FEWER than the Phils, and made the playoffs. Why? Maybe because they gave up by far the lowest number of runs in the league."

Do you KNOW what park they played in?

"The 2006 Phils lost numerous games last year after leading in the 7th inning. It wasn't the lack of hitting that lost the leads"

Two more points on this. First, a homework assignment. Find out how many leads the Phils lost after leading in the 7th inning versus how many games they had leading in the 7th and compare it to the rest of the league. Not going to do it? Too much work? Then don't make these comments then. Second, is the offense allowed to take the night off after getting a lead? I thought baseball was a team game. Relievers give up runs. The offense is just as much on the hook for the loss as the pitching/defense. It is silly to presume that since it is in the 7th or later that the game lies solely on the pitcher's sholdures.

by jonk on Dec 25, 2006 4:43 AM EST up reply actions

Well..well..well

"Two more points on this. First, a homework assignment. Find out how many leads the Phils lost after leading in the 7th inning versus how many games they had leading in the 7th and compare it to the rest of the league."

The number of games is over 20. Homework? No need. Data was in the newspaper so it saved me the time. Want to know exactly how many? Find the article yourself, Oh Snide One.

That being the case, I'll agree the hitters need to pick the pitching up, so I'll concede half of the time it was the hitters' fault for not coming back. What about the other half? Does that translate into at least 10 more wins and a playoff appearance last season?

"The Phils play in a small ballpark than most in the NL. Thus, the need for superior defense isn't as important."

Why? Is very hit in baseball a HR? The last three years a little less than 12% of hits in the NL were HRs. What about the other 88%? Why does being in a small ballpark lessen the value of good defense on balls in play?

I understand and agree that parks played in matter where HRs are concerned, which affects scoring, but a line drive into the gap or down the line happens in every park. Diving catches on balls in front of the fielder save runs.

"If you are keeping track, the team with the best offense of the playoff teams AND better than the Phillies had the best winning percentage in the NL. The team with the WORST pitching staff of playoff teams AND worse than the Phillies won the world series."

One, if the team you mention had the best offense did indeed have it, why didn't they win the WS? And why then didn't they score more runs than the Phils during the regular season?

Two, the team that won the World Series had team ERAs of: NLDS 1.50, NLCS 3.98, WS 2.05. They scored: NLDS 3.5 RPG, NLCS 4.0 RPG, WS 4.4 RPG.

So, did they outpitch or outslug their opponents in these series? Did their hitters club the opposition into submission, or did the pitchers step up?

All that considered, it's a matter of what you think the priority should be, improving the pitching or adding another hitter.

My vote is for improving the pitching. I think the offense will be fine.

by AWH on Dec 27, 2006 12:51 AM EST up reply actions

Well...Well...Well...

"The number of games is over 20. Homework? No need. Data was in the newspaper so it saved me the time. Want to know exactly how many? Find the article yourself, Oh Snide One."

That means nothing to me without the league average. If the league averages 30, then the Phillies are doing good.

"That being the case, I'll agree the hitters need to pick the pitching up, so I'll concede half of the time it was the hitters' fault for not coming back. What about the other half? Does that translate into at least 10 more wins and a playoff appearance last season?"

So, they are NEVER allowed to blow a 7 inning or later lead? Are they not playing against other professional teams? How about all the times they bullpen held the lead? I don't know the data, but it is possible you are getting on them for something they may be doing better than league average.

"Why? Is very hit in baseball a HR? The last three years a little less than 12% of hits in the NL were HRs. What about the other 88%? Why does being in a small ballpark lessen the value of good defense on balls in play? "

Think about this in terms of a circle. Pat Burrell has a radius of where he can get to. Beyond that, the ball lands in play. Put all his radii down, and you get a nice little area that Pat can field a ball. The area for a circle is ðr^2. So, the further you get from Pat's possible fielding area, the area he cannot reach grows exponentially. Thus, if he can move 5 feet, he can cover an area of 78.5 square feet. If the outfield has a radius of 10 feet from Pat, he isn't able to cover how much? No, it isn't a simple subtraction answer where you would get it is 78.5 square feet. It is, in fact, 235 square feet (10^2)ð - (5^2)ð. So, what actually helps a ball player more? Being able to cover that one extra foot, or making the ballpark 1 foot smaller (thus, the CBP having a small, though, not as small as it used to be, outfield).

If we add one more foot onto the radius of Pat Burrell, we get 113 square feet covered (a nice increase of 34.5). But, if the field is smaller by one foot, we get a total area of 254.33 SQFT, which is 59.67 SQFT less). So, not to make this more complicated, but Pat, and his 5 foot radius of accessibility) can cover 78.5 SQFT and not cover 175.8 SQFT. Pat in a larger park can cover 78.5 SQFT and not cover 235.5 SQFT. He is in capable of covering 60 more SQFT in the larger park.

What that math says is that smaller parks (and thus outfields) reduce the area that an outfielder needs to get to much more than increasing the distance an outfielder can run. Now, while a better outfielder can get to more balls than Pat, he leaves as much open space as a better fielder does in a bigger ballpark.

"I understand and agree that parks played in matter where HRs are concerned, which affects scoring, but a line drive into the gap or down the line happens in every park. Diving catches on balls in front of the fielder save runs."

Smaller parks put Pat closer to the line and closer to the gap to make a catch or get to the ball quicker. Imagine a very tiny outfield that has just enough room for Pat. He'd catch everything, just as any other fielder would. Slowly increase the size and Pat is still just as good (or pretty darn close) as the best outfielders. However, the larger the outfield gets, the worse Pat gets compared to other outfielders. More distance needed to run to catch the ball or get to it.

"One, if the team you mention had the best offense did indeed have it, why didn't they win the WS? And why then didn't they score more runs than the Phils during the regular season?"

Did the team with the best pitching win the WS? Nope, they didn't either. And they scored less runs because their ballpark reduces the runs scored. Adjusted, the Mets had a better offense than the Phils.

"Two, the team that won the World Series had team ERAs of: NLDS 1.50, NLCS 3.98, WS 2.05. They scored: NLDS 3.5 RPG, NLCS 4.0 RPG, WS 4.4 RPG.

So, did they outpitch or outslug their opponents in these series? Did their hitters club the opposition into submission, or did the pitchers step up?"

A combination of the two. Had the Cards let in 2 more runs per game, but scored 2 more runs, would the outcome have been any different? Does it matter as long as you outscore your opponents?

"All that considered, it's a matter of what you think the priority should be, improving the pitching or adding another hitter.

My vote is for improving the pitching. I think the offense will be fine."

Actually, it is a matter of what can you do that will increase your ability to win more effectively. Let's say we can get a slightly better pitcher as a starter for the same price that we can get a good hitting 3rd baseman. The pitcher is likely to reduce our runs given up per game by .1, but our hitter is likely to increase the runs per gam by .2. What is more likely to help your team?

by jonk on Dec 27, 2006 2:32 AM EST up reply actions