Up 1.5
by dajafi on Jun 3, 2008 9:16 AM EDT
Email
PrintI was rooting for the Marlins last night, but when they fell to the Braves 7-5 in 10 innings, an hour or so after the Phillies finished off the Reds in a 5-4 win, the Phils found themselves in a position they haven't enjoyed in nearly four years: leading the NL East by more than a game. They're a game and a half ahead of second-place Florida going into play tonight.
The last time the Phillies enjoyed a bigger lead was July 10, 2004, when they lost 4-0 to Atlanta but maintained their two-game edge over the Braves and Mets. They fell out of first place for good 13 days later, and the Larry Bowa Firing Watch was officially on. The Phils spent all of one day in first during the 2005 season, and that day was April 4. That was one day more than the following season, when the team never ran in front; last year, of course, the Phils spent only two days in first, but the second was the last day of the season.
Charlie Manuel said recently that he'd like to see how the team responds to a sizable lead in the East. They aren't there yet, but they haven't been this close to true front-running in four years.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I threw this up earlier today in a hurry, but if I’d had more time I might have looked into whether any ballclub in the last couple decades-at least since the realignment of ‘94-had spent as much time above .500 but so little in first place as the Phils over the last seven years. I kind of doubt it.
Sums it up
This sums up the failures of the past decade and a half. They’ve had good teams, with good talent, but they just didn’t have the management to know how to get them over the hump.
by David S. Cohen on Jun 3, 2008 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I have no particular brief for the front office, which is average at best and has made its share of errors (and no less so under Gillick than before, in my view), but I think the thing that dajafi points out has to do more with statistical anomalies than with any failures at “clutch decisionmaking” or whatever. Did the Dodgers front office really do any better of a job than the Phillies’? They won fewer games, but got to the playoffs twice. Was that because they performed in the clutch and knew how to get their team over the hump, or was it because they just had more statistical variance (both in their own records and in the records of their main competitors)?
Definitely there’s something to be said for the argument that the Braves were so good through 2005, and that the Mets dominated more or less from wire to wire in 2006. But to some extent that’s a reflection of the Phillies’ comparative weakness as well as the strengths of those two teams. If we’d been in the NL Central in 2006, our record would have won the division. Of course, we weren’t. You have to beat your direct competitors.
No, you’re right, and I understand that. My main point is more that if Team A wins 75, 95, 75, and 95 wins in four seasons, and Team B wins 85 every year, that’s probably more a result of variance than it is of Team A’s front office being more clutch or anything like that. Team A’s luck was just bunched up instead of spread out evenly.
(Of course, teams sometimes go through rebuilding years where you’re bad on purpose so that you can reload for future seasons, but that’s the explanation less often than not, I think. You’d have to look at it case by case.)
This is not to say that Team B’s front office is excused. An 85-win team isn’t good enough. But I don’t think Team B’s front office should be subjected to extra criticism for failing to “get over the hump” or whatever.
Gotcha. I guess one way to look at that would be to compare actual record to Pythagorean or third-order or some other metric that tries to get at underlying performance. But of course that doesn’t discount luck either: maybe Team A is derailed with a barrage of injuries in the bad years and has perfect health in the good years, or their main competition hits a bump of particularly good or bad fortune.
The question of “luck” in baseball is one I’ve thought about a lot the last few years. The only conclusion I’ve drawn is that over a long enough stretch, Branch Rickey’s maxim is probably correct.
Or to put it another way, I’m not saying that Team B deserves praise. Just that whatever treatment you give it should be equal to the treatment you give Team A (unless Team A’s fluctuations were the result of an intentional strategy).
Not just strategy
I think it’s impossible to lump a team over four years and chalk it up to fluctuation or variation. Team rosters just aren’t that stable. Now, the core may be that stable, but there are always going to be key personnel decisions to complement the core that are going to affect the results in one season. And those personnel decisions are not going to be the same from year to year, even if the core is.
For instance, in 2005, they finished 2 games back. Ed Wade supplied the team early in the season with Endy Chavez, who was given 100+ plate appearances, many in key situations. Meanwhile, Shane Victorino was tearing up AAA, and he was just a late season call up. Would the team have performed 2 games better if Victorino got all of Chavez’s plate appearances? I don’t know, probably not. But, maybe so. And, maybe so if all of Ed Wade and Charlie Manuel’s tinkering around the edges of a dominant core had been more competent.
by David S. Cohen on Jun 3, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Chavez vs Victorino
I’m quite certain that a statue could have outperformed Endy Chavez that year. And winning only one more game against the Houston Astros would have accomplished the feat. The AB where Endy was up with a tie game and a runner on third where he swung at a pitch that was 5’ short of home plate AND HE HIT IT ON THE SHORT HOP will forever live in infamy in my mind. Swinging at the pitch wasn’t bad enough, we still could have scored the tying run on the WP. But he fouled it off, and subsequenly made an out, in a game the Astros went on to win. I have despised Endy as a baseball player ever since.
Me too
That whole year was so damn frustrating because of him. And then to think that the Mets had an Endy Chavez bobble-head day last year all because of some stupid catch the year before. Bobble-head day has to be reserved for good players. To have one for Endy Chavez means you might as well have one for the batboy.
by David S. Cohen on Jun 3, 2008 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I was actually at the game where the Phillies were up by one in the bottom of the ninth, Wagner retired the first two batters, and then
1. Third hitter reaches on a David Bell error
2. Craig Biggio hits two-run home run
That was the same year we finished behind Houston by 1 game, whichever one that was.
That one, alas, I remember all too well. Except I think it was a three-run homer, and it was Willie Taveras who either reached on the Bell error or (I think) simply beat out an infield single.
This is something we could easily look up, but I’m trying to digest some food here.
I don’t think “selection bias” is the right terminology, but there’s something seriously flawed with this analysis. Every team’s record is the result of X good moves + Y bad moves. If you finish one game out of the playoffs, then by definition, every bad move was a crucial one that cost you the playoff berth. You can’t just define the “core” as given and isolate only the “complements” in your analysis. That’s just defining away any facts that contradict the preordained result you want to reach.
Why not?
I agree that choosing one personnel decision is mere selection bias, but I wasn’t trying to do a global analysis. I don’t think it’s unfair though to say that a team has a core, and to recognize that that core is very good. But, to then say that it’s the GM’s job to complement the core with talent that can win enough games to get to the post-season. That was Wade’s biggest problem. He developed a great core, much of which we’re seeing produce still today. But, he couldn’t figure out how to add to that core.
As shore excellently wrote a long time ago, he knew how to identify top talent, but then had no clue what the difference was between league average and replacement level.
by David S. Cohen on Jun 3, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Ed Wade
Trading Polanco for Ugueth Urbina was Wade’s legacy. Rather than replace the overpaid-underperforming David Bell with Polanco at 3B, he traded Polanco for an over the hill middle reliever. Bell had to continue playing 3rd base because he was being payed so much money.
Yup. I spent all winter after the ‘04 season yelling that he should look to trade Bell (coming off a career year) rather than Polanco. But you just knew that wasn’t happening.
Well, Bell didn’t have that much trade value. Still, clearly it was a mistake. What Wade should have done is eat the salary, tell Charlie to play Polanco at third, and live without another middle reliever.
Oddly, it’s a mistake that no one seems to remember anymore (there are much smaller mistakes that get moaned about all the time), which I think is directly related to the fact that Polanco was one of the most underappreciated Phillies ever. If we’ve had anyone who fit the mold of the stereotypical ideal Philadelphia athlete (makes the most out of limited ability, plays hard all the time, gets his uniform dirty), it was Polanco. But instead of being loved, some people even booed him in ‘05 for wanting more playing time (and taking it from Utley). I don’t know how to explain any of that, except that maybe it was because he was Latino.
lead is now 2.5
Since the Braves rallied late to beat the Marlins.
If you’re given to pessimism, though, it’s probably worth noting that the Braves’ bullpen now looks scary good with Soriano and Smoltz back and Gonzalez soon to follow. Also, Pedro Martinez is in line to get the win tonight assuming the Mets hold the 9-3 lead they currently enjoy in the 6th inning. His numbers against a weak Giants lineup aren’t so hot, though: three runs, one strikeout in five innings.
The point is that the originally forecast three-team battle still looks fairly likely.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
Chicago Cubs
Thursday, May 17, 2012, 8:05 PM EDT
Wrigley Field
Mostly clear. Winds blowing from right to left field at 5-10 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 65.
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Gary Sinise’s first pitch was not worthy of an Oscar
- Photo: Yu Darvish gets a big head, lowers his ERA to 2.60
- The Juice: Another Albert Pujols home run sighted, Orioles beat Royals in 15
- Will Rhymes faints after getting hit in arm with pitch, but he’s OK
- Jamie Moyer legs out infield single, drives in two runs
