The Wrong Focus: Why the Phillies Should Focus on Offense Off the Bench

by David S. Cohen on Nov 18, 2009 11:40 AM EST Comment 21 comments

Ruben Amaro Jr. is reportedly so content with the offense that Ben Francisco and Greg Dobbs can provide off the bench next year that he thinks that the Phillies should focus on defense with their other bench positions. Here's the Inquirer's introductory take on the matter:

The Phillies will emphasize defense when working to improve their bench this off-season, general manager Ruben Amaro Jr. said yesterday.

While the team would love to add part-time players who can hit for batting average and power, they will "err on getting defense over offense," Amaro said.

Amaro is wrong here for two reasons that can be encapsulated with the following numbers: .630 and .447.

First, Amaro is wrong because the Phillies as a team had an awful .186/.284/.346 triple slash line and .630 OPS last year when pinch hitting. That .630 OPS was 12th in the NL. Their .186 batting average when pinch hitting was 15th in the NL. This is awful production from the bench, especially given that the bench usually comes into play in important game situations.

Second, the Phillies were 8-16 in interleague play last year (when you add in the World Series) and have a .447 overall winning record against the AL since interleague play has begun (including World Series appearances). As was quite clear in the World Series, the Phillies suffered with the DH at Yankee Stadium and Hideki Matsui being the main pinch hit threat at Citizens Bank Park. With a bench that's weak offensively, the Phillies will not eliminate their NL East disadvantage in interleague play or give themselves more options if they reach the World Series again.

Both of these reasons indicate the Amaro is foolish to emphasize defense over offense in his quest to fill out the bench this off-season.

But, there is one possible way that I could be less angry with this decision. In filling the third base spot, as PhillyFriar has noted over the past week, there are players available by free agency or trade who might be offensive assets but defensive liabilities. If Amaro were to pursue one of those players, it might be worth backing him up with a more defense-oriented infielder who can sub for the new third baseman when appropriate.

However, even this possibility would explain just one position. Even if that were to come to pass, the Phillies need more offense off the bench. Focusing on defense is wrong.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don’t know if Amaro’s comments were necessarily indicative of a strategic approach they are seeking to take so much as just recognizing the reality of the situation. I mean, how many affordable players are out there who can hit for average and power, play the infield, and would agree to a bench role in the NL? But I agree with you completely that we would have alot more options next season if we put a big bat at 3rd base.

by Boundforbeach on Nov 18, 2009 12:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

offense from the bench

I agree with the overall point, but I can somewhat see where Amaro’s coming from in terms of how he values the two returning reserves.

Francisco has been a semi-regular pretty much since reaching the majors in 2007. He was neither great nor terrible with the Indians in about two full seasons, but there’s reason to think he can be effective in a bench role if he takes to the job—as he seemed to with the Phillies, at least until the postseason when he was awful. (Something I wasn’t aware of—he has basically no platoon split.)

Then there’s Dobbs. He was pretty bad in 2009, particularly as a pinch-hitter—but he was quite good in the two previous seasons, and even before that with the Mariners. He had some health issues. I’m fine with him coming back as an offense-first bench option next year.

Anyway, neither of those guys was great as a PH in 2009: Francisco (who saw most of his action after the trade as a starter) hit .231/.333/.385 in 13 PH ABs, and Dobbs was a much worse .167/.250/.241 in 54 ABs off the bench. The most-often used PH was Stairs, who was as advertised: .210/.380/.484 in 62 ABs, with 5 homers and 16 walks. Of course, he went two months or so without a hit at one point.

Dobbs got the second-most PH ABs, then we had Bruntlett (4-28, .143/.194/.286) and Cairo (2-18, .111/.158/.111). Neither of them will be back.

I’d like to see John Mayberry Jr. replace Stairs as the 5th OF. We know he can mash lefties, and he’s adequate as a defensive replacement. Let him start for Ibanez 3-4 times a month and come off the bench when the opposing manager can’t easily switch out his lefty specialist reliever. A bench of Francisco/Dobbs/Mayberry/(defense-first IF)/(backup C) should be serviceable.

by dajafi on Nov 18, 2009 12:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Offense needs to be the focus, but I am personally hoping another year of maturing will help Mayberry be able to fill another spot on the bench because due to the log jam we have in the OF, I don’t see him getting much playing time besides PH and the occasional spot OF start. using him will save us some money so we can put more focus on helping out the bullpen and 3B.

by ajr142 on Nov 18, 2009 12:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, Mayberry is basically the replacement for Stairs. As dajafi said, as long as Dobbs and Francisco return to normal, those 3 should amount to a bench upgrade. Plus, we may be able to bring up Taylor and/or Brown at the end of 2010, which could mean huge bench upgrades heading into the post-season.

by Cormican on Nov 18, 2009 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah!

Love the new picture on the front page of the site!!!

by Boundforbeach on Nov 18, 2009 12:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1. Big ups for Whole Camels and for the source who sent it.

by Wet Luzinski on Nov 18, 2009 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Phanatic Rules!

by taco pal on Nov 18, 2009 12:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Volatility

I haven’t the time to research right now, but my presumption is that offensive production by bench players is highly volatile due to the relatively small sample sizes of plate appearances/at-bats. The Phillies had, essentially, the same guys in 2008 as they did in ’09, but the differences were staggering.

I think focusing on the bench is a bad idea simply because it’s a gamble. And the Phillies, more than any team (seriously — they had the most at-bats taken by their starting eight, I think it was around 80%), have a low impetus to utilize the bench.

Focusing on defense is a good idea because that is mainly how the bench will be utilized — someone (Francisco) in for Ibanez, and depending on who’s at third base (say, Feliz for another stint), someone for him too.

It’d be nice to get a heavy bat for the bench, but it’s unlikely that the Hank Blalocks and Troy Glauses are A) willing to accept bench roles and B) not getting any interest from other teams such that the Phillies can make an impact signing for the bench. It’s more likely that they’ll get another round of Eric Bruntletts and Miguel Cairos that go by different names.

Crashburn Alley

by Crashburn Alley on Nov 18, 2009 1:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Fifth in pinch hit plate appearances

The Phillies were fifth in the NL in pinch hitting plate appearances with 271. Being fifth in the league in opportunities with the 12th OPS is not a good combination.

by David S. Cohen on Nov 18, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That surprises me, because it felt like the bench was relatively under-used in 2009. But are there stats out there that show bench utilization for defense? My guess is that’s where my perception comes from. Strategically the bench must score runs, true—but for a core of thirtysomethings, it has to be a weapon to guard against fatigue at season’s end.

I amin general agreement with Amaro, but only on condition that the back end of the bullpen gets fixed—and maybe in his mind, with healthy Lidge, healthy Romero, and Madson it may well be. If the Phillies go heavy on bench defense, they can have the advantage only to the point that they trust the lead to be preserved and then can rest (in order) Ibanez, Rollins, Howard, Utley. We were in so many come-from-behind situations, especially early on, that Manuel was loathe to takehis regulars out, and so good at comebacks that very few oppo leads were lost causes.

by Wet Luzinski on Nov 18, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not that surprising. The Phillies pinch hit for the 3B and C many times last season. How many teams pinch hit for positions other than pitcher regularly?

by yosoysean on Nov 18, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They also went through their lineup more often than a lot of other teams did last year.

by taco pal on Nov 18, 2009 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve said it before, 2010 is different as Taylor and Brown become realistic options for mid or late season call-ups. That can rest some regulars in the outfield and give huge pop off the bench. Bench O should end up a minor concern by season’s end. Amaro is likely considering that as well.

by Cormican on Nov 19, 2009 11:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

makes sense

for the same reason that we don’t generally see a lot of carryover in reliever performance from one season to the next. I was kind of trying to get at this in my long post w/r/t Dobbs—that hopefully he’s the J.C. Romero of lefty pinch-hitters, good about five seasons out of every six—but didn’t quite articulate it.

by dajafi on Nov 18, 2009 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the volatility argument is a sound one, and it lends credence to the idea that it makes sense to expect some sort of bounce back from Dobbs (towards his career norms).

But I don’t like the idea of focusing on defense at the expense of offense, because I fear that Amaro will carry that idea to its extreme (i.e. toward the John McDonald end of the spectrum). For example, Eric Hinske is by no means a defense over offense kind of guy, but he’s been above average at three of the corner spots throughout his career (clicky), and he’d be a heck of an addition as a pinch hitter. I’d rather him an all glove guy like Joey Gathright.

Ditto on the infield situation. Sure, McDonald has a great glove, but Jerry Hairston and Jamey Carroll aren’t terrible fielders, and the slight defensive downgrade is more than made up for by not putting McDonald’s wet noodle bat out there for 100 at bats.

by PhillyFriar on Nov 18, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to discredit your article or anything and I am not arguing because we should have better options off the bench.

I think this issue is more compounded because of the team health. Ibanez, Victorino, and Ruiz hit the shelf I believe, but other than that, this team was insanely healthy. Now, that certainly does not matter a lick when you need to PH for the pitcher in the 7th, but that may have played a part in those guys being more stagnant. Again, just a theory, but they didn’t struggle on the offensive side of the ball, other than those PH moments. Also, at the deadline I truly believe that Amaro spent the lion’s share of his time committed to getting Halladay or Lee. Without Lee, we all know that this season would have been a wash.

I think that it is correct to get someone defensive in the 3B slot, as well as LF because Raul isn’t going to last much longer. We know he is going to decline at this age, our only hopes are that he does not become a DH type of player in this upcoming season. Ultimately, I really do not think that Raul will start in two years because his body will not be able to take the toll. Not everyone is Utley and can hit through injury and persistent pain. In this situation, you ideally hold out this year and then bring up one of the two uber prospects to play the field. You then have Ibanez as an extremely expensive DH.

For this year, I am with you buddy. It’s just a tough market to play in though, especially for an NL team. Those types of players are DH caliber in the AL, and it’s easy to justify large dollars for a full season of ABs. The NL, not so much. I really don’t think the market dictates the amount you would pay for a player would have 100-150 ABs. Let alone get a player to take on that role. I think Mr. DeRosa is the answer, but he will certainly cost us. Hopefully Penn and going to the WS in consecutive years will assist. Even if we get DeRosa, I would still like one of those lower caliber 3B on the market.

by hessshaun on Nov 18, 2009 2:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

We’re pretty well covered in the outfield, where Francisco and Taylor probably could play every day without embarrassing themselves and Mayberry, Dobbs and Quentin Berry all are okay as short-term patches or reserves.

by dajafi on Nov 18, 2009 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

outfield is the least of the problems. If Ibanez fades as you say he will, they have Mayberry, Francisco and Taylor. So what if Ibanez ends up platooning or mostly on the bench. The price of a Taylor or Brown easily offsets Ibanez’ salary and total cost would be no different than if Taylor is brought up to sub Ibanez, which is going to happen anyway.

by The R on Nov 18, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Personally, I say we just get the best overall players available, regardless of whether they excel more on offense or defense.

by taco pal on Nov 18, 2009 2:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t see this comment, but this is essentially the point I was trying to make above. I’d sacrifice some defense to upgrade the bench, as long as it’s within reason — for example, I’d rather Jerry Hairston than John McDonald.

by PhillyFriar on Nov 18, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs