It's Tough to Repeat
by dajafi on Mar 7, 2009 2:45 PM EST
Email
PrintAn interesting conversation in a FanPost, "The Team to Repeat?", has started to degenerate into an internet slap fight. Since I liked the conversation before it got to that point, I'm going to use my proprietor prerogative and put my own thoughts up in lights. (Also: it beats doing work.)
I don't think the two main arguments in the discussion--that the team is about as solid and well positioned to contend as one could hope for, and that there's so much uncertainty inherent in a baseball season that it's little more than whistling in the dark to just assume they'll be back in the playoffs--are mutually exclusive. Compared to past seasons, there's less uncertainty about the 2009 Phillies as of March than in any year I can remember. The lineup is entirely set, and the bench is mostly set. There's one open rotation spot with a few viable options. There are between zero and two bullpen jobs available. Injuries could wreck the year, and we were *very* fortunate in that respect last season. But that's true for everybody, and the Phillies might be less at risk here than, say, the Mets with Santana's elbow and mileage, the recent injury histories of Maine and Putz, the erosion of K-Rod's peripherals, etc. The Braves probably had fewer healthy players than hurt guys last season. The Marlins had a wheelbarrowful of very talented young pitchers who thrived in '06, were hurt in '07, and started to come back last year. Going forward, who knows if they'll stay intact.
If the last decade of baseball has taught us anything, it's that all a GM and a manager can do is try to put a competitive foundation in place, try to make prudent midcourse adjustments, and then hope for the best. I feel pretty confident that over the course of a 162-game season, flawed teams get exposed--think of all the near-miss Phils clubs of 2001-2006 that fell short because of one awful regular (cough*DavidBell*cough), a totally limp bench (2005 team, I'm looking in your direction), or the want of one reliable late-game reliever (2003). Or the Mets' hideous bullpen last year. Or Arizona's inability to get guys on base. The Phillies have had that foundation--a team without obviously fatal structural weaknesses--since late summer 2007 when their bullpen solidified. That's still true. On the other hand, the 2008 Tigers didn't look to have obvious flaws either, and they stunk on ice.
The division opponents did more to improve themselves this winter than we did. The Mets "only" added a few relievers (Sean Green, Ron Villone and Conor Robertson in addition to the two late-inning guys), but those additions push the holdovers into less important roles--so their value should go beyond their actual performance. The Braves did something similar with their rotation: Jair Jurrjens might not be as good this year, but he'll be the #4 guy, not the ace. And adding Lowe, Vasquez and Kawakami should take a lot of pressure off their talented but fragile bullpen.
The Phils run some risk of turning into the 2003 Angels, who brought back virtually their entire championship team. Amaro replaced Burrell with Ibanez in part to avoid that--to bring in some fresh blood--but I think the bigger key might turn out to be how much help they get from rookies like Lou Marson, Jason Donald, J.A. Happ and Carlos Carrasco. One unusual thing about 2008 was that rookies contributed almost nothing to the championship club.
This all is to say that there are many, many factors to consider, an almost unlimited number of potential storylines for the 2009 season to follow. At TGP, we want to have as much fun with the plot as it unfolds as we can; to both new users who have found us through Yahoo! and our beloved regulars, we just ask that you enjoy the ride with us, and that you be relatively excellent to each other.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks Daj.
I am gonna go ahead and absolve myself of anything that may have happened in that thread. I think I was pretty respectful while still making my point forcefully.
I have noticed that our statistical inclinations here at TGP serve as a good screening mechanism…sometimes we just get outbursts like that one.
No need—you were uncharacteristically sanguine in that discussion ;)
Obviously the stats vs. intangibles argument is endless and impossible to resolve. I probably lean more towards the latter than most here, though I like to think I’m fairly empirical about it: if the team gets it in gear in the second half for four straight years, there’s probably something to how Cholly manages that facilitates this, and if pitcher after pitcher raves about Jamie Moyer’s mentoring gifts, I’ll give that some credit. But the numbers—which really just represent a quantified experience of what’s gone before—remain the foundation for what we talk about and, for the most part, believe around here.
The good news is that both the numbers and the less quantifiable stuff bode well for the 2009 Phillies. Even in a larger realm of chance and uncertainty.
I hope I wasn’t too offensive in the previous thread. I know I tend to state my opinions in a very dry and to the point manner. However, I never intend to offend anyone. I am certainly a Phillies fan and I also happen to think that we are the “favorites” in the east. I just do not understand why some fans cannot look at our division rivals subjectively, almost as if any faults of the Phillies are somehow reflected upon themselves as individuals.
I tend to use some sarcastic humor in my posts, as well as comments
HOWEVER, I never intend that for anything other than entertainment, a laugh, and as way to lead to some intelligent/humorous discussion-or at least a reasonable facsimile of that.. Certainly hope I wasn’t offensive!..Funny you should mention rookies..because with Donald and Marson, and who knows, even Carrasco, the 2009 rookies could have a huge impact. Also, no need to cough while mentioning Bell. Just take some Thera Flu and make pretend he never even happened!
Marc Gross
by phillyfansportstalk on Mar 7, 2009 9:36 PM EST reply actions
cough david couch bell
hah everytime i would mention my distaste for the holes in bat 3rd basemen she would always (sarcastically) retaliate with; “I saw him hit the cycle”, then after the Mitchell report she would say, “I saw him hit the cycle” and i would say, “yea in the middle of his 2nd cycle” haha that guy was worthless EVEN ON ROIDS!!! haha he is a roid, but the bad kind that lead to dingleberries…
by PHIGHTINPHILS on Mar 9, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Arguably, the current team does have a rather poor regular in Pedro Feliz. In fact, one could argue that 08-09 Feliz is worse than 04-06 Bell. (03 Bell was off-the-charts bad, but he was hurt that year.) Also, I don’t think our 08 bench was all that much better than the limp benches of the past. Three of our five bench players (Jenkins, Bruntlett, and Taguchi) contributed very little, at least until the postseason.
The way I see it, the talent we’ve got now is basically on par with the talent we’ve had all along since 2001. There have been some not-insubstantial upgrades, which did help us get over the hump, but I think our recent success has also equally been the result of (1) having a better manager, and (2) statistical odds finally favoring us. If you have decent talent and you bang your head against the wall enough times, you’ll eventually break through.
Gotta take respectful issue with some of this.
Bell’s 2004 was great. The seasons before and after that were team-killers. Feliz’s somewhat below-average offensive production and above-average defense was massively better than either of Bell’s bad years, particularly given the lucky distribution of his contributions (his close/late and RISP numbers were really good IIRC).
And while last year’s bench wasn’t top to bottom great, it did feature the best pinch-hitter in the league and, at the end of the year, Matt Stairs. Jenkins and Taguchi were lousy, but they also were pretty much disappeared at the end of the dugout after August 1 or so.
Those things said, the real difference was the pitching—which was just head and shoulders better than any of the previous Phils teams of this decade, both rotation and (especially) bullpen. I think I read that the 2008 Phils bullpen was the best one in the team’s very long history.
I see your points but still differ somewhat. No doubt the bullpen received the biggest upgrade. That said, part of their performance was luck rather than a genuine upgrade. Going into the season, I thought they would be solid and improved, but not spectacular. They probably played over their heads a little bit.
On Bell: Like I said, 2003 was his really terrible season, but I don’t think it should count fully b/c it was clearly an outlier and probably injury-related. (I mean, I hated Bell and he wasn’t very good but he wasn’t that bad either.) Over the remainder of his tenure, I think his average offensive performance was mildly superior to Feliz’s. I don’t think the luckiness of Feliz’s close/late stats in ‘08 should count for much for purposes of this analysis – obviously those skew the results in Feliz’s favor, but that doesn’t mean he was substantively any better. I agree that Feliz is the better fielder.
Anyway, my point isn’t that Bell was necessarily equal to Feliz, just that the two are in the same ballpark. Both are liabilities, but a team with a few liabilities can still win. And last year’s team did have its weaknesses – they just don’t seem all that bad now since we were still able to win a World Series with them anyway.
I’ll concede the point on the bench. I guess I had forgotten how poor the ‘05 bench really was, although the ’06 bench was actually even worse, offensively. Interestingly, the best hitting bench of the decade was not last year’s but the one from 2003 (featuring great performances from Ricky Ledee, Jason Michaels, and Todd Pratt, and even a decent-enough year from Tomas Perez).
The bullpen was upgraded significantly.
Brad Lidge vs. Tom Gordon—enough said. (But I will add…) Last year we got a full season out of JC Romero & Chad Durbin instead of stiffs like Joe Table & El Pupo Antonio Alfonseca. While I think Durbin’s year was a bit of a fraud (he’s more of a 4+ ERA type guy) he’s certainly an upgrade over some of the washed-up fat tubs they’ve tossed out there the past few years.
Feliz’ stellar defense (yes, stellar—statistically, he was one of the best fielding 3B in the majors last year) made up for the fact that he was a dead out for most of the season. Bell was not terrible, but whenever he made an error, it always seemed like a key point that really cost the Phils. I still blame Bell for the Phils missing the playoffs in ‘06 when he made an error in the 9th inning of a September game against the Astros. Then Wagner gave up a homer and they lost the game, eventually falling two games shy of the Astros for the Wild Card. I don’t remember a lot of tragic screw-ups by Feliz. In fact, all I remember from him are great clutch fielding plays and a couple of key hits (including the game-winning RBI in WS Game 5).
I was actually at that game, so my resentment toward Bell regarding that incident takes a backseat to no one’s. But that said, any argument that contains the words “whenever [player a did b], it always seemed like…” or the phrase “all I remember from [player c] was [d]” is pretty much automatically unreliable. Those are subjective perceptions, and subjective perceptions are largely based on things that are not factual. If you dislike a player on a personal level, for instance, it will always “seem” to you like he’s “always” screwing stuff up only at the worst possible moments, because that’s what the spite reflex in your brain wants to believe. But that doesn’t make it the truth. If you block out personal feelings, isolated traumatic memories, and other noise, and you instead just look at the facts, 2004-06 Bell is simply not that distinguishable from 2008 Feliz. Both were liabilities. Neither was so bad that he was capable of singlehandedly sinking a team. If Feliz was better, it wasn’t by very much.
Regarding the bullpen, I think you’re missing my point. Of course the 08 bullpen performed better than previous bullpens. My point was that (a) the overall talent level of the 2008 team was not significantly higher than the talent levels of past teams; and (b) while the talent level of the 2008 bullpen was clearly higher than that of past bullpens, the difference was not as great as the results would suggest. The great performance of our bullpen last year was partly better talent, and partly better luck. (That doesn’t necessarily mean we were ultra-lucky in 08. But if we were only somewhat lucky in 08 but we were also somewhat unlucky in some prior year, that’s a big net difference.)
And yes, 2008 Lidge was a big upgrade over 2007 Gordon, but it’s not as simple as you make it sound. To oversimplify things in the other direction, would it surprise you if I told you that 2006 Gordon was better than 2007 Lidge, and that 2004-06 Gordon was better than 2005-07 Lidge? It’s the truth.
I, too was at that Astros game.
It was weird how they couldn’t seem to beat that team. They went 0-6 against them & finished 2 games behind them in the WC. All they needed to do was win one of those games (the game that Bell & Wagner blew was the most obvious) and at least they would have had a one game playoff to reach the postseason…But I forgave Mitch, so I can forgive Bell—at least now we have our championship.
Regarding the bullpen, I do agree that they were luckier in 2008 than in the past. For example, there is no way Clay Condrey has any business having an ERA under 4, especially with his peripherals. But you can’t deny that Chad Durbin (although he pitched over his head for four months) and Rudy Seanez (always a solid middle relief guy) were upgrades over Jose Mesa & Antonio Alfonseca (or the AAA scrub of the week that they kept shuffling through the pen in ‘06-’07).
Tom Gordon was only better than Brad Lidge during 2006 (Lidge was wicked good in 2005 and okay in 2007; Gordon was hurt much of 2007 and mediocre when healthy, if you recall). It’s been widely publicized that he was tipping his pitches, in addition to having some trouble controlling his slider. Since then he figured things out and has been (obviously) his old dominant self. Which one was better during 2004-2005 isn’t terribly relevant since neither pitched for the Phillies then. (Although Gordon was not better than Lidge in either 2004 or 2005.) But the whole point of the comparison was that 2008 Lidge was a huge upgrade over 2007 Gordon (who sucked & was hurt). But to make it a fair comparison, 2008 Lidge was actually a significant upgrade over 2007 Gordon & 2007 Myers combined. There were also the other 2 upgrades I previously mentioned, plus a full year of JC Romero in 2008. Upgrades to 1/2 of the bullpen (including the most important member) means a significant upgrade to the overall quality of the pen.
And the Phillies pen was unlucky in 2007—it was unlucky to have Jose Mesa and Antonio Alfonseca pitching for it. Not to mention Geoff Geary, who was also brutal.
There’s no doubt that Fall 2008 Lidge was a huge upgrade over Fall 2007 Gordon, but again that’s a post hoc comparison of results. The reason why I brought up their performances in 2005 and so forth is that it’s relevant for a comparison of what we could have expected to have going into 2007 and 2008, respectively. I still think April 2008 Lidge was an upgrade over April 2007 Gordon because of the age factor, but it narrows the gap.
I don’t think a direct comparison of Durbin vs. Mesa is appropriate because the only reason Mesa was around was because of all the injuries that year. He wasn’t on the opening day roster. Last year’s bullpen had no significant injuries.
Phils have taken care of business. It's up to the other teams...
The Phils front office has done what they needed to do. This is essentially the same team as last year as many people have commented. Whether the Phils repeat is a question of 1) luck and injuries and 2) how do the other teams do?
The most important thing to remember is this: the 2008 Phillies were NOT a GREAT TEAM. What they were was a very good team with GREAT CHEMISTRY and a GREAT BULLPEN. The fact that the Phillies only lost 3 games in the entire postseason is because last year there was an absence of DOMINANT, GREAT TEAMS.
Let’s be honest – if the 2008 Phils had to play the 80 Astros, the 96 Yankees, the 2004 Red Sox, etc – they might have won anyway but it would have been a much tougher row to hoe. If the Yankees didn’t have their heads on crooked and actually got decent value for the money they spent last year (which they did 96 through 2000), or the Cubs were as good as they could have been, or the Red Sox didn’t have some of the injuries they had to Ortiz, Schilling, Lowell, etc – it would have been a lot harder for the Phils to hoist the trophy.
Now, give our boys credit – they have a terrific bunch of gamers on the roster – both the stars and the “role” players like Victorino, Werth, Feliz, etc. who work counts and are not afraid to come up in a key situation. The bullpen was perfect last year, and the Ace plus innings eaters strategy worked for starters. But this is not a GREAT team that can win 100 games. They will win between 89 and 94 games and what happens depends more on whether the Mets or Cubs finally break through this year, and whether the Angels/Sox/Yanks reach dominant form or not. The Phils will be in the mix – but they are not built to be a team for the ages in terms of talent on paper!
The upside – this is a quality team that has good value for the $! As much criticism that Gillick and Amaro get, this is a team that will always be competitive because they don’t overspend beyond the core of one Ace, one closer, and 3 everyday stars – the rest of the team are quality, good character gamers who can eat innings, pitch from the pen, or work counts and get timely hits. It is a roster that fits a team without the YES network or TBS, without a captive 5 state market (MA, RI, VT, NH, ME), and without access to the second largest market in the US (LA).
I agree with most of what you said
but I don’t think I would include the ’80 Astros in the list of teams the Phils would have a tough time beating.
Now it is no gimme that the Phils repeat, of course. But those lovable Cubbies haven’t won anything in a loooonnnggggg time, the Dodgers already proved that Manny cannot compensate for the lack of consistency throughout a whole lineup, and the Mets..enough said, when they win something, I will take them seriously. I say bring on the Red Sox, the 2009 World Series opponent. Let’s see what happens.
Marc Gross
by phillyfansportstalk on Mar 9, 2009 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions
What did the Phillies win before 2008? One NL East title in 15 years? And the Rays, were they a powerhouse? My point is, that winning in the past has no significance on who wins in the future. It is so silly to dismiss teams because they did not win anything the previous season.
by Neduol Caz on Mar 9, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
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
