In An NL-Only Alternate Universe
by David S. Cohen on Jul 21, 2009 10:24 AM EDT
Email
PrintWith the Phillies in the midst of a 9 game win streak, it's hard to think back to interleague play. After all, why ruin such a great run by recalling the Phillies' utter helplessness against the AL? Well, at the end of this short column, you'll understand why.
Let's imagine an alternate universe where there was no interleague play, and where teams were judged just based on how they fared against their own league. So, wipe away the Phillies' 6-12 interleague record. In this alternate universe, the Phillies have a 46-26 record against the NL, good for a .639 winning percentage.
Let's expand this thought experiment just a bit and look at the entire NL East. And, let's take the winning percentage each team has against the NL and translate that to the number of games the team has played so far this year. In this pre-1997 world, the NL East standings would like like this:
| W | L | Win % | GB | |
| Phillies | 58 | 32 | 0.644 | -- |
| Braves | 48 | 45 | 0.516 | 11.5 |
| Mets | 47 | 45 | 0.511 | 12 |
| Marlins | 46 | 48 | 0.489 | 14 |
| Nationals | 24 | 68 | 0.261 | 35 |
In this alternate universe, the Phillies would increase their lead over the Braves by 5 games, over the Mets by 3 games, and over the Marlins by 7 games. An 11.5 game lead on July 21 would be almost insurmountable.
Which leads to this question: given that interleague play is over and the rest of the schedule more closely approximates this alternate universe, do the Phillies need to trade for Roy Halladay?
63 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I hate Interleague play aesthetically, and I hate Interleague play because of how badly the Phillies struggle with it. I hate it hate it hate it hate it. Why should the rest of the league suffer so the White Sox, Angels, and Mets can sell out a few games?
http://www.thegoodphight.com
I actually like it
Even if we get the shit knocked out of us. Its nice to see some new teams once in a while.
by philiafan14364 on Jul 21, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
I hate the fact the Phils struggle with interleague play, but not the play itself. I blame the Phillies.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
Well, I didn’t say my hatred was exactly rational…
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Jul 21, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Hatred generally is not rational, so you're ok.
Here’s some help, though:
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/dhammapada-17.html
:)
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Jul 21, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
The nationals really are terrible aren’t they? What’s the modern era record for worst win percentage in a season?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 21, 2009 10:44 AM EDT reply actions
still the '62 Mets?
40-120 (.250), I think.
Although the Tigers made a valiant run a few years back… they needed to win something like three of their last five games to prevent breaking the record.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Jul 21, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Last night they mentioned that the nats current record is the worst after this amount of games since the 62 mets – so I think the nats are well on their way…and they might be trading away parts in a week or so
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 21, 2009 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, that's the worst of the modern (post WWII) era
The worst of all time was the 1899 Cleveland Spiders. In a 154-game season, they went 20-134, for an awesomely bad .130 win percentage. The Tigers are second on the modern list, eighth on the “actually played a large number of games” list (excluding teams like the 2-16 Wilmington Quicksteps of 1884 or 9-56 Cincinatti Reds of 1876).
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
Do the Phillies need to trade for Roy Halladay?
Obviously not to win the division, but the World Series is against a team from the dreaded AL, so…
by philiafan14364 on Jul 21, 2009 10:53 AM EDT reply actions
No, if you get to the Series it’s a crapshoot. Having a better pitcher in two out of the seven games might increase your odds of winning the series by a few percentage points, but that’s it.
Having a CY Young level pitcher instead of Rodrigo Lopez or Jamie MOyer starting might increase your odds of winning the series “by a few percentage points?”
Dunno about that.
Yes.
First of all, Halladay would not replace Lopez/Moyer one-to-one. The real tradeoff would be something like (1.5 Halladay games + 0.5 Happ games) vs. (1.5 Happ games + 0.5 Lo/Mo games).
Second, even in Halladay’s 1.5 games, your odds of winning don’t go up by as much as you think. There’s a reason why it’s so much rarer for gamblers to bet on individual baseball games the way they do on football games – it’s because individual baseball games are incredibly volatile. Plus, even if Halladay were to pitch significantly better than the alternative would have pitched in that very small number of games (probable, but not certain), that would only matter in a relatively small subset of games where the score is close enough for it to matter.
Third, even if you place Halladay’s chances of winning his 1.5 games at 60% and the alternative’s chances at 40%, that still will not be enough to swing the final result in most series.
It’s worth noting, as I’ve done before, that the two deadline acquisitions that people consider to have been the most successful were Randy Johnson by the Astros in 1998 and C.C. Sabathia by the Brewers last year. Neither the ’98 Astros nor the ’08 Brewers made it out of the first round of the playoffs, and Johnson and Sabathia went a combined 0-3 in three games. In a short series, anything can happen and it often does.
johnson and sabathia were 2 month rentals
unless halladay decides he wants to be traded away from the phillies (not really sure why he’d do that if we are willing to extend his contract) after this year, the phils still get another chance for a ring next year, even if they dont go on to win the world series this season. in the words of meatloaf, 2 outta 3 aint bad.
realistically, we’re going to have to beat either san fran (haven’t played) or colorado (2-1), then st louis (2-0) or LA (3-4) and then either boston (1-2) or the yankees (2-1). i’d love to have halladay for any of those series to put us over the top. especially if he’s pitching against one of those AL east teams (6-6 against boston, 8-1 against NY last 3 years).
here’s why i’ll take 2 chances at another ring (as long as we’re not selling the farm to get him):
only 2 teams have won back-to-back world series in the last 30 years. the yankees went back-to-back-to-back. i remember being a freshman at syracuse and hearing my new friends from NY talk about how rare it was to have a true dynasty in the modern sports era, especially in baseball.
let’s go out and do the same thing. after not winning for 25 years, i’m still hungry for more, and with doc on board, i’ll take those few extra percentage points for a chance to do the big-d!ck walk for the next few years. and to do that, we’re gonna have to beat some nasty AL teams (likely from the AL east).
http://poorsportsblog.blogspot.com/
hallady against other AL leaders
5-1 against the angels since 2006, 4-3 against chicago, 2-0 against detroit
the phils seem to have a core of players that will place them as favorites in the NL for another 2-3 years barring major derailment. with halladay, you have an added bonus for interleague (for a better record) and for whoever makes it to the WS (should the phils make it there on home field advantage and current lineup alone, halladay not even factored).
and like i said before, i want to grab a few rings before the window shuts and halladay can be the season “closer” as it were, finishing off AL teams the current phils have struggled against over the past few seasons. just in case.
http://poorsportsblog.blogspot.com/
2-0 against the dodgers, too!
http://poorsportsblog.blogspot.com/
Since we’re arguing small sample size and deciding who makes the playoffs today (and the WS from the AL) befoore the season comes to the home stretch
What’s Halladays playoff record?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 21, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
all we can do is speculate opponents at this time
and those are the realistic candidates for who’d we’d play. i can come back in a few months and say “see, i got 4 out of 5 right!” or something to that effect if you’d like me to.
but my point is just that those are the teams that will be competing for a world series this year. and halladay has fared well against them. not in the playoffs, as you hint, but if you’re blaming halladay’s lack of playoff experience on his skills, then you’re crazy. the guy for playing in a very tough division behind 2 of the baseball powerhouses of the last 10 years.
his TEAM has been pretty bad and yet he’s still managed to have a winning record (or .500 against boston) against those 2 powerhouses. i’ll bet on that in the playoffs.
http://poorsportsblog.blogspot.com/
Did you listen to a word I said? None of this disproves my point in any way.
The fact that we get Halladay back for a year is nice, and yes it increases his value to a degree. But that isn’t what we’re discussing here. This particular discussion began when I disputed philiafan’s statement that we need to get Halladay for the World Series.
to get to the series?
maybe not.
to win the world series? also maybe not.
but doesn’t it help to have a pitcher who knows the 2 favorites out of the AL well and has had success? especially to have even a slightly larger chance to do what only 2 teams have done over the last 30 years? once again, i want it all!
http://poorsportsblog.blogspot.com/
That’s just nonsense
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 21, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions
your odds of winning don’t go up by as much as you think
Yeah they do, simply because Moyer and Lopez can, have, and will implode in any given game. They could be decent or even good, but theres also a pretty good chance theyll get shelled. With Halladay, that chance is almost nonexistant.
If your life depended on a coin toss, and you pick heads, wouldnt you want the coin to have 2 heads sides, instead of 1 heads and 1 tails?
Im not sure about the 98 Astros, but the last years version of the Brewers werent exactly ’72 Dolphins, know what Im sayin? So the fact that the Sabathia trade didnt net them a WS ring was probably because of the fact that they werent that great of a team to begin with, not because the Sabathia trade was bad.
by philiafan14364 on Jul 21, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Groan. I don’t have time for this crap. Very briefly:
1. Halladay doesn’t have two “head sides.”
2. It’s common to lose games where your pitcher comes up “heads.”
3. It’s common to win games where your pitcher comes up “tails.”
4. Our “life,” as it were, would not depend on one coin toss, but four out of seven.
5. As I’ve already explained, Moyer and Lopez would only pitch in Halladay’s place about half the time.
6. Sabathia’s loss in NLDS Game 2 last year was directly attributable to his own bad performance, not his team’s. Which goes back to my point: an individual baseball game is a crap shoot and anything can happen. Betting on a pitcher to win you a single game is not a good investment.
Rob Neyer weighs in here.
So I’m begging you and everyone you know, please stop saying the Phillies need Roy Halladay or anyone else. The Phillies, right now, are good enough to win the World Series again. They would need a bit of luck, of course, but that’s true of any team. The notion that adding Halladay would suddenly turn the Phillies into big favorites is preposterous, for the simple reason that baseball doesn’t work that way.
This isn’t to say the Phillies shouldn’t trade for Halladay or Lee. Halladay is great, Lee just a tick behind. Lee’s the better value for the simple reason that there’s a larger gap between his cost and his true value. The key for both, though, isn’t winning the World Series in 2009. The key is winning 90-some games in 2010, when both will still be serving under their current contracts. Take the long view, and a deal makes a lot more sense.
I would add, however, that if we’re going for value in 2010, now is not the time to get it. It’s my opinion that if we need another pitcher in 2010, then we can get something for a much more reasonable price in the offseason, when people aren’t trying to extort us for the largely mythical value we allegedly need for the postseason in 2009.
Probably why the Phils are so good after the break...
It’s not just this season. They have been excellent in the post All Star break NL-only portion of the schedule over the past 4 years. The Phils have winning percentages of .589, .600, .608, and .606 over the past 4 years in the 2nd half of those seasons.
Absolutely
The Phillies have been horrible in interleague play for a long time now. They don’t do it after the break, so their record is that much better then.
by David S. Cohen on Jul 21, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
still want roy...
u get a guy like halladay to make a statement, and that statement for the phils would be; “we want another championship…”
it validates your fanbase for spending all that money at the games… it gives you arguably the best 1-2 punch at the top of your rotation, the leagues best righty and one of the best lefties would be quite scary for any playoff opponent… do we need him? maybe not… but do we want him? hell yes…
“Making your fanbase happy” (WTF does validating a fan base even mean) could be the dumbest reason for any sports organization to maek a move
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 21, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
The only sure-fire way to “make the fanbase happy” is to win, consistently. Actually, there are some places (Atlanta) where even that isn’t necessarily enough. But in any great sports city, it is.
Unless you’re the flyers :)
Seriously, as a sixers fan ‘first’ – I realize that winning is what it takes to get people to show up even in a ‘great’ basketball town (college) like Philadlephia.
The phils have already surpassed 2 million fans, and odds are they’re going to make the playoffs, not sure what kind of ‘guarantee’ halladay adds this year or next year.
Honestly, if you think about it, next season is where the halladay trade maybe has the most impact. Myers gone, moyer another year older, happ (probably) coming back to earth, cupcakes – well what can you expect from cupcakes…looking ahead, the 2010 phillies rotation is kind of wobbly.
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 21, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Or the Eagles, for that matter. The Eagles’ recent history is really a lot like the Braves’ in the ’90s. But Philadelphians and Atlantans are different animals. Philadelphians get angry, Atlantans are apathetic.
Next season’s rotation will be buoyed to some degree by the fact that Hamels will probably do better than he has so far in ‘09. I’m hoping for something like Hamels (3.00), Blanton (4.00), Happ (4.00), Carrasco (4.00), and a fifth starter (4.50). Maybe we can flip one of our current starting OFs for a pitcher too.
I count on Hamels rebounding as well, after that it is worrisome – depending on Carrasco to make that next step when he seems to have those ‘oh god guys are on base what do i do’ problems still is iffy…and a ‘kendrick like’ reversion for Happ(y) isn’t out of the realm of possibility as the numbers indicate a large preponderance of luck this year…yes i know raw he’s better than Kendrick – but there are few guarantees.
I suppose I’m just saying that trading for halladay doesn’t ‘just’ help this year but really helps next year, a full season of him and hamels at the fore front of the offense sounds good and I think the ‘next year as well’ part of this deal is getting ignored in the short sighted ‘world series this year’ discussions of the trade.
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 21, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
No doubt Halladay’s potential value for next year is relevant to the discussion. It definitely increases what we should be willing to give up for him in a trade. Still, it’s just one year, so it shouldn’t increase the value too much.
Aren’t Carrasco’s problems just the flipside of Happ’s success? If Happ’s good on-base numbers should be attributed to luck instead of composure, then maybe Carrasco’s bad on-base numbers should be attributed to bad luck instead of bad composure.
Well…you guys are better with the numbers than me, but from what I’ve read, on here, is that carrasco always has troubles when people get on base – i don’t know how to parse if it’s luck or if it’s a different pitching thing – maybe he’s no good when he has to change his motion – who knows…someone smarter than me can probably tell us – but all I know is that it’s a concern and seems to be why cararasco has not made it out of triple A just yet – even when the phils needed fill in starters.
I guess BABIP men on off base would be the way to look at it for Carrasco – is that stuff available for minors?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 21, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
If you go to minorleaguesplits.com, it says that Carrasco’s FIPs in 2009 are 3.86 with no one on, 3.85 with men on, and 3.42 with RISP. It jumps way up to 8.78 close & late, but that’s with a very small sample size (5.1 IP).
I think Carrasco hasn’t been called up just because Bastardo and then Lopez happened to be pitching better than him at the two crucial moments. If this were 2007, he would have been up here long ago. He isn’t pitching lights-out or anything, but he isn’t pitching badly either.
Um, FIP is the ‘fielding independent ERA’ thing?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 21, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes. I meant to include the BABIPs too but got distracted. They go like this: none on .303, men on .353, RISP .423 (!). So the FIPs and BABIPs tell a pretty consistent story, which is that he’s been as unlucky as Happ’s been lucky.
Iinteresting – I wonder if there is any study of guys who pitch better with no men on versus men on consistently – or is it all jsut work out to luck?
For instance the distribution of types of hits – grounders, liners, fly balls, does it change for carrasco when men are on base – when his motion changes
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 21, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
This seems to be your lucky day: all that stuff is on minorleaguesplits as well. Carrasco’s line drive percentages go like this: none on 24.6%, men on 24.2%, RISP 30.1%. So it does increase with RISP. I don’t know if 5.4% is a lot or not.
“Luck” might not be the most accurate term to use. For instance, there’s a theory that hitters’ BABIPs tend to regress to the mean because defenses adjust to them. For instance, Ryan Howard had a good BABIP before people played the shift against him. But now defenses know where he’s going to hit it, so more of the balls he puts in play are caught. That isn’t exactly luck, it’s strategy and opposing teams making adjustments.
Maybe the same holds true for pitchers. It could very well be that Carrasco really is doing something wrong with men on – that it isn’t “luck.” For instance, maybe he’s doing something to tip his pitches from the stretch. But even if it isn’t luck, it’s likely a correctable problem, so he’ll eventually regress to the mean one way or another.
Interesting – i’ll have to look at that a bit more – i wonder if all pitchers are like that or maybe that could be the ‘flaw’ in carrascos pitching when people are on base – more line drives
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 21, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I dont understand that stats that well, but it seems to me that BABIP is not entirely based on luck as people tend to think.
If a pitcher, for instance, leaves pitches out over the plate, wouldnt those balls get hit harder and be more likely to be hits than if he was hitting the corners?
This isnt to imply that Carrasco hasnt been unlucky though, on that issue I have no idea or opinion
I love this concept
But I think it might be the residue of selection bias. After all, would you have written this post if the Phillies hadn’t played execrably in inter-league games?
No
Because that’s exactly the point – the Phillies played terribly in inter-league play, and always do. From here on out, there’s no interleague play. As another commenter pointed out, the Phillies have a remarkable post-break record for the past four years. What’s the common theme? No interleague play. (And no early April play either, another major weakness for this team.)
by David S. Cohen on Jul 21, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
So you’re saying that the fact that the Phillies were playing teams in the American League caused them to play worse, and so since they won’t have to face any more teams in the American League (until the World Series, natch), they’re gonna do great?
I find it more plausible that you could pick any random 18 games, and the Phillies might have a bad record. If you throw them out, the Phils look unbeatable (as they did last night). That it has happened a few years in a row now might make it seem a bit spooky, but I’m not sure the insignia on the ump’s uniform (or the month on the calendar) makes much of a difference. Isn’t it just as likely it’s all just flukey luck?
by Tommy Bennett on Jul 21, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure it's possible
But it doesn’t seem like it. Every year, the Phillies are horrible in June because they play AL teams then. They’ve got one of the worst interleague records of any team in baseball, and that’s over 200+ games. It could be luck, yes. But, it could also be something related to poor roster construction for AL play, bad scouting of AL teams, or something else institutionally that puts them in a position of being horrible against the AL year in/year out. If we had a 50 game sample, I’d say yeah, maybe it’s just luck. But at this point we’re talking over 200 games. And the team just stinks in those games.
by David S. Cohen on Jul 21, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from the Phillies’ full history of Interleague play. I believe the Phils are now on their third GM and third manager, with corresponding turnover in other front-office and on-field coaching positions. While the team president and ownership have stayed the same, I find it difficult to believe that Monty et al are such meddlers as to cause the team to play worse against the AL than against the NL.
Scouting turnover/culture?
But don’t you think a team has a scouting culture that survives even through turnover (if that’s even happened in the advance scouting department)? Or an institutional instruction culture that survives? Even though the top people may change, the lower level people responsible for a lot of everyday things probably don’t. I understand there’s been turnover, but the AL struggles continue. Sure, it may be luck, but I still can’t rule out that it’s something else. Like the April starts — what are they doing wrong as an institution to not prepare/perform well against the AL and in the first two weeks of April?
by David S. Cohen on Jul 22, 2009 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Strike while the iron's hot!
Sell the farm and all the equipment. Intimidate. Dominate. Conquer. Victory is ours!
Chemistry
Interenting comments. One thing it appears the Phillies seem to be developing is chemistry. Over the past year and a half they have been playing above their historical level. Trading for a top line pitcher may be great, but will some of the players feel that management does not feel we are good enough to win this on our own. What will it do to the current positive chemistry that seems to be developing. Nobody seems to be lookig at it from that aspect of the game.
by fan since late 40's on Jul 22, 2009 12:14 AM EDT reply actions
Oh right chemistry, and grit, and playing the game the right way, those things are vital to winning…there’s a direct correlation to how well folks get along in the club house and winning right?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 22, 2009 9:55 AM EDT reply actions
Yes, there is
When a team is winning, there’s chemistry, grit, and they’re playing the game the right way.
When a team is losing, there’s no chemistry, no grit, and they’re not playing the game the right way.
Duh.
by David S. Cohen on Jul 22, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh, i see now
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 22, 2009 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, I wouldn’t be quite that dismissive of “chemistry.” I can say from experience that, all other things being equal, workplaces tend to be much more productive when people don’t hate each other.
But what’s true is that we, as fans, have no way of gauging what would be good for chemistry on this team and what would be bad. All we know about them is what we see on TV. If Ruben Amaro, as an insider, thinks he knows something, then he can act on it. But it’s pointless for us to speculate, so we should limit our analyses to things that are objective.
But it’s pointless for us to speculate,
Um, isn’t that half of what blog writing is, speculation, on trades, on various things…it’s purely speculative.
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 22, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think you understood my comment. My point is that we can speculate based on objective facts, but we should not speculate based on things we have no way of knowing anything about.
Nope, understood your comment, just thought it was full of flotsam, jetsam, and feces
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 22, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Good Phight
Related FanShots on The Good Phight
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
