With an Offense Like This, Who Needs Roy Halladay?
by David S. Cohen on Jul 27, 2009 2:19 PM EDT
Email
PrintWith a 56-40 record, the Phillies lead the NL East by 6.5 games. They have the second-best record in the NL and the fifth-best record in baseball. At +78, they also have the second best run differential in baseball. They've won 17 of their last 20 games, including 8 of their last 10 against playoff contenders (except for one game against the Padres).
And yet they've done all this with a 4.45 team ERA, good for 13th in the NL and 22nd in the majors.
So how have they done it? It's simple: they've bludgeoned their opponents to death. The Phillies' offense is a beast, and it's showing no signs of slowing down. Who needs Roy Halladay when you have production like this:
Runs: Despite playing the fewest games of any NL team (tied only with the Cubs at 96), the Phillies lead the NL in runs with 527. Their nearest competitor is the Rockies, who have scored only 496 despite playing in a stadium that inflates scoring by 26%. (Compare that to Citizens Bank Park, which inflates runs by only 5% this year.) The Phillies' closest NL East opponent is the Marlins, who have scored 79 fewer runs than the Phillies (while playing 3 more games). In all of baseball, the Phillies trail only the Angels (533) and Yankees (543) in scoring. What do those two teams have in common? Their pitchers don't hit.
Runs per game: Because of all the rainouts the Phillies have suffered through, they've only played 96 games this year. Compare that to the Cardinals, who have already played 101 games. Putting the previous discussion into a rate statistic, the Phillies have scored 5.49 runs per game, just 0.005 runs fewer per game than the Angels and 0.05 fewer per game than the Yankees. The Phillies score at least almost 1 run per game more than all NL teams other than the Rockies (5.06) and Dodgers (5.01), whom the Phillies best by only about 0.5 runs per game. The NL average is 4.44 runs per game.
OPS: The Phillies' OPS is .798, good for best in the NL and second-best in baseball. They trail the Yankees, who are dominating with a .829 OPS. The closest challenger in the NL is the Rockies at .780. The Braves are the closest team in the NL East at .747.
Slugging: The Phillies are a patient team, with a .344 OBP, good for second in the NL and seventh in the majors. But where they really are dominating is in slugging. Their .454 slugging percentage is first in the NL. The Rockies are second at .440 and the next closest team is the Brewers at .422. The Phillies' slugging percentage is second in the majors, trailing only the Yankees (.470).
HR: Of course, the Phillies' slugging dominance is driven by their prodigious home run hitting. They've hit 138 home runs, 25 more than the closest NL team (Rockies at 113). In all of baseball, only the Yankees (144) and Rangers (143) have hit more. Yes, Citizens Bank Park inflates home runs, but only by 7%. And anyway, the Phillies, despite playing only 44 away games this year (second fewest in baseball, least in the NL), lead the NL in away home runs as well, with 64 (only 2 behind the majors-leading Indians and Rangers).
Runners on: The Phillies score their runs by dominating once someone gets on base. They have the second-best offense in baseball with runners on base, with an .828 OPS. They trail only the Angels, who best them by only 1 point, with an .829 OPS. The next closest NL team is in a completely different strata -- the Rockies at .775.
GDP: When the Phillies get guys on base, they don't squander the opportunity by hitting into double plays. Their 60 double plays is tied for second-best in the NL and fourth-best in the majors.
SB%: Relatedly, they don't lose guys on the basepaths due to caught stealings. They're nowhere near they were in their record-setting 2007 campaign when they were successful 88% of the time they tried to steal a base, but they're doing prety well with a 78% success rate, good for first in the NL and tied for fifth in the majors.
VORP: Looking to more advanced metrics, before scoring 24 runs this weekend, the Phillies led the majors in hitting VORP at 176.5. No doubt that number remains at the top after what the team did this weekend against the NL Central-leading (at the time) Cardinals.
EQA: The Phillies also lead the majors in park-adjusted EQA, besting the Dodgers by 1 point -- .279 to .278. Unlike the VORP number, this number is good through yesterday's games.
ISO: The Phillies are getting the most of their at-bats, as measured by isolated power. They lead the NL with a .191 ISO, third behind the Yankees and Ranger (both at .194). The closest NL team is the Rockies at .181.
BABIP: The Phillies are being this productive without getting particularly lucky. Their BABIP is .295, 20th in the majors and 12th in the NL. Compare the Phillies BABIP with the productive and lucky offenses of the Angels (.324), Dodgers (.318), and Rays (.314).
wOBA: Finally, the Phillies have a .348 weighted on-base percentage. This number again puts the Phillies at the top of the NL and only the Yankees (.362) and Rays (.350) are better in the majors.
So let's put it all together. The Phillies score a ton of runs by getting on base, hitting the crap out of the ball, and not wasting outs on the basepaths. Collectively, they do these things decidedly better than every other team in the NL and almost as well as the best of the teams that play in the league where the pitcher doesn't hit.
Sure, I'd like a nice shiny Roy Halladay at the top of the rotation as much as the next fan. But does this dominating offense really need that to win?
148 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yes, Citizens Bank Park inflates home runs, but only by 7%
I think before you put the “only” in there you oughtta clarify where +7% ranks in the majors by parks.
You know who deserves a little love? Milt Thompson. I don’t know how much of the credit he really deserves for the offense being as good as it is, but he sure as heck hasn’t done anything to harm it. Pretty impressive considering he was never really that great a hitter when he played!
I agree
He and Charlie together seem to do wonders to anyone who comes on this team (other than Carlos Ruiz). I would love to figure out a way to do a study about this, but I’m not sure it’s methodologically possible.
by David S. Cohen on Jul 27, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
THE FUTURE IS NOW
13 division champions is nice but 2 World Series in a row is a DYNASTY. Three in a row is unprecedented for an NL club. Only 3 teams in NL history have won back to back. Neither the Cards nor the Dodgers achieved that feat.
The core of the team is maturing right now. Adding Halladay is much like the Flyers adding a re-tooled Bernie Parent in ’73.
Also a true stopper in the rotation can shut down any offense no matter how good they are when they are on. Halladay is that type of stopper in the rotation He has dominating out pitches unlike Maddux and Glavine who got pummeled in the playoffs.
Adding Halladay pushes us from contenders to overwhelming favorites to win the next two World Series’. After hearing other people ridicule the Phillies for 1964, 10,000 losses …. I could die a happy man if the Phillies did something that no other NL team has done.
Everybody who has followed baseball hears the buzz about the Big Red Machine. There is no buzz surrounding the 1980 WS championship. The time is now!
ARGH. The argument that never dies!
It’s like trying to reason with a little kid. “If you just let me eat all those cookies right now I’ll be happy forever!” No you won’t.
I suppose you make the same argument 3 or 4 years from now when Kyle Drabeck, Michael Taylor, Carlos Carrasco, and Brown (forgot his first name) are all entering their prime. THE FUTURE IS NOW. Please trade for [insert best pitcher in the league here].
Or maybe the future is actually five years ago. We should have traded Hamels, Utley, and Howard when we had the chance. They were just prospects after all, just like Jeff Stone or Kyle Kendrick, and we could have had a sure thing instead.
Exactly
This, to me, is the perfect counter-argument to those saying “trade the farm” now.
by David S. Cohen on Jul 27, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions
and I think another way to look at this potential deal is: Imagine you’re the Braves, Mets or Marlins (and, okay, okay, the Nats). What would you prefer the Phillies do here?
My answer is (if I’m them): Go for Halladay and nail down what’s already pretty much in the bag, but this sure as hell gives us a better chance for daylight in 2011 and 2012.
by Wet Luzinski on Jul 27, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Who cares?
If it happens that the Phils win another WS in the next 2 years, the fact that the rest of the division might be competitive again in 3 years won’t be much consolation for them.
Trading for Halladay really does raise the stakes. They almost have to win.
the problem with that arguement is the lineup 5 years ago
c – mike lieberthal
1b – jim thome
2b – placido polanco
ss – jroll
3b – david bell
lf – burrell
cf – doug glanville
rf – bobby abreu
supposed #1 pitcher – kevin milwood
jroll is the only guy still here….other than that i would take howard over thome, chase was on the roster then but not yet starting, but still obv. over polanco, feliz over david bell, ibanez over burrell, shane over glanville and jayson werth over abreu.
the phillies then should not have been trading prospects for a big name star. they weren’t built well enough to win the world series. they are now.
by DeuceisLoose926 on Jul 27, 2009 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Werth over abreu five years ago or werth over abreu now?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 27, 2009 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions
i don't know what abreu's numbers were then,
but i would take werth now over abreu then. i know abreu had a higher average, home runs were probably pretty equal, as are rbi’s – werth may have less, but he hits lower in the order. also, arm in the outfield is a push and abreu was a wretched right fielder. the fact that abreu has a gold glove just shows the award is a sham. also, werth is a better teammate from all accounts i’ve ever heard
by DeuceisLoose926 on Jul 27, 2009 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions
ops and slugging are fairly
comparable…abreu did crush werth with regard to stolen bases. however, factor in also that abreu made 10.6 million in ’04 and werth is making 2.5 million this season
by DeuceisLoose926 on Jul 27, 2009 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions
You are comparing apples to avocados.
That team had not just won a World Series.
That team did not have the leadership this team has.
That team did not have the tightly knit club house that every player who comes to phillyu talks about.
That team does not have the grit this team has.
That teams ace was Eric Milton.
The reality is that the Dodger are a young team that is one more year experienced and much better than last year. We need an ace…
4-5 years from now we are going to have to retool as utley,howard, Rollins are either gone or a far less effective. Utley will have to move to the OF to better protect his hip. WE have NO one in the minors to replace these guys. To have this core in their prime at the same time is a rarity in sports. We are going to have a rebuilding year by the time 2013 comes around no matter what.
Why not put some pants on and take a reasonable gamble in order to go for history?
How many Philly teams have truly made history in our lifetime???? One. The 1973-75 Flyers. And it took a big trade to make it happen (Bernie Parent)
Uh boy!!
And I thought Phillies fans had a high IQ.
Look in 1973 the flyers core was reaching their prime just like the Phillies are now. By trading a very popular Doug Favell and prospects for Bernie Parent the Flyers made history.
This Phillies Unit is the tightest knit team in Philly since the Broad Street Bullies. In my life time I can only think of 3 Philly teams that were almost as tightly knit like this. This is a special team. It is just like the Sixers who traded Caldwell Jones and the #1 draft pick that was Ralph Sampson for Moses Malone. The core of that Sizers team was close to the end of their prime. Using your logic the Sixers should have kept Ralph Sampson.
The Phillies need to in a win now mode not building for the future. The door open to make history does not come around that often.
I mean seriously you want to be like a lame ass Braves fan who can only flaunt 13 division titles in a row but 1 World series. It it like dancing with 13 different girls on 13 different weekends and only getting one kiss. Who the hell wants that . What’s the point of going to a dance and not leave with a girl.
I would rather see them win two more world series now and suffer a string of 4th place finishes for 5 years then just having this solo championship. I know what it is like to suffer through 5-6 year stretches of mediocrity, I know what it i like to experience a one off championship, I vaguely remember what it was like to win back to back Stanley Cups in the ’70s. I would love to feel that in the sport I love the most.
We are not trading the farm for Von Hayes here. This is not trading Ryne Sandberg and Larry Bow for Ivan Dejesus. This is a trade for the Steve Carlton of our time an we will have him in his prime for 1.5 seasons.
The Braves
The Braves are just not a good comparison here. Do you really think that their 1 for 13 record is a result of not having that one extra dominant pitcher? Certainly not — they did what they did with Smoltz, Maddux, Glavine, and whoever else Mazzone was working his magic on that year. They lost because in a short series, anything can happen. Especially when the short series minimizes the strength you had throughout the 162 game season (above-averge 4 and 5 pitchers).
by David S. Cohen on Jul 27, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I disagree
The Braves lack of WS Championships fall squarely on dependance on Glavine and Maddux. Neither on of them is a true stopper with a dominant un-hittable out pitch. Their playoff stats support my hypothesis.
Just like Moyer, Galvine and Maddux do a masterful job of using the batter’s stupidity/greed against them during the regular season. However, in the playoffs, the batters bear down a little more. They become far more patient. Thus the strike zone figuratively shrinks in the playoffs. It has the same effect as having an umpire with a tight strike zone. When that happens to Moyer, he becomes ineffective.
Smoltz was the only starter on that staff with truly dominant stuff.
In a short series it is more imperative to have two stoppers in the rotation. Brett Myers, when his head is screwed on strait, can be a stopper.
Another strange coincidence is that the Braves sole WS championship was during a strike year. Pitcher have an advantage in a shortened season where not every batter has found their rhythm .
You're re-writing history on Maddux and Glavine
by David S. Cohen on Jul 27, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions
But but but....
They just couldn’t win! And we know Halladay can make his teams win!
by David S. Cohen on Jul 27, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions
But they both have losing records in the playoffs. Apparently have get hit more than the other guy..
Smotlz on the other hand was 15-4
Wins to evaluate pitchers?
Really? Because his teammates didn’t score more runs in a given game, you make that reflect poorly on a pitcher? With a 2.81 ERA? What more do you want from a guy?
by David S. Cohen on Jul 27, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions
If both pitchers are “on”, a pitcher who has filth and location beats just location most of the time.
In the playoffs, Maddux was up against the opposing ace every time. and lost more time than he won. Smoltz was 15-4.
The true playoffs stoppers seems to have another gear to shift to. Maddux did not where Jack Morris did. Maddux playoff ERA with the Braves was a little higher than his regular season ERA with the Braves.
Remember on Friday night on the final weekend against the Nats. Cale Hamels who came into that game pitching on reduced pitch count after being on the DL threw an 8 inning shutout gem. Throughout the playoffs he was Cy Hamels. He kicked it up another notch.
The true playoff stoppers seem to rise to the occasion. Maddux was solid but not stellar and has a losing record to show for it.
Even the best pitchers lose games
Don’t you get that? Offense matters, and there’s no way to win a game if your offense doesn’t score runs Look at Dan Haren’s April this year, for instance. He pitched lights out — 1.54 ERA, .171 BAA — and yet lost 3 games! Is that his fault for not being enough of a “stopper”? Or is it his team’s fault for not scoring enough runs?
That’s baseball for you. You can be dominant on the mound and yet lose. After all, Roy Halladay has lost 3 games this year. It happens!
by David S. Cohen on Jul 28, 2009 7:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Please identify the “true stoppers with dominant un-hittable out pitches” on the following teams that made it to the World Series: 2002 Angels, 2002 Giants, 2003 Yankees, 2004 Cardinals, 2005 White Sox, 2006 Cardinals, 2006 Tigers, 2007 Rockies, 2008 Rays.
I notice that you left out the 2001 Diamondbacks and 2003 Marlins. Who obviously had electric arms in their rotation.
The truth is that not every team has that type of pitcher. The truth is that a potent offense with a couple of stoppers almost always wins. If you want to nitpick and talk about how the California Angels never won anything with Ryan and Tanana (of course those teams could not hit. ) or with Mike Witt and Chuck FInley (can you say Donnie Moore.
But when you have the offense and the defense that the Phillies have getting a stopper puts you over the top. Just ask the Twins and Blue Jays about Jack Morris.
The given that they face equal offenses an “on” Curt Schilling beats an “on” Greg Maddux most of the time.
I believe that the 2004 Red Sox that you also omitted also had a potent offense with two stoppers in the rotation. Gee and most of your teams did not win a world series.
Some of the years you mentioned there were not really any teams that had two stoppers in the rotation along with the other necessary ingredients.
So the real question is how many teams in the last twenty years had a potent offense a serviceable bullpen and two stoppers in the rotation. It is a rare combination. And it is one we could have right now for the the high asking price of 4 prospects. And then of those how many won a world series.
88 Dodges, 89 A’s, 90 Reds, 91 Twins , 92 Blue Jays …..
Looking at it, maybe there is one trend, there are simply fewer pitchers in the 120 pitch count era that know how to be stoppers.
You need to take a course in basic logic. Was I arguing that it’s impossible to win if you have a “stopper” (as you define that word) on your team? No I wasn’t. Therefore, the fact that some teams with “stoppers” have won fails to disprove my point in any way.
My point was that many, many teams have gotten to and won the World Series without stoppers. It’s very common. Which disproves your point that the Phillies need two in order to have any real chance at winning the World Series.
Even if we get Halladay, that doesn’t mean we’re going to win another World Series in 2009 or 2010. YOU DON’T KNOW THAT, YOU’RE JUST MAKING AN ASSUMPTION. Halladay doesn’t guarantee anything, not even close. All he does is improve our odds to a degree.
Yes I am
It is a gamble that increase our odds substantially. A gamble like this in order to make history is worth it.
I sImply do not see us getting to let alone winning the World Series with what we have right now.
My opinion is that right now we have a slim chance to get to the world series. The Dodgers are a mouch stronger team than last year and our pitching staff is a lot worse.
We won last year in spite of a collective off year offensively due to our pitching. We do not have the pitching to make that run this year. Having Cole Hamels pitch every game one last year helped a lot. Cole is having an off year for whatever reason. We need a buzz saw starter for the playoff. Right now we have none.
Of course, the Dodgers could also get cold going into the playoffs or fall apart once in just like the Cubs did last year.
Hamels could also find himself again just in time for the playoffs. You never know.
Point is, anything can happen in the playoffs. The hard part is getting there.
I’m wondering how many times, in recent years, the odds-on favorite in Las Vegas going into the playoffs has gone on to win the World Series. Is there a way to find this information?
I know the Phillies were not the favorite last year, nor were the Cardinals in 2006.
I doubt the White Sox were favorites in 2005 but I am not sure, and by favorites I mean even remotely favorites.
This trend of “bad” teams making and/or winning the World Series is one of the main reasons I am reluctant to make a trade. Probably not the best information to base a decision on, but at the same time it does show how many possibilities there are for the World Series winner.
The 2004 Cardinals might be worth a mention as well, as they had great pitchers and won 100+ games (I think) and yet got swept in the World Series by the Red Sox, who were the wild card team I believe.
Haha, right now the Phillies are in a great spot, winning a weak division seems to give you the best odds of winning the World Series – Hopefully they dont blow it and win 100 games!
There is always that wild card who has a career streak that ends up upsetting the best laid plans. (see Marty Bystrom)
In 1980 the Phillies had both Marty Bystrom’s unbelievable run along with Houston’s JR Richard stroke. f JR Richard stays healthy the Phillies do win crap. He was that dominant that year.
Win now. You hear that all the time. If Halladay guarantees 2 more rings, then we should give up the farm for him. But he doesn’t. All he guarantees is 200+ innings and some more wins in the regular season. Which is largely worthless to the Phils this year. They are already cruising in 1st place. All they need Halladay for is maybe 6 starts in the postseason.
Halladay is a great pitcher, but seriously, its not like he is Cy Young + Babe Ruth reborn. The Mets got Santana, arguably superior to Halladay, and everyone picked them as favorites to get to the WS. How’d that work out? Or what about the Dodgers signing the biggest proven horse available, Jason Schmidt. How’d that work out? Or Barry Zito?
What happens if the Phils give up Happ, Drabek and Brown for Halladay and they don’t win in the next 2 years? What if Halladay then walks after his contract is up? I suspect the same people screaming for a Halladay trade at any cost will be screaming for Ruben’s head if the Phils don’t win and Drabek/Brown turn into superstars for another team.
Uh BOy
I never said that Halladay was Babe Ruth + Cy Young reborn. But he is far better than Jack Morris and look at what he did for the Twins and Blue Jays.
Comparing adding Halladay to the Mets adding Santana is like comparing apples to potatoes.
Adding Santana to a poor club house leaves you with a poor clubhouse. Add Halladay to one of the tightest knit teams in Philly sports history will have a far more propfound effect.
Again it is like the flyers re-acquiring a retooled Bernie Parent. Adding Bernie to a talented but cancer filled clubhouse would have done little. But adding Bernie to a team that was as tightly knit as those flyers were and had that level of talent was the missing link for prosperity.
“I never said that Halladay was Babe Ruth + Cy Young reborn. But he is far better than Jack Morris and look at what he did for the Twins and Blue Jays.”
One thing about aquiring a new pitcher, is that the Phils may not need Halladay and may make do with a lesser and cheaper pitcher. As you mention, Morris is no Halladay (I dont know him to be honest) and he did great things for the Blue Jays.
Similarly, we may not need to get Halladay, but just some other #3 ish pitcher and that will be enough.
Even the #3’s are expensive….
I do not want Cliff Lee, he gets hit too much. Besides they want just as much as the Jays.
Jack Morris was the winnings pitcher in the ’80. The Twins got him in ’91 and the Blue JAys got him in ’92 which led to two more ridge for Mr Morris. Besides that I have heard he was an ass to play with. Kind like Randy Johnson.
I agree that Lee does not look like a great deal at this time, his price looks basically like Halladay’s so that doesnt make a whole lot of sense.
Zach Duke from the pirates looks like he might be a decent fit, though. He hasnt done as well recently, but at the same time that might be good for the Phils because his price wont be so high. He is also 25 and could be a part of the team for a while, though I am not sure what his contract situation is like.
Someone like him, basically adding extra stability to the rotation overall, would be a good deal I think.
Then come playoff time the Phils could start Hamels, Blanton, Duke and then whoever looks best of Lopez, martinez, Moyer, Happ and maybe even somebody else if guys come back from the DL (though I doubt there will be any others.) I think the chances of Hamels, Blanton and Duke pitching decently is pretty high, and the chances of one of the other 4 pitching decently at that point is also pretty high.
Replacing Duke in this hypothetical with Halladay is nice, but as this article suggests, it might not be necessary.
Well, I didn’t say that you said he was Babe + Cy. I was just making the point that a lot of people seem to think he’s going to be some sort of savior that will guarantee multiple championships. And no one player in baseball guarantees that. Pujols is the best hitter around, he doesn’t have multiple rings. The Yankees pretty much go out every year and sign the biggest name available, and they have been stacked with talent for the last 10 years, and it hasn’t gotten them back to the series.
You really can’t compare hockey at all to any other sport. One goalie who happens to play out his mind at the right time can win a Stanley Cup basically by himself. It’s the one sport where one player can make that big of an impact.
Baseball is completely different. You need a long period of time, like 162 games, for the talent to show up in wins. Over a short series anything can happen. Utley has a career .213 average in the post season. Does that mean he isn’t a stud? Of course not. But it means that over a short post season, any player can have a slump. Including Halladay.
Do I want Halladay on the Phils? Yes. I think it improves the Phils a lot. However, I’ve seen enough baseball to know that getting him does not guarantee anything. It just improves their chances. I’d say it would move them from 6-1 or 7-1 odds to maybe 4-1. Which still means that, while 4-1 is great, more likely than not they will not win the WS. And btw, last year, the Phillies were heavy underdogs to Dodgers. We all know how that worked out.
buzz
I know what you mean, BUT:
The Phillies pretty much milked 1980 and its attendant buzz for every worthwhile drop, and 1993 as well, to a craptastic climax while closing the Vet in 2002.
by Wet Luzinski on Jul 27, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, it was “going for it” after 1980 that got us into the craptastic mess to begin with. The Phillies traded away a number of their best prospects in the early 1980s thinking they only had a small “window of opportunity” before Schmidt and Carlton got old and had to take a “future is now” approach. As it turned out, they didn’t win another World Series anyway, and soon paid the price for their short-sightedness. If they had just kept their prospects (Ryne Sandberg, Julio Franco, Keith Moreland, Mark Davis, Mike Lavalliere, Lonnie Smith), their chances of winning another World Series probably would have been a lot better.
Which is why I was so disturbed to read that Bill Giles has been banging the drums for a Halladay trade. He, of all people, should know better, considering what he did to this organization when he was GM.
I get the impression Conlin bangs a lot of thing, mostly drums now. Anything else is in his 30-year-old dreams of hot pants girls. Was he likewise breathless for Von Hayes?
I distrust media on this because they are improperly incentivized to keep this alive to keep ears listening and eyeballs on the screen.
by Wet Luzinski on Jul 27, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions
meant to write Giles, but Conlin came out. Now I think I’ll go hurt myself.
by Wet Luzinski on Jul 27, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
WTF?
Again trading for the BEST pitcher in baseball over here and trading the farm for an unproven Von Hayes and mediocre Ivan Dejesus over there.
You are reaching. Badly.
I will agree with one thing
If BIll GIles says do one thing then it is a good bet to do the exact opposite.
Dynasty talk
Any time a team wins the World Series somebody will trot out the “Are the blanks the next dynasty?” line. You’re talking way back for the days when the Chicago Cubs and New York Giants won, and Cincinnati was over 30 years ago, so it would be remarkable to win back-to-back, if not necessarily making this team a “dynasty.” In recent years I would say only the Yankees 1996-200(0/1?) constitute any sort of a dynasty, but don’t be so hard on the Cards and Dodgers. Even if they never won back-to-back they put up some good runs, like the Cardinals from 1942-46 winning every other year, or the Dodgers from 1959-66 with three titles, one Series loss and one playoff loss in eight years. In itself I don’t consider the back-to-back titles enough to earn the designation “dynasty” – I think it implies something longer than two or even three years of success.
by phillyinportland on Jul 28, 2009 1:51 AM EDT up reply actions
If the core of the team is maturing – what’s that mean about rollins and ibanez?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 27, 2009 4:23 PM EDT reply actions
I’ve been wondering why the Phils’ offense doesn’t get a little more love on ESPN. By that I mean they acknowledge it’s good, but they seem more interested in talking about how terrible the pitching is, which it isn’t. Opposing players and managers say it all the time. This a devastating lineup. There isn’t a soft out until the 8th spot.
Imagine
Imagine if the Red Sox or Mets had this offense.
by David S. Cohen on Jul 27, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I suppose you make the same argument 3 or 4 years from now when Kyle Drabeck, Michael Taylor, Carlos Carrasco, and Brown (forgot his first name) are all entering their prime. THE FUTURE IS NOW. Please trade for [insert best pitcher in the league here].
HUH??
I am mathematician and you logic escapes me. You are comparing apples to radishes.
No you can not make that argument because those people are unknown quantities. We have three infielders who have proven they can contend for an MYP any given year. We have the best infield in all of baseball right now and one of the top outfielders.
For all we know Michael Taylor will be the next Jeff Stone or Kyle Drabek the next Larry Christenson.
But he’s also a theoretical physicist.
Though I could have sworn he was a blue jays fan as well
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe it’s my moniker, but I keep going back to 1977 and 1978. We had a fantastic offense AND one of the top pitchers in baseball. A black Friday here, a non-rainy night there, an umpire’s call, a defensive replacement there — the agonizing what ifs that boil down to: We were also bitterly unlucky. David, your post here serves as a useful reminder that this is a real unusual offense here.
For everyone out there sporting your WFC woodies, it’s important to recognize that if we match up with the Cubs in the NLCS or the Red Sox in the WS, the 2008 playoffs would not have given the same result.
At this point I see an offense that can get us to the playoffs, decent (enough) pitching, and a remaining schedule that’s not as bad as what the Phillies have already been through. Maybe we sign Halladay, but next year.
Again the future is now.
If we remain just competitive enough to go to the dance for the next five years and not in a thing, no one will really notice this single WS victory. IF we win three in a row, we make history and no one will care if we string together a bunch of mediocre years afterwards..
3 in a row makes this team the best in the HISTORY of the National League.
Imagine if Tom Seaver we traded to the Phillies in 1978 instead of the Reds. We would have had two stoppers in the rotation and more than one WS to show for it. IF you get to the playoffs two stoppers in can win a World Series all by themselves.
Or they could, by chance, have a bad game and not make any difference at all. Over a long enough span, having an ace like Halladay becomes an advantage because the bad games are outweighed by the many good ones. But in a short series, it doesn’t make that much of a difference.
HMM
Well nothing is for certain except death and taxes but it gives us the surest path to history. Without Halladay we have to pray for Pedro to be 90 percent of his former self and that is more uncertain.
We don’t have to pray for that either. Chances are that we win the division with or without Pedro and Halladay.
You are making the monumental assumption that we need something else to win in the playoffs. I am saying that the playoffs are such a crapshoot anyways that even if we got something, the price may be too high to justify the chance of a reward.
I disagree
Steve Jobs did not make history at Apple by playing it safe. Het bet the company on some calculated gamble that paid off big. Now Apple is the most profitable “computer” company out there.
If you want the bigger rewards you have to lay more on the line.
How are we doing right now without Pedro and Halladay?
by David S. Cohen on Jul 27, 2009 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions
We would have had two stoppers in the rotation and more than one WS to show for it. IF you get to the playoffs two stoppers in can win a World Series all by themselves.
Is that like how Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling won the Diamondbacks more than one WS all by themselves in the early part of the decade?
WTF?
Again trading for the BEST pitcher in baseball over here and trading the farm for an unproven Von Hayes and mediocre Ivan Dejesus over there.
You are reaching. Badly.
and you’re repeating yourself, claiming to write with logic, but not.
So I’m not sure what the point is
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 27, 2009 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions
In logic
You must disprove a statement with counter example. The entry above was a counter example to the guy who is trying to compare a trade for Halladay with the stupid trades for Von Hayes and Ivan Dejesus in 1982-83.
I accidentally posted this twice and it is hard to see that this is a counter example without the original context…
If you’re trying to prove that Halladay is better than Ivan DeJesus, then give yourself a pat on the head, because that is very true. Unfortunately, that doesn’t disprove anything I said, but thanks for playing.
It does disprove what you were saying. You are trying to compare this trade for Halladay in the same vein as the trades for Von Hayes and Ivan Dejesus which made the Phillies lose Ryne Sandberg and Julio Franco among others.
Had the Phillies traded Mark Davis, Lonnie Smith and whomever for Tom Seaver in 1978 we would probably be talking about those Phillies being the last NL back to back WS champions.
The Flyers in fact made another important move to “win now”. In 1974 they got Reggie Leach who helped them win cup #2. They traded some top prospects for him.
The reason those flyers din not win more than two is that Bernie Parent was never the same after his neck injury in 1972. Those things do happen. And trading for Halladay does not make things certain but it makes us over whleming favorites to win it all this year and next.
The Phillies are going to have to retool in 4-5 years anyway. But with increased revenue that can afford to sign a Thome like free agent or two by that time. The only thing that is hard for the Phils is signing a top free agent starter who is willing to pitch at CBP.
“In the same vein” – now those are some weasel words if I ever saw any.
Did I say that DeJesus was as good as Halladay? No, I didn’t. You can’t find a quote where I said that. You’re just reading things into what I wrote that aren’t there.
The return on the trade has nothing to do with the point I was making. You could trade prospects for Babe Ruth and it wouldn’t change my point, which was that when you assume you only have a short window of opportunity to win and therefore must sacrifice the future for the present, that assumption (A) is often false, and (B) can become a self-fulfilling prophecy if you act on it.
I have very clearly stated many times on this blog that I’m not necessarily opposed to trading prospects for veterans. I’m not necessarily opposed to trading for Halladay either – it depends on what we have to give up. What I am opposed to are your reasons for pushing for the trade, which are totally off base.
Also:
Had the Phillies traded Mark Davis, Lonnie Smith and whomever for Tom Seaver in 1978 we would probably be talking about those Phillies being the last NL back to back WS champions.
Once again, YOU DON’T KNOW THIS. You’re just making an assumption. Just to give you a quick news flash, the team that actually got Tom Seaver from the Mets in 1978 didn’t win a World Series! The 100-win team that got Randy Johnson in 1998 didn’t even make it out of the first round of the playoffs! THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES.
Uh boy
You are right there are no guarantees. But you really can’t win at black jack unless you intelligently double down every once in a while.
Yes the Reds did not win the world series in 1978 but they did make the playoffs in 1979. That Reds team core was well beyond their prime. Morgan, Dreissen, Geronimo, Concepcion and Bench were all on the downward slippery slope of their careers. The Phillies core was in their prime in 1978.
Again you are comparing Apples to onions..
I see no evidence that you’d ever win at black jack
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 27, 2009 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions
a thought experiment for you, bluejfk
Just for the sake of argument, let’s say that the Phillies currently have a 15% chance of winning a World Series in 2009 and also a 15% chance in 2010. Their chances of winning a World Series in 2011, 2012, and 2013 are currently 10% in each year.
Now, let’s say that trading Drabek, Brown, and Taylor for Halladay would increase our odds of winning in 2009 and 2010 to 20%, but would lower our odds of winning in 2011, 2012, and 2013 to 2%.
Would you make the trade? Please answer yes or no and explain why or why not.
taco pal arranges the argument where any logical human being doesn’t trade Drabek, Brown or Taylor
i salute u taco pal, because if he says he’d trade them hes not looking at the numbers u gave him.
touche
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 27, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions
And those numbers
Are based on what? Being part of a secret cabal headed by BIll James who shares special data with his minions on the probability of the future of baseball. Taco Pal pulled those numbers out of his posterior.
Again, the Phillies have a special unit that with adding a Roy Halladay, could make history. Is it a gamble, sure. But the opportunity is there to make history. This trade makes us the favorite to win it all this year and next. Without Halladay it will require Pedro regaining his old form. I just do not see that happening.
You can not win at black jack unless you intelligently double down every once and a while.
Really?
My Master’s degree is in Theoretical Mathematics. As a Undergrad I minored in Physics.
Thought Experiments are used for things where is no real way of proving the hypothesis. However, we are no arguing whether Schrodinger’s Cat is alive or dead here. Nor are we arguing over the virtues of the theory of the Mulit-verse.
Also if one comes up with a counter example then the the thought experiment becomes invalid.
CoburnsCuddleBuddy was saluting you numbers. I understand you pulled them out of thin air as a guess to state a point but CoburnsCuddleBuddy obviously does not get that and actually thinks that those numbers were real numbers from actual research.
Well
YES. I will tell you that I was a naysayer until I realized how rare a back to back World Series champion has been for a NL team. It also would give me more venom to attack Braves fans since I now live in the south.
I think your numbers are off. I think that Signing Halladay makes us a 2-1 favorite to win the World Series for the next two years. That gives a 50 percent chance to win. right now we are 1 in 5.
I am not concerned about Lidge. If Myers returns in August that gives us closer insurance.
We are going to have retool in 4-5 years anyway. Getting a top OF in the free agent market is pretty easy so losing Taylor is not that big.. However, we do not have replacements for Utley, Rollins and Howard in the minors right now. Replacing an MVP infield will be hard. With his hip I think Utley will have to become an outfielder in about 4 years anyway. Frayed labrums reoccur quite easily, look at Schilling.
If we do not make the trade, then, after our infield goes past their prime, we will be a team much like the Pre-Howard/ Utley Phillies that will be knocking on the door of the Playoffs but rarely get in. If we win back to back then I do not give a rats ass if we make the playoffs for the next 5 years.
Also I think that the trade that will be made will be Happ Drabek Taylor and Donald.
I don’t have time for this. But you should know that a 2-1 favorite has a 33% chance to win, not 50%. Not that we’d actually be a 2-1 favorite.
You are right
2-1 is not a common term in Lebesgue measure-based probabilty theory. I meant to say 1 in 2….
It’s still an assinine comment to make. 1 in 2 shot to win the World Series for the next two years? I mean, I don’t know if I should laugh or cry at that statement.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
RIght now we have little chance to go to t world series unless on of three things happen. Hamels finds himself, Pedro finds the fountain of youth or we Get Halladay.
For those of you satisfied with just making the play offs I salute you with a tomahawk chop!!
Woooah Woah Wo-o-ooooah Wooooh Woah O-o-Oh!!
For those of you too scared to gamble on making history, The Gap is having a buy one get one free sale on skirts.
I knew that comment was asinine yesterday, but it wasn’t until thinking about it a little more that I realized just how asinine it was. If the Phillies have a 1 in 2 (50%) chance of winning the World Series, it would mean the other seven teams in the playoffs would each average a 7.1% chance. So the Phillies would be seven times more likely to win the Series than their average competitor. Yeah, that’ll happen.
If Vegas gave the Phillies even odds to win the championship with Halladay, it would take all of my loyalty as a fan to prevent myself from betting the house against them.
"Compare that to Citizens Bank Park, which inflates runs by only 5% this year"
Thats because CBP is only a HR hitters park. Everything else hit in the air should be caught. I think this almost always goes unnoticed. Power hitters love CBP, but the Derek Jeters of the world, not so much.
Did you click on the park factors link?
Hits = +1%
2B = +5%
3B = +3%
HR = +7%
BB = +11%
Yes, it’s a HR-hitters park, but really not by much at all. It inflates everything, but everything by just a bit. It’s just not a park with a huge hitters advantage.
by David S. Cohen on Jul 27, 2009 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions
The BB thing is weird – I wonder why that is
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 27, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Conservatively may not be the perfect word but I agree that is another reason for higher BB’s.
One of the reasons Jamie Moyer gives up more walks that you think is that he never gives in giving a pitch he does not want to throw, even in a batter’s count. Maybe the same is true for other pitchers who throw in that band box…
I can not wait until August 1st
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 27, 2009 7:53 PM EDT reply actions
Halladay, yes!
Maybe not in the regular season, but in the post season, yes, they need Halladay when they will be facing top pitchers every game. Are you more comfortable goin into the fisrt 2 games of a series with Hamels/Halladay vs Carpenter/wainwright or Hamels/Halladay vs Big Z/Harden or Hamles/Halladay vs Bills/Kershaw or Hamels/Blanton vs any of the above?
More comfortable? Yes.
Does my personal comfort mean our chances of winning are significantly higher? No.
no?
how is our chances of winning not signficantly higher with maybe the best pitcher the last decade (in annually the hardest division in baseball) vs a picher with a career winning percentage just over .500? have u seen halladay pitch recently?
We still have to score more runs than the other guys
by David S. Cohen on Jul 27, 2009 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Your point???
Are we trading Ryan Howard and Utley for Halladay??
One of the major reasons we won it all last year was the simple fact that the baseball gods smiled on us and let us pitch Hamels for every game one.
Do we have that same Cole Hamels right now. No. We might have one come October. But Halladay is that type of pitcher right now.
Remember in 1993 after the Philles blew a 14-12 lead in game 4 and the bullpen was gone. Curt Schilling stepped up and pitched a 138 pitch 1-0 shutout. That is what a stopper gives you.
John Chaney once said what is needed to make it to the final four is to win that game where you don’t really deserve to win but win anyway. Stoppers allow you to win those games when everything else is off.
There are so much fewer stoppers in this 120 pitch count era that if you are poised to make history and you need and can get a stopper, you go for it.
BTW there those wild card stoppers. People like Brett Myers or Bonderman before he blew his shoulder, who are inconsistent as hell but when they are on they are un-hittable too.
My point
The Phillies offense is dominant. Getting Halladay would be nice, but it’s not a make-or-break opportunity. He’ll give us a marginally better chance of getting into the playoffs (when the chances are high already), and a slightly less marginally better chance of winning a playoff game. But in a short series, anything can happen. Are you forgetting CC Sabathia and his amazing two months in the regular season last year for the Brewers and then what happened in the post-season for him and his team?
by David S. Cohen on Jul 27, 2009 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I am not a Braves fan and getting to the playoff is not enough for me.
CC’s legs were gone by the time the phillies got a hold of him. He has a big frame and obviously does not regularly visit the gym. With no legs his fast ball was flat and his location was all over the place.
But they were fine just a few days before that?
by David S. Cohen on Jul 27, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions
get that
but having to score 4-6 runs vs 2-4 runs per game in playoffs is a big difference – especially if halladay pitches his normal 7 – 9 innings, saves bullpen and saves blanton for game 3….
as the saying goes...
momentum is the next day’s pitcher, and if halladay is that guy, halellujah!
They were saying the same thing about CC Sabathia last season. How did that work out for the Brewers in the playoffs?
http://www.thegoodphight.com
that's what happens eventually...
when you pitch on 3 days rest for a month…..if this was a hlf season rental, maybe no, but you get him through 2010, that’s the big point in my opinion….
i look at it this way....
would you rather be a top contender in the next 2-3 years, or a regular for the next 10 years. my answer, next 10 years. remember how awful we were a couple years ago, cause i do, and id rather be a top team down the line then back to #1 draft choices in 5 years.
so basically...
you’d rather what? lose in the first round like 2007, which was miserable than win or be in a world series? that’s funny, haven’t heard that one…so basically you want to be the twins? i’ll take bein in the nlcs or world series the next years…you don’t get many windows like this….
I see what you’re saying, but you also have to consider that you guarantee you have a small window by removing all of the top talent from the system. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I would like to add Halladay, too, but I just don’t think it should be done “at any cost”. It has to be the right deal, for both teams. Just because the Blue Jays have asked for it doesn’t mean they are going to get it.
And I would much rather be in it every year, then win it once and be irrelevant for 10-15 years. Once you get in, anything can happen in a shortened series. The Rockies were a buzzsaw in 2007; no one saw that coming.
i agree....
happ or drabek and talyor or brown, and take your pick of 2 others….but no way happ, drabek, and brown…..
I would let Taylor go since his path is blocked by Werth and Ibanez.
Brown has better K:W ratio too.
Donald, at best, will be another Mark Derosa. A good hitter, decent fielder but you have to be creative to hide his limited range.
How old is ibanez again?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions
We have to retool in 3-4 years anyway. So that wave of mediocrity is coming no matter what. Rollins, Victorino, Howard and Utley will all be in the declining part of their careers. We simply do not have anyone to take their place right now. Quality corner outfielders are easy to get in the free agent market so losing Taylor or Brown is not the end of the world. Happ is simply a better version of Randy Wolf while Drabek could be great or the next Bonderman.
I would rather have a better chance to make history and be mediocre in 5 years than be the Atlanta Braves.
Again, 13 division championships in a record but two World Series Championships is a DYNASTY.
I like how everyone has become an expert on the Phillies’ minor league system over the past three weeks…
http://www.thegoodphight.com
yeah...
but when is the last time a name like halladay has even been a possibility?
Look at what Schilling did for the Diamondbacks. He was recovering from another labrum issue when they got him but the following year it put the D-Backs over the top. Schilling put the Red Sox over the top in ’04 bloody sock an all. Schilling made history.
How can you really say it was specifically Schilling who put them over the top?
This is simply an isolated anecdotal argument. I could tell you that CC Sabathia didn’t out the Brewers over the top last year. That experiment failed.
Because he did it again with the Red Sox in 2004.
Granted there are fewer pitcher who know how to be stoppers in the 120 pitch era. Rear Blanton in the 80’s and he might be a 270 inning guy.
The Brewer ran CC at full throttle the last few weeks. He simply ran out of gas and lost his legs by the time the Phillies saw him.
david Cone
One thing I forgot is that Jack Morris was a free agent signing in 1992. David Cone was the trading deadline acquisition who helped the Blue Jays win it all another Stopper kind of guy.
well then...
GO BUY A SKIRT YOU HOMO!!!
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Jul 28, 2009 8:08 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The really amusing thing here is that neither Jack Morris nor David Cone were particularly good in the postseason! Both had identical career postseason ERAs of 3.80 (which was, of course, worse than the ERAs of … wait for it … Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine).
About 90% of Morris’s reputation as a “big game pitcher” is based on a single game, when he pitched a gem in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series for the Twins. That was a great achievement, but it was only one game. Apart from that, he was basically hit-or-miss in the postseason. In other words, bluejfk’s statement is entirely anecdotal and based on no objective facts.
Morris didn’t even pitch well with Toronto in the 1992 postseason, yet bluejfk attributes the Jays’ championship that year to their signing of him as a “stopper”. It’s totally ludicrous.
Von Hayes
I have been looking at July trades for big arms and none of the trades I have seen thus far , including what they are talking about what the phillies could have to give up for Halladay comes close to the 5-1 Von Hayes trade.
Julio Franco and Manny Trill plus 3 more…. OUCH!!
You can't spell "Dynasty" without "nasty!"
And Halladay is N. A. S. T. Y. lol
Seriously, while winning the next two World Series would be awesome, anybody who has convinced themselves that they won’t care what happens after 2010 if they do so is deluding themselves.
Personally, my feeling on a Halladay trade is that it can be done in such a way as to increase the chances of getting to/winning the WS the next couple years (and maybe beyond, if they resign him) and also without gutting the farm. Trade Happ or Drabek, Brown or Taylor plus a couple of lesser pieces, then recoup some of the losses via two high-round comp picks when Halladay departs after next year. In the meantime, throw a little extra money at some of this year’s picks to get a head start on restocking the system.
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.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
St. Louis Cardinals
Saturday, May 26, 2012, 7:15 PM EDT
Busch Stadium
Clear. Winds blowing out to left field at 5-15 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 95.
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
