The Good Phight: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: The Boxing Bulletin for Boxing Fans!

With Pitching Like This, Who Needs Roy Halladay?

Yesterday I looked at the Phillies' absolutely dominant offense and asked the question, with an offense like that, who needs Roy Halladay?  Today, I'll ask the same question but about the Phillies' pitching.

Really, the Phillies' pitching?  The staff that has a 4.42 ERA that's good for 22nd in the majors and 13th in the NL?  A staff that has a .780 opponents' OPS, which is 26th in the majors and 14th in the NL?  How could they not need Roy Halladay?

Well, here's how.  All of this is in the context of yesterday's post about the Phillies' offense.  Keeping that in mind, let's look at some of the team's pitching numbers:

ERA:  Here's the most basic stat we're all familiar with.  And, as I wrote above, the team ERA is 4.42, good for only 22nd in the majors and 13th in the NL.  However, let's look a little more closely at this stat.  The team really struggled in April -- Brett Myers led the starters with a 4.83 ERA; the team got 11 starts from Cole Hamels, Joe Blanton, and Chan Ho Park, all with ERAs over 7; Brad Lidge, who appeared in 9 games, also had an ERA over 7; and Jake Taschner was on the team.  Removing April from the equation, the team has a much better 4.12 ERA.  That ERA is now 14th in the majors and 7th in the NL since April.  In other words, the Phillies have a slightly above-average pitching staff since April.  Narrow the focus a bit more to just July and the pitching staff has been dominant.  In 23 games, the staff has a 3.27 ERA, which is 2nd in the NL and the majors.

R/G:  Overall on the year, the Phillies have given up 4.65 runs per game, which is 11th in the NL and 18th in the majors.  But, since April when the team gave up 5.60 runs per game, the team is giving up only 4.40 runs per game, good for 12th in the majors and 7th in the NL in that time period.  Again, the team has gone from below average to above average in this department.  In 23 July games, the staff has been dominant, giving up only 3.57 runs per game, better than all but the Braves (3.30) and Rangers (3.48).

WHIP:  On the year, the Phillies have allowed 1.39 base runners per inning (walks plus hits per inning pitched).  They're right around the middle here - 17th in the majors and 9th in the NL, just a tick worse than the Rockies (1.37), D-Backs (1.38), and Astros (also 1.39 but slightly lower).  In April, they were much worse at 1.53, which was 23rd in the majors and 14th in the NL.  Since then, however, they're much improved.  They're allowing 1.36 base runners per inning, good for 13th in the majors and 7th in the NL.  In their dominant July, they lead all of baseball, giving up only 1.16 baserunners per inning.

With the sources I'm familiar with, it's hard to generate much more sophisticated data for these time splits than what I've done here.  But the trend is quite obvious.  The team's pitching staff really suffered in April, but has been much better since then.  In fact, the pitching has been above average in both the majors and the NL since April.  And, in July, it's been one of the best pitching staffs in the game.

Yes, it's true that you're not as bad as your worst stretch (such as most of April) and not as good as your best stretch (right now).  But, the improvements since April can't be ignored here.  The team has re-configured its starting rotation and gotten key members of the staff healthy.  These improvements, although unlikely to sustain their July highs, should continue for the next two months.

Does that mean Roy Halladay wouldn't help this pitching staff?  Certainly not.  He'd be the best pitcher on the team and would change the dynamic of the rotation while taking pressure off the bullpen.  But, given what this team does with its bats and how its pitching has settled in as a slightly above-average staff, it's hard to say that this team must have Roy Halladay.

A nice addition, yes.  A necessary change, certainly not.

0 recs  |  Comment 109 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

You've got to be kidding me

you think that a rotation of Hamels/Blanton/Moyer/Lopez is a decent playoff rotayion vs rotations like Billingsly/Kershaw/Wolf/Kuroda or Lincecum/Cain/Johnson/Zito or Zambrano/Harden/Dempster/Lilly? Or if we even make the WS then we have to tangle with Boston’s or Detroit’s or New York’s starting pitching?

Halladay/Hamels keeps you in at least 3 games in a 5-game series, and 5 in a 7-game series. And don’t think Happ is going to be dominant. He’s been lucky, that’s all.

We need Halladay. Anyone thinking otherwise is fooling themselves with this little hot streak the Phils have against weak offenses (San Diego, Arizona, etc.)

by ManifestDestiny on Jul 28, 2009 10:30 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I think the dodgers pitching staff is getting way too much hype (kuroda are you kidding me) plus Joe Torre is doing a good job of running his bullpen into the ground.

And have you noticed how those folks have been pitching recently?

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You mean these guys need to pitch after the month of august? Nah

"I tried to run him over but Eli had his big boy pads on and he kind of stopped me from getting in the end zone. The next time I’ll try to jump over his head.’’ - Asante Samuel

by foos05 on Jul 28, 2009 10:48 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

Ha, your examples are two games in this hot streak.

by SJPhillyVT on Jul 28, 2009 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Way to make absolutely no effort to address or explain any of the contrary evidence in the post. You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just writing “Is Not!”

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I forgot what happened last year, could you remind me please.

For Who? My teammates.

For What? To Win.

How Much? Where do I sign?

by jonk on Jul 28, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

while not "necessary"

it would give us the edge on winning back to back titles, which both myself and bluejfk have stress is ULTRA rare in the NL (and over the last 30 years in general). as we are right now, i like our chances to GET to the WS, but with halladay, we’re the hands down fav to win it all.

still, at what cost to our future? i’m ok with our current rotation/bullpen, but i would LOVE to see halladay if we dont have to sell the farm (think that’s where the expression came from?)

http://poorsportsblog.blogspot.com/

by PoorSports on Jul 28, 2009 10:44 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I’d still like someone to factually explain this mystic “edge” we’d get once we reach the playoffs.

"I tried to run him over but Eli had his big boy pads on and he kind of stopped me from getting in the end zone. The next time I’ll try to jump over his head.’’ - Asante Samuel

by foos05 on Jul 28, 2009 10:52 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

Here’s the edge explained for you:
Compare: Hamels/Blanton/Moyer/Lopez CURRENT
Versus: Halladay/Hamels/Blanton/Moyer POTENTIAL

Halladay > Hamels, Hamels > Blanton, Blanton > Moyer, Moyer > Lopez

The potential rotation is better than the current rotation 4 out of 4 times therefore it would provide this team an edge in a 7 game series come playoffs.

by andyreidswaistline on Jul 28, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m still waiting to see Halladay playoff pitching results that guarantee he’ll dominate.

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And what’s the guarantee on our current staff?
The way we’re set up, we’re waiting to see if our guys will be sevicable come October.

by andyreidswaistline on Jul 28, 2009 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You mean like they were ‘serviceable’ last year?

And besides, right now, if the phils went with a 4 man rotation in the playoffs, I don’t think rodrigo lopez would be the fourth pitcher, it’s disingenuous to use the wrong pitcher to make the staff look ‘weaker’

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Correction - Same finding
Compare: Hamels/Blanton/Happ/Moyer CURRENT
Versus: Halladay/Hamels/Blanton/Happ POTENTIAL
Halladay > Hamels, Hamels > Blanton, Blanton > Happ, Happ > Moyer

by andyreidswaistline on Jul 28, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wonderful, except no one disagrees with any of that. What we disagree with is your implication that this will definitely make a difference in a short playoff series. It might, but the odds of it happening are not terribly huge.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Halladay increases our odds to repeat.
You can diminish the precise odd value all you want but the one clear thing is that it is an increased odd value you’re talking about.
Perhaps, as importantly he increases our odds again next season. Moreso than any prospect in our farm system will next season. Moreso than any two prospects in our farm system will next season.

We can afford to lose Drabek. We can afford to lose one of the two OF specs. If it’s what it takes, it doesn’t kill us.

by andyreidswaistline on Jul 28, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you say so, i’m not sure what ‘we’ can afford to lose but I don’t believe the phillies can afford to trade away four of their best prospects for one guy

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You can diminish the precise odd value all you want but the one clear thing is that it is an increased odd value you’re talking about.

I see. So, for the sake of argument, what if Halladay increases our odds by 3% this year and 3% next year? Are you saying that he would be worth trading away any and all prospects in our farm system who aren’t expected to help us before 2011?

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If 3% translates to wins you’re looking at just under 5 over the course of a season. That’s a difference maker to me.

by andyreidswaistline on Jul 28, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well that’s a blatant ignoring of facts and math – but no one is talking regular season – they’re talking post season – they’re talking increasing (hypothetically) the chances at winning the WS once they start from 15% to 18% while not having anyone to replace the aging or playing over their head (or both) outfielders or any chips to replace the aging short stop…or to get a catcher who don’t suck – or to replace moyer/blanton/ happ/ lopes when any or all of them realize who they really are?

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m saying we do the deal because it betters our team this year AND next year. I’m saying that if you lose your top 2 specs, you’re not reaping the farm bare.

by andyreidswaistline on Jul 28, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

According to most (unbiased) experts, the phils system while adequate is top heavy – take away two of the top prospects and you are doing severe damage to the system.

So, now that the percentage numbers don’t htink they mean what you think they mean they’ll be ignored?

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Near term damage. The holes on our major league roster in the near term are manageable. By the time the long term holes start popping up (2011) – hopefully you have two more rings in hand and the farm system is doing it’s best to fill the holes.

by andyreidswaistline on Jul 28, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I didn’t say increase our winning percentage by 3%, I said increase our odds of winning the World Series by 3%. Those are two different things.

Also, perhaps you haven’t noticed, but we’ve already played about 2/3 of the 2009 season, so even if I was talking about winning percentage, it wouldn’t add up to 5 over the course of this year. It would add up to about 1.7 games in the regular season and 0.2 games per playoff series.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m not doing it solely for the WS. I’m doing it to better our team for the remainder of this season. The entire playoffs. The entire 2010 season and those playoffs too.

by andyreidswaistline on Jul 28, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

To better our team for the remainder of this season? To what end? What’s the likelihood that we’re going to need the extra 1.7 games to win the division? I’ve already explained why Halladay doesn’t help very much in “the entire playoffs.”

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The only ‘regular’ season argument I could see and I don’t know that it would have a ‘lot’ of weight would be if those extra 2 (let’s call it two) games would make the difference between home/away in the playoffs. The phils are currently ‘2nd’ in the NL and equidistant from first (dodgers) and third (cardinals) at 5 games. The current wild card leader is the rockies which would mean the phils would host the wild card team at this moment.

I’m not saying it’s an argument I agree with but the only regular season argument I see for halladay this season is the difference between the 1 seed and the 2 seed and right now if the wild card comes from the west there’s no difference…

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

no difference in the first round, obviously difference in the LCS depending on who would win dodgers vs nl central winner

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is true. Isn’t worth paying a price for it though.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh no – not to me either – just saying it’s the only ‘valid’ regular season argument i could see…getting home field vs the dodgers if the playoffs play out to ‘form’

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Understood. We’ll see how it plays in waistline’s cost-benefit analysis though.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

So the odds your speaking of here are for the entire playoffs and i assume they are in reference to vegas odds. Im fine with that. But the question is how does he help improve them in each of the series. Do you know. I dont and was curious. I know their would be a bigger swing because its a smaller information set but if you have the numbers it would be interesting to here what they are

by worldfinchampions on Jul 28, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, I don’t. We can only speculate at this point. Naturally it would be bigger for each individual series, but the relevant question is how much Halladay improves the odds for winning the whole thing.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

my point was that if they improve the chances in each series his impact is bigger then the 5 percent it gives you in the odds. If he gives you a better chance to win each series he gives you a better chance to win it all. The vegas odds are based on betting and the interest people have in betting on a specific team. Not on the chances of winning. Its perceived vs reality

by worldfinchampions on Jul 28, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think the current line on the Phils to win the World Series is 10-1. From what I’ve seen, getting Halladay would change the odds to 6-1.

That seems like a big improvement, but really, its only about 6.5%. Which sounds about right.

And just to put it in perspective, last year when it was down to 4 teams, Dodgers, Phils, Rays, Sox, the Phils were 13-4. The Dodgers were 3-1. The Rays were 5-2. The Sox were the favorites at 7-4.

And we all know how that turned out.

by The R on Jul 28, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It’s not all about the WS, though. How does he affect our LDS and LCS odds? The added revenue from additional post-season games we play is part of his value to us.

by phila on Jul 28, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And ‘how much better’ does that make the playoff roster of the phillies – what does it guarantee?

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

they were serviceable last october. remember that Hamels and Blanton were statistically the 2 best pitchers in the playoffs last year.

by JpH89 on Jul 28, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

So you’re saying that Halladay would improve our odds? Great – that’s exactly what David said in the original post. The question is: how much would he improve our odds, and what kind of price is worth paying for that level of improvement?

The answers are: (1) Not that much, because of the extreme level of volatility in an individual game or a small number of games, and (2) Not that much, for that same reason.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry for not being a believer of tagging Drabek & Brown as untouchable.
They’re prospects.
Last year Carrasco & Donald were untouchable.
Look at how their value has plummeted from this time last year.
They’re prospects… You either call them up or trade them. Neither of them are getting called up this year and there’s just an outside chance one them gets called up next year. Meanwhile the pair provides the opportunity to add an ACE for this year’s run and next season.

by andyreidswaistline on Jul 28, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's all true ARW

But, the edge there has to be tempered by lots of things: the unpredictability of a pitcher in a small number of starts, an offense that dominates and can win games regardless of who pitches, and the flipside of that, which is that a pitcher who dominates is almost as useless as a slop thrower in a game when the other team’s pitcher shuts down your offense. Yes, Halladay will make the rotation better, but in a short series with this offense, it’s hard to think he makes anything that much more certain.

by David S. Cohen on Jul 28, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

"The flipside is that a pitcher who dominates as a slopthrower..."

How can you say that. If your throwing a dominant pitcher when your lineups being shut down at least there will still be an opportunity to come back and win. Look at the most recent game that the Phillies lost. Their offense was shut down and they only scored 1 run. Happ had a bad game and the cardinals scored 8 in the game. Suppose it was Halladay pitching and he had a really bad game. He pitched 7 or 8 innings and gave up 4 runs. Thats 4 instead of 8. Im sure you all will agree that with the offense we have 3 runs is a lot easier to come up with then 7. The team would have a chance of winning if the dominant pitcher was on the mound pithing badly (forget if he was also dominating). Halladays worst games still would give us a good chance to win with our offense. When moyer or happ or even hamels have bad games the phillies our out of the game with very few exceptions. Thats what Halladay provides. His best is as good as hamel’s best but his worst is so much better. And if pitching doesnt matter why did hamels win the mvp of the world series last year. Was it because he was dominant. Halladay pitches like that every day. He’s thrown 2 straight complete games.

by worldfinchampions on Jul 28, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you score 1 run, then it doesn’t matter whether your pitcher gives up 4 or 8.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

So it isnt easier to attempt a comeback when your down 3 instead of 7

by worldfinchampions on Jul 28, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

well at one point we were down 3 instead of 7 and we didn’t seem more eager to “attempt a comeback”

"I tried to run him over but Eli had his big boy pads on and he kind of stopped me from getting in the end zone. The next time I’ll try to jump over his head.’’ - Asante Samuel

by foos05 on Jul 28, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sure is

But I’m positing a game in which our offense scores 1. Then, it makes zero difference whether your pitchers give up 2 or 20. Pitchers can’t make a difference if the offense is dormant.

by David S. Cohen on Jul 28, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Right. It is a fact that teams – even teams with great offenses like ours – will sometimes score only 1 run in a game. The question is: how much will our pitcher’s performance matter in games where that happens? It’s not a response to say “yeah but what if we don’t score only 1 run?” That just avoids the question.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The most recent Accuscore playoff analysis pretty much sums up what Halladay would do for the Phils. Having him would increase their chances by about 5.5%. That’s to make the playoffs. We are already overwhelming favorites to make the playoffs.

5.5%

by The R on Jul 28, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Great post, David. But I don’t know if I can do the comment thing two days in a row. At a certain point, people have to agree on certain fundamental principles of logic or else a discussion becomes pointless.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 10:46 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

"A nice addition, yes. A necessary change, certainly not."

Perhaps I’m oversimplifying, but the above statement really says it all. Anyone who disagrees with it — I’m talking about those in the “Get Holladay [sic] at any cost!!!!” brigade — isn’t really contributing anything to the discussion.

Now, if Halladay can be had for a reasonable price — I’m not talking on the cheap, because that’s not going to happen, but a reasonable package of prospects — then by all means, let’s do it. But with a 7-game lead, there’s no need to panic and surrender an “I hope that doesn’t come back to bite us” type of package. Are we more likely than not to win a World Series without Halladay? Of course not. But are we more likely than not to win a World Series with Halladay? No sir. Our odds certainly increase, but not by that much.

by PhillyFriar on Jul 28, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If the phillies don’t get Halladay, I hope no one else does, cause I can’t take the lamentations that would follow immediately and once the playoffs arrive if the phils don’t win it all

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Where did you run the leaguewide post-April splits? I couldn’t figure out how to do that.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 10:50 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Nowhere

I had to export stats to Excel — YTD stats and April stats, then subtract the latter from the former.

by David S. Cohen on Jul 28, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeesh. I lack your level of commitment.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed. Good work putting that together, David.

by PhillyFriar on Jul 28, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

TP – that’s because I get paid the big bucks for doing this blog. :)

by David S. Cohen on Jul 28, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I still owe you that whopping check don’t I?

You’ll be rockin’ some gold!

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Jul 28, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Those Evony ads are lucrative, no?

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

As long as no annoying auto play video ads show up (as they do on some other blogs I read) – they can advertise whatever they want

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nice article but...

The July sample size is a little bogus in my book as we were like 16-5 and you’re just looking at 3 starts a piece.

Bottom line is that adding one of the best SP’s in the game SHOULD help you come playoff time. Halladay, Hamels, Blanton is a formidable 1-2-3 punch.

This offense is scarey good but we’re also streaky. The games where we scored 22 and 8+ runs totally masks the number of games we put up less than 5 runs.

 Halladay would give us an edge. Everybody NEEDS an edge come playoffs.

by andyreidswaistline on Jul 28, 2009 11:06 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Um, why were we “like 16-5” though?

For Who? My teammates.

For What? To Win.

How Much? Where do I sign?

by jonk on Jul 28, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m no math genius but 16-5 is 21 games I think.

In a 5 man rotation that’s 4 starts right?

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Like I said, no math genius, decimal points confuse me, i use mod to do my division

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I hope that’s not the case because mod returns remainders. 21mod5=1 not 4

"I tried to run him over but Eli had his big boy pads on and he kind of stopped me from getting in the end zone. The next time I’ll try to jump over his head.’’ - Asante Samuel

by foos05 on Jul 28, 2009 12:57 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

I’m Idaho

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

4.2 starts??

I guess the 0.2 starts is what you get when you have CHoP start a game for you, since he’s probably only gonna last a couple innings.

by Bilzo on Jul 28, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Of course Halladay would help. Our odds of winning the eight-team tourney might go from 15% to 20%, optimistically. But that doesn’t mean we “need” him. If we “needed” him, then it would be impossible or nearly impossible to win without him. That just isn’t the case. Our odds are a little worse without him, but not that much worse.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Question

I’ve been hearing a lot of talk lately about how the Phillies MUST get Halladay because back in 1993, they passed on a chance to get Randy Johnson and look what happened to them in the World Series as a result. Apparently, this is all rooted in some comment John Kruk made on Baseball Tonight recently.

Well, I followed that 1993 team pretty darn closely (obsessively?) and I have no memory of the Phillies passing on a chance to get Randy Johnson. Did that even happen? *(Setting aside, of course, the fact that we could just as easily have lost that year even with Johnson.)

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 11:36 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Sporting News on August 16, 1993

“Two pitchers very much in play are Houston’s Mark Portugal and Seattle’s Randy Johnson. The Yankees, Blue Jays, Phillies, Giants and Orioles were talking about one or both as the trading deadline passed. Talks apparently have continued.”

by David S. Cohen on Jul 28, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Interesting. But did those talks ever get serious? I actually do remember Portugal being discussed.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Kruk’s rationale about it went something like this.

The guys in the clubhouse were very excited, they believed they were going to get Randy Johnson (he didn’t say if they were told or just idiots reading the paper and reliving everything they read) and when they didn’t get Johnson it affected the team for the rest of the season. Emotionally. The disappointment in not getting Johnson (kruk implied) led directly to the mitch williams home run and the phils losing the world series.

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

post kruk ergo propter kruk

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Jul 28, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

2+2=5
excellent

"I tried to run him over but Eli had his big boy pads on and he kind of stopped me from getting in the end zone. The next time I’ll try to jump over his head.’’ - Asante Samuel

by foos05 on Jul 28, 2009 12:16 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

Kruk

Can shove it as a commentator. He’s useless. He can do all he wants to chalk up the team’s loss in game 6 of the World Series to not getting Randy Johnson in August, but he’s wrong. The team went as far as it could go to the point of the end result being a coin flip. It wasn’t about not getting Johnson, and he knows it.

by David S. Cohen on Jul 28, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

ugh

That’s not to David’s excellent article, but to my crappy ISP. I was literally in the process of uploading a long post yesterday detailing the rotation’s work over the last three-plus weeks, when my connection pooped out.

I’m now using a wireless connection on another computer, and probably will post my thing later today anyway, as much to stick my thumb in the eye of the universe as because it adds a lot to this analysis…

by dajafi on Jul 28, 2009 12:21 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

truths

1. Nobody here does not want Roy Halladay.
2. Nobody is denying that Roy Halladay doesn’t improve our chances of winning championships in 2009 and 2010.

We’re haggling over price.

To those who talk about how the team will need to be retooled in 2011/2012 anyway, who do you think fills those open roster spots? Guys like Brown, Drabek, Taylor, d’Arnaud, etc. etc. And CHEAPLY. So you can afford to go out and sign a free agent like, say, Matt Cain.

Despite what Darren Daulton says, the world does not end in 2012, nor necessarily does the Phillies’ run of competitive baseball. Good teams scout and draft well, and replenish with young talent.

We can trade for Halladay without gutting the system, I believe.

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Jul 28, 2009 12:46 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

edit

2. Nobody is denying that Roy Halladay would improve our chances of winning championships in 2009 and 2010.

I’m an idiot.

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Jul 28, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is losing Brown and Drabek gutting the system?

by andyreidswaistline on Jul 28, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Show me the report where just brown and drabek is enough to get the deal done

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

They’re our two best prospects. It’s pretty close.

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Jul 28, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would say yes, that’s gutting the system.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

keep one of them

I’m at the point where if we get out of this with Halladay and without losing both, I’m thrilled.

Drabek, Happ, Taylor, one more guy, deal.

by dajafi on Jul 28, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

At this point my definition of a “bad deal” is one that includes both Brown and Drabek. Good deal: One or the other, depending on the other pieces. Great deal: Neither.

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Jul 28, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree

I agree dajafi — don’t give up both Drabek and Brown. But either would be fine.

by David S. Cohen on Jul 28, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Baseball America listed Brown at #17 among all prospects, Drabek #24. They also want Happ.

Taylor’s ranked #23, so it’s not like our offer (Happ, Taylor, Carrasco, Donald) was a ridiculous downgrade. Toronto’s trying to play hardball, and I think if they don’t back down, they’ll be stuck paying Doc the rest of the season, because they’re asking for too much.

"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"

by The Dark on Jul 28, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The New York Post is reporting that Toronto will be willing to “relent” on Happ if we just give them Drabek. Gee, thanks, J.P. Now where’s that briar patch again?

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I have a feeling that unless Ruben loses his mind, or Ricciardi caves, this deal isn’t getting done.

The Happ, Carrasco, Taylor, Donald offer was a very decent starting point. But apparently Ricciardi isn’t budging.

I get that Happ and Carrasco are 3-5 starters vs. #1 in Halladay. Which is why its a 4-1 offer. Taylor is a top prospect. Donald is faded a bit, but still projects as a serviceable major leaguer.

I’d be ok with substituting Knapp for Happ or adding Marson/D’arnaud/Collier/whoever to make it a 5-1 deal. But I say Drabek looks to replace Myers in 2010-2011 and Brown replaces Ibanez/Werth in 2011.

And off-topic, in 2011 the Phils core will still be fine. Rollins, Utley, Howard, Hamels won’t be walking dinosaurs, despite what a lot of people seem to be saying with the win now mentality. Utley, Rollins and Howard have at least 3 more good years in them.

by The R on Jul 28, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed.

1. If Toronto is being honest with themselves they know they won’t seriously contend next year and that Hallady leaves after next year.

2. Halladay is at his peak trade value for the next 72 hours. Yes they can trade him over the winter, but for far less in return.

JP stated that they won’t trade him unless they’re overwhelmed and impossed that faux deadline. He also stated that they’re fine not trading him at all. The only sense this makes is that they’re bluffing and hoping a team acts quickly and rashly. Part of the reasoning behind the trade is his salary; money that can be invested to retool a team that Hallady won’t be a part of. What sense is there in paying a pitcher $16M next year knowing that you’ll most likely finish 3 or 4 in your division and only end up with two draft pcks to show for it? None.

If Rube calls his bluff I think they cave mid morning Friday and the deal settles somewhere between the two extremes that were thrown back and forth. It is pure stupidity for them to hold onto him past Friday @ 4.

"I tried to run him over but Eli had his big boy pads on and he kind of stopped me from getting in the end zone. The next time I’ll try to jump over his head.’’ - Asante Samuel

by foos05 on Jul 28, 2009 1:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

At this point, I think that unless the trade is so favorable that it feels like we’re ripping Toronto off, we shouldn’t pull the trigger. What exactly are we getting back in return? As the waistline so succinctly put it above, we’d be getting four things from Halladay:

A. Improvement this regular season
B. Improvement this postseason
C. Improvement next regular season
D. Improvement this postseason

A is basically worthless. We’re going to make the playoffs anyway.

B and D are fairly modest benefits. The playoffs are a crapshoot

That leaves C, which is a substantial benefit. But why would we shop for next season’s improvements at this season’s trade deadline?? We can just as easily seek upgrades for next season during the offseason when the prices are lower.

The only type of team that should be willing to pay the inflated deadline price right now is a team that might miss the playoffs without Halladay. That ain’t us.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 1:05 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

You’re totally discounting B & C to the enth degree. The playoffs, this year and next, are less of a crap shoot when you have this offense and a front 3 rotation of Halladay-Hamels-Blanton to match up with the best teams in the league.

You’re also discounting A. How quickly would your stance change if Hamels somehow found his way to the DL for an extended period of time? Solidify the foundation.

by andyreidswaistline on Jul 28, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Which is the enth degree like drawing the fourth dimension?

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And yet even then you’re over exaggerating your point with hyperbole to try and make it seem like it matters more than it actually does.

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

1. No, it’s still a crapshoot. I would be very surprised if the odds-on favorite to win the World Series going into the playoffs each season since the beginning of wild card era has actually gone on to win more than 25% of the time.

2. If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a pushcart.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

She’d also be a circus freak (assuming she isn’t already)

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I have three problems with this argument.

First, increased playoff odds matter even if you don’t win the World Series. Halladay will improve our odds of winning in each round and the further you go in the playoffs, the more money the team brings in. That added expected value—whatever it is—has to be considered part of his value.

Second, arguing Halladay doesn’t have a lot of value unless we win the World Series emphasizes the risk associated with trading for him—that part of his value comes from a very small number of starts in the playoffs and anything can happen in individual games—without recognizing it’s a risk to hold on to your prospects, too.

Third, Halladay will cost less in the winter but if your standard is we shouldn’t trade for him unless we can rip off the Jays, we’re not going to be able to do that in the winter.

by phila on Jul 28, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Third, Halladay will cost less in the winter but if your standard is we shouldn’t trade for him unless we can rip off the Jays, we’re not going to be able to do that in the winter.

Who has that standard here?

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

What I said was it should “feel like” we’re ripping off the Jays. The package it will take to feel like ripping them off now is not the same thing as the package it would take to actually rip them off in the offseason. Also, I never said we should specifically go after Halladay in the offseason. We will have a world of options at that time.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m not sure I see the distinction between feeling like we’re ripping them off and ripping them off.
And fair enough if you don’t think it’s wise to go after Halladay in the winter, either.

I guess what I’m wondering is what’s the most you would give up for Halladay?

by phila on Jul 28, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The distinction is that the price a team would normally pay at the trade deadline – the price that “feels” appropriate right now – is not the price we ought to be paying because it doesn’t fit our circumstances. We already have a very good chance of making the playoffs without Halladay, so the vast majority of the benefit that we would receive from him would be for next year. So we shouldn’t pay too much more than an offseason price for a one-year rental, and that price at this time of year will “feel” like we’re ripping them off.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ok, so what does that look like roughly? For half a year of Matt Holliday, the Cardinals just traded the 21st ranked prospect in Baseball America’s midseason top 25.

by phila on Jul 28, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

oops posted too soon

The point being paying for a year of Roy Halladay is still likely to be a lot and maybe not all that far away from the Jays initial offer.

by phila on Jul 28, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would think a one-year rental price shouldn’t be all that different from the relatively modest one-year rental price that New York paid for Johan Santana. If anything, it should be even lower because Halladay is older than Santana and is not open to signing an extension at this time.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, 1. the Cardinals are not in our situation as it’s 50/50 whether they make the playoffs this year, and 2. I think they overpaid anyway.

I’m one of the most conservative posters on this site when it comes to this trade. I would trade Happ, but I don’t think I would trade Drabek under any circumstances. I might trade one of Brown or Taylor, but if I did, I would not include Carrasco as an additional piece. Of course, Toronto already rejected a very similar offer, which is fine by me.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Interesting. I don’t think the Santana comp is good because the offer the Twins ended up accepting was almost certainly not the best they received. And the Mets and Santana got a negotiating window before the trade officially went through!

I could probably be convinced to doing Drabek/Taylor or Taylor/Brown (but not Drabek/Brown) and if I did that the other pieces would be minor. I think either package would be very, very good for Toronto—roughly comparable to the Anderson/Gonzalez duo that anchored the Haren trade—and the Dbacks got Haren for 3 years, although he was more like a number 2 at the time.

by phila on Jul 28, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

No offense, but that article was kind of stupid.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You had overly high expectations :)

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Jul 28, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Analysis and features focusing on Philadelphia Phillies baseball.
Start posting about the Phillies »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

1_eagles-logo_small
FOXSports Reports Phils Lead Race for DeRosa
Phillies_world_series_ring_small
Official: Goodbye Bruntlett
Small
Silly Season: Halladay Rumors
Small
What To Do At Third Base?
Small
I'm tired of the money argument.
Small
trade
Small
Predictions of minors call ups' for next year
3493405934_78d595f1a1_small
Not Philly Enough
Greg_luzinski_small
Phillies Breakfast Links, November 5, 2009: Too Depressed to Eat Breakfast, Ma Edition
Boys_small
Next Year!

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Blog Lords

Wholecamels_small WholeCamels

Boys_small jonk

Dsc04697_small David S. Cohen

Meltingface_small dajafi

Colevatar_small Matt Swartz

Phillyfriar_small PhillyFriar