Blasphemy! Why the Phillies Should Start Joe Blanton in Game 1
by David S. Cohen on Oct 13, 2010 4:40 PM EDT
Email
PrintOK, no intro, just right into what you're thinking based on the title of this post - what in the world is this guy thinking in suggesting Joe Blanton start game 1 over Roy perfect-game-and-no-hitter-in-the-same-season Halladay?
Well, here's the basic idea up front: what if pitching Joe Blanton in game 1 gave the Phillies a lower chance of winning in the first game of the series but increased their chances of winning in games 2 through 4 as well as games 6 and 7? Would you take that bargain?
So let me back up and explain. As everyone knows, the typical rotation goes from best starter to worst starter. In the world of descriptors, we call the best starter the #1, the second-best the #2, and so on down to the #5 starter. In the regular season, teams start off the season with their #1 and progress through games with each successive starter, looping back to the #1 after the #5 starter pitches.
Without injuries or off-days, what this does is it gives us match-ups of starting pitchers who are roughly equivalent. The Phillies throw their #1 starter against the other team's #1 starter, their #2 against the other #2, and so on down the line. If the teams have similar quality starting pitchers, these match-ups ensure that each team has its best chance of winning each game.
But what if there's a shift that sacrifices one game for a gain in the other four? What if, instead of starting with your #1, you start with your #5 against the other team's #1? Obviously, in that first game, you've taken a big hit. You certainly haven't decreased your chances of winning to 0, but you've lowered them no doubt. If both #1 starters are of equal quality, say the team would normally win 65% of that starter's games, then in a #1 against #1 match up, each team has roughly a 50% chance of winning. But, if now you have a #1 against a #5, you've lowered your chances of winning to, say, 30%. That's significant.
However, in doing so, you've increased your chances of winning the other games. Now, you have your #1 going against the other team's #2, your #2 going against the other team's #3, etc. So, you've increased your chances in four games by sacrificing your chance in 1 game.
It's important to note that there are a lot of assumptions. The main assumption, which is the reason I don't think you ever see this in the regular season, is that rotations quickly change - off days, injuries, weather, lefty-righty match ups, suspensions, double headers, etc. All of these things throw off the 1 through 5 progression so you're not very likely to have the perfect 1 against 1, 2 against 2, etc. lineup. Also, most teams don't have the same quality starting pitching. In the regular season, for instance, most teams didn't have a #1 starter to match Roy Halladay. Even more so, almost no team had a #2 or #3 to match Roy Oswalt or Cole Hamels. The Phillies had decided advantages when those three pitched, no matter where the other teams were in their rotations.
This NLCS is different though. In this series, the Phillies and Giants can line up their rotations however they want. And, in this series, the Phillies are facing a team that has a 1-2-3 punch of Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, and Jonathan Sanchez that, if not the same exact quality as the Phillies', is surely a good match.
Although Charlie Manuel says that he's not sure who will start Game 1, I'd bet at least one of my children that Roy Halladay is his man. Starting this way means that Halladay will face Lincecum, Oswalt will face Cain, Hamels will face Sanchez, and Blanton will face Madison Bumgarner. Games 5 through 7, if necessary, will be repeats of 1 through 3. Given the quality of pitchers here, these will be some pretty even matchups (although I still think the Phillies will have the edge in all of them, if only slightly).
But we don't have to make these games even odds. Now is the time to shift the rotation and throw Joe Blanton in game 1. Blanton against Lincecum is a mismatch in the Giants' favor, yes, but it's not a lost cause. The Phillies won 11 of Blanton's 18 starts this year. He has pitched well since the start of July, with a 3.84 ERA in his last 17 games over 101 innings. He's no Halladay or Lincecum, obviously, but he's also no slouch and the Phillies can certainly win a game started by Blanton against Lincecum. I wouldn't bet on it, but it's not at all impossible.
Giving up the pretty even match up in game 1 would give the Phillies the advantage in the other games. Game 2 would be Halladay against Cain. While Cain is a very good pitcher, he's no Roy Halladay, and there isn't anyone who would argue he is. Roy Oswalt against Jonathan Sanchez in Game 3 would also favor the Phillies, although it would be closer than the Halladay game. Game 4 would be a huge shift for the Phillies, as Hamels against Bumgarner would be almost as lopsided for the Phillies as the Lincecum/Blanton game was for the Giants.
One big drawback of this approach would be that Blanton would have to start 2 games. The schedule is such that game 5 would require Blanton to make a second start. Again, Blanton versus Lincecum would favor the Giants, but Games 6 and 7 would be back in the Phillies favor. Plus, if there is a game 7, the Phillies can team up Oswalt and Hamels.
There's no doubt this is against the conventional wisdom and is risky. But, because Blanton is a very solid pitcher and because the other games would shift substantially in the Phillies direction, shifting the rotation this way is the right thing to do.
83 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It’s a great Idea for SF not Philly. Philly alrady has a slight advantage on the mound.
by h2o_34_35_44 on Oct 13, 2010 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I also think this is a fantastic idea
Wreck’d.
Giants Front Office....Torture!
by Giant Torture on Oct 13, 2010 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Ballsy.
We’re in agreement that it would never happen though. Something like batting Chooch leadoff. Good ideas in principle, but I don’t think anybody save for maybe LaRussa would pull this.
Liberty Ballers / Ridiculous Upside / SBN Philly / Twitter
The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Michael Bourn
I guess it all depends on the details. If you lower your chances of winning Game 1 from 50% to 30%, you’d need to have at least a 57% chance of winning the other matchups to make up for it over Games 1-4.
.50(4) = 2.0
.30(1) + 3x = 2.0 —> x = 0.567
Of course, that doesn’t take into account Game 5. The math gets tricky though, because you have less than a 100% chance of even playing Game 5. Maybe MattS can figure it out for us.
Yeah, this was more a conceptual piece. I admit that there is math behind it and that I am completely unqualified to do that math. So, I may be proven 100% wrong and that there’s no set of circumstances under which this would work, but there’s something that makes extreme intuitive sense to me.
by David S. Cohen on Oct 13, 2010 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I dont think anyone can be qualified to do that math. Your basically taking a stab in the dark with the win probability %s, so I dont think this is the kind of thing you can figure out until after the games have been played (and then it would be useless).
by philiafan14364 on Oct 13, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m likewise unqualified to do the math here, but the other thing that might throw a wrench into the equation is the fact that you’d be taking away an entire start from one of the top three. The obvious doomsday scenario would be the Phils losing 4-1 having started Blanton twice (in lieu of relegating him to just Game 4 duty).
And yes, that I think in terms of doomsday scenarios is a sure sign that I grew up a Philadelphia fan.
This can make sense, but not with this particular pitching configuration
If it were #1 >> #2 >> #3 >> #4, then it could work. But with rotations where the top three are so much better than the fourth, it’s a tragedy to use the #4 guy twice in a seven-game series.
This would give you two terrible matchups (#4 v #1) and only one really good matchup (#3 v #4). With the top three starters all really good, you aren’t going to make up for that by getting your #1 against their #2 and your #2 against their #3. If there were steeper dropoff throughout the rotation, it might make sense, but not with this talent distribution.
Besides, as has been said, the cost if it loses is much more than the series — you have all the associated ridicule and possible loss of your job — which means there needs to be a very significant edge for it to be worth it to a manager to risk it.
What about going
1-2-4-3
I would only make this move if I won games 1 & 2 that way you could trade wins in games 3 & 4 giving you a 3-1 lead
by h2o_34_35_44 on Oct 13, 2010 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions
@AtomicRuckus on Twitter pointed out that the Phillies did this in 1950 and got swept. However, it had nothing to do with bad pitching. (The Yankees scored 1, 2, 3, and 5 runs in the four games).
http://www.thegoodphight.com
was that really what the Phillies did in the 1950 World Series? they started Jim Konstanty in game 1 and Robin Roberts in game 2. yes, Roberts was their ace, but Konstanty in 1950 had the lowest WHIP and ERA on the team (and he won the league MVP). he certainly wasn’t the ‘50 Phillies’ Joe Blanton, he was more like the ‘50 Phillies’ Ryan Madson if Madson pitched twice as many innings.
by perfectdepth on Oct 13, 2010 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions
following up, the Phillies’ second and third best starters were unavailable, which I’m sure was one of the reasons why they tried to switch things up. in September, Curt Simmons (17-8, 3.40) was called for military service and Bubba Church (8-6, 2.73) was hit in the face by a line drive from Ted Kluszewski. talk about your bad luck…
by perfectdepth on Oct 13, 2010 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Atomic Ruckus is misleading if he says that’s what the Phillies did. Roberts had pitched 10 innings in the clincher on Sunday, October 1st. The Series started on Wednesday. So, instead of going with the “ace” on two days rest (and Roberts had started seven games in the last 20 days of the season, Gene Mauch be damned!) Manager Eddie Sawyer pulled out his ace reliever Jim Konstanty, who gave up one run in 8 innings. Despite being overmatched on pitching the Phillies battled the champion Yankees in every game, three of which were one-run losses. As you say, Konstanty would be much more like Ryan Madson than Joe Blanton.
by phillyinportland on Oct 13, 2010 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Makes sense and I can certainly see the logic, and I think you’re just proposing a “think about it” kind of story here, right? Anyway, psychologically, it shows weakness. The Phillies are the favorite, the juggernaut. These are the type of moves made by the underdog.
I think this is right. Also, I suspect I’d be more supportive of this were we starting on the road, or if there were more of a dropoff between 1, 2 and 3 on both sides. Just not sure we gain as much by matching Doc against Cain rather than Lincecum, or Oswalt against Sanchez rather than Cain, as we lose by throwing Blanton against Lincecum rather than Bumgarner.
Also—and I know this sort of continues the (mild) disagreement David and I had over whether to root for the Giants or Braves in the last round—the Halladay/Lincecum showdown is truly epic, something every baseball fan should be geeked up about.
You want the option of pitching Halladay in three games if necessary. This more or less nukes that option.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
I think it’s nuked for more reasons than just that, in particular that Charlie just will never do it. But, I’m not convinced that Halladay will start three games. If we’re down 3-0 going into game 4, I guess it’s possible, but then my option would be irrelevant anyway.
by David S. Cohen on Oct 13, 2010 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, in theory, my option would have done a better job preventing us from getting to that position in the first place.
by David S. Cohen on Oct 13, 2010 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I too have entertained this at times, but
it seems to overthink the matchups, which can be a bit of a crapshoot. Moreover, it feels dangerous not to pitch the guy who gives you the best chance of winning game 1. Maybe I just lack the cajones, but I think it’s more that I agree with Charlie’s one game at a time philosophy.
I see your point but if you sort of concede game 1 (not saying it is an auto loss but the possibility increases) you now have to play from behind in the series. This could cause the rest of the team to press a bit more, committing them to swing at bad pitches, etc because they are playing from behind.
I would rather give my team the best chance to jump out to a lead. Does anyone know the record of teams that win game 1 that go on to win the series?
But there’s a pretty good chance we can lose game 1 anyway. This isn’t Halladay against Oliver Perez here. We are taking our biggest weapon and pretty much neutralizing him, by pitching him against Tim Lincecum. What if we conceded their biggest weapon but strengthened our three biggest weapons in return, rather than neutralizing each one of them?
by David S. Cohen on Oct 13, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
doesn't this work the other way, too?
WeThe Giants are takingourtheir biggest weapon and pretty much neutralizing him, by pitching him againstTim LincecumRoy Halladay.
besides, while Lincecum is obviously coming off a fantastic game against the Braves, Cain/Sanchez/Bumgarner have been awfully good themselves. how much better are the chances of Halladay beating Cain or Sanchez than Halladay beating Lincecum? are they better at all?
by perfectdepth on Oct 13, 2010 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
As a Giants fan
The weakest link—which isn’t exactly a weak link—would be Cain or Bumgarner, because both give up a high number of flyballs and don’t strike as many people out. If you bump back Halladay to game 2 against Sanchez (just announced as the game 2 starter) you won’t pick up much if he’s on. Sanchez’ stuff is as filthy as anyone in baseball, if not filthier. He had the lowest BA against in the major league’s this year, and also gets a ton of swinging strikes. He has the type of stuff that he can miss in the middle of the plate with and still get outs. Usually he only gets himself in to trouble when he doesn’t have his best command and walks too many people.
That being said, I wholeheartedly request that the Phillies adopt this strategy.
Giants Front Office....Torture!
by Giant Torture on Oct 13, 2010 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I would just rather fight to win that first game than basically thrown in the towel, even if it means better matchups later in the series since those matchups may never materialize if the series never goes that long.
It all depends in how much you believe in momentum or whether you think it is just the next day’s starter, I guess.
Interesting thought experiment.
But not worth doing, I don’t think.
Halladay starting in game one means he can pitch three times if necessary. Starting him in game two negates that option, requiring either a third Blanton start or a Hamels/Oswalt short-rest mashup.
The biggest problem with your theory, I think, is that our pitching isn’t our only advantage. We hit better as well, so if our pitchers line up the same, our bats should (note: should, not will) give us the advantage,
that was quick
Already picked up on Big League Stew, along with another version of the Cookies-sleeping-in-the-stands picture that’s even more awesome than the one we discussed on the thread a few days ago.
I love this kind of thinking, but I think it misses an important psychological aspect to the game, especially come playoff time. Halladay is the ace and expects to pitch Game 1, and as soon as you throw off that balance it could affect other performances or aspects. I think it’s similar to misuse of a closer, a position that can also be affected by mental things.
Also, more practically, if you’re essentially conceding the two Blanton/Lincecum games, we still need to win 4 of those remaining 5, which seems more daunting somehow.
I’m not worried about the psychology of a team that might lose one game (might) but then has Halladay, Oswalt, and Hamels to follow.
by David S. Cohen on Oct 13, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Off topic: Tony Kornheiser just said “Cole Hamels fell off a cliff until this September” on PTI. I love when national sportswriters spread misinformation.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
Why should Kornheiser start getting his facts straight now? He’s made a career out of getting things wrong.
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
While what he said sucked, I loved Wilbon’s comments on Hamels.
by dannijd on Oct 14, 2010 10:34 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
somewhat relevant
Phils Notes: Rotation Could See Changes in NLCS
I liked this:
“I just want to pitch and I want to help us win," Kendrick said after his simulated game outing. "If you’re not on the roster you can’t do anything to help us win."
Au contraire, Kyle! You can help us just fine that way!
(In all seriousness though, I’m not opposed to having him on the roster in a 7-game series as a bullpen saver.)
Clearly he’s forgetting about the valuable services he provided last year.
HALF MEASURES
Clearly, the Phillies should start Blanton for games 1, 2 AND 3 – and hence have the rest of the staff available for the critical elimination games.
When this .sig was awaiting the Final Sabean Apocalypse, I never once in a million years suspected it would be a "good" Apocalypse. Bengie... Don't let the door hit you IN YOUR GIANT ASS on the way out!
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game totally stalled and basically dead at this point
Maybe...
Bumgarner himself has a 3.0 ERA and 1.1 WHIP. Cole has been pitching stellar, so the 30% chance of winning would shift to this match-up for the Giants as it would for us with the Blanton-Lincecum match-up. 2-3 would favor us, but after that would you put Blanton up against Lincecum again if the series is 2-2?1-3? Chances are given this proposal you may be crazy enough to put Blanton in that game, but I wouldn’t. It would be Halladay on short rest vs Lincecum. If it comes to game 7, would you be willing to put out Halladay for the 3rd time?
It all depends on how Cholly feels about his staff when comparing it to the Giants. I agree with everyone else who said this type of tactic would be used moreso if you feel you’re at a disadvantage. Since we aren’t, I’d just keep things the way they are. It’s too risky.
Hate to throw cold water on this. I love unconventional thinking and all. But the problem is that each pitcher in the same run environment (more on this in a second) should basically affect the probability of winning a game he pitched by an equal amount. So Halladay maybe adds 15% chance of winning beyond Blanton, Hamels and Oswalt each add 10%. But the result is really just lowering probabilities of one day and increasing them the other. Also, that’s when the run environment is the same. However, sometimes the value of a run (or, equivalently, of saving a run) is higher. That happens when really good pitchers pitch. So if anything, you want to match Halladay to Lincecum because a Lincecum game has a higher chance of being decided by one run. Anyway, it was a fun thought experiment, but I’m pretty sure I’m right here instead.
But the result is really just lowering probabilities of one day and increasing them the other.
But if the “increasing them the other” is spread out over three games, even if the net increase is the same, isn’t there something to that? Or, is it just all going to break the same way over the course of the four games?
As someone lower down suggested, I would love to see what a game simulator would do with this.
by David S. Cohen on Oct 13, 2010 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m guessing it wouldn’t make a difference. I guess that the favorite would want more variance in the probability of winning games, but it would depend on the probabilities you actually plugged in and would all be <1% probably.
by Matt Swartz on Oct 13, 2010 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I have been trying to consider this is somewhat mathematical terms and while I’m not 100% sure this applies it seems to make sense to me. I think the problem is that no pitcher can control how the other pitcher pitches, he can only control how he pitches. So then all you get is just different win probabilities on different days – you can’t add or subtract any win probability because you can’t make the Phillies pitchers better or worse. You can make better matchups, sure, but I don’t think you can statistically improve your chances of winning by doing this, simply because no pitcher has control over how the other pitcher pitches. So maybe Lincecum has a 65% chance of winning all his starts – I don’t think that percentage/probability is affected by who he is pitching against, because he can’t control that. So by moving Blanton around, I don’t think that you are statistically increasing your chances of winning any games, you are just switching the order. In fact, in might adversely affect your probability of winning the series, because a pitcher with a lower win probability would be pitching twice. I am not sure about this, my assumptions may be incorrect, but it seems to make sense to me. Also, I really want to see Halladay vs Lincecum. Go Phils!
I wonder if Xeifrank’s statisticalifragalistic s(t)imulator whatsit would help here with the maths. Presumably it feeds off individual match-ups and not team averages.
"Ninety percent of this game is half mental" - Yogi Berra (SI, May 14, 1979)
by bandwagonesque on Oct 13, 2010 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed – would love to see a simulator on this.
by David S. Cohen on Oct 13, 2010 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Giants are reportedly switching Sanchez and Cain in the rotation so Sanchez will have game 2. Smart move for them since we hit Cain way better than we do Sanchez.
It appears that a team has already decided to switch their rotation for the NLCS. Only it is Bochy with the Giants.
Bochy is switching Sanchez and Cain around to Sanchez will pitch Game 2 and Cain will pitch Game 3, in an attempt to “break up the right handers.” Not sure how that makes any sense. It’s not like the Phillies have never seen a lefty before. The writer of the article (Andrew Baggarly) goes on to give other reasons why it makes sense, including
1). CBP is a “bandbox” and Cain is more of a flyball pitcher than Sanchez (that is true about Cain and Sanchez, but the difference is not gaping)
2). Baggarly states that Sanchez has been a better pitcher than Cain in recent weeks, which is not true at all. Baggarly cites W/L record and ERA has his proof (In Sep/Oct Sanchez is 4-1 with a 1.01 ERA while Cain is 3-1 with a 3.29 ERA, but a closer look reveals that both have had unsustainably low BABIPs the past month, .204 for Sanchez and .210 for Cain and xFIP tells a completely different story. Sanchez’s xFIP in Sep/Oct is 3.59, where as Cain’s xFIP in that same time period is 3.57).
3). Sanchez won at CBP in August (small sample size FTW!)
Now that's what I call high quality H2O!
while wins and ERA doesn’t tell the whole story, xFIP for one month worth of data is completely meaningless and regressing for HRs allowed out of 5 starts potentially does more harm than good.
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The baseball gods do not always punish the wicked but they will not just allow people to spit in their faces -- Joe Posnanski
I wish I would stop cheating. fuck. this is jctgamer's fault -- jponry
I’ll take Roy Over Tim
I’ll take other roy over matt
I’ll take cole over sanchez
and then i’ll take the roys again
by SportingFanaticism on Oct 13, 2010 8:49 PM EDT reply actions
That’s what I was thinking however If I’m SF I would look long and hard at this post.
by h2o_34_35_44 on Oct 13, 2010 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Unless one of the phillies pitchers can’t go on short rest with confidence, Joe Blanton doesn’t enter my thought processes
by SportingFanaticism on Oct 13, 2010 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions
2009 World Series: I think we’d all pitch Lee on short rest if we could do it all over again.
by LeQuan Glover on Oct 15, 2010 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions
I love this style of thinking, but I don’t think the Phils provide a good case example. The difference between 5 and 6 starts by our three best pitchers would seem to outweigh any individual matchup gains.
That said, I feel this could potentially apply to a team that only had two “aces” in a 7 game series. Luckily, we have a possible fit with the Rangers in the ALCS. By necessity, Cliff Lee will pitch Game 3 vs Phil Hughes and Game 7 vs Sabathia (short rest) or Hughes again. Has Texas gained an advantage by having Lee not scheduled to pitch against Sabathia? Obviously one series will prove nothing, but it will be intersting to see the series progress.
Anyways, first time poster after starting reading the site in spring training.
Go Phils!
Pitch blanton vs, sanchez
we can’t hit him
I've been waiting my whole life for an Eagles Championship
RIP JJ
Neither could the Braves, but they still would have beaten him if not for a bullpen meltdown and Brooks Conrad.
I feel bad for Conrad, he’s gonna have a bad rap with the baseball community.
by LeQuan Glover on Oct 13, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I think he will be fine. He has a good bat, with a number of pinch hit home runs, and that is going to be valuable to a team that can use him in the right way- as a DH or bench bat. The problem for the Braves was that injuries to Martin Prado and Chipper Jones caused them to try to force Conrad to be something that he never was- a good (or possibly even competent) major league defender. In many ways, Conrad is an inverse Valdez, and just as Valdez was able to stay employed based on his defensive skills, Conrad should be able to stay afloat based on his offense.
Considering how lopsided that series looked from the outside, I was amazed at how tight the games were- all decided by one run, and three of them hinging on errors (either by the Braves or the umpire).,
lopsided?
The series did not look very lopsided at all, where did you get that?
by PhilsForever on Oct 14, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I meant in advance of the series. I very much expected the Giants with their pitching and personnel to win in three relatively easy games.
by dannijd on Oct 14, 2010 10:36 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Wow
you would have been the only one then, the giants and braves are very even relatively with personnel, that series could have gone either way, hence all the errors by the braves deciding some games
by PhilsForever on Oct 15, 2010 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Over analyzation
I hear you, but we knock out the one, guess who has to face our one again when we play game five? Plus, let’s say we lose and we are down 1-3, do you want Blanton on full rest or Halladay short? I sure as hell would feel more comfortable with Halladay. Putting yourself in a position where Blanton will be the game 5 starter is failing when you have Halladay, Oswalt, and Hamels. I see your point, but you are over confident in my opinion. It needs to line up. If we need to be tricky to beat the Gigantes, we don’t deserve the win. They are the underdogs, they need to improvise based on the line up.
On Lincecum, he is damn near as good as Halladay, if not his equal. Sanchez, we need to be patient, take pitches and let his count rack up. He has the out pitches to make us chase, but we really need eyes to get him out of there. Cain, just have to hope he will not have his A game. He is highly underrated. Madison, unknown quantity, too small a sample size for us to argue back and forth.
I can’t fucking wait. Time is on Quaaludes.
I would say that we need to be just as patient against Lincecum as we are with Cain- Lincecum thrived on getting batters to swing at pitches way outside of the zone- a more patient approach by the Braves would have run his pitch count up, causing him to not finish that game (119 pitches as it was). The Braves had 31 swinging strikes. Of those, 13 of them were at pitches outside of the zone. These swinging strikes were very costly for the Braves, as they cost them 6 opportunities to walk, some of them in innings where they had men on base.
side note?
I know this is a fairly non-serious piece, but how is starting Blanton in game 5 a mere side note that is barely even mentioned. Obviously, throwing your worst starter twice in a 7 game series is a much worse alternative to starting him once and giving the big three two starts each. If they could all start the same amount of games I MIGHT like the idea, but starting Blanton twice instead of Oswalt or Hamels twice in his place would be idiotic
I think this is a fair point, but it’s also worth noting the following:
xFIP over the last three months over the season
Oswalt: ~3.40
Blanton: ~3.52
Obviously, Oswalt’s is still lower, but it’s interesting nonetheless. Just throwin’ it out there…
Blanton’s been throwing some great baseball and I feel confident with him in this series.
by LeQuan Glover on Oct 15, 2010 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe your were channeling your inner Connie Mack :
1929 WS – A’s vs. the Cubs
….Game 1 featured a surprise start by aging A’s pitcher Howard Ehmke, whose record thirteen strikeouts bested Ed Walsh’s record from 1906 by one, and stood until Carl Erskine broke it by one in 1953. Ehmke would also start Game 5, but failed to get out of the fourth inning in that one
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Good Phight
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Washington Nationals
@
Philadelphia Phillies
Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 7:05 PM EDT
Citizens Bank Park
Jordan Zimmermann vs Roy Halladay
Partly cloudy,rain. Winds blowing out to left field at 5-10 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 70.
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Reds fan catches two home runs in same inning — and then gives both balls away
- Aroldis Chapman arrested after police clock him going 93 mph (in his car) on suspended license
- The Juice: Felix Hernandez bests Yu and the Rangers, Chris Capuano and Dodgers keep rolling
- Giancarlo Stanton busts Marlins Park scoreboard with tape-measure grand slam (VIDEO)
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
