Trading Up: Phillies Better in 2010?
by dajafi on Feb 8, 2010 12:02 AM EST
62 comments
Continuity has been the hallmark of recent Phillies teams. Of the eight likely lineup regulars when the 2010 season begins, four of them—Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley, Ryan Howard and Shane Victorino—will be making their fourth straight Opening Day start. Two more, Jayson Werth and Carlos Ruiz, will be notching their third straight, and Raul Ibanez will be making his second in a row. The only newbie is Placido Polanco, and even he has suited up in Phillies openers before.
But that isn’t to say that GM Ruben Amaro hasn’t changed the mix in a fairly significant way coming off two straight National League pennants. Of the full 25 man roster from the 2009 World Series, more than a quarter have moved on: Cliff Lee to the Mariners, Pedro Feliz to the Astros, Scott Eyre to retirement, Matt Stairs to the Padres, Eric Bruntlett to the Nationals, Pedro Martinez and Chan Ho Park and Paul Bako to destinations as yet undetermined. Most of the bench has been overhauled, along with a decent chunk of the bullpen and those spots in the lineup and rotation.
We’ve chewed over their replacements all winter: Roy Halladay for Lee, Polanco for Feliz, Ross Gload for Stairs, Danys Baez and Jose Contreras for Eyre and Park, and so on. But the big question is, taken as a whole, did this set of moves likely improve the 2010 Phillies compared to their immediate predecessor?
According to the key metric of Baseball Prospectus--projected VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) for 2010--the answer is not just yes, but HELL YEAH:
|
New Phillie |
Projected VORP |
Old Phillie |
Projected VORP |
Difference |
|
Placido Polanco |
26.7 |
Pedro Feliz |
3.0 |
23.7 |
|
8.1 |
Paul Bako |
(0.0) |
8.1 |
|
|
Ross Gload |
1.9 |
Matt Stairs |
(0.1) |
1.8 |
|
(-0.2) |
Eric Bruntlett |
-0.3 |
0.1 |
|
|
Roy Halladay |
49.8 |
Cliff Lee |
33.5 |
16.3 |
|
Danys Baez |
5.9 |
Chan Ho Park |
(0.8) |
5.1 |
|
Jose Contreras |
4.7 |
Scott Eyre |
(0.5) |
4.2 |
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
59.3 |
I have to admit that these results surprised me. That's almost six wins, probably more than enough to counter expected decline from J.A. Happ or Ibanez showing his age or Jayson Werth giving back some of his 2009 gains. (Of course, this doesn't factor in the possibility of a Brad Lidge bounceback, or Jimmy Rollins edging back toward his 2005-2008 norms.) It isn't a perfect comp, because PECOTA doesn't even have 2010 forecasts for Bako, Stairs, Park and Eyre—I used their 2010 projections from old player cards—and Pedro is nowhere to be found. But literally every single move the Phillies made this winter projects out as an upgrade. That's fairly stunning.
By contrast, consider the Atlanta Braves, whom I regard as the biggest in-division threat to the Phillies in 2010. While Atlanta's chances likely depend more on how quickly young homegrown talent like Tommy Hanson, Kris Medlen and Jason Heyward mature into stars than the performance of guys they brought in, nonetheless PECOTA projects little to no gain as the back of the Atlanta bullpen shifts from Rafael Soriano and Mike Gonzalez to Billy Wagner and Takashi Saito, and a substantial dropoff from traded starter Javier Vazquez to reinstated rotation man Kenshin Kawakami.
None of which is to say that the Phillies are bulletproof heading into 2010. The core of the team has enjoyed uncommon good health over the last two seasons; as the 2009 Mets could attest, a reversal of fortune on that front can wreck a season pretty quickly. The needed resurgences of Lidge and Cole Hamels might happen, or they might not; if either falters, the Phils will be in for a dogfight, and if they both fail to rebound I wouldn't bet on a fourth straight NL East crown. But what we can say with confidence is that the personnel changes to the team over the last three months have been pretty much entirely to the good.
1 recs |
62 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Great analysist
Thanks for this dajafi. Very nicely done. I think the big difference with Lee to Halladay is not only that Halladay is a (much) better pitcher but that, comparing 2010 to 2009, we’re getting a full year of Halladay in 2010 versus just half a year of Lee in 2009. That makes the difference between the two that much greater.
A classic case of addition by subtraction?
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Feb 8, 2010 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
Welcome support for optimism.
I am predicting 100 wins. Reasons: 1) a full year of Halladay; 2) a bounce-back to excellence by Hamels; and 3) a bounce-back to average or better by our closers. As a team, we blew 22 of 66 save opportunities last year, half by Lidge. I expect improvement at closer because we have more options in 2010 and because I don’t think Charley will be so patient if Lidge fails again. One year of unswerving loyalty is enough!
BTW, if I am reading your chart correctly, Stairs, Park and Eyre all have negative VORPs. If so, the differences between Gload and Stairs, Baez and Park, and Contreras and Eyre are 2.0, 6.7 and 5.2, respectively, and the overall difference is 62.1.
As usual, great blog
I think the move from Pedro to Polanco is a lot more important than we realize. I think one of our biggest problem last year was the lack of contact hitting. We have helped that alot w/ him and our new bench members.
Maybe this will be a great year! And yes, it could be a downer like the Met’s last year. But, I hope, pray and believe it will be a great year! Can’t wait for it to start!
It’s not like we didn’t suffer thru injuries last year….Myers going down actually got the ball rolling on the Lee deal, Romero and the BP was a MASH unit a few weeks before the post season. Chase Utley had labrum surgery but (played hurt) and a broken wrist two years before that….what happened to the Mets was an anomaly or they built Citi-Field on an Indian burial ground
Does VORP factor in league changes (if quantifiable)….I was wondering if that may account for the difference between Baez and the most delusional Korean next to Kim Jong il…I don’t know VORP… just suprised how big the difference was
I don’t think VORP takes into account the fact that Park was so much better as a reliever than as a starter last year. It just uses his aggregate stats, which were mediocre.
Thanks
That makes more sense. Funny, he was such a better reliever that I forgot he started…maybe he did to, otherwise he’d probably still be on the team though word was his asking price would have been to high anyway. I don’t know…sounds a like face save by his agent to make Park look less nuts, and us cheap. Then again everybody had to compensate for waves Ed Wade Wiggum made so maybe the asking would have been higher…who knows.
Thanks for this article. I’m cautiously excited over the moves to upgrade the bench. Injuries are the great equalizer, but I expect more of a fight from the Braves and Mets this year than last. 4 straight NL East crowns is no guarantee, and both teams will be better, as will the Nats(they cant be any worse).
Chase Utley is so good that on one pitch he stole second, third and the shortstop's hat.
For what it’s worth, the Braves are probably more susceptible to injuries than we are. They are relying heavily on five players who are either over the age of 35 or who recently came back from major injuries or both (Chipper, Glaus, Lowe, Hudson, Wagner). We only have one guy who fits that description.
good point
but freak injuries can change anyone’s season, ie. Rollins twisting his ankle going back to the bag in 2008 and Utley’s hand getting in the way of a pitch in 2007. Neither were serious enough to be season ending, but both had the potential. Hopefully the Braves do start to feel their age come July.
Chase Utley is so good that on one pitch he stole second, third and the shortstop's hat.
That’s a really good point—most of the Braves’ putative core is arguably too old or too young. Saito is also around 40, no?
They have McCann, McLouth and Escobar in their primes, and Jurrjens is young but basically a finished product. Otherwise they’re courting some risk.
Saito turns 40 next week. Heck, three of their starting five are mid-30s (Lowe, Hudson, Kawakami). The infield is 37, 33, 27, and 26 (Jones, Glaus, Escobar, and Prado). The outfield’s OK – 31, 28, and 26 (Diaz, McLouth, and Cabrera). Their average age for every-day players is 29.71 (I don’t count catcher because it’s not reasonable to expect them to play every game).
For comparison, the Phillies are 31.71, but their infield is 34, 31, 31, 30 (Polanco, Rollins, Utley, Howard), and the outfield is 37, 30, 29 (Ibanez, Werth, Victorino). The Braves are relatively young in the field, but long in the tooth on the mound.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
Nice piece.
Those numbers are pretty impressive. Credit where it’s due to Amaro for having a clear plan for attacking the offseason, and while I didn’t necessarily agree with every single move — I still don’t understand the Castro signing, and I’d have preferred Eric Hinske to Gload — he went about it with the right philosophy.
If we signed Hinske, the only highlight they could show before he stepped up to bat would be this one
by Michael Levin on Feb 8, 2010 10:12 PM EST up reply actions
hah
but he did hit a HR in that Series if i recall correctly though
http://phibossports.blogspot.com - a (recently started) Philly and Boston sports blog
by alcatraz0109 on Feb 8, 2010 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
Nice take
On topics that generally have been pretty much beat to a pulp at this point including Lee/Halladay.
You could argue that with the exception of Castro (who is likely done be able to contribute at MLB level offensively or defensively) every move the Phils made was an uprade.
I will say that I don’t think the trio of Baez, Contreras, Bastardo will give the Phils what they got out of Park, Condrey, and Eyre though last season. Bullpen improving (which wasn’t terrible last year) is on really on having a healthy and semi-effective Lidge. Easily the biggest question mark going into the season is Lidge (and Romero to a lesser degree).
If both these guys stay relatively healthy and contribute meaningful IP, the Phils are the best team in the NL East and arguably the NL again.
I’d say the Rockies, Dodgers, Cardinals, and Braves. And the D’Backs, Giants and Reds could both be dangerous if they catch a few breaks. Objectively, I’d have the Phillies as slight favorites in the NL, but let’s not act like it’s a foregone conclusion — I mean, they didn’t win the most games in the NL either of the last two years.
i don't think you can put them as slight favorites
theyve improved their offense and in my opinion their pitching staff. I really don’t think theyve played to their full potential during the regular season, and at sometimes they even seem disinterested. Even if Hamels doesn’t have a bounce back season, and I’m assuming he will end up with 12-15 wins this season, if our bullpen holds up AT ALL we should win at least 6 or 7 more games than last year.
It’s hard to believe that the Dodgers will get off to such a hot start like they did last year and break out such a huge lead in the race for the best record in the NL. I thought they were really overachieving last year, and I think they’re going to be in a battle for the division with the Rockies this year.
Do you really think the D’Backs or Reds have enough to get the job done? I don’t. I don’t think the Braves or Mets have the lineup to contend with the Phillies, and I don’t think the Marlins have the depth or experience.
Kind of pointless
At this point given that you have even seen how a few of pieces look and fit in spring training. More interesting to do this at the end of March after you at least a somewhat better indication of what teams will look like until Memorial Day.
This isn't a 100 win team
Phils have had good but not great teams the last two years. It was like they finished well below their projected win totals based on RS/RA. If everything breaks their way, they likely will push 95 wins but you have to have a really good team to push that 99-100 win threshold.
True, but if Lidge had performed even at his career norms with everything else the same, they would have been in the high 90s. Nobody other than arguably Werth and Happ (I know he was a rookie, but he so far outperformed both expectations and underlying measures that I’m pretty comfortable calling it this) had crazy career years, and the main guys aren’t so old that you can really predict declines.
I’d put their over/under at around 93-94, but I wouldn’t be very surprised if they cracked 100.
100 is really tough
I have to go back to look at it but if I recall right the Phils have what likes a slightly tougher Interleague schedule this year:
May 21-23 vs. Boston
June 11-27 @ Bos, @ NYY, Min, Cle, @Tor
I would be really surprised if the Phis win even 5 of the 9 games vs. Sox & Yanks. Let’s say 3 or 4. The other 9 games vs. Min, Cle, Tor I could see the Phils going 5-4 or 4-5 there. Lets say they go 8-10 in Interleague play which given the past few years wouldn’t be bad at all for this team.
Means the Phils have to clean up somewhere else and they have generally done that against their NL East brethren the past 3 years.
Last year, Phils cleaned up vs. Mets (12-6) and Nats (15-3) . Mets should be better for the simple reason of improved health and don’t know if the Phils will be able to clean up against the Nats like they did last year. They could improve against the Braves (8-10) and Fish (9-9) but I would say it is likely a wash on how the Phils do this year overall against the NL East compared to last year. It is tough to do better than 44-28 .611 winning pct. 2 years ago they went 41-31, .570 winning pct. 3 years ago, it was 42-30, .583 winning pct. Likely somewhere in the lows 40s again with 42 or 43 wins which is still really solid.
Phils have really benefited the last 2 years from playing in what has been a historically weaker NL East with no real elite team and some real bottom feeders each year.
I would place good money on the ‘under’ for 100 wins unless the Phils somehow manage to be really competent in Interleague this year (say 10-11 wins) and continue to really clean up against their division foes.
93-94 wins does sound pretty reasonable though if they can say pretty healthy.
If we’re all in agreement that the over/under is around 93-94, then we just need 6-7 games worth of luck to get to 100, no? That isn’t an outrageous amount of luck we’re talking about.
6-7 wins is alot.
Is huge and is usually is at least one full S.D. if not more when you projected out the wins for a teams ahead of the season. There is a notable difference between a team that wins 92-93 games and one that wins 99-100 games.
I think you’re missing my point. There is indeed a notable difference between a team that’s “really” as good as 92-94 wins vs. a team that’s “really” as good as 100 wins. But I didn’t say otherwise. What I said was that a team that’s “really” as good as 92-94 wins can win 100 games in a season in which they are lucky but not outrageously lucky. I don’t think the fact that 6-7 wins is one full standard deviation contradicts that statement.
Should've, would've, could've
What about the generally good health the Phils enjoyed last year including their starting positional players missing little/no time during the year? Also they picked up considerable help as the year went on to with the Lee/Francisco trade and the Pedro signing.
This wasn’t a high 90s win team and to say it was “because of Lidge’s failure” is being a bit disingenuous. In general. this team enjoyed good health and received considerable additions that helped it in the later 1/3 of the year.
Generally good health, depends on what you mean….#2 pitcher lost for the season, Ibanez – 2 weeks to sportsman hernia which needed surgery and that he played with the remainder of the year, Romero done for year and the rest of the BP was a triage unit by August….Also people forget Happ re-injured his oblique towards the end of the year which his post season attests to.
Your point?
Every team has injuries to some degree or another during the season. It is inevitable. You need some point of comparison.
Phils’ positional players who were in the Opening Day were among the healthiest in the league if you use time spent on the DL. Nobody missed even a moderate amount of the season. Phils’ also were on of the healthy teams when it came to time that players spent on the DL.
I've gotta agree with MG77 here.
It’s just not as simple as saying, “Well, this team won 93 games last year, and they made some upgrades, so they could very well be 7 wins better.” The 2009 Phillies were very good, but they were a 92-win team by their Pythag, and a much less impressive team by BP’s third order wins metric (an 85-win team, actually). Plus there’s the health element — the club was, on the whole, remarkably healthy in comparison to the rest of the league.
Is a 100 win season impossible? Of course not. But if this is fundamentally a 92-93 win club, then they’re just as likely to catch a few bad breaks (namely injuries) and wind up an 85-win club than they are to have everything fall into place for 100 victories.
remarkably healthy in comparison to the rest of the league
is that quantified in some manner. Do you know off hand…
Different people are saying different things here. I suppose I agree with MG77 as against packimop, but not as against dajafi. Yes, this is fundamentally a low-to-mid-90-win club, but it isn’t all that unusual for teams like that to win 100 games in a given year with a substantial but non-crazy amount of luck.
And I also don’t think it would be at all mindblowing for this team to win only 85 games with a substantial but non-crazy amount of bad luck.
I think we’re all just arguing semantics over “substantial” v. “non-crazy” at this point.
Personally, I think of the 2010 Phillies as something like a 91-win team. I think that’s enough to win the division, and 100 wins is still within two standard deviations of that, so I guess that’s substantial but non-crazy. I just don’t think they’re fundamentally a 95- (or more) win team, because very few clubs ever are by their Pythag.
Anyway, Bill Baer (from Crashburn Alley) wrote a nice piece over at BDD dealing with PECOTA specifically, but the idea of standard deviations in general. Well worth a read if you have a minute or two.
i just think it’s more likely that we’ll have more wins this year than last. I think if Happ has a little drop off from last season and Hamels pitches a little better it could be a wash. Overall I think that we have an improved rotation from the start of last year to this year. I’m sure everyone would agree with me on that.
I think our offense will be a little better and more consistent this year with a player in Placido who gets on base and hits for a better average than any top of the order players we’ve had in recent years.
So if the bullpen has any improvement over last year, which i AM skeptical of, we should be able to match last years team or have a few more wins than last year.
I just think that we’ve been the champs of the NL East the last three years and the NL the last two years. Nobody in the playoffs has given us more than a hassle in the NL the last two years. I’ll admit we’ve had some nail biting games, but when it’s crunch time they tend to get the job done.
But this is a huge point. As I understand it, the Phils have been remarkably healthy over the past 2 years. To simply expect no one of consequence to get injured is a bit unrealistic (witness: the 2009 Mets).
And in general, it’s far too easy to fall into the trap of, “Well, we’ve won the NL East the past 3 years, and the NL the past 2 years.” It’s a sort of black-and-white thinking that considers division championships as a baseline, and ignores how well the team played and how many breaks it caught that enabled it to get to that position. NL East champion isn’t a starting position for this team — it’s a goal, just like any other year. To simply assume that, “Well, we’ve done it before, and it’s pretty much the same team, so we’ll do it again” is to ignore fundamental truths about the nature of baseball odds.
If someone told me that with the Cripple McPitcher BP and Hamels woes we would have made it all the way to the 6th game of the WS against the Yankees, I’d laughed so hard, pee’d come out my eyes. So I think our chances are good to get to the WS…winning a differnet story esp. if we face the BSX or Yankees.
I just think you’re overlooking just how big of a crapshoot the playoffs are. Even if you assume, for argument’s sake, that the Phils were 60% favorites in every NL series over 2008-09, the odds were still less than 13% that they’d have won all four series. Given those odds, the Phillies’ playoff run over the past two years is nothing short of remarkable.
5 or 7 games is such a small sample size that you inevitably get quirky results (hence, an 84-win Dodger team sweeping a 97-win Cubs team in 2008). So while our chances to make the World Series may be “good,” they’re not realistically that much better (by percentage) than the Cardinals, Dodgers, Rockies, Braves, etc.
The Yankees have been to the WS 40 times and won 27 of them. The Cubs haven’t won a WS in 101 years. What are the chances that both would have this kind of good luck and bad luck respectively?
by Phils 2036 World CH on Feb 9, 2010 12:49 PM EST up reply actions
Also, how does my saying I think our chances are good to go to WS discount the chance the Cards, Dodgers, Rockies, Braves have.
Sorry, maybe I was interpreting your tone wrong (stupid teh internets).
But — and I was trying to back this up with BP’s PECOTA-driven playoff series odds, but they’ve since taken them down — I guess I’d just hesitate to call anyone’s chances to get to the World Series “good.” Probably semantics again, but even if we take the leap of faith to assume that the Phils are a lock for the 2010 postseason, their odds are likely to be no better than 30% to actually get to the World Series (and easily less than 15% to win it) — and maybe that’s good in comparison to the other teams, but I hesitate to call 30% odds “good.”
I just read back over my comment and realized something — we really need some actual baseball. We’re sitting here arguing over the semantics of terms like “good” and “substantial” — come on, spring training, just get here!
Sometimes the jones gets to much and we get into a
PROJECTION WAR…..But actually
PROJECTION CIVL WAR….we need another system for the former.
Junkies get iritable…if you want real game action and statistical analysis try figuring out how to determine luck in a scoring hockey goals….you might have to invent a new mathematics…sheeesh…say Data and they say Star Trek robot? unless their holding out on me.
Hard to believe
We’re about to be buried by a blizzard here in the Philly area and pitchers and catchers report in like 10 days.
Here is how hard it is to win 100 games
Since 1995 and the current division alignment, there have been a whopping 8 NL teams that have won 100+ games.
Last team to do it was the 2005 Cards (100 wins). Here is a list of the others:
2004: Cards (105 wins)
2003: Braves (101 wins)
2002: Braves (101 wins)
1999: Dbacks (100 wins); Braves (103 wins)
1998: Braves (106 wins)
1997: Braves (101 wins)
So basically, you have had 8 NL teams out of 276 NL teams (2.8%) since ’95 win 100 or more games.
The odds of the ‘10 Phils winning 100+ games are slim to none. Don’t have time to go through the numbers but I would bet it is 5% or less. I would wager huge that it wouldn’t happen.
Phils have benefited
From playing in what has been a historically weaker NL East and NL overall the past few years. Here are the top win totals by year since 05:
09 – Dodgers (95 wins)
08 – Cubs (97 wins)
07 – DBacks (90 wins); Rockies (90 wins)
Phils have won 100+ games twice
In ’76 and ’77 and you can make a pretty valid argument that the ’76 Phils were the best team in franchise history. They just ran into one of the greatest teams in baseball history (Big Red Machine) at the zenith of its power. ’77 was more heartbeat that my dad and uncle still talk about because the Phils should have beaten the Dodgers that year.
Even if you win 100 games though in the regular season, it really doesn’t mean much about your chances of winning it all. Last NL team to win 100+ regular season games and take home the WS crown was the ’86 Mets (108 games).
Early win projections
PECOTA has the ’10 Phils at 88 wins and in 1st in the NL East.
http://baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/
CHONE has the ’07 Phils at 87 wins and finishing 2nd in the NL East.
http://www.baseballprojection.com/2010/standings2010.htm
Vegas Watch actually evaluates the win projections of various companies. PECOTA was the best one in ’06 and ’08. CHONE was in ’07 and ’09.
http://vegaswatch.net/2009/11/evaluating-april-mlb-predictions-2005.html
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
Washington Nationals
Sunday, Aug 1, 2010, 1:35 PM EDT
Nationals Park
Partly cloudy,rain. Winds blowing out to left field at 5-10 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 85.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
