The Legacy of the 2011 Phillies: Another Thought Experiment
by FuquaManuel on Oct 10, 2011 5:10 PM EDT
Email
PrintI am still seeing a number of people on this site and elsewhere who can't quite seem to accept that the Phillies realized their roughly 80 percent chance of not winning a World Series. In the minds of these people (and I should note that this is certainly the majority opinion) a 102 win season is considered void owing to the team's failure to win three out of five games against the Cardinals.
David did a wonderful job of setting the record straight on the 2011 season, so my intention here is only to augment his fine work with another thought experiment.
So imagine, if you will, that in the bottom of the fourth of Friday's game, with runners on the corners and two outs, Raul Ibanez's deep flyball to right field isn't tracked down by Lance Berkman against the wall, but rather carries an additional five feet and either just clears the fence for a three run homer or bounces off of it for a two run double. In either case, the lead holds and the Phillies advance to their fourth consecutive NLCS. For at least another week, the talk of the Phillies' season being a failure is forestalled.
And this is precisely why declaring a 162 game season a failure on the basis of the outcome of a five game series is ridiculous. If a stray gust of wind had blown out to right field as Ibanez's fly ball was in the air, we would very likely not even be having this discussion. If Ibanez's bat had made contact with the ball a millimeter above where it actually did, the Phillies could be four wins away from another National League Pennant right now. In a five game series, small, random events can carry an undue influence on the series outcome. Such minute details can have no less an impact on the outcomes of individual regular season games, but the difference is that over the course of 162 games they have a chance to even out. When you think of it in terms of a millimeter here and a millimeter there being decisive, does it still make sense to call the 2011 season a failure? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is "No."
So, knowing this why do we continue to stake a team's legacy on the outcome of a few series at the end of the season? Very few people would even bother to argue that the playoffs are an effective way of determining who the best team was in a given season. Some may respond by saying something along the lines of "Nobody remembers teams that are dominant in the regular season but fizzle out in the playoffs." However, this is more a diagnosis of the very problem than it is a counterargument. Others may acknowledge the validity of my point while saying "Yeah, but for me, the season is a failure because they couldn't win a World Series." But just because you claim something applies only to you does not mean it is not illogical or that it should be immune from criticism.
Look, I am as disappointed as the next man that the Phillies' playoff run ended early again this year. I would love to see another parade as much as anyone. But drawing a distinction between disappointment with the outcome of a series in which randomness rules and disappointment with a full 162 game season is essential.
The 2011 Phillies were objectively the best team in the league. This team was one of a handful of the best teams in the franchise's 129 year history. Over the course of the regular season this team provided you with hundreds of hours of enjoyment. It's a damn shame that a couple of millimeters are all it takes for people to declare it a failure.
584 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The 2011 Phillies provided me hours upon hours of entertainment and joy. To let a five game series change that is crazy.
And for the people that say people do not remember the regular season losers, people remember the 2001 Mariners, don’t they?
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
by Justin F. on Oct 10, 2011 5:17 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
And even then, people remember teams that didn’t have the best record but still had some amazing accomplishments in the regular season. No one’s going to forget the ‘02 A’s winning streak, the ‘07 Phillies magical September run, or the similar runs by this year’s Rays and Cardinals. And apart from the Cardinals, none of these teams made it past the first round of the playoffs, but goddamn you remember them.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Failure and disappointment are 2 different things.
This season was not a failure, as the Phillies were the best team this franchise has ever been blessed to put out on the field. But, with that said, this season is still a disappointment. Six months of enjoyment are all, ironically, the little picture, as the goal of all that is to reach and win the World Series. Since they didn’t, in my opinion the season was a disappointment.
Still though, I am thankful for the team we have and after a few days (maybe weeks), I’ll be able to look back on the season with a bit more fondness. But right now, this still hurts.
"I make love to pressure." - Stephen Jackson
"My passion is more passionate than ever." - Greg Paulus
I’ve started thinking of the playoffs in a different way entirely. Rather than viewing a World Series win as the best possible achievement for a team, I see it as more of a privilege for both the team and its fans. In 2008, we had the privilege of watching our favorite team play more games than all but one other team, and furthermore we got to see them win that game. The reason I want to see my team win the World Series isn’t so much because I automatically think it makes them the best team of the season, but because it means I got to keep watching my team play baseball after other fans had lost that privilege. There’s something nice about being able to say that the season stayed alive for you longer than others, and that it ended with a victory. To me, a World Series win is just the cherry on top of an already great bowl of ice cream. The Phils provided one hell of a sundae this year and just because we didn’t get that cherry, in the end, doesn’t make a gigantic difference to me. I just wish I were still watching Phillies baseball.
Or I could just be crazy.
by esentman on Oct 10, 2011 5:33 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
It’s kind of interesting. I’ve heard a lot of people (including my grandpa, who is pretty much responsible for my baseball fandom) who have said that back before division play started in 1969 that the World Series was almost seen as an exhibition, the true reward was winning your league’s pennant. Of course, teams still wanted to win the World Series but a season certainly wouldn’t be seen as a failure or even a disappointment if a team lost in the World Series.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Different sort of failure
That certainly was true for teams with limited opportunities at world championships. Having followed the Phillies in the era of your grandpa – pre-1969 – there was always a lot of credit, even a sort of reverence, for the two pennant winners from 1915 and 1950. The fact that they only won a single Series game between them only made the pennants they won that much more special. And that tied in with the tremendous disappointment that came with the collapse in 1964. That team would not have been expected to beat the Yankees that year and doing so would have just been the icing on the cake. Making it to the World Series was the goal that proved elusive.
by phillyinportland on Oct 10, 2011 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Never understood the expression
“game of inches” until this series…
2.2 wins for every 4 games versus 2.5 wins for every 4; something’s gotta give & sadly it was the Phillies who missed out by the slimmest of margins
But what a great season.
Disappointing at the end, but I’ll be on board next year & the year after that & so on. What else do I have to do?
Amen. I would also suggest that those people who deem it a failure unless a trophy is obtained start watching a new sport, because baseball is clearly not for you. So much entitlement: the city sounded like a bunch of NYY fans this weekend.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
This. Not only that, all the talk about how the Phillies “need” to go out and sign a big time free agent or trade for a bunch of guys just sounded like the media thought the Phillies were the Yankees South or something.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
David Murphy was just doing Yeoman’s work on DNL and talking about crapshoots and trying to get people to calm down and see the rationale.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
That’s kind of funny because a lot of his tweets during the series sounded like they were straight from the bowels of WIP
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
This (and David’s piece) is a really helpful way of expressing a number of things I’ve been trying to say over the past few days. It’s a damn shame that an otherwise wonderful playoff streak has resulted in Phillies fans acting like (stereotypical) Yankees fans in a total lack of appreciation for the more substantive (if not, for most, the most substantial) part of the season.
And, even with all of this in mind, I’m stupid enough to peruse Gonzo’s article claiming this as the biggest Phillies disappointment ever. Woof.
Definitely don’t read Michael Bradley’s piece in the Philly Rag, I mean, Mag. His overall point is that the Phillies got too cocky and expected to win and forgot how to be gritty. O.M.F.G.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
Phillies: “Hey guys! We won the World Series!”
Michael Bradley: “Yeah, but you didn’t sweep the other team. You obviously weren’t playing hard enough and didn’t deserve to win anything. You’re a disappointment to Philadelphia.”
Someday, this may be our reality.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Or Jack McCaffery.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
The problem is modernity
We need to go back to the pre-1969 postseason format. It would’ve been Phillies v. Yankees in the World Series in a 2009 rematch. Goddamn playoffs!
I assume you’re being snarky but I wouldn’t be overly opposed to this. Not necessarily the pre-1969 format, but going back to the pre-1994 postseason format wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually
I was not being that snarky. I just wonder what the hell is the point of a 162-game season if you’re going to have 10 teams in the playoffs? More teams means more randomness. Why do you have such a long season if it can end in a fluky 5-game playoff? What does the 162-game series winner get? Nothing.
Maybe we ought to shorten the season if we’re going to make the playoffs even more of a crapshoot? I don’t understand the philosophy – I guess that’s my point.
oh I agree. Never shorten the season but I agree that more playoff teams makes the regular season mean less. Look at the NBA.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
And
The NBA expanded the first round from 5 to 7 games, perhaps to counteract the additional number of teams.
yeah, which means that the first round of the NBA playoffs now takes about sixteen days to complete. Absolutely insane.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions
After many years, I’ve sort of made my peace with the 8-team postseason. I understand what’s wrong with it – short series in baseball are crapshoots, so the only way to solve this problem is to have only a very small number of teams make it in the first place, as that’s the only way to maximize the odds that whichever team makes it will be sufficiently deserving.
But I guess I came to the conclusion that it isn’t that bad because, although there are twice as many postseason berths as there used to be, there are also 25% more teams than there were when the 4-team playoff system began in 1969. And who knows, maybe someday in the not-too-distant future it’ll go up to 33%.
Expanding to 10 teams is the dumbest idea ever though. It’s classic Selig finding a stupid answer for a nonexistent problem.
Bad management: Taking something that isn’t broken, and fixing it until it is.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Just more proof of this, as per Jeff Passan:
Selig says on his 14-man committee, “the vote is 14-0” to expand the wild card.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Who is the committee? Selig, his wife, his brother, his sister-in-law, her husband, his son, his neighbor, the guy who walks his dog, his garbageman, Joe West, Rachel Phelps, the ghost of Adolf Hitler, Cody Ross and Tony La Russa?
by Phrozen on Oct 10, 2011 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Bingo!
In all seriousness it’s no secret that such committee is a sham. If a committee is put together to explore expanding playoffs then of course it will recommend expanding the playoffs. It’s a feeble attempt by Selig to give it legitimacy.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Back in the late ’90s, not long after the playoffs expanded to 8 teams, I heard Peter Gammons say on ESPN that this should only be a first step, and that it was now the time to “modernize” the sport by going to a full 16-team playoff. Make of that what you will.
That is a good thong.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I have found solace in this season.
I was and am still going to write a fanpost expressing this in more detail, but I figured I’d say it here as well. I’ve found solace in this season. The Phillies actually underperformed their Pyth W-L. With their run differential, we would expect them to win 104 games. If the Phillies perform the same next year as they did this year and we take everyone’s WAR who they could lose next year (Lidge, Madson, Rollins, Howard, Oswalt) and replace them league average talent, we would expect them to win 94 games next year. Guess what people, the Phillies have a very high chance of returning to the playoffs next year, there is not too many teams who can say that, including the Cardinals.
After this season, I’ve found the MLB playoffs are the great crapshoot, and once you get in, anybody can win. The key? Getting there. The more years you get in, the higher chance of bringing championship(s) home. And in that respect, the Phils are looking good.
by BrandonB on Oct 10, 2011 6:27 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
It honestly wouldn’t be a huge surprise to me if they finished with the same or better record next season. I’d say it’s more likely they don’t, but if we get a full season of Utley (who you’d think would make a rebound from his play at the end of this season) and Brown begins to come into his own, it’s definitely not impossible.
Absolutely. Not to mention more at bats from Mayberry. The same cannot be said for the Cardinals, who will most likely again be clawing and scratching their way into the postseason come September.
This proposed outcome would have also likely established myself as a cult like figure of predictability.
I would have relished in my fame for a few weeks and then been labeled an imposter after my WS prediction did not pan out.
People would blame me for the loss.
I’d turn to the bottle after being shunned by WL.
Ultimately they would find me choking on a krimpet somewhere in an alley off of south street.
I prefer the outcome where I got closer to my kid and enjoyed a 34 rec post.
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
First off, thank goodness for this blog.
I’ve been studiously avoiding the stupid this week in the Philadelphia sports media, so I’ll have to rely on you all to fill me on who’s saying what.
I think the main misconception that lies at the root of everything is the belief that the purpose of the MLB postseason is to determine who the best team is. That is not the purpose of the MLB postseason. Its purpose is to entertain the public. No more, no less.
I know you have said that (about playoffs being for entertainment) before. I don’t entirely agree, at least not in the historical sense. The World Series, while certainly always meant to be entertainment, was born out of an agreement of two Leagues that previously were at each other’s throats. Even Divisional play was more a result of a desire to cut down on travel costs by having east coast teams and west coast teams play each other more during a season. Now, the three division format was clearly an effort to increase playoff revenue and and all that, but I don’t think it’s always been the case.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess I would sort of differentiate between purpose and intent. Intent being what MLB was actually, subjectively thinking when they did what they did. While purpose would mean the rationale that makes the system actually make sense today.
I see what you’re saying, that makes sense. Almost sounds like a Constitutional argument between original intent and established precedents.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions
The Phillies would have won the World Series in 2009 had they traded for both Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay instead of hang onto the false promise of Domonic Brown. They might have won in 2010 if they didn’t trade Lee for minor-league junk.
This from the never brilliant Jack McCaffery, who believes the Phillies window is shut and it’s all over.
Of course, McCaffery is an extreme example, even for Philadelphia, but the amount negativity and false statements the past few days I have heard/seen is astounding. Good move avoiding all this, TP.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
wow that’s two people I’ve seen now who have said the Phillies window is closed (the other being Howard Eskin) today. I guess that will just make it more satisfying if the Phillies win or even get to the World Series next year.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions
So if Cliff Lee was the answer last year then why did he write this:
For two years, the Phillies, their apologists and too many of their fans have denied what continues to become as obvious as it is ridiculous: They can’t hit.
It cost them in the NLCS last October. It is why they are one game from elimination in the NLDS after spending $160,000,000 to build a 102-win regular-season team.
It’s depressing someone actually pays him for is “insight”.
He’s just a very simple-minded guy. In his worldview, there are only two settings that a commentator can take: “pollyanna” and “speak truth to power.” Actually understanding the details and analyzing the merits correctly are considerations that don’t even enter into his thought process.
I don’t want to criticize McCaffery for being too anti-Phillies. Sometimes it’s appropriate to criticize the organization. And in theory, there could be Bizarro McCafferys out there who just support the team and attack the critics no matter what the facts are. (We tend not to see people like this in Philadelphia but they exist in other cities.) His problem isn’t that he’s too harsh. It’s just that he’s really, really dumb.
just saying...
this teams phillies made me appreciate the 09 yankees… in the sense that i wont say you just bought a world series, b/c the playoffs are a crapshoot
I hate new york.
by XxActionJacksonxX on Oct 10, 2011 7:05 PM EDT reply actions
The argument that you and David and others are based on reason. The pain that many are feeling is based on faith and other irrational beliefs that are linked to the emotional core of being a fan. It’s not an argument. It’s a feeling. It can’t really be wrong.
Some of these emotional needs were met by the spectacular regular season (some were met by Halladay’s no-hitter last year; and by the Lee signing), but winning the World Series is the only outcome that will do, especially given the expectations.
It’s like telling a believer in the second coming of Christ that instead of going to heaven he should be happy having a beautiful house in the best neighborhood with first-rate schools and a view of the ocean, mountains and skyline. Great, and a reasonable argument. But not heaven.
by flyersfaninchicago on Oct 10, 2011 7:08 PM EDT reply actions
I don’t really agree with this.
What you are saying works fine as a description of what joe_digiacomo says above.
But most people are not saying that. They’re going much further and saying that the Phillies lost because they did something wrong, or because they lacked something, or because they didn’t deserve to win. Those are statements of fact that are factually incorrect.
Yes, that is different.
It’s interesting to read the language of these statements. Some sound more like observations, others use the language of morality, perhaps needing to find blame.
I think it is reasonable to discuss whether there are team-building philosophies better suited for playoff success as opposed to regular season dominance. For example, is having four aces (or even five, the way Worley pitched) a wise move if it means you are not spending millions (or tens of millions) on bench strength or a stronger bullpen or greater diversification in the lineup. How important is balanced strength?
I don’t know enough about the specifics of the Phillies season to make the arguments one way or another, and whether in the end it just changes the details of the crapshoot. I can see, though, how having absurdly superior #4 and #5 starters can explain an 8-15 game gap over your nearest rivals, but that doesn’t mean as much in a playoff series. I would be interested in hearing thoughts from those who have followed the team 162 games a year for the last few years (I start paying attention in August).
by flyersfaninchicago on Oct 10, 2011 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the #4/#5 issue is a fair criticism, which has been leveled in the past, particularly against the late ‘90s Braves after they acquired Denny Neagle. The Phillies may have been somewhat weaker as a playoff team than they were as a regular season team. Still, they were certainly strong enough to win in the postseason – that kind of “mistake” only affects you at the margins, I think. Also, the move wasn’t as unwise for the Phillies as it was for the Braves, just because for the Phillies, it was only going to last for one year: Oswalt will be gone next year, and we’ll be back to three aces.
Even with the tradeoffs, as a fan I approved of the Lee signing because of the possibilities and the theater. Not signing him doesn’t mean they win even if they use that money brilliantly elsewhere.
If you want cruelty in athletics, how about the Olympic prospects who basically do one thing over and over for four years, separated by milliseconds or ounces, and only one wins.
by flyersfaninchicago on Oct 10, 2011 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions
TP are you saying the Phillies lost not because they did something wrong but because of luck.
How can that be when they hit over 30 points lower than the Cards (.259 to .226) and were almost 100 points lower in OPS (.703 vs .604). And Cliff Lee had a 7.50ERA. Just luck. Or just not performing in a small-sample size 5 game series.
by Adam Gladstone on Oct 11, 2011 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re acting like there’s some kind of dichotomy there but there isn’t. Poor performance over a small sample is itself luck. Indeed, the poor performance is PROOF of luck. They are one and the same thing.
There are exceptional situations in which poor performance is not attributable to luck – if the it is instead attributable to a mental error, or a lack of effort, or some other thing that is within the player’s control. That’s why I asked packimop the questions I asked him. But if the performance was not attributable to something that the player controlled – if it happened despite his best efforts – then it was luck. It’s the fact that over a large sample, all players will by definition sometimes play below their average, and they don’t really exercise any control over when they have their good games, when they have their normal games, and when they have their subpar games.
theoretically, wouldnt it make sense to have a say 140 mil payroll team and just shoot for 85-95 wins a season and playoffs every year, and just hope you get hot…. because clearly the cards were lucky and hot…
I hate new york.
by XxActionJacksonxX on Oct 10, 2011 7:08 PM EDT reply actions
All of this is also an artifact of the whole “second place is the first place loser”/“win or go home” mentality that has infected our entire country over the past few decades and not just in the world of sports. It’s one thing to say that this should be the attitude of every competitor while he’s on the field of competition. It’s quite another thing for fans and media commentators to adopt this mindset. It’s especially annoying considering that the vast majority of people who say things like this are then objectively “losers” in their own personal lives according to their own philosophy. There aren’t many unequivocal winners in this world.
by taco pal on Oct 10, 2011 7:30 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, the irony of the overweight, couch potato who screams at the TV about lazy play and lack of hustle and grit™.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
hey now. I’m an overweight couch potato and I show a lot of grit and hustle when I’m going to the fridge during commercial breaks.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions
but were you clutch about it in the late innings and in early October?
by flyersfaninchicago on Oct 10, 2011 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions
OT
But aren’t Brian Wilson’s 15 minutes over YET? Now he’s on the Tacobell commercial? FTLOG.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
I’m beyond tired of that guy. It’s almost like “oh look there he is, and oh he’s doing his quirky act again” With that said though that ad has to be his most annoying yet.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Beltre
Man how awesome is Beltre. Wish we could have snagged him after 09 instead of Polly.
and you are a prophet
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Some may respond by saying something along the lines of “Nobody remembers teams that are dominant in the regular season but fizzle out in the playoffs.”
I don’t know if that’s true. Quick, who knows who won the 2001 World Series? Who knows which team finished with an absurdly high win total that year? I know the latter is the Seattle Mariners. I think the former is the D-Backs, but I’m not entirely sure and before looking up recent World Series winners in the last month, I had thought their World Series win was 2003. I’m pretty sure it was 2001, but still am not 100% sure. I’m 100% sure about the Mariners though.
Also, I didn’t say that this viewpoint had any validity, just that people hold the viewpoint, which they do.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
The D-Backs won the 2001 World Series. But I only remember that because a friend of mine who is a Yankees fan likes to bitch and moan about what he has termed the Luis Gonzalez Bitch Hit.
by ThinMountainAir on Oct 10, 2011 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions
While I do believe the wild card has added excitement to MLB overall (which really isn’t a bad thing), the days of the best teams in baseball meeting up for the King of the Hill contest have been over since then.
The Phillies were certainly not the best team in baseball in 2008 and I don’t think the Yankees were the best team in baseball in 2009 (though, as much as I loathe admitting it, a better case could be made for them than the 2008 Phillies). Only delusional SF fans truly believe the Giants were the best of the best last year.
Anyone who loves the game of baseball will always remember the 2011 Phillies as the best team in baseball this year.
So...
Someone asked me today if I was rooting for the Cards or Brewers. Is “meteorite falling on the stadium” an acceptable answer or no?
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
What’s so bad about the Brewers? I actually kinda like them. Aside from Morgan (who I actually like) they are a pretty unobjectionable bunch with a really good fanbase.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
Milwaukee makes beer that tastes like ass.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions
even Milwaukee’s Best still tastes like ass.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Coors is pretty good, as yellow American lagers go. Beast is ass, suitable for college frat parties (as I know all too well).
Coors Light is the worst beer I’ve ever had.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I’ve never had regular Coors before. Can’t be worse than Coors Light, though.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I can’t even recall seeing any commercial for Coors. It’s no wonder people, myself included, make that mistake.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
The Banquet Beer
It’s been advertised a bit more the last couple years. Prior to that it would be easy to assume that Light was the only beer Coors made.
Ah, now I remember.
/ineffective advertisement
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I believe the idea would be that a team this good shouldn’t have their season come down to a ball traveling an extra five feet.
It's in his wheelhouse!!
Carlos Ruiz, My Nickname is Chooch.
I personally would have been upset with the way the Phillies offense performed in game 5 and in the series (excluding game 1), win or lose.
It's in his wheelhouse!!
Carlos Ruiz, My Nickname is Chooch.
It’s also like blaming Juqua Parke for the Eagles loss yesterday.
It's in his wheelhouse!!
Carlos Ruiz, My Nickname is Chooch.
Since when is rational thought soft?
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
Are you kidding? You guys are less disappointed than the players that actually lost the games. That’s sad. Even Charlie Manuel said if they didn’t win the series they have no one to blame but themselves.
Cliff Lee had a 4-0 lead and blew it, yet the writers on this site continually make excuses. It’s honestly sad.
The Jruth shall be told.
You don’t know me; you don’t know how fucking disappointed I am. But what good does it do to sit here and whine about things over which you have no control? Yeah, they could have played better; but things also could have gone their way a little bit, could have better calls, better strikezones, etc.
Also, Charlie isn’t going to blame anyone but himself and the team; he’s not a douche like Tony LaRussa.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
I’m not whining. Have you seen me whining? The Phillies losing has zero impact on my real life, therefore I can afford to criticize those who deserve it without remorse.
The Jruth shall be told.
How soft can you guys get?
Want some cheese?
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Cheese actually gets hard with time, unlike the majority of TGP enthusiasts.
The Jruth shall be told.
Brie doesn’t.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
by doubleh on Oct 10, 2011 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Then it sounds like you have better things to do than stick around and make yourself sound superior to people trying to cope with their favorite team losing in the postseason. So to you I say, go on with your real life and leave us to our mourning/denial/whatever you want to call it.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions
denial? you guys are the only ones in denial. oohhh it’s luck ohh it’s a craphshoot ohhh Cliff Lee wasn’t to blame for blowing a four point lead.
The Jruth shall be told.
A what? A “four point” lead? What the fuck is a point?
by Phrozen on Oct 10, 2011 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
also, I don’t remember seeing much of you when they were going well; no doubt that’s confirmation bias
It’s because I really can’t stand the writers on this site. Just because I don’t comment after every single game doesn’t mean I don’t watch. Unless you think every single Phillies fan in existence is on TGP 24/7.
The Jruth shall be told.
if you can’t stand the writers, then why come by? what’s in it for you?
you know what that makes you, when you do come by, almost by definition? A fucking troll.
trolls, incidentally, can only be dealt with with extreme prejudice; hell, I’d’ve banned you ages ago
…Did you not read what I said? “Our denial.” Goddamn dude, it just gets better and better with you, doesn’t it?
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions
What does being unnecessarily hard accomplish?
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I’m not telling you to start a riot. I’m just saying you need to hold accountable those who did not perform.
Apparently that’s a tough concept.
The Jruth shall be told.
Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself. Read about Cliff Lee’s Game 2.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Read about how the Cardinals hit a bunch of line drives against him? Or read about how you’re making excuses about the strike zone? What should I read about?
The Jruth shall be told.
Why does it always have to be either/or? Can’t it be that the strikezone was bad, BABIP was high, but Lee also didn’t pitch as well as he could have?
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
shhhhh. Stupid people always look for a simple solution to a complex problem
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions
If you click the link, you can read a detailed analysis of every hit Cliff Lee gave up in Game 2 of the 2011 NLDS, and what luck that did or did not do to influence it.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
That article doesn’t help against his argument, IMO. While I agree with what Bill is saying, there’s way too much opinion favoring Lee in his comments on each hit.
Simple fact is lee go squeezed, made some bad pitches, and got kind of unlucky all at once in the most important game of the season.
Unfortunately, he’s the kind of pitcher who NEEDS to get those corners called, to be lights out Lee.
Indent hunk he’s entirely to blame for that game, but neither is luck. Or the zone.
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
and you’re downy soft. Glad the writers of this website are so classy to call people who read “fucking morons.” Stay classy Fuqua. You might as well move to Atlanta.
The Jruth shall be told.
I got warned for telling someone to eat a dick that was attacking me the other day. If I was to call you or any other writer of this site a “fucking moron” I would most likely get banned.
The Jruth shall be told.
You’re too fucking dumb to engage on any serious intellectual level.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
I don’t give a shit about readers like you. Frankly, I’d rather you not read if you are going to continually miss the point and make completely idiotic points.
Fuck you. Fuck your “soft” bullshit. And fuck staying classy.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
Glad you have to hide behind an internet wall to say some shit. And I’m glad that this website doesn’t afford others to have opinions that differ from the writers. You guys are so immature and condescending it’s honestly embarrassing. You’re making yourself look so stupid attacking a reader of a popular website that you write on. It’s sad.
You would never say anything you wrote above to my face. You’re the type of pussy that just can’t speak the same ill words to peoples’ faces that you can write online. If you think otherwise and so happen to be in the great city of Philadelphia, come visit 1411 Porter St. My door is always open.
The Jruth shall be told.
Stop being a cunt? Where’s my personal attack? Where did I call someone “a fucking moron.”
The Jruth shall be told.
So I guess being called soft and a “pussy” isn’t a personal attack. We’re not all as stupid as you are.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Damn! Served!
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Please. You guys are really comparing calling someone “soft” to calling someone a “fucking moron?” Really? Especially when the person saying the latter is a writer of the site? Really? Sad.
The Jruth shall be told.
I think he wants you to get mad, so you may be playing into his hands here.
I’m actually interested to hear exactly what the intellectual underpinnings of his beliefs are. Maybe if he explains them thoroughly, we’ll see he was actually an intelligent person all along. (snarf)
Except, the evidence for my claim that you are a fucking moron is provided in every comment you have made in this thread and in virtually every comment you have made on this site. My claim that you are a fucking moron is true.
Your claim that we are “soft” is totally nonsensical.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
Not even a little soft in the middle? Doughy-like?
What’s incredibly hilarious about this is that of all the BL’s he’s calling Fuqua soft.
That’s like calling Dom Brown gritty.
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
My hyper-link’d poetry is known by all the black beret-wearing circle-jerk hipsters of Monterey as being pretty hard-edged, so he knows better than to fuck with me.
by Wet Luzinski on Oct 11, 2011 5:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
“Fucking moron” questions your intelligence in the context of what you’re reading and the conclusions you’re drawing from it. No one’s implying they’re better than you, but that the inferences you’re taking are largely different from the majority. You, by using “soft” and “pussy,” are attacking our character as fans of a sport and asserting that you are better than us because you are not grieving about this in anyway. Again, you’re attacking the majority who is using rationale (justified or not) to explain this loss and grieving about it that way.
So, fine. We’re “soft.” But you’re not just a “fucking moron,” you’re also an asshole.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions
HOLY SHIT! I just realized! What ever happened to MikeyCo??
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I have had clashing opinions with many people on numerous blogs, including this one, and nobody has ever suggested that I be banned.
You have not yet figured out that it is not bad luck or random chance that has you in this position. It’s your poor performance. Show some accountability.
You suggested about 21 minutes and 17 comments ago that you were not interested in being part of this community. How about some clutch follow-through?
by flyersfaninchicago on Oct 10, 2011 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Just on the proper context for racist and homophobic slurs. We believe that there is no proper context. He had other ideas…
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I was more insinuating reincarnation.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Back a pitbull into a corner and see if it doesn’t retaliate. Sertorius only fought out of necessity, not out of ambition.
The Jruth shall be told.
Didn’t you confess to telling someone to “eat a dick?” Stop playing the victim card.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Your “opinion” is that we are “soft” for having a rational understanding of how baseball works.
/DWM
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
No. I watch baseball. I probably watched 150 out of 162 games in the regular season. I’ve seen luck and I’ve seen poor performances. What I saw in the playoffs was a poor performance, not luck.
Even if you showed a little bit of accountability, saying something like “sure Ryan Howard didn’t perform in certain situations, and sure Cliff Lee gave up a 4 run lead, but certain situations lead to these events happening.” I realize that’s not perfect, but at least acknowledge that everything isn’t due to luck. Acknowledge that players didn’t perform in situations that were essential to winning. I literally have seen none of that. I’m not asking for anyone’s head – I’m not saying get rid of Cliff Lee or Ryan Howard should retire – I’m just saying that their performance, along with bad luck, caused the Phillies to lose. It wasn’t just all BABIP and crapshoots. But you don’t even allow the slightest bit of it, you immediately come at me with swearing and other low-brow comments, making me feel like an outcast and that I shouldn’t be commenting on this site. Is that really what you’re here for? Because if it is then honestly I want no part of this community.
The Jruth shall be told.
And is that what we said? That it’s all BABIP and craps? No.
Because if it is then honestly I want no part of this community.
I agree.
Please. Go back and read the last post. It’s all about luck. Go back and read the posts following last year’s NLCS (also notice I did not say anything even though you accuse me of "always being here). All about luck and what not. You honestly need to get off these dudes’ dicks.
The Jruth shall be told.
Whether or not they performed well in that five game sample is utterly irrelevant to my argument in the post.
Congrats on proving my point again.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
Why should there be accountability for “bad performance” anyway? I can understand the need for accountability when there are mental errors or poor effort. But I can only think of one clear mental error in this series (Utley being thrown out at third), and I can’t think of a single example of poor effort.
What does “accountability” even mean here? Getting mad and saying mean things about them? What exactly do you intend for that to accomplish?
Cliff Lee? Or are you chalking that one up to luck. I wouldn’t say it was luck when he was basically undefeated in his career when given a 4 run lead. I would call it a poor performance.
The Jruth shall be told.
Are you saying that Cliff Lee giving up four runs was a mental error or poor effort? If so, which one, and how?
See, you have two options with people like this (well, three if you choose to ignore them):
1. You can attempt to engage their arguments seriously until they can no longer defend their position and reveal their true colors as trolls.
2. You can treat them with as little respect as they show for intellectual honesty and logical thought.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
That’s funny that you reference respect when your initial rhetoric towards me warrants you none.
The Jruth shall be told.
How soft can you guys get?
Because that embodies the very fundamentals of respectful rhetoric.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions
yes. Because calling something “soft” is really close to calling someone a “fucking mororn.”
At my job as a employee benefits consultant I can call someone who runs a benefits plan “soft” all I want. However, I cannot call that same person a “fucking moron” if I want to keep my job.
The Jruth shall be told.
isn’t it amazing how trolls always have these high profile six figure jobs?
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s not what we’re talking about here. I’m not interested in your job. I’m not interested in the differences in connotation between “soft” and “fucking moron.” We’re talking about the fact that you opened the floodgates of all this backlash with a disparaging comment. That’s where this all began, not with FM’s retort.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions
It wasn’t due to mental error. I don’t believe Cliff Lee or Carlos Ruiz are capable of mental errors at this point in their career. I think it was due to a combination of physical error and bad luck.
The Jruth shall be told.
I honestly just don’t think you guys put enough emphasis on the physical errors and put too much emphasis on luck. Of course I’m not really allowed to have this opinion.
The Jruth shall be told.
Alright, now we’re getting somewhere. So they were physical errors. Why did he make those physical errors? Was it due to a failing of character? Was it due to a lack of effort?
None of the above. There doesn’t have to be an explanation of physical error. It just happens sometimes. Maybe a mistake in mechanics, maybe a mistake in the follow through, maybe a mistake in arm angle. The point is physical errors shouldn’t happen when you’re an elite batter/pitcher.
Cliff has shown in the past that he puts forth an elite effort and has elite character. I don’t doubt that. He just made physical mistakes when it mattered most. Sure some of that is to blame on him being squeezed or even luck, but he still made those errors.
I appreciate the actual effort at conversation by the way.
The Jruth shall be told.
I think it’s pretty divorced from reality to think that elite players don’t make physical mistakes, on a regular basis in fact. During the regular season, Lee had many games where he pitched about as well or badly as he did in Game 2 – and he was still the second or third best pitcher in the league.
Regardless – so he made these physical errors despite high character, preparation, and good effort. What is there to hold him “accountable” for? Shit happens.
Because that shit isn’t supposed to happen when it matters most if you’re an elite pitcher in MLB. Sure it can happen during the regular season when you’re team is going to win 95+ games anyway, but when it matters most you’re supposed to be clutch and perform at your best. Cliff did not perform at his best when it mattered most.
The Jruth shall be told.
Why is this wrong? If a player misses a free throw in basketball to win a game it’s his fault. It’s not due to luck or the fact that everyone misses free throws.
The Jruth shall be told.
You’re not realizing that it’s still a game of baseball, and that’s how the players go about it. They always say “it’s just another game,” and that’s completely true. The size of the stage doesn’t matter one iota to these players; they have a job to do, and they’re going to do their damnedest to make sure it gets done.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
You honestly think Cliff Lee isn’t kicking himself much more over his performance in game 2 rather than a game in July? Kinda find that hard to believe.
The Jruth shall be told.
You seriously need to stop changing the subject of your arguments. We’re talking about what’s going on in the game, not after it. I’ll bet Roy Halladay was furious after that game where he gave up 5 ER in 7 IP to the Mets last year, even though he got the win.
No player in baseball spends time during the game thinking about what’s going to happen after the game if they do/don’t perform, or they won’t admit to it. You can’t; it’s the ultimate psyche-out. There’s no way Lee went into Game 2 thinking “If I don’t win this, the series is over.” I can almost guarantee he went into it thinking of it as a scheduled start and considering what pitches he was going to throw what hitters. He made a couple mistakes. It happens to EVERYONE. It sucks, and it’s still his responsibilty, but there’s very little that can be done about it.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok. I’m glad you recognize that Lee has some accountability. I also agree with everything you just wrote. Surprise!
The Jruth shall be told.
I’m never going to deny that the team is responsible for the loss. Were there outside factors? Sure. Did it seem like we got a lot of bad breaks? You bet. But I also saw players make mistakes. And at the end of the day, Howard was swinging a bat and Lee was throwing a ball. They’ve made it through tough situations before. They couldn’t this time. Their fault? I don’t know. Their responsibilty? Yeah. Am I mad? No.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not mad either. I just don’t understand how no one seems to believe that they’re to blame in the slightest.
The Jruth shall be told.
That’s not even what this article’s about! It’s about how so many are so quick to heap a “loser” label on a club that achieved far beyond what we expected in the regular season and ran into trouble in the postseason.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, it was really just a response to the idea of placing blame, which has nothing to do with this article.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
You seem to expect absolute perfection. Roy Halladay, who may be more dedicated to his craft and the pursuit of perfection than just about anyone in baseball, makes mistakes. The question is not who made mistakes or what mistakes were made, but rather why were the mistakes made?
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
What do you mean “what?” Cliff Lee made physical mistakes. I hold him accountable for these physical mistakes, much the same as I hold Andre Iguodala responsible for missing an ass load of clutch free throws in his career despite being a roughly 75% free throw shooter.
The Jruth shall be told.
All players make physical (and mental) mistakes. Lee, Utley, Ted Williams and Ozzie Smith. Even Mariano Rivera makes mist
The closest thing you will ever find to a perfect baseball pitcher is Mariano Rivera. And he still gives up runs occasionally.
Why weren’t you here all season, holding Cliff Lee and other Phillies “accountable” for every mistake they made throughout the season? Why nitpick one game?
I’m just now trying to get into the NBA (great timing i know) so I am going to ignore the Iguodala comparison.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I don’t nitpick one game for the same reason many of us didn’t want to trade for Hunter Pence; because the Phillies were going to make the playoffs whether or not they lost a game here or there due to physical mistakes during the year. That’s what makes baseball so awesome, the best teams always make the playoffs, and mistakes become exponentially magnified in the first round due to the 5-game series.
The Jruth shall be told.
And if the mistakes are not from not trying or not caring, then what are the root of said mistakes?
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
but when it matters most you’re supposed to be clutch and perform at your best.
And this, it appears, is the flawed premise upon which the entire castle is built.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
don’t talk to me dude. You can’t re-enter a conversation that you obviously didn’t want to have in the first place.
The Jruth shall be told.
Ha! That’s rich.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
by FuquaManuel on Oct 10, 2011 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Again, it’s worth noting that this entire discussion is basically irrelevant to the content of my post.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
I already answered this question about 5 times. Be disappointed, be upset with the players in the slightest. Sure you can say a decent amount of it is due to luck, but to totally pardon the players for poor performances is just “soft” to me.
The Jruth shall be told.
I’m sure you’re disappointed, I’m also sure that you’ve mostly chalked it up to luck, not to performance. I’m not trying to say it’s entirely the players’ fault or anything of the sort; I’m just trying to say that some of the blame has to be placed on the players.
The Jruth shall be told.
There weren’t any. I don’t think any of the players put forth any effort other than their best. I’m also not solely blaming the players. I’m just not giving them a complete pass. You can look over those comments and call me stupid or ignorant or whatever you like.
The Jruth shall be told.
Nothing other than putting proper blame where it is due. I expect Cliff to come back strong in the playoffs next year and get the job done if he’s in the same situation. I expect RYHO to rehab his ass off and come back with a vengeance for late summer/early fall next year. I expect this team to play pissed off. I love them all the same, shit I loved them during the mid 90’s, that doesn’t mean I didn’t say what players where blowing it then.
The Jruth shall be told.
What if the Phillies play best when they are relaxed, and not “pissed off?”
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
It’s pretty obvious that they’ve been relaxed during this entire era, with a business like attitude. Maybe it’s time for someone to get pissed off?
The Jruth shall be told.
Maybe being relaxed or pissed off has nothing to do with it. Maybe players don’t exercise that much control over when they have their best games, their average games, or their subpar games. Maybe this is the whole reason why short series are influenced by luck.
(I can’t even follow this conversation anymore because of the nesting. Somebody should re-start this below.)
OVERFLOW!
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I really haven’t. See my posts about physical and mental mistakes and the proceeding replies.
The Jruth shall be told.
What do you want us to say, “pitch x from Cliff Lee was absolutely without excuse?” The closest thing you will ever get to that is the article from Crashburn Alley I linked to a couple hours ago. In this article, Bill Baer has in .GIF form every hit Cliff Lee gave up that game along with a thorough analysis. Go through that and find areas where you disagree.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
In addition to completely missing its point, you clearly did not read the post carefully.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
by FuquaManuel on Oct 10, 2011 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Physical error: Me
Mental error: Packimop
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions
A mental error is due to a poor decision, a physical error is due to a mistake by the body. Calling a fastball down the middle on a 0-2 count would be a mental error, throwing a cutter down the middle that was supposed to be outside or inside on a 0-2 count would be a physical error. Honestly don’t understand how you can understand that.
The Jruth shall be told.
Well, maybe your muscles act independently of your brain, but mine don’t. So, to me, it’s a combination. Released a pitch at the wrong angle? Boot a grounder? Those are both mental and physical errors.
Now, deciding to try for third on an infield roller, that’s strictly mental.
though, interestingly, all of the national saber-commentators did not speak of Utley’s dash to third as a bad play
That was an excellent throw by Pujols. I’m not sure how many other 1st basemen make that out.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
It’s seemed to me that, despite BSR, it seems like baserunning is still a weird blindspot for advanced stats. Is this reasonable?
oh it is. Initially it wasn’t even considered, to the point that early Sabr-minded team like the A’s actually discouraged stealing bases. It’s becoming more prevalent though. Sabermetrics is still a relatively new social science.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions
To be fair to the Moneyball A’s, the high-slugging run environment of the late-90’s-early-00’s made the SB less valuable than perhaps anytime in MLB history, and the CS more damaging.
True, but at the same time the Moneyball A’s were built in the model of this high slugging run environment that devalued the SB
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
oh it definitely worked for them.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Baserunning is always going to be objectionable. Perfect example is first to third. How can you measure when a runner from first is supposed to make it to third when the ball is hit to right field?
The Jruth shall be told.
This seems like the central question. I get the ratio between successful SB and CS needed to justify running, but the first to third issue is totally interesting. I’m not convinced it’s always going to be subjective; however, I’m certainly not the guy to provide that metric.
It seems quantifiable. Average time from base to base, average it takes a catcher’s throw to reach 2nd or 3rd, strength and accuracy of fielder’s arms. Although it certainly seems that there are a ton of variables to consider on top of the obvious stats.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t believe that booting a grounder or releasing a pitch at the wrong angle is a mental error. The mind knows what it is supposed to do, the body doesn’t follow through with that action. To me that’s strictly a physical error.
Throwing the ball to second when clearly the runner is going to be safe is a mental error, it’s not a physical error if the body follows through with what the mind wanted to do. It’s only a physical error if the body does not perform what the mind wanted it to.
The Jruth shall be told.
Well, maybe your muscles act independently of your brain, but mine don’t
So you have to think about breathing ever time you take a breath? Have fun with that.
The Jruth shall be told.
When you’ve done it tens of thousands of times in your life? He knows how to throw a cutter, he just didn’t physically perform. Much like Andre Iguodala knows how to shoot a free throw, as evidenced through his 75% FT for his career, yet regularly misses in clutch situations.
The Jruth shall be told.
Does he miss regularly in clutch situations? Do you have any statistical evidence for this? Couldn’t it just be that you’re more apt to remember his misses when they happen in those situations?
You have a really strange understanding of sport, athletics, baseball, and physiology.
by David S. Cohen on Oct 10, 2011 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve hit a high F on the trumpet hundreds, if not thousands of times, yet I have to think about it each time. I’ve spent hundreds of hours operating a bulldozer, and yet I have to think about which lever to pull. I’ve driven probably over 100,000 miles in various cars and trucks, yet I have to think about which gear to shift into.
And I’ll bet you that Lee doesn’t just throw a cutter. He thinks about his grip, his arm slot and his location each and every time.
right.
I mean, this is easy: look, Lee was NOT at the top of his game last week. He wasn’t! His location was off! BUT! There was still all kinds of random luck on balls in play in that game. AND! The Phillies in that game hit many balls hard that were caught (this was less true in other games, admittedly).
And: Victorino (for example) had a couple poor play in centerfield that led to runs. We all know this. What is accomplished by going on and on about it?
He means we are not giving an online verbal beatdown to Cliff Lee for “blowing” a 4-0 lead, assigning responsibility and blame elsewhere for other losses, calling Ben Francisco’s home run a fluke, etc., etc.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Because it is cool to be negative right now? Because if we stratch the truth for outrage at people we will be accomplishing something in his mind? I have no idea.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Yeah, you’re getting at something here. The whole concept of “softness,” if it has any meaning at all, certainly has to mean something like you’re being more lenient than the truth would warrant, right? So unless you actually make an argument, with evidence and logic, that the truth demands harsher criticism that what is being meted out, then the “softness” charge has no content whatsoever. Being angry without first demonstrating with facts and evidence that anger is warranted is just brainless.
Softness is quickly becoming the new Classy™ for me.
But packimop is not making an argument with evidence and logic. He is just saying “Cliff Lee had a 4-0 and blew it,” providing no evidence as to how that was Cliff Lee’s fault. If he read Crashburn Alley’s article I linked to (and somehow I doubt he did) he would have read a further analysis of BABIP and defensive positioning and defensive play and how that too played a role in the Cardinals’ win in Game 2.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I mean, I’m with yolacrary here in that I think Lee’s performance was not the greatest he’s capable of, although it was also influenced by bad luck. But Lee’s performance not being the greatest is also, in certain ways, a product of luck. He obviously wasn’t trying to have a sub-optimal performance and he gave his best effort. Whether or not you have your best stuff or command on a given day is partly a function of luck too. Unless there is evidence that Lee’s performance not being the best was a function of some failing of character, how can any fault be ascribed to him?
I’m not sure anyone is saying that was the greatest game Cliff Lee ever pitched, but he certainly was unlucky in multiple ways that game that did him no favors at all.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Yeah, I agree.
The only point I’m trying to make is – Let’s pretend he pitched really poorly, and that there was no bad luck involved in it at all. Let’s say it was all because he didn’t have his best stuff and command that night. That still wouldn’t be a reason to hold him “accountable,” whatever that means. In fact, it would still be a function of luck – not in-game luck, but luck all the same.
Because, TP, a pitcher who is supposed to be a saviour, who shunned the evil empire and returned to us, isn’t supposed to go down like that. He was supposed to be lights out! A robotic, non human, whatever pitching machine.
The honeymoon lasted a whole season, but it’s still Philly
The people who attribute it to luck and BABIP are soft.
Those who balme it on lack of clutch are hard Philly fans…
The truth probably lies in the middle somewhere, and the fact that he’s human and had an off game at an inopportune time is irrelevant I guess.
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
I’d like you to repeat it please. Encapsulate it. Your definition of “soft” as you’re using it here is: what?
Soft, as in being an apologist for a team that didn’t even make it past the NLDS despite having a 4-0 lead in game two after winning game 1 in convincing fashion. Soft as in not blaming the players for having poor AB’s in the final game against Carpenter, instead saying how great Carpenter was. Did you see how he was laughing at Ryan Howard for how bad he is? I was doing the same.
The Jruth shall be told.
That’s not a definition, that’s a set of examples, or what you think are examples. I asked you for a definition, please. Try again.
I thought you would be smart enough to derive a definition from example. That’s what reading comprehension is all about.
The Jruth shall be told.
Sorry to disappoint you. In turn, I thought you would be smart enough to come up with a definition. You’ll have to humor me here, because I clearly can’t keep up with your deep intellectual prowess.
Oh. I thought your comprehension skills would be above those of a fifth grader. My bad.
The Jruth shall be told.
Yeah, that must be the problem.
Still, what’s your definition? Just out of curiosity. I mean, you’ve nailed me on how I’m too dumb to figure it out, so now you can reveal the answer.
I mean, I’m sure you can, of course, and it’s not that you’re avoiding the question because you don’t even know how to define the term that you yourself have been throwing around here for an hour.
why do people think Carpenter was laughing AT Howard? He was clearly laughing because he dodged a bullet
IDK. I’m not a big fan of that guy’s antics on the mound, so how can we be sure?
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
That’s what I thought too. At the very least, nobody can pretend that they know he was laughing at Howard, unless they actually went and asked Carpenter about it.
Personally, I thought he was laughing at the 3-0 swing as much as anything else. But listening only to the radio, I lose out on a lot of the subtlety.
I mean, it’s certainly possible he was just laughing because he couldn’t believe Howard was swinging 3-0, but really no one knows, do they?
I don’t see why he would have laughed at him for that, to be honest. Why wouldn’t Howard swing 3-0 in that situation? He’s a home run hitter and it was a one-run deficit.
that’s what I thought
really, “just missing” pretty good pitches to hit is also a component of “luck”, but when the result looks like a routine flyball, it just doesn’t seem like it…. anyone remember Howard’s second AB against Carpenter in game 2? Just missed on a pitch, with 2 runners on, flying out to the track in left. Baseball is ALL about those near misses.
Another missed point in the game of inches debate, IMO. Nobody complains if Howard gets on base or hits that ball out 3-0’ but the whole green lit argument there is laughable to me.
Howard changes the game with one swing, he’s getting the best pitch hes gonna get there, and he’s had the green light 3-0 all season. He put a little too much topspin on the swing, but he swings (and should swing) there 100 times out of 100.
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
If the Phillies were really having poor ABs against Chris Carpenter, they would have been flailing at pitches out of the zone and striking out a lot. By and large, they were not doing that. Carpenter only managed 3 Ks in Game 5. He was pounding the bottom of the zone all day and honestly pitched an absolutely brilliant game. And when a real good pitcher pitches great, it is going to be tough to generate runs no matter who you are.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Meh, the only fluke about Francisco’s home run is the fact that Chuckles went to him first. And even that isn’t completely without precedent.
Francisco got a good pitch to hit and he did his job. Kudos to him.
And he hit 6 HRs in the season. That he had not hit one since the end of May was likely more a result of a significant decrease in playing time than anything. I even remember during the end of the regular season, his bad luck on balls in play from the beginning of the season began to turn around and he made some solid contact.
I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that someone hitting a HR in the playoffs after hitting 6 in a season is a fluke. Joe Blanton in Game 4 of the 2008 World Series? Yes. Ben Francisco? Not so much.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
While I agree the season wasn’t a failure, this particular thought experiment does nothing for me. As the saying goes, “If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.”
"What's gonna happen is that you jerk off the ball. You almost want to let this guy here jam you, and if it comes, it comes." Gary 'Sarge' Matthews
So I almost want to do a Fake WIP call to point out that Michael Young scored the winning run.
I do not post the right way.
nah he was actually hitless until that single.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Packimop’s playing my roommate’s favorite game, “kick ‘em when they’re down.” The only reason we win is because we got lucky, the only reason we lose is because we suck. I’ve had to deal with this shit the last 3 seasons of each professional sport. It’s funny to watch how desperate to seem superior they get and choose to do so by preying on people trying to overcome a big loss. It’s kinda sad, really.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
Is your roommate a NY or Pittsburgh fan?
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
Boston, Texas…and Atlanta when it pisses me off.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions
So, he’s a contrarian, then?
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
He’s a fan of convenience.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions
How does someone pull off being a fan of three teams in the same sport?
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions
How can the Cardinals be winning 4-0 with Edwin Jackson on the mound? I was told he was a bad pitcher that the Phillies had no business losing to. (Granted, it’s early, and he could still get pounded…)
Probably the Brewers have been made too lackadaisical by their sense of entitlement. Time to hold someone accountable!
Hey, you changed your handle! Sneaky…
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions
The Brewers may be holding back to give their fans a bigger thrill when they win tonight. At least all the experts I listened to today thought the Brewers were virtually unbeatable at home, so unless they’re wrong things are about to change.
By the way, what the hell happened to this post in the last half hour? It went from, like, 58 comments to 200 comments.
by phillyinportland on Oct 10, 2011 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks. That will give me some more reading to do tonight.
by phillyinportland on Oct 10, 2011 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it’s worth noting that, when “luck” is used in the articles here, I think it’s a radically different usage than in mainstream media or general reactions to the Phillies’ loss. BABIP or FIP or SIERA don’t rely on, like, lottery luck. They rely on the luck that maintains the systemic consistency of baseball — the game would become static if we could determine it by only true outcomes. The fact that it is systemic does not make it any less unsustainable, though.
right, and talking about BABIP “luck” in a given game is merely shorthand for talking about random variation
why don’t you stop being so soft and lazy and just type out “random variation” then?
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
the game would become static if we could determine it by only true outcomes
well fighting sports aren’t static and there’s not much luck there.
That’s reasonable, but hasn’t your point through a lot of this kerfuffle been that baseball and fighting sports are apples and oranges?
To my mind, the intricacies of the rules and possibility of bizarre luck are really the driving force behind much of baseball’s dynamism.
hmmm. I guess it came across differently then I intended.
I was just offering you an example of a sport that’s not “static” like individual, non adversarial sports often are and therefore, don’t make for great spectator sports. It’s basically the unknown that makes for compelling entertainmnet which skills competitions like track and field can’t always deliver on. Team sports however, introduce more variables in an adversarial arrangement whereby the reactive dynamic is constantly creating a new game state with new possiblities. Combat sports have this adversarial shifting game state but with outcomes marginally effected by chance if effected at all. Check my comment below (it’s the long one) where I flush out these concepts further…
This is what makes combat sports so compelling other then the blood lust (that’s a biggie). It’s the sports version of chess. Bloody chess.
Actually, when I think of baseball determined by only by it’s true outcomes (well mostly – any sport that invovles a ball or a ball and implement invites variation ), it’s tennis which is a speed/ technical ball and stick sport. Here the stick has a larger surface area. A serve is nothing more than an overhand throw done from a set position like a pitch. The player on the return end is much like a batter. He waits in a pre-determined side of the court for the served ball that must meet certain requirements for it to be fit for play; if not, it’s a fault. If it’s a ace, it’s a strike out or the ball is put in play or is hit foul. If in play, the server/pitcher must respond to a stimulus that doesn’t have a pre-determined trajectory, like a baseball fielder, and must move quickly to intercept the ball. Every direct interaction in baseball is one player to another. It’s always a 1 to 1 relationship. Structurally baseball is very similar to tennis but tennis is less probabilistic. The variation is decreased by the greater control afforded by the racket and creating smaller boundary for balls in play which elimates the need for “fielders”.
I actually kind of disagree with this. There’s still some luck in fighting sports. I think the bigger issue is that there’s a much wider disparity of talent, partly because it’s one on one. When you have a team sport, where everyone’s drafting out of the same pool, then there’s much greater parity, which makes luck much more important. The Phillies play Florida State University every year in spring training. If they played them 162 games, they’d probably win about 159 of them, BABIP or no BABIP.
but there’s still….Those three games…..
Little Giants’d
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Well there’s some variables that are introduced since combat sports are adversarial with an action/reaction dynamic to changing stimulus. But the particpants have the opportunity to exert a great deal of influence over these variables unless they can’t control their limbs. In any adversarial sport there is always the chance for mistakes but this is mitigated the by degree of influence the players have the over the initiation of and response to stimuli. Unlike ball/puck sports, application of techique in combat sports requires less precision and therefore is subject to less variation. The only other instances where luck has influence on the outcomes in combat sports are with disqualifications from illegal blows, or failure to make weight, an injury like a cut over the eye that leads to a TKO, referees, and scoring issues. On scoring there is some subjectivity with judges but it’s completely outside of game play. This was a major issue with fencing until electronic scoring apparti replaced side judges. Also in some mma, slips and accidental falls do not stop the fight. None of the aforementoned instances, however occur with enough frequency to significantly alter game play like the “bounces” in baseball or other team sports.
I would think weight class is a form of parity. That’s a serious physical limit. Excludes heavy weights to a certain extent as the upper limit is unbound. Some mma federations don’t have weight class like K-1 but for the more part, excluding weapon sports, weight class is the norm.
Baseball takes great skill to perform but the many of the outcomes are effected by chance more so than other sports. The question is, in a short series to what degree can players exert influence over variation.
I can completely understand why football gets so much more media attention, I mean this Monday Night Football game has more intrigue and drama than both LCS games combined.
I do not post the right way.
And yellow. Lots of yellow.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Although that was a bitchin’ pass and catch.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Here is the problem as I see it...
’08 — World Series Champions. WOOT!
’09 — NL Champions, lose in WS.
’10 — NL East Champions, lose in NLCS.
’11 — NL East Champions, lose in NLDS.
Things are not heading in the right direction. I see a lot of similarities between this team and the 90s-2000s Braves. Awesome rotation that dominates the regular season, but not enough offense to consistently succeed in the postseason. That team won 14 straight division titles and will be remembered for a legacy of failure in the playoffs. I would prefer not to head down that same road. As much fun as it is to win the division, it falls flat if there isn’t a parade at the end.
I remember them as completely dominant rather than a failure in the playoffs.
by esentman on Oct 10, 2011 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If you’re a Phillies fan, then that’s understandable. I’m sure you prayed on your knees for 13 years praying to God that the Braves would get shit on in the playoffs. But I think a large majority of baseball followers remember that team as a dynasty, not as choke artists.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions
yeahbut
’07 – NL East Champions, lose in NLDS
’08 – World Series Champions, WOOT!
…
’11 – NL East Champions, lose in NLDS
’12 – ???
by taco pal on Oct 10, 2011 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Let’s go El Gatos!
Luxury rap, the Hermes of verses. Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
by Eaglesadvocate on Oct 10, 2011 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions
How about this astute analysis:
The team is back where it was in 2007. Lost the NLDS to a team with Matt Holliday. So, does the team go forward, as it did in 2008, or backward to the pre-2007 days of valiant but unsuccessful attempts to reach the postseason?
All of this downward spiral talk doesn’t have any real bearing on how the team does next year. What happened with the Yankees’ downward trend?
2004 – AL East Champion, lost in ALCS, 4-3
2005 – AL East Champion, lost in ALDS, 3-2
2006 – AL East Champion, lost in ALDS, 3-1
2007 – Wild Card winner, lost in ALDS, 3-1
2008 – 89-73, 6 games behind wild card winner
2009 – World Series Champions
by phillyinportland on Oct 10, 2011 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions
The Braves actually had a very good offense in a number of those seasons.
Also, you’re missing the point of the article.
What caused the Braves to lose in the playoffs so many times?
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions
If I knew that, I’d be a major league GM. While I recognize that the current playoff structure makes it much less than a sure thing that the best team is going to win the WS, I’ve also seen Yankee teams that were clearly the best in the regular season have a great deal of success in the playoffs, to the tune of 4 WS wins in 5 years. To me, that suggests that the Braves had problems with their roster that manifested more in the postseason than the regular season, problems that didn’t manifest for another team equally successful in the regular season but far more successful in the playoffs. My suspicion is that it largely had to do with the bullpen/bench, which are far more important in a short series—problems that this Phillies team also had.
but did the Phillies lose because of their bullpen or bench? They did not… results-wise, they lost because they couldn’t hold a lead with Cliff Lee on the mound and/or they couldn’t score enough runs from their regular lineup
Their regular lineup also had two players who were sufferng through injuries yet couldn’t be replaced because of the weakness of their bench.
you mean Polanco, I assume, and… Howard? Do teams normally have someone just sitting around to replace their biggest power threat?
I recognize that there is no way Howard could possibly have been replaced, except in the case where he was absolutely unable to play. But Polanco gave the Phillies pretty much zilch. If they had anyone on the bench who was decent, he would have been replaced.
You know what they call decent bench players? Starters for other teams.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Certainly seems like the Cardinals managed to shuffle pieces in and out of their lineup successfully.
False. The Cardinals bench got one hit in the NLDS, and that was Skip Schumaker in Game 2. And in his only start, he went 1-2 with the killer RBI in Game 5 before being replaced by Jay, who went hitless. None of the other replacements or pinch-hitters recorded a hit.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah, I don’t get how bench players can be considered a commodity that contributes to a win. I mean sure they help but if a team has good bench players it’s because their starting lineup is better. It’s not like when the Phillies acquired Ben Francisco they were thinking “he’s not good enough to be an everyday player, but I just KNOW he’ll be able to hit a pinch hit homer in the playoffs”
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions
See, I have to disagree. I don’t think there’s any one problem that’s more likely to manifest itself in a few short series than a 162-game season. If the Braves were having significant problems that were magnified by the playoffs, it seems unlikely they would have ever gotten there in the first place.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions
’08 — World Series Champions. WOOT!
’09 — NL Champions, lose in WS.
’10 — NL East Champions, lose in NLCS.
’11 — NL East Champions, lose in NLDS.
The way I look at it, that’s pretty good. Given 8 years in the playoffs and home field advantage as well as being a better than average playoff team, a team could expect about the following outcomes:
NLDS – 4-5 wins; 3-4 losses
NLCS – if 4, then 2 to 3 wins; 1 to 2 losses; if 5, then 3 wins, 2 losses
WS – if 2, 1 win, 1 loss; if 3, 1 to 2 wins, 1 to 2 losses
So the Phils are doing pretty well at this point of their 5 playoffs-in-a-row stretch.
by David S. Cohen on Oct 10, 2011 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I will suggest that fans DO remember teams that are great in the regular season, yet fail to win in the playoffs.
The Mariners 116-win season is mentioned quite frequently. The Braves run of division titles with only 1 World Series win. The mid-late 90s Cleveland Indians powerhouse. Etc, etc.
Truly great teams stick in your head. This 2011 Phillies team certainly fits the bill.
How do most people remember the 2004 St. Louis Cardinals?
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Exactly. How many people remember that team went 105-57 in the regular season?
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
There is still plenty of time for them to be remembered as one of the many excellent teams the Phillies had during a long run of playoff appearances. They could be a team in between champions, kind of like some of those Orioles teams that kept getting beaten in the playoffs in the 1970s. Or, they could be like the 1998 Atlanta Braves. That team won the most of any team in that 14-year run (106) and it was three years after their only World Series title. Among great teams, the 1998 Braves don’t get much mention except for the number of wins they had.
by phillyinportland on Oct 10, 2011 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions
In other news, the first two weeks of the NBA season was just cancelled. This just sucks.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 10:02 PM EDT reply actions
Bryzgalov already got his first Flyer shutout.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Didn’t they lose nearly half a season back in ‘98-’99? If it comes to that, they’ll figure something out, otherwise it will be like that year there was no NHL. Strange, but it came back eventually.
by phillyinportland on Oct 10, 2011 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah they did. Combined with the loss of Michael Jordan it completely killed any interest in the NBA for a while and the sport still hasn’t returned to their 90’s or even 80’s interest levels.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions
but on the bright side, the University of Kentucky Wildcats are now the highest paid team in basketball.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
They won 102 games this year and got into the playoffs. Why change that approach?
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Blockquoting fail
It’s pretty obvious that they’ve been relaxed during this entire era, with a business like attitude. Maybe it’s time for someone to get pissed off?
They won 102 games this year and got into the playoffs. Why change that approach?
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I’m not going to fall into the trap and say they haven’t shown enough fire or any of that bullshit because I don’t believe that anyone hasn’t been putting forth anything but their best.
The Jruth shall be told.
You seem to want the Phillies to change their approach. When the object in a sport like baseball is to get into the crapshoot playoffs, why should the Phillies change their approach from a 102 win season that got them best in the league, best in the majors, and most importantly in the playoffs for the fifth straight year? Now there will be the given personnel changes, but as a collective unit, why change the constant you know is working?
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I really don’t want them to change their approach because I believe they enough offense to get them through the regular season with the efficiency of their starting pitching. I expect them to be in the exact same position next year, and I expect them to come through next year when it matters most.
The Jruth shall be told.
I suppose the crux of this discussion is the thought that the Phillies players can play better in clutch situations or when it matters most. When in reality they can’t exactly choose when they have bad games and slump or when they get hot.
Luxury rap, the Hermes of verses. Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
by Eaglesadvocate on Oct 10, 2011 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, when a player like RyHo repeatedly fails in the same situation against lefties that’s pretty damn measurable.
The Jruth shall be told.
I agree. He is measurably not so good against lefties. But that’s different than playing poorly in the clutch. He struggles against lefties whether the Phillies are up 8 in the 7th of a game in March, or down 1 in the bottom of the 9th in a playoff game.
Luxury rap, the Hermes of verses. Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
by Eaglesadvocate on Oct 10, 2011 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would actually argue the Phillies were hurt in the NLDS because they were playing pissed off. Their baserunning errors, first pitch swinging, and bad throwing decisions reeked of a team that was trying to be too aggressive when rationale would say to let the game come to you.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Great point. Also, if we’re assigning blame as a vehicle for fleshing out ideas to make the Phillies better, shouldn’t some of the blame fall on the hitting coach for the first pitch swinging and maybe the base coaches for the baserunning error?
I don’t know how much a hitting coach could do, but it seems like someone should have gone up to Howard and told him he needed to approach his AB’s differently.
Luxury rap, the Hermes of verses. Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
by Eaglesadvocate on Oct 10, 2011 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I do think this explains Utley’s base-running. It must be said though, it looks like I am signaling out Utley for some “mistakes,” but he had an absolutely fantastic series.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
An on-base machine, exactly what we needed.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions
What this all comes down to is the whole idea of “clutchness.” packimop is mad because the Phillies didn’t perform when it “counted,” even though for the most part they didn’t make mental errors, or lack effort, or exhibit any character flaws. But we know that there’s very little evidence that clutchness even exists in baseball. And that’s really what this entire debate comes down to.
That’s true, and it just so happened that the Philles weren’t clutch this year. Is that because RyHo can’t hit lefties? Maybe. Is that because Pence and Polly were injured? Maybe (most likely in the case of Polly). They just didn’t perform the last two years when it mattered most, and it sucks. I wish they wouldn’t have made those physical mistakes, because they had the Cardinals exactly where they wanted them in game 2 and game 6.
Some of it was due to umps, some of it was due to poor performance, and some of it was due to luck.
The Jruth shall be told.
I disagree with you on the notion of clutch, and I’ll give you an example. Ryan Howard strolls to the plate and hits a solo home run. 1-0. Phillies win . Sounds clutch, right? What if I told you that this happened in the second inning? Doesn’t seem so clutch anymore, even though it was the difference in the game. “Clutch” is a matter of perspective. Two identical events with identical results can seem totally different because of context.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I define clutch when it’s winning time. Any home run in the playoffs is clutch. Any big RBI hit in the playoffs it clutch, it really doesn’t matter what inning it’s in.
The Jruth shall be told.
Well come on now, when’s it not winning time?
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
When the Eagles are playing.
ba dum ching
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions
So Scott Hatterberg must be really clutch? His OPS of 2.000 in the ’99 ALDS speaks for itself?
by Phrozen on Oct 10, 2011 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
They just didn’t perform the last two years when it mattered most,
Again, your obvious intellectual limitations prevent you from recognizing that the entire point of this post was to unsettle the very notion that the playoffs are viewed as “when it matters most.”
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
by FuquaManuel on Oct 10, 2011 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
This has been the foundation of every moronic thing you have said today. You think there is some sustainability to clutch. That clutch is a skill players and/or teams possess or don’t possess. That baseball players can play better than their normal peripherals in October or during in-game high leverage situations or in any set of (month of September, runners in RISP, etc.). And I hate to break it to you, but there is no evidence that such a skill exists. In fact, the evidence suggests quite the opposite. Clutch is a skill that does NOT exist.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Interesting point by Bobby Valentine (yes I really just said that) on the radio. In Japan Baseball they have a Wild Card but the WC team enters the playoffs with a loss. So in Game 1 the Wild Card team would be down 1-0 in the series. It would be interesting to see how such a system would play out in the MLB.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 10:37 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I’ve thought that before and think the idea makes a ton of sense.
by David S. Cohen on Oct 10, 2011 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
The more I think about it the more I like it. The way the playoffs are now the Wild Card team is essentially treated like a Division winner (with the exception of not having HFA, which isn’t really that big of a deal). So this would put more emphasis on winning a Division. Sure they would be losing a game of playoff revenue, but that could be offset by making the LDS a best of seven affair, which is something I think they should do anyway.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Should they give the loss to the team with the worst record, rather than the wild card? Just throwing it out there.
Nah I still say Wild Card. Because even if a team had the worst record in a weak division they did still “win” their division.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
SB worst record in the playoffs.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
…Too easy.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Speaking of soft chokers, Bryce Harper is currently 0-15 in the AFL
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 11:08 PM EDT reply actions
I can’t wait to find out who he’ll be traded for….
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Or a veteran shortstop to take Rollins’ place. Because that will give us more flexibility! /rubenspeak
by taco pal on Oct 10, 2011 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes! Please let it happen. Then I’ll be all like “suck on that, haters!” and they’ll be like “no way” and I’ll be like “way”
I’ve lost a lot of faith in the organization when it comes to producing prospects for the Phillies. Not that the organization isn’t producing a lot of great players it is, but it seems like any time a decent prospect pops up in the organization Amaro’s first thought is “ohhh what can I get for him in a trade?”
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s really aggravating. That’s exactly how they got into the 15-year mess in the mid-’80s!
by taco pal on Oct 10, 2011 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
yeah, I’m sincerely worried that’s going to happen again. I realize the team has a lot more steady revenue stream than it did in the 80’s and 90’s but that doesn’t mean the team won’t be left holding a lot of big contracts of underperforming veterans.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions
That absolutely terrified me when that happened. I hope it stemmed more from dissatisfaction with the unchecked willingness to trade prospects for “established” players, instead of a dissatisfaction with how prospects are being developed.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 11, 2011 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions
475 comments? What in the world happened here?
by philsandthrills on Oct 10, 2011 11:15 PM EDT reply actions
packimop happened.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Why? The merits of “being soft” and “being hard” were thoroughly examined.
And rational thinking. But I was not going to miss a chance for an awesome double entendre.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Stupid fucking troll.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
by FuquaManuel on Oct 10, 2011 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions
If only LeQuan Glover decided to join in
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Bilzo?
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
by FuquaManuel on Oct 10, 2011 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Spoiler alert as you read through the comments:
Packinmop doesn’t resort to homophobic slurs and get himself banned. I just don’t want to you to be disappointed with the outcome of the thread.
Luxury rap, the Hermes of verses. Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
by Eaglesadvocate on Oct 10, 2011 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I forget the username, but I’m pretty sure that happened just a month or two ago. I forget what he was initially trolling about, but I remember there being a TON of pony pictures in that thread.
Luxury rap, the Hermes of verses. Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
by Eaglesadvocate on Oct 10, 2011 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah that was kind of interesting to see play out. The guys was pretty much normal trolling and then totally snapped. I kind of thought that was where this was headed tonight, but cooler heads prevailed.
Luxury rap, the Hermes of verses. Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
by Eaglesadvocate on Oct 10, 2011 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions
That was some of the most fun I’ve ever had.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I must admit, I’m not a fan of the “Haters gonna hate” ponies. I feel like that response just hijacks a thread even more.
Luxury rap, the Hermes of verses. Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
by Eaglesadvocate on Oct 10, 2011 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions
To that I say...
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Suppose I asked for that.
Luxury rap, the Hermes of verses. Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
by Eaglesadvocate on Oct 10, 2011 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh yeah? well
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Guess what?
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions
well in that case
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Holy fuck, that is terrifying.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions
You win.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I still contend that guy was simply trying to see how quickly he could get banned.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Pujols has an OPS of 2.022 tonight.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 11:23 PM EDT reply actions
Can we talk about that? Does anyone believe that Albert Pujols will not sign with the Cardinals? And what about Prince? Does he stay in Milwaukee if they advance to/win the World Series? Or is he gone no matter what? Where do the Cubs fit into this? I know for damn sure they won’t re-sign Pena.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmm
I think Fielder is gone; he’s said as much.
I think Pujols resigns – but for Alex Rogriguez+ money.
Why would Prince want Alex Rodriguez and money? Wouldn’t he just want the cash?
by Phrozen on Oct 11, 2011 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
He wants a-rod ? Some people like broccoli, some people dont’. There is more ways to keep a man happy than money. Maybe Pujols could use a-rod to keep him happy… uncharted waters… Dirty waters might agree.
Probably get banned for this.
I come in peace. Neutrality is my thing.
Barry Sanders is better than Deion Sanders.
Hard to imagine Pujols resigning this soon. It’s not like he’s facing a scandal or anything. If he has ambitions beyond state office then he’ll want to show voters that he is committed to his work.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
by FuquaManuel on Oct 11, 2011 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions
So, uh, Edwin Jackson…pretty good tonight, yeah?
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
You get a rec! You get a rec! You get a rec! Everybody gets RECS!!
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions
LaRussa once again makes a genius move by putting in Motte. Just in case the Brewers successfully execute their ten run play.
I do not post the right way.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Oct 10, 2011 11:38 PM EDT reply actions
Fuck, I remember that. They pulled it out twice against the Pirates last year…in the same game!
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Oct 10, 2011 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s a few days old now, but here’s a post on The Book blog with an interesting discussion of Utley’s “baserunning error.” Having thought about it a bit more I think I agree that it was a sound decision.
by Spoilt Victorian Child on Oct 11, 2011 12:01 AM EDT reply actions
Fuck the Cardinals...
that is all.
I come in peace. Neutrality is my thing.
Barry Sanders is better than Deion Sanders.
Jeez with all this bickering damn... thanks guys our mascot have committed suicide
Sixer Rabbit is also a casualty… he was found in a back alley because no one cared about him May our 2011 Philly mascots rest in peace. Big shot wants another shot to be the man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbRdHXt3LTI
Talk about a poor man Philly Phanatic…
I come in peace. Neutrality is my thing.
Barry Sanders is better than Deion Sanders.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Good Phight
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
St. Louis Cardinals
Friday, May 25, 2012, 8:15 PM EDT
Busch Stadium
Clear. Winds blowing from right to left field at 5-15 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 90.
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
