Opening Statements

by dajafi on Mar 10, 2007 3:11 PM EST in News Comment 14 comments

Everybody knows the Phillies have been lousy to start the season over the last few years, with losing records the last three Aprils and records around or below .500 through the first half. It was partially in recognition of this that Pat Gililck made the various coaching changes of last November--there was a sense that the team "wasn't ready to start the season," and Jimy Williams and Davey Lopes are there, in large part, to make sure that the whip is sufficiently cracked in Clearwater this spring.

But as we've detailed in various pieces since TGP launched during the 2005 season, another problem--one that long predates Charlie Manuel and Pat Gillick--has been that the team tends to make bad personnel decisions early, and then wait way too long to fix them. David Bell killed the Phillies in 2005 (and 2003), but he didn't have to; there were other options. Ditto Rheal Cormier that same year, and Arthur Rhodes last year. And the bench has been a running sore since Manuel replaced Larry Bowa, with dozens of pinch-hit at-bats wasted on the likes of Tomas Perez ('05) and Abraham Nunez ('06) while better players rotted away in Scranton or on the waiver wire.

Part of the problem lies with Manuel himself. Baseball Prospectus, in an otherwise largely positive write-up in this year's annual publication, said of Cholly:

[T]he downside to the "let `em play" approach is that... on a flawed team such as the Phillies, it can seem like drift. Manuel uses fewer lineups than any manager in baseball, picking one batting order and staying with it... The Phillies bullpen has been a constant sore spot; as with his lineups, Manuel establishes pitchers in roles and then leaves them there whether they're performing or not.

The optimism surrounding the 2007 Phillies has to do with their core, the guys who, barring injury or the unforeseen, have clearly set roles and are very likely to perform them well. The concern is around the murky stuff: who's in the bullpen, with what roles, and how playing time will be divvied up at third base, catcher, and two outfield spots. And some of the rumblings coming out of Florida provide new cause for concern.

Trade rumors continue to swirl around spare starting pitcher Jon Lieber and high-energy centerfielder Aaron Rowand, most recently the notion of Rowand returning to the White Sox in exchange for relief help. The assumption has been that if Rowand were dealt, the Phils would then move Shane Victorino from right field to center and swap Lieber for an outfielder to play right. But according to Delco Times beat writer Dennis Deitch, this is no longer necessarily the plan:

Part of the reason the Phillies consider Rowand expendable is the emergence of corner infielder/outfielder Greg Dobbs this spring. Dobbs, the waiver-wire find who has been scorching the ball in the Grapefruit League, played in both left and right field in Thursday's "B" game, and was back in left field for the late innings Friday. (He also slammed an RBI double off the fence during the Phils' four-run ninth.) If Dobbs continues to prove himself worthy of playing time, a Rowand trade would allow Manuel to move Shane Victorino to center field and platoon Dobbs and Jayson Werth in right field.

This is, to use the technical term, freakin' nuts. I've enjoyed watching Dobbs emerge this spring; how could you not? I think his versatility and reasonably serviceable bat makes him a good 25th man option. But there is nothing--nothing--in his professional background to suggest that he's ready to play a corner outfield position for a contending team. In more than 1700 minor-league at-bats, he's posted a career line of .307/.360/.456, with a grand total of 47 home runs. Last year with Seattle's triple-A Tacoma affiliate, he actually had a small reverse split, posting an .847 OPS (.295/.336/.505) against his fellow lefties compared to .813 (0.319/.388/.425) facing right-handers. PECOTA's weighted mean projection for Dobbs in 2007 is .274/.318/.415--again, fine for a bench bat, abysmal for a corner outfielder likely to get 400 plate appearances.

There's some concern about the bullpen as well: Rule V selections Alfredo Simon and Jim Ed Warden have gotten mashed in Grapefruit League action, and lefty Matt Smith was bludgeoned by the Red Sox on Friday. Three spots are open, and it's unclear whether the Phils are willing to let talented youngsters Fabio Castro and Joe Bisenius begin the year in two of them. (It's also debatable whether they should do so, given how little action the last relievers tend to see; Castro in particular might have more value as a potential mid-season rotation callup.)

At both catcher and third base, the offseason competitions set up between Rod Barajas and Carlos Ruiz and Wes Helms and Nunez respectively continue apace, with the new additions seemingly a bit ahead. Honestly, I'm not nearly as worried about either of those; unlike Bell and Mike Lieberthal, the long-time, pricy previous incumbents, I don't think Manuel would have much reluctance moving aside whoever wins out of spring training if they don't perform, and I'm also not sure there's that much to choose from, at least in the catcher competition. (Ruiz can be a slow starter offensively, and I have more confidence right now in Barajas' ability to handle the staff.) But if past form holds, at least a few of whatever bad decisions the Phillies make in March are likely to continue plaguing them through June or July. After so many infuriating near-misses, and with quality opposition in Queens and Georgia, it's impossible to overstate the importance of making the right calls before the team comes north to play the games that count.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Opening Statements

Jeff,

You've got to wonder if bringing in Lopes and Wiiliams was a way to address this big Manuel problem. I've always contended that Manuel's problem as a manager isn't the stupid and over rated double switch and in game decisions but rather his handling of the pitching staff. Add the bench to that and I think that's the thing in a nutshell.

You (and BP) have pretty well described the reason the Phils have just missed each of the last several years.

by smitty on Mar 10, 2007 3:54 PM EST reply actions

the coaches

I think that's right in part, but I have this unhappy feeling that their portfolio (Jimy's in particular) will be more limited to the in-game stuff than bigger questions of how to utilize the resources on the 25- and 40-man roster. Presumably that's already been subject to considerable input from Gillick, and Wade before him.

There's nothing wrong with making bad calls; it's inevitable. The Phils' problem is that they take too long to fix them. Remember a couple years back when the Braves began the season with Raul Mondesi and Brian Jordan in the outfield corners? Cox had them both getting splinters by mid-May, IIRC. How long would Cholly have taken to figure out that both guys were cooked?

I certainly hope you're right, and maybe it's my Negadelphian id at play here, but I probably won't believe it until I see it.

by dajafi on Mar 10, 2007 4:20 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Opening Statements

Good points. In some ways Gillick moves like lightning though. The Thome trade was one of them.

And last year the team went from fire-sale, out of contention mode to getting good vets for the stretch drive mode in a very short time. How many teams have done that in MLB history.

What they need to get good at is identifying the guys who will help them win regardless of salary and get them in there playing.

Alfonseca, Nunez, Rowand and Barajas are all potentially guys who will be put in roles they just aren't capable of doing well. I guess Moyer, Werth and Helms -- maybe even Dobbs -- might also be in that category. I think we would all do well to pay very close attention to how many April/May games are thrown away by sticking with guys who just aren't any good.

by smitty on Mar 10, 2007 4:33 PM EST reply actions

Re: Opening Statements

Impressive post. Very well thought out. The bullpen and outfield are going to be sore spots until they get fixed, but regardless of what they do, they are going to have to take a chance somewhere. I would prefer to be thin in the outfield than in the bullpen. I agree, relying on Dobbs at this point is ridiculous, but if you would have told me that stiff Endy Chavez would fill in so nicely for the Mets, I would have thought you were nuts. Like most contenders/winnrs, they are going to need some surprises to step up in the bullpen and the outfield/bench. If they can trade Lieber and/or Rowand for one or two established relievers, I would do it. Add a solid bullpen to this rotation with guys like Rollins, Utley and Howard in the lineup, and you have to believe they would be on their way. The Phils had great success in '93 with a double platoon in the outfield of Thompson/Incaviglia and Chamberlain/Eisenreich, so there is some precedent here. Granted, Dobbs and Werth do not have nearly the pedigree of the aforementioned four, but you never know. I'm reluctant to give away Rowand for a reliever, unless it is someone with a solid track record. Although with relievers, they tend to be year to year unless they are closers. Soriano and Rodriguez have looked terrible in Atlanta's camp. Who knows?

by delb3175 on Mar 10, 2007 10:54 PM EST reply actions

Re: Opening Statements

You are 100% correct and even missed the #1 example, the early death of the 2005 season playing an injured Thome and the Z-boys instead of Ryan Howard. Thome got about 200 AB with about a .200 BA and .712 OPS, while obviously injured the whole time. Tomas got 159 AB with less than a .600 OPS and got to play 1B for Thome in interleague play and when Thome rested. Howard of the .922 OPS is limited to half a season of 302 AB. Add in Utley missing 100 AB and Polanco shipped out of town in furtherance of the David Bell vet worship, and the season was lost. That the team came as close as it did is testament to the very high level of talent in place.

We have had too many recent seasons when lousy management decisions have trumped superior talent.

by allentown on Mar 11, 2007 12:22 PM EDT reply actions

DH/Z-boys

Absolutely. I did think of it, but the piece was already pretty long, and there was some element of bad luck/bad timing: Howard went something like 1 for 20 in his first callup, and might have been sent back down right before the team played those AL road games. Still, there were certainly better options (heck, Pratt or whoever wasn't in CF would have been vastly better choices).

I'd like to think that with a pretty unambiguous "win or find another job" mandate, Manuel will be quicker on the trigger this year, but we'll see.

by dajafi on Mar 11, 2007 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Opening Statements

It's worth remembering that a quick trigger finger isn't always a good thing either. (1) Because you might pull a good player who is just slumping. And (2) Because it's possible that all of your players might play somewhat worse than they otherwise would have, if they feel like they're playing in an environment of unnecessary pressure.

It's easy to look back on the last several years and pick out all of the bad decisions in which guys were wrongly left in the lineup/rotation. But that is called "selection bias," and it isn't the correct way of looking at things. It would be more accurate to look at every guy who played poorly for a certain number of games under Manuel, and then compare those who later bounced back to those who ended up having to be pulled eventually anyway. Then measure the gains from the first group against the damage caused by the second group.

Obviously, the ideal solution would be to have a manager who's always able to identify with perfect accuracy which slumping guys are just slumping and which slumping guys are cooked. But it doesn't work that way, because people can't see into the future. What you need to do is set an across-the-board policy - you stick with every slumping player for X number of games, or you bench every slumping player after Y number of games. Even if you follow the right policy, you'll still get the wrong outcome in a certain number of cases. But you need to look at the wrong outcomes that don't happen as well as the wrong outcomes that do happen.

By its own nature, taking too long to bench people will nearly always look worse than benching people to early. That's because if you bench people too early, you'll usually never see the proof that you were wrong because, well, it's sitting on the bench. But just because it looks worse doesn't mean it really is worse.

by taco pal on Mar 12, 2007 12:52 AM EDT reply actions

Re: Opening Statements

You're right, and there's no question that figuring out when to pull the ripcord on a player is more art than science.

Still, I think there's a big difference between, say, sticking with Jimmy Rollins in the leadoff spot or staying with Cole Hamels when he puts up a 6 ERA in his first 10 big-league starts, and continually sending David Bell up there to make outs and pinch-hitting Tomas Perez again and again. Track record and talent and normal patterns of player development favor sticking with guys like Rollins and Hamels; nothing, aside maybe from contracts, justified staying with Perez and Bell and Arthur Rhodes.

by dajafi on Mar 12, 2007 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Opening Statements

True, but there is a huge difference between slumping but in good health and performing lousy while injured. In the first case, the vet may play out of it quickly, in the second case, rest is needed to heal the injury and you can pretty much count on rotten performance until the injury problem is resolved. A short try at playing through an injury is warranted to see whether or not the injury is hurting performance. After the first 50 or 100 sucky AB, I'd say the answer is in. To let Thome go 200 AB and not to sit him until he personally said he was too hurt to play is inexcusable.

by allentown on Mar 12, 2007 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Opening Statements

Sure, it's very complicated. That's all I'm saying too. Every situation is different.

by taco pal on Mar 12, 2007 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Opening Statements

I think the number one problem facing the Phillies is Manuel. I know that he is popular with the players and has helped hitters like Utley and Howard, but he is essentially a bench coach. Do you think that if Jim Leyland was managing the Phils last year that they would have missed the playoffs?
You talked about the Phillies sticking with problem players for too long. I think they have stuck with a problem manager for too long. Manuel must go...especially if they have another 10-14 April.

Great blog btw...want to exchange links?

www.vonhayes.blogspot.com

McD

by vonhayes on Mar 12, 2007 8:59 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Opening Statements

I think you vastly underestimate Charlie Manuel.

Most managers have their strengths and weaknesses. No question, Cholly isn't the second coming of Gene Mauch with the in-game moves. And he's made some bad calls as far as getting value out of his non-stars. But he's mostly gotten good performances out of his core guys in his two seasons, and he's universally acknowledged as a great teacher of hitting.

The idea behind getting Williams as bench coach presumably is to help him with those areas of weakness. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but the Phillies clearly see some value in what he brings to the job, and I think in this instance they're right.

(That said, if they're below .500 on June 1, he's probably gone.)

by dajafi on Mar 12, 2007 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Bring Back Bowa!!!

Bowa, the only Phillie who was truly born to bleed Phillies' red..., was prematurely blamed for the lack of heart in such guys as Abreu, Lieberthal, and Burrell... now that 2 out of 3 of those crybabies are gone, I say we bring back Larry. he was fun to watch... it is not often you get a manager with that much passion...

he and vuke were the best team.

"Hit it where they ain't"
Phillies Chronicles

by klkatz on Mar 12, 2007 10:55 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Bring Back Bowa!!!

I'm not sure there's a single word in this post that contains a thought that most of the people associated with this blog would agree with. (Or just end that sentence with "thought.")

Maybe this was a (not so successful) attempt at sarcasm?

by David S. Cohen on Mar 12, 2007 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions