Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Friday: Baseball world gives Classic a second chance | Main | Monday: Snuffing out the next Phillies surprise »

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Comments

From last thread: cj said "He did this in a different era... where 50 HRs in a season was extremely rare. Ryan Howard is amazing... but he's not 1/10th the slugger Michael Jack Schmidt was just yet."

Just plain silly. Ryan Howard has just had 3 straight seasons that were as good as Mike Shmidt's best season. Ryan Howards '06 was obliterates Schmidts '80 season. I wouldnt argue with you if you just said bacause of longevity, Schmidt is better. But to say Howard is not 1/10th the slugger of Scmidt is plain stupid. And I watched the last 11 years of Schmidts carreer, so Ive seen both playera at their peaks.

Coste to the Orioles wouldn't surprise me. They're looking for a veteran catcher to try and mentor Matt Wieters, the top prospect in baseball and their everyday catcher probably as soon as midseason this year. They could do worse than Coste.

ae said, "five players better than Howard on the 2008 Phillies: Utley, Rollins, Hamels, Lidge, Moyer"

Jaime Moyer is better than Ryan Howard... I'm speechless.

In that world I guess Kyle Loshe is better than Albert Puljos... Jeff Suppan is better than Cecil Fielder... Niese is better than Delgado...

Baseball Prospectus would tell you that Howard was the 9th best player on the Phillies last season, all things considered.

Coste would be an excellent pick up for the O's to tutor Wieter. After all the Phils picked up the great Paulino to back up or even to replace Ruiz. In the Asbury Park Press back on Oct 21st, Lou Marson was quoted in full praise of Coste during his call up.
“”It’s been a crazy year for me,” Marson said. He said he’s trying to learn big league nuances from catchers from Ruiz and Chris Coste. “”Especially Coste,” Marson said. “”That’s (learning) what I’m there for. Everyone has been great to me.
http://blogs.app.com/blueclaws/2008/10/


"Ryan Howard has just had 3 straight seasons that were as good as Mike Shmidt's best season"

False.

Howard

06: .313/.425/.659 - 167 OPS+, 58-149
07: .268/.392/.584 - 144 OPS+, 47-136
08: .251/.339/.543 - 124 OPS+, 48-146

MJS

Best (1981): .286/.380/.624 - 171 OPS+, 48-121

Schmidt had 13 seasons with OPS+ at or greater than 142. He had 11 at or greater than 149. Not to mention that Schmidt was a career .880 hitter against RHP. Not sure he ever hit as low as .224/.294/.451 against a mismatch.

This place has been overrun with fools of late.

Baseball prospectus may have him 9th best, but Howard led the Phillies in 'Hitting Win Shares'.

Can you imagine if Howard just had 3 straight seasons as good as Schmidt's best? That would be 3 straight 2006's (even a bit better since everyone knows 167 < 171.) Howard had a .923 OPS against LHP in 2006! He hit .355/.509/.751 in the second half!

My understanding is that Howard had the ninth best 2008 on the Phils. That does not mean he's the "ninth best" on the team. Time will tell. But Schmidt was pretty amazing.

P.S. Pass on Turnbow. Who would the Orioles give us - Cash Konsidrasian?

How about Luis Montanez;, 26, RH bat, utility guy, plays all 3 OFs and middle IF, contact hitter. Not spectacular, but once was a 1st round pick.

I like Coste and appreciate everything he's done for this club, as I'm sure he appreciates everything this club has done for him, but it's time to move on. Paulino is on board now and Marson is almost ready, if not already ready. Trade Coste so he can get playing time and see if we can get a mid-level minor league prospect in return.

Howard as the 5th or 6th best Phillie this year is not a ridiculous concept. The guy was terrible for the first half of the season and only had a .339 OBP the whole season, which is about average for all players, and really bad for a cleanup hitting 1st baseman. I would definitely agree that Hamels, Utley, Lidge, Rollins and Moyer all contributed more this year than Howard did. That doesn't mean they are all better players than Howard, it just means that for one season, they contributed more value and production. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

I would consider Howard, Burrell, Victorino and Werth to all be pretty close in their contributions as well. The defense and baserunning of both Shane and Werth were big. Werth had a fine season. 20-20 guy, .363 OBP, very good defense. That's a nice player to have.

I am a believer in the adage that you can never have too much pitching, but the bullpen appears to be in pretty good shape right now.

I always cheered for Coste. He is a great story, but we are fairly deep at the position right now, and if we can trade him while he still has some value left it'd be a good move. Not as up on the Os as I used to be. Anyone know if they have anything that we'd want? (Within reason)

Coste (and perhaps a minor league filler) for Costanzo?

I don't want Turnbow unless its a minor league deal.

Andy: "My understanding is that Howard had the ninth best 2008 on the Phils. That does not mean he's the "ninth best" on the team."

You beat me to it. I doubt even Dave X believes that Howard is the 9th best player on the Phillies, although it wouldn't surpirse me if he did.

A shopping hint for my relatives or anyone else. Sams Club in Reading has The Perfect Season & the Ashburn DVD's for 13.88 each.

Since this is our open weekend thread, some pointless speculation..

I'm not sure why, and I've never really given it a lot of thought, but I think I'd like to see the Phillies trade Howard. Does anyone have thoughts along these lines?

Coste makes a lot of sense for the Orioles, but there are nuemrous other options. If a trade did happen, I cannot imagine anything more than minor-league filler in return.

Lazarus: For who? C.J. Henry?

That he does make a lot of sense for the Os makes me think that they might be able to talk their way up to a prospect with some potential. I just have no idea what's in the Baltimore system. It's the one team that we could actually sell high with Coste.

The only obvious missing piece from the Phillies right now is a right-handed outfielder with a good bat. Obviously, they could use upgrades at various spots, but that won't happen. They do, however, need a right-handed bat off the bench as 4th outfielder.

Lazarus: If the O's GM had a lobotomy and was drunk that might work.

Clout it is more in the way of speculation that given the salary that Howard is going to consistently require that the money might be spent more judiciously. I love watching him tear the cover off of the ball, but as his arbitration rewards start to approach 14-16 per, I can't help but think about the kind of SP we could land for that money.

Given the state of the Os they just might be clout.

Laz:
Trade Howard for a good young starter & a good-hit, good-glove 3B. Re-sign Burrell for 1B.

With JW's report on the MASN story a bout the Orioles speaking with the Phillies about Chris Coste, it seems that either last week's interest by the Florida Marlins in Coste has cooled, or the Phillies would rather not deal inside the division to Florida if they could trade Coste elsewhere -- particularly to the American League.

For stories on the Marlins' interest in Coste, see the South Florida Sun Sentinel: [http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/baseball/marlins/sfl-flspmarnot1211sbdec11,0,5147805.story]
"Meanwhile, the Marlins could pursue Phillies backup Chris Coste after Philadelphia traded a catching prospect for Pirates catcher Ronny Paulino. Coste, 35, didn't reach the majors until 2006, but his surprisingly productive bat fits the mold of a low-cost, right-handed hitting complement to starter John Baker."
Also Todd Zolecki's blog post in the Inquirer:
[http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillies_zone/36227784.html]

"The Florida Marlins have some interest in Coste, which is worth watching."

Happy Holidays all.

mikes77: CJ's entire point was that you can't just compare Schmidt and Howard's stats side-by-side, because Schmidt played in an era of big parks, when 50 homeruns was an exceedingly rare accomplishment. You responded by saying that Howard's stats over the last three years have been better than Schmdit's. As sophist points out, your assertion is false. But even if it were true, it would be non-responsive to CJ's point.

If Schmidt played today, he'd be hitting 45 to 50 homeruns every year, just the way Howard does. The difference is, Schmidt also played Gold Glove defense, drew 100 walks every year, and once stole 29 bases in a season.

but BAP.. I thought walks were bad.. ;)

re: most important Phils

I know a win in April counts the same as a win in September in the standings, but you've got be completely blind to discount Howard's monsterous finish to the season as nothing more than a hotstreak. The guy turns into one of the best hitters in the league every pennant race hes been in - i doubt its a coincidence.

How many players had 50 HRs during Schmidt's career?

I think it's only one...

George Foster, 52, 1977

Right when he was heading out is when the HR numbers started creeping up. But I think his 48 Hr season at least tied the second highest total HR number during his career.

How many gold gloves will Ryan Howard win? S

eff: how many ppl have hit more homeruns than Ryan Howard during his career? 0.

Walks are never a bad thing, as the alternative to a walk is to swing at pitches out of the strike zone. But Bap has correctly noted in past posts, you don't sign the big bats to get walks.

"CJ's entire point was that you can't just compare Schmidt and Howard's stats side-by-side,"

That's correct, and CJ's correct on the whole, although I do think he exaggerates. Howard isn't 1/10th the player Schmidt was? It seems Schmidt could walk, defend and run the bases better than Howard can. They seem about equally good at hitting home runs (although Howard's stronger). So the proper fraction is more like 1/4th.

BAP, you missed my point. Cj saying that Howard isnt 1/10th the slugger that Mike Schmidt is hyperbole at it best. As sophist pointed out, Schmidts best year was in a strike shortened '81 at 171 OPS+. Howard in full season '06 had a 167. How is that 1/10th the SLUGGER that Schmidt was.

I NEVER said Howard was a better PLAYER than Schmidt. That would be ludicrous. But, Howard IS the equal of Schmidt as a slugger, if not better... Ryan Howard is Willie McCovey or Willie Stargell, Hall of famers. Reading this blog, you would think Howard was some run of the mill bumb...

Btw, Baseball was played differently in the 70s. The swings werent as big. More emphasis on contact. There might be 3 guys in the whole league who would strike out 130 times back then. Now every team has 3 guys who strike out that much. The game is built for HRs now.

Let's not run Howard into the ground. He's more than 1/4 of Schmidt. But this is an important year for him. His 2008 produced the overall equivalent numbers of a normal slugger -- Pat Burrell, for instance. But his 2007 was a big step above that, and his rookie year approached Schmidt at his best.

But it has become obvious that left-handers can get him out with breaking stuff inside if they can get him to 2 strikes. If he can't solve that riddle, I question whether he'll even get to the 145-level OPS+ of 2007.

Alby said, "Howards 2008 produced numbers equivalent to normal sluggers like Pat Burrell"... What? See thats what I mean. Nonsense...

Alby, Lazerus, CJ, ae, AWH and MG... Pat Burrell is not as good as Ryan Howard. Your dream of Burrell replacing Howard at 1b is not going to happen. He's gone. The Phillies didnt want him. ( And apparently not too many other clubs want him either)...

GET OVER IT.

alby: When Howard is not hitting lefties (or anyone), i think its the high and inside fastball from LHP that ties him up much more than the breaking ball.

Its so hard to say tho, because one month he cant hit any pitch and one month he can hit them all.

mikes77: No one said that Burrell was better than Howard. The assertion was that they had equal offensive seasons. They hit for the same average & had nearly the same OPSs. Burrell had a much better OBP but that was offset by Howard's superior power numbers. All in all, their seasons were pretty close to even. The only thing that Howard's supporters can point to on his behalf are flukey stats like his BA with RISP. But if Howard were such a great clutch hitter, you would figure that he would also have great numbers in the late innings. Yet, in 209 ABs in the 7th through 9th innings, Howard hit an astounding .141, with an OPS+ of 60. Do you think that might have anything to do with the fact that he is completely hapless against left-handed pitching?

Howard is a terrific talent who has proven he has considerably more upside than Burrell. But he also has a critical weakness, which has gotten progressively worse and which allows him to be completely taken out of the game when it matters most. Unless he improves considerably in this area, he cannot lay claim to being one of the elite players in baseball. An elite player has to be capable of delivering in the late innings of tight games. Howard faces nothing but lefties in the late innings and, except for the occasional lucky swing, he can't hit them at all. Unfortunately, with the Raul Ibanez acquisition, I fear he's going to be facing even MORE lefties in the late innings this year.

Can't compare Howard to Schmidt offensively - not yet anyway. In 3 years maybe. Schmitty played in a bigger ballpark in a different era. And I should say probably against better overall pitching. There are too many guys pitching in the Majors right now who probably should be at AA.

One thing about Schmidt, he was the best ALL-AROUND 3rd baseman to EVER play the game. Offensively better than Eddie Matthews and defensive 2nd only to Brooks Robinson.

Howard is a feared slugger in this day and age but I'd take Tony Perez in his prime over him any day.

That's why you can't compare players from different eras. If Ruth had the number of AB's that Aaron had he probably would have hit over 800 HR's, but Ruth played 6 seasons as a starting pitcher. Sometimnes stats don't tell the whole story.

Howard better than Michael Jack?!?

Give me a freaking break people. I'm all for debate but Michael Jack was and is a 1st ballot HoFer and the best player and his position in the history of the game. Howard isn't even the best player at his position in his own league (Pujols). Michael Jack was a better slugger and by far a better defender and overall player.

Oh, and on Turnbow...thanks but no thanks. I'm not a big fan of nutty relievers. That guy has a long long track record of being a kook.

NEPP:
Tug McGraw?

Yeah, but Tugger was good.

Sheesh. Now you add qualifiers.
You didn't say anything about good.

Mikes77: I don't care where Burrell plays next year. Nothing I have ever posted about Burrell was because he's a favorite player, or that he's irreplaceable. My emotional investment there is near zero. I just have this insistence that opinion must be based on data, preferably factual rather than anecdotal data, and for many years a preponderance of Phillies fans have been frustrated because Burrell turned out to be a good rather than a great player.

You're the one who can't get over the fact that Howard and Burrell were almost identical offensive players last year. I'm not the one who says they were; a variety of statistical rating systems say so. You refuse to believe that these rating systems have any value, mainly because you don't agree with the results.

DPatrone: I think you'd get a pretty good argument going among baseball people from the 1960s-80s about whether Brooks Robinson was a better defensive thirdbaseman than Mike Schmidt.

I saw both play and I think B Robby's reflexes were a tad quicker and his arm a tad more accurate, but Schmitty had better range by more than a tad.

I don't think many people would argue that Brooks was a bit better with the glove but Schmidt was by far the better overall 3B...offense is nice too.

Hey guys,

Ryan Howard is the best offensive player in Phillies history.

"Ryan Howard is the best offensive player in Phillies history."

I think he's the most exceptional offensive player in Phillies history--his combination of Ruthian ability and crippling liability being utterly unique. Maybe he's the most purely powerful hitter in Phillies history, although I don't know how to prove that.

As it stands it seems to me that the best offensive player in our history is Schmidt, followed by Klein.

"Maybe he's the most purely powerful hitter in Phillies history,"

Ever see some of those bombs launched by Allen with his 40 oz. bat?

I see Phillies Nation picked Mesa as 96 on the list. If Bottalico raised hackles I cannot wait to see the reaction to Mr. Table.

Luzinski also had some prodigious power as well.

That Phillies nation top 100 is really starting to depress me.

Randy Lerch as #100 is frightening. Lerch was a slightly better Adam Eaton without the bloated contract.

BAP said in an earler thread, that he had a hard time finding 30 players better than Lerch. Thats hard to believe. The '80 and '08 team have about 15 each that are better.

I posted on phillies nation that maybe it should have been limited to the top 50 of all time...?

At least that way we wouldn't have to have been reminded of Lerch, Mesa, et al.

There are probably some better oldtimers than Lerch and Bottalico that aren't in the top 10 all time lists that would keep their names in Phans' heads.

"You're the one who can't get over the fact that Howard and Burrell were almost identical offensive players last year."

This is good example of how I think some folks over-value stats. There is a reason why Howard was perceived by the vast majority of the baseball world as being heads and shoulders above Burrell last year offensively. One might dismiss the dominant opinion among baseball fans and baseball writers. But can you honestly imagine that even if they were the same age, there would be one GM or owner in baseball that wouldn't be willing to pay way more to sign Howard than what they'd pay to sign Burrell? I'm quite sure that there isn't one GM or owner who would - and the reason for that isn't only because Howard would be a better draw for fans.

Did you watch Burrell during the second half of the season? Compare that to how Howard carried this team on his back during long segments of the stretch run. I know, Burrell had great stretches in the early part of the season, every game counts, etc. But in the beginning of the season you have no idea what the eventual meaning of a particular game might be. It might be meaningful in the long run, or it might not. Towards the end of the season, in a stretch run, you know the heightened value of each game when a team is in contention for a playoff spot. And in that sense, although when you look at it statistically the games earlier in the season can be considered of equal value, in the non-theoretical world the are not equal: the difference between the relative value of a win and a loss is just higher later in the season.

Consider, for example, how Burrell supporters consistently point to Burrell's contributions during the post-season to quantify his value. They say that he came through in big ABs (his last hit as Phillie being the biggest example). Well, if one AB during the entire playoffs is just as valuable as another - then Burrell was miserable on the whole during the playoffs. Pointing to to those playoff ABs as a counter-argument to those who question Burrell's contribution by pointing to his horrible second half is an internally inconsistent argument.


But here's the thing I have the hardest time understanding about stats guys who look at Burrell and Howard comparably: Howard's average with RISP vs. Burrell's. Whether you think Howard's average with RISP is a statistical fluke or not - and of course it's not a reflection on Burrell that Howard often cleared the bases ahead of Burrell's ABs - but whether or not you think Howard's higher RBI total is a valid predictor of future performances, as a measure of what they contributed to the team this season, there is no doubt that Howard's year was more productive than Burrell's.

Say what you will, Blue-Glove Mesa was a beast. On another note, amm I the only one excited that there is another shortstop named Ivan DeJesus that is perhaps an injury away from the major leagues.
Ivan freakin' DeJesus! Awesome!

Isnt Phillies Nation just posting what is already written in the book 101 Greatest Phillies by Ron Green Jr.?

My top 60:

Delahanty, Alexander, Hamilton, Klein, Roberts, Ashburn, Konstanty, Bunning, Short, Callison, Allen, Wise, Taylor, Cash, Kaat, Lonborg, Schmidt, Catlton, Luzinski, Bowa, Maddox, McBride, Boone, Trillo, Christenson, McCarver, Gene Garber(personal fav), Richie Hebner(personal fav), Rose, McGraw, Reed, Ruthven, Gross, Unser, Von Hayes, Matthews, Denny, Bedrosian, Samuel, Daulton, Duncan, Mulholland, Kruk, Dykstra(hated him), Schilling, Brogna, Leiberthal, Abreu, Rolen, Burrell, Rollins, Myers, Thome, Utley, Howard, Victorino, Hamels, Moyer, Lidge. Honorable mention (Werth, Dobbs and Ruiz)

Yeah, 100 is hard to get.

What, no Willie Montanez? No Cookie Rojas?

"What, no Willie Montanez? No Cookie Rojas?"

Yeah, forgot about them. Throw Bob Dernier, Charlie Hayes and Tommy Green on there somewhere too.

mikes77:

I didn't say that. I was talking about Bottalico. And what I said was that, off the top of my head, I could think of about 30 who were better and, with about 10 minutes of internet research, the number was up to about 50. Actually, my current list is at 74. I'd be pretty astonished if Randy Lerch were on my final top 100 list, as he was terrible.

mikes77: The guys from your listed who are not on my present list of 75:

Kaat -- he was terrible by the time he went to the Phillies

Ruthven (but he probably WILL end up on my list of 100, and I would definitely rank him over Bottalico and Lerch)

Sarge -- he's a borderline top 100. Only played 3 years with the Phillies & they were 3 decent years, but certainly not on a par with his days with the Braves & Giants).

Hebner -- only 2 years with the Phillies

Lidge -- one year just ain't enough to qualify you for the top 100.

Unser -- I know he was a 1980 hero, but Del Unser?

I also hadn't included Hamels, Vic or Moyer on my list, because they haven't been there long enough. On further reflection, given some of the uninspiring names on my list (Tony Taylor, Cookie Rojas, Rico Brogna), Hamels and Vic have probably already done enough to belong. But I still want one more good year from Moyer before I would include him.

Some additional names you should have included on your list: Del Ennis, Granny Hamner, Dolph Camilli, Dave Cash, Doug Glanville, Kent Tekulve, Al Holland, Billy Wagner (I know, only 2 years but still . . .)

Wow, completely forgot about Tony Taylor. He would definitely be on my list. Cash was on Mike's list - and I agree that Glanville should be added.

bap - "Lidge -- one year just ain't enough to qualify you for the top 100."

I'd disagree. When your franchise has two rings in 100+ years of existence, and you're considered one of(if not #1) the biggest reasons why the Phils won their 2nd World Series, I think that qualifies you as at least a top 100 player in team history.

Anyone who thinks Ryan Howard is anywhere close to Mike Schmidt as a player doesn't know what they're talking about.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsl_finder.cgi#n1=&as=result_batter&offset=0∑=1&min_year_season=1876&max_year_season=2008&isActive=either&isHOF=either&bats=any&throws=any&exactness=anypos&games_prop=50&games_tot=&pos_pitcher=1&pos_catcher=1&pos_first_base=1&pos_designated_hitter=1&pos_second_base=1&pos_third_base=1&pos_shortstop=1&pos_left_field=1&pos_center_field=1&pos_right_field=1&pos_out_field=1&qualifiersSeason=minpas&minpasValS=900&mingamesValS=100&minpasValC=1000&qualifiersCareer=mingames&mingamesValC=300&c1val=0&c2val=0&c3val=0&c4val=0&min_season=1&max_season=-1&min_age=0&max_age=99&lg_ID=lgNL&lgAL_team=tmAny&lgNL_team=tmPHI&lgFL_team=tmAny&lgAA_team=tmAny&lgPL_team=tmAny&lgUA_team=tmAny&lgNA_team=tmAny&orderby=OPSp&layout=full&c1bsl=&c1gtlt=gt&c2bsl=&c2gtlt=gt&c3bsl=&c3gtlt=gt&c4bsl=&c4gtlt=gt&location=pob&locationMatch=is&pob=&pod=&pcanada=&pusa=>Top few hundred Phils in OPS+ all time (min. 300 games played).

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/psl_finder.cgi#n1=&as=result_pitcher&offset=0∑=1&min_year_season=1876&max_year_season=2008&isActive=either&isHOF=either&throws=any&role=starter&games_started=60&games_relieved=80&qualifiersSeason=nomin&minIpValS=162&minDecValS=14&mingamesValS=40&minIpValC=1000&minDecValC=100&qualifiersCareer=mingames&mingamesValC=80&c1val=0&c2val=0&c3val=0&c4val=0&min_season=1&max_season=-1&min_age=0&max_age=99&lg_ID=lgNL&lgAL_team=tmAny&lgNL_team=tmPHI&lgFL_team=tmAny&lgAA_team=tmAny&lgPL_team=tmAny&lgUA_team=tmAny&lgNA_team=tmAny&orderby=ERAp&layout=full&c1psl=&c1gtlt=gt&c2psl=&c2gtlt=gt&c3psl=&c3gtlt=gt&c4psl=&c4gtlt=gt&location=pob&locationMatch=is&pob=&pod=&pcanada=&pusa=>Top SP by ERA+ (min 80 starts - Hamels has 84 GP)

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/psl_finder.cgi#n1=&as=result_pitcher&offset=0∑=1&min_year_season=1876&max_year_season=2008&isActive=either&isHOF=either&throws=any&games_started=60&role=reliever&games_relieved=80&qualifiersSeason=nomin&minIpValS=162&minDecValS=14&mingamesValS=40&minIpValC=1000&minDecValC=100&qualifiersCareer=mingames&mingamesValC=80&c1val=0&c2val=0&c3val=0&c4val=0&min_season=1&max_season=-1&min_age=0&max_age=99&lg_ID=lgNL&lgAL_team=tmAny&lgNL_team=tmPHI&lgFL_team=tmAny&lgAA_team=tmAny&lgPL_team=tmAny&lgUA_team=tmAny&lgNA_team=tmAny&orderby=ERAp&layout=full&c1psl=&c1gtlt=gt&c2psl=&c2gtlt=gt&c3psl=&c3gtlt=gt&c4psl=&c4gtlt=gt&location=pob&locationMatch=is&pob=&pod=&pcanada=&pusa=>Top RP (same deal)

damn. none of those links work. I'll give a quick run-down in a sec.

Seriously, you've gotta have the whole outfield from the 1894-6 team. Delahanty, Thompson, Hamilton. Those guys could rake. Even for their time. Billy Hamilton is one of the top all time base stealers. Lave Cross did pretty well while he was in Philly, too. (I don't know from watching them however, I'm just depending on those silly statistic thingies.)

I don't know if Eppa Rixey is on your list, but he had his best year in Philly. George McQuillan? Schoolboy Rowe? Curt Simmons? Chris Short?

Really. There's probably no reason to include Bottalico. Except for the arrogance of "guys I watched are better than the ones before my time."

Lerch, OTOH, was always fun to watch shagging flies before the games in which he didn't pitch.

BAP said, "(wouldnt rank) Ruthven (but he probably WILL end up on my list of 100, and I would definitely rank him over Bottalico and Lerch). Sarge -- he's a borderline top 100. Only played 3 years with the Phillies & they were 3 decent years, but certainly not on a par with his days with the Braves & Giants). Lidge -- one year just ain't enough to qualify you for the top 100."

Vehemently disagree with excluding these 3 players from even the top 50.

Dick Ruthven was the #2 pitcher(by a large margin) on the '80 squad. If you have a problem with him, you should have a MAJOR problem with Larry Christenson, who was a 3-4 on that team.

Sarge may have only played for 3 years with the Phillies, but he was NLCS MVP. His performance in '83 against the Dodgers alone, should get him in the top 50.

Brad Lidge is already the 1st or 2nd best closer the Phillies have had in my lifetime (Sorry Bedrosian).

Andy, Bottalico is 25th among qualified RP in ERA+ on the list I posted. I agree (not that ERA+, esp for relievers, is the be all end all.)

Millions of people have attended a significant number of baseball games. Most of them are fairly dim.

BAP,

Agreed, I forgot Del Ennis, Granny Hamner, and Doug Glanville. Al Holland was iffy for me.... I'm up to about 70.

Dick Ruthven had an ERA+ over 100 3 times in his entire career. ERA+ by season with the Phils starting in '80:

111 (120 in his 20 starts with the team)
89
107
70
97

You're basically remembering his performance in 1980.

Doug Glanville had a 79 OPS+ in his time with the Phils (159th on the above list.)

Are you simply posting people whose names you remember? What in the world in the basis for your list?

Doug Glanville had a 79 OPS+ in his time with the Phils (159th on the above list.) .276/.315/.382

Are you simply posting people whose names you remember? What in the world in the basis for your list?

Andy: If I had to guess, I'm betting that top 100 list is completely ignorant of good players from the early part of the 20th century. mikes77 also misses a bunch of those guys but at least he got 2 or 3 of the most obvious.

Me: "As it stands it seems to me that the best offensive player in our history is Schmidt, followed by Klein."

In light of the list perhaps that's wrong. I always think of Klein as this meteoric dynamo, Delahanty was even more outstanding and for longer.

Rollins doesn't come off very well in historical perspective, although he's our best hitting shortstop, so far as I could see.

How could Dick Ruthven be on a Top 100 list and Curt Simmons not?

Sophist, I respect most of the stats you post, but your a slave to OPS+ and ERA+. Those stats, on the surface, show who the great players are for the most part.

But, what about defense, speed and clutch performances?

Dick Ruthven pitched in and won big games, I dont care what his ERA+ was. I dont have Larry Bowa or Bob Boones's OPS+ handy, but I bet both were terrible and they still were great players.

Ah, now I see. It's not a rational or objective list of top 100 Phillies. It's a list of guys mikes77 likes or remembers.

Sorry to have wasted my time.

mikes77: The top 100 has to be based on achivement over a player's Phillies career. You don't automatically get on the list by being the team's 2nd best pitcher in the one season in which the team happened to win a championship.

sophist: I am not simply posting people whose names I remember. But on a team that has had a woeful lack of good players, a guy who was the starting center fielder for 5 years, played great defense, had 1 terrific offensive season, & a couple of pretty decent ones, is at least in the running for the top 100.

BAP,

What i'm not understanding is questioning Ruthven, but not Christenson. They were similar pitchers over the MAJORITY of careers with the Phillies. If Ruthven is borderline, then Christenson should be borderline as well.

Ruthven just gets extra credit in my book, for beating Nolan Ryan in '80.

Larry Bowa OPS+ 72...

Behind Tomas Perez, Kevin Stocker, Ivan Dejesus and Marlon Anderson. Obviously Larry Bowa should'nt be on a top 100 list.

Whatever happened to the Juan Cruz free agent talk? Is he out of the Phillies price range now?

mikes77: Tomas Perez OPS+ was 64. So, as usual, you're wrong.

****Whatever happened to the Juan Cruz free agent talk? Is he out of the Phillies price range now?****

We signed him...but we call him "Chan Ho Park".

Clown said, "Thomas Perez had a 64 OPS+."

Do you realize how big a 'no life loser' you have to purposely post wrong information to try to make a stranger on the internet look bad. Thomas Perez had a 76 OPS+ with the Phillies.

I try not to even dignify your stupidity clout, but evidently i'm important in your little life.

Maybe he had a 64 OPS+ for his career...

~checks handy baseballreference~

Yup, that was the case. Why are we arguing over Tomas Perez anyway?

FWIW, Senor Perez is currently sporting an impressive .890 OPS in the VWL.

mike - OPS+ doesn't tell the full story, yes. But the list serves as possibly as a good place to start. You obviously want to adjust for defense and position. For instance, Utley's 128 OPS+ in 735 games is probably more important, just from an offensive point of view, than Kruk's 138 in 744 games.

The lists weren't intended to end the discussion only to aid it and for use as a handy reference.

One thing to keep in mind is that the list only shows the players' production as a Phillie. Abreu has played in almost 1800 games overall but the list only shows his ~1300 as a Phil.

i am drunk and the iggles are ticking me off.

Abreu could very well be close to several HoF thresholds by the time he is done when you look at his AVG, OBP, Hits, RBI, SB etc but when it comes down to it Bobby Abreu is the ultimate argument as to why you cant just look at stats when judging a player.

NEPP: Wait, let me guess, you're one of the idiots who thinks Abreu was a cancer in the clubhouse. Am I right?

Nope, not at all. I think Bobby Abreu is a good player now and was a very very good player for several years when he was on the Phillies. The only criticism I can think of for Abreu is his apparent (and well noted) fear of walls. If Abreu was on the Yankees for his entire career, his stature would be much higher than it is now.

But again, he's no CJ Henry.

Here's a funny thing. I was gonna say that "if Abreu was on the Yankees his entire career he'd probably be looked at the same as Bernie Williams was". I just looked at Abreu's comparables on BR...#1 is Bernie Williams. Ironic.

When you're making out a top 100 list, you have to take into consideration the context in which stats were posted. In the 1970s, teams did not look to their shortstops for offense. If the shortstop could play good defense, he was deemed adequate. Within these parameters, Bowa was one of the best shortstops of his day. Certainly, he and Mark Belanger were the 2 best defensive shortstops of their time and Bowa was a much better hitter than Belanger, who couldn't hit at all.

If Bowa played today, and posted the same numbers, he would struggle to hold a starting job. But, if he played today, he probably wouldn't post the same numbers. He would lift weights, work on his offense more, and undoubtedly hit for higher average, with more doubles & homeruns. Plus, his coaches would very likely emphasize the importance of a player with his skill-set learning to work the count and draw more walks. Instead of being a career .260/.300/.320 hitter, he might be a .275/.335/.375 hitter.

Mike's list should just be called: First 100 players who were Phillies that popped into my head.

Doug Glanville? Maybe if the list was Whitest teeth ever. That guy looked straight out of a Crest commerical when he smiled.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG