Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Postgame: Phillies open trip with 6-2 win in Arizona | Main | Ricciardi blinks? Rumor suggests Jays favor Drabek »

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Comments

Drabek, Brown and Donald for Hallday. Get it done, Rube.

"I'd say (his performance was) pretty good," Drabek told Rich Scarcella of the Reading Eagle."

Is Kyle channeling Rickey Henderson here, or does he always speak about his performance to reporters in the third person?

Duke is intriguing, but his K numbers are terrible.

p. Red: I think that is the proposal that will get it done, with another pitcher thrown in. Either CC, Worley, Stutes, Savery, Knapp, etc.

I would still do the Drabek, Brown, Happ deal, but would be happier holding onto Happ and substituting CC and Donald. Would even add Marson to the deal if they wanted him.

Mac: I think you may have misread the quote. Kyle was saying about how his performance was: "I'd say pretty good"

I know this is thinking pretty far outside the box, but here me out:

If the Pirates are as ticked off at Wilson and Sanchez as I've been led to believe, I wonder what it would take to deal for Duke, Wilson and Sanchez?

They're both right handed bats and neither one can refuse a trade. They would most certainly be a vast improvement over Mayberry and Bruntlett. Furthermore, they could probably be flipped in a deal this winter.

Thoughts?

Mac Tonight: The parentheses in the quote tell us that part of the quote replaced something. The quote was like, "I'd say it was pretty good." Newspapers generally replace non-descript words like "it."

Brad C: I was kidding. The wording just struck me funny. What can I say, I grew up watching Bullwinkle cartoons.

My bad Mac. Sometimes can't pick up on the jokes in plain text!

Re: Last Thread

It was nice to see clout admit that Moyer is our 5th starter which means he agrees that Moyer should be the first pitcher replaced when a new starter comes along.

And I'm always amused when a Moyer-defender uses a good start to say, "See, there's nothing wrong with him." I could use every other start to say, "See, he sucks," but I don't. My point all along is that the body of his work proves he is our worst starter and should be replaced when an appropriate replacement comes along.

I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong about Jamie Moyer. Given his age and his ability to silence the critics, I'm hoping that I will be wrong about Jamie Moyer in 2010 as well.

Mac Tonight: Well, I, too, missed your joke, sorry! :-)

Readings gun is notoriously fast.

****"I'd say it was pretty good."****

For example, when Kyle was asked about last night's performance:

"I'd say [Alyssa Milano] was pretty good."

Make sense?

Brad C: If they want another pitcher instead of Happ, than yeah, I would throw in someone like Savery or Worley. I would try to keep CC since you don't want to give up your top two pitching prospects.

If the deal happens I am pretty certain it will be Drabek, Brown/Taylor and someone else.

Drabek has to be included in the deal. I don't see Toronto accepting anything without him. They also seem set on getting one of our outfield prospects. I say give them Brown since even though he may have the higher ceiling, he is still a few years away. Now they have our top two prospects, just add one more B or C level prospect as a throw-in and you got yourself a deal.

This is the last time I attempt lame humor on BL. :(

Drabek is a gamer. It might be tough watching him pitch for someone else for the next 15 years and long after Doc Halladay is retired.

Also, he is coming back from Tommy John surgery in a phenomenal way.

This is all posturing. Phils keep saying no about Drabek as a way to rein in which secondary players they have to add to the mix. Maybe they keep Happ that way but it gives Toronto a way to save face. "See, we got their top pitcher."

I can honestly say I will cheer Kyle on wherever he ends up (other than the Mets). If he ends up a BlueJay, I wish him the best and I will be happy to see him succeed.

Mac Tonight-- I think you're a tad extreme BUT-- I have been saying for a week that Riccardi has glass balls and is under more pressure to deal Halladay, Rolen et al than the general public thinks. I have no proof (I'm not Beeston's accountant either) but as a poker player.. Riccardi sucks. He draws the "flexible line " of negotiation in the sand ("If we have a deal working, I'll talk till July 31st"). Plus, he's done all his "card-playing" publicly. These various behaviors belie the leverage he claims to have.

Ricciardi NEEDS to deal Halladay...that much is clear.

The painful part of a Happ, Drabek, Brown trade is that both pitchers would likely be on Toronto's 25 man roster next year. Giving up 2/5 of a rotation is painful.

I still think the deal gets done.

Smoky: Regarding your paper, or whatever, from last thread. What are you aiming to uncover in your analysis?

Do you think you're going to find wild deviations from the stats already available?

Basically- what's the premise?

Also- in your equation that leads to .375 RCF, I understand where the first three numbers are coming from but where is the .5 that you multiply the whole finding by coming from?

You have ((.25*1 + .1*2 + .3*1) *.5) In that equation wouldn't you also have to account for any and all runs scored in that inning? A lead off single increases the chances of scoring multiple runs that inning versus making an out. Or are you counting a guy on;y until the point he touches home plate during a trip around the bases? How would you account for that variable?

Interestingly enough, one of the Toronto beat writers was on WIP this morning and mentioned that Riccardi is not the one making the final decision on this deal. Yeah, he is handling the press and the public and he is doing a lot of the legwork but according to this writer Beeston will be the one with the final word. Guess who Beeston is best friends with? Pat Gillick.

I am amazed at how many times you see the RPhils gun above 95+ and showing a guy who you know is 90-91 tops at 93-95. That's happened with a guy like Zagurski.

Wonder if it is the equipment, placement, or both. Regardless, you have to figure opposing scouts insist on bringing their own equipment and sitting in a spot where they can use it.

Bed Beard, I don't disagree with you on CC.

Again, my larger point was to ask the question:

Who do the Phillies think they'll be able to "count" on for their rotation AFTER 2010, especially if they deal Drabek/Happ/Carrasco (pick one or two) for Halladay?

Blanton will be an FA, so will Halladay. Moyer will be 48.

The only starter signed right now for 2011 is Hamels.

Who do you think THEY THINK they can "count on" in 2011 and beyond?

MG, I sat behind Texas Rangers scouts during one of Happ's starts.

They, at least, brought their own radar guns - and more than one.

I suspect that is common practice.

Yeah, I assume they always bring their own radar guns, Reading and beyond.

TI, the premise is laid out in the beginning...OPS undervalues singles and overvalues slugging and walks, at least in terms to how they create runs. It also doesn't take into account sac flies, bunts, and ground/fly balls that advance runners. I also laid out the .5: each run scored has an RBI component and a run-scored component. The .5 multiplier is the only way to get the RCP value per game to be a proxy for actual runs scored per game.

Ironic that you accused be of poor reading comprehension in the last thread.

By the way, when I wrote this, the data to load for statistical analysis wasn't nearly as readily available, and computing power/memory would have been a constraint.

Rolo-tation: That is why I think the Phils need to give up Drabek and Brown in the deal. It's quality over quantity. If you give up Happ AND Drabek or Happ AND Carrasco than you leave yourself too thin for 2011 and beyond.

Give up Drabek and your rotation for 2011 will be Hamels/Carrasco/Happ/Free Agent #1/Free Agent #2. Of course, those free agent spots could be filled by Halladay, Blanton or Myers depending on if they want to resign any of them.

Drabek threw 95 at the futures game s

Rolo-tation: we don't have many hitters signed long-term either. I see this as an advantage, personally. It gives the team the flexibility to introduce rookies, resign players based on performance, and bring in free agents. It's when teams have too many underperforming guys on 8 year contracts that they get in trouble, just look at Toronto. Flexibility is a good thing. And, why are you so certain that the triumvirate of Drabek/Happ/Carrasco can be relied on in 2011? Young pitchers flame out and get hurt, there are no more guarantees that they will be useful in 2011.

What's our rotation going to look like in 2011? Who knows. What's our infield going to look like in 2011? who knows.

I think rolo's question is something to think about, but players come and go: drafted, free agency, trades, etc. We/they have no idea what prospect will be ready, what FA the like, who they'll re-sign (Blanton? Hallday?), what scrap heap/injury recovery guys are out there (Rolo type). I wouldn't let that hold up Happ/Drabek, especially if that still leaves with CC, who COULD be ready in 2010/11.

According to Joel Sherman of the NY Post, Drabek is a must-get for the Jays, but if the Phils include Drabek Toronto may be willing to drop their demand for Happ. Drabek/Brown/Donald for Doc?

http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/st/archives/2009/07/updating_the_ha.html

p. red: if Carrasco actually ends up being the #2 starter in 2011, I think the Phillies are in trouble. But my rotation concerns are ordered like this

1. 2nd 1/2 rotation 2009
2. Playoff rotation 2009
3. Regular season rotation 2010
4. Playoff rotation 2010
5. Regular season rotation 2011

Mac, Duke has had lots of success keeping the ball on the ground this year but, I'm not sure it will last. He was absolutely batting practice for a couple years after being nearly a phenom as a rookie. Sanchez would be great in place of Bruntlett. But, there's no flipping Wilson/ Sanchez in the off-season. Wilson is a free agent and Sanchez has a club option at $8MM which no team would exercise in hopes of trading him.

Smoky: I was trying to be sure of what you were saying before I commented on it out of fairness. Nice to see you want to be a jackass about it.

Now please answer these questions:

1.) Are you expecting to find wild deviations from what the info already at hand leads to?

2.) How would you account for a walk in an inning versus a different at bat with the same outcome? Basically if a guy leads off an inning by walking that would be the equivalent of a single. Would you weight that differently? If a guy walks with runners on second and third how would you account for the runner at second in that situation. Let's assume Pat Burrell is on second when a guy walks. Chances are a single in that scneario wouldn't have scored Burrell from second- so a walk would have the same effect, wouldn't it?

Also let's say Jamie Moyer is on first when Shane Victorino hits a double to the gap. He most likely won't score from first on it. If Jimmy Rollins were on first he most likely can. Wouldn't you have to isolate situations based on who the runner is at first. Moyer on first with 2 outs has a smaller percentage of scoring a run than Rollins on first since it would probably take two additional at bats to score him versus maybe one for Rollins.

3.) Lastly, when does a guy stop gaining value in an inning under your formula. A leadoff baserunner increases your chances of scoring multiple runs per inning versus making an out. Does a guy's value end once he touches home plate or does he obtain value throughout the inning until a third out is recorded?

I'd rather trade Happ than Brown. Drabek-Happ-Donald-Marson would be great.

Petey Pablo, we'll need to add one more pitcher to your list, with question being whether it will take Knapp/Carrasco or someone like Savery. Without Happ, they'll still want two pitchers, and probably 4 total players, to make up for lack of ML-ready pitcher.

Sanchez's option becomes guaranteed at 600(?) PA. No one wants to guarantee that money.

How many teams know what their roster will look like in 2011 and beyond. Cots has a great new feature that shows salary commitments for future years. We are hardly alone in that respect. The talk of "What will the roster look like in 2011?!?" is meaningless in 2009. Honestly, there is a TON of time between now and then, all sorts of things will happen.

JBird, I ain't looking for a fight. Why are you?

Please read all my posts on the matter - including in the last thread - and find for me where I posted that Drabek/Happ/Carrasco could be counted on?

(Clue: You won't find it.)

I simply raised the question asking what other posters thought THE PHILLIES FO might think.

JBird: Yeah, def. Just put him there because he would still be under contract at that point.

If the Phils don't get Halladay or Lee I think they will make a run for a #2 in the offseason. Harden, Duchscherer or Lackey would all be available. Of course, Halladay or Lee may still be available to get via trade.

Mac Tonight: OK, I apologize for being confused about your views, but I think I have good reason. You made all sorts of posts over the past 2 weeks saying that Halladay would be dealt for secondary prospects. But then you proposed a Phillies deal that included elite prospects. Then you said the Jays financial situation was dire. But then that was contradicted by Ricciardi & Beeston. Then you said the Jays MUST unload salary. But now you say they DON'T have to trade Halladay. So whose salary will they unload? Wells? How easy do you think that will be?

Look, I'm not trying to be a wiseguy here, but you've been all over the map on this. Tell us exactly what your views are on the Jays dealing Halladay.

TI, me being facetious is being a Jackass? Re-read your comments from last night's thread, and then tell me if you are holding yourself to the same standard that you are holding others, OK.

You still don't understand the premise, so I'm not going to try to explain it. Just know there is a significant difference between understanding analytics and how to apply them, and being able to copy/paste numbers from websites and compare them to so-called standards of acceptable performance.

NEPP- Agree about 2011- We don't know what our rotation will look like by the end of the week let alone in 2 years.

NEPP, I agree. I simply raised the question because one of the reports/blogs I read stated that one of the Phillies concerns in giving up both Happ and Drabek for Halladay is what their rotation would look like AFTER 2010 (and, perhaps, how expensive it might be).

It made me think that maybe they don't feel CC or KK are likely to make an impact.

Again, I asked a queation.

NEPP: I think it's time to start arguing about the 2011 rotation, don't you?

Rolo-tation: Personally, I'm counting on Moyer in the rotation until they put him 6 feet under. He can sign one of those Wakefield contracts that the team renews every year in perpetuity. He's gonna blow by 300 wins and should be good for 400 before he turns 55. He's going to take down Cy Young. In 2050 Each league's best pitcher (over the age of 40) will be given the Jamie Moyer Award.

NEPP: Actually, I changed my mind. Let's argue about the 2012 rotation because Hamels is a FA after 2011.

Petey: I saw that as well. Think it is great news and could well be a precursor to a deal. Hopefully this thing will get moving again and we can get it done before his start tomorrow.

Also, for all those worried about the 2011 rotation, for a point of reference, take a look at our 2007 rotation:
Hamels
Moyer
Kendrick
Lohse
Eaton

Only 2 of those are left now in our rotation. Sure, we only have 1 guy locked up for 2011, but my point is there is a lot of turnover in 2 years.

Anyone know where I can find information about the 2011 draft?

SmokyJoe: I don't agree with TI's characterization of you as a jackass, but he did ask you some questions that I thought were pretty astute. You didn't answer them. I'd be curious to see what your answers are.

clout, who's arguing? Do you LIKE to argue?

Hmmmmm, you must have been in Debate Club, no? :)

Smokeyjoe - I think the Phils have to insist that the other pitcher is a Savery-type. Drabek/Brown/Knapp is 3 of our top 4 prospects. When you consider the Sabathia trade, that seems like a very steep price to pay, even if Doc is signed for next year

JBird: Satchel Paige shut out the Red Sox for 3 innings at age 59. If Jamie stays in shape, could he be a middle reliever at age 60?

Maybe we could pick up Justin Duchscherer off Oakland and sign him to a deal before he becomes a free agent. Oakland was asking for a cheap prospect I believe

BedBeard: You think the Phillies go raw athlete or polished ballplayer in 2011?

Ricciardi Blinks?

"10:07am: Joel Sherman of the New York Post hears that the Blue Jays insist on receiving Drabek because they consider Happ a middle-to-back-of-the-rotation starter. They want Happ, but may relent if the Phillies give up Drabek."

Hmmm...smells like a trial balloon to me.

I've been mulling it over and I think a Zach Duke for Happ and Donald is a fair trade. Duke is an upgrade for Happ, Donald plays short for Pitt next year and we go into the playoffs with a rotation of Hamels, Blanton, Duke, Lopez/Pedro and Moyer, with Myers potentially back in the rotation by the end of September.

Then the 2010 rotation ends up with Hamels, Blanton, Duke, Drabek, Moyer.

2011 you still have Hamels Duke, Drabek, Carrasco puts it together and maybe Bastardo or Knapp.

Plus we have Taylor to replace Werth in 2010 or 2011 and Brown in for Ibanez no later than 2012.

Thoughts?

Shot in the dark on the 2011 Draft 1st pick: We take a toolsy OF from Southern California with great upside...if he can figure out how to hit.

Brad C - I agree it's great news, assuming Sherman's source is accurate. If the Jays are willing to move off of their first offer I think a deal gets done. Amaro has to be conscious of how much the players and Charlie want to get Halladay, so if Ruben can make a deal without giving up the farm I think he'll do it

Clout: There's a toolsy kid from the Fla. panhandle. Though he's only 5'9 160 now, he projects to be over 6'5 225-with speed and a gun.

I'm done with Halladay at this price. He's the best pitcher in baseball, but Drabek and Brown are the reason the term "untouchable" was created. In Drabek and Brown, you could very well be talking about our #1 starter and #3 hitter in 2012. I keep hearing about the closing window, well, by trading Drabek,Brown+ for Halladay, you're closing it. Cheap, young talent enables organizations to remain successful over time. The Phillies are reigning WFC and look poised for another; do they really need the best pitcher in baseball at the expense of all their best young talent?

I say go ahead and upgrade the rotation with Duke or Lee. Either makes us extremely tough to beat down the stretch and in the playoffs. As exciting as it sounds, we simply don't NEED the best pitcher in baseball. Take Drabek off the table and focus on striking a deal with Cleveland or Pittsburgh. Even Washburn could push us over the top, the way he's currently pitching. Don't get greedy- this team can win a championship without Halladay. If you end the conversation with Toronto and focus your attention elsewhere, they could come calling on Friday with a lower price.

p.Red- If Carrasco if your #2, you're in trouble. Maybe CC just needs a good shrink to prescribe him the right medication, but he's currently the model of inconsistency and shouldn't be counted on, even years from now.

I think C.J. Henry stops playing basketball after 2011. Do you think he's worth taking a shot on then? Kid is a fantastic athlete.

NEPP: I'm guessing at toolshed infielder from New Hampshire who projects to hit 35+ homers, but has yet to bat over .250 while playing high school ball in New Hampshire.

NH is a the latest baseball hotbed for young hitters...right?

****In Drabek and Brown, you could very well be talking about our #1 starter and #3 hitter in 2012. ****

Or we could have the next Adam Eaton and Reggie Taylor.

I'm feeling more and more confident that the deal will be Drabek, Brown/Taylor, and secondary prospect (Donald, Marson, Savery, Worley).

At least Drabek understands its IMPORTANT to pitch well in front of scouts...unlike Carrasco who basically poured gasoline on the fire when being scouted.

SmokyJoe: You should look up what facetious means?

I've tried twice now to ask you logical questions based off your paper and you've avoided them twice. I'm not going to take that as you ducking the question or avoiding answering them so I'll give you another shot, and try to engage in a sensible debate with you.

1.) Are you expecting to find wild deviations from what the info already at hand leads to?

2.) How would you account for a walk in an inning versus a different at bat with the same outcome? Basically if a guy leads off an inning by walking that would be the equivalent of a single. Would you weight that differently? If a guy walks with runners on second and third how would you account for the runner at second in that situation. Let's assume Pat Burrell is on second when a guy walks. Chances are a single in that scneario wouldn't have scored Burrell from second- so a walk would have the same effect, wouldn't it?

Also let's say Jamie Moyer is on first when Shane Victorino hits a double to the gap. He most likely won't score from first on it. If Jimmy Rollins were on first he most likely can. Wouldn't you have to isolate situations based on who the runner is at first. Moyer on first with 2 outs has a smaller percentage of scoring a run than Rollins on first since it would probably take two additional at bats to score him versus maybe one for Rollins.

In your data you are looking to see what percentage of time a single leads to a run but I would bet that in various situations that percentage owuld change drastically. How do you account for that? I don't think just multiplying by .5 gets the job done.

3.) Lastly, when does a guy stop gaining value in an inning under your formula. A leadoff baserunner increases your chances of scoring multiple runs per inning versus making an out. Does a guy's value end once he touches home plate or does he obtain value throughout the inning until a third out is recorded?

4.) I'm a little unclear as to how a stat like OPS- or anything else-, mingles with results of past events as far as analyzing data.

I'm trying to hear you out much in the same way I try to hear everyone out. You can make whatever crack you want about my interactions with Jack but note that I never questioned him on "Is Ryan Howard done," question like clout did. Jack said Ryan's numbers went down every year in the league and I questioned him on that. Unlike some others I don't unilaterally agree wiht people. I may agree with someone's overall point but not necessarily the theories getting them there. But that doens't matter to you becasue you were too worried about getting off your quip about my nose being up clout.

A Couple Of Things:

(1) Using Bruntlett to PH vs. Zavada w/ the bases loaded in the 8th was sheer stupidity. Are Dobbs & Stairs not on the team anymore? In his knee-jerk, "RH batter must face LH pitchers" paranoia, Charlie must not have noticed that Zavada pitches far more effectively against righties than he does against lefties (.172 BA vs. RH; .357 BA vs. LH). To further prove the point, Zavada did not retire a single LH batter in his inning of work, & got all three outs vs. righties.

(2) Using Park, Madson & Lidge (esp. Lidge) was ridiculous. That's two games in a row Lidge has been used in non-save situations ... I guess we'll just have to hope there aren't any save situations upcoming. Again, if Charlie won't use guys like Register or Kendrick w/ a 6 run lead vs. the 13th ranked offense in the league, why are they even on the roster?

Clout and TI,

(1) Irrlevant about deviations to current measures, as it has nothing to do with my hypothesis. My premise is that OPS based measurements don't accurately measure run production, which is truly the only thing that matters to an offense. I was trying to use pure statistics (based on millions of data points/events/at-bats) to predict the likelihood of an future event leading to a run-scored.
(2)Because of the complexity of varying scenarios, my statistical application was not going to care about the situation of the at-bat. I was trying to control for just the batter and not the varying circumstances the batter can't affect. So the statistical analysis was to be done for a single, for instance, for all situations, regardless of outs or number of men on base, but only if the single lead directly to a run which otherwise would not have scored if the single didn't occur. That's why the factor is called "Run Contribution Factor" and why the per game measure is deemed "Run Contribution Percentage". And then once that constant factor is developed for a single, it is applied to all singles going forward, once again, regardless of the number of outs or base runners.
(3) Good question, one my professor brought up, and one I struggled with, since by nature not making an out in an at-bat has more intrinsic value since it allows more opportunities to follow. Also, I didn't know what to do about a stolen base, because it wasn't an "at-bat", but obviously could lead directly to runs.

Guys, this wasn't my doctoral thesis, just a paper for an Applied Statistics class. However, had I pursued statistics to an advance degree, I definitely would have tried to develop this more fully. My only point in even posting it was twofold: (1) you both came to some conclusion that I had no baseball knowledge, which I was trying to at least debate with something that had meaning and (2) most of what is posted here are opinions based on other's research and analysis, but very few posts contain original thought or critical analysis.

That Sherman article again points to the weakness of the Blue Jays position..First it's-- Gotta have Happ (and Drabek). Now Happ is "only a mid-rotation starter" and they may relent on him. So now they're revising their own evaluation of needs/wants. Nepp-- more than a trial balloon.. Soon it will be Riccardi dealing from some degree of desperation.

I apologize TI...I was out of line with the nose/butt Quip. My poor sense of humor. I've only been posting to this site for about 2 months, and I've tried to respond to most poster's with the same tone and level of civility that they use in their posts. I clearly went over that line with you, and I realize that I started this fracas with you. But you have to admit that you can get a little heated and derogatory with posters on here. You are not above reproach.

I'll attempt to address your confusion one item at a time, clout:

"You made all sorts of posts over the past 2 weeks saying that Halladay would be dealt for secondary prospects."

No, I said that I wouldn't deal blue chip prospects for Halliday, and I said that I believe that if a trade takes place, we will be talking about how little the Jays got in return. The rest is words put into my mouth by other posters.

"But then you proposed a Phillies deal that included elite prospects."

While many fans and scouts alike list Carrasco and Knapp as "elite", I disagree. I'd sooner trade both of them than Happ, Brown, Taylor, Drabek or even Marson. Your confusion here is based on a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a blue chip prospect.

"Then you said the Jays financial situation was dire."

I said that based on ownership losing 9 billion dollars and the dramatic drop in attendance that I believe the Jays are in financial dire straits.

"But then that was contradicted by Ricciardi & Beeston."

Now come on, clout. Whether or not they're in financial trouble, you don't really expect the GM to come out and tell the world that he's desperate for salary relief when he's trying to make the best possible trade for his club, do you?

"Then you said the Jays MUST unload salary. But now you say they DON'T have to trade Halladay."

Yes. I said that the Jays must unload salary, but doing so does not necessarily mean that Halliday must go before the deadline. I certainly do believe that he, and many other Jays, will be in other uniforms before August of 2010, but I never once claimed that Halliday HAD to go before the 2009 deadline. I repeated many times my opinion that IF he is dealt, the buzz around baseball will be how little the Jays got in return. This is FAR from a statement that Halliday must be traded before the deadline.

"So whose salary will they unload? Wells? How easy do you think that will be?"

Probably not very easy, but if the opportunity presents itself to unload him and pay a portion of his contract as opposed to its full value, I think they'll take what they can get.

-----

I think you've confused the argument I've made with the arguments you've claimed I'm making, but you'll find that I've been pretty consistent (perhaps stubborn) for the past two weeks when it comes to a potential Halliday deal.

Carrasco is cementing his status as a high risk pitcher with a huge upside. If that is the case, he may have more value in the organization than he does in a trade. CC doesn't seem to interest Toronto at all. Including him in a package does not get them to lower their other demands at all. Meanwhile, he may or may not help the big club down the road.

From Toronto's standpoint, they'd probably rather get Drabek-Brown-Savery-Donald rather than Drabek-Taylor-Carrasco-Donald. The dropoff from Brown to Taylor is not all that large, but they seems to think it's significant enough.

Meanwhile, the Phillies have enough depth in their system that they'd probably rather take a chance on the risky-but-electric Carlos Carrasco rather than back-of-the-rotation candidate Joe Savery.

Testing, testing. Seems my last post didn't make it up.

Smoky: No need to apologize. We all say things. I would never say I am always rational with people, I tend to think though I am rational with most. I don't like people trying to better their argument by manipulating facts or trying to change the tone of argument. I believe that if someone is wrong you should be able to prove that just by presenting facts.

On your article (and before I start I will be honest and say- statistics was never my strong subject in school):

2.) See I think that in some form you would need to account for which guys are on base in certain situations. I think who is running is a variable that can wildly the percentages.

3.) That would probably be the biggest thing to account for in the formula. Stolen bases I really didn't even think of.

It is definitely an interesting paper, or portion of, that you posted. I don't know that it necessarily proves baseball knowledge- but it does prove some statistical analytical prowress. (that first part was meant in jest)

Ok, seems this one did. My last post was the one where I admitted that I have been wrong all along about Moyer, that he's just as good as he has ever been, that I feel more confident before a Jamie Moyer start than I do with any other pitcher on the mound, and that it's clear he'll be able to pitch until he's 60. In the same post, I also acknowledged that I've been too tough on Eric Bruntlett and, actually, there's nothing wrong with him which wouldn't be cured by more playing time. Unfortunately, the post never made it up.

Mac: Thanks for the clarification. Even though your earlier posts seem to contradict this, I now understand your view is that the Jays DON'T have to unload salary before the trading deadline and thus may not trade Halladay or anyone. But if they do we will be surprised at how little they got in return although you get to say what that means since you don't consider Carrasco and Knapp as good prospects.

"The Phillies are reigning WFC and look poised for another; do they really need the best pitcher in baseball at the expense of all their best young talent?"

They look poised for another NL East championship. Anything past that is, as it almost always is, a crapshoot. Getting Halladay is the only move they can make that seriously changes that fact.

FoxSports reports: "One source indicated there could be two Indians scouts there Thursday, when prospect Vance Worley starts for Reading."

How come I don't see Workley's name bantered about on BL? Is he the stealth prospect?

Worley was projected as a RH bullpen piece with a Scot Shields type upside when drafted last year.

He started off hot this year but has scuffled of late (18.00+ ERA last 3 starts). He has 4 decent but no GREAT pitches. Low 90s fastball.

Yo, new thread

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG