Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Yo! Share your Beerleaguer pride in time for 2010! | Main | Phillies outfielder steals win for Dominican Republic »

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Comments

When did he actually go under the knife last year?

Recovery is typically 12-18 months for a pitcher (9-12 for a positional player)

I believe in July 2008. But they are saying that he won't be ready by the start of the season. So maybe he will be back by May/June?

Nine months ago, according to Ed Price on Twitter. Also said Villarreal threw 88-90 in his session with scouts.

I read where the surgery was April 2009 so july 2010 looks like a target

We have some return to health questions that need to be answered on the big club, so the more pitchers we have stockpiled at LV and Reading the better.
Particularly someone with big league experience. Good move.

I like the signing. Is this a potential RoLo redux out of the bullpen?

Ho-Hum. NBFD. Just a body that has an arm attached to it. Just like Contreras.

****Nine months ago, according to Ed Price on Twitter. Also said Villarreal threw 88-90 in his session with scouts.****

Which is pretty much what he threw when he was healthy (according to PitchFx). He typically sat around 90 and threw anywhere from 87-92mph. Guess he's a quick healer. Though velocity and arm strength tend to come back before control with TJ surgery.

Meh.Can't hurt. If he contributes as much to the team as Majewski and Koplove did last season, I won't be surprised at all.

Zolecki reports on Phillies.com that Villareal is invited to spring training, but not expected to report until late February.

Picking up Ed Wade's leftovers? That is a change of pace.

At one point he was a decent relieve but who knows if he has anything left or will be able to contribute again this season.

Still can't hurt to take a flyer on him if he looks healthy enough in spring training and stashing him at AAA possibly for a midseason callup due to inevitable injuries/ineffectiveness that always occur to any team to some degree. Not like there is an overwhelming amount of talent right now that is projected to be in the bullpen at Allentown either.

Due to how recent his TJ surgery was though, I would be surprised if he contributes anything at the MLB level this year for the Phils.

Only acquisition yet I am interested in is whether the Phils pick up/invite a veteran LOOGY to camp to compete with likes of Bastardo/Escalona and if anything transpires on the Pedro front.

I'm fine going into the year with Bastardo as the main LOOGY. He's a better prospect htan most are giving him credit for. Remember he has a pretty high K/9 rate as a Starter. Moving him the BP gives him a nice velocity bump and makes him that much more effective. He was dominant this winter in the Caribbean.

On Bastardo and him being a LOOGY...

Career minor-league splits:

vs LHB: .169 BAA
vs RHB: .210 BAA

Is he really even a LOOGY? I mean, that's a pretty even and good split. He could very well be pretty effective against RHB and also devastatingly tough against LHBs.

Judging by Amaro's comments about Bastardo, he seems pretty confident going into the season with him as the LOOGY as well.

I doubt we'll see another one signed, unless it's a MiL deal for one of the low-profile FAs still out there.

NEPP: I agree. Bastardo keeping the spot warm until Romero returns in May isn't bad, IMO. By that time we should have Lidge back as well, which will cause us to send someone else down.

Maybe these guys filling in for Romero and Lidge make the most of their opportunity and pitch well? As a result, maybe this is also something that can finally get us off to a good start and a winning April?

He's talked about as being a LOOGY on here b/c of comparisons to Romero (lefty and latin) and fear of saying he'll be better than a LOOGY b/c of the Santana nonsense.

Have we missed any guys recovering from Tommy John surgery?

At 24 years old, Bastardo could be the low-cost answer to the bullpen for a few years. He's got a couple decent pitches, throws fairly hard for a lefty (93/94 as a reliever) and makes hitters miss (as shown by his pretty high K/9 ratios in the minors).

There are worse things than allowing a younger player a chance to play.

Alumni Association News:
The Twins officially signed designated hitter Jim Thome to a one-year, $1.5MM deal today. The contract includes another $750K in plate appearance incentives

awh: You hit the nail on the head: Villarreal is this season's Rodrigo Lopez.

Bubba: This will be the first season that the Phils aren't paying any part of his salary.

Except for the fact that Lopez was a former starter where as Villarreal is a middle reliever.

clout, the similarities are notable: :)

Both Mexican
Both had TJ surgery
Both had good track records before
Both signed to MiL deals

Anybody have any news/opinion on this guy?


Martino reports:

"The Phillies also signed catcher John Purdom from the Camden Riversharks."

Clout- Thome is taking a giant cut in pay from '09 to'10 with this new deal .
I never felt bad about the Phils paying him.

That was the only time I wished the NL had the DL rule- so Thome and Howard could have co-existed as Phillies one at 1B and the other at DH.

"Anybody have any news/opinion on this guy"

Yeah. He stinks.

Bed's Beard is correct.

Bed Beard: nice analysis. I've read that too.

Bedbeard, I just looked him up on b-r.

You're right.

Can you say org. filler?

Frankly I am glad the NL has not adopted the DH-rule. As a guy who watched nearly a decade of games at Fenway and saw tons of the DH, it was vastly overrated. For every Big Papi, you get a middling, veteran player who can field and is hanging around only because of his modest skills with the bat.

Generally made the games a bit longer, removed the importance of the bench & pinch-hit options, and took away some of the more interesting issues a manager faced each night.

Guess I am old-fashioned or because I was raised watching the NL so much that I enjoy the nuances of the games including Sac bunts, double switch, late-innings PH appearances, etc. Also much rather see a 4-2 game than a 9-7 slugfest although the difference between the leagues have narrowed a bit for several reasons the past 15 years.

Bastardo certainly has the goods to be a MLB-caliber reliever and more than just a situational reliever (LOOGY). We'll see though how he responds to be used though in spots of limited duration though where he might only face 2-3 batters and throw 10-12 pitches.

It would be great if eventually Bastardo can be a cheaper/better version of Romero, Madson can be a cheaper/better version of Lidge, and Mathieson can be a cheaper version of Madson. Too much of the teams budget is taken up by the bullpen in my opinion.

I've reached the point where I want either to abolish the DH, or the NL to adopt the DH. I was always strictly anti-DH, but now I'd settle for both leagues with the same format. I'd rather have a guy who can hit a bit on my team, than a guy who can't hit at all.

My only problem with the DH rule as it currently stands is the disadvantage it gives the NL team in the World Series.

Other than that, I could care less. I think it's fairly obvious that the DH is here to stay, as the MLBPA will never allow it to be abolished.

Jonesman - I think it's pretty obvious that Madson doesn't have the stones to close after last season.

Mathieson's recovery still has far to go before we start measuring his DiTHL

Jonesman: i agree with you. $20M in Romero($4), Madson($4), and Lidge($12) is a large commitment to innings 7-8-9. In theory, spending that kind of change on your late innings should take away a lot of need for finding a bunch of other backup options and keep your cost relatively certain, but injuries and ineffectiveness have made that $20M a pretty hollow attempt at 'cost certainity'.

Oscar's Mayers fan club. Imagine their outfits.

Chris in VT- are you auditioning for WIP? I think we will see this year when he fills in for Lidge that Madson will be fine as a ninth inning pitcher. He foolishly changed his approach when he was thrown in to the closer's role, but once he settled into it he was fine. How were his 'stones' when he came in for Lidge with one out, bases loaded, with a two run lead against the Nats in September? If I recall correctly they were big enough to get a strikeout on Zimmerman and groundout from Dunn to end the game.

Chris in VT: Are you basing that on his DITH ratio? I know BP has some metrics on "stones" but there's still a lot of noise and they are trying to refine that stat.

Wait... ::rubbing my eyes::.. some posters suggesting we cut back on bullpen spending?

Is this the same site that almost tar and feathered me for saying exactly that when free agency started?

As I have said for years now, the bullpen should be the place where we spend the least because the bullpen is NEVER a sure thing. The only place you should spend a significant amount is in your closer and setup roles (which Rube did). Other than that you can fill in the bullpen full of young guys and cheap guys to get the job done.

And with this rotation full of guys that can pitch into the 7th-9th innings each night (except Moyer), there is no need to spend $6 million on the "top relievers" as many here wanted Rube to do.

mvptommyd: "And with this rotation full of guys that can pitch into the 7th-9th innings each night (except Moyer), there is no need to spend $6 million on the "top relievers" as many here wanted Rube to do."

So the Phillies top 4 straters routinely pitch into the "7th-9th innings each night"?

Interesting.

I am starting to wonder if Tommy thinks there is just one guy named Beerleaguer who keeps arguing with him. He understands that at least a hundred different people post on here right?

clout: Halladay, Hamels, Blanton and Happ can give you 6+ innings each night. What don't you understand?

In 2009 went at least 6-6+ innings:

Halladay: 30 out of 32 times
Hamels: 21 times out of 32, 29 for 33 in 2008
Happ: 18 times out of 23
Blanton: 23 times out of 31


So yes clout, they can each give you at least 6+ innings a night.

I love you change my words and put "routinely" in there.

Jonesman: I use "BLer" because on that specific day at least 5 different people were calling me foolish and saying we needed to spend $$ on big name bullpen guys. I can't remember EXACTLY who each poster was, therefore I just say this site.

Just wondering, but is there going to be a post or posts looking at the Phillies vs. the rest of the East?

Baring the injury bug in a big way, I don't see the other teams really making a run. The Braves still haven't fixed their overwhelming problem: lack of power. The Marlins still don't have a good bullpen. The Mets rotation is still paper thin after Santana. The Nationals have improved some, but they're still the worst team in the division (just no longer pushovers).

On paper, the Phillies are the most complete team. I don't see how we fail to win the division this year. Thoughts?

TheGodfather: I completely agree.

The Nats are improving but only enough to maybe get them out of the cellar.

The Mets are the Mets, in that they have to get around injuries (Beltran) and returning injured players (Reyes). Also their rotation 2-5 are question marks. Their bullpen is a question mark as always.

The Braves biggest problem besides the power that you stated is their rotation. How are they going to replace Javy? Can Hanson continue to grow and pitch well? Can other pitchers step up and have better years?

Finally the fish are still young along with lack of bullpen, again as you said.

Given all that and with Halladay (upgrade over Lee) and Polanco (upgrade over Feliz) mainly. I can't see the Phillies NOT winning 95-97 games (barring injury, knock on wood).

mvptommyd: Maybe I missed something, but how does:
"And with this rotation full of guys that can pitch into the 7th-9th innings each night"

magically turn into "In 2009 went at least 6-6+ innings"

Unless the 6th inning is now part of the 7th. Was there a rule change?

clout: Your kidding me right? Well your not in the business field eithier along with clothing.

If you pitch at least 6 innings a night, you go into the 7th ining, no? If you pitch 6 1/3 innings, you get pulled in the 7th with 1 out, no?

Wow. clout. And you say I don't know baseball? You can't even grasp a concept I learned when I was 5.

I think the Braves are the biggest threat, but they will need Heyward and Hanson to come through big time to challenge the Phils. That is a lot to put on a rookie and a 2nd year player. And hopefully they keep Heyward in AAA for a while to save themselves some money.

Jonesman: Amen. Several posters often refer to some kind of beerleaguer consensus as being either against them (tommyd) or as unforgivably stupid (clout). They talk as if their conclusions are based on some kind of quantitative survey of the readership. Annoying.

Mets signed Travis Blackley. Remember him?

mvptommyd: Hmmmm. So this statement:

"And with this rotation full of guys that can pitch into the 7th-9th innings each night"

In your mind means this: "If you pitch at least 6 innings a night, you go into the 7th ining."

So a pitcher who completes 6 innings and leaves the game "has pitched into the 7th-9th innings."

Fascinating.


"Remember him?"

Yes clout, I do. He stinks.

I also remember that you don't know how to count innings, the most basic concept of baseball. Wow, that will be a BLer classic years to come. Mr. know-it-all. The one that has all the "clout".

"So a pitcher who completes 6 innings and leaves the game "has pitched into the 7th-9th innings.""

Yes. 99% of the time. The ONLY time he wouldn't technically be pitching "into" the 7th is if he is pinch hit for in the bottom of the 6th.

Travis Blackley. I would write "what happened to that guy?" But, since he's on the Mets, we know he has passed away (in the baseball sense, of course).

Tommy: in order to firmly stick my nose where it doesn't belong -- I think you're reaching on the 6 inning thing.

100% of the time if a pitcher pitches 6 innings, he pitches 6 innings...not 7-9.

R. Bills: clout is being an idiot as usual and not admitting he is wrong about our rotation ability to go deep into games.

I am proving a point. I am not reaching, it is a rule. If you pitch 6 innings and aren't pinch hit for in the bottom of the inning. Then taken out in the top of the 7th, you officially are still in the game to begin the 7th, before the switch.

Pitchers are only pinch hit for 1% of the time in the 6th inning? Fascinating.

Deut Phan: Fine. Well look up the exact percentage then. Quick. I will time you!

Tommy: my understanding, and I'll admit I'm wrong if you can produce the rule, is that one must throw a pitch in an inning to be credited for an inning.

For example, if a player pitches 6 complete innings and pitches to two batters in the 7th, without recording an out, he is credited with "6+" innings of work. If he records an out, "6.1" and so on and so forth. If he is taken out after the 6th, but before the beginning of the 7th, he is credited with 6 IP.

Pitching into the 7th would require some pitching to be done in the 7th, which I believe is clout's point (apologies to clout if I'm mistaken). It may be splitting hairs, but the distinction is valid in certain cases. Whether or not this is one of them is another issue altogether.

{I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved.}

All in favor of a per day posting restriction, say aye.

Nay. This is what makes Beerleaguer great. The minutiae. Pitchers and catchers? Anyone?

"admit I'm wrong if you can produce the rule, is that one must throw a pitch in an inning to be credited for an inning."

Nope that isn't correct.

Here is the reason why. Even if the pitcher doesn't take the mound to begin the 7th (or any inning) and is switched at the start of the inning, he is officially "still in the game" until the relief pitcher throws his first pitch.

I am working on the MLB rule lookup now.

Billingsly: You have it exactly right. If a pitcher didn't actually get an out in the 7th inning, then the bullpen needs to get 9 outs, (3 innings.)

Tommy, having foolishly declared that "And with this rotation full of guys that can pitch into the 7th-9th innings EACH NIGHT" is now scrambling to defend this by claiming that if you pitch 6 innings and that's all you pitch, you have actually pitched into the 7th.

aye aye, jim. and clout please stop wasting our time engaging a poster who is obviously a moron. what's the point?

clout: Look up the rule. A pitcher doesn't have to throw a pitch in an inning to officially still be in the game.

Once again, if you played baseball you would pick up the little fun facts and scenarios of the game like this. It isn't my fault, when evaluating the game, you use strictly numbers.

Fascist.

I actually think this is an interesting question. Do you have to throw a pitch in the 7th to get the 6+ for innings pitched or not? I agree with Tommy and others, things like this make baseball extra fun. If anybody finds the rule please post it.

mvptommyd: OK, since I don't want to drive anyone else away this will be my last post on the subject.

"A pitcher doesn't have to throw a pitch in an inning to officially still be in the game."

And if he doesn't throw a pitch, the bullpen still has to pitch 3 innings even if the SP in your mind "pitched into the 7th."

Wasn't your whole point about how we don't need much of a bullpen because our rotation pitches "into the 7th-9th innings EACH NIGHT"?

I must say, watching Tommy make a fool out of clout (or clout making a fool of himself) has become quite an entertaining feature of this blog. Kudos to you both.

I remember the difficult time I had explaining to my girlfriend that pitching 6.33 innings means that the pitcher was taken out in the 7th inning. Memories...

I agree with Clout's 5:45 post. It's about the number of innings pitched by the bullpen and not about a definition of 6+. Loading the bases to start the seventh and getting pulled without getting an out also doesn't do the bullpen any good, but it falls under the 6+ definition that Tommy is clinging to. Whether there's a PH for the pitcher after the 6th inning, he simply gets replaced, he starts the inning without getting out, the bullpen still has to get nine outs.

I must say, watching a poster change his screen name because he doesn't have the guts to use his regular handle is quite amusing. Especially since everyone here is anonymous to begin with.

And he didn't even read the posts correctly. So he made a fool out of himself under any name.

***Mets signed Travis Blackley. Remember him?***

He's dead to me.

tommy, tommy, tommy.....I agree that clout can be annoying at times, but this time I think he caught you with your pants down.

The only question is whether you are man enough to take your medicine and move on.

Next time don't post so hastily. YOu did it to yourself.

Actually, let me rephrase that. The image of clout catching tommy with his pants down is a little creepy.


tommy, tommy, tommy....I agree that clout can be annoying, but this time you posted without thinking and you got called on it.

"clout: Look up the rule. A pitcher doesn't have to throw a pitch in an inning to officially still be in the game."


tommy, it's an interesting argument that your trying to make, but basically you're purposely obfuscating.

You're attempting to to muddle the 'Pitcher of Record' rule with a pitcher actually pitching "into the 7th-9th innings" - which I, and I'm sure everyone here, take to mean that the pitcher ACTUALLY threw a ball from the mound to home plate in the 7th - 9th innings.

It's not the same as being the pitcher of record. Just isn't.

Nice try.

PadrinoSJP, I'm a little late with this, but here's a rundown of the NL East. It's a little old, but it's still fairly accurate:

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/article/2009-12-30/nl-east-evaluation-phillies-remain-divisions-best

AWH

By what factor of ten would the number of posts drop if not for clout and tommy's pissing contests?

Doohickey, good point.

The reason their posts are so numerous is neither one of them is capable of admitting he is in error.

being back at school I miss threads all day long. So sitting down to read these at the end of the day to relax is always interesting.

But you miss gems from mvptommy:

So pitching 6 innings means you go into the 7th? Outstanding. I thought pitching in the 7th was, you know, pitching into the 7th.

How wrong I was. Things MVPTommy has taught me

- Lineage is the best way to scout a player
- 6 innings is the equivalent of 7 innings.

nice, but i think you guys can top this debate somehow.

There's no freakin way that you leave a game after pitching 6 and now you've magically transformed yourself into the 7th Inning. I COULD get a 6 yr old to substantiate this. maybe transubstantiate it..

I like it that clout likes to change the arguement whenever he is wrong...like with he is with tommy. Our resident Fields Medal winner doens't understand math very well it turns out.

By the way Clout, you should know that in June, July, and August, JA Happ, our 4th starter, averaged 6.89 innings per start. thats into the 7th, as Tommy said before. This was the bulk of his starting experience in 2009, not confounded by months where he pitched out of the pen. I'm looking forward to your statistical analysis to prove me wrong. Go ahead and change the discussion if you don't think you have the approriate data.

Spitz, I think you missed the "subtlety" of what tommy is trying to maintain.

I think clout would agree with your post that ACTUALLY PITCHING (that means: to actually THROW a pitch) in the 7th inning constitutes actually pitching "into the 7th-9th innings".

tommy, however, is taking the position that if the 7th inning starts, even if the pitcher does not throw a pitch in the inning, that THAT is actually pitching "into the 7th-9th innings".


As I posted above, it is one thing to be the "pitcher of record" in the 7th inning and perhaps get a win [i.e. your team takes a lead in the top of the 7th]. It's another to actually pitch "into the 7th-9th innings".

tommy says they are the same. Do you?

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG