Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Free agent Maine picks purple over red pinstripes | Main | Mathieson, Zagurski hoping to clear big league hurdle »

Friday, February 18, 2011

Comments

Count me among those who has a lot of interest to see how Carrasco fairs in the Cleveland rotation. Carmona has always been iffy, Masterson and Talbot are not so much proven either. There's a real opportunity for Carrasco to have a break out season I think.

The Indians LOVE...and I mean LOVE Marson's defense behind the plate. I'd pencil him into the backup role just on that.

Carrasco and Donald also make the 25 man IMHO.

Prevailing wisdom here was that Carrasco was a throw-in to this trade and that Donald and Marson were the gems. Always thought Carrasco was the key component.

repost: Pete Rose and especially Shoeless Joe are more famous for not being in the hall of fame than they would have been otherwise. I hate to agree with Will, but I don't want the juicers to get plaques. One of my favorite writeups on steroids in baseball was a Bill Simmons column.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090507&sportCat=mlb

Carrasco has always had great raw stuff...it was just mental with him. A couple bad breaks and suddenly it was a 4-5 run inning for him. He seems to have conquered that if his 7 game run in the Majors last season is an indication.

since the chats are now sponsored, do we have the money to put in a jump to the latest comment button on each thread?

Jbird, I read your last comment in the thread. You basically said your own personal experiences lead you to believe there is not much of a gender gap or to the extent that their is, it is overblown.

You do realize your own personal experiences comprise a sample size of 1, and scientists who do the studies on gender wage gap ARE smart enough to account for things like education and work gaps.

If I said my own eyeballs told me Joe Blanton was a better pitcher than Roy Halladay, and my basis for that was that I had seen both pitch, and Joe performed better in the games I saw him pitch, I would be rightly ridiculed.

I am not sure how this is any different.

And just because I know someone will probably flag it....yes, I just realized I used the wrong form of there/their/they're in my post.

Maybe with a new sponsor, the site can look into an edit function?

I just re-read my post and it seems a little harsher than I intended (ok, a lot.) All I was trying to get at was that you could be wrong or right but personal experience doesn't necessarily have much application when you are studying a society-wide phenomena.

I was attempting to make a point and used a sledgehammer instead of a thumb tack. Sorry about that.

Business School sponsor suggestion for Game Chat? "Skip Comments - Jump to Bottom Line"

Does that mean we'll get spankings for bad comments like in business school?

Carrasco's mental makeup is so bad that even stat-head scouts and sabermetricians like Keith Law are holding it against him. I don't think he'll see much success at the ML level.

"The Moment" that the post header describes isn't happening this camp, its whatever camp that Jason Knapp shows up healthy with a chance at the rotation. Thats where the real value is for Cleveland.

@ Heather:

Please see:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Gender-Wage-Gap-Final-Report.pdf

It is a report on the wage gap issue. The forward from the Department of Labor observes "There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent."

That is, and the Indians in "Dances With Wolves" said, all I have to say about that.

Sorry about the typo.

Now back to baseball.

Heather: I don't think that was my point. I just used my personal example to illustrate the point that men can be individually impacted the same way women are if they make similar choices. In fact I have been stigmatized at work by my boss (a woman) for taking off too much time for family care even though I use less leave than she does. I think my point was that there are a lot of factors in our society that impact the wage gap and I think a very, very small percentage of that is employers, intentionally or not, paying equally qualified and experienced women less money than men for doing the same job. . . but I heard a rumor that this might be a baseball blog, so even though I find this interesting, I should probably stay on topic. Mets Suck! . . .that was less unsatisfying than it ought to be because they really do suck.

MisterZoomer: you got spanked in business school? I knew I was missing out when I took all those online classes.

I learned my physics (jokes) at Drexel.

"I think a very, very small percentage of that is employers, intentionally or not, paying equally qualified and experienced women less money than men for doing the same job."

Your opinion is at odds with a great deal of well-conduted research.

There is also well-performed research demonstrating that women are viewed negatively when they negotiate for higher salary, while in men the same behavior is viewed as neutral or positive. Women who are reluctant to be tough in salary negotiations because they don't want to start their new job with a mark against them have legitimate reason to feel that way.

I don't think anyone feels that men don't get the treated poorly in the workplace at times.

In other news, still pissed off about the $93 nosebleed seats at Busch Stadium, and pondering whether to get a dish this year since ESPN has only scheduled 2 Phillies games...

As for juicers, I still can't seem to find any clarity in my thoughts about them.

my personal eexperience has led me to believe that men deserve more than women.

I don't know, I'm pretty catty.

I took Physics in summer session at the University of Delaware. I was left wondering whether the professor wore the same pants every day or had many identical pairs of brown polyester slacks. (You seldom hear the word "slacks" anymore, but those pants were definitely slacks.)

JBird: "I just used my personal example to illustrate the point that men can be individually impacted the same way women are if they make similar choices"

Yes, and that's exactly what I am saying is wrong and dangerous.

Your personal experience and extrapolations thereof is largely irrelevant when applied to society at large.

If you saw both Halladay and Blanton pitch once, and Blanton pitched better, that tells very little about their pitching as a whole, and it is fallacious to extrapolate from such a small sample size.

Yet that is exactly what you're doing when you extrapolate from your personal experiences and try to make points about society at large.

Good luck to the CLE guys, but I really don't care about them anymore.

awh: yeah, exactly.

My physics teacher had this thing where he blinked constantly and as hard as you tried, you couldn't help but start blinking along with him, it just got in your head.

phargo: I don't know, just perusing the report Don Carmen posted, it seems fairly well conducted (US Dept of Labor wrote the forward). Do you have a report backing up your position that it's mostly sexism and correcting for societal differences in behavior? I'd like to look at that one too if you do.

Heather: I'm not extrapolating, I'm illustrating.

JBird: Right here, recent report by the National Academies of Science (I am a scientist, so it's the area with which I am most familiar).

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11741&page=1

Heather: extrapolating would be: I'm an accountant and devilishly handsome, therefore all accountants are devilishly handsome.

Illustrating would be: some experts say some accountants can be devilishly handsome, I'm an accountant and devilishly handsome, therefore I guess there might be some validity to the experts' assertion.

I don't know, that makes some sense to me anyway. I'm not using me as the starting point or even the endpoint, just an example.

My physics teacher once said, "In order to make that number larger, we are going to have to make it bigger."

Don't think about that statement for too long or your head will explode.

Phargo: that's a paper on why there aren't more women scientists. By extrapolating, I've discovered that it's because all scientists (and academics) are sexists. It's 300+ pages. Where does it start studying differences in wages and correcting for the difference in individual choices?

Again, I'm not saying there's no difference or sexism, just that the 60 or 70 cents on the dollar thing is a crock.

JBird - 30 Rock reference.

Zoomer: Yes, that, and your Kabletown box will play Eat Pray Love on every channel. Now, off to watch Eat Pray Love.

JBird - I think there's also some value in looking at how professions are paid relative to the gender of those normally employed in them.

I like 30 Rock and Community very much, I think The Office jumped the shark a while back.

"The HoF should be there to celebrate the players who were the best and who help transcend the game to higher levels."

What is should or shouldn't be is another discussion. That's not what the HOF is, and there are plenty of examples in both directions to support this - deserving players who aren't included (Pete Rose, Joe Jackson) and undeserving players who are included (many as a result of time spent with higher profile teams).

If it were based solely on statistical performance, there would be no reason for a vote. There would be a statistical formula based on benchmarks and those who scored high enough would be in the HOF.

As long as it's based on a human vote, things like personality and likability are highly influential factors, as is the case in any election.

"I hate to agree with Will, but I don't want the juicers to get plaques."

Remind me to ask you for a quote for the dust jacket if and when I ever publish a book.

Andy -- for physics humor, you might appreciate this.

http://xkcd.com/849/

Andy: I don't know. . . sounds like extrapolating to me. And according to Heather it's just a slippery slope from there to thinking Blanton is the ace of our staff (shudder).

So back to whether or not we can get a button on posts to jump us to the latest comments rather than cycling through 3 or 4 pages of comments. . . . maybe if JW weren't spending all his CSN/Drexel money on hookers and blow . . .

Will: No problem, I've been wanting to use the words "irksome" and "pedantic" more, so this could work out well for both of us.

So far, we've directly or indirectly discussed the Hall of Fame, Blanton > Halladay, mirror neurons, gender equality, physics, the psychological makeup of an Indians prospect, the Drexel School of Business, 30 Rock and spankings.

And we're not finished with page one yet.

I love this place.

Jbird: I take pedantic as a high complement and I consider a day where I don't get on your nerves to be a lost opportunity, so this truly does work for us.

Thursday night is about the only night I watch scripted comedy - 30 Rock, Big Bang Theory, Community, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

Outsourced is growing on me, mostly on Diedrich Baeder's merits. The movie was better.

Will: as well you should.

Wow... I wasn't sure it was possible to launch a new thread that could compete with our dumbest threads of all time...

But we've done it! Beerleaguer never ceases to amaze me.

Carrasco would have made for the best #8 in the majors... Should have never traded him away...... Plus, forget his lean numbers for a third basemen, Jason Donald is just way too short.

CJ: I think it's entertaining. . . and anyway it's the Phillies fault for not providing more interesting comment fodder

***Wow... I wasn't sure it was possible to launch a new thread that could compete with our dumbest threads of all time...

But we've done it! Beerleaguer never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: CJ | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 11:24 AM

***

Yup...remember when we actually discussed baseball? Those were fun times. The current topics suck arse.

Cipper: I think Carrasco would have beaten out Worely for 7th starter, hands down.

real (semi-interesting) competition would be between Carrasco and KK for 6th starter/swingman.

There ought to be a physics-related rational for having a tall third baseman - something which compares the neurological speed advantage of someone shorter against the increase in leverage and spatial coverage afforded by greater height and longer limbs.

But since I gave up engineering for the humanities someone else will have to do the research work.

(Of course, once the research is complete, I will definitely find some way to disagree in a rabid ad hominem attack.)

Does anyone have the chart for a league-average 8th starter?

JBird: Carrasco is better than KK.

Carrasco is easily better than KK. For one, Carrasco can actually get strikeouts on a regular basis.

(Attempting) to stick to the header:

I'm curious to see how Donald does. I always thought he'd make a capable utility IF someday. He never seemed to have the chops to be a starter on a contender. But, I saw him in ST a few times and thought he looked decent enough to hang around MLB for a while as a journeyman IF of sorts. I tend to pull for guys like that for some reason.

Knapp was another guy I was pulling for. Seemed to have electric, albeit, raw stuff. He has the potential to contribute at the MLB level, if he stays healthy of course.

Carrasco? I jumped off that wagon a while ago. I don't think he has it.

Marson, I like. Being that catchers are always in demand, I think he is good enough to remain in the Show. As long as you play solid D and can call an adequate game, you'll have a job somewhere.

PED's are as old as baseball (almost). Interesting read.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/19th-century-peds-and-andy-pettittes-hof-case/

What's funny is that at this point, I wouldn't even trade Francisco for any of these 4 guys. Carrasco and Knapp are probably more valuable overall, but I'm talking about this year's Phillies team. Francisco will likely contribute more overall than any of the other 4 would if they were still in the Phils org. Obviously the trade was worth it because of how good Lee was in 2009 but Francisco could be a major factor this year.

JW - I always though the Carrasco and Knapp were the keys to the deal too. Indians already had some catching prospects at the time & they didn't seem settled on where to place Donald.

Never understood the love that Donald got. A mediocre/lousy defender who had adequate gap power but projected at best as say a .280ish guy with modest power at best as a full-time starter (~10 HR).

Marson was largely the same although it funny how he is now touted for his defense. Smart move on his part because he can stick around for a decade if he gets a rep as a great defensive catcher/backup catcher.

Cleveland is a perfect place right now for Carrasco though. He can go through growing pains without too much scrutiny this year.

One guy I hated to see get included in that deal was actually Knapp though. Yeah he was supposedly had a somewhat awkward delivery & was a youngster but threw lights out.

Francisco is a lot better than most will admit. Is he an All Star? No. But he is a more than capable 4th outfielder and I bet he would start on a few teams. Don't bother asking me to name the teams, because I won't take the time. Take the comment for what it is -- a compliment to Ben Francisco.

Billingsly: Donald played 1/2 a season in the bigs last year. Pretty "eh":
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/donalja01.shtml

Jbird, my apologies. I forgot that the article/book did not include salary stuff.

A meta-analysis (examining and combining the results of many studies) of gender-based salary bias is here:
http://jhr.uwpress.org/cgi/content/abstract/XXXIX/3/828

Conclusion of the referenced mata-analysis: Although gender wage discrimination has lessened, the research base still finds a significant gender wage inequality.

JW is correct about the prevailing wisdom here: Marson and Doanld were seen as the top prospects. But Sickels, BA, scout.com etc. all saw Carrasco and Knapp as the better prospects and my bet is that's how it will turn out.

Donald doesn't have the power for 3B. If he's going to be an everyday player, 2B is the only position that makes sense for him since he doesn't have the range for SS.

Marson has answered all the questions that were raised about his defense 3 years ago, but his bat, which was unquestioned then, is clearly an issue. His great age 22 season at Reading now looks like an outlier.

***His great age 22 season at Reading now looks like an outlier.***

Yup.

Defensively, his arm is his greatest strength...which makes sense as he was a QB in high school.

NEPP: Even when questions were raised about Marson's defense, his arm wasn't one of them. His issues were footwork, blocking on low pitches and accuracy on throws. But he always had a gun.

The700Level Enrico
RT @ryanlawrence21: Charlie called Dom Brown the "first choice" for RF job. #phillies

When this trade happened I definately saw Carrasco and Knapp as the bigger prizes, was never impressed much by Donald or Marson. I figured they would be good backups at best. On a related note, its funny to think that Carrasco was our best prospects only a couple years ago, and no we have a ton more depth and talent with guys like Colvin, Cosart, Singleton not to mention Brown.

Andy: I've given up Engineering for Beerleaguer.

NEPP & Jack: but would Carrasco have the mental fortitude to pitch in front of full houses Philly as compared to Cleveland. . . (only partially sarcastic)

Phargo: it's $17 to rent the article for 2 days. I might have the disposable income to purchase it on a lark and see how their research compares to the other study if I hadn't chosen children over a career for so many years, but since I did. . .

Bed Beard: I agree that Donald is "eh." That was the point behind my post -- basically stating that he won't start many places, but could potentially be a utility IF for some teams. Aren't utility IF "eh" by definition?

I was assuming you didn't realize he logged some major league time last year.

***Even when questions were raised about Marson's defense, his arm wasn't one of them. His issues were footwork, blocking on low pitches and accuracy on throws. But he always had a gun.***

Yeah, I know.

RBill: "Francisco is a lot better than most will admit. Is he an All Star? No. But he is a more than capable 4th outfielder and I bet he would start on a few teams."

I agree that is he is a capable 4th OF and could start on some(few) teams, but the Phillies aren't one of those teams in my opinion.

I disagree that he is better than most people admit. His OF defense looks to be very subpar and his bat is good enough to be a 4th OF but not much else. I think he needs to improve at least one specific part of his game to raelly give himself more value then just a backup - maybe better splits vs LHP, maybe better speed/baserunning, better range in the field... something.

Howard says his sore ankle feels better than ever.

It's revisionist history to say Carrasco was considered a throw-in to the deal.

Carrasco had been our top prospect for a couple of years before 2009, and was still a top-50 prospect by BA going into the season.

True, he had stalled out a little bit at AAA, but was still relatively young, and everyone knew he at least had some future as a regular MLB starter, which is more than anyone could say at the time for Jason Donald.

Knapp everyone also knew had the highest upside, but was 18 at the time and had arm troubles. So it's not like it was crazy to consider him later in the deal. Again, everyone know (or most people did) that he had a very-high upside and a very high risk of getting there (as he still does).

Clout: Remember at the beginning of the off-season where you guaranteed us that the Phils would bring in a "real" RFer, because Dom wasn't ready?

Still wanna bet that Dom won't be the opening day RF?

Bed Beard: My apologies. My initial post reads a little snarkier (is that a word?) than I had hoped. I appreciate the info.

lorecore: I agree with just about everything you posted. But, I read quite a bit (here and elsewhere) that Francisco is pretty useless and that an option like John Mayberry, Jr. or Sarge, Jr. would easily replace his production. I don't believe that would be true.

Jbird: If you're really interested in it, I can probably get it for free at school via interlibrary loan, but studies and meta-analysis on the income gap are a dime a dozen, and most of them are of questionable neutrality. My minor is womens studies - I've read plenty of this crap.

There is an income gap, but in recent decades and with very few exceptions, it has nothing to do with discrimination and may well change in the next 50 years (women outnumber men in undergrad college attendance).

- Women are less likely to actively pursue a raise. There have been genetic and sociological explanations for this, but the one that makes the most sense is that girls are socialized as children to be less aggressive than men, and this carries over to the workplace as adults.

- Women are more likely to be single parents than men, which gives them less freedom to take risks and pursue other work with higher salary or advancement opportunities. They also tend to live in closer proximity to their parents, limiting the distance they'll travel for work compared to men. The high proportion of single mothers skews the data.

- Far more women have gratuity based income compared to men, and as anyone who's ever worked in a restaurant (or a strip club for that matter) knows, most people aren't exactly honest in claiming their tips on their taxes. A significant number of American women are "officially" making minimum wage as far as the data is concerned. In the real world, most gratuity-based professions make more than double.

- Probably the most obvious difference, is that when women have children (single or married) they take more time off work to care for their family than men. The same is true for the care of elderly parents. Less hours worked = less money and less of a chance to earn a promotion compared to a man who does not miss work as often.

- When families legally immigrate to the United States, it is often from societies that follow more traditional gender roles AND it is often a professional male as the head of the household (doctors, computer programmers, etc). Many of these families have husbands making 200 - 500k or higher with wives that stay at home.

In short, there is not a conspiracy theory to keep women down. Individually, a woman has an equal chance at salary compared to a man. Individual behaviors decide your income, NOT your gender.

Now, can we please talk baseball for a while?

I was gonna say, dont forget the Casey Blake blockbuster!! but you did mention Santana of course

Billingsly: Maybe you know something about Mayberry that I don't, but I don't believe he could easily replace Francisco.

At the very least, Francisco has established himself as able to hit major league pitching. I don't think Mayberry has had 100 major league plate appearances yet, has he?

Sports Illustrated analysis of the Cliff Lee trade confirms Corrasco was viewed as a main piece, not a throw-in.

Cleveland Plain Dealer article along the same lines.

Will: we agree twice today. . . I may have to start re-evaluating my weltanschauung.

Will: Re-read. I don't either.

But, I read quite a bit (here and elsewhere) that Francisco is pretty useless and that an option like John Mayberry, Jr. or Sarge, Jr. would easily replace his production. I don't believe that would be true.

r bill: Agreed - ben fran is much better than RFD, Sarge, and any available free agent still left out there.

I will try to stay objective when talking about francisco now, but as soon as spring training starts, he will automatically suck in my eyes.


DOM!'s upside over francisco is to a point where its worth the risk that he may underperform that of which Francisco may do himself in the beginning of the year.

will s: "My minor is womens studies". Understood.

I still believe in John Mayberry Jr. despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's gonna happen.

Dom's upside is far superior to Francisco. I would never even put the two in the same sentence as far as potential (other than the sentence above).

My belief is that going into the off-season, the Phillies were hard pressed to find a better 4th outfielder than Francisco (taking into account all factors, i.e. trade partners, salary, etc.).

This very website actually noted that Carrasco was a better prospect at the time:

"Meanwhile, shortstop Jason Donald and catcher Lou Marson are nice position prospects, but not the kind of players who win titles. Donald is blocked at shortstop and had his best season in 2008 as an older prospect in Double-A. Marson lacks power, but most importantly, a glove, which is what the offense-rich Phillies value most behind home plate. The Indians may have received their best buy-low prize in Carlos Carrasco, a big, physical right-hander considered by many to be the top prospect in their system less than a year ago. Confidence remains a one of the main knocks on the Venezuelan right-hander, but his future still appears bright despite a so-so season."

I think most people felt Carrasco and Knapp, being the best two prospects, were sufficent and wanted to keep Donald and Marson as they could be used in the shorter term to help the bench.

If the Indians get at least 3-4 say above average years from Knapp and Carrasco eventually (say an +ERA around 105 or so), they were the 'winners' from the Lee trade.

Jack: Let me correct your purposely distorted statement of my views.

I definitely thought the Phils would bring in a RH hitter to play RF as insurance, should Dom flop.

But I have also consistently said that Dom winning the job was the best possible solution. I never said "Dom wasn't ready."

Where we differed was this: You thought it was inconceivable that Dom wouldn't be in RF on opening day. I said Dom would have to win the job.

I still believe that. And if Dom performs in ST as he performed when he was with the team in August and September, your starter in RF will be Ben Francisco, unless the Phils add another RH bat. There's still time for that.

Clout: So you don't think Dom will start?

Why don't you just make an actual prediction here? I've said consistently that Dom will start. You keep refusing to make a prediction. Is this so you can claim that you were right all along, no matter what?

***Howard says his sore ankle feels better than ever.

Posted by: clout | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 02:10 PM

***

Add it to the Spring Training euphemisms list!!!

Jack: Only a dumbbell like you would predict what someone is going to do in Spring Training.

I can tell you what I hope: I hope GG gets Dom's swing fixed and he wins the job.

Clout: I don't think Dom will be absolutely horrible in ST.

Given that the team has basically now said that it's Dom's job to lose, I don't think he'll lose it.

Were it me, I would never make a decision based on 70 ABs against random pitchers in minor-league parks. But I get that sometimes you have to rely on such a horrible sample.

Jack: I think the decision will be made more on what Dom's swing looks like than actual stats. If he still can't handle a fastball on his hands or a breaking pitch outside, he will start the season at LV.

"My minor is womens studies - I've read plenty of this crap."

So would every person in your women's studies class agree it is garbage? Would your professors?

Just curious.

What's the big deal about making a prediction? So what if you're wrong? It's only baseball. It's not like the fate of the free world rests on your prediction.

Kutztown: Yeah, you'd think.

Of course, the fact that you can't make a prediction on something itself indicates its unworthiness as a criteria for making a decision.

If Clout doesn't think anyone can predict how someone will do in ST, how are you then supposed to use it as a measuring stick for a job?

Heather: My professors aren't quite so easily convinced by studies funded by individuals with a clear agenda - and this is just about as secular and progressive of any campus this side of Berkley.

When you look at all of the data, the gender income gap has a very clear, reasonable explanation that has very little (if anything at all) to do with discrimination.

I'm sorry if this disappoints you.

Will: Can you explain then why the wage disparity is the highest (in relative terms) in jobs where both men and women work 60+ hours a week (and thus it takes away your supposed rationale that it can all be explained by women working part-time)?

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG