Part of

« Dobbs deals blow after Oswalt exits with back strain | Main | Phillies-Marlins washed out, rescheduled for June 15 »

Saturday, April 16, 2011


Is Cliff Lee the new #2?

My ramblings yesterday evening regarding the use of Roy O.’s downtime to get a better look at an alternate # 5 starter was clearly not the issue of the moment. If Charlie continues to use Danys Baez in the old Durbin role – with the attendant lousy results – is it Charlie’s crazy loyalty and blindness to outcomes, or is his hand being forced to use a high-paid veteran?

I shudder to think of any FO directive that is forcing Charlie to utilize someone (Baez) just because he gets paid handsomely (signed thru 2011, 2 yrs/$5.25M). Geez, the end of that contract can’t come soon enough. If Baez ain’t cooked, he might be getting crispy at the edges. Too many stellar spring trainings and nothing to show when mid to late April shows up.

BTW, as I try to make more time to be a smarter fan, I’m seeing some amazing things. Sum total of Danys Baez’ earnings? $40,249,999! Hard to believe a relatively pedestrian RHP could haul down that kind of coin. He’s only had 2 really outstanding seasons (2001; 180 ERA+; 2005 153 ERA+). Memo to dads out there: Teach your boys to pitch!

Good Morning.

I am hoping for a speedy and comlete recovery for Roy Oswalt, that's for sure.

Who gets Oswalt's next start? KK?


that is some serious coin for sure. My nephew has been a real star pitcher in Little League, throwing 65-70 mph with control. Now that he's 13, he's moving to the big field. My sister in law has visions of Oswalt and Halladay in her head a bit. I have kept it to myself that the odds are that if you're good enough to play serious high school ball, you have what, about a 1 in 10,000 shot of making the show? Still, you never know, someone has to make it.

cut_fastball: You honestly think Charlie is forced to use Baez because of his salary. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but that's completely idiotic.

This team has a massive payroll and Baez is a tiny percentage of that. Not to mention this team has, in recent years, eaten salary when necessary (i.e. Adam Eaton).

Baez had a solid spring and 5 of his first 6 appearances were good.

He's not the long term answer (maybe not even short term), but Charlie used him because he thought he was the best choice.

A few things:

1.) I think this was the worst Phillies game of the season.

2.) I hope it pours today so I get to see Hamels at CBP instead of Blanton. Hamels will be clutch as it's an afternoon game, ha.

3.) Give Oswalt a day off and put in Worley. If the pitching is a big question mark for the game I'd rather see Worley get some time than watch KK potentially unravel.

"Who gets Oswalt's next start? KK?"

I'm hoping it's Roy Oswalt. Has there been a statement that they'll skip his turn? If they do, I'd expect it will be Kendrick unless he gets a a few innings in a blow out between now and then.

Sorry, Hugh, didn't mean to scare ya- there has been no such statement.

I see now that Oswalt hopes Oswalt gets Oswalt's next start, as you do, and I do, too!

It seems prudent of him to leave the game when he did.

CJ – “Idiotic” means devoid of logic; an opinion formed without critical thought. Why run Ibanez out there every night when you could sit him and get Gload or Mayberry a spot start? Why is Worley in LV after such a good spring while KY Joe scuffles? The logic of these statements notwithstanding – just like Charlie – it's my "gut" feeling that magnitude of salary influences playing time.

In support of your argument, I suppose a similar case could be made for Charlie being "pro-veteran". Regardless, I’d love to see more playing time awarded based on good performance. How many PAs does Mayberry have after the walk off hit opening day? Try 9.

cut_fastball: Wait... now you're saying that Charlie is forced to start Ibanez every game because of his salary? And he's forced to start Joe Blanton because of his salary? So Ruben Amaro forces Charlie to make certain decisions based on how much the player makes?

COMPLETELY IDIOTIC. Sorry, it just is.

Perhaps Raul hasn't sat a game yet because we're just 13 games into the season that's already had 2 off days built into the schedule.

Perhaps Blanton is in the rotation because he's earned to right to be in this rotation and Worley has all of 2 career starts.

This kind of stuff is just stupid. I figured once the Phillies hit the edge of the luxury tax, people would stop making stupid suggestions about decisions being made based on money. Just stupid.

I really hope this didn't happen when Hanley Ramirez made him break his delivery.

Ibanez: .235 BA; 72 OPS+; several posters have noted his rag-armed throws from the outfield.

Blanton: Won 0, lost 1; 10.45 ERA; 10.1 IP in 2 starts.

Wow. Any way that ongoing playing time can be justified for these seemingly fading pieces of past championship teams is a real stretch.

Our baseball fortunes in 2011 are integrally tied in to our four awesome starting pitchers. Each one is so important to our success as we know that with them we should be very competitive in a high percentage of games. Because of their capabilities, we can rely on opportune hitting as opposed to the offensive output we previously required. I am really hoping for a speedy recovery for Roy Oswalt. I will not be quite as optimistic on our chances until I see him take the mound again. If he has to miss a start (and I don't want to pluralize the word start), I would use Kyle Kendrick first. That's why we resigned him.

So true on that Hanley Ramirez comment. He was trying to throw off Oswalt's rhythm with a really late time call. There is no way it should have been awarded. Oswalt needed a few warmup tosses after that happened.

I'm also a little bit lost on why Mayberry doesn't get a start here or there. I think we can survive a day without Ibanez's .637 OPS and little league range.

Charlie is an idiot for thinking he knows how to manage a major league team. We are all geniuses because we all actually know.

Also "best" reliever is a misnomer. Someone said about "great" bullpen pitchers. Let's just be honest here a second. There's a reason these guys (even Madson) aren't starters, and it's not that they're just too valuable in the pen. It's that a large percentage of bullpen pitchers couldn't hack it as starters. There's a certain volatility to any bullpen.

Also I would have loved madson to be brought in earlier. That way when the Fish took the lead in the 8th or 9th on whoever was left we'd have no innings left to try and score instead of two.

Beerleaguer homework. Write one hundred times on a chalkboard. "I am not smarter than 90% of major league managers."

Also I'd like to echo CJ in that players on this team don't play based on salary. That is such an antiquated sentiment.

That is just plain wrong and in fact is so wrong I don't even have to explain why it's wrong.

Ibanez: .235 BA; 72 OPS+; several posters have noted his rag-armed throws from the outfield.

Blanton: Won 0, lost 1; 10.45 ERA; 10.1 IP in 2 starts.

Wow. Any way that ongoing playing time can be justified for these seemingly fading pieces of past championship teams is a real stretch.

Posted by: cut_fastball | Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM

This reminds me of an old quote i heard about government.

"This is an outrage something MUST be done. This is something, therefore this MUST be done."
Which actually explains the recession pretty well, but also explains why the Phillies have been competetive. If every time something went a tiny bit wrong management or Charlie did something JUST TO DO IT. We'd be the Washington Redskins (anyone help with a better baseball reference?).

Rex, Madson is not a starter because he only really has two pitches, his fastball and changeup. His fastball is excellent, and his changeup, even better. But, if seen by a lineup 3 times in a game, no matter how good they are, they will be hit, and hit hard. That's why he's a reliever.

Also, as a manager, you have to deal with the situation at hand as best you can. The Phillies were nursing a one run lead, and the top of the Marlins order was coming up, and the bases were loaded. You can't worry that the Marlins MIGHT threaten in the next two innings. They were threatening at that moment, and the fire needed to be extinguished. You use your best reliever when your best reliever is needed. If Bastardo would have faltered in the eigth inning, so be it. But as of the 7th inning, the 8th inning has not happened, and any events that might have happened in the 8th would have been mere speculation. The 7th inning was a HUGE trouble spot, and leaving a reliever in with a 5.3 K/9 and 4.3 BB/9 as opposed to bringing in a reliever with a 10.9 K/9 and 2.2 BB/9 was just moronic.

This isn't baseball logic. This is just logic.

Also, the notion that the lead being coughed up in earlier innings is better is just nonsensical. No matter what happens in the 7th innings, the Phillies still had 9 outs to put more runs on the board. They can put those runs on the board whether they are losing or winning. The fact is, the Phillies needed to use their best reliever in the 7th, and opted not to. It cost them the game, most likely.

Fat: Me thinks Rex was being a little sarcastic... or at the lest, not very serious.

Well fatalotti I just guess I hadn't thought of it that way Gee-golly-wizz I guess I forgot to turn on my "logic" meter.

Though I do have 1 question Fat. Explain to me every facet of the clubhouse all day yesterday and the personal internal workings of the players on the team.

Also that isn't Logic it's hindsight.

I'm sorry how many teams do you manage at the major league level?

Just think of this idiotic logic...

Ruben Amaro forces Charlie to play more expensive players who are worst because the owners have invested SO MUCH money in them.

The team plays worse because of we're playing these terrible, but well-compensated players.

The team makes less money because they've played worse.

The owners make less money.

Yep, now I see it. You guys are right.

Obviously, Cliff Lee's back problems were contagious.

I'm always being a little bit sarcastic but usually against know-it-alls.

And yeah Madson is a reliever because he wasn't a very good starter. If it's only because he had two pitches that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't a very good starter. The fact is that the game wasn't "on the line" in the 7th.

Also explain to me how being down 1 run in the ninth with 1 out left is equal to being down down 1 run in the 3rd?

I mean listen I get it I like to pat myself on the back and hear myself talk as much as anyone too.

Rex, nice counter argument...wait, there isn't one. I'm sorry, I just assumed you would actually offer up a response that was somewhat substantive.

Your question isn't actually a question. I don't know all the inner workings, but since those "internal workings" of "every facet of the clubhouse all day yesterday" are irrelevant to the topic at hand, I'm not sure why you would bring them up.

And for the record, appeals to authority are always logically fallacious. Just because a major league manager did it, doesn't mean it was the correct thing to do.

Lastly, I wanted Madson to come in BEFORE Dobbs came up to the plate. That is called FOREsight.

Oh yeah and CJ I agree with you that players don't play based on salary. I think the way i worded that was a bit murky.

for the people who think that salary=playing time I'd like to suggest some really good documentary's about moon landing hoaxes, bigfoot, and 911 conspiracies.

Fatalotti -- I never thought much about Madson’s abbreviated career as a starter, but what you said makes a lot of sense. Without a cutter, slider, curveball or some other complementary pitch, the 2nd time through the order can get real dicey real fast for a 2-pitch pitcher. Makes me wonder how much Hamels goes to his curve or cutter, especially later in games.

CJ, please explain why it's "idiotic" to think a guy might be playing because he's being paid a lot of money. It's entirely possible that I'm just an idiot, but it makes a lot of sense to me, esp when we are talking about someone like Ibanez. (As an aside, I'm not in the bench Raul camp, but he could be rested more) Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's the only reason, but I do think it's a factor.

Rex, the Phillies have 27 outs to score as many runs as they can. The Marlins have 27 outs to score as many runs as they can. It doesn't matter when the runs are scored. The team with the most at the end wins the game.

What you're claiming is that it's better for the bullpen to falter in the 7th, because it gives the Phillies offense "time" to "come back", which is patently absurd. Let's say the bullpen doesn't falter in the 7th, and the Phillies have the lead going into the bottom of the 7th: do they not have an obligation to score now? Can't they still put runs on the board and augment the lead?

Sure, you're right that it's worse, as an offense, to ever have less outs to score runs, but the notion that it's "better" to give up runs earlier, rather than later, is absurd. Giving up runs is bad, no matter when they happen, since run scoring and run prevention are independent events on a baseball team.

Madson should have brought in during the 7th, as he had the best chance to extinguish an ACTUAL fire, as opposed to being saved for a POSSIBLE later fire.

Oh, and if Vice Roy outlined the severity of his injury, unless he's pulling an Utley, it doesn't sound severe at all.

Old Phan: It's idiotic to think the General Manger or Owners are forcing a manager to play players in certain spots (i.e. Raul every day or Baez in the 7th) because of how much money they are making.


Fata, do you worry more if the Phils are down 5-0 in the 1st inning or 5-0 in the 8th?

CJ, that was not a great explanation, but OK. I'm officially idiotic. Good to know!

Yes You wanted it before and you get to bitch about it after. Kind of like when I "call" a homerun on the next pitch and then get to say to my friends all day "called it." Blind squirrels find nuts.

And actually the reason i brought up the "every facet" part is because I'm a genius. See I realize that in life sometimes there's information that can't be known, or isn't known. I don't like to draw conclusions on these instances because I'm afraid of sounding retarded. But some people don't care.

Here I suppose should have been my questions. Does Madson want to pitch in that slot?
Would the other players on the team be comfortable having Madson pitch there. If Madson did pitch there and give up the lead would it damage his psyche?
Do you believe in the other pitchers like Baez that you know "personally" and have watched warm up and pitch?
Do you know their routines?
Do you know who was out partying last night?
Do you have a report from Dubee on who looked good recently and who didn't?
has the pitcher you plan on using done much in the clubhouse to instill confidence in you and the rest of the team through words actions or leadership?
has that player personally asked you or publicly made it known that he can and is willing to pitch in high leverage situations?
Would it reflect well on you as a manager to players in the league or prospective free-agents to let players hang themselves instead of being an old curmudgeon who uses nothing but numbers and short term results to bury a player?

You did take all of that into account when you wanted Madson on thought right?

Old Phan: So you believe Charlie has been forced to start Raul every day... and that Charlie was forced to put Baez in the 7th because of the salaries they are making?

Good to know.

cut_fastfall your attempts to keep the discussion civil are appreciated, even if others do everything they can to "BL-ify" the discussion. I do agree: There is something to the idea that big contracts are given more rope.

Did the Phillies eat money on Eaton's contract? Sure..

Did it take them a ton of starts to get to that point? Was there a time when he was given every chance to succeed and was he given starts when it was obvious he was cooked? Yes. If anyone didn't see that Eaton got some starts that a rookie never would have gotten, then they are completely idi.. er, I mean they have a differing opinion.

CJ, I guess you're right. I'm sure teams are more than happy to pay guys 11 million bucks to not play.

Madson should have brought in during the 7th, as he had the best chance to extinguish an ACTUAL fire, as opposed to being saved for a POSSIBLE later fire.

I guess we disagree on the fire part. I Don't call 9-1-1 when my toast is burning, because if I keep doing that they might not be there when my house actually catches fire.

Rex, you do know that Madson pitched the 8th inning, correct? You do realize that Madson came up and had a 1-2-3 inning, correct? You do know that since 2008, Madson has posted a 144 ERA+, while Baez, since 2009, has posted an ERA+ of 97 (didn't pitch in 2008), correct?

Madson is a FAR better reliever than Baez, and I wanted him in to pitch in a HUGE trouble spot. Of course, at the time, I wasn't 100% assured that Madson was able to pitch (he may have been injured, or partying the night before) but when he did come on, and pitch extemely well, it was confirmed that he could have pitched the 7th, but didn't simply because the manager chose to not put him in the game.

And again, all your questions are subtergued attempts at appealing to authority. Just because Charlie Manuel is the manager does not mean that all his decisions are correct.

Old Phan, to answer your question, yes. It is worse for the Phillies to be down late than down early, certainly. Their chances of making up the deficit decrease as they have less outs to work with. But, to say that it's better if a bullpen falters earlier as opposed to later doesn't make any sense. Until it is shown that offensive side and the pitching side of a baseball team aren't independent, than ANY time the bullpen falters, it is bad, since the offense always has a total of 27 outs to score as many runs as they can.

Old Phan: So you believe Raul Ibanez should be benched after 13 games. Also good to know.

CJ, where did I say I think he should be benched? I certainly don't have an objection to platooning him once in a while. It can't hurt to rest him.

I'm reminded of that old fable, "The Boy Who Cried Burnt Toast".

Who said it was correct? That assumes there is black and white decisions.

I was simply making the point that you're not omniscient so stop acting like it.

I don't think all his decisions are right I just think he has access to information that you couldn't even sniff. So you guess. Cute, but retarded.

Also those questions again were just to illustrate again that a MLB manager has to take more into account than k/9.

The MLB's dirty little secret (and I know a lot of people here don't want to admit this) is that baseball is managed and played by (ready) *GASP* human beings.

A very wry fable, indeed.

Old Phan: Well then maybe you should have started at the beginning of the discussion instead of the middle. You see, Charlie isn't allowed to even rest Raul for a day because of his salary. He's forced to play him every day. But thanks for weighing in!

CJ, you still haven't explained your "idiotic" comment. But thanks for weighing in!

Charlie is an idiot for thinking he knows how to manage a major league team. We are all geniuses because we all actually know.

Finally, someone who get it!

Old Phan: Well, some people just can't see it. I can't help that.

I guess we disagree on the fire part. I Don't call 9-1-1 when my toast is burning, because if I keep doing that they might not be there when my house actually catches fire.

Posted by: Rex | Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 01:25 PM

I'm going to use your logic and run with it. In this analogy, Manuel is you, I'm guessing. So you wouldn't call 9-1-1 when your toast is burning, but you would bring over the fire fighters when absolutely nothing in your house is burning?

Let's look at the situation from the 7th last night. Romero actually did an ok job getting Morrison to ground out, but he hit the ball with is glove and LoMO got on in a fluky way. Baez was brought in. It was clear from the get-go that he had nothing. He walked a batter, gave up a hit, and got a fly ball out. Then he faces Dobbs, a LH hitter.

At this point, the bases are loaded, and the Phils have yet to relinquish the lead. They could bring in Bastardo here, but he would have probably faced a right handed hitter. And people have already noted that Charlie shoulld try to go with the best matchup to increase his likelihood of winning. The question, it would seem, is, what's the better matchup: Baez v. Dobbs or Bastardo v. Helms. The only problem is, there is a better matchup than either one of those. Madson v. whoever the hell the Marlins want to bring in. Madson doesn't have a noticeable platoon split (.583 OPS against righties, ~.630 OPS against lefties last year), he induces ground balls at a 50% clip, he strikes out 10.9 batters per 9 innings pitched (more than 1 an inning), and he has pitched in high leverage situations for years now (playoffs, world series, 8th innings against the meat of the lineup in close games) and proven he can do it. Neither Baez or Bastardo have proven able to do this.

Now, we assume that Bastardo would have to get some outs either way, right? And Baez was definitely cooked, as evidence by the fact that he looked terrible before facing Dobbs, and then gave up a hit to Dobbs. Well, instead of letting Baez blow the game, then going to Bastardo, then bringing Madson in to start a fresh inning, thus minimizing his usefulness, why not bring Madson in before the proverbial sh!t hit the fan, letting him get you out of the inning, then bringing Bastardo in to start a fresh inning.

If Bastardo falters in the 8th, with no one on base, then it's probably reasonable to assume he would have faltered in the 7th, as well.

Either way, you need to go with your best reliever when your best reliever is needed. Since you needed to get 5 outs from Madson/Bastardo, why not give the harder outs (the ones that have to be gotten with men on base already) to your better reliever. And why give any of those outs to a reliever who has proven in over a year here that he can't get high leverage outs, and has shown in that very inning that he didn't have it that night (I'm talking about the 5 outs that needed to be gotten as Dobbs was coming to the plate)?

"Their chances of making up the deficit decrease as they have less outs to work with."

Well that's exactly the point I made. Perhaps i worded it wrongly.

also from wikipedia. Since it keeps getting brought up/

"On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. ***Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects***, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism."

*** for the important point I'm making.***

Never said Charlie was infallible in principal. I said that he has more information at hand than YOU DO. I'm still right. He does.

Criticize all you want but when you start ending posts in "was moronic." You start to tread into "I am obviously omniscient." territory.

CJ --

You see, Charlie isn't allowed to even rest Raul for a day because of his salary. He's forced to play him every day.

Charlie's made the prima facie case for just that observation.

CJ - I have been a big Raul booster. But yes, he needs to be benched. Not only because he looks feeble at the plate. But his rag arm in left seems to have happened overnight. He was never this awful in left during his first two seasons.

As much as Baez cost the Phils the game last night, so did Raul. Nobody stops at third base when a ball is hit to left against the Phillies anymore. He could be standing ten feet behind third and throws home would still take two hops. It's quite alarming.

I remember Dick Allen out in left after he'd injured his hand. The shortstop would run out to take an underhand toss from him because he simply couldn't throw. His bat was that important. I can't say the same for Raul's bat these days.

Are they playing Raul because of his salary? I don't think so. At least I hope not. But sometimes there doesn't seem any other explanation. Why has Mayberry had zero playing time after seemingly straightening out his swing in ST? If Raul were hitting anything but flares and ground balls, I could understand it. So what's the reason?

As far as Baez: I think Charlie wanted to put him in in a high leverage situation to see if he could handle it. I knew he wouldn't and so did everyone on here. But Charlie had to prove it somehow. Hopefully he won't do that again.

Yes Res, Madson is human, and so is Bastardo and Baez and Manuel. But the human Madson has proven over a LARGE sample size that he is an elite reliever. Baez has proven that he's middling to terrible. The book is still out on Bastardo.

I don't need to be omniscient to know that Manuel made a mistake last night. He's still a good manager, but he made a mistake.

Your constant referencing of possibilities is what makes your argument weak. You are claiming that it's POSSIBLE Charlie knows something I don't that made bringing Madson in during the 7th a bad move, and it's possible that, had the Phils used Madson in the 7th, the bullpen would have just faltered in the 8th. Yes, many things are possible, but I'm talking about what's PLAUSIBLE. Given the situation that presented itself in the 7th inning (bases loaded, Phils with 1 run lead, 1 out recorded so far in in the inning), the pitcher with the most plausible chance to get them out of the inning was Ryan Madson. Manuel didn't play the percentages there, and he got burned.

End of story.

As for pitching guys out of position, the problem isn't putting Madson in the 7th to stop a fire. Its who is going to pitch in the 8th. Madson doesn't work more than 1 inning anymore. It has been proven that since he's moved to pitching one inning he is more successful and can make more appearances.

Bringing in Madson would have forced Bastardo to pitch in the 8th. No matter what Baez is coming in after Romero. So Madson would have had to clean up his mess.

As for the thought that if Bastardo had trouble in the 8th "so be it" well that makes no sense. You have less outs to come back (or what if the Phillies had tied or took lead in the bot of the 7th). Even with all the trouble in the 7th, the Phillies STILL had 6 outs to get one run and their two best relievers ready to work the 8th and 9th.

The end result is, Baez didn't get the job done. But you can't fault Manuel for that. Right now Baez is that option for that time. (And we are only in this situation because Lidge is hurt)

I would expect however before the Lidge returns that Bastardo fills that role.
Till then, as JW would say... "Baez is my guy"

The Front Office has influence in who makes the roster that the Manager has at his disposal, but it does not have influence on how the Manager uses the roster he is given.

Charlie said it himself in his postgame, he thought Baez vs Dobbs w/ bases loaded was a better matchup than Bastardo vs Helms w/ bases loaded. It had nothing to do with Baez's salary over Bastardo's.

I personally disagree with Charlie's decision, but I at least understand his logic that it was going to be lefty/righty no matter what and that Bastardo can be wild and has no room for error with the bases loaded.

CJ, your answers are becoming more hostile with less actual explanation. Doesn't really help your case. I would seriously like to hear your reasoning.

Idiotic is a strong word. But in a situation for which there are number of plausible explanations, it's best to disregard the least of them -- in this case, money. Ibanez is historically a good player who throughout his career has had abysmal stretches of play. I don't think Charlie is out of bounds in believing that Ibanez is on any given day fully capable of performing like an above average player. And even if he doubted it, it's probably best to ascertain for certain -- or something close to certainty -- that Ibanez is cooked -- not for reasons of money, but for lack of desirable replacements.

And Fat's logic chop job on Rex was very fine. Well done.

"It was clear from the get-go (TO ME) that he had nothing. He walked a batter, gave up a hit, and got a fly ball out. Then he faces Dobbs, a LH hitter. "

I'm sorry but you're an authority on whether or not a pitcher has or doesn't have anything?

Might want to start that with "it was my humble opinion that Baez had nothing."

If appeal to authority is fallacy what's it called when you appeal to unsubstantiated opinion?

Wait, why are we criticizing Ibanez the day after he went 2-4 with 2 RBIs? He's not the reason the Phillies lost last night.

Rex - Baez always has the "same" thing. His velocity is good. But he can always be counted on to be wild in the strike zone in high leverage situations. Two strikes on a batter seems his perfect time to throw one right down the middle. He does this with regularity.

There is pitchers who simply cannot handle stress. Bring them into a blowout either way and they look like Koufax. Bring them in to a high leverage situation and they need a Depends and a stiff drink. That is Baez. I'd have rather seen anyone in that pen other than him at that point. Their "Stuff" may not be as good, but most of them don't need an adult diaper when the situation is tense.

TheTheory - Yeah, Ibanez did have two RBIs. The offense has gone back to slumberland. But his play in left allowed the winning run to score. Rag arm. Singles hitter. No speed. Seems like a backup or platoon player to me.


Appeal to Authority

You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, ***when authorities disagree on this subject*** (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth. Although spotting a fallacious appeal to authority often requires some background knowledge about the subject or the authority, in brief it can be said that it is fallacious to accept the words of a supposed authority when we should be suspicious of the authority’s words.

***since many managers in baseball's history have used their best relievers in the most crucial of situations, I would say that there is disagreement on the subject among the "authorities". Therefore, instead of just appealing to Manuel's authority as a manager, you must make a cogent argument for why Madson shouldn't have been used in the 7th***

From Wikipedia: "Prior to this, a team's ace reliever was called a fireman, coming to the rescue to "put out the fire", baseball terminology for stopping an offensive rally with runners on base. The firemen came in whenever leads were in jeopardy, regardless of the inning and often pitching multiple innings. An example of this is that Goose Gossage had 17 games where he recorded at least 10 outs in his first season as a closer, including three games where he went seven innings. He pitched over 130 innings as a reliever in three different seasons. For their careers, Sutter and Gossage had more saves of at least two innings than saves where they pitched one inning or less. Fingers was the only pitcher who pitched at least three innings in more than 10 percent of his saves. The game evolved to where the best reliever was reserved for games where the team had a lead of three runs or less in the ninth inning."

So there is disagreement among the "authorities".

Another thought... RE: Dobbs getting booed as he walked to bat. There It was proably 50/50, but that percentage was too high.

Despite Dobbs poor year last year, he was a major contributor to the WFC team and helped keep the team afloat in 2007.

Here's the RULE. Former Phillie, leaves with little ill will, CHEERED on first return to the stadium. If he gets a big hit that knocks in the winning runs. THEN you boo him. Boo the performance, not the individual. Its ridiculous.
Dobbs got more boos coming to the plate than Baez did walking off the field. Not acceptable.

It is however okay to Boo Wes Helms mostly because he spent more time as a Brave and a Marlin than a Phillie. And doesn't wear a ring with us.

Same thing goes when a pitcher might have had a bad inning, you can boo the performance. But when he returns to bat or gets a big K at the mound. You cheer. Its not hard to be a smart fan. But we just have more dummies out in the stands these days.

Aw klaus you agree with fat? really? Shame you usually make A LOT of sense.

I get it though. People think I was actually defending charlie I wasn't.

I just have a distaste for lines like this.

"The 7th inning was a HUGE trouble spot, and leaving a reliever in with a 5.3 K/9 and 4.3 BB/9 as opposed to bringing in a reliever with a 10.9 K/9 and 2.2 BB/9 was just moronic."

That's the worst of the worst opinions. Mostly because of the moronic part. If you had ended it with "questionable" or some other word but you went out of your way to label it as something a mildly retarded person would do. So sorry I just get turned off by the arrogance.

"As for the thought that if Bastardo had trouble in the 8th "so be it" well that makes no sense."

It makes perfect sense. The chances of Bastardo, or whomever, having trouble in the eighth can't be as great as the chances of there being trouble in the seventh, which at the time were 100%. In fact they're very much less.

Old Phan: It's okay if you believe the front office is forcing Charlie Manuel to make certain lineup and in-game decisions. Every one is free to have their own opinion regardless of how stupid it may sound.

I believe it is idiotic to believe that Charlie is forced to make decisions by the front office. It's idiotic because it suggests that winning is a less important consideration than money even though winning is what brings more money.

And that's my last word on this. Thanks.

Rex, rhetoric aside, if the point is sound, the point is sound, and I can't see how Fatalotti's isn't.

Again I really think this got off base I'm not really defending Manuel. I really want to get that straight. That's really really important to understand because it feels like you feel that.

What I'm saying I guess is that to be honest given the choices. I respect his opinion and decisions more than I do yours. And that maybe just maybe it wasn't a black and white issue that you obviously think it is. But I suppose I get all bent out of shape when people "play manager." When in all honesty I doubt they could handle it.

Rex is right. If you don't say "In my humble opinion" all the time, people might get confused and think that God was telling you things directly, like Moses on the mountaintop.
In my humble opinion, that is.

Rex, how about I substantiate my opinion on the fact that Baez had nothing. He recorded one out last night. He walked a batter, gave up 2 hits, and gave up one run (earned). He threw 13 pitches, 8 strikes and 5 balls. Hits are counted as strikes, so that could have easily been 6 strikes and 7 balls if those hits weren't swung at. Either way, he obviously didn't have very good control (as evidence by the walk and two hits surrendered in only facing FOUR batters!).

At this point, you're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. You have yet to even offer an argument, other to try and trounce on my ability to judge the situation at hand. That is simply a weak argument on your part. Many people have been writing about and analyzing baseball for year who have never coached or played, but we don't just dismiss their arguments and anaylses out of hand just because they don't happen to play or coach the sport. We judge their arguments on their merits, and go from there.

If you don't feel like judging my arguments, but would rather just claim that I think I'm omniscient (I don't), claim that I'm not omniscient (duh!), and keep appealing to authority, when there is LOTS of historical disagreement among "authorities" on the subject, then just stop responding to me and I'll drop it.

HammRadio, I get your point about the 7th/8th inning thing, but I just think that it's better to use your best reliever in a spot when you absolutely need him (bases loaded, one out, 1 run lead to hold) as opposed to having him start an inning fresh, when there is no trouble spot to get out of.

According to Matt Gelb, tonight's game has been PPD. No make up info. announced as of yet.

Very bizarre debate here. All throughout baseball, bullpen guys have defined roles, particular the setup guy and closer.

Every manager uses them in their defined roles. That means they DON'T bring in their setup guy in the 7th. Period.

Now, you can argue that is bad, that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, that the 1950s and 1960s approach -- when closers pitched 2 or 3 innings -- was better.

But to argue that Madson should've been brought into the game in the 7th last night, is to ignore baseball reality and the way today's managers approach the game.

In other words, regardless of the merits of your argument, it is moot.

Check that. Will be made up in a Split DH on 15 June.

Rex, I apologize for using the word moronic. That was harsh, and didn't do anything to bolster my argument. It only weakens it.

I'm not being sarcastic, either. Inflammatory and incendiary languate never do anything to augment a case; they just weaken it.

Dave S, hilarious post, by the way, all arguments aside. :)

Wow, this is getting pretty interesting. I'm going to San Diego to see the Phils on Thursday. (Gift from the kids for our anniversary.)

I checked to see if Blanton was pitching and was relieved when we missed him by one day. Now a rainout and an injury and I am not sure who's pitching anymore. Hope they clear this up before I start driving to SD because if it's Blanton, I'm not going to bother.

Hamels will be starting tomorrow's game. Sunday ticket holders, rejoice: you have avoided Joe Blanton.

aksmith: Blanton should do very well at Petco.

I was cool with Charlie having a reason for each of his two most questionable moves recently - Mayberry pinch hitting instead of Gload and having Baez pitch to Dobbs instead of Bastardo to Helms. I happen especially not to agree with him on the Mayberry/Gload one as even a single would have been fine in that situation but it sounded like he had a reason he felt was valid for what he did. I wouldn't be as happy if it were purely a "hunch" move.

Of course people can make a distinction between getting the desired results and whether they think something is the right move regardless of the results. When something works out, even if we don't like the move, we're quick to forget our advocating a different strategy.

I am increasingly intrigued however by the thought of using a better reliever occasionally earlier in the game in a pressure situation. Sometimes, I feel that the middle relievers who have to come in with men on base and no room for error actually have it tougher than a closer who begins an inning clean and even has the possibilities of making some mistakes and maneuvering out of a self-created jam. Again, it's a judgment call when a 6th or 7th inning situation could be the crucial moment in an outcome of a game, but I think it worth being open to not being totally locked into so and so only pitches the 8th inning, and this guy only the 9th. Of course then many people might criticize deviating from what has grown to be the norm in baseball in the last decade.

That means Cole pitches on Sunday and we skip Blanton and bring back Doc on Monday, right? Except we don't have an off day for awhile so that would change our rotation order to Halladay, Lee, Oswalt, Blanton, Hamels.

@Fat -- how do you know you won't have a even HIGHER leverage situation in the 8th or 9th? you don't. What if this happened in the 6th inning. the 5th. the 4th...

People can call it "by the book" managing. But there's a reason WHY the "book" was written in the first place.

Only hindsight tells you that the Dobbs at bat was the most critical at bat of the game. Baez didn't get the job done. We can't be sure that Madson (or another pitcher would have done a better job). Personally, I would have preferred Bastardo in that spot anyway and take my chances with Helms because i think he's cooked.

But I get why Manuel did what he did. I still think Madson at that spot would have been a medium-reward but high risk moment. If you throw Madson there you leave yourself at risk later. You have the HEART of the Marlins order coming up. You don't know if Manuel is comfortable yet with Bastardo carrying a full inning which leads to Herndon/Kendrick appearances in a tight game that could spiral out of control.

Even after the half inning was over. The Phillies had 9 outs to get one run (to tie) and your best pitchers to lock down a tie or lead.

It was the right call. Managing wasn't a problem. Execution was.

Kinda heated in here. Surprised no one's talking about Adrain Gonzalez finally signing for a lower AAV than Howard.

"In other words, regardless of the merits of your argument, it is moot."

But surely clout, as strict adherents to Enlightenment values, we Beerleaguers must chart whatever path Reason provides. In this case, as Diderot put it his Encyclopedia, "Meilleur lanceur dans des situations de levier maximal"

"It was clear from the get-go (TO ME) that he had nothing. He walked a batter, gave up a hit, and got a fly ball out. Then he faces Dobbs, a LH hitter."

I'm sorry but you're an authority on whether or not a pitcher has or doesn't have anything? ... If appeal to authority is fallacy what's it called when you appeal to unsubstantiated opinion?

In his brief but unpleasant Phillies career, Baez has allowed the first two batters he faced to reach base 6 times. On 4 of those occasions he has proceeded to allow at least 1 Run to score. Taking into further account Baez's lifetime spits (.222/.306/.351/.657 vs. RHB; .274/.356/.421/.777 vs. LHB), & the fact that 2 LHB were comping to the plate, it should have been fairly obvious that the odds of Baez being able to work his way out of trouble w/out blowing the lead were very slim. These are factors one might expect the manager to be aware of, & act upon accordingly.

HammRadio - Here's how you know that situation in the seventh was the highest leverage of the game: The Marlins' manager brought in his best pinch hitter.

Charlie saves Gload, when he doesn't start, for the tenth inning of a nine inning game. But the Marlins brought in Dobbs, hitting over .400, in the seventh with the bases loaded and one out.

Sometimes you can be so smart you outsmart yourself. If the opposition is bringing in their best pinch hitter in the seventh, that's your high leverage. And with the way the Phils are now swinging the bat, playing to keep them from scoring in the seventh seemed prudent at the time and it seems prudent now.

If there had been two outs, I'd bet Madson would have been in there. But I'd have much rather seen Bastardo or Herndon pitchingwith bases loaded and one out than Baez. They haven't proven they can handle that situation, but Baez proves over and over that he cannot. Heck, Romero would have been better to leave in. The only thing he was guilty of last night was bad luck.

I have tix for Sunday and Monday... I was looking forward to seeing Doc on Monday night (can't avoid Blanton I guess) And the tix i gave up on Wed is now a Cliff Lee game.

I've been to 7 of a possible 9 home games (including the on deck series) and have yet to see Mr. Lee. Scheduling can be weird.

As much as it pains me to say so, it's too early to skip Blanton. Plus, this will give Oswalt an extra day ... not to mention the fact that now I don't have to sit in the cold & wet through endless Rain Delays tonight, staring mournfully at the WFCenter across the street while listening to the Flyers game on a crappy little radio.

So, who do we think is pitching on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

Clout - I can't tell you how much the Phillies would have to pay me to drive 300 miles each way to watch Joe Blanton pitch. I don't care if he throws a no hitter. I'd rather see KK or Worley take a shot than fat Joe.

He seems like a nice guy. But watching him pitch makes me throw up in my mouth.

Also, GTown, Baez's OPS against LHB last season was .949. Bastardo had a .678 OPS against RHB last season (45 PA).

I just think leaving Baez in to face Dobbs, especially after having walked a batter and given up a hit in the previous three batters was a bad move. Bastardo would have been a better option, even against Helms. Madson would have been the best option.

Are arguments like this going to occur after every loss from now? This is mind-numbing.

No, the loss wasn't even remotely Raul's fault.

Yes, Baez had nothing. He had no idea where his pitches were going. It's not an opinion. Anyone watching the game could tell that.

And it's a fair argument that players are kept on the roster due to their exorbitant salaries. It's also relevant when discussing an everyday player like Ibanez that is not easy to replace. It's not really relevant, though, when discussing a player like Baez, because A) He makes a fraction of what Raul makes, and B) Even if Rube is keeping him on the roster because of money, Cholly is not forced to use him in important situations. Baez's role of 'crappy reliever that you don't want to use unless absolutely necessary' is a minimal role and can be performed by any number of pitchers, most of which at least have some sort of upside, like Bastardo. Manuel can just hide Baez like he did last year and the team would be better off for it.

Unlike Baez, Cholly can't hide his left-fielder. If Raul's ABs got cut in half, or if he was flat-out benched, it's my guess that those who want to use him as a whipping boy would be surprised by how little the production out of LF would actually increase. And if production did increase, my guess is it wouldn't be enough to justify sitting a guy making more than $10 million this year who has proven he can get hot for stretches at a time.

Look, if they can find an OF that can provide more than a marginal upgrade in production from Ibanez for less money, then I'm all for telling him to ride the bench. But this is about cost/benefit, and the benefit of replacing Ibanez with an unknown quantity like Mayberry is not worth the cost of wasting a huge amount of money on Raul to sit the bench because you've decided after 13 games he can't possibly turn it around.

Yo, new thread.

Clout: That's actually untrue. Generally, setup men and relievers are put into 8th and 9th inning roles but that isn't 100%.

I've seen closers come in in the 8th in an extremely high leverage situation and then work the ninth as well. I've seen many closers come in and work regardless if there's a lead or not.

It all depends if the manager wants to buck "tradition".

"You have the HEART of the Marlins order coming up. You don't know if Manuel is comfortable yet with Bastardo carrying a full inning which leads to Herndon/Kendrick appearances in a tight game that could spiral out of control. "

FWIW, there's no reason Madson could not have worked the 8th or part of the 8th, especially if he got an early GIDP.

It's not an either/or. If Madson wasn't severly overworked in the 7th, he could go all of the 8th or at least part of it. Then, if necessary, have Bastardo do part of the 8th.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories


Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel