Phillies

Transactions & Such

Winter leagues

Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Game chat: Phillies seek better fortune in Philly | Main | Cloyd named pitcher of the week, then gets demoted »

Monday, April 09, 2012

Comments

TBag, made a mistake? Nooooooo.

I find little reason to panic until at least May.

Upside: Galvis is a .333 AVG/1.000 OPS hitter at home this year.

So we've got that going for us...which is nice.

I am not worried yet. The players have been hearing that they can't score all spring and they are likely pressing, especially our players who are actually good like Pence and Vic. I admit they don't look good, but I am not going to panic after 4 games.

"I find little reason to panic until at least May."

Agreed. Didn't think they would get out to a strong start for several reasons. If they are 11-10 at the end of April and a few games out, no big deal.


Meant 12-11 because they play 23 games. Basically .500 or a game or two over it is fine.

BAP: Not what I was referring to. It went back to the discussion Fata was having yesterday with me.

On today's game- after 4 games, this line-up is missing Howard.

I'll repeat my prediction: 95 wins.

Waaaaaay to early to draw any conclusions.


Unless:

YOu think we should -

trade Chooch, the stiff had no hits today.

cut Papelbon, the stiff gave up a dinger today.

trade Hamels, this is the second year in a row he's stunk the joint up his first home start.

DFA Savery, with that preformance today he has a 5.40 ERA.

release Pence, the stiff only has a .267 BA this season.


There - I just took care of a 5th of the roster.

Hasn't this team traditionally been slow to start?

Do agree with Cholly 100% on something - they aren't hitting anything hard right now. It would be one thing if they were just having bad luck.

Only ball that was hit hard all today to the OF was Galvis' 2-RBI double.

You know it's a special game when Wheels breaks out his good toupee.

JW, I predict a season full of site traffic for you (great for page views, bad for the Phillies' W/L record).

Well, if the end of the last regular season, the series against the Cardinals, the off-season, Utley's knees, and the start of this season--in other words, pretty much all bits of recent evidence--are anything to go by, you'd have to be pretty nuts not to have a bad feeling about this team.

I really hope that we don't see Pierre gets a lion's share of the PT in LF & leading off. Putting him in the leadoff spot & Polanco #2 is just giving up too many outs.

I know Cholly thinks Pierre is the right guy for this power-starved OF. He isn't. He's a marginal vet at this point who simply gets exposed if you start him on regular basis.

MG: Right now this is looking more like an 8-15 end-of-April team than 12-11.

I've done a good bit of hand wringing via the Game Thread, so I want to take a minute to recognize the very good game that the Miami Marlins put together.

I still think that they have all the makings of an implosion (Ozzie heading to Miami for an off-day apology is a good indication), but today they put together a great game. They got their good, speedy runners on base, showed some great base running (even swiping a couple bags - the double steal in the 1st was impressive), and got them home. It reminded me very much of the 2007/2008 Phillies. It remains to be seen how long they can keep it up, but I'm impressed by how quickly they've come together.

The looking Johnson start on Wednesday isn't much to look forward to. Luckily we have our own ace going.

Continue from last comment made on last post. I still think they will start the rebuild process when Utley is gone. I know they have Howards contract but no way can they wait 5 years to at least start the process. In a way Rubes logic made sense. As we can see from Pujols, and Fielder contract assuming Howard was still hitting .280 and 40 HR's he was going to get a huge contract. Rube took a chance on Howard a big chance should he waited possibly. If he did whos to say Howard might of hit .300 and 50 HR and further drove up his value. The experiment is already starting with Galvis out there.

Teams are running against the Phils early this year so far.

With the 3 attempts today by the Fish, that's 7 total attempts.

Always been kind of surprised the past 2 years that teams haven't tried to run a lot more on the Phils given their strong pitching, the almost complete lack of an effort to hold runners close, and the mediocre arm of Chooch and the below average/now nonexistant arm of Schneider.

Mets did it a fair amount even 2 years ago. Seems like other teams are catching on.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/beerleaguer.com#


The audience stats are my favorite. Too bad we can't compare pageviews over the last few seasons. I'd guess site readership is at an all time high, corresponding with the growth in general interest around the team.

Galvis isn't a 'rebuilding piece.' He's out there because the Phils simply don't have any better options.

Under any normal circumstances, he would be the everyday SS at Lehigh which is where he really belongs right now.

Compare that to the audience demographics for the700level:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/the700level.com

After the Cardinals series, there was a common argument put forward by many of the more reactionary posters here and elsewhere: that when your offense struggles, the manager can "manufacture runs" or "play small ball", resulting in offensive production without extra-base hits.

The last 4 games serve as a reminder: if the offense is as dreadful as it was in the last 4 games of the St. Louis series, and as dreadful as it was these last 4 games (.198/.255/.244, 4 XBH in 4 games), the team will not win, no matter how many counter-productive sacrifice bunts the manager orders.

The good news is that the Phillies are not going to keep hitting worse than a team of 9 2011 Michael Martinezes. I hope that by the time they start hitting, Manuel can stay out of the offense's way (as he has in years past, with much success, regardless of what the short-attention-span posters tell you).

MG, the opposition often runs against the Phullies since most of the pitching staff does little to hold the runners. I blame Dubee since it has been a vulnerability for several seasons and a pitching coach ought to have recognized and fixed the problem by now.

So, to continue with closer-kick, I decided to pull all of Papelbon's game logs since 2006 (when he first became a closer) to see if there was any demonstrable difference in his ability in game where entered in a save situation, versus when he entered in a non-save situation.

Using baseball-reference's data, which labels a game in which a pitcher entered as either a "S" (save), "BL" (Blown Save Loss), "BW" (Blown Save Win) or "BS" (Blown Save). For games that Paps had one of those designation, I made the assumption that he entered that game in a save situation (seems entirely reasonable, and I also checked against the game situation, and made sure that the Sox were ahead between 1-3 runs to check for reasonableness). The other games in which he appeared, were considered games in which he appeared in a non-save situation. Sound good? Let's see the figures:

Save:

253.2 IP, .9895 WHIP, 10.79 SO/9, 2.41 BB/9, 4.47 SO/BB, .67 HR/9, 2.38 ERA

Pretty good, huh?

Non-Save:

141.2 IP, .96 WHIP, 10.86 SO/9, 1.91 BB/9, 5.70 SO/BB, .51 HR/9, 2.16 ERA

Now I know this is just one closer, but at least in this instance, the generally accepted maxim that closer's need the save situation "rush" to pitch well isn't just wrong, it's the exact opposite of the truth, as he's pitched better in non-save situations.

"MG, the opposition often runs against the Phullies since most of the pitching staff does little to hold the runners. I blame Dubee since it has been a vulnerability for several seasons and a pitching coach ought to have recognized and fixed the problem by now."

Not really. Opponents attempted 143 steals in '08, 132 steals in '09, 115 steals in '10, 135 steals last year.

DH "small ball" may include bunting and hit-and-run situations but the real value is in forcing the defense to execute under pressure, forcing mistakes that give the offense more than three outs. That includes working the pitch count and stealing bases, none of which this team seems capable of doing consistently.

Why do posters continue to insist that the Phillies offense must necessarily improve? The current non-pitching roster is essentially no different, talent-wise, than that of the '00 Phillies ... a team which finished dead last in the NL in both Runs & HR. I'm curious as to what makes anyone think such an offense will magically become even semi-competent?

STS: I wonder what their methodology is for measuring the site audience demographics. Their findings are about what I would assume: BL skews older than 700Level.

I find it amusing that their methodology apparently picks up the BL lawyer population, as the graduate-educated are "greatly over-represented" here.

GTown Dave: The offense has a .499 OPS so far. Are you suggesting that we can expect Victorino, Pence, Rollins, Ruiz, Polanco, and Mayberry to maintain a .499 OPS going forward?

"the real value is in forcing the defense to execute under pressure, forcing mistakes that give the offense more than three outs."

It is unclear to me how "small ball" accomplishes this better than trying to hit the ball hard.

DH Phils: I'm suggesting that it's hardly a stretch to assume this offense could be one of the very worst in the National League.

I cannot believe this Alexa stat for Beerleaguer.
79% of website visitors watch the CSN Phillies telecast with audio and pants down.


In a related note, Cole Hamels has been given permission by Bud Selig to wear Dodgers' and Angels' home and away uniforms while pitching the rest of the season.

"the real value is in forcing the defense to execute under pressure, forcing mistakes that give the offense more than three outs."

Guess what? Major league infielders have a really high level of skill when it comes to fielding bunts. Forcing them to field bunts is not forcing them to do anything out of the ordinary.

hello

The offense will both improve and also be one of the worst in the NL. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

Hi there, RK! Are you over 35 years of age, only marginally talented and possibly severely injured? If so, I'd like to offer you a 2 year guaranteed contract to play major league baseball!

It's funny how I can wholeheartedly agree and share the disgust that most have had for basically every aspect of the team so far, and yet vehemently disagree with the same people who whine and cry after four games that the season is over.

Congratulations to everyone who can actually keep things in perspective.

I am indeed over 35 I didn't know that was a problem on this site. If it is I want someone other than you to let me know.

Iceman: Did you write that post just to congratulate yourself? Well done.

I feel the same way (disgusted and yet cognizant of it being only 4 games). Can I get a congratulatory post?

Yeah, I'm pretty nauseated, but I haven't yet written off the season yet. Can I get a little recognition over here, too?

Jack- there are about 4 or 5 who have managed not to completely crap the bed in the last five days, and I believe you are one of them. So congeatulations to you!

Hi there, RK! Are you over 35 years of age, only marginally talented and possibly severely injured? If so, I'd like to offer you a 2 year guaranteed contract to play major league baseball!

Posted by: Ruben Amaro, Jr., Certified Genius

This was good, real good!

Personally, I know this team only really turns it on once the magic number has been posted on Metsblog. By my calculations, that should just be another week or so.

I am over 35, have Chondromalacia patella in both knees, arthritis in my neck and back, flatfooted and overweight. But I can bunt and I am 1/2 Latino. I am willing to give a hometown discount.

I hate to point it out again, but I think people here are missing something that has flown under the radar so far this season: we are missing the two most important hitters of our lineup and replaced them garbage. I would be interested to know if the people that thought a Howard-less lineup would be fine still feel that way.

And DH Phils is right- they can't be any worse offensively, and will obviously get a little bit better. But the complete lack of plan B on Utley and his knees probably deserves a bit of scrutiny. As does the treatment of Papelbon the last three games. Why exactly did we get this guy again?

BAP, you seem to addicted to the equation that bunting = small ball. The term includes running the bases aggresively (including stealing and going from first to third on a right field single), working a pitch count to get on base and hitting balls to the opposite field to advance runners an extra bag; things that in general occur less likely and are not as well practiced against by an fielder's general practice regime. You saw that thing just today with the bunted fielding mistake by Mayberry/Galvis/Hamels.

I am old enough to remember Walter Alston 60'S Dodgers teams that played the epitome of small ball and those teams always pressured the defense by aggressive base running, patience at the plate, and hitting behind the runners. And sure, they bunted too, but that IS not the core feature of the term. It is manufacturing runs sans the homer and includes ALL of the aforementioned. Thus, one cannot state that bunting = small ball.

As does the treatment of Papelbon the last three games. Why exactly did we get this guy again?

"Oooooo! Shiny free agent pitcher! Here's $30 mil! No, $40 mil! Screw it, why don't you just fill in the money and years yourself, I'm too busy masturbating furiously to a vision of you in red pinstripes to care!"

Charlie's misuse of Papelbon is a bad sign.

We can expect the offense maybe to perform better, and we can certainly hope to get injured players back. But can we really expect the manager to suddenly learn how to manage properly? That problem might be a lingering one.

Iceman, I don't think that anyone is forgetting about Howard/Utley in the lineup. I think that, unless we hear otherwise, there is a prevailing mindset that we CANNOT count on one or both to come to our rescue any time soon. And even if/when one/both come back, to think that there won't be another "re-acclimation" period, would be especially naive, considering we saw it last year with Utley.

Basically, no one is forgetting about them, but I'd argue that anyone who is counting on them for a quick upgrade or shot in the arm is a bit crazy. The scariest part is that even though we all saw the downgrade coming, there's nothing being done to stop the bleeding. If that doesn't change, all we can do is hope and pray that they come back sooner than later (which may actually have an even worse impact, if they're rushed back).

The Phanatic's Tina Turner routine is getting as old and tired as the Phillies' lineup.

Even if I totally buy into the argument presented on that link about Papelbon the conclusion of the article falls apart here:

"Due to Manuel’s adherence to old baseball orthodoxy — the save rule — the Phillies have not been optimally deploying their relievers. As a result, they lost very winnable games in Pittsburgh over the weekend."


So Papelbon not pitching is why they lost winnable games?

I watched the games and there were numerous instances where players that were in the games didn't execute in situations that would've put the games out of reach for Pittsburgh. It wasn't that Charlie didn't deploy Papelbon in "high leverage" situations.

I also like Fatalotti- how you can understand what a "high leverage" situation is but when I try to discuss in the context of my argument it doesn't exist one bit.

Wow, if I didn't know any better, I'd think I was reading comments on an Astros or Padres blog.

Sure, the losses are magnified because it's the beginning of the season. But anyone who posts that he/she didn't expect this team to crap the bed offensively a few times when Howard and Utley were out is flat out lying.

Let's take a look at a few of the miniscule sample sizes, and you tell me whether you think they'll be sustained:

Chooch: .400/.417/.400/.817
Halladay: .333/.333/.333/.667
Thome: .000/.000/.000/.000
Mayberry: .250/.250/.333/.583
Rollins: .250/.250/.250/.500
Pence: .267/.353/.533/.886
Polly: .154/.214/.154/.368

The highest number of AB on the above list? 16.

There are others, but you get the point.

I see one guy on that list who I would even bet on to be close to his current OPS at the end of the season - Pence.

This is BL, where people get ripped for trying to rely on small ample sizes.

The whiners here know better. They do. (This means you too, JW.)

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

All the Phillies offense needs is a good ol' fashioned beerleaguer pep talk. here goes:

Stop dragging your d*cks in the dirt. Josh Batushansky is passionate. Josh Batushansky is persistent. Josh Batushansky is persuasive. Dammit Phillies.....you can be too. These are words to live by....Josh Batushansky says so. Now pick up your bats like you're Drexel Lebow MBA grads and get out there and beat the Marlins and their bozolike uniforms Wednesday night. Make Josh proud.


If the Phillies score more than 2 runs on Wed....I get credit.

To add to my above post:

If RFD had one more base hit, a single, his slash line would read like this:

.333/.333/.417/.750.

If it were a double, his slash line would read like this:

.333/.333/.500/.833

If Pence had one more single, his slash line would look like this: .333/.412/.600/.1.012


If you want to maintain some semblance of credibility on this site, wait until you can pass some sort of reasonable judgement.

Right now you can't. Period.

I just read this:

"The Phillies have scored eight runs in four games, and the last time they scored fewer runs in their first four games was 1982, when they scored just six."

Just to, you know, make us feel worse about the offense's performance thus far.

Raul's gp: I might sign you. What are your views on Fidel Castro?

If I was in the military, I wouldn't want GTown_Dave anywhere near my unit. That is all. Actually that's not all. There's a fine line between being concerned and whining like a baby. I plead with everyone to remain on the right side of that line.

BobbyD, you must be new here.

We call that group the Pissy Pants Posse. (They don't like it, and accuse the rest of us of being juvenile for using the term and making fun of them.)

Yet, they never think about how their constant whining might be perceived.

I agree with Iceman's comment wholeheartedly. I think we need to get some more info on Utleygate. What did RAJ know, and when did he know it?

BobbyD, to add to your comment:

If I was in the military and GTown was my officer, I'd frag him.

Those open mic poetry commercials with Alexander Hamilton are less tired than the friggin' Phanatic. One of these centuries folks will start catching on.

All this talk about 'small ball' doesn't really address what I believe the issue was more commonly identified as when last season ended: having better at-bats. I didn't hear a word of emphasis about it this spring, and the hitters to a man were still making rapid-fire weak outs all spring, and have duly carried the pattern into this season. Forget not being able to afford 'mistakes': this team can't afford poor AB after poor AB. Sanchez is a guy who has beep prone to deep counts and walks in his career, and so is James McDonald. How many deep counts did we see the last two games?

The thing that people are frustrated by, I think, is that nothing has really changed, the lesson has not been learned. It's not about bunts and hit-and-runs. It's about getting on base, and putting yourself in good hitting counts. The sorriest thing I'm seeing about the offense is the lack of patience and well-hit balls, and the lack of attention paid to cause-and-effect is even more dispiriting.

It's easy to say that the hitters just suck, but they could be getting more out of what they have, plenty more. Manuel will scream to the hills that he's an "offensive manager" but he's evidently talking mechanics only. He'll preach "get a good ball to hit" but nobody is listening. He either isn't saying it often enough, or something isn't getting through.

I also like Fatalotti- how you can understand what a "high leverage" situation is but when I try to discuss in the context of my argument it doesn't exist one bit.

Posted by: The Truth Injection | Monday, April 09, 2012 at 06:50 PM

Yeah, I never claimed there weren't high leverage situations. What I was countering was your notion that certain pitchers have an inborn quality to be better equipped to handle high pressure situations, or the "closer's mentality" (which in the case of Papelbon, as I proved above, is absolutely non-existent, as he's even more effective in non-save situations). I would have to be loony to contend that high leverage situations didn't exist at all.

As for the Crashburn Alley article, I feel that we lost the Sunday game specifically because Manuel didn't put Papelbon in during the 8th for the 4 out save (something Paps has done before). Obviously, we can't know for certaint that Paps would have saved the game, but I think we would have been in a lot better situation than what we did otherwise.

But listen, I think the rationale for the fact that managers like Manuel grossly misuse their closers is pretty cut and dry, and if you want to hold your fingers in your ears, and pick a fight with me, have fun.

Did i miss clout day?The Phils will win the division with 93 wins

Fatalotti: You do understand that if someone holds a different opinion from you on something it doesn't automatically make them wrong right?

And just because something hasn't been tested and looked at doesn't mean it doesn't exist right?

I remain, as ever, greatly amused by how deeply personally some folks take the appearance of opinions which differ from their own. I mean, comparing an online forum dedicated to a game to service in the military? Somehow I don't feel as if I'm the one who has lost touch w/ reality.

"We call that group the Pissy Pants Posse. (They don't like it, and accuse the rest of us of being juvenile for using the term and making fun of them.)"

Unless you can point me to even a single other poster who has ever used that phrase, I think the correct statement would be, "I call that group the Pissy Pants Posse."

Fatalotti: You do understand that if someone holds a different opinion from you on something it doesn't automatically make them wrong right?

And just because something hasn't been tested and looked at doesn't mean it doesn't exist right?

Posted by: The Truth Injection | Monday, April 09, 2012 at 08:06 PM

I absolutely get that. If I'm wrong about this, please, by all means, prove me wrong.

And if something hasn't been tested for, and can't be quantified, then why use it as an argument in a debate? At that point, if we can use such unquantifiable stuff in debate, let's just make up anything we damn well please, and as long as the other member in the debate can't disprove your notion, then it's fair game.

Of course, that's foolish.

Darvish not impressing right now. Hopefully he settles down.

"BAP, you seem to addicted to the equation that bunting = small ball."

Not at all. Only last night, at 9:30 p.m. to be precise, I posted that, if small ball entails aggressive base-running, having guys who can get on base with singles & walks, and having hitters who put the ball in play, then you'll find no greater advocate of small ball than I. Generally speaking, however, when people use the phrase "small ball," they are referring, at least in part, to the practice of bunting runners along and intentionally giving up an out in the process. When I profess my disdain for "small ball," I am specifically referring to this particular aspect of small ball, and this aspect only. On the other hand, I am all in favor of stealing bases & trying to take an extra base on balls in play.

Darvish may not get out of the first inning. Yikes.

Fatalotti: You are purposely trying to misconstrue and not understand what I am saying.

I'm saying that there is a very real possibility that the "closer mentality" is a real thing. We don't know that as it has never been tested for. I said the way you could go about testing it. If I had the money and resources to test it I would. I think it should be tested.

However, just because something has never tested does not mean it is impossible. You know how science and hypothesis work right? You just dismiss it completely out of hand. There are first hand accounts from closers about the rush of pitching in that situation. Are they all spouting complete bullsh!t? Possibly. But considering a varied group of them have the same thoughts across eras and situations is there some validity? Possibly.

I am not using it as the means for my argument. I am saying it is possible. You are saying it can't possibly exist- mainly because it conflicts with your way of thinking.

Clearwater, our A+ team, just put up a 6-run 4th inning against Andy Pettitte.

I like RSB's post. And Wheelchair Cat's.

I'm freaking out, man

Not that I want royalties or anything but I seem to recall a few posters kicking a group name around for those of us who complain all the time and someone came up with the Pissy Pants part. I came up with the Pissy Pants Posse name (it had a nice ring) and I even used the term P3 for brevity but it never caught on. I considered myself a P3 candidate if there were shirts printed.
I honestly can't remember when it was but I believe it was the Post-Brunt Era. DPatrone wanted Rube to pick up offensive players (when hasn't he).

To those who want to frag GTown, all I have to say is "Calm down, Francis."

Darvish and the Phillies will recover.
The Phillies will stop bunting and Darvish will see that only 3 of his 7 pitches are MLB ready. Spring is for adjusting.

RK: This is a very welcoming site and you will find no prejudice against a poster based on race, creed, color or religion.

You will find prejudice against morons and moronic posts.

Do your homework, know what you're talking about and show some insight into the game of baseball and you'll be welcomed with open arms.

In other words, do the opposite of GTown Dave and you'll be fine.

... says the guy who still thinks Kyle Kendrick is a good Major League pitcher. Credibility shot.

Never said it can't exist. I said until it has been shown to exist, what's the point that it might possibly exist? It might exist that every time a pitcher pitches poorly is because his wife and he had a fight the night before. It might be that every time a reliever had a bad outing, it's because the stars are misaligned. I absolutely know how hypothesis and science work, but untested hypothesis are worthless in science. You make a hypothesis and test it, but if you don't test it, it's just speculation and conjecture, which are NOT science. I did some of that research earlier, showing that Papelbon doesn't need to be in a save situation to pitch well (he actually has pitched better in non-save situations). Why don't you perform some research before jumping into the fray?

The closer's mentality might exist, but since various studies across difference phases of baseball have shown that terms such as "clutch" have very little to no bearing on actual in-game results, I'll withhold accepting the closer's mentality explanation for the closer's role as something worthy of my time until someone (like you) provides me reason to.

Also, given the context of this situation, EVEN if the closer's mentality existed, and Papelbon actually possessed such a thing, then wouldn't he be the perfect guy to enter a situation with absolutely no margin for error, like the bottom of the 9th inning in a tie game on a road? Huh?

GTown Dave: I was just teasing. I may be one of the few who realize your posts are strictly for laughs. No human being could possibly be that stupid and know so little about baseball and spend this much time on a baseball blog.

And to be honest, your jokes do hit the mark most of the time.

Fatalotti: Can you prove God exists?

Fatalotti: Can you prove God exists?

Posted by: clout | Monday, April 09, 2012 at 08:53 PM

Theoretically you could, if we assume that such a being would have a material effect on the real world around us. But since no one has provided such evidence, the null-hypothesis demands that the default position be that no such being exists.

If we assume that such a being would have no material effect on the real world, and would therefore be unverifiable, then it's pointless to even talk about such a being.

But, if you were to contend that it's reasonable to believe in god simply because I am unable to prove he doesn't exist, you'd be committing the logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance.

clout: You flatter me. And in all fairness, Kendrick isn't all that awful. Well, at least not so long as he's surrounded by the likes of Stutes, & Herndon, & no-arm Bastardo ...

Fatalotti: I am trying to be patient here but you are maddening to talk to sometimes as you are stuck in your way of thought and always try to steer the topic there even though often you are stretching the bounds of the discussion considerably.

1.) The hypothesis is there. I can't test it. Not because it is untestable but because I don't have the means to test it. That however does not make it false as you seem to believe. It makes it a theory. Theories aren't necessarily wrong. And this:

"I said until it has been shown to exist, what's the point that it might possibly exist"

is kind of ridiculous. Then you follow it by providing ridiculous hyperbolic examples in an attempt to make my point look foolish by association. It is a childish way to frame your argument.

2.) To further your research. You are the one trying to disprove the notion and used one example of it. You would need to do more than that to find trends and see what is there. Empirically, I can tell you that I have seen pitchers pitch differently in different scenarios. Would that hold true for different pitchers in the "save" situation and for closers in any given game scenario? Very possible. It has happened often where a closer comes into a game that is not a "save" situation and pitches poorly. Is that a freak occurrence or is it indicative of something else? Hard to say. That is where I think it would be fun to study adrenaline spikes and heart rate monitor closers in different situations. That to me is far more interesting than any discussion that devolves into "Saves are good" "saves are bad"

3.) On the final paragraph you mention a scenario again where you think it is identical to the "save" situation. It isn't as one of the variables has changed. Does that variable change significantly alter the mindset of the closer? That would be one of the questions any experiment would have to try to answer.

Not sure you should use the argument from ignorance when it comes to this god stuff since where the initial burden of proof lies needs to be settled.

In any case, seems a little silly to be so formalistic with some of this psychobabble in sports stuff. I'd think the closer's role does change the way a pitcher thinks given the way they are used, but I bet any good relief pitcher would be a good closer.

TTI, a theory, as defined scientifically:

--A set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and TESTED for accuracy through observations (which includes data mining) and experiments. Once a hypothesis is VERIFIED, it becomes a theory.--

So, in re: point 1), you don't have a theory, you have conjecture and speculation. Until you (or someone else) tests it, it is always going to be speculation and conjecture.

In re: point 2), I don't have to prove that the closer's mentality doesn't exist. It is incumbent upon the purpose making that claim to prove that it does exist, which you have not done. Until you do that, why should I take such speculation seriously? Further in point 2), you claim that "empirically" you have seen pitchers pitch worse in "non-save" situations. So what? I've seen them pitch well in "non-save" situations, and seen them pitch poorly in "save" situations. Ever heard of confirmation bias? This is why we need to perform extensive experimentation and use large samples of data to back up such claims as the "closer's mentality".

In re: 3), I did the research about Papelbon to counter the claim made by Wheeler today that he is more likely to pitch poorly in "non-save" situations. The data on him from 2006-2011 has shown that he's pitched spectacularly well in both "save" and "non-save" situations, and so therefore, any claims going forward about the fact that Papelbon would not pitch well in a "non-save" situation have absolutely no basis in reality.

Lastly, in the final paragraph, I was conceding your point, to show even more strongly how weak of an argument it was specifically to Papelbon and in the situations as they presented themselves Saturday and Sunday night. If you do believe that certain pitchers possess the "closer's mentatlity", wherein they pitch better the more intense the situation and the more pressure, and assuming you believe that Papelbon possesses this mystical quality, then it stands to reason that you would think Papelbon would be best suited for a tie game on the road in extra innings, as there can be no more pressure in a regular season game. Unless you think Papelbon specifically needs a lead to perform well (which he doesn't, as has been shown by his game logs).

I am NOT close minded, but if you want to counter my argument, you need to present your own using facts and logical argumentation, and not just point to speculation as a means of showing that my argument might possibly be wrong.

Sophist: I hope you're not suggesting that the existence of God is a greater question than the existence of a closer mentality.

I just think there's probably some way we can get Antonio Alfonseca to settle both of these questions.

Sophist, in science and philosophy, the burden of proof rests upon the party making the positive claim (ie. believers in god or the closer's mentality).

Also, I always defer to Alfonseca on matters of general philosophy and human inquiry.

Fat - I am with you. Disliked seeing Papelbon being used in a 5-2 game because 'he needed work' and not appearing in two games that were tied going into the 9th inning Pittsburgh.

The most ridiculous part was right after the HR that Papelbon allowed Wheels instantly goes into 'cliched excuse mode' about closer's mentality.

I will say today that TMac wasn't a '100% rainbows and sunshine' today either. Even he questioned a few ball/strikes calls with Hamels early which he almost never does.

How rare is it for a team to start 4 different 1B the first 4 games of the season?

The most insane thing though is that there are tons of options at Lehigh in the bullpen that can instantly upgrade this pen. Seen a lot of those posts the last 24 hrs.

Besides Aumont who fits that bill at Lehigh? DeFratus? Coming off injury. Schwimmer? Please. Cholly would let him take root in the pen anyways. Only used Savery today because he had too.

Myth of BS 'average replacement reliever' as if they grow on trees in AAA & that if you bring up a guy who had good numbers at AA/AAA that will translate into at least average MLB success or better.

If Contreras comes back in 7-10 days and Qualls isn't hurt, they can make due.

Thru 4 games:

1976 1-3
1977 0-4
1978 2-2
1980 2-2
1983 1-3
1993 3-1
2007 1-3
2008 2-2
2009 1-3
2010 3-1
2011 3-1

Sorry, that 1B question was me.

Well, that's one idea, Fat, and you've stated it rather non-controversially. I'm not going to get into a long-winded debate about this when it's probably better to talk about T. Gillies, but some argue that talk of "burdens of proof" is best relegated to places like courts of law -- contexts where they settle where they do as a matter of practical convention -- and that in more shambolic conversations nothing is rejected as unjustified without an argument against it.

Totally agree with MG on the bullpen. The belief that there is magic in LV and Reading is a powerful one that surfaces annually, whether it is Cody Ransom, Matt Rizzotti or Jake Diekman.

It is almost always a myth.

Aumont has major league stuff, but still has trouble throwing strikes. Diekman too, although I'll bet we'll probably see him in the show some time this year, after Savery flops and Bastardo ends up on the DL.

Among those at AAA, the best bet to be of help to the major league club this year is still Brian Sanches.

Fatalotti: I am trying to be patient here but you are maddening to talk to sometimes as you are stuck in your way of thought and always try to steer the topic there even though often you are stretching the bounds of the discussion considerably.

1.) The hypothesis is there. I can't test it. Not because it is untestable but because I don't have the means to test it. That however does not make it false as you seem to believe. It makes it a theory. Theories aren't necessarily wrong. And this:

‘I said until it has been shown to exist, what's the point that it might possibly exist’...

Posted by: The Truth Injection | Monday, April 09, 2012 at 09:08 PM

Geezus, TTI goes all in as a string theory doubter. Who knew his PhD was in Cosmology? Hey, TTI, where can we view your work at the Large Hadron Collider?

Go get ‘em Fata. I’m a fan of your posts. b_a_p, too. Something about “logic” comes into play.

Said on the night Diekman strikes out the side in AAA. Though, to hurt the argument, he also gave up a couple of hits.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

SHOP CSN


Advertisements


Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG