Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Brown likely to miss time with another knee injury | Main | Phillies sign ex-Met Pridie, assign him to Triple-A »

Friday, June 15, 2012

Comments

So that's what JW looks like.

"It's not stupid comments"

~Rhea Hughes on Beerleaguer.com

Rhea was paid in Yuengling pounders for her time.

Game Thread comments among the best things about BL? Co-sign. Some good comedy, typically.

One thing is clear, clout is not Rhea Hughes...

Preacher: You're welcome.

GTown, the sheer fact that Game Thread commentary was called out as a highlight because JW has "intelligent readers" was the highlight for me. You know, since much of the commentary on this site is calling other posters idiots, morons, etc.

I can't help but wonder if Rhea had an opportunity to read all of the "glowing" comments when her banner ad was living over here ----------->

"Clout is not Rhea Hughes" :)

I'm saying a last place team doesn't need a "name" Closer. Nor, for that matter, did the first place Phillies teams of the past couple years, as at least 5 different pitchers filled in. The basic point being, on the list of "Things The Phillies Need", a Closer ain't one of 'em.

Those first place Phillies had "name closer" Brad Lidge. Not that the contract worked out exactly to spec.

The Phils of 2009-2011 knew that they had Madson in reserve, although he didn't become a true closer (TM) until last year. Sometimes bullpens work, sometimes they fall apart. Bullpens seem to be as much of a crap shoot as post-season series.

It's hard to give Amaro crap for signing Papelbon, who was a close to a sure thing as there is in bullpennery**. Did he pay more than anyone else? Yes, but he is the guy who signed him. Could he have paid 10M less over the life of the contract? Maybe, but we are not likely to ever know.

The Phils are down an incredible number of RHRPs. Contreras, Stutes, BL fave Herndon, De Fratus (the best of the untesteds, right?). Even Stutes and Herndon would make the BP a little bit better.

** As long as you don't count the alien god who is Mariano Rivera.

Preacher: Beerleaguers' opinion of fellow Beerleaguers brings to mind the old slogan, "Philadelphia: It's Not As Bad As Philadelphians Say It Is".

And as I watched the "Philly Villians" series on CSN awhile back, I noticed that I agreed w/ almost all of Rhea Hughes' comments. So yeah, she's DEFINTELY not clout.

Good video. Woulda been better if Weitzel held Rhea Hughes by her legs and she did keg stand off that Bud tap......but ya can't have everything I guess.

I think there is a fair share of stupidity spouted on game threads, but isn't that kind of what the Internet is about?

Most people come here because the conversation is several levels above any other Phillies site on the net, I think. At least that's why I do. That and the namecalling.

Edmundo: I wouldn't be so critical of the deal if Charlie weren't hell bent on only using Papelbon in Save situations, which absolutely makes the signing a total waste. As such, if any team were willing to pick up his contract I'd trade Papelbon in a second.

I didn't watch the clip (because diarRhea Hughes is everything I can't stand), but congrats to Weitzel on the increased exposure!

Lookin' good! But start growing out the beard.

Iceman: Jackass.

The video also disproves the long-running theory that jw is clout. After all, he said that Ben Sheets might be an upgrade over Kendrick.

No, I did not mean Rhea.

It's also refreshing to see that our webmaster flies in the face of every Reading stereotype I have. After spending last weekend "back home," I'm of the mindset that I'd need to gain about 40 lbs., 13 tattoos and a concealed weapon or two if I were to ever find myself back that way. Cheers to JW for making it out unscathed.

Willard: I'm actually head to toe tattoos under all the clothes. A montage of R.J. Swindle, Mike Costanzo, Yoel Hernandez, Antonio Alfonseca imagery. My favorite is the J.D. Durbin flaming skull tat on my right bicep.

WP: To be fair, I think JW was from Topton.

Does anybody know if someone like R.J. Swindle gets a ring for the '08 WFC? How about T.J. Bohn, Chris Snelling, and Les Walrond?

JW: Had the Baez-as-Botticelli's-Venus ink removed via laser, eh? Can't say as I blame ya.

DH Phils: Adam Eaton got a ring. That's all you need to know RE: the Phillies' standards.

In all seriousness, I was under the impression that the Phillies gave a ring to everyone who played on the big league club that season, regardless of how little.

G'Town, give Uncle Cholly time -- he's used him twice now for > 3 outs!

This weekend series feels just a little bit anticlimactic without Halladay in the mix. Maybe he can give a press conference or two.

Maybe Charlie will at least give Fontenot the 2B starts since they're in the French speaking area of Canada.

New site requirement: must include legitimate profile pics next to handle. That would provide hours of fun on the initial day. Maybe clout and Jack would discover they are husband and wife. The possibilities are endless. Make it happen JW.

Howard two homers and nix homers and Chase a hit and Omg 1 inning at second

Hook, NFW! One inning at 2B?

Now the pressure is on to be more clever during games. The only good part about losing is that it is easier for y'all ramp up the schtick.

"Utley went 1-for-4, with a walk, and played an inning at second base. He appeared to have no trouble running the bases or in the field in his first appearance at second, where he cleanly handled his only defensive chance."

can_of_corn, I take that as a challenge. I actually think I have some pretty good schtick even when they're winning. There's just way too much good material (see: Martinez, M.).

A whole inning?! WFC here we come!

i'm not sure I can handle positive news...

if only games were 1 inning at a time...

In extended spring or an actual game?

Willard: Exhibit B = Murphy in the stands

Cant we just cut off Michael Martinez's legs from just above the knees and surgically attach them to Chase Utley?

I wonder if the Phillies will get asked any Clown Questions from the Toronto media?

Did anyone ever find the Thome HR ball last nite I wonder?

I love that they pretty much had to have a guy in a harness and lifted by crane to search for the ball.

I actually like Rhea Hughes, but she looks like a more attractive version of Laverne.

Better yet let's trade former pitching coach Joe K knees. He just had em both replaced a while ago. Be like chase 06/07 look out DANGEr

I don't know if I would mind Rhea if she wasn't on that train wreck of a morning show. She is constantly trying to be comical, and that is just not for her.

I respect her as a passionate and insightful fan, however I think she is really out of place on that show.

Never heard of this Hutchison kid before that is throwing tonight for Jays. Saw this on fangraphs:

"The right-hander has above-average control for his age and he mixes his pitches well. Hutchison can reach 93-94 mph with his four-seam fastball but he tends to work with a two-seamer in the 89-91 mph range with good movement. His second best pitch is a changeup and it’s a potential strikeout pitch. The third weapon is a slider, which remains inconsistent."

He's just 21 and only played in the minors for a little over 1 season. Pretty mediocre so far, but does have an impressive line at home:

3-0 in 4 GS, .589 OPS against (.892 on the road).

What annoys me is when Rhea asks a question to her guests then interupts them before they can finish answering. Constant interjection. It gets annoying for me.
Its like she has too much nervous energy.

The Morning Show lineup without Angelo doesn't scare anybody!

Should add that the reason I was curious about Hutchison is when i noticed his age and short minor league career, i wondered if he was some sort of stud I hadn't heard of - but he is only projected as a #3 starter. Guess Jays are just thin in the rotation and need him to develop on the run.

Fastball/change-up guy? Great.

phanatic's bro, you said precisely what I was thinking. I felt bad for JW when he'd try to answer her question and she basically jumped in and answered it for him. Not a great interviewer.

That said, she could have spilled a beer all over JW, accidentally punched him in the nuts cleaning it up, then slipped and fell on his kid in the chaos and she'd STILL be 50X's better at her job than TMac is at his.

And Rhea, if you're reading, feel free to share that sentiment with TMac next time you see him...

Wait, we're using a WIP host as a measure of what a stupid comment is?

WIP is founded upon and totally dependent upon a vast ocean of stupid comments.

What sets BL apart is that, unlike WIP and all the other Phillies blogs, there are islands of insight and intelligence on BL.

how are the beaches on Clout Island

Jason Pridie is now a Phillie. All of our problems are solved.

JW: good interview, spoke your mind well it seemed, much improved over the one you did with Barkaan and the DNL crew a year or so back.

haha no way, i hate Pridie so much.

lorecore: Actually it is Sophist Island and MG Island and Klaus Island and many others.

Alas, there has never been a Lorecore Island even under your previous screen name.

I actually like Rhea Hughes, but she looks like a more attractive version of Laverne.

Posted by: can_of_corn | Friday, June 15, 2012 at 03:05 PM

There is no such thing as a less attractive version of Laverne.

Rhea is far more attractive than the toothless diseased-ridden 5 dolla 5 dollas the BL idiocracy picks up on the G_Town street corner.

BTW, just to be clear, most of the hosts on WIP as pretty sharp but they are instructed to "dumb it down" to the level of the callers and listeners.

I see Pridie served a 50 games suspension for violating baseball's "substance abuse policy".

Does that mean PED's?

JW, you have a future!!!!!!!!!!!! :)


clout Island? Is that near Devil's Island?

Also, KK's K/9 as a starter is 6.0, and his ERA is 4.59.

I'll take the version we had last season when his ERA as a starter was 3.14 and his K/( was only 5.0.

Oh, wait.....

Another facinating pithing breakdown on espn.com. This one's for g-town:

While Jonathan Papelbon's career save rate of 88.3 percent sounds impressive, Smith points out that teams historically have won 85.7 percent of games they led by one run after eight innings, 93.7 percent of games they led by two runs and 97.5 percent of games they led by three. Thus, it is clearly inefficient to pay Papelbon or any top closer $12 million a year and only use him for situations in which the team likely will win anyway.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/page/caple-120615/a-plan-save-save-make-relief-pitchers-meaningful-again

I am posting from the Drexel graduation. There are too many BA kids here. I did get to see Paul Ehrlich speak.
Batushansky nowhere to be found. Very disappointing.

That video was pretty good, but it's not nearly as good as this CCTV footage of Gtown_Dave trying to get breakfast in Germantown this morning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eREiQhBDIk

"Batushansky nowhere to be found."

I feel duped. False advertising.

MPNPhilly: Damn. Shoulda worn a mask. Although my frequent, vocal irritation w/ the failure of the current Phillies team to play even borderline passable D-FENS would have given me away sooner or later.

In extended spring or an actual game?

Posted by: lorecore | Friday, June 15, 2012 at 02:55 PM


Gulf Coast exhibition game

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/phillies/Howard_homers_twice_in_rookie_leagues_exhibition.html

Yeesh. Wigginton, Fontenot, Martinez.

I fully expect our 7-9 to go 6 for 12 with 7 RBI

I feel dumb. And am afraid to ask but....
Who is Batushansky?

Budweiser or Michelob Ultra?

Water please.

"It has never changed. Ever," Smith says. "If you lead by three runs going into the ninth inning, you're probably going to win. It's a pretty safe bet."

So is the take-away here that using your best pitcher (as opposed to any old schlub on your staff) when you are one, two, or even three runs ahead in the 9th doesn't increase your chances of winning the game?

Does anyone actually believe that?

Anyone notice the complete failure isolate the variable of using closers from other variables (such as other concurrent changes in bullpen management) while purporting to prove how the use of closers makes no difference?

So now we won't hear any whining about how Charlie uses Paps - because none of it makes any difference anyway?

Yeah. That's going to happen.

Another facinating pithing breakdown on espn.com. This one's for g-town:

While Jonathan Papelbon's career save rate of 88.3 percent sounds impressive, Smith points out that teams historically have won 85.7 percent of games they led by one run after eight innings, 93.7 percent of games they led by two runs and 97.5 percent of games they led by three. Thus, it is clearly inefficient to pay Papelbon or any top closer $12 million a year and only use him for situations in which the team likely will win anyway.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/page/caple-120615/a-plan-save-save-make-relief-pitchers-meaningful-again

Posted by: BobbyD | Friday, June 15, 2012 at 03:53 PM

Maybe, just maybe, because the best and often most expensive reliever are in the games at these times?

Batushanksy is the dude in all the Drexel banner ads on the right side of the website.

Cyclic: Wigginton and Fontenot as 7-8 guys aint so bad. We've had Wigginton in the cleanup spot for about half a dozen games already, so I welcome seeing him in 7 hole.

Wigginton vs RHP: .256/.308/.372
Victorino vs RHP: .231/.307/.333

If it wasn't for Pence's heavy reverse split season our middle of lineup would be useless 75% of the games we play.

Of course, pissy pants pisshead and phlipper have a point on those statistics. They're influenced by the use of the "closer" in those situations. But, it's not like your best reliever was not used in those situations, in the past. The beef most people have is that your best reliever should be used in your most critical spot in the game. If it's the bottom of the 8th, you're up 2 runs, and you're facing the heart of the lineup, you shouldn't bank on your set up guy hoping that your closer gets a chance to retire Wigginton, Fontenot and Martinez in the 9th.

Maybe, just maybe, because the best and often most expensive reliever are in the games at these times?

Posted by: pissy pants posse | Friday, June 15, 2012 at 04:29 PM

The same thought occured to me. I was just reposting the story.

2-3 weeks ago Ruiz was starting to cool off and I kind of just chalked it up as an awesome ride and pray that someone else was going to step up to keep the offense at a decent level.

Now he's 7 for his last 16 with 4 2B and 3BB/2HBP for a line of .438/.571/.688 in his last 5 games - OPS back to 1.000 on the dot and we're halfway thru June, amazing.

Has a healthy league lead in HBP with 10, wonder if thats a sign that he's moved closer to the plate this year and part of his success? Haven't noticed, but whatever it is, we still need a lot of it.

I hope they play Sarah McLachlan music tonight during the inning breaks.

"The beef most people have is that your best reliever should be used in your most critical spot in the game."

That is an valid argument - but unfortunately it's usually presented along with muddle-headed thinking that fails to account for all the relevant variables. If a closer comes in in to protect a small lead in the 9th, the game is in his hands. He does his job and you win. There's something to be said for that.

That isn't necessarily the case if the closer comes in in the 8th. He can do his job and you'll still lose. Tie games present a whole other set of possible scenarios.

And how about the 7th? The 6th? What about the 5th? At what arbitrary point would you determine the "high leverage" situation justifying the use of the closer begins? Should it only be based on whether or not the heart of the order is coming up? How about match-ups? Is there some loss, physical or psychological, to not having defined roles where the players and pitchers know exactly what to expect? Is there a psychological advantage to changing manager's strategies because they know that if they don't have the lead going into the 9th they'll have to fact a lockdown closer?

I don't really disagree with those who say that managers should re-think the orthodoxy of how closers are used. And Charlie doesn't really think it through strategically; he just goes with the "he's my guy" way of thinking. But the anti-closer viewpoint has become its own version of a close-minded orthodoxy, and people throw out lame analysis just to confirm their own biases.

"Maybe, just maybe, because the best and often most expensive reliever are in the games at these times?"

Fine. So how does that justify paying $11M for an elite closer, when even an average closer has an 85% save rate in 1 run games and a 97.5% save rate in 3-run games? If your closer has 45 save opportunities in a season -- 15 each with 1, 2, and 3-run leads, exactly how many more wins will your team come away with as a result of having Papelbon instead of an average closer?

Arguing reason with Phlipper regarding bullpen utilization and the closer usage is generally pointless.

Stop beating me, I'm dead.

Phlipper: You are right that much of the closer analysis is circular reasoning. A recent blog post from Joe Posnanski (who I think is normally excellent) challenged the "last 3 outs are the hardest" orthodoxy by pointing out that slash lines are lowest in the 9th inning of all innings: an analysis that suffers from exactly the same mistake.

However, you seem to be suggesting that the concept of leverage is arbitrary. It is not. It can be accurately measured, as a function of how likely runs are to be scored in a given scenario, given average hitters and average pitchers. The form of leverage listed on Fangraphs and other sites assumes generic hitters and pitchers, but in theory a more complete "leverage" could easily be calculated. It is not arbitrary.

Is it possible that there could be a psychological benefit to having defined roles? Sure, maybe. But in my experience, 9 times out of 10, when you actually run the numbers on traditional, pseudo-psychological wisdom in sports (things like the Wheeler Closer in Non-Save Situation Adrenaline Rule), it turns out to be somewhere between overstated and dead wrong.

Yo, new thread

"2-3 weeks ago Ruiz was starting to cool off and I kind of just chalked it up as an awesome ride and pray that someone else was going to step up to keep the offense at a decent level.

Now he's 7 for his last 16 with 4 2B and 3BB/2HBP for a line of .438/.571/.688 in his last 5 games - OPS back to 1.000 on the dot and we're halfway thru June, amazing.

Has a healthy league lead in HBP with 10, wonder if thats a sign that he's moved closer to the plate this year and part of his success? Haven't noticed, but whatever it is, we still need a lot of it."

........................................
Posted by: lorecore | Friday, June 15, 2012 at 04:48 PM


Here's something for you to consider, lorecore, as clearly it's an idea that's never occurred to you before.

The vast majority of variability that we see in limited sample sizes of how players perform at various times throughout the season is explainable by normal patterns in the distribution of events.

When someone says that someone isn't going good "right now," chances are that they are attributing a random pattern distribution to some factor for which there is no actual evidential support.

Of course, there could be an actual reason why Ruiz was getting more hits a while ago, stopped for a while, and then picked it up again. If you had some evidence of % of hard-hit balls during those periods, then you might have the beginning of supporting evidence, but even there the difference in prevalence of line drives could also very likely just be a product of random distribution patterns.

On thing you can know for sure is that the vast majority of times that people try to explain why a player is going good "right now" or bad "right now," they're just seeing what they want to see.

Of course, the professionals in the game know that, for the most part. That's why they take the long-term view. The players themselves also likely often over-attribute random distribution to fairly arbitrary explanations such as "seeing the ball well," but even though they probably do so to some extent, at least they actually know something about what they're talking about when they offer some kind of an explanation for the variability in their performances. But watch how Charlie has patients and waits things out before reaching hasty conclusions. You might learn something from that.

Also notice how he has patience.

Sometimes, it is stupid comments.

Nice job, JW!

JW - Knowledgeable.
Unassuming and pleasant nature.
Your basic mensch.
Kinda what I figured.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG