Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Phillies' farm gets little love in Law's rankings | Main | Sizing up the National League East, Part II »

Wednesday, February 06, 2013

Comments

That Marlins team could be really rancid.

Hey, the Phillies are better than the Marlins! Optimism!

I don't expect the Phillies to improve upon their 10-8 record against the Marlins last year. If anything, they might get worse.

Nice assessments. I don't think the Braves are for real...as for the Fish; I think the Fish will be pretty stinky all season.

I'm not impressed with the Braves starting pitching. Whereas they have a deeper lineup, I think we make up some ground on them with our starters.

http://miami.marlins.mlb.com/mia/ticketing/2013_season_tickets.jsp

I would really have to have a season ticket sales quota for Diamond Club or Bacardi Club Dugout seats.

Possibly easier selling tickets for space flights.

The Marlins are going to be flat out awful. Unfortunately, it looks like it's working out that the only out of state game I may be able to make it to is the April series against Miami.

I like traveling and visiting other parks, but this may just be a might-as-well-visit-the-Marlins-park-while-I'm-in-Miami type thing.

fat - At least tickets should be cheap and bountiful on reseller sites. I bet you will be able to get decent seats for even below face if it is during a weeknight.

MG, we're assuming that we'll be able to sit pretty much anywhere we want at minimal cost.

There are rumors that Michael Bourn and the Mets are discussing a 4-year deal. I'm not sure I'd give him 4 years with Revere also on the squad, but if Bourn falls all the way to 3 years, $30M or so, the Phils' failure to sign him will be criminally stupid. His defense alone is worth that money.

Supposedly we're about $6M under the cap. That means a $10M AAV contract would put us $4M over, meaning the Phils would pay a 22.5% tax on the overage - a grand total of an extra $1M or so. The threshold goes up by another $11M next year, so they should be able to get back under by then.

C'mon, Ruben, let's try being the "mystery team" one more time, for old times' sake.

Colonel, Bourn is a legit leadoff hitter also, another great need the Phils have imo.

I know things have changed as this offseason has worn on, but Rube going after Bourn would be a serious reversal. 3/30 doesn't seem to be an attractive enough deal to get Rube to basically admit that kind of mistake.

"...if Bourn falls all the way to 3 years, $30M or so, the Phils' failure to sign him will be criminally stupid."


Why? Suppose the Phillies HAVE made that kind of offer to him and it was rejected? Suppose Bourn isn't interested in playing in Philadelphia unless they pay him more than that? Do you know for a fact that he'd agree to a deal like that with the Phillies? Suppose that deal only matched the Mets' offer and he chose the Mets instead?

You say it's "criminally stupid" of the Phillies. Does that mean you believe the player and his agent have no say in the matter?

Colonel, for someone who generally makes very lucid and well reasoned posts, I'm shocked that you would seemingly buy into the DPat concept that the Phillies can do whatever they want, regardless of the activity of others.

You can literally set your watch to the time between when someone posts a "the Phillies didn't sign this guy, and I'm very angry about that" post, to a response from rolo of the form he posted above.

I was actually going to make a mock post that would have been word-for-word what rolo posted, but I was too lazy.

Also, based upon rolo's reasoning, you can NEVER criticize the Phillies for not signing a player, because so long as there exists the possibility that the Phillies were unable to sign said player, no matter their offer/desire, we can't assume that they just didn't want to.

Phils spent their money this offseason and I understand why now they would be very reluctant to give Bourn that kind of deal that would take them well over the luxury tax threshold.

Mets have done squat this offseason except dump salary & likely have a little cash squirreled away.

Also have a huge need for an CF upgrade and Bourn at 3 yr/$30M isn't a bad deal at all even for a team that will be rebuilding this year and next year.

Stanton and the Marlins:

Just out of curiosity what is the record for solo HRs in a season? I imagine that it is one of the HR season leaders (Bonds, Sosa, McGwire) but I am sure that Stanton will have his share of them this year.

Fatalotti: You tend to not make distinctions between idiotic posts and posts that have reasonable opinions. My guess is you can't make those distinctions yourself.

But there's a big difference between being outraged that the Phils didn't land B.J. Upton and being outraged that, after acquiring Revere, they failed to land Michael Bourn.

The former opinion is at least understandable even if you disagree with it. The latter is ridiculous, which was rolo's point.

For the record, I'm indifferent to whether they go after Bourn. I really wouldn't be upset one way or the other.

But, pray tell, is it ridiculous to hope that the Phillies land Michael Bourn? The Phillies have complete question marks in the corners with Delmon Young and the other corner OF troika of Brown/Mayberry/Ruf. Young is an absolute zero, so, yes, I can definitely see an argument for having Revere in RF and Bourn in CF, if for no other fact that you'd have absolutely stellar defense covering most of your OF, and both guys are elite base stealers, and Revere, who at least brings those two talents to the table, would be ousting Young from RF, who brings no talents to the table.

So, why again, is the notion of the Phillies signing Bourn on a reasonable 3 year deal ridiculous again?

Clout: Actually, the latter was not rolo's point, insofar as either of us can claim to divine what was going in someone else's mind.

Rolo's point did not seem to be that the failure to sign Bourn was reasonable because we had already traded for Revere. In fact, Revere is never mentioned in rolo's post. Instead, rolo's point actually presupposed the Phillies *did* offer Bourn a deal. His point was that you can't criticize the failure to sign Bourn because it's entirely possible Bourn didn't want to sign here at all. Taken to its logical conclusion, this point would eradicate all criticism of any move the Phillies failed to make, ever, because how can you say they didn't try and it was someone else's fault it didn't happen?

That logical conclusion being somewhat absurd, I think was Fatalotti's point. But I will let Fatalotti confirm that, rather than presume to know.

Mike,

I think you hit the nail on the head pointing to the Bravos losing some high-average/high-contact players. Their outfield defense should be absolutely stellar with all that speed but the Upton bros strike out alot and miss contact a lot. I don't expect a lot of station-to-station scoring from them this year which may actually result in a worst record.

As for bourn, I would rather see the Phillies test their outfield as it is and see if someone can play themselves into the everyday roster (Brown/Ruf/Mayberry?). The last time we had similar depth on the team was probably 2007 when Werth played himself into an everyday guy. You have to face facts with the amount of money the Phillies have committed and consider that this is how high-salary teams transition.

"...because so long as there exists the possibility that the Phillies were unable to sign said player, no matter their offer/desire, we can't assume that they just didn't want to."


Fatti, you're being a fathead. Seriously.

Why is it you and others always assume that "they just didn't want to"?

You obviously have a short (or convenient) memory, because I recently posted that I felt they were open to criticism for signing durbin istead of rauch, given that they got similar contracts.

BTW, why is it you feel it necessary to jump into the middle of a DIAlogue I initiated with the Colonel? Is it that you feel he's too stupid or inept to defend himself?

rolo: "BTW, why is it you feel it necessary to jump into the middle of a DIAlogue I initiated with the Colonel? Is it that you feel he's too stupid or inept to defend himself?"

Fatalotti jumps into the middle of everyone's dialogues. I guess that's the only way he can get someone to respond to him.

For what it is worth the papers up here say that the Mets do have an offer to Bourn for 3 years and said they might go to 4 years. But they won't sign him if they have to lose the 11th pick in the draft. They also won't ask MLB for an exception to losing their 1st round pick, since they had the 10th worst record in baseball but have the 11th pick because the Pirates didn't sign their 1st round pick last year, until he agreed to sign with them. Then if MLB does not grant them the exception they would not sign him at all.

Jack, I don't need you or anyone else to make my point for me.

"Instead, rolo's point actually presupposed the Phillies *did* offer Bourn a deal."

Ummm, no it didn't, it presupposed that there wasn't enough information available, but I forgive you for you lack of reading comprehension.

"His point was that you can't criticize the failure to sign Bourn because it's entirely possible Bourn didn't want to sign here at all."

Ummm, wrong again.

My point is that I find it silly to criticize the Phillies for something in posterus when it may very well be that they actually do sign Bourn.

"Taken to its logical conclusion, this point would eradicate all criticism of any move the Phillies failed to make, ever, because how can you say they didn't try and it was someone else's fault it didn't happen?"

Ummmm, no. I have criticized the Phillies plenty of times - when the information exists on which to base said criticism. but, again, if you want to read things into my posts that aren't there, go right ahead - it's a free county... for now.

"But I will let Fatalotti confirm that, rather than presume to know."


Gee, Jack, you presume to "know" what my point was (even reading garbage into it that wasn;t there).

Why does Fatti get the kid glove treatment? I feel discriminated against.

I'm pretty certain Iceman=rolo=Amaro

rolo: Your post said this:

"Suppose the Phillies HAVE made that kind of offer to him and it was rejected?"

So yes, it did presuppose that the Phillies made him an offer. I mean. That's kind of what that means. Well, not kind of. It's exactly what that means. I'm not reading things into your post that isn't there--I'm reading exactly what's in your post. But ok.

Jack, you obviously cannot make the distinction between presupposition and a speculative question.

I feel sorry for you.

The colonel "presupposed", not I. I merely asked him a series of questions regarding his presupposition. That is, his entire post "presupposed" that the Phillies didn't sign Bourn.

Clout castigating Fats for inserting himself in a conversation not addressed to him is the highest form of pot calling the kettle black.

Wow, another "disinterested third party" who, overcome by cowardice on an anonymous baseball blog, changes his handle to make a ridiculously stupid comment.

Only on BL.... (sigh).

norbertods: "Clout castigating Fats for inserting himself in a conversation not addressed to him is the highest form of pot calling the kettle black."

Says norbertods, inserting himself into a conversation he was not part of.

Too funny.

While everyone's butting in, and making this thread unreadable (again) I have to say I knew awh's post was going to follow ColonelTom's post about Bourn as soon as I read it, because awh has posted the same thing about seventy-gajillion times over the past few weeks. Would have been funnier if Fatti wasn't so lazy and beat him to it.

Sorry, clout. You did exactly what norbertods said you did. Yes, too funny indeed.

And let it not be said I inserted myself into Rolo's colloquy. Because he seems to be having a conversation with himself as the only participant, and I think that's as it should be.

Jack merely interpreted Rolo's points entirely correctly, and apparently, that's not allowed.

Keep going fellows. I'm enjoying this.

I wonder if this the same level of confusion that anyone whoever read the first draft of Inception encountered.

I can't even keep track of who is involved in this "discussion" (that it should be noted is actually occurring in the very open thread of a very public baseball blog), let alone what their respective points are 'presupposing' or not.

Hugh, is it my fault that the Moronocracy refuses (or lacks the capacity) to understand that the Phillies don't operate in a vaccum?


That stated, the Phillies are not above criticism, but I'm increasingly amazed by some here who's disposition to criticize is so inbred that they rip the Phillies for things that have not even yet happened?

Take the Colonel's original post: "Criminally stupid" if they didn't sign Bourn for 3/30, if indeed he even signs for that amount, which if it does happen, stil hasn't.

I guess I should have limited my response to this:

"It seems silly to criticize the Phillies for something in posterus that may not actually happen."

I didn't see a great many free agents that were even close to being worth what they signed for. I'm pretty happy with the moves the made and even happier with the moves they didn't make.

Assuming the 2013 Phillies are healthier than 2012, they're an improved team (more so if Michael Young returns to form, which is far from impossible).

I would put money on the 2013 Braves not outperforming the 2012 Braves. Even if the Upton brothers do keep their heads on straight, they're not a better team with them and without Chipper/Prado/Bourn. Their rotation is scary to no one and I'm not sold on ever member of their bullpen replicating 2012.

The Nationals are more of a threat, but I'll keep my fear in check until I see if Gio can perform off of steroids and if Harper is the real deal and if Stasberg can perform when they take the pampers and baby powder away.

The Marlins and Mets aren't even worth discussing.

I'm the first one to criticize the front office, but I think Amaro did the right thing. Looking at the 2013 season only, I wouldn't want to trade rosters with either the Nats or the Braves.

...and why are we wasting time psychoanalyzing clout's pointless posts. Hasn't he already made it clear that he's a powerless victim of life who comes on the internet because it allows him to speak to others the way that everyone speaks to him?

This place got ruined by a few odd personalities, but I haven't given up yet.

Good for you, Corey.

Corey, this place did not "got ruined". Post some quality stuff and the commentariat will drown out/ stifle the a$$holes who've been prolific this offseason. They're generally regular contributors who've fallen in love with the echoes of their posts in the vacuum of the offseason. Or, don't post quality stuff and maybe the good posters drift away. Reality is, this is a great place to keep up with the phils.

" Reality is, this is a great place to keep up with the phils."

True enough Hugh but you have to admit it's getting harder and harder to wade through the petty word parsing and gottcha crap. I find myself skipping over whole pages of posts as they devolve into nothing more than pissing contests between people with strange obsessions with winning arguments with strangers.

Couple things holding back threads right now. I have these listed in my personal order for most to blame to least to blame:

1.) People are relying too much on their dumb Internet gimmicks and cliques rather than trying to engage in dialogue.

2.) This is a tough off-season because the Phillies made moves a lot of people were against (not the wrong moves, but just unpopular) and people are wondering where our team stands.

3.) Some less than stellar topics for debate with JW taking a less pronounced role and other guys stepping in. That isn't slagging their work necessarily. Not all topics are stimulating for debate, but it feels like too often we are reading speculative pieces or something that was talked about a few days earlier in the comment section.

TTI-may I add a 4th point ?

There ain't much good goin' on , so the talkin' ain't much good neither.

(I can translate that into polysyllabic for those who can only speak in complicated prose when expressing simple thoughts)

I leave BL for a few hours and look what happens.

For those too thick-headed to get my point, I'd like to see them sign Bourn if he's truly slipped to something like a 3/$30m deal. I would be disappointed if I saw him sign with the Mets for something similar.

No, I don't profess to know whether Bourn has been offered a deal by the Phils, nor do I know whether he'd accept such a deal.

"Criminally stupid" is hyperbole, and was clearly intended as such if you read through to the end of my post.

"It seems silly to criticize the Phillies for something in posterus that may not actually happen."

There, rolo - that was an entirely appropriate, non-needlessly-confrontational response to my earlier post! (Even if you did entirely miss my point.). You should try that tone more often.

For what it's worth, SI gives the Phillies a bad offseason grade:

http://mlb.si.com/2013/01/25/winter-report-card-philadelphia-phillies/?sct=uk_t12_a7

MG: "Just out of curiosity what is the record for solo HRs in a season? I imagine that it is one of the HR season leaders (Bonds, Sosa, McGwire) but I am sure that Stanton will have his share of them this year. "

It was Bonds' 2001 season, he hit 46 solo homeruns (63% of his total). Since 2011, Stanton leads the MLB with 51 solo HRs, which is 72% of his HR.

Over the past 5 years, 58% of all HR are solo shots. Obviously the hr minimum changes the list a bunch, but the most prolific solo HR% year is probably the Astros' Richard Hildago in 2000 - 35 out of 44 HR solo, for 79.5%

Ken Singleton batted leadoff for the Orioles in 1975 and hit 15 HR, all solo. I think thats the most HR ever hit in a season all being solo.

The colonel "presupposed", not I. I merely asked him a series of questions regarding his presupposition. That is, his entire post "presupposed" that the Phillies didn't sign Bourn.

Riddle me this - if I "presupposed that the Phillies didn't sign Bourn," why would I have finished by hoping that the Phillies be the "mystery team" and sign Bourn?

As for clout:

But there's a big difference between being outraged that the Phils didn't land B.J. Upton and being outraged that, after acquiring Revere, they failed to land Michael Bourn.

The former opinion is at least understandable even if you disagree with it. The latter is ridiculous, which was rolo's point.

It wasn't rolo's point, and you've missed my point as well in your haste to call something "ridiculous" (or moronic, or any of the other terms that you and rolo toss around way too often at other BL posters).

Re: having Revere now, Bourn would not be worth to the Phils a deal similar to Upton's because one of Revere/Bourn would have to play an outfield corner where he wouldn't be as valuable. Bourn's worth a 3/$30m deal** to the Phils as they are currently configured, given that the likely alternative is far too much Delmon Young in the lineup.

** Legal disclaimer - this post neither presupposes that such a deal has been offered, nor that Bourn has rejected such a deal, nor that Bourn would accept such a deal if offered. Taxes and fees not included. Your mileage may vary. Not available in some jurisdictions. Should be taken with water at least an hour before bedtime. Ask your doctor before using any advice given in this post.

lorecore: Great research. And to think, some people say this site has gone downhill.

seidman: "Phillie-killer and $11.5-million man Ricky Nolasco will trot out as the ace."

I swore they would have dealt him by now. No way they dont just give him away and eat salary to get rid of any penny they can.

If they can find a way, the Marlins will owe more money to players on other teams than their own. Thats gotta be a record, right?

current Houston Astros' 2014 guaranteed salary:

their own players - $0
wandy rodriguez on PIT - $5.5M

I hate that the phillies ended up with Chad Durbin. There are about 8 other guys who all got similar deals and who i think will much better 2013 seasons. I hope durbin proves me wrong.

Richard hildalgo hit 44 HRs one year? Boy does that smell a little fishy. He hit 15 the year before and 19 the year after.

I think we should develop a forecast for our 2013 finish in the NL East solely based on the # of plate appearances for our beloved MiniMart.

0 PA = 1st Place
< 50 = 2nd
50-100 = 3rd
100- 150 = 4th (dismal Mets rivalry)
> 150 =5th ( stink like the fishes).

Here is what I don't get on that SI grade. Look at the list of key departures and key additions. Who did the Phillies lose that was a key to them last year? Pierre maybe? Who did they lose that had a chance to contribute going forward? Worley obviously.

But with Worley you have a guy who was injured last year and we need to see how he recovers from that.

The people they added improve their roster for this season, and Revere has the ability to help out in years to come. I don't know if that means a huge jump in wins but I think it means they are a better team than last year.

TTI, the SI writer(s) seem to be counting on repeat 2012 seaasons from Howard and Utley, no improvement from Halladay, and Cook occupying the #5 starter slot.

I totally forgot we even signed Aaron Cook...to a minor league deal mind you.


Yeah, he'll definitely be our 5th starter.

~rolls eyes~

National publications like SI really don't do kind of a poor job of their sports previews.

Cook isn't going to be the Phils' 5th starter unless one of the Phils' starters goes down in camp.

If the Phils are relatively healthy, they will make the playoffs. If they aren't, they will be a .500 team or slightly worse and it is will officially launch the rebuilding phase.

Making any prognostications though on this team until you see how at least a dozen things are beginning to take shape in camp.

- Can Halladay improve and give them 30 starts?
- Can Howard give them close to a full season with at least 30+ HRs and 100+ RBIs?
- Can Utley play at least 130 G this year?

Unless the Phils get positive affirmations on at least 2 of those 3 questions, they won't make the playoffs.

I know I am nuts too but I see Chooch's 25-game suspension as a positive actually too.

I also wish that Sandberg was managing this team and not Cholly. Not that I think that Sandberg is the 2nd coming of Earl Weaver or Sparky Anderson either. Cholly wasn't the right guy to manage this team last year and isn't this year either.

lorecore - Thanks for answering my questions on solo HRs. I do like Stanton's chances as long as he stays healthy to at least get close to Hidalgo's odd record.

I did really dislike Amaro's minor league signings of Cook and especially Lopez. Cook wasn't a great signing but they needed to fill at least one roster spot at Lehigh. Lopez flat out stinks and has no business even at a AAA roster anymore as a starter.

Phils really better hope that the Big 3 stay healthy because the Phils will have a huge failoff to Cook who is the 6th starter right now on the organizational depth chart I bet ahead of Cloyd or Pettibone.

Cloyd shouldnt be on anyone's depth chart...he's not a legit MLB SP.

***- Can Halladay improve and give them 30 starts?
- Can Howard give them close to a full season with at least 30+ HRs and 100+ RBIs?
- Can Utley play at least 130 G this year?

***

I would bet that at least 2 out of 3 of these come true.

"This week, Europol, the European Union's criminal-intelligence division, announced that its investigation into match-fixing, codenamed "Operation Veto," had uncovered 680 suspicious games from 2008 to 2011. It's huge news, not because the results are particularly surprising — there's plenty of other evidence, even recent evidence, that match-fixing is rampant in global soccer — but because the sheer extent of the allegations means that we can no longer delude ourselves about what's happening. This is what's happening: Soccer is fucked. Match-fixing is corroding the integrity of the game at every level. It's not just South African friendlies or Korean league games or Chinese "black whistles"; it's not even just the occasional Calciopoli-type scandal that you can explain away by saying "well, Italy is Italy." Operation Veto found suspect World Cup qualifiers, suspect European Championship qualifiers, suspect Champions League games.1 It found 150 suspect matches at the international level, on multiple continents. It found 380 suspect matches in Europe overall. It found a suspect match involving Liverpool that was played at Anfield, arguably the most celebrated club and stadium in England."

I would bet that $3B wagered on sports daily in Asia is a probably well under reported too. I would be curious to see if Japanese baseball has the same problems that are rife in Japanese Sumo matches.

For all of the issues that the various US-based major sports face, massive match-fixing would be the biggest one. Even bigger than the lawsuits facing the NFL.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8924593/match-fixing-soccer

I'm higher on Pettibone's ceiling than I probably should be, but I think he'll be a great insurance policy this year and future starter.

He seems to pitch to his competition, he's moved up the ladder year after year, and keeps improving. Great sign to me even if his numbers are stuff aren't eye popping

I know I am nuts too but I see Chooch's 25-game suspension as a positive actually too.

I'm having trouble seeing how losing a guy who hit .325/.394/.540 last year for a month is a positive.

ColonelTom - I'm not one to speak for MG, but I think he likes the fact that Ruiz will get some rest early on in the season. It should save some of the wear and tear on his body for later in the season.

Rest is fine, but Cholly's going to run Ruiz into the ground once he's back, especially if the Phils are lagging behind in the standings. Remember, Cholly started Utley in 70 of the last 72 games last year. They'd be much better off having Chooch in the lineup from day one and spreading out those 25 games off over the season.

Doesn't take much these days to set this place on fire.

Also, when did everyone get so uppity about people inserting themselves in others' conversations? This blog was founded on that principle. That, and marrying your cousin.

I agree with the good Colonel. If Ruiz misses the first 25 days, I don't see any reason to believe Manuel won't just run him ragged over the remaining 137 games. Hopefully the rest of the jokers we'll be calling our starting catcher over that span catch fire, and play way over their heads.

I dont want to post on a blog where I cant marry my cousin.

Colonel, look at it this way:

Which Chooch do you expect to see on the field in 2012 after he returns?:


Pre-ASB Chooch: .350/.412/.584 289 PA, .362 BAbip

Post-ASB Chooch: .270/.356/.443, 132 PA, .289 BAbip

NEPP, I wouldn't want to post on a blog where you can't marry your cousin either. You can even marry your gay cousin, if you'd like.

If Ruiz normally starts slow, doesn't that mean he'll just start slow after the 25 game suspension? Missing those games is not a good thing in any way.

Also, when did everyone get so uppity about people inserting themselves in others' conversations? This blog was founded on that principle.

It's a public message board. If you want a private conversation, try email.

rolo, I don't get your point. Assuming the Phils split the catching duties 4:1 between their starter and backup, wouldn't you rather have "post-ASB Chooch" for 20 and Kratz for 5 than Kratz for 20 and Quintero for 5?

Also, doesn't that BAbip more likely tell you that a good chunk of Chooch's monster first half was luck?

Just looked at Chooch's career BAbip - it's probably more accurate to say that the truth lies in between those two halves (and maybe a bit closer to pre-ASG Chooch), but the variation in performance is probably more BAbip variation than anything related to fatigue.

Colonel, my point is this:

I'll bet you anything you like that chooch doesn't come close to replicating his 2012 numbers.

Therefore, they won't be "missing" the the chooch that put up .325/.394/.540 lie last season. AAMOF, since we're talking about a potential 25 games sample size, why not just use the numbers Chooch put up through Game 25 last season - .318/.344/.565? Or, will it be the Chooch from Game 26 through Game 50, who put up a line of .403/.477/.597? Yes, it's arbitrary.)

Sure, they'll miss Chooch for the first 25 games, but the question is which one?

OTOH, if Kratz duplicates his first 25 games from last season - .295/.375/.738 - will they miss Chooch at all?

Colonwl, I don't think we're disagreeing, but I tend not to get all twisted up about missing Chooch for the first 25 games.

I'm far more concerned about what they get from Utley, Howard and Halladay.

They, of course, won't just be replacing Chooch's (at least) 105 OPS+ (he's been above that number for 4 straight years now), but they'll also be losing his defense, and his ability to call games. Chooch's absence for the first 25 games is going to sting.

The babip argument about Chooch is interesting. But as someone who watched nearly every game, it looked to me like he was making much more solid contact consistently than in the past. And when he didn't, he was using the whole field more effectively. When down in the count, he seemed to slice the ball to right more often than in the past.

He just looked to be a better hitter all around than in the past. Could some of those balls falling in be luck? Sure. But he looked like a very different hitter in his contact. When you hit more line drives and use the whole field, you tend to find a lot more holes.

rolo, I completely agree on Chooch's likelihood of repeating 2012's numbers. I'd still take his post-ASB numbers (with a BAbip well below his career average) over a steady diet of Kratz and Montero.

But you're absolutely right - Chooch's 25-game absence is a drop in the bucket over a full season, and the overall performance of Doc, Utley, and Howard will be a much larger factor.

Law's report on the Phillies system is out. Top 10:

Morgan
Biddle
Quinn
Franco
Joseph
Martin
Pettibone
Asche
Giles
Greene

I share his optimism on Franco, for one. I didn't know much about Kenny Giles, a reliever who he has at #9 who I haven't seen ranked elsewhere. He says Giles throws 99-100 with a slider, and has the chance to be a reliever who moves quickly up towards the big-league team.

Jack, who is this Giles guy?

Yo, new thread!

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG