Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Phillies torch Hefner again, homer 3 times in win | Main | Key to solving Ricky Nolasco: Force his fastball »

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Comments

Throwing Stanton a strike would be like throwing Howard a fastball - monumentally stupid. There's no reason to, whatsoever, with the lineup they've constructed around him. Hell, you could do worse than intentionally walking him every AB.

"Not sweeping this series would be slightly disappointing, but not winning it outright would be unfathomable, especially with Cole Hamels and Roy Halladay going on Saturday and Sunday."

It's this very sentiment that has me resigned to the fact that this series is lost already, and Halladay and Hamels will continue to frustrate us. It's just when there's a glimmer of optimism (getting to within a game of .500 and showing signs of life on offense and pitching) that we're due for some heartbreak. At least that's what my 35 years of life on this planet have taught me anyway.

"The Marlins are hitting .217/.287/.283 as a team. When we say it doesn't get worse than that, it really doesn't get worse than that."

The Pirates are batting .153/.230/.218

Can we acquire Jamie Moyer for just this Marlins series just in case Halladay is still f'd up?

Sounds better than Oswalt.

Jorge Soler threaten to assault Clearwater's 2B Carlos Alonso after an indicident on the field. He got a bat form the dugout and charged after him to the opposite dugout.

"Today's an off-day and tomorrow the film "42" comes out.

I, for one, am pretty excited to see this film. Who else plans to go?"


GBrett, I'll probably go.

Another film you should try to catch is "The Jackie Robinson Story" from 1950, which stars Jackie Robinson playing himself.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042609/?ref_=sr_1

Good grief, lorecore, but that line for the Pirates is bad!

As for the Soler news, that's scary. I'll have to look into that story.

I have the same dread as WP - that Cole & Doc will still struggle and we'll lose the series. Merely because we SHOULD win and counting chickens before they're hatched - or fish, in this case - can lead to disappointment.

I assume the Fish will take 2 of 3.


"Miami has been shut out four times already through nine games. That ties a major-league record. The last team to do it was the 2004 Expos."


Corey, great pickup. That 2004 Expos team also had Loria's fingerprints all over it.

That guy puts a product on the field that makes "monumental suckitude" look good.

Having a 6'4" dude coming at you with a bat has to be scary.

lorecore: Moyer might be a better option going forward than Halladay. Period. Not just with the Marlins.

Corey: Do you really believe that Halladay is the same as he was 2 years ago?

When he was running from the dugout wielding a bat, I really hope he was yelling "Soler Power" at the top of his lungs.

I'll definitely be seeing 42 this weekend. Probably try to catch it Sunday morning for $5. Looks like it'll be a good movie.

"The thought that Stanton would see nothing to hit since he's the only legit threat in the Marlins' lineup? That's exactly what we're seeing. According to Baseball Info Solutions, just 30.2% percent of the pitches thrown to Stanton have been inside the strike zone. That's the lowest rate in all of baseball.

Stanton has no homers, no RBIs and one run so far."

Here's a question: If this continues all season will it cause the SABR community to rethink the concept of "lineup protection"?

I was going to say what Willard said about Stanton - you could just IBB every time and probably not get hurt.

I expect Dobbs to go deep against Halladay, which he did more often than I could stomach when Doc was "healthy."

awh, I was actually considering that notion myself.

But think lineup protection, in general, is mythical. This, though, isn't a general situation.

It's also important to note that Stanton has a 21% BB rate, but still has a K rate over 30%. If he's not getting pitched to, he should be walking like crazy, and not striking out as much. He's still swinging at a crazy amount of pitches outside the zone.

Oh, yeah, Sil, Dobbs.

Now if Polly and Pierre hit bombs off Doc....

These are some tricky pitching matchups for the Phils, unfortunately. If Hamels is still not himself, I wouldn't be surprised to see them drop 2 of 3.

From the last thread there was a small discussion on the Mets possibly trading their top 2 guys for Stanton. NEPP made the point I was going to make- that's a trade you think about if you're a guy or two away from competing. The Mets aren't. Why would they bother?

They've done a really nice job of lining themselves up to be very good 2-3 years down the road. I don't know why they'd p*ss away what they've built to this point to get to what, 75-80 wins with Stanton?

Fat,

Stanton has little to no motivation to try and become a baserunner. Maybe that's not a great team mentality, but geez, can you blame him?

Homeruns, not walks on an awful team, make monster contracts.

I assume the Fish will take 2 of 3.


Posted by: NEPP


Same. It just has the feel of those Astros series' where we were expected to pound a clearly inferior team.

Since Halladay has no command, I predict that every pitch he throws to Stanton will be just below the below over the heart of the plate. Every. Single. One.

(Top that, bap.)


541, you're right.

But theoretically, if he's seeing a lot more balls, he can still put up a great slash line, great ISO and great rate stats in general, he would just have less RAW home runs, due to less AB. You'd hope that GMs could recognize that he just saw less to hit, but he still did the same amount of damage per AB that he'd always done in his career, he just had less ABs.

You'd hope, if you're Stanton. Because if he keeps swinging away while seeing less balls, not only is he going to hit less HRs anyway, but his rate stats are going to suck, as will his ISO and so forth, which will definitely hurt his forthcoming contract.

***If this continues all season will it cause the SABR community to rethink the concept of "lineup protection"?***

I dont think they ever factored Jeffrey Loria into the equation and the fact that he'd surround a superstar with 8 AA level players.

***Same. It just has the feel of those Astros series' where we were expected to pound a clearly inferior team.***

Exactly. This will be the series where they figure things out for a couple games and blow Doc out and beat Cole 4-3 on a couple lucky breaks.

It's like facing a team full of Dee Gordons.

Or Ben Reveres (.211/.268/.211). You know, whichever.

I really want to see Qualls give up a HR or two this series to the Phils.

Hard not to see at least one of the ex-Phils (Pierre, Dobbs, Polanco) playing a key role in the Fish taking at least one game this series.

"Since Halladay has no command, I predict that every pitch he throws to Stanton will be just below the below over the heart of the plate. Every. Single. One.

(Top that, bap.)"

And to all the other Marlins too. His final stat line for the game will be 0.1 IP, 7 hits, 7 ER, 7 homeruns allowed, 1 K.

It just has the feel of those Astros series' where we were expected to pound a clearly inferior team.

Sad but truuuuuue!

"I dont think they ever factored Jeffrey Loria into the equation and the fact that he'd surround a superstar with 8 AA level players."

NEPP, it's kind of like surrounding Babe ruth in his prime with a bunch of age 29-31 Mike McNallys:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mcnalmi01.shtml

Note to the board: I am in no way saying that Stanton = Ruth.

"The Marlins are 1-8 and have already been swept by the Nationals and Braves."


This sentence alone almost guarantees we drop 2 of 3.

kind of like surrounding Babe ruth in his prime with a bunch of age 29-31 Mike McNallys

Or surrounding him with a team of Rand McNallys. They'd stink possibly worse than they do now, but they'd never get lost on their way to the park.


I'm sorry.

If opinion isn't unanimous, it's darn close, that we're going to lose this series.

Sil, funy!

And what did clout say about opinions held in unanimity on this site.

Always wrong.

Count me among those who are looking forward to "42", even though I may wait till it's available through TV.

I sense a "trap" series. Marlins are awful, but at some point they're like a busted clock. Hope they don't pick this series to be coincidentally right a couple of times.

I missed this trade:

Dodgers traded Harang (owed $7M+$2M) + $4.5M to Colorado for Hernandez ($3.2M). They ultimately acquired an extra $1.3M in salary commitment.

However, now the rockies are trading Harang's $9M commitment to the Mariners for likely nothing. Depending on what cash they have to throw in, they basically just flipped peices around until they ended up with extra $$ and no players acquired.

Bob - Me too. I definitely want to catch it. I hope Harrison Ford delievers too as Branch Rickey. Too often he is Harrison Ford (grunting, other noises) playing some like of character and not the other way around.

I imagine that 42 will be an utter commercial failure due to Ford's involvement.

MG, I assure you Harrison Ford does not play Harrison Ford in 42. It's one of his better performances, and one that has you going "is that Harrison Ford" when you first see him on screen. You won't be disappointed in his role.

If you are, however, disappointed, it will be in the actual baseball playing scenes (which sadly, is usual for all sports movies nowadays). All in all, it's a great flick though. Has the obvious great message and is well acted. Worth seeing, for sure. Not just saying that since I have a vested interest in it, either.

Marlins are one team the league should honestly just get rid of.

GET OFF MY DUGOUT!

GET OFF MY HOME PLATE!

NEPP, as for "commercial failure," I'm still on the fence on that. Expectations here aren't otherworldly, like some of our films, but I just can't seem to get a read or gut feel on how this one will perform. I usually have a pretty good feeling on which flicks will over-perform or be colossal failures. This one could go either way (but I don't see monumental disappointment, simply due to the lower projections - kind of like how we're all seeing this upcoming Marlins series). Great time of year to release a baseball movie, but then again, baseball and a whole other world of outdoor activities with the warmer weather are now competition, as well.

I just assume that every movie Ford is in will fail...even the good ones (K-19 comes to mind)

He's had a rough go of things since the late 1990s. Movie wise...I'm pretty sure he's still ridiculously wealthy.

"This team doesn't take too many pitches and hasn't made the most of mistakes"

Ughhhh...what does that even mean? Cliches are the crutch of a hobbled mind.

I'll be at the game Saturday nite. Looking forward to seeing Cole pitch. I recently moved back to SoFla after having been in NC for the last 5 years. Last game I saw in Miami was when Cody Ross hit 2 solo shots off Cole. I was beside myself with anger after that game. Hence began mine and my wife's hatred of Cody Ross. She's a big Cole fan, go figure. Well here's hoping the good guys win.

Seen on Twitter:

Jerry Crasnick ‏@jcrasnick
#Bluejays rotation has a 7.59 ERA in nine games after Johnson's outing today. Thank goodness for J.A. Happ.

lore - Are you sure their sending him for nothing? Can't they get Cisco in that deal somehow?

Only 2 years ago, if you'd asked someone to name the top 5 pitchers in baseball, Roy Halladay, Josh Johnson, and Tim Lincecum would all have had very strong cases for making the list.

The philles should have taken at least two of three from KC. That being said a sweep is def what this team needs with this series. Sure the match ups are tricky, but I feel a sweep would really help with the team heading to cin. But my gut tells me losing 2/3. When Stanton comes up 4 balls everytime. With polanco up the routine grounder to 2nd base to turn two. Another note mets looking at Stanton. And would give up atleast wheeler and Travis D. That gets them in the ballpark .this guy is making his rounds.

"Another film you should try to catch is "The Jackie Robinson Story" from 1950, which stars Jackie Robinson playing himself."

I saw that movie, but I just didn't believe the actor playing Jackie Robinson.

NEPP - I was thinking more 'GET OUT OF MY FRONT OFFICE!' or 'GET OUT OF MY CLUBHOUSE!' especially if there is a scene wehre reporters are giving Jackie a hard time after a poor performance.

Much better...I was struggling to come up with soemthing there.


They should have Gary Oldman play a bad guy reporter.

It could be 15-0 Phillies in the bottom of the 9th and 2 outs. If Stanton is up, I'd still IBB him and go after the next guy. If I were our manager, he'd likely have 15 BB in 3 games.

Here's a question: If this continues all season will it cause the SABR community to rethink the concept of "lineup protection"?

Exception that proves the rule.

Just read the "exception that proves the rule" wiki page. Maybe I'm misusing that one. Eh. Just think that one case isn't going to disprove the myth of protection. It's just an extreme example so far.

"Stanton has no homers, no RBIs and one run so far. If this continues all season will it cause the SABR community to rethink the concept of "lineup protection"?
"

If you want to measure 'protection' by RBI totals, than it absolutley exists. Look no further than Barry Bonds.

His 73 HR season is the only time in MLB history that a qualified player has had less than double the RBI(137) as HR.

Sophist: How you used "exception that proves the rule" isn't really all that distorted from the original meaning of the phrase and it's how most people use that phrase today anyway. I would argue that because it is not generally used to refer to strict rules anymore, and it takes a as slightly figurative turn toward general, de facto "rules," that you can call "exception that proves the rule" an idiom.

And while Jeff Kent was a completely legitimate clean up hitter, in terms of protection, the drop off from him to Bonds was so steep that he might of well been a 37yr old Placido Polanco.

One could easily make the case that the drop from Bonds to Kent in 2001 was even more of a dropoff from Stanton to Polanco in 2013.

lorecore - Maybe my brain is fried and I'm missing something, but how does the HR/RBI ratio show Bonds had no protection? It just shows no one was on base in front of him. He still managed 73 HR. What exactly does protection mean?

If this continues all season will it cause the SABR community to rethink the concept of "lineup protection"?

I think the endpoint of "protection analysis" was that there was a BB impact but not really a hitting impact (i.e., player X will hit 10 more HRs because Y is behind him).

sophist: Bonds should have had about 200 or so RBI if people chose to pitch to him. Instead they opted to pitch around him.

His HR/RBI ratio shows that his only PA where he was pitched to was when RBI opps were at the slimmest.

From baseballthinkfactory today:
Six players have hit 20 or more homers in a season with an RBI total that is less than or equal to twice said number of longballs - Chris Holies (20/40), Kevin Maas (21/41), and Chris Duncan (22/43) among them. Only two guys have hit 30 or more and done this - Barry Bonds having done it twice (73/137, 45/90). Who is the other guy?

(The other guy will not be a surprise)

The MLB average for runs scored per BB is 1.46.
The Marlins only score 0.59 runs per BB.

This is one small way that the Marlins haven't made the most of mistakes.

Bonds should have had about 200 or so RBI if people chose to pitch to him. Instead they opted to pitch around him.

Interesting. That assumes he had as many RBI opportunities as most HR hitters. So pitchers pitched around him with men on, and went at him with bases empty. I was assuming he had so few RBI because his number of RBI opportunities was low (low OBP hitters in front of him(. I guess there's an easy way to verify this,

In 2001, Bonds was intentionally walked 35 times during 305 PA with Men On base, and not intentionally walked at all in 359 PA with no one on base.

So obviously, he was affected in THAT way.

But, his slash line with Men On Base was .374/.587/.884 (1.471), and his slash line with no one on base was .295/.454/.849 (1.303), so he was actually a better hitter with men on base.

But, he did have a BB% of 33% with Men On and a BB% of 21.1% in no one on base. So he was obviously being pitched more carefully.

I don't really know what point I'm trying to make other than he was probably pitched more carefully with men on base, and he actually became a BETTER hitter.

Also, his PA/HR with no one on base was 7.8. With Men On, it was 11.3.

On "42", from the trailers, for what it's worth, it doesn't look like Ford is trying to channel Indiana Jones into Branch Rickey. Hope not.

Also got the feel, just from the throwing motions, that the baseball scenes might be a little bit disappointing, but that's OK. It's a heckuva story that deserves for people to know much more about.

The day when the ML players all wore the number 42, I tried to explain some of the dynamics to my son, but it's hard for him to even conceive of how it was.

Also got to thinking about how movies have a hard time capturing the power and speed of baseball played at a major league level. Heck, even live TV doesn't really do it. It looks like Jimmy Rollins is tossing the ball about 40 feet to Ryan Howard.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure football and basketball movies haven't done a better job of making the movie version of the sport seem realistic.

lorecore, no. This guy was a Three True Outcomes hero whose #1 comp is one of the '93 Steroid Kids Phillies.

"Not sweeping this series would be slightly disappointing"

I'm going to go with "not sweeping this series would be very disappointing."

"Just read the "exception that proves the rule" wiki page. Maybe I'm misusing that one. Eh. Just think that one case isn't going to disprove the myth of protection. It's just an extreme example so far."


Sophist, I agree, and would emphasize the extremity of the example, which is why I later tried to make an analogous comparison to Babe Ruth in a similar situation.

Frankly, though it cannot be statistically quantified, IMHO it stands to reason that some form of lineup protection exists, even if the affects are very subtle.

For instance, when you have someone like a 1980 Schmidt or 2006 Howard - someone with a good team around him - it's harder for the pitcher to isolate that hitter because putting him on by not pitching to him could otherwise be harmful. 2013 Stanton does not have that luxury. The rest of the team - as a whole - looks so dreadful that he could probably break Bonds' single season BB record.

Now, contrary to that, go take a look at Henry Aaron's 1959 season: .355/.401/.636

The amazing thing - he hit 8th most of the season in front of the pitcher.

Oops, should say:

"...even if the EFFECTS are very subtle."

In 2001, Bonds came to the plate with in situations where the average mlb 2001 hitter would have driven in 82.84 RBI. However, the number of his PA that turned into AB only expected a total of 53.5 RBI.

Of the 53.5 expected RBI he had, he produced 137 RBI. (a 2.56 ratio).

If you apply the same 2.56 ratio to the eRBI he lost by being walked (29.3), he would have had 75 more RBI. Thats a total of 212 RBI if he wasn't pitched around.

You'd have to factor in 2001's average BB% and scale back that total to adjust, but its safe to say that he lost tons of potential RBI due to being pitched around (rightully so).

Scratch that previous post;

Aaron hit 3rd most of the year.

Shows what happens when BL interferes with work: No focus on either.

Rob Deer?

tomasher is the winner!

Your Three True Outcomes clue sealed the deal for me, Edmundo.

Sadly, every preview I've yet seen for '42' presents Jackie Robinson's story as a typically clichéd Hollywood melodrama, replete w/ much snarling, fist-pounding & palpably asinine dialogue. I intend to save my $15-$20 & re-read this great piece of sports writing from yesteryear instead:

Mr. Rickey And The Game

I almost hope that Doc gets rocked on Sunday - just to watch the reaction at BLer.

MG, GTown, BAP, Jack, and the rest of the haters will be absolutely ecstatic.

"Not sweeping this series would be slightly disappointing"

I'm going to go with "not sweeping this series would be very disappointing."

Interesting. I'm going with "not sweeping this series would be typical."

Phlipper: Jack is ecstatic when Kendrick or Howard fail. He truly can't contain himself. But I think his reaction to another Halladay failure will be muted.

Why choose? I'm going w/ "Not sweeping this series will be typically disappointing."

clout - I can only imagine how despondent Jack will be when the Braves fail again this season.

Listened to Mikey Miss this afternoon - he had a good discussion about whether St. Utely should be re-signed.

Given all the belly-aching here about signing older players, it will be interesting to see the arguments made at BLer as to why St. Utley should be an exception, and why RAJ is an idiot should he let St. Utley walk after this year.

The Marlins are an ungodly horrible team. They'll take all three.

So. I was looking at the box score from the Clearwater game and noted that the Daytona Cubs had a pitcher who only allowed 2 of his 6 inherited runners to score.

Someone explain that to me.

Phlipper, since it's an off day, I'll engage the discussion.

The Utley phenomenon is a complicated one and relies heavily on many factors. Obviously, first and foremost is his health and performance this season, which will be the only real insight into what we might be able to expect going forward, from a performance perspective.

Assuming he's healthy and can put up decent numbers, the discussion gravitates toward what other alternatives are out there and can they give you as much or better for a longer period of time or less $? This is essentially why Rollins was re-signed, even after allowing him to dip his toe in the FA market. Basically, if you can't get a comparable or better player for some relative value, you consider re-signing Utley. Considering 2B alternatives, both internally and externally, then layering in the general mediocrity of Free Agents in general the last few years, you can make a strong argument that you'd be hard pressed to find a better alternative (again, incumbent on factor #1 in his health).

Lastly, you have to consider what the player wants in the way of years and $'s. Hopefully with Utley you have a guy who wants to retire a Phillie and will consider a slight "hometown discount," or better yet accept that qualifying offer we discussed yesterday. This is a relationship based dynamic, as a smart player also gauges the competitive landscape and can make demands accordingly.

Long story short, it's hard to answer "do you sign him" or not right now. Personally, I am not enamored by Galvis and feel that you'd be hard pressed to find a better solution in the next year or two via Free Agency. That said, if he's healthy and willing to play for some sort of fair contract, yeah, sure, re-sign him. That's a lot of "if's" that have to play out, though.

Phlipper, if you are wishing for Doc to fail v. MIA, you will be the only one among Phans. Or at least, I certainly hope so. Even when I feel like something bad for the team will occur, my hope is that I am wrong.

Not to mention, how could I wish ill for Doc?

Note, I'm assuming that Robby Cano isn't going to consider wearing the bloodstripes next season. If I'm incorrect there, forget even thinking about Utley.

Your right Phlipper. I hope Halladay fails miserably and the Phils lose.

florida sunset
our expectations vary
doc may yet be doc

WP, I don't know that Cano has much bearing on the situation. Cano is going to demand the toppest of top of dollar. And if the Phils, as many suspect, are in the beginnings of a rebuilding period, committing that much money to a 31 year old 2B (after what we just saw happen to a 2B in his early 30s) just seems to be out of the question.

To poster Andy:
I am always impressed by
your haiku writing

I think we all know what happens if Utley walks, & its name is "Freddy Galvis".

Fat, I wholly agree. I was simply hedging my "do you or don't you re-sign Utley" insight. If Cano is even an option (and again, I don't think he is), it changes the whole discussion, regardless of rebuild or not.

Or, more simply put, Cano is the only projected FA 2B that would cause me hesitation in even CONSIDERING re-signing a healthy Chase Utley at a reasonable price. The rest is pretty much garbage.

I'm not sure that the rebuilding aspect plays into things too much either way. With Hamels locked up, it's not like we should expect a full scale "Marlins version" of a rebuild, so I do think we'll still target some decent talent. This is pretty much where my concerns of having RAJ as the one in charge of any rebuilding begin.

I agree that Cano is not in the discussion because he'll look for a contract that is longer than the FO will want to have on the books.

Here is the list of potential 2B FA after this season, per MLBTR:

Robinson Cano (31)
Alexi Casilla (29)
Mark Ellis (37) - $5.75MM club option with a $1MM buyout
Mike Fontenot (34)
Omar Infante (32)
Kelly Johnson (32)
Nick Punto (36)
Ryan Raburn (33)
Brian Roberts (36)
Ramon Santiago (34)
Skip Schumaker (34)
Chase Utley (35)
Ben Zobrist (33) - $7MM club option with a $2.5MM buyout


Utley is right in the middle of that group age-wise, and as far as the level at which he can play - if healthy - no one but Cano and Zobrist are even in the conversation.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG