Ugh. So once again, off the heels of their most dramatic win of the year, the Phillies take two excruciating steps back, both of which could have been easily prevented.
These are the types of baseball games that force many Phillies fans to teeter on the edge of insanity. Like in October 2001, after the Phillies won the first game of a 3-game series against the first place Braves to pull with 1 game with 5 to play and then Robert Person and Brandon Duckworth gave up 11 ER in 8 IP in their 2 starts, and put the Phillies 3 out, with 3 to play. Like in September 2003, when they led the wild card race with 7 to play, and then promptly lost 6 of those 7 to the 65-89 Reds and their Wild Card counterpart Florida Marlins. Like in September 2005, when Billy Wagner inexplicably blew 2 straight saves (while sporting a 1.60 ERA) against the Astros, who ended up winning the wild card over us, by a game.
And now, if we end up just outside the playoffs, again, Phillies fans will remember these types of games, and the voices will croon in their head: “How can they always lose their momentum so quickly?” “We were up with Santana and Dempster out of the game,” “We should have been up 2 games, but instead were down 1,” “It was only 6 outs, they’ve gotten those outs the rest of the year, why not that day?” “Why did they take Hamels out” “Ho w can grove so many fastballs right down the middle!?” “If only this…., If only that…. we’d be in the playoffs.”
It’s tough to be a baseball fan of any team. In 162 games, you are going to have some heartbreakers and plenty of games you should have won. But I can’t think of a group of fans quite like the Phillies’ fans, who have been so close, so many times. Had their hopes so high up and so consistently obliterated. Last year we got some help from the Mets, and all we had to show for it was a 3-game sweep at the hands of the currently 63-72 Rockies. Are we just going to go back to the norm? The Mets are trying to help us again, but are we going to be too polite to oblige this time? With the team on pace for yet another 88 win season and going back to their old tricks of losing un-losable games, it’s hard for someone who has seen it so many times to think otherwise.
Not surpringly, for the 3rd straight game, the Phillies lead (2-0) with their opponents’ high quality starter out of the game. Let’s see if they can start to reverse history or just continue to break our collective spirit.
on a lighter note…
The Phillies filled their need for a fat, slow guy with a mustache that Philly fans can get behind while they boo Rollins by trading for Matt Stairs. Bravo. Should put us right over the top. Didn’t give up much in Fabio Castro, so I’m fine with the move, just not expecting much of it except maybe Sal’s Pals can come out of retirement.
Well Pete, it looks like they are continuing to break our collective spirit. This is looking more and more like a 4 game sweep by the Cubs.
I’ll get back on tomorrow. I’ve got to take my kids to the first high school football game of the season. Friday night lights, you know.
JJG…I saw your last couple comments on the previous topic. I’ll do my best to continue with you tomorrow as well.
Zack…If you’re checking in here, I responded to you under the last topic. Talk to you soon.
JJG…The best thing I can say is for you to hate the game, not the player. It is not Hamels’ fault (or any other pitcher’s fault for that matter) that they are limited. Pitchers will not build up the endurance and arm strength required to throw 250 innings per season or 130 pitches per start if they are not allowed to. It all starts from the time a young pitcher joins an organization. When a team drafts a prized pitcher, they want to protect him at all costs. He is limited to a pitch count from day one. If a guy is limited to 100 pitches per start in the minors, he will only be able to throw 100 pitches per start in the majors. That’s the way it works. This applies not only to Hamels, but to every starter in every organization, because that’s how the game is run today.
The body will only do what it is trained to do. If you are trained to throw only 100 pitches every 5th day, then that will always be your limit. It’s like running. If you run 2 miles every day, it would be very, very difficult for you to run 4 miles because you are not trained to do it. You might be able to do it once, but if you tried to do it every day you would break down. Continually exceeding your body’s limits will inevitably lead to injury.
The same goes for inning pitched per season. If you have too drastic of an increase from one year to the next, you will break down. Again, if you run 20 miles a week and you suddenly decide to start running 40 miles a week, you will sustain an injury, guaranteed. Think about Mark Prior, for example. In 2002 he threw 116 innings. In 2003 he threw 211 innings. He has been a regular on the disabled list ever since. Right now the Brewers are using Sabathia hard because they know they are not going to re-sign him. I’m willing to bet a kidney that Sabathia will end up with an injury next year, or at least miss a few starts with shoulder stiffness or elbow tendinitis. We will see.
I may understand this, but I do not like it at all. Just because you are trained to throw only 150 innings per season or 100 pitches per start does not mean it needs to stay that way forever. That is my problem with the way things are done today. You can train the body to go further (to run a marathon for example). This is what I want to see happen. Each year a pitcher can add a few pitches per start, another 30 innings pitched, and gradually build up the endurance and arm strength required to throw more pitches and innings. I absolutely detest the way pitchers are treated like ming vases.
Getting back to Hamels, you can’t hammer him for not going beyond what his body is trained to do. You also need to take into consideration that he threw 183 innings last season and he has already thrown 196 innings this year. He has 5 starts remaining, which should be somewhere around 35 additional innings. This will put him around 50 more innings this year. Considering his injury history, that is more than enough of an increase from one year to the next.
As far as being tough and sucking it up, that only goes so far. Pitchers did it years ago because they had to. They pitched with and through all kinds of injuries because they had no choice. The money wasn’t there back then. Players took jobs in the off season to support their families. Teams owned the players and paid them whatever they felt was appropriate. Medical science was not what it is now. Diagnostics, therapeutics, rehabilitation, surgery, etc…is all much more advanced. They had access to none of what is available today. I have heard many older pitchers say they wish that modern medical advances (and the big money contracts) were available to them. I’m sure that Koufax would not choose to pitch with the elbow problems he had if he had a better alternative. I do not want to see Hamels have to go through what Koufax did (I’m sure he doesn’t either) and there is no reason for him to do so. Trying to prevent an injury or catching it in the early stages and availing yourself of modern treatment modalities does not call your toughness into question.
You may think I am a polyanna (as you have already said) or an apologist or whatever. What I am trying to be is a realist. I am dealing with the facts on the ground, because that’s all we’ve got. We no longer have the players from the 70′s or the 50′s, so the managers cannot manage that way and the game cannot be played that way. I see no sense in filtering my comments through the prism of days gone by because those views are irrelevant to what is actually happening today. We can wish and hope that the game will change and those days will come back around again (I do to an extent), but until they do we have the game as it exists today. You can grumble about how Hamels is half the pitcher that Koufax was if you want, but it doesn’t matter because Koufax is gone, along with his era. He retains a hallowed place in the history of the game, but he is irrelevant to the discussions we have about the 2008 Phillies.
Zack…I can understand why you thought I was contradicting myself the other day, so I’m going to explain how I look at things.
When I am commenting about the Phils, I do it based on the way the game is played today. That’s why I said that most relievers are not comfortable pitching in other roles out of the pen. It is also why I can accept the fact that Hamels took himself out of the game after 7 innings and 108 pitches.
You might look at the Hamels situation and wonder what the big deal is about one inning in one game. The thing is, we both know there is more to it than that. Hamels will make 35 starts this year. There have been several times where we would have liked him to go another inning. There were several other times when we would have liked him to get one more hitter out. Well, over the couse of the season, every “one extra inning” and “one extra hitter” adds up to a greater total workload. Let’s say that Hamels went a little extra every time we needed him to. I don’t think it is a stretch to say he could have pitched an additional 10-15 inning this season. I know that doesn’t sound like much, but Hamels is already on pace to throw around 50 innings more than he did last year. Add in those “extras” and now you are looking at 60-65 innings. The effects of this extra workload is cumulative and if you push it too far you are asking for an injury.
Now, just because I can understand and accept those things does not mean that I agree with the state of the game today or that I like that those things are common.
For example, even though I understand that Hamels can only go as far as he has trained to go, that does not mean I am happy with how far he has trained himself to go. Hamels has gotten himself to the point where he is a 200 inning pitcher right now. I would like to see him become a 200 inning pitcher who throws 120 pitches per start. I believe he can train himself to do it. The thing is, I don’t think he will be allowed to do it. I strongly believe that the Phils would gladly take 7 innings and 100 pitches every time out from Hamels and keep him healthy and in the rotation for the next 10 years rather than see him try to push his limits out and risk an injury.
This is where the other, seemingly contradictory, posts come in, when I am talking about how I would like the game to be. The whole business about redefining the role of the closer is not about now. It is how I would like the game to be, hopefully in the near future. I realize the changes I am dreaming about will not affect what is happening on the field now. What I am looking for will take time and needs to begin right from the first day in the minors. If changes were instituted at that point and carried throughout the minors, pitchers could gradually build up the necessary arm strength and endurance required to throw more pitches per start.
I will try to be more clear in the future so that you understand where I am coming from.
Excellent points, Bski. I couldn’t help but think of pitching coach Leo Mazzone during the Braves’ obscene run of 14 straight division titles. He had his pitching staff throw more between starts. As far as I could tell, it looked like their starters had more innings pitched and fewer injuries than most of the other pitchers in the league.
Pitchers can definitely train for a bigger workload but like you said, the nature of the game and the size of the players’ contracts forces teams to pamper them.
Ironically, when you pamper a pitcher and limit his throwing opportunities, he’s more likely to throw harder and overextend himself when it’s his turn in the rotation.
There’s a false sense of security that comes with a limited pitch count and thinking that extra rest will help. It doesn’t. It’s much better to throw more yet be mindful of how much energy you’re expending. In other words, you can do a lot more by pitching smarter as opposed to pitching harder.
(Puke! I can’t believe I’m pointing to the Braves and saying “See how it’s done!”)
bski – good stuff as usual (you too, Pete). I can’t believe one of my favorite baseball writers is a commenter on a blog/website. I gotta ask you, what do you think of Bill Conlin? I just don’t “get it” when it comes to his writing. Anyway, I wanna head out, and later I have some devil’s advocate points to make about your other, earlier August comments. Later.
Pete – “fat slow guys with mustaches”, I thought immediately of Pete Incaviglia, decided to check up on him, and found this on wikipedia: “The highlight of his career came in 1993 when he helped lead the Philadelphia Phillies to the World Series.” I don’t think so…
Drolz – did you really hate the Braves when they were good? I was actually a bit of a fan, I always thought they were a classy, well-run organization, something I have a lot of respect for. They would’ve never picked up a Matt Stairs, or Pete Incaviglia, no Billy King, was-that-really-all-you-could-come-up-with crap like that. Please, no Billy King arguments, that’s a deader horse than Barbaro.
Drolz…Thanks. It sounds so stupid because it is so simple but you are exactly right. I have heard many guys who pitched 30-40-50 years ago say that the reason they were able to throw more was because…they threw more! Those guys were in 4 man rotations and didn’t have pitch counts. (I like that old line, Q: What do you call it when Robin Roberts throws 100 pitches? A: The 5th inning.) They built up arm strength and endurance.
I have trained for and run several marathons, so believe me. I know what I am talking about with regard to building up endurance. It can be done (If I can do it, MLB pitchers sure as hell can), but it must be done gradually. The workload must be slowly increase dover time, otherwise, injury will result. (Unfortunately, I am well aware of this also.)
I do not like that virtually every starting pitcher in the game is limited to 100 pitches. The money really is the predominant factor in limiting them. Pitchers are major investments and as such need to be closely monitored. It’s like playing the stock market, you’ve got to keep a close watch on your portfolio.
The pitchers of today certainly could do more, if they trained to do more. Pitchers did it in the past, so there is no physical reason why they couldn’t do it again. For now however, they can only do what they have trained to do.
I do not like to hear people say things like a pitcher needs to “suck it up” or “tough it out”. I get very defensive whenever a pitcher’s guts, toughness, dedication, and desire are called into question because I have firsthand experience in running with minor, nagging injuries, pushing myself to my limit and then trying to go beyond, and finally being spent and having nothing left to give. These are all things that MLB pitchers go through as well. Pitching is very much an endurance activity. I can identify with them. I certainly do not like to think that I am gutless, so I have a difficult time thinking that way of them.
Drolz…The 4th sentence in the 2nd paragraph should read, The workload must be slowly increased over time. I do not live in Delaware, so I am not on Dover time!
Zack…Thanks. I don’t know about Conlin. I often think he is on the money, but he is difficult to read. Most of the time I find him to be too self-important, too preachy, too authoritative, too blustery, too dismissive, too stuck in negativity, too needing to show off his extensive history with the Phils and everyone involved with them, and too show-offy with the obtuse references. I don’t need him to point out the similarities between how Gene Mauch managed the ’64 Phillies and how Hannibal led his troops over the Alps in his attack on Rome.
Other than that, I think he’s great, LOL! Really though, I do think he makes a lot of good points and I do read him. It’s just a lot of work to cut through and ignore all the unnecessary stuff he puts in his columns, and I find it irritating.
It’s funny you should ask me about Conlin. The way I’ve been posting here lately, in frequency, in length, and in tone, I have actually been afraid that I might be becoming Conlin-esque.
I have said before that I have a lot of stuff bouncing around in my brain (in case you haven’t already picked up on that) and I like to get it out when I can. But, the last thing I want to do is to force my views down everyone’s throat or become overbearing. ( You are used to me, so I don’t worry about you.) I am actually trying to do the exact opposite. I am laying out my views pretty extensively in the hope that everyone else here will do the same thing and we can have high quality in-depth baseball discussions where we can all learn and benefit from each other’s points of view.
If that fails we can always just blast the Phillies for being a cheap, poorly run organization that has only delivered us 1 world championship in 125 years, right? Just Kidding!
my opinion – Conlin is very smart, but horrendous. He is not a Phillies fan, and revels in their bad play, and even when they play well, 75% of time he talks about how they should be better, their ownership sucks, jimmy rollins isnt a leadoff hitter, etc, etc. He acts like he was denied a job by the Phillies one day and has made it his life work to make them look bad. He drives me crazy.
Side note on Conlin (but kind of supports my point above). When I worked at the Phillies, on game days we would have dinner in the press box. Conlin would stand in line to get his food and literally talk to himself about whichever Phillie he decided to dislike that day. NO ONE would ever respond to him (including other writers). It was both hilarious and annoying at the same time.
Bski… I agree 100% with the training philosophy. In fact, regarding what you said about gradually building up endurance, there’s another Leo Mazzone / Bobby Cox tidbit. Can’t remember where I read this but one or both of them have said that when visiting the pitcher’s mound late in a game they were less concerned with pitch count and more concerned with whether or not a pitcher was laboring. The conditioning, not the pitch count, was the deciding factor.
Zack… you’ve caught me in my obvious love/hate relationship with the Braves. Throughout that 14-year run I definitely was in awe of their pitching staff and their front office.
During that streak there were many top-quality position players who left via free agency. Each time, I said “All right, that’s it, there’s no way they can replace (insert name here). This is the year they lose.” And of course, they’d go out and win the division again. That speaks volumes about their front office and I admit looking at the Phillies brass and going “Well, duh, can that be so hard?”
The reason I blanch when catching myself admiring the Braves?
1) The %$^#*@* tomahawk chop. Nothing turned me off quicker and stirred my “we gotta beat the crap out of them” competitive streak more than that annoying chop. It just got on my nerves. It made beating them in ’93 all the more sweeter though.
2) I was in college during the early ’90s. Four or five of my buddies who lived in the same dorm were rabid Braves fans. I once wore a Braves cap during an entire softball season after losing a bet. Call it classical conditioning, then. Mention the Braves and I’ll hurl. But ask me who did things the way it’s supposed to be done and I’ll put the barf bag aside to tip my hat to the Braves.
Drolz & Zack: I will readily admit that I was an admirer of the Braves organization. Winning 14 straight division titles deserves a healthy amount of respect, regardless of your personal feelings toward specific players and such. I was always more ticked at the fact that we couldn’t do it, rather than that they actually did do it.
Drolz, I felt the same way that you did every year. Every spring training I would look at who they lost and think the same thing as you, that they would have difficulty replacing whoever. That’s what makes what they did all the more impressive. Not only did they lose guys to free agency, but they also lost a lot of guys to injury. Chipper has gone down a bunch of times. If I remember, they lost Javy Lopez for almost an entire season once. They have lost key guys on a regular basis. One season (I think it was 2005) they had something like 5 rookies play over 100 games, and they still won the division.
The thing is, I don’t feel that the Braves were different that any other team with regard to on-field issues. They lost guys to free agency and to injury just like everyone else. They were forced to bring up guys who they felt might not be ready from the minors to fill holes, both short and long term, just like everyone else. They had guys that had off years or put up lousy numbers, just like everyone else. They had free agent busts, just like everyone else.
I think they were different from everybody else in that they assembled a “perfect storm” of a management team. They had a great GM, great talent evaluators, a great manager, a great pitching coach, built a great minor league system, and let’s not forget about Ted Turner’s money. That’s the only way something like that can happen. As much as you might have wanted to dismiss what they did (because they were beating us all the time) as being lucky, you sure as heck can’t put together a 14 year run like that with only luck.
Looks like we dodge Carlos Zambrano today.
Yep, and we got 3 in the first against his replacement. I’ll take the break. We need this split. Coming into the series I would have taken a split, but it’s somewhat disappointing to think we had a legitimate shot to be playing for a 4 game sweep of the Cubs, on the road no less.
bski, In reply to your post #2, ”days gone by” inform the present and days ahead, you know that. Rather than being distorting yokes, they’re clarifying lanterns by which to proceed. A broad historical perspective can offer that which current applied pitching theory (baroque guesses?) sometimes misses: common sense and a bird’s eye view. Though many have tried, the unquestioned, uncontradicted gospel on the art of pitching has yet to be written. The somewhat unnatural motion of heaving a baseball 60 ft. 6 in. with some deception and clear intent has claimed some arms, left others unscathed. What’s the latest New Medicine “expertise” explaining that?
Your running training analogy works to an extent in a general sense, but excludes the “fact on the ground” that many pitchers, major league and otherwise, have developed from youth naturally (without a marathoner’s torment of stretching limits) by regular, uncounted competitive and recreational “exercising” to capacities beyond 100 aimed throws. That today’s micro-managed candy asses (Hamels, the poster child) are all too willing to drop the ball into their manager’s offered hand is less a function of physical exhaustion and/or health concern than it is of mental shriveling from a public challenge and advised avoidance of financial risk. Yes, like it or not, that’s how it goes today; it’s plain to see.
Koufax, since you brought him up: greatest 6 yr. (’61-’66) stretch of pitching in the history of the game. 3 no-hitters, including 1 perfect game. 3 Cy Youngs. 2 World Series MVPs. Threw over 310 innings in 3 of last 4 seasons before choosing to retire due to an arthritic elbow (among other factors undoubtedly). Analogy: Hamels is to Koufax as Burrell is to Musial, exact fractional values undetermined. Cole is closer to “Sudden” Sam McDowell and John “Candy Man” Candelaria in talent and style (unfortunately, he’s got a little Randy Lerch in him too); if he approximates their career accomplishments in time, he’ll have done well. The closest I’ve seen to Sandy of Brooklyn (since his retirement) in style and effectiveness was Ron Guidry of Louisiana, 1978.
In closing, C.C. says don’t be profligate with your spare kidney.
As for Bill Conlin, he’s the best baseball writer in the Philly region in my opinion. The man has paid his dues and knows what he’s talking about, serving in five consecutive newspaper decades both educational and entertaining baseball fare. He combines an obvious passion for sports; a breadth of Phillies specific and baseball general knowledge; an awareness of American cultural themes, events and passages; the willingness to confront and to share personal experiences; wonderful wordplay and a laugh out loud wit. He’s got his detractors, but it’s human nature to try to topple those at the top of the heap. Personally, I’m grateful for his two columns a week, and I’ll miss him a lot when he’s gone. Conlin’s an exceptional and generous public talent! The local relative cub reporters and TV talking heads like to poke fun at him (and his big, harrumphing personality) on ocassion, but none in my opinion come close to his candor and commitment to equally thoughtful and visceral commentary.
Take note fans. Try as I might, occasionally I misspell “ocassion.” It’s my Barry Lersch hanging curveball.
JJG…I do know that days gone by inform the present and days ahead. I’m not saying we should totally disregard the past. All I am trying to get across is that I don’t agree with judging today’s players, teams, and games based on how things were thirty or fifty years ago. It’s apples and oranges.
That is not to say that I like everything about how the game is run and played today. There are things I would like to see change (some of them back to the way they were). If you re-read post #2 (paragraph 4), post #3, and post #6, you will see that I have stated this repeatedly.
I mean, you may have liked the ways cars were built back in the 70′s, for example, but what does that do for you now? The automakers have changed how they manufacture cars since then. They are not going back to the way it was. You can gripe about it all you want, but to no effect. If you want a car now, you have no choice but to buy one you feel is inferior to those built 30 years ago. I feel this is where we are at with baseball. Baseball has changed the way it does business and that has affected the product on the field. If you want baseball now, you have no choice but to buy what they are putting out. If you feel it is inferior to the game of 30 years ago, you can choose to walk away from it. I still love the game, so I try to take what I can from it.
You know, the way I try to look at the game is by comparing guys to the others who played in their era. For example, last week we were talking about Dick Allen in regard to the espn list of the top three Phillies of all time. You later mentioned Chuck Klein. I would never compare them straight up because they played in different eras. Klein put up better offensive numbers than Allen, but Klein played in an offensive era whereas Allen played in a pitching era. I don’t believe you get an accurate assessment if you compare guys from different eras straight up. I look at how much better each guy was than the league during the period in question (whether it’s a single season, a string of seasons, or an entire career). If I find that Klein was 10% better than the league during his career and Allen was 20% better than the league during his career, there’s the answer as to who was a more productive offensive player.
What got me thinking about this was bringing up Koufax. In the mid-90′s, Greg Maddux had a fantastic 4 year run. At that time, the question arose about whether Maddux’s run was comparable or better than the run that Koufax had in the mid-60′s. Again, I would never compare them straight up since they pitched in two different eras. I would look at this the same way, which is to see how much better Koufax was than the league when he put his string together and then compare it to how much better Maddux was than the league during his run.
I feel that by looking at how much better a guy was than his contemporaries during the era in which he played, you can eliminate a lot of the variables that exist from one era to the next that make a direct comparison impossible. Once you determine that, you can get a better idea of how good each guy really was, which then makes a direct comparison possible.
I think this helps in many ways. For example, this approach would lessen the impact of all the home runs hit in the late-90′s to the early-00′s. If we looked at Sosa’s career 609 home runs and compared it to the league during the juiceball era when he hit them, we would probably find that it pales in comparison to the 548 Michael Jack hit during his era.
In doing this I try to level the field and tease out who the truly great players were and are. It gives credit to the guys who play(ed) at a higher level than their contemporaries, regardless of the state of the game during his era. I feel this is important because every player is a product of his time. That is one way I am able to maintain my love for the game and continue following it.
bski, I agree you can’t compare guys from different eras straight up. Apples and oranges as you say. But if you watch the game a long time, as I’m sure you have, you can throw statistics aside and compare 2 players of different eras in mentality, playing approach and sum effect on team purpose of winning and draw some conclusions as to comparitive value. Take, for example, Maddux vs. Koufax. Maddux was competitively dominant in 90s through his baffling array of offspeed stuff and “product” placement. Koufax killed in 60s with speed and a wicked curveball; Stargell said trying to hit him was like “eating soup with a fork.” Both great pitchers, but the Everyman hitter would probably take his chances against a spotter like Maddux versus a slayer like Koufax - my cross-generational comparitive conclusion without looking at any numbers, albeit a fairly easy theoretical contest. Aura matters. Against Koufax: small chance. Against Maddux: some chance.
I also agree that contemporary comparisons are essential to appreciating players. Thing is, I’m still wondering on the relative merits of 1st basemen Norm Cash and Jim Gentile of 1961. Who do you think had the better year?
Make no mistake, I too love the game of baseball.
i’ve never seen a team so immune to momentum as this team. momentum almost has a reverse effect.
also, one more bad start out of kendrick, and I might give Happ a shot.
Eaton, Myers, Kendrick have intermittently crashed. Even Hamels and Moyer have slumped during course of season. 3 of 5 starters on the fritz at various times - that’ll keep momentum from building. Add in the performance inconsistencies of core players Rollins, Howard, even Utley, along with a manager who likes his sluggers to keep on sluggin’, no matter the sitcheeayshun, and you got yourself a second place team, gunnin’ the engine, makin’ no headway.
So when does Lou Marson get a start?? I say tonight because the King of Rally Killers (Ruiz) was at it again yesterday leaving the bases loaded after Burrell walked a run in and Coste was HBP. Seriously how many times can you watch Carlos Ruiz ground out right to the SS or 3B to end a potential rally. I hate that I am saying this, but the Fox announcers on Saturday were onto something. The bottom 3 in their lineup are killing it and they happen to be the best team in baseball. Geovany Soto is what we expected Carlos Ruiz to be and he is not. Time to move on.
Also, JA Happ should get Kendricks next start. I am not saying that Kendrick should be cut or traded or anything like that, but he looks lost right now and it is crunch time. Right now is not the time to try to regain the confidence. Right now is the time to pitch lights out baseball, but Kendrick is not. I don’t think it should be permanent just a spot start and hopefully Kendrick can rebound in his next turn of the rotation.
T.O. -
I was screaming at the TV when they brought Ruiz in. I know he’s been hitting slightly better lately, but did Charlie REALLY think he was going to get it done?
I agree. Give Marson a start. Tonight.
Seriously man. I can’t believe he brought Ruiz in a clutch AB. He has been anything but clutch in those situations. Now if Lou Marson would have started (not saying he should have in his first day on the job) he would have brought in Coste as a pinch hitter and we might be singing a different tune today.
Cheer up, things could be worse. Catcher Sammy White grounded into 6 DPs in 97 ABs for ’62 Phils (1 every 16). Carlos only did the trick 17 times in 374 ABs last season (1 every 22).
Ruiz is not the big reason for Phils’ sputtering this year. He’ll complement when stars star. Not a bad defensive catcher; just havin’ a rough year at the plate.
Well I am juts spitballing here but I would say that is the reason Sammy only had 97 ABs in a season. The thing is when the stars were starring early in the season Carlos was not complementing them. The only reason we didn’t get on him is because we were winning and the pitchers seemed to like him. His offense has become such liability that his defense can no longer be his excuse. I personally like Ruiz. He seems like a nice guy and is well liked in the clubhouse. When we had that walk off win last week Ruiz was the first person to get to home plate and was as excited as a kid on Christmas.
I don’t think Marson gets the start tonight after reading a few things and consulting my consigliary.
1. Cole is pitching and he likes throwing to Ruiz.
2. He caught a bullpen session with Joe Blanton yesterday which leads me to believe he will start tomorrow with Blanton on the mound.
I like Carlos too. Seems to have his heart in the game.
As for tonight, what King Cole wants, King Cole gets. Go, Carlos! Whip that horse (4 complete games in 79 starts)!
Pete...You know that momentum is only as good as the next day’s starting pitcher. Kendrick is a mess right now and our offense, though better, is still not good enough to overcome a bad start.
bski, no need to respond to this, just letting you know – the topic I’d like to talk to you about is Brett Myers – I’m going to defend him being on the Phils next year. But I wanna wait until his next start before taking it up with you. Also, my company has added reclinergm to their list of blocked sites, so I can’t comment during the day anymore.
Just a couple odds and ends.
Ken Rosenthal is sticking to his story:
The Phillies want Pat Burrell back, and they feel they have a better than 50-50 chance of re-signing him because Burrell has mutual interest. Rosenthal thinks Burrell should command somewhere between $14MM and $17MM per season.
Rosenthal discusses the Rockies’ offseason, throwing out the usual suspects (Matt Holliday, Garrett Atkins, and Todd Helton) as possible trade pieces. Rosenthal points out Helton’s salary makes him difficult, and also proposes a scenario in which the Rockies trade both Atkins and Holliday, sign Burrell to play left field, and move Ian Stewart to third base full-time.
Yesterday and today, there have been a few quotes by Dubee and Manuel that go right to what I’ve been talking about for the last several days.
About Hamels:
“He could be pitching on four days rest the rest of the year,” pitching coach Rich Dubee said. “That’s something he hasn’t done for five starts in a row all damn year. You’ve got to take into consideration, if we go every fifth day for the next five starts, I don’t think he’s had a stretch all season where he’s pitched five starts in a row on his regular rest. And he’s also sitting on 195 innings right now.”
“I don’t know that it’s as much about Kyle as it is about Cole,” Dubee said. “We’ve got to see where Cole’s at. Provided that he’s feeling fine, again, you’d like to pitch your horse or one of your horses or one of your three horses every 5 days if possible. But again, we’ve got to find out where he is physically.”
“Hey, I want to put Hamels on the Mets. Really,” Manuel said. ”
About Lidge:
It isn’t clear when the Phillies might call on Lidge before the eighth.
Pitching coach Rich Dubee said doing so involves some degree of risk because of the highly specialized nature of closing. Lidge hasn’t thrown more than an inning all season. He has appeared in the eighth inning just twice, both in non-save situations. He hasn’t recorded more than three outs in a save since July 6, 2006.
“Adrenaline is a high for one inning, and when they get that out in the eighth and then have to wait to go back out in the ninth, a lot of times they aren’t as sharp,” Dubee said. “That’s just the creature that pitches that ninth inning a lot of times. It’s the way this game has been constructed lately. Can we work through it? I think so. But how many times are we going to use him in the eighth? I don’t know.”
About Utley trying to demolish Jesus Flores:
“That’s the way you play,” Phils manager Charlie Manuel said, after the Phillies’ 4-0 win over the Nationals. “I wish every one of my players played that way. That would be good.”
I think these quotes are very illuminating and they back up the points I have been making. I think Manuel, Dubee, and others would love to just come out and say what they feel, but they need to be careful so they only say so much. You can hear the frustration in these quotes. They know what they want, and what the team needs, from the players, but they are forced to deal with the realities of what they’ve got. Wanting to ask Hamels and Lidge to do some things that they have not done all year, but realizing it might be too much (It is beyond what they have trained to do). Looking for other guys to play like Utley. Like Dubee said, they have to deal with the way the game has been constructed lately, but it sure sounds like they would like to see that change.
It’s funny though. You would think that Dubee and Manuel would be in a position to help make some of those changes possible, but they sound just as helpless and frustrated as we do.
It seems like, by the time players reach the major league level, it is difficult to make any major changes with them. I believe that this is not for a lack of trying on the part of coaches and managers, rather that players get comfortable doing things a certain way and they become resistant to change or even suggestions of change. That’s why I feel that if any changes are going to be made in the way the game is played and how players are trained and prepared, they need to be instituted right from day one in the minors. Players can be trained or retrained before they “get comfortable”.
These quotes show that, regardless of how much you wish things were different, you have no choice but to deal with situations and players based on the state of the game today. Of course, the flip side of this is that just because you deal with things the way they are instead of how you want them to be doesn’t mean that you agree with how things are or that you wouldn’t like things to change.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
This is my third season being a committed Phillies fan, yet the trainwreck that is September hurts more each year. Why is it always the freaking Nats?
Oh my goodness, we didn’t just give up 9 runs to the Nationals. 9 runs. To the Nationals. 9 runs. Come on Chad, I’m a huge fan, you’ve been big for us all year, but you can’t be doing this now, you can’t be doing this now, take a deep breath, just breathe, calm down, no choking under pressure, alright? On the bright side, we’re only 4.5 behind the Brewers for the Wild Card! Hmmm… Maybe it would be better that way, to get the Wild Card, and possibly face the Mets in the playoffs, and beat them! That would be awesome, ha ha ha ha ha, yes, that’s it, get the Wild Card and beat the Mets in the playoffs… ha ha ha… There’s a plan! There’s a plan! There’s hope for Philly! SALVATION!!! raro, it’s okay, the Phils are doing all this just for drama, just like last year! “Whoot! There it is! Whoot! There it is!”
We managed to take Zack down with some elephant tranquilizers, and he no longer poses a threat to himself, others, and small animals. He will be given top-notch psychiatric care, and then hypnotized to believe he was born and raised in Boston as the third Wahlberg brother.
I’ll refer back to what I said in post #1, which is the Phils are continuing to break our collective spirit!
All you need to look at is this, the Mets just went into Milwaukee and swept the Brewers, while we went into Washington and dropped 2 out of 3 to the Nats.
This weekend is it! We simply must win at least 2 out of 3 against the Mets! If they beat us twice, we will be down 4 games with 19 to play. When you look at how we’ve been playing and how they’ve been playing, that’s simply too much ground to make up in too short a time.
ugh. i can’t put into words how disappointing it is to see the phillies revert back to their mediocrity that we got a one-year break from due in large part to the Mets collapse.
regardless of whether the Mets (or Brewers guys, we have 4 against them and are only 3 1/2 back in the wild card) collapse and we start playing well and sneak in the playoffs again, we all know this isn’t the season we were looking for. We wanted 95-100, not 88….again.
The thing that I am struggling with the most right now is what you said, Pete. We need to face up to the fact that us winning the division last year was more about the Mets’ collapse than it was about us progressing or taking a big step forward.
Baseball is a long season and you pretty much end up where you should be. Your final record pretty closely reflects the talent level of your team. Yes, there are anomalous seasons when you play way above or below where your talent level suggests you should, but this does not hold for the Phils. Going back to 2001, this will be the 7th year out of the last 8 that we will be in the high 80′s in wins. That is an 8 year body of work with amazingly consistent results.
There is no way the Phils can expect any of us to believe they have “just had an off year”, or that it was “just one of those years when they couldn’t seem to put it all together”, or that we’re “getting closer”, or that “another year of growth and a couple off season pick ups will get us over the top”. We have been hearing this kind of stuff for years. We have also been seeing the results of that kind of thinking for years.
It seems apparent that last year’s “success” deceived Gillick et al into thinking that all we needed were a couple mid-level pick ups to fill a some holes and we’d be set. (I know Lidge is not a mid-level guy but, coming off knee surgery and a couple sub-par seasons, he was not an upper echelon guy when we went after him. He was a risk that paid off extremely well.)
I think this off season it is time for a serious look at where we are, what we’ve got, and what we need. Eight years is a long time to spin your wheels and enough is enough. An honest assessment is in order, followed by an honest effort to address our shortcomings. The problem is, of course, that we are pretty much at our payroll ceiling (don’t get me started again!), so I don’t know how much the Phils will do, even if they have the desire to make some major moves.
I’m going to “borrow” a few Phillies related news items from today’s column by Jason Stark.
• Fresh Prince: During one of our recent chats, a reader proposed a fascinating trade for this winter — Prince Fielder to the Giants for Matt Cain. The Brewers will need an ace to replace CC Sabathia and Ben Sheets. The Giants need power. It ain’t crazy. So can it happen? Dubious, but possible. First off, according to an official of one club that has already felt out the Brewers on their tentative offseason game plan, Fielder is “definitely someone they’ll listen on. They told us they’re willing to listen on him, Bill Hall, [J.J.] Hardy and [Rickie] Weeks in the right [i.e., humongous] deal.” Second, it’s clear the Giants have deployed their scouts all over baseball in the second half looking for power at the infield corners. (emphasis mine) And Fielder is one of the mashers believed to be high on their list. OK, now here’s the biggest hang-up: Giants GM Brian Sabean has told clubs repeatedly that he has no interest in busting up the best thing his team has going for it — the power 1-2 combo of Cain and Tim Lincecum. But if it meant a realistic chance to deal for Prince Fielder, wouldn’t he have to rewrite his script? “Brian has been saying he won’t trade one of those two pitchers for anyone,” said one NL executive. “But if you’re asking me, he ought to reconsider. If they want to get that kind of player, they’re going to have to trade Matt Cain to get it.”
I would have to say that Ryan Howard would be at least as valuable as Fielder. So it looks like Matt Cain could be had after all, Pete.
• Standing Pat: There has been an outbreak of optimistic reports out of Philadelphia about the likelihood of the Phillies being able to re-sign Pat Burrell this winter. But our take is: Not so fast. Burrell clearly wants to stick around. And the Phillies appear to realize that if he leaves, their free-agent options are messy. But as they mull their offer to Burrell, they have a major disadvantage that other teams wouldn’t face: The biggest concern all National League teams would have about Burrell is whether he would be able to play defense through the life of a three-year or four-year deal, in a league with no DH. But only the Phillies would have to worry that he would become a 10-and-5 man about seven weeks into Year 2 of any contract — meaning he could block a deal to the American League. So while the Phillies are more motivated to sign him now than they were a few months ago, there is no indication they have wavered from their belief that they can’t afford to give him more than two guaranteed years. And there undoubtedly would be longer deals out there elsewhere. So this negotiation will be a real test of just how much he really wants to stay.
At this point in Burrell’s career, I don’t see two years getting it done. If that’s the best offer he will get from the Phils, he will be gone.
• Take the Stairs: One of the least-talked-about ripple effects of the Phillies’ trade last week for Matt Stairs is that he’s not a rent-a-player. He’s signed for next year, too, at $1 million. So why would the Phillies deal for someone like that? It’s uncertainty about Burrell and their 2009 outfield that convinced them it was worth at least adding Stairs to their 2009 inventory. Stairs will be 41 next year. So no NL team would view him as a regular — or even a platoon outfielder anymore. But if Burrell exits, the Phillies would be more likely to piece together outfield at-bats among a bunch of players than make a major free-agent run at somebody like Adam Dunn or Milton Bradley. So they’re not ruling out anybody or anything right now.
Yikes! Well, at least our next GM won’t need to pick up another slow, fat guy with a mustache at the trade deadline next year. It sure sounds like Stairs will be sticking around for 2009.
I almost forgot. I don’t find it at all comforting to read that the Phils are more likely to piece together outfield at bats for 2009 among a bunch of players, rather than make a free agent run at somebody. It goes to what I said before about them needing to make major moves, but will they? This does not sound promising at all.
McCarver advice for Phillies – “forget about winning 2 of 3, and win 1 ballgame - tonight’s.” Also said “Phillies are a strange team; they lose when they’re supposed to win, and win when they’re supposed to lose” and asserted that “Santana’s the best pitcher in baseball right now.”
jjg: McCarver is dead on with that assessment about the Phils.
bski: As a fan, I’m very worried about the team falling apart over the next few years. There is a huge leadership/ vision vacuum in the team’s management.
Morty, I’m worried too. There are many issues that need to be addressed on this team and their recent history tells me that I probably won’t like the way they go about it.
That article by Jason Stark yesterday kind of caught me a bit off guard (and disturbed me). I mean, if Burrell leaves, will piecing together outfield at-bats among several players (Matt Stairs among them) really be the plan for 2009? The Phils actually need to improve the club beyond what they have now, and that strategy certainly won’t get it done.
Even if they keep Burrell, they still need to improve. It can’t be just a few middling pickups either. This pattern of acquiring reasonbly priced, mid-level veteran players to fill holes has not gotten us beyond being a just another good team in contention for the playoffs.
The glass half-full outlook (The one that says we’ve only had 1 losing season in the last 8 years and that we have been in contention and very close. ) is the one that ownership and management is selling us and is hoping we will continue to buy. Obviously, 45 sellouts out in 68 home games says that we are doing just that.
As much as I hate to take the glass half-empty outlook, (The one that says that we have yet to win 90 games in a season and have only made the playoffs once–as a result of a historic collapse, and it was a 3 and out.) it really is the true state of the organization’s recent history.
To my way of thinking, the Phils need, at a minimum, 3 major impact players (an outfielder or a catcher, a set up man/late inning reliever, and a top of the rotation starter–not another #3 or #4) in order to make any significant improvement.
Even iIf we keep Burrell, we could still use either a center or a right fielder. Victorino can play the other spot. That makes Werth our 4th outfielder. Since he can play all 3 spots, he can get a couple starts a week, be Burrell’s late inning defensive replacement, and our top right handed pinch hitter. We don’t need to talk about the catcher, right?
The late inning reliever is an obvious need. Our bullpen has been vulnerable since Gordon went down. Guys are pitching in different roles and more frequently. It has inarguably taken a toll and weakened what has unquestionably been the most reliable part of the team this season.
The rotation? Please! Kendrick…question mark, Moyer…question mark, Myers…question mark. (I think I know what you want to talk about here Zack, but I will wait until you start the discussion.) They may be question marks for different reasons but, for me, they are all question marks. The only two sure things we have for next year are Hamels and Blanton, and that ain’t gettin’ it done!
It doesn’t matter to me how the Phils address their needs. I don’t care if they bring up several guys from the minors, make trades, or sign free agents. What does matter to me is that the actually do address their needs. For example, while I have nothing against Bruntlett, I do not want to see the Phils turn a backup middle infielder into a backup outfielder through in- season, on the job training, use him to replace the guy who is supposed to be the backup outfielder but is less than useless, and then try to sell me on the fact that he is a more than capable replacement and all is well. I realize that Bruntlett and Taguchi are not front line guys, but that is kind of my point. It’s one thing to be on the hook for $8.5 million to Adam Eaton and not be willing or able to eat it. It is quite another to be so, oh I don’t know…miserly (I hate to use the word cheap) to not eat Taguchi’s contract and bring in a bona fide outfielder that could actually contribute. Would that have gotten us 10 more wins? No, but I think it reveals a lot about the mindset of ownership and the way the club is run.
That’s why I said before that our future success depends entirely on what ownership and management will actually do. I have no doubt but that they are aware of the team’s needs. It all comes down to how they go about filling those needs. I won’t go into it any deeper, for now. We’ve got the entire off season (which looks like it will be starting in about 3 weeks) to discuss this.
I don’t know if you’ve read Bob Ford’s article in today’s Inquirer. Here is the link if you are interested. Ford mentions some of the things that I have been posting on here all season long. I say what I truly feel here, and I try to be as honest and fair in my evaluations and opinions as I possibly can. As nice as it is to see a confirmation of your thoughts put down in print by someone else, in this case it is also disappointing. Most of the time, no matter how much I think I am right, there is a part of me that hopes that I am wrong, because it is becoming increasingly more difficult for me to devote myself to this organization, since I feel that I am more invested in it than ownership is.
i think it’s clear we will have plenty to talk about this offseason
meanwhile, let’s see if we can’t sweep these Mets. Personally, I’d rather sweep OR get swept. Don’t drag it out. If you aren’t going to make the playoffs, dont make me THINK you will.
bski -
one thing to say about your last point. And i feel very strongly about it. People always say that this ownership DOESN’T want to win, or as you said, doesn’t want to win as much as you do. I disagree. I think they do. I just think that they are quite bad BUILDING a winner. It’s not that they don’t want it, it’s that they aren’t good at it.
one more thing -
that being said, I don’t think its humanly possible to want a team to win more than we do here, so I guess at best, they are TIED with us.
Prediction: Phils take 2 of 3. Not enough to make a huge difference, but enough to make you hope.
Pete: Same result, either way you look at it. My take is that they sorta want to win, but they don’t want to do what it would take to win. They want to win, but are not committed to winning, they don’t “need” to win.
OK Pete, I’ll give you that it’s a tie between us and ownership as far as wanting to win. All that “ownership doesn’t care” stuff just comes out of frustration because, after all these years, you kind of feel like it’s the only explanation left. I mean, how could you not recognize or do anything about the fact that you have been so “not good” at it for so long?
I like your explanation better, so I’ll try to stick with that. Hey, maybe that could be the slogan for next year, “We’re not cheap, just incompetent!”. Think the fans would cut them some slack for being honest and forthright? Me neither.
Picking up Iguchi is another head scratcher. The guy has Bruntlett numbers and is coming off a separated right shoulder. I’ll grant you that if we did not have him last year, we don’t win the division. That’s how much I think he meant to us, but that was last year. Utley was hurt and Iguchi played every day. What is Iguchi going to do now? Are we going to start resting Utley down the stretch? I know it really is nothing to get excited over one way or the other. I guess if he gets a couple pinch hits it will be worth it.
As far as this series vs the Mets, I’m with you. The quicker we find out which way we are headed the better, regardless of which direction we go. Of course, I could see us sweeping the Mets and then going 2-5 on the next homestand. C’est la Phillies.
If Brett Myers shuts down the Mets tonight, I am prepared to eat my words and declare that he has truly turned himself around. I know Manny said his stuff was nasty when he pitched against the Dodgers and that he pitched well against the Cubs on the road but, no matter how much he has done, I have remained hesitant to believe it. Well, this is it! This is a game and a series that we absolutely must have. It is the last time we face the Mets this season, it is in New York, we are 3 games out with 22 to play, and it is a game that Santana is not pitching. We flat out need him to deliver for us tonight.
I’m reading the Sept. 8th Sports Illustrated. On page 64, the Inside Baseball page, there is a little box in the lower right hand corner titled Unconventional Wisdom. It ties in directly to what I was talking about earlier in this thread about changing how closers are used. I will re-type it in full here.
“In 1988 the A’s helped usher in the era of the three-out closer when manager Tony LaRussa started using Dennis Eckersley for one inning or less, (personal note-that’s why I damned him earlier) and 29 of the right-hander’s 45 saves came in that situation. Twenty years later A’s skipper Bob Geren may be ushering out the era with his use of rookie Brad Ziegler. The sidearming Ziegler, 28, had six saves in his first 6 chances–three of which came in two inning stints. Over the last five seasons only nine relievers have had three two-inning saves in a season compared with 42 pitchers in 1988 alone. Ziegler appeared comfortable in his new role: 9 2/3 innings, an 0.93 era in his six saves. If Ziegler maintains his effectiveness, other managers might follow Geren’s lead and finally alter how they use closers so their teams get more innings from their best relievers. (emphasis mine)
Hope dawns on the horizon! Maybe my head is not in the clouds after all!
OK, here it comes……Brett Myers has truly turned himself around! His performance tonight has finally made a believer out of me. We needed him and he showed up big. 8 innings, 3 hits, 2 walks (1 intentional), 10 strikeouts, 118 pitches (81 for strikes). Impressive.
Well, 1 game down, 2 more to go. Let’s keep it going. If the forecast is correct, we will be playing a double header on Sunday.
bski:
Freakin’ David Murphy beat me to it on his philly.com blog – Brett Myers has been sensational since he came back from minor league stint. The bastard.
Regarding you calling Myers “unpredictable” – it’s not a great thing, but it’s not too bad if “unpredictable” means he alternates between phenomenal pitching and not-too-great pitching, and he does it regardless of the quality of the hitters he’s facing. It’s not like Adam Eaton “unpredictable”, which I don’t think I need to explain.
(to be continued, I gotta run…)
“Bert Blyleven” has returned from the Iron Pigs, saving Phils -up to this point - with an uncharacteristic, resolute calm. Still can’t help thinking he’s only a dinger or miscue or ump squeeze away from Unravel City, but only his “shrink” knows for sure.
Victorino – vies with Rollins for club ‘hot dog’ title. Caught last out of game at front of warning track, made sure he kept going until he dramatically “hit” the wall. (“Shane! Come back, Shane!)
Biggest play of game: Reyes’ limp effort to stop catcher’s off-line throw on Victorino’s 1st inning steal attempt, enabling an eventual score which gave pressure mount to Mets and psychological lift to Phils. Second biggest: Church’s mistimed jump on Dobbs’ HR.
Ernie Banks smiles and says, “Let’s play two.”
Zack…First off, let’s get something out of the way shall we? Adam Eaton is not unpredictable, he’s just bad! I don’t view him as going back and forth between good starts and bad starts for no apparent rhyme or reason. I look at him as throwing a few starts a year that are “less bad” than his other lousy ones. It was a major mistake to sign him. His career numbers, while not as bad as they have been for us, are mediocre at best. I believe he had one good year (2005 maybe?) with the Padres. The problem is the guy was in the league for 8 years before we got him. That is an ample body of work on which to base a decision. I don’t see how Gillick could have possibly figured that we would get more out of him than he had delivered up to that point in his career. At least I hope that Gillick was looking for more from Eaton. If he signed him to a 3 year, $24 million deal to get his normal production, then I’d be really steamed. I’m glad Gillick has finally been upfront and honest and admitted that Eaton’s signing was a big mistake.
Now, on to Myers. I feel that Myers has always been unpredictable to a degree. Over the course of his career he has gone back and forth between good starts and bad starts. Sometimes his unpredictability has been due to physical (his pitching mechanics) problems and sometimes it has been psychological problems (too many to list). I feel that the reason he was so bad for the first 2/3 of this season is because he had physical/mechanical problems and psychological problems at the same time. This pushed him beyond the unpredictable category into the horrendously bad category.
Since he has come back from the minors, he has been able to smooth out the rough edges in his mechanics and find a way to make it work for him. A pitcher simply must have the muscle memory and physical ability to put the ball where he needs to. He has to know where every pitch is going. Physically, Myers is now able to achieve readily reproducible results pitch after pitch, which is critically important.
Much, much more important than that for Myers, however, is the fact that he has somehow developed the mental focus necessary to concentrate on every pitch, eliminate distractions, ignore bad calls or misplays, and basically everything else that sets him off and prevents him from being in control on the mound and pitching like this consistently. I am thrilled to see him asserting a level of control over his emotions and gaining a composure that he has sorely lacked for quite a while. Check out this quote from Dobbs: “He’s a bulldog out there right now,” said Dobbs, whose homer in the seventh gave Myers and Lidge some much-needed breathing room as the Phillies improved to 77-64 and trimmed their deficit in the NL East to two games. “The look in his eyes, the fierceness, the competitiveness, all that is there, but he is honing it and channeling it and focusing it in a way I’ve never seen him do.”
I am absolutely thunderstuck, flabbergasted, awestruck, flummoxed, and generally struggling to come to an understanding of how he has done this. I’m also wondering why it has taken so long for him to reach this point and I’m a bit ticked that it has.
All of the preceding is about now, not the future. I am ecstatic about now. I’m happy for Myers. I’m happy for us. None of this allays any of my fears for the future surrounding Myers. The off season is a long time and God only knows if Myers will retain his newfound emotional control and for how long. I still say that his value will never be higher and that we should trade him this off season. If we are seriously going to shop Howard this winter, I would insist on a top of the rotation starter in return. This would take care of Myers’ spot. Then we can trade Myers (or Myers plus) for a front line outfielder to take Burrell’s place. If we keep Burrell, he can play first. I’m getting ahead of myself here.
Back to Myers. Yes, I think we should part ways with him. Why? I can’t shake the feeling that this unbelievable string of starts he is putting up is just more evidence of his unpredictability. You can’t deny that 2/3 of a season of horrendous pitching followed by 1/3 of a season of phenomenal pitching is pretty unpredictable. You also can’t be surprised if he reverts back. At a minimum, I don’t see any way that we get 35 starts next year like these last few, do you? I don’t want to settle for 12 great starts and 23 crappy ones again next year. I’m kind of looking at this like it is his career year (even though it is only 1/3 of a year). I mean, look at Rollins. Everyone want to know what’s wrong with him. I don’t think there is anything wrong with him. His numbers this year are right in line with the numbers he has put up every year except last year. Last year was his career year and I’m not expecting numbers like that from him again. Same goes for Myers. I do not expect to get this kind of pitching from him again (not for a long stretch anyway).
I know that the Phils are going to keep him, and I’m not saying it would be a terrible thing to do so. Next year will be a contract year for him, so I would expect him to be a bit more focused than normal as a result. If he continues to pitch well, that allows more time for our young arms in the minors to develop. Plus, we can always move him at the trade deadline. Quality pitching, especially starting pitching, is always in very high demand. If Myers can approach what he is doing now during the first half of next year, we should be able to get a good haul for him. That’s as far as I am willing to go with him.
I give Myers credit for contending as necessary with his Boston “mistake”/public relations disaster, for being a flexible team guy last year in filling the ‘closer’ vacuum (quite ably), and for eating humble pie and accepting a minor league assignment this summer after being Gillicked to start again. There’s no doubt about his pugnacity; consistency of approach & distance is the question. His Aug./Sept. turnabout is laudable, but his “large” size at this prime season of his physical life and his jagged emotionality, to me, are unfavorable components
of the long-range picture regarding the rest of his (average to date) career. No doubt, he’s a talented athlete and pitcher. The thinking aspect is his mire, though not evidenced of late.
Good pitching being at the core of success, and given the “transformation” into ‘Ace’ results, I’m reserving judgement on best Phils direction regarding Myers till season ends.
I had no idea what jjg was talking about until I saw this. But I remember Blyleven as being more of a paunchy guy, rather than a big, Hell’s Angels bouncer type like Myers (apologies to small-framed, strength-challenged, and emotionally sensitive Hell’s Angels members).
bski, sorry I couldn’t complete my earlier comments, I wanted to elaborate more on the “unpredictable” angle, but you got the gist of what I was trying to say. Still, it’s not as bad as you make it out to be. You keep mentioning he was bad for the first 2/3 of the season, but he did okay. He had 17 starts before sent down, and 6 of those were Quality Starts. In the opener he gave up 3 runs in 5 innings, and another time he gave up 4 runs in 7.2 innings – two starts I’d deem “acceptable” (not trying to start my own stat here). So in about 8 out of 17 starts, he was “acceptable” or better. After his return, he’s had 9 starts where he’s gone at least 5 and hasn’t given up more than 3 runs per game. That’s 26 starts, and 17 of those have been “acceptable”; if you take away the “acceptable” starts, that still leaves you with 14 Quality Starts out of 26, which says 50% of the time he gives you a good chance to win. So, saying he was “horrendously bad” for 2/3 of the season is a bit of an exaggeration.
As far as concerns regarding his mentality goes, here’s what I see that shows me he’s got what it takes. As jjg mentioned, he successfully went through those two transitions: from starter to closer and then back to starter. Despite him appearing to be less stable than your average ballplayer at times, I think it was no small feat that he was able to overcome the mental challenges associated with those transitions – he’s done it once (overcome a mental challenge), he can do it again. You’re worried about some event possibly untracking him again, but you don’t have to look any further than Brad Lidge for an example of a player being able to overcome an “untracking” event. Brad Lidge is 31, Myers is 28. Lidge was 28 when he gave up that infamous Pujols home run, and he’s recovered nicely from it (for us). I’m willing to give Myers a year or two to become more consistent (assuming he doesn’t really turn it on next year and bolts for Angels money, no way he makes it in Boston or NY), as long as he doesn’t get worse than he’s been the past couple of years.
And this isnt’ Kyle Kendrick we’re talking about, Brett Myers is a real talent, a more consistent Myers and Cole Hamels would make a formidable top two. Remember what we talked about when we first started discussing baseball, how every which way has to be explored to get talent? This is one of those weird ways. You’re making a move now (keeping Myers, putting up with less-than-ideal performance) for an ace (a more mature, wisened, in control Myers) in two years. To me, this is similar to a team moving up in a draft because of a bad record.
I know you want performance NOW!, but what can the Phils do? Gillick/Amaro is no Stefansky, and the Phillies’ five owners ain’t Comcast, but who can you get? Here’s the trade: an ace two years from now for an ace now – who is that ace exactly? Would you give up Myers for a Joe Blanton-level type of pitcher? (I’m assuming the Myers trade you’re suggesting isn’t for hitting, and if it is, then that means the Howard trade is for pitching, but I’m getting ahead of myself here, too…)
Zack: OK, I might be over exaggerating a bit about how bad Myers was before his demotion. However, I think that we must also be careful not to over exaggerate how good he is pitching now. As much as we might want to, we would be foolish to disregard his earlier performance and proclaim that what he is now is what he will be from here on out. I’ll suggest judging him by Olympic standards. Let’s throw out both the low (first half of 2008) and high (second half of 2008) scores, because I believe that he is neither as bad as he pitched in the first half, nor as good as he’s pitched in the second half. I am judging him based on his body of work prior to this year, because that is what I think we will get from him next year.
You may be right that this will prove to be nothing more than an odd route to procure talent. I can see why the Phils want to stick with Myers. As you said, he is a real talent. His “stuff” has never been in question (except for the 5 mph drop in his fastball earlier this year). The question has always been his psyche. Does he have or will he develop the mental toughness and focus to harness his stuff and become a dominant pitcher?
You are definitely right that it is no small feat that he has been able to overcome the mental challenges he has faced. I truly hope that he has had a light bulb moment and the switch has been flipped for good. I just have a difficult time accepting that it is for real and that there will be no more reversals in his psychological stability.
I wouldn’t really compare Myers to Lidge, though. Lidge is a light out, upper echelon pitcher who “lost it” and “got it back”, whereas Myers is a guy who has been struggling to “find it” in the first place all these years. Myers had nothing to “get back” because he never “had it”. He has shown flashes and had stretches here and there, but I wouldn’t put him anywhere near Lidge category.
That’s kind of my point about trading him. (btw, I was talking about trading Myers for an outfielder. Go back and re-read my previous post.) Lidge was very, very good. The Phils took a chance that he could get it back again–there was something there to hope for. It’s different with Myers. The Phils have spent years waiting for him to finally put it all together, not to re-emerge as the dominant pitcher he used to be.
We have already given Myers 6 years to develop and you’re talking about giving him a couple more to become more consistent. That’s a bit much for me. He’s got one year left on his contract, so I would give him the first half of next year, max. If he pitches like he is now, I would believe that he has truly developed and I would think beyond next year with him. If he reverts back or shows signs of regression, I trade him at the deadline and get what I can for him. I think 7 years is more than enough time to stick with anybody. If he doesn’t have it together after all that time, it’s not going to happen and I’ve got to move on.
Realistically, since he has apparently transformed himself and he is under contract for next year, I’m certain that the Phils will have him in the rotation. I’m sure the are thinking along the same lines as you are….”Myers has finally become the pitcher we had always hoped he would be, so let’s reap the rewards for all the years we’ve stuck with him and get what we can from him while we can get it.” I can’t blame them for thinking that way and I hope they are right.
I still think that we will get from him what we have always gotten from him (not counting 2008 of course, since we threw it out with our Olympic scoring system), which isn’t bad, but isn’t good enough either. That is why I’m still sticking with my “strike while the iron is hot” strategy of trading him now while his value is high, rather than keeping him long enough for him to revert back to his previous form.
bski, this is gonna be more like a short essay, rather than a response to the Brett Myers topic; much like how you get Phillies thoughts constantly snowballing and in your head, I was couldn’t stop thinking about this… I think that even though you can be very analytical and have a very lawyer-like thoroughness in your arguments for a certain issue, your deep passion for the team still shines through. How?
I think you have a certain vision for the Phillies, like I do for the Sixers. I bet there are certain players on the Phillies you just don’t like, regardless of their quality, and you’re can’t stop yourself from thinking about how we could get rid of the guy, like Myers. I’m not saying you haven’t put up a good argument against keeping Myers – per your style, you’ve up a great case for trading him. But I just couldn’t help but wonder if maybe there’s a part of you that just doesn’t like the guy. Which is freakin’ awesome, I think the most passionate fans are like that, having some weird irrational preference for or bias against someone on a team because it’s HIS/HER team. Like I said, I’m like that. Here’s some Philly athletes I’ve really liked over the years, and it’s made pay attention more than usual, in no particular order: Dana Barros, Ron Anderson, Jason Smith, Von Hayes (#1 all-time), Billy Wagner, Jimmy Rollins, Seth Joyner, Tony Hunt, Jeff Hornacek, Charles Barkley, Cris Carter, Robert Person, Terry Mulholland
Athletes I had an irrational bias against: Mike Gminski, Tim Perry, Jeff Malone, Juan Samuel, Kevin Millwood
Do you have a list like this?
Zack, Your guesswork distorts my Blyleven comparison message. No offense intended, but you still don’t know what I’m talking about. The Blyleven/(recent) Myers reference was not made towards any superficial similarity (such as facial hair), but rather similarity of pitches – a potent mix of a top-notch 12 to 6 ‘off the table’ curveball that places a righthanded batter’s front, striding foot “in the (seriously disadvantaged)
bucket” & a good enough, here-it-is, pea shooter fastball, along with a dogged competitive streak. Blyleven was a borderline Hall Of Fame righthanded pitcher; Brett has resembled him IN PERFORMANCE since his July ‘Reverse Fantasy Month’ of Wilkes-Barre, Reading and Clearwater. In sum, substance, not style, was my gist.
jjg: I am wondering if Myers finally discovered how to “pitch” rather than how to “throw”? As you note, his best pitches are off speed stuff, not his fastball, which can be very hittable, as we’ve seen. Perhaps Myers has finally discovered that he is not a power pitcher, not another Schilling.
jjg, no offense taken, I can’t believe you followed baseball so closely back then that the Bert Blyleven story is so deeply etched in your memory. Can’t speak for others, but I enjoy your (and sometimes suede’s) references to the days of sports yore. Lots to watch today, enjoy!
Morty, I still go to your website, looking for your pro-Obama and anti-Republican stuff, don’t tell me Sarah Palin has scared you off…
Morty, I don’t know if you’ve been checking, but the comments under the presidential election articles on philly.com have been very entertaining, I’m learning a lot of new words… philly.com seems to be very pro-Democrat, but there’s a sizable group of pro-Republicans in the comments.
Ok, that’s it for comments on politics…
Zack: just got too busy to stay on top of that. The fact that Palin isn’t even ready to be interviewed by reporters, to take questions, speaks for itself in terms of her “readiness” to be (shudder) Pres-o-dent. Anyways, enough of that.
Zack…At this point in my career as a passionate fan I try to keep the personal stuff separate from the on the field/court stuff. That goes for actors and musicians as well. I believe that their public persona is a projection. It is what they want us to see. I don’t feel like I can truly “know” any of them, and I don’t care to. If I like their movies I will go see them. If I like their music I will buy their CD’s. When something “shocking” is revealed about Tom Cruise or whoever, I find the public’s reaction fascinating. “I can’t believe he would do something like that.” is a common response, and I always wonder why nobody can believe it because, again, none of us can really “know” any of these people.
Sports is somewhat different, but only because I am passionate about the games of baseball and basketball in general and the Phillies and Sixers specifically. For the mostpart I “like” or “dislike” guys based on whether or not they are good players, not on any personal criteria. Regarding an unproductive player, I do not dislike him, rather I dislike the organiztion for sticking with him for so long when it is clear he’s a stiff, or for signing him to a big contract, and things of that nature.
I will admit that my personal feelings toward a player do creep in from time to time. Chris Coste is a perfect example. I don’t see any way you could not pull for a guy like that and hope that he stays in the game as long as possible. I know my emotional side makes me over value what he brings to the club to some extent.
In the case of Myers, my personal feelings have nothing to do with my assessment of him. Do I like the fact that he smacked his wife around? Certainly not. I will admit that I do not like him personally, but that is not why I want to trade him. I am looking solely at his on-field performance. Based on his 6+ years with us, I do not trust him. As I’ve said before, I have no confidence in a guy who needs to work himself up into a full blown rage every 5th day, and then need to control it in order to pitch well. That’s way too dicey for me. He has shown himself to be too erratic to count on for 35 starts (or 70 late inning appearances out of the bullpen if you prefer) each year. I could be way off of course. Maybe my personal feelings are playing a larger role in my assessment than I realize or care to admit. Maybe they are preventing me from seeing that he has finally asserted control over his raging emotions. Maybe what he is now is what he will continue to be from here on out. I sincerely wish that to be the case.
As you have read this you have probably been thinking “What the hell kind of fan is this guy?” or “Why even bother?” Maybe I am not a fan in the true sense of the word anymore. I don’t know. I think that over the years the type of fan I am has changed. I used to follow the game for the specific players and there were lots of guys I loved and hated. I no longer do that. Don’t get me wrong, I love to watch Utley play and Hamels pitch and all that, but I won’t stop following the Phillies if Utley and Hamels are no longer there. As long as there are players playing the game the way that they do I will continue to be a fan. Maybe that’s a screwed up way to look at things. I admire the players, their dedication, the amount of work they put in, the level of achievement they attain, their respect for the game, the physical skills they possess, the sacrifices they make, etc…and I love watching them perform at the highest level. It’s just that I now look at all of that as the parts that make up and deliver the overall greatness of the game. It is the game that I love and what matters most to me now.
All of that may sound pretty odd, but I think it explains why I am able to enjoy the game as much or maybe even more today. I’m sure you read the back and forth I had with JJG. The point I was making is that it is very difficult to be a fan in 2008 if you are constantly comparing today’s players to those of 1978 or 1958. I try not to get caught up in things like Hamels is not the pitcher that Carlton was, and Carlton is not the pitcher Koufax was, and Koufax was not the pitcher Lefty Grove was, and on and on. The mixing of eras is irrelevant, and I feel that all that stuff interferes with the enjoyment you get out of what the game is today and how it is currently played.
Sorry. I think you just hit on something and I kind of ran with it. If you’re going to ask a question, you had better be ready for the answer I guess. Yes I have a list of guys, but I will give it to you later. This post is long enough and I’ve got to go.
Morty, I think you’re on to something about Myers. At the very least, he discovered through burg to burg bus rides that he wasn’t a minor league pitcher. Charter bus (or limo service) as “scared straight” vehicle – Gillick genius. What else can account for the obvious new determination? If he continues to keep hitters off-balance, he’ll avoid his heretofore see-sawing performances. You’re right, he’s not (a vintage) Schilling – short of stuff, smarts and preparation; could be a Rick Sutcliffe though, with continued application of talent.
Zack, Glad you enjoy some of my historical mentions. You’re right – great day for baseball here in Philly. Thought of drivin’ up to Shea; looked at remote, then refrigerator; thought twice - comfort won out over atmosphere and hole in pocket.
Zack…I want to finish up my thoughts from earlier today. (I know, how could I possibly have more to say on the subject?) Well, you really got me thinking about what kind of fan I have become.
I think my views as a fan have changed in direct response to the change in the game itself. Specifically how the game has become more of a business and how economic issues have increasingly taken over.
Years ago, guys played their entire career with one team. The player’s identity and accomplishments were interwoven with and became a part of the fabric of the franchise. They were the franchise. You were able to form a more permanent bond with a specific player because you knew that in all likelihood he would remain a Phillie for his entire career. Since they were more tightly bound, being an avid fan of a team meant that you were an avid fan of the players on the team.
That all began to change with the dawn of free agency. Gradually, we have gotten to where we are now. Where economics is king. Where a guy like Rowand will turn down a 3 year contract to remain on a pennant winner and instead move to a last place team for a longer contract and more money. I don’t blame him. I’m sure I’d take the money too if it was there for me. However, there is a trade off. Every time something like this happens, and it happens repeatedly, that link between teams and their players weakens. I place more value on a HOF player that played his entire career with one team because his entire body of work meant a lot to that organization. A HOF player that played for 4 different teams over his career might have helped each team for the 3 or 4 years he was there, but he would never make the list of all-time greatest players for any of those 4 teams. I think that means something.
I think that is why, over time, I have moved away from forming connections to specific players while my bond to the team has remained unchanged. When the players are moving all over, the only stable thing left to form a bond with is the team.
Ryan Howard has had some fantastic seasons and put up impressive numbers during his career with the Phils. I have very much enjoyed watching him play (for the mostpart). Even though that is the case, I feel nowhere near the bond to him that I felt for Schmidt. If Schmidt was ever traded I would have been devastated. If we trade Howard it won’t really bother me. The extent to which it does bother me will center entirely on losing his production. As long as his replacement is productive (or the pitcher we get in return for him wins 20 games) and the team remains successfull I won’t lose any sleep over not having him anymore. I would like him to remain here but if it is not economically feasible, I’ll understand.
So, I guess that’t it. Because of the economic state of the game, I increasingly view players as interchangeable parts or pieces of the puzzle rather than lifelong members of my team. I pull for them and enjoy watching them play while they are here, but I don’t live and die with them like I used to. This applies to most players. Every team has integral, core players with whom I do form more of a connection, but that is even weakening as time goes on.
I will apologize again for going on a bit, but it is your fault after all. You started me down this road. Once I got going I wanted to work through my thoughts and get to the bottom of it.
This is dedicated to you, bski…from ’61 Broadway hit “Stop The World, I Want To Get Off”…
WHAT KIND OF FAN AM I?
(words & music by Leslie Bricusse & Anthony Newley, adaptation by jjg; sung (miraculously) by Sammy Davis, Jr.)
What kind of fan am I
Who never fell in love?
It seems that I’m the only one
I have been thinking of.
What kind of fan is this?
An empty shell, a lonely cell
In which an empty heart must dwell?
What kind of lips are these
That lied with every kiss?
That whispered empty words of love
That left me alone like this?
Why can’t I fall in love
Like any other fan?
And maybe then I’ll know
What kind of fan I am.
What kind of clown am I?
What do I know of life?
Why can’t I cast away
The mask of play
And live my life?
Why can’t I fall in love
Till I don’t give a damn?
And maybe then I’ll know
What kind of fan I am.
[Thunderous applause]
“Fatuous mental calculations vs. the virile business of living” -
the flesh-and-blood Philadelphia Phillies wait for you.