No, no, of course it's not a fair trade.  But is it a good idea - could Dan Uggla fully replace Pedro Feliz's performance on both sides of the ball?

Jemagee, FuquaManuel and I kind of got into this a little bit on the 10/4 game thread.  FM, I believe it was, said that Uggla could play 3d; I voiced concern about replacing Feliz's defense with Uggla, and was challenged to come up with some stats to substantiate my concern.  They probably thought I would just go away and take my uninformed opinions with me.  No such luck!

I did some digging, and I therefore present for your consideration some numbers to consider when adjudging whether Uggla could replace Feliz on defense.  I'll leave offense for another FanPost, or another day.

Continue reading this post »

A couple things I've noticed this evening that threw me for a bit of a loop:

1. The Phils, after the games of Sept. 3, are 23 games over .500.  I mean, damn.  Last year IIRC the Phils wound up 92-70, which was the second best record in the NL, but was still just 22 games over .500.  Now we're 77-54.  I'm still not sure how this happened - last year's highly productive bench, unusually good pen, and dominant closer have all been AWOL this season, and yet here we are, in September with an 8-game lead and 23 games to the good.

2. There's a guy named Hoover on the 25-man roster.  He's the third catcher, apparently.  I count myself as someone who pays reasonable (not ridiculous) amounts of attention to the Phils, and has a good sense of who their players are, but... Paul (I think) Hoover?  Who is this person?  How did he get here?  Why is he on a team where Jayson Werth can fill in in the extremely unlikely occurrence that the starting and backup catchers both have to leave a game?  Is there genuinely not someone out there who could hit better than Eric Bruntlett while playing a passable 3d or 2d base, or whatever?  I do not understand.  But I credit this Hoover fellow, if that really is his name, for his role as a Startling Phillies Fact.

At least some of the following was in today's Inky, quoting our fearless leader about the upcoming Braves series:

"They beat us down there earlier, they swept us, and we beat them last year about nine or 10 games in their yard, so we know we can beat them," Manuel said. "And I guess they think if they play good they can beat us. Bottom line is, we have to outplay them."

 "Now, I know that might sound unusual," Manuel continued.  "Usually, it ain't that way.  But with those Braves, that's just how it is - you gotta outplay them."

"But take the Brewers - that's a different story there," the manager went on.  "It's not important if you outplay 'em - don't matter if you do.  What you gotta do is, you kinda get some people in the stands to hold up mirrors and reflect light in their relievers' eyes when they're stretching in the bullpen.  Bottom line is, when they come out, they're not properly warmed up, they can't throw it straight, and we come from behind to win.  Simple as that."

Continue reading this post »

Ed. note: Promoted from the FanPosts section.  I need some more time to digest this, but it's worth some discussion. -- WholeCamels

Reading Baseball Prospectus the other day, I was struck by something about the difference in the way top prospects are viewed in contrast to other minor leaguers.  I was inspired, partly by the sterling example of TGP's own Matt Swartz, to take a stab at a new stat  - in this case, one that would express that difference.  I present it here as a small token of appreciation for Matt's labors, and a tribute to his BP Idol appearance in two senses:  I'm throwing something out there that plays off of BP's efforts in an attempt to say something new (and, in my case, extremely minor), and I'm giving you all the chance to critique my shortcomings and tear me a new one!

The idea here is that many writers (in this case, Christina Kahrl) about this time of year like to recommend that bottom-feeding clubs take the last two or three months of the season to dump their vets and some of their minor leaguers a trial to see if they're worth keeping around, if the club "has anything" in player X.  I was struck by the contrast to the oft-expressed view, e.g. in relation to the All-Star game, that two or three months can easily be a fluke and that it's silly to base firm conclusions on such a small sample size.  So my quest is for a stat expressing the number of plate appearances that, according to the implied logic at work here, any given prospect ought to be given to demonstrate his ability before the club gives up on him.  Obviously, a #1 draft pick who's brought up prematurely at age 21 won't be released just because his first season goes terribly - the club will figure he's got so much promise that they have to give him more time.  On the other hand, you have the guys still in AA at 24 who finally get a cup of coffee - they're not long for the Show if they don't produce.  So what the dealio?  Is half a season enough time to forecast someone's future productivity or not?

Continue reading this post »

A guy on my Phils discussion listserv group reflected recently on something that I think a lot of Phillies phans have cause to consider:  just how good, or bad, has the team been historically?  At least, in recent times - cutting out the horrible 1918-1948 stretch where ownership was actively sabotaging efforts to compete?  I decided to look at how the red pinstripes stack up against the other teams that have been around since the auspicious year of 1973.**

Continue reading this post »

Tues. night, bottom of the sixth, Phils up 4-3 at the time.  Kendrick has made it out of the top of the sixth with the lead and he's due up second.  Carlos Ruiz manages to reach base.  Now what do you do?  Kendrick's probably done no matter what happens, because it's after an off day and the bullpen is all set to go JC, Flash, Lidge.

We could save a bench player for later, in what looks to stay a close game, and have Kendrick bunt Ruiz over.  But here's the thing:  Kendrick is, like all Phillies pitchers younger than 45, a terrible bunter.  And it's only a one-run lead and we need to increase it, with nine outs to go and the bullpen not likely to be perfect forever.  And a pinch hitter is more likely to be able to swing away if that becomes necessary.

But here's another thing: we're confident we don't need to change up plans and have the hitter swing away.  Even if Ruiz moves up to second on a PB or something, there's still none out and the best move with the nine hole is to bunt him to third.  With a strong bullpen due up, stretching a one-run lead to two by playing for one run is a pretty good move with your nine-hole hitter, and as long as you're going to bunt for sure, why not use the pitcher?

Because he's a terrible bunter.  We can't be taking gambles with the thinnest possible lead and a long way to go in the game - we need someone we're confident can get the bunt down.

But here's one other thing:  Kendrick's not going to get better at bunting unless he practices bunting.  He's got to get up there in game situations and work at it, so that maybe when it really, really counts in late September he'll be competent at it.  And no, this isn't a safe time like a ten-run lead, but bunting with a ten-run lead is bad baseball manners anyway.  Saving the pinch hitter for later, letting Kendrick give it a try when there's none out and you're leading with your bullpen set up might be the right move.

Is it?  I can't quite decide.  I think the answer is, no, you can't gamble with a one-run lead; if Kendrick's not pitching the seventh, you need a sure bunter up there.  You don't save bench players - at least, not when you've still got a full bench - for later when you'e got a clear use for them now.  But I'm not sure about this.  Because the Phils pitchers have to, have to, have to get better at bunting somehow, just like Utley had to hit lefties poorly for a while to figure them out.

As it happens, we sent up Taguchi and he laid down an acceptable, albeit not great, bunt.  But I have a thought: maybe we don't burn Taguchi there.  Maybe we send up someone else to bunt, someone who's shown he's good at it.  Someone who's old enough to be Kendrick's daddy.  Yeah, that's right:  pinch hitter Jamie Moyer.

If you were Ruben Amaro Jr., would (that is, should) you sign a league-average pitcher to a multi-year deal for 2009+?  And would it make a difference if that pitcher was currently 45 years old?  

Moyer is, so far this year, almost the definition of a league-average pitcher.  His ERA is 4.15 in a league with a 4.34 average; his WHIP is 1.59.  He's throw at least 199 innings in each of the last seven seasons.  Watching him last night, I found myself appreciating how slender and flexible he is - I hope to match that when I'm 45 - and admiring his approach at the plate.  Set aside his two hits, although they were pretty tasty; focus on that bunt.  How rare is it to see a Phillies pitcher who regularly lays down good bunts? 

Anyway, the point is, he looks like he could keep this up for another three or four years.  Throwing that 76-MPH slop up there can't be taxing his arm too much.  The guy I saw last night looked like a good candidate to be throwing 175+ innings of league-average ball in 2010.

So, how crazy would it be to offer a multi-year deal to a guy who'd be 46 in the first year?  That's insane, right - baseball malpractice?  I'm just posting this here because I caught myself thinking that it might not be insane, and that we could actually regret <i>not</i> resigning Moyer next year, a la Lohse.

The wife and I made last-minute plans for an overnighter to Pittsburgh and I can finally see PNC Park.  I'd love nothing more than to see the Phils do well.  So who are the Saturday night Phils I get to see? Evidently they're gonna look something like:

Eric Bruntlett, Brad Harman, Carlos Ruiz and his .484 OPS, Greg Dobbs, Utley, Burrell, Worth, Jenkins, [the three top relievers are unavailable after two days on in a row, so once Kendrick leaves in the fourth, I guess Durbin goes two, then Madson, Condrey? Seanez for sure!] and starring...

Kyle Kendrick!  Woo-hoo!

At least I'll get to see PNC and have a Primanti Bros. sandwich with french fries inside.  Oh, and we're facing Matt Morris and his 9+ ERA.  Damn.  Actually that's good - I think my wife gets bored with pitching duels - no chance of that!  Although she also gets sick of games that go on for four hours...

I was sure there was one around here somewhere, but I just can't remember when the last time I saw it was.... Maybe it's been lost, or stolen by Scott Rolen devotees; I just hope it hasn't been forgotten...

That's really all I wanted to say, but The Good Phight prohibits short diaries, so I have to add more text here.  Let me note, then, that while I don't expect to come away with Phils tix, I wouldn't at all mind getting hooked up with a new Phillies hat to join the three I already have.  Hence, I remain eager to see the results of my expected Abreu-Schmidt-Allen-Delahanty Final Four.

This is rather off-topic, but there was a good question in the Rumors thread: PhoenixPhilly posed the plaintive ponderable, "(what the heck is a cat-bird's seat anyway?)"

The Internet is a marvelous tool, boys and girls:

>"...Red Barber announces the Dodger games over the radio and he uses those expressions....'sitting in the catbird seat' means sitting pretty, like a batter with three balls and no strikes on him."
Red Barber, for you non-baseball fans, was not a fictional character. He was a popular radio announcer for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the 1940s and '50s. Barber had a musical, soft Southern accent that somehow seemed perfect for Dem Bums, and he in fact did use those Southern expressions. After he retired, he wrote about his long career in baseball in Rhubarb in the Catbird Seat. Barber claimed to have picked up the phrase from a fellow poker player. It's definitely Southern, and probably 19th century, but is officially listed as "origin unknown."<

Based on that description,  I'm not sure that Gillick is actually in the catbird's seat - as of this writing, we still have Burrell and everyone knows we don't want him - but it's a nice place to shoot for.