Comments on: You again?

By: schmenkman

schmenkman — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:11:04 +0000

The Giants did contribute to that. The Phils weren’t hitting much already, and they ran into a team with a very good staff, and with Cody F. Ross et al playing over their heads. That’s unfortunate and it sucks, but so it goes.

By: DaMannse

DaMannse — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 22:33:13 +0000

Oh. And incidentally of course, it cost the team and the city another trip to the Series.

By: DaMannse

DaMannse — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:37:34 +0000

Yup. The helpless factor needs somehow to be addressed. It is weird to watch a whole line up go silent, not just for a few games, but for weeks on end. weird.

And nope. I have no idea how. But it cost the last hitting coach his job. There are some folks with skin in THIS game.

By: schmenkman

schmenkman — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:44:19 +0000

Point taken about consistency, although I’m not sure how you fix that. “Stop scoring today boys, save’em for tomorrow.”

By “flailed” I assume you don’t mean striking out, since they had the 2nd lowest K rate in terms of PAs per K. You must mean that they looked helpless at times, which is certainly true.

By: DaMannse

DaMannse — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:30:59 +0000

Yup. Second in runs. Now, how did they rank in the number of games with 3 or fewer runs? I think I remember that there were 78 such games. How about being shut out? A stunning number of times as I recollect. Was it over 20? When what is supposed to be a hot shot offense does that, that is what I call pear shaped.

I am not impressed by their being second in runs. Nor is “making the playoffs” the goal (if that is all they do, this team will have failed worse than Kansas City or Pittsburgh will this coming year). They can put up bodacious numbers, yes. They can be terrifying. But if it is going to be boom and a LOT of bust, that ranking in runs scored is not nearly as good an indicator of how they will do. The Four Aces do not need ten runs scored in one game and none scored in the next two. They need consistent scoring; even they cannot win many of those 78 games with 3 or fewer runs. Last year the offense (and thus the team) failed because they flailed, not because they could put up ten runs.

By: egrissom

egrissom — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:01:12 +0000

Sorry, schmenkman, was making the same point about 2nd in the NL in runs scored last year before I saw your comment.

By: egrissom

egrissom — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:00:28 +0000

I actually think that if the Phils have a rotation that includes those four guys and all four stay healthy all year, Utley/Howard/Rollins/Ibanez can reproduce their 2010 and it will still be enough to get the Phils a ton of wins and put them in the playoffs.

The Phils were still the second-highest scoring team in the league last season. They can fall, of course, with the loss of Werth even if those guys redo 2010. Even with that I’m not sure how far they can fall that the pitching won’t be able to make up for. If Utley/Howard/Ibanez and Rollins all redo 2010, the Phils still shouldn’t have much problem staying the top half of offenses in the league if they can get any kind of production at all from Ruiz/Polanco/Victorino and right field.

By: schmenkman

schmenkman — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:54:48 +0000

Let’s not forget, 2nd in the NL in scoring (granted, with Werth) Not bad for pear-shaped.

By: DaMannse

DaMannse — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:49:06 +0000

Exactly. Hamels got no run support. From the same guys who will be behind him again this year. And with an offensive team that is missing one of last year’s supposedly key offensive players in Werth. Honestly, I think the offense went pear shaped last year, and I think that Utley, Howard, Rollins, Victorino, and Ibanez need to show up and prove that they are NOT still pear shaped. If they do, the Four Horsemen could well end up #1 through #4 in the Cy Young balloting. Without Werth, and assuming that Ruiz may not be quite the offensive force that he was during last year’s career year, I think that pear shaped is a real possibility. Likely? No. But the offense has something to prove. It has a lot to prove.

By: schmenkman

schmenkman — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:17:49 +0000

“Perspective: Hamels, Oswalt, and Lee were a combined 37-33 in 2010. That is an average record of 12-11. Kyle Kendrick was 11-10.”
—
Not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China, given that Oswalt’s first half was on the Astros, before they started playing well, and Lee’s first half was on the Mariners, one of the worst offensive teams in modern history. And, as has been covered ad nauseam, Hamels got not run support.

If the point is that having these four is no guarantee of anything, obviously that’s true, and it’s even possible they could wind up with .500 records again, due to injuries, or no run support, or whatever. But I think a lot of things would have to go pear-shaped for that to happen, and it’s an extremely remote possibility.