 |
2010 NL Cy Young Award winner?
Roy Halladay. Unanimously. QED. |
No muss, no fuss, no controversy, no BBWAA pretzel logic...
This should be a short thread save for the inevitable congratulations directed at someone who won't actually read them (something I have never understood).
What bugs me is that there is almost certainly at least one person somewhere in the world who believes, or will believe, that Halladay was nothing special before he got to Philadelphia.
Two. My sister and her husband teach at Penn and the world of MLB extends not beyond the Phanatic's reach.
Doc is also going to be on the cover of the MLB 2K11 video game due out in the spring.
He's starting to lock down his bid for the Hall.
Does anyone else think he might pitch until he's 47? I certainly think there are parts of his psychological makeup that will keep him at a high level for a long time.
Either way, in my mind, there is little doubt he'll pitch at least long enough to solidify his Hall credentials beyond any reasonable doubt.
Either way, in my mind, there is little doubt he'll pitch at least long enough to solidify his Hall credentials beyond any reasonable doubt.
Does anyone else think he might pitch until he's 47?
He's going to lose something off his fastball, eventually. Everybody does...
On the other hand, Halladay has already demonstrated that he can pitch at a very high level - in the AL East, yet - with his fastball sitting around 89-90 most of the time. That's what he did in 2006-2007, almost as if he were preparing for Life After 40. Once or twice a game, he'd break out the old 94 mph heater, possibly just to reassure himself it was still there, possibly just to mess with the hitters' heads.
And then in 2008, he went back to throwing his hard one regularly again.
He's going to lose something off his fastball, eventually. Everybody does...
On the other hand, Halladay has already demonstrated that he can pitch at a very high level - in the AL East, yet - with his fastball sitting around 89-90 most of the time. That's what he did in 2006-2007, almost as if he were preparing for Life After 40. Once or twice a game, he'd break out the old 94 mph heater, possibly just to reassure himself it was still there, possibly just to mess with the hitters' heads.
And then in 2008, he went back to throwing his hard one regularly again.
Uggla is heading to Atlanta (coming to Toronto didn't make much sense).
Buck is apparently heading to Florida. 3/18 is the rumour. This is how cheapsake Loria elects to spend his money?
And by cheapsake, of course I mean cheapskate, though I can see Loria ordering cheap sake at a Japanese restaurant.
Uggla headed to Atlanta.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5814146
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5814146
IMO Halladay is better than Jack Morris. Maybe he can pitch that long. He has a son I believe, maybe they will both be in the MLs at the same time.
IMO Halladay is better than Jack Morris.
I don't think you'd find anyone to dispute that. That said, comparing the two is pointless. Morris's thin HoF candidacy rests on his longevity rather than his dominance (3824 IP, 105 ERA+). Halladay has dominance going for him, but now needs to bulk up on the longevity (2297 IP, 136 ERA+). Just how much, exactly, was the subject of a recent debate at this site.
Congrats to Doc. No surprise there. Dude had a fabulous year.
The Buck signing is good news for the Jays, because it means that there should be a reasonably robust market for Olivo. Which in turn should mean two supplementary round picks for Toronto, in addition to possible compensation for Downs, Frasor, and Gregg (wouldn't it be great if some team took a flyer on Frasor, Type A status notwithstanding?). The 2011 draft certainly looks promising for AA and co.
The Buck signing is good news for the Jays, because it means that there should be a reasonably robust market for Olivo. Which in turn should mean two supplementary round picks for Toronto, in addition to possible compensation for Downs, Frasor, and Gregg (wouldn't it be great if some team took a flyer on Frasor, Type A status notwithstanding?). The 2011 draft certainly looks promising for AA and co.
Wait a minute - Uggla was acquired for a utility infielder and a reliever according to MLB.com
Checking who he really was traded for...
Omar Infante: 111 OPS+, entering age 29 season, 90 lifetime OPS+ and free agent after 2011
Mike Dunn: LH reliever 12.5 K/9 lifetime, 8.6 BB/9 lifetime (!) over 23 IP. 4.1 BB/9 lifetime in the minors.
Really, that isn't much for a guy like Uggla. Weird trade. Makes one wonder if Florida is in full fire sale mode.
Checking who he really was traded for...
Omar Infante: 111 OPS+, entering age 29 season, 90 lifetime OPS+ and free agent after 2011
Mike Dunn: LH reliever 12.5 K/9 lifetime, 8.6 BB/9 lifetime (!) over 23 IP. 4.1 BB/9 lifetime in the minors.
Really, that isn't much for a guy like Uggla. Weird trade. Makes one wonder if Florida is in full fire sale mode.
According to Ken Rosenthal on Twitter, the Jays offered Roenicke, Farquhar and either Goins or Mastroianni. That's surprisingly little. I certainly wouldn't have complained if the Jays gave up those guys to get Uggla.
The Jays offer shows that a player heading into his final year of arbitration and making big dollars doesn't have a hige trade value.
Halladay is better than Jack Morris. Maybe he can pitch that long.
Which sent me checking the records to remind myself how old Morris was when he was here (he was 37 when he won 21 games here in 1992) and his last really outstanding season came in 1991 when he was 36. Although what's strange about Morris' final two seasons is that his strikeouts increased dramatically - his problem was the hitters ripping line drives all over the ball park when they did make contact....
Anyway. There's a note on Morris BBref page that sends you to a table listing the pitchers with the most Cheap Wins (Game Score below 50) since 1920. Morris stands 8th on that list, which is led by Jamie Moyer with 58. The raw numbers obviously reflect the era the player was active - not too many pitchers from the 1960s to be found here. But I was happy to look into the numbers for a bunch of other fellows...
Morris' own page actually lists him with 53 Cheap Wins and 61 Tough Losses. Which is a lot, on both counts, and one of the things it definitely tells us is that Sparky Anderson much preferred to leave Morris on the mound than to go to his bullpen.
Some other fellows...
And some Blue Jays
Gosh. Guess I didn't call Stieb "The Hard Luck Kid" for nothing...
Although the Toughest Luck in any one season may have been Jim Clancy in 1980. Diamond Jim had 1 Cheap Win and 7 Tough Losses that year, which is how he went 13-16 with an ERA of 3.30 and an ERA+ of 131. And Tommy Underwood (natch!) had 8 Tough Losses the year before, which is the highest single season figure I've stumbled over...
Which sent me checking the records to remind myself how old Morris was when he was here (he was 37 when he won 21 games here in 1992) and his last really outstanding season came in 1991 when he was 36. Although what's strange about Morris' final two seasons is that his strikeouts increased dramatically - his problem was the hitters ripping line drives all over the ball park when they did make contact....
Anyway. There's a note on Morris BBref page that sends you to a table listing the pitchers with the most Cheap Wins (Game Score below 50) since 1920. Morris stands 8th on that list, which is led by Jamie Moyer with 58. The raw numbers obviously reflect the era the player was active - not too many pitchers from the 1960s to be found here. But I was happy to look into the numbers for a bunch of other fellows...
Morris' own page actually lists him with 53 Cheap Wins and 61 Tough Losses. Which is a lot, on both counts, and one of the things it definitely tells us is that Sparky Anderson much preferred to leave Morris on the mound than to go to his bullpen.
Some other fellows...
CW TL
Greg Maddux 64 88
Sandy Koufax 7 33 (that's right, 7-33)
Whitey Ford 26 39
Pedro Martinez 32 45
And some Blue Jays
Roy Halladay 26 30 (23-25 as a Jay)
Jimmy Key 27 33 (14-26 as a Jay)
Jim Clancy 25 39 (24-35 as a Jay)
Pat Hentgen 27 20 (23-17 as a Jay)
Juan Guzman 14 18 (12-11 as a Jay)
Todd Stottlemyre 31 28 (12-15 as a Jay)
David Wells 43 29 (17-6 as a Jay)
Dave Stieb 20 38 (20-37 as a Jay)
Gosh. Guess I didn't call Stieb "The Hard Luck Kid" for nothing...
Although the Toughest Luck in any one season may have been Jim Clancy in 1980. Diamond Jim had 1 Cheap Win and 7 Tough Losses that year, which is how he went 13-16 with an ERA of 3.30 and an ERA+ of 131. And Tommy Underwood (natch!) had 8 Tough Losses the year before, which is the highest single season figure I've stumbled over...
As you've probably noticed, the numbers in that nifty table I've cited do not match - not even remotely - the numbers on the players own page. The table has Moyer with 58 Cheap Wins, Maddux with 42. Their own pages give them both 64 Cheap Wins (Moyer with 60 Tough Losss, Maddux with 88...) Probably some kind of error by whoever defined the parameters.... A neat idea, though...
Apropos of Koufax's 7-33, there was a wonderful bit of research in the Original Historical Abstract (prior to BBRef) on Koufax's use of the run support that he got in his 2 best years. In those years, he went 18-4 when given one, two or three runs of support. Four times the Dodgers gave him one run and three of those times he shut out the opponent. They don't have a "tough wins" (wins with two runs or less of support) and "ridiculous losses" (losses with seven runs or more of support) categories, but Koufax would have done pretty well there too.
On another note, the game in Arizona turned out rather well with Zep settling in after a hard-luck first and walking one and striking out seven in five innings, Loewen hitting two homers, and Thames and McDade also having good games.
On another note, the game in Arizona turned out rather well with Zep settling in after a hard-luck first and walking one and striking out seven in five innings, Loewen hitting two homers, and Thames and McDade also having good games.
Speaking of Morris I thought I'd check most wins for the 80's, 90's and '00's
80's: Jack Morris 162, Dave Stieb 140, Bob Welch 137, Fernando Valenzuela & Charlie Hough 128
90's: Greg Maddux 176, Tom Glavine 164, Roger Clemens 152, Randy Johnson 150
00's: Andy Pettitte 148, Randy Johnson 143, Jamie Moyer 140, Roy Halladay 139
Wow were the 80's underwhelming. The top 5 could all miss the HOF. The 90's top 4 all are locks*. the 00's are interesting as Johnson is a lock, Halladay and Pettitte are marginal right now but likely, and Moyer is not going to make it unless he sticks for another 5 years or so and just piles up career value to freakish levels.
80's: Jack Morris 162, Dave Stieb 140, Bob Welch 137, Fernando Valenzuela & Charlie Hough 128
90's: Greg Maddux 176, Tom Glavine 164, Roger Clemens 152, Randy Johnson 150
00's: Andy Pettitte 148, Randy Johnson 143, Jamie Moyer 140, Roy Halladay 139
Wow were the 80's underwhelming. The top 5 could all miss the HOF. The 90's top 4 all are locks*. the 00's are interesting as Johnson is a lock, Halladay and Pettitte are marginal right now but likely, and Moyer is not going to make it unless he sticks for another 5 years or so and just piles up career value to freakish levels.
I was just as surprised by Whitey Ford's numbers. His Tough Losses account for almost as large a share of his career total as they do with Koufax (36.8% of Ford's career losses, 37.9% of Koufax's.)
Depending on where you set the bar, Whitey Ford has the greatest winning percentage of any pitcher in history. He went 236-106 in his career - he trails Al Spalding, who threw underhanded 130 years ago, and he's also behind Spud Chandler who won 109 games in his short but brilliant career. Now Ford of course played for one of the greatest teams of all time - he pitched in eleven World Series, and missed out on two more because he was doing ilitary service - so you just naturally assume he was getting a lot of help from his team. (Ron Guidry and Andy Pettitte both have more Cheap Wins than Tough Losses, for example.)
But evidently not. Instead it looks like those Yankees were really a truly great team on those days when Whitey Ford took the mound. Granted, they were pretty good the rest of the time, of course.
Anyway, only once in his career did Ford have more Cheap Wins than Tough Losses - in his 25-4 season he had 7 Cheap Wins. But hey - all four of those losses were Tough Losses.
Interestingly Tough Losses account for an even larger share of Greg Maddux's career losses (88 of 227, 38.8%) than they do for Ford or Koufax. Maddux has had 7 Tough Losses in a season twice: 1992 and 1993 (he went 20-11 and 20-10 and won the Cy Young both years.)
And Koufax had 6 Tough Losses and no Cheap Wins at all - not a one - in each of his final two seasons. I think you know how he did those years... he went 53-17. Zero Cheap Wins, 12 Tough Losses. A lot of that, of course, is Dodger Stadium in 1965-66. But still...
Depending on where you set the bar, Whitey Ford has the greatest winning percentage of any pitcher in history. He went 236-106 in his career - he trails Al Spalding, who threw underhanded 130 years ago, and he's also behind Spud Chandler who won 109 games in his short but brilliant career. Now Ford of course played for one of the greatest teams of all time - he pitched in eleven World Series, and missed out on two more because he was doing ilitary service - so you just naturally assume he was getting a lot of help from his team. (Ron Guidry and Andy Pettitte both have more Cheap Wins than Tough Losses, for example.)
But evidently not. Instead it looks like those Yankees were really a truly great team on those days when Whitey Ford took the mound. Granted, they were pretty good the rest of the time, of course.
Anyway, only once in his career did Ford have more Cheap Wins than Tough Losses - in his 25-4 season he had 7 Cheap Wins. But hey - all four of those losses were Tough Losses.
Interestingly Tough Losses account for an even larger share of Greg Maddux's career losses (88 of 227, 38.8%) than they do for Ford or Koufax. Maddux has had 7 Tough Losses in a season twice: 1992 and 1993 (he went 20-11 and 20-10 and won the Cy Young both years.)
And Koufax had 6 Tough Losses and no Cheap Wins at all - not a one - in each of his final two seasons. I think you know how he did those years... he went 53-17. Zero Cheap Wins, 12 Tough Losses. A lot of that, of course, is Dodger Stadium in 1965-66. But still...
He's starting to lock down his bid for the Hall.
Starting? Starting?! You remember what he did in his second major league game, right?
Starting? Starting?! You remember what he did in his second major league game, right?
The Jays offer shows that a player heading into his final year of arbitration and making big dollars doesn't have a hige trade value.
That player doesn't have a high trade value to Anthopolous, but he may to other GMs. As I pointed out in the other thread, Omar Infante might be a lot more valuable than people are giving him credit for. In 2007 and 2009 Uggla put up WARs of 2.4 & 2.8, and Infante's was 2.7 last year despite not playing a month's worth of games. Add that to a 2.5m cost-efficient salary, the ability to play multiple positions, and current Type B status that could blossom to A with enough PA and you have a pretty valuable trade component.
That player doesn't have a high trade value to Anthopolous, but he may to other GMs.
True, and he's also far more valuable to certain types of managers. While most managers prefer a set lineup, there are always some who just love to juggle, and as with all Managerial Types, jugglers include both the successful (Tony LaRussa, Joe Torre in New York) and the not-so-successful (Jimy Williams, Joe Torre everywhere else.) A player like Infante is probably far more valuable working for one of those guys, than he would be on a team where his versatility wouldn't be utilized.
And of course Anthopoulos doesn't know yet - he can't - which species he has.
True, and he's also far more valuable to certain types of managers. While most managers prefer a set lineup, there are always some who just love to juggle, and as with all Managerial Types, jugglers include both the successful (Tony LaRussa, Joe Torre in New York) and the not-so-successful (Jimy Williams, Joe Torre everywhere else.) A player like Infante is probably far more valuable working for one of those guys, than he would be on a team where his versatility wouldn't be utilized.
And of course Anthopoulos doesn't know yet - he can't - which species he has.
Hmm. I would have thought that you could ask about that kind of thing in a job interview. "How do you feel about platoons?" would seem to be a natural question for a GM to ask a prospective manager.
You can ask, and you'll get an answer. But I think managers (and the rest of us) only get the real answer once they actually do the job of running a team.
Right. Any similarity between the contents of a job interview and what transpires later is, to a great degree, accidental. It does make it hard though for a GM like Anthopoulos who has just hired a manager. He does have to decide the value of a player best cast in a platoon role, and this depends on the manager's attitude, which the GM won't really know much about until a year or two is past.
There's that, and the difference between what seems like a good idea in theory, in November, and what seems like the right thing to do at this moment in August.
For no good reason, I would would expect Farrell to be open to the idea of platooning - simply because he wasn't a position player, he doesn't have any long-held opinion based on his own experience.
That is, if it was still actually possible to platoon. When you've got a four man bench and two of the jobs are filled because of defensive requirements - the importance of game tactics shrinks, along with the manager's options.
For no good reason, I would would expect Farrell to be open to the idea of platooning - simply because he wasn't a position player, he doesn't have any long-held opinion based on his own experience.
That is, if it was still actually possible to platoon. When you've got a four man bench and two of the jobs are filled because of defensive requirements - the importance of game tactics shrinks, along with the manager's options.
You can still platoon, but the options are narrower with a 12 man pitching staff. For instance, you can have an OF platoon as long as (ideally) the right side of the platoon can also play a capable centerfield. Rajai Davis might be an example of such a player. You can also platoon at 3B, SS or 2B if (again ideally) the right side of the platoon can also play another one of the positions. Brad Emaus might be an example of such a player.
The equivalent of Roenicke/Lowenstein is not, unfortunately, an option.
The equivalent of Roenicke/Lowenstein is not, unfortunately, an option.
Even in a platoon Davis will end up getting his fair share of PA. A quick glance at Reed Jonson's totals as a Blue Jay are a good testament to that - even with Cat starting vs. RHP Reed would work his way into the lineup for 400+ AB, whether it was by a day off to the CF, RF, or DH. Right now with the Jays flexibility it's looking like Davis could be in line for a similar role.