Taking the plunge, Philly style
Posted by Andy on June 2, 2010
Now it's the Phillies' turn in the tank.
This is today's graph from coolstandings.com showing the Phillies' playoff chances.
On May 22, they had an expected win total for the season of 100.4 and a 71.4% chance of making the playoffs. Since then they have free-fallen all the way down to 87.5 expected wins and a 30.0% chance of making the playoffs.
When one of your starters throws a perfect game and you're still tanking, you know you're in trouble.
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:05 pm
A perfect game doesn't always equal great season or great stretches...if the Pirates have a perfect game tonight, they won't be considered title favorites this year.
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Dave, that's true. It's also true that Mark Grudzielanek could hit four homers for the Indians tonight and they could still lose the game. Not that likely though, right? More often than not, pitchers who throw perfect games are having pretty good seasons for pretty good teams and to see a team go from favorite to win 100 games to middle-of-the-pack is unusual.
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Seeing 9 different teams win the World Series in the past 10 years has been pretty exciting, but at the same time it is always fun to see the rise (and fall) of a great dynasty. I'm not saying that the Phillies are a dynasty, but I think they certainly have the potential to become one.
June 2nd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
They aren't a dynasty per se, but 3 straight playoff appearances plus two World Series berths and one win is special. Red Sox, Yankees, and 1990s Braves aside, that's pretty damn good.
June 2nd, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Andy, I agree with you. I have a lot of respect for the Phillies and view them as a sleeping giant. It's so hard to repeat, especially with the current playoff format...should be an interesting summer when Philly gets Happ back and ATL gets Jurrjens, not to mention the Marlins, Nats and Mets. The East should be fun to watch.
On a related note--who would you classify as the "team of the 2000s"? I got into a debate with a friend at work who advocated for the Yankees, since they tied for most titles in the decade and, in addition, won more games, went to two more World Series than Boston, etc...but I have a hard time with that considering what happened in 2004...my position is that there really wasn't a team of the decade (much like the 80s)--as Bryan posted above, a different team winning it each year...what do you think?
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
It would be tough to pick someone other than the Yankees as team of the 2000s. Most wins, 4 World Series appearances, two championships. The only other possible teams in the discussion would be the Phillies and the Red Sox--however the Phillies would needed to have beaten the Yankees last year to win the title.
June 2nd, 2010 at 7:38 pm
I guess so...it just feels like the Yankees underachieved for most of the decade, when you compare their payroll to the actual results...and the 2004 collapse, arguably the greatest in pro sports post-season history...
But, yes, they are tied for first w/ 2 titles and I guess the next place you go would be league pennants and overall record and they win both of those...
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:39 pm
My advice would be not to write off the Phillies yet; they are professionals in the strictest sense of the word, and are not a team to ignore just because of one slump -- or, did our earlier experience with David Ortiz teach us anything?
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:40 pm
I'm not writing them off...just reporting.
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:50 pm
RE: Team of the decade
It depends on how you define it (doesn't it always)? The Yankees clearly had the most success, with the other noted teams being a step below them. But, when we think back on the decade, we're more likely to think of the Red Sox. 2004, 2 WS won closely together, ending "the curse"... all of those were pretty big milestones and will stand out. The Yankees, on the other hand, won 2 WS with an 8 year gap in between, dealt with a lot of turmoil, and unfortunately were the victim of their own success and were considered underachievers for a lot of those seasons (unfairly, if you ask me). Nothing really stood out, especially in comparison to their late 90's run. So, the Yankees were the best team of the decade while the Sox were the most memorable and, arguably, most important team of the decade.
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:54 pm
One of the first things you think of when a team isn't scoring is if they are leaving guys on base. Which brings me to a point I was wondering independent of this thread... every boxscore notes LOB, but I'm not aware of any leaderboards. I would love to know who the all-time single season and career leaders are in LOB.
June 2nd, 2010 at 10:09 pm
The goof-
I'm not sure I agree. That would essentially indicate that Runs Scored is essentially a matter of luck. There are definitely teams that leave more men on base than others, and how much of this is luck and skill is probably too hard to figure. But isn't it just as likely they aren't getting guys on base in the first place?
June 2nd, 2010 at 10:44 pm
I'll agree with Goof that it is surprising LOB isn't widely tracked on more than a game-by-game basis, considering how often it is mentioned within each game. With play-by-play data, it shouldn't be that hard to calculate. The results would be interesting, at least, if not necessarily that meaningful. I'm sure Hank Aaron is among the all-time leaders simply by virtue of a long career hitting in the middle of the lineup. We can already see how many runners on base a batter got to see on his gamelogs. How about it Sean, get those programming skills to work!
June 4th, 2010 at 12:14 am
BSK, I'm not saying it is or isn't luck. But you learn something about a team from whether they aren't scoring because they have had some combination of bad luck, timing and power, or if it is because they just aren't getting on base. The former, well, you can ride that out or improve it. If it's the latter, unless it is a massive fluke, you just aren't going to go anywhere without help.
As for LOB stats, I suspect they could work as almost a companion to RBI, giving it context. For those who don't like RBI, this makes the stat more relevant. For those who do like RBI, it can temper overenthusiasm for 100 RBI or greater appreciation for a guy with 45 who also didn't strand anyone.
I've honestly never really paid too careful attention to what counts as LOB for an individual. If you move a guy over, are they still LOB on your productive out?