EVIL~! alkeiper

My favorite "wow" pitching line is John Rocker's career postseason statistics.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/farnsky01.shtml Check the record yourself. Only one wild pitch last year as well.

He's only hit 4 total over the last four seasons.

I hope they've done better work with player abilities. It's frustrating to see players rate only on how they did last year, and then only in the Majors. Graham Koonce was rated a 30 for plate discipline. They also need to do some work in the free agency sector. Its maddening to see first and second year players hit the market.

Given that Comerica is a tough home run park, I think Farnsworth is going to have a good year.

Just to sort this up a little, the 25 best Phillies, based on their five year peaks... 1. Alexander, Pete 2. Schmidt, Mike 3. Allen, Dick 4. Delahanty, Ed 5. Roberts, Robin 6. Abreu, Bobby 7. Cravath, Gavy 8. Ferguson, Charlie 9. Magee, Sherry 10. Klein, Chuck 11. Hamilton, Billy 12. Ashburn, Richie 13. Callison, Johnny 14. Thomas, Roy 15. Luzinski, Greg 16. Rolen, Scott 17. Titus, John 18. Ennis, Del 19. Thompson, Sam 20. Dykstra, Lenny 21. Carlton, Steve 22. Hayes, Von 23. Daulton, Darren 24. Bunning, Jim 25. Kruk, John Carlton's low rating is odd. Abreu rates at number six, meaning only three Phillies position players have ever been better at their peaks.

Looking over your methology, I think you need to add more weight to the WWE guys. No number of indy wins is going to give an indy wrestler more recognition than a WWE guy (John Cena) who's in line for a Wrestlemania title shot. Otherwise, I find these entertaining. I think it'd be cool if you did graphs once in a while, charting the top 10 over the last six months, to see how its changed, if at all.

The bleacher creatures' attempts at armchair analysis has failed for 96 years. It's time to let the sabermetric revolution have a crack at it. "Who cares if this team lacks OBP? Moving Sosa to 6th in the lineup will solve all of our problems!!" "Who cares if our pitching ranks second in the league? We need a proven closer!!" "Our team sucks? It's obviously the fault of our best players!!" "Let's ignore those silly strikeout numbers, and instead concentrate on a small sample of innings pitched!!" And so on. In Farnsworth's case, when a pitcher of immense talent struggles, I first blame the coaching staff.

I didn't say all of them.

Three isn't the magic minimum, but teams are rarely good for three years, and completely worthless otherwise. Over what span of time? If overall, then we are just getting into the issue of what is the best FRANCHISE, historically. You can not group all the Yankees into one dynasty. The 50s Yankees and the 90s Yankees had 25 different players, different managers, a different GM, and different ownership. The only similarity is that they share the same name. Now, if we can not group the 90s Yankees along with the 50s Yankees, are they now, not a dynasty? When Buster Olney wrote "Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty," I didn't hear many people speak up and say, "that team was not a dynasty." If you're using the highest possible definition of a dynasty, of course not. But if you compare those teams to, for example, the 90s Yankees, the results become more favorable. You simply say this dynasty was better than that dynasty. The Yankee dominance from 1949-64 was entirely unique in MLB. Outside of those teams, there's nothing else in baseball to compare them to. And I can't see labeling that team as baseball's greatest when no individual team of that group would rank in the Yankees' top 3.

Can they? Absolutely. Will they? Probably not. Their free agent signings were questionable. I doubt Magglio is 100%, and Percival is sliding. Still, Bonderman could emerge as an ace, and their young players could step up. Never say never. But I see the Tigers as #4 in the Central right now.

On a separate note, I would speculate that all athletes signing solely for the purpose of winning would be the worst event possible for sports. Bad teams could never get better, as all the free agents gravitated towards good teams. You'd never see parity.

If the Diamondbacks trade Javy Vazquez (or anyone) to the Orioles for Jorge Julio, I will write the obituary for the franchise right now.

You're correct. I will not ever convince you. But I would like to point out that very few athletes complain about not making enough money.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1987747 I can't help but think the Cubs gave up too soon on Farnsworth. He's a guy that can be dominant if someone shows him how to get it together. The Cubs' clubhouse was such a mess last year that I don't think most of them played to their true level of ability. They did get a good return, however. Novoa looked very good in Erie, and could be a serviceable reliever after a year of AAA. Moore struck out 125 times last year, and I don't think he's a prospect. It's hard to tell with Flowers. This year will determine his future. Still, Novoa's a good enough pitcher.

A few extra points... One, its easy to say in retrospect that a player signed for money over playing for a winner. But we don't always know what teams will win. For example, who thought that Pudge Rodriguez was going to earn a World Series ring after signing with the Marlins? Second, this deal of $10 Million not being much more than $7 Million might have validity, but its a matter of perspective. To those living in the third world, $30,000 seems like a gold mine, and they couldn't possibly understand why we'd want $45 grand. People tend to live and spend according to their means, and people tend to attempt to earn the most money possible, as their ability provides. Third, we forget that those of us in our office jobs can work until we are 65, or older. Most athletes are finished before the age of 35. After that, no more millions. They work in a job that requires them to make their life's worth now.

That is a very strict definition to apply for a dynasty. The Oakland Athletics won three straight World Championships from 1972-74, and they weren't a dynasty? To me, a dynasty is simply a consistantly dominant team. Look at the Braves. If MLB didn't have a playoff system, they would have won five consecutive NL pennants. I could certainly argue that the Yankees would NOT have won five straight pennants if they had to win two more rounds of playoffs every year. And I just can't see crowning only one team a dynasty simply because of the circumstances under which they played. If you took the 1949-53 Yankees and played them in the 1990s National League, they couldn't possibly win five straight.

It's nice and all for athletes to take less money to stay with a championship team. We applaud their loyalty and sportswriters gush about how they understand the "true values" of the game. You can stay in New England, and take less money. But do you know what happens when your skills fail you? BOOM. Cut. You think the New England Patriots will maintain loyalty to a hard-working player even though his skills are eroding? Fuck no. Loyalty and championships are nice, but I don't expect players to show it when owners do not.

Maybe I read the list wrong. I thought it meant that Kobe was starting as point guard, which made no sense to me. I think they just take two guards, regardless of whether they are point or shooting guards.

I had never heard that before. Of course, it sure beats being called "Mr. Slugs a whopping .286 over a full season, yet we till won the NL Pennant." (Seriously, how did Rose play three more years after that dreadful performance?) According to Retrosheet, Hayes was acquired for Julio Franco, George Vukovich, Jerry Willard, Jay Baller, and Manny Trillo. Hayes went on to earn 158 win shares for the Phillies. Franco earned 99 win shares for the Cleveland Indians. Vukovich earned 24 for the Cleveland Indians before retiring. Trillo earned six win shares for the Indians before they shipped him to Montreal. He earned 38 total the rest of his career. Jerry Willard earned 23 win shares his entire career, 16 with the Indians. Jay Baller earned five his entire career, none with the Indians. So the Phillies got 140 win shares from the trade, while the Indians got just 145. When you take into consideration that the non-Franco players were easily replaceable, its a push. Von Hayes was a player of at least equal quality to Franco. The problem, of course, is that the Phillies then spent five years playing Steve Jeltz at shortstop. They could've replaced him, but they made a stupid pact with other owners not to sign free agents from 1985-87. Nowhere online has them as far as I know. In print, you can find historical data in Win Shares and Total Baseball, and Win Shares for current players are available in the Bill James Handbook.

By the way, Jimmy Rollins and Pat Burrell will likely crack the top 50 next season.

If you're referring to double plays, Hayes never hit into more than 14 a season. Hayes' high placement is a little puzzling. He is in the top 25 for games played, at bats, runs, hits, etc. He is seventh on the Phillies' all time walk list, so that helps. I think its just a matter of Hayes being a good player for a long time.

Ranked by career win shares, with the Phillies only. 1. Schmidt, Mike 2. Delahanty, Ed 3. Ashburn, Richie 4. Carlton, Steve 5. Magee, Sherry 6. Roberts, Robin 7. Alexander, Pete 8. Thomas, Roy 9. Ennis, Del 10. Allen, Dick 11. Callison, Johnny 12. Abreu, Bobby 13. Cravath, Gavy 14. Klein, Chuck 15. Luzinski, Greg 16. Titus, John 17. Williams, Cy 18. Thompson, Sam 19. Hamilton, Billy 20. Jones, Willie 21. Hayes, Von 22. Luderus, Fred 23. Daulton, Darren 24. Bowa, Larry 25. Maddox, Garry 26. Taylor, Tony 27. Gonzalez, Tony 28. Hamner, Granny 29. Short, Chris 30. Clements, Jack 31. Rolen, Scott 32. Paskert, Dode 33. Dykstra, Lenny 34. Doolan, Mickey 35. Schilling, Curt 36. Simmons, Curt 37. Orth, Al 38. Bunning, Jim 39. Whitney, Pinky 40. Boone, Bob 41. Samuel, Juan 42. Seminick, Andy 43. Kruk, John 44. Lieberthal, Mike 45. Lopata, Stan 46. Rixey, Eppa 47. Sparks, Tully 48. Knabe, Otto 49. Hallman, Bill 50. Taylor, Jack Some odd names here. Del Ennis isn't usually mentioned in the realm of legendary Phillies, but he's a worthy player. A 20 win share season will push Abreu into the 9th spot on the list. Mike Schmidt leads all Phillies with 467 win shares. The second place Phillie, Ed Delahanty, is closer to Granny Hamner than he is to Schmidt. The All-Time Phillies Lineup.... C- Darren Daulton 1B- Fred Luderus 2B- Tony Taylor SS- Larry Bowa 3B- Mike Schmidt LF- Ed Delahanty CF- Richie Ashburn RF- Johnny Callison SP- Steve Carlton SP- Robin Roberts SP- Pete Alexander SP- Chris Short SP- Curt Schilling/Curt Simmons (tie) RP- Ron Reed Not exactly world beaters, but the Phillies do have three Hall of Famers in their rotation.

Vice versa. Sosa actually played in Texas in 1989, well before Canseco played there. Sosa only played 25 games with Texas before he was traded mid-season. I gotta say, this idea of not naming the biggest name until the book comes out is a real fun one. What a disgusting way to sell a book. Agreed. Let me state that I do think steroid use is likely more prevailent than we once believed. But EVERYONE who ever hit a lot of home runs in this decade is under the microscope.