Phillies 2016-2017 offseason Discussion

zambonir 2016-10-05 04:20:55 UTC #41

Middleton interview

csnphilly.com/philadelphia-p ... -middleton

donaldorc 2016-10-05 06:44:44 UTC #42

I'm encouraged. Stressed the need to go outside the organization for a fresh perspective when hiring Andy and Matt.

VoteForKalas 2016-10-05 13:03:59 UTC #43

Why is there a fear or disdain for additional information/knowledge that can help us understand the game we watch "on the field"? I've never understood this.

VoteForKalas 2016-10-05 13:10:53 UTC #44

The gyrations up & down in the W-L formula usually balance out over a full season. I think run differential is a pretty solid indicator of team performance. Plus remember the bullpen was stellar during the early part of the season when we were winning many of those 1 run games. It only became shallow later on which is again how the trends usually balance out over the larger sample size. The Phillies played over their heads a bit this season. That is great, but as zambonir states, that is not always reality or will carry over to next season.

Philsmania 2016-10-05 13:34:40 UTC #45

Vote for Kalas:

allentown:

Pythagorean W-L record must be taken with quite a few grains of salt, since blow-out wins and losses can play an out-sized role. This can come down to the last couple guys in the pen or the 5th/6th/7th starter. I think different managers deal with potential routs differently. Playing a lot of one-run games, even winning a lot of one-run games isn't a fluke. It is indicative of good pitching/defense and not-so-good offense. I think actual team W-L is a fairer measure. If I were to adjust that for anything, as a predictor of actual team strength going forward, I'd adjust for relative severity of injuries suffered by the team among guys who will be returning in 2016.

The Phillies suffer from a total lack of corner OFs and a shallow bullpen.

The gyrations up & down in the W-L formula usually balance out over a full season. I think run differential is a pretty solid indicator of team performance. Plus remember the bullpen was stellar during the early part of the season when we were winning many of those 1 run games. It only became shallow later on which is again how the trends usually balance out over the larger sample size. The Phillies played over their heads a bit this season. That is great, but as zambonir states, that is not always reality or will carry over to next season.

Going back to baseball-reference, in the NL this season, 11 of 16 team finished with records within three games of their pythagorian. However, in the AL, the opposite was true with only 7 of 16 finishing within three games of the pythagorian. Go figure.

julio 2016-10-05 13:58:36 UTC #46

Three to four games appears to be about the average discrepancy between pythagorean win-loss estimates and what actually happens. Discussions at both baseball-reference and wikipedia support this. What neither of them really discusses clearly is what the variance is - which is to say, the average discrepancy is small, but it's not clear whether that means most individual estimates are close to reality, or whether there are lots of large misses, pluses and minuses, and these just average out over time.

The other thing about pythagorean won-loss is that, IMHO at least, it's not a particularly useful tool as a predictor - simply because, as a predictor, it assumes that the (recent) historical rate of runs scored and runs allowed will continue for the next time period. That is to say, it assumes no changes in personnel (no injuries, no promotions, no trades, etc.), and also assumes no significant change in individual player performance - which is a dangerous assumption with both young players (under 26 or so) and with older players (over 30), where significant year-to-year change isn't all that uncommon. Further, players are human; as such, their on-field performance can be affected (sometimes for long periods) by off-field things that might well be invisible to fans and baseball-reference analysts (major family illnesses or troubles, etc.).

Austinfan 2016-10-05 14:21:42 UTC #47

Much ado about nothing. They sucked in 2016, but not as badly as 2015, with a much younger team with players that have a future. That's called "progress."

Hopefully, they'll continue to add young talent and reach "respectable" in 2017 and "competitive" in 2018, and "kick your butt" in 2019-20.

andyb 2016-10-05 14:31:35 UTC #48

I think the Pythagorean numbers do have some predictive use. But as with everything each circumstance is unique. Clearly the first half of the season the Phillies were a little lucky. They won all those 1-run games with a back end of a bullpen that was pitching above their true talent level. That stuff evens out over time though. Blowouts are another story. We don't have the hitting to win many games by 10 runs. But we sure have a back end of a bullpen capable of losing games by more than 10 runs. That 17-0 football score is probably worth 3-5 Pythagorean losses by itself.

The fact that the Phillies really chose to not address their bullpen prior to the season really hurt them in this metric. They piled a bunch of slop together and hoped 3 or 4 arms would emerge from the dozens of AAAA options. That this did not happen was not really a surprise. The quality of our young bullpen arms was not as good as most other teams (I like Ramos but guys like Araujo and Murray got exposed). Yes we occasionally got hot streaks, but 10 good innings is not a real sample size. The good news is that a bullpen like this is a fixable problem. We can sign a couple of $5 million veteran arms. We can sign a closer and push everyone down in the pecking order. We can also start to seriously think which of our young starters might make better bullpen arms. We may have found a small career for Severino Gonzalez doing this and remember from his earliest days as a prospect scouts said his stuff would probably play better in the bullpen. My favorite high minors conversion might be Mark Appel however. Clearly he has high end stuff. He also appears to have a stamina issue the second or third time around the lineup. And now health questions. The Red Sox had a starter years ago with many of these qualities in Jonathan Papelbon. He may be a jerk, but he was a pretty good reliever for a decade.

julio 2016-10-05 14:42:28 UTC #49

What do the Phillies' 2016 Pythagorean won-loss numbers tell us about the Phillies' 2017 likely performance? Not a whole lot, IMHO. We already know that the roster is going to be significantly different; we just don't know who.

In-season? Yeah, some potential utility. If the club is outperforming its Pythagorean won-loss estimate at the All-Star break, that suggests that the club will likely regress in the second half if they don't make changes. If the club is a contender, that could be an indicator that a trade deadline improvement is needed.

But as with everything each circumstance is unique. Clearly the first half of the season the Phillies were a little lucky. They won all those 1-run games with a back end of a bullpen that was pitching above their true talent level. That stuff evens out over time though. Blowouts are another story. We don't have the hitting to win many games by 10 runs. But we sure have a back end of a bullpen capable of losing games by more than 10 runs. That 17-0 football score is probably worth 3-5 Pythagorean losses by itself.

The fact that the Phillies really chose to not address their bullpen prior to the season really hurt them in this metric. They piled a bunch of slop together and hoped 3 or 4 arms would emerge from the dozens of AAAA options. That this did not happen was not really a surprise. The quality of our young bullpen arms was not as good as most other teams (I like Ramos but guys like Araujo and Murray got exposed). Yes we occasionally got hot streaks, but 10 good innings is not a real sample size. The good news is that a bullpen like this is a fixable problem. We can sign a couple of $5 million veteran arms. We can sign a closer and push everyone down in the pecking order. We can also start to seriously think which of our young starters might make better bullpen arms. We may have found a small career for Severino Gonzalez doing this and remember from his earliest days as a prospect scouts said his stuff would probably play better in the bullpen. My favorite high minors conversion might be Mark Appel however. Clearly he has high end stuff. He also appears to have a stamina issue the second or third time around the lineup. And now health questions. The Red Sox had a starter years ago with many of these qualities in Jonathan Papelbon. He may be a jerk, but he was a pretty good reliever for a decade.

Looks like you changed your thread of thought after the first sentence! I don't disagree with any of this, but I don't think it's relevant to the question of whether Pythagorean won-loss has predictive value.

donaldorc 2016-10-05 14:44:22 UTC #50

Vote for Kalas:

donaldorc:

Philsmania:

This is why I expect a record not too dissimilar to this one next year though it will be more "deserved" than this year's 70+ win season. All that luck and those one run victories earlier in the season probably helped us exceed what we should have been. We were, by far, the "luckiest" team in the NL this season with a luck score of 9. The Dodgers were the next closest at 1. The Rangers led all of baseball with a luck score of 13. And, the Cubs who had the most wins in all of baseball actually underperformed by four games. Per Baseball Reference and it's luck score.
Luck or not, the record is what it is because the games were played on a baseball field, not on a computer.

Why is there a fear or disdain for additional information/knowledge that can help us understand the game we watch "on the field"? I've never understood this.

I did not mean to express either fear or distain for the "additional information." I simply wanted to point out that there is always a human factor involved that can never be completely measured. As I quoted upthread, I am impressed that in the interview with Middleton, I am encouraged that the Phillies are leaving the dark ages to have "one of the top analytics departments in baseball."

andyb 2016-10-05 14:53:18 UTC #51

Got off track a little (answering work email...). Specifically on the Pythagorean predictive value the Phillies probably are a few games worse than their record. Primarily this is luck (the 1-run games in the first half). So the Phillies are more like a 68-win team on talent. Second point was the blowouts are a weakness in Pythagorean estimates. Run 17 is just as important as run 4. And because we had a huge number of 1-sided blowouts the Pythagorean differences on won-lost record are exaggerated from this past season.

Going forward:
A. The Phillies are probably 3-4 games worse in 2016 than their record.
B. From that base, however, they are a young team that could easily add 5-10 wins with young players maturing.
C. Part of the run differential problem was the bullpen. That is a correctable error (by spending some money). We chose not to address it in 2016. We can add a few wins addressing it in 2017.

So it is still reasonable to see a club approaching .500 next season as young players mature and we fill out a more balanced roster. That is also without any big ticket free agents. We may not be quite as good as our record, but the increase in talent and maturing young players are likely larger factors than the Pythagorean difference between wins and projected wins.

Austinfan 2016-10-05 15:29:09 UTC #52

Spending money on the bullpen is a fool's errand outside a few, elite and durable, relief pitchers.
We know this from experience, we wasted both money and draft picks on veterans.
Just look at Bailey, sometimes you just need to be patient with veterans.
Unfortunately, Hernandez will go somewhere else and excel in 2017

bigegypt0417 2016-10-05 15:33:37 UTC #53

you may want to look past the bad years and towards our better years.

hoping veterans you have come around is perhaps the fools errand.

Austinfan 2016-10-05 16:28:06 UTC #54

Those were our better years,
Papelbon (good 2012-14, slipping 2015, off the cliff 2016)
Bastardo (good 2011-14, and in Pitts 2015, then splat)
Madson (ok 2007, good 2008-09, great 2010-11
Lidge (great 2008, awful 2009, so-so 2010),
Durbin (decent 2008, bad 2009, decent 2010)
Cormier, (meh 2001, 2002, good 2003, meh 2004, bad 2005)
Geary (decent 2005, 2006, bad 2007)

Then we have Gordon (good 2006, then tanked), Romero, Contrares (good 2010, then off the cliff), Baez

The track record of veteran pickups, whether FA or trades, other than Papelbon, wasn't great.
Madson and Bastardo were better than most of the veterans, showing the value of "homegrown."
Madson (2008-11) was our most consistent RP

bigegypt0417 2016-10-05 16:46:34 UTC #55

We have a different group that makes those decisions today. the fact is you use all your options to get better. signing the right players vs. any player.

andyb 2016-10-05 16:52:34 UTC #56

Spending money on the bullpen is not a fool's errand. It is also independent of being able to develop arms internally. There are good veteran relievers and bad veteran relievers. We don't have enough good, stable veteran arms. This is not an argument to overpay ridiculously. It is just a realization that we signed one third tier arm in Hernandez and nothing else. After trading or moving on from several veteran arms over the past 4 years. We also hit a period where the minor leagues did not develop much. At some point it all collapses.

Arguing to not spend money is just avoiding the topic. We can get a better bullpen by investing more resources. That is either money for veteran pieces or smart trades for younger, veteran arms. Just hoping things will get better by signing a dozen pitchers like Bailey with something wrong with them is not going to solve the problem. That is a nice way to fill out the last 1-2 spots in the bullpen. It is a path to disaster when we are using to fill out 5 spots in the bullpen.

I called out this bad bullpen before the season. You said it was fine in lots of different ways. We ended up 28th in bullpen ERA. I am thinking your strategy did not work so well.

allentown 2016-10-05 17:52:46 UTC #57

I can't agree that our pick-ups apart from Papelbon weren't great. One of our very best pickups in recent years, regardless of position, was Lidge. He had a totally great 2008, without which we don't become WC and likely don't even make the playoffs in 2008. Lidge's 2008 was among the very best years ever for a Phillies' reliever. Yes he stank in 2009. He was good in 2010 and for the little bit he was healthy enough to be in MLB in 2011.

zambonir 2016-10-05 17:55:34 UTC #58

Yes. But the regular W-L doesn't tell us anything either. I just think the Pythagorean W-L tells us more. And Pythagorean rather than regular does tell us this year's team wasn't hugely better than last year's, so it's a fallacy to assume an obvious improvement curve. That, having been eight wins better this year, things are automatically on track to be eight wins better (or more!) next year.

The original Pythagorean margin of error was three games, I think it might be a little better now with some formula tweaks. But it definitely does balance out over a season; the fact that our gut tells us the one-run wins weren't about luck or there were a lot of blowouts doesn't necessarily make it true.

In any case, it's obvious the Phillies were a bad offensive team, and they were a decent team when the pitching and defense compensated. Both sides of the differential still need work regardless of whether you want to translate that data to a W-L number. But it's slow work.

allentown 2016-10-05 17:55:40 UTC #59

allentown:

Austinfan:

Those were our better years,
Papelbon (good 2012-14, slipping 2015, off the cliff 2016)
Bastardo (good 2011-14, and in Pitts 2015, then splat)
Madson (ok 2007, good 2008-09, great 2010-11
Lidge (great 2008, awful 2009, so-so 2010),
Durbin (decent 2008, bad 2009, decent 2010)
Cormier, (meh 2001, 2002, good 2003, meh 2004, bad 2005)
Geary (decent 2005, 2006, bad 2007)

Then we have Gordon (good 2006, then tanked), Romero, Contrares (good 2010, then off the cliff), Baez

The track record of veteran pickups, whether FA or trades, other than Papelbon, wasn't great.
Madson and Bastardo were better than most of the veterans, showing the value of "homegrown."
Madson (2008-11) was our most consistent RP

I can't agree that our pick-ups apart from Papelbon weren't great. One of our very best pickups in recent years, regardless of position, was Lidge. He had a totally great 2008, without which we don't become WC and likely don't even make the playoffs in 2008. Lidge's 2008 was among the very best years ever for a Phillies' reliever. Yes he stank in 2009. He was good in 2010 and for the little bit he was healthy enough to be in MLB in 2011.

And, once again, unspent $ does the team no good, and I think this a worse approach than taking a well-chosen shot on a good veteran reliever.

Austinfan 2016-10-05 18:10:41 UTC #60

The point is throwing money at RPs isn't a panacea, they're so darn erratic.
Basically, either target someone who has a good chance of durability or focus on building up depth in your organization with prospects and lot's of AAAA RPs and ST invites.

Lidge is a good example, Phillies got lucky in 2008, he held up and had a great season, but I doubt they got him thinking he'd give them one great season and then collapse.
Whereas Madson could have easily put up great numbers as a closer.

The problem with RPs is they only need two pitches, so they often turn it around with just a minor adjustment. A new grip on the slider, a mechanical adjustment on the FB, and a mediocre back of the pen guy becomes a top RP. Trying to predict that is an exercise in futility, though better coaching throughout the system certainly helps.