ayo lets go phillies get me a fukkin tastykake

may all their arms fall off

i am ecstatic

you guys are mad with the phillies hate. never understood why people hate on the phills but love the charmless despicable fetid Mets. besides Morbs that is.

― Fartbritz Sootzveti (Steve Shasta), Tuesday, September 28, 2010 1:57 PM (2 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^^^ words of wisdom, these

I am enjoying all the articles about how selfless Lee is for accepting a contract that will pay him at least 100 million dollars.

If all these dudes were on the same team last year they would still be a few ticks short of ERA+ to beat the 90s Braves holy rotation

you guys are mad with the phillies hate. never understood why people hate on the phills but love the charmless despicable fetid Mets. besides Morbs that is.

― Fartbritz Sootzveti (Steve Shasta), Tuesday, September 28, 2010 1:57 PM (2 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^^^ words of wisdom, these

― Carmine Dirtnap from North Arlington Returns from Pizzaland (Eisbaer), Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:23 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

who the hell likes the mets

― J0rdan S., Tuesday, September 28, 2010 1:01 PM (2 months ago) Bookmark

you know i was a little worried about Morbs today, even if he's not the type to do something rash.

then i saw this

good luck w/ your little team in your little new humid ballpark, J0rdan

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:55 AM (14 hours ago) Bookmark

and knew everything was OK!

Insert YouTube link to video of worst rap parody song ever.

i just saw on the espn tv at the bar a little graphic showing the phillies 2011 championship odds set at 5:2 !??

feel like theres a lot of money to be made on the under if those were actual betting odds and not some shit made up by sportscenter

no, probability plays no part and the Phils are a mortal lock, it's just like the NBA.

you can't predict baseball, or Howard and Rollins flatlining

thats what i'm saying, there's no way that they have a 2 in 7 chance of winning the WS even if they are the best team

yeah how do i take that bet?!

I can't get my head around the math (what I'd put up, what I'd win), but if someone offered me those odds, I'd definitely take the field. The Phillies front three is awesome, but there are lots of moving parts on a baseball team; those guys could pitch more or less as well as expected, and lots else could go wrong to nullify that.

(I'm assuming "championship" means World Series; if it just means division, I'd have to think about that.)

It has to mean winning the WS. I'd say they're about even money to win the division, at least.

I believe the Giants went 5-1 against the 'new' Phillies juggernaut rotation in the playoffs.

the problem in the playoffs wasn't the Phillies pitching so much as the almost complete lack of hitting

I believe the Giants went 5-1 against the 'new' Phillies juggernaut rotation in the playoffs.

― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Wednesday, December 15, 2010 2:18 PM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark

can ppl get off this please? it's 6 games. it means nothing.

Yeah guys, small playoff samples only matter when you're talking about the Red Sox.

huh?

i'm looking here and getting http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/20101215_Phillies_now_favored_to_win_World_Series.html
what am i doing wrong here? 9-5 odds = 5/14 = 35.7% chance of winning?!

i'll do some bad math:

80% chance of securing first or wild card, 75% chance of winning NLDS, 70% chance of winning NLCS, 60% chance of WS victory

even that wildly optimistic scenario comes out to a 25.2% of winning.. will they let you take the other side of that bet?

you can always bet all 29 other teams to win. ^_^

I'm sure they'll be much better this year now that one of their best hitters left.

The obvious cautionary note for the Phillies' chances: all those World Series won by the Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz Braves (close, but a front three I'd take over the Phillies').

Something else (seems like I'm knocking the Phillies; I'm not, just trying to look at this realistically): Roy Oswalt's been a great pitcher over his career, but is anyone looking for him to duplicate what he did after he came over to Philadelphia last year? When he left Houston, he was on the third year of a normal mid-career decline (or, if you will, adjustment); after the trade he did something not all that uncommon, which is to pitch lights out for the last couple of months. Who will the Phillies get this year: the guy they saw in August and September, or the guy who left Houston? My guess would be the latter.

2 things: better defense and change of scenery. playing for one of the worst teams in baseball can't be good for the ERA/WHIP in both factors.

Agreed, in explaining what happened last year. One of those factors presumably remains, the other's gone--and I think the one that's gone can be pretty huge.

I'm not saying he won't pitch well; even an average year from Oswalt will be pretty good. I'm saying he won't be putting up a 1.74 ERA, and there are reasons to believe he's more inclined to be in the mid-three range or higher.

If you're going to ignore the SABR figures, I'd try not to limit your focus to straight ERA. Something that's telling even in his "off"-first half of the year with Houston is that his WHIP was 1.11 and his BAA was .229. Those #s are in line with your #1-#2 pitchers. He will be fine.

yeah is anyone saying roy oswalt is gonna put up a sub-2 era? i must have missed that.

I'm watching the Lee press conference and I can't think of any player I've seen in my lifetime who ever wanted to be a Philly as much as he does

yeah is anyone saying roy oswalt is gonna put up a sub-2 era? i must have missed that

Not explicitly, no. But I'm addressing the idea that the Phillies are now overwhelming, off-the-chart favorites to win next year (which is what the past 30 posts have been about)--to believe that, I think one of the assumptions you'd be making is that Oswalt next year will be something close to the Oswalt of August and September. "He will be fine"--sure, no argument. I'm questioning the idea that Halladay + Lee + "He will be fine" = 1970 Orioles.

Let me be even clearer: no one here is saying that about Oswalt--but whoever pegged the Phillies at 5 to 2 to win the Series is.

I think even the phillies fans (like me) think the 5 to 2 number is ridiculous

Another thing I'd be interested in doing is going back over every postseason since '69 and asking two questions: who among the playoff teams was favored to win, and who actually did win? If you eliminated the occasional year where there was no clear favorite, I'd be surprised if even half the favorites ultimately emerge as the WS winner. (I'm just guessing.) And a) it becomes even more a roll of the dice in the wild-card era, and b) all of that presupposes that you make the playoffs in the first place. Winning a World Series is really hard!

But you're right, probably everybody here realizes those odds are crazy.

uhhh you realize vegas sets odds to get action, not because they have an actual opinion?

Thanks for the clarification; I assume it's also meant for all the other people upthread who commented on the absurdity of those odds.

Clem, just to back up a bit I think perhaps you are underrating Oswalt's tenure with Houston in 2010. Take a look at some defense independent stats. He had a great YEAR, he was one of the top 15-20 pitchers in baseball (nb: I was his biggest cheerleader on ILB). Yes he was particularly great down the stretch. but take a deeper peak at his season with Houston outside of ERA and you may be surprised...

UNLESS you're going "retro-cool" for ERA like you did for RBIs earlier this year, and in that case, I am just gonna shrug.gif

xp yes it is, talking about odds is pointless unless you are gambling

Yes he was particularly great down the stretch. but take a deeper peak at his season with Houston outside of ERA and you may be surprised...

I have, and you're quite right; his H/9 and SO/BB with the Astros were very good last year. How about we split the difference between his four months with Houston and two with the Phillies, add a year for age, and say he'll have an ERA around 3.00 next year?

talking about odds is pointless unless you are gambling

And talking about the Academy Awards is pointless, unless you're a marketing executive--but we do, all the time. Most everything we argue about here is pointless. But it's fun, so we do.

i'm not a big gambler, but it seems to me that the odds have a lot more to do with popular conception than some realistic set of facts. like, phillies are probably a very hot bet right now because of this trade and so vegas responds appropriately by giving you far less payout for your bet.

Anyway, I'll admit that I misunderstood the initial origin of these 5:2 odds. I thought they were the opinion of a writer, or someone at ESPN--I didn't realize they were actual Vegas odds.

but you have to factor in the vig.. which at this stage must be pretty steep. perhaps a good 10% more which would wipe out insured profit. and to cad's point, it's largely pr blathering to churn up interest.

As soon as you start talking about the vig, I'm seeing Morrie the wig salesman getting his head bashed in by Jimmy the Gent.

Another thing I'd be interested in doing is going back over every postseason since '69 and asking two questions: who among the playoff teams was favored to win, and who actually did win?

How often does the team that won the most games in that season go on to win the WS? It's fairly rare (they show these numbers every year during the playoffs).

http://twitpic.com/2zekv3

(They showed the 2010 NLCS replay tonight fwiw)

it seems to me that the odds have a lot more to do with popular conception than some realistic set of facts. like, phillies are probably a very hot bet right now because of this trade and so vegas responds appropriately by giving you far less payout for your bet.

Yes, but this has to be balanced against offering too-favourable odds on the other teams, which a boomaker needs to avoid, at least before the betting has really started. Joe Posnanski is baffled the Royals are 125-1, for example. I'm baffled the Dodgers and their sexy new rotation are 30-1 when there's no guarantee the Rockies or Giants will be obviously better in 2011.

James put a new piece up yesterday called "Thirty-Three Rotations." I love the subtitle: "The 33 Greatest Starting Rotations of All-Time in Chronological Order, Apropos Nothing in Particular." The five most recent: '02 Braves, '01 Mariners, '01 A's, '97 Braves, '93 White Sox.