"Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoughts

by **smitty** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 00:34:01

JFLNYC wrote:I don't recall Soren suggesting that other teams weren't lucky, too, merely that during this run the Phils have had a healthy share of good fortune in their development of elite players. I can't quite understand why this is such a contentious issue. The team was very, very good and deserving of the success it's had. That fact that the Phils were able to assemble such an elite core was the consequence of good drafting and good fortune in the development of several of those players within a short window.

It's contentious because it is giving luck too much credit. Over Its history, the Phillies have had less than their share of good luck and they haven't been particularly lucky lately. Recognizing you have good players and developing and hanging on to them is more than luck. If the Phillies were Really lucky Marlon Byrd and Gavin Floyd would be perennial all stars for our home team.. Dom Brown would be a Hall of Famer. And that Eric Valent would be first ballot Phillie Wall of Fame.

Connect the Damn Dots.

by **dajafi** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 00:36:26

In terms of good players under team control all emerging at the same time, there's almost always a big dose of luck in that it's never likely. True for the Yankees with Jeter, Rivera, Pettitte and Posada just as for the Phils with our core a few years later, the Giants now, etc. Of course all those teams also had the market size to leverage the great core through trades for high salary vets and FA pickups. Otherwise you're the Moneyball A's, the Twins for most of the Aughts, maybe the Rays now.

Or you can have it all and still fuck things up like the Mets and Cubs late in the last decade. That the Mets did so in what should have been the peak for Reyes and Wright is kind of spectacular.

by **JFLNYC** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 00:46:33

This all started when Soren said the Phils' recent run of success was a fluke. I think he was just being a bit imprecise. I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but I don't think he was saying the that the success enjoyed by this particular core was in any sense undeserved or a fluke. I believe what he was saying was the fact that the Phils could develop so many elite players from their farm system during such a short period and get lucky that the core was supplemented by two players like Victorino and Werth who were obtained for nothing, is fluky. And it is.

by **The Dude** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 00:48:07

that describes most teams, though

by **etched Chaos** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 00:55:17

The Cardinals winning two WFC's recently is a fluke. Our run not so much.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 01:02:55

JFLNYC wrote:I think "fluke" might have been the wrong term or misinterpreted. There was nothing fluky about a team as talented as the Phils winning so consistently for years. What might be considered a "fluke" or, at least uncommon, was the roughly simultaneous emergence of three (3) homegrown, MVP-level players in Rollins, Utley and Howard, plus a Cy Young-level pitcher in Hamels. Even assuming it was the result of great scouting and drafting, that number of quality, elite players coming out of one system so close to one another is rare. Add to that the simultaneous performance of two scrap heap additions (Vic & Werth) and you've got a confluence of good fortune which doesn't happen very often.

Please analyze how the Giants won their 2 World Series. Their team would seem to be much more flukey - both times.

by **Napalm** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 01:05:36

Grotewold wrote:

holy shit i bursted out laughing.

by **Napalm** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 01:06:13

and fwiw, my 384 fluke wins in 4 fluke years comment was sarcastic, i shouldnt have to clarify, but i'm just so damn unsure with you guys

by **The Dude** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 01:06:46

obv it's about soren

by **Napalm** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 01:12:35

OBVIOUSLY

by **The Dude** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 01:13:54

then shut up

by **Napalm** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 01:15:15

harsh

by **bury me** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 01:15:17

in a game of luck, the luckiest wins the WS

by **The Dude** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 01:16:07

by **Napalm** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 01:38:15

bury me wrote:in a game of luck, the luckiest wins the WS

by **JFLNYC** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 02:02:44

Warszawa wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:I think "fluke" might have been the wrong term or misinterpreted. There was nothing fluky about a team as talented as the Phils winning so consistently for years. What might be considered a "fluke" or, at least uncommon, was the roughly simultaneous emergence of three (3) homegrown, MVP-level players in Rollins, Utley and Howard, plus a Cy Young-level pitcher in Hamels. Even assuming it was the result of great scouting and drafting, that number of quality, elite players coming out of one system so close to one another is rare. Add to that the simultaneous performance of two scrap heap additions (Vic & Werth) and you've got a confluence of good fortune which doesn't happen very often.

Please analyze how the Giants won their 2 World Series. Their team would seem to be much more flukey - both times.

Which would prove exactly what?

by **Barry Jive** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 04:09:46

The Giants won 94 games last year and 92 games in '10. Their best player won MVP this year and they made a trade with the Phillies for one of the best available assets on the trade market. They swept the Tigers in the World Series. Their best pitcher started and won the All-Star Game, and they sent three other starters, including the MVP, to the game. Their starting centerfielder was one of the biggest free agent names this offseason. What is fluky about that team

by **Soren** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 07:44:17

JFLNYC wrote:I don't recall Soren suggesting that other teams weren't lucky, too, merely that during this run the Phils have had a healthy share of good fortune in their development of elite players. I can't quite understand why this is such a contentious issue. The team was very, very good and deserving of the success it's had. That fact that the Phils were able to assemble such an elite core was the consequence of good drafting and good fortune in the development of several of those players within a short window.

Thank you for making my points sound more eloquent

by **SK790** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 07:52:08

Barry Jive wrote:The Giants won 94 games last year and 92 games in '10. Their best player won MVP this year and they made a trade with the Phillies for one of the best available assets on the trade market. They swept the Tigers in the World Series. Their best pitcher started and won the All-Star Game, and they sent three other starters, including the MVP, to the game. Their starting centerfielder was one of the biggest free agent names this offseason. What is fluky about that team

This was kinda my point. If you're gonna say we were lucky to win 102 games in a season because we were fortunate enough to have a bunch of young great players and have some moves work out then you could say it about almost any team. These teams were really good for a reason; they had things go their way.

by **Bucky** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 08:09:21

what ever happened to pat's girl

Archived

"Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoughts

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug

Re: "Still have our 1st-rd pick!" & other random Phils thoug