Freddy Galvis is good at baseball.

Trying to think of nicknames for Galvis, failing badly.

"Velvet Galvis"

That's about it.

http://www.thefightins.com/

^heh their first three tweets since coming back

CFP wrote:http://www.thefightins.com/

Oh shit

start buying silver

So does Kratz or Humberto Humberto go down when Chooch returns?

Monkeyboy wrote:

Wizlah wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:All those people who gave me a hard time for saying this team will not walk enough or have enough power to score runs consistently

Yeah no one did that. It was more asking you who else was available (other than Swisher) and saying Josh Fields sucks.

MB you do have a fairly thin skin. For ages you've moaned about groupthink lovin' Ruben Jr, and often claimed you were the only one who didn't like what he was doin'. It's like the Ibanez deal scarred you for life. Feels like you're monomaniacally going on and on about OBP like it's the only thing which counts in a player's makeup. You come across as balanced as someone banging on bout RBIs.

except, of course, that RBIs are a lousy stat.

But I agree I've gone on too much about it and that sometimes I have a thin skin about some things. And I agree that there are others that feel the same way, though most of them don't go on and on like I do. It's not that I'm obsessed about OBP. It's only recently that I've said much about it on any sort of regular basis. But when the GM is actively saying it doesn't matter and backing that up with crappy signings that show he doesn't think it matters, then I feel the need to point out what an stupid opinion that is. If I'm upset, it's only because I hate to see the opportunity to transition to a new core being so soundly ruined. I'm not upset that other posters don't think OBP is important, I'm upset that our GM, who should know better, sees it that way.

Anyway, it's nice to have you back posting. You were missed, I think.

edit: btw, the Bite me thing really was just a joke.

No one ever said OBP isn't important that I recall. Not even Amaro. He said he didn't care about walks I believe. Anyway, why would anyone take what he says seriously?

The Phils have a couple of players who can have good OBPs without drawing tons of walks. Young and Revere. Of course, their OBPs would be batting average driven. Frankly, a guy who has a .300 average and a .340 OBP is more productive than a guy who hits .260 with a .340 OBP given their power numbers are equal as well. A hit IS better than a walk. It's much more likely to drive in runs with hits than walks. And driving in runs is important. You can't win many games if you don't score any runs. A hitter who too passive and stands there facing big league pitchers and who falls behind in the count all the time will not succeed. The whole key to baseball is the pitcher batter confrontation. And a hitter who gets "his" pitch to hit has a good at bat. Michael Young had a ten pitch at bat last night but he didn't walk. He hit a RBI single. Ben Revere swung at a good (for him) first pitch and tripled. Both of those were really good at bats. The Phillies only walked twice last night but made Garcia throw a ton of pitches. They had a lot of good at bats.

Everything I wrote above is 100 percent correct.

Despite that, you can point out that is much easier to get a high OBP if you walk a lot. Batting averages fluctuate more than walk rates. Walks used to be under valued a few decades ago.

That is also 100 percent correct.

I doubt if there is a single person here who doesn't understand any of the above. I doubt if there is a single person here who doesn't care about walks. Understanding drawing walks is a good thing is old school nowadays. It started gaining traction in the early 80s. But it's not the most important aspect of the batter pitcher confrontation. This may be even more true today as strikeout rates increase and guys who walk a lot are no longer cheaply had. It's much, much tougher to cheaply acquire guys who walk a lot. So when you do make cheap pick ups you get the Youngs and Ben Revere. There aren't many Jason Werths around any more.

I always react to the Goth type postings here. I have for years. Back when the goths dominated the board in 2008 my opinions were pretty much the minority. I like being optimistic. It's fun. And baseball and this board are fun as well. I like pointing out various things that conflict with the majority opinion and with conventional wisdom.

It's like the hokey pokey.

dajafi wrote:So does Kratz or Humberto Humberto go down when Chooch returns?

Kratz is really good at framing pitches according to the guy who studies this stuff. He can hit for power when he's going good and he can throw out base runners from his knees. Humpty The Q can't hit and even though he has a rep for great D, I''m not seeing it although I'm not an expert.

Kratz! Is the correct choice.

Plus-- Turkey Bacon!!!!!!

smitty, I agree with everything you said, particularly the part about the importance of hits. It's what's left unsaid I might take issue with. For example:

smitty wrote:Frankly, a guy who has a .300 average and a .340 OBP is more productive than a guy who hits .260 with a .340 OBP given their power numbers are equal as well.

That's true. But the guy who hits .300 with a .380 OBP is more valuable than both. It's a false choice to suggest that the only choice available is between a guy who has a .300 average and a .340 OBP and a guy who hits .260 with a .340 OBP. And the guy whose OBP is driven more by hits sure as heck better be hitting or all he's doing is making lots of outs, whereas the guy whose OBP has a larger component of walks can contribute to the offense even when he's not getting his hits.

smitty wrote:The whole key to baseball is the pitcher batter confrontation. And a hitter who gets "his" pitch to hit has a good at bat.

I couldn't agree more. But I would argue that logically the guy who is patient and sees more pitches is more likely to get "his" pitch.

smitty wrote:It's much, much tougher to cheaply acquire guys who walk a lot.

I've seen this point a lot during the course of this whole "walks" discussion and I always find myself asking: "So, therefore, what should a GM do?"

Let's assume that not only are walks no longer undervalued, but that now hitters who walk a lot are consistently overpriced (although I'm not quite sure what "overpriced" or "overvalued" means in the context of a relatively free market). Does the smart GM now simply refuse to be drawn into the bidding for such "overpriced" talent? Does he draw the line and decide he's never going to "overpay" for such hitters? These are particularly interesting questions for a GM such as Rube who has some of the best resources in MLB and who, therefore, can pay more than most teams.

I would argue that, in answering these questions we have to remember, first, that no one takes back your World Series trophy if you happen to have overpaid for one or more of your players. And, conversely, there are no post-season awards for having the most economical payroll. In the final analysis -- and this is particularly true for higher payroll teams -- if you win it all, nobody tends to care whether you "overpaid" one or more of your players.

I like hits. A lot. But I also like walks. A lot. To have a consistently good offense I think you need a good mix of both. And, if you need a mix of both, than it's incumbent upon any GM with championship aspirations to find a way to acquire both, even when either or both are relatively scare and/or expensive.

Just like the hokey pokey, you've got to put both your left and right foot in. And, just as importantly, you've got to shake it all about.

Howard not in the lineup again

and Kratz goes down, and they start the clock on Joseph soon after

bury me wrote:Howard not in the lineup again

and Kratz goes down, and they
start the clock on Joseph soon after

Joseph good enough to worry about his clock?

JFLNYC wrote:I've seen this point a lot during the course of this whole "walks" discussion and I always find myself asking: "So, therefore, what should a GM do?"

Let's assume that not only are walks no longer undervalued, but that now hitters who walk a lot are consistently overpriced (although I'm not quite sure what "overpriced" or "overvalued" means in the context of a relatively free market). Does the smart GM now simply refuse to be drawn into the bidding for such "overpriced" talent? Does he draw the line and decide he's never going to "overpay" for such hitters? These are particularly interesting questions for a GM such as Rube who has some of the best resources in MLB and who, therefore, can pay more than most teams.

I can't wait to see what the next big-ticket acquisition will be. And it could be soon, with the Halladay and (to a lesser extent) Utley uncertainty.

In the past, it was Halladay and Lee. Who were reliably great at preventing walks and, big picture, helping you win ball games. Those tight playoff losses to the Giants and Cardinals drove me nuts too, but it wouldn't have been any easier to swallow 7-5 losses.

Hopefully the whole OBP thing is a moot point the next time they acquire a big-ticket hitter, since they tend to be well rounded. And Ruiz and Utley providing a few more strong years (and Brown developing) would be huge

JFLNYC wrote:smitty, I agree with everything you said, particularly the part about the importance of hits. It's what's left unsaid I might take issue with. For example:

smitty wrote:Frankly, a guy who has a .300 average and a .340 OBP is more productive than a guy who hits .260 with a .340 OBP given their power numbers are equal as well.

That's true. But the guy who hits .300 with a .380 OBP is more valuable than both. It's a false choice to suggest that the only choice available is between a guy who has a .300 average and a .340 OBP and a guy who hits .260 with a .340 OBP. And the guy whose OBP is driven more by hits sure as heck better be hitting or all he's doing is making lots of outs, whereas the guy whose OBP has a larger component of walks can contribute to the offense even when he's not getting his hits.

smitty wrote:The whole key to baseball is the pitcher batter confrontation. And a hitter who gets "his" pitch to hit has a good at bat.

I couldn't agree more. But I would argue that logically the guy who is patient and sees more pitches is more likely to get "his" pitch.

smitty wrote:It's much, much tougher to cheaply acquire guys who walk a lot.

I've seen this point a lot during the course of this whole "walks" discussion and I always find myself asking: "So, therefore, what should a GM do?"

Let's assume that not only are walks no longer undervalued, but that now hitters who walk a lot are consistently overpriced (although I'm not quite sure what "overpriced" or "overvalued" means in the context of a relatively free market). Does the smart GM now simply refuse to be drawn into the bidding for such "overpriced" talent? Does he draw the line and decide he's never going to "overpay" for such hitters? These are particularly interesting questions for a GM such as Rube who has some of the best resources in MLB and who, therefore, can pay more than most teams.

I would argue that, in answering these questions we have to remember, first, that no one takes back your World Series trophy if you happen to have overpaid for one or more of your players. And, conversely, there are no post-season awards for having the most economical payroll. In the final analysis -- and this is particularly true for higher payroll teams -- if you win it all, nobody tends to care whether you "overpaid" one or more of your players.

I like hits. A lot. But I also like walks. A lot. To have a consistently good offense I think you need a good mix of both. And, if you need a mix of both, than it's incumbent upon any GM with championship aspirations to find a way to acquire both, even when either or both are relatively scare and/or expensive.

Just like the hokey pokey, you've got to put both your left and right foot in. And, just as importantly, you've got to shake it all about.

(Sorry about quoting this whole thing but I'm not very nimble with the iPad.)

We're not disagreeing by a whole lot here.

Generally patient guys who are good hitters do get their pitch more, I agree. But there is also such a thing as being too passive and letting good pitches go by while trying for a walk. Regardless, everyone knows getting guys who are good hitters who walk a lot is good. But there aren't lots of those guys available nowadays.

One point I need to make more clear. The Phillies were simply not going to spend a lot of money to fill out their roster. It wasn't going to happen. Their payroll is maxed out. They may have some flexibility for a mid season move which would be by design. Given that as a fact, they had to go cheap and they got what they could get. You aren't going to get patient hitters who aren't either hurt all the time or just aren't any good very often. I call this the "Hermida Effect."

Warszawa wrote:

bury me wrote:Howard not in the lineup again

and Kratz goes down, and they
start the clock on Joseph soon after

Joseph good enough to worry about his clock?

not yet, but he's much better than what we have, i'd think. pitchers seemed to like throwing to him this ST as well if I recall

smitty wrote:The Phillies were simply not going to spend a lot of money to fill out their roster. It wasn't going to happen. Their payroll is maxed out. They may have some flexibility for a mid season move which would be by design. Given that as a fact, they had to go cheap and they got what they could get. You aren't going to get patient hitters who aren't either hurt all the time or just aren't any good very often. I call this the "Hermida Effect."

Just a point of clarification: By my calculations, the Phils are currently about $12.5MM under the luxury tax threshold for 2013 and about $8.5MM below last year's payroll.

cheap bastards

I think Quintero calls a much better game, and Kratz has been close to an automatic out over his last 200-odd plate appearances. Not a difficult decision IMO.

Over-concluding from Kratz's two good months last year is the sort of thing dumb ballclubs do, though, so I guess he'll stay.

JFLNYC wrote:smitty, I agree with everything you said, particularly the part about the importance of hits. It's what's left unsaid I might take issue with. For example:

smitty wrote:Frankly, a guy who has a .300 average and a .340 OBP is more productive than a guy who hits .260 with a .340 OBP given their power numbers are equal as well.

That's true. But the guy who hits .300 with a .380 OBP is more valuable than both. It's a false choice to suggest that the only choice available is between a guy who has a .300 average and a .340 OBP and a guy who hits .260 with a .340 OBP. And the guy whose OBP is driven more by hits sure as heck better be hitting or all he's doing is making lots of outs, whereas the guy whose OBP has a larger component of walks can contribute to the offense even when he's not getting his hits.

smitty wrote:The whole key to baseball is the pitcher batter confrontation. And a hitter who gets "his" pitch to hit has a good at bat.

I couldn't agree more. But I would argue that logically the guy who is patient and sees more pitches is more likely to get "his" pitch.

smitty wrote:It's much, much tougher to cheaply acquire guys who walk a lot.

I've seen this point a lot during the course of this whole "walks" discussion and I always find myself asking: "So, therefore, what should a GM do?"

Let's assume that not only are walks no longer undervalued, but that now hitters who walk a lot are consistently overpriced (although I'm not quite sure what "overpriced" or "overvalued" means in the context of a relatively free market). Does the smart GM now simply refuse to be drawn into the bidding for such "overpriced" talent? Does he draw the line and decide he's never going to "overpay" for such hitters? These are particularly interesting questions for a GM such as Rube who has some of the best resources in MLB and who, therefore, can pay more than most teams.

I would argue that, in answering these questions we have to remember, first, that no one takes back your World Series trophy if you happen to have overpaid for one or more of your players. And, conversely, there are no post-season awards for having the most economical payroll. In the final analysis -- and this is particularly true for higher payroll teams -- if you win it all, nobody tends to care whether you "overpaid" one or more of your players.

I like hits. A lot. But I also like walks. A lot. To have a consistently good offense I think you need a good mix of both. And, if you need a mix of both, than it's incumbent upon any GM with championship aspirations to find a way to acquire both, even when either or both are relatively scare and/or expensive.

Just like the hokey pokey, you've got to put both your left and right foot in. And, just as importantly, you've got to shake it all about.

#analysis

Rube should be signing Ryan Braun and Joe DiMaggio type players instead of Michael Young.