To Win This Year Dodgers Need an Ace
The Dodgers currently have the best record in major league baseball and by all indications are very close to running away with the NL West, so given that why is their so much skepticism in LA?
First and foremost the Dodgers lack one thing that differentiates all great championship teams and that's an impact number one starter.
Clayton Kershaw and Chad Billingsley are both find young arms that certainly have the ability to blossom into number one starters some day, but right now they're not at that level.
Pitching in the post season is a different animal than pitching in the regular season and to this point neither Kershaw nor Billingsley has shown the ability to dominate in October.
If you think you can win a championship with Chad Billingsley as your number one (today), you might be in for a rude awakening. We don't have to look back any farther than last years National League Championship series. Here is Billingsley's line for each game he pitched.
Game 2:
Los Angeles Dodgers
Pitchers
IP
H
R
ER
BB
SO
HR
PC-ST
ERA
C Billingsley (L, 0-1)
2.1
8
8
7
3
5
0
59-36
27.00
C Park
0.1
1
0
0
0
1
0
9-6
0.00
J Beimel
0.0
0
0
0
2
0
0
12-4
0.00
J McDonald
3.1
2
0
0
1
5
0
60-36
0.00
C Kershaw
1.2
0
0
0
1
1
0
18-11
0.00
C Wade
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3-3
0.00
Totals
8.0
11
8
7
7
12
0
161-96
PITCHING
Game 5:
Los Angeles Dodgers
Pitchers
IP
H
R
ER
BB
SO
HR
PC-ST
ERA
C Billingsley (L, 0-2)
2.2
4
3
3
4
4
1
66-36
18.00
C Park
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2-2
0.00
G Maddux
2.0
2
2
0
1
3
0
38-24
0.00
J McDonald
2.0
1
0
0
1
2
0
29-18
0.00
J Beimel
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3-2
0.00
C Wade
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
8-6
4.91
H Kuo
1.0
1
0
0
0
1
0
13-8
3.00
Totals
9.0
8
5
3
6
10
1
159-96
As you can imagine looking at these lines the Dodgers went on to lose both games and eventually lost the series.
Bill Plaschke of the L.A. Times wrote an interesting article today where he essentially touched upon this concept.
The Dodgers have been properly built for the regular season but remain an unfinished product for the postseason, their bundles of hitting and energy and patience not enough to overcome the one thing that can fashion it all into a ring.
Yeah, an ace.
There is power here, there is speed here, there is brashness and belief and as much bullpen intensity as bullpen ivy.
But there is no ace here. There is no big-nerve, cold-staring starting pitcher here.
There is nobody who will take the mound on a chilly fall night and refuse to leave until morning. There is nobody who will grab the ball in October and refuse to give it up until November.
There is no Cole Hamels, no Josh Beckett, no David Wells.
Furthermore, Plashke goes on to introduce this interesting nugget.
Seven of the last 11 world champions began the World Series with a winning performance of at least seven innings from their aces.
Chad Billingsley can be guaranteed to do that? After melting down in the last championship series? After averaging 6 1/3 innings per start in the more relaxed regular season?
During the last nine seasons, no world champion has had a starting pitching staff that was ranked lower than ninth in the league in innings pitched.
The Dodgers' starters currently rank 14th.
Dodgers' manger Joe Torre is a stickler for veteran starting pitchers and after last years NLCS performance you better believe he's pushing Ned Colletti to go get him one.
"I don't want to sit here and say, 'Yeah, we're nine games in first place. We have all the answers and don't need anything,' because I know better. I know better, said Torre."
Even Dodgers superstar Manny Ramirez admits the reason the Dodgers lost to the Phillies last year was because of starting pitching.
"Like last year we played great, but I think Philadelphia got great starters and that's why they won everything."
Now Torre is no stranger to winning championships and he better than anyone on that Dodger team knows what it takes. Torre knows he doesn't want to see Billingsley go head to head with Hamels in October and better yet he doesn't want to see Hamels and Halladay go toe to toe with his young starters.
The Dodgers will have an interesting decision to make in the next four days. They've got a very promising young future in Billingsley and Kershaw, but they also face the realistic probability that those two won't be enough to win a championship this year. They've got a 69-year-old manager whose not concerned with winning in 2012 or 2013 and they've got a GM who has to make a decision.
Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee are both out there for the taking and nobody questions whether the Dodgers have enough talent to get them. We'll just have to wait and see if the Dodgers believe they have enough to win this year or if they're willing to make a dent in the future to upgrade the present.
0 recs |
92 comments
|
Comments
Hamels as Ace
There’s at least one problem with Plaschke’s reasoning: was Cole Hamels the indispensable “big-nerve, cold-staring starting pitcher” before last year’s playoff run? I’d say no. He made his own reputation last year, like Curt Schilling did in 1993. (His 2007 playoff performance was good but not mythic.)
So, sure, maybe you have to have big performances from your starting pitchers in the the playoffs, but you don’t have to acquire starting pitchers who have already had big performances to do so. If anything, Hamels (and to a degree, Matt Garza) make a case in the opposite direction, that you can make your own ace.
Excellent point.
Even so, however, I still say that now is the time for the Dodgers to go for Halladay. You have Manny now and you have him relatively cheap (given that he forfeited 7mil of his salary because of his suspension).
Now is the time to make that splash.
Agreed
Their team is so young, it’s difficult to imagine them being able to win a World Series with so many unproven players. I think they could afford to lose one of their young starters, if it means getting a legit number one guy in return. The Dodgers have a lot of resources that they could easily replace one of them in the near future.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Who is unproven on the Dodgers?
They are pretty young but for it’s not like there are a lot of rookies on the team.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 27, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I would
Argue that both Billingsley and Kershaw are both unproven. They’re the foundation of your starting pitching and they’ve done nothing in the postseason.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
oops, accidentaly hit post.
What is Roy Halladay’s record in the postseason? How about Cliff Lee?
There have been so many excellent posts on the internet these last few days responding to these nonsensical LA Times articles, that I surely can’t make the point any better than they have. So I’ll just attach a link…
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dodgerthoughts/2009/07/plaschke.html
by Michael White on Jul 27, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Curious how you cherry picked the Phillie series and ignored the Cub Series
I guess when you want to make a point, it only works if you use points that serve your argument.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
Sorry
I should have said Billingsley is an all-time elite postseason pitcher. I mean he did pitch 6 1/3 innings in a game where he was spotted a five run lead in the second inning. Who cares about the consecutive starts against the World Series champs where he got lit up.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Seriously?
your hanging your hat on 2 games pitched against the eventual World Series champions.
Shouldn’t have wasted my time following this link.
by Michael White on Jul 27, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Just use all three games in the post season not just two.
Everyone likes to just talk about the Phillie series when the Cub series had the bigger impact for us. Going into that series the Dodgers hadn’t won a post season game since 1988. The pressure was huge and the Cubs were supposed to be the better team so just not mentioning that game seems like cherry picking to me.
Every team could use a Halladay in the playoffs not just the Dodgers, but not every team should agree to be raped to do so as Riccardi is requesting.
This dumping on Billingsley to prove a point is tiresome. As someone else mentioned, Hamels was just another good pitcher when he dominated in the playoffs. Who would rather have pitching in 2009, Hamels or Billingsley, or even Hamels or Kershaw?. Peavy is an “ace” would you feel comfortable with him being your goto guy in the postseason given his big game/post season history? Halladay has never had to pitch a big game in his life? Who knows how he’d handle it the first time? Mortgaging the future to find out does not seem like a good way to run a franchise.
If history had shown that these deadline deals increased the odds for success of acquiring a World Championship then I’d be more attentive to such claims, but the Cone’s of the world are the exception not the rule, and many great pitchers have been traded for during the month of July who have failed to provide the teams with that World Champsionship.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
I think
Plaschke’s biggest argument is that Billingsley doesn’t have the mental makeup (right now) to go deep into games, which ultimately will probably end up spending the Dodgers bullpen.
Take Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay for instance, they’ve gone eight or more innings eight times this year a piece, as opposed to someone like Bililngsley whose done it once and someone like Kershaw whose yet to do it at all this year.
The more you rely on your bullpen, the more vulnerable you become. In the postseason it’s about starters going deep into games and the Jury is still out on whether or not Billingsley can be that guy.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 1:41 PM EDT reply actions
Starters Going Deep
Fair enough about the desire to have good long outing from your starter, but I feel like there was very recently a contrary school of thought: that in the playoffs what you really needed was 6 or 7 strong innings from your starter and then 2 or 3 rock-solid innings out of the pen. That’s the Nasty Boys or Rivera-Wetteland or Mendoza-Nelson-Rivera model. The Dodgers have some excellent bullpen arms, so I just don’t know that Billingsley or Kershaw going only 6 innings in the playoffs would be such a problem. (Obviously going < 3 innings in the playoffs, like Billingsley last year, is a huge problem.)
I agree
With the Rivera-Wetteland mentality, but lets not kid ourselves the Dodgers don’t have that duo.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Pen
But IMHO it would be a lot cheaper to add someone like Francisco Cordero to the ranks of Broxton-Troncoso-Kuo (soon?) than it would to bring in Halladay or Lee. If the worry is that Billingsley/Kershaw can only go 6 innings, you can address that by upgrading the back end of the staff too. If the worry is that Billingsley/Kershaw are going to collapse utterly, that’s a different problem.
Why should we not kid ourselves.
Have you even paid any attention to the Dodger bullpen and the work that Bellisario, Troncoso, and Broxton have been doing? They are getting the relief pitcher of the year in 2008 back this week and Mota has been unhittable for two months. They have the best record in baseball because that bullpen can take the lead from the rotation and shut it down. They may not have the names of Wettland/Rivera but they have the production.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
Using Bill Plaschke
for any exercise in baseball analysis just seems strange. Whatever he says today, he’ll change tomorrow when he realizes he was wrong in the first place, and his history shows, he’s almost always wrong when it comes to baseball in the first place.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
Hamels and BIllingsley
Billingsley’s career ERA/FIP: 3.42/3.81
Hamels career ERA/FIP: 3.64/3.84
Billingsley’s career IP/start: 5.94
Hamels career IP/start: 6.33
So Billingsley has been a bit better than Hamels but lasts about one out less per start on average. I’d say if one of them is an ace then the other is too.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 27, 2009 2:20 PM EDT reply actions
But Brendan, reason has completely left this discussion. The author is only interested in discussing the 2 starts Billingsley made against the Phillies last October.
by Michael White on Jul 27, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
50 % of Billingsley’s wins this year have come against the Padres, Giants and Diamondbacks who all statistically rank near the bottom of every offensive category.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn't use wins to judge pitchers
But the Dodgers face their division opponents a lot, that’s not Billingsley’s fault. If Halladay were on the Dodgers that stat would probably apply to him as well.
But I just layed out the stats right there. It seems pretty clear the two are similiar pitchers.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 27, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Please don't forget
My main argument is that I would be willing to deal Billingsley for either Lee or Halladay. Hamels was more part of Plashke’s piece.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 2:26 PM EDT reply actions
Who could forget the worse piece of your argument. That is just terrible analysis.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
And as a result I find Plashke more reasonable than you
Even Bill said that he would not trade Billingsley for Lee/Halladay.
by Michael White on Jul 27, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I know
But the World Champions last year had Hamels as their ace, who had never proven anything before, and you seem to think BIllingsley is a different case than Hamels based on two bad playoff starts.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 27, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Some other stats
Hamels career WPA/LI 5.47, Clutch 1.31
Billingsley Career WPA/LI 2.80, Clutch .50
WPA/LI- measures situational wins
Clutch- measures how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations then he would have done in a context of a neutral enviornment
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Stats
Their is so many damn stats out there that you can basically find a stat to argue or counter argue anything.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Really this is all moot though
The Dodgers aren’t going to trade Billingsley so it doesn’t really matter what any of us think.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 27, 2009 2:38 PM EDT reply actions
True
But at least it makes for interesting debate.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d argue that the Dodgers would be better picking up Jarrod Washburn and not giving up Kershaw/Billingsley than trading either one for Cliff Lee (Halladay may be a slightly different story, but I’d probably still keep the 2 they have). 2 games is not enough to label a young pitcher a choker forever.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jul 27, 2009 2:50 PM EDT reply actions
Nobody
Is labeling him a choker, rather I’m just saying that for a team that is clearly a World Series contender, it’s a bit risky to be relying on such young kids who’ve yet to prove anything in the postseason.
Billingsley and Kershaw may turn out to be the 2009 version of Cole Hames, who knows, but I was just curious if that was something Dodger fans were willing to take a chance on. Clearly they are.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Your poll did not ask if they were willing to trade Billingsley for Doc
you simply asked if the Dodgers could win a world series with Billingsley/Clayton? While I may be dubious about this particular team being able to win a World Series I still wouldn’t contemplate trading Chad for Doc because the odds of Chad being as good as Doc over the next few team controlled years are higher then Doc being incrementally better then Chad in the playoffs that a World Championship would be the end result.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
6.0 IP 2 ER
I would hardly call that SHUT DOWN. Once again spotted a five run lead, changes the whole mentality of pitching in a big game when you’re spotted a huge early lead.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions
hey before you try to get all smart
go check out the 2 regular season starts he had against The Phillies. He Utterly DOMINATED THEM
13 inning 4 hits 2 walks against the phillies in the regular season
6.1 innings 0 ER against the Cubs
Uhhh…I don’t think Halladay or Lee have been in the postseason, either. Doesn’t that kind of hurt the argument?
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jul 27, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
That's true
But their is a small level of assumption that given their steady performance over a sustained period of time that at least a large percentage of it would carry over to the post season. However, you’re right that nothing is guaranteed without physical material to base it off of.
Given the youth and inexperience of Billingsley and Kershaw it’s difficult to speculate how they might perform under those circumstances.
But it’s certainly a fair point.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
But their is a small level of assumption that given their steady performance over a sustained period of time that at least a large percentage of it would carry over to the post season.
That makes some sense for Halladay, but Lee has only been pitching an a top level for 1.5 years now. That’s even less than Billingsley!
Bottom line, if I’m going to trade Chad for postseason purposes, that pitcher in return better have an extensive October record of success (for example, Randy Johnson or Pedro Martinez in their primes).
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jul 27, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Lee
Top level yes, but he’s been more than solid for at least the last five years. He was 46-24 from 2004-2006 with almost 600 innings pitched.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm just saying
It’s not like he was a disaster his whole career. You made it like he has only pitched well for 1.5 years, which isn’t true. Yea he has pitched at a different level for the last few years, but he still was a quality pitcher prior to that.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Cliff Lee is a very good pitcher.
But anybody with any sense would tell you that trading Billingsley or Kershaw for him makes absolutely no sense. Particularly when he’s only under control for one more season.
The funny thing is
the Indians got Cliff Lee thanks to another completely rediculous trade for a team to acquire a “true ace.” Cleveland traded Bartolo Colon and Tim Drew to the Montreal Expos for Cliff Lee, Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips, and Lee Stevens.
by Michael White on Jul 27, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee are both out there for the taking
And either of these players can be had for the low, low price of 3 players off the 25 man roster!
Halladay yes, but you could get Lee for less. Obviously it would have to be one of the young starters, but it wouldn’t take a whole lot more than that.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, see above
My main argument is that I would be willing to deal Billingsley for either Lee or Halladay.
by Michael White on Jul 27, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
So let’s say it’s a straight up deal, not even considering that Shapiro wants to keep Lee, and that Riccardi is trying to get a Bedard type return.
If you trade Bills for Halladay, best case scenario is that in two years they are pitching at the exact same level. Worst case, Halladay gets shelled (or injured, or ANY number of unfortunate that things that would keep him from being the savior that the idiot LA Times writers think is needed for a team with the best record in baseball) and Colletti gets murdered by a mob of angry fans for trading Bills or Kershaw.
In a vacuum of the last two months of the season, sure it makes sense. Long term, not a chance.
There are so many reasons that this whole thing is ridiculous. First off you have to realize that trading Bills or Kershaw just makes NO sense economically, then you can consider age, then consider that deadline deals for “Aces” never work. On top of that, Halladay has never even pitched in the post season.
One last thing, quoting a Bill Plaschke article as anything credible is extremely irresponsible and borderline stupid.
I find this entire article completely ridiculous
Anybody who’s every watched baseball and particularly playoff baseball knows that ANYTHING can happen.
I didn’t see anybody mention C.C.’s playoff start last year, but the same thing could happen with either Halladay or Lee.
thats what i said
but for some strange reason my comment got deleted
If you don't
Contribute anything useful then don’t bother saying anything at all. It’s okay to disagree, I have no problem with that, but just throwing out stupid crap like “someone should be fired” is not going to cut it.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
you are throwing chad billingley under the bus
why cant i do that to you
I'd hardly call that throwing under the bus
Clayton Kershaw and Chad Billingsley are both find young arms that certainly have the ability to blossom into number one starters some day
The Dodgers will have an interesting decision to make in the next four days. They’ve got a very promising young future in Billingsley and Kershaw
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 3:55 PM EDT reply actions
It is disingenous to say you didn’t throw Billingsley under the bus. You quoted and agreed with Bill Plaschke in his hatchet job of the Dodger pitching staff. 50% of the text (in your post) is from Bill Plashke— you can’t then turn around and say that the parts that you added were even-handed.
by Michael White on Jul 27, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Nobody
Including Plaschke is throwing Billingsley under the bus. Just because people don’t consider him an “ace” doesn’t mean we’re throwing him under the bus. I said several times he’s a very good young starter, with a very promising future. I just don’t think he gives them a better chance to win a World Series (Today) than does either Lee or Halladay.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you think that slight improvement in World Series odds
is worth giving up multiple years of team control for Billingsly?
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 27, 2009 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions
All I'm saying
Is the Dodgers are rolling the dice depending on two young kids to try and push them to a World Series championship. I’m not saying they can’t, or they won’t, rather it’s just unlikely.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 3:57 PM EDT reply actions
It’s unlikely that any pitcher on any team is going to lead their club to a World Series seeing as how only 1 team wins the World Series and all.
You basically just made a bet and took the field. That’s not a terribly bold move on your part.
by Michael White on Jul 27, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s not what you’re saying.
You’re saying you would trade Billingsley and Kershaw (and prospects) to acquire Halladay or Lee.
I'm Saying
I would trade Billingsley to get either one of them. I’d be a little more skeptical about trading Kershaw. You only have so few opportunities to win a championship, and when you’re in position I believe you have to go for it. You can hold on to both of them for the long-term hope that they both turn out great and you have a dominant team for years to come, but there’s no guarantee that would happen either. I just don’t think you can win a championship with two guys with such limited big league experience.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
They are great now, the long-term hope is that they simply keep doing what they are doing now.
These two guys are two of the best pitchers in the NL right now, they are not prospects.
The holding onto and long-term hope was a couple of years ago when Epstein wanted Kemp for David Wells, and when most of the prospects were kept in the system. Now, the team is dominant this year.
Billingsley is in his 4th season, he doesn’t have limited big league experience.
how are you not throwing him under the bus
thats the whole point of this article…. you cannot win with chad billingsley.. you need to trade him for lee or haladay
I said
I think the Dodgers would be better off today if they had Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee as their number one starter going into the postseason than they would with Chad Billingsley. I don’t think that’s all that outside the box. I don’t suggest the Dodgers empty the farm to get either starter, but if they could get one for a package around Billingsley and maybe another prospect I would do it.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Please
If you dealt Billingsley for Halladay and won the World Series this year you wouldn’t be complaining.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 4:17 PM EDT reply actions
Of course we wouldn't
and if the Dodgers traded Billingsley for Halladay and he pitches 1 game in the NLCS and gets bombed (kind of like C.C Sabathia last year) we will want to strangle Colletti. The smart money is on keeping the 24 year old with a career ERA of 3.42
by Michael White on Jul 27, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
And your point is?
Billingsley is 24, Halladay is 32.
Unless this is the last operating season of Major League Baseball, this trade makes absolutely no sense.
Halladay is better than Kershaw right now, sure, but you have to consider age, salary, years under control and previous post-season experience.
Holy crap
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 27, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions
As Brendan said
No matter what we all think it’s probably not going to happen. It’s just a fun topic to debate, regardless of what side your on.
I have to run guys, but I do appreciate your passion for the Dodgers and Chad Billingsley in particular. Hopefully, for your sake it works out either way and the Dodgers win the title, but we’ll just have to wait and see.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 4:21 PM EDT reply actions
and everyone says
LA Fans have no passion for their teams and they are phony
LOL
I was waiting for you and/or Canuck to show up.
I think trading Billingsley for Lee/Halladay straight up (nevermind the inclusion of a prospect as the author suggests) would make your head explode.
by Michael White on Jul 27, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
To be fair...
…I don’t really think it was this post that was necessarily deserving of all this.
Most likely, it was the combination of having an opinion that most of us hate and then attempting to validate anything Bill Plaschke writes.
It was posted at a time when the environment is such that these idiots in the LA media are just looking for a reason for the team not to win. This post just played right into that.
Panic and despair…up 8 games. I’m probably the most negative Dodger blogger out there and even i’m not that pessimistic.
It would be incredibly stupid for the Dodgers to get Halladay or Lee
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
By that I mean trading Billingsly or Kershaw + prospects to get them
The Dodgers are already a lock for the playoffs. Does it make sense to trade two young aces for 2 older guys to marginally improve your odds of winning the world series?
The difference between Halladay and Billingsly is minimal. In 1 start, the difference in win expectancy is probably less than 10%. How much do you think Halladay over Billingsly improves their world series odds? 4-5%? Is that worth the multiple cost controlled years of Billinsgly, compared to the 1 1/2 expensive years of Halladay?
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 27, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
But how do you quantify that additional 4-5%, what if it’s enough to win you a World Series? Furthermore, Roy Halladay presents much more revenue generating opportunities for the Dodgers than does Chad Billingsley. Also It’s not as if the Dodgers are a small market team that substituting a small inexpensive contract for a larger one will cripple them. If they got Halladay signed to an extension and he gave them five or six good years they probably could recoup the salary difference.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions
But how do you quantify that additional 4-5%, what if it’s enough to win you a World Series?
You can’t think like that. What if that 4-5% isn’t enough to win the world series? Then the trade would be a complete failure; that is exactly the point of odds, to provide a continuous function.
BTW, I just pulled the 4-5% out of my ass. Matt Swartz over at BP did some work and found that Halladay would improve the Dodgers chance of winning the world series, if he was replacing a replacement level starter (IE, someone like Todd Wellemeyer. Billinsgly is much, much better than a replacement level starter. In fact, he’s almost as good as Halladay. Replacing him with Halladay would present in a very minimal gain that would definitely not be worth the lost year of cost controlled production.
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 27, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions
"Halladay would improve the Dodgers chance of winning the world series... by 7%"
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 27, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Question
Is there any percentage increase that traditionally would be a bench mark for making a deal? Say if you calculated a deal that improved your chances by 20% or whatever, then you would make a deal. (I’m not speaking about the Halladay deal here, just in general.)
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure
I guess one way to do so would be to calculate revenue added from winning the world series.
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 27, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh
That would be interesting to figure that out. Although, I guess it’s almost impossible to obtain all the necessary data.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 27, 2009 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Not really
It’s somewhat trivial to figure out world series odds, and then you can just find out how much the average teams revenue improves by winning the world series.
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 27, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Seriously though,
your argument might have been a whole lot stronger had you not quoted a hack like Bill Plaschke.
Who writes like this.
And relies on his intuition and feelings to write articles rather than quantifiable statistics or accepted facts.
And somehow keeps his job.
Writing 300 word articles and spacing them out. Like this.

by 












