PDA

View Full Version : Phil Rogers writes a really bad column


chaerulez
01-08-2008, 10:44 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-080105philrogerskenwilliamswhitesox,1,1560609.colu mn?coll=cs-home-headlines

He judges how well a team has improved in the offseason by giving them a point for acquring an everday player, starting pitcher or a relief pitcher that works in the last two innings. He takes a point away if you lose such a player. So if the Blue Jays traded away Vernon Wells for Juan Uribe, but signed Kenny Lofton, they'd be a +1. In the opposite if the Sox traded away Uribe and Crede for Hanley Ramirez, they'd be a -1.

I know he states his system here is suppose to be simple. But that's the point, you can't observe baseball moves this way.

And he rates the Cubs as -2 because they lost Jones, Floyd and Kendall while only adding Fukudome. Jones and Floyd weren't starters the whole season. Kendall didn't really do much of anything in a Cubs uniform, chances are Soto steps in and has a better season. And yet the Cubs somehow lost out because of this?

Madvora
01-08-2008, 10:52 AM
I started that yesterday and gave up on it. The whole "system" he came up with is complete insanity.
Does he really think that's how you can tell how good a baseball team is?

Oblong
01-08-2008, 11:18 AM
So the marlins traded 2 major leaguers, Cabrera and Willis, for a package that will probably include 3 guys that make the ML roster. So they are a +1? Hear that Marlins fans? Rejoice!

Brian26
01-08-2008, 11:22 AM
Saw the column on Sunday morning and meant to comment on it. Completely asinine writing.

The Immigrant
01-08-2008, 11:36 AM
It's amazing that people like him have a HOF vote.

Chez
01-08-2008, 11:49 AM
Saw the column on Sunday morning and meant to comment on it. Completely asinine writing.

Me too. This passes as "analysis?" My 13 year old daughter could do better.

Thigpen "57"
01-08-2008, 12:01 PM
Has anyone on here ever emailed this guy? I am tempted to send him a critical,...but non vulgar email about how he does not make sense. Of course I would not expect him to respond to anyone who dare criticize the mighty "Rogers".

Seriously though, does he actually think this is a statistically sound way to evaluate a team? Sheesh.

chaerulez
01-08-2008, 12:09 PM
So the marlins traded 2 major leaguers, Cabrera and Willis, for a package that will probably include 3 guys that make the ML roster. So they are a +1? Hear that Marlins fans? Rejoice!

No his logic is even worse. It doesn't account for guys that are sure to crack a ML roster this year or in the future if they aren't CURRENTLY everday players. So if the Reds traded Jay Bruce, considered by many the top position player prospect in the game to the Pirates for Matt Morris, the Pirates would be -1 and the Reds +1.

Simply inane.

SoxFanSince67
01-08-2008, 12:10 PM
I shook my head in disbelief as I read this article which I'm ashamed to admit reading in its entirity - but I kept hoping it would eventually make sence.

RedHeadPaleHoser
01-08-2008, 12:10 PM
This thread header can be used over and over again.

Who says WSI doesn't recycle?? :D:

Tekijawa
01-08-2008, 12:41 PM
He should re-write this article in Minneapolis so all those dopes up in the Twin Cities will realize that they got the better end of the Garnett deal!

Lip Man 1
01-08-2008, 01:13 PM
Thiggy:

Phil is a frequent visitor to WSI and has allowed himself to be interviewed and have an on-line chat with us. If you send him an e-mail I have found in my experiences with him, that he generally does answer.

Lip

oeo
01-08-2008, 01:16 PM
It's amazing that people like him have a HOF vote.

It's amazing that you can actually get paid to do what he does.

thedudeabides
01-08-2008, 01:34 PM
This has to be the worst logic to evaluate an offseason I have ever read. I can't think of a system that would be worse. I'm sure I could, but I'm not going to waste my time.

Frater Perdurabo
01-08-2008, 02:03 PM
I'm not going to argue for or against his methodology, but in the case of the Sox, Phil Rogers is correct. By acquiring three very good major league players and losing just one, that means that there are two fewer spots on the roster for marginal players like Alex Cintron or Andy Gonzalez.

The idea is to improve one's major league roster. KW has done that. That was Phil's main point, IMHO.

soxwon
01-08-2008, 02:11 PM
It's amazing that people like him have a HOF vote.

yea he voted for shawn abner, cause he liked his tassles.

Save McCuddy's
01-08-2008, 02:38 PM
I went so far as to email him. Just wanted to remind him how much I miss Holtzman and how embarrassed I am for us as a city when I read baseball america and see him as our default "expert".

chisoxmike
01-08-2008, 02:55 PM
Its really sad because I used to really enjoy his columns. He actually produced well written columns that had fact. A read among Chicago sports writers.

Since he wrote 'Say It's So" he's gone on full dumb ass mode. He's attacked the Sox in every which way but hasn't had a lick of reason with any of his columns. It's amazing the 360 he did.

kba
01-08-2008, 02:58 PM
In response to Rogers' column, "Fire Joe Morgan" (http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/01/best-system-ever.html) comes up with a rating-system of their own:

Getting rid of those two old OF to make way for two young guys who seem like they're better (or could be better), and adding Fukudome, makes them "Zorp-7" in my system, wherein I give each team a nonsense word and a randomly-generated number to indicate how well I think they have done in the off-season. Oakland is "Flerm-22" and St. Louis is "Chunktastic-4."

MarySwiss
01-08-2008, 05:31 PM
Thiggy:

Phil is a frequent visitor to WSI and has allowed himself to be interviewed and have an on-line chat with us. If you send him an e-mail I have found in my experiences with him, that he generally does answer.

Lip

Lip,

In general, I think Phil is one of the better Chicago sportswriters--not that that is saying much!--and I enjoyed his Sox WS book, but when he's bad, he's bad. And this was bad, IMO. Almost seemed like he was on deadline and had to come up with something quick.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-08-2008, 08:24 PM
The idea is to improve one's major league roster. KW has done that. That was Phil's main point, IMHO.

Too bad Rogers didn't write anything like that. He gets paid for making his point clear, doesn't he?

As an effective writer and baseball beat reporter, Phil Rogers is anything but a proven workhorse.
:cool:

:troll + press credentials = Phil Rogers

Frater Perdurabo
01-08-2008, 08:43 PM
Too bad Rogers didn't write anything like that. He gets paid for making his point clear, doesn't he?

As an effective writer and baseball beat reporter, Phil Rogers is anything but a proven workhorse.
:cool:

:troll + press credentials = Phil Rogers

I'm going to give Phil the benefit of the doubt. I'll blame the editing job some Tribune hack did on his piece.
:tongue:

Nellie_Fox
01-09-2008, 12:35 AM
He's attacked the Sox in every which way but hasn't had a lick of reason with any of his columns. It's amazing the 360 he did.If you "do a 360," you end up facing the same way you were before you started. I think you mean "a 180."

chaerulez
01-09-2008, 10:45 AM
I'm not going to argue for or against his methodology, but in the case of the Sox, Phil Rogers is correct. By acquiring three very good major league players and losing just one, that means that there are two fewer spots on the roster for marginal players like Alex Cintron or Andy Gonzalez.

The idea is to improve one's major league roster. KW has done that. That was Phil's main point, IMHO.

Well that would be fine if he just stuck with writing about how it was a good offseason because we got Swisher, Cabrera and Linebrink while only losing Garland. You could write an article just on that. But he started applying his formula to the rest of the league.

For example: He talks about the Cardinals being -5 because they lost Jim Edmonds, David Eckstein, Kip Wells, Preston Wilson and Percival.

Jim Edmonds is turning 38 this year and coming off his worst season in which he's played at least 100 games. David Eckstein isn't good. Not only did Preston Wilson only appear in 25 games last year for the Cardinals, he was awful. On odds alone any OF that played in AAA for the Cards last year is probable to do better at the plate than Wilson did for them in 2007. Kip Wells hasn't had a ERA under 5 in three seasons. And this is all in the NL. Troy Percival was excellent for the Cards last year, but he is also turning 38 this year and is a middle reliever. Demand for Percival was so high he went to the Rays. So the Cards lost 4 players that aren't any good and 1 player that maybe good this year but is 38 and a middle reliever. Yet they are a -5 and had the worst offseason in all of baseball.

chisoxmike
01-09-2008, 11:11 AM
If you "do a 360," you end up facing the same way you were before you started. I think you mean "a 180."

:rolling: Wow.

Yes, sometimes I type way to fast for what I'm trying to say without thinking. :redface:

Frater Perdurabo
01-09-2008, 12:07 PM
Well that would be fine if he just stuck with writing about how it was a good offseason because we got Swisher, Cabrera and Linebrink while only losing Garland. You could write an article just on that. But he started applying his formula to the rest of the league.

For example: He talks about the Cardinals being -5 because they lost Jim Edmonds, David Eckstein, Kip Wells, Preston Wilson and Percival.

Jim Edmonds is turning 38 this year and coming off his worst season in which he's played at least 100 games. David Eckstein isn't good. Not only did Preston Wilson only appear in 25 games last year for the Cardinals, he was awful. On odds alone any OF that played in AAA for the Cards last year is probable to do better at the plate than Wilson did for them in 2007. Kip Wells hasn't had a ERA under 5 in three seasons. And this is all in the NL. Troy Percival was excellent for the Cards last year, but he is also turning 38 this year and is a middle reliever. Demand for Percival was so high he went to the Rays. So the Cards lost 4 players that aren't any good and 1 player that maybe good this year but is 38 and a middle reliever. Yet they are a -5 and had the worst offseason in all of baseball.

The Cardinals still likely will be replacing the veterans they lost with either minor leaguers or mediocre journeymen free agents. Although the players they lost are not stars, at this point going to unproven prospects likely is a step down, as no one knows what to expect from the new players.

Again, it's not a perfect article, but I do understand's Phil's logic.

I think the Tribune sucks but to lump Rogers in with the likes of Mariotti and other windsocks is unfair and wrong.

chaerulez
01-09-2008, 07:20 PM
The Cardinals still likely will be replacing the veterans they lost with either minor leaguers or mediocre journeymen free agents. Although the players they lost are not stars, at this point going to unproven prospects likely is a step down, as no one knows what to expect from the new players.

Again, it's not a perfect article, but I do understand's Phil's logic.

I think the Tribune sucks but to lump Rogers in with the likes of Mariotti and other windsocks is unfair and wrong.

The Cardinals got rid of older players that show no signs of improving. Just because someone is a veteran isn't a reason to keep them on the team. Chris Singleton and Herbert Perry were veterans. Then the Sox decided to get rid of them and see if Aaron Rowand and Joe Crede, although unproven, to see if they could do a better job. It's not like the Cardinals got rid of anyone good. And no way am I comparing Rogers to Mariotti. Rogers can write a decent column from time to time. Mariotti just likes to write nonsense all the time.