Phil Watch: WTF!

Oh, Holy Shit!

This piece of poo made it to a newspaper.

When I read the opening salvo, I thought it was curious to do such a piece at this point in the off-season.

Then I saw #12!

And then I knew. Then I followed everything that's been rolling around in Phil's melon over the last few weeks. Then I knew the impetus of this column. Then I knew that Phil needed to proclaim from the highest peak that he doesn't think the White Sox rotation is a strength. In fact, at #12, their rotation, in Phil-world, is merely a hair above league-average.

So, he can talk about the rotations around baseball but we know what he's really talking about.

For this list, Phil uses a "simple statistical analysis comparing wins, ERA, innings and K/9 in 2009" to rank his rotations. My head hurts thinking about the dippiness of those statistics to do anything. My head hurts even more thinking about analyzing each slot step by step.

So...we'll put it into context. This weekend, Phil discusses the Cardinals' Holliday signing and says it makes the team the "class of the NL Central" based on Bill James Win Shares, again using only 2009 numbers to determine this:

For comparison's sake, group eight starters in the field, four starting pitchers and the best four relievers from each team. Then evaluate them strictly on their 2009 performance based on Bill James' measure of Win Shares. The Cardinals are at 230, led by Pujols' best-in-the-game rating of 39 and Holliday's 25.

The Brewers are at 180, thanks to the contributions from Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder, along with valuable pitching additions Randy Wolf and LaTroy Hawkins -- and Melvin probably will add at least one more arm from baseball's overstocked bargain bin.

The Cubs total a meager 166, with Derrek Lee (24) and new center fielder Marlon Byrd (20) the most valued players.

That's mildly interesting as a reflection of 2009. And Phil's using Bill James again. That's a move in the right direction.

But a question. Why not use Win Shares to analyze the rotations? ERA? Innings? Wins!!??

I could also ask why Phil didn't use Phil-Math this year but I think he took a sufficient enough beating over that stupidity to stop any impulse wanting to revisit it.

I'll tell you why he didn't use Win Shares. It doesn't allow him to make the wrong case that the White Sox rotation is the 12th-best rotation in the majors.

Here is Phil's list of rotations (top 4 in each). Click here to see the reasons cuz I ain't chronicling them.

1. Yankees - Sabathia, Burnett, Vazquez, Pettitte

1. Giants (tie) - Lincecum, Cain, Zito, Sanchez/Bumgartner

3. Phillies - Halladay, Hamels, Happ, Blanton

4. Cardinals - Carpenter, Wainwright, Lohse, Penny

4. Rockies (tie) - Cook, Jimenez, De La Rosa, Francis (?)

6. Red Sox - Lackey, Beckett, Lester, Matsusaka/Buchholz

7. Tigers - Verlander, Scherzer, Porcello, Galarraga

8. Mariners - Hernandez, Lee, Snell, Rowand-Smith

8. Cubs (tie) - Zambrano, Lilly, Dempster, Wells
10. Rays - Shields, Garza, Price, Niemann
11. Braves - Jurrjens, Hanson, Lowe, Hudson
12. White Sox - Peavy, Buehrle, Danks, Floyd
13. Angels - Weaver, Santana, Kazmir, Saunders

Bah! I literally spit out my coffee when I first read this. Show your hand more, Phil. Yes, you don't like the White Sox. I can see not liking their offensive chances. But rotation? Overall, it matches up well with anyone and is certainly better than the Rockies, Cubs, Mariners (Snell and Rowland-Smith?), Tigers, Braves, Cardinals (Lohse and Penny?) and Rays staffs.

So...since Phil didn't use Win Shares to calculate such things because it's too inconvenient for the real reason he wrote the column, I shall do it for him.

Combined Win Shares for the top 4 in each rotation based on 2009 numbers:

1. Giants - 59 (using Sanchez, not Bumgartner)

2. White Sox - 58 (using Jake Peavy's five-year average before 2009 - 15)

3. Yankees - 57

4. Phillies - 57

5. Red Sox - 55 (assuming the Red Sox get 10 Win Shares from the four-slot)

6. Mariners - 55

7. Cardinals - 52

8. Rockies - 52

9. Cubs - 49

11. Braves - 48 (using Tim Hudson's three-year average before 2009 - 13)

10. Tigers - 46

12. Angels - 46

13. Rays - 41

Can you assume a 15 Win Share from Peavy? I think so, especially when you consider the fact that Buehrle and Danks both had 16 Win Shares last year and the fact that Peavy's injury had nothing to do with his arm last year.

So we have Phil using Win Shares when it suits his argument and using Wins, ERA, Innings and K/9...when it suits his argument.

Pick a lane, Phil.