The Rotation of a Lifetime

Pitching wins championships.

That notion was lost in the steroid-fuelled nineties, but last year's Giants proved the saying is well and truly back. Working with three pitchers who could be aces on a number of teams, the Giants beat the Rangers with their pitching (and some fluke clutch-hitting from Edgar Renteria of course). Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain and Jonathan Sanchez (the three aces) had help from the surprisingly impressive rookie Madison Bumgarner, and the four teamed up to allow just eight runs in five games, clinching the Series with Lincecum tossing eight innings of one-run ball.

Pitching wins everytime. You can have a beefy offense, you can have that home-run king who'll knock fifty out of the park every season, but bats don't clinch playoff-berths, nevermind championships. Adam Dunn has hit at least 38 home runs every year since 2004, and he has no rings to show for it. Tim Lincecum has won two Cy Young awards, and he just claimed his first ring last year. Of course, Dunn and Lincecum are not the blueprints for the league, but it shows what is needed to win a championship. It sure helps to have a big-hitter, but it's the lockdown pitcher you need.

Pitching is more than half the game. Of course it is. If a pitcher does his job and gives up no runs, it leaves the offense with just one run to have to score to win the game. This is all obvious I know, but the pitcher sets everything up. You could say the hitters set the game up. That they jump ahead with a big lead and give the pitcher less to worry about, but I say the pitcher holding the opposition to a hit or two only sets up the offense as his opponent has to pitch like-for-like. That pressure forces the lesser pitchers to crack, and gives the offense the window to get their run.

Pitching is what will drive the Phillies this season. One of the Fightins will win the Cy Young this season. How can one of them not? Without throwing a collective pitch, this is the greatest rotation to ever bestow the city of Brotherly Love.

This offseason the Phillies added Cliff Lee. The 2008 AL Cy Young had a cup of coffee in Philadelphia in 2009, culminating with a pitching masterpiece in game one of the World Series against the Yankees. Lee threw three complete games in just 12 starts, and the city took to him like a long lost son. Lee was then shipped off to Seattle for another cup of coffee (where better?), before being traded to Texas last summer. A free agent to be after the World Series, Lee spurned long-time friend CC Sabathia and the Yankees to join the Phillies for a reported $120 million over five years. What's funny is that despite the number of dollars in that contract, he'll be the Phillies second starting pitcher this season.

It's pretty obvious who's first. It's the guy that tossed a perfect game, posted a 2.34 ERA, won the 2010 NL Cy Young and threw the first postseason no-hitter since Don Larsen in 1956. It's Roy Halladay.

Acquired in the trade that sent Cliff Lee to the Mariners, Halladay had a remarkable impact with the Phillies in his first season. He's the ace of this team, and no one can take that from him. I think it's fair to say he's earned it. Halladay is 1. Cliff Lee is 1A (or two).

Number three is Cole Hamels. The 2008 World Series MVP had a bounceback year after struggling in 2009 and complaining of tiredness. Despite poor run support, Hamels went 12-11 last season (like a less dominant Felix Hernandez), achieving a career low ERA of 3.06, and a career high in strikeouts with 211.

Number four is Roy Oswalt. The longtime Astro joined the Phillies last year after veteran Jamie Moyer went on the disabled list. Oswalt played to his hype and more, posting a 7-1 record with a 1.74 ERA in 12 starts. He started last season with Houston as an ace, and now he's the fourth starter. That tells you everything you need to know about this rotation.

Finally, number five. The average Joe. Joe Blanton to be precise. But will he be throwing the first pitch on 6th April (the fifth game of the season) against the Mets? I have my doubts. Blanton has been centre of any trade talks the Phillies have been rumoured to be in as the the club will be paying him $8.5m for each of the next two seasons. The Phillies could still move him if they find a potential suitor, but that's the difficult part. Blanton was up and down in 2009, finishing with an unimpressive 4.82 ERA. Not many clubs will want to pay $17m to a middle of the rotation type guy. The Yankees are most likely to bite if Bartolo Colon and Freddy Garcia don't work out in Spring Training. If the Phils do manage to move Blanton, they'll likely give Vance Worley the number five slot. Kyle Kendrick hasn't shown enough in recent seasons and likely won't get many starts (if any at all).

While I've hyped this rotation as much as any other writer, I'm not saying the Phillies are destined to win 120 games. The all-time record is 116 wins (by the 1906 Cubs), and I think the Phillies will fall short of that. I do however see them clinching triple digits in the W column. The increase in talent, provided it plays the way it has up to this point, should mean easier matchups every step of the way. Cole Hamels will be facing number three starters, and Roy Oswalt will be facing number four starters. You have to think those are automatic victories every-single-time.

Time will tell though.

The Phillies offense will likely be less impressive as last year as Jayson Werth has departed to the nearby Nationals. His shoes are left to be filled by Domonic Brown. The 23 year-old was okay last season in limited play. He hit .210 with 13 hits and two home runs in 35 games. On the bright side however, is that Brown has added 15lbs of muscle this offseason and considerably lowered his batting stance. And really, can Brown strikeout 147 times like Werth did last year? Possibly, but with any impressive rookie, you expect early success before pitchers can figure him out.

If the Phillies win the World Series, it will be their pitching that wins it for them.

Pitching wins championships, right?

Andy Carroll and Moneyball

"It's every young Geordie lad's dream to be a Newcastle United number nine and I'm so lucky to be given that chance."
- Andy Carroll, 20th July 2010

Six months later, Carroll is now with Liverpool. For £35 million, the Reds snapped up the England international, and depending on who you hear it from, he either handed in a transfer request or was forced out. I'm sure you can guess which story is Carroll's.

This is the state of football these days. There is never a transfer fee which can't be paid. The clubs simply have too much money, and the players can't resist the high wages that come with the pricetag. In 1996, Alan Shearer showed his colours as he turned down the bright lights of the red half of Manchester to join his hometown club Newcastle United (albeit for a world record of £15 million at the time). Though Newcastle bid the most for him, I bet Manchester United could have paid Shearer more in wages.

How can Carroll leave his hometown club? He claims he was forced out by coach Alan Pardew, but Pardew insists Carroll handed in a transfer request after Newcastle rejected Liverpool's first bid of £30 million. If Carroll did that, he clearly has no loyalty, and it was all for the money. Dane Whitehouse, a boyhood fan of Sheffield United, played his entire career for the Blades during the 1990s. He was sought after by many Premier League clubs throughout his tenure and not once did he ever consider leaving. That's a player staying faithful, something if Carroll handed in a transfer request, is the polar opposite of.

If Carroll was so proud to be wearing the number nine shirt for Newcastle, how can any old club come in, wave some money at him, and pry him away so easily? Carroll is reportedly now earning £80k a week.

If Andy Carroll was forced out, then my humble apologies, but his chequered past and his demeanor off the field just makes me think he was all for this move.

"Alan Shearer was my idol as a young lad and who would have thought I'd be following in his footsteps?"
- Andy Carroll, in the same interview last July

------

Now, for the Liverpool side of the story. What on earth drove them to pay £35 million for a player whose only promise is his potential? He's unproven in the Premier League. Carroll managed to score 19 goals in the Championship last season, and has tallied 11 this term, but it doesn't mean he's going to set Liverpool alight and propell them to 'another title.'

Liverpool's argument for the their efforts on transfer day is simple. They only spent £2 million. They sold Fernando Torres to Chelsea for £50 million and Ryan Babel to Hoffenheim for £5.8 million. They bought Carroll for £35 million and Uruguayan international Luis Suarez from Ajax for £22.7 million. When you look at it like that, money wise, it doesn't seem so bad. But that isn't what sticks out. What sticks out is the ludicrously high price they paid for Carroll.

Prices for English football players are always hiked up these days. Why? There probably isn't one answer. I'd say it's because every big club wants to own the 'next big British talent'. Look at the likes of Wayne Rooney and Theo Walcott, each snapped up after brief playing time for their first clubs (Everton and Southampton respectively). Manchester United paid £25.6 million for the eighteen year old Rooney, and Arsenal paid an eventual £9.1 million for the sixteen year old Walcott. This is the way it works, and it will continue for years to come. If the big clubs can't nurture their own kids in their academies, they'll pay the big bucks for someone elses.

This Carroll transfer strikes me as ridiculous for the most part because when Liverpool were taken over by Boston Red Sox owner John Henry, he installed his men to control the club using the teachings of Moneyball.

Moneyball is a term coined by Boston Red Sox front-office man Bill James, who argued that clubs should use sabermetrics to evaluate players (like on-base percentage), rather than through typical stats (like runs-batted-in and batting average). The complicated look at evaluating players meant the teams that generated little revenue like the Oakland Athletics could compete with the big spenders like the New York Yankees. How this can be extrapolated to football? I'm not sure. I'm sure there are in-depth statistics PAID EMPLOYEES at Liverpool can look into. Maybe stats of how many succesful headers a centre-half wins, or the number of crosses by a winger led to a scoring opportunity. There has to be some kind of stat these new guys at Liverpool are looking into.

So they sell Torres and Babel for a combined £55.8 million and buy Carroll and Suarez for £57.7 million. How can a proven Premier League striker like Torres be replaced by someone like Andy Carroll. Since his move from Atletico Madrid, Torres has notched 65 goals, scoring once every 121 minutes -- a Premier League record. Chelsea have paid a lot of money for a quality player, something I can't knock, but Liverpool in my opinion have overpaid by far for Carroll.

Couldn't they have found a cheaper option, perhaps abroad? A similar pricetag to the one they paid for Suarez? Apparently not.