While I think the Phillies can make it a closer race in the division and are one of the faves for the WC, they certainly aren't the team to beat in that division. My main concern is the effect of that ballpark on their starting pitching (even the bullpen). Myers and Hamels had good peripherals at home, but both gave up more HRs in less IP at Citizens Bank. Even Moyer, despite his 4-1 record, gave up 6 HRs in 20 innings at CBP. HRs certainly isn't indicative of how well a pitcher has pitched, but can PHI's pitching be so sucessful in that park that they vault to the top of the division? Also, add in the fact Flash Gordon's ERA in that park was 2.5 times higher than his road ERA. As a person who's watched a few games at CPB (great park, but the most humid place in America), I wonder just how good the pitching can be there.

Kevin-

Who, then, is the favorite? IMO, the Phils are as good of a pick as the Mets to win the division, and the Braves are only a tick behind (with their pen, they can afford to have a #5 starter that only go 5 innings, and Smoltz is the best pitcher in the division with Pedro out). I really think the NL East is going to be a fun division to watch this year.

The ballpark argument doesn't hold a lot of water with me. Just as the Phillies pitchers must endure the tight confines, their hitters get to take advantage of them.

So maybe their stats, before a park adjustment, will not stack up as neatly to their peers as they ought to but the park will not impact wins and losses.

I believe home ballparks matter to the extent that they cause wear and tear on arms and cause teams to go through more pitchers than normal. Bill James once did a study showing World Series champs more often come from teams playing home games in a pitcher's park rather than a hitter's park.

Boston showed you can win a championship in a hitter-friendly environment, but it generally is a more difficult proposition. (For the record, I like Philadelphia, too, so I wouldn't rule out teams simply based on the makeup of their home ballpark.)

The Mets outplayed their Pythagorean record, but they also had the division locked up by June. They rested their players and used pitchers that they might not have had they been in a tight race. That needs to be taken into account too. I'm still picking the Mets, their rotation wasn't good last year either.

Freddy Garcia? Seriously? The word phenomenal should not be attached to Garcia ever.

Don't poo-poo 6 consecutive years of 200+ league-average-or-better innings. It's not like Garcia is their #1 (or even #2) guy. He's a pretty ideal #3, actually. He's basically 200 innings the Phils aren't going to have to worry about this year.

Yeah mravery said it best but just to reinforce the point, Garcia as your #3 starter is pretty phenomenal.

Watching every game last year, the above is a fallacy. Abreu and Dellucci are terrible outfielders, and cost the Phillies as many games lost as they won with the bat. One can take Abreu's VORP, or whatever, but it's offset by his bad defense. It will be noticed this season in Yankee Stadium. His Gold Glove in 2005? A joke. Dellucci has one of the worst arms I have ever seen. A true noodle.

Eh, Abreu's FRAA for the Phils last year was a -3, but he was a +3 for the Yankees. That paints him as a pretty average to slightly below average fielder--and is right in line with his performance the last few years (and yes, the '05 GG was pretty bad). He did post a 4.9 WARP2 in half a season though and it's pretty damn hard to replace that. Though I'm sure they'll be happy saving the $16 million or whatever his contract calls for this year.

I like the Phillies' starting rotation a lot. They don't have a fearsome top of the rotation (few teams do), but they make up with plenty of good, solid depth. The bottom of the Phillies' rotation doesn't look like typical No. 4/5 starters. This could be the type of team which wins a lot of games in the regular season, perhaps capturing the division, but has more difficulty in the playoffs...where starting depth is less of a factor.

Myers and Hamels should easily be the best 12 punch in the east (or even the entire NL) unless Pedro somehow manage to return to form (extremely unlikely) or Hampton ..(lol)

i'm still not sure on why the Phillies pulled the Abreu traded like they did, they should have at least gotten something of major league use, all they got was Matt Smith, who would be a ok loggy but you don't trade loggy for one of ur top player.

Rod Baraja should also represent a upgrade over the joke that was Sal Fasano and the corpse of Mike Liberthal last year, espically if they get anything like what they got out of Coste and Ruiz late last year...

The true worry for the Phillies seem to be Tom Gordon's health.

Oh also, the Phillies have a terrible track record of screwing their own chances by running useful players out of town, (only to see them win with other teams while they continue to suck... see Dolten , Schilling, Rolen...) one has to wonder if the same fate is waiting for Pat Burrell this year.

On a more practical side the Phillies were also terriblly inconsistent last year, they got off to a atrocious start, and almost everyone hit worse in the first half than the second.

Since when is Pat Burrell a "useful" player? Sure, he hits 30 homers, but if you actually look at the stats, most of the homers come in garbage time.

Down 7-1? There's Pat stroking a homer.
Down 4-3 and need a clutch hit? There's Pat striking out looking again.

He's also a poor defensive player.

He was surrounded by good talent in the lineup last year (Howard and Utley) and still couldn't come up in the clutch.

Burrell (2004-2006): .266/.381/.488

I am sorry that you have selctively remembered some bad Burrell moments but the suggestion that he is not a "useful" player is preposterous.

is this player clutch?

RISP: 224 PA, .313/.429/.598, 13 HR, 92 RBI
2 outs: 226 PA, .298/.407/.586, 15 HR, 56 RBI
2 outs, RISP: 108 PA, .295/.426/.693, 10 HR, 48 RBI

that's Pat Burrell, 2005.

even in 2006, Burrell posted a .982 OPS (16 HR and 58 RBI in 290 PA) when the lead was a run or less.

oops - I meant to put scare quotes around "clutch" in that first line. but I'm pretty sure my point is still clear...

I suppose some people think if the pick the Phillies every year (Buster Olney has the same obsession with the Indians. He went so far as to suggest that Cliff Lee was "the missing link to greatness" or some such nonsense.), then sooner or later they'll actually win and presto! you can brag about picking them. By some of these articles I've been reading, you'd think that Pedro went 30-2 with a .90 ERA last year and carried the whole team on his back. I have news for you guys...after June, Pedro didn't do a whole heck of a lot. Freddy Garcia and Wes Helms aren't bad players, but using them as the core of your argument for the Phillies winning the NL East is just laughable. I know that next year, after the Phillies phinish 5-15 games out, there will still be people on the bandwagon *shrug*.

Randy, if you compare the Mets starting staff vs the Phillies, assuming Pedro is hurt most of the year or not up to his usual standards, there is not a pitcher 1-5 on the Mets that matches up to the Phillies 1-5, or more accurately 1-6. Myers beats Glavine,Hamels beats Hernandez, Garcia beats Maine, Eaton beats Perez and Myers or Lieber beats Park and in all cases it isn't even close. In addition, the Phillies win the lineup comparison as well, winning 1b and 2b by a large margin,LF,RF, and are very close at SS, with Reyes's injury history narrowing the 20 more steals he averages over Rollins who has more power. The only positions the Mets win by a large margin over the Phillies is CF and 3B. The Mets also have a big edge in the bullpen which they will need given the starting staff, so when you sum it up, the Phillies by far have the best starting pitching and a slightly better lineup while the Mets have a much better bullpen. Sure looks like the Phillies year to me.