When I was a kid playing stickball in the suburbs of Philly, kids generally were better at catching a fly ball than hitting a cutoff man, let alone the subtlety of tagging up. So even at a young age, the neighborhood urchins were well aware with the concept of non-continuous double plays.

We all knew that if a player crosses the plate before the final out is made (usually after a half dozen errors, mental or otherwise), the run counts. It's a rare play in the majors. You might see it on a sac fly with one out and a man on first and third when the runner at first forgets the number of outs.

It happened last year in a May Phillies-Braves game. Pat Burrell was out and Bobby Abreu was at third in the bottom of the second with the Phils trailing 2-1. Ryan Howard hit an apparent sac fly to deep center, but Burrell forgot how many outs there were and was doubled off first after Abreu scored. The same play came up later in the game, but Burrell knew enough to return to first that time. The Phils won 6-3.

So yes, it's rare but I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't a few non-continuous double plays called each year. That's why it's so surprising that the umpires were completely nonplussed when a textbook version of the play occurred on Saturday in the O's-Indians game.

With the O's trailing 2-1 in the top of the third, Nick Markakis on third, Miguel Tejada on first, and one out, Ramon Hernandez hit a sinking liner to center and Grady Sizemore made a great diving catch for the second out. Markakis tagged at third and crossed the plate quite obviously before a Sizemore's throw to first doubled up Tejada, who may still be rounding the bases. Tejada admitted that he lost track of the outs.

Home plate umpire Marvin Hudson waved off the run. Inexplicably, no one from the Oriole bench initially protested. Bench coach Tom Trebelhorn was the first to slowly wake from the Baltimore hibernation—must have been all the snow they are getting lately in Cleveland—and his repeated attempts to correct the miscall finally bore fruit in the sixth, turning a 2-2 tie to a 3-2 Baltimore lead.

It was not until crew chief Ed Montague got involved and sent a rep "into the umpire's room to read the rule book, though what he was looking at remained unclear." (Huh?!?) The umpiring crew "had several discussions with the two dugouts in between innings" before getting the call right. The Indians protested—good luck!—and eventually lost 7-4.

What I want to know is how such a simple play got so screwed up. Clearly, Hudson botched the initial call but I am surprised that the Montague, as the crew chief, did not take the time to make sure the call was right before play started in the bottom of the third.

I also want to know how the ruling in the rulebook could be viewed as "unclear"!?! It is explicitly spelled out in three separate places with verbatim examples of exactly this play:

First under the definition of a force play (Rule 2.00):

A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner…
Example: Not a force out. One out. Runner on first and third. Batter flies out. Two out. Runner on third tags up and scores. Runner on first tries to retouch before throw from fielder reaches first baseman, but does not get back in time and is out. Three outs. If, in umpire's judgment, the runner from third touched home before the ball was held at first base, the run counts.

Next in the section on how runs score:

4.09
HOW A TEAM SCORES.
(a) One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning. EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches first base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by a preceding runner who is declared out because he failed to touch one of the bases.

Note that from the force play definition the play at first is not a force. Therefore, none of the exceptions apply. Later in 4.09:

Here is a general statement that covers:
When a runner misses a base and a fielder holds the ball on a missed base, or on the base originally occupied by the runner if a fly ball is caught, and appeals for the umpire's decision, the runner is out when the umpire sustains the appeal; all runners may score if possible, except that with two out the runner is out at the moment he misses the bag, if an appeal is sustained as applied to the following runners.
Approved Ruling: One out, Jones on third, Smith on first, and Brown flies out to right field. Two outs. Jones tags up and scores after the catch. Smith attempted to return to first but the right fielder's throw beat him to the base. three outs. But Jones scored before the throw to catch Smith reached first base, hence Jones' run counts. It was not a force play.

Still not clear enough? How about rule 7.08(e):

Any runner is out when…
(e) He fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner. However, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out. The force is removed as soon as the runner touches the base to which he is forced to advance, and if he overslides or overruns the base, the runner must be tagged to be put out. However, if the forced runner, after touching the next base, retreats for any reason towards the base he had last occupied, the force play is reinstated, and he can again be put out if the defense tags the base to which he is forced;
Rule 7.08(e) Comment: PLAY. Runner on first and three balls on batter: Runner steals on the next pitch, which is fourth ball, but after having touched second he overslides or overruns that base. Catcher's throw catches him before he can return. Ruling is that runner is out. (Force out is removed.)
Oversliding and overrunning situations arise at bases other than first base. For instance, before two are out, and runners on first and second, or first, second and third, the ball is hit to an infielder who tries for the double play. The runner on first beats the throw to second base but overslides the base. The relay is made to first base and the batter-runner is out. The first baseman, seeing the runner at second base off the bag, makes the return throw to second and the runner is tagged off the base. Meanwhile runners have crossed the plate. The question is: Is this a force play? Was the force removed when the batter-runner was out at first base? Do the runs that crossed the plate during this play and before the third out was made when the runner was tagged at second, count? Answer: The runs score. It is not a force play. It is a tag play.

OK, the last play is not exactly the same, but the concept is similar. The rulebook seems pretty explicit to me. So how did both Hudson and Montague screw the pooch on the play?

Search me. But if I were in charge of the umps, as Mike Post, MLB VP of Umpiring, is alleged to be, I would want a full explanation. Why don't these two umps, or any of the umps in the crew for that matter, know the rule? OK, maybe I am being to rough on Montague since rule 9.02(c) states, "No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it." He didn't know the call either and had to have it looked up but it wasn't his call.

OK, but what's Hudson's excuse? The general instructions to umps in section 9 of the rules puts the onus on him to get the play right: "Each umpire team should work out a simple set of signals, so the proper umpire can always right a manifestly wrong decision when convinced he has made an error. If sure you got the play correctly, do not be stampeded by players' appeals to "ask the other man." If not sure, ask one of your associates. Do not carry this to extremes, be alert and get your own plays. But remember! The first requisite is to get decisions correctly. If in doubt don't hesitate to consult your associate. Umpire dignity is important but never as important as "being right.""

I guess he can claim that Baltimore was lukewarm on protesting so why is he to blame. I'm sure nothing will happen but Hudson should at best be sent back to the minors to hone his skills like a faltering reliever and to allow for a worthy minor-leaguer to take his spot.

Farewell to Hancock

Former Phil Josh Hancock died in a car accident Sunday causing the cancellation of the Sunday Night Cardinals game. He last pitched Saturday posthumously becoming just the fifth player ever to die within one day of his final game:

I have never seen a no-hitter live. I'm a mush. Whenever I turn on a game with a pitcher in the process of throwing a no-hitter, within a half inning the no-no's gone.

Today, I was watching the Phillies game—well, mostly listening since I was painting my bathroom. Jamie Moyer had a no-hitter going into the seventh. I decided to take a break to watch the Moyer face the Marlins in the top of the seventh. After getting the first two batters out, one with , he allowed a clear-cut double by the always dangerous Miguel Cabrera sliced down the left field line.

Again, I ruined a no-hitter. Sorry, Jamie. The Phils eventually won convincingly, 6-1, but I couldn't help but feel responsible for Moyer losing the no-no. I'm a mush.

That said, Moyer's rarest accomplishment on the day may have had nothing to do with the near no-hitter. In the bottom of the seventh after losing the no-no, Moyers doubled to left to lead off the inning. Of course, the Phils did their darnedest to strand him—though Kevin Gregg helped out by wild pitching him to third—and of course, Moyer lost it (slightly) in the eighth walking Joe Borchard and allowing a hit to Aaron Boone before getting pulled.

That fruitless double by Moyer was his first since 1988 and just the third of his career in 208 at-bats. That's a 19-year gap between two-base hits. You do have to remember that prior to coming to the Phils after the trade deadline last year, Moyer had not pitched in the NL—read, non-DH league—since 1991. However, that's still the longest break between two-baggers in baseball history.

And if you think that the other batters with similarly long stretches between doubles benefited from playing in the DH-era American League, take a look at the players who had a ten-year or more lag between doubles. It seems that a good number were career relief pitchers:

So my watching the game may have put the kibosh on Moyer's no-hitter, but it didn't hinder his achieving this even rarer feat. I have a feeling that Moyer probably would have preferred the no-no.

Jeff Francoeur is having a surprising season so far for the Braves, and it's not just because he is knocking in more than a run a game (24 RBI in 21 games). Yes, his projected total (172) would place him sixth all time on the single-season RBI list—quite impressive even this early on. However, I am more impressed by his walk total.

"Huh, he has just nine bases on balls, 14 behind league leader Ryan Howard in that category. What's so impressive about that?" you ask?

Consider that Francoeur projects to 63 for the season. Still not impressed? 63 seems about average or even below average for a player who might hit 30 homers, drive in 100 runs, and bat around .280, right?

Well, you need a bit of context to see why those 9 walks are so impressive. Ever since Francoeur was promoted to the majors, the knock against him has been his inability to draw a base on balls. He seemed to overcome that weakness in his rookie season (or rather half-season) finishing third in the 2005 Rookie of the Year voting with 14 home runs, 45 RBI, and a .300 average in just 257 major-league at-bats (with an adjusted OPS of 124). But wait for his comeuppance, said all of the sabermetricians like the Greek chorus heaping derision on the spoiled George Minafer in "The Magnificent Ambersons".

And his comeuppance seemed to come in his sophomore year. Francoeur slipped to .260 with just a .293 on-base percentage (a 43-point drop) despite 29 home runs and 103 RBI in 2006. His park-adjusted OPS was 11 points worse than the average NL batter. His slip was accompanied or perhaps presaged by a dropoff in walks, from 11 (including 3 intentional) in 274 plate appearances in 2005 to just 23 (6 IBB) in 686 last year. He walked 2.95% of the time in 2005 but just 2.50% in 2006, a 15.3% decline (note these percentages ignore intentional walks and their plate appearances). The sabermetric community wrote him off as another so-so power hitter with empty stats.

However, in 96 plate appearances so far this year, his 9 walks (1 intentional) translate into a 8.42% walk rate, or to put it another way, a 237% increase in walks per plate appearance. Maybe that's why his other stats have improved markedly as well.

Here is a look at his stats over the years:

* (Note: Adj BB/PA ignores plate appearances resulting from IBBs.)

Anyway, this made me wonder, if Francoeur has indeed learned to draw walks after becoming an established major-leaguer, how rare would that feat be? And has anyone had as dramatic a turnaround as Francoeur (i.e., a 237% increase)?

Well, as it turns out, Francoeur's sudden turnaround, if he can truly keep it up for an entire season, would be the tenth most dramatic in baseball history and the second most dramatic since the nineteenth century. Here are all the batters who increased their walks-to-plate appearance ratio by at least 200% (or at least trebled it) in a season (min. 400 plate appearances, intentional walks ignored in calculations if they were officially recorded):

Here are the tops since 1900. Francoeur would be behind Jim Bucher:

Four of the people on the list were over thirty in their second year. Just two were 25 or below. I assumed that the biggest improvement would be when a player was developing. Guess not.

Next, I compared the stats by age to see how and when players improve their ability to draw a walk and if they lose it when they get older:

So it is when a player is younger, gradually slows through baseball midlife (29-34), and then appears to gradually decline (aside from a handful of outliers who apparently kept their careers alive by drawing more walks in the twilight of their careers.

Finally, I thought it would be interesting to see how players progressed over the decades. It appears that gradual progress has been made since the start of the 21st century, but so far this decade walking, at least unintentially, is down so far in the 2000s:

As the Phils prepare to sweep the Nationals on Thursday to get within one game of .500, the Yankees look to end a five-game losing streak that includes to sweeps, by the Red Sox and the D-Rays.

They are indeed two teams headed in different directions and is largely due to pitching. The Yanks pitching has been decimated by injuries while the Phils have seemingly stabilized the starting rotation while cannibalizing a member of the rotation (Brett Myers) to at least throw another major-league arm in the pen. Oh, and the Phils finally figured out how to bunch a couple of hits.

Should the Yankees get swept by the Blue Jays, they will do something that hasn't been done since the beginning of the Steinbrenner era, get swept in three straight series. Here are all the times in the Yankees history that they have been swept three in straight series:

Yr	Series#	Opp	W	L	Series#	Opp	W	L	Series#	Opp	W	L
1908	25	DET	0	3	26	CLE	0	4	27	SLA	0	3
1912	1	BOS	0	3	2	WS1	0	2	3	BOS	0	1
1912	20	WS1	0	5	21	WS1	0	1	22	DET	0	2
1912	38	CHA	0	3	39	DET	0	3	40	CLE	0	2
1913	11	BOS	0	1	12	PHA	0	4	13	BOS	0	2
1913	12	PHA	0	4	13	BOS	0	2	14	CLE	0	4
1915	12	BOS	0	2	13	DET	0	2	14	DET	0	1
1915	37	WS1	0	3	38	SLA	0	1	39	DET	0	4
1930	1	PHA	0	1	2	BOS	0	2	3	WS1	0	1
1930	2	BOS	0	2	3	WS1	0	1	4	PHA	0	1
1944	13	DET	0	4	14	CLE	0	1	15	BOS	0	4
1973	42	KCA	0	3	43	OAK	0	3	44	CAL	0	2

And if the Yanks do succumb to a sweep at the hands of the Jays and go on to face the Red Sox again, keep in mind that they have been swept in four straight series just twice (in 1913 and 1930).

Meanwhile, the Phils have swept three straight series in a row just twice since 1990. Keep that in mind should they again top the Nats and then go on to face the Mets this weekend. Here are the last ten times they have done it (they have 45 in their history):

To clear up my brain farts with the Red Sox sweep of the Yankees, first, here are the all the previous Red Sox sweeps of three games or more (32 in total out of the 86 total sweeps):

The Yankees have swept the Red Sox in a series of three games or more 64 times, the last time being the Boston Massacre last August (with 154 sweeps of any length in total):

Life is a series of surprises, and would not be worth taking or keeping, if it were not.
—Ralph Waldo Emerson

Now that I have created a little series database, I have been playing around with the data and found something interesting. A team's percentage of series won is a better predictor of winning percentage than the runs-based expected winning percentage (a .965 vs. .955 correlation coefficient). I know, it's not that surprising given that we are comparing wins, or at least series wins, to wins. But, hey, I love stats, so…

Here are the teams with the best series winning percentage all time with their overall winning percentage and expected percentage:

Here are the worst:

Since that is so heavy with nineteenth century teams, here are the worst from 1900 on:

I also broke down the data by sweeps. Here are the hardest teams in baseball history to sweep:

Here are the easiest to sweep:

Now, without nineteenth century bums:

Here's the other end of the spectrum, the teams most likely to sweep their opponent:

Now without the 19th century outliers:

Finally, here are the teams least likely to sweep:

As the injury-riddled Yankees got swept in a four-game weekend series at Fenway, they recorded just the seventh sweep of four games or more at the hands of the Red Sox in the franchise's history. Here are the first six with the site and the teams' full-season records:

Of course, it was the 49th series sweep of the Yankees by the Red Sox, bit some of those series were just a game or two (Witness last year's one-game "sweep" on May 1 after the second game in the series was cancelled). On the other hand, the Yankees have swept the Sox 98 times and have nine sweeps of four or more games though the last was in 1985:

Meanwhile, the Phils won the second series and third game in a row tonight, pounding the Astros, 11-4, in a one-game make-up series. The Phils also beat the Reds over the weekend. It was the first series they won in seven tries.

I ran the numbers for all teams (173 in total) who didn't win a series through their first six of the season. The previous two were the Pirates and Marlins last year. This was the thirteenth time in franchise history that the Phils failed to win a series in the first six, the last coming in 1997.

On average, those teams finished with a .393 winning percentage, or a 64-98 record. Of those 173 teams just 4 made the playoffs (1981 Royals, 1974 Pirates, 1914 Miracle Braves, and 1908 Tigers) and just one (the Braves) won the World Series.

With a three-game winning streak, Howard on the mend, and the rest of the offense finally clicking, things look rosy in Philly, but with the Braves and Mets both hot and history not being on the side of a team that starts this incredibly slowly, I still feel confident in my prediction of 75 wins.

Chase Wright made history by allowing a record-tying four straight home runs to the Red Sox en route to a 7-6 loss and a series sweep. Remarkably his five homers allowed in eight innings are not close to the worst for a pitcher (min. 5 innings pitched), but he is the only major-leaguer ever with the first name "Sebern":

More on the sweep itself later.

Wednesday was kind of a bad day for the Phils.

Its started with Charlie Manuel making headlines due to an altercation with local radio "personality" Howard Eskin. Next, came opening-day starter Brett Myers' move to the bullpen, a highly questionable and disputed move. Then, reigning NL MVP Ryan Howard pulled up lame in the tenth inning running out a grounder and was listed as day-to-day. Howard had to remain in the game for the final three and one-half innings even with the injury since there were no men left on the Phillie bench. Finally, came the extra-inning loss to the NL East doormats, the Nats, which dumped the Phils into sole possession of last place not only in the East but in the entire National League.

There was little promise that Thursday would be any better. Howard was indeed out of the lineup. His shoes were to be filled by Greg Dobbs, a little know utility man with Seattle for parts of three seasons, who surprising made the Phillies roster due to a hot spring bat and a lack of depth and owned just 251 plate appearances and 2 home runs for his career. The team now faced a series sweep at the hands of the lowly Nats. Manuel's performance, job status, and sanity were being questioned throughout the Philadelphia and national media.

Then Jamie Moyer took the mound, quieting the Nationals' bats. He took a shutout into the ninth and, after surviving a little bases-loaded scare upon being replaced by shaky and rapidly aging closer Tom Gordon, won his second game of the year.

When the Phils quietly picked up Moyer for two minor prospects after the trade deadline last year, I thought it was an odd move. Moyer was 43 and was struggling with the last-place M's. He was 6-12 with a 4.39 ERA. This was after three highly mediocre seasons following his great 21-7 2003 All-Star season. He seemed ready to retire. It was an odd move for a team that was concentrating on youth or at least what passes for youth in Philadelphia, 26- to28-year-olds. I thought maybe the Phils were acquiring him as a potential replacement for undistinguished pitching coach Rich Dubee in 2007.

Moyer pitched well willing five of his eight starts with an ERA around four and was rewarded with what seemed at the time a gratuitous two-year extension. Moyer has been a calming influence on the staff so far in 2007 with a 2-1 record and a 3.05 ERA. One could make a good argument for his being the team MVP to this point in the season, surely a dubious honor on a 4-10 team, but there it is.

If he can continue to lull offenses, he projects to twenty wins. I know, it's early. Tuffy Rhodes once project to 78 homers mid-April one season. But that in itself is a remarkable feat for a pitcher who looked like he was ready to be stuck by a fork last August. (Besides what else is there to talk about from yesterday's game? Dobbs going 0-for-5?)

It would be Moyer's third twenty-win season, and he would become the oldest twenty-game winner by a couple of years. Bedsides twenty wins would put him in the mid-200s for wins, which starts to make a somewhat compelling argument for his going into the Hall of Fame. Twenty wins would tie him for 58th all time with Hall of Famer Whitey Ford.

Don't get me wrong: I don't think he has a strong argument, but he would fall into that near-Hall-worthy group that appear perennially on the writers' ballot but never seem to gain entry, guys like Jack Morris and Tommy John. That's not too bad for a former journeyman who did not become an established starter until age 33.

Let's say he can keep it up and ends up winning twenty games. At 44, he would better the oldest previous twenty-game winner, Warren Spahn, by two years. Here are the oldest to win twenty. Note that Moyer is on the list twice:

He would also enjoy the most valuable season for a pitcher over 43 ever. Here are the best seasons (by Pitching Win Shares) after turning 44:

Of course, it's more likely that Moyer will wilt under the summer heat, but c'mon, something has to go right with this team at some point. Doesn't it?

The Phils abysmal season hit a new low tonight as they lost to the former NL East doormats, the Nationals, 5-4 in 13 innings and are now in sole possession of last place in the National League.

Meanwhile, their manager, Charlie "I Need a friggin'" Manuel, has had quite a day. First, his tirade against Howard Eskin became the top baseball story. Then he decided to use his opening day starter, Brett Myers, out of the pen in some largely undefined middle relief role. Then he helps lose this game by having Aaron Rowand and his hot bat bunt with the Phils trailing by a run, men at first and second, and none out.

The Myers move is especially curious. He ludicrously offered to close in spring training, but I can't imagine he thought he would end up as some sort of seventh inning specialist. The Phils are desperate for relief but I can't imagine the upside of using Myers instead of a Francisco Rosario, Clay Condrey, or Joe Bisenius in that spot could possibly outweigh not having one of their best arms in a starting role.

This is similar to his tinkering with the two best bats in the lineup to start the season. You'll remember he put Ryan Howard in the third spot and Chase Utley in the cleanup spot. Howard started slowly and has yet to attain any sort of consistency at the plate. Utley started hot but has cooled as well. All to try to solve the issue of who would "protect" Howard as if that was their biggest problem. Why cannibalize your strengths to mitigate your weaknesses?

The only way it makes sense is that Pat Gillick has a trade lined up for John Lieber but the potential recipient wants to see him start a game before they OK the deal. They plug Lieber into the rotation for a start or two, trade him, and then move Myers back to the rotation. Still, toying with a pitcher who has proven to be a flake in the past is a bad idea.

I looked at all starters who amassed at least ten pitching Win Shares one season and then moved to the bullpen the next season. On average, they lost just under nine Win Shares due to the move (from 13.51 to 4.67). That translates into three potential additional losses for the team. Of course, if your team is replacing that spot with someone who will produce as well or better, that's fine. That's not the case here.

Here are the pitchers who had the biggest improvement after a shift to the bullpen:

There aren't that many Goose Gossages out there. Now, here are the ones that had the biggest dropoff after a bullpen shift. Note that Spalding was essentially a first baseman in 1877 because of fatigue in his pitching arm.

It seems that Manuel is pulling a Britney Spears and is just asking to be fired at this point. It seems he'll get his wish soon.

Meanwhile, the Phils' 3-10 record is the worst since their abysmal 1997 season. Teams that started 3-10 on average ended up with a .405 winning percentage or a 66-96 record over 162 games. Only five of those teams have ever made the playoffs and many of those (including the 1914 Miracle Braves and 2001 A's) represent the greatest comebacks in baseball history.

It will be interesting to see what Jimy Williams does with this team once he takes over. One of the first will surely be undoing the damage that Manuel is now doing, move Myers back to the rotation, define some roles for the remaining pen mates, and setting the batting order. Maybe another loss tomorrow against the Nats will help kick off the Williams era.

Sweet fire the sire of muse, my soul needs this;
I want the one rapture of an inspiration.
O then if in my lagging lines you miss
—Gerard "Don't Call Me Effa" Manley Hopkins

Tut, man, one fire burns out another's burning,
One pain is lessened by another's anguish.
—William "Author" Shakespeare, "J.C." Romeo and Juliet

Peter Gibbons: I uh, I don't like my job, and, uh, I don't think I'm gonna go anymore.
Joanna: You're just not gonna go?
Peter: Yeah.
Joanna: Won't you get fired?
Peter: I don't know, but I really don't like it, and, uh, I'm not gonna go.
Joanna: So you're gonna quit?
Peter: Nuh-uh. Not really. Uh... I'm just gonna stop going.
—From the great Office Space

Apparently, Charlie Manuel is now trying to get fired.

Manuel drew headlines after challenging the polemical Philly sports-talk non-personality, Howard Eskin, who dared him to get angry and ride his players a little more given the Phils 3-9 record. Manuel called Eskin into his office to prove to him that he, Manuel, could in actuality get angry. The results were bad press for Manuel and good, juicy story for Eskin. The best-case for Eskin was getting some fodder for his radio show and that was exactly what Manuel gave him. You can't respect a man who is so easily outsmarted by a talking head of Eskin's caliber.

It seems that the malaise surrounding this team—yesterday's game was steeped in it—is headed in the general direction of Manuel getting fired. As for whether Manuel getting tough on his players, The Inquirer found that the largest segment of fans don't care. They just want the team to win.

Unfortunately, they are not winning, and aside from a couple of tweaks like juggling the batting order and redefining the bullpen roles, there are not many options within the organization. Pat Gillick earned his nickname "Stand Pat" by not pulling the trigger on a few interesting deals this spring and appears not to have any big deadlines in the offing (Brad Lidge?).

Should Charlie Manuel be fired? Yes, in a heartbeat. He is perhaps the worst manager that at least I have ever seen as far as in-game decision making is concerned. He cannot handle a bullpen, cannot determine the appropriate time to pull a starting pitcher, he doesn't use his bench except for pinch-hitting and late-inning defensive replacement duties, and, oh yeah, he still does not know how to double-switch even though he is in his third year managing in the NL.

However, is Manuel to blame for the current situation. No, not really. He's done his part, but he is also managing a dysfunctional team. Wes Helms does not have the defense to be a starting third baseman in the majors. Shane Victorino does not have the pop to be a starting corner outfielder. Rod Barrajas was a poor stopgap solution behind the plate that was a Phils knee-jerk reaction after ignoring the short-term catching solutions last year—specifically, why didn't Ruiz get more experience given that it was apparent that he had to be the starter in 2007. With all the free agents and mid-season deals in 2006, it was clear that their bullpen would be threadbare in 2007.

Really, all of the Phils problems this year, aside from Utley and Howard not hitting, were apparent by the All-Star break last year. In the offseason, their big moves were to pick up two starting pitchers, the highly questionable Adam Eaton and Freddy Garcia, who will be a free agent at the end of the season, and to fill spots with veteran journeymen like Helms and Barrajas. And who is to blame for all of this? GM Pat Gillick.

This reminds me of 2004 when Larry Bowa quietly (for him) lame ducked his way through almost an entire season before getting fired in the final weekend. Bowa was also a poor manager for different reasons and he deserved to get fired. But by the time he was let go, his ineptitude was marginalized by the abysmal job then-GM Ed Wade was doing at gathering needed talent (especially at the trade deadline).

Bowa became the scapegoat while Wade survived one more season. I get the feeling that Manuel is getting primed for the scapegoat role, and his little run-in with Eskin helped grease the skids. It seemed to start in the offseason when a slew of former managers were hired to fill out the coaching staff. This includes heir apparent Jimy Williams, who has managed with Gillick in the past. It also came after a number of Manuel's coaches were let go in a mini shakeup.

Will firing Manuel and replacing him with either Williams, Davey Lopes, or even Dallas Green—the Phils love to hire from within the organization—turn this team around? What about a creative move like hiring someone like Joe Girardi, will that energize the team? I doubt it. It might help, but it won't resolve the personnel issues.

So much of what the Phils front office is about is designating scapegoats to fire to get some sort positive PR bump with the local yokels that it would almost be surprising if Manuel were to be fired this early in the season. Who would they blame come October? However, Manuel may force their hand if he continues to publicly pour gasoline on the fire, like with his public brouhaha with Eskin.

Anyway, I took a look at teams that fired their manager at different times throughout the year. Here are the breakdowns based on when the manager was fired. The average manager's record, average team record, and average record after the firing are listed along with the winning percentage difference before and after the firing:

The time to fire a manager is clearly early in the season with potentially a 100-point winning percentage turnaround on average. However, if the Phils improved their winning percentage by 100 points, they would still be among the worst clubs in the league. That said, if or when the Phils decide that Manuel is on his way out, the are better off making a clean break then allowing him to be a lame duck going forward.

Right now, I'm sure that the Phils brass is in their typical bunker mentality. They are thinking about how they can generate some fan interest after all the offseason optimism and season ticket sales. With the bad weather it's hard to say whether the 27K they drew yesterday against their alleged rival, the Mets, was due to a growing lack of fan interest. But I am sure that the walk-up ticket sales will weigh as heavily on the front office's mind as the team's lackluster record. Only they know when they will make their next move, but unfortunately for Manuel, it appears that when that move comes it will come in the form of his dismissal.

Now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,
That seeming to be most which we indeed least are.
—William "Author" Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew

So the Phils actually played a game. Freddy Garcia actually pitched in a Phillies uniform. And the results are the same as they have been all season. The Phils lost in resounding style to the Mets, 8-1, with Moises Alou alone outscoring (2-1) and out-homering (2 to zip) the entire Phils lineup.

Garcia lasted only four and two-thirds innings and though he struck out six he also allowed eight hits and three runs, all earned, including one of the Alou dingers. So starting pitching, one of the highly touted Phillie strengths when the season began, continues to be a severe weakness for the Phils. Their starter ERA is 5.93, worst in the National League.

Even though the Phil starters are striking out almost a batter an inning, the rest of their results are nowhere near as positive. Aside from Cole Hamels and Jamie Moyer, the Phil starters have been deplorable yet far:

Meanwhile, their known problem of having absolutely no bullpen has been a problem, yes—a 4.89 ERA—but not to the same extent as the starters (though a projected 0-41 record is kind of bad):

Look at all those unearned runs. Thanks Stand Pat for signing Wes Helms.

Anyway, tonight Matt Smith watched his ERA go from 3.86 to 13.50. He also allowed three walks to run his total to f