Obligatory Shawn Estes Rant
Mon, Jan 9, 2006
by Geoff Young
So, the Padres have added Shawn Estes to the mix for 2006. Among pitchers who have worked 400 or more innings over the last four seasons, two of the five worst ERAs belong to guys in the Friars’ projected rotation:
| Name | IP | ERA | BB/9 | K/9 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan Ho Park | 426.2 | 5.78 | 4.56 | 6.60 | ||||
| Jose Lima | 480.2 | 5.75 | 2.66 | 4.46 | ||||
| Steve Sparks | 416.2 | 5.51 | 3.22 | 4.51 | ||||
| Ryan Drese | 520.1 | 5.45 | 3.29 | 4.70 | ||||
| Shawn Estes | 638.2 | 5.43 | 4.45 | 5.52 | ||||
| Stats courtesy of David Pinto’s Day-by-Day Database. | ||||||||
A total of 15 pitchers who’ve worked 400 or more innings since 2002 have posted an ERA over 5.00. (Ismael Valdez and Darrell May are the other Padres represented, if you’re interested. Pedro Astacio doesn’t make the list because he’s been injured so much. Drop the threshold to 350 innings and he and Tim Redding are right there with Casey Fossum and Ryan Dempster.) Of those 15, only one has logged more innings than Estes, Colorado’s Jason Jennings.
For grins, here is Estes’ walk distribution per start over that period:
| BB | Ct | % |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 3 | 2.7 |
| 1 | 21 | 18.8 |
| 2 | 25 | 22.3 |
| 3 | 28 | 20.5 |
| 4 | 23 | 20.5 |
| 5 | 5 | 4.5 |
| 6 | 7 | 6.3 |
Here are the strikeouts:
| SO | Ct | % |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 6 | 5.4 |
| 1 | 15 | 13.4 |
| 2 | 19 | 17.0 |
| 3 | 22 | 19.6 |
| 4 | 16 | 14.3 |
| 5 | 15 | 13.4 |
| 6 | 8 | 7.1 |
| 7 | 6 | 5.4 |
| 8 | 3 | 2.7 |
| 9 | 1 | 0.9 |
| 11 | 1 | 0.9 |
Estes has had twice as many zero-strikeout starts over the past four years as zero-walk starts. He has walked four or more batters in a game 35 times, while striking out five or more in a game 34 times. Are we grinning yet?
Here’s something else that will make you happy: Estes no longer gets to face the Padres. During that same period, in which his ERA against the world is 5.43, he made seven starts against the Friars and posted a 3.30 ERA. Take away those games, and Estes’ ERA balloons to 5.59.
I keep looking for a bright side to this story, and all I can come up with is that the Jose Lima rumors apparently are false.
San Diego College Baseball Schedules
Let’s move on to better things, shall we? If you’re in town, you can catch a ballgame this coming weekend. The USD Alumni game is Saturday, January 14, 1 p.m., at Cunningham Stadium. Here are the local college 2006 schedules:
- USD Toreros (available as PDF under “Notes” on right side)
- PLNU Sea Lions. First game: Bethany College (DH), Sat., Jan. 21, 10 a.m.
- SDSU Aztecs (available as PDF under “Notes” on right side). First game: Alumni, Sat., Jan. 28, 1 p.m.
- UCSD Tritons. First game: Alumni, Sat., Feb. 4, 1:30 p.m.
There you go. Live baseball in San Diego each of the next four Saturdays. Schweet!
Other Stuff
- Watch man Loretta hopes ‘06 is right time (Boston Globe). Nice piece on a fave.
- Padres hope Mirabelli is a regular guy (U-T). I really hope Doug Mirabelli works out as a starter. He’s saying all the right things, but who knows.
Finally, as a reminder, Ducksnorts: Best of 2005 is now available. Download yourself a copy for the very low price of FREE. Enjoy!
Picking up where last year's version left off, the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual provides in-depth analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres. Get your copy today.
January 9, 2006 at 9:08 am
From that UT article
Mirabelli is encouraged that the Padres can offer him both playing time and a pennant race. He is hopeful that his newfound prominence does not carry unreasonable performance expectations.
“I’ve always been confident in my ability to play baseball,” he said. “But I think it would be a misconception to think Doug Mirabelli would come here and be the answer to all of the Padres’ questions.”
So, Mirabelli speaks about himself in the third person. Interesting.
January 9, 2006 at 9:17 am
A good article about the departed Mark Loretta in the Boston Globe:
.http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2006/01/08/watch_man_loretta_hopes_06_is_right_time/?page=1
January 9, 2006 at 9:18 am
Whoops — sorry Geoff, didn’t see you already had that Loretta article posted.
January 9, 2006 at 9:23 am
That story about Loretta getting an extra $500 from the Brewers b/c he had an offer from K Mart is great.
January 9, 2006 at 9:31 am
That’s enlightening. Supposed humble, team-oriented catcher uses same phraseology as Deion Sanders.
For every positive step this season (Cameron, the Texas trade) we make a negative one (Mirabelli, Shawn Stinking Estes).
January 9, 2006 at 10:14 am
Too bad, we don’t have Steve Sparks as well. At least then, there is some more value for Mirabelli.
Although the combined value of having Sparks-Mirabelli as opposed to Estes-Mirabelli is about equally bad.
BTW, Mirabelli can’t hit RHP.
I get more depressed looking at his numbers the past 3 years.
I’m looking at min. 90 losses if the lineup stands by the end of the Spring Training. On the positive side, NL West hasn’t improved much overall.
January 9, 2006 at 10:51 am
Why we love the NL West: we could be near 90 losses and still be in the hunt for the divison title. That’s life in an era of lowered expectations.
January 9, 2006 at 12:01 pm
The lineup doesn’t look like it was downgraded except at catcher. That’s a big downgrade, because even though Ramon was hurt so much, Olivo played out of his head. Our 3b were so bad that even Vinny is an upgrade; Klesko will outproduce Nevin; Cameron is better than Roberts; Loretta’s 16.6 VORP isn’t out of reach for our plethora of 2b. Overall I think we’re actually better at the plate than we were last season.
The problem is the rotation. It stank last year. It stinks as of now. Young will outperform Eaton, but Estes will not outperform Lawrence, and we still have Woody.
January 9, 2006 at 12:31 pm
I agree that the rotation is the main problem, but I think some of that will be helped with the improved OF defense. While I am not a fan of Shawn Estes, he did post a 92 ERA+ in 2005, while Lawrence was at 80, so it is not unreasonable to believe that Estes would outperform Lawrence. I would be much happier if Hensley was taking Lawrence’s spot, and Estes was the 5th starter, because they were really bad last year, and even he could be an improvement. As far as Woody goes, I peg him for a moderate bounceback this year to a near 100 ERA+, but I’m ever the optimist.
January 9, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Better at the plate this coming season as opposed to last season’s? Let’s not get carried away.
The whole NL West was posting negative run differential with the Padres posting the least negative. Can the new lineup add one more run per game this coming season? I don’t know because that would actually give the Padres a plus 120 runs assuming exactly same kind of pitching.
However, the starting pitching is worse than last year’s as off now.
Jake = Jake.
Young better than Eaton (we think).
Woody better than Woody (hopefully).
Estes better than Lawrence (we hope). BUT not based on his career. I’m thinking that Estes would be worse than last year’s…I’m negative that way.
Chan much worse than Pedro (we know).
I’m not sure how much into the positive run differential area the Padres are going to be next season.
Here’s hoping that Brazelton, Andrade, Baugh, Brocail, Stauffer, and Hensley will come through and be better than we think.
January 9, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Estes had the higher ERA+ but Lawrence had the better VORP, and Lawrence has beaten the daylights out of Estes in VORP since he came to the majors.
We’re going to need a Woody bounceback.
Our #5 as things stand is one of Park, Etherton, Baugh. They can all suck just as hard as Redding, May, and Park did.
January 9, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Please, don’t scare me like that.
Redding/May was even worse than Park alone and that’s counting that one gem when May beat Santana.
Etherton/Baugh as sucky as Redding/May?
Let that be the worse scenario yet.
Perhaps, Brazelton/Baugh won’t be as sucky as Etherton/Baugh, thus, better than Redding/May.
Getting positive more and more by the seconds.
January 9, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Didi,
Yes, I think we’re better at the plate this season. It’s largely because we had so many bald spots last season, not because we brought in a lot of studs.
Castilla will provide more than Burroughs and Randa did. Which is just sad, because Castilla won’t provide much.
Cameron will provide slightly more than Roberts, who had a career season. Cameron plays more games when he’s not crashing into teammates, so the slight advantage is multipled by 20 or 30 games.
Nevin was just bad last year. Klesko outperforms him.
I’m not confident that Barfield will get a real shot, but Loretta’s VORP last year was only 16.6. DJ added 9.1, mostly at second. That’s not out of reach for Barfield, Bellhorn, Hill, and Blum.
Catcher is the big hit. 37 VORP from Ramon and Olivo last year, slightly less than what Joe Mauer gave the Twins.
I don’t think the offense is better enough given our pitching, and not just the starters. Our bullpen was awfully good last year. Even if they all came back, you’d expect some regression.
January 9, 2006 at 1:41 pm
I’m not sure why everyone is complaining about the Padres offense. Their offense is the team’s strength. You need to look deeper than just the base numbers to judge their offense due to the extreme depression of numbers at Petco. The Padres were 3rd overall in away runs and 2nd in OBP. Their problem last year was the starting pitching. Except for Peavy and Astacio, every starting pitcher had an ERA of over 5.00. That is why the team was bad last year, not the offense. All the complaining about the offense just shows the people still don’t understand park effects and disguises the real Padres problem.
January 9, 2006 at 1:43 pm
The question at 1B isn’t whether we expect that Klesko ‘06 will outperform Nevin ‘05; it’s whether Klesko/Gonzalez/McAnulty ‘06 outperform Sweeney/Fick/Nady/Nevin ‘05. Seems to me at least arguable that the Padres have regressed at the position.
January 9, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Sweeney complicates the picture. 23.3 VORP in 307 plate appearances. Nady and Nevin together were worth 18.5; Fick’s VORP was calculated as a catcher. I don’t know how to convert it. Safe to say we need a 45 or something like it out of our first basemen to break even.
Klesko was at 19.7 last year as a LF. If LF hit better than 1b that number would go up at 1b, but I don’t know how to figure that and it probably wouldn’t be that much of a difference.
You’re right, it’s not that clear-cut. Nevin did get almost all the 1b at-bats for the first three months of the season, when Sweeney was doing his work as a ph, so our new 1b are an improvement there.
What we need is a RH platoon mate for Klesko.
January 9, 2006 at 3:12 pm
I love that Mirabelli isn’t playing in the World Classic. He’s smart enough to recognize that we need 100+ games out of him and we don’t want to forfeit 15-20 of those to Italy.
TW, how is the Texas trade a bad one (or did you mean the Camron trade - if so, how is that one bad)?
Didi, 90 losses? I think we have a BETTER team than last year’s 82-win team. I’ll be conservative and call it an 85-win team… (my real prediction will probably be in the 88-86 range).
January 9, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Tom:
to say that the Padres’ offense last season wasn’t a problem is misleading. How many frustrating moments with MOB that the Padres’ fans endured?
The team was hitting BA/SLG: .255/.377 @ Petco versus .259/.404 while the opponents were .241/.378 and .277/.439 respectively. Yes, the pitching is apparently very much worse on the road (4.79 vs 3.52) as the Padres were outscored more on the road than at home.
The pitching was so good at home that the Padres went 46-35 at Petco despite being outscored by 10 runs for the season. I’d like to think the Padres would have been even better at home had the team managed to score 20 more runs.
In any case, the complain is whether the new lineup will produce as many runs as last year’s lineup. I don’t see much improvements since the Padres seem to upgrade at one/two positions and substract from others.
Peter:
Better? I’m not sure. Weaker starting pitchings and a possible regressing in the bullpen do not point to a better team.
January 9, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Peter, the Texas trade was in the good parentheses.
We may be better, but last year’s team should have finished 77-85. We needed a lot of luck to get those 5 extra wins.
January 9, 2006 at 4:49 pm
I’m with Didi. So far we’re moving backwards, relative to last year’s production at the position, more places than we’re moving forwards.
Backwards due to personnel changes: C, 2B, & probably 1B.
At least slightly backwards due to regression from a fine ‘05: Giles, the bullpen (esp. Linebrink), the bench.
Forwards due to personnel changes: 3B & CF.
Slightly forwards due to a regression (to the mean) from a poor ‘05: Greene, starting pitchers.
What could help?
- Big steps forward by one or two of these key young’uns: Barfield, C. Young, Hensley, A. Gonzalez, B. Johnson.
- A deal that gets us an upgrade at at least one of these positions: C, 2B, 3B, SP (like a WellsRoberts deal).
What might hurt?
- More than one of these past-their-primes are likely to completely crater from their established level of productivity due to age/injury and/or, for the last two, the physical demands of playing their position: Castilla, Williams, Klesko, Giles, Hoffman, Mirabelli, and Cameron.
- Peavy’s traverse of that fine edge leading to greatness always seems a substantial threat to end in the abyss of fragility.
January 9, 2006 at 5:03 pm
dprat said: “Peavy’s traverse of that fine edge leading to greatness always seems a substantial threat to end in the abyss of fragility.”
That is a beautiful sentence, if not a beautiful sentiment. Really, I love that sentence.
January 9, 2006 at 9:43 pm
LOL @ Geoff, I thought I was the only who got excited by a beautifully crafted sentence…
In short order I think our rotation will be as follows:
Peavy
Wells*
Young
Hensley
Carillo
(And I think that’s a solid rotation.)
I think our offense is improved (though admittedly not drastically) and I have very little concerns with our bullpen.
…thus equaling an improvement over last year…
Just my $0.02…
* I don’t think he want to go to LA and I’ll think he’ll threaten to “not play nice” yet not retire, and Nobody wants to pay him to suck. You hate that type of attitude, but we’ll be perfectly willing to take advantage of the situation.
January 10, 2006 at 8:50 am
Peter, I don’t have as much faith that we’d see that rotation until August, if ever.
We didn’t sign Estes to be a long reliever or LOOGY. He’s a starter through May, at least.
How are we getting rid of Woody? We can imagine that we have lots of leverage with Boston, but I don’t see the incentive for them to give up Wells and take Williams. It’d be a smart idea (smarter to keep Woody as the 5th starter, but we signed Estes), but I’m not optimistic.
Towers has said that Hensley is the 7th inning reliever as of now, which will determine his spring throwing program.
The Tim Stauffer experience may weigh against a rapid promotion of Carrillo.
I am concerned about the bullpen. People talk about Towers being able to find good relievers on the cheap, but there’s a lot of junk in his history too.
January 10, 2006 at 9:09 am
dprat:
that is one heck of a beauty. Thanks, man.
January 10, 2006 at 9:59 am
“We’re just glad we were able to add [Patterson]. Any time you can add a Major League player using Minor League talent, it’s something you have to do,” said Duquette.
From:
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/.....;fext=.jsp
***
I sure hope Towers/Alderson have Duquette on speed dial.