We Acknowledge, We Move On
Wed, Oct 4, 2006
by Geoff Young
Very frustrating loss in the opener Tuesday afternoon at Petco Park. The Padres, on the national stage for the second straight post-season and commanding more positive attention than perhaps they are accustomed to, came out flat against the Cardinals and never really were in this one.
Jake Peavy matched Chris Carpenter pitch for pitch through the first three innings before faltering in the fourth. After Chris Duncan led off that inning with a base hit, Albert Pujols stepped to the plate. Peavy induced Pujols to pop up behind the plate for an apparent out. Unfortunately, Mike Piazza didn’t pick up the ball immediately off the bat and misjudged it, the ball falling harmlessly to the grass beneath his feet. Pujols proceeded to battle Peavy and, as great hitters will do, eventually found a pitch to his liking and drove it out over the fence in center field, giving the Cardinals a 2-0 lead.
Not Pitching but Throwing
Peavy, whose intensity on the mound usually works in his favor, struggled after the Pujols homer, becoming more of a thrower than a pitcher. Whether Peavy was still thinking about the dropped popup is something only he knows, but the results were not good, as the Cardinals scored another run in the inning to take what would prove to be an insurmountable 3-0 lead.
Peavy’s accomplishments as a big leaguer at such a young age are impressive and not to be dismissed. That said, his first two career playoff starts have been nothing short of disastrous. Last season a broken rib suffered during the division-clinching celebration helped explain his poor performance. In Game 1 of this year’s NLDS, an inability to make quality pitches when needed proved to be Peavy’s downfall.
Unfortunately for the Padres, the Carpenter they faced Tuesday afternoon wasn’t the same pitcher they knocked around in his final regular-season start. Instead, it was the version that won the NL Cy Young Award in 2005 and that should receive serious consideration for same this year.
Poor Roster Management, Wasted Opportunities
The Friars did have their chances late, loading the bases with one out in the seventh. With a lefty reliever on the mound and Rudy Seanez due up, Bochy sent Mark Bellhorn to the plate. The only real fault with this strategy is that Bellhorn hasn’t reliably hit big-league pitching for a long time. Since the beginning of the 2005 season, Bellhorn’s line is a staggering .201/.306/.351 in 553 at-bats. It’s possible that he might run into one or the pitcher might walk him, but you don’t count on it. We are talking about a batter who has failed to make contact in over 31% of his plate appearances over the past two seasons.
Given what we know about Bellhorn, it came as no surprise to see him strike out in that at-bat. It’s easy to get down on the guy, but we shouldn’t — he was doing what he does. The thing that boggles the imagination is that Bellhorn was brought into that situation at all. It’s not like his inability to hit just snuck up on everyone. We’ve had plenty of advance warning.
So, why was Bellhorn at the plate at such a critical point in the game? A good question, although not necessarily the right one. The likely answer is that Bellhorn was the one available player on the roster that Bochy was most comfortable calling on at that time. And now you see the right question: Why is Bellhorn even on the post-season roster?
I have no clue.
What I do know is that, as a result of Bellhorn’s and — let’s be honest — virtually everyone else’s inability to execute on offense, the Padres offered precious little resistance against a St. Louis ballclub that looked, at least for one day, much stronger than advertised. The Cardinals may have backed into the playoffs, but on Tuesday, they backed up and over the Padres. It was not a proud day for the Pads or their fans, which raises another point: We need to stop complaining about the lack of respect given the Padres by the national sports media. For one thing, respect isn’t given, it’s earned. What, exactly, have the Padres done to earn anyone’s respect? Obviously you and I love them because we are fans, and we’re justifiably proud of what they’ve done because we understand the context — three consecutive winning seasons is unprecedented in this franchise’s history. It’s a big deal.
To us.
Perception Is Reality
And now, a brief refresher course for the faithful on how I imagine the average baseball fan perceives the Padres:
- They’re owned by the guy who invented McDonald’s, right? Oh, he’s dead? Sorry, I didn’t know.
- Isn’t that the minor-league team Dave Winfield played for before he joined the great and glorious Yankees?
- Isn’t that the minor-league team Ozzie Smith played for before he joined the Cardinals?
- Oh yeah, they’re the team that got spanked by the Tigers in the 1984 World Series.
- Right, and then they got spanked by the great and glorious Yankees in the 1998 World Series, hallelujah, praise be Richie Garcia.
- What’s up with Roseanne Barr butchering the Star-Spangled Banner? Is that a west coast thing? I don’t get it.
- Sure, I remember Tony Gwynn — he’s that Ichiro Suzuki wannabe who hit one out at Yankee Stadium one time.
- Trevor Hoffman? He’s that Mariano Rivera wannabe. You know what would make Hoffman good? If he played for the great and glorious Yankees.
- Wait, which part of LA is San Diego? Is it near Long Beach or am I thinking of some other place?
In other words, the Padres aren’t exactly on everyone’s radar. You and I may love ‘em, but most folks feel about them the way I feel about, say, the Yankees or the Red Sox, which is to say, not at all.
The other reason we need to stop complaining about “lack of respect” (you knew I’d get back to that, right?) is simple and goes a little like this: Who cares what anyone else thinks? We know that our Padres are a solid ballclub and that’s good enough for me — at least until they do something a little more worthy like, I dunno, win the World Series. For now, though, the focus should be on watching these guys battle and not on what some yahoos in Connecticut think about our team.
Put it another way: What do you think about Connecticut?
Exactly.
Last I Checked, “Series” Means More Than One
Okay, so what else do we know about the Padres? We know that they’ve been remarkably resilient throughout the season, that they never do things the easy way, and that they got beat by the best St. Louis had to offer. And I think, if we’re honest with ourselves, we know that the Padres can take these guys. After all, what has changed? The Padres lost a game. And it sucked. I mean, it really sucked. But these things happen. Off day on Wednesday, then we’ll all meet back at Petco Park on Thursday and watch the Pads get out there and do what they do.
With any luck, we end that day laughing at our misery over Game 1 and see the boys off to St. Louis tied in the series. Plenty of baseball yet to be played. Time will let us know whether Tuesday marked the beginning of the end or merely served as a bump in a much longer road. Until I see good, hard evidence to the contrary, I’ll stick with the latter theory.
So. Who’s with me?
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.
October 4, 2006 at 7:12 am
First things first, the team lost that game yesterday and looked bad doing it; poor pitching, defense and lack of offense. But, despite its minimal relevance in the larger scheme, the thing that’s still sticking in my head is why Bellhorn is on the roster.
I initally thought that Bellhorn may have lobbied to be there, telling Boch, “I won’t let you down.” or some other Roy Hobb’s line. But, after reading the UT, Bellhorn may have been just as surprised as the rest of us that he was included.
I think this was a Bochy “hunch” that Bellhorn would be the veteran guy who would come through in the clutch, despite all signs to the contrary. Not a single reserve outfielder on the post-season roster? No Ben Johnson, right handed outfielder? Had to be a Bochy hunch.
October 4, 2006 at 7:15 am
A small bump…I just hope that the ghost of Sparky Anderson or Casey Stengal can possess Boch for the next couple of weeks.
I like our chances in the next couple of games. We still have a legit shot at winning games 2 and 3, to take a 2-1 lead…right where we should expect to be.
Nice job Geoff.
October 4, 2006 at 7:17 am
Geoff - you outdid yourself on this one. Possibly therapeutic? Great way to get to the heart of the Bellhorn situation.
October 4, 2006 at 7:21 am
Nice work, Geoff. I’m pumped for game two and could care less about Connecticut or however you spell it.
I fault Bochy for Belhorn. Its the manager’s job to put the player in place where they can succeed. Running Bellhorn out there was a pipe dream. The choice magnifies Bochies inability to think outside the box and his inslavement to righty/lefty matchups. Klesko was available and had a better chance in that situation to succeed. Bellhorn is on the roaster because he is a vet, and that is baseball tradition and I accept it. But please, Bochy, step outside the righty/lefty strategy box and think about putting the best player in during future key situations.
Someday Geoff, your gonna be making a living writing about sports.
October 4, 2006 at 7:28 am
from Joe Sheehan on BP
link: http://www.baseballprospectus......cleid=5585
“Right before Pujols’ blast, he fouled a ball off behind the plate that Mike Piazza appeared to make an error on. Upon further review—and some great camera work by ESPN—it was clear that the ball nicked the screen on the way down. That’s a dead ball, no error. Piazza didn’t make a misplay that led to the Pujols homer, and criticism of him for doing so is mistaken.
….
Bochy has two players on his playoff roster with a combined seven at-bats since August 17, one of whom has no chance of playing the field, the other may or may not be able to bat. He has two slow utility infielders who play shortstop poorly and had sub-.300 OBPs this year. He has three catchers—actually defensible, since one of them is a major defensive liability. He has a pitcher who appeared once since August 16 in Chan Ho Park. His roster consists of nearly as many long relievers (two), and just as many catchers, as it does real outfielders (three).
…
Bochy’s roster is set up for La Russa to absolutely drill him from the sixth inning on in any game. I fully expect Bochy to end up having to pinch-hit with Park, or put Russ Branyan at shortstop, or insert himself into the game. Had I any idea Bochy would leave himself such a worthless bench—Johnson, Sledge and Alexander all at least do things—I would have rethought my prediction. This is a horrible bench, and it could end up being the difference in the series.”
October 4, 2006 at 7:40 am
Why is Klesko on the roster he has had 5 AB’s all year against Major League Pitching.
I can see belhorn being on the roster because he has been with the team all year its hard not to put guys like that on the roster.
October 4, 2006 at 8:09 am
BLaw was released by the Nats yesterday, as was Astacio.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....385_2.html
October 4, 2006 at 8:13 am
I think Bochy forced his own hand by not standing-pat with Blum… Leave Blummer in there to hit for himself and use Bard instead of Bellhorn.
October 4, 2006 at 8:13 am
Hell, I live 20 minutes from Connecticut and don’t even care about the place.
Lets go get’em tomorrow. If Weaver on the mound isn’t a bonifide way for our batters to rebound then nothing is.
October 4, 2006 at 8:13 am
Wow Geoff,
I’ll be honest I usually only come over to read the posts and stuff but today your blog was brilliant! You have a great way with words and crazy ability to be a homer without sounding like one. Awesome job Mr. Young seriously awesome! BTW I just noticed “things I like” section because pictures don’t always show up at work but how FREAKING good is Antics? Probably on of my favorite albums of all time! Looking really forward to game 2… Go PADRES!!!
October 4, 2006 at 8:15 am
A fun thought…since the Pads seem wedded to keeping Boch and he won’t leave, why don’t we go after a guy like Showalter to be his bench coach. Muser seems like a great guy and has done a decent job, but we need a tactican to keep Boch from tripping all over himself.
Now a question…How much blame does KT get for setting the post-season roster? He had to have imput on the Bellhole vs. Johnson decision.
October 4, 2006 at 8:19 am
Thanks, all, for the kind words. I’m psyched for Game 2.
#5: In this morning’s U-T, plate umpire Gerry Davis claims that the ball didn’t hit net. I love Piazza’s quotes in the linked article — dude is a class act who takes responsibility.
Anyway, we’ll get to Weaver tomorrow.
October 4, 2006 at 8:21 am
also this link is more positive at the end for the Friars
link: http://www.hardballtimes.com/m.....ols-wins2/
October 4, 2006 at 8:29 am
There’s at least one North Carolinian who is pulling for the Padres, even if they are that team who accidentally beat the Braves in the 98 NLCS. {smirk}
October 4, 2006 at 8:34 am
I’M WITH YOU DUDE!!!
CONNECTICUT BLOWS!!!
October 4, 2006 at 8:42 am
Johnson wasn’t eligible…
“General Manager Kevin Towers said postseason experience and right-handed power favored Bellhorn. Outfielder Ben Johnson, a right-handed hitter, wasn’t an option for the playoff roster because adding third baseman Russell Branyan knocked Johnson off the 25-man roster Aug. 26. The only players Johnson could have replaced on the playoff roster were Khalil Greene and Ryan Klesko, who were on the disabled list when the roster was submitted Aug. 31. But Johnson was exempted when Greene and Klesko came off the DL in September and were retained yesterday.”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....notes.html
But w/ Sledge’s ability to hit LHP, “Sledge had gone 2-for-5 for the Padres; in Triple-A, he batted .378 against lefties in 90 at-bats,” he should have been on the roster instead of Bellhorn.
October 4, 2006 at 8:43 am
Peavy - so far, one healthy playoff start. don’t sample sizes still apply in postseason? I’d bet if he gets a few more playoff starts, he’ll have a couple good ones and one great one.
October 4, 2006 at 8:44 am
Thanks Geoff, very nicely put.
The whole enslavement to the lefty/righty doctrine is ultimately what did in Bochy in this game, and Towers - as his boss and buddy - should have known better. Towers should have cut bait w/ Bellhorn in August, clearing a roster space for a RH bat that we somehow don’t have. A division winning MLB team and we don’t have a RH bat we can rely on off the bench. Also begs the question: why 11 pitchers for a 5 game series? Was that required by virtue of our roster configuration on 8/31? If so, that’s new news to me…I thought there was more flexibility afforded to GMs and managers than that.
Sheehan is right on in how LaRussa can and will manage circles around Bochy - look at the batting order he put out there: R-L-R-L-R etc. Tailor made to screw Bochy over in late innings when he goes to the bullpen for Embree or Meredith - since, as everyone include TLR knows, Bochy can’t think o/s the lefty/righty box. He got there a little bit w/ Meredith, but in the playoffs I’m betting he’s a ROOGY to Bochy. So, TLR knows this and gears his lineup to force Bochy to use his best relievers for one batter only.
Two things MUST happen:
1. The players must take this out of Bochy’s hands. We need leads going into the later innings (especially given the time the game starts and how the shadows are in those innings), and hopefully with Wells and Young vs Weaver and Suppan we can get that.
2. If #1 cannot happen, Bochy must be told forcibly by Towers and/or Alderson to take into account how a player is currently playing, not his history or the side of the plate he bats from. Bochy is one of those guys who believes players will eventually regress/progress to the historical averages, which limits his ability to think constructively about young players and is of little to no use in short series.
October 4, 2006 at 8:54 am
Boch will always play favorites (Look at why Nady is hitting dingers for Pittsburg now) and will always favor a wahsed up vet over a young player (Park and Seanez are on the roster and not sweeny and Adkins). If the pads want differnt results they have to get a different manager, other wise they are going to have to get all veteran players.
October 4, 2006 at 9:01 am
I agree with steve, this team will eventually (next year?) will start to be let’s go young and we need a young manager for the future and there just happens to be a really really great manager who got screwed (Girardi) out there. and maybe if you hired a guy like him , the atmosphere will cool off and whatever tensions there were before too
October 4, 2006 at 9:06 am
re 20 - I can’t see Moores hiring a guy who, in his only year as a manager, got fired in spite of his record by sparring with the owner.
Plus, based on Moores’ and Alderson’s comments recently, Bochy is here to stay. I am firmly in the camp of hiring a good tactician to help him though, and I’m hoping Alderson’s thinking that too. I believe they put more value on his ability to manage the clubhouse than his in-game tactics, hence he’ll be staying around.
October 4, 2006 at 9:11 am
Great job Geoff, and I think your second question is the right question regarding Bellhorn. His use in the 7th inning yesterday has been overblown. Yeah, he is not very good, but neither were any of the other options Bochy had at that point, considering what had transpired before.
This year’s run expectancy with the bases loaded and 1 out is about 1.65 runs. Before he batted, Bellhorn’s numbers over the last few years probably justifies a percentage reduction in that, but so does pretty much anyone else available on the bench at that time.
One interesting point that I have not seen raised much here (but forgive me I didn’t read all comments in the game day thread) was the use of the double switch on Barfield and Peavy. Chris Ello raised the point last night that if you are going to carry 11 pitchers on the postseason roster, with 7 being “relievers”, you don’t need to use the double switch as much as you would with a shorter bullpen. Thus, they could have brought in Seanez to get out of the 6th, let Barfield stay in, and pinch hit with someone in the top of the 7th, and let another of the relievers, such as Park, pitch the 7th.
Instead, Barfield’s place came up with the bases loaded and one out, but Seanez was there, so Bellhorn was used.
Joe Sheehan in his BP column on Game 1 also called the double switch a “highly questionable move”. Seems like a pretty good argument to me.
October 4, 2006 at 9:13 am
This may be over analyzing things but… I think the root of the Bellhorn situation actually started with Bochy staying with Peavy too long. Klesko was on deck in the bottom of the fifth but didn’t come to the plate because the third out was made. At that point I was shocked that Peavy came out for the 6th. He didn’t seem comfortable on the mound, wasn’t striking anyone out and was giving up runs. I believe Bochy kept him in because he was going to pinch hit for him and didn’t want to burn a pitcher. It’s a move Bochy consistently makes: if the pitcher is due up next inning he always leaves him in. Peavy forced Bochy’s hand by giving up another run and Bochy went with the double switch, moving the pitcher’s spot to #8 in the lineup. If Bochy just brought in Seanez to finish the inning he could have pinch hit for him next inning and went with Chan Ho in the 7th.
Now obviously there’s no way Bochy could predict the #8 spot in the lineup would have been the crucial at bat of the 7th inning but my point is it never should have gotten to that point. The double switch screwed them in a number of ways: it got Barfield out of the game, Walker was no longer available as a pinch hitter and it moved the pitcher’s spot up in the order, all because Bochy wanted to pinch hit when the pitcher’s spot led off the 6th. The double switch is usually a good move but it cost them big time yesterday.
In case that sounds like nit picking or second guessing I want to point out that I was saying the same thing at the game when this was all happening
It’s my own personal rule that I can’t criticize a manager after the fact unless I recognize the bad decision at the time.
I’d like to point out that if Bellhorn went deep there I don’t think any of us would be praising Bochy. We’d heap praise on Bellhorn for being clutch and saving us from another bad Bochy move.
Since I’m spending a lot of time bitching I also want to say I was sure Seanez and CHP would get shelled but they did great so kudos to Bochy for getting them some work and building confidence.
The Padres won’t fire Bochy in the middle of a contract but if the Cubs come calling they would let him leave. My prediction: Dusty back to the Giants, Bochy to the Cubs, Felipe to the Marlins or retires. No idea who replaces Bochy.
October 4, 2006 at 9:15 am
Dammit TF, I thought I was being smart but you beat me to it!
October 4, 2006 at 9:22 am
Hey — easy on the CT talk, boys!
I’ve found that it’s easier to convert Sox fans to closet Padre fans. Yankee fans are obnoxious, Mets fans are hopeless.
October 4, 2006 at 9:27 am
Heard a few things on XX this morning I thought I’d pass along.
Dave Stewart was being interviewed. He said to give Jake a chance. He’s still a kid and that “clutch” performances come with experience. He said to stick with Jake and he’ll pay big dividends later.
But, Jim Rome (an person I strongly dislike, but was listening only because I started the car and the radio was still on XX) quoted Jake as essentially calling out Piazza for not making that catch at the backstop, saying, essentially, “I need that play to be made. It’s a pop up. One of the easiest plays in baseball. Maybe it was the sun or it hit the screen, but it was a big point in the ball game.” If that came from Jake, and I never know with Rome, I’m pretty disappointed.
Finally, a sports update started with, “The Padres try to avoid their 9th straight playoff loss. . . ” OUCH!
October 4, 2006 at 9:29 am
Sorry about the “an” in no. 26
October 4, 2006 at 9:50 am
GY - I’m with you! Well said, thanks!
I’d much rather be underestimated and overachieve than be over-hyped and fall flat … and I prefer that for the Padres as well.
The post-season roster decisions were shocking … not just Belhorn, but also Seanez & Park … 3 “mistakes” is a lot to make … but who am I, who are we, to judge … certainly Bochy, Towers, Alderson, etc have more info and more experience … so for now, take my whining, and the all the criticisms posted here, as just us fans being fans … and that’s a *good* thing … this is a fun time to be Padre fan.
Onward … to game 2!
October 4, 2006 at 10:06 am
I agree that Bellhorn is a questionable choice, but I don’t agree with the root causes being laid out.
19-”will always favor a wahsed up vet over a young player.” if this were true, Bellhorn would have played 2nd all year.
18-Bochy has been accused of playing ‘the hot hand’ too much and not trusting historical averages. Now it’s the other way around?
and LaRussa has a rep for playing l/r matchups more than any other manager. He is not out-managing Bochy, here, he’s stuck in the L/R box even more so.
I think evaluating managerial decisions is pretty fickle gets overblown in the playoffs. Player performances are the real reason for the wins and losses. Peavy sucked. Pujols rocked. Those defensive plays (Belliard, Pujols, Piazza) were key.
October 4, 2006 at 10:35 am
Keith Law at espn likes the Pads over the Cards, but is critical of Bochy. He doesn’t understand Ben Johnson being left of the roster, and see’s no reason to have Park and Rudy on the roster.
October 4, 2006 at 10:38 am
re 29
Eric, I know I read back in the early part of the season that one of the reasons Castilla was still playing so much was Bochy’s belief that veterans will eventually achieve their expected performance - I think i remember reading a quote from him in the UT about that.
Maybe he does that and plays the hot hands, which seems to speak not to a philosophy per se but a lack of ability to think clearly and analytically about things.
I don’t know, but either way it ain’t cutting it for me these days. I’ve always been sort of proud that the Pads have had BB for so long (”See, there’s an organization thinking long term and realizing that they shouldn’t blame the manager for the 100 loss season when there’s no talent on the team” was my usual train of thought), but I would personally not be rioting in the streets if he was allowed to walk.
October 4, 2006 at 10:47 am
26: Here’s the Peavy quote:
“That’s a tough play for Mike, no doubt,” Peavy said. “But it was a game-changer.
“Obviously, I needed for it to get made because two pitches later he hits the ball 500 feet. If things go our way, Mike makes that play. But baseball is a game of inches.”
http://www.nctimes.com/article.....0_4_06.txt
Peavy has always been a team guy, it would have been out of character to call out a teammate like that. I didn’t read his remarks as critical at all, he was just expressing frustration at how close they were to getting Pujols out.
FWIW, that pop foul had some crazy spin on it. I thought it was going in the seats but it just kept drifting back. I thought at the time that it hit the screen too, but if the ump said it didn’t that’s all that matters.
October 4, 2006 at 11:04 am
I’m with you Geoff, and the rest of the Ducksnorts faithful. Of course it was a disappointing way to start, but it’s a best of 5 series and we have our opportunity to even it up on Thursday, at home!
Go Padres!
October 4, 2006 at 11:11 am
#32. As I suspected, Rome was taking things out of context. He conveniently eliminated, “That’s a tough play for Mike to make.” I routinely switch stations as soon a Rome comes on, but today, I started the car, just as that quote came out. I thought it was really out of character for Jake, who I agree has been nothing but a team guy.
For the conspiracy theorists who believe that MLB is doing its best to get someone other than the Padres to the World Series for TV ratings purposes:
“The Cardinals were a major league best 37-19 this season in day games. Both of the first two games of this playoff series are afternoon games, and it’s possible games 3 and 4 could be afternoon starts as well. The Cardinals’ winning percentage in day games was the best since 1957, the first year the statistic was available.”
October 4, 2006 at 11:15 am
Will someone re-post what our roster is? Sheehan’s article implies Manny is on it, but not what I see on the website. From our website, we have NO backup outfielders? And you keep Bellhorn and, an apparently still not 100% Greene, on it????? Ben Johnson ought to have made it. Plays all 3 positions and has some pop.
October 4, 2006 at 11:21 am
The active roster listed at padres.com is correct:
http://sandiego.padres.mlb.com.....sp?c_id=sd
Only 3 outfielders but I don’t think that’s a huge problem. None of those guys are going to be pinch hit for and the Cards don’t have any left starters. Branyan is supposed to be the emergency outfielder.
October 4, 2006 at 11:21 am
That was an amazing post, Geoff. Completely agree with everything. Yes, the roster for this series is horrible. But, hey, this was the game we were supposed to lose. We should be able to hit Weaver and Suppan in the next two games, so if we take care of business there Carpenter’s dominance won’t matter.
October 4, 2006 at 11:22 am
And on the respect thing; we show up, play our game, win some good games, it will come.
October 4, 2006 at 11:44 am
Once and for all…Ben Johnson was not eligible to be on the postseason roster except to replace a player who was disabled (Klesko or Greene). What other righty bat should they have used? Sledge and Klesko are redundant (Sledge should have been used), and they seem obsessed with using 11 pitchers because of the situation with rest going into the first round. If we survive round 1, I fully expect 10 pitchers and Sledge to be on the squad.
I say start Khalil too, I bet he surprises us a bit with the stick. Eckstein is starting despite missing considerable time leading up to the playoffs.
October 4, 2006 at 11:46 am
Good job, Geoff, btw. Regarding the “respect” thing. I also think the outcry from Pads fans is a bit tied to our inferiority complex. Noone likes being told they’re second rate, especially when we…uh…er…kinda believe it a little bit.
October 4, 2006 at 11:48 am
Guys I posted #16… and just read every word from 17-38 to find out what everyone was saying…
Again. Ben Johnson WAS NOT ELIGIBLE to be on the post-season roster (view #16 again for review).
That said, Sledge should have been on it over Bellhorn…
October 4, 2006 at 11:58 am
And Stop Pitching to Albert Pujols.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/ne.....;type=lgns
Good job, Geoff. Agreed about the respect.
Let’s earn it Padres. Game 2 on tomorrow.
October 4, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Johnson was eligible as an alternative to Greene or Klesko, that’s how it sounded to me.
October 4, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Yes, but Greene should be the starting SS, so unless one thinks Johnson is more valuable than a starting SS, he can’t replace him.
October 4, 2006 at 12:13 pm
“Respect” is sports cliche. Why is anyone worried about this? I would rather have a pennant or World Series trophy than respect. No one on either coast cares whether the Padres lose in the first round or win the the World Series. Respect is worth 50 cents.
October 4, 2006 at 12:19 pm
re: 23
“The Padres won’t fire Bochy in the middle of a contract but if the Cubs come calling they would let him leave. My prediction: Dusty back to the Giants, Bochy to the Cubs, Felipe to the Marlins or retires. No idea who replaces Bochy.”
WHAT!?!?
The Marlins hired a manager the same day they fired Girardi. They hired Fredi Gonzalez. The Giants will not hire Dusty Baker again after he lost the World Series for them. They know he is not very good.
October 4, 2006 at 12:22 pm
43 is correct, but w/ the way Blum plays D (great glove, great arm, zero range) we needed either Manny Alexander or Greene on the team… So I don’t have a problem w/ Greene on there. Also, we’re not going to pinch hit for any of Roberts-Cameron-Giles and if one of them were injured, it basically ruin our chances whether Sledge, Johnson, or any other Padres regular takes their place. With the way Klesko was hitting, I have no problem w/ him as designated pinch-hitter…
October 4, 2006 at 12:24 pm
May I just interrupt here for a moment to say… KOTSAY!
October 4, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Haha, I hadn’t heard about the new Marlins manager. Wasn’t there talk earlier of Dusty Baker coming to San Diego? That would truly suck but on the bright side Geoff and all the other Padres blogs would have a lot more to write about.
Anyway, they do things differently in NorCal. If Art Shell can come back to the Raidas then Dusty can come back to the Giants.
October 4, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Anthony - Re 24: Blame Chris Ello, not me, for being “smart” in questioning the double switch first. I didn’t think of it myself.
Peter - Re 41: I guess there might be some misunderstanding here. Ben Johnson WAS eligible, but he was ONLY eligible to take a spot for Greene or Klesko on the roster. Once they were listed on the roster, Johnson WAS NO LONGER eligible. Perhaps that is what you have been trying to say. I think you can make a decent argument for having Johnson on the roster over either Greene or Klesko, due to rust factors.
If you are trying to say that Johnson can’t replace Bellhorn, that is correct. I think only Sledge and Alexander, among hitters, were eligible to do so.
Johnson is in the dugout and traveling with the team, as is Sledge. They wouldn’t be traveling if they weren’t eligible for a series, and they possibly could be used in an NLCS, if the Padres make it that far. The team elected not to have other guys in the dugout and/or travelling with the team, like Cust, McAnulty and Knott.
October 4, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Ugh, that roster is ugly. I’d much rather have Sledge over Bellhorn and Johnson over Klesko. Without Johnson we have no decent RH hitter off the bench (I know Greene is on the roster, but there doesn’t seem to be much confidence in his health or his being sharp at the plate, and while Bard and Bowen can swing from the right side, it burns a catcher), and Bellhorn is just not a reasonable choice when you already have Blum, Walker, Branyan, Greene and Barfield to play the infield. There’s simply no reason to have him on the roster.
October 4, 2006 at 12:44 pm
I think I’ve finally figured out why Bellhorn is on the roster:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=260430125
Psychologists say first impressions have long-lasting affects.
October 4, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Considering, I’d rather have Sledge than Bellhorn too.
Maybe we could go with all lefties. No team has that many LOOGYs.
October 4, 2006 at 12:58 pm
I expected Carpentar to beat Peavy, but we should win the next two games with Wells and CY.
October 4, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Well, yesterday was one giant steaming mooseturd pie, and we all had to take a big bite. I am still very hopeful, and counting on the fact that this team seems pretty darn resilient. But it still smarts.
Just sent this email to Joe Sheehan regarding what he wrote in BP(see #5 above):
“Damn, Joe, you nailed it. Bochy’s roster is indefensible. If there was ever a case that post-season roster construction has turned a favorite into an underdog, this is it. I would suggest that Towers probably was at least an enabler in this mess.
But thanks for succinctly illustrating just how awful these decisions were. I think it’s important to the future of my Padres that this be pointed out by respected writers like you. Thanks!”
October 4, 2006 at 1:18 pm
I was forced to watch the game on TiVo delay (damn corporate firewall) last night, and since I am addicted to the FF button I didn’t make a note of how many times Jake threw his change-up. Did anyone notice his change-up frequency, or have a resource to get that data?
October 4, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Here’s something you don’t see every day (from CBSSportsline Game Center):
Martin hit into double play, Kent out at home, Drew out at home, Martin to second advancing on throw.
October 4, 2006 at 1:51 pm
From ESPN.com:
“The Mets lost a second starting pitcher as the playoffs start when El Duque, who is expected to miss the entire postseason, was left off the roster with a torn calf muscle. John Maine will get the start for New York in Game 1 Wednesday afternoon against the Dodgers. Oliver Perez, who went 3-13 with a 6.55 ERA this season, will take Hernandez’s spot in the Mets’ postseason rotation and is slated to start Game 3 or Game 4 in Los Angeles.”
Reread that last sentence. I’m glad I’m not a Mets fan.
October 4, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Have to say, this does still set up nice for the Pads if the guys can shake off Game 1 (recent history suggests: no problem). We really play well vs LA, so having the only team really dangerous to us (the Mets) get hit by all this stuff all at once (say it with me “Old pitchers are risky!!”) could be just what gets us through the NL.
Again, assuming we can straighten up and fly right against the Cards the rest of the way here.
October 4, 2006 at 2:04 pm
re: Dogs vs Mets … I look at this as “can’t lose” … if the Dogs win, then the Padres won’t have to face Beltran/Wright/etc in the next round (if they beat the Cards, for you jinx-aholics) … if the Mets win, well, it’s *always* a good thing when the Dogs lose …
1-0 Dogs in top of 4th in their game 1 …
October 4, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Eric Re: #29, Barfield clearly won the job in spring training, but when the pads got walker and branyan, barfields playing time got cut in half.
October 4, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Clayton - don’t say that too loudly (Wells, Williams)
October 4, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Sean - of course, our old pitchers are immune to such things!
(cough cough - gout - cough cough)
October 4, 2006 at 2:23 pm
61 - and both decisions make sense, neither reflect an unwavering preference to washed up veterans.
I’m not defending Bochy, here, he makes a lot of bad decisions. I just think the impact of managers is exaggerated and overemphasized. There is some impact, but not to the degree we give them attention.
October 4, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Can anyone please explain to me why Ben Johnson isn’t on this roster instead of Mark Bellhorn?
October 4, 2006 at 2:58 pm
I understand the fact that Ben Johnson cannot be on the 25 man roster, if Khalil and/or Klesko are on it. What I don’t understand, or didn’t appreciate until now, is how could we go all year with no one off the bench to bat from the right side? Upon reflection, I realize that we had a bunch of switch hitters and, all too often, Bellhorn was brought up as our right handed pinch hitter. How’d we go all season without a right handed pinch hitter?
October 4, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Ahh watching the Dogers get pounded will never get old!
4-1 Mets in the bottom of the 6th
October 4, 2006 at 3:09 pm
#65: Read both posts 41 and 43. Johnson could not have replaced Bellhorn as long as Bellhorn was healthy.
October 4, 2006 at 3:16 pm
re: 68
So if Boch had injured Bellhorn, Johnson could have been on the roster? Any chance we could do this before the LCS?
October 4, 2006 at 3:20 pm
#69 — Nice option! That’s thinking outside the box.
October 4, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Why don’t those F-ING Dogs just give up and die? Quit coming back you asses!!!
Mets and Dogs is 4 - 4
October 4, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Hmmm, Dogs using Brad Penny out of the bullpen? Who knew …
October 4, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Dodgers brought in Brad Penny in the 7th. Man they want this game bad enough to F-UP the rotation in game 1. Mets still got a run off of him though. This is a pretty good game!
October 4, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Weren’t the Dodgers favored in the NL West (pre-season) BECAUSE they have Brad Penny?
so far:
0.2 IP, 2 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 2 BB, 1 SO
6-4 Mets
I have a REAL hard time rooting against the Mets in this one…
October 4, 2006 at 3:39 pm
73, not quite, they said pre-game (on ESPNRadio) that Penny was available out of the ‘pen and that he would go in Game 4. Although his performance might be changing plans to pitch him then…
October 4, 2006 at 3:47 pm
re: 57 … thanks for the heads-up, dprat … here’s details on the bizzare baserunning … http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/ne.....;type=lgns
October 4, 2006 at 3:49 pm
I’ve been thinking about the rest of the series for pretty much all day, and I think an interesting question is who goes for us in Games 4 and % (and I’m pretty confident we’ll get there). Jake has been shelled by St Louis the last three times he’s pitched against them (yesterday, in late May, and last year in the playoffs), so I’m not sure I want him starting again. That said, I would throw Woody in Game 4. Also, if there were to be a Game 5, I think I might want to let Clay Hensley have the ball. He’s been just as good as anyone we’ve had down the stretch, and earlier in the year against the Cards he tossed a gem. I don’t think anyone has ever used five different starters in a five-game series, but I think this route might get us the best match-ups. Jake can have the ball for Game 1 of the NLCS. Thoughts?
October 4, 2006 at 3:49 pm
I’m still on the bandwagon of wanting to play the Mets in the NLCS if we can make it. As much as I hate to say it I do not want to see LA after the comback game!
October 4, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Peavy will get a 2nd chance
October 4, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Peavy!
October 4, 2006 at 4:15 pm
First the Dodgers tried to show that they wanted to lose more by making two outs on the same play at home. Then the Mets countered by letting a middle-reliever who had already thrown 1.2 IP bat with 2 outs and the bases loaded…
What a comedy of errors… And we thought Bochy sucked…
Mets win 6-5
October 4, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Dodgers lose.
October 4, 2006 at 4:20 pm
So why couldn’t they have just put Johnson on the roster instead of Bellhorn. I think that would have been a better matchup than what we saw yesterday.
October 4, 2006 at 4:27 pm
I do think it’s a mistake to not find a start for Hensley. He’s been very good, especially post-ASB. And to waste him waiting for Wells or Woody or Jake to blow up early, ’cause he’s “better suited for that role”… strikes me as another bad management idea. I’d much rather get 6-7 solid from him starting at 0-0 then digging out of a hole. And you’ve got a much better chance of 6-7 solid from him then from Wells or Woody.
October 4, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Completely off topic alert:
I was just hearing Darren and Philly Billy discussing the feeling of discontent with Jake Peavy and his progress (and lack of post season performance). One argument Darren was saying was that Jake is only 25 and we should be patient. I started looking at other pitchers who are great and were considered up and coming in their early years. Guys like Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, etc. Then I remembered that baseball-reference actually statistically compares guys by age. One guy who they most favorable compare Jake to is John Smoltz. I actaully was kind of intrigued by this. They really are very similar…fiery competitors, hard throwers, etc. I think it would be great to get to get him this offseason and let him kind of show Jake how it’s done. I am pretty sure he’s staying in ATL, but I thought it might be worth discussing now or at a later date.
Start Bard next time Jake starts.
October 4, 2006 at 5:05 pm
re: 83 … the answer to your question is in many comments above …
re: 84 … dprat, you disagree with the judgement of the Padre’s management? They clearly value “experience” more than you … I think it’s a mistake too … Hensley was 10th best ERA in the NL this season! Wonder what the decision making process was …
October 4, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Clay should get ready, just in case Wells get a case of gout or something else during the game. Plus, he’ll give a very different look than Wells pitching.
October 4, 2006 at 6:24 pm
everyone see Tim Sullivan’s article in the UT today? It’s all about the Bellhorn thing . . .
October 4, 2006 at 6:30 pm
re: 88 … here’s the link … http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....livan.html
October 4, 2006 at 6:38 pm