Spring Training Notes (26 Feb 07)
Mon, Feb 26, 2007
by Geoff Young
Happy Monday. Lots going on today; let’s get to it.
Cameron’s Preparation
Padres center fielder Mike Cameron offers his thoughts on getting ready for the season, including this gem:
Cameron takes more pitches than he takes swings early in spring, something he said he picked up from John Olerud when they both played for the Mariners.
Quoth Cameron:
The thing about Spring Training is getting your eyes, hands, back and all of those kind of things ready. I try to pay attention to what is going on because you are building a foundation on what you want to have hopefully over the course of the season.
He also talks about the importance of hitting the ball to all fields and not trying to yank everything out of the park in batting practice to impress people. This reminds me of something I’ve encountered when playing in bands. When you’re rehearsing, you’re not performing; you’re nailing down all the parts so that you don’t have to think about them when it comes time to perform. Bring an outsider or two into your rehearsal space and it becomes a performance, making it very difficult to rehearse. I wonder if this happens to some athletes as well? Maybe they think, “People are watching, I’d better put on a show for them.” Or maybe I’m talking out my posterior.
Right-Handed Bats?
Nothing new on the outfield front, although folks are expressing optimism about Jose Cruz Jr. Hey, it’s February; we’re optimistic about everything this time of year. 
One of Cruz’ biggest selling points is his success against left-handers over the years. For his career, he’s batting .280/.363/.471 against them in over 1300 plate appearances. This morning’s San Diego Union-Tribune cites last season’s Mark Bellhorn Experience (TM) — specifically his at-bat against Cardinals southpaw Tyler Johnson in Game 1 of the NLDS — as evidence of the need for a legitimate right-handed bat off the bench.
Speaking of the need for bats off the bench, Padres.com calls utility infielder Geoff Blum “one of the best pinch-hitters in the game.” Just so you know, for his career, Blum has batted .233/.336/.308 in 142 career plate appearances as a pinch-hitter.
Two for the ‘Pen
Nice pieces in the North County Times on two relievers. One on right-hander Heath Bell provides a scouting report on the La Mesa native. According to this, Bell’s fastball runs 98 mph. Quoth pitching coach Darren Balsley:
He has a good arm, a good power slider and good deception. Hitters don’t get a real good look at his pitches.
Adds skipper Bud Black:
There’s no denying his stuff. The velocity is there and his secondary pitches are solid. For him, it’s a matter of putting them all together and getting that consistency.
Left-hander Royce Ring, who came to the Padres in the deal that brought Bell to San Diego, throws in his two cents about Bell’s experience in New York:
He was a bottom of the bullpen kind of guy. They’d run him out there for two or three innings. Most of the time, the first two innings he’d do real well and the third inning, he’d gas out a little and give up two or three hits.
Sounds great. Then again, as we’ve mentioned, everything sounds great right now. Well, except maybe the idea of Blum pinch-hitting.
The other piece is on Scott Linebrink. It talks about the right-hander’s continued presence in trade talks and his importance to the club. To Linebrink’s credit, he appears to be staying focused on the task at hand:
It’s just one of the distractions (in) baseball. There are certain things you can’t control, and so if you spend any kind of energy then that’s counterproductive toward focusing on the things you can control: your routine, your work ethic and keeping yourself in shape. Those are the things that I’m making a priority. If you start getting wrapped up in it, it’s hard to channel that (energy) sometimes.
I admire Linebrink’s ability to remain on task despite the persistent rumors. It’s a skill he’ll probably need to use as long as he’s in San Diego.
Estes Rehabs, Writer Pines for Bochy
The North County Times talks about left-hander Shawn Estes‘ rehab from Tommy John surgery. Estes is expected back around June or July. He hasn’t been even remotely effective since 2001, and he hasn’t been good since 1997, so I’m not sure what all the fuss is about here. Hey, where’s Sterling Hitchcock?
And if you missed it over the weekend, Chris Jenkins penned an odd piece in the U-T. Among other things, Jenkins asks us to “try to show some understanding and leftover love for Bruce Bochy, Tim Flannery, Ryan Klesko and Dave Roberts, not to mention Mark Sweeney.” He also observes that “Bochy already is more appreciated in the Bay Area than he ever was in San Diego.” This is a really strange article, and I’m left wondering for whose benefit it was written. Not ours, I suspect.
Looking Back at Gwynn
This has nothing to do with spring training, but Baseball Digest Daily ran a great article on Tony Gwynn a few weeks ago that I missed. It goes all the way back to Gwynn’s days as a basketball player at Long Beach Poly High School, and includes an interview with former SDSU hoops coach Tim Vezie, as well as photos and stats from Gwynn’s days as an Aztec. This is an excellent read.
That’s all for now. Go Padres!
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.
February 26, 2007 at 10:06 am
Mark Bellhorn.
(yes, that’s my entire comment)
February 26, 2007 at 10:08 am
Worst Decisions of Bochy’s Managing career
#1 Pinch Hitting Mark Belhorn in game 1 NLDS
#2
#3
February 26, 2007 at 10:15 am
rehearsal should be like a performance; performance should be like a rehearsal.
February 26, 2007 at 10:54 am
What instrument do you play, Geoff?
February 26, 2007 at 11:05 am
Guitar and vox. I can mess around some on keys and mandolin but nothing serious.
February 26, 2007 at 12:29 pm
what Padres.com forgot to mention was that they were talking about the winter co-ed softball leauge that Blum played in this past winter. He was a monster coming off the bench!
February 26, 2007 at 1:08 pm
OT - My favorite AL-team (a bit of an oxymoron, I’ll admit) is the A’s … here’s a nice preview of them … http://www.baseballprospectus......cleid=5910 … if you’re so inclined … I ran out on the field after they won the ‘74 WS over the Dogs … that’s left a pretty sweet taste in my mouth …
February 26, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Don’t know if this has been posted but Finley signed a minor league deal with the rockies, if he makes the squad he will have completed the NL west cycle.
http://colorado.rockies.mlb.co.....p;c_id=col
February 26, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Geoff,
Glad you weren’t the only one that found Jenkins’ column a little strange. In fact I am getting quite sick of the local media’s seeming obsession with the San Francisco Padres, whether it’s fluff pieces in the UT or guest spots on 1090 hosted by Dave Roberts and Mark Sweeney. I understand that these were popular players here, and that the prevailing theory is that the good guy Bochy was “forced out.” But enough is enough, those guys made the affirmative choice and moved on, and we should do the same. The local media needs to get over themselves and focus on the Padres. Funny how you don’t hear anything negative about Bud Black’s first few weeks on the job, it’s almost like Bochy was never here. That’s the kind of transition that we could dream of and it’s going all according to plan.
February 26, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Few over/under questions for you guys…my speculations in parentheses.
1) Bombs out of Giles Brothers (call me crazy - 40)
2) Bombs out of Khalil (25)
3) Ws for Peavy (17)
4) RBIs for A-Gon (100)
5) Wins (95)
I like this team. As long as 2/3 unknowns (Bard, Kouz, and T Sledge) can produce decent year, AND Khalil can mash like he should, we’ll be in good shape to hang around the division until September. Then, hopefully the experience of D Wells and Maddux will pay off as we hosit our third straight banner.
February 26, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Re: 10
1) Under (15 marcus, 10 brian)
2) Under (greenie will hit 20 if he plays 140 games)
3) Under (jake wont have the bats to give him alot of wins 15-7)
4) Under (A-gon needs better bats infront of him to get 100, he’ll get 90-95 which is great for this lineup)
5) Under the pads couldn’t get 95 wins when the division was down, the NL west will be a tough leauge this year, I dont think any team will get 95 wins)
February 26, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Man…and I thought I was a homer…
1) Under
2) Under…does that surprise any of you who have read what I have posted over the past 6-8 months?
3) Under
4) Under
5) Under
February 26, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Re: #3
“performance should be like a rehearsal.”
I’ve never been in a band who worked out a transition from the bridge to the chourus on stage before.
February 26, 2007 at 2:19 pm
re: 10 … I’m with Steve & CM taking the quint-Under … I hope we’re just “realists” …
Perhaps this is a more interesting prop … What’s the Over/Under on how many of the 5 things listed come in “under”? … if that line is 1/2 (ie. 0.5), then I’d take “Over” … ie. while for each one of them my gut says “Under”, if I had to bet on them as a collective, I’d bet that 1 of those 5 things would come in “Over” … YMMV
February 26, 2007 at 2:19 pm
13-
too literal.
rehearsal aims for perfection. in my line of work, too many performers lose that once they’re on stage.
under under under under under
February 26, 2007 at 2:23 pm
What’s the Over/Under on how many people will vote 0.5 or less on the over/under of how many of the 5 things listed come in “under”?
… if that line is 5, then I’d take “over.”
February 26, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Most likely…#1 and #3…Least likely…as in not a snowball’s chance in H-E-DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS…#5.
I still feel pretty safe saying that none of them will come in over.
17 days from now I will be sitting in a ballpark in Surprise Arizona…wearing my Padres gear and rooting for the Royals.
February 26, 2007 at 3:03 pm
re: 15 I know what you meant I was just joking around, I guess sarcasim does not translate well over the web.
February 26, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I’ll take the under on all five. I think the Giles brothers are good for about 30 home runs, that Greene will approach 20 if healthy, that Peavy is more of a 15 win guy (so 17 wouldn’t be a stretch), that Gonzalez could approach 100, but will likely be in the 90s and that the team while a 90+ win team is not a 95+ win team.
February 26, 2007 at 3:07 pm
New Over/Under
1) Brian Giles will hit 10 HR’s
2) Greenie will play 140 games this season (139 was his max in 04)
3) Four padres starters will have double didget wins (4 starters did last year)
4) Josh Bard will hit .280
5) Kouzmanoff will hot 30 HR’s
February 26, 2007 at 4:08 pm
#20: over, over, exactly, under, under
February 26, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Re: 20
1. Over
2. Depends…will he play over 140…maybe…will they be with the Padres? maybe…I will take the under
3. I would not be this…the number is right…
4. Over…
5. Under…
February 26, 2007 at 6:12 pm
re:20 - over, under, exactly, under, under
February 26, 2007 at 7:16 pm
GY … looks like a daily over/under poll would be popular
February 26, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Number of games both Kouzmanoff and Sledge will be in the starting lineup? My guess 54. (1/3)
February 26, 2007 at 9:50 pm
1. Brian Giles - 21 HRs, Marcus - 10 HRs
2. Greene - If he plays 150 Games, he’ll hit 25 homers
3. Peavy - Wins 18 games, gets CY votes
4. Gonzalez drives in 106 runs, hits 295/360/510
5. Wins - 91
I have a new food blog. I’ll blog about baseball and whatever else, too. It’s at:
http://hooray4food.blogspot.com/
February 26, 2007 at 10:47 pm
#24: Great idea, LM. I’ve added a poll to the sidebar, where it will be available but not in everyone’s way all the time. I’ll rotate questions at a rate to be determined according to, um, my whim?
February 26, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Even newer over/under:
1) Claims to fatherhood of Anna Nicole’s baby: 5
2) Starting pitchers used by Padres this year (no, not 162, wise guy, I mean different starting pitchers): 8
3) Number of Padres starts by Wells: 18
4) Number of Padres starts by Blum: 18
5) Claims to motherhood of Anna Nicole’s baby: 2
February 27, 2007 at 5:56 pm
20: Over, Under, Under, Under, Under
February 27, 2007 at 6:08 pm
re: 28
Nice
February 27, 2007 at 7:12 pm
28:
1)
2) Under
3) Under
4) Over
5)