Kouz Da Man
Thu, May 17, 2007
by Geoff Young
I’ve got a ton of terrible headlines playing on Kevin Kouzmanoff’s nickname; I’m glad I finally get to use one. On a night when Jake Peavy was less than his usual dominant self (and merely very good), the Padres came back against the Reds and won a game they probably should have lost (recap | box score).
Wednesday’s affair came as a welcome relief in the wake of a stretch where the Padres lost several games they seemingly should have won. And wouldn’t you know, the win was secured courtesy of a walk-off walk by Kouz.
As we’ve noted, Kouzmanoff has been swinging the bat well the past couple weeks but not seeing results. After looking completely lost at the plate in April, he’s made an adjustment and it’s starting to pay dividends. Three hits and a walk in four trips to the dish? We’ll take that and his .296/.343/.444 performance so far in May.
Kouzmanoff’s swing is compact, he’s tightened up his strike zone, and he’s spraying the ball all over the place. The power? That will come, although not necessarily in the form of home runs. Kouz looks to be more of a gaps hitter to me, which should play well at Petco Park. Whatever the case, he’s clearly taken several small steps in the right direction.
Peavy? The final line is pedestrian by his standards: 7 IP, 9 H, 2 R, 1 BB, 5 SO, 105 pitches. After the first inning, though, he was fantastic: 6 IP, 5 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 4 SO, 71 pitches. Yep, that’s about 12 pitches an inning over the final six frames. More of that, please.
As for the Reds, they let this one get away from them. Anthony correctly points out over at Friar Watch that Cincy left starter Bronson Arroyo in too long. The Reds also committed two very costly errors, including one on the play immediately before Kouz’s walk that loaded the bases with nobody out in the ninth. Sucks for them, but we’ve seen too much of that from the Padres lately for me to feel much sympathy just now.
The Padres end the homestand at 22-19 on the season, with a 24-17 Pythagorean record. They are 9-6 in May and 8-4-2 in series this year (including 5-1-1 at home). The plan may be starting to come together, no?
by Peter Friberg
You will not see all the notable performances from the night before, but you will see the notable performances from those who are actually prospects.
AAA
No game scheduled
AA
Joshua Geer: 6.1 IP, 7 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 0 BB, 4 SO, 0 HR
High-A
Matt Antonelli: 3 AB, 1 R, 1 H, 0 RBI; 2 BB
Wade Leblanc: 6.0 IP, 4 H, 2 R, 1 ER, 1 BB, 5 SO, 0 HR
Low-A
No game scheduled
Commentary:
I’m not the biggest Geer fan, but a little birdie said I should keep an eye on him. He had a good start, so here he is for your viewing pleasure.
Wade has allowed two earned runs over his last six starts.
Thanks, Peter!
Off day on Thursday, then three in Seattle. Prepare yourself for the next chapter in the fiercest rivalry professional sports has ever known.
Or just watch the Padres and Mariners play over the weekend — your call…
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.
May 17, 2007 at 8:12 am
Baseball gods smiled on us. Who would think that Cameron and Kouzmanoff could combine for 6-7 with a key walk? If I am a Cinci fan, I am upset about the call to KK. High-ish change to end the game? But, then I was annoyed on the some calls generous to the Reds in the first that allowed runs, so I guess it evens out.
The Dodgers are winning, but getting a lot of help. BP’s third order wins has them below SD.
On Cameron, I wish I could slice his OPS by where the ball was on the plate and what he did with it. My guess is it would look something like:
Pitch: middle/in Approach: pull; OPS 1.000
Pitch: outside Approach: opposite field OPS 1.000
Pitch: outside Approach: pull OPS .150
Pitch: middle/in Approach: opposite field OPS .150 (this happens when he gets jammed, which is rare)
I am sure he is aware of this, and these kind of splits may be true for all hitters (maybe not the exact numbers but the relative values) but it so pronounced with him.
Glad to see KK finally get some breaks. And all his hits weren’t fastballs. One of his smoked singles was him waiting on curve. Love it.
May 17, 2007 at 9:13 am
When Geoff sent around the round table questions, he asked what the Padres could improve upon… I said, “Not much, which scares me.” I thought that they were playing SO WELL that there was probably some “correction” coming… Now, we’re NOT playing overly well yet we’re still winning 50% of the games or so… What happens when we start playing better? And yes, we will.
May 17, 2007 at 10:27 am
Some very interesting comments from the Reds at this blog:
http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/spring/
Ross: “I’m not going to talk about that pitch, because it’s not why we lost. We didn’t lose because a ball four, borderline pitch, it could have been a strike. For him to take that pitch was pretty daring. That’s not why we lost that game. If we dwell on that pitch, we’re dwelling on the wrong things.”
Arroyo: “He said it was high. If you watch it in slow motion, it’s borderline. If you watch it in fast motion, with the speed of the game, the crowd going and everything, I thought it was right there. It’s hard to get strikes called in this area (Arroyo motions with his hand from between the letters of the jersey to the belt), even though the rulebook says strikes go all the way up to the chest, you usually don’t get them. I just thought under the circumstances, splitting the plate right down the middle, I thought I would get it, but that’s the way it goes”
Pretty classy remarks I think, considering the outcome. I don’t think we’d hear the same thing from the Dodgers for instance.
I agree with Geoff: No sympathy here for the Reds. It’s about time we caught a break like that.
I’m looking forward to the Mariners series and seeing our next centerfielder in action. (Positive thinking can’t hurt, right?)
May 17, 2007 at 10:38 am
Jack Cust is hitting cleanup for the A’s and hit his 7th HR last night. Has anyone heard anything about the PTBN for Cust? I wonder if his sucsess is holding up the deal, or if the pads took the cash early and are hoping that the story will go away when Cust cools down?
May 17, 2007 at 11:06 am
Another day, another absurd story about the stadium:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....notes.html
Do you think it’s a good sign when a relief pitcher makes more sense about the topic than your team president? Again, this whole thing goes back to what the goal of the Padres is. If they move the fences in an attempt to provide more entertainment for the “fans” we know that they aren’t serious about winning. I thought that everyone knows that the way to increase attendance was to win but I guess that’s a foreign concept for many around the Padres and their fans
The Padres have one or maybe two good young hitters on their team (Gonzalez and Kouzmanoff). They want to change the park dimensions to benefit those two players and hurt Peavy, Young, Hensley and Meredith? Does that sound like a good idea to anyone?
May 17, 2007 at 11:11 am
I propose a “We don’t talk about Jack Cust” anymore rule! I’m sick of hearing about that guy mashing it up when we are begging for runs here. I’m not mad about the trade because we don’t have a place for him to play I just would rather him not have him start an MVP bid the second we let him go.
May 17, 2007 at 11:25 am
5. Why not work on finding some sort of medium? I like the advantage that Petco gives our pitchers but if our pitchers are not good enough to pitch in a normal ballpark then that is a problem. Home runs are not just for entertainment and just because the team is considering the idea doesn’t mean that they are not serious about winning. Last time I checked you have to score runs to win games too right. Not that hitting the ball out of the park is the only way to score more runs or win but I bet a few more home runs a year might help. Don’t you think Brocail’s comments are just as biased as all the hitters that have come out and said that Petco is killing their home run numbers? He’s a pitcher off course he loves it. I bet he’d like a 500FT fence even better. I am not saying I want to have a freaking launching pad here, I even like the fact that we have a pitchers park but I wouldn’t mind seeing or least the team thinking about doing something to boost the offense a little. Oh and yeah I think I would like to see an extra homer or two every once in a while because it is entertaining
May 17, 2007 at 11:33 am
7: In my opinion, the problem with screwing with the dimensions too much is that it can lead to some interesting conditions that are not anticipated.
For example, how many day games do the Padres play at home this year? I’m willing to bet that the percentage of the total home schedule is somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. We all know what the ball does in Petco during a day game. So if we adjust the fences even more, can you imagine what a day game here is going to be like? How are we to expect our pitchers (or hitters, for that matter) to develop a consistent approach is our stadium plays as moderately even in the night to completely hitter friendly in the day?
Of course, I realize now that the situation is pitcher friendly nights with more even (although not nearly so much so) days. I guess the bottom line is what’s most important to the team. Is it more important to develop a strong pitching staff or a mashing line-up? The Padres line, as it currently exists, does not contain a lot of power bats - WHICH IS NOT A PROBLEM. If the players could learn to play to the strengths of their stadium a bit more, we wouldn’t have this conversation every time we win or lose a close game.
May 17, 2007 at 11:39 am
3 … thanks, Anthony … hey, can you tell us what the GameDay data says about the location of “the pitch”?
6 … I second your propsal … and I know I’ve been talking about “him” a lot … too much? sure … his in our rear view mirror now!
May 17, 2007 at 11:57 am
7: I think the goal is to have a neutral park, one that does not favor hitters or pitchers. If that can be done, I firmly believe the team would benefit. Having heavily biased stadiums, towards either hitting or pitching, rarely seems to help the team overall. The Rockies had terrific home field winning percentage, but played poorly on the road.
The Nationals have an even more biased pitcher stadium than SD, and that does not seem to be helping them much.
I am not sure what benefit people see in having to have your team adjust its style of play whether they are at home or on the road. If players could really hone a particular style by playing to a specific confines of a park, I think you ought to see SD having a strong home field advantage (vs. play on the road). But you don’t see that, just the opposite.
Ideally it is not about HR’s but about neutrality. The low HR’s are a symptom of the heavy pitching bias the stadium has, not a problem in itself.
May 17, 2007 at 12:05 pm
9: Check my site, Gameday said it was a strike but it was borderline. There would have been a complaint either way.
Another interesting link:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/m.....st-week36/
The Padres offense is responsible for the team underperforming it’s Pythagorean projection by 2.8 wins but the pitching picked up 1.5 wins. Seems about right to me. But now that we’re getting production out of Cam and Kouz we should see better results from the offense. Now if only OG would hit for power and Greene would stop waving at sliders out of the zone…
May 17, 2007 at 12:30 pm
10: The Rockies and the Nationals had or have talent problems that were more important than their home park. You run a team like the 2006 or 07 Nationals out there, it doesn’t matter where they play, they’re going to lose.
Where’s the evidence of a bad home park anyway? We had a better WP at home in 2005 and so far in 2007. Last year we were very close to even, 2 games better on the road.
I’m not worried about Petco. I do worry that we sometimes seem to think it will allow anybody with one functional arm to be an effective pitcher, but since the start of 2006 that seems to come from fans more than the front office.
May 17, 2007 at 12:38 pm
#6: I’m okay either way talking about Cust, as long as we don’t pretend that he’s, say, Josh Hamilton. Cust is a great story; eventually he will cool down and have a career like that of Kevin Maas. It’s fun while it lasts.
#10: Seems to me the Cardinals tailored their roster to the ballpark they played in back in the early ’80s and it served them fairly well. The main benefit I see in having a team adjust to the park is, well, you play half your games there every year.
One area where the Padres have excelled at Petco is in outperforming their Pythagorean. I haven’t checked to see how they’re doing this year, but in the book, I noted that they had finished with a winning record every season so far at Petco despite being outscored by the opposition. This may be a small-sample fluke (although after three years, I’m thinking probably not), but it potentially provides a potent counterexample to the “Petco is hurting the Padres” theory.
Actually, I just checked. This season we’re outscoring the opposition at home, 76-53, through 20 games. We’re outhomering them, 15-5. Our record is 12-8. I can live with those numbers…
May 17, 2007 at 12:59 pm
11 … thanks, Anthony, that’s what I was lookin’ for … in fact, and as usual, you’ve gone above and beyond … what a story in that final AB by KK!
I just watched the video at mlb.com (http://sandiego.padres.mlb.com/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20070516&content_id=1968903&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=sd) … and it’s amazing to me how good of a pitch that is. Without the context your analysis provides, I was initially very concerned about KK … that seemed a HUGE mistake to let that pitch go by … ie. *very* lucky that ump called it ball 4 … but after reading your analysis, I see that he was up there swinging, being aggressive … so it seems just a minor concern that he’d get locked-up on that final pitch … still a mistake by KK … but overall a good AB … and clearly overall a very good set of ABs against a pitcher who was pitching very well all evening.
One other concern from that final pitch … now I have a feel for where your graphs are showing the upper-bound of the strike zone vs where the pitches appear to be crossing the plate and going into the catcher’s mitt … that upper-bound seems too low. In other words, your graph shows it in the strike zone, but very close to the upper limit … and my perception is that that pitch was not that close to the upper limit … that my understanding of the strike zone would have that upper bound higher … ex. perhaps 4 rather than current location of 3.5 … I don’t know what the unit of measure is on the axis … I presume it’s the same for both X & Y? But what’s odd is that the axis on your graph distorts the strike zone into appearing to be a square … but a close look at the axis reveal that the strike zone is (x,y) = (1.5,2) … so if the UOM = feet, then your graph is showing a strike zone that is 1.5 feet wide by 2 ft high … and so all I’m saying is that for a player who is approx 6 feet tall, the vertical dimension of the strike zone is more than 2 feet … for me, it’s at least 3 feet (about 18 inches from knee to belt, and about 18 inches from belt to “midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants” … eh, this is old news … the strike zone is traditionally called smaller than it is defined … I guess I’m just ranting against that difference … what’s the point? Decide what it should be, then define it that way, and call it that way, and then display it that way in things like GameDay …
Anyone think there’s any chance the ump gets raked over the coals for that last call? I think he should be … it was not a good call …
May 17, 2007 at 1:00 pm
13.
I pretty much agree with you totally aside from the fact of the home record and the home runs at home numbers. Call me crazy I just don’t think we have played any really good teams at home so far. Out of the the 7 series we’ve played at home I think only 1 or 2 of those teams are above .500 right? I also would personally only consider the Cardinals the only real home run hitting team that has visited Petco so far this year and that’s kinda questionable with Rolen and Edmonds not hitting a ton of them anymore. But I am surprised by the 15-5 that’s pretty good.
I’m not going to say I’m all for moving the fences in but like GY said we play 1/2 of our games here. It would seem helpfull to theorically improve the offense while hopefully not giving away too much in terms of pitching.
May 17, 2007 at 1:21 pm
“Give me enough ROPE and I’ll hit ‘em” KK
May 17, 2007 at 2:33 pm
14: I’ll take a look at the strike zone data. I was surprised to see how square the zone apears as well. I try to make sure the horizontal and vertical scales are the same but I’m just eyeballing it. I’ll also try to find how Gameday measures the top and bottom for each batter.
Based on what I’ve learned from looking at all this data so far I’d say the umpire could have called it either way. As Arroyo said, it’s hard to get the umps to call that pitch a strike. It’s certainly gotten better, I remember a few years ago if it was above the belt it was a ball.
May 17, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Joe West, who I think was the previous night’s home plate umpire, was calling that pitch a strike.
Three cheers for a non-uniform strike zone!
May 17, 2007 at 4:22 pm
18 - except when it bites us on the ass…
May 17, 2007 at 4:24 pm
When I watched that last pitch live, it looked like a sure-thing strike, but when I watched the replays, it looked like it dropped down at the last second past the strike zone, or possibly obscuring its trajectory…
May 17, 2007 at 5:04 pm
OT, the Braves have released Craig Wilson. He’s sort of a right-handed version of Branyan. Career .290/.389/.527 line against LHP, .206/.309/.561 as a PH. Should the Padres be interested?
May 17, 2007 at 5:07 pm
18 … when I think back on what pushes my buttons, strike-zone-uniformity is high on the list. Do you remember Fernando’s no-hitter for the Dodgers? I will *never* forget that final AB … pitch 1 was off the plate … strike 1 … pitch 2 even further off the plate … strike 2 … and pitch 3 was the worst pitch i have *ever* seen called for a strike … and ever since, strike-zone-uniformity has been a major pet peeve (unless that’s an oxymoron?) …
i’m a huge fan of questec, the concept … but i’m bum’d that i’ve not seen much impact … have you?
perhaps now with the availability GameDay data, some improvements will be forthcoming … but i’m not holding my breath …
May 17, 2007 at 5:09 pm
21 … yes, the padres should be interested … if nothing else than to take jack cust’s place at portland
(oops, i wasn’t s’posed to mention his name …)
May 17, 2007 at 5:14 pm
DePo was on 1090 today, when Coach asked him about Wilson it sounded like the Padres weren’t really interested.
Coach asked him about Cust, DePo said the AL is the best fit for him, yada yada. The natural follow up would have been to ask about the PTBNL and whether Cust’s performance raises the return value. Since it was the natural follow up question, Coach didn’t ask it.
May 17, 2007 at 5:25 pm
20: One of the articles I read about the Gameday system mentions how surprising it was to the researchers just how skewed the centerfield camera angle makes the pitches look. You’re looking at 60 feet of flight through a telephoto lens from 300+ feet away, it’s going to squeeze all the pitch movement into a very short visible flight path. If I remember right, Gameday measured the “break length” of that pitch at around 8 inches. 8 inches over 60 feet doesn’t leave much room for the pitch to drop during that last foot of flight.
It’s possible that earlier in the game the umpire might have called that a strike. Maybe he just wanted to avoid another extra inning game
May 17, 2007 at 5:36 pm
21: Yes, absolutely, the Padres should be interested, he’s a perfect fit with his right handed bat, it would mean getting rid of one of Robles or Blum which is not a hit at all (especially if it’s Blum, though it wouldn’t be), it sounds too good to be true, so it won’t happen. Gotta let Blum’s beautiful swing stay on the team.
May 17, 2007 at 5:37 pm
20 … what are you trying to say, Peter? that if you think of the strike zone as a 3-d box over the plate, that that pitch was high over that box but then drop’d fast into the catcher’s mitt? i don’t get it … it was a bad call, imo …
May 17, 2007 at 6:37 pm
OT … hey, this would be a fun game to see … http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore?gid=270517118 … battle of the little-big-men … vet vs rook … oswalt vs lincecum … round 1 … thru 6 …
Pitches-strikes - T Lincecum 87-55; R Oswalt 89-56.
Ground balls-fly balls - T Lincecum 3-5; R Oswalt 9-4.
Batters faced - T Lincecum 21; R Oswalt 21.
… Lincecum with 10 Ks … 0 ER’s in the game …
May 17, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Chase Headley and Nick Hundley with HRs tonight at AA San Antonio … http://www.minorleaguebaseball.....x_sanaax_1
May 17, 2007 at 8:09 pm
DavidB posted this interesting note at pdxbeavers.com (which has been *very* slow this season) …
Brian Sikorski-R- Player May. 17 - 5:40 pm et
Indians sold the contract of RHP Brian Sikorski to the Yakult Swallows of Japan’s Central League.
Sikorski spent five years in Japan before giving MLB another try last season. Since things didn’t work out for him with the Padres and Indians, he’ll go back to Japan and get a couple of more nice paychecks before he hangs ‘em up.
May 18, 2007 at 12:22 am
Craig Wilson’s mullet alone would be worth the price of admission.
Bur seriously, his value would be strictly as a right handed pinch-hitter since we is the defensive equivalent of Dave Kingman.
May 18, 2007 at 11:45 am
Is it okay to want the defensive equivalent of Dave Kingman on your bench instead of the offensive equivalent of Enzo Hernandez or George Arias?