Cogs in a Machine
Tue, Oct 23, 2007
by Geoff Young
Yeah, our city is going up in flames. I’m okay, but a lot of folks I know aren’t doing so great; I hope you’re not one of them.
If you want to follow what’s going on or learn how to help, I’ve got a thread open for that; otherwise, and intending no disrespect to anyone affected by the fires, we’ll keep doing what we do around here. Whatever helps us keep our sanity, right?
Peace…
As you know, I’ve been re-reading the old Bill James Baseball Abstracts this off-season. There’s an interesting discussion about ballpark tendencies in the Houston Astros section of the 1983 edition. I wonder if some of this might apply also to the Padres and their current environment at Petco Park:
Fenway makes ballplayers look like better hitters than they are. That inflates egos. Inflated egos cause resentment, in particular among those not favored by the park…
The Astrodome is a negative image of Fenway…. And for what were the Astro players of the fine teams of 1978 to 1981 known? Their openness with the press, their closeness and almost family-like atmosphere…. As the park knocks 20 points off every player’s average, it humbles hitters and it controls egos.
But even more than that, it is my feeling that the mere fact that in Fenway a hitter can create runs by his own actions tends to cause Fenway teams to pull apart over time. A key fact about the Astrodome is that it takes three players to make a run. In order to do your job in this park, you have got to see yourself as part of a plan, a cog in a machine.
My feeling is that, over time, that changes the way that the Astro players think of themselves in relation to their team…. And thus, I believe, if the Astros are to win it is extremely important for them to keep a team together, to maintain a stable personnel.
Just something to consider…
Winter Leagues
- Scottsdale 10, Saguaros 1 (box). Will Venable doubled and struck out in four at-bats; he still hasn’t played the field. Matt Antonelli batted eighth and went 0-for-3 with a strikeout. Jonathan Ellis surrendered four runs in 1 1/3 innings, Neil Jamison gave up a run of his own while retiring just one batter, and Will Startup worked a scoreless ninth.
- Licey 1, Escogido 0 (box). This is Sunday’s game. Vince Sinisi, batting third for Escogido, went 1-for-4. Yordany Ramirez has been out of the Licey lineup for several games; not sure what the deal is there.
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 23, 2007 at 8:25 am
Antonelli’s numbers seem underwhelming …
October 23, 2007 at 8:35 am
Not ready…
October 23, 2007 at 8:39 am
I seem to recall that Antonelli had this problem once before in a limited sample following a long season. How did that work out again?
October 23, 2007 at 8:46 am
Current and former Padres affected by fires:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....adres.html
October 23, 2007 at 9:17 am
Anybody who lets a few at-bats at the end of a long season determine whether Antonelli can hit or not doesn’t understand samples. But if he still looks raw around the bag, that’s a different story, because that’s been a consistent problem since he turned pro.
I’m not second-guessing the Padres here, but if Alderson really believed that second basemen were so interchangeable, it makes you wonder if they wish they’d moved Antonelli to CF.
October 23, 2007 at 9:22 am
Re: 5 is it still to late? Will it be to hard of an adjustment to make in AAA?
October 23, 2007 at 9:39 am
6: It’s not too late to switch him now, but it’s too late to have him available as a CF at the start of 2008.
October 23, 2007 at 9:45 am
Re: 7 better late than never…find a stop gap for 08 and have a CF you control for 6+ years for 09. Who is the next best 2B prospect Kazmar? Cruz? Thier whole theory of good 2B’s are a dime a dozen did not work out to well in 07. I wonder what it would take to get barfield back?
October 23, 2007 at 9:53 am
#8: The theory isn’t that good second baseman are a dime a dozen, it’s that in general, they’re easier to find than good third basemen, which remains true.
There are no second base prospects in the organization that are close to being ready and that project as starters. As for Barfield, although I’m not against bringing him back, it’s worth remembering that NOG outperformed him in ‘07.
October 23, 2007 at 9:56 am
Intriguing point by the young(er) James. Though it’s interesting that the Red Sox teams of the 2003-2007 era seem like a really tight knit group. I wonder if that’s attributable to having influential clubhouse guys like Varitek, Papi and Schilling to keep the group together.
The 2007 Padres sound like they had a great clubhouse atmosphere and definitely had a “we’re in this together” attitude. Hopefully losing Cameron and M. Giles won’t affect that too much.
By the way, not to make light of the fire situation in the San Diego area - and I wish everyone who is out there safe passage for you and your loved ones - but I keep noticing that every time they mention Bochy they add that he is vacationing in Paris. I just can’t picture Boch in Paris. Walking along the Champ Elysees, hanging out on the Left Bank, sipping red wine at outdoor cafes …
October 23, 2007 at 9:58 am
9: True, but I don’t think SA would disagree that if 2b are easier to find than 3b, they’re also easier to find than CF. This year’s FA 2b aren’t going to make 1/10th of what the FA CF will make.
I wonder if they really think Venable has a shot at playing a major league CF.
October 23, 2007 at 9:58 am
Spoke with the padre players in Arizona. Phillies coach plays his phillies guys everygame. philly player who struck out 150 times while only walking 25 times bats leadoff everygame. Hundley bats 9th with only 9 at bats and Antonelli bats 8th every other game.
October 23, 2007 at 10:04 am
#10: Bochy was born in France.
#11: Correct about second base vs center field, especially in the current market. As for Venable, I think they were hoping to find out in the AFL, but the shoulder injury is making that difficult, if not impossible.
October 23, 2007 at 10:14 am
Yankees rumored to be looking at 3/$40M for Posada:
http://www.nydailynews.com/spo.....40_-2.html
October 23, 2007 at 10:35 am
Re: 9 NOg has had a few down years now and could be showing an over decline, Barfeild is still young and had to make alot of adjustments in the 06-07 off season. If the Pads can get him back on the cheap it may be worth it.
October 23, 2007 at 10:44 am
#15: Yep, couldn’t agree more.
October 23, 2007 at 10:46 am
#16: I should have added a link to this:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....livan.html
October 23, 2007 at 10:52 am
I wonder If the UT’s server is having issues from so many people logging on to check up on the fire.
October 23, 2007 at 10:58 am
#18: I’m having some problems with it right now.
October 23, 2007 at 11:12 am
Re: 17 Good article G.Y. I reallly wouldn,t mind seeing Barfeild back at 2B and Antonelli moving to CF. The 09 lineup could look like:
CF Antonelli
LF Headley
1B A-gon
3B Kouz
SS Greene
RF Huffman (still dont know about his arm)
C Bard
2B Barfeild
You can put Headley or Kouz at 3B or LF I just put it that way because its how it is at the moment.
October 23, 2007 at 11:25 am
#13 - So that explains why he isn’t President.
October 23, 2007 at 11:44 am
When Josh was with San Diego, he was infamous for swinging at the first pitch. He finished this year with a grand total of 14 walks. Why would the Padres aquire a young player who’s hitting philosopy, is 180 degrees removed from the organizational philosophy?
October 23, 2007 at 11:47 am
Re: 22 He’s still young and with the poor year he had in 07 he may be more open to a new philosophy. If they can get him for a mid level prospect why not take a chance on him again.
October 23, 2007 at 11:52 am
Re: 5…or it could be that this year’s numbers are getting a lot of hyped before they should? Less than 200 ab’s above class A would itself be a small sample.
October 23, 2007 at 11:56 am
Re: 23…because he really is not that good. His defense is questionable and in the 2 years he has played in the majors, his bat has not been above average.
October 23, 2007 at 12:09 pm
24: It’s certainly possible that Antonelli isn’t ready, even though his numbers above A ball were every bit as good, considering his age and the level, as his Elsinore production. But we’re not learning anything about his stick from 21 at bats in the AFL. His 187 AA at-bats are a lot more telling.
23, 25: Not too interested in Barfield.
October 23, 2007 at 12:13 pm
RE: 25 & 26 assuming that Antonelli is not ready and/or moves to CF who else would you like to see at 2B for the next 3-5 years?
October 23, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Steve…I would not be shocked to Antonelli ready soon, but I am not ready to pronounce him the starter after less than 200ab’s above A ball and playing a fairly new position. In a perfect world, he shows up in the spring and proves that he is ready early. In the real world, we need to think about someone like Ray Durham, Tad Iguchi, or other stopgaps for next season…even if it does turn out like the Rey Ordonez signing.
October 23, 2007 at 12:20 pm
#27: Assuming we are strong enough at other positions, I’m good with a revolving door at 2B. Sign a Ronnie Belliard type every year until you can come up with a long-term solution.
October 23, 2007 at 12:29 pm
#10 - “Red Light” (a.k.a “Curt”) helps his clubhouse?
October 23, 2007 at 12:32 pm
#20: Huffman played QB in college, so I would guess (admittedly, just a guess) he could handle RF. However, he’s only played LF. Furthermore, I would speculate that Headley’s more likely to move to RF…
October 23, 2007 at 12:35 pm
#25: Barfield’s bat was more than acceptable for a big-league second baseman in his rookie season. His defense was solid as well. Range factors and RZR both were above average. Barfield was not, as some believed, a star in the making, but he was a good player.
October 23, 2007 at 12:39 pm
10 … the Red Sox teams of the 2003-2007 era seem like a really tight knit group because they *WIN* … not the other way around … imo …
October 23, 2007 at 12:39 pm
31: Although I’ve said that the Padres should move Kouz to the outfield if they keep him and Headley, a big part of me suspects those two will not be teammates. The team has said they want outstanding defenders in the OF, to the point of having dual CF. Neither Headley nor Kouz is going to that good out there, definitely not in right.
October 23, 2007 at 12:39 pm
#21: …He can still run for mayor…
http://www.bochyformayor.com/
October 23, 2007 at 12:41 pm
TW, HUGE posts today…
#5: “I’m not second-guessing the Padres here, but if Alderson really believed that second basemen were so interchangeable, it makes you wonder if they wish they’d moved Antonelli to CF.”
Again…
“I’m not second-guessing the Padres here…” Yes you are… Seriously though, that’s an EXCELLENT point.
#11: The Padres insist Venable can handle CF and part of why he’s in the AFL is hone those skills, however his injury prevents his ability to play the field (no jokes please).
October 23, 2007 at 12:49 pm
36 (Antonelli): No, second-guessing would be suggesting they’re dumb for not doing it originally. I’m just asking if they’re having second thoughts about second base, or if SA’s revolving-door 2b philosophy was more of a marketing tool to ameliorate the pain of moving Barfield. I’m fine with him playing 2b, but if they’re going to outplan the opposition they can’t be changing their underlying assumptions from year to year.
36 (Venable): They can insist publicly all they want, but it’s what they believe privately, and what Venable can do physically, that matter. It sets off alarm bells when the same people (Padres, not posters) who tell us we must recalibrate Venable’s offensive numbers because he “just started concentrating on baseball” also tell us he can handle CF because “his instincts are off the chart.”
October 23, 2007 at 12:53 pm
#36: I would argue that basketball requires more athleticism than baseball (i.e. John Kruk’s famous quote, “Lady, I ain’t an athlete, I’m a baseball player.” secondly, Papi & Kevin Howard are baseball players) and Venable was a 2-time team MVP at a D-1 (albeit Ivy League) basketball player… I don’t think we can question his athleticism…
October 23, 2007 at 12:58 pm
#38: A-ha, an opening for one of my favorite lines ever: How many home runs did Michael Jordan hit?
October 23, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Antonelli will not be moved to the outfield. His play at 2nd base the second part of the year was fantastic. We saw him in Springfield during the playoffs and the people there are still talking about him.
October 23, 2007 at 1:01 pm
38: It’s not a question of athleticism, but acumen. Strong throwing arm? No. Great speed? No, average speed, although it’s always hard to tell if the scouts mean “average speed for a lean 24 year old black kid” or “average speed compared to everybody.” Good range? No, below-average range per BA.
Danny Ainge and Doug Flutie were tremendous athletes, but not major league CF. It would be awesome if Venable could fill that job, and I’m not saying he can’t, just that there are a number of outstanding questions.
October 23, 2007 at 1:03 pm
40: We’ve read otherwise elsewhere (about Antonelli’s play at 2b). I doubt he would be moved to the OF, but there’s some disconnect between an organization that says it’s fine with interchangeable 2b putting one of its top prospects at 2b.
October 23, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Bonds in LF.
October 23, 2007 at 1:11 pm
39 & 41: All true… But we’re not questioning Venable’s hitting ability; a baseball skill (although we do question if he had enough bat to handle a corner-OF) we’re questioning range (which is a function of speed and route-running)…
Don’t believe everything BA publishes… They said Rob Bowen had a weak arm when we traded him to Chicago. I e-mailed the writer about it and he admitted he was wrong. I spoke to another BA writer when they said X. Nady had a weak arm and he later admitted that Nady had that reputation but after TJ he actually had a strong arm.
Venable ran poor routes when he first gave up basketball (and had a poor throwing arm to boot), however both are improving according to what I hear… Don’t give up on him just because BA says he can’t hang.
October 23, 2007 at 1:13 pm
43: Do it. But I’m only one fan.
October 23, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Kouz/Headly, Greene, Antonelli, Gonzalez. Infield is set for a long time. Fix the outfield, pay Peavy, the Padres will be set
October 23, 2007 at 1:23 pm
44: I don’t believe everything they publish, but I also don’t believe everything the Padres sell. They have other motives, important ones. Remember Freddy Guzman as a plus CF?
Nady’s arm is pretty weak for an OF.
I thought it was obvious I wasn’t giving up on Venable. I’ll state it less equivocally, I’m not giving up on him. When the list of explanations starts to get really long, it’s smart to temper expectations.
October 23, 2007 at 1:37 pm
47: As I said earlier TW, you’re making some HUGE posts today… What is it Razor’s Axiom: if you have two solutions/answers/paradigms, the simpler is usually right? Venable has to make some strides, but he’s showing that he is… We still need to see more, but we should be encouraged.
Chances are, he won’t be a starting MLB CF… But stranger things have happened (like increasing production in your mid-late 30’s)…
October 23, 2007 at 1:47 pm
#47: It’s smart to temper expectations regardless.
#48: Occam’s razor:
http://skepdic.com/occam.html
October 23, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Re: 32 — Geoff, c’mon now…I like Barfield as much as the next guy, but his OBP, K/BB ratio, OPS+ were all below average both of his years in the majors. I will also have to disagree with you and reassert that he really was not good at 2B. He could not turn the DP very well and had limited range.
My overall point was that there is no real reason to bring him back and your idea of a revolving veteran until we create a long term solution is exactly what I am advocating.
October 23, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Speaking of Razor, if I missed that on Sci-Fi, I might use one. Not on my wrist, but somewhere that’ll leave a mark.
October 23, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Re: 50 and Khalil Greene is a glorified Chris Gomez
October 23, 2007 at 2:01 pm
While I can’t point to anything specifically, perhaps SA was referring to second basemen being interchangeable last year because there was a glut of 2b on the free agent market. I remember him saying on XX that if you ranked available 2b last year, you’d find that there wasn’t a big difference between 2 and 9, yet there would be a huge difference in dollars to sign them. I’m not sure he was stating that is was easier to find 2nd basemen every year. Maybe he was just referring to 2b being easier to find last year.
October 23, 2007 at 2:05 pm
33: I’ve followed the Red Sox my whole life. They had some great teams in the 70s and 80s. Those teams were not close knit and were not emotionally resilient and they choked because of it. The recent teams have much better chemistry and I do believe it’s helped them overcome adversity. It’s a debate that can never be settled and I suppose one opinion is as valid as another but the current team did have good chemistry (unlike anything previously seen in Boston) before the 2004 comeback. The chemistry didn’t magically appear after they beat the Yankees.
42: Perhaps Antonelli isn’t such a great prospect? If the team felt he could handle CF I’m sure they would have tried it. If his bat and defensive skill set is better suited to 2B then that’s where he belongs. Even if replacement level 2B are cheap it’s still cheaper to grow your own.
CF is one of the premium defensive positions, it’s not something you can just stick any fast player in and expect him to adjust. If Antonelli was CF material wouldn’t he have been playing there in college? How many guys go from 3B to CF and succeed? For that matter, how many starting centerfielders in the major leagues played anything other than CF in high school/college?
October 23, 2007 at 2:05 pm
#50: Barfield has had one good year and one bad year. His defensive metrics aren’t as poor as you suggest.
I agree with your overall point, but not your assessment of Barfield. Given such limited data, I’m not comfortable declaring him “not that good” just yet.
October 23, 2007 at 2:17 pm
53: SA was pretty clear about, his quote was something like “In Oakland we had 8 different second basemen in 10 years.”
54: “If the team felt he could handle CF I’m sure they would have tried it.” I see no basis for this. When he was drafted they had to choose where he’d play.
I’m not arguing that they should have moved him to CF, necessarily, just asking if the Padres considered it given their approach to CF. They’re now trying other misfits in CF - Venable and Hunter - so they definitely don’t have some ideal in mind that must be met before they try a player there.
I don’t know enough about Wake Forest’s coach, their home park, and who else they had on the team to inform any remarks about why Antonelli didn’t play somewhere else in college. He was an elite defender at 3rd, a possible future Gold Glover if he’d stayed there.
October 23, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I rember an interview with Antonelli last off season when I think Coach John asked him if the Pads had talked to him about playing CF, he said that hey had not approached him yet and that he has never played OF at any level. But look at Craig Biggio he came up as a catcher and ended up playing CF.
October 23, 2007 at 2:56 pm
57: He had the athletic profile to try it, it was mentioned in many scouting reports before the draft. Same sort of thing with Khalil Greene, the Cardinals wanted to draft him as a catcher after his junior year of college. They did talk to him about it and he had no interest.
October 23, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Re: interchangeability of second basemen
I think when talking about the interchangeability of second basemen, SA is talking about the easy availability of guys that are below average but above replacement level. Luis Castillo, Marcus Giles, Tadahito Iguchi, etc. But second basemen that are above average are not just floating around. Guys like Robinson Cano, Chase Utley, Brandon Phillips, and Dustin Pedroia are really valuable because they provide plus offense at a position where others are settling for Iguchi as a cheap free agent. If the front office thinks Antonelli can play a solid defensive second base, hit .300/.400/.450 with 20 steals, that’s a huge advantage over the Marcus Giles stopgaps.
October 23, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Re: 59 .300/.400/.450 with 20 steals, wow an 850 OPS with 20 steals his first year in the majors and third as a pro? You ask alot out of the kid.
October 23, 2007 at 4:02 pm
60: If Antonelli started from Day 1 at 2B and played the whole year, I’d expect a .255/.345/.345 type season (and I think he can/will become an All Star @ 2B)…
56: Hunter isn’t misfit @ CF… The question, is whether he grows out of the position (loses speed/range) and if he doesn’t have enough power to play a corner… He plays fine @ CF now…
October 23, 2007 at 5:43 pm
60: No, no, no, definitely not in his first year. That would be downballot MVP stuff in Petco. I meant that could be his peak performance in the eyes of the front office, which would make him very valuable at second base.
October 23, 2007 at 5:52 pm
61: Just saying, there are scouting reports that question his defense there now, and almost all of them say that he’ll have to move if he loses any speed. He’s definitely not a guy with classic CF tools, which is even more true of Venable, so (more in response to Anthony) I don’t see that the Padres had some Platonic notion of a CF that Antonelli couldn’t match. It seems like they really did want him at 2b, which is fine, but not entirely consistent with SA’s stated feelings about how easy it is to find production there compared to elsewhere.
October 24, 2007 at 6:12 am
Re: 52…No, no Steve. I said that KG was a “Flashy” Chris Gomez.
October 24, 2007 at 7:32 am
Re: oops my bad