Spring Training and Book Updates
Thu, Jan 10, 2008
by Geoff Young
Okay, we’ve had a chance to come up with a spring training plan of sorts. From the poll, I see that the general preference is that we do this earlier rather than later. February 29 - March 2 is in the lead right now, but I have to say, the idea of getting way too familiar with Luis Rodriguez and a bunch of NRIs holds little appeal to me, so I’d like to shoot for March 7 - 9 instead. Anyway, here are some details:
Ducksnorts 2008 Spring Training Thang
Dates: March 7 - 9, 2008
Price: TBD (depends on how many folks can join us)
What the package includes:
- Hotel accommodations
- Tickets to all Padres games
- Complete limousine transportation in Arizona to and from all events, including airport
- Dinners @ local steakhouse
- Signed copies of Ducksnorts 2007 Baseball Annual and Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual
- Sparkling conversation with your BFF
We’re getting kind of a late start on this (we’ll get the word out earlier for 2009), so if you could drop me a line asap to let me know if you’re interested, that would be sweet. I promise it won’t suck.
Book Update
On the book front, I’m getting real close to finishing the first draft (and only a week behind schedule!) — should wrap up today or tomorrow. Several of you have indicated an interest in lending your eyes to make sure what I’ve written makes actual sense (I’m told “makes actual sense” is a good selling point when it comes to books). Unfortunately, I’ve forgotten which of you has volunteered, so if those of you still interested could shoot me an email, I’d appreciate it. I’m asking for no more than a chapter, and I’ll have stuff ready for you by the middle of next week, if not sooner.
So, two action items:
- Let me know if you’re interested in doing the Spring Training Thang
- Let me know if you’d like to help with the 2008 Annual
As always, thanks much for your time. 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.
January 10, 2008 at 8:53 am
For that weekend, we would have one game in Surprise and one game in Peoria, right?
January 10, 2008 at 8:57 am
I am out for that weekend…flying in the following weekend from VA for my 4 day stint…so bummed to miss it. I always like going in the middle of ST, that way I get to see enough of the young guys with a good mix of the older…3-5 innings of each.
Stll wish the Pads had the weapons to trade to get Adam Jones from Seattle.
January 10, 2008 at 9:16 am
For anyone who’s interested, the LA Times’ Dodgers blog is requesting input from fans that have attended Dodgers games. If you’ve had a memorable (for better or worse) experience there, I recommend adding some thoughts.
January 10, 2008 at 9:17 am
3: A link would probably be useful: http://sportsblogs.latimes.com.....l#comments
January 10, 2008 at 10:07 am
One more comment about Raines … this comment by Jason Stark …
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....BHeadlines
“Instead of counting hits the way we do with other candidates, let’s count times on base, considering we’re talking about a leadoff man. Well, Raines reached base more times (3,977) than Tony Gwynn, Honus Wagner, Lou Brock, Roberto Clemente or Richie Ashburn. And there isn’t a single eligible player who reached base as many times as Raines did and had as high an on-base percentage (.385) who isn’t in the Hall of Fame.”
Hmmm … pretty compelling …
re: Spring Training … dates of March 7-9 … games are …
Friday, March 7 … @ Peoria vs Dbacks
Saturday, March 8 … @ Surprise vs Rangers
Sunday, March 9 … @ Peoria vs ChiSox
REMEMBER: Daylight Savings Time starts on Sunday, March 9th …
GY … I don’t need the hotel/travel … just game tix … is that an option?
January 10, 2008 at 10:25 am
MILB.com has an interesting look at whether or not Minor League fields mirror their Major League counterparts. The Padres and the Rockies are chosen as frames of reference…http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080110&content_id=337889&vkey=news_milb&fext=.jsp
January 10, 2008 at 10:33 am
3: Like the time I saw a guy wearing a D-Backs jersey get stabbed in the bathroom?
January 10, 2008 at 11:02 am
Excellent read:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/.....;GT1=10789
January 10, 2008 at 11:02 am
or the time a Giants fan got shot in the parking lot?
January 10, 2008 at 11:38 am
Didn’t a Padres fan get his ear bit off a couple of seasons ago?
January 10, 2008 at 12:08 pm
This is fascinating to me…
http://www.rotoauthority.com/2.....rtsto.html
I know it is Roto and not real life, but I think this has to be a typo…right?
Even me, the non-KG fan, thinks that ranking KG 17 out of 18 SS is silly.
January 10, 2008 at 12:27 pm
8 … nice link, Thanks Didi! Bill Nye on broken bats … a classic!
11 … no, not silly at all … the setup of the league is such that only the top 18 SSs have any value at all … there are 12 MLB teams whose SS isn’t listed at all … the catagories for (equal) value are: AVG, HR, RBI, SB, R … KG is low AVG + SB … and not all that high in HR + RBI + R … a quick run on the Baseball Prospectus ranking tool has KG at #14 …
January 10, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Thats through thing about fantasy baseball, its not representative of true player value. i defy anyone to give me a concvincing argument as to why furcal could be considered bettr than tulo. naturally players who play in hitters friendly parks are going to be more valuable fantasy wise.
January 10, 2008 at 1:09 pm
OT … I’m interested in any/all “moneyball”-related thoughts/comments … here’s one I saw from a chat at BP yesterday with Kevin Goldstein …
prhood (Canada): is it a coincidence that 2 of the teams with the weaker farm systems - TOR and OAK (until the latest trades) both espoused a low risk drafting philosophy which involves taking college players with the top picks. Beane was Riccardi’s mentor was he not? Can we hope to see a change in their respective approaches?
Kevin Goldstein: Travis Snider (heck, most of the Toronto ‘07 top picks), Trevor Cahill, etc. — I think you’ve already seen a change. The moneyball way of drafting is a dead issue folks.
January 10, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Lynch…as has been discussed many times, I don’t think this is so much a “Moneyball” issue as a focus issue…Moneyball was simply finding value where others do not…the OBP/Selective Hitter/High Walk Rate was just the undervalued commodity at the time…
Moneyball is not failed…it is the analysis of what creates a major leauge player and how to draft for it that Oak and Tor have had issues with in the past few years.
January 10, 2008 at 1:29 pm
14 & 15: That’s true, CM, but LM is talking about the draft methodology, not just the concepts of valuation. Both were important, and distinct, themes in the book, imo. The draft methodology was to identify college players who had more developed characteristics in hard baseball terms, such as the ones you mentioned, or theoretically any undervalued characteristic which could be adequately measured, and to get away from drafting younger players who “looked like a ballplayer,” or who “had a cannon,” etc.
Goldstein appears to be saying the idea hasn’t panned out and teams, at least the A’s and Jays, are moving away from it.
January 10, 2008 at 1:44 pm
16: Goldstein might not call “the moneyball way of drafting” dead if he had more time to think about it, instead of trying to answer chat questions quickly. He called the Padres 2007 Draft a “Moneyball” draft. We clearly have a preference for the same type of players often associated with that label. We’ve been doing it for a long time, even before Fuson came aboard.
January 10, 2008 at 1:45 pm
To me, the “moneyball way of drafting” isn’t a dead issue and it never will be. Of course, the moneyball way of drafting really isn’t drafting college players, it’s drafting players who are underrated/undervalued at the time. (or what CM pretty much just said).
Silly comment by Goldstein, I think. Then again, you can always get people talking when you say moneyball …
January 10, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Maybe the idea has not panned out, or maybe the A’s and Jays do not have the proper analysis tools. One thing to keep in mind, is that Oakland lost their original analyst in 2004.
January 10, 2008 at 1:57 pm
18: I disagree, MB, or rather I think that is not a full enough definition. While undervalued is certainly a component, drafting more mature players who have a statisitical and measurable track record is a bigger part, imo. This is why Beane was against drafting high school pitchers, because they had no real record to measure their performance and were hence unprojectable. iow, drafting a high school player was a total crap shoot whereas drafting a college player who had 2 or 3 years of verifiable statistics was more reasonable. Just my .02.
January 10, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Pat, I see what you’re saying. I think there’a a moneyball approach to the draft and then there’s, perhaps, a more sabermetric approach to the draft. Both are pretty related, but not exactly the same. The sabermetric component is evaluating players with stats (adjusted and whathaveyou), maybe comparing how past picks have performed, projections, etc. The moneyball component is looking at what’s over/underrated in the market.
Anyway, I think Beane would have drafted high schoolers, but at the time, and due to the economic situation in Oakland, he felt going with mostly college kids was a better approach.
I don’t really know where I’m going here. I believe there was a study on BP a while back by Rany Jazayerli showing that high schoolers were a lot more successful than many statheads thought, but I don’t exactly remember.
I think now that a lot of teams have caught onto the stats/college players thing, like the Padres, drafting high school players may be the new moneyball approach. Obviously, this is just my off the cuff opinion, and it’s probably a place where some good research could be done (and I’m sure already is/has).
January 10, 2008 at 2:31 pm
20: That sounds pretty fair to me. The Moneyball Draft (not Moneyball in general) wasn’t so much about finding undervalued players. It was about players who were fixed or limited in value. The real leveraging came after the draft, when some of those college kids put up good numbers immediately and were traded for players who were worth more to Oakland.
January 10, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Clearly “moneyball” does generate conversation
Here’s a followup Q&A from the same KG chat …
Michael Lewis (Scottsdale): Isn’t the Moneyball philosophy about arbitrage and not drafting college players? Moneyball is about exploiting undervalued assets in the market. If the same risks can be achieved at lower costs, you have an obligation to exploit the inefficiency in the market. Quick example to drive the point home, if you have two players of the same caliber but one is from the Northern hemisphere and the other is from the Southern hemisphere. However, the market is requiring a larger payout for the player from the southern hemisphere, does it not make sense to acquire the player from the north with the same risk profile?
Kevin Goldstein: Yeah, yeah. Look we all understand what it’s ABOUT, but let’s face it, the second I said ‘Moneyball draft’ you knew EXACTLY what I was talking about, so while it doesn’t fit the definition to perfection, and may even be a misnomer, you still got it, and see it was communicated effectively.
… and then later …
KG: What is up with the Moneyball fanboys? I have like 12 200-word diatribe’s on it in the que. Stop it. You’re grasping onto old technology.
… and then finally …
Nick (Chicago): “Michael Lewis (the dale): Listen, I get your point and it is well taken. I believe that both traditional scouting and advanced statistics can live in perfect harmony. I believe the combination of both can produce superior results. Agree? Kevin Goldstein: For the most part. ” WTF? Which part do you not agree with?
Kevin Goldstein: I just think you need to have a constantly adjusting balance going. The lower you go, the less statistics mean — and for some players they can be all but meaningless. I can’t think of any level or situation where scouting reports are meaningless. Both are important, but both aren’t always important. Man, I’m just asking for a full inbox here.
FYI.
January 10, 2008 at 2:40 pm
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3187711
Rob Neyer did this list the way it should be, I think, instead of picking 10 different players just to be interesting.
January 10, 2008 at 4:59 pm
24 … agree’d … it’s well done … thanks for the link … which has links to similar articles for other sports … always a good topic …
January 10, 2008 at 5:04 pm
25 … one of those links includes an Enzo Hernandez reference …
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn.....ons/080110
January 10, 2008 at 5:53 pm
MB, I see the distinction you’re making and I think it’s a completely viable reading. Thanks for sharing your insights.
Man, this is so cool having a place to intelligently discuss not only the Padres, but baseball as a whole!
I propose this as the new subtitle,
“Ducksnorts, it’s more than just a Padres blog!”