I, Me, Mine

No game on Thursday. Hey, the Padres can’t lose. ;-)

Meanwhile, I’ve been working on a few other things:

What else? Here’s some stuff that’s coming down the line:

I also have a few other cool projects in the works, but they’re still in the development stages. Sorry to tease; I just don’t want you to think I’m slacking. ;-)

Tagged as: , , , , , ,

123 Responses »

  1. is P-Mac turning into the new KG of the blog?

  2. Schlom…I don’t see the same thing many of the guys on this board see with PMac. Nice guy? Sure. Good hitter? Maybe, but there are a lot of good hitters that play good “D”.

    I contend that the main reason everyone wants him to be on this team is that he looks like one of us…meaning he is not chissled, athletic looking. He does not even look like a ball player. Dude looks like he programs computers for a living. Great. But if we want someone who we can reasonably expect to succeede, I would rather see someone who has done it before (Gerut) or someone with real upside (Headley).

    I love to root for stories, but your point is right, if we fashion ourselves contenders, then we can’t bother with a good story.

  3. 99: Blech, don’t get me started on Shawn Estes pitching innings in the organization. Seriously, I’d rather see McAnulty play everyday and bat cleanup then see Estes pitch one inning for the Padres, that would be less demoralizing.

    I guess I’m in the minority here thinking that McAnulty is more of a 260/330/380 in the majors, rather then the 290/370/450 that most of you think he is. Possible cautionary tale for the P-Mac lovers:
    That player didn’t quite have the power of P-Mac but was 5 years younger (and the park played closer to a pitchers park that season).

  4. By the way, I am rooting for PMac and have no problem with him on the team, but I would certainly rather see many other guys out there.

  5. 100: I like Clark OK but he doesn’t really seem to have a role on this team. Since Adrian can play nearly every game, it doesn’t seem smart to carry a backup for him that is limited to only 1B plus one that hits better left-handed. I’ll admit that it’s nice to have his power on the bench but he’s not exactly a great fit for this team. Huber fits in a lot better and without Clark the Padres could have a more flexible bench (although one without as much offense).

  6. 105: I have loved Clark as our first choice PH this year.

  7. Re: 102 I don’t root for him cause he looks like an average joe its more because he was drafted by the padres and I have followed him since A ball. I always have a soft spot for guys who have been with the Padres since day one.

  8. Agreed that Estes is so done and I don’t know why he’s around as an insurance policy.

    re:P-Mac should come with a caveat, given what the Padres have on the roster currently. And yes, CM, I think the fact that he doesn’t look like a player might play into it. The guy certainly can hit, though. Can he hit enough? Not given the chance to prove otherwise, that stigma will stick.
    And, I think, that’s what’s bugging P-Mac fans (I’m one) is the lack of a chance. If Edmonds is given a chance to prove himself and doing poorly so far, how long before P-Mac is given that chance?

    Heck, in a couple of weeks, all this maybe moot.

  9. Re: 105 Clark = Mark Sweeny his role is to PH every night. It would not suprise me if he gets 162 PA’s this year.

  10. #101: Discussion of P-Mac seems to be devolving into political debate. If someone has useful information to add, please feel free. Otherwise maybe we should find a more interesting topic.

  11. People have bad weeks on defense, just like they can have bad weeks at the plate. Small sample size is still a concern on defense, even if a guy does look really bad over that sample. It’s been five games. How can you make a reliable judgment based on five games?

    Last year, even while struggling with injuries, Edmonds was good enough to play an adequate centerfield and to significantly outhit McAnulty. Two years ago, he had a 110 OPS+. He still has the upside to do something like that, which is way beyond what the upside McAnulty has for this year, mostly because McAnulty can’t play centerfield. PECOTA has Edmonds’ 75th percentile performance at .261/.348/.461 in Petco, which is really, really good.

  12. OK – let’s talk about the upcoming Dodgers series. I have a 6000 mile commute to Saturday night’s game – they better make it worth my while.

    Last time I saw a Padres game in person, Mike Cameron broke his face.

  13. 112: Sorry, that really, really good at the end was a bit hyperbolic. My point was that is really, really good compared to what we got out of centerfield last year, what we expected to get out of centerfield this year, and what other possible centerfield candidates (both internal and possible acquisitions) could do. Not so much that in the overall context of the league an .810 OPS from a centerfielder is really, really good.

  14. 112: The sample size is definitely an issue. I think there’s a chance this is nothing more than a hiccup, but there’s also a very real chance that Edmonds is just done.

  15. If you look at what Edmonds did last year, what he’s done this year and what PECOTA projected for him, there’s not a lot of room for optimism. We’re talking a 45% collapse rate and it’s not like he set the bar terribly high last season. The more I’ve tried to talk myself out of the position that he’s done, the more convinced I become that he is done. Hopefully I’m wrong.

  16. So, I’m trying to divide “aggressive PA” and “so-called passive PA.” So far I have Swung at first pitch and took first pitch as my groupings. Anyone have any other ideas for separating them?

  17. 117: Taking first two pitches no matter what perhaps counts as a passive PA.
    I’m thinking swinging first pitch is not bad in certain circumstance. I supposed if a batter in every PA is a swinging at first pitch then that’s an aggresive hitter.

    What about total pitches seen per PA? Three or fewer average would be aggresive, no?

  18. 118: I considered going by pitches seen, but guys fouling off pitches or failing to make contact early despite hacking could have higher pitch counts regardless. Maybe something like % of pitches swung at or pitches out of zone swung at…

    The reason I’m trying to break it up is specifically to respond to people calling for the Padres hitters to be more aggressive and show that they’re actually getting themselves into trouble by being aggressive.

  19. Would using total pitches seen per game be helpful? Instead of focusing on each player, use the whole team.
    And compare that to the opponents’ seen pitches per game.
    I don’t know how to tie all that to the number of runners on base vs. runs scored.

    I’m thinking a pitcher that has more runners on base the whole game as being in trouble. However, those runners don’t necessarily turn into runs.

  20. Hey, look on the bright side guys. At least we didn’t lose to the Giants like the Cardinals did tonight. The Cards had their best starter going against the Giants’ worst, and the Cardinals lost 5-1.

  21. I’m less concerned with tracking runs than things like hits, walks, etc. Runs tell you less about how well they actually hit. I could separate each game into P/PA and then how well they hit as a club in that game, though (I’ll include runs, too, since obviously that’s of interest). I’ll see what we get from that. Thanks.

  22. 121: Yes, that would have been worse.