I’m kinda winging it today. We’ll see what happens…
This has been floating around for a few days now, but Paul DePodesta has a blog. I’ve added it to the ol’ blogroll as well as to PadreBlogs.com. One of DePo’s first posts concerns the effects of Petco Park. The entire post is well worth reading, but here’s one passage that stands out to me:
In each of the past 4+ seasons, the Padres have had a higher OPS than our opponents while playing in Petco. The total line since the opening: .246/.321/.379 for the Padres and .243/.303/.376 for the opposition. Over 342 games, that’s a significant spread. So big deal – Petco suppresses run scoring, and we all already knew that. What is interesting to me is the relative aspect of this puzzle. Scoring runs in an absolute world isn’t as important as in the relative world in which we compete – you win by scoring more runs than your opponent, not by scoring a certain number of runs.
Given the difference in batting lines between the Padres and their opponents, one would expect the Padres to have had a winning record at home, which has been the case. The Padres worst home record in Petco came in the inaugural season when the 2004 team posted a 42-39 record at home (interestingly, that team had the best home batting stats of any Padres team in Petco). The total record at Petco for the Padres, including this season, is 186-156, which pro-rates to an annual record of 44-37 at home. Does anyone happen to know what the average record at home has been for all Major League teams since the beginning of 2004? Drum roll….
44 and 37.
I looked at the question in a different way on pp. 33-36 of the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual, but arrived at pretty much the same conclusion: Regardless of anyone’s conceptions, the Padres have played well at Petco Park since moving there. Or as DePodesta puts it:
In the meantime, fans of the Padres should remember that the only four year run of consecutive winning seasons in franchise history has coincided with our four years with Petco as our home.
Snap.
* * *
I’ve been dogging Shawn Estes for his “Diez Anos de Ineptitud,” but he pitched a nice game Wednesday evening. After a rough start, he held his ground and kept the Padres within striking distance until Khalil Greene and Jody Gerut did their thing. Two more starts like that and maybe the Pads can flip Estes to the Yankees for Brett Jodie and Darren Blakely.
* * *
Eric Seidman at Statistically Speaking takes a good, hard look at Greg Maddux’s pitching strategy. Eric has broken down several confrontations between Maddux and Bengie Molina (they’ve faced each other a lot over the past couple years, so there’s more data to work with here) pitch by pitch, and the results are intriguing, as is this general line of inquiry. Among other things, Eric finds the following:
Given that Molina is very selective with pitches outside of the zone it made sense for Maddux to utilize his strike zone accuracy as much as possible. Since he is against throwing 0-2 waste pitches it becomes very likely that the pitches far out of the strike zone were mistakes rather than the results of strategic planning. Molina seemed genuinely fooled when Maddux’s changeup movement matched that of his two-seamer.
You need to read the entire article to get the context, but the fact that folks are even thinking about analyzing stuff in this manner excites me beyond words. Eric also will be following up in the coming days with examinations of Maddux’s approach on 0-2 counts and his matchups against Dave Roberts (to see if patterns differ with a lefty at the plate). I look forward to reading those as well.
* * *
I’ve been running a semi-regular feature over at Baseball Digest Daily called “Random Tuesday”; basically I hit the “random” button over at Baseball-Reference and then write about whatever page I land on. Well, yesterday I ended up at the page of Dick Selma, who, as many of you know, started the very first game in Padres history. If you’d like to learn more about Selma’s career, go for it. Incidentally, for the history buffs out there, I will be including a chapter on the ‘69 Padres in the 2009 Annual. It’s going to be fun. 
* * *
That’s all I’ve got for now. Next time I’ll try to have a plan, instead of just meandering all over the place. Sometimes, though, it’s good to go for a walk…
109 Comments
Jeez Geoff, you expect us to be OK with your rambling writing. We come here for serious discussion!
Man it feels good to win 3 of 4. Anyone else think Carlin should be getting all of the starts right now? We’ve won every game he’s started, and he just seems to be adding something that’s been missing.
Oh, and Cla Meredith is on fire this year.
Man last nights game reminded me of old times! I hope the moves that were made last week helped to right the ship and help stabilize the season for the Pads!
The Brett Jodie reference made me laugh. We already received our Brett Jodie in Sean Henn.
I scoff at DePo’s logic and rational use of data! Pfahh!!!! It is clear to my eyes, and the eyes of any true baseball fan, the Padres suck and are boring to watch. I’ll bet he never watches a game but just stares at a computer screen all day. I’ll bet he doesn’t even like baseball!
Mr. DePodesta, sir, just in case you’re reading, I’m joking.
Going strictly by memory, it seems that the innings totals for Matt Latos always seems fairly low; 4 or 5 IP. He seems to have a good line like yesterday 4 IP with 1 R and 1 BB, is it typical for Low A to keep the innings down for his age (what is he, 19/20 now?) or is there something else going on?
#5@Farquaad: I expect it’s a way to limit his innings. They’ve lost two top draft picks from the last 3 drafts to TJ surgery.
We got into this a little near the end of the game last night but I thought I’d get into this when we have a little more time. Of course I’m talking about the signing (and starting) of Shawn Estes. It appears that a lot of people are OK with the signing, with also GY and myself strongly against it. To me, this is the worst move the Padres have made in the past few seasons, certainly since Petco Park opened up. In some ways it’s like the signing of Jim Edmonds, which everyone thinks was a total disaster, yet it’s actually a lot worse. Edmonds at least has produced that last 4 seasons. Four seasons ago, Edmonds was coming off one of the best CF seasons of all-time, Estes had a 5.84 ERA and 1.624 WHIP (in Colorado however). In 2005, Edmonds was still one of the best CF in baseball, good in 2006 but bad last season (although about average for a CF). Estes was bad in 2005 (92 ERA+), pitched one game in 2006 and missed all of 2007. There is nothing in Estes’ prior history that makes you think he will pitch well for the Padres. Nothing.
Now some have said that the Padres may have seen something that I, by just looking at the stats, can’t see because I’m not a scout. The problem with that argument is that baseball people are fooled all the time into believing something that’s simply not true. Take Jon Daniels (the Rangers GM) for example. He saw Adam Eaton pitch and assumed that he could turn him around. So he traded a better, younger and cheaper pitcher (CY) along with a blocked prospect for Eaton and a reliever. In this case he fell in love with things Eaton can do (throw hard, throw a great curve) and ignored the things he can’t do (be successful in the majors). The Phillies did the same thing. Baseball history is full of examples of GM’s overvaluing players because of their physical tools despite their performance records. Wil Ledezma is another example of this — he looked absolutely overpowering in that relief stint in the 22 inning game that you think he should have a bigger role with the team. But if you look at his stats (the true measure of his ability) you see that he’s just a generic reliever.
The main reason I find the whole Estes situation so troubling is because it shows a lack of imagination and laziness by the front office. I think we all agree that the Padres aren’t going to sign any big name free agents, especially batters (they won’t come here unless they are way overpaid). I’m fine with that as signing free agents, especially ones over 30, is ultimately a losing proposition as you are paying for what players have done, instead of what they are going to do. You can win with a low to medium payroll if you excel in drafting and developing young players. However, the Padres have never been successful at doing that and don’t appear to want to do that now (look at their draft history, their preference in taking polished college players, not signing high school players over minimal amounts, not wanting to go over slot).
So how are they going to put together a successful team? The team right now has been built on two draft picks (Peavy and Greene) and outstanding trades. The trades were successful because the Front Office found younger players that weren’t given a chance or were blocked and gave up players whose flaws were much larger then their strengths. They were able to do this because of hard work in identify future contributors (at least I don’t think they just got lucky). How exactly does Estes fit in? He has no future, and outside of 1997, no real past either. It’s just a lazy pickup with no upside. The chances of him doing well are very slim plus I’m sure there are at least 20 pitchers out there with higher upsides that are either unemployed or in the minors. However, that would take work and Estes is already here — and that’s why I find it so troubling.
Here’s one final list of the pitchers with the worst ERA’s in baseball since 1998 (which takes out Estes great 1997 season):
http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/ComparePitchers.py?StartDate=03%2F31%2F1998&EndDate=05%2F13%2F2008&GameType=all&PlayedFor=0&PlayedVs=0&Park=0&SortField=CASE+WHEN+FractionalInnings+%3E+0+THEN+27.0*EarnedRuns%2FFractionalInnings+ELSE+0.0+END&SortDir=desc&MinPA=1250&MinDEC=0&MinG=0&MinGS=0&MinCG=0&MinGF=0&MinW=0&MinL=0&MinSV=0&MinSHO=0&MinH=0&MinR=0&MinER=0&MinHR=0&MinBB=0&MinK=0&MinHP=0&MinBK=0&MinWP=0
Would people find it acceptable if the Padres signed any of those names around him? Johnson and Milton are both a few years younger then Estes and even Jose Lima is only 5 months older. Wouldn’t everyone be extremely disappointed (to put it mildly) if the Padres signed Jose Lima? At least he’s had a league average season in the past five seasons.
Sorry for the long rant but I’m extremely worried about the message that Estes pitching sends out. If the Padres aren’t going to have a high payroll and aren’t going to develop young players, the only way they are going to be able to compete is through outworking their competition. If moves like signing Shawn Estes are going to be norm from now on, there is absolutely no way they can compete going forward.
Estes signed a Minor League contract. That’s about as low-risk of a move as you can get.
Damn, my baseballmusings link didn’t work. Here are the bottom 10 in ERA since 1998:
Pedro Astacio, Jose Lima, Eric Milton, Jason Johnson, Shawn Estes, Sidney Ponson, Jamey Wright, Ramon Ortiz, Ryan Dempster, and Brett Tomko.
The only useful pitcher on that list is Ryan Dempster, but his ERA was inflated by a terrible run from 2001-2003 when he was 24-26 and he’s 4 years younger then Estes (plus his recent track record isn’t terrible).
#6@Tom Waits: I think it’s an organizational philosophy to gradually increase their innings as they move up the system. It doesn’t seem like they let any of their Fort Wayne pitchers go more than 4 or 5 innings. The guys at Lake Elsinore rarely go more than 5 or 6. Once they get to San Antonio, they’re more likely to throw 100 pitches in a game.
At least, that’s what I have noticed.
Since Latos is the #1 arm in their organization, I expect them to be especially careful with his pitch count because they’ve been snake bit with the injuries to other top pitching prospects like Carrillo, Schmidt, Bush, and Stauffer.
#6@Tom Waits: Yet another reason for the organization to be less reticent to pick/sign more high ceiling high school pitchers, you get to contol their innings instead of taking lower ceiling college pitchers that likely have been pushed for 3/4 years.
#9@Schlom: Any of my posts that include a link get hung up.
#10@JMAR: The weather in the MWL plays a part, too. The April and May games can be awfully cold up there. But generally I expect you’re right. It’s just too bad they didn’t think about limiting Carrillo’s innings his first season as a pro.
#11@Farquaad: They should be careful with HS arms; it’s the riskiest group of talent and often wants the most money. With college guys, they’re closer to being through the period when you get the greatest number of injuries. But the Padres seem to have made that a rigid rule.
Under the current system we’d never have drafted Jake Peavy.
#7@Schlom: Tell us how you really feel about Shawn Estes, Schlom.
I do agree with you on some points and I do think Shawn Estes is going to eventually get lit up and someone else will be the #5 starter in another month or so, but for now, I’m just happy that a #5 starter for the Padres actually won a game. As a lefty, going against that Cubs lineup, I thought Estes did an amazing job to hold them to 3 runs in 5.1 IP.
#9@Schlom: You can’t post a list like that and then start back pedaling and say “well, this guy is actually good…”
You’re either going to accept straight ERA as a measure of talent, or you’re not. I personally have become highly mistrustful of ERA as it can be unduly inflated (as you point out) for a variety of reasons.
As Corey Brock said, we signed him to a Minor League deal. I believe that other pitchers on that list, Wright and Ponson (maybe more, but don’t know off the top of my head), also signed similar deals. Estes wasn’t on the roster until a week ago. It’s not like we signed him to be our fifth starter with no other consideration. After a month and a half, the team felt like we should give him a start. We won the game. It’s not the end of the world.
And I don’t want to hear the “contending teams shouldn’t rely on pieces from the scrap heap”. Well, the Padres are notorious for dumpster diving and finding useful parts. Right now, Kyle Lohse looks a hell of a lot more expensive than Shawn Estes for league average production (Estes is currently 149 ERA+ and Lohse is 85).
#12@Tom Waits: As a reminder to everyone, please let me know if your comments ever get hung up so I can reinstate them asap and continue to train the filter. Thanks!
One benefit of starting Estes is that the Padres can run him into the ground without it being a long-term issue. What the team most needs from the #5 at this point is innings. Wins and performance are nice, but if Estes can average 6 IP when he starts, I will take him over Germano (who shits the bed as often as he pitches well) and Ledezma (who seemingly can’t get past 4 IP). Maybe Ledezma should be in AAA working on his arm strength instead of wasting time as a long reliever.
The alternative is to start the clock on a young pitcher (and it’s hard to look at anyone in AAA and say they’re ready for the bigs), or keep killing the bullpen with short starter appearances. If Estes can compile a 4.5 ERA and somewhere around 6 IP per appearance, I will gladly accept him on my team until someone better appears.
#15@Phantom: But many people only want to remember the useful parts, not the many parts that were total crap. I went through the list the other day; it’s pretty close to 1 for 1. Jenga is counterbalanced by Randa. Mike Thompson 2006 is counterbalanced by Mike Thompson 2007. Kevin Cameron 2007 vs. Enrique Gonzalez 2008. It’s far from an unvarnished positive.
I highly doubt Estes will be as valuable over a full season as Lohse or Livan Hernandez. His ERA+ looks great now, after less than 10 innings. Of course that also means he hasn’t been able to contribute more than 10 innings, which takes a lot of the shine off.
#16@Geoff Young: What I have found consistently works is if you run the link thru tinyurl.com … then the post gets thru the filter … it’s an extra step, but it avoids the frustration of “losing” a post … which I understand is a necessary risk so that spam doesn’t get posted …
#17@UC Michael: Warning … I do not believe Estes will be able to “average” 6 IP/start because I do not believe he will be able to do will in a 6th inning … ie. I think he’s a 5-inning-max guy … as is Germano … and I think that’s OK, given the 12-man pitching staff.
#18@Tom Waits: To be sure, his ERA+ will lower and probably wind-up under 100. But if he can eat up innings and give us league average performance, than I’m all for the low-risk signing of him. If he starts to suck, I have no doubt that the team will throw another warm body out there.
I don’t think people are advocating that we forget the failures of the scrap heap. But I think people are also saying that the scarp heap hasn’t exactly been a waste of our time. Typically, they are low risk moves. Sometimes they work, other times they don’t.
If Estes can make about 4 or 5 more starts and posts similar numbers to Lohse, then he is easily a better option.
#20@LynchMob: He pitched 202 IP as recently as 2004. Granted that they were 202 terrible, terrible innings, but he has a history of accumulating innings when healthy. Not to the degree that Livan does, of course.
Also, Estes makes 1/4th of what Lohse makes. Lohse currently has a 4.91 ERA.
#15@Phantom: There is a huge difference between “dumpster diving” for a middle reliever then a starter. I’ve said before I’m in favor of picking up retreads and reclamation projects, especially pitchers, provided they are the right ones. Younger players, that are blocked, that are coming into their prime years, those are all players I’d gamble on. But Estes doesn’t fit in any of those catagories.
Also, the Padres don’t seem to learn from their past mistakes. What cost them a playoff spot in 2004? A lack of pitching depth with no acceptable 5th starter. They gave 20 starts to Ismael Valdes and 11 to Tankersley and Germano. In 2007, the exact same thing happened. By not having a 5th starter (or really 4th starter) they cost themselves a playoff spot. And here we are in the exact same situation the following season.
#7@Schlom:
Talk about beating a dead horse! Geez!!!
Edmonds cost us $7 million. Estes cost us nothing. What more do you want? I don’t like him or his track record either but he pitched fine last night. Until he throws a lapper or 2 it would really look better on your part if you complained about someone who up to this point that has brought a negative to this team. I don’t really see how you can complain about a perfectly decent start out of the 5th rotation spot.
With that said I do agree that scouting will probably catch up to Estes in another start or 2.
BP’s STAT OF THE DAY
Top 5 2008 NL Bullpens, by WXRL
Team, Inh Runs Prevented, WXRL
Florida Marlins, -2.3, 4.4
Philadelphia Phillies, -1.4, 3.9
Pittsburgh Pirates, -0.4, 3.2
Los Angeles Dodgers, 2.1, 2.8
San Francisco Giants, 6.2, 2.6
… I miss the Padres being on this list … sniff …
#21@Phantom: “Eat up innings” and “league average” are what? 100 ERA+ is league average. 5 innings a start, which is optimistic, is barely over 50% of the innings for a game.
If he gives us 120 innings at 88 ERA+, his advantage will be that he’s cheap and lets some of the younger pitchers stay in the minors. It’s probably better than promoting Inman or Geer or LeBlanc, but it’s not helping the team win.
He’s got 44 innings before he even catches up to Lohse. There’s advantages to Lohse (or Hernandez, who many people laughed off) having been available at the start of the year.
#19@LynchMob: Great advice. Here’s the link for the worst ERA’s (minimum 1250 IP) since 1998:
http://tinyurl.com/5lxdlc
#23@Schlom: There are serveral things that prevented us from making the playoffs last year. Our 4 & 5 spots were just one problem.
The question is, though, what solutions do you suggest? Do you really think Kyle Lohse is a better investment at this point? What would you have done going into 07?
It’s always easy to go back and say that we should have been more agressive. But for whom? Just because we wanted a move to be made doesn’t mean it was feasible.
Estes was a low-risk move that is working out so far. There are plenty of other things to criticize at this point.
#26@Tom Waits: I’m totally with you on Livan, believe me. He would have been a really smart pick-up.
The thing with both Loshe, and Livan, is that they signed multi-year deals for some money. It’s not a ton of money, but it’s money that we can’t exactly afford for the roles they are supposed to fill. We already made one risky move in Edmonds that ended up being a waste. I have no problem with the Padres failing to sign Lohse to multiple years of multi-million dollars.
#29@Phantom: They both signed one-year deals. That’s why they were such great bargains. And both were less risky than Edmonds.
The team has allocated 20M this year and last to a league-average Greg Maddux.
Of course the Padres can afford to spend more on payroll. They choose not to. Different things.
#24@KRS1: It’s not really about Shawn Estes, more the reasoning behind Shawn Estes. As I said in the long post above, it’s troubling because Estes has almost zero upside. From now on, are the Padres going to fill important positions on their teams with nice guys?
As I said before hundreds of times, I’m not opposed to picking up retreads and scrubs on the chance that they do well. It sometimes works (look at the Cardinals, it’s working awesome for them so far this season) but Shawn Estes isn’t the right type of player.
If you are going to try to be competitive with a small payroll and no home grown players you are going to have to find “gold” with lower regarded (and unwanted) players. Surely they could find a player with a higher chance of success then Shawn Estes.
You also said that Estes cost us nothing. That’s true in the financial sense but no true in the performance sense. Hell, not only would I pitch for free but I’d pay the Padres to start a baseball game. Since the Padres could make money in a game that I started, would it make sense for the Padres to start me in a game? I’d cost nothing.
#26@Tom Waits: I actually liked the idea of Livan. And hey, he is pitching well in Minnesota and his team is in 1st place…
#28@Phantom: Of course Kyle Lohse would be a better gamble. Livan Hernandez would be better as well but I think he’d be option #2. I’m sure there were at least 10 free agents that signed minor league deals that were better options then Estes. On that list of the worst pitchers since 1998, I’d rather have Sidney Ponson (signed minor league deal with the Rangers) or Eric Milton (no idea where he is this season). I’m sure there are other pitchers that are younger that signed minor league deals.
#31@Schlom: Estes has done fine. You probably cant throw 90 MPH, you probably couldnt throw 1/3 of an inning in a MLB game. Hi track record didnt really earn him a shot, but they saw something they liked enough to give him a minor league deal. They probably know more about him than you, and they made the decision for a reason. You can nitpick the decision all you want, but until he starts pitching poorly its pointless. He pitched ok at AAA and so far has been worth the minor league contract he signed. Why dont you hold off beating this horse until he starts pitching badly.
#30@Tom Waits: : I apologize for being wrong about their contrats. I could have sworn that Livan was a 2-year deal and I thought Lohse was as well.
I guess with Maddux you could argue that you’re getting fringe benefits from attendance and his impact on the pitching staff, etc.
We obviously have very different opinions about the level of money the team should spend and how that money should be allocated, which is fine. I personally think that the FO did a decent job this off-season in terms of the moves they did and didn’t make. I don’t think anyone predicted Edmonds would be quite that bad.
The Padres Double A affiliate, San Antonio, has already completed their game today.
Steve Garrison pitched well, 7 IP, no runs with 4 K’s. Definitely a spotty season so far in Double A however. Seth Johnson (3B) with his 6th HR (not a prospect really as he’s already 25), while Craig Cooper hit his 3rd (along with walking twice).
http://tinyurl.com/5orfje
#34@SDSUBaseball: So you are fine with the Padres picking up someone with absolutely zero recent track record?
Why not sign Freddy Guzman to play CF? Who cares if he hasn’t hit before, he might actually hit this time. Or how about Andres Torres? He’s hitting 330/431/487 for Iowa. In fact pretty much everyone on this list is probably available for very little (and wouldn’t cost a thing):
http://tinyurl.com/2kogxs
Why not Russell Branyan for LF? He’s at least been successful recently.
Is this going to be the Padres plan for future success? Pick up one of the worst pitchers in baseball and hope that he does well? Isn’t that what the Pirates and Royals have been doing? And it’s really worked out well for them.
#31@Schlom:
I think I will take SDSU Baseball’s advice from last night.
#37@Schlom: Do you really think Estes was signed to be part of a “plan for future success”? He wasn’t signed instead of Lohse or Hernandez, the Padres passed on those guys for other reasons. Estes cost us nothing in terms of money, expectations or roster space. He was signed (for virtually free) to be, at best, exactly what he is: a stopgap veteran pitcher who can come in and give some reasonably competent innings. If we’re really lucky, KT will be able to flip him for a ham sandwich. If he sucks he’ll be cut.
Estes was an insurance policy in case Germano flamed out and Prior couldn’t come back. So far I think he’s worked out ok. He put up that 92 ERA+ in 2006 when he had arm trouble; I think it’s reasonable to say he could do it again now that the arm is fixed. That’s acceptable production for a non-contending team, especially at the league minimum.
I’m fine with the Padres picking up players for the league minimum and stashing them at AAA until they start pitching well, which is what happened with Estes. I’d rather they invested that million on the draft or development instead.
Also, while Estes has been brutal in recent years, he wasn’t always so bad. If you change the range of years from 95-01, he’s right in the middle of the pack, ahead of Livan Hernandez and a number of similarly mediocre pitchers. And that was the last time he pitched regularly for one team, and in a pitcher’s park. Maybe the Padres think he’s a flyball pitcher who will benefit from a big park. Maybe they see changes in his pitching style that suggest improvement. Who knows? It’s called taking a flier, and it isn’t any more questionable than installing Mark Hendrickson as your ace (which is working quite well), or making Odalis Perez your opening day starter (working well), or signing Livan Hernandez (2006 ERA; 4.83; 2007 ERA: 4.93; 2008 WHIP: 1.439), or whatever. The Yankees are considering signing David Wells, for f’s fake.
#37@Schlom: Just stop. You keep saying the same thing and you take over the thread nearly every day.
GY: Are we sure this is actually Depo’s blog???
#40@UC Michael: Going back 7 years in a sport where the athletes have the career length of a baseball player is not very useful. And those other pitchers have had substantially more recent success than Estes. Livan’s numbers suffer because he played in a hitter’s park a good part of the time; his ERA+ was slightly below average and he, unlike Estes, is a lead-pipe cinch to throw 200 innings.
Estes is an emergency policy. He’s only acceptable now because we played so poorly earlier. He was in no way a better acquisition than other options who had outperformed him recently.
#40@UC Michael: That’s kind of my point. We are comparing the Padres to the Royals, Nationals and the Yankees. Not exactly the best run organizations in baseball. Unfortunately it seems that the Padres plan is to pick up cheap, terrible (otherwise they wouldn’t be cheap) players and hope they do well. I guess if you are going to be the worst team in baseball, you might as well do it with a low payroll.
#43@Schlom: What makes you think that this strategy has worked out so poorly for us? You have been following the team the past four years, right?
#44@Phantom: It worked well the past four years because the Pads won the division playing against poor opponents and only needed to win 86 games. I do not think that strategy will win the NL west for the next decade….
#43@Schlom: He was a emergency plan. He is on a short leash and has pitched well so far. If he has a bad outing I think they will throw Ledezma into the 5th starter spot. Not sure why he isnt there already, but I am not going to complain right now when we won a game that Estes started. There are other things to discuss, why much you make this the conversation every day. Even when he was pitching in AAA you persisted to make this the conversation every day that you posted.
Why dont we talk about catcher? Does Carlin get a few more starts or do we throw bard right back in there? What about Edgar Gonzalez? Should Buddy be trying to find ways to get him in the line-up? He is playing well. How about the topic today? Are we outhitting the opposition this year at Petco so far?
#46@SDSUBaseball: Carlin all the way. I haven’t been that high on Bard during his tenure here, and Carlin really seems to gel well with the pitching staff. Sample size or not, his cathcher’s ERA is 2.333 right now – which rocks.
I’m wondering if they’ll try to rotate E-Gon throughout the IF to get him 3 – 4 starts a week. I wouldn’t be surprised if they pencil him into LF in a hitter’s park just to see what would happen.
#47@Phantom: I would imagine just 3B and 2B and some LF, I dont think they will test him at SS and I think they will use clark at 1B.
#7@Schlom: Wait, you actually think that the Padres don’t WANT to draft and develop good ballplayers? Do you actually believe that or are you just ranting? You think that their strategy of drafting more polished guys means that they don’t WANT to succeed at drafting and developing guys? Could it be that maybe it is just a different strategy than one which you might propose?
#48@Steve C: I tend to agree, but what other option do we have at SS? Can Gooch play SS if Greene needs a day?
#46@SDSUBaseball: I think it’s important because the most pressing issue for the Padres is their plan for success going forward. Personally I’m sure they have one, others might disagree. I mean we have to talk about something don’t we? My personal goal is to get everyone on my side on this issue then we can take on management!
As far as Carlin and E-Gon go, why would you play them anymore then you have to? Certainly play Carlin if Bard is injured or nicked up (looking at his stats you might think that) and if Bard continues to be a non-factor at the plate you might as well play the better defensive no-hit player. Plus Bard certainly appears to play better with a lot of rest. E-Gon might be better then Crabbe (although Crabbe’s minor league numbers were better) but where should he get starts? Maybe 2B but Iguchi isn’t really hurting the team right now.
#50@SDSUBaseball: Maybe on days that CY is pitching.
#49@BigWorm: You’re missing the third leg of the tripod. Sure they want to draft and develop good players. They just don’t want to pay what it costs to pursue many of them. Their commitment to paying slot limits how good they can be.
When a draft strategy ignores almost half of the players who could be drafted, clearly there are priorities that override the accumulation of talent. It doesn’t doom them to mediocrity forever; they can get better at turning the college kids into productive major leaguers, they can continue winning trades, they can fine-tune their evaluation of one-year rental vets to winnow out more Edmonds/Castilla/Wells. But the draft is the cheapest, most effective way to bring premium talent into an organization, and we’re not doing the best possible job there.
#49@BigWorm: I don’t think they are actively trying to fail but whatever they are doing it certainly hasn’t worked out at all lately. I think that Headley has some promise (even the BP’s PECOTA thinks he’s a non-prospect) along with Antonelli and the rest but they certainly don’t have a lot of promise the minors at the moment (the fact that they don’t have a prospect any better then Estes is a pretty strong indictment of the system).
Where in this line shows that Edgar Gonzalez should get a few starts a week?
http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=5587
The Padres, and us, are just grasping at straws right now. We are talking about having someone with a minor league OPS of 822 getting starts in LF (I’m sure the average MLB LF OPS is higher then that). The Padres have only played 40 games so far this season — it’s still too early to give up. If they decide to give up at least trade away their marketable players.
#38@KRS1: Well said.
#51,54@Schlom: Its not so important that you need to talk about it every day. I dont know if you have gotten anyone “on your side” yet that the Padres are the same as the Pirates and Royals. I think the “sample size” is big enough now for you to give up your argument when you have gone 0-for-months.
Edgar has played well, why not play him until his bat cools. You can look at past stats all you want, but sometimes its good to go with the hot arm/bat until it cools off. The have stronger arms than Estes in the system, but that doesnt mean they are ready to pitch at the MLB level. Throw Estes in for a couple of starts if he does ok, no harm done, if he does poorly yank the short leach he has and try something else.
This is was the Padres philosophy for bringing along pitchers as of 2002:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1406872.html
Along the same lines the most important thing is that management (and the fans) don’t learn the wrong lessons from previous seasons. They tried the retread, cheap pickup system last season and I don’t think it worked. The initial LF platoon didn’t really work and the season was nearly saved by Milton Bradley (was a cheap pickup but not for performance reasons). They tried to fill 2B on the cheap but that didn’t work (they ended up starting a career utility player down the stretch). They never filled the back-end of the rotation. All those moves (mostly the rotation) cost them a playoff spot. This years team had massive holes again (LF, 5th starter, CF instead of 2B) with the same type of players filling them — is it a surprise that the result has been the same? Since the rest of the team (except for Jake and AGon) has started off so poorly the bad moves have had a magnified effect (from June 8 to August 1 last season the Padres had the same winning percentage as they have for this season).
Why all the relative love for Livan, he of the enormous WHIP? Paraphrasing Mr. Neyer, what’s so great about an innings-eater if those IP aren’t any good?
#56@SDSUBaseball: What kind of team philosophy is that? 6 AB’s by some scrub who just made his major league debut (at age 30), let’s make him a starter. 5.1 good innings pitched by a pitcher who was last good in the majors in 1997 (plus was 45th in the PCL in ERA), why not make him a starter.
Isn’t that the description of the Royals team building philosophy?
#58@Schlom: The LF platoon started the season just fine. Actually GY has shown the LF was just fine last year. No one though Marcus would be as bad as he was and Wells had pitched just fine for us before. Last year the gamble were fine, some worked out some didnt but they werent terrible choices.
#59@Stephen: Livan has pitched just fine so far this year.
#60@Schlom: I said sometimes you have to do that. When the team is struggling there is nothing wrong with letting players who are playing well continue to play on a shirt leash. Doesnt sound like the Royals to me. The Royals continue to play bad players regarless.
#59@Stephen: Nothing, except that this sentiment doesn’t apply to Hernandez. Twenty-four pitchers have thrown 650 or more innings since the start of 2005. Here are the bottom five in ERA+, along with their 2008 salary:
Livan Hernandez: 96, $5M + incentives to $7M
Jamie Moyer: 97, $3.5M + incentives to $7M
Greg Maddux: 104, $10M
Barry Zito: 105, $14.5M + 5 more years guaranteed
Joe Blanton: 105, $3.7M (he was under club control)
Livan may not be great, but he has value. The guy gives roughly average production and never misses a turn in the rotation. Sounds like a nice option at the back end to me.
#47@Phantom: E-Gon deserves a shot to play more than once a week. I was very impressed with his work in Portland. Though I’d like to see Myrow given a shot, but really there’s no place to put him.
#57@Kevin: I love the Dry Hump rule.
Apparently no one was paying attention to Carrillo’s workload as a Hurricane. Asking your first-round pick to throw 55 pro innings on top of 125 college innings (they sent him BACK to Elsinore to throw more in the Class A playoffs after promoting him to Mobile) is foolhardy.
Schmidt’s a combo of bad luck and inadequate scouting. If other observers could see him as a huge red flag, the Padres need to figure out how to recognize them.
Again, there is nothing wrong with taking gambles, it’s the players you take them on that matters. Milton Bradley was somewhat of a gamble (more for off the field concerns then actual performance concerns so he’s not quite the same as others) as is Jody Gerut. Marcus Giles last season was similar to Gerut (injury concerns plus declining performance but still more recent success then Gerut) and that didn’t work out at all. That’s fine if there was a back-up plan in place (which of course there wasn’t).
I think there are plenty of underappreciated players floating around who would succeed if given the chance, obviously the key is to identify them. Josh Hamilton was given away twice (Rule V draft to the Cubs and then traded to the Reds for cash), there is no reason why the Padres couldn’t have ended up with him (other then the fact that they overlooked him). Jeff Keppinger was traded three times before he finally got a chance to start (and then he gets injured, bad luck for him). Ryan Church was jerked around for lesser players by the Nationals before getting traded to the Mets which finally let him play full-time. The Padres made the horrible mistake of leaving Joakim Soria unprotected (0 runs, 0.326 WHIP this season) — who knows what scrub they protected instead of him.
As you can see there’s plenty of free (or nearly free) talent out there. However, these players are under 30 (the age of Gerut and E-Gon, Estes if 5 tears older). If you are going to gamble, it makes sense to gamble on younger players as their chances of outperforming their past history are higher then older players. Either way it’s a gamble, but shouldn’t you gamble on the players with a higher chance of success? That’s my basic point in all of this.
This TOTAL & complete emphasis on past stats as a complete and total predictor or harbinger of the future gets old sometimes.
#67@Schlom: I think at 29 (E-Gon) and 30(Gerut) you have a chance at success, especially for a season. Over longer stretch.. the 27 Hamilton may have an advantage. Church is 29 just like E-Gon, Marcus just turned 30. Keppinger is 28. I really dont think that 1-2 year age difference makes that much difference on there chance of success. You say to take chances on young players, but the players you listed really arent much younger than E-Gon, Gerut and Marcus.
Estes is a different story. He isnt a long term solution. He wasnt even a long term solution for this year. He is making a few starts, if he pitches well I dont see a problem, but he is definitely on a short leash.
#68@JP: They are the best predictor, but you cant always write off how a player is playing NOW for past stats. If a player is being valuable for a period of time you should take advantage of it.
From Neyer’s blog today:
Congratulations to 35-year-old Shawn Estes. In 1997, Estes’ first full season he went 19-5 with a 3.18 ERA, but hasn’t done nearly as well in any season since. He didn’t pitch at all in 2006, pitched just a little in 2007, and opened this season in the minors. But last night he got back to the majors, pitched into the sixth inning, and earned his 100th career victory. You have to admire a guy for sticking with his vocation when he could have retired a long time ago.
Yesterday, Neyer commented on DePodesta’s blog entry about Petco Park.
CHICAGO — The Chicago Cubs were on the verge Wednesday of signing free-agent outfielder Jim Edmonds, who was released last week by the San Diego Padres.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3396301
If the Cubs are going to demote Pie, I guess the Padres could have just traded Edmonds for Pie. But it would have been hard for the Padres to know the Cubs are this dumb.
Kevin Towers has fleeced teams in the past, but that trade would have been something.
#69@SDSUBaseball: Edgar turns 30 on June 14th so on BR’s he’s listed as 30 (they compute your age as of July 1 of that season I think). However, most of those players I named all won jobs either last season or earlier — Church showed he could hit at 26, Keppinger was 27 last season (and hit much better in the minors then EGon or Gerut), Hamilton showed he belonged last season as well. Each of those players was at least 3 years younger or hit much, much better in the minors then E-Gon.
#68@JP: Are you serious or was that a joke? What else can you base future success on? It’s not like I’m looking 10 years in the past, just the past few years. There are some players that have done well in the majors without any previous success — Josh Hamilton certainly but he’s a special case since his problems were all off-field — Ken Caminiti, Brady Anderson, Steve Finley, Luis Gonzalez all exploded after having mediocre past years. But that doesn’t really happen that often. If you go through the minor league numbers of almost every player, you’ll find that they were all great in the minors.
Here’s the list of the fastest average fastball in the majors by a pitcher: http://tinyurl.com/5c6nj7 That list certainly doesn’t go from the best starter to the worst, does it?
#71@Kevin: I’m also not personally attacking Shawn Estes — I know that regardless of how people feel about him he’s going to try to do his best. From all reports he’s a nice guy and very likeable (probably one of the reasons he has a job). It’s the FO I have a problem with, not the player.
#72@Kevin: On that note, here’s another espn.com article on Edmonds:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=schoenfield/080513
It talks about how good a peak Edmonds had compared to other CF in baseball history, only Mantle, Cobb, Dimaggio, Hack Wilson and Mays were better then him offensively and he was at least equal to the rest defensively.
#53@Tom: I may be in the minority here, but I really believe that the failings of the last three years in terms of sticking to slot and drafting for signability are going to be fixed. I think we saw the beginning of that last year with the Latos signing. I think the Bush pick in particular has produced enough of a stink to cause management to open the checkbook a little.
That being said, I wasn’t missing anything, I was merely pointing out Schlom’s ridiculous contention that management didn’t want to draft and develop players. He said nothing about signability.
#68@JP: I think you just summed up the GM philosophy of Chuck Lamar, Dave Littlefield and Brian Sabean in 25 words or less. Well done.
#74@Schlom: I thought someone should say — Good Job, Estes. Neyer isn’t invested in the team, so he saw last night’s nice performance for what it was.
#13 TW, why do you think current evidence says they would not have drafted Peavy? They drafted a guy, Latos, in 06 who had high bonus demands (and paid him over slot) who fell to the 10th round… They drafted Cumberland last year in the Sup. who was a highly rated HS shortstop…
They, admittedly, draft more collegians than high schoolers, but they do not ignore high school talent. And if we think this isn’t effective, then why does Baseball America think they’re the #13 organization in baseball (one year after ranking them in the bottom 5)?
Would we like them to have a virtually unlimited budget and go after the Porcello’s of the world? Sure. But it isn’t our money.
#74@Schlom: Runs created doesn’t adjust for eras, and Edmonds played in the best hitters’ era of all time.
#72@Kevin: I think it’s a bit of a leap to think the Cubs would trade Pie for Edmonds just because they may sign Edmonds and send Pie down.
But I guess with the Cubs anything is possible.
#75@BigWorm: I said drafting and developing (the key word here) their own players. By taking college players over high school players, you are leaving the more important developing time (ages 18-21) to colleges rather then yourself. In some cases that’s a good strategy as letting the colleges develop players (especially pitchers) let’s them deal with the injury risk plus you are more certain of a players ability. That’s why teams take college players in the first place. Again, for a team like the Padres that might make sense as outside of Jake they haven’t done a good job of developing high school pitchers.
If you go back and read reports of the draft, most people thought that in 2006, Antonelli was a safe pick with higher regarded players being on the board when the Padres drafted. They did the same thing last season taking Nick Schmidt (a polished, almost fully developed college pitcher) over the greater potential of an undeveloped high school arm.
#79@Kevin: That stat isn’t the Bill James Runs Created but the Lee Sinins Runs Created Above Average which is normalized for both era and ballpark. The players are actually ranked by RCAA for CF so they are actually being graded against their contemporaries, not against batters throughout baseball history.
#73@Schlom: That takes away from your whole argument because if these players already proved they could hit in the Major Leagues, then the Padres wouldnt be “taking a chance” with them. Even so, I dont think the 1-2 year age difference makes that much of a difference for one year. I dont think E-Gon would ever me anything more than utility or stop gap, not long term. Gerut could be a capable OF, I think he earned a shot with his performance in spring and the minors this year. He was injured in the past and I think spring and AAA so far this year is a better indication of how he is playing NOW than his stats from 5+ years ago in the minors.
#78@Peter Friberg:
1. Because it took 4th round money (100K) to sign Peavy, which is 995,000 over slot for the 15th round when he was actually picked
2. They have not paid anyone over slot the last four years. Cumberland’s a HS guy who….signed for slot.
3. There is no slot for draft-and-follow players. The Padres managed to use that loophole, but now it’s closed.
4. Over the last 3 drafts they have signed:
2 HS kids in 2007
3 HS kids in 2006
1 HS kid in 2005
That’s 6 HS out of 130 picks. And every single one of them took slot money. Anybody who asked for more, no sign.
I love how the BA rankings are important when they’re favorable to the Padres, but we should have ignored them when they had us as the worst or second-worst farm system.
The Padres have brought in talent the last 3 years. Other teams have graduated players to the big leagues, which takes their farm systems down a notch or five. Don’t forget that 2 entries on BA’s Padre Top 10 were acquired in trade; it’s not a ranking just of drafted talent. We’ve done better. That doesn’t mean we’ve done as well as we could.
No, it’s not our money. But if the Padres want to stay competitive with teams like Arizona and Los Angeles, they’re going to have to figure out how to get more talent. One less Jim Edmonds equals several HS players picked in the last 3 years who didn’t sign. If the team is going to put a fixed cap on their baseball-related expenditures, then they should be devoting resources to those areas where they get the greatest return. That’s NOT on aging veterans.
81: If you go back and read pre-draft reports, Schmidt was being talked about as high as #11. So when the Padres got him at 23 it, not only was a “safe” collegiate pick but a value pick since he was highly rated. I still think we’ll love that pick in 3-4 years.
84, TW, Trust me, I hated the Edmunds sign from Day 1 (I also hated the loss of the Draft & Follow in the draft). I just don’t think the Peavy argument is valid. The Padres have gone over slot to sign several Draft and Follow players (Miller, Latos, Blanks, Breit…) a willingness to do that suggests they might do it for a player who slips to later round (like Peavy).
#83@SDSUBaseball: Everyone one of those players I named was on at least their 2nd organization so they’d all been given up on and therefore, by definition, their 2nd team was “taking a chance” on them. Good players slip through the cracks all the time — the key is to identify them. Not exactly sure how that invalidates my point though.
If it were easy anybody could do it. I’m not saying that I could have know that Josh Hamilton was going to be one of the best players in baseball — but someone obviously did. Unfortunately that person wasn’t Kevin Towers. I know that GY wanted the Padres to trade for Ryan Church although it looks as though the Nationals asking price was fairly high (Milledge) although most people slammed that trade and said the Mets gave up too much. We’ll find out down the road.
I’m sort of torn on Gerut. On one hand, outside of 2003 he’s done nothing in the majors. He’s also coming off serious injuries that cost him half of 2005 and all of 2006 and 2007. His number in the minors never really jump out at you but he also played in pitching dominated leagues. He’s also four months from turning 31. None of that screams superstar but he’s also shown good plate discipline in the minors and he might be acceptable if he can handle CF defensively.
#82@Schlom: I guess that measure is legit then.
But I don’t think Edmonds’ prime was better than Griffey or Snider or Dale Murphy’s when adjusted for era.
Bill James also uses a five-year peak as a way of ranking players, but he using Win Shares, of course.
1. Mantle, 216
2. Cobb, 213
3. Speaker, 209
4. Mays, 197
5. DiMaggio, 175
6. Snider, 171
7. Wally Berger, 152
7. Doby, 152
7. Hack Wilson, 152
10. Billy Hamilton, 150
10. Dale Murphy, 150
12. Griffey, 148
13. Edmonds, 146
#85@Peter Friberg: That’s not a great argument since Porcello was either #1 or #2 on boards and was available when the Padres drafted. I’m not knocking Schmidt, I think he might be a good player but he certainly wasn’t the “best” pick on the board when the Padres chose. He might have been the closest pitcher to his potential, which isn’t exactly the same thing as the pitcher with the most potential.
#78@Peter Friberg: As a follow-on, if you’re going to use BA as a reference, how do you rationalize their frequent, consistent criticisms of the Padres drafting approach and the slot system in general? You can’t say “BA thinks we’re pretty good” and then sweep the parts where they say we’re not pretty good under the rug.
#85@Peter Friberg: Another way to look at that is that other team’s scouts saw the injury risk and backed off. TJ is no cake walk.
#78@Peter Friberg:
It may not be our money but it does suck to see them spend $7 million for 100 horrible Jim Edmonds at bats and not control of Rick Porcello’s arm for the next 6 – 8 years.
#88@Kevin: Probably not but he’s in the same ballpark. The article talked about how underrated Edmonds has been throughout his career which I think was driven a lot by his personality (plus his seeming penchant for slowing down to dive for balls). He was basically run out of Anaheim for not taking losses seriously enough.
I have no idea if Edmonds was one of the best fielding CF’ers of all-time but he certainly made a bunch of really good catches. Everyone will remember the catch he made against the Royals David Howard for the Angels in 1997. I’ll remember back to back games on August 29 and 30, 2003 where he robbed Reds of home runs. I was lucky enough to go to the 2nd game where he took a 2 run HR away from Russell Branyan, and drove in 4 runs with a 2B and HR in a 6-3 Cardinals win. Here’s the picture of him robbing Branyan:
http://reds.enquirer.com/2003/08/31/edmonds_zoom.jpg
#86@Peter Friberg: Again, there’s no slot for draft-and-follows. Moores has committed the organization to paying slot.
The Padre scout who pushed for Peavy wrote him up as a future 4th starter. In the last 3 years the Padres have drafted several HSers (notably Toledo, Colon and Green) who were considered to have 1st round potential. If they wouldn’t go over slot to get those guys, why would they go over slot to get someone their scouts identify as a back-of-the-rotation starter?
As far as I can tell, the Padres haven’t paid over-slot since 2002. You’d think that if they were willing to do it, they’d have done it sometime in the last 6 chances.
#92@Schlom: Yep, he’s in the ballpark, and I was surprised he was 13th.
In the Win Shares book, James rated Edmons fielding as A+, maybe one reason why he does so well in Win Shares.
#76@Schlom: And apparently Kevin Towers as well, who according to you, made one of the worst decisions of all time by simply giving a 35 year old journeyman a start on a hunch.
Since I’m totally bored right now I want to get back to the theme of gambling on players. If it works out you can certainly have seasons way out of line with expectations. Take the St. Louis Cardinals for example which is a team sort of like the Padres (although in reality they probably have less overall “established” star power but that’s another discussion).
Right now they are being carried offensively by Ryan Ludwick (187OPS+), Ankiel (132), nd of course Pujols (191). However, Ludwick and Ankiel are obviously way over their heads — interestingly enough both P-Mac and Gerut have better minor league track records (by OPS compared to league average). Gerut was 18% better, P-Mac 17, Ankiel 16 (although he’s different since he’s had much less AB’s as a hitter), Ludwick 13 (the same as E-Gon). Too bad for P-Mac that he didn’t start off on fire when he had the chance as he might be a better overall player then Ludwick (2 years younger but Ludwick has way more power and was a 2nd round pick rather then a 12th).
#68@JP: Notice I said TOTAL and COMPLETE emphasis by stats geeks who have probably never played the game themselves.
#95@JP: Well, throughout his tenure Towers has continually been unable to fill the fifth starter slot. Sure Estes is probably the worst pitcher to start a game for the Padres in the last few seasons but he’s just the latest in a long line of clunkers who’ve gotten starts for the Padres. Last season it was David Wells, Brett Tomko, Jack Cassel Tim Stauffer, and Wil Ledezma. In 2006 it was Chan Ho Park, Mike Thompson, and Dewon Brazelton. In 2005 it was Tim Stauffer, Chan Ho Park, Tim Redding, and Darrell May. I could go on but I’m sure you get the idea. True, with the exception of Park, none of those guys cost anything in payroll but they certainly cost the team on the field, which is the true measure. You would think that after year after year of trying to fill the 5th spot on the cheap and failing miserably you might think of trying something different.
#96@Schlom: The game starts in 10 minutes. Then you won’t be bored.
#97@JP: That’s the attitude that got Paul DePodesta run out of town in Los Angeles by Bill Plaschke and TJ Simers. Kind of funny since the very first thing that GY mentioned in today’s post was DePo’s new blog.
#97@JP: You don’t understand what stat geeks are saying (or they’re not saying it clearly enough) if you think that they really believe that past performance is a TOTAL and COMPLETE indicator of anything. But they’re exponentially more accurate than going by what a guy did in one game or one week or one month.
The better statistical models of player performance, like PECOTA, have categories for “Breakout” and “Collapse,” which represent players doing things very different than they’ve done in the past.
#100@Schlom: Allow me to explain w/o being so reactionary.
Intangibles & Variance. I have watched enough baseball to know that some roles in winning baseball cannot be measured by stats alone. Stats are a huge part of the equation but not all to undertstanding the prismatic culture that is TEAM SPORTS and for that matter life.
To me, it seems wise to balance out some of your fanatical positions (single set of assumptions based largely on a good dose of hindsight) with an acknowledgement that when BBlack says that Estes has quite a bit of life on his fastball and he performs well in a dozen or more starts at AAA that giving Estes a shot ain’t such a bad idea..even in light of what he did in 2003.
Exceptions to rules are what makes the game fun dude.
That gutsy Estes start against all odds last night can go a long way towards giving this club some spirit. Remember Fernando Valuenzuela’s 1996 Padres season after 5 pretty bad years ? I can just imagine what your April and May posts would have looked like that year.
KTowers – May 2008
Wally Joyner improved the chemistry of our club and a real strong character guy into our clubhouse. And I don’t think we would have won the division in ‘96 and ‘98 and went to the World Series without Wally Joyner.
#101@Tom Waits: Your right of course…again, I was being reactionary. I’m tired.
Peter, forgot to say that it’s good to see back in DSville.
#102@JP: Personally I think all that chemistry stuff is BS. It’s a chicken or egg argument, what comes first the winning or the chemistry? Since it’s not measurable we can never know.
That thought is the same way Yankees fans think that they’d be better off with a Scott Brosius at 3B then A-Rod. Since the teams were different when they each played you can’t quantify the difference it’s easy to chalk up the differences “We won 4 WS with Brosius, none with ARod so obviously the reason we aren’t winning is ARod.” The same thing with team chemistry. The Padres didn’t win in 1997 because of poor team chemistry but then they got Wally Joyner in 1998 so they went to the WS.” Nevermind the acquisition of Kevin Brown.
That statement you made in #97 was exactly what the LA media used to run DePo out of town as well as the same way they attack Billy Beane and “moneyball.”
Just ignore Schlom, people. He has absolutely nothing to say worth addressing at this point.
#106@Richard Wade: How you just let it be and not tell me or anyone else what you think we should do? It’s an ugly situation when groupthink takes over.
His comments on team chemistry are spot-on. The 96 and 98 teams supposedly won because of great chemistry. Well, sure, if by “chemistry” people mean fat-soluble organic compounds with 17 carbon atoms arranged in four rings, not team golf outings or barbecues.
#106@Richard Wade, #107@Tom Waits: Thanks, guys, you’ve made your points.
#107@Tom Waits: I wasn’t addressing his comments on chemistry, but rather his daily repetition of the same arguments he made the day before. It’s not a matter of groupthink, it’s a matter of one commenter hijacking every single comment thread with the same previously addressed arguments.
I meant my comment more as a “don’t feed the trolls” sort. Feel free to make your own judgment, but I think it degrades the quality of discussion.