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…
#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.