Comments on: Winning Is Better Than Knitting

By: Pat

Pat — Fri, 02 May 2008 04:32:24 +0000

#59@Richard D.: “I care if he can get guys out now.. not in 2001.”

Right, 2001, let’s ignore the highly consistent results of each of the past 4 seasons.

“And I donâ€™t think you can call my numbers â€œcherry pickingâ€ because they are the most recent numbersâ€¦”

Cherry picking is exactly what it is. You’ve arbitrarily selected a cutoff date which only, or primarily, includes data supporting your position. What is your basis for not including the 30 appearances prior to August as well? Does it distort the numbers you’re using? What happens if you do include them? Any response to the possiblitly August and September of last year could have been a result of bone chips?

By: Richard D.

Richard D. — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:28:37 +0000

#48@Pat: When I say “his name” I mean what you’re saying: all that he’s done…. which I don’t care about. I care if he can get guys out now.. not in 2001.

And I don’t think you can call my numbers “cherry picking” because they are the most recent numbers… cherry picking would be picking 30 appearances from August – Sept. 2002.

By: malcolm

malcolm — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:25:17 +0000

Just to blow out the last of this frustration. The Padres were the only team in the last 15 years in either league to lead the league in ERA and finish lower than 2nd in their division. As I see it, only twice( LA both times) in 15 years did a NL team, top in ERA, not win their division, and one of the those years LA made the playoffs. It happened 3 or 4 times in the AL(twice by NY or Bost who made the playoffs). That is a pretty radical stat, if I didnt miss something. If the hitting was ok, and we know the fielding was very good, manager ok, what caused this unprecedented occurance? Whatever you attribute it to, how was that addressed this offseason? BTW 15 years chosen because that was realiegnment, I believe. Sorry guys, no more digging up negative stats.

By: malcolm

malcolm — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:48:40 +0000

Pointing out problems may actually be symptomatic of more radical, fanatical, affection for one’s team,……especially if you live in a fringe Padre-hostile area like the OC. eg I’m off to go runing with a club where about 50 there may point out the Padres standing vs. the Angels and Dogs.

By: Didi

Didi — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:09:11 +0000

42: You are nuts. Kouz = Arias? Hairston = Owens?
Last I check Bard is a little better than average the last two seasons.
Yes, he’s taking his slump right now but he seems to be handling the staff just fine.

55: He’s frustrated with the team as much as we are but our harping on the suckiness that is currently the Padres aren’t helping.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 01 May 2008 23:26:15 +0000

#54@Geoff Young: You seem more snarky of late. I love it.

By: Geoff Young

Geoff Young — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:54:31 +0000

#53@Tom Waits: Yeah, that ain't really working, but I appreciate the thought.

By: Tom Waits

Tom Waits — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:53:10 +0000

#51@Geoff Young: Serenity Now!

By: Tom Waits

Tom Waits — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:50:17 +0000

#50@malcolm: #45@Schlom: Last year's team had an OPS+ of 101 and an ERA+ of 108. The hitting wasn't as bad as many people think, the pitching wasn't as great, but the pitching still pulled more of a load. The pitching only let us down in September, when CY was hurt, we had trouble at the back of the rotation, and the team panicked and threw Jake on short rest.

By: Geoff Young

Geoff Young — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:24:11 +0000

#18@michael: Excellent suggestion, thanks! #36@malcolm: Cool. Last I checked, 4.3% is more than 0. #41@Bryan: And yet, if they couldn't hit, they wouldn't have pounded four homers in two games. #44@Steve C: Thanks, man. I can do a "Padres suck" blog if folks would prefer that. It will be immediately followed by a letter of resignation. Come to think of it, that actually sounds like a reasonable option at this point.