IGD: Padres vs Marlins (9 Jul 08)
Wed, Jul 9, 2008
by Geoff Young
Padres vs Marlins
12:35 p.m. PT
DIRECTV 726 (Fish feed)
AM 1090, FM 105.7, XM 186
MLB, B-R
Fun game Tuesday night. Nice to see Scott Hairston finally get on track — two doubles, a homer, and an out to the wall in left-center works for me.
Chip Ambres, Brian Myrow, and Joe Thatcher all were recalled to the big club before the game. Ambres got the start in right, singling and walking twice in his Padres debut. Myrow knocked his first big-league homer in the seventh while pinch hitting for starter Randy Wolf.
Among the casualties of this latest roster shakeup (does it feel like 2002 around here, or what?) is Paul McAnulty, who cleared waivers and returned to Portland. The Padres don’t seem to want the guy, and neither does anyone else. Bummer. I still think McAnulty can play at the big-league level, which probably explains why I now edit software documentation for a living.
The rubber match of this series won’t be carried on Channel 4SD, so your only chance to see Cha Seung Baek pitch is to get down to Petco Park. I know, it’s really tempting, huh?
Love the blog? Buy the book!
The Ducksnorts 2009 Baseball Annual provides the most comprehensive analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres available anywhere... featuring a foreword by Padres Executive Vice President Paul DePodesta.
July 9, 2008 at 7:36 am
All night my son kept asking, who are those guys?
Its interesting that visiting teams and new players don’t seem to have trouble getting hits at Petco.
Only 19 games out of 500. Things are looking up.
July 9, 2008 at 7:44 am
I’ve always thought PMac could play too, but it had to be in the right situation. He’s the type of guy that could play an average LF, hit some doubles and post a good OBP.
PMac’s problem is that those numbers are fine if you are playing a premium defensive position (CF, SS, 2b, C and maybe even 3b) but in LF a team will always search for an impact bat. As a bench player he’s always going to be vying for the last spot on the roster because he can’t play CF - and frankly there are quite a few players that can play the LF/1b combo that he can, along with a little RF.
July 9, 2008 at 7:48 am
Gotta say I’m glad to see the Padres give up on the P-Mac experiment. He’s never hit like anyone expected him to at this level, and I think it was well past time to go in a different direction.
July 9, 2008 at 8:15 am
Phantom…I agree with you…wooohooo
I love me some Phantom.
July 9, 2008 at 8:27 am
#3@Phantom: Yeah, its just too bad. Really great guy, hard worker - I was always pulling for him to better than I thought he would.
July 9, 2008 at 8:35 am
Guess I don’t understand how demoting a player works. So pmac is not a padre anymore? Thought he went to Portland? Can’t they still recall him. Confusing.
July 9, 2008 at 8:36 am
#6@PM: He was sent to AAA on waivers…nobody claimed him, so he is off the 40-man roster. He is still part of the Padres Organization, but not being on the 40-man roster makes his future movement more complicated.
July 9, 2008 at 8:37 am
PMac was out of options so he had to pass through waivers. That means:
-no other team wanted him for 20k
-he is no longer on the 40 man roster
Not being on the 40 man roster makes getting a call up impossible and the Padres usually don’t have many(if any) open spots on their 40 man.
Mark
July 9, 2008 at 8:57 am
#8@Mark Ase: I thought one of the guys they just called up was not on the 40 man roster? I could have imagined that though.
Agreed on P-Mac - he would be a great player to have if he could play ANY defense, or if he was effective as a pinch hitter. But even in left he was suspect, and he was awful these last three weeks when he wasn’t getting many at bats. He has some skills, it just seems like he is slightly lacking in a couple of areas that would make him a decent player.
July 9, 2008 at 9:16 am
#9@BigWorm: Correct, that is why P-Mac had to be taken off, so they could add someone else to the 40-man.
July 9, 2008 at 10:04 am
#10@Coronado Mike: Yup, should have caught that.
July 9, 2008 at 10:15 am
#9@BigWorm: He wasn’t as bad defensively as you state. It seems most people have a problem with the concept of “average”. He has a decent arm, took good routes - just no speed.
What killed him the most in LF as at the plate. He was never going to be someone that has the potential to hit 25 to 30 HRs, so unless he is really hitting for a high average, walks and quite a few gap shots - which he wasn’t - its tough for him to stick on the roster.
July 9, 2008 at 10:42 am
Perhaps I am in the minority thinking P-Mac stunk spectacularly in the outfield; he might have made most of the plays, in other words, but when he messed up it was a real spectacle. But he also stunk as a pinch hitter, which is what his role was reduced to. Lots of Ks. He is the moneyball version of a 4A player. I’m glad to see Ambres get the chance instead.
July 9, 2008 at 11:00 am
#13@Mike Champion: You may have hit it on the head there; PMac was capable of making the typical LF plays, the same way a Burrell or a ManRamis, but he hurt himself badly by making bone-headed moves like not knowing how many outs there were.
Ambres, in 145 at-bats as a Royal in 2005, was basically the same hitter as PMac in 2008. He does bring the improved defense and a right-handed bat. Ambres is pretty much a Moneyball hitter, anyway. Maybe he’ll be another Egon but with more pop. Almost certainly he won’t be an impact player, but a league-average OPS with plus defense in an outfield corner is a good thing.
July 9, 2008 at 11:27 am
It’s mind-boggling to think that it took a lineup of Ambres, Headley, Rodriguez, and Hundley to do things the regular lineup has failed to do all season:
1) Come up with the big hit to open up a lead (3-run double by Headley; 3-run HR by Hairston)
2) Clutch situational hitting (sac fly by Hundley and Rodriguez)
3) Go for the knockout. They’ve scored a few runs early in games this season and gotten out to early leads but then fail to get the big hit that puts the game into blowout mode. Hairston’s bomb was the final nail in the coffin yesterday. You really gotta love the way the ball jumps off of his bat.
Re: P-MAC: He doesn’t do enough for anybody to give him a chance to be a starting outfielder. He’ll have to make his living coming off of the bench and he failed badly this season. In just one at bat, Myrow has already surpassed P-MAC’s pinch-hit production for the entire season.
July 9, 2008 at 11:44 am
Geoff, got a post caught up.
July 9, 2008 at 11:49 am
#15@JMAR: I had the same thoughts. But then again, Miller the Marlins pitcher walked four, and hit a batter in 5 innings. Were the Padres really showing better plate discipline, or was Miller having serious control problems ?
July 9, 2008 at 11:51 am
So clearing wavers means no team wants pmac and the padres took him off the 40-man roster so they are in effect saying we don’t want pmac either, he is not in our plans. So he returns to portland and plays, or packs it in or what.
Wow, bad day at the office. So what happens to the guy? Start selling used cars.
July 9, 2008 at 11:54 am
Though he is 2 years older than PMAC, I believe that Ambres has a better chance to help you win. He is better defensively, can play all 3 outfield positions has above average speed. I also think he will show some decent power numbers…..talk with you all in September for an Ambres 100 more at bat appraisal.
July 9, 2008 at 11:56 am
I’m fascinated because Americans are so in love with people who achieve their dreams, live to their potential (as in the upcoming Olympics), yet it looks like pmac tried and failed, that no matter how hard he works or believes, he just doesn’t have what it takes to make at the major league level, even as a bench player.
At least he tried and failed, how many of us even do that.
July 9, 2008 at 11:57 am
#17@parlo: That’s exactly the thing. When they faced Miller earlier this season, he was struggling badly. If I remember correctly, they had him on the ropes early, but weren’t able to capitalize. He settled down and ended up with one of his best outings of the season. In fact, it probably kept him in the rotation.
Yesterday, he was struggling again, but this time they took advantage and did not give him a chance to settle down. There were some great AB’s in that game, espeically by some of these new Padres.
July 9, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I can’t believe no one’s commented on it yet, but these latest roster moves mean the Padres are only carrying 11 pitchers on the active roster. Aren’t you guys excited?!
July 9, 2008 at 12:08 pm
#20@PM: How did he fail? He played in the f’n Show.
July 9, 2008 at 12:13 pm
#18@PM: It happens to a lot of guys. He could keep playing pro baseball for a long time ala Myrow. Veteran AAA players can make 100K per year, although that’s the high end. He already owns a batting cage facility.
The Pads approach with McAnulty has been strange going back several years. They didn’t jump him out of Elsinore when he was killing the ball there as a 23 year old. He didn’t get much of a chance to make the team in 2007 after killing AAA the year before. But then this year, after a much worse 2007 season, they didn’t trade him or risk exposing him to waivers.
July 9, 2008 at 12:31 pm
A couple of good games going on right now;
Tampa 1
New York 1 8th inning
Red Sox 6
Twins 5 7th inning
July 9, 2008 at 12:32 pm
#22@Ben B.: Yes.
July 9, 2008 at 12:34 pm
#24@Tom Waits: Don’t forget pulling him up to the show in 05 straight out of AA. I remember watching his first pro AB I believe the Padres were down by one run and Boch threw him with the bases loaded and 2 outs talk about throwing the new guy straight into the fire…
July 9, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Don’t forget for all y’all outside of SD, the game is on MLB.com…woohoo I get to watch an entire Padres game today!!!
July 9, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Base hit on the first pitch of the game is not the way we like to start…unless we are hitting.
July 9, 2008 at 12:42 pm
HUGE throw by Hundly, nailing Hanley Ramirez trying to take second…it was perfect. 2 down.
July 9, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Nice Hundley got a threw someone out!
July 9, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Interesting that Ken Rosenthal lists the Padres as potentially looking for a SS in the off-season…
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/s.....p;ATT=3498
July 9, 2008 at 12:45 pm
The more we see Hundley and Carlin gun guys down, it’s becoming clear that the base stealing issues the Padres had were less the pitchers time to the plate, and more the weak arms of Barrett and Bard.
July 9, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Sorry that should have been….
Nice Hundley threw someone out!
July 9, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Stay Hot Scotty!
July 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm
#33@Ryan: Has he thrown anybody out with Maddux or Meridith pitching ? Another test will be when CY comes back.
July 9, 2008 at 12:59 pm
#36@parlo: Carlin threw someone out when CY was on the mound, I believe he has with Maddux as well.
July 9, 2008 at 1:00 pm
#33@Ryan: I don’t really think that either bard nor barett have ‘weak’ arms. Both just seem to take forever to release the ball.
Now when piazza was catcher, that was a weak arm!
July 9, 2008 at 1:00 pm
#33@Ryan: Carlin’s thrown at 5 of 29 runners (17%), which is pretty bad. That seems like an argument that it’s the pitchers, not the catchers.
July 9, 2008 at 1:08 pm
#39@Ben B.: Yeah, and Carlin had a reputation as a good thrower in the minors.
I know he had a big hit last night, and has had several since his callup, but someday soon Chase needs to take a walk. He’s currently sporting a 24-0 K:BB rate.
July 9, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Pads down 1-0 after a HR to the LF corner.
July 9, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Geez, how flippin’ good is Ramirez.
July 9, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Sun aided basehit by Nick Hundley…Alfredo Almezega almost got hit in the head by the pop-up in the sun.
July 9, 2008 at 1:29 pm
From Gameday, that looks like pitching around Hairston.
July 9, 2008 at 1:30 pm
42: Yup, he’s a heck of a hitter.
July 9, 2008 at 1:31 pm
45: And how much does the Red Sox need him the last few seasons?
July 9, 2008 at 1:32 pm
It hurts me every time I hear the other team’s announcers discussing the way the 2007 season ended.
July 9, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Come on Padres, work the count a bit. Olsen only threw 31 pitches so far.
July 9, 2008 at 1:35 pm
#46@Didi: not as much as they needed Beckett and Lowell…
July 9, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Yankees just beat Tampa 2-1 in 10 innings.
Rivera went two innings and got the win.
July 9, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Padres down 3-0 after a HR to RF by Mike Jacobs.
July 9, 2008 at 1:38 pm
They are hitting Baek’s offerings very hard…
I could see this game getting out of hand very fast with the way they are not missiing very much on these pitches.
July 9, 2008 at 1:43 pm
42: Maybe the most talented player in the NL.
July 9, 2008 at 1:59 pm
#16@Kevin: The post that was caught was a story written by Milton Bradley in the NY Times. A sort of All-Star blog. Very good stuff.
July 9, 2008 at 2:06 pm
#54@Kevin: A link is posted on one of the other threads from yesterday. I think it is the first post.
July 9, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Cool. It’s a must-read.
July 9, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Baek pitched better than Beckett today …
July 9, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Harriston with a bomb…wooohooo
July 9, 2008 at 2:14 pm
#57@LynchMob: Let’s trade!
Scotty with HR 14. This offense really should not have been as bad as it was for the first 6-8 weeks.
July 9, 2008 at 2:15 pm
#57@LynchMob: The thing about Beckett is that he’s an absolute lights out postseason pitcher. That makes his value to a team like the Red Sox way higher then it would be to another team. Compare him to Peavy. If you need a win in a meaningless game in June, Peavy is probably the better bet. But if you are in the playoffs, Beckett is one of the best pitchers in baseball history there (for now anyway). I think some of you underestimate just how valuable that is. In a five game series, if Beckett starts two games, you only have to win one of the three other games. That’s a huge, huge advantage. He’s pitched in the playoffs twice, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that his team has won the World Series both times.
That makes him way more valuable then Hanley (at least from the Red Sox point of view).
July 9, 2008 at 2:16 pm
#60@Schlom: Why are games in June meaningless?
July 9, 2008 at 2:24 pm
#60@Schlom: There’s really no way of being sure that Beckett will be that guy, though. Roger Clemens was considered a big-game flop for most of his career, until he suddenly wasn’t.
But I agree that the Red Sox had a need for a very good pitcher, which Beckett is. They’d love to have Hanley back, I’m sure, but they’re not limited in how they replace him. They just choose poorly when they went with Lugo.
July 9, 2008 at 2:24 pm
#61@Kevin: My point is that Peavy is probably a better pitcher overall but Beckett is better in the postseason. If I were the Padres I wouldn’t trade Peavy for Beckett straight up, but there is no way the Red Sox would do Beckett for Peavy.
July 9, 2008 at 2:25 pm
#60@Schlom: I agree. A big key to the Red Sox post season success has been Beckett.
July 9, 2008 at 2:25 pm
AGon is so good with the glove…a beautiful dive to his right, roll and throw from his back to get the 3rd out of the inning.
Beautiful.
July 9, 2008 at 2:29 pm
#60@Schlom: #63@Schlom: Small sample size.
July 9, 2008 at 2:30 pm
#63@Schlom: Beckett is not close to Peavy. If not for a few great games in October, no one would be talking about him.
My point is that since the Padres are usually in the NL West race, all games are important. For the Red Sox, too.
July 9, 2008 at 2:31 pm
After 7 innings, the Padres are down 3-1.
July 9, 2008 at 2:37 pm
WHAT A CATCH by Hariston…holy mackeral. Might have just stolen a HR from Hanley Ramirez
July 9, 2008 at 2:40 pm
#67@Kevin: Peavy is the better regular season pitcher but I wouldn’t say that they are not even close…
Career ERA+ Whip K/9 W/L
Peavy 121 1.185 9.03 80/54
Becett 116 1.217 8.58 83/56
July 9, 2008 at 2:41 pm
#66@Ben B.: #67@Kevin: You can say small sample size all you want but he is as good of postseason performer (so far in his career anyway) as there ever has been. Think about that for a second. This isn’t Sandy Koufax, Christy Mathewson or Babe Ruth pitching when there was only a few runs scored a game. Beckett has done it during a big offense era.
As good as Peavy has been in the regular season, Beckett is still way, way, way more valuable because of his post-season success.
July 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm
#70@Steve C: hmm that did not come out right…
Career - ERA+ - Whip - K/9 - W/L
Peavy - 121 - 1.185 - 9.03 - 80/54
Becett - 116 - 1.217 - 8.58 - 83/56
July 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm
#64@parlo: He’s been great in the posteason, no doubt. But how much does that mean the next time around? It’s a pretty flexible definition. Kevin Brown was a fantastic big-game pitcher in the 98 playoffs against the Astros and Braves, and then not so fantastic against the Yankees.
#67@Kevin: Beckett has a career 116 ERA+. Peavy’s is 121. That seems pretty close, close enough that the postseason performance matters.
Olsen has cruised today for a guy with only 3 strikeouts.
July 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Why pinch-hit for the pitcher with Luis Rodriguez? Isn’t that about the same thing?
The more I see of Bud, the more I see Bruce Bochy. Doesn’t he realize that getting the lead-off man is really important? So shouldn’t he bat Myrow in that spot?
July 9, 2008 at 2:46 pm
#69@Coronado Mike: It looked a little shy to my eyes, but still a great catch.
July 9, 2008 at 2:49 pm
#67@Kevin: Its more than “a few games”. Beckett has 9 post season starts, of which 3 were WS games.
I always feel that Padres fans expose a certain inferiority complex by always trying to dismiss other players post season exploits. Is Bob Gibson only famous for a couple of games in October.? How far do we go attempting to dismiss the post season.
A little respect for other players accomplishments would go a long way.
Otherwise, it sounds like sour grapes.
July 9, 2008 at 2:52 pm
#76@parlo: That is a few, especially compared to the amount of regular season games they pitch.
#70@Steve C: I exaggerated by saying they are not close. But you go way to far in the other direction by saying Beckett is “way, way, way more valuable because of his post-season success.”
July 9, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I never said Beckett was more vaulable at all, I only said that he was not that far off from Peavy as far as the regular season goes…
July 9, 2008 at 2:54 pm
#76@parlo: See the Clemens example. It’s not an inferiority complex, it’s an understanding that a great pitcher can pitch not-great in the postseason without being a choker or weak, and that other pitchers who do great in the postseason aren’t guaranteed to do so the next time out.
It is sorta interesting that Kevin, who usually wants us to stay focused on the game during IGDs, is taking the time to discuss this.
Hey Corey, this isn’t a good start to the inning.
July 9, 2008 at 2:56 pm
#78@Steve C: Sorry, that was meant for “Schlom.”
July 9, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I have just decided that the Padres now have two players capable of putting up 30+ HR. Scotty Hairston is a beast. It’s too bad he was so bad for the first month of the season.
July 9, 2008 at 2:57 pm
#73@Tom Waits: Didnt Brown appear in relief in game 5 against the Braves in 98 and get hit hard ?
I think Beckett has been much more successful.
July 9, 2008 at 2:58 pm
#79@Tom Waits: When people start saying Beckett is more valuable than Peavy, that’s an attention-getter.
July 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm
#82@parlo: Brown, in total, was a very good to great postseason pitcher. He pitched for the Marlins, too.
July 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm
#77@Kevin: That was actually me saying he is way, way, way more valuable then Jake. The goal of every team should be to win the World Series — at least that’s my view. As good as Peavy has been in his career, and he’s probably one of the top five ptichers in baseball, he’s been useless in post-season games. In fact, he might be the worst pitcher in those situations (I don’t know if I have time to look it up but there probably aren’t too many pitchers with ERA’s over 10 in the postseason). Basically, if Peavy is in your rotation, you aren’t going to win in the postseason. Sure making the postseason is nice, but winning there is the ultimate goal of all teams.
July 9, 2008 at 3:01 pm
#71@Schlom: Small sample size.
Seriously. You don’t judge players based on a small handful of starts when you have hundreds of other starts to make a more accurate judgment.
July 9, 2008 at 3:02 pm
#84@Kevin: Thanks for the history lesson. Teach me more, did Beckett pitch for the Marlins too?
July 9, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Really…we are walking runs in now? Seriously?
Pads are down 5-1 now…
I don’t like this.
July 9, 2008 at 3:06 pm
#85@Schlom: And Craig Stansberry is one of the greatest second basemen in history. 125 OPS+ for his career while playing a solid second base! And he’s just now entering his prime!
July 9, 2008 at 3:06 pm
#1@PM: Um, yeah they do have trouble getting hits at PetCo.
July 9, 2008 at 3:06 pm
#85@Schlom: You know that what you are saying makes little sense.
It’s a really small sample size. A season is still a pretty small sample size.
“If Peavy is in your rotation, you aren’t going to win in the postseason.” Really, he is the only player that matters on a team in the postseason? The Padres have lost in the postseason.
Also, a team has to get to the postseason to do well in the postseason. The Padres would not be in contention to make the postseason without Peavy.
July 9, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Ambres with a nice sliding catch to end the inning…sorta looked like the Tony Gwynn slide we all know and love.
July 9, 2008 at 3:07 pm
#89@Ben B.: That’s just stupid.
July 9, 2008 at 3:09 pm
#86@Ben B.: Post seasons matter.
To some teams they matter a great deal more
July 9, 2008 at 3:10 pm
#87@parlo: You’re welcome. You seemed to be basing things just on 1998. Good job being unneccesarily snarky.
July 9, 2008 at 3:10 pm
#93@Schlom: Way to sum up your whole argument.
July 9, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Egon is incredibly unselective at the plate. Twice today after Olsen showed some wildness and appeared to be shaky, Edgar swung at the first pitch.
Egon has only walked 11 times in 150+ at bats.
July 9, 2008 at 3:14 pm
#82@parlo: He came in as a reliever and gave up a HR to Michael Tucker. That’s hardly more important than 21Ks against the Astros in 14 innings, or 11Ks in a 9 inning complete game against the Braves.
Beckett’s been more successful, but those type of reputations can change quickly. Brown was great, then suddenly bad. Clemens was a “choker” to a lot of fans for 10-15 years, then he’s not anymore.
July 9, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Let’s put it this way, no playoff team would rather have Peavy then Beckett. You can talk small sample sizes all you want but the simple fact is that Peavy has been one of the worst playoff pitchers while Beckett is one of the best of all-time. That’s not to say that I’d rather have Beckett then Peavy as Jake probably makes more sense for the Padres (a team that’s always going to struggle to make the playoffs).
The thing about the playoffs is that it’s always going to be a small sample size. Since Bob Gibson only had 9 starts and Koufax 7 can you say that their post-season pitching was a fluke because of small sample size? So I guess then we can ignore how bad A-Rod has been since the Yankees went up 3-0 in 2004 ALCS, saying it’s just not enough at-bats to get accurate appreciation of his value? Nevermind that he’s been horrible, maybe it’s just a fluke?
July 9, 2008 at 3:15 pm
#97@JP: That’s not that bad when a guy is hitting over .300 with decent pop.
July 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm
#99@Schlom: You do know that it most likely is a fluke, right?
July 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm
#95@Kevin: I was using 1998 because Tom Waits used 1998 as an example of Browns great post seasons. You can find the comment at post #73
July 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm
#96@Richard Wade: You beat me to it.
Anybody who says that Peavy = Playoff doom hasn’t watched much baseball. Yes, he’s been bad in TWO WHOLE postseason starts. One of them he pitched with a BROKEN RIB.
Roger Clemens has had playoff series where his ERAs were 22.5, 8.18, 5.40, 6.35, 5, 5.62, 13.50, and 11.57. He just has enough other games that nobody thinks he’s a weak-minded sissy because of those.
July 9, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Mr. Thatcher, you should know that there are multiple daily flights BACK to Portland.
July 9, 2008 at 3:22 pm
#99@Schlom: I think your original comment was that Beckett has been more valuable to the Red Sox than Peavy would have been. I still agree with that. The Red Sox probably would have found a way to reach the post season without Beckett. His real value to them has been the post season. Peavy would not have provided them that same post season success.
July 9, 2008 at 3:22 pm
#102@parlo: I know where I can find the f’n comment. I read it.
And his 1998 was a very good to great postseason for Brown.
July 9, 2008 at 3:25 pm
#103@Tom Waits: I would include his game against Colorado last October. It is included as a regular season game, but it was a playoff.
July 9, 2008 at 3:26 pm
#100@Richard Wade: He’ll have to hit .300 and keep stroking doubles here and there because he doesn’t walk, is not good defensively, and has no speed. I believe that Edgar is a keeper as a utility guy but not a starter over the course of a whole year. The Pads still need to be on the look out for a starting second baseman for the future.
Mike Adams looks like he could be a 1 to 2 year productive sleeper. The Marlins were really off balance at the plate when Adams was pitching today and he has made other good hitters look bad.
July 9, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Is the game still on?
July 9, 2008 at 3:29 pm
#105@parlo: There’s no way of knowing that. In 2004 Peavy had a 171 ERA+. He was entirely capable of blowing the doors off teams in the playoffs. He may go his entire career without doing it, he may not ever get another chance to do it, baseball being what it is, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t.
July 9, 2008 at 3:31 pm
#101@Richard Wade: A-Rod or Beckett? I’m not sure that it has been. If you watched the playoff games lately, you would notice that A-Rod has chased an lot of pitches out of the strike zone. That’s the main reason he’s done so poorly. I didn’t see a lot of his earlier AB’s with Seattle or the 2004 ALDS against the Twins when he was more successful to know if that’s new thing or something he’s always done. Maybe the series in which he’s been successful are the flukes, not the ones when he’s been terrible.
#103@Tom Waits: Not sure why you are throwing out Clemens, he’s not really been a great post-season pitcher (3.75 ERA). He’s been great in the WS (2.37) but bad in the Division and Championship Series’. Still better then Peavy though.
July 9, 2008 at 3:34 pm
#110@Tom Waits: Well now you are reframing the argument. Neither Schlom nor myself ever stated that Peavy “couldnt”. The point was that Beckett HAS and Peavy HASN’T. Therefor he has been much more valuable to the Red Sox.
July 9, 2008 at 3:36 pm
#111@Schlom: Richard is saying it’s all a fluke — good or bad — because the sample size is too small.
July 9, 2008 at 3:38 pm
#112@parlo: Except that he has been more valuable.
July 9, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I’m not really knocking Peavy either — you are what you are. In fact, as I said before, Peavy is a better pitcher for the Padres at the moment. And I hold out hope that he will learn to relax and pitch better in big games. I like Jake, even when he spouts off his idiotic nonsense.
I also don’t understand why people are putting down Beckett’s postseason success as a fluke. Did you not watch the 2003 playoffs? Or last season? Check out his pitching log in the postseason:
http://www.baseball-reference......=1&t=p
Outside of getting lit up by the Cubs in his first start of the NLCS in 2003, he’s been lights out. His worst start is giving up 2 runs in 6 innings. That’s pretty impressive.
July 9, 2008 at 3:38 pm
#112@parlo: No, I’m not. This is exactly what Schlom wrote:
“Basically, if Peavy is in your rotation, you aren’t going to win in the postseason. ”
#111@Schlom: It doesn’t surprise me why you’re not sure. You could take any 2 starts from Clemens’ postseason career and make the argument that he is one of the greatest big-game pitchers ever, then take a different two and say that he’s one of the biggest postseason chokers in history. That’s the danger of looking at too few games.
July 9, 2008 at 3:40 pm
#114@Kevin: Sorry, I meant Beckett has not been more valuable than Peavy.
July 9, 2008 at 3:41 pm
#115@Schlom: I don’t see anybody knocking Beckett’s postseason. Lots of people have said he’s been great. But his next 3 postseason starts could be repeats of his effort against the Cubs in 03. Would that significantly change your opinion of him? People are just saying, don’t put too much weight on too few games. A team isn’t doomed to lose in the playoffs because they use Peavy. A team isn’t destined to succeed in the playoffs because they use Beckett.
July 9, 2008 at 3:42 pm
#114@Kevin: For the Red Sox post season ambitions, he has been more valuable to them. That was the original point.
July 9, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Jake has never given up a run in a league championship or world series game.
Just saying…
July 9, 2008 at 3:44 pm
#116@Tom Waits: Well, Schlom and I disagree on that sentence.
July 9, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Who will be better in the playoffs going forward? I think that’s the question we really want to answer. It’s a tough question and I don’t think there’s a definitive answer, even if you go through all the math.
What I’d probably try to do is estimate each pitcher’s talent level based on the past 3 or 4 years (and count the playoff performance). My guess is it’s pretty close.
But I don’t think it’s fair to say Peavy isn’t going to be successful in the playoffs going forward. Of course, he might not be … none of us know. But my best guess is that he’d perform *slightly* worse than his regular season performance over the last few years, if he was given a bunch of playoff starts.
imo, the only way you’d expect him to continue to be horrible in the playoffs is if you felt that playoff pitching is completely different than regular season pitching.
July 9, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Here’s the basic thing — if you had a choice of one starting pitcher for Game 7 of the World Series, I would guess that about 95% would pick Beckett. Before Schilling got injured, there might be a few people that picked him. Maybe Johan, Webb or Pedro would get a few votes as well. No one would pick Peavy. And why should you? Of course it’s going to be a small sample size, even someone like Clemens who has been around forever only has 34 playoff starts (Andy Pettitte who has been in the postseason all but two of his seasons has 35). Josh Beckett has generally been on good teams his entire career and he has only 10 playoff games (9 starts). The Padres have been one of the most successful teams in baseball the past four years and Peavy has only 3 playoff starts.
July 9, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Lynch with a save for the AZL Padres today …
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.....p;did=milb
… hmmm, no Jaff Decker in the lineup today … did I miss something?
July 9, 2008 at 3:48 pm
#119@parlo: If Peavy had pitched for the Red Sox instead of Beckett, they would be even better. And he would get the chance to prove his postseason mettle. What do you not understand about small sample size?
July 9, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Greg Maddux had an ERA of over 12 after his first 2 playoff starts and I think he may have turned out ok…
July 9, 2008 at 3:55 pm
#123@Schlom: It depends on the 95 percent you are talking about — fans, bloggers, executives. Billy Beane and Sandy Alderson and those type of executive would pick the best pitcher period, not the best postseason pitcher. I would pick Halladay over Beckett, and he has not pitched in the postseason.
July 9, 2008 at 3:57 pm
#125@Kevin: I disagree. The Red Sox may have put together a better regular season record with Peavy, but they succeeded in the post season because of Beckett. It may be a small sample size, but post season performance matters. So far, Peavy has been substandard in the post season. Beckett has been exceptional.
I dont understand why some cant give credit, where credit is due.
July 9, 2008 at 3:58 pm
#122@MB: It is different, isn’t it? I mean some players perform better while others do worse. I guess it’s possible that it’s just a small sample size phenomenon but I think that’s unlikely. There is significantly more pressure in the playoffs so it would be remarkable if no player was affected by that.
July 9, 2008 at 4:01 pm
#125@Kevin: Kind of hard to be better than winning the world series in 4 games…Also Beckett won 20 games last season so its not like he did not carry his own weight during the regular season…
July 9, 2008 at 4:02 pm
#127@Kevin: It’s certainly possible that Halladay could be the best postseason pitcher out there — I wouldn’t think so because he doesn’t strike out enough batters — but I can see how you could see that.
Unfortunately we have no way of knowing how a certain pitcher will perform in the playoffs (or in any situation). The only thing we can look at are past performances. And out of any pitcher in baseballl, Josh Beckett has been the best. Of course, that might change but looking at past performances is the only way to go. We do that for everyone else, why wouldn’t we do it for postseason pitchers?
July 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm
#129@Schlom: You are correct that some player can handle the pressure and other can’t but what you are failing to recognize is that Peavy has only made 1 healthy post season start. Its kind of hard to determine if he is a bad, moderate, good or great post season pitcher off of the one start.
July 9, 2008 at 4:06 pm
#129@Schlom:
Yeah, sure, it’s sorta different. You face better teams, more pressure, etc. But what should we use to evaluate potential playoff players … 10 innings of playoff performance or 100s of inning of regular season performance. Well, ideally, both … but I’m not going to give 50, 75% weight to those 10 innings, for no other reason than that they are “playoff innings.”
I mean, would you take a Jeff Suppan over Peavy in the playoffs? Suppan has a 3.00 era in 54 postseason innings (but he’s been a mid-4 era pitcher for most of his career).
July 9, 2008 at 4:08 pm
#133@MB: There should be a question mark after this sentence, of course: “10 innings of playoff performance or 100s of innings of regular season performance?”
July 9, 2008 at 4:11 pm
#129@Schlom: There is certainly much more pressure, plus you are facing the better teams who have very good players. There usually are not a lot of Calex Crabbe and PMac type players in the lineup.
IIRC, I think one of the big selling points of Beckett was that he had success against the Yankees. That was a big deal to the Red Sox.
July 9, 2008 at 4:11 pm
#130@Steve C: Peavy would be better during the regular season is my point. Then he would get postseason opportunties. It’s always a good thing to win more in the regular season.
#128@parlo: They didn’t succeed because of Beckett. They succeeded because they had the best team. Since they won in four games — twice — in the World Series, maybe all of the other pitchers would have picked up Beckett — if he would have pitched poorly — and they would have won in six or seven games. There is no way to say that they won those series simply because of Beckett.
July 9, 2008 at 4:13 pm
#132@Steve C: I mentioned earlier that the October 1 game against Colorado last year should be included. It may be recorded as a regular season game, but it was a playoff game in every other way.
July 9, 2008 at 4:16 pm
#137@parlo: Even if it’s included, it’s still a small sample size. If you and others don’t agree with the “small sample size” idea and how it means almost nothing, then we are all just typing for the heck of it.
Players don’t suddenly become better in the postseason. Jeter is not clutch. The moon is not made out of cheese. There are no unicorns, either.
July 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm
#136@Kevin: The Red Sox went 7 games against Cleveland last year. Beckett won two games in that series.
July 9, 2008 at 4:22 pm
#139@parlo: Yep, they did. And I was talking about the two World Series wins.
July 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm
#132@Steve C: I think we are all considering the playoff game in Colorado to be a postseason start since it really was.
#133@MB: Possibly Suppan but his numbers aren’t exactly Beckett-like, they are just good.
#138@Kevin: I certainly don’t think that players get better in the postseason. However, I think it’s certainly true that pressure affects players differently, probably negatively for almost everyone. However, there are some players that it doesn’t effect, Josh Beckett seems to be one of them. Also don’t throw Derek Jeter in the argument, his postseason numbers aren’t nearly as impressive as Beckett’s. We are mainly arguing whether a historically great run by Beckett is just a fluke and that Peavy getting shelled in all three of his playoff starts is the same.
July 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm
#138@Kevin: Thanks for the condescension. Yes, sample size matters, but post season performance matters also. You cant dismiss post season excellence simply because it doesnt amount to 200 games. Going by your argument, there should be no recognition of the post season because the sample size is not large enough. Thats absurd.
Some players do perform poorly under pressure. Others excel. Do you really think Reggie Jackson just had a couple of lucky games in the those 1970s Octobers ?
July 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm
#142@parlo: It should count. But you — and I’m guessing here — seems to think it counts for a lot. Not sure the percentage.
But I think it’s extra credit. And that extra credit doesn’t put Beckett past Peavy.
It’s like the Hall of Famer argument for Schilling. If you add the postseason stuff to his resume — which you should — it doesn’t make him a Hall of Famer. It should be the sprinkles on top, not the whole cake or ice cream.
July 9, 2008 at 4:40 pm
#142@parlo: Reggie stunk in the ALCS: .227/.298 /.380. I guess he didn’t have the magic or character or that certain something. Or maybe it was a small sample size.
July 9, 2008 at 4:40 pm
#143@Kevin: Nobody said it was the whole pie. Perhaps you are just misreading my earlier point. Becketts post season success has been much more valuable to the Red Sox, than Jake Peavy would have been.
I stand by that.
July 9, 2008 at 4:44 pm
#143@Kevin: I think we need to separate the “sample-size” argument between batters and pitchers. Beckett has faced 270 batters in the postseason, about the same amount of plate appearances that Rickey Henderson had in his post-season career (262). Would you say that Rickey’s postseason ability can’t really be determined because his sample size is too small? I can understand if we were just talking about 1 or 2 starts by a pitcher against bad teams, but Beckett’s pitched a lot in the postseason. It’s one thing to say that Billy Hatcher is the greatest post-season hitter ever after going 9-12 in 1990 but that could very well be luck. Beckett’s faced a lot of hitters — that can’t all be luck.
July 9, 2008 at 4:49 pm
#144@Kevin: Now you are just attempting to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about “magic or character or that certain something”.
Its kind of hard to debate an issue when you make things up.
July 9, 2008 at 4:52 pm
#145@parlo: I know that’s what you said. And we have disagreed for about 140 posts.
July 9, 2008 at 4:53 pm
#147@parlo: Believe me: I know you didn’t say that. But that is often the argument from those who over-estimate the importance of the postseason.
July 9, 2008 at 4:55 pm
#146@Schlom: Beckett has made nine postseason starts. It doesn’t make sense to use batters faced, because he faces a lot more batters in the regular season. He has made 182 regular season starts.
July 9, 2008 at 5:18 pm
#150@Kevin: I think you can use batters faced because it shows how many hitters he got out. It’s hard to say he’s gotten lucky (or it’s a fluke) when he’s faced 270 hitters, however you could say that if he’d only faced 30 or 40. Also by using batters faced you are separating pitchers from hitters, again I could say small sample size for 15 at-bats but when you are talking about 250+ it’s harder to use that argument.
July 9, 2008 at 5:19 pm
John Smoltz is a better example: 27 starts, 207 innings pitched in the postseason. That’s still just one season added to his resume, but it’s better than nine starts.
July 9, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Hairston is just on fire right now!
July 9, 2008 at 5:55 pm
#151@Schlom: Right, but the measure of pitchers’ usage is almost always starts or innings pitched. For batters, it’s plate appearances.
Beckett faced 822 batters last season in the regular season. That helps to illustrate the sample size of his postseason. Whatever measure we use, the sample is small.
July 9, 2008 at 5:57 pm
#153@Masticore317: Career high for homers.
July 9, 2008 at 5:59 pm
#152@Kevin: Obviously, more starts gives us a better idea of what they can do but I don’t think we can just discount 9 starts as too small of a sample size and ignore.
Smoltz is also a Hall of Fame pitcher, I think Jake has about a 1% chance (at most) of having a career as good as his. In reality, he will never be as good because he’s never going to get a chance to shine in the postseason like Smoltz did.
July 9, 2008 at 6:14 pm
#156@Schlom: But the postseason is not what make Smoltz a near-Hall of Famer or Hall of Famer.
And nine starts shouldn’t be disregarded. But it’s nine starts out of 191 total. It’s much more important that he had a 5.01 ERA in 2006. If he would have pitched like an All-Star, maybe his team would have made the playoffs that season. Beckett was a weakness to his team that season.
July 9, 2008 at 6:57 pm
The Blue Jays are the greatest baseball team of all time, as they are 8-4 (.667) in their 12 World Series games. They’re followed closely by the Americans (5-3), Marlins (8-5), Red Sox (36-23). The Yankees (130-88) are fifth.
July 9, 2008 at 6:58 pm
#156@Schlom: Through their age 26 seasons, Peavy has had a better career than Smoltz. 1% of equaling his career value seems an insanely pessimistic estimation.
July 9, 2008 at 9:50 pm
#157@Kevin: And nine starts shouldn’t be disregarded. But it’s nine starts out of 191 total. It’s much more important that he had a 5.01 ERA in 2006.
That’s one way to look at it.
July 9, 2008 at 11:02 pm
#160@Stephen: Yes, it’s the correct way to look at it.
July 9, 2008 at 11:12 pm
#161@Kevin:
There you go again. And here I thought the goal was to win championships. I’ll excuse the occasional off year.
July 9, 2008 at 11:19 pm
#162@Stephen: You don’t think an entire season of pitching poorly ought to outweigh a couple very good post season games when deciding a player’s value?
July 10, 2008 at 12:24 am
#162@Stephen: Yes, and the Red Sox might have one another if Beckett had pitched like an All-Star that season. Beckett doesn’t win titles. The Red Sox do.
July 10, 2008 at 9:17 am
#164@Kevin:
Kevin,
They’re going to inscribe your headstone, for better or worse, with the phrase “Check out the sample size, stupid.”
#163@Richard Wade:
I’ll put it this way: If I am a Red Sox fan, I’ve forgotten or forgiven Beckett for his 5 ERA season. BTW, his numbers were great in that PS, no? I’ve never felt so exasperated over a thread, and I didn’t even read every post.
July 10, 2008 at 9:32 am
Bleh are we still having the Peavy vs Beckett debate? Can’t we just except that they are both valuable pitchers and move on?
July 10, 2008 at 11:24 am
#165@Stephen: The point is that the Red Sox didn’t make the postseason in 2006, thanks in part to Beckett’s 5.01 ERA.
So, no, his numbers were not great that postseason.
July 10, 2008 at 11:29 am
They won a WS championship in 2007 (not to mention earlier w/o Beckett). That’s one more than every other team in baseball. Why do we - I mean - you care so much about ‘06?
I don’t even know where to go with this or why I even bothered. Steve C is right.
July 10, 2008 at 11:30 am
#167@Kevin:
And using your own logic, Beckett’s 5 ERA was only a contributing factor. He was just 1 of 25, plus other callups.
July 10, 2008 at 1:42 pm
#169@Stephen: You were the one making the case that Beckett was such a key to the World Series wins.
#168@Stephen: I really don’t care at all. I just thought the arugment that Beckett was more valuable than Peavy — or more valuable to the Red Sox than Peavy is the Padres — was really specious. So I responded. Then there were 160-some posts. Oh well.