Faulty Radar, and Performance by Position

I’ve got a few things on my mind this morning. First off, I’m reorganizing the categories of this here blog, trying to put some of those information architecture skills I learned at my last job to use. Among other things, I’m discovering that it’s a lot harder to organize your own stuff than someone else’s.

Anyway, in the process of doing this, I’ve rediscovered a few ancient posts. One of them (pardon the ugly tables) discusses the limitations in using statistics to evaluate prospects.

I’m thinking of Matt Antonelli and the fact that he’s fallen off a few radar screens because of his poor showing at Portland this year. Not that Antonelli is the same type of player, but I wonder how many folks had given up on Mike Cameron at age 22, before he ever reached Triple-A, based on his career line of .243/.330/.361 to that point?

Again, we’re not comparing Antonelli and Cameron as players. We’re only using them to demonstrate that one season doesn’t always tell us enough about a player.

It makes no more sense now to call Antonelli a bust based on his 2008 performance than it did last year to anoint him a future star based on his 2007 performance. The truth remains somewhere in the middle, although we don’t know exactly where.

What’s Your Position?

I’ve also been thinking about the Padres’ offensive strengths and weaknesses. One of the most surprising aspects of this year’s team is that center field has turned out to be a position of strength. In fact, relative to league, it’s been the position of greatest strength, which is just bizarre given the whole Jim Edmonds debacle.

This got me to wondering how the offense has performed by position over the past few years. Thanks to Baseball-Reference and its handy sOPS+ stat, which measures OPS for a split relative to the major league OPS for that split, we can have ourselves a little look:

Padres Offense by Position, 2004 – 2008
Pos 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statistics are courtesy of Baseball-Reference and are through games of September 23, 2008.
C 114 117 132 111 57
1B 108 79 100 106 109
2B 136 83 96 76 74
3B 74 78 65 93 91
SS 112 90 88 102 77
LF 96 97 79 100 97
CF 73 118 111 101 117
RF 114 122 93 86 103

A few things jump out at me:

  • Since the departure of Gary Bennett, the Padres have gotten remarkable production from their catchers — mostly Ramon Hernandez, Mike Piazza, and Josh Bard,with a little Miguel Olivo thrown in for good measure. This year, of course, they’ve gotten nothing. Nick Hundley and either Luke Carlin or some free-agent veteran (and there are some decent backup catcher options) figure to improve on that. At worst, they should get the club back to Bennett levels; yes, this is damning with faint praise, but the Padres did have a 69 sOPS+ at catcher in 2003, which sounds pretty good right about now.
  • Second base has been a black hole since Mark Loretta’s MVP caliber season. Josh Barfield provided a little spark in ’06, but the last two years have been brutal. That the Padres managed to do worse this season than Marcus Giles boggles the imagination.
  • Third base still isn’t great, but it’s a lot better than it used to be. With Kevin Kouzmanoff manning the hot corner and Chase Headley at the ready should the Padres decide to move Kouz to, say, the Twins for some starting pitching, the days of Sean Burroughs, Joe Randa, Vinny Castilla, and Mark Bellhorn appear to be well behind us.
  • The two best center field performances came when Cameron wasn’t here. How is that even possible? Well, Dave Roberts had a career year in ’05, while Jody Gerut, Scott Hairston (.305/.341/.609 in 186 PA as CF), and Will Venable all have played above expectations in ’08.

Center field is a strength. Who knew? That’s why I look stuff up — to keep from sounding stupider than I already am.

In This Town, the Hitting Coach Wears a Red Shirt

According to Tom Krasovic at the U-T, Wally Joyner has resigned as hitting coach [h/t Sacrifice Bunt] of the San Diego Padres. In lieu of an explanation, Joyner offers this curious quote:

I came to the job hoping to put my experience and ideas to good use in teaching and coaching the Padres’ hitters, but it has become obvious to me in the past few months that the organization’s approach is different from mine.

First off, I suspect the approach is less of a problem right now than the results. Second, although the results haven’t been great, they haven’t been as bad as some folks seem to think. The pitching, of course, has been much worse.

That said, here is a disturbing trend:

2004: 110 OPS+
2005: 103
2006: 104
2007: 101
2008: 97

No, OPS+ isn’t the end-all and be-all of offensive metrics, but it’s good enough for government work. Hint: Higher is better.

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to who the hitting coach was back when the Padres were, um, hitting? Right, it was Dave Magadan, the guy we wanted out of town for some strange reason. (Magadan, you may have heard, has enjoyed a certain degree of success since leaving San Diego.)

Meanwhile the Padres go back to the business of finding a new hitting coach to replace the old one. Krasovic’s article mentions Jim Lefebvre as a possibility. I can’t help but think that Max Venable, who served as hitting coach for the Padres Triple-A affiliate in Portland this year and whose son, Will, has been playing center field for the big club this month, might also be in the mix.

Whoever gets the call, here’s hoping he survives the opening credits. My piece of advice: Avoid away missions.

Blog World and New Media Expo 2008 Recap

We drove to Vegas on Thursday afternoon. Neko Case, Silverchair, Interpol, and Thievery Corporation accompanied us on our journey. Not literally, of course; our car isn’t that big.

On Friday we rode the monorail all over the Strip, gawking at the utter freakishness that is Sin City. This place always makes me feel lonely, although it’s more bearable now than when I was younger and had difficulty coping with loneliness.

That evening we saw Tony Bennett perform at the Hilton, where we were staying. The man is 82 years old, but as a performer he’s still at the top of his game. His band swung like nobody’s business (drummer Harold Jones played with Count Basie in the late ’60s), and Bennett’s voice remains remarkably crisp and forceful, with a rich vibrato that men half his age would be lucky to possess.

Saturday

On opening day of Blog World & New Media Expo, I attended the two sports sessions, hosted by Yardbarker. The first, “Promoting Your Content — Establishing a Following in the Sports World,” discussed strategies for getting noticed in the ever-expanding blogosphere. The big themes were to be different and unique, don’t be afraid to promote yourself to mainstream media (but pick your spots; make sure you’re offering quality), and keep your own needs in mind as well as those of your audience.

I found the second session, “Capitalizing on Traffic — Monetizing Sports Blogs,” less useful. It seems there isn’t a real consensus on how best to make money from these things, although everyone agreed that Google probably isn’t the way.

The speakers at both sessions presented their material well and were open to dialogue with the participants, small though we may have been in numbers. This brings me to my one gripe: Where were the sports bloggers? It was more than a little disheartening to see so few of us there. For all the talk about gaining acceptance, credibility, yadda yadda, you’d think that more than a handful of folks might make the effort to attend an industry event. Other sectors (business, military, etc.) didn’t seem to have this problem, as I was reminded every time a session let out and hundreds of attendees roamed the halls. I don’t know if it’s the economy or a general disinterest, but the lack of sports bloggers made it difficult to achieve much synergy.

I’d planned to attend non-sports-related sessions later in the day, but my motivation was shot so I ended up going out and enjoying Vegas instead. That evening I made a cameo at the opening night party and connected with a few bloggers, though again, nobody in my sector. I enjoyed talking with people who are passionate about what they do and comparing notes about blogging in our various sectors, but I really wouldn’t have minded chatting with a few sports bloggers. On the bright side, if I’m ever in the market for a summer home in Colorado, I’ve got a guy for that.

Sunday

I attended two more sessions on the second day. Only one sports session was held, and it was by far the best of the lot. “Emerging Trends and Transitions in Sports Blogging” featured a diverse group of speakers, including NFL agent Jack Bechta and former Los Angeles Times columnist Jay Christensen.

The panelists noted that there is a movement toward more citizen journalism and that younger athletes (e.g., Washington Redskins tight end Chris Cooley) tend to see value in blogging, where older athletes don’t always get it. The speakers also discussed the importance of analyzing the news rather than simply breaking it, which heartened me, because I’ve always thought that analysis is where we — as participants in and observers of our world — are best positioned to add value.

Some of the talking points seemed to me fairly self-evident, although it was good to hear these things confirmed by people who are approaching the medium from a different angle and who have actual professional experience in the field. Be accurate and dependable. Be authentic. Cover an angle that nobody else is. Think more like a columnist than a beat writer. Focus on the big picture. I’m paraphrasing what I heard, and filtering it through my own biases, but I think you get the idea. The only downside to this one was the fact that two of the scheduled panelists (who had been there the day before) didn’t attend.

Next, I attended a session called “Book Deals, Digital Assets and Corporate Sponsorships,” which had nothing to do with sports. As someone who has written two books and is working on a third, I figured this would be right up my alley and it was. The panelists focused on the importance of marketability, with the two big lessons here being that price is all about perceived value and that you always want to keep your end game in mind, ensuring that everything you’re doing is pulling you in that direction.

In some ways, this was the most enlightening session for me because it forced me out of my comfort zone and exposed me to ideas in a field where I have no expertise whatsoever. It also reminded me that, despite the poor turnouts for the sports sessions, the conference was well attended.

Closing Thoughts

On balance, I enjoyed the experience. Yardbarker did a nice job with the sport sessions; I’m only sorry that precious few heard their message. Networking opportunities abounded, and I expect that bloggers in other sectors made plenty of connections.

In the future it would be nice to see more folks from the sports blogosphere out there. Among the sports blogging networks, only Yardbarker had a presence and that’s because they sponsored the entire track. Thank goodness for them; otherwise there might not have been anything for the few bloggers in our sector who made it to the convention.

All-Time Padres Team

Last week I mentioned an all-time Padres team that I’ve been assembling. This wasn’t just an intellectual exercise. Our friends at Seamheads are running a simulation league this off-season with the best players from each big-league franchise, and they invited me to submit a 40-man roster for the Padres.

Most of the choices were fairly obvious (I’d already ranked the best players by position in the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual), but some presented a challenge. Usually it came down to questions of longevity versus effectiveness. For example, Luis Salazar spent a lot more time playing third base in San Diego than Gary Sheffield did, but only one of those guys will help you win baseball games.

I tried to stick with players who best represent the city and the franchise. That’s why Eric Show and Clay Kirby make it ahead of Gaylord Perry and Kevin Brown. At the same time, as in the case Salazar, I wasn’t going to hand someone a spot on the roster just because he played here for a long time.

Anyway, enough of my yammering. To the team:

Catcher

  1. Terry Kennedy
  2. Benito Santiago
  3. Gene Tenace

This one was easy. Tenace also provides coverage at first base, not that the Padres need it.

First Base

  1. Ryan Klesko
  2. Nate Colbert
  3. Adrian Gonzalez

I had Gonzalez ranked #9 entering 2008 and said that he would move up to #3 assuming he repeated last year’s success, which he has. Gonzalez gives Wally Joyner the boot. It also pains me to keep Fred McGriff off this squad, but the position is too deep to justify his inclusion.

Second Base

  1. Mark Loretta
  2. Roberto Alomar
  3. Bip Roberts

I had Quilvio Veras ranked as the #3 second baseman in club history, with Roberts at #4. Roberts also checks in as the #5 left fielder. Between that (as you’ll see, it makes a difference) and your arguments, I slipped Bip onto the roster.

Third Base

  1. Ken Caminiti
  2. Phil Nevin
  3. Gary Sheffield

As noted, the tricky one here was Sheffield. Other possibilities were Graig Nettles and Salazar.

Shortstop

  1. Khalil Greene
  2. Garry Templeton
  3. Tony Fernandez

This is another case where I overlooked a brief tenure. I’d considered Ozzie Smith, Gomez, and Damian Jackson for that #3 spot. You could make a decent case for Smith, but the .278 SLG is a deal-breaker for me. I’d have to stick Tim Lollar on the team to pinch hit for him, and I can’t bring myself to waste a spot on Lollar.

Left Field

  1. Gene Richards
  2. Carmelo Martinez

I asked whether you preferred Greg Vaughn or Rickey Henderson at #3, and the answer was a resounding, “We don’t know and we don’t care.” Well, not really, but you get the point. Roberts, who ranks just behind those two, can fill in here if needed.

Center Field

  1. Steve Finley
  2. Johnny Grubb
  3. Kevin McReynolds

When I decided to omit a third left fielder, my initial thought was to include Mike Cameron. Then I realized that all of the right fielders on this club have played a fair amount of center. I hated leaving Mark Kotsay off here, too, but he just didn’t do enough.

Right Field

  1. Tony Gwynn
  2. Dave Winfield
  3. Brian Giles

Duh, duh, duh.

Starting Pitcher

  1. Jake Peavy
  2. Randy Jones
  3. Andy Benes
  4. Ed Whitson
  5. Andy Ashby
  6. Bruce Hurst
  7. Eric Show
  8. Clay Kirby
  9. Dave Dravecky

I’ve already noted the omissions of Perry and Brown. Another worthy candidate who didn’t quite make the cut was Dave Roberts. For as epic as his 1971 season was, it’s not quite enough to bump anyone else off the list.

Dravecky is the guy I added to the roster in place of a third left fielder. I’ve got him as the #11 starter in club history, but that’s only because he pitched so much in relief. The guy was mighty effective for quite a long time. He gives us a little flexibility.

Relief Pitcher

  1. Trevor Hoffman
  2. Mark Davis
  3. Rollie Fingers
  4. Craig Lefferts
  5. Rich Gossage
  6. Scott Linebrink
  7. Lance McCullers
  8. Greg W. Harris

I haven’t run this year’s numbers yet, but I’m guessing you could make a good case for Heath Bell at this point. Still, I like Harris because he can start if needed; he’s sort of a right-handed version of Dravecky.

Fun with Run Support

My latest article at Hardball Times focuses on a technique Bill James employed in his 1988 Baseball Abstract to evaluate the degree to which a pitcher might be aided (or not) by his offense. James used it to compare Danny Jackson and Walt Terrell from 1985 to 1987; I use it to compare Jarrod Washburn and Ramon Ortiz in 2003.

. . .

Elsewhere, Tom Tango is doing his annual fan scouting report. Go lend your expertise to the project and scout the Padres (h/t It Might Be Dangerous… You Go First).

. . .

Nine games to go…

Ten Games

What a grind it’s been. In 30+ years of following baseball, I can’t ever remember looking forward to season’s end, but that’s pretty much where I’m at right now. Actually, I’ve been there for a few months.

It’s a strange feeling, and kind of sad. I just want the friggin’ games to end so I can breathe a little and get back to focusing on research. Is that so much to ask? Just finish these 10 meaningless games so I can start working with final stats.

Sigh.

. . .

We’re driving to Vegas on Thursday for Blog World Expo. I made it out to last year’s inaugural event and had a blast. The sessions were mostly informative, and networking opportunities abounded. I got to rub elbows with the likes of Rob Neyer and Will Leitch, among many others.

I’m not really a Vegas kind of guy, and last year I didn’t do much beyond attend sessions. This time, however, we got tickets to see Tony Bennett. I’m hoping he’ll sing “The Best Is Yet to Come” because Lord knows I need the reminder.

Anyway, if you end up at Blog World Expo, let me know. I’ve got new business cards and everything…

Friday Links (12 Sep 08)

That was a fun one Thursday night, eh? I’d make a crack about how it’s only the Giants, but seeing as how we have virtually no chance of overtaking them for fourth place, that hardly seems appropriate.

Seriously, though, it’s cool to see a bunch of these kids that I watched at Elsinore come up here and have some success. Matt Antonelli knocked three hits and drew a walk (and only a fine play by Omar Vizquel kept him from reaching base a fifth time), Drew Macias collected his first big-league hit (a homer off Matt Cain, no less), and Josh Geer tossed a gem.

Meanwhile, we’ve got links…

  • Jason at It Is About the Money, Stupid interviews Paul DePodesta. There’s some good stuff in here, but this is probably my favorite bit from DePo:

    We get a pass/fail grade 162 times a year, and no matter how good the team is we will fail a lot. The losing can really take its toll when you dedicate so much time and effort to the cause. On the other hand, the triumph of high achievement that accompanies winning is special.

    It always cracks me up when fans assume that folks in the front office don’t give a damn. I learn more about the pride those fans take in their own work than anything else.

  • Portland manager Randy Ready is up with the big club (h/t Baseball in Fort Wayne). That’s great, but buried in here is a nice quote from left-hander Wade LeBlanc on his difficulties this season:

    If you look at it as a failure, you won’t make it through the season. I looked at it as if that struggle will help me in the long run.

    Will it help him in the long run? Who knows, but at least he’s thinking about it the right way. He’s admitting that it’s a possibility, which is better than the alternative.

  • Could right-hander Mike Ekstrom be a dark horse candidate for the 2009 bullpen? Some within the organization seem to think so. Quoth GM Kevin Towers:

    It looks a little bit like the path that Scott Linebrink followed to the major leagues. Scott was a starter, but his stuff and how he pitched was better suited to being a reliever.

    Hey, why not. Just keep throwing guys out there and see if any of ‘em turn out to be good.

  • Speaking of pitchers, DePodesta talks about the two newest members of the Padres, right-handers Charlie Haeger and Scott Patterson. I find his take on Haeger interesting:

    As is the case with most knuckleballers, Charlie can walk some hitters, and he can give up some fly balls. That’s not a great combo in the American League, particularly in US Cellular in Chicago, but it’s more palatable in our environment. Kevin Towers has said in the past that he’s been intrigued with the idea of a knuckleballer in our park given the coastal weather conditions and the spacious outfield. In a more general sense, knuckleballers can also create some flexibility within a pitching staff due to their ability to pitch often and in a variety of roles.

    The bit about walks being “more palatable” at Petco surprises me a little because the organization typically places a premium on guys who throw strikes. A natural gut reaction is to wonder why they are going against the grain with Haeger. A more telling observation is that the Padres don’t appear to be overly attached to their own tendencies and are willing to be flexible where the situation dictates. This, I like. The ability to adapt has served our species well over the years.

Recent Articles

And here’s what we’ve been talking about this week at Ducksnorts. Some of these discussions are still active, so feel free to add your $0.02:

  • It’s Funny Because It’s Truthy — In the end, does it really matter whether someone is trying to be humorous? If I laugh, it works. (See Wood, Ed.)
  • Help Wanted: All-Time Padres Team — We’re looking for a third-string second baseman and a third-string left fielder. As of this writing, Bip Roberts leads Quilvio Veras, 12-2, for the former, while Rickey Henderson leads Greg Vaughn, 8-5, for the latter. Unless I’m presented with compelling reasons to do otherwise, I’m inclined to put Roberts on the team. I remain uncertain about Henderson and Vaughn; feel free to convince me one way or the other.
  • Bounce or Crash? — Reader Tom Waits wonders about the Padres’ chances to rebound in 2009. Unlike most of us, though, he’s actually studied the issue a bit.
  • Partly Focused, with a Ten Percent Chance of Useful — So, yeah, that whole thing about Adrian Gonzalez fading in the second half? He has three homers in the last two games. Emily Litella sends her regards.

Rock on…

Partly Focused, with a Ten Percent Chance of Useful

Like that new Metallica song, I’m scattered and unfocused today, with hopefully a touch of good stuff in there somewhere…

  • Folks have been singing the praises of Cha Seung Baek because his fastball actually creeps into the mid-90s. I look at his track record and apparent disinterest in attacking hitters, and have concerns, but Monday night against the Dodgers he made Manny Ramirez look terrible twice.

    In the fourth inning, Baek kept pounding fastballs in on Ramirez, who eventually popped weakly to the right side of the infield. Then in the sixth, on a full count, Baek got Ramirez to chase a fastball out off the plate. The previous pitch was a 2-2 breaking ball that completely froze Ramirez but missed just high.

    As data points go, these are fairly minor compared to Baek’s larger body of unimpressive work, but clearly the guy has stuff. Then again, so did Wil Ledezma. Reader Tom Waits suggests that maybe Baek “could be a good high-leverage reliever.” It didn’t work with Ledezma, who has zero command, but several years ago, the Padres moved Jay Witasick to the bullpen and got good results.

  • Speaking of pitchers potentially in the mix for 2009 (and at this point, who isn’t in the mix?), the Padres claimed right-hander Charlie Haeger off waivers from the White Sox. Haeger throws a knuckleball, which should make Josh Bard happy. Reader Didi notes that Rany Jazayerli has some thoughts on Haeger, mostly positive. Rany, you may recall, is pretty much the only person in the world who identified Brian Lawrence as a prospect before he became a successful big-league pitcher. Just sayin’…
  • Kevin of Padres Nation fame asked the other day what I thought of the fact that Adrian Gonzalez has played every game this season. I’m one of those odd people who need to see some data before forming an opinion, so I looked it up and found this:

    First 73 games: .289/.354/.553, 20 HR
    Second 73 games: .256/.356/.405, 9 HR

    Or if you prefer, here is his OPS by month (through September 10):

    Apr: 833
    May: 967
    Jun: 854
    Jul: 781
    Aug: 767
    Sep/Oct: 712

    We don’t know the root causes of Gonzalez’s slide, but there is no denying that such a slide exists. Some have suggested that he could be better conditioned, but I find myself wondering about the mental grind of suiting up for a team that simply hasn’t been competitive all year.

    Gonzalez didn’t fade in 2007 despite playing 161 games, so this could be a fluke. Still, it might be nice to give the guy an occasional break next year, when the outcome of individual games late in the season might actually matter.

  • Reader Schlom notes that T.J. Simers continues to have a crush on San Diego. The headline reads, “San Diego is a town filled with losers.” He’s wrong, of course — it’s not filled; I’m pretty sure we could find room for one more.
  • My colleague Steve Treder has an excellent article at the Hardball Times on the 1970 Padres. I’ve studied the 1969 team extensively, and I have a good working knowledge of most of the squads from the ’80s on forward, but there are gaps in the ’70s (funny how that phrase can work in so many different contexts). I’ll need to learn more about some of these early teams, and Steve’s article is a great place to start.

Light… at the end of the tunnel… It is getting brighter, no?

Bounce or Crash?

This is a guest post by long-time Ducksnorts reader and contributor Tom Waits.

Few teams have fallen so far, so fast, as the 2008 Padres. A team that was one out away from the playoffs in September 2007 is now 33 games under .500, with a very real chance of picking first in next year’s draft. But is this disaster a systemic failure, the result of poor design and poor execution, or is it more akin to a plane crash caused by wind shear — a horrific event that nonetheless does not call into question the laws of aerodynamics? Put another, less tortured way: What are the chances that the 2009 Padres are a helluva lot more fun to watch?

My original plan was to detail the main weaknesses of the 2008 squad (pitching) and propose possible solutions. However, recent news stories about payroll cutting and retrenching, plus an innate laziness that borders on sloth, led me to at least temporarily abandon that approach. Instead, I looked in the historical record to see what it might reveal about our chances in 2009.

Big Turnarounds of the (Recent) Past

There’s a lot of talk about the Padres being destined for several years of rebuilding, based on their miserable 2008 campaign. It’s not just angry and disappointed Padre fans, either. Several national writers believe that San Diego is trying to fit too many square pegs into far too many round holes, that there’s insufficient farm system depth or money to fix it anytime soon, and that the front office is out of touch with what it takes to build a winning baseball team in the “post-steroid” era.

But… is that true? A look at recent baseball history suggests that, while the coffin lid may have been put in place, it’s not nailed down… yet.

Tigers, 2005 to 2006

The 2005 Detroit Tigers won only 71 games. The next year, buoyed by some young talent and unexpected performances from veterans, they added 24 wins. Their offense was only average, like it had been in 2005, but their pitching improved immensely (95 to 118 ERA+). Their top four starters all had positive ERA+ numbers. Zach Miner and Mike Maroth, taken together, were above-average in the fifth spot. Their bullpen was insane; the top six relievers ranged from good (Todd Jones) to great (Joel Zumaya). Even Wilfredo Ledezma managed a 127 ERA+ in 60 innings.

The Tigers and Padres make for another interesting comparison as well. After two straight winning years, Detroit fell on hard times in 2008. Not so hard as San Diego, to be sure, but they made extraordinary off-season trades for Miguel Cabrera, Edgar Renteria, and Dontrelle Willis, all players who had been above-average (even great) for the balance of their careers. Yet they started the season about as poorly as they could without playing a man short, and they’re still 5 games below .500 and well out of the playoff race. Bad seasons happen to lots of teams, whatever philosophies their management might hold or however much their owner spends.

Tampa Bay, 2007 to 2008

Of the three examples we’ll look at, the (Devil) Rays are the least instructive. They were very bad for a long time, but in the years immediately before 2008 they began to invest heavily in their farm system. The Padres have made strides in this regard, but San Diego’s minor leaguers are a pale shadow of Tampa’s young talent before 2008 began. Still, young talent sometimes takes time to gel. The Rays gelled fast, and have already tacked 19 wins onto their 2007 total. Their lead over the Red Sox can’t be called comfortable, but it’s still there. They’re a near-mortal lock to finish with 90+ wins; 95 is easily within reach and 100 is not out of the question. Baseball Prospectus tabbed Tampa to add 22 wins to its total, but few other observers, mainstream or sabermetric, believed they would be anywhere near this good.

It’s not entirely skill and talent. Anyone want to bet on Edwin Jackson’s 2009 overall value if he walks 72 and strikes out only 98 in 166 1/3 innings again? It’s probably not going to result in a 106 ERA+. But that’s actually somewhat encouraging from our bruised and angry perspective on the opposite coast. A young kid with talent can get lucky and help his team, even if he hasn’t been that good before and isn’t likely to be that good again. We saw it with Clay Hensley in 2006. You can’ t count on those performances, but every year several players substantially outproduce their peripherals. Nothing says that Wade LeBlanc can’t get control of his below-average fastball and provide 165 innings of league-average pitching. It ain’t bloody likely, but it ain’t impossible, either.

Tampa also took an enormous risk in the offseason, trading Delmon Young and Brendan Harris for Matt Garza and Jason Bartlett. The most compaarable Padre move in recent years was the trade of Josh Barfield for Kevin Kouzmanoff, so it’s not against all our principles. The current Chase Headley — Kouzmanoff situation seems ripe for a similarly bold decision, but there’s less urgency if the team decides to hold back in 2009.

Padres 2003 to 2004

This is more like it. It’s our own beloved Padres, it happened recently enough that you shouldn’t need hypnosis to recall it, and the the causes of failure are almost identical to the 2009 Padres. You couldn’t really ask for a better case study.

The 2003 Padres lost 98 games. They had an average offense (OPS+ of 100) and not a single qualified starter with an ERA+ that was above-average. That staff included a rookie Jake Peavy, which should give many Wade LeBlanc, Josh Geer, and Will Inman fans a serious pause. Those guys aren’t Peavy.

Anyway, back to 2003. The bullpen was largely atrocious: 140 above-average innings from Rod Beck, Scott Linebrink, and Matt Herges; 350 innings of crap from everyone else. Sound familiar? If it doesn’t, you haven’t been paying attention to what’s caused most of our losses this year, especially since April.

From a structural standpoint the 2003 Padres represented the tail end of a terrible run. The team hadn’t posted a winning record since 1998.

Then, a virtual miracle occured. The 2004 Padres won 87 games. They didn’t make the playoffs, finishing six behind the Dodgers and four behind the Giants. But improving your win percentage by .142 in one season is a huge accomplishment.

For some more context, on September 9, 2004, the Padres were 74-66. On the same date in 2008, Los Angeles held first place with a record of 74-71.

What were the big changes? Brian Giles gave us the first of several very good to great seasons (128 OPS+). The trade that brought Giles here was controversial (more so later than when it occurred), but it’s helpful to remember that Jason Bay would have provided roughly the same production. A blockbuster trade, therefore, wasn’t required. Ramon Hernandez came over from Oakland and was almost twice as good a hitter as his predecessor, Gary Bennett. Mark Loretta had a career year after being a competent, but by no means impact, hitter for many seasons. Khalil Greene’s rookie campaign remains his best ever, and was a major improvement over Ramon Vazquez. But the team OPS+ climbed “only” 10 points from 2003. That’s not enough to add 23 games to the fun side of the column.

The real change was in the pitching department. Only two starters were actually good (Peavy and David Wells), but they were backed by a dominant bullpen. Of the top six bullpen arms (in terms of IP), only Blaine Neal was below average, and he still managed a 95 ERA+. Between Trevor Hoffman, Linebrink, Akinori Otsuka, Jay Witasick, and Antonio Osuna, Witasick had the lowest ERA+ at 121. Aki and Linebrink were particularly lethal, combining for 170 strikeouts in 161 innings.

The 2003 Padres, like the 2008 model, had more talent than their record indicated. Some of that talent was young and needed to mature (Peavy). Some of that talent was hurt (Phil Nevin, Ryan Klesko, Hoffman). But would anyone look at the the months between October 2003 and April 2004 and suggest it was a radical retooling? There were significant improvements, and we shouldn’t undersell them. We traded very good players to get Brian Giles. We moved Mark Kotsay and took on Terrence Long to get Ramon Hernandez. But we did not “gut” the farm system, which would have been almost impossible given that it was as deep as a sheet of tracing paper. We made a couple of bold moves, a couple of players bounced back, and a couple of young players (Greene and Peavy) stepped forward. Voila, a 23-win improvement.

Conclusion

I’m not suggesting that the 2009 Padres are guaranteed, or even likely, to go from 100 losses to 85 wins in a single season. I’m simply suggesting that a bounceback is possible, despite the proclamations of doom from Padre fans and certain analysts. The 2004 Padres, 2006 Tigers, and 2008 Rays were very different squads, but they all managed to add 20 or more wins. There’s no one magic formula; the 03-04 Padres had the weakest farm system of the bunch, but made aggressive trades and got lucky with Loretta and Wells. The 2006 Tigers grew from both internal resources and key free agent sigings. Tampa boldly moved a top prospect and watched its young players mature very quickly. There’s more than one way to right the ship.

Barring a complete retrenchment on the payroll front or a decision to rebuild, the 2009 Padres can be a playoff contender. It remains to be seen if the front office feels the chances are good enough to justify taking some risks in pursuit of that goal, or if ownership would even allow it. But the 2009 Padres are not fated to put us through this kind of agony again.

Help Wanted: All-Time Padres Team

I’ve been tasked with assembling a 40-man roster made up of the best players in Padres history. It’s a pretty straightforward exercise, except for two positions: second base and left field. We’re talking about third-stringers here, but I need a little help with these.

Second Base: Bip Roberts vs Quilvio Veras

  G AB BA OBP SLG
Statistics are courtesy of Retrosheet.
Roberts 667 2258 .298 .361 .387
Veras 415 1531 .270 .366 .353

Arguments for Roberts

  • Played with Padres longer than Veras
  • Superior offensive player
  • Fan favorite

Arguments against Roberts

  • Not a full-time second baseman (although his versatility also could be seen as a positive)

Arguments for Veras

  • True second baseman
  • Catalyst for 1998 World Series team

Arguments against Veras

  • Played here just three years
  • Inconsistent performer

Left Field: Rickey Henderson vs Greg Vaughn

  G AB BA OBP SLG
Statistics are courtesy of Retrosheet.
Henderson 359 1132 .245 .399 .354
Vaughn 321 1075 .245 .345 .510

Arguments for Henderson

Arguments against Henderson

  • Didn’t hit for average or for power during his nearly three seasons here

Arguments for Vaughn

Arguments against Vaughn

  • Did very little for team in ’96 and ’97

So, who do you like: Roberts or Veras? Henderson or Vaughn?