Diamondbacks 2, Padres 4 - Still first, by our fingernails

by Jim McLennan on Jul 6, 2008 1:02 AM EDT

Record: 43-45. Pace: 79-83. Change on last season: -4

"It’s just kind of the same old theme here. They get a couple of runs and we have a hard time coming back. We just have to start playing better. We have to start scoring runs, getting some good at-bats and getting a different feeling from the group. We don’t have as confident a look in our eye." -- Bob Melvin

No kidding, Bob. It's a symptom of how bad things have got in Diamondbacksland of late, that we were left relying on [and, worse yet, cheering for] a late comeback by the Giants to hold on to the top of the National League West - at least, for another day. Arizona, to no great surprise, struggled against the reigning Cy Young winner in Jake Peavy, who shut us out for seven innings. That's now thirteen straight zeros posted by the Padres starters against us so far in this series, with a total of just five hits and three walks over those thirteen innings, with thirteen strikeouts.

This game was, to all intents and purposes, over when former D-back Scott Hairston latched onto a Doug Davis curveball, and deposited it into the bleachers, giving San Diego a 2-0 lead in the top of the third. Even though we'd already stranded four runners on base over the first two innings, there just wasn't a sense that the Diamondbacks had shown up with any aggression or desire to win. Things basically went downhill from there. Hairston added another homer and, though Hudson did double in a run in the eighth to make it a two-run game, the Padres immediately restored the lead with another long-ball.

Drew got his 12th homer, off Hoffman in the ninth, and Montero managed to flail a single to right, getting the tying run to the plate. However, Alex Romero flied out to right for the last out of the game, meaning another series is already lost to the opposition, and we need to win tomorrow to avoid the sweep at home. The most dispiriting thing about the whole event was probably a series of shots of the Arizona players as they occupied the field in the latter stages: the last time I saw such lack of hope etched deep into faces, I think I was watching Schindler's List. The body-language on view was infinitely depressing - this is a team that has absolutely lost the will to win.

Doug Davis: another quality start, another loss. He has one win in seven outings, going back to the start of June, despite an ERA over that time of 3.32. Today, it was the long-ball that hurt him, but he still pitched eight innings, for the first time since August last year. He allowed seven hits and a walk, with a solid seven strikeouts - the only damage was three runs off Hairston's homers. The 122 pitches thrown by Davis was a season high for any Diamondbacks starter, and hasn't been surpassed since Hernandez 2.0 went 124 on May 22 last year, facing Colorado. I note that the number of occasions pitchers go deep has severely dropped for us: Davis is the first one to reach 120 this season. Here's the total, year-by year

Year	120+	Maximum
2008	1	122, Davis
2007	5	124, Hernandez
2006	3	125, Hernandez
2005	3	125, Vargas
2004	6	125, Johnson
2003	6	126, Schilling
2002	14	149(!), Johnson
2001	23	145, Johnson
2000	22	145, Johnson
1999	28	142, Johnson
1998	8	136, Benes

Obviously, the presence of Johnson (17 starts in 2000!), and to a lesser extent Schilling, has a big effect on these overall numbers. But Omar Daal had six of those 1999 starts - as many as our entire rotation has had since the start of last season. Heck, even Webb had a pair in each of 2003 and 2004 - he hasn't reached 120 pitches once since July 26, 2004. So this restraint with regard to pitch count does seem like a relatively recent development.

More bad news on the injury front followed Davis's departure, as Juan Cruz came in, threw three pitches, and left with a strained left oblique - maybe he knew what was coming, as Peña immediately coughed up a homer when he came in to replace Famine. Melvin apparently reports that Cruz is likely headed to the disabled list, which will leave us with a significant hole to fill in the bullpen, since he has been one of the most reliable arms there. Looks like someone will be making the trip up from Tucson: maybe Connor Robertson, who will barely have had time to drop his suitcase on the bed.

Meanwhile, the offense has so many holes in it, it's difficult to know where to start. But today brought home, in particularly, the issues - largely of our own making - in the outfield. Here is the line-up we could have had there tonight - based entirely on players traded away by the front-office during the past year.

LF: Carlos Gonzalez: .277/.301/.445 = .776 OPS
CF: Scott Hairston: .246/.296/.461 = .757 OPS
RF: Carlos Quentin: .273/.378/.513 = .891 OPS

Now, compare that to our standard one for this season so far:

LF: Eric Byrnes, .209/.272/.369 = .641 OPS
CF: Chris Young: .235/.301/.421 = .722 OPS
RF: Justin Upton: .237/.351/.419 = .770 OPS

Even without taking the boost provided to our hitters by Chase into account, it's clear that we somehow managed to dump an entire outfield that are performing better than our preferred lineup. What did we get for these players, who are now performing solidly at the highest level? Hairston netted us a mop-up reliever in Leo Rosales. For Carlos Quentin, we got A-ball first-baseman Chris Carter - Carter, along with Carlos Gonzalez, became components in the trade that brought Dan Haren to Arizona. So, basically, looks like we traded three major-league players for one.

Really, what were the front-office thinking? They were clearly relying that a) the twenty-year old Justin Upton would immediately be able to hit big-league pitching, and b) Eric Byrnes would live up to the terms of his fat contract. Each was largely in defiance of history in these matters, but we were, apparently, simply crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. Now, the strip-mining of our outfield depth has come home to roost. For thanks to Byrnes' injury and Upton's ineffectiveness, today's outfield featured, alongside Young, Conor Jackson in left - with nine previous major-league appearances at the position - and Emilio Bonifacio in right, who had played once in right-field, over his entire professional career. The pit we are in, we dug for ourselves.

[Click to enlarge, in new window]
Master of his domain: Orlando Hudson, +5.1%
God-emperor of suck: Emilio Bonifacio, -12.5%
Dishonorable mention: Augie Ojeda, -11.0%

Thanks to the Gameday attendees this evening. kishi top-scored, with 103 comments, and unnamedDBacksfan was the only other to pass forty. Also present were soco, TwinnerA, Jim McLennan, dahlian, mrssoco, Diamondhacks, hotclaws, njjohn, Muu, RAMJB, DbacksSkins, emilylovesthedbacks, DiamondbacksWIn, Mr. Philosophical, luckycc, 4 Corners Fan and srdmad, so their input was appreciated. We do remain in first, through no skill of our own, as the Giants came back to beat the Dodgers in San Francisco. Anyone feel optimistic that the Big Unit will pitch us to victory tomorrow and we'll still be in first?

Don't all rush...

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

At least Wanted was good

though the Mrs. now resents me for “forcing” her to see it.

It felt almost like the spirtual successor to the original Matrix, with the spectacular gun battles, nihilistic undertones, and kickass costuming. At the same time I could almost imagine that this was a Bourne prequel, and the long fight at the end reminded me of video game bosses, where you ramp up to the main.

I guess I could go on more, but it was fun, shocking, and overall a good time. I felt out of place, though, as I think I’m the only that laughed when towards the end Wesley used a guy’s skull not only as a gun shield, but then proceeded to shoot through it at other people. Everyone else, I think, was too shocked.

By all means hit at a glacial pace. You know how that thrills me.

by soco on Jul 6, 2008 1:20 AM EDT 0 recs

Funny you should mention it:

I was playing around today trying to make a full team out of players we traded away recently. In addition to the 3 outfielders you mentioned, there is of course Troy Glaus….aka….The Ent, having a career defensive year in St.Louis…(go figure), And of course Dan Uggla at 2nd. Then I had to fill in a few guys…just for arguments sake.

C-(N/A)
1b-Cust
2b-Uggla
3b-Glaus
SS-Counsell
Lf-Hairston
CF-Gonzalez (he is playing CF for Oakland…leave Scotty in left)
RF- Quentin

5 out of 8 players traded (or exposed to rule 5) by this F.O. over last 2 1/2 years.

That team > Our team :(

by shoewizard on Jul 6, 2008 2:20 AM EDT 0 recs

I might go for Overbay

Over Cust, as I don’t think the latter ever played the position in the majors, just DH or outfield. Or Erubiel Durazo. Or even Alex ‘55 Homers in Japan’ Cabrera? And probably Brad Penny as the starting pitcher?

by Jim McLennan on Jul 6, 2008 2:57 AM EDT up 0 recs

Just for argument's sake -

- Cust bounced around with multiple franchises for years after the Dbacks traded him (for Mike Myers – another in a long line of bad trades for LH relievers byt he DBacks. See Dan Plesac & Randy Choate). There was no reason to believe that Cust was ever going to amount to much at that point. Hard to fault the DBacks on that one.
- Glaus was traded for Hudson – that one is working out just fine so far (BTW, looking at b-ref, Glaus’ top comp through age 30 is Mike Schmidt. . . .)
- I loved Counsell but he was basically a league average player and was part of the Sexson deal and while that obviously didn’t work out, I thought it was a good gamble.
- IIRC Hairston was out of options so the DBacks were forced into a corner on that one – you never get good return on those types of deals. I will say I’ve always wondered about Hairston though – all that guy did was pound minor league pitching and yet he struggled in the majors for the DBacks – career 90 OPS+ and that includes his Padres work to date
- Gonzalez & Quentin were effectively part of the Haren deal – that one will work out nicely for the DBacks

That leaves Uggla which obviously was a bad move but on whole, the Dbacks have made a lot of good moves over the years, generally more than the bad moves.

by golfmanthee on Jul 6, 2008 2:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

C- Navoro (TB)

on this years AL all-star team.

by DiamondbacksWIn on Jul 6, 2008 4:10 PM EDT up 0 recs

True, albeit briefly

Came in with one hand from the Yankees in exchange for Johnson, out with the other to the Dodgers as part of the trade for…ugh, Shawn Green.

Yeah, thanks for reminding us of that... :-)

by Jim McLennan on Jul 7, 2008 12:13 AM EDT up 0 recs

In terms of misevaluating...

what they had in the outfield, let me lob out a couple thoughts. The conventional message board wisdom seems to be along the lines that they misevaluated and overpaid Eric and that that led to a poor downstream decision on Quentin (as well as reducing financial flexibility,etc).

My first thought is that Eric Byrnes (or Moorad’s evaluation of Eric) didnt get Quentin traded. Quentin got Quentin traded. What I mean is that he played sufficiently lousy to completely lose the confidence of the Dbacks front office (as evidenced by their desperate callup of a clearly overmatched teenager to play RF instead, and the Dbacks willingness to trade Q straight up for a less than stellar prospect). It seems fairly clear that the Dbacks had no intention of starting Carlos Quentin anywhere in their 2008 outfield whether Eric Byrnes signed with the team or not. They had made other plans.

Further, it appears that no less astute a GM as Billy Beane could’ve easily acquired CQ from us (in the Haren deal), but was more infatuated with one Chris Carter – and maybe that should be considered some before we rake Josh Byrnes over the coals on this. I dont know the first thing about labrums. Does anyone here?

Second thought. When we talk about lack of outfield production, everybody correctly and understandably gravitates to left field. And we hear some frustrations with Upton. But I’d like to float the idea that the most costly misevaluation so far may actually be Chris Young. Not in terms of money, but in terms of providing a false sense of security that led to other downstream mistakes.

We all know he has a pretty weak OPS, but there’s a bunch of things about Chris that make it easy to discount that basic deficiency. The defense. The baserunning. The youth. More than anything, all those home runs as a rookie. As a GM, I imagine there’s something comforting and even a little seductive about having a fleet kid in center who wacked thirty homers and is likely to “only get better”. Sure, you know he hasnt hit .280 since high school, but still, just LOOK at the guy!

My thought is that Josh (or the FO generally) became somewhat seduced by his theft from Kenny Williams, to the point where even he believed Chris was not only a servicable two way player, but sufficiently powerful offensively that they could take a creative chance or two, if not cut corners outright, at the corner positions. You never intentionally put a bad player out there, but resources are finite and if you’re convinced Chris Young is all that, maybe you’re more apt to think you can get by, or compete, with a Salazar, or an Upton, or a healthy Eric Byrnes.

I think what we’re finding out is that while Chris is a respectable all around player, his real offensive contribution to date lies somewhere between fair and “sux”, and if the FO fully assimilated and anticipated that, they might’ve been more aggressive in bolstering his 2008 “wingmen”.

by Diamondhacks on Jul 6, 2008 5:01 AM EDT 0 recs

Agree to an extent on Young

Young looks more and more like the next Mike Cameron – stellar defense but on offense not much average, lots of Ks, some speed and some pop. He’ s stil lyoung enough that I’m not going to write him off yet but if all he ends up being is Mike Cameron v2.0, that’s not the worst thing in the world.

by golfmanthee on Jul 6, 2008 1:50 PM EDT up 0 recs

Good points

A couple of thoughts. When you say, “It seems fairly clear that the Dbacks had no intention of starting Carlos Quentin anywhere in their 2008 outfield whether Eric Byrnes signed with the team or not. They had made other plans,” what makes you think that? Who would have played left in his absence? Do you reckon they were looking at Carlos Gonzalez? Or were you expecting them to bring in a free-agent?

I think what truly signed the death-knell for Quentin was not necessarily the signing of Byrnes, but the long-term signing of Byrnes. I think Josh might have been hoping to get Eric for one year, letting him stash Quentin down at Triple-A and let him work out his [mostly psychological, it would appear] problems. Then he’d have an insurance policy in case Byrnes or Upton failed or were injured. However, the signing of Byrnes through 2010 meant that Quentin simply had no future here. That said, I would still have stashed him down in Triple-A, simply because his value was so low, it could only go up.. What do you think the White Sox would get for him now? I guarantee you it wouldn’t be an A-ball no-name prospect.

With regard to Young, I think I am less concerned. The average NL center-fielder only has an OPS of .753, compared to Young’s of .722, so he’s not that far off producing at the mean rate – it currently ranks him 10th of 17 among NL players at the position [min 200 PAs]. And, as you note, there are things that make up for this shortfall – not least that he is still only 24 – the only CF his age or younger in the league with a better OPS is Matt Kemp. Really, I think he’ll be fine: of the three outfield positions, it’s the one that concerns me least for the next couple of seasons.

by Jim McLennan on Jul 6, 2008 3:21 PM EDT up 0 recs

More yakking

“They made other plans” was just deduced from the way Quentin was apparently treated both in and out of the organization at the time. Who [else] would have played left in Byrnes’ absence? Anybody they thought was measurably better than CQ, which in the unlikely event the club couldnt reach terms with Byrnes, was, I’m guessing, another free agent.

Let’s say that during the 07 season, instead of CY we had a more obvious hole in center (ie a Salazar or Hairston type), flanked by Byrnes and a struggling but enormously high upside Upton – with the older Quentin falling apart before our eyes. Would that alter the team’s approach to signing Byrnes? Conventional wisdom suggests Eric would be more valuable in that context, and you would therefore be more pressed to sign him at his asking price – but I wonder if the opposite isnt true.

If you dont feel “set” in center, then you really have two decisions to make instead of one: how to fill the CF hole, plus whether or not to resign Byrnes. (I’m assuming it required roughly $30M to retain Byrnes, based on market values). So, you decide whether to sign him based not only on your individual projection for him, but also based on what the rest of your needs are. If you feel reasonably set elsewhere (ie CF, RF with Chris & Justin) , maybe you splurge a little to retain Byrnes’ rather pedestrian baseball and not so pedestrian non-baseball assets. If you dont feel set with Young and/ or Upton, then pursuing means by which to “split” that $30M across multiple positional needs may carry the day – and Eric gets his $30M elsewhere.

I often wonder if an overestimation of CY’s 2008 batting contribution, along with the undervaluation of Quentin, contributed as much to the Byrnes’ signing as any egregious overestimation of Eric’s abilities. I have difficulty believing they threw $30M at Byrnes because they thought he projected as a great ballplayer; they have access to all the stats and comps, and I imagine projected some degree (not the precipitous hammy degree) of performance drop over the length of the contract. But they were willing to pay for that decline, because a) they felt very good financially and reasonably good performance-wise at the other two outfield positions, and b) Eric brought baseball and non-baseball assets they coveted and that Quentin, in their view, simply couldnt provide.

by Diamondhacks on Jul 7, 2008 7:32 PM EDT up 0 recs

But Omar Daal had six of those 1999 starts – as many as our entire rotation has had since the start of last season. Heck, even Webb had a pair in each of 2003 and 2004 – he hasn’t reached 120 pitches once since July 26, 2004. So this restraint with regard to pitch count does seem like a relatively recent development.

As far as I can tell, this obsession with pitch count is a fairly recent development—only within the last 10 years or so. And thus, it was derided by purists when it first came to light…. Dusty Baker’s misuse of his pitchers, Jack McKeon, and all that.

’ A statistic labeled PAP (Pitcher Abuse Points) developed by Rany Jazayerli of Baseball Prospectus in 1998 set such an absolute cut-point of 100 pitches, below which there was no pitcher abuse (overuse) but above which one abuse point was added for each 10 additional pitches. Later, however, Jazayerli conceded PAP to a more sensitive measure, called PAP3 developed by Keith Woolner and first published in the Baseball Prospectus 2001 annual volume. In an article in that same volume, Jazayerli declared: “PAP is dead. Long live PAP3.” PAP3 was more highly predictive of declines in pitcher endurance and the risk of breakdowns than the original PAP measure. PAP3 still takes 100 pitches as a reference point but penalizes use above that point as a cubic function of the number of pitches above that level.’

From This.

Mark Reynolds: Turning me gay since '07

by DbacksSkins on Jul 6, 2008 12:32 PM EDT 0 recs

Byrnes & Quentin. . . .

A couple thoughts:
- as noted by others, effectively Quentin was part of the deal that brought Dan Haren here since Quentiin was traded for Carter who was part of the package for Haren. Getting one of the top 10 pitchers in the league for 3 years at $6M per year is a deal you HAVE to make. That type of pitching just isn’t available on the FA market and when it is, it signs with the Yankees or Mets or Red Sox for $15M per year.
- the Byrnes signing seems bad, but look at the FA deals handed out the prior off-season: Gary MAtthews, Juan Pierre, Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Lee, JD Drew. All those guys are about the same age and IIRC, all the other deals were for 4 or 5 years or more and for as much or more annually than Byrnes’ deal. Byrnes’ deal wasn’t that bad a deal honestly and if he has been playing hurt all year, well, I’m ready to just write it off and see how he does next year. Like I posted earlier though, as a Suns fan who lived through the Kevin Johnson hamstring era, I hope it doesn’t become a recurring problem stretching on for years. . . .

by golfmanthee on Jul 6, 2008 1:46 PM EDT 0 recs

Two things

1. Including Quentin in the Haren deal turns that into an overpayment quickly. I was against moving him then and I’m still against it now. Quentin, CarGon, Aaron Cunningham AND 3 pitchers for Haren and Connor Robertson? Haren is pretty good (I’m still expecting a 2nd half correction), but come on. That’s a lot of talent for 2 pitchers.

2. I would take Soriano, Lee, and Drew and their deals over Byrnes and his. Then, now, next week. Ok… Drew would have been borderline at the time, but he was coming off of a pretty nice season.

Fire Bob Melvin. Free Jamie D'Antona. Eric Byrnes Sucks.

by nihil67 on Jul 8, 2008 10:56 AM EDT up 0 recs