How optimistic are you about our chances of winning the division next year, and why?
by C. Wesley Baier on Dec 17, 2009 7:51 PM EST
Email
PrintHeadline says it all.
Personally, I'm extremely optimistic, for a number of reasons. We've got a great top three in our rotation with Haren, Webb, and Jackson. I think a full year of Webb will help greatly. I think we have a ton of solid candidates for the back of the rotation between Kennedy, Buckner, Augenstein, Valdez, Rodrigo Lopez, Esmerling Vasquez, and Kevin Mulvey.
I think the starting lineup will be much improved next year with the simple addition of Conor Jackson. I think the additions of a full year of Parra and Allen will help a lot too. Chris Young is due to rebound, as he can't get any worse. Stephen Drew should be starting that push for a contract soon, and i think will improve. Upton is only going to get better, and Reynolds will hopefully stay just as good, improve on defense, or improve all around next year. And between Miguel Montero and Chris Snyder(if we don't trade him) we have the best tandem of backstops in the league. To me the only real question mark is second base and first base, and I trust in Abreu/Roberts/Ryal and I think Allen will be fine as our everyday first basemen, especially when compared to the dreck we had last year.
I see nothing wrong with this roster.
C Montero/Snyder/Hester 1B Jackson/Allen 2B Abreu/Roberts SS Drew 3B Reynolds RF Upton CF Young RF Jackson/Parra
Backup OFers Parra, GIllespie Backup IFers Ojeda Utility Ryal
Rotation
Haren
Webb
Jackson
Kennedy
Buckner/Augenstein/Mulvey/Valdez/rodrigo lopez
Bullpen: Everyone from last year+Hielman
102 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
we are due
the damn karma gods owe us based on the law of averages because we already went through our year of biblical plague like events last year. I’m sure that there’s a sabremetric formula used to track influence from dieties, you know on how earth, wind or water spirits behave and their influence on rain outs, wind aided fly balls and grounders with eyes, but I couldn’t find the link over at fangraphs. ;-)
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....
2007 was our karma year
The year we went to the playoffs while scoring less than our opponents.
by Counsellmember on Dec 17, 2009 9:26 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, that's exactly how i see it
Everything went wrong last season, so i think everything is going to go right next season.
by C. Wesley Baier on Dec 18, 2009 12:40 AM EST up reply actions
I'd have to agree with Counsellmember.
2007 was our “everything goes right” season, and 2009 was our “everything goes wrong season”". So, 2010 will be our “return to the healthy karma medium” season, like 2008.
Our karma is sinusoidal.
Which means 2011 is going to be AWESOME!
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
Hmmm...
Edwin Jackson for NL Cy Young in his walk year? I think so.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 19, 2009 4:51 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah.
He’ll have to step up to cover for Webby going to the Yankees. :-(
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
by DbacksSkins on Dec 19, 2009 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
le sigh
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 19, 2009 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
Extremely
And I don’t pretend to have any logic behind such a thought.
"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."
I voted "very"
but that’s more just a general optimistic feeling in comparison to last year. I’m not going to believe the Diamondbacks are in a position to win the division until play starts, given the apparent performance gap between the top three teams last year in the West and Arizona.
That being said, I’m excited to see how much we’ll improve. After 2009, nearly anything will be welcome.
Can somebody please throw away this telephone?
- There’s good reason to think the Dbacks will improve on 70 wins, perhaps significantly
- The team’s chance to win the division is currently smaller than a breadbox.
- The meme that “everything went wrong” last year is a marketing campaign developed and implemented by Derrick Hall.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
Well
in last year’s NL West, I guess technically just the Rockies, who lost Fuentes and Holliday “for the year” – while overcoming 2009 injuries to their 2007 and 2008 aces (Francis & Cook) as well.
The Dodgers lost arguably their best 2008 starter (Lowe) and reliever (Saito) to free agency, and an additional 110 quality innings to injury (Kuroda, Kuo), but their best hitter (we could think of him as Conor Jackson on steroids), only missed fifty games last summer, which of course falls hopelessly short of your stringent criteria.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 18, 2009 3:30 AM EST up reply actions
strange
I thought Fuentes was a reliever and he and Holliday left due to FA not due to injury. Didn’t they know about Francis’ injury and that’s why they traded for Marquis? I knew Cook was hurt, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t April thru September was it? I can only find one 15 day stay on the DL for him. So that example doesn’t appear to hold water.
I don’t remember Kuroda being pimped as their ace and he was on the 15 DL twice, while they allowed Lowe to leave in FA and he was replaced by Wolf and they knew that they had arms ready at AAA true?They had also signed a bunch of guys in FA that were returning from injury as a backstop in case of injury, something that the D’Backs were not as successful with. But it’s one thing to see guys walk in FA and you can develop a plan to counter that, it’s another to lose a CY contender on opening day and get zero from him for the year. No arguement to their bullpen losses, but I suppose that by the same logic we lost Rauch, Pena, Qualls and Schoenweis too. Hell… Gordon was expected to be a factor and never even arrived, so to speak.
Granted the Dodgers depth was the truly relevant telling point as Pierre did an admirable job filling in while our 3rd and 4th OF and 2nd thru 4th string 1B we’re unable to make up for the lack of production due to the illness to Jackson. Granted the loss was made more glaring with the lack of production elsewhere in the lineup from SS and CF as well as 1B and LF.
If you want to compare the losses of Ramirez to Webb, maybe that’s more appliccable, but the Dodgers had to scrape by without Manny for less than two months after they had already established a double digit lead on the rest of the division where the Dbacks had to deal w/o Webb for the entire year with the bad news showing up on day one.
So I think the criteria still stands
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....
No two teams' circumstances or luck
are identical, however our alleged 2009 ‘luck gap’ and the ‘woe were the Dbacks’ mantra so often advanced should probably be tempered by the following.
1. All teams, including playoff teams, face internal obstacles and it’s fundamentally unwise to project Dback (or any team’s) fortunes on the default assumption that “everyone is healthy again” or “everyone plays up to their ability”. That doesnt mean AZ didnt have (more than) their share of tough breaks or that Webb’s absence wasnt significant. But this pernicious exaggeration that AZ somehow suffered uniquely bad luck and our adversaries didnt, needs to be put down. The Dbacks didnt endure horribly bad luck. They had a surprisingly bad season. There’s a difference.
Webb went down, but Haren, Garland, Davis and Scherzer (mostly) were healthy. That needn’t resign a deep, well designed team to an inglorious sub 500 season. In addition to the aforementioned LAD challenges, their defacto ace (Billingsley) was hurt as well. Hell, he pitched worse than Doug Davis. The Dodgers had all sorts of problems, and beat us by twenty five games – despite the fact half our 2009 starters (JUp, MR, Roberts, Miggy) enjoyed breakout years. Maybe our luck was worse than LA’s, maybe it wasnt, but Hall’s smokescreen that “everything that could’ve went wrong, did” is crafted hyperbole.
2. …speaking of which,
How many teams lose their best pitcher and their best hitter for the year and make the playoffs?
I’m not busting paqs, but this is another Derrick Hall strawman disguised as an innocent rhetorical question. As I’ve (snarkily) demonstrated, the very broad answer is “several”. Just within the division. Just last year.
Second, what’s with this talk about Webb being 2009’s “best” projected pitcher? Better than Haren? What happened to all those…those…what did Moorad call em?….oh that’s right…THE RED FLAGS! Are we to believe a pitcher tarred as all but uninsurable in 2008 was to reliably drive some imaginary 70 to 85-90 win transformation?
Third, I love how Derrick slyly elevated an absent CoJack to the inaccurate and highly dubious status of “our best hitter”. Implying Conor is the Diamondbacks’ best hitter (or would have been in 09) is like saying Rue McClanahan was the hottest Golden Girl. It’s vaguely possible, but who the hell really cares? The likelihood of a healthy Conor surpassing both Upton or Reynolds was slim to none, and even if he did, the relative significance of the Dbacks losing ‘their best hitter’ to injury is much less than any division foe losing their best hitter. It’s a strawman, designed to distract fans from nagging depth and organizational issues, with “fate”, “bad luck” and “The Voodoo”.
There’s good reason to think the Dbacks will improve on 70 wins, perhaps significantly
I believe that, but underlying evidence suggesting a traditional division winner isnt especially positive either. Not today. In particular, Josh Byrnes’ actions and remarks suggest our opportunity for such is quite thin.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 18, 2009 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
Hang on....
Didn’t you just say… Oh, yeah: you did.
The Dodgers lost arguably their best 2008 starter (Lowe)But now it’s
In addition to the aforementioned LAD challenges, their defacto ace (Billingsley) was hurt as well.You can’t have it both ways..,.
And you also base both numbers on 2008 performance, but then reject these same numbers as “inaccurate and highly dubious” when they show Conor Jackson as our best hitter [with an OPS+ unsurpassed by anyone on the team that year] Would he have been our best hitter in 2009? Perhaps not. But was he in 2008? Certainly there or thereabouts.
Second, what’s with this talk about Webb being 2009’s "best" projected pitcher? Better than Haren
Yep. Haren’s three-year average WAR before this season was 5.1. Webb was better than that every year since 2004, with a three-year average of 6.7, so it’s not much of a stretch to have had him projected as the best on the team for 2009.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 18, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
you know, it's stuff like this..
I decided to go ahead and NOT take you on faith on #1, so I went on out to espn and cnnsi to check on it…
Dodgers injjuries to position players for 2009
1) 4/6/09 Delwyn Young – 15dl
2) 4/19/09 D. Mientkiewicz – 15dl
Manny Ramirez 50 gm suspension
that’s it, their 5th OF and their backup 1b in april…. the rest of the year, not a single Dodger starter (or even key reserve) on the DL for the entire of 2009. Doesn’t mean that guys didn’t get tweaked here and there but for the most part… bupkus here.
Pitchers
Billingsly – never on the DL for 2009.
Kuroda was out until the beginning of June after an appearance in April. Also on the 15dl in late August at which time the Dodgers had slotted in Garland and Padilla.
Their bullpen did have guys on and off the DL at various times, Kuo missing the most time, but was comprised of 15dl stints by Ohman, Wade, Stultz, and Milton. Nothing regarding their closer Broxton though.
Your point about half of the Dbacks roster is apt, half of our position players did have breakout years. The rest of the positions were AAA talent due to those being the players that filled in at 1B, LF, 2B. The only time that the D’Backs got “lucky” is when Montero outperformed Snyder. Roberts did okay in replacing Lopez, Parra did as well as could be expected since he jumped two levels. 1B was a total position of suckitude (as was CF). so 3 out of the 9 regular positions were being manned by guys that were getting their first taste of MLB pitching or were old vets who underperformed and supposed to used in spot duty and PH/defensive rolls. Does that excuse their suckage.. no. But to imply that Dodgers had a tough year with injuries is less than truthful.
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....
One for Diamond, one for the opposition
1) Diamond, I concur — Byrnes is spinning. The team’s situation wasn’t as bad as it could have been. Losing Webb was a huge loss, but one that shouldn’t have caught the team totally off guard, given their own analysis of the potential for him to break down. That said, you often rail on Byrnes for spinning these things as if it is a moral failing of his or indicates a level of dishonesty. I don’t see it like that at all. If you’re the manager at the local In ‘N Out, it’s your job to sell your product. Should you lie? Absolutely not. Should you spin the news to put your company in the best light? Absolutely. It’s your job.
2) The thing that hasn’t been talked about here yet is that one major difference between the Diamondbacks and the Dodgers is the payroll. Even if one could argue that LA and AZ experienced the same level of misfortune, LA had a much bigger budget to pad those losses (see Pierre, Juan; Garland, John). AZ, meanwhile, had to use their farm system to plug holes. That’s a significant difference.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
1) If Derrick Hall ran In ‘N Out Burger, within 24 hours he’d change the name to In ’N OUT-STANDING!, and have employees blurt “Outstanding!” all day. And the food would suck.
2) Not trying to hide the resource issue. It’s just that the thread asks how optimistic we are about the division, not whether Ned Colletti is a genius :-) But sure, it’s a huge factor.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 19, 2009 1:38 AM EST up reply actions
do you need some art supplies?
because it sounds like you need to spend some time outside the stadium with a sign.
If you’re not optimistic because you have no belief in the ability of the FO to field/manage/produce a decent team, that’s fine, I can live with that. You could have simply stated that as your opinion and I would have accepted it gracefully.
The “justification” part of your posts attempting to translate that “belief” into “fact”, not so much.
First you trot out Lowe and as that is shot that down because he wasn’t injured, he was replaced. Then you trot out Billingsley and the poor bastard was so hurt last year he started one whole game less than Dan Haren. I suspect that Billingsley suffered from the same ailment that Chris Young had, a crappy year despite posting a better WHIP than the previous year and pitching 4 fewer innings.
The financial resources of the teams are fairly significant in that the Dodgers were able to afford a better bench, which came in handy when Ramirez got busted. You try to imply that the D’backs had an unexceptional amount of injuries, despite knowing that out of the projected season starters at the 1B, LF, C, and #1SP positions were all out for stretches of a minimum of three months during the season. Three of them before we got to June.
then you blow that off by stating that the team that won the division had their issues too, by comparing one of their rotation guys (call him a #2SP if you wish) out for two months and the same amount of time lost for one of their middle relief guys and their superstar shooting himself (pardon the pun) out of their line up for two months. By the time he was suspended, the division race was already over for Arizona.
All of that is on the table before we touch on the emotional upheaval the team went through with the Schoenweis situation.
So if you’re feeling that the glass is half empty, that is your perogative, just as it’s mine to see it as half full.
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....
The conventional wisdom here
that the 2009 Diamondbacks netted a singular degree of loss and unforseen circumstance has been predictably overplayed, from the home office down, and what’s “less than truthful” are these dubious constructs suggesting that what primarily distinguished us from the Dodgers was ‘bad luck’, rather than shortcomings like pitching, hitting, fielding, depth, resources, field management and so on.
Pirate, my argument isnt that the Dodgers endured more injury than we did. I’m saying the most measurable distinction between the two organizations wasnt luck. It was a vastly different capacity to overcome roughly comparable challenges.
Billingsley was hurt, btw. It has nothing to do with the DL. If you dont believe it, ask yourself what explanation you’d offer if Dan Haren’s seasonal ERA+ suddenly plummeted from 133 to 98. Something tells me we wouldnt be carping about random variation :-)
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 19, 2009 12:47 AM EST up reply actions
I don't really want to get too involved in this debate,
but I’d like to point out some innacuracies here. Firstly, the fact that our #1 hitter and #1 pitcher were out for most of the year is NOT some PR garbage spewed by evil Derrick Hall. It’s TRUE. The Snakepit’s 2008 MVP was Conor Jackson and 2008 Cy Young was Brandon Webb. Secondly, even ignoring CoJack and Webby for the moment, there are a VARIETY of independent sources that referred to us as one of the unluckiest teams in baseball this year.
For example:
Over in the NL West, those Giants might not be as competitive as they’ve appeared so far, while the Diamondbacks and Rockies should win more games the rest of the way.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/5/11/871845/finding-the-lucky-and-unlucky
Diamondbacks -8
Rays -9
Indians -11
Nationals -19
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/lucky-teams/
So this year the luckiest teams were the Angels, Tigers and Phillies; the unluckiest were the Nationals, Diamondbacks and Indians.
http://psephologist.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html
And…. carry on.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
by DbacksSkins on Dec 19, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
Since you dont want to get too involved,
would you mind terribly if I “dont get too involved” in the other direction? I mean, you’re such a wallflower and all, I wouldnt want to upset those genteel sensibilities of yours by “pointing out” your inaccuracies ;-)
the fact that our #1 hitter and #1 pitcher were out for most of the year is NOT some PR garbage spewed by evil Derrick Hall. It’s TRUE.
It’s not true. In terms of 2008 – Drew had a higher OPS and more PAs. In terms of 2009, which is more relevant, it’s even less likely to be true, given the emergence of Upton and Reynolds and Conor’s considerably lower ceiling. So, the kindest thing you can say about it is it’s a hopeful contrivance.
You’re also missing (or sidestepping) the far more important rhetorical point that Conor’s designation (and adjunct question, “How many teams could lose their best hitter….”) are deiberately designed to connote more than they denote (see Rue McClanahan). Conor’s value is nowhere in the vicinity of A-Gon, Manny, Sandoval or COL’s best hitters, and his departure, while unfortunate, is in no way comparable.
So besides being internally inaccurate, challenging other teams to lose their best hitter wreaks of partisan gamesmanship. Conor’s a regular. Nothing more. His injury hurt. Leave it at that.
Webb, of course, is another story. He’s really good and I dont have nearly as much issue with this side of the claim. His projected value would be irreplaceable on any team. But like Conor, a good deal of our loss in production had to do with a severe organizational lack of replacement depth, so while no team could go to their bench and clone Webb, obviously, I’m comfortable in saying other teams could mitigate his loss better than a trio of guys sporting ERAs north of seven. Or thereabouts.
Your links on luck reinforce what we all suspect – that the Diamondbacks were unlucky. That’s not the issue. The issue is How Important Was It? How many games did luck account for?
The first link, far as I can tell, is based only on the first month or so of 2009. The Dbacks were ‘unlucky’ in April? Gee, perhaps someone oughtta alert Bob Melvin to this urgent finding ;-)
The other two seem to think the Dodgers and even the Rockies were unlucky throughout the year as well. Gosh, that wasnt in Derrick Hall’s press release, was it? But why bother with such trivialties, when we can scream to the rooftops, with blinders on, about the singular injustice inflicted on our theoretically cracjkerjack squad?
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 19, 2009 9:50 PM EST up reply actions
man.... keep cherry pickiing what suits
The issue is not whether Conor Jackson is a better player than Manny or Kung Fu Panda, he’s not. The context of the issue here is that as of the end of the 2008 season Jackson was perceived as the best hitter on the team based on his performance. His year in 2008 and Drew’s are pretty comparable, Drew had better power numbers, more HR, more 3bs, more 2bs but he also had more strikeouts. Since he was batting leadoff and that was the first season that Drew had performed at that level he hadn’t established a level of performance to match Jackson yet. Batting leadoff would explain the additional PAs (although this is the first I’ve ever heard of plate appearances being used to rate a batter’s worth, but whatever). Jackson’s OBP was higher than Drew’s as were his RBI’s and (strangely) stolen bases. Then again, it could be nothing more than where they were batting in the order, since Drew was leading off quite a bit and Jackson was predominanetly hitting third. As for where the thought that Jackson was our best hitter was coming from, it was based on the votes of the folks from this website and the fact that Melvin had Jackson batting in the 3rd position in the order. The difference in OPS you cited was .836 vs .823 not exactly monumental. Now with the development of Upton and Reynolds, that may no longer be the case, but based on the numbers between 2006 and 2008 it was certainly appliccable and relevant.
As for your dismissal of Webb and the lack of depth in the organization, I don’t give a crap what the team is, you lose a guy who has proven to be a Cy Young contender (and winner) in the last three years and you are hard pressed to replace him unless you have deep pockets, which naturally the Dodgers do and the D’backs don’t.
In regards to your lucky/unlucky stuff, link #1 says the Dodgers were lucky, link #2 says they had zero luck so as to be nuetral and link #3 mentions the Dodgers as the least lucky of the playoff teams. As for it being confined to the bad luck being confined to April, Jackson played in 30 games total for the year, Byrnes just over half. So that’s three starters gone for, at minimum, half the year. Compared to the other teams in the race, feel free to come up with some numbers that match, I’ve yet to see you do so.
One other thing, Hall’s job is for the D’Backs there’s no reason for him to mention other teams in the press releases, his job is to comment on his club. The next press release you see coming from ANY professional sports team claiming any culpability for any issues regarding team performance problems will be the first and for you to expect the PR guys to willingly wear the hairshirt is deluded.
On a side note, the next time you want to cite Rue McClanahan on this board, you best be damn sure that there is a Tootie reference in it as well or else we’ll go Todd Bridges on your ass.
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....
Nice try but you're flat-out wrong. Again.
It’s not true. In terms of 2008 – Drew had a higher OPS and more PAs.
Best OPS does not equal best hitter. OPS weighs on-base average and slugging percentage equally, although on-base average correlates better with scoring runs, and so is actually more important. Given two players with similar OPS (and Drew’s “higher OPS” was a massive thirteen points higher), the one with the better OBP is more valuable. There, Jackson was greatly superior – .376 to .333.
A more accurate assessment of value is Batting Runs Above Replacement. Here are fhe 2008 AZ figures:
#1. Conor Jackson: 14.0
#2. Stephen Drew: 9.2
So, it’s not even close. Jackson was the team’s #1 hitter by over 50%: your refusal to acknowledge this, seems simply to be more proof of a bunker mentality.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 20, 2009 1:33 AM EST up reply actions
Oh joy
Jim got fed a statistic he really likes ;-) Yikes.
Before I knock the shit out of your new crutch, let me say I’m glad you posted this, because it really exposes your disdain for reason and respectful dialogue in favor of entrenched, embittered emotionalism for all to see.
Jackson was the team’s #1 hitter by over 50%: your refusal to acknowledge this, seems simply to be more proof of a bunker mentality.
Let me understand. You just introduced this metric. I havent even had a chance to respond. Yet my “refusal to acknowledge” your finding is already proof of something? My, how generous of you. I can tell you really want to engage in a fruitful dialogue ;-)
The truth is, I’m 90% on board with your first paragraph. A little overstated around the edges, to make me feel bad, but as an old BJames disciple, I’ve valued OBP more than SLG from before you even knew what a baseball was. So, that’s fine.
What’s less fine is you’ve once again stubbornly refocused the discussion entirely on 2008, ignoring the more relevant 2009 results of Upton, Reynolds and even Montero, as well as Conor’s relatively lower, projected ceilings. This trumped up colossus of Our. Best. Hitter. is, ultimately, about 2009, remember?
Jackson was the team’s #1 hitter by over 50%: your refusal to acknowledge this, seems simply to be more proof of a bunker mentality.
Here’s where you kinda lose your dignity. There are alot of stats out there. A bunch of them suggest Drew was a more valuable hitter. A bunch suggest Conor was. (we can get into that if you like). Another slew will tell you it was Adam Dunn, which is relevant because Hall et al rarely (never to my knowledge) qualifes CJ as our best “returning” hitter.
But one thing the consensus of stats confirms, except yours, is that the offensive valuation of Conor and Stephen is very, very close. Drew created more runs (RC 103 v 93), but he made more outs, so Conor’s RC/27 was slightly higher(6.3 v 6.1). Drew’s Off Win% was .600, Conor’s .611. Conor drew more walks, hit a dozen more singles and had a few more RBIs, but Drew scored more runs, had more hits, doubles (40% more!), triples(80% more!) and homers(75% more!).
The idea that Conor Jackson was a 50% better hitter is absurd. The number is devoid of meaning. Not your first paragraph – the applied number is garbage, and for you to strut that anyone who doesnt bow down to this idiotic construct somehow exhibits a bunker mentality – well, it’s hilarious and more ironic than you can possibly imagine. No one but you believes it!
A bit of a tangent, but another implication that irks me about “we lost our best hitter” is the concept of overall value. Now, I know they specified ‘hitter" and not “player” so dont have a cow, but normally when one says "team’s best hitter" there’s this implication that this is one of your two or three most valuable position players. Very often, your most valuable. And that’s not really true with Conor either, even if snakepit had a collective erection when he eschewed the cycle and knighted him MVP.
In 2008, Drew was objectively the most valuable non-pitcher, by a healthy margin. Then you’ve got this clot of players – Conor, Reynolds, Hudson, Young – who were very close in terms of value. Conor might be the best, but if Hudson or even Snyder played a little more, they’d hopscotch ahead of him. They were all very similar players, not a superstar in the bunch. And the truth is, that if any of those guys (except Snyder) went down in 2009, we’d be in just as deep shit as when Conor actually did. And if Drew went down, we’d be in even worse shape.
That’s the big lie. That it couldnt have gotten worse. It could have, and very easily could’ve been just as bad under a whole bunch of ‘healthy-Conor’ scenarios. Reynolds goes down. Upton? Drew?
If they just said we lost “one of our best hitters”, all would be right with the world. Because that’s exactly accurate. No spin. No reach. How hard is that? To just tell people the truth? That you lost a good player. And if this was just one offhand comment, I’d let it go. But it never is with Derrick.
Never.
It’s always the sell. The little illusion. One on top of another.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 20, 2009 4:36 AM EST up reply actions
There are times when it would be better for you just to walk away
And lick your wounds. Because this is one of those threads where every post of yours is making you look even more ridiculous. Let’s just review some of the ’Hackslights shall we?
- You equated the loss of Brian Fuentes – a reliever going into free-agency – on the Rockies, with our loss of Brandon Webb. That one simply got laughed out of court.
- Alleged their “de facto ace” Billingsley was “hurt” – so hurt, he was able to throw almost 200 innings. This was a swift change of your horse in mid-stream, barely 12 hours after claiming their best pitcher was Lowe!
- You claim Drew was a better hitter than Jackson. Then, when this gets shot down in flames, you shift your ground, yet again, to: “In 2008, Drew was objectively the most valuable non-pitcher, by a healthy margin.”
BZZZZT! Wrong once more. 2008 AZ Wins Above Replacement, which combines hitting, defense, position played and amount of playing time to measure a player’s complete value. And what does it say about the D-backs?
1. Conor Jackson: 3.5 WAR
2. Stephen Drew: 2.5 WAR
I imagine you will now try to blame this on Fangraphs.com having a “collective erection” when he ran through the cycle. You just don’t handle facts very well, do you?
If there’s anyone guilty of twisting the truth for their own purpose, that would be you, far more than Derrick Hall. So I’ll fix your last couple of paragraphs for you
How hard is that? To just admit the truth? That Arizona did lose their best 2008 pitcher and position player. And if this was just one offhand comment, I’d let it go. But it never is with ’Hacks.
Never.
It’s always the prejudice. The easily-disproved lies. The personal abuse. One on top of another.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 20, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
There are times when it would be better for you to just walk away
Great. Is this another of your less- than-subtle cues that you’re losing an argument so badly you plan on muzzling the opposition to prevent further carnage?
lick your wounds.
Funny. I dont feel the least bit wounded. I’m totally cool with your point about OBP and the notion OPS isnt the be-all and end-all. But then you squandered those gains (and then some) by frothing that WAR is the last word on the subject of Conor Jackson’s undisputed preeminence. Honestly, you sound like an angry, wounded animal. Licking and licked.
Your capacity (and apparent need) to misconstrue ideas is breathtaking. Seriously. I can hardly keep up with it.
You equated the loss of Brian Fuentes – a reliever going into free-agency – on the Rockies, with our loss of Brandon Webb.
Oh yeah, that’s exactly what I did, because, you know, I firmly believe that Brian Fuentes is as valuable as Brandon Webb. Always have. Thanks for clarifying that and speaking on my behalf and all. Sheesh. Talk about being laughed out of court and making shit up :-)
Alleged their "de facto ace" Billingsley was "hurt"…
lol. You’re still bitching about this, after I linked to three separate injuries and his ERA+ plummeted to 98?! I’m not sure what’s more painful, Billingsley’s medical odyssey or your desperate suggestion that 200 innings somehow proves his capacity was undiminished.
This [Billingsley] was a swift change of your horse in mid-stream, barely 12 hours after claiming their best pitcher was Lowe!
Good grief. Lowe and Billingsley were co-aces in 2008. Anybody can see that. They’re the same pitcher, as close as Haren and Webb were to each other in 2008. And after Lowe left, Billingsley, even with the broken leg in November, projected as LA’s lone 2009 ace. Yeah, that’s real deceitful of me to bring all this up. Jim, you’re so desperate to attack the messenger, you cant (or wont) even process honest, logical, rather obvious scenarios.
You claim Drew was a better hitter than Jackson.
I provided evidence that Drew was a slightly better hitter in 2008 (and there’s more where that came from) – yet have always been open to arguments and measures suggesting Jackson (or Dunn) were slightly better. It’s close enough so that it depends on how you measure it (efficiency vs counting stats and so forth), and what statistics one favors. That’s the whole point, that and the likelihood a healthy Conor would’ve been one of our three or four best hitters in 2009. The Diamondbacks dont have the integrity to say “we lost one of our best hitters” and, regrettably, neither do you. It’s a pity, really. In your case, just foolish pride – in theirs, intentional deception of their “valued” customers.
Then, when this gets shot down in flames, you shift your ground, yet again, to: "In 2008, Drew was objectively the most valuable non-pitcher, by a healthy margin."
The only thing flaming here is your sputtering engine of animosity, nose-diving kamikazee style to wildly discredit me. I said the “player” argument was a bit of a tangent. It’s a supplemental argument – doesnt undermine the “hitter” argument in any way. Strengthens it, actually.
CJ: 3.5 WAR, Drew: 2.5 WAR I imagine you will now try to blame this on Fangraphs.com having a "collective erection" when he ran through the cycle.
No. I blame it on fangraphs’ toys very often doing an inadequate job reflecting reality. I’m sure there’s nothing underhanded about it. It’s just that any measure claiming CJ was a 50% more valuable hitter than Drew, or a 40% better player or whatever in 08, is patently ridiculous. Any fan can discard nonsense like this on its face, but inevitably, partisans with a desperate agenda will cling to the numbers like gospel, with no understanding (or interest in) its limitations.
Fortunately, I have such an interest, enough to understand that the comparative offensive metric you unsurprisingly gravitated to, is grossly out of line with most science on the subject not to mention common sense – and fangraphs’ defensive comparison between these two players is even worse. Do you realize they have Conor saving more runs defensively than Drew did, even after positional adjustment? That gave me a good laugh. I’m sure you have no idea how preposterous that is. No idea at all, do you? That a marginal first baseman who “worked out” one summer to do a respectable job in left, actually had more defensive value than an established shortstop. I can barely stop laughing. Well, you know, when I’m not licking all those….what were they?….wounds. HAHAHAHAHA!
How hard is that? To just admit the truth? That Arizona did lose their best 2008 pitcher and position player. And if this was just one offhand comment, I’d let it go. But it never is with ’Hacks. Never. It’s always the prejudice. The easily-disproved lies. The personal abuse. One on top of another.
Oh bravo :-). I hope that helped with all your bruised feelings. It sure didnt help your argument any.
Here’s how it should read:
Arizona lost one of their two best pitchers, an outstanding pitcher in 2008 with labrum concerns in 2009. And one of their two best hitters in 2008, projected to be one of their three or four best hitters in 2009.
Simple enough.
Merry Christmas to you and the family
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 20, 2009 4:49 PM EST up reply actions
Case closed.
I blame it on fangraphs’ toys very often doing an inadequate job reflecting reality.
Or, to translate: “When the facts do not support my opinion, they must be disposed of.” Bunker mentality.
Frohe Weihnachten to you and the family.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 20, 2009 5:41 PM EST up reply actions
oooohhhh
a not so subtle hint.
I was going to say something, about your last comment, but now I’m going to say something entirely different! Funny how that works.
I’m going shopping. What should I get you for Christmas?
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 20, 2009 5:57 PM EST up reply actions
Hooray
For SnakePit pissing matches… Woo. Please allow me to say that this was exhilarating for all of us here.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 20, 2009 11:44 PM EST up reply actions
We've been courteous though
And kept our pissing matches in private. :-P
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 21, 2009 5:44 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry duder
but you’ve been majorly outflanked on this issue.
An early departure? What are the chances of that? If this was a movie, there wouldn't be an early departure.
Oh, only by facts
And people that ’Hacks has already dismissed as “agreeing with Jim and/or the current DBacks front office.”
"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."
See, at the party?
We were totally right.
What's your name? Sandwich. What's your first name? TUNA.
by emilylovesthedbacks on Dec 21, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
Oh yeah
the “facts” have really done me in ;-)
2007 Offensive Win Shares
Drew 16.34
Jackson 15.13
Reynolds 12.49
…..
Dunn 4.92 (in 42g)
So, yeah, it goes without saying that Conor was not just the best hitter, but our best hitter by 50%. Any honest half wit, without an agenda, can see that.
But, of course, Jim’s not satisfied with making such an obvious point. It now seems Conor was easily our best position player as well.
2007 Win shares (Offense plus defense)
Drew 21.21
Jackson 17.28
C Youung 16.72
Marky 16.66
Hudson 16.46
Snyder 14.73
Again, anyone who cant see Conor was head and shoulders above the rest really needs to be dismissed as a crackpot. A crackpot we simply cant have.
Remember when I suggested that racism was behind Upton’s “poor” showing in the pit’s mvp vote? Remember how defensive some people got, even though I didnt accuse any individual of racism? The suggestion was made, more than once, that I was ‘race-baiting’ and a little out of line.
The truth is, my whole agument wasnt that Upton was really better than Reynolds, just that he was essentially Reynolds in black clothing, and the vote gap seemed surprisingly large in light of that. Something to think about.
What I didnt do is pontificate that Upton was clearly superior on the basis of WAR. Because I have too much respect for the limitations of any statistic (incl Win Shares, for that matter) and for many of the readers on this site.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 22, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
oops
Win shares above are, of course, from 2008, not 2007
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 22, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions
Because I have too much respect for the limitations of any statistic (incl Win Shares, for that matter) and for many of the readers on this site.
[Peace… Goodwill… Peace… Goodwilll…]
The bottom line is that WAR appears to be the more accurate ranking system due to its more advanced methods for measuring the impact of fielding
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 22, 2009 7:31 PM EST up reply actions
This article
is a good starting point for discussion, not an endpoint. There’s plenty of issues I have with it, but we’re leaning pretty far to the right of the page to spawn a second kerfuffle here.
For now, I’d observe the marked difference in ‘attitude’ and “confidence” betwen the cautious James and others who feel “no need to hold back”. I think that tells you about the relative merits of the systems in ways they didnt intend.
I’m not saying fielding WAR doesnt have any value at all. There’s alot of work behind it and it’s certainly interesting to consider. But you, me and many others have raised questions about players’ year to year volatility assumed by these systems – the idea that Stephen Drew can be the worst SS glove in the game one year, then above average (with a ’ropey hamstring) the next. Or the way Jeter bops all over the place.
It seems to me we bend over backwards to isolate the luck of the bounce when it comes to hitters (BABIP) and pitchers (ERA derivatives,etc), but now that we have “video scouts” and “zones”, the most enigmatiic metric in the game (fielding) is suddenly the most sure, in the sense luck or random variation have given way to this year’s sudden “fielding” superlatives.
Sorry, but I dont think we’re there yet, and feel more secure with James’ less volatile y-t-y swings representing the “true fielder” over time. He was – and is – hesitant with good reason.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 22, 2009 10:05 PM EST up reply actions
Before we drift off
To discuss the volatility of fielding stats – certainly a legitimate topic – let’s rewind a bit. This entire debate was largely because you accused Derrick Hall of perpetuating an “illusion” when he "slyly elevated an absent CoJack to the inaccurate and highly dubious status of our best hitter".
While you may not agree, do you now accept that there is sufficient objective evidence, such as WAR, to make Hall’s statement a legitimate claim?
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 23, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions
Talk to me
about “drifting off”.
You ask an excellent question. I’ll be happy to answer it, after you answer my question about your relationship with Derrick Hall.
Further down the thread…from three days ago. Must’ve slipped thru the cracks.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 23, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
This one?
are you more entwined with Hall than you’ve ever disclosed to loyal readers?
Really? Sorry, I genuinely didn’t think that was a serious question.
Like many D-backs fans, of course, I’ve met the guy at the park. But you have enjoyed more quality one-on-one time with Hall than I’ve ever had. So, hardly “entwined”, no.
Your turn.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 23, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
I'll answer your question
with, I imagine, more candor than you answered mine.
It’s not like I think you’re a one dimensional shill for the guy, but I do find it hard to believe you dont have a relationship w/ him. No meetings? No emails? No propositions?
If Mr Hall, who obsessively massages information about his product and is roughly as accessible as H1N1, throws himself at someone like me, it strains credulity to think he hasnt made similar overtures to the originator of his two largest fan sites enjoying a great deal of exposure.
Anyway, on to your question. In light of WAR, I’d soften my characterization of Mr Hall’s claims about Conor from “highly dubious” to “dubious”. A highly dubious claim would be insisting Mark Reynolds or Orlando was our best hitter in 2008. Conor has a better case than them, obviously.
But I stand by “dubious” for all the previously stated implications of his purposely singular rhetoric, when less singular rhetoric is more accurate and apt.
One of our best hitters. We lost Conor, arguably our best hitter. That’s the appropriate description, of course, but describing isnt his goal here. It’s selling. Stretching the truth just enough so that, hopefully, no one too influential will notice.
Derrick takes enormous care in how he words things, and I’m sure he thought long and hard about just how to position 2009 injuries as an insurmountable obstacle to organizational success. I’m sure he thought about what he might get away with on the talk radio shows and in the paper, without too much blowback. He approached those outlets with an intent to gently deceive fans as to the true nature of his club’s failure.
And it flies, more or less, in Phoenix because much of the local press is just thrilled to have access to a quotable, friendly team president. If this was NY or some other cities, experienced reporters would be less seduced by that, see through his “corporate truths” and press for actual accuracy.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 24, 2009 3:46 AM EST up reply actions
I’ll answer your question with, I imagine, more candor than you answered mine.
My question was straightforward and legitimate. I mean, “entwined”? Seriously, ’Hacks – WTF? Are you expecting full audio transcripts of all conversations from my bank of secret tape-recorders? Sheesh.
You won’t believe what I say, so part of me says, why bother? But I’m sure you’d take dignified silence as proof of something, so here goes. I have two emails from Hall, in July 2007, a result of my role as admin at DBBP, a forum in which he is a member and active participant. I have spoken to him once on the phone, about a very specific matter – I think that was early 2008. Outside of that, a couple of casual encounters at Chase. I’ve never asked for favors or special access in my role here. He has never offered them. I let him do his job. He lets me do mine.
Now, if you can keep your sordid fantasies of “entwinement” to yourself in future, I think we’d all appreciate it. :-)
Anyway, on to your question. ..
[250 words later]
“No” would suffice. The top, widely-respected objective metric of player value backs Hall, yet you still regard it as “dubious”. It says rather more about you than Hall, that’s clear.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 24, 2009 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
Are you expecting full audio transcripts of all conversations from my bank of secret tape-recorders? Sheesh
No. What I was after was a substantive answer – and after two or three tries, I got something approaching that. If local media used the same tenacity to deconstruct Derrick’s ‘truthiness’ the public would be better informed and served. And goodness knows, I wouldnt have to do it :-)
I do appreciate your candor. Seriously. You’ve never struck me as the type to ask for favors Jim, and I didnt mean to imply that. However, Hall strikes me as the type to ingratiate himself with the local vanguard, big time, and you are a rather influential fanboy. So, I feel my query on whether you were “influenced” is quite reasonable and topical. Again, thank you for elaborating somewhat.
But I’m sure you’d take dignified silence as proof of something, so here goes.
Not proof, but you’re right, continued silence would make me suspicious of your independence, especially since some of your most visible ‘fan voices’ at Bullpen appear rather unburdened by undisclosed club entanglements. By contrast, I’ve elaborated on my “relationship” with Jerry C on this site, and am happy to do it again, because my positions make it a fair concern, and I’ve got nothing to hide in terms of access, favors, etc…
The top, widely-respected objective metric of player value backs Hall…
Oh yeah, the rock solid gold standard of player value [giggle], claiming our left fielder, with the dozen dingers and 75 rbis , was worth $15.4 million. Your stubborn exaltation of this “fact”, to the effective exclusion of so much else (other statistics and all the implications I’ve raised), says a great deal about you I’m afraid, and suggests political rather than judicial or scholarly motivation. Much like Hall, you’re hiding behind a sliver of “facts” just because you can, to justify a political assertion that any serious appraisal would conclude is a broadly misleading distinction.
Which is why you get asked questions about your relationship with DH :-)
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 24, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions
[Yawn]
Your stubborn exaltation of this "fact", to the effective exclusion of so much else (other statistics and all the implications I’ve raised), says a great deal about you I’m afraid, and suggests political rather than judicial or scholarly motivation.
Whatever. I just hope Santa finds a way into Der Hacksbunker tonight….
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 24, 2009 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
And
This rabid conspiracy theory attitude regarding the Diamondbacks and their management is one of the main things that makes it difficult to take your posts seriously, ’Hacks.
"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."
Maybe...
‘Hacks IS Derrick Hall’s twisted, psychotic, self-loathing alter-ego!!!
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 25, 2009 8:55 PM EST up reply actions
Those who prefer
to take Hall seriously (ie verbatim) should knock themselves out. This isnt Rumsfeld selling the war; just another business manipulating customers with little white lies.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 27, 2009 2:25 AM EST up reply actions
‘Hacks, the gap between taking Hall verbatim and your rabid paranoia is wide enough to dwarf the Grand Canyon. There’s a lot of room to fit in between “Everything Derrick Hall says is truth!” and “So how much has Hall given you to be a puppet shill for the Diamondbacks, Jim?”
"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."
If my pointing out
that DH wields influence over fans like Jim constitutes ‘rabid paranoia’ ,then so be it. But I admit confusion over what I’m supposed to be afraid of exactly. I’m not afraid of Hall, or Jim or you, and frankly, your shrieks of Grand Canyons and puppet shills sound more skittish than anything I advanced.
If you were reading instead of emoting, you’d discover I made a point not to call Jim a shill. There’s a difference between being influenced and being a shill, and the truth is I could press the issue harder than I have. Much harder, so chill out.
I realize Jim doesnt believe everything DH says is gospel, but you’d never know that if you read this thread. As soon as I point out a DH overreach, Jim puts on his pith helmet to defend Derrick to the letter (ie verbatim)…and then some. So this canyon of yours is mostly Jim’s digging himself a hole from one of the extreme rims.
Contrast that with others, people I often disagree with like piratedan and njjohn. They’ll read and consider what I said, disagree with parts, but also say, hey, that over there is a valid point.
Jim virtually never does that. Because he’s afraid and angry and prideful, and has lost so many debates with me that he cant bear to think where another open, substantive conversation might actually lead. So he calls me venomous instead and shouts that I’m losing arguments he often doesnt even have the courtesy or ability to advance.
If Jim makes a good point, about OBP, I acknowledge that because I’m an honorable person. When he brings up WAR, I soften my core position (while excoriating his excessive interpretations).
I’ve made a dozen points on this and other recent threads that Jim simply blows off, in favor of painting me as an abusive, prejudiced liar. A venomous snake that doesnt grasp basic statistical principles. Does that sound like a secure person eager to explore ideas or someone more comfortable discouraging debate?
If you ask me it sounds like ‘rabid paranoia’ :-)
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 28, 2009 4:30 AM EST up reply actions
Didn't you describe your discussion
As “gamesmanship” below? :-) I don’t think gamesmen (I’m aware of the ridiculousness of that word) refer to each other as “venomous snake[s].”
Just giving you a hard time. Frankly, from all sides this is way out of control and went from a mildly-legitimate baseball discussion and spiraled down into the abyss of whose hyperbole will win about completely pointless topics.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 28, 2009 6:33 AM EST up reply actions
360 words of painfully obvious attempts to provoke a reaction omitted
Seems no-else doubts it was entirely legitimate for Hall to call CJ our best player in 2008. That Der Hacksbunker mentality won’t accept this, converting it into the – yes – venomous screed above, yet again confirms everything I’ve said.
There’s no point trying to discuss anything involving Hall with you. Your paranoid mindset means you can’t provide a credible opposing view. No point going on.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 28, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
Debates, whether originally substantive in nature or personal,
tend to drive the debaters to opposite extremes.
Especially in the (mostly) faceless realm of internet debates.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
Good point, skins
Especially true with ‘personalities’ like me and Jim. We’re a pair of argumentative Scots, that’s for sure, who often dont care for the way the other influences opinion.
But you’re right about the dynamic, and while I occasionally praise Derrick (fireworks, Value Menu), the truth is I probably wouldnt come down on him quite so hard or so often, if you guys didnt gush over him so indiscriminately (IMO).
And maybe if I didnt come down so hard, people could develop their own give and take dynamics about DH, instead of dwelling on my ‘venomous hatred’ or whatever. But honestly, I dont see that happen much when I step aside and give any DH issues room to breathe. There’s a little crossfire at Bullpen. Not as much here.
Re dymanics, I’m responding to more than DH’s singular ability to fabricate free publicity and often misleading appeal for his product. I’m also reacting to the fact so many of you seem to buy into it, or at least find comfort in a sort of passive resignation that it’s DH’s “job” to regularly bend the truth with a smile, and our job is to basically smile back and “be fans”, gush over his ‘accessibility’ and so forth.
Beyond the interpretaive truth of DH’s various proclamations (ie kishi’s “verbatim”, above), what fascinates me is the extent which some of you apparently feel DH’s proclamations are also relatively straightforward and guileless. That just blows me away.
The Conor rhetoric discussed above is a real molehill of an example, and I understand how a bunch of fanboys dont think it’s a big deal. Heck I dont even think it’s that big a deal! . Not nearly as big a deal as JM’s response/defense.
To the extent folks here assume DH’s “baseball” comments are more or less off the cuff truths and not carefully crafted for maximum PR value, you guys dont understand or “appreciate” Derrick Hall. He is unusually focused and even masterful at playing into the desires and insecurities of Dback fans and of telling us what we want to hear.
Despite oft repeated claims I think DH is evil, I dont think that at all. I think he’s an unusually purposeful communicator and his driving purpose behind that communciation is to separate you and me from our money. Some of that manifests itself in isolated examples of excellent, even showy, customer service. Sometimes it manfests itself in overselling lousy product and policy.
I’m just kind of amazed that, at this point, more of you dont seem to see past the golly gee veneer and confront those rather mundane truths. No tin foil hat required. I guess we each see what we want to see :-)
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 28, 2009 7:03 PM EST up reply actions
The important difference
Between us losing Jackson and Webb to injury and the Rockies losing Fuentes and Holliday to free agency and trades, respectively, is that the Rockies planned on having Fuentes and Holliday out of the fold, i.e. they could adjust accordingly by adding pieces in the off-season to fill those gaps / they felt comfortable letting those guys go because they knew they could fill the gaps (CarGo, Street). We fully intended for Webb to contend for a Cy Young and Jackson to OPS around .820, and couldn’t find suitable replacements because the season had already started.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 19, 2009 4:54 AM EST up reply actions
I didn't realize
Just how redundant this post was as I was writing it… Go ahead and ignore this one. :-)
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 19, 2009 5:05 AM EST up reply actions
I'm aware of the distinction
The only reason I injected Holliday and Fuentes (and Lowe and Saito for that matter) is because our very legitimate issue (valuable pieces going down) has, in my view, been rhetorically inflated beyond it’s true import.
If people (Derrick on down) glibly imply, post facto, that losing the likes of Webby and Conor practically excluded any team from contention, I’m going to rebut that with gusto. On May 7th, we were 8+ back of LA – four and a half back in the Wild Card. Bob Melvin got fired and Manny got suspended. Jim was, understandably, beside himself with glee:
What exactly this will affect the Dodgers, it’s hard to say. Having roared out of the gate to a 20-8 record, and now being forced to fill Mandy’s spot with a replacement-level player, Los Angeles face much what we did with the loss of Brandon Webb - except they already have a nice six-game cushion over the other teams in the division. However, given it’ll be almost two months until they get to see Ramirez in the line-up again, it’s certainly going to make things more interesting.
(emphasis mine)
Fifty games later, we were twenty behind LA. Despite the fact they cooled down considerably and we replaced Conor with someone who wasnt dying. Manny’s loss didnt make things more interesting. Well, maybe for the Rockies and Giants. Certainly not for us. Things got alot less interesting. Because, in addition to the loss of Brandon Webb, we really, really sucked. That’s the scientific name for it: Broadly Based Suck (BBS). Please make a note of it, everyone.
Again, my inclusion of Holliday and the FAs was just me being glib back, and sorry if that distracted from the core issue (BBS), but purer evidence of unmitigated loss (ie injury, suspension, death) suggests that other teams would’ve weathered our losses better than we did.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 19, 2009 6:31 PM EST up reply actions
Not much to argue with, here....
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
More BBS
I get the feeling that your underlying frustration is that this team does not spend enough money. Hacks, if you don’t agree with that assessment, skip the rest of this post.
Fact is, without Webb and Jackson the chances of AZ winning last year were grey, at best. And by grey, I mean charcoal. The Dodgers did lose an important piece in Manny for a good chunk of the season, you are right. But they have the payroll to replace him with a guy making 10M. We don’t have the money to cushion loses like that. Most teams don’t.
We are a 12 year old team playing in the desert Southwest. Depending on your feelings about competative balance, we shouldn’t have more resources than LA and NY. They are huge, crowded places that have been supporting their teams for more than a century. Under current rules, you cannot feel entitled to the same financial power as those places.
It sounds to me like you don’t approve of the FO, because they don’t “do what it takes” to win. But I see them doing better than most other teams given their resources. Comparing them to LA doesn’t really hold water for me.
by Counsellmember on Dec 19, 2009 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
Oh God
they have the payroll to replace him with a guy making 10M. We don’t have the money to cushion loses like that.
Oh God, I walked into that one. Punish me for it.
by Counsellmember on Dec 19, 2009 7:05 PM EST up reply actions
Bad typing
You left the ‘r’ out of ‘losers’ in that sentence.
"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."
I get the feeling that your underlying frustration is that this team does not spend enough money
My “underlying frustration” is fully revealed in Encyclopedia of Grievance, at the Library of Congress, however pilgrims to the Capital are often surprised that just three of the leatherbound volumes involve interchange of monies.
I’m also vaguely aware that Los Angeles is spanish for “City of Industry”, or something, but this is a thread on how optimistic we are about a division title, on the field – not about defending (or excoriating) the front office based on real or imagined limitations. Please note I havent said an unkind word about Josh Byrnes, or Ken Kendrick for that matter, on the thread. I brought up Mr Hall, because this is a debate about expectations and fantasy, and he’s responsible for driving much of the fanboy boilerplate under discussion.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 19, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions
I've been staring at your map
for a while now, and I must say, I’m intrigued.
Of course, that’s a highbrow way of saying “What the hell are you talking about?”
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 20, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
I was wondering
if it was a map to City of Industry, CA, which is unmarked?
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
Bingo!
The thought crossed my mind, but I always assumed it was closer to LA. Must’ve confused it with Commerce!
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 20, 2009 7:24 PM EST up reply actions
Indeed.
After examining Google Maps, City of Commerce is just below marker A.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
by DbacksSkins on Dec 21, 2009 10:34 AM EST up reply actions
Los Angeles
is spanish for “The Angeles”
by Counsellmember on Dec 21, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
What
you don’t have the entire Los Angeles County memorized???
An early departure? What are the chances of that? If this was a movie, there wouldn't be an early departure.
Yeah, I know.
I suck. :-(
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
by DbacksSkins on Dec 21, 2009 12:51 AM EST up reply actions
Obvious difference
The Dodgers lost Ramirez for 50 games. We lost Webb for 162.
If people (Derrick on down) glibly imply, post facto, that losing the likes of Webby and Conor practically excluded any team from contention, I’m going to rebut that with gusto.
So far it seems you’re going to rebut that with non-existent injuries, assertions that free agency is the same thing as valley fever – which you now frantically backtrack on and try to spin as “being glib” – plus other assertions, apparenrly based mostly on your venomous hatred of Derrick Hall.
The truth is, all it needed was Webb and Jackson to perform just to their 2008 level, plus our run distribution to be league normal, and we’d have won 85 games. So much for “Broadly-Based Suck”, eh?
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 19, 2009 7:49 PM EST up reply actions
The Dodgers lost Ramirez for 50 games. We lost Webb for 162.
162 games. Wow. Brandon was more durable than I thought ;-) More seriously, you blow off the entire fifty game laboratory I laid out for you, in favor of making a less consequential sideswipe that sounds good but means little. The whole point was that the Dodgers kicked our ass when both Manny and Brandy were out. It’s perfectly fair to argue that there were a million other factors contributing, but again, that’s the whole point. LA’s million other factors ripped our million factors a new hole.
And add Colorado for good measure. That’s the reality gap you’re fantasizing away with figments of Conor, Brandon and a storybook sense of luck.
The truth is, all it needed was Webb and Jackson to perform just to their 2008 level, plus our run distribution to be league normal, and we’d have won 85 games.
Oh, is that all. To have an ‘uninsurable’ pitcher mail in his fourth consecutive Cy Young season, have Jackson replicate his best year and have that bullpen lead us to a neutral run distribution. Why didnt you say so? For a second I thought you were being unreasonable.
Look, I can pull this crap with the Dodgers if you like? Let’s see. They won 95 games. But the unlucky bastards were four games below pythag. So that’s 99. Then they lost Mann’y War. Based on 2008 (our favorite baseline) that’s two WAR. Kuroda dropped 67 innings due to injury – 1.2 WAR. So we’re up to 102 wins. Isnt this fun? If it’s okay with piratedan, can we bring up Billingsley’s broken leg, pulled hamstringand groin, or just stop when we get to 110?
So far it seems you’re going to rebut that with non-existent injuries…
Keep consulting piratedan.com for all your injury verification needs….
assertions that free agency is the same thing as valley fever
Hardly. I responded to a leading question, that wasnt supposed to have any historical answers, with a literal, very contemporary answer. The problem, as IHSB pointed out, is that by going for dramatic effect by staying within the 2008 division, the core argument got confused. The core argument, distilled by IHSB, is stronger than ever.
– which you now frantically backtrack on
Yeah. I’m awfully frantic here. Just peeing in my pants with fear, over all your fabulous arguments. The truth is, I’m bored. Made tons of points, mostly ignored or misconstrued, and the only counterpoint worth a damn has been IHSB’s, which better focused the discussion.
your venomous hatred of Derrick Hall.
Um….really? Dontcha think “venomous hatred” is a bit strong for a poster who thinks Hall is an able huckster who bends the truth alot? What’s behind such an awkward emotional overreaction on your part? Having a bad day, or are you more entwined with Hall than you’ve ever disclosed to loyal readers?
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 20, 2009 1:49 AM EST up reply actions
Denial. To 'Hacks, it's just a river in Egypt. That is when he isn't fabricating stuff entirely.
Oh, is that all. To have an ‘uninsurable’ pitcher mail in his fourth consecutive Cy Young season, have Jackson replicate his best year and have that bullpen lead us to a neutral run distribution. Why didnt you say so? For a second I thought you were being unreasonable.
I know reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, but I explicitly stated that Jackson just need to match his average performance over the past three seasons, to give us a three-win improvement over his 2009 WAR. And that discounts the fact that he’s still easily young enough (26 on Opening Day this year) for age to improve him. Similarly, I used Webb’s three-year WAR. Please try and avoid making things up. It’s just too easy.
Every pitcher in the bullpen could still have allowed the exact same number of runs. But if their pattern of distribution had been normal, we’d have had five more wins. Do you need me to explain the idea here? I recall, you do have major problems with basic statistical principles.
Dontcha think "venomous hatred" is a bit strong
If you want me to search through your comments, here, on DBBP and your own site, to demonstrate your opinion of Hall, I’ll do so. Let’s face it, you’ve been proved wrong so often in this thread, what’s one more time?
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 20, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
I'm always amused
by all the points you totally ignore. It goes without saying I win alll those, but if you werent so graceless about it, might I suggest your online experience might be a little more pleasant? Just a thought.
I typically dont dwell on it, but let’s catalogue what you blew off in just my last comment:
Webb’s overstated 162
The Laboratory of a Million Factors
Adding Up The Dodger’s ‘Bad Luck’ & Implications of Your Own Ungrounded Diamondback Accounting
Disclosure of your relationship with Derrick Hall
It’s a wonder why we even bother sometimes. Pretending to have serious dialogues. So, what did you choose to write about this time? What tidbits did you deign advance, in hopes of salvaging face by attacking me, under the guise of the put upon know it all?
Let’s see. Conor? I did say “best year” and you meant his 3 yr average. Not that Conor’s years arent interchangeable, but hey, I think there’s some incredibly minor point for you there….CONGRATULATIONS!
Webby? Not so much. Three year ave again? But that’s exactly what I said…that you expected his fourth CY type season? That you would chide me on either of these points, especially the second, out of all that I wrote in my previous post, seems to exposes sort of bankrupt anger.
My point on run distribution should be obvious (although not necessarily true), that good bullpens may facilitate better distributions. You clung to this idea for months in 2007, when it suited your ends. It was discussed at length, and now you appear to be feigning ignorance.
Why would you do that?
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 20, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
Regarding your "Webb's overstated 162"
If you cut out a portion of Webb’s starts and an equal proportion of Manny’s starts, you’re going to have an equal proportion of WAR removed from their effect on the team. So when Webb lost his entire season, regardless of whether or not it was an “overstated 162,” and Manny lost 50 of 162 games, we lost a greater proportion of WAR, making that injury much more detrimental to our team’s season, regardless of the quality of replacement players.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 20, 2009 11:58 PM EST up reply actions
And also,
The reason why we’re so optimistic for next season includes the fact that the Dodgers have been so unable to maintain the depth they have enjoyed in prior seasons due to the McCourt family’s divorce. They had to dump Juan Pierre and cash for fringe prospects, meaning that a potential injury or loss in their OF would be much more detrimental, which would allow for us to gain an advantage on them with what could now be considered better depth for the first time in forever. I’d take Cole Gillespie, Gerardo Parra, and Augie Ojeda/Tony Abreu as backups over Jamey Carroll & Co.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 21, 2009 12:01 AM EST up reply actions
The divorce
is something I need to pay more attention to, but at this point I’m not counting on it reversing the division’s resource hierarchy. I hope you’re right, and that Jamie extracts all the necessary baubles to live in the style to which she’s become accustomed, but I’ll believe the thinning depth on the field when I see it Opening Day and after :-)
Last preseason, (admittedly before the divorce) Jim and others were crowing that LA’s staff got decimated, and we all saw what happened. Best staff in the league, even after Kuroda and Billingsley’s problems.
And we were told how the Moore’s bitter breakup would hurtle the Pads to eternal cellerdom…but it didnt. Not yet anyway.
So. I’m very cautious about reading too much into this stuff.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 21, 2009 2:17 AM EST up reply actions
That's true, you never know how this stuff will end up,
But it certainly says A LOT when you can’t even offer arbitration to Orlando Hudson and Randy Wolf to get draft pick compensation when there’s about a .0001% chance that they accepted. Wolf clearly wanted the $30M he was going to and did get after a flukey year, and Hudson was pissed that the team went out to get Belliard. Just sucks for L.A. that they don’t have Tony Abreu anymore. ;-) Not that you won’t see my shedding any tears for them.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 21, 2009 5:54 AM EST up reply actions
Agree
I thought LAs 09 rotation was very suspect; good depth from 1-4, but no standout and a thin pool of #5s and reserves.
Then I waited all year for Wolf to implode. They got a great year from him. A lot of things fell into place for the Dodgers late in the off-season last year; Wolf, Manny, O-Dawg. I agree with you Hacks that I won’t count them out until the games start getting played.
by Counsellmember on Dec 21, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
To be fair,
the Padres might have overperformed a bit last season, partially thanks to AdGon’s career year. Nobody expected ANYTHING from them. Rox Girl didn’t even include them in her NL West preview, I don’t think.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
by DbacksSkins on Dec 21, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
8 games above Pythag
Which based on runs scored and allowed, projects them at 67-95, behind Arizona.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 21, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
No question
Webb’s seasonal loss hurt more than Manny’s suspension. I just thought it was funny referring to a starting pitcher’s absence as 162 games.
That’s why I made a joke about it. it’s part of the gamesmanship between me and Jim. No big deal.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 21, 2009 1:21 AM EST up reply actions
Gamesmanship?
That’s certainly one of describing it. :-P
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 21, 2009 5:52 AM EST up reply actions
You don't
think that Webb wouldn’t have given the Diamondbacks at least another 5 wins last year over the combined 7-23 the bottom of the rotation accomplished? He’s not the difference between bottom of the division and the playoffs, but 75-80 win might have been in reach. The Diamondbacks win 80 in 2009 and that’s a pretty respectable outcome.
Can somebody please throw away this telephone?
I think
We’ll win between 85-90 games if we’re healthy.
I also think it won’t be enough. For the wild card, maybe.
Pythagorean record was 75-87
So if our runs scored and allowed had been the same, and just been distributed in the “normal” way, we’d have had 75 wins. Webb’s average WAR over the past three years = 6.7 wins. In 2009, it was -0.2. So his injury cost us about seven wins. Conor Jackson three-year WAR = 1.7 wins, 2009 = -1.1, so that’s about three more victories.
With a fully healthy squad and average run distruibution, this team “should” have won 85 games last year or more. We could also add on the wins Garland, Pena, Lopez and Rauch got after being traded, since if we’d been contending, they wouldn’t have been traded. They combined for about four more wins by WAR.
All told, not quite enough to make the playoffs, but it would have certainly been more interesting [not least since some of those extra wins would have been against the Rockies or Dodgers, cutting down their totals]. Based on the youth of our squad, leading to its likely improvement, and the problems with the Dodgers [rotation in disarray, finances in turmoil], I’m going with “very”. I tend to think, at the moment, that the Rockies could be the biggest rivals for the division next year.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
I tend to think, at the moment, that the Rockies could be the biggest rivals for the division next year.
It’s like 2008 all over again. (Except not, hopefully)
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
by DbacksSkins on Dec 18, 2009 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
It happens, from time to time.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
Don't forget Melvin
Keeping the skipper would have put us over 100 wins…at least. :)
But I agree about the Rockies. They are my pick to take the division soley based on their rotation. That is a great starting 5.
But I hope it will be a tough 4-way battle with the Padres as “also-rans”.
I voted “slightly” with the caveat that a Wild Card berth is “very”.
by Counsellmember on Dec 18, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
With the non-existant offseason the Dodgers are currently wading through, there are 4 teams in the division who have a very real shot at 85-92 wins. I don’t think any team is really much better than 92, or worse than 85. If all plays out, should be an unbelievable dogfight.
3 words:
McCourt divorce, yay!
Seriously, since the ownership of the Dodgers is in doubt, I like our chances as one of 3 possibles. At least this is one that is going to be won on the field.
by Reynolds rapper on Dec 18, 2009 4:25 PM EST reply actions
+$722 million
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
by DbacksSkins on Dec 19, 2009 11:57 AM EST up reply actions
+1
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 19, 2009 11:12 PM EST up reply actions
we are good
We could have competed last year if we didn’t have all the significant injuries and down years. I believe Webb and Jackson will come back healthy, Young and Drew will return to form, so we have a chance. All the other teams in our division are having bad offseasons too, nobody has been advancing their roster. I like our offseason so far, if we get Kelly Johnson or a new first baseman, I call us the favorites.
I definitely
don’t think Kelly Freaking Johnson makes us the favorites.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
by DbacksSkins on Dec 19, 2009 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
How about
Chan Ho Park and Jonny Gomes/Ryan Garko?
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 19, 2009 11:13 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
