Series Preview #44: Arizona Diamondbacks vs. Colorado Rockies

by Zavada's Moustache on Aug 29, 2011 3:53 AM EDT in Diamondbacks Previews

It was this or a picture of Dinger. Consider yourselves lucky.

Every once in a while, it's worth taking a moment to appreciate just how bizarre of a division the N.L. West actually is. Not only have all five teams made the playoffs since 2006--something no other division in baseball can say--but it also seems like every year there is a team or two from the N.L. West that comes out of nowhere while a preseason favorite struggles. To wit, here are the division races from the past five years:

2007: Most people (I believe) expect the Dodgers to win the division. However, the race eventually comes down to a poorly-regarded Diamondbacks team that got outscored and a Rockies team that was only four games over .500 on September 15.

2008: Fresh off their division win, the Diamondbacks set sky-high expectations for themselves by winning about 30 of their first 32 games, but eventually lose to a mediocre Dodgers team that wound up with a suddenly-motivated Manny Ramirez.

2009: The Dodgers win the division fairly easily. No real surprises here.

2010: The Padres stage a miracle season, but are eventually upstaged by a Giants team that brought a whole bunch of over-the-hill veterans together, only to see them all start hitting at the same time.

2011: Those same Giants are back, but more injured and offensively-challenged than ever, and they are in danger of losing the division to a Diamondbacks team that lost 97 games the season before.

If the Diamondbacks end up switching leagues in the offseason, I won't miss the Dodgers, Giants, Rockies or Padres, but I'll miss the N.L. West like crazy.

I bring all this up because the Rockies and Diamondbacks essentially traded places this season. While the D-Backs came out of nowhere to challenge for the division title, the Rockies are coming dangerously close to a lost season despite offseason predictions that they would win 90 games. What seemed to be a solid team with a great core of position players is currently languishing at 63-70, in third place in a very winnable division. There has been injuries, poor management, terrible individual performances, and bad Pythag luck, all of which has added up to a perfect storm that has sunk a promising young team.

Oh well, this being the N.L. West, they'll probably win 100 games next season before losing to the Dee Gordon-led Dodgers in a one-game playoff.

What the Stats Say (According to Fangraphs):

	Arizona (75-59)	Colorado (63-70)	Edge
Hitting (wRC+):	92	95	Colorado
Pitching (FIP-):	99	100	Arizona
Fielding (UZR):	52.9	-2.1	Arizona

The Rockies' offense has perked up a bit in August, as they have .792 OPS over the past 29 days. Obviously, Coors Field has an effect on those numbers, but they've still been noticeably better on offense in August than they have been in any other month. One thing the Rockies' offense does particularly well is take walks, as their BB% is 9.2%, tied for second-most in the majors.

As for the pitching, well, the top two pitchers in their rotation were supposed to be Ubaldo Jimenez and Jorge de la Rosa. When you consider that de la Rosa is out for the season with a torn UCL and Jimenez pitches for the Indians now after a mid-season trade, you get a pretty clear idea of what sort of season it has been in Denver. The remaining rotation has put together an ERA of 4.50, which is tied for sixth-highest in MLB.

Starting Lineups:

Arizona Diamondbacks

1. Ryan Roberts, 3B
2. Gerardo Parra, LF
3. Justin Upton, RF
4. Miguel Montero, C
5. Chris Young, CF
6. Paul Goldschmidt, 1B
7. Aaron Hill, 2B
8. John McDonald, SS

Colorado Rockies

1. Dexter Fowler, CF
2. Mark Ellis, 2B
3. Carlos Gonzalez, RF
4. Troy Tulowitzki, SS
5. Todd Helton, 1B
6. Seth Smith, LF
7. Kevin Kouzmanoff, 3B
8. Chris Iannetta, C

Dexter Fowler has no power, and has never posted an OPS+ above 100, but he has an OBP of .359 this year, and has plenty of speed on the base paths, so it seems somewhat natural to bat him lead-off. I'm sure I learned earlier this season that Mark Ellis was on the Rockies, but it completely slipped my mind since then. Apparently, the Rockies traded for Ellis to fill the glaring hole at second base, and he's responded by giving them 193 PAs with an unmemorable 86 OPS+.

There are plenty of people worth blaming for this debacle of a 2011 season for the Rockies, but the middle of the order hitters aren't among them. Carlos Gonzalez hasn't quite lived up to his 2010 performance, where he hit .336/.376/.598 and contended for the Triple Crown, but his .896 OPS is still nothing to sneeze at. Troy Tulowitzki was generally regarded as one of the top position players before this season, though it seems like the hubbub surrounding him has subsided somewhat. Thus, it might be surprising that he is actually posting the highest OPS+ of his career, albeit by a very small margin, in 2011 as his score of 137 leads the team. Todd Helton continues to be Todd Helton, even at age 37, as he has posted an OPS+ of 123 in 2011.

Did...did anyone else know that Kevin Kouzmanoff was on the Rockies? I feel like this is something that should have been mentioned at some point. He came over on waivers and has had all of 14 PAs for the team, but he should be an improvement over the platoon of Ty Wigginton and Ian Stewart's corpse that has been chugging horribly along at third base for most of the season.

Pitching Matchups:

Monday: Daniel Hudson (13-9, 3.75) vs. Alex White (0-0, 7.50)

Insightful Commentary: Hudson came within an out of a complete-game shutout against the Nationals, but it was simply not meant to be. His final line, 8.2 innings with 2 runs, was still impressive, but it undersold his overall performance. He struck out six and walked none during the start, and according to WPA, it was his best start of the season.

Alex White was one of the main prizes of the Ubaldo Jimenez trade, along with Drew Pomeranz, and he will be making his second start for his new club against the D-Backs. He had very solid numbers in the minor leagues, but projects as more of a mid-rotation starter than a true ace. One thing to keep an eye on his control, which was a problem in the minors in 2010, but has gotten significantly better in 2011. It has proved his undoing in a couple of early season games in the majors, however.

Tuesday: Wade Miley (1-1, 4.50) vs. Aaron Cook (3-7, 5.47)

Insightful Commentary: About two batters into Wade Miley's last start, I was seriously considering calling the D-Backs bullpen myself in the hopes that they would get someone up. But despite allowing 9 baserunners in six innings, Miley pitched a scoreless game and earned his first major-league Win. He's not going to be able to succeed indefinitely with a K:BB of 4:4, but he somehow made it work last time out, to his credit. I'd love to see that BB/9 of 5.4 go down soon, though.

Aaron Cook is 32 and has suffered through a number of injuries in the past few years. Thus, it shouldn't really be surprising that he isn't very good right now. But what I guess I had forgotten was how effective he was earlier in his career. He had an ERA+ above 100 every year between 2004 and 2010, despite having a dismal career strikeout rate of 3.75 per nine innings while playing at Coors Field. He's an extreme groundball pitcher, though, which tends to go over well at Coors.

Wednesday: Josh Collmenter (8-8, 3.19) vs. Esmil Rogers (6-3, 5.93)

Insightful Commentary: I'm really not one to complain about awards. Justin Upton probably won't win MVP, Ian Kennedy probably won't win the Cy Young, and I'm completely okay with both of those things. But Josh Collmenter should be getting some Rookie of the Year consideration, and I'm going to stand on a pedestal to say it. He leads NL rookie starters in ERA, and is second only to Craig Kimbrel in fWAR among all NL rookies in fWAR. Kimbrel has been awesome, but there are legitimate reasons not to give the award to a closer. I'm not saying Collmenter is a no-brainer pick for ROY, but he deserves to be mentioned more than he is.

Esmil Rogers has been in and out of the Rockies' rotation this season, with injuries and ineffectiveness plaguing him the whole way. He probably isn't as bad as his ERA indicates, as his BABIP this year is .367. Still, he should probably stop walking so many batters, as his 4.84 BB/9 can cause a lot of problems when balls are dropping in for hits.

Final Verdict: The Diamondbacks are at home, and they're hot, and you can make a fairly compelling argument that they have the pitching advantage in every single game in this series. I don't think I've predicted a sweep all season, but if I were going to, this would the series to do it. It seems like a shame to mess with karma now, so I'll say Diamondbacks two games to one.

Head over to our friends at Purple Row to get the Rockies' review of the series.

All batting data courtesy of Baseball-Reference unless otherwise mentioned, all pitching data courtesy of Fangraphs.

Tweet Comment 52 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It would be nice to go to SF with a 4+ game lead.

In case we get cold again.

And I’m probably going to miss every game this week.

"When I get sad, I stop getting sad and be AWESOME instead. TRUE STORY."

by txzona on Aug 29, 2011 5:06 AM EDT reply actions

Insert offhand not-serious joke about a selective humidor here

Watch large debate about home/road splits ensue afterwards

Founder of the 'Foundation for the Advancement of Clefoing' a 501C3
"I'm like if it fits in the oven, play ball." - soco
Promised Colin Cowgill fifteen sandwiches on 7/6/2011

by Clefo on Aug 29, 2011 10:43 AM EDT reply actions

we have the advantage in every pitching matchup

Alex White is an overrated prospect. Aaron Cook is no longer relevant. And Esmil Rogers sucks. Their offense has been a lot better than what I thought of them preseason, but that’s mostly because somehow Helton is relevant again. It’d be nice of us to strangle them before they get an idea of making a September run, and take this series 2-1.

Drew Pomeranz is a really interesting prospect to me. I feel like scouts guys would say he’s a rich man’s Tyler Skaggs. On the other hand, I feel like stats guys would say he’s a poor man’s Tyler Skaggs. Obviously since I’m somewhat of a homer, I take the latter belief.

by blue bulldog on Aug 29, 2011 11:00 AM EDT reply actions

Now tell me

how you really feel about the Rockies pitchers we’re going to face

No more rec

by imstillhungry95 on Aug 29, 2011 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions

alright

you’re right….that was all false bravado

the Rockies pitching terrifies me

by blue bulldog on Aug 29, 2011 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions

That's what I thought

No more rec

by imstillhungry95 on Aug 29, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Is Gibby the John McLeod of baseball skippers?

Cowgill goes 4-4, solidly squaring up each hit, but he’s not in the lineup tonight? Hasn’t it occurred to the braintrust that its advantageous to let the hot hand hit?

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 11:11 AM EDT reply actions

Those lineups

In the preview ARE NOT the real ones, just what ZM thinks they’ll be

Founder of the 'Foundation for the Advancement of Clefoing' a 501C3
"I'm like if it fits in the oven, play ball." - soco
Promised Colin Cowgill fifteen sandwiches on 7/6/2011

by Clefo on Aug 29, 2011 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Right, ZM would have to time travel

to 45 min before game time to get the real ones and he would have to put on a Ring of Gyges to get past the fiery one to actually see it.

"Hey, why don't you people watch the game?"-my mom after viewing a wave going around Chase Field.

by Reynolds rapper on Aug 29, 2011 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

But despite all this

We probably still won’t play Cowgill tonight, and put Burroughs in there instead

No more rec

by imstillhungry95 on Aug 29, 2011 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Years ago, the Suns basketball team was coached by John McLeod

who was a good coach, btw. His problem though was his tendency to bench players with ‘the hot hand.’ In particular, he would pull a red hot Walter Davis, who may have made five straight shots, and replace him with someone who would promptly miss five straight shots.

I hope that pulling the hot hand doesn’t become a Diamondback’s tradition.

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions

You would think the stat geeks would not mind this

as data analysis shows that a career .250 hitter who is slumping and gone 0fer his last 25 has about a 25% chance of getting a hit in his next at bat. Conversely, a career .250 hitter who has the hot hand and has gone 15 for his last 25 has about a 25% chance of getting a hit in his next at bat. IOW – there is no such thing as a hot hitter, except in retrospect.

Now I understand a lot of people don’t believe this, but I would expect most folks on this site would believe this, as this seems to be a data driven bunch.

by Craig from Az on Aug 29, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions

You're right

I don’t believe it.

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't think

I do either. But that’s just me…

No more rec

by imstillhungry95 on Aug 29, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions

I personally find it hard to believe

But I also have a hard time explaining the data any other way. I saw a really interesting basketball study that showed that a career 50% field goal shooter would has the exact distribution of shots made that you would expect to see of a coin flip – that is, regardless of the number of shots made or missed previously, the odds of the next shot going in were (you guessed it) 50%. And further, the number of times the shooter made 5, 10, 15 shots in a row was exactly what you would expect from flipping a coin that many times. And this wasn’t a single shooter, this was a large sample of many shooters, and the distribution applied both to the group as well as to each individual. Hard to explain that any other way than to say that a 50% shooter has a 50% chance of making his next shot, regardless of “hot” or “cold.”

by Craig from Az on Aug 29, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Data will never cover all ontological contingencies

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Proof?

Godel covered it nicely with his two consistency theorems. In a nutshell, he proved that if a system is complete, it’s necessarily inconsistent; if a set is consistent, then it’s incomplete. It seems to apply to the enterprise of describing all of baseball’s contingencies in terms of numbers.

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions

The completeness theorem does not mean

that the use of systems such as applied mathematics should be discarded, it simply means that that the system (if it is complete, or if it is consistent) will never be able to fully describe or predict all possible outcomes.

Besides, mathematics is a tool. Its not the only intellectual tool available to baseball decision makers, and it may not be the best one, either.

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Don't understand Godel's theorem

But what you seem to be implying is that because mathematics cannot completely describe all outcomes, then I am free to believe in hot and cold hitters, regardless of what the data says?

by Craig from Az on Aug 29, 2011 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Yup.

Basically, be skeptical of data, and be particularly skeptical of conclusions drawn from that data. That doesn’t mean that data or conclusions drawn from data are false, but they have to be examined from a larger, independent and even common sense context.

Common sense tells us that it’s foolish not to believe that a hitter is ‘hot’ or another hitter is ‘cold.’ If the data does not support this common sense percept, then reject the reliability of the conclusion that there is no such thing as a hot or cold hitter.

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

shame on you

mathematics is a tool

statistics is (are) a tool. mathematics is pure.

♫ i've entered a snake of pits with knives in the back of me ♫ can't call you or on you no more when they're attacking me ♫

"Why ever bunt?" - Bcawz

by marionette on Aug 29, 2011 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions

How about

“Applied mathematics is a tool”?

But if you really believe ‘mathematics is pure,’ then you should be jumping down the throats of those who would hijack the beauty of mathematics and sully it with statistics and other applications?

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions

For people who want to look more at this..

You should take a look at the book Scorecasting. There was a pretty good chapter about the myth of the hot hand, but all statistical evidence from just about any sport suggests that people aren’t more likely to get hits (or make jump shots, three pointers..just in general they don’t play any better) just because they’ve gotten a good chunk of hits recently, nor are they more likely to fail simply because they’ve failed more recently.

In fact, the single best predictor for whether someone will get a hit in a particular at bat (at least among the ones considered) was..their batting average over the past two years. It was hugely superior to the last 5 at bats, the last 5 days, etc. (Of course, this isn’t considering things like how well an individual player hits a particular pitcher, since these are all macro, population at large players).

In fact, the only real correlation they found was an inversion of the hot hand theory (at least in basketball): people who are “hot” are more likely to take shots, take them faster, and in general just take worse shots, which lowers the % they’ll shoot on shots like that.

by DivineWolfwood on Aug 29, 2011 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions

um

what you are referring to is the fact that past events don’t affect the probability of future events when the future events are caused by independent variables

the mere fact that a guy who hit 15 for his last 25 has no bearing on his future performance. but the underlying factor of WHY he hit 15 for his last 25 does have a bearing on his future performance. if the guy is seeing the ball well, then presumably that translates to future at bats. the stat geeks wouldn’t mind “playing the hot hand” if they believe the underlying reason for why the hand is hot can affect performance in the immediate future.

furthermore, the stat geeks understand the principle of small sample size. Cowgill’s performance in the early going is way too small of a sample size to say he’s a worse hitter, than say, Sean Burroughs. i think you’d be pretty hard pressed to find any person, stat geek or otherwise on this site, who doesn’t think Cowgill is a better player than Burroughs.

by blue bulldog on Aug 29, 2011 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions

I like the 'underlying factor' argument

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions

An example of the mis-application of statistics

Is playing someone because he is 3-for-7 against tonight’s starting pitcher, especially when those at-bats came in a previous season. a) The sample size is so small as to make the results meaningless, b) what the hitter did perhaps a year or so ago is largely irrelevant to today.

Daron "...the D. Baxter fan-club"
Mark: "A non-profit organization."

by Jim McLennan on Aug 29, 2011 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions

But, but, but...

if one of bb’s underlying factors includes that the hitter sees the ball from a particular pitcher better than other hitters, those results would have meaning.

If it’s just chance (actually I’m not a big fan of “chance” in a motivated system), then yeah, the numbers would actually have less meaning.

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Which is why starting Lyle Overbay when facing Roy Halladay was ridiculous

LOL.

I agree with you, of course. But, sometimes it actually does work. Which then makes people believe it is supposed to work.

by SongBird on Aug 29, 2011 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions

It depends on just how independent you believe

each at bat is from one another. If you assume perfect independence (like a coin flip), then you are absolutely correct. I don’t know how many people actually assume perfect independence. For example, the Johnson/Gibson dynamic had some effect on each at-bat to which the odds I’d be willing to accept on Kelly getting a hit would actually tend toward the bigger payout as each hitless at-bat accumulated during a game.

I’m not saying independent at bat models are totally worthless, but they are “frictionless plane” models. It is actually quite useful to have a simplified mathematical model. The actual math you would use for batters would probably put financial derivatives to shame, if it were quantifiable at all.

"Hey, why don't you people watch the game?"-my mom after viewing a wave going around Chase Field.

by Reynolds rapper on Aug 30, 2011 2:31 AM EDT up reply actions

I think Cowgill should get his own radio show.

“The Gill” With Collin Cowgill

"Hey, why don't you people watch the game?"-my mom after viewing a wave going around Chase Field.

by Reynolds rapper on Aug 29, 2011 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I agree

with Dbacks 2-1, but all I know is that they better win on Wendsday because I’m going to be at that game. Should be fun!

No more rec

by imstillhungry95 on Aug 29, 2011 12:21 PM EDT reply actions

Nice! I will make it tonight, not sure about Wednesday though

by Backin'the'Backs on Aug 29, 2011 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions

It should be nice

I’m going with my grandparents, mom, and sibilings, so it should be a great time

No more rec

by imstillhungry95 on Aug 29, 2011 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions

That sounds like a lot of fun

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Can't go wrong with spending time with family at a ballgame

by Backin'the'Backs on Aug 29, 2011 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Obviously you have never seen my Grandpa drive

Hopefully this time he doesn’t try to use the lightrail tracks as a lane. Besides that it’s always fun

No more rec

by imstillhungry95 on Aug 29, 2011 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

You mean the lightrail tracks aren't a traffic lane?

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Now someone tells me!

by Backin'the'Backs on Aug 29, 2011 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions

I didn't see any signs

then again, having to squint a lot…

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions

That's funny

I seem to recall you mentioning somthing about common sense in the statistics argument up above. I must have misread… ;)

No more rec

by imstillhungry95 on Aug 29, 2011 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions

H?R Splits for WRC+

Comparing Team wRC+ overall can be very misleading. We all know how the D’Backs’ hitters have struggled on the Road. What you may not realize is that Rockies have been even worse away from Coors: 77 vs. 82. (At Home, the Rockies are better than we are, 112 vs. 105.) So for this series we have a huge edge, 105 to 77.

by fjm235 on Aug 29, 2011 12:21 PM EDT reply actions

rockies struggling away from Coors....

what else is new?

i totally agree though….we should go into this series looking to win with authority

by blue bulldog on Aug 29, 2011 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions

I know a few folks

Who also struggle when they are away from their Coors, or Bud, or MGD

Baseball Weirdo

by AZDBACKR on Aug 29, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions

lol

that’s funny

No more rec

by imstillhungry95 on Aug 29, 2011 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions

They need to be around Dinger.

"Hey, why don't you people watch the game?"-my mom after viewing a wave going around Chase Field.

by Reynolds rapper on Aug 29, 2011 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions

ZM

You really have a knack for pointing out just how messed up the NL West is

No more rec

by imstillhungry95 on Aug 29, 2011 1:11 PM EDT reply actions

It may not be the best division

But it’s often the most competitive top to bottom, and always way more interesting than it really should be.

by SenSurround on Aug 29, 2011 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Any division that has the pitching that's in the NL West

has to be taken seriously.

"The wise writer, I think, writes for the youth of his own generation, the critic of the next and the schoolmasters of ever afterward." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

by NASCARbernet on Aug 29, 2011 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions