A little stiffness on the Johnson front

by Jim McLennan on Feb 27, 2007 4:27 PM EST in News

Sorry, there is absolutely no way I was able to resist using that headline today. Blame Steve Gilbert, who offers an, er, blow-by-blow report of his second bullpen session on Monday. Said RJ, "This time I felt...not hesitant, but the residual effects from the first time out. Back was a little stiff, legs were a little stiff. I thought the second 17 pitches were much better, so I ended on a good note." Bob Melvin agreed, as Johnson threw 37 fastballs in total. The next sessions are scheduled for Thursday and Sunday, and if all goes well, he could face hitters next week.

Another difference of opinion, this one regarding Stephen Drew. 3rd-base coach and former Tucson manager Chip Hale says, "Nothing really bothers him. He's not in awe of anything. I think at times people might think there's some cockiness there, but I don't think so, just a quiet confidence." Confidence? Who does Drew think he is? Thankfully, Bob Melvin isn't going to stand for that kind of nonsense in the Arizona clubhouse:

Melvin does not want outfielder Carlos Quentin and infielder Stephen Drew to think their roster spots are sealed for this season, even if they essentially are. Melvin says there's always a risk young players could get "big-league attitudes," and won't push hard. "Sometimes they read their press clippings and start digging it," said the manager. "They do have spots, but they still have to bust it every day and think that nothing is given them. They know they have to fight for a job."

In contrast, Melvin positively drools over Chris Young, saying, "His publicity is well-deserved, but Chris isn't that type of kid. He wouldn't get out of control," adding, "He's probably one of the higher-ceiling guys. This is a guy that can run, tracks down balls, defends, runs on the bases. He's got power. He should hit for average. He should steal bases. Out of all the guys, he and Upton are the guys who have the most tools." Exit Quentin and Drew, muttering darkly about "teacher's pet" - Young may find himself the target of some wet towels during gym if he's not careful. :-)

Young also talked about the change in approach which helped him cut back markedly on strikeouts this year: "Last year I kind of stayed aggressive, but aggressive and in control. I started understanding that when I have two strikes, (the pitcher) still has to get another one on me. I'm not going to just give it away to him like I have in the past. Just settle down at the plate and focus harder. I just focus on commanding the strike zone, no matter what type of pitch it is... I don't feel like I have any problems with (off-speed stuff). I have in the far past, but nothing lately."

That's definitely a prime factor for their success this year: I saw some monumentally-bad at-bats last year by all our rookies, when pitchers broke out the breaking balls. Now, Young many not have had "any problems" lately, but I think the difference between a Triple-A breaking ball and the same pitch in the bigs, is much more significant than that between a Triple-A and big fastball - which is maybe only a couple of mph, and probably better location. If you have major-league quality off-speed stuff, you won't be sitting on buses for very long. Young may find himself in for a nasty surprise or two when he faces that kind of pitcher on a regular basis.

Before the official start of the Cactus League on Thursday, there'll be an intrasquad game tomorrow. Starting for the two sides will be Micah Owings and Dana Eveland, though that one isn't expected to go past six innings. Still, it'll be another milestone as we head towards Opening Day, albeit a minor one. Starters have also been announced for the first five Cactus League games, though it's probably unlikely they'll be going much more than two or three innings each. Webb will start the opener on Thursday, facing Javier Vazquez; I'll get to see Hernandez 2.0 on Friday down in Tucson, and Doug Davis gets the start Saturday. Sunday's split-squad games will be pitched by EdGon in the afternoon, and Nippert in the evening.

Does that maybe hint at Nippert having the inside track on the fifth spot in the rotation, until the Big Unit is ready? Though this report says he needs to work on his change-up as a third pitch, to go with his fastball and curve, if he wants to stick in the big-leagues as a starter. Usually, two-weapon pitchers end up in the bullpen, to avoid hitters getting too comfortable against them. Nippert reckons, "being able to throw that third pitch will really help because right now the hitters are just looking for two pitches because they know my changeup is not that good." So look for him to be working on that this spring.

Seems Chad Tracy will, at least initially, be slotted in the three-spot once again this year. Melvin says, "Sometimes you puff your chest out a little bit in that fourhole and try to do some things differently. The fact that he's trying to go to using the whole field may prohibit me from hitting him in the four-hole." Though, as noted a couple of days ago, Tracy actually had a higher average (and lower home-run rate) when hitting cleanup, than at #3. The piece also reports Byrnes, Young, Hudson and Drew are all candidates to bat lead-off, among the everyday starters.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Randy "Old Trade Me" Johnson

Lol Randy Johnson...

I thought the theme was to rebuild and cost cut.

Lost Logic. A New Brand of Baseball.

by biggerunit1 on Feb 28, 2007 12:42 AM EST 0 recs

Really

If you are a fan of this team why does it seems you really hate the franchise?

"very cunning Mr. *VIII*" -- Jim

by Mr. Philosophical on Feb 28, 2007 8:40 PM EST up 0 recs

If it looks like a troll....

acts like a troll and types like a troll... hmm I wonder what it is...

by AZDarkKnight on Mar 1, 2007 6:52 PM EST up 0 recs

Cost cut?

Well, we ain't gonna compete with the Yankees, or with the Red Sox for Dice-K, that's clear. But that doesn't mean everyone on the roster has to be getting paid minimum wage. So it's a question of picking and choosing the spots: do we have someone cheaper, younger and better available? In the case of Messrs. Counsell, Gonzalez and Green, the answer was an emphatic yes. So little point spending there. Not so much when it comes to starting pitching: in a couple of years maybe, but right now, Micah Owings is not (yet) the answer. Starting pitching costs money. Lots of money. And I'd far rather have Johnson's contract than, say, a Zito-shaped albatross.

I think there's little doubt we are rebuilding. Here's our likely Opening Day lineup, with the age and number of major-league games experience:

C: Chris Snyder, age 26, 205 games
1B: Conor Jackson, 24, 180
2B: Orlando Hudson, 29, 619
SS: Stephen Drew, 24, 59
3B: Chad Tracy, 26, 442
LF: Eric Byrnes, 31, 652
CF: Chris Young, 23, 30
RF: Carlos Quentin, 24, 57
P: Brandon Webb, 27, 130

Four starters 24 or younger; six 26 or younger; everyone bar Eric Byrnes under thirty. Seems like the gameplan here is obvious, and makes abundant sense to me, anyway.

by Jim McLennan on Feb 28, 2007 9:28 PM EST up 0 recs

Bang For The Buck

...do we have someone cheaper, younger and better available?

Was this rubric applied to the pitching staff? Who exactly are Randy Johnson, Livan Hernandez and Doug Davis cheaper and younger than? And the control group isn't Zito and Dice-K; isn't it Vargas, Batista(admittedly 36), Cruz,etc?

In terms of being better ,the three new guys, of considerable collective accomplishment, are coming off seasons that could charitably be called fair and more accurately called lousy. They sure werent as good as Miggy and the post-Ortiz whipping boy, Vargas. Livan was fair at best in 2006, Unit fair to poor, and Davis was just awful. I suppose these types of projections are where Josh Byrnes earns his money, and we'll see soon enough if he outsmarted the other GMs, but at this point the discipline of cheaper, younger, better doesnt seem to apply to the staff much at all.

After listening to Kendrick bellyache for two years about how Jerry's profligate spending limited the team's competitiveness and practically ruined the franchise, it's hard for me not to characterize throwing $50M at a couple pitchers, incl. addtl deferments, as an alteration of that philosophy. At least the stated philosophy. (I was very surprised at the Unit deal, especially after the original deferments didnt appear to be in play.)

As for "picking spots", I think Josh has made some excellent subtractions( Ortiz, El Duque, Counsell and Green), but he focused his big additions on the part of this team that wasnt broken: the rotation. Last year, they had the third or fourth best rotation(ERA/IP) in an admittedly weak NL(even incl. 15 starts from Ortiz and El Duque!); a so-so bullpen, below ave defense, and a healthy but poor hitting team, 12th or 13th in a crummy league.

If I was looking to maximize marginal utility with an extra $50M, maybe I'd acquire one starter tops, keep Vizcaino, Batista and Vargas, and spend the rest with trades to really boost offensive production in the least demanding defensive slots: LF and 1B.

If the offense improves less than dramatically, it's still this team's achilles heel.

by Diamondhacks on Mar 1, 2007 1:41 PM EST 0 recs

And the answer is...

[ ...do we have someone cheaper, younger and better available?

Was this rubric applied to the pitching staff? ]

Yes, it was: and the answer, clearly, was "no, we don't". Nice though it would have been to pluck Johan Santana off waivers from the Twins for minimum wage. ;-) Ain't gonna happen. With the starting pitching, the tactic was to look for players who were undervalued, for whatever reason. Back issues for Johnson; defensive incompetence for Davis, etc.

With regard to the rotation, it had the fifth-best ERA in the NL, and were only .14 better than the median (4.57 vs. 4.71). And that figure is severely skewed by the performance of Webb. You'd rather have kept Batista? Let's see...

Younger: Davis (31) vs Batista (36)
Cheaper: $22m/3 years vs $25m/3
Better: Career ERA+ 102 vs 103
Younger and cheaper, certainly: performance is basically a wash.

As for the offense, they scored 773 runs last year, which is about as far above median as the rotation ERA was below. That was despite hitting .263 with RISP, only 10th best. The offensive improvements at almost every position (either through experience or new blood) should take care of that side nicely, I think.

by Jim McLennan on Mar 1, 2007 4:58 PM EST up 0 recs

Throw $ at the problem... not the solution

With regard to the rotation, it had the fifth-best ERA in the NL...

... in Chase Park, which means that other than the Astros, there wasnt a clearly better rotation in the league. On par with San Diego and LA and in fact much better than the Cardinal's rotation during the regular season. You remember, the one "severely skewed" by Chris Carpenter and Jeff Suppan, that won the World Series? The rotation wasn't the problem, certainly not after jettisoning Ortiz and El Duque.

This team finished dead last because they were the worst offense in the NL West, and indeed the worst offense among the fourteen or so NL clubs fielding better than AAA lineups. Those 773 runs, after park effects, translate to low 700s, dropping AZ below Milw, near Houston; essentially bottom of the barrel(in a terrible league).

I wont bite on your curious Miggy/Davis construct as it appears contrived to promote a minor contrarian point while obscuring the larger, obvious picture. In terms of cheaper, younger, better, Miggy/Vargas v Unit/Davis is the more meaningful comparison, with Livan as a one off. Those were the choices Josh Byrnes made and the money he spent.

With the starting pitching, the tactic was to look for players who were undervalued...

That's fine, as long as people understand that "were undervalued" is just a euphemism for "with problems" or "high risk". Anybody can target declining players and say they're buying "value"- the trick is to actually do it.

Josh recently assured us that the Dbacks have outstanding depth and are ready to compete for a flag not next year, but right now. As it turned out, wonderboy was dead wrong.

Today, he went further, likening his team, the one with zero established players with an above ave OPS+ to..ahem..the 1966 Orioles.

I've supported several of Byrnes' earlier moves over on my blog(dumping useless vets, picking up Julio when Valverde faltered), but these latest comments are quite distressing, in the sense that people high up in the org could actually, sincerely, be that delusional about this year's team.

by Diamondhacks on Mar 2, 2007 2:01 AM EST up 0 recs

Counterpoints...

[ This team finished dead last because they were the worst offense in the NL West ]

And I reckon that's largely been addressed. Gonzalez [OPS+ 97], Green [93], Counsell [69], and possibly Estrada [91]: all gone, replaced by players who are likely to be significantly better source of offense. [I'm taking Gonzo as replaced by Young, of course]

[ I wont bite on your curious Miggy/Davis construct as it appears contrived to promote a minor contrarian point while obscuring the larger, obvious picture. ]

You're the one who advocated keeping Batista; I was simply pointing out that letting him go, and getting Davis instead, was the better alternative. That "minor point" of Miggy did, in fact, appear to be a major plank of your proposal.

[ Anybody can target declining players and say they're buying "value"- the trick is to actually do it. ]

True. But the alternative is to risk paying through the nose for one flukish season. I should post a pic of Gary Matthews Jr. here.

[ these latest comments are quite distressing, in the sense that people high up in the org could actually, sincerely, be that delusional about this year's team. ]

We'll see. But I feel this season's team is improved in every spot over last year's, bar perhaps the bullpen. Let me repeat that: every position, and every slot in the rotation, will be better than 2006. I genuinely do believe, with a bit of luck and - perhaps more importantly - some good health, we have a legitimate shot at winning the division this year, or getting the 88-89 wins necessary for the wild card the past two seasons. And once we hit the playoffs, the questions would be, how far can Webb and Johnson take us?

But I'm keen to hear your proposal in more detail. Specifically, what free agent first baseman and left-fielders available this off-season would you have had us sign instead? I do agree that E.Byrnes is not the answer in LF, but I don't think the organization does either. I suspect a lack of trade offers severely limited their options, but I still expect him gone by the trade deadline, to make way for Scott Hairston.

by Jim McLennan on Mar 2, 2007 10:31 PM EST up 0 recs

Pajama game

Specifically, what free agent first baseman and left-fielders available this off-season would you have had us sign instead?

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not capable of doing Josh Byrnes' leg work in my pajamas from the den (altho I did notice the Cubs picked up Cliff Floyd(120 OPS+ career) for $3M or so - not sure if he can walk yet, however). That's really not my job and if it was that easy, I imagine GMs would make $10 or $12 an hour.

I'm more interested in applying some general principles about the game to our team. For example: It's marginally disadvantageous to have transitional(ie less than established) hitters like CoJack playing a position populated by superb, established hitters. There are analogies across the defensive spectrum( weak hittng DH, young, shaky fielding SS or C, etc), but the point is that a) playing transitional 1Bers(CoJack, TLee, Overbay) is very costly and b)clumsy part time rakers(Colbrunn, Durazo, Clark in 05) are comparitively valuable and not all that uncommon, as rakers naturally gravitate towards first base. Always have.

" ...the alternative is to risk paying through the nose for one flukish season.

re finding "value", that's an alternative, not the alternative. A third option is to appreciate the value you already have in house, and this is where I think JByrnes may've erred by fielding league ave position players(CoJack,Byrnes) who are considerably below league ave relative to their defensive positions, while dumping a couple of league ave starters(Batista/Vargas). As you indicated, they felt Randy was a good return for their $10-12M - my feeling is that a league ave 1B or LF is inherently less valuable than a league ave starter, and therefore, the greater potential for 07 marginal gains would've been on the left side, as opposed to on the mound. But I recognize Randy's a bit of a special case and it'll all have to play out.

And sorry if I sounded pissy about Batista/Davis. I'm just trying to make the more general point, above, that a surprisngly good pitching, lousy hitting team ought to target the lion's share of its resources on hitting improvement, especially relative to positional expectations and norms. I think that's where the money(the Johnson money, essentially) makes more sense, even if it means trading CoJack. Not saying Conor wont get better, only that a 101 or slightly higher OPS+ first baseman is basically undermining offensive gains made elsewhere.

And I reckon that's[NL's worst offense] largely been addressed...

They certainly addressed the outfield defense, which is great, but I'm less optimistic about the O. Most rookies, even excellent ones, dont realize their potential right away. Willie Mays hit about .270. His second yr was .345 w 41 HRs. Hopefully, I'm wrong and we'll witness the second coming of Rice and Lynn(1975), but I dont anticipate that.

"...every position, and every slot in the rotation, will be better than 2006."

wow. that's quite a statement. Since it's italicized and repeated, I guess you're serious. It's more extreme than your community projections (Hudson and Byrnes a tad lower,IIRC), so if you want to retract it I wont say anything ;-)

I know these guys arent the baby backs and I expect some improvements, but when I look at this team high level, I dont see 13 better players, I see Brandon Webb...and twelve pretty darn big question marks. Thirteen if you count Valverde. Not low upside, Robby Hammock, Matt Kata type question marks. I understand that and that's encouraging. But still a team split amongst rooks and league ave vets with not a truly bankable star in the mix. I dont mean Pujols,either. More like a Nick Johnson,or Nomar or Pat Burrell or Mike Cameron. From where I sit, even Ruby Durazo or Greg Colbrunn would look nice about now.

by Diamondhacks on Mar 3, 2007 4:38 AM EST up 0 recs

To clarify...

Every position, and every slot in the rotation, will be better than 2006

That combines offense and defense, and it's important to note that I (quote deliberately) said "position", not player. For instance, LF will see Gonzo replaced by Byrnes, who will provide around the same offense with superior defense. Similarly, Hudson was definitely not as advertised with the glove or bat at the start of 2006: I'm thinking we should see his second-half performance over an entire season.

Think I'll go into that a bit more in regard to a full-blown entry. But in summary, this obviously relies on the rookies stepping up to the plate, Tracy and Jackson delivering the age-anticipated improvement, and the veterans delivering like they should. But I'm fairly confident they will. Let's just hope there isn't another Grimsley lurking in the woodpile...

by Jim McLennan on Mar 3, 2007 10:29 AM EST up 0 recs

Truth.

Another great post, Matt. Nothing but truth.

If this team has so much unbearable debt, then clearly the thing to do is to not spend, what, $50 million on crappy starting pitching. There's RJ who signed a contract, something like $20 mil. Then Livan $9 mil. Then Davis $21 mil. What a waste of perfectly good debt-cutting money. Who in the hell is stupid enough to spend $50 million on 5.00 ERA pitching. The kid pitchers we have now can pitch crappy 5.00 ERA baseball for league minimum.

Absolutely pointless.

To those insecure souls who call me a troll--not my fault you can't accept the truth. The truth hurts, don't it?

by biggerunit1 on Mar 1, 2007 7:37 PM EST up 0 recs

We shall see...

...won't we? Perhaps it was money down the drain, perhaps it wasn't. But right now, I see Livan, RJ, and Davis forming a much more formidable trio than Batista, Vargas, and Cruz. Additionally, we still have Cruz, who I view as having the highest upside of the latter trio. Batista is a fine pitcher, but has been basically league average, which is what should be expected out of both Livan and Davis (and, as Jim pointed out, he is 5 years Davis's senior).

If between the both of them they don't average out to be a league average pitcher, then I would consider the move poor. However, if they do wind up being league average between the both of them (which I expect), then I think the investment is worthwhile. Especially considering the fact that you not only are then benefitting from league average pitching, but league average pitching at above average innings. Batista and Vargas might be able to match Livan and Davis, but if I were to bet, there is no way I would put my money on them. And the difference in cost between the two pairs is about $5.5 mill (Livan -- 9 mill, Davis (if you average out his contract) about 7 mill, Batista (averaging it out) about 8 mill, and Vargas 2.5 mill), not $10-15 mill. So with those two you have a disparity of salaries, but not alarmingly so.

So then you have the question of Randy Johnson. I suppose the Randy Johnson acquisition comes down to one thing: can we really compete for the NL West title either this year or next? If we cannot do that, then acquiring Johnson was ill-fated. If not, then the money is understandably spent (whether or not it is "well" spent would depend on Johnson's health and performance). I believe we can compete this year (I don't believe we'll win, but with a few good breaks, I believe we could). And I believe that we have a very decent shot at not just competing, but winning the West next year. If this is correct, then I think Randy is a good chance for the organization to take. If not, then you are right, the organization has merely set themselves back as they attempt to compete in 2009 and beyond.

In terms of finances, Hack's suggestion that he would keep Batista, Vargas, and Vizcaino would cost him $30 mill alone ($25 for Batista, another $5 for the other two). Then to add another starter (let's say at Davis-type money) would be another $22. So, you have exactly -$2 mill left to spend on that so-called big bat.

by johngordonma on Mar 1, 2007 11:17 PM EST 0 recs

League Average

= crap.

You think Jerry Colangelo was thinking "league average" ?

by biggerunit1 on Mar 2, 2007 12:14 AM EST up 0 recs

The 2001 Diamondbacks

Included 22 starts from Brian Anderson (ERA+ of 88), 17 from Robert Ellis (ERA+ 79) and 21 from the trio of Armando Reynoso, Bobby Witt and Nick Bierbrodt (ERA+ of 77, 96 and 56 respectively). That's 60 games - basically, two whole starters - for which "League average" would have been a big improvement.

Similarly, at the plate. Of the ten players with the most at-bats, only three had an OPS+ better than "league average" of 100 [Gonzo 176, Grace 114 and Sanders 119]. The others included Jay Bell [89], Craig Counsell [83] and Tony Womack [65]. Actually, I'm not sure what Colangelo was thinking...

by Jim McLennan on Mar 2, 2007 12:34 AM EST up 0 recs

OPS+ on left side of defensive spectrum....

1B/LF

102/87 (Lee/Dellucci in LF)
120/142 (Lee/Durazo/Colbrunn)
120/132 (Colbrunn/Durazo)
114/176 (Grace/God)
117/128 (Grace/Durazo/Colbrunn)
092/131 (Overbay/Hillenbrand)
106/119 (pre Gonzo injury)
142/112 (Tracy/Clark)
101/097 (Conor/Gonzo)
???/098 (Conor/Byrnes career 098)

I dont know what Colangelo was thinking either, but despite some personnel misjudgements(Lee, Overbay), they realized having hitters in these spots was a necessity,and made adjustment$ to ensure production. The new team apparently thinks that having cheap, outstanding prospects elswehere gives them the luxury of squandering output at these positions.