Looking forward...
Diamondbacks went down 5-3 to Seattle last night, in their first trip to the Valley. Not the best outing for Webb, who gave up three hits and three walks in three innings, resulting in two earned runs in the first. He was quite critical of his performance, saying, "I think I was rushing myself a little bit, getting on the side of the ball, working around it and getting more lateral movement instead of downward on the sinker. Walking three guys, I wasn't real happy about, but it's Spring Training. We're just trying to get our mechanics and legs... I got my work in."
Chad Harville followed with another shaky outing - three hits in his inning of work mean he is probably an early contender for the first round of cuts. But MacLane did well, and has now pitched four frames on one-hit ball. Valverde made his first game, since Papa became a Papa, giving up a slow roller that came round to score on a stolen base, wild pitch and groundout. Cruz ended the arms for us, and struck out two in his appearance. Kirk Gibson managed, in Melvin's absence, as he was attending a funeral.
Scott Hairston made a point, becoming the first D-back to hit more than one homer, a huge blast to left field in the second. That also gave him the early lead in RBI (5): while he's only 3-for-12, two of those have left the park. Arizona had just eight hits, but Quentin went 2-for-2 with an RBI. Upton drove in the third run with a ninth-inning single, and had a walk; Jackson matched him with a single and a free pass too.
An interesting note on the pitching market. Ex-Diamondback, Javier Vazquez, signed a three-year extension with the Chicago White Sox, which takes him through 2010, and for which he'll be paid $34.5m. That's $11.5m per year, for a starting pitcher whose ERA+ figures for the past three seasons have all been below-average, at 92, 99 and 96. It's not quite Gil Meche-ean in its lunacy, but it would seem to make the extension signed by Doug Davis (ERA+ of 122, 110 and 91) shine a little brighter.
Reason to hope Ortiz doesn't suck this year. If he's good, then he'll get a bigger contract for next season: we only have to pay him the difference between what he earns on the market, and what he was guaranteed from us. So if he gets a $3m deal for 2007, that will be $3m less that we'll have to shell out. Not sure if that's enough to make any significant change in my feelings regarding
Had a chance to scope out the Hardball Times projections for the D-backs this year, and there are some interesting points. If you want to see the whole set, you'll have to buy the book, but here are some highlights that stood out from the data.
-
Byrnes vs. Hairston. Chalk up another vote for Scotty:
Byrnes: .268/.319/.459 = .778 OPS
Hairston: .261/.331/.478 = .809 OPS
Obviously, Byrnes has the edge in stolen bases, but both men are rated +2 for fielding, so they don't view Hairston's defense as the black mark often quoted. -
Carlos Quentin, the human piƱata. They expect 33 HBPs for Q this season. Only three players have reached that level since the nineteenth century, Craig Biggio (34 in 1997), Don Baylor (35 in 1986) and Ron Hunt, who somehow got plunked 50 times in 1971.
-
Hardball Times
our starting pitching. Well, some of them, anyway: Brandon Webb (ERA 3.02), Randy Johnson (3.43) and Dana Eveland (4.35) in particular. Hernandez 2.0 (4.98) and EdGon (5.05)...less so... And our bullpen is not viewed with much favor, only Valverde (3.88) seen as coming in under 4.00 this year. -
Small improvement for Tracy. OPS of .801, basically the same as the .794 last season: be interesting to see the LHP/RHP splits. He'll lead the team with 21 HR and 86 RBI, however. Conor Jackson's .285 will be the best average, just ahead of, surprisingly, O-Dawg at .281.
-
Snyder's the man.... They're not very keen on Montero, who's expected to bat .249 with a .727 OPS. Snyder is predicted to hit .263 and post an OPS more than 50 points higher. And he gets better from there: by 2009, his OPS will match Chad Tracy!
-
...and Young isn't Only .238 for our new CF this season, and a .760 OPS. His defense is rated at -3, which I find hard to understand, but Stephen Drew gets the same score, and that also defies apparent expectations. I'm hoping to interview one of the authors in the next week, so will be quizzing them on how these figures are obtained.
-
Quick hits for 2009. Looking down the line to the season after the season after next, Webb posts a 2.99 ERA, but only pitches 185 innings, going 13-6. Conor Jackson leads the team, batting .290, with an .834 OPS. Valverde gets 14 saves and a 3.71 ERA, with Lyon backing him up at 3.94.
-
The Huge Manatee will continue to suck. Finally, I peeped nervously into the Giants section of the book, to see what they expect from Ortiz. They expect 5.12 for this season, and a little worse in the two years beyond that. I'd settle for that!
0 recs |
10 comments
Comments
"Old Trade Me"
by biggerunit1 on
Mar 7, 2007 8:58 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
optimism
by johngordonma on
Mar 8, 2007 11:44 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Defense Ratings
Is that runs saved? In that case, negative good, positive bad.
by shoewizard on
Mar 7, 2007 10:22 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Good question.
by Jim McLennan on
Mar 7, 2007 11:43 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
backwards
There's just no way Young's defense GIVES the Dbacks' opponents 50% more runs than Byrnes' or Hairston's defense SAVES.
If that IS what they are saying, the metric is worthless. It ain't capturing what's really happening.
Even if I am correct about the explanation being backward, I find the ratings suspect as I do not believe Hairston's defense in LF is interchangeable with Byrnes'. I am clearly no Byrnes fan and I would MUCH rather have Hairston on the roster. . . much less in the lineup. But Byrnes is the better defender of the two.
Similarly, I am taller than Mickey Rooney.
by stephen on
Mar 8, 2007 10:34 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Defense Ratings
Jim - re: . . . "Ron Hunt, who somehow got plunked 50 times in 1971."
I presume you never had the pleasure of seeing this guy play? The guy just dove into pitches. However, unlike Quentin, Hunt did it for a singular purpose: to get hit/get on base. I swear I saw him get a HBP on a pitch that was in the strike zone. (It was a Monday Night game on ABC.)
I really enjoyed the guy because he had the best OBP on the '71 Expos - by a long shot. (As a middle infielder myself, I tried to emulate him a bit. But I discovered how bad it HURT, so I settled for controlling the strike zone!)
That 1971 Expos team could be a fun team to manage and you could sneak up on some folks if you handled them right. (i.e. play Woods instead of Fairey) Unfortunately, Bobby Wine was an out machine and they had no pitching depth. Mauch shredded some pretty good arms in Montreal - Stoneman being the poster child. Guy went 300 IP in '71 - one year/250 innings later he was toast.
That team also had an oddity - a guy who played in the field at SS and C. Don't see that everyday.
And you just HAD to love Le Parc Jarry. Reminded me a bit of the old Met.
But back to Hunt - had he broken in any other year than 1963, he probably would have won the Rookie of the Year award. As it was, he was edged out by some guy named Rose.
Good times.
by stephen on
Mar 7, 2007 11:05 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
1971?
In 1971, I was five. And in Scotland. No, funnily enough, I missed Mr. Hunt. :-) [What I remember most about that year was the switch-over in Britain from the old pounds, shillings and pence to the new-fangled decimal system. I can still sing some of the jingles they used to promote the switch. If sufficiently drunk!] I was going to look him up, but for reasons I'll get into tomorrow, didn't have a chance, so I really appreciate the background info. Sounds like an, er, character-ful team!
by Jim McLennan on
Mar 7, 2007 11:47 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
WOW...the 71 season was my first
Rusty Staub was awesome that year.
How did Renko go 15-14 on that team? 135 walks, 129 K's, and a 94 ERA +
The Hank Aaron Card from 71 was ridiculous though, arguably his best season, on a rate basis anyway.
by shoewizard on
Mar 7, 2007 11:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Renko
Renko is the poster child for why ERA and W-L can be misleading. (IMO) His periphs were never that good. . . a lot of baserunners but a league average ERA.
Interestingly, if you look at 1974-5, he pitched similarly (one could argue "slightly better") for better Expo teams, yet ended up a combined 18-28. So the W-L evened out.
What I want to know is where the '73 season came from?
I always kinda liked Renko - mostly because he was such a good athlete. He was Gale Sayers' QB at Kansas and was even drafted by the Raiders. Renko also batted higher than ninth on occasion. I had a love/hate thing for Mauch - he bunted too much and I never cared much for his handling of pitchers. But I enjoyed some of the other unconventional things he did, like bat Renko seventh on 8/26/73.
Then again, any team that has Tim Foli in the six-hole 'protecting' Ken Singleton has serious offensive issues.
Whatever - Renko went 2-3 (off Randy Jones) with a double, but couldn't hold the Pads off in the ninth. (source: RetroSheet)
PS - yes, Shoe. . . Hank's '71 card was probably the best card after Ruth but before Barry. Awesome.
by stephen on
Mar 8, 2007 10:58 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Great stuff
by shoewizard on
Mar 8, 2007 7:18 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
















