"Reply hazy, try again"

by Jim McLennan on Jan 4, 2008 3:22 PM EST in News Comment 18 comments

Over on Purple Row, RoxGirl gets out the telescope and gazes a very, very long way into the future, and concludes, "It's fairly clear that Colorado is moving further ahead of Arizona in the years after 2009 and the gap gets wider as you go along."

Oh, hold my aching sides, for I fear they may split. Really, I don't quite know where to start with such a delicious smorgasborg of wrong-headedness. First of all, "further ahead"? The NLCS aside, the Rockies have first got some catching up to do, even to pull level with us. For a reality check reveals that for 5 1/2 months last season, they were the fourth-best team in the National League West. And that's no exaggeration; take a look at the standings after the games of September 16. You'll find the Rockies, yes, back in fourth, 6.5 games behind us.

Basically, the 2007 Rockies were a .500 team who got insanely hot for a spell - but even so, required help from just about everyone else in the division to reach the playoffs. Sure, there is something to be said for making your own luck and riding it as far as possible [I would never claim the 2001 D-backs were the best team in baseball that year] - but when you get dealt a royal flush in poker, it doesn't make you a good player. If any one of the following had not unfolded exactly the way they did, the Rockies would have finished third, and we would probably not be having this conversation.

The Dodgers rolling over and losing seven straight against the Rockies down the stretch.
Arizona sending out our B-squad over the final weekend; the Sunday starters included Bonifacio, Salazar, Montero, Clark and Quentin in LF, and we still only lost by one run.
The Padres blowing a ninth inning, two-out, two-strike lead over Milwaukee on Saturday.
The Padres scoring three in the first, having a 4-2 lead in the fifth and still losing on Sunday.
The Padres' blowing a two-run, 13th inning lead in the playoff on Monday.

Thoroughly entertaining and amusing the San Diego implosion was, any club would be foolish to rely on that as a reliable component or indicator of their future success. Plus, the off-season moves have made Arizona a significantly stronger team. Rox Girl plays this down, saying "the Dodgers and Diamondbacks moves haven't pushed them that far ahead," and citing Larry Mahnken's early projections to that end. These "projections" give the Bonds-less Giants 79 wins. I'm not sure what else they said, since I was doubled over with laughter and unable to see the screen.

And when I say, "a long way into the future," Rox is talking about up until the year 2015. Eight seasons to go. Where were the current members of our roster eight years ago? Eric Byrnes has just finished hitting .238 for the Double-A Midland Rockhounds; Orlando Hudson .267 with the Hagerstown Suns A-ball team. None of our other anticipated starters were old enough to vote. Chris Young and Mark Reynolds were barely old enough to drive. And Justin Upton was twelve. We can't even project, with any degree of confidence, how young players will perform this season. How did Rodrigo Lopez work out for Colorado this year? Not as well as Livan Hernandez, I would remind Rox Girl. :-) Gazing so far into the future, you might as well use this. [I just asked it, "Will the Rockies prospects outperform the Diamondbacks' ones in 2015?" and got the response, "My sources say no." So, there you go.]

Another difference between the two teams can be seen in Group II as chosen by Rox, scheduled to peak from 2010-2012. For Arizona, five of the seven players were already basically full-time major-leaguers last year; one got a cup of coffee; the last was Max Scherzer, a first-round draft pick. Contrast the Rockies, whose Group II included Seth Smith (8 major-league career at-bats), Joe Koshansky (12), Greg Reynolds (8 games in Double-A) and Brandon Hynick (yet to pitch above High-A). Meanwhile, Chris Young hit 32 homers in the majors as a rookie. Yet, according to Rox, we have "clearly fallen back behind both the Rockies and Dodgers in talent that figures to be peaking in that timeframe." Sure, some of the Rockies prospects might be great. Operative word: might. There's many a slip 'twixt High-A and Coors, as Ben Franklin might have said. Had he been a baseball scout. And not dead for 200 years, of course.

There's no arguing that Arizona sold off a lot of prospects to bring Haren to us, and our focus is, unquestionably, to put together a team which can win over the next few seasons. That's something I think is eminently sensible, given the almost completely unpredictable nature of prospects, and the surge of them which had come through the Diamondbacks' farm system. Basically, outside of second-base, our lineup is all but settled until the end of 2010, and further than that in a number of places (Micah Owings, Mark Reynolds and Justin Upton are under our complete control through 2012; Chris Young and Stephen Drew until 2011). We don't actually need any prospects for the next three seasons, even if Rox had not inexplicably omitted the likes of Yusmeiro Petit [ERA+ 103 at age 22] from her list.

Beyond that, of course, things will get more doubtful; "Cannot predict now," according to my source above, in fact. However, there are a number of drafts, likely with additional early picks for AZ as people like Hudson leave, which will allow us to restock. The players who will be peaking in 2014 are likely still in college: any differences in strength reflects only a difference in strategy, if a team has drafted more high-school prospects. The 2008 and 2009 drafts are of far more importance; worrying about - or even thinking about - what will happen four years down the line seems both pointless and irrelevant.

Four years ago, we had a different manager, GM and owner, and were just about to sign a plethora of free agents, including Roberto Alomar, Shane Reynolds, Steve Sparks and Juan Brito. How'd that work out? 51-111, as I recall. Must have been part of a cunning plot to get us the #1 pick, I guess. This illustrates how quickly things can chance. While I imagine our front-office staff has a good handle on long-term planning, it's very premature to be basically calling the 2014 NL West as a two-horse race between the Rockies and Dodgers.

Ever bit as credible a scenario, I'm anticipating a swell in attendance as local people leap back on to a division champion's bandwagon. This leads to increased revenue, and the ability to keep most of our superstars here in Arizona as they hit free agency - they'll probably be keen to add to their collection of World Series rings. And so, to mis-quote Orwell, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a Sedona Red cleat stomping on a purple dinosaur -- forever..."

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Oh, please

Projections more than a few years out are pretty much meaningless. Way too many things could happen between now and, say, 2011 that I don't think it's a waste of time to bother with it. You can't predict injuries, you can only estimate development speed and potential, it's just pointless.

Besides, why does she have Scherzer peaking in the 2010-2012 group, but Upton in the 2013-2015?

I'm not superstitious- it's bad luck.

by kishi on Jan 4, 2008 4:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hold on, please

I'm not trying to project individual players, so much as I'm looking at groups of players: 25 to 28 year olds (and a bit above) 22 to 24 year olds, and 18 to 21 year olds, in each system. There is a lot more safety in projecting that. For instance, as Young, Montero, Drew, Quentin, Jackson, Callaspo, Reynolds etc.., were coming up, you probably couldn't tell me with 100% accuracy that Reynolds and Young would look like stars right off the bat while Drew and Quentin would stumble out of the gate, but you could tell me that as a group that you had something special.

My look, surveying several sources, says that the Rockies can still say that about position players in each of the three age groups and pitchers in the two latter groups. The Diamondbacks have both pitchers and position players in the top group, are very strong in position players in the second age group, but lack pitching, and they lack sufficient quantities and quality of both in the third age group.

Jim contends that drafting college players more often than high school players will result in this, but the Rockies have similar college heavy drafts. They make up much more ground with Latin players right now, but I'm told Arizona's making inroads here.

I never say any of this is a sure thing, and I go at great lengths to say the Rockies are gambling with this strategy. My main point was to show a different strategy that the two teams have taken this winter after being on a similar tack for so long.

by Rox Girl on Jan 4, 2008 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No need to fear

By that time I plan on having made my millions and owning most if not all of the DBacks organization. I won't let such an atrocity happen. :)

Tippecanoe and Pena too! (let's hope pena doesn't die after 30 days in office)

by seton hall snake pit on Jan 4, 2008 5:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Should I be surprised...

... that none of the commenters over there said 'projecting out to 2015? What's up with that?!?'

There's only a couple of teams in MLB I'd feel comfortable projecting past 2010 - and that's only because very high revenue provides a margin against uncertainty in a non-salary cap world.

by peachy rex on Jan 4, 2008 7:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ridiculous

Too little oxygen up there, eh?

Stay grindy, my friends.

by soco on Jan 4, 2008 7:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What a sad and funny man you are...

BTW, I seriously need to let you guys have your Snakepit Day at Purple Row so your comical rants will get the belly laugh you're apparently after.

No, actually, apparently you missed my point, but that was probably because my admitted homerism for the Rockies clouds what I write so everybody feels that I'm just taking out the claws against their team. I'm just saying that the two teams have diverged in the directions they're taking this winter -I say both are making gambles, the Rockies with keeping their prospects, the D-backs with making their MLB squad an incredibly talented team but leaving a shallow system- and if you can't agree to that you're not really paying attention and maybe you need to take off your own homer blinders.

Of course I think my side's got it right, and actually maybe yours does too, I really don't know if this is a zero sum equation. If you look at how the teams were built, despite similar records the last couple of years, Colorado very much took a long process while Arizona engineered a much more rapid rebuild.

At any rate, since you're so sweet about firing across our bow, I have to fire back. I'm going to go from the bottom up on your arguments here to provide some nifty symmetry:

Groundswell in attendance. Sure. That same swell in attendance happened right after your last World Series championship, and ownership then too decided to keep it's team intact, right? Oh wait. Within a season they decided to cash out on the team and all those deferred contracts while the getting was good, I forgot.

Attendance spikes don't work like that. I've got a question for you, even with these blockbuster trades this month, how many articles about the Diamondbacks have appeared in the Republic and EV Tribune? Quite a few, right? Now count how many have appeared in the Boston papers about the Red Sox -despite not making any significant moves and being overshadowed by a historic Patriots team- doesn't that give you any pause at all projecting massive upswings in attendance? I know it does for me with the Rockies.

Four years ago your team signed a bunch of lousy free agents and had a lousy record. Hey, we did the same just before that with Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle. What does this prove except my point that it's nice to have a few homegrown guys available so you don't feel compelled to do something like this? Where was Brandon Webb seven years ago? What about Brandon Lyon. Okay, but where was the guy you used to get him? If your team can't look six years down the line -figuring how players might fit, what kind of players to look for in trades involving minor leaguers, who to draft, etc...- while ours can and benefit thereby, hey more power to us. But the fact you have these and many more tells me some people in the Diamondbacks organization are thinking ahead, and yes, some of them are probably trying to look six, seven, eight years down the road. Why do you fault me for it?

I say it's not completely certain, you say it's completely wide open, but we should both know intuitively that if we let the Giants get back into play by 2012, one or both of our teams have royally effed up. We should both know that the Pirates are still going to be screwed for a good chunk of the next decade despite playing in the weakest division in the game. I don't think it's as unpredictable as you're making it out to be.

Going a little beyond 2012 isn't that hard with the decisions your GM has made (again, I'm not saying these are bad decisions, he's just putting risk further out). The economic realities of our two teams aren't going to diverge significantly over the next five years, and I know that having a chunk of key players all reaching free agency at the same time -particularly if we presume them all to perform well- would be crippling to either franchise to try and retain. Josh Byrnes has set up just that scenario for the D-backs in 2011 and 2012 (two Boras clients, plus two presumed superstars in Upton and Young) as you yourself point out just above. I know you guys have contracts like RJ's and Eric Byrnes coming off the books before then, but that's not going to cut it with these guys. It's almost inevitable that there are going to have to be trades made before that, much more risk taken on unproven players, or maybe if he trades for older players he can delay the rebuild a season, but the way he's set it up, this piper will have to be paid with a step back somewhere around that 2013 season. I know that just as much as I know where the Pirates and Giants will be five years from now regardless of how they draft between now and then.

Now does that guarantee that the Rockies will be in a better state at that point? Obviously no. Do we have a better chance to be in a better state at that point given the depth we have in our system compared to yours and given how our free agent losses will be more scattered over the next seven seasons? I think the answer's yes, and I don't see any sort of compelling argument that convinces me otherwise.

I acknowledge attrition will happen in the minor league ranks within the Rockies system, not all of these guys will pan out, certainly the further down you go, the fewer will make it, that's why I didn't mention everybody. Yet, by completely devaluing any glance over five seasons into the future, you seem to imply that you're comfortable that all of our prospects set to peak around six years from now will flame out, however, and that's just willful ignorance -and I certainly don't mean this in the "you're stupid" sense, far from it, as I very much respect your intellect- it's just that you're actually ignoring key evidence that helps validate my point rather than actually speaking to it.

Go to any impartial minor league source you want and ask them if they'd rather have the Rockies or Diamondbacks minor leaguers that are 21 or under. It only becomes a close comparison when Justin Upton is included and that goes back to my point about the contracts, as he should be gunning for A-Rod type money at that point. I don't see your team -or mine- going out on that kind of a limb for one player with their current leadership.

So then, the next question in my mind is what happens over these next five seasons? And as you point out, you're sitting pretty. You've got a hell of a team as long as Haren and Webb stay healthy. Plus, there's nothing in their histories to date that says that they won't other than the fact that they're both pitchers. See how easy it is for me to acknowledge how good the Diamondbacks are? Of course, assuming that you'll need no prospects at all in that time is the kind of hubris that I probably can't help you with.

To me, the real dilemma is after that 2010 season, however. Just lay out your projected roster, do you still have Webb? Haren? Dollars spent on them make the breakup in December 2012 even more certain. Eric Byrnes is obviously gone, probably Tracy, right? Reynolds replaces one, who takes the other spot? How many wins are you expecting to come from your mystery 2B? These were tough questions that I was trying to consider, which seems to be more thought than you put into your Rockies analysis (no MLB experience, oh that's easy, that means they're crap). You say I omitted Petit, believe me it was intentional, as a soft tossing right hander his upside is Paul Byrd, and how often does that happen? More likely he becomes Josh Fogg. There's just not a lot of ceiling there. He'll probably still kick the crap out of my team, though, so you have that. Anyway, 2011 lineups:

C: Montero/do you re-sign Snyder? Orlando Mercado?

Miguel's great, but there's a serious void after that.

C: Iannetta/Edwin Bellorin or Michael McKenry

It's possible that neither McKenry or Bellorin make a successful jump to the MLB, but both are better prospects than Mercado or anybody else the D-backs have at the right age.

1B: Conor Jackson

Can't complain there, you guys have a stud.

1B: Joe Koshansky

His swing's slow, but his power's for real. Frankly this one's a really iffy call for me if he'll truly be more than a AAAA player. We might have our old $20 million bench bat (Todd Helton) in case he doesn't work out assuming the guy can still swing without leaning on his walker.

2B: ?

I really couldn't tell what to do for you here, generously, I figured you'd find a 5.5 win player somehow.

2B: Chris Nelson, we think.

There are a few other guys we could pick, but Chris gives us the best chance of fielding a lineup that keeps up with you guys.

SS: Stephen Drew

Your shortstop will be at his peak in his walk year.

SS: Troy Tulowitzki

Our shortstop will be near his peak in the year before his walk year.

3B: Mark Reynolds

You could find a cactus to play second and still probably have the best infield in the majors this season.

3B: Ian Stewart

Unless we have the best infield, but in order for that to happen too many things have to go right with these prospects that I'm not counting on. I still think we'll be pretty darn good.

LF: Cyle Hankerd

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as of right now, he's your best internal option that would be peaking then, right? Or do you prefer Gerardo Parra? Either way you're looking at limited power for the position. You could go the FA route and sign somebody that'll be available, like say, Eric Byrnes.

LF: Matt Holliday

Just kidding. I really doubt the Rockies will be able to keep him, so it looks like both our teams will be in the Eric Byrnes derby. The most talented internal option for the Rockies would be Brian Rike, our second round pick in 2007, so like most of our projected outfield this season, he'd be well before his prime. Closer to prime would be someone like Matt Miller
.
CF: Chris Young

You guys have a big advantage here.

CF: Dexter Fowler

Dexter will be young and promising and not near his peak if all goes well.

RF: Justin Upton

Another big advantage for the D-backs.

RF: Seth Smith

Not nearly the player you have, but he should be solid enough.

Bench: Trust me, we'll still have a better bench.

Pitchers:

Scherzer?
Owings
Buckner
Petit
Esmerling Vazquez? Matt Torra?

You do realize that you start off with projected #4/#5 pitchers in the #3 slot, and Scherzer just hasn't been convincing as a #1 as a professional yet.

Jimenez
Reynolds
Hynick
Morales
Weiser/Roe/Johnson/ Deduno/Rogers/Cedeno/whoever...

I'm saying that where the Rockies fall behind in position players, they make up for in pitching, both in quality and depth. In fact, I believe that we more than make up the ground, but you're welcome to disagree, you have some serious mashers. At the other end, you know Jimenez and Morales have terrible BB rates, and this is a sticking point for many observers, but you also have seen their pitches so you know where Rockies fans might get their optimism. The whole point of my post was pointing out how the Rockies are maintaining their prospect pipeline, whereas the D-backs are cashing theirs in for a better shot at glory the next three seasons.

Finally, since I've gone to way too many lengths defending myself in hostile environs, probably with many hysterical grammar errors, I'll just rattle off the last points with brevity:

Mahnken's projections also said the Rockies would be about ten games behind the D-Backs last season, so you're right, I don't really trust them either.

The Padres collapse was funny, as was the Dodgers. What's more funny is how the Rockies ended up with the best run differential in the NL, but I know how meaningless that is to D-backs fans. I just find it odd you'd be lecturing us on flukish ways of getting to the playoffs.

by Rox Girl on Jan 4, 2008 10:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Appreciate the feedback

I think it's good, and refreshing, to see external opinions on your team's prospects. It's a bit of a double-edged sword; while these opinions tend to be less colored by fan prejudice, they also tend to be less aware. While I thoroughly respect the opinions of John Sickels, say, he is providing credible information on the prospects for all thirty MLB teams. Assuming he works a forty-hour week, that works out to about eighty minutes on average looking at the D-backs or Rockies farm system. I'm pretty sure we both spend more than that, and this is why, for example, I was not so surprised by Mark Reynolds making the leap from Double-A to the majors.

However, one of the most vital aspects of wisdom, in any field, is knowing your limits, and when to say, "We don't know." It doesn't hurt to admit these things, and acknowledge that, the number of years you are going ahead, you would basically be as well-off spinning a Magic-8 ball, because stuff happens. This can be good stuff - such as Webb discovering the sinker - or bad. This is particularly the case with pitchers: TINSTAPP, or "there is no such thing as a pitching prospect." Jason Collette over at RotoJunkie estimates that "only one in four pitching prospects become roster-worthy material." It's a ferocious attrition rate, and that's talking only about roster-worthy, not aces.

Firstly, you can't compare the financial monstrosity constructed by the previous owners (which racked up $250 million in deferred salary debt) to the present owners, who are much more financially prudent. Indeed, the D-backs financial situation from 2010 on will be significantly better precisely because they will finally have paid off the debt. That's $15-20m extra we'll have, currently being used to pay Matt Williams, Todd Stottlemyre, Bernard Gilkey, etc. Basically, think of it as Brandon Webb locked up for the rest of his career, even if nobody extra comes to see the division champion.

Secondly, success does breed extra attendance. This is especially the case in Arizona, which is a state of transplants, and so crowds at Chase are driven to a much greater degree by success than most other cities. If, as I expect, this is not a "one and done" success, then the crowds at Chase will likely return to the three-million plus seen after the World Series win, or in the first couple of years of the franchise. That shows, there is a market in Phoenix for baseball: if you win it, they will come, to coin a phrase. Add an extra 10,000 through the gate each game - easily feasible - plus the bonus babies of playoff games [which probably grossed Arizona an extra $10m or so this season, even with both series ending in sweeps] and this must be taken into account in any look into the future.

And doing so, when I look at your projected lineups for 2011 [interesting stuff], I see us as having about $30m per year spare to spend on any boost needed to the pitching rotation. Possibly enough to get both Webb AND Haren, with something to spare for a second-baseman. Absolutely one of them: and adding that ace to the top of your suggested AZ rotation basically eliminates the balance in the pitching staff entirely, again taking into account the high flame-out rate of prospects. And we have already begun the process of negotiating an extension with Webb, even if he is already signed through 2010.

The other difference I see when I look at those two lineups is, Arizona has a bunch of players who have already proven themselves, more or less, at the major-league level. Colorado has Tulowitzki, maybe Ianetta, and a bunch of what-ifs, maybes and prospects. Potential, sure, but to expect all of them even to reach the majors is a stretch: in our case, they almost all already have. I don't believe all of them will flame out, of course: but odds are more of them will than for Arizona, simply because they have further to go.

I'll keep this short, as I'm on my third Heineken here at The Sets, but I think I would say our window of opportunity is nearer five than three seasons - and we have every chance of using that to build a foundation, which will provide a very solid basis going forward. Colorado will have some tough decisions of their own as the likes of Jiminez, Morales and Tulowitzki hit free agency around 2012, and I think it's how the two teams handle these issue that will have a far greater bearing on the results of the following seasons, not the current state of the low farm systems.

Finally, I wasn't aware MLB started awarding playoff spots based on run differential. We had the best record in the National League - despite taking the last weekend off. We didn't need to benefit from opponents fielding B rosters, opposing closers melting down or kind umpiring decisions to reach the playoffs.

by Jim McLennan on Jan 5, 2008 1:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

good counter to my counter to your counter

just a couple of final really short points:

Your final argument about the Rockies in 2007 still seems to come down to "Our record counts, yours doesn't because a lot of your wins happened in the last two weeks." Hogwash. So it was your B roster that lost to us on that Sunday, well your A roster didn't fare much better against us in the NLCS, when supposedly much more was on the line, so how can you say for sure they would have won at Coors that day? Your alternative history is just one of several possibilities and I can come up with several more where your team, my team or the pink tutu-ed Russians wound up winning that day. None of it changes what actually happened.

Similarly, you can't go saying "We had the best record in the National League" while implying that our record was somehow so much more inferior than the half game in the standings that it was. Wins are wins, losses are losses. You guys had one fewer loss, that's the only difference. Sure, if a couple more bounces went the Padres way over the course of the season (including those last three games) then they'd have been in, but if a couple more went against your team, the D-backs might have been the ones sitting at home. Just because our luck happened at the end of the year isn't enough to invalidate the season.

Second, I have to admit a lot is dependent on the success of either of these two teams. Our World Series appearance is estimated to generate $30 million plus to the franchise over the next five seasons, a win for either team probably generates an additional $10-15 million more. If your team is somehow blessed to get two or three trips in the next five seasons, that $100 million in extra revenue will admittedly go a long way to retaining your stars. If you win all five, obviously you become Yankees West.

The paradox, of course, is that in order to do that your stars, everyday Joe's, and even your scrubs have to produce in gobs, thus making them all even more expensive to retain.

Finally, while I probably got too far off in speculative conjecture last night, my point remains that our teams have split in course and strategy this winter, and I should add that each is probably utilizing the strategies that have brought them their current success in doing so. While Arizona might be more comfortable making high profile trades which in turns diffuse talent over several prospects or concentrate it into one star MLB player, and using fast rising impact draft picks to supplement that, Colorado on the other hand, has very much benefited by taking a slower course with player refinement in the minor leagues and supplementing that with getting value out of other teams' castoffs.

You point out exactly where the Rockies are putting their risk -by relying so much on unproven commodities that have yet to reach the majors, and I'm fine with that as it's exactly the same risk both our teams faced two years ago, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the risk I'm asserting that the D-backs have built in with building this highly talented but also shallow juggernaut that they have. Like I said in my last reply, I'm really not convinced that this is a completely zero sum deal, where the Wild Card and multiple seasons could result in a we win, then you win situation where both come out ahead, but the presence of the Dodgers and Padres makes that scenario doubtful to me.

At any rate, I think the flop and the river can turn this season quickly even if you guys have the better looking cards right now. It's still definitely not a safe hand, except for over the Giants, and that was what I was trying to tell my readers who were clamoring for us making a retaliatory move. I'm glad we're sticking with what we do best instead.

by Rox Girl on Jan 5, 2008 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oops, not as short as would have liked.

by Rox Girl on Jan 5, 2008 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's okay

I think we've stopped charging by the letter to post here.

by unnamedDBacksfan on Jan 5, 2008 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're the Dickens of commenting

Stay grindy, my friends.

by soco on Jan 5, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Brevity? It's vastly over-rated ;-)

[ None of it changes what actually happened. ]

Of course, not. However, I refer you again to the first five and half months of the season. The D-backs led the division at some point every month bar May - and they barely missed there, being top on both April 30 and June 1. The Rockies weren't better than third from April 7 until the final weekend. We were simply more consistent: every month, we won between 13 and 16, lost between 11 and 13. Colorado's win total ranged anywhere from 10 to 20.

Now, obviously, MLB don't award playoff spots based on consistency, but as an indicator of future performance, AZ's 2007 is a lot more reliable than Colorado's. Which team will show up in 2008 for you? The one who went 14-1 in the final fortnight? Or basically the same roster, who were already 5.5 down by the end of April? Sure, it's the eventual number of wins that matter, but if you think you can stand pat and do the same again, relying on the Padres to implode... Fine, that'll be one less team we have to worry about this season.

The key difference is, I think, you seem to feel that 'competing now' and 'competing later' are mutually exclusive. I don't think that's the case. It is perfectly possible to do both [see the Braves for a recent example], and you don't need to sacrifice the present in order to remain competitive now. Obviously, teams without MFY-sized budgets will have more restrictions, but it is far from impossible.

Our front-office has already done a masterful job, taking just three years to turn 111-game losers into the best record in the league - without a huge budget, and without many contributions from the farm system thus far [most of who underperformed this year]. That's why I'm not really concerned about our lineup in 2011 and beyond. This is part of the new wave in baseball; see also the Tigers, who went from 119-game losers to the World Series in...yes, three years. Looking six or more seasons ahead is no longer necessary and, indeed, may well be counter-productive. How long have the Pirates been "rebuilding"? Fifteen years? There is such a thing as too long-term a view...

Of course, if the Rockies are willing to get out of the way for the next few years, that's very nice of them. :-) Just don't expect us to do the same in 2012.

by Jim McLennan on Jan 5, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Now and later

I think Jim is absolutely right - competing now gives you a big leg up on competing later, unless you're one of those lucky teams that has a massive guaranteed revenue stream no matter how ghastly the on-field product. It's far too easy to get caught in the perennial rebuilding mode...

I'd be extremely dubious of any detailed analysis beyond three years, even if it showed Arizona winning multiple World Series and dominating the All-Star roster. There's simply too much uncertainty, especially when trying to assess minor leaguers. The most you can do is try to predict the big trends - will a team develop cheap young talent or ship it out for aging has-beens? Will a team be prudent financially or drop mega-millions on one-year wonder free agents? Will a team have sufficient success to keep asses in the seats or not?

That is, it's an analysis based on the track record of the front office rather than on the players. My personal feeling is that both Arizona and Colorado are run by pretty sharp people, who probably won't make decisions of franchise-shattering stupidity. But neither team is in the elite cluster whose finances allow them to shrug off the serious mistakes that even the smartest front-offices make on occasion, because no amount of experience and brains insures against the randomness of sports. That kind of insurance requires money - lots and lots of money (and no salary cap.)

by peachy rex on Jan 6, 2008 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay... you draw me back in...

AZ's 2007 is a lot more reliable than Colorado's. Which team will show up in 2008 for you? The one who went 14-1 in the final fortnight? Or basically the same roster, who were already 5.5 down by the end of April?

The answer, more often than not, leans to the team record at the end of the year rather than the team record at the beginning. It's even one of "The Bill James Indicators".

Progressing from a 10 win team in April to a 20 win team in September actually helps the Rockies case for 2008 historically speaking. However, in the matter of full disclosure, some of the other indicators aren't so hot for us. Since the Rockies are staying more or less in tact, the indicators are probably more relevant for them than they would be a team that's undergone more extensive personnel shifts, so looking at them, we come up on the bad side of mixed results:

Outplaying Pythagorean Record - You guys score well here, the Rockies actually underscored Pythag by a game.
Plexiglass Principal - This one's a downer, the Rockies improved last year.
Law of Competitive Balance - Again, teams over .500 drift down, this one bodes ill.
Team Age - both our teams were relatively young, obviously yours a little moreso. The Rockies sloughed off most of our over 30 guys this winter, so maybe we'll catch up next year.
AAA Performance - Nope, the Sky Sox had a losing record in 2007, your Sidewinders did alright, though.
2nd Half performance - Rockies and D-backs both had better second half performances.

So the D-backs score well in four out of six, the Rockies look bad in four out of six. Bill James is actually on your side here, damn, I thought he'd come down harder on your team's cruel mockery of him last year. But at any rate, second half record is one positive we actually have. Remember our mutual friend Steve Finley? What about Byung Hyun Kim? You wouldn't know John Mabry, but be thankful for that, my friend, be very thankful. On April 1, we had all three as part of some sort of cruel joke our team was playing on us. On May 13, our record was 16-22 when we finally had enough and traded Kim. Less than a week later, we were still doing badly so we released Mabry on the 19th and called up Ryan Spilborghs. By June 15, we were near .500, but apparently the team realized that if it got rid of bad players and replaced them with decent ones, we'd be better off, so Finley got the boot too. Eventually we'd call up guys like Jimenez and Morales and All-Star Mark Redman, and even though I throw in that last name with tongue firmly in cheek, there's no question that the personnel on the team in October was a higher caliber than those on the team in April.

Now to your comparisons - if you can name one single transaction where Atlanta emptied its system to the same magnitude that the Diamondbacks did in acquiring Haren, you're a better Internet searcher than I am, my friend. For Tim Hudson, arguably a better pitcher than Haren, they gave up three young players, the best of which was Dan Meyer, who only ranked as high as fifth on their 2003 BA list of top prospects. You gave five of your top ten prospects plus a reliever for one player. Atlanta, to my knowledge never so completely drained their farm.

This is part of the new wave in baseball; see also the Tigers, who went from 119-game losers to the World Series in...yes, three years.

Detroit? That's actually probably a pretty decent comp for both of us, particularly when Cleveland seems to be taking the Rockies approach and not getting all panicky just because a rival makes a big splashy move. The Indians headline move this winter has been to trade for Jamey Carroll, in both theirs and the Rockies case, we're not talking about inept front offices that don't know how to build a farm like they had in Pittsburgh so that comparison is completely off base.

The key difference is, I think, you seem to feel that 'competing now' and 'competing later' are mutually exclusive. I don't think that's the case.

I think you've been missing that I don't believe this is the case either. Just because I acknowledge you have a slight edge in talent right now doesn't mean I remotely think your team is going to run away with the division this year or next. The difference between you, the Dodgers, Rockies and Padres just still isn't enough to be certain of anything. We'll take this onto the field, and you'll find that our talent's good enough to match up to yours. Don't worry, we aren't leaving the party while you're busy dancing on the bar in the winter.

by Rox Girl on Jan 6, 2008 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Improvement is good

That's something CO (and, perhaps to a lesser extent AZ) definitely have in their favor: getting better as the year went on. That is a good sign, and is much more hopeful than the likes of the Brewers, who started off at a blistering pace - they were eight games ahead by May 12! - but then folded like Motel 6 sheets.

Certainly, no doubt the Rockies improved over the season - though the fact that you signed Steve Finley at all, might cast some doubt on the wisdom present in your front office. ;-) [I certainly am not going to blame you for Kim, however, for obvious reasons! At least you got something for him, even if it was another D-backs reject, in the shape of Jorge Julio] Realizing when to cut bait is certainly part of wisdom...though better not to need to do so. A large part of our offensive offense, especially early on. was an OPS+ of 63 from Quentin. That's #241 of #241 among NL right-fielders with 250 PA's over the last fourteen seasons [Darrel Whitmore batted .204 for the 1993 Marlins, a 44 OPS+, worst for an NL RF since the 19th century.]

Otherwise, several of our position players massively improved their OPS in the second-half too. The only one who had a significant drop was Byrnes and that's entirely expected: the man appears to forget how to play baseball at the All-Star break. Here's the pre/post-break OPS changes for our starters.

Snyder: +227 points
Jackson: +161
Young: +119
Drew: +37
Reynolds*: -19
Hudson*: -45
Byrnes: -107
[* = partial half-season. No RF chosen, as Quentin only started six games after the break]

I'm certainly happier to see that than a Gonzo-esque decline in performance [171 point drop in the second-half of '07.] Something similar happened with a number of our starters too: Webb shaved 0.81 runs off his ERA, Owings 1.12, and Davis was basically flat [-0.02]. Johnson, of course, didn't pitch: Hernandez 2.0 was about the only one to get worse [+0.90] and he won't be our issue next year. Harder to tell with relievers, because we're now getting to tiny sample sizes: that said, Slaten improved and Cruz, Lyon got worse, Peña imploded from August on [1.92 ERA that far, 6.66 after] and Nippert sucked after the break. Signs overall, however, are generally not bad.

Enjoyed reading that article on the indicators. Most of those tend to make common sense, which i find comforting. Not quite so sure how accurate they are, since the analysis for the then upcoming season showed the Royals to have most positive indicators, and they lost a hundred games that year, improving a mere six. The next two teams were Colorado and Pittsburgh, who improved by nine and zero respectively. Still, might be fun to do something similar for the upcoming season, see what the results say.

Atlanta was more a general example of how it is possible to remain competitive for a length of time, rather than a specific. True, they didn't sell the farm, but they didn't find themselves with a young team, and almost every position locked in for the foreseeable future. In 2004, before they traded for Hudson. the Braves average hitter was aged 28.9, their pitchers 30.1 [and that was actually an improvement over preceding years]. For Arizona, the comparative ages were 26.6 and 28.0. We traded Carlos Gonzalez because we don't have anywhere to play him until, with the current contracts, 2011. [Now, if only he could play second-base...] Hoarding prospects with a Gollum-like intensity makes no sense, if you don't have anywhere to play them. You convert them into pieces you can use.

by Jim McLennan on Jan 6, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fun

Although this is a fun debate, (and well done on both sides, i might add) i do find it somewhat pointless. Are we really trying to predict 5 years down the road. In 2002, would any of us predicted this years rosters and outcomes? There will be so much that happens between now and then, its not even funny.

I think its safe to say, AZ and COLs futures look bright.

by qudjy1 on Jan 6, 2008 1:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well said

While I do not get into the stats part of the game as some do, I've enjoyed reading this thread a lot.
No matter how hard we may try, i do think it is hard to lose those 'homer' glasses. Hell, I think the DBacks should win 162 games every year, so much for my objectivity... ;-)
In the end though, all I can say is that is why we play the game.

by unnamedDBacksfan on Jan 6, 2008 8:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs