SB Nation User Blog: Phantom

How do we fix the Padres?

Phantom — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:22:01 -0000

I cross-posted this at Ducksnorts this morning, and there's a healthy discussion going on over there. However, I know that our two blog communities think a little differently, and I wanted to get the GLB opinion on this matter.

This is something I’ve been thinking a lot about recently, but how do we make this team better?

Our OF seems to be set. The Headley/Hairston/Gerut/Giles combination seems to be functioning well and all indicators at this juncture point to us keeping Giles next year. Unless someone offers Gerut stupid money, I can’t imagine not keeping that group together for next year.

Our weakest batting positions at this point are SS and C, two spots that are notoriously hard to fill and are notoriously light-hitting. I don’t think anyone would argue that Khalil and Bard aren’t having atrocious seasons, but are these just bad years or are they indicative of their true talent levels (as opposed to their track records as Padres)? But really, outside of these two positions, how do we upgrade the team?

Which brings us to pitching. I really, truly, honestly believe that our bullpen in particular and our pitching staff in general has killed this season for us. I firmly beleive that if our pitching staff were performing more like last year’s iteration that we’d be right in the thick of things.

It’s just interesting how little attention our pitching seems to get from “the experts.” Everyone points to Khalil and our catchers as our problems, but in reality, our pitching has killed us more than anything else.

What do you guys think? How do we fix this team?

Canham's tough season off the field

Phantom — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:46:15 -0000

Canham's tough season off the field

Went to espn.com/mlb today and the splash image was Storm catcher Mitch Canham in a dugout. Interesting read about the human side of baseball and trying to cope with loss.

Open Thread 6/12: Pads v. Dodgers - The Rubber Game

Phantom — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:30:38 -0000

So with both the season and current series tied (4-4) and (2-2) respectively, we go for our 7th win on this homestand.

Unlike previously reported, Martin is starting for the Dodgers. That is unfortunate. Some guy that won some award last year is pitching for us after taking a month off.

And if the powers that be already have one of these up, then I apologize. And yes, this paragraph is designed solely to meet the word limit.

Sports Illustrated - Staffed by Idiots

Phantom — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:35:45 -0000

Now I now this is a familiar refrain from me at this point, but Sports Illustrated decided to pile-on and kick the crap out of the Padres for their lack of drafting success over the past 15 years.

Now, a couple of points:

Today, the Padres are among the worst teams in baseball. There are a myriad of reasons why -- their reluctance to sign high-priced free agents, their dependence on bargain-basement veterans, and their blatant disregard for offense, to name a few.

This is so mind-numbingly stupid that I don't know where to begin. Our record sucks, but we're not among the worst teams in baseball. We missed the playoffs by one strike last year and have posted four winning seasons in a row. I understand that he tries to qualify this ass-hattery by saying "today," but then he proceeds to go through and repeat the same stupid crap that the national press constantly gets wrong about our team. We're not against signing high-priced FAs so long as it's not a stupid move. We extended Jake at a very high price. We don't "depend" on bargain-basement veterans. The only such "bargain-basement" guy was Edmonds and he's been cut. Not really fair to call Giles this, as we've had him for a while. "Blatant disregard for offense" is also stupid, as we play in a ridiculous pitchers park and our offense was really not that bad last year (as GY has pointed out multiple times over the past year).

It is not as though the Padres always pick late in the first round, either. In the past 14 years, they have picked first, second, third and fourth. Each of those bonus babies went bust.

This statement is purposefully confusing, as it makes it seem that we've had these low picks fairly recently. Directly before the quote I pasted, the author comments that we've had four hurt pitchers in a row. Again, this is all done as if to suggest that we've wasted four low picks on hurt pitchers. It's dishonest writing, and it's done on purpose to try to futher the author's point.

Our author then profiles these picks. He tries to mea culpa by saying he's from San Diego and thus he KNOWS his Padres, but here's the kind of stupid crap he writes anyway:

Sean Burroughs, third baseman: Drafted ninth out of Wilson High School (Ca.) in 1998, Burroughs was a former star of the Little League World Series. In five major-league seasons, he was a solid singles hitter, but he managed just 11 home runs.

Burroughs was pretty widely considered a hot propsect and many thought he would develop as a pretty damn good third-basemen. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean the Padres made some egregious error in drafting him.

Khalil Greene, shortstop: Drafted 13th out of Clemson University in 2002, Greene was the third shortstop taken by the Padres in the first round in six years. Finally, they got the right one. Greene won the National League Rookie of the Year Award in 2004, is among the best defensive infielders in baseball, and belted 27 home runs last season.

I love Khalil more than anyone else here, and even I wouldn't try to pretend that he won the NL ROY in 2004. That was actually Jason Bay, Mr. Jenkins. Greeney won the honor from Baseball America, which sadly, does not mean anything.

Matt Bush, shortstop: Drafted first out of Mission Bay High School (Ca.) in 2004, Bush never advanced beyond Class A. He was converted into a pitcher early last season, but he tore a ligament in his elbow and is still recovering from Tommy John surgery.

Bush was considered a top-ten talent, and although we shouldn't have popped him 1st, it's not like this was drafting a 15th round talent with the overall pick. Yes, Bush was a bad choice for number one. But it wasn't as bad as everyone consistently tries to make it out to be. It's not like we decided to go with a hobo on the street for this pick. Bush was profiled as top-ten.

Matt Antonelli, infielder: Drafted 17th out of Wake Forest in 2006, Antonelli advanced quickly through the Padres' system and nearly made the major-league team this spring. Instead, he was sent to Class AAA and batted .180 through April and May.

I think it's pretty weak to imply that Anotnelli's hitting .180 in AAA this year somehow makes him a terrible pick. He was progressing well and has since stalled. How many other 2006 draft picks are struggling in AAA? We don't know, since Jenkins doesn't tell us, but the implication is that Antonelli was not a great pick.

At the end, Jenkins tries to recover and say that despite all of these "horrible" picks, the Padres have been pretty damn good recently. Which begs the question: Why write this article in the first place?

Was there really nothing better to do with your column space, Mr. Jenkins? How about the phenomenal season Adrian Gonzalez is putting together, despite being mired in a weak lineup and playing half of his games in a place that saps power? Or maybe an article on the weird things that have happened to this team this year?

But no. Mr. Jenkins and Sports Illustrated decide to take the easy route and pile-on with an article ripe with dubious logic and outright factual errors. Go SI!

Blame where it is due

Phantom — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:59:40 -0000

Unlike most of you, I didn't have the luxury of suffering through another frustrating week of Padres baseball. Mercifully, the only baseball-related information I was able to acquire on my cruise amounted to a quick score (not even a box or a line with it).

So we're 12-20, the worst team in baseball. There's got to be a reason for this, right? Everyone looks at the Front Office and blames them for not building a good team. But let me tell you something.

It is not the Front Office's fault that we have the worst record in baseball.

Read that again.

It is not the Front Office's fault that we have the worst record in baseball.

Here are my reasons:

For the most part, we are the same team we were last year. We have effectively only replaced two position players, Cameron and Giles. While Edmonds is an obvious step back, Iguchi should be a step forward. Our rotation only has one change (and Wolf > Wells), while our bullpen has only seen a few new faces. The core group of guys remains the same. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY the Front Office could predict that the team would fail to play up to their career averages. Bard has been terrible. Khalil has no power. Giles can't get on-base to save his life. Hairston was apparently nothing more than a fluke. Thatcher appears to be a fluke as well. Hoffman has struggled. K-Cam is getting lit up worse than TTG on Cinco de Mayo.
The starting rotation. It's been nails. Germano has been a question mark, but he's our fifth starter. CY seems to finally be getting back in stride and Peavy and Maddux have been more of the same from last year. Wolf has dazzled.
Bud Black is an idiot. Some would say that the Front Office should be responsible for this, but Black didn't look quite so ineffective last year. Sure, he made a few questionnable moves, but for the most part, it was a brilliant rookie campaign. This year has been quite different. He's using the wrong people at the wrong times. He's not even using half the people on his roster. Just as they shouldn't be blamed for not predicting the utter collapse of the team, the Front Office cannot be blamed for failing to predict that Black would stop adhering to logic and reason.

There is one thing the Front Office is culpable for. The farm system is currently not in a place where we can recover from a disastrous start. Whereas other teams have players they can patch in when their players struggle, we have nothing. We're about another year out from any meaningful production from our farm guys, and to the team's credit, they've done their best to remedy this. The farm system is better than it's been, but the horrible management of the system from 2000 through 2004 has left us severely crippled right now.

But as we sit here broken hearted, lets make sure we target the right people with our criticism. The Front Office COULD HAVE NEVER predicted that the team would stop playing to it's average production. They cannot be held responsible for the utter failure of the (mostly) same personnel that excelled last year. The players have played like shit Rally Backs, and our manager seems like he's letting the tidal forces of the moon influence the majority of his decisions. This team sucks right now, but it's the team's fault. There are things that Kevin Towers, Sandy Alderson, et. al could have done better, but they don't play the games on the field.

In short, blame Canada.

Our Suspicions Have Been Confirmed

Phantom — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:24:47 -0000

9-14, fifth place in the West. It's hard to deal with. It doesn't seem real. Somehow, I just can't believe our team is really this bad. We do have a good team, don't we?

Going on the belief that our team is really better than they've played, I started trying to observe other factors that might explain our dreadful start. One tthing that struck me is that we seem to have overwhelmingly faced good pitching. Penny twice, Owalt twice, Cain twice, Lincecum twice.

But we all know that perceptions can be deceiving. Have we really faced the best pitching out of anyone in the West? And what about our offense? Is it all pitching? Are there other reasons we have struggled?

My conclusions are below the fold. Come along, if you please.

To try to make some sense of the chaos, I used Baseball-Reference's game logs to examine which starters each team in the NL West has faced so far this year. Once I had the list of starters each team has faced, I recorded the ERA+ (a normalized, park-adjusted number. 100 is average. Anything above 100 is good, anything below is bad. ERA+ is also a percentage, so a pitcher with an ERA+ of 114 is 14% better than the average.) for each starter. I also used the 2007 figures for each starter, as I didn't want our crappy offense to artifically inflate the numbers. In instances where the pitcher was a rookie, or didn't throw enough innings in 2007 (below 50, for my purposes), I used career numbers where available, or 2008 stats (for rookies). This isn't an exact science, but it should give us an idea of what we faced. For relievers or spot starter in 2007 who are now starting in 2008, I used their 2007 numbers.

Below are the average ERA+ of starters that each team in the West has faced this year. I have also listed repeat starters each team has faced (along with their ERA+) and any rookies or pitchers who didn't log enough innings in 2007 ( where I had to use numbers that may not be indicative of their true ability).

Los Angeles Dodgers: 102.76

Starters faced more than once: Peavy (159) and Haren (137).

Potential Outliers: M. Valdez (81) and J. Bennett (94)

Colorado Rockies: 110.23

Starters faced more than once: Webb (156) and E. Gonzalez (137).

Potential Outliers: None.

San Francisco Giants: 111.43

Starters faced more than once: Maddux (98), Wellemeyer (98), Pineiro (104), Webb (156), and Owings (109).

Potential Outliers: H. Kuo (87) and M. Parra (98).

Arizona Diamondbacks: 113.32

Starters faced more than once: Francis (114), Morales (140), Billingsley (138), and Zito (98).

Potential Outliers: Cueto (107) and Kuroda (145).

San Diego Padres: 118.13

Starters faced more than once: Oswalt (138), Backe (117), Penny (151), Lowe (118), Cain (122), and Lincecum (111).

Potential Outliers: Kuroda (145)

As you can see, we have indeed faced the toughest average starting pitching of any of the teams in the West. A quick look at the repeated starters gives us a good indication of this. Some of our opponents have also had the good fortune to repeatedly face starters in 2008 who haven't been nearly as effective as they were in 2007 (Billingsley, Francis, and Morales).

Now, does this tell us the whole story? So we faced some good pitchers, is that all? What about where we've played? Could it be that in addition to facing the toughest pitching around, we've also played in places that make the job even tougher on hitters? We all know that Petco is a tough place to play, but how has our schedule comapred to other teams in the West? For these numbers, I used the 2007 Park Factors from ESPN.com. I tabulated the number of times each team played in which park, and averaged the factors accordingly. For Park Factors, any number greater than 1 means it's a hitters environment. Any number lower than 1 means it favors pitchers. Petco had the lowest Park Factor in baseball in 2007 at 0.775.

Arizona Diamondbacks: 1.093

Colorado Rockies: 1.032

Los Angeles Dodgers: 1.005

San Francisco Giants: 0.982

San Diego Padres: 0.883

Now, Petco does unduly affect these numbers. But it's important to realize that the most hitter friendly place we've played has been Chase Field, where we played a total of 3 games. Other than Chase Field, only Dodger Stadium posts a "hitter friendly" number of 1.053. Staggeringly, even Minute Maid is below 1, at 0.901.

Some of our opposition has the good fortune to play in environments that are more conducive to scoring runs. But what about other places they've played?

Arizona, who leads the division in run-friendly places, has also played games at Coors Field (1.16), Dodger Stadium (1.053), and Great American Ballpark (1.095). Chase Field posts an extremely friendly 1.111.

Colorado, whose home field posts a robust 1.16, has also played games at Chase Field. All of their other games (aside from home games), come in parks with Park Factors below 1 (Busch Stadium at 0.933, Petco, and Minute Maid.)

Los Angeles, who has a surprisingly high Park Factor of 1.053, has also played games at Chase and GAB. Only Petco and Turner Field (0.912) are difficult places to hit.

San Francicso, like us, has a tough home environment. However, AT&T is not as low as you'd imagine, as their PF of 0.987 is near average. Other than Busch Stadium and Petco, the Giants have played games in hitter friendly places such as Chase, Dodger Stadium, and Miller Park (1.011)

I'm not sure what, if anything, this means. Maybe our team really is better than they're playing, and they've had an extraordinarily tough schedule for the first month. Not only is Petco a tough place to hit, but we haven't exactly played a ton of games in places where it IS easy to hit. Coupled with the ridiculuously bad luck we've had in terms of the starters we've drawn, it's understandable that our offense has struggled.

I am in no way proposing that this is an excuse. They are professional ball players. But maybe, just maybe, we should all back away from the ledge. It is unlikely that this kind of horrifically coincidental scheduling will continue throughout the season. We're bound to see Barry Zito at some point.

(If anyone is interested, I can send out the Excel file I used to compile this data. I'm sorry for the long diatribe, but I hope it's been worth your time.)

In the midst of snakes

Phantom — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:57:35 -0000

By chance, are any of my fellow GLB'ers going to be making the hard slog through the desert to support our boys at Chase this weekend? I'm heading to Phoenix tonite with the wife and the parents to watch the Padres finally hit a fuc*king homerun. Seriously, it's Chase Field. If I don't see a HR on either Friday or Saturday, I'm gonna cry.

Given that this is my first time to Chase, is there anything I should particularly pay attention to whilst in the snake pit? And no, I'm not talking about that incredibly annoying scream by The Who everytime a Diamondback goes yard. If I wanted annoyingly shrill sounds emanating from a PA system, I'd go see a game at AT&T.

3/21/08 Open Thread; Padres vs. Brewers

Phantom — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:07:28 -0000

Well, I know this game is going to probably not attract much of an audience given that XX isn't even covering it, but I'll be listening on MLB.com. I have to deal with the Brewers' broadcast, but I'm willing to grin and bear it for all of you.

Jake is on the hill. Some of you have decided that you no longer like him.

Shame on you.

Especially you, TTG.

Actually, I got nothing. Just trying to reach the character limit. Mostly B-squadders today with Kouz and Barrett as the only starters.

Open Thread, 2/28: Padres vs. Mariners - Charity Game

Phantom — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:42:22 -0000

[editor's note, by Dex] Good old Phantom and his endless supply of discretionary income that allows him to buy a XM radio player system.

Right, since I'm one of the lucky ones with XM, I'll be listening to this game today.

Corey Brock, our MLBlogger for the Padres, has the lineup for todays game at his blog (http://coreybrock.mlblogs.com/):

CF Jeff DaVanon
2B Oscar Robles
3B Kevin Kouzmanoff
1B Adrian Gonzalez
C Josh Bard
RF Jody Gerut
LF Chase Headley
DH Chip Ambres
SS Luis Rodriguez
SP Tim Stauffer

Corey also notes that Heat, Cla, Trevor, Thatch, Gardner, Zarate, and Wells should get some playing time.

I'll do my best to give updates on exciting plays/scores as the game rolls on. I do have a job so I'm not sure how many updates I'll be able to do. If anyone else can find a Gameday-type thing or has XM, please leave some updates as well.

Season Ticket Holders?

Phantom — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:20:29 -0000

Since I joined the GLB community only after I was provoked my Drama's now legendary dissertation on Khalil, I probably missed this kind of post from last year.

Does anyone have season tickets for this year? This is my first year as a season ticket holder and I'm completely giddy about it. I managed to convince the wife that part of our monetary haul from the wedding was best used on a 20-game plan.

We'll be sitting about 6 rows back from the LF fence, right above the "N" in the Sony sign if I remember right. Section 128, Row 5, Seats 10 & 11.

Who else has sason seats? Where ya sitting?