Random Fandom

A day late perhaps, but the Republic got into the spirit of my 4 questions yesterday by one-upping me and listing 5 questions. (That's why they pay them reporters the big bucks.) The one question they asked that I wished I hadn't forgotten to include yesterday was who will get the catching spot. Before today's article, I'd heard but never seen attributed to anybody in charge that veteran Kelly Stinnett will probably be on the 25-man squad, with Snyder and Hill competing for the starting role, the loser kicked off the island and sent to Tucson. Yesterday's AP article on the Republic's website had a couple other interesting comments:

"'I'm not here to say that I need two lefties in the bullpen,' Melvin said. 'If we have a right-hander that we feel is just a more talented pitcher and can get left-handers out, that's what we'll do.'" -- so perhaps Halsey isn't as much of a lock to make the 25-man squad as I thought. (But I still think he will.)

"Oscar Villarreal might have a slight edge over Mike Gosling, Brad Halsey and Ramon Pena for the fifth spot." -- of course, this would be a lot more interesting were this quotation attributed to someone or were some justification attached.
So let's take another shot at a probable 25-man lineup, last attempted a month ago:

C: Snyder or Hill (I think Snyder will get the nod, just because I think he's a better offensive threat)
1B: Tracy
2B: Counsell
SS: Clayton
3B: Glaus
IF: Stinnett
IF: Kata
IF: Cintron
IF: Clark
LF: Gonzalez
CF: Cruz
RF: Green
OF: Terrero
SP1: Vazquez (Melvin's prevarication notwithstanding)
SP2: Ortiz
SP3: Webb
SP4: Estes
Closer: Aquino
Setup: Koplove
LOOGY: Choate

That leaves 4 pitchers (Melvin's stated he'll carry 11 pitchers), including the 5th-spot and one position player to be determined. The position player competition would come down to McCracken, DeVore, Green, and Hairston. Unbelievable as it may sound, forced to choose right now I think McCracken will probably get it -- remember, he played for Melvin in Seattle. As for the pitchers, it seems like the 5 most likely pitchers to make the squad are Villarreal, Gosling, Halsey, Pena, and Lyon, with maybe Bruney next most-likely. If I had to guess, I'd go with Villarreal, Halsey, Lyon, and Bruney. Gosling pitched really well in his attempt to crack the starting lineup at the end of 2004, but he seems to be a pitcher more suited for a starting role than a relief role. And if Villarreal gets the 5th spot, that leaves Gosling on the outside looking in waiting for the inevitable collapse of someone in the starting rotation.

Still, answering these questions will be fun over the next 6 weeks.

****************

Finally, Jim has found a job and started a fantasy league. Do go consider joining -- it's free to play...

First day of spring training for the Diamondbacks -- shouldn't there be a story, preferably a big one, in the paper? Nope, not in the Republic, not in the Daily Star (they're training in Tucson) -- only the Tribune comes through with a classic "guy with something to prove" article on Russ Ortiz.

So let me ask the big questions that should've been asked in newspaper articles today as a prelude to spring training...

In rough order of importance...

1. How will the g-g-guys recover from their 2004 injuries?
No, this isn't a stuttering question, it's a question of how Gonzalez, Glaus, and Green will recover from their 2004 injuries. For a team whose 2004 debacle can be blamed in large part on constant injuries, having these three in the lineup for most of the year would be a welcome change. Injured, and the D-Backs cement their reputation (justified or not) for handing out bloated contracts. Healthy, and all of a sudden the new Glaus and Green contracts become a bargain (for 2005 at least).
2. Which Vazquez will we see?
All Star Javier? Or Post-All Star-Javier? If it's anywhere near All Star Javier, Randy Johnson would have to pitch another perfect game along with an ERA below 2.00 for the D-Backs to feel like the trade (though painful) was worthwhile.
3. Who's Batting First?
... and 2nd, and 6th through 8th? Traditional managerial thinking would put the "speedy" Clayton (is he really speedy?) in leadoff, with the "bunty" Counsell (is he really bunty? is that really a word?) behind him. Should this happen, the entire D-Back blogging/online community are liable to throw sharp objects at their LCDs. Consensus amongst that community says Cruz should bat leadoff, and I agree. I'm torn between batting Tracy 2nd or 6th, as I'm not sure which would be better for a batter in his 2nd year in the league whom the scouting reports have caught up with -- in other words, will he get better pitches at the 2-spot or the 6-spot? (Probably the 2-spot, so that's my answer.) Please bat Clayton 8th. Please.
4. Who's Pitching Fifth?
If you know who's going to get this spot, you should stop reading this blog and get yourself to Vegas. Gosling, Halsey, Gonzalez, Pena, take your pick, there are others...

Really, the only question that spring training will definitively answer is #4, but I'm sure many column inches will be killed answering those other 3.

"Tomorrow we'll discover
What our God in Heaven has in store!
One more dawn
One more day
One day more!"

-- from "One Day More," in Les Miserables, the musical

Les Mis is a pretty stunning musical. The songs are occasionally silly, the lyrics more so. But there's no denying its narrative propulsion. Certainly using Victor Hugo's novel as the base doesn't hurt matters, but the song that closes the first act, "One Day More," masterfully intertwines all the disparate plot threads and puts them in the same place at the same time. 50-odd people singing in a major key as loud as they can has a way of leaving you in the auditorium as the intermission lights go up going "Whoa..."

Even if the song is basically just about how tomorrow will soon be here, which is about as certain an occurrence as we can bet on. There's not much a lot of plot in the song, so the fact that you can wring a huge closing number out of that is pretty amazing.

I was thinking of this as I read the Republic's first D-Backs spring training article, this one on Matt Kata. It's pretty much a puff piece, as Kata dusts off a few bon mots from the Crash Davis Media Relations Guide ("team player"). But most of it seems to be written on the "spring training story" template that Bill Simmons discussed a few years back. If I had to fit Kata into the framework, I'd have to put him into the "Guy With Something To Prove" framework.

Frankly, the most useful piece of information from the article is that Cintron "has moved over to second base" -- that's news to me. I mean, it's not news that he played second, but I would have thought that the D-Backs would leave their options open heading into Spring Training -- does this make Craig Counsell backup shortstop? Does this make me backup shortstop? (I hope not, 'cause my UZR sucks.)

One more day… one day more!

*********************

Jim's mysterious post from earlier this week was clarified yesterday as he announced that he'd be joining the ever-growing group of Blez's SportsBLOGS as the Diamondbacks representative at the AZSnakepit. The news that Jim is also looking for a job, along with Blez's announcement that he was recently released from his job, would make me a little nervous about joining the SportsBLOGS universe, bad things happening in threes, and all that. (I'm kidding, folks. I kid because I love.) Seriously, I hope Jim finds something that he can live with and lets him continue to blog. I'm glad he got the recognition -- he's a fun writer to read and an astute observer of the team.

Plus, Jim's move means I'll soon be able to describe this blog as the "oldest continuously-operating-under-the-same-name Diamondbacks blog focusing on the major leagues." That counts for something, no?

The BA chat on D-Backs prospects -- here's a summary:
1. Stephen Drew is really, really good. Sign him, dudes.
2. Yes, there will be some clogging issues in at the corner outfield positions. (Quentin, Jackson, Zeringue)
3. Josh Kroeger is not part of that clogging problem.
4. Snyder will probably get the catching nod, with the "loser" (Hill) getting sent down to AAA for now.
5. The D-Backs have a few top-of-the-line pitching prospects, but overall their pitching is weak.

It's a good read, read it if you haven't already.

... And on the Dan Bickley / Mike Jurecki radio show this morning, Ken Kendrick made a cryptic allusion to some positive developments this year regarding "beer prices." Probably about 6 months too late (as Jim noted repeatedly last year, they should've done this last August), but lower prices is welcome news.

At the very least, fans will spend more time at BOB this year.

Player PlateApp Pitches P/PA OPS

Last season

Snyder 110 463 4.21 .786
Gonzalez 451 1836 4.07 .866
Zinter 40 161 4.03 .653
Sexson 104 413 3.97 .914
Tracy 532 2100 3.95 .750
Alomar 125 492 3.94 .855
Johnson 87 340 3.91 .329
Brito 184 718 3.90 .544
Hammock 210 809 3.85 .692
Terrero 255 965 3.78 .677
--3.75 -------------------------------------
DeVore 114 425 3.73 .646
Kata 178 663 3.72 .665
Hairston 364 1344 3.69 .735
Gil 88 321 3.65 .403
Fossum 46 167 3.64 .212
A. Green 119 433 3.64 .507
Olson 114 410 3.60 .620
Baerga 94 337 3.59 .638
McCracken 172 605 3.52 .751
Webb 71 247 3.48 .228
Hillenbrand 604 2049 3.39 812
Bautista 582 1975 3.39 .733
Cintron 613 2075 3.38 .665
Kroeger 55 178 3.24 .404
Hill 38 118 3.11 .651

2005-Who's Left

Snyder 110 463 4.21 .786
Gonzalez 451 1836 4.07 .866
Zinter 40 161 4.03 .653
--
Tracy 532 2100 3.95 .750
--
--
Brito 184 718 3.90 .544
Hammock 210 809 3.85 .692
Terrero 255 965 3.78 .677
--3.75 -------------------------------------
DeVore 114 425 3.73 .646
Kata 178 663 3.72 .665
Hairston 364 1344 3.69 .735
Gil 88 321 3.65 .403
--
A. Green 119 433 3.64 .507
Olson 114 410 3.60 .620
--
McCracken 172 605 3.52 .751
Webb 71 247 3.48 .228
--
--
Cintron 613 2075 3.38 .665
Kroeger 55 178 3.24 .404
Hill 38 118 3.11 .651

2005-With the new guys

Snyder 110 463 4.21 .786
Gonzalez 451 1836 4.07 .866
Counsell 551 2226 4.04 .645
Zinter 40 161 4.03 .653
Clark 283 1139 4.02 .755
Glaus 242 958 3.96 .930
Tracy 532 2100 3.95 .750
Brito 184 718 3.90 .544
S. Green 671 2597 3.87 .811
Hammock 210 809 3.85 .692
Terrero 255 965 3.78 .677
Clayton 652 2462 3.77 .735
--3.75 -------------------------------------
Cruz 636 2379 3.74 .766
DeVore 114 425 3.73 .646
Kata 178 663 3.72 .665
Hairston 364 1344 3.69 .735
Gil 88 321 3.65 .403
A. Green 119 433 3.64 .507
Olson 114 410 3.60 .620
McCracken 172 605 3.52 .751
Webb 71 247 3.48 .228
Cintron 613 2075 3.38 .665
Kroeger 55 178 3.24 .404
Hill 38 118 3.11 .651

Last year was not a good year for plate discpline by the D-Backs as they saw an average of 3.68 pitches per plate appearance. In the first table, you can see that 60% of the team with more than 35 plate appearances fell below the NL average of 3.75. (I include Johnson, Webb, and Fossum for comparison purposes; based on their numbers, I would guess pitchers might drag down the average, but only slightly, especially in the National League, where they probably just have little more than 6% of the plate appearances.

So, on the second table, the D-Backs no longer have 4 players below the 3.75 line, 3 above that line. (I kept players like Hammock, who might sign a minor league contract, on the list.)

The shift toward more patient batters becomes apparent when the new players (in italics) are incorporated into the third table. Whereas last year's Opening Day lineup had just 4 players above the 3.75 line, all but Jose Cruz reach that dividing line this year, with Cruz virtually there.

I haven't bothered to check on the relationship between plate discipline and OPS (and I'm sure there's some literature out there, either way, and perhaps both), but it's clear that we'll be spending a little more time at the ballpark this season.

Last week, Studes and Mike (from Mike's Baseball Rants) teamed up to look at trades over the years. Their conceit? Trades can be evaluated by looking at the future Win Shares (and Win Shares Above Baseline) of the players traded so that the Glenn Davis for Finley, Schillng, and Harnisch trade ends up looking pretty bad.

For kicks, I took Studes' table and adjusted it for the number of years the team was in the league between 1961 and 2002 (the period used by Studes). And, surprise, surprise...

Team WSAB To WSAB From Diff Yrs WSAB/Yr
ARI 238 140 98 / 5 = 19.6
CHA 2641 1944 697 / 42 = 16.6
KCA 1507 1081 426 / 34 = 12.5
TOR 1384 1067 317 / 26 = 12.2
SDN 2464 2162 302 / 34 = 8.9
BAL 2015 1770 245 / 42 = 5.8
MIL 1390 1227 163 / 34 = 4.8
MIN 1369 1174 195 / 42 = 4.6
NYA 2736 2549 187 / 42 = 4.5
TEX 2543 2412 131 / 42 = 3.1
SLN 3053 2937 116 / 42 = 2.9
HOU 2262 2189 73 / 41 = 1.8
CHN 2709 2636 73 / 42 = 1.7
MON 2139 2099 40 / 34 = 1.2
PHI 2402 2360 42 / 42 = 1.0
ANA 1681 1655 26 / 42 = 0.6
CLE 3277 3274 3 / 42 = 0.1
---------------------------------------
COL 279 299 -20 / 10 = -2.0
DET 1204 1296 -92 / 42 = -2.2
OAK 2048 2141 -93 / 42 = -2.2
CIN 2452 2579 -127 / 42 = -3.0
LAN 2291 2494 -203 / 42 = -4.8
PIT 2041 2288 -247 / 42 = -5.9
ATL 1653 1919 -266 / 42 = -6.3
SFN 1895 2172 -277 / 42 = -6.6
SEA 1110 1331 -221 / 26 = -8.5
NYN 2197 2760 -563 / 41 = -13.7
BOS 1339 1945 -606 / 42 = -14.4
FLO 731 882 -151 / 10 = -15.1
TBA 33 189 -156 / 5 = -31.2

That's right -- using this metric, Your Arizona Diamondbacks have the best Win Shares Above Baseline per year of any team in baseball, by one full win a year. Yeah, Joe Jr.'s crazy all right -- crazy like a fox!

How does this square with the widely received notion that the Diamondbacks' management stinks (to use a more polite word than is often used)? Well, as noted in Studes' article and in the BTF Primer discussion linked therein, the methodology isn't perfect. For example, how do you account for trading away a player you won't be able to afford in future years? (You don't, not at the moment.) And the methodology doesn't take into account free agent signings -- a significant quiver in the D-Backs' bag which has been used for both good (Randy Johnson) and evil (Jay Bell). And clearly there are some potential issues with a young franchise such as the D-Backs in that it's possible the scale could tip one way or the other as the few trades they've made play out over the next 10 years.

I'm not suggesting that the Diamondbacks are the sharpest franchise in baseball. This type of analysis is probably fun, but has too many unanswered and possibly unresolvable questions at this point to be truly useful. But for all the talk about the team being too willing to trade young talent for veterans at the end of their career, isn't this at least some sort of proof that the perception isn't entirely true?