On Tuesday night, Adrian Gonzalez, aka Far and Away the Best Player on the Padres, had to leave the game after the fourth inning after he strained his right knee on a slide into third.

On Wednesday night, Adrian Gonzalez, aka Far and Away the Best Player on the Padres, was back in the starting lineup.

Why?

Let’s take a step back. On May 22nd, in another base-running mishap, Jake Peavy hurt his ankle. Five days later, on May 27th, Peavy was back out there anyway, giving up four earned in six plus against the Diamondbacks while only striking out five. He would start two more games, the flu-ridden debacle against the Phillies and a strong start against those same Diamondbacks, before being shut down for months, maybe even the entire season, with a longitudinal tearing in the posterior tibialis tendon. The severity of the injury caught both Peavy and the team off guard, which explains how a star pitcher can be handled so nonchalantly. One would hope that if the Padres had to do it all over again, they’d give Peavy’s ankle more time to build back its strength.

Cue Adrian.

Following the recent days off for Ryan Howard and Justin Morneau, Adrian became the active consecutive games leader. As of the writing of this article, Adrian has played in 284 consecutive games, which leads him 21 games behind Steve Garvey’s Padre record. Garvey, one of the four San Diego Padres worthy of having his number retired. From where I’m sitting, which is in my mother’s basement, something doesn’t seem right. Is risking Adrian’s long-term health worth this streak, if that’s what this is about? And if it’s not, what is it about?

As we’ve been over, this is not the season to be calling out all the stops. I would imagine that Adrian doesn’t want to come out of the lineup, but he’s not supposed to want to come out. That’s when Bud Black is supposed to take a step back, realize that he has the team’s number one prospect who also so happens to be a first baseman just sitting around, and make the best big picture decision.

Of course, to be fair, my mother’s basement doesn’t have all the answers. There’s many nuances that go into running a baseball team that I don’t know. I just have a bad feeling about this.

A little more than four years ago to the day, on June 2nd, 2005, Miguel Ojeda started the day’s game in right field. Though he was a backup catcher, Ojeda starting in the outfield wasn’t entirely out of a line, as he had a handful of starts in left earlier that year. The craziness comes in who Ojeda was starting over.

Xavier Nady was drafted by the Padres in the second round of the 2000 draft and was named the Padres number one best prospect by Baseball America in 2003. yet in his three years with the big league club, Nady never received consistent playing time, and was shipped out to New York in 2005 for Mike Cameron. Since then, Nady has jumped to Pittsburgh and then to the Yankees (the other New York team), breaking out last year with a .374 wOBA in 148 games, a career high.

On that fateful June day, Nady sat on the bench and watched Ojeda run out in right and go 0-for-3. And then five months later, he was gone.

Get to the point, Ray

Right.

The Padres have had a tremendous lack of success in developing homegrown talent. Outside of Jake Peavy, the second best player the Padres made for themselves this decade was Khalil Greene, and we all know how that turned out. Most of them busted, but at least Sean Burroughs got a chance. Nady never really got that chance in San Diego, and I’m beginning to worry about how big of a shot Chase Headley’s going to get.

Kevin Towers went on XX Radio last night for his weekly call-in. The topic of Headley, and why he’s been sitting so much, came up. Among other things, Towers said that he thinks Headley’s confidence level is down, that the strike outs are a concern, and that the team is out there trying to win games. He also said that it’s up to a player to make adjustments in game, and that maybe Headley should go back and look at video from the minors to see what’s changed.

Let’s start at the beginning: the team is out there trying to win games. Towers brought this up to explain why Headley’s sitting for Scott Hairston, but it begs the question: What are Kevin Kouzmanoff and Brian Giles doing in the lineup night-in and night-out?

Now, Giles has run into a hot streak, posting an .899 OPS in the past two weeks, which has raised his season mark up to .568. That’s an OPS+ of 52. He’s also played in 50 of the team’s 53 games. Kouzmanoff, meanwhile, has an OPS of .503 over the past two weeks, with a season OPS of .612, or an OPS+ of 63. He’s played in 51 games.

Giles’ recent hot streak and Kouzmanoff’s hot defense are two valid reasons for why these guys are still in the lineup, but I wonder why it comes at the expense of Chase Headley.

Like Nady, Headley is a former number one prospect, taking the title in 2008. And he’s also only 148 games into his major league career, but confidence in him already seems to be dwindling. In yesterday’s Union-Tribune, Headley was quoted as saying:

I’ve never had so few at-bats over a month. Since I hurt my shoulder, I haven’t played every day. I haven’t been given a chance to battle through this.

For a good number of my at-bats in May, I was fighting to get through the weakness in my shoulder. It was really weak. I had to change my stance because I couldn’t hold my hands in the same position.

Headley returns after Hairston hurt

Headley is referring to a shoulder injury he sustained in early May when he ran into the wall in L.A. This knocked him out for a couple of games, but based on Headley’s use of the past-tense, it doesn’t seem to still be bothering him. Surely not as much the position he’s found himself in.

He goes on to say:

It’s frustrating, the circumstance I’m in right now. I didn’t forget how to hit. I feel I have the capability. I think that in any capacity, I can help this team out. But this wouldn’t be the capacity I would choose.

That doesn’t sound to me like a player whose confidence is down.

Why is the team sitting on Chase Headley?

Headley’s supposed to be one of the young cornerstones of this franchise, but he’s sitting in favor of a 38-year-old in the last year of his contract. I hear Towers say that Headley’s strike outs are of concern, but more so than Kouzmanoff’s inability to draw a walk? Headley may be striking out 30% of the time, but his BB/K is still well above Kouzmanoff’s. Headley’s been the superior player of the three all year, but I don’t expect to hear the front office say so.

Finally, with Hairston on the DL, a spot in the outfield opened up. But last night, the newly recalled Will Venable got the start in left field over Headley, going 0-for-4 with an error.

One can only assume that Henry Blanco forgot his outfield glove at home.

With great power comes great responsibility.

With all due respect, Trevor who? The Heath Bell era has begun in San Diego. While we’re not even two weeks into the season, Heath (yeah, he’s already on a first-name basis) sits atop the league with his 5 saves, and he’s using this position to fight the good fight against ESPN and the East Coast Bias.

Heath, who grabbed headlines earlier in the offseason when it became public knowledge that he dropped 20 pounds using Wii Fit, took exception to the coverage his and our team received this past Monday, when they spoiled the opener of Citi Field by beating the Mets.

“I saw ESPN’s promo for tonight’s game. They mention the Mets are opening Citi Field, they mentioned the starting time, but nowhere did they mention the Padres. . . .

“I truly believe ESPN only cares about promoting the Red Sox and Yankees and Mets – and nobody else,” said the closer, a former Met. “That’s why I like the MLB Network, because they promote everybody. I’m really turned off by ESPN and ‘Baseball Tonight.’ When Jake Peavy threw 8 1/3 innings on Saturday, they showed one pitch in the third inning and that was it. It’s all about the Red Sox, Yankees and Mets.”

Padres closer Heath Bell sick of ESPN’s East Coast bias

While Heath’s earned himself new fans with his comments, he’s also received backlash:

While I agree that MLB Network is far superior to ESPN concerning televised baseball coverage, this is pretty petty. The reason the Monday night’s game was telecast was because of the Mets opening their new stadium — just like last year when the Nationals did on Sunday Night Baseball. Bell would also be hard pressed to explain how ESPN doesn’t care about the Cubs, Cardinals, Braves, Phillies, Rays, Indians, Angels, White Sox, Twins and Dodgers. They may try to cater to the more popular teams — how dare they worry about ratings? — but it’s not limited to just three teams. Plus, do they actually have an obligation to cover each team equally? Without trying to speak for ESPN, coverage is generally slanted toward teams that matter to the mass audience — not just a small group of die-hards. The Padres simply don’t right now.

—

Simply put, things are going very well for the Padres right now. That’s not likely to continue, so they should be enjoying themselves instead of worrying about ESPN’s coverage. It would behoove Bell to take a page out of the Adam Dunn handbook and not watch or read anything, while remaining indifferent toward media coverage.

Outrageous, you say? While I agree that Monday’s night coverage of the Mets made sense, given that the entire event was built around the opening of that new New York stadium, it shouldn’t water down Heath’s message. Taking what was said about the three teams so literally is silly and a straw man argument.

Isn’t the idea that ESPN doesn’t have a responsibility to cover all teams, and that the Padres should be honored that they’re getting coverage now, the kind of arrogance that has grown undeserved? Not only has the Internet made the so-called experts on ESPN worthless, but the MLB Network has made Baseball Tonight highlights unnecessary? Let us turn to our leader, Heath Bell:

Well- nevermind. Moving on.

Speaking of crushing disappointment from Heath, his entrance music has left something to be desired. He started out at a disadvantage, replacing the man with the most iconic theme song in the history of baseball, but this? Listen:

We at the Sacrifice Bunt are taking it upon ourselves to find Heath’s new, true entrance music. Leave a comment giving your suggestions. Here’s mine:

(warning: pg-13 swagger in this video)

Grady Fuson, if you didn’t know, is in charge of overseeing the Padres minor league system, and he recently took exception with Baseball America’s ranking of the Padres farm system as 29^th best, or 2^nd worst, in the league.

As we’ve discussed before, the public perception of our farm system is bleak. Along with BA, Keith Law ranked the team at 19^th, and John Sickles and Baseball Prospectus were also less than enthused. But neither of them were as harsh as BA, which is where Fuson’s directed his ire.

Said Fuson: “It’s impossible. It just has to be.”

Fuson, who oversees the farm system and the draft, said the Padres belong in the Top 10, not the bottom two.

——–

“Let’s take the true Baseball America that we all know,” Fuson said Monday. “We all know that they love high school, first two rounds, and/or overpaid type players. The reality is that we are a little more selective in that group. So, in other words, we don’t take every high school guy that runs and throws, or that has a 93 mph fastball, just because he throws 93. We’re a little more selective with delivery, with a true ability on projecting some command down the road.

“When it comes to the offensive players, do I want (those) that can run and throw? You bet. But we are also very offensive-minded in our selections. With that said, I think we should be judged a little bit on the quality in the last three or fours years on the offensive players – not just the one-dimensional bangers – but with skills that can play. How can you define those guys as non-upside guys?”

Padres officials come to the defense of the organization’s farm system

One more time: “It’s impossible. It just has to be.”

I remember there was a time when it looked like the Padres were putting together an All-Star front office, with Fuson and Sandy Alderson and Paul DePodesta. I imagine it’s difficult to find anyone who would term the F.O. as an All-Star squad at this point, and Fuson’s defensiveness does nothing to help matters.

I realize that Fuson defending the minor league system is not a problem. It’s his job, afterall. And it’s good that he takes offense to BA’s dramatically low ranking, which I’m not necessarily endorsing. But top 10? Are we supposed to take Fuson seriously?

Does he actually think that the Padres have a top 10 minor league system?
Let’s assume for a second that Fuson actually believes his own non-sense. All of a sudden, I’m not comfortable with Fuson’s ability as a system builder.

From the UT article:

Fuson mentioned, among many others, Kulbacki, a left fielder who batted .332 with 20 home runs last year in 84 games with Single-A Lake Elsinore; pitcher Wynn Pelzer, a right-hander ticketed for Lake Elsinore’s rotation this year, who was 9-6 with a 3.19 ERA at Single-A Fort Wayne; and Hunter, a center fielder who batted .318 with 11 home runs in 134 games with Lake Elsinore.
“You can’t say that Kulbacki doesn’t look like an impact player,” he said. “Pelzer, this guy is smart. This is a guy that has good stuff. If Cedric Hunter’s career is Jody Gerut, that’s a pretty good big league ballplayer. I could see where somebody would say that is not impact, but that’s a pretty good big-league ballplayer.”

Moving past the craziness of comparing Cedric Hunter’s career to Jody Gerut’s injury-riddled one, Fuson sounds like a desperate man who can’t handle criticism. I’d say it’s because he can feel the ax coming, but Alderson has his back:

“Everybody sees the depth that we have in our minor league system. At this point, perhaps people don’t see one outstanding prospect. … Really, only one of our top-rated prospects had a disappointing year in any real sense, and that was Antonelli. Anybody else, like LeBlanc – we were pushing our guys to higher levels. So, that, together with the fact we had a very strong draft (in 2008) and a number of those players are ranked in our Top 10, and we had some great signings internationally – (being ranked 29th) just doesn’t make any sense. Of course, there were other publications that ranked us much higher.”

Of course, we’ve already discussed Alderson’s impending departure, but maybe his comments shed some light on an organizational content with a minor league system that is universally listed in the bottom half of the league (despite their own objection) and is so barren that the big league team is looking at Cha Seung Baek as its third starter. Afterall, it’s impossible that this team is the 29^th worst in the league. It just has to be.

History says trading Padres ace Jake would be a huge mistake

This Nick Canepa article is chock full of unintentional lulz. Here’s his contention:

I’m beyond tired of seeing San Diego stars either shipped off or simply allowed to walk away. In this regard, our history is horrible.

Essentially he says good players have played for San Diego sports teams. Then they played for teams in a different city. How inconceivable.

Next, Canepa gives us examples that apparently apply specifically to the possibility of trading Jake Peavy, even though his evidence comes from different decades, ownership groups, payroll sizes, even different sports.

Of course, he doesn’t mention that one could come up with a similar list of good players for any city across the country who have moved from one team to the next.

Don’t forget, this is supposed to be evidence for why the Padres should not trade Jake Peavy. Why trading him would be a bad idea. Here are my favorite parts.

Drew Brees, the Chargers’ Pro Bowl quarterback, left with very little compensation. Everyone knew Philip Rivers was going to be the guy, so the team should have traded Brees the year before, when he was healthy and at peak value.

The Chargers allowed running back Michael Turner to leave, and he’s not having a bad time in Atlanta, where he’s gained 655 yards in seven games. He should have been dealt after the 2006 season.

The Bolts seem poised not to re-sign linebacker Shawne Merriman when his contract expires after the 2009 season. If Merriman’s healthy, this would be a grievous error. He’s the NFL’s most dynamic defender. Let’s hope, at the very least, if the Chargers decide they’re not re-signing him, that they trade him, rather than cut him loose and get last week’s bagel in return.

The Padres should not trade a star like Jake Peavy because (somehow this makes sense) San Diego teams should have traded other stars.

There’s more:

The 2007 Cy Young winner makes a lot of money, he’s vocal, and the team lost 99 games with him. He has a violent delivery, and pitchers have been known to be brittle. But, while having a few problems, Peavy hasn’t had arm or shoulder surgery. And, at 27, he’s hardly out of his prime. He may not have entered it.

Those are some pretty good reasons to go through with a trade. The Padres lost 99 games with Jake on the roster, that goes to show how one player does not necessarily make a successful season. Also his violent delivery causes serious concern for injury, and pitchers are injured more often than position players.

But don’t worry! All of those reasons are completely negated because Jake is 27 years of age, and while he had injury trouble last year, surgery is not immediately required.

In reality, 27 year olds (Jake will be 28 most of 2009) can and do get injured.  And not needing surgery (yet) doesn’t alleviate concerns about a pitcher with elbow trouble. Finally, Canepa doesn’t bother to attempt a rebut to the argument that Peavy will likely take up 20% of the team’s payroll and still can’t do enough to save a 99 loss season.

Isn’t the generally accepted practice to provide evidence in support of your opinion, not against it?

Unlike Melvin, I kind of like drama. Spice of life kind of thing. And for me, this season has been filled with intrigue. It hasn’t been fun, but there’s been a lot to talk about. For instance:

Genuine draft: The Padres will have the third pick in next year’s draft, which will probably be too late to grab Strasburg, but still very high. High enough to grab a potential star. Of course, it’s potential to grab a star anywhere in the 175 rounds that are in the draft, but the higher the better.

Gimme the loot: One of the benefits of playing terrible in a season that you didn’t plan on being terrible is a glut of moveable parts. This summer, the Padres moved Tony Clark, Randy Wolf, and Greg Maddux. What will actually become of the minor league pitchers and players to be named later that we acquired for these players is still to be seen, but if just one of them becomes a key part to a future Padres club, it’s a win.

If it’s broke, fix it: For five years now, the Padres have been sending out a makeshift team. They have, essentially, been rebuilding years, but competitive rebuilding years. And this was the season when the bottom fell out. The strong pitching staff that has carried this team since it started playing in ridiculous Petco Park faltered, with names like Baek and Banks seeing significant playing time. Adding to the mess was regressions, disappointments, and injuries that depleted the team on the field.

With the introduction of Chase Headley, however, the Padres have begun to turn over a new leaf. He was soon followed by other top prospects Wade LeBlanc, Will Venable, and Matt Antonelli. It’s only a matter of time the clubhouse is filled with players that came up, and have been neutered, in the system. Not more forcing square players in the round holes.

Jody Gerut: He’s pretty good.

Hey, it’s baseball!: It still is, technically.

The Padres soap opera is bothering me, I’ve never been one to embrace drama. The media is also bothering me more than usual, though this is probably a reflection of my own frustrations for the losing season as well as theirs. Here are some thoughts I’ve been ruminating over.

• 62-97 doesn’t reflect a commitment to this year at all costs, or true talent level. Tony Clark was traded July 17th. That day represents the moment the team began their focus on 2009. Since then they’ve traded Randy Wolf and Greg Maddux, and held auditions for others. Runs score / allowed expectancy puts the team at 67 wins. PECOTA, the best projection system in the business, predicted 79 wins. Judging expectations for 2009 based on simple 2008 record is just lazy. Check the media’s 2008 Rays predictions and you’ll see what I mean.
• Sandy Alderson isn’t paid to tell jokes. He’s paid to run a multi-million dollar business. If you don’t do what he asks you to do, you get fired. If someone at the NyQuil factory fills bottles with Flaming Moe alcoholic beverages rather than cough syrup, he might think he’s improving the product but he still deserves to be canned. Sandy kind of does act like a jerk on the radio, but the way those clowns on air talk to Sandy like he ran off with their mother I would also be tempted to treat them the way he does.
• JC Bradburry points out that $700 billion dollars builds 437.5 Yankee Stadiums. That’s two Yankee Stadiums for every city in the country with a population larger than Denton, Texas (pop. 115,000).
• Darren Smith and Philly Billy practically ran the front-running AL MVP out of town. Granted the front office deserves some criticism for not pushing harder to sign him in spite of the radio clowns’ tomfoolery. But Darren and Billy chewed the shit out of Alderson for having the gall to take a small risk on the best outfielder in baseball this year. Those two have forfeited their right to have an opinion ever again.
• Mike Adams will be a good guy to have around next year. Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what the hell’s going on in the bullpen with all the hullabaloo back there. If you haven’t noticed, Adams has set himself apart from the pack with a 156 ERA+ and a 3.13 FIP in 64 innings out of the pen. It seems strange that the pitching is so far behind the offense this year as opposed to those previous, but Mike Adams is a welcome addition in 2009 as the Towers Bullpen Come-Out-Of Nowhere Guy™ for 2008.

…why sports talk radio will rot your brains.

You can’t trade bad players just because they’re bad.  If baseball were that easy, Padre fans would never have the pleasure of telling the thrilling tales of Mark Bellhorn.  You trade players when their perceived value is greater than their actual value.

And yes, we at the Sac Bunt already put our money where our mouth is.  Yes we know, 97 RBIS!  Completely relevant!

Even more importantly, trading players who are performing worse than their career norms is a terrible, horrible, god-forsaken idea that should only be argued by someone with the memory of a goldfish*.

Here’s why:  other teams don’t follow ours as closely as we do. We’re less likely to receive equal return for Khalil Greene’s entire, all encompassing true skill level.  We get the talk radio version.  Nothing worthwhile.

That’s why the only rational move with Greene is to hold and see what happens.  If his offense continues to drop off the face of the earth, though I wouldn’t that rule out entirely, we still don’t lose much of anything.

But considering nobody is depending the dude for offense in a stretch run, we can afford to wait.  Give him a chance to rebound.  And that isn’t out of the question.

*The rumor that goldfish have a 3-second memory is an urban legend, but I couldn’t think of another reference.

Opportunity cost is of course is the value of time doing one thing (say watching a baseball game) that is forgone in order to do something else (say stand in line at concession stands, or point out dudes in jeans shorts [or both!]).

Now suppose the dollar value of a college educated blogger’s time is worth roughly $30 an hour.  I submit for your review an opportunity cost computation of the Padres dollar days promotion from Friday, July 11th, 2008.

• $0 - They ran out of soda, but provided free Raspberry Iced tea.  Though I wouldn’t bank on that, I’m a sweet talker.
• $3 - Three hot dogs, limit four items per blogger.
• $15 - Opportunity cost of waiting in line for 30 minutes.

Total expenses: $18

The final three home games for the promotion are Monday the 28th though Wednesday.  Concessions lines move much slower than usual.  Don’t believe everything you read.

On June 22, San Diego Union Tribune writer Tom Krasovic published an article covering the year long ineptitude of the San Diego Padres.  Of course, any writer could find evidence of this printed on a bottle of baby powder, the way the team’s poor play slaps viewers across the face.

Unfortunately Krasovic chose to stretch the limits of traditional statistical analysis by addressing the rather infamous topic of hitting with runners in scoring position.  To throw fuel on the fire, he mixes that with some hot strikeout hating action.

Compared with the National League average, [the Padres] are 13 percent more likely to strike out with a man in scoring position.

One short line, no big deal, right?  The problem, is he is dead wrong.

Tom Krasovic is the UT’s expert. He misinformed readers who trust him to teach important statistical concepts and instruct fans about the game.

Strikeouts

We’ve covered the strikeout controversy already.  Mark Grant’s criticism prompted a post that ranks 2007 teams by total strikeouts.  We found that more playoff teams were actually in the top half of the league in strikeouts rather than the bottom.  One reason is because striking out is often an essential ingredient to hitting for power.  Big guys have to swing hard.  And sometimes, you miss hard.  (Have “that’s what she said” jokes gone out of style again yet?)

Another reason strikeouts don’t keep good teams from winning is that with runners on base, a strikeout is not the worst a batter can do.  That honor belongs to hitting into a double play.  And the double play, believe it or not, has never happened off a strikeout.  Strike-em-out throw-em-outs don’t count.  Because I say so.

With runners in scoring position

Every study I have ever seen on “clutch hitting” comes to the same conclusion: there is no such thing.  Allow me to take a small page from these studies and present a comparison.

There is clear evidence that the Padres strike out less with runners in scoring position, not more.

It does appear that striking out less with RISP is normal.  And while they may strikeout more than the league average in general, don’t complain to the 2007 Diamondbacks, Indians, or Phillies.  Those teams struck out the third, sixth, and seventh most in all the majors last year, you can see how shitty things turned out for them.  They all made the playoffs.

Conclusion

Krasovic’s data may be factually correct, but it signifies very little about the Padres hitting ability.  Which is odd, because you don’t have to look hard to see how bad the team has been.

I sent Tom an email to clarify what he meant by the statement. It is indeed his contention is that a higher strikeout rate with runners in scoring position is in fact an example of poor hitting, which just isn’t the case.  Readers who depend on sportswriters to provide accurate information deserve better.