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.

There’s little more dangerous than someone who thinks they’re clever. Even if they are clever, once the idea gets in their head, it’s over. Take Chris Ballard, for instance.

Let me take a step back first. Before George Clooney dropped out of the W.G.A. to protect him from having to take responsibility for “Leatherheads,” Rick Reilly was the cornerstone of Sports Illustrated for over 20 years. That ended recently, though, when Reilly made his way over to rival E.S.P.N.

Left Reilly-less, Sports Illustrated established a section, “Point After,” in which a carousel of writers take over the space left by Reilly. Ballard is one of those writers and this week, he wrote an article entitled “Let’s Play Milton Bradley!” The gist of Ballard’s article, which I can’t find online, is that Bradley’s life is a board game because, as you may or may not know, Milton Bradley is also the name of a company that manufactures board games. So Ballard has combined both worlds, making the player a board game/making a board game of the player.

Reilly had a tendency to get really sanctimonious, which is one of the reasons I was never able to really get into him, and Ballard keeps it up. He really hits the Milton highlight reel: the incident in Los Angeles with the plastic bottle (in 2004), the incident in Los Angeles with Jeff Kent (in 2005), and the incident with the three-day stay in jail (in 2003). For good measure, he does mention the incident in San Diego with Buddy Black (in 2007), but a lot of the article is based older Milton Bradley incidents.

For his own good measure, Ballard mentions Bradley’s positive qualities, like his Run a Youth Charity, his role as a good teammate in Oakland, how The Fountainhead is his favorite book (that’s a good thing?), and his incredible year this season. But this part of the article comes off as incredible hollow, as if Ballard strove to be fair in his scathing expose of the Milton Bradley the public doesn’t know.

Oh wait, this is the same shit that’s been following Bradley his entire career. The same shit that prompted him to try to confront Royals announcer Ryan Lefebvre, after Lefebrvre brought up Bradley’s struggles to highlight teammate Josh Hamilton’s redemption. The same shit that made Bradley break down in tears and say “All I want to do is play baseball and make a better life for my kid than I had, that’s it. I love all you guys. … I’m strong, but I’m not that strong.” after manager Ron Washington and general manager Jon Daniels brought him back down to the dugout.

It’s time to change the record and recognize that Milton Bradley is a human being. He’s not the first baseball player to be hounded for what he’s done, just ask Barry Bonds. But where Bonds’ actions threatened the integrity of the game itself, Bradley is only a threat to himself. And he’s been trying, Ringo; he’s been trying real hard. Ballard makes note of Bradley’s six different teams in a very pejorative tone, ignoring that his departure from Oakland was more an act of philosophy and his departure from San Diego wasn’t from a lack of trying by the Padres. Bradley would have to start taking steroids to be strong enough to survive the hounding he’s received. The hounding he’s receiving.

It’s interesting to note that Ballard’s column comes in the same issue of Sports Illustrated as articles about Hope Solo, goalie for the U.S. national soccer team, battling back against her criticisms of her coach and teammate, and Jared Allen, defensive end for the Minnesota Vikings, battling back against his troubles with the law. But while Allen and Solo got a couple thousand words each to cover their troubles, Bradley got a couple hundreds predictably sarcastic words covering his.

The problem here isn’t that Ballard’s article is sloppy, ill-informed, and reeks of self-satisfaction. The problem is that it’s about someone whose problems have been well-documented, much less so than his efforts to clean up his image. Any good writer has been told that sometimes you have to kill your babies. That not everything you write, no matter how good it may be, has to be published. That there are a number of reasons why your gem, your baby, just isn’t going to work.

But, of course, it’s easy for me to point that out. I don’t write for Point After.

Following Trevor Hoffman’s departure from last night’s 3-1 loss to the Twins, boos rained down from the bleachers. Boos, it would seem, intended for the future Hall of Famer after surrendering back-to-back home runs, including the game winner. This didn’t sit well with the Padres clubhouse.

“I didn’t like it,” said manager Bud Black. “This city should be very proud of a player like that for everything he’s done on the field and in the community. I don’t like it. I don’t think it’s fair.”

—–

“It’s disheartening, knowing what Trevor has meant not only to the organization but the city, and his level of accomplishment is unmatched in our game,” (Tony) Clark said.

—–

Jake Peavy, who started the game, said he heard the boos in the clubhouse. “I could not believe that,” he said. “That is as disheartening as it gets. I don’t understand it. When you look at all of his achievements, what he has meant, it’s ridiculous.”

—–

Said teammate Shawn Estes: “How soon they forget.”

—–

(Heath) Bell didn’t hear the boos that came after Hoffman gave up two home runs in an inning for the eighth time in his career. “If the fans were booing him, shame on them,” he said.

Hoffman hears boos in Twin killing

While we here at The Sacrifice Bunt don’t condone booing, we don’t condemn it either. There is a time and place to boo, although we couldn’t say if that time was following Hoffman’s poor performance. While there are shades of grey when discussing the merits of booing, the merit of the Padres post game conversation seems a bit more black and white.

The Padres lost last night 3-1. They again squandered a great performance by Peavy. In the bottom of the eighth, they had runners on first and second with no out and neither runner made it to third. In the seventh, they had runners on first and third with no out and two ground balls ended the inning with only one run scoring. Jody Gerut was caught stealing on what appeared to be a botched hit-and-run attempt when Edgar Gonzalez flailed futilely at what would’ve been ball four. In back-to-back at-bats, Gerut and Craig Stansberry were unable to get down sacrifice bunts. Oh, and the team’s increasingly unreliable closer came in and jumped his ERA up half a run.

It was an ugly game.

The fact that the Padres find it shocking that the fans could boo their performance seems naive or arrogant, or maybe a little bit of both. The team has fallen back into last place, setting themselves up for a potential rematch of the worsts this weekend when the pitiful Mariners come to town. The offense and pitching are below average. They let Milton Bradley slip through their fingers in the off-season and now he’s leading the A.L. They signed Jim Edmonds to man centerfield, then dumped him after a month and now he’s caught fire with the Cubs.

Now, it should be said that this season is an aberration. The current Padres management has put together the best run in the team’s almost 40 years and we haven’t even begun to reap the benefits of the new farm system. But that doesn’t affect the team that is currently taking the field right now. And the responses of the players from last night suggests they are more concerned with something other than their performance.

Again, we want to be fair. We’re sure that the players are as concerned about their performance as we are. But when the topic on the tips of their tongues is the reaction they got from the crowd, red flags go up. Maybe the fans aren’t what the players should be concerned about. The boos from the stands are a reaction to what is taking place on the field.

More disconcerting is the reaction of manger Buddy Black. For starters, he’s called out the entire city, which seems disrespectful given everything this city has done for the team. At what point does protecting become coddling? A good manager should stand behind his players, but at what point do these players take responsibility? If they continually fail to put down a bunt, a skill practiced by children, does he simply give them a pat on the back? And this doesn’t even get into the idea that Black is asking players ill-equipped to handle a task attempt to perform it anyway.

It’s not like this kind of whining is anything new. Be sure that if the Padres decide to trade a player sometime between now and July 31st that the Union-Tribune will be filled with quotes from players, decrying the actions of the management. We’ll leave you with some past highlights.

“Incomprehensible,” was Trevor Hoffman’s reaction. “Four other teams in the National League West are awfully excited. I probably need to take a day before I say something about this because I’m going to say something stupid.”

—–

“You have to trust your front office when you are in the middle of a playoff run,” Jake Peavy said. “But, man, to trade away your setup man . . . what kind of a message are we sending here?”

Padres trade Linebrink

In games Scott Hairston starts, why does he bat leadoff?  It’s happened 10 times in the last month.  The dude is an out maker extraordinaire, making an out in 72% of his plate appearances this year.  Why give him the most opportunities to do what he’s done so well?

I know batting order has been shown to have smaller effect on run production, at least compared to how much time we spend talking about the lineup.  But I have a beef, so evidence be damned, lets talk about it.

On Days Jody Gerut gets off (who, by the way, is a pleasant surprise getting on base at a .356 clip), somebody has to hit at the top of the order.  I suggest Paul McAnulty.  He’s one of the few Padres who knows how to take a walk.  Sporting a .364 OBP, he makes the third fewest outs (stay with me now) of all Padres starters.

• Brian
• Paul
• Adrian
• Whoever else

No question we’re short on samples, but Scott Hairston has never shown an ability to get on base.  A few late inning home runs be damned, his career OBP sits at a paltry .295.  And someone once told me runs are worth the same in the first inning as they are in the ninth.

We have a new poll relating to my Padres game advertising article below, so let me know if my time spent studying ads was worth it.  To check out the results of our previous poll on starting outfielders, click the polls link at the top.

Fresh off of his simmering interview with XX, Towers unleashed this beaut in the Union-Tribune:

“It’s the way you play the game,” said Towers, visibly angry. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the intensity and how you carry yourself.

“We’ve got some hungry players down below looking for an opportunity. There’s not one player in the system who is going to turn it around. If we make changes, it will be wholesale.”

He also said, “We’ve been bad, no question about it. There’s been no signs to tell us or our fans we’re going to turn this around. I’m not going to watch this for another four months.

“Morale shouldn’t be good. If it’s good, we have other issues. If morale is good, they have no expectations of being better. Morale should be horrible.”

“It’s a reflection of all of us. It’s got to be tough for all of our fans. This isn’t pointing fingers at all of the players. It’s all of us. I hope we all have the same feeling it hurts.”

Towers seeing red after tough loss: If changes come, they’ll be big ones, angry GM says

The real stinger, however, was provided by Tom Krasovic, who wrote:

The ballpark vibe recalled Mission Valley, 2003, when San Diego crowds oohed and aahed over the exploits of visiting players and the home team gave little cause to cheer.

In honor of Padres broadcaster Mark Grant’s criticism of the Padres’ high strikeout totals during the pre-game show and during play today, I submit for your review the following table courtesy of ESPN.
For informational and entertainment purposes, teams who made the playoffs have been highlighted.  Anyone see a trend here?  Because I sure don’t, and I’d love to hear Grant’s explanation:

Granted, high strikeout numbers aren’t a particularly good thing.  But in the grand scheme of performance indicators they don’t mean a team isn’t playing well.

Further in his analysis, Grant goes on to advise hitters to shorten up their swings to put more balls into play.  This plan will likely lower strikeout totals.  The downside though, and this is a biggie, is it effectively eliminates power.  I’d love to hear that conversation between he and Ryan Howard or Dan Uggla on the horrendous problem of strikeouts and why they need a new approach.

edit 5/18: Ray suggested I take a look at changes in hitting on two strike counts. The idea is that hitters often take the Grant’s suggested approach with two strikes on them. Batters shorten their swing to “protect the plate”, or avoid the strikeout. We can use this situation to imitate how slugging shapes up under Grant’s recommendation .  Here’s the “pass through” count data from 2006 courtesy of Tom Tango:

This simple analysis shows that when hitters (presumably) shorten their swing with two strikes, even with full counts, their power deteriorates significantly.  It should also be mentioned that hitters’ OBP and wOBA drop way down with two strikes on the batter.

*This is 2006 median, not mean, slugging

In the top of the sixth during the Padres-Braves match up tonight, Matt Vasgersian and Mark Grant were discussing Padres 2008 second baseman Tadahito Iguchi and his hitting troubles this year.

Vasgersian, using Iguchi’s single on a 3-2 count as an example, proclaimed that Iguchi’s key to hitting success, along with the key of many others in the game, is to work the count.  Let me say that you’re not going to get much of an argument from me about that.  Working the count and taking walks are an important part of not making outs, which in turn is important to winning ballgames.  However, a quick check of Baseball-Reference.com shows some amusing numbers:

Pitches per plate appearance of course are the most elemental aspect of “working the count”.

30 seconds.  30 seconds is how long it took me to fire up B-R and check if the facts support a theory.  It probably would have been faster if I spelled Iguchi’s name right my first try.

This is more than just one event

I don’t want to hang this one on just Vasgersian and Grant.  The segment sounded like it came from a producer.  Reason being that when the subject was introduced, a quick recap video of Iguchi’s previous plate appearance was cued up and ready to go.  It’s just a guess from me, but the whole segment seemed a bit polished to be just Vasgersian rambling to kill time.  (If it didn’t come from a producer, then I’ll admit that changes things.  I don’t expect the play-by-play guy to check b-r for every off the cuff remark on a live broadcast, I know it’s a hard enough job.)

This gaffe represents the Padres’ broadcasting crew, run by Cox communications, and their poor regard for the proper use of statistics.  Statistical sampling issues, among others, abound on nearly every broadcast.  Arbitrary constraints are thrown in to samples sizes which apparently make the information “interesting”, but end up being misleading and not at all helpful to the fan’s understanding of the game.  The number of outs made on Tuesdays that Brian Giles tans before the game are what we end up hearing about, and it sucks.

Things may not get better.  Producer Ed Barnes had this to say regarding statistics recently, courtesy of the Union Tribune:

“I don’t want it to be wall-to-wall stats,” he said. “I’m not the guy who’s going to be introducing EqA – equivalent average – to the show or something like that. . . . If we can find a way to put a nice bow on something and provide a nice context, then I don’t think a new stat is necessarily a bad thing. But we are not going to be scanning ‘Baseball Prospectus’ from this year and putting that on the air.”

This isn’t what I’m asking for, wall to wall nerdiness.  Except maybe equivalent average, I am asking for that.  Because it’s easy, and it includes a buttload more information than just hits divided by at-bats.  Plus it’s set to the scale of batting average, so .260 is about average and .320 is very good.  That doesn’t sound too terrible does it?

What I am asking for, is a little responsibility.  Spend 30 freaking seconds on Iguchi’s pitches per plate appearances, even less time if you can spell.  Don’t needlessly limit sample size “for fun” without telling people that doing so totally craps up the data.  Times are changing.  It’s funny that it the improvement on the subject had to happen from the bottom up.  It’s time for those with all the resources to respond to the innovations made by those who don’t.

Anyway, this kind of turned into a rant.  I’m only halfway sorry about that.

PS: I still love you Matt Vasgersian.

Statistical sampling and the nature of the game of baseball are two concepts that make this sport frustrating to follow.  There are so many variables that account for teams playing either above or below expected levels.

Dramatic scenes such as the Rockies come back from the dead last year is an exhilarating, rip-roaing good time. On the flip side, under performance is a difficult, distressing, process. Like a crash on a crank binge, we’re feeling the downside right now and it is not much fun.

We know the Padres are a better team than the way they’re producing.  Nobody predicted 95 wins, but a last place team this is not

External Factors

Phantom over at Gaslamp Ball takes a closer look at the pitching we’ve faced, and the parks in which we’ve played.

First off, he averaged the ERA+ of starters each NL west team drew so far.  However, if we want to determine the ability of pitchers faced without involving our own play, this may not be the best idea.  If a pitcher we’ve faced more often has a high ERA+ this early in the season, it could easily be due to our own crapulence rather than the ability of the pitcher.

That said, he gives us the names of pitchers we’ve faced twice, and we know based on their history they’re good players.  This left us at a disadvantage.

Phantom’s second subject, analyzing the park effects of our games, is an important consideration when looking at raw numbers.  Our boys in blue sport a .234 / .302 / .336 line so far this season, which looks bleak compared to .251 / .322 / .411 last year.  I’ll use my own method in this analysis, and take the easy route with OPS+which adjusts for ballparks for me.*

Last year’s Padres OPS+ was 101, reflecting poorly on those who think the team’s offense was below average.  This year’s club sports an OPS+ of 79 which reflects poorly on the offense itself.

What about Runs?

Baseball Prospectus uses a modified version of the Pythagorian run equation (dubbed Pythagenport) to a team’s expected wins.  This is a method of removing luck when judging wins and losses.

They take the number of runs scored versus runs allowed, and adjust it according to variances in the teams’ batting line.  Then they adjust to the quality of the hitting and pitching abilities of opponents played to determine “adjusted equivalent runs scored” and “adjusted equivalent runs allowed” (AEqR and AEqRA) .*  Their calculations suggest we have played slightly unlucky in these regards, but not of enough significance to much yowsers in my trousers.

*By the way, those asterisks are there because data like park factors and opposing team adjustments need more innings before they can be relied on.  That’s a good thing though, it gives our boys more opportunity to bounce back.

I know this is a few days old, but it’s drawn enough attention to warrant another look. Baseball Prospectus’s Joe Sheehan released his Spring Training Preview for the NL West on February 12th (and has since been republished on CNNSI for the non-subscribing world to see) and it seems that it has accomplished its primary goal of inciting rage amongst the basement dwelling bloggers of the Friar faithful. In my case, this rage is generally directed towards the vacuum of cyberspace through my computer screen in the form of beer-fueled obscenities, the likes of which excite my blood pressure and frighten my neighbors.

I won’t lie, in some ways I love Baseball Prospectus more than my own wife (don’t worry, she doesn’t read this site and cooks a mean chicken pot pie from scratch, a fact that’ll keep her – and this is a rough estimate – at least in my top five), but I really think they phoned this one in. For what it’s worth, I’ve always believed BP was often times unjustly enamored with a youthful roster, regardless of their contributions to the team. But I regress – let’s get to the nitty gritty.

I’m not one to flap my gums when it comes to pre-Spring Training team analysis but I’ve paid a pretty penny for their services and while I expect this from those front-running asshats at ESPN, seeing BP reduced to this level of analysis truly hurts. The most glaring insult for Padres fans (and fans of logic/reason) resides in their Winter Grade analysis for the Friars:

They didn’t do a whole lot to address the aging of the roster, and with the Diamondbacks and Dodgers having passed them in terms of talent on hand, it may be time for the Pads to blow off a year.

“Blow off a year?” Look, I’ll be the first to admit that the Dodgers and Diamondbacks are brimming with young, talented players – but it’s not as if we’re the Twins, staring down the barrel of the gun at a heavily improved Indians or Tigers roster with a new ballpark and significant roster turnover to think about [deep breath]. We’re not looking at a bloated roster with no talent and hope far off on the horizon; if anything, I’d say that this is in response to what was a widely televised flameout to end the 2007 season. You could make a strong argument that the Padres are still built to win now with their depth in the rotation and, in my opinion, an improved lineup competing against the two anointed “top” teams – L.A. and Arizona – who have not necessarily addressed their own offensive woes. I’ll get to that later…

Remember, this is in response to a team that has improved its record in an increasingly more talented division each of the last three seasons with its “aging roster,” and finished third in a tight NL West race only after pushing the season to an extra-innings play-in against the 2007 NL Champions in which the winning run has yet to score (too soon?). Let that settle for a minute before reading it again: “…it may be time for the Pads to blow off a year.”

As if the above assertions weren’t insultingly ignorant enough…

Third baseman Kevin Kouzmanoff’s big second half bought him some time. However, his poor glove and undisciplined approach at the plate are likely to give way very soon to the doubles and walks of Chase Headley.

…what?! Look, everybody knows that the Mashin’ Macedonian is, arguably, one of the worst defensive 3B in the league. It’s not even necessarily debatable. But this is a moot point. Chase Headley is no longer filling out the depth chart as a 3B and he hasn’t been since around the time the Padres missed out on Fukudome in the middle of December. The reasoning behind this is simple: Headley isn’t known for his glove and there’s a pressing need for him in LF. As was outlined in the afore-mentioned Kevin Goldstein headlining article, Future Shock: Padres Top 11 Prospects:

The Padres are moving Headley to left field this spring in order to get his bat into the lineup, and he’ll be given the opportunity to earn a big-league job. The logic of that decision is that neither he nor incumbent third baseman Kevin Kouzmanoff is an especially good defender at the hot corner, but Headley is more apt to succeed in the outfield.

Beyond that, BP had reported nearly a month prior to the publication of Sheehan’s piece that Headley would be moving to the OF by linking to a Padres news article dated to late December. At this point, I’m willing to bet that the $39.99 membership might be a little too rich for Sheehan given his inability to do research through the very site that he writes for.

Additionally, BP has always admired Kouzmanoff’s ability to drive the ball to all fields and, ironically, Goldstein’s Future Shock article from last season has this to say…

Outstanding hitting prospect with well above-average pitch recognition, bat speed and power.

…and while the biggest criticism against him are his unintentional walk totals it doesn’t matter if you absolutely rake, which was the case when assessing his Double-A statisics.

While a 25-year-old at Double-A is far from a spring chicken, and he did draw only 27 unintentional walks in 394 minor-league PAs, 51 extra-base hits in 94 games is pretty amazing.

Now that the misinformation regarding the Padres is out of the way, I would like to look at their supposed inferiority in the farm system. I might be inclined to agree with this statement in past years, however, there is very little evidence within the rest of this article that asserts this point. The Diamondbacks and Dodgers, while both boasting extremely young and talented rosters, have a problem translating that prospect-level talent into Major League stat sheet fodder. The Padres hit better than both of these teams, regardless of talent. This is a point that didn’t go unnoticed by Joe Sheehan, who had this to say regarding those scrappy, young Dodgers:

There are four outfielders for three spots, and it’s excruciatingly clear to anyone familiar with baseball who ranks fourth among them. However, the likelihood that the Dodgers relegate Juan Pierre to a bench role is nil. Every PA he takes from Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier is a mistake.

He goes on to assert that their one move to make is to trade Juan Pierre and let the youngsters pan out; events which, he counters against himself, will never happen. I firmly believe that the Dodgers would be the team to beat if Ned Colletti wasn’t in charge of dismantling this franchise and making poor decisions in the free agent market. To me, this season is no exception. Sheehan disagrees on two counts:

The Jones signing was an excellent case of buying low, and Kuroda’s contract is a good gamble given the price of MLB free agent starting pitchers. Better still, the Dodgers avoided making another bad trade, retaining all of their young talent.

…Kuroda is a good gamble, but wait for the knockout punch…

Ned Colletti has squandered a fair amount of Logan White’s work in his time as the Dodgers’ GM, but he avoided doing so this winter. Thanks to that, he heads into the spring with his best team, and with the best chance of having that team play. There remains the need to push Pierre and Nomar Garciaparra into supporting roles, the latter so that OBP machine Andy LaRoche can take over at third base. The “right” Dodger lineup can win 94 games and the division. How Joe Torre apportions playing time in a situation not dissimilar to the 1996 Yankees will determine whether the Dodgers fulfill their potential.

Might I first point out that Sheehan’s belief that the Dodgers bought low on Andruw Jones’ 2/$36m contract is absolutely absurd. And somebody will need to explain this to me over a few beers one day, but is Sheehan’s entire point that the Dodgers will be awesome(r) if they don’t field the team they’re expected to field? As is my argument, Sheehan has no problem admitting the Dodgers boast some of the best young talent of all the teams in the division but doesn’t mince words – the more games expected starters Pierre and Garciaparra play, the worse the Dodgers will be. Whatever. I guess it’s cool because they’re still young.

On to the Diamondbacks, who for whatever reason have the media seeing Sedona Red while obtaining an unheralded cult following due to media-darling/dog-abuser Eric Byrnes. Let’s go over the facts:

1. Although the Diamondbacks are young (Team Age for Batters/Pitchers, 26.6/28.0), they simply cannot hit. Their 4.40 R/G was only better than San Francisco (4.22) and Washington (4.15).
2. While they went 90-72, their Pythagorean W/L was a paltry 79-83 due to their -20 run-differential.
3. Randy Johnson’s mustache carries with it the secrets of the universe.

Sheehan seems to have securely strapped himself into the Baby ‘Backs Bandwagon (note to self: trademark immediately). Keep in mind that Sheehan’s task - as a baseball analyst who is being paid a lot more than me - is to defend the chance of a repeat NL Division title for the Diamondbacks after they just destroyed all logic and reason when they put up a 90-72 record with a -20 run-differential. He gets off to a strong start:

Josh Byrnes added the missing piece by trading for a top-tier starting pitcher in Haren, dealing many pieces from a deep system while not giving up the very best of it.

Fantastic, this has it all: top-tier pitcher, deep rotation in a pitching-centered division, ability to hold onto the farm leaguers. Excellent. Now reel those suckers in - hook, line, and sinker.

Shuffling Valverde out at his likely peak was aggressive, the kind of year-too-early move that Branch Rickey would admire.

The oddest part about this is why Sheehan decides to link to Rickey’s playing career, but that’s beside the point; the fact of the matter is that the Valverde deal potentially ruins the 2008 Arizona Diamondbacks’ chance at a repeat division title and it has gone unnoticed by not only BP, but multiple sporting news sources who fail to recognize the importance of the bullpen at a time when you’re overcoming a negative run-differential.

Bob Melvin anointed Brandon Lyon as his closer heading into camp, as much to spike a potential controversy as anything else. In the long term, it’s Juan Cruz who has the power stuff to fit best in the role. Tony Pena and Chad Qualls may also make bids if and when Lyon falters.

Every single one of these pitchers had either a career year or above-average production last season. Valverde converted 47 of 52 saves, meaning that more than half of the team’s victories were determined by a player who is no longer on the team. Not necessarily a good omen for a team that values every single run it can get.

I am not going to make a prediction regarding who finishes on top of the NL West before Spring Training has gotten beyond player conditioning drills (is it safe to say Giants, dead last?), but I’m betting that I might come forth with more factual evidence and far less fiction when making such bold statements. Besides, I’ll let you do that for me.

Melvin Update (2/25/08): Preston Gomez is a special guest writer for The Sacrifice Bunt. Ray and I would like to thank Preston for his contribution to our community.