There's Always Next Year

I leave for London tomorrow, where I will be for the next 9 or so months. So, while the season has yet to completely wind down, it is doubtful I will be able to crank out any more posts this season. I expect to be able to offer some sporadic thoughts throughout the off-season (particularly in response to notable events), but recognize these posts will probably be few in number.

In response to the disappointing season all Padres fans experienced in 2008:
There's Always Next Year.

Math Demonstrates Just How Unlikely it is that the Padres Will Pick #1

In my previous post, I concluded: "theoretically it is possible the Padres will end up with the worst record, but the odds are not that great." Well, my curiosity got the best of me, and I decided to calculate just how small those odds actually are...

Using Bill James log5 method of estimating one-game winning percentages, I calculated the odds of both Washington and San Diego beating their opponents in any given game. I included an adjustment for home-field advantage, but did not account for pitching match ups. Although there is an extremely good chance Seattle actually winds up with the worst record in MLB, for the sake of simplicity, I am excluding them in this analysis.

The Padres are expected to beat the Dodgers 37% of the time, and Pittsburgh 51% of the time. Washington is expected to beat Florida 39% of the time, and Philly in 31% of their games. In short, over their next 6 games, ignoring pitching matchups, the Padres are expected to win 2.664 games, and Washington is expected to win 2.121 games.

In order to end up with a worse record than Washington, the Padres must lose 4 games more than Washington. Three situations exist which satisfy this requirement. The Nats can lose 0, and the Padres lose 4 or more games, the Nats can lose 1 game, and the Pads lose 5 or more games, or the Nats can lose 2 games, and the Padres lose 6 games.

The first situation has a probability of 0.00112214. The probability of the Padres losing 4 or more games is nearly 60%, but the probability of the Nationals losing 0 games is under 1%. Situation 2 has a probability of 0.0054376. Situation 3 has a likelihood of 0.002737. Taken as a whole, the probability of San Diego finishing with a worse record than Washington is under 1%. Combined with the fact that the Padres must also overtake Seattle for the worst record, it is extremely unlikely the Padres will select first in the 2009 draft.

The Padres Are Not Even Good at Losing

An absolutely heartbreaking weekend. I admit it, I am rooting for the Padres to lose games. I don't care if this team finishes with 100 losses or 99 losses. The season has long been over, and it almost certainly behooves the team to have the first pick in the draft. This is not to say the Padres themselves are purposely tanking games, but only that I am now actively rooting for the opposing teams.

By sweeping the Nationals this weekend, the Padres put themselves in a terrible position in the "Strasburg Sweepstakes." Not only did they win 3 games, but by definition, the Nats also lost 3 games. With 6 games to play, the Padres are 3 games "ahead" of Washington in the standings. Realistically, the Pads need Washington to win at least 5 of their final 6 games against Florida and Philly-both quality teams. Theoretically it is possible the Padres will end up with the worst record, but the odds are not that great.

Thanks for the Memories-Chris Gwynn

My original plan was to just post the video of his 1996 11th inning pinch hit double against the Dodgers that catapulted the Padres into the playoffs, and say nothing more.  Unfortunately, I was unable to find the video online. Instead, I offer you the post-game celebration made possible by the other Gwynn's memorable hit...

Preserving Hoffman's Legacy

Not exactly new news, but Trevor Hoffman wants to return to the Padres in 2009.  Contrary to popular belief, Hoffman has not been that bad this season.  His 4.04 ERA is a little high for a closer, but he has 45 strike outs to only 8 walks in 42 innings.  The only problem has been a propensity to give up the long-ball, as his HR/9 is at 1.70, well above his career average of 1.38.  

Hoffman is still a quality reliever, and with the dearth of good bullpen arms on the team,  will almost certainly be welcomed back assuming his contract demands are not ridiculous.  

What I find interesting about the situation is many fans seem to wish Hoffman would just retire after the season.  They believe that he is ruining is legacy by continuing to pitch well past his prime, that he will somehow be remembered not as one of the best relievers in major league history, but as a middle of the road closer who made every save appearance an adventure toward the end of his career.

Personally, I have no problem with players continuing to play until no team will offer them a job, even if they are not still at their peak.  An athlete has a limited time frame in which to earn a living.  The money earned playing baseball basically has to last them a lifetime (yes, I realize they could transition to a different job, but most baseball players best, and most lucrative skill is playing baseball-not doing something else).

I have heard the argument that star players are better off protecting their legacy, that they have accumulated enough money in their careers already, and don't need another contract.  I find this line of reasoning silly.  

First, there is no reason to think that continuing to play past one's prime results in a reduced legacy.  Jordan came back and played for the Wizards, he is still considered the best basketball player of all time.  Willie Mays played one forgettable season for the Mets at age 42, but most remember his fantastic years with the Giants.  It seems to me that once removed from the short-term, people tend not to remember the last years of most athlete's careers (unless you are talking about Barry Bonds of course).  Hoffman is really at no risk of wrecking his legacy by continuing to play.  In fact, he may be enhancing it.  Hoffman will continue to accumulate saves, innings, and strikeouts, all of which will be positively referenced in hall of fame debates.  Note: His career ERA is not really at risk of a significant increase if he continues to play.

Second, even if you assume that a player's legacy is reduced by playing past his prime, I am not sure the magnitude of that reduction is enough to bypass the millions of dollars a contract will pay.  It seems ridiculous that a player would be so worried about what others think, that he would turn down such a large amount of money.

Hoffman is not a bad pitcher, and his presence on the Padres makes the team better than they would otherwise be.  So long as the team agrees with my assessment of his value, and Hoffman does in fact wish to continue playing, there is no reason he should not be welcomed back. Whether the fans think Hoffman should retire is irrelevant.  Whether Hoffman should continue to close out games is an entirely different debate.

Gone for a Week

Not that many of you care, but I will probably be unable to post this upcoming week, as I will be out of town. I do however have a few taco shop bracket posts already lined up, so if you are following along at sdtacoshops.wordpress.com , you will continue to see updates throughout the week.

SD Taco Shops

Besides, a love for baseball, I also enjoy frequenting the local taco shops. This month, I have a lot of extra time on my hands, so taking inspiration from Nate Silver's burrito bracket , I have decided to hold a similar contest to establish the best taco shop in San Diego County. If you are into this type of thing, feel free to follow along at: sdtacoshops.blogspot.com . There you can find the rules, the bracket, a map detailing the location of all the eateries, and the results of the first two match ups.

Are the Padres Tanking Games?

Stephen Strasburg, is, at this time, widely recognized as the most promising talent eligible for the 2009 MLB draft. He is a SP who combines a fastball that reaches the mid to upper 90s with quality secondary pitches. He is seen as being close to major league ready, perhaps ready to assume a rotation spot within 2 years of being drafted. While there are certainly other intriguing prospects, the number one prize in the '09 draft is clearly Strasburg.

With the Padres well out of contention, it would seemingly behoove them to finish with the worst overall record, allowing the team to draft Strasburg. Recent moves such as starting Will Venable in CF, Matt Antonelli at 2B, and employing a 6 man rotation do not seem to have been made with the goal of winning ballgames.

With that said, many of those moves may have other explanations. Jody Gerut is probably not the long-term answer in CF. Venable may be. Giving him a chance to experience life in the big leagues, and face major league pitching could help him progress as a player. Same with Antonelli, who although he had a miserable overall batting line in AAA, has been hitting better of late, and could very well be the Padres opening day second baseman in '09.

The six-man rotation is a little trickier to explain. The Padres have had trouble fielding 5 good starters, let alone 6. Adding Wade LeBlanc and Josh Geer to the rotation makes some sense, with the logic being similar to that of playing Venable and Antonelli every day. On the other hand, adding Sean Estes to the rotation makes little sense. Estes had his last reasonably solid year in 2001 with the Giants. Since then, his performance, when healthy has been miserable. Of course, he has rarely been healthy. Estes has pitched 30 innings since 2005-not exactly a guy a team can count on to be healthy in the future. It is unlikely Estes will provide much value to the Padres in '09, so the only reason I can think of for him to be pitching every 6 days is to give Peavy extra rest.

Jake Peavy pitching every 6 days, rather than every 5 days does two things: it helps avoid unnecesarily overtaxing Peavy, and it also transfers some innings Peavy would have otherwise pitched to a (probably worse than) replacement level pitcher. One explanation implies the Padres are tanking games, the other merely suggests the Padres are being cautious with one of their most valuable assets.

Personally, I don't think the Padres would risk the hit to their reputation that would result from overtly tanking games. Rather, I believe the Padres primary motive is introducing some of their prospects to the majors in a relatively stress-free atmosphere, and protecting Peavy's arm. The fact that losing more games may actually benefit the team is just an added bonus which has allowed the Padres to be more aggressive in making September lineup and rotation adjustments at little cost.

I liken the situation to playing poker without money on the line. Going all-in on every hand, or otherwise disrespecting the game, is no fun for anybody involved. This type of behavior will draw the ire of others at the table. At the same time, with little to lose, it is likely everybody will play more aggressively, and even try out a new strategy or two (or in the Padres case-3 or 4).