The Padres currently have the second worst record in the major leagues. They have a few good players, a few average players, and a bunch of replacement level players. Although June has ended, the gloom hovering over the Padres has not. Someone must be to blame.
It is easy to point to manager Buddy Black. His team nearly made the playoffs last year, but this season the team has “underperformed.” Easy as it is to make Buddy the scapegoat for the team’s struggles, I do not see how the losing is his fault. He is the same manager that won 89 games last year. It is unlikely that at some point between October and April he forgot how to manage teams to victories. All Buddy can do is put the best players on the field and manage the bullpen effectively. Just because his best players cannot get on base, and his bullpen, aside from Heath Bell, is horrendous, does not mean he is doing a poor job managing.
If the managing is not sub par, then it must be the general manager’s fault; right? Most fans, including myself, would like to believe that the job of the general manager is to acquire the best players possible every season. The reality is that the general manager’s job is to follow the instructions of the owner. John Moores may have tasked Kevin Towers to maximize profits over the long-run, or at the very least, to keep the team at break-even once the appreciation of the franchise’s value is accounted for. Regardless of Towers’ specific job description, he must work within the confines of budget constraints, and take more than a one-period outlook. Towers must balance the success of the team this year, with the success of the team in future seasons.
Towers’ moves this off-season did just that; balance the current season with future seasons. The Padres lost only two significant contributors: Milton Bradley and Mike Cameron. They probably could have afforded to sign at least one of them. Bradley was offered $4 million, but took $5 million with Texas instead. With Chase Headley nearly ready to assume LF duties, it did not make a lot of sense to fork over big bucks for a guy who has never been able to stay healthy and is always a threat to blowup mentally. I am a big Milton Bradley fan, but at a certain point the risk outweighs the reward. Yes he is having a great season in Texas, but that does not necessarily suggest he would be having the same great season in San Diego. San Diego presents a less hitter-friendly ballpark, and an entirely different set of environmental circumstances. We also don’t know if he will lose a significant amount of time to injury, suspension, or something else later in the season.
The bigger loss was Mike Cameron. I don’t think any of us know exactly what transpired in the negotiations. The Padres offered Cameron a deal that they thought reflected his true value, but instead Cameron took a one-year deal that paid him slightly more than what the Padres ended up paying Jim Edmonds. Perhaps the Padres mishandled the negotiations, or maybe Cameron just wanted to move on. Whatever the reason, Cameron did not accept the deal the Padres offered. Once Cameron declined the Padres best offer, the club was forced to make its next best move. They decided to bring in Jim Edmonds. Edmonds did not pan out, but there were not many better options available. It’s not like the Indians were offering to stick a ribbon on Grady Sizemore and drop him off at Petco Park. Again, the club made the proper decision at the time. Just because the results have not been great does not mean the GM is to blame.
As long as the process is right, and decisions are made that incorporate all relevant information, winning seasons will be more common than losing seasons. Sometimes though, even good decisions do not result in good outcomes. Paul Depodesta, Padres Special Assistant for Baseball Operations, compared this “paradox” to gambling and the operation of a casino in his blog:
Many years ago I was playing blackjack in Las Vegas on a Saturday night in a packed casino. I was sitting at third base, and the player who was at first base was playing horribly. He was definitely taking advantage of the free drinks, and it seemed as though every twenty minutes he was dipping into his pocket for more cash.
On one particular hand the player was dealt 17 with his first two cards. The dealer was set to deal the next set of cards and passed right over the player until he stopped her, saying: "Dealer, I want a hit!" She paused, almost feeling sorry for him, and said, "Sir, are you sure?" He said yes, and the dealer dealt the card. Sure enough, it was a four.
The place went crazy, high fives all around, everybody hootin' and hollerin', and you know what the dealer said? The dealer looked at the player, and with total sincerity, said: "Nice hit."
I thought, "Nice hit? Maybe it was a nice hit for the casino, but it was a terrible hit for the player! The decision isn't justified just because it worked."
Well, I spent the rest of that weekend wandering around the casino, largely because I had lost all of my money playing blackjack, thinking about all of these different games and how they work. The fact of the matter is that all casino games have a winning process - the odds are stacked in the favor of the house. That doesn't mean they win every single hand or every roll of the dice, but they do win more often than not. Don't misunderstand me - the casino is absolutely concerned about outcomes. However, their approach to securing a good outcome is a laser like focus on process...right down to the ruthless pit boss.
Much like the process of a casino ensures a high likelihood of profitability, the process of the Padres’ front office ensures a high likelihood of being consistently competitive. The decision making process is the right one. Firing the key decision makers should not be done because the team is losing, but only if there are different people who can do a better job in the future. The Padres may be terrible this year, but there is no other group of people I would rather have trying to fix the problem going forward.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Thanks for the Memories-Deivi Cruz
Friday, July 4, 2008
Why I am Content with Being “Consistently Competitive"
The Padres have never won a World Series. They have won two pennants, and five Western Division titles-all since 1984; but no championships. I often hear fans lament the fact that the Padres have never won a title. The most frequent complaint is not that the Padres have not won the Series, but rather that the team, and ownership in particular does not care about winning it all.
John Moores, the Padres owner, has done little to extinguish the fan’s anger. In March, when asked whether his goal was to win a World Series this year, he responded that: “The goal is to play meaningful games in September” (San Diego Union Tribune). Based on similar statements issued in years past by Moores and high ranking club officials such as Sandy Alderson, I believe it is safe to assume that the goal of the Padres is to be consistently competitive.
One mistake many fans make is that they assume there is a fundamental difference between striving to be competitive, and attempting to win a world series. Due to the random nature of the baseball playoffs, I am not so sure that this difference exists. Once a team qualifies for the playoffs, anything can happen (and as the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals can attest-it is often good things that do happen). Admittedly, although randomness is a huge factor due to the small sample of the post-season, the best teams in the playoffs still have a higher probability of winning the World Series, than the worst teams in the playoffs.
My biggest issue with striving to win the World Series in any given year is that sacrifices must be made in future years. To acquire that big-bat at the trading deadline, top prospects must be surrendered, or a terrible contract must be assumed. Basically, the team is forced to swap future success for an increased probability of winning a World Series in the current year. The marginal increase in the probability of winning the title is often not large enough to overcome the costs.
Unlike many fans, I do not think the mission of the Padres should be to maximize the number of World Series they can win. Instead, I actually agree with John Moores and would prefer that the team attempt to maximize the number of meaningful September games it plays for two reasons. First, for a smaller market team like the Padres, it does not make sense to trade top young talent to try and make a huge splash in a given year. The team’s best strategy is to remain consistently competitive and qualify for as many playoff births as possible. In doing so, the team will probably win more championships in the long-run, than if it went “all-in” one year, leaving itself with “no chips” to play for the next five years. Second, I personally do not care too much about winning the World Series. What I actually care about is that the possibility of winning the World Series exists throughout the season. As all Padres fans have been reminded of this year, it is much more fun to root for a team that is eliminated on game 163 rather than game 63. Would I rather see the Padres win a World Series than not? Of course. But in general, I am content with the team being “consistently competitive.”
John Moores, the Padres owner, has done little to extinguish the fan’s anger. In March, when asked whether his goal was to win a World Series this year, he responded that: “The goal is to play meaningful games in September” (San Diego Union Tribune). Based on similar statements issued in years past by Moores and high ranking club officials such as Sandy Alderson, I believe it is safe to assume that the goal of the Padres is to be consistently competitive.
One mistake many fans make is that they assume there is a fundamental difference between striving to be competitive, and attempting to win a world series. Due to the random nature of the baseball playoffs, I am not so sure that this difference exists. Once a team qualifies for the playoffs, anything can happen (and as the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals can attest-it is often good things that do happen). Admittedly, although randomness is a huge factor due to the small sample of the post-season, the best teams in the playoffs still have a higher probability of winning the World Series, than the worst teams in the playoffs.
My biggest issue with striving to win the World Series in any given year is that sacrifices must be made in future years. To acquire that big-bat at the trading deadline, top prospects must be surrendered, or a terrible contract must be assumed. Basically, the team is forced to swap future success for an increased probability of winning a World Series in the current year. The marginal increase in the probability of winning the title is often not large enough to overcome the costs.
Unlike many fans, I do not think the mission of the Padres should be to maximize the number of World Series they can win. Instead, I actually agree with John Moores and would prefer that the team attempt to maximize the number of meaningful September games it plays for two reasons. First, for a smaller market team like the Padres, it does not make sense to trade top young talent to try and make a huge splash in a given year. The team’s best strategy is to remain consistently competitive and qualify for as many playoff births as possible. In doing so, the team will probably win more championships in the long-run, than if it went “all-in” one year, leaving itself with “no chips” to play for the next five years. Second, I personally do not care too much about winning the World Series. What I actually care about is that the possibility of winning the World Series exists throughout the season. As all Padres fans have been reminded of this year, it is much more fun to root for a team that is eliminated on game 163 rather than game 63. Would I rather see the Padres win a World Series than not? Of course. But in general, I am content with the team being “consistently competitive.”
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The High Price of Beer at the Ballpark
I applaud profit maximizing behavior. After all, everyone deserves the opportunity to make a buck. What irritates me are people/firms that pretend to have altruistic motives, when in fact they are merely profit maximizing.
In late March, the San Diego Union Tribune reported that for the fourth consecutive season, the Padres would be raising the price of beer sold at Petco Park. The price of “A 16 ounce domestic draft”-the cheapest beer sold at the park-rose 75 cents to $6.50. Clearly the Padres determined that they were still in the inelastic portion of the demand curve for beer at Petco Park, and that a price increase would in fact cause profits to rise.
As a fan that does not drink beer at the ballpark, I could not have been happier upon hearing about the price increase. The price increase would presumably allow the Padres to generate more profits. While it is naïve to believe that 100% of the marginal profits would be invested in baseball operations (ie. Players, scouts, training staff, etc…), so long as a positive percentage of the marginal profits went to baseball operations, I, as a fan who cares mostly about seeing the Padres win ballgames, would be better off.
Oddly, the Padres elected to present their price increase not as a way to generate additional revenue, and hence allow them to improve the on-field product, but instead as a paternalistic policy intended to promote a “family atmosphere” at the game. Said Richard Anderson, Padres Executive VP of Ballpark Management: “We don't want to do anything to encourage excessive alcohol consumption…We want people to have a beer or two if they like. We're not interested in attracting people who want six or eight beers.”
This rationale for the price increase actually does make some theoretical sense IF it is true that beers that cost 75 cents more make a noticeable impact on the atmosphere. After all, the potential revenue generated by the typical family-even if none of the four drinks beer-is probably greater than that of the typical beer drinker and his buddy or date. Of course, the Padres only care about this because they know that if they appeal to families they will make more money than if they do not. I doubt they believe that families have some intrinsic qualities that make them better customers than consumers of alcoholic beverages-aside from any increased expense, or decreased revenue.
Unfortunately for the Padres, their argument for higher beer prices is conditional upon the marginal price increase actually decreasing rowdy and disruptive behavior. The same Union Tribune article states the price of beer at Angel Stadium in Anaheim has not increased for 5 years. Beer at Angel Stadium still sells for $4.50 per 14 ounce receptacle. Chances are the Angels have not experienced any problems with a rowdier crowd. If they had, then family attendance at games would surely decrease, but there is no indication that has been the result. Now, if Beer were priced at 10 cents like the Cleveland Indians tried for one disastrous promotion in the summer of 1974, then the probability of bedlam breaking out would be high (and bedlam did in fact break out). In that case, it is likely that an increase to at least a market-level price would make the atmosphere better for families. However, beer at Petco Park already sells for well above prices found at liquor stores, or even bars. We are not talking about a price increase from $0.10 to $6.50, we are talking about a price increase from $5.75 to $6.50. Most fans do not go to the game with the intention of getting drunk. In fact, purchasing enough ballpark beer to get drunk is probably unaffordable for most fans already. Increasing the price by 75 cents does nothing to change this.
I have no problem with the Padres squeezing every possible dime out of their customer’s pockets. The team is a business, and businesses are designed to make money. As a fan who minimizes his consumption of concessions and souvenirs, I actually smile when I hear of such price increases, as it indicates that the Padres may be able to supply a better on-field product. My only complaint about the price increase for beer is the Padres try to convince the public that they care about maintaining a family atmosphere solely because they value families. That is clearly not the case. Next year, I hope to hear no explanations by the Padres for any price increases. No excuses are needed.
In late March, the San Diego Union Tribune reported that for the fourth consecutive season, the Padres would be raising the price of beer sold at Petco Park. The price of “A 16 ounce domestic draft”-the cheapest beer sold at the park-rose 75 cents to $6.50. Clearly the Padres determined that they were still in the inelastic portion of the demand curve for beer at Petco Park, and that a price increase would in fact cause profits to rise.
As a fan that does not drink beer at the ballpark, I could not have been happier upon hearing about the price increase. The price increase would presumably allow the Padres to generate more profits. While it is naïve to believe that 100% of the marginal profits would be invested in baseball operations (ie. Players, scouts, training staff, etc…), so long as a positive percentage of the marginal profits went to baseball operations, I, as a fan who cares mostly about seeing the Padres win ballgames, would be better off.
Oddly, the Padres elected to present their price increase not as a way to generate additional revenue, and hence allow them to improve the on-field product, but instead as a paternalistic policy intended to promote a “family atmosphere” at the game. Said Richard Anderson, Padres Executive VP of Ballpark Management: “We don't want to do anything to encourage excessive alcohol consumption…We want people to have a beer or two if they like. We're not interested in attracting people who want six or eight beers.”
This rationale for the price increase actually does make some theoretical sense IF it is true that beers that cost 75 cents more make a noticeable impact on the atmosphere. After all, the potential revenue generated by the typical family-even if none of the four drinks beer-is probably greater than that of the typical beer drinker and his buddy or date. Of course, the Padres only care about this because they know that if they appeal to families they will make more money than if they do not. I doubt they believe that families have some intrinsic qualities that make them better customers than consumers of alcoholic beverages-aside from any increased expense, or decreased revenue.
Unfortunately for the Padres, their argument for higher beer prices is conditional upon the marginal price increase actually decreasing rowdy and disruptive behavior. The same Union Tribune article states the price of beer at Angel Stadium in Anaheim has not increased for 5 years. Beer at Angel Stadium still sells for $4.50 per 14 ounce receptacle. Chances are the Angels have not experienced any problems with a rowdier crowd. If they had, then family attendance at games would surely decrease, but there is no indication that has been the result. Now, if Beer were priced at 10 cents like the Cleveland Indians tried for one disastrous promotion in the summer of 1974, then the probability of bedlam breaking out would be high (and bedlam did in fact break out). In that case, it is likely that an increase to at least a market-level price would make the atmosphere better for families. However, beer at Petco Park already sells for well above prices found at liquor stores, or even bars. We are not talking about a price increase from $0.10 to $6.50, we are talking about a price increase from $5.75 to $6.50. Most fans do not go to the game with the intention of getting drunk. In fact, purchasing enough ballpark beer to get drunk is probably unaffordable for most fans already. Increasing the price by 75 cents does nothing to change this.
I have no problem with the Padres squeezing every possible dime out of their customer’s pockets. The team is a business, and businesses are designed to make money. As a fan who minimizes his consumption of concessions and souvenirs, I actually smile when I hear of such price increases, as it indicates that the Padres may be able to supply a better on-field product. My only complaint about the price increase for beer is the Padres try to convince the public that they care about maintaining a family atmosphere solely because they value families. That is clearly not the case. Next year, I hope to hear no explanations by the Padres for any price increases. No excuses are needed.
Thanks for the Memories-Archi Cianfrocco
Archi Cianfrocco came to the Padres from the Montreal Expos in a trade for pitcher Tim Scott. His tenure as a Padre lasted from 1993 until 1998. In 1995, Cianfrocco played at every position except for catcher. He followed up that impressive performance with a '96 campaign in which he logged 1 inning behind the plate in addition to once again leaving his mark on every inch of soil at the Murph. Thanks for the Memories Archi!
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
"Uncle Teddy's" Dubious Claim
Media personalities say dumb things all the time. Joe Morgan-perhaps the king of dumb baseball statements-is notorious for arguing that: “A good manager with a good team over 162 games…can make the difference in 10-15 games. A bad manager can make the difference in 20-30 games” (firejoemorgan.com). The implication of Joe’s argument is that the difference between a good manager and a bad manager can be as large as 45 games. I don’t think I need to explain why there is no possible way that managers can contribute to a 45 game swing in a team’s record.
San Diego is not immune to similarly idiotic statements from its local sports media. While I am thoroughly impressed by the work of Matt Vasgersian, Scott Kaplan, and Billy Ray Smith among others, Ted Leitner fascinates me for reasons other than the quality of his work. I am amazed that the guy both still has a job, and is as popular as he continues to be.
A few weeks ago in the car, I was listening to a little sports talk radio on 1090 AM, when “Uncle” Teddy Leitner made a guest appearance on the show. Following the customary exchange of pleasantries with the hosts of the show, Leitner proceeded to discuss Padres Baseball, eventually touching on the club’s trouble putting the ball in play. Anyway, Leitner had this little nugget to share with the audience: He argued that strikeouts have increased throughout major league baseball due to an overall rising level of salaries.
Leitner’s most egregious mistake was confusing correlation with causation. It may very well be the case that in recent years, as salaries have risen exponentially, so too have strikeouts. What I cannot conclude is that rising salaries have caused an increase in strikeouts.
Ballplayers get paid (at least in free agency) just like anybody else-based on the amount of dollars they are capable of generating for their team. (Note: Part of this may be the appreciation of the team's overall value). This is the case because if a team were to offer a player a contract substantially below the amount of revenue that player could generate, then a different team would likely swoop in and offer a contract that pays the player more, but still allows the team to profit. Next, another team would intervene and offer a slightly larger contract. Theoretically, this process continues until there is no gap between the amount of money a player is paid, and the amount of revenue he is generating for his team.
Therefore, it is likely that players are being paid exactly what they are worth to the team that signed them. Over the past decade, acceptance of statistical analysis has led many teams to conclude that for hitters, the two skill sets that most contribute to runs scored are getting on base, and hitting for power. Thus, teams are willing to pay hitters who can do both of these things well a lot of money. Few teams like large strikeout totals, but so long as players are getting on base and hitting for power, it is of negligible concern.
A better explanation for the increasing number of strikeouts is that teams understand strikeouts are not the end of the world, and are developing players who get on base and hit for power-even if that means striking out more than in the past. Teams have shifted from valuing players who hit dinky singles and rarely strikeout to players who walk frequently, but swing hard at pitches in the strike zone. I acknowledge I have completely ignored the pitching side of the equation (every strikeout includes both a pitcher and a batter), but even so, I am comfortable concluding that higher salaries do not cause more strikeouts.
San Diego is not immune to similarly idiotic statements from its local sports media. While I am thoroughly impressed by the work of Matt Vasgersian, Scott Kaplan, and Billy Ray Smith among others, Ted Leitner fascinates me for reasons other than the quality of his work. I am amazed that the guy both still has a job, and is as popular as he continues to be.
A few weeks ago in the car, I was listening to a little sports talk radio on 1090 AM, when “Uncle” Teddy Leitner made a guest appearance on the show. Following the customary exchange of pleasantries with the hosts of the show, Leitner proceeded to discuss Padres Baseball, eventually touching on the club’s trouble putting the ball in play. Anyway, Leitner had this little nugget to share with the audience: He argued that strikeouts have increased throughout major league baseball due to an overall rising level of salaries.
Leitner’s most egregious mistake was confusing correlation with causation. It may very well be the case that in recent years, as salaries have risen exponentially, so too have strikeouts. What I cannot conclude is that rising salaries have caused an increase in strikeouts.
Ballplayers get paid (at least in free agency) just like anybody else-based on the amount of dollars they are capable of generating for their team. (Note: Part of this may be the appreciation of the team's overall value). This is the case because if a team were to offer a player a contract substantially below the amount of revenue that player could generate, then a different team would likely swoop in and offer a contract that pays the player more, but still allows the team to profit. Next, another team would intervene and offer a slightly larger contract. Theoretically, this process continues until there is no gap between the amount of money a player is paid, and the amount of revenue he is generating for his team.
Therefore, it is likely that players are being paid exactly what they are worth to the team that signed them. Over the past decade, acceptance of statistical analysis has led many teams to conclude that for hitters, the two skill sets that most contribute to runs scored are getting on base, and hitting for power. Thus, teams are willing to pay hitters who can do both of these things well a lot of money. Few teams like large strikeout totals, but so long as players are getting on base and hitting for power, it is of negligible concern.
A better explanation for the increasing number of strikeouts is that teams understand strikeouts are not the end of the world, and are developing players who get on base and hit for power-even if that means striking out more than in the past. Teams have shifted from valuing players who hit dinky singles and rarely strikeout to players who walk frequently, but swing hard at pitches in the strike zone. I acknowledge I have completely ignored the pitching side of the equation (every strikeout includes both a pitcher and a batter), but even so, I am comfortable concluding that higher salaries do not cause more strikeouts.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thanks for the Memories-Rob Bowen
I was spending some time on youtube a few months ago, and stumbled across this video. It is my inspiration for what will be a recurring post theme: “Thanks for the Memories,” where I will revisit some classic Padres of years past. Not to be outdone by Cub’s fans, the first post will be dedicated to Rob Bowen (I suppose Archi Cianfrocco can wait until next time)…
Rob Bowen joined the Padres in 2006. That season, he had an OBP of 0.339 and a SLG off 0.339 in 110 PA. His VORP of 1.8 verifies that he was truly replacement level caliber. His 2007 season was uneventful until he was traded to the Cubs for Michael Barrett. Rob Bowen is perhaps best known by Padres fans for his eagerness to pinch run. In 2006, he pinch-ran 21 times, mostly in place of Mike Piazza. Thanks for the memories Rob!
Rob Bowen joined the Padres in 2006. That season, he had an OBP of 0.339 and a SLG off 0.339 in 110 PA. His VORP of 1.8 verifies that he was truly replacement level caliber. His 2007 season was uneventful until he was traded to the Cubs for Michael Barrett. Rob Bowen is perhaps best known by Padres fans for his eagerness to pinch run. In 2006, he pinch-ran 21 times, mostly in place of Mike Piazza. Thanks for the memories Rob!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
