Melvin said: “Oddly enough, he felt great. His velocity was back up. He had some trouble with the movement on his sinker at times, but they (Athletics) hit some good pitches.”

This is why there is no point in interviewing Melvin. Or at least don't print what he said: "Bob Melvin was interviewed for this piece, but every answer he gave was an obvious lie. His comments can be found in the 'Press Releases' section of the team's official website for anyone interested in wasting their time and bandwidth."

Well, you just have to translate it from Managerese into English:

Melvin said: "He felt fine, and he was throwing nice and hard, but his sinker wasn't sinking. And as we all know, a sinker that doesn't sink is batting practice."

He looked great against the Mets even though they scored some runs off him. His stuff was nasty.

Yeah. The Mets start his stuff was fantastic. Tonight the sinker was flat as could be though.

a drive off the bat of Carlos Delgado

did it even leave a mark?

We will proceed to score 2 runs the rest of the series.

The war against Pythagoras continues.

I do like where the team is headed. The rotation is set with Gaudin ready and willing if someone gets hurt or, in the case of Eveland, completely loses command. With Chavvy back and Ryan Sweeney getting better by the day, the offense is set and looking functional, especially when Thomas gets back. This team is going to be around until the end. I still think the Angels are slightly better, but if 2 of the 3 of CarGo, Barton or Suzuki start putting up average-ish offense, all bets are off. They don't even have to be great, just decent.

I don't know what to make of the D-Backs. A month ago they were baseball's juggernaut. They could be again in another month. As talented and volatile a team as I've ever seen.

I am ... speechless.

My only hope is that Webb is not injured.

I am ... speechless.

My only hope is that Webb is not injured.

Finally, some good news for Mets fans! (I kid, I kid. It may have been just one of those things. I wouldn't worry about it until his next start. Sometimes a sinkerballer can be too strong. At least, that's what I've always heard. I remember reading a book about the Yankees as a kid that Mike Torrez liked to pitch with a tired arm so he didn't throw through his sink.)

There was an interesting article on AZcentral.com recently (link) detailing Webb's Pitch F/X data from start to start.
It really seemed to indicate that something has gone wrong in his last 5 and now 6 starts. His sinker movement has been way down.

So, I haven't done the math yet...is he still on pace for 30 wins?

So, I haven't done the math yet...is he still on pace for 30 wins?

By when?

July 2010?

:) by the way.

Last night was one of those "I have my favorite team facing my fantasy ace" nights.

I'd have taken a 2-1 win.

And I hate that my fantasy team is running away with the league this year and making me pay attention to it in mid-June. I hate fantasy. I usually do a draft because I'm bored before the season starts and then lose interest three weeks later. But I like winning too, so this is kinda cool.

SOMETHING is wrong with Webb, that much is obvious.

I was at the game, and I commented the people I was sitting with after pitch number 10 that he was actually laboring. He was huffing and puffing, sweating profusely, wiping it constantly, taking a long time between pitches.
It might not be a deadarm issue...it could be something else, either conditioning, or some other condition. I honestly think Webb needs a thorough physical checkup right now.

As for the D Backs offense......well....it was nice knowing you. As much fun as it was to crow the first few weeks of the season, of course I and everybody else knew it was a hot streak that wouldn't last. That hot streak was followed by a stretch that was more in line with what you would expect from this team long term. But the most recent 30 games are ridiculous.

Thru first 17 games: .281/364/.496 .860 OPS 6.5 R/G 13-4 Record
The next 24 Games : .265/.336/.425 .761 OPS 4.8 R/G 13-11 Record
The last 30 games : .212/.295/.368 .663 OPS 3.4 R/G 11-19 Record

The last 30 games is worse than any other 30 games stretch they had last year. Thats a LONG stretch to suck THAT bad.

It still all adds up to an offense that is better than last year...but the trend is all wrong, and taking a look at the schedule, this team is on the verge of circling the drain. It's going to take quite a turnaround to keep that from happening. They've surprised me so many times before though, so who knows what will happen next.

The Dodgers, though, are the only other decent team in the division, and they're having their own boatload of problems. It will be interesting (amusing, at least) to see how it plays out.

As much as it kills me to admit this, I was probably too quick to dismiss the Padres. (cue GR's "Ha Ha!" in 3...2....1....)

I was looking at the Brewers last year, 25-11 through 36 G, 8.5 G lead...58-68 the rest of the way to miss the playoffs.
I wouldn't count on all 3 of LA, SD, and COL being quite this bad all season. ONE of those teams is bound to make a run.

That's a good point. The Padres have been doing better lately, it seems--only 6.5 out, and they're not bad on paper. Colorado could suddenly start playing a lot better, too. But I hope the Diamondbacks turn it around, since I generally pull for the teams that are run right. (Wouldn't it be hilarious if the Giants somehow won?)

Tulowitzki is due back this weekend, which puts the Rockies at full strength for the first time since the end of April. They've earned their last-place status so far, but they are playing much better ball now (8-4 in their last 12). I think they're pretty close to being as good as they were last year, but the question is, is it too late? A 90-win pace from here on out gives them 80 wins on the season, and that's not going to be enough.

85 wins, though, might put them in the mix. It's certainly going to be an uphill battle.

I wouldn't count on all 3 of LA, SD, and COL being quite this bad all season. ONE of those teams is bound to make a run.

Let's assume that ARZ plays .500 the rest of the way (91 games). That leaves them with 82.5 wins.

LA is 32-38 (.457) today. To reach 83 wins, they would need to play .554 for the remainder of the season (92 games).

SD is 31-41 (.431) today. To reach 83 wins, they would need to play .565 for the remainder of the season (90 games).

COL is 29-42 (.408) today. To reach 83 wins, they would need to play .593 for the remainder of the season (91 games).

Unless you truly believe that the Dbacks' 11-19 record over the last month represents their true talent level, I don't see how you can expect them to lose the NL West. In my estimation, at worst they are a .500 team--and no one else in the NL West can claim even that. It strikes me as highly unlikely that an NL West rival will be able to sustain a .550+ winning percentage over the remainder of their seasons.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if the Giants somehow won?

No. I could take it losing to any other team in the west. Losing to the Giants would be more than I could take.

The Dodgers could be a 90-win (.554) true-talent team if they were healthy, but that's a big if.

Unless you truly believe that the Dbacks' 11-19 record over the last month represents their true talent level, I don't see how you can expect them to lose the NL West. In my estimation, at worst they are a .500 team--and no one else in the NL West can claim even that. It strikes me as highly unlikely that an NL West rival will be able to sustain a .550+ winning percentage over the remainder of their seasons.

They've got a 4.5 game lead in mid June and you declare the race all but over?

Also, one of those teams could get lucky, and win at a ."550 clip while not being a true .550 talent team"

I realize the odds are against any other team winning the NL West.....but if the D Backs don't start playing better ball soon, those odds will change dramatically.

I'm looking forward to seeing (on tv) Haren face Blanton and the rest of the boys tonight.

Are you (Arizona) guys happy with the trade so far? It seems like Haren has pitched about as well as expected. Rest assured we have been enjoying Smith, Eveland, and Gonzalez.

It strikes me as highly unlikely that an NL West rival will be able to sustain a .550+ winning percentage over the remainder of their seasons.

It may be unlikely for any one of them to do so, but the very fact that there are three of them makes it a distinct possibility.

The Giants are a .350 team that has somehow managed to play .425 ball so far this season. No way they can sustain .550+ over 90 games.

They've got a 4.5 game lead in mid June and you declare the race all but over?

Yes, because the Dbacks are certainly not a .350 team. Over the next ~90 games, they'll be at least .500 and none of their competitors can reasonably expect to surpass that, much less sustain .550-.600 necessary to catch them.

if the D Backs don't start playing better ball soon, those odds will change dramatically.

Sure. If the Dbacks continue to play .350 for the remainder of the season, then they will not win the division. That's just not a very likely scenario...

Are you (Arizona) guys happy with the trade so far? It seems like Haren has pitched about as well as expected. Rest assured we have been enjoying Smith, Eveland, and Gonzalez.

I really can't complain. He's done well, about as expected, maybe even a little better. It was a win now move that I was on board with at the time.

See post 105 Here
The ultimate return may end up yielding more for the A's than I originally thought, (it's still too early to be sure) but that doesn't really affect how I feel about Haren's performance and return to this point.

Over the next ~90 games, they'll be at least .500 and none of their competitors can reasonably expect to surpass that, much less sustain .550-.600 necessary to catch them.

None of them? Can "reasonably" expect? If, say, there's a 20% chance that the Dodgers catch them (they're only down by 4.5 games, for god's sake), and a 10% chance that the Padres catch them, and a 5% chance that the Giants catch them, and a 5% chance that the Rockies catch them, that adds up to a 40% chance that SOME team catches them. And those percentages are pretty low, given how much time is left in the season.

The Giants are a .350 team that has somehow managed to play .425 ball so far this season. No way they can sustain .550+ over 90 games.

I don't think anyone consider the Giants one of the teams that could possibly make a run.

None of them? Can "reasonably" expect? If, say, there's a 20% chance that the Dodgers catch them (they're only down by 4.5 games, for god's sake), and a 10% chance that the Padres catch them, and a 5% chance that the Giants catch them, and a 5% chance that the Rockies catch them, that adds up to a 40% chance that SOME team catches them. And those percentages are pretty low, given how much time is left in the season

Actually, that's 35%, but I think your individual percentages are too low.

I was looking at the Brewers last year, 25-11 through 36 G, 8.5 G lead...58-68 the rest of the way to miss the playoffs.

It is a comparison that had occurred to me over the last week.

Team with a young core and a knack for throwing the ball away, that gets off to a hot start (24-10), then cools off severely but is able to keep its divisional lead for months afterwards due to the rest of the division being unable to take advantage.

20+10+5+5=40

On the other hand, I can't really imagine the Giants winning the division. But, you know, Lincecainchez.

20+10+5+5

.8*.9*.95*.95 = .65

None of them? Can "reasonably" expect? If, say, there's a 20% chance that the Dodgers catch them (they're only down by 4.5 games, for god's sake), and a 10% chance that the Padres catch them, and a 5% chance that the Giants catch them, and a 5% chance that the Rockies catch them, that adds up to a 40% chance that SOME team catches them. And those percentages are pretty low, given how much time is left in the season.

First, .500 is a pretty pessimistic expectation for the Dbacks.

Second, there's not a 20% chance that the Dodgers can sustain .550+ over the remainder of the season. Even if they were healthy, they have one of the league's worst offenses. They're defense, one of the worst in the league, is about to get even worse next week when they insert Nomar Garciaparra in at short (a position he hasn't played since 2005, when he was positively dreadful at it). Even assuming that he can stay healthy for the month until Furcal comes back, he's still only a league average offensive SS (70-80 OPS). Even with some very good young pitching, the Dodgers are a .500 team at best.

Third, the Padres have two legit stars--Gonzalez and Peavy--with a limited supporting cast (Young and Giles are their only other above-average players) considering that Maddux will likely be dealt before the deadline.

Finally, the Rockies are a .500+ team (the only other team besides ARZ) if healthy. But they're not going to be able to play the .600+ ball necessary to erase their dreadful first half.

Arizona is going to win this division. Their struggles over the past month may have made the race superficially interesting, but it's highly unlikely that they can be overtaken.

.8*.9*.95*.95 = .65

And I have a 25% chance of flipping a coin and having it be either heads or tails.

.8*.9*.95*.95 = .65

And I have a 25% chance of flipping a coin and having it be either heads or tails.

OK, suppose each team had a 30% chance. Would the aggregate be 120%? Or does 75% sound more reasonable?

When it comes to the Dbacks, you can throw percentages outta the window.
They're so shell shocked right now, Sinead O'Connor would write a song for them to bemoan their misery

OK, suppose each team had a 30% chance. Would the aggregate be 120%? Or does 75% sound more reasonable?

It's a mutually exclusive event so the probability of all outcomes must equal 100% and the probability of a group of outcomes within set is determined by addition. This is elementary...

What you're describing is the probability that an 80% team, a 90% team, a .95% team and another 95% team would all win their individual (and distinct) divisions.

Thanks Shoewizard.

My guess is that ultimately the A's will get one pretty good starting pitcher and one pretty good position player out of the deal.

That sounds about right.

See post 105 Here

That'll be a fun thread to look over for awhile.

30. Danny Posted: December 14, 2007 at 07:46 PM (#2646104)

...
But I like Carter more than Quentin.

Ouch. But not as bad as:

86. "vicinity of the zip code of brain power" Posted: December 15, 2007 at 01:49 AM (#2646320)
Unless Carlos Gonzalez pans out, I think the A's got taken here. Cunningham and Carter are OK prospects, but nothing to build your system around. They're each like the Jose Lopez (Mariners 2Bman) of prospects--solid, uninspiring, young options with a chance to step forward.

Gonzalez is obviously something, and Brett Anderson is fine, but Eveland and Smith really don't strike me as much. So the deal ends up being Gonzalez and Anderson (high upside prospects), Cunningham and Carter (OK prospects with warts), and two non prospects.

The A's got taken.

Over the next ~90 games, they'll be at least .500

Over their last 233 games - that's this season and last - Arizona has scored 1043 runs and allowed 1051 runs. Running at .500 or less for the rest of this season doesn't seem farfetched at all, especially if there really is something wrong with Brandon Webb.

BP estimates the teams' true winning percentages as:

ARI .519
LAD .499
COL .476
SFG .455
SDP .445

This is based on preseason PECOTA and adjusted for their performance so far. (I have no idea if they do the adjustment properly though.)

If those are the true percentages, the chances of winning the division are:

ARI 65%
LAD 23%
COL 6%
SFG 3%
SDP 3%

Amazingly, BP gives the A's a 67% shot at winning the AL West. Can that really be true?

(edit: all data from here)

D-back fans, how do you feel about the Josh Byrnes extention now? I thought Arizona did that far too early.

BP gives the A's a 67% shot at winning the AL West

The Angels have a negative run differntial, and the A's have a positive one. The rest of the division is bad. It's easy to see why BP thinks Oakland is the best team there.

D-back fans, how do you feel about the Josh Byrnes extention now? I thought Arizona did that far too early.

Not a D-Backs fan, but I did take them for over 87.5 wins this season.

I don't know what there would be to indicate Byrnes isn't up for this task. It seems that everything which has gone wrong is either the Eric Byrnes extension or a situation created by the Eric Byrnes extension. And we all know that is not his mess to explain.

The haul for Haren could be missed down the line, but that deal was justified.

Over their last 233 games - that's this season and last - Arizona has scored 1043 runs and allowed 1051 runs. Running at .500 or less for the rest of this season doesn't seem farfetched at all, especially if there really is something wrong with Brandon Webb.

Well that disparity is entirely due to the difference in actual winning percentage and Pythagorean winning percentage from last year (they won 90 games versus 79 Pythagorean). In 2008, their actual wins equal their Pythagorean wins (37-34), so I'm not sure that your statistic tells us anything new--the Dbacks outperforming Pythagoras by 11 wins was well known.


BP estimates the teams' true winning percentages as:

ARI .519
LAD .499
COL .476
SFG .455
SDP .445

This is based on preseason PECOTA and adjusted for their performance so far. (I have no idea if they do the adjustment properly though.)

Okay, so apply those winning percentages over their remaining games plus their wins so far:

ARZ: 84 wins
LAN: 78 wins
COL: 72 wins
SFN: 72 wins
SDN: 71 wins

As an aside, I don't see how you calculate Colorado to be twice as likely to win the division as San Diego or San Francisco using that data...

But regardless, we're left with the division coming down to Arizona, with LA having only an outside chance of catching them. And given the state of the health of their lineup, I'll take the "under" on them playing .500 for the remainder of the season--much less the .550+ that they'd need to play for the balance of the season.

This is based on preseason PECOTA and adjusted for their performance so far. (I have no idea if they do the adjustment properly though.)

They don't. I looked at it last year, and even just a few weeks into the season, third-order winning percentage only seemed to be regressed to PECOTA-forecast winning percentage by a small amount.

And what they're doing regressing to a winning percentage forecast in the first place is beyond me. If they were at all serious, it would be based on updated individual projections and updated roster and injury information. It drives me crazy that something so potentially cool and useful is instead so incredibly lame.

Davenport posted this a couple weeks ago:

"Note: I found a bug in this routine yesterday; it was simply using the pre-season PECOTA rating for the
rest of the season as its future expected winning percentage, instead of averaging the actual Pct3 and the
PECOTA rating as described in the notes below. That's probably the result of using it in the pre-season to
play the entire schedule - I needed to set it that way then, but I never set it back until this morning. I
apologize for the discrepancy.

I'm looking forward to seeing (on tv) Haren face Blanton and the rest of the boys tonight.

Blanton doing his best Webb impersonation so far. Good lord.

That's actually implying that Blanton is remotely as good as Webb. Even in his wet dreams, he isn't.

Nice win tonight. Beats a nice loss any day of the week. And Haren really looked very good out there.
Now if the Dbacks can put together some sort of a winning streak, I'll be really excited.

D-back fans, how do you feel about the Josh Byrnes extention now? I thought Arizona did that far too early.

That's BS. Josh Byrnes put together the team that most smart people would put together--except that you'd normally have Quentin in LF instead of Talking Windbag. But we've rehashed that many times, and even though Josh Byrnes did sign off on that extension, I'm willing to bet some pretty cool cash that if he and he alone were making the final call, and the owners were not involved, Spazz would be playing CF for the SF Giants right now. If Moorad would only stop working for players.

I'd take Josh Byrnes over the next seven years over Omar Minaya over the next seven minutes, any day of the week

That's BS. Josh Byrnes put together the team that most smart people would put together--except that you'd normally have Quentin in LF instead of Talking Windbag. But we've rehashed that many times, and even though Josh Byrnes did sign off on that extension, I'm willing to bet some pretty cool cash that if he and he alone were making the final call, and the owners were not involved, Spazz would be playing CF for the SF Giants right now. If Moorad would only stop working for players.

I am not saying he has done anything wrong. But he didn't draft many of the important players on the team. He didn't draft Upton, Drew, Jackson, etc. What has he done that is so good that he deserves that kind of extension? A lot of talent has left the Arizona Diamondback organization since he has been GM.

He let Uggla go for nothing and has spent a lot of money on Hudson, a fine but pretty expensive player, to play that position.

He traded for RJ and gave him a lot of money, something Arizona doesn't have a lot of, and hasn't gotten much return on that.

He traded Vazquez, a durable, talented pitcher who has posted a 110 ERA+ for Chicago for Chris Young, a toolsy centerfielder who can play good defense but who also has a career OPS+ that's less than 15 points better than Endy Chavez's. He is still young but if he doesn't improve significantly, the White Sox will probably have won that trade.

Again, I am not saying he has done a bad job and he has made some good moves but I personally think the Diamondbacks were too quick to give him such a huge extension.

I'd take Josh Byrnes over the next seven years over Omar Minaya over the next seven minutes, any day of the week

That's cool but those are hardly your only options.

Suppose you had four teams that each had a 30% chance of coming from behind. Do you think the odds of any of them succeeding is 30+30+30+30?

Four teams in the same division can't each have a 30% chance of coming from behind. The combined probabilities of a team "coming from behind" (read: probability of winning) have to equal 100%. Similarly, the odds of rolling 1-3 on a dice is 50%, not 12.5%.

Josh Byrnes and Allison have had two drafts. They've taken JParker and DSchlereth, both solid choices (Scherzer was taken under JByrnes's watch by Rizzo). You can't beat up on JByrnes for inheriting a good farm just like you can't beat up the current GM in TB or you can't hold it against Minaya that he inherited Wright and Reyes.

Uggla was a mistake and JB has admitted that. Incidentally, the DBacks had a trade (with the Mets of all teams) to free up a roster spot for Uggla, but that trade fell through right before they had to finalize the 40 man roster. Should he have dropped some reliever for Uggla? In hindsight, yes.

RJ demanded a trade to AZ. That was a huge reason the trade was made, especially given his history with the Dbacks and the fact the team owed him about $48m in deferred payments. And at the time you couldn't have expected him to bust his back again so soon. At the time it was made, that was a very defensible trade, given AZ's pitching situation.

Javy Vazquez demanded a trade, and the Dbacks either had to trade him or let him leave as a free agent. Obviously you forgot that. Javy also had a partial no trade clause. Rumors at the time were that the Dbacks had worked out a trade with Detroit for Granderson and Zumaya, but Vazquez refused to waive his no trade clause to go to Detroit. Given his trade demand, his no trade, and his salary at the time, the Dbacks got plenty of talent back.

Anyhow, why are you so hung up on Josh Byrnes? He's doing a very good job in AZ. He definitely has his weaknesses, especially his love for fungible relievers who are not as good as he thinks they are, and I also think he doesn't appreciate some of AZ's prospects as much as other GMs do... but overall I think he's done a great job cleaning up the mess he inherited and he's put together a solid young team that will compete for a long time. The team's struggles over the last 4-6 weeks really don't change any of that.

Finally, rumors were that several teams were ready to pursue him aggressively once his original contract expired (after 2008, I believe... there might have been an option for 2009) and the Dbacks either had to lock him up now or bid for his services against other teams next year. If you like the way the GM is taking your club, why not just lock him up long term?

Personally, I think you're just jealous that he's not the Mets GM

Personally, I think you're just jealous that he's not the Mets GM

Whatever, dude. The only reason I mentioned this is that I thought that his extension was excessive and unnecessary at this point in time. He was under the control of the Diamondbacks until after the 2010 season. I personally would have waited.

Four teams in the same division can't each have a 30% chance of coming from behind.

I don't think it was a 30% chance of winning the division; it was a 30% chance of passing Arizona. Presumably, in some of those scenarios, multiple teams would pass Arizona.

But I'm probably wrong.

Anyhow, why are you so hung up on Josh Byrnes?

Agreed. Why would anyone be so hung up on the GM of another team?

Agreed. Why would anyone be so hung up on the GM of another team?

Is this a joke? Has anyone ever been hung up on another team's GM more than Levski wrt Omar Minaya?

The reason I am talking about this is because I think we tend to overrate people in baseball positions simply because they are SABR-friendly. It's the same reason I think Williams was/is considered "dumb" while Shapiro is considered one of the better GMs.

Anyway, I am sorry I brought it up.