I don't do this often, because I think my comments to the ESPN Power Rankings more or less speak for themselves. But when I rip on a team coming off a 6-0 week, I suppose it's worth an explanation. Here's what I had to say about the Diamondbacks:
A six-game winning streak like the one the Diamondbacks are currently riding is always nice, but it's worth noting that four of the those six wins were by one run, and three of the six came against the Twins. Their stay at .500 may be a short one.
And here, in addition to the good luck and bad opponents they've faced this week, is why they're no good:
First: Ryan Roberts. Mark Reynolds' replacement is 30 years old and has spent most of the previous five seasons in AAA, where he's hit an OK-but-uninspiring .275/.363/.441. He'd managed 443 plate appearances in the majors heading into this season, in which he'd hit just .251/.333/.389. Now, in a year in which offense is at its lowest levels in nearly two decades, he's completely carrying Arizona's offense, hitting .277/.396/.487 (143 wRC+). He's very unlikely to keep this up.
Second, Chris Young. After finally making good on some of his promise this year, he's been a huge drain on the offense this year with a .275 OBP. His walk rate is about half of what it was in 2011, and he's hitting more balls in the air, which may lead to a few more home runs, but also leads to a lot more outs (his .241 2011 BABIP is probably a bit unlucky, but it's mostly just the way he hits). He could snap out of it and be his 2010 self again, but he had similar struggles, to varying degrees, in 2006, 2007, and 2009; it looks like 2010 is the outlier, and this is just who he is. I'd be a lot more confident in Roberts reverting to form than in Young suddenly being a good hitter again. But because of his last season and his athletic ability, he'll keep getting PAs somewhere in the first five spots in the order, which, even with his power, is just murder to the offense.
Third, the back end of the rotation. Daniel Hudson looks phenomenal, and Ian Kennedy has been legitimately really good so far (it will be interesting to see if his uncharacteristically low walk and home run rates can hold up). But after that, they're stuck giving starts to the likes of Joe Saunders and Barry Enright, who are probably best suited as #5 starters on really bad teams. Josh Collmenter has been excellent so far and could establish himself as an above-average starter, but he could also be a worse version of Saunders.
And the fourth reason, I guess, is that there isn't that much else about the team that says it's a good one. Kelly Johnson will probably be better than he has been, but they've also gotten 98 very good plate appearances from 28 year old Juan Miranda, who will drop off. Stephen Drew and Miguel Montero have been pretty much the best hitters we have any right to believe they can be, and Geraldo Parra has probably been playing over his head. The defense has been good so far (especially in the outfield), but probably isn't as good as the numbers so far have made it look.
The one hope, really -- and one that I really hope comes to pass -- is that Justin Upton suddenly rediscovers his better-than-averageness and reverts to 2009 form at the plate. Even then, though, you've got:
- one potential star hitter (Upton);
- two who are above average for their positions (Montero and Drew);
- three who are average or (more likely) slightly below for their positions (Miranda, Roberts and Parra); and
- one who wastes outs like it's his job (Young).
You've got a defense that might be average. You've got one very good starter (Hudson), one who might be pretty good (Kennedy), one who you can hope will be a decent #3 (Collmenter), and two awful ones. You've got J.J. Putz and an otherwise pretty nondescript bullpen.
It just sounds like an 85- to 90-loss team to me. It certainly isn't one that compares well to the Giants or Rockies, and with Matt Kemp, Andre Ethier and vastly superior pitching talent, it's hard to see the Dodgers not being better, too.
I'd be perfectly happy to be wrong, but nothing that's happened so far -- and certainly not a six-game winning streak that included four one-run wins and a sweep of the Twins, who I really thought should've been 30th of 30 -- has suggested that this is a particularly good team.
19 comments:
Also, Barry Enright has been in Triple-A for over two weeks. How do you manage a spot on espn.com without keeping up with basic stuff like this? Good friggin' grief.
Yeah Bill, how can you not keep track of a bright light like Barry Enright? The positive energy and excellence he radiates make him visible from space. God, I can't stand writers like you who successfully track 30 teams at once, with the exception of one uninspiring team's uninspiring 5th (6th?) starter. Holy hamburgers, you suck!
If you scratched a little deeper you would realize that the DBacks have won 8 of 9 and before that they had a 5 game losing streak - all of which were lost by 1 run and three of those games were against the Giants. Your argument against the DBacks for winning one-run games is ludicrous.
Also, Anonymous, did you notice how I said "they're stuck giving starts to the likes of Joe Saunders and Barry Enright" (emphasis added)? Is it your contention that it matters whether Enright, or Micah Owings, or Zach Duke, or Kevin Mulvey makes those starts? Because here's the kind of analysis you can only get from a guy who kind of works with ESPN: it doesn't. At all.
And on your "bad luck" point that you tagged onto the wrong post: this post doesn't say anything about that. They won six in a row; four of those wins were by one run; they got pretty lucky to win six in a row. That's a pretty obvious point and completely unrelated to anything that came before. And my analysis of the team going forward has nothing at all to do with whether they were lucky or unlucky the week before (though at 11-7 in one-run games this year, they've certainly been more lucky than un-).
Put another way: the one-run games are a reason not to read too much into or get too excited about their six-game winning streak. It's not part of my analysis of the team going forward, one way or t'other.
well everyone is entitled to their opinion thats what makes this country so great, and if everyone agreed on everything it would be kinda boring. I was happy to see the spot (20) the dbacks were in, not ready to crown em just yet, but I do laugh at the fact that Bill had to defend his decision without much solicitation. Guilty conscious, maybe. His explanation did leave me scratching my head though. But, it seems whenever the national media or national writers don't give much respect or attention to the dbacks is when they start doing the best, maybe we have that here. Its like Kirk Gibson said at the beginning of the year, "why not us", it seems as though national writers often find reasons as to why we won't amount to anything as opposed to why we could or might do something with this team. Keep doubting us thats fine, we like that role.
and CommonMan, don't you think if Bill had the time to associate a link to Barry Enrights stat sheet, he might have the time to realize that B.E. is no longer with the team.
BTW Bill, they're stuck giving starts to the likes of Saunders and Enright, did you say the same about the Yankees when they decided Bartolo was going to start for them?
I'm just now noticing that Bill's avatar is Kirby Puckett.
That explains everything.
If bias was left out of the media, how boring it would be.
You still upset that the dbacks swept your twins Bill? Thats funny all the downplay on the team that swept your twins, one run or not, a w is a w and a L is a L.
this is funny to me.
Wait, now it's a bad thing that I took the time to respond to your frivolous comment? Now I have to have heard 'em all.
As I explained, I didn't actually make a mistake with Emeight, because they're stuck using guys LIKE Enright all year, exactly as I said. His being on the team or not at this moment is and was totally irrelevant.
On te Yankees and Colon: yes, of course. The Yankees' rotation has been an obvious problem since well before the season started, and I joined hundreds of others in commenting on it. Do you follow baseball?
On my being biased because the DBacks beat the Twins, who, as I said, I really think should've been ranked 30th? Yes, you're right. I will live and die on each of the Twins' 110 losses this season to such a great extent that I will feel the need to come up with logical and reasoned ways to discredit every team that beats them. It's all so damned simple!!
Oh please, Steve. Bill and The Common Man may be Twins fans, but we're utterly realistic ones. The Diamondbacks are almost certainly a better team than the Minnesota Twins, but then, so is almost everybody.
Also, Bill has figured out how to have players' names automatically linked to. It's a tricky blogging thing he hasn't seen fit to teach to TCM yet, though he's promised to. Its simply a matter of Barry Enright not really being good enough to take much notice of. That said, Bill's explained himself nicely, and TCM agrees that these D-Backs will almost certainly finish below .500 and well back of whoever wins the NL West.
Sorry for the typos. Typing on my phone.
no I think its great that you defended your comments, no complaints on it, just thought it was funny that it started off with "i normally don't do this".
thats all on that.
I just find it hard to believe that ESPN would turn to someone who openly acknowledges he will discredit every team win against his team, to contribute to their power rankings and represent them.
The Dbacks rotation has been an obvious problem since well before the season started, and I joined hundreds of others in commenting on it. Do you follow baseball?
As a Dbacks fan I don't necessarily agree that the Dbacks are a better team (not record) than the twins, the twins get the award this year for being the unluckiest team in regards to injuries, plain and simple.
I will reiterate my sole point to my initial comment
"Its like Kirk Gibson said at the beginning of the year, "why not us", it seems as though national writers often find reasons as to why we won't amount to anything as opposed to why we could or might do something with this team"
"I just find it hard to believe that ESPN would turn to someone who openly acknowledges he will discredit every team win against his team, to contribute to their power rankings and represent them."
Is that serious or a lame attempt at a joke? If the former, switch your sarcasm detector back on and read that bit again...
OK, now I see that you were talking about my guilty conscious (sic) with regard to my writing the post, not a comment. Anyway, no, I pretty clearly explained why I though tI should write it.
Your parroting my comment about the Yankees/DBacks rotation makes no sense at all.
Hey bill the d-backs are 11-6 in one run games and the Clevland is 11-7 in one run games but they are the best team in baseball so??? does that make Clevalnd the 2nd luckest team in baseball if the D-back are the first? oh if you do the math Clevalnd has played in more one run games the the d-backs have.
Why can't people get that none of this is about the D-Backs' luck or lack thereof in one-run games so far this season? I've made that pretty clear.
But since you brought it up, there's no chance at all that Cleveland is the best team in baseball.
Uh, Bill? Care to clarify your opinion in light of the ongoing winning streak the DBacks are currently on?
I would, but then I'd just have to go and "clarify" it again at the end of the year when they're 75-87, so...no.
so I thought it would be a good time to revisit this article. Man you called it, the Dodgers really pulled it together this year and the Dbacks really fell down to earth.
Fair enough. I still don't think they're a good team, at all, but if everything always happened the way it was supposed to, the only baseball fans would be Yankee fans.
Post a Comment