Equipoise

Tantalizing Promise, Familiar Volatility

A week like the Padres just had deserves some investigation. It makes sense to start with the very bad: The Padres started the week by getting swept by the very bad Colorado Rockies. Getting swept at home by one of the worst teams in the league is unacceptable. A complete fiasco. And a lot of the consternation that followed the losses had to do with seemingly obfuscating comments made by Mike Shildt. We’ve purposefully pulled a few lines from the 11 minute post game press conference that were the source of ire:

After he was asked what it meant that the Padres weren’t able to at least pull one win out from the Rockies:

…I don’t know how you want me to answer that, we won four series in a row.

Shildt was especially taken aback by the suggestion the Padres got outplayed in the series:

Again I’m going to take exception to the word ‘outplayed’ We lost three games… It just didn’t work out for us for three days. I can’t explain that… But I’m also going to look at this thing rationally and go, ‘OK, how did you win four series in a row?’ And you do some of the very exact same things. You don’t give anything away. You don’t walk anybody. You play clean defense. You compete well. You have good at-bats… Sometimes you tip your hat… There’s not an overreaction from me moving forward.

He would go on to say:

All I know is our clubhouse is in a good spot. The sky is not falling…

There is a disconnect here. It is an abject failure to get swept at home by one of the dregs of the league in the midst of a playoff hunt. And it’s rational to feel that after such an unacceptable outcome the sky is falling. It’s rational to feel that such statements are an attempt at self preservation after an unacceptable result. A reeling manager trying to speak a patina of acceptability into existence. Gaslighting.

But we think there’s another explanation. Shildt likely believes what he’s saying. He’s consistently repeated the phrase “Never give anything away in competition” in his post game statements. He’s made it clear that his intent is to hold players to account for effort and competitiveness. This attitude is almost always paired with an understanding that a player won’t be faulted for results that don’t go his way so long as he gave it his all. And this sets up a dynamic where catastrophic results create a managerial dilemma: Fans and media expect a manager’s comments to acknowledge the outcome as unacceptable and demand more accountability from the players. But declaring performances unacceptable when the players did put forth good faith competitive effort undermines a managers credibility to the players; it betrays the covenant of competition as true north. The idea that a manager could watch a series sweep that ended in an 8-0 loss and believe that his players made a good faith competitive effort beggars belief. But if you watched the series you witnessed some things that should at least raise the possibility that Shildt believed the Padres played hard and lost because of things out of their immediate control…

The Rockies scored 19 runs in the three game series. 10 of their 19 runs scored on two out base hits with runners in scoring position. Here are every single one of those two out hits:

In the pitcher/batter matchup ground balls and soft contact are supposed to favor the pitcher. But they don’t always, and that’s baseball. The Rockies were 9 of 15 with runners in scoring position and two outs, you just saw all 9 hits. Dismissing outcomes in baseball as bad luck risks being blinded by a gleaming fecolith, but when the majority of an opposing team’s offensive output comes by way of blooper and groundball (several of the seeing-eye variety) it’s not a gigantic stretch to think a manager might truly feel his players’ efforts were acceptable. That they weren’t ‘outplayed’ but merely lost three games. This isn’t meant as a defense of Shildt’s assertion that the Padres weren’t outplayed. Only to point out that he may truly believe it, and not just by stubborn insistence, but by analyzing what he saw in the games.

Shildt also made comments that support the existence of counterfactuals that would elicit an inflamed response towards his players:

Now, if we were throwing balls all over the place and hitting guys and walking guys and not hitting balls on the barrel and having an approach, yeah, you’d hear something different out of my mouth.

The Rockies series was as notable for what we saw as what we didn’t see. It’s true that Merrill and Tatis miscommunicated and let a popup drop in that might’ve been caught. But that’s an error in communication, something that a rookie centerfielder might correct with effort. We didn’t see anything like this:

This was the first of four runs the Mets allowed in the bottom of the ninth of a game they would lose in extra innings Saturday. It doesn’t look like much until you realize Starling Marte made a lackadaisical throw to a languid Jeff McNeil who had his back turned to the runner rounding third, and their lack of urgency allowed Vidal Brujan to score after initially holding up at third. Shildt is judging the players, and indeed himself, on living up to a standard based on effort and competitiveness, and avoiding plays like these. He claims, essentially, that we aren’t hearing more fiery critique of the players because they aren’t giving anything away in competition, even though the outcome of the series couldn’t have been worse. Again, your mileage may vary on that assertion. But it feels likely that Shildt believes that the Padres weren’t outplayed in terms of effort against the Rockies.

Still, it’s fair to summarize the tone of Shildt’s comments as inadequately concerned, and perhaps inviting complacency. And that’s why what Shildt did in game one against the Braves was so interesting.

Stated Beliefs vs Revealed Beliefs

Shildt’s comments came across as a belief that change wasn’t warranted. But his actions revealed different beliefs. Moving on from the tragic Rockies to an away series against the dangerous Braves, we didn’t see complacency: In Friday’s opener against the Braves Manny Machado was dropped to fifth in the batting order with Profar moving to the third spot and Cronenworth occupying Machado’s previous slot hitting fourth. Across 2022 and 2023 Manny Machado hit fifth once. The move was made under the auspices of separating the lefty bats in the order. But make no mistake this change would not be made had Machado been more productive in hitting fourth. This is Shildt revealing that he believes results matter too. Machado has been in a prolonged and frustrating slump, which has been magnified by receiving several of the most important at bats in the Rockies series, not because of mere chance, but precisely because he’s been given one of the most important slots in the batting order hitting cleanup. And Shildt has stuck with Machado most of the season in large part because of his “back of the baseball card” achievements. Back of the baseball card achievements as impressive as Machado’s should create some deference, some benefit of the doubt. But that shouldn’t be limitless. And on Friday we saw that it wasn’t. For the second time this season one of the Padres tentpoles was moved down in the order. And there is strategic reason to think this is a move that improves the team.

Margins Matter

Optimizing a batting order isn’t an earth shattering change, but there’s a lot of evidence that properly aligning the best hitters in a lineup can lead to a difference in 10-15 runs across the season, or about 1-2 wins. The distillation of the best studies can be summarized as:

Take the best three hitters at #1, #2, and #4 (with power leaning towards #4 and OBP leaning toward #1).

The arrival of Luis Arraez created ideal circumstances to quietly shepherd a floundering Xander Bogaerts down in the lineup, out of the crucial leadoff spot. Machado’s drop in the order came without such cover.

Getting the batting order right might only lead to 1-2 wins across the season, a paltry sum in a certain framing, but that is the margin by which the 2023 Padres missed the post season. Moving a star player out of a coveted spot due to underperformance is the opposite of obfuscation, and is the type of move that might sow discontent in a locker room where the primary concern was not winning.

Machado remained in the fifth spot through the entire Braves series, and showed no signs of sulk. He came through with the key hit in a come from behind win on Monday. Cronenworth acquitted himself well as the team’s cleanup hitter driving in key runs in each of the first three games of the series. Machado’s lineup change was not the only instance that could be described as asking a star to take on a less prestigious role for the betterment the team. In Friday’s win against the Braves we saw Shildt deploy closer Robert Suarez in the eighth inning, not to get a six out save, but simply to get through the heart of the Braves order. This is the definition of putting ego and earnings considerations aside in the pursuit of marginal win probability. Shildt then challenged Jeremiah Estrada to record his first career save against the bottom of the Braves order. These are daring managerial decisions, the type which will lead to evisceration if they don’t work. But exactly the type of moves to consider if winning is the only concern.

Tantalizing Promise, Familiar Volatility

The Padres starting pitching has shown tantalizing promise matched only by its penchant for volatility. The Braves series trended towards the former. Matt Waldron out-dueled Max Fried on the way the best start of his career in game one with 10 strikeouts across 5.2 innings getting the win. Darvish looked like a true ace in a game two victory. Dylan Cease was roughed up a bit in game three but was picked up by the offense who rallied late to win. Randy Vasquez turned in a quality start in game four but the Padres lost as Chris Sale continued his resurgence looking every bit a Cy Young favorite. Overall the Padres took three of four from the Braves and did not look overmatched against one of the best teams in the league. Even in the fourth game loss they had the tying run at the plate in the eighth inning. You saw why the Padres might be a nightmare to play against in a short series. Michael King and Joe Musgrove didn’t even see the mound, but their presence lengthens the Padres rotation. There’s still reason to think this could be a very effective starting pitching rotation from here out.

The offense also continues to tantalize. And frustrate. As of Monday every hitter in the starting order had a wRC+ over 100 with the exception of Xander Bogaerts and Machado. Bogaerts hit several balls hard during the Braves series before going down with an injury the extent of which is not yet known. If Bogaerts and Machado were to return to their form of a year ago (let alone to their career norms) it would not be unreasonable to think this lineup could be one of the better run producing lineups in the league…

Equipoise

The week ended on an entirely different note than it began. And we may have seen some of the payoff of cultivating a culture that places the name on the front of the jersey above the name on the back. Still, this was a stressful week, and it would be foolish to view the Braves series as proof that the Rockies series was a one off. This Padres team continues to live on the margins and can’t afford to give anything away. Through 50 games they sit at 25-25. Equally balanced. Firmly in the hunt. But unquestionably still the most enigmatic team in baseball.