Over the past few months, my buddy and I have collaborated on a baseball talk show broadcast on his college's radio station, a "show" that has come tantalizingly close to answering the oft-pondered question, "If you broadcast a radio show and no one listens, is it really a radio show?" Regardless of the answer, we spent nearly three full weeks talking about
Denver's Finest Ballclub, so in honor of that, here are 10 questions on this version of the
Colorado Rockies.
1. How the hell did they make the playoffs last year? I thought baseball in Denver couldn't win without a salary cap?
Good ball players can win anywhere. This was your typical
Rockies outfit -- led the league in scoring. They won because the pitching was passable enough, allowing less runs than 12 other clubs. Most of that was thanks to
Billy Wagner, who was utterly brilliant in 81.2 innings, posting a
1.32 ERA and saving 38 games. If
Mark Prior hadn't been channeling
Bob Gibson,
Wagner might've been a Cy Young candidate. The rotation, led by two strikeout pitchers in
Russ Ortiz and
Dustin McGowan, was also pretty good, but even more importantly, healthy.
Brian Bohanon,
Mike Harkey, and
Bryan Rekar weren't wasting 15 awful starts for this club, and any "long-time"
Pale Hose reader can tell you that those sort of horrific performances add up. (
Marc Kaiser anyone?)
The
Rocks still had a few token chumps get rocked, but it was limited to 100 or so innings out of the 'pen in the names of
Brian Fuentes and
Sam Marsonek.
Luther Hackman, acquired in May for
Cleveland's whipping boy,
Mark Bellhorn, provided a solid set-up duo along with
Javier Lopez. Eight decent pitchers coupled with the number one offense in the league was enough to get the
Coloradans their first division winner.
2. So are they going to repeat this year?
How the hell do you expect me to answer that in one question? What would I write for the next eight, then?
3. OK, fine. What did they do this offseason?
Nothing. Signed Shawn Estes to lead the Colorado Springs Sky Sox to the PCL championship. Inspired, isn't it?
4. Well, what is that?
Classic case of "It worked once, it'll work again." The
fallacy of overgeneralization, maybe, or the disease of the
2003 Anaheim Angels.
5. Is that really all they did? Shawn F. Estes?
They added the new
Vinny Castilla in
Pedro Feliz, who hit 50 home runs in AAA last year, but it cost them
Claudio Vargas, who went an unimpressive 5-12 last year but with an above-average 3.67 ERA. And remember, that was on top of a freaking mountain. Draft him for your fantasy team this year.
6. So who replaces Vargas in the rotation?
Ben "Coonskin Cap"
Crockett, who has 85.1 above-average major league innings to his credit and 55 starts at AAA with an ERA solidly in the mid-threes, but who doesn't strike out enough batters nor walk few enough, last year's 11 walks in 45 innings notwithstanding, to have any extended success at altitude. He's the new
Denny Stark.
7. They have an ace that's going to pick up the slack, then?
The mantle of ace falls down to two capable pitchers,
Russ Ortiz and the 24 year old
Dustin McGowan.
Ortiz went a shiny 17-7 last year, but it's not repeatable. He posted a 4.08 ERA in his first year on the mountaintop, most likely he'll split the difference between the two this season.
McGowan went 15-10, 3.28 last year in a breakout season, and coupled with his youth, I'm glad that I'm lacking in a Ken Rosenthal in this universe. He struck out 10 batters per nine innings last season, but also gave up just 157 hits in 214 innings. Somehow I doubt that'll happen again. Of course, I doubt the entire concept of a true "ace" in Denver, even only in OOTP. I could be wrong.
8. What's with all these good pitchers? Is it the defense?
Naw, aside from
Edgar Renteria and the wonderful
Todd Helton, the defense isn't anything special. These are just decent pitchers. A novel concept in
Colorado, really. But
Wagner won't be as superb again and I like those two "aces" to decline a bit, too. Regression to the mean, considering the source -- Coors Field.
9. The offense might need to score a thousand runs, then. Will they?
Uh, no.
Helton's a stud, of course, and only hit .270 last year, so he'll pick up a bit. But I don't see
J.D. Closser slugging .550 again; hell,
Charles Johnson almost did that one year, and in fact, he's still on the roster. But how many
Charles Johnsons do you need?
I still see this group as
Todd & the Toddlers. Maybe I'm getting caught up in the names. But
Brad Hawpe slugged .389 two years ago, .492 last year. Same for
Cory Sullivan -- he jumped from .330 to .470 in the same category over the course of a year. Sure, those two and
Jayson Werth will all be 27 years old this season, and we all know
how great that is, but what's more reliable -- looking at two or three years of statistics or just one? I'd bet on the former, and that spells out regression pretty plainly for many of the
Colorado hitters.
Feliz, the big offseason pickup (?), will be an upgrade on
Mark Schramek and his empty .233 average, but so, too, would
Battleaxe Steinfeldt lying on a cot.
Aaron Miles and
Edgar Renteria are a decent double-play combination, particularly
Edgar if he hits closer to .300 rather than the .270 he hit last year, but even at their best, they're complementary players. Leadoff hitters, number six hitters, not stars.
Miguel Tejada and
Bad Company DeSilva they are not.
So you're left hoping that
J.D. Closser hits .300 with 20 home runs again, and that the entire outfield not only stays healthy but drives in a collective 250 runs for a second time. But who are they going to drive in? Aside from
Helton, no one gets on base unless they hit .280. Sure, everyone might do that again, but it's much more likely that they don't, yes? I don't like this team to score a thousand runs or even 800 like they did last year. They'll be lucky to be among the top-10 run scoring clubs.
10. Well, that was quite the poetic little ending there. But you've still got another question, smartass. Come up with something brilliant!
Well, let's see here. Nothing on the farm...nothing up my sleeve...good thing I'm not on the radio right now.
I don't know. All I've really got is a rhetorical question. Now, apparently I have all these thoughts "on how things are", to quote Jim Bouton. But why the hell are they spent on the
Colorado Rockies? Is it the brisk mountain air? Man against nature? Or maybe it's that I know no one will disagree with what I say, because who the hell knows anything about the
Rockies? Somehow I think it's that last one.