Trade Talk Thursday
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 1, 2005 10:25 AM PST
in News
Email
PrintIt's that time again. Trade Talk Thursday...and with the GM mettings starting next week, expect Barry Zito's name to pop up everywhere.
As for who the A's might be interested in, the Los Angeles media seems to think the A's are after Milton Bradley, or as I like to call him, "The Gamer."
Bradley would be a good fit for the A's, although his ability to keep out of trouble can be questioned. Not only that, but he's coming off an injury-riddled season and his OBP has declined the past three seasons. He isn't exactly a huge power threat either with a career .426 slugging percentage.
Outside of this, everything else trade-wise is open for discussion.
149 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'll get the bidding started
We could send him our entire Kane County roster, Stomper, and 100 bags of peanuts. Then, Boston could pick up 2/3 of his remaining salary. get 'er done!
You might want to throw in
the rights to Moneybutt
by JJ on Dec 1, 2005 11:12 AM PST up reply actions
seriously though
a package of duke, sarloos, ??, ?? and for them to pay basically all his salary?
i don't think zito should be considered, personally.
who else would we think of giving up? barton?
For Manny?
Keep in mind, just because you like a trade doesn't mean they'll like it or think it's fair... Duke/Saarloos and Boston paying Manny's salary would amount to one of the greatest ripoffs in MLB history.
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Barton will not be dealt. He's a buddying superstar of greater-than-Manny possibilities. Just look at his stats compared to one Albert Pujols
(www.thebaseballcube.com for those stats)
i don't by
The thing about it is
If the A's get a prospect he tends to be pretty damn good in some way shape or form, and BB has called Barton the best hitter in the A's system. That includes a whole lot of very talented hitters. Plus, Barton's eye is unteachable, and his power and contact for a 19-20 year old is phenomenal... He'll be good
But the chances of him being as good as manny
by SuperDingus on Dec 1, 2005 6:33 PM PST up reply actions
Too True
by nothinlikethetown on Dec 1, 2005 6:56 PM PST up reply actions
Bradley Injury??
Wow..a good fit?
He is a complete and utter malcontent.
I respectfully disagree
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 1, 2005 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
"the A's clubhouse is different"
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5122058
Maybe Billy thinks Bradley would be fine in the A's clubhouse too.
I'd like to have him.
I disagree too...always respectfully...
I agree with your disagreement...
And as you've mentioned, Bradley's numbers are nothing to get excited about. So why, in god's name, would BB take the risk?
by Mission1929 on Dec 1, 2005 10:31 PM PST up reply actions
A solution to Bradley
any chance we can move Loiaza?
by haze on Dec 1, 2005 11:12 AM PST reply actions
If you lived in Kentucky ...
I thought you meant the new smallball coach
by theblackpearl on Dec 1, 2005 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
I think you mean ...
If we fine him for any infractions ...
Milton Bradley is like
by haze on Dec 1, 2005 11:14 AM PST reply actions
ESP[N PROFILE:
Since Bradley is not afraid to go deep into the count, he probably is best suited for one of the top two spots in the order. Though he has plenty of pop, he is a line-drive hitter who uses the entire field. He is a fine situational hitter as well, and will give himself up for a productive out. Bradley has a tendency to lose focus and he will give too many at-bats away, however. He is a fine bunter, able to lay down a sacrifice in any direction or drag one for a hit.
Baserunning & Defense
Bradley has above-average speed and gets around the bases very well. He takes the art of basestealing as a personal challenge, and his gritted teeth and extended leads sometimes tip his hand. Bradley can and did play all three outfield spots for the Dodgers last season, and he was more than adequate at each spot. He gets great jumps and moves well in all directions. Combine his center-field range with his right-field arm, and it makes a total defensive package.
$2.5 MILLION LAST YEAR ID bb-ISH
by Billy Ball 2005 on Dec 1, 2005 11:16 AM PST reply actions
ESPN Profile:
Richard Hidalgo began last year by earning National League Player of the Week honors for April 5-11 and hitting at a .341 clip during the season's first month. He then fell into an extended slump that led to a trade from Houston to the Mets on June 17 in exchange for pitchers David Weathers and Jeremy Griffiths. While his batting average failed to improve, Hidalgo tied the club record for reaching 10 home runs in the fewest amount of games (29) as a Met.
Hitting
Consistency has never been a major part of Hidalgo's game. After hitting the ball to the opposite field in 2003, he became pull-happy and intoxicated with trying to hit home runs over the short left-field porch at Houston's Minute Maid Park. He started rolling over his right wrist during his swing, resulting in a slew of weak groundball outs. The Mets tried to add more consistency and power to Hidalgo's swing by moving him closer to the plate. The initial results were impressive, but he fanned a career-high 129 times last year and showed little patience at the plate.
Baserunning & Defense
Few outfielders in either league have as strong an arm as Hidalgo. His reputation precedes him, and few teams are willing to run on the right fielder's cannon. He still managed to record a team-best 10 assists last summer and did an overall solid job of manning the right-field corner. Hidalgo's speed is a hair above average. While his legs enable him to make the occasional spectacular sliding catch, he rarely makes a positive impact on the basepaths.
2005 Outlook
The Mets said they wanted Hidalgo to return, but not for the $15 million option on his contract. They hoped to work out a new deal, but Hidalgo opted to sign a one-year, $5 million pact with Texas. He can be a prominent part in the middle of the Rangers' lineup when his entire game is in sync. Yet, his inconsistencies from year-to-year make his potential contributions hard to project.
$5 Million last year
FREE AGENT: Will not cost the A's prospects or pitching
by Billy Ball 2005 on Dec 1, 2005 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
Hidalgo stats last year
.221/.289/.416
Ways we get Milton Bradley
#2 We go out and buy some of their toys, then kindfully donate them to charity.
by Instant Replay Umpire on Dec 1, 2005 11:35 AM PST reply actions
focus on the long ball guys!
by dpetri2000 on Dec 1, 2005 11:44 AM PST reply actions
Sanders!!!
by PosterNutbag44 on Dec 1, 2005 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
all he does is hit HRs?
seems to me like all he does is strikeout. and lately, be injured. i really hope we steer clear of sanders.
by Eric in Atlanta on Dec 1, 2005 12:59 PM PST up reply actions
HR's, sometimes...
by PosterNutbag44 on Dec 1, 2005 1:06 PM PST up reply actions
The thing about it is
Know the whole moneyball thing -- value the undervalued, stock up on it to the point where you're the top of the class and this leads to wins?
Want to know what the Bill James Handbook proves the A's were at the top of last year?
Not striking out... the closest team (those pesky angels) struck out a not-so-dismissable 29 times more than the A's did, with the rest of the league averaging about 150-200 times more than the A's did
and?
There's simply no connection between strikeouts and how good an offense is. In fact, someone like Dunn who is perceived as "striking out too much" but is actually one of the most productive offensive players in baseball is likely to be undervalued, not overvalued by the market, and is precisely the kind of player Beane would go after. Of course, Dunn isn't available anyway, so it's kind of a moot point.
Word
I don't think Beane stocked up on hitters who don't strike out often because they don't strike out often...it's a more byproduct of guys with good eyes. Kotsay, Kendall, Hatteberg: I'm sure Beane coveted their high OBPs and ability to raise opposing pitchers' pitch counts more than their ability to stay out of a strikeout. Remember, he re-upped on Payton and Chavez and committed to Crosby, all guys who strike out often. And guess what? They hit for power, something Kotsay, Kendall, and Hatteberg don't do.
I think
The gist of it is these guys hit a lot of HRs... That is never undervalued by the market... Lots of HRs balance lots of SO's, but the A's just don't have the $$ for a guy like that, and though they're developing strong power guys (Swish/DJ/Barton/Crosby) these guys are also the type who strike out rarely
High OBPs? Kendall's .345 isn't that terrific, Kotsay's .325 is anything but terrific, and Hatty's .334 is mediocre. SO's? Ah, now that is different. Sure it comes as part of having a great eye, but even in off years for all three, they managed excellent SO levels.
SO does have relationship to run levels... teams w/ less home runs have less runs unless they strike out less in which case their run production is similar to those high-homerin Cinci Reds and co.
Adam Dunn is good, but do you really think he'll command less than around $13 M a year once he hits the open market? For a guy that young with that many HRs? That's hardly undervalued...
Again, read my later post to get a more complete idea and with specific stats to back me up a bit more than the word of a random 16 year old
Notice I said it was their OBPs that
Almost every available study has shown that SOs have no significant correlation with run-scoring ability. It has nothing to do with what is undervalued, and it has everything to do with what scores runs. OBP is the most important thing there is to scoring runs. Players with high OBPs often strike out with what otherwise might be called alarming frequency: Jonny Gomes, Richie Sexson, and David Dellucci were all among the leaders in SO/PA as well as OBP.
K rates for pitchers
Do K rates for teams (i.e., pitching staves) predict as well? And/or do they impact runs allowed?
This discrepancy in the importance of Ks always gives me a silverback-sized headache ...
Good question
I'm going to make a guess here: since OBP --> runs scoring, I would assume (1-OBP) --> runs allowed. How a team acheives its 1-OBP may be immaterial, but since K-rates are more predictive of success, K-rates would be important to long term staff-building (e.g., the Calero, Street, Haren, Harden, Duke).
One other effect meriting a mention is that a decrease in staff K-rate may well be overcome by a good defense, but fewer Ks mean more balls hit into play --> a rise not only in OBP but a proportional rise in 1B, 2B, 3B, and of course, the most damaging, HR - the type of hit impossible to defend against.
Conclusion: I've written a lot without actually saying anything.
2 worries about Dunn
The other point, and this one is more related to Ks and BBs, is an old suggestion by Bill James that young players with "old player" skills -- okay average, high BB, K, and HR rates, low speed in the field or on the bases -- tend to decline faster than other, equally-valuable players. He first made this point in reference to Tom Brunansky. I think it probably applies to Ben Grieve, as well. It was about to apply to Mark McGwire, before he started juicing. James's idea was that these players might be pushing the productivity limits for non-athelticism and failing to make contact -- when their physical skills begin (inevitably) to decline, or the pitchers start making successful adjustments, they get bumped over the edge and stop being successful players.
I'm cautious about Dunn for these reasons. In another park, or with slightly impaired performance, you've got a slow, .220 hitter who Ks 200 times a year and hits about 20 homers. More like Ryan Klesko in his down years than a lefthanded Harmon Killebrew. I sure wouldn't want Beane spending significant money on that kind of player.
Good point
In any event, I have generally heard agreement that young guys with old-guy skills (Grieve, Giambi the younger) do not age well. Dunn's PECOTA card indicates that he will age well, projecting a VORP ~ 40 through 2009. The attrition rate is fairly alarming (7% next year, then 12%, then 16%). His PECOTA comps (remember, PECOTA takes body-type into account) are Troy Glaus, Fred McGriff, Jim Thome, Tim Salmon, etc. These guys had injury problems, but few actually had performance collapses.
ceteris paribus
All other things being equal, batters (individuals or a team) who strike out a lot will produce about the same number of runs as those who strike out less often.
It seems like a discrepancy, but the catch is in the "all other things being equal." For pitchers, the all other things that are equal usually refers to walks and home runs. So fewer strikeouts -> more balls in play -> more hits -> more runs.
For batters, the all other things being equal usually refers to AVG/OBP/SLG. And reducing the number of strikeouts without changing AVG/OBP/SLG just means you're replacing strikeouts with other kinds of outs - which means, on the plus side, a few more runners advanced on ground balls and sac flies, and on the minus side, a few more double plays. On average, these effects cancel almost exactly.
o, andeux
I believe that you're the first AN user to post an ablative absolute in a comment! Woo-hoo, or as we say in lingua latina, "vu-hu!"
Now, can you translate this?
O sibili, si ergo
fortibus es in ero.
O nobili, themis trux,
vadis inem? causan dux.
Ooops, red mark me
"themis trux"
You are on the right path
Peter Cetera Short-bus
What you seem to be saying is that when a pitcher doesn't strike a batter out, he gives up either a BB or a HR -- but when a batter doesn't strike out, he either grounds out or flies out.
I understand the analytic distinction you're making w/c.p., but (a) I haven't seen that distinction made in K-rate analyses and (b) even if it was, I'm not sure how relevant the resulting conclusions would be.
It still comes down to raw K rate matters for pitchers but doesn't for hitters. (I'm ok living with that conundrum, but it still bugs me logic-wise.)
I guess I wasn't clear
No, I'm saying that when asks the question "how much does K rate matter for pitchers" the usual approach is to vary the K rate, while holding walk and HR rates constant; so if you lower the K rate, you get extra plate appearances which are not a BB or a HR, but a random ball in play, about 30% of which end up being hits. Buy when you ask the question "how much does K rate matter for batters" the usual approach is to vary the K rate while holding AVG/OBP/SLG (or something similar) constant; so if you lower the K rate, you get extra plate appearances which are ground outs or fly outs.
This may still seem contradictory (or at least inconsistent), but it's really just that the "right" answer depends on precisely what question you ask. The ultimate goal is to properly value a player's performance, and maybe to try to predict how it will change in the future. If you look at a pitcher with a low strikeout rate but decent ERA - Saarloos, as discussed in another thread, being a perfect example - there's good reason to think that his success won't be sustainable. But if you look at a hitter like Adam Dunn who put up a line of .247/.387/.540 while striking out 168 times, there's no reason to think that he's less valuable than any other player who managed to hit .247/.387/.540 with fewer strikeouts, or to think that the strikeouts make him less likely to repeat that performance. (Well, except for the "old player skills" argument that Nick mentions above, which is valid, but only tangentially related to the K's).
I agree with your point
But as you say, this kind of comparison doesn't answer the question everyone is really asking: if Dunn/Preston Wilson/Eric Chavez cut down on his swing, would he be a better or worse hitter? The only real way to answer this would be to compare hitters who've significantly reduced or increased their K rates. Do some hitters lower their K rates without changing their other hitting stats (i.e., turning those Ks into other types of outs), or do hitters who reduce their Ks tend to improve or decline in their other stats? Jose Canseco significantly reduced his K rate between his rookie year (175Ks/610 ABs, 115 OPS+) and MVP year (128Ks/600 ABs, 175 OPS+), and that change was associated with a massive increase in productivity. Many of those non-Ks evidently turned into hits, some of them extra base hits. At the time, I remember people saying he'd changed his approach with 2 strikes, spreading out and swinging without striding (he'd also abandoned his exaggerated open stance). On the other hand, Kendall's 2nd-best year was 2000 (79Ks/579 ABs, 125 OPS+), which was also his career-highest K rate. Last year, he only Kd 39 times in 601 ABs, but was pretty awful as a hitter (77 OPS+).
Does the type of hitter make a difference? What about age? The degree of change in K rate?
I don't think there's an easy answer here, but someone with more time and better statistical abilities than me could do a really interesting analysis of hitters over time to try to pin this down.
yes, but ...
- Regarding pitchers: this seems to me to perhaps be an instance where the statistical analysis, while technically correct (in isolating a single variable to analyze its effect), moves the analysis further away from the reality of the situation. How many pitchers actually in fact have their K rates drop while BB and HR rates remain the same? In fact, I'd argue that it's virtually impossible for a K rate to drop without the HR rate increasing (eventually, some of those 30% of BIPs will go over the fence). I think we've been kind of talking past each other on this (or, at least, I'll acknowledge I've been talking past you -- not in the "beyond" sense, of course, but in the "yak yak yak ... oh, wait, he's gone" sense).
- Regarding hitters: if you hold AVG/OBP/SLG constant, of course there will be no effect of reduced Ks -- since OBP/SLG are the essential components of scoring runs. The equation you end up with is an identity.
- I agree 100% with your assessments of Saarloos and Dunn (well, except slightly on the degree of relevance of Nick's old-player skills to the K-rate discussion). But they're both fairly extreme outliers, yes? That doesn't disprove the conclusion, but it does color the argument. With Dunn (and this pt. #3 is itself rapidly becoming tangential), I think is a classic illustration of the "which would you rather have: more walks with the high Ks, or cut down on the Ks and BBs for more XBHs?" conundrum with high-K players. (The stathead answer to which is, of course, c.p., more walks, since OBP is more determinant of scoring runs.)
Still
Could you reference some of these studies for me? From looking at the BJ handbook it seems to me that every team that doesn't hit HRs for a living but scores lots of runs anyway rarely strikes out
Though you're right this is mostly probably a byproduct of good eyes and high OBPs...
Still, I can't get rid of the relationship I see
If we are to keep Zito this year...
The addition of Loaiza pushes Saarloos to the pen where he is available to start if an injury happens to one of the starters. Rheinecker is available to fill the LHRP roll. It seems as if Bynum could be the bench player supreme, filling in at LF, SS, 2B, 3B & most importantly CF, thus relieving Payton of the task.
So the question becomes who needs a CF and a LHSP? And what could they offer for them?
The first thought I had was AZ. It seems as if it would be too much for Conor Jackson and not enough for Carlos Quinten.
Bradley is terrible fit for A's
by Dig the Long Ball on Dec 1, 2005 11:59 AM PST reply actions
Good news!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/sports/baseball/01sportsbriefs.ready.html?pagewanted=all
the more you campaign
So I think his role as a great utility player is almost just as important as a consistent DH threat.
by pickinmachine on Dec 1, 2005 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
forgot to mention
sorry BCG :)
by pickinmachine on Dec 1, 2005 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
Something we know about Beane....
RH hitter, hitting machine, carreer .920 OPS big name, undervalued, can play 3B/SS, west coast kid, has a REALLY CLOSE FRIEND in the team (Payton), Mia Hamm's Husband (good PR), hardworker, good guy in the clubhouse...
yes, but ...
That I don't see changing in the immediate future.
("Why" on any of those question, I don't know.)
so you're saying ...
Yup
by Dig the Long Ball on Dec 1, 2005 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
Suddenly, I'm picturing ...
I'm Rick James, B*tch
by Dig the Long Ball on Dec 1, 2005 1:12 PM PST up reply actions
Nomar makes more sense than Bradley
Nomar adds more.
by Ducts on the Pawn on Dec 1, 2005 1:21 PM PST up reply actions
Not anytime soon
If Nomar is as undervalued as you hope, he will still be free on Dec. 8th. Then it will just be the matter of $. Anything under $4 million and I am on board.
Otherwise, Kennedy and Cruz for Kearns.
Put me down for 1 M. Bradley
Bradley can play CF and bat 4th any day on my team. Unfortunately, Billy will buy low on Bradley, and sell high (when he becomes too expensive).
I honesty believe the Oakland faithfull will really love this guy playing for them.
Payton + 1.5 for Bradley...LA does it, I'II bet.
Hard to See this one
by richwol on Dec 1, 2005 12:59 PM PST reply actions
Uh ...
C'mon, face it: Kent's a bigger jackass than Bradley -- just without the persecution complex.
Oh yes, Kent is probably a bigger jackass ...
Ehhh
The anger managemnet classes
by Ryan Armbrust on Dec 1, 2005 9:19 PM PST up reply actions
If we lose our team chemistry
by Dig the Long Ball on Dec 1, 2005 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
Well...
We also have a buttload of talent, you can't deny that... The most talented rotation in baseball barring a Zito trade, the most talented bullpen (arguably), and a very good batting order that produced almost 800 runs despite an aggregate age of 13 and 1/2.
Talent ain't missin
talent vs. production
by Dig the Long Ball on Dec 1, 2005 6:12 PM PST up reply actions
POSTERNUTBAG44
justindotwolfatwachoviadotcom
"lets add trey to the DH spot!"
by jrwolf on Dec 1, 2005 1:29 PM PST reply actions
Oompah Pah Ooompah Pah Oompah Pah Ah....
And yeah, I'm all for Trey at DH, he's gotta produce more than what we got last year, the guy can play EVERYTHING!
Likewise, posternutbag44@mindless.com
by PosterNutbag44 on Dec 1, 2005 1:50 PM PST up reply actions
Let's face it...
Bradley for cheap is an interesting player. For anything but cheap, pass.
and that's ...
I'm fascinated by the potential of Bradley, but, yeah, I wouldn't send Colletti much for him.
Outfielders?
swish+DJ
Yeah
DJ also got a lot better at 1B... If both these guys are going to be top defensive talents, shouldn't we put em in the field?
Is it better to just get an already defensively proven RF who can hit? How much would that cost? I think a pure DH is cheaper... Thoughts?
I really would like some more color
Not too mention he has a great bat = )
Agreed, but...
why bring race into it
Would it be OK for KC to say hey we need some more white guys?
Not wrong
Sure, in a purely "logical" way, it's not ok to ask for more black and Latino players unless it's also ok for a different fan or team to ask for more white players. The thing is, we're not working in a nice pure logical system: the world is an imbalanced place, and blacks and Latinos are an underclass, even in baseball (media representations, for example).
Why is it wrong, especially if you happen to be a member of one of those classes, to wish that your favorite team had a better mix of players?
Zito for Blalock
I've heard from some sources that have been reliable in the past that this is in the works. No details other than what's in the header, but I'd imagine that some minor league talent would switch sides as well.
No, no, no.
by SuperDingus on Dec 1, 2005 2:18 PM PST up reply actions
His numbers have
Awww, monkeyball
@('.')@}ooooo
Get it?
Ouch
Brings a new meaning to the term
And a new smell.
Please get Bradley
I dont care if he says a few dumb quotes if the A's win ball games.
Trades in general
Connection to Trade Talk Thursday? This is the type of player the A's will get.
First column is stat, 2nd is the team quantity for that stat, the 3rd is their ranking in the AL
Batting:
AB (5627)-- Lead MLB by a grand total of 1 AB (Bos had 5626)
2B (310) #4
RBI (739) #5
TBB (537) #3
SO (819) #1 in MLB -- this is the biggy stat... the closest are the LA Angels with 848 which is not an insignificant difference... after that comes Bal with 90 then Tor with 955 with Min rounding out the top five with 978... the league average is approx 1000, and SF had 901 to lead the NL... league worst is Cin w/ an astonishing 1303 -- about 500 more outs than the A's due to K's.
OBP (.330) #5
Ground into DP -- #2 (148) -- not a good thing but, well, whatever.
Pitching:
CG (9) 4 way tie for #1 (Stl lead with 15, Fla 2nd with 14)
For opponents:
H (1315) #1 in MLB (this means they gave up the least out of any team -- by about 50 hits)
R (658) #4
ER (594) #4
HR (154) #1
SO (1075) #2 -- LAA came in first
ShO (12) #2
OAvg (.241) #1 in MLB -- CLE came in second in AL
OOBP (.311) #4, #5 in MLB
OSlg (.382) #1 in MLB -- CLE second again
ERA (3.69) #4 in AL
So yeah, SO's are Billy's thang at the moment... And no coincidence that one of the most successful teams in the AL, the Angels we know and love, also emphasized the SO last year.
In a blooper stat, the A's managed to successfully steal 58% of the time -- 38 out of 60 attempts. This is the second worst percent, as only the Nats managed to top it with an amazing 50% -- 45 out of 90 attempts were successful.
Also, as a fun side fact, according to expected totals based on stats, Cleveland should have won their division by 13 games, with 103 wins to CWS tallying 90 or so. The WS managed an incredible overall efficiency of 110, a league high, compared to the Indians' 90%, the second lowest in the league. Get the Bill James handbook for details
All of the above stats are courtesy of the Bill James handbook and my eyes' ability to see and my fingers' ability to type.
Remember in your trade rumoring -- the SO is what Billy's goin for at the moment, so sorry, but no Reggie Sanderses or Adam Dunns or anyone like em.
remember the golden rule of stat browsing
just because we had low SO #s last year doesn't mean that it was by design or even desirable.
But...
BB did this by design --- the other leaders were all good teams and/or teams lead by people Beane considers his ilk -- Epstein's Boston, Ricciardi's Blue Jays, Cashman's Yanks. All were at least solid in the SO dept.
Boston
Games are won with runs. Lack of Ks doesn't lead to runs. I think Beane is more concerned with BB/K ratios as a way to measure batting eye and, as a corollary, ended up with a team that had low K totals. But he's not looking for a team like the Angels... not by a long shot.
Yes
Stil, over all in the majors it did not do a terrible job, and AL-specifically I think SO's does have a correllation to runs... Texas is an exception because of its HR-supportive air (Texas lead the league in HRs by more than 30)
Similarly, Boston ain't bad for HRs (#5 in AL)
The HR acts as a sort of remedy for not striking out... It works if you can afford 9 hitters capable of 20+ HRs, but in reality teams with low HR totals necessarily had lower SO totals to produce similar run totals. Toronto is another good example -- it had 135 HRs to be in the bottom 5 of the AL teams, yet placed #4 in the AL in SO's, and #5 wasn't exactly close.
Both the teams you mentioned have payrolls around twice that of Oakland's... They can afford a Texeira, who will K a lot but will homer with regularity as well... Same with Boston. Teams that did not HR regularly and also SO a lot also finished with lower run totals -- KC had the 3rd lowest run total, with both the lowest HR total and the 5th highest SO tally.
So I guess in a sense we're both right... HRs produce runs, but for teams like Oakland that just can't afford the bona fide HR guy, having 9 guys who strike out 200+ less times than the team that can afford the bona fide HR guy is, perhaps, a big part of the answer (the other half is top-notch pitching, I think... Oakland was a top 5 in almost every major category)
Also important
Still, double-power might turn into HR-power with a couple years experience (Swish, DJ, Crosby, etc)
BB also generally looks for guys who are at least somewhat adequate in all or most of his stats... So, theoretically, our DH will be a guy who rarely strikes out and hits for a modicum of power -- not a 30 HR bopper by more like a biggy doubles guy or someone who just doesn't strike out (a la Kendall/Kotsay)
Funny how Kendall is almost the current BB prototype for people undervalued... rarely flies out, quality defense (gotta get his arm back though), and hits for a lotta 2b.
Good thing we at AN appreciate what he brings so much
C'mon don't give more arguments....
A contact Machine...
correction
Should be Bal with 902
I am sitting here wondering
by franzy on Dec 1, 2005 2:52 PM PST reply actions
I continue my parade of hope
Not Going to happen
by nothinlikethetown on Dec 1, 2005 5:35 PM PST up reply actions
I'm with you Zonis
no way
by Ryan Armbrust on Dec 1, 2005 9:21 PM PST up reply actions
The last time the Reds asked for Harden
People talk about how Dunn and Teixeira only produce at home, in hitters parks. Kearns actually hit better on the road. (.246 BA/.354 OBP/.459 SLG) If ever there was a player who just needs a new venue, its Kearns. FREE AUSTIN KEARNS NOW!
Good points
by Ryan Armbrust on Dec 1, 2005 9:40 PM PST up reply actions
If the Reds require more than Kennedy and Cruz
Isn't it a bad sign when
Cruz and Kennedy for Kearns
Last season cincy management had seemingly decided to go with Willy Mo instead of Kearns when they sent kearns down in the middle of the year. That outfield is full (dunn, jr, pena), so moving kearns for pitching helps them. Kearns has shown to be injury prone, but the payoff is huge if he's healthy. Also, he's cheap (930K last year).
Both teams would benefit from this trade.
by mattcschmidt on Dec 1, 2005 11:17 PM PST up reply actions
oops
by mattcschmidt on Dec 1, 2005 11:34 PM PST up reply actions
REDS
by Colorado Fan on Dec 2, 2005 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
More AN advertising controversy
I say we need a Prop-75 style thread in which the AN public can discuss the content of such ads.
Just kidding...I really don't think that came out nearly as funny as I thought it could.
by H3liCat on Dec 1, 2005 3:13 PM PST reply actions
You mean 77
Please Billy.....
Chemistry means nothing.
If you can't take my word it (even though you should), and really need an example, how about the 2002 Giants. Bonds and Kent get into a fight during a game in SD. The lack of chemistry really hampered that team from going far.
After re-reading my post and would like to qualify something. I said chemistry does not exist which is not entirely true. I played on teams where everyone got along great and there was this "chemistry," yet I've played on enough teams where the "chemistry" was not there. Trust me, in no way did chemistry or lack there of effect the outcome of our season.
by Czech Micah on Dec 1, 2005 6:02 PM PST reply actions
maybe "chemistry" is like strikeouts ...
Right on point...
The great A's teams of the early 70's are a perfect example. By all acounts they were at each others throats from time to time, but they still got it done on the diamond.
by Little Rickey on Dec 1, 2005 8:50 PM PST up reply actions
as long as...
I think the term "team chemistry", or "clubhouse chemistry", when used to describe how baseball players succeed or fail, is just a buzzword used by those that do not understand the game. (my $.02)
by Ryan Armbrust on Dec 1, 2005 8:53 PM PST up reply actions
Tinker to Evers
At least that's how I remember the story -- I'll have to look it up later tonight to see if I can fill in the details.
OT
by paige20 on Dec 1, 2005 6:15 PM PST reply actions
Froogle says...
seems to be the only place...
by Ryan Armbrust on Dec 1, 2005 8:41 PM PST up reply actions
the 2006 a's don't have no bonds nor kent
by Dig the Long Ball on Dec 1, 2005 6:21 PM PST reply actions
Does anybody get ESPN Insider?
I subscribe...
A year ago, Russ Ortiz and Eric "Gulp" Milton both signed for $8 million per season. If that was the going rate for pitchers like them in 2004, then $7 million per season for Loaiza has to be considered a (gulp) bargain.Of sorts. Based on the going rate, Alex Rodriguez would be a bargain at $18 million for the Athletics, but that doesn't mean it would make sense for them to pay him $18 million. And that's what concerns me about this particular contract.
There's been some speculation that Loaiza's arrival gives the A's room to trade Barry Zito, whose contract expires at the end of 2006. And considering Zito's history, he's going to make at least $10 million per season with his next contract, which means the A's probably can't afford to keep him, which means they might trade him before the season.
This would, in fact, seem like the best course of action. A year ago, the A's traded Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder, and came up with quite a dandy haul, including two solid candidates for the starting rotation. One of them, Dan Meyer, got hurt. But the other, Dan Haren, pitched -- dare I suggest it? -- better than Mulder. (Haren finished the season with more innings and a lower ERA relative to his league.)
Here's what I think happens next: A's general manager Billy Beane now has six starting pitchers: Rich Harden, Haren, Joe Blanton, Loaiza, Zito and Kirk Saarloos (and Juan Cruz makes seven, actually). The first three aren't going anywhere because they're good and cheap. I would assume that Loaiza's safe, too. But Zito's valuable, and Saarloos can't be counted on to pitch even decently in 2006; not with his 53 strikeouts in 160 innings this past season.
I believe the A's have to trade Zito for a young starting pitcher (ideally, another Danny Haren) and a young hitter (ideally, another Daric Barton, whom you're going to hear a lot about next summer). And if they can fool somebody into trading a useful player for Fairy Dust Saarloos, all the better.
by Ryan Armbrust on Dec 1, 2005 9:24 PM PST up reply actions
Team Chemistry
Come on guys, you should know better! When a team wins, people think the team has good chemistry. When the team loses, they think they have bad chemistry.
The point is that it really does not matter. Just look at the 70's A's teams!
Willy Mo Pena
wait.... I just looked at his home and road splits.....
.867 OPS at home and .707 on the road........
Never mind.
by Athletics fan and runner on Dec 1, 2005 9:12 PM PST reply actions
Pena
by Ryan Armbrust on Dec 1, 2005 9:26 PM PST up reply actions
Wily Mo Pena
by redruin on Dec 1, 2005 10:44 PM PST up reply actions
agreed
by JJ on Dec 2, 2005 1:25 AM PST up reply actions
ok
by HarenStyle on Dec 1, 2005 11:06 PM PST reply actions
perhaps not
by Ryan Armbrust on Dec 1, 2005 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
Remember Wily Mo is only 23...
I'm still very wary of trading for him. Guys with his profile often take many years to develop. I'd rather have Kearns or Dunn, but my ultimate hope is Zito for Jackson and Nippert.
by Little Rickey on Dec 2, 2005 4:46 PM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
