Baseball Savant's Oakland A's Preview

by limecat on Mar 2, 2005 7:34 AM PST

I found this interesting preview of the A's. This blog was one of the first people to approve of the Hudson/Mulder trades.

It warms my heart to hear such things as "I think 2005 is going to mark the beginning of another great run for the A's eerily reminiscent of their 2000-2003 run when the A's made 4 consecutive playoff appearances. In what looks like a rebuilding year, the A's have quietly assembled a stellar offense to go along with an unparalleled bullpen in regards to depth and power."

Anyways, go take a look. Its an intersting read.

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Interesting stuff

But I have to think that anyone who is calling himself "Baseball Savant" is taking himself a little too seriously.

"The sun don't shine on the same dog's ass all the time." -Catfish Hunter

by kaweahkaweah on Mar 2, 2005 7:54 AM PST reply actions

Or he is just high on crack!

"In a year that a lot of people are predicting Oakland to be down, I have them winning 97.2 games this year. I think Oakland is going to see improvement in every area as a ball club with the possible exception of the starting rotation. The A's are a team that don't have a lot of questions marks or "what ifs?" going for them which is a good thing... "

You shouldn't smoke such a big rock and then try to write about baseball

2nd favorite team: WHOEVER IS PLAYING THE GIANTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by ConcordFanSince1968 on Mar 2, 2005 2:02 PM PST up reply actions

Overly optimistic

As much as I would love to see the A's win 97 games, I think it is a bit optimistic. A couple of points in his analysis made me question how much he is paying attention. He mentioned Jairo's incredible minor league numbers but seemed to have ignored his struggles in Oakland. And anyone who refers to BB as an uber-genius may be letting their enthusiasm hold too much sway. Still, I agree with the whole concept of improved offense and bullpen with question marks in the rotation, let's play some games and find out!!

by Doug on Mar 2, 2005 8:10 AM PST reply actions

97 wins

is pretty optimistic! He also predicts Swisher will hit 30 dingers if he gets the at bats.

One observation I thought was right on: the way he put it, two of the 3. 4. 5. starters are going to have to pitch 150+ innings. That may be right, and that also may be asking too much of them.

by Brian in 317 on Mar 2, 2005 8:20 AM PST up reply actions

97 wins

While he called in a win prjection, I chose to treat it as a number calculated using some formula that allows him to compare teams. He says the Red Sox and Yankees have a higher number. So, assuming he is consistent in his methods I would treat it as a way to score teams in order to rank them. The trick is with 3 rookies in the starting rotation, I would guess the error bars on that number are fairly large. The range of that number is probably 85-100, and he is probably being a little overly optimistic, maybe the number for purposes of ranking is more like 92, and instead of 2 teams higher than Oakland there are 8.

by Donner on Mar 2, 2005 10:07 AM PST up reply actions

ROY stuff...

i like some of it, but i agree this seems a too optimistic.

"Meyer is teammate Nick Swisher's biggest rival for the Rookie of the Year honors in 2005."

wow, let's hope so...

"I hope he can hit .280, but even if he doesn't, he'll hit 30HR if he gets enough at-bats and is the odds on favorite to win the rookie of the year in 2005, giving Oakland their first back-to-back ROY winners since Mark McGwire and Walt Weiss did it back in 1987-1988."

"I hope he can hit .280" doesn't sound too objective. and he seems to have forgotten that our buddy canseco was ROY.

by xbhaskarx on Mar 2, 2005 8:17 AM PST reply actions

He's right about the ROY

Canseco and Mac went back to back in 86-87 while Mac and Weiss went back to backk in 87-88. Ergo Mac-Weiss was more recent.

It was a missed opportunity for Mister Savant to put his literary talents on full display.

He definitely could be write, but I'd say he's way too optimistic to consider this a midpoint projection. He believes in the A's and believes they will come together this year .... I sure hope he's right.

devo's gf: "what is it that you write about all day when they don't even play any games?"

by devo on Mar 2, 2005 9:18 AM PST up reply actions

Nothing wrong with optimism

Sure he's very optimistic, but he gets his predictions thru the use of stats, which I like. Plus, its nice to read something positive about the A's instead of the usual ESPN Sox-Yankees-Angels lovefest! :)

by limecat on Mar 2, 2005 8:23 AM PST reply actions

WOW!!

I like the analysis, and i know that Oakland's offense is improved, but i'm not sure if it's as good as Bostons. He also said that he doesn't think there's a pen as deep and powerful as Oakland's.... maybe... but probably not. I also don't think that both meyer and blanton will start in the rotation. One of them will probably start in AAA.

by brenarlo on Mar 2, 2005 9:24 AM PST reply actions

Yeah, wow

" I'm rating the Red Sox offense ahead of Oakland's but my projections have the A's being dead even with Boston offensively."

That's hard to believe...

The triple of Jeremy Brown's imagination was, in reality, a home run.

by ArakSOT on Mar 2, 2005 9:56 AM PST up reply actions

Not hard to belive...

That is what his projections say given his starting information. It would be interesting in these projection calcualtions to slap a range on to the stats, then apply a Gaussian probability to that range, and see where the center is and what the standard deviation is.

by Donner on Mar 2, 2005 10:11 AM PST up reply actions

I;d bet any amount of money

Boston will score more runs than the A's this year, and I dont think it will be close.

by OaktownPower on Mar 2, 2005 10:22 AM PST up reply actions

total runs isn't the right measure

Boston plays in Fenway, which inflates offense. IF Oakland and Boston had the same offense, Boston would score more just based on their home park.

Park factors also cause many of us to overestimate the Texas offense, which was merely average last year.

and then there is strength of schedule...

by jakarta on Mar 2, 2005 10:51 AM PST up reply actions

Kelly Green?

I did not know that Kermit was an Athletic!

by jb on Mar 2, 2005 10:36 AM PST reply actions

That was back in the 70's...

when Charlie owned the team, but the ass was his mascot

by Gerard on Mar 2, 2005 12:08 PM PST up reply actions

Credibility

I agree that he makes some interesting points and it kinda feels good that an "outsider" likes the A's chances, but I too think he's a bit too overly optimistic. 97.2 wins? Wow. My favorite line: "The A's are a team that don't have a lot of questions marks or "what ifs?" going for them which is a good thing..." Uhhh...how exactly do you mean Mr. Savant? Not to mention that right after he makes a list of the MLB's most dominating pitchers he ranks American Idol's Guys Night. C'mon. Maybe a weekly ranking of the cars on Pimp My Ride, or at the very least maybe American Idol's Girl's Night. I don't know, he does have a good set of numbers to back his proposals but analyses of Nick Swisher and Mario Vazquez(the guy from Saved By the Bell?) on the same webpage is a bit disturbing.

by goldenhammer on Mar 2, 2005 11:15 AM PST reply actions

Blog

Baseball analysis and American Idol analysis on the same blog?

Eep.

Go Beach.

by Dirtbag Pride on Mar 2, 2005 12:09 PM PST reply actions

It's Possible...

I mean, the Gnats won 92 games last year with a rotation of Jason Schmidt and....uhh......umm....

...who else stood out in that rotation?? :-)

Tomko and Lowry had one good month....

Starting pitching is nice, but you can win without it. The A's seem to have built up everything around their starting pitching this season in order to protect it.

This team looks stronger to me then the '04 Giants did, even with all the youth in the rotation.

If the Giants could win 92 games with that mess of a rotation, I don't see why we can't do at least the same. I'd be thrilled with a 92 win team, knowing the next 2-3 years will be even better.

TLAAoAitCoO - The Los Angeles Angeles of Anaheim in the County of Orange.

by nodaclu on Mar 2, 2005 12:37 PM PST reply actions

How about AWRCLAAoAitCoO

America's Western Regional Californian Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in the County of Orange?

devo's gf: "what is it that you write about all day when they don't even play any games?"

by devo on Mar 2, 2005 12:39 PM PST up reply actions

Or NAWRCLAAoAitCoO

North America's...

by peanut gallery on Mar 2, 2005 12:53 PM PST up reply actions

Or how about

UMWGPENHNAWCSoCB7$SCAAoLANGAotEEW

Universe Milky Way Galaxy Planet Earth Northern Hemisphere North America West Coast South of Compton Beer 7 Bucks Southern California Anaheim Angels of Los Angeles Non Ghetto Area of the Evil Empire West

Peace up, A-Town Down (A town being Albany California, not Atlanta)

by ohad on Mar 2, 2005 1:27 PM PST up reply actions

No, it has to flow

each new location has to have a different context. It can't just be a list of places.

devo's gf: "what is it that you write about all day when they don't even play any games?"

by devo on Mar 2, 2005 1:52 PM PST up reply actions

97.2?

Why does the guy make a prediction that is guaranteed 100% to be wrong before the season even starts? How are the A's going to win .2 of a game?

And then "The A's are a team that don't have a lot of questions marks or "what ifs?" The A's are a HUGE what if team for 2005.

I want to see the guys total predictions for the league, and see if the win totals add up to the amount of wins there will be this season.

by RichardP on Mar 2, 2005 4:53 PM PST reply actions

He's just assuming

that they go ahead and institute the rarely talked about idea to makeup the games missed in the strike by playing an extra 8 each year each year from 2005-2012, for an even 170.

By the way, did anybody notice how little fanfare the ten year anniversary received last summer?

Another aside, does anybody ever wonder how they came up with such seemingly random numbers of games to play each season? 162, 154, 82, 16 ... Wouldn't 160, 155, 80, and 15 have been simpler?

devo's gf: "what is it that you write about all day when they don't even play any games?"

by devo on Mar 2, 2005 5:08 PM PST up reply actions

I'll tell you why

It's because this is America, and that sort of thing is our style. Would the metric system be simpler? Sure. Are we gonna convert? Hell no! 400 feet to center, 90 feet to first. The moment someone tells me how many meters a home run went, I'm done with the game.

by RichardP on Mar 2, 2005 10:33 PM PST up reply actions

Pessimists!

No healthy closer the entire season
Ace #1 misses a month
Ace #2 ends the season 0 - 7
Starter #5 can't win at home
Star @ 3B plays hurt & misses a month plus
Rookie @ SS
Rookie @ SS swings at throws to 1B & 3B
Rookie @ SS destroys labrum of 2B Ellis
Rookie Scutaro plays 2B for entire season.
LFer runs everywhere and into everything
CFer plays hurt 1/3 of the season
RFer (AKA: Clean up batter) doesn't protect Chavvy vs righties the entire season
RFer "flashes of power" vs LEFTIES ONLY! the entire season!
LOOGY & ROOGLY can't get anyone out for first 3 months.
3rd rookie @ long relief, Duke
Oh! And a Catcher that didn't know AL batters or the pitchers he was catching!