Free Daric Barton Now!

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 8:08 AM PDT Comment 122 comments

I think this is one of the most critical, but ultimately, easy decisions Billy Beane will ever make.

the team has a growing and pretty desperate need for a hitter. It ain't gonna be Scott Hatteberg; Jay Payton can't stay on a 50 HR pace much longer; Mark Kotsay is having an off-year, perhaps due to injury. And I don't see waivers producing such a player without a huge financial investment that might preclude keeping Barry Zito long-term;
Barton is the real deal. He ain't Adam Piatt; he ain't Todd van Popple. He's been among the most highly rated hitters in the minor leagues for two years now-- he's done nothing to undercut that assessment;
The OF/DH situation next year is fluid to the point that he's almost guaranteed to be on this team coming out of spring training- please read that sentence again all those who think he's going to be a mid-season call-up. Payton or Kielty are almost certain not to be here. Hatteberg certainly doesn't appear to be a worthwhile investment. Perhaps a trade of Kennedy and/or Cruz could land us a decent player-- but he won't be at Barton's offensive level. There's no way given the void at those positions that Barton won't be on the team-- so the arbitration clock argument is basically out the window.
There is little or no evidence that hitters suffer because they are brought up too late. If anything, it's the reverse, as players such as Frank Thomas (a pretty good comp, by the way-- he played 109 games at AA in 1990-- OPS of 1068-- better than Barton but in the same ballpark. He then had an OPS of 983 in the bigs the rest of the year and 1006 his first full season. He was 22. But people in Chicago felt he should have been on the team from the getgo that year) or Edgar martinez are sometimes held down too long. And frankly pitchers rarely suffer too long of they're a true great talent-- which Todd Van Popple obviously wasn't. (And it was a stipulation in his contract that mandated his early ascension, so he's not comparable) They might have year of growing pains-- but soon thereafter their true talent emerges.

Plus-- even though he is older than Barton-- a lot of people here questioned making the move to Dan Johnson as early as May. He's only been our best hitter since.

The guy can hit. We need a hitter.

Ergo: FREE DARIC BARTON NOW!!

0 recs | Comment 122 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

obligatory comment

Free Daric Barton Now!

Limit one per customer.

by Apricot on Aug 22, 2005 8:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

In the meantime, how about DHing Melhuse

With Hatteberg on the shelf and possibly finished, why don't we let Melhuse be the full time DH? The main problem seems to be risk of injury and being out a catcher. So why don't we send Ginter down, or put Hatte on the DL and call up a 3rd catcher? If we don't want one of the young guys to get called up to sit on the bench, maybe we can call up Tom Gregorio, who's hitting .310 with a .355 OBP at Sacto. (In a limited number of games, I admit.) The main problem is working out the 40 man roster quandry. Perhaps this would give the offense a bit of a boost

"We've come a long way, and I'm not talking about Virginia Slims, either." - Art Howe

by EastCoastA on Aug 22, 2005 8:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand calls to

make a move this drastic. Remember, in May we waited our slump out. If AN were the GM, we would have traded Kotsay, Chavez, and Zito for a hill of beans.

I have no reason to believe that Billy Beane won't do so again, preferring to rely on track records and regression to the mean rather than a foolhardy attempt to call up a prospect and hope he becomes a middle-of-the-order hitter. Even if Barton comes up and hits with a 900 OPS for the rest of the year, how many wins is that worth? If Barton comes up and Crosby starts hitting, will we credit Barton for that, too?

Rest not ye hopes on Barton. His day will come soon. In the meantime, we'll have to catch the Angels with the talent that we have - the same talent many here were pegging as a .700 ballclub.

Fearing Mecir since 2000.

by salb918 on Aug 22, 2005 8:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

His 900 OPS

compared to Kendall's 700; Kotsay's 700 and Hatteberg's 700--

That could be 2-3 wins, right there.

You don't think 2-3 wins would be important??

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is unfair

The "Barton Now" supporters would never advocate doing something reactionary and putting him in the lineup for Crosby, Kotsay, Swisher etc. It is not a thoughtful critique.

Barton vs. Melhouse(Baseball HQ hates his contact rate), Hatteberg, Scutaro etc. I would be shocked if any of these guys got hot as they just are not good hitters.

Barton is an upgrade at the DH spot the minute he comes up. Isn't that enough of a reason in a razor tight race and a heavily flawed AL landscape?

by DKNJ on Aug 22, 2005 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

The question is: can Beane afford to wait until September 1?? One horrible road trip with no offense and this thing starts looking very tough, indeed.

Beane has always pulled the trigger to try to make the playoffs-- and why is Keith Ginter still on this team??

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

It would have been nice to have had him up at home against that KC pitching. Instead the Hatte/Melhouse platoon was a disaster.

The calls will get louder after the first game of the Detroit series when we see the lineup w/o Chavez.

by DKNJ on Aug 22, 2005 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well you know, Scutaro

and Kotsay carried the team back in April. The record would not be 12-12 then if those two did not hit like .330 during the month and draw many walks as well. Kotsay is playing with injuries but Scutaro's numbers still has a chance to improve. But he's not really the problem right now, the problem [like what you're saying here] is that we utterly have no DH.

"I have seven forks. I need one for eating. The others I'm going to stick in the Giants, because they're done." - Random guy on BART

by Melody on Aug 22, 2005 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I like Kotsay and Scutaro(in a pinch running, defensive replacement, spot starter role) and am not blaming anyone for the tailspin. I just see an extreme weakness that can be plugged internally.

by DKNJ on Aug 22, 2005 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The drastic moves

are the ones we keep making. Why are three guys who haven't hit a lick in more than a month still at the top of the lineup? Why has a guy who hasn't hit a lick for a month been the full-time DH?

Changing that mix is hardly a drastic move.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and we didn't "just wait the slump out"

This guy named Johnson got called up and started to contribute almost instantly.

And crosby came back. And harden.

There is no similar infusion waiting now.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No barton in 2005. No barton in 2006

Ok 2006 September. When this guy comes up I want him really ready as we will only get 3 years of him before money becomes an issue.

Why don't they just lick their fingers?

by novaoakland on Aug 22, 2005 8:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

he's ready now.

No sense waiting.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

NO HE IS NOT

Oaktoon comeon man!!!

You have to understand that AA and Bigs are very very different!!!

Why don't they just lick their fingers?

by novaoakland on Aug 22, 2005 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

they weren't

for Thomas.

for Cabrera.

for Pujols.

And countless others.

You either have to believe this guy's the real deal, or you don't. If not-- if he's destined to be a 280-290 hitter with good OBP and 15-20 HRs, then you're probably right-- keep him down for more seasoning.

But if we're looking at 300+/ 900-950 OPS with a ceiling above 1000-- in other words, the best hitter in these parts since Giambi-- and 20+ HR power ultimately-- he'll be very good right away.

why wait?? When the need is so strong?

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I meant

30+ HR power ultiamtely.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Come on Nova!

BB has even said once you hit at AA, anything can happen. The best hitting prospects are usually found in AA, and Barton is tearing up the Texas League, which is playing as a neutral league this year. This isn't the same thing as Piatt putting up ridiculous numbers. This kid can hit, and could in Detroit on Tuesday. He could have hit during our homestand. THE KID CAN HIT!!!

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can clamour all you want

With exception of AN not one else thinks this will happen!!!

You are sacraficing the future if you call him up!!!

You need to accept this as you are just going to get worked up.
Also prepare for him not to be on roster to start 2006 either.

Why don't they just lick their fingers?

by novaoakland on Aug 22, 2005 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

what future??

2009??

Cmon. That's foolish.

The pitching on this team is good enough-- as it keeps proving-- to go deep into the playoffs in a year in which all AL teams (and all teams, come to think of it, with Rolen now out for the season) are significantly flawed.

The problem is offense-- and our options at several positions are, to be honest, pretty putrid right now.

Why not correct at least one of them??

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

First of all,

thanks for your concern as to me "getting worked up". I'm not worked up, I'm just constantly astounded by people who don't look at history, stats, and common sense when making comments about things like this.

You say we would be "sacraficing the future if you call him up", yet you have nothing to back up your argument. Show me some exapmles of this, show me numbers, show me anything other than Jairo Garcia and Todd Van Poppel, which have been the standard comparisons. I posted a comparison with these guys, and they have nothing in common with Barton outside of playing in the Oakland A's system.

I'm an open minded person, so show me some evidence supporting your opinoin. If you're right, I'll freely admit it and I'll give up on this. Until then, I'll stick with my research and numbers, and continue to campaign for Barton in Oakland in 2005!

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

won't be surprised to see him in Sept

but it's not like we got blown out in our losses. We muffed chances to win all of them.

One issue I have is that Barton's power has tailed off at AA. DJ took a month or two to find a power stroke. In my mind, our biggest issue is simple extra base power. I believe almost every homestand loss could have been won if anyone had hit a homer.

I don't think Barton will be our instant power source, thus I don't see him as the short term solution to our problems.

by Apricot on Aug 22, 2005 9:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

a couple of well-timed doubles

would have been very important the past week, doncha think?

We don't need 10 homers out of the guy-- but a 300 bat with doubles and a bunch of walks would be infinitely superior to what we've been getting from Hatteberg.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

I don't expect him to hit with much power. I think that he will give plenty of good at bats and get on base though. I think that he could be like Hatteberg in his his prime and that would be a major upgrade at this point.

by DKNJ on Aug 22, 2005 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, but ...

... we're not blowing anyone out (not since we were in KC) in our wins, either. We're playing a lot of tight ballgames -- which essentially reduces our chances of winning to luck.

I just don't know about bringing up Barton -- but we clearly need to take a couple of significant steps with our hitting.

It's tough out there, Pootie. You got drugs ... crime ... gorillas ...

by monkeyball on Aug 22, 2005 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you Oaktoon!

You are the strongest voice on this site that is in agreement with me on this topic. Barton absolutely should be playing in the bigs RIGHT NOW!!!! Salb918, calling up Barton isn't drastic, it's the same idea behind bringing up DJ. The offense needs a boost, and Barton is the best hitter we have not on the roster currently. The kid would likely hit .300/.400/.450, which would be such an improvement over Kielty, Hatty, or even Melhuse right now.

Nova, by the time Barton will command big money, say 2010 or so, we'll have a new stadium and a payroll with the possibility of reaching $70-80 million a year. That is more than enough money to keep Barton. A new stadium will increase revenues, as will the one or two WS trophies we'll have by 2010 or 2011.

Is Barton going to come up and single-handedly turn things around? No, and anyone who would expect that is crazy. What he would do is provide a .300 bat, with tremendous plate discipline and a career OBP over .430 . My lineup would with Barton would be:

Ellis
Swish
Chavy
DJ
Payton
Barton
Croz
Kotsay
Kendall

Most of AN agrees a lineup change is in order, with the top three hitters needing dropped down. Ellis and Swish give us hitters with solid OBP's, the ability to draw walks and see pitches, and solid baserunning skills. The power bats are where they belong, and most importantly Barton sees protection from Payton and Crosby. Once pitchers realize they don't want to pitch to Daric, Payton and Croz both see better pitches to hit. That is the key point, Barton can produce and help other spots in the lineup, whether he's hitting HR's or not.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 9:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Daric Barton Now!

I've been saying this for days. But I'll continue

If you bring him up now, it DOES NOT in any way affect his arbitration/FA status. Its too late in the year---see BJ Upton or Danny Haren.

I seriously doubt it would affect him psychologically----he's not a pitcher being brought up to get the sh*t kicked out of him.

Not to sound like a broken record, but at the very least it gets his first month in the big leagues out of the way--he'll be more comfortable next spring. And he'll have the benefit of working on his defense with Wash.

FREE DARIC BARTON NOW!

Come ON A's!

by Alien on Aug 22, 2005 9:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

bringing up Barton

He would have to be placed on the 40 man roster. Can someone be dropped from the 40 man roster to make room? As for not effecting his arbitration/FA status this is only true if you assume that Daric will be up at the begining of the season next year. If he comes up later in the season (say end of May) then his FA/Arbitration eligibility gets delayed a year. Daric will have to be placed on the 40 man roster after this season no matter what since this is the third year since he was drafted.

by skwid on Aug 22, 2005 9:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

no problem

either Dotel or Durazo can be moved to the 60-day DL to make room

Come ON A's!

by Alien on Aug 22, 2005 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not that it matters

But high schoolers get four years to be put on the forty-man. It only really matters if you believe the A's would lose guys in the rule 5 draft, othwerwise Barton is unlikely to run into a problem with options.

by irwin on Aug 22, 2005 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

three years

High school players have three years until they must be placed on the 40 man roster or exposed to the Rule 5 draft. For college players they must be placed on the 40 man roster after two years or be exposed to the Rule 5 draft.

by skwid on Aug 22, 2005 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really don't think so

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/columnists/askbarule5.html

I suppose it is possible for a high school player to be 19, but it is rare.

Further proof?

If you had to be on the 40 after 3 years, the 1st round class of 2002 would already be on 40-man rosters.

Hermida, Cain, Greg Miller, Cole Hamels, James Loney - they all would have been rule 5 picks. None of them are on the 40-man right now.

by irwin on Aug 22, 2005 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Could it be

3 full years?

Meaning the first season, when they only signed half way through didn't count?

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose you could not count the first year...

and then yes, it is 2 and 3 years. But the reason it is stated as 3 and 4 years is because that is the number of rule 5 drafts.

Either way, Barton doesn't have to be put on the 40 this offseason as he was an 03 draftee from HS.

Like I said, I doubt any harm would result from putting him on the 40 man.

I haven't checked, but I don't think the team will have a real problem with the 40 man this offseason. Ethier needs added, maybe a couple guys from the 02 draft who aren't on already.

It probably wouldn't hurt him to call him up, but can't say he is a guaranteed success this year.

by irwin on Aug 22, 2005 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A's are not built for 2005

They are built of 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Risking bringing him up and thus him being really expensive in 2008. is as dumb as trading him to get a rental bat.

Why don't they just lick their fingers?

by novaoakland on Aug 22, 2005 9:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

hmm

but by that token BB would have held off on bringing up Huston Street. He didn't. See I think that Beane is planning on having Barton up at the beginning of next year anyway, in which case bringing him up now won't affect his status at all.

And regardless, even if he is planning on leaving Barton in the minors for a bit next year--theres no harm in giving him a shot this month.

If he rakes, then they'll want him up next year anyway. If he doesn't, he starts next year in the minors. Status unchanged

Come ON A's!

by Alien on Aug 22, 2005 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

His arby clock won't start until next year.

He won't cost anymore in 2008 if comes up now or at the beginning of next year.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Play for the present

When you go through winter ball, spring training, and 120 games you don't just give up on a season and not try to improve when you are .5 games up in WC and 2.5 back in the West.

I will say it again that the AL playoffs will never be more wide open. The Twins, Indians, Red Sox and Angels also have loaded systems and the Yankees by bling luck will be putting better teams on the field with a 205 million dollar payroll.

Seize the Day and make a gutsy roster move. If Barton gets called up and suffers a career ending injury then you can kill the move. I doubt that will happen and don't see much downside in making the move.

by DKNJ on Aug 22, 2005 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

what about ethier?

while i wouldn't be against bringing daric up, i think ethier deserves the call first. why? because he's an OF, and with kielty needing some rest (and quite honestly, probably kotsay as well), we could use that extra bat playing D. plus, ethier has a power stroke, barton's still developing his. i think we should be thinking of andre before daric.

"welcome to ME, motherf*^*er!" - tim hudson

by guy incognito on Aug 22, 2005 9:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'll take them both, but obviously

you can only bring up one before Sept 1 (and send Ginter down).

But having them both in a lineup and sitting Kielty and/or Swisher (vs. lefties) as well as Hatteberg would be a clear improvement, IMHO.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

if we're only calling one up now

i say ethier. both he and daric hit over .300...daric might hit for a higher average, but ethier hits homers. i don't disagree w/ your thinking about barton (doubles could help), i'd just rather wait for him to have his power developed before calling him up. and i think we need OF help, and matt watson and chuck thomas 'ain't solutions, so i figure we might as well dip into AA.

"welcome to ME, motherf*^*er!" - tim hudson

by guy incognito on Aug 22, 2005 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ethier

I think he's got a chance to be a solid ML regular. But I don't think he has the ability to make the same kind of impact Barton would this year. His peripheral stats aren't as good. Ethier strikes out twice as much as he walks, while Barton walks more than he K's. Also, Bartons OBP is almost 50 point higher than Ethiers

Come ON A's!

by Alien on Aug 22, 2005 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with that

Though he might still be an improvement over Kielty-- and Payton's bound to stop hitting homers at some point.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

well I wouldn't be opposed to calling him up. I just think if its one or the other--then definitely Barton

Come ON A's!

by Alien on Aug 22, 2005 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

September ...

Ah, in September, so many things will be possible. I don't see Barton making the jump before then, I just don't. For one thing, I think his callup would step on too many toes that think they should be in line for some DH ABs and until Payton proves otherwise, he's the starting LF (even if [and this is optimistic] Barton out hits him, it would be highly unlikely that he would do it sufficiently thoroughly to outweigh the significant drop in defense.

In September, though, when the rosters expand, we can call up a catcher, DH Melhuse half the time and give Barton the opportunity to earn those ABs ... (though to do so would require us to drop someone from the 40 man ... which could mean losing them forever) ... though I'd guess we could stomach the prospect of losing Seth Etherton or Chris Mabeus ...

Eh, whoknows?

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 9:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Who cares....

about stepping on toes??

When your OPS is at 700-- Kotsay, kendall, Hatteberg, Kielty-- your toes should be stepped on.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clubhouse chemistry

Kotsay, Kendall, and Hatty are central veteran leaders in the Clubhouse and Kielty seems to be a very popular, fun guy to have around. Pissing them (and Melhuse too) off for an extra 9 days of Barton doesn't seem like a smart move.

I think a more sensible immediate move to make would be to bring up a catcher to allow Melhuse to DH more ... give him his shot at the everyday job before you hand it to Barton.

I also don't agree that it's a given that Barton starts next year in the Bigs. He could easily be a solution waiting for a problem, like Dan Johnson this year, debuting when our cheap LF or DH experiments fail to pan out or get hurt ... We'll know in the offseason, when BB adds his pieces, but for now, I'd say its very up in the air, which way Barton will go.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I think

you're wrong. He's already punched his ticket for next year's team.

As to the next nine days thing, let's just say this:

if Barton had been in the lineup the last 9 days, and done anything at al, let alone hit to his capabilities, the A's probably win at least 2 and maybe 3 more games.

Who cares about chemistry?? Certainly not Billy Beane.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok ...

what do you base that statement on? The fact that he hasn't been fast tracked to AAA? The fact that BB has a history of not rushing young talent?

9 games of Barton = 2-3 extra wins? That's an incredible statement, since, statistically speaking, 9 average games of Albert Pujols wouldn't equal 2-3 extra wins. Feel free to expand and provide some backup, but I'd have to say that this is a ridiculously optimistic statement.

Who cares about chemistry? Well, I'd say that our GM, who repeatedly talks about chemistry in interviews and has a very strong track record of ditching guys who hurt team chemistry (Rhodes, Redman, Guillen, Little G, etc ...).

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

im talking about the actual games, my friend

Close losses to Minnesota, Baltimore and KC. What? 4 or 5 of them? Take a look at Hatteberg's production or whoever else DHed-- and simply assume Barton gets a few doubles and a couple of walks in there. That could easily have meant two or three wins.

You can't see that??

Over the long haul, of course no one player can affect a team by more than 7-8 games-- maybe Pujols or Bonds could stretch that some-- but this isn't the long haul, is it?

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, fun exercise ...

lets replace ALL of Hatty's ABs in the games over this homestand that we lost by two or fewer runs with Barton and see what might have happened ...

8/12 v Min, Hatty does not play - no change

8/14 v Min, Hatty goes 1/3, singles in his only ab with a runner on, moves Payton along to third - no change. His other 2 abs come with no runners on and are not followed by a single hit in the same inning. Since a double probably does not plate Payton from first, it's very unlikely that he could have affected this outcome.

8/16 v Baltimore, Hatt goes 0-4, his 2nd and 7th inning ABs come with no one on and are not followed by any baserunners, no potential for change. In the 4th he ended the inning with a bases loaded FC. In the 9th, with a runner on, Hatty made out. If he reached based and events continued as they did, he would have scored, leading to a tie game. There were significant opportunities to affect the outcome of the game. Still, it would be generous to assume that he would have changed the outcome even 40% of the time.

8/17 v Baltimore, Hatty doesn't play.

8/20 v KC, Hatty goes 0-2. In the 2nd, he strikes out with runners on 1st and 2nd and 1 out, no runs score. In the 4th, he grounds into a dp with runners on 1st and 2nd and no outs, no runs score. With DJ at 2nd and less than 2 outs, it is unlikely a single scores a run and, based on the way things played out, it is unlikely he would have gotten driven in later, there is roughly a 10% chance that Barton drives in a run in either situation, which would tie the game, giving him a 5% chance of giving the A's a win (assuming 50-50 in a tied game) in each AB - 10% total.

8/21 v KC, Hatty doesn't play.

There are a total of 2 games that Barton could have possibly (within reason) affected the outcome, with roughly a 50% chance of adding a win for the A's. Of course, DHing anybody except Hatty would have accomplished a similar outcome ....

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can't only replace Hatty's AB's.

If Barton or someone else was at the DH spot and got a hit instead of making an out or causing a DP, the following hitters approach might have changed.

8/14 If a Hatty single moves Payton from 1st to 3rd, it's possible a double could score him. Tie game, we go to extras with a chance to win.

8/16 A base hit in the 4th scores one, maybe two. The run the DH would have scored in the 9th after a hit, would have been the winning run.

8/20 A single loads the bases with less than two outs, giving Swish the chance for a sac fly, or a double scores a run. Ellis got a hit to lead off the third, if he hit in the second it's possible two runs score in the inning and we win 3-2.

All three of those games we lost by one run. One run. It's entirely possible another hitter could have come up with 2-3 hits, potentially for extra bases, and provided enough offense to help us win those games. The difference would be a .5 game lead in the AL West, and a 3.5 game lead in the WC. That is HUGE, and the facts are there.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The facts are there?

The only thing we can do is assume that they rest of the plays would have been made in the same way as they were - otherwise, absolutely anything could have happened and the exercise is pointless. (unless of course there was a situational play, such as a bunt - there weren't, so this caveat does not apply)

You're right about 8/20 - I screwed up my chain
of events that would have lead to Ellis' single plating a run or more - that would have increased the chances of the A's winning by about 8%.

8/14 - yes, that's true, assuming Barton has a 1/15 chance at a double (that's a pretty darned good player) and the double has a 2/3 chance of plating Payton, there is a 3% chance we score a run there.

8/16 - Yeah, a basehit (or a walk) in the 4th scores at least 1 run - an optimistic guess would be that there would be a 35% chance of a basehit or walk occurring and a rough estimate would be that 2/3 of those events would plate 2 runs - 12% to tie, 23% to win. In the 9th, the same 35% adds an extra run (no chance for multiple runs) 65% of those events tie the game - 23%, 12% win the game - 4%, and 23% do not occur because we already won - 8%. So 27% of the time, Barton could have been expected to cause us to win in regulation. 31% he could have been expected to tie the game and send it to extra innings - 16% winning, for a total of 43% ... dang my rough estimates were off by a whopping 3%.

Okay, so I'll ammend it, Barton could have been expected to (on average) add 64% of a win over that span. Of course, again, Melhuse, Watson, and several other guys could have been expected to add a similar total. It's not that Barton, even optimistically would have added that much, it's that Hatty has just flat out been terrible and my long deceased great aunt Nellie would have represented a net-positive.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

very selective reasoning

What about a homerun with a man on in a non- rally inning?

A walk or a double to start an inning where Hatteberg did nothing?

obviously you can't just pick out the best situations for barton to succeed where Hatteberg didn't.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well he doesn't hit very many homeruns

so that wouldn't change the outcome in any significant way. He's hitting 1 every 40 ABs in AA ...

As I noted, nobody followed him with hits in most ABs, so a double wouldn't have done any good.

Sure you can. We know what happened. We know which situations would have had any real likelihood to make a difference. He still had a 35% chance of reaching base in the other situations - it just would have been very unlikely that it would have mattered.

If you have a better model other than just saying, 'there were 6 games that were close enough for Barton to have made a difference, so I think we would have won 3 of them', I'd love to hear it ....

And like I keep repeating - this is really the most important thing to grasp - these improvements are almost entirely based on Hatty completely sucking, not on anything Barton brings to the table, aside from the well developed skill of not being Hatty ...

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and you're wrong about the 35% chance

If there's anything that's a constant about daric barton, it's his eye.

He'll get on 40% of the time from the get-go in the bigs.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oy ...

In Midland, he has a .333 avg and a .433 obp.

If his average dropped to .280, as you suggest, which is very optimistic (though certainly possible) by any objective standards, his obp would have been roughly .380, if you buy the premise that his eye would not have dropped off at all.

His walk rate did decline between A ball and AA, so it would only be reasonable to assume that it would drop off again on the way to the majors. If it dropped off to the same degree as it did between A and AA, he'd then be down to .360 - still optimistic and very good.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's not optimistic

ARod won a batting title at 20.

Thomas and Pujols were instant stars.

DJ's hit as well here as he did in the minors.

I think 280 is definitely lowballing what this guy can do- but even if he does, he'll have an OBP of 380. The walks don't go away.

Listen can't you ever admit it when your approach is wrong? I've done that very thing on several occasions.

baseball can be a chain reaction. There is no way to precisely know how much one player can affect an entire team. You could never have estimated the precise impact payton has had, would you? His HRs are up; the timing of his hits have been crucial. No way to model it.

The truth here is simple. We've had a pretty lousy hitter as our principal DH. The other candidates for the job haven't done all that well, either. if a guy can/could replace them with anywhere near barton's minor league numbers, it would help this team win.

And maybe a lot.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A-Rod, Thomas, Pujols

those are some lofty comperables ... A-Rod and Thomas are locks for the HOF, Pujols is well on his way. I'd say those are very much best case scenerios.

DJ has hit as well in the bigs as he did in the minors. He also did it after repeating AAA. His track isn't the least bit comperable to Barton's.

I've admitted the flaws to my approach. It's not wrong, it's not right. It provides a basis for discussion. You haven't provided any approach at all except to say that there is not question that Barton would instantly be one of the 25 best hitters in the game.

There is a grand total of about 30 players in MLB who are putting up numbers comperable to Barton's AA numbers - most of them make $10m plus. Of course it would be great to add those numbers to our lineup ... but it's not reasonable to expect them from a kid in AA.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And by the way

A-Rod's AAA numbers and Thomas' AA numbers blew away Barton's AA numbers ...

Nobody, ever has made as much of a leap as Pujols so it would be a tad unrealistic to expect the same from Barton. I'm not saying it isn't possible, just not likely.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

huh??

When did I say one of the best 25 players in the game?

I said 280-380-450 (I hadn't put a slugging number in yet)-- which is 100+ points in OPS higher than Hatteberg. And yes I think that's a lowball. ut that's where i have him. I think that something like 310-410-470 is very doable.

And to answer your basic question, i do thinkthat at some point in his first full year in the bigs, Barton will probably be in the company of the elite hitters in the game-- whether that's top 25 or top 50, i can't say.

But Hatteberg's not in the top 250 right now.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

280-380-450

would be an 830 OPS which would put him in the top 25 in the AL. I mistyped. I meant in the League, not in the game.

I would love to see him put up those numbers and they certainly are possible. It's just not the most likely scenerio. If it were, as I pointed out in another comment (http://www.athleticsnation.com/comments/2005/8/22/11821/2874/109#109) that you chose not to respond to, he would already be here.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 23, 2005 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Notice my comments weren't exclusive to Barton.

You say there weren't any situational hitting opportunites, but that's not necessarily true. You don't know how a particular batter approches each situation, so you can't say everything is the same. Saying that everything else goes the same, otherwise it's pointless only reinforces your stance, so you're not being objective.

How many times this year has one hit made the difference in ending an inning or starting a rally? It's conceivable that a hit or two could make the difference in all of those games. You can't look at it objectively and discount that idea.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course that is conceivable.

It is also conceivable that our rally would have motivated KC to try to score more runs.

There is no way you can run this exercise if you don't assume that the rest of the balls would have fallen as they did. It is a flawed exercise, I agree. If you think it is too flawed to be worth discussing, say that and stop arguing. If you don't, then accept that central premise and lets discuss.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you can't just remove Hatty

How well did his replacements do?

because Barton will play every day if and when he does come up.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No he won't

that's plain silly.

He'll play 2/3 of the time at the most, until he earns more ... similar to how often Hatty plays.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and that's even more laughable.

You don't get it, do you? Beane understands this game better than you or i ever will. I guarantee you that if he makes this move, Barton's in there every night. Why shouldn't he be? if they think he's only a platoon player, and Hatteberg or Melhuse or someone else deserves some of his ABs, then keep him at Midland.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree ...

notice where Barton is playing?

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Laughable

You say there is a 10% chance that Barton drives in a run "in either situation"-- men on 1st and 2nd.

Well, if he's a 280 hitter and 33% of his hits go for XBs-- and I think both those calculations are low, BTW-- then that's already 9%. Are you saying that virtually no single would score a run? Of course that's not true. Probably 40% of singles with less than 2 outs score the runner from 2nd.

Plus what if he walked-- how does the pitcher respond to a bases loaded situation.

And you can't assume that all those situations where no baserunners followed a Hatteberg out would have played out the same way with a runner on base. Not even with the A's lineup.

Listen you';re spitting into the wind. You're basically saying: even though our DHs have been terrible lately, a significant improvement wouldn't change things. Listen one different call from an umpire and one different pitch from Zito and one different pitch from Witasick-- and the A's win 3 games that they didn't. Of course barton would have made a key difference if he had been hitting anywhere near the rate he's hitting in AA.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he were hitting near the rate he is in AA

then he'd be Bobby Abreu. I'm sure you would agree that it would be unreasonable to assume that if Barton were called up today, he'd hit like Bobby Abreu.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not reasonable to expect Barton to hit

.333/.433/.519, but it's unreasonable to see .280/.380/.450, giving him the second highest OPS on the team. The kid is a hitter, through and through, and it's likely he'd continue hit in the bigs.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Better numbers than 6 out of the last 8

offensive ROYs? Those other 2? Pujols, who posted about the best rookie season ever and Ichiro, who barely topped those numbers ...

Yeah, I'd say that it is unreasonable to expect those numbers. They're certainly possible - but it's not at all reasonable to call them the most likely outcome.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Considering he's Pujols lite,

it's not unreasonable to expect that. Those would be the absolute worst numbers Barton has put up at any level. You don't agree with Oaktoon and I, that's fine. If you like playing the pessimist, good for you. But I'm tired of participating in a never-ending argument. I don't think there is any way you will admit you might be wrong, about anything not just this topic.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, screw you too.

You're right - I'm wrong. Most top prospects not only work out, but instantaneously become stars. My bad.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know

when I first saw your response I was going to ignore it. But, it really kind of pissed me off. You say you want to discuss an issue, but to have a discussion you have to able to look at all sides of an argument, which you're seemingly unwillingly to do. I'm willing to look at things from your perspective, and take a look at things from your point of view. But, you're not willing even consider an opinoin other than your own it seems.

Having vented my anger, like I said if want to actually discuss this matter I'm willing and interested. The ball is in your court, friend.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What side of the argument am I missing?

That he could come up and play like Pujols, A-Rod or Frank Thomas? I've agreed that it is possible. The fact that those are three of the absolute best hitters ever (at least when considering service time) makes their standard an unreasonable one to expect.

Seriously ... I acknowledge that it's very possible that Barton could put up the ~.830 OPS you suggest. I just don't think it's likely, because the overwhelming majority of rookies, no matter how well they are playing in the minors don't immediately put up that good of numbers. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

Seriously, aside from that, what would you like me to consider that I'm failing to consider?

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now you're confusing me with Oaktoon.

I didn't say anything about A-Rod, Thomas, et al. My point is in regard to the theoretical replacement of Hatty at DH. You are saying you can't assume anything else changes if someone replaced him and came up with hits instead of creating outs. That's one-sided thinking, and if I look at that way, I agree with you whole heartedly. But, if like I said, you look at it from the stand point of those hits change the entire complexion of the game, you're wrong. But instead of discussing that, you dismissed it saying it's not possible to consider that line of thinking. It's only not possible to consider if you don't want to consider it. It's not irrelevant unless you WANT to make it so. That's your choice, but don't tell me I have to buy into your thinking or shut up, which is basically what you said.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My bad

the posts were coming fast and furious there for a minute. I guess I confused you with Oaktoon. We're all typing in Time New Roman, so everyone kind of looks alike.

Anywho ... I agree, rerunning history is inherently flawed because different situations can cause significant reactions that entirely throw the rest of history out of whack. Who knows, they didn't get into it, but, after Michael J. Fox's performance at prom, someone else might have beaten Chuck Berry to writing Johnny B Goode.

It's certainly possible that the rally mentality could have inspired others to perform at a higher level. From that perspective, it's also possible that the pressure situation could have caused them to choke. Either way, it's impossible to know what would have happened, so the best guess is to go with what did happen.

You can either look at it as a. anything could have happened and having Daric Barton may or may not have changed things. A truism that ends all discussion and debate. Alternately, you can create a model that you hypothesize is the most likely (though certainly not the only) way things might have turned out, given one altered variable.

If you have another model, I'd love to hear it. If you have an alternate view other than the two above, I'd love to hear that too ... otherwise my model is either worth discussing or its not.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

At least we're both back to civil tones.

That was really what I was looking for, and I'm glad you were agreeable to at least that. No point in harsh words or unnecessary comments. If I can develop another model, I will let you know and we can start all over again.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe better, to tell you the truth

Maybe better.

Guys come up and are stars-- all the time.

I happen to think he's special.

Would you think that Johnson would have come up and been Paul Konerko? Well, in some ways he's actually been better.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I definitely would not have expected DJ to play

as well as he has. But I definitely thought he was ready to play and would be a very solid contributer.

I agree. There is the possibility that Barton will for day one be even better than you're suggesting.

Would you agree that there is some possibility that he might not be ready, that he would suck it up and be sent down for some more seasoning?

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 22, 2005 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sure

but there's a much better chance, IMHO, that Scott hatteberg will keep grounding into double plays, and isn't that the point???

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh Barton

is like redman and Guillen and will hurt team chemistry somehow?

Are you kidding?

Beane is the one who has said that chemistry is basically a crock-- that winning breeeds chemistry, not the other way around.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If bringing up a player to help the team

pisses off anyone on the roster, there is serious consideration to be made on their status for next year. Barton can give us a shot in the arm, a .300 bat in the lineup. If any players are so consumed with their own numbers or playing time that sacrificing the best interests of the team is acceptable, I don't want them here.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and nobody's suggesting

that he play in front of Payton.

But DHing is a different story-- as is Swisher against LHP.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We wouldn't have to lose anyone

Put Dotel or Durazo on 60 day dL and Bam. Free Space.

My seatbelt is broken. What do you suggest I do?

by Diesel on Aug 22, 2005 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Barton

I agree that Barton should be called up to the bigs. I think September is the right time though, any move now is a little too panicky, dont want any pressure on the kid. Just bring him up in September along with the other guys and let him break in then.

When young hitters come up the pitching has not seen them and thus doesnt really know how to pitch them other than throwing strikes. I think Barton could rake early on because of this. Similar to DJ HR tear, now hes getting a lot more breaking balls.

If this team is destined to make the playoffs they will make it, or they wont. Daric Barton isnt going to ensure success or determine failure.

by pickinmachine on Aug 22, 2005 10:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Destiny is something you have to seize

Take it.

Don't just wait around for it.

Take it.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

AA to MLB

Quick/Honest Question:

How many field players have made the jump from AA to MLB w/in the Oakland organization in the last 35 years?

Canseco, maybe?

Let's Go Oak-Land!

by Colorado Fan on Aug 22, 2005 10:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hey, let's take the last 20 years.

We've won ONE World Series title in that time with the philosophy of going slow with prospects. Barton is ready to hit in the majors, and this is a unique situation. It's time to make the move.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hear ya...

Personally, I'll take a championship every 20 years.

I'm just trying to determine the chances of Barton and/or Ethier getting the callup in August or September. I don't see either of them advancing this season...

Crosby needed time in AAA (465 AB's in AAA)
Street needed time in AAA (2 IP + AAA Postseason)
Swisher needed time in AAA (443 AB's in AAA)
DJ needed time in AAA (600+ AB's in AAA)
Chavvy spent time in AAA (194 At-Bats)

Like it or not, It's not happening.... Philosophically, it's not what BB and the Oakland A's do.

Let's Go Oak-Land!

by Colorado Fan on Aug 22, 2005 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

two points

when Chavvy came up the A's weren't in a pennant race---its a little different of a situation.

Also, the other players you mentioned on the list were not nearly the prospects that Barton is. He has much more natural talent than any of those guys

Come ON A's!

by Alien on Aug 22, 2005 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Crosby and Swish were both blocked

by players already in the bigs(Tejada and Dye), Street ran through three levels of the minors straight of college, DJ was somewhat wrongly blocked by Durazo and Hatty, and Chavy should have been called up after the numbers he put at AA.

What I'm saying is, in the Billy Beane era using this philosphy of bringing players along so slowly hasn't won us anything. Why not try something different now?

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

beane himself has tipped this decision off

he said to Blez, I believe-- that once a player shows he can dominate at AA-- that basically there's no stopping that guy and the implication is that the player could be up much sooner than expected. I'm sure he had hoped his current players would get the job done and we would be talking about the spring.

but that didn't happen-- so now we're talking about the next ten days.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly, how hard is it to understand?

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Billy Beane

He also said he wouldn't trade Eric Byrnes.

Let's Go Oak-Land!

by Colorado Fan on Aug 23, 2005 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Question

For the sake of argument, assume Barton hits to the tune of a .900 ops as a DH for the rest of the year.

How many wins would you expect that to give you over a .700 ops DH?

by irwin on Aug 22, 2005 10:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If we had a DH

hitting with a 700 OPS over the last month to month and a half, we wouldn't be in the position we're in now. Kielty and Hatty have both posted OPS numbers in the 500 range since mid-July. A 850-900 OPS would probably be worth 5 wins since mid-July. That would put us in 1st place in the AL West, with a 2.5 game lead. It would also put us 3 games behind the White Sox for homefield advantage in the playoffs.

Even if it was only three wins, we be in 1st by .5 a game, not trailing by 2.5 games.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

1 win could be the difference

this is a unique situation

by DKNJ on Aug 22, 2005 10:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

1 Loss

1 Loss could also be the difference. 19-year olds are more likely to struggle and make mistakes.

Let's Go Oak-Land!

by Colorado Fan on Aug 22, 2005 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to nitpick, but Barton's 20.

He's also not your average 20 year old hitter. He is regarded as one of the top 3-4 hitting prospects in all of baseball. He is a special player, with special abilities. Go back and look game by game at what Kielty and Hatty have done since mid-July, and then tell if you think it's possible Barton could do worse than that.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Barton

I'm excited as the next guy about Barton's future, but the future isn't now...he has a total of 162 AB's in AA, and you know how the A's Organization feels about Sample Sizes. Andre Ethier has a better chance of being promoted (470 AB's - .323 AVG - 18 Bombs).

As for this statment, "Go back and look game by game at what Kielty and Hatty have done since mid-July"...

This only tells me that they did really well from June through Mid-July. I think I'll take their lifetime track record vs. Barton's untapped MLB potential.

Let's Go Oak-Land!

by Colorado Fan on Aug 22, 2005 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love Ethier as much as anyone,

I think he's the starting LF next year. But the fact that he strikes out twice as often as he walks, and his nearly 50 point lower OBP gives Barton the edge. Also, with Hatty hurt and Kielty struggling, I'd rather see us be proactive in making a move and trying to help the team, instead of waiting for Kielty to snap out of his slump or Hatty to get healthy.

Also, in over 900 career AB's, Barton has never posted an average below .291 or an OPS below 835. His career low numbers would put him third in AVG this year and second in OPS. Better than the "track record" for Hatty or Kielty.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kielty and Hatteberg's

lifetime track records are not much to get excited about.

by oscarwdog on Aug 22, 2005 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Zero

Either is Barton's MLB Track Record.

He ain't coming up, boys and girls. He's going to help Midland win the Texas League Title.

Let's Go Oak-Land!

by Colorado Fan on Aug 22, 2005 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yanks caught lightning with Cano

Cano isn't 1/10 the prospect that Barton is and he gave the Yanks a lot of juice earlier in the year. he also replaced the worthless Tony Womack. The A's DHs are pretty worthless at this point.

by DKNJ on Aug 22, 2005 10:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

.333 slugging?

let's hold on until the guy has seen a AAA class curve ball. In the face of MLB pitching, I think we can expect a more down to earth OBP. COmbine that with his lack of power and you have...Scott Hattebrg. Who we already have. Let's wait.

I believe you Barry.

by mikedaviswhereareyou on Aug 22, 2005 11:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

NOP...

.333 AVG, .512 SLG

by Olijerez77 on Aug 22, 2005 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pushing the panic button

Quesion: would the people that want Barton up now have asked the same thing in May when the team seems out of contention?

if not, then why would you want it now? Barton needs playing time both ABs and in the field, so he could be more than just a Thomas or Martinez (DH). Premature call-up will be stunting his development as a player.

I think there are two issues here: 1) winning in 2005, and 2) Barton's development and team winning in 2006, 2007 and beyond. I am of the group that think rushing Barton is sacrificing his future and the team's future, and I wouldn't want that just so the team can win the division in 2005. (Remember when everyone is justifying losing in May as rebuilding?) Obvious others think rushing Barton is for his own good.

by hedgehog on Aug 22, 2005 1:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

How is playing DH stunting his growth?

To me, it can only help his development. He will have seen and hit major league pitching, getting past that part is a major hurdle. He can then focus on learning to play whatever position BB and Macha deem fit, whether it's LF or 1B. Trying to learn a position at the MLB level, AND learning to hit the pitching would be much more difficult on him if he had to do that at the same time.

Also, if 1B is his destiny, learning from Wash now is vital. It's entirely possible Wash gets a shot at multiple managerial jobs this offseason. Why not let Barton learn from the best now?

I also don't think that Barton would be "rushed" if he was called up. He has dominated at every level he's played at, and there is no indicating factors that he would do anything other than succeed in the bigs.

For most of the year I thought bringing him up this year would be a mistake, I'll admit. But, I've checked the numbers over and over again, and there is no basis for that concern. The kid is a special talent and he deserves a shot now. Finishing the year in AA or starting next year in AAA aren't going to help him grow near as much as playing everyday in the bigs.

When I was kid, I laid in my twin bed and wondered where my brother was-Mitch Hedberg 1968-2005

by gatling on Aug 22, 2005 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Different Circumstances

No one would call for bringing him up in May when the A's had seemingly nothing to play for. At this point the A's are playing for their postseason lives in a year in which they can do some damage if they were to make it to the postseason.

The A's are one of the healthiest teams in baseball at this point so I would do everything possible to make a run at it this year. Who knows what position they will be in at this point next year? The only flaw I see in this team is the offense. It just so happens that the A's have one of the three best minor league hitters in baseball who is currently killing the ball in Double A.

by DKNJ on Aug 22, 2005 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

different circumstance, exactly

my point. If the team is bad, there is a greater incentive to give PT to younger players. But unlike May, we know this is a solid team, so I am of the opinion that we shouldn't panic and disrupt the normal progression of how the A's have projected for their prospects. I would like Barton to be promoted to AAA, which is already highly unusual for Beane, and see him hit against better pitching.

by hedgehog on Aug 22, 2005 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's the myth

AAA is not necessarily "better" pitching.

It is older and more experienced pitching. But there are a lot of has-beens and never-weres kicking around AAA, whereas AA has most of an organization's top prospects-- hitting or pitching.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he's called up...

it won't be to sit.

He'll be DHing every day.

That won't stunt his growth.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"one of the healthiest teams"?

Our DH is essentially unable to swing the bat.

Our CF has been battling a balky back the entire second half.

Our 3B basically can't throw on the fly to 1B -- and, I suspect,m his shoulder is starting to impact his swing.

Our LOOGY has been all but unavailable the entire second half due to a sore shoulder.

And these are only the problems we know about -- any other less-tight-lipped front office would probably have leaked info about 3 or 4 other minor-to-significant nagging injuries by now.

Also, keep in mind we've got Haren and Blanton projecting to far exceed their previous pitch totals, and we've been riding Duke and Street pretty hard.

All things considered, yeah, we're probably above the median -- but not by much.

It's tough out there, Pootie. You got drugs ... crime ... gorillas ...

by monkeyball on Aug 22, 2005 1:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

I see the team to be even better/mature next year. definitely pitching wise. Swisher/Crosby/Johnson will all be more experienced. Chavez might actually slug over .500. Our chance is only getting better, this is not the year to over reach.

by hedgehog on Aug 22, 2005 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Missing the boat

1 & 4 Our DH is below replacement level and you actually needed to bring up the A's loogy to enhance your argument.

2 & 3. Chavez has pounded the ball in the 2nd half and Kotsay is playing. Kotsay has also had his back flare up his whole career so this is something the A's have to live with.

If this is all you have then you validated my point. Look around the league and you will see that the A's are as healthy as they could have hoped for at this point.

by DKNJ on Aug 22, 2005 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

You make some good individual points, and I'm willing to concede that Rincon is a bit of a throw-in in the argument.

However, I think that the A's are actually less healthy than they could have expected to be, due to ... yup, poor roster management. With regular days off, Chavez might have been more effective; with some time on the DL, Hatteberg might not have been as far below replacement level as he's been and Kotsay might have been more consistent.

I'm not arguing the A's are significantly more banged up than any other team -- just that they're not at the top in terms of position-player health.

Pitching-staff health, yes, absolutely -- and that's been one of the strengths of the A's since Alderson's tenure.

It's tough out there, Pootie. You got drugs ... crime ... gorillas ...

by monkeyball on Aug 22, 2005 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Based on current A's team

My point obviously is exclusive of the Durazo and Dotel injuries. Boy I wish that we had Durazo now. This Barton debate wouldn't be happening.

by DKNJ on Aug 22, 2005 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But ...

... we wouldn't have had DJ w/o the Durazo surgery; nor Street w/o the Dotel surgery.

I actually consider those two events to have been keys to our positive June-July run.

And note that I said "surgery" in each case -- without each player opting for surgery, I honestly think the team would have kept trotting D&D out on the field.

It's tough out there, Pootie. You got drugs ... crime ... gorillas ...

by monkeyball on Aug 22, 2005 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't see a difference between Sept. and now...

If we do want to call Barton up, I don't think it'll make a difference on him whether it's now (late August) vs. September 1, when the active roster expands to 40. We can simply demote a guy like Ginter for 8-9 days... and Barton, if he's inserted into the lineup, should have a more immediate impact, and Ginter can then be called up after the 10-day (?) wait.

If Barton's ready for next year, then it may as well be done now... it's how the A's have done it with Swisher and Crosby, though I think Beane also likes his players to get some AAA seasoning. If worse comes to worse, seeing a few major-league breaking pitches for a month shouldn't retard his development... but I also wouldn't really know what to expect result-wise. He could make an immediate impact, he could flounder.

I say it's worth a shot, but I wouldn't call it the move to make or break the season.

by Trocmagic on Aug 22, 2005 1:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Daric Barton for Prez!!

i haven't even seen the guy play. but my guess is .450 22 jacks if we brought him up tommorrow. anything less and he is garbage. send him back to st. louis.

hahah LOL

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! -- Ken Macha

by burnone on Aug 22, 2005 2:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

900 vs 700 OPS

This is probably close to the extreme of the Hatty-barton difference, though Hatteberg has been hitting much worse lately.

But what would that mean in total runs??

Well the Red Sox and rangers have approximately a 100 point OPS advantage over the Royals. They're scoring-- on average-- 1.4 runs a game more.

So a 200 pt OPS difference might mean-- spread over an entire team-- 2.8 runs a game.

So if it's just one of 9 positions we're talking about, it might be about .3 runs a game.

That's 12 runs from here on out. But with margin of error and specific situational hitting, it could easily be 18, and it could be 6. at 18, you're talking 3 runs per week. Could that mean 2 or 3 games in the standings? of course it could.

Again, what is the real risk except some bruised egos?

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 7:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs