Free Daric Barton Now!
by oaktoon on Aug 22, 2005 8:08 AM PDT
Email
PrintI 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.
The guy can hit. We need a hitter.
Ergo: FREE DARIC BARTON NOW!!
122 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
In the meantime, how about DHing Melhuse
I don't understand calls to
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.
His 900 OPS
That could be 2-3 wins, right there.
You don't think 2-3 wins would be important??
That is unfair
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?
Exactly
Beane has always pulled the trigger to try to make the playoffs-- and why is Keith Ginter still on this team??
Well you know, Scutaro
The drastic moves
Changing that mix is hardly a drastic move.
and we didn't "just wait the slump out"
And crosby came back. And harden.
There is no similar infusion waiting now.
No barton in 2005. No barton in 2006
NO HE IS NOT
You have to understand that AA and Bigs are very very different!!!
they weren't
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?
Come on Nova!
You can clamour all you want
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.
what future??
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??
First of all,
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!
won't be surprised to see him in Sept
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.
a couple of well-timed doubles
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.
Ah, but ...
I just don't know about bringing up Barton -- but we clearly need to take a couple of significant steps with our hitting.
Thank you Oaktoon!
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.
Daric Barton Now!
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!
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Aug 22, 2005 9:07 AM PDT reply actions
bringing up Barton
no problem
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Aug 22, 2005 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Not that it matters
three years
I really don't think so
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.
Could it be
Meaning the first season, when they only signed half way through didn't count?
I suppose you could not count the first year...
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.
A's are not built for 2005
Risking bringing him up and thus him being really expensive in 2008. is as dumb as trading him to get a rental bat.
hmm
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
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Aug 22, 2005 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions
His arby clock won't start until next year.
Play for the present
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.
what about ethier?
I'll take them both, but obviously
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.
if we're only calling one up now
by guy incognito on Aug 22, 2005 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Ethier
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Aug 22, 2005 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree with that
yeah
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Aug 22, 2005 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
September ...
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?
Who cares....
When your OPS is at 700-- Kotsay, kendall, Hatteberg, Kielty-- your toes should be stepped on.
Clubhouse chemistry
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.
Well, I think
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.
Ok ...
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 ...).
im talking about the actual games, my friend
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?
Ok, fun exercise ...
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 ....
You can't only replace Hatty's AB's.
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.
The facts are there?
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.
very selective reasoning
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.
Well he doesn't hit very many homeruns
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 ...
and you're wrong about the 35% chance
He'll get on 40% of the time from the get-go in the bigs.
Oy ...
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.
it's not optimistic
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.
A-Rod, Thomas, Pujols
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.
And by the way
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.
huh??
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.
280-380-450
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.
Notice my comments weren't exclusive to Barton.
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.
Of course that is conceivable.
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.
you can't just remove Hatty
because Barton will play every day if and when he does come up.
No he won't
He'll play 2/3 of the time at the most, until he earns more ... similar to how often Hatty plays.
and that's even more laughable.
I agree ...
Laughable
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.
If he were hitting near the rate he is in AA
It's not reasonable to expect Barton to hit
Better numbers than 6 out of the last 8
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.
Considering he's Pujols lite,
Hey, screw you too.
You know
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.
What side of the argument am I missing?
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?
Now you're confusing me with Oaktoon.
My bad
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.
At least we're both back to civil tones.
Maybe better, to tell you the truth
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.
I definitely would not have expected DJ to play
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?
If bringing up a player to help the team
and nobody's suggesting
But DHing is a different story-- as is Swisher against LHP.
We wouldn't have to lose anyone
by Diesel @ Athletics Nation on Aug 22, 2005 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Barton
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.
Destiny is something you have to seize
Don't just wait around for it.
Take it.
AA to MLB
How many field players have made the jump from AA to MLB w/in the Oakland organization in the last 35 years?
Canseco, maybe?
Hey, let's take the last 20 years.
I hear ya...
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)
by Colorado Fan on Aug 22, 2005 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
two points
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
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Aug 22, 2005 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Crosby and Swish were both blocked
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?
beane himself has tipped this decision off
but that didn't happen-- so now we're talking about the next ten days.
Exactly, how hard is it to understand?
Billy Beane
by Colorado Fan on Aug 23, 2005 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Question
How many wins would you expect that to give you over a .700 ops DH?
If we had a DH
Even if it was only three wins, we be in 1st by .5 a game, not trailing by 2.5 games.
1 win could be the difference
1 Loss
by Colorado Fan on Aug 22, 2005 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Not to nitpick, but Barton's 20.
Barton
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.
by Colorado Fan on Aug 22, 2005 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
I love Ethier as much as anyone,
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.
Kielty and Hatteberg's
Zero
He ain't coming up, boys and girls. He's going to help Midland win the Texas League Title.
by Colorado Fan on Aug 22, 2005 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Yanks caught lightning with Cano
.333 slugging?
by mikedaviswhereareyou on Aug 22, 2005 11:59 AM PDT reply actions
Pushing the panic button
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.
How is playing DH stunting his growth?
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.
Different Circumstances
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.
different circumstance, exactly
that's the myth
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.
If he's called up...
He'll be DHing every day.
That won't stunt his growth.
"one of the healthiest teams"?
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.
I agree.
Missing the boat
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.
Disagree
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.
Based on current A's team
But ...
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.
Don't see a difference between Sept. and now...
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.
Daric Barton for Prez!!
hahah LOL
by burnone on Aug 22, 2005 2:19 PM PDT reply actions
900 vs 700 OPS
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?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
