Options Beyond Crosby (see poll)
Now that Nico stuck a needle in my side with his entry "At What Point..." regarding the health of Bobby Crosby, then Monkeyball twisted it (ouch), I've been compelled to ask the question regarding the depth of infield.
This roster has been carefully put together by Beane with the purpose of adding enough depth at all positions to handle any potential injuries to our starters. Most agree that this team has the deepest roster in terms of ability that we've seen in several years.
With the latest information about Crosby's injury, are we collectively comfortable with Marco Scutaro, Antonio Perez and possibly Mark Ellis filling in at SS?
0 recs |
41 comments
Comments
Nothing looks good for the long haul
Scutaro
Perez
Ellis
Ginter
Bynum
Rouse
I don't know much about Perez, but the rest are all decent 2nd / 3rd basemen lacking the range and arm for a SS. Pennington is too far away.
Lets just all cross our collective fingers and remind Macha not play Crosby in Baltimore.
by Captain on Feb 23, 2006 2:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I like Perez
Losing Croz for any length of time would suck, but I would not be at all surprised if Perez posted a .350+ obp and generally held his own at short.
by Mark H on Feb 23, 2006 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Crosby misses 20+ games pre-ASB ...
by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2006 3:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That's a Bold Prediction!
by Gerard on Feb 23, 2006 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
And our poor play did coincide with his injuries last year.
But when you have a team eminently capable of winning 100 games, and you lose one starter-- even one as valuable as Crosby-- for 20-30 games, that should the net effect of costing you:
1 win.
So the idea that Zito will be traded is laughable.
by oaktoon on Feb 23, 2006 7:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lose Crosby for 20-30 games
Must be some of that new math.
by grover on Feb 23, 2006 7:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
no...
Let's say slightly over half of a team's wins are created by your lineup-- call it 60% counting both offense and defense.
So that's 60 wins in a 100 win season.
Average wins per 9 man lineup: 6.7. Now Crosby is a bit more valuable, due to his defensive position.
So assume he produces 8 wins-- he's out for 20 games-- that's 1 win.
30 games is about 1.5 win.
But his replacement won't be without any value-- so you can see that 1 win is roughly the impact of a Crosby missing 30 games.
by oaktoon on Feb 23, 2006 8:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hang on
So it's your contention that the A's, 16 games under .500 last year without Crosby, have improved themselves to the point that they could expect AT LEAST a 4 game improvement in the standings even if Crosby missed the enitre season.
You're why other fans make fun of A's fans.
by grover on Feb 23, 2006 8:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, let's be real here, Grover
Eric Chavez and Jason kendall were two of the worst 5 offensive performers in baseball-- look it up;
Nick Swisher and Rich Harden also got hurt;
Scott Hatteberg replacing a 900 OPS Eurebiel Durazo was miserable;
Mark Ellis-- who would be the team's best player in the 2nd half-- was only playing part-time.
So maybe they lost a couple wins because they didn't have Crosby; and a couple more each for Chavez' and kendall's ineptitude; and a win or two for Harden being out; a win or two for Hatty instead of Durazo. a win because Ellis wasn't playing every day; a win each for Blanton and Haren's early season struggles--
do you understand now??
Just losing Crosby wasn't the biggest or the only reason why they played lousy for two months;
And to answer your question: if crosby missed every game, and if that injury didn't force other people to play more than they should and help cause another injury or two-- and with Scoot and perezI don't think that would eb the case-- yes, the A's would win 92-95 games.
They didn't have Ellis at all in 2004-- in 2005 he was a better hitter than Crosby and just as valuable defensively-- and they missed the playoffs by one game with an inferior club to this one.
by oaktoon on Feb 24, 2006 8:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I did witness the 2005 season
by grover on Feb 24, 2006 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hang on you
That's one way of looking at it.
by ohad on Feb 24, 2006 8:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Easier Solution...
by PosterNutbag44 on Feb 23, 2006 3:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm ...
BTW, I didn't mean "trade Zito for a shortstop"; I just meant "without Crosby, the team's not likely to be in contention, and therefore might as well trade Z for the biggest '07 chits we can get."
by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2006 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was afraid...
by PosterNutbag44 on Feb 23, 2006 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gotcha
And if this guy becomes available for the price of a super-cheap European '80s economy car, I'll start a "Freel-Yugo" campaign!
by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2006 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's because...
by PosterNutbag44 on Feb 23, 2006 4:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You just hit the ...
by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2006 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and you're wrong about that, too
The only real problem is if multiple players miss significant time-- particularly at once-- this team can deal with one player on the shelf for a while.
Pretty early for people to be in panic mode.
by oaktoon on Feb 23, 2006 7:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have no problem with being told I'm wrong
And, in any event, I've spent the entire offseason (and a big chunk of last summer) theorizing that the A's have a roster full of fragile/chronic bodies, with key players likely to miss significant chunks of PT simultaneously. Crosby has until now been the least demonstrably "fragile" of said key components (especially with the additions of Bradley and Thomas); which means that, if he again misses big chunks of PT, the injury cascade is all the more detrimental.
No, Chavez ain't Ruth or Bonds -- but the dropoff from Chavez to his substitutes is even greater than the dropoff from Crosby to Scutaro/Perez. It's not an absolute value, but a relative one, that's the issue in players missing time.
by monkeyball on Feb 24, 2006 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the other thing to consider ...
And, of course, there's the caveat that we (I) may be panicking unnecessarily and Cropsby's shoulder will be fine. And we'll all get ponies.
by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2006 4:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lugo would be an interesting choice
Kennedy's been there, done that and Saarloos' sinker doesn't play well on turf.
by grover on Feb 23, 2006 7:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
However...
by PosterNutbag44 on Feb 23, 2006 8:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
easy
by sourstuff on Feb 23, 2006 4:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I also like Perez
That's typically been the A's approach in this situation. But first and foremost, you need to see if this is a long-term thing with Crosby and then make decisions from there.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 23, 2006 4:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oh and what really makes me nervous
That's where it hurts the team the most. The A's can afford one injury in the infield, just not multiple ones, especially to Chavez and Crosby at the same time.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 23, 2006 4:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ouch, that does hurt.
One thing seems to happen every other year though: The lineup on Opening Day `taint what you thought it would be and the lineup post-trading deadline is really different than what you thought it would be.
Then again, you have the wonderful consistency of the Blanton-Saarloooos bottom of the rotation.
by Mark H on Feb 23, 2006 4:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've said it before, I'll say it again
Any guesses at the over/under for A's wins in those 10+ games?
by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2006 5:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll be the first to say it...again
by RunRickeyRun on Feb 23, 2006 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hindsight is 20/20
by Alon on Feb 23, 2006 9:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not hindsight
by RunRickeyRun on Feb 24, 2006 10:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crosby in the lineup
by niallmack on Feb 23, 2006 4:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If he goes down, it won't be like last year...
Possible lineup without B-Cros...
- Ellis
- Kotsay
- Bradley
- Chavey
- Big Hurt
- D.J.
- Swisher/Payton
- Kendall
- Marco/Perez
If Crosby goes down for a considerable amount of time, and the rest of the team stays relatively heathly (meaning no season ending injuries), I think they can still make the playoffs. Last year, no chance, this year it is possible.
That being said, it significantly hurts the team, Crosby great with the leather and energizes the clubhouse. The A's would be much better WITH him, but I think they could survive. I hope this injury isn't going to be long term problem, add me to the list of those crossing their fingers...
by meadball on Feb 23, 2006 4:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Freddie Bynum
That's the only thing good about that injury. I agree this year we can survive with Scutaro or Perez at ss for a a little while.
I hope the A's let him rest his shoulder for the next few weeks or so.
by OakAs33 on Feb 23, 2006 5:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I Love Catastrophic Thinking
I am comfortable with the team as Beane has set it up. I don't think we could have expected a more productive off-season to fill some of the holes we saw on lat year's roster. Macha's options are tremendous in the case of injury. A few years ago the perception of the A's was the their youth produced a more durable roster. Over the last two seasons, it may have been youth that was responsible for injury. So things even out over time I suppose, but I still say that the collective youth AND experience will serve this team well. Over and out. G
by Gerard on Feb 23, 2006 7:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
One last thing...
by Gerard on Feb 23, 2006 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
no problem with scutaro at SS
by panchopunch on Feb 23, 2006 8:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Scutaro at SS
by skwid on Feb 24, 2006 8:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tendonitis
I have known many players that have had tendonitis for only a few weeks and it has passed with no recurring symptoms, but be warned; this injury is not something to be taken lightly. Obviously Bobby's gonna have a great medical staff working with him; however, it is not unlikely that we have a Gil Meche type problem here. If you're not familiar with his predicament, Gil lost over a year because of shoulder pain that none of the doctors could really figure out. I had a chance to talk to the athletic trainer for the Mariners and he was as puzzled as anyone about it. I think surgery eventually corrected the problem.
Using one's arm for pitching and using it in the field are two different things, but I would expect that if Bobby had the same problem he'd have to watch his throwing much like Eric is doing now. I would expect him to miss as little as 20 games this year or as many as 80, depending on the severity of his shoulder issues. In addition, we could have a situation where he gets surgery in the offseason. The great thing about this is that it's not like we're dealing with a broken bone, which takes weeks to heal and fully recover from. However, the bad thing is, this isn't a good injury to put a timeframe on like say, a broken bone.
So until Bobby comes to the media and says, hey, my shoulder feels great, I can make all the throws I want, I'll be a little worried.
by baseb3383 on Feb 24, 2006 10:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
well said
by Athletics fan and runner on Feb 25, 2006 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















