A's Offense by Month
It can be dangerous to try to break down the numbers too much - most of us have a tendency to dismiss some numbers as anomalous, or think others represent a trend, when all we are seeing is statistical noise. Nonetheless, I thought it might be worthwhile to look at how the A's did on offense, both as individuals and as a group, on a month-by-month basis.
I used OPS here because it's readily available, and highly correlated with run scoring, and only included months where the individuals had a significant number of at-bats. Here are the numbers, followed by a few observations (no real analysis):
Apr May June July Aug Sept Total
Barton 1067 1067
Cust 1022 970 757 1063 741 912
Buck 750 1098 808 713 907 851
Swisher 919 1007 648 828 815 833 836
Bradley 786 819
Hannahan 879 738 793
Ellis 724 601 906 661 785 951 777
Johnson 982 684 571 772 758 767
Chavez 771 595 872 780 752
Stewart 642 760 1005 736 615 764 739
Suzuki 573 776 692 735
Murphy 828 712 731
Piazza 705 871 633 794 727
Scutaro 427 775 757 584 864 619 693
Crosby 586 779 505 584 619
Davanon 604 596
Walker 517 580
Kotsay 612 653 575
Kendall 401 472 758 515 542
Team 658 793 760 681 785 774 745
Runs/G 3.8 5 4.3 4 5.2 5.1 4.6
RA/G 3.6 4.1 4 5.3 5.3 5.8 4.7
Record 12-13 14-13 15-13 9-18 17-12 9-17 76-86
- The league average was a .761 OPS, and 4.9 runs per game, and the A's actually did better than that in three of the six months - May, when Cust, Buck, Swisher and Johnson were on simultaneous tears, and August and September, when they finally got some of the deader lumber out of the lineup.
- On the flip side, April and July were total disasters, with four or five regulars hitting below the Davanon line each month and no one really picking up the slack. June was a disaster of a different sort, as the A's hit like an average team but failed to translate that into runs.
- Daric Barton's 1.067 OPS in the three weeks that he played is identical to what Alex Rodriguez (the major league leader) had over the full year. Of course, I don't expect Barton to duplicate that next year, but it's awfully hard not to be excited about his potential. Cust's .912 was tenth in the AL.
- As the A's scored more runs in the second half, they also allowed many more as well. This is unfortunately not entirely coincidence. The late-season changes - replacing an ailing Chavez with Hannahan, and Crosby with Scutaro and Murphy, moving Swisher to center field while getting Kotsay out of the lineup, and playing Cust frequently in right - all got better bats into the lineup at the expense of defense.
- The outlook for 2008 is, IMO, not so bad: Barton, Cust, Buck, and Swisher should provide a good core to the offense. None of them is likely to have an MVP-type year, but they don't need to either - as long as two or three are hitting well at any time, this team should score some runs. (Buck's ability to stay healthy has to be a real concern, though.) Ellis at 2B and Suzuki at C are decent complementary parts, and we should also be OK at 3B too with either Hannahan or a healthier Chavez. That leaves (as so many other diaries have already said) SS and CF. At SS, neither Scutaro nor Murphy did anything to win a full-time job - start writing those anti-Crosby rants now. For CF, I really hope Denorfia proves worthy of the two pitchers Beane gave up for the right to watch him rehab for the year - even marginal competence (offense and defense) would be better than what we got this year.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
In terms of OPS
the A's best month for offense was...
...May.
[head explodes]
by Hegenberger Road on Oct 1, 2007 8:50 PM PDT reply actions
You know...
..the way Barton debuted, and the way Haren has played all season, should really put a cap on any further "Billy Beane has lost his edge" talk for a while.
Mulder who?
Our top four OPS guys were a trade, a 'behind the couch' pick-up, a rookie draft pick, and a 'veteran' draft pick.
Next up is Bradley (whatever), then you've got Hannahan - another spare change pick-up.
That's really phenomenal success for a bunch of guys that nobody, but nobody, would have been talking about as a remote possibility of big things at the beginning of the year (Swisher notwithstanding).
We keep talking about the new stadium increasing the size of Billy's payroll... maybe it's best that he keep it low, since that's where he's God.
not true
indeed i believe billy will always work with a relatively moderate payroll (middle of the road as we are now) I think that holding on to our crop of talent (Barton, Swisher, etc.) and picking a type A free agent here or there will make this team a contender for a very long time.
by AsFoLife on Oct 2, 2007 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, let's not go too far out on a limb
Buck and Barton were respectively rated the #1 and #2 prospects in the A's system by Baseball America last spring, so it's not like they were exactly spare change from the couch cushions. And one can't talk about the Mulder trade without talking about the Hudson trade (or vice versa); collectively the two trades were a solid plus for the A's to this point but not a ridonkulous steal.
Nonetheless I basically agree with you; this year (as separate from the vestiges of prior years, like the Kotsay extension) was a very good one for Beane.
#1 and #2 prospects is one thing.
You expect a #1 prospect to come into the majors and hold his own for a while before reaching a solid starter role in the organization, generally speaking. Both Barton and Buck far surpassed that, like Street did before them.
Every single player ...
listed above, with the exception of Mike Piazza, was either acquired through a draft pick, a trade, or a behind the couch free agent move. It would stand to probability that most of our top players would then have been acquired that way.
mm-hmm.
Haren and Barton for Mulder? Who seriously thought back then that we were getting the bad ass deal we got when that was signed?
It's the Loaiza's and Piazza's that have turned out to have limited return on the investment for the A's. When we dig amongst the dusty stones is when we seem to find the diamonds.
a lot of people?
"Haren and Barton for Mulder? Who seriously thought back then that we were getting the bad ass deal we got when that was signed?"
i wish AN had a better search system, the current one is pretty much useless. not only were did a lot of ANers think it was a good deal, but i remember reading a really long and convincing post (i think supposedly from a scout) on some cards message board arguing that it was going to be one of the worst trades ever for them.
Alright, I'll cede.
My point ...
Is that, given the miniscule number of attempts at significant free agent signings, his success rate (something like 2 out of 5 - Embree, Thomas v Piazza, Loaiza, Rhodes) is statistically meaningless because the sample is so small.
Sad...but realistic too
that in your core of four guys who should be the big run-getters, you didn't mention Chavez.
Good diary!
Extremely unpopular opinion
It'd be an unpopular move, but with Barry Bonds in the lineup, we'd be legitimate WS contenders. Add a healthy Rich Harden and bullpen, and I'd put us in the top 5-6 teams in baseball next year.
not that unpopular
http://www.athleticsnation.com/comme...
I like that lineup
but I'm a little concerned that you seem to have Jack Cust playing shortstop.

by 

























