What effect did injuries really have on the A's season?
by monkeyball on Oct 6, 2007 11:30 AM PDT
in News
25 comments
Since the last week of the season, we've seen Beane, via Pravda-on-Mission Street, announce that the A's 76-86 record was the result of the high number of injuries suffered by the team in 2007.
To my eyes, this looks like convenient excuse-making and willful blindness.
Certainly, there's no disputing the fact that many front-line A's players were disabled for significant chunks of the season.
My questions are:
- How good would the A's have been had they been at something approximating full health for most of the season?
- Even if the core of the team had been good enough to challenge for the division, could the A's really have been expected to be as healthy as would have been necessary to contend?
My contention is that a team that was expecting major contributions from Bobby Crosby, Mark Kotsay, Jason Kendall, Dan Johnson, and a clearly declining-at-the-plate Eric Chavez (not to mention rolling the dice on Mike Piazza and Shannon Stewart) was going to have trouble scoring runs -- and that a team that was expecting Crosby, Kotsay, Chavez, Milton Bradley, Justin Duchscherer, Esteban Loaiza, and Rich Harden to somehow stay healthy all year was bound to end up with a lot of AAAA/replacement-level playing time.
(And with Chavez and Kotsay in particular, even had they both been optimally "healthy" as they could be, their respective chronic conditions still would have sapped their offense and impacted their defense.)
Now, I do tend toward the pessimistic and recriminatory. So I could well be overstating the case and I haven't done a comparison of projected runs created for the A's planned '07 Opening Day roster < illuminates Spork-signal in night sky over Gotham >.
But the injuries -- numerous as they were -- certainly weren't the sole determining factor for the A's being 10 games under .500 this year. I'd argue that they weren't even a terribly significant factor.
Am I entirely off base here?
0 recs |
25 comments
Email
Print
Comments
The injuries were the key factor
preventing the A's from remaining competitive. It's not that injuries were unexpected, but who would have thought almost every single starting player would miss significant time due to injury? The only key players who didn't miss time from the original eight are Stewart, Swisher, Ellis, and Scutaro. Then there's the injuries to the pitching staff. It's really remarkable that the A's were able to perform as well as they did in the first half of the season.
by alox on Oct 6, 2007 11:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
so, "almost every" = 55%?
by monkeyball on Oct 6, 2007 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking 66%
Scutaro was never projected to be a starter. I suppose that has to be offset by adding DJ to the equation. Still, the loss of half your original lineup has to mean something.
by alox on Oct 6, 2007 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're reaching a bit monkey.
50% is a big number in this case.
by Helloooo 1st on Oct 6, 2007 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stewart was not a projected starter
He was expected to be the 4th outfielder. The injury to DJ moved Swisher to first base, putting Stewart into a starting role.
The A's "A" lineup to begin the year was
Kotsay
Bradley
Swisher
Piazza
DJ
Chavez
Crosby
Ellis
Kendall
Of those guys, six missed major time. That's 2/3, not 50%. Couple that with the completely unpredictable collapse of Kendall's offensive abilities, and that's not a good situation to be in.
by PaulThomas on Oct 7, 2007 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree with you,
by Helloooo 1st on Oct 7, 2007 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of injuries....
The question here is how does our 08 lineup look on the injury front? Automatically Crosby, Kotsay, and Chavez look suspect. No doubt one or all of them will loose significant playing time during the course of the season. Can we compete in 08 as currently constituted?
Buck rf
Barton 1st
Cust dh
Swisher lf
Chavez 3rd
Ellis 2nd
Kotsay cf
Suzuki c
Crosby ss
Bench
Hannahan
Scutaro ?
Bowen
Denorfia
by alox on Oct 6, 2007 11:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
and that a team that was expecting Crosby, Kotsay, Chavez, Milton Bradley, Justin Duchscherer, Esteban Loaiza, and Rich Harden to somehow stay healthy all year was bound to end up with a lot of AAAA/replacement-level playing time.
Maybe you want to say "what effect did unpredictable injuries really have on the season." If they guys above, in particular the last five (and Street) had been healthy, the A's absolutely would have contended. I don't think they'd have matched the Angels' 94, but they would have been up there. The hitting would have struggled, but they would have had the best or second best starting rotation in the league, and one of the best bullpens.
I don't think they could have been expected to be healthy enough to contend, and indeed they weren't, but that's just another way of saying that injuries had a huge impact on the year.
And the excuse-making talk just sort of confuses me. First of all, whatever share of the failure you assign to injuries, it's plainly obvious that they were a huge problem. And do you want/expect Beane to say that the team sucked because Kendall/Kotsay/Crosby are horrible hitters? Why talk about "excuses" at all? What's the point?
by mikeA on Oct 6, 2007 11:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
the point is
that injuries were not the reason the A's were so poor. lack of talent led to poor offense, pitching, etc. Just look at last year: the team was not very good, even though they made it to the ALCS (this was the product of a wide open league, much like this season).
They were worse this year because: the pitching declined, and the hitting was abysmal. The approaches by players at the palte has been steadily eclining sine Giambi left. The decline in pitching is alarming.
Bottom line: injuries were not the major factor for failure most would like them to be.
by tdwclark on Oct 6, 2007 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
while obviously the high number of injuries
made it impossible for the A's to contend this year, it should be recognized that if you load up a team with players with a history of not being able to stay healthy for most of a season, the likelihood of having such a season as the A's did is increased.
by OaklandSi on Oct 6, 2007 12:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
4 Step Program
Step 1: Give up your leaders in RBI, HR, RBI, AVG, SLG, OPS, ERA, and Wins from the year before.
Step 2: turn one of your best out of the pen (Kennedy) into a starter and then be surprised when he fails and the bullpen is short-staffed.
Step 3: give up that pitcher, your best all around player and only guy who showed up in the ALCS last year (Bradley), and a guy who just threw one of the best games in an A's uniform not numbered 15 this season in his first game back (Loiaza) for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Step 4: mix in some injuries.
Result: at least we managed to beat Texas. Beane has some work to do to regain my trust. This season was a GM disaster.
by dolemite on Oct 6, 2007 1:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Kennedy sucked in spring training
Was good (but lost games) at the start of the season.
Sucked in the middle. Went to another team and sucked also.
The net result: Suck.
Kennedy going and not paying his salary is a net plus.
Giving up Bradley for the 20 more games he would have played this year for nothing- oh wait sorry, Brown, is a net neutral or plus.
Giving up Loiaza - well, doesn't seem like the Dodger's got much effect from him. But a passing starter is still > Kenn-brad-ardo. Net minus.
Zito: would not have been able to keep at price Oak could pay.
Really, there are plenty of things to fault BB for, but some of your examples are not those things.
by MobiusKlein on Oct 6, 2007 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You seem to be missing the point.
We gave up six or seven of our best players without getting anything in return and expect to do as well as we did in the past. Not gonna happen. Anyone can see that. And show me one guy that we can get for 8 million a year next year that will be better than Loiaza. Can't cause that's no longer a rip off for starting pitching, it's a good deal.
by dolemite on Oct 6, 2007 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
Loiaza is the one I called out as a net minus. The rest of the 'six or seven given up for nothing' includes how many free agents? Those don't count as giving up for nothing. The others, like Bradley, Kendall, etc would not have been positive contributors. (And were not given up for nothing either.)
Kennedy gone is a net plus at it stands.
by MobiusKlein on Oct 6, 2007 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better than Loaiza?
Or better than a healthy Loaiza? Have you bothered to follow Loaiza with the Dodgers?
Have you bothered to look at Kennedy's performance after the A's dumped him?
by rfloh on Oct 7, 2007 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the "doomed from the start" theory
assumes that the performance of uninjured players is unaffected by the injuries to other players. Which is almost certainly not true. As much as players and managers would like to say that they go out and give their best effort no matter where the team is in the standings, that's not human nature. So we can't know who would have stepped up to overachieve, or what magic trade Billy might have pulled off at the last minute, if the team had been a little bit more in contention in July and August. And while there certainly is reason for us to doubt that a healthy Chavez, Crosby, Loiaza, or Kotsay would have put the A's that little bit more in contention, I don't think we can discount what the players thought about it, or more precisely, felt about it.
by Englishmajor on Oct 6, 2007 1:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If this is the best commentary I can expect......
I guess I will have to wait until next season to check back in... Monkeyball, if you think injuries had no impact on where the A's finished the season, it is obvious to me that you really don't have a pulse on the Oakland A's. It saddens me that you are in a position to display your ignorance on the front page of this web site for all to read. Maybe next year you should actually watch a few games before you write your useless nonsense.
by Carney4ever on Oct 6, 2007 2:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
OaklandSi and Englishmajor
both raise good points.
On paper, our Opening Day lineup didn't look a whole lot different than the one that suited up for the ALCS last year. But it was the assumption that these players, one year older, would stay healthy when some of them already had a history of injuries had as much to do with our demise as did the injuries themselves. We all knew going in that we had the potential to be a great team or a lousy one, and let's face it, health was a major factor.
The 2006 team, meanwhile, seemed better prepared for injuries because it was deeper in terms of veteran talent. Still, the injuries that did occur last year did not come in droves as they did this year.
And to touch on Englishmajor's comment, those are the hidden questions that must be asked. Like how a healthy Frank Thomas had a positive effect throughout the lineup in '06, well, you can't discount that any more than you can the negative effect of a slew of injuries.
by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 6, 2007 2:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
the offense was horrible all year
sure, we had all-star pitching in the first 60 games, but let's be real - we never fielded a .270 lineup at any point in the season. that would never have been enough to win 90 games this year, or really come that close.
by notah8er on Oct 6, 2007 2:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
and the injuries had nothing to do with that?
I am not saying that we would have made a 14 game improvement in the standings, but you have to figure that health would have accounted for a few wins.
And surely the lack of offense eventually took its toll on an already depleted pitching staff.
Does this mean that the "experts" were right? That the Big 3 was most responsible for our success?
Yikes.
by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 6, 2007 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in re: bradley, sure
and a healthy kotsay would have helped too. but it isn't like a propensity for injuries wasn't part of the profile for these guys all along.
by notah8er on Oct 6, 2007 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahem
The (NLCS) Arizona Diamondbacks beg to differ. They're a far worse hitting team than the A's.
by PaulThomas on Oct 7, 2007 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Injuries had more impact on pitching
Crosby was hitting badly when he went down with an injury.
Chavez would have performed better if he wasn't injured but Hanahan did better than Chavez offensively.
And if Piazza hadn't been injured, then the A's most productive offensive player, Jack Cust, wouldn't even have been on the team.
On pitching, one could likely calculate the difference between numerous starts by Harden and Loaiza (though it's harder to extrapolate with Loaiza) and the performance of the A's 4th and 5th starters. Certainly Harden over Braden would be worth a number of wins. In the bullpen, I believe the A's led the league in blown saves, so the absence of Duke and Street and an injured Calero clearly hurt.
The bottom line is it appears health was more of a factor for the pitching than the hitting for the A's.
by SA on Oct 6, 2007 4:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
With Bradley well,
we would have seen less Snelling / Davannon / Scutaro / Bocaccica / Putnam / ???? playing the outfield & batting.
Plus Buck had a fair amount of time on the DL this year too. Don't forget that in the injury list.
by MobiusKlein on Oct 6, 2007 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your Mileage May Vary
I agree with the sentiment that this team, even if healthy, wouldn't have been good enough on offense to contend. The pitching staff is another matter...
Catcher: Jason Kendall played almost every day until his mid-July trade to the Cubs. He (chuckle) "hit" .226/.261/.281 in 80 games for the A's. Injury impact: None
First Base: Dan Johnson had a strong spring training before tearing cartilage in his hip a few days before the start of the regular season. This is a tough one to call, because Johnson's injury led to OF Travis Buck making the Opening Day roster, while Nick Swisher (and a few Todd Walker cameos) manned first base. Buck put up a .900+ OPS (in 59 plate appearances) while Johnson was out and Swisher, as usual, had a good first month with the stick. Johnson returned towards the end of April, got hot for a few weeks, and then went stone cold before losing his job right around the trading deadline. Injury impact: Minimal-to-none
Second Base: Mark Ellis missed about a dozen games this season. Injury impact: None
Shortstop: He played in 93 of Oakland's first 100 games to the tune of a .278 OBP and .341 SLG. The A's season had already ended by then. Injury impact: None
Third Base: Chavez claims that he's been dealing with nagging injuries for practically his entire career. You're a warrior, Eric. He's three years removed from his last good year at the plate, so there's no telling if he would've been productive even if he was healthy. Injury impact: Moderate
Left Field: I assume that Nick Swisher was slated to be the Opening Day leftfielder. Swisher moved all over the diamond to fill in for the walking wounded, so free agent signee Shannon Stewart stepped in to play LF this year. A mediocre April and August blunted Stewart's otherwise surprising numbers. Injury impact: Minimal on offense, but tough to watch Swisher in CF on defense
Centerfield: Mark Kotsay had back surgery a few days into spring training, missed the first two months of the season, then came back way too soon. He's been in decline since his career year in 2004, but his defense was sorely missed. Injury impact: Significant
Right Field: Milton Bradley has played 140+ games once in his career. He hit the DL 3 times for the A's in 2007. His injuries left gaping holes both in the field and at the plate. Then again, Travis Buck put up better numbers than Bradley ever did as an Athletic. Injury impact: Moderate, but not as bad as it could've been
Designated Hitter: Mike Piazza had one home run on May 2, when Boston's Mike Lowell ruined Piazza's shoulder. Jack Cust was streaky, but occasionally sensational, while turning Piazza into a modern-day Wally Pipp. Injury impact: Minimal
Starting Pitching: Rich Harden and Esteban Loaiza only started six games, combined, all year. Fill-ins Chad Gaudin and Lenny DiNardo had extended stretches of effectiveness before turning back into proverbial pumpkins. The impact of Harden's and Loaiza's absences was certainly severe, but it's not like the A's shouldn't have seen this coming. Injury impact: Significant
Bullpen: Huston Street, Justin Duchscherer and Kiko Calero all missed significant time with injuries. With the A's forced to move guys like Gaudin and Joe Kennedy into the rotation, the bullpen turned into a collection of Triple-A stiffs. Injury impact: Significant
by Aaron C on Oct 7, 2007 7:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
