Wasting Rich Harden
by notsellingjeans on Apr 4, 2007 9:30 PM PDT
Email
PrintI didn't like it the moment that I read that Rich Harden was starting game three of the regular season.
I like it even less now.
The A's are not good enough to sacrifice wins, and they've given at least one away in this series with the alignment of their rotation to begin the season.
Harden should not have lined up against the Mariners' third starter. Period. I know what the con is to this argument - it all evens out over the course of the season, starters end up facing different #s in the opposing rotation eventually, etc.
The A's were going to hit Bautista. That was predictable. It was also predictable that Felix Hernandez was going to be dominant against our questionable offense.
Knowing both of those things going into the season, even a month ago, we should've set up this rotation all along with more foresight.
One of two things should've happened in this series:
Scenario 1: A's throw Harden, then Haren, then Blanton.
(I realize Blanton was stepping in for Loaiza; nonetheless, Loaiza wasn't a good choice in the first place. Loaiza should've been budgeted for the 3 or 4 slot).
Scenario 2: Anything other than waiting until game 3 to throw Rich Harden.
If you choose to reply to this:
Please, please, please, don't use the "Dan Haren EARNED that opening day start!" Don't say that. That's FireJoeMorgan-quality material. That's a statement that belongs alongside sportswriter columns about how gritty Scott Podsednik's .300 OBP is batting leadoff, or how wonderful it is that David Eckstein is short and knows how to play baseball.
Dan Haren could've lived with being the No. 2 starter. That's exactly what he is - a good pitcher. He is not a very dominant pitcher, which is exactly what Rich Harden is when healthy. Haren has a good-but-not-great hit rate and k rate. Haren will not experience extraordinary improvement this year. He is a very consistent, good pitcher - it's what he's been for two years, and what he'll be this year.
Harden, when healthy, is arguably the most dominant pitcher in the game. So why not maximize the time that we have him healthy? Why not start him opening day, skip the fifth starter every time we have a day off, and throw Harden every fifth day? Isn't he the only pitcher we have who gives us a chance to win a game 1-0 in extra innings - exactly the game he would've been set up to have against Felix on Monday?
If we throw him Monday, or even Tuesday, this team is 2-1 or 3-0. In the bigger picture, it might mean he gets one more start or two more starts if we throw him every fifth day this season. He's our best player. Why not get him on the field as soon, and as much, as we can - while he's still healthy?
It's inexcusable that Rich Harden didn't start game one or two, and that his BRILLIANCE is being used - wasted - in a 9-0 blowout against Miguel Batista. That's poor management, poor spring training vision and foresight.
This team isn't good enough to give away ballgames, and be 1-2 instead of 2-1 or 3-0.
47 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So let me get this straight..
...you'd have preferred him to deal in game one, get the loss anyway on the back of our average offense, and then have Blanton out there today in game three?
One word response: Why?
What on earth does it matter? In a few weeks, we'll have some days off, other teams won't, and Harden will end up facing Felix in stead of Batista.
And your entire concern troll routine will have been for nothing.
Shrug.
Would Harden's brilliance have been better used
by matching zeroes with Hernandez and getting a no-decision in a game settled by the bullpens?
Sorry, but it really does all even out in the end; saying otherwise is like blaming other players at a blackjack table for "taking your card." And whether you buy this or not, a fine point like this hardly qualifies as "inexcusable."
Yes, it would've
I really like the idea of our bullpen matching up against the Mariners' bullpen in an extra inning game. Which is part of why I could justify starting him game 1. It shouldn't enter into the discussion whether Harden gets the no-decision or not. We aren't attempting to inflate his stats; we're trying to win games.
To "waste" his start, as I defined it, is not to get him stuck with a no-decision; on the contrary, it's to throw him in a game that we've got a great chanc of winning regardless of who's throwing for us, 1-4.
by notsellingjeans on Apr 5, 2007 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions
you have a point
but if
- harden's spot in the rotation still gets as many starts as the #1-2 spots
and
- harden pitches against the angels in a later series and the #1-2 don't
why does it matter?
Yeah
It's just that we don't know that those things will happen - certainly the second bullet point if not the first.
Here we had an opportunity to open the season controlling those variables, at least for a short while. We can't project all the way out to our September matchups, or even May really. There will be more injuries, more tired arms, more guys who need to skip a day or two in the rotation if not the entire turn.
But we had a chance to line up April a little bit more advantageously than we did, IMHO. And I believe the results of this series bear that out.
by notsellingjeans on Apr 5, 2007 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
in hindsight i have to say i agree with you
even if it ends up not mattering, i would have gone harden-haren-blanton, because i don't see any downside to doing so.
and i'm not saying i think it will matter...
haren pitched as good as harden this week
by scutaroknowstheway on Apr 4, 2007 9:41 PM PDT reply actions
If Crosby doesn't duff that ball
Haren would have matched Zeros against Hernandez. Same thing could have just as easily happened to Harden. The fact is, had Crosby not had those miscues the game would have come down to bullpens, NOT the starters. So really, your argument doesn't have any legs.
I disagree
Harden is less reliant on defense than Haren is. He has a much higher K rate. It could not have "just as easily happened to Harden"; it would in fact be less likely.
Still a possibility for errors, but not as likely. Less opportunities for error.
And why would we be averse to a game coming down to bullpens? We have one of the best bullpens in the game; they dealt away Soriano and have a sore J.J. Putz.
I'd LOVE to have Harden hand over a 0-0 game in the 8th/9th to our 'pen vs. the Mariners pen.
I would not love to waste his brilliance in a blowout against a below-average starter, given that it could've been avoided this week.
by notsellingjeans on Apr 5, 2007 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions
It was also predictable
that we would pound Washburn.
Except we didn't.
There's a fair point to make about starting Harden 1 or 2 so he would face the Halos in the next series, but even so...it's April. It really won't matter in the long run.
He was slated there
in order to start the home opener.
by southofcruiseamerica on Apr 4, 2007 10:15 PM PDT reply actions
Economics vs. field-sense
Is that a baseball decision to have him start the opener, or a feel-good, warm-and-fuzzy, somewhat of a P.R. decision?
Isn't it better to give him statistically the best chance of starting the most healthy games for us, over the course of the season?
by notsellingjeans on Apr 5, 2007 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I believe that
by southofcruiseamerica on Apr 6, 2007 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree that there was nothing wrong
with starting Haren Opening Day. I also wish Harden had gone in game 2 so he could face the Angels. The only thing that won't "even out" over the course of the season is that Harden could have been guaranteed to face LAA in April and instead he won't. And if the Angels are the A's only competition (as I believe to be the case) Angels games are twice as important as other games--as evidenced by tonight when the A's won but the Angels didn't lose.
As for this series, I don't think the order of the pitchers much mattered. We were going to lose game one due to Felix and Croz, we let Washburn off the hook in game 2 and then botched our second chance with the bullpen, and anyone could have won game 3. Pretty much a 1-2 performance by Oakland.
As you said: Pretty much a 1-2 performance
King Felix could have beaten anybody the way he was pitching. Richie Sexson hurt us with his bombs the first two games. UMP might have missed a close call in the second (Blanton) game that hurt us but we basically got beat the first two games and that is baseball. Whether one supports the "nico" or "fadedash" view of the bullpen management in the second game doesn't make a whit of difference, IMHO .. we got beat .. no offense intended to either of my colleagues ..
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Game two
Harden's performance negates all of these things.
When Harden throws a shutout, it doesn't matter that
*Ump made a bad call.
*We didn't get to Washburn as much as we could've.
We got two runs off Washburn. That's all Harden needed.
Of course there will be missed opportunities in any game - especially for our offense. By throwing Harden in a game that is likely to be more competitive - Jarrod Washburn is a better pitcher than Miguel Batista - we give ourselves a bigger margin for error.
I'm surprised you guys think we'd be 1-2 regardless of how this played out. And, that some of you think that it'll all even out in the end.
This division could easily come down to the final weekend, couldn't it? The losses in April count just as much as the ones in September.
by notsellingjeans on Apr 5, 2007 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions
See my comment below, entitled ..
It is a Marathon, Long long Season
..
I have to disagree with this: "The losses in April count just as much as the ones in September."
You may not have a meaningful September if you rush Rich or don't take it easy in the early-going ..
.. if I had my choice of a slow start followed by a strong finish, compared to a fast start followed by a disastrous fade at the finish line, choice#1 is a no-brainer ..
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions
disasterous fade at the finish line
you mean like the tigers and cardinals last year? and then how did those two teams do in the postseason?
NO, I mean as in, no postseason at all
.. watching the Angels on TV ..
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions
but we're talking about this:
"The losses in April count just as much as the ones in September."
if there's no postseason at all, why does it matter whether that's because of losses in april or losses in september?
Maybe a RePhrase: gotta think about the end ..
.. even at the beginning. You have to plan your strategy for a marathon rather than a sprint. You can run very hard and fast in April and still badly lose the marathon event. The A's rarely get off to a fast start -- I'm must saying I'd rather them start slow and finish strong than be like, say, the Orioles who were in first place {was it 2004 or 2005} most of the first half of the season but fell off the map in the second half. Now, if the A's could start fast and finish strong, that would be great - but is isn't their M.O. these recent years ..
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions
and i'm saying
cardinals and tigers last year, both finished the regular season in a freefall and barely made the playoffs.
and there are plenty of teams that start slow and finish strong, but they've dug such a big hole that they don't make the playoffs, that would be the counterexample to the orioles.
Hehe
and there are plenty of teams that start slow and finish strong, but they've dug such a big hole that they don't make the playoffs, that would be the counterexample to the orioles.
Honestly I thought that was what happened to the A's in 2005 but I recall that you took issue with my interpretation of the 2005 season. But we agree that we don't want an "excessively slow" start, as in 15 games below .500 at the end of May; - that would be a disastrous hole to try to climb out of. I prefer the A's at least do like last year, and stay within the .500 mark until the weather turns; - they usually get hot when the weather warms up in June, July. All Star break and beyond, particularly the month of August, seems to be the best time for the A's.
It all gets back to the imagery of a "marathon" race - early on, you want to pace yourself while keeping the rest of the pack in sight, in other words, not slack off or fall so far behind that you can never catch up - but you want to conserve energy for the long haul and the "sprint" at the finish line.
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions
The Marathon analogy
We're talking about Rich Harden starting game 2, rather than game 3.
Then we're talking about him, in either scenario, resting for four days, and then pitching again.
We're doing this because it likely means that our team sits at 2-1 right now instead of 1-2. Potentially, and this point is admittedly far less rock-solid, we are 3-0 if he got locked into a shutout duel with Hernandez and the game was turned over to the bullpens, given that ours is much better.
None of this requires Rich to pitch more often, or on shorter rest, or throw longer innings. This scenario does not imply that Rich will be staggering aimlessly down the side of a busy street, begging for water at mile 23, and that Billy Beane is just standing there frowning at him, holding a giant pitcher of water and refusing to help.
I don't know why we're implying that my scenario is any more taxing to Harden.
I also don't believe we should strive to be mediocre in the first half, just so that we can "sneak up" on other people in the second half. That is illogical.
by notsellingjeans on Apr 5, 2007 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions
It's the A's M.O.
You Said:
I also don't believe we should strive to be mediocre in the first half, just so that we can "sneak up" on other people in the second half. That is illogical.
and just above your post I had said:
Now, if the A's could start fast and finish strong, that would be great - but is isn't their M.O. these recent years ..
It's not a matter of "striving to be mediocre in the first half" -- it is the reality of the A's season for this decade! They aren't "striving" or trying to do that {live near .500 the first half}, it just happens ..
Hehe .. I might wish I could change that, but it is usually the way the A's season unfolds, year after year after year .. Take Care my good friend, we/I love ya .. it is a good discussion ..
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions
I Was Thinking of the whole Month of September as
.. the "Finish Line" .. that is why I took exception to the idea of April being just as important .. in one purely mathematical sense, April games are just as important, - but in another, call it logistical or strategic sense, September usually determines your fate ..
.. that said, I think we have our hands full with the Angels this year, as they have more quality and depth in their pitching staff .. we will be very lucky to make the post-season, most of the pundits picking against us to do it, but with a healthy Rich Harden the whole year we have a chance ..
.. but if Rich goes down early and is out for an extended period of time, unless the Angels were to have similar disastrous injuries {say, some significant combo of Colon, Weaver, Lackey were to go down too} -- I don't think we would have much of a chance ..
But we won't give up without a fight. Go A's !!
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Agree & Disagree
Yes, it would be helpful to have Harden face the Angels twice, but as for them counting that much more? Maybe not. We won the west based on what we did against the M's last year, not necessarily the Angels. That crooked number of wins compared to what the Angels did to them, made the difference in the end. We just need to make damn sure that we remain competitive in the head-to-head. The first two of those games? Probably a bad sign, but not the end of the world.
Weird... I usually find myself on the other end of arguments like these.
RE: the first two games in Anaheim
The Angels aren't throwing their best either .. These first two contests could be a battle in which best offense wins:
Gaudin vs Saunders
Kennedy vs Moseley
Last year, the A's tended to play better {prevail} in Anaheim, and vice versa with the Angels in Oakland .. so we'll see ..
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 7:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Haren is a Bad Ass
Dan Haren is one HELL of a pitcher, He may not have the strikeouts like Harden does, but he has the stuff.
This alignment has more to do with giving Harden less starts, in order to preserve him for later in the season.
He still has never pitched 200 innings in his career.
by Fort Knox Yellow on Apr 4, 2007 10:42 PM PDT reply actions
It is a Marathon, Long long Season ..
.. I guess the springtime weather, daylight savings, and "thrill of renewal" of baseball, makes us forget what a marathon the baseball season is - year after year after year ..
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions
precisely
Why the hell would Geren want to run him into the ground like a cheap pair of shoes in April?
It makes sense, rather, to pace it out a bit more with hopes we can get an entire season (and postseason) with our real Ace.
No one doubts that Harden's a more electric pitcher. We're all protecting our secret Cy Young hopes, lest we get our hearts broken with another injury. We all have all heard that fastball snap against Kendall's glove, a sound even more beautiful than a Big Hurt homer. That impish smile on his headshot -- yeah, that's big d*ck confidence and we all get sucked in.
But Danny is the bread and butter. He might be driving the Highlander to Richie's Aston Martin -- but who's the guy that takes the kids to soccer practice? Who is the guy that helps you move? Who is the guy who is going to be there when you need him? Danny. And without that guy, we're gonna be stuck on the side of the road. (Ok, I think I stretched that analogy too far.)
He got the start because he earned it. He also got the start because we're all suckers for the sexy fastball and want to see Richie on our opening day. It's a win-win -- and the rotations will even out over time.
Danny's Performance Last Year Saved Us ..
.. to avoid a second sweep by the Twins in Minnesota .. to avoid a sweep by the Yankees in NY .. to avoid a sweep by the RedSox here in Oakland .. several times when we needed a "stopper" to keep us out of a longer losing streak, Dan Haren was the man ..
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Dan Haren
Was "the man" with "the stuff" because Rich Harden wasn't there. He is not a better pitcher than Rich Harden is, when Rich Harden is healthy. Yes, Haren is more durable. But when both are healthy, Harden is much better.
I'm not advocating running Harden into the ground. I said start him every fifth day, starting with the opener, or at least game two.
There is nothing about that statement that suggests an insanely great workload.
When have Harden's injuries every been associated with overuse? Alarm clocks, sure...but never overuse, to my knowledge.
His health is fluky. Maximize his use while he is healthy. That doesn't mean throw him 130 pitches, and it doesn't mean throw him on short rest. I never said either of those two things.
I Totally and Thoroughly Disagree
One could as easily argue, that it is good, psychologically and otherwise, for Harden to get an easy win -- he was out much of last year, it is good for him to start slow and easy -- it is a marathon season, why insist on putting the weight and pressure on him from the very first day? You sound like you think Harden is going to go down before the end of April, in which case it wouldn't matter because the A's season would be screwed anyway .. there are six months in this marathon season ..
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I have to add my voice to the disagreement
I think you have missed a few points here.
First -- starting Harden on opening day this season would be a bad idea. Why? In the past Harden can get too amped up for starts which can lead to overthrowing (which for him can lead to the dreaded I word). With the season as long as it is, I would rather him NOT start the most intense pressure packed game of the first time through the rotation when his health is such a huge concern. We will need him for big games later, but lets ease him back into the rotation here at the start.
Second -- Why do you think that we should have hit Batista more then Washburn? Both pitchers are very mediocre and most of the A's players were better vs lefties last year then righties (Piazza, Bradley, Kielty, Kendall, Ellis, Swisher). Only Chavez was significantly better vs righties (with Buck a bit of an unknown at the moment). This would have made me think, on paper, that we would actually hit Washburn better then Batista. So by your theory we actually should have held him for game 3 over game 2 as game 2 would seem to be the better oppurtunity for offense.
Finally -- I agree with most of the others though, that it really does not make a difference and the only reason I would have liked him to start earlier is that I would have liked him to face the Angels. Other then that, the season will work itself out and the #3 guy will get as many starts as the #2 guy.
"Both pitchers are very mediocre"
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/playe...
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/playe...
Washburn is undeniably better. They are not equals.
Your first point is an excellent one, about the psychological effects of Harden throwing game 1 and the liklihood that he'd overthrow. I do agree that it's very important that Rich will go into his second start feeling confident and healthy.
But...
Our lineup is much better against LHPs, and we pounded Washburn last year. There wasn't any reason to expect that we'd do better against Batista.
That said, my position on all this is that I basically agree you, mostly because he should be pitching against the Angels (he really should be pitching against the Angels), but I also don't think it's a big deal.
Agreed - recall that Batista beat us last July
Our lineup is much better against LHPs, and we pounded Washburn last year. There wasn't any reason to expect that we'd do better against Batista.
He beat us in an interleague game last July, in the series we got swept by Arizona. We didn't do so well against him then. :(
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Rich should definitely pitch against Halos later
Agreed: he should be pitching against the Angels. If he is healthy for a whole season, let's hope he will have several other chances to pitch against the Angels, - after all we play them 19 times every year. If the season came down to us tied with the Angels on the last day of the season {Sept 30}, would not all of us like to see Harden make that start? If he were still healthy and available at that point? Haren would be good too, but I think we all would want the guy with the very best stuff on the mound ..
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
A couple things...
I disagree that "Washburn is undeniably better" In 2006 Batista had an ERA+ of 104, while Washburn posted a below average ERA+ of 93. So (at least by that metric) you are correct when you say "They are not equals" -- in fact Batista was a bit better last year.
Also, you have to factor in how much better we were vs lefties if you want to guess as to which game we have a chance to score more runs in. It is very easy to look at how the games turned out and say the A's should have known they would score more runs against Batista (cause they did score more runs against Batista) but I would argue on paper that is not necesarily the logical conclusion.
The only reasoning I really disagree with,
on the A's part, is that it matters if you throw two hard-throwing righties back to back. Any team would rather face Blanton than Harden, after they face Haren. The difference in quality is just too great.
I also agree with you, notsellingjeans, that the only known variable is Harden vs. the Angels in April. Whether it will balance out by the #2 starter missing a series with LAA that the #3 starter doesn't, is unknown. So I see it as one missed start vs. LAA on the controllable variables, and since my biggest concern is that LAA could run away with the division early while the A's aren't healthy, I wish Harden would face LAA in April.
But I don't think it affected the Seattle series, except in hindsight. We could have gone 1-2 a lot of ways, including Calero and Duke blowing it for Harden in game 2.
Just one, I think, MikeA--
In the 2-game series in Oakland, spots 4 and 5 will be in turn (bleah) but thanks to an off-day the A's can opt to go with 4 and 1 (Haren) instead (pleeeease!!!). But spots 2 and 3 will miss that series no matter what.
Thank you
And now I'm done I swear - I'm embarrassed to have half the comments in my own diary.
by notsellingjeans on Apr 5, 2007 10:20 AM PDT reply actions
Some Love sent nsj way ..
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
by Randy Bell on Apr 5, 2007 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
test
seeing if something works
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
