What Has Beane Done *Right* This Year? Part 1
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 10:51 AM PDT
in News
116 comments
OK, I admit, that header is phrased in such a way as to interpret it as a rhetorical question and an implicit slam on Beane.
But that's not my intent ... today.
Given our recent upswing in fortune, I thought we might jump that ol' bandwagon and look back on the personnel moves Beane made going into, and during the course of, this season that have worked out for the better.
I think it makes sense to consider Beane's moves in separate categories: FA acquisitions and Rule 5 claims, trades, addition-by-subtraction ballast-overboard, in-system promotions and contract extensions, and 40-/25-man roster manipulation (the latter to include DL moves and non-moves).
I'm going to break each of these categories down in a separate installment.
Today, I'll address a category that has not always paid dividends for Beane: free-agent signings. In the offseason, Beane signed Alan Embree, Shannon Stewart, and Mike Piazza, moves that were all eminently questionable:
- Embree is of a class -- LHRPs -- who are notoriously inconsistent year to year, and he was signed to what seemed an inordinately long contract
- Stewart had, like Frank Thomas, been in an injury-induced downward performance trend, but didn't have the potential high returns of the Big Hurt
- Piazza was a bit of an enigma (how would he adjust to DH'ing and the AL; was he physically worn down; had his bat speed dissipated) and was signed for more money than might have been advisable
Beane also brought in Erubiel Durazo and Todd Walker during Spring Training; Walker contributed some quality PAs, while Durazo never stuck with the club but did provide reasonable backup insurance in an area (1B/DH) where the A's actually seemed understaffed at the beginning of the season. In addition, Beane claimed Jay Marshall in the Rule 5 draft from Tampa Bay the White Sox; Marshall provided some effective innings early, but his Rule Fiveyness has been exposed of late and he's pretty much dropped to the bottom of the bullpen rotation.
With the exception of Piazza's slow start and his subsequent early happenstance injury, I think it's fair to say that Beane has had one of his best FA years in '07. Embree has been the savior of the 'pen, Stewart has been the lone high-contact/high-AVG hitter in the lineup and has been remarkably healthy despite playing far more often than projected, and Piazza is really heating up of late to boost the moribund offense and potentially raise his trade value.
Given Beane's sketchy track record in signing FAs, and his ability this year to limit long-term liabilities while plugging some holes at the margins of the roster, I think 2007 may represent some of his best work to date.
The FA market really is aptly named: it's the most "free" talent "market" in MLB (in the sense of there being no real limits or structures on buyers or sellers), and "agents" are always right in the middle. As a consequence of the limits and strictures on the other components of the talent market, though, FAs are almost always poor bargains from a cost/risk/return perspective, with buyers uniformly over-paying, paying for past performance, and paying for players likely to decline.
One can argue that Beane overpaid for Piazza, though it does make some sense that part of the cost of Piazza can be ascribed to the value of having kept him off the roster of the Angels (not that that's made much difference in the standings).
0 recs |
116 comments
Email
Print
Comments
When you get to addition by subtraction
by atomopawn on Jul 27, 2007 10:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
heh heh
I almost considered Geren under FAs, but I was actually intending on including him in the "in-system promotions" category.
But, yes, there certainly is an argument to be made for fractionating the Macha-Geren decision, and putting Macha in the category of Bradley and Kendall.
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get very sad
when I hear Geren do the Nation's commercials. You have to factor that in if you address the topic.
by mikeA on Jul 27, 2007 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, but that loss is more than made up for ...
... by the team's fantastic drop in gross expenditures on chicle by-products.
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree completely...
...especially with the following quote...
Given Beane's sketchy track record in signing FAs, and his ability this year to limit long-term liabilities while plugging some holes at the margins of the roster, I think 2007 may represent some of his best work to date.
by UncleLeo on Jul 27, 2007 11:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Beane Staying Within Himself
I think the three free agent contracts Beane signed this off-season are proof that when Beane says within himself (rational, weighing cost/benefit on a dollar-for-dollar basis, refusing to go too many years on a contract, using free agents as complimentary pieces and not franchise players) good things tend to happen to this team.
For instance, rather than budging on a very fair and specific offer to bring Frank Thomas back for at least two years, Beane instead paid about the same amount of money over one year to bring in a hitter that (when he's in the lineup) has a similar positive effect on the offense and who might fetch something decent in a trade or might even be the catalyst that nudges this team back into contention this season. Pretty good return on investment right there, even considering Piazza's missed time.
Rather than even considering getting involved in a very weak and bloated free agent outfield class or offering a penny more than Jay Payton was worth to keep him, Beane waited out the outfielder market until the last possible moment, signed the last available starting-caliber guy to a VERY reasonable contract and pulled the whole "Frank Thomas" trick on us all over again.
And in the bullpen, Beane struck quickly for the guy he wanted: a rubber-armed lefty with good platoon splits that threw a lot of strikes and could consistently throw in the mid-90's and be a stabilizing, veteran force in a bullpen that was often in a state of flux.
Yeah, I'd say he did a fine job with free agents this past off-season...especially considering some of the debacles of recent seasons (Loaiza, Redman, Rhodes).
by Taj Adib on Jul 27, 2007 11:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
excellent points
That reminds me that I should either revise the FA installment to address FAs not re-/signed (thank Ba'al we didn't sign Erstad!), or maybe just include them in the + by - section.
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To use your prior theme...
Erstad and Kotsay on the same team would have caused a rupture in the space-time continuum.
by mikeA on Jul 27, 2007 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Loaiza
I'd agree that Redman and Rhodes were disasters, and that Loaiza's signing hasn't worked out too well. But he's been injured, and during the time he was healthy last year, the guy did contribute, at one point doinga pretty good impression of staff ace. Also, by signing a three year deal, despite the injuries, he's still capable of either contributing for a season and a third, or getting traded --- he has quite a bit of value --- in the final couple of months of this season (I suspect he'd slip through waivers) or in the off-season. So before lumping him with the others, let's see what happens in the next year.
by richwol on Jul 27, 2007 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Loaiza will have a great year next year, that is
the book on him, he pitches great in walk/free agent years.
by theblackpearl on Jul 27, 2007 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Loaiza stinks even when healthy.
Everyone seems to have the misconception that Loaiza is a good, even great pitcher when healthy but that's just simply not true. In fact when he came back from injury last June, he did not pitch well that month and pitched even worse in July. Of course in August, he had his fluke month but then proceeded to pitch very badly in September. If by "contribute," you meant that he contributed along the lines of a below average fifth starter, then yes, he did contribute.
Honestly, (at the time of the deal) I thought the Loaiza signing was one of the worst (if not the worst) FA signing of Beane's career. You simply do not give that much money and a long term deal to a pitcher with a history of inconsistency and below average performances.
by lenscrafters on Jul 27, 2007 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He didn't have his velocity back
when he returned from the injury last year. Once he got it back, he pitched very well. I think if he is healthy it is reasonable to expect a 4.30 or so ERA, which is just fine.
by mikeA on Jul 27, 2007 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right.
Explain his 5.11 ERA in September then.
And since Loaiza has only finished 3 of his 12 MLB seasons with an ERA under 4.30, I'm not so sure it's reasonable to expect a 4.30 ERA.
by lenscrafters on Jul 27, 2007 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he beat cleveland and white sox when it mattered
and blew 2 games that were meaningless at the end.
take out the blowout in tampa, and it was a great month, those victories over two very tough teams sealed the deal, and he did it without a ton of run support.
by notah8er on Jul 27, 2007 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude
If you wanna nitpick games and throw out stats to prove your point, then I guess I'll throw out his two shutouts in August.
by lenscrafters on Jul 27, 2007 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's not nitpicking
pitchers are a game-by-game unfair. so santana lost to the nationals at home this year. look at the season as a whole, and it's apparent that it means nothing. a good pitcher can still have a bad game every 3 or 4. or look at halladay this year - he's still a winner even with an era drifting towards and over 5 - that makes him a better pitcher than someone like blanton, regardless of era, and his record shows it.
loaiza helped the drive to the playoffs - there's no reason to pull a stalin and airbrush him out of the picture.
by notah8er on Jul 27, 2007 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you serious?
Are you seriously comparing Loaiza to Johan and Halladay?
Dude if you wanna look at the "season as a whole" fine.
Loaiza 2006:
4.89 ERA 1.42 WHIP
I'm done here.
by lenscrafters on Jul 27, 2007 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
loaiza, last year was a winner
he matched up badly against detroit (as did everyone, until they matched up against their own brains in the cold of st louis), but otherwise, he won the big games.
there are two kinds of pitchers:
- winners
- losers
ERA means nothing, WHIP means nothing - IP means something because it shows toughness - but otherwise, that's it.
esteban was a winner all the way from interleague to the alcs. only danny, and maybe swish, can say that he's a real winner this year. it must be tough, having all of that talent, but being surrounded by born losers.
by notah8er on Jul 27, 2007 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yikes!
calling the rest of the team 'born losers' sounds a lot like hating to me. also, IMO it's not that hard to see a correlation between large numbers of walks+hits every inning and a strong chance of losing...
by wonderbat on Jul 27, 2007 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're right
buck and cust can still show that they have the big W inside - it's too soon to write off everyone...
all of the elements are there for a great 2008 for the a's. they just need a big trade with the nats to make it happen. lew needs to find a way to get belliard, young and zimmerman.
by notah8er on Jul 27, 2007 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Go on, tell Chavez or Crosby that
by PaulThomas on Jul 27, 2007 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I could take Chavez ...
I'd duck "low and away," he'd swing and miss of course, then I'd get him while he gives that "aw shucks, got me again even when I knew it was coming," look of his.
by Vacafan on Jul 27, 2007 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He added the cut fastball
(which he had never thrown before) as his primary pitch in 2003. Since then he's had two good years, one bad year, and one good-when-healthy year (last year).
by mikeA on Jul 27, 2007 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that supports the fact
that he is inconsistent and not worthy of a multi year contract.
And don't buy too much into his good year in Washington. He was good at home (RFK is a pitcher's park) and stunk on the road.
And lastly, he wasn't good when healthy. I think inconsistent is a better word.
by lenscrafters on Jul 27, 2007 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was excellent in '05
At home his peripherals were great (95 K vs. 23 walks, 9 HRs, in 110 IP).
On the road, his peripherals were not quite as great, but still very good (78 K, 32 BB, 9 HR in 107 IP), and he was let down by awful defense (.355 batting average on balls in play).
by andeux on Jul 27, 2007 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
babip
What was his home babip? Was it significantly lower?
So ... that year, his team played great D for him at home, but lousy on the road?
I think that discrepancy (c.p.) would argue more for the validity of babip as an indicator of pitching efficacy than not.
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
.282 at home,
which is a bit on the low side, but far less anomalous than his road numbers.
The issue of how much control a pitcher has over batting average on balls in play is the main issue of the "DIPS" discussion, and has been analyzed to death. The consensus is basically: a little bit, but in most cases not very much.
Now that I look at Loaiza's career numbers in more detail, I do see that his BABIP has generally been on the high side (around .310). My point that, on the whole, he pitched very well in 2005 remains.
by andeux on Jul 27, 2007 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is interesting though
that the road BABIP is 70 points higher. I admittedly don't spend any time on the stats boards, so are there any theories as to why it was so much higher on the road?
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I know
... I mean, I am aware of the general DIPS consensus.
I just though that "let down by awful defense" on the road statement was a little on the weird side.
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is the CW on
luck/random variation vs. defense share of BABIP? Can that even be measured well? It seems to me that luck would play a substantial role.
by mikeA on Jul 27, 2007 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a professor of mine once said:
"It is known ... but not by me ... right now."
I think the basic idea is that a team's BABIP (or equivalently DER) for all pitchers gives a sense of the quality of the defense, and deviations from that for an individual pitcher are mostly luck.
In the case of Loaiza, I had some vague recollection that Washington's defense had been very bad on the whole that year, but I may have remembered wrong: their pitchers as a group had a .283 BABIP at home, and .307 on the road.
by andeux on Jul 27, 2007 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see your point.
I guess Loaiza was a little better in 05 than I thought.
But still looking over his entire career, you cannot deny that Loaiza has been remarkably inconsistent (or more often than not, consistently bad). Is this pitcher worth a 3 year 21 million dollar commitment? I don't think so.
by lenscrafters on Jul 27, 2007 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just fine?
I don't think so. It's average, at best, and more indicative of a 4 or 5 starter. $7 mil per year for a 4 or 5 is gross overpayment. And, with the A's offense, a 4.3 ERA virtually guarantees a loss in 90% of his starts.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You think wrongly
A 4.30 ERA would be a #2 or #3 starter on most AL teams. And your last sentence is just dumb.
by andeux on Jul 27, 2007 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First, we're not talking about
most teams. We're talking about the A's, and on this team he's, at best, the third starter, and more likely the 4th or 5th. If the goal is the playoffs, then you cannot pay $7 million for a 4.30 ERA. If your goal is to just like most of the other teams then more power to you.
As for my last sentence, the A's average just a shade over 4 runs a game. If you have a pitcher that gives up 4.3 runs per game your in trouble. If my sentence is really "dumb" how do you propose to win games when you give up more runs than you score?
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, to be fair,
And, with the A's offense, a 4.3 ERA virtually guarantees a loss in 90% of his starts.
that's not a very enlightened way of looking at things.
The A's score 4.25 runs/game, but a 4.30 ERA does not guarantee any kind of win/loss record like you suggest. You're missing a lot of variance and using irrelevant numbers.
Otherwise, Joe Blanton couldn't possibly have had 16 wins in 2006 with an ERA of 4.82 while the team scored 4.76 runs/game.
by rebus on Jul 27, 2007 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I realize
that there are variances. However, runs scored in each game are not irrelevant. In fact, there is no more relevant stat in baseball - they determine the outcome of the game.
My main point remains - the A's are overpaying for a 4.30 ERA. They don't need it, and to pay that much for that ERA isn't "just fine" in my opinion when they have glaring needs on offense. Yes, I exaggerated when I said they would lost that many games. However, the point remains that Loaiza isn't worth $7 mil a year.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If my analysis is flawed,
it would be because he won't put up a 4.30 ERA. If he does, it is well worth the money.
by mikeA on Jul 27, 2007 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is where I disagree
why pay your #4 or 5 that much when you need more help on offense? Seven million per year is a lot of money to pay a guy to be a .500 pitcher.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
here's what i think the A's thought process was
in signing Loaiza:
The guy became a new pitcher in 2003, but his reputation was tarnished by a horrible stint with the Yankees. His track record since then has been good. Most teams are scared of giving him a big contract because of motivation issues and fears that his success in Washington was due to the home field advantage, but we're convinced he's durable and better than Zito for less money. Why?
FIP by year
2003– 3.22
2004– 5.41 (meltdown in pinstripes, K/BB ratio took a nosedive too, but rebounded next season)
2005– 3.51
Over those 3 seasons, he averaged just a tick over 208 IP. Now, knowing the money Zito was going to get, this seems like a good solution, no?
If you think otherwise, here are Zito's numbers over the same stretch.
2003– 4.22
2004– 4.65
2005– 4.52
and his average IP was about 224.
Now, I know Zito's succeeded, peripherals be damned, before, but that's a considerable difference. Between the most readily available options of Zito, Loaiza, and Morris going forward (I don't remember the other options at the time) I would pick Loaiza every time. This might be a deal we could have lived without, but the payoff was enormous and the risk seemed fair, especially given our 2006 rotation. And there's no way to get the payoff without some risk... this just didn't pan out as well as we would have hoped. But there's still time to reap value from the deal.
by rebus on Jul 27, 2007 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cupcakes won those games because he's a Winner
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and regarding Loaiza,
the sad part of the deal (and a recurring theme for the A's) has not been his performance, but his durability. We expected Loaiza to give us a decent filler for Zito– lots of innings with a middling ERA. And that's not an absurd expectation given his career, as most projected Loaiza to give us between 185 and 200 IP per season.
by rebus on Jul 27, 2007 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's average
(this year) almost exactly 4.3 runs per game. Last year's team, still not exactly an offensive juggernaut, averaged 4.8 runs per game.
Even if the offense somehow got worse and they did fall to 4.0 runs per game, with a 4.3 ERA, they'd still manage to win about 47% of the time, which is a far cry from "virtually guaranteed a loss in 90% of his starts."
by andeux on Jul 27, 2007 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So paying
$7 mil a year for a .500 pitcher is just fine with you? And it just backs up my point that he's a 4 or 5 starter. If your #2 or 3 starter is a .500 pitcher you're in trouble.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
pitchers' wins are irrelevant
by rebus on Jul 27, 2007 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
only a Loser would believe that
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's are in trouble
because the offense stinks. There are right now 24 pitchers in the AL with an ERA better than 4.3. That's less than 2 per team, though the A's happen to have 3 of them. For a team in contention, it is well worth it to pay that much for another one, rather than give 35 starts a year to someone like Shane Komine.
by andeux on Jul 27, 2007 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with the Komine
point. But, of the pitchers with a 4.3 or worse, how many make as much, or more than, Loaiza? When you're a small market team I think salary has to play a role in the evaluation. I wouldn't really care that his ERA was 4.3 if he wasn't the highest paid pitcher on the staff.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
off the top of my head,
Barry Zito, Bronson Arroyo, and Livan Hernandez.
by rebus on Jul 27, 2007 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
Bronson Arroyo is being paid an average of $12.5 mil. I stand corrected. Based on that Loaiza is a deal.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Byrd,
Batista, Glavine, almost Moyer (5.25/yr), almost Woody Williams (6.25), Suppan, Burnett, Wolf, Schmidt, Lieber, Mussina, Dontrelle (6.45), the Gambler, Millwood, Padilla, O. Perez, Weaver, F. Garcia, Contreras, Colon, Jaret Wright.
by mikeA on Jul 27, 2007 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
halladay was over 4.4 before his last start
and makes almost 13 mil. but he just pitched a complete shutout, so that dropped his ERA a bunch (and serves as a nice illustration of why Ws mean more than ERA with a starter)
by notah8er on Jul 27, 2007 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
did you go to Joe Morgan University?
look, ERA isn't that great, but it's easily better than wins.
by rebus on Jul 27, 2007 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BS
If anything that's proof that ERA means more than wins (even though they're both not without major flaws). Not letting a run score is what WON the game. Are you telling us that if he gave up 10 runs and but still won that would mean he's a better pitcher than if he gave 0 runs and lost?
by DMOAS on Jul 27, 2007 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
pitchers don't give up 0 runs and lose
pitchers lose when they leave while behind after starting even or ahead, and this lead (or lack thereof) continues until the end of the game.
by notah8er on Jul 27, 2007 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Point taken
but Moyer isn't "almost" - he's "almost" making $2 million less than Loaiza. And I'd quibble a bit with Dontrelle and the Gambler being just this year, but in the end you've still made a good point.
It still bothers me that Loaiza makes that much, but obviously the pitching market is a lot higher than I realized.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's disgusting but at the same time cheap.
by DMOAS on Jul 27, 2007 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those are fair quibbles
also, Rogers hasn't thrown that many innings, so I probably shouldn't have included him.
I think probably the lesson is that it's tough/inadvisable to get FA pitching. I like Loaiza more than most, but he's done very little for the A's and many of those guys have been even worse.
by mikeA on Jul 27, 2007 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
I think you can spend on FA pitching, you just have to be very selective about it. By that I mean, you invest big in a premier guy and I don't mean the best guy in that years FA crop. I mean you wait to see if Santana hits the markey in 2009 and if he does, you go all in.
Otherwise stay out of the FA pitching market unless you stumble across a deal too good to pass up.
by grover on Jul 27, 2007 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I partially agree with that,
but I agree with it wholeheartedly as a strategy for FA hitters. An elite hitter at 15-20/yr is probably going to be a better bet than a 8-10/yr hope-based project. You made excellent points in your Vernon Wells diary (not sure if I thought so at the time), although Wells would not have been my target for that strategy (and of course it's now moot.)
On pitchers though, my sense (which could be mistaken) is that the risk and probability of decline is much greater, and that proven hitters in their early 30s fare better than proven pitchers in their early 30s.
by mikeA on Jul 27, 2007 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
V. Wells
In that one, I was going for who I thought was the best CF in the upcoming FA class. If we're strictly talking best hitter, the line starts at A-Rod.
Would I champion A-Rod at $30 million a year? If the payroll was set at $100 million I might.
by grover on Jul 28, 2007 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only flaw I can find in your thinking
is that you assume you're paying that much for a fourth or fifth starter. Since when does the entire rotation ever stay healthy throughout a season? Often times your fourth starter quickly becomes your second starter for an extended portion of the season. Does that change his value? Bottom line is 7M a season for a guy who you presume can eat 180 plus innings in a respectable fashion is not a bad deal. Especially with what pitchers are commanding these days.
by alox on Jul 27, 2007 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
especially with a team hoping for a Rich Harden sighting again next year. And while Haren and Blanton have been very healthy so far, it's not a given that health will continue (though I'm knocking on wood right now).
And when the list of guys making more than Loaiza was pointed out by mikeA, it sure made Esteban's salary much more palatable.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i was down on loaiza early last season, too
but as dissapointed as we are, let's not revise history, he was a real part of the a's drive to the alcs last summer.
by notah8er on Jul 27, 2007 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just look at the splits.
Loaiza 2006 (monthly) after DL stint:
June 4.91 ERA
July 7.26 ERA
August 1.48 ERA
September 5.11 ERA
I've already admitted that he put up a great August but that does not change the fact that he hurt the team pretty badly in all the other months he pitched.
And I'm not so sure what you mean by "putting it together" after the SF game considering he went to put up a 7.26 ERA in June.
by lenscrafters on Jul 27, 2007 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
take detroit out of july
and he steadily improved, with a winning record from sfo on.
who else in the al could beat detroit before august?
by notah8er on Jul 27, 2007 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why stop there?
Let's take out all his crappy games in April and July and just hand him the Cy Young already.
by lenscrafters on Jul 27, 2007 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this year, that would be a good idea with zambro
Z after barret left IS the rightful CY guy, and deserves it IMO. will people see that? who knows.
by notah8er on Jul 27, 2007 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't get a pass for poor
outings. Why should we only consider the good outings, when the poor outings count just as much in the standings?
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm just saying that pitchers deserve mulligans
throw out every 4th start or so for a better picture.
by notah8er on Jul 27, 2007 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why???
That is so absurd. Why do they deserve mulligans when the games count in the standings? If you only look at the shutouts a pitcher would have a zero ERA. The Cy Young goes to the supposedly best pitcher for the WHOLE season, not just his best two or three months.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
because they are humans
that's why baseball is fun. pitchers are humans, and have bad days. they're not modified ball shooters.
of course, they can't all have the heart of a lion like CHAD CORDERO.
by notah8er on Jul 27, 2007 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The last time
I checked the hitters were human to. So I guess we should only count the games they go 4-4 in. This is perhaps the most absurd thing I have ever heard or read on a baseball site.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually, you should take those out
EG: koyie hill is not going to be a-rod
by notah8er on Jul 27, 2007 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not quite the most
When it's combined with the same poster's statement above that there are only "winners" and "losers" and all peripheral stats are meaningless, though, it probably ascends to that superlative.
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If a pitcher requires a mulligan
every 4th or 5th start... he's inconsistent. It's that simple. What makes Haren look great this year, is despite a couple of poor outings, he's still got a 2 something ERA in the AL. That's fantastic AND consistently good. A high 4 ERA or low 5 ERA, doesn't matter how good the "majority" of the season is, you're not having a good season. Even a good pitcher can shake off 3 or 4 bad outings a year and have respectable numbers. An inconsistent or poor pitcher can't (see Kennedy, Joe).
by DMOAS on Jul 27, 2007 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Error Spotted
eane claimed Jay Marshall in the Rule 5 draft from Tampa Bay; Marshall provided some effective innings early, but his Rule Fiveyness has been exposed of late and he's pretty much dropped to the bottom of the bullpen rotation.
Jay Marshall was plucked out of the Chicago WhiteSox's Single A Team, not Tampa Bay.
Tampa Bay had the first overall pick in the Rule 5 Draft, and the A's bought the pick from the Devil Rays to pick, of all people, Ryan Goleski, who was returned to the Indians.
At the time, the A's should have gone after the obvious choice, Joakim Soria.
by Zonis on Jul 27, 2007 12:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
With the perceived strength of the BP, entering
ST, they weren't going to pay for a bullpen arm, who without the injuries wouldn't have been in line to make the team. We had less depth at OF, but the injury bug hit, and Jay Marshall had a spot when Gaudin moved into the rotation.
by theblackpearl on Jul 27, 2007 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But they did pay for a BP
arm. Marshall was drafted in the same Rule 5 draft Goleski was taken in. Gaudin didn't move into the rotation in between rounds.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Gaudin didn't have to go into the rotation,
Marshall wouldn't have made the team.
by theblackpearl on Jul 27, 2007 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In that case
they would had paid $25k just to have him pitch in Spring Training. Usually teams won't draft a guy in the Rule 5 unless they plan on him making the team.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 27, 2007 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks, Zonis!
Fixed, with strike through left in to preserve my shoddy original research.
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Embree
Embree's xFIP by season:
2004 4.28
2005 (BOS) 3.96
2005 (NYA) 4.98
2006 3.60
2007 4.39
Looking at that list, it looks to me like his 2005 innings with the Yankees are an aberration, but otherwise he's been consistently around 4.00 with his xFIP.
Relievers are subject to a wide fluctuation in traditional stats like ERA, but the underlying performance has been pretty consistently slightly better than average.
by MrIncognito on Jul 27, 2007 1:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
not being intimately familiar w/xFIP ...
... I'd ask 2 (related) questions of that data set:
- What's the SD on other relievers y-y?
- "Around 4," and labeling '05 as the outlier, seem potentially generous assessments, do they not?
I'm certainly, though, not disputing your fundamental point -- that Embree has been more consistent y-y than his ERA would indicate (and your implied point, that Beane likely knew that).
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
xFIP
xFIP is Fielding Independent Pitching. It's calculated using walks, Ks, GB%... things the pitcher can control, then translated into a number that looks like ERA. An xFIP of 4.00 is in the good, but not great range.
The 2005 blip was 1/4 of Embree's season. He pitched 37.7 innings for the BoSox. His ERA was 7.65, but his peripherals suggested he was actually pitching decently. The only time his performance was really bad was the 14 innings he threw for the Yankees later that season. It might be generous to dismiss that as a blip, but even if you factor that into the grade sceme of things it was such a small number of innings it didn't really make a big impact on the overall picture.
If you want to check out more players, www.hardballtimes.com has all the stats. For a quicky here's Huston Street:
Year ERA xFIP
2005 1.72 3.69
2006 3.31 3.74
2007 2.70 3.58
by MrIncognito on Jul 27, 2007 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Free Agent Signings ... Bradley DFA
Kind of so-so year for Billy. Injury-plagued Piazza indeed got injured and by the time he returned the season was effectively over. So the critics were right about that one, and losing Thomas and Payton hurt the offense every bit as much as people thought it might. Having said that, Stewart and especially Embree were fabulous signings, and great bargains. On balance, Billy continues to be terrific with nickels and dimes. Cust a terrific pickup, too.
Sorry to mention this for the 800th time, but the DFA of Bradley was a complete disaster, coming as it did just as the A's headed into a brutal road trip. The premise that the A's couldn't find a place to play their best player, that they can't keep Bradley because Kotsay has to play, essentially is of course ridiculous. The A's barely there offense completely collapsed the day of the DFA and I guess the AN Billy kool aid drinkers are forced to conclude it's all just a big coincidence. And Bradley's production with the Padres ... well, it's a crying shame not to have that bat in this anemic lineup.
The high quality of A's play during this current trip is really encouraging but also reminds AN that, had the A's caught a break and won that third game against the Angels, they would now be 8 out. And had they not completely collapsed on that disastrous road trip, they would be right in the thick of things. In short, we can easily invision this club 6 out and, therefore, right in the thick of things with, by the way, Milton Bradley batting third.
I love Billy but he totally blew the Bradley thing and it was a season killer. It was a "besides that how to you enjoy the show, Mrs. Lincoln?" moment, and it makes no sense to avoid it.
by solotar on Jul 27, 2007 2:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It wasn't that there wasn't room
He was injured ALL THE TIME! He'll continue to do well for the Padres and they will sign him for next year, and then he will be injured again ALOT. I agree with Billy's frustrations. We weren't going to do any better with MB getting hurt er "playing" for the A's.
by A'sfansince1970 on Jul 27, 2007 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can understand that, but...
...if being out with injuries all the time is a ticket out of Oakland, I believe Rich Harden and Bobby Crosby would already be gone.
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Jul 27, 2007 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and Chavez, and Kotsay, and Loaiza ...
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
who said I was avoiding it?
I'm not as adamant about the Bradley DFA as you are, but I still don't understand it. Anyway, that's pencilled in for the "addition-by-subtraction" section.
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
who said you were avoiding it?
solotar.
by mikeA on Jul 27, 2007 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
crap
I forgot to put the closing tag on < non-rhetorical question >.
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not You, Actually
MikeA,
No disrespect intended. I never imagined you as one of the many who insists on burying the head in the sand on the MB fiasco.
Indeed ... to read the comments below is to see the criticism verified. Imagine actually believing that Andrew Brown's contribution the rest of the season will have any significance whatsover. The season is now effectively over - who cares what Andrew Brown does? (As if it would be a plus...) And, by the way, what kind of insanity is it such that someone actually believes that Brown will prove more valuable than MB post-trade? I think MB could miss the rest of the season and invalidate that argument. What has he done to that SD lineup the past few weeks? It's a different club entirely!
I personally agree that MB is borderline mentally unstable. But I also believe that the A's fought like hell just to stay in the race until he got back. Then he got back and they DFA'd him. Billy said it was because there was no room at the inn. My assumption is that the explanation is politics - there had to be another reason. But if the reason is that the A's really wanted Andrew Brown, then that idiocy speaks for itself.
I love Billy. I think he's fabulous. But he's human. On balance his moves have really helped this club a lot over the years. Too obvious to mention. But there have been some real disaster moves in the past couple of years, just as there have been some awesome moves (for example, Haren and Calero and Barton ... for Mulder!!!???). But let's face it. It would be nice to have Bonderman and Lilly and Tejada in A's uniforms, just as it would have been nice not to have had to endure Kielty and Pena and Chavvy the past couple of years. It would have been nice to have traded for someone other than the worst hitter in all of baseball the past 3 years - a guy who happened to be expensive even with someone else picking up part of the tab. Yeah, he called a great game, but so did Damien Miller. You win some, you lose some, and, as in the standings themselves, if you win 60% of the time, you're among the best.
Why can't AN contributors face the fact that the season ended with the Bradley DFA? I don't think I was just "lucky" to have written that exact thing the day it happened - it was obvious that the club wouldn't score runs.
by solotar on Jul 27, 2007 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the season "ended" long before that
I think we need to recognize that the team was playing above its head in May, and 83-85 wins was the most realistic high-end projection at the beginning of the season -- Bradley or no Bradley.
by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2007 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure if you intended this for me....
I was very angry at the Bradley DFA. Very angry. At this point it seems to me that it was brought on by a nasty playing time argument between Beane/Geren and Bradley. If that is true, Beane deserves all the blame for fucking with a known volatile player. The morons (yes, morons) who claim that the DFA was justified because of injuries are just that: morons. If he is healthy, put him in the lineup. If not, put him on the DL. The injury-prone excuse is just the most rank Beane-apologism (and I am a Beane apologist). So, basically, I agree with you 100% about Bradley, and the "he would have been injured in Oakland" folks are my bitter enemies.
That said, my anger is tempered by the fact that I don't think it really hurt the team. Ideally, MB would have played CF instead of Kotsay, and played similarish defense while outhitting him. If he had actually stayed on the team, though, he would have replaced Stewart, who was the only A hitting as the A's slipped out of contention. The addition of MB where we already had some production just would not have done the trick.
by mikeA on Jul 27, 2007 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guess I'll risk being called a moron
If the only reason Beane DFA'd Bradley was because of the injuries than I'd accept that because I was tired of Bradley's constant trips to the DL. If you can't get on the field I don't want you on my team. Don't forget, the A's were caught in a roster crunch because Chavez had tweaked something and they needed to call up another infielder. (Now, if you want to blast some real stupidity, WTF does it take to put Chavez on the DL?! If Oakland had done that than they could have recalled one of the infielders they had just sent down. Instead they needed to add someone else to the 40 man so they could call him up.) That call-up forced the issue: someone had to go.
Lucky for me there were two stated reasons why Bradley got DFA'd. One was the injury issue and the other was that a healthy Bradley was not willing to sit on the bench so Geren could rotate other people into the line-up. I said this then: Bradley wants to play, Bradley expects to play and if Bradley wasn't going to get to play he'd be a problem. Moving him takes care of the problem.
by grover on Jul 28, 2007 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But playing him also takes care of that problem.
by mikeA on Jul 28, 2007 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At the time of the DFA
Buck, Swisher and I think Stewart were all out-hitting Bradley. So that leaves CF, where Kots had just come off the 60 day DL. I could see an arguement for Bradley over Kotsay if Mark was also going to be a FA after the season but he's not. Realpolitik says Kotsay is going to be on the roster next year so do you want to piss off the guy (Bradley) who'll be gone in 3 months (or as it turned out, much less) or the guy you're stuck with until 2009?
And if you have any hope/desire of getting out from under Kotsay's contract you have to play him to prove to another team that he has something to offer.
by grover on Jul 28, 2007 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stewart
was OPSing about .710 at that point and had recently been out with the foot injury that shelved him the last two years. Bradley could have replaced either Kotsay or DJ. There are reasonable arguments for giving Kotsay/DJ the playing time, but at that point the team was in contention and putting the best team on the field should have been the priority over not pissing off Kotsay.
by mikeA on Jul 28, 2007 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stewart hasn't exactly been slumping since then
so he wasn't the problem.
Let's call it a coin flip as to which guy (Bradley or Kotsay) is the better defensive CFer. I agree Bradley has the better bat.
But Kotsay has a long(er) term future in Oakland than Bradley. Was it really going to help Kots get his skills sharp to sit on the bench on not play? And I'm not just talking about this year, we've go to include next year as well. Kots needed to play, at the very least in a CF platoon. But there's the problem. Even if Kots was willing to part time it in CF, when Mark was in the line-up Bradley would have had to bump over. Because you can't talk about putting the best team on the field and place Kotsay in any other position than CF, his bat won't support the move.
And what had Bradley done to deserve benching Buck or Swisher jusy so he could play every day? Here is where some things could have happened if Bradley had been willing to play a reduced role, if he had been willing to sit out a game or two a week. But he wasn't willing to do that, he wanted in the line-up every day. Why should Buck or Swisher (or even DJ, who had matching numbers to Bradley) have had to sit just to make Bradley happy? Both were putting up good numbers and I'd argue that benching either guy just to play Bradley would have done exactly what you're arguing against: putting a player over the interest of fielding the best team.
by grover on Jul 28, 2007 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah, but ...
... if Kotsay basically has zero value (even with him playing every damn day, no one's after him), then why not stare his sunk cost in the face and DFA Kotsay?
by monkeyball on Jul 28, 2007 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also think you're engaging in conjecture ...
... if not perhaps even contradicting what Beane's said/implied, when you say that the plan was to have Bradley "sit out a game or two a week."
The distinct impression I had gotten from Beane's elliptical comments was more along the lines that they wanted Bradley to play at 50%-65% time, and what's more, they directly communicated to him that that's all they thought he could handle and all they thought playing him was worth.
Which may or may not have been accurate on their part (I just don't know), but seems to have been communicated either with the intent of provoking Bradley, or without any awareness that stating that to him would provoke him.
by monkeyball on Jul 28, 2007 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To summarize: The MB fiasco
was a fiasco, and those who defend it lose my respect to some degree.
by mikeA on Jul 27, 2007 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Think what you want, I guess
I concluded that Bradley was jaking it when the Leo Nunez trade was called off. He was uninterested in playing for Oakland this season. Andrew Brown will have done twice as much as Bradley for Oakland by the end of the season.
by PaulThomas on Jul 27, 2007 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which isn't much?
by DMOAS on Jul 27, 2007 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley
is mentally unstable and uses injuries as a means to avoid the reality of playing every day. He is motivated now to play well for the Pads because of the DFA - impossible to conclude he would have done the same for the A's. He was motivated last year by the Tired Act article by Urban. Without it, the 2nd half would have included multiple imaginary injuries and fans would have been guessing which would have been the next thing to put him on the 15 day (ab, right calf, left calf, left knee, right knee etc).
by Sashulia on Jul 27, 2007 8:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What a bunch of crap
when Bradley's healthy, he plays his ass off, and it doesn't matter which team he plays for.
It's a shame he couldn't stay healthy here -- if we had more guys who want to win as badly as Bradley, we'd be going somewhere.
You guys who pull the "mentally unstable" card are laughable ... heaven forbid the A's have anyone who shows a shred of emotion or acts like he cares ...
But, you know what, those lovable A's we have now are sooooo special -- make 10 mill a year, hit a buck-forty ... but they sure are nice guys.
Get frustrated with the injuries all you want -- I was frustrated too, but don't even hint that the A's are somehow better without him ... hell, Bradley could play once a week and still have more HR's and RBI than Chavez and Crosby combined playing every day. (But they sure are nice guys.)
by Vacafan on Jul 27, 2007 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Goes to show
some people have the balls to think they are smarter than Billy Beane. Billy is a model of tolerance and was quite willing to work through Milton's instability issues because it made him affordable - With his 5 tools, the A's organization could not have gotten close to him otherwise. Do you really think Billy got rid of Bradley because he is mean or shows emotion and cares? If yes to either, you don't know shit about the A's. Billy was Milton's biggest fan, warts and all. Give Billy some credit - it's going to take a much more serious infraction than not being nice or caring too much to get booted mid-season(ie. pussing out on the rest of your team with a series of marginal to imagined injuries would qualify as something more serious). I bet Milton miraculously stays healthy for the rest of this year - and he even plays with passion! And in 2008, he doesn't make it to May without a DL stint. It happens everywhere he goes.
by Sashulia on Jul 28, 2007 1:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
It's a shame he couldn't stay healthy here -- if we had more guys who want to win as badly as Bradley, we'd be going somewhere.
Time out. I don't care how much or how little you think the players on this team want to win. This team simply did not have the talent to go anywhere with all the injuries they've had.
And even if everyone had stayed healthy there's a very real question as to how good some of the players are.
As of now, I'd rank "desire to win" as the 3rd most pressing issue on the ballclub, slightly ahead of Stomper needing a retrofit.
by grover on Jul 28, 2007 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right grov ...
that was my "overly dramatic" rant at those of us who, for some reason, find it necessary to bring up Bradley's "temper" as a reason it's better that he's not on the squad.
If you think he's not here because he was hurt too often -- fine. If you think he's not here because we had too many outfielders -- fine. But to claim he's not here because of his "attitude" or "troublemaking" is absurd.
And Sashulia, you misunderstood me -- my point all along has been that Beane is far too smart and competitive to cut a guy because of his passion. To repeat, I was as frustrated as anyone with his injuries, but to get on the guy because of his "attitude" is ridiculous. We need more guys with that kind of spirit, not less!!!!!!
by Vacafan on Jul 28, 2007 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My only problem with Bradley's attitude
Was his desire to play every day. Which isn't really a bad thing most of the time. I do believe that asking him to take a part time role would have led to problems, not because he's mental or unstable but because he has never shown the willingness to take such a role.
It's like when Jay Payton was in Boston. He never wanted to be in Boston, he signed with another club and they traded him to Boston. He knew he wasn't going to play ahead of Manny or Damon, and he wanted to play.
by grover on Jul 28, 2007 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
closing thought
just to be absolutely clear about my view on Milton (w/o my typical sarcasm).
In an earlier string, I hypothseized (w/some extraploation), that Milton's injuries, for the 2nd year in a row, were somwhere between marginal and totally faked and that he has been milking the DL in both 2006 and 2007.
I further believe THIS was the main reason Billy cut him midseason, primarily because Billy in isolation, would NOT have cut him for reasons of: temper, passion, attitude, injury susceptibility (see Harden/Crosby), or even playing time concerns. To be PC, Billy indeed told the press that concerns about PT play was the main reason for the DFA. Really? If Milton hit .300, was Billy really going to insist that Dan Johnson play 1st base full-time, that Kotsay play every night in CF, that Shannon/Travis couldn't get a couple nights of a week. No chance!
As back-up support, I cited multiple things: a high school coach going to press with comments about him faking injuries in HS; a KICU clip last year with Milton favoring the BAD knee shortly after hurting it (which was noted by Fosse); a hamstring injury that seamlessley turned into an abdominal injury in 2006 after the 15 day knee injury time was up; the repeated pattern of DL trips through many different organizations; and lastly, the miraculous appearance of an abdominal injury used to kill the Royals deal minutes after the DFA. It's all there.
by Sashulia on Jul 28, 2007 4:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- D12: Revisiting the Twins decision of Mauer over Prior (again)
- After locking up of AL MVP, it's time for Twins to lock up Mauer
- November means R&R for Raiders fan CC Sabathia and others
- D12: Honeymoon over for big Bobby Jenks and Ozzie Guillen?
- Timmy is so wicked: Lincecum's hair grows with his legend
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.
