Why this is a good season
by RLangford on Jul 3, 2007 2:48 PM PDT
Email
PrintI'm not writing with blinders or rose-colored glasses on when I say this: The season has been a big success so far. And here's why:
If I had told you the Angels were going to have the pitching staff they do and 5-6 guys hitting over .300, I don't expect you would think that we would contend with them. And, of course, how they perform is out of Beane's and the A's control, right?
Now let's look at us. Could you possibly argue that the A's were really going to win 90-95 games this year? They lost Zito and Thomas, and then had to depend on healthy years from typically unhealthy players (Bradley, Harden) plus hope for improvement and health from just about everyone else (Chavez, Crosby, Johnson, Swisher, Kendall, Ellis, and the pitchers.) That wasn't a realistic expectation. And, obviously, it hasn't happened. And we shouldn't go into a season thinking it will happen. Crosby is who he is, not who people thought he would be. Chavy will never be a big star. Swisher is great, but not MVP caliber yet. It would be easy to go on.
So why, then, is this a good season so far?
Well, my hopes for this year were that the A's would be competitive—they have been—and, more importantly, that they'd see reason to have hope for the years that follow. And that's exactly what's happened. Look at the positives from this year (the ones that we can carry into next season):
- Dan Haren as a #1 starter. Even if Haren regresses a bit, could anyone have expected this performance? (Actually, I think Nico was touting Haren as progressing to be a clear and dominant #1 last year.)
- Joe Blanton as a frontline starter. Blanton has been the biggest pitching surprise of the season to me. For those of us who have watched his games, we know that he has pitched better than his very fine ERA. The improvement in Blanton's key peripherals has been huge. None of us who were hoping for the trade to the Mets are any longer wanting that deal.
- Chad Gaudin's emergence as a starter. We might have hoped for this. Some of us may have been promoting it. But we didn't have any reason to expect it. Injuries led to it, and the result has been a pitcher who solidifies our rotation for the future.
- Travis Buck. The injuries worry me a little; after all, I'm an A's fan. But Buck's performance this year projects to a very bright future and a second young outfielder to go with Swisher. That's very good news. Did we really expect a viable rookie of the year candidate this year?
- Jack Cust. This is beyond good. If Cust is the next Matt Stairs or better, that is an incredibly fortunate development for the A's. A cost-controlled slugging DH means the A's can shift resources once dedicated to the next Thomas or Piazza to a different area of need. Over and above all that, Cust is just incredibly fun to watch hit—and, because of his career path, to root for.
- Casilla, Suzuki, and Barton. Three players we feel better about now than before the season. I'm aware of small sample size. But I'd rather that Casilla pitch like he has and Suzuki hit like he has than the opposite. Both have done very well so far, and obviously Casilla's been invaluable since he's been up. As for Barton, his June put to rest some burgeoning fears on this site, it seems.
In sum, then, because of the above I feel much better about the future than I felt before this season. So regardless of how this season ends, if it simply continues as it has so far, for me it will have been a good year.
48 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
thx for the optimism
And your 100% right but as a fan I want them to win now and its slowly sinking in that it will not happen this season.
Nothing we can realisticly do. Just watch the youngsters and hope next years a little brighter
Right, watch the youngsters...
That is what is so great even in a season when the team has to rebuilt. And the draft provided a lot of new youngsters who are revitalizing the minor league teams of the A's as well.
by Charlie Brown on Jul 5, 2007 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions
RLangford
writing an upbeat diary???? Rarer than Kendall's homeruns. This must be another sign...of what I am not sure ...yet.
Not true
I'm very upbeat about the A's—unless we're in the middle of a game or a losing streak. Then the desperate fan in me just takes over. Really, I have no problem with a season that doesn't lead to the playoffs. I'm just grateful that year after the year the A's have a plan (a good plan) and that they continue to move in the right direction.
(You're still holding against me one diary I wrote--and quickly pulled--in frustration last year about not particularly liking that group of players.)
I do remember that diary
but I was the one that said get rid of the evidence lol. I don't hold that against you. I do notice that you get frustrated easily in the game threads and lack patience. That's why I think of you as a negative poster. Just my impression.
At this point, 83-79 looks like
a plausible finish for this season for the Athletics.
I doubt that the A's are going to beat up much on the Mariners and Angels, and they have many games left with them. I don't think the A's can outhit those clubs, and without good "back end" pitching, we'll see a lot more of "3-7" for ten game stretches, from here on out, where, it could have been 5-5 or 6-4 with simply a couple of feet difference here and there. So it will go. The pitching depth, which was going to be the Athletics' strength, has disappeared into the "Land of Injury".
by One won lost won on Jul 3, 2007 4:08 PM PDT reply actions
This is great stuff
With Zuke catching, the emergence of Buck, Barton, Recker, Putnam, et al, and another winning season we should be fairly content.
i'm with you - and i'm
not a lavigne - 5 or so out of wild card without reliable set upper and closer, starters number 2 and 3 - that's minus 4 of a low budget team's front seven hurlers - and we haven't been relegated to second division yet.
cust replicates what piazza would have done. kendall, we thought, coulda picked it up a tad to revert to his career norm. everyone else is who they are.
Excellent diary
I have been having similar thoughts about Buck/Barton/Suzuki(or other good catchers). But I think your best point, (which I already forget quite often), is that
- Haren seems to be a legitimate ace, which I thought unlikely before the season (and I approved the decision to make him the #4 starter in the ALCS, though I would have made him #3 ahead of Zito); and
- Blanton is really a top notch pitcher, whose excellent ERA so far does not do justice to his superb pitching.
On the other hand, I don't foresee anything better than an average or slightly-above-average offense in the near future, although Chavez is a wild card.
As for Im4Oak's point, I considered you a Top 10 poster last year, but your "whining about Chavez" posts/other posts ratio is at an extraordinarily high level so far, which would have made you a nuisance if not for past contributions.
Yes, at a certain point this year
I just thought Chavez should be dealt. Consider me put in my place; no way do I want anyone thinking I'm a nuisance.
Haren & Blanton
In fairness it should be noted that Haren has the lowest BABIP in the AL (maybe in MLB) and Blanton's in the top 10 or 15, so they will come back to earth eventually. Still, where each will finally settle out is of course not determined, and even if they do drop a lot, you're totally right that it's been a wonderful ride so far! Tonight was a lot of fun: Blanton just rocked, and Kots's assist was magnificent. Here's to the year staying bright!
by BerkeleyDawg on Jul 3, 2007 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions
BABIP
Agreed!
Assuming that they're going to come down to average during this season is kinda like assuming that someone on a hot streak rolling dice is going to come down soon. Yet, each roll of the dice is a separate event, and if the roller's got some mojo, crazy long streaks can and do happen.
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Jul 4, 2007 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions
It's been shown that
pitchers have little to no control over their BABIP. I guess a better way of putting it is that the difference between the very best BABIP pitchers and the very worst BABIP pitchers in terms of true skill (not performance) is much smaller than - say - the difference in strikeout rate or walk rate.
What you say about all balls in play not being hit equally hard is certainly true, but the upper level analyses - not taking into account how hard balls are hit - indicate that getting batters to make weak contact is not a huge factor. For certain pitchers had has been shown to be a significant effect (Zito, Wakefield) but Haren and Blanton probably are not among those pitchers.
Haren and Blanton are just two very good pitchers having a little luck, that's all. Even they perform more to their HR/K/BB peripherals, they'll still be very valuable pitchers.
"Upper level analysis"
Please let me know how you propose to quantify how hard a ball is hit? It isn't quantifiable, and therefore cannot be part of any analysis that even pretends to be valid.
I don't mean this as a personal attack, but the notion that weak contact isn't important is absurd. When is the last time a weakly hit ball went for a home run? They also very rarely go for a double. If hitting is partly luck, then a hitter has a much better chance of getting "lucky" if he hits the ball hard than if he hits the ball softly - he has more opportunity for the ball to fall safely. In short, weakly hit balls go against everything that stat heads purport to value in an offensive player - on base percentage and slugging percentage.
Frankly, BABIP is looked at by many scouts and coaches as an indicator of how effective a pitcher is in the strikezone. You also say that the difference between the best BABIP and worst BABIP in true skill is small. Well, again, how do you quantify "true skill." That is an entirely subjective state.
Maybe this just goes to the heart of the stat head/baseball traditionalist debate, but it seems to me you're trying to quantify things that are subjective.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 5, 2007 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Incorrect.
Please let me know how you propose to quantify how hard a ball is hit?
Measure the speed of the ball as it comes off the bat. Bright bulbs are already doing this for home runs. The trajectory of the ball is an indication of how hard it is hit, and THT tracks the basic trajectory: line drive, grounder, fly ball, pop up. In principle, you could measure the speed off the bat, the trajectory, where it hit the ground the first time -- all of this is measurable.
Frankly, BABIP is looked at by many scouts and coaches as an indicator of how effective a pitcher is in the strikezone.
Then those scouts and coaches are doing their job incorrectly. BABIP is just about the least predictive indicator of pitcher quality.
Well, again, how do you quantify "true skill." That is an entirely subjective state.
No, it's only a subjective state if you don't make the appropriate measurements. True skill can and is determined by measuring performance and applying an appropriate regression to the mean. It turns out that BABIP requires very strong regression to the mean, whereas other skills such as strikeouts and walks do not require as much regression to the mean.
it seems to me you're trying to quantify things that are subjective.
Don't let a lack of creativity be confused with "unquantifiable." Few things in this world are immeasurable, only not yet measured.
often because the technology
just hasn't been developed yet... your height, for example
to measure Robin Williams' height ...
... they had to invent nanootechnology
I find it appropriate that ...
... Elijah Dukes ranks very highly on SOB.
OK
Frankly, (and this is obvious to you) your links were all new to me. I just have a couple of comments - what is used to measure these things? If it is equipment used during games, is the equipment installed in the same location, as relating to the field of play, in all parks? If not, it will lead to different readings. I suppose that is probably corrected for in the algorithm, but it must be corrected for nonetheless.
Second, if these stats really purport to say that a pitcher who induces softly hit balls will not be any more successful than a pitcher who induces hard hit balls, then I would suggest that the stats are misleading, or incorrectly calculated. Take a pitcher who never gives up a ball that leaves the infield, and then take a pitcher who gives up hits that never fail to leave the infield. To suggest that they will be equally successful, or are equally "skilled" is absurd. The whole reason it's harder to hit with wood bats than aluminum is because of the greater number of soft hits and the fact that wood breaks, while aluminum rarely does.
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 5, 2007 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions
The basic idea is that
pitchers for the most part (ie with some exceptions like Zito) don't have a lot of control over how hard the ball is hit. K-rates and BB-rates are consistent from year to year, whereas BABIP rates vary wildly. Thus, if a pitcher has an excellent BABIP one year, he is not expected to have an excellent BABIP the next year (you would predict it to be slightly above the mean BABIP), whereas past K and BB success are much more highly predictive of future K and BB success.
DIPS
Take a pitcher who never gives up a ball that leaves the infield, and then take a pitcher who gives up hits that never fail to leave the infield. To suggest that they will be equally successful, or are equally "skilled" is absurd.
Pitchers very much control their groundball and flyball rates. Groundballs are more likely to become hits than flyballs, and flyballs are more likely to become extra base hits. Due to a happy coincidence, this balances out so that the average FB and average GB (in play) are worth about the same.
Yes, harder hit balls are more likely to become base hits. The more line drives a pitcher gives up, the higher his BABIP will be. The theory behind DIPS is that the difference in skill between major league pitchers in inducing soft hit balls or preventing line drives is small.
Here's a tiny study. Let's look at AL pitchers who qualified for the ERA title in 2006 and so far in 2007. Here are the 5 with the highest line drive rates in 2006:
Byrd: 24.5%
Verlander: 23.1%
Silva: 22.2%
Bedard: 21.2%
Halladay: 20.6%
AVERAGE: 22.3%
So those 5 pitchers had a collective 22.3% line drive rate relative to the league average of 18.4%. So how have those 5 fared so far in 2007?
Byrd: 21.5%
Verlander: 16.1%
Silva: 20.1%
Bedard: 18.2%
Halladay: 17.1%
AVERAGE: 18.6%
So the 5 pitchers who allowed the highest line drive rates in 2006 have been collectively average in 2007. This is a tiny sample, of course, but I think it suggests there's not much difference in skill among major league pitchers.
Which is absurd
that suggests that Detroit should be willing to trader Verlander straight up for Shane Komine or Lenny Dinardo.
There is a huge difference in skill in Major League pitchers. Perhaps it cannot be quantified, but to suggest that Verlander and Paul Byrd have equal levels of skill is a proposition that very few agree with. First of all the only way Paul Byrd throws a ball 100 mph is in a car, and even then it better be a fast car. Verlander did it three times in the 9th inning of his no-hitter. Throwing that hard, that late, is a skill very few pitchers have.
If there's not much difference in skill between Major League Pitchers, why is Dan Haren successful and Ruddy Lugo not?
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 5, 2007 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Clarification
I'm sorry, I thought it was clear from the ongoing discussion, but I'm only talking about skill in preventing hits/runs on balls in play. I'm saying the difference between major league pitchers is almost all in their ability to induce Ks and prevent BB and HR.
Ah...
by IndianaAsfan on Jul 6, 2007 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
One more thing
I wasn't aware of the thread you linked to. That was pretty funny. I was actually in a cave in Pakistan, securing the necessary nouns, adjectives, and verbs for acidic remarks—remarks I would then use in an apparently successful effort to whine my way to irrelevance and derision.
(In your linked thread's honour I suppose I could comment about ending my first sentence with a conjunction, citing Winston Churchill and Fowler's Modern Usage along the way.
H. W. Fowler is the man!
Slouching Towards Fargo
Neal Karlen is such a total jerkface...
I wish Murray and Veeck owned a big league club.
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Jul 4, 2007 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions
heh
I went all out in that thread...I do remember January being a career month for me as a poster
by Cutthemullet on Jul 4, 2007 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions
wow!
You approved the decision to make him the #4 starter in the ALCS? Did that get run past you by Beane, or Macha?
Blanton and Haren
It's interesting how much better Haren is perceived to be than Blanton when their performance seems pretty similar. Here are thier career stats:
ERA
Haren: 3.78
Blanton: 3.91
ERA+
Haren: 116
Blanton: 113
FIP
Haren: 4.08
Blanton: 4.18
BABIP
Haren: .290
Blanton: .290
IP/GS
Haren: 6.3
Blanton: 6.4
They're the same age, and neither has any had any injury issues. Haren's been a bit more effective at preventing runs, while Blanton's been a bit more durable. They even had similar minor league stats:
Haren: 8.8 K/9, 1.6 BB/9, 0.8 HR/9
Blanton: 8.3 K/9, 1.7 BB/9, 0.5 HR/9
Pitchers with higher strikeout rates may fare better than others over the long run, but there doesn't seem to be too much separating the two at the moment. Haren has the glowing ERA so far this year, but Blanton has the better FIP and more IP.
Nice post, bitch!!!
I echo all thopse things. Now if we could combine all those positive developments with the trading off of some aging parts to build around this young nucleus, I'd be really happy.
i hear that jungle bird guy in the crowd.
Excellent diary!
There has been a lot of negativity around here recently with the A's "bump" in the road, but I am in 100% agreement with you about the season.
Hard not to look at things positively. Without a slew of injuries the A's would be neck-and-neck with the Angels. As it is, they are competing with for a WC playoff spot...
by BruceBochte on Jul 3, 2007 9:43 PM PDT reply actions
The good stuff
RLangford does a nice job of summarizing the positive developments and nice stories that have made this year's team fun to watch, despite the growing suspicion that the 2007 A's aren't a serious playoff contender.
I watched Blanton dominate the Twins earlier this year, with stuff that rarely broke 90 mph on the radar gun. The Twins, a good team, couldn't do a thing. He's a big, strong control pitcher, and he has really come into his own this season. Blanton won't always be this good, but he is currently looking like a very legitimate #2 or #3 starter.
Haren's ace status is also very important. It relieves the pressure on everybody else.
I'm still waiting and seeing on Cust, but I strongly agree that his emergence - aside from being really fun - will prevent the A's from spending a whole lot of money on another aging star.
The bullpen problem should solve itself, assuming Street's injury isn't more than a one-year thing and - less certain - Duchscherer recovers.
The Angels, as I've noted in previous comments, appear to be really good this season. And they're also leading a pretty charmed life.
I do think the A's will need to do something to improve the offense for next season, but that's a problem for the Hot Stove League.
good diary
I couldn't agree more. Everyone at one point or another seemed to have stepped up to give us a boost, whether it was Kennedy and DiNardo's quality starts early on, or Scutaro leveling yet another walk-off HR, or the veteran, Alan Embree's admirable job of filling in as the emergency closer; this team always seem to find a way to compete.
I'm not closing the door on the season just yet and I figure we'll again be in the thick of things before it's all said and done. And if Harden and Piazza can return to form, that would be another much needed boost. I wouldn't count this scrappy team out yet.
agreed "Rick",
I have no problems with how the boys are hanging in there and if the other teams in the ALW know anything at all about the A's-they should fear the A's in July/August and Sept. With adversity comes opportuntiy and some guys have really stepped up. I love the way Shannon is playing right now and all those past "trade ideas" on AN involving Fat Joe looks silly right now. Smart GMs just don't trade guys like Joe. There are some concerns right now though, none regarding injuried players: Kotsay must get beyond his 100 ABS "spring training" period and start hitting and take a more significant role in the O. The other player who must turn the corner is Crosby. This guy is 27 yrs old and is dangerously close to becoming a very disappointing over-hyped whine bitch who needs a vet to take him out to the woodshed for a good asskicking. Crosby appears to be the stubborn sort who thinks his shit don't stink-and while that may be true, his game sure does. Any way, IF Crosby/Kotsay step up, IF we can get Lenny and that other rockhead Kennedy out of the the rotation, IF we can get Kiko and Street back, IF Harden and Loza can return in mid to late July the A's WILL make the playoffs. Hummmm, nothing has changed since Feb!
Good point about Shannon Stewart...
his hot hitting this year is another positive. I love a guy that brings some speed to the team.
You'd have liked Frankie Menechino
<snerk>
<pause> ... LOL
Took me a moment to get that.
Frank Methampheno?
last year,
if this is reassuring, the a's at this point in time were only one game better at 44-40. The A's then dropped 3 of 4 to the Angels heading into the all-star break and were 45-43 and tied for 1st place. Things weren't looking up as we had to play a 4 game series at Fenway Park immediately following the All-Star break, but the A's took 3 of 4 from the Sox, so everything is not lost quite yet. We have been through this before.
by bigmacattack @ Athletics Nation on Jul 5, 2007 11:22 AM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
