Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Sounder At Heart for Seattle Sounders Fans!

New Holliday Thread

Super_grover_tiny by grover on Comment 701 comments

In honor of Veterans Day, and the fact that my browser is struggling to deal with the 750 comment behemoth below, I'm starting a new thread to continue the ohhing and ahhing over the A's new addition.

Does Matt Holliday make the A's contenders in 2009?

I think the answer to that question lies in the health of Eric Chavez's shoulder, whether or not Daric Barton insists on continuing his Wally Pip impersonation and a bunch of other minor details involving mental discipline, personal growth and maybe an organ transplant or three.

Have at it.

0 recs  |  Comment 701 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: veterans day holliday thread

Comments

Display:

My computer thanks you.

I pray for the day that the health of Eric Chavez is no longer a question mark or concern for this team.

I imagine he does too.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Nov 11, 2008 7:23 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Boo

I wanted to see a 1K comment thread.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Nov 11, 2008 8:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What do you think this is, LookoutLanding?

"However, at Elias, I think they keep track of the amount of sunflower seeds spit in a dugout each night." - Brad Ziegler, 8/7/08

by doctorK on Nov 11, 2008 10:16 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

At least it got over 800

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Nov 11, 2008 7:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I wish we could say that about someone's OPS

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 11, 2008 8:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not even close

You guys are a bunch of amateurs

by JI on Nov 12, 2008 12:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Meh, she's a regular.

That thread was fueled by cars, comps and bad movies.

It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray

by Faux on Nov 12, 2008 5:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That would take him playing for another team.

“playing”

If I don't comment on your comment how will you know you are completely wrong? -Rocktopus

by pam5981 on Nov 11, 2008 1:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

might as well start

Trading for Holliday seems to indicate that Beane thinks the A’s can contend in 2009 (apparently he sees enough uncertainty in the Angels as well). But Holliday alone doesn’t make the A’s a contending team. Besides the issue of needing more offense — and I’m uneasy about pinning those hopes on a healthy Chavez — there are still lots of questions about the rotation. The veteran “ace” and leader, Duscherer, hasn’t proven yet that he can remain healthy starting through an entire season. The A’s are well stocked with pitching prospects, but you can’t count on their being ready enough for the major leagues to make this club a contender. So they A’s may also need to pick up at least one veteran starter, if they expect to contend in 2009.

by OaklandSi on Nov 11, 2008 7:27 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Along those lines...

Just throwing some names out to get a bit of discussion going.

Brad Penny had his option declined by the Dodgers for a cool $2 million. Maybe offer a 1 year/$6 million contract plus $500 K in IP options (matching his 2008 salary) and give him a chance to earn a big payday in 2010.

Jarrod Washburn is heading into his FA walk year and there’s a good chance the Mariners are looking to make a salary dump. What’s Bedard’s health status if the Mariners kick him loose?

Jon Garland? Randy Wolf?

I’m all for going after any SP we’d be rid of after the 2009 season. I do not want to go after one of the big FA fish.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 8:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

I think someone is going to be really smart and offer Penny an incentive laden deal, I hope the A’s are the first to do it. I worry that a time with deeper pockets will beat us to it though.

Goliath, dissatisfied with his size advantage, decided to buy David's sling, which took steroids.

by TexasAsfan on Nov 11, 2008 8:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Of course time = team

Goliath, dissatisfied with his size advantage, decided to buy David's sling, which took steroids.

by TexasAsfan on Nov 11, 2008 8:17 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I know... Hell, everyone knew

I was just having a chuckle.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree

There’s always an argument about when you should judge a trade. I’m typically inclined to make a call early on but in this case adding Holliday can only be step #1 in a new dance. We need to see what else Billy has up his sleeve.

Then I’ll bash the man!

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I keep getting this image of Beane

on the dance floor. It’s weird.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Nov 11, 2008 9:34 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Like this?

Happy Billy

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 9:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How the Hell did this end up here?

This was meant as a reply to Blez.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Randy Johnson

Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.

by salb918 on Nov 11, 2008 8:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There's an idea

Tell me more, kind sir.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 8:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

sign him

Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.

by salb918 on Nov 11, 2008 8:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I would love that.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Nov 11, 2008 8:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree,

signing Unit would be exciting – put fans in the seats AND provide some good experience for the young pitchers (Gio, Cahill, Anderson, Eveland) to learn from. I love the idea.

by Sliderule on Nov 11, 2008 9:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

He was a local kid too

Hailing from the great city of Livermore

by methodrampage on Nov 11, 2008 3:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Based on that brilliant analysis

I say DON’T sign Randy Johnson, take half of what it would cost to get a deal done and GIVE it to salb918.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:17 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah

Why pay so much for 12 starts?

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 9:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Because

he’s perhaps the 4th best FA starter out there. At least, according to the BtB folks…

by Sliderule on Nov 11, 2008 11:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm rich!

See you later, punks!

Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.

by salb918 on Nov 11, 2008 8:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sharpie: $2.99

Knowing where to put the X: $15,000.

Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.

by salb918 on Nov 11, 2008 8:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Diamondbacks are trying to sign him, but supposedly have $10 million

to spend on a second baseman and anything else, including Johnson. He seems to want to re-sign with the Diamondbacks but may not agree to less than $10 million. So either the Diamondbacks open up the wallet more, or Johnson is available.

by OaklandSi on Nov 11, 2008 8:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sandwich pick

Would we have to give up a higher draft pick to add Randy Johnson?
If so, is it still worth it?

by apilgrim on Nov 11, 2008 4:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

On the pitchers

On Penny maybe a deal like 2/yr 8.5-9 mil with 2-4 mil more in incentives
No on Washburn, (Hate him+ to old)
On Bedard same type of deal as Penny if he is healthy +2 mil/yr, (2yr 10-12 mil + 2 mil in incentives)
On Garland 1yr/4.5 mil
I like Wolf the most of all these SP. I would not mind a 2-3yr deal for Wolf in the 6mil range. I think the more you are able to leave the prospects in the miners the better you are. I would love to see BB sign two of these guys, (Penny & Wolf would be my choice). Feel free to rip me at your leasure.

"AN, Reducing Work Productivity since 2003", connie mack 11/06/08

by adragon on Nov 11, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Penny is interesting

The fact that he’s a douche bag doesn’t help though. I am partial to a short-term deal for Oliver Perez…he was much better after he changed his mechanics when the Mets switched pitching coaches. Honestly I wouldn’t mind ponying up for Derek Lowe. Extreme ground ball pitcher plus Mark Ellis equals awesome. Washburn is interesting, but is he really better than the guys we have? Braden is pretty much Washburn, but ten years younger.

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

+1 I don't think the As have the pitching (yet)

I’m less excited about the trade than I was yesterday, because I don’t think we can retain Holiday, so I expect him to get flipped mid-season.

No problems trading Smith (a back end of the rotation guy), and Street (a good reliever with trade value, but after last year needs a change of scenery). Cargon may come back to haunt us.

So we get Holiday for half a year, we don’t need to sign Giambi (let Cust be the LH DH) then hope that Billy can flip him for something better than Street/Cargon. Like a studly 3B / SS.

by Miata71 on Nov 11, 2008 8:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I feel hungover

what happened last night? Why are printouts of Matt Holliday’s fielding stats with me in bed?
Ugh. I remember these home/away splits looking way better last night. I hope when I get back from the bathroom they’ve managed to find the door to my apt.

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Nov 11, 2008 7:31 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I am hungover

My religion is A'slamic.

by WhoNeedsReligionWhenYaGotBaseball on Nov 11, 2008 9:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Under the radar

  By trading 3 for 1 the A’s opened up 2 spots on their 40 man. This year it will be tough getting 40 players on the 40 man. Another factor is will the dodgers offer the A’s some good players for Holiday? If they don’t sign Manny will Kemp and some others be going As’ way?

by Arcman on Nov 11, 2008 7:34 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

More to come from this deal? I hope so.

In Billy we trust, but did he give up too much for a one year player? Gonzales has five years left under club control to develop. He was the centerpiece of the Haren trade, and to give up on him after just one year seems foolish.

Street seems to be a throw in. WTF. He could have/should have brought something in return on his own?

If there is more to come I will get on board, but I remain skeptical. Has Billy lost his touch? He got too little for Rich Harden, and gave up too much for a one year rental….I hope not, but I will step back from the ledge to see what else develops.

by hokecole on Nov 11, 2008 7:41 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

one-year rental

This might be the best of the one-year rentals to get.
29 and a Boras client in a walk year. This is Holliday’s chance to prove his numbers are not inflated by Coors Field and that he is a legitimate premier player.
Also some half-season rentals from last year netted some good trades-Manny got Bay and Sabathia brought in La Porta. Not a bad haul either way.

by apilgrim on Nov 11, 2008 4:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Holliday alone doesn't make them contenders.

Adding Furcal and Dunn or Lowe along with him does, though.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 7:46 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Agree... in principle.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 8:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No Dunn

  He is just another Cust. I don’t like the Holiday trade but will wait and see what Beane does. Remember how he traded for Weaver and flipped him shortly afterwards. Beane still has another 20 million to spend so wait and see what happens.

by Arcman on Nov 11, 2008 8:23 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

duplicating our best hitter

seems totally redundant.

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Nov 11, 2008 8:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Things I'm really, really looking forward to assuming this deal does

go through and the A’s do get Holliday:

1. Not having to hear over and over again that Jack Cust is the A’s best hitter

2. Not having to hear Cust devotees and Cust detractors argue over who does or doesn’t understand baseball because Cust is clearly or is clearly not the best hitter on the A’s.

Because Holliday is clearly going to be the most accomplished hitter on the team now… barring some miraculous signing of Teixeira, and even then it would be a toss-up imho. :)

by still bills kingdom on Nov 11, 2008 10:11 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

lol

Ok, yeah, I could’ve put that a lot better- so let me expound upon what I was getting at and perhaps state it more clearly:

With the addition of Holliday to the A’s offense it is my great hope that Jack Cust will no longer be quite the object of scrutiny he has been for the past year or so, and will be allowed to flourish and be a productive member of the A’s line-up with less pressure to be “the guy” in terms of power production and offense in general.

And as such, that he will be a less divisive figure amongst A’s fans because everybody can just enjoy his contributions without overly debating his strengths and weaknesses.

I’m of the opinion, personally, that Cust will be even more productive in a line-up where he’s not charged with being the only serious power, RBI, or home run threat. It’s not his fault that he ended up being that guy last season, and it’s easy to focus on the negatives when there aren’t enough other positives to go ‘round in general where the team’s offense is concerned.

by still bills kingdom on Nov 11, 2008 11:03 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

great post

i agree 100%

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 11, 2008 11:24 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No Doubt Holliday will help Cust

I just hope he somehow cuts his strikouts down to 150. Is that too much to hope for?

He has a great OBP and of course everyone loves the long ball. And like I said, Holliday will help him as will Furcal and anyone else of value we can get.

I also wish he could learn to hit breaking stuff a little better but that is asking a little too much

by Trainman on Nov 11, 2008 12:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't mind his inability to hit curveballs, because

a. he knows he can’t do it and so he doesn’t try to except with 2 strikes, and

he has a great eye for the strike zone, and so even with 2 strikes he lays off most of the curveballs that aren’t at least borderline strikes.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 1:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Gah

STOP PUTTING IN THESE AUTOFORMATTING GIMMICKS!

Jeez.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 1:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

May I suggest the "preview" feature?

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Nov 11, 2008 2:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

ah, that's just another gimmick

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Reminder: the internet is not like a big truck.

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 2:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

,which quite frankly is its' biggest weakness...

"I have more questions after these."-WaddellCanseco

by Gaijin_Suketto on Nov 11, 2008 2:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

its'

that’s a new variation on the irresistable temptation to add an apostrophe to “its” (which, along with "ours, theirs, " etc. does not need one).

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 11, 2008 2:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But you CAN use an apostrophy in "it's"

It’s when the intended meaning of the word is the contraction of “it is” or “it has”

But as a possessive, it’s “its”

:D

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 3:04 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

And as a lot of desserts, it's Its-Its

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Nov 11, 2008 4:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Alpo flavor

Kibbles-n-bits-its-its

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Nov 11, 2008 4:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I personally prefer a little creative license with punctuation...

and I don’t see the internet as one entity. I see it like a lot of entities that make up a sum greater than their parts, like an anthill or the 2006 A’s.

Therefore, I stand by my apostrophe.

I also say that I support Chuck Wagon over Kibbles’N’Bits because the damn miniature chuck wagon could pass through cabinet doors, which is freakin’ awesome!

"I have more questions after these."-WaddellCanseco

by Gaijin_Suketto on Nov 13, 2008 10:31 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The difference isn't nearly as large as you seem to think.

Cust’s 2007 was better than Holliday’s 2007. Holliday was better in 2008. Holliday is certainly the overall better player because of the defense differences, but he’s not really much of a better hitter. Maybe a bit. Like, a very teeny tiny bit.

by thejd44 on Nov 11, 2008 10:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Cust had a better year than Holliday?

Holliday scored 30 and drove in 11 more runs than Cust in 11 less games. Please explain to me how he had a better year.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 10:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wait did you just say 2007?

The 2007 where Holliday was runner up MVP?

Typo?

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

RBIs and runs scored are dependant

on the rest of the team.

Holliday was better, but not because of RBI.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

As I posted in the other thread, Randy Winn scored more runs than Cust

with a lower OBP and on what’s not even close to being considered on offensive power house Giant team.

All Cust defenders have is HR and OBP totals. Problem in he doesn’t score or drive in runs at a clip to make his OBP matter or his Ks not matter. The game is about scoring and driving in runs. Cust doesn’t do either all that well.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:09 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Who's saying I want Randy Winn

It’s more I don’t want Jack Cust …. like the other 4 teams before the A’s

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Which were

the Orioles, the Rockies, the Padres and the DBacks.

Yup, a bunch of very smart teams there.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And the A's?

How many times have the A’s made the playoffs under Beane, compared to the Rockies? Or the DBacks? Or the Padres?

And you still haven’t answered my question about why the Twins, a team that emphasises, moving the runner over, making contact, putting the ball in play, also “underperform” in the playoffs.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not making the case Beane is an idiot

I’m simply saying he over values OBP… as do most of you here. It sounds like you’re saying he’s perfect. You called those other teams dumb and I just pointed out they have made the playoffs. And I wouldn’t start calling up the Twins … we all have some painful memories there.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:50 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

How exactly can you overvalue NOT MAKING AN OUT

I mean, man, Cust would just be fucking AWESOME if he would only strike out 120 times and have 80 more popups to the second baseman, right?

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 11:53 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

80 pop ups no

But 10-12 ground outs or fly ball with a runner on 3rd coupled with an avg that’s about 20 points higher would equal 100+ RBI. There’s a reason Cust has never driven in a 100 and most likely never will … at least as long as he’s a 230 hitter striking out 190+ times.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 12:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Congratulations, you have won!

I now present you with a lifetime contract for RBI Machine!

Congratulations!

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 12:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I thought that contract belonged to Emil Brown

"I believe in spiritual rebirth, and I can't wait to experience that." --Barry Zito

by GreenNGoldGirl on Nov 11, 2008 12:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

hitting doesn't work that way

Over large enough samples, guys maintain their batted-ball-type profiles, no matter the situation. Only hyperdisciplined freaks like Ichiro have that degree of precision over what the ball does off their bat.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 12:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

no matter the situation

I disagree with the premise “no matter the situation”. I think herein lies an area of “batting” study that requires more assessment.

If it were true “no matter the situation” then batting would be like bowling. But things like success dependent upon your slot in the batting order, hitting with two strikes, hitting with runners onbase…they vary widely for any particular player. So, “no matter the situation” doesn’t work IMO.

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 11, 2008 3:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The reason why Cust has never driven in 100 runs

is that in 2007 he played with a bad offense, and in 2008 he played with a just fucking terrible offense.

Playing in an extreme pitcher’s park doesn’t help either.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 1:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Cust has only played 1 full season in MLB

That’s why he doesn’t have a 100 RBI season yet. He was on pace for 100+ RBI season in ’07 but only played a partial season.

by methodrampage on Nov 11, 2008 3:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I confused

He only had 12 AB with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs, and he drove in 10 runs. That’s 10 RBI in 12 AB. I will take it. Assuming he got a hit 100% of the time (which is insane), and also assuming each extra hit was a two-run single (I’ll assume second and third to be even MORE generous), that would still only give him 97 RBI on the season.

The guy makes less outs than anyone else on the team. I’d much rather have EITHER a walk or a strikeout with a man on first than a double-play ball like most of our team seems to be pretty adept at. Wouldn’t you?

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not disputing the general argument

I agree with the basic idea that Cust is a good hitter.

But the way you guys are trotting out the “10 RBI in 12 AB” stat is highly misleading. Those 12 AB are not all of his plate appearances with man on 3rd and less than 2 outs; they exclude both the sacrifices and the walks.

According to Baseball Reference, Cust has 25 plate appearances with a man on 3rd and less than two outs. The 10 RBI come from all of those PA’s, not just the 12 AB’s.

Of the 25 PA’s, Baseball Reference lists: 2 singles, 10 walks (1 intentional), 7 strikeouts, 4 sac flies, and 1 GIDP.

(Why that doesn’t add up to 25 and 12, I’m not sure. Maybe there was something weird like an interference call, or maybe I’m not understanding the numbers completely. But it still shows the general picture.)

Of the 12 AB you cite, 7 ended in SO. Of the 10 RBI you cite, 4 are sac flies. I doubt the other six all came from 2 hits (though it’s possible). Some may have come from bases-loaded walks, of which Cust had 3 for the year, but BR doesn’t specify which of those were with less than 2 outs.

It’s not a bad performance over all, but I don’t think it supports your case nearly as much as the way you present the stat implies. He really does walk and strike out a lot even in this situation.

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Nov 11, 2008 5:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

*sigh*

Where the hell do you get that I’m saying that he’s perfect. The Rockies have made the playoffs how many times in recent years? And suddenly, you want to emulate their approach? The Orioles? The DBacks were broke, bankrupt after their WS victory, to the point that the other owners had to bail them out financially.

Why shouldn’t I bring up the Twins? They have also underperformed in the playoffs.

How about you try to explain why their approach, making contact, putting the ball in play, moving runners over, making productive outs, has been no more successful than that of the A’s, instead of engaging in lazy snark?

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 12:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You're trying to make this an all or nothing argument

But I’m not going there. I never said the Twins Rockies or anyone else were perfect. It’s your side that thinks the other teams are dumb.. the reality is the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I’m not the one over valuing one statistic and ignoring others as it suits me. OBP is an important stat … but only as part of a bigger picture. I will say this one last time …. Cust is not a good RBI man because he takes too many called thirds and hits for a low average.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 2:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

who is a better hitter ON THE A's

than Jack Cust?

(before yesterday’s trade)

witty remark

by dtownmbrown on Nov 11, 2008 2:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

it's not just one a's hitter who is better than cust

since this dude wants to “hide” cust at 7 or 8 in the lineup.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 2:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

{seeks partner to play "hide the Cust"}

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 3:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just make sure you don't get Cust out

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"My" side?

Which is what? I’m a Materialist. Present your evidence that the style you advocate wins baseball games, and I’ll happily change “sides”.

You said in a previous post that the A’s have underperformed in the playoffs due to their offensive approach. So, why is it that a team with the offensive approach that you advocate, also underperforms in the playoffs?

Who here is claiming that OBP is the one and only stat to pay attention to?

OK, answer this question: you stated up top:

t’s more I don’t want Jack Cust …. like the other 4 teams before the A’s

Do you still believe this?

Also, just so you know, Randy Winn is a pretty good player. Just as there’s more to baseball than OBP, there’s also more to baseball than RBI.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 3:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

True, Randy Winn is underrated

He was pretty clearly the best position player on the Giants last season.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 3:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Cust's K's

I’m curious are more of them due to taking strike 3 or swinging and missing?

by methodrampage on Nov 11, 2008 3:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

the rest of the hitters in the lineup perform poorly when Cust is on base because he’s a poor baserunner, and they know it’ll take a double to score him from third, so they give up and only try to hit well when Rajai is on base

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 11:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

stop trolling and

show us an actual statistic, or even a scouting report since you must think numbers don’t mean anything, that shows that cust is a “poor baserunner”, or a bad candidate for the 2 hole, or a bad candidate for the 4 hole, like you’ve said in previous threads.

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 11, 2008 11:26 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The game is about scoring and driving in runs yes.

FOR TEAMS.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:24 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

33 home runs with 77 RBI

When you hit for as low an average and strike out as much as Cust you’re not going to drive in many runs. He’s not the type of guy that is going to turn a high OBP into 100 runs scored. He just doesn’t run well enough. He’s a hitter than should be judged on RBI and he comes up short there too.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:37 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If guys aren't on base in front of him, he can't drive them in.

If guys behind him aren’t hitting, he can’t score.

What about those two aspects of baseball can’t you understand?

The one thing Cust (or any other hitter) has the sort of total control over that you attribute to runs and RBI is HRs. And Cust is near-elite at that particular skill.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 11:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hey, you know who else struck out 200 times?

Ryan Howard (105 runs scored, 146 RBI)
Mark Reynolds (97 runs scored, 87 RBI)
Adam Dunn (79 Runs scored, 100 RBI)
Dan Uggla (97 Runs scored, 92 RBI)

But yeah, we’re embarrasing ourselves.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 11:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Howard hit 48 home runs and 20 points higher too

See that’s just it, you guys act like Cust is tops in the league in HRs and ignore that fact he has a low avg. If you have that many strike outs you better be hitting 40+ jacks and at least hitting 250.

For the record I wouldn’t want Dunn my team either.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

it is very hard to reason with you

perhaps I could supply you with some reading, as it seems you are bias against people the comment in AN.

here is a short, easy-to-follow article on why strikeouts are not nearly as evil as you say they are:
http://www.thediamondangle.com/marasco/opan/kfile.html

let’s start there

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Nov 11, 2008 12:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I've played or coached for close to 35 years now

and while I in no way would make the case I know more about the game that a lot of MLB baseball people, I feel comfortable saying I know more than most of you on here. I still understand the game is played on the field and not on a spreadsheet. Numbers are great but it’s using those numbers along with what you see that makes for a good manager.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 12:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You are ever so endearing as well

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 12:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

F'n whippersnappers man.

Whippersnappers and lollygaggers…

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Strange

You are not usually one to so stubbornly pursue fruitless debates with irrational adversaries.

Did you recently develop a taste for low-hanging but intensely frustrating fruit?

by 74mk on Nov 11, 2008 12:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Fuck off you under-evolved primate

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 1:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Precisely

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 2:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A pitch like that

You’d have been disappointed if I didn’t swing.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'd be happy with a productive out.

Stop keeping the bat on your goddamn shoulder.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 2:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

aw, nuts

You beat me to that joke.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 2:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There was this big thing like 200 years ago

It was the scientific revolution. It basically established that numbers and data should inform the way we view the world. So far, it’s done pretty well, bringing us things like the Theory of Gravity, flying machines, antibiotics, and now the internet. It works for baseball, too.

Humans are terrible at detecting patterns. If you’ve ever seen a shape in a cloud that looks like a bird or an animal you’ve experienced our bias for seeing things that aren’t there. We form hypotheses or ideas about how things work, then examine the data to see how that idea stacks up. That’s how we ought to asses our ideas. Experience informs our way of thinking, and we should give due respect to your 35 years coaching the game, but remember that people spend thousands of years believing that certain dances or rituals affected local weather patterns.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 12:15 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

asses indeed
That’s how we ought to asses our ideas.

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 12:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

ATM

analogy of the month

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

oops, that's AOTM

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 12:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think I would like to borrow a term from Stephen King...

… and bring all Cust haters and naysayers of sabermetrics in general under the singular banner “The Flat Earth Society,” or “Flat-Earthers” for short.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 2:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Humans are great at detecting patterns

if those patterns are related to obtaining food. They may be “terrible” (your judgement not mine) at detecting abstract patterns, but not patterns that have an aural or visual basis. Not too bad at smells either (but not like dogs…600x better than us!)

We all have “confirmation bias” in that we look for patterns and examples that CONFIRM our current beliefs (e.g. we all wore black, it rained, so wearing black brings rain) rather than objectively noting events, and synthesizing a theory that explains our observations.

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 11, 2008 3:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It’s more than conformation bias, which only really applies after we’ve taken a position (although I think conformation bias and cognitive dissonance play a large role here).

Our brain is a pattern finding machine. We see patterns in everything, even if it is mostly random. This leads to recognizing true patterns but also leaves us wide open to massive type-1 errors. Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance then make it nearly impossible for us to recognize when we’re wrong. That’s why people used to cut open animals to tell the future – we are hopelessly terrible at filtering out what really is cause-effect and when our brain has just gone haywire.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 3:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

gravity

Was 300 years ago

by apilgrim on Nov 11, 2008 4:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

also

brought us the nuclear bomb.

by apilgrim on Nov 11, 2008 4:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

and Enron!

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 5:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And do you know more about baseball

than Billy Beane? He’s played in MLB. Have you?

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

hah

I dont think Bill James has played in MLB.

by apilgrim on Nov 11, 2008 4:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i thought we could start with

strikeouts not being as bad as you think, and then we could work to other topics such as why RBI’s are not a good indicator at all of how productive a hitter is.

no?

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Nov 11, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

He has a point about strikeouts

But not as big as he thinks. The run value of a K is about -0.2 runs. Cust struck out 197 times last year, and that should count against him to the tune of about 4 runs. Where sactown makes his mistake is in overestimating the magnitude of the negative value of a strikeout.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 12:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm talking batting avg too

less balls in play means less hits and less runs

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 12:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Again you are correct in your basic assumption that it is better to put the ball in play. Here’s a relevant quote:

According to Dave Studenmund’s Batted Balls Redux article in The Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2007, strikeouts had a run impact of -0.113, infield flies -0.088, groundballs 0.045, outfield flies 0.192, and line drives 0.391 per incident last year.

Again, it’s not the basics that you’re missing, it’s that you’re attempting to put a precise value on an event far too complicated for our brains to handle based on observation.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 12:38 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

That's a pretty big difference.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Nov 11, 2008 5:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But maybe

I’m not counting the intangibles. Is the 0.2 clutch?

by Sliderule on Nov 11, 2008 12:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

correcting my math:

You may have noticed the decimal point slip above. Sorry.

Cust should be penalized about 4 runs for his strikeoutness, but the penalty for a K should be about 0.02 runs.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

4 runs more than a guy who was exactly the same

But NEVER struck out. Not once.

That’s the thing. Holliday strikes out roughly half as much, so that’s 2 runs.

by thejd44 on Nov 11, 2008 1:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's 0.02 runs

so, yes, Cust is about 4 runs worse than a player who never strikes out at all and somehow posts the same numbers.

In practice, unless your name is Pujols, you are going to strike out 80 times in a year in which you hit 30 home runs. It’s simply a fact of baseball. So the max differential between Cust and that group is more like 2 runs.

Side note: Can I just say again how bloody incredible Albert Pujols is?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 1:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wasn't Joe DiMaggio even better

in the strikeouts-per-season department??

Often (but not often these days) I sometimes look down Sansome St from Market, and imagine Joe and his brothers throwing a newspaper(??) from one block to the next, to the oooohing and awwwing the office workers walking on the street. That spot on Sansome is where they did that about 75 years ago.

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 11, 2008 3:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Where is that spot?

I work on Sansome, at Clay and I will be walking down Sansome in about a 1/2 hour to the BART train home to Fremont.

by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 3:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

at Bush and Sansome

throwing toward…Sacramento, but certainly not all that way! They worked as news-boys.

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 11, 2008 8:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just down the hill from where Robert Louis Stevenson lived and wrote ...

… and where Miles Archer was shot.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 8:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

and where Black Bart was apprehended

as he walked from his hotel at 177 Second St, near Market. I think it was on Bush between Montgomery and Sansome, though…

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 13, 2008 10:37 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm no math major

but 197*(-0.2)=-39.4

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Nov 11, 2008 5:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just like the genius that thought up the save

The game or value of players hasn’t changed. Just the methods.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 12:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You are hilarious

The concept of run values has been in print since the 1960s. Acting like this is some new fangled idea is Abraham Simpson-esque.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 12:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, linear weights were first developed in the late 1910s

by a cranky statistician named F.C. Lane.

His numbers were a little off but shockingly close to what we have today, once you adjust for the run scoring environment of the dead ball era.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 1:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I invented the terlet...

… Watcha laughin’ at, fatty? Too much pie, that’s your problem.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 2:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hey Joe

I heard that you and John Miller won’t be doing Sunday night baseball…whats up with that? You guys made such a good team…

by GusanoQuemador on Nov 11, 2008 12:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You make it so easy

In 2000, Preston Wilson struck out 187 times, had a .264 BA, and 121 RBIs with 31 HRs.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 4:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not looking it up again, but I think Cust had an EQA that was 5 points higher.

So, yes, he had a better offensive season. Holliday is the better overall player, but the differences in offense are minimal at best.

by thejd44 on Nov 11, 2008 1:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, I'm curious too.

Both by rate stats, OPS+ and EQA, and counting stats, whether traditional or sabermetric, Holliday was better.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:03 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Whether you adjust for season or all-time

Jack Cust’s EQA was 5 points better than Matt Holliday’s EQA in 2007.

by thejd44 on Nov 11, 2008 1:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Huh?

From their 2007 EQA page, Holliday, 318, Cust 313.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 3:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We better have more than one, if this deal is to be a good one.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

p.s. hope you understand i was being ironical

and i find it hilarious where this mini-thread went, and that I got somebody to imply that Randy Winn is better than JC.
wow.

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Nov 11, 2008 11:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Point was Randy Winn was on a team with bad offense but scored more runs with a lower OBP

Of course he’s a different type of player but that’s my problem with Cust…. what’s his job? As a 3-4-5 hitter he should be expected to drive in runs. You people can quote all the numbers you want but this still comes down to a player that takes too many close pitches with two strikes and runners is scoring position. If you can drive a boarderline pitch then you’re just not a good run producer. OBP doesn’t cover up bad situational hitting.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 1:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I have a rather large sample size with Cust

30-40 games in person and around a 100 on TV is a good sample size (and I’m not even counting the games I saw him play in Sacramento a few years back) He takes too many pitches with two strikes and runners in scoring position. We spend a lot of time teaching our young players about situational hitting and knowing what your job is … it’s just disgusting to see that lack of understanding on a major league level.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 2:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Which is why we've placed 30+ kids in major college programs thus far

But again, you are putting words in my mouth … who said anything about swinging at bad pitches? If you have you’re RBI producers leaving runners on base at the whim of an umpire you’re not a very good coach. In what universe is teaching players to protect turning them into bad hitters?

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 2:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Protect != hit a 80 hopper to second base to "move a runner over"

There’s a difference between fouling off a close pitch and rolling over to make an out on purpose “to move a guy over”

It’s stupid and it teaches kids to swing at bad pitches.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 2:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

you just said it yourself

“There’s a difference between fouling off a close pitch and rolling over to make an out on purpose”

who said I’m teaching my run producers to roll over on a bad pitch? It’s called foul off the pitchers pitch and hit yours.

But if all you can do is roll over on a close pitch you’re not much of a hitter … see Jack Cust for an example of that

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 2:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Where's the pitch? What type of hitter are you?

Where’s the zone been for that game? Is the umpire constant? No snark but you really talk like someone that hasn’t played.. or at least not at a very high level

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 2:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No snark?

Yes, that ad hom attack was purely for the edification of the viewing populace.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 2:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm sorry if it's the truth

He’s talking in absolutes when every pitch of a game is a total separate entity. Anyone that has played or coached the game on a serious level knows this. I truthful am not trying to get personal but you guys are in here going rah rah on some real ignorant statements.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 2:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This is an interesting article on the subject:
While it is often said that being able to foul off pitcher’s pitches in order to extend an at bat is a skill a la Richie Ashburn or Ichiro Suzuki (who was in the middle of the pack at .643), over the long run it doesn’t appear that fouling off more pitches than average makes a player any more successful. The top 20% had an OPS of 767 while the bottom 20% were at 753 with the correlation even lower than that for swinging and missing.


And Here’s the Pitch

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 2:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But can't a player who extends his at-bat by fouling off pitches essentially make the pitcher leave earlier?

That wouldn’t make the individual batter’s stats better, but whoever got the pitcher near the end of his appearance might have an easier time. Or the pitcher gets pulled and the bullpen has to pitch more.

The good/bad probably depends on how strong the bullpen is.

by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 2:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So instead of trying to see how a batter is better with a higher PPA...

could we see a correlation for how pitchers are worse with a higher opponent PPA?

by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 2:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Pitchers are definitely worse when they have higher pitch counts

and relievers are worse than the starters they replace, so, yes, higher PPA causes you to score more runs. Not a lot more, but more.

The thing is, the guys with great PPA are invariably disciplined hitters like Swisher, not slappy foul-ball mavens like Ichiro.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 3:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

*shakes head*

Because the only stats that matter are OBP and OPS right?

let your players know what there role is and teach them to excel in that role

success for one player could be failure for another

but there’s not much left to say here ….. you feel stats tell the whole story and I disagree

more power to you

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 2:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

huh?

more bases + less outs = mondo runs dude.

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 2:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Excellent

I think you guys are right on the brink of bringing sactownbull around.

Please keep at it. Stay persistent. He’s going to see the light any second now. Really. I feel it coming, sort of like the way my old basset hound used to sense earthquakes.

A few more facts, a bit more logic, a touch more persuasion … you’re almost there. He may have glided blithely past every single argument you’ve made thus far in favor of the snuggly comforts of personal experience myopia, but that doesn’t mean the next brave foray won’t be the one that catalyzes The Big Epiphany.

by 74mk on Nov 11, 2008 3:05 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

lol

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 3:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Morgan?

I think you’re forgetting about the time Scutaro had a “higher probability of a hit” since he was 3 for his last 46.

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We're not trying to convince him

We’re trying to pillory him to convince others.

Sort of like how the purpose of prisons isn’t really “correctional.” It has a lot more to do with retribution and deterrence…

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 3:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I believe this part: “We’re not trying to convince him”

This part makes me roll my eyes: “We’re trying to pillory him to convince others.”

I’ll go with this instead: “Vehement, arrogant ignorance is incredibly frustrating to behold. Arguing is a reasonably effective coping mechanism.”

by 74mk on Nov 11, 2008 3:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

true

but some of us are just in it for the LOLs.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 7:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

deterrence Long?

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 3:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

{registers EpiphaniesinOakland.com}

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 3:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Only EiO site worth a damn anymore

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 3:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Unless that is their role

If it is, then it may be success even if it is failure for others…

"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty

by 5Aces on Nov 11, 2008 3:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

stats may not tell the *whole* story

but they tell a lot more than your “i’m a coach” story.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 2:53 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

"protecting" the strike zone necessitates swinging at pitches that you have a low likelihood of hitting squarely

Even though a pitch is borderline, or even a full-blown strike, doesn’t mean it’s hittable. If a pitch isn’t hittable (or is only barely hittable), swinging at it is a bad decision.

(Tangential case in point: the Melhuse and T-Long Ks looking against Lowe — those were great pitches that, even had Adam or Terrence swung at them, they would have, at best, made lousy contact on.)

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 2:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

God, those pitches are from my nightmares...

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 2:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think anyone here believes that.

The differences in umpires and zones has been observed and documented, and of course is still worked on.

But, to me at least, it seems reasonable that because all hitters have to work with the same pool of umpires, those differences are minimal over the course of a large sample. An attempt to understand signal to noise in stats, as well as regression, is key to baseball analysis.

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 2:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly

The hitter’s margin for error on the flight path of the ball is far greater than an individual umpire’s variant strike zone. If you know the pitch is somewhere between 2 inches over the plate and 4 inches off the plate, who the hell cares if the umpire’s zone is an inch wider than usual?

I suppose in theory you could develop some kind of differential swing frequency based on the individual zone of the umpire and the probability that any given pitch will be a strike, but that would take months to figure out and the hitter has fractions of a second.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 3:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Good point

Very tough to be watching a pitch, coming in on a horizontal-axis, and “freezing” the relative position of the plate (vertical-axis observation). The ump’s eyes can go “up down up down” with far more ease than a batter’s eyes can perform that task. Guys like Vlad simply ignore where the strike zone is… their question is, “Can I get the good part of the bat on it, with high bat speed”.

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 11, 2008 3:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

what does the ump have to do with it?

That’s the thing about a Custean approach—it ignores the ump entirely. If a borderline pitch is called a ball, gravy; if it’s called a strike, oh well. And, in any event, we’re talking about (Eric Gregg excepted) borderline pitches—which are usually (but not always, depending on the hitter) no good for solid contact anyway. This debate on the pro-Cust side isn’t about the strike zone, but about the contact zones. It’s about defining and refining the areas over which a batter actually exerts control, and learning to let go of the areas over which he can exert only marginal control at best.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 3:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

geez man, I'm already scarred for life

Did you have to bring that up?

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I am utterly sanguine about those 2 ABs; always have been

I liked PHing for Dye, and I never had any problem with those guys taking those pitches. Those were the smart percentage moves; Lowe just executed extremely well. I like smart and well-played baseball.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 3:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I like it when the A's win

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 3:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I mean the way that series ended was sad

I was at the walk off bunt game, so going from there to that low.

I had to work that night (game 5) and I was on the bay bridge listening on the radio. The am coverage died for a second right as Long K’d. It was like driving into this grey cloud of sadness. Terrible.

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 3:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I rode home from the Coliseum and almost puked I felt so bad.

But that might have been the rally big dog, rally nachos and most of two 32 oz bottles of water.

by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 3:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You liked PHing for Dye

while Grady Little was signaling an intentional walk ?

by green star oakland on Nov 11, 2008 3:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So you take the pitch and pray it isn't called a strike?!

At least give yourself a chance and swing at a close pitch … standing there isn’t going to accomplish anything. Well, actually it accomplishes a lot … a lot of losing.
Are you suggesting Melhuse and Long made a good decision by not swinging?

I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.

by Vacafan on Nov 12, 2008 3:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Are you serious?

You don’t see how not swinging gives you “a chance”?

It’s never 100% certain that ANY pitch will be called a strike, and if it’s borderline the chances of being rung up on it may be well below 50%.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2008 4:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

a qualified "yes" to each query

You take the pitch not because you think/hope/pray that it will be called a ball, but because you can’t hit it effectively. You learn to not care what the ump calls it.

Actually, strike “qualified” on the response to the second question. Simple “yes” will suffice. Swinging at those two called strike threes wouldn’t have done Melhuse or T (or the team) any good. You have to, as the saying goes, tip your cap (or thrust your groin) to Lowe. He nailed both of those pitches, and there wasn’t anything the hitters could do about it.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 12, 2008 7:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think you misunderstand

Here’s the point: if you instruct your hitter to “hit situationally”, you’re asking your player to, for example, look to hit the pitch to the right side to move a runner from second to third. If the pitcher throws nothing but inside pitches, and your hitter is only looking to hit the ball to the right side, you’re going to get an ugly out. If your hitter is just looking to make solid contact, the chances he gets a hit are a lot higher than if he just looks to hit to the right side. Every hitter should be going to the plate looking to get on base except maybe a player bunting, but even then you have to make sure you bunt it far enough away from the fielders so your runner doesn’t get forced, and honestly, you’d rather not get any outs than the one out anyway. If you instruct your hitter to hit the ball in a specific direction, you’re depriving him of hitting opportunity.

With respect to your comments regarding sending players to major college programs…my friend coached the freshmen at Del Oro (Rocklin area) High School a couple years ago. One of the kids had a brother that was in the minor leagues. This kid apparently was taught his pitching motion by his brother, and it was an exact copy. The kid’s pitching motion was GROSSLY inefficient; he almost leaned forward while winding up, killing his velocity. I told my friend that the kid could seriously throw far harder if this was fixed, and his answer was that the kid’s brother had taught him the motion. That means the kid’s brother was WRONG, and likely won’t make it anywhere in the big leagues. The fact that kids from your school have made it to major college programs has almost zero correlation to your abilities and knowledge as a coach; it has to do with the PLAYERS’ abilities. Sorry man.

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

my coach

told me teammates wouldn’t get recruited if I didn’t cut my hair.

by Future Ed on Nov 12, 2008 12:23 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We've gone over this before. I know it's hard for some people to understand.

Especially people who “played the game” and “still teach after 40 years” or whatever the hell you have to say to prove that you’re awesome at baseball. All it really proves is that you’re hard headed and refuse to accept something different that may go against the stupid concept of “traditional baseball” that you have in your head.

(disclamer: I’m turning 30 next June. I’ve played baseball since I was 6. Who gives a shit?)

That said: WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU TRY AND TEACH A KID TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN GET A HIT?

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Dude, you just blew my mind

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 2:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Balks, dude. You send your hitters to the plate looking to force the pitcher to balk.

Or you have them try to get the catcher to airmail the return throw to the pitcher so Jason Kendall can score the winning run.

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

lol

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 5:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So, they should swing to intentionally miss the ball?

Swing to cause catcher’s interference?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 2:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

a walk? but that would just clog the bases!

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 2:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How do teach someone to swing the bat to get a walk?

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

in defense of sactownbull

I also think AN gets too snarky with a dogmatic worship of On Base Percentage. I agree that there are many productive outs:
grounders to the right side when a runner is on 2b or 3b
fly outs to the outfield or deep foul territory that allow runners to advance
advancement due to balls put in play which result in errors on the other team.
Fouls also include the likelihood that later in the at bat the pitcher will make a mistake or give in.

I thought the Phillie D-ray series was fascinating in terms of watching the Phillies eke out runs. They won two of the first three games by one run.
I think the old high OBP/OPS theory was a product of the steroid era and needs rethinking.

They're called RUNS for a reason.

by connie mack on Nov 11, 2008 3:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There's plenty of room in the stocks for another person

Your arguments are not refinements on anything he’s said, just repetition.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 3:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It has nothing to do with a "dogmatic worship of OBP"

The idea that a hitter should swing at a BAD pitch, just for the sake of making a “productive out” is downright insane.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 3:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

yeah, this really isn't a "Moneyball" vs "old-school" argument

It’s two different approaches to fundamentals.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 5:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

OBP and OPS have flaws obviously,

The obvious flaw in overrelying on something like OBP / OPS, isn’t steroids. It is that they are only offensive stats. So, a guy with a >900 OPS who is very very bad defensively in an OF corner, ie Carlos Lee, is actually not better than someone with a <800 OPS who plays very good D at SS, ie Yunel Escobar.

Another flaws is lack of adjustment for park.

Another flaw is that OBP / OPS doesn’t take into account baserunning.

But, it’s not meant to do all that. OBP / OPS are meant as simple rough stats that are easy to understand and can be calculated easily at the ballpark.

If you want more accurate stats, there are the linear weights based stats, such as EQA, Batting Runs, BaseRuns etc, which assign run values to individual events, ie singles, doubles, SBs, CS, etc. These run values are based on what real world actual living players did in MLB games. Some of them, such as EQA, work for the whole history of baseball. So steroids aren’t an issue. Others, such as BaseRuns, are “tweaked” to be more accurate for the modern game, but less accurate otherwise.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 12, 2008 1:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, there is.

A WALK!

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Gammons has some bad moments

But Beane seems to like talking to the man.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, this, from Gammons
Anderson, Cahill and others will be pitching in Oakland come July,

doesn’t sound like Gammons has been talking to Beane.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 9:38 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, Cahill is a stretch

But Gio, Mazzaro and maybe even Anderson could be in Oakland by July.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I know Anderson is considered polished,

but you really see him in the majors by July?

My main quibble with that sentence from Gammons is Anderson and Cahill being up by July. The others I can see.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 10:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Let me put it this way

I’ll be disappointed if Anderson isn’t bucking for a spot in Oakland’s rotation come July.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 10:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's pretty silly.

Even with Smith gone, there are more than 5 pitchers ahead of Anderson on the depth chart. If all of those guys are pitching well, Anderson won’t be around. You should be hoping the A’s don’t need to call him up in July.

by thejd44 on Nov 11, 2008 10:29 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Silly?

It’s silly that I think Anderson is about to blossom into maybe the best LHSP prospect in baseball? If i’m being silly you’re way too serious.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 10:34 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Gallagher is the only pitcher who will be long term for the A's who is currently on the team

I see Mazzaro, Cahill and Anderson and the Gallagher will make up the big 4. Then you have a battle for 5th starter with Eveland and Simmons as the two most possible.
What Beane is doing is starting to build a hitting team to go with this pitchers. Not sure yet if he plans on keeping Holliday long term but that would be sweet.

"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"

by Eastbayjim on Nov 11, 2008 1:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Damn, I forgot Gio (the other Gonzalez)

"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"

by Eastbayjim on Nov 11, 2008 1:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

the only Gonzalez now

by rightbackin on Nov 11, 2008 3:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Cahill had a ZiPS of 4.54 or something like that 4th best on the

team now without Smith among starters.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I didn't say it was the definitive authority, but rather that

there’s evidence that Cahill might be ready this year. Do you have any evidence that another system is better for players with minimal big league time?

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No system is good at projecting players with minimal big league time

However, ZiPS was pretty clearly the worst of the major projection systems (PECOTA, Chone, THT, Marcel) last season.

At the very least, you need to wait around for the rest of the projections to come out.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 4:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No. I'd rather post now.

I’ll bore you all with PECOTA after it comes out too.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 4:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

and cahill and anderson are the only ones named

“and others” could be anyone, and there’s a 100% the a’s will have called up some minor league pitchers by july.
just not cahill or anderson.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 12:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

just read the article
Gio Gonzalez, James Simmons, Vin Mazzaro

all more likely to be pitching for the a’s this year than anderson or cahill.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 12:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

good lord I hope

Because Cahill and Anderson have the chance to be really really special. I want them to come up when they’re ready to be good, not to start their clock when they’re still learning their way. Put it this way, I don’t think they’re going to be better options in 2009 at the major league level than other guys whose clock it is less imperative to be keeping a very close eye on.

by jdr on Nov 11, 2008 2:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This crap about not putting your best players on the field in order to delay

service clocks is getting somewhat annoying.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm sure Brewers fans would have preferred Ryan Braun on the field in 2007

And Longoria missed what — a week?

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not the one who made a massively overstated claim, you are

Either service clocks are worth worrying about, or they aren’t.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 4:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

In general anything other than a meritocracy is bad management practice

You know, Paul is our best lawyer and he’d get our client the best outcome, but he’s only in his 3rd year and we don’t want him pushing for partner too soon. Let’s put Bob on the case. That way we get to string Paul along an extra year before we have to make him partner.

A company that thinks this way isn’t one I want to be associated with, as a customer, employee, investor or even drinking buddy.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 4:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The A's clients are the fans

As a fan and client, I want the A’s to win. I want them to convert what resources they have most effectively into won ballgames. Most investors want companies to maximize profits, which in general would involve meritocracy, but sometimes not. Say, if the industry had some strange rules such that they only controlled employees for a set amount of time. In those conditions, it may be wise to keep promising employees in apprenticeship. I would divest from a company that ignored such things in favor of vague ethical notions.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Nov 11, 2008 5:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A company that doesn't think pleasing its customers

is Job 1 isn’t going to be competitive long run. Not emphasizing merit in favor of taking advantage of systemic imperfections leads to a sick culture and screws you in the long run. Ask investors in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac what they think of the government favoritism that those companies enjoyed. Were they saved by those? Or did those warp the thought process of top management?

The most irritating thing to me about MLB is its anti-competitive practices wherein owners are out to maintain monopolies, get tax breaks and subsidized venues, and limit player salaries all as higher priorities than expanding the customer base. This is not healthy for the business.

As an owner in an individual team, I’d much rather see my organization not worry about trying to game the system and just do the best it can every day — on the field, and in the marketing department. Taking advantage of system imperfections should come third.

That’s how George Steinbrenner increased the value of the Yankees from $10 million to whatever billions it’s worth now, while short-sighted guys like Schott and Pohlad and Loria are happy with their mere tens of millions generated from freebies. I’d rather be an investor with George than with Jeffrey or Carl or Bud or Steve.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

pleasing this customer=winning games

Ignoring beneficial strategies that other teams take advantage of because it violates “meritocracy” would make this fan very angry.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Nov 11, 2008 5:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

+1

I want the A’s to win baseball games, and rushing their best prospects is an exceptionally good way to NOT do that.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 5:30 PM PST