Staturday: What will be, What w/could have been, and What the heck happened? PT was right!

by devo on Feb 23, 2008 12:30 AM PST in News Comment 60 comments

STOP READING – SPOILER ALERT!

This column will project the upcoming season with such frightening precision that playing the games will be little more than a novelty. The only reason to attend a game will be to drink over priced beer, eat garlic fries and enjoy the beats pounded out of the left field bleachers. Fair enough, those are some good reasons.

Read on, if you must, but do not say that I did not warn you.

Warnings aside, these projections, as with all projections, are inexact. They are based on weighted averages of a range of possible outcomes for each player. Many players will exceed these projections. Many others will fail to live up to them. I do my best to account for health, but, again, these are based on what I consider to be the most likely outcome and serious injuries or unexpected health could change playing time projections dramatically.

Offensive projections are based on this formula, drawn exclusively from OPS (as projected by PECOTA) and playing time:

RC = (.3 x OPS - .1) x PA

Pitching projections are based on this formula, drawn exclusively from RA/9 (as projected by PECOTA) and IP:

RA = RA/9 x IP/9

These are both very simple translations. They do not include important considerations, such as defense, leverage, base running, OPS distribution and a number of other factors.

Lineups were taken from MLB.com’s depth charts. Playing time was based on my own estimates.

The A’s – What will be:

The offense is pretty much ok across the board. No one is that good, no one is that bad. When you apply positional adjustments, Mark Ellis and Jack Cust would tie for the honor of being the best offensive player on the squad. It is a sub-par lineup, but it is not terrible … just wait until we get to Seattle. (whoops … another spoiler)

You will notice that in this projection I am anticipating no playing time from Rich Harden.

As is always a problem, pitchers switching roles (Duke) tend to have unrealistically high projections when entering the rotation and unrealistically low, when joining the ‘pen.

The top of the rotation is pretty average. So is the bullpen. The back end of the rotation grades poorly, though – and with all of the health issues, I felt the need to assign a number of innings to an anonymous crappy pitcher who will allow 2 runs for every 3 innings of work. The Rangers also needed some help from a pitcher to be named later to finish their season. In the interests of avoiding yet another spoiler, lets promptly move on to our friends from Texas.

The Rangers – What will be:

Do not let the acceptable run total fool you. This is another poor offense. It is that girl at the club who you have spent all night dancing with … she is hinting that she wants to go somewhere quiet, but, quite wisely, you do not want to commit until they turn the lights on to kick everyone out. It is the heat and jet streams of Arlington that powers this offense – not actual talent.

The Rangers’ pitching staff, on the other hand, is not nearly as bad as it looks – well, sort of. The 13 players involved in the projection, should post fairly close to average run totals, given their home park. The problem is, given their recent performances, I simply could not figure out where the innings were going to come from. If the “Others” involved in this projection were inflated for park effects, that run total would head north with it. This is not a terrible rotation – but if questions are not answered and players do not step up their innings, it could go south, very quickly.

The Angels – What will be:

Here we have a pretty much average offense. PECOTA does not much care for Erick Aybar – but this team has good depth which will get plenty of playing time, given health question marks and inexperience. Surprisingly, this is slightly worse than the expected number of runs for the Angels last year, despite the notable upgrade of banishing Shea Hillenbrand.

The rotation looks like it will be a bit disappointing to Halo fans. It is a good group – but may fail to put up the kind of numbers that will carry a team. The top of the bullpen should be very good, the lack of depth could hurt – but if Bulger lives up to his billing, Scioscia should be able to avoid using the back of his ‘pen in any leveraged situations.

This is a decent team – but not that good. PaulThomas was right in his repeated assertion. They are very beatable. So can the Mariners beat them?

The Mariners – What will be:

I should note that PECOTA did not have projections for Bloomquist or Morse – so I used their career OPS instead. I think Morse is a tad overrated, but it should not affect the overall numbers much.

PECOTA hates Ichiro Suzuki (unfairly, I think -- he should be a couple of wins better) and the Mariners offense as a whole. It thinks this is a lineup that will compete for the honor of being the worst in the league. There are no real bright spots here. It is just bad.

They made waves in the off-season bulking up their rotation and the ‘pen is thought to be a good one. Will it be enough?

Was it enough? That is a resounding no. The rotation behind Bedard and King Felix is terrible and the bullpen behind Putz is average at best. I cannot help but wonder, what were the Mariners thinking? Acquiring Bedard will give them a reasonable chance of avoiding 90 losses – but a .500 season would be a huge accomplishment for this porous roster.

The Division – What will be:

The Angels will limp across the finish line thanks to a lack of any real competition. Summer in Oakland will be more exciting than most expect, given the division, BB may not even be in a position to entertain offers for Blanton, Street, et al come July.

The Mariners, despite high expectations will trail the pack. Bedard was worth about 4 wins to them. So, seriously, what were they thinking?

The Division – What would have been:

Coming that close to competing, many A’s fans will be left wondering, what would have been if Swisher and Haren had still been around? What about if BB had brought in Barry Bonds? Could that team have competed?

That team would have done more than compete.

Adding those three guys to the projection would have added 8 wins to the total, allowing the team to edge the Angels and squeak into the playoffs. Bonds and Swisher are worth 4.5 wins, Haren 3.5 wins.

The Division – What could have been:

ou’ll recall that all projections for the A’s to this point are mildly conservative in one respect – they project zero playing time for Rich Harden. What could have been if he was added in? What if Rich Harden could manage 140 innings? All of a sudden the AL West is transformed from a poor division that seemingly no one wants to win into a legitimate major league.

Of course, I know what you are thinking and you are right. That projection is a pipe dream. Rich Harden pitching? Bitch, please!

In case you want to explore other possible amounts of playing time, every 35 innings Harden pitches should add one win to the team’s total, meaning a completely healthy Rich Harden would be worth about 6 wins. You’ll recall that without Harden, the A’s project to be 7 games behind the Angels.

But I suppose the ultimate point of these two thousand words is this:
Should Billy Beane have turned to rebuilding if the team, as this projection suggests, had a 50-50 chance of winning the honor of getting the crap kicked out of it in the first round by either the Yankees or the Red Sox?

Poll

Should the A's have gone for it?

Yes, absolutely.

93 votes

Yes, but only if BB believed improved health was on the horizon.

120 votes

No, 85 wins this year isn't worth 65 wins for the foreseeable future.

476 votes

Fire Geren now!!!!!!

64 votes

753 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 60 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I'm loving these saturday articles

Keep 'em coming!

this season is looking brighter and brighter..

Ellis for President

by tosk on Feb 23, 2008 3:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Now you can take this post and shove it.......

to the back of the drawer for the rest of the season. Then during spring cleaning next year, you can take it out and find out if you have a future in statistical futures analysis. My guess is, this will be wrong across the board. Not because its a bad projection, but just because its impossible to predict with any real accuracy what will happen over 162 games.

Except that Crosby & Harden will find a new and interesting ways to get injured, and I see you took that into account with both of them, especially Harden.

OakFoSho

“Predictions of the future are never anything but projections of present automatic processes and procedures, that is, of occurrences that are likely to come to pass if men do not act and if nothing unexpected happens; every action, for better or worse, and every accident necessarily destroys the whole pattern in whose frame the prediction moves and where it finds its evidence.” Hannah Arendt

by 0akFoSho on Feb 23, 2008 3:52 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

impossible to predict?

I think the question, "Is there any way to predict how a team will do" is the genesis of many prediction systems.

Think about this: PECOTA arose because it "passed" where others "failed". You don't see the systems that "fail" because... they failed! So when you say, "its (sic) impossible to predict with any real accuracy what will happen over 162 games.", it is what systems like PECOTA do, predict with accuracy.

What is "real accuracy"??? Well, if you mean fourteen teams, and the exact number of wins and losses predicted with not one team in error, I suppose that is "impossible". But, can it predict division winners, say, nine times out of twelve (that would be three divisions, four years)??

Then I would say...yeah, it is not "impossible" to predict, and it's worth considering.

"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer

by One won lost won on Feb 23, 2008 8:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

+1
minus 3
+3
------------------------------------------------------
See...
While I'm truly amazed by the sabermetric folks and their creativity in statistical investigation, these things always seem more or less an excercise in reimagining baseball as it might be without all those extra, un-quantifiable elements that make the game, you know... BASEBALL.

by Brendo on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:13:18 PM EST

by Dork on Feb 24, 2008 4:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

TRUE!!

by 0akFoSho on Feb 25, 2008 8:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Did you actually read the article?

Warnings aside, these projections, as with all projections, are inexact. They are based on weighted averages of a range of possible outcomes for each player. Many players will exceed these projections. Many others will fail to live up to them. I do my best to account for health, but, again, these are based on what I consider to be the most likely outcome and serious injuries or unexpected health could change playing time projections dramatically.

Morgan-esque responses like this are invariably an exercise in beating a straw chicken.

The idea is not to make exact, unassailable predictions. The idea is to establish a solid baseline of how much effective talent each team had coming into the season. Having such a baseline is essential to understanding what happens over the course of the upcoming season.

Most things happen in a more or less normal way. Some things don't. Some things are special -- one way or the other. Unless you understand what normal is it's hard to appreciate what's special.

Some times it's obvious when something is special. Ichiro Suzuki is an incredibly special player. He's flashy, he's exciting, it's obvious to anyone that follows the game that he's special. Did you realize, though, that Jack Cust is special in a similar way?

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Feb 25, 2008 11:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Staturday!!

Hey Devo, excellent job as usual. I think you overdid it on your part but on a good note.

I can't see the A's having Dan Johnson and Mike Sweeney on their 25 man roster.

I don't see any mention of Foulke either as he has a major league contract, where do you think he'll end up? Also if Rich Harden pitches zero innings shouldn't his ERA be zero?

I'm hoping that Harden can stay healthy and the A's standings will go into that amazing pipe dream of 91 wins. Susan Slusser had an article about Harden in the Chronicle today and noted that Harden threw 95 mph fastballs and even one for 98 mph. I'm still feeling pessimistic about his health but its nice to read that he's doing well.

by Coffee13eans on Feb 23, 2008 5:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Thanks ...

you may be right about DJ/Sweeney ... though I could see a scenario where both make the team ... it wouldn't affect the projection outcomes much at all, though ...

Yeah ... Foulke should have been included ... but he was retired at the time these projections were run so he wasn't included.

In real life, yes ... his ERA would be zero ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Feb 24, 2008 11:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

a few comments

1. You mentioned that PECOTA is irrationally down on Ichiro (and my understanding is that this has been going on for years). Did you add in any (totally ad-hoc) correction for that? While I wouldn't be totally shocked by 74 wins from Seattle, my unscientific opinion is that their true expectation value is higher than that.

2. When you started adding wins to the A's (with Haren, Swisher, Bonds, Harden), there wasn't any adjustment to the other teams in our division. Just based on the percentage of games in our division, you'd expect that 8 additional A's wins should contribute nearly 3 losses to other AL West teams. Ok, I guess that isn't really a huge correction, but for the Haren/Swisher/Bonds case maybe we win the division by an average of two games, instead of one.

3. Probably the key message for me from all of this is that the AL West is really a weak division right now. It's too bad that the A's aren't in a position to take advantage of that…

4. …but I'm still pretty happy about all these offseason moves in general. Maybe I should be cursing Beane for not taking this gamble, but I'm excited about all the unknowns on the team, with lots of potential for upside.

Thanks for all the hard work that went into the diary. I've had the gut feeling for a while that this year's team is more likely to be decent than bad, so it's good to see support for that viewpoint.

by colin on Feb 23, 2008 6:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm with your No. 4

The A's did have a chance to go for it this year, but it would have
a) pushed back the rebuilding schedule so the rebuilding years would coincide with the opening of the new stadium
b) made the rebuilding a very difficult effort - probably more losses and a longer amount of time
c) it would coincide with the Vlad/Lackey/K-Rod Angels, which, while not a total powerhouse, are likely to be tough
d) it would coincide with the Tigers, who will be good this year but are a rapidly aging team

The thing about Beane, despite what's been written about him, is that he's not much of a risk-taker. It only looks that way to establishment thinking. He'll take low-downside gambles for short periods. But really, the key to his success is in NOT taking foolish risks, and starting the rebuilding project a year early is a manifestation of that.

stat-addled alien overlord

by salb918 on Feb 23, 2008 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Beane is "not much of a risk-taker"

Absolutely right and widely misunderstood. Though I wonder if the risk-averse strategy is fundamental to his approach, or a function of the smaller revenue gig he now has.

There is an A in Whimsy.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 23, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ichiro

PECOTA is down on Ichiro because of his BABIP is so high compared to the league average, of which there is a certain skill to deviate from league average here.

Ichiro's last 4 years of BABIP, per FanGraphs are 390, 350, 319, 401 and if the league average tends to hover around 300, then would expect some return to the mean. Furthermore, Ichiro hits a very high percentage of groundballs. You put these two together and it makes sense.

The fact of the matter is, is that with systems like these there are always going to be rule-breakers and Ichiro is one of them. Anyway.

I think that the factors that were ignored for (sanity's sake I assume), would play out significantly. As an example and referring to Nico's a call for more runs post, I do not believe that the A's have the same amount of athleticism as the other teams do (i.e. who on our team could think about scoring from 1st on a double-like hit down the 1B line?)

I dunno, I just don't think that the A's have the aggressiveness nor the coaching to take chances like that, but I could very well be wrong and that in turn makes it easier for opposing defenses to play against them. All that, all that, means to me that I think the RS is too high, I mean, what we scored 741 R last year, allowed 758? I see that projection to be worse in pitching with Duke's excellent numbers, but I think it might be worse yet there and it is such a gamble to think that the exchange of Kotsay, Swisher, and effectively DJ for Denorfia, Emil Brown, and Barton will produce slightly more runs.

Personally, I would at least think of Harden pitching more like 70 IN even in your initial projection since that is ~average he has pitched the last 3 years. Then, maybe you could have done, like PECOTA, a 75%, 90% success rate for Harden. Anyway, I like the optimism.

I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.
— Benjamin Franklin

by bjk15 on Feb 23, 2008 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

love Buck

Still in the first month of his major league career, Buck hit that awesome triple against the Yankees in the eleventh, and had this to say after the game:

"Knowing Damon doesn't really have that good of a throwing arm, I wanted to test it," he said. "I made up my mind right off the bat, 'I'm going all the way.'"

So, I guess that's one guy who might score from 1st on a double. But I don't think this refutes your main point. Even the young A's aren't really going to pick up many extra runs through baserunning.

by colin on Feb 23, 2008 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Baserunning makes some impact

but not a lot. If you want, give the Angels 2 extra wins (one for stolen bases, one for plays-in-action like scoring from first on a double) and knock a win off the A's totals.

it is such a gamble to think that the exchange of Kotsay, Swisher, and effectively DJ for Denorfia, Emil Brown, and Barton will produce slightly more runs.

This is the bit I have an issue with. Kotsay was unbelievably bad last year. Had he played enough, he would have been vying with Ray Durham and Jason Kendall for worst hitter in baseball. Kendall also has been replaced, BTW, and even with a .660 OPS hitter replacing him, that's a 15 run upgrade. Basically the system projects Suzuki as replacement level, which is 15 runs BETTER than Kendall was. If Suzuki actually hits at major league level, so much the better.

DJ for Barton doesn't look that great, but it's actually a lot better than it appears because of DJ's chronically low BABIPs. He's kind of the "reverse Ichiro"-- the projection system can't believe that anyone could be that bad at getting hits on ground balls.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Feb 23, 2008 12:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

And that is my point; baserunning could increase the gap a little so that the difference is 10 games instead of 7, which is enough to negate going for it. Maybe the increased production from Denorfia, Barton and Suzuki could make it closer, but everything would have to break just right with Haren, Swish, Bonds, and Harden for this scenario to work.

by bjk15 on Feb 23, 2008 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Firstly, hitters do have control over

balls in play. More than pitchers. Yes, there is luck involved. There IS also skill.

Just because league average is 300 does not mean that a particular player will regress to 300. Fangraphs has his career BABIP as 359. This is in 5180 PAs.

Ichiro has averaged about 22 runs above a league average hitter offensively in his career. Luck or skill or whatever, that is what he has done.

PECOTA is projecting him to be BELOW an average CF offensively in 2008: 304-346-384, 730 OPS. His lowest real OPS in MLB is 786. Real career average, 816.

None of the other projection systems are projecting such a huge drop in performance.

PECOTA has gotten him wrong pretty much since his 1st year. One would think that, by now, Silver would accept that his system does not work for Ichiro, and not use it for Ichiro.

Also, regardless of the reasons why PECOTA gets Ichiro wrong, it does get hin wrong, Since it gets him wrong, there is no reason to use PECOTA to project him, not when using it will likely end up badly skewing the projections: if all he does is hit his career low OPS of 786, he would be about 10 runs better than the PECOTA projection.

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

by rfloh on Feb 23, 2008 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

1. No, did not correct for Ichiro ... you could add 2-3 wins on his account.

I'd agree that they are likely to beat the projection by a couple of games -- but they're unlikely to contend.

2. Yes, this is true ... but making the adjustment wouldn't have been germane, since such factors hadn't been considered to begin with. The general mediocrity in the division would have affected the initial standings as well.

3. Yep ...

4. Great ...

Happy to do it ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Feb 24, 2008 11:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Option 4 is not mutually exclusive with other options.

1) If the Angels are an 86 win team, then 85 wins sounds like a worthy contender, why is Option 2 so unpopular?

2) Hernandez is looking mighty good in that projection.

by WaddellCanseco on Feb 23, 2008 8:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

crapshoot

I voted for option 3, but as I said above, I'm probably biased by overoptimistic excitement about seeing how the new guys all turn out. My guess for why option 2 doesn't have many votes is that people are assuming that whichever team wins the AL West with 80-something victories is going to get destroyed by NY/Boston/Cleveland/Detroit in the first round of the playoffs. Don't forget the 2006 Cardinals!

by colin on Feb 23, 2008 8:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I was thinking the same thing

I thought it was ironic that he used "crap" (as in get the crap beaten out of them) in a playoff system that is very much the crapshoot that Beane claimed it to be. Once you're in, anything can happen.

And lest we forget, "there's only ONE October!"

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Feb 23, 2008 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I was disappointed that Beane didn't go for it.

I understand why he decided to rebuild...but I agree with you. The A's had a shot at the postseason with Haren on the team...and if they had signed Bonds. And we know that the best team doesn't always take home the big trophy. (As A's fans we KNOW that). Personally, I like watching a contending team.

by IM4Oakgal on Feb 24, 2008 12:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

so right now...

angels: 86 wins
a's: 79 wins

"Bonds and Swisher are worth 4.5 wins"
so add 4.5 wins for bonds and 4 wins for harden:

a's: 87.5 wins
angels: 86 wins

new poll option: the a's can still go for it (while adding 11 prospects)

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 Feb 23, 2008 8:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

No, he meant Bonds and Swisher are worth

4.5 wins COMBINED.

The downgrade from Swisher to Denorfia (and from Denorfia to Emil Brown as 4th outfielder) is probably less than it looks, though, because Denorfia's a better center fielder.

So I'd say 2.5 wins for Bonds alone, plus I'd suggest the baserunning adjustments I proposed above, giving the A's 84.5 wins and the Angels 88. Not out of reach by any means.

Then again, you should probably adjust for fielding as well. And the Angels are a much worse fielding team than the A's. So it's probably even closer than that.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Feb 23, 2008 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok so now they're up to 85 wins with Bonds and Rich

That's within the range of random fluctuation. The pennant could be ours! Sign Bonds now!

by WaddellCanseco on Feb 23, 2008 4:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

it will be nice to revisit this

next October

by OaklandSi on Feb 23, 2008 9:05 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

sure, as long as people remember

this

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 Feb 23, 2008 9:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No Way

Will the Mariners be last and the A's be second. No matter how many numbers you have to support this. No Way. This is how the West will look at the end of the season:

Angels
Mariners
A's
Texas

by butler19 on Feb 23, 2008 9:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Glad you've got an open mind.

stat-addled alien overlord

by salb918 on Feb 23, 2008 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Does everyone forget

that the mariners ended up allowing more runs than scoring last year? Throughout the season i always look at the individual team stats, the mariners' team era was near the bottom of the AL, and their offense mediocre. I don't see how adding Bedard makes them that good and i don't see them getting second place. The mariners simply aren't as good as everyone thinks, and i'm expecting a finish of 2nd place for the A's much like 2005.

"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra

by Cheezombie on Feb 23, 2008 3:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

second? 2nd? 2005?

Them looks like numbers to me, pilgrim.

Someone is wrong on the Internet. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2008 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Super, thanks ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Feb 24, 2008 11:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

In your initial formulas

what do "RC" and "RA" stand for? I didn't see that anywhere. I'm guessing RA is Runs Allowed, since it's for pitchers, but RC... Runs Counted? Runs Created?

"I'm going to take a camera crew and march into Billy Beane's office and demand to know why instituting his newfangled cost-saving measures means that the run manufacturing plant had to get shut down." FJM

by Elvez on Feb 23, 2008 9:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

And where does RA appear in the tables?

It that were "ExpRuns" comes from?

Sorry, I suck at sabr.

by Elvez on Feb 23, 2008 9:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

stuff

RC - runs created (effectively Runs Scored)
ExpRuns - effectively RA

by bjk15 on Feb 23, 2008 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

what bjk said ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Feb 24, 2008 11:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Questions, statements

1] Staturdays rule.

2] That does seem like a startlingly optimistic outlook for Duchscherer (both in terms of durability and effectiveness). I know you mentioned that this is often the case with reliever-to-starter projections, but can you (or someone) explain why that is? Insufficient historical data? Too many difficult to pin down variables (such as whether a pitcher's stuff is varied and/or dominant enough to survive the second and third time through the order)?

3] The idea of garlic fries is tremendous. The reality, not so much. Bland and overpowering at the same time, if I may indulge in a quasi-oxymoron.

4] Where is Bowen playing the other 15% of the time? If DH or 1B, why? (especially since you have us carrying DJ and Sweeney) And if anywhere else ... uh, why?

by 74mk on Feb 23, 2008 9:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Garlic fries

Only work when the fries themselves are really well done, making them crisp enough to support the weight of the garlic. That hardly ever happens; more often the whole plate dissolves into a mush of grade school cafeteria grey limp spud-garlic puree.

There is an A in Whimsy.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 23, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

go home, Red Sox troll

You're obviously making a coded demand that the A's trade their bland ton of mushy puree for a more crisp player.

Someone is wrong on the Internet. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2008 2:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

word!

I am perpetually disappointed by garlic fries since dimly-remembered days. I couldn't understand why. You hit it: never real crisp! Ahhhh!

Just another example to add to the pile:
"Haste makes (mushed, pureed) waste."

"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer

by One won lost won on Feb 23, 2008 8:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

1. I think so ...

at least two out of every three weeks ... the next two weeks should be awesome.

2. The projections were based on the assumption that Duke would be a reliever. It's easier to be a reliever than a starter.

3. They're awesome when fresh ... sadly, all too often, they aren't fresh.

4. PH/DH mostly ... much of it will presumably come in blow outs and or games with depleted rosters ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Feb 24, 2008 11:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You missed a great chance to title this post

What Is and What Should Never Be.

I'm certainly not capable of arguing the data with you, but I remain skeptical that the A's roster of Oct. '07, plus health, plus Bonds, would have challenged the Angels roster of April '08. This is probably due to my generally pessimistic outlook, but I expect regression by Gaudin and Cust, unremarkableness from Duchscherer, non-superstardom from Chavez, and I'm concerned about the Duke-less bullpen as well. And the A's have Harden's mortician on speed dial. I fear the Angels rotation, and (perhaps foolishly) continue to assume that the post-Stoneman Angels will be more ready to add pieces, either in the offseason if the A's threatened, or at the deadline for post-season positioning.

There is an A in Whimsy.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 23, 2008 10:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

It is a statistically ruthless post

isn't it? Devo keeps trying to kindle that little ember of hope burning in my chest. Please stop. Perhaps you should have linked, "The Rain Song". It's really our only legitimate hope.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Feb 23, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You'll notice these projections do expect

significant regression from Gaudin and Cust as well as non-superstardom from Chavez ... much of the optimism comes from the fact that the Angels just aren't that good and that the A's have fairly remarkable depth.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Feb 24, 2008 11:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

PECOTA cards

are out.

a's

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 Feb 23, 2008 11:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

about time (and thanks for sharing)

seriously, first they delay the book by a week, then they take their sweet time releasing the cards... all because they are making way better, sheesh!

...

that is a joke... I can't wait until Monday, it'll be totally worth it.

by bjk15 on Feb 23, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

DJ

I don't subscribe to BPro, but I was just looking at the 5 category percentile rankings on the top right of those cards. I understand giving DJ high marks for ISO, not striking out, and (especially) taking walks, but they show him as average (or slightly above average) in BA. I remember hearing somewhere that most of the projection systems tend to be overly optimistic about Johnson. I assume that is the case here too?

by colin on Feb 23, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs