Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Kevin Duckworth, Dead, at 44 Bar-right-arrows



The Outfield Defense: Tick…Tick…

Be careful what you wish for…When the A’s were struggling to score last year, I could certainly relate to baseballgirl’s plea for some 9-7 games, even though Texas has been lining the cellar with those games for years. But once we all conceded that we couldn’t really get by without pitching, many of us thought that what we needed to give up was defense – go ahead and put Cust in the OF and we’ll deal with it, we decided, if that’s what it takes to get some bats in the lineup. Pick your poison, though, because the reality is that hitting without pitching, and hitting without defense: these are just different recipes for disaster. Suddenly, we’re just desperate for the team to make all the plays in the field, and we feel it with the same urgency that we were ready to give up pitching or defense just to score a darn run once in a while.

For the most part, so far the A’s have gotten away with a poor defensive outfield, with only Ryan Sweeney’s failure to catch Jason Kubel’s flare showing up directly as a costly outcome in the final result. Yet if the A’s keep trotting Cust out there to clank fly balls, Sweeney to get poor jumps in CF, and Emil Brown to mistake that guy in row 5 for the cutoff man, the A’s are going to pay a steep price – as they very nearly did again on Sunday, when Cust’s and Sweeney’s misadventure gave Felix Hernandez a 1-0 lead that was insurmountable for much of the afternoon. If the A’s want to be proactive, i.e., smart, they need to make some lineup adjustments now before their deficiencies are exposed in a big way. My thoughts on the various outfielders and what their roles need to be going forward:

Axiom #1: Every day, either Chris Denorfia or Rajai Davis needs to start in CF. The corner OF defense just isn’t strong enough to carry a CFer who isn’t a true CFer. Unfortunately, Denorfia and Davis are not a platoon combination, which means probably the “most days” job should go to Denorfia, whose on-base skills appear stronger. I’m puzzled as to why Denorfia hasn’t been playing more regularly, but now – especially with the addition of Frank Thomas – the A’s can better afford to carry a low slugging, plus-defender in CF. And they can’t afford not to.

Axiom #2: Jack Cust, Emil Brown, and Rajai Davis need to combine to be one super-platoon player. Cust and Brown are too weak defensively, and neither exceptional enough against “same handed” pitching, to be out there together. They should platoon, and when Cust starts he should always be removed after his first three ABs in favor of Davis’ defense for the final 1/3 of the game. Now you’re looking at an offensive player that is 75% Cust and 25% Brown, each with platoon advantage, and a defensive player that is only 6 innings of Cust when he starts. That’s ultimately going to be just the right amount of playing time for Brown, who is this year’s John Mabry: A guy who can help the team win for a short time, but will help the team lose if he plays every day for very long. (Note: For as long as Brown is on an RBI tear and Cust struggles, it’s fine for Emil to get a few extra starts against RHP, but only at Cust’s expense so that at least we are actually improving our OF defense by choosing to play Brown.)

Axiom #3: Ryan Sweeney needs to be “odd man out”. Not because he’s “so awful” (although this is a problem), but because there are three things he does not do well enough to play any of the OF positions. He does not hit for enough power (he has 3 XBHs all season) or OBP (he has drawn 3 BBs all season) to be a corner OFer, and he does not play strong enough defense in CF. Since he has options left, it would make perfect sense to send Sweeney to AAA until he makes strides in least one of those three areas: Learn more patience at the plate, develop more XBH power, or develop into a plus-CFer. Until then, it makes no sense to take ABs, and CF fly balls, away from Denorfia and Davis – who can at least solidify the defense at the OF’s most important defensive position.

Now when Buck returns your OF, against LHP, looks like Buck, Denorfia (or Davis), and Brown, with Cust on the bench as a pinch-hitting weapon and Davis (or Denorfia) on the bench as a pinch-runner and defensive replacement. Against RHP, your OF looks like Buck, Denorfia, Cust-Davis, with Brown on the bench as a pinch-hitting weapon against Mr. LOOGY. That alignment can work, but the current one is poised to backfire over time – and much sooner rather than later. 

 

0 recs | Comment 142 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

Generally agree but three points:

1) A’s are 17-10. Why change what’s working until it stops working? Brown is 2nd in AL in RBI. How can he be benched now?
2) Beane seems to really like Ryan Sweeney. I’d play him every day in RF (with your platoon in LF and Denorfia/Davis in CF) until Buck comes back.
3) Denorfia is coming back from a serious injury. I can see easing him back into the lineup as he gets strength back. He seems to have no power now.

by WaddellCanseco on Apr 29, 2008 7:13 AM PDT   0 recs

because the a's have been very very lucky

RISP BA + defense only costing 1ish games + everybody pitching out of their mind = something gonna give soon and we best be prepared for it. The “it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” axiom doesn’t apply when there are peripheral indications that somethings might be broken, they just haven’t caused a violent collision yet.

Anyhow, and I haven’t willed myself to read the Carlos Gonzalez injury news yet, Sweeney should be replaced by Gonzalez is he is to be replaced by anybody. An OF of Gonzalez + some combo of Brown/Cust/Denorfia with Davis being the designated fielder seems proper to me at this point. But until you are ready to bring Gonzalez up, I say let Sweeney keep playing.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 8:58 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

he rolled his ankle

and it is being evaluated today

by joeldavid on Apr 29, 2008 9:05 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Me thinks you are overreacting

Bottom line is: a) they have allowed fewest runs in the league; b) they are well in the upper half of overall team defensive efficiency.

Is it a great or even good OF defense? No.

But Cust will play if he hits—except against certain lefties. and yes—as we saw last night—he will be removed late with a narrow lead.

Brown is supplying too much offense at the right time to be taken out just yet—when Buck comes back Geren gets more flexibility—assuming Buck hits, of course.’

as for CF, I’m agnostic. I’d rather see both guys get time until one of them proves he should play more often—and if it’s neither or if CarGon (hope the injury’s minor) makes it clear he should be playing there, we have other options.

The good news is that we now have 6 guys (and even Murphy) who can play OF in some fashion and contribute. I take it more as a strenght than a weakness. No one’s talking about the fact that 90% of the RFers in the game would have caught that Thomas “triple” last night—we were lucky to be playing against a guy who’s pretty abysmal out there, no matter what Joe Morgan says.

by madmongoose on Apr 29, 2008 7:52 AM PDT   0 recs

To be fair,

the DefEff thing is not primarily related to the outfield. Even by their usual high standards, Crosby and Ellis have had an exceptional defensive month. The rest of the team’s defense is fairly average, but it helps a lot when the two guys who field the most batted balls are playing sensational defense.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 29, 2008 8:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

FWIW, THT has the A's defense as being a small factor in their success.

Someone please correct me if I’ve misinterpreted (as though you wouldn’t).

Pitching 6 runs above AL average
Fielding 3 runs
Total run prevention 9 runs above AL average

Both the infield (.867 RZR vs .827 for league) and outfield (.916 vs ,893) are above average in getting to balls within the fielders’ zone and average at out of zone plays.

The real success is the pitching, especially in the clutch—3.5 WPA. The bullpen 2.41 WPA is by far the best in the league.

I’m not sure whether this means that OF defense is basically unimportant or that the A’s OF is good enough as it stands, but it seems to mean that so far it’s been pretty effective, and it doesn’t seem to have been all that important.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/teams/

by WaddellCanseco on Apr 29, 2008 9:14 AM PDT to parent up   1 recs

Overall,

the IF defense will make up for the OF defense overall. I would have to think the OF numbers will decline somewhat, but a lot of teams have terrible corner OFers. It also doesn’t take into account Brown’s poor decisions. It’s still not going to be all that bad though. Brown is basically fine out there, and the CFers are not big liabilities.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 29, 2008 10:03 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'd rather think in terms of getting the best possible combo

of offense and defense out there as opposed to thinking that the middle infield defense will “make up” for the corner outfield. But agreed the Brown and Sweeney are basically fine out there. Cust is NOT fine out there, and he’ll surely cost games over the course of the season.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 10:47 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, I just meant in terms of what that plus minus number is going to say

Didn’t mean it at all in terms of a roster strategy.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 29, 2008 10:53 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

According to THT's "Outfield Arms" metric

(which one presumes would cover things like not hitting the cutoff man, as that allows extra bases to be taken) Brown is about average over the last 4 years as an arm.

He’s not “state of the art,” but he won’t burn you defensively either.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 29, 2008 11:03 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree, the shortcomings of the defense

are only a small picture in the story.

“Make the routine plays” has always been Wash’s mantra in teaching players to play better defense. Sure the A’s would have benefited from an exceptionally speedy CF in a couple of games, making exceptional plays. But to build a case that the A’s have been “hurt” would have to include some examples like last year’s Cust drop of a flyball to the first batter in the game: a no-doubt about it catch…”routine”. These “long drives” that could have been caught against the wall…they’re just going to happen with the guys we have.
There are many proponents of a “set lineup” and what that does for players’ performance. These proponents object to “tinkering” and flexible batting orders, etc. If there is any inherent”correctness” to this thinking, it means the amount of additional fidgiting with the defense will produce tiny gains (the A’s have the best record in the AL, how much can it improve??)

As for the idea “We cannot go on like this…it will get us!!” I recall Mark Twain’s quote

I am an old man and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened.

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

by One won lost won on Apr 29, 2008 11:30 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

"(the A’s have the best record in the AL, how much can it improve??)"

The goal isn’t to improve, it’s to maintain the status quo or not see it regress too much.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 11:33 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

"I am an old man ..."

That means (a) he had a large sample size, and (b) was consciously making fun of selection bias.

Your citation of the quote means the exact opposite of your intention.

And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 29, 2008 12:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Twain's quote means people worry about stuff

yet it is worry about speculated woes. Twain “knew” a great many troubles. In his mind. He made them up. He imagined woeful experiences to be, created them. Similar to the worry here about (“tick tick tick”) the future “woeful” defense that will supposedly hurt the future W-L record of the team.

Your (a) and (b) are unnecessarily cryptic with vague references: “That” “sample” “consciously” “selection bias”

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

by One won lost won on Apr 29, 2008 12:45 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Cust's bat this season has not yet justified

putting his glove out in the field on a regular basis.

Brown’s bat has justified it (and his glove is better than Cust’s).

Buck hasn’t played enough to know whether he is adjusting to opposing pitchers’ adjustments. He might also be a candidate to spend some time in AAA.

by OaklandSi on Apr 29, 2008 7:55 AM PDT   0 recs

This is it right here

Cust’s bat this season has not yet justified

putting his glove out in the field on a regular basis.

Brown’s bat has justified it (and his glove is better than Cust’s).

When are you people going to wake up to the fact Cust does not need to be on the field on even a semi-regular basis? Talking about Cust taking any PT away from Brown is just crazy talk.

by sactownbull on Apr 29, 2008 9:10 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes, it's crazy to prefer the guy who's here for 4 years

to the guy who’s here for 1.

It’s crazy to prefer the guy with a great power track record over the guy with the mediocre one.

It’s crazy to prefer the guy with the .360 OBP over the guy with the .300 OBP.

Positively certifiable. We should be locked up as lunatics.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 29, 2008 9:21 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

We're nuts!

stat-addled alien overlord

by salb918 on Apr 29, 2008 9:29 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm not a stat geek, but even i know

that if Cust goes 0-2 with 2 walks, he’s had a pretty good game.

The only issue I have with him being in there is that he should bat in the lower half of the lineup until he hits another hot streak.

"You have to have a catcher or you'll have all passed balls."- Casey Stengel

by Gaijin_Suketto on Apr 29, 2008 10:42 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

that an ops of .250

and even if you weight OBP for it’s value, its under 500.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 10:48 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

though one thing thats never discussed that this just reminded me of

Generally, you read about good OBPs and bad OBPs, good OBPs being hit-heavy, and bad OBP’s being walk heavy. The problem is walking a lot penalizes your OPS unduly because if a single is worth like 1 TB, a walk has to be worth like 50% to 80% (i have no clue) really of a TB, right? Yet you get no boost to your slugging…

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 10:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

can't use ops for something like that

It would be a .360 wOBA, which is a comprehensive performance measure, with .340 being average. So if someone did that every game, it would be well above average offense.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 29, 2008 10:57 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

ty ty

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 10:58 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

but also by extension

i suppose the whole walking being undervalued by slugging pct is a root cause of why OBP >>> SLG in OPS, not just the whole “not making outs” thing.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 11:00 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah

the problem with OPS is it’s completely arbitrary, but it’s still basically a perfectly good measure for most players. If it counted walks in slg. % it would still be wrong, but in a different direction.

Run values (with an out being 0):
BB: .72
HBP: .75
1B: .9
Reach on error: .92
2B: 1.24
3B: 1.56
HR: 1.95

wOBA is based on those divided by PA.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 29, 2008 11:06 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

reach on error > 1B?

So reach on an error is worth more than a 1B. Kind of funny. Guess you have to include them, because it is sort of a skill. Hitting ground balls at bad fielding teams “knowing” they cost more runs because bad defensive teams will make more errors leading to more runs than your average single?

or does it just psych out the pitcher?

Or I guess some errors are just two-base errors. That’s the ticket, I’ll go with the last one.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 11:14 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah it's the last one

It’s only slightly a skill, but those run values are just historically-based, not trying to measure skill per se.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 29, 2008 11:18 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

well whether its a skill or not

It will either even out in the long term and affect everybody the same, or it will be a skill and show up consistently, so it makes perfect sense to throw it in there.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 11:26 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

throw it in that statistic i mean

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 11:27 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

HBPs are more randomly distributed

while BBs tend to come disproportionately in situations where they don’t advance any runners.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 29, 2008 12:03 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I suppose.

I guess I see drawing a walk as a batter skill and a HBP is a pitcher mistake.

by mikev on Apr 29, 2008 12:05 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah,

these are not player skills so much as an account of how much those events are worth to the team regardless of to what extent they are earned.

HBPs are earned to some extent: ask Kendall or JD Pruitt…

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 29, 2008 12:07 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I think I'll ask David Eckstein

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 12:08 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

HBP is absolutely a skill

Generally speaking, the same players are at the top of the HBP list each year. Whether they’re the ones who don’t mind getting hit, who dive over the plate and get it, or are just too slow to move there is a certain repeatable aspect of it.

Also, both walks and HBP require the pitcher to do something wrong.

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on Apr 29, 2008 3:21 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That's an OPS of .500

.000 Slg + .500 OBP = .500 OPS

Which is not to discount what everyone else said …

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

by devo on Apr 29, 2008 11:57 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

lol

duurrr but but average durrr im good at math

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 12:04 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

lol again just for effect

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 12:04 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Arranging the lineup/roster based on what guys have done in the past three weeks

as opposed to their entire careers is a horrible idea.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 29, 2008 10:06 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Cust's MLB career is very short

sorry, I don’t think his minor league heroics should count equally.

If he can adjust and prove to be more than a AAA player, great.

But I don’t think an ability to draw walks combined with lots of Ks and hardly any hits justifies putting a below average glove out in the field.

as for Brown—put him in there until he stops producing.

by OaklandSi on Apr 29, 2008 11:36 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Using only his major league stats,

Cust’s “true talent” (including this latest slump) is something like .250/.380/.440, which is a damn sight better than what Emil Brown brings to the table. Cust has more than proved his ability to hit in the majors with something like an 800+ OPS.

Credit to Emil for his production so far, I welcome it. But Cust’s slump is by no means terrifying enough to justify a benching in favor of Emil Brown.

In fact:

July 4, 2007 – Aug 3, 2007: .197/.337/.318, 35% K% in 83 PA
Mar 25, 2008 – Apr 27, 2007: .161/.373/.242, 31 % K% in 83 PA

So why didn’t we bench him last August? Because our management understand small sample sizes, and Cust proceeded to hit .255/.440/.473 from Aug 4 onward.

stat-addled alien overlord

by salb918 on Apr 29, 2008 12:03 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

From what I've seen

Emil Brown is a below average fielder with a plus arm. Of course, defense is subject to a small sample size, too, because Brown has historically been solid at the corner OF spots.

Cust, on the other hand, should be in the NL Central’s left field collection of crap. Look at the regular LFs in that division. Not one of them should be out there: Soriano, Duncan, Braun, Dunn, Bay, Lee. And you can’t tell me that Cust is any worse than Braun.

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on Apr 29, 2008 3:26 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

no no no

there is the NL Central collection of crap, and below that there is mikeA, and below that there is Cust.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 4:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It. Is. April.

stat-addled alien overlord

by salb918 on Apr 29, 2008 7:58 AM PDT   0 recs

Nothing wrong with improving your team in April

But I understand your point. I agree with this post though, I’ve never really liked Ryan Sweeney. He has average minor league numbers, which tells me he’ll be a below average major leaguer. I would much rather have somebody like Denorfia playing over him, because Denorfia has a lot of promise. The guy had two years in the minors with close to a .900 OPS. Sweeney barely sniffs .800 in a good year in the minors. I don’t know why Denorfia is not out there more.

Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?

by baseb3383 on Apr 29, 2008 8:39 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Ryan Sweeney

I’m starting to agree. Sweeney needs to mature as a player… In AAA. He isn’t taking charge in CF (another bad play last night, not calling off Emil Brown). He has zero power. Hopefully, Geren is taking notes, and this is just a trial period for Sweeney. He really needs to work on things in AAA.

by Colorado Fan on Apr 29, 2008 9:13 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

OK

Why?

Why are you posting Taj’s minor league review and then immediately burying it under another frontpage piece? I mean, it’s no wonder those typically get very few comments. No one is even seeing them on the front page!

With this “new setup,” there are quite often days where nothing is added to the frontpage other than game threads/recaps. I can’t fathom what the putative advantage is supposed to be of cramming two “issue pieces” into so short a period of time that 95% of your readership won’t see the first one until the second is already posted.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 29, 2008 7:59 AM PDT   0 recs

Thanks

I didn’t even see Taj’s post!

by faninphilly on Apr 29, 2008 8:14 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

When I scheduled this for posting, Taj hadn't posted or scheduled his

So he must either have posted knowing it would be “buried” at 7:00am PDT, or not checked to see if something was scheduled to run Tuesday morning. But what readers may not realize is that front-page posts are sometimes pre-scheduled (all moderators/writers can see the schedule) – so I posted this Monday morning, scheduling it to run Tuesday morning, and it then appeared automatically without my clicking a button (I was actually asleep when it posted). That make sense?

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 Apr 29, 2008 8:29 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes and the more the merrier!

It’s not as if the frontpage traffic around here is so great that we’re in any danger of getting overwhelmed. I liked both Taj’s and Nico’s posts, for whatever it’s worth.

Obviously if people simply ignore Taj’s post because it’s no longer on top, that’s not good. But I hope that people get in the habit of looking beyond whatever happens to be at the very top of the frontpage.

I tend to access the site through the RSS feed, which let’s me see a list of several days worth of frontpage posts.

Putting the "N" in "NRAF" from Leipzig, Germany!

by GreenNGoldSooner on Apr 29, 2008 8:38 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I've been meaning to lodge a similar complaint/plea relating to the Staturday posts.

I don’t have a problem with front page abundance – the more interesting pieces the better, and if you and Taj have something to post on the same day, great. However: These non-game thread contributions need to be made prominent somewhere else. Expand the recommended fanpost section, or tack another (similar looking) section atop it, complete with the total/new comment statistics.

Too often, some of the most thoughtful posts on this site are almost immediately buried by an avalanche of game threads. Absent a conspicuous place on the sidebar, too few people remember to read them. This must suck for the contributors, as it’s clear a lot of work goes into these. It definitely sucks for the readership, as the ensuing discussion/argument is stifled before it can get off the ground. In the past, it often took 2-3 days for conversations such as these to percolate, as wider ranges of contributors weighed in, and varying points of view began to collide.

But not everyone is reading AN at 9:00 on a Saturday morning, you know? And by the afternoon, the piece is six posts down on the main page, and gone from our consciousness.

I understand that game threads drive traffic, but I think the site ought to make an effort to maximize the exposure of the best contributions, and facilitate discussion therein. Perhaps moving devo, grover, et al to the front page was designed to do just that, but I’m not sure the desired effect has been achieved.

by 74mk on Apr 29, 2008 8:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Agreed

Non-game thread front page posts get less traffic than recommended posts. By a rather significant factor. This is in no small part because they don’t have “65 comments, 25 new” or whatever next to them on the sidebar so that people actually know when something is going on in the thread.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 29, 2008 9:29 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'd really like to see game threads either

a. someplace else …
or
b. disappear half an hour after game time …

They take up a crap ton of space (As there are often 2+ of them) and are just clutter 21 hours out of the day …

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

by devo on Apr 29, 2008 12:00 PM PDT to parent up   1 recs

b makes the most sense

when a game is in progress, it’s the top news item. when the game is over, it should be archived.c

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Apr 29, 2008 12:07 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I like suggestion (b) a lot

... though I’d bump it to more like a 2-hour window.

And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 29, 2008 12:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The thing is, it was predictable

I noticed it last week and decided I would raise the point if it happened again this week (which it did).

I would strongly encourage y’all to converse and find a way to spread your posts out, because right now you’re consistently Friday-Night-Lights-ing him.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 29, 2008 9:26 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

+1, sorry kids...

"You have to have a catcher or you'll have all passed balls."- Casey Stengel

by Gaijin_Suketto on Apr 29, 2008 10:44 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Empirically? Yes.

We’ve already had one person say they didn’t notice the prior post.

Based on the comments that threads that get buried receive (viz., “virtually none”), it seems that this is not at all unusual.

You can be as snarky as you want—the fact of the matter is that most people do not apparently live up to your notions of what an ideal poster ought to do.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 29, 2008 11:06 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes ...

web site research has consistently shown that people do not scroll …

If an item is not on the initial page-load screen, it is not there.

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

by devo on Apr 29, 2008 12:01 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Also...people don't read blocks of text...

...unless they really want to. This is why I think these stories should just have an introductory sentence or two on the front page. If we want to read the rest, we’ll click on the “more” link. That way a few stories could be posted in one day and everyone can see them.

"[Moneyball] is huge [in Japan], I guess, so I'm like a David Hasselhoff type or something..." -- Billy Beane

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Apr 29, 2008 5:20 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

so, you saw a problem, held your tongue, and then blew up when your lack of feedback had no effect?

And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 29, 2008 5:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I wanted to make sure it was actually a pattern

and that the comment wouldn’t get lost in the “did they see this or not?” shuffle.

And I didn’t “blow up.” My post was essentially bafflement—the situation didn’t make sense to me. Imagine it being spoken by a person who has just had the concept of Antiguan goat subsidies explained to them for the first time.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 29, 2008 6:29 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

you seem to be under the impression that we're a professional publication

1. Everyone here except Blez does this for the sheer misery of it
2. It’s a blog, not the Chron; Blez doesn’t tell us what or when to write
3. We’re all still figuring out the bugs/cap