Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: World Soccer Digest for Soccer Fans!

Inside the Mind of an Angels' Fan (thoughts on the AL West)

A's fans this year are a bit schizophrenic, and it's understandable. On one hand, we are all hoping beyond hope that the A's are better than predicted, but we also get nervous about too much talk about them being 'underrated' and 'surprising'.

I know one thing holds true for me: I like these A's best when they are the underdogs. I don't want anyone to pick the A's to win a single series; I want it to be a surprise when they do. I want to enjoy a team with no expectations, although it wouldn't hurt if they could hit a little bit.

I am an A’s blogger. I spend a considerable amount of my time on the internet with other A’s fans.  I know how A’s fans feel about the A’s this year. I know how A’s fans feel about the Angels’ injuries so far this season (Lackey, Escobar, Shields), and thanks to the amazing Staturday post by salb918, I also know how the stats feel about them.

What I didn't know (and was curious about, if for no other reason than to fire up a little bit of the Angels/A's rivalry that has been missing for a year) was how Angels fans are feeling about the season. Is there any merit to the whispering that the division is now open to Seattle and the A's?

I hand-picked an Angels' fan from an unlikely location; like me, he is a cross-California fan of his team. I live in Los Angeles and root for the A's, while Andy Bauer lives in Northern California and roots for the Angels. The irony is not lost on either of us; that we just happen to live in the other's season ticket market.

I asked him to describe (in blog-form, of course) how he, as a life-long Angels' fan, felt about the upcoming season and the threats to the Angels' apparent stranglehold on the AL West. As always, I thought I would share it with my fellow ANers; it's a different analysis that I'm use to as an A's fan, and I liked that it cemented my great wish to have the A's considered real underdogs.

Not a single regular season pitch was even thrown, and already I was in panic mode.  The problem being that knowing who was going to be throwing that first pitch had been thrown (pun intended) into some serious doubt.  We knew for some time that Kelvim Escobar was going to have plenty of time to update his Myspace page early in the season, but the disturbing news that he has a tear in his throwing shoulder that may end his season completely, and possibly his career, had cast an Ervin Santana shaped shadow over the Angels’ long-term season goals.  Couple this with John Lackey’s triceps injury that will keep him from even picking up a baseball for two to three weeks and that shadow may turn into a full-blown eclipse.  Oh, and just a little side note, Scot Shields will begin the season on the DL also.  Awesome.

Like any clear thinking American sports fan, I reacted to this news by doing what comes naturally.  I freaked out.  When I came to three days later, I realized I needed to look at the situation a little more rationally.  How are they going to weather this April storm and where will they be by the time we see those May flowers I’ve heard so much about?  The Angels pride themselves on depth, a justified self-congratulations.  But you don’t just pick up 18 game winners off the scrap heap.  Fortunately for the Angels, their scrap heap is loaded with potential classics (is there a more frightening word in the American sports lexicon than “potential”?).

Ervin Santana.  The mere mention of his name causes a torrent of conflicting emotions for this Angels fan.  So much potential (there’s that word again), so much fear (for me).  In light of the current situation I’d settle for ¾ of the 2006 Santana.  Just give the lineup a chance to make things interesting.  Let’s just start there.  In the sage words of Dr. Leo Marvin, baby steps.  He has the physical skills to be very good, even to something approaching great, the question is whether his head will be screwed on right to make that happen.  Some have made the suggestion Ervin should only pitch at home given his ridiculous home/road splits (For his career - Home:  ERA – 3.14, WHIP – 1.17, Away:  ERA – 7.14, WHIP – 1.63), though Scioscia has, rightfully, nixed any such idea.

Dustin Moseley will be filling the final spot in the rotation, a role he filled rather ably at points last year.  But last year he was filling holes left by far less talented pitchers than either Lackey or Escobar.  So while he may perform courageously in the interim this season, no one’s expecting him to make us forget who we’re really missing.  If Moseley does falter, the Angels have a potential ace waiting in the wings (OK, that pun was not intended) in Nick Adenhart.  He was up and down this spring, but definitely showed flashes that make Angel fans smile to themselves in their sleep.

Now we know who will be carrying the torch in our 1-2’s absence, but that shadow still looms.  Is it enough to still win the division?  Only time will tell for sure—duh—but I submit that the division title is still very much the Angels’ to lose.  Let’s take a look at the facts. 

Texas doesn’t even enter this conversation.  Let’s talk about that.  They did nothing in the offseason to improve their perennial weakness: starting pitching.  They did add Josh Hamilton to the OF, so I guess the old “we’ll bludgeon our way to a pennant” strategy still holds sway in the Ranger front office.  Oh, those Texans. In a way it’s almost loveable. 
Threat assessment:  none.

Oakland, on the other hand, did make some major moves.  Unfortunately for the A’s faithful, they involved trading away all of their good players. As an Angels fan, I was obviously thrilled; at least for the short-term.  I do not bow to the altar of Billy Beane and his sabermetrics mumbo-jumbo. (Before you Rob Neyer-reading Athletics enthusiasts dismiss me as a backward mystic who believes mathematics to be some sort of wicked sorcery spawned by Lucifer himself, let me assure you my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek.  Everyone knows math is very useful for calculating batting average.) However, he does have an uncanny ability to occasionally turn what looks like a pile of nothing into something, which always makes me nervous.  I mean any guy that can win a division title with Scott Hatteberg on the roster, let alone as a starter, must be doing something right, right?  That said, it would take a wizard of Gandalf the Grey proportions to turn this year’s pile into anything significant.  The only way they can remotely threaten the Halos this season is if Harden and Crosby can somehow remain healthy for the duration, which, as any self-respecting baseball fan worth a strained Harden oblique can attest, is a physical impossibility.  Even if that were somehow possible, the odds would still be something akin to those of Jeremy Giambi teaching sliding practice at A’s camp next spring.  If you want to hear me anxiously worry about Oakland as contender, come back in two years. 
Threat assessment:  minimal.

Seattle looked like they were for real last year until a colossal late season collapse which, not coincidently, began with a sweep at the hands of the Halos at Safeco.  If all the Angels were a picture of perfect health, I wouldn’t be worried much at all, but given the current state of affairs, I’m just a touch concerned. Just a skosh, a smidgen really.  With the Bedard acquisition, the M’s have a solid rotation and a strong bullpen, and though their lineup is decent, the team is not without question marks.  Can Miguel Batista really win 16 games again?  Is King Felix finally ready to ascend the throne?  Can Richie Sexson rebound, and by rebound I mean hit .230?  And perhaps most importantly, how the crap is he making $3M more than Ichiro!?  Top to bottom, the Angels’ lineup is much stronger and the fact that just about everyone coming off their bench could start for a fair amount of big league teams, including pretty much all of those in the National League, bodes well for when the injury bug bites.  Tell me, who would you rather have coming off the pine Juan Rivera or Charlton Jimerson?  Actually, now that I think about it, I may opt for Jimerson just so I can hear if the P.A. guy can say his name without snickering.
Threat assessment:  moderate.

Of course all of this depends on Lackey coming back by mid-May, Santana not completely imploding, Moseley/Adenhart being at least somewhere north of terrible, the rest of the rotation (Weaver, Saunders, and Garland) performing up to expectations, and Reggie Willits not putting banana peels and ball bearings in front of every other outfielders locker in an attempt to injure them thus increasing his playing time and removing the looming fear of being sent down to AAA and having to ride smelly buses and eat at Chick-Fil-A after getting a taste of the Big Show last season.

But what fun would baseball be, or team blogs for that matter, if everything was a done deal before the season started?  Well, if it meant the Angels would always win the division, then I guess that would best be characterized as awesome.

And there it is: I have been so busy hating Boston that I have been terribly neglectful of my Angels' dislike, despite all of the billboards on my street that remind me that the Angels really really do play in Los Angeles (they don't). I almost forgot how much fun it was just to care. And on a side note, I realize that I read so much of the baseball world from the sabermetric/A's point of view, that it's a noticable difference to read anything written outside it. In an esoteric kind of way, it seems strange to be a fan of more than just a baseball team, but rather of an organization, a philosophy, a way of looking at the game itself.

I would be hard-pressed to disagree with any of Andy's comments on the A's; not only do Harden and Crosby have to stay healthy for the A's to compete, but Crosby has to somehow become good. And I'm not sure that's even enough. At least half of the A's rookies have to perform at a major league level, and the rest of the team has to have, at best, good years.

Yet despite all the evidence, I'm not entirely convinced that the West is going to line up: Angels, Mariners, A's, Rangers. I think the A's have more 'potential' than the Mariners, but how and when that is going to show itself remains to be seen. Is this division really the Angels to lose? And after the first four games, I still only have one certainty about the A's: underdogs. Again.

Which is exactly where I want them.

Poll
Initial impression?
Angels, big gap, Seattle, A's, Rangers
79 votes
Angels and Seattle will compete, A's, Rangers
294 votes
Angels, big gap, A's, Seattle, Rangers
54 votes
Angels and A's will compete, Seattle, Rangers
102 votes
Rangers will win it all
69 votes

598 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs  |  Comment 159 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I guess I like it both ways

Wait, that came out wrong :)

I do enjoy being the underdog and expecting the unexpected. Watching the boys grow up.

But...I also like the pressure of being the favorite. Of knowing you're going to win. I envied the Sox fans for that Tuesday. They are as sound a ball club as I've seen in a while. Power, speed, defense, pitching. They're managed well. And their fans- yes, the same fans who used to cover their faces for the world to see- have this newfound confidence. I remember those days from the late 80's. The players had a swagger, but the fans did too.

I think it's also important to remember that earlier this decade, some "experts" did put us in that elite group, some even picking us to win it all.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Apr 3, 2008 6:07 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

As an A's fan I watch almost every Angels game with the hope that they lose.

The Angels loses are almost as sweet as an A's win for me. The problem is that the Angles do have that swagger, they do expect to win alot of close games. Im not sure how many one run games they won in 2007but I do know they won 10 games last year in the 9th inning.

by asfaninpismobeach on Apr 3, 2008 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I do the same thing...

...I'm sure it's because it's really easy to find the Angels' games living in LA, but I watch the Angels sometimes like I watch the A's, except cheering-wise, I am rooting for the other team. Strange!

So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one

by baseballgirl on Apr 3, 2008 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Give me an "S"....

So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one

by baseballgirl on Apr 3, 2008 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

S!

haha

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Apr 3, 2008 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I thought no one was going to sign him this year

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

*Disclaimer: I'm actually a Bonds fan. Jocularity using meme does not imply endorsement of idea of any truth behind meme.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Meme people suck.

"God doesn't pay attention to your cute little hypotheticals." -- Jeff from LL

by oblique on Apr 3, 2008 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

When leading after the 8th inning

the Angels have a MLB best 160 game winning streak.

I brought sexy back, but they only gave me store credit....

by PhiSlamma on Apr 4, 2008 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

as for Andy

Great read, but thank you for reminding me how much I hate your team.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Apr 3, 2008 6:13 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

yes, as for Andy...

/gathers torches, pitchforks and laptops, assembles villagers

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Apr 3, 2008 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks...

and you're welcome.

by Ando775 on Apr 3, 2008 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What I find humorous

Is Andy's assumption that Angels vets will play as well as they did in the past, and their youngsters will live up to their potential, but that the A's youngsters will falter, and the Mariners vets are defined by one bad year.

by ozzman99 on Apr 3, 2008 7:04 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

A look at the Angels from the perspective of an A's fan.

OF - Great depth, but GA shouldn't start. Any group with Vlad is a good hitting unit, but the defense is below average with GA and Vlad not good and Hunter in his decline years.

IF - Weakness. Kotchman is the best player, and he's not that much better than 2002 Hatteberg. Kendrick isn't likely to keep up his ridiculous BABIP.

Starters - Should be strength of team, but not without Lackey and Escobar at full strength.

Bullpen - Another strength of team, but not with Shields hurt.

Best players -- Guerrero, Lackey, Escobar, Weaver, Shields, Rodriguez, Kotchman

When three of your seven best players are hurt, it's not a good sign. A good, but not elite team at full strength. But a lot of downside with the injuries.

by WaddellCanseco on Apr 3, 2008 7:53 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Greetings A's fans

I'm ready to be accountable for my words!

Ozzman99, yes that is my assumption, but I hardly think its outlandish. The Angels start one player who wasn't a regular last year, while the majority of the A's lineup is relatively young and unproven. As far as Seattle goes, I simply think the Angels' lineup is better, even if all the M's perform at expected levels. Am I biased? Of course. But not so much so that its clouded my judgement too much.

Thanks for the comment and glad I could do my part to stoke the rivalry fires.

by Ando775 on Apr 3, 2008 7:54 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I agree that the Angels lineup is better than the Mariners, sure.

How about the rotation?

Miguel Batista's win totals in 2007 are meaningless. His performance in 2007, once you take into account the context of homepark and how the rest of the league did, was no different from his performances in 2006, 2004, ie league average, slightly above average, innings eater. His performance in 2007 was no fluke. His park adjusted ERA in 2007, relative to the rest of the league, was pretty much at his career averages.

If everyone in the Mariners rotation performs to basically their averages the last couple years, they will have among the best rotations in MLB.

Really the issue for your team is Lackey and Escobar. If they were both healthy, the Angels should have no problems.

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

by rfloh on Apr 3, 2008 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No question

the M's rotation is very strong. Maybe stronger than the Halos sans Lackey/Escobar. Like I said at the end of my post, I'm assuming Lackey is back in May and the other guys perform well. And we all know that assuming anything in baseball is a dangerous practice. Certainly no one assumed the Angels would be World Series champs in 2002.

I'll concede to your Batista analysis. However, if I was a M's fan that wouldn't exactly give me warm fuzzies.

by Ando775 on Apr 3, 2008 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If Miguel Batista is your top starter or your number 2 starter

then yes, you have a problem. He's the Mariners 3-5 starter. What makes their rotation good, is the back end of their rotation. Quite a few teams have a 1-2 that is as good at least as the Mariners front 2. But very few teams have a #5 starter like Batista or Washburn, a #5 starter who is an average innings eater.

Look at what most teams in the league are sending out as their #5th starters, or even their #4th starters.

Without Escobar, I'd say that the Mariners have a slightly better rotation than the Angels. With Escobar, Angels would be slightly better.

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

by rfloh on Apr 3, 2008 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Inside the mind of a carjacker

[I'm broke... my feet hurt...]

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

by Buck Turgidson on Apr 3, 2008 8:14 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

There there. It's supposed to make you feel better about the 2008 A's. We may not win, but we're A's fans.

I'm just doing my part.

So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one

by baseballgirl on Apr 3, 2008 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why not?

It's a pretty small place.

I love you, k^2. -Poppy*

by kaweahkaweah on Apr 3, 2008 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Owch!

And here I was trying to be a good guest.

by Ando775 on Apr 3, 2008 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I want to know...

...who the four people are that voted for the Rangers to win it all. I think they should go to Vegas.

So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one

by baseballgirl on Apr 3, 2008 9:11 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

That's common ground

I think A's and Angels fans (mostly) agree...the Rangers organization has no clue, although it would be nice for them to get one to help our friend Ron Washington see some success as manager.

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

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Apr 3, 2008 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think most Rangers fans agree with that too...

although apparently they don't agree with A's fans about Wash.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think A's fans agree on Wash...

So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one

by baseballgirl on Apr 3, 2008 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We never forget you guys. I would say that at least 90% of A's fans think that if the A's can't win, the M's should!

So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one

by baseballgirl on Apr 3, 2008 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We're safely

ensconced in the realm of endless mediocrity and upper office mismanagement, although not to the sorry extent of the Rangers.

by redwolf75 on Apr 3, 2008 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would be much more worried about the Angels

if they actually used their personnel intelligently. I.e. DFAed Anderson, exiled Aybar to A-ball, let Wood start at shortstop instead of making him change hotel rooms 18 times during the season, and gave Jeff Mathis "Russell Martin backup" numbers of games played. This lineup:

LF:Willits
CF: Hunter
RF: Rivera
DH: Vlad
3B: Figgins
SS: Wood
2B: Kendrick
1B: Kotchman
C: Napoli

is actually a good one. The thing is, it has $20M or so of outfield riding the pine.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 9:16 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Yes, and also if they used their wallet strategically

The Stoneman era was characterized by adament refusal to ever make an in-season deal to plug a roster hole, whether with an eye towards the division chase or the post-season. I hope that remains the case, but one of these days d'Anaheim may figure out that Arte's money also has value in July, and not just in January.

There is an A in Whimsy.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Apr 3, 2008 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And if Angelos widraws from

and agreed upon deal at the last minute, that is Stoneman's fault?

The Angels and the Orioles had agreed to a Santana + Aybar for Tejada trade.

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

by rfloh on Apr 3, 2008 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Shhhh! Don't give them any ideas!

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't worry

They would have to be other than what they are to deploy that lineup on a regular basis.

I don't think anyone other than Beane could withstand the inevitable ridicule that would come from releasing Anderson and replacing him with Reggie Willits.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

even Beane wouldn't do that

I have a baaaaaad feeling that the Angels will decline GA's '09 option ($14M!) and Beane will sign him on the cheap on a 1-year incentived contract.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He's not exactly an A's type of player

The guy never saw a fastball, or any pitch really, that he didn't like.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Shannon Stewart? Emil Brown? Terrence Long? Marco Scutaro?

Bobby Crosby? Eric Byrnes? Mike Piazza?

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't forget your friend and mine, Jay Payton

The eternal optimism of "swing at the first pitch, no matter what it is!"

by Joey C. on Apr 3, 2008 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I knew I was forgetting a datum

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I haven't looked this up,

but I'd be willing to bet that Anderson's career isolated OBP is lower than any of those guys.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

than CROSBY's?

I'd guess, without looking it up, that GA's career isoOBP is higher than those of:
- Crosby
- Scutaro
- Stewart
- T-Long

My point being, that Beane doesn't stack the roster exclusively with stereotypical Moneyballers.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OK, now to test this theory

Anderson .030

Stewart .063
Brown .067
Long .049
Scutaro .062
Crosby .070
Byrnes .063
Piazza .069
Payton .044

Bingo.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

great googly moogly!

Specific point conceded (but main point still contended). Jesus, that's ridiculous.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I just looked up Pudge Rodriguez

.037.

I think you could make a legitimate case that Garret Anderson has the worst plate discipline in all of baseball.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So, plate discipline is taking walks?

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

by rfloh on Apr 3, 2008 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

...that is the more or less conventional definition of the term, yes

How would you define it, statistically?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

To me it means "not swinging at bad pitches"

which may or may not translate to a lot of walks. Guys who make a lot of contact will have fewer walks, but that doesn't mean they have bad plate discipline. Kotsay is an example of that.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 3, 2008 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

as much as I H8ed on Kotsay ...

... I agree that he was/is "selectively selective."

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Conventional?

I've often seen plate discipline defined by scouty types as swinging at pitches that particular hitter can hit well.

In other words, a hitter who walks a lot, can have bad plate discipline too.

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

by rfloh on Apr 3, 2008 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OK

That's not a stat.

I'm looking for a stat, or even a combination of stats, I suppose, that represents or indicates the presence of plate discipline, so that I can go look it up. If you know of a website that has "percentage of swings which are at pitches in a batter's hot zones", I'm all eyes. I'm not aware of anywhere that that info is compiled, however.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

just because it hasn't yet been measured doesn't mean that it can't be measured

And if it's possible that it could be measured, expert opinion (which, of course, can be wrong/biased) is one of the two most immediately profitable places to start looking for it (the other being, as you say, slicing and dicing other stats to arrive at it indirectly).

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, I'm pretty sure that could be measured

It's probably doable using pitch F/x at this point.

I just don't think anyone's actually done it yet, which is why we're still using approximations like walk rate and pitches per plate appearance (another category GA scores atrociously in).

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

to return to GA ...

Don't get me wrong: I think he's an extremely overrated (relative), and not really very good (absolute) player.

But he has had some value over the course of his career -- almost entirely on AVG and an age-28+ (and, FWIW, steroid-era) SLG surge.

I'm wondering how he might fit in with the Extremely Anomalous Polestar Twins with Ichiro Suzuki and Cust? GA seems like he might be what Suzuki would be were Suzuki to follow through on that mythical "he could hit 30 HR/y if he wanted" -- with the SLG increase, an attendant slight uptick in Ks and a commensurate downtick in BBs.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also, he's killed the A's over his career

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 3, 2008 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yes he has

Oddly enough (or not), he has his highest OBP (by a huge margin) vs AL teams against us.

So: even though we pitch around him a lot (and that takes some doing), he still kills us.

I wonder if his anomalous approach is a key part of his success against the median-player-oriented A's?

(Ichiro, by way of contrast, doesn't do especially well against the A's.)

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sure, he's had some value

but a lot of it was, as you say, batting average based, hence unpredictable.

He's also coming off an injury year. We'll see how healthy he is this season.

And he's just an awful, awful defender at this point. If he's not Jack Cust bad, he's pretty close. That's really what cinches it for me. He's a better hitter than Jay Payton, but he gives it all back and then some on the defensive end.

With the A's new-ish emphasis on defense, I don't see why Beane would settle for an average hitter who's a terrible defender when he could have an Emil Brown or a Shannon Stewart for far less money.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

unpredictable?

What's unpredictable about this:
- .321
- .285
- .303
- .294
- .303
- .286
- .289
- .306
- .315
- .301
- .283
- .280
- .297

Yeah, I agree that he's really only a DH. And would be a relatively powerless DH, at that. I wasn't saying that it would be a good idea to sign him -- just that, as a potentially cheap player with an established, consistent, and predictable high AVG, he might be the sort of complementary bat Beane might pursue.

And Emil and Shannon are below-average hitters and poor defenders. Not sure what the advantage is there.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Brown and Stewart aren't poor defenders

At least not by the benighted standards of left fielders.

Stewart may not have the arm to throw a ball through a plate-glass window, but he was basically second to Carl Crawford in range among LFs last year.

Brown, if the fielding stats are to be believed, looks much worse than he is-- kind of the outfield version of Robinson Cano.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

but, since it is LF ...

... then why place a premium on D at all? Especially if the hitters you get ... suck?

Again, I'm not arguing for signing GA -- but I'd rather have him next year (presuming he doesn't stop hitting) for <$2M than Shannon last year or Emil this year.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There is no way on earth,

short of an utter skills collapse (which would probably render him worse than either of those guys as a flyer candidate) that Anderson will be making under $2 million next season.

Someone, not the A's, will overpay for his past hitting and undervalue the negative effect of his stone-gloved fielding.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Complimentary Bat

Call me the anti-Bill James (I believe batting order matters) but I liked having Jay Payton batting behind a bunch of High OBP guys like Big Frank, Chavvy, Kendall, etc...

Not saying I would want GA, but I do want someone who can hit 285/310/460 behind Buck, Ellis, Barton, Cust, etc... throw in someone who hits a lot of flyballs w/ some speed (to stay out of DP's), and I'll take it.

Jeff Francoeur comes to mind.

by Colorado Fan on Apr 3, 2008 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

complEmentary

Jack Cust last year was a complimentary bat.

And, yes, in principle, it'd be good to have a high-AVG, high-contact hitter mixed in -- but a high-AVG, high-BB-rate hitter such as Barton is even better.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

complimentary bat

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on Apr 3, 2008 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, it's not a stat

I should have put the conventional in quotes.

Depending on whom you talk too, the definition of plate discipline varies.

Those who are more "biased" in favour of walks, of the TTOs,tend to use walks, OBP - BA.

Scouty types tend to use the "swinging at pitches that you can hit well" definition.

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

by rfloh on Apr 3, 2008 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

and who would have thought Crosby would have had the best isoOBP of that bunch?

Not me.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think that's a slight math error

caused by Piazza's higher batting average. Piazza's walk rate (which is probably the stat I should have used) is higher.

Nonetheless, Crosby's problem is not the inability to walk, but rather the inability to hit.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, BB rate is the one to use

The higher your BA is, the lower your isoOBP will be with equal BBs.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 3, 2008 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

To assuage my curiosity

I looked up T-Long and Payton again and confirmed that, yes, they both do have higher absolute walk rates than GA. No math errors in that section of the ranking, at least.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Beholding that list

makes me feel a bizarre kinship with these people.

Though where their visages are awash in wonderment, I'm just sort of staring blankly.

by 74mk on Apr 3, 2008 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

how was that film?

It's in my queue.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Difficult to respond pithily

I liked it a lot, and have it in my queue as well, to re-watch and listen to the commentary track(s).

Spectacle-wise, it's fantastic. Escalating sense of foreboding-wise, it's pitch perfect. Monster movie-wise, it gets off track a bit 2/3's of the way through. Philosophically/intellectually? Have to watch it again. I came away not entirely sure how ambitious Boyle was trying to be, exactly.

Not totally unrelated: When I read this, I thought "monkeyball definitely bought this DVD the day it went on sale".

by 74mk on Apr 3, 2008 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I haven't been buying dvds recently, but ...

... yes, I was overjoyed when I saw that was finally available. Love that movie.

Speaking of ambitious scifi spectacle and being unsure of an author's ambition, have you read this?

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I had not, until now

It's been a long time since I read the Chronicle for anything other than A's notes, but I do remember thinking Mick LaSalle was a lunchbox. I might even have asserted, once or twice, to no one in particular, that he sucked at his job. Though that was back in my crass and judgemental youth, so it's possible I was a bit hard on him.

I kind of want to see the restored (or whatever they're calling it) Ridley cut of Blade Runner, but I'm scared it will be terrible, and I wish to preserve fond memories of that film.

I hate, hate, HATE 2001: A Space Odyssey. Indulgent piffle.

That said, I take it as an indication of a certain vacuity at the core of Mick's aesthetic sensibilities that he spent seven mind-bogglingly banal paragraphs explaining why we should care that he's watching five old movies for the first time (because, like, Stone Cold Steve Austin is okay sometimes, and leisure time for film critics is really precious, and gosh if you've seen the documentary you've seen the movie, and ... oh god make it stop), then tossed off a three sentence dismissal of said caveman-baby-spaceship extravaganza. That's what you do, ladies and gentlemen, when you emerge from a film viewing with nothing to say. I'll bet he didn't even make it all the way through; he probably fell asleep on his couch, waking up intermittently to wipe salty drool from his lips, scratch his cat on the belly, and stuff a few more kernels of popcorn down his gullet.

by 74mk on Apr 3, 2008 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I actually like Mick most of the time

He's too aggressively middlebrow for me (I prefer much lower and much higher), but he has a really good approach to, knowledge of, and appreciation for, genre, which I find really important in a critic. But that column is 6 different kinds of inexcusable for someone who gets paid to write about movies.

2001 H8r? I think mikeA, xbx, and I just all killfiled you. I do agree that it's indulgent piffle, but it's brilliantly weird and stunningly shot indulgent piffle. Plus, it's got monkeys! And it's kind of hard to really "get" There Will Be Blood or No Country for Old Men without it.

Everything I've read about the final/ultimate cut of Blade Runner is that it is anti-Lucasian -- that all of the changes are clean, seamless, and justified.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I haven't read any of your comments since you

h8d on A Clockwork Orange. "Brilliantly weird and stunningly shot indulgent piffle" is a great way of putting it.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 3, 2008 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Time for my annual "Vlad is finally going to disintegrate" projection

Physically, he's a wreck.

Fundamentally/mechanically, he's one of the worst-looking players I've ever seen.

He has an astounding ability to crush pitches that are outside of the conventional happy zone, and a brutally hard swing -- both of which are "young" skills (yes, that he's been able to sustain beyond normal projectability).

Fragile + bad mechanics + young skills = high likelihood of falling off a cliff, health- and performance-wise.

Take Vlad out of that lineup -- even if they follow the all-too-sensible PT plan (which I doubt they will, unless Reagins is made of steelier stuff than I suspect) -- and they will be a bad offensive team.

Vlad is the Angels' Harden: without him, they're a .500 team at best.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 10:06 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

151

games per year since 1998. One of these days you're going to be right, but you won't actually be right.

Calling him fragile is projecting what you think he should be, based on the way he looks/acts/throws/swings, over the top of what he actually has been, which is, basically, tremendously healthy and productive.

And he's 32 already. There will come a point, rather soon (34? 36?), when we can no longer plausibly ascribe his supposedly imminent decline to all these red alert fragility warning signs, and just have to chalk it up to age.

That is all to say that, come 2012, you will no longer be allowed to recycle this prediction. AN (having achieved singularity by then) will pre-delete your post, and admonish you for even having contemplated it.

by 74mk on Apr 3, 2008 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm fine with recycling it until then

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

also, I'd call him "durable," not "healthy"

Due to his, yes, physical ailments, he's really only capable of DH'ing now (despite his protestations to the contrary).

The last couple years, he's been Beaned into the lineup -- Vlad at 50% capacity is far superior to any other options the Angels had at hand.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why are Vlad's

"young skills" are indication of a high likelihood of falling off a cliff?

Studies have shown that it is player's with "old player skills", ie low ba, lots of walks, who regress first.

Also, would you mind clarifying what you mean by his "bad mechanics"?

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

by rfloh on Apr 3, 2008 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ugh, players with old skills

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

by rfloh on Apr 3, 2008 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

you're right

Strike that from my list.

"Bad mechanics" -- have you ever seen Vlad play? He runs like a Weeble. He throws like a termite-infested trebuchet. He swings like Bobby Crosby on a 'roid rage tear.

He is a phenomenally talented player -- who has never been coached.

I think that's why I feel that the old/young skills thing may work against Vlad -- because once he loses a jot of bat speed, he won't have any clue of how to compensate for it.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I disagree

that his mechanics are "bad".

They're not textbook, yes. But they work for him. He has had tremendous success, and been injury free using those mechanics.

Michael Johnson had "bad" mechanics too.

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

by rfloh on Apr 3, 2008 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think he's succeeded despite his mechanics, not because of them

I really think he could have been one of 5 or so greatest players ever if he had been coached at an early age and had more discipline. As it is, he's likely a HOF'er. I'm not at all arguing that he hasn't been successful.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

One of the reasons why the Giants "purportedly" didn't sign him.

I am Ray Fosse's man crushes for Clay Wood and Jason Kendall.

by franks a lot on Apr 3, 2008 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the other purported reasons being ...

... that they couldn't have signed Steve Kline if they'd ponied up for Vlad.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Steve Kline = Below average LOOGY with a salty, disgusting hat

I am Ray Fosse's man crushes for Clay Wood and Jason Kendall.

by franks a lot on Apr 3, 2008 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nice attitude, though

Seems like a neat guy.

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 3, 2008 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Site request:

I'd like to have the TV info in the "current series" box.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 3, 2008 10:12 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I think "The Office" is a re-run

Not sure about "30 Rock".

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 3, 2008 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I thought NBC was the Giants station now

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks, but

I want it in the "current series" box, not in the comments.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 3, 2008 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I have an ordinary Sony with a flat screen.

I think I need to be better-employed before we can upgrade to HD.

"There is an HR in Hanrahan." ~ mikeA

by Poppy on Apr 3, 2008 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

... but that's not important right now.

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Apr 3, 2008 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Eddie Izzard is starring in "The Riches"

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Josh Hamilton, if he stays clean

is an MVP talent, a Carlos Beltran type player. Trading for him is NOT a "bludgeon our way to a pennant" strategy.

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

by rfloh on Apr 3, 2008 11:37 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Sure it is

Carlos Beltran couldn't single-handedly make the Royals contenders, and neither can Hamilton for the Rangers.

The Rangers needed pitching to compete, and they didn't get it.

by Joey C. on Apr 3, 2008 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That is ridiculous.

No one player can make a team a contender. Even Bonds at his peak needed help. That doesn't mean that you do not acquire good players.

The Rangers need good players, period. Their OPS+ in 2007 was 98, 9th in the AL. Their ERA+ was 95, 11th in the AL.

Also, a Beltran type player, does help a team's pitching: DEFENSE.

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

by rfloh on Apr 3, 2008 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

One player could turn the A's into a contender -

Josh Hamilton! Don't you think?

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 3, 2008 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm befuddled as to why Cincinnati made that trade

particularly once they then turned around and sent Jay Bruce back to AAA.

Aren't Griffey and Dunn's contracts expiring after this season?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I want to know why the A's didn't trade for Hamilton

Seems like they could have matched the asking price and acquired a young, high-upside player who is still cheap. They certainly have the trade chips in the minors, thanks to the Haren and Swisher deals.

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 3, 2008 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Beane may never have heard about the deal

As I recall, it wasn't leaked beforehand.

Also, it may have happened before one or both of those trades occurred. Perhaps even before the "health summit."

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to acquire potential impact players

But you were denying the writer's assertion that the Rangers were making yet more "hitting home runs beats getting even league average pitching any day"-type moves. Was it nice they got a good player-- and helped their defense-- by picking up Hamilton? Sure. But they didn't address their real weakness over the offseason.

I thought the comment (which was obviously there for humorous purposes, anyway) was entirely merited.

by Joey C. on Apr 3, 2008 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Defense helps pitching

Defense is part of pitching.

Their offense is overrated. The raw numbers their offense puts up are pumped up by their homepark. Their offense in 2007 was actually mediocre. Conversely, their pitching while also mediocre, is not as bad the raw numbers indicate.

Their real weakness is not really pitching, their real weakness is a lack of good players, and poor evaluation of talent over the last several years and last couple front offices. Their "real" weakness is turning ARod into Alfonso Soriano, who was then turned into a broken down Brad Wilkerson while giving $47M to the Yanks. That sequence was one of the most idiotic of the last several years. Overrating Michael Young and grossly overpaying him. Turning a good hitting prospect, Adrian Gonzalez, AND a good pitching prospect, Chris Young, into a reliever, Otsuka, albeit a very good reliever. Turning a decent pitching prospect, John Danks, into a broken down one, Brandon McCarthy.

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

by rfloh on Apr 3, 2008 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

How does a team like Texas, that can't

attract or develop good pitching, choose Chris Young as the one to trade away? Amazing.

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 3, 2008 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I forgot that they got Eaton too.

but that does not make the trade any less stupid. The stupidity wasn't just trading away Young. It was trading away Young AND Adrian Gonzalez for a reliever, and Adam Eaton, a 28 year old injury prone pitcher who had 1 season, just one season, of being a borderline average player. Because of his health, at the time of the trade, he cannot even be considered a 4th starter type. So they traded Young AND Gonzalez for a reliever and a guy whose upside was / is as a 4th starter.

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

by rfloh on Apr 3, 2008 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

that trade=Padres are smart

Chris Young is an anomalous pitcher and is perfectly suited to pitch in that ballpark. He would give up a gazillion HRs in a hitters park.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Apr 3, 2008 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And Adrian Gonzalez?

He was traded too. For a reliever and a guy who is worse than a 4th starter.

That trade was Jon Daniels being fireable on the spot stupid. It was the Rangers equivalent of Nathan + Liriano + Bonser for Pierzynski.

As for Young, small sample size and all that, but in his 2+ years with the Padres, Young has given up the same number of HRs in San Diego and on the road, 19 each.

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

by rfloh on Apr 4, 2008 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Young is a pretty accomplished pitcher

Petco may help him, but he's good on his own merit.

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 4, 2008 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, yeah

I'm aware that defense helps pitching-- that's why I threw it in my response above-- but I imagine having pitchers that could put up numbers just a hair above replacement level might help more than one player in the outfield, no matter how good his defense is. (Note to statheads: That was an exaggeration for comedic effect; there may in fact be as many as one pitcher on the Rangers' staff that is a hair above league average).

Obviously, you have to have a really dopey front office (or a historic string of bad luck) to get where the Rangers have put themselves. And yeah, their "star" player(s) are overrated. But c'mon, you can't tell me that pitching isn't their most glaring weaknesses (and if you can, I'd like to know what, other than organizational incompetence, IS their most glaring weakness. Not being a smartass. Just interested).

I think the point being made in the blog is that for years, the Rangers seemed more interested in crushing homers in their admittedly numbers-inflating park than they were in securing anything resembling good pitching. I think Eaton represents the last of the "What If We Got Sinkerballers to Combat Park Factors?" line of thinking, and they have more or less given up since.

I'm open to agreeing to disagree on this, since it seems we can't find a settling point.

by Joey C. on Apr 3, 2008 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Like I already said,

their team ERA+ was 95, 11th in the AL. Their team OPS+ was 98, 9th in the AL.

That is a bad team, period.

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

by rfloh on Apr 4, 2008 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also,

I'm not sure that you can say that the Rangers in past years, were only interested in crushing home runs.

They hugely handicapped themselves by signing the idiotic Park Chan Ho contract.

Here are the year by year ERA+, and OPS+ for the Rangers, last 5 years, from 2003:
88 ERA+, 96 OPS+
111 ERA+, 97 OPS+
93 ERA+, 105 OPS+
100 ERA+, 101 OPS+
95 ERA+, 98 OPS+

From Baseball Prospectus, Batting Runs above average for the Rangers from 2003-2007:
-12, -39, 48, -8, -19.

Pitching Runs above average, this attempts to separate pitching from defense 2003-2007:
-15, 47, -3, 21, -69

Runs above average, pitching combined with D, 2003-2007:
-95, 66, -72, 16, -62

I agree that their pitching has been very weak, their greatest weakness, but their offense has not exactly been of the bludgeon our way to a title type offense. It has been distinctly mediocre.

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

by rfloh on Apr 4, 2008 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My prediction wasn't an option...

... but I'm with Neyer, in that I think the Mariners waaaaaay outperformed their talent last year. I expect that the Angels will take the division, probably winning to the tune of 88-90 wins, while the A's finish around .500 and 3 or 4 games ahead of the Mariners. Erik Bedard, Felix Hernandez, and a throbbing pile of nothing does not a rotation make.

by Joey C. on Apr 3, 2008 11:39 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

That was an option...?

Angels, big gap, A's, M's, Rangers?

So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one

by baseballgirl on Apr 3, 2008 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Big gap won't finish second

They hit a lot of doubles, but that's about it. ;)

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

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Apr 3, 2008 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Big Gap?

I thought he was the majority owner of the A's.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fair enough

I interpreted "big gap" to be a double-digit difference in wins, or in that neighborhood. I choose that one, then.

by Joey C. on Apr 3, 2008 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why does everyone still say

If Harden AND Crosby are healthy?

If Harden is healthy he is actually worth a few wins to this team! A healthy Rich Harden is a key ingredient to a good season.

Crosby on the other hand. Well you guys know. Not worth saying.

Let's just say we should be asking for Crosby to stay healthy we need to him actually learn how to hit a baseball.

"I can't wait for tommorrow, cause I get so much cooler every day" - shirt worn by Swish

by Bigtoe on Apr 3, 2008 11:58 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Agree 100%. He not only has to be healthy, but good.

So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one

by baseballgirl on Apr 3, 2008 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, based on that analysis I think the A's have a chance

That said, it would take a wizard of Gandalf the Grey proportions to turn this year’s pile into anything significant.

I mean, Billy Beane is *clearly* at least at Gandalf the White level

Will there ever be a boy born who can swim faster than a shark?

by JLeverenz on Apr 3, 2008 12:08 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

clearly

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

by Cheezombie on Apr 3, 2008 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

pet peeve

"Schizophrenic" equals neither "split personality" nor "holding two contradictory opinions."

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 12:36 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Well that kills my

"I'm a schizophrenic and so am I" joke.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Apr 3, 2008 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

just needs editing

"I'm schizophrenic and so is Steven Spielberg who monitors my thoughts through the implants in my molars."

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're out of my league, mb

but I'll be sure to use this more than once just so I know what true wit feels like

dig it

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Apr 3, 2008 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

eh, it's just a pet peeve/obsession

Everybody's got 'em.

As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@

by monkeyball on Apr 3, 2008 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Interesting thought about being a fan of a philosophy

I basically haven't paid attention to baseball since I was about 12 years old. Then I ready moneyball, and it turned me into an instant A's fan. I like rooting for a team that is run well, even if we don't have the big money players. I don't think I could take the constant insult it is to be a gIt's also fun to root for an underdog. And it's great, great fun to walk around SF flaunting the Green and Gold.

by phastphill on Apr 3, 2008 1:14 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

hmmm, that got munged, so...

I basically haven't paid attention to baseball since I was about 12 years old. Then I ready moneyball, and it turned me into an instant A's fan. I like rooting for a team that is run well, even if we don't have the big money players. I don't think I could take the constant insult it is to be a giants fan with their team management. It's also fun to root for an underdog. And it's great, great fun to walk around SF flaunting the Green and Gold.

by phastphill on Apr 3, 2008 1:15 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

baseballgirl

enjoyed the blog.
thanks :)

by oakinboston on Apr 3, 2008 3:46 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Thank you!

And thank you Andy for the Angels' post. I like that AN turned this into an awesome baseball discussion that attracted some AL West fans, even outside the A's.

Excellent posts in here.

So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one

by baseballgirl on Apr 3, 2008 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks.

It was my pleasure. Always good to see lots of baseball discussion.

by Ando775 on Apr 3, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

at least this mind wasn't empty

i was kind of worried when I saw the title 'inside the mind of an angels' fan' and I'm an angels' fan. i gave up on halos heaven last year. i could only take so many dumb postings and remarks. as a fan of the angels i found it embarrassing. it seemed like too many empty minds were wearing the haloed cap.

it's comforting to see in this post that it's not entirely the case. must be the northern california living. (hey, as a life long angeleno, i reserve the right to knock So Cal living. One of these days I'm gonna petition to adopt the slogan: "Southern California: Where the First World Meets the Third World." I don't think they're going to be happy with me.)

i can't say i was worried about the injuries. i'm dissapointed that the a's will be in rebuilding mode this year (or at least that's what I've read). i don't even know who plays for the rangers.

on paper, seattle seems to be on even terms with the Angels, maybe even better but I can't say i'm bothered. I like division races.

Speaking of the division, isn't anybody else out there bothered by the fact the the west only has 4 teams? couldn't we have 5?

anyway, best of luck to you all. may the best team win, whoever it is.

by pedro infeliz on Apr 3, 2008 3:55 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

The uneven divisions thing definitely bugs me

It's really, blatantly unfair given that every division gets its own playoff spot.

It would seem even more unfair if the Pirates were a Major League baseball franchise.

A while back I envisioned a realignment (and a couple of team expansions) which would have given baseball 8 4-team divisions while preserving virtually all of the natural rivalries. Unfortunately, I'm not Bud Selig.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The unbalanced schedule bugs me,

and with only 4 teams it's even more absurd - we play three teams so fricking often. Just lame.

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 3, 2008 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, the A's play their division mates

no more often than the Giants play theirs.

The AL West teams have 6 extra series with out-of-division teams to make up for playing 18-19 fewer divisional games a year. The Giants play, I think, one non-divisional NL team three times and 10 twice. The A's play 7 non-divisional teams three times and only three twice.

At least that's what it was the last time I did a season on MLB 06.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The A's play the Angels, M's, and Rangers

for more than 1/3 of their total games and that's just plain wrong. While playing other AL teams, like Baltimore, sometimes as little as 6 times?

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 3, 2008 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The NL Central teams

play essentially half their games on the season against each other. The Giants play, IIRC, 76.

The AFC Central teams, prior to the 2002 realignment, played 10 games in the division and only 6 games outside of it.

Stanford's basketball team played 21 games against the rest of the Pac-10 this season and just 15 against the other 331 teams in Division I basketball.

I don't have a problem with playing a lot of divisional games during the regular season. You're competing first and foremost against your own division. Why would you not play them a lot?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 3, 2008 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why, PT? Because it's boring

The fact that other leagues have unbalanced schedules doesn't make it any better or worse to me. Everyone playing everyone is more interesting - a few more games against your own division is fine. But I don't need to see Vicente Padilla pitch 5 times and James Shields only once. It's just lame.

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 4, 2008 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Tell it to the Pac-10...

Also, please note that this is an argument for completely breaking down the interleague play barrier.

It might not be the worst thing in the world for every team to just play one home-and-home series with every other team a la the English Premier League, but the players' union would never go for it. Too much travel.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 4, 2008 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It bothers me too.

I never write diaries but one of the two times I did that's what I wrote about. I don't know how to link it or I would. But suffice to say the unbalanced schedule bothers me greatly.

by IM4Oakgal on Apr 4, 2008 1:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So are you saying...

this was a confirmation or an apparent exception to the rule?

by Ando775 on Apr 3, 2008 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Confirmation

See the posts by the Rev and Hapyorange below

"Evidently, a large number of people said, 'We really need more vermin at the ballpark, Artie.'" - Nick (AN), 10/7/07

by doctorK on Apr 4, 2008 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Here's where I disagree with Andy

But what fun would baseball be, or team blogs for that matter, if everything was a done deal before the season started? Well, if it meant the Angels would always win the division, then I guess that would best be characterized as awesome.

I'd probably like it if the A's always won the division, but I certainly would not like it if it was apparent that they were always going to win the division before the season started. The seasons I've enjoyed the most are the ones where the race came down to the last day or the last couple of days. I don't especially like the current fashion in sports media for issuing the World Series predictions on opening day. I'd rather hear about who's going to be interesting to watch on each team throughout the season.

And I didn't vote in the poll because there wasn't an option for "I'm pretty sure it's not going to be the Rangers, but other than that, time will tell"!

The candy and the baseball all night long: )

by Englishmajor on Apr 3, 2008 4:51 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

For the Record

I have a tattoo of MONKEYBALL's avatar.

Its just the wasted years so close behind

by Rev Halofan on Apr 3, 2008 7:57 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I See Red People

And they are beat the SHIT out of the "AAA's"

"......and you can kiss it GOODBYE"

by Hapyorange on Apr 4, 2008 8:52 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

You are grammar are badly,

even as your insluting us.

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 4, 2008 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

re:

"I never thought that there was much going on inside the head of an Angels fan --
figured it was pretty hollow inside there."

by redwolf75 on Apr 4, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My Grammer

I can fix my grammer, your team is still the "AAA's". You were originally from Kansas City for God's sake. But thats ok, just remember, you are an import to this great state. You make me feel like a kid with this isult shit!!!!! I LOVE IT!!! Makes the day go by a little quicker playing with children like AAA fans.

"......and you can kiss it GOODBYE"

by Hapyorange on Apr 4, 2008 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Aw, c'mon, dude

When I decide to inevitably get myself banned from HalosHeaven, it will be for something much more insulting than this...

No way would I waste my "membership" on insults this bad.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Apr 4, 2008 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I hope this is not a portent of a mass invasion

of 60 year old trash-talkers upon the internet.

by redwolf75 on Apr 5, 2008 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms
Start posting about the Athletics »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Wishyouwerehere250_small
AFL PitchFX Pt. 1: James Simmons
Imgp0089_editedagasin_small
DLD 11/24/09 - Fine, I'll make another video game dump
Me_at_att_park_small
Greener Grass, Episode 7: Transportation Proclamation
Me_at_att_park_small
Old McPherson is an A, e yi e yi yoooooooo
Depaulbluedemons_small
Community Prospect List #18

Recent FanPosts

Small
The A's Move to Oakland in 1968
Funny-pictures12_small
If Jack Cust Traded, Then To Whom And For What?
Small
Jack Cust Drawing Trade Interest?
413niegoftl__sl500_aa280__small
A's Protect Carter, FDLS, Figueroa and Souza from Rule V
Countdown_small
Some things I am "coming around" on...

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Managers

Tyler_at_maya_school_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

As_kings_cal_small louismg

Editors

Countdown_small Taj Adib

Ziegler160px_small Flashfire

527918550406_0_bg_small notsellingjeans