Was Picking Up Frank Thomas a Mistake?
I know, I know, people hate it when there is premature speculation (isn't there a pill for that these days?). But I'm wondering if the A's might've made a mistake in picking up Frank Thomas. The reason? I'm thinking that Mike Sweeney is just a better hitter right now and Thomas' presence has put Sweeney on the bench. Not only that, but perhaps Barry Bonds would've been the better fit because he can probably still play left field whereas Frank Thomas has no business being anywhere close to a glove.
Now before you all lash out at me, I understand that Bonds would've cost a lot more money and if all the media reports about Bonds are to be believed, he wouldn't have added much positive energy to the clubhouse. Bonds also would've created a similar situation that the A's have now with Cust, Sweeney, Barton and Thomas. They essentially have four designated hitters and two of them need to be in the field every night and one of them rides the pine.
If you look at their stats, Sweeney has been the better hitter this year. I think one of the major reasons Beane picked up Thomas was his plucky young A's weren't getting pop from anywhere and if Thomas has proven anything throughout his career, it's that the guy knows how to slug with the best in baseball. The problem is that he hasn't been slugging at all for the A's. He only has four extra base hits in 60 ABs and none of them have left the park. The chances are that this is probably a small sample size, but I'm wondering if Thomas is a better hitter overall at this stage in his career. Both Sweeney and Thomas are .300 hitters for their careers. Yet Thomas is going to be 40 on May 27th. Sweeney turns 35 in July.
Thomas may be a statistical aberration and not be declining as he hits his big 4-0 a la Bonds, but for how good he was with Toronto last season, he wasn't anywhere near as good as 2006 with Oakland.
Don't get me wrong. I don't blame Beane and company for taking a chance on a hitter with the credentials of Bonds. Hell, I even advocated for Thomas when he was sitting out there. But I just can't help but think that Mike Sweeney should be in the lineup every night unless he's injured (which might not take long given his past history). The other option would be to possibly send Daric Barton down and let Sweeney play first every day. The problem with that is that you're asking for an injury to Sweeney by taking that approach. I also think that Barton's growth could be getting stunted by not having him out there every night.
Beane has told me several times that you can never have too many good players, but the truth is that I don't think the A's are getting the best out of what they have because they have too many players who probably should be a DH. And you just know that Thomas is rarely, if ever, going to wind up sitting out because of the way he exited Toronto.
Although the issue will arise this upcoming weekend when the A's head into Atlanta. They're going to lose Thomas' bat all weekend without the DH.
Course this all goes away and I look like a fool if Thomas just starts hitting homers and doubles with regularity. And quite frankly, I'm hoping he makes me look like a fool.
1 recs |
269
comments
Read Related
Comments
Picking him up was not a mistake
Keeping him, at some point, might develop into one. I don’t think the A’s have reached that point yet.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 13, 2008 11:07 PM PDT 0 recs
that's the way I feel...
If I were Geren, I’d be playing Thomas everyday at DH, Good Sweeney everyday at 1st base, and Cust everyday in LF. Barton can sit until he proves he can hit major league pitching.
As for age…
Yet Thomas is going to be 40 on May 27th. Sweeney turns 35 in July.
Bonds is 43 (not sure when he turns 44). Much of his late career power was, undoubtedly, generated by PED’s he can no longer take. They’ll be watching him like a hawk and will probably immediately institute a HGH testing program the moment he signs a contract, the union be damned.
And, he’s now been reindicted on 14 counts of perjury and 1 count of obstruction. Can you say distraction?
I’ll keep Frank until the weather gets warmer, thank you.
Foolsh, the most insane regular poster on AN since oaktoon left - salb
by FoolshGame22 on
May 14, 2008 12:02 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Given the choice between cutting Thomas and benching Barton...
Thomas would be out of here faster than you can say “unconditional release waivers.”
That’s a completely wrongheaded idea.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 14, 2008 8:18 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm the biggest Frank Thomas fan here
But I agree 100%
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on
May 14, 2008 8:23 AM PDT
up
0 recs
+1
I’d give him at least until the end of the month. IF he hasn’t shown his power, etc. by then, then you can consider flip flopping positions with Sweeney. It’s too early right now.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on
May 14, 2008 11:34 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Agreed.
As a side note: Beane is famous for maximizing the “undervalued commodity”. Sometimes I wonder if the current “undervalued commodity” is gimpy no-field 1B/DHs, and that’s why the team has so many? I’d like to see a bit more balance on the roster. I’m sure they’re all great guys, and valuable in their own way, but I keep thinking something’s gotta give.
- Roughly defined as Cust, Thomas, MSweeney, etc., and maybe even to some extent Barton.
Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.
by UncleLeo on
May 14, 2008 9:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Apparently, two asterisks make bold text... I did not know that.
Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.
by UncleLeo on
May 14, 2008 9:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I love Hurt...
but I think you may be right. If they let MSweeney hit regularly I think he might really get in the groove. I know Hurt is a slow starter but Sweeney is definitely the better hitter right now IMO.
by IM4Oakgal on May 13, 2008 11:09 PM PDT 0 recs
blez
i think you mean “i wonder if sweeney is a better hitter at this point” not thomas
good article though
"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006
by flipgatey3 on May 13, 2008 11:12 PM PDT 0 recs
MSweeney is too much of an injury risk to play every day, even as a DH.
4 days a week is plenty of playing time for him IMO.
Frank may be declining, but he’s gotten off to very slow starts the last 2 seasons and he’s heated up each time. I don’t think it’s been long enough to throw in the towel on him yet, but at the same time I have a feeling that Beane may have brought him back with the understanding that he’s got 6 weeks (or some set amount of time) to start hitting the ball with the A’s before he’s given his walking papers.
by mikev on May 13, 2008 11:25 PM PDT 0 recs
Frank's gotten off to slow starts forever
April is his worst month for BA, OBP, and SLG. I know we’re into mid-May now, but it’s not like he has played consistently from opening day. He was benched in Toronto, had almost a week without a team, etc.
He looks like typical struggling Frank, which I think is a good thing. Two weeks ago people were saying similar things about Cust, who has much less of a track record of success (and it was silly to worry so much about him, too).
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on
May 14, 2008 8:31 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I like your second option Blez
.237/.342/.348, good for a .690 OPS. That’s Barton’s line thus far. It’s also not far from the unpopular prediction I made for him in the offseason.
At this point in his career, he’s not yet a viable full-time option at first base or DH for a team in playoff contention. It’s hard to swallow a sub .700 OPS combined with less-than-elite defense out of your first baseman.
What seals the argument is the fact that, right now, his backup is a better player. Sweeney has earned the right to play every day with his performance – .322/.381/.448, and an .830 OPS.
As for Thomas, he had gotten on base at a .391 clip entering tonight’s game since joining the A’s. I think it’s too early to give up on him. At that OBP, he has good value even without power.
On a non-statistical note, I think it’s valuable for these young guys to see two veterans who’ve had terrific careers and made over $60 million each in their careers now busting their butts for the league minimum. I think that can have a positive long-term ripple effect on teaching Barton/Suzuki/R. Sweeney/Buck/et al how to carve out terrific careers for themselves and make good decisions. You know, like, not having your iPod in your ear during autograph sessions at team promotional events. :)
For the Barton lovers who hated the idea in the offseason and hate demotion talk now, please consider this thought:
It turns out that OPSing .827 over a full season in the PCL really does indicate that you’re not ready to OPS .750 or better in the bigs, which every first baseman should do. A small victory for Minor League Equivalencies!
Barton is 22. He’s going to get better. I like him as a player and I think he has a great swing. But right now he clearly has not been critical to the team’s success, as evidenced by two facts: a.) His stats are below league-average for his position, and b.) His backup has outplayed him.
So again I come back to the unavoidable point: Now that we know that he’s not critical to the team’s success (at least as long as Sweeney is healthy and able to play first), why not wait until he is ready to hit at level that justifies starting him (say, an .800 OPS)?
If Barton gets sent down now, and stays there for merely a month at least, it accomplishes so many things:
a.) it eases the 25-man roster crunch, which only figures to grow if and when Chavez is ready to play, which could happen by the end of this month.
b.) It enables the A’s to put their best offensive lineup on the field, which undeniably includes Cust, Sweeney, and Thomas right now.
c. It preserves Barton’s service time, which would lead to an extra year of contractual control over him for the A’s. Would you rather have Barton’s age 22, .690-720 OPS season now, when his backup is better…or would you rather have his age 28 season when he’s a fearsome slugger? Think about how nice it would’ve been to have just one more year of Giambi or Tejada before they were free agents.
A lot of people around here hate that service time and money enter the equation. But that’s why I mentioned it last – it’s not the most important issue, but it is a factor to consider. If Barton were hitting well, it wouldn’t be an issue. But the fact that he isn’t, that it makes wonderful financial sense, and especially the fact that his backup is out-playing him all make it a slam dunk to me.
by notsellingjeans on May 14, 2008 12:01 AM PDT 1 recs
I pretty much agree
I will generally favor a younger player over an older one, but as Barton produces at a replacement level while Sweeney sits on the bench with an .830 OPS, it becomes hard to justify playing Barton while the A’s are in contention for a playoff spot. Barton is still a player that is young and full of upside, but the reality is that Barton was good but not great at AAA for two seasons, and Barton has a lot left to prove at this point before he is annointed as a guy who can’t be temporarily replaced by a veteran who is currently outplaying him.
by BlameChannel53 on
May 14, 2008 12:38 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Focusing too much on recent performance is
the king for frequent mistakes.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on
May 14, 2008 11:03 AM PDT
up
0 recs
re
Next two weeks are critical for Barton. Hannahan has a .400 OBP. When Chavez gets back, it would not surprise me to see Hannahan take Barton’s half of the 1B platoon. The Coliseum is so horrible to hit in, I think it would surprise most on this site that Hannahan has a 123 ops+. How do they bench that?
Big Frank is 115 ops+ since joining the A’s, btw.
by 31Boots on
May 14, 2008 12:48 AM PDT
up
0 recs
what does Bad Sweeney have?
Just curious? My personal opinion is that Billy’s man-crush may be justified. Sorry, Nico. It’s just a feeling… like Tampa Bay winning the AL East.
Foolsh, the most insane regular poster on AN since oaktoon left - salb
by FoolshGame22 on
May 14, 2008 12:51 AM PDT
up
0 recs
re
It’s not updated, and he had two singles tonight. He’s close to 100. So is Barton, ftr.
BBRef’s park factors are always a little bit goofy, but they have the Coliseum as playing like Petco this year.
by 31Boots on
May 14, 2008 12:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
We're also getting sub-700 OPS production from C, 2B, SS, and CF
and everybody’s favorite RBI machine is teetering on the brink of that mark, as well.
If people are going to point at the start of this season and say Barton isn’t ready for MLB, I’m going to point to his 1.000 OPS during his callup last September and say that he is ready.
by mikev on
May 14, 2008 8:02 AM PDT
up
0 recs
How well are our back-up C, 2B, SS, and CF playing?
Sweeney is hitting a lot better than Barton right now, period. Maybe Sweeney is getting lucky, maybe he’s hot, maybe he’s performing at his true talent level. Either way if the A’s want to win now, and why shouldn’t they then signed Frank, then Sweeney needs to play over Barton, whether Barton is MLB ready or not is a mute point as he’s getting vastly outperformed by his back-up. And seeing how Barton is so young it wouldn’t do him any good to ride the pine so call demotion to AAA should be in order.
Believe me, if we disagree it is you that is wrong.
by methodrampage on
May 14, 2008 8:44 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm very glad you're not the GM
I’ll say it again – I very much doubt that Mike Sweeney’s body is capable of playing on a daily basis. There’s a reason he’s hitting well now, and it’s because he is healthy. In case you didn’t know, the past 2 seasons he has played in 74 and 60 games because he’s been injured.
If he can keep going at his current rate and play 100-120 games, that’s about the most that can be expected from him.
by mikev on
May 14, 2008 8:50 AM PDT
up
0 recs
So if Sweeney gets hurt then Barton gets the call up.
When Chavez comes back I’d rather have Hannahan spelling Chavez at 3rd and Sweeney at 1st then have Barton in the lineup if he continues to hit like he currently is.
Want me to punchasize your face, for free? - Rod Farva
by methodrampage on
May 14, 2008 9:05 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Hannahan is the last guy that should be benched right now.
That said, why would you want to play Sweeney every day until he gets hurt as opposed to playing him 4 days a week for the entire season? That doesn’t make any sense.
by mikev on
May 14, 2008 9:34 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Ok when Chavez returns Hannahan plays 1st
and Sweeney gets the occasional start. Barton is doing little to help this team win right now.
"Want me to punchasize your face, for free?" - Rod Farva
by methodrampage on
May 14, 2008 9:35 AM PDT
up
0 recs
No more than Suzuki, Ellis, Crosby, RSweeney, Davis, etc
Pretty much the entire team not named Cust, Mike Sweeney, or Hannahan is hitting the ball like crap right now.
Why do you keep singling out Barton?
by mikev on
May 14, 2008 9:37 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Because he has a replacement
Are we going to play Hannahan at C, SS, CF? Probably not. Could Ellis use time in AAA? No. Could Barton? Probably.
"Want me to punchasize your face, for free?" - Rod Farva
by methodrampage on
May 14, 2008 9:47 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Barton hit .293/.389/.438 in a full season at AAA last year
Why would you make him repeat that when he’s clearly got nothing to gain by going back down to Sacramento?
He needs to be challenged by MLB caliber pitching, and he needs longer than 6 weeks to prove that he isn’t capable, especially considering that he did what he did during his callup last year.
by mikev on
May 14, 2008 10:04 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Because the A's are in the playoff race
If they were sucking like Seattle it’d be a different story but they’re not. I know it’s early but Barton isn’t doing anything to help the team win now. He’ll have until Chavez returns and then the A’s will have some decisions to make.
"Want me to punchasize your face, for free?" - Rod Farva
by methodrampage on
May 14, 2008 10:19 AM PDT
up
0 recs
They're in the playoff race with Barton, RSween, Ellis, Crosby, Suzuki, and Brown
basically doing nothing at the plate.
Imagine how they’ll do once they all start hitting. Well, maybe not Brown. :-X
by mikev on
May 14, 2008 10:24 AM PDT
up
0 recs
This is what I mean
when I say I think the offense will improve.
Still don’t think the pitching is sustainable though.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 14, 2008 10:35 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Barton usually slumps
during this time of year and usually comes out of it towards the end of May. Recall last June when he hit over 500?
by bsbllvr on
May 17, 2008 5:32 PM PDT
up
0 recs
You may be right about this, actually
but the A’s don’t tend to send down position players who aren’t abjectly sucking pond water.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 14, 2008 9:14 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I think it's pretty much a tossup
as to who will put up better numbers the rest of the season between Barton and Sweeney. Barton’s BA will improve from what it is now, Sweeney’s BA will undoubtedly decline. Barton is likely to put up a better OBP than Sweeney, while Sweeney will have a scosh more power. Barton’s D is somewhat better, I think. From the standpoint of next year, I’d rather that Barton see a full year of major league pitching.
Barton is slumping, Sweeney is hitting great: not enough of this has happened to make us assume that Sweeney is very much if at all better. Barton started slow last year and the year before. Sweeney hasn’t hit this well since 2005.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on
May 14, 2008 9:37 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Theres no quick fix for this
offense. We simply dont have many good “hitters”. Sure we got guys who get on base. And we have been lucky to drive them him at such a high rate. What this team needs is “Hitters”, not “Walkers”.
When will then be now? Soon.
by Syphon on May 14, 2008 12:22 AM PDT 0 recs
I agree with you Syphon
alot of people said that they didnt like CarGon as the center piece of the haren trade because he was not an A’s type player. This is exactly why I like Cargon, he is a guy in the middle of the lineup that will be looking to drive the ball
by asfaninpismobeach on
May 14, 2008 11:19 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Another reason to play Sweeney over Barton
Sweeney rarely strikes out and is always looking to drive the ball.
by ChadGod on
May 14, 2008 12:13 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Whereas Barton is a wussy who wants to strike out??
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 14, 2008 12:23 PM PDT
up
0 recs
You can want to not strike out all you want..
but that aint gonna make you hit that ball. You have to actually “Do” and not “Want”.
When will then be now? Soon.
by Syphon on
May 14, 2008 12:52 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm trying to figure out what the opposite of "looking to drive the ball" is
If not “looking to strike out, what is it? “Looking to make gimpy slap contact”?
The guy hit .300 last season. Most people do not do that by means other than “looking to drive the ball.”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 14, 2008 12:59 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Im not saying hes not looking to drive the ball..
Im saying hes NOT driving the ball. Which is worse IMO.
When will then be now? Soon.
by Syphon on
May 14, 2008 1:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
He seems to be just off pitches, the same as Frank, it might be a
mechanical flaw, or it might be his hand, and like all A’s players he is too stubborn to tell someone it is still bothering him.
by theblackpearl on
May 14, 2008 1:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Want my completely unproven consipiracy theory?
Here it is: Barton is very full of himself and is “big leagueing” it.
I think he just assumes that he’s going to do well, and that he maybe isn’t taking it seriously enough.
I don’t know why, but all the times that I’ve seen Barton interviewed or heard him interviewed he just gives off the “I think I’m a badass” vibe.
Hopefully being around Sweeney will help him figure things out or something.
by mikev on
May 14, 2008 1:13 PM PDT
up
0 recs
If this is really true
then one would presume that getting sent down would be a wakeup call.
Yet you seemed to advocate against that play elsewhere on this thread.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 14, 2008 1:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Yeah, it's kind of a flip-floppy stance [/JohnKerry]
But I was advocating against sending him down based on giving Mike Sweeney the full time job, or based on Barton’s ability – he’s shown the ability to play at a high level in AAA, and he’s shown the ability to play in a (sample size alert) cup of coffee in the big leagues.
Sending him down in order to get the point across that he’s not a superstar and needs to continue to bust his ass to get better every day is a different scenario, though the end result (demotion) is the same.
by mikev on
May 14, 2008 1:45 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Not sure you'd want to convince him "that he's not a superstar"
Since we’re all hoping he is. I really doubt that this is a problem, especially since he doesn’t even have an everyday job. But, if it were, I’d rather him struggle in the big show and learn some humility than dominate the minors some more.
by Sacred#24 on
May 14, 2008 1:50 PM PDT
up
0 recs
are you sure your handle isn't markk?
We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
May 14, 2008 1:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Sorry, can't help you there.
I have no idea who that is.
by mikev on
May 14, 2008 1:46 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Looking to walk?
I have no data to support anything but this might be one of the reasons Brown has as many RBI’s as he does. Basically, with a runner on second Brown is strickly looking for a hit, mean while Cust appears to be just as happy to draw a walk, which is fine and all but drawing a walk with men in scoring position rarely gets a run home. Sometimes you need aggresive hitters.
"Want me to punchasize your face, for free?" - Rod Farva
by methodrampage on
May 14, 2008 2:14 PM PDT
up
0 recs
you never need (overly) aggressive hitters
Drawing a walk isn’t bad. Making outs is bad. Drawing a walk with runners in scoring position creates the opportunity to score more runs. More runners is good.
Brown has been very fortunate this year, but he has simply been fortunate. He’s not a .475 hitter, and you should expect some major regression.
by MrIncognito on
May 14, 2008 2:31 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'd take Vlad [in his prime] anyday
And he’s about as overly aggressive as a hitter can be. Don’t try to tell me that you never need overly aggressive hitters.
So what you’re telling me is that with two outs and a man on second your rather have your 3, 4, or 5 hitter draw a walk 40% than single 25% of time? It seems to me that there are certain situations when it’s better for a .277 hitter to swing away rather than take a walk.
"Want me to punchasize your face, for free?" - Rod Farva
by methodrampage on
May 14, 2008 2:49 PM PDT
up
0 recs
you would be wrong
As Paul Thomas posted below, it’s better to have 5 shots at scoring with guys that hit .250 than 3 shots with guys hitting .333. Outs are bad, and the fewer outs we make the better.
I would rather have a hitter who gets a single 25% of the time and a walk 15% of the time than a hitter who gets a single 30% of the time. The 15% walks are worth a lot more than the 5% difference in singles.
Vlad is a great hitter, but if you take him in his prime over Thomas in his prime you are making a bad choice. It’s always better to take the on base percentage.
I’ll try explaining this one more way:
Brown gets more RBIs because he has a higher average, but he takes RBI chances away from the players behind him because he makes more outs. The value of those chances lost is greater than the gain in RBIs from his high batting average.
by MrIncognito on
May 14, 2008 2:55 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Vlad over Thomas?
When did this debate start? I don’t know why anyone would argue against having either one on their team (during their prime).
Please obligue and tell me when that gap in additional walks and hits zeros out. Is singling 7% more equal to someone who walks 12% more? Wouldn’t these have to be adjusted for the decreasing ability of the batter following say, the guy who’s hitting 5th? To take the extreme NL example would you still want you’re #8 hitter getting a single 25% of the time and walking 15%? Or would you rather have him single 30% of the time. Honestly, I don’t know and am curious to find out as I get what your saying but there’s have to be a middle point and maybe that’s what I’m really looking to find out.
"Want me to punchasize your face, for free?" - Rod Farva
by methodrampage on
May 14, 2008 3:12 PM PDT
up
0 recs
On average, a single is worth approximately 50% more than a walk
Depending on the base/out situation and the other hitters in your lineup, that will vary. For instance, they’re (pretty obviously) equal in value when the bases are empty and the hitters behind you are all average hitters. On the other hand, when its 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs, obviously a single is way more valuable.
So: a hitter who singles 25% of the time and walks 15% of the time is approximately equal to a hitter who singles 35% of the time and never walks.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 14, 2008 3:22 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Thanks
Maybe my math is off, and this might come of as knit picking but I just want to make sure I get what you saying, but wouldn’t a hitter who singles 25% of the time also have to walk 20% of the time to be approximately equal to a hitter who singles 35% of the time and never walks?
"Want me to punchasize your face, for free?" - Rod Farva
by methodrampage on
May 14, 2008 3:39 PM PDT
up
0 recs
50% more
Not 100% more.
3 walks = 2 singles. Roughly.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 14, 2008 4:18 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Damn, your right
"Want me to punchasize your face, for free?" - Rod Farva
by methodrampage on
May 14, 2008 6:20 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Linear Weights
If you look at linear weights statistics like EqA, they take the run values of any given outcome and add them up. You can also get batting runs from baseballreference.com that use a similar method. That’s why they’re the ‘preferred’ offensive statistic – they’re extremely precise in measuring a hitter’s contribution. They also have a pretty nice stats called “Offensive Winning Percentage,” which is the winning percentage a lineup of 9 players with the given offensive performance would post given league average pitching.
Looking at the whole season, Brown has been 0.4 runs below average offensively. Interestingly, Thomas has been exactly average for the whole year, and 1.8 runs above average since joining the A’s.
by MrIncognito on
May 14, 2008 5:46 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Interesting
Thanks for the info.
"Want me to punchasize your face, for free?" - Rod Farva
by methodrampage on
May 14, 2008 6:21 PM PDT
up
0 recs
A walk is not always good.
Runner on 2nd with one out. Batter draws a walk, now runners on 1st and 2nd.. now setting up a double play. And you know how we love to hit into double plays.
When will then be now? Soon.
by Syphon on
May 14, 2008 3:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
... if walking you was a good thing,
your guy would be intentionally walked.
[And indeed, it’s the flipside of your comment—that managers think so little of walking a guy when there’s an open base—that causes the intentional walk to be grotesquely overused as a strategy.]
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 14, 2008 3:15 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I didnt say a walk wasnt good..
But Id much rather have a hit obv.
When will then be now? Soon.
by Syphon on
May 14, 2008 3:21 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The thing is...
we dont have any really good hitters. Sure we have guys that get on base.. but eventually someone needs to drive them in. Right now its Brown. Walking is all fine and good, but how often do you drive in runs on walks?
When will then be now? Soon.
by Syphon on
May 14, 2008 3:25 PM PDT
up
0 recs
my guess
is frank has about two weeks to get hot. If he doesnt heat up he is a DFAer. (it was worth a shot, but his bat is slow and his speed kills us) Because when Chavy gets back he or hannahan can be the back-up 1st baseman and sweeney can be a full time DH, barton can countinue to work things out at first. Barton can benefit from a drop in the line-up when chavez returns.
by KCB58 on May 14, 2008 12:22 AM PDT 0 recs
Keep in mind
that Frank Thomas always has slow starts. Since coming to the A’s though, he has at least compiled a .268 average and a .391 OBP. He’s at least seeing the ball well enough to walk. His OPS+ is 115 since coming to Oakland, which is just a little below the +125 from 2007. June is traditionally his hottest month though, so I’m reserving judgement until mid-June to see whether or not it was a mistake.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=thomafr04
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on May 14, 2008 12:24 AM PDT 0 recs
Barton the Next Johnson
Barton was like DJ so far just mindless hype AAA great player sub-major as far as Bonds id go to more games just to turn my back at Beane and Barry
Lisa: "Swim toward San Francisco!" Homer: "I'm not made of money! We'll swim to Oakland."
by MajorRager on May 14, 2008 12:24 AM PDT 0 recs
Yeah, let's ignore Barton's and DJ's ages
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
May 14, 2008 12:44 AM PDT
up
0 recs
22? By the time I was 22 I had... um... graduated from... college... yeah.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 14, 2008 9:20 AM PDT
up
0 recs

