Time to Kill the "We're Not Good Enough" Refrain
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 7:51 AM PDT
220 comments
Listen up, people. We got a good ballclub here. maybe even a damn good ballclub. The pitching is good and its deep. The defense is strong (A's now rank 2nd in all MLB in Defensive Efficiency, according to Baseball Prospectus). The hitting is coming around, as could be expected with a young team. Geren has finally found a lineup that makes sense-- Ellis and RSweeney up top-- Cust, Thomas (when he returns) and Chavez in the middle-- the others to follow. Brown is now a platoon player. Buck is now in the minors until he gets his head straightened out. Hannahan is the type of role player he should have been all along.
Somebody argued yesterday in a different thread that it would basically be luck that would propel the A's to the playoffs, and that it was silly to count on that. And, by extension, stupid to pass on a good deal for one of our pitchers-- defined as getting some quality hitting in return. The core of this argument is that the Angels and Yankees-- and possibly the Rays-- are simply better teams than the A's (The Red Sox are out of the conversation, obviously)-- and that banking anything on this team-- this year-- is foolish.
Well as to the Yankees, we'll see, since the team you see in June is not the same one we'll be watching in August. But as to our rivals to the South, I agreed with that view for a long time. In fact, until now. I still respect them-- their ability to win close games-- their resourcefulness in how they play the game and force the action. But at some point you have to trust the fundamental stats. We're nearly 45% into a season and our boys have a run differential that is +69-- essentially tied with the two Hoses for best in the league-- and the Angels are +3.
That difference-- as others have been arguing for a while now-- ain't peanuts. And can't simply be explained away by the A's annoying habitnof exploding for 10+ runs and then going cold for several days. (Knock on wood and hope it ain't true again today) You know what?? I think we're better than them-- Lackey or no Lakcey. Vlad or no Vlad. K Rod or no K Rod. Scioscia or no Scioscia. I think we pitch better--I know we field better-- and I think over the long haul our system produces more runs than theirs. And being 3 back with 90 games to go over a team that I think we're superior to means, in terms of how BB approaches the next 6 weeks-- green light, baby!! Trade Blanton or Street if you must-- but doing so in part for this season, not just the future. If Casilla can close-- and we can get another bat, then make Huston someone else's problem. If Gaudin can start and Harden seems healthy, then trade Blanton or Gaudin for another bat. Or trade Anderson or Cahill plus another prospect for another, even bigger, bat.
MY point being is that-- whatever anyone thought heading into this season-- this team-- not next year's team-- but this team-- has a legitimate chance to win. NOW. Rich Harden may not be healthy or still here in the future. Justin Duchscherer ditto. But this year they are two of the best 5 pitchers in the league-- and they could pitch 3 of 5 or 4 of 7 games in a given playoff series. Mark Ellis, Bobby Crosby and Eric Chavez are all performing about as well as we could expect-- they are veterans who will help balance out the kids in October. As will Frank Thomas. And Gonzalez and Sweeney are ballplayers. And Cust is a freak.
Strap it on, folks. We've got a fun summer ahead.
3 recs |
220 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Try to stay objective
The A’s have a decent team but not one so good that they should pass on a trade that could make them a great team over the next several seasons.
Why are messages like this popping up now? Because the A’s are in a winning streak? Where was this when the A’s were getting their butts handed to them by the Angels and the Rangers? It was all doom and gloom then. You can’t get too high when the team is winning or too low when they’re losing.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Jun 18, 2008 8:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Understand the sentiment, but....
Clobbering Brandon Webb is meaningful.
Moving up to 2nd in defensive efficiency is meaningful.
Watching Ellis, Crosby and Chavez all perform like they’;re capable of is meaningful.
Having an entire month go by without any physical issue for Harden or Duchscherer is meaningful.
Realizing Barton, Sweeney and Gonzalez have nowhere to go but up—and that might even mean this eyar (Sweeney)—is meaningful. Watching Suzuki handle the difficult job he’s been given and hit decently too is meaningful.
Seeing an incredibly deep bullpen easily weather a variety of injury storms is meaningful.
And—and this is the rub of the entire issue—+69 vs. +3 means that if one team should be called “decent” but “not so good that they should pass on a trade that could make them great”—it ain’t ours.
Let’s cut to the chase. Harden is the one guy-if healthy- that could yield the most in return. But he’s also the best talent we have and a huge asset in a potential playoff series. And—as others have noted—the odds are at least 50-50 he’ll go down again before the end of the year. I’m not arguing against trades involving Street, Blanton or Gaudin—though I can’t see all of them leaving, or even two of them. But I want Harden here if we’ve got the shot I think we have. That’’s the issue.
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where will we stand...
...in three weeks if the A’s go on one of their horrendous losing streaks and find themselves trailing the Angels by ten games and maybe even trailing the Rangers by a few? Will we still be singing this tune?
Clobbering Brandon Webb is no more meaningful than getting shut down by Paul Byrd.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Jun 18, 2008 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"one of their horrendous losing streaks"
Not too familiar with those. be honest. How many have there been the last 10 years, outside of some horrible stretches in April or May. How many times has this team—once fully established—played sustained bad ball in the summer months? Once, maybe.
I’m not saying they are great. I am saying they are good. I’m not saying they are a lock for the playoffs, or that their odds are as good as Baseball Prospectus says they are—I am saying they’re better than a lot of people around here have heretofore realized.
And clobbering Brandon Webb—with this current lineup—is more meaningful than getting shut down by Paul Byrd.
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They had a nine-game losing streak last July and two eight-game losing streaks in 2005.
Why was the win over Webb more meaningful? They’re just a couple of games out of 162. A win over an ace and a loss to a fifth starter. What makes one more important than the other?
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Jun 18, 2008 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't it just another game?
Is clobbering Brandon Webb -with this current lineup-more meaningful than getting shut down by Dan Haren-with this current lineup-?
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Jun 18, 2008 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't get me wrong.
The A’s are an exciting team to watch but I’ve been following them since 1967. I know better than to get pennant fever in June.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Jun 18, 2008 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still wonder if we can get creative with Harden
Get him signed for a few more years by giving him a raise this year. Making next year guaranteed with a raise over what his option is at and tack on a couple more years at a good price. Basically, the math is:
Harden completely healthy and effective rest of 2008 and all of 2009.
Some one pays him Zito money. $120 million long term (6-7 year) contract guaranteed.
Harden mostly healthy rest of 2008 -2009.
$40 -50 million over 3 years.
Harden significant injury time in 2008 or 2009.
20-30 million 2 years + option. Possibly somewhat incentive laden. Best case scenario with the injury time.
A’s offer extension now…
Bump 2008+2009 to $15+ million
About $45 million over 3 years with option year and willing to consider some no trade.
So, Harden would have to choose between $60+ million guaranteed now versus the chance at $100+ million later or much less than $60 million later.
by Donner on Jun 19, 2008 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh my God that would be a bad decision
$60 million guaranteed to Rich Harden now?
Why not invest the rest of the team’s assets in Haitian penny stocks while you’re at it?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 19, 2008 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it is a risk.
Maybe he takes less, I don’t know.
The point is that today Harden might be willing to trade future risk for a smaller contract than he would get as a free agent if he stays healthy this season and next. And, by pulling some of the additional pay into the current and following year. The per year payroll risk can be reduced somewhat.
by Donner on Jun 19, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
we have a fun summer ahead, with the A’s we always do (2007 excepted). However, there is no realistic or conceivable way on earth that Cahill or Anderson get traded. I believe that this is an improving team by the day and as we all know, if BB is presented with an opportunity to improve the team for now and the future, he will do it. But I think we are going to just go with the team we have now because what “bat” is really out there that is really obtainable that will really make a difference this year?
Your team is your child...You love it no matter what.
by TheRaiderWay on Jun 18, 2008 8:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I doubt Cahill or Andersom will be moved
And I don’t know what bat would be available.
But I just wouldn’t rule anything out. If for example some team with a stud outfielder is out of contention iby July 15—and we’re nip and tuck with the Angels—and trading one of thsoe two plus another prospect—or even Blanton- would give us that bat—a 900 OPS guy—wouldn’t you at least think about it?? That’s why I mentioned it.
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the a's will win 80-85% of their remaining games
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Jun 18, 2008 8:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
so they're going to win 113 games or more?
awesome…this is the kind of stuff that comes out of my mouth at 3:00am as i’m stumbling home from the bars. it’s usually followed by some sort of rant about how chavez is the heart and soul of the team.
by Livermore on Jun 18, 2008 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's what this guy named oakgoose, i mean madtoon, said back in the summer of 2005
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Jun 18, 2008 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't Understand that One
Why is 2005 relevant??
I just think this year’s team may be better than we all thought. And better than the Angels. And we have Harden here. That’s what’s important—not what someone else might have thought about 2005.
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"not what someone else might have thought about 2005."
LOL
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Jun 18, 2008 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's not here to talk about the past
Actually, for my part I’m tabula rasa on madmongoose. I’ll try to judge that user’s posts on their own merit, and in this case, because I think the “live in the now” sentiment is worth discussing, he gets my recommendation.
How do the angels get to sleep when the devil leaves the porchlight on?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jun 18, 2008 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you lived in the now, you'd be home by now
If we can’t fix the stupid, can we at least beat them senseless? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 18, 2008 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I like that he posts
these conversation-starters, regardless of the content.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on Jun 18, 2008 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1,000,000
Oakgoose apparently has selective amnesia.
by 33SwisherSweet on Jun 18, 2008 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny thing
Before I read any comments, I thought the same thing. Some poster called it out about a month ago in a game thread, and I now think they were dead on.
So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one
by baseballgirl on Jun 18, 2008 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ahem
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2008/5/19/520875/open-game-thread-game-46-a#6198591
How do the angels get to sleep when the devil leaves the porchlight on?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jun 18, 2008 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice call, you.
I thought that may have been premature. I no longer do.
So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one
by baseballgirl on Jun 18, 2008 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First season here?
There were people worried about losing the division in 2006 when Oakland’s magic number was 2. Get used to it.
Might as well Jump! - Van Halen
by sprtsnwyn on Jun 18, 2008 8:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Most definitely not
I think he should use the old handle
I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball
by JediLeroy on Jun 18, 2008 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah yes, one thrashing of an NL team
has shown me the error of my ways. Even though the A’s only gained ground on 2 other AL opponents.
I will now abandon my heretical view that the A’s should actually pay attention to the concept of regression to the mean, and embrace the official orthodoxy that they are actually this good. Of course they will win 80% of their remaining games. With a run differential like 15-1, how could they not?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 9:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
OK
Who said 80%?? Not me, kemosabe.
I simply said—and a point you obviously disagree with—that +69 means we are better than the team with +3. Are we 3 games better? 4? 5? Who knows? Will we beat them? Who knows? Can we beat them? Yep. Should we beat them? If reasonably healthy, double yep.
Is the chance of getting to the postseason and possibly having a healthy Harden and Duchscherer once we get there worth holstering the gun in terms of Harden? In my view, yes. As I said, I think some combination of Blanton, Gaudin and Street—or just one of them—could still be moved and this could be a 1999 all over again—where Beane both buys and sells. But to say, in effect—they’re not that good. They’ll only win if lucky. DOn’t give away the future for this season (which is a false choice, IMHO)—is a sentiment I don’t agree with.
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I could also point out
A’s have 3rd best road record in ML right now—but we’re all afraid of the road games in Aug/Sept.
But let’s do this—sit back and enjoy. We have interleague games ahead where this team traditionally blossoms.
And we have 13 games between now and AS break with Angels, White Sox and Phillies—all first place teams. We’ll know by then what we have this year.
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not "the road games"
It’s the wear and fatigue of playing so many bloody consecutive road games.
Have you LOOKED at the schedule in August? At one point the A’s play a stretch of 29 road games with only 10 home games mixed in. In that period there is a grand total of one off day. It’s the, bar none, hardest stretch of an MLB schedule that I’ve ever seen.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2002 A's had a stretch in Aug/Sept
where they played 20 road games and 11 home games. Care to guess what their record was in those 31 games??
How does 28-3 sound??
OK, I cheated a bit. They actually played 23 out of 31 on the road—pretty damn brutal though, you’re right, not as brutal as this year. And lost the final 3 to the Angels so the record was a trifling 28-6 in those 34 games.
Here’s the point—why do the A’s in the Beane era play so well in the 2nd half??
Pitching, youth and depth of pitching. All those weaker rotations and teams without pitching depth and many more 30+ veterans than we have start gasping for air in the Dog Days.
Not saying we’ll win 20 in a row this August (LOL)
Not saying we’ll go 36-3 or even 33-6 in those 39 games (LOL)
But I am saying that it wouldn’t shock me if this team—if healthy—plays close to .600 ball in those 39 games. I mean look at the road opposition: we are playing KC, BAL, Seattle, Minnesota, Toronto, and Detroit twice—along with Sox and Angels. We aer better than all those teams, even the Tigers.
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
I suppose, but the ‘02 A’s had a pretty special group of starters. This year’s rotation features two rookies who’ve never thrown over 180 innings (Eveland’s never broken 140) and a converted relief pitcher.
Maybe the team can invent some excuse (“dead arm” or something) to DL them for a couple of weeks each and give them a breather.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Numbers Don't Lie
That team was best staff in league—so is this one. Of course there are durability issues—(there were then, too—see Hudson in playoffs, and Mulder each of the following 2 seasons) but Gaudin is better than anything we had backing up the Big 3 plus Lidle and Hiljus. And the bullpen is much deeper this year.
And I’m not saying we are the equal of a team that won 100 games and 20 in a row—I’m simply saying we ain’t chopped liver this year.
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Numbers don't lie?
If you actually believe this, it explains a lot.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh??
What do you have a problem with? I think we have the best pitching staff—in toto—in the league. We’ve got the best ERA and one of our two best pitchers missed 3 starts and the other 6-7.
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Numbers don't lie..
..but sometimes we misinterpret them
For example, when a pitcher has a 3-9 record, it means that he has been credited with 3 wins and 9 losses. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything else. Blanton’s lost a lot of games (I don’t really know what his record is at present), but he’s definitely pitched better than Barry Zito, who’s got a similar record.
I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball
by JediLeroy on Jun 18, 2008 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The difference between calling one group of pitchers a...
...’pretty special group’ and another group the same is the benefit of hindsight. In fact, in most cases, there are significant lags bewteen the pundits exclaiming a player’s greatness and the actual great performances that lead to the exclaimations. The world of sports has alwaysbeen this way…the only change in this era is that the pundits try and forecast who’s destined for greatness; and they frequently get it wrong.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 18, 2008 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, right. That included the 20-game winning streak
Exception to the norm, there.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site
jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Jun 18, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they were 8-3
outside the streak. There is a reason Oakland teams have played so well in the 2nd half
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What reason is that?
I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball
by JediLeroy on Jun 18, 2008 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Youth, pitching and depth
when you are playing older teams with threadbare pitching in the summer—and you have younger, fresher and deeper arms, that makes a huge difference.
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
playing half their games in oakland
along with the relative youth of oakland teams, i’ve always believed the ease of playing in oakland during the summer has helped the a’s explode in the second half. Not pitching and playing in 100 degree weather day in and day out can only help keep you fresh over the course of a 162 game schedule. Plus the a’s always seem to have fast-paced pitchers to go along with patient hitters, i don’t know if its the pitchers the a’s have had or a kind of peer pressure to keep the game moving among the starters.
"Iron man, iron man, does what an iron man can"
by pieful35 on Jun 18, 2008 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nobody expects the madmongoose inquisition
If we can’t fix the stupid, can we at least beat them senseless? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 18, 2008 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hee hee!
How do the angels get to sleep when the devil leaves the porchlight on?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jun 18, 2008 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've got one comment
+1 and +... two comments!
+1 and +1 and +... three comments!
by nevermoor on Jun 18, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But soon your comments will regress to the mean.
"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."
-Charles Manson
by kaweahkaweah on Jun 18, 2008 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He says, killing the jovial british mood
by nevermoor on Jun 18, 2008 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the jovial british mood...
...is just a front.
they’re watching you, man!
"You have to have a catcher or you'll have all passed balls."- Casey Stengel
by Gaijin_Suketto on Jun 18, 2008 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s the, bar none
No bars, in August???? Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;?>
by mrod on Jun 18, 2008 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bar none?
I am scared of that sock puppet.
by theblackpearl on Jun 18, 2008 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I keep my sock puppet full of nickels...
...does that make me a bad person?
"You have to have a catcher or you'll have all passed balls."- Casey Stengel
by Gaijin_Suketto on Jun 18, 2008 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I usually avoid stat-head debates, in part because they're debates (cue Ice Cream), and ...
... in part cuz my college Stats class was in 1972, and I’m sure lots of them have been invented since then. So it’s statistically likely that this has been covered elsewhere on the site, somewhere I lack the wit even to Search.
That said, it seems to me that the concept of “the mean” is slippery, especially if it’s static—as in based on some historical data (like last season) that are not constantly updated. I would think that would be especially true for young (improving, we hope) or aging (the Yankees) teams. If indeed the young team is improving, it should consistently outperform the static mean expectation, and if skills do diminish with age (I’ll let you know), then the geezers should under-perform it.
If the above is true, then the mean needs to be consistently updated, and perhaps revised upward in-advance to take account of likely continued improvement by rising team members.
Of course, I’m also too much of a fan of the human spirit, and randomness in baseball (maybe not in that order) to believe we shouldn’t bother playing the games, but it seems to mew that before one throws-in with “the mean” analysis, one has to be verry careful how it’s defined.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 18, 2008 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you're saying
Regression to the mean is fascist? like strikeouts?
by nevermoor on Jun 18, 2008 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's Spaceman's second theorem...
“Strikeouts are fascist.”
Of course, Spaceman’s first theorem was,
“If you slide, get up.”
"You have to have a catcher or you'll have all passed balls."- Casey Stengel
by Gaijin_Suketto on Jun 18, 2008 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the contrary
The mean is ever-changing.
If you graph a player’s estimated true talent level on the same graph with their stats over a recent period (say, their OPS over the last 90 days) you can see this visually. The stats-to-date line will appear to “drag” the true talent level line toward it—if it’s above the true talent line, that line will move upward, and if it sinks below the true talent line, that line will start moving downward.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, it mediates hot and cold streaks, but the trend of the mean is what's, well, "meaningful?"
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 18, 2008 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I posted this below
The idea is that there is a relatively large class of human beings who are freakishly talented enough to make a MLB squad, and we have a pretty good sense of how good they are, on average. With a young player, we have a very small sample of results, so we acknowledge that those results are an imperfect measure of the player’s talent, and round out the sample by assuming the player is normally talented.
As an example, when a stud rookie comes up and hits .500 over a couple weeks, we don’t just project that out for the season and say he’s a mortal lock for the hall of fame. Instead, we acknowledge that his performance to date is probably out of line with his actual talent, and the best assumption we have for his talent is that it is average.
by nevermoor on Jun 18, 2008 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, then, it's a dull tool for the teams where you'd expect significant variation -- like the A's and perhaps the Yanks.
Because there’s more garbage=filler in the numbers. (And yes I realize that average numbers are often better than no numbers, but they’re still just educated filler. I wouldn’t want to bet future generations on ‘em)
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 18, 2008 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sort of
but more sophisticated regression systems like PECOTA and ZiPS will regress, not directly to the league average, but to the league average modified by other factors (like player age, past performance of similar players, minor league numbers, etc.). They’re still less accurate for very new players than for players who’ve been around a while, but that’s inevitable.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, but I'd still rather be a poet.
Blame my left-handed/right-brainedness.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 18, 2008 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We are The Last Oppressed Minority.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 19, 2008 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is an admirably concise way to put it
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ixnay to trading Cahill or Anderson
You should be strapped to an apparatus that delivers an electric shock when you even think such thoughts. Those two are among the “keepers,” the core of your future, not among the “other guys of value” that you can afford to part with.
Otherwise, though, I applaud your post. There’s an inherent tendency among many fans – especially prospect aficionados and fans like me who like to think from the GM’s team-building perspective – to devalue the present in favor of The Golden Era To Come, a form of making the imaginary perfect the enemy of the actual good. I also think people have a tendency to hang back emotionally a bit from committing to this year – this is “supposed” to be a rebuilding year and it looks great from that perspective; maybe if we start thinking of it as a “real” year we’ll fall short and turn it into a sort of disappointment.
I trust Beane not to sacrifice the multi-year run he’s targeting in favor of a one-year shot. I also trust him not to pull the rug out from this year’s team when the team obviously believes itself (and rightly so) to be absolutely in the hunt.
by Faust on Jun 18, 2008 9:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's another way to look at it
Let’s say we didn’t know the name of the team. Someone comes to you and says:
Tell me what you think of this team—nearly half the season complete:
2nd (by a hair) in runs differential in their league
1st in Team ERA
2nd in all MLB in Defensive Efficiency
On pace to win 90 games
3rd best road record in MLB
two pitchers in top 5 in ERA
two best hitters have missed 1-2 months each
two teams they trail for playoffs are somewhere between .5 and 1 run a game worse than them in run differential.
And you were asked: “Is this team a playoff contender?”
How would you answer??
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would answer
Ask me again in August.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Jun 18, 2008 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would too,
but I’d sure keep a close eye on ‘em ‘til then.
"You have to have a catcher or you'll have all passed balls."- Casey Stengel
by Gaijin_Suketto on Jun 18, 2008 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would answer
“Hmmm, I find it suspicious that you don’t tell me how they’re hitting. You mentioned everything else, why would you leave that out?”
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jun 19, 2008 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always think about the pennant race from day 1, until the standings say it's no longer plausible
and it’s been a great year so far!
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on Jun 18, 2008 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
madmongoose
I like your style…
Look at the number of runs scored/game:
R LAA OAK
0 = 2 6
1 = 3 11
2 = 12 7
3 = 13 10
4 = 14 7
5 = 9 6
6 = 10 7
7 = 3 3
8 = 1 2
9 = 2 3
10 = 3 1
11 = 0 1
12 = 0 1
13 = 0 2
14 = 0 1
15 = 0 2
Let’s just say that both pitching staffs are equal… Which Offense would you rather have?
by Colorado Fan on Jun 18, 2008 9:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That's a fascinating comparison of frequency distributions, Colorado
Theirs is a rather conventional curve. Ours is just weird.
I wouldn’t give it much predictive value, though.
by Faust on Jun 18, 2008 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
This chart screams out for a graphic representation.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jun 19, 2008 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You like things graphic, eh?
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 Jun 19, 2008 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and screaming!
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jun 19, 2008 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure if I explained that well...
Above is the number of times this year each team has scored zero runs, 1 run, 2 runs … up to 15.
We’ve scored 0 & 1 Runs SEVENTEEN TIMES. We are 0-17 in those games. We have a very young team, so inconsistency is the name of the game in 2008. I’m not saying they won’t make the playoffs. I just see too much inconsistency to feel comfortable with my optimism.
by Colorado Fan on Jun 18, 2008 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Both Pitching Staffs Aren't Equal
and the fact that one team has scored 7+runs 16 times, and the other only 9—does hint at the potential.
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitching Staffs
Going Forward, I would take the Angels Pitching over the A’s Pitching. Minus Bootcheck , Adenhart, and Moseley, who combined for 56.2 IP, 55 ER. Take those numbers away, and the Angels have a better pitching staff than we do (this season).
by Colorado Fan on Jun 18, 2008 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could subtract
DiNardo, Braden and Co. and make the same point for us
Here’s how I see it—give them a slight edge at closer. Rest of bullpen is similar (Oliver-Embree; Arredondo-Casilla, Speier-Foulke, etc…) but we have more good arms than they do—that counts for something.
As to the starters, compared to their career marks, Lackey is hugely overperforming—even more than Duke for us. Santana and saunders are also—OK, let’s say Smith and Eveland are, too—though that is a trickier call given their lack of big league comparables; Garland’s about normal and Weaver is the one guy who could get better from here on out.
If healthy I think we have a slight edge at #1—Harden over Lackey; a slight edge at #2—Duke over Santana; give them the edge with Saunders over Smith and Weaver over Eveland, though this year’s numbers don’t show it. And Blanton vs. Garland is pretty much a push.
It’s close—but I like our staff a bit more than theirs. And our defense a bit more than that.
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You keep saying this
You could subtract DiNardo, Braden and Co. and make the same point for us
and it keeps not being true. Those guys (I’m including Calero) have pitched half the number of innings that the Angels trio has pitched and I can’t remember a single instance in which one of them was in with a small lead, a tie ballgame, or down by a run in the reasonably late innings. They basically cost the A’s one game, where DiNardo got hammered as the starter. The Angels guys have done a lot more damage than that.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well we've gotten rid of our deadweight
and replaced it with better pitching, but as far as I’m aware they still have theirs. Doesn’t that mean that we can subtract and they can’t? Doesn’t that make our staff better?
by GeorgiaBoy on Jun 18, 2008 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is missing the point entirely
The point is that while Casilla, Devine, Brown, etc. may be good relievers, they aren’t likely to throw like 45 scoreless innings in a row again. Billy Beane did not suddenly pull 4 Mariano Rivera clones out of his ass.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No I got the point,
but you didn’t get mine. I was simply stating that the things hurting our bullpen the most are gone and while Casilla and Co. probably won’t pitch as well as they have they are still better without the deadweight.
The Angels however still have their deadweight and this makes their bullpen worse.
by GeorgiaBoy on Jun 18, 2008 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Christ, what an asshole!
How ‘bout "jackass"? Can I still say "jackass"? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 18, 2008 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ha I was just thinking the same thing
Take his comments out of this post and it becomes really enjoyable.
by GeorgiaBoy on Jun 18, 2008 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Way to miss the point.
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
by andeux on Jun 18, 2008 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
QOTM
Ironic division.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know monkeyball's comment is in reply to PT's comment?
That’s how the indents show it at least
by GeorgiaBoy on Jun 19, 2008 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He wasn't actually calling PT an a-hole.
It’s an inside joke based off of clones coming out of Billy Beane’s “A”.
I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball
by JediLeroy on Jun 19, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's a sign of something or other ...
... when PT “gets” the inside-joke-that-could-be-misinterpreted-as-an-insult, and the torch-bearing anti-PT brigade misses it entirely.
How ‘bout "jackass"? Can I still say "jackass"? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 19, 2008 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get it.
PT sucks!
I don’t get it.
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 Jun 19, 2008 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This was actually the hands-down funniest use of that line
that I’ve yet seen on this site. It’s a perfect double entendre.
The misunderstanding/missing the point follow-up was just gravy.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 19, 2008 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You ain't been around long.
"If you lived in the now, you'd be home by now."
by McFood on Jun 20, 2008 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thankfully, it wasn't the hands-up funniest use ...
How ‘bout "jackass"? Can I still say "jackass"? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 20, 2008 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last year it was the other way around for those offenses
Angels had more high run games and low run games than expected, the A’s had fewer of those/more 3,4,5 games. Has very much really changed since last year, especially for the Angels?
If both teams keep doing that then certainly the Angels have an advantage, but there is really no reason to think that either team will.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on Jun 18, 2008 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Graphs
Graphed the distributions…sorry they’re ugly excel graphs, but I’m on someone else’s computer.
by ohmangoAs on Jun 18, 2008 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure what I did wrong, haha.
links:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27797357@N02/2592140322/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27797357@N02/2592140340/in/photostream/
by ohmangoAs on Jun 18, 2008 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking this style:
That’s in Excel, too. My main problem is I couldn’t figure out how to make the X axis display anything other than row number; since the first row is row 1 not row 0, my X labels are off by one. :-( So the dot on the far left is zero runs scored, not one; and the dot on the far right is 15 runs, not 16.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jun 19, 2008 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've clearly been watching too many college games
I see 11 runs and it doesn’t look like that much to me.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 19, 2008 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Try this one ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jun 20, 2008 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're alright by me, mongoose
I just like the fact you’re a “glass half-full” guy … hell yeah, the A’s have a chance this year. Why not? If you stuck to punching your calculator and determining winners that way, St. Louis would not have won in ‘06 … and let’s face it, we’re all in this thing for one reason … to win it all. You can’t win it all if you don’t make the playoffs.
Good for you, keep up the good work … you’ll quickly learn you can’t go through life only making moves based on probability. Sometimes you just have to trust your instincts and go with it … it makes for a helluva fun journey.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
by Vacafan on Jun 18, 2008 10:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"you’ll quickly learn you can’t go through life only making moves based on probability"
Good thing his livelihood doesn’t depend on—uh-oh …
If we can’t fix the stupid, can we at least beat them senseless? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 18, 2008 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regression to the Mean
PT talks about “regression to the mean” with regard to the A’s, meaning, I guess, that there’s some kind of discrepancy between the team’s hitting/pitching line, and the run differential. However, the A’s hitting is finally getting to where it should be, and while the pitching has been outstanding, it hasn’t been so obviously over-the-top that a huge fallback is imminent. Seems to me that this team may actually be as good as they appear to be.
Right now, Eric Chavez seems back to his pre-injury levels, Bobby Crosby is finally fulfilling his potential (with the understanding that a .262 batting average IS his potential), Mark Ellis is getting his average up to where it should be, and Ryan Sweeney is seriously beginning to fulfill HIS potential. But nobody is having a career year, and there’s still some room for improvement, particularly from Barton and Carlos G.
More importantly, both Saunders and Santana are pitching over their heads at the moment, and Garret Anderson and Vlad Guerrero are old. The Angels are catchable.
by richwol1 on Jun 18, 2008 10:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You nailed it
Crux of his argument is that Eveland and Smith will blow up, Duke and/or Harden will get hurt; bullpen’s not this good—forgetting that several other pitchers are either down (Blanton), hurt, or normal this year; and that several hitters have either been hurt or down so far and none are up with the posible exception of Sweeney (and Chavy in limited PT). A’s starting pitchers—except when they get hurt a la Mulder in 2004—basically don’t blow up in the 2nd half. Maybe this year will be the exception that proves the rule, but I doubt it.
by madmongoose on Jun 18, 2008 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
PT talks about "regression to the mean" with regard to the A’s, meaning, I guess, that there’s some kind of discrepancy between the team’s hitting/pitching line, and the run differential.
Nope. Not what I’m talking about. In that respect, actually, the A’s have underperformed (but only infinitesimally; they’ve basically scored and allowed the runs they should have).
I’m saying that they’ve performed better than informed projections of their talent level would have expected. Or at least the pitching staff has. The offense has actually underperformed its talent level, but by a lesser degree than the pitching has overperformed. Since I wrote that article last month, it’s been playing a lot closer to what we expected from it entering the year.
But seriously—the pitching hasn’t been over the top? Does someone want to point me to where they said Greg Smith would have 80 IP with a 3.6 ERA by mid-June? That Santiago Casilla would be essentially unhittable when he wasn’t injured? That Duchscherer would be leading the AL in ERA?
(Side note: the argument that these are “canceled out” by poor performances from other players is nonsense, when you actually look at the number of innings pitched.)
It’s possible that these guys really are much better than they were projected to be coming into the season. But I need to see a hell of a lot more than a good two months before I’m willing to go there. Is Greg Smith’s “estimated true talent” higher than the 5 ERA that it was at the start of the season? Yeah, absolutely. Is it what he’s showing now? No.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Estimated Talent
What a crock.
If you want to use statistics to prove a point, fine. If you want to use “regression to the mean” using a player’s previous MLB experience, fine. But arguing “regression to the mean” when “the mean” is defined as “major league projections” based on the opinion of a handful (or less) of so-called experts is a load of bull. You’re applying non-statistical data in a statistical environment.
In any event, Greg Smith was pretty high on a couple of prospect lists, and Eveland always had the stuff to be a success. An ERA of around 3.6 is very good for 2008; not so hot for 1998. But easily within reach of ANY competent major league starter. It’s not a stretch.
Insofar as Duke & Casilla go: This is Duchsherer’s first full season as a starter, which means that the only projection we can really use is his work as a healthy reliever - and this is in line with those numbers, particularly from his All-Star year. Will Duke keep it up? Probably not, but an ERA in line with what Haren did last year is not out of the question. Casilla CAN keep it up, at least based on his work last year. It’s possible Beane has assembled one of the best bullpens I’ve ever seen, and the minor league depth is outstanding as well. This does happen, from time to time. Never lasts beyond a season or two, but this staff could be comparable to the Angels’ staff of 2002 or thereabouts.
by richwol1 on Jun 18, 2008 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What mean would YOU suggest regressing the rookies' performance to?
The Happy Fun Times Everybody Is Awesome Mean? Actually, when you regress to that mean, Smith and Eveland are going to improve. Who knew?
Of course I’m applying non-statistical data. It’s called heuristics. People do it all the time. What do you think John Sickels is doing in his prospect reviews? He’s looking at stats and factoring in players’ scouting reports to develop an opinion of what they’re likely to do as a big-leaguer.
An ERA of around 3.6 is very good for 2008; not so hot for 1998. But easily within reach of ANY competent major league starter. It’s not a stretch.
I suppose, if your definition of “any competent major league starter” is “a starter who is 10% better than league average in this environment.” That’s not the definition I’d use, seeing as how it dismisses well over half the starters in the league as incompetents.
Casilla had an ERA of 4.44 last year. FIP of 4.15. Obviously he’s better than that this year, mostly because he isn’t walking everybody in sight. I’m not seeing the greatness in his 2007 line, though.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blah blah blah
You can’t use the term “regressing to the mean” if there isn’t any “mean” to regress to. You always chide others for their inexactitude, yet you’re playing the same game here. f
What you’re really saying is that a couple of ‘experts’ projected lower stats for both Eveland and Smith in 2008. Well, gee. Let’s examine expert predictions here for a moment. I did some research before the start of the year and discovered that a really good expert will be successful in his MLB predictions 70% of the time. That 70% INCLUDES the safest predictions, i.e. that Albert Pujols will hit over .300, that Gil Meche will suck, etc. etc. etc. But more importantly, it includes the real regression to the mean, i.e. examining MLB players’ previous stats and drawing conclusions. So successful predictions for rookies is bound to be a whole lot lower than for established players. That’s why I think using these expert projections as a signpost of individual seasons is bogus. In addition, nobody expects a full flowering of talent in a rookie year. But it does happen, and sometimes pretty frequently. So unless you’re suggesting that neither Eveland nor Smith will EVER be good enough to have 3.6 ERAs, you have no case.
You misread my commment - “Easily within reach of ANY competent major league starter.” Are you suggesting that there are major league starters who are competent who aren’t at least capable of achieving a 3.6 ERA? Has starting pitching become that awful? I don’t think so. I mean, even Gil Meche is capable of a 3.6 ERA (he hit 3.67 last year).
Casilla was brilliant at first last year, for quite a while, then he collapsed. So unless he collapses again, i think last year proved what he could do.
by richwol1 on Jun 18, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
correction
I meant “worse stats” for Eveland and Smith, “lower” in the sense of “not as good.”
by richwol1 on Jun 18, 2008 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strong writers usually have a habit of being forthright
They avoid using phrases like “I think”, “maybe”, etc. Does anyone know if Greg Smith’s mean career ERA will be 3.6? Nope. No one knows. Anyone who claims to is quite simply just full of him self and/or complete BS. But you can’t blame anyone for saying with conviction that a player will not be that good because , according to past performance, he probably won’t be that good. Thats just good writing and use of statistics to make a convincing argument.
by GusanoQuemador on Jun 18, 2008 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bullshit
One can be a strong writer yet use qualifiers where warranted. Not using qualifiers when writing an opinion is a mark of arrogance and a very good way to embarrass oneself. Without the use of qualifiers, a so-called convincing arguemnet can be picked apart endlessly. In fact, the person that doesn’t use them is the person that frequently gets clocked in a debate later down the road.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 18, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strong writers
Don’t need to use foul language to get their point across either. Even so, why would a qualifer need to be used when producing an argument using statistcal data. In my opinion, it shows you lack faith in the data you base your argument on.
by GusanoQuemador on Jun 19, 2008 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have some strange notions about writing and statistics
Do you really mean to say that statistics are, or ought to be, synonymous with certainty? Or that cursing and good writing are incompatible?
I’ll give you an example of bad writing: Prefacing something that is quite clearly your opinion with “in my opinion”.
(sorry, that last part was kind of jerk-ish … I’m still trying to exorcise residual cantankerousness from monkeyball’s acronym torture below)
by 74mk on Jun 19, 2008 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buncha basswhacking (IMS-HO) .
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 19, 2008 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ahem
That’s Acronym Enhanced Interrogation, or … AEI.
How ‘bout "jackass"? Can I still say "jackass"? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 19, 2008 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea...put that in there intentionally as a "qualifer."
To appease above poster… And no stats are not, but facts certainly are synonymous with certainty
by GusanoQuemador on Jun 19, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strong writers also know that questions end with a question mark?
Don’t they.
I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball
by JediLeroy on Jun 19, 2008 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strong men also cry?
How ‘bout "jackass"? Can I still say "jackass"? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 19, 2008 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not using foul language? Yeah, that's USUALLY the case.
And as far as statistical data goes, many people that advance statistics in a debate, misapply some principles; whether it’s misreading causality realtionships, improper testing of a hypothesis and its null, or finding/explaining data that’s not statistically significant.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 19, 2008 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I never claimed to be a...
...strong writer.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 19, 2008 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is always a mean to regress to
We may not know exactly what it is; it may be only an estimate; but it is always out there.
What you’re really saying is that a couple of ‘experts’ projected lower stats for both Eveland and Smith in 2008.
A couple? Try “all of them.” I’ll retract that statement if you can find me a projection that says otherwise, but I’m sure as heck not spotting any.
I did some research before the start of the year and discovered that a really good expert will be successful in his MLB predictions 70% of the time.
I’m not even sure what this means. I could make predictions that are perfectly accurate 100% of the time. For instance, I predict that all players who qualify for the batting title this year—all 150 or so of them—will hit over .100. Wow. That’s a lot of successful predictions, right?
I’m not saying you made this up, but that statement is useless until you qualify it by explaining what the actual parameters of your research were.
So successful predictions for rookies is bound to be a whole lot lower than for established players. That’s why I think using these expert projections as a signpost of individual seasons is bogus. It’s less reliable than for established big-leaguers, that’s for sure. You won’t get any argument from me on that front. Rookies have a broader range of possible production outcomes than 10-year vets do.
In addition, nobody expects a full flowering of talent in a rookie year. But it does happen, and sometimes pretty frequently. So unless you’re suggesting that neither Eveland nor Smith will EVER be good enough to have 3.6 ERAs, you have no case.
This is a frankly bizarre statement, because it implies that players are as likely to produce at any age and experience level as at any other. Well, no. That’s not how it works. It might well be that Eveland projects to have a 3.6 ERA at a later point. PECOTA has these nice graphs that map out expected outcomes for years in advance, but I haven’t ponied up to access them.
You misread my commment – "Easily within reach of ANY competent major league starter." Are you suggesting that there are major league starters who are competent who aren’t at least capable of achieving a 3.6 ERA? Has starting pitching become that awful? I don’t think so. I mean, even Gil Meche is capable of a 3.6 ERA (he hit 3.67 last year).
Oh, so what you really mean is “any competent pitcher will probably have a season that good somewhere along the line in his career.” OK. Most average major league pitchers, like Gil Meche, will probably have a season or two like that. So Smith and Eveland are average-ish.
OK, I can jig that. It’s not wildly out of bounds. Eveland’s probably somewhat better than average long-term, Smith probably a bit worse than average. But if they’re average-ish, you would expect an average-ish ERA out of them going forward (4.0 or so in the Coliseum) which is… amazingly… regression to the mean, or exactly what I’ve been frigging talking about.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Predictions
I went to a few places —would take too long to go find them now -- by googling success rates of pre-season predictions using PECOTA and a couple of other places. That’s where I got the 70% success rate. The big battle is getting that extra 2-3% and being a better predictor than the other sites/books. That’s where it comes from. You can figure out yourself how that plays out in terms of players with track records vs. players without.
Insofar as the rest: You and the experts may well be right about the futures of both Eveland and Smith, long term. There’s a sufficient amount of information on the types of pitchers that they are to make certain statements regarding “regression to the mean” OVER A CAREER. But we’re not talking about a career here, and never were. We’re talking about a season, and at this point, not even a season, but 2/3 of a season. We’re talking about 2/3 of a season for two players with insufficient major league track records to really tell us anything.
The fact is that games have to be played. Of Oakland’s Big Three, no one could have anticipated that 2/3 of them (Hudson & Zito) would arrive in the full flower of their talent, or even that Mulder would go from mediocre in his first season to brilliant in his second. PECOTA can look at the over all probabilities and create a curve showing how latent talent becomes actual success over x period of years. The problem is that on an individual, one by one basis, that arc can’t really be used because everyone is different. The larger the sample size, obviously, the easier to make predictions for the class of players discussed AS A CLASS. But not individually. What you’re doing is breaking down a broad-based statistic and using it for 2/3 of a season for two players. Somehow I think that’s a misuse of statistics.
It’s possible both pitchers will regress over the course of the season. It’s equally possible they won’t. It’s possible one will regress and one won’t. But a 3.60 ERA, while good, isn’t outlandish —it’s not a 2.00 ERA for instance -- and to stay within its bounds is easily possible for both Eveland and Smith. Thus, getting back to your original post, you’re talking through your hat.
by richwol1 on Jun 18, 2008 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Am I talking through my hat
when I say that it’s unlikely for a coin to come up heads five times in a row?
It’s certainly POSSIBLE for a coin to come up heads five times in a row. Does that mean I cannot make statements about how likely it is to happen?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we're getting confused about what "regression to the mean" is.
Regression to the mean is NOT the same as regression to ZiPS projection. The idea is that there is a relatively large class of human beings who are freakishly talented enough to make a MLB squad, and we have a pretty good sense of how good they are, on average. With a young player, we have a very small sample of results, so we acknowledge that those results are an imperfect measure of the player’s talent, and round out the sample by assuming the player is normally talented.
Here’s the introduction of a paper on the subject, for anyone interested:
Baseball players who win coveted awards and sign breathtaking contracts often disappoint fans, managers, and owners. These disappointments might be explained by regression toward the mean, which occurs when real phenomena are measured imperfectly, causing extreme measurements to exaggerate differences among the underlying phenomena. The degree of exaggeration depends on the correlation between the measurements and the real phenomena. In baseball, the correlation between performance and skill is far from perfect and, as a consequence, observed performance differences substantially overstate skill differences. Players who do exceptionally well in any particular season typically do not do as well the subsequent season–they regress toward the mean. We can improve our forecasts by adjusting our predictions accordingly.
by nevermoor on Jun 18, 2008 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Neverland
Insofar as I know there’s a bit of a difference between tossing a coin up five times and coming up heads, and two young and talented pitchers maintaining a 3.60 ERA over the final two-thirds of their rookie seasons. I think you should put the coins in your hat.
Seriously, though, doesn’t it strike you as peculiar that you’re intent on delineating two entire careers from start to finish, to the point where you think you can predict two-thirds of their rookie years (I’m assuming Eveland is nominally a rookie) down to virtually a percentage point?
by richwol1 on Jun 18, 2008 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since you evaded the question, I'll assume the point is conceded
Your second paragraph reaches the point of complete gibberish, as you’re now accusing me of things that I haven’t done at all (I encourage you to reread the thread and try to point out the place where I “predict two thirds of their rookie years down to a percentage point,” as an exercise if nothing else). I think we’re done here.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently...
...you were the one who said they’d regress to a 4.00 ERA. That comes down to a percentage point. You were the one who was using PECOTA and other sources to determine entire careers.
I wasn’t evading your question because I didn’t understand what you were driving at.
Of course people can attempt to predict whatever they want. But you phrase things as if you KNOW what will happen, or as if, in this case, knowledge of certain statistics actually makes a real difference in predicting what either of these guys will actually do for the remainder of the season.
Yeah, I think we’re done here.
by richwol1 on Jun 18, 2008 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My take on statistical analysis
It does not provide knowledge of future behavior, it merely acknowledges that on-field performance (especially of very young players) gives us very little information about their ability. Every start that one of the young A’s puts in better than average tells us they are a tiny bit more likely to be better than average players. (similary, the fact that Buck has struggled so much doesn’t tell us that he is a certain failure).
Obviously this is a rough analysis, but it allows us to say that, for example, Pujols is a much better than average hitter because of his sustained excellence, but we can’t be anywhere near as sure about Ludwick even though Ludwick’s numbers this year are pretty close.
by nevermoor on Jun 18, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's amazing how often
one reads about a certain argument in a book, or learns about it through some other medium, and then the exact same argument crops up in a totally unrelated area.
Switch a few words around here and there and your argument is a dead ringer for St. Augustine’s. Viz., secular learning only corrupts the soul and leads people away from the True Faith. Trying to understand natural laws and behavior is simply a form of arrogance. Predictions are impossible, because any miracle can happen if it is divinely ordained.
I don’t really expect anyone else to care; I just find it tremendously amusing that not 2 days after I finish a book on this topic, someone comes at me with the same arguments.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No it's not
PT, your arguments are NOT scientific. They are based on your own interpretations of other people’s data and opinions.
Which is pretty much true of most blowhard statheads, who augment their arguments with huge doses of insult and arrogance. The existence of the data, as well as the existence of the interpretation of the data, gives a scientific sheen to the whole enterprise, but by the time it drifts down to the masses, i.e. Paul Thomas, it degenerates into a kind of faith-based prognosticating, certainly several degrees above hunches, but well below anything even remotely scientific.
by richwol1 on Jun 19, 2008 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's see
Some comments that have been made on this thread:
“What a crock.”
“a load of bull”
“you’re talking through your hat.”
Boy, that’s a lot of insult and arrogance, right?
Oh, wait. You were the one who used those phrases.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 19, 2008 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait. You're calling someone else out for...
...being insulting and arrogant?
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site
jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Jun 19, 2008 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why not?
I’m kind of sick of all the flak and calling out PT is getting.
He’s a good writer, and honestly, people should just learn to read past the superficial stuff and notice that at minimum, when he calls people out, he makes an argument too.
what’s funny is that when PT points out the double standard, the only answers is “haha, you’re paul thomas, you can’t complain about being mistreated.”
I think that’s really unfair.
by ohmangoAs on Jun 19, 2008 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."
-Charles Manson
by kaweahkaweah on Jun 19, 2008 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Old hat
We’re way past due for the anti-anti-anti-PT backlash movement. I’m sick of all the +oneing you anti-anti-PTers are spewing forth.
How do the angels get to sleep when the devil leaves the porchlight on?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jun 19, 2008 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm anti-pasta,
but I won’t dwell on it.
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 Jun 19, 2008 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."
-Charles Manson
by kaweahkaweah on Jun 19, 2008 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
-1
"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."
-Charles Manson
by kaweahkaweah on Jun 19, 2008 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Antidisestablishmentarianism!
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 19, 2008 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1/-1
I DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE YELLING ABOUT!
"If you lived in the now, you'd be home by now."
by McFood on Jun 20, 2008 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOUD NOISES!!!!
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jun 20, 2008 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brick Tamland
+1
"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 Jun 21, 2008 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was I insulting and arrogant to him, on this thread?
Or even the thread which this is a continuation of (the “Wild Card Race” thread)?
He made a pretty specific claim. Am I not allowed to refute it?
It’s a frickin’ ad hom attack. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I don’t think that those really aid the level of discourse.
His attitude on this thread has been dismissive and abusive from the beginning.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 19, 2008 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus
When I think someone has posted something stupid, and I read what PT has to say about it, it usually makes me laugh (unless of course I’m the one who’s posted something stupid)
by GusanoQuemador on Jun 19, 2008 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since You Evaded My Comment
that you were basically a faith-based prognosticator, I’ll assume you agree with me.
by richwol1 on Jun 19, 2008 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or, you could assume that my respect for you
has dropped below the threshold at which you warrant a response.
I’m thinking that’s a more accurate assessment.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 19, 2008 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cage match!
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 19, 2008 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's really the key, isn't it?
We never really know what the mean is. We can only take an educated guess.
This is why I think Richwol is wrong to say “You can’t use the term "regressing to the mean" if there isn’t any "mean" to regress to.” That would imply you can never use the term at all.
On the other hand, I think it’s a good reminder to all that regression to the mean is never an exact science. It always includes a subjective prediction.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jun 19, 2008 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember a study in which it was demonstrated
that economic forecasts correlate far more closely to other economic forecasts than they do to what ends up actually happening.
That stands to reason. If every predictor is looking at the same data, they’re likely to draw similar conclusions, even if the conclusion is wrong. But it makes one wonder about the herd mentality and the personal incentives that lead to it. If you make an unorthodox prediction that turns out very wrong, your reputation suffers; if you make a safe prediction that turns out very wrong, well, everyone else got it wrong, too, so your job is secure.
I think there’s something of this in sports predictions, too. Especially among the more mainstream publications.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jun 19, 2008 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But do studies of studies correlate more closely to other studies of studies than to actual studies?
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on Jun 19, 2008 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jun 19, 2008 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is true
I’m not sure to what extent the various projections consist of “throwing numbers into a computer and seeing what comes out” vis a vis actual adjustments based on observation. If guys are “tweaking” their projections to get rid of perceived outliers (eg Ichiro, or Dan Johnson) then I’d expect to see more of the “herd” effect. Ditto if they’re adjusting based on scouting reports, as those can tend to run together sometimes.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 19, 2008 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Post Madmongoose
Personally, I am excited about our team. The fact that we are where we are in the standings with such a young ballclub and with our history of doing the unexpected like in 2005, I can see a lot to hope for this year and in the years to come.
Cargon, Swooney and Barton are coming into their own. Add to that a new Chevy and Thomas coming back coupled with Cust and we potentionally have a much better team in the second half of the season than in the first half.
One thing I have noticed is that Geren is not keeping his pitchers in past the 6th inning outside of an occaisional start here and there like last night or with Blanton. That is a recipe to help keep our guys strong through the year.
I have no idea what the standings will be come Sept. But, I choose to be totally positive about the possibilites. If anyone here is at all familiar with the law of attraction and I am talking about way beyond “The Secret”, then you will realize that if we as a group see and feel the excitement and potential of our team this year and support them in that manner, believing that they can achieve greatness, they can win it all then you have just opened up that possible future. Just go an ask any of the current players on this team and I will bet they expect to be there in the end.
Oakland A’s “2008 Champs”
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on Jun 18, 2008 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Barton
Is Barton really “coming into his own”? I hope not. Because I’m not that thrilled with what he’s come into so far. I’m hoping that “his own” will be a rather higher standard than what we’ve seen so far.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jun 19, 2008 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he means something like "what he's hit like in June"
although he seems to have hit another one of these 0-for-forever slumps the last few games, so his June numbers may have fallen off considerably since last time I checked.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 19, 2008 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We Will All See
But I have to admit I really do like the way this team is shaping up. They have rebounded very nicely after that brutal road trip last month. Having a heathy Crosby at shortstop has really stabilized the infield as well.
The way I look at it is that all the pressure is on teams like the Angels, Red Sox and Yankees. Anything the A’s do playoff wise is gravy. They could bomb from here on and I would still be enjoying the ride.
by KCa's on Jun 18, 2008 11:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Screw objectivity
I shifted into full-on unabashed optimism mode about the time Duchscherer buckled in pain (causing me to fling my dinner fork to the ground in disgust), then stood straight, told everyone he was okay, and proceeded to dominate for eight innings.
I don’t care about Smith/Eveland innings accumulation concerns. I don’t care about the vagaries of youth or Blanton’s mediocre averageness or the dubious staying power of Chavez or the possibility that Thomas won’t come back the same hitter he was when he got hurt. Right now, I view the season as a toddler might perceive a bright swirly peppermint lollipop – giddy lustful impatience.
I hereby banish angst from my A’s-related thoughts. I declare myself impervious to Glen Kuiper’s vacuity. Immune to Cust’s ambling outfield adventures. Steeled against gratuitous 7th inning defensive replacements. Hell, I might even stop wincing with trepidation every time Harden throws a pitch.
They’re three games out of the division, two out of the wild card, and I’m going to root with blinders on until it’s evident they’re out of it. Is there a way to killfile all comments containing the words/phrases/combinations “regression”, “losing streak”, “disabled list”, “Angels+improvement”, “oblique”, “logic”, “DiNardo”, and “prospect+future+trade”?
by 74mk on Jun 18, 2008 11:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I can only conclude that you don't want us to play *anyone* in LF
If we can’t fix the stupid, can we at least beat them senseless? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 18, 2008 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lesser of two evils situations are problematic.
by 74mk on Jun 18, 2008 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
... usually because the LO2E is a false elision of an actual dichotomy
If we can’t fix the stupid, can we at least beat them senseless? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 18, 2008 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, and artfully put.
However, my ability to take this interaction seriously ended the moment my eyes lit upon “LO2E”. I am ardently anti-overacronymization.
by 74mk on Jun 18, 2008 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
aw, man
You’re not even pro-pseudo-clever-mix-of-numerals-and-letters-to-implicitly-autocritique-the-conceit-being-acronymized? Or +PCMO#&L2IACBACRO?
{Anticipates dismissive riposte from andeux.}
If we can’t fix the stupid, can we at least beat them senseless? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 18, 2008 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It took me an hour to recover from the rage stroke I suffered while reading your post. If you had appended “[blank], The Wire of [blank]”, the resultant psychological damage may have been irrevocable.
by 74mk on Jun 18, 2008 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Resultant psychological damage"
How exactly could we tell?
How do the angels get to sleep when the devil leaves the porchlight on?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jun 18, 2008 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"[blank], The Wire of [blank]", The Wire of dismissive analogies
If we can’t fix the stupid, can we at least beat them senseless? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 18, 2008 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
I had been avoiding this thread.
Now, what am I supposed to be dismissing again?
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
by andeux on Jun 18, 2008 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
andeux, The Wire of obsessive refreshers
How ‘bout "jackass"? Can I still say "jackass"? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 18, 2008 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Up is down! Black is white! Greg Smith is Warren Spahn!
A’s fans optimistic about the outlook of the rest of the season, lauding the play of Bobby Crosby and Eric Chavez, and championing Li’l Sweeney batting higher in the order after demanding his demotion a scant month and a half ago. Must have been a blowout last night.
Seriously, though, it’s nice to see a lot of support for the team. Hopefully, people will remain so cheery the next time the A’s rip off 5 losses in a row with a combined 3 runs scored. Hell, at this rate, people might realize that Huston Street is a pretty damn good closer.
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
by Joey C. on Jun 18, 2008 11:36 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Let's not go THAT far out on a limb here
Rodney… er, I mean, Huston Danger… dammit, Street getting respect from a blog?
Perish the thought.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Black is white! White is black!
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jun 19, 2008 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bill James
wrote in his 1986 Baseball Abstract:
Cecil Fielder, trying to move into a platoon role at first base, follows the general rule that players named White are always Black and players name Black are always White. He’s a born DH.
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
by andeux on Jun 19, 2008 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm happy with where the team is at
They’re past many of the expectations I had coming into the season, but the fact of the matter is the offense is, much of the time, very hit or miss. Just go back to the 4-game series in Anaheim earlier this season. They won two games in blowout fashion then struggled to get a run or two in the others.
Last night they put up a ton of runs, but usually that means they’ll have a couple more where they try to avoid being shut out right after.
Eveland and Smith are doing better than most people had any right to expect, but you can’t count on them doing it for a full season as rookies. If they do, great. If not, it’s part of them taking their lumps.
The second half of the season is going to be hard. No question about it.
That said, I’m enjoying it so far.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site
jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Jun 18, 2008 11:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and "no" to trading Cahill
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site
jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Jun 18, 2008 11:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is getting really disturbing.
I read above that a poster said to forget the past. Maybe in Bush’s America, but not mine.
For as long as I’ve been around this chatroom, every time Oakland goes on a three or more game winning streak, this clown comes out and posts this propaganda on how the A’s are iinfallible in every area of the game. When Oakland loses three or more games he demands to “blow the whole thing up” or something along those lines.
I like level-headed, as opposed to bipolar thinkers.
Oh, and unless you are affiliated with the team in some way, whether it be as player or within the front office, please drop the personal pronoun “we.” It’s pretty pucking silly.
by Pucking Insane on Jun 18, 2008 12:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That's your perogative.
I dunno about you, but I’ve been to a crapload of games, I’ve spent a bunch of money, I’ve invested a lot of time, and will continue to do all of those things regarding the A’s.
So, yeah, I pretty much am affiliated with them. Why the hell else would I be posting about them on the internet at 1:00 in the afternoon?
I’m sorry that it personally affects you when I, as a fan, refer to it as “my” team, or use “we” when talking about them. It’s not going to stop, though, so I suggest you just ignore it.
by mikev on Jun 18, 2008 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good to see the Mikes in agreement
"Let’s just hope he’s not a complete turd out there." -thejd44, describing Crosby's best scenario.
by notsellingjeans on Jun 18, 2008 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
amen
How ‘bout "jackass"? Can I still say "jackass"? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 18, 2008 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and unless you are affiliated with the team in some way, whether it be as player or within the front office, please drop the personal pronoun "we." It’s pretty pucking silly.
Thank you…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jun 18, 2008 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I used to be a vendor ...
can I still say “we”? How ‘bout “jackass”? Can I still say “jackass”?
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
by Vacafan on Jun 18, 2008 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
sigline!
And … recommended!
How ‘bout "jackass"? Can I still say "jackass"? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 18, 2008 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm one of these people too
i love the a’s, but even as a huge fan and a member of this site, fans and members of the site are not included in the “we”.
"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 Jun 18, 2008 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I try not to do it myself, I’m not terribly bothered by the “us” and “we” stuff. I’m often in the company of sad-sack Giants fans and this can lead to a certain us vs. them mentality.
I’m in total agreement with you oo the bipolar bit.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Jun 18, 2008 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
man, this thread sure brings me back
"The Athletics at Fremont" is obscene
by ArakSOT on Jun 18, 2008 12:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If you lived in the now, you'd be home by now
If we can’t fix the stupid, can we at least beat them senseless? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 18, 2008 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent, Smithers!
New sig line.
"He's a misfit. He gets along with everyone." - Reggie Jackson, describing Joe Rudi
by McFood on Jun 18, 2008 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't wait for the "blow this team up" edition.
So it goes.
by jeepers on Jun 21, 2008 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love winning
I love it when we’re supposed to. I love it when we’re not. I just love it.
If anybody can find a way to keep this team winning into the post-season while still following the “sustain a winning team long-term” plan, it’s Beane and crew. I hope they are as addicted to winning and can find a way to keep it going well into September.
by Eric in Atlanta on Jun 18, 2008 1:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
this is an epic thread
goes right to the heart of “glass half full” and “faith” and all that good stuff, seemingly opposing “stat guys” and “probability” and “wet blankets”.
just cus somebody uses numbers to temper his/her enthusiasm and wants to share it, doesnt mean deep down he/she doesnt want to win.
my take: I fear for Gerg and Dana. and i think there’s a good chance we’ll start losing more. but, duh, anything can happen. thats the beauty of baseball. stat guys AND poets can find their niche.
by oakinboston on Jun 18, 2008 2:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I propose that at the upcoming AN Day, everyone must wear a sign proclaiming their allegiance...
Either “Stat Guy” or “Poet”.
No use doing a “half full” or “half empty” thing, EVERYONE thinks they are a “half full” person, it’s just that they don’t realize what they’re “half full” of.
"If you lived in the now, you'd be home by now."
by McFood on Jun 18, 2008 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
for the record
i took a poetry class at MIT.
by oakinboston on Jun 18, 2008 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was it statiscally relevant,
... or were you dreaming about a …Green elephant?
"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King
by Gerard on Jun 18, 2008 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
QOTM
2nd paragraph
How ‘bout "jackass"? Can I still say "jackass"? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jun 18, 2008 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Anything can happen in baseball"
Idiot, the only thing that can happen is regression to the mean. It’s inevitable. That’s why the game is played on paper.
by GeorgiaBoy on Jun 18, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed
I want every game to be shutout victory with the A’s going 162-0 and sweeping through the postseason (while the Giants go 0-162).
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Jun 18, 2008 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As much as I wish Duke,Smith and Eveland can keep it up
I’m reminded of what happened last year to Dan Haren and Chad Gaudin after the ASB,but really,since i’m not the one making the decision nothing forces me to be objective!So i’ll just sit back and dream of duke and Harden fighting for the ERA title,chavy being nominated for the comeback player of the year award,having a huge second half that gets us to the playoffs…until the next 4 game losing streak,where i’ll be in “we’re all gonna die” mode.
by totoum on Jun 18, 2008 5:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I blame this thread for tonight's game.
So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one
by baseballgirl on Jun 18, 2008 7:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We're Not Good Enough!!!!!!
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 Jun 18, 2008 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm extremely pleased to see...
... that many ANers resisted the urge to get on this thread and engage in general smartaleckry.
And now that I’ve pointed it out…
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
by Joey C. on Jun 18, 2008 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"We're Good Enough ..."
Not quite good enough to win the division, really. This club has the same major problem it has had the past couple of years: not enough hits. (Yeah, I know, real complex analysis.) The sad truth is that if you don’t walk the A’s they don’t really score enough to win more than about 45% of their games. Thankfully, lots of pitchers do give the A’s a bunch of walks, and when the A’s get a bunch of walks they win. But whenever virtually anybody just throws strike after strike, like yesterday and today, we have to hear (the fabulous) Ken Korach talk about how somebody’s really “dealing.” It just isn’t so.
by solotar on Jun 19, 2008 3:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
When I play cards, someone's always dealing.
"If you lived in the now, you'd be home by now."
by McFood on Jun 20, 2008 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we are good enough
I just doubt that we are Mexican enough.
"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."
-Charles Manson
by kaweahkaweah on Jun 20, 2008 9:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
...and smart enough. And doggone it ....
people like us!
We write good enuf, too.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 20, 2008 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
