Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Check out our NFL Scoreboard: scores, schedule and blogs Bar-right-arrows



Time to Kill the "We're Not Good Enough" Refrain

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 | Comment 220 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

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   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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   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 to parent up   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   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   1 recs

LOL

Cotton Candy

by Ice Cream on Jun 18, 2008 2:32 PM PDT to parent up   0 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 to parent up   0 recs

+1,000,000

Oakgoose apparently has selective amnesia.

by 33SwisherSweet on Jun 18, 2008 11:03 AM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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   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 to parent up   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   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

It’s the, bar none

No bars, in August???? Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;?>

by mrod on Jun 18, 2008 10:59 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Bar none?

I am scared of that sock puppet.

by theblackpearl on Jun 18, 2008 11:07 AM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

So you're saying

Regression to the mean is fascist? like strikeouts?

by nevermoor on Jun 18, 2008 3:29 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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.