Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Backing the Pack for NC State Fans!


Not Loving The Use Of Our "6th Starter"

The A's have an unusual luxury right now, carrying six capable starters while most teams are scuffling to find five that are passable. This has left Chad Gaudin available in the bullpen as part of a seven-man group that has lost Santiago Casilla and Joey Devine for appreciable stretches, and along the way I've become increasingly disappointed in how the A's have - and haven't - utilized Gaudin, a pitcher who could be viewed either as "another good starter available in the bullpen" or as "the long man".

Gaudin has been used as "the long man," which means he sits there every game just in case the starter gets hit by a line drive in the first inning, shelled in the second inning, or struck by lightning in the third inning, and then he watches Foulke, Embree, Brown, Ziggy and others pitch until they are so spent, so ineffective, or so already used, that he gets into the game.

Personally, I would rather see Gaudin used as the second half of a short but effective start when a pitcher like Smith (Thursday at Arizona) or Eveland (Saturday vs. Florida) puts the team in position to win but needs the bullpen to get 10-12 more outs.

It seems to me that in these situations, the A's squeeze innings, parts of innings, and "barely available today" innings out of several middle relievers, instead of having Gaudin take over and go 3-4 innings. I have concluded that the A's are doing this for one of two reasons:

1. Maybe the A's believe that guys like Foulke, Brown, and Embree, even when overworked, are better 7th/8th inning pitchers than Gaudin, to which I say I respectfully disagree and I'm right. Gaudin is good enough to be in the A's rotation, which is among the finest rotations in the American League.

Replacing Eveland with Gaudin is tantamount to replacing Eveland with himself - only he gets to start the first inning again with a pitch count of zero, against a lineup designed to face a lefty. It's a wonderful luxury to be able to go to one guy, who is good enough to slot into the middle of your excellent rotation, rather than hoping that three different relievers are all on their game even though they have had to work an awful lot lately...

2. Maybe the A's are afraid that if they let Gaudin pitch 3-4 innings in a game, and the one guy who can pitch several innings out of the bullpen is not available, they may be screwed the next day and may have to piece together 5-6 innings with guys like Embree, Foulke, Brown, Ziggy...

Do you see the problem with this logic? Besides the fact that A's starters this year have almost NEVER failed to go 5+ innings, this argument boils down to, "We're going to keep piecing our bullpen together with innings from the same overworked guys, so that we can avoid a potential scenario where we would have to, for a day, piece our bullpen together with innings from the same overworked guys."

The fact is, if you got unlucky, and the day after you let Gaudin go for a few innings your starter was struck by a first inning line drive of lightning causing him to get shelled, you could piece together your long relief for a day (from relievers who had yesterday off thanks to Gaudin), and still be ok - and then if it happened again the next day you could always send someone, like Ziggy, down for 10 days and bring up Braden or DiNardo to serve as a second long-man for a week.

And that's just in an emergency scenario where your starters, who have barely failed you at all, suddenly failed you three games in a row - these are the same scenarios that keep third-string catchers on rosters for no good reason. They are hypothetical problems, not realities.

The reality is that some of the games in which Foulke, Embree, and others are being overworked and overexposed are games in which Gaudin could be, and should be, pitching all their innings combined. The A's have a wonderful ace in the hole for those 11-out saves; they don't need to be drawing so many cards.

1 recs | Comment 102 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Agree 100%

But this just points to the greater overall problem: Bob Geren has not yet figured out how to utilize a bullpen.

I wanted to make a fanpost about this over the weekend but I was far too lazy, and now it’s a couple days past, I’m not so fired up about it, and I’ve forgotten some of the details and points I wanted to make. What it boiled down to was this: Horrible management of the pitching staff by Geren led to the Marlins almost winning on Friday and winning on Saturday. The A’s should have had a sweep, but Geren absolutely dropped the ball. Then he tripped over it like Brian Griese tripping over a dog. Now that I think about it, perhaps Geren was drunk.

Here’s one thing I do remember from what I was going to post: Bringing in Huston Street with runners on base in the 8th inning is a bad idea. I have no idea what his numbers are when coming in for these situations, nor do I know what his runners on/bases empty splits are. But I know this: Street is one of the few full-time relievers I have ever seen who pitches out of a windup with nobody on base. This means something. Either he’s significantly better or significantly more comfortable doing this. To unnecessarily bring him in for that situation on Friday was ridiculous, as were a handful of other pitching-related moves over the weekend.

About Gaudin: Geren really has dropped the ball on how to use him. If he’s being used as the long man/mop-up guy, that’s alright I guess, but then USE HIM THAT WAY. Geren doesn’t seem to really know how to use a guy like Gaudin, so sometimes he’s used in important situations, other times for just a couple batters, other times in mop-up situations.

I’m getting frustrated all over again thinking about how poorly Geren does with this. The manager’s only real task when it comes to on-field stuff, in my opinion, is putting guys in the best possible position to succeed. Sometimes it seems like he’s doing the exact opposite.

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on Jun 24, 2008 12:37 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The A's would have swept the Marlins,

had Geren not botched the bullpen. I had a sinking feeling when Geren brought in Street in the 8th on Firday, and when he ordered an intentional walk on Saturday after Street had already walked a batter, A bad move and a sign of weakness, and the Marlins pounced immediately.

by javaball on Jun 24, 2008 1:57 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Agreed - which is absolutely baffling to me

I mean, do the A’s just give out coaching jobs for fun? Was Geren not the damn BULLPEN COACH before he was promoted to manager?

Seriously, basically the only things an AL manager is required to do is set the lineups, make pitching changes at the proper times utilizing the right personnel for the given scenario, and occasionally toss in a pinch hitter, runner, or defensive replacement.

Why do the A’s constantly have a guy that doesn’t really do all of those things very well? The common belief that Beane wants a “yes man” as his manager is beside the point, because there are still in-game decisions that have to be made that don’t fall on the “listen to Beane’s directions” mantra.

sigh.

by mikev on Jun 24, 2008 7:47 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

who was bench coach when Macha was manager?

I am forgetful

"Behind both goals were banners bearing the word 'Calamity' while another carried the warning: 'You will drown in the Bosphorous.'"--Threats made by Turkish soccer fans to the British from a match in 2003. Tribute to their miraculous run in Euro 2008.

RIP Tim Russert, quintessential Buffalonian.

by Cutthemullet on Jun 24, 2008 8:17 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Bench coaches

It was Terry Francona in 2003 then I think Chris Speier took over when Francona left to manage the Red Sox.

Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!

by Monday Fan on Jun 24, 2008 9:36 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Two more

Then Rene Lachemann in 2005 and Geren in 2006.

Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!

by Monday Fan on Jun 24, 2008 9:43 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Francona, Speier, Lachemann, Geren, I think.

Wait, does that make this the 6th year in a row with a new bench coach?

"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.

by andeux on Jun 24, 2008 9:44 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

To be fair to Geren,

Gaudin has a higher ERA in May and June than both Embree and Foulke. He either doesn’t give up a run or give up at least 2. The last thing you want in the late innings is to be down by 2 runs or more, so I can understand why Geren doesn’t use him there.

With that said, I agree that Gaudin is underutilized. Geren seems to have the tendency to use the ones he trust until they are injured or unavailable before he’s forced to turn to the others. (I’ve already voiced my dissatisfaction with Geren’s use of the bullpen in my Fanpost and comments in the Marlins game thread, so I won’t repeat myself here.)

by javaball on Jun 24, 2008 1:38 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Thing is, if we have five one-run leads

(and this team has a lot of 2-1, 3-2 games going), I’d rather have Gaudin shut them out four times and get lit up once than have Foulke give up a single run 2-3 times. But my point is that Gaudin could be in as early as the 6th and if he’s on you don’t need to piece the rest of the game together with “decent” relievers.

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 24, 2008 8:54 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

call me crazy

but i would rather see Gaudin starting than Blanton.

Billy Beane For Commissioner!

by CrackBaby on Jun 24, 2008 2:10 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

At this point

yup

Although, if Beane is building up Blanton’s trade value for a midseason trade, then I’m all for that.

Of course, that could be a double edge sword he A’s could very well fall upon.

Green Hulk Fists

by oaklandSMASH on Jun 24, 2008 4:01 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Blanton will bring the most in a trade

So it makes sense to keep him in the roatation, knowing you have a capable starter in Gaudin waiting in the wings. Harden’s injury history means people are too wary of him, but Blanton has that all too familiar “innings-eater” tag that would be used to negate the fact that he hasn’t really been all that effective this year. If he can string together a few wins to make his stats improve, he could bring a right handed hitter back in return.

If you move Gaudin into the rotation this also means that the roatation has 4 guys 26 or younger. Only 1 of which has any postseason experience (Richie). So the gamble is that Duke and Harden would be able to carry the team in any postseason series/and or the stretch run.

Given Harden’s history and the relative inexperience of Eveland and Smith, why not A 6 MAN ROTATION!!!!! Wouldn’t this make so much sense!

"I was right and you were wrong." - Ray Fosse

by kbtoyz on Jun 24, 2008 11:03 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

6-man rotation = giant no

there is no evidence 6 man rotation protects pitchers any better than a 5 man rotation— Pitchers have to pitch sometimes, if you stretch them out it just means they are wasting more of their effort in practice. Also, you are now getting much less of Harden and Duchscherer which sucks, because the A’s are basically underdogs with Eveland, Smith, and Blanton going.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on Jun 24, 2008 11:25 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Agree, agree, agree

So, “+3” I guess.

Probably, for a manager to feel safe putting his long man out there as without an emergency, you need to have another potential long man in reserve. I’d stretch out Ziegler a bit – he looks exactly like the kind of guy who could go multiple innings effectively and without being overworked.

(This is similar to the use of backup catchers in many cases – it makes sense on some teams to use the backup catcher as a pinch-hitter at times or pinch-run for the starting catcher, but managers won’t do it because of the once-in-three-years danger of having to use an emergency catcher. You need to give the manager something to make him feel comfortable doing the right thing.)

by Faust on Jun 24, 2008 4:47 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Regarding Ziegler, keep in mind he used to be a starter.

When they made the conversion to sidearm/submarine, they moved him to the bullpen.

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site
jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Jun 24, 2008 7:35 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah, but there's a reason you don't see submarine starters

And Ziggy is not MLB-caliber as an overhand guy, so I don’t really see the point.

by nevermoor on Jun 24, 2008 10:23 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Question

Recently been listening to the Red Sox commenting on how their young starters are approaching their career highs in IP, and when that happens they will start mixing in other arms for spot starts. The prevailing baseball thinking is: you dont have a guy jump more than a certain number of innings (25 maybe?) between seasons, especially if it’s his career high.

Will Gerg and Dana be encountering this situation? If so, Im guessing Chad is the first guy they start mixing in. At the very least, this must be on the list of things the A’s are considering right now. (come to think of it, maybe even Harden and Duke are part of this question too…)

by oakinboston on Jun 24, 2008 6:03 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I would think it's a consideration with Duke

I mean, he’s going deep into almost every game. Which is great…while it lasts. The scare in Arizona might not be the last. Harden, not so sure. Probably depends on what their plans are with him as far as keeping or trading him.

"Behind both goals were banners bearing the word 'Calamity' while another carried the warning: 'You will drown in the Bosphorous.'"--Threats made by Turkish soccer fans to the British from a match in 2003. I dug these out as a tribute to their miraculous comeback against Czech Rep. in Euro 2008. Nihat!

RIP Tim Russert, quintessential Buffalonian.

by Cutthemullet on Jun 24, 2008 6:40 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Good point

and precisely why Geren should be using Gaudin as Nico suggests. Keep him stretched out for 3-4 innings so he’ll be closer to rotation-ready if they need him for a dead-arm period by Smith/Eveland or a Duke/Harden injury. Now, he seems to be used kind of radomly. Having Gaudin eat up some important mid-innings when a starter gets in trouble (or Harden throws too many pitches) would also allow Geren to do some more matching up later in the game.

by boilerdan on Jun 24, 2008 10:10 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

agreed, Nico

"Behind both goals were banners bearing the word 'Calamity' while another carried the warning: 'You will drown in the Bosphorous.'"--Threats made by Turkish soccer fans to the British from a match in 2003. Tribute to their miraculous run in Euro 2008.

RIP Tim Russert, quintessential Buffalonian.

by Cutthemullet on Jun 24, 2008 6:42 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

the A's have so little margin for error

...that they really need near-flawless bullpen management. And performance, for that matter.

"Behind both goals were banners bearing the word 'Calamity' while another carried the warning: 'You will drown in the Bosphorous.'"--Threats made by Turkish soccer fans to the British from a match in 2003. Tribute to their miraculous run in Euro 2008.

RIP Tim Russert, quintessential Buffalonian.

by Cutthemullet on Jun 24, 2008 6:57 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You are correct, sir.

Now don’t let it get to your head too much!

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site
jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Jun 24, 2008 7:34 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I agree with Nico 100%

I’d like to see this question asked next time Blez does one of his excellent interviews with an A’s management person.

by WaddellCanseco on Jun 24, 2008 8:34 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I want to say that I'm not in the camp that feels

Geren’s bullpen management has been terrible. Every fan feels his/her team’s manager uniquely makes bad moves – the reality is usually that good bullpens make managers look smart and bad bulllpens make managers look dumb. I’m just highlighting my main dissatisfaction; overall I think Geren has done fine.

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 24, 2008 8:48 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Would you cut it out with the nauseating even-handedness?

Don’t you know this is a sports blog? If you want to be reasonable, go… actually I can’t think of anywhere you can go where there’s any kind of audience for reasonableness.

But all is well – I’ve noticed a great quote to pull from your comment to rescue it from blandness:

“Geren’s bullpen management has been terrible. ” – Nico

See? Much better. Fire Geren now!

by Faust on Jun 24, 2008 9:05 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Agree

He hasn’t been terrible. There are things he does well and some that leave us scratching our heads. My primary objection is to what I see as push-button management of the bullpen.

Innings 6-7: shuffle relievers to gain platoon advantage.
Inning 8: bring in set-up man.
Inning 9: bring in closer.

I hate to see a well rested reliever who is pitching effectively pulled from the game to gain a dubious platoon advantage or because the closer is supposed to pitch the 9th inning. To hell with the accumulation of saves. It’s like watching football coaches who almost instinctively go to a 3-man pass rush with a lead in the 4th quarter. You ask yourself, “How many games/seasons/decades do we have to see this stupid &%#$ fail before the coaches learn it’s a bad idea?” There’s a certain orthodoxy at hand from which coaches are afraid to stray. If they don’t follow the script, they’re subject to second guessing by the fans and the media. If they follow the script and lose, that’s okay. They just did what they were supposed to do and the loss is on the players.

One spot where I think we’re being unfair to Geren is in the Gaudin worship. This is a guy who gave up over 200 hits and 100 walks last year. Let’s not assume he’s some kind of savior in waiting. I would agree he has earned a chance to pitch more but let’s not get carried away.

Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!

by Monday Fan on Jun 24, 2008 10:04 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You're right.

But that wasn’t my complaint. My complaint involves situations when the manager makes a change to gain a platoon advantage when it’s not clear that one exists.

Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!

by Monday Fan on Jun 24, 2008 10:14 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Gaudin's 200 hit/100 BB numbers last year largely reflect

pitching injured and posting gawdawful numbers in the second half. I think his established true ability lies between last year’s first and second halves – I consider him to be, per 9 IP, about an 8 hits, 4 BB, 4 ER starter, with a slightly better ERA as a reliever.

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 24, 2008 12:54 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not so fast

As Danny pointed out elsewhere, his numbers weren’t so hot before the injury. And if he’s going to pitch injured without telling anyone, is that someone the A’s should hitch their wagon to?

Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!

by Monday Fan on Jun 24, 2008 10:49 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Definitely Agree

I’m of the camp that geren needs to just plain use his veteran pitchers less. Street especially seems easily injurable with a heavy usage. Let’s avoid doing things like using him 3 days in a row in san francisco. That wasn’t smart baseball management imho. Let’s get the guys like andrew brown, santiago, and ziegler to pitch in more 7-9th innings. I think it would help rest our older guys and reduce injuries…plus maybe we’ll win more :)

by tomoyo on Jun 24, 2008 9:46 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

When did Gaudin become a good pitcher?

As a SP, he has a 4.71 career ERA in 275 IP with a slightly below average peripherals. He was pretty good with some good luck in the first half last year, but he completely collapsed in the second half. For the year, his 154:100 K:BB and 95 ERA+ are nothing to get too excited about.

He put up a very pretty ERA as a reliever in 2006, but that was incredibly lucky. He had 42 walks and 36 Ks in 64 IP. He somehow allowed an .830 OPS with the bases empty and a .500 OPS with runners on.

I still think Gaudin has a lot of potential since he clearly has good stuff and manages not to get hurt, and I’m sure he could be starting for most MLB teams. But I don’t see the evidence that he’s better than Foulke, Embree, Ziegler or Brown out of the bullpen.

by Danny on Jun 24, 2008 9:54 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't think Nico's claiming

that Gaudin is better than those other relievers. But if you sometimes use Gaudin for 2 or 3 innings in a close game, then the other relievers might be more effective in future close games. That’s not entirely unreasonable, but I’m not convinced that anyone has really been overworked enough for this to be a factor. Having Gaudin as your long man is a nice luxury, but in close games I’d still prefer the mix-and-match setup guys as Plan A, with Gaudin as Plan B, which is pretty much what Geren’s been doing.

But if we’re complaining about Geren, how about the fact that Saturday was (I think) the third time this year that someone who was intentionally walked late in a tie game ended up being the winning run? Can we please not do that?

"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.

by andeux on Jun 24, 2008 10:09 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I guess it's a different question

But I don’t see any reason to think Embree, Foulke, or Brown is being overworked. I think giving a chunk of their innings to Gaudin would make him overworked, though.

Since Gaudin’s first relief appearance on May 9th, he’s thrown 22 innings in 38 teams games. That’s a pace of 94 innings over 162 games, which is a lot for a reliever. Gaudin is getting more than enough work; the argument seems to be that his work should be in higher leverage situations, while other relievers should have some of their work shifted to lower leverage situations.

by Danny on Jun 24, 2008 10:17 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think your're missing the point Danny-

It’s not that the other relievers should be used in lower leverage situations, just that Gaudin can take some of the stress off of the top-tier relievers by eating more important innings. It’s more of an attempt to keep the top-tier relievers sharp and pitching in the situations that the team needs them to be in.
I’t’s a sticky situation because he’s too good to be sent down or pitch solely mop-up but he also needs to be available to spot start. Usually the long man in the ‘pen is one of the worst pitchers; not quite good enough to start but also not good enough to hold a late inning lead so he ends up pitching in blow-outs. That’s not the case with Gaudin- he just happens to be stretched out and needs to stay that way because of the rotations inability to stay healthy.

by Sacred#24 on Jun 24, 2008 3:10 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Very well put - the key difference here

is that while DiNardo is, and Yabu was, in the long-man role because he was worse than the set-up guys, Gaudin is head and shoulders above those guys, and could be used advantageously as a result. I wouldn’t want Yabu pitching 3 innings in a close game, but Gaudin? Sure.

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 24, 2008 3:47 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

And yet, the Giants have Yabu pitching in close games

(Although I don’t think he’s gone 3 innings yet.)

He’s had a strange career, that’s for sure.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jun 24, 2008 4:09 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

But those aren't the facts.

The facts are that Embree, Foulke, and the other pitchers mentioned are not being overworked or “over-stressed.” Gaudin, meanwhile, is pitching a lot of innings in relief.

The change this post recommends is to give Gaudin more high leverage innings. By definition, that means fewer high leverage innings for the other pitchers. Gaudin will not be able to continue pitching as many low leverage innings as he has if he takes on more high leverage innings, and those abandoned low leverage innings will have to be taken by the rest of the staff.

The implication is very clear that, yes, other relievers should be used in lower leverage situations. My contention is that there’s no reason to advocate such a change.

by Danny on Jun 25, 2008 8:51 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No, it's not "high" or "low" leverage innings,

it’s more clumped – a 3 inning stint following a 5-6 inning start that leaves the A’s in position to win, instead of three one inning appearances scattered over three games. Currently, The A’s are consistently using 3-4 pitchers each night to get 3 or so innings of relief, meaning a lot of the same guys are going 2-3 days in a row.

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 25, 2008 4:14 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

While we're stopping doing things,

let’s also stop bringing the infield in early in the game (like in the damn top of the first inning over the weekend). I actually thought that last IBB was a decent move, though I’ve hated pretty much all the other ones. I am inclined to give a lot of weight to Street’s platoon split.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jun 24, 2008 10:20 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This has been driving me nuts all season

Infield-in has become an epidemic of idiocy that has spread throughout all of baseball. Geren is actually better about not using it than some managers.

I’ve seen managers bring the infield in with a one-run lead and men on second and third. Just breathtakingly stupid.

This is one of those “firing offenses” that should be posted on every manager’s office door. Unless the run is going to WIN THE F*ING GAME, do not bring the infield in. (I would make an exception if there’s a runner at 3rd and one out with a one run lead in the late innings.)

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jun 24, 2008 12:22 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm almost universally opposed to bringing the infield in

Even in your hypotheticals, it’d depend really strongly on the pitcher-batter matchup.

Can an aging lemur suffer from dementia? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 24, 2008 12:34 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's been killing me for thirty years

It’s right up there with a leadoff double in the first inning followed by the #2 hitter sacrificing him to third (the LaRussa Special).

Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!

by Monday Fan on Jun 24, 2008 12:43 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I agree only to an extent -

One additional time I like bringing the infield in is when a light-power guy is up (Eckstein, Kendall, etc.) and you get to two-strikes. Don’t give up a run on the ground ball he’s likely to pepper to an infielder no matter where you’re playing – make him try to go against his strength.

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 24, 2008 12:58 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Given that he was pitching hurt in the second half of last season,

and was solid-to-excellent in both the first half of last year and the period when he was starting this year, I think it’s safe to say his post-ASB numbers last year were an idiot-machismo-induced aberration. He couldn’t plant on his landing foot, so he elevated the ball and his home run rate went from “great” to “below average.”

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jun 24, 2008 10:15 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

But he wasn't even that great in the first half

In the first half last year, he had 68 Ks and 48 BBs in 109 IP. His HR rate is great, but those are Saarloosian numbers. His ERA would have fallen a bunch whether he was injured or not.

by Danny on Jun 24, 2008 10:21 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If there's one thing that makes me hurl my breakfast,

it’s all the references to “luck” to describe pitchers out performing their peripherals. No, Gaudin wouldn’t have sustained his entire first-half performance last season if healthy, and no Duke will not end this season with a 1.99 ERA. But they were VERY GOOD, and they earned their success to a very large degree. It’s not like they gave up tons of screaming line drives that kept getting caught, or kept running into lineups that were missing all the good hitters. Peripherals may be useful predictors in general, but they are not everything.

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 24, 2008 1:01 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Outperforming your peripherals

is about one part good pitches to three parts luck. If you refuse to acknowledge the role of luck, you’re willfully deluding yourself.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jun 24, 2008 1:32 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't even know what this means

Either something is random, or it isn’t. Outperforming your peripherals is, by observation, highly random. Therefore, there is a large element of luck in it.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jun 24, 2008 1:40 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

In Stratomatic, your method works great.

In real baseball, you can observe a pitcher and evaluate whether someone’s outperformance of their peripherals is more, or less, attributable to randomness – or has a rhyme/reason. One example: As guys become less able to power their way through, and their K rate drops, some can learn how to pitch to contact effectively, some can’t. Some of their peripherals (K/IP, GO/AO ratio, etc.) are going to change either way, and their effectiveness may or may not follow to the same level. It’s just not as simple, or as unnecessary to watch the games, as you make assessment out to be.

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 24, 2008 1:58 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You can try to do this

but you will be wrong as often as you are right. It’s easy to find post facto explanations for a guy performing well or poorly. But most of them are preposterous.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jun 24, 2008 3:15 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Seriously.

Why do MLB teams even need scouts when they could just hire mathematicians?

by Sacred#24 on Jun 24, 2008 3:15 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This is where I wish I knew how to link images

Well, imagine I just linked that “Aw, Jeez, not this shit again” picture.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jun 24, 2008 3:21 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not to contribute to your delinquency, but you can do it manually or by clicking the "tree" link below.

One if by man: [left arrow]img src=”URL of the image” height=150/[right arrow] Usually a height=200 or less will suffice to make your point; width seems to adjust automatically.

And Two if by Tree: just click on the tree link below and enter the image url. Use preview to insert the height text after the second quotation mark.

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

by The Dogfather on Jun 24, 2008 3:53 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The questions is: to what degree?

We both agree that Gaudin was both good and somewhat lucky in the first half of last year. I think he should have had an ERA around 4.00 without luck. You?

by Danny on Jun 24, 2008 2:10 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

In the first half?

Maybe 3.70? Above average, solid, but not “lights out” – he had the stuff to pitch out of jams, and had to far too often. Kind of like Eveland this year, but with maybe a couple more starts where he was really in command throughout, no mirrors needed.

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 24, 2008 2:44 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

See, not so far apart

I attribute 3 or 4 more of his runs saved in the first half to luck than you do. Is that really worth hurling over?

by Danny on Jun 24, 2008 2:51 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not if we can make the semantic adjustment

and change “luck” to “not sustainable over time” – unless a flurry of “at ‘em” balls are at play, it feels unfair to tell a pitcher he’s been “lucky” when he has made good pitches to get guys out.

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 24, 2008 3:49 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

But it really is just semantics.

Calling something luck in this context is really just another way of saying it’s not sustainable. It’s not intended as a moral judgment, and it doesn’t suggest that the person could just as well have dialed it in and gotten the same results.

Or, to put it another way, we can make a distinction between past and future performance. Looking just at past performance, I have no problem acknowledging that Gaudin made good pitches to prevent runs from scoring in the first half of 2007, that Emil Brown has been a much better hitter with runners in scoring position than with the basis empty this year, or that the Angels have outplayed their opponents in close games.

But looking forward, anyone who expects a pitcher to post an ERA of less than 3.00 while walking almost as many batters as he strikes out, or a mediocre journeyman hitter with a career average of .260 to continue to hit .350 with runners in scoring position, or a team that barely outscores their opponents to win 60% of their games, is overwhelmingly likely to be disappointed, simply because in the recorded history of baseball no one has shown the ability to sustain those kinds of anomalous performances for more than a short period of time. And it seems like you basically agree with that.

"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.

by andeux on Jun 24, 2008 4:39 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

this is why I wish (as I mentioned in a previous comment)

people would just use some other term besides “luck”, as it just makes people angry…

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jun 24, 2008 4:56 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Call a spade a f'ing spade

Luck has a definition. And, say, RISP hitting fits it. Pussyfooting around the issue with terms like “not sustainable over time” is little more than a way of manufacturing fake concord.

My take on it is, if you can’t deal with the fact that a large part of baseball is dumb luck, you’re watching the wrong sport. Go watch track cycling, or chess.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jun 24, 2008 5:14 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Perhaps this will help explain

why the term “luck” is too all-encompassing. When you hit on 15 in blackjack, there are probabilities involved, but whether you draw a 6 or a 9 is luck. In a given AB there are probabilities involved, but whether Jack Hannahan has a great AB, is too anxious trying to make up for his costly error last inning, or is too hungover from the night before, has elements beyond luck. Joe Blanton’s bloated ERA the year he got divorced – maybe not just “chance”. Players and cards are just slightly different, though both involve some chance and probability.

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 24, 2008 5:18 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

For most of these things,

the claim isn’t that there is necessarily luck in individual instances, but that some player/team is lucky in the aggregate. In the Angel’s case, they haven’t been lucky to win any of the games they’ve won, but they’re lucky in the aggregate, because (for instance) if you win a bunch of 1 run games, say, 2-1, 3-2, 4-3, and 5-4, it is lucky (at least mostly) that the pitching and hitting performances aligned so nicely.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jun 24, 2008 5:28 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Fair enough - I would just add that

SOME (maybe less than half, but still some) of the Angels’ fortune in this regard comes from the fact that you can design an offense or a bullpen to succeed as the distribution tilts in your favor.

For example, if the Angels happen to take a tie or one-run lead into the 7th, 8th or 9th, they can often make it stand up with the depth of Arredondo/Speier, Shields, and K-Rod, even though the rest of their bullpen is pretty lame – and turns some potential 5-2 losses into 9-2 losses on other nights.

So I’m not shocked to see the Angels winning “more than their fair share” of 2-1 and 3-2 games – maybe not as many as they have, but maybe more than their “W/L expectancy” would predict.

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 24, 2008 5:37 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm not as doctrinaire as some w/ pythag...

It’s a fairly blunt instrument. Their RA looks worse than it should because the back end of their bullpen has been terrible, which is really not a big problem for a team. And while RS/RA is generally a better predictor going forward than W/L record, it’s not such a great way, due to injuries personnel changes, uncharacteristic performances (like Vlad) etc. Still, there just has to be some “good fortune” involved with a run differential difference like that.

Another way to put that is: the Angels won a whole bunch of games without Lackey/Figgins/Kendrick/Vlad hitting poorly. I think the Angels are definitely better than the A’s, but I definitely do not think that the “April/early May” Angels were better than the A’s, and that is where the run differential comes from.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jun 24, 2008 5:46 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Also

a big part of it has been that the A’s offense has been “feast or famine” and the Angels offense has been “standard meal every night.” There might be something to this, but I really doubt, and there’s not much reason to think so. It was the opposite last year, as the A’s were more consistent and the Angels were more feast or famine.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jun 24, 2008 5:52 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I suppose one explanation would be

that the A’s have a lot of young hitters (more natural inconsistency expected) and that the A’s approach really messes up “bad pitchers” (pitchers without command). But it doesn’t explain stuff like walloping Sabathia twice.

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 24, 2008 5:55 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

A lot of times "luck" is not the best term at all

Hitting well with risp for some time interval is “luck” in some higher-order sense, but it is more natural to just say that the player just hit well with risp over that time interval. None of the hits are necessarily “lucky.” I think “not sustainable” is more accurate in many situations apart from the fact that it doesn’t cause tiresome disputes.

Also, chess has some luck, too, especially with weaker players.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jun 24, 2008 5:22 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I agree - except about chess

I can always beat weaker players at chess by kicking them, choking them, and holding them down until they concede no matter what the board shows.

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 24, 2008 5:26 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What's track cycling?

I can’t even get into football, I’m sure I can’t get into track cycling.

by Sacred#24 on Jun 24, 2008 5:45 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's what it sounds like

People ride bicycles. On a track.

It was the first esoteric (basically) pure-skill sport I could think of.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jun 24, 2008 6:20 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's just not very satisfying to exclaim ...

“He stepped in some unsustainable shit!”

Can an aging lemur suffer from dementia? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 24, 2008 5:27 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I guess I felt Eveland was truly "lucky"

his last start, when he limited the damage to two runs by giving up a scorched liner, and then a hard grounder down the line, with the bases loaded, etc.

Whereas I feel Duke is not being lucky to pitch to contact and get, through excellent command and keeping hitters off balance, a lot of lazy fly balls that anyone will catch anytime (well, except Cust). Maybe Duke can’t sustain a 1.99 ERA, but his K-rate, or GO/AO rate (just using a hypothetical example here), won’t lead me to believe he can’t sustain pitching “very very well” just because they are low if he is getting tons of routine fly balls by pitching the way he can sustainably pitch.

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 24, 2008 5:15 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Luck vs. being Hot

I hate that “luck” BS. It always reminds me of that poor loser guy- you know, the one that can never be beat but always seems to lose, only to blame it on “luck.”
The reasoning is simple; you can’t argue with the outcome so you need another way to explain why you’re still right.

When we talk about baseball we’re looking at a ton of data so inevitably there’ll be ups and downs over the course of time. I suppose that you could call the ups luck, but if you do that then you need to call the downs bad luck which I rarely hear.
Also, since this ebb and flow continues over time I would argue that the terms “hot” and “cold” are a much better description of reality. At such a high level of competition small adjustments can make the difference between the two, and sustaining perfect mechanics is a very difficult task with so many variables involved.

That’s not to say that luck doesn’t exist (an argument I’ve made in the past but that hinges on the definition of the word) but that it’s not a strong enough variable on it’s own to skew results drastically. I’ve never heard an explanation from the luck advocates to explain why and how one player has better luck than another or why that luck tends to be bunched up in a short time frame.

by Sacred#24 on Jun 24, 2008 4:40 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Did anyone ever explain

how Charles Wells broke the bank at Monte Carlo? What’s the explanation for him having better luck than anyone else, or for why his luck was bunched up in a short time frame?

These questions are literally incoherent. The very definition of luck is a pattern of random ups and downs which has no underlying explanation. It’s not the job of the “luck advocate” to explain why Player A is lucky and Player B is not, only to prove that for every Player A, there exists a Player B as well.

As for “hot” and “cold,” the existence of such has been debunked by others on plenty of occasions, and there’s little reason for me to try and regurgitate a half-assed version of it. Just read “The Book.” It’ll be better for everyone.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jun 24, 2008 5:27 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Just read "The Book"?

Thanks for trying to save my soul but this savage will remain hell-bound…

by Sacred#24 on Jun 24, 2008 5:50 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

To quote "The Book":

And on the 7th day, He rested…after being used for six straight games while Gaudin sat. And He did give up a homerun to Cody Ross and there was no rejoicing in Oakland.”

Alan 3.16 (ERA)

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 24, 2008 5:56 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not the Good Book...

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jun 24, 2008 6:18 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

HR rates should be viewed skeptically, especially for someone like Gaudin

not what you want to hang your hat on.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jun 24, 2008 10:26 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm sorry, I totally disagree with this statement

Go look at his fangraphs batted ball graph for ‘07. The part where his ground ball rate drops way down and his fly ball rate jumps way up is the part of the season where he was giving up like 7 runs a start.

Gaudin’s runs allowed are highly correlated with his home run rate, and his home run rate is highly correlated with his fly ball rate. Which is in turn highly correlated with a pitched ball’s position in the strike zone.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jun 24, 2008 12:31 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That is true,

but his fly ball rate in the first half last year was out of line with career trends. I would trust low-HR numbers if he was a high GB pitcher, but he’s not.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jun 24, 2008 12:38 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I won't hang my hat on it,

if Chad promises not to hang his slider.

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 24, 2008 1:02 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The main problem is injury. When they were healthy, they went starter, Brown

Casilla, Embree, Street, and occasionally Foulke, and that is what they are trying to get back to, and now you add Ziegler. Health will eliminate this for the most part.

by theblackpearl on Jun 24, 2008 10:06 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

But that's sort of the point

using the same four guys every close game for more than an at bat may be contributing to the health problems. Especially when we have no offense, great SP, and therefore a lot of close games.

by nevermoor on Jun 24, 2008 10:26 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Lord knows I dowanna sound like a sheep, but I do agree with you.

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

by The Dogfather on Jun 24, 2008 1:15 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Lackawanna agree with you *or* Nico

Can an aging lemur suffer from dementia? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 24, 2008 1:23 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If you sounded more like a sheep,

I’d be more likely to return your calls.

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 24, 2008 1:33 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I partially agree.

The starting pitching has been stellar, so there hasn’t been a need for long relief. The Casilla/other, Embree/Foulke, Street combo has worked well too. Gaudin has also shown his versatility to be used late in games and, if need be, long relief. I don’t think Geren has mismanaged the bullpen at all. It aint broke, so why try and fix it?

by A'sfansince1970 on Jun 24, 2008 1:50 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

There are still a couple reasons to "fix it" -

You should always proactively improve something if you can; even if it’s working at the level of an “8” you should want to, if you can, make it work at the level of a “9”.

Plus it has been a little “broke” – though more due to Casilla’s and Devine’s injuries than anything else – with Foulke overexposed in high-leverage situations, Ziggy and Embree throwing 4 days in a row, Street stretched out to the max while working through an injury, and so on.

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 24, 2008 2:02 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Gaudin is the "luxury" that can wait a bit

We have an enviable situation in Oakland right now.

Our bullpen at the start of the year was outstanding. Injuries changed the dynamic as we saw the team go from essentially a power pitching pen ala Detroit 2 years ago to a pen that offered diversity as seen with the Ziegler call-up.

With the emergence of our 2 Arizona boys rounding out the rotation, it has forced Beane to wait…for the right price to sell either Embry, Foulke or even Street. The others are not out of the trade scenerio either. In any case, the reason Street hasn’t been signed is because of his injuries. He currenly is hurting and frankly I think should be on the DL.

We have 2 potential closers with Casilla and our pickup from the Braves. But, once again we are waiting. There has been conjecture about Colorado’s closer. Which may imply Embry being traded and or being involved in a megadeal for Matt Holiday (my holy grail).All of this is to say I can’t criticize Geren for too much other than he shouldn’t put Street out there when he is still injured.

The A’s have leverage on Gaudin and (like Duke) will use him as they see fit until a spot opens up in the rotation. As long as he stays consistent, he is a known quantity to the management and his current utilization is somewhat of a bck-handed compliment.

"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 24, 2008 3:14 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Bullpen Sessions

Is there any chance the Curt Young has Gaudin pitching simulated games every 5 days? This would keep him stretched out if a Starter goes down, and would limit the innings he could pitch between simulated games. Seems like a good idea.

by Colorado Fan on Jun 24, 2008 3:37 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Gaudin isn't much better or worse than Brown, Embree, Foulke, Ziggy

but he can pitch more innings at a time. Therefore they’d be utilizing him better pitching him less frequently but for more innings to give the other guys a break and also to make his transition to starter easier. It may also make him feel better if he’s piling up 3 inning wins or saves.

Why use four roughly equivalent pitchers when one will do just as well? I haven’t seen anyone articulate the downside to this plan.

by WaddellCanseco on Jun 24, 2008 4:53 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Especially in light of the fact that:

1. If a pitcher is “off his game” 10% of the time, your odds are worse in this regard when you throw four guys, and

2. Whenever Gaudin pitches longer, it works the short-relievers less – meaning they are less apt to suffer from being stretched to the max.

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 24, 2008 4:55 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms
Start posting about the Athletics »

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

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
2010 Oakland Athletics: Internal and FA Options
Small
Possible Trade Partners: Giants
Tsgirlbass_th_small
DLD 7/1/09: Less about baseball, more about baseball movies
Small
Possible Trade Partners: St. Louis Cardinals
Tsgirlbass_th_small
DLD 6/30/09: Pardon me if I'm sentimental

Recent FanPosts

Small
next A's philosophy: High $ International FA signings and High draft picks- pitchers only
Small
A's demands for Holiday
142564582_9b68f505fa_small
GOG 2009 #27
Small
Minor Athletics on vacation -- Minor League Dump
Ziegler160px_small
Quick Texas League All-Star Game Recap
Small
Does Sabean still like gritty veterans?
Small
A'S/Red Sox 2001 classic game on now on A's CSN channel 698 on direct tv
Ph3spec_small
doctorK invades PNC Park

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini

SPONSORS


Managers

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

As_kings_cal_small louismg

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Martin_brodeur_300_small Blez

Ziegler160px_small Flashfire

Editors

Countdown_small Taj Adib

527918550406_0_bg_small notsellingjeans

Authors

P1010266b_small devo

Super_grover_small grover

The_baby_small salb918

Official Partner of Yahoo! Sports