Roster Question- 11 pitchers??
by Yellowhorse on Jul 10, 2008 7:32 PM PDT
Email
PrintI made a post right before the Harden deal that wondered what the A's roster would look like when Frank got back. At the time I thought his return was imminent and furthermore the Harden trade was a pretty big deal. I was still wondering what you think the A's will do with the roster. Is going to just 11 pitchers an option??
With games like today where key guys get hurt and a Pinch Hitter was essential to the victory I am more and more thinking that the A's should consider going to just 11 pitchers. (then again the extra innings puts a strain on the pitching staff).
First off, I would consider doing this right now for the Angels series. Considering Sweeney will probably not be able to play we are looking very thin on the bench. Furthermore, with the break coming up I would believe that Blanton and Smith could pitch in an inning on Sunday if needed. (I think its common for starters to throw on a set day between starts). I would bring up an outfielder as without Sweeney (who probably might not need 15 days on DL) we only have 4 OF (counting Cust).
I know having just 11 guys would put a strain on the staff but it would only be for a month and a half (September allows us to expand the roster).
It seems to me that A. Brown is probably contributing the least on the team right now. He is pitching about 1-2 innings a week. I would think that his inning or so could be absorbed by the others.
With Frank's return we would be very limited in defensive replacements. I would think that Crosby easily replaces Petit or Murphy. Sweeney could replace Bankston or Barton. Big Frank causes the major problem. If he took Davis or Emil's spot our OF is very depleted.
Yes, yes there are going to be many changes with trades. But some problems remain no matter who is on the roster. If we stick with 12 pitchers we have only 13 hitters. With Cust, Thomas, Bankston, Barton we have 4 of 13 hitters who are very limited in the number of positions they can play.
If the A's stick with 12 pitchers the A's may have to get very creative with the roster.
Maybe we need to find some guys who can function at another position. I think if Emil wants to stay once all the injured return he may have to work at being a back-up corner infielder. Hannahan may have to be willing to try a middle infield or outfield spot if Chavez ever returns. Or the GM can trade for a player who can play most OF and infield positions.
I think the team will be just fine once we get to September but it may get real tight in August.
Any thoughts?
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
11 pitchers would have worked when the team had lots of off days
in the first half. But with only 1 scheduled off day in August, I think you need the 7th bullpen guy. As for the other points, injuries and/or trades will likely take care of most of it. Plus, of course, the rosters expand 1 September.
A little plumbing! Got to plumb! Plumb the depths! The depths of hell! - Larry David, CYE
by Swooney's Left Foot on Jul 10, 2008 7:47 PM PDT reply actions
Many teams go with 11 pitchers. Hell, for a long time the A's went with 11.
some teams go with 11, some like that extra man in the pen.
Personally, I don’t like it when the A’s go with 12 pitchers, because that means that we will have TWO pitchers in the pen who never see the light of day instead of just one. And with the attrition rate we usually suffer with position players, we need that extra guy on the bench.
facepalm.jpg
You need a long man,
but conceivably you could do without Andrew Brown in the current configuration. It’s hard to tell, though, because our starters have just NEVER gotten lit up this year, gone in 3.1 IP or 2.2 IP. Even Blanton has given 4-6 innings in his worst starts. If that continues, we can manage with 11, but will it continue?
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
Because I think Embree's better than A. Brown
and he gives you a durable lefty. Plus I think Brown still has options (but I could be wrong on that).
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
I believe Brown is out of options
When Bradley was traded for Brown last year, I seem to remember hearing that he had cleared waivers in Spring Training.
A little plumbing! Got to plumb! Plumb the depths! The depths of hell! - Larry David, CYE
by Swooney's Left Foot on Jul 10, 2008 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Brown is definitely out of options
If I recall rightly, he had Tommy John while he was in the minors, resulting in a slow development curve, and as a result he got very little big-league time during his option years. Pretty much just a cup of coffee with Cleveland.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I thought only Tommy John's wife
had really had Tommy John. This is most disappointing and disturbing.
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
wait
on what planet have you been watching baseball from?
or am i just confused and you meant he’s better than e. brown?
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
I've been watching from Earth,
and I think that Alan Embree is a better pitcher than Andrew Brown. But then I’m not a knee-jerk “what have you done for me lately” kind of fan.
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
Despite being about the biggest Andrew Brown fanboy around,
I have to agree with you here. He has not looked right since the appendectomy, and REALLY didn’t look right in his last start. His fastball is pretty straight, so it’s a real problem when it’s 91 with terrible control instead of 95 with average control.
That said, I’d certainly rather option down one of the newbs than release AB without giving him a while longer to fix what’s wrong (or go on the DL).
What I’d really like to do is deal Embree for a prospect, because he’s pretty unnecessary to the A’s right now. Blevins and Braden are more than capable of handling the left-hander roles in the bullpen, and they have a ton of nonroster lefties in Sacramento like Brad Kilby and Ryan Wing.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Agree - and I'd probably option Blevins
just because he has options and Brown doesn’t. I’ve been disappointed in Embree because I think he’s a decent pitcher – not great, but decent – yet he has been only mediocre this year, and the last six weeks…just bad. However, he’s one of those guys you can say “he’ll find his career norm” because his arm is still fine.
But A. Brown is still a total command wild-card who has come back from the D.L. a rusty version of his old self – and his old self still had a lot of refining to do.
So as bad as Embree has been lately, the next 5 key outings where you have to choose between Brown and Embree? If I’m Geren, I choose Embree.
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
I don't get this
Embree is a 15-year veteran and he’s not any different now than he has been, like, ever. He’s pretty much a mediocre lefty who can sometimes get guys out and sometimes not. The problem with Embree is that his “Career norm” is that of a guy who shouldn’t be pitching meaningful innings for your team.
As for control: Brown walks a bit more than 1 per 9 more than Embree. That’s really not that significant, I don’t think. He hasn’t looked as good since coming back from the DL, but like I said in the other post, isn’t that the most recent performance that’s more likely to be the aberration?
I think comparing the two is a little silly just because they’re used for different things, but I certainly would trust Brown to get lefties out before I’d trust Embree to get righties out.
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jul 11, 2008 2:05 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree. Embree is the better pitcher
He also has a greater trade value.
I think many teams could be suckered into trading for Embree.
A veteran Left handed pitcher with playoff experience might be enticing for a team convinced it needs to win in 2008
by Yellowhorse on Jul 10, 2008 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Even though Embree is, at best, a mediocre gas can
I agree with everything except “Embree is the better pitcher,” because he’s not. And there’s absolutely no evidence to suggest he’s better. That said, he has excellent trade value, but a team would be a sucker to give up very much for him. And a team will be a sucker if Beane is willing just because of the lefty veteran angle.
Oh, and he has a club option for ‘09 so a team might be willing to part with a bit more.
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jul 11, 2008 2:00 AM PDT up reply actions
How about "What has Embree done in an entire mediocre career" kinda fan?
Because Brown is a pretty good pitcher, despite his struggles lately (wait, you said this wasn’t about the most recent performances…hmmm), and Alan Embree has pretty much always bounced between meh and total suckage.
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jul 11, 2008 1:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes. He was.
17 saves in 21 opportunities for someone who was not expected to be a closer is a great showing.
What do you want from your closer? Saves.
What did Embree deliver in 81% of his opportunity? Saves.
Some counting stats are unhelpful (wins, for example) but saves are a good way of measuring a closer’s effect because getting the same is (almost always) completely within the closer’s control.
I want the same thing I want from any pitcher
A good ERA+ and a good WHIP (taking note that there are smarter statistics than those to use).
Saves alone don’t tell you quality of the saves (were they 1-run saves, 2-run saves, 3-run saves, multi-inning saves, etc.?). A high-leverage inning is a high-leverage inning whether it’s a save opportunity or not. Arthur Rhodes was much-maligned (wrongly) ahead of his arrival because of his poor career save % (100% of the time getting a chance at a BS, and 0% of time getting a chance at an actual save). There are millions of problems with using saves or Sv% as important statistics, especially in a sample size of 21. Embree was solid (for him) last year, but was by no means a great reliever.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
I'm not attempting to predict future stats
I’m saying that Embree was great for us last year in an unexpected role.
You’re right that saves are not the best way to project future performance, you’re wrong that they’re irrelevant to judging a closer’s season.
Embree came into 21 games with the game on the line. 17 times we won, 4 times we either lost or went extras. That’s a great contribution for a non-closer.
Again as noted before
Shawn Chacon closed exactly one season in his career. He saved 35 games out of 44 chances for roughly the exact same percentage as Embree (except twice as many saves!! twice as good!!). Embree had actual prior closing experience, Chacon had none.
Shawn Chacon’s ERA: 7.11. I’m not only saying saves/save opps is a bad way to judge future performance, it’s a bad way to judge past performance as well.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
He's pitching at his career totals
and 2 out of the last 7 years his ERA has been 7.00+ with 50+ innings.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
So what do you say? Is it worth the risk to keep an extra hitter?
I say yes. Especially due to the fragile health and defensive limitations of some of the hitters.
I would hate to drop a guy who would play more/ contribute more than the 12th pitcher.
Speaking of health. I just read on the A’s home page in the report about “Gallagher’s first start” that
1) Frank can start hitting activity tomorrow.
2) Ryan Sweeney’s finger isn’t as bad as expected. X-Rays were negative. Geren was also quoted as saying this is very, very, good news.”
by Yellowhorse on Jul 10, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions
He's out of options too
(and has also been outrighted before).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Can't get rid of Embree
He’s one of the few, effective relief options the A’s have. He’s not bad, and his ERA will go down – his K rate and K:BB ratio are both very good. I won’t get into the argument about whether he is better than Brown or not, but he certainly is more valuable.
I'm sorry, have you looked at the Sacramento roster?
Believe me, the A’s do not lack for left-handed relief options. There are probably 4 or 5 guys who could give them Ron Flores level production—and really, has Embree been that much better than Ron Flores?
As for Braden, check out his BABIP. It’s no surprise opponents hit .303 against him when they have a BABIP of .358. As I keep pointing out to anyone who will listen, his career FIP is 4.23 (and it’s been better this season).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Embree does seem to have the most trade value, e.g. Cardinals
and he isn’t much, if any, better than Blevins. I don’t see going to a 6 man pen with mostly 1-inning guys and almost no off days left though, especially with Smith and Eveland coming up against their career innings highs.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 11, 2008 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Dallas Braden is not more than capable
In the 85.1 innings he’s pitched for the A’s, opponents have hit .303 against him and he sports a 1.63 WHIP. I’ve seen how well he has pitched in Sacramento, but it hasn’t come close to translating at the big league level yet.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
