Next year's lineup

by pedoman on Aug 19, 2008 7:58 PM PDT Comment 69 comments

Well, along with every other A's fan, I am looking forward to next season. In the process I have spent a little time thinking about next year's lineup and whether we have a chance to succeed with what kind of talent exists on this team. Additionally, I am guilty of taunting Billy on this site about needing to go out and getting some power hitters. Yet, if one looks at this lineup it appears to me that he may not trade nor sign any free agents because he has enough players as it is at every position. It is downright scary the thought of next year's lineup, and the fact they we may very well stand pat this winter and be left with..........well...............this lineup.

Catcher: Suzuki

First Base: Barton

Second Base: Patterson, Pennington

Shortstop: Crosby

Third Base: Chavez

DH: Cust

Right field: Sweeney

Center Field: Gonzales

Left Field: Buck, Murton, Cunningham, Patterson

I put multiple players at certain positions due to the depth that exists. This depth further explains why Billy will not go out and get anyone to improve this situation; he already has enough players! All of these players are young and have some potential, I just seriously question whether this potential compares to the scoring potential of the Rangers and the Angels.

Concerning individual players I put in the this lineup, well, no one is going to want to trade for Crosby, he is here for the duration. Ellis won't be signed because Billy has enough middle infielders who are cheaper and potentially the same type of player as Ellis with Pennington and Patterson. (Jeez, Pennington in the field could be physically confused for Ellis! They uncannily look the same.) He has way too many outfielders with Buck, Gonzales, Sweeney, Murton, Cunningham, and on and on ad nauseum. With the exception of Gonzales, they are the same player. Cust is going no where due to his on base baloney, and Sweeney, although he has a good batting average, he is not showing me any power potential. But, he is the person replacing Nick Swisher so Billy will trot him out there regardless or not. Barton is staying, why else would Billy not send him down to AAA with his horrendous numbers? Suzuki has been good, but does anyone really think that those 18 doubles and 7 or 8 homers are really going to make a difference on this team offensively? And finally, based on media reports about his surgery and the lack of no backup, I can see Chavez playing next year and providing some offense. If Billy were, and that is a big WERE, going to sign anyone it would be a backup plan for Chavez. That would be Hank Blalock, good lord.

So the question is, does anyone think that next year's lineup is going to win any more games than this year? Does anyone think that Billy will actually replace anyone in the lineup via trades or free agency? And don't get me started on the pitching staff. As of tonight, this Gallagher dude is becoming questionable. But, I said I wouldn't get started on the pitching staff. Is this 300 words yet?

0 recs | Comment 69 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

With this roster when will 2010 get here?

by calas on Aug 19, 2008 8:11 PM PDT reply actions

+1

So basically we are running the same crap lineup out there that we already have? Sweet!
Looking forward to that #1 draft pick I guess.

by HRH on Aug 19, 2008 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions

It's seeming unlikely that Chavvy is going to play 3b again ...

pencil him in at 1b/dh along with Barton and Cust, who will continue to see significant time in LF, leaving a huge whole at 3b with no real internal options.

I think Barton will be given every opportunity to bounce back at 1b/dh, if we don’t bring back Ellis, it’ll be because we like Patterson or Pennington there.

I don’t think there’ll be room on the roster to bring in someone (other than Pennington) to compete with Crosby, so he’ll be the starter (assuming the team likes Pennington), assuming he’s back.

The outfield is set, assuming Cust isn’t moved.

Catcher is set too.

The Rangers have a very affordable option on Hank Blaylock so it is unlikely he will be a free agent. It’s possible that his recent injuries will make them pass, but I doubt it …

Chipper Jones is the sexy option — but it would likely take a very pretty penny to lure him out of Atlanta, especially to a team that is not a lock to contend.

After him there are several guys who should be fairly average and reasonably affordable so there isn’t really much room to upgraded the position through free agency.

All of the other upgrade options involve giving up on one of Cust, Barton or Chavez and I don’t see that happening.

With a few good breaks, that could be an average offense with a couple of breaks … but I think this is pretty clearly a team that is not likely to compete until at least 2010 …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 19, 2008 9:43 PM PDT reply actions

Maybe Mookie Blaylock and Popeye Jones are available on the cheap

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 Aug 19, 2008 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions

hank blalock is as much a 3b now as chavy is

at least with regards to this year since the rangers are sending Chris Davis back to 3rd when Hank comes back. Wouldn’t be surprised if that stuck for Blalock for the years that follow.

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's

by iamawesomer on Aug 19, 2008 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions

Upgrade

I really don’t see how we could get an upgrade by trading barton, chavez, or cust. I wouldn’t understand why they would have any trade value at all. I guess I could see a team wanting cust and if they do we should get rid of him as some of the analysis on this website has shown his numbers are way down. I mean yeah he walks a lot, but does that really matter when you strikeout that much, it kind of cancels out or the K’s even counterbalance.

by mattman on Aug 20, 2008 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions

"giving up on" not "giving up"

One of them would have to lose most of their playing time in order to open the spot for the new guy.

And, no, the strikeouts don’t cancel out or counterbalance the k’s. He gets on base and does not make an out over 37% of the time. That is very good. The problem is not that 54% of his outs are strikeouts. The problem is that over 80% of his non-outs this season only went for a single base.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 20, 2008 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Cust really needs to start working on his 2-base-walk skilz

There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 20, 2008 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Or his stolen base skills ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 20, 2008 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions

true...but

what about when you need to move a runner over from second to third with no outs, or when you need a sac fly when you have a risp < 2 outs. All this aside he’s an abomination out there in the outfield, whenever I see him in the lineup out in left I cringe and the further into the game you get the more worried you become about his lack of skills in the outfield, probably why he is always replaced or lifted for a pinch runner. I am fine with him at DH but he shouldn’t be an everyday or even part time outfielder.

by mattman on Aug 20, 2008 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions

There are very, very few situations when the team would actually benefit from

sacrificing to move a runner from second to third.

That said, a pull hitter who hits a fair amount of ground balls and deep fly balls would be a solid option in those situations.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 20, 2008 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Unless...he strikes out

by mattman on Aug 20, 2008 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes teams benefit from this all the time

how do you think games are won in the clutch, it definitely doesn’t happen by striking out. The angels do this very well and it is a fundamental that is taught from when you are in little league.

by mattman on Aug 20, 2008 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Really?

How many times this season would the game’s outcome likely have been different for the A’s if a runner had been moved over but instead the batter struck out?

Now keep in mind that the difference between Cust and a player that is good at avoiding strikeouts is only 2 in 10 …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 20, 2008 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes

The fundamentals of this game cannot be forgotten and when you’ve got street closing (did) insurance runs always make a difference and moving over runners is huge not only in the clutch, but throughout the game.

by mattman on Aug 20, 2008 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions

When did the fundamentals of the game come to mean failing in a manner that Joe Morgan approves of?

My Little League coach did encourage us to hit the other way sometimes … every now and then, in scrimmages, he’d pull the second baseman so that any ball that way would be a guaranteed hit. Most of the time, though, we just practiced hitting the ball in a fashion that made it as difficult as possible for the defense to field.

Hit the ball, field the ball, throw the ball — those are fundamentals. Situational hitting mostly just exists to give announcers something to talk about.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 20, 2008 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions

You've got to be kidding me, right?

How can you not say situational hitting is a fundamental part of baseball?

by mattman on Aug 20, 2008 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Okay ... I'll bite ...

by your standards, what is not a fundamental part of baseball … you know, among things that are actually a part of baseball … I will, of course grant you that playing the ukulele is not a fundamental part of baseball …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 20, 2008 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Banjo man got pissed for a second there

You’re walking a thin line here my musically-insulting friend.

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Aug 20, 2008 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions

hey, at least he didn't invoke the Tiptonesque slur against flugelhorn music

There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 21, 2008 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions

Pick your poison, AN

It’s gonna be a long night.

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Aug 21, 2008 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Situational Hitting

The giants just won a game on a sac fly just another example of situational hitting. Ohhh wait you’ll never believe this the runner at third base got there by a sacrifice bunt, it is unbelievable how this stuff works. After Wilson blows this save in the top half of the ninth the Giants played smart situational baseball and because of it they won the game. It’s hard to argue with that, wow that is situational timing right there thank you giants.

by mattman on Aug 20, 2008 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Tell that to Adam Dunn and Edwin Encarnacion.

You know, the guys who failed when they were told to sacrifice bunt…

and instead hit game winning home runs.

by mikev on Aug 20, 2008 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions

No...

they would probably try to hit a sac fly and if they got lucky a homer but their approach when they go to the plate is to get a deep fly ball because they know thats very doable and will win the game, just like molina did for the giants tonight.

by mattman on Aug 20, 2008 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions

F'n Giants ...

okay, give me a second to check out the box score …

Okay, so it was Bengie Molina at the bat …

I pulled together some numbers … did a little math, bear with me …

So Bengie Molina is pretty much the opposite extreme from Jack Cust. He never strikes out and never walks. You can very reliably assume that he will put the ball in play …

In that situation, assuming a neutral matchup, Bengie Molina is going to do something that leads to a win (hit, walk — which would lead to a win about 60% of the time, given batters who followed, 2/3 of all fly outs and 1/10 of all ground outs (I made those numbers up)) about 50% of the time. Jack Cust, on the other hand, thanks to all of those strikeouts, only does about 40% of the time. All told, having Bengie Molina instead of Jack Cust would lead to a win about an additional 8% of the time.

8%! That’s a fair amount, right?

Except when you consider that Jack Cust has had a runner at third with less than 2 outs only 18 times this season. Now I’ve only been able to find 17 out of those 18 instances. Only 4 of those 17 came in games when 1 run would have made a difference.

So, yeah … it doesn’t ACTUALLY make much of a difference. Yes, all things even, you’d rather have a guy that doesn’t strike out. But, when all other things aren’t held even, they are so much more important that strikeouts as opposed to other outs are basically inconsequential.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 20, 2008 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions

I've spent the last hour searching the internet

For a way to find a hitter’s Win Expectancy. It’s talked about in Baseball Between the Numbers, but after 2006 it seems to have vanished. Baseball Prospectus talks about it for pitchers and different situations, but I can’t seem to find it or any other statistical way to measure situational hitting, any help?

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Aug 21, 2008 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions

Here ya go …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 21, 2008 12:21 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Cust

Well it looks like we should sign Cust to a long term deal…what do say 7 yrs 90 mil

by mattman on Aug 21, 2008 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions

On the strength of being the only qualified player on the squad with a positive

win probability added …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 21, 2008 12:35 AM PDT up reply actions

Thanks

So yeah, apparently Cust is a pretty good situational hitter going by that chart.

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Aug 21, 2008 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions

Really?

You can talk numbers and break out your calculator until you’re blue in the face for all I care. At the end of the day I would rather have a contact hitter, you can say Molina if you want in the batters box than Jack Cust. Its more of a mentality than anything you don’t end the game striking out looking at a close pitch something Cust has become accustomed to doing. Any big leaguer would tell you this and frankly I agree with them, you can’t leave the game in the hands of the umpire to make a call or not a call.

by mattman on Aug 21, 2008 12:02 AM PDT up reply actions

Okay, whatever ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 21, 2008 12:20 AM PDT up reply actions

You can...

strikeout with Cust…I’ll walk off with Molina

by mattman on Aug 21, 2008 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Thanks, that really added something to the discussion ...

{yawn}

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 21, 2008 12:33 AM PDT up reply actions

The Whole Point

Is that you can’t go up to the plate with that sort of mentality, although he ranks first in plate discipline we lacks the contact percentage which I think is a better way to go in these types of situations.

by mattman on Aug 21, 2008 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions

You're missing the point ...

yes, a high contact percentage is ideal in those situations … I agree, I’ve said that several times, I’ve even shown it statistically … BUT those situations are so rare and the differences generally so marginal, that you should really just focus on having the best players possible.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 21, 2008 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions

Generally...

the best players out there, well for the most part, demonstrate this skill all the time which produces runs and rbi’s

by mattman on Aug 21, 2008 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions

Well Jack Cust has a career .375 batting average

w/ a runner on third and less than 2 outs …

which tells us … absolutely nothing …

Yes, no shit, the best players tend to be the best players in ALL situations. That’s what being the best players is all about and happens to be what my point has been all along.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 21, 2008 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions

To be fair

He has improved his fielding this year. Early in the year he had his bad moments (oops the ball isnt in my glove) but he has improved. Last year he had a FP of 959, this year he’s 976. According to Baseball Prospectus, this year his Rate is 99. If your rate is 100 its league average. His Fielding Runs above Average is only -1.

If he stays the way he is now, I’m satisfied with his fielding. Ty Waller said he’s been shagging a lot more balls and working hard, and maybe he’s improving. Either way, I wouldn’t say he’s an abomination. This year he’s been barely below average. Barely.

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Aug 20, 2008 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm sorry, but I have trouble rosterbating with "pedoman"

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 Aug 19, 2008 9:52 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

+1

by oakinboston on Aug 20, 2008 5:26 AM PDT up reply actions

That lineup looks an awful lot like this year's lineup, which is too bad, because this year's

lineup really sucks.

by solotar on Aug 19, 2008 10:01 PM PDT reply actions

Well ... if Barton and CarGon take a step forward ...

and Chavvy is healthy and productive, that would go a long way to making the same lineup not suck …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 19, 2008 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions

On base Baloney?

He gets on the bases! That’s good! It’s not baloney—it’s the point of batting!

Sigh.

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Aug 19, 2008 10:21 PM PDT reply actions

no the point of batting is getting hits

which jack cust is turrible at, all he’s good at in hitting is getting strickouts.

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's

by iamawesomer on Aug 19, 2008 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions

And Getting on base!

In fact He’s the best on the A’s at doing so! This isn’t a hard concept people.

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Aug 19, 2008 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions

it was a joke ;)

but i agree with your sentiment

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Aug 19, 2008 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions

I think I have whiplash

from watching the joke fly so quickly over my head.

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Aug 20, 2008 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions

Basically if someone who can spell writes "strickout" it means they're joking

(there was one anti-cust poster who just couldn’t get his head wrapped around the “s-t-r-i-k-e” concept)

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Aug 20, 2008 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions

I could have sworn the point of batting is scoring runs ...

(though it is easy to forget that with this year’s offense … they got a base runner?!? what a huge inning!)

which is fundamentally impossible without first getting at least one runner on base. A hit, of course, is better than a walk, but a walk is pretty darn good, too.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 19, 2008 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions

{shakes head sadly}

“strickouts,” devo. “strickouts.”

There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 20, 2008 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions

my bad ...

he did the impersonation too well …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 20, 2008 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions

that was extremely well done

There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 20, 2008 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions

CONFUSION

Batter

Function: noun
Date: 1773
one that bats; especially : the player whose turn it is to bat

The term BATTER doesn’t imply HITTER. The basic function of the BATTER is TO GET ON BASE. This can be accomplished by a) Hitting the ball into play b) walking or c) getting hit by the pitch. I think everyone here would enjoy a few more of “a”, but HOWEVER you get on base is a GOOD THING. The basic problem is most of the A’s choose NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Enjoy the game

by DCinWC on Aug 20, 2008 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions