"The A's Offense Won't Be Horrible"? No, That's Not Quite It...
by Nico on Jan 10, 2009 6:06 PM PST
418 comments
As bad as the A's offense was in 2008 - and to put it in proper perspective, there was a brief "good stretch" where it almost aspired to be putrid - it seems like a reasonable goal for the offense one year later might be "passable," maybe even only slightly lagging behind "league average" if things roll right.
The fact, though, is that things can change really fast, especially since you only send nine hitters to the plate so improving at just one position is an 11% improvement, two positions a 22% improvement, and so on.
The A's are still aiming to improve at SS and if they do acquire a new player, he or she is bound to be an offensive upgrade. But as far as changes that have already been made, Chavez has taken Hannahan's spot, Giambi has taken a spot from someone who batted .226 last season, and Matt Holliday, a true impact player, has been added. When you look at the end result, it's pretty impressive.
Holliday is one of the few hitters who can actually be described as a bigger threat than Vlad Guerrero. The Angels have recently been a team with a "so-so offense, but there's always Vlad" - the one impact hitter, on either team, who can carry an offense on his back. The A's now actually have the better Vlad.
The heart of the order, with Cust, Holliday, Giambi, and Chavez, isn't just acceptable, it's darn good. And those guys will be batting 44% of the time for Oakland. Balancing out the "take and rake boys" are some pretty good hitters to have outside the middle of an order: Kurt Suzuki, Ryan Sweeney, and either Travis Buck and/or Daric Barton, are guys who can make a lot of contact, and hit for a decent average, while Mark Ellis is a pretty good luxury to be able to store at the bottom of an order.
I'm seeing one of these two lineups, and I think it's not just a little better than the Angels' current lineup - I think it's a lot better.
Buck - RF Sweeney - CF
Cust - DH Cust - LF
Holliday - LF Holliday - RF
Giambi - 1B Giambi - DH
Chavez - 3B Chavez - 3B
Suzuki - C Suzuki - C
Sweeney - CF Barton - 1B
Ellis - 2B Ellis - 2B
Shortstop Shortstop
In fact, I actually think it could be - dare I say it - above average. Whodathunkit?
0 recs |
418 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Lineup #2, I don't think Cust plays LF and Holliday RF
Not that it matters for the sake of a post about offense, but Holliday is an above average LF — I’d probably leave him there and just have ONE subpar outfielder instead of two.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 6:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I’m confused. Who are the subpar outfielders in your mind? If Holliday is in LF, you say there is one. If Holliday is in RF, there are two. Who are they?
by Rocktopus on Jan 10, 2009 6:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cust in LF, Holliday in RF
Holliday’s arm isn’t good enough for him to be in right field, and I don’t see the sense in moving him from a spot where he’s become better than average.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 7:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh ok, I see.
I’m not sure I agree but I understand what you’re saying now. With all the possible configurations now that Giambi has been signed, it can get confusing.
Personally, Holliday’s arm would have to be pretty bad for me to put Cust at RF.
by Rocktopus on Jan 10, 2009 7:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why don't you agree?
Holliday is a very good defensive LF, but he has a poor arm so he’d be a below average RF.
Cust’s arm is fine, and there’s no real difference between defending left or right field.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 7:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming what you are saying is true, then I would agree.
I just don’t know how bad Holliday’s arm is, how good Cust’s arm is, whether or not there is a real difference between defending left or right field and whether the difference in arm strength and accuracy between Holliday and Cust outweighs the difference in range between Holliday and Cust.
by Rocktopus on Jan 10, 2009 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tracking down balls and catching them -- not much difference.
Fielding a base hit and making a throw to third? Huge difference.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 9:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Where are more balls hit?
I’d want Holliday there, arm be damned, even if the difference is only 52/48. What is the ratio? I actually don’t have a clue.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
More balls are hit to RF
Most playable fly balls are hit to the opposite field.
The differential isn’t great, but 52/48 seems like it might be about right to me, actually…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 10, 2009 9:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's about what I assumed
and in that case I really would play Cust in LF and Holliday in RF.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There has to be a greater difference in Cust and Holliday's ability to track down balls and catch them than you are suggesting.
Otherwise, Cust wouldn’t be considered a poor defender. I mean, if Cust can track down and catch balls almost as well as Holliday (who he is considered an above average fielder) AND he has a better arm, it would seem illogical that Holliday be considered a good fielder and Cust one of the worst.
by Rocktopus on Jan 10, 2009 9:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No question - Cust's range is terrible
while Holliday’s is, IIRC, quite solid. That’s why what I care about is where the most balls are hit; that’s where you need Holliday. The issue of arm strength is a relatively small one compared to catching as many playable balls as possible.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd have to think more balls are hit to left field
Since there are many more right-handed batters.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this. It’s more important to me to make outs than it is to prevent runners from advancing. If PT is correct that more balls are hit to RF, I think I want Holliday playing right when Cust is in left.
by Rocktopus on Jan 10, 2009 9:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe it's just me...
but, I tend to correlate an outfielders range with his ability to steal bases. Holliday steals bases well. Cust probably does not.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 10, 2009 9:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's just you
Better to correlate an outfielder’s range with his range.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
no, I think there is something to my theory...
I shall research it further.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 10, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ahem, I concur, sir
(dicaprio in that movie w/ T Hanks, where he’s a phony surgeon, airplane pilot, etc.. . .) However, I elect not to research. Makes sense to me, the faster guy has more range.
by oaklidiot on Jan 11, 2009 12:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There IS more to range than speed
Good routes, getting a good jump, etc, but I don’t think there’s any evidence that Cust is better at that than Holliday.
by Nate on Jan 11, 2009 12:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Byrnes was always better than Kotsay....
despite what you think. And, guess what, he stole a hell of a lot of bases when he went to the D-backs.
Good routes are bullshit if you can make up for poor ones with incredible speed. That’s what good players are all about. That’s why you have to look at them play rather than just look at the stats.
That’s why Byrnes was always better than Kotsay.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 11, 2009 1:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's an awesome analysis...
…of two players absolutely no one is talking about right now.
by Nate on Jan 11, 2009 2:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you miss the point entirely...
am I talking about two players that no one is talking about now? Or am I talking about the same players you’re talking about?
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 11, 2009 3:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just like speed is not all range is about,
speed is also not what stolen bases are all about. In both cases, speed is a significant asset, but in neither case is it the be all and end all.
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 Jan 11, 2009 8:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Both stealing bases and catching fly balls
are about Speed, Awareness and Bravery.
Stealing Bases: Awareness on whether or not it’s a good idea to run. Bravery for actually initiating it. Speed to get you there.
Fly Balls: Awareness on the route to take. Bravery for diving or sliding. Speed to get you there.
I think Byrnes was low on the awareness, and high on the bravery. Kotsay was probably high on the awareness, and didn’t really need to show off the bravery.
by LoneStranger on Jan 12, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I was talking about Cust and Holliday
I can’t imagine how either of them is particularly comparable to Byrnes or Kotsay in any facet of the game.
by Nate on Jan 11, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agree
This analysis is slightly off topic by you but who says byrnes was better besides you? actually most people that know baseball thought Kotsay deserved gold Gloves while patrolling the A’s CF…Trust me not too many people thought the same about Byrnes…You are taking the idea that if he makes an incredible catch he must be better…not to say your wrong i think its fun to see someone dive for a ball however Kotsay would make the same play look easy. Kotsay is undoubtedly slower than Byrnes but plays a better defensive CF or did at least. Byrnes made me downright nervous, horrible jumps on balls, horrible routes…spectacular catches once or twice a week….Kotsay great jumps on balls, great routes, all around good solid defender. My main point is to let you know speed does not correlate directly to either stealing bases or making plays in the field and stealing bases definitely doesnt necessarily mean your going to be a good defender and doesnt mean your the fastest guy in the league. trust me speed is an invaluable asset that is irreplaceable in stealing bases as well as making defensive plays but it is not the only factor and I believe you could make a valuable argument its not the most important in doing either of them…
by yawedout21 on Jan 13, 2009 12:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe it's just me ...
but, you tend to correlate an outfielder’s range with his ability to be named “Eric Byrnes.”
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 12, 2009 11:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, there is a difference
Cust, like Eric Byrnes before him, tracks the path of flyballs using sonar. Luckily, Burnes had the speed to make up for his horrible tracking skills. Cust, on the other hand, does not.
Holliday, like a normal human being, gets good jumps on balls and tracks flyballs using his ability to sense visible light. This, apparently, is a skill Jack Cust lacks…
I don’t think it matters much where we put Cust and Holliday. The key will be the positioning of our CF in between those two — if Cust is in RF, Sweeney should shade a little bit to the RF side of the OF to help Cust in the RF gap; we’ll have to count on Holliday to cover more ground than normal in LF and the LF gap, but that shouldn’t be a problem since Holliday’s a plus-defender. So, I would say, Holliday (LF), Sweeney (CF), Cust (RF), with Sweeney shading to help Cust in the RF gap.
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 12, 2009 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
misleading
The lineups look a bit misleading with Chavez in there. His name gives our 5 spot some credibility. If he is injured or totally ineffective and you replace him again with Jack Hannahan, suddenly the lineup looks pretty mediocre again.
But that might just be what we have to accept as 2009 A’s fans. This team could be pretty good…if Chavez is healthy. If not? Well…
by SeanR on Jan 10, 2009 6:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Sure he can - as much as Devine or Ziggy can be counted on as closers
It’s good/important to have a Plan B that still allows you to remain competitive, but until he has a setback he’s the starting 3Bman.
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 Jan 10, 2009 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cust strikes out a lot for a number 2 hitter.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 6:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
He gets on base a hell of a lot though.
Plus, he sees a lot of pitches per at bat and hardly ever GIDPs.
Depending on whether it’s Sweeney or Buck (or someone else, who knows) that’s leading off, it could actually lead to quite a bit more SB attempts from the leadoff position.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 6:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's also the HR thing -- good way to get out to a quick 1-0 or 2-0 lead.
Or, he strikes out and Holliday comes up with 1 on and 1 out.
Or, he walks and Holliday comes up with 2 on and 0 out.
There are really a lot of advantages you can come up with as long as you ignore the “moving runners over, sacrifice himself, do the little things, david eckstein small white guy” things.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 6:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree and disagree
Cust’s propensity for taking pitches could lead to more SB opportunities; unfortunately, I’m not sure Sweeney or Buck has the base-stealing skills to take advantage of those opportunities. This is not to say that those guys couldn’t learn the skills necessary to become good base-stealers, I just haven’t seen those guys flash those skills yet…
If only Eric Patterson could (1) get on base more consistently and (2) play CF, then we’d really be able to take advantage of Cust’s pitch selection (takes lots of pitches), handedness (stealing second is easier with a left-handed hitter up because the C can’t see first base as clearly), and lack of GIDP (probably the result of his extreme flyball tendencies).
I am warming to the idea of Cust in the 2-hole with Holliday and Giambi following… didn’t like it at first, but it seems like a better option the more it gets discussed on this board.
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 12, 2009 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The trouble with stealing while Cust is up, as I think PT pointed out,
is that Cust walks a lot and gets few hits, and the hits he gets tend to score runners from 1st anyway. So risking a caught stealing for the benefit of being on second, instead of first, while Cust is hitting? Not really a lot of benefit.
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 Jan 12, 2009 4:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cust: he can clog the basepaths without even getting on base!
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 12, 2009 6:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he also gets on base a lot for any hitter
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 10, 2009 6:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Where has it been shown in any way that striking out matters (significantly) more as a 2 hitter than elsewhere?
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 7:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it probably matters in the 4-5 spots,
or wherever you get the most “runner at third, less than two out” ABs. But #2 isn’t that place.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but even then the numbers are probably fairly insignificant
A couple runs here or there over the course of a season is probably all the difference, but I’m just speculating.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 9:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just so you know. It's far more than a couple of runs per season, I'll guarantee you that.
by jdub69 on Jan 10, 2009 10:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so cust should bat second, where the K's don't matter as much
right!
More Rajai Davis & less mount Davis
by Athletics fan and runner on Jan 11, 2009 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
not that Ks
matter that much at all.
We are a take and rake offense. K’s are better than DPs.
More Rajai Davis & less mount Davis
by Athletics fan and runner on Jan 11, 2009 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup - probably the worst thing you can do
is to put a high DP guy in the #2 spot.
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 Jan 11, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt it's even that much
Lineup construction isn’t worth much to begin with, and the difference between Ks and other outs is so miniscule that it hardly bears bothering to think about.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't ever understand this statement.
If is is as unimportant as you claim why don’t teams randomize their batting order?
Obvious right?
So then why dont we line up the best hitters in order 1-9?
Obvious again.
Also what about letting certain players see better pitches? I think lineup construction is most definitely important for various reasons or else wny not bat Holliday number 9 behind Crosby and Ellis?
by throttle mathius on Jan 11, 2009 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like to construct lineups with an idea of
HOW runs might score. I want my base-stealers hitting ahead of singles hitters, my power hitters hitting after guys who get on base, and so on. If a lineup is optimal, you ought to be able to look even at the 7-8-9 and see how that combination might manufacture its runs.
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 Jan 11, 2009 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you have something better to do as a manager, lining up the best hitters in order 1-9 is the best shortcut
Yes, there are ways to incrementally improve on that, but they don’t make that much of a difference.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The argument
that lineup construction doesn’t matter has always relied on a logic chain that is missing a key piece of fundamental data. Typically, someone looking at lineup construction takes a team of hitters, looks at their performances for the year and plugs those performances into a simulator, seeing what happens in a different lineup construction.
The problem with that way of doing it is that it ignores the possibility that those performances are to some degree a product of the lineup they were actually in. Most teams that don’t have massive injury issues will tend to have relatively static lineup construction throughout the season. The fewer number of circumstances where a manager juggles his lineup constantly leads to there being no valid sample size for deciding whether a certain lineup is significantly better than another.
by Nate on Jan 11, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you can get away with looking at hitter-independant stats to determine your lineup.
RBIs, for example, are a product of where you hit in the lineup. HRs are typically not (though you could argue that another HR hitter protecting behind him would help).
by LoneStranger on Jan 12, 2009 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think we can really be sure.
If a guy spends year X leading off and has an OBP of .350, then spends the next year batting 2nd and his OBP is .330, why is that? Is he batting differently, trying to bunt more or do hit-and-runs? Are the pitchers pitching differently, because there’s more likely to be a man on base? Are his skills declining? We don’t have an understanding of how a lineup’s construction affects individual performances, (other than stats like RBIs, but who uses that for statistical analysis anymore?)
by Nate on Jan 12, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, that .020 of OBP is all of one out of every 50 plate appearances,
which could just be a couple borderline 3-2 pitches called balls or strikes every 100 times you hit.
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 Jan 12, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The reason people say it's unimportant is that there's not much difference
between the way managers actually make lineups and an optimal lineup.There’s a relatively significant difference between a normal lineup and a random lineup, and a pretty huge difference between normal lineups and intentionally bad lineups.
Putting the best hitters in order 1-9 would be better than putting mediocre/bad hitters in the 1 and 2 spots, which many teams do.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Jan 11, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
As long as you avoid obvious idiocy, like batting your pitcher leadoff or something, it doesn’t make that much difference. Even MLB managers are capable of figuring that one out.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 8:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
{crosses out suggested lineup for Tuesday's post}
Gallagher Buck
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 Jan 11, 2009 9:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
about chavy
he’s actually said he thinks he’s going to be 100% this year. given his level of honesty, i think that means something…now, i’m not saying he’s going to be as good as he was pre-injuries, but if he’s close AND healthy, that’s a huge plus.
by guy incognito on Jan 10, 2009 6:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Because Chavvy has been so definite...
I feel great hope .
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 6:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, actually because he's been so unconfident
It’s not that at all. If you recall, he was singing a totally different tune at the end of his 2008, when he thought his 3B career was over.
Turn to January 2009, and I’m probably not the only one who reads into Chavez’s comments and hears something he’s notoriously lacked, and that’s confidence. The organization was fully ready, as were we, to go on with Chavez never playing 3B again. Instead, Eric speaks out, insisting he remain at the hot corner.
I didn’t see these comments coming, but if he can play anywhere near his career average defense while hitting .250/22/86, we’ll be surprisingly fine. And Eric Chavez will have had more confidence than I thought.
http://www.myspace.com/ryanmac10
by RyanFromBonas on Jan 10, 2009 7:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You think he's
only saying that he feels fit because he is trying to protect his career? Hmnnnn….
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 7:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
RyanFromBonas, the numbers you describe
are exactly what I’m expecting/hoping from Chavez in 2009, and I think that’s sufficient for the A’s offense to be in very good shape.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's gonna win the MVP.
You heard it here first.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 9:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Go to the ER right now, because
I’m pretty sure you’re about to have an aneursym.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This lineup is miles better than the slegnA
their best hitter has knee issues, their 2nd best hitter is their catcher, the rest are pretty meh
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 10, 2009 6:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
plus their manager doesn't know how a lineup goes together.
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 10, 2009 6:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As much as I despise his
gopher looking face, I’m pretty sure he can count to nine.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Jan 10, 2009 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
no, i think miles signed with the cubs
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 11, 2009 10:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I do like our lineup...
compared to last year. But… Is Holliday really a bigger threat than Vlad??
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 6:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
When you look at OBP and the element of SB,
Holliday has clear advantages. However, if you look only at Holliday’s road slugging and compare it to Vlad’s career slugging, Vlad has a clear advantage. So it’s not a slam-dunk, but I’d give Holliday the edge at this point in their respective careers.
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 Jan 10, 2009 6:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Holliday hit in Colorado.
He needs to prove that he’s a good hitter in Oakland before I will think of him with the same kind of awe that I feel when thinking of Vlad.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Holliday hit everywhere
Just because he played in Colorado doesn’t mean he’s got a Dante Bichette split.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 7:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He did NOT hit as well
on the road as he did in Colorado.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 7:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just a .900 OPS instead of .960 at home last year.
Also, remember that a bunch of his road games in his career have been at Petco and Chavez Ravine.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 8:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok.
But I never said he hit AS WELL, so, um, what’s your argument? He was an All-Star regardless of Coors.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 8:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I never said that he wasn't.
I said that I won’t think of him with the same sense of awe as I feel towards Vlad until I see him hit like he did in the NL here. You’re getting all pissy for no good reason. Chill out.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 8:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 10, 2009 8:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Holliday has slugged .645 at home and .455 on the road
for his career – it’s a big difference. But I also know that most players slug/hit better at home, so I’d say his “true” slugging pct is probably around .525. That would mean Coors gives him .120 points of slugging, which is a heck of a lot, but that he is still a great hitter, i.e., a .300/.400/.525 slugger who can steal bases.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He is an awesome hitter.
I am very excited to have Holliday on the A’s. He was a top hitter in the NL last year and a top hitter in all of baseball. But I have watched Vlad for so long that I am quite in awe of him. It’s a subjective opinion of mine…that I think Vlad is the bomb. It doesn’t mean that I am denigrating Holliday. You boys just jump on anything…it’s really quite annoying.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 9:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For the record, my post was in your defense
in case that didn’t come across. I am also in awe of Vlad, but I think he is finally getting ready to start the slow decline that is inevitable with any hitter. I still think he’ll be very good the next few years, but that his best seasons are behind him. And he’s never been a .400 OBP guy, which Holliday is. But part of my reasoning in saying Holliday is better has to due with the age and health of each player.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It seemed like both...
and maybe I am just getting cross myself at this point. Too much football today. Sorry for snapping at you… The problem that I am having is that sometimes something is just an opinion and people want to turn that into a debate. I am willing to listen to other views but I don’t like the feeling that people are putting a spin on my post and turning them in a direction that was not an indicator of my views. You guys have a lot of good points and I am not necessarily in disagreement with you about them. You have pretty much convinced me now that Cust would be good in the two spot. See? An old dog(don’t use the b word) can learn new tricks.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't worry -
I would never use the term “beagle”.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
beagles are cute,
but completely unreliable. They wander off a lot.
Maybe I’m part beagle.
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Jan 11, 2009 12:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And beagles start to smell bad when they get old.
:(
by mrod on Jan 11, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Poochini is 13 and he still smells very well
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 Jan 11, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He is an exception to the rule my friend.
Would you say he is
’above average", then?
:*)
by mrod on Jan 11, 2009 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The difference has been pretty big every season,
with the closest thing to an exception being 2008 when Holliday slugged only .100 points better at home than away. Even in 2007 he was insane at home (.722), compared to .485 away.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
See, to me that says it's not the "Coors is ridiculously friendly to hitters" thing
and the “Holliday happens to enjoy a home-field boost more than most” thing. If he is still way outproducing his road numbers even after the Coors playing field has been leveled, maybe he just gets comfy in a place and really rakes.
I’m more worried about his jump to the AL (which somebody did mention) than his jump from Coors to McAfee.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm more worried that Larry Davis will introduce himself
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
coors helps, division hurts
a lot of his road games are in particularly hitter-unfriendly parks, which definitely plays a factor in his splits. i think his home/road splits will converge much more with us…he won’t be quite as good a home hitter as he was, but he’ll be a better road hitter. and in the end, i suspect he’ll put up similar numbers for the year.
by guy incognito on Jan 11, 2009 6:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
methinks you misunderstood my "lol"
I was laughing at this part:
You’re getting all pissy for no good reason. Chill out.
Not Oakgal’s substantive point… which I agree with. I should’ve been more specific in my “lol.”
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 10, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No D...
Don’t worry about it. The problem with online stuff is that when you aren’t talking facing to face you don’t have facial keys and tone of voice …so sometimes things sound worse than what they are. I usually am able to ignore little aggravations but today I let it bug me. That’s on me not you all.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 10:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So you can't tell when I'm mad?
Because I hit the keys REALLY hard when I am.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, that wasn't random.
I think we both know what I mean by that.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 10:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You will likely never feel that awe
because, as fans, we typically feel more dread with the opposing team’s stud than we feel confidence in our own stud. Its along the lines of thinking that winning never feels as good as losing feels bad. Even with that, I am fired up about seeing Holliday in green and gold.
"I'm more into going home and being horizontal" - Lew Wolff
by bvank on Jan 11, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i say yes mainly because holliday is in his prime.
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 10, 2009 6:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I also want to point out that Geren was quoted in the Chron
a couple days ago saying he was considering batting Cust second in the order. So for those who say “It’ll never happen,” it might or might not happen but it is definitely a possibility. Personally, I think that’s where he belongs in this current lineup.
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 Jan 10, 2009 6:24 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
agreed
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 10, 2009 6:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cust batting second is
beginning to grow on me. It’ll be interesting to see how he’s pitched. If the lead off guy is on, the opposing pitcher better have a good command of his junk pitches. Otherwise, he faces Holiday with no outs and two on with Giambi to follow. It makes for an interesting proposition. I’m thinking the lower tier pitchers are going to be forced to try and get their fastball by him.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Jan 10, 2009 6:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He'll be pitched like he's pitched all the other times he comes up to bat
Pitchers really do not change how they pitch based on who is in the lineup. They just don’t.
Didn’t Barry Bonds draw about the same number of IBBs with Jeff Kent hitting behind him as he did when Ray Durham was hitting behind him?
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 7:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah Bonds did....
But I think he set a record when Kent was behind him.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Jan 10, 2009 8:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
Teams intentionally walked Bonds when a HOF 2B was behind him in the lineup. Why? Because in reality, pitchers/catchers/coaches know that the most important batter is the one who is actually batting, not who is on deck.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 8:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a lot less true in the IBB scenario
Or do you not think Bonds would have had more IBB with Crosby hitting behind him?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Jan 10, 2009 8:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Point being....
Bonds was in fact pitched differently.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Jan 10, 2009 8:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not because of who was hitting behind him
But because of his own awesomeness.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 9:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He absolutely belongs second.
And I like that you put Holliday between the lefties, as staggering L/R is actually more important than a strict by The Book lineup (where I would put Holliday fourth and Giambi third or fifth).
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 7:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lineup
I LOVE the idea of Cust batting second in the order. Although he strikes out alot he takes alot of pitches and led the league in walks last season. This will set the table nicely for Holliday, Giambi, and Chavez. I would prefer Sweeney to get the first shot at the leadoff spot because he hit around .300 most of the year and the Buck leadoff experiment didnt go so well last season. In regards to the first base position, I believe the A’s will give Daric Barton every opportunity to redeem himself from his disapointing rookie season, and if he struggles then move Giambi to first base and stick Buck or Cunningham in RF
by Oakland is part of the A's on Jan 10, 2009 6:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think whoever has the higher OBP (between Sweeney and Buck)
should leadoff, simple as 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
by Nico on Jan 10, 2009 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
then it'll be Swooney
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 10, 2009 7:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you say that?
I like Swooney, but Buck can be a .370-.380 OBP guy if his body parts are working.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 7:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
meh
I don’t really feel that strongly about it. I’d be just as happy seeing Travis lead off. I think he might have more power than Sweeney (this year). So, I’d bat him somewhere after Chavez. I’d switch them around in Nico’s first lineup.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 10, 2009 8:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That second part is the clincher.
I don’t remember where I read it, but there was some obscure sentence somewhere that said Buck has NEVER played more than 7 consecutive games.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 8:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But we're talking what lineup would you prefer
And I’d prefer Buck as the leadoff guy if he’s on the roster. I do think there needs to be a backup plan. Swooney isn’t a terrible backup plan.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 8:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd PREFER Jose Reyes.
But yeah, I’ll take the “2007-was-not-a-fluke-dammit” Buck, thanks.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 8:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sweeney's
BABIP was really high last year. I predict him to regress…. I think that Buck will be better in 09, unless he spends too much time with Larry Davis.
More Rajai Davis & less mount Davis
by Athletics fan and runner on Jan 11, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see Sweeney's true line right now as around
.270/.350/.400. Which would be fine if he were a plus CFer like Carlos Gonzalez was, or like Denorfia and Davis are, but it doesn’t thrill me given his CF-ability.
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 Jan 11, 2009 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If he can do that and just be passable in CF, that's pretty damn good.
He wouldn’t need to be a plus CF to be an overall good player, would he?
by mikev on Jan 11, 2009 9:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say it's decent, not "pretty damn good"
Just being passable in CF doesn’t do much for me. It’s too important a defensive position.
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 Jan 11, 2009 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a good reason to keep Rajai on the 25 man IMO.
Especially if Cust is going to be playing in the outfield a lot.
Being able to put a plus CF in the game in the 7th inning, and shift Sweeney to RF where he appeared to be pretty damn good last year is a pretty big deal.
by mikev on Jan 11, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like that idea - plus if Cust is batting #2,
he will often get his fourth AB in the B7/T8 inning, meaning you get 4 ABs for only 7 innings of his defense.
A good reason to keep Denorfia instead of Rajai is that Denorfia is good enough against LHP to be a viable platoon option in CF, giving you 9 innings of plus CF-defense – or 2 innings in place of Cust late in games.
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 Jan 11, 2009 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also true, but I wonder if Denorfia has fallen out of favor or something?
Wouldn’t WE (paging PT) have just called him up last year instead of claiming Davis?
by mikev on Jan 11, 2009 10:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he needed the year to fully recover from TJ surgery
As I recall, his performance was far better the second half of the season at AAA than the first.
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 Jan 11, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, he also had the back injury
Didn’t help matters any. I suppose it may have been caused by overcompensating for the elbow somehow, but I’m not even remotely qualified to figure that out.
He certainly came on strong at the end of the season— he hit something like .400/.500/.800 with 4 HR in 10 games in the AAA playoffs. The power rebound is encouraging.
As for why the A’s claimed Davis, Denorfia was already showing effects of the back injury by that time.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What Denofia gives up in speed and CF defense,
by being very good but not great, he could easily make up for by being a legitimately good hitter against LHP – something R. Davis isn’t and something Sweeney may not even be. Advantage: Denorfia.
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 Jan 11, 2009 12:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tragically, Denorfia also appears to have
given up an “r” at one point, but seems to have recovered it by the end of the comment.
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 Jan 11, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Whew...
for a second there I thought he’d been traded to Boston.
"When I was a kid, having someone correct your grammar was a sign that they cared and wanted you to present yourself in the best possible light. That being said, you should really learn the difference between plurals and possessives." -- RS
by oblique on Jan 11, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Above average? That's asking a lot.
Last year the A’s finished dead last in the AL in runs scored at 646. The mean for runs scored was 775, the median was 786. When you start talking about above average I think you need to be at least 5% higher than the midpoint, be it mean (814) or median (825).
825 runs scored last year would have given the A’s the 4th best offense in the AL, 814 runs would have earned them 5th place. In a 14 team league, 4th/5th place would certainly qualify as above average.
Looking at the lower number (814) the A’s would still need to improve their offense by 169 runs from last season, assuming the rest of the AL’s offenses showed no change in scoring from 2008. Holliday is a great addition, maybe a 60 run bump from Brown based on his projected Runs Created. The A’s didn’t get a lot out of the DH last year when Cust wasn’t in the spot, so even an older Giambi could be worth a 30-40 run bump from last year. That still leaves a round number 70 run spot to be filled by whatever’s left of Chavez and the rest of the line-up. If you believe that Chavez can give the A’s 140-150 games then maybe there’s a chance, but Ellis doesn’t have that much more to give and Crosby is still darkening the door at SS.
Going from worst to solidly average would be a major improvement.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 10, 2009 6:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
but what is an average offense in the coli?
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 10, 2009 7:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I completely disagree with your arbitrary 5%
Above average means in the top 7 of 14 teams. Otherwise we’re in the “Oakland plays adequate defense. They’re ranked #2 in the AL” zone.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Jan 10, 2009 8:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
5% isn't arbitrary, it's allowing for some play between average and above average
You know, slightly above average?
If the 7th placed team is average, then to place 6th (and qualify for your definition of above average) the A’s would have to score 806 runs based on 2008 standings. 806 runs would have been good enough to field the 6th best offense in the AL last year.
I set the target at 814.
You decide if you want to argue over an 8 run difference in goal setting.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 9:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Average + above that = above average
Whether you calculate “average” to relate to the mean, median, or some other way, one run more than that is above that average.
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 Jan 11, 2009 9:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's ridiculous
If the 7th, 6th and 5th ranked teams in offense were separated by 1 run apiece, it would be far more accurate to say that the offenses were equivalent, not that the 5th place offense was clearly superior than the “average” offense.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it would be inaccurate to use the term
“clearly superior” in place of “above average”. “Above average” does not inherently imply success. It is often associated with an achievement level to be proud of, but it is in fact only a descriptive term that can sometimes be a mere technicality or sometimes more. But when there is an average, everything is either above it, below it, or right on it.
On this one, you’re just objectively wrong, grover. Honestly, IMO your credibility on this site would be far higher if you would just acknowledge it sometimes, instead of arguing any point you first make more and more fervently no matter what.
“Above!”
“Average!”
“Near!”
“Far!”
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 Jan 11, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't realize my credibility was so lacking
It seems to me that there was never an issue of my credibility on this site until I disagreed with you on what it would take to sign Furcal… an argument that for all intents and purposes you were on the wrong side of.
Context matters Nico, and we are talking about a sport that has never split hairs so finely between what is average, above average, good, etc. Scoring 1 run more than the average is indeed, an above average score, but in the context of 646 runs being the absolute worst in the league and 901 runs being the best you have now left yourself with 86 runs that you now have to qualify as somehow above above average and less than the best.
You do that and then I’ll agree with how you wish to define above average.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think just by playing Buck and/or Barton
and having them hit pretty well instead of horribly will make a pretty big difference. I also think the A’s will put a SS out there (I have no idea who, not sure the A’s know yet) who will provide more offensive help than Crosby does. And I think the additions, specifically, of Holliday, Giambi, and Chavez, in significantly increasing the number of HRs and doubles, will turn a lot of 2008 LOBs into 2009 runs scored – plus the team’s OBP will be much higher, meaning more opportunities for LOBs/runs to begin with.
Finally, I think improvement is geometric, not arithmetic. In other words, if Chavez is x number of runs better than Hannahan, and Holliday is y number of runs better than C. Gonzalez, then when you add Chavez and Holliday to replace Hannahan and Gonzalez, the improvement is not x + y, but rather (x + y) times a number that is greater than 1.00, because hitting events do not occur in a vacuum but rather as part of a series of hitting events. There are probably studies on this, and I’d be interested to see the data.
Finally, I wish to define “above average” as being above the average. Though I can’t really claim credit for the idea.
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 Jan 11, 2009 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In baseball, the definition of average has always had a range of play
When you say a guy has an average fastball, you’re not saying he throws his fastball exactly the same way, same speed every time. Sometimes he’ll have a little extra, sometime a little less on the pitch and the variation is not by design.
You’re giving average as a fixed point when in a baseball context there has always been a range that multiple points of input can fall into and be labeled as average.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh my lord
grover, whether or not “1 more than average” is above average is not a matter of opinion. Your latest try suggests that we should first establish an “average range” rather than a fixed number – which is fine, and in that scenario (which is different from looking at the mean or median), 1 above the top of that range will be “above average”.
That way of looking at run production is fine, but it’s also completely different, and I did not say the A’s might be “above the average range,” I said they might be “above average” – so for the third time now, you’re trying to argue a different statement, specifically one that wasn’t actually made.
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 Jan 11, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am trying to pin down what your end game is
Because you failed to define what above average is in your post. Your intent did not seem to suggest that the 2009 A’s would score at least 1 run above the mean or median, but that there would be a clear separation between their performance and that of an average offense. The lack of clarity on this is your fault, not mine.
If all you want is for the A’s to score +1 run over the 2009 AL average then so be it, but that’s not how your post read.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 11:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly?
Here’s what I see, as an engineer who works with statisticians.
I think, Nico, you’re coming from the perspective of being at the end of a season, totaling up runs, and seeing which teams come in above the line that defines “average” (which as you point out could be defined by taking the median or the mean..doesn’t matter for this argument). You’re looking at it as a discrete function; you are not currently concerned with having the argument of “well, team B, which scored one run less than team A in 2009, actually has a better offense but ran into some bad luck.”
I think, grover, that you’re coming from the perspective of projecting an “above average” offense, and/or drawing conclusions about the quality of the offense based on the number of runs observed to have been scored. Either way, you’re looking for a significant difference between an “above average offense” and an “average offense.”
Is that about right? If so, these are both valid ways of looking at it, but with different goals.
"When I was a kid, having someone correct your grammar was a sign that they cared and wanted you to present yourself in the best possible light. That being said, you should really learn the difference between plurals and possessives." -- RS
by oblique on Jan 11, 2009 11:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty much, I'm just arguing that
once you define average, however you choose to, anything above that is in fact “above average” – whether it’s impressive, praiseworthy, or really any more helpful than having been “exactly average” is another matter.
As for what I’m projecting for Oakland’s offense in 2009? I’m not, really. I’m saying that this team that was “last, dead last, and horrible” in 2008 might not have to settle for being “below average, but hey it’s a nice improvement” – it might actually be average, or even a bit better than that. I never set out to make exact predictions or to quibble about “# of runs” or “place out of 14.”
And I agree, oblique, that both our ways of looking at it are valid – with the one very specific exception of trying to argue that “anything above the average” isn’t “above average,” because “above average” is not a qualitative term. It’s a quantitative one.
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 Jan 11, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not if you're trying to project or draw conclusions.
First off, as for your second paragraph, I totally agree and that is how I read the article to begin with. It is very nice to be able to hope for such performance!
There is a difference between saying an offense “is above average” and saying that offense “performed above average.” The latter is discrete, unarguable fact. The former must take into account the statistical noise, because it’s drawing a conclusion about the quality of the offense.
If you look at the season as an experiment that’s been run, and you run it again, will the same offense still perform above average? With enough of a difference between the defined average and the offense’s performance in the first experiment, one could say with confidence that, yes, that offense is likely to perform above average, with some probability greater than some threshold, and then we could call that an “above average offense.” Without that gap, without that confidence, calling the offense “above average” even if they performed slightly above the average once would be inaccurate, which (not to presume, but I think) is where grover is coming from.
Anyway..as you point out, this is beside the point you were making in the first place…
"When I was a kid, having someone correct your grammar was a sign that they cared and wanted you to present yourself in the best possible light. That being said, you should really learn the difference between plurals and possessives." -- RS
by oblique on Jan 11, 2009 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True, in that sense everything is about range
(in the form of SD and 95% confidence intervals and the like). I’d still say that one run above average constitutes “above average,” but that any smart analysis would look at whether that meant reliably above average over 1,000 experiments, enough above average so as to be significant different from average, 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 Jan 11, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Scouting "average" and statistical "average" are two rather different concepts
which you appear to be confusing on this thread.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
All I'm saying is that whatever average is,
whichever kind of average you’re talking about, and however it’s computed, the A’s offense is actually poised to be as good as that – or perhaps even a little more.
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 Jan 11, 2009 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm rather impressed that I started all of this
And my point, that we often use the word “average” with respect to the A’s in areas they are among the best in, leads me to agree with just about everything that Nico is saying.
Oh, and grover: you were clearly wrong about Furcal. The idea that he must have counter offered, though absurd at the time, is much more absurd now that we know how badly he wanted to stay in LA.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Jan 11, 2009 6:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As to Furcal
I said, repeatedly, that the A’s were going to have to offer more if they wanted to sign him. They didn’t, now he’s a Dodger. To suggest that Furcal’s agent in no way tried to counter the A’s offer (even if only in an attempt to drive up the price for a third party) runs counter-intuitive to what Team Furcal was trying to accomplish.
Re: average… I don’t know who made the adequate defense/#2 ranked comment but it wasn’t me. Nico is not suggesting the A’s are going to have a top offense and the only way you could claim they’d rank among the best is if you dropped the qualification for “among the best” to include EVERYONE who was better than average. Which you could do, but it would wipe away any of the specialness that normally comes with being considered “the best”.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 8:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see no reason to believe any FA is going to sign for anything
but the most bucks. If the A’s were never willing to offer the most bucks, they were likely wasting their time. I’m not saying FA’s never sign for less than the most money, just that I wouldn’t assume they’re going to.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 8:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
people sign for less than the most bucks every offseason
Tex was offered more by the Nationals than he was by the Yankees, for example.
Batting 4th for the 2014 San Jose A's: 26-year-old RF Justin Upton, in the 1st season of a nine year, $250M deal.
by notsellingjeans on Jan 12, 2009 5:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah so that was Beane's thinking with Furcal. Brilliant!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 9:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I missed this earlier
I was trying to illustrate the point by referring to another aspect of baseball that categorizes by average, above average, etc..
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're a smart guy grover... but geez...
How about just being in the top half of the league counting as “above average”?
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on Jan 10, 2009 9:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, the whole premise of this post is that
“the A’s were worst in the league by far” doesn’t mean that much if you’re putting entirely different hitters out there. Which the A’s are, in large part.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Entirely different hitters?
You mean Beane went out and found new guys named Ellis, Suzuki, Sweeney, Crosby, Barton and Cust?!?!
WOW!
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 9:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You just named 2/3 of the lineup
A new 1/3 is a HUGE difference, the difference between having one “middle of the order” hitter and having four of them; the difference between having to bat Suzuki leadoff or second and being able to bat him 6th or 7th.
Why not just acknowledge that instead of trying to be right? Because…you’re not ever going to be right arguing that changing 3 out of 9 hitters is not a pretty substantial overhaul, especially when the hitters you are adding can legitimately bat in the 2-5 spots.
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 Jan 11, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I acknowledged Holliday and Giambi to the tune of +100 runs
Coming from someone who insists that scoring 1 run more than average constitutes an above average offense, my initial comment was more than complimentary.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, but insisting that
scoring 1 run more than average constitutes an above average offense only constitutes an understanding of each of two words.
You have acknowledged Holliday and Giambi to the tune of +100 runs? How do you like Chavez over Hannahan? Ellis’ chances to improve upon his poor 2008 combination of skill and luck? Buck and Barton’s performance relative to their 2008 showing? An outside SS the A’s end up with (perhaps Cabrera)?
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 Jan 11, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're just warping the meaning of above average.
Because then scoring 2 runs more than the average would be a well above average offense and by the time you got to the 901 runs the Rangers scored last year they’ve achieved some kind of demi-godhood. (I’m not sure if that needs to be hyphenated but it looks right.)
I like Chavez over Hannahan very much. But I also acknowledge that Joe Crede had the same back surgery as Chavez did, came back and got hurt again. So Chavez has the back surgery plus surgery to his shoulders… yeah, I’m being uber-cautious on how much we can expect from him.
Buck’s on the bench.
Barton had a ton of hype this time last year and look how that turned out.
Ellis has never been that great with the bat and is also coming back from surgery. The difference in Runs Created from his 2007 and 2008 seasons is roughly 20 runs. So sure, I can see him picking it up a bit with the bat but its a mistake to expect a huge jump in the numbers.
Unless you’re arguing that a +10 would be average, then +11 = above average… I guess +14 might count as huge on the Nico scale.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're just changing the words for the second time
I never said, implied, or said anything that would suggest I believed that “scoring 2 runs more than the average would be a well above average offense.” Scoring 2 runs more than the average would be “above average,” just as scoring 1 run more would be, just as scoring 100 more would be “above average” (as well as arguably “well above average and/or "clearly superior”).
You’re the one extrapolating meanings for “well above average” and “clearly superior,” not me. I’m just saying that anything above the average is, among or not among other things, above average.
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 Jan 11, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So average has a finite point
Yet above average has a range of qualifying variables?
That seems very inconsistent to me.
I would argue if there are a range of possible variables in the above average ranking (and below average, good, bad, etc.) then there should be a range of variables in the average ranking. Because when you label one offense as average and declare another one to be above average there is an implicit connotation that the above average offense is demonstratively better than the average offense. +1 Run over a 162 game season does not support that idea.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, read again
Whether average has a finite point or a range, you have be past that point or range in order to be “above average.”
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 Jan 11, 2009 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
First of all, grover is blue and furry
and second of all, he started it!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nico, your argument has made it nearly impossible for the A's to have an average offense
You’ve practically eliminated average, because the A’s would have to land specifically on the mean, median, whatever number to produce an average offense. I can’t believe your intent was to make it the longest of long shots for the A’s to field an average offense in 2009.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, you can correctly argue that anything
within a certain range is “in the average range” – including a run above average, which should be characterized as “above average, but within the average range.” It’s still above average, but it may also be “in the average range.”
They’re not mutually exclusive – the first is an absolute score while the second is more of a normed one.
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 Jan 11, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In that case Nico
You need to go back and edit your post and finish with the line… “In fact, I actually think it could be – dare I say it – 1 run better than average. Whodathunkit?”
That ending provides a much better picture of your intent then to simply say “above average”. Because the way you are arguing your position virtually eliminates average as an option, it’s the green button on the roulette table of possible offensive outcomes.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 1:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nah - I think most everyone else
got the point I was making in the spirit it was making it. You’re splitting hairs where I’m making a far more general point: That “this offense could be right in the middle of the pack – if not even a bit better!”
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 Jan 11, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're kidding yourself if you think
most everyone read your post and thought at the end that the A’s would be +1 run better than average. You have argued against the common conception of what an above average offense is vs. an average offense.
Nico, I agree that barring a cataclysmic event the A’s offense will be much better in 2009. (I feel it important to include that cop-out because Larry Davis is still on staff.) Even to get to your standard of +1 over the average (using the 2008 mean of 775) means the A’s need to score 130 more runs than last year. If everything breaks right for them Holliday and Giambi could cover the bulk of that difference.
I see Cust and Suzuki as being more hold-the-fort guys than break-out canidates, while improved Ellis and maybe O-Cab might be worth 15-20 additional runs. I know your not expecting more from Sweeney, if anything he’s a prime canidate to regress. Hannahan sucked but Chavez has missed most of the past two seasons and Daric Barton was only slightly less appalling than Hannahan.
So even with Holliday and Giambi in the line-up on a consistent basis your plan to achieve +1 superiority is dependent on a player who was physically unable to play for most of the past two seasons and another who smacked his head into concrete harder than he actually hit the ball.
Yes, I’m going conservative at this point.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, clearly Chavez' continued health is key
Other than that, again I never asserted anything about “+1” or even attempted to be specific about what “average” meant. All I said was that I could see the offense actually being league average, or even a little better. What that means numerically or precisely? I don’t really care.
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 Jan 11, 2009 5:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Heaven forbid you seek to be clear
Lucky for everyone you don’t think the A’s offense could be good, because who knows what we’d be talking about there!
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 5:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I think I was very clear
The fact that I’m not interested in splitting hairs over specific numbers doesn’t make my thesis any less clear.
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 Jan 11, 2009 5:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand
And the fact that it was me telling you you weren’t being clear caused you to dig in your heels.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 6:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so
You’re blue and furry. What’s not to wuv?
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 Jan 11, 2009 6:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I ask myself that every day
and yet there are those who can resist my charms.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 6:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously?
Who? Big bird? Dumb cluck.
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 Jan 11, 2009 7:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oscar, of course
But Bert and I have never clicked and where Bert goes Ernie is sure to follow.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, for one thing, average and median aren't the same thing
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 9:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Neither are median and large
I learned THAT one the hard way!
-Cindi
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
qotm
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 10, 2009 9:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Omigod!!!!!!!
I got nominated for a month of the quote!!!!!!!!! Thank you, Foolish22!!!!! :-))))))
-Cindi (hearts for dots over BOTH i’s – I KNOW!!!!!)
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me get this straight...
Assuming everyone will go along with the argument that we can call the 7th best offense in the AL “average” (with an even number of teams the median is going to most likely fall between two teams) then you are essentially arguing that if the A’s score 1 more run than the 7th best offense they get to be considered an above average offense.
I say no.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 9:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I had to hit reply somewhere.
I’m by no means arguing with Grover or anyone else here but I am really getting excited we are arguing about average to above average offense when in 2k8 the only word to describe the lineup was flaccid. I would be ecstatic with top 3 pitching and top 7 hitting in our park.
"You Went Full Retard, Man - Never Go Full Retard." --Kirk Lazarus
by Ovale Fan on Jan 11, 2009 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would say yes, grover
Not that you’d want to brag about “we’re so far above average!!!111” but if you are above the average, you are “above average” – “above average” doesn’t tell you how much above, or whether it’s anything to boast about.
When you are at an elevation of 1, are you not “above sea level”?
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 Jan 11, 2009 9:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I blew by this earlier, but
claiming that you have to be 4 wins better than average on offense to be “above average” is ludicrous.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ludicrous? No.
Ludicrous is saying that the only way to field a team with an average offense is if it hits a specific number, be it the mean or median of runs scored in the AL.
I threw out 5% because when I look at OPS+ 100 is average, and 105 is IMO above average. When talking wins, 81-81 is average. That’s .500 baseball. 4 wins above that is 85-77, indicative of an above average squad but maybe not ready for the title of “good”.
If you think the bar needs to be set less than 5% I’ll give it a listen.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 11, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Someday, on some issue, grover will admit he is wrong
Unfortunately, it looks like today is not that day (and this thread is not that place).
I won’t be holding my breath.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Jan 11, 2009 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you did, you would turn a color that would match grover!
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 Jan 11, 2009 7:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Negative - Ellis, suzuki or Sweeney in the two hole
Cust is a get OBS guy but he is not #2 lineup guy. agree walks a ton, but strikes out a LOT. Your number 2 hitter should be a great contact hitter who does not strike that much and with Cust — that is a lot. It really doesn’t matter what we think, with our manager, we should have approx 162 different lineup this year – just a guess. I really hope he finds a combo that works and sticks with it, but I like the idea of Ellis batting second – the guy is our leader and can get the job done – period. Cust down the lineup to drive in some runs and protect a hitter or two.
by ryanmoser on Jan 10, 2009 7:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Please!
Does anybody have any reason—any reason whatsoever—why your #2 hitter “should be a great contact hitter who does not strike [out] that much”?
Honestly. Is there any reason behind that statement, besides the fact that some old time managers thought it’d be a fun idea…?
What matters is not where you are in the lineup, but who’s next to you in the lineup. And possibly how high up you are, if you’re worried about getting the best players the most at bats…
but, “the number two hitter has to be a contact hitter who doesn’t strike out” stuff is really getting tired, and i’d like to know if anybody has a single reason to back it up.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Jan 10, 2009 7:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There isn't one that I know of
Play your “small ball” at the bottom of the order. Get on base, hit doubles and HRs, and put up crooked numbers, at the top.
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 Jan 10, 2009 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's important for the number two hitter to be on base.
For a strong three-hole hitter is to see pitches good enough to drive all over the ballpark, there must be men on base when he steps into the batters’ box. Otherwise, pitchers will simply “pitch around” him, not giving him an intentional walk, but not giving him anything good to hit.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 7:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, it's important to GET ON BASE
Know who gets on base better than anybody of those other options?
Jack Effing Cust.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 8:00 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Rec'd
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Jan 10, 2009 8:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it's so. . . MONEYBALL in here tonight. . .
which is not bad. Cust @ #2 will screw with other managers’ heads. But I think I have the defining reason why #2 should not strike out a lot: because it PISSES A’s FANS OFF.
by oaklidiot on Jan 11, 2009 12:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just find it funny that Oakgal made the argument she disagrees with.
And thank you AN for turning this one green with me.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Jan 11, 2009 7:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It was important that Carney Lansford was
a good contact hitter behind Rickey because he often took two strikes in order to allow Rickey to steal, leaving him with only one strike to work with.
"I'm more into going home and being horizontal" - Lew Wolff
by bvank on Jan 11, 2009 2:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except Dwayne Murphy wasn't a great contact hitter
But he was a very patient hitter, which helped Rickey, as a base-stealer, in a different way. Two very different skills, each with a benefit to hitting behind the same teammate.
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 Jan 11, 2009 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You could say that Lansford learned from Murphy
Murphy’s patience gave Rickey opportunity, so Lansford came in, took extra pitches and then went to work with two strikes. However, I’m sure that taking pitches behind a base stealer had been used as a strategy before the 1970’s.
Too bad we can’t get both of them back for this team.
"I'm more into going home and being horizontal" - Lew Wolff
by bvank on Jan 11, 2009 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rickey too.
"I'm more into going home and being horizontal" - Lew Wolff
by bvank on Jan 11, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Murph was patient, struck out alot, and hit many HR's
kinda like Cust. Except Murph was a multiple GG CF’er on top of that.
by mrod on Jan 11, 2009 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Jack just needs a chance
: )
"I'm more into going home and being horizontal" - Lew Wolff
by bvank on Jan 11, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, bvank, you could NOT say that Lansford learned from Murphy
Players do not learn from each other, and are not affected in any way by co-mingling with one another.
This snarky comment is brought to you by the makers of Almond Joy Urologists: Sometimes You Feel, Like, A Nut.
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 Jan 11, 2009 5:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also brought to you by Straw Men, Inc.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 8:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who says we won't get Rickey back for a game? ;)
Hitting leadoff one more time! I can read the sign already…. “Sorry, Tickets are all SOLD-OUT for today’s game.”
by LoneStranger on Jan 12, 2009 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Unbelievable
Name me one team, just ONE team that won a division, advanced far into the playoffs, or even won a World Series with a fat slug like Kaptain Kust who struck out 200 times, and has NO speed on the bases, batting 2nd in the lineup. I don’t give a damn if he walks 600 times! It is NOT a formula for success. Period.
by FurVault on Jan 14, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, the Phillies?
Less than three months ago? With Ryan Howard, who struck out 199 times (two more than Cust).
That’s one.
by Nate on Jan 14, 2009 6:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He wasn't batting second though.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 9:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I see.
That ridiculous screed wasn’t a complaint about Cust in general, it was a complaint about Cust batting second.
Ok, Furry, the traditional lineup you seem to think we should emulate starts with a speedy leadoff hitter followed a contact guy to bunt the speedy leadoff hitter over to second.
This is the type of plan that we’ll refer to as “stupid”. The reason it’s stupid is that you then follow that pair with your best and most powerful hitters, i.e. the ones most likely to drive a runner in from first anyway. Another reason it’s stupid is that a sac bunt with a runner on first makes you likely to score less runs than you did before you gave that out away.
Understand also that we are only talking about the first inning, as every other inning has almost an 89% chance of starting somewhere other than the top of the order, so if this matters at all, it really doesn’t matter a ton.
by Nate on Jan 14, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t give a damn if he walks 600 times!
You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair they made the basecloggers wear.
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 15, 2009 6:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You say you want a great contact hitter in the 2 spot...
Then you mention Ellis.
I’m confused.
I’d rather have a 2 hitter who wont make outs.
Never, Never, NEVER give up
by hero66 on Jan 10, 2009 7:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OT
but your sig just reminds me of Rick Astley. Too many rick roll’s…
by rightbackin on Jan 11, 2009 12:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ok
That was the ideal number 2 guy in the 1800s, pre 1920s, 1968, and a lot of the 80s. That is not a relevant archetype in 2009. Your number 2 hitter needs to get on base. Cust does that very well. Bat him second.
More Rajai Davis & less mount Davis
by Athletics fan and runner on Jan 11, 2009 9:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lineup #1 is exactly how I would play them. I want to see Barton get into some games too so I would be happy to see lineup #2 a few times a week.
I haven’t read The Book, but I’ve seen people borrow arguments from Tom Tango that basically say you want your best hitter at #4. More often than not, the #3 hitter is going to come up with two outs and no one on. The #4 hitter, on the other hand, will either come up with the opportunity to move players over and score some runs or get on base with less than two outs. It’s an interesting argument but I’m still hesitant to put anyone but Holliday at #3 since that argument only applies to the first inning and after you really just want your best hitters to get as many at bats as possible. It’s also nice to have a righty break up the series of lefties in the heart of the lineup.
by Rocktopus on Jan 10, 2009 7:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The notion that the #3 hitter comes up a lot with two out and no one on
is a bit overrated, IMO. First of all, it assumes the leadoff hitter leading off the inning, which doesn’t happen more than once or twice a game. But when it does, if your #1 and #2 hitter each has a .350 OBP, the chance of both getting out is only 42%.
And if that same “best hitter” is batting elsewhere in the order, behind two guys with lower OBPs, then the chance of him batting with two out and no one on is…obviously higher.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If I recall, The Book actually wants your #2 guy to be the best (OBP heavy)
And #4 to be the best slugging guy. Kind of a 1A, 1B situation with the 2 and 4 spots.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 9:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What do you do when your best slugging guy is also your best OBP guy?
Is that a #2 or #4 hitter? I would guess #4.
by Rocktopus on Jan 10, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think what you do is you
trade for Holliday, sign Giambi, and pray for Chavez’ health.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, a leadoff hitter leading off once a game is like 20% of his at-bats
In the context of baseball, that’s an absolutely enormous difference.
And similarly, about 50% of those first innings, the #3 hitter comes up with no one on. That’s only 10% of his at-bats but it’s enough to make a noticeable difference for sure. Why would you want to guarantee in stone that your best hitter will come up, 60 times a season, with no one on and two outs? (He will, of course, also be doing so an average number of times in his other 450 plate appearances.)
There aren’t many solid certainties in baseball analysis, but “don’t bat the best hitter third” is one of them.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 10, 2009 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How do you react to the "LRLR is more important than this relatively minor difference" argument
That I read on this thread?
I think “solid certainty” is a bit strong anyway. Doesn’t the book point out that we’re talking very few runs/season difference in the first place?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Jan 11, 2009 12:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I react to that by arguing that there are ways around that
Specifically, hit Cust leadoff and Holliday second. The optimal A’s lineup has five lefthanders in it, and it would look like LRLLRLRLR. You’re going to have 2 lefthanders in a row at some point, and having it be Buck/Giambi or Chavez/Giambi in the 3-4 spots is OK.
My personal favorite lineup against righties is this:
Cust
Holliday
Buck
Giambi
Ellis
Chavez
Suzuki
Sweeney
Crosby/whoever
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In that particular lineup
I’d probably switch Buck and Chavez at least against LHP, and definitely Ellis and Suzuki against RHP, but it’s a good lineup in a lot of ways.
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 Jan 11, 2009 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's interesting.
Is there an easy way to run lineup simulations out there for someone who is too cheap to pay money?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Jan 11, 2009 7:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, nevermoor, nwo go run 1,000 simulations
on 5 different lineups and report back!
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 Jan 11, 2009 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, we do have a three day weekend coming up
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Jan 11, 2009 10:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
still waiting for the post you promised
on constructing a lineup
Save Rajai Davis
by oakinboston on Jan 11, 2009 8:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And how much have we given up in the starting rotation
since mid-last season with the loses of Blanton & Harden (when he’s healthy) and how much more will this improved offense have to produce to make up for the weak rotation we have?
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Jan 10, 2009 7:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Weak isn't the correct word
Unproven is more accurate. Weak implies a bunch of garbage out there, but the A’s starting rotation depth might run 8-10 deep. It’s just that very few of those guys have a lot of experience.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, the young pitchers will have has the distinct attribute
of being likely to actually pitch. Harden did not satisfy this need.
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 Jan 10, 2009 9:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who is this Harden you speak of?
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Jan 10, 2009 8:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His body's decomposing in my locker
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Jan 10, 2009 8:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lineup #1 is totally my lineup as well
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
by ChadGod on Jan 10, 2009 7:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Cust in #2 hole
Look, although Cust struck out alot last year he still hit 33HR and 77RBI’s. I believe that if he bats in the #2 hole he will still walk alot ( however not as much as last year ) Instead he will put up a higher AVG, HR, and RBI total because he will see better pitches batting ahead of Holliday/Giambi.
by Oakland is part of the A's on Jan 10, 2009 7:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
OT: are the Cardinals gonna win the Super Bowl?
if so, that gives me hope for the A’s this year.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 10, 2009 7:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Beane go hard or go home
CF Sweeney
SS Cabrera
1b Giambi
LF Holliday
RF Abreu
DH Cust
3b Chavez
C Suzuki
2b Ellis
i’m confident with all that run support the pitching will be good enough…if one guy struggles just move onto the next guy.
by Asfan4ever723 on Jan 10, 2009 8:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
LOL
That lineup is beyond atrocious. Can’t you just steal somebody else’s lineup idea and post it on Sickels’ site?
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
how i dont care how they are slotted
just get those players
by Asfan4ever723 on Jan 10, 2009 8:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn't it be better to get Dunn and put Cust in RF
Amazingly enough, you picked like the ONLY guy in RF who is a worse defender than Cust is, so it would actually be an upgrade to get Dunn as DH and Cust in RF over Abreu.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 8:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
why get dunn?
he’ll probably want more in total money than it will take to sign cabrera/abreu
i’m seriously surprised why there are people against getting either one, especially when beane has wasted more money and yrs on kendall, kotsay, dye, etc
by Asfan4ever723 on Jan 10, 2009 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe because, for different reasons, neither guy is especially valuable.
It’s very possible that adding Bobby Abreu would make the A’s worse.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 8:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It surprises me too.
Abreu has a BA of .296 and OBP of .371. That’s good.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 9:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Travis Buck had a BA of .288 and OBP of .377 when he was healthy.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, when healthy.
Which makes that batting average a fairly small sample size for him.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 9:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cust has an OBP of .382
and, amazingly, isn’t as bad as Abreu at defense.
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 9:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What are the fielding metrics?
and Cust had a much lower BA than Abreu.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 9:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fangraphs. UZR/150
Cust: -17.8
Abreu: -25.9
BA is irrevalent when the guy hitting .296 still gets on base LESS than the guy who hit .230
by mikev on Jan 10, 2009 9:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not when that guy can steal bases...
and score runs. Look , the guy would be an asset on our team. Any depth is good. The Redsox have depth …and if Beane can get us some that would be very good IMO.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 10, 2009 9:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Abreu shouldn't be trying to steal bases anymore
Since his 66% success rate is hurting his team.
And “scoring runs” is very team dependent. A player theoretically could hit a single in every at bat all season and not score one run.
by thejd44 on Jan 10, 2009 9:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs