Staturday: Pitching
So there I was, wasting tax payer dollars watching a cold, dead prescribed fire because some land owners with more money and political connections than sense were a feared that a moonscape could suddenly become a raging inferno of fiery doom. ( C1 Suzuki SP Duchscherer 1B Barton SP Gallagher 2B Ellis SP Eveland 3B Chavez SP Braden SS SP Gonzalez LF Holliday CL Devine CF Sweeney RP Ziegler RF Cust RP Blevins DH Giambi RP Casilla C2 Bowen RP Brown BN INF RP Schroder BN INF RP Springer BN OF
I need to figure out how to compress Excel spreadsheets one of these days. Anyways...
A couple things jumped out at me. The A’s, who have (as I recall) favored a 12 man bullpen during Beane’s tenure and are looking at maybe their weakest Opening Day rotation in almost a decade, are struggling to find a dozen arms to put on the big league roster. How weak is the A’s rotation looking? Over the past 5 years A’s pitchers have thrown between 1448 and 1471.3 innings; CHONE projects the top 6 candidates for the A’s 2009 rotation at 135 GS and 679 IP. Duke, Gallagher and Eveland are the closest thing to locks for the rotation but all of them rode the pine a while in 2008 for various reasons. Braden might fit best as a swing man/long reliever but right now he’s more deserving of a rotation spot than Gio and Outman. Maybe the two young lefties impress in ST, but when 2008 ended it looked like they both might need some more time in AAA. Assuming that Braden out-performs one or both in ST the loser of the fight for the 5th SP role should get sent down to Sacramento to get regular work in the River Cats’ rotation. That seems to leave a huge, gaping hole in the big league bullpen at long relief.
Let’s take a closer look at the bullpen. Devine, Ziggy, Blevins and Casilla offer a lot more potential than they do proven production. Russ Springer should help, but keep in mind that he’s 40 years old and has averaged less than 1 IP per appearance in each of the last 4 years. Brown has good stuff but he had injury issues last year and inconsistent command is the most consistent part of his career. Really the only guy on here with the resume to serve as a long reliever is Ziggy and that would represent a major step down from what he provided last year and what the A’s are probably counting on in 2009. Like I said above, it would be foolish for the A’s to stick the loser of an Outman/Gio showdown into the long role because of the irregular work that goes with the job. The A’s want/plan on both young southpaws to fight for a rotation job in the near future, they’d be sabotaging their long term plans by sticking one or the other in the back of the Oakland bullpen and not giving them regular work.
Am I making too much of the apparent lack of a quality long arm in the bullpen? Consider this: Over the past 5 years
In comparison, CHONE is projecting the Top 6 SP in the 2009 Angels’ system to throw 970 IP; with the Top 7 relief pitchers to produce another 409 IP. That equals 1379 IP, or 95% of the 1451 IP threshold.
So yeah, I feel like my concerns are justified. Every team is going to have between 75 and 150 innings of below-replacement level pitching coming from arms that don’t belong in the major leagues. They get called up because the bullpen is worn out or someone gets hurts and they’re the best available option at the time, not because anyone in their organization mistakes them for being good. Set the junk innings aside and the 2009 A’s still have a sizeable gap (211 – 286 IP) between what their best pitchers are projected to provide and what the law of averages says the team will be expected to produce. For all the talk about how the A’s have improved their offense, that’s a lot of innings were we have no idea who’ll be pitching. Some of those innings will be covered by starting pitchers exceeding their projections (CHONE has Duke at 91 IP next year even though he threw 141 IP in 2008) but Braden, Eveland, Gallagher, Gonzalez and Outman haven’t proven that they’re quality big league pitchers. Do I think that some of them will step up and prove their worth? Absolutely. But I also expect some of them to struggle badly. Having a quality long reliever ready to deliver 3-4 IP whenever one of the young SP gets knocked out early could seriously improve the chances of the offense coming back and stealing a win for the A’s. If nothing else having a guy who can go out and eat innings will save the rest of the bullpen for the next game. That guy doesn’t appear to be on the roster at this time.
If you’ve been reading the minor league reports that Taj Adib and myself posted over the 2008 season then you’re aware that the A’s minor league system is flush with arms. That bodes well for Oakland in the long term, but short of someone pitching absolutely lights out in Spring Training none of the A’s young arms (like Anderson, Cahill, Mazzaro, Simmons, Carignan, Demel, Bailey) are expected to be ready to help the big league team before the ’09 All-Star break. In the short term, what you see in the above roster break-down is the best available pitching for the A’s. The immediate reserve will be comprised of the loser of the Outman/Gonzalez run-off, Jeff Gray and non-40 man roster pitchers Jerome Williams and Brad Kilby. The A’s are currently carrying 15 pitchers on the 40 man roster and they still need to make room for Springer, hopefully a position player gets DFA’d because there aren’t a lot of attractive options to cut on the pitching side of things. The 2 pitchers that we haven’t discussed but are on the 40 man roster are Ryan Webb and Henry Rodriguez, neither of whom looks anywhere close to being ready for the Show.
231 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Count again
Unless you’re trying to be cute and say that “Inf, Inf, and OF” are not names.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 26, 2009 12:12 AM PST up reply actions
oh, them...
yeah, I heard they were pretty good prospects.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 12:13 AM PST up reply actions
I'll name names in Pt. 2
As for your larger thought below… I think Anderson has a good chance of pitching in Oakland in 2009 but not until mid-season. Cahill struggled a bit with his control in AA and I think he needs more time in the minors, maybe a full year.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think they did
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 6:40 AM PST up reply actions
As for the rotation...
I know you hate it, but one of Cahill or Anderson will be a starter on this team in 2009. One of them (maybe both) out of spring training. It’s hard to admit you’re wrong.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
Can you share the schematics to that time machine you have?
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 26, 2009 12:11 AM PST up reply actions
no need for a time machine...
Beane isn’t bringing on any veteran starter for this team. So, he’ll throw the best he has out there. He’s going for it this year. Haven’t you heard?
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 12:15 AM PST up reply actions
I'm sorry, but what?
Yeah, I hope Beane will throw the “best he has” out there. If he doesn’t, he doesn’t deserve to be a GM. But the reason that all of our prospects haven’t played in the majors yet is because they aren’t ready.
of whom do you speak?
which ones aren’t ready? Name names.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 12:33 AM PST up reply actions
Trevor Cahill and Brett Anderson
Both need more time in the minors. If they’re playing for the A’s next year, the A’s are in trouble. There is an adjustment period, and generally, 20-year olds don’t fare well in the MLB right away.
they're both better than Gio and Braden...
so, one, if not both will start for the A’s this year.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 12:39 AM PST up reply actions
certainly, if Chris Schroder...
is in our bullpen, that could be a much bigger indication of trouble. LOL
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 12:44 AM PST up reply actions
uh, schroder has had some great AAA numbers
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 26, 2009 8:58 AM PST up reply actions
Chone projections...
Cahill: 3-6, 5.38 ERA
Anderson: 4-6, 4.93 ERA
Gonzalez: 5-6, 4.68 ERA
Braden: 6-6, 4.02
Just because Cahill and Anderson might be better a few years down the road, if all goes correctly, doesn’t mean they’re better right here, right now. Gonzalez and Braden both have experience in the majors.
Nate... you should know by now...
I don’t give a sh*t about projections. I think Bobby Crosby is gonna do just fine this year (if he’s still on the team).
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 12:46 AM PST up reply actions
I think stats are a fine thing...
for comparing player against player for past results. And, they help you predict somewhat what guys who’ve been playing awhile will do in the future. They don’t say sh*t about what Cahill, Anderson, Gonzalez or Braden will do next year. I’m sure you think otherwise.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 12:50 AM PST up reply actions
i know you don't care about projections
but isn’t saying that cahill/anderson would be better than gio/braden a projection of your own? there’s really no other way to decide how to put together a ballclub/decide who plays than projecting their performance
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
yes, it is a projection...
based on how I’ve seen Gio/Braden pitch. And, how I’ve seen Cahill/Anderson pitch. It’s not stat based, I admit.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 12:56 AM PST up reply actions
Do you understand
that you’ve seen Gonzalez and Braden pitch against major league hitters?
And Cahill and Anderson were facing guys that likely will never even make it to the majors?
Come on.
I do realize that...
and, Cahill and Anderson were fucking awesome.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 12:59 AM PST up reply actions
horrible, perhaps, against future major leaguers...
you can’t discount the chance that one will be the Vida Blue of the squad. If I were going for it this year, I wouldn’t.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:05 AM PST up reply actions
And that one or both
Will be become the next Ariel Prieto(s). You can call them whatever you want but Cahill hasn’t pitched at AAA yet and Anderson only had a small taste of that type of competition. I’m of the camp that believes that if Cahill/Anderson reach the bigs next year they won’t necessarily struggle, but that they won’t be ace material either.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 26, 2009 3:30 AM PST up reply actions
It is often true
that people who have no evidence for their claims will attack the validity of “evidence as a concept.” After all, if no one knows anything, they’re just as likely to be right as anyone else.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
isn't that why we should kill all lawyers?
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:15 AM PST up reply actions
No.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
I like this answer...
Its short and to the point.
And before it gets to that point, Thats what she said
The nuts and bolts of gameplay are apocalyptic failures, but the awfulness doesn’t stop there. Managing games is utterly pointless. [Feb 2009, p.85]
I'll second ya there!
I’m sure everyone saw Cliff Lee’s emergence as a Cy Young winner coming last year. Nobody knows what is going to happen in baseball, and that’s half the fun of the game. Sometimes you just have to take a chance and hope for the best.
Wade Hines
Right, awesome, good for you
But common sense will tell you that 20 year olds are generally unsuccessful in their first shot in the MLB. Cahill/Anderson could/should be better than Braden and Gonzalez in a year, maybe two. But they are NOT right now.
maybe Beane won't take the chance that they are...
right now. Maybe you’ll be proven right. One or both of ‘em will start for the A’s in 2009. That’s all I’m saying. Maybe they’ll start one game. Maybe they’ll start 30. Who is to say?
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 12:53 AM PST up reply actions
You're trying to rush them
and that’s a horrible idea. They both have much to work on.
You can’t honestly tell me that you think two kids that pitched over 2/3 of their innings last year in high A ball are going to perform better than somebody like Braden, who has proven himself a capable starter in the majors.
I actually like Braden...
i want him in place of Schroder.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 12:57 AM PST up reply actions
And I like Cahill and Anderson
But in all likelihood, they’re not going to perform that well next year if they’re asked to start for the A’s for any extended period of time.
well, then, in the spirit of non-confrontational AN
we will agree to disagree.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:01 AM PST up reply actions
I hope you're right about Cahill and Anderson
because that will mean that they’re as good as Dwight Gooden and Bret Saberhagen. I’m not counting on that though.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:03 AM PST up reply actions
I just want one of them to be as good as...
Vida Blue. I’ll settle for his rookie year.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:06 AM PST up reply actions
Sure we all would. But I'm not seeing it.
These guys aren’t as good as Vida Blue at 20….or Gooden or Saberhagen. I hope you’re right and I’m wrong, and I’m willing to believe it’s possible.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:08 AM PST up reply actions
what happened next?
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:12 AM PST up reply actions
Irrelevant
You’re saying that if Beane wants to compete THIS year, Cahill and Anderson will pitch.
Just like any other 20ish year old pitcher, they won’t set the league on fire their first time around.
I see you've abandoned the theory that one of them is certain to make the team out of spring training
That was SO 52 minutes ago.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
The thing is the rotation is bad enough that I can see it happening
for better or worse.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:04 AM PST up reply actions
I'd still rather have Cahill and Anderson
honing their skills in the minors, and let Simmons or Mazzaro have a go at it. In my opinion, unless they are absolutely filthy, lights-out in ST, ALL the options should be exhausted before Cahill and Anderson play next year.
+2374107
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Is this someone's phone number?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:58 AM PST up reply actions
Can't be...
It’s not catchy enough
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 26, 2009 3:34 AM PST up reply actions
+8675309
is that better?
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Jan 26, 2009 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
The problem is that the desperation scenario is plausible
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:17 AM PST up reply actions
if were that desperate
and therefore, bad, i say sign someone shitty or find any other option, but dont risk cahill/anderson/others development
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
I don't think it's that plausible
Because even if 8 or 9 guys get hurt, there’s still bound to be Paul Byrd or some random replacement guy on waivers and I’d want those guys pitching over rushing Cahill and Anderson in a lost season.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:20 AM PST up reply actions
But if Brett Trevor is 8-2 3.10 at Sacramento
and the Angels are 44-42 or something. I can see the calls for call up coming from a lot of directions including AN.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:23 AM PST up reply actions
If the A's lose their entire opening day rotation before July
I think the Angels at 44-42 would be a good 15 games up on the A’s, so I don’t know why calling up those guys would be called for unless it’s quite obvious they’re ready.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:25 AM PST up reply actions
I see two possible scenarios for Brett Trevor 2009
1) Mass injuries and desperation, which will result in callups despite your pleas
2) A rotation hole with one of them having a great season in Sacramento.
Sorry for the confusion.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:28 AM PST up reply actions
I think 1 is unlikely, but 2 could happen
In scenario 1, I’m assuming neither guy is clearly ready. I’m also assuming that mass injuries and desperation means the team isn’t very good. In that case, no real reason to rush them. Scrap heap guys will get the A’s through the season.
2 is possible, but do the A’s want either guy pitching a full, high-stress season? Do they want them going close to 200 IP this year? I’m willing to concede a September call-up for either guy (or both), and maybe there will be a David Price scenario where they stick in the bullpen if the A’s make the playoffs. But I don’t see either guy getting anything other than a cup of coffee. But if the A’s can get away with not putting either guy on the 40-man until after the season, I think that’s what they’d prefer.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:32 AM PST up reply actions
I think we agree
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:36 AM PST up reply actions
Probably
I don’t think either of us really want them to be called up, because it’s likely a bad sign for the team as a whole. I think you just think it’s a little more likely to happen in a bad situation than I do.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:40 AM PST up reply actions
Ya I'm less optimistic about this year
than I have been since 1998.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:42 AM PST up reply actions
no, that's still my opinion...
and, it’s only that. I was trying to make a gracious concession. But, I see that you won’t let me do that. So, yes, one of them will make the starting rotation out of spring. That’s what I think. If Beane is serious about winning this year.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:09 AM PST up reply actions
But those guys aren't actually currently better than the guys projected to start the season in the rotation
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:21 AM PST up reply actions
"projected" being the key word...
in that sentence. Projected by you? Projected by Beane? Projected by some esoteric projection system? I’ll admit, the conventional wisdom is that the starting rotation is, most likely, as grover and Nate say it will be.
Will it be that come opening day? Doubt it.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 2:05 AM PST up reply actions
it's true that projections aren't always correct
but without them we have….nothing. what do you propose instead of projections?
personally, i think projections are the best we got, and it helps pass the time in the offseason
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
that's why I hate the offseason...
it ain’t real baseball we’re talkin’ about. Only “projections.” I think a monkey could throw darts at a dartboard and be right about the same percentage as the “projections” are right.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 2:12 AM PST up reply actions
there's football or hockey?
but i’m counting the days till baseball
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
If your goal in discussions like these
is to persuade others to come around to your point of view, you would be well advised not to taunt a person as soon as he shows any sign of possibly being persuaded.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
My goal in discussions with FoolshGame is not to persuade him to come around to my point of view
It’s to make sure no one else comes around to his.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Why do you care if other people agree with FG?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:59 AM PST up reply actions
Fair enough,
but I still don’t see how it serves your purpose to taunt him when he wavers.
Remember how you helped drum up votes for Matt Sulentic in the AN Community Prospect polls? It’s kind of like that.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
ahhh... you're scared that they will
that’s a good sign. LOL
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 2:09 AM PST up reply actions
No
what you said is that one or both will break camp with the A’s. That’s quite different than making just one start, which could be on April 9th or September 9th.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 26, 2009 3:32 AM PST up reply actions
I think one will... maybe both...
but, I’ll be unambiguous, if that’ll make you feel better: I think one will. break camp with the A’s. Happy?
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 3:39 AM PST up reply actions
My point
Wasn’t really to make you fess up, but to point out that there’s a huge difference between Cahill/Anderson starting the year on the team and one or both making a start some where along the line this season.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 26, 2009 3:47 AM PST up reply actions
not a huge difference for those...
who swore neither Cahill nor Anderson would sniff a start this season. Which a few did.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 3:50 AM PST up reply actions
CHONE projections...
… are basically worthless for young players. So are most projection systems.
Go back and see what CHONE projected for Mulder in his first season. What did CHONE project Ziegler would do last year? How about Todd Van Poppel in his rookie season? Or Edison Volquez last season?
When you’re working with rookies and second-year players, you cannot rely on CHONE’s projections because the system has very little to go on other than minor league numbers and league adjustments… only after a player spends a few years in the majors is a projection system worth a sh*t in projecting how they will perform in the future.
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 26, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
I think this is a huge stretch of a statement
And you might be the only person alive who thinks Cahill and Anderson give the A’s a better chance to win at the beginning of 2009.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:15 AM PST up reply actions
I might be...
true genius is always shunned.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:16 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah
I don’t know if it’s that or your complete and utter denial of facts put in front of your face.
it's that... yes
and, my total confidence in my genius.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:19 AM PST up reply actions
I haven't actually seen even a little bit of reasoning or evidence for this
Braden should be about an average, maybe slightly below, pitcher. Gio is a question mark, but I don’t think anybody expects him to be nearly as bad as he was with the A’s in 2008. And at this point, I think it’s reasonable to expect replacement level performance out of Cahill and Anderson. What makes you think otherwise?
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:22 AM PST up reply actions
as I said, I like "good" Braden as a starter...
will he be given much rope, if he sucks outta the gate? i doubt it. Billy will be looking to replace him, immediately. There ain’t no room to lose a lot of games at the beginning of the season. It’s gonna be a squeaker in the West.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:27 AM PST up reply actions
If you're expecting the same
performance from Cahill and Anderson as you are from Braden and Gonzalez, there’s still no reason (and I mean like… none whatsoever) for them to be in the Majors unless there are about five or six guys that go down with an injury before them.
Right. I totally agree.
I think they have to be significantly better than those guys. And I just don’t see how anybody can project that – not that it’s completely impossible, it’s just too improbably to be worth that risk.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:33 AM PST up reply actions
I can see projecting it if you believe your own eyes as FG seems to have done
It’s certainly a bold prediction though.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:34 AM PST up reply actions
I do believe my own eyes...
Cahill and Anderson are better now. They should start. If they can’t handle MLB ball, then you give it to the backups. Not the other way round.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:36 AM PST up reply actions
I'm glad you're not the GM of a team I root for
Because that’s really, really backwards. That’s a good way to ruin prospects.
And WHY do you think they’re better?
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:38 AM PST up reply actions
you're saying they're not?
not better than Gio or Braden, right now? Is that what you’re saying?
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:42 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah
Actually, that’s what I’ve been saying this whole time.
Right now, Trevor Cahill and Brett Anderson are NOT better than Gio Gonzalez and Dallas Braden… and should not be pitching in the majors in front of those two.
Honestly, Cahill/Anderson are good. I hope they’re really good. But they’ll fall flat on their asses. They’ll be only 21 all of next year for chrissakes.
see, that's why i agreed to disagree...
many posts ago.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:46 AM PST up reply actions
But you started saying they were better because you've seen them...
And I was like, “Whoa. Wait. What?”
how can you compare them?
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
You insult the word "bold" by using it in that sentence
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
i may be wrong...
excuse me if i am… but, i thought you were one of the peeps here who thought Cahill and Anderson both stood no chance of starting for the A’s in 2009. Maybe you didn’t commit quite so fully as I thought. I’ll have ot look it up. But, if I’m right, it would be “bold” by your own stance, would it not?
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:44 AM PST up reply actions
ZiPS does expect Gio to be as bad as he was with the A's in 2008
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:33 AM PST up reply actions
How reliable is ZIPS with a young pitcher like Gio?
If ZIPS expects him to be that bad next year, does it think he’s a total bust? I think that’s certainly possible, but even if so, Cahill/Anderson are not the first two guys in line to replace him.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:39 AM PST up reply actions
I think in his case the sample size is decent enough
He did pitch quite a few innings the past couple of years. It is a bold outlier projection though.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:40 AM PST up reply actions
It's true, but that's not a good sign in a player
Fortunately he’s been young for his levels.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:49 AM PST up reply actions
Technically that's true
But Gio has only repeated a level once. He was much better his second time through AA but I don’t know how much predictive value you want to give one season from his minor league career.
Not very
but more to the point, it really doesn’t square with his track record or his scouting reports from the minor leagues.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Just looked at his 08 numbers with the A's
He struck out one guy per inning. Yeah, his walk and HR rates were atrocious, but he was still striking out guys. That’s promising.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:46 AM PST up reply actions
I agree, but the ZiPS projection gave me pause
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:49 AM PST up reply actions
Baseball HQ has done research on this...
Pitchers with less than one year of Triple-A experience struggle mightily as a group in their first call-ups: 16% perform “well,” 77% perform “poorly.” On the other hand, pitchers with one year or more of Triple-A experience fair much better… 56% perform “well,” 33% perform “poorly.”
In other words, Cahill’s and Anderson’s odds of performing “well” in their first years in the majors will be greatly increased if they spend a year at AAA first… whether or not that is an option remains to be seen.
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 26, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Ahh.
That is the stat I was looking for. And the point I was trying to get across. Saying that one of Cahill/Anderson will start in the majors next year is not really going out on a limb.
But wanting them to and claiming they’ll be very good (cough comparisons to Vida Blue?? cough) is a an ignorant statement.
this shoulud be permanently posted on the front page
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
great post with great info
rec’d
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
The second paragraph of this post
looks like a correlation/causation fallacy to me.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
I disagree
If AAA is useless, at least you can admit young players generally improve as they mature.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I have no problem with the idea
that pitchers should not be brought to the major leagues while they’re so young. I agree with that.
I disagree with the logic in Uncle Charlie’s post above. He cited a study demonstrating that players who have only a short visit in AAA show a higher incidence of performing poorly. He then claimed, using the phrase “in other words”, that it must logically follow that keeping Anderson/Cahill in AAA longer will increase their odds of performing well.
It does not logically follow. It may well be true that staying in AAA will be good for them (I think it will), but that is not a valid conclusion from the data presented. It is, as I said, a logical fallacy.
You could use the exact same reasoning to say: People who wear glasses have bad eyesight: 16% see "well," 77% see "poorly." On the other hand, people who don’t wear glasses have much better eyesight… 56% see "well," 33% see "poorly." In other words, Cahill’s and Anderson’s odds of seeing "well" will be greatly increased if they avoid wearing glasses.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Agree
Probably reached for a conclusion that wasn’t there…
I presented the AAA experience-MLB performance relationship as if it were a cause-and-effect relationship, when the stats only show a correlative effect. Nonetheless, I think it is safe to assume (as you say in your post) that Cahill and Anderson would benefit from a little extra time in the oven. Correlation, while not causation, is better than no information.
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 27, 2009 7:17 AM PST up reply actions
I would think Beane would entertain the idea
of bringing Mulder back if he can show that he can still pitch at all above complete suckness
The nuts and bolts of gameplay are apocalyptic failures, but the awfulness doesn’t stop there. Managing games is utterly pointless. [Feb 2009, p.85]
If Cahill/Anderson make the team out of spring training,
it would be because 3/5 of the starting rotation suffered catastrophic injuries. In which case, I’d rather Beane sign any washed up starting pitcher and punt on the season than have them pitch in the majors anyways.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Jan 26, 2009 1:11 AM PST up reply actions
Two things about Cahill and Anderson
I think Beane will give both of them the chance to make the team in spring training. Whether they do or not I don’t know and wouldn’t dream of guessing. Second, Beane has made it clear in the past that he doesn’t see much difference between AA and AAA ball. So they might only get a cup of coffee in AAA depending on how well they pitch. I would say this holds true from Mazzaro and Simmons as well. They will get a chance at the bigs next year. How soon I don’t know. As noted in this thread, there are a lot of factors external to their pitching abilities that will determine whether or not they join the major league club for any length of time next year. But I would not be at all surprised that they’ll see time in Oakland before the September call ups.
chronic
It's true that the argument that someone hasn't played at AAA is a weak one
Many teams actually prefer to keep good players out of AAA because they feel that the generally depressed and embittered clubhouse atmosphere will psychologically damage them. (In this respect, I think that— as much as you might mock it— the Rivercats’ recent championship record is actually helpful. Players who win a lot are less likely to be angry at their lot in life.)
The argument that they are, you know, not currently of legal drinking age is still sitting out there though. Players of that age very rarely succeed in MLB.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Regardless of whether there is or isn't a big difference
between AA and AAA, except for maybe an attitude difference, there are skills that Anderson and Cahill need to improve, cut down walks, work on pitches, etc, before they can be successful major leaguers.
I agree with this
Where exactly they do it is of relatively little import to me, however. AA is fine too if the team doesn’t think they’re ready to move up. The only important thing is that they stay off the MLB roster so as not to waste options and service time.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Wrong -- AAA experience does seem to translate to major league success (at least for pitchers)
… see my post above (or maybe below) about Baseball HQ’s research on AAA experience and production upon first call-up. The research thus far is very general (the results are tabulated as “performed well” and “performed poorly”), but the trends are telling…
56% of pitchers with one year or more of AAA experience perform “well” on their first call-up.
33% of pitchers with one year or more of AAA experience perform “poorly” on their first call-up.
Meanwhile…
16% of pitchers with less than a year of AAA experience perform “well” on their first call-up.
77% of pitchers with less than a year of AAA experience perform “poorly” on their first call-up.
Again, I’m not sure what it means to perform “well” or perform “poorly,” but these statistics at least suggest that there’s some benefit to a pitcher spending a year at AAA before being called up to the bigs.
There’s much less of a difference when it comes to hitters…
One year or more of AAA experience (56% perform well; 38% perform poorly).
Less than one year (57% perform well; 21% perform poorly).
Here’s the link: http://www.baseballhq.com/members/tools/toolbox/tool_min.shtml (membership required).
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 26, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks for the link
But i’m not recc’ing a 2nd post that covers the same ground!
The monster at the end of this blog.
Doesn't directly address my point
because it can’t exclude the theory that another year in the minors at a lower level (AA, one presumes) would have the same or similar effect.
I suspect that what’s really going on here is that players who skip AAA are just really underaged with respect to the rest of MLB, and that that fact explains ~80-90% of the “skipping AAA effect” that the study indicates. You really have to look hard for starters who actually do well before age 22, and I don’t think skipping AAA is really the reason why.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Sheeit man
I just post numbers.
I don’t do actual research.
I agree with you: many baseball “studies” are flawed in their methodology (e.g., may not contain perfect control groups, may not capture every cause-and-effect) and most baseball “studies” present less-than-compelling results. Good thing it’s baseball players we’re talking about, and not whether an asteroid is going to hit the earth or whether a disease is going to wipe out mankind. Imprecision is the nature of this game… rarely do we find causation; most of the time we have to settle for correlation and/or no-ation.
I’m not trying to debunk a theory here. Your theory may very well be right… I’m just posting information (AAA experience and MLB performance tend to be linked). You can take it for what it’s worth.
(Sorry for posting the same info in two places in the same thread… I’m blogtarded)
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 27, 2009 7:26 AM PST up reply actions
No need to get defensive
I’m not trying to attack you, just trying to limit our conclusions to what the evidence supports.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Not getting defensive
I was just responding to your post — apologize if I came across as defensive.
Anyway… I think the conclusion I reached (i.e., “these statistics at least suggest that there’s some benefit to a pitcher spending a year at AAA before being called up to the bigs”) is not far-fetched and is supported by the evidence. The conclusion you reach (that the “skipping AAA effect” could be attributable to the fact that “players who skip AAA [are] underaged with respect to the rest of MLB”) is also a reasonable conclusion given the evidence presented.
I think it’s fair to say that, on the whole, pitchers as a group fare better after a year of AAA seasoning, but that the statistics could be skewed by individual characteristics of the participants in the study (e.g., AAA skippers may be younger as a group, and therefore more likely to fail at the MLB level). Whether the youngness of AAA skippers accounts for the entire discrepency between the success rates of AAA skippers (16% succeed / 77% struggle) and non-AAA skippers (56% succeed / 33% struggle) is a question neither of us knows the answer to…
My guess is that the discrepency is due in (small) part to the reason you suggest (AAA skippers are young compared to the MLB player pool) and due in (large) part to pitching being a learned craft, in which learning to beat hitters at each level is an important part of the process… I have no evidence for this final conclusion, other than the correlative effect shown in the numbers I posted and my own understanding of the game.
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 27, 2009 9:47 AM PST up reply actions
Don't forget Kevin Cameron
He could be a quality bullpen arm if given the chance. And damn it grover, now that you’ve penciled in Springer, we won’t sign him.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Noooooooo
Why would you waste that on Cabrera when Garrett Anderson is still out there!?!?!?!
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 26, 2009 3:39 AM PST up reply actions
Interesting point
Although, if our biggest problem is finding a long man in the bulllpen I would take that. I think one thing the A’s have going for them is that behind the top 6 starters we have a lot of good prospects.
I don’t think Cahill, Anderson, Mazzaro, or Simmons are ready yet, but if the top 6 you listed can manage to stay healthy and mostly effective at least till June, I think at least one of the four prospects listed will be ready to debut. So while we may have to reach deeper for innings than our top 5-6 starters I think the depth is there to give us an advantage over other teams in the same position.
I think Outman could be a long reliever....
and move into the rotation if/when their is a injury or demotion.
"RIP: UserID: 553"
right
but i (and iirc, grover made this point as well) think that outman needs to start in AAA or in the bigs, and not come out of the pen. it’s the best way to not risk his development
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
That may be true..
I don’t know what Outman can or cannot do as far as his pitching “limits”. But, as far as I can remember 4 of those 5 SP’s we have penciled in have all come out of the Bullpen in the Majors……I can’t remember if Gallagher has or not. IF he has, that would be 5/5.
"RIP: UserID: 553"
He has
The Cubs were using him as a swingman for much of the calendar year immediately proceeding the trade.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
If anyone else cites IP markers from projection systems as "proof" that the A's will use 10 starters next season,
I’m going to start chewing through my comforter.
They’re attempting to average out the chances that a pitcher is ready and pitches a more or less full season with the chances that he is unready and pitches a small number of horrible innings. The result is this hodgepodge of starters projected to throw 130 below-average innings. Trying to aggregate them as a teamwide forecast of doom is rubbish.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
You seem to threaten to chew, eat, or otherwise orally dismantle a great many things.
I find it a wonder that your body is still functioning.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Jan 26, 2009 1:05 AM PST up reply actions
As far as I can tell, I have the following unilateral contract offers currently on the table w/r/t baseball:
Eat my hat if Ryan Sweeney OPSes .850 in a full season in Oakland
Eat my shoe if Travis Buck hits 35 HR
Eat AN’s choice of four different items if Sweeney hits 35 HR
Eat my hat if Jemile Weeks plays for the A’s in 2009
Eat my underwear if Kurt Suzuki hits .340 in a full season
So I’m feeling pretty safe about my digestion right now. The comforter thing is pure exasperation. Though maybe all of this represents some kind of oral fixation caused by not being allowed to eat at restaurants enough when I was in elementary school. Who could say?
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
you choose very safe things...
what will you eat if Cahill or Anderson starts for the A’s in 2009?
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 1:22 AM PST up reply actions
Safe? So you mean me saying I'll eat a human being - a live human being - if Cust gets 600 PAs and K's fewer than 10 times isn't going out on a limb?
Because I’ll do it. I swear.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:24 AM PST up reply actions
(makes note to remain far away from thejd44 at season's end)
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:26 AM PST up reply actions
There's some joke in here about "out on a limb" and cannibalism
but I can’t quite pin it down.
Oh well.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Ooooh, I made a pun and I didn't even realize it
Awesome.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:27 AM PST up reply actions
By the way
I don’t think you’re be eating anything based on the stuff listed above. The most likely one is Sweeney, I think, but I can’t really get him above an .800 OPS and I’m quite optimistic about his development.
What constitutes a “full season” for a catcher?
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:28 AM PST up reply actions
I dunno, 120 games?
Doesn’t have to be that high… he’s not hitting .340 in any remotely plausible sample size.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
no matter how you prepare long pig (sauteed, braised, tartare), you should always serve it with ...
… FREE KRAUT!
A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@
Fuckin' A, dude.
Fuckin’ A.
(Sorry — just scored Big Lebowski for $10 at Target. The Anniversary 2-disc edition, no less!)
kraut, lebowski... burkhalter?
“i told that kraut a f—-ing thousand times i don’t roll on shabbas.”
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Way better than people here believing in (the A's 2009 season amounting to) nothing
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions
I project...
… you have a 29% chance of eating your hat (on Ryan Sweeney’s behalf), a 6% chance of eating your shoe (unless you are talking about Buck hitting 35 career HRs, in which case you have a 96% chance of eating your shoe), a 2% chance of eating four different items (AN’s choice), a 1% chance of eating your hat (on Jemile’s behalf), and a 3% chance of eating your underwear.
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 26, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions
You're right that you can't take the IP numbers on a projection system as a projection but in this case
the low numbers there do indicate that the guys haven’t thrown a lot of innings in the past and that there is a durability issue. Grover’s larger point is valid.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:07 AM PST up reply actions
How about this...
Dana Eveland has more career big league starts (35) than anyone else on Oakland’s big league roster. In fact, Eveland’s the only pitcher with at least 30 GS in his big league career. #2 on the list is Justin Duchscherer (27) who missed the last third of the 2008 season to undergo hip surgery. Then comes Dallas Braden (24) followed by Sean Gallagher (21).
Anyway you look at the Oakland’s rotation, be it by IP projection or career GS or by fucking scouting reports, the A’s have serious questions about their starting pitchers.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Questions, yes, because they're mostly all young.
But I dunno why the overly pessimistic view. Just because they’re young doesn’t mean it’s a rotation of Kirk Saarloos.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions
The de facto ace has had hip surgery twice now
The SP with the most career starts is considered something of an underachiever. Gallagher saw his velocity flucuate after joining the A’s, possibly due to a shoulder issue. Gio was inconsistent in AAA.
The age issue is not my primary concern.
The monster at the end of this blog.
You're doing it wrong.
Anyway you look at the Oakland’s rotation, be it by IP projection or career GS or by fucking scouting reports, the A’s have serious questions about their starting pitchers.
I think you’d learn more by reading the scouting reports. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
what WC and g said
You and grover are both right — to use those projection systems to guess any one particular pitcher’s IP for a given year is foolish (note the "i"), but the fact remains that the A’s are relying (at this point) on a collection of SPs with speckled track records. As grover sez, some of ‘em will surely outcount their projections — and some may well either hit them or underperform them. There’s a lot of uncertainty across the entire rotation — and that’s on top of (a) the usual ill effects on the body of the unnatural act of throwing a baseball 90+ MPH and (b) the usual ill effects on the body of the unnatural act of being subjected to the A’s training/medical staff.
A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@
Bring back Bad Chad Gaudin!!!!!!!!
They're called RUNS for a reason.
by connie mack on Jan 26, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
I haven't seen any real differential between the A's and other teams in their rates of pitching injuries
It’s the position players who have been afflicted by a bewildering plague of soft-tissue ouchies.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
True
The ones that tend to stick in the mind (Huddy’s oblique, Mulder’s mysterious back/hip/shoulder/whatever issues that we all could see yet the FO denied, Harden’s … entire being) obscure the point that overall A’s pitchers have remained pretty healthy.
A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@
I think it goes something like this
A’s pitchers have lots of injuries.
Non-A’s pitchers also have lots of injuries.
A’s position players have lots of injuries.
Non-A’s position players have relatively few injuries.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
I agree 100%. Someone HAS to pitch those innings.
Therefore someone will HAVE to pitch more than their projections.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
I see a pretty mediocre roster there, that could turn very bad.
Superstars (6+ Win players)
None
All Stars (5+ Win players)
Holliday maybe
Solid Regulars (3-4 Win players)
Suzuki, Ellis, Cust, Duchscherer
Question Marks
1B, SS, 3B, CF, RF, 4 Rotation Spots, Bullpen
This team should be around 75-85 Wins and really needs a lot to go right to do better than that. With injuries it could get a lot uglier — see the second half of 2008.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
I dunno, I think this year's team is significantly better than last year's.
Whether that ends up in 5 wins, or 10 (which is the most you seem to think is possible), I’m not sure. But still, an 85-win team could win that division.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:19 AM PST up reply actions
Last year was really 2 teams -- the one with the great starting pitching in the 1H and the horrible
pitching in 2H. These names don’t give me confidence that 2009 is going to be like 2008 1H.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:22 AM PST up reply actions
So why don't you anticipate any improvement of the young pitchers?
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:23 AM PST up reply actions
I do. That's why they won't be 24-42 like in 2008 2H.
I also don’t think they’re going to be as good as Harden and Duke were in 1H
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:24 AM PST up reply actions
Probably not
But the offense also stands to be significantly better.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:26 AM PST up reply actions
I certainly hope so. It couldn't be any worse. I see the AL like this:
90+ Wins: Rays, Yankees, Red Sox
85+ Wins: Indians, Angels
75-85 Wins: Athletics, Blue Jays, Tigers, Mariners, Rangers, Twins
Stragglers: White Sox, Orioles, Royals
So sure, if the Angels have a mediocre year for their talent level and the A’s stay healthy they can compete.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:31 AM PST up reply actions
I don't think the Angels' talent level is much higher than the A's talent level
Certainly not ~10 wins higher
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:34 AM PST up reply actions
I think it's about 5 wins better if everyone on both teams are healthy.
The other five wins comes from our guys not having good health track records and the pitchers not being very durable.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:37 AM PST up reply actions
You do realize that most of the Angels have bad health track records too, right?
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Any AN reader can be forgiven for not realizing that.
Throughout the season you can read any number of boo-hooing comments to the effect that only our team could have such terrible luck with injuries.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Kind of, but not quite as bad. The important guys by health only:
Holliday > Guerrero
Lackey > Chavez
Santana > Ellis
Hunter = Cust
Suzuki > Napoli
Saunders > Duchscherer
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:45 AM PST up reply actions
Huh?
Lackey > Chavez?
I don’t even know how one would go about comparing them.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
By health only
If you want to quantify it maybe the ratio of WAR (if completely healthy) to WAR (with expected health)
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:51 AM PST up reply actions
I think what WC is saying
is that Lackey and Chavez are roughly equivalent in terms of their value to their respective teams, and that between the two of them Lackey is more likely to stay healthy.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
OK
If that’s what he’s saying, I totally reject that characterization. Lackey is far more important to the Angels than Chavez is to the A’s.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Yes you can argue with the order in terms of who's most
valuable but I don’t see much argument that the A’s top guys are less of a health risk than the Angels top guys.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:53 AM PST up reply actions
Hunter=Cust?
Holy crap, Cust has been eating his OF Wheaties in the offseason?!
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 26, 2009 9:07 AM PST up reply actions

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Is that Commander Sisco behind that face palm?
The DS9 reference does my heart good.
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 26, 2009 4:15 PM PST up reply actions
Anyone know why Star Trek had so many facepalms?
It’s kind of freaky actually.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Really Really bad (if enjoyable) acting?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
more nerds with the wherewithal to quickly/simply do digital screengrabs watching Trek than, say, Reba
A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@
Not long after reading this exchange
I watched a Will and Grace rerun on TV and noticed two face palms. I think we’re just more aware of them in Star Trek.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
I really don't think it's even 5 wins
I think their offense is going to really, really suck this year unless they end up signing one of the remaining free agent hitters. The only guy on the team that’s even kinda scary is Vlad, and last year looked like the beginning of his decline.
I think the A’s have the best offensive player in the division for the first time in a while.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:43 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, but there's a massive difference in starting pitching.
Just like last August and September. The offense just makes it closer.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:46 AM PST up reply actions
Is their starting pitching that much better?
Lackey is, sure. But which Santana is the real one? It’s probably closer to ‘08, but I think he’ll regress some. Saunders is not nearly as good as his record and ERA. Weaver is mediocre. Who’s filling the 5th spot? Moselry? Adenhart? Their starting pitching is not the sure thing it appears to be. Is Escobar healthy, and if so, will he start (and be any good)?
Their starting pitching should be better, but I think you’re assuming all those guys are for real and none of the A’s guys are for real.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:54 AM PST up reply actions
I disagree that Weaver is mediocre. He'd be the #1 A's starter.
I’m pretty optimistic about Santana since his arsenal is mighty impressive. I’m actually a bit worried about Lackey. Saunders is average, but that’s a lot better than the A’s 4th best starter whoever that is going to be.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:55 AM PST up reply actions
this
which is exactly why you’ll see Cahill and Anderson this year, not next.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 2:18 AM PST up reply actions
what WC said might be the case
but it doesnt mean that cahill/anderson will or should be up this year
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
we, too, travdog, will...
have to agree to disagree on this one. Just as I disagree with grover, PT, Nate, thejd44 and 99.99% of AN on this one.
I know there are a few, a very few, who think it might, hope it might happen… I’m among them. And, the only one who is foolsh enough to actually say so.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 26, 2009 2:34 AM PST up reply actions
you know,
I get having a minority opinion…it’s good, and fosters discussion.
but you don’t seem interested in defending your position. Is there a reason? And if its just a hunch, why not just call it your hunch and leave it there?
Your tone almost seems like you’re martyring yourself, which I find amusing.
Weaver's numbers suggest he's medicore
He’s not better than Duke. I don’t think he’ll be better than Gallagher.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
PECOTA had them at 90-72
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 6:44 AM PST up reply actions
I think we can all agree
that we’re certainly not over the top, but we’re definitely in the same discussion as the Angels.
And as it comes to the deadline, if we’re within a couple games of each other, we have a whole lot of depth to make a deal from. We were in the same position last year to make a move, but weren’t in the position to compete.
i wouldnt fully agree
i am admittedly a pessimist, but i just see soooo much that could go horribly wrong and this year being similar to the second half of last year
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
I'm not normally a pessimist but I agree with this. We could see 100 losses if things get really bad.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:39 AM PST up reply actions
But what kind of really bad?
If you’re talking Holliday and Duke and Giambi are flipped for a bunch o’ prospects and the kids are playing and developing, that’s not necessarily so bad.
If it’s 100 losses because those three guys get hurt and the kids are all bad and injured and the outfield for 75 games is Denoria, Robnett, and Putnam. Yeah, not good.
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:44 AM PST up reply actions
Really bad would be Ellis, Chavez, Duke, Gallagher and Buck all injured early and
they get into a bad hole like 15-30. Then Holliday is traded. Giambi is mediocre and the pitching is terrible.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 1:48 AM PST up reply actions
bullpen is not a question mark
Cust is the new Jaha.
by johnjahafanclub on Jan 26, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
Of course it is.
Bullpen’s are historically inconsistent. Casilla was fat last year. Devine has had injury problems. Brown wasn’t that effective after his surgery. Springer, if we get him, is over 40. Ziegler’s performance from last year isn’t repeatable. Other than that, the guys that might have to replace them seem, to me at least, to either be mediocre AAA guys or guys like Demel or Carignan who are young, inexperienced, and inconsistent. Bullpen’s are ALWAYS question marks.
So, about that open OF spot
Does anybody actually think it’ll go to Ben Copeland?
Why the hell did they take him in the Rule 5 Draft again? Does anybody know this?
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 1:57 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I'd rather see them cut him now than expose Chen to waivers.
His presence on the roster annoys me.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 2:01 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Last I checked, there are 11 OFs on the 40 man (Cust counts)
Is Copeland in the Top 10 of that list?
by thejd44 on Jan 26, 2009 12:30 PM PST up reply actions
I'd put him ahead of Robnett or Herrera
but, you know, we’re splitting hairs here.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
all rh bullpen?
Got to think there will 2 lefthanders in pen. Let’s hope Barton is not starting at 1b for Oakland — Sac.yes.
I don't see that unless Outman's the second guy. Kilby can't be one of their 12 best pitchers.
Maybe if there’s another acquisition like Reyes.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2009 6:45 AM PST up reply actions
Beane's comment
Ideally, you’d like these kids to get their feet wet at every level," Beane said, “but I feel at some point those guys are due to break through, whether it’s spring or April, May or June.”
Beane feels he can create a situation for these young pitchers where they are surrounded by a good offense, similiar to the Big 3 time period. Also, with Giambi, Holliday, Cust, and the return of Chavez, this will mitigate the pressure felt by the likes of Barton, Buck etc…
Surrounding them with a good offense doesn't offset them not being ready for MLB.
Hudson, Mulder, and Zito all spent time (albeit not much) in Triple-A.
Why does noone like Chris Schroder?
He’s had some pretty good minor league numbers lately, and he K’s a lot of people. I’m not saying he’ll set the world on fire, but he does have a shot at being a pretty good reliever, does he not? He isn’t chopped liver…it could be worse, that could be Foulke or Calero in there.
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
not bad
i forget, where did we get this guy?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
whoa, this is the best day in AN history
i got a new laptop a while ago, i didn’t bother turning installing killfile until just now, and after testing it on foolsh i was surprised to find it actually works with sbnation again.
so all you annoying people out there, don’t stop saying stupid shit…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
In former Soviet Union, stupid shit doesn't stop saying YOU
A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@
In former Soviet Union, the poop flings you
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
First Time Posting so go easy. Long Relief Role
Hey All my name is Kevin and I love reading these posts and often read the blogs, just wanted to throw this out and get your opinions. How about Brad Knox for long relief, I know he’s a minor league free agent, are we interested in resigning him? Here’s a quote I found that orginated from Scout.com I believe. “RHP Brad Knox continues to shine in Venezuela. The former A’s farmhand who is a minor league free agent won his third post-season game for Caracas. He allowed only two runs on four hits with no walks in 7.2 innings. He struck-out four. The win gave Caracas a 2-1 series lead over Aragua.” I also wanted to say one quick thing about the Cahill/Anderson/Mazzero discussion. It seems better to have them start at Sactown, and let the one who is doing the best replace the first pitcher who gets hurt, which with this team won’t be long. That way the six pitchers you mention may eat up 75% of the total innings in a season, and then our three Triple A Aces can step in to fill that remaining 25% as needed, hopefully with all up by September.

by 
























