Some things I am "coming around" on...
by Taj Adib on Nov 20, 2009 9:24 AM PST
Email
Print
Well, now that JJ Hardy is all-but-certainly not becoming an Oakland Athletic anytime soon and Billy Beane has all-but-dismissed any intention of signing veteran free agents this winter, it seems like I can now officially move past my admittedly half-baked, crackpot off-season plan and re-evaluate my hopes/thoughts concering these Oakland A's as they prepare for the 2010 season.
At this point, it certainly looks like the organization is not motivated at all to contend next season, and I guess that's a realization that's better accepted now than sometime later in the off-season/beginning of Spring after a winter of nervous/excited rosterbating and rumor-mongering. With that in mind, I'm starting to "come around" on a few ideas that I've seen posted here at AN or other sites in regards to our Green and Gold of 2010 and beyond:
3rd Base: Most observers are taking Beane's comments about trying to trade for "young players at positions of need" to imply that he'll be actively looking to trade for a young, major league ready third baseman or shortstop. After hearing this "analysis" I personally began scouring team and prospect pages for 0-3 year MLB 3rd baseman and high-minors 3rd base/shorstop prospects. I came up with the usual suspects: Alex Gordon, Andy LaRoche, Vitters, Gamel, DeJesus, Brignac, etcetera...
Any of those players are probably possible, but the cost may be prohibitive and I interpreted Beane's comments differently...I implied that Beane will be looking at players at any level of pro-ball that could potentially fill big league vacancies in the next several years, so I think it's just as likely that Beane trades for Brent Morel and calls it a day than he scrambles to acquire a somewhat MLB-ready young player just to fill a vacany for this coming year.
With that being said, I'm starting to think that it's likely that Beane just doesn't add anyone to the immediate 3rd-base mix, especially if he can't pull off a reasonable trade for a player he actually likes and/or he believes that Wallace could step in at some point in 2010 and be a credible 3rd baseman. He might turn to free agency later on in the winter, like he said, but by that time you've got to think that DeRosa, Figgins and Beltre (the actual desirable 3rd base options) will be off the board or engaged in discussions/bidding wars with teams with more desire and/or resources to sign them: i.e., the Phillies, Cardinals, Mariners...I guess there's always the Kennedy option, but even though I advocated for him before, there's little sense going after him if the organization is just not committed to winning at all.
I guess what I'm getting at here is...what if Beane just wants to go all-in-house for his vacancies and really just save every penny he can and evaluate the entirety of his current 40-man roster to be sure of what he has so that he can make the best trades and most informed decisions possible in preperation for the coming years that'll actually matter (2011-)? Without an MLB-ready third baseman, what will the 2010 A's do to man the hot corner, until Wallace is ready- if 3rd base is even an option for him? He's an idea I've been mulling over that could, in theory, provide a short-term - "evaluate and see what the hell happens" type of arrangement:
Platoon Eric Patterson and Tommy Everidge at 3rd. Ya, I can hear a bunch of "hurumphs" and "WTF's" even as I write this. Admittedly, it's an uninspired plan. Neither Everidge or Patterson are proven 3rd baseman or really glove-men of any note...however, they do have ever-so-recent and brief experience at the hot corner in the minors. According to minorleaguesplits.com, both guys proved they were not complete disasters in the field, altough in extremely small sample sizes and only according to the TotalZone system. However, both guys are getting old and really have nothing to prove at AAA and are currently on the 40-man roster. Since Patterson will never supplant Ellis, Weeks or Cardenas at 2nd or anyone in the outfield, and Everidge will never supplant Barton, Wallace, Doolittle, Cater, etcetera at 1st or DH, why shouldn't the A's just see if it's at all possible if they could serve some very specific utility for 2010 or even see if they could boost their profile(s) and trade value(s) for a later trade - especially when this team has nothing else to lose?
I have no idea how many runs these two would give away with their gloves, but I could actually see their platoon arrangement working out alright on offense. Patterson is a career .880 OPS hitter against righties in the minors - EVeridge is a career .954 OPS hitter against lefties in his career. It's a pretty natural platoon arrangement and would be an interesting use of roster spots, as you'd get an added speed weapon into the lineup against the majority of starting pitchers, while reserving a power right-handed bench bat for later in games and against the minority lefty-starter. It would also get the starting pitchers acquainted with "fall down range" type of 3rd baseman, which should smooth the transiton to Brett Wallace, should the chips fall that way!
Aroldis Chapman: I'm starting to really come around on NSJ's idea about going for broke to sign Aroldis Chapman. I know there are all sorts of risk in signing this guy, but the upside is just tremendous and he might only need a bit of minor league seasoning before being able to contribute in the majors. A future rotation involving Anderson, Ynoa and Chapman would be downright devastating and since the A's have tons of money coming off the books in the next year and really harbor no pretensions about competing in 2010, I think spending on Chapman would be an interesting and potentially really rewarding investment.
Cliff Pennington: I'm also, ever so slightly, starting to come around on Cliff Pennington as a potential decent big league player. I've been really low on Pennington for some time now. I've long thought that his lack of power would be exploited in the big leagues - pitchers would just pound the strikezone with him and fielders would just play shallow to take away his bloop and gap hits - while his defense has never impressed me whenever I've seen him play. However, I'm thinking that it's possible that Cliff really did make some permament, positive adjustments to his game after being called up to the big leagues late this season.
It seems like Cliff was more aggressive at the plate in 2009 than he was before, even in the minors. He seemed to swing more often and not just wait for the walk, which to me is a good sign, especially since he seemed to show restraint on pitches outside the strikezone while swinging at more pitches in the strikezone (when compared to his 2008 cup of coffee). I think this added aggressiveness led to Cliff's career high 7 homers (when you combine his 2009 AAA numbers with this MLB numbers). Also of note is that Cliff has seemingly fully recovered from the leg issues that bothered him much of 2007 and 2008 and likely contrbiuted to his low offensive output in those seasons. If Cliff is better able to build a base at the plate with which to drive the ball now that his legs are at full strength, then he might be able to consistently hit for slightly more power in the years to come than he has shown thus far in pro career. Granted, he'll likely never hit over 10 homers or even approach a .418 slugging percentage ever again, but when the guy is projected to slug less than .350 next season, every little bit of punch that could get him closer to .400 will make him an incremantally more valuable player.
As for defense...I guess you could just call Pennington "uneven". He seemed fine for awhile, but he eventually broke down and just seemed a little ragged and sloppy by the end of the season. I guess you can't blame him too much for that, since he played about 30 more games in 2009 than he had ever done before in his career, so he probably just wore down. Besides the sloppyish play, Pennington did somewhat impress me with his instincts and definitely his arm strength. I'm encouraged that his tools and instincts are good for the position...he'll just need to continue to slow the game down a bit, trust his instincts and arm to make up for a lack of range and just make the plays he can get-to consistently and cleanly.
To me, all of that above is a recipe for a league-average shortstop who has a good batting eye, can run a little bit, hit for just enough power to keep the defense honest and can hold down the position adequately for a year or two. For $400K, that isn't the worst situation for the team to be in...
And since no off-season post is complete without some rosterbation:
This is how I see the team being assembled should Beane just go totally in-house for virtually every spot:
1. Braden
2. Duke (still think it makes the most sense for the team & for him to re-sign)
3. Anderson
4. Cahill
5. Gio
6. Bailey
7. Wuertz
8. Ziggy
9. Devine
10. Breslow
11. Blevins
12. Eveland/Kilby
13. Hairston
14. Rajai
15. Sweeney
16. Patterson
17. Pennington
18. Ellis
19. Barton
20. Suzuki
21. Cust
22. Powell
23. Buck
24. Gregorio Petit
25. Everidge
With a lienup like this against righties:
1. Rajai (CF)
2. Patterson (3B)
3. Sweeney (RF)
4. Hairston (LF)
5. Cust (DH)
6. Suzuki (C)
7. Barton (1B)
8. Ellis (2b)
9. Pennington (SS)
Speedy, but virutally devoid of power...seems like the A's from the 2nd half of 2009...
Against lefties:
1. Rajai (CF)
2. Ellis (2B)
3. Hairson (LF)
4. Everidge (3B)
5. Cust (DH)
6. Suzuki (C)
7. Barton (1b)
8. Sweeney (RF)
9. Pennington (SS)
A bit of platoon-packed punch in the 2-4 spots...a tad more power, but not much more.
Basically, what I'm seeing with a team like this is one similar to the A's of the 2nd half of 2009: the team could again lead the league in stolen bases and doubles and could score runs on occasion, but probably won't have a lot of big innings. The pitching would be very solid start to finish and the defense would be mostly solid...above-average at all outfield spots, the right side of the infield and behind the plate - but with something to be desired on the left side of the infield (what else is new).
The team listed above is not a great team, or even a good team, by any means...however, it's a team that will give a ton of opportunity to players currently on the 40-man roster and will definitely feature a solid pitching staff and an athletic/mobile offense that should be fairly exciting to watch. The arrangement above should also assure that the AAA and AA levels of the farm system are stockpiled with players that could be impact talents sooner rather than later, but aren't prematurely rushed to the majors (Wallace, Carter) while establishing a depth of players at those levels who could easily make their way(s) up the big leagues should the need/opportunity arise at some point in 2010 (Mazzaro, Simmons, Godfrey, Kilby, Gray, Demel, Storey, Mortensen, Brown, Doolittle, Cardenas).
While this type of "sit on your hands, play the hand you've got and wait for the young hitters to arrive" isn't an ideal strategy to me, I could see how it makes some sense...
225 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
While by and large I agree with most of this,
I think Pennington has a lot more chance to be useful offensively as Luis Castillo than as Jose Castillo.
If you can combine high contact rates with a good batting eye, it is possible to draw a lot of walks even without much power. Indeed, the number of players adopting this approach seems to be increasing (Chone Figgins, Marco Scutaro). It has the added bonus of forcing the other team’s pitcher to waste more pitches on the bottom of the lineup.
I really don’t see the drawbacks vis a vis an “aggressive” approach. Actually, I rarely see any merit in “aggressive” approaches at all, other than as sops to a certain particularly hidebound cast of fan. It’s not a coincidence that MVP-in-waiting Joe Mauer has one of the lowest Swing percentages in the entire majors.
Look at the top of that list (fewest swings):
Luis Castillo
Bobby Abreu
Marco Scutaro
Nick Johnson
Nick Swisher
Chone Figgins
Chase Utley
Joe Mauer
Kosuke Fukudome
Put that lineup on the field and you’d win 110 games.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I see your point.
I’m not advocating a “swing more” strategy in general for Pennington, but rather more a targeted aggressiveness for balls in the strikezone. He seems to have a good, but not elite, control of the strikezone and while guys like Abreu, Figgins, Utley and Mauer can afford to take that extra pitch because they are just very skilled hitters that can make hard contact with very tough pitches, Pennington certainly isn’t in their league in that regard.
I definitely understand that Pennington is not doing himself any favors if he’s trading walks for “potential” power…but I think there’s a way for him to settle into a fairly healthy 10% BB rate while looking to drive more pitches that are definitely strikes.
I think that as far as the “tug of war” goes between pitchers and hitters making adjustments, it works in Pennington’s long-term favor to at least show opposing pitchers and advance scouts that he can put a charge into a meatball on occasion and won’t just let 3-1/2-0/2-1 fastballs harmlessly sail through the strikezone just to take an extra pitch and look for that walk. Over the long-term, Cliff proving that he can turn on a pitch might improve his walk rate…
Of course, I have no statistical base for this opinion, but it’s just my interpretation of how Pennington can evolve into more of an offensive asset with his current skillset…
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
Technically
Except for Utley, Pennington is in their league.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
What Skaaaaaaalan said was that he had worked with Pennington
on turning more on inside pitches. That doesn’t speak to an overall mindset of swing more or less aggressively, but rather to an improved result on a certain type of pitch — which we saw evidenced a few times and might account for the improved slugging pct.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I don't know
If there’s one thing in Pennington’s minor league hitting line that could truthfully be described as “elite,” it’s BB/K ratio. He’s been very near to 1:1, despite relatively weak overall hitting lines, in the minors.
There are not very many players in the minors who actually have the skillset to turn into a Luis Castillo type player, but Pennington is one of them. By contrast, I don’t think he’s going to get very far pretending he’s Jose Reyes.
Part of what’s going on here is that even most major league pitchers have real difficulty throwing a strike “on command” in a 2-0 or 3-0 count. People tend to exaggerate how likely it is that a “cripple” pitch will actually come over for a strike. Even when they know that hitters are almost never going to swing, pitchers miss the zone about 1/3 of the time. This is, of course, part of what makes baseball such an incredibly difficult game to play well. But it means there’s room for guys to succeed with a take-first-swing-later approach.
Of course any hitter should be capable of knowing where his strengths are and looking for pitches in that area. There’s never any excuse for falling asleep at the plate. But by and large, I think hitters like Pennington should be zoning in on a very small part of the hitting area when they’re in advantageous counts.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Nov 20, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Another thing to consider
Beane could start locking up his proven young talent to long term deals. To those who are worried about “lost” service time, now might be the time to ink Anderson to a 6-7 year deal. We’ve seen the A’s buy out a player’s 1st year of FA eligibility before (typically with team controlled option years) offering Anderson more than league minimum starting next season would allow the A’s to do the same.
Suzuki is another obvious canidate for a long term deal. Braden is a maybe. There’s probably no pay-off in doing the same for Bailey at this point and I won’t suggest Cahill because of lingering reservations about whether or not he should be in the 2010 roation on Opening Day.
The monster at the end of this blog.
+a million
Any boring offseason plan’s priority one should be locking about Anderson. I could maybe see trading Suzuki next offseason. I love Kurt but his workload, one of the main reasons he’s so good, is bound to go down as his age increases. Donaldson could next year spend half a year in the majors alternating between 3b and C. If he hits, I might make the Suzuki move.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Suzuki
He does a great, great job defensively. Even if his offense declines, his defense should still be really good.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Nov 20, 2009 4:29 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
The A’s have the payroll flexibility to pay Anderson as much as a $6M signing bonus this offseason (while still keeping enough money to acquire a 3B stopgap). That ought to be sufficient consideration to lock him up long-term at relatively team-friendly prices.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
From what I have read it looks like the A's would be satisfied to sign Kennedy to man 3B until Wallace comes up.
I could see Wallace coming up in June and Kennedy could be a backup.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Yeah, but Kennedy is terrible
There are better players available for similar sums.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I think they'd wait till February and then sign whomever is left for very little money
They’re probably hoping that Kennedy is left then. I don’t see him getting a whole lot from anyone.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 20, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
Wouldn't Brandon Inge be a good candidate
to be acquired at pretty low costyet provide a substantial upgrade at 3B?
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
Yeah, I think they could score him for effectively peanuts
Detroit seems desperate to move salary. Maybe like Eveland or something, so they have a replacement for when Jeremy Bonderman’s arm falls off again.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
pretty sure I'd absolutely jump at an Eveland for Inge swap
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Me too!
With or without Inge.
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
Meh. I think Eveland got shafted last year luck wise and will be much better.
Bill James projects him to be above league average next year and Id far rather he be in the MLB than Cahill to be honest.
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Nov 21, 2009 8:54 AM PST up reply actions
Yup.
I’ve said all along that Eveland is just a very poor pitcher and I keep hearing about his bad luck. Every year he gives up a lot of hits and walks, i.e., he doesn’t get enough people out. That’s not “luck,” that’s failing to do the very thing you’re supposed to do.
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
That raises an interesting question
How do you tell “bad” from “bad luck”?
If a pitcher gets ahead 0-2 and then gives up a hit, is it bad execution or bad luck?
If a pitcher falls behind 2-0 and then gives up a hit, is it bad execution or bad luck?
We can’t know the answer based on the information I provided in those examples, but we can say that the pitcher was in a more advantageous situation when he was ahead of the batter 0-2 than when he was when he was behind 2-0.
It is too easy for us to look at a pitcher’s base line numbers and regress for luck. That’s just putting the number of hits into a formula with the IP and comparing it to league average data. Maybe what we should be doing is seeing how often a pitcher puts himself into a disadvantageous situation with the count.
The monster at the end of this blog.
OK
Trevor Cahill’s first-pitch strike percentage last year was 54.2%. Eveland’s was 56.1%. In 2008 it was 54.7%.
Well, there goes that theory.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Thank you, Paul
You managed to take 2 pitchers and compare stats that in no way answer the question I was posing and present it with snide finality. With continued insight such as this I’m sure you’ll soon find the answer to an even more pressing question:
Exactly how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
The monster at the end of this blog.
I just gave you a stat
that measures “how often a pitcher puts himself into a disadvantageous situation with the count.”
…
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Exactly how many times
have you seen a batter get called for a strike after he swings and gets a base hit?
A much, much more relevant stat would be to look at hits allowed on the 1st pitch. And then we could look at hits allowed for all the other possible counts in an at bat. Figure out some average BABIPs and we could see where a pitcher excelled or struggled. We’d certainly be better able to declare bad luck if we could see that a pitcher had a poor record of giving up hits when ahead 0-2 in the count. And we’d also have more justification to say a guy pitched poorly if he gave up a bunch of hits because he had a larger than average propensity for falling behind 2-0 in the count.
And then we could start to blend Pitch f/x data into the mix!
Throwing strikes is indeed a skill. Throwing something other than a meatball is a further enhancement of that same skill. Not issuing walks is another pitching skill. We sure as Hell can’t call it skill and give the pitcher full credit when a batter decides to swing the bat.
How many times this week have you said that there is very little pitching skill involved in what happens to a pitch after the batter makes contact?
We have access to the all the pitching count data but I haven’t seen any of the pitching metrics take that data into account and I’m curious if maybe that’s the next step in our understanding of pitching performance.
And that’s a question that deserves a bit more than a snarky reply backed by 1 data point comparison on two pitchers.
The monster at the end of this blog.
You two are just so cute when you fight!
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
You wanting Eveland instead of Cahill in Oakland has nothing to do with
how BJ projects Dana to pitch next year.
On a seperate note, how he could project Eveland to be above league average next year is beyond me.
The monster at the end of this blog.
In the sense that he should be a better pitcher, won't screw up Cahill's service time...
will very likely be best for Cahills development, and won’t force us to lose Eveland for next to nothing due to his out of options status. If that has nothing to do with Eveland being a better pitcher than or that he projects to be above league average and we will lose him for nothing than whatever.
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Nov 21, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions
Eveland won't be better than Cahill next year
And thanks for clarifying what I thought could go unsaid to anyone to didn’t hear us talk about this topic the previous 4 times.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Why won't he?
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Nov 22, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
Why will he? Because James said so?
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Two reasons
I believe Cahill will improve and over the past season and a half (roughly) of baseball Dana Eveland has shown a profound inability to get big league hitters out. Odds are he’s as good as he’s going to get and that ain’t good enough.
Maybe maybe he’s got some value if he can convert into a relief arm but at this point is the experiment really worth a spot on the A’s 25 man roster? I look at Breslow, Kilby and Blevins and say “No”. If the roster changes I’ll reconsider the bullpen option but for now, it’s a waste of roster space.
The monster at the end of this blog.
His value...
…is that of a long-relief mop-up guy when you’re already behind by 15 runs in the 3rd inning… and there aren’t enough of those opportunities in a season to justify keeping him around.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Eveland is the poster boy for a 0 WAR
You can turn over a rock, and find 3-4 of him available, at any moment.
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
OK
If this is so easy, name them for me. Seriously. Find me the 3 or 4 starting pitchers who can be signed for minor league contracts who are better than Dana Eveland.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
You can quibble with this one or that one,
but pick your favorite 3-4 from this list of minor league FAs and waived SPs, (listed alphabetically) that the A’s could have signed/kept, instead of keeping Eveland, in 2009:
Kevin Correia
Freddy Garcia
Dan Meyer
Pat Misch
Matt Palmer
Yusmeiro Petit
Palmer had his best season in 2009 and I don’t expect much from him going forward — but he would have been a nice catch for 2009. Petit did not have his best season in 2009, but is only 25 and I’d rather be rolling the dice with him right now than with Eveland.
And these are just the waived/minor league FAs, not guys who make $400K or so and could be obtained for practically nothing.
5th starters/long relievers grow on trees, and that’s what Eveland is.
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
Yeah, no, I'd take Eveland over those guys
’cept maybe Petit, he seems to have never really gotten a fair shake.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Is there a projection system out there that agrees with this view?
Or is it faith based wishcasting that Cahill will improve in the MLB to an acceptable level? If Eveland has shown such a profound ability why was he a 2.7 WAR starter in 08 and why does the James model think that he will be above league average next year.
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Nov 22, 2009 12:06 PM PST up reply actions
Eveland earned the bulk of that 2.7 score in the 1st half of 2008
Then something happened, maybe the league figured him out or whatever but he pitched so bad after a couple of months that he earned a demotion to AAA. And there’s no point trying to find a shiny light from his 2009 season.
Of course there is a chance that Dana Eveland could somehow figure out a way to get big league hitters out again. But I am not interested in giving him that chance at the expense of other players in the A’s system.
As for Cahill… the projection systems have only a limited amount of AA data to give his projection depth if they’re even willing to use that information. That means Cahill’s 2010 projection will come from his 2009 numbers.
I’ve argued repeatedly that his overall 2009 line does not tell the whole story of Cahill’s performance. He is not at a point in his development were improvement is destined to come as a gradual progression. There’s a very good chance, based on his pedigree, that he will have something of a breakout season next year.
And I could be wrong about that. But the only statistical based progression system that might be willing to support that idea would be PECOTA and that’s only because of how they break down their projections.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Lots of words, but you're still adopting a "system"
which puts huge emphasis on a player’s superficial performance numbers in his most recent year.
I’ll stick with ZiPS and CHONE, thanks.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Mrs Figgins is pleased that you continue to support her son.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Paul, please quit talking about things you don't understand
There is no system. History has shown that young players can show marked improvement in their performance in a short amount of time. For example, both ZiPS and CHONE whiffed on their Kendry Morales projections. That doesn’t mean the systems suck, just that when dealing with people you can’t just plug in the numbers and get an infallible answer.
Cahill is in the right age group and of sufficient pedigree that he could get a lot better in a hurry. I’ve got nothing against having a Plan B in case Cahill’s improvement isn’t immediate but I’d like to think the A’s could come up with a few better options than Eveland.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Cahill could get a lot better in a hurry and STILL be worse than Dana Eveland...
What you’re saying is that projections for younger players are more volatile than for older players. That’s true, of course, but it doesn’t close a full run gap in projected ERA. Maybe Cahill has a 20% chance of being better next year instead of the 10% chance he’d have if he was 25 years old. Doesn’t really make that much difference though.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
All of Eveland's projections are influenced by his 2008 performance, correct?
Eveland’s 2008 performance went from good to bad and he hasn’t stopped being bad since. But none of the major projection systems weigh the data by a month-to-month basis. And for the most part, that’s probably a good thing.
However, when discussing Eveland we shouldn’t ignore the FACT that his performance has been on a downward spiral since mid-2008 and because of that it is likely that his 2010 projections are too optimistic.
The monster at the end of this blog.
All of them weight 2009 more than 2008
Trying to get any useful information out of month-to-month splits is hopeless.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Eveland was bad all of 2009
And he hasn’t pitched well since May ‘08. That’s a trend.
I know that projection systems weigh 2009 data more than older data, just like I know most if not all projection systems try to use 3 years worth of data when possible. But please, continue with the condescending tone. Nothing amuses me more than to be spoken down to by the guy who got clowned by Dan Szymborski because he wasn’t able to understand simple English.
The monster at the end of this blog.
If you make a habit of reading nonexistent "tone"
into postings on the internet, that would explain a lot.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I don't care for the way you were smiling when you typed 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
Don't fucking look at me in that tone of voice.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Geez -- you have eyes in the back of your ass?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I see EVERYTHING
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
I thought I was wise
in the ways of ass, but honestly, I’m not sure what the difference is between the back of your ass and the front of your ass. I mean, the front is the back, isn’t it?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
That would be true
Of course, you taking to me as if I didn’t already know how projections based on historical data are weighed implies that you think I’m dumber than I really am.
And lets face it, anyone who’s been on AN for a while knows I try to get by on my charm and warmth.
The monster at the end of this blog.
"I get by with a little help from my fiends"
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
Shrug
I can’t stop you from unearthing nonexistent insults in comments, so… why worry about it?
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
You're right
You didn’t mean to insult me, you’re just displaying your absolute lack of people skills.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I don't know why
but that was hilarious to me.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Tell you what Paul
I’ll give you the chance to prove that all this is in my head.
Why did you feel the need to remind me that the 2009 data would be weighed more heavily than the 2008 data?
The monster at the end of this blog.
you do realize that other people read your spats right
and it could just be for our benefit rather than a slight plus I think his main argument was that month to month splits aren’t really that useful.
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Nov 23, 2009 9:29 PM PST up reply actions
You do realize that his reply was written as a response to my post
And as PT made no effort to make it clear that I was not his intended audience, that that bit of info was intended for AN as a whole, it’s rather easy to see how his intent gets murky.
Would you like it if I explained WAR to you every time we had a discussion on the topic, or would you feel like I was being a condescending jerk because I treated you like it was the first time you’d ever heard of advanced metrics?
The monster at the end of this blog.
I saw this:
However, when discussing Eveland we shouldn’t ignore the FACT that his performance has been on a downward spiral since mid-2008 and because of that it is likely that his 2010 projections are too optimistic.
I then responded by pointing out that part of this apparent phenomenon was already accounted for in the projections and the rest was of somewhat dubious reliability. It’s my answer to your argument.
You apparently are aware of this issue. Fine. Maybe you thought it was irrelevant, or… I don’t know. Interpreted it differently. Whatever. Not important.
The point is, this isn’t a two-person conversation, it’s a public debate. It is often the case that both sides of a debate will be aware of the other side’s primary arguments. That doesn’t mean you don’t make them.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Alright
I’d like to share one of my favorite passages from Sun Tzu: The Art of War to AN.
Sun Tzu divided (180 women) into two companies and put the King’s two favorite concubines in command. He instructed them all how to hold halberds. He then said, ‘Do you know where the heart is, and where the right and left hands and the back are?’
The women said, ‘We know.’
Sun Tzu said, ‘When I give the order “Front”, face in the direction of the heart; when I say “Left”, face toward the left hand; when I say “Right” towards the right; when I say “Rear”, face in the direction of your backs.’
The women said, ‘We understand.’
When these regulations had been announced the executioner’s weapons were arranged.
Sun Tzu then gave the orders three times and explained them five times, after which he beat on the drum the signal ‘Face Right’. The women all roared with laughter.
Sun Tzu said: ‘If regulations are not clear and orders not thoroughly explained, it is the commander’s fault.’ He then repeated the orders three times and explained them five times, and gave the drum signal to face the the left. The women again burst into laughter.
Sun Tzu said, ‘If instructions are not clear and commands not explicit, it is the commander’s fault. But when they have been made clear, and are not carried out in accordance with military law, it is a crime on the part of the officers.’ Then he ordered that the commanders of the right and left flanks be beheaded.
Well, as a recently promoted supervisor I’m glad to say we’ve moved away from beheadings! But what I take from Sun Tzu is the idea that the primary responsibility for any communication lies on the part of the communicator… not the receiving party.
Earlier PaulThomas attempted to explain to AN-at-large the process by which projection systems come up with their numbers. However, Paul failed to clearly state who his post was intended for and as his post was made in a direct reply to my comment, I was under the impression that his comment was directed specifically towards me. Now I’ll admit that I’m not the smartest poster on AN but I don’t need someone to tell me the sabermetric equivalent of 2+2=4.
And I took offense.
Here is what separates a good communicator from a bad one. Paul had the opportunity to clarify his intent and straighten out the miscommunication or he could shrug off the responsibility and place the blame on the person who misunderstood.
It costs a person nothing to insure good communications and untold mayhem can follow poor comms.
I’m off to Mexico, see ya!
The monster at the end of this blog.
I disagree (obviously)
AN has rules against personalizing discussions. The default rule should be to assume that any comment will be read by the rest of the site and is not specifically targeted at one person.
And while the Sun Tzu example is amusing, there is a level of going-out-of-your-way-to-take-offense-to-something which is sufficiently extreme that I’m not going to worry about it. And this was beyond that level.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I'm offended.
I’m not sure by what, though.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
I dislike an entire group of people
solely because they belong to that group. But I’m not sure what group. :-(
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
Me too
but that’s not a topic for this blog.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Them and their damn ovens
and courage.
And their stupid jump-rope rules.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Just ONCE I want to pay 51% of the bill.
Or 49%. Geez.
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
Please show me examples of pitchers who have ever had as bad of a start as Cahill that turned out good
According to BBref these are Cahills similar pitchers. Are any any good?
Similar Pitchers through 21
View Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
1. Gene Nelson (990)
2. Jon Garland (987)
3. Boots Poffenberger (984)
4. Tommy Hughes (983)
5. Dick Fowler (983)
6. Jim Maloney (981)
7. Joel Davis (979)
8. Johnny Podgajny (978)
9. Joe Moeller (977)
10. Moose Haas (977)
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Nov 23, 2009 9:25 PM PST up reply actions
Fine, so Cahill's ruined
Trade him before the rest of MLB figures it out.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Come on, DFA.
If the argument is that Cahill is more talented than his 2009 season showed, presenting a list of most similar pitchers is meaningless.
His high prospect stock gives him greater odds of a breakout season. All that BBref list says is that if he doesn’t have a breakout season, he’ll have a career like Jon Garland. Great, we already knew that.
No, there's no light,
in the darkest of your furthest reaches.
Some of those guys turned out OK
Jim Maloney and Gene Nelson to name two. Also Cahill was 21, and he improved in the second half. His midseason ZiPS ERA projection was 4.50 after his horrible first half.
You have to give him some credit for the excellent 2008 in addition to slamming him for the horrible 2009 first half. All is not lost. Yet.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 24, 2009 1:35 AM PST up reply actions
Now this is one ridiculous argument!
First of all, pitchers 1 and 10 were guys I’d be happy to have (Moose Haas was an excellent pitcher who was, sadly, asked to throw 155 pitches after coming back from arm injury).
But more importantly, if you look at a pitcher who has had only one season and it wasn’t good, and then compare him to equivalents, you shouldn’t expect him to be compared to very good pitchers. If anything, the fact that there are any good pitchers in there at all is impressive in Cahill’s favor.
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
There was this guy
He pitched for the A’s, but I can’t quite remember his name. Real hot prospect coming up – they rushed him to the big leagues as fast as they could. Anyway, he didn’t do so well his first year – 5.27 FIP, 5/4 K/BB, 1.29 HR/9 (for those playing along at home, Cahill in 2009: 5.33 FIP, 4.5/3.6 K/BB, 1.36 HR/9).
The guy ended up turning it around, putting up a K/BB rate around 6/2 for the next few years and keeping the homers under control – before his arm gave out on him. Too bad, too, because he was a solid 3-4 WAR, front-of-the-rotation starter in his prime.
Geez, what was that guy’s name? Mike Miller? Mack Mulvehill?Merkin Muffley?
Moof Monser!
He was mawesome.
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
Projects essentially the same performance as this season
Doesn’t look very accurate to me, since it has his ERA at almost a half-run below his FIP and it’s way too early to make that kind of judgment on a pitcher’s BABIP skill.
But, it is what it is.
CHONE projects Cahill at about a 5.20 ERA if I recall rightly.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Where do you see 2010 CHONE pitcher projections?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 23, 2009 6:05 PM PST up reply actions
Am I thinking of ZiPS?
No, I see there’s nothing there yet either. Apparently I just confabulated it from the Bill James projection of Cahill’s FIP.
Good thing I covered my ass with that “if I recall rightly” bit…
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Confabulations..Confabulations
Well done my friend. You’ve done it again.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 24, 2009 1:37 AM PST up reply actions
If nothing else, I'd trade Eveland for a bag of peanuts. Literally.
When all is said and done, 2008 will have been his “career year”. We should have sold high last winter. This winter we should still salvage whatever we can in trading him.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
I'd hold out for cashews.
At least walnuts.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 21, 2009 2:10 PM PST up reply actions
I prefer pistacios, myself.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
With all due respect to stat people
Dana Eveland is a detriment to this team.
Just having watched him pitch the last few years is enough for me to consider him utterly worthless. I think I have seen enough baseball over the last twenty years to make that determination. Just watching him consistently allowing 83,124 baserunners per outing is enough IMO.
I know a lot of you spend a lot of time with various stats and they are very informative and are appreciated but his meltdowns and epic WHIP are enough for me not to delve into anything else to make my decision.
Gosh, well I guess it's just settled now then, isn't it.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
I really don't understand this attitude.
You know that the stats explicity say something, but you’ll willfully ignore them for a gut feeling?
No, there's no light,
in the darkest of your furthest reaches.
Sounds to me like you do understand.
You’ve described Trainman accurately. He’s a gut feeling kind of guy.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
LOL
It’s not a gut feeling. It is plain as day.
I think quite a few people here have determined that he is not a good pitcher. Two years of ineptitude will do that. If the stats say otherwise then why is he not pitching accordingly.
Is a person not allowed to form an opinion on watching someone?
Do we wait five years to determine how good he is because there is an obscure stat that says otherwise because we are not allowed to form an opinion to the contrary?
The stats (ERA, WHIP etc) that I look at do explicitly say something and that is that he allows too many baserunners which leads to him not performing at anywhere near an acceptable level.
Dude, I was defending you.
Yes, a person is allowed to form an opinion on watching someone. That’s what you do. That’s what I’m saying to Dan.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I know you were Iglew
I was replying to that and worded it the wrong way.
I very much respect your posts as you are level headed compared to people such as myself. (LOL)
I agree with Anderson and Suzuki.
I think those two definitely warrant long-term consideration. I would hope though, that if the team does get something done with the Suzuki in the coming months – and it seems like they’re already considered doing just that – then Geren will be mandated to manage Suzuki’s workload a little more.
Obviously, as Vignette points out below, a lot of Suzuki’s value stems from his durability, but if we’re thinking about Suzuki possibly spearheading this team into a playoff series in 2011 or 2012, it would be fantastic to maybe give him an extra 5 to 10 games of rest this season and next also. He could still stay in the lineup at DH if need be on those days, but Powell is a solid enough backup and seems healthy enough to pick an extra half dozen starts or so…
I totally dig Dallas Braden as a person and think he’s a pretty solid pitcher – especially considering the stuff he has to work with. However, his durability issues really worry me. Miraculously, his arm itself had been fine the last few years despite all the wrenching it took while he was throwing the scroogie in the minors. But besides that, he just seems brittle. He’s never thrown over 165 innings in a single pro season, and that’s somewhat worrisome because he’s 26, not pre-pubescent like Cahill or Anderson. I think he’s a prime candidate to go year-to-year in arbitration starting next off-season, but you never know…the intangibles are there and since he seems REALLY motivated to stick around Stockton as much as possible, the team might be able to snag him up for some ridiculous 4-year $10 million deal or something…but that’s really doubtful.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
Suzuki's durability
I seem to remember something about the A’s wanting to play Suzuki less last year but Powell’s availability was often day-to-day.
The monster at the end of this blog.
And by day-to-day, you mean day-to-day, not what the A's usually mean.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 20, 2009 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
Regarding durability issues, Anderson has to be a concern
Forearm tightness and back problems his rookie season, and a body that hardly comes in great condition. I’m hopeful that Alejo can work some magic with Anderson — as it appears he already has — but I think we have to assume that Anderson is a candidate as likely to mirror Duchscherer physically as anyone.
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
Agree about Suzuki, but not Anderson.
Not yet, anyway. I’m leery of committing that much to a player until they’ve shown they can not be a “one-year wonder” and do it a couple years in a row. Next year, if he progresses? Great. Even if it then costs a little more. But, not after a single year.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Yeah that Evan Longoria contract is a real stinker
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Where did I say... or even imply... that it NEVER works out?
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Longoria
is practically the only guy I can think of who got a contract after less than a year.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
But if you sign him now
on a super team-friendly deal, he’s sure to match the value of what he’s getting paid every year, even if he pitches league-average. If he turns out to be totally average, we’ll be getting what we’re paying for. If he returns anything better than that, it’s all gravy. And with a guy like Anderson, it doesn’t get much more “can’t miss”. You just have to hope he doesn’t get injured.
It's precisely all the "can't miss" players that missed...
…over the last 35-odd years that has helped form my conclusion. Basically, show me 2 years, then I’ll believe it.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
This is not how negotiations work
If his perceived value increases, his leverage will increase correspondingly. Not “a little more,” a LOT more.
There’s less risk in waiting a year but also significantly less upside.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
More, yes. Alot more? No.
And that’s only IF he continues on track. If he doesn’t… which is a very real possibility that has been shown time and time again… that’s the significant downside you’re not recognizing if they do the long-term contract now.
To me the risk of paying a slightly larger contract would be worth the wait.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
You're really displaying a lack of understanding of negotiation economics here
He does not walk around with a price tag attached to his right ear. His “price” is whatever the team and his agent agree to. THEY DECIDE how much more it’s going to cost to sign him long-term after a good second year in the majors.
Do you really think they’re going to say “hey, you know, Anderson was a stud again this season, but certain internet commenters think that only increases his value slightly, so we’ll sign for pretty much what it would have taken last year”?
It’s ludicrous. They know as much about risk/reward as we do. Probably more, actually, assuming his agent is actually a skilled negotiator. Which most are, since otherwise they wouldn’t have any clients.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
That's funny, because I sense the same lack of understanding from your side.
If a player can get “alot more” by holding off for just one year, then his agent should be fired for letting him sign so low after just one year to begin with. According to your own reasoning they know they’d be losing out by signing after only one year, so they’d never allow themselves to be taken so cheaply too early, so it’s moot to even be thinking we can lock him down now.
It would also help if you defined what “alot more” might be.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
The key difference here is that teams have the ability to absorb a bad contract with only incremental injury to their prospects
Players do not. As a result players are, for reasons that are entirely sound economically, more risk-averse than teams are.
If Anderson blows out his arm next year and never plays again, he’s right back into the employment salt mines in a few years (and with a busted shoulder, too). If he signs a contract now, it’s potentially enough money to retire on.
Signing a contract now is basically taking out an insurance policy on himself— but the policy costs him nothing in the short run. The “cost” is decreased wages in a few years’ time— but locking in a guarantee of wages now may well be worth sacrificing speculative earning potential a few years down the road to a given player.
Many players do so (Grady Sizemore, Evan Longoria, Dan Haren, David Wright, James Shields). Some don’t and just want to get to free agency as soon as possible (Mark Teixeira, B.J. Upton, Felix Hernandez).
Here’s the key point. The closer a player gets to his guaranteed payday, the less risk-averse he becomes. A guy in his 5th year of arbitration is likely to not be risk-averse at all— he’s got a lot in the bank already; why not see how much he can score in free agency? The decreased risk-aversion means that teams stand to benefit less from acting as their players’ insurance policies. Players have more leverage to ask for high salaries, because the team’s threat— to go year-to-year with them, forcing them to chance injury or ineffectiveness— diminishes in force.
But for the risk-aversion issue, you’d be right— it wouldn’t matter when you signed a contract; either way it would reflect the parties’ assessment of what the value of the player’s performance is (within the overall salary arbitration/reserve clause scheme of the CBA, of course).
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I agree with your explanation of "risk aversion"...
…and have before when you’ve stated it, I just never had a need to comment at those times. I also see it as a form of “gambling”, though. The insurance analogy is apt as the player is gambling that something WILL happen.
I know that the player waiting another year would be gambling that he continues to impress, but if one is talking “upside” then I don’t think it’s an unreasonable gamble to wait that extra year.
I also agree that the team is more readily able to absorb losses if the player doesn’t pan out, but not an infinite number of losses. Plus, it’s still good business to minimize losses as much as possible. From the team’s perspective, and due to the overabundance of examples throughout major league history of “one year winders”, I believe that it is an unwise gamble for a team to offer a long term contract to any player who has only “done it” one single year.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Exactly how risk-averse a corporation wants to be is, of course, ultimately up to the management
and, indeed, some teams like the Marlins are risk-averse to high degrees.
That being said, the overall pattern (that on the whole, earlier contracts work out better for teams because the players signing them have a riskier best alternative to negotiated agreement) is fairly clear as an empirical matter. I think the Marlins have shot themselves in the foot on several different occasions and probably would have a few playoff appearances AND have made more money if they had been less conservative in how they dealt with team finances.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I think that's entirely possible.
I think the Marlins have shot themselves in the foot on several different occasions and probably would have a few playoff appearances AND have made more money if they had been less conservative in how they dealt with team finances.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
I think that overstates it.
You make it sound like signing for an early extension is a player’s only path for reducing risk, but it’s not. He has other options.
You say that signing an extension contract is like “taking out an insurance policy on himself”. Well, another option is he could, you know, actually take out an insurance policy on himself.
Just like teams, players don’t advertise their personal insurance situation, but the fact that insurance companies specializing in athletes have a standard TTD policy available kind of suggests that there’s a market for them. These are routine for professional athletes in non-team sports, like golf, and there’s no reason a team-sport player can’t use the same mechanism.
Now I’m not saying this rebuts your entire point, because you’re right that the player wants risk equalization and the contract is a good way to get it. I’m just objecting because you make it sound like the rookie is stuck because the extension is his only choice and if he doesn’t take it he risks a life in the salt mines due to a single injury, and it’s just not like that. If the point of the contract extension is insurance, then it needs to be better than what the player could get as actual insurance. And even if the player doesn’t know that, his agent surely does.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
This is true
but I’d think the team could typically offer a better “policy.” They have more access to information that could help them correctly price a player’s risk factors.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
hurumph :)
I think Everidge would be a disaster at 3B. He’d be well below average offensively, and I suspect he’d be even worse defensively.
However, both guys are getting old and really have nothing to prove at AAA and are currently on the 40-man roster.
Everidge has 229 PA in AAA, all at age 26. Patterson has 1532 PA in AAA, starting at age 23. I think Everidge has a lot left to prove in AAA before he projects as major league quality with the bat or glove.
I like the idea of Patterson on the roster as a super-utility guy, but the fact that he’s played more LF than RF in the minor and majors suggests to me that he may not have the arm for 3B.
That, and the fact that he's played 10 games at 3B (with 19 Chances and 4 Errors) and 0 at SS
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 20, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
[Insert my repetitive "utility players must be able to play SS" post here]
I’ve got a new one!
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
There are two suggested ideas on which I don't think I'll ever come around
1. Signing Adam Kennedy. This was not in this FP and I’m glad. If we’re going the non-competing route, I want to see an upside play at 3b. The Everidge/Patterson platoon is that. It’s a strange idea but infinitely better than playing Kennedy.
2. Not getting another SS this offseason. It takes a ridiculous amount of squinting and hope to see Pennington as an average fielder and an only slightly below average SS hitter. If we’re doing that much squinting to see 2 WAR, there better be a damn good backup plan. If we’re focusing on young players, I would love to see Brandon Wood come in. His availability obviously hinges on Chone Figgins re-signing. If he does, I think Wood might be out of options. Now I know Angels fans seem to think Wood could be the centerpiece to land Halladay, but I don’t see it. I see them needing to trade him and unwilling to play him in the majors. Maybe he could be had for something like Wuertz.
I’m very wishy-washy on whether the A’s should trade Hairston, Davis, Wuertz, and a couple others. Right now, I want to trade them. I’m pretty sure they’re bound to lose value and they’re certainly not going to be part of the next competing A’s team (except arguably Wuertz). If we’re going young go all out. No one’s mentioned it, but could Ellis be traded at the deadline? He has a very affordable option for next year and he still is a great fielder.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
If Ellis is to be traded
They should do it now, not wait. His fielding dropped off appreciably last year, and he’s old enough to be concerned that it’s not just a blip on the radar screen.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
But
Aren’t there like 5 human years for every unicorn years? I expect Ellis to play well until he’s 95.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Meh
Trying to make judgments based on 2/3 of a season of fielding stats is a really, really bad thing to attempt.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Nov 20, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Regarding number 2:
I’m still kind of bummed that Beane didn’t make a play (for all that we can gather) for JJ Hardy. Rajai is pretty similar player to Carlos Gomez, has a better recent track record and is under club control for just as long as Gomez, or so it appears to me from info from Cot’s. So, i would bet that despite Raj’s higher 2010 arby-inflated salary and higher age, Melvin would at least be interested in him for the exact reasons he was interested in Gomez – namely speed and defense. Add in to the fact that Beane could have easily thrown in a couple serviceable, but expendable arms like Jeff Gray, Dana Eveland and/or Clayton Mortensen and you’re looking at a much more appealing package, at least in my opinion.
Ahhh well…I’ll also keep my fingers about Brandon Wood, even though it seems like he can’t really handle shortstop at the major league level.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
We seem to think alike regarding SSs
What evidence is there that Wood can’t pass in the majors as a SS? In any case, I’m almost willing to put Cardenas at SS, so I’m sure Wood can handle it. I’m sick and tired of these monkeyfighting crappy hitters on this Monday-to-Friday team!
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
His number at SS in the minors are very bad in a large sample and very bad in a small sample in mlb
It also appears that the Angels don’t think he can handle SS very well. If we got him, it would make more sense to put him at 3B I think.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
You'd be selling low on Ellis right now
I think he’ll have a bit more value in July.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Right
I agree. Plus it gives Cardenas/Weeks time in the minors to start the season. Oh, and it lessens the chances of signing Kennedy.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
good write-up...
as for Everidge, I just don’t see this guy being in the A’s plans long-term, let alone platooning at 3B. Actually, I think he’s a candidate to be DFA’d this offseason if the A’s need a spot for the 40-man roster.
"just a beating heart ... plasma that we'll put into our uniform." - Billy Beane
by athleticsBB4life on Nov 20, 2009 12:40 PM PST reply actions
Fall Down Range
Taj, I love your use of this term to describe the 3B range of Everidge and Wallace. I saw Wallace play 3B for Sactown this summer, and he fell down to his left, just missing a ground ball on one play, then two plays later, fell down to his right, allowing a double up the line. Not a step was taken, just fall-left and fall-right. On other plays, he did much better, but your terminology brought those two plays to mind.
Even with that observation, don’t discount the chance that Brett is our starting 3B out of ST. I understand the A’s have Wallace on an extreme fitness program this winter. The future is now.
I can see Wallace making the team out of ST, but he'd have to show that his bat is ready.
Scouts seem to think that it is, but his numbers at AAA don’t translate that well to the majors. Carter, on the other hand, could be up in May. I still think they need a plus defender at SS if they’re going to play Wallace at 3B, and Pennington doesn’t look like he’s their man.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 20, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
There is little evidence that players impact other players' fielding abilities
especially not for infielders, who are much too far apart to close the entire gap between them in the time they have to field a typical ground ball. They’re basically on an island out there.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I should clarify, this is talking about range, not double-play ability.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Mark Ellis wishes
I bet Ellie wishes he played far enough away that his range never coincided with the range of his SS. Same with Mike Cameron and Carlos Beltran.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
I'm not saying Wallace being a statue will make the SS better or worse.
I’m saying covering the part of the field with the maximum number of balls hit to it with one bad defender and one good one is a lot better than covering it with two bad ones.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 21, 2009 2:13 PM PST up reply actions
Or to rephrase, "having a good shortstop is better than having a bad shortstop."
That a. has nothing to do with Brett Wallace at all, and b. is really obvious.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
OK, I've re-examined what I was thinking, and this is where I am now:
1) 2009 A’s defense was pretty bad — THT has them at 45 runs below average, compared to +76 for Seattle, +53 for Texas and -15 for Anaheim.
2) The infield was particularly bad — THT has the infield as below average both in terms of RZR (.764 vs .781) and OOZ (180 vs 209). The OF was actually above average in both RZR and OOZ
3) Defense should improve somewhat just be substituting Barton (6/150) for Giambi (-13/150 in last 3 yrs) and Everidge, but is still likely to be pretty bad, with Wallace or Kennedy (-11/150 in 2009) at 3B and an aging Ellis (5/150 or something I’m guessing), and Pennington (-7/150 in 2009)
4) CHONE predicts Pennington at -10 on offense, which could be combined with something like -5 on defense (I’m guessing) to get a 1 WAR player
5) A cheap way to upgrade to a 2 WAR SS would be to get a +10 defender, even one who is -20 on offense.
6) A +10 defender is worth more to the A’s than to other teams because of their groundballing staff — Anderson, Cahill, Mazzarro, which is also lefty-heavy. It is true that the hitter determines which side of the IF ground balls are hit to, not the handedness of the pitcher, but lefties are more likely to face RHB than righties. So a “true” +10 defender at SS could be a +12 or +15 defender to the A’s because of the extra chances they would get.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 21, 2009 9:15 PM PST up reply actions
You're drastically overestimating the impact of handedness in #6
On average a left-hander is going to face about 75% righthanders and a right-hander about 55% righthanders. Assuming 2/3 of ground balls are pulled, a lefthanded pitcher would see about 58% of his ground balls to the right side and a righthanded pitcher would see about 53% of his ground balls to the right side.
So the spread of defensive talent would appear to be about 5% larger at SS and 3B (5% of a 15-run spread of talent, between Pennington and Hypothetical Neifi Izturis, would be 0.75 runs) if you had an entirely left-handed pitching staff than if you had an entirely right-handed pitching staff. But the A’s staff is only slightly more lefthanded than usual— maybe 10% more innings than usual thrown by lefthanders? 20%? Either way we’re talking about a fraction of that 0.75 runs and not a large fraction at that.
I think it’s more accurate to say a “true” +10 defender at SS could be a +10.3 run defender to the A’s or so.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
That's what I initially thought, but then I was faced with the -45 rating on
THT, with the OF being above average. With 2B being average, that leaves something like a -18 from each of 1B, SS and 3B, if you assume Suzuki is at least average.
I understand that RZR and UZR are different sources, but the number is so large that I’m having trouble explaining it other than by the idea that SS and 3B mean more to the A’s than to other teams. It may also have something to do with the large foul ground, I’m not sure.
I am also somewhat affected by the drastic improvement in the Ranger defense with the addition of Andrus. The other guys are still nothing special — Kinsler, Young, Davis. It’s true that Hamilton’s absence might have helped the defense, but Andrus seems to have done a lot just by himself.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 21, 2009 11:15 PM PST up reply actions
Vis a vis the first issue,
I think about -30 of that -45 was produced by Orlando Cabrera and Jason Giambi. Yes, not only did they suck with the bat, they also couldn’t field to save their lives last year.
The addition of Andrus had a displacement effect that shifted Young to third base. That’s the key to what went on there— he effectively filled TWO positions. The Rangers had an awful succession of 3B in 2008; they ended up about 30 runs below average defensively at the position, which is just mind-boggling. Moving Young to third gave them an average defender there as well as replacing a minus shortstop with a plus one.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Ya I forgot about Orlando.
But it’s not just a minus 45. It’s 45 plus whatever positives the OF had, so it’s probably more like 55.
If you’re thinking of ways to add 1-2 wins cheaply, a defensive star in place of Pennington is a good place to start. Not to mention it may help the starters pitch more innings.
I have no problem with Pennington as a utility guy. I also wouldn’t mind moving Wallace to 1B or DH, but I’d like to see him get a shot at 3B first.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 22, 2009 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
I have no problem with signing another shortstop and having a competition for playing time
I’m not sure anyone meets your criteria though. Adam Everett hasn’t been the same since his (A’s-induced) broken leg. Omar Vizquel’s not interested, and is probably closer to -20 than -10 with the bat now. John McDonald’s younger than Vizquel but equally facepalm-inducing with the bat and, at 35, isn’t exactly a spring chicken himself. I’m not interested in giving up actual assets to extract Cesar Izturis from the Orioles.
I think you’re more likely to get some traction in this market by working from the other end— getting someone (who may or may not actually be named Omar Infante, but is in any event very similar to Omar Infante) who can half-ass shortstop and not completely embarrass himself at the plate.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I've been a big advocate of Everett
He is a FA and he’s still pretty damn good on D. Then again, as a fan, I prefer great hitting to fielding. And Tejada’s long been my favorite player. Plus, I’ve had a man-crush on Brandon Wood for a long time.
SS was my position when I played. It’s torture rooting for a team with a crappy SS for me. And it’s been that way since 2003.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
For those saying a really bad hitter at SS
might be worth it if he were a really good fielder, is it not possible Petit could be (or could have been) that guy? The A’s must not think so, because he never got a chance to become Mark Belanger for them.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think he's got about as good of a chance as any of the realistic FA targets
It’s not a good year for glove men.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Soon it will be time to play
the Gregorio Petit card. Possibly as early as #20.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
If you play the Gregorio Petit card,
I’ll either fold or I’ll raise you the maximum. I haven’t decided which.
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
You can't spell "competitive"
without Petit!
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I still think a -20 bat with a +10 glove is a big improvement
over Pennington, who’s a -10 bat with a -7 glove. It’s a bigger improvement than 7 runs in my view because of the groundballing lefty-heavy staff.
Someone like Brignac or Augie Ojeda could be that good fielding SS. Cabrera was supposed to be that last year but wasn’t.
Finding a bad fielding, non-embarrassing hitter, is easy. It’s Pennington.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 23, 2009 6:09 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not in full agreement that Pennington is a bad fielder
You’re basing that on something you rarely fall prey to and that’s a small sample. I thought Pennington actually showed good range and a great arm but had a couple flurries of bad fielding — consistent with being a rookie, trying to do too much — that made his overall numbers look bad.
But I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see him play above average SS defense in 2010 if given the chance, pretty much in the same way that Rajai Davis did in CF when he got comfortable and played every day. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Pennington hit .225/.290/.350, which is why I’d prefer he be a utility INF and not an every day starter.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I hope you're right. He didn't look that good to me
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 24, 2009 1:40 AM PST up reply actions
Pretty sure he wasn't on the team yet in June, right?
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Considering his TotalZone numbers in the minors
and the fact that BA thought he was the system’s best defensive infielder entering 2009, it’s way too early to conclude that Pennington is below average with the glove going forward.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for
now, but THT’s assessment that the A’s were 45 Runs Below Average in the Field makes me think that the cheapest way to pick up 4 wins is to upgrade the defense.
Barton for Giambi does some of that. Kennedy was -10, but Wallace isn’t likely to be much better. To me that means either Pennington improves a lot or we get someone in there that will do the job.
Beane did say that he liked Pennington’s second half performance in the interview with Blez, so he could well be the guy.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 24, 2009 1:47 AM PST up reply actions
Barton for Giambi is probably a full win on defense
at 1B. That’s insane.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
And probably another win if he's even average with the bat
Giambi was so bad last year that a 1.5 WAR season from Barton is like a 2 win upgrade.
Same is true for Pennington, incidentally. Even a half-decent season would be a major upgrade on what Cabrera did.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
It's really impressive (or depressing)
to think of how much better the 1B and SS positions should be this year.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Checking back on my FP
A 1.5 WAR season from Barton et al at 1b next season would be a 26 run improvement. Wow.
And I swear I’ll get around to doing the rest of that series…..Eventually.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
try this
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
I'd like to dissent from
the growing view that this season is different in that the organization has clearly given up on contending in 2010 whereas they were trying to contend in 2009.
In my view, the organization’s real goal in 2009 was to put up a team which was maybe a bit over 500, good enough so that we could still feel like we’re in the race for most of the year, and what the hell we might get lucky but don’t really expect it. That’s what I think Beane really thought he was assembling last year. (In actual fact, of course, we fell short of that, but I think that’s what he was aiming for with the moves for Holliday, Giambi, etc.)
My read on 2010 is that he is aiming for the exact same thing: a team which is maybe a bit over 500, good enough so that we can still feel like we’re in the race for most of the year, and what the hell we might get lucky but don’t really expect it.
The difference is marketing. Last year they pumped up expectations, pretending that Giambi and Nomar were big stars (even though they knew they were past-their-prime veterans), hoping that it would generate some excitement and drum up ticket sales. This, and not actual expectations of the team, is what is going to be dramatically different for 2010. For 2010, they’re going to push the “young guys” story and strongly hint at rebuilding, so as to maybe drum up some excitement when and if we exceed low expectations.
That’s my read on what we heard at the recent press conference.
But I don’t think the actual strategic goal for the team is any different, and signings and trades will reflect that.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Nov 20, 2009 2:39 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
If the goal in 2010 is .500+
Beane better make some moves, because the team is not very close to that.
And I really hope the idea in 2009 was better than slightly over .500 because trading Carlos Gonzalez+ for the slight bump in ticket sales was a terrible idea. I think 2009 was supposed to be about contention, but Furcal screwed up part of the A’s plans and the economy screwed up the rest.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
That might not be true --
The pitching could produce a .500 team with this roster.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think Beane will make a few moves, but nothing major.
I also don’t think he sees “contention” and “not contention” as a black-and-white distinction.
As for the Holliday trade, I believe the assumption was that obtaining him (and associated moves) would put us in the slightly-over-500 territory whereas not obtaining him would leave us in the ~75-loss territory. As it turned out, we ended up in the latter anyway.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
The fact that we still got 75 wins...
…only one short of the previous two seasons… is nothing short of a minor miracle.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
I can hear Al Michaels now...
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'm not sure about that.
What was our Pythag? Our RS-RA was 759-761, so I assume that translates to 81-81.
I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say it was a 500-ish team that had bad luck.
And thus by extension I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that Billy thought he was building a slightly-over-500 team and misjudged a little (but only a little) on some of the free agents.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I agree Beane felt he was building a slightly above .500 team.
I thought he did too, at the time. I disagree that it can be dismissed as “bad luck”. I think it just didn’t work out as planned, plain and simple.
Giambi performing better than he did was not an unreasonable expectation. Same with some other position players. Holliday problem was his attitude, IMO, more than anything else.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Jesus
This Holliday thing is like the AN version of the blood libel. Insane? Check. Offensive? Check. Totally unsupported by any sort of rational evidence? Check.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Nov 21, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Seriously.
Just one more thing AN gets wrong.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Rec'd.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Nov 21, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions
I know this is hard to grasp (for many, apparently), but...
…most humans are actually emotional beings, not cold and calculating and measuring and maximizing every move with a slide rule, and sometimes prone to act and react in completely illogical and irrational ways in spite of their own best interests.
It’s no secret Holliday didn’t want to be here. If you know anything about the frailties of human psychology and the dynamics of group behavior, even though he may have “put up his numbers” while here, it is not unreasonable to presume that his bad attitude didn’t filter out to the rest of the team. Especially considering that most of them were younger and more impressionable, and he was probably viewed as the leader due to his “veteran” status… to be respected, emulated, and esteemed.
But, no, you can’t measure that rationally on a spreadsheet.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
That's not the argument we're making.
How do you know Holliday had a bad attitude? Everyone’s just assuming and shitting on his name in the process.
No, there's no light,
in the darkest of your furthest reaches.
What is the argument y'all are making?
I don’t dispute that his numbers for the majority of the time he was here were fine, and that at first glance he “did his job”. The way I interpret the responses to my comments is that y’all believe his influence and impact on the team begins and ends there. That… I disagree with.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Well, I make no bones about the fact that baseball players have no proven effect of any kind on each other's performance
That being said, both Holliday and Beane have come out and denied in interviews that he had any issues with playing here, so we don’t even have to go there. The A’s are entirely satisfied with the effort and attitude he gave while he was an Athletic.
But since he didn’t have the “good face,” or didn’t break his bat over his knee every time he struck out, or something, apparently that’s not good enough for AN
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Fair enough...
…regarding our difference of conclusion on a given player’s overall impact.
But, this post deserves two responses, because the rest is totally deserving of a…
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Oh, puh-leeze...
[IMG]http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a291/photoguy6405/Misc/FacePalm2-1.jpg[/IMG]
You can’t be so naive to believe that if either (especially Beane) did think there was a problem that he/they would actually say so for public consumption. C’mon, unless the person was a total a-hole… of which there is no evidence that Holliday was, just evidence that he was not happy about being here… they all know how to spin and not create self-defeating controversy.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
I have got to get a handle on posting pictures.
Oh well.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
This...
“[IMG]” is the format I am more used to. I apologize for the image error.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Surround the URL with exclamation points.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Ockham's Razor
Which is more likely: 1. that Holliday, operating against both his own and his team’s best interests, decided to play poorly and then actually managed to carry that desire into effect, yet it either went completely unnoticed by the team or they decided to lie to cover up his behavior (despite the lack of anything to be gained from lying)?
Or: 2. It was a coincidence and he had a bad April.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Neither...
…though #2 might be closer.
- presumes it was conscious, i.e. “decided”, and hence everybody gathered together in a conspiracy. Hardly.
If you accept that “spin” is essentially the same as “lying”, merely deemed more socially acceptable because they’re just “little lies”, then it shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody that the vast majority of people in high-profile PR situations lie… or “spin”… all the time when they don’t feel the absolute truth is anybody else’s business. Politicians spin all the time. Business spokespeople spin all the time. Athletes spin all the time. Do you really believe that every mundane boilerplate say-nothing quote from a player’s mouth is what they really think?
What’s to be gained from said boilerplate-speak is lack of distraction and controversy.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
He moved from a hitters park in an easier league,
and drastically changed his swing. His stats jumped, not coincidentally IMO, when he moved and changed his swing back.
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
This is untrue.
I’ve said it before, so I might as well just say it again.
Holliday’s low water mark in 2009, OPS wise, was 3 weeks into the season on April 25th. He bottomed out at a miserable .617 at that point.
From then until he was traded (337 PAs) he hit .293/ .392/.474 with 11 homers and 19 doubles, 43 BB/47K, and even 12 steals/3 caught.
I don’t know if it’s some notion that Holliday wasn’t good because he didn’t hit 30 homers or something, but the guy had 3 bad weeks and then had an .860 OPS until his was traded. That… doesn’t suck.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
So a .200 jump in OPS isn't a jump?
Honestly, I think we feel the same way though: I don’t give a fuck about Matt Holliday anymore.
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
It’s no secret Holliday didn’t want to be here.
Yes, of course, but the reason he didn’t want to be here, and the reason he never smiled, is that in Oakland he couldn’t find enough babies to sacrifice for his special hoodoo all-star hitting ritual. It’s well-known that human sacrifice is much more practical in Colorado or St Louis, but on the Pacific Coast he just couldn’t come up with enough human blood.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I also don’t think he sees "contention" and "not contention" as a black-and-white distinction.
I think you’re way wrong on this one. He’s said a few times, including just recently in his interview with Sickels, that you’ve either got something good or you’re building something good, or else you’re wasting your time. Making moves to end up slightly over .500 is emphatically in the “wasting time” category, and I really don’t think he gives a crap about it at all (doubt ownership does either; it’s not going to do anything for team revenue). If anything, I think he might see it as a negative, given how he talked about the importance of getting high draft picks (which finishing over .500 kills off).
I agree with vignette. The moves last offseason all said “contention,” albeit somewhat pallid contention in what was projected to be (but wasn’t) a terrible division.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Yeah, I know. That's the prevailing view.
I still dissent.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Beane has also said...
Excerpt from:
Billy Beane: Back in AN Part I
by Blez on Jan 18, 2005 9:14 PM CST in News
Blez: This is related to that same topic— so many in the media seemed to claim that you were participating in a Charlie Finley-style talent dump. There is one person I’m thinking of who went on ESPNEWS and was saying that the A’s were going to only win 60 games this year. But from reading some of your comments in the media, you don’t consider this a rebuilding, rather a retooling. Can you explain how you view the two differently?
BB: First of all, I’m not sure it’s good management as a GM to rebuild, rebuild probably isn’t the right word, but to start to make changes only after you’ve hit rock bottom. Because it takes five, six, seven years to get out of that in a small market. Those same people that criticize those preemptive moves are the same ones who spend the next three years wondering why you didn’t do anything. We were kind of going through a restructuring here last year with the number of rookies we brought onto the team any way. I’m not sure that any of our fans want me to stand up at the podium and say, “Hey, we’re getting rid of everybody. We’re going to lose 100 games over the next three years, now come and enjoy the show.” What we’re trying to do is make sure that any dip in performance doesn’t happen for five or six years and I’ve seen professional sports franchises do that. You can think of some where the critics are saying, “Why didn’t they do this three years ago? Why didn’t they do this two years ago?” I’ve been through a situation when we needed to make moves and we didn’t make them. Back in 1992, I sat in a cab with Sandy Alderson when we won the division and people got emotional and we wanted to bring the entire team back to try and do it again. I remember sitting there with him and we knew the smart thing to do at that point was to take a step back and start rebuilding. We made the mistake of trying to bring the entire team back and it took us seven years to recover. Our market is not going to handle that. Understand that attendance percentage is basically based on winning. Everything you can do to make sure that any dip in your performance in a year, you minimize that. Because when you put together back to back to back losing seasons, then you’ve created a very apathetic situation that’s very difficult to recover from. If you’re worried about what a couple of sportswriters say and let them make the decisions for you, you’re an absolute coward and a fool.
Emphasis in bold mine. ~UL
Granted, that quote is almost five years old now, but it’s still relevant and seems to contradict what he’s saying now. This makes me think his more recent comments are more spin to cover for his “retooling” failure.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Seriously?
You see two comments five years apart and your first thought is that the second one is “mere spin to cover for” the first one?
I don’t even know what to say to this.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Yeah, I know what you mean...
…it is rather inconvenient to try and reconcile the two, time difference notwithstanding. ;-)
I’d like to see Blez ask BB about this in his next interview… “Back in ‘05 you said that back to back losing seasons was something to be avoided and that this team couldn’t afford the fall-out from such a scenario (paraphrasing). Yet here we are now very possibly on the verge of our 4th straight losing season, and you’re basically saying that it’s no big deal. Implying it’s part of the plan, even. What changed between then and now?”.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Why do you need to "reconcile" the two?
The guy changed his mind. Based, in part, on the experience of the intervening years.
What exactly is your issue here? He was wrong in 2005; I think most analysts today would agree with that. Abandoning an outdated belief is a good thing (insert tired cliche about foolish consistency here).
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
You have the inside track on this?
Or, because what he says now is closer to what you think, then that must be the right answer?
Or, maybe you’re a BB sycophant in the 1984 “Newspeak” tradition. No, I know better than that, though your answer here is reminiscent.
Who, exactly, are these “most analysts”?
I don’t suppose it’s possible he was right then. Nah, that couldn’t be it, but this is why I asked the question above… if he was wrong then… which is possible, although that would tarnish his never-do-wrong God-like status by many A’s fans… it’d be nice to know how and why. Your answer didn’t help in that regard. Merely proclaiming him wrong with supplying reason(s) is not convincing.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
The reason he was wrong in 2005
is that it has become clear that teams without big budgets need high draft picks to reliably produce elite talent. If you continue struggling to the .500 post every season, you will not receive those draft picks. And odds are that you won’t produce elite talent, either. The farm system of small market teams gradually gets run down over a long period of competitiveness.
At the time, I don’t think this was nearly so clear. Teams didn’t value prospects the same way; it was still possible to restock a farm system by trading off not-that-great veterans.
I’ll skip over the ridiculous straw-man segments of this post.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
There ya go.
I interpreted his comments to be something of a balance between player development and fan interest, whereas if I’m reading your comments correctly, you’re placing the entire emphasis on player development.
Fans have the luxury of being more myopic in their views. Beane does not, as maintaining fan interest is part of the overall equation.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Two points.
First, I think Beane’s more recent comments, like the “You are either building something special or you have something special” you quote, are far more vague than his 2005 comments like “Our market is not going to handle that. Understand that attendance percentage is basically based on winning. Everything you can do to make sure that any dip in your performance in a year, you minimize that.” It’s much easier for you to read your own pre-conceived ideas into a comment like the first one.
Second, you come into this already believing that any effort to improve W-L record that doesn’t end up well about 500 is a waste of time. Therefore when you see Beane say something like that in 2009 and something like the opposite in 2005, you naturally conclude that he has “changed his mind”. Your evidence for that is little more than the fact that, in your view, the first opinion is incorrect and the second one is correct.
Similarly, Uncle Leo and I come into this already believing that avoiding multiple losing seasons is important for maintaining a healthy market situation. Therefore when we see Beane say something like that in 2005 and something like the opposite in 2009, we naturally conclude that he was speaking frankly then and bullshitting now. Our evidence for that is little more than the fact that, in our view, the first opinion is correct and the second one is incorrect.
Our conclusion is no more unsupported than yours.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Nov 22, 2009 10:10 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Ockham's Razor again...
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Isn't it Occam?
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Either spelling is fine.
It was named for William of Ockham, Ockham being the village in England he was from.
The razor is more often spelled “Occam”, which I think it due to Latinization of his name.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Oh. OK.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
The simplest explanation for what Beane means
when he says that multiple losing seasons in a row are bad for developing a winning culture is…? iglew’s right on this one. 3 losing seasons in a row probably wasn’t the plan; it was the outcome.
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
The razor says the simplest explanation
is the best one. Yours is no more simple. It is only best in view of your a priori assumptions.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
It's not more simple
to say that later explanations are better than earlier ones? That change of mind is less improbable than some conspiracy theory?
OK.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
My view is that it is more simple
to assume that clear and detailed statements of policy mean what they say than to assume that vague generalities imply a policy that isn’t clearly stated.
I don’t see my version as a “conspiracy theory”. Who exactly do you think I say is conspiring?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
It's a clear and detailed statement of their policy FIVE YEARS AGO.
Jesus. If that was still their policy, how on earth do you explain 2007 and 2008?
I don’t mean conspiracy in the literal sense of two criminals sitting in the same room (although I suppose you could describe the A’s front office as such). I’m talking about a certain cast of mind which sees any contrary behavior as some kind of cover-up.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I explain 2007 and 2008
as failure to achieve what they set out to achieve. I don’t see it as evidence that sucking in those years was part of the plan.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Nov 23, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I find it more than a little bit difficult to believe
that a team which had the intention of finishing over .500 decided that the best way of doing so was to trade away their four most valuable assets for prospects which were multiple years from the majors.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
This is closest I've come to agreeing with you
about the whole adding wins to a non-playoff contending team.
It is true that numerous consecutive losing seasons takes its toll on the fanbase. This is especially true in a two team market. But I see no reason to believe that improving a team that’s bad into a team that’s mediocre adds any more attendance. If we’re talking awful to bad, maybe. Mediocre to above average, maybe. Above average to contender, certainly. But not 70 wins to 75 wins.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
The way I interpret Beane's comments is...
…that by having too many losing seasons in a row you begin to LOSE too many fans, and that winning them back and/or replacing them becomes even harder when/if you begin to win again. It’s the losing of fans that he’s trying to avoid to begin with.
And his comments appear to have been correct. We’re losing… attendance is down significantly.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
My read is that he thought he was
improving the team from ~80 to ~85, not from 70 to 75. And again, I’ll cite our Pythagorean record this year as suggesting it was not too unreasonable for him to think so.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
[gets out whip]
Trading Carlos Gonzalez+ was a terrible idea no matter WHAT the “idea” was in 2009.
[/puts away whip, wipes off coating of horseflesh]
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
That and playing him as much as they did in 2008 and then holding his crappy
hitting against him.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 21, 2009 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I just don't get the treatment of Gonzalez
A guy known to be “talented but shouldn’t be rushed,” who was rushed, and then traded after showing he might be a good defensive CFer, a commodity that groweth not on trees.
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
So in the fortnight or so that Chavez isn't on the DL
He’ll take Patterson’s roster spot I assume?
Also, I’m not buying that Billy will do nothing. I interpret his “non-free agent” spiel as it’s still possible he trades for good players that are too costly for other teams. (The whole Marlins roster etc)
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
We get the whole Marlins roster and you fantasize about Uggla
I’ll just briefly think of HanRam at SS…….best 10 seconds ever.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
It wasn't until the 4th paragraph,
but I finally got to the Morel of the story.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think the Morel is that things could be much much Wuertz.
I mean, Aroldis free agents really so Devine? Nomar aging vets please – there’s no need to Gamel our future by trading off the young Bucks, and Eveland if the A’s stand pat, they’re Hardy gonna fall off a Cliff, although this offense could be pretty Uggla. Of course, the A’s Chaven’t hit well on a Bailey dasis for a long time, and just Mortensening about it has me Loaizaing for my best bottle of Vitters.
"When you get that nice celebration coming in the dugout, and you're getting your ass hammered by guys, there's no better feeling than to have that done." -Matt Stairs
by Aufheben on Nov 22, 2009 1:53 AM PST up reply actions 8 recs
rec'd
and your sig makes me chuckle. I had completely forgotten that quote. I miss Matt Stairs.
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 Nov 22, 2009 6:44 AM PST up reply actions
We may have to start saying "TWMSS" instead of "TWSS".
At least on occasions when the comment in question involves ass-hammering.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
