Law: Anderson's stuff and polish are big league ready
by brenarlo on Mar 9, 2009 7:15 AM PDT
Email
PrintLast night, someone pointed out that Keith Law twittered that he may prefer Anderson over Haren by the end of this year.
http://twitter.com/keithlaw
I find that hard to believe. Not that Anderson is bad or will be bad by the end of the year, it's just that Dan Haren is so good. He pitches over 200 innings, he strikesout hitters (around 200 per year), doesn't walk hitters (55 and 40 the last 2 years), and has a great splitter.
I commented that I hoped Law would elaborate a little bit. This morning he did.
Oakland's trade of Dan Haren looked at the time like a bid for quantity over quality, but the rapid progression of left-hander Brett Anderson has changed that.
Anderson, the 20th-best prospect in baseball and the third-best left-handed prospect, showed great command of a four-pitch mix on Sunday along with excellent feel for pitching. Anderson was 91-93 mph with good life on the pitch, and mixed in a sharp two-plane curve from 76-81 mph, an above-average changeup with great arm speed from 82-84 mph and a short cutter/slider in the same range as the changeup. He threw everything for strikes and showed uncanny feel for a pitcher his age, setting hitters up, changing speeds, and changing eye levels.
He's a quick worker with an aggressive approach and a clean delivery that he repeats well. Anderson only has six starts above A-ball, but he's never been challenged in pro ball, and both his stuff and polish are big-league ready.
I don't think anyone is surprised that Anderson is close to major league ready. People at AN have been raving about this guy and I think we all known that Anderson is like Mulder (great polish, great mechanics, etc...), while Cahill is like Hudson (dynamite splitter).
I am really surprised that Law complimented Anderson so much, as he generally does not like the A's.
Of course, after the nice words about Anderson he ripped Ross and Hunter.
223 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
People Get Ready
It’s 1999 all over again.
I don’t want to be a broken record, so I added a little something to this entire discussion.
One of the principal reasons the A’s are considering MAC for the rotation now or soon thereafter is their track record with highly touted pitchers just starting out.
To wit:
Only Mark Mulder of the follwing sextet: Hudson, Zito, Harden, Lidle, Blanton and Mulder— performed worse in his first season— 2000— than Braden or Eveland did last year. (ERA+ is my source— the precise numbers are on yesterday’s wrapup Indian game thread) Most were decidedly better. And even Mulder was arguably better in his final month of 2000 before he got hurt, and then proved that in 2001.
In other words— based on the A’s own experience— there is at least a good chance— and possibly an excellent chance— that MAC— maybe one, two or all three— will be better than at least two of the supposed stalwarts in this rotation right now. (Unless you assume that Eveland and Braden take some dramatic leap forward this year) And I would probably add Gallagher to that list. I’m not saying they will ultimately be the equals— as A’s— of the Big Three— they could, of course— but that they could very well be not very far behind as they begin their careers.
I am saying that the A’s have every reason to conclude that one or more of them is one of their 5 best starters— and very possibly one of their 3 best starters— right now. Their judgement as to who and why— and what to do about Eveland or Braden either pre-Opening Day or when (if) Duke comes back in the rotation— will be the real mystery— and needless to say they are much more qualified than the rest of us to figure it all out. Trading Eveland or Braden would certainly seem to be in the realm of possiblity, however, so as to bust up some of the looming backlog.
When I said "I'd add Gallagher"
I meant the Eveland-Braden list, not the up and coming MAC list. I just don’t think Gallagher belongs in the same conversation as those guys— Gio might— though I hope I’m wrong about that.
Gonzalez was 97th best prospect in 2007, Gallagher was 102nd
http://www.attheplate.com/2007/07_rookied.htm
Gio ranked top 25 in many 2008 prospect lists. Based on prospect rankings, Gonzalez could turn into a #3 like Mulder. Gallagher could eventually be a slightly lesser version of Blanton. I could live with four guys in our Big 3 and then Gallagher as our #5. :)
The fact that the A’s were trying to compete with a rotation that included many lesser prospects and non-prospects didn’t make complete sense to me. I didn’t think the A’s could win the West. But, I suspect they were thinking of Cahill and Anderson in their rotation early in 2009, and they hoped that would push them over the top in the AL West.
by BillyWannabeane on Mar 9, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Gallagher is already like a 50 pound lesser version of Blanton.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Poor Gallagher
The kid is 23and people are writing him off. And the only reason people are writing him off is because he’s been good enough to make it to the majors. If he were 23 and mowing down AAA hitters, he would be considered right up there with Anderson and Cahill, but because he’s had major league experience (and hasn’t been great), he’s not any good? Nah, don’t like that.
by thejd44 on Mar 9, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
GIO GONZALEZ IS THE SUX!!11!1
Look at that ERA in the majors, what is it like 17 or something?
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's. For further statistical analysis, Beyond the Box Score.
+1
I’ve got high hopes for Gallagher
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Mar 9, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Just so you know, I picked up on the "nah, don't like that" and I appreciate the inside joke.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
I've actually adopted the "Nah, don't like that" and use it frequently
It’s a great inside joke because people who don’t get that meaning still understand what I’m saying.
by thejd44 on Mar 9, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I was thinking of who else would go absolutely fucking nuts if we got Ross Gload in Oakland.
I think it’s just you and me.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
I think Mazzaro
is considered around the industry to have about the same upside as Gallagher/Gio.
and to anticipate the nit-pickers
I meant 1999 more in the Prince sense— partying in anticipation of a big event— than in an literal A’s sense, since Hudson was the only Big Three pitcher to come up that year. It’s sort of a combo 1999-2000-2001 right now, with all 3 of the kids poised for arrival.
Haren Himself
Is interesting— in his first full season as a starter his ERA+ was 117, well above Eveland and Braden. of course he had had 19 previous starts as a Cardinal, including 14 as a 21 yr old— the age of MAC— where he wasn’t as effective. So he makes both points— a bit of a cautionary tale about rookies and 21 yr olds, yet also evidence of success once the A’s get their hands on someone good.
Not sure you can trade Eveland or Braden...
Starting pitching depth is going to be an issue over the season. You can expect a couple of them to be awful and a couple to be pretty decent. But Eveland and Braden have just as good of a chance as anyone to be decent this year. You can’t trade one and then have MAC NOT be ready, which would be a real possibility.
I agree that this is like 1999 against with starting pitching. However, I don’t see two MVP hitters coming up through the ranks (Giambi and Tejada).
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
No, that's true
Though I suspect Carter may give Giambi (the old Giambi) a run for his money by 2011 or so. And Cardenas and Weeks are not going to be slouches up the middle, But I think this has the makings of an even better ptiching staff than that one, as crazy as that sounds. The bullpen was pretty patchwork for much of the 1999-2002 period— I think we’ve got better arms and options there.
Yep...
We could very well be looking at a period of 3-5 years of 95+ wins. A lot has to happen for that potential to become reality, but it’s certainly possible.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
the 2011 projected lineup
just for the sake of it….
1. Cardenas 2b L
2. Weeks SS S
3. Sweeney CF L
4. Carter DH R
5. Chavez 3b L
6. suzuki C R
7. Buck RF L
8. Cunningham RF R
9. Barton 1B L
Weeks/Cardenas
I thought that Cardenas is the one who has been getting tried out at SS. They’re both traditionally 2B.
And you think with his health record they’re going to exercise that option?
by timed exposure on Mar 9, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions
$3m buyout ...
so it would only effectively be $9.5m for his services … it’s reasonably likely that could be a good deal.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Doolittle fits in there somewhere
And Weeks won’t be playing short
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Mar 9, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
sorry to keep ripping the lineups you make
but…
a) like colin said, cardenas would be ss before weeks. i think they should be switched.
b) sweeney in the three hole hopefully means he’s hitting 35 homers.
c) buck would probably be better suited higher in the lineup
d) two rightfielders
e) i think barton will grow into a 5/6 guy. if he’s a 9-hole kind of guy in 2011, might as well go with carter at first and try someone else at dh.
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
I think you may want to move Cunningham to LF because it would be crowded with both he and Buck in RF
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
I really believe in Donaldson too.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
For the Tampa Bay Rays, of course
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
This is why I really am not a big Keith Law fan
Oakland’s trade of Dan Haren looked at the time like a bid for quantity over quality
He must have been the only one at the time who didn’t think Gonzalez, Anderson, Cunningham, and Carter were quality. Seriously? Of course it’s quantity, because it was basically 6 players for 1 (Connor Robertson doesn’t count). But those are 4 of the Top 100, maybe Top 75 prospects in the game (though Gonzalez isn’t eligible, but you get the idea). how could anybody not think that’s a ton of quality right away?
by thejd44 on Mar 9, 2009 9:36 AM PDT reply actions
He has a point, though.
If for some reason none of those guys pan out then it’s a failed trade in the long run. The odds of that happening are pretty small but at the time of the trade Gonzalez had pitched as high as AA, Anderson had pitched in High-A, Cunningham had about a month of AA experience and Carter had a season of Low-A.
When you trade a Cy Young-caliber pitcher for anyone and don’t get back somebody who’s MLB-ready, it’s a gamble. You’re banking on the expectation that within a few years, someone you got will progress enough to be worth it. Otherwise, all you’ve done is get rid of a bonafide top-of-the-rotation starter to save money and keep your minor league system in good shape.
These guys have been quality Minor Leaguers so far but you know that doesn’t mean automatic success in the Majors.
At this point people like Cahill, Anderson and Mazzaro are looking like can’t-miss pitchers, but none of them has thrown a single inning in the Majors yet. We can project and predict all we like based on what they’re doing in the Minors, but we just won’t know until they get to the bigs.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
The Gonzalez you speak of came from the Swisher trade
The Gonzalez in the Haren trade does not pitch, and is slated to play OF for the Rockies this year.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Mar 9, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, that's easy to forget sometimes
Either way, the people the A’s got back had no real experience at a high level. Carlos Gonzalez had 10 games at AAA in 2007.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
ugh this is so results based oriented thinking
Though there is some merit to it, for the most part trades should be evaluated at the time using expected value, and then you can decide if it was a bad trade or not. Now quantifying what the true expected value of some of the prospects is where the difficulty/differing opinions can present itself, but the idea that we cannot know if a trade failed or not for a couple years is bull.
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's. For further statistical analysis, Beyond the Box Score.
by iamawesomer on Mar 9, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
+15
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
by flipgatey3 on Mar 9, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
well to be honest, I did not like the Hudson trade at the time
Because while I liked Dan Meyer, I hated Charles Thomas and Juan Cruz.
Chicago. Where the Dead can Vote. Where the Voters of Tomorrow are found in the Obituaries of Today.
this is what I was saying...
Even if you like Meyer… which I cant remember a reason to at the time… Charles Thomas was far too old for a legit prospect and clearly had a flukey year with the upside of being Byrnes’ platoon partner. Juan Cruz was mercurial and wanted to start.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 11, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions
In the end, isn't that what it's about? Results?
When you have a trade like this it’s too early to say one side won for sure because you have to give the prospects the needed time to prove it one way or the other. But if they flame out, yeah – it’s a bad trade in the end. You can’t just look at a trade the moment it’s made and know for a fact which side won.
Ideally both sides win and get what they want out of it.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Both sides DID get what they wanted out of it.
Arizona got a 1a to go with Brandon Webb.
Oakland got a whole heap of talent.
That should be it. Case closed.
Maybe some of that talent doesn’t pan out. Okay fine. Maybe some of that talent is spun after a season and turned into Matt Holliday. Maybe some of that talent breaks camp a season earlier than expected and is part of the 2009 rotation instead of 2010. Why does any of that have any bearing on who “won” the trade? Both teams already got what they wanted.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
The A's got people they wanted to have options to do things with
And we can see that in how some have already been dealt in the Holliday deal while others are still in the organization.
So, in the sense that Mulder led to Haren led to Holliday and they still have more from the trades, the A’s have done pretty good for themselves.
If they just kept the guys they got and they never made it out of the Minors or stunk in the Majors, the trade would be declared a loss and a mistake – like the Hudson one.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
So you're blaming the A's for Dan Meyer not saying anything about his hurt shoulder.
Okay.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Hey, I'm totally blaming the A's for what happened with Meyer
I blame Meyer too, but I watched him pitch in spring training, 2005, and sitting in the stands with no access to a radar gun I said, “He can’t be throwing more than 83-84 MPH and he’s supposed to be around 92-93 MPH? The guy has to be pitching hurt.”
He kept pitching and eventually did irreparable damage. If I could see that from the stands, the A’s should have been able to figure it out.
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, for different reasons
The A’s do very little psychological profiling. From what I understand, they don’t (or didn’t) believe in it much, if at all.
I met Meyer just after the Hudson trade, and he didn’t seem like a very self-confident kid to me at all. And sure enough, he ended up too intimidated to say that anything was wrong. I’d be quite hesitant to give up a bulldog like Hudson for a gentler personality like Meyer’s, regardless of his minor league numbers.
Likewise Arthur Rhodes and Mark Redman—if you had the information that Rhodes didn’t have the mental toughness for closer duties (the Orioles, who did do psychological profiles, knew this and never used him in that role), and that Redman was a jerk, maybe you don’t spend so much money on them. And maybe when Rhodes and Redman end up alienating so many people in the clubhouse that you’re forced to move them elsewhere, you gon’t have to take on a ridiculous contract like Jason Kendall’s to get it done.
redman
i thought redman was well liked and praised by all the young marlins starting pitchers?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
You are confusing "turned out bad" with "bad decision"
If they just kept the guys they got and they never made it out of the Minors or stunk in the Majors, the trade would be declared a loss and a mistake – like the Hudson one.
First, let’s scrap the “won/lost” terminology for a moment, so we don’t get caught up in semantics. You can always say that whichever team ends up with the crummiest players “lost” the trade, but it is wrong to conclude that each “loss” constitutes a “mistake”.
Okay, with that out of the way, let’s indulge in a couple of hypothetical scenarios:
Scenario 1
The A’s trade Player A for Player B. Player A is really good, and continues to be really good for his new team.
Player B is struck by lightning the day after the trade, rendering him a mildly retarded amnesiac quadriplegic.
Obviously, the trade did not turn out so well for the A’s.
Scenario 2
The A’s trade Player A for Player B. Same players as above. And just as above, Player A continues to perform well after the trade.
But in this scenario, Player B does not get struck by lightning. Instead, he becomes awesome, and outperforms Player A for many years.
Scenario 1: Loss! Scenario 2: Win! But was the decision any different?
Obviously not. The decision was the same. This is what iamawesomer means when he says “trades should be evaluated at the time using expected value”. Good decisions sometimes turn out badly (and vice versa). In real life the juxtaposition will not be as stark, and of course there are always reasonable arguments to be made as to whether a particular deal should or should not have been made, given the circumstances at the time. But the very first thing you have to do when evaluating a trade is to separate the outcome from the decision.
by 74mk on Mar 9, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
good process/bad process
I know that this link has been posted (several times) before on AN, but a plot that Paul DePodesta posted on his blog really nails this issue. Go to this entry and scroll down (or read the whole entry, but it’s long-ish).
I agree with all this, except for the
part limiting it to “projected value” – you can certainly say, AT THE TIME, “I know Goatbody is projected to be very good but personally I don’t see him ever fulfilling that projection,” and IMO it’s good reason to criticize the process of acquiring him.
None of which applied to Dan Meyer, and I still think that was a good trade that just happened to turn out badly.
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
projecting
Isn’t this the same as saying that your method of projection isn’t perfect. Of course, no one can make perfect projections. There could be two GMs who both have “good process” but one of them has some secret insight about predicting who will be a successful player. Obviously that GM will fair much better, but I would put that outside of a discussion of “process”.
hmm… what I wrote makes less sense than what is in my head, but hopefully people can figure out my point.
I'd absolutely call that part of the process
If your test for what makes a good player is more accurate, your process is better— and in fact, that’s true even if your test misses one particular good player and someone else’s test identifies him.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
just because a team gets what it wanted doesn't mean its a good idea...
for example if say in august of 2008 I bought a bunch of shares of Bear Sterns, Merill Lynch, and Lehman Brothers stock paying the market price at the time, would you consider that a good trade (real money for stock that eventually became worthless)? I think not. The whole point is the results.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 9, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
That would be un-due dilligence
its about homework. If you buy what you expect to buy then yes it was a good purchase. Just because you failed in getting rich doesn’t mean that you lost the purchase.
but that contridicts your reasoning.
Deciding what the expected value of your prospects is determines whether the trade is worth while or not. Errors in determining expected value is what makes lopsided trades and are a result of bad scouting or negotiations.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 9, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
right
that is the only good/bad scenario when you fuck up on information that could have been known. If a guy is going to get injured 3 months after a trade, then not tell anyone, you could not have known that.
I know you are not necessarily talking about hudson now, but since I am typing can we now call the hudson trade a success because Juan Cruz had a good year?
i would say no
we would have gotten more value from a year of hudson and then letting him walk and getting two draft picks. That trade looked mediocre at best at the time a fluke OF and a reliever who is going to pitch a fit if you don’t start him are not significant enough of a diversification of risk for a pitcher as good as hudson.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 9, 2009 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Also
People talk about who won or did better in a trade because the goal is to win baseball games and win as many as you can. If the people you got helped you win games then you did fine. If they didn’t, then you didn’t do fine.
That’s a pretty simple concept and at the core, it’s a main factor of any trade, signing, etc.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Win games when?
The D-backs made a calculated decision to trade a lot of value later for a shot at the post-season now. Haren has given them that, while in 3 years the D-Backs are probably going to reflect back on that trade with more wistfulness than they feel today.
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
And to add, obviously not all trades are made for the same purpose
Arizona wanted someone who could go right to the top of their rotation to help them that season.
The A’s wanted people they could plug into their system and look to get things from over the next few years.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
yup
The distinction between decision and outcome is still not clear for most people. When someone makes an investment, and then loses money, he often says that he made a bad decision. If he would make the same decision again if he did not know how it would turn out, then he would be more accurate in saying that he made a good decision and had a bad outcome.
—Ronald Howard, Professor of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University
Save Rajai Davis
I very much disagree
Yes, there are all kinds of things which never could be predicted—the prospect getting hit by a bus analogy.
But evaluating all trades based on what we—as outsiders—knew at the time only serves to 1) ignore information and 2) confirm biases.
You think a deal is one sided at the time, but at least one major league front office clearly didn’t think so. If it turns out that major league front office was far more right in their evaluations of the players involved, why would you stick to your original evaluation? If you think a prospect isn’t very good, but that prospect turns out to be really good, do you not even consider that your original evaluation was wrong?
As outsiders, we have very limited information relative to the people actually making decisions. When we look at a prospect, all we know are his stats and some anecdotes of what some scouts and front office people have said. When a major league front office evaluates a player, they have access to not only all the data we do, but also to a far fuller picture of the player’s scouting reports and makeup.
Acknowledging that we have very limited information at the time of a trade isn’t an admission that process doesn’t matter. Rather, it’s an admission that we’re open to to reevaluating our opinions when more information becomes available.
When the Red Sox traded Hanley Ramirez to the Marlins, many people saw it as a great trade for the Red Sox even though they had to take on the “dead weight” salary of Lowell. Hanley’s stats had never matched his tools, and the published reports said he had a bad attitude. Six months later, Hanley was one of the better hitting SS in baseball. Eighteen months later, Hanley was one of the best players in baseball. If you were one of the people who thought Hanley was extremely overrated and would never be a star, would you still think that was the right observation at the time?
To label a trade as good or bad at the time is fine. To refuse to budge off that initial position when the evidence is piling up that you were wrong is just stubborness and an inability to recognize our limitations as outsiders.
yes/+1
If I may simplify:
Trades should be judged based on process/what was known at the time, not on outcomes as others have suggested, BUT for us as outsiders outcomes provide evidence of the quality of the process, since we as fans have a very limited understanding of the process.
On the third hand, though, trades for minor leaguers, e.g., are trades for based on an assessment of a likely range of outcomes, and the actual outcome is only limited evidence as to whether the F.O. actually had an accurate assessment of the range of outcomes. In your Hanley example, it is very difficult for us as outsiders to determine how much of what happened can be attributed to good scouting/etc. and how much just to luck.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Agreed, mostly
In your Hanley example, it is very difficult for us as outsiders to determine how much of what happened can be attributed to good scouting/etc. and how much just to luck.
I don’t think we can ever know this for any specific move—whether a trade, signing, or draft pick. But when evaluating a front office, I think a long term view of the results is the best (only?) way to judge.
But when evaluating a front office, I think a long term view of the results is the best (only?) way to judge.
I agree completely with that (didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.) In fact, I almost wrote it…
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Yes
I think that’s the key distinction, and in a sense it’s just a sample size issue.
If we’re just talking about a single transaction, then it makes more sense to judge it by what was known at the time. The ultimate outcome is subject to a lot of factors that are difficult or impossible to foresee, especially with moves that involve prospects, so we should only try to judge based on what was known at the time (with your added caveat that what the front office knows comprises a lot more than what the fans know).
But when looking at an overall track record, the luck averages out and by looking at the outcomes we can get a sense of how good a job the front office has done at evaluating and judging talent.
It’s just like gambling – a single bet can be with the odds and still lose, but a longer-term track record tells you whether your assessment of the odds was correct or not.
black dirt live again
How large would you say the “outcome sample size” has to be before outsiders can render an adequate performance assessment? Is that an impossible question to answer with any specificity?
Well, it’s impossible for me to answer. I’m inclined to think that outsiders can rarely offer a convincing definitive judgment on these things.
But I think it’s something the front office can (and probably does) do as an internal self-evaluation in some specific cases. For example, the A’s had some data indicating that college players were better bets in the first round than high school players, and other people have replicated the study and confirmed that that was true in the late 1990s. Brad Sullivan being a bust doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. But I’m sure they’ve since gone back and looked at the results of their own picks (and other teams’ picks) from 2002-2005 to judge in retrospect whether they did a good job of assessing the odds for those years, and revised their drafting strategy accordingly.
black dirt live again
I think the correct approach, given enough time, is to evaluate both
and give more weight as a category to outcomes which are more foreseeable. A player becoming good by carrying his minor league statline to the majors without much dropoff probably reflects better on the front office than one who becomes good by suddenly halving his strikeout rate. A player who busts because he becomes injured is less of a downer than one who is exposed as a BABIP-inspired myth.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Exactly - for example sometimes you can pinpoint forseeability,
such as a known work ethic issue or a history of arm problems, while sometimes stuff happens that couldn’t especially be foreseen (which is how I personally view the Meyer deal – by process, a Hudson for Haren plus two throw-ins that turned into garbage plus two throw-ins).
But how much something could have been foreseen is an important consideration.
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
More foreseeable...for us outsiders
What you don’t know is whether a team saw a hitch in a swing that could be corrected, or whether scouting reports and doctors indicated a player was a severe injury risk.
Or a pitch that could be added with great results
I was never all that bullish on Braden, but since he has learned to add and subtract on his fastball, and now has added a cutter, the guy who had “good command and a bulldog attitude, but lacked the arsenal to succeed with it” is suddenly a lot more likely to succeed.
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
As far as injuries are concerned,
many very intelligent people not in the employ of front offices have attempted to figure out the causes of injuries and generally come up with nothing useful. Color me extremely skeptical that teams know anything significant we don’t know on that issue.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
but they should know the risk
The return for Hudson for example included an enigmatic reliever who wanted to start, a crappy of, and a good pitching prospect. Not a lot of diversification of risk when so much of the return value was in one pitching prospect.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 9, 2009 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions
But the A's were trading a pitcher
who not only had only one year left on his contract, but who had a recurring injury history. They weren’t going to get Haren, Calero, and Barton for that, and they weren’t going to get Brett Anderson, Aaron Cunningham, Dana Eveland, and Chris Carter.
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 know but i would argue that they would have done better with a year of hudson and draft picks
than what they got back.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 9, 2009 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Beane said that just by keeping Hudson's salary in 2005,
it would have meant subtracting multiple other pieces (I think he mentioned Durazo and a couple others, but I can’t recall who else).
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
perhaps
maybe the dogers package that was edwin jackson plus (kemp? looney?) that was rumored would have been preferable. The outcome matters. We did very poorly on the Hudson trade. We picked up a crappy outfielder based sss stats a reliever with make up issues and a pitching prospect too dumb to stop pitching when he was clearly hurt. Im not sure how you can say it was a good process.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 9, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions
What if Meyer had turned out to be
exactly as good as Haren is? How would you rate the process/outcome then?
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
well i think i would rather have had any of these packages listed by Gamons
There were three other teams in the Hudson sweepstakes: the Cardinals (package of right-handed pitcher Danny Haren and minor leaguers Anthony Reyes, a right-hander, and super catching prospect Daric Barton), Orioles (lefty Erik Bedard, righty John Maine and righty Hayden Penn) and the Dodgers; problem was, L.A. GM Paul DePodesta couldn’t get a third team involved, as the Blue Jays wouldn’t deal Ted Lilly and Alexis Rios for Edwin Jackson and Hee Seop Choi. The Orioles might have gotten their proposed deal done, but wouldn’t do it without a window to sign Hudson, which wasn’t going to happen. The Red Sox and Yankees, meanwhile, were never seriously involved because they had no players who interested the A’s.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 10, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
So...
you would have preferred a package from the Dodgers… which didn’t actually exist. I was against the Braves deal from Day 1 but even I prefer getting actual prospects back in a trade.
Or a deal with the Orioles, who requested a window to sign Huddy to an extension… a provision (right or wrong) Beane was unwilling to give any team.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I would have prefered the Card's package
I would also argue that the failure to include a negotiating window is a part of the process and has to be evaluated too. It would have been like holding up the AZ deal over Connor Robertson’s inclusion.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 10, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions
After the fact, sure...
but that doesn’t tell us much.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
well the other deals had prospects better rated at the time
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 10, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Did you know Dotel had a torn UCL
when the A’s acquired him? The A’s did.
The A’s gave Nomar a physical and examined his medical records. Don’t you think they know just a bit more than you about the state of his health?
That information is part of what was known about players at the time of the trade
hence, part of the process, not part of the outcome. It’s flat-out irrelevant to this discussion.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
No, it's perfectly relevant
You wrote:
A player who busts because he becomes injured is less of a downer than one who is exposed as a BABIP-inspired myth.
I responded that the BABIP guy is only more foreseeable as a bust to us outsiders. The team has far more information about the players involved than we do, and that includes medical information. It may be that the guy got hurt because he already had serious health warnings that we never knew about. It’s the fact that we don’t know so much about the process that should preclude us from crying “luck” when things don’t work out the way we thought they would.
The reason I brought up Dotel is because his injury could have been dismissed as simply bad luck had it not come out later that he was hurt when the A’s acquired him. Surely, there are many times where we never learn such information.
You can continue to be “extremely skeptical that teams know anything significant we don’t know,” but it’s a simple fact that they do.
Ah, but that information has the magical, mystical property
of traveling backward in time and changing our opinions on the trade at the time it was made. It’s actually legitimate to say “if we had known Player X had Injury Y, I would have felt that trade was a bad deal.” You can’t say “if we had known Player X actually sucked ass, I would have felt that trade was a bad deal.” Nor, for that matter, can you say “if we had known Player X, who had no significant prior history, would suffer Injury Y, I would have felt that trade was a bad deal.”
You can continue to be "extremely skeptical that teams know anything significant we don’t know," but it’s a simple fact that they do.
Try rereading the post from which you plucked that out-of-context sentence fragment. I said I was skeptical that teams knew something we didn’t about causation. It’s trivially obvious that they know things we don’t know about players’ personal medical histories.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Which part of this are you missing?
It’s actually legitimate to say "if we had known Player X had Injury Y, I would have felt that trade was a bad deal."
But the vast majority of the time, we have no idea what injury or injury indicators players have or don’t have when teams acquire them.
Try rereading the post from which you plucked that out-of-context sentence fragment. I said I was skeptical that teams knew something we didn’t about causation. It’s trivially obvious that they know things we don’t know about players’ personal medical histories.
You don’t think current and past medical reports have anything to do with forecasting future injuries? Really?
You might want to stop guessing at what I "think"
since you’re doing an exceptionally (and, I have to imagine, deliberately) poor job of it.
There is a fundamental difference between insight and data. Teams obviously have more data. I do not believe that teams, on the issue of injuries, have more insight.
When evaluating the performance of a front office, the only thing you can go on is the information in front of you. But when key information is missing (like whether a team knew Player X was injured before trading for him) the solution is to come up with a probabilistic estimate of what the team’s likely state of knowledge about the injury was, then to regress the actual outcome toward that state of knowledge. The solution is NOT to say “well, they must have known, because teams know things we don’t” and blame the team 100% for whatever the outcome is.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
That's not the solution I'm advocating at all
I’m saying that we should be looking at all outcomes instead of “regressing” some towards “bad luck.” If a team’s acquisitions perform consistently worse (whether due to injury or something else) than average, we should assume that the front office is below average in player acquisition—whether it’s due to poor medical analysis or poor risk calculation.
the solution is to come up with a probabilistic estimate of what the team’s likely state of knowledge about the injury was
But you have absolutely no idea—none—what the team knows.
There is a fundamental difference between insight and data. Teams obviously have more data. I do not believe that teams, on the issue of injuries, have more insight.
The idea that you know as much about what causes baseball injuries as doctors, trainers, and coaches under the team’s employ is either a delusion of self grandeur or an admission of ignorance.
I'm sorry, that's simply wrong
“Looking at all outcomes” (which as far as I can tell, is just a restatement of the “solution” you’re “not advocating at all”) is an inferior method to regressing to the mean. If you would like to advocate otherwise, there are many Grade C statistics journals to which you should feel free to submit your research.
But you have absolutely no idea—none—what the team knows.
This is ridiculous. Teams do not trade for players with no heed for their injury records. There is a differential bias in favor of players with cleaner health histories. Cases like Dotel where players have injuries which were known ahead of time, but haven’t cost the player enough time to draw the attention of any of the many highly interested outsiders who follow this stuff, are very rare.
The idea that you know as much about what causes baseball injuries as doctors, trainers, and coaches under the team’s employ is either a delusion of self grandeur or an admission of ignorance.
I don’t personally have such knowledge. Fortunately, there now exists this fascinating phenomenon known as “the internet” on which people who do have such knowledge can write “articles” and “studies” for public consumption.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
You're making a point completely separate from what Law said
“Quality,” especially in a trade that involves prospects, has little to do with major league experience (and for what it’s worth, Eveland and Smith were both major-league ready last year). Those are and were 4 top prospects. You basically don’t get more quality than that in a trade, and Law is acting as though the A’s just made a trade for a bunch of organizational filler.
by thejd44 on Mar 9, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I think you and Law are defining quality differently
The guys you mention were good prospects, but they weren’t top 20 guys like the Marlins got for Miguel Cabrera (Maybern and Miller). Anderson might be considered an elite prospect now but a year ago he was a step below that level.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Eh, I think it's pretty likely that all 4 of the A's prospects (well, Gonzalez is now with the Rockies) will end up better than both those guys
It’s not a guarantee or anything, but that wouldn’t surprise me at all.
For what it’s worth, last year Maybin was 6, Gonzalez 22, and Anderson 36 according to BA. Miller wasn’t ranked, but I think that’s because he wasn’t eligible (the year before he was #10).
by thejd44 on Mar 9, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
A couple things
Law’s talking about that the A’s traded for quite a few lower level minor leaguers rather than fewer more proven guys that had a better chance of making it. Quality isn’t the best word for it but it’s the cliche so go with it. They went for more lower level guys with upside. Get over it. He wasn’t trying to diss the trade.
Also, I would say Anderson and mayber Carter have the chance to become better than Haren from what I’ve seen. All 4? Are you kidding me? I also enjoy that you say it’s “pretty likely” that all four will be better and then immediately qualify the statement with it being “not a guarantee”.
Good point, CliveWarren -
Anderson was a very promising prospect but he was also 19; Carter was seen as having a lot of potential but also as being “very raw” and “the farthest away from the big leagues of the six.” Those two are examples of quality that you NEED to get in quantity because there is such a high flameout rate.
Meanwhile, Cunningham, Eveland, and Smith were considered likely to make the big leagues but unlikely to star – again, guys you need to get in quantity if you have hopes for even one being anything special.
I think the A’s DID go for quantity – they just did a great job of sussing out a heck of a lot of true quality in the process.
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
Better than Maybin/Miller, not Haren
I doubt any of them will be as good as Haren.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Agree with thejd44
Law is a friggin tard for saying that. We made out like absolute bandits in that trade. At this point, even if Anderson hadn’t been included in the trade it still looks like a solid haul and that is saying something.
I miss Chad God
Have you
forgotten how good Haren is/was? You think it’s this big steal but Haren is a legit #1. Those are hard to come by. None of these guys are sure things. Anderson is close but pitching injures happen a lot and Haren is durable as the best of ’em.
It wouldn’t be a solid haul without Anderson. Were you kidding? I can’t tell if you’re kidding.
I’m actually a big fan of the trade but it was quantity over proven quality. Upside over a sure thing. Don’t be so cranky about it.
TINSTAAP
That’s why you need so many.
RIVER CATS: AAA CHAMPS!
+P
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
so would anyone be surprised if our rotation come june is....
1. Gallagher
2. Anderson
3. Cahill
4. Eveland
5 Gonzalez
Nothing surprises me about Oakland...
I wouldn’t be surprised if Roy Halladay was an A if they’re contending in June.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
The "M" in MAC
I would not write off Vinny in this mix. He has looked impressive in ST also!
I dream(t) of Fremont and rainbows
by OptimistPrime on Mar 9, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Especially if that supposed extra few MPH on his heater is true.
If Vin is really touching 96 right now, I’m excited.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
The extra "oomph" on his fastball isn't as important as developing his change-up
His low-90’s sinker is plenty fast, but his slider is only average so he’s going to need a 3rd pitch to stay in the rotation.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I know that.
But going from low 90s to mid 90s will also help his sinker and slider.
Of course, I’m saying this assuming that he tweaked his mechanics or something and found some more heat. If he’s just trying to air it out more, that sucks.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
I don't know that you know that
But together we have painted a more complete picture of the man.
Or something like that.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I kinda feel like we should hug now.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
I'm not a fan of mushrooms.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
I'd be a litlte bit, surprised, yes
Because I don’t think the A’s want to rush the kids, and if there are that many rotation holes it means the season is lost and Holliday is traded and then you may as well just use Jerome Williams and Edgar Gonzalez.
by thejd44 on Mar 9, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
beane has stated
he’d rather have the draft pick than trade bait.. but then again i dont believe much he says when it comes to trades.
a’s dont want to rush them but if theyre ready and better tha current crop we’ll pitch them
So Keith Law sees one of Anderson's games and all of a sudden he's big league ready?
What if Anderson had been off yesterday, and his velocity would be in the mid 80s? Would Law proclaim him back of the rotation filler like he did Gio?
Though he’s someone who’s supposedly stats-oriented, Law apparently doesn’t care about judgments based on extremely SSS. Honestly, I’m not really sure the guy knows what he’s talking about, though he sure acts like he does.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Mar 9, 2009 11:36 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
* was in the mid 80s
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Mar 9, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Keith Law makes all his determinations based on one game it seems
Law seems to be ditching his stats background for an eyeball witness scouting approach, which is fine except he frequently sees a guy once and makes an apparently permanent decision based on that. I think Law knows his baseball for sure, but I really question some of his judgments and opinions because I just don’t know how much actual information goes into them.
by thejd44 on Mar 9, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
+1
i like the chats though
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
In fairness to Law, all he had to go on was that outing.
If a guy looks ready in the one start you see, pitching to major leaguers, getting them out and looking like a 32 year old veteran in doing it, it’s fair to note that. At least he backed his point up with relevant details, such as “changing sightlines, working hitters, etc.” From all accounts, this, not his stuff, is what truly separates Anderson from other 21 year old prospects.
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
His stats are what separates him from other 21-year-old prospects
He had the best statline of any pitching prospect in the minor leagues last season. Ridiculous K rate plus elite control plus groundballs. I agree that his stuff is not a distinguishing point, but his performance so far in his career has been extraordinary.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
I'm not disagreeing there. I'm just adding that
what makes him potentially special even for his stats has to do with maturity, feel for the game, etc. Some pitchers with great minor league stat lines don’t live up to the hype, some do, and some exceed it. I think if he stays healthy Anderson has a chance to exceed “projections” due to his unusual feel for pitching.
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
Can't hurt
It’s hard to find a pitching prospect with a more attractive combination of strengths in all areas. He really has no weaknesses.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Slightly boring name?
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
Not even that.
Come on, with initials like B.A., he belongs on the A-team.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
Keith Law is,
and I say this entirely aware of the “takes one to know one” irony involved here, one of the most unbelievably self-impressed people I’ve ever encountered.
There’s nothing per se wrong with arrogance, but when it turns into hubris and you can no longer question your own assumptions, then there’s definitely something wrong with it. Keith Law passed that point years ago, probably about when he discovered that giving “scouting” insights would allow him to make authoritative judgments without needing to bother with research.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Thanks.
I don’t believe I’ve met you, Paul, so I’m not sure on what basis you are criticizing my personality. I do find it interesting that you presented nothing but subjective insults, the type of invective that, frankly, is impossible to refute because it is so vague. If you have evidence, by all means, show it. But don’t claim that we’ve met unless we actually have.
For those who asked, I’ve seen Brett Anderson several times, discussed him with members of the A’s organization, and discussed him with other scouts who’ve seen him in the past (including prior outings this spring). I used all of that information as well as a look at his performance record when writing the article and saying that I think he’s major-league ready. If he’d been in the mid-80s, I’d have written about how something was wrong, just as I did last year when I saw Franklin Morales pitching with markedly reduced velo.
swatnick and vignette did a good job of explaining my quality/quantity comment. Anderson has made significant strides since coming over to Oakland, to the point where I put him at #20 on my top 100 this year, and would say that omitting him from last year’s 100 was a mistake. At the time of the deal, though, I don’t think anyone foresaw him developing into one of the top 3-5 LH prospects in the game in just a year.
One last point: I didn’t “rip” Hunter and Ross. They did not throw well yesterday or show good deliveries. That’s not a rip – it’s an evaluation.
Thanks for reading.
by Keith Law on Mar 9, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Huh.
I’d never have thought a peon like me was worth a response, but, hey, I got one, so I guess I’d better follow up.
Nothing in my post was intended to suggest that I’ve ever met you, Keith, in person. Hence my use of the word “encountered,” as opposed to “met,” “known,” or something such. I’m aware that many people are different in person than they are on the internet. On the other hand, you’ve also appeared on television and done nothing to dispel my impression of your online persona there, so let’s just say that so far all the evidence I’ve got is pointing in the same direction.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
i doubt
that’s really him. I doubt he’d be so sensitive to comment because he got ripped on AN.
Let's have our Piazza and eat the Cust too - SPWC
Well it is. Just FYI.
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
Yes, it's me.
And I respond to readers, both fans and critics, on blogs all the time.
So you are seeing other blogs then?
{Sniff}
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
Of course...
…I’m not going to stay with a blog that doesn’t treat me right.
It'll be different from now on. I promise.
{says same thing to John Sickels, drinks more}
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Maybe PT is still pissed about your 15 month-old assessment of Dan Haren. We have memories like elephants here on AN.
I predict that if you state for the record that by God Dan Haren does in fact possess a swing-and-miss pitch, and acknowledge what we all know to be true, that regret has haunted you like a scythe wielding demon ever since that fateful November chat, that despite appearances to the contrary you’ve really never recovered the respect of your peers or your readership, that after over a year of sleepless, tormented nights you’re deeply grateful for this opportunity to repent, a) all will be forgiven, b) PT will immediately (and enthusiastically!) shell out seven bucks or whatever for an ESPN Insider account, and c) no one on this blog will ever compare you to an animated rabbit again.
Except maybe Roger Rabbit - he's cool.
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
Oswald was an animated rabbit?
Man, I thought I had heard every crazy theory, but that one’s the craziest of the lot.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Haren.
Just went back to my notes – saw him in June ‘08 at Fenway, incredible outing, but he didn’t use the splitter much. Pitched largely off his fastball, pounded the zone, lot of called strikes. Had Ellsbury 1-2 and didn’t challenge him – stayed away for three pitches and walked him. RHP to LHB, 2 strikes, perfect time for a splitter, and he didn’t use it. Calling him “more of a 3” was too much, though. You’ve got me there – he’s better than that, and of course he didn’t have help from his home park this year.
PT is hard to take seriously. He makes the bias claim, which I get from fans of every team, all the time. (And FWIW, Billy’s a friend, has been for years.) He calls me names, throws around insults, but when I asked above for some evidence, I got none. Making it personal like that is a mark of immaturity; if you disagree with my evaluations, great, go ahead and tear them apart, but the moment you get personal, you’ve lost.
I imagine that if I acted, wrote, and spoke in exactly the same way, but offered unrelenting praise of the A’s, I wouldn’t be so “self-impressed.”
by Keith Law on Mar 9, 2009 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
You have to cut PT some slack. He’s in training to be a lawyer, which means he will ignore the valid point you made about a lack of evidence to support his claim and instead seize upon your misinterpretation of his verb choice.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I think a more measured point than PT is making is that...
It sounds like you are using one at bat (Ellsbury) to say that Haren doesn’t have an out pitch. It seems like would be pretty hard to put up 7.76 K/9 which was good for 20th in the MLB with a 150 inning minimum during Haren’s last year with the A’s in 07 with out one. Is that not a fair assessment?
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 9, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions
That's rather literal.
I’m using one at bat as an example of how perhaps the splitter isn’t his out pitch – he was in a perfect situation to deploy it, against a mediocre hitter at that, and chose not to do so. I’m not making a summary judgment on one AB, any more than I was making a summary judgment on Anderson based on just three innings of a single ST game.
so just because haren didn't deploy a certain pitch against a mediocre hitter once
he doesn’t have an out pitch?
you didn’t say “perhaps the splitter isn’t his out pitch” you said “he doesn’t have a definite swing-and-miss pitch.”
so then how did he manage to put up a 7.76 k/9, 20th best among MLB starters apparently, without an out pitch?
even if you’re not making a summary judgment based on one AB, and i’m not convinced you’re not, maybe your standards for what constitutes an out pitch are too high.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I can see how both would be true.
Haren thrives because he commands every pitch he throws. He doesn’t rely on a single pitch as an out pitch. He can use any of them to get strikeouts, whether it’s the fastball he can cut and run, the splitter, or the curve. Everything moves, much of it is thrown hard, and all of it gets thrown for strikes.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
if that's what he meant, perhaps he should have said
“he doesn’t have a definite swing-and-miss pitch, but that really doesn’t matter because he commands every pitch he throws and doesn’t rely on a single out pitch.”
but the no out pitch thing wasn’t the only negative comment he made about haren, the full quote is:
I’m a little bit of a Haren skeptic – ballpark and defense helped him a lot. He opens his front shoulder a bit and struggles to get the ball in on lefties, and he doesn’t have a definite swing-and-miss pitch. Good pitcher, no doubt, but more of a 3 than a 1/2. Whether other teams realize that or not is another question.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Understood.
I think that’s why he’s admitting he was wrong about that comment in this FanThingy.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
As much as I'd like to see you continue to flog PT, I have a question... or two
On Sunday Anderson looked like a big league pitcher. If the season started tomorrow and Mr. Anderson made the trip to Oakland do you believe that he’d have more days that he’d look like a big league pitcher than days he’d look like a kid with less than a dozen starts above A-ball?
Is one game enough to make a call like that, especially on a guy with so little experience in the upper minors? Please understand my skepticism, I watched Matt Young throw a no-hitter once so I’m hesitant to base an assessment on one performance.
Thanks for dropping by.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Good q's
To that I’d add, "Have you had a chance to see Cahill and Mazzaro, and if so:
1. Who looks readiest of the three to pitch well in the big leagues now?
2. Is Mazzaro really throwing upwards of 96 MPH?"
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
PT is what he is, pretty much
Sometimes that’s good, sometimes not.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
This is a judgment
that seems pointless. Besides being a little snooty (“Little PT, he’s such a funny one”), it also adds nothing to the conversation.
You do this a lot…sorry, but I want to call it.
okay but in this case you did praise the a's, and yet these a's fans are still critical of your analysis...
i know you have been accused of anti-a’s (and i’m sure every other team) bias in the past, but that’s hardly an issue here.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Well, you know, PT is young and he has a big brain and deep reservoirs of misdirected righteousness, and sometimes that’s a problematic cocktail. But at the bottom of it all he’s a good guy.
As to the Haren thing, all appeals for your repentance were advanced only to underscore the silliness/pettiness/absurdity of Internet name-calling:
1. It was over a year ago.
2. You pound out zillions of off-the-cuff observations in those chats, some of which are bound to be a bit off base.
3. I don’t actually care one way or the other.
4. I’m far more outraged that you lauded Toni Morrison as the greatest American writer of the last 50 years. When I read that, it was all I could do to keep from clicking over to AN to call you names.
Well...
… is there a better American novel of the last 50 years than Beloved?
What Is the Best Work of American Fiction of the Last 25 Years? :http://www.nytimes.com/ref/books/fiction-25-years.html
I don’t care for Roth, or Bellow. I’m not there yet on McCarthy. I was so-so on my first Updike read. I loved the two Russo novels I read, but Morrison crushes him on literary value. I’m not sure who I might be missing here.
Breakfast of Champions is better IMO.
But that’s just my bias (and I love Toni Morrison, although I prefer The Bluest Eye. Russo is also phenomenal.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
apparently writers like vonnegut are not serious enough to count
kind of like the coen brothers in their arizona – fink – hudsucker – lebowski days.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
The article only covers the last 25, not 50
So I get why Vonnegut wasn’t featured much in it. I freaking loves me some Kurt Vonnegut, though. I am so glad I had the pleasure of hearing him speak before he passed.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
agreed, i have read and enjoyed almost all of his books.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
As have I.
Every one except Timequake, I believe. Slaughterhouse Five was #46 on the inaugural Klaw 100. But even his best can’t touch Beloved.
also ineligible: science fiction
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Classic foma.
"Years ago I was working in Schenectady for General Electric, completely surrounded by machines and ideas for machines, so I wrote a novel about people and machines . . . And I learned from the reviewers that I was a science-fiction writer.
“I did not know that. I supposed that I was writing a novel about life, about things I could not avoid seeing and hearing in Schenectady, a very real town, awkwardly set in the gruesome now. I have been a soreheaded occupant of a file drawer labeled "science fiction” ever since, and I would like out, particularly since so many serious critics regularly mistake the drawer for a urinal.
“The way a person gets into this drawer, apparently, is to notice technology. The feeling persists that no one can simultaneously be a respectable writer and understand how a refrigerator works, just as no gentleman wears a brown suit in the city.”
~KV
transfiguration When the woman puts mascara on, it means she’s leaving the house. When the man puts big boots on, it means the alley has been erased by snow. When the black cat has a white strip on its back, be careful! The world can change in an instant.
Bah.
I botched the link:
What Is the Best Work of American Fiction of the Last 25 Years?
PS thank you for joining us.
I know that some of us are beating up on you but it is really nice to get to debate with the experts.
BTW i hated Beloved… Had to read it for a Magical Realism class sophomore year of college
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 9, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Give it a few years...
… and try it again. I re-read two books I hated in HS after a 15-year gap and loved both on the second reading.
Its been three years
Im not sure if thats the kind of cognitive gap youre looking for. I also tend to do more 3rd world authors because i like the magical realism genre. Allende, Marquez, Ben Okri, Salman Rushdie… etc..
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 9, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions
+1
but 100 years of solitude is far better.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 9, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions
geez
Even if whoever made that list thought Phillip Roth wrote half of the best 25 novels, it might have been nice throw in some more variety. I like Roth, but that’s a bit much…
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Delillo!
Specifically Libra and Underworld.
Maybe this is unfashionable (certainly in this thread it will be), but I’d put Updike and Mailer near the top of the list as well. The Executioner’s Song is a frakking incredible book, though I suppose you could argue it’s not strictly a novel.
Like mikeA, as I mull this I’m surprised at how short the list is; I like plenty of contemporary American writers (Johnson, Boyle, Franzen, etc), but my real enthusiasm is for fiction penned by non-Americans: Murakami, Kundera, Ondaatje, Zadie Smith.
you lauded Toni Morrison as the greatest American writer of the last 50 years
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Excuse me, sir. You dropped your umbilical cord
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
This discussion made me realize that
almost all of my favorite fiction is by non-Americans, which I had never thought about. Vonnegut would be my favorite, I guess. Cat’s Cradle is my favorite of his. I updated my profile with my favorite books a couple weeks ago if anyone’s interested…
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
you update your profile?
how is anyone even supposed to know to look at it?
i don’t think i’ve changed mine in years…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
(agreed on the non-americans thing)
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Yeah, it really has been years. I did it because I got bored and made that list, which was fun, but then I didn’t have anything to do with it. And I click on people’s profiles sometimes and wish there was something interesting there.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
are you on facebook?
that would be a much better place for posting your favorite novels than your AN profile.
this thread is bumming me out, many years ago i moved and somehow lost a box that included many vonnegut and pg wodehouse books…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
nope, not on facebook
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
I have a bunch of them
or more accurately, a bunch of them were installed in my room at some point by my mother, possibly to make me seem more erudite than I really am. But probably just because she’s run out of any other space in the house which could conceivably be used to store anything.
Anyway, I’d donate them to you if you showed up at some AN function or other.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
wait, are you serious?
if you are, sure i’ll take them off your hands.
also, did you mean wodehouse or vonnegut?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Both, actually
I’m just not a big fan of straight fiction. As a history buff, I tend to fall into the “truth is stranger than” category.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
I still have a problem with the Haren comment too
(and it has nothing to do with any supposed anti-Oakland bias).
Anyone offering opinions on players is going to be wrong sometimes, and that’s especially true if we’re talking about prospects. But when we’re talking about someone who’s already had three years of consistent success in the majors, and some supposed expert gives a description that seemingly bears no relation to the player we’ve all watched for those three years (I remember thinking at the time that it was a fair description of Joe Blanton), I have a hard time giving much weight to that person’s opinions when it comes to players with whom I’m not as familiar. And a partial semi-retraction along with a justification based on one at-bat doesn’t really change that.
black dirt live again
it kind of went from
scouting → one game → one AB → one (non) pitch
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Dude, you do chats like every week
I haven’t read any of them in a while, because I haven’t been bored enough to (and that’s not personal— I only read anyone’s chats when I get bored, apart from maybe Joe Lunardi’s), but…
Do you really want me to go there? I’m not particularly interested in undertaking the “Keith Law→jackass” research project, and I can’t imagine you’re particularly interested in me doing it either. It would seem to be win-win for me not to. I’m sure you could undertake the same project with me, and I’m equally sure you have better things to do with your time. Like, say, watch some Dan Haren starts, or look up Alexei Ramirez’s strikeout rate.
I’ll back off the claim of bias, which I haven’t made in a while, although it’s possible that your methodology (using the term loosely) might tend to systematically disfavor the kind of players the A’s seem to enjoy having.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Klaw
come visit every once in a while. enjoy your chats and would be fun to be able to ask you questions every once in a while. hard to get questions in on Thursdays unless we manage to get under your skin
Let's have our Piazza and eat the Cust too - SPWC
Keith...
I used a poor choice of words. You did rip them… but probably for good reason.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
ross / hunter
ANers seem perplexed that the a’s have basically adopted a “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” attitude towards their deliveries.
you probably shouldn’t have used “of course” so then law couldn’t pull the “a’s bias” card…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I could have sworn that I read something about Ross' mechanics being tweaked by the A's
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
my understanding was that any changes made were minor
btw here’s how law described it yesterday:
“Tyson Ross, was 89-93 with a wildly inconsistent slider. His delivery has always been rough — he lands on a front leg so stiff it could double as a post hole digger, and he slings the ball from a low, three-quarter angle that’s just above sidearm.”
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
The stiff front leg is just painful looking.
If they could get him to get some drive out of his legs, it seems like he’d be throwing 96 without even trying.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
We can curb the walks from here
PaulThomas: It’s the influence of baseball. Now, now Keith Law deals with it in terms of it being a, a high— high intensity, you understand? A hot prospect —
Nico: What I wouldn’t give for a large sock with horse manure in it.
PaulThomas:— as opposed to the sleeper which he [sees as the] flyer or—
Nico: What can you do when you get stuck in a bobblehead line with a guy like this behind you?
PaulThomas: Now, Keith Law—
Nico: You don’t know anything about Keith Law’s work—
PaulThomas: Really? Really? I happen to teach a class at Berkeley called Baseball, Prospects and Sabermetricians, so I think that my insights into Mr. Law, well, have a great deal of validity.
Nico: Oh, do you?
PaulThomas: Yeah.
Nico: Oh, that’s funny, because I happen to have Mr. Law right here. Come over here for a second?
PaulThomas: Oh—
Nico: Tell him.
Keith Law: — I heard, I heard what you were saying. You, you know nothing of my work. You mean my whole fantasy analysis is wrong. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing.
Nico: Boy, if life were only like this.
by BillyWannabeane on Mar 10, 2009 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions
"I used to be a heroine addict. Now I'm a methadone addict."
transfiguration When the woman puts mascara on, it means she’s leaving the house. When the man puts big boots on, it means the alley has been erased by snow. When the black cat has a white strip on its back, be careful! The world can change in an instant.
I know I'm late to the party but...
I actually agree with Law here (about the Haren trade). It was a fear, especially among AN as I recall, that the trade was done as quantity over quality. Such a thought may have been due to the great amount of young talent AZ had and we were hoping for (Drew, Upton, Young, Jackson, etc). Or it may have been an overreaction based on the fact that Smith and Eveland were in the trade. CarGo was a wild card with as much bust potential as superstar potential (and he still is). Anderson was a nice pitching prospect but one at a low level. Cunningham and Carter were both edge of the top 10 prospects for AZ, and I’m not sure they got as much credit as they deserved. All six players the A’s got in the Haren trade have improved their stock in the last year, and now it seems like there was a lot of quality in the quantity. But there doesn’t look to be a superstar at the time of the deal.
Also, about the concept of trades: there should be two ways of looking at a trade. First should be on predictions of value. Looking at something as it occurs is the best way of deciding whether the trade is a good or bad decision. The second is results. Looking at who got more value is ultimately the correct way of seeing who “won” a trade. Even if the decision was a good one, it is very possible to make a terrible trade. There might even be no possible way of knowing if a player would do badly or get hurt. The fact of the matter is that if a player does not fulfill the goal of the trade, unluckily or luckily, the trade is a bad trade. The measure of a good trade is not a forward-looking measure and should not be looked at when evaluating a GM (unless one can argue that the GM’s prediction saw something no one else saw). But it is the best method in evaluating who won a trade.
For similar reasoning, it is best to look at who got lucky in deciding past awards. If a pitcher allowed a .200 BABIP and that allowed him to pitch 200 innings with fewer baserunners and runs scored (Ok, now we could be including defense so my analogy is a little off) than a guy who had slightly worse stats and a .400 BABIP, pitcher A should get the Cy Young. Obviously, Pitcher B is the better pitcher. Pitcher A is in for some huge regression. But Player A had the better year due to luck. Sometimes it’s better to be lucky than good.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
What I think made the Haren trade such a great one for Oakland
is that it did not really sacrifice quality for quantity. Smith and Eveland, while no great shakes, were and are both major league pitchers – something few prospects ever become. Anderson is special, Carter and Cunningham have true potential, and Carlos Gonzalez was arguably the most physically talented of the lot.
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
Polish
His Polish is ready, but his Czech and Romanian really could use some work…
Gotta defend keith law here...
When the A’s traded Haren, the consensus around the industry was that it was a “quantity over quality” trade, since we didn’t get a true blue-chipper like Clay Bucholz or Andrew Miller. That now most if not all people would probably rather have Anderson that Bucholz or Miller is beside the point. I think Law freely admits that, in retrospect, the A’s made out like bandits, but it’s silly to criticize him for making such an obvious statement. Even BB said he wanted a lot of solid prospects instead of one great one because he wanted to “restock the farm system.”
I'm more than a little confused as to why people suddenly don't like Clay Buchholz
He had a bad-BABIP year in the majors while continuing to dominate hitters in the minors. His control was a little off and from his minor league line I’m suspecting that he was slightly injured at some point in the year, but that’s no reason to write him off. Any team should be thrilled to have him as a prospect.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Buchholz
We don’t like Clay because he’s not on the A’s. We’re A’s fans, y’know.
+1
All we heard about that trade at the time is that CarGon was the closest thing to a blue chipper in it (and even so, with some warts), and everyone else was potentially good, but not great.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
that's not true though
I said that I loved Anderson when the trade went down. Lots of people in the minor league scouting/fandom circles already thought that Anderson was well on his way to being a stud.
You were in the minority
I vividly recall the discussion that surrounded the trade. Most people didn’t think it was a bad trade, but very few people thought anyone the A’s were getting back had superstar potential, other than possibly Gonzalez.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
superstar potential
I’m never quite sure what that is. The A’s got back 6 guys who could one reasonably expect to be starters in the majors. That was true then, and it’s even more true now that Smith held his own (though he still has the least compelling pedigree of the 6) and Eveland has shown he is better than those first mlb cups of coffee.
I guess I have a different view than many people in that I think that superstar potential is over-rated, even though actual superstars are not over-rated.
Right now, look at BA’s top 100 list. After Weiters and Price, who else is a blue-chip, can’t miss superstar? Many of these guys will become studs, but plenty of the future studs are guys who are ranked in the 30s, 50s, and 70s on these lists. Some guys put all their tools together eventually (like Hanley), some solid/average guys reach their utmost potential like Youkilis and Pedroia. A rare few look destined for stardom from the start and never deviate from that course, ala Lincecum
But I’m nitpicking I suppose, just that IMHO it was clear that the A’s got back tremendous value at the time of the trade. But you’re right that there was no ONE solitary guy who could be reasonably projected by himself to provide equal value to an in-his-prime Haren.
Ironically
PT uses the very phrase “quantity over quality” to describe the outcome of that trade in the linked thread.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I stand completely behind that comment, quoted in its entirety
He opted for quantity rather than quality in some sense, at least.
(Not that I’m saying the players in this trade suck. Just that they’re not slam-dunk can’t miss prospects.)
There’s no way the Yankees could have matched this trade in terms of depth.
It was made in the process of defending the trade. Context is inconvenient, isn’t it?
I also said this, incidentally:
Anderson is regarded by pretty much everyone as a top pitching prospect. …
I’m not saying all of these guys are going to pan out, but it would require a combination of ridonkulously bad luck and ridonkulously bad scouting for none of them to pan out. Just one or the other would not be sufficient.
So, that assertion that no one knew Anderson was good at the time? Not holding up real well.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Where did anyone say
that “no one knew Anderson was good at the time.” He was clearly good and highly regarded, just not at the level that, say, Wieters/Heyward/Bumgarner are now.Look at Keith Law’s entry on the trade at the time…he is far from critical of the A’s, and everything he says about everyone seems reasonable a year later (he’s maybe a little low on Cunningham, but so are a lot of scouts still I’m sure). Law identifies CarGon and Anderson as the two potential stars of the trade — interesting since Sickels and many others said the two Gonzalezes were the best prospects in the trade. Check Sickels’ interview from that time on AN if you don’t believe me.
So please stop with this whole “Keith Law hates the A’s and was wrong about Brett Anderson not being quality” baloney. When you get six prospects for a #1 starter and the best two are a 19 year old pitcher who hasn’t pitched above A+ (however promising) and Carlos Gonzalez, that’s a “quantity over quality” trade. Being snarky doesn’t change the fact that the context is a huge inconvenience to your argument.
Reread my post(s), then try again
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
I did
reread your posts, most of which contained completely asinine comments that have nothing to do with what I was talking about. The ones that did reaffirmed the dumbfounding criticism of Law’s undeniable claim that the Haren trade, at the time, was viewed as a “quantity over quality” trade. Say what you want about Law, criticizing him for saying that — or, worse, for completely untrue and unfounded allegations about the lackadaisical way he evaluates prospects — is just lazy.
OK, I will make this very simple for you
You see this quote?
He opted for quantity rather than quality in some sense, at least.
(Not that I’m saying the players in this trade suck. Just that they’re not slam-dunk can’t miss prospects.)
There’s no way the Yankees could have matched this trade in terms of depth.
It was written by me. See?
As for Law, the allegations about his lackadaisical approach are not only founded, they’re well-substantiated. He routinely makes claims which are flat-out false for the purpose of scoring rhetorical points, or because he’s too lazy/self-centered/cheap/whatever to cross-check his scouting reports.
Example: he called Gio’s velocity “mid-80s”. Pitch F/X has comprehensively refuted that claim, putting his average fastball at 89.7 mph. This from a system which typically reads slower than radar guns. Law was either lying (unlikely), screwed up his velocity readings (pretty likely), or saw Gio on a terrible velocity day and did not ever cross-check his findings (quite possible). Those are your three options.
His velocity information in particular seems to be routinely bogus. (See comments about Masterson and Ian Kennedy.) Other evaluations are obviously more subjective than that (eg the Haren thing), but we can say that on the one aspect of scouting which we can eventually get a truly objective measurement, Law’s evals are incredibly suspect.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Beane confirms possibility of M,A, and/or C in Opening Day rotation
according to this quote in an article by Olney:
But as the days go by, and Anderson, Cahill and Mazzaro keep demonstrating superlative talent and getting hitters out, the chances of at least a couple of them opening the season in the Oakland rotation are getting better. “We are open-minded to the possibility,” said Athletics general manager Billy Beane. "We haven’t decided which way to go.
“No. 1, they are very talented kids. And No. 2, this might be the best way to go.”
Man
PT, Grover, and others are gonna be pissed. I guess Foolsh had it right the whole time. :)
by Colorado Fan on Mar 11, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
For one thing, it's early in ST
For another, you’ve been around long enough to know how to spell my name.
The monster at the end of this blog.
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.
