Locus Of Control

by Nico on Jul 3, 2009 1:01 PM PDT Comment 50 comments

For those unfamiliar with this ~~psychobabble~~ psychological term, an "internal locus of control" refers to the belief that you have the ability to impact the events around you, while an "external locus of control" refers to the belief that events are controlled by outside forces -- be they other people, circumstances, God, or chance. In a given situation, or in general, do you determine your fate or does life just happen to you?

Far too often this season I have seen the A's, led by their skipper, attributing an external locus of control to their fortunes -- as if gosh darn it, bad stuff keeps happening to the Oakland A's and there's nothing they can do about it. And I think this mindset is dangerous and destructive. It scares me to think of a young team falling prey to this way of thinking, because an external locus of control will breed excuses, apathy, and a lack of resiliency, where reflection, adjustment, and resolve are needed. Let me offer a few examples of the "external locus of control" mindset at work with our beloved A's...

* From the players...

Jason Giambi has responded to a .200 batting average by lamenting that he's hitting a lot of balls hard and they just aren't finding holes. This is not chance; this is the result of hitting sharp ground balls right into a defense that has 150% more employees than average stationed on the right side of the diamond. Bad luck isn't happening to Giambi; Giambi is choosing to hit into a shift that is likely to turn most of his well hit balls into outs.

Consider what would happen if Giambi backed off the plate a hair, so that he knew all the pitches that are tying him up inside were balls. This would, of course, leave him "vulnerable" to the outside half of the plate. But in fact, with a "don't try to pull it, just swing" approach he would hit those outside pitches away from the shift -- all while being in a position to mash anything on the inner half of the strike zone.

Some of the outside pitches Giambi connected with would, of course, be fouled off, some hit right at the lone defender (3Bman) or back to the mound, a few others lofted to LF. What is it reasonable to think Giambi would hit if he set himself up to stroke outside pitches away from the shift (it involves the same swing, but less accompanying body torque as the bat comes forward), could still mash pitches on the inner half, while knowing he could lay off anything that might tie him up inside? I figure, giving the very high BABIP you can expect when hitting towards an infield defense that is literally at 50% capacity, and given the need pitchers would have to pitch Giambi away, maybe .300/.380/.420? Who wouldn't want that right now?

And of course the kicker is: If Giambi hit a few singles and doubles to the 3Bman's left and right, they'd stop shifting and Jason would be in a far better position, no matter what his approach, than he currently faces.

* From the manager:

Just last Sunday, Geren bemoaned the third loss to the Rockies with, "If only that drive by Ellis had stayed fair -- and it was just inches foul -- the game might have been tied, and we might have won it." Well yeah, Bob, but what about the previous 8.5 innings? The ones where the team couldn't score, couldn't catch pretty routine fly balls and pop-ups, all backing the A's into a wall where they needed to rely on the fortunes of a single "fair or foul" line drive? Those three hours are worth focusing on, too.

When you focus on one moment of bad luck, you ignore the many, many aspects of the game the players can control, and you lead them to believe they are constantly snakebit, rather than feeling they are capable of setting themselves up better for success and "good fortune."

* From the fans:

I've seen fans fall prey to this way of thinking a lot, too. In May, I read a lot of this: "Holliday's not hitting well, but he's been really unlucky -- his 2009 BABIP is way below his career BABIP." Folks, the first two months of the season, Matt Holliday was not unlucky. His BABIP was low because he was hitting a boatload of weak and routine ground balls and routine fly balls, the result (I felt) of lunging at pitches and not letting the ball get in deep. For every line drive that was caught, a bloop fell in. The problem was not chance; the problem was that Matt Holliday was simply not having the quality of at bats he had, home and away, in 2004-2008.

What might have been accurate was to say, "His career BABIP suggests he's a much better hitter than he's shown, so it's pretty much assured that he'll figure it out, hit the ball better, and improve his numbers." But Holliday's performance was not going to improve on its own, like some unlucky craps player waiting out a run of 7s and 11s. Holliday's performance was going to improve only because he made adjustments, changed the things that were wrong with his approach, and had different at bats.

Now there is no question that as long as the A's keep running out Crosby, R. Davis, and Hannahan against superior hitting, Oakland will lose more than it will win. But at the same time, Jason Giambi doesn't have to be hitting .200, a given game does not necessarily have to come down to a single bounce or a single call, and neither the baseball gods nor Lady Luck has any standing vendetta against the Oakland A's.

The serenity prayer asks, "...grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can change, and the wisdom to know the difference." Let's just work on the second part, and the rest might start to take care of itself.

0 recs | Comment 50 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

No.

You cant just say hey if Giambi felt like it he would hit 300. Hitting 300 is an extremely difficult thing to do. Additionally Giambi said at the beginning of the year that he would try to use more of the field since he was coming back to the Coliseum… Do you not believe him?

As for your BAPIP argument, it is also flawed. What can be sussed out of BAPIP fluctuations needs to be coupled with looking at batted ball profiles, such as line drive rate, infield fly rate, homerun/flyball rate. What your suggesting is lazy analysis. Also what people say is that it is likely for the player to regress to a BAPIP mean. When you mess with your swing as Holliday did yes that does have the effect of changing the profile of the balls in play. However over the long run with adjustments like going back to your original it is likely that a player regresses to the mean. No one says that being in a slump doesn’t require adjustments. Furthermore, I have no idea how you suggest that luck doesn’t have a huge contribution to the outcome of at bats, that looking at performances while neutralizing luck is a bad thing, or that it has anything to do with the teams play or is as you said in your opening paragraph, dangerous.

In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK

by designatedforassignment on Jul 2, 2009 8:12 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Dude, why even bother...

"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."

by lenscrafters on Jul 2, 2009 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because I think AN should be a beacon of baseball knowledge...

where smart people come to talk about baseball using logic, evidence, and wit. Not somewhere where harebrained theories that don’t pass the smell test get plastered on the front page daily.

In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK

by designatedforassignment on Jul 3, 2009 3:43 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

The thing with Giambi

Is that he isn’t going the other way all that much. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but looking at his spray chart, I counted a total of 11 hits that I could realistically say were going the other way. But looking at the other side of the field, I counted 15, and that’s only at the Coliseum, whereas the previous number I counted all the parks he’s hit in this year. I believe him when he says he will make the effort to go the other way, but so far, it seems to me that the effort isn’t really showing anything but his tendency to pull.

by MrMoneyBaller on Jul 3, 2009 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is kinda my point

If it was as easy a Nico implies it would have already happened, especially with Giambi extolling the value of using all fields in Oakland. Either it is as easy as Nico says, which means that Giambi didn’t really make the effort to use all fields that he said he would, or batting .300 and avoiding pulling the ball when pitchers throw it in your kitchen so that you have to hit it into the shift, isn’t nearly as simple as Giambi has to move back a hair in the batters box.

In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK

by designatedforassignment on Jul 3, 2009 3:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gotcha.

My fault, I totally misinterpreted what you said. Hats off, sir.

by MrMoneyBaller on Jul 4, 2009 3:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

DFA - It's obvious to everyone that you have it in for Nico

it seems that everytime Nico posts something that’s not in a game thread, you jump down his throat. You said:

You cant just say hey if Giambi felt like it he would hit 300

You cannot possibly imply that this is what he said. You obviously have baseball knowledge, but that knowledge can be put to a more productive use, as opposed to going all contrarian on Nico. Just give it a rest already. Please.

I don't always blog. But when I do, I prefer AN. Stay thirsty my friends.

by Kallus on Jul 3, 2009 3:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't make these ridiculous statements... Nico does.

What is it reasonable to think Giambi would hit if he set himself up to stroke outside pitches away from the shift, mash pitches on the inner half, and lay off anything that might tie him up inside? I figure maybe .300/.380/.420?

That is a direct quote, if Giambi backed off the plate a hair he would hit 300. Also it doesn’t make much sense to imply that moving away from the plate would give Giambi better understanding that the pitches that are currently tying him up are balls as Nico implies. Rather, it would make him more likely to find inside pitches that were balls and tying him up to be pullable into the shift which NIco decries now that they are more in the sweet spot of his hitting zone which was moved toward the inside part of the plate by shifting his batting stance in the box. To the same effect this would actually make it harder to hit balls on the outside part of the plate with any authority since the sweet spot of the bat is further away from the outside corner than it was previously. So this is why I jump on things Nico says: they are mostly wrong and he doesn’t back them up with any evidence or logic that is easily counteracted. When he uses evidence to make a point that I agree with or makes a point I disagree with well, I will compliment his post. Im waiting for that to happen.

In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK

by designatedforassignment on Jul 3, 2009 3:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

dfa?

Not every story is going to be about numbers. This one is about some kind of mind over matter nonsense. The Front page authors have a right to write articles that are not about other aspects of the game. There may be some here who appreciate this kind of stuff…Maybe Dr. Timothy Leary reads AN .

by IM4Oakgal on Jul 3, 2009 4:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who said it needed to be

I love love love 67Marquezs’ historical posts which have nothing to do with numbers. Baseball is a great game because of people like Marquez and Marty Lurie (who use to play softball with my dad and is a great guy btw), the great keepers of the game. I was listening to John Maddon talk about Jakie Robinson and how football doesn’t have an equivalent player to Robinson because it lacks historical self awareness while baseball is a game of history and heroes, which while he was saying it made me realize that it was a significant part in the decline of my interest in football over the years. Scouting has a large role to play in baseball analysis provided that its done by professionals who actually know what they are looking for and have some logical underpinning. The interviews that Nico and Blez were able to do are amazing, and they have nothing to do with numbers. All these things hold significant value to me.

In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK

by designatedforassignment on Jul 3, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What about VORP?

Do the A’s seriously have such an atrocious farm system that the ~.200 hitters they are running out there every day are really that much better?

by Slappyfrog on Jul 2, 2009 8:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree about the attitude of "changing the things you can change".

The players have to believe in themselves and their respective effect on the game.

Making adjustments is definitely part of the process, especially in Giambi’s case, and there really is no excuse for him other than he is declining at 38, and can’t seem to change his approach.

Holliday is, in my opinion, having a toughh time adjusting to the AL and has shown a lot of bad tendencies with his approach/swing, forcing the issue instead of being a little more studious of pitchers, and being a bit more patient. I don’t really have time to look up stats here cuz I have to get going, but from my observations Holliday has pressed at the plate and forced the issue more than not. I still think he’s a great hitter going by his career stats, but this year he’s really having a tough go of it.

Geren………..ugh! Fail(X)1,000,000,000!!!

Gotta run…..go A’s!

Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox

by mrod on Jul 2, 2009 8:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yea, I kind of get what your saying

But I don’t think looking at what these guys say in sound bites to the media represents what their saying in the clubhouse behind closed doors. Just because Geren is offering excuses to the reporters doesn’t mean he isn’t holding guys accountable. I don’t know how he is communicating with the team but I’m not making judgments based on public statements.

by DiegoAsFan on Jul 2, 2009 9:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

On the other hand...

There doesn’t seem to be any cause and effect between what a position player does on the field and how he’s treated the next day. Too many times I’ve seen Sweeney or Buck have a great game, and they’re benched the next day. Yet Jack Cust can go 0-4 over and over again, and nothing is said. Orlando Cabrera can muff several balls, and yet he doesn’t sit. The younger players - Petit, Buck, Barton et al - get yo-yo’d up and down no matter how they perform on the field.

And while sound bites aren’t the be-all and end-all, there’s also very little responsibility for bad play being offered or acknowledged.

My only disagreement with Nico regards Jason Giambi. I suspect he’s working to his strengths, and this is the best he can do. If he tries changing his approach too much, and fails, he’s out of the game completely. At least at this point, there’s a chance he’ll come around. Otherwise, I suspect there’s none. The guy’s not merely 38, but he’s a fairly old 38 because of the drug usage and prior injury history.

by richwol1 on Jul 2, 2009 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is something to that

But the line up has changed based on player performance. Cust started the season batting 6th but when he was hot he moved up the order till he was hitting 3rd for a while, now that he is slumping he is back in 7th. Cabrera started at the top of the order, he struggled and was moved down for a while, now he is hot and back up in the 2nd spot. Kennedy was hitting 7th when we first picked him up but has hit his way into the lead off spot. It has taken awhile for these changes to occur but I would argue that that is a good thing. You don’t want to base it on too small of a sample size.

As far as the young guys moving up and down between Oakland and Sacramento, that is the GM’s job and not the manager. I don’t know what that has to do with this discussion.

by DiegoAsFan on Jul 2, 2009 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A bit simplistic.

Most people attribute the bad things that happen to them (e.g., striking out, hitting into a double play, losing a game, a whole season, etc.) to external causes and the good things that happen to internal causes. So if I do poorly on an exam, it’s because the test was unfair or I had too much to drink or because I didn’t study (or all of the above), but if I do well on an exam, it’s because I am a brilliant son of a bitch. In other words, this locus of control shifts strategically, often as a means of maintaining face and the belief that one doesn’t actually suck. Giambi might say “I’ve been unlucky” (external) or he might say, “I’m too old” (internal). In fact, he probably says both, depending on the situation and what he is trying to accomplish with the communication.
I do agree that failure and fear of failure can work in a self-fulfilling cycle, as you seem to allude to here. However, it simply begs the question of what is causing the start of the cycle in the first place. Especially in a game like baseball, there really IS a whole lot of luck involved in just about everything, which to me makes it especially difficult to know where to draw the line between realistic and illusional attributions to bad luck. My guess is that the non-luck portion that determines events in baseball is very difficult for people to see, and that a casual observer, such as you or me, might be inclined to focus on things like “loci of control” as a means to cope with our team losing. That is, it’s not that they actually, in truth, Suck, it’s that they are screwed up psychologically, which is temporary and fixable and not reflective of their true self. We are part of the system we are observing.
Anyhow, back to the point: I’m just not convinced that a chronically external locus of control is a huge contributor to our team’s lack of success. In fact, I would even venture to say that it is healthy and less psychologically dangerous way of responding to negative events than attributing the failures internally, to a globally sucky team (many times, we avoid placement of blame on the team by placing it on the management – rightly sometimes) . I think it’s when those latter types of global, internal attributions set in, people stop caring or engaging in the domain.

by smokelanda on Jul 2, 2009 9:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Just one point

I don’t think that what Giambi/Geren or anyone else says to the media matters, or is evidence of an external locust of control. Talking to the media is in many cases acting, and while it might be nice to hear a little accountibility every now and then, I don’t think it really matters.

"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT

by travdog6 on Jul 2, 2009 10:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Exactly right.

And nobody knows “saying one thing when you actually mean another” better than Giambi.

I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.

by Vacafan on Jul 3, 2009 5:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which, of course...

would mean all of this endless speculation and thoughtful analysis and playful banter and pointing fingers and reasons for why Athletics Nation (or any subsequent SB Nation blog) were started in the first place is based on a community of folks — much like the daily sportswriting media, the people who know the best? — don’t ever get the full story.

by RiverCats4Ever on Jul 3, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT

by travdog6 on Jul 3, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow, jeezus, I chose the wrong week to start sniffing glue...

My initial thought was that, really, none of us — including sportswriters — have any idea of the true thoughts, intentions, expectations, etc. of players, managers, or GM. So all of this endless speculation is worthless. But, then I thought, why is this blog so successful? Because half the point of being a fan is to spec out what would be best for your team. Let’s keep trying.

by RiverCats4Ever on Jul 3, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Got it

I think that we can sometimes know the true thoughts of all the people directly involved, but to me, all that really matters is their performance/effort/potential etc.

"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT

by travdog6 on Jul 3, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Funny, I awoke in the middle of the night

and ended up reading this because in part I have an internal locust of control, a cricket in the house that was chirping.

alaska A residing in northern Idaho.

by ak_A on Jul 3, 2009 12:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Snatch Pebble from Hand.

and You may go Grasshopper.

by IM4Oakgal on Jul 3, 2009 3:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Attitude

I think attitude and outlook play an important part in being successful. The A’s in the past always came across as the team that was smarter and more confident then the competition maybe even a little cooler if you will but now not so much.

They’ve always pointed out about having to get by with the less but it almost seemed like a point of pride before as they would prove how smart they were by beating your ass with less now it just seems like they whine about it.

Bring back the cool baby….oh and get some more hitters.

by sirbed on Jul 3, 2009 6:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I saw this post last night and wanted to comment on it later... why was it shoved under the rug?

Nico, I like the broad point you’re trying to make here, but I don’t think these examples hold water for this argument.

I don’t know that Geren’s comments to the media should be taken as the message sent to the players. I think they’re keenly aware of factors within their control (hitting the ball hard), but, because they’re struggling to get the job done, public comments will be about hard luck.

There is no pressing need for players to be tearing themselves down after games. It might feel better for the fans, but we’re not the ones who have to go out and play the next day.

And I’d still really like to know why this isn’t on the front page or showing up in my list of fanposts anymore

Baseball isn't magic.

by rebus on Jul 3, 2009 12:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: I figure maybe .300/.380/.420?

You’re figuring wrong. Giambi hasn’t hit .300 in eight years. There is absolutely no way Giambi is capable of hitting .300. He probably isn’t capable of hitting .250, as he hasn’t done that in four years.

All Giambi has to offer at this late stage of his career is walks and home runs. If he needs to pull the ball to do that, so be it. In the final analysis, I think the real answer is that he’s finished.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jul 3, 2009 12:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah, that's what I've been thinking all season...

by the way, every time I saw the title I thought it read “loss of control”…go figure…

by OaklandSi on Jul 3, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great post, Nico.

Too bad the first few comments tried to turn it into yet another petty stats-vs-non-stats spat.

For what it’s worth, I actually agree with DFA on one point: Your notion that with the right adjustment Giambi could be hitting .300 is wildly optimistic. I just think there’s got to be a better way to say it.

Maybe something like, “Dude, are you on crack? There’s no fucking way Giambi is going to hit .300 again.” As opposed to, “Your method of analysis is so fundamentally flawed that you shouldn’t even be allowed to make such an argument in the first place. Go back to school and learn how to properly code your argument so that my stats-parser can process it and then maybe I will deign to disagree with you”.

Or alternatively he could, you know, just take a deep breath and not even reply at all.

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Jul 3, 2009 12:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Dude, why even bother...

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jul 3, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, I didn't express myself the way I intended to

I didn’t mean that Giambi would suddenly become a .300 hitter. I meant that for the time he was hitting to a largely vacated spot, he could sustain a .300 average, which would force defenses to re-adjust.

It’s actually not that difficult to change the approach of pulling the ball, because if you just stop twisting your body and instead let your bat come through the zone without that torque, you will hit outside pitches the other way naturally — and this can be worked on in two BP sessions to the point of being able to make decent contact and have the outside pitch go the other way. Hitting to an entire side of the diamond where there is one defender, a .300 average is very realistic.

I buried this post because it was being corrupted/derailed to the point where I felt it would be an unproductive conversation. It’s back on the front page, and I have addressed the problem privately. Sorry for the glitch.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jul 3, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually think it would be very hard for Giambi

if you just stop twisting your body and instead let your bat come through the zone without that torque, you will hit outside pitches the other way naturally — and this can be worked on in two BP sessions to the point of being able to make decent contact and have the outside pitch go the other way.

I suppose he might be able to do that, if he wanted that to be the only thing he could do as a hitter. But being able to do that with outside pitches, and still pull inside pitches (to the extent he still can, which isn’t much), and maintain his batting eye, all at the same time, sounds like a really difficult thing for a 15-year veteran with fading skills to do in the middle of a season. And pitchers know he can’t get around on the inside fastball any more, so they’re going to keep pounding the ball in there until he proves he can turn on it. He could back off the plate, of course, but at that point Giambi would be making so many changes on the fly that he might not be able to hit at all in the majors.

Carney Lansford was somehow able to spend a couple of years hitting .290 with 15 HRs for the Angels, then get traded to the Red Sox and hit .336 with 4 HRs, then get traded to the A’s, go back to hitting .290/15, then suddenly decided just to hit singles again and had another .330 season with no power before he lost his skills as a hitter. But I can’t remember anyone else fluidly switching his power off and on like that.

Giambi would love to start ripping doubles past where the 3B is supposed to be. He just doesn’t know how to do it.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Jul 3, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ichiro is kind of like that

Wade Boggs was like that too—later in his career, he sacrificed average for power. Both of those people are freaks, though.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jul 3, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think Boggs was like that

Boggs always hit 40+ 2B and 6, 7, or 8 HRs, except for 1987, when he somehow hit 24. There were rumors flying all over baseball that season that the ball was juiced — McGwire hit 49, Kevin Seitzer set a career high (as a rookie) with 15. Boggs also hit 11 with the Yankees in 1994, but that was another year with huge HR totals, and he was in a new park.

But Boggs probably could have put up higher HR totals in his years with the Red Sox if he’d been willing to sacrifice AVG, OBP, and 2Bs.

Ichiro has had 3 seasons of 6, 3 of 8, a 9, a 13, and a 15. It’s weird that he doesn’t hit more 2B, since he’s so fast. But watching him it definitely looks like he has a “power swing” and a “singles swing” that he can decide to switch between.

But with Lansford, it’s just completely bizarre. In 1987 he hit 27 2B, 4 3B and 19 HR; in 1989, at the age of 32, he hit 28 2B, 2 3B and 2 HR, a massive drop in power. End of the road, right? Except he raised his BA from .289 in 1987 to .336 in 1989 and his OBP from .366 to .398. How did he do that? And the weirdest part is that he did almost exactly the same thing between 1979 (with the Angels) and 1981 (with the Red Sox) — remember though that he had obviously changed home parks, and that the 1981 numbers are lower due to the strike.

Carney seems to have had 2 “modes” of hitting all along, and seemed to decide at least twice to have “singles and OBA” years, rather than more balanced years that included more XBHs. I can’t think of anyone else who made that kind of switch twice in their career.

As a matter of curiosity, I think it would be cool for someone who’s good with stats (i.e., not me) to do a diachronic similarity score study — not player v. player, but one player through his career. Many players would have disparate similarity scores from year to year based on having good and bad seasons. But Carney had incredibly dissimilar productive seasons. I wonder how many guys in ML history have done the same thing.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Jul 3, 2009 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right about Boggs.

Boy, that’s what I get for going off of memory, instead of looking it up. What I might be remembering is Boggs talking about how he could hit more homers if he wanted to, but didn’t want to.

Ichiro is somehow slugging .500 this year, to go along with his typically ridiculous .370 average, so maybe this is the year he’s finally figured out how to combine those swings.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jul 3, 2009 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember when a young Rickey first said he could hit 20 HRs in a season

if he wanted to, and I thought he was out of his mind.

I get your point about Giambi changing his approach, but I think the change I’m talking about isn’t that dramatic — it’s basically swinging at outside pitches without actively trying to pull them. Yes, he has spent years actively trying to pull pitches, but on outside pitches it takes LESS to play pepper with the left side of the stadium than it does to do what he’s doing.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jul 3, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Giambi said in numerous interviews that he was going to

change his swing in order to be able to hit to all fields again at the coliseum.

Either he changed his mind or he can’t do it anymore.

by OaklandSi on Jul 3, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He sure can't hit good fastballs anymore.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jul 3, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Makes you wonder why Verlander threw a him a changeup pm Wednesday

if we know he can’t hit a good fastball surely opposing teams should know.

You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}

by micdog2001 on Jul 3, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

By the way

I couldn’t agree more on Geren. The next time I see him accept responsibility for something would be the first.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jul 3, 2009 1:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Be the ping-pong paddle, not the ping-pong ball

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Jul 3, 2009 1:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Remember when....

When was the last time you read a story about how loose the clubhouse was or how much the player’s got along. This team doesn’t have guys with personality on the field or off it would seem.

The A’s are like their manager nice but dull. I’d love to see them go after a player or a manager (we can hope right?) who stirs the pot a bit and shakes this team out of it’s deep slumber.

Hell if you can’t win at least go down swinging and play with passion and pride and who knows things might start to pick up and maybe winning will follow.

by sirbed on Jul 3, 2009 2:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Braden has personality.

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Jul 3, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lineups are up, and Buck is rotting on the bench yet again.

Speaking of things within your control…

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jul 3, 2009 3:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think it's just a case of having a lot of confused and stubborn hitters on the same roster all struggling.

The Confused:

Matt Holliday - Sometimes the guy just looks really stressed at the plate and forces himself to take huge cuts at balls out of the strikezone to try to “will himself” to hit a homer. Other times he looks completely relaxed and takes a 4-pitch walk when he seems to sense that the pitcher is working around him. And other times he looks like he doesn’t have a plan at all and strikes out on offspeed stuff or grounds out or pops out. He needs to focus on his approach plain and simple and not change things around /think so much (from my perspective).

Jack Cust – The Jackster’s efforts to cut down on his strikeouts seemed like a noble venture, but now we know that he can’t do that while simultaneously remaining the Jack Cust that we all know and love. He’s obviously struggling to find a middle ground between his old habits and his new ones, but he really just needs to go back to the things he did for 30 years before tinkering so much this off-season.

The Stubborn:

Jason Giambi – I don’t think it’s a conscious decision with Jason, but at this point in his career, he seems to be unable to use the whole field. After years of pulling homers over the short porch in right at Yankee Stadium fairly easily and regularly, Giambi is now forced to deal with the fact the Coliseum is unforgiving to power hitters for about 2 months of every season and the fact that he’s not on steroids anymore and has a deteriorating body and lack of general mobility/ability to bounce back physically day-to-day. It’s no wonder that the guy just seems resigned to either hit into the shift, take a walk, strikeout or luck-himself into a homer in every at-bat.

Orlando Cabrera – It’s great that he’s got a 14-game hitting streak and all that, but he hasn’t walked in what seems like years and is still sporting a sub.300 OBP. In fact, he has just as many total walks this season as Bobby Crosby…in just about twice as many at-bats. For someone hitting near the top of the order, that’s just pitiful. O-cab might change his approach for a few days, but he seems pretty old and set in his ways and is not going to turn into a walk machine, so I seriously doubt he’ll ever post an OBP much higher than .300 the rest of his career.

So there you have hit…4 guys that should form the backbone of this lineup are either totally confused about what to do in the batter’s box or are just too stubborn/limited to make many adjustments to approaches that are largely unsuccessful…pretty sad state of affairs.

At least we can just hope that Cust and Holliday can figure some stuff out, because it’s easier to come out of something when you are just confused rather than just being old and stubborn…

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Jul 3, 2009 4:00 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Really good points, Taj.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jul 3, 2009 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Any discussion of controlling the things that the A's actually can do something

about will, for me at least, quickly devolve into a harangue or critique of both Geren and the front office in terms of the moves they have and haven’t made… and we do that enough around here anyway!

But I’ll indulge myself a bit anyway, since I’m sure we’re all wondering today why Geren thinks it’s so much more important to pry Nomar into the line-up and not sit a struggling Giambi which then results in Cust playing RF again… at Buck’s expense once more.

Since I believe they face another LHP on Sunday, it would be reasonable at this point to assume that the only action Buck will see this weekend, if he sees any at all, will be tomorrow. This is inexcusable, and I’ve noticed even the media lately are questioning it and actually asking Geren why Buck isn’t playing… not like that will make a difference, probably. It’s like Geren wants Buck to fail, and also is determined to play guys who don’t factor into the future of the team over guys who potentially do. It’s a short-term failure for the team in terms of putting the best defense on the field (and maybe the best offense, too, for that matter) and a long-term failure in terms of developing a core of players who will be around the next 3 years or more and could be part of a successful team going forward.

In other mismanagement news, if Geren doesn’t start resting Suzuki at least one day a week and start giving Powell a start once a week then two things seem likely to happen- Suzuki will wear down considerably as the year progresses and possibly end up injured, and Powell will fail to develop further or even maintain his skills both behind the plate and at the plate. This is beyond ridiculous, inexcusable, and totally within Geren’s control. Suzuki, whether he hates to sit a day a week or not, would be more effective over the course of the season with more rest; Powell will never be any use if he doesn’t get some playing time to stay somewhat sharp.

by still bills kingdom on Jul 3, 2009 4:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs