Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Cowboy Altitude for Wyoming Fans!

What I'd Like to See in 2010

 

There's always next year...ah, the life of an A's fan.

1. Aaron Cunningham to have an everyday job from opening day and be given a long leash.

Cunningham is a good prospect who has nothing left to prove in the minors. He's a good bet to be average and has a decent chance of being a minor star as one of those guys that's above average at basically everything.

I do think he'll start the year in the outfield. My worry is that if he sucksfor a few weeks, he'll be benched. No matter how badly he plays, Cunningham should get at least half a season next year to show what he can do.

2. Ryan Sweeney to platoon with somebody.

Sweeney is actually a pretty good player. I doubt he's as good as Fangraphs WAR thinks he is this year (which is solidly above average) because his UZR is so different from last year, but he's still probably around average. He's a horrible hitter against LHP though, and since we have two other guys in Davis and Hairston that are at about his level and are of the opposite handedness, a platoon makes perfect sense.

In a shocking turn of events, I think I lean to the Nico camp over the PaulThomas one here, and think Hairston should be the one on the short end of the platoon. He's just an atrocious hitter against RHP (.288 OBP), and while this is certainly not Davis' true hitting level, he doesn't have much of a platoon split, and I think his very good defense ultimately makes him more valuable than Hairston (even with Sweeney probably losing a little value moving from CF to COF). 

Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen because we never have platoons because...I have no freaking clue. I understand that when a platoon effectively takes up two roster spots, that's a problem. But that is not at all the case here. Hairston, Sweeney and Davis (assuming they aren't traded) are all going to be on the team NO MATTER WHAT, and all have value as bench players/defensive replacements. Why in God's name wouldn't you put out the player most likely to hit against the starting pitcher?

3. Rajai Davis to be traded.

This would kind of conflict with the whole platooning Sweeney thing, I suppose, but I've come around to the idea that it's the right decision. There's just no way that Davis is this good, and if we can get a couple decent pitching prospects to help replace all the depth we've graduated recently, I'd be all for it. That said, Davis is a reasonably good player and shouldn't be given away either.

If we do trade him, though, I'd love to see us make a lowball offer for the Rays' Fernando Perez, and not just because of his poetry. He's completely superfluous to the Rays, there's a non-zero chance that he's a star-level defender with acceptable OBP skills (basically that he'll be Davis this year at his peak), and at worst he's a great bench player with options left. Don't give up anything significant of course, but it's worth a shout. 

4. Trevor Cahill, Chris Carter, Brett Wallace, Sean Doolittle, and Adrian Cardenas to start the year in AAA. 

First, for everyone: service time, service time, service time. We're probably not going to win anything next year, and none of these players are likely to be THAT much better over a couple months to be the difference between the playoffs or not anyway, so it's really an imperative for a team in our financial situation to hold off on starting arbitration clocks for as long as possible.

Cahill: He's been just awful this year. Of course he's been rushed, and there's still reason for optimism, but for both service time and development reasons, Cahill needs to go back to minors next year. It makes no sense to send Cahill out there to suck it up when we have guys like Eveland/Mortensen/Tomko/random guy from scrapheap who are perfectly capable of sucking it up with out doing any developmental damage. I'm also open to the idea of Mazzaro going back to AAA too, though that seems less necessary.

Carter: Not ready. Had a great year, but needs to learn to play a decent LF or 1B (I'm betting on LF), and to work on hitting breaking pitches (I'm just trusting the scouts on that one). Give him at least half a year in AAA.

Wallace: AAA performance still hasn't matched the scouting profile. Let him hit like he's supposed to in AAA for a few months.

Doolittle: Try staying healthy for half a season first. 

Cardenas: I think it's obvious that he's not ready yet, but I thought I should mention it anyway.

5. Daric Barton to start the year as the everyday 1B. 

Why is it that when Barton has a horrible year in the majors at 22, everyone gives up on him, but when Cahill, at 21, is arguably even worse, everyone thinks he should just walk into next year's rotation?

I doubt Barton will ever be a whole lot better than average, but there's nobody ready breathing down his neck (if you say Tommy Everidge I'll scream), and there's no reason not to give him another half season audition. It seems like some AN'ers take it personally that Barton played so badly. Maybe he doesn't "deserve" another shot, but there's no one else that's worth throwing out there to start the season, and Barton still has genuine upside. 

Also, I don't know what to do about shortstop, but I'd sure like somebody to do something. Oh, and can we have Jack Hannahan back? I really hate that trade.

9 recs  |  Comment 509 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

3. Rajai Davis to be traded.

No!

The Ultimate Opportunist

by Rated-R Superstar on Sep 15, 2009 10:02 PM PDT reply actions  

I’d like to echo that resounding no! I think anyone we have who’s ready to replace him in the outfield would be a downgrade of what we can expect from Rajai, so unless you plan to spend money to get a legit FA outfielder, it just makes our team worse.

What I’d like to see: a free agent SP.

by DDroney on Sep 15, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

Why would you need to spend lots of money to acquire Marlon Byrd or Randy Winn?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 15, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

...I didn't say you would

I didn’t mean to say it was an either/or situation of a starting pitcher or a free agent outfielder, I’m just pointing out that in this scenario with Cunningham playing every day and Sweeney and Hairston platooning (which sounds great to me), there’s a spot open in the outfield. I’d rather keep Rajai than have Denorfia or Carson starting, and Buck seems out of the picture. It seems to me like you’d have to plug that hole with a free agent.

by DDroney on Sep 15, 2009 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

And again, if you can get a good prospect for Rajai Davis, why not fill that hole (if you believe there is one) with Marlon Byrd or Randy Winn?

They’re likely to cost not much more than Davis will with the crap economy. If it’s Byrd you might even be able to get him on a 1+1 (option year) deal.

I’d incline toward just going with Hairston/Sweeney/Buck/Cunningham as the front four and saving the dollars for 2011, but you could do worse than a low-risk signing like one of those guys.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 15, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sorry, I'm tired and misread your question.

Yes, you make a good point about Byrd/Winn, but I guess I A) like Rajai Davis more than a grown man should and B) feel irrational hope that the A’s could compete next year even though I know it looks grim.

by DDroney on Sep 15, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

If you want the A's to compete next year, I think it's about 75% likely

that trading Davis and signing Byrd would make the 2010 A’s a better team.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

Marlon Byrd's an interesting case in relation to Davis

Between the ages of 22 and 28, over 408 games and 1454 PAs with 4 teams, Byrd had put up a career line of .263/.327/.373.

Then, at age 29, in his first season with the Rangers, he played 109 games, and in 454 PAs he put up a line of .307/.355/.459.

From what you’ve written about Davis, I kind of think that if you were a Rangers’ fan you would have advocated trading Byrd before the 2008 season.

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

by Nick on Sep 16, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

Sure

and if they had gotten a good prospect for him, I think they’d ultimately have been better off, because they have plenty of solid-not-awesome outfielders of the David Murphy description. As do the A’s.

Byrd’s recent career represents basically the best-case scenario for the A’s keeping Davis, but I don’t know that it’s all that likely.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

And it's true that Byrd did show power in the minors

But Byrd is a couple of years older than Davis, and would be switching from a great hitters park to a very bad one. So while there are reasons to see a portion of Davis’s production as unsustainable, there are also reasons to think that Byrd is likely to decline, even aside from changing hitting environments.

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

by Nick on Sep 16, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree

I’d be hoping for an OPS in the .750-.775 range with modestly plus CF defense.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Winn is a full Winn share above the competition

m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!

by JediLeroy on Sep 16, 2009 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

in former Soviet Union,

they shoot you for the missed ‘n’ too.

"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 17, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Because Rajai is fun and we enjoy watching him.

If he totally sucked ass, that wouldn’t be sufficient reason. But he’s OK, and it is sufficient reason not to trade him away just for a minor upgrade.

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

Do you want to win or enjoy watching Rajai Davis?

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

I would like to do both.

If the choice were to lose with Rajai or win without him, I would surely prefer the latter.

But if it’s a choice of going into each game with Rajai and a 48.2% chance of winning or going into each game with a 48.4% chance of winning and no Rajai, then I’m not sure it’s worth it.

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

wow... just wow

If you care about about anything else that would sacrifice even the slightest chance at winning for anything else you really need to lay off the wins are the only thing that matters meme that you constantly pull around here.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

To iglew perhapse. Let me clarify:

The idea that Iglew can claim wins are the only things that matters time and also that you should sacrifice winning for a more enjoyable team that loses more games is inconsistent.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's your meme, not mine.

If you are under the (mis)impression that I think wins are the only thing that matters, then there’s been some major miscommunication here. Of course I like wins, just as everyone does, but I like winning because it’s fun. I would never be absolutist about it

I wonder if you’ve gotten the wrong impression because of all our discussions where you guys try to dismiss wins as meaningless in non-contending seasons. I happen to care very little for the playoffs. I like wins just as much in a losing season as I do in a winning season, and I frequently say so. That doesn’t mean I value wins above all else. Haven’t there been plenty of times where I’ve been in favor of things like good sportsmanship, treating employees with respect, pampering fragile egos, and doing silly in-game tactics just because they amuse me, even at a marginal cost of win probability?

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ok then the clarification removes my objection.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

I disagree with the assessment that if we won’t win in 2010 that we should trade everyone good over 25 for prospects. We’ll still have control over Davis’ contract in 2011.

by DDroney on Sep 16, 2009 1:33 AM PDT up reply actions  

What does a guy have to do...

to show that he is a legitimate player? If what Rajai has done this year isn’t enough to solidify his standing with this team, then nothing will ever be good enough. I really get tired of people talking about potential and upside, let a guy’s performance on the field speak for itself. This guy has been nothing less than outstanding, give him a fucking break already.

by Keystone State on Sep 16, 2009 5:33 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Yeah

Let’s trade Rajai and get Hannahan back

We can go back to two runs a game and watch paint dry at the same time.

by Trainman on Sep 16, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

Post a line that isn't inflated massively by luck?

Why is it that statheads are constantly accused of not watching the games? It seems to me that you would have to have never seen the A’s play in your life to think that Rajai Davis will ever post a .370 BABIP again. Half of the guy’s hits are bloop singles and dribblers through the 5.5 hole.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

Excellent argument

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

Keystone, you've made some good comments before

and you seem like a smart guy or girl. That being said, making calling people clueless or asking what planet they’re from is stupid and gets you nowhere. If you truly believe something, and are right about it, you should be able to prove it in a manner other than attacking someone personally.

Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.

by travdog6 on Sep 17, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Nicely said.

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 Sep 17, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

WTF planet are you from?

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Sep 17, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

No shit.

I want a blog father with fire….someone who will get in there and kick some dirt with the best of them.

This reminds me….why hasn’t Geren been fired yet? Oh wait…..that was so two months ago.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Sep 17, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

He still needs to go

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 17, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nico?

Nah, he’s still a solid prospect with potential. But if he doesn’t ban someone by this time next year, then that’s it.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Sep 17, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

{bans alox "just to make a point"}

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 Sep 17, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks for the advice...

some of us from the east coast are a lot less tolerant of a couple of things, losing is one of them. Another one is people who analyze things without any real concept of what they are analyzing. Baseball is a sport played by flawed creatures (human beings) that simply has too many intangible and unpredictable factors to be able to be reduced to numbers alone like the stat heads would make us all believe. They get to be quite nauseating to me after a while.

by Keystone State on Sep 18, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

I am not a therapist

but, I think you are projecting what you believe “stat people” are onto the posters here. I don’t think they are the mothers basement nerds you think they are.

by Future Ed on Sep 18, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's funny because you have no idea what you're talking about.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Sep 18, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Are you actually capable of making ANY arguments that are not ad hominem attacks?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 18, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Do these people you refer to on the "east coast"

also still believe the sun revolves around the Earth too?

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 18, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

IMPOSSIBLE.

The earth is flat.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Sep 18, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

So is the sun, so what's your point?

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 Sep 18, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sad but true.

Them “east coasters” really know what they’re talking about too.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 18, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Wait...

You really think “stat heads” have no real concept of what we’re analyzing? Just want to be clear on this.

by danmerqury on Sep 18, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

So your response is to avoid analysis?

Then why bother coming to an analysis heavy site? It’s pretty clearly the slant of most of the posters here, even if they disagree with each other. Why bother commenting in an analysis heavy thread on an analysis heavy site?

Your east coast/west coast conflict is a false flag. No one likes losing, that’s most of the reason why the “Stat-heads” make comments. We (because you insist on tarring everyone who uses statistics as part of their arguments) try and make sense of the garbled mesh of data out there. We want to optimize the team and to make it better. Just because you have little desire to ask those questions does not give you the right to try and dictate those preferences to others.

Your accusations are tired, hackneyed, and radically untrue. Leave those who care about the answers to these questions alone.

by eastbayexpat on Sep 21, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

"Half of the guy’s hits are bloop singles and dribblers through the 5.5 hole."

Sounds a lot like Tony Gwynn.

I’m not saying Davis = Gwynn, but with his legs this is exactly the type of game Rajai should be playing.

by elhefe on Sep 19, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

Tony Gwynn was a genetic freak of hand-eye coordination who struck out like 15 times a season

Comparing pretty much any player to him is a bad idea.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 19, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

But Davis isn't even a GOOD contact hitter

His career strikeout rate is basically league-average. He’s not going to ducksnort his way to a .300 average very many seasons out of 1000.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 19, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

on the other hand

ducksnort is an awesome word

by colin on Sep 19, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

Again, I don't see anyone calling Davis that either

Saying he gets bloop hits and stuff through the holes has nothing to do with saying he’s like Gwynn (which is silly) or he’s a good contact hitter (which may or may not be something he can improve on). I see it as indicating he’s had an excess of luck but at the same time it plays into being able to make use of his speed to get on base more. He’s going to benefit from putting the ball on the ground a lot more than others would.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 19, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

This.

True, Gwynn rarely struck out – but he also rarely walked, and he almost never hit for power. The Gwynn reference was an obvious reach (as I alluded to above), but it’s purpose was to draw a parallel to someone who, with a freakish skill set (extraordinary hand-eye coordination – monster work ethic), built a valuable career on the type of results (bloop hits and stuff through the holes) that aren’t usually valued around here, statistically un-safe and are generally attributed to luck.

In the case of Davis the obvious skill set is his freakish speed, which could arguably offset a lack Gwynn-like plate discipline and bat control for similar results at least in the short term – with the added benefit of his difference-making speed on the basepaths for subsequent scoring opportunities. If he manages to pick-up anything approximating Gwynn’s finesse with a bat, then bonus for the long term.

Realistically, this all probably merits Davis a closer comparison to the likes of Juan Pierre (ducksnorter of the highest order) albeit with plus D and sans albatross contract. That’s not a bad insurance policy to have for your offense on the inevitable off-nights that await the next batch of power prospects as they learn the ropes at the big league level. Further, if any of the younger outfielders/prospects pan out at all, the most the A’s ask of Davis is to ducksnort out a near .300 average for the next 3 or 4 seasons, and then someone else can worry about the next 996 or so.

by elhefe on Sep 19, 2009 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

How much of that career strikeout rate...

was actually compiled when the guy was a regular in the lineup? In addition, striking out 3 times in a game would certainly not be considered a good night, unless of course you have hits in your other two at bats. That’s exactly what Rajai did in last night’s game, along with scoring a run and driving one in (along with having a key outfield assist). I honestly don’t care if a hit is a ducksnort over the shortstop’s head or a screaming line drive to center field, a hit is a hit is a hit.

by Keystone State on Sep 23, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

oh, I see...

he’s just been really lucky now for 2+ months. I wonder if he is buying lottery tickets as well? If guys named Cunningham or Buck were putting up these kinds of numbers over this time span, you would be declaring them as the next coming of the Messiah! Why all the hate for Rajai? Excellent comments from Ty VanBurkleo this morning, maybe he knows something about the guy that you don’t (imagine that, someone knowing something that you don’t)!

by Keystone State on Sep 23, 2009 5:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

That guy that got fired after one year?

And again, no actual analysis or reason for why he’s wrong. Come on.

Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM

by travdog6 on Sep 23, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

Perhaps you have the time...

to back up every statement that you make with statistical analysis, I, quite frankly, do not. What I do have time to do is look at the daily box scores, which tell me, in general, who is performing well and who isn’t. I was not aware that in depth analysis was a requirement for every statement posted on here. There is a guy named Francona managing in Boston that also got fired from this organization. Being fired by the Oakland Athletics certainly does not preclude one from future success in the major leagues, unless of course you have analysis to back that up.

by Keystone State on Sep 23, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

If you don't have the time to back up your comments,

(which shouldn’t take lots of time or effort, and doesn’t have to be statistical analysis) why do you comment? I mean clearly you have some time. Why do you log on to make personal attacks, if you’re so pressed for time? I’m not saying you need tons of depth in all answers, but you do see how pointless it is to just call someone a dumbass, and not explain why, correct?

Francona does well in Boston because he has an awesome team. I don’t know how good a manager he is or anything about him beyond that, but I won’t give him, or any manager, a ton of praise or blame.

Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM

by travdog6 on Sep 23, 2009 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

They'll cost significantly more than Davis.

After this year, Rajai has 2.167 years of ML service time, so he will cost approximately nothing.

I’m not opposed to trading him (or anyone), though.

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

by jeepers on Sep 16, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

How much-- a couple mill, maybe?

You can probably get Byrd on a 1+1 for like $5M. In the grand scheme of things, that’s basically peanuts.

Rajai’s potentially highest value is for a team that needs a CF stopgap and has very little money to spend. Since the A’s actually have some money, they can look at alternative options.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hey, it's not my money.

If the A’s want to take out the wallet to upgrade, I’m all for it. But given $5MM for Byrd vs. $500K for Davis, I’d rather use $4.5MM for something else, unless what you can get for Davis is really, really good. Since we’re in agreement (I think) that what you can expect from either is reasonably equal, you’re essentially buying a prospect for $4.5MM. That better be a good prospect.

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

by jeepers on Sep 16, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

A's got Ynoa for $4.25M...

Also, Davis is likely to get more like $1.5M this season. He’ll be a Super Two.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

Really?

From the Players’ Association website:

Q: When does a player become eligible for salary arbitration?

A: A player with three or more years of service, but less than six years, may file for salary arbitration. In addition, a player can be classified as a “Super Two” and be eligible for arbitration with less than three years of service. A player with at least two but less than three years of Major League service shall be eligible for salary arbitration if he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately preceding season and he ranks in the top 17 percent in total service in the class of Players who have at least two but less than three years of Major League service, however accumulated, but with at least 86 days of service accumulated during the immediately preceding season.

Obviously, he meets the former requirement, but with only a hair over two years, is he going to be in the top 17% of players with between 2 and 3 years of service time?

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

by jeepers on Sep 16, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

He's going to have something like 2 years, 167 days

He’s a lock for Super Two status.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed

Cots already has him listed as an arby eligible player for 2010. (Check out the link to the 2009-2013 payroll obligations spreadsheet, jeepers.)

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 16, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

I misinterpreted Cots; thanks for the clarification.

I read 2.167 the way one ought to read a decimal.

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

by jeepers on Sep 17, 2009 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly.

They got him for $4.25M, not for Rajai Davis. I doubt that we can travel to Venezuela and tell the parents of the next hot prospect, “We’d be happy to give your son a contract, but you have to take this center fielder we brought along with us.”

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

by jeepers on Sep 16, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

re: free agent SP

I thought about that, but I’d only want it if it was Lackey or Hudson, and I don’t see that happening. Mid-level FA SPs are almost never worth it, and we’re not in a win-now situation. We can get someone for 400K to soak up 5 innings every 5 days.

by Elston Gunn on Sep 15, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

if he's not as good as he is showing over a pretty long stretch

(and how else do you know someone’s good?) he won’t fetch much.

If he’s good enough to fetch something valuable he’s good enough and cheap enough to keep at least for a while.

by OaklandSi on Sep 16, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

Great post.

Agreed with everything here.

by Tripp on Sep 15, 2009 10:08 PM PDT reply actions  

What? Really? Wow....just wow.....

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

by mrod on Sep 15, 2009 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not so much that

Just surprised at your agreement with “everything here”.

Cunningham hasn’t proved a damned thing, so I don’t even begin to get that…. and Cahill starting next year in the minors accomplishes squat other than saving service time. If he sucks next year in ST, sure, send him back to AAA. However, it would be taking a step backwards for Cahill to be sent back to the minors at this point. He’s already here and he is getting very valuable experience in the bigs, has not missed a start that I can recall, and just pitched one of his best games of the year against Texas, in Texas.

And Raj Davis is a nice surprise this year and I think he has earned a chance to be the starter, or at least a roster spot for 2010. I say let the the guys duke it out in ST and see where things stand then.

And, hell no, I don’t want Can-O Spam back on this team!

Just my two cents, though.

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

by mrod on Sep 17, 2009 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

Wait

How does one prove anything if he is never given a chance to prove anything and you refuse to see his minor league numbers as proof?

As far as Cahill, plenty of people have made cogent arguments for why he should be in the minors, starting with rediscovering the curveball that allowed him to strike out so many hitters before this season.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

That’s some catch, that Catch 22

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Sep 17, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yossarian.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Sep 17, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Like I said...not dissing his minor league numbers, rather

I’m all for the guys battling it out in ST in 2010…the guys that perform and show the best will be on the roster and get playing time, in this case, someone like Cunningham. There’s only so many at bats to go around, likewise roster spots ( T.Buck ad naseum but for different reasons…)I don’t have anything against the guy, I just have not been impressed by what I have seen of him in the bigs yet.
 
Of course he needs time to show what he can do but I guess it’s anyone’s guess when and if he will ever get that chance in Oakland. I think it’s a good problem to have in this case with an overload of guys for 3 positions because competition is good and pushes people, in most cases.

Cahill: Maybe he "could benefit by spending some time working on his curveball again……I just really don’t know that sending him back to the minors to do it is really all taht beneficial at this point.

Good discussions here, though. Cheers!

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

by mrod on Sep 18, 2009 1:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

usually I lean in favor of pushing prospects aggressively

because I believe (with no evidence to back it up) that players can learn things by being thrown into the fire. But in the case of Cahill’s curveball, keeping him in the majors will probably make him reluctant to work on it / throw it in games. Without the curveball, he has gotten by this season as a below average but above replacement level SP. I worry that, for as long as he up in the majors, he won’t be willing to take the risk involved with adding the curve back into his repertoire. And maybe that curve is the thing that he needs to live up to his sky high potential.

by colin on Sep 18, 2009 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

i don't believe in handing anyone a starting job

b/c of their pedigree / potential vs. performance. rajai davis is the kind of player i’d like to see bat leadoff. he has figured out an ichiro type of contact swing and his speed on the basepaths is crawfordesque without the mileage. i don’t want cust/stairs type of guys lumbering in the OF any more. i like the new look a’s.

"We're Menudo," -BB

by eshock on Sep 15, 2009 10:16 PM PDT reply actions  

I don't want to see Cust or Stairs in the OF either.

What does that have to do with keeping Davis? And, hey, I gave you Perez! I bet you he’s even faster and more Ichiro-y than Davis.

by Elston Gunn on Sep 15, 2009 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Finally, a breath of fresh air

Rec’d.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 15, 2009 10:19 PM PDT reply actions  

Not entirely... he did specifically disagree with me by name at one point...

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

I know, I was just messing with you.

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

by jeepers on Sep 16, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

+1

anyone who disagrees with good ole Paul immediately becomes the brunt of his criticism and sarcasm. I personally can’t believe he isn’t the GM of a team by now, he seems to know everything! (I’ll probably get my 3rd and last strike from this post from ‘the powers that be’).

by Keystone State on Sep 21, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

But you don't criticize people?

Paul rarely, if ever, makes a personal attack. Can he blunt, even mean? Ya. But at least he doesn’t say things like this. And he always gives an informed argument.

Seriously, if you disagree, how come you rarely give any arguments to back your opinions, instead of using personal attacks?

Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM

by travdog6 on Sep 22, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Christ, what an airhole

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Sep 16, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

TWSS

(i can play that game too)

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Sep 16, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't see what Cunningham has done to earn an everyday job

Particularly when we have Davis, Sweeney, Hairston here and Carter coming up fast behind.

I think Davis is dynamic enough in this lineup not to be tossed aside so quickly. Yes you sell high and buy low but since everyone else knoiws this too I’m not sure that what we get back for Davis is worth it compared to the chance that he has found a new level of performance.

We all have had theories about the young pitching— but one thing I do know. If the A’s believe that someone has major league quality stuff, they are better off staying up at this level learning the craft than being held back at AAA.

I don’t think— given the state of the league right now— that it is a given this team can’t win anything.

I’m agnostic about Barton but believe that ultimately he will not be the A’s everyday 1B man. Carter, Wallace and Cardenas will all come up at some point next year, and when they are all here I’d be very surprised if Barton were getting much PT.

by jasonthea on Sep 15, 2009 10:48 PM PDT reply actions  

Cunningham: Hit .302/379/472 with good defense in AAA?

It’s certainly not a given that we can’t win anything next year, but as a GM, you are always making bets, and you’d have to make a bet that we aren’t going to be good enough. You should go check out PaulThomas’ first fanpost back if you want to understand just how far away we are from contending next year.

by Elston Gunn on Sep 15, 2009 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

lol

As if I would agree with it.

Stasis isn’t particularly common in sports— the Royals and Pirates to the contrary.

Anaheim overacheived this year; Texas is in the classic spring up/fall back spot; the Mariners are still mediocre. If the last 50+ games are not an illusion in terms of the offense— Davis included— and the various AAA bats contribute at various points next year, then this team has a decent chance to be good next year. Of course it will take a majot advance in starting pitching, but such a leap is hardly uncommon in this business.

by jasonthea on Sep 15, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't get it.

People (maybe rightly) get angry at Beane for trying to contend “half way” this year, but then continue to want him to go half way in the future. Now, I don’t really feel strongly about trading Davis, but our first attention has to be on 2011 or else the same kind of mistakes are going to be made again.

by Elston Gunn on Sep 15, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Are you sure they're the same people.

I, for one, was in favor of “trying to contend half way” this year, and I will be again next year. Others were opposed to it this year and will be again next year. I think most of us are pretty consistent in this, though we fall into opposite camps.

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

right

I like half-contention too, especially when it comes at a small expense. But we won’t all agree on which moves were the right ones even if we agreed on the half-contention route.

by jakarta on Sep 16, 2009 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't mind it

People on the team are going to have to play better than projections to win the division and subsequent serieses (seri?). So even if you put together a team that, on paper, should be the best in the divisoin, you still need fluke great season from multiple players. And if you put toether a half contention team, like this year, if a couple of people to out did themselves, blammo contention

no matter what, somebody needs to be a, pardon the expression, a beast.

by Future Ed on Sep 16, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'd say trading Davis has as much potential

to hurt the A’s in 2011 as it does to help them. In terms of not rebuilding “half way,” isn’t the whole point to hang on to solid players who are under club control for the foreseeable future?

And btw, its not that I think Davis is incredible, or that he won’t regress. I just don’t see how you can assume someone else will be playing CF at a 2.5+ WAR level for the A’s in 2011.

"When you get that nice celebration coming in the dugout, and you're getting your ass hammered by guys, there's no better feeling than to have that done." -Matt Stairs

by Aufheben on Sep 16, 2009 3:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

Why would you assume Rajai Davis will be playing CF at a 2.5+ WAR level in 2011?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

Depends how well you think he can replicate his UZR

If you think that he can even if his hitting regresses he should be 2.5 WAR

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm beginning to be somewhat troubled by the fact that Oakland players keep posting great UZRs

and yet the team’s park-adjusted DER isn’t that great. I think there might be a park effect problem there.

I mean, how is it possible that the A’s have all these major pluses (Davis, Sweeney, Ellis) and half a season of another (Hannahan) and yet are second-to-last in PADE? They’re not even that great in UNadjusted defensive efficiency. Those guys would have to be practically the only guys on the field for that to be the case.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

That may be true...

which is why there are questions about whether you should believe in the numbers. I can see how both a second baseman and a right fielder would benefit from the foul ground but I cant really see how a CFer would get a lot of park benefits in Oakland since CF really isn’t that big.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

uzr doesn't count foul balls at all

It’s not clear to me which way a big or small park would change an Of’s numbers. To the extent that there’s a park effect that helping the OFs, I think it would be the air causing line drives and fly balls to hang in the air longer than otherwise.

With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery

by mikeA on Sep 16, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

So couldn't you just measure the HR rate park effect and adjust UZR accordingly?

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

by Nick on Sep 16, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

uzr uses park effects which do something along those lines

With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery

by mikeA on Sep 16, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

Then using Ellis and Hannahan in your data set for oddly good fielders doesn't make sense

also it doesn’t explain the improvement of sweeney this year versus last year.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

The numbers will swing wildly for some % of guys just based on

data error or whatever unusual circumstances. I would look to the career numbers for a larger sample and conclude that he’s probably about average maybe a tad above in CF, and around +10 in the corners.

With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery

by mikeA on Sep 16, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

Right

though I do think that Sweeney is taking much better routes in CF this year.

The point I was trying to make is you would expect to see any park effect in both years when in fact Sweeney was quite bad in CF in 20008

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

I really, really hope he's still not on the A's

in 20008

"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons

by dtownmbrown on Sep 16, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

You'd really have to cut him some slack if he is

I mean, you really can’t expect dust to catch up to fly balls, can you?

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 16, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

Becuase he started playing better once he started playing every day

You can’t compare what he did before, as a part time player with what he is doing now. Also, there is no reason to believe that he can’t keep playing at the level he has been this year.

"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"

by Eastbayjim on Sep 16, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

His BABIP is unrealistically high so there stands to be something of a drop there

But the idea of him being around a .280 hitter with an OBP over .350 or so, probably higher (to toss it out there) probably isn’t unreasonable.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 16, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

How do you define "reasonable"?

For instance, I would argue that if you are outside the bounds of any of the reputable projection systems out there (and I expect, though we won’t find out for a few months, that such a “projection” will be way outside those bounds), you are not being reasonable. You don’t have any reason for your beliefs other than homerism.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, that's the thing sometimes with projections

People meet them, exceed them and come in under them.

I’m pretty sure Davis has passed any projections that were calculated for him this year and even if he has a bit of a drop next season from what he’s doing now, which is likely, I really don’t see him returning to the poor levels he’d been at before.

Of course that leaves a lot of room in between that and what he’s doing now, but one thing he does have in his favor is the speed. At least with that, he’s going to increase his chances of reaching base any time he puts the ball on the ground.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 16, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

You still haven't stated a reason WHY you don't think he's likely to return to his prior level of play

Speed is clearly not it, since he’s not faster now than he was last season. It’s not power; his power is the same as it’s ever been (poor). It’s not strikeouts. It’s not walks, except inasmuch as he was unusually bad at those in 2008 (but was decent at them while being otherwise a mediocre hitter in prior years).

Where’s the beef here?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think I have

He’s shown what he can do with consistent playing time compared with intermittent playing time, hasn’t he?

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 16, 2009 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

And it's not any one thing

It’s mainly him being able to know he’s going to be in the lineup every day, see more pitches, and just perform instead of not knowing when he’s going to get a chance, then thinking about needing to impress the manager, etc.

Sometimes all it takes is knowing you’re going to be out there.

I know you’re not going to agree with me on this, but I really don’t need you to.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 16, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

How does playing every day

increase BABIP, of all things?

This argument is just getting weirder and weirder. Based purely off of intuition, I’d expect it to improve a player’s strikeout and walk rates, if anything. But the projections I’m looking at have Davis K-ing and walking at essentially the same rates he’s showed in 2009.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Throwing you a softball

How does Davis rate on your BABIP scale? Do you think he’s capable of reproducing an above average BABIP through his peak year seasons (2010-2011)?

I’m not talking .370, more like the .323 he put up with Pittsburgh.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 16, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, let's run the test

Factor 1: Handedness

Poor. Rajai is a pure righthander.

Factor 2: Speed

Good. Rajai is one of the faster players in baseball.

Factor 3: K/BB ratio

Average. 0.46 is fractionally below league-average.

Factor 4: P/PA

Poor. 3.69 is somewhat below league average.

Factor 5: Power

Poor. .105 in IsoP is below league average.

Factor 6: Ground ball rate

Good. 1.29 is above league average.

Factor 7: Line drive rate

Good. 20.5% is above league average.

Factor 8: Spray

Average. Based on his 2009 hit chart, no strong concentration of ground balls on the right side of the infield, and singles are fairly evenly distributed, but he clearly hits more balls to the right side than to the left, so smart defenses will move a step or two that way.

3 poor, 3 good, 2 average. I’d predict a BABIP around league-average, or in the .300 range.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

Fair enough

Having a senior moment… P/PA is pitches per plate appearance, correct?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 16, 2009 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes

Also, I should point out that even as detailed as that was, it doesn’t really measure the magnitude of any of those factors. He doesn’t seem to be a huge outlier on any of them, but someone who is (like Luis Castillo, who hits insane numbers of ground balls) might “break” this.

I’d like to see someone run him through the xBABIP calculator, but I don’t really have time to figure out how to work that thing right now.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Assuming I didn't mess something up...

xBABIP (quick calculator) is .324

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 16, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

That should probably be dropped a bit for playing in Oakland

I’m getting a line of something like .275/.338/.381 once you apply that BABIP to his current hitting line.

If you dock him 10 points to .314 for playing in the Coliseum, his line is something like .266/.332/.368.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

The quick calculator asks for the team.

I’m assuming that means it does some park corrections.

by danmerqury on Sep 16, 2009 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

The article definitely says that the formula

uses home park as a factor.

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Works for me

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

Park already factored in

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 16, 2009 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

thanks, grover

I’ve been wanting to see that for a while now.

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

Welcome

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 16, 2009 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

I've been remiss

TWSS

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 20, 2009 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

Remind me why being LH (or SH)

is an advantage here.

The reason I ask is because Rajai’s MLB history shows no significant platoon split. I’m wondering if that negates the disadvantage of being RH, or if the disadvantage is something separate.

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

In re: BABIP

I’d guess the advantage is that left-handed hitters are by default closer to first base, making it easier to reach safely on a BIP.

Celebrate the turning of the worm

by Elvez on Sep 16, 2009 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ah, that makes sense.

thanks

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

I always thought it had to do with

most pitchers being right-handed so the platoon splits work in their favor.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 17, 2009 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

Bingo

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm not talking about BABIP

I also acknowledge that it’s very unlikely to stay that high.

But it can still be good enough for him to continue playing at a very respectable level. That’s all I’m expecting and I don’t really see anything to suggest he can’t do THAT much.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 16, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Just curious

but what do you think attributes to high/low babip in the general sense? Are you strictly looking line drive ratios and ground ball/fly ball ratios or are is there room for x factor attributed towards something like how solid you make contact, how often you hit off the barrel of the bat vs. end or handle?

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 16, 2009 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

See above

A lot of the factors in that analysis, to partially answer your question, are proxies for how hard someone is likely to hit the ball on average. Once Hit F/x data becomes more accessible, we may be able to junk those factors and get more effectively to the root of the matter.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

The thing to remember about Rajai is...

Coming into this season, he had all of 418 big league at bats spread out over 4 seasons and 2 leagues. It can take time to get settled in against big league pitching. If we were talking about a rookie struggling in his first season we’d show more patience.

The 2nd half of 2009 represents the first time in his big league career that Davis has gotten consistent playing time. That comfort level, plus gaining experience should allow any player to produce closer to his “true” talent level. That’s not to say that a .370 BABIP is Davis’ true skill level. That’s a discussion for another time.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 16, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Because if he puts up a 15 UZR in CF he can wOBA below .320

and still easily be a 2.5 WAR player – simple as that.

You are focusing a lot on the regression that is almost certain to occur in Davis’ offensive numbers, and as you say no “reasonable” projection would dispute this. But only one of these projection systems offers any kind of defensive forecast, and defense seems to be missing from your assessment of Davis.

As for the BABIP thing, its not uncommon for a player with Davis’ speed to post a rate higher than .320. If Rajai’s BABIP drops 50-70 points this doesn’t bother me the same way it would if we were talking about someone with an old player skillset, or someone incapable of BABIPing above .290 to begin with (eg Pedro Feliz). Its not like there’s going to be nothing left when Davis’ BABIP falls. I’d imagine with a more normal BABIP Raj would probably OPS somewhere around .700 (although unfortunately I can’t make the xBABIP calculator run on my Open Office, or else I’d check). Considering his defense, IMO this is enough to make Davis the best CF option going forward for the A’s.

My question to you is what do you think the A’s are going to get back for Davis in a trade considering his age, low offensive ceiling, and poor projectability?

"When you get that nice celebration coming in the dugout, and you're getting your ass hammered by guys, there's no better feeling than to have that done." -Matt Stairs

by Aufheben on Sep 16, 2009 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

You have to regress defense to the mean, too

and as I said on the other thread, I’m suspicious of a hiccup in UZR for outfielders when it comes to players at the Coliseum. We know they exist (for instance, CF and LF in Fenway often seem to look awful in UZR).

Speaking of CF in Fenway, Coco Crisp offers somewhat of a caution here. His UZR numbers recently are as follows:

0.9
24.4
-8.6
5.3

No one in his right mind could believe that those really represent his true talent level in each season— players do not become three wins worse on defense in one year, then bounce back to be (prorated) two wins better the next. Clearly he is not as good as he was in 2007 or as bad as he was in 2008.

Rajai came out at +7 runs in CHONE’s defensive projections before this year, and I imagine he will look similarly entering this season. That plus positional adjustment is basically a one-win boost to his offensive numbers. Is he likely to be a 1.5 WAR player with the stick (and on the bases)? I’m doubtful.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

The team going into next year

needs to get lucky to win it all. Is it possible, sure. Is it impossible, no. But even with the “weaknesses” the division has shown, we’re just not in a position to expect them to be competitive. I see next season very similar to ‘99. Put on a good show. Give us hope, but ultimately far short. Given that, you don’t go for broke on the idea we’ll be “good” in the way you’re hoping/expecting. Play next year conservatively, give guys more rope than normal and see what happens.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 15, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

but but but...

the 2010 AL West is going to be one of the weakest divisions ever…

"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 16, 2009 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

huh?

Rangers on major upswing. A ton of younger Angels have put up great seasons. The Mariners are extremely well-run and are a great run prevention team.

by Elston Gunn on Sep 16, 2009 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is the third season in a row....

where I’ve heard that the Angels “over achieved”. At what point do we accept the fact that perhaps they are for real?

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Sep 16, 2009 5:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

Word. I think too many people have actually been underestimating them.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 16, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

I was told 20 years.

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

What, do they keep playing better than their Pythag record?

Oh, look. They’re five games better than it again right now.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 16, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

When a guy is good...

you don’t sell at all. You keep him and win games, I thought that was the point in this league.

by Keystone State on Sep 16, 2009 5:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

Not any more.

For many A’s fans, it’s the bright shiny new prospect that get’s them all warm-and-fuzzy inside. 2011 is still far enough out that they don’t have to answer for their point-of-view.

For Bud Selig, the real champion each year is the team that posted the biggest financial profit.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 16, 2009 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions  

So are you against the concept of trading completely?

Or do you just assume every other GM is an idiot who’ll take your garbage for useful players?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

What is the trade? I'm against trading for a gaggle of Shane Petersons and Dana Evelands

when the player on the trading block already exceeds the level of big league production the former group is likely to ever achieve. And if the A’s are trading for an innings eater, and then signing Byrd/Winn to take Davis’ place… well, Davis was already traded for Matt Morris once. Who’s more valuable now? Why not keep the player you can control for four years and sign a back-of-the-rotation starter to a one year deal?

"When you get that nice celebration coming in the dugout, and you're getting your ass hammered by guys, there's no better feeling than to have that done." -Matt Stairs

by Aufheben on Sep 16, 2009 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

I can't answer this specifically... specific trade proposals almost never make sense

I would definitely move him for a B+ prospect; I would probably do it for a B and a B-; I might be willing to go lower than that.

I would not trade him for an “innings eater,” because the A’s have plenty of those already.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nice argument

You’ve really worked out a style, haven’t you?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

GASP

That counts as BAITING!!!!

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

by lenscrafters on Sep 17, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

TWSS

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Sep 17, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh my.

I believe the term is “epic win”.

by danmerqury on Sep 17, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Turn it green! Very well played.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 17, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

You do realize that you're an A's fan, right?

When a commodity’s market value is higher than its true value, you sell high. When a commodity’s cost is higher than it’s true worth, you let it go. I’d expect my CEO or investor to do this, why wouldn’t I expect my GM to do the same? We don’t have the resources to compete with 80% of the league. We’ve got to be crafty.

by danmerqury on Sep 16, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Except for 3 years ago when they went to the ALCS.

Wait, does that count in “few” because “few” is more than “couple” right?

Just checking.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Sep 17, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

That philosophy will always put you a couple of years away...

I agree that trading high (Rajai Davis) for a prospect may sound logical, but given today’s market I don’t think it is.

Unless you’re one of the rich guys it’s virtually impossible to create any kind of dynasty that can keep going more than one year at a time. The confluence that led to the 1999-2004 A’s is close to impossible to achieve because all your good players need to get good at the same time and be controlled at the same time. Just not gonna happen.

Your best bet then, is to gather your players, some of whom may be past their optimum sell date and some of whom may be before their optimum sell date, and create as good a team as you can to compete, and then hope that luck does the rest for you, i.e. the Giants in 2009, the Rockies in 2009, the Rays in 2008, etc.

I think if you keep trying to create that perfect team, the perfect team will always be two steps ahead of you. So if you want to trade Rajai Davis, you trade him for someone who will help you in 2010, not 2013. Cahill, Anderson and Braden will all most likely be peaking next year, plus Wallace and Carter will be ready during the year. It’s likely 2010 will not be a year in which the A’s make a run for it, but the potential is there if those two guys make an impact from the moment they arrive.

From looking at how teams make the jump from mediocre to good in the past, and noting what people predict, those teams generally make the jump a year sooner than expected. In the A’s case, that means 2010, not 2011.

by richwol1 on Sep 17, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

This is a well-considered argument

My reply would be that most likely, any trade of Davis is going to be a “lateral” trade, as opposed to a “rebuilding” trade or a “rental” trade (veterans for prospects or prospects for veterans, respectively). I envision it as (ideally) moving him for a solid high-minors third base or shortstop prospect. I mean, if someone offers a future stud who’s still in Low-A, you take it I guess, but it’s hard to envision that happening here.

Trading from strength to fill weakness, in other words.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think more accurately

Trading from relative strength to weakness.

by eastbayexpat on Sep 17, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think you've summed up my feeling succinctly.

Well said. On a personal note as a fan, I’d still like to see Rajai running in the G&G next season. It’s fun to have a player like him around.

Good to see you back.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Sep 17, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Can't add anything, but... +1

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 18, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

i don't think cahill has been awful

I’ll admit that there are times when his lack of control has made him painful to watch, but on the whole I’m not displeased by a 21 year old with no experience above AA turning in a sub 5 era. You could make the argument that Cahill’s strikeout to walk ratio indicates that he deserves a far worse era, but he has the potential to be such a groundball machine, that conventional fip doesn’t tell the whole story. Cahill has only been awful in comparison to Brett Anderson, who is hardly your standard 21 year old pitcher.

by natethesnyde on Sep 15, 2009 11:18 PM PDT reply actions  

His tRA was, the last time I checked, second-worst in baseball to Armando Galarraga

who is, incidentally, another pitcher who looked decent for a while before imploding this season once the Angel of Luck hopped off his shoulder.

To forestall any potential questions, tRA already accounts for ground ball rates.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 15, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

True, conventional FIP doesn't tell the whole story.

But his tRA (which takes batted ball types into consideration) is even worse. If he’s a groundball machine, his tRA should be miles under his FIP. He’s fifth-worst in the league in tRA. That’s awful.

by danmerqury on Sep 15, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Self reporting

is never reliable. And listening to Baseball/sports people for information is useless. But when Fosse interviewed Cahill today he mentioned that he totally abandoned his curveball. He also said that was his stikeout pitch in the minors. I believe I read similar stories from posters here (I never remember this “gossip” unless I read a link.)

How can he not be sent to sacto to get that worked out? It really needs to be fixed by 2011.

by Future Ed on Sep 16, 2009 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

Wow, great post thanks for the info.

That’s truly insane. Dropping one of your best pitches? Usually not a good idea.

Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.

by travdog6 on Sep 16, 2009 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

Tell that to Dallas Braden.

He dropped his screwball once he hit the big leagues because Curt Young and Co. thought his changeup could be even better.

IIRC, Cahill’s curve was actually a knuckle-curve, which could have something to do with dropping it.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Sep 16, 2009 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well that's a little different since they thought it would make Braden's arm fall off.

Cahil just dropped it cause of a confidence thing it sounds like.

Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.

by travdog6 on Sep 16, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

thats what he indicated.

stopped throwing it cuz it was getting hit.

by Future Ed on Sep 16, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly why he shouldn't be in the Majors until he gets it back.

Why wasn’t he demoted?? That’s ridiculous if you ask me.

"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons

by dtownmbrown on Sep 16, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sean? You mean the player we traded for Hairston?

by speckops on Sep 16, 2009 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

Heh. That would be awesome if you could call up players from others minors systems.

“Jason Heyward? Yeah, you’re being called up to Oakland.”

by speckops on Sep 17, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

Put it in the CBA

No rule 5 protection! Any player any time.

by Future Ed on Sep 17, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

Minor leagues without affliation

Fill your 40 man roster and way you can, send them anywhere you want to play and everyone else is fair game. Maybe expand it to 50 or 60 man rosters to keep draft picks around a bit. Certainly would change the dynamic of roster management.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 17, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

It would seemingly raise replacement level by a fair bit

League average wouldn’t be worth nearly as much as it used to be.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

With a pitcher that young

you just have to be adaptive as a coach. Sure the curve was good for him in the minors, but things change: competition gets better, muscles develop, etc. Maybe his changeup just got so much more effective that there was no need to throw the curve anymore.

by GusanoQuemador on Sep 17, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh good lord.

A quick scan of Fangraphs’s PitchFX game charts seems to confirm this. Ever since his start on August 6, he hasn’t thrown a single curveball.

I guess because of the odd nature of his curve (it’s a spike curve, if I remember right), PitchFX has kind of a hard time classifying it, but keep an eye on the movement chart on the upper left. Starting on 8/6, he hasn’t thrown a single pitch with a negative vertical movement component.

That’s shocking. Horrifying. Wasn’t his curve a supposed plus-plus pitch? He needs to start 2010 in Sacramento.

by danmerqury on Sep 16, 2009 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

he had trouble locating it the whole first half of the season

He could only throw it as a waste pitch. I’d bet it has something to do with the difficulty he’s had sticking with an arm slot. He also said in the interview that he can’t even tell when he’s changing his arm slot on the mound. Based on that interview, he definitely should be in Sacto.

by DDroney on Sep 16, 2009 1:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

Elston, I can't say I disagree with anything here.

And I’d wholeheartedly agree with most of these, especially no’s. 1, 4, and 5.

Of course, the touchiest subject here is of Rajai. I can’t I’ll be happy if he goes, because I’ve loved watching him play this year, but everything points to this being a flukey small sample size statistical blip. Trading him is the right way to go.

by danmerqury on Sep 15, 2009 11:28 PM PDT reply actions  

Yeah, I feel the same way about Davis.

And though I know that’s going to be the most controversial part of the post, it’s also the point I feel least strongly about, partly because I like him and partly because I don’t know how much another team will give up.

by Elston Gunn on Sep 15, 2009 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Want controversy, eh?

“Cust is a better hitter than Davis.”

Discuss

by Future Ed on Sep 16, 2009 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

If you're going to pretend to bait people, I think you'd better make the sarcasm more obvious in future

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

I disagree.

The entertainment value of sarcasm is inversely correlated with its obviousness.

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agree with all counts

However, I suspect the market for Raj isn’t going to be that good and we’ll wind up keeping him. If someone does show a willingness to give up something of value, then, yeah, do it. Just doubt it’ll happen. Other than that, agree 100%.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 15, 2009 11:28 PM PDT reply actions  

Just what I was thinking

I pretty much agree with everything in th OP, but I think it’s a little simplistic to just call for a trade of Davis. What kind of return can we expect for him? Maybe a buy low former top prospect like Lastings Milledge who was traded for Nyjer Morgan? I don’t think I would want to trade Davis for that type of return.

It’s just hard for me to imagine that there is that much of a market for Davis right now, and I would not be in favor of trading him for whatever.

by DiegoAsFan on Sep 16, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

That was when a lot of people were rightfully claiming SSS on Nyjer though

I mean, Nyjer is probably still having a career year, but now he’s at least had it for the whole season and not like, a month.

If Morgan or Davis were to be traded now, they’d net more than Milledge.

"I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it" ~ Mae West

by Blicks on Sep 17, 2009 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

While we're on the topic of things we want in the future...

What’s the deal with Kila Ka’aihue? He posted simply an epic season in 2008, split over AA and AAA: .314/.456/.628 for a wOBA north of .460. He’s spent more than two full years in the high minors. He walked almost twice as much as he struck out in AA. He’s got to be in the doghouse or something, because they didn’t call him up this September. Does anyone know what’s up? If nothing…I’d love to nab him somehow.

by danmerqury on Sep 15, 2009 11:45 PM PDT reply actions  

If there's any rational argument against Kila

I assume that it’s that his 2006 and 2007 weren’t very good (and his 2005 was at High Desert, which inflates hitting). Therefore, one might argue that focusing on his awesome 2008 and 2009 counts as WHYDFML thinking, plus the longer he stays stuck in the minors the worse his ARL gets.

Not that I would argue that, though. I’m an unabashed Kila lover. I think the real issue here is that Dayton Moore is unfathomable. If he likes him, why doesn’t he bring him up to the big leagues? If he doesn’t like him, why doesn’t he trade him? I can’t imagine that no one has asked.

If Kila is available in trade for a reasonable price, we absolutely ought to nab him … before somebody else does. If he’s not, well, sucks to be him, because Moore will probably do something ridiculous like sign Giambi to play 1B and leave Kila in Omaha.

(Also, it would amuse me to have more Hawaiians on our team.)

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

BRING BACK KOMINE!

You have really taken to the new fangled phrases

by Future Ed on Sep 16, 2009 1:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

He's a defensive butcher.

The argument against him is that he’s a replacement for Cust.

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

by jeepers on Sep 16, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

Nothing inherently wrong with that

Cust has started to cost actual money. Kila is free, except for what you give up to get him.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

The only issue

Is that Kila is unproven at the big-league level. It would be a shame if he turned out to be Dan Johnson v. 2.0.

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

by jeepers on Sep 16, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

Again, the question HAS to be how much the A's are giving up to get him

If they can get him for free, that’s awesome. If they trade Trevor Cahill to get him, that’s very very not awesome. If it’s somewhere in the middle… who knows?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

No argument with that.

I’m just nervous about picking up another guy that can’t field.

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

by jeepers on Sep 16, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

I've heard that he has good speed, though.

Unlike so many other sluggers with bad defense.

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

One thing Davis and Sweeney have on some of the other OF options is they're

probably about a win and a half above average in CF and RF respectively. This is not true of Buck and Cunningham, nor is it true of most FA options who might be brought in in the event of a Davis trade.

While UZR numbers may reflect a lot of variance, it seems less likely to me that Davis and Sweeney’s defensive talent will regress than it does that Buck, Cunningham, or Winn for that matter will get good enough at hitting to make up the difference.

Of course, if the idea is to sell high on Davis, and save some chits for 2011, then it doesn’t really matter who the A’s trot out there next year, and they may as well give Buck/Cunningham the opportunity. But this plan nevertheless assumes that in 2011 the A’s will have a 3 WAR CF ready – someone as good or better than Davis – and I don’t think this is such a sure thing. Assuming (again) that everything works out, Brown/Weeks would be rookies in 2011, and it seems presumptuous to expect above average performance from them so soon.

I also think its worth pointing out that Davis has four years of arbitration ahead of him. This means that if he sticks around and has another 3+ WAR season the A’s could then trade an established starting CF with three years club control after the 2010 season, and presumably get a much better haul than if they traded Davis now.

I’d be willing to take this chance. I don’t think Davis will bring back much right now – maybe a couple average upside high minors prospects. If the A’s get a good pitcher for Davis he’ll probably very young and raw, which increases the risk involved. Additionally the A’s will have a better idea of what to expect from Brown/Weeks after next season. Of course, if someone wants to offer a serviceable 3b/SS for Davis, that would sway my thinking.

"When you get that nice celebration coming in the dugout, and you're getting your ass hammered by guys, there's no better feeling than to have that done." -Matt Stairs

by Aufheben on Sep 16, 2009 2:43 AM PDT reply actions  

Nicely put...

In the end, we don’t know what would be offered for Rajai, so can’t make a call as to whether it would be smart to trade him. I’m sure Beane will put him on the trading block and see what comes, but I don’t expect what comes back to fit our 2011 timeline as well as keeping Rajai will.

I think something should also be said for team stability and rewarding good performance. Rajai has done well by us this year, let’s return the favor and give him a steady job for a year or two.

by librariansunite on Sep 16, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

100 wins

alaska A residing in northern Idaho.

by ak_A on Sep 16, 2009 6:10 AM PDT reply actions  

+1

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

by xbhaskarx on Sep 16, 2009 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

+62

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 16, 2009 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

+11

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 16, 2009 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

I really like this post, and agree with nearly all of it

I especially want to emphasize #1 — Cunningham. The guy has hit everywhere he’s played in the minors, including a good batting eye and high SLG, and he’s only 4 months older than Brett Wallace. It would be nuts not to find out whether the team has a young RH hitter who can drive the ball consistently.

On Rajai, I have a couple of minor disagreements.

Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen because we never have platoons because…I have no freaking clue.

I think the last reasonably stable platoon the A’s had was…Kotsay and Payton in CF in the 2nd half of 2006. And a Hairston/Sweeney platoon would be very, very similar. I know Kotsay was pissed off about it, and pissed off about hitting against LH in the post-season, but there is recent precedent here.

Now, on Raj…I think this debate over trading him has spun off into abstract territory. If you have a Roy Halliday or Cliff Lee or Tim Hudson, you can put up a sign that says, “We’re willing to move this guy!” and expect GMs to come to you with offers. Rajai Davis isn’t that kind of player.

The question WRT to trading Rajai is: if Beane is talking about acquiring some player(s) he likes and the other GM says, “We could do that — the guy we really like on your team is Davis”; or, if a GM with players that Beane likes calls up and says, “Billy, we really like that Davis guy — is a deal possible?” do you want Beane to say, “Yeah, that’s possible…” or do you want him to say, “We’re not trading Rajai.”

I want Beane to consider trading Rajai if the return is good enough. The debate over Rajai isn’t about whether to trade him, but how much Beane should demand in return. And I don’t think it’s that useful to try to answer that question in the abstract.

So, I’m officially agnostic on Rajai. If he gets traded, I could imagine being excited that Beane got what he got for him, or pissed that he gave him up for too little.

In any case, it’s perfectly possible for the team to start 2010 with an outfield of Hairston/Sweeney, Rajai, and Cunningham, with Cunningham in LF against RH and in RF against LH.

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

by Nick on Sep 16, 2009 7:38 AM PDT reply actions  

Trading the wrong guy

  Davis are you crazy? The A’s need a SB threat on the team. Without him we have a bunch of average to below average SB threats. Davis makes a pitcher throw more fast balls which the A’s hitters are more of a fast ball hitting team. They struggle when facing a pitcher that changes speed.
  Cust must go now while we still can get something for him.
  My points about this. 1 his cost is going up and next year he will most likely be to expensive as a DH. 2 we have plenty of DH types in the minors. 3 Cust can’t hit lefties he actualy sucks against lefties.
  Speed wins so you don’t trade your fastest player who has turn the corner on being a everyday player. See how in the off season that Chone Figgins will be 1 of the most expensive FA.

by Arcman on Sep 16, 2009 8:39 AM PDT reply actions  

:boggle:

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Sep 16, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

The A’s need a SB threat on the team. Without him we have a bunch of average to below average SB threats.

Why?

Davis makes a pitcher throw more fast balls which the A’s hitters are more of a fast ball hitting team. They struggle when facing a pitcher that changes speed.

Prove it. Incidentally, if we exclude Rajai Davis’s steals from the A’s totals, the A’s still have 83 steals, above the major league median.

Cust must go now while we still can get something for him.
  My points about this. 1 his cost is going up and next year he will most likely be to expensive as a DH. 2 we have plenty of DH types in the minors. 3 Cust can’t hit lefties he actualy sucks against lefties.

Cost I can do nothing with, I would prefer to see what the deal comes out to before tossing him overboard. Our “DH” types in the minors are nowhere near ready. Promoting them now would simply waste service time in what will likely be a lost year.

As for Cust against lefties, the evidence from 2007-2008 would suggest otherwise. Cust certainly isn’t as good against lefties but given the alternatives I’m happy to give him a pass for now.

Cust is not, nor has he ever really been considered, a long term solution. I think this is something we agree on. However, I don’t think you can let your zeal to find a long term solution overwhelm your good sense in keeping your prospects on the track to success

Speed wins so you don’t trade your fastest player who has turn the corner on being a everyday player. See how in the off season that Chone Figgins will be 1 of the most expensive FA.

This is nonsense. The A’s are ranked 4th in the majors in the number of team steals this year, we’re terrible. The Tigers are 2nd to last in the AL in steals, they are winning their division. There is no correlation between “speed” and wins.

If Chone Figgins is the most expensive FA in the off season it’s because he can play plus defense at a number of different positions and because he OBP’d 0.400 this year. It will have shockingly little to do with his speed. I assure it, speed is a very cheap commodity. How else did we pick Rajai up from waivers?

by eastbayexpat on Sep 16, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Davis is the one who has led the overall team shift toward running more

Without that, I doubt they run as much with the others as well. It’s a trickle-down effect that starts with him.

And the A’s have at least played closer to .500 baseball while stealing more. It’s not just the steals, but the overall shift in being more aggressive, taking extra bases, and not just swinging for the fences (because, well, they don’t have many up here right now who can). The end result is it takes fewer hits to score runs when they can advance runners more than with just a hit.

It’s a bit more of the Angels style, but we’ve seen that style work.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 16, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

The only evidence that I've seen of this is rhetorical

I don’t know whether it’s Rajai Davis making the shift or if it’s the A’s coaching staff making some belated changes. My instincts would tell me that it’s the coaching staff, if only because were I a player, I wouldn’t make my running decisions based on the relative success of another player.

The Oakland A’s were leaders in base stealing when Rickey Henderson was around but it didn’t really incent the rest of the players to run more. The players that did run more were players like Carney LAnsford who were already good base stealers.

Do I support more active baserunning and stealing? Certainly. As you said, if done correctly, it’s a cheap way of helping manufacture runs. However, I don’t view base running as the make or break here, chiefly because our win percentage improvement and steals increase coinciding with an increase in a significantly more important statistic in my mind, OPS.

Team OPS averaged .676 for all the months from April-June. From July to Sept, it’s averaged .766. OBP has risen from 0.312 to 0.340. Average steals have gone from 0.55 a game to 1.14 per game. Winning percentage has gone from 42% to an even 50%.

I dunno. There may be something to the entire aggressive=wins thing (I’ll back off from my earlier derision of the idea), but the dramatic shift in OBP (from AAA caliber team to perhaps average MLB team) would imply to me that the A’s are just getting better at hitting the ball.

Of course, SSS applies to all of this.

by eastbayexpat on Sep 16, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm sure there's a combination of the two

I think a big part of it is just the fact alone they actually have some people who can steal a base more often than not when they try, and with the speed Davis has they’d be handcuffing themselves (or maybe, putting hobbles on themselves) by not making use of it. Ellis has the ability to swipe a bag here and there and so does Kennedy, but Pennington and Patterson are also faster guys now with the big club that ran pretty often in the minors as well. Not that Patterson gets on base enough to exploit it yet, ahem.

Either way, I like seeing them try to make some more things happen by forcing the issue. Sure, they’ll run themselves out of opportunities at times, but they’ll also give themselves more chances to score they wouldn’t otherwise get if they can’t string a few hits together and I’d rather see that than someone stranded at first because he never goes anywhere. I love someone like Davis getting on via FC, stealing second and either getting to third on an error and later scoring like in the first last night, or just being where he can score on one base hit. Now they don’t necessarily even NEED to get a hit to score a run if they can combine it with some walks, ground outs that move people over, sac flies, etc.

The Rickey example is definitely a fitting one because they didn’t really build a team around running compared to just having the best base stealer ever to go along with the power they also had and some other capable runners, though Lansford did have quite a few steals of his own compared to most.

SSS and all applies like you note, but we’re seeing some things that are a combination of skill, ability, improvement and whatever else goes into the mix leading to more people getting on base and better chances to score, and it sure beats what we were seeing in the first half of the season.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 16, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

Ceteris Paribus

The stolen bases haven’t hurt the A’s. I suspect that they have helped on the margins. All things being equal, I’m fine with aggressiveness on the base paths (as long as it’s not stupid) as I do think it can help on the margins.

What I’m trying to say is that unless you’re Rickey Henderson, stolen bases don’t have a transformational effect on the game any more than any other aspect of the game. And even with Rickey, his great value was having the absurdly small strike zone, the surprising power out of the leadoff position, the amazing plate discipline.

The positives of “making things” happen with aggressiveness on the basepaths (distracting the pitcher, advancing runners) are often netted out by the negatives of “making things happen” which result in outs.

Just as a stolen base runner can make things happen by stealing second, a home run hitter can “make things happen” by hitting a home run. A home run is a substantially more valuable happening than a stolen base, as is almost every other offensive outcome I can think of.

You like Rajai Davis because “He makes things happen.” This year, I like Rajai Davis because he’s beating the cover off the ball (or getting lucky, but that’s a different issue). The things that Rajai Davis does that are valuable (to me) are hitting with an OPS over .800 with above average defense in centerfield. His stolen base number, for my purposes, somewhere between marginally useful and completely irrelevant.

What I want to avoid, more than anything, is paying money for production in areas that I view as marginally accretive to wins while neglecting investment in other, far more necessary areas. Speed, for me, is an after thought.

My poster child for these sort of overinvest-in-speed contracts is Juan Pierre’s with the Dodgers. He can’t hit, he can’t field, he’s occupying a plus offense type of position, and he cost $10M this year. But he’s still fast! You can’t make too many of those kinds of mistakes if you’re the A’s.

by eastbayexpat on Sep 16, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

FWIW: Historically...

…the A’s (in Oakland) have had four significant eras in which they had good or great on-field success…

1) 1971-1975
2) 1980-1981
3) 1988-1992
4) 2000-2006

In the first three, they were known for their power AND speed. Not so much in #4.

Correlation? Causation? Chance? Coincidence? Is #4 the anomaly, by chance?

As has been noted this season, there are teams that aren’t stealing much and are still doing well, and vice-versa. Then again, some are and are doing well, and again vice versa. Maybe the whole speed vs power thing is really moot?

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 18, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

You're being WAY too kind

By my count, the A’s basestealing has gained them about 6 runs relative to average this season.

Pardon me while I jump up and down screaming at the top of my lungs for five minutes.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

You'll get tired.

Just eat your hat instead.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Sep 16, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, they've stolen at a ~74% clip this year.

Which would hardly result in “manufacturing” that many runs.

The real reason why they’re winning more games post all star break? They’re 4th and 6th in the AL in OBP and SLG respectively since the break compared to next to last and last in the league in OBP and SLG respectively pre all star break.

by Tripp on Sep 16, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

They've amassed about 4 or 5 of those runs in the last 2.5 months

so… I mean… it’s more, but…

It’s not that running more is a bad idea in and of itself— you want to max out the number of runs you can gain from whatever source you can get them from— it’s just that it’s dwarfed by the impact of things like “not employing Jason Giambi and Orlando Cabrera”.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

Heh

Can’t argue with the Giambi/Cabrera part.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 16, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

eastbayexpat needs to watch more baseball

  1. Stealing and basrunning makes the team on defense more likely to make errors or not concentrate on the batter.
  2. When a runner is being held a pitcher is less likely to throw hard breaking balls in the dirt and will throw more fast balls in case of a runner taking off. This is BASIC knowledge. Reason when the A’s were not running they saw more breaking pitches.
  3. Sorry but Cust did not hit lefties good in 2008 other than OBA with no power. If we go back to 2007 Travis Buck had a better OPS than Cust against lefties that year.
 4. The first half the A’s didn’t steal but the second half they have stolen bases this is why the better record. The hitters are seeing better pitches when a basethreat is on base. As for Figgins he can do so many things is why he is so valuable and speeds adds to his sucess.
  5. We need to give Davis a chance to prove he is a full time player and trading him at the end of the season is stupid. Especialy since his trade value will not be high at all. Even Cust would have more trade value than Davis. Factor in the A’s have no real power threat in the majors since nobody will hit over 30 homers. Speed is the easy answer to no power.

by Arcman on Sep 16, 2009 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Speak for yourself

I only get to watch baseball while at work, never at home.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 16, 2009 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Pretty sure this doesn't even scratch

the surface when in comes to technical/stat discussions around here.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 16, 2009 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Back when AN was good this wouldn't have been counted as a stat discussion

Right about now I need one o’ them emoticons that rolls its eyes.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 16, 2009 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Sep 16, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly

Quit stalking me.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 16, 2009 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is a true thing.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 17, 2009 12:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

It makes me sad to think that AN is no longer "good" to someone who has been a long time poster (i.e.-you).

Perhaps I am misconstruing what you have said or am missing something and if so I apologize. The thing that makes AN good in my mind is the wide group of fans it appeals to. AND the ability for anybody that feels the need – to post what they feel.

From what I see – It’s when we disagree with one another that the conversations get interesting. That is the place where we can learn from one another. Or simply ignore those ppl that make us crazy!

"Baseball is dull only to dull minds." Red Barber

by BERRYJO on Sep 17, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

You didn't miss a thing

You just have yet to comprehend the full meaning of what I said.

It’s like layer upon layer of conceptual challenges!

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 18, 2009 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

And....I may never fully comprehend.

I just happen to appreciate your insights and fully enjoy this community. I’d hate to lose your point of view b/c you are frustrated with the conversation!

Thanks

"Baseball is dull only to dull minds." Red Barber

by BERRYJO on Sep 18, 2009 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

In terms of the quality of the stats discussions there has been a big decline.

there is some good talent that is emerging but its not nearly what it was a year and a half ago.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 18, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

OK....I am new to AN - so do not have the same perspective.

"Baseball is dull only to dull minds." Red Barber

by BERRYJO on Sep 18, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Take with a grain of salt, BERRY JO

I’ve been on AN for 5 years and every single year I read how “AN sucks now, but it used to be great.” Including the first year. It’s basically something that gets said all the time.

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 Sep 18, 2009 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think to say that in this case is disengenous

This summer how many quality stats posts were there?

Compare that to last year.

There has been an extinction of white rhino levels of stats posters as AN has chosen to emphasize the “community aspect” and has allowed a hostility towards stat based posters to go unchecked. People think that Im a big stathead but in the glory days of stats on AN I would be considered an amateur.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 18, 2009 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh I totally agree there are fewer stat-based posts

I’m just being literally serious — and find it amusing — that every 4-6 months, from the day I joined years ago, you read how “AN used to be so much better.” Either AN peaked on its first day and has been successively worse each day since, or perception isn’t reality, even in the court of public opinion.

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 Sep 18, 2009 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

That trivializes what happened

Saying that people who talk about the exodus of stats posters is just people saying “AN use to be so much better” ignores that there was a vibrant community that has seen its numbers drop precipitously, some due to natural attrition and some due to conscious choices made by leadership.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 18, 2009 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

IIRC, weren't the s-called "stat posters" going to go start their own forum...

…where they would be happy and free from question and ridicule?

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 19, 2009 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

Oddly enough

There’s practically no statistical discussion over there; it’s just a collection of DLDs and game threads.

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

by jeepers on Sep 19, 2009 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

My point, DFA, is that it doesn't

specifically relate to stat or not-stat based discussion or user-preference. Back when andeux, salb918, and devo were prominent voices on AN, I read how “AN sucks now but it used to be really great.” I think it’s interesting, and amusing, how that is the one constant. No matter where you are in AN’s history, “it used to be great but sadly it now sucks (but you’re here to keep saying so).”

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 Sep 19, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

No matter what the reason is, there will always be someone who doesn't like...

…the way things have gone.

That’s just the way it goes. There is not some effort to stamp out people who want to talk stats and go deeper into them than the average fan. There is not some effort to dumb down the game.

Anyone who wants to get deep into stats is free to do so but there will probably always be the chance that someone who likes things a little simpler will say so. I’ve seen people try to have a basic discussion be interrupted by people who want to tell them why this deeper stat or that one says they’re wrong, and at some point it just becomes less fun to talk baseball when you almost start expecting someone to jump in and basically dismiss you because you’re either too deep into stats or not deep enough into stats. That’s the way it is with any public sports site like this, so at some point people just have to filter out what they don’t like dealing with and talk about what they enjoy more.

Sometimes I’ll go a little deeper into some stats but I don’t have the level of interest people like Salb, Andeux, Devo, PT, DFA and so on do. There’s no requirement that I HAVE to, but nobody on either side should have to feel like they’re not considered enough of a fan or something if they don’t see things the same as someone else. There’s room for everyone.

There are times some of us (and I’m not excluding myself) need to remember that.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 19, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

That's utterly ridiculous
I’ve seen people try to have a basic discussion be interrupted by people who want to tell them why this deeper stat or that one says they’re wrong, and at some point it just becomes less fun to talk baseball when you almost start expecting someone to jump in and basically dismiss you

Please provide evidence to justify this argument. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

[insert emoticon here]

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

by iglew on Sep 19, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

If you want to have a basic discussion and not be interrupted, a blog comments thread is a breathtakingly silly place to have it

As for the rest, well, if you think there isn’t a double standard in the way this site is moderated, I just don’t know what to tell you.

“The power to be lenient is the power to discriminate.” And there is substantially more lenience granted to posters of the Keystone State ilk than to “statheads.” I’m sure the mods see it as creating a “level playing field,” or something, but it sure doesn’t feel level from this end. We don’t need affirmative action for baseball traditionalists.

I’m willing to put up with it (and also to raise the issue and try to convince people to change things) because, on the whole, I rather like this site. But my response is not the only one available— a lot of people just vote (and have voted) with their feet.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 19, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

And as I also said...

“That’s the way it is with any public sports site like this, so at some point people just have to filter out what they don’t like dealing with and talk about what they enjoy more.”

I also haven’t seen any evidence of site moderation preventing people who are deep into stats from talking about them. Perhaps you have some you can show me?

As for Keystone State, I flagged multiple comments of his and others told him to chill out in various ways. Just because you don’t see something by a moderator right away doesn’t mean they aren’t looking into it.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 19, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm actually not referring to KS specifically

I figured that his behavior in recent days was so flagrant that it was unignorable by just about anyone.

I also haven’t seen any evidence of site moderation preventing people who are deep into stats from talking about them. Perhaps you have some you can show me?

I’m not talking about censorship, which I agree is not a significant issue here. The complaint I am alleging is that, in my opinion, violations of the ToS by “statheads” are differentially more likely to be punished than violations by “traditionalists.”

And no, I can’t back that up with data. I have no idea how many flagged posts don’t result in warnings or strikes, no idea how many warnings or strikes are given, and no idea how often posts are flagged to begin with, because that information is not public.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 19, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

Got it

Thanks for the clarification.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 19, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

If there's any disparity

between tolerance of stathead obnoxiousness and non-stathead obnoxiousness, I wonder if that has more to do with the community than the mods. There is a process by which the mods deal with people who get flagged. If group A is busy flagging group B whenever they’re offended, but group B doesn’t flag group A when they’re offended, then group B is going to get more attention from the mods.

Over the past few months I’ve been using the flag feature more often. I never flag someone on a first offense, but if someone has enough history of dickishness that their username sticks in my mind, and then I happen to see a particularly blatant instance of personal attack or relentless negativity, I’ll flag it. I don’t want to get anyone banned, and I’m sure some of my flags just fly through with the mods saying “yeah, whatever” and ignoring it. That’s fine. But if a particular poster is getting multiple flags from many people, they need to understand that the community doesn’t find their behavior acceptable.

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

by iglew on Sep 19, 2009 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

True, though in the past there have been some complaints that...

…the community is more like a few people who flag often whereas others hardly ever flag at all. To that I say “Well, that’s the way it goes.” Everyone has the same choice as anyone else here when it comes to using that feature so if some choose to use it more than others then so be it, whether something gets a CGV or not.

Aside from all that, I think what it really breaks down to is just a difference of opinion between some people with both a firm belief in their side and the stubbornness to keep things going instead of agreeing to disagree.

And, maybe sometimes people can’t satisfactorily prove their position when challenged on it. That doesn’t automatically mean they lose the point or they’re wrong. It’s not a debate class. It’s a fansite where we’re all pulling for the same team to win. We just don’t all agree on the best ways to put a team together, who the best players are, what’s the most important way of evaluating them, etc.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 19, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Plausible

I mean, I basically never flag a comment unless the person involved has been so consistently both hostile and valueless to the site that I would actively want them to get banned from it. So we’re talking about like 2 or 3 people in the 2.5 years I’ve been posting here.

The thing is, I believe rather firmly in free speech. I’m not interested in being the thought police.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 19, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

I used to be like that, but

I changed recently. I too believe in free speech, and i don’t want to see anyone banned either. But I now think flags provide valuable feedback.

When I flag a comment, I’m not saying “I think you should ban the guy who wrote that.” I’m just saying “I feel that comment is inappropriate.” Knowing what the community at large considers inappropriate is valuable data for the mods to process as they choose. The more they have such data, the less they have to rely on their own judgment and observation.

Mind you, I don’t think there’s much value in flags only from Iglew. But I do think there’s value in flags from everyone, or at least a significant sampling of the total AN population. So I do my part and put in my vote.

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

by iglew on Sep 20, 2009 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions  

There's a time and a place
I’ve seen people try to have a basic discussion be interrupted by people who want to tell them why this deeper stat or that one says they’re wrong, and at some point it just becomes less fun to talk baseball when you almost start expecting someone to jump in and basically dismiss you

Conversations like that I usually reserve for when I’m getting drunk with somebody at a tailgate (Nico can confirm this)

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Sep 19, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

Right which is why I don't go over there anymore besides to check to see if someone put some stats up imissed

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, from my few times lurking there

it looks like freekraut is pretty stat-light. But monkeyball never posted lots of detailed statistical analysis (nor did FreeSeatUpgrade or xbhaskarx, as far as I can remember).

I think salb918 is probably spending lots of time being a dad.

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

by Nick on Sep 19, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

Indeed.

If there’s one person to blame for AN’s decline in stat-headedness, surely it’s baby Baxamusa.

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

by iglew on Sep 19, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

This is bull.

There’s plenty of question and ridicule over there. Much more questioning than I see here.

The only thing FK doesn’t have is touchy-feely rules to make sure everybody plays nice.

m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!

by JediLeroy on Sep 19, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh, and 10000 members

..but then, that was never the goal of FK.

m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!

by JediLeroy on Sep 19, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's not just the number of members

it’s the fact that it’s an invitation-only, private club.

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

by Nick on Sep 19, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm pretty sure anybody can register and post.

m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!

by JediLeroy on Sep 19, 2009 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's not invitation only.

But it’s really like AN without any interviews or extended statistical explorations.

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

by jeepers on Sep 20, 2009 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh, okay, I misunderstood

IIRC, they launched it with by emailing people they wanted to join, and then someone mentioned it on AN a while later sort of in passing, and one of the FK folks make a joke about keeping it kinda quiet or something. Then when I went there I thought your registration had to be approved by mods.

Sorry if I got it wrong and left the wrong impression.

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

by Nick on Sep 20, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

It was to be rolled out privately in the short term

so it could mold into form, and was then to go public. It went public earlier than anticipated because the cat got let out of the bag in a flame war thread.

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

by jeepers on Sep 20, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'd argue that it's very possible that that's true

It’s possible that what AN was at the beginning was just so big that even in constant, consistent decline, it’s still not a bad place. Just not as good. Personally, as much I like AN, I’ve seen exactly that. From my perspective when I first started visiting, nearly every post was a great one. Then the number of really great posts was most, but not all. Then, it was half. Now, it feels like it’s once in a blue moon. You can certainly argue causation for this, whether it’s the particular posters, the number of new posters, emphasis on community, or basic life cycle of a blog. Take your pick, but I’d be surprised if I was the only once who’s noticed these changes. But I’ll also grant you that not everyone who has noticed the change is worried or sees it as a detriment to the site. The evolution of the site exists and it’s very much open to the individual when it was at it’s best. You clearly don’t see the changes as a bad thing, and you can certainly “laugh” that at every so often new people thinking what others in the past think. And I’m not sure whether or not you’re trivializing it or not, but you are, you’d be wrong to do so. In some ways it should be at least a warning sign (not necessarily a red flag) that something’s going on that continually detracts from new users the longer they stay.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 18, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't think the community is any more hostile to

stat posters than it was 3 years ago. AN has always been a community where people say what they think. I am no stat head but I love reading the stat posts and I think my attitude towards that is by far the majority opinion. Sometimes a poster crosses the line in the way they talk to other posters and they get called out. The guy who was a jerk to Paul Thomas the other day got a thumbs down for the way he expressed himself. All of you guys working so hard to look up all of the stats analyze the data, and present it to the community for discussion deserve a big thank you. Please don’t be offended when people express alternative views to yours.

by IM4Oakgal on Sep 19, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is the part that I never understand.
Please don’t be offended when people express alternative views to yours.

I write because I want people to disagree with me. But I hear this all the time. Its ridiculous.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

IMO

You seem to get really tense (as opposed to intense) when some people argue with you.

by IM4Oakgal on Sep 19, 2009 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't even know what that means

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Being a dick like this is the kinda shit that pisses me off

and it has little to do with whether we agree on baseball and a lot to do with a lack of respect.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Woah, take it easy. I was making a joke; no need to go nuclear. I’m sorry if that offended you.

by speckops on Sep 19, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

My impression is that you want

people to disagree with you only if they do so in a way that accords with your concept of constructive disagreement, which generally includes justifying their opinion with evidence.

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

by iglew on Sep 20, 2009 2:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

Is that unreasonable?

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 20, 2009 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm pretty sure that's every community ever.

Okay, maybe not every community, almost all. We all have rose-colored visions of the past. Not that it’s a bad thing.

This isn’t an argument for the need of an AN suckitude stat, by the way.

by danmerqury on Sep 18, 2009 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly my point

My point is about human nature, not about AN or about stats.

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 Sep 19, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

I've seen the same phenomenon in

every online community I’ve been part of for more than about three years, as well as postal communities before that. (Yes, kids, we had fan forums in the days before the Internet.)

It’s natural. Communities evolve, and inevitably the people who were around in the earlier years have fonder memories of the days when it was new to them.

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

by iglew on Sep 19, 2009 3:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

Pretty much.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 19, 2009 7:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly.

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 Sep 19, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions  

This is true

I’m thinking of andeux, devo and salb in particular.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 18, 2009 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Like BERRYJO, I'm new enough to AN (or at least not very active in the beginning)

that I missed the majority of andeux, devo, and salb. Those names all ring a bell, and I’m sure I’ve seen them in game threads at some point, but I apparently missed the majority of their posting careers.

by danmerqury on Sep 18, 2009 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Salb was the undisputed champ

Andeux was good and devo could carry the conversation with anyone. There were a few more who obviously spent some time with a math book.

The day of the hardcore stat-head is over on AN. And that is a sad thing.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 18, 2009 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

This.

I lurked for a really long time just reading those discussions, which taught me how to better understand baseball. I rarely learn like I did when those people were around.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 18, 2009 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, my continued efforts feel oh so validated!

News flash DFA… it’s your turn to teach.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 18, 2009 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Obviously, grover I enjoy and learn from your work

With youre job depriving us of your presence at what seems like a more frequent rate than in the past, it has reinforced the perception that stats posters are gone. Most of your posts recently I would put in the minor league scouting category rather than stats, though clearly you have a heavy stats club in your bag when you want to use it.

And yes I get that it is my turn. I have tried to write this year mostly because when a lot of the people left to Free Kraut, they didn’t take the stats content that I enjoyed with them, and there was hardly anyone doing it here. Im just saying that the knowledge that I can give to others is less than those who were here writing stats posts a while back.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 18, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

As a member who arrived at AN during the weekly Staturday posts,

It’s sad to see them go. I can definitely say they were one of the biggest reasons I dove into advanced baseball metrics and the like.

by danmerqury on Sep 18, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

I liked those posts too

I don’t recall who did those but I liked the approach of a new stat to understand on a Sat.

"Baseball is dull only to dull minds." Red Barber

by BERRYJO on Sep 18, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Salb

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 18, 2009 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

And devo

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 19, 2009 7:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

Where is devo?

I always enjoyed him and he’s not posting on that other site either.

by IM4Oakgal on Sep 19, 2009 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Life happens

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 19, 2009 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Indeed.

Not only the best of AN’s front-pagers, but the handsomest, too.

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

by iglew on Sep 20, 2009 2:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think the offseason also lends itself to staty kinds of posts

as they are less prone to get bogged down by the daily grind.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 18, 2009 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm just waiting for someone to step up

and say they want to do a set of Staturday posts this off-season. I’m all for it.

And those posts actually stopped not because the users left AN — while they were still an active part of the community, they informed me they wouldn’t have time to continue those posts. No one has stepped up to take their place but someday I’m sure someone will.

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 Sep 19, 2009 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

I can probably do a few during winter break

Hard to commit to more than that, though.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 19, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

Same as PT

but when you say nobody wants to do it, look at who you have chosen to join the front page writers reecently.

Its not stat people.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

Front page writers don't have to be stat people and vice versa

Stat posts can be written by anyone and they shouldn’t need to feel like they have to do one once a week or something like that. Those posts can also be elevated to the front page at any time.

I don’t consider myself a front page writer as much as I’m a game thread person once a week. I often don’t have anything specific to post, so I don’t.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 19, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

Do you honestly believe that what front page writers put up has no bearing on the tenor of the site?

I would start off by saying that like much of what is on the front page, especially the history of 67Marquez which is a personal favorite, and I enjoy Emporer Nobody’s sense of humor much more than others who make similar attempts.

The fact that the comedy/community/traditionalist content is put on the front page every day when stats based stuff is almost never featured on the front page (and minor league scouting reports aren’t stats content btw) has an effect on who hangs out here and molds the community. Look at Lookout Landing there are currently 4 stats based stories on the front page in addition to the game threads. Is it any wonder that Lookout Landing attracts stats based commentators and has a thriving stats based community, some like me who don’t even like the Mariners?

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Of course I think what's on the front page has an effect on the direction some things go

But I don’t think I was arguing for or against that point. I don’t think it has anything to do with people taking it upon themselves to post more about stats if they want to.

Nico’s ASKING people to come to him with an interest in doing it more regularly if they want, but I guess it’s more interesting to talk about how AN is anti-stats or something.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 19, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Or he could seek out people to write on the front page or promote analysis from the fanposts

PT and I have both said that we are willing to do Saturday Posts.

But everytime that someone remarks that there has been a decline in the stats community here which pretty much everybody except for you an Nico agrees with then the two of you come in and trivialize what we are saying rather than A leaving it alone of B doing something to fix it. Especially since both of you were large players in perpetuating a very anti stats attitude earlier in the year (though this has improved greatly recently), you are going to generate this kind of attitude.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

But look at the facts, DFA:

1. One of your fanposts was recently promoted to the front page.

2. You offered to do a stat/metric additions to the ANcillary terms but haven’t.

3. When PT offered to write a series this off-season I just said, “Great, you’re on.”

Them’s the facts.

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 Sep 19, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

From what I can gather it seems like Nico is trying...

…to work with you and PT about doing some stats posts.

So what’s the problem now?

I don’t think I’ve trivialized things the way you’re saying but so be it.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 19, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

And not to turn this around but...

…for as much as you say that Nico and I are the only ones essentially pushing a non-stathead agenda here, you’re one of the few vocal ones who seems to think that’s the case.

I don’t know how many times I have to say I’m not anti-stats before it’s accepted just because I’ve scoffed prematurely at a few in the past or disputed the validity of how some of them were used. That doesn’t make me anti-stats. It just means I don’t agree with everything someone else says.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 19, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

To add on to that,

I make light of “non stats” or “old school” thinking all the time, saying things like “But he’s so gritty!” or “his hustle makes up for his hitting .112.”

The difference between that and when I correspondingly make light of “stats-speak”? No one seems to take great umbrage, whereas if I ever make light of “stats-speak” all WAR-VORP-heck seems to break loose.

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 Sep 19, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

I also roll my eyes at some of the non-stats stuff

It’s safe to say I fall pretty much in the middle of combining stats with observation and I think you do as well.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 19, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

I try to offend and upset everyone equally.

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 Sep 19, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ever heard the phrase "Only Im allowed to hit my brother?"

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, from my older brother

That bastard.

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 Sep 19, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

DFA, perhaps a good question for me to ask you is,

“Who are these stats-based writers we keep passing up?” salb918 and devo, who said over a year ago that they were really sorry but they weren’t going to have time to continue being front-page writers?

Is there someone whose tenure, writing ability, and personality seem perfect for the job, who has time to write regularly for the site, and who likes to write stat-based analysis, that I’ve overlooked?

I mean it sincerely — who are we overlooking?

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 Sep 19, 2009 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

And there's a difference between not having the time and...

…the claims that AN is so anti-stats that it’s basically being stamped out.

From what I can see, right now the ball is in DFA & PT’s court when it comes to them posting more stat stuff.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 19, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not to speak for him

but my take on the front-page situation is basically the following:

1. For reasons largely unrelated to the “agenda” of the front page, a number of stats posters’ participation has seriously dropped off.
2. Replacing that content has, for whatever reason (and I’m not saying the reason isn’t valid), been less of a priority than other aspects of front-page writing.
3. As a consequence, the site has “drifted” significantly in a non-stats direction, probably without anyone actually intending for it to do so.

The reason why I’m raising this issue is not to complain about it, it’s just to raise consciousness of the issue. I think that it would be nice if #2, in particular, changed somewhat.

That being said, I understand that you’re limited by the pool of actual posters. I’m not your man for a regular job for a variety of reasons, including “because I’m generally either busy or sleepy all of the time”, and “because I get writer’s block a lot.”

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 19, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

well put.

thats pretty much exactly what I mean.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

To add to that a bit

because i’ve also read partial explanations and I’m sure you ofall people are more than aware of it, but stat posts and things like DFA & you write these days take a LOT of time and effort. It’s not something that you can do easily without a lot of dedication and a lot of self-sacrifice. Some of that can easily get lost by non-stat people who read them (not all, but some) so in order for something like that to be more regular, you really need quite a lot of “statheads” willing to give that time. It’s a lot easier to build or riff on an interesting, free-form thought experiment or a history lesson (though they can take time too) than it is to put in the hours and some times days worth of research and analysis that goes into a stat post.

and they really need to fix this thing where it doesn’t show the end of the line when it gets this far out because it’s a real pita to type, proof read & edit.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 19, 2009 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Right

My Holliday Trade Analysis which I think of as my best work took 17 days to write working on it pretty consistently

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Considering the quality of your posts

I don’t doubt that for a minute. It’s incredible work.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 19, 2009 11:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Theyre like a college paper in terms of workload

but much more fun.

Thank you for the kind words.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 20, 2009 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

One doesn't need to be a game thread writer

in order to do a Staturday type feature. grover (who apparently thinks he isn’t “good,” as he’s part of the current AN front page) does a weekly-or-so minor league feature.

If someone wants to do an off-season stats series, I’m all over it. The only reason we don’t have this is that not one person (prior to now) has said “I’ll do it.”

If PT wants to commit to a series of 3 or 4 or 5 or whatever, that’s great and I’ll gladly reserve the space. It just hasn’t actually happened, with any user, just as adding stat/metric explanations to the ANcillary terms hasn’t happened but can anytime.

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 Sep 19, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

The stats metric explanation is a very long process, and i am working on it.

you cant just throw it up in a jiff.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't blame or begrudge

I’m just pointing out that the only reason it hasn’t happened has nothing to do with AN’s admin, whose only attitude has been “Yes, please.”

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 Sep 19, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

I isn't good, I is evil!

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 19, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Medical call ruined the joke...

You gotta plan ahead for these things…

Good would be smarter if it was into stats.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Sep 19, 2009 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

I basically have parts of 2 articles around

and an idea for a third which has been in pre-draft form for about two years now.

Let’s everyone cross our fingers that I have a summer job offer by winter break, so that I can spend it working on articles!

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 19, 2009 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well now you have two good volunteers.

Paul and dfa. I rec that you jump on the opportunity to have writers of their quality do the staturday posts.

by IM4Oakgal on Sep 19, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'd do them

but I’m an idiot.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Sep 20, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

TWSS

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 20, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

Same here

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 18, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

As one who often plays the "anti-stathead" role,

I must say I completely agree with this.

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

by iglew on Sep 19, 2009 3:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

Honestly I kind of consider you a stathead

not because you agree with the stats but because you question their validity in an insightful and productive way which is rarely seen from nonstats posters in the stats vs whatever you want to call nonstats that doesn’t sound pajorative.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

My charting

get f- up after 3 coors lights

by Future Ed on Sep 16, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

...and/or miss the obvious.

Sometimes it is more complex than what you see in front of you, but sometimes it’s really not. We sometimes have a penchant for making things more complex than they really need to be.

There are times that I want to ask people, “Do you actually watch the games?”. Those who get offended by the question, I think, are placing a too simplistic and face-value connotation on it. Of course they watch the games, but when they do are they being objective enough to actually discern the difference between the obvious and not-so-obvious? Or, are they simply too stuck in their chosen mindset… whichever ‘side’ it may be… to see anything else?

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 18, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

Ah,

so, when you ask me whether I watch the games, I shouldn’t get offended, because you’re merely insinuating that I’m so blinded by ideology that I can’t realize the obvious.

Well, that clears that up. After all, my friends call me a dogmatic imbecile every day, so why should I be bothered by it here? Thanks!

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 18, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

For somebody who claims to not be thin-skinned...

…you’ve sure got me fooled.

FTR: There are several that fit… again, on both ‘sides’… not just you. And it was not a shot at PT directly or specifically, regardless what you may feel.

However, having said that, some would take your response as a subconscious admission of confirmation of the point. A little “hitting too close to home for comfort”, so to speak.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 18, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

However, having said that, some would take your response as a subconscious admission of confirmation of the point. A little "hitting too close to home for comfort", so to speak.

Not to speak for the other guy but I don’t think he was subconsciously admitting anything. More like, “your assertion was so ridiculous that it warrants nothing but belittlement and sarcasm”. Also, I find the “Aha! You’re actually agreeing with me” debate tactic one of the most tiresome and annoying (and decidedly false) tactics one can use in arguments.

by Tripp on Sep 18, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

How is self-righteous indignation constructive?

Or even necessarily correct?

In response to your point generically speaking, not in this specific instance.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 18, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

"Aha, you're actually agreeing with me"

is often the first step toward realizing that two parties in a debate don’t actually disagree at all but are just squabbling over semantics and personalities. You are opposed to such reconciliation perhaps?

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

by iglew on Sep 18, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not in this instance.

Would you characterize something as snide as:

However, having said that, some would take your response as a subconscious admission of confirmation of the point. A little "hitting too close to home for comfort", so to speak.

as "reconciliation’?

by Tripp on Sep 18, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

No.

But I don’t see that as “you’re agreeing with me” either.

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

by iglew on Sep 18, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

I know it wasn't specifically directed at me

I also know that “do you even watch the games?”:

1. has been, falsely, directed at me in the past,
2. is the equivalent of accusing the other person of arguing in bad faith,
3. is more often than not a falsehood, and
4. even if it isn’t, the person asserting it almost never has any factual basis for asserting it.

So, basically, it has no place in any legitimate discussion.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 18, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

I tend to think of it more as saying...

…a person isn’t necessarily self-aware as much as they should be, and not a definitive blanket statement, but I can understand how it would be taken otherwise. Hence, I agree that it is best avoided as it does not really add anything constructive.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 18, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Forgive me the jaunt into epistemology, but

how is it logically possible for anyone to know how “self-aware” someone else is?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 18, 2009 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Your inclusion of the word "logically" renders the question unanswerable...

…as you would most likely never accept any answer as legitimate unless it happened to match your already-established conclusions.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 18, 2009 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Some would take your response as a subconscious admission of confirmation of the point. A little “hitting too close to home for comfort”, so to speak.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 18, 2009 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ummm, yeah. Ok.

Your response, while my words, doesn’t make sense to me in this context, but that’s ok. It is two hours later here in the midwest and I’m tired, so I’m going to bed.

Have a nice night.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 18, 2009 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

You are mistaken. His response was actually very salient and funny.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 18, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Forgive me the jaunt into epistemology, but...

…how is it logically possible for anyone to know what makes sense to someone else, and hence label that as them being “mistaken”?

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 19, 2009 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

Awesome.

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

by iglew on Sep 19, 2009 3:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

Forgive it? To the contrary,

a comment like this is what I most love about you. (So many levels, too.)

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

by iglew on Sep 19, 2009 3:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

No.

The whole point of sabermetrics – or rather, the whole reason the field was created – was because smart people realized that many things in baseball were not obvious. A human being’s ability to instinctively discern what is “obvious” and what is not “obvious” is flawed to such a degree that we have long ago decided to use a system in which the assertion and the proof (in baseball’s case, in the form of numbers) always have to present simultaneously. And I’m not just talking about baseball now. This is a system, as you should be well aware of, that is present in everything from mathematics to scientific studies to the justice system.

Premise + Data -—> Conclusion. As you can see, this isn’t dogma, this is a system commonly known as logic.

by Tripp on Sep 18, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

No offense, but the whole "smart people" comment smacks of dogma.

Man is always flawed. Only numbers can be trusted. Do not dispute this, as it cannot be disputed.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 18, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

I find that statement to be mostly true

With the ironic twist that the analysis of the numbers, the entry of the numbers, etc. is done by man, who is flawed.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 18, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Of course.

The point isn’t that “Premise + Data -—> Conclusion” is perfect.

The point is that it’s more “perfect” than “Man sees something -—→ Determines it to be obvious”.

by Tripp on Sep 18, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Definitely

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 18, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm too new to baseball fandom...

… (or perhaps that should be re-new, since I was a fan as a kid, before all the sabermetrics had evolved, or at least I think it was before) to have a strong grip on the stats-side of things. So, you’ll notice my occasional posts are usually just based on old-style fundamentals: good defense to back up pitchers throwing strikes; let guys who are streaking have as much room to play as they can take; don’t play guys who can’t run unless they can catch at 1B and/or hit the ball out of the park; don’t take out a winning pitcher at 100 pitches unless his stuff is going. Slide like you mean it. Make sure the manager gets tossed when the calls are going bad against you.

However, I have learned SO MUCH from all of the stat-heads, and I can see that in the long run their predictions will be a heckuva lot more accurate than mine. Keep it up, and I’ll try to catch up. Just give me some time, and try not to be too hard on me if I toss out some intuition now and again.

by paris7 on Sep 19, 2009 1:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

I actually have a draft diary called "How Not To Deal With a Stathead"

and make the same remarks in it.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

If I can offer a somewhat outside perspective,

I’d say the “issues” more often occur in regards to non-stats that can’t be scientifically proven, rather than in regards to stats that can. Just my observation.

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 Sep 19, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

That makes no sense Nico

The stats that can “scientifically” be proven such as batting average have huge amounts of error because of the “buckets” for measurement that they use. Read MGL talk about how UZR while subjective might be a better judge of true fielding talent than wOBA is of hitting talent.

Basically being a traditionalist with regard to statistical data in baseball is like being a political conservative. Things change (wins are no longer the measure of performance, ERA is; BA is no longer the measure of offensive production, OPS is) and all that happens is traditionalists re-entrench around the stat that is was once progressive and now is outdated. There are statistical arguments that traditionalists accept, they are just dated.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed

Not being a big “stat” guy myself, I don’t generally care about the stats in the broader sense, but I do appreciate the ability to use them to make better player/team evaluations than from older/uglier metrics and/or casual observation. And from my experience, any time someone has simply asked a question or simply showed curiousity how they worked/fit in with x or y, the response has always been polite and informative. The “stathead” population, being as small as it is, wants to encourage people towards better understanding the game, not discourage it.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 19, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is excellent advice.

I would add that it applies pretty well to a lot of non-stathead arguments, too.

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

by iglew on Sep 19, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Those posts are at least borderline flaggable

Nice combination of “asinine” and “totally worthless to the discussion.”

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

At least he made some points after it

I’ll take that over people who completely blow things off with a sarcastic comment and ignore the rest to pick out one thing. Neither way really promotes an exchange, though.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Sep 16, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

Why should tripp respond?

The other guy has clearly indicated that he’s not interested in having a respectful discussion.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

I would've responded, if his points had any, um, substance to them.

Unfortunately, a post with a ridiculous premise (“You need to watch more baseball!”) followed by ridiculous claims would only invite, well, more ridicule from me.

by Tripp on Sep 17, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'll be honest, I've never fully understood why people at each other while talking about baseball.

Much less make substanceless attacks at each other. This happens every single time the stats vs. nonstats debate takes place. I don’t get it. It’s baseball.

Anyways, onto something worth reading/with some substance. According to Fangraphs, the number of fastballs the A’s are seeing has not decreased since their newfound speed has arrived. Going month by month the percentage of fastballs the A’s saw were: March/April 59%, May 64%, June 63%, July 60.5%, August 60.4%, September 58.6%.

Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.

by travdog6 on Sep 17, 2009 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

Obviously, I meant they're not seeing more offspeed.

The OP suggested that the A’s are seeing more fastballs since they are running more.

Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.

by travdog6 on Sep 17, 2009 2:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

Personal attacks aside

1. Stealing and basrunning makes the team on defense more likely to make errors or not concentrate on the batter.

Prove it! You’re making assertions and I don’t see how they’re justified. I could argue that having a power hitterat the plate distracts people from the batter because they’re expecting a home run. I could argue that a funny looking coach distracts fielders. I could argue that having obnoxious fans help distract the defending team because fielder don’t want to be beaned with a water bottle. Actually, that last one may have merit. The Red Sox have been quite successful over the past couple of years.

2. When a runner is being held a pitcher is less likely to throw hard breaking balls in the dirt and will throw more fast balls in case of a runner taking off. This is BASIC knowledge. Reason when the A’s were not running they saw more breaking pitches.

This is patently untrue. Hat tip to travdog for the proof. This is one of those times where “basic knowledge” is false.

3. Sorry but Cust did not hit lefties good in 2008 other than OBA with no power. If we go back to 2007 Travis Buck had a better OPS than Cust against lefties that year.

I don’t believe I argued that at all. I freely acknowlegde that Cust isn’t as good against lefties. I just don’t believe that you’re justified in calling him crap based on a platoon split. Let’s not forget Cust is still a monster agains right handed pitching, which, last I check, made up the vast majority of the MLB pitching population. Getting rid of Cust based on the right-hand/left-hand split is like disregarding his performance based on 75% of his overall performance.

4. The first half the A’s didn’t steal but the second half they have stolen bases this is why the better record. The hitters are seeing better pitches when a basethreat is on base. As for Figgins he can do so many things is why he is so valuable and speeds adds to his sucess.

I think you’re missing my point. Steals are not the fount from which all good offensive actions stem. As a proof, let’s look at other teams in the MLB. The Tigers are last in their division in steals (70). Above them are the Royals at 71 and the Twins at 72. The Tigers lead their division with the Twins in 2nd. The KC Royals, of course, are last.

Another example, the AL East has the Yanks in a solid third for steals but are running away with the division.

In the NL East, the MEts are first in steals but 4th in the rankings. The Phillies are 2nd in steals but lead the mets by 22 games.

This data would suggest to me that steals are largely uncorrelated to divisional success.

The reason why the A’s are better in the second half is because of drastic improvements in their on base and slugging. I don’t believe the increase in steals has actually impacted that (given the substantial improvement in on base which would seem to imply better plate discipline)

As for Figgins, I would argue that his plate discpline and defensive ability have little to do with his speed. If they were truly that highly correlated, you could put together a team of track stars and turn them into all-stars. The fact that such a thing hasn’t happened would imply that there is something a bit more complex going on than just speed. Figgins’s speed is merely incidental to his success as a ball player though perhaps not his reputation as one.

5. We need to give Davis a chance to prove he is a full time player and trading him at the end of the season is stupid. Especialy since his trade value will not be high at all. Even Cust would have more trade value than Davis.

A fair point. There is a surplus of CFs out there which would impact trade value. That being said, if we were able to swing a B+/B type prospect for him, I would trade him in an instant. Regardless of his value on the trade market, I don’t believe we ought to disregard a substantial portion of his career in making a decision to play him every day.

Factor in the A’s have no real power threat in the majors since nobody will hit over 30 homers. Speed is the easy answer to no power.

No. Speed is not the answer to no power. More power is the answer to no power. But ultimately power isn’t the most important thing. Getting on-base is. And that’s where I’d rather spend our limited dollars.

As for my baseball watching patterns, I don’t get out much. Mother’s basement is so dark and dank and the light burns my skin.

I’ve actually lived in DC for the past couple of years and have Nationals season tickets (don’t judge me…I like Adam Dunn). I’ve seen a whole lot of really bad baseball. I would prefer that a team that I love not repeat the same stupid mistakes I see on a regular basis.

by eastbayexpat on Sep 17, 2009 6:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

This makes a lot of sense.....

but I’m still left wondering why the Angels are “over achieving” for the third consecutive season. Their long term strategy seems counter to every point you laid out, yet it seems to consistently produce results. Why?

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Sep 17, 2009 6:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

That I can't answer but several thoughts.

Here’s the thing. From a pure performance perspective, the Angels are a rather good team this year. Their team OPS is 0.794, which is tremendous.

But more generally, there are always going to be exceptions to the rule. You will have teams that substantially over perform and under perform their expectations.

I think my caution note would be to not expect yourself to be the exception!

by eastbayexpat on Sep 17, 2009 6:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

I can understand that there will be flukes

in any statistical methodology. But the Angels appear to have moved past the point where their annual performance can be rationally attributed to random variance.

A .794 OPS would seem to be a solid starting point for explaining their success would it not? I am by no means a proficient statistician, even at the amateur level. Even so, I love the stat discussions because they seem to explain variance that can’t be accounted for in casual observation. On the other hand, in order to be sold on any analytical method, it seems reasonable to expect that the data readily translates to reality. The Angels seem to defy our AN ways, and I would very much like to know why.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Sep 17, 2009 6:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don't have an answer either

but I think the search for an answer should start with a detailed, statistical examination of the Angels hitting over the last few years, looking for ways in which they differ from the rest of the league or deviate from their standard performance projections. Once you find the anomalies, if any, you can come up with a hypothesis to explain it, then look for other teams throughout baseball history with similar anomalies and find out if they over-performed the way the Angels have.

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

by Nick on Sep 17, 2009 6:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

One of the most unstable of all stats is BA

and the Angels have, individually and collectively, produced unexpectedly high BAs up and down the lineup.

My hope is that just as unexpectedly as guys like Aybar find themselves hitting over .300, perhaps next year they will just as “unexpectedly” have “surprisingly” low BAs.

Please?

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 Sep 17, 2009 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

There have been several discussions of this recently

on some of the more stats-oriented forums, like Beyond the Boxscore. Opinions are mixed, but a lot of good thoughts have been exchanged. Do a Google for “Angels” + “pythagorean” and it ought to turn up. Or if not, I linked some from a discussion here on AN about a week ago, so maybe you could search that.

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

by iglew on Sep 17, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'll check it out!

And thanks!

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Sep 17, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

I followed iglew's advice

and here are a couple of links (both from Beyond the Box Score):

The Angels and Pythag

The Success of the Angels: Luck or Skill? (from 2008)

lots more comments/discussion in the first one

by colin on Sep 17, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

The second link details their

08 season. The author seems to believe that the law of averages will catch up with the Angels in 09. I think we know how that assumption turned out.

Good info, and thanks for the links. As far as I can tell, a lot of smart people are scratching their heads over the Angels performance as of late. It may very well be time for some smart folks to start thinking outside the traditional stat boxes for a reasonable explanation.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Sep 17, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

In the case of 2009,

when people say the Angels are overachieving, they are for the most part not talking about luck in the Pythag sense, but rather about a lot of players making dramatic improvements in their apparent skill level over the course of one season. Almost everyone in their starting lineup, exception being Vlad, is beating their preseason hitting projections (in the controllable stats that saber people know and love— OBP and SLG). And that is NOT something that they have routinely done in the past.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

Theyre doing with hitters what the 2005 White Soxs did with pitchers.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 17, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

I sure hope so

because if so, the division is actually winnable in the near future.

If not, um, when’s hockey season start?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

I mean do you really think Aybar, Hunter, Morales and Iztrius are this good?

And we know that they cant afford Figgins and Lackey this offseason. Which is about 10 WAR right there.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 17, 2009 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Why can't they afford Figgins and Lackey?

They have like $30M coming off their payroll.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'd like to see how often

Teams re-sign players after their contract expires. Seems to me that teams never really do, but I could be wrong. They sign players to contract extensions or offer new contracts before their walk year begins.

by GusanoQuemador on Sep 18, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, we could start with the best free agent contract in recent memory, Bonds 2002-2006

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 18, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

Manny. Last year.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Sep 18, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

The best free agent contract in recent memory was A-Rod's in 2007

I know it resulted in an opt-out, but it effectively made him a free agent.

I aksed how often it happens, not whether it has ever happened. My feeling is that because it doesn’t happen often, it’s not out of this world to predict that it won’t happen

by GusanoQuemador on Sep 18, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

Look at the Kazmir Trade piece I did
Considering the dismal state of the economy, it is likely that the Angels payroll will be down to $110m next year. That would provide just slightly less than $30m before the Kazmir acquisition. The Angles would be lacking two starting pitchers, a starting right fielder, a starting designated hitter, back up first and third baseman, a starting third baseman, a left handed reliever, and a setup man. Kazmir’s $8m represents a little more than a fourth of that sum, leaving only about $22m remaining to fill all of those positions. That makes it nearly impossible to see a return for Chone Figgins, who will likely command $7.5-$10m a season for at least three years, when Brandon Wood is a viable replacement at the hot corner. Similarly John Lackey will receive around $15-17m a year for at least 4 years and likely more, which makes his return unlikely as well since the rest of those needs would have to be filled at $5m-$7m total. There are also back of the rotation candidates within the system, Dustin Mosely, Shane Loux, and others, who despite not being very good are cheap replacements, though the Angels are clearly lacking depth.

Right field and DH do not have suitable internal replacement. Gary Mathews Jr is a below replacement rate player and Reggie Wiltis is not a major league starter. While there a plenty of DH bats available, which should depress their prices. Further, Juan Rivera has had plenty of experience in RF, which puts left fielders in play as free agents.

This suggests that getting one big bat for the outfield and letting DH be a position that players rotate through to provide rest and better catcher defense with Napoli getting lots of DH at bats with Mathis behind the plate. If the Angles sign a bat for $16m+ plus they can probably only afford at most a good bullpen arm (such as resigning Darren Oliver) and a back up 1b/3b veteran.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 18, 2009 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Fuentes is left-handed; I don't see them having any real need for bullpen pitchers

The rotation, assuming they sign Lackey, is Lackey/Weaver/Santana/Saunders/Kazmir, which is fine.

At that point all they need is a right fielder, a DH and a couple of backups. I could see them giving the RF job to whoever of Chris Pettit, Matthews and Terry Evans does the best out of spring. DHs are not that hard to find, or they could use a rotational system as you said.

I’m not seeing the problem here. Maybe they sign a RF instead of Figgins, but Lackey seems like a guy they would very much desire to keep around.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 18, 2009 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Lackey wants $90m

I cant see how they can afford that. Fuentes is about to be demoted and their bullpen has been a disaster this year.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 18, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, and I want a lifetime supply of Yo's sushi and a public interest law job that pays $250K a year...

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 18, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

You don't think he can get AJ Burnett Money?

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 18, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Okay, I can go with that

on the surface. But to coin and old phrase, the third time is the charm. These guys are beating their pythag record consistently.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Sep 17, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

but on top of that

they are beating their Pythagorean record by 4 games. That’s really only 1 standard deviation or so, but it fits in with the pattern of the Angels consistently beating pythag.

by colin on Sep 17, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

It seems like they have a tendency to get blown out big a couple of times a year

and not really equally blow anyone out which skews their pythag

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 17, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

yeah

someone made that point in the BtBS post that I linked above (Angels and Pythag).

This year, their top 10 runs scored are: 17, 14, 13, 12, 12, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11 (plus 3 more 11s after that)

10 runs against: 17, 16, 13, 12, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11 (and the next worst game has 10 runs against)

Those two lists don’t look too different from each other.

by colin on Sep 17, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Right but this year they aren't outperforming their pythag by very much.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 17, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Also, I think teams with good records generally outperform pythag.

Whereas teams with bad records generally underperform their pythag. Don’t quote me on this, but it seems logical enough. And the Angels have had pretty good records the last several years.

by Tripp on Sep 17, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think you have the causality backwards

If you look at teams with good win/loss records (real wins and losses, not pythag), then you are selecting a biased sample. These teams are more likely to have outperformed pythag because outperforming pythag involves winning games and you have selected teams that win games.

Of course there can always be those teams whose run differentials suggest that they should win 100 games but then they get unlucky and only win 95. But on the whole, selecting the top teams will preferentially pick the ones who are beating their pythagorean record.

by colin on Sep 17, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

Good explanation, eastbayexpat

On a related note: has anyone seen any analysis of BABIP among LH hitters with a runner on 1st? The conventional wisdom, of course, is that the hole on the right side of the infield caused by the 1B holding the runner gives the hitter an advantage, turning what would be a 3-1 or 3 unassisted into a single. If that’s true, it should show up in BABIP numbers, if the SS is large enough (which, I imagine, it would be if you look league-wide).

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

by Nick on Sep 17, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

You're underselling your points.

Sheehan wrote an article a while back that suggests that base stealing threats don’t really disrupt defenses, pitchers, etc as Arcman claims and also that they might actually be detrimental to the batter. Some parts of that article are dated but this point still stands:

The vaunted secondary effects of stealing bases—distracting the pitcher, putting pressure on the defense—do not appear to exist. In fact, most secondary effects argue in favor of keeping the runner of first base. A runner on first is more disruptive to a defense, with the first baseman holding and the second baseman cheating towards second for a double play, than a runner on second. Additionally, studies show that stolen-base attempts negatively impact the performance of the batter at the plate, presumably due to hitters getting themselves into negative counts by taking pitches or swinging at bad balls to protect the runner.

You’re also right that saying speed can “replace” power is laughably wrong. You don’t try to replace power with speed. You try to replace shortage of power by, well, getting more power. From the same Sheehan article:

While you can use stealing bases to assist in run scoring, you can’t run your way into a good offense. The core elements of offense are getting on base and advancing runners on hits. Teams—more often managers—that announce plans to create more runs by stealing bases are usually saying, “we can’t hit, and we hope that if we move around a lot, no one will notice.” It won’t work. Here are the top basestealing teams since the 1993 expansion:

Also, John Dewan found that batters don’t really see that many more fastballs with a base stealing threat on first.

With a stolen base threat on first base (10 or more steals in 2006), the fastball percentage goes up marginally from 61.0% to 62.8%. With a major threat (30 or more steals), the percentage goes up a bit more to 63.2. It’s a clear-cut trend, but not a very big one, or at least not as big as I thought it would be.

A lot of what Arcman states is what’s commonly known as “conventional wisdom” (or as he puts it, “BASIC knowledge”). I think most of us know that 90% of conventional “wisdom” in baseball is pretty much false.

by Tripp on Sep 17, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

I had an inkling...

I just try not to oversell when I don’t have conclusive evidence right in front of me :)

Sheehan’s argument is sound and dovetails with my position that with a good base stealing team (like the A’s are today), stolen bases are a marginal positive. However, that’s it…a marginal positive that’s dwarfed by possible improvements in OPS, pitching, or defensive ability. Given limited resources, you have to invest in those first.

by eastbayexpat on Sep 17, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'd argue that the "threat" to steal is more important

and better for the offense than the actual steal and/or “just” keeping the runner on first. (I can’t really prove it because, well I’m lazy and can’t be bothered), but it seems having those guys constantly “cheating” while keeping part of their focus on the runner can increase the odds of holes being opened, just as long as the “threat” doesn’t cause a distraction for the hitter. But in order to have that threat, you need to occasionally steal the base often enough for the defense to pay attention.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 17, 2009 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

This ^

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 18, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

threat is relative

if a team plays behind Cust when after a leadoff walk. He will steal second. You don’t need usain bolt to force a team into altering their defense by having the firstbase person hold the runner.

AS far as the fastballs go, we are talking about 1 more every 10 at bats or so. So the difference is negligable.

I can’t say anything about Focus, but one would presume a MLB player should be able to compartmentalize

by Future Ed on Sep 18, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

If 90% of "conventional wisdom" is false...

…then how did teams know how to build great teams before all these new stats came into being? Did they just get lucky?

If we went way back to the 20s, 30s, 40s, etc., when teams like the Phillies and Braves usually sucked year in and year out, would they have been able to correct that on the cheap if they had exclusive access to today’s type of information? Theoretically, at least, one could presume that they could have identified players under the radar and built good teams, and kept good teams with the reserve system.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 18, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

Or from reading F.C. Lane

It’s not widely known, but a system which is only incrementally different from what we now know as wOBA and EqA was invented (and published) by Lane in, get this, the 1910s.

Without calculators.

Can you imagine how dedicated/obsessed that guy was?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 18, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

He didn't have the internet to distract him.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 18, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

And everyone back then knew how to use slide-rules

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

by Nick on Sep 18, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

I would think the bigger difference between then and now

is not better formulas, but better data.

No matter how wise you may be about what skills to measure, if you’re living in 1930 you just don’t have the gigantic supply of observed data readily available to be number-crunched.

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

by iglew on Sep 18, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

If system wide knowledge is lacked, lacking that knowledge advantages and hurts no one.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 18, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

In reality, yes, but...

…it’s kind of a “what if” hypothetical question. For example, if a team like the 1930s Phillies started paying attention to things that other teams ignored because it wasn’t present-day “conventional wisdom”, and started scouting and keeping their own stats accordingly, could they have possibly established themselves as a better team?

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Sep 18, 2009 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 18, 2009 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

No.

Because they wouldn’t have the resources to “keep their own stats accordingly”. You are grossly underestimating the extent to which developing sabermetric knowledge relied on the availability of data that was not collected in those days.

Bill James did not dream up his Pythagorean formula out of pure inspiration. He found it in the W-L and RS-RA numbers that were available for him to analyze. And likewise for every other sabermetric discovery. Even in the 1970s, when computers were large, expensive and rare, and your average sabermetrician had to crunch numbers with paper and pencil, the data available was still several orders of magnitude greater than it was in the 1930s.

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

by iglew on Sep 19, 2009 3:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

Anybody else just

thosands of sweaty men in a low rise building in downtown Philidelphiawith green visors. hurridly adding subtracting and dividing?

by Future Ed on Sep 19, 2009 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

Back in those days, if you said "the computer room,"

that’s exactly what you meant…

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 19, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

That joke has particular resonance with anyone who's read Cryptonomicon

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 19, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

Or with anybody familiar with the numerical calculation section during the Manhattan Project

"If Vin Mazzaro comes anywhere near me with shaving cream he’s gonna be coming away with a bloody stump" – Dallas Braden

by doctorK on Sep 19, 2009 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

I was mostly reponding to systematic scouting

Branch Rickey developed a lot of stats without the aid of computers or a lot of data.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

Branch Rickey was brilliant.

I was about to say he isn’t an example of what we’re talking about, but then I looked back at the post that prompted this and I see that it refers not to sabermetrics specifically but rather

paying attention to things that other teams ignored because it wasn’t present-day "conventional wisdom".
That is in fact exactly what Rickey did, in so many ways, so I stand corrected.

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

by iglew on Sep 19, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

Wouldn't be surprised

if the sabermetric movement had come around during his time, that Branch Rickey would have been one of the first to utilize it. He seemed to be the type to look for any and all competitive edges he could find.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 19, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

Here is a great stat article written in Life by Branch Rickey if your are interested.

Here

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 19, 2009 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

As long as Jack Cust isn't in the outfield.

Play whomever you want. Casey Chavez would be acceptable.

I don’t know what the A’s should do with this outfield. There’s so much mediocre in it and so little good. Cunningham should certainly get an extended look, because he’s the only one that’s done anything better than mediocre recently. Right now, I guess it’s Hairston/Davis/Cunningham, but the A’s are never going to be any good until their outfield includes one or less of them.

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

by jeepers on Sep 16, 2009 10:20 AM PDT reply actions  

I think I disagree with everything Gunn wrote

not that it wasn’t well written I just don’t like the moves you propose.

I do want to say something about platoons. There is a reason hardly any teams use them besides using two roster spots. Most players have to get into a rythm to be effective and that’s hard to do if you aren’t playing at least 5 days a week.

What may make sense on paper or with stats might not work when you’re talking about actual human beings.

by sirbed on Sep 16, 2009 2:22 PM PDT reply actions  

Youre wrong about platoons

teams platoon. They just choose to do so with their bullpen rather then their bench spots.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Huh DFA?

Pitchers are totally different than players in the field. To me a platoon is using more than one player at a position because of how they hit RHP/LHP.

How pitchers are used in the bullpen is not what a platoon situation means to me. Now as far as me being wrong that’s often the case but we can’t all be “The Stats Killer” like you.

by sirbed on Sep 16, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's exactly the same thing

Back when starters threw 7 or more innings every game, and teams carried 4 guys in the bullpen, you could gain the platoon advantage by starting RH hitters against LH pitchers and LH against RH.

Nowadays, starters often go 5 or 6 innings, and every team carries 6 relievers — if you start LH hitter against a RH pitcher, there’s a good chance that the opposing manager will gain a platoon advantage by bringing in a LOOGY in the 6th if he needs to.

Both approaches are designed to get your team the platoon advantage. And because of roster limitations, teams have to choose which one to pursue. Until someone goes with a 4-man rotation with lots of CGs again, they’ll have to carry too many pitchers to make platooning hitters a realistic approach.

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

by Nick on Sep 16, 2009 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's not *exactly* the same thing,

and one way in which it is different is precisely the point Sirbed was making when this little tangent began. He said,

Most players have to get into a rythm to be effective and that’s hard to do if you aren’t playing at least 5 days a week.

Is it not obvious that this affects hitters and pitchers differently?

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't really want to quibble about this

I mean, if you just offer this as a definition:

To me a platoon is using more than one player at a position because of how they hit RHP/LHP. How pitchers are used in the bullpen is not what a platoon situation means to me.

then yeah, they’re different. My point is that both are methods of setting up advantageous platoon situations. They’re different methods of achieving the same thing.

I’ll stipulate that pitchers are not identical to hitters.

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

by Nick on Sep 16, 2009 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

I only quibbled because DFA told sirbed

“You’re wrong about platoons” when sirbed wasn’t wrong at all.

He switched to a different definition of “platoon” when it was perfectly obvious what sirbed meant.

I will happily grant that DFA’s point about accomplishing the same thing by use of relievers is an interesting one, but it’s possible to add an observation to a discussion without saying “you’re wrong” to the guy before you.

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

You're wrong ;)

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 17, 2009 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

Sorry for the drive though Nick does an excellent job of explaining what I meant.

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Sep 17, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Has there been any serious study

on what happens to players when they are played in a platoon?

I know that it’s well-established that “platoons work”, but I gather that is based on the mountains of data showing that the vast majority of guys really do consistently better against either RHP or LHP.

But the more interesting question is what happens to a guy when he’s only playing as one half of the platoon. Does he get worse over all, as is often anecdotally claimed? Are the weaker at-bats against the “wrong-handed” pitcher a necessary prerequisite to getting the stronger at-bats against the “right-handed” pitcher?

I don’t think that would be easy to measure, but it seems one could at least do some preliminary inquiry into the question. Has it been done?

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

I haven't read The Book

but I think that I lot of the points that saber-types make about platooning originated there (as did so many other important ideas).

link to a description of chapter 6

Again, I haven’t read it, so I can’t really say whether they look at actual platoon players or just at platoon splits for full-time players.

by colin on Sep 16, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't know about averages

THT had a long-running qualitative (as contrasted with quantitative) series covering some of the more effective platoon relationships, some of which lasted for multiple consecutive seasons. So it certainly CAN work; it’s just a question of how often it does.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

did this start becoming true only recently?

because it used to happen all the time, and happen very effectively. it doesn’t now because there aren’t enough roster spots.

by Elston Gunn on Sep 16, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

1. Aaron Cunningham to have an everyday job from opening day and be given a long leash.

Not going to happen

2. Ryan Sweeney to platoon with somebody.

Improbable

3. Rajai Davis to be traded.

All this ‘trade players once they’re good’ drill has to stop.

He gets his opportunity, he plays better than anyone else on the team, so, you trade him?

Sorry, but that’s just stupid.

As I’m reading the rest of this, the only part I really agree with is Tommy Everidge.

by Walton711 on Sep 16, 2009 3:22 PM PDT reply actions  

Agree with everything ElstonGunn said...

The comments…not so much, though I agree it’s unlikely Rajai is traded. There’s an adverse selection problem when teams try to shop players who’ve been hot, which is why you don’t see this “sell high” strategy very often. If you shop a guy who’s seen a recent uptick in performance, the teams you shop him to are going to assume you think his recent success is just a flash in the pan, unless you’re really crafty about it.

However, I don’t think Marlon Byrd will get a 1 year, $5 million contract. Seriously, what is that based on? He is league average in CF according to UZR and has a reputation as an above average CF. He’s got good power (guessing a few of those doubles will become HRs next year)and he’s 28…it’s not like he’s Pat Burrell. If he remembers how to take a walk he’ll be a damned good player and in a bad FA year I could see him get 3-$30 or 4-$36 or something like that. I don’t think he’s worth that, but he has been worth $10MM this year and I think 1-$5 or 2-$10 is a ridiculous estimate.

Yes, Cunningham deserves to play and please stop comparing him to Dan Johnson. Johnson didn’t reach AAA until he was 24 and never projected to be a difference maker. AAA stats for young guys are more projectable than people realize…there are exceptions, but how many Alberto Callaspos and Rajai Davises and Marco Scutaros and Xavier Nadys and Nelson Cruzes have to be branded AAAA players after tearing up AAA for people to realize that 140 major league ABs is not enough to judge a player?. Seriously, why would anyone think Sean Doolittle is a better prospect than Cunningham? Is there ANYTHING Doolittle projects to do better than Cunningham? But since we’ve all seen Cunningham play and few of us have seen Doolittle, we overrate Doolittle and underrate Cunningham.

by swatnick on Sep 16, 2009 4:06 PM PDT reply actions  

As for trading davis

the question isn’t what his value “is.” I don’t think that is static. Its different for different teams. who needs a centerfielder next year and values speed?

by Future Ed on Sep 16, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's another problem...

Fangraphs touched on this a week ago, but CF is a really strong position in the majors right now. Off the top of your head, what teams can you think of who are dissatisfied with their CFer? (The Yanks, I guess…but Gardner’s pretty much a clone of Davis). Looking at the AL West alone, there’s Hamilton, Byrd, Borbon, Davis, Hunter, and Gutierrez.

What I was just saying is that if you shop a player whose precise value is hard to pin down, as is the case with Davis, people are generally going to assume he’s at the lower end of that range of values. It’s the same reason new cars lose their value as soon as they’re sold. If you try to sell a car you’ve just bought, people are going to assume there’s something wrong with it…

by swatnick on Sep 16, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

The Oakland A's?

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Byrd is 32, first off

Second, he, like Hairston, has generally been protected from the better lefthanded pitchers.

I just don’t see him getting a lot of money, especially since so much of his value is tied up in defense.

Re: Doolittle, my understanding is that his power is substantially more projectable than Cunningham’s; he also has a stronger throwing arm and probably will produce a better walk rate. Overall Cunningham is likely still the better prospect at this time, but the comparison isn’t obvious.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Whoops

I guess Byrd is 32…my bad. I wouldn’t say most of his value is defensive though…he’s had an .800 OPS three straight years (albeit in a hitter’s park), but if he can combine 2008’s patience (10% walk rate) with 2009’s power (60 XBH and counting), he’ll be really good. Given the lack of FA OFers, especially compared to last year, I could see him getting a contract he doesn’t really deserve.

I’m not sure what you mean that he’s been protected from lefthanded pitchers. He has a reverse split, so he’s better vs righties, but I don’t think they ever sit him vs lefties, if that’s what you mean. And Hairston pretty much always starts against a lefties, doesn’t he?

It was probably a little harsh to say Doolittle does nothing better than Cunningham, but on a more basic level, I’d say Cunningham is better defensively, better offensively, has a better probability of being an every day big leaguer and neither of them has enormous upside.

by swatnick on Sep 17, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

cahill made a strong bid for AAA tonight, didn't he?

LOL

Seriously, maybe he read this thread and got inspired.

by jasonthea on Sep 16, 2009 7:43 PM PDT reply actions  

I'm doing a whole lot of Cahill PitchFX number crunching for an upcoming fanpost.

I think I’ll wait until this start’s numbers come in. I’ve got awesome timing, obviously.

by danmerqury on Sep 16, 2009 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't bother to argue why the A's should keep Rajai Davis anymore

Each game, Davis does a far better job of explaining it than I could do in words.

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 Sep 16, 2009 8:31 PM PDT reply actions  

Doesn't "each game" increase his trade value, too?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 16, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

This made me LOL

because my initial assumption was that you’re parodying yourself.

But then I wasn’t sure if I was just projecting.

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

by iglew on Sep 16, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm leaning towards

partial seriousness with a touch of “ha”

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 17, 2009 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

No, I'm actually making a serious point here

Basically, it’s that whether or not a player ought to be traded is not, except at the fringes, influenced at all by that player’s play.

Because trade value and value to your team move pretty much in unison, something that increases or decreases both simultaneously (like a run of good form) can’t impact the calculus of whether one is higher than the other.

To make a mathematical analogy, if you have the inequality 9>8, adding or subtracting from both sides of the inequality changes nothing.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

So you're saying it makes sense to trade Rajai

not because he’s bad, but because he’s overvalued. Is that right?

If that’s the case, I agree with your logic, but I’m not convinced by the premise. I’m not sure that Rajai really is overvalued (not by other GMs, that is). I also hope he’s not, since I like having him on the team.

If you’re right and he is overvalued and we trade him, that would be like the Swisher trade for me. I agreed that the trade made sense, but I still didn’t like it just because I loved Swisher.

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

by iglew on Sep 17, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

Right

As for why I think he’s overvalued… well, it’s some combination of

a. hunch,
b. sudden performance spike, and
c. the way people here talk about him, which is liable to be at least qualitatively similar to the way other people elsewhere talk about him (hell, I mean, Joe Morgan knows who he is— he must be pretty well known…).

FWIW, I wasn’t entirely thrilled about the Swisher trade either, although the A’s do seem to have gotten solid value out of it. It was clearly better than the Harden trade, but I didn’t like it nearly as much as the Blanton or Haren deals.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

The funny thing is, you're both right.

Trading Davis for the right return makes sense; hell, trading Billy Beane for the right return makes sense. Making Davis the everyday centerfielder if a good return isn’t available also makes sense.

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

by jeepers on Sep 17, 2009 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Let me quote myself:
That said, Davis is a reasonably good player and shouldn’t be given away either.

I’d like to see Davis traded for a good haul, but I’m totally open to the possibility he doesn’t have that kind of value around the league, and would be very happy to keep him around. I think he’s an average or slightly better player, and will probably be in 2011. I don’t think he’s much, if any, better than Ryan Sweeney, who’s 5 years younger, but you can never have too many pretty good player.

I’m a little frustrated. I can’t begin to say how much less important it is to me for Davis to be traded than for, say, 1 or 4 to happen, but all that gets talked about is Davis. That’s my fault, I suppose. I should have been a lot clearer, and maybe not talked about it at all.

But let me say it clearly now: If Rajai Davis is the A’s starting center fielder on opendin day 2010, I will be perfectly content.

by Elston Gunn on Sep 16, 2009 8:36 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

My comment wasn't especially directed at you, EG

Several on here have said “trade him, sell high!” Seems like the moment someone actually emerges as a useful player, it’s “time to sell high”…Or…We could keep our good players who have almost single-handedly (slight exaggeration) turned the team from offensively hapless to finally “taking the game to the opposition.” He doesn’t have to hit .314 in 2010-11 to be a very good player; he can regress to .280 and still be a great guy to have on your team.

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 Sep 16, 2009 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't see anyone saying "trade him, sell high"

I see a lot of people saying, “if we can get something good for him, you’ve got to do it.” Unless you think Player X is going to be an All Star and/or young with great projection, that same line can be said about anyone. The whole “sell high” thing is really misconstrued. If someone is playing well above their potential, while not likely to be around for long, and not likely to maintain that level of play, you should explore the potential. That doesn’t mean trade him so for kicks nor does it mean “trade ’em all!”

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 16, 2009 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

But that's not a new idea

If you think the A’s should always listen to “overbuy” options for any player, then saying that in regards to a given player isn’t really offering anything more than restating a general philosophy that has nothing to do with that particular player.

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

by Nico on Sep 17, 2009 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

Never said it was a new idea

Just the perception of “trade him, sell high” hasn’t actually been proposed in this thread. That what you’re viewing as “trade him, sell high” is a mis-reading of your “overbuy” thought process. Which, as far as I’m reading, is what’s being suggested.

If we had, say, Haren next year (with the team we’re going to have next year, including who we got for him), with the deal we had at the time of the trade, I wouldn’t even bother listening to the “overbuy” options, because even if he comes back down to his normal numbers, he’s still an All-star for us and would make a difference. Back when we traded him, well, we weren’t going anywhere any time soon, so you do the deal.

Now, if you assume Davis continues what he’s been doing this year for another 2/3 years, I’d say keep him for similar reasons. He’d be a major influence in our pennant race chances. BUT, odds are Davis won’t come close to matching these numbers even next year, so IF someone’s willing to give current value for him or better now, you take the deal, while, yes “because his value is high”, but mostly because his value to us the next two years likely won’t match what we could potentially get for him (again, assuming we actually CAN get something good for him).

Though keep in mind, nearly everyone suggesting we might be able to get good value for him right now, is also suggesting that keeping him around for while would still be a “win”. No one is really about “sell, sell, sell”.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 17, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's obviously not the approach to take if your the A's..

because once you start clamoring to move someone you reduce your leverage, and thus the player’s value. Hence you would no longer be selling high. The wise thing to do is to simply listen to offers. If those offers reflect a market price for Davis that is in line with his performance from 2009, then you jump on the chance to exploit that market perception. If his perceived value on the market is more in line with what you expect him to regress to in 2010, then you hold on to a valuable asset.

by CapgrasDelusion on Sep 17, 2009 6:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

NOT A GOOD HAUL

  Davis will not get you much on the trade market. Most GM will not think he is a great player since he has not proven himself year in year out. Sweeney being younger and once a top prospect will most likely get you more than Davis.

by Arcman on Sep 16, 2009 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, sorry this happened to your thread.

Good fanpost, btw. Definitely a conversation-starter!

by DDroney on Sep 17, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

thanks--and i think i'm over it now.

not least because the a’s are winning and liverpool won an extremely exciting game this morning.

by Elston Gunn on Sep 19, 2009 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nobody wants Geren fired?

Don’t think I’ve seen anyone posting that they want a new manager for 2010.

-Dan

by ironliver on Sep 17, 2009 2:29 PM PDT reply actions  

FIRE GEREN NOW!!!

is clause 14 of the community guidlines you agreed to when you signed up for AN. ALthough depending on when you signed up it could have been Macha.

by Future Ed on Sep 17, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

I still want him fired...

I have no problem with him behaviorally, but strategically speaking he’s just not very good. He doesn’t manage the bullpen well, he doesn’t use the guys on the back end of his roster well…I could give a bunch of specific examples of his strategic mishaps, but instead I’ll just point out that last year the A’s had a lower OBP out of the leadoff spot than ANY OTHER SPOT IN THE LINEUP! I’ll admit this was partially due to random fluctuation, as guys like Sweeney did worse leading off than elsewhere, but still…that’s pretty telling. I’ll admit he’s a better manager than Bruce Bochy or Trey Hillman or Jim Tracy (who’ll probably win MOY) or a handful of other guys, but he’s not half the manager Ken Macha is.

by swatnick on Sep 17, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

*ahem*

Just to make it official for you, I think they should fire Geren in the off season.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Sep 17, 2009 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

so many teams have insane managers,

that I just can’t get to fired up about it. but, yes, geren sucks.

by Elston Gunn on Sep 19, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

No stats, no numbers, just this...

…. Who’s kicking total butt? Davis. Who is manufacturing runs out of nothing? Davis. Which CF ran the wrong way on a fly ball? I’ve missed listening to some games, but the ones I have heard in the last 30 days: not Davis.

Bringing new ballplayers to the As is always a RISK! Holliday is a prime example. You don’t obviously get your money’s worth. Don’t trade for unknowns, it creates all sorts of expectations and resentment. If someone is desperate for Davis, fine. Pay up, big time. Otherwise, let the man play. Here. We have so little to love, why take away our little pleasures?

Barton, Cunningham, whatever. So one’s got a nice swing. Let ‘em start next year if you feel strongly about it. Seems worth the risk, since chances are that one or the other of them will be able to pull it together. Hairston I’ve no love for – he got us through the year.

Cahill should start until he pulls an Eveland. He wasn’t great this year (with a very recent notable exception), but he got better. Why waste all that time this year if we can’t give him a 22-year old season to go with his 21? Tossing his sinker to AAA players is a total waste of his, and our, time.

Cust is fine, I think he’s got good attitude, I don’t mind the 3-outcome hitter thing, though it would be nice if he hit 35 HRs rather than 25. At least, so long as he never puts on a glove. If people want a DH full time, keep ‘em. Personally, I like the DH as a place for guys to get ABs while they rest a bit (maybe we have 1 too many OFs at any time since there’s so many unknowns with some of ‘em), or else someone like Powell, who can’t really earn a full time job on this team. So, shop Cust around if you want, if there are any nibblers out there.

By the way, did anyone ever tell Powell to stop switch-hitting? Just a thought.

These are all very simple thoughts. Most of you will find them simplistic. That’s fine. But I will never believe that baseball is a science. It’s a game, and there’s a lot more that matters than BABIPs.

by paris7 on Sep 17, 2009 6:15 PM PDT reply actions  

How is Davis not an unknown?

Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.

by travdog6 on Sep 17, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

Powell's R/L numbers in the minors

have been incredibly even — this is really the first time he hasn’t hit as well RH as LH. Since it’s also the first season (at least healthy season) that he’s played this infrequently, it’s not that big a shock.

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

by Nick on Sep 17, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's good news about Powell!

And, I shouldn’t have implied that Davis is “known”. He’s gotta wake up every day and chance it, like the rest of us. He’s just the risk that we are enjoying right now!

by paris7 on Sep 17, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Isn't the whole point of player development to try to AVOID "Evelands"?

For instance, by having your pitchers develop more than one MLB-quality pitch?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 17, 2009 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms
Start posting about the Athletics »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

The_baby_small
2010 Fan Scouting Report - Need A's Fans!
Jcandigrip_small
DLD 9.1.10 - Vote King
Hard_ball_iii_moskowitz_small
Holy Toledo! Vote now - Vote daily for Bill King
Sweet_baba_jane_namf_10__small
Our little muppet grover gets props from Mychael Urban
Myeyebrowpose_small
It's That Time Again (cross post)

Recent FanPosts

Kitten-in-the-cup_small
DLD 9.3.10 – When you’re going bad...
Icon_small
GOG 45- Let's forget that last series, mmkay. (A's/slegnA)
Snow_capped_mountain_small
Poll: Will 2010 Be a Winning Season for the A's?
Small
2 Raiders bobbleheads need a good home
Sbn_ds_small
Septemer 2nd, Athletics vs Yankees - Simulation
Me-052210-160px_small
Pics: Las Vegas @ Sacramento, 8/31
Small
Vote for Bill King for the Frick Award
Small
Bad News for My Personal Friends, Good News for My AN Friends

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS

SBNation.com Recent Stories

Colorado Rockies' Carlos Gonzalez, left, and Ubaldo Jimenez, right, celebrate in the dugout after Gonzalez hits his second home run of the game in the sixth inning of a baseball game against the San Francisco Giants at Coors Field in Denver on Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010. The Rockies won 6-1. (AP Photo/Chris Schneider)

Five Numbers: Carlos Gonzalez's Home Dominance, Baseball's Wave Of Flamethrowers, And More

Washington Nationals' Nyjer Morgan, center, is led off the field after a brawl during the sixth inning of a baseball game against the Florida Marlins, Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2010, in Miami. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee) +8 updates

Nyjer Morgan Suspended Eight Games For Recent Infractions, Including Role In Brawl

Photo

Rangers Sign Mark Prior To Minor League Contract

More from SBNation.com >


Managers

Maya_papi_small Tyler Bleszinski

Green_small iglew

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Zoidbergsperm_small danmerqury

Logo_small gigglingone

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

Venasfans_small OaklandSi

A_s_pic_5 emperor nobody

Editors

As_kings_cal_small louismg

Squirrel-eating_small Leopold Bloom

Authors

Myeyebrowpose_small jeffro

Moderators

Countdown_small Taj Adib

Img_1848_small notsellingjeans

Small vignette17