Are home runs obsolete? For the A's they are.
by alexsmith530 on Mar 3, 2010 10:24 PM PST
Email
PrintOn Yahoo today they had a blog asking who could hit 50 homers this year. I didn't even read it, knowing that no A's players would be on that list. But it got me thinking....now that the so called "steroids era" is over, are we in a new era of baseball?
My gut reaction was "yes", but after some digging it seems to me that we mostly aren't. Teams are still relying on the long ball, and it is still most definitely coming. Yet is seems like the A's have never been a big home run team (probably due to the Coliseum). According to the baseball almanac, the franchise record for most total home runs for the A's is 243, which the '96 achieved (led by Big Mac's 52). Among highest team totals, it is 6th in the AL (7th in the majors) in history of total team HRs hit in a single season. The most belongs to the '97 Mariners, who walloped 264 out. And for the record, both the Yankees and Phillies hit their franchise records last year (244 and 224 respectively).
So what exactly do these numbers mean?
While our A's have certainly seen a decline in power numbers in recent years (we hit 135 home runs last year, up from 125 the year before), we realized that power was no longer our "secret" commodity like it was back in the first days of Moneyball (well, when the book came out, at least). We have now changed our tune from trying to score more runs then the other team to trying to keep the other team from scoring more runs then us. I don't expect us to hit hardly any home runs this year (Cust and Kouz seem to be the only ones who may break 20, Sweeney might too, beyond that there isn't much power on the team), but I'm hoping with a great rotation and the best bullpen in the league, we won't have to.
So while other teams are still relying on the long ball, we are ahead of the curve. By targeting defense and pitching, we just may take the league by storm sooner rather than later.
But of course, having Chris Carter and Michael Taylor come up and mash 25+ homers each won't hurt.
73 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm over home runs.
What excites me now are long at-bats with lots of foul balls. The fans get more souvenirs, and opponents’ pitch counts get higher. When one of those plate appearances ends with something awesome, like a walk, it’s nothing but smooth satisfaction.
"The rich people want what the poor peoples got, and the poor people want what the rich peoples got. You can never please anybody in this world"- The Shaggs, "Philosophy Of The World," 1968
I totally agree
And that’s why I love me some Raj Davis. All the games I caught it seemed like he’d have at least one at-bat where he would see 10+ pitches.
by alexsmith530 on Mar 3, 2010 10:55 PM PST up reply actions
Which is profoundly odd, because he ranked 91st out of 109 hitters with 400 or more plate appearances
in pitches seen per plate appearance.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
That's what I was thinking
"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper
"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles
me too, but I'm still on the Raj train
I’ll reevaluate later in the season, but for now, the voices in my head say Raj is going to see more pitches and walk more next year.
Usually all the voices in my head argue with each other, but they all pretty much agree on this one.
"The rich people want what the poor peoples got, and the poor people want what the rich peoples got. You can never please anybody in this world"- The Shaggs, "Philosophy Of The World," 1968
by Gaijin_Suketto on Mar 4, 2010 4:09 AM PST up reply actions
If multiple voices agree, are they still multiple voices?
That is, if they agreed on everything, would you still call them “voices,” or just a “voice” (daemon)?
A Ballade [for the Angels Fan], by Eustache Deschamps: "We are cowardly, ill-formed and weak / Aged, envious and evil-spoken. / I see only fools and sots / Truly the end is nigh / All goes ill."
They have their own personalities, but they appointed one as spokes-voice.
He sounds a lot like Marvin Miller and usually gets his way.
"The rich people want what the poor peoples got, and the poor people want what the rich peoples got. You can never please anybody in this world"- The Shaggs, "Philosophy Of The World," 1968
by Gaijin_Suketto on Mar 4, 2010 3:52 PM PST up reply actions
If multiple voices agree, you call them a chorus.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
So would he have a 10+ pitch at bat followed by a lot of 1-pitch at bats
Or is alexsmith530 just imagining things?
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Mar 4, 2010 12:31 AM PST up reply actions
I can't exactly rule out the former just by saying so
but it sure seems rather unlikely.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Mostly imagining things
Rajai’s career breakdown of PA by pitches seen:
Pitches
2 190
4 172
3 148
5 142
1 99
6 86
7+ 57
For comparison, here’s the A’s breakdown from 2009:
Pitches 4 1137 3 1105 2 1088 5 1038 6 713 1 691 7+ 475
Rajai has seen 7+ pitches in 6% of his PA, while the A’s as a team were at 8% last year.
(all data from Baseball Reference’s PI)
Danny, would you like to volunteer to be my "I wanna know some shit, but I'm way too lazy to look it up" guy?
It pays nothing, I’m a jerk to deal with, and I’m up at all hours of the night. Sound appealing?
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Mar 4, 2010 11:48 AM PST up reply actions
Interesting data.
The especially interesting part is that you wouldn’t ordinarily think of 2% as statistically significant, though I suppose it might if he’s ranked 91 out of 109.
In the final analysis, I really couldn’t care less how many pitches you see as long as you’re productive, and Rajai Davis was the A’s most productive hitter last year.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
If Rajai Davis is the A's most productive hitter next year.
I will eat your hat.
"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper
"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles
Didn't say he would be.
Although I think whether he will or won’t will have little to do with his pitches per plate appearance.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I always feel like most announcers think the public finds those at bats boring.
Or, at the very least, anti-climactic.
Taken down with hearts alive, our hearts alive.
I think most fans DO find those at bats boring
But it’s my favorite part of baseball.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Mar 4, 2010 12:48 AM PST up reply actions
Those ABs are even better when the game is on the line in the bottom of the ninth and runners on.
If you’re bored by that long AB, you must be dead.
Leopold Bloom on why he loves Mr. Peter Gammons, his best buddy:
"Peter Gammons systematically ignored and/or ran down the A’s in the pages of Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News for a good ten year stretch in the late seventies and early to mid-eighties. Trust me, the c**ksucker hates our team."
Only in Oakland
Do we really want to max pitch counts ect. I think as a fan base we’ve really come around to pitching/defense during the Big Three years and have grown to appreciate the philosophy.
The rest of baseball – and it’s casual fans – tend to want the big bash HR, lots of O and the final K by the closer.
It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.
It has absolutely nothing about pitch counts
I has EVERYTHING to do with just how important each pitch in that AB is.
Leopold Bloom on why he loves Mr. Peter Gammons, his best buddy:
"Peter Gammons systematically ignored and/or ran down the A’s in the pages of Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News for a good ten year stretch in the late seventies and early to mid-eighties. Trust me, the c**ksucker hates our team."
Agreed. I love the long AB. The pitcher-batter duel is taken to its essence.
If it’s in the 9th, even better. Unless Johnny Damon is at the plate. That f—-er drove me crazy last year.
A Ballade [for the Angels Fan], by Eustache Deschamps: "We are cowardly, ill-formed and weak / Aged, envious and evil-spoken. / I see only fools and sots / Truly the end is nigh / All goes ill."
I think this is a delusion, though
We see our team with no power, we believe our team to be really smart, therefore we believe Power does not matter. We justify what our team does not have by saying it is inconsequential, when in reality, as you can see by your last line, it really does matter. We just have a hard time affording it.
I like power. Indeed, I dislike a players with a good OBP but no power. Its that type of player that gives us Jason Kendall. The guy who can get on base, yes, but whenever he makes contact, its 2 outs, and there’s no hope when he gets up for something to happen.
I hate having to string together 3 or 4 hits to score a run instead of being able to do it with 1 or 2 if we had the power to do so.
Yeah we're not ahead of the curve.
We’re the kid trying to take the SATs without the $500 prep classes everyone else is using to get ahead.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Mar 4, 2010 3:15 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I'm not sure there's a bigger scam on the planet than they prep classes
They must work a little bit for people to actually take them, but I just don’t see how they help people.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Mar 4, 2010 8:22 AM PST up reply actions
An SAT is just a test, and test-taking is a skill.
If you already have that skill, the course won’t help much. But if you don’t, pay the money. At least, until they get rid of a test that can be manipulated for $500.
A Ballade [for the Angels Fan], by Eustache Deschamps: "We are cowardly, ill-formed and weak / Aged, envious and evil-spoken. / I see only fools and sots / Truly the end is nigh / All goes ill."
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
The purpose of the SAT is to differentiate people. If it fails to do so, ETS will (and routinely do) tweak the test in order to make sure it does. It not only isn’t a fair measure of merit, by definition it cannot be.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Iglew, I don't see how the two are connected
1. The SAT is designed to differentiate people
2. It not only isn’t a fair measure of merit, by definition it cannot be.
How do these two follow from each other? I think there are many good arguments against the SAT. I’m not sure you just made one of them.
You're making a poor assumption that you need merit to differenitate between people
Iglew can, and certainly will, explain his own arguments (assuming he’s really arguing anything or cares to respond?). I just don’t see any complications with what he said. The purpose of the SAT is to attempt to identity a certain subset of the student population. It’s not a fair measure of merit simply because it’s attempting to isolate that particular student population and NOT to determine the smartest or most deserving students. Think of it this way, if you wanted to find the most teachable students, you’d attempt to design a test who’s objective is to determine which students are teachable, which aren’t, and the level of “teachability” each student might have. In doing so, it’s going to be completely ambivalent towards which students are worthy, deserving, wanting, or needing of being taught. Those aspects have little to do with measuring their “teachability.” The SAT serves a similar purpose.
Leopold Bloom on why he loves Mr. Peter Gammons, his best buddy:
"Peter Gammons systematically ignored and/or ran down the A’s in the pages of Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News for a good ten year stretch in the late seventies and early to mid-eighties. Trust me, the c**ksucker hates our team."
Sorry, I don't check in much this time of year.
You’re right that my comment was a bit of a non-sequitur.
I’m sure I’ve soapboxed about the SAT before, and how it is compelled to create a good spread on each question.
The point I was trying to make is that this makes it impossible to make the test so that it can’t be coached. You’re right that this is unrelated to the question of merit.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Knowing the answers to the questions helps, too.
While everybody else was trying to use the tricks and tips they learned in the expensive classes, I just… answered the questions.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Mar 6, 2010 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
Bummer if you're poor.
But then if you’re poor, I suppose you don’t deserve to get an education. {steps off of soapbox}
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
A prep course would be entirely unnecessary
if we spent twice as much on education on the whole. If you’re going to soapbox for something, start with that. Forget about the poor v. not so battle until after that.
Leopold Bloom on why he loves Mr. Peter Gammons, his best buddy:
"Peter Gammons systematically ignored and/or ran down the A’s in the pages of Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News for a good ten year stretch in the late seventies and early to mid-eighties. Trust me, the c**ksucker hates our team."
And spending twice as much on education wouldn't be as necessary
if the education system didn’t act like standardized tests were worth anything in the first place.
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
It's easy to get an education if you're poor.
It’s just not easy to get a place in the SAT/collegiate/meritplutocracy scheme.
< steals soapbox from Nico >
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
RUN RUN RUN!!!
Leopold Bloom on why he loves Mr. Peter Gammons, his best buddy:
"Peter Gammons systematically ignored and/or ran down the A’s in the pages of Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News for a good ten year stretch in the late seventies and early to mid-eighties. Trust me, the c**ksucker hates our team."
With the speed, of Rajai, and Coco, and the prolific doubles hitters, that will follow
Suzuki or Sweeney, it can still be done in 2 hits, then you have the 2 power bats, Cust, and Kouz. I think the most important bat, will be Barton. If he can hit like the pre-steroid Giambi, 15-17 HR, and 40+ doubles, the offense, will be at least league average
by theblackpearl on Mar 4, 2010 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
How can you pencil Barton in for 15-17 HR
when he has never broken 10 at one level, and his combined year high is 13.
He has 16 in 678 big league AB's.
and most were in his overmatched 08 year. I dont think 17 will happen but it wouldnt surprise me either. Ive got him at 12-15 if he gets 550 ABs. Chavez looks like he’s going to steal some from him this year, which stinks because Daric looked like he worked out his problems or just matured last year and is a prime breakout candidate this season.
This is wrong
We have now changed our tune from trying to score more runs then the other team to trying to keep the other team from scoring more runs then us.
We’ve just changed how we try to score more runs than the other team. The goal is always to score more runs then everyone else, there’s just two ways to do it. Intensifying the offense (which we can’t afford to do at the moment) or improving our pitching/defense. But the objective hasn’t changed at all, just alternating tactics.
Leopold Bloom on why he loves Mr. Peter Gammons, his best buddy:
"Peter Gammons systematically ignored and/or ran down the A’s in the pages of Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News for a good ten year stretch in the late seventies and early to mid-eighties. Trust me, the c**ksucker hates our team."
Ellis
Mark Ellis has a better chance at hitting 20 than Ryan Sweeney does. If everything goes right this year, I could see the team sneaking to 160/160 HR/SB’s this season.
Cust – 28
Kouz – 20
Davis/Crisp/Sweeney – 20
Carter/Taylor – 20
Suzuki – 19
Ellis – 17
McFoxavez – 13
Barton – 9
Pennington/Rosales – 7
Powell – 7
=
I don't see how the 5 OFs manage 40 homers between them
And I don’t see Fox hitting 13 homers (I’ve got Chavez and McPherson down for 0 each). Suzuki at 19 is interesting. I was about to say there isn’t a chance, but he did have 15 last year.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Mar 4, 2010 8:24 AM PST up reply actions
I'm thinking they'll hit between 100 and 125 myself.
I think nearly every number is a gross over estimation of what they’ll do other than Cust, Kouz & Suzuki who are all just basic over estimations. Do they have a chance to exceed a more appropriate estimation, absolutely, but I just don’t see most of them hitting these numbers.
Leopold Bloom on why he loves Mr. Peter Gammons, his best buddy:
"Peter Gammons systematically ignored and/or ran down the A’s in the pages of Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News for a good ten year stretch in the late seventies and early to mid-eighties. Trust me, the c**ksucker hates our team."
Quote
“If everything goes right this year…”
by Colorado Fan on Mar 4, 2010 12:47 PM PST up reply actions
Even everything going right this year
I’m still not thinking those numbers can be reached. Everything going right, I’m thinking we’re in the 100 – 125 area. Maybe a little more.
Leopold Bloom on why he loves Mr. Peter Gammons, his best buddy:
"Peter Gammons systematically ignored and/or ran down the A’s in the pages of Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News for a good ten year stretch in the late seventies and early to mid-eighties. Trust me, the c**ksucker hates our team."
If EVERYTHING goes right
Those look pretty reasonable.
Colorado Fan’s numbers, that is.
"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond
Plus
Add in another year of Global Warming. And baseballs fly higher and longer during El Nino years. It’s true. Look it up.
by Colorado Fan on Mar 4, 2010 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, but if there's another year of Global Warming
then not everything went right.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
That depends....
on whether you’re an Eskimo or not.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Rec'd
For mentioning El Nino, although mentioning the full ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) would have really gotten me going.
Barton: 10-15
Ellis: 8-17 (contract year for him means he’s gotta play his ass off. 2005 vintage might work. if he doesnt do something spectacular he will have trouble getting a job next year. 2B is a saturated market now)
Pennington: 6-15 (he’s such a wildcard its not funny.)
Kouzmanoff: 17-30 (entering his prime, and look at his away from SD numbers! why wont you look at his away numbers sobs)
Suzuki: 15-22 (he’s got some pop, people. pop people huhuhuh)
Davis: 3-7
Crisp: 3-10
Sweeney: 5-12
Cust: 25-35 (hopefully he continues his bouceback from his atrocious 1st half, he OBP’d .399 in the second half, though everyone seems to not care about it)
Powell: 5-10
Fox: 5-10
Chavez: 5-10
Rosales: 3-7
so somewhere between 110 and 200. Sounds about right ;)
There is no way Pennington hits 15 HRs
He’ll be lucky to get 6 since the only place he has hit that many was in Stockton. I really hope I’m wrong about Cliff, but the guy is not a good hitter and he has absolutely no power.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
I think Kouzmanoff is much closer to 17 than 30
I would pencil him in for 15-17, but then I think he’s going to be so horrendously bad that he’ll not be playing every single day by the end of the year.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Mar 6, 2010 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
Actually, INCLUDING the Cubs runs
the A’s also scored their runs on HR’s.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I don't think that for the A's, home runs are obsolete
It’s more that for the A’s, the fences just seem really, really far away.
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
With this...
…I agree!
In all seriousness though, I never understood the obsession with the HR. Yes, chicks dig it; but it’s the baseball equivalent of the slam dunk — exciting to look at, but not something that you forsake all other skills for. Without a cadre of guys who can hit n’ run, what’s the point? That one run dinger doesn’t do much good in a two-run game. As has been mentioned above, XBH are just as good.
Slap doubles, stolen bases, the occasional triple: these are just as exciting to me as Cust stumbling around the base path.
"With Chance on first, and Evers on third,
Great things from the Cubs will soon be heard."
The home run would be the baseball equivalent of the slam dunk
if a slam dunk got you four points.
Taken down with hearts alive, our hearts alive.
or meant you got laid
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
"Exciting" doesn't have a damn thing to do with winning baseball games though
XBH are NOT just as good as home runs. While it’s true HR hitters are often overvalued in free agency, all this means is teams pay more for those guys relative to guys who don’t hit as many. It does not mean a double is just as good as a home run.
A solo homer does tons of good in a two-run game. It cuts the lead in half. A double does not.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Mar 6, 2010 10:51 AM PST up reply actions
You have the cause and effect backwards.
If you eat your hat, Ryan Sweeney will hit 20 HRs.
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
How many HRs will Sweeney hit
if we ALL eat our hats?
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
21
After awhile, you develop a taste for hats and it’s meaning gets diminished.
Leopold Bloom on why he loves Mr. Peter Gammons, his best buddy:
"Peter Gammons systematically ignored and/or ran down the A’s in the pages of Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News for a good ten year stretch in the late seventies and early to mid-eighties. Trust me, the c**ksucker hates our team."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
