SB Nation Bay Area Editor's Pick
Billy Beane's platitudes make sense, and we're not all gonna die.
by iglew on Jun 26, 2010 2:59 PM PDT
Email
PrintThis was originally written as a response to Nico's front page post, the one where he says "Good teams don't play a lot of close games". But it got kind of long, so I've made a separate FanPost out of it instead.
Nico, I'm surprised that this post hasn't been challenged more. Maybe it's true that all the stat guys have left AN. Or maybe they just don't want to post in a Nico post because it always turns into an ugly food fight when they do.
But it needs to be said.
As you know, I'm not an absolutist, so I'm not going to say "the numbers prove you wrong." Still, there is strong evidence that your "great and important point" is simply traditional conventional wisdom that does not accurately describe reality. On the other hand, Beane's observations, as unsatisfying as they feel to us, do make sense.
Good teams don't win by avoiding close games. Good teams win by outscoring their opponents. Slightly good teams win by slightly outscoring their opponents. Bad teams lose by scoring less than their opponents. Slightly bad teams — which is what the Oakland A's seem to be this year — lose by scoring slightly less than their opponents.
In all cases, there will be random fluctuations along the way that will look like meaningful patterns but really are not. Sometimes there will be close games, and sometimes there will be blowouts. Sometimes there will be slumps when the team achieves below its base talent level, and sometimes there will be streaks when the team overachieves. This is not just the nature of baseball; it is the nature of random fluctuation and is a basic mathematical truth.
We can model a simplified version of baseball in which each batter has a base skill level where any time he goes to the plate he has an X% chance of it resulting in a run. Different players have different values of X, where a good hitter might be 20% and a bad one might be 10% with everyone else scattered somewhere in between. If we suppose that each player simply rolls the dice and maybe creates a run or maybe doesn't, according to his basic skill level, what do we find? As you'd expect, we find that the team with better players will end up with the better record in the long run, but along the way there are close games and blowouts, and there are streaks and slumps both at the team level and at the player level.
Of course real baseball is more complicated. Scoring runs is a function not just of the hitter's skill, but of that of the pitcher and defense as well; and runs are usually scored by a combination of multiple events rather than just homers. But the fact remains that all the scoring fluctuations we see are adequately explained by assuming each player has a base talent level that doesn't change.
Does that mean I think players have a constant talent level that never changes? Of course not. I believe Daric Barton really is a better hitter now than he was two years ago, and Eric Chavez really is a worse hitter now than he was six years ago. Players can get better and players can get worse. Same goes for teams. I believe that this year's team is not as good as the 2002 team. But I don't believe that this team in June is horrible and this team in May was great. The team really hasn't changed that much.
So how do you know what's random noise and what's a real trend? What is the most meaningful scale at which to evaluate the team's performance? One person who asked that question and looked carefully at the game for answers is Bill James, and what he found is expressed in his famous Pythagorean win formula. This formula is not a law that stat-heads impose upon baseball to make it submit to their will; it is a pattern that is already in baseball which observers of the game have discovered there. What Bill James' pythagorean formula reveals is that a good way to evaluate a team is the total runs it scores and the total runs it allows. These numbers give a good representation of what the team's basic skill level is, better even that the win-loss record does.
If we look at the Oakland A's in this light, we see that in May the team scored 99 runs and gave up 113; during that month the team's record was 16-12, which is a significantly better result than normally associated with those total runs. So far in June, the team has scored 99 runs and given up 109; this month the team's record is 7-16 so far, which is a significantly worse result than normally associated with those totals runs. On the entire season the A's have scored 304 runs and given up 321. The team's record on the season is 35-40, which is just about right for those total runs.
What I see here is that the A's are a slightly below average team with a slightly below average record. They have been the same slightly below average team all season, but in May several games tilted in their favor and they looked better than they really are, and then in June several games tilted against them and they've looked worse than they really are. Judging from Billy Beane's recent comments ("We've lost a lot of close games"), I'd say he sees the same thing.
Lately I've heard a lot of explanations of what's wrong with the A's — they don't care enough, they've lost confidence in their manager, they're in too many close games, Lew Wolff wants to lose so he can move to San Jose, etc. Everyone seems to have a theory, and most of them rely on the idea that they understand the team or baseball better than Billy Beane does.
I'm not a debater. You all have a right to believe whatever you like, and I'm not going to say I've proven any of you wrong. I would just observe that the A's entire season so far is easily and adequately explained by the simple mathematical nature of the game. All these other theories I'm hearing are not necessary to explain anything, and I've seen scarcely any evidence for any of them. We are simply a slightly below average team playing exactly like a slightly below average team typically plays.
117 comments
|
12 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We are simply a slightly below average team playing exactly like a slightly below average team typically plays.
No argument there. It’s just not the approach Beane has taken with his analysis. He suggests the team has been unlucky (a “good team just falling short, just not getting that key break a bunch of times”) when in fact you’re correct: They’re not good enough at scoring runs, or preventing runs, to outscore opponents by a comfortable margin very often. As a result they’re relegated to a lot of losing and a lot of chance-impacted outcomes.
The weirdest thing, to me, about your post is that I think we basically agree.
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
He suggests the team has been unlucky in June.
Which it has. RS-RA in May and in June so far are virtually identical. I don’t like using the word “luck” because it carries irrational connotations, but while the result that counts (W-L) was high in one month and low in the other, the result that evidence suggests is a better indicator of underlying team skill was constant.
Beane was replying to the idea that June has been a disaster and therefore he must do something. His answer is that bad breaks make it look worse than it is and really the team is pretty much the same as it was in May. No one was screaming for action in May, so why should they in June?
I know you and I don’t have profound deep disagreement about the game and the situation, but you did say good teams don’t play a lot of close games, and that’s bunk.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
That's not quite what I'm saying
I’m saying that outscoring your opponents more leads to a surer high winning pct than outscoring them by a little. The reason good teams don’t play a lot of close games is that they add on / give up fewer and win by more.
The A’s won “more than their fair share” in May and have won “fewer than their fair share” in June. That doesn’t change that their “fair share” is “a little under .500” and that’s not very good.
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
Is it possible...
…that instead of bad breaks in June, the team got good breaks in May? I mean, we did still get outscored overall for the month, which might suggest the team wasn’t really as good as the W-L record would imply..
Beane was replying to the idea that June has been a disaster and therefore he must do something. His answer is that bad breaks make it look worse than it is and really the team is pretty much the same as it was in May. No one was screaming for action in May, so why should they in June?
It’s human nature to not be too worried as long as the end results are acceptable, so maybe we were just lucky and too complacent to see it.
Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.
Surely we did get good breaks in May.
I assume Beane is well aware of that, too, but he didn’t have need to say so in an interview when asked why he isn’t doing something to fix the team.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
How do bad teams win games then?
The Angels 100 win 2008 season still is a complete, irrational, mind-fuck to me. Their hitting stunk completely, our hitting this season will end up better than theirs from that year. Their pitching and defense stood to reason that they might win 82-85 games, maybe add another 2-5 due to luck, but to go those extra 10 games and get to 100? It is simply unreal.
-Yeah, I just posted that, but my opinion is apparently "wrong" a significant portion of the time though, so take it as you will.
The 2008 Angels RS-RA was indicative of
an 88-win season. They did substantially outperform that, though not by quite as much as you imply.
As you know, the pattern of the Angels getting a W-L result better than what is suggested by their records of runs scored and runs against is the subject of lively debate among the sabermetric community, and it’s one I follow with great interest. Some think it really is just random fluctuation; others think there’s something unusual about how the team is constructed and have suggested various theories. If it were just the one season, I’d believe it’s just a fluke. By the nature of random fluctuations, some team is going to grossly outperform its Pythagorean (and some other team will underperform), so maybe it just happens to be the Angels in 2008. The fact that the Angels have done it several years running gives me pause. It still could be just an even larger fluke, but I think there’s something to it.
I disagree with your characterization of the phenomenon of a “bad team” getting a good record. If the Angels really are constructed in a way to consistently beat their pythagorean record, they aren’t a bad team; they are a good team that happens to be constructed in a way that is reflected better in their W-L record than in their RS-RA record, which is unusual.
The A’s performance in 2010 is easily explained with basic analysis. The Angels’ performance over the past several years is not. Personally, I think it’s more in the nature of non-predictive factors being thrown into the RS-RA number, as opposed to special clutch talent that boosts the W-L when it matters, but i see it as very much an open question.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Interesting...
Nice bit of writing there, I still contest that the Angels W-L record was inflated thanks to the lopsided schedule and feasting on us, Tex & Sea, playing bad/cold NL teams in interleague and that they truly were/are not a good team. Put them in the AL East and they are barely a .500 team, if that.
Its cases like this that make me despise interleague and the unbalanced schedule. I’d cry with joy if they did away with IL and just had all the teams play each other an equal amount of times at home and on the road. Then we would truly see who is the best team, and impostor teams like the Angels (with the exception of 09, they were good last year) would be shown for what they were. Do away with divisions and just have the best 4 teams make the playoffs from each league. 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3. That would be logical and easy….sadly Bud Selig doesnt do logical or easy.
-Yeah, I just posted that, but my opinion is apparently "wrong" a significant portion of the time though, so take it as you will.
I think you're making too many excuses because you don't want to admit that the Angels actually HAVE been better than you'll accept
As I showed you the other day, they’ve averaged the second most wins in the AL after the Yankees since 2004, in the mid-90s. Doing that consistently is made up of more than just beating up on AL West teams or interleague teams. Hell, the A’s beat up on interleague teams for a number of seasons. Is that the excuse for why they were good? Doubt it.
Their interleague records from 2004-2009:
04: 7-11
05: 12-6
06: 7-11
07: 14-4
08: 10-8
09: 14-4
That’s two great years, one very good year and three mediocre to bad years against the NL. 64-44 record, .592 winning percentage, which is only slightly better than their overall record of 567-405, or .583. Take interleague away and it was 503-361, or .582.
How about within the AL? Over that same period, here’s how they did against the West, Central and East:
AL West: 196-146, .573
AL Central: 155-105, .596
AL East: 152-110, .580
Even there, feasting on the AL West? Not so. They were better against both the Central and East overall.
You’re just coming up with as many excuses as you can not to give the Angels any credit for just winning baseball games from the way I see it.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Jun 26, 2010 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wel they didnt score any runs nor prevent them.
09 was the only year where I will give them credit, they were a great team. 07-08 though? Not so. I just dont and cant thanks to their numbers, believe that to be true.They were indeed pretty good from 04-06 too. You are cherry-picking me away from my argument, which is just from 07-08, that I contest them not being a good team and purely a product of a bad division/illogically somehow winning despite sucking.
-Yeah, I just posted that, but my opinion is apparently "wrong" a significant portion of the time though, so take it as you will.
That's where you're missing the point
They still scored a fair amount more runs than they gave up even if you just look at 2007 and 2008, and 2008 especially clearly showed they were exceptionally better than normal in closer games. The blowouts pretty much evened themselves out and since the run differentials weren’t very wide the Pythag record would reflect one that should have been much closer than it was.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
By the way
I don’t really think it’s cherry-picking when I’m looking at a broader range than you are. As for them “somehow winning despite sucking,” well, even their Pythag record in 2007 said they should have won 90.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Saying the Angels "sucked" isn't accurate
But I do think it’s fair to say they weren’t as good as their record. Of course, they were still better than the A’s, which is all that really matters.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Jun 28, 2010 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions
its easy
they play in the west and the other three teams have been bad since 2006
by Chris Schlitz on Jun 27, 2010 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
That would be the explanation for their players exceeding pre-season predictions
That’s not an explanation for outperforming pythags.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
It's not much of an explanation for
exceeding predictions, either. Aren’t the predictors supposed to know when a division is weak?
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I'm not sure
I doubt very much that any of the standard prediction formulas have any way of taking division rivals’ injuries or veterans-for-prospects trades into account. If it’s a constant from year to year, then I suppose bad competition would affect season X as well as X+1, and thus be taken into account. Otherwise, I think it could explain deviations from predictions.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Right, but surely
misjudging the Angels for 143 games is a larger factor than misjudging the Mariners, A’s or Rangers for 19 games.
The guys making the projections are projecting ALL the teams.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
It's not as if baseball luck somehow restarts after a season is over
Nor is it confined to one team. Sometimes, one team is going to be extraordinarily better than expected over historical data, but because baseball has huge datasets, it’s hard to tease out whether it’s truly luck (likely) or simply unquantifiable characteristics. I really dispute the idea that the Angels have figured out some winning formula that allows them to consistently outperform what are generally thought to be solid projection tools.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
Athletics Nation - WE'RE ALL GONNA MRIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!! - danmerqury
by cuppingmaster on Jun 26, 2010 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think they've found a specific way to outperform, per se
Projections are just that – projections. Every so often you’ll get a team that consistently does better than they’re “supposed” to for a period of time. Sometimes it just comes down to how you do in certain situations and how often you have certain types of games.
From 2004-2009 the Angels have consistently outperformed their Pythag Record and especially in 2008, it’s easy to see a big part of why when you look at their record in one-run games: 31-21, but they were also 49-21 in games decided by 2-4 runs (80-42 in all games under 5 runs, 20-20 in games decided by 5+). There’s more:
2004: 92-70 (Pythag 91-71), 19-21 in 1-run games, 44-28 in 2-4 games, 29-21 in 5+ games = balanced and pretty even with the Pythag
2005: 95-67 (Pythag 93-69), 33-26 in 1-run games, 36-30 in 2-4 games, 26-11 in 5+ games = balanced and pretty even with the Pythag
2006: 89-73 (Pythag 84-78), 25-22 in 1-run games, 38-29 in 2-4 games, 26-22 in 5+ games = helped a bit more by the 2-4 games, it seems
2007: 94-68 (Pythag 90-72), 25-19 in 1-run games, 44-30 in 2-4 games, 25-19 in 5+ games = balanced and pretty even with the Pythag, though helped by the 2-4 games
2008: 100-62 (Pythag 88-74), 31-21 in 1-run games, 49-21 in 2-4 games, 20-20 in 5+ games = weighted heavily by the huge W/L record in close games, so actual wins far outperform the expected wins by the mediocre blowout record
2009: 97-65 (Pythag 92-70), 27-18 in 1-run games, 40-31 in 2-4 games, 30-16 in 5+ games = strong records in all categories making for a better actual record without a bad “split” to cancel anything out
So, their average record was 94.5-67.5 compared to an average Pythag of 89.7-72.3. They’ve consistently outperformed the Pythag by just about 5 wins a season. Their record in 1-run games was 160-127 (.557), under their overall winning percentage of .583. In “close” games it was 251-169 (.598), and in “blowouts” it was 156-109 (.589). But, the percentage of those games weighs more to the “close” games (43.2%) and 1-run games (29.5%) compared to the “blowouts” (27.3%), which is about what you’d expect – you’re going to have more close games on average than blowouts, right?
They were also built and played in such a way so as to take advantage of that. They usually didn’t need to outslug other teams and if they kept the game close they showed they’d probably win. The 1-run winning percentage is lower but that fits into the belief that a lot of those games are decided by one or two plays that could go your way one night but the other way the next.
What’s it all mean? I think it proves that you absolutely can build a team that’s more likely to win close games and when you have a majority of them, well…yeah, you’re going to outperform your Pythag record. When they do it consistently, it pretty much justifies their approach but it doesn’t mean it’s going to work for any other team. We keep waiting for the Angels to come back to normal, but so far they haven’t.
Even this year they’re 4 wins ahead of their Pythag record at this point. They’ve been outscored by 11 runs but their splits are 12-8 in 1-run games, 18-11 in 2-4 and 11-16 in 5+. So far their percentage of blowout games is higher but again, they’re much better in the close games.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Yes, by definition a team that wins lots of close games
will beat its Pythagorean record. But it should be noted that this is not necessarily a positive accomplishment.
One way to achieve it would be to only score just enough to win and never add on extra runs when you’re ahead, while at the same time giving up a ton of runs and getting blown out every time you fall behind. Do this consistently, and at the end of the year you could boast of a great record in close games and a shitty record over all.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
what about above average bullpen skill variance?
I don’t follow the hardcore sabrmetric blogs but, shouldn’t having a wider than average variance in the skill of your bullpen pitchers get you this behavior? Pitching very good pitchers in high leverage positions will tend to win you the close games, and pitching very crappy pitchers in low leverage positions (for example, down by 3 runs in the 7th) will mean you lose turn moderate losses into blowouts more often than other teams.
Or in other words, the Angels could have had 2-3 very good bullpen pitchers and absolute crap for the rest of the pen, which I think fits with my memory of those Angels teams.
Yes, that has been suggested.
Someone wrote a rather detailed post making exactly that argument. I think it was on Beyond the Boxscore. But I think the conclusion was that it wasn’t sufficient to explain the entire discrepancy, only a partial contributing factor.
I would again note that having a high-variance bullpen doesn’t necessarily make you better or worse. It just pushes your Pythagorean record down relative to your win-loss record.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Probably so, sure
And it’s a decent strategy that probably leads to those better pitchers breaking down over time. Sure, you can use your poorer arms when you’re definitely looking at a bad loss and save the better ones for the high-leverage situations. Most teams are going to use the best pitchers in the closest situations by default, so a game that might have been a 4-run loss may sometimes turn into 8 when you use someone of less…quality.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
All teams use their better relievers in high leverage situations
and their worse ones in low-leverage situations. This will tend to push any teams W-L record away from their Pythagorean record. The formula accounts for that on average, but those teams which happen to have a higher differential in skill within the bullpen will be pushed further than average.
(I think in one of the earlier discussions, Nico called this the “Bootcheck effect”. He was joking, but the basic idea is sound. When looking at a team’s runs allowed, you need to consider what portion of them were given up by a crappy reliever in blowout games where they had pretty much given up.)
Similarly, whatever team happens to have unusually equal talent level spread throughout the bullpen will be pushed less and thus should tend to underperform its Pythagorean record.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
they play
baseball the right way by moving runners, taking extra bases, putting the runners in on third with one out, with no out and 1st and second bunting the runners over, and they can pitch and play in the west thats why. its also why we sometimes look better this year is because we are taking extra bases bunting and stealing and winning close games
by Chris Schlitz on Jun 27, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
And they do the little things
They are gritty. And have heart.
by el generico on Jun 28, 2010 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
We've discussed this before, so I won't repeat it all,
but Angels exceeding their pythagorean record and Angels exceeding their preseason projections are two separate phenomena.
With regard to the latter, I think that the sort of fans who pay attention to preseason projections like to imagine them as more infallible than they are. If Mookie Cabrera plays worse than all the projections said he would, their instinct is to ask “what is wrong with Mookie?” rather than “what is wrong with our projections?” as if the projections are somehow more real than his actual performance.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I was wondering when (if) someone would point out
that the projections, while useful, are not “reality” – the actual performance is.
Maybe a better way to put it, iglew, is:
“Playing a lot of close games won’t reliably make you a good team.” You’ll have some “A’s in May” months/years and you’ll have some “A’s in June” months/years. You should expect that and not be surprised because it’s part of who you are: Not very good.
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
But we're not that bad, either.
We’re now at 309 runs scored and 321 runs allowed. That’s just a touch under 500. Dial it up a notch and we’re a decent team. Fans have reacted passionately to the bad slump of early June and concluded that the team has crashed and burned. See how much the mood has changed now just from two wins over a bad team?
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
That's the Internet for you though
And fandom in general. People live in the moment and then the moment quickly passes to another moment. That’s why we’re called fanatics. We live and die with it every day. The beauty about baseball that I’ve learned is that it’s nearly impossible to do that. The A’s, even when they were good, always seemed to have a bad month or start or something. There’s 162 freaking games in this season and there are going to be very high highs and, especially with a pretty bad offense, pretty dismal lows. I definitely like the look of this team a lot when it’s healthy.
Course that’s almost asking for too much.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jun 27, 2010 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
According to his user profile page,
he’s subscribed to a zillion other SBN sites. I think maybe he’s a troll.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Your momma
Yep, I’m a total troll :-)
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jun 27, 2010 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions
You forgot
“they play the game the right way” and “But what about Ethier???!!!”
by el generico on Jun 28, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
and don't forget "Smoak!"
New mind-warping, stomach-churning Pilots songs are now online... follow the link if you dare (don't say you weren't warned!) NSFW!!!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Jun 28, 2010 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I think we agree the A's aren't that good
Having Coco in the lineup will help a little, but we have to pitch much better on the road to be a .500 team at year’s end. Or play the Pirates and Orioles 80 times.
@WorldBLee
This is all really good stuff
and I appreciate both Nico’s and iglew’s take … the bottom line is: we’re not very good. We need to do things (player moves/acquisitions, coaching changes) that make us better. That’s Beane’s job. Make us better. If we’re not getting better, then Beane isn’t doing his job.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
Excellent entry
I’m less reluctant to use a term like “luck” than iglew is, but as long as we all understand what it denotes (via iglew’s explanation), this is what makes me the most upset about the A’s over recent seasons. I see marginal teams make crazy, unsustainable runs— collecting wins like they’re Quaaludes and 1984 is coming— and I just get frustrated. Why not the A’s? Why not this marginal team?
"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."
Some day we might.
That is the rationale for putting together a 500-ish team year after year rather than doing a complete, blow-up-the-team rebuild.
And if you want to talk about beating the odds, surely the 20-game streak in 2002 is the very definition of a “crazy, unsustainable run”. Yes, we were a good team that year, but we weren’t that good. Even if you assume the team has a 75% chance to win any given game — which is extremely generous, equivalent to a 121-41 season — the odds of winning 20 in a row are still more than 300-to-1 against.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Certainly
By “recent seasons,” I meant “ever since 2006 when the A’s last went to the playoffs,” because I’m a fan and I’m demanding.
And re: the rationale for putting together a 500-ish team, I’d rather a complete blow-up-the-team rebuild, I think. It’s just that it seems like it’s never what Beane does, so I end up rooting for the crazy streak.
"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."
who bothers to read the front page, post-yahooification?
i will make this post infinitely more amusing by posting a google image search result for “front page”:
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 Jun 26, 2010 8:37 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Good analysis
I have never been able to get too excited about this year’s team because I didn’t think it was very good. Too many things would have had to break perfectly, including all division opponents having lousy years. The latter seemed possible, but even that wouldn’t help if the team couldn’t play above .500.
I’ve been less chagrined about June because May seemed like a mirage. And the Pythag numbers confirm that it wasn’t my imagination. The team isn’t very good, but not as horrible as the June results have shown.
I think the negative reaction of fans stems in part from the team’s rapid descent out of contention, which makes everyone grumpy, and the sense that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. We don’t have valuable trade bait, or anyone tearing the cover off the ball in AAA. And the team, as now constituted, is good enough to be mediocre.
I've always said the worst thing a team can be is mediocre
Because if it never truly bottoms out, you never get a chance to get those top round draft picks that are almost always the sure things. Ask the Rays about having a lot of high draft picks. Ask the Nationals.
It’s, in some ways, why I didn’t really want to see the team try and be competitive on the field last year in signing some vets and getting Holliday, etc. I would’ve rather just gone with kids and let the team bottom out. I know it’s not in Billy’s nature and I’m sure Lew Wolff doesn’t want that, but let’s face it, there’s hardly anyone coming to the Coliseum any way.
Suffer through a couple of really bad Pirates-like years and then hopefully your draft can help and when you need it, then you bring in the Sheets and Hollidays of the world to round out the younger team.
If you’re really bad, the fans are all over you, if you’re good, they’re also all over you. If you’re mediocre, there’s just a lot of malaise and indifference.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jun 27, 2010 1:17 AM PDT up reply actions
And yet the A's managed to draw at least 20,000
To tonight’s game to watch the “mediocre” A’s play the truly and decades-long “awful” Pirates. This on a weekend when the Giants are also playing at home (third series this season that both teams are at home), and against the Sux no less.
by OaklandSi on Jun 27, 2010 2:19 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
as a long time A's season ticket holder
I don’t expect postseason every year, but I do want to see good baseball and (of course) prefer a team that can contend. That is not too much to ask for, and it does not require a Yankee’s-size payroll either. The A’s have enough $$ to have good scouts and staffs, draft well (and that doesn’t just mean have a top-5 draft pick), develop players, trade reasonably well, and field competitive teams.
The Pirates have a large region all to themselves, a nice new ballpark, and a proud baseball tradition. None of that, however, is convincing fans to attend their games in any reasonable numbers because they have been playing sub-.500 baseball for 17 years.
I don't disagree
but the A’s always seem to be going out to sign the guys like Piazza and Nomar to patch things up until some of the prospects are ready. Guys who have those long injury histories who you know aren’t likely to make it on the field very often. Frank Thomas was the obvious exception, but to me it just doesn’t work out more often than it does.
When you shop at Wal-Mart all the time, you can’t expect consistent quality, especially when the teams in your division are shopping at Nordstrom.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jun 27, 2010 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions
I hear what you're saying, and...
…of late I have been coming around to the idea that… this “upside” crap that so many people get so excited about is just that… crap. Yeah, it’s “upside” when it works out, but it rarely actually does work out.
Even the Moneyball theory of focusing on the undervalued commodity only works if the undervalued commodity is truly undervalued and not just cheap because it has no value.
People like Piazza and Nomar I think are ok to fill out a roster and provide a little extra depth while younger guys mature in the minors. They’re not ok to fill holes and depend on as a significant part of your overall strategy.
Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.
I think there's a difference between guys that "fill out" roster holes and guys that impede the 25-man roster.
Nomar didn’t make much sense to me, given that there just didn’t seem to be any place for him to play, with Giambi, Cust, and Barton.
Sheets this year makes sense, as chances were very good that we would need a mid-rotation innings eater, which is what he has turned out to be. Sure, we coulda hoped for a top of the rotation guy, but if he pitches well from here on he can easily get to or past 3 WAR, and the money is well spent. And he’s staying healthy for now.
Crisp, too, was a good buy, not too terribly expensive, and he doesn’t really crowd the roster. Rajai was a huge question mark coming in, Cust looks on his way out, and Sweeney really needs to be trade bait or moved over to CF with Rajai moved out. I think that we’ve pretty well figured out his actual talent level this year. Gross is pretty much a replacement level player.
So, I like the acquisitions. They can be tough to call, since in the Winter, who knew which LF option would work out? Buck? E-Pat? Too bad they were part of the discussion, but the reality is that they were.
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 love me some anologous banter so here goes.
You cannot expect to shop at Nordstroms [or Macy’s for that matter] when your boss — the aggregate fan, in this case — only cuts you a paltry paycheck. And no matter how well you’ve produced in the past, the pay wasn’t commensurate with what you’ve produced.
When do you finally decide to take your labor services elsewhere to a boss that appreciates your efforts? Are you even allowed? The real tragic part in all this is that your current boss actually expects you to shop at Nordstroms and dress well for work even though he knows damned well that he only pays you enough to shop at Wal*Mart…and he bitches at you for it.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 28, 2010 5:06 AM PDT up reply actions
...
(third series this season that both teams are at home)
This pisses me off.
The A’s/Giants, Yankees/Mets, and Sox/Cubs should NEVER share home dates in the same city.
New mind-warping, stomach-churning Pilots songs are now online... follow the link if you dare (don't say you weren't warned!) NSFW!!!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Jun 27, 2010 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions
or area... you know what I mean...
New mind-warping, stomach-churning Pilots songs are now online... follow the link if you dare (don't say you weren't warned!) NSFW!!!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Jun 27, 2010 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions
and they usually don't most years
it’s really rare to have more than one homestand in a season where both teams are home. I don’t even remember it happening when I lived in NYC or Chicago (though I haven’t lived in either city for some years).
I'm doing this from memory, so bear with me.
For over three decades (I think) MLB employed a specific couple to do their scheduling. And they were pretty damn good at it. Teams almost always played on holidays, which is a big deal to me as a fan. It wasn’t unheard of for two-market teams to be home at the same time, but it was pretty damn rare. Rare enough to not really be an issue. Scheduling was organized and it ran smoothly.
Then, sometime around 2000-2002-ish, for no real stated reason, they stopped using this specific couple and went with another family or company. Since then, things have been less organized, and less optimized for the fans, IMHO. Way too many teams have off-days on holidays, when that’s the perfect time to have special promotions and market to fans. This thing about A’s & Giants home at the same time occurs way too frequently. Other annoyances.
Bud has done some things that I will grudgingly give him credit for that have worked out well, and… dare I say it… have even been an improvement. But, this is one of his failures. There was nothing broken that needed fixing.
Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.
Henry and Holly Stephenson of Martha's Vineyard, MA
Links: SI profile story from 1991. ESPN story from after the 2004 season, when the job was given to a new contractor. Local paper story on the couple in fall 2005 after they were retired. MLB story at the start of the 2006 season.
In 2005 the job was given to Michael Trick’s Sports Scheduling Group. The MLB story reveals that in 2006 the job went to yet another firm, but MLB no longer makes the scheduler’s identity public. The ESPN story noted that the Stephensons were still bidding to get the contract back, so for all we know they may be doing it again.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I would doubt that they are still doing it.
If only because it still isn’t being done nearly as well as it was when they were before.
Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.
I find it interesting...
…that you include the Ray, Nationals, and Pirates all in the same post, but not the same examples. They all three should be included in your first paragraph. Sure, it’s worked for the Rays. Finally. The jury is still out on the Nationals, I think. And, yes, we should ask the Pirates the same question… but the answer won’t be the same.
Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.
How many first overall picks have the Pirates had?
I’m not being flippant, I’m just curious.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jun 27, 2010 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Here ya go
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/draft/first_picks.jsp?feature=pit
Since the early 90s: Kris Benson (96), Bryan Bullington (02), Paul Maholm (93) – all pitchers
The past five seasons they’ve picked either 2nd or 4th.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
This sort of thing is much more of a problem in the NBA
You can get superstars with the 15th pick in the MLB draft, but in the NBA, being a perennial 8 seed puts the team in NBA Hell. It’s really, really hard to get out of that spot, too.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Jun 28, 2010 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions
The whole structure of the NBA is a big problem
First, by the nature of the game a team can be much more dependent on 1 or 2 players. If the worst team in the league replaced its worst player with the best player in the league (say, LeBron or Kobe going to the Nets), they would experience a massive increase in wins. No other sport works that way.
Second, and paradoxically, basketball is absolutely a team sport, one in which having the right combination of pieces makes a huge difference. Some players play well in one system or style, while playing badly in another. Yet the league’s personnel system makes trades incredibly difficult to structure, so you end up with wasted talent all over the league, rotting on team A when they could be doing much better on team B.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
This seems contradictory.
On the one hand, basketball is very much a team sport, on the other hand a single player can make a huge impact.
Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.
That's why I said it was a paradox!
The reason behind it, I think, is that it is in fact a team game, but there are very few players on the court, and one guy can play 20% of the team’s total minutes in the game (a full 48) or close to it, and that player can be given huge responsibility over every offensive set, in addition to having huge defensive responsibilities. There’s nothing close to it in the other sports. Even a QB is sitting on the sidelines for every special teams play or defensive series, he’s only 1 of 11 when he’s on, and he can’t just take a guy one-on-one and score. Hockey plays shifts. Baseball has a batting order. Basketball teams really can just give a superstar the ball and ask him to win for them.
Still, each superstar has different skill sets, and needs different kinds of supporting players. Shaq in his prime needed different support than LeBron needs, for instance.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
If LeBron goes to the Nets and they don't also bring in another big name
They’re no better than a 25-win team. And sure, 25 wins is a lot more than 12, but they’re not going to be good.
The NBA does one thing right: Slotted salaries for draft picks. And it damn sure hasn’t hurt the money given to the established veterans, since mediocre 6th and 7th men get 8-figure deals on a regular basis.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Jun 30, 2010 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Less players overall would lead to bigger salaries though.
SIG SPACE AVAILABLE FOR SPONSORSHIP. INQUIRE WITHIN.
Good post
I feel the A’s are a average team but with Bob Geren as their manager a below average team. The A’s have to good of pitching to have long losing streaks and that is where Geren comes in with his bad management of the team. Geren’s lack of knowledge on how to manage a 25 man roster is what effects the team the most. To many tired players and to many injuries because of over playing someone. Put a real manager in there and the team would be above .500.
Fantastic stuff, iglew.
And I don’t disagree with any of it.
She lives by the wall, and waits by the door.
She walks in the sun, to me.
If Geren is good with younger players...
…as I seem to recall being one of the reasons he’s manager now (best man status notwithstanding), then maybe he should be put back at AAA.
Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.
You promised people dying here
and I have yet to see any. I want my money back
Zooey Deschanel!
Cluck 'em all and let the Chick sort 'em out - DMOAS
by ChickenStanley on Jun 27, 2010 12:04 PM PDT reply actions
"We came for bloooooooood!"
"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."
I have enough of that in real life, don't need any here.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Theoretically...
…shouldn’t there be one 162-0 team and one 0-162 team every year?
Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.
If baseball were a game in which
the better team always wins, then there would be. Fortunately, baseball isn’t that kind of a game.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Well, that's also presuming that "better team" doesn't change on a game by game basis
Which is does (if for no other reason than pitchers play such a huge role).
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Jun 28, 2010 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions
There are two distinct questions
1) Which team is the better team?
2) Which team played better in a particular game?
Scores are supposed to give you an answer to #2, but they don’t always do that, in any sport. And there’s always the possibility of #1 and #2 having different answers.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
There was some guy on usenet...
…who always claimed that the ‘best’ team was the team that won the game… “by definition”.
Haven’t been back to usenet in years, so I don’t know if he’s still there, or not.
Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.
Then he has a different definition of "best" than I do.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Jun 30, 2010 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Same here.
He was routinely challenged for it, but very stubborn about it.
Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.
The one that is best in the bigger picture is the one that is best in the smaller picture more often.
This could be season to game, or game to inning, inning to batter, or batter to pitch.
by LoneStranger on Jun 30, 2010 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions
If this person's hypothesis were true...
…then we wouldn’t need 162 game seasons or a post-season. Each team could play each other team just once, then the team with the best record would be declared champion. Or, a series of one-out-elimination games. You could be done within a month.
Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.
I know it's a side-issue in this diary, iglew....
But we are, actually, all gonna die.
Though probably not right now.
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Jun 28, 2010 6:55 AM PDT reply actions
I love the English language, but
it lacks a richness of verb tense, aspect, and mood. There’s gonna, and there’s gonna.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
NOUS ALL GONNA MORT!!!!!!!
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
Very good stuff, iglew
Eloquent and convincing. If you consider me to be one of the dreaded stat guys, I had indeed left AN, but only for a brief return to my childhood, both in geographical and state-of-mind sense.
That's no excuse for leaving AN. I often retun to my childhood here on a regular basis.
Wait, I mean I act like a child. That’s the same thing, right?
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Jun 30, 2010 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions
You're not a dreaded stat-guy.
You’re a full-spectrum AN’er… goofy, statty, heartwarming, and you speak more languages than the rest of us combined!
New mind-warping, stomach-churning Pilots songs are now online... follow the link if you dare (don't say you weren't warned!) NSFW!!!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Jun 30, 2010 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you may have STDs in at least three.
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
Why Does Anybody Pay any Attention to What Billy Beane Says?
I understand that Beane had a string of good seasons and became a celebrity because of Moneyball. OK—-but that was in a universe a long time ago. Since then—-what: Ethier for Bradley? Carlos Gonzalez for Holliday? Whatever happened to building from within with younger players—-the mantra of most small-market teams. I know this is sacrilege and I will be pilloried for it, but Billy is only all-too human. I love the team in spite of the Coliseum and Oakland’s indifference, but I drifted away because of the Holliday boondoggle. Let’s not make Beane into the Oracle at Delphi. Go A’s—-let’s see Pennington become the SS he deserves to be. Ellis—-wotta player. Let’s keep Crisp—-lots of excitement there, when he’s healthy.
"It's a cookbook!"---The Twilight Zone
Funny thing happened with the Front Page
When I woke up this morning, this FanPost was under the new category – “Editor’s picks” or something, right above “Recommended FanPosts”. Now, after AN hit the showers, it’s all as before.
They didn't pay me, so I withdrew permission.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
There's still a "editor's pick" header above your post.
Looks like it’s time for a cease and desist.
She lives by the wall, and waits by the door.
She walks in the sun, to me.
I agreed to allow them that, in exchange for a foam peanut.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
They were about to give it to a foam elephant.
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
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
