Does Anybody Wonder "What If" About Ron Washington?
Good morning, everyone, Happy Friday! Anyone have a great costume for the parties this weekend? Any parties this weekend? I'll be at Knott's Scary Farm tonight and Disneyland tomorrow. What's everyone else up to? Anyone have any pictures of parties they may have been to last weekend? (Ahem.)
Welcome to the last day of the season, otherwise known as the first GAME SEVEN since 2002, in what has been a really, legitimately awesome World Series (unless you are a Rangers' fan). Eventually, we will start dissecting the upcoming 2012 A's season, working the rosters, and figuring out how we can turn a team full of worse-than-league-average hitters into some semblance of a real Major League team.
But today, we're going to talk about managers. Right after I make a comment about Frank McCourt. Like, worst person ever or what? I mean, that's horrible thing to say, even if you believe it's true, and absolutely horrific PR.
SF Gate published a blurb yesterday about Ron Washington, Moneyball, and Billy Beane. Washington is quoted that he's a big fan of Billy Beane and very grateful for his help, I thought this was interesting:
"You know," he [Washington] continued, "I was in Oakland when all of that happened, and to me it was a great movie about a general manager that was hamstrung as far as dollars go, and he had to find players and put them together under a formula that he thought would work."
The last line gave me pause: a formula he thought would work?. Beane's formula did work. The A's competed for years with the richest teams in the league all the way to the playoffs. They had no business winning the number of games they did (and while you can't discount the amazing pitching, the Moneyball philosophy worked for them, as well as it would work for the Red Sox years later). It's a pretty short-sighted opinion that the only measure of success is a seven game series, rather than the prior 162 games. But I digress.
Ron Washington has taken his team to two World Series' in two years. Do you wish Beane/the A's had hired him instead of Geren? Well, that's a no-brainer. Of course, what I mean is would Washington have made any difference in the A's circa 2007-2011?
But, of course, that's not what I really want to know. It's not fair to compare the 2011 A's to the 2011 Rangers, even at Geren's expense. No manager was going to change those teams' destinies this season. What I want to know, is: From what you have seen over the last two years, would Ron Washington have made a difference as the manager of a different, better, A's team? Say...the Oakland A's circa 2001-2006? Is there anything that Washington could have brought to the table that the previous A's managers didn't? Was he the lucky recipient of a fantastic Texas team the last two seasons, or should he be credited with putting it all together? How would you critique Washington's managing style (I'll post my thoughts later in the thread.)? Why didn't Billy hire him, and if he had it to do all over again, would he make the same decision? And if you want a bonus question; would you take La Russa back? How would you critique his playoff performance?
Game time 5:05 PM as we close out the season in St. Louis.
151 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't think it would have mattered much
But I would have liked to have seen it just the same. two consecutive WS appearances is impressive regardless
OT #1) I’m curious if last night was the busiest night ever in SBN history based on posts, etc. Very interesting to see SBN grow from just AN to a major player in the sports social media world
OT#2) BBG, is there any place I could follow you like Twitter or Google+? Enjoy your insight about baseball, Athletics, and SBN and would like to see more of your stuff
I’ve been overwhelmed and I’ve been underwhelmed. Can I ever just be whelmed?
Awww...you're nice!
I just Tweet through Athletics Nation sometimes, but I will be writing on AN Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the off-season. :-)
"Oh who am I kidding? The A's and Giants could stage a pillow fight, and I'd still care who wins." -67Marquez
by baseballgirl on Oct 28, 2011 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Players love him
And so does the media. But Wash is a terrible in-game manager. He’s done more to prevent the Rangers from winning the Series than anyone else in uniform.
That said, they’re still one win away and I’d love if it the A’s were in that position. Ultimately, he wouldn’t have made much of a difference if he’s been with the A’s in ‘01 – ’06. Those were good teams. Washington has shown he does fine with good talent. It’s only in these short series that his lack of tactical acumen really shows up and makes an impact.
by Jeff in Seattle on Oct 28, 2011 8:01 AM PDT reply actions
I'd much rather have Wash than Geren just because players love him and would want to
play for him.
And I’d take LaRussa back in a second. His “Win now” approach doesn’t really work with the A’s current philosophy, but I’d rather the A’s had the Cardinal’s philosophy anyway.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Melvin seems to inspire manlove now, too
So it’s cool
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Oct 28, 2011 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes I have high hopes for him in that regard
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd watch Wash intentionally walk the tying run
one time and my head would explode. If I had a choice between him and Geren, I’d take Macha.
Geren did that I'm pretty sure
last year and this
by MobiusKlein on Oct 28, 2011 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Jeff - Thank you!
I think being loved by your players is hugely important. But I have long questioned his in-game decisions and have been flabbergasted at all the love shown him. It would be criminal NOT to win with the team they’ve had.
Visit my blog the Todd Van Poppel Rookie Card Retirement Plan!!
I was going to write basically the same thing
Many, many players want to play for Wash. We have read on occasions that some players may not have wanted to play for the A’s with Geren as manager.
Another issue: would Wash have had more say in choosing his coaching staff than (I suspect) Geren did? Would he have been more consulted than Geren was about roster moves?
I doubt Beane would trust Wash any more than he did Geren on player acquisition
issues. Beane seems like someone who would base his decision off a process designed and executed in the front office and then ask the manager and coaches “we’re thinking of getting this guy….any strong objections?”
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, I am agreeing with you
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think that it did at all.
The last line gave me pause: a formula he thought would work?. Beane’s formula did work. The A’s competed for years with the richest teams in the league all the way to the playoffs. They had no business winning the number of games they did (and while you can’t discount the amazing pitching, the Moneyball philosophy worked for them,
The 2000-2003 A’s were built around 5 (Chavez, Tejada, Mulder, Hudson, Zito) or 6 (Giambi) players who would put up near All-Star or better years (25 WAR+) each year. None of those guys were “Moneyball” acquisitions. Only Zito and Mulder were acquired after Beane became GM.
Beane’s real imprint on the roster started in 2004 when he decided to replace Tejada, Hernandez and Long with Kotsay, Kendall and Crosby probably in large part due to the greater plate discipline of the latter 3 players. The fact that these guys were injury prone and/or sucked probably cost the team 3 Wins per year through 2006. To make matters worse, while Beane wasn’t looking OBP became less important than SLG leaving the A’s with a bunch of impotent strike takers.
Over the past 7 years neither has the team won very much nor has it won more than other teams with similar payrolls — Rays and Rangers. I’m sticking with my position that Beane is possibly the most overrated baseball executive in history.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 8:35 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
LaRussa's comment that he was "offended" by Moneyball because it didn't mention the stars
is very much like what you correctly pointed out was the heart of the 2000-2003 A’s. I thought Wash’s comments were very diplomatic.
And he's right, of course.
To pretend that the A’s built a team around the “Moneyball” philosophy while ignoring the best pitching rotation in the league is disingenuous, at best.
But Moneyball or not, Beane was the GM of the A’s for 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2006 running on essentially a shoestring budget. He couldn’t work with it forever, and eventually, the league caught up to him (and you are correct; he bought into the initial “stat world”, but apparently forgot to evolve with it). Yes he had talent; yes he had the pitching; yes he had Giambi at his prime. But I still think there is more to it.
"Oh who am I kidding? The A's and Giants could stage a pillow fight, and I'd still care who wins." -67Marquez
by baseballgirl on Oct 28, 2011 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Moneyball points to the Hatteberg acquisition as one that typifies how high OBP players
were undervalued by traditional scouts because he had basically one skill — plate discipline and no plus traditional tools — hitting, power, speed, arm, fielding. The problem with that for me is that Hatterberg was a below average player during his time with the A’s. Sure he had an average year in 2002 and hit a dramatic HR, but just acquiring a below average player who has an average year and hits a dramatic HR off the scrap heap doesn’t make one an iconoclastic pioneer who proved everyone wrong. It would be like saying Brian Cashman or John Mozeliak geniuses because Shane Spencer and Allen Craig had a great month or four.
Can you think of any other example of Beane implementing a “Moneyball” strategy in a way that actually helped the A’s compete with higher payroll teams? The only real example I can think of is Tim Hudson who as a short righty was drafted lower than he would have been had he been 6’ 4"". But Alderson drafted him.
Beane’s Moneyball acquisitions were guys like Jeremy Giambi, Jack Cust, Scott Sizemore — useful role players for short periods of time, but hardly work that merited literature.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Because for me, Moneyball's success wasn't about the draft, at all.
I think the wild success of Moneyball hinges on how the A’s now played the game, not necessarily who they were playing the game with. Sure, they tried to draft the undervalued players, but not because they didn’t want the superstars; they just couldn’t afford them. So the A’s tried to come up with players who would mimic some of those big numbers, in less flashy ways.
Although it certainly had been brought up before (Bill James, Eric Walker), Moneyball was the first book to go viral (so to speak) with the idea that a) OBP is important b) defense is more important that you’d believe c) sacrifice bunts are stupid, and actually give away outs that lead to scoring more and more runs and d) stolen bases will hurt you if you have less than an 85% success rate. Those are some of the changes that Moneyball implemented, and that is what started to chang the game of baseball.
"Oh who am I kidding? The A's and Giants could stage a pillow fight, and I'd still care who wins." -67Marquez
by baseballgirl on Oct 28, 2011 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions
OK then the credit is due to Lewis for writing a best seller about OBP, not to
Beane for being the 1,000,000th guy to think OBP is important and not implementing it very well.
OBP rather than BA has been valued by executives at least to John McGraw, if not before that. Gene Michael took the Yankees from a perennial joke in New York to a powerhouse by acquiring high OBP guys like Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada and Paul O’Neill, as well as good defenders like Scott Brosius. He also didn’t sacrifice nor steal much. Is he a genius too?
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, actually...I think the Yankees rise to fame is one of the most interesting stories in baseball.
And as cheesy as this sounds, the part of the Moneyball book/movie that is the most true is not that Beane was the first person to think any of this is important, but rather, he was one of the first guys to say, “F*** it all, Joe Morgan and crew, old-school baseball scouts, people who think you have to have played the game to understand it, who relied on grit, heart, and guts and clutch ability; the statistics show you are dead wrong in how you are managing your baseball team, and I’m going to do it a different way.”
He may not have been the best at implementing it, drafting it, or following through with it, but he was willing to be the guy who stood up against “traditional” baseball, and a long damn history of it, and doing something different. That’s the appeal.
"Oh who am I kidding? The A's and Giants could stage a pillow fight, and I'd still care who wins." -67Marquez
by baseballgirl on Oct 28, 2011 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I can see that being the appeal of Moneyball the book and movie, but not
of Beane
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Fuck, so the solution is to get 4 or 5 HOF or near HOF caliber guys all at once
It’s so much more clear now.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
Yes it's a revolutionary concept.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Why don't we just do that???
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
I'll be happy if we can get one
and keep them, and keep them healthy.
by MobiusKlein on Oct 28, 2011 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Them?
If it’s just one, it’s “him”, right?
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Did I hear someone mention...
SCOTT BROSIUS?!?!?!
BOTTOM LINE! +46! To hell with STATS!!!!! Count the RINGS!!!!
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
He could have traded away the prospects of Zito, Mulder, and Hudson in the hopes of competing with established guys
But, he didn’t, and he traded the latter two at the height of their value. That’s where Beane deserves credit; other GMs would have jumped the gun and traded them away sooner.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Oct 28, 2011 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Sure the Mulder deal was a good one, but most GMs make some good deals
The Hudson deal was a bad one, and most GMs make some bad deals too. Overall the team became much worse the more his imprint on its composition was felt after 2004. I see nothing that tells me Beane is anything other than an average GM with a great publicist.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
The main thing that made Beane a better than average GM,
I think, was not that he was so much smarter about his targets, but that he had the sort of old-school trader charisma and energy that enabled him to pull off lots of big deals.
That has faded considerably in recent years, probably because the new generation of GMs (and their support staffs) are less conducive to the sort of wheeling and dealing that Beane is so good at.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
There was a quote somewhere from Beane saying that basically 'negotiations' don't happen any longer
it’s “I will give you prospect X and Y for Player Z” take it or leave it.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
Yeah, I remember that.
I wanted to quote it, but couldn’t recall where to find it with a quick search.
I think Billy excelled at negotiations, and that talent is no longer as important as it once was.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
This. I think that's the big thing--
especially since Beane’s talent was really knowing what was going on and wedging himself into it. We haven’t seen him involved in one of those crazy-ass three team deals in years and I think that’s the big sign to me about the shift in front offices.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
On the other hand, who *has* been involved
in those crazy-ass three-team deals in recent years? Alex Anthopoulos, that’s who.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Frankly let's not forget
That the draft is to a big degree still largely a crapshoot. The A’s have drafted poorly and haven’t had much TO trade in recent seasons.
Visit my blog the Todd Van Poppel Rookie Card Retirement Plan!!
Yeah
Beane was a guy who could pull of some nice, sneaky trades that turned out to be steals. Maybe he wasn’t good with trading around big names, but he was good with late-July/small-market trades (see Corey Lidle, Ricardo Rincon).
They took the $12M they could have paid to Tejada and paid it to Kendall (and Rhodes/Redman).
They took the money they could have paid to Hernandez and Long and paid it to Kotsay and Crosby. Overall they saved a small amount to get much worse.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
They paid Kendall for three years, Rhodes/Redman for two.
They would have had to pay Tejada for at least six. And Miggy was a roided up shortstop with a ton of mileage on his body who was two years older than he said he was. Not a good 6 year investment.
BUT BUT BUT HE LOVES THE GAME SO MUCH
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
I did love it when Miguel imitated the rally monkey.
One of the greatest A’s moments of the decade.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
I liked when he threw all his batting gloves into the stands and gave away all his bats
and then ended up having another AB in the game. XD
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
My beloved Ramon was dealt pretty much as the only way to get rid of Long, no one wanted to touch that.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Its a small market team...
“They took the $12M they could have paid to Tejada and paid it to Kendall (and Rhodes/Redman).”
Low-revenue teams need to make decisions like get three guys who can provide value versus one who can. That’s just reality. That says nothing of GM quality. It might if it were Brian Cashman, but it doesn’t say anything in Oakland when you need 25 guys on a roster.
Visit my blog the Todd Van Poppel Rookie Card Retirement Plan!!
So low revenue teams need to pay inferior players almost as much as the much better players
and watch their attendance decline by 30% over 5 years? Got it.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions
This is a rather disingenous argument.
You’ve conveniently neglected to mention that at the time of acquisition, Kendall and Kotsay were two of the premier players at their position.
In the 3 years before their acquisition by the A’s, Kendall averaged 4 WAR a season while Kotsay averaged 4.5. Bobby Crosby was the #1 shortstop prospect in the minors (who actually played shortstop). In comparison, Tejada averaged 4 WAR, Hernandez averaged 2.75, and Long averaged <1. It had nothing to do with selecting for plate discipline. The A’s were selecting for better quality for roughly the same amount of salary.
But the most egregious part of your argument is that it completely ignored the fact that choosing Group A (Tejada, Hernandez, Long) would’ve irrefutably disallowed the A’s to extend their 25 year old, averaging-5-WAR-a-season third baseman who had an impeccable health record up to that point. You’ve chosen to extend Tejada instead, the 30 year old SS with poor defense and probable steroid use, and you’re also stuck with Rhodes and Redman and their respective salaries.
In reality, it was Tejada, Hernandez, Long, Rhodes, Redman vs. Kotsay, Kendall, Crosby, and Chavez. Pre-2004, it’s obvious that the second group contained both the better quality and value. Yes, in hindsight the second group looks awful but Beane made the right decision at the time; the complete implosion of the second group, mostly due to injuries, was out of his control.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Oct 28, 2011 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
I wish i could turn this green all by myself.
I love you.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
I'll help.
Don't you realise you'll find next monday or next Tuesday/Your golden shoes day
by PDXAthleticsfan on Oct 28, 2011 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Sure, but part of being the genius GM
is making decisions that work out in hindsight, not just ones that are safe and defensible. If your argument is that you made “the right decision at the time” even though it turned out bad, then you’re the GM who covers his ass and doesn’t get fired, not the brilliant maverick GM who is ahead of the game.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
or you're brian sabean and you have a shitty process that flukes its way into a world series
unless somehow paying aaron rowand and barry zito 30 million dollars to sit the bench is a good thing
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
That's fair.
But I’m not arguing that Beane is a genius GM. I haven’t been his biggest fan, especially of late.
I simply find it unreasonable to blame him for Damaso Marte breaking Chavez’s hand, or Chavez choosing to delay surgery until his entire body was crippled, or Bobby Crosby breaking his ribs sliding into home on Opening Day, etc. You’re implying that the standard for brilliance includes the ability to predict events like that. If that’s the standard, then yes, Beane most certainly isn’t brilliant.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Oct 28, 2011 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
The part I don't understand, is why the A's had to pay so much of Kotsay's salary in the Atlanta trade.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Fine, but they paid about $5.35M of his $7M salary.
Kind of a high price.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Buying Joey Devine for 5.35M is dirt cheap.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
True, he has done so much for us....
Remember, this trade was 4 seasons ago.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
I disagree with so much of what you've written I don't know where to start
In the 3 years before their acquisition by the A’s, Kendall averaged 4 WAR a season while Kotsay averaged 4.5. Bobby Crosby was the #1 shortstop prospect in the minors (who actually played shortstop). In comparison, Tejada averaged 4 WAR, Hernandez averaged 2.75, and Long averaged <1. It had nothing to do with selecting for plate discipline. The A’s were selecting for better quality for roughly the same amount of salary.
Who cares about any of this? Show me where an injured Kendall in his early 30s, a backless Kotsay and Bobby F’ing Crosby projected better than Iron Man Tejada, Healthy Ramon and Replacement Long?
In reality, it was Tejada, Hernandez, Long, Rhodes, Redman vs. Kotsay, Kendall, Crosby, and Chavez. Pre-2004, it’s obvious that the second group contained both the better quality and value. Yes, in hindsight the second group looks awful but Beane made the right decision at the time; the complete implosion of the second group, mostly due to injuries, was out of his control.
The only part of this that’s true is the part where “the second group looks awful”. On what rational basis was it the “right decision at the time”? In what universe is getting injured players instead of healthy ones a “better quality and value”. This is a total crock.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions
You can start with actually substantiating your claims.
Kendall’s only injury history was his freak ankle break in ‘99. Since then, he averaged ~150 games in the 5 seasons before being traded to the A’s. Calling him “injured Kendall” is just an outright lie. And after being traded to the A’s, he still played 150 and 143 games in those subsequent two seasons (whereas “healthy” Ramon quickly got injured with San Diego and managed just 111 and 99 games).
Crosby had no injury history in the minors. He was BA’s #32 prospect at the time; some ranked him higher. Sickels ranked him the second best hitting prospect behind Joe Mauer. There was plenty of reason to expect him to turn out to be a good big leaguer, and a few thought he would match Tejada.
Kotsay was the only one with a bit of an injury history at the time. He missed about one 15 day DL stint worth of games due to a strained back, the year before being traded to the A’s. Basically:
1) This was the first time he had back problems.
2) He was only 27 at the time.
3) It wasn’t serious.
4) He was still very productive.
5) He didn’t miss a lot of time.
If Beane is to be blamed for acquiring a player like this, then he literally can’t make a transaction without it being deemed a serious error. A little hyperbolic to call him “backless Kotsay” especially considering he played 2004 for the A’s with zero injury problems at all, no?
You also completely negated to address my point on how keeping Tejada would’ve certainly meant losing Chavez as the A’s would’ve had to deal with Rhodes’ and Redmans’ sunk cost salaries. So stop framing it as just Kotsay, Kendall, and Crosby over Tejada, Hernandez, and Long. It’s misleading and makes you look even more disingenous.
You’ve completely disregarded facts in an effort to spew forth a narrative you’ve already convinced yourself of being true. At this point, you’re just wasting my time; it’s rather obvious who’s the one coming up with “total crock”.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Oct 29, 2011 7:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Kendall had long been an object of Beane's desire
unfortunately, the Pirates finally let him go just before he hit that dreaded decline. while it’s not possible to predict when that decline will happen, one might have guessed that a catcher who had caught so many games and endured some horrific injuries might be getting there sooner than later.
I understand that.
He was an elite player before the freak injury, but even after the injury, he still managed to average 4 WAR a year in the seasons leading up to the trade with the A’s, maybe higher if you ignore WAR’s usage of UZR’s dubious catcher defense numbers. It’s reasonable to expect him to decline further, but post injury Kendall was still generally better than Ramon ever was for the A’s.
In any case, it’d be wrong to frame it as the A’s “choosing” Kendall to replace part of Tejada, Hernandez, Long. People forget that Kendall was acquired a year after those guys left. Unless Beane somehow knew that not only would he be getting Kendall a year before he actually got him, but he’d be getting him with the guys he signed before 2004 started (Rhodes, Redman) because they would suck so much during the 2004 campaign that he’d have to trade them….damn, he really would’ve had to have been a mastermind!
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Oct 29, 2011 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions
FYI, catcher UZR is included in (Fangraphs) WAR
only from 2003 on. So only two of Kendall’s pre-Oakland years.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Actually,
He replaced Hernandez with Miller for 2004. Kendall came along after 2005, and his fairly large contract may have been one of the reasons why Oakland didn’t try to keep Hudson and pay his salary.
If Washington was here, I don't think we'd be talking about the A's in the World Series
Not unless he had that roster and that ballpark like he does in Texas.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
with better players it is of course possible for the A's to be in the World Series
even in the coliseum…
True, the 2001 team could have very well been in the World Series
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I think the 2002 team was the one that should have won it all.
It was a shame to essentially waste the 20 game win streak.
"Oh who am I kidding? The A's and Giants could stage a pillow fight, and I'd still care who wins." -67Marquez
by baseballgirl on Oct 28, 2011 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Of course it is
But they’re not going anywhere with, at minimum, a much better roster.
I’m not sold on half the guys in Texas hitting worth a damn most other places either, in the long run.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Which tells me that their FO has done a much better job of assembling a team to win 1/2 their games than ours has.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
In this series alone, I think both managers have been just a little too cute
There have been some decisions made on a national stage that were just unreal. Neither has overly impressed me, but what do I know? I would have fired Ron Washington in 2009 for benching Nelson Cruz.
"Oh who am I kidding? The A's and Giants could stage a pillow fight, and I'd still care who wins." -67Marquez
As much as this series makes for a case study in what makes a good WS
The winning team will have won in spite of, not because of, their manager.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Oct 28, 2011 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
What's LaRussa done that's so wrong other than have a bad phone connection?
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
The IBB to Nelson Cruz
Was CRIMINAL with Dotel pitching. I’d have destroyed my TV on that if I were a Cards fan.
Visit my blog the Todd Van Poppel Rookie Card Retirement Plan!!
You disagree with one IBB and that makes LaRussa a bad manager?
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions
his bullpen usage was a shitshow
I’m becoming more and more convinced that that is the one way where managers can make a difference on the field.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Oct 29, 2011 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Albert Pujols is due for a big day at the plate tonight.
by AuthenticA'sfan on Oct 28, 2011 9:55 AM PDT via iPhone app reply actions
Well...
I agree that it wouldn’t have made a big difference at all. The talent disparity between the A’s and Rangers is huge, and Wash would have had the same bag of balls to work with as Geren; BUT, I think the team would have probably been more fun to watch. And yeah, I think they would have been more cohesive, worked/played together better, under a manager that they liked/respected.
So they would would have been like they were under Melvin?
Did you find the Melvin A’s fun to watch?
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions
They played a less hare-brained baseball
I think the fun had been sapped out earlier because they were already looking like a lost cause. Impossible to separate that from the sentiment.
Visit my blog the Todd Van Poppel Rookie Card Retirement Plan!!
i think you’re reading too much into the “thought would work”/“did work” thing. i’m reading wash’s words as, at the time that BB was putting the team together he had to have faith in the formula (ie. he “thought [it] would work” without yet knowing if it did or not because the season was still playing out.) not that wash now thinks the formula is of dubious value.
What else do I have to do, but read into quotes? ;-)
It’s very possible that’s what he meant. I just wonder if Washington really bought into the philosophy, ya know?
"Oh who am I kidding? The A's and Giants could stage a pillow fight, and I'd still care who wins." -67Marquez
by baseballgirl on Oct 28, 2011 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Given the way Wash manages, it seems to me that he thinks the formula is of dubious
value. The Rangers were 3rd in MLB in BRAA, and yet were 5th in SB and 4th in the AL in SH. He ran and bunted at an above average rate with an excellent hitting team.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 28, 2011 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
i think i’m saying that whether wash does think that or not and whatever evidence of it you might find elsewhere, it’s not really what he’s saying in this quote. if you listen to the flow of this phrase, it’s definitely putting things in the “at the time” frame.
he had to find players and put them together under a formula that he thought would work.
Lawyers and journalists
That story doesn’t actually say anything about Frank McCourt. A horrible crime was committed on the property and at an event of the Dodgers. Because the Dodgers have by far the deepest pockets anywhere around, lawyers for the victim are trying to pin as much as possible of the blame on the Dodgers. In response, the lawyers for the Dodgers are trying to redirect as much of the blame as possible anywhere else, including back onto the victim. That’s unpleasant, sure, but it’s what lawyers do in a liability case. It’s business as usual, and it would be a stupid lawyer who doesn’t play that game.
Meanwhile in this news story, Frank McCourt is the lead sentence, he’s all through the story, and there’s a big picture of him. And yet, if you read the story carefully you can see that McCourt has in fact done absolutely nothing at all here except own a big company that employs a lawyer who is not incompetent.
And that’s the journalist doing her job. That’s what journalists do. They take a mundane event and connect it to a reviled figure to turn it into a scandal that makes your blood boil.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
by iglew on Oct 28, 2011 10:51 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I agree with this regarding it saying anything about McCourt
Though I think it was bad legal strategy and PR strategy for the attorney to publicly say this fairly early in litigation because I don’t think that it does any good to their case to go on ESPN or whatever news station he said and blame Stowe, even if in part. If anything it further enflames the public, and the family’s lawyer can use that further public outrage to push for higher settlement, I think. These type of statements should be something left for private settlement discussion and ultimately in trial if it gets there. I just don’t see where it helps their case to publicly make this statement this early on.
by longtimeasfan on Oct 28, 2011 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
You may be right about the interview.
Filing the counter-complaint made perfect sense. Going on ESPN and talking about it, I’m not so sure. But given the sensationalist tilt of this article, I’d want to see what the lawyer actually said in context before jumping to any conclusions. From the article alone, I can’t tell. It may be he really didn’t blame Stow but the press sort of tweaked that out of his words with strategic editing.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
From reading a fuller account of his comments,
I’m willing to conclude that McCourt’s lawyer really is just that big of an asshole.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Do you have a link to those comments?
I’d like to read them.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
furthermore
the legal strategy of suggesting other parties are partly to blame is simply suggesting their actions were part of the reason for the injury. For example, McCourt’s attorney’s will probably argue that Stowe engaged in confrontational behavior with the attackers – thereby being partially “responsible.” (they will also argue that the attackers’ behavior was an unforseeable act of a third-party for which they bear no liability. Unless there is a history of gnarly fights outside of Dodgers games, this is a solid argument, as a facility cannot / ought not be held responsible for unforseeable acts of unrelated parties)
California is a comparative negligence state so breaking liability into percentages is the way the game is played. It’s a public policy decision that allows juries to award some damages to a plaintiff even if the plaintiff has been shown to be partially at fault. Back in the day, the plaintiff collected nothing if the defense could show any liability of the part of the plaintiff.
Another reason McCourt may be in the lede
Journalists working in non-online media are being told to write (or are being edited if they don’t) with the online version of their stories in mind, which includes getting all the hot searchable terms placed in the first few sentences. The old-school version of this story would have had “The Dodgers organization, already mired in controversy because of owner Frank McCourt’s acrimonious divorce….” down about the 17th graf — and wouldn’t have got the clicks.
Scott Hatteberg, English major.
by Englishmajor on Oct 28, 2011 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Unrelated, but important:
The Angels have been looking for a GM for a little while now, and there were reports that the owners had dinner with Friedman from the Rays (no no no no no!). Well, they just made a hire. Jerry Dipoto. The same guy who, in Arizona, gave up Dan Haren for Joe Saunders.
Hahahahahaha.
He wanted to go back to haren
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
Maybe that was part of the deal all along
OK, I’ll give you Haren, but when I get fired for this you have to hire me.
by Glorious Mundy on Oct 28, 2011 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions
And Tyler Skaggs . . .
One of the best pitching prospects in baseball. Of course, facts make bad snark.
by BlameChannel53 on Oct 28, 2011 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions
OT: Super two
sorry if this was already posted. Three A’s made super two, Gio, Powell, Rosales. I can see them letting Powell and Rosales go possibly.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/price-porcello-among-27-to-reach-super-two-status.html
I’ve been overwhelmed and I’ve been underwhelmed. Can I ever just be whelmed?
YES!!!!
Please say they are also not going to sully the Coliseum any more with those awful black jerseys with bright orange lettering
by Glorious Mundy on Oct 28, 2011 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions
about last night
I really Nelson Cruz was going to catch Freese’s 9th inning triple – if I were a Texas fan, I would rue that (non)play regardless of how unfair that may be. That was a catchable ball for a competent outfielder.
I think that it would have been
a very good play if he made it, but it was makeable. He mistimed it, and also seemed to want to avoid going into the wall too hard. I’m sure, if Rangers will lose tonight that it will be a play that will haunt many Rangers fans for awhile, similar to many A’s plays in the postseason that haunt me.
by longtimeasfan on Oct 28, 2011 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
definitely would've been a very good play
I have a belief for some reason that Cruz is an above-average defensive outfielder, so when I saw his eyes tracking it all the way, I expected him to catch it.
I think the Cards pull it off tonight and if they do, I agree about knowing how Rangers fans may feel about that play,
it was makeable if you consider it was the probable last out of the WS. you just don’t take a jog on a play like that.
I don't think it was lack of effort
I think he just completely misjudged where the wall was/choked on the moment
by Glorious Mundy on Oct 28, 2011 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
he's a good fielder. He simply misjudged it and couldn't make the play
happens all the time. too bad for him it cost the Rangers the World Series.
.
and also seemed to want to avoid going into the wall too hard.
Fuck that.
That ball is the difference between a championship and extra innings. You break your leg for that ball. You put a hole in the wall. Inexcusable to be scared of hitting the wall too hard in that situation,
I am happy to say this is now green
I don't feel that I'm feeling your feelings, about these feelings that you feel.
I thought is was (after looking at it 10 times) a routine catch
He’s a goat for not making it and all those home runs he hit will mean nothing if they lose tonight.
Oliver was pathetic for allowing 2 LHB to reach in the first place
Wash is there largely because of the team his GM can field for him.
He’s not a great tactical manager, he doesn’t seem to be a great strategic manager either.
His players love him, that’s a plus. It’s not like we had that with Geren.
I don’t think it would have mattered much.
I wonder how the AN gamethreads would look
if we got to the World Series, and our manager made a series of decisions like the ones Wash made last night.
by Glorious Mundy on Oct 28, 2011 12:09 PM PDT reply actions
Fire. Pitchforks. Server explosions. Lots of drinking.
And the Lounge to End All Lounges.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Tonight's game is in St. Louis instead of Arlington because C.J. Wilson failed at his job
“It’s a total failure when you give up a three-run home run in an All-Star Game,” Wilson said. “Bummer. Now it’s time to go home to the beach.”
by Glorious Mundy on Oct 28, 2011 12:35 PM PDT reply actions
Plus the mound was obviously bush-league.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Game on!
I don’t see a thread, so I guess this is the one?
I turned on 5 mins in and missed two runs already!
Holliday is out today. Anyone else think it's because of his poor execution on both sides and not an injury?
Oh free internet, how I love thee.....
I’m hanging out at SFO waiting for my flight watching the game on the television here (if anyone is here, come on over to the Buena Vista Cafe near Gate 83!)….it’s a semi-lively crowd here, which is to say that there has already been ooooohing and aaaaahing and some applause, but that may have just been for the replay from last night… ;)
There's no crying in baseball!
there is indeed a game thread for game 7. for some reason it’s not showing up on the FP. click this: http://www.athleticsnation.com/2011/10/28/2521747/the-last-game-of-the-season-game-seven
by AV on Oct 28, 2011 5:41 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Alternatively, you can go to Story Archive and see the Game 7 thread.
See you there.
by player20 on Oct 28, 2011 5:57 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Okay
If anyone was still suffering under the weird impression that Ron Washington was capable of managing a baseball team, I present to you… this World Series.
Each of these teams would have easily won this series against the other if they had been managed by someone with even marginal competence.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Yeah, that LaRussa guy is an idiot.
What the hell has he ever done anyways?
That rug really tied the room together...
by Streams Of Whiskey on Oct 28, 2011 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions
He really is just a stupid person
This is not a snap opinion. He’s been in the public eye for many years— long enough to make a decent assessment of the man. He’s not smart. Deficient in the upper story. Slow. Whatever your term of choice is. Maybe it’s alcoholism, maybe he was just born that way. I don’t know.
Certainly it puts him among good company when it comes to baseball managers, who are probably, given their salaries, the single least talented group of professionals in America (and that’s saying a lot in a country which throws immense amounts of undeserved money at business-school twits and investment bankers who can’t outperform monkeys throwing darts at the New York Times business section).
Getting back to LaRussa, his teams have mostly done worse than they should have from a talent perspective. But for two extremely fluky playoff runs, his career would largely (and rightly) be considered a failure.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2011 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Isn't this just due to the odds of success, and not necessarily the manager?
I mean, there can only be one out of 30 winning managers each season. The other 29 are failures. Bill Buckner is known for the ball that went between his legs, but without him during the season, the Red Sox never would have gotten that far.
If we went by talent perspective, shouldn’t there be teams that go 0-162?
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Won with two bullshit teams
While losing with one of the best 5 teams all time.
I feel bad for Wash...
…but everyone else in a Texas hat can kiss my posterior. Go Cards.
My therapist is Milton Bradley.

by 
























