Bullish on Oakland 08
by Tyler Bleszinski on Oct 29, 2007 11:31 PM PDT
in News
Email
PrintNow that the 2007 baseball season is officially over (someone needed to tell the Rockies that it wasn't over after they beat the D'Backs), I just wanted to share my opinion on the A's looking forward. Keep in mind that this can change quite a bit depending on what happens with the other teams in the AL West this offseason.
But I honestly really like the A's chances in 2008 as of October 29, 2007. Without even thinking about what PECOTA projects for the A's players for the 2008 season, I do think the A's will benefit in 2008 for the misery they experienced in 2007. Billy Beane and company are aggressively looking at the health issues and how to improve them, although many of the injury problems have been freak accidents like Crosby and Piazza.
I think all the injury issues gave the A's the opportunity to do really important things like get Kurt Suzuki some much needed experience, give Daric Barton and Travis Buck a shot and find a fantastic DH in Jack Cust. The A's offense is not going to look like the Yankees, but if you have a lineup with Buck, Barton, Suzuki and Cust then you're starting with a pretty good foundation. Throw in a healthy and rejuvenated Eric Chavez and Denorfia in center field more often than not and now we're talking about a team that can win a good share of games because the starting pitching is excellent.
Granted, there is some hopeful thinking in that. The team will be dependent on a lot of young talent and young talent usually is pretty inconsistent. But it isn't anything new for this franchise to be depending on young talent.
I'll say it again. A lot can change between now and opening day in April next year. But as of right now, I'm a lot more bullish about the A's in 2008 than I ever was about them in 2007.
How are you feeling right now? Am I the only one that likes the green and gold in 2008?
129 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We certainly have huge question marks,
but I'm also bullish on the team for '08.
I'd rather not speculate in general, but, if the team stands pat, we'll have to make the most of our in house options – sort of a "Watch and Wait '08." The extent to which the A's have to retool for 2009 will greatly depend on who's healthy this season. Hopefully, the 2009 team is super similar to the 2008, because that would mean our guys stayed healthy and had nice seasons. And so long Kotsay!
yeah, just a little hopeful thinking ;-)
but hey, we're fans!
I'm looking forward to getting my 2008 season tickets soon.
Bearish on 2008 (and 09, 10, 11...)
We've put a worse offensive team on the field every year since about 2002. The runs scored may go up and down, but the quality of the players getting AB's has declined every year. Marco Scutaro got almost 400 PA's this year. Shannon Stewart got over 600 PA's. Blame the injuries, but even with the penciled in starters, this team was bound for mediocrity.
Billy has been a genius at making patchwork solutions year to year, but the team as constituted cannot hang with Boston/LA/NY/Cleveland/Detroit. While I am excited about Buck, Barton, and Suzuki, the team lacks that core group of star hitters that characterize playoff winning teams. The top teams in the AL (above) all have a stable of young stars-to-be to go with their 9-figure payrolls (ex Cleveland which actually spent less than us this year).
The mediocrity cannot be replaced easily as it requires a wholesale shift in long-term strategy. While I would welcome a radical rebuilding, I feel Billy will go for the band-aids again and hope to get lucky. Delaying the inevitable pain of rebuilding usually just makes the rebuilding more difficult and lengthy.
glass mostly empty huh?
I don't see that the offense has been worse and worse since 2002. I do see that the offense has been mediocre since 2002. Excepting last year's white flag job, we've been the same team every year.
runs per game rank by League average
2002 8th
2003 9th
2004 9th
2005 6th
2006 9th
2007 11th
Of course, playing in a pitcher's park skews these numbers somewhat. But whatever.
When you say you favor a radical rebuilding, do you mean that you favor trading Blanton, Street and Haren for prospects? That's about the only radical thing I can see us doing. And Swisher I guess.
yup
and the worst part is that the A's are just a tangential asset to a real estate scheme which looks to have a big possible downside, if it really gets moving at all. the team is going to pay the price for the losing business schemes and half-baked political posturing of the ownership for at least a few more years.
of course, this is all just my opinion and speculation...
off topic,
what does your screen name mean?
I was watching Conan O'Brien last night and he made a bet with Jason Buck to say, "Jub-jub" during the WS broadcast and O'Brien would donate $ to his fav charity. They showed the clip when Buck found a way to include the word and it was too funny. He also made another dare with Charles Barkley to say it tonight during the TNT basketball broadcast. Looking fwd to seeing how the Chuckster includes it in his broadcast...
by sf drift king on Oct 30, 2007 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
My best guess
Jub Jub is the name of the pet iguana owned by Marge Simpson's sister Selma, as featured in the episode in which Selma serves as a phony beard wife for fish-enamored actor Troy McClure (whom you might remember from such self-help films as "Smoke Yourself Thin!" and "Get Confident, Stupid!")
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Oct 30, 2007 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I love the A's
and the positivity, Blez, but there are just too many question marks and too much competition for me to feel the A's have much of a shot next year.
I'll be there when the season opens, though, cheering as loudly as always.
I'm bullish too,
but when am I not when it comes to my team? I think it'll take us until June next year to see where we are going. If the injury bug is still plaguing us next year, we're sunk. If we're healthy, across the board, we're in the Series next season. :)
I think they'll be fun to watch.
Buck and Barton will be a lot of fun to watch, and maybe even be on base enough to be exciting. Cust is always fun to watch when he connects. A healthy Chavez at third, if it happens, is a thing of beauty. And Ellis, of course.
But competitive? I don't know; even with Buck/Barton/Cust/Chavez (IF Chavez is healthy) there's just not a whole lot of run-driving-in potential in the lineup, and the good-but-not-great pitching staff can't really make up for it.
The team needs a star -- I don't think the A's will be competitive unless/until one star shows up at either the SS or OF positions, either by trade or by coming from out of nowhere in the minors. I don't think Denorfia's that caliber of player. And I don't think Chavez, even when healthy, is a star (though I think he'll have a very good season in '08 -- 33 HR, .270 AVG, maybe even a decent OBP). I think that's why some people were so riled up when Bradley was let go -- he's the closest thing this team has had to a star (as a position player) in a long time (and he's not very close at all).
+1
I like the team, but the odds they'll be good are pretty low.
Perhaps he didn't think DH counted
as a "position player."
No, I thought about Frank
who is certainly closer to superstardom than Bradley when looking at actual performance. I think it was the perception though that Bradley, when on the field, had the potential to be an all-around phenom. This is a perception I don't share. I think there was also an excitement about Bradley that wasn't there for Frank because optimists would've like to believe that Bradley had the potential to turn the A's into contenders for years to come, while Frank's emergence, though spectacular, was clearly temporary (as an asset to the A's, in any case) even when it was happening.
But I'll modify my statement to say "one of the closest things" if it'll mollify people.
I would feel much better with MB in CF.
That is, the 2006 version 1.0. I really wonder about the weight he gained between seasons -- whether it was pudge or PEDs, either might've contributed to his new and improved injury problems last year.
Oh well, he's once again cheap and available (and hurt).
by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions
That's the really comical thing
For all the grousing, complaining, and just plain silliness put out by the Bradleyites earlier this year, the only thing trading him "cost" Oakland is a worse draft position. He's now a free agent. The A's could obtain a few months of Bradley for a couple million bucks next season while still keeping Andrew Brown, who'll be (write it down) a key piece of next year's team, either as a setup man or possibly even as a starter.
Sounds like a job for
Su-per-boy 
by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Wha?
... I'm sorry, I have literally no idea what this means.
It means Billy can't do it. Too much ego involved
He needs his trusty sidekick to go down there and talk it out with Milton.
by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I think it would help
if I had any idea who the guy in the picture was.
Looks like Riley Finn
I'm guessing I'm wrong about that.
Ah
I was thinking it was DePodesta.
Heh.
Yeah, I have no idea how they'd work things out. Maybe put a no-chair-throwing clause into the contract?
But really...
 Riley Finn |
Forst |
When in doubt, right clicking the image ...
... and checking Properties will usually indicate something about the subject.
As in: ...athletics.mlb.com/oak/images/front_office/forst.jpg
Sheesh. I know that, and I'm old.
by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Pre-UFO Kucinich?
Here's a link in case that's too obscure.
by The Dogfather on Nov 1, 2007 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I think it might go something like this:
DF: Hi Milton, Dave Forst. Say, I'm in the area and wondered if you're free for a beer. I don't like how things ended up last year, and I know Billy feels terrible about it, too. Tough year, especially with that asshole Winters. Whatta jerk, eh? So, I just want to check in on you, see how you're doing, how that rehab is going, and whether you might, you know, want to think about returning to the planta--err, the Athletics in 2008. Milton? ... Are you there? ...
Actually, I think any contact would start with his agent. I'd keep the Principals away from each other 'til a deal was pretty well done and both could look forward. Anyone know if the Pads have indicated their intentions?
by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe they can just work out a sensible
visitation plan: Beane can be in the dugout Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and Bradley can be in the dugout Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. They can alternate Sundays, and Matt can have them both on Hollidays.
I don't think you're allowed ...
to alternate days on the DL ...
Buck this year was above average
offensively for corner OF. So was Swisher. Suzuki was above average for catcher, and average when compared to all hitters. Assuming Cust regress to an OPS about 850-870, that's still above average. Ellis was above average for 2nd, and above average when compared to all 2bs.
Chavez last had > 30 HRs in 2002, though he came close in 2003 and 2004 with 29. If he produces at the levels of those years, that's around a 125-130 OPS+. That's well above average for a 3b.
If all the young(ish) players: Buck, Swisher, Suzuki, Barton, Cust don't regress too much, and Ellis doesn't regress too much, a Chavez circa 2001-2004 would make the offense well above average.
Pitching looks like more of an issue.
That's a lot of ifs
for a lot of young and/or injured and/or otherwise historically inconsistent players.
I could make a similar case for the pitching; if Street and Calero have overcome their injuries, if Haren and Blanton don't regress, if Duke adapts well to the rotation and Gaudin gains some stamina, then the pitching's above average too.
My point is just that in both cases, across the team, we could use a proven performer or two.
Expecting players
like Buck, Swish, Suzuki to match what they did this year is IMO, not unreasonable. I don't see much reason why any of those 3 should regress, assuming they stay healthy.
Cust, if he regress to an 850-870 OPS is still above league average.
Ellis, while he had a good season, did not have a career season. With a slight regression, he would still be above average offensively for 2b.
I'm not assuming that Chavez is going to be healthy. However, if you are assuming that he is going to hit 30 hrs, that's well above average.
Gaudin, unless you believe he is a pitcher who has some ability to control hits on balls in play, is IMO, going to regress. If he regresses to his peripherals, he is a below average starter. Still useful, yes.
Similarly, Haren, unless he has developed some ability beyond what is indicated by his K / BB rate, GB rate etc, is also probably going to regress.
Duke hasn't been a starter since when? I don't believe that it is reasonable to expect him to be a 200 IP league average starter.
I don't disagree
Teams need an anchor and/or a nucleus to build around -- that means one or more at least very good players whose performance they can be pretty confident in. I don't see that we have that right now; hence my statement about stars.
Swisher OPS+: 101, 125, 127
Haren ERA+: 117, 108, 137
Seems like a decent nucleus to me.
Decent ...
But if those are your best players ...
Hard to say
If Harden gets healthy or Gaudin keeps lowering his walk rate, they could be better than Haren. Likewise, if Buck or Barton develops a home run stroke, they might be better than Swisher, because they're better contact hitters.
Still, Haren and Swisher are two guys who now have an established track record of performance at significantly better than average levels. I'd call them a nucleus, whereas I'd call the other guys merely high-potential.
Not that I'm saying the A's are going to be awesome next year. They need help, as currently constructed.
There's always hope
We've have the potential for a very strong pitching staff if we can keep Harden in 1 piece. Can you imagine either Haren or Harden as a #2 starter? Blanton as a #3 is very very strong, and Gaudin as a #4 and Lenny D at #5 are at least average. The bullpen should be better than last year. A full year (fingers crossed) of Buck, Barton, Cust, a heathy Chavez.
Mix in a little Beane magic, and the possibility of Barry Lamar splitting time in LF (a painful thought) and at the plate (a sweet thought), and I'm big-time bullish on the A's
Come February/March and the injury news starts to come in, I'll start changing my tune!
I don't know what to think
I feel like the second-half team (which scored an average number of runs but gave up a ton) is actually closer to the true team than the first-half team. The A's lack rotation depth. The team currently has 3 reliable starters, plus Harden, who won't even make it out of spring training. There's some significant talent in the minor leagues, but it's all at least a half-season away.
I really don't like the notion of "praying for DiNardo to stay lucky and Braden to suddenly become awesome," but right now that's what we're looking at. That, or converting relievers to starters. I don't like Duchscherer's chances of staying healthy whether he's relieving or starting.
Basically, right now the team has three holes (SP, SS, CF) and enough money to fill one of them. Unless that one hole-filler is "getting A-Rod to play shortstop," I can't see the team as currently constituted being competitive. Somehow some straw needs to be spun into gold between now and April.
I should add
that if the Angels sign A-Rod, all bets are off. If that apocalypse happens, the A's need to sell off everybody getting paid more than the league minimum except for Haren and Swisher. Street, Blanton, Embree, Duke, even Gaudin. By the time the team will be competitive again, they'll all have hit free agency.
that doesn't make sense to me
If you think that our team has no shot, then those players you mentioned are the ones we need to jettison.
That's the kind of player you can trade for high quality prospects. And I don't see that happening.
That was poorly worded
What I meant was, the only players I'd hang on to would be Haren and Swisher. The following would be gradually (or not so gradually) sent out the door:
Ellis
Gaudin
Blanton
Street
Embree
Duke
DiNardo
Lewis
Calero
Scutaro
Chavez
Kotsay
Crosby
Harden
because there just isn't any point in holding onto them.
Needless to say, I'd rather go to the barricades to stop the Angels from signing A-Rod than jettison half the roster.
to what end?
I mean Ellis might get you something this off-season, but he's still cheap and we'd for sure be taking a hit there. It'd almost be like throwing up the white flag right away. After that, he walks if we wants to (and the A's would get that prime draft pick for him probably).
Gaudin is type of pitcher we should be looking to acquire. Ditto Blanton. If there is some team that values them more than we do then fine. But I still think you get a better ROI for trading Haren for a true premium price.
Harden, Crosby, and Chavez maybe net you something in return. Probably not much though. And you probably have just a good a chance at keeping all of them, figuring ONE of them has a big first half of the season and then maybe you can get something more like retail for one of them. Kotsay is similar, but without the same chance of upside.
Street, Embree, sure: always can try to extract value from solid pen arms. Duke probably needs to show something through spring training to garner any value back.
I have no idea if Calero and Scutaro will be retained. Funglible.
Dinardo is a perfect cheap keeper, on a great team he could be the 12th pitcher. On a mediocre team he becomes a 5th starter/swingman. He won't bring much back.
If we really want to do the blow-it-up thing, we trade Street, Haren, Swisher, and Barton (and more pen arms if we like the offers).
Barton would still be around
when A-Rod starts declining, as would Swisher, and Haren's worth a long-term extension to achieve the same thing.
The rest of them would either be overpriced or out the door by the time the Angels are catchable, making them expendable assets.
I'm not literally suggesting that the A's auction off the parts of the team in one huge fire sale. That's a recipe for disaster. Just that they seize the opportunity to deal any of those players if the return is enough high-ceiling prospects, even if those prospects are single-A guys.
My argument is basically that if the Angels sign A-Rod, the A's need to start building the 2011 team immediately, because there's no realistic way they're competitive before then.
It sucks, but it's strategically correct to "throw up the white flag" if the Angels get A-Rod.
He's just saying that if we do that
Haren, Street, Swisher, and Barton are the most logical people to trade, since they actually have value and we don't need them anyway if the team is getting blown up.
Haren is #1 on my list if we go into full rebuilding mode.
I can't envision any scenario
in which a rebuilding team would trade away a top prospect who's got 15 days of MLB service time.
Seriously. None. That's completely illogical.
Haren and Swisher are justifiable, but I think you need to keep some players a. as a gesture to the fans, and b. because they're signed long-term enough that they'll form the core of the next contender the way Zito did in 2006.
Carlos Pena
Look. I don't believe we should trade these guys, but you can get a pretty big haul for a clearly ready rookie hitter. If you can get say, a really young but promising guy like Andrus or Tabata along with a Adenhart or Kershaw (probably too good but...) for your ready for prime time 1B (especially considering that it is an easier position to fill), you might do it.
Would the Yankees do Ian Kennedy and Tabata for Barton? It could make sense for both teams. Just saying...
Que?
The 2002 A's weren't rebuilding, they were in the third year of a 4-year playoff run.
the A's getting him from Texas
He was BA's 6th best prospect or something like that. Texas had been awful in 2001 and it dawned on management that despite Arod, they still had a bad team. They traded Pena to us for many spare parts, none of which turned into much.
Oh, I see
Well, that didn't exactly work out well for Texas. Not that Pena was any great shakes here, but at least he later turned into part of Ted Lilly.
I think it's safe to say that I'd prefer the A's not go that route if they rebuild.
Agreed...
In the IMO very unlikely event we go into massive rebuild mode, it is only logical that the two untouchables would be Haren and Swisher. In the most basic of terms, the As need to sell seats. They want a new stadium and if there is no demand, it is going to make things difficult. I disagree with an earlier statement about holding onto Joe. Don't get me wrong, I like him too but he should be the first to go. There is no need to go through arby, etc with a guy that will not be of use once we become competitive again, will be very costly, and can be replaced as a #3. Joe's trade value is at his highest and even more so with the weak FA market. Danny's value is always going to remain stable as he is now seen as a cheap ace. It is exactly the Zito situation as Paul mentioned, he is our vital staff leader.
However, the problem with the sky is falling theory is that we have to play in Japan next year. This is the opportunity to gain national and international exposure. In no way are we going to field a AAA plus Haren and Swisher team.
We have a potentially competitive team on paper right now. A good 1-2 punch, young hitting core, good back of the bullpen, etc. There is no need for BB to be in a rush to make a move and I think that's what he is leaning towards. Going with the team planned opening day 2007 and answer the what if.
However, I think the plan is and will be to remain competitive in 2008. There is just too much, although of course there is room for improvement, to work with now. We have already gone through a small rebuilding to set up the team to be competitive next year.
by AsWin on Oct 30, 2007 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Just to make it clear,
I don't currently think the sky is falling. I'd only advocate a total rebuild in the disastrous A-Rod-to-Anaheim scenario.
AW is quite correct in stating that the "partial rebuild" for 2008 (the primary acquisitions of which were Cust, Hannahan and Denorfia) has already taken place.
what mikeA said
is what my meaning was.
But early rumors are that Arod sweepstakes is starting with LaDodgers, Giants, and Red Sox. (via Fitz on KNBR).
I don't see Brandon Wood playing shortstop. I think he is a 3B. And I'd be surprised if they bury Wood with Arod.
I voted meh
I just don't know how to feel about this team for 2008 and beyond, and I don't know how anyone else could have any real confidence that is based on anything other than wishcasting.
Could the A's make the playoffs in 2008 with their current team? Of course they can. I would expect that PECOTA will projected the A's as currently somewhere around 81-81, and an 81 win team can turn into a 88-90 win team pretty quickly with unexpected health and a few standout performances.
Will the A's make the playoffs in 2008 if they stand pat? Probably not. The Angels are unlikely to get worse anytime soon, and they may get significantly better.
The A's have some young talent, but so do the teams we compete with. The Angels, Red Sox, Tigers, Indians, and even the Yankees have have as much or more young talent as we do. In order to compete with those teams in the near future we will need to outspend them (ha ha), outdraft them, or find some real gems from the freely available talent pool.
My real concern for the A's in the next few years stem from four factors:
- Teams throughout baseball have grown smarter. Many of the inefficiences that Beane exploited have become more efficient.
- The A's did not discover some magic key to drafting as Michael Lewis predicted in Moneyball. The A's are not bad at drafting, but they are not significantly better than other teams we compete against. The draft remains a crapshoot for teams, and the A's simply cannot compete long-term if they cannot outdraft other teams. The draft is the only place where a small or mid market team can acquire stars other than the occasional lucky bounce.
- Other teams have begun to do something the A's have refused to do; teams are using over slot draft bonuses as a method of acquiring additional talent through the draft. The A's missed their opportunity by not employing this strategy when few teams were doing it. If the A's employ the strategy now they will be doing nothing more than keeping up.
- Corporate strategy appears to be increasingly intertwined with baseball decisions in the A's organization. As much as I disliked Schott/Hoffman, I liked their ownership style better. They were cheap bastards, but they set a budget and gave Beane largely unfettered discretion within that budget. Now that Billy is an owner, and shares ownership with a more active owner in Wolff, I am not sure that all baseball decisions are made with baseball goals (winning) in mind. I really don't know what goes on beyond the scenes in the A's organization, but I see more and more moves over the last couple of years that awaken my inner C & C Music Factory.
As always, I will cheer for the A's players, and I will eagerly await this offseason to see if Beane has a plan to bring in more talent. In the meantime, it's hard for me to be anything more than "meh" on our prospects for 2008 and beyond. There are just to many questions that I don't have answers to, and I cannot figure out what plan the A's are executing.
I like this analysis
I also voted "meh". When the Athletics got Johnny Damon, I really felt they had completed all the pieces for a championship. I didn't foresee the "human psychology" factor that would negate this acquisition. For 2008, more than ever, the "mental part" of this roster is too shaky IMO.
I mentally compare (not heavy numbers, mind you) the Athletics players, position-by-position, with many of the teams. The A's just don't come out ahead, in sum. Not just contenders, but all teams.
For some reason, Athletics players are inconsistent compared to their peers, just IMHO. After pitching "lights out" in the first half of 2007, every pitcher seemed to degrade noticeably after July 10, usually for 3-4 games in a row. Hitters were incredibly streaky. How can you project a "consistent performance" in the coming season (even if it's a .240 average for Crosby) when inconsistency is the defining characteristic of this team?
It all gets back to a philosophical puzzle I always return to: if the season is sixteen "ten game sets", what is it about a team that creates more 6-4 records for those sets than a 4-6 record for those sets? Two games out of ten make the difference, month in and month out, to the sum result of 91-71 instead of 71-91. Nice to muse about.
I'll be cheering, following every Oakland game, but I'll probably give up early on the low/no scoring ones, and so miss all the "late inning heroics" comebacks (all six of them!)
With the thought in mind that Bill James described Jason Kendall's futility in the first sixty games of 2007 as "historic", I'm hoping that an above-average leadoff job by TBuck will lead to a reversal of last year's April May offensive ineptitude, which, I submit, caved in the season for the A's as much as the injuries. Individual as each at-bat may be, I think certain intangible carry-overs affect the whole team, good and bad, from each guy's AB. The further the result is from expectation, cumulatively, for important players, the greater the effect on the team.
I foresee a 85-77 result. At the July 15 mark this summer I said 79 wins, then raised it, then dropped it in September back to 78. I see improvement, but I think all of MLB is finally putting the "expansion" of the 1990s finally behind it (Tampa Bay the exception, but an example of "intangibles" putting a team into a "can't win no matter what" status.) The level of ability for each player on average is better, and this makes Beane's job tougher. Plus, with video, players can correct hitting flaws if they are the right type of person.
Other teams have more of those "types" than the A's, and that is the diff nowadays.
by One won lost won on Oct 30, 2007 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
armchair psychology
"Plus, with video, players can correct hitting flaws if they are the right type of person.
Other teams have more of those 'types' than the A's, and that is the diff nowadays."
What are you basing this on? How do you know enough about the personality types/work ethic/professional approach/discipline/whatever else would be relevant for being the "right type of person" to make proper adjustments, even for A's players, let alone players throughout the league? The players that I would guess you had in mind would be Crosby (this is an easy one: slider low and away), Chavez (not so easy; playing through injuries has clouded the picture about his ability to make adjustments from some of the horrible ABs he took last season), and Harden (his detrimentally stubborn commitment to weightlifting). But even if I concede that your quasi-analysis applies to those guys, that's only three players. There are veterans throughout the league that have reputations for this weakness or that--is their inability to correct their flaws due to not having the right "personality type", or because of actual athletic limitations? Given those options, I'd vote the latter in most cases. Anecdotally, Jacque Jones has worked hard with Tony Gwynn to hit left-handed pitching better--hasn't shown in the results. Moises Alou is 40 years old, and he's made a pretty good living hitting lots of fastballs. I could go on.
Now, it's probably disingenuous to imply that those two alternatives (personality type or physiology) are mutually exclusive, but then it was pretty disingenuous, if not outright false, for you to say what you said in the original post.
Also, the ten-game set thing is neat in theory, but other systems of divvying up the season may be more relevant for following the A's. Beane claims to divide the season into thirds for his purposes; he certainly isn't looking for the team to dominate any particular sixteenth of the season. The A's recent history suggests dividing the season by half--average first-half team, great second-half team. And of course dividing by 162 is the best approach for players and managers to take.
by Cutthemullet on Oct 30, 2007 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions
I reached that conclusion
by seeing what the team hit compared to other teams, and worked backwards from there.
There is barely a ML hitter out there that doesn't say, "It's all about adjustments." Some teams score more runs because they get more hits, or at least make "productive outs". You see Duane Kuiper on the broadcasts make note about Crosby being far off the plate, and you hear Ty Van B (second or third-hand) say the same thing, and you see ANers comment on it.
Every hitter has some weakness relative to their strength, and maybe the A's lineup is such that it is easy for a pitcher to get in a groove to exploit those weaknesses versus other lineups. All I can say about these speculations is that (1) baseball is 90% mental, and the other 50% is physical (Yogi Berra) and (2) players who say, "It's all about adjustments" and then cannot make adjustments, must not be able to do it for mental reasons. And included in this "mental" aspect is something like not being able to see because of an accident with sun-block and not telling anyone you "cannot see" (Dan Johnson) for 12 months after the fact!
Jacque Jones is still playing, but dozens of others who had "weak spots" are not in the Majors. You didn't mention Kendall's historically-poor 2007 with the Athletics. Why did it happen? Then he began hitting with the Cubs?
I submit, "total runs scored" and "team BA" is the result you work backward from, and psychology is the explanation (at the MLB level.) And, in making adjustments, all the talk about "hitting is contagious" is valid, because what is in your mind ("everyone is hitting, I should be getting a knock here too!") is as much about adjustments as anything else.
by One won lost won on Oct 31, 2007 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions
It would be lovely if this blank-slate,
"you-can-do-it-if-you-try" philosophy actually was true, since it would mean that players at the major league level actually were all hard working, devoted players.
Unfortunately, it's completely wrong. A lot of MLB players are lazy as hell, content to coast on incredible natural talents. The role of hitting talent dwarfs the role of everything else when it comes to baseball.
The A's simply don't have as much of this as other teams do, because they can't afford it. Therefore, their batting average is lower. To some extent, it can be made up for with other skills (like pitch selection and power).
Adjustments play a very minor role in hitter performance. If they didn't, we wouldn't be able to predict how well guys will hit with anything like the accuracy which we can manage. I'd guess probably not more than 2-5% of hitting is adjustments. The rest is natural skill and dumb luck. (And, BTW, hitting isn't "contagious." I don't know how to put that in any stronger terms. That's just a false statement.)
Generalizing from life experience: Psychology is almost never the explanation for anything. People invent psychological explanations to explain away luck.
I don't know who I disagree with more strongly...
you, or One won lost won. I'm leaning towards you. Now, I criticized OWLO because I felt his amateurish pseudo-psychological observations were presented far too strongly (and I feel they were in his response, also). Conjecture based on limited observation and second-hand speculation is dubious, to say the least. And I disagree with the underlying premise that all or most MLB results stem from the abilities of individual players to make adjustments. But by no means do I completely dismiss psychological factors as irrelevant. Jason Kendall may have improved his hitting after the trade/salary dump because of measurable factors like moving to an easier league and a more hitter-friendly homefield, but that doesn't paint the entire picture. Why did he start getting more extra base hits, which are not so easily attributable to fluctuations in luck? You can incorporate many variables into your hypothesis, but I'm going to argue that being enthused (I'll avoid the somewhat trite word "rejuvenated" here) by the idea of a fresh start and being involved in a playoff push in a exponentially more lively atmosphere deserves mention, perhaps as the foremost factor for his initial resurgence.
Speaking of Kendall's new team, how about Alfonso Soriano's refusal to bat anywhere but the leadoff spot, even though the numbers indicate he would have best been utilized anywhere from third through fifth? Before the season even began, I was reading projections about how many runs the Cubs were going to waste by batting Soriano leadoff, as they planned. Well, when Piniella tried to make the statistically sound managerial move, Soriano resisted--he believes he can only hit at his highest level when batting leadoff, even if the power he exhibits there would best suit him for a spot in the heart of the order. But it's likely he would not display that same power in a role he would not be comfortable with.
Next let's consider Milton Bradley. Do I even need to provide an argument that his performance is affected significantly by his volatile temperament? He was arguably the best player in the NL when healthy this past season. Think his lingering anger over the abrupt end to his tenure with the A's had any impact on the focus and intensity he displayed with the Padres? On an even smaller, more specific scale, think the provocations of the hecklers in Philly inspired him to hit, what, a 430-foot home run in the late innings? That's no apocryphal anecdote--with MB, the pattern is predictable: anger-->increased intensity-->better, sometimes spectacular, play. Some players (and people in general) would react exactly the opposite when consumed by anger--it's a matter of PSYCHOLOGICAL MAKEUP. I forget which, but either Albert Belle or Darryl Strawberry would LOOK FOR AN EXCUSE to get angry before arriving at the ballpark, because they performed best when angry (not that Belle needed contrived circumstances to become angry). Your downplaying of psychology in human affairs is...probably quite indicative of some of your own psychological "traits", for lack of a better term. As best as I can tell, you're an overly stubborn empiricist, with quite a lot to learn about the complexity of that which has yet to be quantified.
by Cutthemullet on Oct 31, 2007 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions
that which has yet to be quantified,,,
and that which may never be quanitified.
by Cutthemullet on Oct 31, 2007 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions
*quantified
Though I do like the sounds of "quan-i-ti-fied."
by Cutthemullet on Oct 31, 2007 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow
Overreaction, much?
I don't doubt that there are such things as psychological factors. I'm just extremely suspicious of invoking them in situations where there's any other potential explanation. It's just Occam's Razor-- psychological explanations almost always require tons of assumptions. I've seen way too many examples of it being used as a pseudo-intellectual club to beat people down with.
I won't get into the specific examples here, but I will say that if I was a teammate of Soriano, I would find his selfishness and primadonna attitude intensely irritating. He has a long track record of refusing to do obviously beneficial things (like moving to the outfield) for the good of the team, simply because it requires some change in his own play.
At this time, the A's ability to contend
depends highly on two things:
- Harden's health
- Where A-Rod lands
Not liking those odds, but as of this very moment in time Harden has not yet broken and A-Rod has not yet signed anywhere.
Hope springs eternal.
The strange thing though
and I'll be the first to admit I want A-Rod to look elsewhere, the strange thing is that all those years he spent with the Rangers, I never seriously dreaded his ABs against us. Teixeira, yes. Teixeira was a straight-up A's killer. But A-Rod, not so much. Plus it's fun to go to the Coliseum and yell inappropriate things at the high-priced diva.
by Leopold Bloom on Oct 30, 2007 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Good point
and the starting point for the debate: Is it the parts, or the sum of the parts?
Texas had no Vlad Guerrero. Vlad and A-Rod would be worse for opponents than Manny-Ortiz-Lowell.
by One won lost won on Oct 30, 2007 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Well
it's definitely the sum of the parts. It's a team sport, regardless of what that life-sized bobblehead across the bay thinks.
I think for your equation to ring true (and I'm not sure it does), all of them would have to be healthy. Gotta throw out Lowell--he might not return to Sox and it's two to two that way.
Vlad/A-Rod vs. Manny/Papi
Hmmm. Interesting. Provided all were healthy (namely Vlad and Ortiz at the end of this season), I'm uncertain. I think it could be a dead heat, depending upon who was hot. The nice thing about having two absolute threats like this is the inability to just work around them. I think I'm with you here. I think it would be Vlad/A-Rod. Vlad can be downright scary and A-Rod...well, he's got purple lips. And this close to Halloween, that too is scary.
by Leopold Bloom on Oct 30, 2007 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions
The Bear starts at the top
Lew wants to move the team out of Oakland and into the suburban holyland of San Jose. He has empowered Billy to build his team and even gave him $10M more to spend. Immediately after his only playoff series win, Billy has dicked around with Macha, Thomas, Bradley, Lach, Fish, Wash, Swish, Esteban, Halsey, Rich, Piazza, and others I haven't heard about. In a Jerry Krausian manner, he has let go of "troubled" players and coaches. Could it be that he vindictively gets rid of anyone who voices dissent? Is that what he teaches when he appears at Conservative business events? I don't know, if the players are gung ho about the season, I'll still follow, but Billy has to win me back.
Billy's suffering from "DePodesta Disease"
where you move personnel at a rapid pace with the notion that doing something will always outgain waiting for something to happen.
I'm sure Billy likes every person and player that got dumped, traded, dropped, etc. That's his basic nature. He's got too much power, too much salary, to even think "vindictive" now. The idea of "vindictive" is a "helpless-person" characteristic, like the guy with the shopping cart, holding up all the "car drivers" by blithely ignoring the signal and walking leisurely against the light. When you got nothing going, you go after people, any people at hand, with whatever you got.
I'm getting convinced that Lew, while a great guy, might not be best for Oakland baseball. He could make Oakland work, but he is too wedded to a profit-making real estate deal (no stadium possible 300 yards south of the Coliseum because of some "electrical transformers"???!!! really?).
Baseball ownership is a charity, not a money-maker. Has Artie Moreno recouped on Vlad? Garret? Lower beer prices? Is Artie proposing a "village-condo development" to get out a rat-infested park? No, he's just spending. And smiling.
by One won lost won on Oct 30, 2007 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
n/t
Baseball ownership is a charity, not a money-maker.
Used to be this way. But Selig and friends have transformed this. Baseball revenues have gone up something like 2000% in the last 17 or 18 years. There's a real nice subsidy for any owner willing to keep a low payroll, even at the expense of having a winning team.
I think that's one of the big reasons why someone like Cuban can't become an owner anymore. They don't want people to go into their own pockets to win, thereby putting further upwards pressure on salaries. If you want to spend more money, figure out a way to bring in more revenue which can be shared (holding local communities hostage for sweetheart stadium deals, raising ticket prices, growing your local T.V. deals, or better yet, your own cable network).
So John Henry is just spending?
And smiling? And not raking in money hand over fist? And not selling lots of pink hats?
The Giants paid Bonds millions all those years because they are a charity? Not because he puts butts in seats?
Steinbrenner bought the Yankees for what, $10M in 1970? And they are worth how much now?
You're obviously correct, but
based on what I've seen on the streets outside Fenway, and on the BART bridge where I bought my wife her very own pink A's hat, I doubt John Henry sees much of the money from the sales of knock-off pink Sawx hats.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Oct 30, 2007 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I bought a t-shirt
of Calvin pissing on the Yankees symbol there a few years ago. I don't think they sold that one in the Coliseum.
by Leopold Bloom on Oct 30, 2007 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Bostonians do the Calvinist thing well
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Oct 30, 2007 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions
I actually bought
a t-shirt in green and gold from a Boston web place called Sully's with the words "Yankees Hater" on the front. My passion against the pinstripes runs deep.
by Leopold Bloom on Oct 31, 2007 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions
If baseball was a moneymaker as you state
why is there any debate about gov'ts kicking in to build a stadium? A "profitable business" yet the way it's configured, it needs a $700 million stadium paid for by someone else to even field the product. With billions available on Wall Street to buy "facebook" type businesses, why aren't investment bankers building stadiums instead?
If it was a real "untilted" economic business, instead of a fiat legislated situation, with barriers to entry, etc. you would not be able to buy a club for "x" then sell it for "50x", which then becomes "y" for the new owner, who will sell for "25y". It looks like profit, year to year, but only if you pass on the capital costs to the public at large.
Television revenue is where the money is, not "pink hats" (unauthorized counterfeits, not MLB products, on the BART bridge).
all IMO.
by One won lost won on Oct 30, 2007 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions
It's debatable
Why would investment bankers want to build stadiums? They still wouldn't own the teams, their brands, their fanbase etc.
My point about the pink hats was not that selling pink hats brings in revenues. My point about the pink hats was that Henry and the Red Sox are successfully wooing a demographic that typically is not interested in sports. A demographic that is now buying tickets, eating concessions, parking their cars, and watching on TV and the internet.
"If it was a real "untilted" economic business, instead of a fiat legislated situation, with barriers to entry, etc. you would not be able to buy a club for "x" then sell it for "50x", which then becomes "y" for the new owner, who will sell for "25y". It looks like profit, year to year, but only if you pass on the capital costs to the public at large."
Yes, true. Also irrelevant, since MLB is a fiat legislated situation.
I expect
a fairly big improvement for the offense, but the improvement will be to "average" or "a bit better than average."
The pitching is a pretty big problem, and needs to be addressed. I could see the bullpen being anywhere from terrible (poor health from Street and Duke) to great, and probably somewhere in the middle. You never know with bullpens.
The rotation has two gaping holes at the back end, a question mark in the middle, and two excellent pitchers at the front who are nevertheless likely to regress a bit. A new starter (or Harden) is sorely needed. I don't think the rotation will be a liability really, but I wouldn't expect anything better than average.
So.....
The whole team is average. 81 wins.
Speaking of the Yankees
I don't think the Yankees offense is going to look like the Yankees either.
I'm oretty meh on the season right now.
This could all change based on anything we do or don't do during the offseason, but for now, I'm meh.
The reasoning isn't the offense, though, which I think will be above average...it's the pitching.
I think as A's fans, we've become conditioned to say "oh, yeah, we'll have great starting pitching this season." But will we really? Haren had an unbelievable season, but who really expects him to duplicate that? I sure don't. He'll be good, not great. Harden is a non-entity until he produces otherwise. Blanton is solid, but not spectacular. Gaudin is a wild card, and whoever our #5 starter is will be probably as good as our number 5 was all year this season...which isn't saying much.
At best, we have a decent rotation, but I could see it easily slipping into mediocrity or worse. We need a #2-3 starting pitcher if we truely want to compete this year...which we probably can't afford.
So, until that improves, I'm meh.
The offense should greatly improve ...
it should score 800-820 runs and be better than average.
I expect the bullpen to bounce back. It won't quite be the best out there, but it should be close.
The rotation is less rosy, though. Haren should be good, but he'll probably regress a decent amount. I expect similar results from Blanton. Gaudin and DiNardo should be better than plenty of teams' 4 and 5 starters ... and then we're left with a gaping hole, unless, by some miracle, Harden is healthy. If Harden is healthy (25 starts), the rotation will be good. If not, it should be a fairly average unit.
As the roster stands right now, I'd say 83-85 wins if Harden is not healthy, 90-93 if he is.
We have plenty of money to spend, so I don't expect the team will look like it does now, come April ... I just hope we can avoid long term contracts signed by anyone except A-Rod.
Harden is worth about 7 wins
above some random crap pitcher?
Let's see, random crap 5th starter, Buddy Carlyle: BPro had him at 12 runs below average. But let's say that whatever crap the A's have as their 5th pitcher is worse than that, 20 runs below average.
Harden in his best season was 19 runs above average.
Can Harden really be worth about 50 runs above average?
I don't know about 7 wins, but
it's worth keeping in mind that whatever amount of wins you might assign to Harden's performance, if he is starting instead of some random #5, the bullpen is going to give up fewer runs in those starts because he'll go deeper/game will be closer. That should improve the overall bullpen performance for the season to a somewhat significant degree.
I don't really know how to calculate it, but it doesn't seem that implausible that Harden starting 30 games vs. random guy starting those 30 games would yield a 7-win difference, e.g. 19-11 in Harden starts, and 12-18 in scrub starts.
Aces average around 70 VORP
Since his replacement is increasingly looking like he'll be, well, replacement level, that's your seven wins right there.
And the replacement level for VORP is
an AA player.
Johan Santana in his best year, was 47 runs above average by BPro. If you set replacement level at Buddy Carlyle that is 59 runs. If you set replacement level at 20 runs below average, that is 67 runs. In Santana's best year.
That's a flatly false statement
Dan Meyer and Dallas Braden both excelled at AAA and were below BPro's MLB replacement level.
20 runs below average is barely half a run per start, or about .75 runs per 9 innings. You're saying there's an infinite pool of freely available pitchers capable of putting up a 5.25 ERA?
From a chat with Clay Davenport
Keep in mind that the replacement level in the WARPs is very low indeed, what a AA player might do. It is geared towards what the worst teams in history actually accomplished.
Clearly, the inventor of the metric is lying.
Meyer and Braden were below BPro's replacement level because they didn't pitch much. If they each pitched 200 IP, they would be above. BPro's replacement level puts an inordinate amount of importance on playing time.
That doesn't make any sense
If you're below replacement level, more pitching will just keep pushing you further below it. Much the same way that Jason Kendall kept lowering his VORP by continuing to get at-bats.
As for the AA thing, well, you got me there. I can't see how a AA lifer could be expected to post an ERA in the low 5s in MLB, but perhaps I overestimate the difference in leagues.
The assumption is that their
Evidently either you or I don't understand
how this stat is calculated.
I wasn't aware there were any "assumptions" in VORP-- just various stats like strikeout rate, walk rate, and so on.
If Dallas Braden pitched another 100 innings, with the same relevant stats (i.e. stats used in calculating VORP) as he had last year, he might lower his ERA, but he would continue, as I understand it, to go negative on VORP.
The replacement is set to a
MY assumption, not VORP's assumption, and I should have made this clear in my first post, is that if Braden pitches more, he's ERA will match his peripherals.
VORP, does not adjust for peripherals, which is why a pitcher having a flukey ERA will also have a flukey VORP. If Braden's ERA improves, his VORP will improve.
yeah, what they said ...
The more consistency we have at the top of the rotation, the less starts get made by next year's equivalent of Dan Meyer and Dallas Braden ... who may very well look a lot like Dan Meyer and Dallas Braden.
The 17 starts those guys made last year cost the team about 2 wins relative to replacement.
In 25-2/3 innings last year, Harden was worth 10 runs over replacement. If he pitches at that level and makes it through 175 innings, that's 70 runs, or about 7 wins over replacement.
Why do you assume that he can pitch at that level
over a full season? Ignoring the health issues, that is a very high level of performance.
When healthy ...
he's a very high level performer.
/mumbles something about how the Queen could become the King.
by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Really?
What would have to happen? Is this one of those body of the monarchy examples?
by Leopold Bloom on Oct 30, 2007 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions
A rejuvenated Eric Chavez?
As for our chances, I'm thinking third in the west this year. I think we're in for a bit of a dry spell over the next few years. Time to rebuild.
by ClutchSteinbach on Oct 30, 2007 10:16 AM PDT reply actions
We're all gonna die!!!
Though given the crushing burden currently inflicted on the Earth's carrying capacity, maybe that's for the best.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Oct 30, 2007 10:28 AM PDT reply actions
Don't think offense will be that good
We have no depth. That will kill us through out a season. Fresh off the W.S., lets looking at Kielty since he's the hero for Boston.
Throughout his career, he's probably an average offensive player on the A's roster, ~750 OPS. Looking at the projected roster of 08, Buck, Barton, Cust, Swish are the only regulars that are clearly better than Kielty on offense. Ellis, if have a bad year, could be about the same. DJ is about the same. Chavez, if recover from last year, could be better than Kielty. But basically Kielty is about our 6th best offensive player.
But if you look at Boston's roster, the only regulars that Kielty can beat out offensively are Crisp, Lugo and Cora. He's not in the same league as guys like Ortiz, Manny, Youkilis, Lowell, Varitek, Drew, and probably Pedroia and Ellsbury.
If we put a lineup just based on offense, our #6 guy is basically Boston's #9 guy. We are just a little bit weaker and thinner at every position, that's why I don't expect to see much offense next year either. I do hope for a good year, but no expectations.
by asfansince1989 on Oct 30, 2007 11:40 AM PDT reply actions
Using Kielty's career stats is absurd
He's a platoon player. If you adjust his career stats to reflect what he'd face if he played every day, his OPS drops to like .700.
The only "regular" I'd expect Kielty to outhit, as a regular, is Crosby. He has his uses (he and Trot Nixon should just team up and offer their services as a package deal) but his career numbers are incredibly misleading.
Career OPS
Kielty's career OPS is 756.
Last 3 year OPS is 734, as OF his OPS is 750.
The lowest OPS he's had in a year where he had > 200 AB is 691 in 04. The other years are 889, 758, 745, 770.
In 05 with A's he had 377 AB and OPS of 745. What do you mean that "If you adjust his career stats to reflect what he'd face if he played every day, his OPS drops to like .700."
Also
career OPS
Ellis: 754
DJ: 764
Scutaro: 704
Crosby: 701
by asfansince1989 on Oct 30, 2007 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Kielty has had 1700 at-bats in his career
Of these, 700 have come against left-handed pitching.
A typical hitter will face approximately 3/4 right-handers. Kielty has faced almost 50% lefthanders. This is because his teams have recognized his woeful inability to hit right-handed pitching, and minimized the situations in which he has faced it.
If Kielty was an everyday player, this would not be possible. It's made possible by the fact that he is typically only started against left-handed pitchers or in an emergency role.
The guy is awful against right-handed pitching. He's barely over the Mendoza line, and he's not even a good outfielder to make up for it. No team that's not in truly desperate straits is going to make Kielty an everyday outfielder. The best case scenario is to combine him with a lefty outfielder who also has strong platoon splits the other way.
Look at Kielty's platoon splits
677 OPS vs RHP, 882 OPS vs LHP.
Because the majority of pitchers are RHP, he'll always be nothing more than a platoon bench player.
my poll options are never available
I like the team, but don't know how competetive it will be
Foulke and Wilkerson
by bigmacattack @ Athletics Nation on Oct 30, 2007 12:23 PM PDT reply actions
Maybe Wilkerson
but they could probably do just as well by spending less on a sixth outfielder with some pop and the ability to pretend to play center. I'd rather pay someone league minimum and spend that money on a bullpen arm to replace Duke.
Foulke will give the Sox the first shot... I think he burnt his bridges here.
he's making a comeback attempt
by bigmacattack @ Athletics Nation on Oct 30, 2007 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Just Sign A-ROD!!
7 years, 224 million (32 per year) + the guarantee of a new home-run friendly stadium and local-stardom outside of the crazed east coast media spotlight. A nice waterfront property to boot...
Perhaps itd be a 7 year death sentence for the organization? Perhaps it would save it from Angels death etc. Either way we would have the next homerun champion most likely.
by SwisherSweet on Oct 30, 2007 12:55 PM PDT reply actions
I'm trying to figure the 2009 projected salary
Known costs:
A-Rod $30M
Chavez $11M
Crosby $5.25M (ouch)
Haren $5.5M
Swish $5.3M
Total $56M
Probable Costs
Blanton $5M
Gaudin $4M
Cust $2M
Street $3M
Duke $3M
Bowen $1M
DiNardo $1M
Total $19M
13x 0.4M= $5.2M
I think this is manageable. Salaries will rise in 2010, then drop in 2011 (when Chavez's contract expires and Blanton and Gaudin leave).
Go for it, Wolff. You want to spend more money on players? Fish or cut bait. I don't buy the "what if he gets injured" arguments-- we all know Beane can run a halfway-capable team on $60M a year. So just think of it as a $60M a year team, plus A-Rod.
I like it
Is it possible not to eat 100% of Crosby's salary?
Doesn't San Diego (even with Greene) owe us a favor??
I think with the "jagged edge" in the OF, the A's can convince A-Rod that it's not an "unfriendly park" for him... surely better than Yankee Stadium.
Ooops. I forgot about repeated visits to Safeco and Arlington, where they really like to boo him. Uh, I think we're out (and so is LA).
by One won lost won on Oct 30, 2007 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions
...and slide $10M/year into deferred equity ...
... in the team for ARod and you don't even break the bank.
by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions
That equity has a high upside, as well.
We are one of the lowest-valued teams currently. But if, during that contract term we catch the Giaunts at a low ebb, field a championship-quality team with A-Rod's offense AND build a shiny new next-generation ballyard, that market value, and the value of A-Rod's equity stake, oughta skyrocket, both in real terms and as a % of current value. He could make, and be part of, a bigger difference here than practically anywhere else in MLB.
by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with...
the people I usually agree with on this sort of thing (mikeA, devo, PaulThomas). Specifically:
The offense will likely be better than some of the negative comments here indicate. We should be average or better at 6 or 7 positions, with CF and SS remaining the two big question marks (and Denorfia giving us some hope at CF). The key difference from the past few years is that, while there are still some concerns about health, the offense is much less dependent on our most fragile players. In the past, Chavez and Bradley were counted on to be key contributors, and when they inevitably went down (or struggled trying to play through injuries) the team's production really suffered. This year, I think, is different:
- Cust, Barton, and Swisher all rate to be very good, and don't have any particular injury concerns (beyond those that all players have). Plus DJ is a reasonable backup at 1B/DH if he isn't traded.
- Chavez remains a big question mark, but for the first time we seem to have a credible backup 3B in Hannahan. (And on a side note, I hope that the experiment of Hannahan in the outfield works. I'm not convinced that he's good enough to be an everyday player at any position, but if he can be a decent backup at several different ones then he's an extremely useful player, sort of a "Cuddyer lite" or "Scutaro plus." Especially considering...)
- Buck should also be good, but all his injuries scare the crap out of me. We need a little more depth in the OF, either Hannahan or a cheapish veteran signing like Stewart.
There's no Thomas or Giambi, but that's a deeper offense than we've had for several years.
On the pitching side, Haren is fine as a #1, Blanton is fine as a #2, Gaudin is ... well, honestly, I'm still not sure what Gaudin is. And after that, nothing. Add in Harden, and that's a very good rotation. Take out Harden, and it's probably below average. So basically the rotation is the opposite of the offense: more reliant than it's ever been on our least reliable player.
And in the bullpen, more uncertainty. Street and Duchscherer are great if they're healthy. Out of Brown, Blevins, Casilla, Lugo, Embree, probably 2 of them will put together good seasons. Let's call it average overall, but could just as easily be either much better or much worse than that.
All in all, I'd give us maybe a 25% chance of having a playoff team. That's better than "meh" but not enough to get me too excited. (Also, on a purely subjective level, not having to watch Jason Kendall "hit" makes the team way more enjoyable to watch).
A's 2008
This will be the 1st time since becoming an A's fan that I do not think we will do well in the up coming season. Why? well, for one I can't see this team staying healthy all year, I just can't and two, even if the entire roster is in tact all season, it's going to be difficult to edge out the likes of Det, Ana, Clev, Bos, NY, Min, who imo all have better lineups etc..
We are also in dire need of another starter. After Haren and Blanton, everyone else is nothing better than a 4 or 5. Gaudin was a nice suprise, but even he bottomed out in the 2nd half. We also don't know how well the Duke will perform as a starter. Just too many "ifs" for me to get too excited about next year..
And, I don't see Ellis duplicating his `07 numbers. The only bright spot I am really looking fwd to is seeing Barton light it up next year. He's a lock for ROY and will be on everyone's fantasy team.
A lock for ROY?
Dude, I think Barton's great, but even I'm not going out on that slender a limb.
Chamberlain, Hughes, Ellsbury, Buchholz, Longoria, Andrew Miller, Adam Jones, Wlad Balentien, and Kosuke Fukudome all have something to say about it, methinks.
what am I suppose to say?
by sf drift king on Oct 30, 2007 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Had to go "meh"
The Chavez/Crosby/Kotsay health questions (and the lack of a power hitter) concern me, so I can't get too excited. I'm optimistic, but cautious.
Cust is a power hitter!
Maybe he'll benefit from a winter at the Cust Academy!
by One won lost won on Oct 30, 2007 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Blez, are you kidding ?!?
There's absolutely nothing to like about the structure of this team. Sure Haren is a good pitcher ( although one has to be concerned about his lack of stamina near the end of the season ) and Blanton and Ellis had career years, but there are too many question marks to get excited about if the A's don't make any significant moves in the offseason.
- They don't have a reliable SS or 3B.
- Beyond Haren and Blanton, they do not have a reliable starting pitcher.
- Too much inconsistency in the bullpen.
- Their offense is still one of the weakest in the league.
My biggest concern is that Lewis and Billy are going to stand pat this winter and also wait until the new ballpark is finished before they spend anymore money on the team.
by DaveinRoseville on Oct 30, 2007 8:14 PM PDT reply actions
I think you're selling
Buck and Barton short, and I think Swisher is as likely to improve upon 2007 as Ellis is to do worse, but yes...a lot of things have to break right for the A's to contend in 2008. And a couple key things have to not break, like Harden - which is even less likely.
Haren's "lack of stamina"?
Right. The fact that his shoulder ached a little more was responsible for his batting average on balls in play jumping 100 points after the All-Star Break.
Haren pitched, for the entire season, like a pitcher with an ERA in the low 3s (i.e. damn good). Which is exactly where it ended up. (His season BABIP was almost exactly the league average.) Not saying the A's don't have issues, but Haren's putative arm fatigue is not, IMO, one of them.
If foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, foolish emphasis on consistency is the hobgoblin of baseball analysis.
Re: "foolish consistency ..."
What seperates "good/great" pitchers from "average" pitchers is their consistency. Sure all pitchers have bad starts, but clearly Haren was a different pitcher in the 2H vs the 1H.
Had the A's been in a tight pennant race in the 2H. Haren's "inconsistency" in the 2H would have made all the difference.
by DaveinRoseville on Oct 31, 2007 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
"Clearly Haren was a different pitcher"
Yes. In the first half, he was a very lucky pitcher, and in the second half he was a very unlucky pitcher.
What separates good pitchers from average pitchers is not consistency, it's stopping the other team from scoring runs. A guy who allows 0,0,0,8,0 runs in 5 starts is clearly a far better pitcher than a guy who allows 3,3,3,3,3.
Time to pile on some more thoughts
Starting with SP:
Personally, as a fan and as an evaluator of talent I expect Blanton and Gaudin to improve on their '07 stats, and Haren certainly won't have his 1st half again, but he probably won't have his second half again either. I expect a wash. However, lets just assume that between the three of them (please no injuries here) they perform essentially the same in '08. Is that so unreasonable?
That leaves us with the following:
- Haren (above average)
- Blanton (above average)
- ? (wait for it...)
- Gaudin (above average)
- ? (keep waiting...)
So, if we can just add an avg. #3 and #5 starter to the mix the SP would look good. Before we get too cynical here lets take a slightly different look at the situation.
On opening day (and maybe just that one day) our rotation probably looks like this:
1)Haren
- Blanton
- Harden
- Gaudin
- Duke
If healthy, this is indisputably an above average rotation. A healthy Duke, even if he struggles at SP, which I doubt, would be at least a league-avg. #4 SP in my humble opinion, and Harden is Harden...
More realistically though, one or both of them gets hurt, but hopefully not right away allowing Beane to exhume an SP from another organization in the meantime. But ignoring that idea, which I have mentioned before, lets just say that their is a large chance for Harden getting hurt (say 70%) and also a sizable chance for Duke (say 40%). So more realistically thinking, I see our rotation looking like this:
- Haren
- Blanton
- Harden (1/3) + Duke (2/3)
- Gaudin
- Meyer (my personal pick)
This would give us above average at 1-4 and a HUGE question mark at #5, however:
Meyer will probably start in the Bullpen on cleanup duty in '08, giving him more time to regain his gusto until Duke or Harden or anyone goes down. Back in the day, Meyer was known for his control, and although in '07 he showed none to speak of, if you add control to his arsenal he is a left-handed Joe Blanton in my opinion. Meyer also kicked butt in the minors, despite his sometimes high BB-rates, reinforcing my point that with solid control, he could pound the zone effectively ala Blanton. I definitely think that if we can go a few months without starting him and allow him to get some innings in RP he will show promise.
So basically I see the SP situation as being solid overall: somewhere between league average and best in show.
I won't go too in depth on RP or hitting right now, but briefly...
RP: Without Duke it could be problematic. Street MUST be healthy. IF he is, then I agree with earlier points that between the likes of Brown, Blevins, Casilla, Embree, and even Calero it could be okay. HUGE question mark though, we need a nasty setup man though, so hopefully Brown or Casilla can step up and allow the rest to provide avg. to above-average RP for innings 5-7.
Hitting: I agree with andeux, I think it was, who said that in the past we relied heavily on players that got hurt and ruined production. This time its not the case as we have a seemingly reliable core of Swisher, Cust, and Barton at least. Suzuki will obviously provide an upgrade. If those guys are healthy and EITHER Buck or Chavez can be completely healthy then we have a solid lineup complemented with Ellis, Denorfia, and the big UGH (Crosby).
Now, albeit biased, by this logic, we blow the bank and sign A-ROD to play shortstop (yes, he is still agile enough to play short) then we take our biggest offensive hole and turn it into the biggest strength in all of baseball. The A's CAN afford it.
It would instantly give us a virtual guarantee of an above average offense with lots of upside to boot. Our SP IS good enough if we can get just 10 starts from Harden, which (I think) is a bet I can take.
Our RP is a potential problem, but its a lot easier to earth up RP help than anything else in my opinion and this offseason Beane is already on-top of it with that prospect from the Marlins.
BOOM: Playoffs
Also, PaulThomas, I've enjoyed your insight on this thread and am especially glad to see you're all aboard the A-ROD train as well.
Maybe its impossible, but I would pull the trigger ASAP.
by SwisherSweet on Oct 30, 2007 10:28 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
