4 GIDP + 0-13 RISP + 1 E = 0-1
That was one dubious equation that the A's created tonight. And the funny thing was that after the A's beat the Twins all the experts could say over and over again was that the A's are a team that plays the game the right way. If that's the right way, I don't wanna be right.
Tonight was essentially George Costanza's opposite day. At least on the defensive front. And it wasn't just the Jimenez error, although that was huge. Swisher not getting an out on the Granderson play. Chavez missing a ball that he vaccuumed up during the regular season. It just wasn't the A's on the defensive side.
As for the GIDP thing and the lack of hitting with RISP, well, that is a tendency of our lovable muppets. And if the A's are to advance, that's something that they're going to overcome with great pitching and defense. Tonight, the pitching and defense couldn't bail them out.
Yes, the umpiring was horrid. I found the non-strikeout call on Polanco to be the worst offense of the night. But our boys lost this game tonight. If that's Zito's last appearance in an A's uniform, then that's a sad way to go out. I was surprised that the Tigers were able to go against their stats and have a very patient approach against Zito. They looked more like Yankee hitters than Tiger hitters and for that they deserve kudos. I think the Twins could've done the same thing and had success against Barry because to me, the majority of Zito's pitches were also out of the zone. The difference was that the Tigers gave the ump a chance to call them balls. When you throw 92 pitches and only 49 are strikes, you aren't going to win many games.
The A's set a couple of ignominious records tonight with the most double plays in a nine-inning game in an ALCS game and missing success with RISP, going 0-13.
The way I'm trying to approach this series (my wife would argue unsuccessfully considering how I was yelling at the TV) is that this has been a successful season and I need to be happy with whatever happens. But the truth is that it's really hard to get this close to a World Championship and not have every play make you go crazy.
Still, 0-1 isn't the end of the world. Although the Tigers have probably their most talented starting pitcher going tomorrow against a guy who most A's fans still think is going to fall apart like a house of straw any moment now. The one thing that could be the difference in this series...if the Tigers remain that patient and approach every game that way, this could be a quick series. Although the Sean Casey injury could have a big impact on their offense.
As for the A's RISP problem, I expect it to change if the A's continue to get guys on base, but the truth is that it probably won't since it hasn't all year. They are also facing a great pitcher each and every night now in the playoffs, so it could continue to be tough sledding.
The Tigers lost the first game last series and then went on to win three straight. Let's turn the tables this time.
GO A'S!!!!!!!
0 recs |
279
comments
Comments
first?
by haroldMD on Oct 10, 2006 9:09 PM PDT 0 recs
Okay, who pinched me?
by KendallGurl18 on Oct 10, 2006 9:10 PM PDT 0 recs
I'm glad...
by WhatElse on Oct 10, 2006 9:11 PM PDT 0 recs
I'll be there tomorrow!
Go A's!
by Coach Cleats on Oct 10, 2006 9:11 PM PDT 0 recs
I'm with you Blez....
Each pitch is so stressful and important.
We hit the ball well tonight and if we had any luck we would have scored five or six runs, but luck wasn't on our side tonight, niether was the home plate umpire.
As for Zito, the 2-1 homerun pitch to Inge was brutal and Zito just couldn't finish anyone off tonight. After the homer, he lost all focus and was really lucky to give up only 2 runs in the second inning. His luck ran out when Ivan Rodriguez smashed another 2-1 pitch over Kotsay's head.
We can't play any worse then we did tonight and hopefully Loaiza can surprise us again and beat one of the games very best youngsters.
We need the win tommorow as Harden, Haren and Zito will be ready when we head to Detroit.
by Vegas A's Fan on Oct 10, 2006 9:12 PM PDT 0 recs
That's the key...
by Coach Cleats on
Oct 10, 2006 9:15 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That was...
by compy75 on Oct 10, 2006 9:12 PM PDT 0 recs
it was an ugly game.
let's tie this thing tomorrow.
LET'S GO A'S!!!
by haroldMD on Oct 10, 2006 9:15 PM PDT 0 recs
After tough A's losses...
by willcmatthews on Oct 10, 2006 9:15 PM PDT 0 recs
I'm not sure how good Kiger
by Blez on
Oct 10, 2006 9:21 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That's what I said during
by Salvatore on
Oct 10, 2006 9:25 PM PDT
up
0 recs
See your point, but . . .
by BlameChannel53 on
Oct 10, 2006 9:25 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I agree about Kielty being in there tonight
by Blez on
Oct 10, 2006 9:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Don't you think
by Salvatore on
Oct 10, 2006 9:31 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Yes I do
by BlameChannel53 on
Oct 10, 2006 9:53 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Never happen
by FreeSeatUpgrade on
Oct 10, 2006 9:52 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Dear Mr. Zito,
P.S. I'm still going to miss the hell out of you.
by Masaryk on Oct 10, 2006 9:17 PM PDT 0 recs
I've noticed Zito doesn't do well
by calvin on
Oct 10, 2006 9:41 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Just got Home
by ChrisB on Oct 10, 2006 9:19 PM PDT 0 recs
No offense but...
I just don't want to see him take the money and run to THAT OTHER team over there in the rotten apple.
I hope beane pays the man and pays him handsomely what he is worth.
Even though he was not worth alot after the 3rd inning tonight.
by Sheldon72 on
Oct 11, 2006 1:04 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Zito likes stats
Apparently he's not happy enough with the Oakland offense to stay here, and money is not the big issue for him.
by Oaktown Girl on
Oct 11, 2006 2:13 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Different Drummer Boy
It's been pretty apparent since he made the timely switch to Boras that he was thinking more about his future than the Athletics'. It's human to anticipate the big bucks.
It's also human for an A's fan to wonder whether his studying of the Yankees' Press Book in the YS dugout last spring (caught on TV) was motivated more by long-term social interests than short-term strategy. Zen and music don't seem adequate explanations for his aloofness anymore.
by FanSinceKC on
Oct 11, 2006 9:45 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Whew
by bluelightrain84 on Oct 10, 2006 9:21 PM PDT 0 recs
Unacceptable!
Sorry Blez, but that mindset is unacceptable to me. This team is going to have a lot of holes next season and if the goal is not "championship or death" than holding on to Zito was a horrid mistake.
That said, 0-1 doesn't worry me too much.
Tonight was a horribly accurate (and putrid) microcosm of everything bad about the A's. Inept managing, inept with RISP and bountiful GIDPs. I have a theory that this 7 game series will be representative of the 7 months of the 2006 season. A rough couple games, bounty in the middle, a tough Game 6 (representing September... which had its lulls) and a Game 7 that will mirror the success or failure of October.
I wish Haren was going tomorrow but oh well. Chin up AN, you're supposed to feel better after vomitting and that perfectly describes what Oakland did in Game 1. I wish I could be around for Game 2 but that's not what the Fates have intended. On second thought, I wasn't able to follow any of the A's/Twins series, so maybe my absence will bring good fortune to the A's.
by grover on Oct 10, 2006 9:22 PM PDT 0 recs
I don't need you to validate
If you don't like it, tough.
by Blez on
Oct 10, 2006 9:28 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That's better!
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 9:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
My wife would tell you that
by Blez on
Oct 10, 2006 9:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Hello!
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 9:46 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Wait a sec...
Nothing to see here folks! Move about your business!
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 9:47 PM PDT
up
0 recs
FWIW, Blez
But I feel -- and I hope the A's feel -- somewhat, I dunno, liberated by the sweep of the Twins. The monkey is off our back. It's time to have a Nick Swisher type of attitude -- play all out, take a huge cut, and even if you K, go back to the dugout with a smile on your face.
So we K'd tonight. Get back in there tomorrow night and take our hacks. And keep doing that until they stop scheduling games for us to play or we raise the trophy.
by Nick on
Oct 10, 2006 9:46 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I feel liberated too.
Although I slept like crap in Boston last night.
by poetwee on
Oct 11, 2006 6:24 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I didn't so much sleep
by ArakSOT on
Oct 11, 2006 9:09 AM PDT
up
0 recs
well
I'll be drinking more tonight, since I can RedLine it. That reminds me (again) that I should buy some Henessey for the commute home. I'm gonna tear this MBTA sh*t up, Oak-town stylee.
by poetwee on
Oct 11, 2006 11:30 AM PDT
up
0 recs
WDMDW?
Between Zito's shoddy performance, the defensive lapses, the DP's and the RISP 0-fer, I can't recall anything that Macha screwed up tonight. Doesn't mean it didn't happen; I just can't remember it.
by dylantravis on
Oct 10, 2006 9:30 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The no Kielty decision
by Blez on
Oct 10, 2006 9:32 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I don't blame Macha for the loss, but
by BlameChannel53 on
Oct 10, 2006 9:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs
two runners on
by BlameChannel53 on
Oct 10, 2006 9:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
My big problem with Macha (tonight)
Look, Zito didn't have his "A" game tonight and he couldn't get a call from the homeplate umpire to save his life. When Zito isn't getting his curve called for strikes, when he's getting squeezed by Blue, he's not going to be very effective. Barry does not have the fastball to blow it by hitters if they're sitting on it, he can't dial it up to 96 MPH like Robertson did.
Tonight called for a quicker hook by Macha. Maybe it doesn't help change the outcome, but pulling Barry after Igor's HR would have been the smart play. But Macha didn't do it and the Tigers scored two more runs.
Hey, I'm not blaming Macha for the RISP disaster or the shoddy defense, those faults lie on the players and maybe 3 runs would have been all the Tigers needed tonight to win. But coming back from 3 runs is a lot easier than coming back from 5 down, and those two extra runs that Zito gave up are Macha's responsibilty. Barry did not have it tonight and it was Macha's job to protect his pitcher and his team by removing him earlier than he did.
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 9:44 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Fair enough, but
Let's look at Zito's night. He retired the first six batters. In the third, he essentially gave up a homer, a double and a walk and got five outs, including the Polanco should-have-been-K and the Chavez misplay. I don't think that inning merited having someone up at the beginning of the fourth inning, which would have been necessary to make a change after the Pudge homer. Macha probably shouldn't have let Zito pitch to Polanco, but by then it was 4-0 anyway, largely due to Jimenez' bad throw.
by dylantravis on
Oct 10, 2006 10:08 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Inept
Thing is, we've seen this kind of thing from Barry before. He got shook up in the 3rd and Macha should have been ready to pull him if he didn't show signs of recovering from the trauma in the 4th. There is no way Macha could not have recognized the danger signs, he chose to ignore them until it was too late.
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 10:13 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I thought Macha played it exactly right.
Zito's inability to throw enough quality pitches after the first 8 hitters, Crawford's pathetically tight strike zone, and Chavy's and Jiminez' inability to make plays you would expect them to make, were the problems. Macha did the best he could under very poor circumstances created for him.
by Nico on
Oct 10, 2006 10:15 PM PDT
up
0 recs
agree nico
I hope that was the only game that ellis' injury costs us. maybe the casey injury will cost them a game--but i believe ellis was more important to the a's than casey is (was) to the tigers.
by Steve in Napa on
Oct 10, 2006 10:22 PM PDT
up
0 recs
A brave comment
Zito did not have it tonight and he was getting squeezed by Blue. This is the play-offs, when you cough one up you don't get a whole lotta opportunities to make it up. You said it yourself Nico, Zito wasn't throwing quality pitches. What more justification does a manager need to pull a pitcher?
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 10:46 PM PDT
up
0 recs
hey...
by wolffpackdavid on
Oct 10, 2006 9:56 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Your entitled to your opinion, but
by BlameChannel53 on
Oct 10, 2006 9:30 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Did I say you weren't entitled
While I agree with the principle of yearly competitiveness, the 2006 roster did not lend itself to that plan. Payton, Zito, Kielty and Melhuse are all likely to be elsewhere next season and I think there is a good chance that one of Calero or Duke will be traded to fill a hole elsewhere. Crosby has become more question than answer at this point. Does Thomas really have two more years in him?
Point is the 2007 looks to be a lot weaker than this year's version and the farm system is not poised to reload the roster like it did in 2005. The yearly competitive plan would have called for trading Zito and Payton at the deadline to strengthen future rosters but Beane didn't go that route. He's shooting for a championship, therefore anything short of that would have to be considered a failure.
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 9:57 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Meh . . .
by BlameChannel53 on
Oct 10, 2006 10:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs
If the goal is a WS title
But a world championship is different. A new trophy can buy you that stadium. It can make you more attractive to free agents and advertising dollars. The trophy can have a long term impact on the health of a franchise.
On a different note, if FA compensation is done away with in the next bargaining agreement than yes, I think it would be imperative to trade players like Barry Zito rather than letting them walk away without receiving compensation. A lot of people have said that they'd be fine with letting Zito walk in exchange for the post-season and a couple 1st round picks. What if you didn't get those 1st round picks? What if compensation was set up like the NFL, where a team could lose a star player and it would get (at best) a draft pick at the end of the 3rd round? Would those extra two months of Zito be worth it if you didn't make the World Series?
I believe it's naive to think that what the future foretells does not have a bearing on the present. Frank Thomas was signed to a one year deal, he was exactly the type of player (ie expendable) Beane was looking for when he sought to build his roster this year. He knew that Zito was gone after this season and he deliberately brought in short timers like Bradley and Thomas because he wanted to build a roster that could win NOW. There is no long term upside to the trio of Zito and Thomas and Bradley, not in Oakland anyways. They are here to help the A's win now. And since there looks to be a significant talent drop-off on next year's roster the only plan that makes sense is to win the whole fucking thing in 2006.
Anything else is a compromised half-measure.
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 10:37 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I feel sorry for the people who
by Nico on
Oct 10, 2006 10:45 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I do too
I didn't make this call. Billy Beane set the bar and if he doesn't clear it than you have to call it a failure.
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 10:53 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Beane brought Thomas in,
As a smaller-market team, you will always be "losing someone, keeping someone, and bringing someone up, just like last year and just like next year." The A's are intended to be contenders for the division, and any short-series possible, now and later.
Losing Zito will not send the A's into a rebuilding mode for 2007. Heck, if Harden is healthy in 2007, the starting pitching may wind up being BETTER than it was with Zito in 2006.
by Nico on
Oct 10, 2006 10:58 PM PDT
up
0 recs
And if Crosby can stay healthy and live up
I'm not saying the 2007 Oakland Athletics are going to turn into the Pittsburgh Pirates West. All I'm saying is that next year's roster looks to be weaker than the 2006 version. The 2006 team was built to win it all this year. Right now it looks like the goal of the 2007 team will be much like that of the 2005 version: Survive and build.
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 11:05 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Thomas
I don't consider a "failure" if we don't get to the World Series.
IMHO: This season has been a huge success. Everything else is gravy.
Go A's!
by Colorado Fan on
Oct 10, 2006 11:02 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That's fine
And make no mistake, Beane's roster decisions have been about one thing, and one thing only, winning a World Championship in 2006.
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 11:09 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I don't agree
Not having Zito next season makes this roster a non-World Championship Caliber team in 2006? I don't think so.
by Colorado Fan on
Oct 10, 2006 11:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I knew you meant 2007
I'm an optomist. I'm absolutely positive that the A's can't plan around full, productive seasons from Crosby and Harden. That leaves the rotation holding open auditions for two jobs and hoping that Blanton can bounce back. The also line-up needs further reinforcments.
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 11:30 PM PDT
up
0 recs
We could debate this forever,
by BlameChannel53 on
Oct 10, 2006 10:48 PM PDT
up
0 recs
You're not listening to me
That has not always been the A's goal. Nor should the A's attempt such a plan year after year, because their financial limitaions prohibit them from doing so. I agree with the concept of building a competetive team for the long haul, but that does not take away from the fact that Beane has built this year's team with an unusually heavy emphasis on winning this season.
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 10:59 PM PDT
up
0 recs
What?
The Bradley deal was short-term focused, but I am guessing that Beane's logic was that Bradley will be better than Ethier in 2006 and 2007, and Buck will be almost as good as Ethier in 2008 and beyond.
Keeping Zito now will hurt the team next year, but I doubt that one starting pitcher is going to make the difference between the A's contending or not next year.
I think Beane's offseason moves were actually pretty consistent with most of his offseason and deadline activity: put the best team on the field for the current season term without doing drastic damage to your ability to compete in the future.
by dylantravis on
Oct 10, 2006 11:31 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Let's break down the track record
Tejada. He kept Tejada because he had a team centered around the Aces that was good enough to win a title. He also had a hotshot SS prospect in Bobby Crosby who needed another year of seasoning.
He traded for guys like Guillen and Durham and Damon becuase he knew their departures would not gut the core of his team. He also knew he had guys who could replace those players in his organization.
By my estimation the A's are likely to lose Payton, Kielty (although I thought he was a gones before this offseason) Melhuse and Zito. Now, Melhuse can be replaced in-house but there is no ready to step up and fill behind Payton or Zito. Hell, there's no one in the organization who looks primed to replace Kielty as the designated lefty-killer.
Thomas was all about winning this year. For one thing, he only got a one year deal! For another thing, you do not sign a 38 year old DH with an eye on building for the future. At that age the end can come at any time.
The A's aren't positioned to replace their losses from within. Sure, they could always go outside their system to find help but that requires either money (which has never been in great supply) or tradeable prospects (which the A's do not have in abundance right now.) You're looking at a minimum of a 20% roster turn-over and it's obvious that the A's are short on resources to fill the holes. The A's played short-handed often enough in 2006, I don't really want to see that happen again next year.
by grover on
Oct 10, 2006 11:54 PM PDT
up
0 recs
My response
I agree with your paragraph about Guillen, Durham and Damon, but I don't see how that shows that Beane is more short-term focused this year than in those years. Beane didn't make any "rental" (one-year or less) trades this year, which would refute your assertion that he has been more focused on the present in 2006.
The players you list as being gone made $14 million this year. Kendall will be $4 million cheaper. Raises will eat into those savings, of course, but I would think Beane will have the resources to sign a decent pitcher to a Loaiza type contract and find a Kielty-level outfielder (maybe Kielty himself in a platoon with DJ). Does this make the A's better next year? Of course not, but it's not a certain ticket to mediocrity, either.
We just see the Thomas situation differently. I think Beane would have made this move in any year he was needed a DH, regardless of his expectations for the team. If it works, it makes the team better today. If it doesn't, it only costs a few dollars off the current payroll. In either case, it has no cost in players or future payroll, so who cares whether the end can come at any time? The only way the deal might not make sense is if the A's had a young player to use at DH and Thomas would be blocking him from getting experience, but that was not the case. Unless the A's had been in total rebuild mode, the Thomas signing made sense.
by dylantravis on
Oct 11, 2006 1:17 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Yes, the Thomas signing made sense
Hart and Crosby were not the sole reasons Beane kept Giambi and Tejada, they just made the decision easier on Beane. Follow the pattern. Giambi was supposed to be replaced by Hart, a good prospect already in the organization. When Hart struggled Beane went out and traded for Carlos Pena (one of the top 1B prospects in all of baseball) to replace Giambi. Tejada was going to be replaced by Crosby, one of the top SS prospects in all of baseball. He traded Mulder for Haren, who had just lost top prospect status because of a big league promotion. Hudson beget Dan Meyers, one of the top SP prospects in baseball. Where's the top prospect lining up to replace Barry Zito in 2007?
<crickets chirping)<p> <cow moos in the distance>
Exactly.
Beane broke his established pattern of having a top prospect ready to replace a departing core player because he was placing more emphasis on winning a title in 2006. He didn't go out and buy a short term rental because he couldn't afford the price. Beane will never be the type of GM who will strip his farm system to chase down a title.
by grover on
Oct 11, 2006 6:13 AM PDT
up


