How To Survive (And Maybe Even Thrive) In May
by Nico on May 3, 2006 6:58 AM PDT
in News
Email
PrintFirst, get your offense going by getting Kendall suspended. No, that's not where I'm going with this, just had to throw it out there (on one hop, of course), because I just got back from Boston, where I stayed near a neighborhood called Kendall Square, and I can't get over the fact that there's a square named after the guy...although if you look at Jason's "hitting spray chart" it is kind of a square...Anyway, the A's were 4-0 while I was in Boston, so feel free to fly me there anytime you're feeling superstitious...But I digress...How to survive (and maybe even thrive) in May...
You often hear theories about various ways teams can, ultimately, win enough games to take their division. They can play around .500 against the league's best clubs but really beat up on the lousy teams. Or, they can muck around against losing teams, but can step up against their elite rivals. Or they can pull a White Sox and make up for lost time at the coasts by dominating within the division. In other words, there are many means to the same end, and many ways to divide the season into a dichotomy of games in the schedule.
The A's are, I believe, about to enter one of these dichotomies, but it has little to do with the opponent, and much to do with the rotation. Thanks to off-days, the A's can probably get about 2/3 of their May games pitched by Zito, Haren, and Blanton--and folks, the A's are going to need to kick a** in those games. Because about 1/3 of May's games will be piloted by some combination of Halsey, Saarloos, Gaudin, Kiesler, and I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Ryan-Glynn. Last May, the A's simply got eradicated in these spot starts; this year they are now 1-0, but don't hold your breath. There's a reason these guys haven't cracked rotations for keeps. They may have some talent, they may have some credentials, they may offer some hope, but even if they are not baad they are not exactly gaud.
And they don't have to be. If the A's can win 2/3 of Zito's, Haren's, and Blanton's starts in May, and can win just 1/3 of the May starts from the 4-5 spots in the rotation, the A's can finish May around 16-13, which would be fine, fine, fine with me. It comes down to Zito, Haren, and Blanton stepping up enough to allow the 4-5 fill-ins to be icing on the cake, to be gravy--ok, now I wouldn't eat that cake but you get the point.
Last May, a young Haren was having trouble getting out of the 4th inning, a young Blanton was having trouble getting out of the 1st inning, and Zito was having May troubles that seemed a whole lot like his April troubles. There is hope in 2006. Since Harden went down, Haren has pitched the A's to a win. Check. Blanton has pitched the A's to a win. Check. Zito has pitched the A's to a win. Check. Keep a close eye, because offense, defense, spot starters and relievers be damned, the month of May depends heavily on these three guys to step up, .667 style, and keep the A's above water.
Final reminder: Noon PDT today (Wednesday) is the deadline to pay for your AN Day 3 tickets and reserve a spot for this awesome shindig. If you need info, see baseballgirl's thread below for the link.
69 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You stayed in my 'hood
Note to Nico:
I rolled over in the morning
I bet the creep took your pony, too, didn't he?
C'mon Sal--
As for stealing the pony and resorting to bad puns, at least I left you your prize sheep. Because, once again, it wasn't ewe.
I'll bet he didn't crap in your pants, though
What a snub
Yeah.
If you drunk dial me,
Another Idea: Long Road Trips
A's (5-7)
Angels (6-8)
Mariners (6-10)
Rangers (6-7)
Think about it... as a season ticket holder, would you rather the team stay on the road and win 110 games, or come home so you can watch them lose?
Not to be Too Contrarian
But if the team hits as they should-- as they are showing signs of-- this will not only not be a bad month but could be a month where the team can separate further from the Angels, who are the team with the greatest vulnerability right now. The schedule is tough-- on paper-- but are the Yankees that strong right now? the Giants?? the Indians??
And we get to play both Tampa Bay and Kansas City, if I'm not mistaken. And the White Sox-- right?? They may be the "best" team in the AL, but we all know how the two teams have fared against each other in recent years.
It's possible--
But to get all statistical on you, Nico
Call it 18 for Harden. The formula awards 3 shares for every win, so that means Harden's value to the team-- leaving things like innings and bullpen effect out for a moment-- is 6 wins.
meaning that an injury of 5-6 weeks (20-25% of the season) is-- at most-- going to cost the A's two wins-- and that assumes the replacement has no positive value. If he does, then we're talking about 1 win.
And as we've all observed the Loaiza replacement is an upgrade-- at least for now-- though obviously not over our expectations before the year began.
Bottom line is that the A's were unfortunate last year that the Harden replacements did so poorly. But this injury-- presuming Macha and Young can handle what is a deep bullpen still, after all-- shouldn't be earth-shattering.
That may be, and I hope it is
If we play closer to .500 ball than .667 ball behind Zito, Haren, and Blanton, I say we're in trouble. Otherwise, I think we're fine, partly for the reasons you outline. And here is where Macha's weakness--trying to squeeze innings out of his starters--will become a strength. We will need our front end relievers to be competitive in our 4-5 starts, and behind good-but-not-long starters like Zito and (it appears) Blanton. Using them judiciously--sometimes not at all to the dismay of AN--will be key, and I think Macha is good at this, if sometimes to a fault.
1/3 of the time???
Saarloos was one of the top 20 starters in the Al last year-- I'd say the team had close to a 60% chance of winning his starts. He's probably league average at worst this year weven with some falloff-- Halsey was not too far below league average in Arizona last year.
I'd say we have more like a 50% chance of winning the replacements' starts-- and a 60-65% chance of winning the others, even with a somewhat depleted bullpen.
But Gaudin and Flores backing up Witasick (he'll be back soon, right??), Duke, Calero, Kennedy and Street is still a good bullpen.
If we win half of our
If our replacements lead us to a 4-4 mark from here on, I'll be overjoyed; but if it's 3-5 I won't be surprised; I just want to avoid 2-6 on down.
well, there's always a sample size issue
And if the breakdown of starts is:
#1-#3-- 34 each
#4-- 32
#5-- 28
The way those wins get distributed would generally be something like:
#1-- 23-11
#2-- 22-12
#3-- 21-13
#4-- 17-15
#5-- 14-14
#4 and #5 are basically .500 or a little better. Halsey and saarloos-- even in a small sample-- shouldn't be much worse than that.
I agree that the time to
The time to build a lead against the Angels - Texas is another story - is now, because I'm afraid that if they give their kids a chance to play, they could be very good. A second-half Angels team with a regularly playing Kotchman, MacPherson, Morales, and Weaver the younger could be quite good.
Looking at the schedule
Obviously no one can replace Rich and most won't come near it, but I still believe that Halsey and Saarloos won't be too much of a downgrade from Harden and present-day Loaiza. Maybe I just have too much faith, but I see them doing well.
The KC rainout
We had just lost Harden, and Loaiza was imploding on the way to a likely rout by the worst team in baseball. And then voila...it was wiped off the books! Proving that sometimes the Gods DO intervene in your favor.
Time will tell about the Kendall fight, but going as far back as the Tony LaRussa era, I've always felt that the A's lacked a "killer instinct"; relying far too much on mathematical averages rather than gut instinct. The refusal to play more "small ball" is a result of this.
by Rob @ Athletics Nation on May 3, 2006 8:22 AM PDT reply actions
Don't confuse the two...
But "refusal to play small ball" is a totally different discussion that has nothing to do with Jason Kendall charging the mound. And a review of the four playoff series from 2000-03 shows that, of all the potential causes of the A's defeat, that was one of, if not the, lowest.
Doing whatever it takes to win
Bunting and base stealing(or the lackit) is a big part of that. And if you look at all the close playoff games we lost because our conventional offense couldn't deliver(ie: Miguel Tejada), it makes you wonder what might have happened had the A's dared to risk "giving up an out"
Have you forgotten Ramon's surprise bunt to win game 1 of the '03 ALDS? It DOES work sometimes.
Of course, he then got traded in the off-season, so there ya go!
by Rob @ Athletics Nation on May 3, 2006 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Games were not lost because of..
Want to go through them?
The 9 clinching games.
2000 Game 5: lost because Heredia started, got shelled and T Long lost a ball in the sun. A's offense came back-- if Saenz liner elevates it's a HR and A's win series. After that they couldn't score against nasty Yankee relief: Pettite, stanton and Rivera. Barely anyone got on base in the last 4 innings;
2001`Game Three: We all know the story here. Mussina in the twilight was so tough that there was barely a scoring chance until the 7th. And then it was Rivera after that. Could Art have pinchrun Byrnes? Sure. But that would have qualified him for "Carnac" status-- I've argued before that he was saving Jeremy's bat for Rivera with a weak bench.
2001 Game Four: lost because of Lidle's meltdown, Santangelo's error, and the general malaise caused by Dye's horrendous injury. A's never in game;
2001 Game Five: defense and a shaky Mulder were the culprits here. OK-- maybe Miggy could have taken the extra abse when Giambi yelled at him. But review the tapes: the A's never had any real scoring opportunities in the late innings.
2002 Game Four: defense and hudson fall apart. offense had nothing to do with it.
2002 Game Five: This game might come closest to what you're thinking about. But Durham did steal a base in this game, and my recollection is that Radke's control was very good and the A's had few baserunners. (There is truth to the notion that a team that relies on the walk may have more trouble in the playoffs against quality pitching staffs that are much less likely to have cotnrol issues) But the big problem was Kich's 9th inning meltdown;
2003 Game Three and Four: game Three was lost because of two horrendous baserunning decisions.
game Four may be one of the only ones where offensive problems played a role.
Game Five was lost because of a depleted pitching staff-- Zito had to go on 3 days rest for the first and only time in his career; Foulke was unavailable so Bradford couldn't be used against Ramirez in the 6th. The offense actually almost pulled this game out.
I just want to make a point on one thing,
2000 Game 5: The ball that T-Long missed was not a routine fly ball, it was hit hard and deep to center field. T-Long was not an exceptional fielder, and even without any sun complications, I think his odds of catching it were about 50-50. A catch is certainly not something you can assume, anyway, imho.
Here are four deciding games
Game 3 2001 ALDS 1-0 Yankees
Game 5 2001 ALDS 5-3 Yankees
Game 3 2003 ALDS 3-1 Red Sox
Game 5 2003 ALDS 4-3 Red Sox
A victory in any one of those puts us in the ALCS. But instead of blaming a weak offense, we blame a bad play, bad call, bad managerial move, or bad karma, or some other typical whining Athletics Nation BS!
by Rob @ Athletics Nation on May 3, 2006 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions
oh, come on
No one is saying that offense, or lack thereof, played no role in the A's defeats. But for those of us who watched all of those games, we understand the greater truth.
Tell Jeremy when he went in standing up or Jeter before he made an unheard of play that the real reason we lost Game 3 in 2001 was not playing "smallball".
Tell Mulder when he was walking the world or Hernandez when he decided to play hurt without telling his coaches which led to a key error or Chavez-- i believe-- who made another key error-- that it was really offense that cost us against the Yanks in Game 5.
Tell macha that he should have had better options than a gimpy Dye (or I guess the White Sox proved how superior their "style" of offense was last year, because they got the injury-free Dye that we only saw for two+ months in 2001) or a unproven Melhuse or a weak TLong to pinch-hit when the rest of the A's did rally twice and almost beat the Red Sox in Game Five of 2003.
To say we would have won if we had only played "smallball" is simply to disregard the facts. And to blame it all on bad defense, luck, injuries, baserunning and poor managerial decisions would be equally incorrect.
But to be fair and honest about it-- and not simply blindly adhere to some ideological position-- the latter did play a larger role than the former.
It's so much easier to blame one person
by Rob @ Athletics Nation on May 3, 2006 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions
About Ramon's bunt,
It irked me at the time that all the media was talking about the A's reverting to smallball with that play, and nothing could be farther from the truth.
With Blez gone
wha???
Suspended
Which will be jumped over by a motorcycle...
AN Day 3.0 rosters finalized?
swish on rome is burning!
by ChenandoahChavvy on May 3, 2006 1:39 PM PDT reply actions
What is he saying?
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on May 3, 2006 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
talked about kendall
rome also asked him about the handshakes, something like "where do those come from..." swish responded by talking about how he loves the game and will do anything to make it more fun for him & teammates. he also said something to the effect of "to do one of these handshakes, you gotta have some rhythm, y'know? " i think this was in response to rome wanting to get in on the handshake action.
all in all, a pretty entertaining interview, but not a whole lot you haven't heard from hanging out here. i was most excited about the east coast exposure, to be honest.
by ChenandoahChavvy on May 3, 2006 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
no geewilikers...
it worked well the first 3-4 times; not so effective after 10 repetitions. seems like a pretty affable guy, just not so adept with the media yet. fine with me, swish, just keep up the badass hitting and you'll be cool in my book!
by ChenandoahChavvy on May 3, 2006 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions
<thud>
lingering question not answered by lurking:
thanks for making me feel included and special :)
by ChenandoahChavvy on May 3, 2006 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Swish saying geewilikers = hawt
Welcome! <thud>
Examples:
Nick Swisher just ripped his uniform off and ran around the outfield. <thud>
Bases loaded, two outs. 3-2 count. No one warming in the pen. <thud>
Eric Chavez and little Deigo just appeared on my television screen. <thud>
I just got the most amazing pair of shoes! A's green! <thud>
Could we talk about Kendall for a minute?
NOT HERE
Why don't you just stick you comment out there?!
<thud>
<arises, tweezers glass splinters out of forehead>
What's your f'n problem, McFood?!?!
I missed most of the interview
Not really
I had a dream
by Cornelius on May 3, 2006 3:30 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.
