A winning formula
Outstanding starting pitching + reliable defense with the occasional outstanding play + deep, reliable 'pen + lights-out closer + just enough offense = ... uh, = ...
Uh, I guess equals "patent litigation by Billy Beane against Terry Ryan."
It's hard to argue that the A's didn't have more than their share of simple bad luck today -- every ball the A's hit hard was either right to or just within the range of a Twins fielder; every ball the Twins hit hard was in a gap -- but it's also hard to argue against the fact that the A's really just aren't capable of manufacturing situations where "good luck" is either more likely or simply unnecessary.
We all knew that the near-untouchability of Blanton, Haren, and Gaudin would regress to the mean in the second half. But even more established-performance-level performances from those three (such as Blanton's outing today) should be enough to keep an average team competitive in games.
And the A's were, just barely, competitive today.
It will be very interesting to see how Blanton and the rest of the pitching staff react to pitching to Suzuki occasionally the rest of the season. I'd really like to hear an unvarnished opinion from one of the pitchers as to the tradeoff between the apparent security of mind that Kendall provides, and the utter lack of offense from the position.
The two other up-the-middle defensive stalwarts -- Crosby and Kotsay -- turned in improved days at the plate, albeit with opposite outcomes.
At this point, even the losing streak ceases to be of much concern. It's the small stories in player adjustments, personnel speculation, and laying of groundwork for the next steps that need to be taken. Whether you're a fan or an athlete on the field, your focus can't be on the larger picture, on the win or the prospects for the rest of the season -- it needs to be on those small moments and steps toward improvement.
0 recs |
56
comments
Read Related
Comments
at this point I'm just hoping this team
by larrysgurl on Jul 14, 2007 7:24 PM PDT 0 recs
GREAT DEAL!!!
I'm offering 10 "In Billy We Trust" t-shirts, now on sale for just $2.99! No? Fine, I'll pay you $3.99.
by Nico on Jul 14, 2007 7:29 PM PDT 0 recs
If I take one,
does it come with a "no donation to Goodwill" clause?
by Nick on
Jul 14, 2007 8:25 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I can't promise that--
I might need to use Goodwill to get the next Colby Lewis.
by Nico on
Jul 14, 2007 8:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Well, tieing it back to your pregame interlude
Thomas Paine died despised and alone. And our Redcoat problem is worse than his was.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jul 14, 2007 7:32 PM PDT 0 recs
Wow. read the rotoworld comment about Crosby
I love the Rotoworld writer, whoever he is. Even he is becoming sarcastic and cynical about the A's. First, he mocks the handling of Piazza, and now he calls out Crosby. Pretty funny.
I'm guessing that Billy would have to be something of an idiot to run Crosby out there again next year barring some miraculous turnaround that isn't going to happen.
My guess? He gets unceremoniously traded for a bag of baseballs, like Jeremy Giambi. That's like Billy Beane's version of a mafia hit: Crosby "disappoints Billy greatly" and then disappears overnight. If I were Bobby, I'd watch out for that cement mixer.
by Crosbino on Jul 14, 2007 7:52 PM PDT 0 recs
Here's hoping Croz
has the great "bsecond half" Rotoworld says he needs!
by Nico on
Jul 14, 2007 8:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
OT: Ichiro
But not completely off-topic, as it has a bearing on why our team hasn't won a pennant in close to 20 years ...
The BBTN crew was out to lunch when they responded to the Marlins president's complaint about Ichiro's new deal. Yeah, of course Ichiro is a fabulous player and he's conceivably worth $90 mil, but Samson's real complaint is that it's unfair to let the big-money teams stack the deck FURTHER in their favor by having exclusive access to the best free agents (not to mention those prime draft prospects who are willing to play chicken with signability). Free agent salaries look to be entering the blowoff stage.
But all of this goes unmentioned by the BBTN guys, whose employer is demonstrably biased anyway.
We need a salary cap! An $80 million team ceiling would be a good start. It's NOT a coincidence that the #2 and #3 payrolls have the best records in baseball. Where's the outrage from when the Yankees acquired A-Rod?
P.S. I need to change my sig.
by Checkswing HR on Jul 14, 2007 7:53 PM PDT 0 recs
I'm still against the salary cap
If the owners won't agree in the CBA to limit their revenues, I don't see why the players should agree to limit their salaries.
by Nick on
Jul 14, 2007 8:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I prefer a "batting average cap"--
If averages were not allowed to go over .270, the A's could actually compete.
by Nico on
Jul 14, 2007 8:32 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I wasn't going to say anything tonight
But this post demands a reply.
There is an intelligent arguement to be made regarding the establishment of a salary cap... your post isn't it.
You want to rail on the BBTN crew for not supporting Samson? Maybe they disagree with your interpretation of Samson's "real complaint". Or maybe they're smart enough to realize that Ichiro Suzuki ISN'T A FREE AGENT!!! Ichiro is under contract with the Seattle Mariners through the 2007 season. I know some A's fans feel that the season is already over because Oakland is sub-.500 in mid-July but the reality is there are 60+ games to be played and BY RULE the Seattle Mariners are the only team ALLOWED to make contract overtures towards Suzuki AT THIS TIME. If any other team tried to do so they'd be guilty of tampering and would face severe fines from MLB.
Or do you not see the conflict of interests that would be created by a player on one team talking money with another organization, maybe even while his current team is playing his future employer? Yeah, no chance of anything bad happening in that scenario.
Here's a news flash for ya, in July EVERY TEAM has exclusive access to discuss contract negotiations with their own players. You can't create a more fair system than that!
By the way, you're only 6 months late to start crying about how salaries have jumped. Were you not paying attention to professional baseball in the offseason? MLB as a corporation has seen unprecidented financial growth in the last few years, why shouldn't the employees of the company receive some of that bounty? MLB will receive $5.5 billion in national TV revenue over the next 7 years, every team is looking at over $20 million in cash before they sell a single ticket.
Do you really think Lewis Wolff and Co. couldn't afford to kick an extra $15-25 million a year in salary if they wanted to? Don't be naive. A salary cap will not solve the A's woes. They've got $32.5 million tied up in Chavez, Loaiza, Crosby, Kendall and Kotsay and are getting below average (or worse) production out of all of them! Spending money isn't the problem, spending money on the right people seems to be the real issue.
Tangent over. I need my beauty sleep.
by grover on
Jul 14, 2007 9:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Very nice argument against a cap.
I don't think a cap would make a significant change in the casual fans baseball experience either. I would be interested in hearing your argument for a cap though. Hopefully you will post it in a diary soon.
My real question for you grover is....what do you see as a close approximation for our 2008/2009 roster? I know Buck and Swisher should be part of the equation...but beyond that I'm just not sure. What could we possibly run out on the field for the next two years and still be competitive? Any speculation?
by alox on
Jul 14, 2007 10:51 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Tough question
One I'm not prepared to answer at this time. I mean that literally, I've been slammed at work for the last 3 weeks and I haven't been able to keep track of the farm system like I normally would.
I'm working on an org update, hopefully I'll post it soon.
by grover on
Jul 15, 2007 7:14 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Well, you could spend
$15,000 to $25,000 more per year on your living expenses, I suppose. But that doesn't mean it would make sense, given your resources. From the information I've seen, a $15-$25m boost in payroll would put the A's into the red. Even Schott only made a nominal profit when he was the owner.
Metropolitan KC, with less than 1 million population, will never be able to support the same payroll as the Yankees, with something like 16 million people just in the five boroughs.
When the A's make mistakes with FA signings, they're stuck. When the Yankees, Red Sox, et al, make mistakes, they shrug their shoulders and "pile on" by picking up Clemens or Abreu. It's like a 12-year-old calling in another 12-year-old to help him beat up a 6-year old.
Money and smarts are the two variables that determine wins. We could do a linear regression on the first variable and, rest assured, the r-squared would be high. People see smarts (or lack of smarts) contribute to success (or failure), and then assume that smarts are the ONLY contributor to the result.
The timing of Ichiro's extension is irrelevant. We can talk instead about A-Rod, Clemens, Harvey, or Jared Weaver if you want.
I'm not six months late. I've thought MLB is f'd up for going on six years.
I don't want the owners to get a windfall. If there was a workable way to share revenues (which are mostly local not national), I would endorse it. I want balance in payrolls more than I abhor seeing the owners make more money. I also think there should be a salary floor.
by Checkswing HR on
Jul 15, 2007 6:30 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Point by point... 'cause I almost care
- A $15 million boost in salary might be the break even point for the A's, a $25 million boost would most likely put them in the red. And if the Oakland Athletics baseball team was the only source of income for Wolff and folks then I could see the concern. However, I hear the primary owners have a thriving side business so going $10 million in the hole shouldn't affect their standard of living.
- The NY teams have always enjoyed that advantage. The only way to attack that advantage would be to create a 3rd NY team. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that meeting. Meanwhile, the main reason why the Royals haven't done much for the last decade or so is because for too many years they were poorly run. They drafted poorly, they traded poorly, and they made bad FA signings. Money does not solve those problems.
- Sure, large market teams are better able to absorb FA busts. That's a clear advantage. But Beane has shown time and again that he is not "stuck" when he's got a bad contract on his hands.
- You forgot talent. Money & Smarts & Talented players = Success. And not all talented players are expensive.
- The timing of Ichiro's extension is not irrelevant, the driving point of your initial post was around Ichiro being a free agent. He was not a free agent, you were raging against an imaginary enemy. Admitting the mistake would have been a classy move.
- I forget the exact numbers, but in the last 6 years MLB has seen its revenues quintriple or something like that. Why shouldn't the players receive a portion of that money? It's not like the owners are going to give the money back to the fans.
- Revenue sharing should be easy. People come to see two teams play, not an inter-squad practice.
by grover on
Jul 15, 2007 6:58 AM PDT
up
0 recs
1. I suppose that the Pirates, Reds, and
other teams don't spend $100m on payroll because they're tightwads. But I'm going with the "We-don't-have-the-Yankees'-cash-flow" theory.
If the big-money teams win because they're so smart, then they should have no objection to a salary cap, because money doesn't influence wins, right?
- A third New York team and a second Boston team would increase competition in those markets. But a salary cap would help the small-market teams much as it helped, in the NFL, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Carolina, KC, Green Bay, etc.
- Beane is a helluva lot more "stuck" than Cashman or Epstein at trade deadlines.
- "Talented Players" isn't really an independant variable, as it is ultimately dependant on the smarts, money, and luck of the GMs who acquire them.
- I unintentionally misspoke when I referred to "equal access" to Ichiro. I meant that had Ichiro reached free agency, those who didn't have the money would be excluded from the bidding, which doesn't square well with me.
- Tax the incremental profits that would inure to the owners from a salary cap and redistribute the funds to the Player's Association or elsewhere. Problem solved.
- My brother works for ABC Sports and he says revenue sharing works in the NFL because of all the national ad revenue, whereas most baseball revenue is local. But if he's wrong, I'm all in favor of revenue sharing.
by Checkswing HR on
Jul 15, 2007 10:59 AM PDT
up
0 recs
pennant
I thought winning "a pennant" meant winning the division. Am I just wrong about that? If not, then how can you say we haven't won a pennant in 20 years?
by iglew on
Jul 15, 2007 2:13 AM PDT
up
0 recs
pennent
a pennent is the AL or NL pennent, meaning getting to the WS
by pbruins92 on
Jul 15, 2007 6:00 AM PDT
up
0 recs
So why is it called a "pennant race"
by iglew on
Jul 16, 2007 2:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
They're racing to win the league
and go to the World Series. Dates back to the days when there were no divisions.
by Checkswing HR on
Jul 17, 2007 7:44 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I guess it does really, in a way.
They still fly a little flag...which is what a pennant really is. Back in the old ages there were only two divisions in each league. The winner between the two was understood to have won the pennant.
Even farther back, I don't think there were such things as divisions. If you beat all seven of your rivals by way of record, you won the pennant and went to the WS. I could be wrong.
by alox on
Jul 15, 2007 7:08 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Dear Oakland A's......
Thank you for participating in the 2007 MLB season. You hung in there despite having three of your players; Crosby, Chavez and Kendall, not showing up for the first 92 games. The injuries were tough but frankly without CC&K knowing how to put bat to ball the team's standing would not have been significantly different.
Going into Sunday Oakland please begin the reconstruction process. First and foremost.....
- fire the hitting coach. Noone knows who he is, and given the results of the offense, I'd swear he just exists in name only. If he can be found, his flight out of Minnesota should be to anywhere but Oakland. Firing this coach sends the message "changes are a comin....."
- Next the tough part....please upgrade for the future. The Beantrust knows what the team needs...now let's go get it. It's time for the Beantrust to earn his keep. If I may suggest one option...look to the LA Dodgers. They could use a slick fielding pedestrian hitting third baseman and we have just what the Dodgers ordered. Chavy for Betmit, Loney and a minor league pitcher (or a similar type trade) could be a good start towards building for the future.
- Finally, do something about the training staff. Perhaps a dose of their own medicine is in order in which case you should expect a worker's comp claim from them by the end of the week. Given their effect on our players you should expect them to be out for the season. This presents the perfect opportunity for replacement.
I will do my part as a fan and attend games and root for the A's to improve. All I ask of you, Oakland A's, is to put a product on the field that gives me hope that we will be competitive again in 2008.
Kindest regards,
A Loyal Fan
by EastbayBen on Jul 14, 2007 8:37 PM PDT 0 recs
Hitting coach is not to blame.
Players just can't hit.
by Helloooo 1st on
Jul 14, 2007 9:12 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The only message that firing the hitting coach
would send is that the A's fire their hitting coach every year, but they don't actually go out and get better hitters.
by Nico on
Jul 14, 2007 9:20 PM PDT
up
0 recs
yes exactamente
Exactly how does changing the hitting coach change batting averages??
I thought that's what "seasoning" in the minors was supposed to do.. find out if you could hit decently.
Kendall is a long way from the minors, but would a different coach made a diff? When he was below .180, he went to his FATHER! A different hitting coach, and he STILL would need his father.
by One won lost won on
Jul 14, 2007 10:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I want every team to start April
with a shot at getting into the playoffs. Think of the rags-to-riches, riches-to-rags turnover among NFL playoff teams every year, in a sport where there is a hard cap.
Sure, one can object to seeing players' paychecks getting muzzled, but shouldn't the interests of the fans of small market and mid-market teams supersede that? What kind of a sport is it where a group of teams starts every season with virtually no hope of going to the playoffs? How'd you like to be a Jays, O's, or D-Rays fan the past ten years, looking up at the Yankees and Red Sox?
People are treating Samson like a jealous hypocrite, but I see him (and us) like the 1st grader who's getting beat up by a bunch of 7th graders. It's not a fair fight.
by Checkswing HR on Jul 14, 2007 8:50 PM PDT 0 recs
(The above post
was supposed to reply to Nick.)
by Checkswing HR on
Jul 14, 2007 8:54 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The O's are not a good example
for your case. They spend money -- they just spend it like idiots. I wouldn't like to be a Cubs fan, either, but not because they never spend on players.
The NFL salary cap is, in my opinion, about 90% about greedy owners reaming out the players and keeping ungodly amounts of money that they don't deserve, and 10% about preventing 1 or 2 franchises run by absolute idiots from falling into the Tampa Bay-Cincinnati Pit of Doom, which is about the only thing that can keep an NFL franchise from operating like a printing press for $100 bills.
What effect would a cap have? Here's my evaluation:
A cap wouldn't keep prices down for fans -- has it done that with NFL teams? Absolutely not. The owners will charge as much as they possibly can, and spend as little as they can. If spending drops, that just means more profit.
A cap would be designed to exacerbate another problem baseball fans complain about constantly -- players changing teams too frequently. This doesn't matter much in the NFL because, aside from a half dozen stars per team, the players are just faceless dudes in tight pants, helmets, and shoulder pads. An Enterprise full of expendable red-shirts. Fans don't care if the 49'ers change defensive tackles every year. They just want to tailgate (or drink and party at home), bet, and watch the blood and snot flying. With a real, hard cap, players would be released constantly. Think about the multi-year relationships ANers have developed with Ellis or Kotsay, or want to develop with Haren and Street. No way to do that under a hard cap.
A cap wouldn't address disparities in talent development. The NFL farms theirs out to the NCAA. MLB teams, on the other hand, are still responsible for developing the vast majority of the players they bring to the majors. Even if the Royals and Yankees have the same ML roster salary cap, the Yanks will still be able to spend 10 times more on player development, scouting, talent academies, etc. So they'll have a larger stable of talented minor leaguers as a result, and have a permanent competitive advantage.
The cap would prevent teams like the Yankees and Red Sox from stockpiling lots of overpriced players. But notice that those 2 teams have won 1 WS in the last 7 years.
The owners really don't care about the fans. They care about money and power and their egos. Money, power and ego are the agenda of the salary cap. It isn't designed to improve the game or the fans' experience, and it wouldn't do so.
by Nick on
Jul 14, 2007 9:23 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I looked once at the
won-loss records of the top five teams in payroll head-to-head vs. the bottom five teams, and it was lopsided in favor of the top five teams. Of course there are outliers like the Cubs (who are red-hot right now BTW), but the evidence that the game is rigged in favor of the big-money teams is unmistakable.
Give everybody the same grubstake and if the Pirates continue to lose because of front-office stupidity, that's their tough luck.
Re the NFL, I think that watching teams go from 2 wins and 14 losses one year to the Super Bowl the next year is wonderful.
If you're content to watch small-market teams lose and you're happy about it because the owners make less money, then I can't supply a counter-argument.
by Checkswing HR on
Jul 15, 2007 6:57 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Your way off about the salary cap.
The NFL was founded as "one" unit instead of 30+ separate franchises like baseball. The salary cap has nothing to do with owners greed since the cap is based on total revenues. Thus, a small market like Green Bay can compete with the NY teams on an even basis.
The best argument for a salary cap is explained in a book written by Bob Costas (I can't remember the name.)
by BMWK100 on
Jul 15, 2007 12:18 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The NFL salary cap
was put in place in the 1994, coinciding ironically with the end of the baseball strike, the subsequent parabolic liftoff in baseball salaries, and the Yankees going to the World Series six times in the next eight years.
by Checkswing HR on
Jul 15, 2007 1:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I agree!
Salary cap! And I hope we win tomorrow! Beat Boof! I'm sick of losing! Go A's!
by A'sfansince1970 on
Jul 14, 2007 9:32 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I guess I am adjusting to this
I am not a parent (that I know of) but you know, as a child, I was never much of a "success" grade-wise in school...so not a "first place or contender" in scholastic let alone athletic endeavors but my parents still loved me. Something to consider there with my surragate kids, the A's.
by ak_A on Jul 14, 2007 9:00 PM PDT 0 recs
"I am not a parent (that I know of)"...
We need to talk.
by Nico on
Jul 14, 2007 9:19 PM PDT
up
0 recs
crimony,
i don't have kids, that i know of.
by ak_A on
Jul 14, 2007 9:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Define "kids"
<nuzzles up to goat>
by Nico on
Jul 14, 2007 10:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I keep worrying
about an AN theory. The one regarding Beane and Co, not caring what kind of product they put on the field now as long as they put a decent one on after the new stadium is built. That is a very depressing thought.
by IM4Oakgal on Jul 14, 2007 9:19 PM PDT 0 recs
Or that some time in the last year,
Billy went, "Ooh, soccer!" and the A's haven't been taken very good care of since?
by Nico on
Jul 14, 2007 9:22 PM PDT
up
0 recs
They won't wait that long!
Big changes this season soon.
by A'sfansince1970 on
Jul 14, 2007 9:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
You really think so?
I wonder. The A's aren't "one move" away from leaping into contention (they need a starting pitcher and at least one, if not two, good hitters), and they don't have many enticing trade chips they can afford to part with and still hope to improve.
Nobody wants Kendall, Kotsay, Kennedy, or DiNardo either at all, or badly enough to give much for them. Johnson and Ellis are decent players, but are far from "impact" players. Chavez' and Crosby's trade value are not only sinking but the A's have no one ready to replace either one of them anyway. Haren, Blanton, Gaudin, Buck, Barton, and Swisher are too important to the team's future success for the team to be improved by trading them.
Other than maybe a package of Piazza, Stewart, and Johnson (and even that's not exactly a wealth of talent for now OR for later), I don't readily see what trade the A's can make that will improve them for 2008. Hopefully, Beane does.
by Nico on
Jul 14, 2007 10:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Alors!!
..and a nod to the tri-color, mai oui!
That about sums up the facts as I see it.
The calculations, the car, the performance numbers, they were all set and ready for the "Summer Road trip to Glory of 2007."
No one counted on sharp objects and simultaneous tire blowouts...over and over again.
by One won lost won on
Jul 14, 2007 10:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
merci, citizen
by ak_A on
Jul 14, 2007 10:47 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Is it just me
or does it seem that the team played with more intelligence and intensity when Macha was the manager? Right now I just don't feel that Geren is a great improvement over Macha. Macha was prickly, the players hated him, and the media wasn't crazy about him. I wasn't crazy about him! To Geren's credit, Geren is more touchy feely with the media, and the players seem to like him because he never has anything negative to say about them. He'll leave you in even if you suck. But, some of Geren's decision making this year just seems sophomoric. Like leaving Crosby in all the time: he sucks and everyone seems to agree on that, but Geren never pinch hits for the guy, like tonight. He's played Kendall way too much, and he puts Colby Lewis in way too much. He'll bat Kotsay second when Kotsay really hasn't done jack since his surgery. Swisher is playing everywhere in the outfield, and that has to affect his hitting. We all know that Marshall can not pitch to righties, but he will anyway. People may say that Geren has had a lot of injuries, but key players on the team have not been injured and they are playing with their heads in the clouds, i.e. Kendall, Crosby, and Chavez. Åfter tonight's loss and seeing the stat on t.v. where this team has tied the 1976 Å's in most games in a row with three or fewer runs (i think that is how I heard it), it got me thinking.
by pedoman on Jul 14, 2007 10:54 PM PDT 0 recs
Or something
The big question is how much latitude the manager has in the current regime.
by MobiusKlein on
Jul 15, 2007 12:20 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I don't see Geren being a problem
He has pinch hit for Kendall, and dropped Crosby to 8th, where Macha would do neither. He has only used Marshall against righties and Colby Lewis out of desperation, not because he thought it was a great idea. He bats Kotsay 2nd because he can't bat everyone 8th. He plays Crosby because there isn't a good SS option in the organization (Scutaro will hit .240 with far less range and arm; Furmaniak is unlikely to hit .200).
Geren presided over an absurdly ravaged roster that got to 8 games over .500, which might have been the biggest miracle over the past 3 years. Teams that trot out 7 #7 hitters and have to pitch Ron Flores or Colby Lewis in important situations will eventually go 5-15.
by Nico on
Jul 15, 2007 9:39 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I sure miss Macha's wins
Macha was despised by fans and players for many things (communication, disrespecting team leaders, poor bedside manners, blind adherence to statistics), and (and this is a big AND), many of the dissers never appreciated him for what he undeniably brought to this organization - WINS! Macha focused on getting the job done and spent painstaking hourse doing the little things - like this squad, his teams had massive injuries, poor starts and long losing streaks. But when Ken was manager, every one of his team was squarely in the playoff hunt in late September and beyond.
Macha haters need to take a long look at themselves because the attitude that any manager could have equaled or surpassed Macha's accomplishments is the same attitude that got us Geren....and this team is out of it in mid-July without the faintest hope for a miracle. Nothing against Geren on the level of effort or attitude - its all there. But he's also not getting the job done - all dissection of his performance should begin and end there. Perhaps I am in the minority, but to me, wins - not the "respecting" of Kotsay/Zito/Crosby/Kendall/Chavez - is what matters to me as a fan.
For real A's fans, to a man, this season has been like no other. Not since early 1999, have I felt what I have felt since mid-April - that this squad was never, ever going to make a serious run in 2007. The footnote is the '99 team did have some interesting things happen in August and made things somewhat exciting. Sad to say that's not happening this year.
by Sashulia on Jul 15, 2007 1:13 AM PDT 0 recs
the current a's team lacks fire
sometimes internal divisions and friction between individuals on the team or between the manager and the front office or players can actually help. the best evidence is the world series winning team of the 70's. the a's clubhouse is laid back and i think last year having bradley and macha on the team helped to bring a little edge to the internal dynamics. with beane's best friend, geren managing i'm sure there's less friction between him and front office but at the same time when things arent going right you need to stir the pot. the last 3 weeks have ended our playoff hopes and circumstantial evidence does lead to the bradley trade and the front office / management making seem poor decisions on piazza and handling of injuries.
having said that, today's game was refreshing to see the effort on defense and some balls hit hard by chavvy. perhaps we are in for a turnaround in fortunes soon.
by oak1 on
Jul 15, 2007 8:30 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Crosby
I was out today and missed the game entirely, so I'm just now reading up on it. You said Crosby had an "improved day at the plate", but all I see on the box score was that he went 0 for 3.
Can someone fill me in on what the improvement was? Did he see more pitches? Get some long fly balls that just missed going out? What?
by iglew on Jul 15, 2007 2:22 AM PDT 0 recs
if I remember it right...
He grounded out a couple of times and he hit a hard smash up the middle that Silva snared.
Surprisingly, he didn't lunge for anything on the outside corner. I guess that's improvement.
Having him bat behind Ellis is interesting - you see where Ellis stands in the box and then immediately see Crosby standing a full foot deeper. I'm surprised he can hit anything that's even a fraction off the plate - and when he does go opposite field it's usually a soft fly ball to right field. He has no power whatsoever going oppo.
by coffee roaster on
Jul 15, 2007 8:01 AM PDT
up
0 recs
not encouraging enough
Crosby had a poor AB in the 7th with Kotsay, the tying run in scoring position, lunging at an outside pitch hitting it weakly back to the pitcher. the only AB where he got robbed on a single -- Silva made a reflex catch on a ball smoked down the middle.
by oak1 on
Jul 15, 2007 8:33 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Ellis and Crosby
the point's already been made but Ellie needs to stand a little further away from the plate because he's been getting jammed on inside pitches in recent ABs.
by oak1 on
Jul 15, 2007 8:41 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Again...
...the club has decent pitching including last night, but no one can expect these guys to win when they can't/won't score runs. The margin of loss is usually small, but they still can't score. I repeat what I said a week ago.
Good teams have the skills to manufacture runs. An example would be a hitter reaching on a walk, stealing second base, going to third on a ground out hit to second, and scoring on a fly ball. A run is scored without a base hit.
This is a team that could well have assets it hasn't used, i.e., teach Crosby to hit to the right side or send him down until he learns how to do it; teach every one of the players to bunt so they can work the squeeze (particularly Chavez, Kotsay and Swisher). There's more, but you get the idea. With this club, small ball is far better than no ball at alll.
by doubleplayer on Jul 15, 2007 8:39 AM PDT 0 recs
I think they done tried to teached Crosby
them thar skills but the ol boy just can't be learned to them.
by ak_A on
Jul 15, 2007 10:21 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Impact of a Hitting Coach?
"The Dodgers have hit majors best .299 since hitting coach Bill Mueller replaced Eddie Murray."
by EastbayBen on Jul 15, 2007 8:54 AM PDT 0 recs
I got the last word!
by Checkswing HR on Jul 15, 2007 7:27 PM PDT 0 recs








