Have I Beane Too Critical?
by Nico on Sep 25, 2007 8:51 AM PDT
in News
50 comments
So I’ve been pretty hard on Billy this year, harder on him than in any other year since I joined AN—or even before (when I typed long essays and emailed them one by one to friends, pleading with them to give me some attention). The handling of Piazza’s return, the process by which Bradley and Loaiza left, and how long it took Beane to acknowledge that the fitness program may not be effective, are some prime examples.
Today, Billy, along with David Forst and the A’s scouts, get their due because when you look through another lens and go position by position, it’s actually remarkable how many good calls the A’s have made—often among the unlikeliest of candidates.
Catcher, Kurt Suzuki: I have no problem going into 2008 with Kurt Suzuki, whose work ethic appears to be outstanding and who has convinced me that a .250 average with 15 HRs and a slew of key hits is a perfectly realistic hope for next season. Since settling into the starting job, Suzuki has been remarkably consistent both offensively and defensively.
First Base, Daric Barton: As if Mulder for Haren alone wasn’t enough of a steal. I am so excited about Daric Barton I can’t tell you, because I truly believe the guy has what it takes to start his career hitting .300 and not look back. And as we’ve already seen, the XBHs are going to come because the guy hits the ball with authority.
Third Base, Jack Hannahan: I’m still not sure how good Hannahan is, either offensively (where I suspect he can hit around .260/.360/.400) or defensively (where I suspect he came a bit overrated), but given the crisis of losing Chavez somewhere between the rest of the season and the rest of his career, how can you not love what Hannahan has done, and how he gives us something to offer hope for 2008 with or without Chavez? Just a great pickup.
Designated Hitter: Jack Cust: I think a .412 OBP with 26 HRs and 82 RBI in less than 5 months speaks for itself.
Left Field, Shannon Stewart: Stewart’s health and performance have met and exceeded all hopes and expectations. Had we been in a pennant race, we would be viewing Stewart as one of the difference-makers who made it possible.
Starting Pitcher: Lenny DiNardo Sure, he’s done a Saarloos, not always getting deep into games, occasionally just getting lit up, and probably not able to sustain it over time. But DiNardo has stepped up where Kennedy, Braden, and Meyer were unable to do so. With 8 “quality starts,” 10 starts of 3 ER or less, and terrific bullpen work, DiNardo has made me regret laughing—literally—when I heard we had picked him up.
And then there’s Travis Buck, another reason to think we might bounce back in 2008. And Andrew Brown, a 2007 addition who could provide important depth to our 2008 bullpen. How nice for Beane and Co. to be able to look at a year of so many mistakes and miscalculations, and still be able to identify so many important good moves.
The A’s are at Fenway to take on the Red Sox at 4:05pm. See you then…
0 recs |
50 comments
Email
Print
Comments
new look lineup
great post nico...I am(maybe unjustifiably so) extremely excited about our 2008 lineup...a rebound year from Swish, the continued development of Suzuki, Barton, and Buck, and (hopefully)full healthy seasons from Chavez and (gulp)Harden could take us a long way...my question is, if not dealt in the offseason where does Kotsay stand...its evident that when healthy he is one of the more underrated players in the game, and one of the best center fielders...the guy has to play if possible..one bonus is that we have so much depth up and down the lineup...same goes for the rotation and bullpen..if we cut down on even half the injuries we should be able to contend in '08..then again I'd rather see a winning team than a contending one..I personnaly would like to see a line up of :
1)Buck LF
2)Barton 1B
3)Cust DH
4)Swisher RF
5)Ellis 2B
6)Chavez 3B
7)Kotsay CF
8)Suzuki C
9)Crosby SS(if we dont acquire another ss)
I know..thats hanging alot of hope on alot of oft-injured players...but who knows..maybe the baseball gods will finally cut us some slack...here's to a healthy '08
by mattpow1 on Sep 25, 2007 8:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Kotsay / Denorfia Platoon
Many will probably say that Kotsay's days are numbered in CF. I'd like to see a Denorfia/Kotsay platoon CF to start of the year.
From all indications, Chris Denorfia is a "gamer".
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today...
...And a Top Prospect after the 2006 Season w/ Buck, Barton, and Suzuki...
http://www.minorleaguenews.com/baseb... (There are some pretty good guys on this list)
I hope the Marcus MacBeth for Chris Denorfia goes down as an "F-n A" trade.
By September 2008, The outfield/1B will be:
LF: Buck
CF: Denorfia
RF: Swisher
1B: Barton
by Colorado Fan on Sep 25, 2007 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm happy about most of that, too.
I'm happy about Suzuki's progress since he first started starting. Some of his fielding decisions aren't as quick as Kendall's, but he's still just a baby. He'll get there. And he's dropping a lot fewer balls than he used to.
I love Shannon Stewart, even though his throwing arm is shite.
I'm relatively happier to think of "Designated Hitter Jack Cust" than "Outfielder Jack Cust". But I still wish I'd gotten to see a whole season of Mike Piazza -- even if it meant Cust wouldn't be here, except as our good old "Did you hear..." punchline. (Yeah, yeah... here, I'll save you the trouble: "But Cust's OPS!!!" There.)
"How can you not love what Hannahan has done?" I can't not love what Hannahan has done. I also can't not love the lack of hype with which he's done it.
I'd have liked for Barton to have had some time with Wash, but he's done better on defense than I was worried he would (that actually goes for Hannahan, too). I love DJ, but I don't think I'll miss him if the future is Barton.
DiNarrrrrdo, like Saarrrrrrloos, has a great pirate name.
by Poppy on Sep 25, 2007 9:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
in an interview Barton mentioned
that he indeed has has some time working with Wash since he was traded to the A's organization three years ago. Obviously, it would be better for him to get the kind of attention he would have gotten at the major league level with Wash, but I thought it was worth mentioning that Barton has gotten at least some of that over the past three years (probably all in spring training).
by OaklandSi on Sep 25, 2007 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I *thought* I had heard something like that...
but I couldn't remember if he'd been at '05 or '06 A's ST.
by Poppy on Sep 25, 2007 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he was at all three ST
(not sure about '05 but I think so). Anyway, Barton mentioned "three years" in talking about instruction he received from Wash.
by OaklandSi on Sep 25, 2007 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
of course, he wouldn't have gotten instruction
from Wash (at least not officially) during spring training '07, since Wash was already the Rangers' manager...
by OaklandSi on Sep 25, 2007 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From either '05 or '06 ST...
I remember reading a story about him catching Rich Harden during a warmup, until Jason Kendall came over and yelled at him (Daric) because he was "going to get hurt"... LOL
by Poppy on Sep 25, 2007 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
except for Stewart, who at this point is a decent fourth outfielder but has unfortunately been playing nearly every day. Still not a bad signing, because of the low price and the injuries we ended up having to other players, but I'm very glad that we have better options for next year.
As usual, Beane did a much better job with his dumpster diving (Cust and Hannahan) than with his boutique shopping (Piazza).
by andeux on Sep 25, 2007 10:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I love the Stewart signing.
His raw numbers are great, he's made some key hits (taking the no-no off Schilling was awesome), sure he can't throw, but I'll take that.
Everything else has been key.
by Ozzz on Sep 25, 2007 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You would
If you look beyond batting average, his numbers are borderline terrible.
by andeux on Sep 25, 2007 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're overstating your case
While I agree that he's not as good as his average seems, his EqA is .264, which is hardly "borderline terrible." Combine that with being a distinctly above average fielder by the (admittedly limited) standards of the left field position, and he's been about average. That's pretty good for $1.2 million.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2007 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stewart is
not a distinctly above average LF. UZR has his at (-3) in LF from 2003-2007. And that doesn't take into account his arm strength, which is awful (among the worst in the league) and probably costs 3-8 runs per year.
Bad fielder.
by mikeA on Sep 25, 2007 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe a little
Yahoo lists 20 qualifying left fielders. Of these, the bottom two in hitting are really CFs (Melky Cabrera, and Johnny Damon, who was also playing hurt for a lot of the year).
Among the remaining 18, the three worst hitters have been Stewart (.746 OPS, .264 EqA), Willits (.741 OPS, .270 EqA) and Bay (.748 OPS, .258 EqA).
He wasn't killing us at the plate the way Kendall, Kotsay, and Crosby were, and the way Putnam or Bocachica would have if we had been forced to see them for 140 games, but he's been decidedly below average for his position. Maybe "borderline terrible" was a bit of an overstatement, but the claim that "his raw numbers are great" was downright bizarre.
As for the fielding, I haven't been terribly impressed, but the advanced metrics (about which I am agnostic, especially for outfielders) seem to like him.
by andeux on Sep 25, 2007 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bizarre this.
Runs: 3rd on roster.
Hits: 1st on roster.
2Bs: 4th on roster.
HRs: 6th on roster.
RBIs: 5th on roster.
Total bases: 3rd on roster.
Walks: 4th on roster.
K's: 9th on roster.
SB's: 1st on roster.
BA: 1st on roster.
Leading in hits, steals, and batting average, 2nd in ABs (on a team with record injuries), and 3rd in runs scored and bases taken. I'd consider those to be pretty freaking great raw numbers, considering the fact that he's coming off injury.
I think people get a little too obsessed with metrics and comparisons to the rest of the league at a time when all of our studs have taken a powder for the season. We brought Stewart in as a 4th outfielder, and he's proven to be our 1st in a bunch of stats that matter.
All for peanuts.
So deal.
by Ozzz on Sep 26, 2007 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Impressive? Yes and No
First off, any decent GM will do exactly what Beane did: troll through rosters to find players with some talent who might prove to be useful stop-gaps. We hear a lot about the ones who made some impression (Cust, Hannahan) but not much about the ones who didn't (DaVanon, Dee Brown, Lou Merloni). I think it's indicative of what Beane found that while the parent club couldn't pull together a winning record, the AAA franchise, with an AAAA roster of these kinds of pick-ups, went all the way.
And while we properly rave about Beane for stealing Barton and Haren in the Mulder trade, we also must remember that the Hudson trade was a loser, and previously he gave up Aaron Harang for two months of Jose Guillen (not to mention the Bonderman deal). Beane hasn't made any spectacular screw-ups on the order of Brian Sabean, to be sure, and that in itself puts him in the upper echelon of GMs, but this season, my feelings have become very tempered. Also, while doing some nice trolling through AAA rosters, he wasted roster space picking up Mike Neu and Jay Marshall as Rule 5s, overlooking Johann Santana and Josh Hamilton. So his eye isn't completely sharp. Boy we could've used Hamilton this year.
The 2008 club right now rests on one great deal (Haren/Barton). a handful of position draft picks (Swisher, Buck, Blanton, Street), and some very good minor league relief pitcher scouting. Suzuki is okay, but he's no star. Hannahan is okay, but he's no star. As for Jack Cust, I love his power, but his .412 OPS is overrated, mostly because he's more interested in keeping the bat on his shoulder than swinging to protect the plate, and while he has a decent number of RBIs for five months, given his power numbers and the times he's come to the plate with men on base, I'm really not impressed. Yet another walk with a runner on third or second and two outs is less helpful than the stat folks would have us believe --- especially with a bunch of walk junkies like Dan Johnson in the line-up behind him.
So yeah, Beane didn't screw up, and he found some good guys. But....
by richwol on Sep 25, 2007 10:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well said about Cust (and DJ by associtaion)...
If I have to suffer through another season of DJ either walking or taking countless called third strikes when a simple flyball will score a run I swear that I will slit my wrists. Three years of this, he won't change.
At least with Cust he as admitted that the problem exists and he says that he has to work on it. Hopefully an offseason of watching tape and situational BP sessions will lead to a more aggressive Cust next season. His strikeout ratio may not improve, but if he goes down swinging as opposed to watching a called third strike in an RBI situation I'll be OK with it.
As for the Rule 5 picks: Hamilton and Santana are the exceptions, most Rule 5 picks don't turn into much. No blame to Beane on this one.
by Dr Pez on Sep 25, 2007 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, Dr. Pez.
I also think it's important to remember that Cust is still a "baby" in terms of major league experience. He's not that young chronologically, and he has a style that isn't going to change drastically, but in terms of "major league ABs"--for which there's no substitution--he is still young.
by Nico on Sep 25, 2007 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"not that young chonologiclally"
jeebus, what term. <goes to office frig for chilled geritol swig>
by ak_A on Sep 25, 2007 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry
but everything you said about Jack Cust is either blatantly false or irrelevant. A walk with a guy on third and two outs is better than an out with a guy on third and two outs.
You cherrypick the times when he "ought" to drive in runs, and doesn't, while patently ignoring the huge numbers of runs that he drives in in situations where he "ought" to not drive in any. A 2-run homer with a guy on first and two outs is worth two sac flies with one out.
Jack Cust is what he is, and what he is is a guy who's going to produce a ton of runs for an offense one way or another. If you're not impressed with that, well, I'm not impressed with your player evaluation skills.
I think it should be obvious why no one talks about the roster pickups that didn't work out. It's because they aren't getting any playing time anyway. Dee Brown has like two at-bats. He cost basically nothing to get, and he's done nothing. 0=0. That's not a bad transaction, it's a nonentity. By contrast, Jack Cust ALSO cost nothing, and he's been an outstanding player. That's a huge tally in Beane's column.
The trades have been done to death elsewhere; I'll just say that I think that anyone would agree that Beane's been about as good as anyone in the biz at that part of the game since he took the Oakland job.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2007 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree About Beane, Disagree About Cust
The latest conventional wisdom of the statisticly minded these days is that the most important thing a player can do is NOT make an out. That's it. NOT make an out. Drive in runs? Eh, not so hot because the player is making an out. Hit the ball? Eh, because that COULD turn into an out unless it's a homer. Swing and miss? The worst possible choice because then nothing happens at all. One could argue that on a normal team, built in a normal way, this formula works. But not on the A's in 2007 because when you have nine players doing the same damn thing, NOBODY scores. Lots of guys on base, but nobody scores.
It's pretty funny. Over in the National League, Barry Bonds got walked to avoid his ability to drive in runs. The result? A very high OBP and a very low RBI total. If walking is more important than driving in runs, one would think all these managers who walked the guy were insane. But they weren't. With nobody with power hitting behind Bonds, the Giants didn't score runs. Jack Cust deliberately uses a strategy that opposing managers use on Bonds, and it works. The A's didn't score runs either.
by richwol on Sep 25, 2007 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again
you're blaming the guys who are doing well. You know why Bonds didn't get driven in? Because he had Bengie Molina and Ryan Klesko hitting behind him! Tends to drive down the old runs-scored column, dunnit? Ditto with Cust and the bizarre variety of dudes who've occupied the bottom half of the A's lineup, be they injured (Chavez), slumping (DJ), or just plain terrible (Crosby).
RBIs... dude, that's second only to pitcher w/l record for "most brainless statistic in all of professional sports." Newspaper readers in 18-freaking-79 knew how dumb that stat was. If you want a measure of how well a guy's hit in key situations, try Win Probability Added, which has him at 19th in the entire major leagues (which is to say, All-Star caliber). I have my own bones to pick with WPA as a stat in some respects, but for telling us how good a guy has been in the past, it's pretty solid.
As for saying that Jack Cust is trying to walk with guys on base, that's just silly. He's trying to hit home runs with guys on base. If he doesn't see a pitch he can hammer, he'll take it, usually for a ball. A lot of times, this approach causes him to either walk or strike out. But make no mistake about it, his goal is to deposit the pitch in the batter's eye. Just like NL MVP Ryan Howard and AL MVP Justin Morneau.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2007 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
.236???????
How many years of a .236 average can one take before they admit that DJ is not slumping, but rather, a below average player? I have come off my stance that he's a AAAA guy and now just realize that he's not very good.
by Dr Pez on Sep 25, 2007 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You Misread My post
If you'll notice, I did not talk about RBIs in terms of being a usable statistic in the sense you mean. Bonds has low RBI totals because he was walked so many times. Deliberately walked. Not merely that he's got a good eye. He was deliberately walked, whether as an IBB or because they were pitching around him.
As for whether Cust or Johnson or Swisher are trying to walk with men on base --- I've seen all three this year take far too many close pitches. They're not fouling them off, they're taking them, and they're striking out with the bat on their shoulders. These three guys, by the way, have all ADMITTED they're not aggressive enough. So frankly, I think you're wrong.
by richwol on Sep 25, 2007 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bonderman has great upside
However, to date, he has been pretty much a slightly below league average pitcher who eats innings. His career ERA+ is 92. His career ERA is 4.78, average league ERA during that time is 4.42. Year by year ERA+: 77, 92, 93, 111, 89. YBY ERA: 5.56, 4,89, 4.57, 4.08, 5.01. The league averages during the same period: 4.30, 4.50, 4.27, 4.52, 4.27.
Jack Cust with 2 outs, RISP: 239-426-652, 1.078 OPS. RISP: 275-429-618, 1.046 OPS. Men on: 287-429-601, 1.030 OPS.
By BPro's OBI%, which is just the rate at which a hitter converts RBI opportunities, Cust is 61st in MLB with 0.16422%. Notable sluggers who are worse include Pat Burrell, Manny, Lance Berkman, Hideki Matsui, Albret, Todd Helton, Derek Lee, Adam Dunn, Griffey, Jason Bay.
So Theo Epstein, Bill Stoneman, Dave Dombrowski, Brian Cashman, Omar Minaya are all not decent GMs? They haven't been able to "troll through rosters to find players with some talent who might prove to be useful stop-gaps." Well okay, Minaya has Endy Chavez.
by rfloh on Sep 25, 2007 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cust is 61st....
When someone says that the A's #1 RBI guy is 61st in all of baseball in converting RBI opportunities, I'm very underwhelmed. That's 30 teams, statistically 90 guys in the #3-#5 spot, and Cust is 61st. Yeah, that's absolutely great for a mid-season cast-off pick-up. But 61st out of 90 by itself? Eh.
by richwol on Sep 25, 2007 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm Cherrypicking...
It's only 90 theoretical players, and I'm pulling the number out of a hat. But my point stands: To have your #1 RBI guy be 61st in the league in RBI opportunity percentage shows that something is a bit akilter in Oakland.
by richwol on Sep 25, 2007 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No it doesn't
It's not a repeatable skill, so there's no point in harping on it. Would you rather hav Chone Figgins or Garrett Anderson? They're both in the top 10 this year. Anderson was 38th last season, and Figgins was 80th.
Part of the problem with that sort of thinking is this: If Cust draws a walk with a runner on 3rd, that's not a bad thing. He may not have picked up an RBI, but he handed a greater scoring chance on to the next batter. As was pointed out earlier, he has an OPS over 1.000 in all scoring chances, and that's pretty much awesome.
The problem with the A's offense isn't players like Cust, it's players like Kendall, Kotsay, and Crosby.
by MrIncognito on Sep 25, 2007 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is not limited to just 90 players
Why are you limiting it to 90 players? If you limit it to 90 players, some of the players who are above Cust on the list will be not on the list, since they do not it in the same position.
Albert is 67th. Eh? Travis Hafner is 60th. "Something is a bit akilter" in Cleveland? Ryan Horward is 49th. Underwhelmed? Derek Lee is 78th. Pat Burrell is 61st. More Eh?
I repeat: Jack Cust with 2 outs, RISP: 239-426-652, 1.078 OPS. RISP: 275-429-618, 1.046 OPS. Men on: 287-429-601, 1.030 OPS.
by rfloh on Sep 25, 2007 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No power or hitting for average
One tenet of Billy's Ball is that hitting for a high average or having a high walk % can overcome the lack of power in the lineup. The problem is that we don't have players hitting for average or having much power. Going into next season, other than Cust, there isn't any hitter who can hit 30 or more HRs. No player looks like he's gonna hit close to .300. Swisher has a pretty good OBP but I'd rather he hit 35 HRs and strike out 150 times.
Our pitching was top in the AL until late August, but we were still below .500 because we can't hit. Dan Haren should have 20 wins easily, if only we were able to hit. The old adage of good pitching trumps good hitting doesn't ring through when you have to play 162 games. For next season, we need a couple of guys who can really hit for us to be successful because right now, our hitters are not scaring even the worst pitcher in the AL.
by hollandcl on Sep 25, 2007 10:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Barton is the guy
who can finally provide a "true .300 hitter". Buck is not far behind. The killer B's, fo' shizzle!
by Nico on Sep 25, 2007 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We have a better sample with TB.
He made a steady improvement throughout the season, having made a bigger jump to the show, and with opponents having had a chance to evaluate him for weaknesses. DB came in on a hot streak and has stayed hot -- I wanna see how he handles the adversity of the league's adjusting to him before anointing him Savior.
They're both gonna be fun to watch next year.
by The Dogfather on Sep 25, 2007 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be pretty surprised if Barton did better than
Buck next year.
I am going to anoint Barton the Savior, but in 2010, not next year.
by mikeA on Sep 25, 2007 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Odds are good that Barton's going to struggle
at the beginning of next year. Opposing pitchers will have had all winter to make book on him, while he still won't have faced most of the pitchers in the league. For this reason, I actually don't think he's going to hit .300 next season; a bad April makes it pretty tough.
By June of next year he should be fully adjusted. Then we'll really see what he's capable of.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2007 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i believe billy actually
said "power" is the great equalizer. he'd rather have a guy put up a 250/350/500 line than a 250/400/400 line.
by Backspin on Sep 25, 2007 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of work to do for 2008
In my opinion, the A's are nowhere near a contending team in 2008 unless they make some significant moves. They only have 2 reliable starting pitchers, and average bullpen, and with the exception of Mark Ellis, no reliable infielders.
Of all the people listed in Blez's blog, the only person I feel that will be a key piece in 2008 will be Suzuki. Shannon Stewart I believe is a free agent and will likely not be back now that he's proven he can play an entire season without injury and will likely get big bucks.
I was impressed with Hannahan and would love to see him replace Chavez, who despite his good defense can't hit or stay healthy. What I'm not sure about is whether he, or Cust, or Barton can actually sustain the production they have done so far for an entire year - alot of their numbers are inflated given the the fact that A's have been out of contention for the past month.
DiNardo I think is also re-tread. Sure he had some quality starts, but he has also had more of his share of horrible ones too, getting knocked out in the 2nd inning in 2 of his last 4.
What I'm curious about is if Lew Wolfe is willing to spend any money in the offseason to improve things or is he going to stay status quo until the new stadium is built.
by DaveinRoseville on Sep 25, 2007 10:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Explain this to me please
"alot of their numbers are inflated given the the fact that A's have been out of contention for the past month."
This doesn't seem to make much sense.
by Dusty Baker on Sep 25, 2007 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If anything
they would be DEflated, since the A's (putatively) are out of contention and don't care, while their opponents are fighting for the playoffs.
I doubt this is true either, but it's at least logically possible.
Maybe he means their counting stats are inflated at the expense of their rate stats? (You know, like your typical Dave Kingman season where he hits 25 HR but has a batting average of .220.)
The thing is, the rooks' rate stats are, by and large, good. Buck would be a serious ROY candidate if you extended his numbers out over a full season. In the unlikely event that Barton were to maintain HIS numbers over a full season, he'd not only be the consensus ROY, he'd probably get some MVP votes.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2007 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree about DiNardo and Brown because
his stats are similar to Kennedy's:
DiNardo:
4.14 33 20 0 0 0 0 124.0 128 71 57 13 3 49 54
Kennedy:
4.37 27 16 0 0 0 1 101.0 109 53 49 9 5 48 42
Other than walks to strikeouts and a slight improvement in ERA, DiNardo is the same as Kennedy. Not a big improvement.
Also, Andrew Brown is not an improvement on Kennedy or Witasick.
Brown: 4.38 31 0 0 0 0 2 39.0 34 19 19 1 2 15 42
Witasick: 3.60 16 0 0 0 0 1 15.0 14 6 6 1 1 9 10
Actually, it looks like Witasick should have stuck around. Except for walk/strikeouts and maybe hits per inning, he pitched much better than Brown. Just look at his ERA.
I agree with all the other players mentioned, but let's not reach for DiNardo and Brown. It's just not necessary. Point already made.
What the A's should really be doing is auditioning their minor league players for next year's major league roster like the Giants are doing.
Finally, who has the best butt on the team?
by bringbacktejada on Sep 25, 2007 11:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Giants are auditioning their young players?
He he he.
Ryan Klesko, Dave Roberts, Randy Winn all say HI!!
by rfloh on Sep 25, 2007 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at the Giants lineups and players they use
throughout the game and tell me they are not auditioning more players than the A's.
by bringbacktejada on Sep 25, 2007 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, tell me who on
the A's is the equivalent of Durham, Aurilia, Klesko, Roberts, Winn. Yes, Davis, Lewis, Schierholz, Ortmeier and Fransen are all on the roster. They are also still being blocked, not getting enough playing time, because Bochy feels that the Giants "owe" it to the contenders to "preserve the integrity of the plaoff races".
FYI, I do follow the Giants pretty closely. A suggestion, go to McCovey Chronicles and post a diary stating that the Giants are auditioning their minor league players for next year's roster. Wait for the responses that follow.
by rfloh on Sep 26, 2007 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Except for the measures that predict
future performance, Witasick should be much better next year!"
Not a good argument. Brown's actually been extremely unlucky in some respects. Other pitchers keep letting his inherited runners score, he's had an abysmal defense behind him, and his BABIP is .327(the last two are connected). His FIP (fielding independent pitching) is 2.69. That's setup-man quality. (It's really remarkable how much of pitchers' "streakiness" turns out to be BABIP. I thought Brown had really fallen off since his early days in Oakland, but it looks like he's just had some hard knocks lately.)
DiNardo/Kennedy I can't really argue with, except to point out that a. DiNardo makes 1/5th Kennedy's salary, and b. DiNardo didn't completely lose the strike zone in the way that Kennedy did.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2007 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is it not a good argument to say that
Witasick had a better year than Brown? He did! And the A's ended up paying his salary while he was with another team and inactive. And the players that replaced him (Brown, Lugo and Lewis) fared no better.
I wasn't aware that Kennedy lost the strike zone, but if he did that's a good point.
by bringbacktejada on Sep 25, 2007 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ERA is meaningless for relievers
They don't control half the runners they put on, and their performance normally fluctuates considerably. Brown's xFIP is currently 2nd on the team behind Street. He's likely to be excellent next year given the same performance.
Likewise, DiNardo has turned in a solid, above average performance as a starter, which is very valuable considering his salary. The difference between DiNardo is that DiNardo has had about neutral luck while Kennedy was very lucky not to suck worse than he did.
As far as auditions, that's exactly what they're doing. Donnie Murphy, Hannahan, Suzuki, Etc.
by MrIncognito on Sep 25, 2007 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point about salary, but Brown
and xFIP? I don't buy it! He still allowed all those runs and they weren't errors! A truly good middle reliever would have an ERA under 4. In fact, find me one good middle reliever who has an ERA similar to Brown's. However, I would love it if Brown were excellent next year!
The point with Kennedy is that the A's were on the hook for his salary and DiNardo did not actually far much better.
by bringbacktejada on Sep 25, 2007 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting comments about Billy at:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...
by Thomas Walker on Sep 25, 2007 2:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Basically, I agree with that assessment
This year has been a whole lot of rather skillful scrambling around trying to fix mistakes which were made in 2004. Most of those mistakes seem to have been fixed now, but they torpedoed this season.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2007 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BP Article -- Bad Contracts
Thanks for the pointer, interesting reading. The AL exec mentioned Terrence Long's contract. Imagine if the the A's had followed the BP author's advice after Ben Grieve's rookie season. He recommended signing Grieve to a 10 year deal and expounded on the reasons why. He also used write subjective evaluations of fielding skills based on access to video that was not wideley distributed. He predicted that early in their careers Grieve and Chavez were both such poor fielders that A's would have decide whose bat they wanted at 1B.
by NoeValley on Sep 25, 2007 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- How a Chicago guy learned to love Albert Pujols of St. Louis
- Bud's All-Star tie tops our non-steroid controversies of decade
- D12: Revisiting the Twins decision of Mauer over Prior (again)
- After locking up of AL MVP, it's time for Twins to lock up Mauer
- November means R&R for Raiders fan CC Sabathia and others
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
