Trevor Cahill and Brett Anderson
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 11:29 AM CDT
Email
PrintI think most Rangers fans are familiar with Trevor Cahill and Brett Anderson. They are Oakland's version of Feliz and Holland, the two young stud pitching prospects that are the jewels of the farm system. They are both 21, and neither has much time above A-ball.
Both pitchers are apparently going to make the A's rotation out of spring training.
Which got me thinking...Rangers management has been pilloried for being so stupid as to let Elvis Andrus start the season in the majors, at such a young age, with only a season above A-ball. He should at least, it has been argued, stay in the minors for another month so to forestall his eligibility for free agency for another year.
That, it is argued, is what a smart g.m., running a small market team, would do.
And yet, a smaller market team with a g.m. who is considered to be one of the best, if not the best, in the game is apparently going to do the same thing with Anderson and Cahill that the Rangers are doing with Andrus.
355 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I am incensed & outraged!
How could you even imply anything negative about the Great Baseball Diety, The Revered Grand Master of All Things Baseball, The Honorable Mister Billy Beane?
I may never hold you in esteem again, AJM…
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
They're completely different situations and you know it.
The A’s are doing it because injuries to Duke/Gio and ineffectiveness from Outman/Mazzaro have forced their hand.
The Rangers are doing it because FOTF leaked the move before they wanted anyone to know about it and backed them into a corner with Elvis.
Why should that matter?
They can’t fill the rotation with some scrubs until the service time thing is done? That’s what everyone keeps arguing about with Andrus.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
No.
The argument with Andrus is that Omar or even Arias would provide the same amount of production (probably more production offensively).
First, name the two scrubs you want to throw in their rotation. Second, compare them to Cahill and Anderson.
Touche btw
Anderson looks like he got the 4 spot with Cahill at the 5.
"Come on man you have to admit the average guy in a baseball clubhouse...... is relatively a douchebag." BGL.
The 2008-2009 Dallas Mavericks are the biggest teases in the world.
I was seriously hoping to get both Cahill and Anderson in our draft.
Only ended up with Anderson, but I think he’s the one that will actually be semi-successful this year.
And the first part of your argument
Has merit. If Elvis keeps booting balls letting him play in OKC for a couple of months is a no brainer. Say it’s for the team good, or his own good. Make up an excuse if you have to but they shouldn’t blow a whole year for one freaking month.
As for Anderson and Cahill I hope Beane is screwing this up. That can only help the Rangers. Especially if they struggle. Oakland could take a chance on a couple of guys let go by other teams because they’re out of options. Beane may be putting them into very bad positions. Smile.
I seriously doubt...
…either Vizquel or Arias would be better than Andrus this year.
However, Matt Weiters is clearly the best catcher in Baltimore, and yet they are sending him to the minors, as well.
The argument has been that the possibility of winning an extra game in April isn’t worth forfeiting a season on the back end. And yet Billy Beane appears prepared to do that.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions
hes starting in the minors for a good reason though
an extra year of team control in a division where they arent going to be contending soon=good plan, right?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 28, 2009 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions
I think it is a reasonable decision
I’m pointing out that the A’s are not doing the same thing.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions
So, is Beane really that smart?
or did he just get lucky with Hudson/Mulder/Zito?
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
is it luck when...
most of them regressed after leaving oakland?
hudson has been good, but injury issues
zito throws 79mph
mulder cant find a job
by Asfan4ever723 on Mar 28, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions
Was it skillful to receive the haul Beane did for Tim Hudson?
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Not sure what that has to do with anything
Ceterum censeo Cat esse delendam
by Brett Perryman on Mar 28, 2009 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions
I think it's relevant
If Beane believed they were on or near a decline, trading them or letting them leave would be a good move, rather than just being lucky.
I think that may be case with Zito. Hudson I think he just knew he wasn’t going to be able to afford. Mulder, I’m not sure.
by Darrell McKown on Mar 28, 2009 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions
That would be great
if he had any choice. By his own admission, he just could not afford them.
Ceterum censeo Cat esse delendam
by Brett Perryman on Mar 28, 2009 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions
I decided not to buy that ferrarri I wanted
Am I good or what?
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 6:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Billy Beane is a very good GM
Unfortunately, he is a tirelessly effective self-promoter, which results in parrots like Gammons then ing him into some undeserved level of geniusness.
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Is there a difference between pitchers & ss's?
Just checking.
Cahill & Anderson are also both a year older than Andrus and BP says both pitchers have all-star potential. They’ll probably struggle a little bit like most young pitchers do.
The reports on Andrus vary as to what his upside is and unless you’re a very good to HOF level talent, you’re probably going to drown in The Show at the age of 20.
The Ranger “braintrust” is getting justifiably ripped because Elvis Andrus (did you see that shat last night?) is very clearly not ready to play in the big leagues.
I happen to believe Andrus will eventually be at least an average and possibly a good one but not this year.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions
x
The Ranger "braintrust" is getting justifiably ripped because Elvis Andrus (did you see that shat last night?) is very clearly not ready to play in the big leagues.
I don’t know that there are that many people ripping them for playing Andrus.
And I certainly don’t think you can say that he “is very clearly not ready to play in the big leagues.”
He appears as ready as, say, Cahill and Anderson are.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions
I can very easily say he's not ready to play in the big leagues.
He’s completely overwhelmed at the plate and if he plays 140 games this year, he’ll make at least 30-35 errors.
His fantastic range won’t make up for his weak bat or his number of errors. His OPS is right around .600 in the very hitter friendly Cactus League and he has 4 errors in what amounts to 15-20 full games. He’s a freaking disaster waiting too happen no matter what anybody thinks about his aura, sense of belonging, confidence, look in his eye, maturity or any of that other bs.
Anderson has a 2.25 ERA this spring while Cahill is at 4.95 and will probably be much better when they stop pitching in Arizona and to compare them to Andrus is ludicrous..
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Okay
I’ve got you down for Andrus ’09 = freaking disaster
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Should we put you down
as Andrus ’09 = resounding success?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Nope
I don’t think I’ve ever said that. In fact, I’ve been in the “let him spend at least the first half of the season in AAA” camp.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Is that the pidder padder of a backpedal
I hear in the distance or are you straddling the fence on Andrus?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Huh?
How am I backpeddling?
My preference would be to start the season with Vizquel at shortstop and let Andrus spend 2-3 months at AAA.
I don’t think I’ve ever said anything different.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions
So how do you think Cahill and Anderson will do this year?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions
So you also believe that Andrus
will be pretty mediocre as well?
Is it a good move for the gm to bring up a 20 year old who will be pretty mediocre?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions
I believe Andrus will be pretty mediocre
To repeat myself for probably the third or fourth time, my preference would be for Andrus to start the season in AAA.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions
So you believe JD is making a mistake
if Andrus makes the team out of camp as the number one SS?
If so, we agree.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes, I do
However, I think its overall impact is relatively minor.
I do think Michael Young needed to quit doing his statue imitation at shortstop, and move to third base.
Having Andrus and Young on the left side of the infield should save 30-40 runs from last year.
I’m just not sure that having him up immediately, instead of, say, Vizquel, is worth it right now.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Adam, you're going to love Omar
when you see him every day.
How much does he have left in the tank? Hard to say but the history of 40 somethings playing SS isn’t good but he supposedly still has most of his range.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
do you think michael young is the teams answer for SS in the future?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 28, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions
No
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
and do you think that andrus is/could be?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 28, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
andrus is just magic beans
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
well if we want to really compete in 2010
then having Andrus, Borbon, Holland and Feliz and whoever else is a part of that plan to win come up as early as possible seems to be the best plan. And Andrus starting as opening day SS for us in 2009 is as early as ANY of us could have expected. Now – are we talking about competing in 2010, or saving an extra year of team control for him and having him continue to refine his skills in AA/AAA?
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Mar 28, 2009 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions
The idea that
a month or two in the minors impacting 2010 is just laughable to me.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
well if we could rewind the events
over the summer, I understand…but once we said we were moving Young for Andrus, and said we would give him the shot to win the job in Spring Training or just give it to him, I think unless he fell on his face – which, Josey thinks he has, and I don’t think he has at all – then you have to start him out from Day 1.
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Mar 28, 2009 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions
The Idea that
A month or 2 in the minors is worth it for something uncontrollable 7 years from now is laughable to me
Except its very controllable
what happens 7 years from now with Andrus is completely in JDs control.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
how so
The only control JD has over Andrus 7 yrs from now is whether he is property of the Rangers or a FA.
Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
Seems like
a helluva lot of control to me. Control over whether he has an option whether he is a Ranger or not seems fairly huge to me.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
The probably could.
Which makes it still questionable. But the A’s are more likely to contend than Texas, so they have more reason to start their best players out of the gate than Texas. And are their scrubs as close to Cahill and Anderson as Vizquel is to Andrus?
Were the Rangers really "pilloried"
for starting Andrus in the majors?
by Darrell McKown on Mar 28, 2009 12:01 PM CDT reply actions
They should be pilloried for this move.
Andrus is not clearly not ready for the bigs and his at-least-one-year-early promotion has a really bad smell to it.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Beane has a pretty good track record on judging when
young pitchers are ready for The Show, especially the good ones.
Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Harden were all greenlighted to the bigs between the ages of 21-23 and he traded for Dan Haren when he was 23 years old.
I hope he screws up here as well but as we all know, hope is not a strategy.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions
So, basically...
If The Great Billy Beane does something, it is a good move.
If Jonny Donuts does something, it is stupid, even if it is something Nolan Ryan is also pushing for and supporting.
Do you think Ryan is opposed to Andrus starting the season, and is just being overruled?
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions
No.
Billy Beane makes lots of mistakes but has a very good track record of knowing when young pitchers are ready for The Show.
Jonny Donuts, Boy Blunder or whatever you wanna call him has made some good moves in the past but his strength has come in building what looks to be good farm system (trading a HOF potential player in his prime certainly helps). His glaring weakness is knowing what to do to help the major league club win games.
I think Ryan is giving JD enough rope to make the call on Andrus and if the move is a screw-up, it goes on JD.
Ryan seems to be making the call on pitchers. He also seems to have been hired to knock off all the FO dumbassery that was so rampant from October 05 thru January 08 and has largely done a very good job, wouldn’t you agree?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions
So...
Ryan isn’t in favor of Andrus being up, but he’s going to let Daniels decide?
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions
I think he's letting JD make the call.
He no doubt kisses Nolan’s ass all day long but he’s still the gm of the team.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
How do you decide who makes what decisions?
The decisions you like are Nolan’s, and the decisions you don’t are Daniels’?
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Adam, it seems as though Ryan is fully in charge of the
pitching, wouldn’t you agree?
I think JD is responsible for the rest of the personnel and Nolan is there to give him backing or credibility.
I also think if JD comes up with another dumbass trade idea, ie. Danks for McCarthy, Ryan is there to shoot it down.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Not really
I don’t think Ryan is running the pitching and Daniels is running the position players.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions
So Ryan has very little say
if JD comes up with another trade proposal that involves young pitchers?
Tom Hicks doesn’t agree with you.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Huh?
I don’t understand why you keep misinterpreting, or miscontruing, what I am saying.
Nolan is in charge. Nolan can fire Daniels today if he wants. He can fire Wash. He can overrule any move Daniels wants to make. I don’t think there’s any reasonable level of disagreement on that.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Incidentally...
You understand the Andruw Jones supporters in the organization consist of Rudy, Wash, and Nolan, right?
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions
Who are your sources?
I haven’t read anything about Nolan being a big Jones supporter.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, Heyman just recently wrote about it
And I’m pretty sure it was also in one of the papers this past week.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Heyman should know.....
Since Boras probably told him.
by Darrell McKown on Mar 28, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
I'll have to check out what Heyman
said about Ryan being fully on board with Jones making the team because that’s tough to believe.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
Now Adam
You know the only source that Josey accepts is the Ticket. Cuz- you know – they are just real big into baseball
just remember this, because if it turns out well it will suddenly be ryan wanted andrus up
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
Hey, I'm just enjoying the unnoticed backpedal..
Where Tex is now just “HOF caliber” instead of being a sure thing.
bking
Tex was a HOF caliber player when he was in Texas.
Now he’s a NY Yankee and a mortal lock for the HOF.
Easy enough to understand now?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Do you think he's the best 1B in baseball?
by brettgardner on Mar 28, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
heh
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 28, 2009 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions
No, that goes to Pujols who
is probably the player of this generation.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions
He's Jason Giambi minus the steroids...
A fine 1b, both with the glove and at the plate. Top 10 currently for sure.
How did moving to NY work out for Jason’s HOF ticket??
I'm basing my projections for Tex on what is going to
happen based on his ability, the fact that he is playing for the highest profile team in the game, the fact that he will probably get multiple chances to make the post-season and the fact that there will be a dearth of candidates considered HOF worthy because of steroids.
If Tex stays healthy and clean, he’s probably going to the HOF.
Given my choice of 1B in MLB, I’d take Pujols first and Tex second.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Forgetting abou the best 1b in the al then?
Miggy Cabrera is already a better hitter.
Miggy Cabrera has monster ability
but he’s a fat ass who is not going to age well.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Tex is the much better
long term investment.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
And right now
THIS MINUTE. Cabrera is a better player.
Tex is a very good player but just isn’t HOF caliber at this moment.
I just don't understand
Because guys like Berkman, Cabrera, and Howard are all better than Tex.
by brettgardner on Mar 28, 2009 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
lol
i love it when keith law bitches about howard
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 29, 2009 12:10 AM CDT up reply actions
It was naive of me...
to assume you would EVER adjust one of your talking points..
Don't accuse me of backpedaling
when you don’t have your facts lined up, bking.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Learn the difference between facts and opinions...
and then we’ll talk..
Ever since the trade you have been repeating the same sentiment with regard to Tex – “sure HOF”. There have been multiple discussions calling you on it, where you dug in quite solidly that we was a lock, and these discussions started LONG BEFORE he signed with the Yankees. So don’t come on here and equivocate by saying that his signing with the Yankees is what has now made him a lock.
Ask Josey what he thinks about Teixiera and Johnny Mize.
I would’ve figured Josey took enough of a beating on this topic over at Newberg’s to stay away from it for a while, but apparently he’s got a masochistic streak.
Took a beating? Really?
If Jim Rice can get into the HOF (which still seems to have escaped you), Mark Teixeira, with good health, is a mortal lock.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
And Mark Teixeira should have no problems
equalling the stats of Johnny Mize.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Yes. Really.
And nothing’s escaped me, least of all your inability to admit your mistakes. See: Mize, Johnny, below.
I’d be astonished that you’re still refusing to place Mize’s and Teixeira’s stats in their contexts, but nothing you post astonishes me anymore.
Snark,
With all due respect, who gives a shit what you think?
Tex will surpass both Mize & Rice’s stats (regardless of context) and will be playing in the highest profile market there is for the team considered the crown gem in MLB.
He has work to do no doubt but I think he’s going to hit 450+ HR’s and make several post-season appearances along the way.
I have little doubt he will make the HOF.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Similar Batters through Age 28
1. Carlos Delgado (935)
2. Kent Hrbek (925)
3. Fred McGriff (913)
4. Jim Thome (911)
5. Will Clark (910)
6. Jeff Bagwell (909)
7. Willie McCovey (906) *
8. Richie Sexson (904)
9. Shawn Green (901)
10. Paul Konerko (899)
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
Delgado will make for a very interesting
case per the HOF as will Thome.
McCovey was a bad ass.
None of them played for the Yankees (which people seem to be discounting).
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
I pay pretty close attention to snark
And Adam, and philkid, and shroom, and Joey, and ab, and a whole list of people who understand and can illustrate what goes on in baseball.
Reading stats and drawing your own conclusions does not qualify as “informed”.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Mar 28, 2009 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions
You can dispense with the pretense of respect, Josey.
I don’t know who all gives a shit what I think. If Ed does, that means a lot to me. You seem to, or you wouldn’t keep trying to argue with me.
Your argument about Mize and Teixeira is utterly idiotic. Give it up.
You don't think Tex
will eclipse JMize?
It’s awesome that JMize served his country when needed but we don’t give him an extra 130 HRs for doing so.
Same with Ted Williams.
Your stats are stats regardless of context (unless you used steroids).
And I guess you keep forgetting that Jim Ed Rice went to the HOF this year as well, mainly because he was a good player who was on a very high profile team.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
I don't care
if Teixeira’s raw numbers surpass Mize’s raw numbers. I care about putting their stats in context, because stats only provide a useful basis for comparison if properly contextualized.
I don’t think the fact that Jim Rice made the Hall means that Teixeira is a “mortal lock” for Cooperstown.
And I don’t know why you continue this exchange if you don’t give a shit what I think.
It doesn;t really matter whether some
spare named Snark cares if Tex’s raw numbers surpass Mize & Rice but it does matter with those people who vote for HOFers.
Tex should easily surpass both Mize & Rice’s stats. Easily and if you don’t know it, that’s your problem.
The fact that he appears to be clean will help as will the fact that he will also be playing for the highest profile team there is with the potential to play in lots of post-season games as well.
As mentioned, he has work to do and would not get in if his career ended today but he has very clear and defined path in front of him with all the advantages as well.
Mortal lock.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
And you lost again
no matter how many gay congratulatory pms the Arkansas Blowhard gives you.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Ha ha. The ol Kornheiser skidoo
Hilarious.
Evidently you’ve heard Mr. Tony’s advice: When getting killed in an argument, loudly declare yourself the winner anyway and then storm out of the room while patting yourself on the back.
You calling someone else a blowhard = comedy gold.
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions
BT -
I’m not the one who grabbed my purse and scurried out of the room.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 29, 2009 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions
My purse and I are still here.
I just don’t see any point to thrashing you (or the horse you rode in on) any further in this argument.
Know how old Johnny Mize was
before he hit his 300th HR in The Show?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 29, 2009 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions
Know how much higher
Mize’s career OPS+ is than Teixiera’s best single season?
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
maybe the oakland press does think Beane isn't too smart.
Stability is key, and JD is a Beast.
Jindal - 2012
"AMMIITAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABHH!!!"
Billy Beane is incredibly overrated...
He turned Tim Hudson into Dan Meyer, Juan Cruz, and Charles Thomas.
He let both Jason Giambi, Barry Zito, and Miguel Tejada walk for nothing when all of them were in their primes and he had zero chance of re-signing them.
He turned Rich Harden and Chad Gaudin into Sean Hill, Eric Patterson, Matt Murton, and Josh Donaldson.
He drafted Jemile Weeks in the 1st round.
He gave Eric Chavez a ridiculous contract.
For a “genius”, he sure does make a lot of obvious mistakes. Now, every GM has their fair share of mistakes (you could easily list JD’s here as well), but starting Cahill and Anderson appears to be another one that you can tack onto the list above.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
tell me
how you can ridicule a guy for drafting weeks already?
by dustinvandeman on Mar 28, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions
That was a curious pick
and I didn’t much like it. But it is hard to deduct points from Beane for that this soon (though Wallace is looking pretty good, and would have fit well in the A’s organization)
i agree
that i would have gone somewhere other than weekes. but to cite that as one of his mistakes is ridiculous at this point
by dustinvandeman on Mar 28, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
i just wanted to include a draft mistake of beane's and it seemed like
the first one to pop into my head.
I seem to remember several analysts saying that was one of the worst picks in the 1st round after the draft was completed. Whether they end up correct or not, who knows? I know that A’s fans weren’t too happy with the selection either.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
For a mistake pick
Look at Jeremy Brown in the Moneyball draft.
I don’t care how you spin it, if you can’t afford a 1st round bonus, then pick a 3rd round talent in the round. Pick a guy who you can’t sign but you think the Angels want. Don’t pick a 15th round talent just to say you picked someone and then write a book about it.
Essentially, yes
He allowed Michael Lewis to write an in depth book about him and how he did his job, with particular emphasis on that draft. Actually writing a book and allowing someone to write a high-profile book like that is the same thing – it is obvious his ego is huge, as is his disdain for certain people in the industry. So he gets to be mocked for the Jeremy Brown chapter.
His ego is huge and he does have disdain (that I share) for people in the industry.
I’m not sure he drafted Jeremy Brown because a book was being written about it. That’s kind of a huge leap to me.
I don't think he picked Brown to write the book about it
Sorry that may phrasing sounded that way.
I think he picked Brown as kind of a protest to everyone about not having money to sign all those first rounders, and then when the book was being written made the argument that he was really smart for playing outside the box on that one. I think he tried to hard to make something out of nothing there, and it came back to embarrass him
The As were also hot after
“The Greek God of Walks” Kevin Youkilis but were never able to acquire him and this is detailed in Moneyball.
Youk turned out pretty well.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
According to Joe Morgan, yes
Heh.
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions
overreact much?
he’s not perfect, no one is, but you have to see those moves in context
they were contenders, you can trade away those players impending FA in a pennant race
you really think they want zito back?
they thought crosby was the next great player so did many others. sickles ranked him the 2nd best hitting prospect in mlb after mauer at the time. an overrated prospect…what a shock, that never happens
giambi left for at least 30 more mill for ny
gaudin has been sucking it up this spring and is in pimella’s doghouse. cubs are babying harden already,
not fan of the weeks pick, but he was one of the few middle infielders in that draft, best college one after beckham. they didnt like wallace defense and hicks they only liked as a sp, so maybe they missed their judgement on those players than blaming in on weeks
by Asfan4ever723 on Mar 28, 2009 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Billy Beane
I don’t see how anyone can say he’s “incredibly overrated”.
Since he’s been the GM at Oakland, the A’s have the fourth most wins in all of baseball, behind only the Yankees, Red Sox and Braves, while having a payroll significantly less than those teams and generally in the bottom five in all of baseball.
by Darrell McKown on Mar 28, 2009 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions
So,
How much of that is due to Zito/Mulder/Hudson? I think its an interesting question if he is that good, or if he is closer to average with a lot of luck in those 3 picks.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
What about Harden?
What about trading for a 23 year old Haren?
I trust the Great Beane’s eye when it comes to young pitchers.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Well,
Those guys were only there about half the time he’s been there, although they did run up a lot of wins during those years. I think he is that good, but the next couple of years will prove it.
by Darrell McKown on Mar 28, 2009 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions
I suspect a large part of why you think he is "that good" is that he never stops prattling on about how good he is in his small market
He had his chance to play with the big boys. The Boston job was his.
Unfortunately, Saint Beaneleroy suddenly got a sizeable case of testicular shrinkage.
Color me skeptical, but if you consistently cry the blues about low payrolls, and then get offered a job to run the second biggest money machine in all of sports…and you turn it down? Well, I guess I’d have to offer my condolences on the strained vagina…
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions
I think Beane had a daughter
going to school on the west coast as well.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Ugh
Here’s the thing:
I have a problem with people that whine incessantly about their predicament, then when posed with a golden opportunity to change said predicament, do nothing.
Maybe that’s just me.
And i don’t at all buy that close to his daughter argument. #1. Front office work is a 14-16 hour a day job anyway. #2. If you make 3-4 mil a year, and most likely could have negotiated use of the owner’s private jet to boot, job location anywhere in the US is a miniscule issue. Aeroplanes be handy things.
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions
So....
You are working under the theory that since you don’t like him, he can’t be good at what he does.
I think Alex Rodriguez is a complete jerk. So is Barry Bonds. I’ll be the first to admit they are good at baseball. The same doesn’t go for you and Billy Beane I take it?
by Darrell McKown on Mar 28, 2009 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions
You must have missed this:
http://www.lonestarball.com/2009/3/28/813493/trevor-cahill-and-brett-an#13479983
Either click the link or scroll up.
To repeat, I DO think he is a very good GM. I just don’t buy into the current en vouge “Everybody else plays checkers, he plays chess” mythology.
Evidently you do, because you have all his talking points down cold.
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions
x
You really think it’d be no strain on a man to fly from coast to coast at least once a week other than that on his pocketbook?
You don’t think it’d be analogous to something like asking your boss for a raise, and being told that the only way you could get that raise is if you agreed to pack up and live in Nigeria for the foreseeable future? Yeah, you’ve got a plane, and yeah, you’ve got money, but is that really how you want to live life?
And yes, I realize the differences between the real situation and my example.
by brettgardner on Mar 28, 2009 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Your analogy is inaccurate.
First of all, Nigeria is hyperbolic. I think we can agree on that.
Second, we are talking not about a raise, but a raise and your dream job. That is a big fucking deal. The biggest.
Would I move anywhere in the US for a 250% raise? Hell no. Would I move anywhere in the US for my dream job? Hell yes, Make it an awesome city and a 250% raise? Hell yesser (and I realize that is subjective).
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Very much so.
It’s also potentially a bit selfish, though, don’t you think?
For a man with a wife and children, to go chasing your dream job may or may not be a bit childish.
What’s more, I’m not sure that I agree with the assertion that it would be his “dream job” just because he has a huge payroll to work with. That may be one pearl in a bed of shit. I could envision having a job at a place which I absolutely love and yet having notions of ways it could be better. And if I had the power at the job that he does, I’d much rather use it to get something I want at my current dream job, rather than chasing the dream job at the end of the rainbow.
by brettgardner on Mar 28, 2009 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions
I think that is BT's point
Beane (or really his supporters) argue that he’d be a great GM wherever he was, and that the special circumstances in Oakland have kept him from winning the trophy. Instead, when given the opportunity to do just that, he passed it up.
I think Beane’s particular talents are best suited for Oakland. Boston wasn’t a “dream job” for him, and Beane probably knew it. But it does deflate the argument that Oakland’s situation holds Beane back. Beane is who he is because of Oakland’s situation, not in spite of it.
I don't really see how
It deflates anything unless you assume that the only reason he didn’t do it was that he was scared.
by brettgardner on Mar 28, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Yep
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions
"Beane (or really his supporters) argue that the special circumstances in Oakland have kept him from winning the trophy."
People who argue this I think are pretty stupid.
I think the flukey nature of the post season is what has kept him from winning the trophy. That’s not a special circumstance.
Beane deserves some of the blame
Sooner or later, you have to make a push for the playoffs. When has Beane ever really made a push to go to the playoffs? He’s great at flipping near FA talent for good prospects and never really having to go through more than a couple of bad seasons. But I don’t think he’s done enough to try and win a WS.
That’s not to say its all his fault as there are some years where its just some bad luck in a short series. Those 100 win teams for instance.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
"when has Beane made a push for the playoffs"
Would trading prospects for one year of Matt Holliday count?
Doctor please. Some more of these.
Right now, yeah he finally does look like he is trying to make a bit of a push
But still, this isn’t much of a push. He’s upgraded the offense, but its tough to consider this much of a push after last season’s poor record and trading away 3 of his top 5 starters in the past year.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
For not winning in the post season?
We’ll never agree on this. I can see a lot of things Beane deserves blame for, but post-season failure is not one of them.
We'll just have to disagree then
I think Beane needed to try and build for a championship at some point rather than just build for the playoffs. Its much riskier, but its a move every GM has to make at some point or else they’ll miss their window of opportunity.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Beane's pushes for playoffs
Mid 1999 – Trading for Olivares, Velarde, Appier, and Isringhausen
Pre 2001 – Traded for Lidle, Damon (in walk year), and Ellis
Mid 2001 – Traded for Gant and Dye
Mid 2002 – Traded for Lilly, Durham, Rincon
Pre 2003 – Traded for Foulke, Durazo
Mid 2003 – Traded for Jose Guillen
After 2003, I don’t know if any of the deals would be considered a push for the playoffs until this year with Holliday
R
Dream job assertion
I agree that we don’t know whether or not it absolutely was his ideal position. But he thought long and hard about it according to Lewis and other sources, supposedly agonized over it, so it obviously had a very good deal of appeal to it. And he is always chirplamenting and pontifiwhining about his low payroll limitations, so that would also seem to neatly fit into the assertion.
And the other thing is, he didn’t have the typical constraints a man has when deliberating over a job/venue change. He was divorced, with a college age daughter, so it wasn’t like he was faced w/ uprooting anybody.
So really, to answer your first question, being selfish, as you put it, would be the most acceptable way to go. Baseball is in his blood, and he is by all accounts hyper-competitve, so I would argue that he let himself down. If it was a great opportunity (and I think almost any front office exec would say Boston GM is tops or near it, big payroll w/out Big stein), he kind of pussed out.
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions
I just don't see it.
Digging where you live, who you work with, how you’re treated, and the power you have are all pretty relevant factors in the decision, I’d say. Hard to say it could be boiled down to simply “biggest job out there”.
by brettgardner on Mar 28, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions
I may be wrong but I thought
Beane was just getting thru a divorce and his daughter was at a particularly vulnerable age.
Just my vague recollection, may or may not be true.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
I look at it this way.
If I was a Rays fan I would whine incessantly about the disparity in baseball.
But that wouldn’t stop me from loving the Rays.
That is a terrible analogy
Some things, like family, or the teams you root for, are beyond your control. I couldn’t root for another football or baseball team anymore than I could grow a third arm.
How on earth is a job like that? Is it your contention that Beane has so much sentimental attachment to the A’s job, that he’s with em, warts an all, cuz that’s jusy how he do? Really?
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions
How do you know that's not part of it?
And I’m not saying just loving the A’s but perhaps Oakland is the place he wants to be and the A’s are the team he wants to root for. He can’t want that AND want baseball to be fair?
I’d rather work for the Rangers than any other team, but it wouldn’t stop me from railing against baseball’s current revenue set up. And that’s sure what Michael Lewis made it sound like.
It has nothing to do with what he says
It has to do with his results — 4th most wins in baseball since he took over. That’s darn good before considering the payroll.
About the Boston deal, he said it was because he didn’t want to live on the other side of the country from his daughter. Neither of us know if that’s true or not, but I have no reason to believe it isn’t, and I’m certainly not going to accuse of “testicular shrinkage” for not wanting to be a continent away from their daughter without knowing that wasn’t the case.
by Darrell McKown on Mar 28, 2009 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions
I happen to think that Zito/Mulder/Hudson
was as much luck as genius, and that he is overrated.
Overrated isn’t the same thing as being bad though. Its easy to be overrated when everyone fawns over you and thinks you’re the greatest GM ever. Beane is good, and well suited for Oakland.
He’s not perfect though. He focused on getting the A’s into contention every year, rather than doing a long-term building plan like the Rays. By constantly maneuvering to be a 90 win club, you make it likely to be in the playoffs every few years, but less likely to develop a dynasty via strong draft picks.
Huston Street got to The Show
as a 21 year old as well (did quite well).
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
I doubt many people thought Street wasn't going to make it to the majors
Very good college relievers are some of the closest people to the majors out of a draft, yet also have some of the lowest ceilings. He made a pick that was smart near term, but not really the type that helps the team long-term.
I tend to agree with you
I think he is a very good GM, but maybe not as great as some think.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
Beane
If Anderson and Cahill turn out to be really good, then over basically a decade, he will have drafted Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Harden and Cahill, and traded for Haren and Anderson before they broke out. I think accumulating that number of really good pitchers over that period of time would say that he’s really good (or listened to really good people, which I think is same thing as being really good yourself).
by Darrell McKown on Mar 28, 2009 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions
Going back to a Rudy discussion
how much of their pitching success is their pitchers, and how much is their ballpark? Most years it shows as very pitcher friendly.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
Yeah, its not as clear cut
as I would have thought.
Blanton and Mulder show some Park effect help, but Zito really didn’t appear to be helped near as much.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
I was particularly surprised by Lidle and Heredia.
I’d assumed their numbers with Oakland were largely home-park-driven. Doesn’t look to have been the case.
Beane knows when to trade players
I’ll give him that. Turning Mulder into Haren and Haren into Anderson is a pretty good way to maintain pitching as a strength. Sometimes they don’t work out so well (Hudson for Meyer), but Haren alone compensates for that deal
And drafting pitchers is always a good thing. Which he has done well at. But he’s arguably just as bad at picking position players in drafts as he is good at getting pitchers.
Drafting is part skill, and part luck. The A’s tend to have lots of 1st round and compensatory draft picks, because they tend to not sign free agents and tend to lose them. So having a good number of pitching picks work out over the years may or may not be due to random variability.
Drafting
They have had a lot of 1st round and compensatory draft picks, which is part of his strategy. Draft picks are similar to pitching prospects — it’s best to have a bunch of them, because there’s no such thing as a sure bet.
That said, I think the best to evaluate his strategy and how he’s executed it is to look at his results over time, not individual moves, and at the end of the day they have the 4th best record in baseball in the 11 years he’s been the GM, with a bottom five payroll. That’s not just luck.
by Darrell McKown on Mar 28, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions
I guess my drawback is this
How do you measure success? I don’t think Beane’s ever developed a championship-caliber club. He’s very good at building very good teams. But he’s never shown an ability to develop a great team.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that the best small market strategy is that of the Rays and to some extent the current one of the Rangers. Losing seasons are actually developmentally useful. You get great players by drafting very early. And then you stagger your system such that the great prospects are all hitting the team at the same time.
i dont get your arument at all
before the rays even got to their success, the twins and A’s were the template for sucessful small market clubs…early 2000s they were the up and comers looking to break through.
everything goes in cycles, A’s had 7 yrs of no playoffs, 6 losing seasons from 92-98
how do you think they had high draft picks to get a grieve, chavez, zito, mulder, etc
they drafted a top 5 bust prieto instead of helton
by Asfan4ever723 on Mar 28, 2009 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions
i disagree somewhat
i think in baseball more than any other major sport, success in the playoffs is influenced by luck, so you just want to focus on getting there and then just cross your fingers. if there is one attribute of a team built for the playoffs i think most would say it’s having 2 or 3 really good starting pitchers (the 2001 diamondbacks come to mind for me). so the zito, mulder, hudson A’s should’ve been well-equipped for playoff success. it just didnt happen.
i agree that beane is overrated, but that tends to happen for anyone who gets that much positive attention. maybe he could’ve done more to get the A’s in the playoffs more often, but still 5 appearances in this decade so far is pretty nice. im also fond of what the rays have done but do you expect them to make the playoffs every year for 5-6 straight years? for a team in that payroll range, 5 playoffs in 9 years is outstanding.
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Mar 28, 2009 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions
"i think in baseball more than any other major sport, success in the playoffs is influenced by luck"
I think the opposite, so I’d be interested to hear your argument.
I think all tournaments are influenced largely by luck, but fewer post season teams, a larger regular season and more games played in the post season, I would think, lowers the chances luck can make a difference.
My thoughts exactly
The contrary view has gotten a lot of press the last few years due to (guess who) a certain GM’s convenient promotion of it.
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions
My shit doesn't work in the playoffs
Cuz it’s so random.
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Completely random? It's not.
Highly random? That should be obvious: because a lesser team can win a game all the time. So the more a game matters, the higher chance there is for the lesser team to move on.
Playoffs are heavily flukey. It’s just way to small a sample and too many things can happen.
So
When a team wins 3 World Series in a row, that’s just a lot of luck?
I think your use of the word “fluke” here is inappropriate. You’re isolating the context of one particular point—the post-season—and acting as if it were divorced from the rest of the season.
The playoffs are no more a “fluke” than any similarly numbered stretch in the regular season. The whole season is abound with contextual factors. A team would have to play an infinite number of games to eliminate your flukiness.
The simple fact is that throwing your hands up and praying for rain after 162 is the functional equivalent of Willie Randolph doing cartwheels in the locker room while the Mets tank the last month of the season. After all, it’s all just a fluke, right?
Nah, sometimes you have to actually get it done, and with the minor exception of ‘06, Beane hasn’t gotten it done.
by brettgardner on Mar 29, 2009 12:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Sorry, I don't agree.
I do agree that the post season is no more flukey than any 5 game set in the regular season, but that’s why I think GMs should be judged on an entire sample size; 162 games plus the regular season.
I don’t think he has some terrible problem that allows him to build a great team for 162 games and then it’s bad for the five games at the end.
And yes, I do think a team winning three straight series is largely a result of luck. Not entirely, the better team IS more likely to win, but the best team in baseball is just as likely to lose 3 out of 5 games to the second best team in October as they are in April.
Also note:
I don’t really think Beane is (at least anymore) the best GM in baseball. But it has to do with a lot more than a handful of 5 game series. That’s just not enough of a sample for me to judge any GM on.
Nobody's judging
Solely upon that, but it is a relevant factor in determining “the best”.
Now, if you’re determining who you’d want to construct your expansion franchise, then I agree that a G.M. should be viewed through the lens of his entire body of work.
But it seems unlikely that a team could lose 4 ALDSes in a row without there being any scintilla of significant correlation.
by brettgardner on Mar 29, 2009 12:39 AM CDT up reply actions
Okay, see, I think we disagree on how to define the best then.
Because that is the guy I’d want to build my team. This seems like sort of arguing whether or not feets in the post season for players should be used in defining “greatness.” And I think that’s perfectly up for debate and if you said they should I wouldn’t call you wrong.
I’m simply saying I agree with him that five games and then elimination is more privy to the influences of luck than 162 games.
Your opinions on this subject are bafflingly contradictory
They remind me of the hamilton quote (and I don’t mean that in a snarky way).
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah.
“i think in baseball more than any other major sport, success in the playoffs is influenced by luck”
I think the opposite
" My shit doesn’t work in the playoffs cuz it’s so random."
But, it is. He’s correct in that.
…hmm?
by brettgardner on Mar 28, 2009 6:32 PM CDT up reply actions
It almost seems like b/c I agreed w/ him he changed course
Ha.
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Which part of that is a contradiction?
I think baseball’s playoffs are extremely flukey. I think it’s less so than other sports.
How is that difficult?
i would say the disparity in quality between playoff teams is lower in baseball
than in the other sports. or, at the very least, that disparity manifests itself more subtly in the win-loss column. The way I see it, baseball is more about being a little bit better than other teams and exploiting that slight edge over a long period of time (the 162 game season). While hockey, basketball, and football rely more on greater dominance over a shorter time frame. When those advantages are tested over a 7-game series, the slight advantages in baseball make a better team more susceptible to upset, and thus enable inferior teams to ‘luck’ into a victory more often than in the other sports.
In baseball, the best record usually falls somewhere around a ..60 -. 65 winning percentage. In basketball right now there are three teams with a .74 or higher winning percentage. the NFL had 5 teams better than .75. If we accept that those winning percentages correlate even in some rough way to the team’s propensity to win a given game or a given playoff series, it’s easy to see how those sports’ playoffs are more conducive to ‘the better team winning’.
Baseball playoffs also have fewer rounds, meaning an inferior team has to ‘get lucky’ fewer times than in basketball or hockey. I guess you could make the case that football playoffs are more prone to luck because it is just a single game for each round, but football seems to be relatively good at funneling better teams to the Super Bowl and worse teams home. i guess id have to look into it more closely, though.
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Mar 28, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah
The reason that most of the major sports work as well as they do is that the schedules fit the variability of teams. The best MLB team in a division is usually only going to win 60% of their games, the second best 57, and so on whereas the best NFL team will win 75 or 80. You can easily separate out the 75 teams from the 60% teams in 16 games or so. You almost certainly can’t separate a 60% team from a 57% team in less than 100 games.
The difference between baseball and all the other sports is that the team changes from day to day because the pitchers change. Every 5 days, the Giants are the best team in the NL because they have Tim Lincecum running out there, but the other 4 days they are one of the worst. This makes comparing MLB playoffs to hockey and basketball playoffs different, since those teams never change. A 5 game series really only samples the best couple of pitchers in a rotation, allowing a team that wasn’t as good during the season to maybe be the best in a short series.
Of course, then again...
if you only had your baseball team play once a week, in a 16-game season, the best teams would probably win 75-80 percent of their games, too.
Interesting.
Not sure I agree with anything you said and I’m too in to basketball to actually respond, but I do think you should get a rec for a thoughtful and well-reasoned response.
"I don’t think Beane’s ever developed a championship-caliber club."
He’s developed several championship-caliber clubs. The playoffs are a crap shoot.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that the best small market strategy is that of the Rays and to some extent the current one of the Rangers.
I agree, but the Rays strategies are pretty similar to the A’s.
The Twins seem to have a good small market philosophy
as well but what you see with a lot of those teams is that they can’t string together success for very long nor do they do well at the gate.
Tampa has done well but they had an extreme amount of fortune last year (and the years previous) as well.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Their highest combined WAR in a year was 15.5.
And that’s the highest by a good margin. So even in 2003 it was some but not close to entirely.
You forgot him giving Arthur Rhodes a 3-year deal to be his"closer"
One of my personal faves…
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Individual deals
It’s easy to find individual deals that turned out to be bad for any GM, probably moreso for someone like Beane who has to take chances to make for his inability to sign expensive free agents or keep his best players when they hit free agency.
But when you look at his overall record, which accounts for the good and the bag, it’s really good, on a really low payroll.
by Darrell McKown on Mar 28, 2009 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Especially when you compare Oakland to Texas
since 2000.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
That may be true, but this is not a case of Walesian hindsight
Most saw the move the moment it was made as ridiculous.
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Its funny how you bash beane
Texas has never won anything, until yall win a playoff game, please just stay quite. Look at the market texas lives and see what oaklands market is and we still win with nothing.
Nobody cares
About the substance of your opinion, but if you can’t bring anything more than 3rd-grade-level analysis into this topic, please just don’t enter it.
Being myopically defensive of your favorite team is a big, flashing neon indicator of middling intelligence.
by brettgardner on Mar 28, 2009 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions
It's funny how
you are so misguided that you think that a team’s performance relates in any way to the validity of a fan’s opinion, like we’re all collectively advising the front offices or something.
Ceterum censeo Cat esse delendam
by Brett Perryman on Mar 28, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions
fucking priceless
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions
with arias and vizquel
i still don’t understand why andrus is slated to be the starter. his defense just doesn’t look ready to me.
+1
There;s no need to rush him. He can be brought up later and still get good experience at the major league level this season.
Ding, ding, ding
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions
You'll be right more often than you're wrong, Hullie.
Stars were never the same after they lost Hull.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe but they can make it up to me
by firing Tippet and tanking for a top 5/6 draft pick. There’s far more upside over there than there is here. At least closer upside.
hey hullfan... do you post on hfboards? this is starsfan4ever
by rangersfan32 on Mar 28, 2009 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions
and hi
I’m far more plugged in about the Stars than I am about the Rangers but I still like baseball. It helps the lull between my Stars and Longhorns during the summer.
So if you want to know who to watch in the NCAA tournament (frozen four) as far as Stars’ interest I can tell you that. Over here I’m pretty interested in the kids. It’s been far more uplifting than the parent team lately. Hopefully that will change.
yeah true, i want stars to tank too lol
i love fball/baseball/hockey equally, watch basketball some
by rangersfan32 on Mar 28, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
yeah I'm at work
and about to flip on espn360 to watch NH vs. North Dakota.
It should be a fun game.
I don't see a problem with it
Generally, I think its a bad idea to orchestrate your roster with 6 years down the line. The odds are considerably high that at some point in this next season Andrus, Cahill, and Anderson will be sent down for a stint, mitigating the worry. Since Beane trades his good players 1-2 years before free agency anyway, it doesn’t matter too much. And it does seem to add fire to the player vs management interaction before that’s really necessary.
What I think is strange about it is that it seems like they’re being rushed, or at least Cahill is. With a guy like Andrus, who is already quite polished and there is little room to argue that he needs more development time, its easy to argue that he’s earned the starting job. But with pitchers, regardless of how good they are, rushing them can be problematic – we all saw what rushing Volquez did. He eventually got to the majors, but it took longer than it should have.
exactly
The odds are considerably high that at some point in this next season Andrus, Cahill, and Anderson will be sent down for a stint, mitigating the worry.
Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
Very true
But if I were the A;s GM I don’t think I would start the time on both right this second.
Well....
You can an argument that now is the time to start the clock, in both the Rangers and A’s situations. With the Angels starting rotation potentially in shambles, start the season with your best team on the field. If you end up in the race, then you keep your best team on the field and don’t worry about the year on the back end. If you aren’t in the race, then you can send them down in June or July and probably not catch any flack over it from their agents.
by Darrell McKown on Mar 28, 2009 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions
yep
if the Angels are vulnerable, they won’t be for long. Its conceivable for both the A’s and Rangers that 1 or 2 games in April may have meaning in September. There isn’t much separating these three clubs if Lackey is out for a while.
This isn’t Baltimore who is finishing last this year. There is some urgency already.
Is it ca-hill or k-hill?
"It doesn't look like he's trying. It kinda pisses me off," "He could throw 110 if he tried. The way it explodes out of his hand is really something special." ~ B-Mac on Feliz.
I was asking how it's pronounced.
"It doesn't look like he's trying. It kinda pisses me off," "He could throw 110 if he tried. The way it explodes out of his hand is really something special." ~ B-Mac on Feliz.
by Kinslerhomer on Mar 28, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
:)
"It doesn't look like he's trying. It kinda pisses me off," "He could throw 110 if he tried. The way it explodes out of his hand is really something special." ~ B-Mac on Feliz.
by Kinslerhomer on Mar 28, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
See
this is what happens when you agree with Josey. Your brain locks up
well I can't really blame that on him
my brain has been locking up long before I ever typed on a message board.
Normally
K-hill in the US, Caa-hill in Ireland
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
Thanks.
"It doesn't look like he's trying. It kinda pisses me off," "He could throw 110 if he tried. The way it explodes out of his hand is really something special." ~ B-Mac on Feliz.
by Kinslerhomer on Mar 28, 2009 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
How would you fucking know? :)
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions
So if Cahill and Anderson
each go 6-13 this year with a 5.50 ERA and a 1.5 WHIP, was it a mistake to put them in the rotation this year? Should the GM be pilloried?
What if they're close to as good
as Hudson, Harden, Mulder, Haren or Zito were?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions
that wasn't the question
So let’s change the question to one I know you’ll jump on.
If JD insisted on putting Feliz and Holland in the rotation right now, and they both put up those numbers, should JD be fired?
I would take it
Danks actually had a decent season in 2007.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=danksjo01&t=p&year=2007
He tired at the end and Sept hurt his numbers. MJH believes Holland right now could put up better #s the Danks did in 2007. I woldn’t have a problem if they put Holland in the rotation right now. Feliz still needs almost a full season in the minors.
Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
He pitched 5 full months not including september
Was bad in 3, and didnt have an era below 4 in any of them. It was a bad season.
Which is ok for a 22 year old’s rookie season.
the preceding post was a great success.
Then
He made a huge mistake knowingly giving up almost a full year of control of them.
Really?
Those stats are John Danks, 2007 (6-13, 5.50 ERA and 1.54 WHIP).
So who made a huge mistake… the White Sox for putting him in the ML rotation, or the Rangers for NOT putting him in the rotation?
Keep in mind he won a playoff game in 2008.
If we want to win playoff games in 2010, maybe Feliz and Holland should be up here.
Any maybe the A’s will be winning playoff games in 2010 with Anderson and Cahill.
I could care less about the stats.
If you think they have the potential of Hudson, Harden, Zito, or Mulder then your better off keeping them under team control for another year considering your a small market team.
The White Sox aren’t a small market team.
The Rangers are not a small market team either
regardless of what they think.
My point is, you have to pitch in the big leagues to learn how to pitch in the big leagues. Everybody has to adjust when they are rookies. Andrus will have an adjustment period, and keeping him down for two months only adds two months more to the adjustment period.
Baseball doesn't work like that.
If for no other reason than the financial/service time system in place.
You have to be smart about it.
by brettgardner on Mar 28, 2009 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions
So...
Forget winning in 2010, we’d rather wait until 2011 so that we can keep a few guys in 2016?
I respectfully disagree.
Yes you did
Anyone who says that we should keep Andrus down to start the season is implicitly worrying about 2016/17. It is an inherent portion of that argument
that is also why i think that argument is pathetic
Well
Where did I say we should keep Andrus down to start the season?
It’s called reading. Top to bottom, left to right. A group of words together is a sentence. Take Tylenol for any headaches, Midol for any cramps.
by brettgardner on Mar 29, 2009 12:23 AM CDT up reply actions
You're countering
someone saying that the rangers should have Andrus up to start the season…what other point are you making other than the fact that the rangers should have him in the minors
maybe you should practice actually interpreting something
You're right.
Can you please give me some pointers, Mr. Horns130?
I really, really need your help. Could you give me some tips about being an abrasive blog poster while you’re at it?
by brettgardner on Mar 29, 2009 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions
You really think it will make one good goddamn worth of difference
in 2010 whether he is up all year or just 4 or 5 months this year?
That makes little or no sense to me.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
2009
It could make a difference this year.
by Darrell McKown on Mar 28, 2009 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Nothing
is gonna make a difference this year, I don’t think with our rotation and bullpen.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
I think you are most likely correct
However, the Angels situation does provide cause for a little optimism.
I don’t see anything wrong with starting Andrus here at the beginning of the season, then seeing what happens. We get deny him the month of service time as easily in June or July as April.
by Darrell McKown on Mar 28, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes, I do
And I understand your argument.
But I think if you tell a young guy that “he’s not ready yet” or “he needs a little more seasoning” or whatever, it sticks in the back of his mind. And deep down inside he wonders about it.
If you say “you’re our opening day guy, you’re the best SS we’ve got” it adds confidence. And a lot of baseball success is confidence.
But I really think the key is to put the best team on the field day 1, and I think Andrus is the best option at SS in the organization. Again, that’s subjective, I know. But if Nolan, JD, Wash, etc think that, then I believe it is a reasonable decision.
lets ee the big 3 1st taste of majors
lets remember they played in highly competitive college baseball, hudson had 20 starts, zito 14 starts before their 1st full seasons. mulder went from drafted, all the way to AAA
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/pitching/2000/21.shtml
1st full season all together 2001, they pitched amazing, not normal at all for most pitchers, probably a coinidence and luck
by Asfan4ever723 on Mar 28, 2009 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions
so i have a question for JW
IF it came out on opening day that nolan was the one who pushed for andrus and who pushed for young to go to 3B…does that change anything?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
I have no problems ripping Nolan when justified.
Bringing back both Ron Washington & JD is a terrible mistake for example.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Mar 28, 2009 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions
so if that comes out on opening day
with an interview with nolan
what would your response be?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 28, 2009 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions
XM Radio reporting that ATL catcher McCann has severe
contusion after foul ball tip from Tex.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
This proves
Tex is a HOFer.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Mar 28, 2009 5:30 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
not yet but on his way
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
I'd say
Nolan f’d up just like he did with Washington & JD.
He still ended all the FO dumbassery that was rampant from October 05 thru January 08.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
how did he end the dumbassery
exactly what did he change?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 29, 2009 12:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Ryan "ended the dumbassery"
by endorsing Daniels and his build from within plan.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
ahh
now it makes sense! lol
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 29, 2009 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions
andrus is up now because it is not about this yr
and you dont send him down now b/c you dont F with a kid’s confidence
Why are baseball players such pussies?
You see top draft picks in the NBA and NFL sit their asses on the bench all the time, especially when they fuck up.
by brettgardner on Mar 28, 2009 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions
you can't compare baseball prospects to the NFL or NBA
it’s a different animal. you can’t get by on athleticism alone in baseball.
Bring on April 6th!
Explain yourself.
All sports are about timing, coordination, and skill, in addition to athleticism.
Baseball is no different than the others in that regard. There aren’t any guys in the NBA or NFL who get by on athleticism alone. Everybody’s freakishly athletic.
by brettgardner on Mar 28, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Dumb
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Mar 28, 2009 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions
no clue, but andrus is like what.. 20?
young kid gets the impression he is starter and you send him to aaa after making a bond with players on ml?
dont think so
What's the chance both stay up the entire year?
That’s the key. When their regular starters get healthy they will be sent back down and the service time won’t be an issue. If Millwood and say Harrison went down with injuries that would keep them out a month or so I wouldn’t be opposed to starting Feliz and Holland in the majors.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
What "regular starters" are the waiting on getting healthy?
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Duchserer and Gonzalez
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
i'd say their depth chart right now
for sp’s
eveland
gallagher
braden
anderson
cahill
injured: duchscherer, gio gonzalez
likely headed to AAA: mazzaro, outman, simmons..then fringe guys like jerome williams, edgar gonzalez
by Asfan4ever723 on Mar 28, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions
I have my doubts...
…Duchscherer will be back this season.
And those two were pushing Gonzalez this spring anyway.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions
And if Duke comes back this year...
…it will most likely be in the pen too.
"It doesn't look like he's trying. It kinda pisses me off," "He could throw 110 if he tried. The way it explodes out of his hand is really something special." ~ B-Mac on Feliz.
by Kinslerhomer on Mar 28, 2009 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions
yeah
There are plenty of other factors to consider also. Their 40 status and if they are truly ready which I don’t think they are
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
1. The answer to the puzzle is: they’re both doing the wrong thing. It won’t cripple either franchise or anything but the situations are not ideal
2. The differences in the situations are a) pitchers versus a position player, and b) Oakland didn’t plan this but had injury issues. But back to a, this issue comes up with position players because you can plan around them in six years. You can’t do that with pitchers.
Ceterum censeo Cat esse delendam
by Brett Perryman on Mar 28, 2009 1:21 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I want
your W/L record for the rangers in 2017 right now…
I mean after all, when you say we should have Andrus in AAA that is the season you are worried about. Considering that is the season you are worried about i want to know the exact status of the team for that season….can i get a position by position run down as well?
i suppose there is no way the rangers simply resign him like they did with Kinsler…what a crazy concept…
Sarcasm aside
Do you really think that Andrus will be more valuable to the Rangers this April than all of that season? And have you considered that even if they do manage to sign him to a long term deal at some point, they would save several million by not having to buy out that year of free agency?
Ceterum censeo Cat esse delendam
by Brett Perryman on Mar 28, 2009 11:28 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
I also meant to add, on the first part
… particularly considering that he will be 20 years old this April and 27/28 years old that season.
Ceterum censeo Cat esse delendam
by Brett Perryman on Mar 28, 2009 11:32 PM CDT up reply actions
How come
posters with Horns or Longhorns as part of their name are complete tools?
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
In terms of Cahill and Anderson starting
No mystery to me. You play the hand you are dealt. If those two are the best options for the rotation left standing, give them the baseball. I’d agree that protecting arb and contract years is generally wise, but much like the Rangers, the A’s don’t hurt for future depth. A year apiece in the maturation cycle would help anyone who doesn’t have high minors performance hurdle experience, but they aren’t the only treasures that need to be saved for a rainy day. Well, with injuries, the A’s got their rainy day. With a defensive gap, the Rangers have had their rainy day.
Suit ’em up and let ’em play.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Mar 28, 2009 1:21 PM CDT reply actions
Ed, do you think bringing up Andrus
this year will be a mistake?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
No
It could seem shaky for a month or two, but in the best interest of the club, get him acclimated ASAP. Pitching is defense dependent. Despite glitches on routine plays yesterday (short attention span) MY at 3B and Andrus at SS look like as much improvement as can be had at this point. If Andrus should be protected for another year, two weeks at OKC in whatever dose it’s administered will handle it.
His bat is not essential to team run production. Changing two glove positions that matter is essential to improving run differential. A year of grooming in no way hurts this team’s chances in 2010 2011 and beyond.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Mar 28, 2009 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Ed, don't know if you saw the game last night but that error
by MYoung is exactly the type of play I’m talking about when I say there is going to be a major transition period for Young and as Cal Ripken says, it’s gonna take 100 games for Young…at least.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Then it is a good thing we moved Young now...
…rather htan next year…
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions
exactly
isnt that the point?
lol
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 28, 2009 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions
And?
He is also making some plays that a Ranger 3B seldom makes. And it has nothing to do with the point of Andrus, Anderson, and Cahill being pushed into MLB jobs early. I don’t fathom how picking on single plays is exemplary lf anything. What Cal Ripken says about it is probably good observation, but no news. 100 games? Pull another number out of thin air. The number of chances is probably more significant than number of games, and repetitive work grovves the players’ approach, less so his skills.
Let me guess – you want error free baseball, every day, and to win every practice game and every regular season game without regard to preparation and adjustment. Welcome to bantam football, friend. It’s the only sport where superior skill always wins.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Mar 28, 2009 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Everybody is a little edgy today...
must be the cold weather with opening day around the corner.
I have no probs with Young going to 3B and also believe he has the skillset to eventually do well but it’s going to take a while.
When you factor in the inevitable growing pains of Young at 3B mixed in with a 20 year old SS who will make 30+ errors along the way, we’re in for a very long, ugly season.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
because of course
errors mean everything
if he makes 20 errors, but his defense is as good/better than FOTF at SS what does that mean
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 28, 2009 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Irregardless
MY at 3rd and Andrus at SS is still better than the alternative and what we had last year
Isnt that what is relevant and important?
If you believe
like I do that they won’t be all that competitive this year anyway due to their pitching, you might as use the year to get him ready for MLB and MY ready at 3B. That being said, I think they ought to have Andrus on the farm for a month or 2 to retain the extra year.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
They should.
"It doesn't look like he's trying. It kinda pisses me off," "He could throw 110 if he tried. The way it explodes out of his hand is really something special." ~ B-Mac on Feliz.
by Kinslerhomer on Mar 28, 2009 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Is this situtaion a big "win" for the Rangers overall?
Both Cahill and Anderson are more critical to the A’s long-term future than Andus is to the Rangers’. This would like if Millwood and BMac both went down and we had to break camp with Holland and Feliz in the rotation. That’d be a disaster – not just for long-term FA reasons, but development wise. Oakland is playing their two best cards earlier than Texas has to. This seems like a good thing.
This is why teams bring in guys like Benson and Jennings into camp. You don’t ever want to be forced into making such a move.
I hope Cahill and Anderson
struggle mightily, much like Volquez, then they rebound only with a change of scenery.
Bring on April 6th!
Not if it means...
…the A’s get a Josh Hamilton.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 28, 2009 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions
I think there are a couple differences, though.
For one, I think we have a bit less reason to expect contention than the A’s do. For another, I believe the A’s situation is born out of necessity, with a weak, injured rotation, while we have Omar Vizquel. I definitely think starting the season Cahill and Anderson makes a lot more sense than starting the season with Andrus.
That said, I still think it’s somewhat questionable. I’m not sure if they held them back for just enough starts to maintain an extra year of control if it would ruin their season. I don’t know.
My problem with Andrus is also not that I don’t think he’s ready. I don’t know if he’s ready, I’m leaving it up to the club to know. They should know a lot more about the player than I do, and the same goes for the A’s.
BS
If you argue that we can use a veteran stop gap to replace andrus why cant they do the same
By that logic they could easily use someone like Benson/Jennings to keep Cahill/Anderson in the minors
That argument is illogical and ignores facts to merely push your opinion
That is my goal.
To push buttons. You caught me.
I’m not sure you actually understood the argument. . .
You're quickly becoming
The most annoying poster here.
by brettgardner on Mar 29, 2009 12:24 AM CDT up reply actions
this idea that the A's need to start Cahill/Anderson this year
is just wrong. There are AAAA starters out there that they could pick up and they’d probably do better than Cahill/Anderson anyway.
It might make sense for Cahill/Anderson to start the majors for other reasons but this “necessity” argument is B.S.
Ceterum censeo Cat esse delendam - Cahill the Elder
x
Paul Byrd
Jairo Cuevas
Scott Elarton
Orlando Hernandez
Chuck James
Pedro Martinez
Mark Mulder
Kenny Rogers
Ben Sheets
by brettgardner on Mar 28, 2009 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions
A's have already deided to avoid the scrap heap
over youth and upside…whether thats the right decision or not, we’ll see
they opted to load up and build their staff from the bullpen on forward
by Asfan4ever723 on Mar 28, 2009 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions
They picked up Nomar
How is that avoiding the scrap heap.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
So you're allowed to play crappy old position players
but you can’t do the same with your pitchers especially when it means starting 2 guys with a combined 68 IP in the upper levels (only AA actually). Care to explain that at all?
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
position players
might have less of an impact individually in the lineup (1 out of 9) than starters do the rotation(1 of 5), but give me any low-risk move from most of that heap above than andruw jones
by kevinkinsler on Mar 28, 2009 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions
That's what the A's have decided to do
Remains to be seen if it is the right decision… but Asfan4ever is right, that is the decision they’ve made.
In the past 10 years they’ve been a lot better at developing young pitchers than a certain Arlington-based team.
i think
the a’s have to start cahill and anderson right now. they are both considered top 7 prospects in all of MLB. those i guys are assumed as close to ready as it gets. there is an obvious opening for both. bringing up some other lower prospects or scrubs over them will not settle well with them and will be remembered down the road. the a’s would have to trade for someone to send them down to AAA.
rangers are different. andrus is highly rated, but not near as high as those guys and most are not convinced he is ready. 3-4 months in minors would be ideal.
any comparisons to longoria or wieters are not solid either. my thinking on them is that they were given a ton of money up front in the draft. i know longoria for sure was put on 40 immediately. by giving them big money upfront the teams can afford to put them in minors for 2-4 weeks to save them a year down the road. they are already being paid better than most players.
top 7 prospects in MLB
uhhh according to who?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 28, 2009 9:17 PM CDT up reply actions
assumed by whom? you?
i dont know what ‘list’ you are going by but if you look at the BA Top 10, it regularly includes guys who are at least a year or two away from the majors. Id say its a faulty assumption to think that a player is close to the majors merely because of where he ranks on a prospect list.
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Mar 28, 2009 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions
every
list i have seen puts both guys in top 7 -10. and most agree that they will get their shot this season. when? you never know when those opportunities might arise. for them, the opportunity is now.
texas has made the opportunity this season by moving MY. is the time now or a month from now. i will leave it to them to judge. now is fine by me . a month from now is fine by me. it is not worth the arguement either way.
i think the original arguement is because of the earlier FA year. i was just stating why longoria and wieters were pushed back. i think any top draftee will see this happen if they happen to be ready so soon. i would hope texas does the same with smoak next year if he is considered ready. start the season in the minors for a month before coming up. he was paid big time after draft. recoup that money later on.
by mo on Mar 29, 2009 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions
BP – 23 and 24
prospect project – anderson 7, cahill 20
klaw – anderson 20, cahill 24
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 29, 2009 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions
is this why beane didnt go to boston
looks like she’s all grown up now
thanks for that mr. creepy
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Mar 28, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Brett Anderson
I was going to flirt with mssickels. But figured i’d just post a quickie brief and spontaneous post on Brett Anderson.
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/8/4/586282/oakland-athletics-top-20-p#
Do you really want to know about Beane and his ability to find pitching?
His great secret is to play in a pitchers park. Thats it. Pitching has more value than bats right now in MLB. If you can use the built in advantage that your park gives you to enhance the value of your mid tier guys, so be it.
Beane’s park allows him to always have a ready supply of players that can pitch at the back of the rotation. Those players would be AAAA/long men in other parks but with Oaklands home park’s ability to depress offensive stats make those players perfectly useful for the back of the rotation for the A’s. Guys that would normally fall in the back of the rotation spots can be middle rotation candidates and so forth.
Without looking, what do you think was the A’s ERA+ last year? They were a top 10 team in ERA last year and everyone assumes that they are one of the better pitching teams in the AL. The AL league average was .34 runs higher than their 4.01 ERA last year. Surprisingly, their ERA+ was 101. Or just barely above league average after being normalized.
In Beanes defense, it is the right approach to use. He knows his park is so far outside the norms that the best course of action he as is to ride it to the end. You will be able to find out how good a GM he really is if and when he gets a new ballpark that reduces that advantage.
You keep arguing this
but it’s simply too sweeping a generalization. I’ve linked to my reply to your post over at Newberg’s forum (which made the same argument) once in this thread already, but it’s worth another go. Sure, the Coliseum helps, but the argument that it’s the sole secret to Beane’s success doesn’t hold water.
Have you looked at the difference in the non top of the rotation starters for Oakland once they go away?
Guys like Zito, Mulder, Haren and Hudson in their prime are going to be great regardless of the location. The problem is that since 2001 the following list have acquired an ERA+ above 100 in Oakland. Coery Liddle, Mark Redman, Kirk Saraloos, Joe Blanton, Lenny Binardo, Chad Guadan, and now Dana Eveland. Considering during that time period you also had Zito, Mulder, Harden, and Haren in th erotation, that is a rather interesting list.
That is a lot of guys that have either failed after the A’s or where failures before he A’s. The pitching coach has changed, so that can’t be used to argue continuity. That really only leaves the home park that would have be the main attribute.
Lets even go a step further. Home ERA vs. Road ERA compared to the league difference for the last 20 years to ensure we aren’t falling into a cycle based upon a pitcher that does exceptional at home
2008 1.03 better at home vs. .51 better at home for the MLB average
2007 1.13 better at home vs. .37 better at home for the MLB average
2006 0.50 better at home vs. .43 better at home for the MLB average
2005 .26 better on the road vs. .39 better at home for the MLB average
2004 .21 better on the road vs. .29 better at home for the MLB average
2003 1.20 better at home vs. .37 better at home for the MLB average
2002 .26 better on the road vs. .39 better at home for the MLB average
2001 .50 better at home vs. .27 better at home for the MLB average
2000 .91 better at home vs. .44 better at home for the MLB average
1999 .97 better at home vs. .28 better at home for the MLB average
1998 1.3 better at home vs. .42 better at home for the MLB average
1997 .17 better on the road (5.57 team ERA) vs. .42 better at home for the MLB average
1996 .17 better at home vs. .50 better at home for the MLB average
1995 1.5 better at home vs. .26 better at home for the MLB average
1994 1.33 better at home vs. .21 better at home for the MLB average
1993 1.20 better at home vs. .45 better at home for the MLB average
1992 .49 better at home vs. .42 better at home for the MLB average
1991 1.06 better at home vs. .28 better at home for the MLB average
1990 1.26 better at home vs. .34 better at home for the MLB average
1989 .05 better at home vs. .27 better at home for the MLB average
1988 .39 better at home vs. .34 better at home for the MLB average
So 7 years in 20 that they do not exceed the league mark. In those 13 years, 11 times they exceed the league mark by a half a run, 7 times by three fourths a run and amazingly twice by a full run. Those marks fall well beyond the norms. Well outside of what could be written off as just luck. Those are major differences that have no other common thread except the park.
Out of the times that the A’s did not surpass the league mark they had an ERA+ of 118 in 05, 109 in 04, 117 in 02, 81 in 97, 99 in 96 and 111 in 88. In 5 of 7 of those season they were either very good or very bad. It is kinda odd to note that the 3 out of 4 years that the A’s had a very good staff in the early 00’s they had reverse splits.
Park Factors how they are currently used have very little validity. Differences between individual parks mean very little without an understanding on how the rest of the parks fall in line as a whole. The problem is that people forget to look at those factors in relationship to all the other teams in baseball.
Go run the standard deviations of the A’s 3 year park factors vs. the league averages. They fall outside a standard deviation on most offensive stats. It is understandable to see that for one or two catergories, but when you fail at at bats, runs, total bases, extra base hits, RBI’s, strike outs, caught stealing, stolen base percentage, batting average, on base percentage, slugging percentage, OPS, ground outs and air outs, it goes beyond the idea of noise, or league average swings or plain luck.
I have always looked at different parks with the idea that they will help bring the lower tier players up to a certain level. Regardless of the team or home park that the elite SP pitch in they will have success. The guys that receive the most benefit are those on the fringe.
I have tried to think of a good way to explain it but it is hard to put down into words. Very bad pitcher become bad pitchers, bad become serviceable, serviceable good, good great, but great still remain great. There is no way to quantify top of the rotation pitchers beyond being top of the rotation pitchers.
Think of it as half a normal curve. If you run with the 10-80 scouting system, 40 means making the majors in swing role or middle reliever. 50 #4/#5 starters, 60 #2/#3 70+ #1. That is a gross simplification, but it is the best way to explain it. If your park shifts that even a 1/3 of a deviation downward, the available number of pitchers for that section increases dramatically. The first deviation covers 68% so shifting into the bottom half covers 34. Even with an oversimplified 10 increase due to only receiving 1/3 of that area, that is a huge increase in manpower. The real change is on the upper end, where even small shifts can double the overall area under the curve.
That is true for both hitting and pitching.
Beane has done well in several deals, he has also failed in several others as well. The problem is that most of his so called genius is built upon the fact that he can draw from a much larger pool of available arms to pitch than other teams. If you can use slightly lower quality arms to get the same result compared to other teams, so be it. That allows you to draft guys with less upside but more likely to reach that potential.
Those guys hit more often and allow for the guarantee now of a strong back of the bullpen. Hit on a few other players, or deal your parts of value for true front of the line guys and you have the Oakland A’s. That is not his fault, but that does not mean that people should exalt his greatness for his ability to build teams, especially pitching staffs and bullpens when his park is what makes that so successful.
I'm neither trying to claim the Coliseum's not a pitchers' park
nor that it hasn’t helped bad-to-mediocre pitchers become more serviceable. I’m arguing that your assertion:
Do you really want to know about Beane and his ability to find pitching?
His great secret is to play in a pitchers park.
is too oversimplified.
Beane became GM of Oakland in 1997. Since then, the A’s have made the postseason five times (2000-2003; 2006), and finished with 87 wins or more three others (1999, 2004, 2005). So, basically, 1999-2006 were very good years, the years in which Beane made his reputation.
You note:
It is kinda odd to note that the 3 out of 4 years that the A’s had a very good staff in the early 00’s they had reverse splits.
Not only that, but in 2006, the difference between Oakland’s split and the MLB split was .07, and in 2001, by .013 ~ not much of a difference. To put it in runs, in 2006, the A’s surrendered 328 earned runs at home. If their ERA had been .07 higher at home than it was, they would have given up 334. In 2001, the same difference would have been 11 earned runs.
So during the 8-year span of Oakland’s success under Beane, 1999-2006, there were 5 years in which the Coliseum was, at most, an 11-run pitching advantage for the A’s over the course of a season. Assuming that those are the years for which Beane’s best known for having assembled top-notch pitching staffs ~ and I think that’s a fairly safe assumption ~ then this certainly seems to call into question how much the Park actually boosted those staffs’ numbers.
More broadly, you seem to be claiming that the Coliseum is the entire reason Beane was able to enjoy his success ~ that, because of his team’s home park, he could take more risks on more arms, so that we was more likely to find the types of guys that would perform well. That may be true to some extent, though I think it’s far from a proven case. I find it very hard to believe, however, that this is the sole secret of the pitching success that Beane’s best teams have enjoyed (and for which, I’d argue he’s known). In my opinion, Beane’s over-hyped, but I don’t think you can simply attribute all of his success in finding pitching to the leeway the Coliseum gives him in acquiring pitchers.
****************************
There are other picky issues. One is whether looking at “fails” in TB, XBH, SLG, and OPS independently is useful. I’d rather look at these categories in a more categorical perspective, and get beyond standard deviations. Then there are your examples. On the whole, Mulder was actually much better at home, and not very good on the road, when he was with Oakland; whatever his greatness, he’s one in your column. Lidle had reverse splits in 2001, and was below the league average in home/road ERA difference in 2002. Redman, in his one year with Oakland (2004), had a 7.92 ERA at home and a 2.90 ERA on the road, and his ERA+ was 96 (not above 100). Eveland’s ERA+ last year was 93. In Saarloos’ best year (and only year as a full-time starter) in Oakland (2005, with a 105 ERA+) he had a 5.09 ERA at home and a 3.47 ERA on the road. I grant you Gaudin, Dinardo, and Blanton, though note than in Blanton’s best year, his home/road ERA split was a hair under MLB average. But, again, this is picky stuff.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
