East Coast baseball fans are a bunch of morons. Seriously, I have heard and seen more stupid things living out here than I ever did back home by the bay. I first noticed this a couple years ago as fans in the Bronx wildly cheered every medium deep fly ball can of corn hit by their beloved Bombers as if it were a game seven walk off slam. That particular trend continued this season in Baltimore as the O’s fans went crazy every time Sammy or Miggy popped-up. In fact, the only place I’ve seen a hint of baseball acumen has been at RFK where Nats fans appropriately cheered a ground ball to the right side that advanced a runner from second with no outs. (If you didn’t follow that keep reading it’ll get easier.) The madness continued this weekend in Philly where I took a road trip to see the Red Sox take on the Phightn’ Phils. Philly is a great town. I got a t-shirt with the slogan “Vote For Bobby” emblazoned Napoleon Dynamite style across the front. I saw a gem of a ballpark in Citizen’s Bank Ballpark. After two feet of hoagie I determined that Pat’s is WAY better than Geno’s. I also heard some of the most ridiculous trade talk on the local sports station.
Here’s the deal, the A’s are basically out of it. Oakland is seven games out of the wild card right now, which will be hard to make up. However, the A’s are hot right now. They’ve won eight of their last ten and are inching closer and closer to .500. Still, the assumption in Philly, and everywhere else with a contending team, is that the A’s are close to mailing it in and dismantling the ball club. I ask why? The A’s are finally starting to look like the etam that many people, including me, thought they would be heading into spring training. They’re getting quality starts out of their young pitchers, the bullpen is holding leads, and the bats are coming around. If Chad Bradford can comeback healthy, and Juan Cruz can figure out his control problems this team will be tough to beat down the stretch. If teams like Seattle pack it in, and Texas’ pitching woes continue the A’s could very well find themselves back in the wild card hunt before too long. But even if they don’t there’s no reason for a fire sale this year.
First off the A’s payroll is right about where it should be and knowing Billy Beane probably a few million under budget. Since it’s unlikely the A’s will add anything this year there’s no reason to dump payroll. The only A’s players of note who can walk after this year are Octavio Dotel who has no trade value, and Mark Kotsay who’s working on an extension. Most of the trade rumors surrounding the A’s have focused on Kotsay, a superb defensive out fielder with a good bat, and Barry Zito who’s been in obvious decline since his 23-5 Cy Young season in 2002. Even if this year is a lost cause the A’s should hold on to both these guys. The A’s got off to a slow start this year and every player save Marco Scutaro played far below their usual and expected level for the first two months. As a result Oakland dug a deep hole from which they may not emerge this year. However, unlike previous years they have no superstars eating up payroll and waiting to walk. Also, unlike previous years the A’s can take a mulligan on this year and keep their credibility with the fans as long as they remain competitive and don’t totally pack it in. Also, with a new owner in place the A’s may be in a position to add an impact free agent to complement the pieces they already have.
Still, the rumors persist. The Yankees and Cubs are said to be high on Kotsay, which is fine for them but begs the question, in return for what? The word at the water cooler for the past few years is that the Yanks don’t have any quality prospects in their farm system and I don’t see anyone on their major league roster who I’d want for Kotsay. Do you want Bernie Williams (.249/04/27/.341/.708)? Here’s a guy who’s been so bad in the field this year that he’s been replaced by Tony Womack who’s played 18 games in center during his 11 year career. Who else do you want for a 29 y/o OF in his prime? How about Tony Womack (35), or Reuben Sierra (39)? The only other piece the Yanks would likely give up is Giambi. Giambi has gotten himself up to.256/05/22/.396/.771 and I know I advocated for him earlier, but I still don’t want a 34 year old fallen slugger in exchange for Kotsay. So who do the Yanks give up? Exactly. Looking at the A’s needs and the rosters of each team I’d say the only player the Yanks could put in the centerpiece of a deal is Robinson Cano. The rookie 2B is hitting .282/05/25/.310/.764 in 174 ABs. A Cano for Kotsay deal would move Swisher or Byrnes into center and open up time for Charles Thomas. The Yanks could then move Womack back to second to fill in for Cano. As for the Cubs, well, I’ll take Corey Patterson because he’s young and could develop into a Kotsay type player even though his defense isn’t all there yet.
Which brings us back to the stupidity of Philly fans. All weekend I heard one caller after another propose a Zito for Pat Burrell deal. This belies their complete lack of baseball knowledge in that they obviously have not looked past Zito on the roster. The A’s currently have five major league quality outfielders (Kotsay, Swisher, Byrnes, Kielty, and Thomas) so why on earth would they give up Zito for another OF? Burrell is a nice player who would add some pop to the line-up, but I don’t think he’s worth giving up Zito. There are lots of ways to create offense, but pitching is at a premium. Besides that, who does Philly use to replace Burrell? Kenny Lofton’s been hurt, Endy Chavez sucks, and Jason Michaels, while good, has only had 142 ABs this year. The Phils could resign Doug Glanville who was traded to the Yankees in the Lofton deal and then cut by NY. Still, unless the A’s gave up an outfielder like Byrnes, and brought back a pitcher (Tim Worrell?) the deal wouldn’t make sense seeing as how Dan Meyer isn’t ready for prime time.
Of course, the A’s don’t need an outfielder. In fact, if they hold on to Kotsay the A’s don’t really need anything. The only holes they had going into this year were on the right side of the infield. Since they’re slow start Mark Ellis has come around and Dan Johnson is doing well at 1B. Other than that the A’s are set at every position. I’d like to see more from Jason Kendall on both offense and defense but I’m willing to give it another year. Peter Gammons seems to be the only major media type who thinks that the Yanks, Cubs, et al. will have a hard time prying young players out of small markets this year. Teams like the A’s who don’t need to dump payroll and have a strong farm system don’t need to give away the pieces that would complete the big boys. After all, why help solidify the Yanks outfield for the next five years when you can take advantage of Bernie’s bad knees for the next two or three? Instead the A’s, Brewers, Pirates and Tigers should sit tight and go get ‘em next year.
Family, Sports, Politics, Random Rants: @bertoinpublic, facebook.com/interdisciplinarylife/
Showing posts with label Barry Zito. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barry Zito. Show all posts
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Sunday, December 19, 2004
A Farewell to Arms (Part One)
And so baseball economics hits home again. The A’s have traded Tim Hudson and yet another era comes to a close. Hudson was the cornerstone of the A’s return to respectability. Hudson came up mid-year in 1999 and posted an 11-2 record in 21 starts. I’ll never forget his debut against the San Diego Padres. At the time I was living in a small one-bedroom apartment in South Berkeley. Because the A’s had been terrible for 7 years the game was only being broadcast over the radio. I remember Ken Korauch and Bill King talking about how excited the A’s were about Hudson. In his first ML game, in his first ML at bat, just as Ken was saying that Huddy had been an outfielder and a DH in collage, and had led the NCAA in slugging his senior year, Huddy smacked a ringing double off the wall that missed being a home run by about two feet. Hudson only pitched five innings, giving up seven hits, four walks, and three runs, getting a no decision, but he struck out 11. The next year Huddy won 20 and led the A’s back to the playoffs for the first time since 1992.
Hudson has been the rock upon which Billy Beane has built his franchise. For long time A’s fans he represented the A’s resurgence more than any other player. Now Eric Chavez is the only player left from that 1999 season in which the A’s missed the Wild Card by 4 games. The A’s have lost many a marquee player over the past six years, (if want a full rundown read through the archives at the bottom of the page), but this is a unique case for two reasons. First, this is the first time the A’s have traded a star player rather than try to win now and allow him to leave as a free agent. Second, this is the first time a player hasn’t blasted the team, the city and the fans on his way out of town. Kenny Rogers, Johnny Damon, and Miguel Tejada all made disparaging remarks about Oakland when they left. The grand-daddy of them all of course was Jason Giambi who held a news conference insulting the team, the management and the fans, then went on Letterman and blasted the town. Hudson is a different story. Discussing the trade he said this to mlb.com,
"More than anything, it was sad," Hudson told MLB.com. "I mean, it's not like it was unexpected, what with all the talk the last couple weeks. But hearing it come out of Billy's mouth, making it real, that's when it really just hits you in the face.
"You just kind of realize, 'Man, it's really over.' All the relationships I've built with teammates, with the fans, with people in the organization -- it's hard to think that it's never going to be the same. I'll still be friends with all those people, but knowin' that they're not going to be a part of your everyday life the way they've been for so long, it's definitely sad.
"The fans in Oakland have been so good to me and my family," Hudson said. "All the support they've shown to me over the years, all the nice things they've said to me and the cheers and all that, I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. That's one of the hardest parts about leavin', because I'd have liked to help win them a championship.
"But I understand why Billy traded me. I know he has to do what he thinks is best for the team in the long run, and obviously he's doing it. But I'm really going to miss being there.
"I just want everyone to know how much I loved it in Oakland," he said. "In a perfect world, I'd have been able to play there forever, and me and Mark and Barry [Zito] would always be the Big Three. But it ain't a perfect world, and I know that. It's a business.
"So I'll be pulling for those guys no matter where I am, and who knows? Maybe we'll all meet up again in the World Series or something. Wouldn't that be something?"
Class. Much better than Ben Grieve’s “I won’t miss the fans and I won’t miss the city.” And far better than Giambi’s “Have you ever been to Oakland?” crack-back.
In return for one of the best pitchers in the last ten years the A’s got three prospects, one promising outfielder and two pitchers. Both pitchers project as relievers, though Peter Gammons seems to think that Juan Cruz will take the number four slot in the rotation (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1947932). If Charles Thomas is as good defensively as Gammons says the A’s may be able to move the ever promising, but so far disappointing, Bobby Kielty for more pitching, or maybe a backup middle infielder now that Mark McLemore is gone.
But all that is beside the point. Even if this trade ends up making sense in terms of on field production and payroll flexibility the point is that it’s sad to see Huddy go. As the man said, it’s a business. As Seinfeld said, we root for laundry rather than players. It seems that the day is long gone where you’ll ever see a player stay with one team his entire career. So long Huddy, thank you for bringing us back from the dead, and thank you for not dragging us through another protracted contract battle.
PS As I was preparing to post this I logged on to espn.com and saw that the A’s had traded Mark Mulder to St. Louis. Needless to say I’m in shock and my faith in Billy Beane is badly shaken. On top of that I hear that one of my other favorites, Eric Byrnes, a true sparkplug and one of the last true grit, fan friendly, everyman type players may also be on the block. I don’t know what to say. More on this in the days to come.
-SR
Hudson has been the rock upon which Billy Beane has built his franchise. For long time A’s fans he represented the A’s resurgence more than any other player. Now Eric Chavez is the only player left from that 1999 season in which the A’s missed the Wild Card by 4 games. The A’s have lost many a marquee player over the past six years, (if want a full rundown read through the archives at the bottom of the page), but this is a unique case for two reasons. First, this is the first time the A’s have traded a star player rather than try to win now and allow him to leave as a free agent. Second, this is the first time a player hasn’t blasted the team, the city and the fans on his way out of town. Kenny Rogers, Johnny Damon, and Miguel Tejada all made disparaging remarks about Oakland when they left. The grand-daddy of them all of course was Jason Giambi who held a news conference insulting the team, the management and the fans, then went on Letterman and blasted the town. Hudson is a different story. Discussing the trade he said this to mlb.com,
"More than anything, it was sad," Hudson told MLB.com. "I mean, it's not like it was unexpected, what with all the talk the last couple weeks. But hearing it come out of Billy's mouth, making it real, that's when it really just hits you in the face.
"You just kind of realize, 'Man, it's really over.' All the relationships I've built with teammates, with the fans, with people in the organization -- it's hard to think that it's never going to be the same. I'll still be friends with all those people, but knowin' that they're not going to be a part of your everyday life the way they've been for so long, it's definitely sad.
"The fans in Oakland have been so good to me and my family," Hudson said. "All the support they've shown to me over the years, all the nice things they've said to me and the cheers and all that, I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. That's one of the hardest parts about leavin', because I'd have liked to help win them a championship.
"But I understand why Billy traded me. I know he has to do what he thinks is best for the team in the long run, and obviously he's doing it. But I'm really going to miss being there.
"I just want everyone to know how much I loved it in Oakland," he said. "In a perfect world, I'd have been able to play there forever, and me and Mark and Barry [Zito] would always be the Big Three. But it ain't a perfect world, and I know that. It's a business.
"So I'll be pulling for those guys no matter where I am, and who knows? Maybe we'll all meet up again in the World Series or something. Wouldn't that be something?"
Class. Much better than Ben Grieve’s “I won’t miss the fans and I won’t miss the city.” And far better than Giambi’s “Have you ever been to Oakland?” crack-back.
In return for one of the best pitchers in the last ten years the A’s got three prospects, one promising outfielder and two pitchers. Both pitchers project as relievers, though Peter Gammons seems to think that Juan Cruz will take the number four slot in the rotation (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1947932). If Charles Thomas is as good defensively as Gammons says the A’s may be able to move the ever promising, but so far disappointing, Bobby Kielty for more pitching, or maybe a backup middle infielder now that Mark McLemore is gone.
But all that is beside the point. Even if this trade ends up making sense in terms of on field production and payroll flexibility the point is that it’s sad to see Huddy go. As the man said, it’s a business. As Seinfeld said, we root for laundry rather than players. It seems that the day is long gone where you’ll ever see a player stay with one team his entire career. So long Huddy, thank you for bringing us back from the dead, and thank you for not dragging us through another protracted contract battle.
PS As I was preparing to post this I logged on to espn.com and saw that the A’s had traded Mark Mulder to St. Louis. Needless to say I’m in shock and my faith in Billy Beane is badly shaken. On top of that I hear that one of my other favorites, Eric Byrnes, a true sparkplug and one of the last true grit, fan friendly, everyman type players may also be on the block. I don’t know what to say. More on this in the days to come.
-SR
Thursday, October 28, 2004
What Happend? Who Do I Blame?
OK, Rant fans I promised a post mortem on the season and here it is. Even though I tried to be optimistic the sad fact is that the season turned out much as I predicted it would; the A's missed the playoffs. But why? Here's a brief look back on what I said then, and what happened in the end.
After the season was a week old I had this to say:
"Scoot has shown something during this first week...he reminds me a lot of Mark Ellis' first few games at second in 2002. So, I looked at Ellis' first five games after he took over the starting job (his first five consecutive games) and compared them to Scoot's first five games. Here's what I found:
Ellis 5 games: .400/0/5/.500/.450/..950
Scutaro 5 games: .313/0/3/.353/.500/.853
Ellis' numbers are better, which we would expect, still Scoot's numbers are very respectable. Ellis ended the year at .273/6/35/.359/.394/.753, never hit a major slump and never lost the starting job."
So what happened?
Here's the final numbers on Scoot who, unlike Ellis did slump at times though mostly when he was moved around in the lineup. In fact he was, at one time, the most productive #9 hitter in baseball. His production from that slot was far superior to his production at any other slot. He platooned with Mark McLemore quite a bit which I'm fine with since McLemore had a decent year. Here's Scoot's numbers compared with Ellis' rookie stats.
-Scoot: .273/7/43/.297/.393/.690 (345)
-Ellis: .272/6/35/.359/.394/.753 (455)
Like I said at the start of the year Scoot's year compare favorably to Ellis' rookie season. He had slightly better raw offensive numbers even though he had 110 fewer at bats. Still, Ellis' season ranks higher because of his better OBP and OPS. Scoot was not as flashy as Ellis in the field, but by measurable standards his .983 fielding percentage was better than Ellis' .968. The bottom line is that the loss of Ellis for the year was not a primary cause for their failure to make the playoffs this year.
Outfielders:
This was a huge issue coming into the season. Would Dye rebound? Would Kotsay rebound? Would Byrnes rebound? Would Kielty deliver on the promise he showed in Minnesota? With all this rebounding going on, is this really a baseball team? Where's Shaq? Here's what I said this spring:
"-Kotsay needs to do better than last year, and better than his career averages of .281/12/63/.338/.756(582AB). Still, he's better than T-Long on both offense and defense."
Here's what happened:
-Kotsay .314/15/63/.370/.459/.829 (606)
-Long .295/03/28/.355/.420/.756 (288)
Kotsay ended up with better numbers across the board as Long proved that he was what Macha told him he was last year, a part time player who was lucky to be in a situation that afforded him an opportunity to play almost everyday. Once Long got to San Diego where they had better outfielders he became the role player he was destined to be. As I wrote in mid season, "Long thinks he'd be a great 5 hole hitter, the Padres seem to think he makes a good pinch hitter." Long's 288 ABs were his fewest since becoming a regular player.
I also said:
"-Dye clearly needs to bounce back. His numbers have dropped every year he's been in Oakland. If Dye can stay healthy and get back to the numbers he had in 2000-2001 the A's will be very dangerous. Dye could be the X factor for the A's this year."
Here's what happened:
-Dye .265/23/80/.329/.464/.793
Dye did rebound, but he was not the X factor I'd hoped he'd be. While his numbers were better than they'd been the past couple years they still did not approach the production he'd had when the A's traded for him in 2001.
Finally, I said:
"Byrnes will get some good PT and will likely be a late inning defensive replacement. He brings great energy to the team and a badly needed infusion of speed. If he could just remember to touch home plate he'd be invaluable. So far the talk I've heard says that Bobby Kielty's fast start will keep Eric Byrnes from getting much PT. However Macha is trying to find spots for him (Byrnesie's only AB so far was his PH double that won the game against Texas on opening day). "
Final numbers for Byrnes and Kielty look thuslike:
-Byrnes .283/20/73/.347/.467/.814 (569)
-Kielty .214/07/31/.321/.370/.691 (238)
Kielty couldn't keep up his early season pace and ended up with only 238 ABs. Depending on his contract status he'll either be traded, allowed to leave, or end up as a backup to Nick Swisher who I predict will end up a starter and ROY candidate next year. I think Kielty has value because he's a switch hitter and he has a big arm in the outfield.
To summarize, the outfielders are not the reason the A's missed the playoffs.
The Rookie:
"Bobby Crosby will be the starting short stop at some point next season."
Yeah, like on opening day. So what did Sir Rantalot predict for the youngster?
"Crosby did better at AAA: .308/22/90 (compared with .000/0/0 in his call up last season). He should be OK this year but his true impact will likely be felt in the years to come. It took Tejada three years before he really blossomed. There's a ton more pressure on Crosby than there was on Tejada back in '97. Hopefully he can handle it better than Carlos Pena did."
Crosby ended up having a decent year. Sure, it was nothing like Tejada's, but it didn't hurt too bad. He was OK at the plate and better than expected in the field. How good was his rookie season? Let's look at Crosby compared to a couple other touted A's rookies. Tejada and Ben Grieve both came up to the show to stay in 1997, here's alook at the rookie seasons for the three players:
-Grieve .288/18/89/.386/.458/.844
-Crosby .239/22/64/.319/.426/.744
-Tejada .233/11/45/.298/.384/.682
So here we see Crosby sandwiched between the two. As you may recall Grieve won the ROY that year and was projected for greatness while Tejada was considered a raw prospect who may or may not develop into a productive major leaguer. Hmmm...So, what can we deduce from Crosby's stats? Nothing. For every Chipper Jones there's a Todd Hollandsworth. Crosby won't be the AL ROY this year (Lew Ford leads all rookies in most offensive categories). We won't know what Crosby will be until a few years from now when he becomes it. What we do know is that overall Crosby didn't hurt the team by not being Tejada. In fact, he probably helped a lot just by being Bobby Crosby, knowing his role and not pressing too much. Sure, it would have been nice to have Tejada's .311/34/150, but the bottom line is that Crosby is not the reason the A's missed the playoffs.
Catchers:
"News Flash! Damian Miller is not Ramon Hernandez!"
I meant this in terms of offense, and it continued to be true throughout the year. Here's the season totals for each player:
-Miller: .272/09/58/.339/.403/.742 (397)
-Hernandez: .276/18/63/.341/.477/.818 (384)
I also said this:
"I'm sure someone knows how many runs Miller has saved behind the plate, but that person ain't me."
So, was there a defensive difference between the two?
FPCT PB SBA CS CS% CERA INN*
Miller .999 9 46 35 .435 4.24 963
Hernandez .992 7 53 21 .284 4.03 925
*FPCT = Fielding Percentage PB = Passed Balls SBA = Stolen Bases Allowed CS = Caught Stealing CS% = Percentage of Runners Caught Stealing CERA = Catcher's ERA (Team ERA with this catcher behind the plate) INN = Innings Caught
In raw numbers Miller was better than Hernandez in almost every defensive category save two. Among the two only one is really important, but it's really important. First the less important one, Miller had two more PB than Hernandez. I know what yer thinking, he also caught 38 more innings. Still, Miller allowed a PB every 107 INN (or 1 every 12 games) while Hernandez only allowed one PB every 132 INN (or 1 every 14 games). That's a difference of .00178 PB/INN, statistically startling, if yer building a bridge, fairly insignificant in real life. The big difference between Miller and Hernandez is the CERA, Hernandez allowed fewer runs than Miller did which is significant (more on this later).
Again, I know what yer thinking, it's not fair to compare CERA numbers between two guys who were working with different staffs. Yer right. So let's look at something else I said this spring,
"Since the playoffs I've become a big Adam Melhuse fan. Despite his choke in game 5 he showed ability to hit in the clutch. Who knows what he'd do over a full year, but his numbers .299/5/14/.372/.957(77AB) look good. Macha says that players write the lineup and I'm hoping Melhuse takes the job from Miller who is a big drop from Hernandez."
So, let's compare Melhuse and Miller:
Offense:
-Melhuse : .257/11/31/.309/.463/.771 (214)
-Miller: .272/9/58/.339/.403/.742 (397)
The raw numbers show that Melhuse hit for a higher average and for more power thought he had a lower OBP. Miller's RBI numbers are actually close to Melhuse's when you adjust for the disparity in ABs with Miller getting an RBI every 6.8 ABs and Melhuse getting an RBI every 6.9 ABs.
Defense:
FPCT PB SBA CS CS% CERA INN
-Melhuse .995 5 27 13 .325 4.05 504
- Miller .999 9 46 35 .435 4.24 963
Like with Hernandez Miller leads in every category except two, the same two. We know Miller passed a ball every 12 games. Melhuse was a little better allowing a PB every 101 INN (or 1 every 11 games). The difference there is only .00057 PB/INN. The major difference between the two is that Melhuse had a lower CERA than Miller working with primarily the same pitchers.
The upshot of all this is that Melhuse was better than Miller. Miller got more playing time based on the reputation that he is a wiz at handling pitchers, a reputation that is not born out by the numbers. Despite this, the catching rotation is not the reason the A's missed the playoffs, but we're getting closer, Especially with the whole CERA thing.
The Smoking Gun:
As you may have noticed, I have eliminated almost all of the position players as reasons for the A's missing the playoffs. I didn't discuss the bench, but to make a long story slightly less long, the bench ain't to blame. Overall, the offense was not to blame. Here's the team's offensive totals for this year (no playoffs) and last year playoffs!).
2003 Team: .254/176/742/.327/.417/.743
2004 Team:.270/189/752/.343/.433/.776
As you can see, this year's team was better in every offensive category. The offense was good enough to get the job done.
I've mentioned that I think Miller was part of the problem, so who does that leave?
That's right Rant fans, the blame falls squarely on...Curt Young. That's right, #41 in your program, but #1 in your bile duct, it's A's pitching coach Curt Young. I guess you could also blame whoever (rhymes with Jilly Jeane) allowed Rick Peterson to leave the organization. The bottom line for the season is this; the pitching staff, across the board, was not as good as it was in 2003. Here's what I said in October:
"The A's may allow pitching coach Rick Peterson to move to the Mets without compensation. That's right, the A's may lose one of the best coaches in the game in return for absolutely nothing. If you have any doubts about Peterson's value to the team just look at the staff. Sure, the big three are very good pitchers with a ton of ability, but look at what Peterson did with some more marginal talent. Losing Peterson would be as huge a loss for Oakland as losing Tejada. Letting Peterson go would be a huge mistake. Peterson's value to the team is second only to Billy Beane's. Peterson makes the A's staff go. He is a mechanics guru and is a big part of the reason that the big three have stayed as healthy as they have. He can find the positives in almost anyone and turn shaky pitchers into solid contributors. If he does go to the Mets expect two things, a rise in Oakland's team ERA along with a sharp decline in wins, and at least 15 wins from Steve Trachsel.
So what happened? The numbers speak for themselves:
Team Pitching:
2003: 96-66 3.63 ERA
2004: 91-71 4.17 ERA
Yes, this represents a decline of only five wins. But that's misleading, especially if you look at the jump in offense. As I predicted, the loss of Peterson led to a decline in the A's pitching.
Blown Saves:
The A's had 26 blown saves this year. Read that again, TWENTY-SIX BLOWN SAVES!!! They lost the division by one game. For the math impaired this means that if they had blown just two fewer saves they would have made the playoffs. It means that if they had blown just 20% fewer saves they would have won the division long before the ALWS began.
The Big Three saw their ERAs jump this year.
2003 2004 Diff.
Barry Zito 3.30 4.48 1.18
Tim Hudson 2.70 3.53 0.83
Mark Mulder 3.13 4.43 1.30
Also, Hudson was injured for an extended stretch for the first time in his career, Zito saw a continued decline in his confidence (23-5 in '02, 14-12 in '03 and 11-11 this year.), and Mulder won like one game after the all-star break.
Trachsel:
I like using Trachsel as my prototypical mediocre pitcher, just good enough to stick around, not good enough to be good. Unfortunately for my theory, Trachsel was Trachsel again this year. His .480 win % this year was only slightly better than his career win % of.474. Still, over all the Mets pitching staff saw their ERA decline form 4.48 in 2003 to 4.09 in 2004, with roughly the same staff.
So the bottom-line: the pitching coach let us down, and the front office let us down by continuing to allow the talent ebb out of Oakland (let us note that two recent A's, Damon and Foulke, just won it all). Looking ahead to next season I see...another column at another time. Suffice it to say that I don't like some of what I've been hearing, like that the A's may let Byrnes walk because he's due a raise. As I said last year, chip, chip, chip, how long before we become the KC Royals? Unless something changes I give it two more years.
After the season was a week old I had this to say:
"Scoot has shown something during this first week...he reminds me a lot of Mark Ellis' first few games at second in 2002. So, I looked at Ellis' first five games after he took over the starting job (his first five consecutive games) and compared them to Scoot's first five games. Here's what I found:
Ellis 5 games: .400/0/5/.500/.450/..950
Scutaro 5 games: .313/0/3/.353/.500/.853
Ellis' numbers are better, which we would expect, still Scoot's numbers are very respectable. Ellis ended the year at .273/6/35/.359/.394/.753, never hit a major slump and never lost the starting job."
So what happened?
Here's the final numbers on Scoot who, unlike Ellis did slump at times though mostly when he was moved around in the lineup. In fact he was, at one time, the most productive #9 hitter in baseball. His production from that slot was far superior to his production at any other slot. He platooned with Mark McLemore quite a bit which I'm fine with since McLemore had a decent year. Here's Scoot's numbers compared with Ellis' rookie stats.
-Scoot: .273/7/43/.297/.393/.690 (345)
-Ellis: .272/6/35/.359/.394/.753 (455)
Like I said at the start of the year Scoot's year compare favorably to Ellis' rookie season. He had slightly better raw offensive numbers even though he had 110 fewer at bats. Still, Ellis' season ranks higher because of his better OBP and OPS. Scoot was not as flashy as Ellis in the field, but by measurable standards his .983 fielding percentage was better than Ellis' .968. The bottom line is that the loss of Ellis for the year was not a primary cause for their failure to make the playoffs this year.
Outfielders:
This was a huge issue coming into the season. Would Dye rebound? Would Kotsay rebound? Would Byrnes rebound? Would Kielty deliver on the promise he showed in Minnesota? With all this rebounding going on, is this really a baseball team? Where's Shaq? Here's what I said this spring:
"-Kotsay needs to do better than last year, and better than his career averages of .281/12/63/.338/.756(582AB). Still, he's better than T-Long on both offense and defense."
Here's what happened:
-Kotsay .314/15/63/.370/.459/.829 (606)
-Long .295/03/28/.355/.420/.756 (288)
Kotsay ended up with better numbers across the board as Long proved that he was what Macha told him he was last year, a part time player who was lucky to be in a situation that afforded him an opportunity to play almost everyday. Once Long got to San Diego where they had better outfielders he became the role player he was destined to be. As I wrote in mid season, "Long thinks he'd be a great 5 hole hitter, the Padres seem to think he makes a good pinch hitter." Long's 288 ABs were his fewest since becoming a regular player.
I also said:
"-Dye clearly needs to bounce back. His numbers have dropped every year he's been in Oakland. If Dye can stay healthy and get back to the numbers he had in 2000-2001 the A's will be very dangerous. Dye could be the X factor for the A's this year."
Here's what happened:
-Dye .265/23/80/.329/.464/.793
Dye did rebound, but he was not the X factor I'd hoped he'd be. While his numbers were better than they'd been the past couple years they still did not approach the production he'd had when the A's traded for him in 2001.
Finally, I said:
"Byrnes will get some good PT and will likely be a late inning defensive replacement. He brings great energy to the team and a badly needed infusion of speed. If he could just remember to touch home plate he'd be invaluable. So far the talk I've heard says that Bobby Kielty's fast start will keep Eric Byrnes from getting much PT. However Macha is trying to find spots for him (Byrnesie's only AB so far was his PH double that won the game against Texas on opening day). "
Final numbers for Byrnes and Kielty look thuslike:
-Byrnes .283/20/73/.347/.467/.814 (569)
-Kielty .214/07/31/.321/.370/.691 (238)
Kielty couldn't keep up his early season pace and ended up with only 238 ABs. Depending on his contract status he'll either be traded, allowed to leave, or end up as a backup to Nick Swisher who I predict will end up a starter and ROY candidate next year. I think Kielty has value because he's a switch hitter and he has a big arm in the outfield.
To summarize, the outfielders are not the reason the A's missed the playoffs.
The Rookie:
"Bobby Crosby will be the starting short stop at some point next season."
Yeah, like on opening day. So what did Sir Rantalot predict for the youngster?
"Crosby did better at AAA: .308/22/90 (compared with .000/0/0 in his call up last season). He should be OK this year but his true impact will likely be felt in the years to come. It took Tejada three years before he really blossomed. There's a ton more pressure on Crosby than there was on Tejada back in '97. Hopefully he can handle it better than Carlos Pena did."
Crosby ended up having a decent year. Sure, it was nothing like Tejada's, but it didn't hurt too bad. He was OK at the plate and better than expected in the field. How good was his rookie season? Let's look at Crosby compared to a couple other touted A's rookies. Tejada and Ben Grieve both came up to the show to stay in 1997, here's alook at the rookie seasons for the three players:
-Grieve .288/18/89/.386/.458/.844
-Crosby .239/22/64/.319/.426/.744
-Tejada .233/11/45/.298/.384/.682
So here we see Crosby sandwiched between the two. As you may recall Grieve won the ROY that year and was projected for greatness while Tejada was considered a raw prospect who may or may not develop into a productive major leaguer. Hmmm...So, what can we deduce from Crosby's stats? Nothing. For every Chipper Jones there's a Todd Hollandsworth. Crosby won't be the AL ROY this year (Lew Ford leads all rookies in most offensive categories). We won't know what Crosby will be until a few years from now when he becomes it. What we do know is that overall Crosby didn't hurt the team by not being Tejada. In fact, he probably helped a lot just by being Bobby Crosby, knowing his role and not pressing too much. Sure, it would have been nice to have Tejada's .311/34/150, but the bottom line is that Crosby is not the reason the A's missed the playoffs.
Catchers:
"News Flash! Damian Miller is not Ramon Hernandez!"
I meant this in terms of offense, and it continued to be true throughout the year. Here's the season totals for each player:
-Miller: .272/09/58/.339/.403/.742 (397)
-Hernandez: .276/18/63/.341/.477/.818 (384)
I also said this:
"I'm sure someone knows how many runs Miller has saved behind the plate, but that person ain't me."
So, was there a defensive difference between the two?
FPCT PB SBA CS CS% CERA INN*
Miller .999 9 46 35 .435 4.24 963
Hernandez .992 7 53 21 .284 4.03 925
*FPCT = Fielding Percentage PB = Passed Balls SBA = Stolen Bases Allowed CS = Caught Stealing CS% = Percentage of Runners Caught Stealing CERA = Catcher's ERA (Team ERA with this catcher behind the plate) INN = Innings Caught
In raw numbers Miller was better than Hernandez in almost every defensive category save two. Among the two only one is really important, but it's really important. First the less important one, Miller had two more PB than Hernandez. I know what yer thinking, he also caught 38 more innings. Still, Miller allowed a PB every 107 INN (or 1 every 12 games) while Hernandez only allowed one PB every 132 INN (or 1 every 14 games). That's a difference of .00178 PB/INN, statistically startling, if yer building a bridge, fairly insignificant in real life. The big difference between Miller and Hernandez is the CERA, Hernandez allowed fewer runs than Miller did which is significant (more on this later).
Again, I know what yer thinking, it's not fair to compare CERA numbers between two guys who were working with different staffs. Yer right. So let's look at something else I said this spring,
"Since the playoffs I've become a big Adam Melhuse fan. Despite his choke in game 5 he showed ability to hit in the clutch. Who knows what he'd do over a full year, but his numbers .299/5/14/.372/.957(77AB) look good. Macha says that players write the lineup and I'm hoping Melhuse takes the job from Miller who is a big drop from Hernandez."
So, let's compare Melhuse and Miller:
Offense:
-Melhuse : .257/11/31/.309/.463/.771 (214)
-Miller: .272/9/58/.339/.403/.742 (397)
The raw numbers show that Melhuse hit for a higher average and for more power thought he had a lower OBP. Miller's RBI numbers are actually close to Melhuse's when you adjust for the disparity in ABs with Miller getting an RBI every 6.8 ABs and Melhuse getting an RBI every 6.9 ABs.
Defense:
FPCT PB SBA CS CS% CERA INN
-Melhuse .995 5 27 13 .325 4.05 504
- Miller .999 9 46 35 .435 4.24 963
Like with Hernandez Miller leads in every category except two, the same two. We know Miller passed a ball every 12 games. Melhuse was a little better allowing a PB every 101 INN (or 1 every 11 games). The difference there is only .00057 PB/INN. The major difference between the two is that Melhuse had a lower CERA than Miller working with primarily the same pitchers.
The upshot of all this is that Melhuse was better than Miller. Miller got more playing time based on the reputation that he is a wiz at handling pitchers, a reputation that is not born out by the numbers. Despite this, the catching rotation is not the reason the A's missed the playoffs, but we're getting closer, Especially with the whole CERA thing.
The Smoking Gun:
As you may have noticed, I have eliminated almost all of the position players as reasons for the A's missing the playoffs. I didn't discuss the bench, but to make a long story slightly less long, the bench ain't to blame. Overall, the offense was not to blame. Here's the team's offensive totals for this year (no playoffs) and last year playoffs!).
2003 Team: .254/176/742/.327/.417/.743
2004 Team:.270/189/752/.343/.433/.776
As you can see, this year's team was better in every offensive category. The offense was good enough to get the job done.
I've mentioned that I think Miller was part of the problem, so who does that leave?
That's right Rant fans, the blame falls squarely on...Curt Young. That's right, #41 in your program, but #1 in your bile duct, it's A's pitching coach Curt Young. I guess you could also blame whoever (rhymes with Jilly Jeane) allowed Rick Peterson to leave the organization. The bottom line for the season is this; the pitching staff, across the board, was not as good as it was in 2003. Here's what I said in October:
"The A's may allow pitching coach Rick Peterson to move to the Mets without compensation. That's right, the A's may lose one of the best coaches in the game in return for absolutely nothing. If you have any doubts about Peterson's value to the team just look at the staff. Sure, the big three are very good pitchers with a ton of ability, but look at what Peterson did with some more marginal talent. Losing Peterson would be as huge a loss for Oakland as losing Tejada. Letting Peterson go would be a huge mistake. Peterson's value to the team is second only to Billy Beane's. Peterson makes the A's staff go. He is a mechanics guru and is a big part of the reason that the big three have stayed as healthy as they have. He can find the positives in almost anyone and turn shaky pitchers into solid contributors. If he does go to the Mets expect two things, a rise in Oakland's team ERA along with a sharp decline in wins, and at least 15 wins from Steve Trachsel.
So what happened? The numbers speak for themselves:
Team Pitching:
2003: 96-66 3.63 ERA
2004: 91-71 4.17 ERA
Yes, this represents a decline of only five wins. But that's misleading, especially if you look at the jump in offense. As I predicted, the loss of Peterson led to a decline in the A's pitching.
Blown Saves:
The A's had 26 blown saves this year. Read that again, TWENTY-SIX BLOWN SAVES!!! They lost the division by one game. For the math impaired this means that if they had blown just two fewer saves they would have made the playoffs. It means that if they had blown just 20% fewer saves they would have won the division long before the ALWS began.
The Big Three saw their ERAs jump this year.
2003 2004 Diff.
Barry Zito 3.30 4.48 1.18
Tim Hudson 2.70 3.53 0.83
Mark Mulder 3.13 4.43 1.30
Also, Hudson was injured for an extended stretch for the first time in his career, Zito saw a continued decline in his confidence (23-5 in '02, 14-12 in '03 and 11-11 this year.), and Mulder won like one game after the all-star break.
Trachsel:
I like using Trachsel as my prototypical mediocre pitcher, just good enough to stick around, not good enough to be good. Unfortunately for my theory, Trachsel was Trachsel again this year. His .480 win % this year was only slightly better than his career win % of.474. Still, over all the Mets pitching staff saw their ERA decline form 4.48 in 2003 to 4.09 in 2004, with roughly the same staff.
So the bottom-line: the pitching coach let us down, and the front office let us down by continuing to allow the talent ebb out of Oakland (let us note that two recent A's, Damon and Foulke, just won it all). Looking ahead to next season I see...another column at another time. Suffice it to say that I don't like some of what I've been hearing, like that the A's may let Byrnes walk because he's due a raise. As I said last year, chip, chip, chip, how long before we become the KC Royals? Unless something changes I give it two more years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)