Friday, May 13, 2005
As seems to be the case more an more often these days it's been a while since my last post. I'm sure this costing me the attention of even my meager audience but what can I say? Maybe I'm overwhelmed by all the crap in the world. It seems like everyday there's something that makes me shake my head. Or, perhaps I'm so content that I've become complacent and unable to Rant. Life has been pretty good lately. I still have a good job with prospects of getting better. I've got a few irons in the fire in terms of other projects. I'm moving in with a guy and saving some money. Life is good. Or maybe it's just that I work too much and play too much and just don't have the time or the mental energy required for writing. Whatever it is it's led to this, not quite a "dot dot dot" column, but a few quick hits on things that have been rattling around my brain.
Disenfranchised voters, judicial impropriety, illegal gifts, it's not national politics, it's not South America, it's American Idol and it's getting more attention than Tom Delay and the Pope combined. Who gives a crap if Paula got her groove back? It's not a real contest! This is not steroids in baseball, this is not point shaving in the NCAA tournament, this is American Karaoke. It doesn't matter, it effects no one, and the guy got eliminated anyway. No harm no foul. Now can we get back to talking about Medicare, Social Security, House Ethics, Congressional Filibusters and Oakland's Bullpen? Jeez.
How great would it be for The Artful Roger to get traded back to Boston? Let's face it: Houston is done. If they're out of it at the trade deadline why not send Roger to a contender? After all he only came to Houston because he thought he and Petite could get the Astros to the series. Well, they couldn't. There are several interesting possibilities for Roger's future if he is indeed traded. Really, you could put any contender in this list, but I'll name my favorites.
-Chicago (AL or NL): The Sox look legit, and they don't have the glaring pitching holes they had when they ran through the AL, only to get demolished in the playoffs, in 2000. If the Sox are in it then I don't see how they could not push for Clemens. As for the Cubs, well, if they climb out of their current hole they should go for it too. After watching what Boston did last year the Cubs have to figure they're next. Besides, Clemens isn't going to want to be a savior and have to carry a team on his own, if he could join an healthy Prior and Wood then why not go for it? After all, Greg Maddux makes a pretty scary fourth starter.
-Texas: They're young, good and in the hunt, but they have no pitching. I guy like Roger may be what the Rangers need to overcome The The Angels Angels of Anaheim, and Seattle. Texas has a history of bringing in aging power pitchers. By going to Texas Roger could cement his legacy (as if he needs to) by tying himself further to the man to whom he is often compared, Nolan Ryan.
-New York: No I don't mean the Mets though it would be interesting to see the "what could have been" of Clemens and Pedro together. It's interesting that for years people said that these two were good in part because they could pitch inside without fear of retribution yet both have excelled so far on the senior circuit. Of course the only option for Roger in NY is the Yanks assuming they're even close. In my mind it would be sad to see Roger got to NY only to miss the playoffs anyway, but it would be a nice thing rub in my cousin's face.
-Boston: This is the best story. If only this could happen. Roger going back to Boston to team with Schilling, the man whose career he saved, to rewrite the final chapter of his tenure with the franchise he was so closely identified with is...well, it's something George Lucas would come up with. A story of redemption so Hollywood it almost makes me want the Sox to win the world series again just so my kids could have one more baseball legend to dream about. Roger helping the Sox to another title would rival last year's Sox run in terms of scale and spectacle. Mr. McLane, please send Roger back to Boston.
Rip-a-ping-ping, the A's dodged a bullet when they didn't resign Giambi. As the steroid cloud follows this fallen figure I don't know whether to laugh or just shrug it all off. In a way Giambi is getting exactly what he deserves after stabbing an entire city in the back. How's that top ten list look now Jason? Now the Yanks want to send him to the minors so he can rebuild his swing and maybe fix his head. The problem is Giambi doesn't want to go. He should. If he doesn't it only confirms what fans in Oakland have suspected since he left in 2001, that he's all about the money. Before he got paid Giambi seemed like a throwback bad boy playing for the pure joy of it. Now he seems like a brooding selfish ass putting himself before the team. The reality is if he doesn't start hitting soon he's going to be a waste of a roster spot. Still, like I said a few months ago, I'd take him back on the cheap if he showed that he really did want to redeem himself. Be humble Jason, be contrite, that's all you need to do to start turning it around.
On an side note, Miggy's making us look like idiots for choosing to go after Giambi, and then Chavez and totally ignoring Tejada. Quick comparison:
Tejada: .348/10/36/.390/1.050
Chavez: .195/02/10/.275/.553
Giambi: .195/03/06/.386/.711
Wow, after looking at those numbers I have to wonder if Chavez destroyed his BALCO evidence before the Feds got to it. Of course it could be that both Giambi and Chavez are in wicked slumps that they'll pull out of. The real difference is that Giambi went to NY and has to accept everything that goes with it including the scrutiny that Chavez has managed to escape thus far.
In more A's related news; the bullpen sucks. After leading the league in blown saves and losing the division by one game last year the A's tried to upgrade their bullpen during the off-season. Oakland added power arms in Juan Cruz and rookie Huston Street to go along with closer Octavio Dotel. Still the A's pen has failed to hold leads in recent weeks, the most glaring example being back to back blown saves against the Red Sox. It seems like missing soft tossers like Chad Bradford (DL-back) is hurting the A's because they have no change of pace type relievers to throw out there.
Moving to football, Rod Gardner wants out of Washington and it wouldn't take much to get him at this point. A former first round pick, Gardner has a modest base salary and though he hasn't lived up to his potential the past couple years he has been very solid under difficult circumstances. If anyone should be willing to risk a 6th or 7th round pick on Gardner it should be the Forty Niners. Gardner would come relatively cheap in terms of cap room as well since Washington would still be responsible for the balance of his signing bonus. SF needs dependable receivers to help number one pick Alex Smith adjust to the NFL. Gardner isn't a super star, think JJ Stokes with better hands, but he can be the steady position type receiver that SF thought they were getting in Curtis "Stone Hands" Conway last year. The SF receiving corps took a step backwards last year with each of their young receivers seeming to regress. I loved the pick of Arnaz Battle but now I wonder if he'll ever be more than a Nate Singleton/ Dexter Carter type player. Bringing in Gardner to complement Brandon Lloyd and to give last year's number one pick Rashaun Woods time to mature would be a good move provided Gardner understood that he wasn't being brought in to save the franchise and would not be getting a new deal as part of the trade.
Speaking of SF receivers I don't understand why SF wouldn't want to bring Jerry Rice back as a player-coach for one last season. Rice could come in for a minimum deal with no bonus and take advantage of the recent rule that allows veteran players with minimum deals to count only half their salary against the cap. At this point in his career Rice could serve as a great mentor to SF's young receivers in a way that he never could when he still believed he was a top-flight player himself. Also, even at his age, Rice could be a good third down type guy, especially in a four receiver set going against a team's fourth corner.
I think it's great that new Forty Niner coach Mike Nolan petitioned the league for permission to wear a jacket and tie on the sidelines rather than the coaches polo and warm ups that have become the norm in recent years. Aside from a few exceptions (Tom Landry) coaches have sported a more casual sideline look since before Nolan's dad Dick Nolan coached the Niners. In a sports scene dominated by throwbacks why not a throwback style coach? Look up a picture of Lawrence “Buck” Shaw aka "The Silver Fox" and tell me that isn't a great look for an NFL coach.
Final thoughts...Eagles owner Jeffery Laurie says TO isn't getting a new deal. Huzzah! Laurie and head coach Andy Reid should be applauded for taking a hard line with the hard head. Right now Owens has few options since he has not been given permission to seek a trade. He can sit out and miss out on this year's salary (a move that backfired on Sean Gilbert), he can admit defeat and report to training camp with the hope that he'll be traded at some point, or he can retire, thus forfeiting the rest of his signing bonus. If he retires and decides to come back his Eagles contract would be reinstated. Here's hoping that the Eagles tell him he can play for their money or sit out forever, or at least until an equal value deal comes along...Every time I come across the name Drew Henson I wonder if anyone's ever made as much money for doing so little. In fact, stat for stat Henson is even more over paid than A-fRod Henson got more than 10 mil from the Yankees and never came up from AAA for more than a cup of coffee, and he was so underwhelming in Dallas last year that Parcells traded for Drew Bledsoe...Which reminds me of that old joke, what's less mobile, Drew Bledsoe or a cardboard cutout of Drew Bledsoe?...Let's Go Nats!...Speaking of which, it's amazing how many prospects came out of the Expos system considering they once had both Dan Duquette and Kevin Malone in their front office...Summer reading? Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty, You Gotta Have Wa, The Meaning of Ichiro, Aces, Moneyball...That oughta hold ya.
-SR
12:44 pm edt
Family, Sports, Politics, Random Rants: @bertoinpublic, facebook.com/interdisciplinarylife/
Showing posts with label Miguel Tejada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miguel Tejada. Show all posts
Friday, May 13, 2005
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)