The A's started nine right-handed batters against Twins lefty Francisco Liriano Thursday, and you could say that it worked out pretty well.
| AB | R | H | RBI | BB | K | LOB | Season Avg | ||
| K. Suzuki c | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | .316 | |
| M. Ellis 2b | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | .247 | |
| M. Sweeney 1b | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | .322 | |
| D. Barton 1b | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | .262 | |
| F. Thomas dh | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | .000 | |
| E. Brown rf | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | .276 | |
| B. Crosby ss | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | .297 | |
| C. Denorfia lf | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | .286 | |
| D. Murphy 3b | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | .286 | |
| R. Davis cf | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | .750 | |
Liriano faced all nine of them and was bounced before the inning ended. He only got one of them out, yielding five singles and three walks.
I think there's a powerful argument for enacting this type of lineup when we see lefities more often. Sure, the classic lineup card alternates left- and right-handed hitters in the order, to prevent an opponent from shutting down your offense in the late innings with one dominant lefty specialist. But Thursday we saw an example of how the opposite approach can completely change the complexion of a game, or even an entire series.
The Super Lineup, as I'm dubbing our all-righty crew, put six runs on the board and chased Liriano after nine hitters. Not only did they practically put the game out of reach in the first inning, but they forced the Twins 'pen to throw a whopping 123 pitches. Imagine if it were the first game of the series and the A's could feast on a tired bullpen for the next two or three days.
I look at the all-righty lineup as low-risk, high reward: They're more vulnerable to being shut down by righty relievers late in the game...but why not try to dominate the early innings by leveraging your platoon advantage vs. the opposing SP to the max?
To me it's an extension of the sabermetric principle of playing for the big inning. You want to eschew outs, whether via the sacrifice bunt, or via the unfavorable lefty-vs.-lefty matchup. The A's had nine favorable matchups in a row in today's lineup, and, not coincidentally, they had a big inning. Who cares that they had four 0's later on?
Their reward was a breezy, less pressurized seven innings for Greg Smith and hurting the opponent's bullpen.
I think this lineup might even correlate to less runners left on base in the early innings, because it stacks favorable matchups in order, rather than staggering them every other hitter, which the L-R-L-R approach sometimes does.
That's my layman's take, certainly open for debate. I'd like to see our Staturday trio or Tom Tango tackle the pros and cons of that lineup vs. lefties from a more statistically rigorous point-of-view.
I hope to see The Super Lineup Saturday against Erik Bedard and the Mariners. More Donnie Murphy vs. lefities, and more Mike Sweeney at first base against them, too. Sometimes that one extra hit in an inning is the difference between leaving the bases loaded, or breaking the game wide open.
---------------------------------------------
What allows for this luxury is the fantastic starting pitching Oakland has received thus far. The A's are carrying 14 position players, and I hope they'll continue to even after Duke comes off the DL to start Saturday (I think we'll see Braden sent down again). The team can afford to carry 11 pitchers for now.
It's further evidence of how critical it is to build a bullpen and even part of the bench with 0-3 service time players with remaining option years. Braden/Devine's ability to shuttle up and down between AAA and the bigs will probably be used all year, and it practically allows the team to have a 27 man roster (please read that if you get a chance, it's exactly how Beane and the best GM's manage their active roster day-to-day).
If they wanted to be really crazy (hey, the '89 A's did it), they could carry 15 position players for a few weeks when Buck gets back and truly leverage an amazing platoon advantage: Buck/R. Sweeney/Cust/Hannahan/Barton vs. righties and today's lineup vs. lefties, with a boatload of pinch-hitting and defensive sub options as needed.
It's not as crazy as it sounds. With fresh-legged young players that can play every day, no Rule 5 pitchers, plenty of option-flexible relievers, no LOOGYs, six capable starters, and every reliever capable of throwing 2 innings, this might be the one team in baseball that could succeed with a 10-man staff and 2.5 designated hitters.
0 recs | 86 comments
I think it might work to use the super lineup every once in a while
but if someone like Cust or Barton happens to be on a hot streak I would stick the lefty stick in there.
micdog2001 - April 24, 2008
I would call it the RIGHT lineup
asfansince1989 - April 24, 2008
Howsabout the RightY line-up?
You northpaws slay me.
The Dogfather - April 25, 2008
it's kind of funny
I always have to set my video game lineups using the the L-R-L theory. Just because that’s how the A’s always have done it.
well, I guess it’s not that funny but what the crap I’m posting ti anyways.
micdog2001 - April 24, 2008
"it"
micdog2001 - April 24, 2008
I don't really want Barton platooned. Everybody else? Sure!
WaddellCanseco - April 24, 2008
He's a rookie
Let him earn the right to play every day. For now I’m not going to complain about Mike Sweeney getting some extra PAs.
And it is Beane’s latest stroke of genius—constructing a deep and brittle pitching staff that-by definition- can constantly work with 10-11 on and 4-5 off—that has set this offensive roster up to outperform expectations. Duke and Harden return—DiNardo cycles back to bullpen; smith back to AAA; Foulke returns; Braden or Devine drop off, etc, etc..
madmongoose - April 24, 2008
It's gonna be awfully hard to send Smith back down with the way he's pitched.
mikev - April 24, 2008
easier than sending Devine though
I would think you want Smith to get regular work at this point?
Buck Turgidson - April 24, 2008
i'm not sure he gets sent down
dinardo will go to the pen, so smith will stay in the rotation, but who gets sent down?
flipgatey3 - April 25, 2008
The team only has 4 starters at this point
Duke coming back will make 5, at which point the team will have to either send out a position player or a bullpen guy (which would reduce same to 6 players). Smith would only be at risk of getting sent down if Harden returns, and to be honest, I think the odds are better that the team will go to a 6-man rotation at that point than that they farm him out.
Of course, I’m sure Harden will have his standard “setbacks” for the next 3 months anyway, so I don’t feel it’s much of a problem.
PaulThomas - April 25, 2008
send down hannahan
flipgatey3 - April 26, 2008
I'd rather see DiNardo DFA'd...
... than see anyone other than Braden get sent down.
Joey C. - April 25, 2008
Lenny has an option I believe.
WaddellCanseco - April 25, 2008
Agreed.
mikeA - April 24, 2008
Don't you think that
the success of today’s lineup was largely a result of Liriano pitching like a guy coming back from tommy john surgery about 6 months too early?
Hot Cup Joe - April 24, 2008
Liriano says he feels great
except when he gets in a game, he cannot locate his pitches.
I agree though, probably an all-lefty lineup would have done as much damage. You can’t expect to walk the bases loaded, then throw slower pitches in an attempt to throw strikes. Lefty, righty, any MLB player can hit in such a situation. Davis was 1-for-18 and had not even touched a bat in five days, and got a first inning hit.
Korach noted in the first inning, “Liriano’s velocity is way down.”
One won lost won - April 24, 2008
that's what I was thinking
the A’s took advantage of the situation…Liriano was ripe for this kind of assault
OaklandSi - April 25, 2008
That's what I thought, too
He walked in with a 6.5 ERA. Heck, I chose to go to this game partly because I wanted to see a WIN this week, and I got what I expected. :)
phastphill - April 25, 2008
If the ballclub is excited about FThomas, then I'm excited
Candidly, I did not think it would be a positive. But it turned out it was. This appears to be a great orchestration by Beane and Geren.
The real bonus might be Jack Cust will feel less pressure, and start squaring up some of the pitches. He seems to be fouling off a lot of “in the wheelhouse” tosses. I saw Hanahan doing some upfront cheerleading. He also may feel less pressure.
Timing is great. Seattle and Angles are on the West Coast, so travel and time zones are favorable, but the two teams are formidable. A good seven games to really measure the effects of Thomas and the real capabilities of the team.
One won lost won - April 24, 2008
Cust may feel less pressure on the bench
Any way you slice this thing, he’s gonna be the odd man out unless he starts to hit. He doesn’t fit in the Super Lineup—and against righties he will only play unless and until Buck gets healthy and Gonzalez gets ready. And if he doesn’t hit i could easily see a starting OF of Sweeney, Brown and either Davis or Donorfia against RHP.
madmongoose - April 24, 2008
Cust needs to be released as soon as Buck comes off the DL
The A’s can’t afford to carry 3 guys that are basically all DHs
sactownbull - April 24, 2008
Thats the furthest thing from a good idea.
Syphon - April 25, 2008
+1
flipgatey3 - April 25, 2008
Buck to Sacto
If things go well for the next couple of weeks (I’m sure they won’t, someone will inevitably get hurt), Buck should spend some time in Sacramento.
Colorado Fan - April 25, 2008
After all, he's never been there.
His danger, of course, would be that he stays there and the right garden in the Coliseum gets patrolled by someone else.
The Dogfather - April 25, 2008
Marabino?
WaddellCanseco - April 25, 2008
He'll presumably be doing so anyway
as a rehab stint while on the DL.
PaulThomas - April 25, 2008
Cust might feel more pressure
as to his job, actually.
I also have some doubts about Thomas. But at the price the A’s have to try him. If he stays healthy and can still produce, why not? And if he can’t, they can part ways without having spent too much $$.
The Thomas signing certainly put A’s all over the Bay Area media map yesterday (even KNBR couldn’t stop talking about it).
OaklandSi - April 25, 2008
Bonds
is still on the market…it seems to me that there are only two possible reasons the A’s haven’t signed him…a) he costs too much or b) the A’s are afraid of the baggage he brings (but i don’t think this is the case)...it’s kind of confusing, though, why we signed Thomas over Bonds
DyeLongJustice - April 24, 2008
not that confusing...
a) Bonds would cost more than Thomas does, unless Bonds were willing to sign for the $337,000 (or whatever it is) that Thomas signed for;
b) Thus, almost no financial risk for the A’s;
c) Thomas was well-liked in 2006; no telling what chemistry Bonds would bring to the team;
d) Thomas isn’t under indictment for perjury;
e) Thomas fits into the “Super Lineup” better than Bonds does. ;-)
FoolshGame22 - April 24, 2008
true...
but bonds = unprecedented hitter…and probably the best ever…why wouldn’t you at least give it a shot if you really want to contend…but ya, i’d rather have thomas too…so maybe i just answered my own question
DyeLongJustice - April 24, 2008
Bonds is not under indictment
Future Ed - April 24, 2008
did they dismiss the case?
Bonds Under Indictment… I must not have been paying attention when they dropped the case. I’m sure he didn’t lie, anyway.
FoolshGame22 - April 24, 2008
flaws in the original
filings. There may be a new indictment in June. But right now, Bonds is not under idictment.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/22/BAE4VOO6Q.DTL&hw=bonds+indictment&sn=010&sc=395
Future Ed - April 24, 2008
sorry
here
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/22/BAE4VOO6Q.DTL&hw=bonds+indictment&sn=010&sc=395
Future Ed - April 24, 2008
well I am not that smart.
Future Ed - April 24, 2008
+1
NYC - April 25, 2008
Ahhh... I do recall that
So, I will amend my post, as easily as the Feds will amend their indictment:
d) Thomas isn’t likely to be under indictment for perjury and obstruction this season (as Bonds is)...
FoolshGame22 - April 24, 2008
Bonds is 43, Thomas 39
Bonds cannot go on forever.
Last year he showed plenty of “end-of-the-line” traits.
At some point, even the best cannot get it done in the Majors.
Look at Andres Gallaraga. He needed ONE MORE home run.
Could
not
do
it.
Thirty teams say, “Bonds cannot catch up to a fastball any more.”
One won lost won - April 24, 2008
Bonds '07 OPS: 1045
Thirty teams say, “Collusion.”
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/a-hidden-dent-in-frank-thomass-value/
aang - April 24, 2008
why collude against one player?
If Al Davis were a MLB owner, he’d have already signed Bonds. But, owners only collude to save billions, not a few million.
Isn’t it just as likely that they’ve all looked at Bonds and said: “He just ain’t worth the bad publicity.” (Especially, if I can sign Frank Thomas for $337,000.)
FoolshGame22 - April 24, 2008
perhaps, but...
teams also like to win. and have given shots to worse personalties with far worse abilities. a better article:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/those-who-do-not-learn-from-history/
aang - April 24, 2008
hey, if Barry Lamar Bonds wants to sign...
an incentive-laden, base-salary contract, I’d be sympathetic…. and, perhaps, more inclined toward the collusion theory. But, I doubt Barry wants to do that. If the A’s were to make him that offer, I’m sure he’d decline and insist on no less than what Frank Thomas will make this season. Can you say deal-breaker?
But, I feel Barry’s pain. He’s got to support a family, after all.
FoolshGame22 - April 24, 2008
Hard to Imagine..
Bonds turning down any offer at this point. His career is basically over, and he wants to play one more year.
richwol1 - April 25, 2008
Jeff Borris says..
No team has made an offer at any price at any time. That’s a simple fact. At this point in time, no club has even offered the minimum salary. And even though the minimum salary wouldn’t be a bona fide offer for a player of his stature, it’s beyond comprehension that no team (has made) such an offer.
—Jeff Borris, agent for Barry Bonds
How many Jeff Borris clients have signed an “incentive-laden contract” ? What is the lowest dollar value client contract that has been signed by a Jeff Borris client?
A lot of general managers won’t deal with Borris. In that, there might be collusion. But is it truly “collusion”??
Has anyone gone into a Mercedes dealership and offered the price of a Yaris for a new Mercedes?? Collusion? No, just knowledge that it won’t be accepted. Having prior knowledge is not collusion. Not wishing to negotiate with a known pain in the ass is not collusion. The Giants didn’t offer a minimum. Why not? They love him at PacBell Park. No offer from them says it is Borris, not the owners, that is the problem.
One won lost won - April 25, 2008
The Giants didn't make an offer
because the team is rebuilding and wanted to distance itself from him, and signing him would have done nothing for the team’s competitiveness.
It’s utterly preposterous to suggest that every team in baseball somehow has such good information that Bonds won’t sign for what they’ll offer him that they won’t even bother making an offer. It’s a frigging phone call. It would take like 15 minutes to find out whether he’ll accept a salary in a general range.
PaulThomas - April 25, 2008
Bonds and the Giants
I thought Bonds wrote his own ticket out of town after taking his contract to the public and the media last year.
I don’t recall specifically when he said this, but I was pretty sure that Bonds has been clear about playing for real money. If he thought that it wasn’t fair that he wasn’t getting offers from teams, why not sell himself directly to the few teams that could really use him in their lineup? Sitting around waiting doesn’t get a whole lot done these days.
ChrisCEIT - April 25, 2008
"A lot of general managers won’t deal with Borris"
I think you’re confusing him with Scott Boras.
monkeyball - April 25, 2008
I hadn't heard this about Jeff either.
WaddellCanseco - April 25, 2008
And Andres Galarraga
is a good comparison for Barry Bonds, because?
Yeah, Bonds showed plenty of “end of the line” traits last year. So many that MLB pitchers absolutely killed him. He was so poor that he only managed a 170 OPS+, better than Albert Pujols, better than Prince Fielder, better than Miguel Cabrera, better than David Wright, better than Chipper Jones.
Yup, Barry Bnds cannot catch up to a fastball anymore. But Jose Vidro can. Jose Vidro is better than Barry Bonds.
rfloh - April 24, 2008
yeah, but...
won’t they be taking blood samples this year for later HGH testing?
FoolshGame22 - April 24, 2008
Not really
There’s talk that they are developing a test / testing system. Nothing is formalised yet.
Regardless, even if they do start using blood tests for HGH, why do you believe that it should affect Bonds all that adversely? He’s not the only player who ever used illegal banned substances.
rfloh - April 25, 2008
ummm...
because he’s 43.
FoolshGame22 - April 25, 2008
There a bunch of other old players in MLB.
rfloh - April 25, 2008
junk-ball pitchers... maybe
and, a few roiders, who are no longer playing. But, 43-year old position players (or even DH’s)... not so many.
FoolshGame22 - April 25, 2008
because past performance is no guarantee
of anything. You’d think a former batting champ, multiple 30 hr seasons, could get ONE home run.
A precipitous fall off for a professional hitter. Do they all fall? Yes. When? A guess.
So, say Bonds does ten times better than Galarraga: is ten HRs (giving Andres a hypothetical “one”) what you want from your DH? No.
One won lost won - April 25, 2008
My brain hurts
from all the unspoken assumptions in this post.
What does Gallaraga have to do with anything?
PaulThomas - April 25, 2008
whoa....
mikeA - April 25, 2008
Yeah, that left me speechless.
You can’t even really offer a rebuttal there.
notsellingjeans - April 25, 2008
Several questions
In your opinion, is Jose Vidro a better hitter than Barry Bonds, now? Is Carlos Delgado a better hitter than Barry Bonds, now?
Would you prefer Jose Vidro or Barry Bonds as your DH? Would you prefer Barry Bonds in the OF, Moises Alou at 1st, or Carlos Delgado at 1st, and a Moises Alou playing the OF and getting repeatedly injured?
rfloh - April 25, 2008
Heck, rfloh,
You are equal to Barry Bonds as a hitter, right now. You’ve had just as many ABs in 2008 as Bonds. If you aren’t playing, it’s moot to talk about “preferences”.
Bonds is not playing. Mickey Mantle’s not playing. At least Bonds (unlike Mantle) could walk through a clubhouse door somewhere and offer to play. He has made himself unavailable. Canseco, Rickey Henderson, they played for independent leagues, because they love the game. Some players drop their agents. By whatever method, a player will play if he can, if he wishes to play.
One won lost won - April 25, 2008
Quote:
Where is this “made himself unavailable” line coming from? You can’t just make things up because you want them to be true.
PaulThomas - April 25, 2008
Again,
is Jose Vidro a better hitter than Barry Bonds, in your expert opinion? Is Carlos Delgado a better hitter than Barry Bonds, in your expert opinion?
Or do you now retract this statement: “Thirty teams say, "Bonds cannot catch up to a fastball any more."”?
rfloh - April 26, 2008
What does playing in an
independent league have to do with the question at hand?
The question is why Bonds in not playing IN MLB. And why no MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL teams have made him an offer.
rfloh - April 26, 2008
Good post
I’d likek to see them try the 14/11 roster. It seems like with this mix of players, the position player depth would come in a lot more handy than the extra reliever. I think 10 pitchers would probably really be pushing it, though, and would have the potential to cost some games. Tryiing something like this (which it looks like they’re doing for the time being) is interesting if nothing else. I’m not real eager for Foulke’s neck to heal quickly…..
I think the “alternate righties and lefties in the lineup” convention is more of a product of the fact that most teams simply can’t start all RHs or all LHs, and few can even plausibly get to 8. So as long as there’s a mix it makes sense to alternate them.
mikeA - April 24, 2008
Yep
That is exactly the reason more teams don’t do it:
But, with the current A’s roster, do you think Billy built it on purpose or by accident? Cuz if and when Chavvy comes back, we have almost a platoon “Super Lineup” for every game.
FoolshGame22 - April 24, 2008
my vote is for on purpose via accidents/happenstance
In my recollection, the A’s under Beane have had multiple platoon opportunities that they’ve not taken advantage of—and have passed on numerous cheap/available platoon players (Dellucci, Catalanotto, etc.). They’ve also run players into the ground, hung onto veterans with lousy/declining stats and/or demonstrable platoon differentials, and overvalued replacement-level starters with guaranteed contracts.
I think there’s been a unique chain of circumstances leading to Beane’s current roster configuration (most significantly the decision to rebuild the farm system and Chavvy’s health status), but/and that Beane has recognized how to maximize production from a “rebuilding” roster without any clear, consistent superstars.
I wouldn’t expect this approach to carry over beyond this year and (perhaps) next.
monkeyball - April 25, 2008
the concept is sound...
but i wouldn’t make any conclusions based on liriano’s performance. the guy couldn’t find the strike zone and only has two pitches these days, neither one of which is particularly hard to hit (assuming of course he actually throws them for a strike).
i still can’t believe we threw an all righty line-up though. seems like we’ve been lefty heavy for so long. this team gives geren a ton of flexibility with line-ups, it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out as the season progresses.
Livermore - April 25, 2008
awesome avatar. just noticed that.
monkeyball - April 25, 2008
Yes,
close resemblance….
Hot Cup Joe - April 25, 2008
I agree that we can't make conclusions about it yet...
But I would nontheless be excited to see it on Saturday vs. Bedard, which will probably provide a better test.
notsellingjeans - April 25, 2008
Isn't he coming off the DL as well?
WaddellCanseco - April 25, 2008
by the way...
i love your work, both here and at the hardball times. keep it coming, PLEASE!
Livermore - April 25, 2008
The best of times for Beane
Because Beane has a group of everyday players with so few high salaries, so many young players, and so many journeyman, he can treat this year’s roster like a table baseball team. Very few of the players have any leverage in terms of playing time. Sure they have egos, but really how much can Brown, Murphy, Hanahan, Sweeney, et al. really complain without just looking silly? Compare this to having Kotsay, Bradley, Kendall, Chavez, etc.
And because he can treat the roster like a table baseball team, he can do what anybody who plays strat-o-matic will tell you that they do when you face a left-hander: you stack the lineup with platoon players. In any strato league, this is—with very few exceptions—optimal. Brown, Thomas, Murphy, and more actually serve exactly this function in table leagues.
Beane must be having the time of his life shaping this roster. It’s full of second and third tier players that he has seen potential value in and, piece by piece, collected through trades or from the scrap heap. And except at DH, everybody is young. Beane has to be in heaven.
And finally, notsellingjeans identified the value of all of this in an article about the importance of the 40-man roster that he wrote last year.
RLangford - April 25, 2008
I also like the Super Lineup, NSJ
It seems to me that more platooning and more extensive use of the depth of position players that we have are both plausible and good for all the reasons you mentioned. More frequent lineup rotation gives the ‘regulars’ a little more rest, keeps the ‘backups’ sharper, and allows a lot of in-game flexibility and good pinch-hitting options when the other team brings in a reliever of opposite handedness. Also it seems to me that the A’s have a lot of good talented players, but no real superstars who absolutely demand to be in the lineup every single game (even Frank Thomas will need an occasional break).
I guess those who I’d say need the most playing time are Barton, for development purposes; Crosby, if he keeps hitting and fielding well; and Ellis for similar reasons; also Kurt Suzuki of course, but even young spry leadoff-hitting catchers need a day off now and then to stay fresh. As far as the 1B/DH logjam goes, with Thomas and Mike Sweeney filling almost identical roles (except that Sweeney can play first), I hope there’s a way to keep them both active while not stinting Barton’s development at first. I think occasional days off for Thomas and Barton combined with some pinch-hitting could allow for pretty good part-time use of Sweeney; this would also rest his knee. But it might be tough to find enough ABs for them all, especially when you consider Cust out in left field and the number of good young OFs we have who also need to play.
But, I’d rather have too many good players than too few. Injuries, slumps, and hissy fits tend to happen and open up spaces.
DrFunkenstein - April 25, 2008
I like the avatar and monicker.
We are children of productions, produced in conjunction, with the urgency of our..
WaddellCanseco - April 25, 2008
yours too WC
DrFunkenstein - April 25, 2008
The team has partially created the outfield problem for itself
When Buck comes back, I’d like to see them send Ryan Sweeney down to AAA and tell him that they’ll call him back up when he hits 10 home runs and draws a walk or two.
He’s not an asset to the team at this point.
PaulThomas - April 25, 2008
Just like to point out...
The team faced a broken pitcher yesterday (and maybe 2, if you consider the fact that Jesse Crain is coming off shoulder problems). I’m all for seeing more righties in the lineup against lefties—especially when their names are Sweeney and Thomas—but yesterday’s performance doesn’t represent a panacea to the hitting problems.
Such as they are, anyway. Even with lefty-heavy lineups for a good part of the year, the team was still building an excellent record, and against teams that are either traditionally very good or recently improved (Boston, Cleveland, Minnesota, and Kansas City, Chicago, Toronto… living in the northwest, I refuse to recognize Seattle). And guys like R. Sweeney and Barton may not be producing prototypical numbers for their positions, but they are by no means hitting poorly.
... Crap, I think I have a man-crush on Ryan Sweeney.
Joey C. - April 25, 2008
Ryan Sweeney is by all means hitting poorly.
mikeA - April 25, 2008
I was ready to get combative over this
But then I realized that I was still in “Fan of Sweeney’s Numbers as of April 19th” mode. Didn’t know he was at a .302 OBP now. Shit.
I’m still not sold on Denorfia or Davis. I’d rather see Sweeney get some development opportunity.
Joey C. - April 25, 2008
I'd like to see him develop in AAA
no power + no BBs = yikes. Denorfia and Davis are no great shakes, but they’re old enough that there’s not much point in sending them down, and they’re also better fielders/baserunners. From a winning-this-year standpoint it makes sense to have Sweeney and Cargon swap roles.
mikeA - April 25, 2008
Honest question to Sweeney fans:
What exactly do you see in the guy?
He’s not a terribly accomplished center fielder. He’s supposed to have power but never actually shows it. His swing is too long to hit lefthanded pitching. He’s not particularly fast. He’s not very disciplined at the plate.
Right now, I’m not getting it. He looks like roster filler to me.
PaulThomas - April 25, 2008
I think we're all enamored of the
lousy jumps he gets on fly balls.
Nico - April 25, 2008
Toolsy
I hate to admit it because I put way more stock into sabermetrics than in old-school “good face”-type scouting, but the kid seems like he could really put it together if he were given the opportunity. Strong arm, good BP pop that might find its way into games (since, y’know, he’s only 23), can play all 3 outfield positions. It just seems like he’s got a lot of improvement ahead, being so young, and I don’t think the Sox gave him a fair shake after being their top-rated prospect only 2 years ago.
I’m also not in the “A’s as contenders” mindset yet (even with Frank Thomas), so I don’t like the young kids getting pushed aside. I don’t trust Davis and I can’t shake the feeling that Chris Denorfia is just Reggie Willits with less average.
It’s all probably because I need the Swisher deal to turn out to be ridiculously one-sided, or it’s back to the bottle.
Joey C. - April 25, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.