Yessssss!!!! WOO HOO!!! Yes! Yes! YES! {points to sky with both arms fully extended}
Anyway, there's something most satisfying about beating John Lackey, who has to be second-guessing himself for speeding up Jack Hannahan's bat with a slow (hanging) curve. 5.1 IP, 9 hits, 4 ER told the story - Lackey was not at his sharpest tonight and it was nice to see the A's take advantage.
And while the Angels may not be the world's most patient team, tonight was still a big step forward for Sean Gallagher as he cruised through 7 solid innings without issuing a walk. Gallagher's fastball has excellent movement - he's one of the first A's pitchers in a long time who can start his fastball at a left-handed hitter, freeze him, and have it cross the plate a strike. If he has to pick one team to "own," by all means let it be the Angels - but honestly if he trusts his fastball, and throws strikes, at the rate he did tonight Gallagher will live up to his considerable promise.
Offensively, the A's outfield truly shone tonight. Ryan Sweeney's four-hit night left him with a .301 batting average for the season and he continues to be utterly reliable, both in process and outcome, with runners in scoring position. Aaron Cunningham, off whose bat the ball really jumps, drilled a single and a double and reached base three times. And Travis Buck, back with, hopefully, amnesia, made the most of his second shot in Oakland this year, beating out an infield hit and stealing second in his first at bat, then lining a solid RBI single in his last at bat.
The A's have won three games in a row, something they could not accomplish in July or August, and in each of the three games they have plated 7 runs. The A's still have some real work to do to improve their infield, but there is real "major league ready" depth in the rotation, the bullpen, and the outfield.
Finally, I want to give a shout-out to the much maligned Hannahan. He may not be a great player, but he has been pressed into "over his head" duty as an every day player who should be in a utility role. He's never going to be a great hitter, but his defense has been outstanding and he has had a few key hits like the one against Lackey tonight. He has never said he should be an every day starter and he has never complained or made excuses. So thanks for the big jack tonight, Big Jack - anyone who helps to beat John Lackey is a friend of mine.
0 recs | 82 comments
Lamenting that the Angels are in a
“don’t give a shit” mode, but they don’t like losing, I am sure.
Go A’s, Great win. Hitting, pitching, it was allllll good!
Back and forth early between the RiverCats and the A’s.
Congrats, Rivercats!
Happy to see they gave only a mild celebration on the field. AAA-champs, it’s nice, but not exactly MLB.
Ron Swoboda gave the RiverCats kudos all night long. Interesting stuff.
One won lost won - September 16, 2008
Given that they just celebrated the PCL title 2 days ago,
I figure celebration fatigue has to be setting in.
PaulThomas - September 16, 2008
add to that a lackluster crowd of 8000
in Oklahoma City, with vast swaths of empty seats, it would be hard to generate much excitement.
Maybe if they won in a come-from-behind walk-off-type game, everyone would have been whooping it up. As it was, the last three innings seemed interminable.
One won lost won - September 16, 2008
This was the third year
of a three-year experiment with the “Bricktown Showdown” one-game playoff format between the PCL and IL champions.
Apparently ESPN has said it’s not interested in returning next year, so this was probably the final one-game Oklahoma City event. In past years there have been some other formats for determining an overall AAA champion (e.g. a three-game series), but in other cases the AAA leagues have gone their separate ways once their own playoffs ended and no overall AAA champion was established.
Soaker - September 16, 2008
Still
if it has to go, it’s nice that our Cats owned the overall series
oaklandSMASH - September 16, 2008
Yay Cats!
WaddellCanseco - September 17, 2008
I find it odd
(although, I guess, somewhat heartening from an equality standpoint) that the Women’s College World Series draws better than the AAA championship.
PaulThomas - September 16, 2008
some of that is how marketable some of those players have gotten
Cat Osterman etc.
ohmangoAs - September 17, 2008
wait what
you went for the double in the gap instead of the grand slam, surely you mean jennie finch etc.
flipgatey3 - September 17, 2008
Not recalling specific names
but last year’s Florida team (which won the championship, I think) was frigging exceptional. Definitely worth watching for any male under 30…
PaulThomas - September 17, 2008
taryne mowatt
flipgatey3 - September 17, 2008
and if you wanna see something crazy...
i was watching a wcws game, and the announcers claimed this is ben grieve’s sister. they look kinda alike, but there is no mention of either one in the other’s biographies anywhere. the only link is that kelly’s dad is “thomas grieve”.
kelly grieve
flipgatey3 - September 17, 2008
Cousin of Ben Grieve, not sister
There was a girl named “Brignac” in the WCWS last year, but as far as I can tell she’s not related to the Rays shortstop prospect.
Jason Bay’s sister is the top pitcher for the Canadian national team.
PaulThomas - September 17, 2008
that's right
it was the same game…UT was playing against the Canadian national team. i forgot about that.
flipgatey3 - September 17, 2008
Why "under 30"??
Are you under the impression that us old guys don’t enjoy watching sexy female athletes?
iglew - September 17, 2008
No, I'm just trying not to encourage the practice overmuch
PaulThomas - September 17, 2008
I Grieve for the future of the Republic, when such blatant ageism abounds.
If you are very lucky (especially considering the purpleness of your prose), your day will someday come.
The Dogfather - September 17, 2008
I was thinking of more recent college players
ohmangoAs - September 24, 2008
just got back from the game
any game where the A’s beat the Angels is a good game!
nice to see them beat Lackey, too.
I enjoyed watching the Rivercats game, the Cubs game and the Rays-Sux game siimultaneously in the westside club right before the A’s game started…kind of baseball junkie heaven.
Another coliseum hightlight; a vndor came up around section 225 in the late innings selling hot chocholate…perfect on a chilly night with the full moon rising over an A’s win over the Angels!
OaklandSi - September 16, 2008
it's late, I can't type
OaklandSi - September 16, 2008
That hot chocolate vendor
was trying to tease me to death. I was in section 107, and he came by 108 3 times without making it to 107 (those guys in 108 were buying all the hot chocolate). I hope they send out more vendors on nights like this in the future, though, it was a great idea.
el generico - September 17, 2008
So stoked to hear the A's won tonight!
I was gonna DVR the game but my Comcast was turned off……(damned late billing!). However, glad to see the boys took care of “Piranah Face” and sounds like the young guns established themselves a little more. Nice to see T. Buck back as well. I really missed him…………
Go A’s!
mrod - September 16, 2008
I know velocity is not everything...
…but given the reports of Seany dipping down to the high 80’s, how hard was he throwing tonight?
Pucking Insane - September 16, 2008
his fastball was hitting 92-93
he was throwing his breaking pitches for strikes, which really made a positve difference.
OaklandSi - September 16, 2008
I saw a few 94s posted on the stadium gun.
Nice to think this might be a preview of ’09 for him, the team and the rivalry with teh slegnA.
The Dogfather - September 16, 2008
You know, watching Gallagher pitch
I really don’t get why people say he has a #3 ceiling. Like, I know what those sort of guys look like. Usually low 90s, straight-ish fastball, good command, maybe a decent breaking ball or two, don’t get a lot of swinging strikes.
Gallagher’s fastball is mid-90s with great movement. He has good offspeed stuff. He strikes batters out. His command isn’t insane but it’s not abysmal either; he didn’t walk that many people in the minor leagues.
It’s one thing to say you think he’s going to become a #3; that’s just a prediction about his ultimate ability to pitch. You think his command is going to stay shaky, or that he’ll injure himself or something. It’s something else entirely to say he has a #3 ceiling. I can’t figure that out. My lay eye says he has the stuff to be an ace. What are the bad points that the scouts are seeing?
PaulThomas - September 16, 2008
And, he's still 22, iirc.
The Dogfather - September 16, 2008
I agree he has great potential, but are they assuming Anderson and Cahill will be that much better than him?
Is his ceiling only a #3 on the A’s, but could be a #2 or fringe #1 on another team with less pitching depth? I think he is great. If he is a #3 for years to come I will be happy because I think he has quality stuff that will make him a great big league pitcher. Not just an innings eater.
miggyk2 - September 16, 2008
A #3 on the future A's would make more sense, with Cahill and Anderson
But I’m fairly certain when they say his ceiling is a #3, they mean generally, a mid-rotation guy in any club.
danmerqury - September 16, 2008
Yea, thats insane. I guess that is why I am not an expert.
miggyk2 - September 16, 2008
Yes
Prospects are, in theory at least, supposed to be evaluated independently of their controlling club. Whether he is or isn’t a better pitcher than Cahill, Anderson, Gio, Mazzaro, etc etc isn’t relevant.
PaulThomas - September 16, 2008
He's young, but this season, he lacks the consistency to be anything more than a #3...
Pucking Insane - September 16, 2008
This season
Give him more polish, I’m sure we’ll push him up to a serviceable 2
oaklandSMASH - September 16, 2008
Welcome to the bandwagon, PT, there's plenty of room at this point
I said soon after the Harden trade, in the midst of all the caterwalling that Beane had gotten pwned by Hendry — fueled in equal parts by wildly optimistic estimations by AN members of Harden’s trade value prior to the trade and speculative assumptions that Beane could have had Rasmus or Vitters or some other elite hitting prospect — that Gallagher was far more valuable than he was being characterized by the majority of AN.
Gallagher was labeled as nothing more than a #3 starter on AN despite the fact that scouting reports labeling him as a #3 starter failed to reflect his increase in velocity and improved command after his weight loss and refinement as a pitcher. This was likely caused by the fact that AN members instantly go out after a trade and review publicly available scouting reports that are often out of date, and then take those scouting reports as gospel instead of the snap shots that scouting reports can be when a prospect improves his abilities through development.
Some people on AN even said really stupid things like, “We already have Simmons, who is the same thing as Gallagher, so why do we want him?” These types of comments ignored the fact that Simmons was pitching in AA, had less velocity, less movement on his fastball, and lacked a plus offspeed pitch, although Simmons did have better command. Gallagher was already pitching like a #3 starter in MLB at the age of 22 with projectable potential to get better, while Simmons was a guy who someday might be a #3 starter. Equating Gallagher to Simmons and dismissing his value was wrong.
Gallagher may not ever be an ace, but it is worth noting that he compares favorably stuff-wise at his age to a young man that was considered to be a 3/4 starter when acquired, who took advantage of good coaching and his own effort and talent to continue to improve every year and become one of the best pitchers in baseball over the last two years. We traded that guy last offseason for six legitimate prospects, four of which have already played in Oakland this year, and the other two just happens to be one of the best pitching prospects in baseball and a guy that hit over 40 homers in the minors this year.
Gallagher has the talent to be that kind of pitcher, who can improve every year and either be a significant contributor to the next contending team or a highly valuable trade asset to acquire a missing piece needed to become that contending team. Even if he never gets any better than he has been this year, one need look no further than the package acquired for Blanton to see how much teams will pay for pitcher who can eat innings and not embarrass himself.
Beane knew what he was doing when he demanded Gallagher, and barring injury, his decision to trade Harden to the Cubs when Gallagher was made available will be vindicated. It’s nice to see one of the guys who dismissed him as nothing more than a #3 starter now recognize his potential. Eventually the rest of AN will catch up, and probably convince themselves that they knew all along.
BlameChannel53 - September 17, 2008
I shared the same thought when I saw the trade.
And Donaldson is just icing on the cake.
Syphon - September 17, 2008
+1
gallagher has a ton of talent.
but it sure would have been nice to get josh vitters…
xbhaskarx - September 17, 2008
No doubt
If Beane could have had Vitters, it was a major mistake on his part not to get him. Beane intimated that Vitters was deemed untouchable by the Cubs, and was never on the table. It makes sense to me, because if I was Hendry Vitters would have been untouchable. Vitters was the #3 pick in 2007 for a reason, and it would be almost unprecedented for a #3 pick to be traded only a year after the draft. To expect that kind of return for an injury risk like Harden who was under contract for only one more year was always unrealistic.
I think the disappointment in not acquiring Vitters (or Rasmus) skewed the analysis and reaction of a lot of otherwise rational and smart people within AN and outside of AN.
BlameChannel53 - September 17, 2008
I’ll plead guilty to the “same as Simmons” line… but in my defense, the reports at the time really undersold what Gallagher actually had going for him stuff-wise. Especially in terms of offspeed pitches. I’m fairly certain I never said anything along those lines once I had seen him throw for the A’s.
Not that I’m dissing Simmons or anything… he’s got a lot going for him and may well end up being better than Gallagher.
PaulThomas - September 17, 2008
well bc53 really doesn’t like simmons, and doolittle, and most other 2007 draft picks, if i’m not mistaken…
xbhaskarx - September 17, 2008
I like, and liked Simmons. He was a good, solid draft pick
I was the main skeptic on Doolittle, and I remain skeptical about Doolittle. His show of power in Stockton was encouraging; his decline in plate discipline, strikeouts, and poor performance at Midland was not.
Overall, I thought at the time of the 2007 draft, and continue to think, that the A’s 2007 draft was solid if not particularly inspiring. Brown, Desme, Banwart and Carignan were all solid value picks at their spots in the draft, and I have been Josh Horton’s biggest supporter (and ended up looking pretty stupid for doing so, Horton’s lack of power so far makes Barton look like a power hitter.)
BlameChannel53 - September 17, 2008
Not really calling you out specifically
I hate the gotcha game, and would rather spend my limited amount of free time on other pursuits. I only responded to your change of opinion to highlight what I think will be a gradual shift in opinion of folks on AN and analysts like Christina Kahrl who were highly critical of the trade at the time and overly dismissive of Gallagher’s value as a trade target.
BlameChannel53 - September 17, 2008
A lot of it is a matter of perception.
When scouts say “#3”, they don’t actually mean it. A real #3 starter is this year’s model of Jeff Suppan. When I hear a scout say “#2”, they usually mean “ace on 20 teams.” Even well into this year, people called Haren a #2 starter. He’s not. He’s an ace, one of the very best pitchers in baseball.
They’re just labels, and they’re usually misapplied. Sean Gallagher is a good pitcher, with a good chance to post an average ERA and an above-average number of strikeouts. At age 23, that’s a guy who could become one of the top 30 pitchers in baseball.
salb918 - September 17, 2008
When I think of a #3 starter I think of a #3 starter in a playoff rotation, not literally one of the
61st to 90th best starters in the major leagues. I don’t necessarily mean Barry Zito 2001 or anything, I mean someone like Ted Lilly 2003 or Jered Weaver 2008. Someone who is likely to keep a team in a playoff game, but isn’t a Cy Young candidate. I’m not sure what is achieved by constantly correcting people who apply the term in this way.
WaddellCanseco - September 17, 2008
Almost always misapplied
Scouting labels for pitchers using the 1-5 system are one of those things that for some reason baseball fans can’t seem to get their heads around. There are 30 teams in baseball, but there are only 5-10 #1 pitchers in baseball every year. #1 pitchers are elite pitchers who are expected to be legitimate Cy Young contenders every year, and like you said #2 pitchers are usually somewhere between the 10-30th best pitchers in baseball.
It sounds like a stupid labeling system, but its more imprecise than stupid. The theory behind the labeling system, and its stingy assignment of #1 and #2 labels by scouts, is essentially the same as the theory behind the reluctance of judges under the old gymnastics scoring system to award a 10 early in a competition. If you give out a 10 and then someone else does better, you have no way of awarding the person who did better. Scouts reserve the #1 label for truly special talents, and the #2 label for guys who aren’t quite perennial Cy Young contenders, but who are likely to be the best pitcher on their staff. Labeling a pitcher a #3 starter is perceived as calling that pitcher average or even mediocre, but in reality a #3 starter, particularly a cost-controlled one, has a great deal of value to a team.
Once a pitcher gets into the majors, the labeling system is pretty useless IMO; I would prefer that we use precise evaluations like runs over average. For pitching prospects, however, who by nature defy precise measurement, scouting labels are useful in giving a value to a particular prospect, assuming people understand what those labels mean.
BlameChannel53 - September 17, 2008
If you're saying a scout calling a pitcher a #3 starter is not an insult, I'll agree wholeheartedly
WaddellCanseco - September 17, 2008
The important thing about Gallagher's flaws
I think they’re all things that can be worked on. And since he’s still so young, it’s completely reasonable to expect him to fix those things at some point.
I’m warming up to the Harden deal a bit just because Gallagher is more impressive than I thought and Donaldson might not be useless. I still think the A’s should’ve gotten more (or, perhaps, “different” because I see little use for Murton or Patterson), but I think Gallagher is going to be a fine pitcher.
thejd44 - September 17, 2008
I'm picking 4 as the over/under on the number of Emil Brown AB the rest of the season
WaddellCanseco - September 16, 2008
Oh the irony if those ABs come on Fan Appreciation Night
thejd44 - September 17, 2008
i don't know about you guys...
but i watched some real a’s baseball tonight. say what you want about how hard the angels plan, but we saw all the right contributions from all the right people.
cunningham hit, sweeney hit, buck looked confident, barton smashed a double down the line. i’m excited!
and gallagher looked good again. and to anyone who says he lacks consistency to be anything more than a #3, i full heartedly disagree. it’s his first pro season, of course he’s going to lack consistency, and with his minor league numbers in every level, he has potential that remains to be seen. no one can put a number on this guy for at least another year or so, but this is for sure, he sure looks better than a lot of other 22 year olds trying to pitch against major leaguers…
stranahanahan - September 16, 2008
Any loss hung on Lackey by our boys
constitutes as a good night.
Good night!
oaklandSMASH - September 16, 2008
First of all, it’s always fun to beat the Angels, even when they’ve already clinched the division.
Second, it’s awesome to see the A’s go on a little winning streak!
and third,
drmmerchk - September 17, 2008
Not a power swing.
:-X
mikev - September 17, 2008
yeah, he's already thrown his hips open
… which would make Jennifer happy, but few of the rest of us.
monkeyball - September 17, 2008
I use what I can find lol
drmmerchk - September 17, 2008
if sweeney goes 4 for 5 with an rbi every night
i don’t care if all he does is hit singles. an .800 hitter is good enough for me!
stranahanahan - September 17, 2008
1 for 5 with an RBI is just as good!
WaddellCanseco - September 17, 2008
because Sweeney totally has the ability to ensure that there are RISP for that 20% of the time he decides to get a hit!
MrIncognito - September 17, 2008
He's clutch baby!
WaddellCanseco - September 17, 2008
Swooney reminds me of a racquet game player.
To a greater extent than I’m able to observe with other batters, he seems to use his bat as an instrument — changing his swing to place the ball all over the field, and often where they ain’t. With Cust, by contrast, it seems every swing is the same, although mileage may vary.
The Dogfather - September 17, 2008
in the A's program magazine
- which a worker gave me as a gift last night – there’s an interesting interview with Ryan Sweeney, where he talks about how he approaches baseball. He’s played ever since he was a small child, and seems pretty single-mindedly focused on his major league career.
Anyway, he talks at length about trying to do the little things that help a team win. He takes special pride in situational hitting, for example. That probably helps explain why he is doing well with RISP but hasn’t hit for much power.
FWIW, Frank Thomas is also quoted as believing that Sweeney is still growing into his body, and that the power numbers will grow.
OaklandSi - September 17, 2008
has any mlb player
ever said they don’t try to do the “little things” to help a team win?
xbhaskarx - September 17, 2008
plenty have emphasized their own numbers
when interviewed, even if they’d agree that they try to do all the little things when asked.
That was, however, what Sweeney emphasized, and in detail.
OaklandSi - September 17, 2008
I want players to do the BIG things to help a team win
monkeyball - September 17, 2008
the black sox did the big things to help a team lose.
xbhaskarx - September 17, 2008
If Frank Thomas's nickname was "The Big Thing" ...
… and Sweeney and Barton then got monikered as “The Little Things,” I think we could count on Jennifer to do the Little Things to help a team win.
monkeyball - September 17, 2008
Ah, but WOULD that help the team win?
[ducks]
PaulThomas - September 17, 2008
Back to ducks, are we?
67MARQUEZ - September 17, 2008
Quit yer quacking.
PaulThomas - September 17, 2008
... or would that be *front* to ducks?
monkeyball - September 17, 2008
That's a bit of a, well, stretch.
Ahem.
The Dogfather - September 17, 2008
Why are you assuming that Sweeney "trying to do the little things"
and him actually doing “the little things” are connected in any way? What on earth does wanting to get a hit with RISP show about your actual ability to get one?
This positivist-psychology stuff is so vapid…
PaulThomas - September 17, 2008
I'm not assuming anything
I was remarking on his interview. That is all he talks about….instead of some ballplayers who talk about trying to do too much, "staying within themselves’, trying to pull everything or get more homers, etc. In fact one of the criticisms against him has been that with his body he should be hitting more for power. Yet that does not appear to be on his radar from this article.
Why don’t you read the article first, then we can talk about what it sounded like?
OaklandSi - September 17, 2008
That is “assuming” exactly what pt said you were “assuming.”
mikeA - September 17, 2008
Thank you
As for the rest of OS’s comment, if he’s in denial about what it’s going to take for him to actually be a productive major leaguer, then that’s a problem that he’s going to have to overcome. I read that and see someone who’s satisfied with mediocrity. I really do not want to read that someone prefers a “situational” dribbler through the hole to a well-struck home run.
It’s quite possible that this stuff is just the usual trite garbage that they put in these puff pieces, and that he’s sufficiently cynical to know how baseball really works… but if we take it at face value, his psychology is really holding him down as a player.
PaulThomas - September 17, 2008
better someone's psychology hold them down than their psychologist hold them down
monkeyball - September 17, 2008
< tobias funke’s business card >
xbhaskarx - September 19, 2008
"use his bat as an instrument"
Another element of his swing that would make Jennifer happy.
monkeyball - September 17, 2008
Believe me, I tried to single-entendre that one, but I did not expect to succeed.
The Dogfather - September 17, 2008
hey, it's Sweeney -- he can't yet entendre for extra bases
monkeyball - September 17, 2008
Maybe's he'll grow into it
andeux - September 17, 2008
Nice team win!
ALWAYS great to beat the Angels and especially Sling Blade. Gallagher looked great smashing watermellons. Our pitching is so deep, I hope Billy trades for a high level right handed bat. Wouldn’t that be nice? And it’s also nice to beat the Yankees, minor league or major! It speaks volumes for the condition of the organization. Go A’s! Only 10 back of .500!
A'sfansince1970 - September 17, 2008
Could anybody post the full text of Ryan Sweeney's interview pretty please?
I forgot to pick up a copy at the game I went to.
hithere123 - September 18, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.