Athletics Nation

I think it looks cool inset like that.

(smile)

That made me smile (smile)

fart (fart)

excuse me.

I'm resigned to watching a non-competitive team next year.

The offense is going to be plain awful—worse than this year—unless the kids hit a lot faster than can reasonably be expected. That said, I really can’t quibble with the approach. There aren’t any offensive free agents that make a huge impact, or are long-term solutions, other than Matt Holliday and Jason Bay, who aren’t going to work for obvious reasons (Holliday won’t come back, Bay will be expensive and/or unwilling to be the DH he is). Wouldn’t mind trading some of our pitching riches for young, cost-controlled offense, but really, I’m just waiting for 2011.

That about sums it up:

The offense is going to be plain awful—worse than this year—unless the kids hit a lot faster than can reasonably be expected.

Now…if the kids really ARE the positional equivalent of Andrew Bailey…things might be different. I wish nothing but good things for Wallace and Carter, but I don’t expect a lot in 2010.

I'm concerned we're going to be watching the hitting equivalent of Cahill 2009

Namely, obviously-unready players flailing away in the majors uselessly wasting service time.

I second this concern.

The earliest we should be seeing Wallace or Carter is June, in my opinion, and only if one or both are absolutely crushing AAA pitching and have made noticeable strides on defense.

The A’s offense is going to suck pretty much regardless of what roster maneuvering Beane does this winter…I hope they just accept this and just ride out the pain with whatever low-cost options they have at their disposal rather than rush these guys in a vain attempt to capture the “Andrew Bailey” effect for the offense…

{chases down mailman, retrieves season-ticket money in the nick of time}

67MARQUEZ - November 20, 2009 reply

Probably a good call...

…I would hate to do A’s marketing right now!

I'd love to do it!

(seriously, A’s, give me a call. I’m cheap. And available)

bobnothing - November 20, 2009 reply

I think AN could sell some tickets.

Let’s do it together! The new marketing dream team, baseballgirl and bobnothing. Has a certain ring to it.

Our new slogan:

“~~100%~~ 3.2 WAR baseball!”

Nico - November 20, 2009 reply

The 2010 Oakland A's - Making 2011 look better already

Alternatives:

The Oakland A’s – it’ll be all be over in 2012 anyway!

The 2010 Oakland A’s – your bay area home for the Yankees and Red Sox

wait, they use that one already

bobnothing - November 20, 2009 reply

Oakland A's make love, not WAR

redtopcowboy - November 20, 2009 reply

By that logic

WAR, what is it good for?

You should have also provided a link to that song

Eastbayjim - November 20, 2009 reply

either that,

or followed it up with an

“Absolutely nothing, good god y’all!”

Awesome...just awesome.

agreed

And look what I started! No way can I give up my little 10-game plan. Even if I have to live off Cheeze-Its. Oh, wait.

67MARQUEZ - November 20, 2009 reply

Hey, buddy...

You don’t have to swear off hot food to afford your season tickets:

just roast your cheez-its with a lighter before you eat them.

Mmm…. roasted cheez-its!

It would be interesting to know Beane's thinking about service time.

He might have a totally different perspective on service time than most of us here on AN. Maybe he thinks that time spent in AAA won’t prepare these prospects to contribute in the bigs as effectively as equivalent time spent struggling in the majors. Cahill obviously wasn’t ready to start the season in the majors but he appeared to improve during the second half.

Flash G - November 20, 2009 reply

Key word: "appeared" to improve

Most of his good games were actually in the first half of the season. Cahill was much luckier in the second half (indeed, he was one of the luckiest pitchers in baseball last season) but little if at all better in controllable skill.

I didn't know that.

Which statistic demonstates that? FIP?

Flash G - November 20, 2009 reply

It depends on how you interpret it.

Getting ground balls isn’t lucky, for example, but FIP or tRA wouldn’t care about that. If the former is a repeatable skill that results in getting outs, even if the defense has to work for them, it’s not just luck.

tRA accounts for ground balls...

Didn't know that--thanks.

Actually, to follow up on that

In what way does tRA consider ground balls?

You can think of tRA as FIP that also includes fly balls, line drives, and ground balls.

tRA doesn’t look at whether a ground ball was turned into an out or not, it just calculates the average run expectancy for all ground balls.

danmerqury - November 20, 2009 reply

Sounds better, but still very imperfect

for an extreme ground ball pitcher. As nice as stats that measure indicators are, stats that quantify results are still important, and those that monitor indicators are far from perfect in separating luck from unique skill.

Also, technically, ground balls decrease the rate at which you get outs

They also decrease the rate at which you give up extra-base hits, though, so overall they reduce your runs allowed. You just have to face more hitters to do so.

I thought the fewer XBH pretty much offset the higher BABIP with GB

assuming IF and OF defenders of similar quality. My concern is that the A’s seem to have good OF defenders in Davis, and Sweeney and bad IF defenders in Pennington and Wallace. Also their defense on the right side — Sweeney, Ellis and Barton is a lot better than Hairston, Wallace and Pennington. That doesn’t go with a lefty heavy staff.

Eh

The pitcher has very little influence on whether a hitter hits the ball to his pull side or not. That’s basically just a function of what hitter you’re facing.

Sort of

FIP thinks he was better in the second half, but that’s because his HR rate went down. The HR rate went down much more quickly than is justified from his GB/FB ratio.

Something like xFIP (which regresses HR/FB rate to the league average) would show this phenomenon best, if you could find a way to get a midseason split for it. tRA would also work.

I think that Cahill has too much talent to not be better in 2010

Both he and Anderson were rushed to the majors in 2009 and Anderson obviously did better. I do think that the two are very close in talent as shown in their time in the minors. I also believe that Cahill will come to spring training more prepared for the majors.

Eastbayjim - November 20, 2009 reply

In the past

the A’s are on record saying (via Forst) that the A’s don’t care about service time. The main consideration is whether or not the player can help the big club.

people say a lot of things

Service time

I think this would be a really good interview question, for Beane or Forst, so long as it can be asked in a way that would encourage a serious answer. Obviously no GM is going to come out and say they care more about money than players, nor that they care more about winning in 2013 than winning now. On the other side of the coin, they’re not going to say they screwed up with a guy like Cahill and blew service time while impeding his development, either. So if you phrase it in a way that backs him into a corner, you can bet he’ll be evasive and give some pat BS answer.

But beyond all that, there are smart fans here on AN who understand about service time clocks and all the pros and cons that go with calling up a guy too early or too late, and are knowledgeable enough to have good idea of how GMs have to make such decisions. And for those fans, Beane’s apparent strategy lately is hard to understand. What is the part of Beane’s reasoning that we’re not seeing? I’d really like to know.

I think it's pretty clear that Beane simply doesn't care about service time, and

that it’s one of the most overrated topics in the Blogosphere. Service time only matters if the player is valuable seven years hence, and that’s only true with very good players. For the overwhelming majority of prospects, the crucial issue is whether they can even make the majors, not how much they’ll cost in seven years. This is certainly true for Cahill, Mazzaro, and Gio. Anderson and Bailey both increased their trade value by succeeding in the majors, irrespective of service time.

and especially with the A's record of injuries - play them while they're fit!

bobnothing - November 20, 2009 reply

Haha...

…and (cry)

Recommended.

I'd like to see someone at one of the sabermetric

sites take a serious look at this. Find some way of grading prospects on their expectations, look at the history of past prospects with similar expectations and see how many of them stuck around long enough for service time to matter, and draw some conclusion about how “sure” a prospect needs to be before it becomes worth worrying about losing the final year off his clock.

+ 3

The above comment better be green by the time I come back here,

or you’re all gonna have to go to your room!

It won't let me recommend myself.

Can’t flag myself either.

Gaijin_Suketto - November 23, 2009 reply

Everybody go to your room!

Ehhhhhh

Anderson would have increased his trade value a LOT MORE if he had come up in June.

This makes no sense.

A second half flash in the pan on a last place team as opposed to someone with a full year in the bigs?

I assume he's referring to the fact

that Anderson would have one more year on his contract if his call-up had been delayed.

iglew - November 21, 2009 reply

A "second half flash in the pan" with like a 4:1 K:BB ratio,

a 3.8 ERA and six years of control instead of five?

To answer your question, fuck yes.

You're missing WC's point

He’s talking about a player’s development and there’s no way of knowing if Brett Anderson’s 2nd half performance would have been the same/worse/better if he hadn’t come up until June.

Beane just talked about this over on Minleagueball… each player’s journey to go from survival mode to playing like they belong in the Show is different and there’s simply no way you can say that the performance the A’s got from Anderson in the 2nd half of 2009 would have been as good as what actually happened if he had taken a different path.

Yes, Anderson would be under team control longer if he had only played a partial season in 2009 and that has value. But you don’t know where he’d be in terms of performance level heading into 2010.

+1

OK, but it's equally possible

that he’d have developed faster in AAA since he wasn’t getting hammered every five days for the first two months of the season.

Ceteris paribus, etc etc etc. Until someone shows me some concrete evidence that being in MLB is independently useful for a player’s development, I’m going to continue treating it as irrelevant.

Yes, technically speaking any decision of any kind creates another alternate universe and we are unable to access it to know exactly what happens there. Maybe if they had left him in AAA the butterfly effect would have caused Oakland to be wiped out by a hurricane, too. I don’t particularly care, though.

Your last paragraph indicates that the proof you seek in

your second paragraph is unobtainable.

The whole point of the third paragraph is that it's a worldview which I don't endorse

This is all great.....

in a hilarious sense of the world. I love watching threads like these develop/morph into totally weird subjects.

Hilarious!

Yes but you seem to have made up your mind

without proof, and require an impossible type of proof to be convinced that you’re wrong. Since proof is unavailable, it would be more appropriate to keep an open mind. It’s OK to say “I don’t know”.

+1,000,000

for ‘being reasonable’ points

What are you talking about?

This is totally provable. Isolate two groups of matched players, one of which was promoted to MLB and the other of which was kept in AAA for an extra partial season. Measure their relative career performance levels.

The fact that proof is currently unavailable means someone (you’d need to have some serious statistical chops to create the data set, granted) needs to do the work, not that it’s impossible.

And saying “I don’t know” is exactly what I’m doing. I’m treating the impact of early promotion as having an effect of zero. Since it could easily be either positive or negative, zero is the best guess in the absence of any concrete evidence.

Hmmm...this makes more sense.

I interpreted your statement:

technically speaking any decision of any kind creates another alternate universe and we are unable to access it to know exactly what happens there

to mean you thought the hypothesis was unprovable. Thanks for clarifying.

There's no way to prove that experiment!

It’s not just statistical evidence you require, you’d need to get psyche profiles on the individuals involved. Mental make-up would be an absolutely huge component of the study and you just aren’t going to find that kind of information.

Plus, to truly understand the data you’re going to have to create the same playing environment… ideally have the individuals playing for the same team!

Your entire argument rests on an experiment that can’t be done. Therefore your argument is inherently invalid because it can’t be tested.

Is hitting un-projectable because we don't know the mental makeup of every hitter?

Of course not.

Get a large enough sample (and god knows, there are a large, large number of samples of play from minor league baseball players) and whatever differences in “mental makeup” they display will even out.

But: let’s say you’re right and we can actually never know anything about whether early promotion to the MLB is beneficial to players. How does that somehow morph into a position in which you think it’s automatically a good thing? Makes no sense.

PaulThomas - November 22, 2009 reply

Where did I say

that early promotion was automatically a good thing?

Please, link that post o’ mine.

All I’ve said was, Anderson got promoted early. That is a fact. I would have preferred that both he and Cahill would have started 2009 in the minors but that isn’t what happened. And rather than wallow in what might have been I choose to try and look for at what’s next.

What do you mean "independently useful"?

Billy Beane, former big league player and current GM of the Oakland Athletics, just said that actual playing time in the Show is critical to a player’s development.

I’m not sure what you’re asking for here.

What I mean by that is,

useful in some way other than additional practice at the mere act of pitching (which can obviously be done in both the majors and minors).

Here’s what we KNOW about pitching in the major leagues:

1. It burns service time and pitching in the minors doesn’t.
2. It creates value for your team and pitching in the minors doesn’t.

That’s it. There’s no reason to believe Anderson would have pitched any differently in the final four months— better or worse— had he spent the first two months of the season in AAA. There IS reason to believe that those first two months would not have had their impact on his service time (large) and their impact on the team’s win-loss record (basically nonexistent).

So Anderson’s trade value in the hypothetical scenario where he’s called up June 1 is “Current trade value + added trade value from better performance numbers and more service time +/- whatever effect coming up two months later has on his skill level.”

Unless that final factor is negative by a substantial margin, his trade value is higher. And we have no reason to believe it would be negative, or positive. The correct move is to assume that it’s zero until we actually learn something real about it.

PaulThomas - November 22, 2009 reply

What you KNOW about pitching in the major leagues is wrong

Your knowledge at the very least implies that there is no difference in the challenge between pitching in A-ball vs. pitching in the big leagues. That is a ridiculous position.

G’nite.

+1

I think this would be a really good interview question, for Beane or Forst, so long as it can be asked in a way that would encourage a serious answer.

+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

+1

A good year for low expectations

I expected more than we got last year. I thought Jason would hit near the prior year in Yankeedom, I thought Cabrera would be better too. This year is looking truely weak on the offensive side but I think I’m okay with that. I still believe Sweeney will step forward in the power department and that either Carter or Wallace or Doolittle will make an impact, but it won’t be enough to compete. It may be enough to entertain though.

bajablue - November 20, 2009 reply

The Andrew Bailey quip

I read that a whole other way and it is pissed me off frankly. The idea that Chris Carter and Brett Wallace, who are both studs incubating, are remotely like Andrew Bailey, who lost his job in the rotation at Midland before coming out of nowhere to kick serious ass, is comical.

Bailey is a great story. He is the kind of guy it is easy to root for. The offensive equivalent would be something like… Matt Spencer, Corey Brown or someone of that ilk jumping to the bigs next year and wOBAing .350 or something.

We won’t see that, of course. Which is why Andrew Bailey is such an awesome story. We can only hope that Crush Carter and Brett Wallace are ready by June.

jeffro - November 20, 2009 reply

I think they just meant another Rookie of the Year equivalent

That seems like wishful thinking, but it’s not outrageous.

DDroney - November 20, 2009 reply

Yeah, that's how I read it.

And WAY wishful thinking, IMO.

totally agree

Davis was the equivalent of Bailey.

Satchmo22 - November 20, 2009 reply

Grant Desme is

slightly Bailey-like, at least in that his prospect stock shot up from nowhere to top tier this season.

But I think you’re reading too much into it. The article is for general consumption, where Andrew Bailey is a guy people hadn’t heard of who became a star. Most fans outside of AN haven’t heard of Chris Carter either, so if he becomes a star to them it would be the same thing.

Grant needs to overcome the K rate

bajablue - November 20, 2009 reply

good call

Definitely see Desme making a splash earlier than expected.

Also, who cares about K’s if he can OPS over 800 and play excellent D and steal bases?

OnlybuyBeaneJerseys - November 20, 2009 reply

If he can do that in the majors even with a high K rate, then that's fantastic.

But a high K rate in the minors, especially the low minors, often simply predicts that he’ll get eaten alive with better pitching. It’s troubling, is all.

danmerqury - November 20, 2009 reply

The 2nd half of the season was encouraging

I actually feel encouraged by the response of the offense after trades which involves Matt
Holiday and Cabrera. If we just stay patient and allow our younger players to develop the way that Suzuki did.

I remain hopeful that first and third base will be adequately handled by our returning players until Wallace and Carter are called up. I hope that Beane will remain true to his word and allow his players to develop. I’m tired of these quick fix attempts at filling gaps that don’t equate in producing winning baseball.

Gerard - November 20, 2009 reply

very true

And the offense can’t get any worse than the first half of 2009. remember that the Chavez/Tejada/Hernandez/Ellis all came up around the same time, only a couple years after Giambi and made immediate impacts. It might be the only way to really get a long term team we can be happy with.

+1

"our returning players"

Who is our returning player at 3B? Kennedy?

Well, we have this guy you might have heard of...

his full name is "Eric Adam Brett “Cha-Ken-llace”….Chachi for short….or was that Chachi at short, now I’m confused.

Gerard - November 20, 2009 reply

I prefer

“Chachi Wallace Kennedy”

because it sounds dignified and senatorial.

I suspect Beane's thinking around bringing guys up

is that they are going to have to take their lumps and struggle for a time (“it is always darkest before the dawn”), and he wants the Cahills and the Wallace/Carters to get through that period in time to be really good/dominant, not “up and coming,” starting in 2011.

I think 2010 will mimic 1999: A team that only by the second half will have good players ready to play well, showing a glimpse of how good 2011 might be.

Nico - November 20, 2009 reply

I just hope that the "taking the lumps" part of this equation...

occurs sometime in the summer and not in the spring. There should be little doubt that both offensively and defensively Carter and Wallace will not be MLB-ready on Opening Day 2010. As far as Cahill vis-a-vis Carter and Wallace…pitchers can get pretty lucky and thus look better than they actually are for pretty much an entire year, like Cahill did in 2009. I guess BABIP is the equivalent for hitters, and while Carter or Wallace could possibly skate by like Cahill did in 2009 by getting lucky like he did, I think it’s virtually impossible for Carter to do that in 2010 due to his high strikeout rates and I would say it’s fairly unlikely in Wallace’s case because, while he hits for a fairly good average, he still strikes out a fair amount and has no speed whatsoever to possibly beat out hits.

I have to say

I’m getting a little tired of the “this next year will be like 1999!” line. I’ve seen it used for 2008… and 2009… and now 2010…

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes a player sucking is just a player sucking. It doesn’t necessarily presage later greatness.

(This is not targeted at you specifically, it’s just one of those rants that gets triggered by seeing something for the third or fourth time, and you happened to be Poster #3/4.)

I also have yet to see even a shred of evidence suggesting that playing in the major leagues benefits players more than playing in AAA. It’s just assumed to be true without any proof. It might be true… or it might be irrelevant… or it might be harmful to players. I have no idea. But we’ll never know until people stop assuming and start measuring.

Ish...

C- Suzuki
1B- Barton
2B- Ellis
3B- Kennedy
SS- Pennington
OF- Buck/Cunningham
OF- Davis
OF- Sweeney
DH- Cust

Good lord… all I can do is hope the Lakers play well into June… so I have something to pay attention to.

brenarlo - November 20, 2009 reply

+1 about the Lakers. I'm hoping for the same thing.

They will be.

The NBA will be sure of it.

mikev - November 20, 2009 reply

Ohhhhh, you and your conspiracy theories...next you'll be saying...

that Bud Selig knew all about steroids for years and did nothing abou…oh wait, you may have a point…

:D

Although I disagree on your Everidge/3B idea. I just don’t think he can play there.

Whatever happened to Jeff Baisley?

mikev - November 20, 2009 reply

I have no idea what happened to Baisley.

I know he was DFA’d last year and played some with Sacramento last season….maybe he’s a minor league free agent or maybe has one year before that happens? He’s likely Rule V eligible but not likely to get snapped up, so maybe he’ll be back with Sacramento next season…

I didn't say the A's didn't steal bases

I said that the fact that they stole bases had essentially nothing to do with them scoring more runs.

Wow, this was a strange displacement of this comment...

If by this you mean "why haven't I heard anything from him lately?"

then the answer is “because he had an unbelievably horrible season in AAA this year.”

If you mean “why did he have such an unbelievably horrible season in AAA this year,” however, I have no good answer…

I hope after the ASB its...

C- Suzuki
1B- Carter
2B- Ellis/Cardenas
3B- Wallace
SS- Pennington
OF- Cunningham
OF- Brown
OF- Buck
DH- Cust

I hope you're right...

But having 4 hitting prospects hit well enough to be in the lineup at the same time seems to be wildly optimistic.

brenarlo - November 20, 2009 reply

Call me a dreamer then. :)

That is one unlikely OF.

Just having them all be playing baseball at the same time is unlikely

much less having all three of them be doing so in Oakland.

I said I "Hoped", not what I thought would happen.

Syphon - November 21, 2009 reply

Sweeney will still be in RF and if Beane does not trade Davis he will remain in CF.

That would leave your last OF positions to Hairston, Cunningham, Buck.
Also, Carter has been playing OF a lot so they may want to have him be the 4th OL also.

Eastbayjim - November 20, 2009 reply

To me..

Davis and Sweeney arent starters on playoff teams. Now I dont think we are a playoff team next year but thats gotta be the goal whether it happens or not.

They were no worse than Melky and Swisher last year.

To bad we dont have

ARod/Tex/Posada/Cano/Jeter like players to make up in our infield to make up for the weak OFers.

Thing is, except for Kennedy, and perhaps Pennington depending on his defense, every one of those players is a decent bet to be league average.

I don’t think the offense will be quite as horrible as people are expecting, it’s just that the upside of these players is all league-average. (obviously with exceptions, were Sweeney’s power to show up, he could be great, Suzuki is and can be better than league-average as could Ellis or Davis)

King Richard - November 20, 2009 reply

If the upside is league average, then the expected result is pretty bad

Agreed.

King Richard - November 20, 2009 reply

But I would say that there is a reasonable chance they'll be league average, for what it's worth.

King Richard - November 20, 2009 reply

Kennedy might not be here

But I think they might be starting Wallace at 3B if he has a strong spring, Beane seems to value him more than most scouts.

that lineup

you list one guy (kennedy) who is no longer with the team and don’t list another (hairston) who is…

xbhaskarx - November 20, 2009 reply

Kennedy has openly expressed an interest to re-sign, so...

…that is not a wholly unreasonable presumption. At least not this early in the off-season when people are merely bandying about ideas.

I am perfectly happy not going after older FAs.

Give the kids a chance.

Not to mention this crop of FA is pretty terrible.

agreed, it's the trademark of the team anyhow

CSI (Las Vegas): Who Are You
CSI Miami: Won’t Get Fooled Again
CSI New York: Baba O’Riley
CSI Oakland: The Kids Are Alright

vk - November 20, 2009 reply

CSI San Francisco: My Generation

In this case, Sabean’s generation.

danmerqury - November 20, 2009 reply

hope I sign after I get old

Trade, not sign FAs

That’s what I got out of that. I don’t think it means, though, that if someone can be had on the cheap for the right guys who don’t factor into future plans much (cough Buck cough cough) that he’s not going to pull the trigger. It just means we aren’t signing Bay, Holliday, or any big name FA that’s going to cost us money. In other words: business as usual.

I guess that means Tejada is likely out as well.

cuppingmaster - November 20, 2009 via mobile reply

My interpretation too

But this is nothing new. The A’s have mostly waited for the dregs of the FA market for a while now. I see a few guys who are ripe for trading - Buck, Cunningham, Powell, Cust, Petit, Wuertz, Hairston and Breslow, Wuertz in particular, and of course Mortenson, Eveland blah blah blah. Beane is looking to scour the cheap bins and come up with something.

I think his prize possessions are Buck, Powell and Wuertz. He’s looking for a power bat in the outfield, and it’s possible someone in some organization is just waiting for the chance.

My guess is like last year, when he sees who’s still around in February or March, he’ll pick up a couple of guys. What gets me is that instead of signing Cabrera and Giambi, he could’ve signed Adam Dunn and Bobby Abreu for cheap. But I guess that’s water under the bridge.

richwol1 - November 20, 2009 reply

I don't think Buck is a prize possession to anyone except

a few devoted fans here on AN.

It's the hair.

That could explain his decline then.

Didn’t he buzz it off some time in August?

iglew - November 21, 2009 reply

(looks around for OAH)

cuppingmaster - November 20, 2009 reply

For reasons as yet unexplained

except for those who who busted at the seams after his few decent months upon being called up.

BleedGreen - November 26, 2009 reply

Neither Adam Dunn nor Bobby Abreu

could have played shortstop. (No argument on Giambi.)

You wanted Adam Dunn playing shortstop?

Seriously, though, there wasn’t any particular reason to see Giambi suddenly falling off a cliff and Abreu not doing so, given how similar their hitting styles are. Dunn was more of a safe bet to keep hitting, I grant, but he also cost four times as much as the other two and (so I hear) didn’t want to DH. I think with his next contract, he won’t have any choice… but hey, preferences are what they are.

The only way i would want Adam Dunn playing shortstop,

is if the two options are down to Dunn and Booby Crosby…

Hey, Frank Thomas played SS for the A's....

vignette17 - November 21, 2009 reply

What???????

You must be kidding.

Seb - November 23, 2009 reply

Were we watching the same team the 2nd half of the season?

Cause, while I think some folks like Raj will come back down to earth a little next season, the A’s were a 500 team the last 80 games, and were manufacturing runs like we have not seen since Rickey Henderson. Sure we wont tear the cover off the ball next year, but there is no reason to believe the A’s cant carry the same mentality into next season and commit to stealing a ton of bags and manufacturing runs.

Would anyone object if I started raising VC money for a run manufacturing factory?

I feel like it could be beneficial. I’d even sell a part interest to th A’s in exchange for $1 hotdogs on Tuesdays.

Bu to address your point, why do you believe that the performance of the 2nd half A’s is closer to their true talent level than that of the first half A’s?

Talent level, or mentality?

The truth is, the A’s were playing a different brand of baseball in the 2nd half. Geren was doing his best Scioscia impression, taking advantage of his assets, namely speed, to manufature runs, while using one of the leagues best Pens to hold/save a ton of games for his young pitching staff.

The success of the A's in the 2nd half of 2009

was almost entirely due to an improvement in hitting.

The A’s went from somethng like last in the league in OPS to near the middle of the pack. From April to June, the A’s OPSed .676. From July to Sept. it was .766.

They were also more aggressive in the 2nd half, but don’t mix cause and effect. Success was not achieved via Bob Geren’s majestic ascent into manager god-dom but rather through more balls being hit harder (which is hideous grammatically but accurate).

I view the aggressiveness......

as one of the many reasons the A’s hit better. The pressured pitchers, had guys in the stretch, and received more FBs as a result of speed on the bases. So in your language, speed was the cause, and the effect was better pitches and better hitting.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2607

Well if that's your reasoning

I believe it’s patently false

According to Fangraphs, the number of fastball pitches the A’s saw by month.

March/April 59%,
May 64%,
June 63%,
July 60.5%,
August 60.4%
September 59.3%

From my look, the A’s received fewer fastballs in the last half of the season, oddly when they were most aggressive on the basepaths.

Joe Sheehan, at Baseball Prospectus, wrote a classic article about the secondary effects of stealing bases was basically nonexistent (i.e it doesn’t pressure pitchers or put guys in the stretch or anything of that nature)

It is an enlightening read.

Again.......

by volume or situation? I want to see what the numbers were with runners on base, and if you can find those…..

It's a nice idea

but any number of pitchers, when asked, have said the exact opposite. I think it has an effect, it’s just exceptionally difficult to quantify.

+10

I think in general

people are bad self historians because they do not look back objectively.

As Future Ed said

Self reporting is notoriously inaccurate because of tremendous selection bias and very bad reporting.

More specifically, I’d have to believe that most of these guys are professionals who have been in the situation with a base runner on dozens of times before and can generally deal with most of the mental aspects of it. I doubt they would have gotten to the major leagues without being able to deal with pressure.

No doubt there is some effect, but the fact that it is difficult to quantify (more than simply claiming runs) tells me it’s a pretty lousy way to structure your team for winning. Stealing bases well probably has a marginal benefit, but just a marginal one.

No one is talking about structuring the team that way.....

Rather just taking advantage of the speed on the roster while we basically have nothing else, no guys hitting for real average, or any real power. We have to score somehow next year, and continuing the strategy of the second half of 2009, takes advantage of the only asset offensively that we really have right now; SPEED!

Baserunners almost always make the pitcher throw out of the stretch

grover - November 20, 2009 reply

Yes, I knew that

What I meant to say (though I can’t prove it at this point), is that there really isn’t a difference between an “aggressive” baserunner vs. a “non aggressive” because a pitcher will tend to pitch out the stretch for both of them. So aggression isn’t really the trigger. Getting on base is.

An aggressive baserunner can affect pitch sequence

The most obvious example is the pitch out.

And I don’t have the pitch data to prove it, but there have been catchers who’ve been accused of calling for more fastballs when they have a SB threat on base so they’ll have a better chance of gunning the runner down.

We also know that a thief distracts a pitcher because we see the throws to 1B and we see how the pitcher might change his own rhythm, his timing, to keep the thief from getting a good jump.

You're arguing a loser here

There’s pretty good evidence floating around the interwebz that the hitter ends up being distracted more by baserunners than the pitcher is.

Hitters hit better with bad baserunners on first than with Chone Figgins types there.

The Book goes into pretty great detail about this.

Counterintuitive, but Paul’s right.

danmerqury - November 21, 2009 reply

Actually, PT has branched to a different part of the topic

The original comment was that stolen base threats have no effect on the pitcher. This is incorrect. They do, but the significance is… open to interpretation.

+100

For Clarity Points!

I've seen the arguments and I'm not even making a counter-argument

If a hitter feels like he has to “protect” the base runner than it makes sense that his hitting could be negatively affected.

Why does a hitter’s performance suffer when the advantage should be in his favor?

pitching coaches almost always make relievers pitch froom the stretch

Well, there is one big reason to believe that

which is that the first-half 2009 A’s prominently featured several players who are no longer with the 2010 A’s.

That said, it has nothing whatsoever to do with “manufacturing runs” or any such nonsense.

Yea....

the A’s didn’t lead the league in stolen bases in the 2nd half or anything, and there was certainly no ‘manufacturing runs’…

It was all imagined, and Matt Holiday is still an Athletic. I also hear the A’s resigned Bo Cro cause we just cant live w/o that .220 average.

Cheers!

I didn't say the A's didn't steal bases,

I said that the fact that they stole bases had essentially nothing to do with them scoring more runs.

Surprisingly, it turns out that the reason the team scored better is that the “hitters” actually “hit” better.

Yea.....

having runners on base actually threaten the defense, forcing pitchers into the stretch, and putting real pressure on via the stolen base, or even the threat of the stolen base, didn’t help at all. Guys did not see more FBs due to speedy runners on base, and the opposition was totally unaffected by the total reverse in philosophy by the team, and Geren.

(Im not a Geren fan, but I give him credit for doing what it took to score runs)

Analysts have studied the data pretty carefully

and their conclusion is that the traditional wisdom is wrong and attempted steals don’t help the hitter at the plate at all.

I believe someone already linked to the relevant article. If you’re interested, check it out and decide what you think of it. If not, don’t expect to sway anyone in argument if you aren’t going to use the current knowledge base as your starting point.

iglew - November 21, 2009 reply

Thats another problem with modern day baseball........

sabermetrics and numbers that totally disregards old wisdom. Much of the old rules may not apply anymore, but as a pitcher in my heyday in HS, I know my heart beats faster, and my grip is a little tighter when Im looking at a runner dancing off 1st. My concentration isnt all on the hitter, and Im generally trying to throw FBs when I think he might run (IE breaking ball counts), so my catcher has a chance. If you have been on the mound at any level, you understand that, and there’s no #s that are gonna tell me the effect that has.

Its like the yips you get in golf when your putting in a big situation. There is no substitute for the real thing, that surge of adrenaline; aka THE IMMEASURABLES that no data on earth will help us understand better than actually going through it personally.

Of course a pitcher isnt gonna admit weakness and tell the whole world it has an impact, cause then everyone would do it to ya, but it does have an effect.

A bunch o nerds

did not get together in their respective mom’s basements and then decided in their BBS that the A’s should be thrown less fastballs in the second half of 2009. The troglodyte AL pitchers did.

With runners on base???

really??

Where are those #s, cause I would love to see them. Maybe they did throw less FBs overall, but situationally (IE with SPEED on base)? I would be interested in those numbers.

Since there were more runners on base in the last few months

It logically follows. But I will admit, I dont know.

Are there numbers that track that......

Is there a fangraph stat or something that tracks % of FBs (or any type of pitch) with runners on, or situationally? That would be golden…..

Sabermetrics does not disregard old wisdom.

Sabermetrics examines old wisdom and sometimes finds it to be correct and other times finds it to be incorrect.

I would agree that some people who quote stats will sometimes be too dismissive of traditional wisdom, but they should be called on that on a case by case basis, without any need to denigrate sabermetrics generally.

Then what do you make of the numbers that say that hitters are worse off with a basestealer on first?

When looking at all games from 1999-2002, the authors of The Book found that, on average, a batter’s wOBA went down by 22 points if the runner on first was attempting to steal, compared to the runner staying put.

danmerqury - November 22, 2009 reply

Sarcasm isn't a valid argument

All things being equal, the A’s got on base more in the 2nd half and saw a lower percentage of fastballs despite being more aggressive. I view this data as directly contradictory to your argument. You can tell me how it isn’t.

Additionally, I view “forcing pitchers into the stretch” as a product of getting more people on base rather than our superb base stealing skills. Note, getting people on base tends to be something independent of getting steals.

"getting on base is indipendent of getting steals"

But what helps both is SPEED, and using that speed to advantage. You know, actually laying down a bunt for a hit every once in a while to keep the defense honest and open up more holes thus allowing for more GB and chopper hits. How many hits did Raj or Sweeney or even Zukes (as the faster than average catcher) beat out as a result of SPEED?

I dont know, but what I do know, is they did more to take advantage of their one offensive asset, SPEED, in the second half then they have since Rickey.,

If you don' bunt will the defense lie to us?

No, but they will cheat.

What the fuck does bunting for base hits have to do with anything?

I have never— anywhere, ever, in my entire life— heard any baseball analyst of any stripe argue that players should categorically not bunt for base hits.

Players who are good at bunting for base hits should obviously do so sometimes. If they do, they will improve their on-base percentage, thus causing the team to score more runs.

The critique of bunting from SABR types is invariably with regard to sacrifice bunts.

In one ear and out the other huh?

Read it again….

The point was SPEED, and bunting was just one example of how it is used to get on base. Its a mentality as much as a strategy, and had way more to do with the A’s 2nd half play then a couple of guys hitting for a slightly higher average.

In fact.....

as I said before. the change in mentality and actions on the field, IMO, in many ways contributed to the better averages.

Congratulations

You just took down a straw man. No one is arguing that bunting is a bad idea. It has nothing to do with manufacturing runs and is already accounted for in measures of team offense.

You = Endless cycle of Red Herrings

while completely ignoring the actual argument.

Read it again…..

I never said that you said bunting was a bad idea, rather that it was part of the A’s actually using their SPEED as an asset for the first time since Rickey.

Someone’s having trouble with their reading comprehension, huh?

... and yet somehow I am the one accused of "trying to lower [the other party]"

A single tear from my eye.....

Im sorry if you feel lowered, but I choose to call a spade a spade. You arguments are Red Herrings. Nice to see you are simply coming back with rhetorical banter, rather than more Red Herrings. Im glad to be getting through to you.

s0sNe@kYbUtY? - November 22, 2009 reply

And even in those discussions

Stat heads will still acknowledge that the sac bunt can be a smart play in a late game, high leverage situation.

Yes, the modern discourse on the bunt is considerably more nuanced

post the work that MGL has done on bunt-situation game theory.

PaulThomas - November 22, 2009 reply

Heh, badly phrased on my part

But using that logic, I’d expect the A’s to be WORSE than their first half, given the

I think, perhaps, I should have said “why do you expect that players…”etc., etc.

Pucking Insane - November 20, 2009 reply

How many .500 teams make the playoffs?

Ahhhh yes.....

But it was stated, and is generally believed by all, that our pitching will be even better. Give me the same offense post 2009 all-star break next year, with better pitching, and the A’s are in the running for the division for most of the year, and with a little luck, could actually win the thing.

I actually find it very unlikely that the A's pitching will be better next year

The bullpen will regress to the mean because no team is that good, and the starters will probably at least appear to regress because Trevor Cahill won’t be that lucky.

Your one of the few people.....

that I have heard say that which is why I used the word ‘generally’. I knew someone would wanna be argumentative for arguments sake. I, and many others, believe the rotation will be better. One, because Billy is looking to add a vet to the rotation like Duke or somebody if he cant get Duke, and Anderson and Cahil should be better for the experience of their rookie years.

While I would agree that Wuertz and Bailey will likely regress slightly, there is no reason to believe others wont step up and play huge roles, and have great years. Happens almost every year it seems like. Plainly the A’s had injuries to their Pen this year and were still dope, and they are just as loaded this season if not more depending on a couple guys.

Couple that with the fact that they should have less work with a rotation that should eat more innings with more experience, and the pen is looking just as great as ever.

I'm one of the few people who actually pays attention to regression principles

instead of just implicitly assuming that every player will fall into one of the categories “will improve predictably,” “will stay the same as last year,” and “will decline predictably.”

I accounted for regression from the two guys in the pen....

most likely to regress. And its not like they are due for a bad season, just not the same level as last year. The Pen should/will recieve less work than the enormous load of last season, and others will have better years. With the depth the A;s have, even if a couple guys fall off the face of the Earth, the A’s will be just fine in the pen.

Understanding a problem makes it easier to avoid

I have no doubt that I’m prone to many of the same psychological prejudices in this area that everyone else is. That said, I’m at least trying to deal with them by correcting in the opposite direction. Most people are not, so far as I can tell, doing so.

And in which direction do you see the SP appearing to regress?

hockey?

basketball?

Grrrrrr.....

the Dubs didnt even make it with 458 wins a couple years ago, and thats unheard of.

Answering BBG's final question.

He doesn’t technically qualify as a rookie, but the guy I’d be most excited to see in 2010 is Aaron Cunningham. I still think he can be solid, and I’m hoping he’ll get a chance to prove it.

Interesting...

(and of course I hope you’re right!)

Player I most want to see make the team -- Brett Wallace

Picking up extra help — a +10 defender at SS (Brignac, Ojeda or anyone else like that)
Breakout candidate — Daric Barton
Rookie most excited to see — Chris Carter

Yeah I'm not sure why it's so outrageous for Wallace to make the team out of Spring Training

He’s been at AAA and performed well, and he’s not that young. If he looks ready offensively and defensively in Spring Training, why would he necessarily not be? I predict a call up in May when Chavy breaks, personally, but a call up in June seems reasonable — but making it in April doesn’t seem utterly unreasonable. (Though I’m with the folks who say, “May as well delay the service clock, call him up in June, and get a whole other year out of him if it’s at all unclear that he’s ready.”)

Nico - November 20, 2009 reply

I think Spring Training will be fun, at least

I’d like to see how Wallace does. I would start him IF he seems ready, and I wouldn’t really think twice about it.

OMG!!

ST is gonna be the best in years. I’ve already got the trip lined up………

1. Drive friends Prius & Split Gas 3 ways ~ $20
2. Camping space for a week split 3 ways ~ $40
3. Tix to 4-6 games ~ $100-120 (not to mention watching practices at Papago.
4. Hot Dogs, Burgers, Chicken, Pasta, Top Ramen, porridge and tons of Natural Light split 3 ways ~ $20

Basically, if done right, for the price of about $200, spring training this year is gonna be awesome! Wallace, Carter, Desme, Brown, Donaldson, Stassi, Green, Doolittle, Inoa, Fautino, etc. etc.

OMG I can barely stand to type this w/o exploding from my chair in total excitement!!! YIPPIIIIIIEEEEEE!!!!

And I thought I was a planner!

no, I am

litteraly

cityplANner - November 20, 2009 reply

lol.....

the name in the occupation is awesome.

reading that you plan to eat porridge during ST = priceless

cuppingmaster - November 20, 2009 reply

Its cold in the morning in the Desert......

especially when you are camping. I guess I could have used to more American “oatmeal”, but my babysitter growing up was an Ausie, and she gave me ‘porridge’ for breakfast as a child.

lol....

‘the’ more American…….

lol...

Did she give you Vegemite too?

Negative on the Vegemite.....

Funny thing is I believe it was Quaker Oatmeal she would give me too, but she just always called it porridge.

s0sNe@kYbUtY? - November 22, 2009 reply

It's not unreasonable he makes it out of ST...

however, I think I hold a bit of “Bartonian” fear about beginning him in the majors immediately next season. I mean, he performed well at AAA last season, but didn’t exactly dominate…I’d just rather start him down there where he can get in a comfortable groove and take whatever defensive instruction he gets in Spring Training and immediately apply it in a non-stressful atmosphere.

Then, if he’s dominating in late May or June, and the hot corner is still a massive blackhole in the majors, then bring him up…especially since the team is not even attempting to put a competitive group on the field.

I don't buy the idea that the team won't be competitive. It'll be like 1986.

OK they weren’t competitive then, but they were interesting.

To be fair, any team with Joaquin Andujar could be considered, at the very least, "interesting".

Holy crap, just look at the names on this roster.

67MARQUEZ - November 20, 2009 reply

Brett Wallace = Jose Canseco; Chris Carter = Mark McGwire

Brett Anderson = Dave Stewart
Gio Gonzalez = Jose Rijo
Daric Barton = Bruce Bochte
Jack Cust = Dave Kingman

I need to make "Brett Wallace had a .680 MLE OPS in 2009" my new sigline or something

Yes you probably should...

The stat is rather alarming!!!

Why? It just shows he wasn't ready for the majors in 2009.

Did anyone think he was?

Beane's plan to stay away from the FA market seems right to me.

Unless you are the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, etc. and can afford the very best of free agents, it doesn’t seem all that fruitful. Look at Giambi, Nomar, Cabrera. The good free agents are too expensive. Generally, the rest of them are old, bad, or unreliable.

NateHST - November 20, 2009 reply

Gee

Abreu and Dunn were available at the same time as those three, and Beane passed on them.

richwol1 - November 20, 2009 reply

Well not exactly true

Giambi was signed on 1/7, while Dunn and Abreu did not sign until 2/11. There is no way that Billy could have gotten Dunn or Abreu in early Jan for the money they eventually settled for. I guess he could have waited, but to be fair no one thought Dunn or Abreu would end up getting as little as they did.

That being said, I think that is why Beane is saying he is going to pass on free agents this go around as it seems like there might be quality guys still left standing at the end. If so, I would not be surprised to see Billy make an offer, otherwise, he is just as okay with giving the job to a youngster.

AsFanInLA - November 20, 2009 reply

Dunn was worth 1.2 WAR last year.

Abreu was alright, but the A’s had already traded for Holliday, which meant the outfield had Holliday, Sweeney, Cust, Buck, Cunningham. The Abreus of the FA world—older, cheaper guys that could either produce or break in half (he produced), and are far less common than the Dunns, Giambis, Garciaparras.

My point is that if you can’t afford the young stars like Teixeira or Sabbathia, then the free agents you have to work with are essentially all gambles, far less likely to pay off.

NateHST - November 20, 2009 reply

Good interview with Beane

apologies if someone has already posted this. I’ve been on the moon for awhile.
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/11/20/1167032/an-interview-with-oakland-gm-billy

bajablue - November 20, 2009 reply

I think that'll go up this weekend...

…thanks for the link!

Beane's comments can be read one of two ways, I think...

1) My rebuilding plan isn’t working as well as planned. We still suck and there isn’t much out there available to help, so unless a young Mike Schmidt falls out of the sky into my lap, get ready for another abysmal season… or two.

or

2) We can’t actually say this outright, but we’re not as interested in winning as we once were.

FWIW: I am fine with the decision to not make a huge splash in the FA market, mainly because there doesn’t seem to be much quality available, but I just have this gut feeling that the overall priorities aren’t what they used to be.

Under Schott?Hoffman the edict was “Don’t lose money”, which was fine.

Under Wolff I seriously wonder. It could be either “Make money. If you win, too, that’s great, but make money.”, or, “We need to suck so attendance goes down so the stadium is empty so we can get San Jose handed to us. THEN we’ll worry about building a team again.”

With any owner, it has to be "Make money. If you win, too, that's great"

That would be my motto if I were an owner. I don’t see how sucking is going to make the team any more attractive to San Jose, or Brooklyn or anywhere else. Sucking has basically no advantages.

I think you missed both points.

"Make money. If you win, too, that’s great, but make money." also means “Make money. You can win if you want to, but I don’t really care… just make me some money.”. MLB history is full of owners like that.

Regarding the other point… the advantage to sucking would be to convince Selig and the powers that be that Oakland is unworkable, even if they have to manipulate that perception. Hence, San Jose being one of the best options that also doesn’t really involve moving a franchise, they might modify the Giants’ so-called ‘rights’ to SJ and allow the A’s to move there. Again, such manipulation is hardly unheard of in MLB history. And there’s always the city with no team that is willing to take a team… any team.

the problem with consistently sucking and having no plans for a new stadium

is that it could bring back talk of contraction.

Besides, the same manipulation could be accomplished by simply trying out all other sites in Oakland/Dublin/Walnut Creek, no matter how unworkable they are.

cuppingmaster - November 20, 2009 reply

They may talk about it, but I don't believe contraction will ever happen.

It would also bring back serious efforts to repeal the anti-trust exemption… and MLB does NOT want to go there.

I think Selig already thinks Oakland is unworkable, even without sucking.

my fave beane comment from the Sickles interview

when asked about Desme’s high strikeout total and what they were going to do about it:

“Yes, we are aware of that” with no further comments.

…meaning: “We dont care, at all”

What else what he supposed to say?

He either has to improve or not make it. It’s not really within Beane’s control as much as Desme’s.

If they let Jack play for this long......

setting all kinds of K records, I dont see while they wouldn’t let Desme, especially if he hits for 20-30 HRs in a corner OF spot, playing decent D.

K rate in the majors has no relevance to a player's value

K rate in the minors is a serious negative indicator about a player’s value.

The comparison fails.

lol....

Good opinion. Mine is different. Looks like well just have to wait and see, huh?

It is kinda funny you feel threatened for some reason, so much so you feel the need to try and rebut every comment of mine.

Keep trying, its fun!

I rebut comments which are wrong

You’re wrong a lot.

opinion.....

reaching....

grasping at air....

There is evidence that K-rates at lower levels affect projectability at

higher levels. I guess a high K-rate in the majors might be relevant if there were some even higher league that the players wanted to get promoted to.

Is that what Lincecum was trying to do?

Nico - November 21, 2009 reply

if he was caught with LSD in his car, maybe...

otherwise, no.

Well....

I’m not going to pigeon hole a guy that just finished his first healthy season of pro ball and tore up AFL pitching. Im also going to assume, that even if he does have a K problem that he carries with him to the bigs, if he brings 25 jacks too, Billy will keep him. His treatment of Cust proves that.

there was a connection made that should not have been made.......

It was assumed (and assumptions are the mother of all F ups) that I believed Desme’s Ks were not a problem. In fact I do, and I think if he does make it to the bigs, he will always have more Ks than most. But, that does not detract from the fact that, if he hits 25+ HRs a year eventually, it wont matter. He just has to cut down the Ks enough to move up, and thats what the minors are all about. Develop and improve.

Yeah, except your opinions are actually untruthful.

If I had an opinion that the earth was flat, I’d be wrong. Claiming that it’s just my opinion doesn’t make it anymore correct.

danmerqury - November 21, 2009 reply

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this but...

there’s a different between a guy being wrong vs. him being untruthful. I’m not sure if you’re saying Jumbles is wrong or a liar.

Ah, poor choice of words then.

Didn’t mean liar.

danmerqury - November 21, 2009 reply

Im happy to be wrong.......

It just sucks when guys cant have a conversation w/o trying to lower the other person somehow. This should be about educating one another and expressing love and opinion about the A’s, not being jerks (ahem PT!), I guess I use sarcasm to stay above the fray, though sometimes the dirt rubs off.

Lol

You really think I’m “trying to lower [you] somehow”? [In the interest of getting to the point, we’ll skip over the fact that the only actual personal attack here is you calling me a jerk just now.]

Get over yourself. I don’t know or, frankly, care who you are. I certainly have no interest whatsoever in persecuting you personally. I’d have trouble thinking of a

Hit post by mistake, didn't finish

I’d have trouble thinking of a LESS worthwhile use of my time.

What I care about is having valuable discussions. It interferes with valuable discussions when misinformation is continually being inserted into those discussions, hence I (and many others) tend to make a habit of correcting that misinformation ASAP. As I alluded to above, you’re laboring under a whole series of illusions about how baseball works which I don’t currently have time to dispel in any kind of systematic way. And you’re posting a lot. That is— seriously— all that is going on here.

The persecution complex is getting ridiculous, frankly.

"illusions as to how baseball works"

lol wow…….

“King in da castle king in da castle….”

“Do you have any Grey Poupon?”

Now I know what Republicans are talking about when they call someone “elitist”. You really do look down your nose at people huh?

And one only needs read your comments......

to understand their intentions.

Um, yes- PT can be harsh sometimes.

But he’s a part of AN that was missed the short time he was away.

Honestly though, you have been posting 200+ times a day.

There are some pretty opinionated people here, some who don’t mince words, but I don’t think anyone is attacking you w/ malicious intent.

A word of friendly advice- you will not gain friends here by playing the victim.

brian.only - November 21, 2009 reply

Is that bad.....

to enjoy blogging on this site? I am really happy to have found it recently as its a great outlet for my constant A’s dithering, especially in the offseason when there are limited opportunities to see/hear about your team.

Also, Im not playing a victim, just letting him know I see straight through his to his real intent in responding to nearly every one of my comments. If I was a victim I would have flagged his comments. Instead I chose to simply call him out.

Read further up the thread, Im not the only one that thinks so.

Im also.....

online recently way too much. But thats what it takes trying to find a job. I’ve been doing 5-6 applications and cover letters a day in an attempt to find employment. In between I like to come here, and check the news on CNN.com.

Once I actually find a job (cross your fingers for me as I have a Charles Schwab interview next Thurs) Im sure I will be posting a lot less, and generally off my computer a lot more too.

One can only hope!

I hope you get hired,

for the sake of you, your family, and your well being.

I also hope they make you work a LOT of overtime,
for the sake of myself, and AN.

Your problem isn't that PT is attacking you

It’s that you’re rehashing a number of arguments that have been proven wrong over and over and over again in the last 3 years. It’s great that you have a lot of enthusiasm for the A’s and aren’t particularly shy. People like you are what make blogging sites like this successful. But you’ve jumped into the middle of an argument that’s been pretty much settled for a while now, and you’re jumping in only the uninformed side of said argument.

Instead of taking everything personal, back up a second and think about why Mr. Paul Thomas might be “attacking” you. You’re quick to tell him he’s wrong on pretty much everything, or write off his statements as opinion. But while he’s generally quite curt, he’s also generally quite correct. Take a look at some of the statistical analysis. Ask people why they believe a certain stance, instead of immediately condemning them as being incorrect. It’ll get you a lot more goodwill around here.

rrryanc - November 22, 2009 reply

My opinion on elitism (as a general concept) is strictly Garry Wills

This exchange is already toxic enough, Sneaky Booty.

Don’t make it worse by introducing politics.

Of course...

Cust’s K rate in the minors was sky high, too, if not as astounding as his major league rate…

jeepers - November 23, 2009 reply

+1

s0sNe@kYbUtY? - November 23, 2009 reply

thats my point

its a stupid question about a stupid topic.

Err?

another reason I might be motivated to

economize by not getting EIinnings added to my cable next season. Just catch them on FSNW when they play the M’s or once in while ESPN. and mlb audio.

ak_A - November 20, 2009 reply

Proof players get better with MLB service time...

If you don’t think players need MLB service time then look at the back of any good player’s baseball card.

Boss Playa - November 21, 2009 reply

HOLLA PIMP!!

If you don't give your players MLB service time,

then all you have are AAA champions and MLB forfeits.

That doesn’t mean I agree with the above comments, though.

Correlation does not prove causality.

You could use the exact same logic to “prove” that school makes kids smarter.

(Oh, wait….)