The good news: Trevor Cahill finally had a solid outing, avoiding the longball. Only four of the 21 outs he recorded were in the air, proof enough that he kept things on the ground when Baltimore put the ball in play. He allowed eight hits and a number of them were just in the right places to get through, which is how it's going to go with someone who's supposed to be a ground ball pitcher.
The bad news: the A's were only able to score courtesy of a pair of solo homers by Scott Hairston in the fourth and Adam Kennedy in the fifth, and Cahill was unable to hold the 2-1 lead or get the shutdown inning as the Orioles took the lead back in their half of the fifth, holding on for a 3-2 victory.
David Hernandez pitched very well for Baltimore, working 6 2/3 innings and allowing just six hits and a walk to go with six strikeouts, a career high. Matt Albers, Danys Baez and Jim Johnson kept the A's off the board in relief. Cahill whiffed four. Jay Marshall made his 2009 A's debut with a 1-2-3 eighth.
It was a bit of a weird game. With Melvin Mora at the plate in the second, a pitch by Cahill ran up and in on him. As Mora tried to move out of the way the ball hit the knob of his bat and ricocheted to Tommy Everidge, scoring Nolan Reimold. With Brian Roberts on second base in the fifth, the damage was limited to two runs as he forgot there was just one out on a Nick Markakis popup, leading to an easy double play as he kept running home.
Controversy surfaced in the ninth. With one out and Bobby Crosby at first, running for Everidge after a leadoff single, Mark Ellis hit a grounder to Mora who stumbled and threw into the dirt. Replays clearly showed Ellis beat the throw to first but Ted Barrett blew the call, signaling out. Pinch-hitter Nomar Garciaparra then flew out harmlessly to Adam Jones in center to end it.
Calls like this are sure to stir up the replay debate like they do every time they happen. Last night in San Francisco the Dodgers benefited from two bad calls at first by Bill Hohn. As angry as we can be about tonight's mistake - who knows what happens if the A's have first and second with one out? - there's nothing else to do but gripe and move on.
It wasn't long ago our side benefited from a terrible call at the plate to end that wild game against Minnesota. As many close, bang-bang plays umpires have to make a quick call on, they're inevitably going to miss some. At least it's just in a mostly meaningless regular season game and you have to hope they don't have a direct impact on the outcome like this one did. Still, it's easy to say "If they scored a few more runs then it wouldn't matter." If anything, the problem was in Barrett responding to some chirping from the A's dugout after the final out. Hey, you blew the call. Just go into the tunnel and come back tomorrow.
The A's close out their roadtrip with a 10:35 AM Pacific start tomorrow, which also brings to an end their streak of 28 straight games without a day off. Let's see if Bob Geren actually gives Kurt Suzuki a rest like he said he would.
0 recs | 77 comments
Griping.
Moving on. Thanks, FF.
lynnzgal - August 11, 2009
The calls by Hohn were worse, if only for the fact
that his “70s porn ’stache” is downright creepy.
Nico - August 11, 2009
Cahill's FIP went down.
I’ll take it.
speckops - August 11, 2009
Cahill pitched great
Almost every hit he gave up was an opposite field poke, or a seeing eye grounder/chopper, he didn’t walk anyone, and he got multiple swinging strikes on an excellent changeup. The way he pitched, I’d generally expect a line of about 7 IP, 5 hits, 1 ER.
A very encouraging outing, with the notable exception of holding runners on — but that is minor, IMO, compared to the strides forward in the pitching department.
Nico - August 11, 2009
Oh yeah. I guess I covered that part enough in the game thread that I forgot about it in the recap ;-)
Flashfire - August 11, 2009
Exactly how I feel.
The greatest thing was his control. Kept the ball down, and was hitting spots. Led to groundballs. With the exception of Brian Roberts brain malfunction, Cahill was incredibly unlucky. I’ll take it.
travdog6 - August 11, 2009
I don't know about holding runners being a minor quibble.
I’m beginning to wonder if the post roid era isn’t giving rise to a renaissance of the younger, faster game of old. It might soon behoove a pitcher to make sure he does all he can to give his catcher a chance to make a play at second with a man on first. I do agree with the assessment of Cahill’s outing. Not half bad
alox - August 11, 2009
I just mean it's something you can work on
more easily than mechanics, repeatable arm slot, secondary pitches, and so on. It’s not a little part of the game, it’s just something every pitcher can improve.
Nico - August 11, 2009
I agree.
I was just fishing for your thoughts on the new A’s running game. Seems to be the new rage to follow the Angels brand of baseball throughout the league. The station to station, 3 run bomb ball of Weaver fame seems to be better left to the teams who can sign the proven big bats.
alox - August 11, 2009
Can we call it the 'Japanese style' of baseball, rather than the 'Angels' style'?
just would rather not give them credit for anything
bobnothing - August 11, 2009
I love the A's new "running game"
Just because it doesn’t preclude hitting HRs, or walking, or hitting doubles, or anything. It supplements it as a more balanced and versatile attack that allows you to score more ways at different times.
Nico - August 11, 2009
The Angels are responsible for it's current incarnation.
But the style of play has been around for quite some time, not just the Japanese leagues. To be honest, I think the power hitting lineups are the johnny come lately’s. Baseball at the turn of the 20th century was almost exclusively a running game.
alox - August 11, 2009
wasn't there a line in ken burns' baseball
about how when the home run was becoming prevalent, it was seen as an abomination on the game?
AV - August 11, 2009
I remember reading an excerpt
from Ty Cobb during Ruth’s rise to prominence where he altered his unique grip on the bat and hit 3 long balls during a game. The point being that he could have done what Ruth was currently doing any time he chose to do so. Supremely arrogant, that Cobb fellow.
alox - August 12, 2009
Dead ball era baseball was practically another game entirely
Baseball 100 years ago featured a dead ball that pitchers were allowed to doctor, and that was virtually never replaced during the game, meaning that hitters were swinging at a scuffed, dark-brown beanbag after a couple of inning; ballparks with CF fences 500 feet from home plate and fields in pretty crappy condition; fielders wearing gloves that were so small and floppy that it was very, very hard to catch the ball reliably with only one hand.
Under those conditions, the “inside game” prevailed, because it was the most efficient way to score runs.
Unless baseball goes back to those conditions, power will continue to be more important than speed offensively.
Nick - August 12, 2009
Bring back the triple
as a staple feature of the game! I wouldn’t mind seeing fences at the 450 mark in dead center again. It must have been a wonder to see a very fast CF beat by a ball going over his head!
alox - August 12, 2009
450 to CF
You can want that, but you’d have to rebuild, I dunno, 75% of the ballparks in the majors right now to accomplish that.
The other thing that’s suppressed the running game has been the disappearance of astroturf. Astroturf stadiums (especially big ones) put a premium on fast outfielders — if the A’s had had to go into Royals Stadium in its old configuration (385 to the alleys, 410 to CF, and astroturf) with Grieve/Long/Stairs in the OF, the Royals would have hit 5 triples a game, just on grounders barely out of Velarde’s or Tejada’s reach. Swisher would have been unplayable in CF. Cust would be even more of a liability.
During the 1970s, there were only 5 grass fields in the NL — LA, SD, NY, ATL, and the Cubs. Everyone else was on astroturf: SF, Houston, Cincy, St. Louis, Pitt, Philly, Montreal. You paid a huge price for having slow OFs, and if you had all these fast guys in your lineup for defensive reasons, you were going to take advantage of their speed on offense, too.
Nick - August 12, 2009
If the A's moved home plate back 20 feet,
and reconfigured the diamond accordingly, they’d have less foul territory and deeper dimensions. Then you set up your team with Wimberly, Weeks, and Rajai, no one HRs on either team and you win, win, win! Eric Patterson for MVP!
Nico - August 12, 2009
And if they hired Maury Wills to manage
they could move home plate back 20 feet without moving the batter’s boxes at all!
I’m trying to imagine where the foul poles would be if home plate were 20 feet further back. Somewhere next to the bullpens, 270 feet down the reconfigured line?
Nick - August 12, 2009
Leave the foul poles where they are
Talk about “hooking one inside the foul pole.” Did I mention the statue of Jerry Blevins in shallow left-center field? You’re very unlikely to smash into it, but if you do, ouch.
Nico - August 12, 2009
I thought the foul poles were already statues of Jerry Blevins
Flashfire - August 12, 2009
This is where I draw the proverbial line.
Astroturf in baseball is nothing short of an abomination. It’s a putrid betrayal of America’s pastime, and legislation should be passed forbidding it’s use forever.
I do recognize that the days of fences being any further than 400 feet are gone forever. Chicks still dig the long ball.
alox - August 12, 2009
Nice summary
Thank you….
A's Fan in Virginia - August 11, 2009
I only listened partially today, but it sounds like Cahill pitched pretty well. Nice that he didn't give up a HR.
I’m all for trying to win each game, but I also think it’s successful when you take a game in a losing season as a learning experience. No big deal we didn’t win. Hopefully he’ll keep improving with what’s left of the season.
pam5981 - August 11, 2009
I love the "Lowered Expectations" for Cahill.
Out of the first 6 comments are: “Well his FIP went down” and “Nice that he didn’t give up a HR.” Shoot for the moon, folks! :-)
Nico - August 11, 2009
Hey, it IS good!
pffft.
pam5981 - August 11, 2009
Hey, with him, that's a great sign.
0 BB, 0 HR, 12/4 GO/FO ratio.
Although, it should be noted that his FIP is so high, it’s hard for it not to go down.
speckops - August 11, 2009
Also, he's younger than I am.
He’s got plenty of time to grow.
speckops - August 11, 2009
i'm imagining him in a MADtv skit right now
with a robot voice giving out a 555 number after he says he has trouble keeping runners on, and that lefties love him
cuppingmaster - August 11, 2009
And that he likes walks in the park
Nico - August 11, 2009
So Barton is eligible to come of the DL one of these days.
I really really want Tommy to succeed. But if he doesn’t how long do we leave him out there before giving Barton another shot? What do we do with Barton if he’s healthy soon?
travdog6 - August 11, 2009
Barton at first, Everidge at DH
We already know what Cust can and can’t do.
Flashfire - August 11, 2009
I love Jack Cust more than is probably healthy for a grown man
But I am inclined to agree with you here. Obviously, give Jack some at bats.
Would it be stupid to let Barton do more DHing than Everidge? Obviously, there would be a drop off in performance, but it would have the following benefits:
1. Barton can concentrate just on hitting
2. The A’s get an accurate view of just how good or bad Everidge is at 1st. We know that Barton is measurably very good there, but is Everidge below average, or really terrible?
It could easily come down to a straight competition between the two of them for the starting position at first next season, and as such, it’s as important to be able to evaluate weaknesses as it is strengths.
Though, on the other hand, if you’re thinking of showcasing one or the other for trade, maybe you want to highlight their best qualities.
Clearly, I don’t have all the answers.
bobnothing - August 11, 2009
They could probably switch off between 1B/DH, sure
And yeah, I’d still work Cust in to DH once in a while but it’s not like anything Cust does the rest of the way should impact things very much. I’d be perfectly fine giving him some more days off.
Flashfire - August 11, 2009
Couldn't agree more.
I’m a member of that club.
travdog6 - August 11, 2009
ditto
doctorK - August 11, 2009
I'll join that club
though it prolly won’t be anonymous if there are only the 3 of us. But what the hell. My name is Kallus, and I’m a Custaholic.
Kallus - August 12, 2009
This could be a healthy way to get over my Custaholism.
I’m travdog6, and
I would do filthy disgusting things to Jack Cust, this generation’s Babe RuthI’m a Custaholic.travdog6 - August 12, 2009
Lots of players hit a lot worse as DH
Even Cust had this problem (and still might, I haven’t checked his stats this year on it and SSS anyway). Pinch hitting 4 or 5 times a game is not the same as being the starting 1B. I don’t think we can assume that DHing would help Barton hit better.
Nick - August 12, 2009
I agree, nor would it help him continue to progress as a defensive 1Bman
Barton needs to be playing everyday at 1B somewhere, while consuming just enough spinach to give him 20 HR power.
Nico - August 12, 2009
I agree completely.
MrMoneyBaller - August 11, 2009
If Everidge is going to take up a roster spot, he's going to have to play 1B passably. Better than he has so far.
I’m sure the A’s have an idea of whether they think he can be a possibility at first, but it would be easy to have a rotation that brings Barton back slowly:
Barton/Everidge 1st
Cust/Everidge/Barton DH
Cust/Sweeney RF
rebus - August 11, 2009
I don't understand AN's obsession with a 26 year old non-prospect who's never really had a good year before this year.
Who had a .742 OPS before today’s game and who reportedly doesn’t play good defense.
I guess we’ve become so desperate for hitters that we’re latching on to every shiny new toy.
lenscrafters - August 12, 2009
Who cares?
It’s not like there’s any harm in giving Everidge or Barton more time before the season’s over.
Flashfire - August 12, 2009
I don't really care if Everidge gets more time or not.
But the Everidge love is rather amusing to see. I think part of it is what I mentioned about SNTS, part of it is love for the underdog.
lenscrafters - August 12, 2009
I don't understand why AN WOULDN'T be pleased with Everidge
and want to see him get playing time. No one is saying that the odds of him being a 5-year solution are high. At the same time, they’re not 0% because baseball is full of unlikely success stories.
More to the point, he’s playing well and having good ABs, so why wouldn’t he play now and why wouldn’t A’s fans show him some love? Let him play his way out of the lineup and out of our adulation; until that happens, more power to him.
Nico - August 12, 2009
Exactly
No, it’s unlikely Everidge does a lot more than this in his big league career, but it’s fun to watch right now and at least he has a chance to do more. That’s better than a lot of people can say. Some people are late bloomers as well. Could be the case with Everidge, or it could just be a hot season start to finish.
Pennington may not have much of an upside either but at least he’s getting a chance as well. This is the time to give them the opportunity, after all.
Why not pull for them?
Flashfire - August 12, 2009
Speaking of Pennington....
Where did the knock on his arm originate? The guy can flat out make hard throws when he has to.
Of course, I’m thrilled with any ss in the G&G not named Crosby.
alox - August 12, 2009
He's bobbled a few grounders, but his arm looks great so far, I agree
Nick - August 12, 2009
I think it was just misinformation
I always heard he had a good arm, and watching him he indeed has a very good arm.
Nico - August 12, 2009
More to the point
He isn’t playing well. SSS to be sure but we are talking about a .327 wOBA and .740ish OPS from a first baseman who really hasn’t shown adequate defense either. It would be fine if he was an actual prospect and could be expected to improve but he isn’t. And the opportunity cost of giving Everidge at bats to overcome whatever low chance he has of being a valuable player is not being able to play Barton (who’s actually, you know, a prospect with prospects) or Cust (still the second best hitter on this team).
My whole issue is with AN’s fallacious belief that Everidge is actually doing well when the numbers clearly say he isn’t. Like I said, combination of SNTS and being starved for actual “hitters”.
lenscrafters - August 12, 2009
I agree with this, although I wouldn't mind him seeing a fair amount of plate appearances down the stretch.
I’m waiting for the Pennington love to show up. Gaffes aside, he’s played very well at a crucial position of need for the A’s.
rebus - August 12, 2009
Actually, he's been about as good offensively as Everidge too.
rebus - August 12, 2009
I dunno LC,
but I think we’ll latch on to any “power” at a power position, defense be damned. While Everidge’s range is sorely lacking, he does dig the ball quite well and manages to passably cover his position. If he starts putting the ball out of the park on occasion along with some doubles scattered in amongst a .280 average, we’ll take it.
You’re probably right though, but here’s to hoping that Everidge has put it all together at a later point than other prospects and will be good enough to entertain us for a few years.
alox - August 12, 2009
Everidge is slugging .404 right now, is that really enough power for a first baseman for you?
Defensively, he’s never had any good reports about his defense at first and for what it’s worth, major SSS, UZR/150 has him pegged at -7.5 so far. Sure, I hope he works out and becomes a great hitter and all that. But like I said above, the opportunity cost of finding out if Everidge can overcome his miniscule chance of being successful is not being able to play guys who are actually good or have a good chance of being good.
lenscrafters - August 12, 2009
I can't quibble with your assessment,
and I recognize that you are most likely correct. I guess what he has going for him at this point is that he’s not Giambi, he’s part of a squad that is starting to entertain us and make us dream of what could be in the near future. Plus, most fans of the A’s are indoctrinated to root for the underdog. Right now he’s not costing Barton anything as Barton is injured. So why not enjoy the show while it lasts? Especially if he’s the flash in the pan that the numbers would seem to imply? And who knows, maybe he will seize the opportunity? At the very least, he’s someone to feel good about at the moment, and during this ugly season, that’s enough for now.
alox - August 13, 2009
Couple notes I saw tonight
The double by Rajai Davis was the 10,000th in Oakland history.
Baltimore had lost, I think, their last nine to the A’s. That dated back to 7/22/07.
Flashfire - August 11, 2009
Can't be too upset about this one
Bad calls are part of the game, Michael Cuddyer can probably vouch for me on this one.
Trevor Cahill definitely needs to find an outpitch like the other A’s. Like to see them manufacture runs the old fashioned way like they have been doing before, but it is refreshing to see the A’s hit homers. All in all, go for the series win and come home feeling good about themselves.
Hit4TheCycle - August 11, 2009
Personally, I know bad calls happen
But the only reason that this one was particularly aggravating is that I felt that Barret did everything right leading up to the call. He was in good position, actually took a moment to make sure the play developed, then made the wrong call. It also didn’t seem like it was all that close to me, although I know me saying that is just my opinion versus his, but overall it was just frustrating to see the A’s finally getting going in a clutch situation to have it essentially end that way.
MrMoneyBaller - August 11, 2009
I don't mind a missed call
on a really close play. It’s even possible that on the truly close plays where re-play after re-play would seem to indicate that the ump got it wrong, it’s still possible that the ump is correct and there is insufficient footage to prove conclusively that the ump was wrong. He does, after all, usually have the best possible view of the play in action.
However, that being said, I get really annoyed when the ump is caught napping and makes a bad call that a fan 20 rows deep knows is a bad call.
alox - August 11, 2009
Exactly.
I was standing in my kitchen 40 feet away from a 22 inch TV and could see he was safe, and it wasn’t really close.
MrMoneyBaller - August 11, 2009
I have noticed the anti-Geren chirping has diminished lately.
It occurs to me, I have no idea how good, or bad, a manager Bob Geren is. Yes, I question some of his decisions. But most decisions, in any field of endeavor, are going to be wrong half the time.
I am a big admirer of Jim Leyland in Detroit. I felt he had the best team in baseball in 2006, yet that team lost―in the most ridiculous fashion―to the 83-win Cardinals in the World Series. In 2007, after acquiring Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis, the Tigers were THE team to beat. And, indeed, they were beaten down to a record of 74-88 and last place. Until its recent streak, Detroit had barely won more games than it had lost. So, how good, or bad, is Jim Leyland? How good, or bad, is Bob Geren?
ptbarnum - August 11, 2009
I dunno....
But Bob is now managing players he is familiar with. A lot of these guys played under him in the minors, and for that matter, he may be better at dealing with up and coming players instead of established major leaguers.
Either that, or we as fans are far more forgiving of a team that looks as though it’s turning a corner and winning a few games it usually wouldn’t.
alox - August 11, 2009
It might be a little of both.
He’s definitely been more animated these last few series.
lynnzgal - August 11, 2009
The only thing I've noticed
is he’s been fixing his jersey a lot, showing his bare chest. And no, it is not pretty.
travdog6 - August 11, 2009
Haha! No.
Its not.
But one thing I’ve noticed about Bob, is that he’s a bit more into the game.
lynnzgal - August 11, 2009
They did?
The only guy I can think of is Mark Ellis.
travdog6 - August 11, 2009
I don't think that's really the case
He hasn’t managed in the Minors since 2002 and before managing the A’s he was a coach at the Major League level.
Flashfire - August 11, 2009
All I'm suggesting....
is that perhaps he’s more comfortable managing players fresh from the farm. The difference in mind set between an established player verses one who is trying to make his bones must be enormous.
alox - August 11, 2009
To me, it seems like if a team is doing well, the manager is good,
and if the team is doing poorly, the manager is bad. It’s hard to gather evidence as to how good a manager is/what the manager does. I see Bob Geren for about 30 seconds during every game. I can’t tell anything about him from those 30 seconds, and I don’t know another way to find out more about what kind of manager he is.
travdog6 - August 11, 2009
I think the win/loss record about sums it up.
For me as a fan anyway.
alox - August 11, 2009
For me it's the process
Starting with actually benching Sweeney, Geren has shown more accountability and his team has shown more energy and spirit, along with resourcefulness on offense. I think he’s done a better job in the second half, as has the team.
Nico - August 11, 2009
I can go along with that.
He does seem more enthusiastic and animated. I like a manger who gets the occasional face time with an umpire. It keeps the umps honest.
alox - August 11, 2009
eh
I’m with travdog and alox— the manager gets both more credit and more blame than he ought to based on a team’s WL record. I like that he seems to have kept a consistent lineup the past week or so, and that he’s gotten more spiritous, it seems. It’s just hard to separate that from the team just playing better.
For instance, while there was some grumbling about the decision to PH Nomar in the 9th tonight, it was far overshadowed by the poor call from Barrett. I think earlier in the year, the bad call would have been downplayed more and the poor managing decision highlighted.
cuppingmaster - August 11, 2009
I think the importance of a manager's tactical ability
is probably given more credit/blame than it should, but I think the impact of a manager on the level of intensity/effort is given too little. The Sweeney benching, however arbitrary, was a turning point because it was an example of a manager finally holding players accountable for their level of effort.
You can call it utter coincidence that right around that time, the team went from being dull and “mail it in” lifeless to playing with some energy, hustle, and fire. I attribute it largely to Rajai Davis and largely to a change in Geren’s attitude towards what’s acceptable and what’s “good enough.”
I still hold Geren accountable for taking 100 games to have major league standards, but credit him with what he’s doing about it now.
Nico - August 12, 2009
Probably because Jack Cust wasn't in RF today.
MrMoneyBaller - August 11, 2009
I'm happy about the loss...
I mean, I don’t like to lose. But pitchers tend to turn the corner one step at a time, and this outing, with no walks, four strikeouts and two earned runs, was the best performance we’ve seen from Cahill in a while.
If the A’s are going to field a competitive team in 2010, given the hitting, four of the five starting pitchers must be dependable. If Cahill does turn it around, then next year looks a lot better.
richwol1 - August 11, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.