Speed and power! Who knew the A's had both? (Who knew they had either?) Rajai Davis (2 SBs) and Adam Kennedy provided speed, Bobby Crosby (2 HRs) and Kurt Suzuki provided power, and Ryan Sweeney provided a little of both, with a 3-run HR to start the scoring in the top of the 2nd to go with a steal of second later.
Though he was charged with 3 ER in 6+ IP, Brett Anderson pitched far better than that, blanking the Royals on 3 hits through 6 innings, with 1 BB and 5 Ks. He allowed three singles to start the 7th, but the pivotal one was a chopper off the glove of the leaping tiptoeing earthquake safe Tommy Everidge. Anderson was, once again, outstanding.
What a joy to watch the A's trot, trot, run, run, run, run, trot, and trot, while getting an excellent start and solid bullpen work (Wuertz, Ziegler, and Bailey each with a scoreless inning) from their pitchers. Rajai Davis has energized this team, Tommy Everidge -- whose streak of reaching base in every game ended despite two line drives -- has made the middle of the lineup more stressful for opposing pitchers, and Kurt Suzuki continues to fly under the radar as an All-Star the eyes of all but Joe Maddon.
Did you know that they play baseball in Baltimore? Who knew? The A's will go there for the first time all year tomorrow night. (Extends middle finger): This, Bud's, for you. The A's shouldn't make as many trips to Dodger Stadium as they make to Camden Yard. Sorry, I'm in my italicky place today. We won two series in a row!!!
0 recs | 146 comments
Trots and runs!
Of the good kind, woohoo!
lynnzgal - August 9, 2009
That was an enjoyable game and a good series overall.
Let’s take two out of three from the Orioles as well.
Rated-R Superstar - August 9, 2009
How 'bout 3 out of 3?
pam5981 - August 9, 2009
Let’s not get greedy.
Rated-R Superstar - August 9, 2009
I'm with you
we’ve lost three in a row PLENTY of times this year. Let’s just win three in a row at Camden..
One won lost won - August 9, 2009
two of three is better for our draft position.
designatedforassignment - August 10, 2009
Shush you! Someone might hear you....
mrod - August 10, 2009
I love Tommy Everidge,
but that was the most pathetic jump I have ever seen.
travdog6 - August 9, 2009
He needs to drop about 20 pounds
and who knows he might be able to play 3B
adragon - August 9, 2009
I wouldn’t bet on it.
Rated-R Superstar - August 9, 2009
sometimes the result of indecision
trying to different but simultaneous moves, and they cancel each other out.
And, it looks pathetic, because you were fighting yourself.
One won lost won - August 9, 2009
I don't think Weurtz was that solid
He allowed two inherited runners to score.
adragon - August 9, 2009
I thought it was three considering Anderson was charged with all three runs.
Rated-R Superstar - August 9, 2009
The first run scored when Brett was on the mound
adragon - August 9, 2009
Ah, that’s right.
Rated-R Superstar - August 9, 2009
Wuertz has been better, but collectively the bullpen got it done
Nico - August 9, 2009
And the add on runs did not hurt
but I agree that inning was more the IF’s then Wuertz
adragon - August 9, 2009
so that's the formula
at least for this series….also, decent starting pitching for the two wins.
Hey, whatever it takes to win…
Looking forward to becoming a RAF again in time for next weekend’s series at the Coli
OaklandSi - August 9, 2009
I wonder when the last time was the A's had 4 HR & 4 steals in the same game?
adragon - August 9, 2009
Rickey!
Rickey could have 4 HRs and 4 steals in the same game.
iglew - August 9, 2009
In fact Rickey was involved in a 4 HR 4 SB game.
July 26th, 1982. Against the hated Angels. A’s 11 Angels 8. Rickey contributed 1 home run and 2 stolen bases to the cause. Don’t have to have Rickey though. Three years later we accomplished the 4 HR-4 SB feat without him, and again we beat the Angels as a result. Good times.
Boxscore Here
GoA's - August 9, 2009
Answer: April 23, 1985 A's 14 Angels 9
While digging through the game I found a cornocopia of fun facts and oddities:
A bad day for slegnA. Of the four pitchers they used, none managed a full 3 innings of work.
A bad day for us. Though we hit 4 home runs and won the game, the Angels were the longball champions of the night, belting a whopping 6 home runs (and yet they only scored nine runs total). Sad to say Reggie Jackson hit 2 jacks for the opposing team. Could you pick two worse teams to play for than the Yankees and the Angels?
Dave Collins, the “fastest white man in baseball” stole three bases and an unlikely source, catcher Mike Heath, nabbed SB #4.
Dusty Baker, one of the few to play on both sides of the Bay, turned in perhaps his finest performance as an Athletic. He went 2-4 with a BB, a HR, and 5 RBIs.
Another former Giant also went yard, though he did that all the time. Dave “Sky King” Kingman wasn’t going to miss out on the fun. In his final three years (age 35-37) Kingman hit 35, 30, and 35 HRs for Oakland from ‘84-’86.
Mike Davis was in the middle of a HR tear, hitting the 6th of his 9 dingers in April that year. If you cringed when hearing that name, it’s because he set up one of the worst moments in Athletics history. Game 1. Dodgers. Davis was the player who drew a walk just ahead of the dreaded Gibson pinch-hit home run.
Ending this story on a happy, sentimental note. The final piece of the 4 SB, 4 HR game was hometown hero Carney Lansford.
Boxscore Here.
GoA's - August 9, 2009
So does this mean...
…we should lay off Geren a bit?
sarchasmic - August 9, 2009
No
It means we need more games against KC.
doctorK - August 9, 2009
The Orioles aren’t that much of an upgrade over the Royals. Besides, we swept ’em in Oakland.
Rated-R Superstar - August 9, 2009
I think Rajai Davis hit his first (only?) grand slam in Baltimore.
That was a really strange game. I think the A’s scored 8 times in that inning, with Davis’ HR the only hit.
speckops - August 9, 2009
Whoops, it was 11 runs, with only 1 hit.
That’s got to be close to the record for the most runs in an inning with one or zero hits.
speckops - August 9, 2009
I remember that game. I had some great, great, great pizza that day.
Rated-R Superstar - August 9, 2009
Was that the famous bomb shelter game?
iglew - August 9, 2009
I don’t think so.
Rated-R Superstar - August 9, 2009
I'm pretty sure that was in AZ against the Diamondbacks.
pam5981 - August 9, 2009
here you go
pam5981 - August 9, 2009
Yes!
now I recall that!
One won lost won - August 9, 2009
That was where Rajai pinch ran for Cust after Jack got on base at the top of the inning.
Rajai hit a grand slam in the same inning he entered the game as a pinch runner.
danmerqury - August 9, 2009
Dang, that is all kinds of awesome.
I’d like the baseball history-stats-trivia nerds to run that through their computers. How many times has a guy hit a grand slam in the same inning he entered as a pinch-runner? It’s gotta be hella rare.
iglew - August 9, 2009
Didn't Fernando Tatis hit two grand slams in one inning?
That has to be even more rare!
Nico - August 9, 2009
I'm pretty sure
Jayson Stark did one of his awesome useless info columns about that. I’ll do a search.
ORthey - August 9, 2009
I remember Glen and Ray wondering about that after the inning.
I don’t remember what they found out, though. I wouldn’t be too surprised if that’s never happened before, or hasn’t happened in 60 years or so.
danmerqury - August 10, 2009
I was at that game!
After Raj’s grand slam, I sat there waiting for the apocalypse.
(And it was eight runs in the inning. They scored 11 total.)
day-to-day - August 9, 2009
Note to self: Lrn 2 rd box scores, pls.
speckops - August 10, 2009
Yes, "a bit",
but we can not lose focus that one of our missions is to see that Bob moves on to greener pastures in Sacramento.
robertmelvin - August 9, 2009
Doing what needs to be done
You know your team is awful when your pitchers give up two home runs to “The Cros” and it’s always nice to see the Royals play to remind A’s fans that it could be worse.
So the Orioles are next and that could be a chance for our Swingin’ A’s to keep this streak of good baseball going. Hard to believe this is the only trip to Baltimore all year but we get to watch the A’s play the Mariners 67 times. Keep running Rajai keep running….
sirbed - August 9, 2009
Yes the all mighty dollar, and wannabe NFL types
who like “divisions” and wild cards appended to the Grand Ol’ Game like the unbalanced schedule!!
Cha-CHINGGG!!! Baby!
One won lost won - August 9, 2009
Rajai Rajai Rajai
I love him. But Sweeney was the mvp of this game.
sourstuff - August 9, 2009
Justin Duchscherer is pitching for the Sacramento River Cats tonight.
Rated-R Superstar - August 9, 2009
So I guess his
nasty breakup / painful anal acne / third nipple removal procedure / quest to mountaintop for spiritual advice has been resolved.
Nico - August 9, 2009
Duchscherer pitched four scoreless innings, but now Chacon is getting owned.
Also, Wallace hit a home run.
Rated-R Superstar - August 9, 2009
did they ever reveal what Duke's issues really was?
Another case of anxiety diagnosed by a blood test?
cuppingmaster - August 9, 2009
Or Ms. Cleo?
speckops - August 10, 2009
Speaking of the River Cats
After putting up some outrageous numbers in KC and Stockton, Mickey Storey skipped Midland and debuted in Sacramento last night. 1.2 IP, 0 H, 0 BB, 3 K. Awww yeaaaa!
NateHST - August 9, 2009
I want him up in September
muffinpryde - August 10, 2009
LOL -- good ol' Duke:
4 IP, 2 hits, 0 ER, 1 BB, 3 K … 55 pitches, 42 strikes.
Nico - August 9, 2009
Meanwhile, in Midland...
Chris Carter 2 for 4 with a solo HR (#20).
Nico - August 9, 2009
The guy is a total beast.
I don’t know what the “Experts” have against him. Last season they could at least point to his pedestrian batting average, high strikeout numbers, bad defense and even the fact that he played in the California League to illustrate that he wasn’t as good as the numbers state…but this season he’s making a lot more contact, still walking and still hitting for power, stealing a few bases and playing better defense…
I’m hoping he’s the real deal.
Taj Adib - August 9, 2009
My only "concern" would be that his supposed weaknesses,
handling breaking balls, missing pitches that aren’t where his swing starts, are exactly the kind that can turn a minor league star into a major league flop. But Carter seems to be addressing those weaknesses well.
Those who want him promoted aggressively should consider the possibility that his success is because of the gradual promotion, not a reason to push him faster. I too can’t wait to see him in the big leagues, but everything in its own time…
Nico - August 9, 2009
i can not wait for his arrival in oakland
i really think he’s gonna be the piece that ties the room together.
jlanning17 - August 9, 2009
how about this september?
is there any real chance of seeing him in the bigs, or are we definitely waiting until next year?
jlanning17 - August 9, 2009
I would like to see him soon but not too soon (2010 second half maybe)
He’s cut down his K’s quite a bit and sure has raised his average but he needs plenty of time at each level. If he comes up too soon he will end up like Jack Cust and striking out half the time and ruining his confidence. Just my opinion from what I have read and seen on video etc.
Trainman - August 9, 2009
Yeah, there's no reason to jump him to the majors in 3 weeks
The A’s have plenty of other young guys to give ABs to at 1B and DH through the end of this season: Everidge, Barton, Cunningham (DH, not 1B), Powell, even before they call anyone else up from AAA.
And I think you’re right on the money with hoping for the 2nd half of 2010. Hitters develop when they’re pushed, but it’s not usually a great idea to overwhelm them. It’s really unlikely he’s faced more than a couple of starters who throw hard, can locate/sink a fastball, and can throw a good breaking pitch (or maybe 2) in the strike zone. There are a few more guys like that in AAA (say, someone like Gio or Vin or even Gray before they got called up), and lots more in the majors.
He’s young. Let him develop at a normal pace, gain his confidence as you say, then call him up and tell him, “No one’s job is ever guaranteed, but you’re here because we know you can do the job and you’re going to get lots of ABs, even if you go hitless in your first 4 games with 10 Ks.”
Nick - August 10, 2009
yeah i'm thinking by late 2010
we’ll have figured out how to allocate our stable of husky boys. hopefully either everidge or barton will be standing out against the other, and then carter can split the 1B/DH duties with the winner.
love him, hate him, or anywhere in between, but it sure would have made things a hell of a lot easier if cust could play 1B. does anybody know if the A’s ever even considered it, or were they too awestruck by his range in RF to think about moving him?
jlanning17 - August 10, 2009
LOL @ Joe Morgan
How correct he is for once.
Swisher tried to sell a HBP to the ump instead of hitting. They all asked why the hell would he not want to hit with RISP
Then he got a hit and drove in 2. Morgan said, “Maybe he still thought he was on the A’s”
How true that is. Try to back way on base and leave it to the next person.
Trainman - August 9, 2009
Once again, Trainman
The goal of the offensive aspect of baseball is to get on base. Period.
NateHST - August 9, 2009
It's to score runs. Getting on base is just a really damn good way to score them.
DMOAS - August 9, 2009
Trainman and Joe Morgan were right
Swisher was up in a spot where hitting was needed more than “getting on base” with a walk or HBP, as Swish showed two pitches later.
Nico - August 9, 2009
Nick Swisher has a career BA of .244 and an OBP of .357
Would you rather take the less than 25% chance that he gets an actual hit or the 35.7% chance that he’ll get on base, and give your team more chances to score runs. His season numbers are the same, only he gets on base more. FYI, the person batting after Swisher was Cano, who gets base hits about 6% more often than Swisher does.
As DMOAS and iglew pointed out below and above, the goal in baseball is obviously to score runs and to win, but in any isolated situation of pitcher v. batter, the batter’s goal is simply to get on base, or to not make outs. That is the fundamental goal to the offensive side of baseball. To get on base! It’s so simple, too!
And anytime your defense is, “Hey, Joe Morgan was right,” you should rethink your stance.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
These arguments
…go on and on and on. While I could be convinced that statistics show getting on base any way possible is more important than driving in runs, I’m not convinced that building a team wherein all the players have those same goals works. The result, as we’ve seen over the past few years with the A’s, are fewer runs scored and lots of guys left on base. The approach to hitting we’ve seen has resulted in low batting averages, failed prospects and no run support for pitchers.
I happen to think that Joe Morgan was right in his comment. He’s still a lazy idiot, but he happened to be right this once.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
I also think the A's have changed their approach this year...
…and it seems to be paying off.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
Hell yeah it is!
Just LOOK at how Cust has improved.
oh wait.
Just LOOK at how we’re contending for the division.
oh wait.
mikev - August 10, 2009
The team batted nearly .300 in July
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
and .237 in April
.243 in May
.232 in June
.253 so far this month in August.
Which number sticks out the most?
mikev - August 10, 2009
August
Because we haven’t even gone through a third of a month.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
Yeah, totally.
mikev - August 10, 2009
When you look at results this year and last year and say, "This approach doesn't work anymore!"
You have to realize that the “experiment,” we’ll call it, was being performed by Jack Hannahan, Daric Barton, OCab, Bob Crosby, etc. etc. The get-on-base idea doesn’t work because our hitters are bad hitters, not because they have the wrong approach. The difference between all those .200-.300 hitters and some decent .250-.350 hitters is the difference in the A’s and the Angels, Dodgers and Yankees—the three teams with a team OBP over .350.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
Baseball is largely about making adjustments, including to the situation at hand
Any approach as simple as “get on base” fails to account for the complexity of different situations. Heck, if this principle were the be-and-and-end-all, end intentional walk ever issued was a mistake. Plus, stolen base attempts can get you off the bases and they certainly can’t get anyone on base, so they’re always a bad idea too.
Just because “getting on base” is key much of the time doesn’t make it key all of the time. There is no single principle you can fall back on, other than “win games.”
Nico - August 10, 2009
For the record, stolen bases are only a bad idea if your steal rate is >80% or so, at least according to Tom Tango.
speckops - August 10, 2009
Again, that generalizes a point that needs to be assessed
situation by situation. I’ll take Rajai stealing successfully 67% of the time if he goes at the right times and creates the kind of disruptions he has recently created (which include two pickoff errors that don’t show up in SB% and a Hairston HR that came moments after an episode of Rajmania). Yet I won’t take him stealing successfully 40% of the time because then the costs will outweigh even the most intangible gains.
Nico - August 10, 2009
As speckops just pointed out
Tom Tango is basically a wizard when it comes to baseball. If ANYBODY, including Rajai Davis, is stealing at less than 80ish, he is hurting your team.
And in response to what you said above, if Swisher could adjust to the situation and just decide to hit as well as he could get on base, why the hell wouldn’t he just hit .350 every year? When you get on base, you increase your team’s chance in scoring.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
Aren't you the same guys
..who argue against Cust bunting for base hits?
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
I've never argued against that
I do think he’s probably shitty at bunting and it’s risky but if and when he bunts, he has a high success rate, then it’s a free base and yes, I think it should be taken advantage of.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
He wasn't shitty
when the shift was on.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
He tried top bunt for hits three times...
…and succeeded each time. (From memory).
Dr Pez - August 10, 2009
When you look at the failures of the post-Giambi/Tejada years
…and how the only successful position players to come out of those years up to now have been the one-dimensional Swisher, Suzuki, and players who’ve gone to other teams, it’s obvious the problem is one of three:
1. A’s scouting and drafting really sucks.
2. A’s internal scouting really sucks because of the trades
3. The organization’s systemic approach toward hitting is a failure.
I’m inclined to believe (3). I also think “get on base no matter what and wait for others to do damage” approach was based on the idea that patience can be taught without damaging a hitter’s innate approach (which may not be true). Also, it assumes the hitting prowess of the steroid era, when there were enough people in all the line-ups able to do damage, and those runs would come in no matter what. When your biggest RBI guy, Cust, is driving in less than 80 runs in a season, there’s something wrong with the approach.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
Position players
to clarify
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
I agree with #3
Trainman - August 10, 2009
No, it's not obvious.
“These are the only three obvious explanations.”
does not equal
“It’s obvious that one of these three explanations is correct.”
This is yet another case of the nothing-unknown-exists fallacy.
iglew - August 10, 2009
I'm leaving the door open for another explanation
I’m positing a position, not stating a fact.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
The ballpark is a big factor
The Coliseum has been the worst or 2nd-worst hitting park in the AL for about 6 or 7 years in a row. Now, it’s not impossible to learn how to hit in a bad hitters’ park, but it makes it much, much harder for young hitters to learn good habits — they foul a tough pitch off, and it’s caught in the endless foul territory. They crush a fastball one night in April and it dies on the warning track.
Nick - August 10, 2009
Oh, OK.
The way you worded it, the door looked closed to me.
iglew - August 10, 2009
What the hell do you people mean when you say, "Get on base and wait for others to do the work for you"?
You’re implying that that approach to baseball is some type of submissive, cop out, play-out-of-fear style, and it’s not. Baseball isn’t as subjective as it seems. Scoring runs can be broken down and broken down and eventually, you get a system. That system is, essentially, get on base.
The A’s had good players like Giambi and Chavez and the system worked. When the A’s had bad players like Hannahan and Barton, the system failed. But you know what? Every system or strategy would have failed because it’s Hannahan and Barton instead of Giambi and Chavez.
Joe Posnanski wrote an article about OBP and why some people think it’s the devil. One of the points he made was that say you have a player that walks in every at bat over the course of an entire season. His offensive season would be greater than any other offensive season by any player ever. That’s better than Bonds’ 72 HR season, better than the season Ted Williams hit .406. He would have more total bases than any player in the history of baseball has in a single season.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
My whole gripe at this OBP thing is
the players have been taught to take walks. This creates passive at bats at the plate. A Player should be ready to belt a pitch with runner on, not look at it and then wait for another hittable pitch.
It appears to me that nore often than not the player is trying just to get on base and is in two minds whether to take a walk or hit the damn ball.
Our players have been criticized in the past for trying to back their way on base.
My opinion is they should hit the damn ball when they get the pitch to hit be it 0-0, 1-0, 2-0 or whatever. Unless the pitcher cannot throw a strike then obviously you take the walk.
Like you say, if we had better hitters back then, then a walk is not so bad.
The slegnA get more done by hitting a pitch when it presents itself. Not walking their way on.
Like last night, Swisher or anyone who has runners on in scoring position should be ready to hit the first meatball that comes.
Trainman - August 10, 2009
I highly doubt that players go up with the idea
that they’re just going to coax a walk. Since you brought them up, let’s take the Angels as an example. Through 109 games, they have walked a total of 368 times. That’s just over 3 BB per game. Since teams usually get 40+ plate appearances, I doubt they are so “passive” that they hope to be one of those three out of forty players to draw a walk.
Also, the Angels do better than the A’s by hitting the ball because they have better hitters. Abreu, Guerrero, Aybar, Morales, Figgens, Napoli are all better hitters than what the A’s are putting out there.
Honestly, I understand that watching players get hits is more exciting than watching players take walks, but walking and getting on base is as important to success as anything. The problem with the A’s approach at the plate isn’t a failure in theory, it’s a failure in practice because the A’s have a bunch of shitty hitters right now.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
Unless you have another explanation...
…you’re saying the A’s scouting and drafting folks suck.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
What are you talking about? I'm not saying that at all.
It’s not some either/or situation, and that doesn’t have anything to do with what we’re talking about. This is a discussion about the A’s hitting philosophy.
If you want to talk about why we have bad players, let’s talk. It’s called a cycle and every small market team has to go through it. We get good players, compete for a couple years. Then they get expensive and reach FA and we can’t afford them. Either we A) keep them until they reach FA and get nothing for them but draft picks (Zito, Giambi) or B) trade them before they reach FA and get prospects (Hudson, Mulder). After one of those two things happen, we must wait for the prospects and draftees to mature and develop into good players so that we may compete again for a couple years.
We are in those down years where we’re waiting for prospects to develop. No where in anything that I just said did I suggest that the people in charge of drafting or scouting suck. Don’t put words in my mouth.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
The position player prospects
…that we’re waiting for came into the system mostly through trades in 2008. I’m not putting words in your mouth, but there’s gotta be an explanation for the crap we saw between 2000 and well, next year.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
LOL WUT
“The crap we saw between 2000 and well, next year.”
!?!?!
2000: 91-70, .565 (1st in AL West)
2001: 102-60, .630 (2nd in AL West; won Wild Card)
2002: 103-59, .636 (1st in AL West)
2003: 96-66, .593 (1st in AL West)
2004: 91-71, .562 (2nd in AL West)
2005: 88-74, .543 (2nd in AL West)
2006: 93-69, .574 (1st in AL West)
This year and the last two years have been the only losing seasons since 2000. As for the losing seasons, I’ll refer to my post above about cycles that you apparently didn’t read.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
I see
In other words, because the A’s had good records for seven of those years, that accounts for the fact that NO POSITION PLAYER of value except for Swisher and Suzuki rose through the ranks and played for the A’s? Sorry, but during those years, the team had several draft choices. The pitchers mostly worked out, THE POSITION PLAYERS DID NOT.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
NO POSITION PLAYER
Not Giambi
Not Tejada
Not Chavez
Not Ramon Hernandez
Not even Byrnes
NONE OF THOSE GUYS HAVE VALUE.
mikev - August 10, 2009
Um...every single one of those guys came through around 2000 or before
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
What about Buck, Ethier and Teahen?
Just because they were traded or injured, they don’t count?
Please, richwol1, tell me what this has to do with the A’s offensive philosophy of getting on base as much as possible. Also, please tell me why you think the scouts suck, even though scouts are partly responsible for acquiring Carter, Anderson, Outman, Cardenas, etc. etc. etc..
NateHST - August 10, 2009
Okay
First, Buck hasn’t established himself as a major leaguer. Second, you’ve just named the only two other guys who had any major league success, and the A’s chose to trade both of them before they hit the majors. I have no idea, and neither do you, whether their new organizations worked with them or not prior to their successes.
Second
-You’re skimming my posts. These people you’re naming came in 2008. What about between around 2000 and 2008? Again, position players, not pitchers.In fact, if you look at the pitchers who’ve come up completely within the organization and been successful
-Ziegler, Harang, Harden, Barton, Bailey, Bradford, Street, and the list goes on-you’ll see a striking difference compared to the number of position players coming up through the system. Obviously, when it comes to pitchers, the A’s are doing something very right. But amongst hitters, the list is pitiful, which is why players like Hannahan and the other dogs of summer wound up in an A’s uniform.richwol1 - August 10, 2009
I'm skimming your posts?
You’re straight up ignoring my posts. What does this even have to do with the A’s offensive philosophy? Remember what I said about cycles?
In regards to Buck, he was very successful his first year in the majors, but came back the next year injured and hasn’t been the same since. So are you saying that the A’s scouts suck because they only draft players who will later get injured? Or traded?
mikev was right, you laid down some ridiculous stipulations to prove your point that has nothing to do with what this conversation started about. What about Crosby or Jeremy Brown? God, the A’s really suck at drafting 5’5" lefties that were born in Mexico, raised in California, and had GPAs between 2.5 and 2.7.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
First off, you didn't specifiy years.
Second, Hernandez’ rookie year was 2000 (he played 40 games in 1999), and Byrnes made his MLB debut in 2000, but didn’t play more than half a season until 2002.
Oh, and Mark Ellis has never played for anybody but the A’s in the major leagues, and played in Triple A for 2 years in Sacramento, but I guess that doesn’t meet your criteria because he wasn’t drafted by the A’s, right?
I mean, this is all shit you can find just from clicking around baseball-reference.com, it’s not like it’s hard to find information. Why not spend a little time there before proclaiming the A’s have had NO POSITION PLAYER of value, when they very clearly have?
mikev - August 10, 2009
Again
No position player of value rose through the ranks and played for the A’s other than Swisher and Suzuki. You can hedge and fudge and mention Byrnes because his prime years began a bit later, or Ellis even though he didn’t start in the organization.
But still
-the list is pitiful, even if you slightly enlarge it. The reason Billy Beane had to sell the store in 2008 is because the minors were bereft. And they weren’t bereft because all the players were in the majors. They were bereft because the players they’d chosen and developed sucked.richwol1 - August 10, 2009
Look, man
Here are your requirements for this list:
Must have been drafted by the A’s
Must have played with the A’s throughout the minors
Must have played for the A’s
Must have been successful major leaguers
And that’s kind of ridiculous.
Mark Teahen was drafted and developed by the A’s, but has enjoyed 5 successful seasons with the Royals. He’s out.
Jeremy Brown was drafted and developed by the A’s, had an .800+ OPS throughout his minor league career, but retired for personal reasons (not baseball related). He’s out.
Bob Crosby was drafted and developed by the A’s, was widely considered one of the best prospects in baseball, but after three seasons of being plagued by injuries, is now a utility infielder. He’s out.
Why are you also refusing to acknowledge that scouts are responsible for scouting minor league players as well. They scouted, and saw something in, Carter, Cardenas, Outman, FDLS, Sweeney, Spencer, Donaldson, Cunningham, etc. who are all being developed currently.
But you are saying that because the A’s didn’t draft them, they are irrelevant. They did not develop them. They do not matter.
Come on, man.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
So you're saying the A's hitting philosophy is a bad idea
because they A’s are have drafted more successful pitchers than successful hitters? I don’t think that makes a lot of sense.
I honestly don’t know where this is coming from, or what point it has to do with this discussion.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
I'm not sure he does either.
mikev - August 10, 2009
Don't reply for me
The A’s have been consistently unsuccessful in developing position players since the days of Byrnes, Tejada, Chavez, Giambi, Ramon Hernandez. Only Nick Swisher and Kurt Suzuki have been with the team til the majors, and survived. ONLY TWO POSITION PLAYERS IN AROUND A DECADE.
Maybe you think that’s good. I think it’s terrible. I don’t know what the reason is, but to play denial games is ridiculous.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
That isn't good
But you’re ignoring other players and ignoring other factors—like trades, injuries, etc. You’re also ignoring the success we’ve had with pitchers and the fact that even though we weren’t that successful, we were one of the best teams in the league for the better part of said decade. You’re also ignoring the fact that right now, we have one of the most stacked minor league systems in the league, and it’s a lot more position player heavy than it used to be.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
No you're not getting it.
If the VERY SPECIFIC CRITERIA that he lays out aren’t met, then the team has failed.
mikev - August 10, 2009
Again....
The reason the A’s were forced to reload by dumping Haren, Blanton and Harden was because the position players in the organization weren’t very good. I’m asking why that was, and you guys are denying the fact that
-again, of ALL the position players in the organization, only Swisher and Suzuki prospered with the A’s, and even if you add Teahen and Ethier to the mix, you’ve still got a very small number.richwol1 - August 10, 2009
I like how you change your tune after you're proven wrong.
You should probably go and look at the years those guys played. Just sayin.
mikev - August 10, 2009
Agreed.
This argument is way simpler than than everyone is making it. If you have the chance to get on base by walking or getting hit by a pitch, regardless of the situation, you should take that walk or hbp. Getting on base always helps increase the probability of scoring runs. Unless the hitter in the on deck circle is blind, paralyzed, or a member of the 2008 Oakland Athletics, getting on base is all that matters.
travdog6 - August 10, 2009
But...
Do you fake the HBP w/ RISP?
Colorado Fan - August 10, 2009
Sure, if the bases are loaded.
DMOAS - August 10, 2009
I think so.
If you have the opportunity to get on base, you take it. I get what others are saying, but the numbers say that Cano would have been a better option anyways, and that the run expectancy increases with a guy on first. So I say take it.
travdog6 - August 10, 2009
Isn't this overstating it?
I’m not a hater of the patient approach like many here seem to be, but surely it can’t be true that
and
[my emphasis]
If that were the case then, among other things, it logically follows that an intentional walk is always a mistake. Do you believe that?
iglew - August 10, 2009
Intentional walks
There are times when you’re facing Albert Pujols and Joe Thurston is on deck. Obviously, it’s a bad idea to face Pujols. So you walk him. But from the offensive team’s standpoint, it’s a free baserunner. The walk is both good for the offensive team and good for the defensive team.
However, walks are more often than not detrimental to the defensive team, but are always good for the offensive team.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
Nate, there are also situations in which the 2nd run doesn't matter
A tie game in the bottom of the ninth, runner on 3rd, one out: the IBB is bad largely because it increases the odds of a big inning. But 1 run is the only outcome that matters in that situation. A strategy that reduces the chances of allowing 1 run is a good strategy, even if it makes a multi-run inning more likely.
Nick - August 10, 2009
A very rare situation.
And still, with a runner on 3rd or with runners on 1st and 3rd, you still have to hit a deep fly ball or get a base hit to get the guy on 3rd home. You do make a valid point, though, in that there are situations when one run is just as good as a thousand runs.
However, the incident last night in question with Swisher wasn’t one of those situations.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
Whoa, now I'm really confused.
I try to keep an open mind, but if anything is certain I should think it is that any given baseball game is a zero-sum game between the two teams playing.
Are you really saying that it’s possible that something could be good for one team AND good for the other team at the same time?? Does it somehow make both teams likelier to win?
If it were a WinExp graph, which way would the line go when this benefits-both-teams intentional walk happens?
iglew - August 10, 2009
I can see today's headline:
Intentional Walk Leads To Victory For A’s, Orioles
Nico - August 10, 2009
When I was a kid, I was fascinated by the paradox of
the game “Red Rover”. During the game, there are two teams competing against each other. But then when (if) the game finally ends, everyone is on the winning team. There are no losers.
I’m not sure I ever saw a game actually end, though.
iglew - August 10, 2009
Wow, you're right.
I assume in a WinExp graph, an intentional walk would help out the offensive team. But in the situation listed above, I think it would increase the defensive team’s chance that they got a DP and got out of the inning scoreless. But it seems like in other situations, it would lead to the offensive team’s chance to score more runs. I could be completely wrong, I don’t know where I would go to find stats like that.
NateHST - August 10, 2009
Ya, you're right.
I should be more careful with the word always, cause I didn’t actually mean always. Those situations are rare, however. And seeing that I’m an A’s fan, I don’t really witness intentional walks much.
travdog6 - August 10, 2009
It's to win games. Scoring runs is just a really damn good way to win them.
iglew - August 9, 2009
Joe Morgan is a putz!
Bitter and angry about shut out being an owner of the A’s. I thin he wrote Moneball! How could ANYONE ever say he’s right about ANYTHING! Sorry, can’t stand the man. Don’t give him any credit. And this is the Swingin’ Runnin’ A’s you’re talking about! Let’s sweep the dumb O’s!
A'sfansince1970 - August 9, 2009
He might be a schmuck, but I think "putz" is a bit harsh, even for Morgan.
Nick - August 10, 2009
??
Is one more severe than the other? I guess I think of the two words are roughly equivalent.
iglew - August 10, 2009
Nope
Putz is a baby dick. Schmuck is a horse’s dick. Yiddish is great that way.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
Thus
Steve Phillips, the ESPN commentator is a putz. But Steve Phillips, as GM of the Mets, was a schmuck.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
You could call a friend a schmuck
“Jeez, don’t be such a schmuck, ask her out!”
Calling a friend a putz would be a lot more serious. More like, “Don’t be such a fucking asshole.”
Nick - August 10, 2009
Or "Don't be an injured reliever with the Mets."
Nico - August 10, 2009
Not true
“Jeez, don’t be such a putz, ask her out!” is not more serious than “Jeez, don’t be such a schmuck, ask her out.” In fact, I’d say it’s probably more appropriate in context.
A putz wouldn’t ask her out. A schmuck would call her and say she was glad he asked her out.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
Well, learn something new every day.
I know the difference between a schlemiel and a schlimazel, but I guess I didn’t know the difference between a schmuck and a putz. I thought they were both just Yiddish for dick.
iglew - August 10, 2009
Yeah
This was something I learned from my mom. Go figure.
richwol1 - August 10, 2009
Chavy 2009 A's 1B ????
MMunoz33 - August 10, 2009
Chavy 2008 A's 1B ????
They could have gone that route. Or they could sign Giambi. :-(
Nico - August 10, 2009
I remember that post.
You sure called it and Beane didn’t listen!!!!
:-)
MMunoz33 - August 10, 2009
Well, it wasn't "obvious" -- especially since the A's didn't have
a great 3B option if they moved Chavez to 1B. My point, though, was that the best chance to keep Chavez’ bat in the lineup was to limit his throwing, and while an .800 OPS might not be stellar for a 1Bman it was better than Barton was likely to put up.
I think the best approach would not have been to try to get Chavez’ bat to “play well for the position” but rather to accept that the best chance to keep him healthy in general was not to make him throw from 3B. And his defensive skills could easily translate into GG play at 1B.
Nico - August 10, 2009
funny
I only heard a couple innings on the radio and didn’t know Crosby hit the 3-run jack. I was talking baseball with my family a little later at lunch and was slamming Crosby about how much he stinks. It was probably right about that time he was hitting his second HR. At least for one day he proved me wrong.
micdog2001 - August 10, 2009
Um, Crosby didn't hit a 3-run jack
He hit two solo shots. Sweeney hit the 3-run jack.
gigglingone - August 10, 2009
See? He can't do anything right!
speckops - August 10, 2009
Tech note
I’m having technical difficulties with this page. I’m using Internet Explorer (because I’m at work, where I don’t get to pick the browser).
Every time I load the page, after cranking through all the sidebars and ads and stuff it jumps to a Google images page where I get the error message
I can the click to go back, but it just tries to reload the page and the same thing happens again. It never succeeds in finishing loading the page. If I cancel the page loading after the main text is up but the ads and sidebars aren’t done yet, I can get it to stop so I can read the page. If I cancel at the right time, I can also get the reply buttons to work so I can come in and post, but it took me three or four tries to get here. (I’m not sure if C, X, and Z are working, since all the comments were marked read when I had to reload the page.)
Has anyone else experienced this? (Anyone else who managed to get through and actually read this, I mean….)
It’s the only AN thread I’ve been into today, so I don’t know if it’s just this thread or every thread. (The front page is OK though.)
iglew - August 10, 2009
maybe this will help you, ig
http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=99364
Looks some sort of spyware-bot-webcrawler-world domination thing going on.
cuppingmaster - August 10, 2009
OK, I read that, but it looks like it's
advising the person writing the web page not to use a certain site meter, so this is only helpful for Blez and his team of SB code-monkeys, not me.
And even if it is suggesting something for me to do on my end, I’m at work, so it’s not like I can go in and mess around with the software. (If I could do that, I wouldn’t be using IE in the first place….)
iglew - August 10, 2009
Ugh, it's happening on the game thread, too.
No more AN for me till I get home. Maybe this is the computer’s way of telling me I should stop reading AN at work and actually get some work done for a change.
iglew - August 10, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.