Right now, outfield is the least of the A's problems as they trot out different versions of Suck & Sucker on the left side of the infield. But an innocent, and reasonable, comment in a recent fanpost struck me (I'm fine, just a little swelling), from Bleed Green. He/She/It says a starting OF of Hairston, Davis, and Sweeney "projects to be a decent starting OF for seasons to come." And this makes me wonder if watching the A's play for three lousy years has lowered our standards for what an OF looks like on a good team.
First of all, let me make an initial case that you could do a lot worse for an OF. Defensively, that's a very good OF if you assume, as I do, that Hairston is a much better LFer than he has looked like so far in an A's uniform (one can assume the quad injury is affecting him a lot more than anyone is letting on). Davis may be prone to clusters of bizarre episodes of running down fly balls only to clank them, bobbling balls for no apparent reason, and so on, but with his speed and the jumps he gets on balls deep in both alleys, he's going to help you a lot more than he's going to hurt you in CF. And Sweeney, who got some very poor reads in CF and whose strides are longer than they are actually quick, has looked like a future -- if not present -- gold glove caliber RFer, getting good reads, taking charge, and covering a lot of ground. It's a solid defensive OF. Can it hit?
Here's where I look around and see OFs with actual hitters -- 25 HR guys, .300 hitters, .400 OBP men, batters who belong in the "middle of the order." Here's what I see from the trio of Hairston-Davis-Sweeney:
Hairston: He already has a history of not getting on the field, 100% healthy, so it's unwise to project him over a full season. But if you do, I believe Hairston can be a 20HR guy. 25HRs, though, is a stretch. Trouble is, Hairston is really a platoon player and it's the wrong half: A hitter who handles LHP but can't hit RHP is only a real threat 1/4 of the time, whereas a hitter who handles RHP but can't hit LHP is in his element 3/4 of the time.
Hairston has a career OBP of .288 against RHP. That tells you a lot right there. He has also HRed every 19 ABs against LHP but only every 26.5 ABs against RHP. When a RHP is on the mound, you don't want that batting in the middle of your order and with "ok power" you're looking at Kevin Kouzmanoff and Rod Barajas no matter where you bat it. Hairston is a good platoon player, but that's it.
Davis: Heck if anyone of us truly knows what Rajai Davis will do, as a hitter, if he plays every day in 2010. Be suitably humble, folks. You don't know, I don't know, Beane and Geren don't know, and if Skaaaaaaaaaalan knows he isn't saying. What we can probably assume is that it won't be as good as it is this year and it won't be as bad as it was last year with the Giants. So he should hit somewhere between .056 and .300. If he plays every day to give you the benefit of his defense, let's say he might settle in somewhere in the range of .250/.330/.380, which is around his career line, with a rip-snorting 30 SBs. That's fine. It's better when your corner OFers are mashing, but it's good. He'd be doing his part.
Sweeney: He's hitting well right now, even showing a little more propensity to drive the ball (and saying, "I don't know why I didn't do this all year," which is like Zito saying, "I probably should have been more FITZ the last 12 starts"). Trouble is, his numbers against LHP aren't just bad, they're horrific (.234/.307/.299, for a .606 OPS), but Sweeney has a consistent history, majors and minors, of scuffling against southpaws. So even if he starts hitting for a little more power -- and let's not get carried away; if he doubles his power overnight he'll still only be a 12 HR guy -- he is a platoon player.
Two problems here. One is that the A's don't have a single really good hitter in the OF, where the Angels currently have three in Abreu (.400 OBP), Hunter (.919 OPS), and Rivera (.500 slugging pct.), and most teams that win more games than they lose have at least one. The other problem, not unrelated, is that two of the A's three OFers are "fourth OFers," or platoon players: Hairston and Sweeney.
Now put Hairston and Sweeney together and make them one Roenicke-Lowenstein monster, and you might have a really good hitter who can give you good defense (basically Juan Rivera's bat with Hairston and Sweeney's glove). That platoon, going on current career numbers and allowing for a slight bump for Sweeney's power, could give you a line of .289/.341/.460 with very good defense.
Conclusion: Whenever the A's plan to actually compete, they need to relegate Hairston and Sweeney to share a spot in the OF, flanked by a legitimate impact hitter at one of the corners. The outfield is not set, not yet, because around the league there are too many Grady Sizemores, Nelson Cruzes, Jason Bays, Jermaine Dyes, and Nick Markaki setting the standard of an OFer you might actually want to see at the plate even when the pitcher has the nerve to throw with the wrong hand.
3 recs | 155 comments
Hairston
is he going to be back next year? i admit i have paid absolutely no attention to him, mostly because it didn’t seem he would be around after september. and partly because we’d already had a “he doesn’t care” this year, or was it “he doesn’t scare,” and the novelty wore off on that. but seriously, should i be paying attention?
AV - September 5, 2009
Under contract through at least next season.
VV A's fan - September 5, 2009
i thought he had signed for 1 year with the padres and then the A’s traded for him. was there something else after that? i tried looking it up and thought i had the answer, but either this is wrong or i don’t know how to read it.
AV - September 5, 2009
IIRC, he's under control through 2011 if the A's want
Nico - September 5, 2009
Yes, 2011
C’mon, you guys – bookmark Cot’s. That way you have your answer in less time than it takes you to post the question on AN, and it’s an indispensable repository of contract information.
Hairston had 3+ years of MLB service time entering the year, so he’ll still have two team-controlled arb-eligible years after this one. With the season going down the tubes, obviously the A’s wouldn’t have traded Gallagher for a player without value beyond this season.
Faust - September 5, 2009
guys? it's just me sir.
i think i’m the only one who was confused. funny thing, i got confused after looking it up in cot’s, which has 2009 in parentheses and nothing else. that’s why i asked how to read it.
now on to climbing the two peaks of mount kilimanjaro…
AV - September 5, 2009
Arthur Wilson #2
I presume?
BleedGreen - September 5, 2009
you got it!
AV - September 5, 2009
Ah, OK
The representation of service time can be confusing.
He’s only under contract for this year, that’s true, and that’s why you only see that bit about 2009. But look down to the bottom, where it shows “ML service: 3.102”. That means 3 years (and 102 days) coming into the year. That allows you to do the math yourself – he’ll be over 4 years at season’s end (already is, for that matter) and it takes 6 to reach free agency, so there are two more arb years.
Faust - September 5, 2009
sweet sweet Faustus.
Leopold Bloom - September 5, 2009
i get it!
AV - September 5, 2009
I really fucking hate the Hairston deal more and more every day.
What a complete sell low on Gallagher, combined with buying on Hairston at his absolute peak.
mikev - September 5, 2009
+1
faninphilly - September 5, 2009
+ another
oblique - September 5, 2009 via mobile
I think Hairston would be fine as a platoon player,
where he could slug .500 and give you a good bat against LHP, which the A’s need. But that means he should be on the bench 3/4 of the time.
Nico - September 5, 2009
That's not the kind of player you acquire for a pair of pitching specs
and Sean Gallagher.
Regardless of whether Webb/Italiano will amount to anything. Or Gallagher, for that matter.
mikev - September 5, 2009
That Gallagher's stock was low when we sold him
is no guarantee at all that his price is going to go up.
Nate - September 5, 2009
It was probably, ultimately,
a “meh” for “meh” trade.
Nico - September 5, 2009
Right, only the "meh" that we acquired
Comes along with Hairston’s salary and/or Arby figure for next year, as opposed to league minimum
mikev - September 5, 2009
wait.
we get Arby’s in the deal?
Leopold Bloom - September 5, 2009
EW
mikev - September 5, 2009
Better than Fatapples?
travdog6 - September 5, 2009
...and that's a waste
…unless he’s platooning with Sweeney, as you suggest.
I’m seeing strides by Sweeney this year. It wouldn’t surprise me if his R/L splits improve next year. I figure that by the time Sweeney actually turns into the player people originally expected, Beane will trade him with two years to go til free agency, and we’ll start from scratch.
Paul Thomas is right about Rajai Davis. He’s peaking now. Sell high. This team is two years away from contending, and in two years all of the position players on the major league team today will be gone save for Sweeney, Suzuki and Landon Powell.
richwol1 - September 5, 2009
You keep saying 3/4
which I assume is because 3/4 of starting pitchers are right-handed. But don’t the Oakland A’s face an abnormally high amount of LHP? For a while there it seems like every team was rearranging their rotation just to put their lefties against us.
iglew - September 5, 2009
That's because we can't hit lefties.
VV A's fan - September 5, 2009
Yes, which makes Hairston more valuable to us.
iglew - September 5, 2009
It's a little skewed by however the rest of the division's rotation looks,
and a little by chance. Somewhere in the 70%-75% range should be right, though. Especially with Bedard and Washburn gone, the rest of the West has what, only Holland, Saunders, and Rowland-Smith? Maybe also Eric Harrison.
Nico - September 5, 2009
Kazmir needs to be in that group as well
designatedforassignment - September 5, 2009
nice catch
adragon - September 5, 2009
Rec'd
winchester5 - September 5, 2009
Same.
I hated deal since day 1.
Syphon - September 5, 2009
I couldn't say I hated it
because I new little of Hairston, but since I’ve had the opportunity to watch him play on a daily basis, I’m very close to agreeing with you.
sf drift king - September 5, 2009
Gallagher had nothing imo
hes going to flounder in the Padres organization just like he was doing here…and in Chicago.
BleedGreen - September 5, 2009
"million dollar arm, 5 cent brain"
Gallagher will never amount to anything, I dont know why this trade would piss people off.
Hairston’s hurt but at least has proven he can mash at the big league level, something Cunningham, Denorfia and Buck havent been able to do, and if those 3 were making moves, Hairston never comes here. He’s streaky but he’s also like Holliday in that the NL—→AL move is going to take a while for him to adjust to. No one predicted he would go from a 900 OPS to a 700 one, I guess its just proof that the NL really is easier to hit in.
PL78 - September 5, 2009
I'd argue the million dollar arm notion
but then again I’d prefer hamhocks and beans to lousy tasting pork ribs…
BleedGreen - September 5, 2009
I'm with the two of you
I can get not liking Hairston, but I’m still not seeing what made Gallagher so great and valuable.
walk off bunt - September 5, 2009
Yep,
at the end of the day, he’s still an “all talk, no production” prospect.
sf drift king - September 5, 2009
23 years old, and no real reason to get rid of him
vs Hairston, who is 29 and likely won’t be any better than he is now
mikev - September 5, 2009
but if you "..really fucking hate the Hairston deal.." now,
how will you feel once Gallagher actually amounts to something…
sf drift king - September 5, 2009
goatee champion?
Leopold Bloom - September 5, 2009
Davis
The .250 average you’re projecting seems awfully low, given that Davis’ minor league batting average was .305. He’s never going be a power hitter and his BB rate tops out at “passable”, but whether he’s been lucky this season or not, he’s also shown the ability to make enough solid contact that he’s going to get more hits than that, especially with his speed.
Nate - September 5, 2009
I'm figuring that if he hits against RHP 3/4 of the time,
he’s likely a .250 hitter in the big leagues. I hope he’s better, but I’m trying to avoid being overly optimistic and he’s had stretches of looking pretty hopeless on sliders, hitting lots of balls in the air, etc. over his major league career.
Nico - September 5, 2009
I think you're aiming low, there.
At no level, including the majors, has he ever had a decent stint (defined as >25 PAs) where he hit below .260. What I look at over his career is some streaky tendencies, but when he’s gotten constant playing time (August 2007, this year) he’s generally hit somewhere around .300 with enough doubles and walks to get an OPS in the .750-.800 range.
I think your .250/.330/.380 is a 20th or 30th percentile projection. Yeah, it’s not unreasonable, but it’s on the low side of what he’s shown he can do.
Nate - September 5, 2009
That'd be nice, fo' shizzle.
Nico - September 5, 2009
We have a bunch of 4th OFers right now.
I dont like Sweeney or Hariston. Davis will prob turn back into a pumpkin soon enough. We just gotta hope Buck/Cunningham/Doolittle can produce next year.
Syphon - September 5, 2009
Seriously????
Buck? Cunningham?? Come on man.
BleedGreen - September 5, 2009
What OFer do you suggest?
You got a magic hat you can just pull good OFers outta?
Syphon - September 5, 2009
Coco Crisp might be available
Once you stop laughing you’ll realize there is no quick fix. However, running what we have been running out there, letting them get their chops and seeing what potential is there it just ain’t working, imo.
BleedGreen - September 5, 2009
You're right -- there's no quick fix
to my laughing episodes when you mention Coco Crisp. :-)
Nico - September 5, 2009
Yeah no one wants to see that
BleedGreen - September 5, 2009
Here’s something that blew my mind: Franklyn Guitierrez is the only OFer in mlb that has a better UZR than Raj
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=cf&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=600&type=0&season=2009&month=0
PL78 - September 5, 2009
Franklyn Guitierrez impresses me, btw
I wish the A’s had gotten in on landing him.
Nico - September 5, 2009
Definitely
Excellent, excellent defense, great arm, and a bat that well qualifies as “good enough.”
walk off bunt - September 5, 2009
don't care for his bat
but I’d take coco over rajai in center field any day.
sf drift king - September 5, 2009
I'm sorry to strike you....
and its a he, fyi. And I didn’t say seasons to come I meant just next year. I am merely basing my assumption on the recent trend of not actually finding anyone of any palpable ability to man the positions. If were not gonna lock anyone up for the next 3-4 seasons we must be looking for anyone in the org to play until the countless prodigies in the system come up and make something of themselves. Were obviously not interested in actually winning, or we’d be getting some mofos of all-Star ability. Not potential…ability. We are stocked to the gills in effing potential, we just need someone to come through. This franchise has been successful for FAR too long than to just become the Pirates of the West Coast.
BleedGreen - September 5, 2009
I fear I must submit to the court,
where I got “seasons to come”.
Nico - September 5, 2009
Hooo boy
you got me there.
I hope my inadvertent gaffe doesn’t knock down my straw man.
BleedGreen - September 5, 2009
Don't worry, it's not that windy today. ;-)
Nico - September 5, 2009
and to add...
the Oakland Athletics are becoming an organization of what one would call AAAA players.
…and I for one am getting sick of it.
BleedGreen - September 5, 2009
+1
sf drift king - September 5, 2009
What's a contender's outfield?
Not this one, that’s for sure.
jeepers - September 5, 2009
Long, Justice and Dye
BleedGreen - September 5, 2009
That sounds like a trio from a Western.
Nate - September 5, 2009
or attorneys at law
9Custs - September 5, 2009
Long Dye Justice
…sounds like a really bad Hong Kong martial arts movie.
richwol1 - September 5, 2009
I almost resent that!
But alas, Jackie Chan is the only person who could probably save the A’s now. Well that, and Chuck Norris.
DyeLongJustice - September 5, 2009
2010 should be cunningham in left, davis/sweeney in center, and buck in right if you ask me
and build a time machine to take back the hairston trade. not that it was a horrible deal for us, but i still don’t understand why we did that…
9Custs - September 5, 2009
Beane was looking for a power bat to replace Holliday
richwol1 - September 5, 2009
again, why would he gat hairston?
9Custs - September 5, 2009
Arguably, it also helped push up Holliday's trade value
by removing one other upgrade option from the market.
iglew - September 5, 2009
this is the real reason, IMO
it took away the only other legitimate, affordable RH bat.
notsellingjeans - September 5, 2009
I remember many folks around here agreeing about that point.
Once Hairston was off the market, Holliday became an even more valuable hostage. I don’t have a problem with the Hairston/Galllagher trade per se in what the end game was….just at the time I was skeptical as to how the A’s went sour on the lad in such a short time.
But, that has been discussed to death already. Go A’s!
mrod - September 5, 2009
Squeezing some more offense out of this mess.
If this team is at-all serious about scoring more runs next season and doesn’t plan on going outside the organization to do so, the only OF configuration that makes sense to me is:
LF – Platoon of Sweeney/Hairston
CF – Rajai
RF – Cust
Cust is a terrible fielder, granted, but with Rajai’s range, I think you can live with Cust out there against right-handed pitching. That will allow this team to plug another bat into the DH slot against right-handers…at this point, that DH slot could be used by Chavez, who seems fairly resigned to and willing to become a DH just to get back on the field. If you start him only against right-handers and pinch-run for him late in-games and whatnot, the team might be able to squeeze a .770 OPS and 15 homers out of him.
Taj Adib - September 5, 2009
I see things like "good defender here can cover for bad defender there" a lot.
Intuitively, it doesn’t seem right to me (i.e. Cust is going to be -15 whether he’s next to a +10 or -5 defender), but I won’t dismiss it out of hand. Instead, I’ll ask if anyone has any seen any research one way or the other?
And anyway, this suggestion goes back to one of my pet peeves. Run scoring is our biggest problem, but this alignment makes us worse overall. I think it’s very unlikely that Cust, including offense and defense, is going to be a better RF than Cunningham (or blacklisted Buck) next year, not to mention that Cunningham as a RF is going to be ton more valuable than Chavez (or anyone else) DHing and putting up a .770 OPS and 15 homers. Cunningham would have to be an absolutely atrocious hitter to make up that difference.
Elston Gunn - September 5, 2009
I haven't read any studies supporting the claim that one good defender can cover for a bad defender.
To me, it makes some sense. For instance, I’m wondering if a guy like Daric Barton, who had a reputation as a less-than-stellar defender at 1st prior to last season, got any benefit from playing next to Mark Ellis all year in 2008, knowing that Ellis was usually perfectly positioned and sure-handed and got to most everything hit to Barton’s right. Pure speculation on my part, though.
I’m not really convinced that Cunningham and/or Buck will get oppurtunities to be everyday players for the A’s. I’ll be really surprised if Buck is still with this organization next season and Cunningham (albeit in a small sample size) hasn’t shown the ability to hit major league pitching or even just make consistent contact with the baseball (9 to 40 BB-K ratio – ouch!)
As for Chavez…you’ve got to think that if he’s healthy enough to at least bat next season, he’ll get every chance to be the team’s DH, considering how much money is invested in him and the chance that without having to take the field on defense, he might be able to get back to his 2006 level of production – 22 homers, 84 RBIS – maybe?
That would obviously necessitate Cust taking the field more often that desired or it would necessitate him departing the organization. Considering the team’s desperate need for offense and power, I’d imagine that the team would take the defensive hit and play him in the field, however, that all depends on Chavez’s status. Without Chavez, then maybe Cunningham or even Doolittle will likely factor into the RF equation.
Taj Adib - September 5, 2009
I certainly think it is relevant with regard to lateral range,
because you can literally have a defender move a full step over and cover more of the possible balls in between. But it won’t impact balls behind Cust or in front of him, and I don’t think I can physically handle another high fly ball to short RF that somehow drops.
Nico - September 5, 2009
I think the OF is the place it would play out most
because a fair number of fly balls are high enough, and not hit deep enough, that the CF or the LF/RF could get them (or, in the A’s’ case, they could each assume the other will get it, or they could run into each other and let it drop…). With Cust in RF, I think Davis is going to catch every one of those hit to right-center. With Sweeney out there, he probably won’t make a point of never letting the RF try to put his glove on the ball.
Nick - September 5, 2009
Cust seems to make a point of
“never letting the RF try to put his glove on the ball.”
Nico - September 5, 2009
So cust can run him over on a nightly basis?
No thank you
Any plan that has Cust in RF is a LOSER!!!!
adragon - September 5, 2009
I agree with you Taj
Couple that with the obvious revelation of the current FA market – older sluggers have seen their value drop off precipitously.
There are about five legitimate bats that all belong at DH this offseason, and only 2-3 DH openings. One of them – a guy like, say, Jim Thome – will fall between the cracks.
Some lucky, smart team is gonna hit the jackpot signing a DH for $2-4 million and watch him put up an .850-.900 OPS next year.
notsellingjeans - September 5, 2009
Definitely.
In a perfect world, Eric Chavez can come back and play 3rd base on a semi-regular basis; Rajai Davis continues to hit and play exceptional defense and can cover for Cust’s non-existent range in right field; Cust doesn’t totally embarass himself out there and the A’s can grab one of Thome, Branyan, Guerrero or even Nick Johnson. However, Chavez will not be able to play very much at 3rd – if at all. So I’m just going to assume that he’ll be the DH against right-handed pitching.
I think it would be really interesting to maybe use a platoon DH and maybe see if you could grab Xavier Nady on the super-cheap if he’s healthy enough just to swing a bat. Nady has historically crushed left-handed pitching, and while his second Tommy John operation all-but prevents him from ever taking the field again, he might be able to continue on as a DH.
Taj Adib - September 5, 2009
Are you saying the A's will DH Chavez or that they should?
Because the former might be right, but the latter doesn’t make sense to me.
Let’s do a little math. First, let’s assume that Cust is equally valuable in OF as as a DH because Davis makes up for some of his poor defense (FTR, even if Davis makes up for some of it, I highly doubt this would be true).
So, then the question is whether Eric Chavez, DH, or Aaron Cunningham (or Buck, though I agree that he’s likely to be traded for no good reason, the way Gallagher was), RF, is more valuable.
I think your .770 OPS is a reasonable one for Chavez (though if anything, it’s optimistic). Let’s just say he repeats his 2006 for arguments sake, .780ish OPS in 130ish games. He was worth a little over 4 runs with the bat above an average hitter, which is nice. The problem is that now, he’s a DH, not a good defensive 3B, so we need to remove 17.5 runs just for the positional adjustment (actually a little less because he’s not playing a full season). That makes him, overall worth about 13 runs below average. That’s not worthless, but it kind of sucks.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that Cunningham would be at least average defensively. Personally I think he’ll be more like +5 in RF, considering he was thought of as someone that might be able to stick in CF until this year, but let’s just say he’s average. Subtract 7.5 runs for RF positional adjustment, and Cunningham needs to be about 6 runs below average with the bat to get to a place even equal with Chavez—for comparison, that would be a season with the bat worse than the one Ryan Sweeney is having right now.
Now consider all the assumptions made here. If Chavez is 5 runs worse than this optimistic projection OR Cust is five runs worse as a RF than as a DH OR Cunningham is a +5 defender like I think, then Cunningham would have to have to display Jack Hannahan-level suckitude offensively for Chavez to be as valuable as him. Then you also have to consider that Cunningham, as a 23 yr old, has plenty of upside, and Chavez, as a broken down old guy that will only be around for one more year has almost none. I just don’t see anyway you could rationally justify playing Chavez over Cunningham next year.
Elston Gunn - September 6, 2009
Ideally
Buck or Cunningham or maybe even carter will take over in RF, Rajai will give us a .320 wOBA in center and Sweeney and Hairston will platoon in left. Given what they’ve done in Sacto I see no reason why Buck and Cunningham can’t be good hitters at the major league level.
swatnick - September 5, 2009
yes, exactly.
Elston Gunn - September 5, 2009
See, if you can plug Carter in (and he's good), then suddenly problem solved
Carter, Davis, Sweeney/Hairston is a perfectly good OF for hitting and for defense.
Nico - September 5, 2009
thats a real good point
One guy can change the whole OF…
Colorado Booze Hounds - September 5, 2009
But will Carter be up in 2010?
Maybe in late 2010, (Sep.)
adragon - September 5, 2009
I think he will be
unless they sign a Free agent….
Colorado Booze Hounds - September 5, 2009
True Platoons
Never exist with this franchise. Either Management doesn’t believe in it or the players can’t stay healthy enough for it to exist for an extended period of time.
September 2010:
LF – Chris Carter/Travis Buck
CF – Rajai Davis
RF – Sweeney/Cunningham
1B: Barton/Carter/Chavvy
2B: Cardenas
SS: Pennington
3B: Wallace/Chavvy
DH/C: Suzuki/Powell
Hairston should be traded by then.
Colorado Fan - September 5, 2009
True platooning of position players is nearly obsolete
Teams platoon through their bullpens these days, and there aren’t enough spots on a major-league roster to do both. Starters don’t throw enough innings for Weaver-style platooning to be a really practical solution any more.
Nick - September 5, 2009
I don't think it's obsolete at all
I think it’s out of fashion, which is not the same thing.
And Colorado Fan is right, the A’s just won’t do it. I understand why players don’t like it – everyone wants to be an everyday guy. But it doesn’t make sense that managers don’t do more of it anyway. Geren, like Macha before him, gets uncomfortable if you even use the word “platoon.” It may be that managers think platooning makes them look like unthinking automatons, automatically going with righty-lefty and lefty-righty when they like to think they’re a lot more subtle than that. It may also be that they don’t want to upset the players by taking away that “starter” label. I think it’s both of those factors.
I wish we had an Earl Weaver, who wouldn’t worry about the players’ tender feelings so much and would say look, if you’re not good enough to be worth playing in all situations, I’ll play you where you’re good and sit you where you’re bad. If you’re replacement level or worse against same-sided pitchers, and there’s a readily available alternative, why on earth should you get the start instead of the other guy? In the right situation platooning makes all the sense in the world, and it’s a terrific way to have a chance to take inexpensive subprime assets and make them into something really worthwhile.
With Sweeney/Hairston (assuming you’ve got enough other outfield choices to make Sweeney-Hairston an either-or choice), you’d play the guy who gives you the best shot against the opposing starter. The other guy is a bat off the bench and a guy who can play any outfield position, so there’s flexibility there. If one of them is going to be on the bench anyway (which isn’t the case he way the roster is currently configured), it should be the guy who’s less likely to hit the opposing starter.
Faust - September 5, 2009
I agree pretty much with your premise.
The only situation where a team might not want to sit someone with a severe platoon split against same-side pitching is if the team is in a rebuilding/evaluation situation and they want to see if a young player can work through some struggles against same-side pitching so that they can figure things out at the major league level and become better overall hitters down the line for when the team is presumably competitive. This is, arguably, what the A’s have done with Sweeney both last season and this season….however, it’s becoming increasingly clear that he just can’t handle left-handed pitching and will likely never really be able to. Hairston, who’s now in his age 30 season, is basically the same. He’s all the hitter he’s ever going to be right now….and that hitter can’t hit right-handed pitching.
Taj Adib - September 5, 2009
I'm repeating myself here
but as I said above, teams still platoon all the time — they just play for the platoon advantage by bringing in relievers, rather than doing it by having two guys share a position (like Roenicke/Loewenstein did) and pinch-hitting freely.
And, as I said above, teams can’t choose to do both: you can’t have a 12-man bullpen, and have a starting DH, and have a bunch of platoon players who you pinch-hit for whenever they’re about to have an AB with a platoon disadvantage.
Also, remember that Weaver did all his platooning back when starters threw way more innings, teams had smaller bullpens, and there were very few (if any) real LOOGY’s around. If Pete Vuckovich was starting a key game for the Brewers, Weaver would start Loewenstein and know that he’d get 4 or even 5 PA’s with the platoon advantage – if Vuke left the game before the 8th, it would almost certainly be because he was getting hit hard.
These days, if someone loads their lineup with RH to face Brett Anderson, Geren might go to Ziegler in the 6th, even if Anderson has been effective — meaning the opposing manager would PH all his LH hitters, using up his entire bench in the process (because everyone has a 5-man starting rotation and 5-7 relievers, while Weaver had an 8 or 9 man staff). So, in a key situation in the 8th or 9th, Geren brings in Marshall to face a bunch of LH who can’t hit LH pitchers at all, and there’s no one to PH for them because nearly half the roster is pitchers and all the backup position players pinch-hit in when Ziegler came in in the 6th.
So, if the A’s want to platoon the way Weaver did, they’d have to start by having only 9 pitchers on the staff, which probably means a 4-man rotation and 30 or 40 CGs a year. Then they’d be able to fill the roster with position players with huge platoon splits, and PH for those guys to get the advantage whenever the opposing manager brings in a LH or RH specialist.
Nick - September 5, 2009
I think that's a lot of the reason --
Teams now only carry 4 bench players where in the past you could carry 6-7 because you had a 4 man rotation and 5-6 man bullpen.
Nico - September 5, 2009
You have a valid point, but you're overstating it
I’m not sure why, because you don’t need to.
Of course teams don’t have the same position player flexibility when they’re carrying 12-man pitching staffs rather than 11 or 10 (or even 9). That doesn’t mean platooning is impossible. In my example, if you carry 4 outfielders and two of them are pretty much set and the other two are a complementary righty-lefty set, there’s absolutely no reason you can’t start the one with the platoon advantage, which will give you more at-bats than not with a favorable matchup. You sure as hell don’t need a 9-man staff to do that. Even Weaver didn’t platoon everybody – the famous Roenicke-Lowenstein platoon was just one position.
Faust - September 5, 2009
I know it's not impossible
which is why I didn’t use the word impossible. I said it was “nearly obsolete.”
It’s certainly possible to platoon a position like LF for the A’s. But even with 2 guys with complementary platoon advantages, you still face the problem of deep bullpens forcing your hand in the middle innings — other teams’ bullpens are deeper than your bench. In 1980, for intance, John Lowenstein had 12 PA’s against LH — that’s virtually inconceivable with the way teams are structured today. And there were other guys, too. Dan Graham, a LH-hitting backup C, had 285 PAs that year — 253 of them against RH. Terry Crowley, a LH DH, had 259 PAs — 7 against LH. Benny Ayala, the RH DH, had 191 PAs — 19 against RH.
Meanwhile, Weaver’s 4 main starters started 142 games and the team had 42 CGs. The O’s used 12 pitchers all year, and 3 of them threw a total of 27.1 innings (which means 9 guys threw something like 98% of their innings). But part of that meant that if Steve Stone started a key game against the Yankees, Oscar Gamble could start and know that he’d be hitting against a RH the whole game (unless Tippy Martinez, the O’s only LH reliever, made one of his 53 appearances). Weaver platooned his hitters, but couldn’t platoon his pitching staff.
So yes, the A’s could platoon at one position. But Weaver’s approach involved how he built the entire team, not just how he dealt with a couple of ABs here and there. And until teams go back to a 4-man rotation with CGs in 1/4 of their games (or until rosters expand to 26 or 27 players), bullpens will be too big for teams to build lineups around Weaver-style platooning.
Nick - September 5, 2009
I don't disagree with any of this
So i suppose we’ve arrived at the proper balanced perspective.
Good stuff you looked up, too. Imagine using 12 pitchers all year! Not that long ago, but those were nonetheless certainly different times.
Faust - September 5, 2009
FA's
Here’s all the FA’s we should sign:
1. Chone Figgins (3/30)
2. Vlad Guerrero (2/20)
3. Adam Kennedy (1/2)
1B: Barton/Powell
2B: Ellis/Kennedy/Figgins
SS: Pennington/Figgins
3B: Figgins/Kennedy
C: Suzuki/Powell
LF: Hairston/Sweeney/Figgins
CF: Davis/Figgins
RF: Guerrero/Sweeney
DH: Cust/Guerrero
Bench: Sweeney, Powell, Kennedy
Thats the lineup of a contender
PL78 - September 5, 2009
Is Vlad really going to be available for 2/20?
I’m no contract maven, but that sure seems low to me. Has he really declined that much?
iglew - September 5, 2009
No thanks....
Figgins and Vlad = DO NOT WANT.
Vlad probably won’t come here even if we did want him (price not worth it), and Figgins is not the sort of thing you buy in free agency – aging speedster with meh defense.
And before you say we need a “legit lead off guy” let me introduce you to Mr Rajai Davis who costs us nearly nothing.
I would have Kennedy back every day of the week and twice on Sundays, I hope he is affordable enough for Billy’s taste.
Daniel777 - September 5, 2009
Figgins is the new Tony Phillips
Can play everywhere and walk a ton.
I want Raj and Chone hitting 1&2.
Vlad has had a bad year, but thats because he plays too much in the OF and that has hurt him. Cut his RF appearances to once or twice a week and he will be fine. The price will be low because of this and the market being bad again.
PL78 - September 5, 2009
Those 2 don't belong in the same
sentence together.
BleedGreen - September 5, 2009
I have a feeling...
that Wolf and Company will use the weak attendance figures to justify not spending a single penny in free agency this coming winter.
Unfortunately, I think what you see is what we’re going to get next season.
Taj Adib - September 5, 2009
Agreed
Wolff again trashed Oakland the other day, and made more noises about San Jose, particularly the release of the study showing how that city would benefit from a stadium. We’re seeing more attendance figures which say “Oakland doesn’t support the A’s”…granted, it’s all self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of Wolff, but it’s another notch in his effort to get the team out of here and down south.
Fielding a really bad team in 2010 is yet another notch. I don’t think the A’s are going to sign anyone, except maybe Cabrera just because he’ll be very cheap.
richwol1 - September 5, 2009
I really don't like to say I hate people but I sure don't like Lew Wolff
I really believe from the beginning he was just in this to make a real estate deal and has no interest in winning.
You can’t continue to bad mouth your stadium and the area that the majority of your fans come from and expect them to show up in droves.
When you add in the fact that the A’s have few players that casual fans have ever heard of and have some of the highest average ticket prices in baseball it adds up to a lot of empty seats.
It’s fine to want a stadium in San Jose but that is a long ways down the road and I for one don’t want to hear Wolff’s complaints for the next several years. He would help the A’s by just shutting the hell up and staying behind the scenes.
sirbed - September 5, 2009
Replace "Wolff" with "Nico" and "the A's" with AN,
and it reads just as well!
Nico - September 5, 2009
I'm coming after you next Nico!
You need to stop being so damn funny. I come to this site to be bored and you ruin that with all your posts that make sense and make me laugh.
sirbed - September 5, 2009
never mind that
i completely imitate everything about how Nico writes about this stuff (sincerest form of flattery and all) in whatever I come up with LOLOL
emperor nobody - September 5, 2009
everyone's finally waking up
I’ve said it for years: the plan has always been (since the Fremont thing imploded) to denigrate the value and performance of the team so that they don’t get more than the usual 17 people a night in the stands…. in this way, thier goal had been to manufacture consent to remove the team to what, for them, are greener pa$ture$.
This has been undertaken with the full cooperation and encouragement of the Commissioner of Baseball, himself a borderline criminal personality who allowed players to destroy both their bodies and the integrity of this game for a full decade or more whilst doing a whole lot of nothing. I can picture his denials on TV in future years, when the Bonds’s and the Giambis and the Tejadas and the Clemens’s are all, uh, dying horrible & painful deaths from the poison time bomb they introduced into their bodies on Selig’s “watch”.
What’s needed is a round of lawsuits alleging the collusion to steal the team out of Oakland between the ownership of the A’s and the Commissioner’s office; maybe that’s just my anger and resentment talking and no such above-ground link between the two old frat brothers can stand up in court, but at least it’d slow down the fuck-up-the-team-so-no-one-comes-and-we-can-steal-away program a little bit.
I think what someone alluded to earlier is true, that we essentially have 4 fourth outfielders, an aging 2B guy playing way out of position to the point where it costs us runs and games, a barely-AAAA shortstop (and a backup that used to be the SS that has sucked total donkey testes for as long as any of us cares to recall), and a gaggle of pitchers, however promising, that would have to stop me on the way into 7-11 to buy their underage asses a beer because of just such a subtle program of denigrate-and-evacuate-to-SJ.
I also think that this whole scenario is exactly what the Big Bad Wolff has had in mind all along, or at least since 2006, despite the fact that in my heart I wish none of this were true and we were on course as an organization to emerge from the awful malaise that has enveloped us.
Alright, rant over, sorry for the long gasbag post, my bad.
emperor nobody - September 5, 2009
Let's send Bud to the big house
I love the “borderline criminal personality” part of your rant in describing our dear leader Bud Selig. Give em’ Hell emperor!
sirbed - September 5, 2009
I think it's a good idea
Just to sue, to craft lawsuits whose goal is not necessarily to win or prove collusion (difficult in this situation, I know), but to slow down the theiving process and to shed some light on the thing that’s been going on: to publicize the idea that there could be something more to this than meets the eye.
Then we might get someone to ride in and buy it from Wolff to prevent the bad publicity for him, not to mention the fire that inevitably gets found where smoke was initially detected. I’d buy it myself, friends, if I had the money you know I would do it… we could have the first real fantasy team, run by the hardcore fans.
Imagine that front office, hahahaha: me as owner, Nico as GM, Blez and Minister of Player Development, LOLOL oh man that’d be so dope. I think 67M is a shoo-in for Minister of Information in that set-up, hmmmm. Obviously I would adopt the titles of authority from the old Black Panthers, just to keep it all Oakland-real =)
emperor nobody - September 5, 2009
Thank god someone invented the 12-b-6 motion
PaulThomas - September 8, 2009
For a second when I read the beginning of that post
I though, “Hey, did Free Seat Upgrade come back to post a comment”?
And I agree with you about Wolff’s intentions all along.
Nick - September 5, 2009
well,
the relationship has to be mutual. I don’t hear or see Oakland officials now or in the past doing anything to help keep the A’s in Oakland. The name I keep hearing is Mayor, Chuck Reid, and his actions are speaking loudly. Dellums nor his predecessor, Guv Moonbeam, wanted nothing to do with the A’s and a new stadium in Oakland. I believe Lew when he said: they have exhausted all possiblities with Oakland, ie; dealing with Oakland’s lame ass, do nothing govt officials.
sf drift king - September 5, 2009
Exactly. It's hard to conclusively villify Wolff
for leaving a place that consistently made no effort to keep the team and even practically said please go away.
Nico - September 5, 2009
plus,
I believe at one point, the Oakland Alameda Joint Authority or whomever runs/operates the Coliseum once said that they would make more money once the A’s left, meaning don’t let the door hit ya on your way out.
sf drift king - September 5, 2009
I couldn't agree with this post any more.
Sadly, nobody will turn this green because everybody wants the A’s and Lew Wolff to be the villain, and not the city of Oakland that’s bent over backwards to do what Al Davis and the Raiders want, meanwhile telling the A’s to go piss into the wind.
mikev - September 5, 2009
I've recc'd about three of your comments in this thread alone
As usual, a steady voice of reason, Taj.
notsellingjeans - September 5, 2009
I disagree.
despite what you may think, Wolff wants to win, and he himself said that he was tired of this team getting players who are at the end of their careers, so that tells me that he will try to add a FA or 2 in the offseason much like he did this year, but hopefully with better results.
sf drift king - September 5, 2009
I agree, sf drift king
I don’t buy the conspiracy theories, though I have to say there have been enough PR blunders to sink a battleship.
Nico - September 5, 2009
word...
This team needs a major facelift and PR makeover…
mrod - September 5, 2009
put me in charge.
Seriously.
mikev - September 5, 2009
You have my vote mike v.
Gettir dun!
mrod - September 5, 2009
Markakis
If you’re going for a Greek plural, it should be Markakes. Same logic as axis-axes, thesis-theses, neurosis-neuroses, etc.
Mind you, I’m not saying you should, but it makes more sense than “Markaki”.
iglew - September 5, 2009
somehow I knew you'd know that!
stormtown - September 5, 2009
I really wish we could get off the
Travis Buck train. Then again, I’ve never boarded it…
I just do NOT see the fascination.
BleedGreen - September 5, 2009
And .851 OPS in 2007 and those luscious golden locks.
Bam, you’re in love. At least that’s what happened to me.
travdog6 - September 5, 2009
The guy skipped AAA
and his double-A numbers prior to that were not suggestive of anything near his ’07 success.
We’ve all committed the fan fallacy that guys like Tango and MGL joke about over at The Book blog. We were intoxicated with 80 great games from Travis Buck. We assumed it was his true talent level.
They might end up being the greatest 80 games of his career.
notsellingjeans - September 5, 2009
Ya,
I fell into the trap of overvaluing those 80 games. That being said, they at the very least showed he has potential to be a good baseball player. I’d like to see him get another shot.
travdog6 - September 5, 2009
How about this guy in his first taste of the bigs?
109 G 434 PAs
21 2B
15 HR
50 BB
52 Ks
.275/.355/.451
Ladies and gentlemen, meet Dan Johnson.
Sometimes guys look at first like they have it, and they don’t.
Nick - September 5, 2009
Bando Campo
Future Ed - September 5, 2009
How about the games played later on?
Buck:
2007 – 82
2008 – 38
2009 – 31
Johnson
2005 – 109
2006 – 91
2007 – 117
Johnson had the opportunity to play enough games with the big club to give a much more conclusive result on the type of player he was. Buck, on the other hand, after 2007 played not even half of his 2007 total. Buck also had his swing messed with, which Johnson never did, and Johnson wasn’t ever in a position where if he had one bad game, he had to worry about being sent down.
I grant you, the pattern at the beginning looks similar, however after that, the two are night and day.
MrMoneyBaller - September 7, 2009
I think you're overstating your case.
Buck’s probably not a true talent .850 OPS, hitter but he does have a career .860 OPS in the minors, and pretty good COF D. He’s not going to be a star, but he’s probably at least as good as Hairston, and I’d guess a little better. It is moot, though, as he’s headed the Gallagher route out of the orginization at the nadir of his value.
Elston Gunn - September 6, 2009
Using similar data that you provided:
Hairston’s career minor league OPS: .968
Buck’s career minor league OPS: .860
And they were in the minors during similar ages.
Using MLEs (which I haven’t looked up, but I’m familar with the concept), and the minor league OPS you provided, Buck is probably a true-talent .725 OPS guy for the A’s. And he’s definitely not a plus plus defender.
He basically has skills that are superfluous amongst corner outfielders in many organizations. I think our AN obsession with him is a bit irrational. It comes from his good looks and that terrific small sample performance of ‘07. He’s nothing before or since that ’07 performance to suggest that ’07 is his true talent level.
notsellingjeans - September 6, 2009
I would start to say that Hairston has an established
MLB track-record of being not all that good, while Buck doesn’t, and maybe combing through Fangraphs to see if I’m full of shit or not, but I just don’t really care about this. Buck is gone regardless, so, frankly, I hope I’m wrong about him.
I’m also willing to entertain the possibility that I have irrational belief in Buck’s baseball ability, and that maybe Billy Beane is actually smarter than me.
Elston Gunn - September 6, 2009
Yeah, and FTR,
if that MLE is right, that’s, well, Ryan Sweeney, but without great defense, so maybe Travis Buck actually does suck.
Elston Gunn - September 6, 2009
I'm fully aware my Buck love, and others', is somewhat irrational.
But I still think he’s capable of being a productive big leaguer, and while the probability of that happening might be low, he deserves a shot.
travdog6 - September 6, 2009
Buck has been jerked around past few years.
Only time he got playing time he was good.
Syphon - September 5, 2009
Or maybe the only time he was good, he got playing time.
Nico - September 5, 2009
How about Buck Sweeny?
I don’t go on other baseball team blogs but do they spend a lot of time posting about AAA players and guys who might be good in a platoon?
Sweeny is what he is and that’s an average player at best who doesn’t hit enough to be a corner guy. As far as Buck goes the A’s clearly don’t think much of him so I think Buck fans shouldn’t get their hopes up.
Call me crazy but what I’d like to see is an outfielder who can actually hit the ball over the fence from time to time and not embarrass himself in field.
I know Holliday didn’t work out and Dye was hurt while he was here but that is the type of player the A’s need. The A’s need a straw that stirs the drink.
sirbed - September 5, 2009
They're both lefties
Buck historically hasn’t had a noteworthy L/R split, Sweeney has, but neither “mashes LHP” in any way.
Nico - September 5, 2009
Here's what I don't get.
There seems to be the impression that great outfielders are a dime a dozen, and that the A’s can simply snap their collective fingers and a great outfielder will suddenly appear. I understand having the outfield we have right now isn’t all that promising power wise, but we’ve got the guys who look like they can do that at the Major League Level. The A’s simply just aren’t in the position to be able to just sign whomever they want, regardless of cost, and for the most part, that’s what you need to sign the type of outfielders people seem to want on the A’s. Unfortunately, the alternative is to organically develop the prospects who have these talents, or have the potential to do so, and that obviously requires time. Plus, Cunningham and Buck both should be guys with at least decent power.
If really what you desire is a HR guy in right, the A’s have basically tried to make that happen every time they let Cust put a glove on, and that hasn’t exactly proven wise.
MrMoneyBaller - September 5, 2009
Your right it isn't easy
but a guy can dream can’t he?
sirbed - September 5, 2009
I'll give you that.
I wish it was easy too.
MrMoneyBaller - September 5, 2009
He's been good when he's been left to play.
.851 OPS in his only really meaningful ML time.
Then the idiocy started, where the A’s decided to send him down (he admitted he was putting too much pressure on himself and if effected his performance), then got hurt and essentially wasted last year. Then this year they decided his swing was “too busy” and started fucking with his mechanics, and surprise surprise, his numbers plummeted.
So, perhaps we (those of us with faith in Buck) are crazy, but he’s performed when he’s actually gotten a chance to play.
MrMoneyBaller - September 5, 2009
Solid analyses, mature discussions, a great post Nico
Rec’d. This is what (many) folks come to AN to read.
Kallus - September 5, 2009
Me is humbled by your words of niceness!
Nico - September 5, 2009
Who is this "Me" and why does he keep following you?
mrod - September 5, 2009
Heck if me know.
Nico - September 5, 2009
As far as Hairston goes
I am with the “We hate Hairston club” as much as the next guy but there are two big factors that should be considered when thinking about 2010 and bringing him back. They are 1) He has been hurt since he has been an A. 2) He switched leagues, (to the tougher one) and it takes about a year to adjust, (learn pitchers). I think he will be back next year as our LF, (for good or bad) and I think we should wait until mid next year to hang him in effigy. If he is still full of suck at that time you can trade him and bring up a prospect, (Carter).
adragon - September 5, 2009
I'm not especially anti-Hairston, but I think it should be noted
that in the “easier league” in which he was “more comfortable and familiar,” Hairston still put up an OBP under .300 against RHP. He just doesn’t hit RHP well.
Nico - September 5, 2009
Reggie and Rickey
How about Reggie in right and Rickey in left. They are both Hall of Famers, they may be a little old, but what the heck. I wonder if Sal Bando is available for third
coachmule - September 5, 2009
Davis is capable of stealing way more
than 30 bases, even in a platoon where he "only"gets 450 at-bats in a season.
Axl - September 5, 2009
you know who'd be a good OFer?
carlos gonzalez…d’oh!
guy incognito - September 6, 2009
and another good OFer
Andre Ethier, who is leading the Dodgers in HR and RBI’s, not Manny, or Looney, or……., or……..,but the one time top A’s farm hand (when we suposedly had a depleted farm system) is the leading Dodger run producer,
robertmelvin - September 6, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.