Even when a team is struggling, it's usually par for the course for those who write for the team to be positive. There is always a silver lining...isn't there? Which is why I'm not sure whether to be impressed with Jane Lee, or terrified of her answers in her most recent mailbag. Because if she is admitting how bad the A's are; how bad are they really going to be?
Despite the optimistic title: Who will pack a powerful punch for A's?, the article is anything but.
A few examples:
Home runs will again come at a sparse rate, given the current roster makeup. But general manager Billy Beane isn't willing to insert power via a costly rental player just to win a few extra games in 2012. The A's won't be contending, anyway, so they plan on using this year to not only give the unexperienced (sic) guys experience, but also take advantage of their many Draft picks -- on whom they plan on spending three times as much as they have in the past -- to develop these missing power bats.
Well, there it is. The A's aren't contending. I mean, we knew that, but it's always so final to hear it from the beat writer. In addition, if you'd like to be just a little more depressed, she goes on to remind us: "...on a team that is years away from contention". There are few things more depressing than knowing in January that the 2012 playoff won't include the A's...again. And neither will the next few years. The article goes on to talk about the future, Kurt Suzuki, and Billy Beane.
So, for our silver lining, let's hold the contest: How many wins will the A's have this season?
What does Jane Lee think?
If the A's current roster remains as is, how many wins do you predict they'll have this year?
-- Chris S., San Leandro, Calif.
I'm hesitant to pencil them in for 65 wins -- they won 74 with the now departed Trevor Cahill, Gio Gonzalez, Hideki Matsui and Josh Willingham last year -- but at the same time believe manager Bob Melvin wouldn't allow for a 100-loss season, so perhaps it's best to settle somewhere in the middle and project about 63 victories for the green and gold.
Post your answer below.
1 recs | 176 comments
70
I think they’ll be bad but not that bad. A new infusion of young players I think will outperform the anemic expectations. I’m kinda thinking they’ll be like the Cleveland Indians from 2011, hanging in and then falling apart when the expectations catch up to performance.
closetasfan - January 11, 2012
61
It’s hard to only win 61 games, but i’m sure our offensive depth can take us there. My guess would have been lower, but the Astros will challenge us.
MathJock - January 11, 2012
I said 70 initially, but that seems unlikely
Jane’s 65 seems reasonable, though. Not historically bad, but worse than last year.
cuppingmaster - January 11, 2012
Yeah, I think this time is capable of winning 70 games.
It is unlikely but with a 65 win season they’ll be getting a top pick.
Cartwright - January 11, 2012
Contending for the first draft pick?
OaklandSi - January 11, 2012 via mobile
I'm going to say 60
It’s going to be a 100 loss season. Also figure we’ve got a great shot at the worst team in baseball this year.
athletics68 - January 11, 2012
I don't know how we could be the worst team in baseball
with at the very least a league average pitching staff
A'sFanDFW - January 11, 2012
Why do you think we'll have a league average staff at the very least?
It seems more likely to me that if we manage league average, it is because things worked out very nicely overall, no? (Read: we got some quality pitching out of someone other than McCarthy and Balfour, and it is entirely plausible to think we will not get quality pitching out of anyone other than them, and also plausible that McCarthy doesn’t make it through a year and that Anderson gives us a half-year of good stuff and that Braden pitches a half dozen fun games and then tips over, and that Balfour gets moved before the deadline, yes?)
paris7 - January 11, 2012
I really don't think the roster is complete
the original writer commented that Beane would not bring in another power hitter or other free agent. I think he will not be able to turn down an ridiculous bargain. If he could get a Matsui or Vlad for pocket change I think he does it. Likewise if a decent pitcher is sitting there in the bargain bin he grabs him. I think they bring in another player or two. This year reminds me of 2008. The A’s went very young but when F. Thomas and M. Sweeney were available for about 800,000 – he grabbed them. If no roster additions I think 76 wins.
Yellowhorse - January 11, 2012 via mobile
79 wins
Yeah, that just happened
A'sFanDFW - January 11, 2012
68 Wins
Melvin is a good manager, and we have some good pitching, but I don’t think it’ll be enough to carry us out of the cellar and to cancel out the lousy offense. Obviously, our D will have to be good as well. Optimistically, I’m thinking along the lines of 74-75 wins. Pessimistically, I thinking along the lines of 63-64 wins.
Sean Fortuna - January 11, 2012
74 wins
Same as last year. I don’t think the offense will be any worse than 2011 and I think that the pitching will turn out ok as well.
colin - January 11, 2012
75 wins
and i 100% support your comment.
Satchmo22 - January 11, 2012
61
They just have too many games with the Rangers and Halos, more than the average number of recent series with the Yankees and Red Sox….so actually the 61 above might be pushing it a little.
robertmelvin - January 11, 2012
that's the rub in my view as well. we have to play at least two loaded teams a ton,
and the Mariners probably won’t underperform as badly as they did last year. odds are we’re going to get butt raped in our division. I’m guessing 62-65 wins, and some things are going to have to go pretty right for that to happen. this is not going to be a good team no matter how you slice it.
Drone - January 13, 2012
I'm thinkin' 162 and a Series title.
And nobody try to tell me otherwise!
…they’re totally gonna go 0-162, aren’t they?
They totally are :( Shit.
Boonee - January 11, 2012 via mobile
But think of the draft picks!
Boonee - January 11, 2012 via mobile
TOO BAD BEANE CAN'T DRAFT, AM I RIGHT!?
Boonee - January 11, 2012 via mobile
We're screwed (until 2014ish).
Boonee - January 11, 2012 via mobile
[end scene]
stm72 - January 11, 2012
84
Shock the world. Cy talk for BMac and Brandon Allen develops.
BigJ7489 - January 11, 2012
Brandon Allen better develop
right now he has to earn a spot even with this crew.
The last month or so of his season last year was awful. Pitchers had their way with him.
I hope he does.
Trainman - January 11, 2012
This Is True
He started off hot but ended the season with a horrendous September. To many K’s.
Sean Fortuna - January 11, 2012
67, for Don.
I know that Don would, obviously, want them to win more than 67 games, but they won’t. And so 67 it is…
the_rozeboom - January 11, 2012
Too bad I wasn't born in '99.
67MARQUEZ - January 11, 2012
pipe down old man
stm72 - January 11, 2012
77
Trainman - January 11, 2012
Serously? Everyone is that pessamistic?
I really don’t want to get into the breakdown of every position. I’ll just say this, our teams potential value is about the same as last year if not a little better.
We have no idea what Braden, Ross, Anderson, Peacock, Parker and Milone can possibly do in a full season. If you liked their stats on other teams, imagine how they can perform in Oakland. We know what McCarthy can do. If everyone is healthy throughout the season I’d say our rotation 1-5 could be better than last years, even with the loss of Cahill and Gio.
Our IF is pretty much the same, maybe better if 1B pans out to be what we want it to be.
Our OF is just as solid as last year. Reddick will hit much better than Dejesus and we have no idea what our rookies could come up with.
Carter, Allen, Taylor and Ka’ could all hit just as good as Willingham or Matsui.
So at the very least the team will perform the same as last year.
I say we win at least 76 games. I’m going to make the bold statement and predict we are a .500 team come end of the 2012 season.
Mike Siegel - January 11, 2012
I really think it will be approximately the same as last year
Sizemore will be an improvement, Weeks for a full year as well. Also, we have Crisp, Reddick will probably be able equal DDJ’s production last year, Barton will be healthy, potentially one of our prospects (Allen/Carter/Taylor) will play well enough to earn a spot. Losing Cahill isn’t a big blow, losing Gio is harder but it looks like we have a semblance of a decent pitching staff.
All that being said, it doesn’t look like there is any chance of improving on last year’s record.
Billy Frijoles - January 11, 2012
The Funny Thing Is
Before the start of 2011, Kouzmanoff was a far better option then Sizemore, a hopeless backup infielder. Does anyone know whether the A’s are targeting Edwin Encarnacion again?
Sean Fortuna - January 13, 2012
at the time I advocated keeping him. I still don't understand why we grabbed him then let him go.
I would have much rather kept him over Kouz. Oh well.
Billy Frijoles - January 13, 2012
We may find out what Anderson can do in a full season next year
but not likely this year. I like your optimism though.
Englishmajor - January 11, 2012
Dark horse candidate: Braden
My top guess would still be Balfour, if he’s closing games and doing an above-average job. But if it’s Braden instead of McCarthy leading the A’s in silly stats such as ERA come the All-Star break, he has that national exposure from the A-Rod incident that may just carry the day. Oh, and wasn’t there something about him pitching A PERFECT GAME!!!!! Man that was a fun day.
Anyway, if Braden’s doing well there’s always a case to bring a former perfect game winner to an All-Star game.
Ciderbeck - January 12, 2012
Reply fail :(
Was supposed to be one thread down
Ciderbeck - January 12, 2012
The A's will end the season with a surprising 12 game winning streak...
…to finish with a record of 14-148.
Max Hartman - January 11, 2012
Who is going to be the A's all star next year?
Has this been asked? Coco Crisp? Balfour? Weeks? Ugh.
Max Hartman - January 11, 2012
McCarthy!
Maverick10126 - January 11, 2012
The "every team gets an all-star" situation is lame...
the_rozeboom - January 11, 2012
agreed.
67MARQUEZ - January 11, 2012
It is, but it will never be changed.
Brandon C. - January 11, 2012
I for one support the every team gets to go rule.
In a lot of ways, the All-Star game mimics discussions about the Hall-Of-Fame. Should All-Stars simply be the guys with the most accumulated WAR from the last half-season (or even since the last All-Star game?). Or is there room for the popular vote, fan favorites, media-hyped “stars”?
When the two leagues were truly split, seeing the best against the best was the treat. But now the All-Star game is more a celebration of baseball than a battle of greats. The biggest names will always be there. Some guys with sabermetrically amazing season who are underlooked should get to go, but so too should guys who are the story of the year. Tying in to this is the notion of every team should get a guy.
There’s just something synergistic about the team roster size. 66 players is enough for every team to sneak a guy on. It usually only results in two or three truly awful selections. Mostly the bad teams just send their best RP as bullpen filler, so there’s almost a designed slot for the best player on worst team. And I do believe it’s awesome for the young fans to have a chance to see their guy on the squad.
I first started following the A’s in ’99. One of my earliest memories was watching the All-Star game and waiting and waiting just to see John Jaha get his one pinch at-bat.
Silly as it is, I also really enjoy the debates around who our team’s All-Star will be every year. Even in down years, when it’s a joke, it’s still a fun discussion topic. And every year I’m always excited to find out who on my team made the squad, even if it’s a laughable selection.
K, I sort of went on a possibly non-sensible rant. My main point is that the All-Star game is a time when I stop being a stat-head and just enjoy being a fan. And that fan still delights in seeing “his guy” on that national stage.
Ciderbeck - January 12, 2012
What is this "AwlStahGaym" of which you speak?
paris7 - January 12, 2012
The home-field advantage thing kind of muddies the lake a bit,
but the All-Star game was originally intended to be an exhibition game. I think it’s totally appropriate to have every team represented. Give all the fans someone to cheer for. Even the Bucs fans, the Astros fans and…well…us, y’know? Even if you never see the guy after the player introductions. Expand the rosters if you must, but throw me a frickin’ bone. Give me one guy to root for just a little bit harder than everyone else. At the very least, I can bitch about Wash not getting him into the game.
CmdrKhraanik - January 12, 2012
Melvin
cuppingmaster - January 11, 2012
Weeks
closetasfan - January 11, 2012
Hmmmm.
McCarthy, but if he’s not on the team Balfour
Brandon C. - January 11, 2012
Yep
In general the worst teams will send the top pitcher to round out the bullpen. Usually there’s at least one starter or relief pitcher having a great season, even on the cellar dwellers. And that one guy will have stats somewhat close to the other All-Star pitchers, especially the back end guys. Position players will be judged against the top three or four guys at their position. Very hard to stack up against that competition. Pitchers though, only need to be maybe 20th best to still look like a justifiable pick.
Ciderbeck - January 12, 2012
Dark horse candidate: Braden
Ciderbeck - January 12, 2012
71
Not bad enough to get a top 5 draft pick.
DrDoom - January 11, 2012
76
I’m going to buy a bit high and say that at least one of Allen, Carter, Taylor, Barton, ect. takes a mighty step forward. We’ve seen so many guys have their worst year for us the past few years. I have to hope we finally break the trend and get a couple breakout years.
I’d say there’s a decent chance we could have a .500 ballclub, except that two bad-ass teams just formed in our division. Playing the Rangers and Angels is going to be painful.
Pitching will be solid as usual, which puts ahead of being a true celler dweller.
Ciderbeck - January 11, 2012
Maybe 70
Flashfire - January 11, 2012
Somewhere in the 70-80 region
Pitching is still going to be good.
Defense will be better – Melvin will have them work on it more in ST than Geren did, and Weeks and Sizemore will be more settled, and all the outfield guys can glove.
And I gotta think the offense will overall be about the same – Crisp will be Crisp. The infield is pretty much the same as last year, with Sizemore and Weeks now having more MLB experience (their production could go up). Reddick will be an upgrade over DeJesus in both power and average (not hard to do after DDJ’s year last year), and Taylor, Allen, Carter, Ka’, Cowgill all have a chance to replace some, or all, of Willingham and Matsui’s production.
Plus, there will likely be another signing or two to help the offense. And oh yeah, Barton is healthy, and if he can have a year like ’10, then he can help.
I guess it kind of boils down to whether or not someone like Allen, Carter, Taylor, Ka’, or Cowgill step it up. One of those guys is bound to have a bit of break out season. If they all bomb, then the A’s could be in trouble – they’ll struggle to score even more than last year.
jeff-athletic - January 11, 2012
66
elSAVinator - January 11, 2012
Weird Jane Lee prediction: Coco in the 3-hole?
Really? I mean yeah, he’ll likely be one of our best hitters. But as Lee herself points out, Coco’s a classic #1-#2 type. Sizemore in the 2-hole makes little sense, as he isn’t anything special on the basepaths and is more of a power guy. I seriously hope at least one of the young deep ball threats develop because Suzuki as the clean-up man is laughably pathetic (Sorry Kurt).
Ciderbeck - January 11, 2012
Joe Stiglich had Coco #3 also in his prediction.
OaktownPower - January 11, 2012
Gonna be a funky season next year
Ciderbeck - January 12, 2012
62-66 wins sounds about right.
64 to give a single number. I think the potential is there for more, but the inevitable harpy of injury will undoubtedly take more than her fair share of A’s players over the course of the season.
UrgentMirth - January 11, 2012
70
The pitching is still going to be pretty good, and the offense was already terrible.
jdr - January 11, 2012
I think it is going to be a VERY rough year
64-98.
OaktownPower - January 11, 2012
66-96
but as each day passes I’m gravely concerned they will find a way to get into the mid 70s
Copenhagen - January 11, 2012
This
cuppingmaster - January 11, 2012
Agreed. Is it wrong to want them to lose?
the_rozeboom - January 11, 2012
Not really. I mean, people should understand.
And Copenhagen I’m worried about that too.
Cartwright - January 11, 2012
Not at all
If they’re going to fail anyway, I want the failure to be epic and result in a No 1 draft pick for San Jose.
athletics68 - January 11, 2012
You so ripped off my 66-96 call from the podcast.
But I share your concern. We are going to suck at sucking.
dwishinsky - January 11, 2012
I have to say that 66-96 is stating the obvious...
Of course we will win between 69-96! Though I think we will be closer to 69 than 96.:)
Tutu-late - January 11, 2012
69!.....wait, what are we talking about?
Bed. - January 11, 2012
exactly!
Tutu-late - January 11, 2012
LOL as if
Copenhagen - January 11, 2012
I'm thinking this but
but I think they will manage to get to 70 wins.
sf drift king - January 13, 2012
68-94
In an ironic twist, the A’s will be forced to forfeit a game in Japan when the airline manages to get their luggage to Narita, but loses the team.
Also, the 2013 A’s will win 75 games, not because they got any better, but because of the stupid Astros.
ozzman99 - January 11, 2012
and in 2014?
Bed. - January 11, 2012
Billy announces that the A's will slash payroll and begin rebuilding.
ozzman99 - January 13, 2012
it might actually happen. the more i think though PT's logic...the current rebuild is prelude to another rebuild
stm72 - January 13, 2012
Maybe. I'm not sure I buy it.
It may happen. Any rebuild is a gamble, since you can never be 100% confident that your prospects will pan out.
ozzman99 - January 13, 2012
the timing is all wrong and then we run into the lack of bats
stm72 - January 13, 2012
sign a big bat as a FA.
Boom!
Billy Frijoles - January 13, 2012
There's plenty of scope for sober analysis in real life.
Baseball is for hopes and dreams.
100 wins!
iglew - January 11, 2012
Daric Barton will come up with the bases loaded
334 times and strike out looking 333 times and walk once.
With the bases empty he will hit .288
Trainman - January 11, 2012
The A's will load the bases 334 times?!?
iglew - January 11, 2012
Twice per game, always in front of Barton, and always with 2 outs.
That’s why it will always be Barton’s fault the A’s didn’t score, and no one else will have to play the scapegoat.
ozzman99 - January 11, 2012
it's gonna be awesome.
Billy Frijoles - January 11, 2012
Barton != Cust
Copenhagen - January 11, 2012
Bartacust!
eastcoasta'sfan - January 11, 2012
i blame the guy batting before barton who loaded the bases when he knew barton can't hit with the bases loaded
stm72 - January 11, 2012
The batter before Barton probably took a Cust-ian walk, the scoundrel
and now I’m thinking we will be 0-162!
stormtown - January 11, 2012
Pitchers will intentionally walk three batters
in front of Barton.
iglew - January 11, 2012
Ouch.
the_rozeboom - January 11, 2012
Classic iglew right there.
Bed. - January 11, 2012
Nice.
Geronimo Berroa - January 11, 2012
there would need to be 2 outs in inning for that strategy to work.
stm72 - January 11, 2012
Unless they are convinced Barton will yield a triple/double play every time
true torture - January 12, 2012
if selig gets a contract extension, are the a's in stadium h-ll for another couple of years?
stm72 - January 11, 2012
I can't tell if you mean
Stadium Hill or Stadium Hall.
iglew - January 11, 2012
i meant h-e-l-l, not hall or hill
stm72 - January 11, 2012
whoosh!
guessatomo - January 12, 2012
I believe the most optimistic look would be 74 wins
The last CAIRO projections run, show 74 wins, but his previous version yielded 71.
I had looked at the CAIRO projections for WAR and calculated the WAR numbers for their starting line up, and bench to fill it the remaining PA/IP and came up with 70 wins. I think that’s more realistic.
David Fung - January 11, 2012
And how much of that WAR is from injury-prone players?
Hard to imagine a full season from McCarthy, for example.
stormtown - January 11, 2012
This assumes that no starting pitcher goes over 150 IP.
Of course these are ALL assumptions and way to early since we don’t even know what pitching is going to make it through spring training. So my count does account for injuries.
David Fung - January 11, 2012
54
We’ll tie 1979 for worst season in Oakland history.
doctorK - January 11, 2012
Can they at least wear the '79 uniforms?
ozzman99 - January 11, 2012
yes please. and sign up Mickey Klutts to play third.
67MARQUEZ - January 11, 2012
And Rick Bosetti as a 4th OF
Nick - January 11, 2012
And Picciolo at short!
the_rozeboom - January 11, 2012
BRING BACK RICKEY!!!
EddieVegas_NRAF - January 11, 2012
Heck, Rickey (at 50+?) could start in our outfield right now!!!
the_rozeboom - January 11, 2012
While I think we'll end up winning somewhere around 75 games
I’d much rather it be 65-70.
stranahanahan - January 11, 2012
I think anywhere from 73 to 83
I think we will look horrible at times. But, on the sole basis of the youth and still pretty solid pitching, we will accidently win some games that we have no business winning. Obviously, we are not contending this year, not by a long shot, and not in this newly loaded AL West. But I wouldn’t be shocked if we won in the low 80’s….
My final prediction for our record:
80-82
3rd in AL West
DaRubiesSLOKingsA's - January 11, 2012
76-86
Not quite a train wreck, but solidly mediocre. But what the hell, it’s still A’s baseball…for the time being, that’s gonna have to be enough.
CmdrKhraanik - January 11, 2012
Completely OT, Commander...
but do you mind if I ask why your avatar is an autographed Craig Minetto baseball card?
Nick - January 11, 2012
Good catch!
I have a soft spot for those wretched late 70’s teams, and I chatted up Craig Minetto a couple of times when I had seats close to the ‘pen. A genuinely nice guy. Always rooted for him, even if it didn’t seem to help much.
The card is a 1980 Topps, so it came with the pre-fab autograph. I had a Minetto sig on a cap when I was a kid. I still mourn its loss.
CmdrKhraanik - January 11, 2012
That's like my connection to Picciolo...
the_rozeboom - January 11, 2012
John Henry Johnson...
…said to me one night in 1978 (I was 10):
“Why are all the people here?”
Answer: Half price night against Boston.
Dr Pez - January 11, 2012
162
And Fuck the Giants!
RudiFan - January 11, 2012
REC'D!
Tutu-late - January 11, 2012
and rec'd again!
Deborah51 - January 11, 2012
Wrong..... 173-0
you are forgetting 11-0 in playoffs
Trainman - January 11, 2012
i thought about adding that...but what's the point?
stm72 - January 12, 2012
9
Brett Narloch - January 11, 2012
Okay, I laughed.
baseballgirl - January 11, 2012
Yeah, he's a little optimistic
YonYonson - January 11, 2012
Little optimistic?
Just like I’m being a little bit sarcastic.
OnlybuyBeaneJerseys - January 11, 2012
you forgot a 9.
67MARQUEZ - January 11, 2012
so your telling me there's a chance?
YEAH!
stadiumlights - January 11, 2012
69
And I feel that’s on the optimistic side.
Jack Everitt - January 11, 2012
I like 69...
Tutu-late - January 11, 2012
Everyone should enjoy 69
Though, as Colbert said last night " the State of New Hampshire has been "69-ing Vermont for the past 200 yrs." So maybe they practice it more in those 2 weird states. Doubt it
DaRubiesSLOKingsA's - January 11, 2012
Well, if that's the standard,
I’d be fine with 11. Or better yet, 111.
iglew - January 11, 2012
This works just fine for me.:)
Tutu-late - January 11, 2012
111?
You do recognize that if the A’s win 111 games a lot of folks around here will be pissed at how they’ve mucked up their draft position, don’t you?
Faust - January 13, 2012
uh...I'm not sure thats what he meant☺
Tutu-late - January 13, 2012
It's my favorite verb
boilerdan - January 12, 2012
Gee, guys!
I was talking about possible wins this season. What are you people talking about?☺
Tutu-late - January 12, 2012
Between 65-75 wins
Our pitching will be average to slightly above average which means we can squeeze some wins out. Unfortunately the bats are going to be extremely painful to watch.
We unfortunately won’t get in the top five draft picks and will be below .500 all year which means there will be zero playoff excitement. (worst of both worlds)
Pr edition: Last place in west, and seventh pick in the 2013 draft.
OnlybuyBeaneJerseys - January 11, 2012
Can you check out my question above about why you think we'll have average to above average pitching? I don't see it.
Or, if it is okay to repeat myself (I must be under stress):
paris7 - January 11, 2012
You don't have to repeat yourself in fact I'd prefer an additional arguments.
But you seemed set off by this.
Average pitching (to slightly above average) because we will get some games from Braden (above average,) McCarthy (above average.) Anderson a half year (great,) Ross, Moscoso, and Outman will give us average stuff.
Peacock, Milone, and Parker will are wild cards. They most like will struggle a bit as the enter the major but remember young pitchers with good stuff tend to adjust to the majors faster than hitters.
Balfour, Fuentes, and Devine are above average relievers. (Devine when healthy) FDLS has awesome stuff and I think he will come into the majors pretty strong. The rest of the bullpen will be wild cards with some below average guys. We have a good history of finding decent relievers, out of nowhere.
So that will be the majority of our innings. Summing it up we will see an average rotation with a slight chance of upside.
I cannot believe saying the pitching staff is average to slightly above average set you off. It’s not like I’m saying their the Phillies or anything. They have some good arms.
Remember, an average pitching with anemic offense is still in the bottom ten teams. Below average pitching with way below average hitting would make us one of the worst teams in baseball. We are not there.
OnlybuyBeaneJerseys - January 11, 2012
To say that more clearly
We are in the bottom third of teams but I don’t think we are in the bottom three.
OnlybuyBeaneJerseys - January 12, 2012
I still think that's pretty optimistic about the starters
All of those guys are questionmarks to me. Braden has never had a healthy season in the bigs, and there’s no particular reason to think that 2012 is going to be his first. IIRC he couldn’t even throw a breaking pitch in his last few starts before going on the shelf last year. I love the guy, but I think the line for “over/under on effective starts by Braden in 2012” should be 12 or 13.
McCarthy was fantastic last year, but again has a balky shoulder. Anderson will be coming back from TJ surgery, and I think it’s really, really unlikely that he’ll be sharp when he returns. If he pitches for the A’s this year, he’s going to be very very rusty, and will be working with severe pitchcount limits, as well. Outman is like Braden, except with even less of a track record of success; Ross is constantly injured and inconsistent, and has never been a successful major-league starter. Moscoso had iffy peripherals.
And those are the A’s front-line starters. If 3 of them fail — combination of injury and ineffectiveness — then we’re relying on a whole lot of rookies.
Nick - January 12, 2012
It's probably optimistic
and those guys as individual players are iffy. As a whole they will give us quality innings.
I still don’t look at the pitching staff and see something terrible. Last year we had some of the best pitching in baseball. We lost about 7 WAR (I used fangraph totals) from Bailey, Gio, Cahill, but we added MLB ready pitchers. Between Milone, Peacock, and Parker I say we get 4 WAR. Bringing the total loss to about 3 WAR from our pitching staff.
Like I said I’m not drooling over our rotation I’m just saying it’s average with the chance to surprise.
OnlybuyBeaneJerseys - January 12, 2012
Yes, I am a little set off, but more because I am worried than anything else. Not at you, of course.
I hope that the total quality innings, as you note, will be just fine. Because surely there will be a few bumps along the way, whether that be from Outman, Ross, Moscoso, or Braden. Any of them can bottom out pretty quick, and none of them with the exception of Braden have shown any consistent stuff, and that was when he had ten toes (iirc). I don’t really have any additional arguments, only that it is a generally untested rotation at best, and a seriously fragile one at worst. I’ll take your reformulated, “with the chance to surprise,” which I take to mean that it won’t exactly be a shocker if they pull through, but a nice surprise.
paris7 - January 12, 2012
It certainly isn't a rotation with any pitchers about whom you can say
“pencil him in for 200 innings with a 4ish FIP.” It’s filled with a bunch of big to gigantic question marks. That makes the potential variance in performance rather large. The rotation as a whole certainly could end up being average, or even slightly above, but it could also crash and burn most spectacularly. Should be fun!
UrgentMirth - January 12, 2012
That's the attitude!
It’s like it’ll be March the whole season! Why keep track of the W/L column? Baseball at its purest.
paris7 - January 12, 2012
I keep track of the one-day W/L column.
iglew - January 12, 2012
Knowledge is boring.
It’s the discovery that’s the exciting part!
UrgentMirth - January 12, 2012
If they stay relatively healthy, 68-94.....
if not, it may get really ugly and they will challenge that dreadful 1979 season at 54-108, so i will average it out at 61-101.
Gonna be a long year at the old O.co, folks.
CampyFan - January 11, 2012
2012 will be a year where I follow Stockton, Midland, and Sacramento more closely than Oakland.
ozzman99 - January 11, 2012
I'm sure all three towns will appreciate that.
Bed. - January 11, 2012
I’ll go with 76
Brandon C. - January 11, 2012
I don't know....5?
Bed. - January 11, 2012
however much
we need to get the 1st overall pick.
sfniners4life - January 11, 2012 via iPhone app
81-81
Because these youngsters don’t know they’re supposed be bad.
Geronimo Berroa - January 11, 2012
OUCH!
Painful to read..but comments make me smile.
I think we are good enough not to lose 100…how about 70 wins?
LongTimeFan - January 11, 2012
74
I think we’ll match last year’s total, because the absence of Gio, Andrew, et al will be mitigated by the absence of Bob Geren.
EddieVegas_NRAF - January 11, 2012
+1
kbtoyz - January 11, 2012
So 75?
Brandon C. - January 13, 2012
65-97
I don’t see ANY way we match this year’s total.
fansince1980 - January 11, 2012
After thinking about it for almost 30 seconds.....67-95
Best pitcher – Trevor….uh….Gio….um…..that dude from Stockton.
Best hitter – Roy Hobbs.
Bed. - January 11, 2012
60-102
I woulda said 59, but the umps are bound to throw one in our favor over a long ugly year.
paris7 - January 11, 2012
David Frost was on Clubhouse Confidential tonight
and he basically said they knew they could not compete with the Rangers and Angels this year and that is why the traded the 3 guys they did. So if management is saying “we won’t compete” then why shouldn’t the beat writer? I agree it is kind of depressing though.
That being said, the Oakland A’s have only lost more than 100 games only once (1979, 1 out of about 45 seasons is not bad) so I will guess 65 wins in 2012.
I’m still have hope that Weeks continues to improve (gotta improve the SB %, maybe another reason to keep Crisp around to help JM with that. Hopefully Rickey makes an appearance in ST to coach JM also), that Brandon Allen and Chris Carter both mash 25+ HR and McCarthy/Braden stay off the DL for extending periods of time and lead a young pitching staff to75 wins.
micdog2001 - January 11, 2012
speaking of Carter
his major league HRs sure have been pretty …
http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/search/media.jsp?player_id=474892
micdog2001 - January 12, 2012
I was at the game in Seattle when he homered!
Cartwright - January 12, 2012
good times!
micdog2001 - January 12, 2012
David Frost?
I hope he does as well with the A’s as he did with Nixon.
richwol1 - January 12, 2012
ha ha ;-)
It’s Forst right?
micdog2001 - January 12, 2012
Dude, that's cold.
ozzman99 - January 13, 2012
Who is JM?
Jermaine Mitchell?
iglew - January 12, 2012
Jemile Weeks
micdog2001 - January 12, 2012
Am I missing something?
Wouldn’t that be JW?
UrgentMirth - January 12, 2012
yes
maybe I was thinking Je-Mile in my head or maybe my slight case of dyslexia inverted the W to an M.
micdog2001 - January 13, 2012
76
Better coaching and fielding than last year. I predict less injuries as well. Hitting couldn’t possibly be worse than 2011. I think 1-2 guys will have breakout years and it should be fun to watch. Draft pick #12.
Maybe I’m being optimistic, but if I’m wrong then the A’s will get a higher draft pick. It’s a win, win, right? Right?
theoriginalrods - January 12, 2012
I think my projections say 74.
79 wins from pitching, 70 from hitting. I don’t account for fielding but 70-75 seems right. I wish we were worse.
true torture - January 12, 2012
50-55
Yeah, this team is gonna be pretty bad.
bjge_42 - January 12, 2012
70 wins
Carter has a Ben Grievian kind of year at 1B, Allen hits 17 HRs but strikes out a ton with a horrendously low BA, A’s starting pitchers struggle a lot in the beginning of the year but show signs at the end of the year, and one of the other corner OF/1B players finally breaks out.
We end 2012 feeling good about 2013, but somehow it all falls apart in 2013 and we end up winning less games.
nateinberkeley - January 12, 2012
78 Wins......They'll finally outperform their Pythag in a season where it couldn't possibly matter.
AsFan72 - January 13, 2012
160-2.
Jim Harbaugh will come in and more than double last year’s win total.
ozzman99 - January 13, 2012
72, what do I win if I'm right?
DDroney - January 14, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.