| Split | PA | BA | OBP | SLG | ISO | BABIP | wOBA | wRC+ |
| Vs. L | 239 | 0.202 | 0.269 | 0.319 | 0.117 | 0.238 | 0.262 | 47 |
| Vs. R | 1,209 | 0.290 | 0.364 | 0.518 | 0.228 | 0.318 | 0.377 | 125 |
| Home | 693 | 0.296 | 0.366 | 0.559 | 0.263 | 0.306 | 0.395 | 136 |
| Away | 755 | 0.257 | 0.332 | 0.418 | 0.161 | 0.303 | 0.327 | 91 |
The top two rows show what Dan explained yesterday, and the bottom two rows detail his home/away splits. it's basically what you'd expect if all you heard were the typical Smith scouting reports; Those two sets of 1,448 plate appearances overlap though; what I wanted to find were how many plate appearances Smith had against lefties at Coors and how many PA away from Denver. It wouldn't tell us much, given that we'd be down close to or under 100 plate appearances for the two numbers, but it sure would be interesting to look at. The numbers against right-handed pitchers (removing the 239 plate appearances from the bottom two rows) would also be insightful, just in case he happened to face more lefties on the road or something weird like that. If anyone can find that, please post it in the comments and let me know where I can find it so I can do more of the work and you can do more of the reading.
Beane has already said that Smith won't platoon, which I'm ok with in this situation. If a team like the Reds or Indians had made this trade, where squeezing out every extra win would likely matter to them, then I'd be outrageously against that decision. That would be dumb. I might be tempted to introduce crying to baseball. By platooning Smith with a right-handed hitter of roughly the same caliber, you'd get about 40 games of a .360 wOBA hitter instead of 40 games of a .280 wOBA hitter. That said, the A's aren't trying to squeeze out every win this year. They should find out, when given a regular chance, if Smith can hit lefties. He's never been given more than 103 plate appearances in a season against lefties, which happened last year.
His .327 wOBA away from home worries me a little bit too. it's only 755 plate appearances away from home. But regressing a "close-to-league-average-number" to the mean just means we get a little closer to league average. Of course, we can't ignore the .395 wOBA at home. But we also need to remember that it's not park adjusted. Most players hit better at home than they do on the road, especially in non-extreme confines. But a .395 wOBA would have placed Smith 11th in baseball last year, while the .327 mark matches such bombers as Bobby Abreu, Mark Trumbo, and James Loney.
I haven't even mentioned yet that Smith is a 29-year old outfielder entering his first arbitration season. He was an adequate defensive outfielder in Colorado, which also has a gigantic outfield, so I'm guessing he'll be fine here (seriously, I went to a game this summer at Coors, and I don't think you understand how big it is until you see it). He'll be paid about $2.5 million this coming season, which means he could see $4-5 million the next two years. But he'll get pricey come 2015. Simply put, he doesn't seem like a piece that will be here for TEH COMING*.
* That's a term I just made up for the 2015 wave of prospects that are all supposed to arrive at the same time and save the franchise. Let's see if it catches on. If it does, great; if not, I'll just use it more.
I'm guessing what Beane wants out of the deal is an opportunity to flip Smith at a trade deadline. Smith only cost the A's Guillermo Moscoso (whose peripherals suggested some MAJOR regression in his near future) and Josh Outman (who, while a nice pitcher, is likely not something that can't be replaced). Since Smith is under control for three years and not likely to be prohibitively expensive, he'll get three chances. All it takes is one season where Smith hits left-handed pitching just a little bit, his overall offensive numbers see a little boost, and some sucker in late July needs a bat. Smith's best season was 2009, but he was basically the same hitter the last three years against righties. Only difference is that in his tiny sample size in 2009 against lefties, Smith was more than adequate (he hit .259/.368/.500 in 69 plate appearances); Billy just needs lightning to strike one more time.
0 recs | 115 comments
I agree
This subject is dead.
BlueMoon - January 19, 2012
shoot...
My planned piece for Sunday: Seth Smith’s wOBA on Tuesdays: How Day of the Week Splits Will Lead to a 2012 AL West Title … Maybe ought to be shelved then…
dwishinsky - January 19, 2012 via iPhone app
No way!
I think it should be followed up with an ANalysis of how weather/allergies has affected his splits.
Tutu-late - January 19, 2012
The two dan's pieces are very enlightening.
I appreciate all their work.
Tutu-late - January 19, 2012
I'd have to look for it a bit
but a (seemingly knowing) Colorado fan posted that Smith is not only not “adequate” defensively, but is absolutely atrocious. Custian, it could be said, apparently.
BoyHowdee - January 19, 2012
how's smith's arm?
cust was terrible and was voted one of the 3 worst in the AL by other players in ’09 or ’10
heartstopper - January 19, 2012
was "TEH" an acronym or a typo of "the"?
OaklandSi - January 19, 2012
I believe it's slang
Those of us who are way hip and cool understand this.
Nico - January 19, 2012
Which is to say, Cindi explained it to me.
Nico - January 19, 2012
Well, I'm obviously not as hip and cool as Cindi.
OaklandSi - January 19, 2012
I just want to know how to pronounce "TEH" :)
Is it the same as “teh”?
Tutu-late - January 19, 2012
Probably the same as teh
My take on the pronounciation: It’s the same exact sound as in the name Ted. Just chop off the “d” and you’re good to go.
For example: TEH Lilly
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
Teh Lilly is advertising his first annual Golf Tournament
It’s up in Oakhurst, CA where he lives. It is to benefit local kids sports.
Tutu-late - January 19, 2012
It rhymes with "meh".
iglew - January 19, 2012
Honestly, the only thing you have going for you is that your user name ends with an 'i'
Nico - January 19, 2012
Only because SBN's software didn't allow 'í'.
iglew - January 19, 2012
It allows the 'i'
but not the all-important “heart for the dot over the ‘i’”.
Nico - January 19, 2012
And, yes you are very much one of the hip and cool ones.:)
Tutu-late - January 19, 2012
thank you kindly
OaklandSi - January 20, 2012
Are you getting my emails?
Tutu-late - January 20, 2012
Did anyone else think of Dumb and Dumber
when Lloyd is trying to read the newspaper and can’t pronounce “the”?
A'sFanDFW - January 19, 2012
I Did!
Geronimo Berroa - January 19, 2012 via Android app
wikipedia has an entirely too long entry about "teh"
Billy Frijoles - January 20, 2012
that's one of the better entries - it includes all the citations
OaklandSi - January 20, 2012
Here's my question, Dan H:
If Beane can likely flip him for a “good prospect” in 2012 or 2013, whenever his value is highest, why aren’t you pleased with the trade? In a way, I agree with the analysis but then not with your conclusion. I’m guessing you’d have liked a trade of Moscoso and Outman for one good prospect.
Nico - January 19, 2012
giving my two cents
I don’t like it because in the interim we block cost controlled guys who could prove useful. This deal alone probably caused the Allen trade rumors we saw this morning as there is no outfield spot where he could land and now four compete for the two DH/1B spots.
We however do need to clog our rotation this year with players to ensure guys like Parker and Peacock get more time in the minors. Yet we have just unprotected those players needing protection and blocked those players who need not be blocked in one fell swoop.
dwishinsky - January 19, 2012 via iPhone app
Interesting.
We trade for a meh player in the hopes he increases his value, then shop a prospect at the bottom of his value. That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Tutu-late - January 19, 2012
yup
That was the report on MLB Trade Rumors. I’d link but I am using this on my mobile and all that switching windows is more than I can bother to do right now so if someone else wants to link… thx!
dwishinsky - January 19, 2012 via iPhone app
Just double checking the math
Seems like Reddick is pretty much assured of one of the corner outfield slots?
That leaves three open spots on the diamond (well, DH is sort of diamondless):
1B, COF, and DH
Competing for those spots are:
Carter
Barton
Allen
Cowgill
Taylor
Kila
Smith
Kila’s a dark horse, so count him or don’t. Without Smith, we had 6 guys competing for three slots. Fairly managable, theoretically a half-season each for everyone to prove themselves. That’s a reasonable length audition for the young guys.
If we assume Smith becomes a full-time OF out of camp, it’s now 6 guys competing for 2 slots. A third of season, not so great for an extended look. Say Barton rebounds and locks down 1B from the onset of 2012. Suddenly there’s only one slot, DH, for all those young guys? Not a great scenario.
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
Nobody gets a full-season look except the best top-rated prospects
And none of these guys qualify.
richwol1 - January 19, 2012
carter is NOT playing for 1st base
or OF for that matter. his D is atrocious. he looks totally lost and no matter how much work he has put in this winter it simply won’t be enough for 2012
heartstopper - January 19, 2012
Just two open spots
1B & DH – with Barton, Carter, Allen & Kila in the mix. Crisp is set in center. Beane said after the Smith trade to expect an outfield of Smith, Crisp & Reddick.
wcmori - January 19, 2012
My feelings exactly
Well summarized.
el generico - January 19, 2012
I agree with this completely
Seems to me it would be better to find out what the young hitters (who are generally a little older and more suspect) are capable of now and weed out the men from the boys, while giving the young pitchers (who are generally a little younger and more clearly talented) some time to develop properly and delay their arbitration/free agent clocks.
wcmori - January 19, 2012
make it green
micdog2001 - January 19, 2012
I should have made that more clear...
Being a Seth Smith fanboy, I would have thought I’d love this trade. But I’m not head over heels about it, for several of the reasons David listed just above this. I think it’s a worthwhile risk, but there’s a lot of risk involved, not the least of which is exposing young pitchers too soon.
DanHennessey31 - January 19, 2012
What happens if we trade brandon Allen?
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/01/athletics-shopping-brandon-allen.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Slide Giambi - January 19, 2012
he goes to another team in exchange for players or cash
NRC - January 19, 2012
or a bag of balls
weenmAN - January 19, 2012
Or a bobblehead
Fun fact: The only A’s bobblehead on my shelf that still plays for the A’s is Kurt Suzuki. And it’s not like the others have retired; they all just play for other teams.
baseballgirl - January 19, 2012
Isn't Rickey Henderson still not actually retired?
Can’t believe I didn’t yet think of this as a marketing gimmick. Only two MLB players appeared in five different decades. Just for kicks I’ll leave that as a trivia bit for people to guess at.
Point is, because Rickey had the fortune to appear first in ‘79, he’s a great candidate for a gimmicky pinch hit. Both the other players with the 5 decade title made their last appearence as a PR stunt. Why not continue that tradition this year in Oakland? Added bonus, I believe it would be the first time a HOF player made an appearence in MLB?
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
Minnie Minoso
dwishinsky - January 19, 2012 via iPhone app
Yep, that's probably the more well known of the two
One to go.
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
Satchel Paige?
richwol1 - January 19, 2012
(no) Thanks to segregation, Satch was a three-decade guy.
Jim Kaat? Cy Young?
CmdrKhraanik - January 19, 2012
Both terrific long-time pitchers
But alas still not correct. Something to keep in mind with this record is that to achieve the feat you pretty much have to make a gimmick appearence in your 50’s. Kaat had a 25 year career and even debuted in 1959 (an end of decade rookie year really helps boost your decadal total). But that still leaves him with appeareances in only four decades (nothing to scoff at).
Young debuted in 1890 so no chance for him. Solid 22 year career. But even if a guy debuted in at the end of a decade (like Kaat or Henderson) they still would need to play for 31 years at mimumum to reach the 5 decade mark without some gimmick PA or IP.
Props to you guys for having a real go at this rather than just hitting up the returned-from-blackout Wikipedia.
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
I went to Wikipedia right after to confirm that I was, in fact, wrong.
CmdrKhraanik - January 19, 2012
Hah!
The correct answer is pretty obscure. Think I’ll hold off posting the answer ‘till early tonight. Want to write up a blurb about the mystery guy as he’s a fantastic character from MLB’s past.
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
Oh also,
When I first heard this trivia question I knew Minoso and then guessed Charlie Hough, another 25-year pitching career guy.
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
I was thinking possibly Julio Franco
But that wouldn’t have been a stunt. Gaylord Perry could’ve been if he was activated in his fifties.
richwol1 - January 19, 2012
Is it a Gashouse Gang-era Cardinal? Pepper Martin?
CmdrKhraanik - January 19, 2012
I'm looking forward to that.
Finally figured it out, but it took seven guesses. Not gonna blurt it out here. Great question!
CmdrKhraanik - January 19, 2012
Reply fail. Shoulda been up 4 spots.
CmdrKhraanik - January 19, 2012
And the answer is ... Nick Altrock!
A WS winning pitcher from the turn of the 20th century. He appeared in the 1890’s and then the 20th century decades of the 00’s, 10’s, 20’s and 30’s.
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
Why is Altrock so awesome?
Well, first, his name is Altrock. Alt-rock. Alternative Rock. I mean, c’mon. How can you not be cool?
Altrock was a great pitcher and a greater personality. To get of sense of the guy, here’s a quote about his birth:
Altrock was a young hotshot who was first signed by an MLB club at the age of 21 with Louisville Colonals (pro ball in Louisville, good times). He performed okay but had this penchant for partying and general lack of seriousness. He was cut from the squad and didn’t get back to Show ’till 1903. He was signed by the dominant Boston Red Sox, led by Cy Young. No room in that rotation for a youngster, so he was shipped to Chicago where he made his name.
Altrock was an amazing pitcher from 1904-1906 with the Chicago White Sox. He was part of what was perhaps the best rotation ever assembled on the ’06 White Sox WS Championship team. This was the deadball era, so the league ERA average was a pretty low 2.60
Here was what the five guys from Chicago did:
Frank Owen: 2.33
Roy Patterson: 2.09
Nick Altrock: 2.06
Ed Walsh: 1.88
Doc White: 1.52
The Murderer’s Row of pitching. More on the group here. Just wow!
Altrock suffered an injury that offseason. He was still something of a hard party-goer. Not sure if that caused the injury but he apparently didn’t work too hard on recovery. He had two more mediocre seasons, which wasn’t good enough on the hitless-wonder, all-pitching White Sox squad (hmm, blueprint for the modern A’s). He was traded and never held a steady MLB starting job again.
So how’d he get appearances in three more decades? Well that’s the best part of this story. Altrock was always a goof on the diamond. No doubt bored coaching third base for his minor league squad in Kansas City…
Kansas City was not amused, but one other guy was. Clark Griffith, an MLB legend (HOFer, star pitcher, manager, and eventual owner of the Washington Senators, took a liking to Altrock’s clowning ways.
The Senators hired Altrock on as a "comedy coacher "in 1912. This was a team that already had legendary prankster Germany Schaefer (the man who stole first base) on the roster. So Altrock was a natural fit.
Over the years he would pull many shenanigans. Here’s a good one:
Nick said seriously, “I’m the king’s jester.” Then he asked, “Do you really want to win this game?”
Griffith said, “With your pitching I suppose?”
Altrock said, “No. With my coaching.” Altrock talked Griffith into sending him to the first base coaching box. The next time Griffith looked out to the field he saw Nick in a heap on the ground finishing a pantomime of a man who spiked himself with his own shoe. Gregg was laughing so hard he started heaving the ball over the middle and the Senators starting hitting. Altrock morphed the routine into a full wrestling pantomime, pinning himself for a victory. Finally, home plate umpire Silk O’Loughlin, himself doubled over with laughter, ordered him to stop.
Altrock would sporadically make appearances as a pitcher or pinch batter though the years. Often this occurred on the last day of the season, traditionally held as a gag game of sorts during this gentler time is history. He earned his 5-decade title in 1931 and would gain a further record in 1933 during his final appearance, at age 58. His at-bat was the last appearance of a 19th century player in an MLB game, cemented quite the legacy as ace pitcher, 5-decade player, and Clown Prince of Baseball.
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
A visual example of the Clown Prince in action:
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
Further reading:
http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=214&bid=1724
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/this-annotated-week-in-baseball-history-jan-15-21-1965/
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
Awesome
richwol1 - January 19, 2012
Very cool.
CmdrKhraanik - January 19, 2012
Great guess
Paige was part of a classic Charlie Finley PR stunt in 1965 and made an appearance on the mound at age 58. Well, stunt isn’t really the right word. It was more about being a tribute to the Negro Leagues, bit of both really (tribute and good PR move). Anyway, Paige went three innings against a pretty good Boston Red Sox lineup and only allowed one hit!
But, this in an MLB record and Paige was barred from playing in the MLB until the 1940s, at which point Paige was already in his late 30s. A fascinating bit of baseball history was the debate at the time as to the better choice for breaking the color barrier, Paige or Jackie Robinson. Interesting quote pulled from Wikipedia:
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
somebody will probably get it in the nick of time
heartstopper - January 19, 2012
Nope, just posted above
Was Nick Altrock!
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
do you think heartstopper was making a pun..."nick" of time?
Get it? Get it?
Billy Frijoles - January 19, 2012
You know Rickey would be down to pinch run for the A's
but only if they offer to actually let him compete for a full time spot too.
A'sFanDFW - January 19, 2012
Scary thing is
He’s probably still a better bench player than our other options. Don’t think Rickey will be okay just riding pine, though.
Here’s another thought. Let’s just bring him to Tokyo. That series will be all about King Felix and Ichiro. Why not throw Rickey out there and give the Japanese media an A’s-centric storyline to follow.
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
who would we take off the 40man roster?
heartstopper - January 19, 2012
Jonny Gomes?
richwol1 - January 19, 2012
slow down
you lost me there…
Stew's Crew - January 19, 2012
I get so very fucking happy
Copenhagen - January 19, 2012
What happens if we trade Brandon Allen?
Given the A’s recent history when it comes to trading young players , Andre Ethier and Carlos Gonzalez, he’ll probably be the next Big Papi. Wouldn’t that be hard to swallow?!
Billyballfan - January 21, 2012
Nice Writeup... Including Dan's yesterday
But I find it hard to get excited about trades for mediocre players to fill our outfield by trading mediocre pitcher’s who pitch in a pitcher friendly park.
When Beane first got the position of GM he talked about seeing fantasy baseball come to real life, now that he was in a position to see what kind of effect he would have. Ten plus years later, I wonder if he has the same enthusiasm about the revolving door of trading for mediocre players as he attempts to find another undiscovered gem.
I am truly not cynical about him or the A’s, but just a little worn out. I find it harder to get excited about these types of trades. Granted these two pitchers will not by Cy Young candidates this year, but I also don’t see Yastremski type numbers coming from our new LF, frankly, I would have wanted to sign the one we had last year instead of seeing him go to the Twins for a bargain price.
Gerard - January 19, 2012
me too. that $$ that the A's needed to spend to reach a payroll minimum
could have been spent more wisely.
OaklandSi - January 19, 2012
My thoughts exactly:
Ultimately, this is an inconsequential trade that makes us “about the same now” in exchange for making us “about the same later”.
Nico - January 19, 2012
Nico and OaklandSi
One thing that struck me was on my podcast I do with some other ANers (shameless plug: tarptalkpodcast.wordpress.com) we had Sam Miller on, Angels beat writer for the OC Register and he commented that the A’s sort of wait until the stars are aligned the lighting is just right etc with their windows. In that we don’t just try to get our team to compete in general but specifically at a time when Los Angeles or Texas would be waning etc. That was an interesting statement to me when perhaps we should look at being good and hoping to catch some breaks. It sort of to me boiled down to something that I think is sometimes true where we let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
dwishinsky - January 19, 2012 via iPhone app
Great point
I certainly believe that there’s no such thing as a “perfect” window. Sure the odds may be stacked against you in some years versus others, but you just never know. A great example: the 2011 Diamondbacks. At the beginning of the season, the smart money was 100% on either the Rockies or the Giants taking that division. But as the season unfolded the Rockies faded early. The Giants were in it for a while, but the D-backs pitching developed into excellence and they ran away with the division. You just never know. The Rays dared to compete against the two big money evils of the Bo Sox and Yankees. Still made the playoffs three of the last four years. Heck the 2001 A’s won 102 games and finished 2nd in their division. You just never know.
Some sports adages are silly and untrue, but one I still love is “you control your own destiny”.
I still believe in rebuilding seasons. This is a hugely contentious point, but while I know it’s certainly possible to try and compete every year, it doesn’t mean you should compete every year. Leave room for the possibility of success while managing realistic expectations.
This post is getting long-winded, but one final mention has to made in regards to the 2008 season. Perhaps the most questionable decision Beane ever made was tearing apart the team midway through 2008. Some history. In the ‘07-’08 offseason we traded Haren and Swisher and were really getting the rebuild going. But the first half of ‘08 started quite well. Duchscherer emerged as a second ace alongside Harden. Cust hadn’t starting sucking and Frank Thomas 2.0, while not quite the ‘06 vintage, was still a decent DH. Zooks still had a high batting average. Here are the standing from 2008 on July 7th.
Standings for July 7th, 2008
With over half the season finished, we sat just 3.5 games out of the Wild Card. Anaheim was on a tear (6 games up in July) and would indeed go on to win 100 games. But we were right in the thick of it. The next day Harden was traded to the Cubs for the inferior Sean Gallagher and prospects. Two weeks later we said goodbye to Blanton. We threw in the towel in the middle of a competitive season. I don’t want to get in to the specifics of the trades (at the time both were seen as only slight disappointments value-wise). One of my friends, a long-time fan, stopped following the A’s the day Harden was traded. He just couldn’t stomach rooting for a team that would give up on a playoff run, no matter the circumstance.
My take: I knew we were rebuilding anyway, so I wasn’t too bummed. But I still was more in favor of trying to chase down our nemesis, Boston. Maybe bring in a bat. Harden was amazing for the Cubs down the stretch, 1.8 WAR is just 77 innings (nasty loss in his one postseason game, but still).
We could have been a condenter.
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
That seems to get exactly at what he was getting at.
dwishinsky - January 19, 2012
Agreed
That statement really made me think. Great podcast BTW.
gojohn10 - January 19, 2012
Thank you :)
dwishinsky - January 19, 2012
I hope...
…the Angels and Rangers spend themselves silly and aren’t able to sustain it.
Another point I wanted to make, back to Nico’s original question, is that while I think it’s a good move for the 2012 A’s, I don’t get excited about 72-win baseball teams. I’ll be excited about moves that can contribute to a 90-win team. I like the trade, and this move could be a precursor to something larger, but I’m not excited about it.
DanHennessey31 - January 19, 2012
I Don't Think Seth Smith Was Part of my 2012 Fantasy Baseball 1st round Wish List
What does Billy know that I don’t?
Can I consult Cindi? I am comforted in knowing that she at least took the time to explain it to you…slowly, using small words.
Gerard - January 19, 2012
I liked Willingham, but we got 2 draft picks for letting him walk and he's replaceable.
theoriginalrods - January 19, 2012
It's nice but I won't feel so good until I see 29 HR type productivity...
out of 1 player, not out of 3 in our outfeld for a season.
Gerard - January 19, 2012
Seth Smith is still my boyfriend, dwish
Haters can hate! (Nico, is that cooler than “teh”?)
Seriously, I think I’ve come to the conclusion this season that I just want someone on the team to be good. I’d be okay with average pitching and one good player to watch. My expectations are lower than any A’s season in my entire life, and that includes the mid-90’s. (Congratulations, 2012 A’s!) (And seriously, I’m talking old Royals/Pirates/Astros expectations here.)
baseballgirl - January 19, 2012
There was a time....
When I trusted Beane to make smart decisions. Now, it seems that so little makes sense. I mean, I can come up with rationalizations for what he’s doing and then convince myself these moves are good, but really, I haven’t a clue.
So he’s shopping Brandon Allen. Makes sense to shop someone because it’s obvious he’s looking for a veteran presence at 1B and/or DH (or possibly a veteran starter), and someone needs to go. But Allen has a fine minor league stat line, obvious power, and is a good fielder. Why keep Kila, who shows nothing, over Brandon Allen? It makes no sense.
I’ll defend the Smith trade a little
-I mean, he could wind up another pre-injury Mark Kotsay. But really, if the A’s are going to have a new stadium in a couple of years, why not just bite the bullet and sign another free agent who can easily be swapped out mid-season?And again
-there is NO REASON why this Kila dude is on the 40-man roster. None. He has all the earmarks of a spring training invitee.richwol1 - January 19, 2012
If you had to choose: B. Allen or C. Carter?
I liked Allen’s swing and power and he conveyed a sense of knowlege about the strike zone. I didn’t see him get fooled on sliders thrown mid to outside as much as Carter still struggles with that pitch.
In terms of potential both of these guys appear about the same…if they ever reach their potential, that is.
Gerard - January 19, 2012
I'll take Allen because he can play good defense rather than atrocious defense
Nico - January 19, 2012
Carter must have very little Trade Value
What is it about the A’s that sucks the life out of players?
Agreed regarding Allen’s defense. I suspect he will turn out to be another C. Gon or C. Pena in the next few years…Especially if he changes his 1st name to Carlos.
Gerard - January 19, 2012
I'll take Carter because of his power and his learning curve
Carter rededicated himself to baseball last season, but injury prevented him from getting into sync. Allen is a good fielder but he looked even more hopeless than Carter toward the end of his stint last year.
I would take either, though, over Kila, and I’d dump Rosales before I dumped either of them.
richwol1 - January 19, 2012
Since the Smith splits topic is killed
I’d like to use this space to post a brief rant about the misuse of park effects when discussing player trades. It drives me mad when people say a guy like Smith won’t be as good of a hitter because he’s moving to Oakland (not saying this is what either Dan did in their posts). There’s a very important distinction between a player’s offensive numbers falling versus his skill diminishing.
Because of home park, overall numbers and offensive output will be suppressed. But that’s true FOR EVERY PLAYER that might come to Oakland. If we had signed Albert Pujols, his numbers would also see a drop. So please everyone on the internet stop making the mistake of saying every player is magically worse just because they join teams in pitching-friendly parks.
Caveat: It’s true that certain players might make better use of a home park. For example, in Oakland home runs are suppressed more than doubles and triples, so a big HR guy will see a more pronounced decrease in output than a doubles guy. This is proper analysis of park effects on individual player performance.
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
Couldn't agree more
By the theory that OAK suppresses hitting, we shouldn’t ever acquire a hitter since he won’t perform as well as he’s been performing. That’s now how it works: It’s graded on a curve!
Nico - January 19, 2012
But every scrapheap pitcher has to come here.
I also don’t understand the quip that’s always floated around about rebuilding value in friendly confines. I guess it’s really true that agents can use better-looking season stat totals to influence free agent signings after a one-year “value-building” stint in a favorable park? But c’mon, aren’t front offices smart enough to understand park effects? Then again, the Rockies just acquired Mr. Flyball Guillermo Moscoso so maybe I give too much credit? Also, no matter what park effects will at most affect only half a player’s season. So there’s that to consider as well.
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
Does Oakland suppress home runs?
I thought the huge foul area suppressed batting average, but a lot of players have hit a lot of homers at the Coliseum.
richwol1 - January 19, 2012
Night game marine layer
Affects all the West Coast stadiums. Dodger, Angel, Safeco, Petco, Phonebooth.
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
anaheim
Isn’t afflicted I don’t think. It’s sufficiently inland.
dwishinsky - January 19, 2012 via iPhone app
Can't find a definitive source, but I've always read it affects all California stadiums
My gut feeling is that the effect is worst in Oakland and maybe SF. I couldn’t find a proper statistical piece, but random googling shows that the marine layer has come up several times when talking about So-Cal based teams. Here’s an example from Torii Hunter discussing the home run suppression from an article about Vernon Well’s first season in Anaheim:
Link
Ciderbeck - January 19, 2012
Weird.
I mean I get it in other stadium literally abutting the water but I’d have thought itd get that far inland to Anaheim. I am like 30 miles east of there and we have nothing of the sort.
dwishinsky - January 19, 2012
You don't get a second chance
To hit a HR after you foul out either.
niallmack - January 19, 2012
by extension.....
if it effects BA it would effect HRs for the same reason. players don’t get as many chances once a foul ball is caught for an out. there is also no short down the line shot in RF or LF
heartstopper - January 19, 2012
SuSlu says we're getting Jonny Gomes
Platoon mate for Smith?
BWH - January 19, 2012
And say bye to Brandon Allen.
We hardly knew ye.
BWH - January 19, 2012
Yay more moves I hate
Copenhagen - January 19, 2012
Me too
dwishinsky - January 19, 2012
Ugh, wanted to see Smith just play.
Oh well,. we might some comedy value watching Gomes play the OF.
OaktownPower - January 19, 2012
Gomes is a career
.281/.375/.501 hitter vs. lefties.
Smith is a career .290/.364/.518 hitter vs. righties. Could be a good left field platoon.
BWH - January 19, 2012
Great platoon
Smith/Gomes (could)= Lowenstein/Roenicke.
In 1982 Earl Weaver maximized one of the great outfield platoons in baseball history. John Lowenstein, in 384 plate appearances hit 24 HRs with 66 RBI with a line of .320/.415/.602 with an OPS of 1.017 and an OPS+ of 176. Gary Roenicke had 477 plate appearances, hit 21 HRs with 74 RBI with a line of .270/.392/ .499 with a .891 OPS and a 143 OPS+.
Looking at their at bats in left field only for the O’s in ’82 The L/R platoon hit 33 HRs with 93 RBIs with a line of .294 .400 .574.
Steve in Napa - January 19, 2012
Yup
That’s about a .287/.367/.513 hitter (assuming Smith gets the bulk of the ABs). 2 roster spots and poor defense, but…
Nico - January 19, 2012
were gomes's and smith's splits generated playing everyday or just when their skills were advantaged? will they be able to replicate them when playing a true platoon?
stm72 - January 19, 2012
I think those guys have both been in pretty strict platoons for the past 2-3 years.
Nico - January 19, 2012
so then it should be replicable
stm72 - January 19, 2012
with smith getting nearly 500AB last season
wouldn’t that indicate playing time NOT in a platoon
heartstopper - January 19, 2012
Either that or one HELL of an offense.
Tutu-late - January 19, 2012
I would love these two in a platoon, on a team that had a chance of winning anything
Just still don’t like taking time away from Taylor/Cowgill.
Rebuilding Season - January 19, 2012
Should the A's trade for .....
Roberto Hernandez Heredia??
richwol1 - January 19, 2012
kidding
richwol1 - January 19, 2012
Allen for Fake Fausto!
Qwerty75 - January 19, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.