FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Interesting article.

    Comment by Frito Bandito — June 21, 2011 @ 2:24 pm

  2. “The As have gotten good production out of their number 9 spot.”

    Comment by Bill — June 21, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

  3. “Many writers indeed picked the A’s over the Rangers before the season began.”

    What’s up y’all!? That was me.

    Comment by My echo and bunnymen — June 21, 2011 @ 2:40 pm

  4. I’m guessing the O’s are one of the surprisingly good teams, because of Hardy (now the leadoff hitter) and Andino?

    Comment by David — June 21, 2011 @ 4:24 pm

  5. Ditto. Regretting that one just a bit.

    Comment by beat_la_25 — June 21, 2011 @ 5:33 pm

  6. Dejesus has fallen pretty far from his productive days in KC. I always liked him and wish I knew why.

    Comment by kick me in the GO NATS — June 21, 2011 @ 6:31 pm

  7. it was pointed out on Athletics Nation that Weeks has decent swing discipline, despite the low walk rate; so we’re hoping his BB% will rise as pitchers throw him fewer pitches in the zone. Then his OBP could hold up even as his BABIP regresses. probably wishful thinking.

    weeks current OSw% is 26.7 (MLB 2011 avg is 29.5)
    weeks current Zone% is 52.8 (MLB 2011 avg is 46.1)

    AN article:

    Comment by brendan — June 21, 2011 @ 7:39 pm

  8. It’s kind of silly to knock a guy’s walk rate when he’s so new to the league. 2 walks tonight and suddenly it looks pretty decent. His walk rates in the minors have always been good. He should be fine, it’s just a matter of how healthy he stays.

    Pennington had a bad April and a pretty good May. His numbers in 2009 and 2010 weren’t bad. He isn’t really the problem.

    Comment by William O'Brien — June 21, 2011 @ 9:12 pm

  9. Ha I got ripped to shreds when I predicted the A’s offense would suck balls.

    Where is Mac, PL and Danmay to tell me this is still an average offense. What a joke. It’s like I said they have a great young nucleus of starters but you need to score runs to win. It’s a shame because on paper they could be a scary team to face in the playoffs with their pitching in a short series. The problem is that you need your offense to score a decent number of runs to win consistently enough over the course of 162 games to make it that far. As I said in my comments, relying on DeJesus, Willingham and Matsui to handle the heart of the order duties was a bad idea. Those guys are complimentary pieces at best and are not what the A’s needed. The A’s needed a difference maker in the middle of the order. Even mediocre offenses have an anchor, a who can carry them through dry spells. The A’s FO never addressed that and we’re all seeing the results. I’m not sure who “that guy” was in retrospect, but spending $10 mil on Fuentes (disaster) and Balfour (solid) wasn’t the answer. The same way $10 mil on Ben Sheets the year before last wasn’t the answer. When your payroll is in the $60-$70 million range you can’t make those kinds of mistakes.

    Comment by boxx — June 21, 2011 @ 9:32 pm

  10. Attracting sluggers to the Oakland Colliseum is one of the largest problems. The A’s aggresively pursued Beltre last offseason and had the first reported offer in the range of 5 years $60 million. Understandably, Beltre turned it down and received a better offer from Texas a month later.. Jim Thome (and supposivley some other free agents on the market last winter) made a clear statement that he wouldn’t even consider playing in Oakland regardless of their offer.

    I agree that DeJesus, Willingham and Matsui are more complimentary pieces, but they were better than the other options that were available to the A’s given their resources.

    The A’s are still only 5 games out and are riding a 6 game win streak. Their run differential is still just -8. Angels and Mariners are far more flawed teams than the A’s are. Texas certainly has the power and potential to pour it on, but the injury histories of Hamilton, Cruz and Kinsler do still cast a shade of doubt.

    A five game difference, at this point, is not exactly set in stone.

    Comment by TheGrandSlamwich — June 21, 2011 @ 11:17 pm

  11. I feel like this analysis is incomplete.

    Yes, production across the board for Oakland has been terrible. But in setting their lineup, shouldn’t they (as much as possible) try to base it on how people will produce rather than how they have produced?

    In other words, I think the analysis should be taken a step further: what places in the lineup have peripherals that suggest they will improve production going forward? I think this is a key element.

    Anyway, interesting read regardless.

    Comment by Aaron — June 22, 2011 @ 10:55 am

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Close this window.

3.782 Powered by WordPress