FanGraphs Baseball

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Got the A’s right in my bottom 5 prediction. White Sox and Mets still to go.

    Comment by some guy — March 26, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

  2. *slow clap*

    Comment by pastadiving jeter — March 26, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

  3. Is that a William Carlos Williams reference in there? What’s next? Monkeys in space?

    Comment by LexDiamonds — March 26, 2012 @ 2:19 pm

  4. This is so depressing.

    Comment by David Wiers — March 26, 2012 @ 2:29 pm

  5. “So much depends up on a Yoenis Cespedes standing beside a laughing Jemile Weeks while Michael Choice swings in the cage.”

    A William Carlos Williams reference in an article about the A’s? This has made my day.

    Comment by Women and Booze — March 26, 2012 @ 2:31 pm

  6. I think that’s probably right, but don’t sleep on the Twins.

    Comment by John Franco — March 26, 2012 @ 2:39 pm

  7. This article seems to offer a lot of questions (literally) with very few answers. That may be fitting considering the state of the A’s right now but I would have like to have seen more evidence within each of these sections explaining the ranking. It’s not that I disagree with the ranking but that the 2013+ outlook should have some reference to Marc Hulett’s prospect ranking of the team. Should the A’s baseball operations team still be ranked 10th? If so, why? I read nothing in that section explaining the relatively high ranking of that group.

    In the article’s defense, there was evidence for the low ranking in the financial resources category but I would like to have seen more evidence in the other sections that help to explain the A’s ranking.

    Comment by chuckb — March 26, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

  8. Props.

    Comment by matt w — March 26, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

  9. The real John Franco would NEVER read FanGraphs

    Comment by Michael — March 26, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

  10. This is just to say

    I have traded
    the pitchers
    That were in
    the rotation

    and which
    you had just
    signed
    to an extension

    Forgive me
    we are rebuilding
    and our farm
    was so thin

    Comment by matt w — March 26, 2012 @ 3:21 pm

  11. The real John Franco would be watching episode after episode of the Soprano’s Or behaving just like one of the characters in a dark Italian Restaraunt.

    Comment by Shane H — March 26, 2012 @ 3:44 pm

  12. Given what they have to work with and their track record tenth seems about right. Billy B>Jack Z!

    Comment by Shane H — March 26, 2012 @ 3:46 pm

  13. I don’t know if the Twins are going to be as low as last years performance would indicate. They have always been a team that has succeeded despite questionable front office/coaching decisions. They had an awful season last year because literally everything that could have ever went wrong happened to go wrong all at once.

    Comment by j6takish — March 26, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

  14. Wait, doesn’t Spock end up dating Shatner in the 44th episode?

    Comment by Why do you call me Phantom of the Opera? — March 26, 2012 @ 3:51 pm

  15. If other teams are in similar financial situations, doesn’t the success of Tampa Bay and the emerging talent of KC start to call into question whether Billy Beane really is a top 1/3 GM? I mean, one reason he had to trade away his team was because he’s drafted so poorly for so long. Then there is the head scratching signing of Cespedes, the even more bizarre announcement that he is the starting CF despite strong evidence he is not ready for that role, the obssessive collecting of AAAA 1B/DH types. Just maybe the A’s problems are rooted more in the baseball side of the front office than in the ownership/financial side.

    Comment by DrBGiantsfan — March 26, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

  16. “The team hasn’t made the playoffs since 2006, and since the last wave of future talent was just traded away en masse this past offseason, it’s worth wondering what happened with it. Did the Athletics just randomly fail to amass as much talent at one time as they did in their past two cycles of success?”

    Simply put, one mistake was made. If you add Carlos Gonzalez to the 2010 team that finished .500, they suddenly become playoff contenders looking to buy and perhaps take the division. The Matt Holliday mistake ruined the team from 09-present.

    Comment by PL — March 26, 2012 @ 3:59 pm

  17. i lol’d

    Comment by Rex — March 26, 2012 @ 4:01 pm

  18. I think you’re underestimating the Mets, but I could be wrong. That team, even while suffering from financial calamity, still has more resources than about half the league. At least, in terms of franchise worth and revenue. You expect them to suffer for a year or two, and then thing should be straightened out well enough for them to rejoin the spenders.

    And even if they’re a last place team in the NL East, I do like a lot of guys who are their roster. I think they’re outside the bottom 5.

    Comment by Bronnt — March 26, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

  19. Eh, I think you might be overstating the case against the Athletics:

    he team hasn’t made the playoffs since 2006, and since the last wave of future talent was just traded away en masse this past offseason, it’s worth wondering what happened with it. Did the Athletics just randomly fail to amass as much talent at one time as they did in their past two cycles of success? Or was this last sell-off a sign that the team’s approach to collecting talent is flawed?

    I don’t know why 5 seasons would be a sign of anything, especially when you consider that the A’s were one of the best teams in baseball in the early 2000’s with the same approach. Even if they haven’t made the playoffs in 5 years, they’ve averaged 77 wins a season, which is pretty solid.

    Comment by vivaelpujols — March 26, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

  20. The A’s are far more successful over the past 10 years than either the Royals or the Rays. Especially for small payroll teams, major league talent is very cyclical.

    Comment by vivaelpujols — March 26, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

  21. Huh. I noticed it, but assumed it was coincidental because I don’t really know poetry that well.

    Comment by Bronnt — March 26, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

  22. this is greater than a little reference.

    and to cap it all off: “A sparrowhawk flies overhead. We have wasted our lives.”

    Comment by Eno Sarris — March 26, 2012 @ 4:07 pm

  23. woo hoo, the Pirates have clinched a rank among the top 90% of teams!

    Comment by gonfalon — March 26, 2012 @ 4:28 pm

  24. As a Mariner fan, I am happy to see Oakland this low. But I admit I am surprised. The group of prospects they acquired in their trades this offseason, not to mention Cespedes, seems solid and fairly deep.

    Then again, they’re still in Oakland and not making money and such……nevermind

    Comment by max — March 26, 2012 @ 4:41 pm

  25. I think you have a misunderstanding of the 2013+ rankings. Last year, the rankings in this category were based entirely on prospects and only the prospect “experts” got a vote. This was almost universally criticized and has been changed.
    Also, this author is not responsible for the rankings; he is just trying to give a brief summary of why they are what they are, so asking for “proof” is not really reasonable.
    I agree that the A’s were overrated on Organization. I believe this is just a carryover of the love that Billy Beane perhaps deserved several years ago but has done nothing to justify since.

    Comment by Baltar — March 26, 2012 @ 4:45 pm

  26. I wasn’t aware that Gonzalez has become a 10 WAR player.

    Comment by Baltar — March 26, 2012 @ 4:48 pm

  27. Congratulations to FanGraphs methodology changes. You have now corrected the 2 most obvious over-rankings from last year: Baltimore and Oakland.

    Comment by Baltar — March 26, 2012 @ 4:50 pm

  28. The Pirates outside of the bottom 3 seems strange.

    Comment by TK — March 26, 2012 @ 4:53 pm

  29. I have the A’s ranked higher in my 2012 Org Rankings, mostly due to their minor league system and the wins they are able to get out of such a low payrolled team. Someone like the Pirates should be here imo.

    Comment by xeifrank — March 26, 2012 @ 5:05 pm

  30. ah, but you forget…moneyball was nominated for a people’s choice award.

    Comment by MajorDanby — March 26, 2012 @ 5:07 pm

  31. I can’t totally agree with Oakland’s placement, but so far, I’m feeling very good about the changes to this series.

    My big question, is there anyone besides the Yankees who might plausibly be #1?

    Comment by Bronnt — March 26, 2012 @ 5:27 pm

  32. Texas, Tampa Bay, St. Louis and Boston

    Comment by xeifrank — March 26, 2012 @ 5:56 pm

  33. The rangers?

    Comment by Matt — March 26, 2012 @ 5:59 pm

  34. I think the revenues category eliminates the Rays.

    Comment by Will — March 26, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

  35. Using the spreadsheet, the Texas Rangers have a serious shot at #1. That’s where I had them before I made some minor adjustments to the revenue numbers. I think it will come down to the separation between the Yankees and Rangers in financial resources. With the increase in attendance for the Rangers plus the windfall they’re receiving from the new TV deal, that organization is becoming monstrous in a hurry.

    Tampa Bay is going to get slammed the most by this current set of criteria. Baseball Ops, which the Rays are strong in, carries less weight whereas Financial Resources, which the Rays are massively weak in, carries more weight this year.

    Comment by ThundaPC — March 26, 2012 @ 6:33 pm

  36. Will, yes the revenue category likely hurts them in the FG formula. I would probably override it in the case of Tampa Bay as they have shown since 2008 (97, 84, 96, 91 wins) they have been able to succeed “despite” the low revenues.

    Any category that can eliminate an organization from a top ranking based on something almost completely out of their control should be revisited in how it is applied to the rankings imo. That is meant as a contructive criticism as I enjoy this series.

    Comment by xeifrank — March 26, 2012 @ 7:08 pm

  37. I don’t think the As are more successful than Tampa Bay since 2005, when new ownership assumed control from Namoli, which is a fairer comparison. Jonah Keri wrote a book about that.

    Comment by Steve Balboni — March 26, 2012 @ 7:21 pm

  38. The Fangraphs Crowd is 3-3 so far, correctly calling the bottom three orgs.

    Comment by Big Oil — March 26, 2012 @ 7:22 pm

  39. All good options, but what about the Angels? 2013+ Outlook & “Overall Management” are hard to discern because of new management, but the LaTroy Hawkins signing is promising.

    Comment by Steve Balboni — March 26, 2012 @ 7:25 pm

  40. Not a fairer comparison, because Tampa Bay had a crapload of talent from the pre-Namoli years. But point taken.

    Comment by vivaelpujols — March 26, 2012 @ 9:07 pm

  41. Thank you!

    I was going to do “The pure products of Sacramento/ go crazy” but I realized that that’s a long poem and anyone who has to look up the A’s AAA affiliate has no chance of getting anything good out of it.

    Comment by matt w — March 27, 2012 @ 7:58 am

  42. I’m just hoping that hole at 3B for Oakland gets filled by Chone Figgins.

    Comment by Mike — March 27, 2012 @ 9:22 am

  43. Fangraphs puts the Mariners ahead of the A’s every year. Odds are they’ll be right eventually.

    Comment by Sam — March 27, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

  44. The Rays stockpiled top draft picks for 10 years before having their success.

    Why do people keep forgetting this?

    Comment by Georgethev — March 27, 2012 @ 12:10 pm

  45. That’s not at all what I was saying. I didn’t even suggest I disagreed with the ranking. All I was saying was that I wanted more in the write-up that explained why the A’s were ranked where they were. The 2013+ outlook had a very short reference to Cespedes, Weeks, and Choice, and almost nothing else about the team’s future prospects. There wasn’t even a reference to Marc Hulett’s ranking of their farm. That, to me, is relevant and I think should have been included. Other references to the A’s younger players should have been included as well.

    Moreover, I never asked for “proof”. In fact, I was quite careful not to. I asked for “evidence” and “explanations.” What justifies this ranking? That’s it.

    Comment by chuckb — March 27, 2012 @ 12:42 pm

  46. You were wrong. Pirates and Padres round out Fangraph’s bottom 5 for 2012.

    Comment by Dennis — March 27, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

  47. Amazing. You win life.

    Comment by Women and Booze — March 27, 2012 @ 1:27 pm

  48. I love what the A’s did this offseason. Took their farm system from bottom 5 to top 10, and I’m not convinced they actually made the major league squad worse. I think this team betters their 2011 record. I’m a lot higher on the A’s going forward than this.

    Comment by Matt — March 27, 2012 @ 11:28 pm

  49. like who? just curious…

    Comment by Spike — March 28, 2012 @ 11:04 am

  50. Yeah, well, I’m a potato.

    Comment by Feeding the Abscess — April 4, 2012 @ 2:07 pm

  51. I mean, that’s a little bit of a nit pick. He was still worth 6.5 wins in 2010, and it’s pretty safe to say the Holliday trade has failed.

    Comment by R M — April 6, 2012 @ 12:26 pm

  52. What Oakland is doing this year is just unimaginable in every possible way.

    Comment by Not an A's Fan — September 12, 2012 @ 10:36 am

  53. Hello from the future! This actually turned out pretty well.

    Comment by Cretgren — April 27, 2015 @ 1:17 pm

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.

0.277 Powered by WordPress