Team Spotlight: Oakland Athletics

Heltonfan · 11-10-2007, 03:31 AM

The A’s are the mirror-image of their rivals to the north. The Mariners won 88 games this year, but should have won 78; the A’s won 76, but should have won 87 (in their case, it’s not a Pythag issue, it’s a situational luck issue; their run differential should have been a lot better than it actually was). So, given that they were an 87-win team in ’07, aren’t losing any key players, and are now free of Jason Kendall, it’s no wonder that the A’s project to be very strong in 2008.

Summary Statistics
Rotation: +5
Bullpen: +23
Lineup: +6
Bench: +10
Defense: +23
W-L record: 89-73

Above average across the board? Not too shabby. They’re actually the only team in either league that can make that claim.

Rotation

Haren 3.57
Blanton 3.60
Gaudin 4.10
Braden 4.41
DiNardo 4.56

Blanton and Haren had ERCs of 3.23 and 3.36, respectively, in 2007, so this represents a small decline. DiNardo had a 4.47 FIP this year, and a 4.31 when he pitched over 100 innings back in ’05, so I don’t think his projection is anything controversial.

The interesting guy here is Dallas Braden. On the surface, projecting anything close to league-averageness from Braden would seem to be crazy; he did, after all, go 1-8 with a 6.72 ERA. But he got clobbered on balls in play (.347 BABIP), and had terrible situational luck; opponents hit .253/.330/.430 off him with the bases empty, and .359/.401/.528 with men on. Braden actually had a 4.09 FIP, which is right in line with his minor league numbers. He’s a solid pitcher.

Bullpen

Street 2.47
Duchscherer 3.37
Calero 3.68
Embree 3.85
Casilla 3.96
Lugo 4.05
Harden 3.13

Best bullpen in the league. I’ve listed Harden here because I doubt he’ll stay healthy for the whole year… but getting 50 innings out of him isn’t unrealistic.

Lineup

C: Suzuki 0.62 (.233, -1)
1B: Johnson 1.53 (.272, -1)
2B: Ellis 3.53 (.263, 12)
SS: Crosby 2.29 (.240, 9)
3B: Chavez 2.53 (.270, 2)
LF: Buck 3.04 (.282, 4)
CF: Denorfia 2.37 (.271, -3)
RF: Swisher 2.87 (.293, -4)
DH: Cust 2.80 (.295)

Kurt Suzuki put up a .261 ABR after getting called up to the big leagues. His minor league numbers suggest that he’s not nearly that good, but certainly, he’s got a chance to blow away the .233 projection.

Daric Barton might steal the first base job away from Dan Johnson. He projects at .268, so it wouldn’t make much of a difference.

Mark Ellis is one of the most underrated players around. An absolute wizard with the glove. He was a 5-WAR player last year.

Travis Buck, who I got to see regularly during his ASU days, has turned into one heck of a ballplayer. He performed at a legitimate superstar level last year when healthy; the projection is for a substantial regression both offensively and defensively. So, like Suzuki, Buck has a chance to beat his projection handily.

Chris Denorfia, an above-average regular? Really? It feels weird to me too, but he’s got the minor league track record to support it (.349/.413/.484 in AAA in 2006, .310/.387/.505 in 2005). He missed all of ’07 after having Tommy John surgery, but should be good to go next year.

Projections see a big dropoff for Cust, as well they should. He’s a very good hitter, but he won’t put up another .366 BABIP.

Bench

Bowen .254
Scutaro .246
Hannahan .266
Kotsay .232

Jack Hannahan. Fun name. And he’s a fine player, too; in fact, thanks to the .840 ZR he recorded during his 40 starts at third base last year, he actually projects a hair better than Chavez. I don’t know if I’d trust that assessment, but there’s no doubt that the guy can play; he hit .295/.425/.476 at AAA Toledo before the A’s acquired him, and .278/.370/.424 in his big league trial.

Note that I have Kotsay penciled in on the bench. It’s absolutely essential that the A’s do the same. He’s fallen off a cliff with both the bat and the glove; whether that’s because of injury or not is beside the point. What matters is that he’s now a replacement-level player, and it would be a huge mistake for the A’s to give him the everyday CF job, regardless of how good he used to be.

If I Were in Charge, I Would: This is a fun one. I enjoy it when I disagree with Nate Silver. And in the past, when I’ve ripped Nate and PECOTA, I’ve generally been right (Wilmer Pino, anyone?). Of course, I’m sure that there are plenty of examples of PECOTA outsmarting me which I’ve conveniently not noticed, but nevertheless… anyway, three weeks ago, Nate wrote the following about the A’s:

“Sorry, but there’s not enough here to reach the playoffs in a league where it could require 95 wins to do so. The best reasonable-case scenario is that two out of the three of the Harden/Chavez/Crosby group comes back strong, two out of three from the Haren/Blanton/Cust group sustain their 2007 breakouts, and two out of three of Barton/Buck/Suzuki develop faster than expected. All that happens, plus some Billy Beane mojo, and I still think you’re looking at 87, 88 wins, tops. But realistically, the A’s 79-83 Pythagorean record is a pretty fair representation of their true talent level.”

Based on this, Nate goes on to advocate a drastic rebuilding operation, like what I suggested for the Mariners. Of course, the problem with this idea is obvious: Nate’s last sentence is dead wrong. The A’s Pythag record is not a fair representation of their true talent level. Not even close. They allowed 30 more runs than they should have, and scored 30 runs fewer than they should have. That’s not normal, and it’s completely irrelevant to their outlook for 2008.

Looking at my projections, the A’s project at 89 wins right now. And that’s with regressions from Haren, Blanton, Ellis, Cust, and Suzuki, only 50 innings from Harden, and no acquisitions whatsoever. The point being that this roster, if left unchanged, could conceivably win 95 games. It doesn’t make sense to blow up a team that good.

That being said, there’s really not a whole lot for the A’s to do in pursuit of an ’08 playoff spot. Their lineup is solid across the board, with the possible exception of Suzuki behind the plate… and they’re sure as heck not going to outbid the Yanks and Mets for Jorge Posada. The only thing I can think of that might make sense is to deal a reliever (Casilla?) for Carlos Ruiz or Pete LaForest (note that this is an idea I also suggested for the Phillies… I think it works for both sides).

The rotation is similarly tough to upgrade. They should probably bring in one veteran starter just for insurance.

Finally, I’d explore trade possibilities for Chavez. As mentioned earlier, Jack Hannahan is a very capable replacement, and while Chavez’s contract isn’t particularly attractive, I’d much rather pay $38 million over the next three years to him than to Mike Lowell. He ought to have considerable value on the trade market, and there’s always a chance that Beane could pull off another Mulder trade.

11-10-2007, 03:31 AM	#1 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 847	Team Spotlight: Oakland Athletics The A’s are the mirror-image of their rivals to the north. The Mariners won 88 games this year, but should have won 78; the A’s won 76, but should have won 87 (in their case, it’s not a Pythag issue, it’s a situational luck issue; their run differential should have been a lot better than it actually was). So, given that they were an 87-win team in ’07, aren’t losing any key players, and are now free of Jason Kendall, it’s no wonder that the A’s project to be very strong in 2008. Summary Statistics Rotation: +5 Bullpen: +23 Lineup: +6 Bench: +10 Defense: +23 W-L record: 89-73 Above average across the board? Not too shabby. They’re actually the only team in either league that can make that claim. Rotation Haren 3.57 Blanton 3.60 Gaudin 4.10 Braden 4.41 DiNardo 4.56 Blanton and Haren had ERCs of 3.23 and 3.36, respectively, in 2007, so this represents a small decline. DiNardo had a 4.47 FIP this year, and a 4.31 when he pitched over 100 innings back in ’05, so I don’t think his projection is anything controversial. The interesting guy here is Dallas Braden. On the surface, projecting anything close to league-averageness from Braden would seem to be crazy; he did, after all, go 1-8 with a 6.72 ERA. But he got clobbered on balls in play (.347 BABIP), and had terrible situational luck; opponents hit .253/.330/.430 off him with the bases empty, and .359/.401/.528 with men on. Braden actually had a 4.09 FIP, which is right in line with his minor league numbers. He’s a solid pitcher. Bullpen Street 2.47 Duchscherer 3.37 Calero 3.68 Embree 3.85 Casilla 3.96 Lugo 4.05 Harden 3.13 Best bullpen in the league. I’ve listed Harden here because I doubt he’ll stay healthy for the whole year… but getting 50 innings out of him isn’t unrealistic. Lineup C: Suzuki 0.62 (.233, -1) 1B: Johnson 1.53 (.272, -1) 2B: Ellis 3.53 (.263, 12) SS: Crosby 2.29 (.240, 9) 3B: Chavez 2.53 (.270, 2) LF: Buck 3.04 (.282, 4) CF: Denorfia 2.37 (.271, -3) RF: Swisher 2.87 (.293, -4) DH: Cust 2.80 (.295) Kurt Suzuki put up a .261 ABR after getting called up to the big leagues. His minor league numbers suggest that he’s not nearly that good, but certainly, he’s got a chance to blow away the .233 projection. Daric Barton might steal the first base job away from Dan Johnson. He projects at .268, so it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Mark Ellis is one of the most underrated players around. An absolute wizard with the glove. He was a 5-WAR player last year. Travis Buck, who I got to see regularly during his ASU days, has turned into one heck of a ballplayer. He performed at a legitimate superstar level last year when healthy; the projection is for a substantial regression both offensively and defensively. So, like Suzuki, Buck has a chance to beat his projection handily. Chris Denorfia, an above-average regular? Really? It feels weird to me too, but he’s got the minor league track record to support it (.349/.413/.484 in AAA in 2006, .310/.387/.505 in 2005). He missed all of ’07 after having Tommy John surgery, but should be good to go next year. Projections see a big dropoff for Cust, as well they should. He’s a very good hitter, but he won’t put up another .366 BABIP. Bench Bowen .254 Scutaro .246 Hannahan .266 Kotsay .232 Jack Hannahan. Fun name. And he’s a fine player, too; in fact, thanks to the .840 ZR he recorded during his 40 starts at third base last year, he actually projects a hair better than Chavez. I don’t know if I’d trust that assessment, but there’s no doubt that the guy can play; he hit .295/.425/.476 at AAA Toledo before the A’s acquired him, and .278/.370/.424 in his big league trial. Note that I have Kotsay penciled in on the bench. It’s absolutely essential that the A’s do the same. He’s fallen off a cliff with both the bat and the glove; whether that’s because of injury or not is beside the point. What matters is that he’s now a replacement-level player, and it would be a huge mistake for the A’s to give him the everyday CF job, regardless of how good he used to be. If I Were in Charge, I Would: This is a fun one. I enjoy it when I disagree with Nate Silver. And in the past, when I’ve ripped Nate and PECOTA, I’ve generally been right (Wilmer Pino, anyone?). Of course, I’m sure that there are plenty of examples of PECOTA outsmarting me which I’ve conveniently not noticed, but nevertheless… anyway, three weeks ago, Nate wrote the following about the A’s: “Sorry, but there’s not enough here to reach the playoffs in a league where it could require 95 wins to do so. The best reasonable-case scenario is that two out of the three of the Harden/Chavez/Crosby group comes back strong, two out of three from the Haren/Blanton/Cust group sustain their 2007 breakouts, and two out of three of Barton/Buck/Suzuki develop faster than expected. All that happens, plus some Billy Beane mojo, and I still think you’re looking at 87, 88 wins, tops. But realistically, the A’s 79-83 Pythagorean record is a pretty fair representation of their true talent level.” Based on this, Nate goes on to advocate a drastic rebuilding operation, like what I suggested for the Mariners. Of course, the problem with this idea is obvious: Nate’s last sentence is dead wrong. The A’s Pythag record is not a fair representation of their true talent level. Not even close. They allowed 30 more runs than they should have, and scored 30 runs fewer than they should have. That’s not normal, and it’s completely irrelevant to their outlook for 2008. Looking at my projections, the A’s project at 89 wins right now. And that’s with regressions from Haren, Blanton, Ellis, Cust, and Suzuki, only 50 innings from Harden, and no acquisitions whatsoever. The point being that this roster, if left unchanged, could conceivably win 95 games. It doesn’t make sense to blow up a team that good. That being said, there’s really not a whole lot for the A’s to do in pursuit of an ’08 playoff spot. Their lineup is solid across the board, with the possible exception of Suzuki behind the plate… and they’re sure as heck not going to outbid the Yanks and Mets for Jorge Posada. The only thing I can think of that might make sense is to deal a reliever (Casilla?) for Carlos Ruiz or Pete LaForest (note that this is an idea I also suggested for the Phillies… I think it works for both sides). The rotation is similarly tough to upgrade. They should probably bring in one veteran starter just for insurance. Finally, I’d explore trade possibilities for Chavez. As mentioned earlier, Jack Hannahan is a very capable replacement, and while Chavez’s contract isn’t particularly attractive, I’d much rather pay $38 million over the next three years to him than to Mike Lowell. He ought to have considerable value on the trade market, and there’s always a chance that Beane could pull off another Mulder trade.