SB Nation User Blog: ChadGod

Bring Cardenas To The Big Club? - Perhaps short-sighted, but Cardenas > Crosby

ChadGod — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:01:00 -0000

Seriously A's fans. Just how long are we going to be content with Bobby Crosby in the lineup? This man has proven his inability to hit one too many times for even the most optimistic Crosby fans and his 3B defense has certainly improved, but he is no gem out there.

Could Adrian Cardenas match Crosby's production (that word just doesn't feel right) right now? Its starting to look that way.

Cardenas has only seen a little time at AAA, but there are plenty of situations in which teams will callup players from AA to the majors to at least get their feet wet and/or to plug a short-term hole. I know I'm just a little giddy thinking about the A's actually being okay lately, but getting 3 hits per ball game just isn't going to get it done all the time. If our pitching really continues to gel like this we would need to get serious about improving our offense right now.

So, I think its time they moved Cardenas to 3B at Midland. That way if Cardenas is still hot say a month from now, the A's are contending, and also barring that Crosby should turn into Garciaparra we can at least get a possible upgrade for the Crosby horror show.

After struggling in AAA and being demoted to Midland, Cardenas has been sizzling as most of you are aware:

.385/.459/.556 over 34 games, having drawn 20 walks and only struck-out 19 times. He is really on fire so far in June.

Help me DRaysBay - Looking for opinions on Pena, Who is the real Pena?

ChadGod — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:13:55 -0000

I'm a huge A's fan - love the Rays also. I really love Carlos Pena because I have followed his entire career (since it started in Oakland) and I am so glad to see him tap into that immense potential.

I am also an avid fantasy baseball player and I love to draft Pena on my teams, but I haven't been able to watch him play at all and I was hoping some Rays fans could rationalize his inconsistency for me:

Since the beginning of 2007, Pena has been awesome for a lot of the time - All of 2007, Second half of 2008, first ~30 games of 2009.

And then not so awesome - First half of 2008, this last month.

WHAT IS THE DEAL?!

Is he just looking totally lost or should be still fully expect a turnaround to his early season/second half of 08/2007 form?

Also, while I'm at it I might as well ask about people's thoughts on the sustainability of Bartletts and Zobrists offense?

Thanks

We Shoulda kept that Murton Fellah...

ChadGod — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:40:25 -0000

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/free-matt-murton

The above link is a fangraphs.com piece written about the value of matt murton right now.

We should have kept him, look at this gem:

In his first 50 PAs for Colorado Springs, Murton is hitting .409/.480/.636 with six extra base hits, five walks, and just one strikeout. He’s running a .510 wOBA...

and this one...

At the least, Murton should be a right-handed platoon caddy for a team that has a LH hitting OF that struggles against same handed pitchers. Or a defensive replacement/pinch hitter in the NL. There’s no way that there are 750 better baseball players on the planet that Murton.

Hmmm...sounds familiar, FML

Is the economy even WORSE than we thought 3 weeks ago? (CHONE and Ben Sheets)

ChadGod — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:29:03 -0000

Over at MLBtraderumors.com, there is a post about some rumblings and grumblings between the Mets and Ben Sheets.

Long story short, Ben Sheets is believed to be asking for $18mill/2 years with a third option year - Yes, really.

Just over three weeks ago, AN's very own Blicks made what I thought was an extremely compelling case for signing Ben Sheets.

At the time, we were throwing around ideas of $12-$15 million annually to acquire the guy and I still thought it was a good investment. Even if Sheets misses half the season he is still likely to be worth 2 wins, or ~$10 million market value.

Right now, depending on your personal scouting disposition of the A's players young and old, Its safe to say the A's are projected to be somewhere between 81-90 wins. I tend to like this particular WAR projection for the A's. This spreadsheet predicts the A's to win 86.5 games in 2009 using CHONE projections, and CHONE really isn't very favorable with the A's. It does make one large and favorable assumption: the health of the A's hitters, particularly Chavez. However, it doesn't expect Chavez to be very good. It doesnt expect Cust, or Buck, or Zooks, or anyone else to take a large step forward and it even has a rather humbling offensive prediction for Matt Holliday (lower wOBA than Cust and Giambi).

More importantly, CHONE is not very optimistic about the A's rotation. This has been pointed out before, but none of the A's pitchers are projected to eat very many innings.

What if we took that same spreadsheet and slotted in the modest CHONE projection for Ben Sheets - 148 innings at 3.83 ERA? Unfortunately that chart is read-only, but if you imagine sliding down Outman into the "replacement level" section and then halfing his innings and his 0.7 WAR, and then slotting up the "replacement level" and replacing it and its 0 WAR with Ben Sheets and his ~3 WAR projection you would end up with +~2.7 WAR.

Now, I'm no wizard, but 86.5 +~2.7 = GOOD! (89.2 projected wins).

How do we not pull the trigger? In my opinion that 89.2 wins is low anyway. (I think hitting upside and injuries will ~cancel out, and that pitching will be better than it is projected here.)

That is 2.7 WAR, and you know that $20million/2years or so would get it done. What a deal, especially given that these are the most important wins - these are the wins that could very well get us to the playoffs. Not to mention the fact that it would be nice to at least entertain the possibility of having a shutdown-ace if we ever got there.

Are the A's out of cash, or are they just stupid? I tend to doubt the latter.

Orlando Cabrera: The Tangible Intangible?

ChadGod — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:43:09 -0000

You will not find a bigger Orlando Cabrera hater than myself. He's a bum. Not only did I always think he was over-rated, but I have always found myself naturally opposed to the teams he has played for - okay, not the Expos, but I loathed his presence on each of the dreaded Red Sox, Angels, and White Sox. (Red Sox for acting entitled, White Sox for the betterment of sabermetrics, and the Angels for being the Slegna.)

However, I was reading a random thread about Cabrera in which a commenter mentioned that Cabrera had been "lucky" to go to the playoffs with all of those squads. Upon reading this, I had to pause and think for a second, was it just luck or was it possible that despite his reputation as a negative team presence Cabrera might actually improve the players around him?

The following is my attempt at answering this question...

We all know Cabrera went to the playoffs with the Red Sox, Angels and White Sox, So What. These were all good teams that were, with the exception of the 2008 White Sox, expected to contend and by no means was Cabrera even close to the most valuable asset on any of these teams....at least directly.

Still, it is possible that Cabrera somehow caused these teams to perform better than expected. Can we prove causation? Of course not, but if we can demonstrate that Cabrera has consistently played for teams that have beat their projections, well than, that might lend some tangibility to his otherwise intangible qualities. (Look for this post to circulate on ESPN.com shortly)

Going year-by-year, lets see if I can find some half-decent projections and determine any trend...

Unfortunately, the only thing I was able to find is a PECOTA projections table starting from 2003, so if anyone can dig up the Expos projected record versus actual record data from 1999-2002 that would be useful.

But for now, starting from 2003:

In 2003: Expos projected wins 82, Actual wins 83, Error: +1. Cabrera had his best season ever that year, so one could easily argue that he was directly the +1 there.

In 2004: Cabera was traded to the Red Sox for the final 2 months of the season as they made their playoff push. Lets look at both the Expos and Red Sox that year.
Expos predicted Ws: 79, Actual: 67, Error -12
Boston predicted W: 106, Actual: 98, Error -8

In 2005, Cabrera signed with the Angels.
Angels predicted Ws: 83, Actual: 95. Error + 12

In 2006,
Angels predicted Ws: 81, Actual: 89, Error +8

In 2007,
Angels predicted Ws: 86, Actual: 94, Error +8

In 2008, Cabrera signed with the White Sox
White Sox projected Ws: 77, Actual: 89, Error +12

In continuing crude fashion, lets add up the numbers: , +1, (-12 - 8)/2 = -10, +12, +8, +8, +12 = +31/6 = +5.2 Wins over projected on average per season. Notice, I averaged the 2004 negatives since that was only one season, and even then the -10 is probably too harsh because the Expos most likely tanked after trading people away, while no doubt Boston only traded for Cabrera because they were well below their projections at that time and needed a boost.

Anyway, despite the many inherent imperfections with this kind of analysis +5.2 Wins over PECOTA projections for teams that Orlando Cabrera was a part of is pretty large to totally ignore. I'd be interested to find those earlier years Expos projections.

Lets withhold our disbelief for a second and imagine that this truly is some sort of "O-Cab effect." Just how much would O-Cab be worth to the A's if that was the case? Well right now I believe we project to be around 79-80 Wins. Replace Crosby with O-Cab and that is 80-81 wins. Now, add the O-Cab effect and Oakland would finish the season approximately 86-76 -- shit that would give us a good shot at the playoffs. Not to mention that Cabrera would have a WAR of over 7, worth a market value of about ~$35million/y

Conclusion: O-Cab is bum and I don't want him, but if we sign him for $4 million this is what will make it okay for me.

Angels Trading for Dye?

ChadGod — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:19:39 -0000

EDIT: Rumor has been shot down, crap!

MLBtraderumors suggests that the angels are interested in trading for Jermaine Dye and that the White Sox would seek Figgins, possibly more in return...

I was wondering what AN would think about this move potentially...

From what I can gather, I think this would be a good thing for us. Dye and his whopping ~1.5 WAR would replace either Willits (~1.3 WAR) or Gary Mathews Jr. (~0 WAR), so it would be an upgrade there, but Figgins, despite his mediocrity projects to play average defense at the hot corner and is worth 2.1 WAR. They would conceivably replace Figgins with Brandon Wood at 3B who projects to be both a below average hitter and fielder. I'd be interested in a WAR projection for Wood if anyone had one?

Icing on the cake would be that Figgins perceived value is likely to be lower than Dye's so the Angels might have to part with a prospect as well.

Conclusions: Dye + Wood < Figgins + Willits
Although Dye + Wood might be better than Figgins + GMJ
Dye costs 6 million more than Figgins and the Angels would probably be done for the off-season.
They might also weaken the farm in the process.

This would be great for us when you compare Dunn as an alternative. The Angels could actually end up a worse team after a Dye trade, green lighting the A's to go for it.

Cust Vs. Giambi, OBP KING?

ChadGod — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:05:49 -0000

In all likelihood, Matt Holliday will actually be the OBP King of the A's next year. Its certainly not a lock, but given that of our 3 sluggers, Holliday is the youngest (turns 29 in 4 days) and given that his OBP has been steadily increasing year-to-year:

.349....361...387....405....408 last season

It is somewhat likely that this will decrease in Oakland, but if so not by much. Looks like ~400 is about the peak anyway, which makes sense for his age.

Now then, lets shift our attention to the likely runner-up - Cust or Giambi?

I am not asking who is a better player, or even how well either of these guys does next season, but rather I simply want to take a heat-check on ANers and see who thinks Giambi will have a higher OBP than Cust next season or vice versa (assuming relative health)...

Jason Giambi just turned 38 years old, Jack Cust turns 30 in a few days...(side note: I love that all of the power in our lineup was born in January, random). Time = advantage Cust, but that doesn't necessarily mean his OBP will reign supreme in '09.

Lets look at the relevant past, Giambi's last several years of OBP:

2005: .440
2006: .413
2007: .356 (injuries 83 G)
2008: .373

As for Cust:

2007: .408
2008: .375

So, both players were able to get on base at very similar rates last season and both players also declined from "established" norms, which on first thought one could easily attribute Giambi's decline to age while Cust's is less clear.

In my limited depth of expertise, I first look to BABIP to reconcile the trends. Looking first at Giambi's BABIP we can plainly see that while his BABIP was well below average last season, it has consistently been below average (it was average in 2005) since 2002 , the year after he signed with the Yankees. Perhaps we can attribute this to Giambi getting homer happy in the Bronx and forgetting about the all-fields approach? Or perhaps HGH just isn't as good as the real thing.

When I look at Giambi's decline - specifically 2008 - I notice that he is almost the exact same hitter he has always been in the Bronx, except for one thing. While his average, HR power, and strikeout numbers have remained fairly consistent, in 2008 he drew far less walks than normal. Why? I have no idea. What does it mean? You tell me. There is still a lot of good in this data though. Last year, Giambi still had power, remained within a consistent BABIP, and still K'd at established rates. Despite walking less, he still drew 76 BBs, so Im optimistic going forward. Factors against Giambi include age, park factors, lineup protection, but there is also the Oakland hitting success factor working for him, and of course the added MOJO factor.

Turning to Cust for a second, his BABIP is more concerning. It looks to me like Cust had the exact same season in 2008 that he did in 2007 except that his BABIP regressed from well-above average to just slightly above average. Hopefully Cust's true talent is somewhere in between the two rather than just MLB average or even below-average like Giambi. Anyway, it does lead me to conclude that Cust probably won't be getting back towards a .400 OBP anytime soon.

So, what say you AN? Who will have a higher OBP next season, Cust or Giambi? And also, does anyone think that either will actually have a higher OBP than Holliday?

Personal unfounded OBP projections:
Holliday: .409
Giambi: .385
*Hopes to find Travis Buck here*
Cust: .372

Poll

Assuming good health, who will post a higher OBP next season? Jason Giambi or Jack (Effing) Cust

Giambi

58 votes

Cust

62 votes

a non-Holliday A's player will top them both (write-in)

8 votes

128 votes | Poll has closed

Why we CAN catch the Angels...from an Angels fan

ChadGod — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:20:19 -0000

While waiting for the annoying MegaVideo cooldown period to end I decided to take a look at some of my favorite secondary baseball blogs: LL, BTBS, and of course, for novelty Halos Heaven. While there I came across an interesting nugget that puts words to my sense of optimism going into the 2009 season.

Here is one Angels fan's response to a fanpost thread entitled "How competetive will the Angels be in 2009?"

Well, lets see
The Angels run prevention is still well above average. They did, however, lose their closer and 5th starter and gold glove first baseman.

Assuming the roster stands pat, the angels are projected at around the bottom third of total offense in the AL, while up around the top third for pitching.

The A’s stand the best chance at catching us with top tier run prevention and an improving offense.

Most likely errors will go up in a significant way from other infield positions with a somewhat weak first baseman. Aybar will not have the assurance of throwing to a vacuum at first, his throwing errors will most likely go up significantly.

The closer position is going to have to be filled in 09, which currently would be Shield’s position. This moves everyone up a notch, making the bullpen weaker. If the league figures out Arrendondo’s two pitches(fastball, splitter is all he throws) then our bullpen becomes immediately exploitable. And we have all seen how Shields pitches against Boston.

The lineup of

Figgins
Aybar/Izturis
Vlad
Hunter
Rivera
Kendrick
Napoli
Morales

is weak. Especially considering we have no clear cut DH if Vlad plays the field. Who would DH, Willits? GMJ? Mathis? Izturis when is isnt SS?

All extremely weak options for your DH spot.

Some things to think about:

Kendrick remains injury prone
Errors become an issue, a big one
None of the young kids have a break out year
Hunter and Vlad continue to decline
Saunders/Satana are not as effective
5th spot is a rotating craphole and provides 15-20 losses

A combination of any of all of those factors could easily see us fall from 100 game winners to taking 2nd.

...I think they are all still quite bummed about losing teixiera and thus feeling quite pessimistic, but still if they don't sign an impact player I do believe they could collapse.

Help me decide, Is it time for Sabermetrics to pay out? Ben Sheets?

ChadGod — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:10:53 -0000

Okay, 'Ben Sheets' was a dirty trick to get people in here, but I seriously do love the guy and would like to see some pros and cons about acquiring him. He could come with a short-term contract I think, and I mean whatever the Rangers offer him we could match and he'd probably rather play in the pitcher-friendly confines of Oakland...

But anyway...

So I was looking at some baseball gambling sites, and I noticed that right now the A's are projected at a 1/41 shot to win the world series, in the lowest tier of the projected teams. Seeing as gambling reflects the consumer and not the expert, it is no surprise that the A's are perpetually undervalued, so I ask the question -- is now the time to take a shot at capitalizing on this inequality, albeit an unlikely winner?

Let's say the A's add Johnson and Giambi or Furcal, take your pick - whatever you prefer and the gambling odds remain the same immediately following these acquisitions, 1/41 longshot for the A's to win it all. Btw, the Angels are a 2/15 at present. The question is how great is the discrepancy here?

Well, lets now say that not only do these A's moves happen, but that the Angels miss out on both CC and Tex, acquiring some minor but only +2-3 wins overall impact FAs and/or trade acquisitions.

If this were to happen, I'd peg the A's at roughly 40% chance to win the division, with Angels at 45-50% and Rangers at 10-15% and Mariners at a percent of a percent. Add on top of that the chance to win the wild card, which seems slim given the AL East, but still existent, I'll say the A's have a 42% chance of making the playoffs in my scenario.

Now, the playoffs are indeed a crap shoot (right? RIGHT?!?!), but if the A's make it I'm betting they are more likely to be underdogs than not. So rather than a 1/8 chance, I'll say they would be more likely to have a 1/9 chance to win the series should they make the playoffs.

All in all, this would mean I would be projecting the A's to have about a 4.6% chance to win the world series, while the gambling community would presumably still be waging (if I acted promptly) that the A's have more like a 2.4% chance to win the world series.

Also, keep in mind if I hit a price-threshold on some of these sites, ~$100, they will give me another $50 on my bet, thus increasing the inequality payout by another 50% margin.

I want to pull the trigger, now, someone smart give me input to prevent this from happening. Either that, or all aboard the Titanic. Are my A's projections overly favorable given these assumptions? How about if the Angels do acquire Tex and little else?

Ben Sheets?!?!

Possible Angels Rotation...gulp

ChadGod — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:27:38 -0000

Here is the article from mlb.com: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081126&content_id=3694591&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp, definitely somewhat of a rosterbation piece, but Sabathia seems somewhat likely, and Peavy could definitely happen as well. We would just have to hope the Yankees make this impossible.

Hypothetically anyway, if the Angels sported a rotation of Peavy, Sabathia, Lackey, Santana, Saunders...I could see the A's being screwed for a couple of years. Our offense had better be a TON better than theirs if this rotation were to come to fruition. Scary idea.