I tried to make this a FanShot but didn't know how to set it up as one and keep the table formatting.  I'd be glad to re-do it, and delete this FP, if someone has a suggestion.

Hopefully we all know what Game Score is and how it's calculated.  If not, and you're interested in what Game Score means, you can click here for an explanation.

Column headings

Starts: number of games the listed pitcher started [Mazzaro appeared in a few games as a relief pitcher, for example].

Mean GS: the average Game Score the starting pitcher (SP) produced during each of his starts throughout the season.

Median GS: the half-way point for all the Game Scores for the starting pitcher during the season -- in other words, half his starts' Game Scores were above this number and half were below this number.

Worst GS: the lowest Game Score recorded for a start on the season for the listed SP.

Best GS: the highest Game Score recorded for a start on the season for the listed SP.

80%: what one could expect for a Game Score from the listed SP four out of five starts [*assuming normal distribution and multiplying the standard deviation by 1.3, the z-score for 40% under the bell curve and then subtracting it from (or adding it to) the Mean GS].  *Normal distribution is not a good assumption but it's the best I'm willing to do with the tools and knowledge I have.

What's the take away?  That's up to you all.  But my take is that Braden's numbers are suspicious.  I think that I'd rather have a pitcher with a better median than a better mean though I can't quite explain why at the moment that would be my preference.

I've looked for any research done on a relationship between Game Score and win probability [it's obvious that a higher GS means a more probability of winning] but do not know what the magnitude of change is when measuring small differences in the 45-60 mean Game Score range.

This is just food for thought [or not]; please read, discuss, ignore. and/or move on at your discretion.

First of all, can you guess what the “X” and the “Y” represent [the two columns just to the left of the "Y" column are attendance figures]?

Put yourself in the place as the Athletics owner while looking at this table: what do you think about this?

Would you instruct your general manager to increase the money spent on player salaries when your average team’s attendance is much lower than the average American League team -- even as your team has a better than average win percentage and is competitive?

If revenue and league revenue-sharing are combined and operating costs are subtracted to get to gross profit, then looking at this table would you be more apt to: 1) raise operating costs in the hopes that your product quality increases while bringing in more revenue or 2) trim operating costs hoping that the total combined revenue might cover costs and generate more gross profit (or less of a loss)?

Would you pull a Jed Clampett and “move away from there”; going to a place where fielding a winning product might actually be rewarded with something better than what you’re currently getting from your customers (fans)?

If the team’s valuation – in the hypothetical event that you go to sell it – continues to increase, does it render the previous questions moot?

Is it risky to assume that the team’s valuation – in the hypothetical event that you go to sell it – will continue to increase given the macroeconomic landscape going forward?

Because baseball operations isn’t your only money-making venture, should you subsidize the baseball operations just because you have the ability to do so and because you want your supportive [?] fans happy? [if “yes”, recheck “X” and “Y”]

What is it about Garret Anderson that interests Beane?

I just don't get it -- not even if the intent is to have him being in a platoon situation, batting only against RHPs.  The guy just doesn't seem like a typical Beane target.  And isn't GA also a type "B" free agent?  I'm pretty sure that he is.  Adding insult to injury, the team would cough up a supplemental pick for the 'pleasure' of adding Mr. Anderson [Agent Smith voice] to its roster...a roster already jammed with OF-types that may or may not develop but who are cheap.

I mean, heck, if nabbing an OF/DH is Beane's priority and he's considering Anderson, why not just trade with the Dodgers for Andruw Jones [there'd be no pick lost; nothing that lasts longer than 2009; and seemingly not much difference in crappiness the Athletics' fan could expect].  Maybe when LA agrees to pay the bulk of AJs salary to make the deal happen, they'd also be kind enough to take a SS in return [I don't do emoticons but if I did, I'd probably insert one here].

I've heard the conspiracy theorists suggest that this Anderson talk is just a ruse to push Giambi into making a hasty decision (as he'd see another suitor's window closing) but this strikes me a way way to just piss players off and begin to hate Beane for being duplicitous.  Does anyone really think that this supposed ruse has merit?  If you do, please comment

But the most pressing question is sort of like the one that grover asked on a different thread: why Garret Anderson?  Will someone that participates here explain that one?

How can you be optimistic about the 2007 Athletics?

Let's face the facts, the team lost Barry Zito, our former Cy Young Award winner and our most streaky pitcher - I'm told by stat guys, that hot & cold type pitchers actually help win more games, so be worried, be very worried about this and more.  

The team also lost Frank Thomas, our "big stick".  And, Jay Payton and Kirk Saarloos, too.  How can this team compete any longer, everything has to "break the right way" and then some just to stay in the race that the team won't win anyway?

We know the sky is falling because the odds of Bradley, Kotsay, Ellis, and Crosby missing significant playing time in the same season again is virtually certain...it has to be this way because the most recent history projects the scenario to be true, and, well, we just have to temper our enthusiasm around here because there's too much of it exuding itself from the Kool-aid drinkers as it is...there has to be balance; an offset, of sorts.  And back to injuries, hell, we also have to assume that Loiaza's fastball doesn't crack 87 mph for half the season, that Calero and Duchscherer spend time on the DL and that Chavez will battle forearm tendonitis and other injuries again.  And, we also have to assume that Street struggles and so does Blanton, because, well...again, that's what history predicts and that just what Athletics' fan does.

So, in closing, get ready for the days of 77 win seasons once again and a depleted farm system, too.  Because, folks, the sky really is falling (this time) and you are a dumbass if you don't already know this and have not already boarded the pessimism train for Gloomsville.  

 The players of the free agent class are commanding a ridiculous amount of money this year.  Remember the 7-year 105 million dollar contract that Kevin Brown signed several years ago?  I remember thinking, "yeah, he's an elite pitcher, but what will his performance be like after year number four?  And what about beyond year number four?"  Turns out that I was pretty close.  Today's contracts are even getting nuttier...for God's sakes, does the average player even play seven years any longer much less produce at lofty level for that long?

Now more than ever, Athletics fans should recognize that adding high priced players at such stratospheric valuations is an invitation for letdown and total payroll inflexibility in the future.  I'd be happy watching some prospect get a shot or someone like Kielty playing more, eventually pricing himself out of the market once he turns into an upper-tiered outfielder.

Beane has made a career out of resurrecting people like Thomas and Foulke, turning players like Jaha, Taylor, Isringhausen, Stairs into desirable commodities, and letting players walk like Giambi, Tejada, and Zito after their maturing, early years netted much production on the relative cheap.

Now is not the time to tinker with the model unless the value is there and the contractual time commitment isn't overly cumbersome.  Beane & Co. are quite the baseball contrarians and they will continue to win more than they will lose as long as they operate in that mode.  This is the off-season that everyone will speculate on just what big named player Billy will pursue when this is precisely the crazy time that Billy will nab an inexpensive someone that leaves most people saying, "What kind of shit is Beane smoking?"  I wouldn't be surprised at all if Beane replaces Zito by bumping up everyone in the rotation and signs someone like Tomo Ohka to be the number five guy for two years...and then we all watch Ohka win 16 out of the five slot with mid-four ERA.

We've watched Beane make the value-plays for almost a decade now; to expect something different would be truly shocking...only not half as shocking as scratching your head over a new acquisition at the beggining of the season and the by the end of the season seeing fans coming to games with their dedicated-to-one-player fan endorsing banner.

Who will be the goat-to-hero player(s) for the '07 season?  Stay tuned!

That's right, as in: "commencing countdown [magic numbers] on."  Hat tip to baseballgirl.  Look, AN [and various lurking Angels' fans - to include the alias NoWeWont], the fat lady just sang and the facial diaper holding back the shit-talk has just come off...the Athletics' magic number is at ten and it is less than half as much as the 21 that the LAAofAs own.  Deal with it Rally Monkees!  Yes, it is weird, but magic numbers can be calculated for the non-first place teams...you will notice, though, that the magic number in those cases will be larger than the number of games that they have remaining to play.

I know it seems comical for me to even post it and I know that it doesn't seem like a big deal or impressive, but did you know, even with all the non head-to-head games left to play -- that is: games that will be played by the Athletics and Angels against the rest of the league, each of which representing an opportunity for the Athletics to reduce their magic number -- the Angels cannot let Oakland win five games (or more) when they face each other?  That's no matter how poorly the Athletics play or how well the Angels play in those other non head-to-head games...the Angels, as it stands right now and in spite of everything else, HAVE to win at least two games from the Athletics in their seven remaining games.   Think about the a little while, my fellow Major Toms, as you're floating in your tin cans.

If you were in the General Manager's shoes this off-season, how would you shore up the 2007 starting rotation after assuming that Harden, Haren, Blanton, and Loaiza are still part of the rotation when your decision(s) are being made.

You could:

A)    Take a dip into the free agent pool.  Disclaimer: some of the pitchers buried 3/5ths of the way down on this link-provided list have option years that may be exercised.  If a pitcher with a club held option is someone you would go after, then please state why you think that the current club wont exercise the option or, if it's likely that they would exercise the option, how do you plan to entice the current team into giving you the option rights on the player?
B)    Resign Zito to a new contract.  If this is your choice then please specify what you believe the terms of that contract will be.
C)    Use another pitcher from within the organization to fill the remaining hole in the starting rotation.  Please let us know who your candidate(s) would be and who do you feel the likely candidate will end up being and why?  If you cannot decide on one player then please just narrow the choice down to two players.
D)    The copout option. Such as :"I'd go with a four-man rotation and an extra deep pen!" or "That's some assumption that Harden is healthy and that Loaiza hasn't been thrown under someone's bus!" or "I've already blown up the rotation by trading so and so for [insert two to three of the best players from another team that haven't reached their five years of major league service].

Let's try and keep this positive without really tearing into each other's opinions.  Here's an example of what I feel would be a positive exchange:

Me: I think I'd try to get the $9.5 million option year on Mark Buehrle by offering Kiko Calero to the Sox and the Sox, in turn, picking up some of Buehrle's contract and sending him our way.  This gives the Athletics one more year to develop players (starting pitching) from within while keeping our starting pitching very competitive.

Reply #1: The Sox don't think that highly of Buehrle after this season's disappointing performance [a link insert with reference to Sox's management not being inclined to resign Buehrle after this season].   Buehrle could probably be had for x number of dollars in the open FA market without giving away any of our players.  Basically, the Sox aren't going to exercise his option.

Reply #2: It's going to take more than Calero!  The Sox are still high on Buehrle and just might not let him go at all.  In fact, the two sides are trying to hammer out a deal [insert link to contract discussions].

So, I'm sitting here on my computer, waiting for a potential employer to call me and give me details on when and where to interview, and I'm noticing that there's not a whole lot of new diaries popping up.  Which means I don't have a whole lot to respond to get the antagonist in me flowing. Certainly there's not as many diaries popping up as they seem to do when things are going badly for our Green & Gold.  Wait, is that really a truthful statement or am I guilty of following my own gut feelings on the matter?

So, to stir the pot some and also to be an attention whore, I submit to you some past diary links to explain this community's behavior as I see it.  Flame war, anyone?  Intentinal CGV seeking?  Not really, just a means to provoke discussion on why we write the things that we do and why we feel the way that we do during different conditions.

In late July -- just one short month ago, mind you -- louismg wrote, IM not so HO, an excellent diary titled "Negativity Flowing from the Need to be First".  Good stuff there and well worth the read if you haven't visited it.  Of course louismg's diary was probably in response to a diary entry earlier that morning by Grover, titled "I'm sorry AN".  In that diary Grover explains his position on why he does not believe in this year's Athletics team any longer.  I wonder if Grover would write the same thing just one day shy of a full month later.  One thing about Grover: he does seem to be even keeled when things are going good [notice I wrote "to be" rather than "remain").  But are the rest of us even keeled when things are going good or bad?  Actually, I'm kind of glad that most of us are not; that would be rather boring...and it wouldn't allow me the opportunity to say things like, "I told you so", for I really am a type two and a type three rolled into one.  And you know what, Cutthemullet, I suppose you were correct after all.

The following text is taken from a book written by Todd Buchholz titled New Ideas from Dead Economists (from chapter VII "Alfred Marshall and the Marginalist Mind"):

...Imagine you are traveling through Europe.  You begin in Greece and have a splendid time.  On the way to Italy, you stop in Corfu, where you rent a moped [and admit to it?] and circle the charming island.  In Italy you enjoy Florence more than any place you have ever seen.  Your visit in Italy cost $800, but gave you thousands of dollars' worth of pleasure.  You reach Venice and then consider crossing the border into Austria.  Austria, you fear, will be disappointing compared to Italy.  You prefer calamari to Wiener schnitzel.  How to decide whether to go forward or go home?

First, consider Buckaroo Banzai's advice [an earlier reference in the author's chapter]: "No matter where you go - there you are."  You are now on the border of Austria.  Forget where you have been - the pleasure you had in Italy is irrelevant!  Marginalism declares that the past is behind you.  The issue is whether to step forward, and the starting point is where you are now.

Second, think of Henny Youngman's joke [again, an earlier reference from the author in the chapter].  What do you compare when choosing whether to go into Austria?  You ignore the past pleasure in Italy and ask, Will the benefits of going to Austria exceed the costs of going to Austria?  If a day in Austria will cost $50 and give you $75 worth of pleasure, go.  So what if in Italy the benefits outweighed the cost by tenfold?  The issue at hand is whether to go forward.  And you should go forward if the benefits outstrip the costs, even if they exceed by a lesser margin than before.

Third, remember the editor in Scoop [yet again, an earlier reference].  Up to what point do you continue moving forward?  You continue as long as the benefit of one step outweighs the cost of one step, until the marginal benefit equals the marginal cost.  When a $50 day in Austria gives you $50 of pleasure, you rest...

So, I'm not sure what this means in regards to which infielder a manager should give more playing time to.  I'm guessing that this is only relevant to deciding where to go from here based on whether your decision's expected benefit can surpass its expected cost.  Now, when it comes to making decisions based on playing time, all this crap - well, most at least - goes out the window and a determination has to be made as to who will provide the most benefit above cost [cost being, in this case, the loss of playing time of another player since salaries are going to be paid regardless].  And, well, if you as the decision maker expect infielder A will be of more benefit to the team by taking at least some playing time from infielders B and C, then you do so...even if B and C are generally regarded as better; and only if a benefit for doing so is expected [reiteration for effect].  But, be warned, fan[atic] A, B, and C will be critical of your every decision: for the fanatic really believes that s/he is a better decision maker than you...and believes this by a wide margin, too!    

Warning: clear violation of the community guidlines ensues.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30096

Law would make ISPs responsible for posters

Sue the messenger

By INQUIRER staff: Tuesday 07 March 2006, 08:54

THE STATE of New Jersey is planning a law which makes ISPs liable for any false or defamatory messages posted on public forums they may operate.
The law, which is sponsored by Assemblyman Peter Biondi would require an ISP to "establish, maintain and enforce" a policy requiring posters on "a public forum website... to be identified by legal name and address".

If someone posts something libellous, then the ISP will have to provide a legal name and address of the poster. If it doesn't then the person defamed can sue the ISP instead.

You can read the fine print here.

Absolutely sickening.  Biondi is a Republican - you know, the party that claims to believe in a limited government!

This is my second time initiating the Daily Link Dump.  I don't enjoy being the one to start it because I like the format others use - finding several snippets from multiple articles and then adding some commentary.  Today, however, I wanted to kick it off with an article I found in the Wall Street Journal that's titled "'Roid Outrage: `80s Stars Got Muscled Out of Cooperstown".  A registration is required but I'm going to post just the things from the article that I found interesting and discussion worthy.  So, here's hoping you'll find it worthy of discussion - elsewhere on the board - in spite of the fact it was sampled for copyright reasons.  The topic of steroids has provoked good discussion in the past but has the discussion been `played out' yet?  Link to article is here

Baseball purists grumbled last week when Bruce Sutter became just the fourth specialist relief pitcher elected to the Hall of Fame. But that was just chin music compared to what's in store next year, when Cooperstown finally faces the Steroids Era...

...The Hall voters charged with weighing these innuendoes soon will have to render their first verdict.

Regardless of how they eventually decide to judge Messrs. Bonds (still a lock for the Hall), McGwire (more borderline than most assumed when he retired in 2001) and Canseco (an all but certain no), the voters could send a clear message on the issue by taking a fresh look at some pre-Steroids Era stars. Players like Andre Dawson and Dale Murphy had the misfortune of becoming eligible for consideration just as the juiced-ball and -player era peaked, dimming their accomplishments unfairly. Longtime Boston Red Sox stars Dwight Evans and Jim Rice may have lost support similarly...

...Hall of Fame candidates should be judged primarily on two bases: by their position and by the era they played in.  The former ensures consistency over the years. The latter is just as important because it allows voters to adjust as necessary for varying playing conditions...

...Would this lamentation -- or the many similar ones written about Messrs. Dawson, Evans and Rice over the years -- be necessary if the Steroids Era had never taken place? Probably not, if voting patterns for the 1950s, '60s and '70s are any indication. In each of those decades, an average of 22 Hall of Famers played the most significant part of their careers -- meaning a majority or near-majority of their statistical production came in that decade...

...So far, the corresponding number for the '80s is only 13. Three more players -- Tony Gwynn, Rickey Henderson and Cal Ripken Jr. -- are sure to enter Cooperstown in the coming years. But that still leaves the '80s six Hall of Famers short...

The Arizona Diamondbacks will send Javier Vazquez to the White Sox for Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez and outfield prospect Chris Young, the Arizona Republic and other newspapers reported Wednesday.

The Chicago Tribune reported that the White Sox also included reliever Luis Vizcaino in the deal, which is contingent on the players passing physicals. ~ ESPN

[EDITOR'S NOTE - This is one of the best diaries I've ever seen on AN. I want to give all kinds of props to Lowcountryjoe for this one and it deserves the front page. I'm kicking myself for not realizing this myself. Great work, LCJ. - Blez]

To be sure, there are many of you that contribute to and read AN that understand the Loaiza signing or are at least accepting of it.  But some of you are probably shaking your heads and thinking that Beane overpaid.  This diary is directed at the `head-shakers'.

Statistics make for weird animals.  One could use a particular statistic to justify just about anything.  Be prepared, I'm going to attempt to do just that!

ERA, K/BB, IP, Win/Loss, etcetera, they're all good.  But for my money (though I've got none personally riding on it) the number of quality starts on the year is the best measure of a starting pitcher's effectiveness.  Why?  Well, because it really gets to the heart of the matter...encompassing total innings pitched (have got to be healthy), earned runs allowed, and best of all, consistency as evidenced by less variability throughout the course of the season.

There are some who smirk at the quality start because it doesn't leave enough room for gray area (for instance, the starter who goes 8+ while giving up 4 earned).  But in this era of relief specialization in baseball, isn't the ball expected to be turned over after the 7th anyway?  So, if a starter goes six (though not quite seven) and gives up three or less runs in a game which he's started, isn't that pretty damned good by today's standards; particularly in the American League?  I certainly think so.  But there are others that point to that minimum requirement and say, rightfully, that this leads to a mediocre 4.50 ERA - "Unacceptable!" they say.  "Who gives a crap?" I say, "Didn't that start just give your favorite team an excellent opportunity to win?"  It's at this point that the nay-sayers may bring up how that a mediocre start like that cannot quite match up against the more elite starters in the league and what they'll accomplish during their start.  Okay, fair enough, but how many times does a team face an elite starter during a season.  I guess that it all depends on how one defines elite but I'll be generous and say 40 times.  And of those 40 times, let's say, to be generous again, a " meet the minimums" quality start won't get the job done 30 out of those 40 times (that's still 10 wins).

Are we all right so far?  So how about the other 122 games?  Is it fair to say that a quality start will result in a win about 80% of the time one is pitched in those other 122 games - games against the non-elite starters?  That's tough because even the non-elite starters throw them every so often...and then, in those instances, it's who gives up less runs.  Anyhow, it's all conjecture and rampant speculation as to how often this or that happens but even the most ardent trashers of the quality start would be quite impressed, I imagine, to see their favorite pitchers toss them on a regular basis.  I certainly would prefer to see the 5 to 4 victory (allowing for the bullpen to give up a run or the occasion unearned run) as opposed to the 7+ to 6+ clunker.

Which, awkwardly, leads me back to Loaiza and why his signing should be celebrated by AN.  Loaiza was 6th on the list (for the entire MLB roster of SPs) in quality starts last season.  He had 24 QS of 34 starts - 71%.

How does that match up with the remaining starters on the Athletics roster?  Well, let's see (QS/QS%/MLB ranking for QS):

Blanton: 22/67/t-14
Haren: 22/65/t-14
Zito: 21/60/t-23
Harden: 10/53/t-108
Saarloos: 10/37/t-108
Kennedy (2005 full year): 7/29/t-137

But, to be balanced, not all can be said to be rosy on the consistency front regarding Loaiza since 2000.  Loiza's other seasons look like this:

2004: 8/30/t-117

2003. 27/79/t-1
      
2002. 12/48/t-81
      
2001. 15/50/t-61
      
2000. 16/52/t-42

Maybe Loaiza can break out of this mini Saberhagen-like pattern and get his shit together in the green & gold.

Why do you post here?

I know the answer for everyone; you're seeking attention, that's what you're doing.  Anyone who posts a diary or a comment does so because they are seeking attention.  In fact, even if you told me that it was for some other reason then I'd have to call "bullshit!"

That being asserted and irrefutable, in my judgment - a judgment that has been questioned given my loony player-trade ideas - I'm seeking the other predominate reason that you post in the forum.  I know that it could be some combination of the choices but please limit yourself to your other main reason for getting your thoughts out there.

You will be participating in a private study.  My vote will not be the first one...I'll vote later with anonymity.

I first want to point out that I like Eric Chavez and there are - given realistic budget constraints and age considerations - only two 3B [Ramirez and Wright] in MLB that I'd prefer to see in Oakland's lineup in his hypothetical absence.

But, there are a few items that concern me about Chavez's future.  His strikeout rate per plate appearance seems to have risen in the last two years and his SLG has been on the decline - albeit a slow one - for the last four years.  And, I believe that much of Chavez's production is done while he's streaking and that his season numbers conceal my assertion that he's not all that consistent and that at least some of his production - to the extent it happens more with him than it does with the average player - occurs in games where he's already made significant contributions and padded the score.  I wrote a diary (somewhat) regarding this assertion in June.  There's also the question of desire that is raised by some (I, myself, don't think that this an issue but only mention it because others have been quite vocal about it).

Chavez has a contract with a limited no-trade clause that requires his consent to be traded to the Indians, Marlins, Brewers, Twins, Nationals, Mets, Devil Rays, and Blue Jays.  He will receive at least $52 million over the next five seasons ($9 mil in '06 & '07; $11 mil in '08 & '09; $12 mil in 2010) with a $500K annuity in signing bonus to be paid out every November during his contract.  While his costs are rising, is his value really rising to match the cost?  Just something to ponder, to agree with me on, to disagree with me on, or to out right flame me over.

Which team would give a lot to acquire Chavez in a trade considering their own budget constraints and what they'd have to offer in return?  How proven would the return players have to be to make us fans happy?  Would the Padres be willing to move some players who they have the rights to in order to get a hometown 3B of Chavez's caliber?  Sean Burroughs could be a nice project player - the kind that Beane likes to take chance on.  Adam Eaton would make a very good number-five-man in a rotation for 2006.  Tim Stauffer would make a hell-of-a pitching prospect, too.  The `freed up' Chavez money could go a long way in a future Zito contract with money left over from some other salary dumps to pursue a top tiered OF if the current options are unattractive.

I don't know, Beane probably is happier than a pig in shit with Chavez at 3B anyway.  And this is just cloud talk/frustration talk, but there are some lineup weaknesses that no one in this forum is disputing...and many fingers are pointed at the `franchise player' in question.  Which leads me to asking the real question: from a fan's point of view, is it time for a major deal to be brokered in the off-season; a deal that ends an era?  

The A's don't really have a true "leadoff hitter". The ideal leadoff hitter should get on base a lot, and be a disruptive force able to move around the bases in many ways. Chone Figgins and Johnny Damon are prime examples. Kendall only gets himself to first base, then is virtually no threat to steal, yet he has proven to be the closest the A's have to an adequate leadoff hitter.

We all know how the organization feels about the stolen base, so the fact that the team lacks the `ideal' leadoff man should come as no shock.  However, there is good news in this regard.  The guy on this roster and in this lineup who is as close to ideal as it gets, does it from the catching position - a traditionally weaker (from a modern prospective) bat in the lineup.  The fact this team has someone like Kendall on the roster is actually pretty special...but at $11 million per season, he better be.

The A's don't have a true #3 hitter. The ideal #3 hitter should be a "masher," someone who is such a good pure hitter that opposing pitchers tremble and batting slumps are few and far between. Vlad Guerrero, Gary Sheffield, and David Ortiz are prime examples. The A's do not have an option available to them that fits this description, so Crosby gets the call as the best "potential #3 hitter".

They did have one in Durazo!  For those of you that would smirk at this comment I can only offer this: Go look up his career stats and then defend your smirk.  He may not have been a marquee masher that got his mug on ESPN regularly but, he was/is a masher.  Now, as for the others that are not injured; take a closer look [to be contined]

Eric Chavez, as the "#2 go-to guy" in a lineup, might be among the league's elite offensive players, up there with Manny Ramirez, A-Rod, Garrett Anderson, et al. But his strength is not as a "#1 go-to guy" and yet that is his function in the current A's lineup, so he is the A's "clean-up hitter" by default.

Ever notice how much "go-to guys" command in salary?  Ever notice that "go-to guys" seem to be made in Oakland?  This team has "go-to guys" in the making right now as we're following it.  [continued] Johnson, Crosby, Swisher, Kielty, and Ellis may all yet to become "go-to guys" during their careers...hell, one or more may already be there but we as fans are just too enamored with the league's other more touted players to realize it.  Our bad!

It is amazing what a mild slump can do to derail fandom.  April through May was not a mild slump by any stretch, you'd think that we'd have learned something from it; I guess not!

I have been thoroughly impressed at how the concept of `idea sharing' has led to a more informed and enlightened society.  As a baseball related web site that centers around the Oakland Athletics, this is a terrific `place' that the majorities of us who come here and participate understand and appreciate.  But the idea that one can also profit from these endeavors is so cool, too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As many of you now know, the AN leadership has imposed a two-diary-per-day limit.  I personally like the idea for a few chief reasons - the most important of which is the overall quality improvement of diary content that will likely result when the frantic diary poster has to constrain his/her thoughts and be more selective in sharing the `marquee' with the others.

Oh, but there's a catch...there always is.  The spirit of enterprise and the ensuing greed that enterprise sometimes brings has sold my own personal desire for quality content down the river.  Some of members out there - and you know who you are - are going to be jonesing hard when the diary limit has been met by 11 AM and your next big idea comes along that is only able to get a common glance as just a mere post in someone else's thread.  Ah, but now you can let your mind at ease, attention seekers! I have discovered a solution that benefits all.

I seldom post diaries because, quite frankly, my ideas are usually crap that isn't worth the server space that it's stored on...this diary being no exception.  Because I seldom post, I can (and will, for the right price) post on your behalf, giving you full credit, of course.  By skirting around the diary limit, you and I can create a win-win scenario.  

For a small fee - the fee varies based on market conditions - I will fulfill your `needs' and you can fulfill my wants.  If you're interested, contact me for details [before the diary is deleted or my user status is revoked; which ever comes first].  I do maintain the right to refuse service to anyone; prices vary and are assigned discriminately.

Have a great day and I'm looking forward to hear from some of you.

[/sarcasm]

Why is it that some fans come up with trade proposals where their favorite team is greatly enriched while the other team is, to put it nicely, violated?

Why don't some blog participants check the recent diaries before they post duplicate stuff?  And why don't they, upon learning of the duplication, delete their diary.

Why is it inevitable that when one person posts a diary - a diary that gives out that month's accolades for humorous or terrific posts - at least two people will have a post within the thread that subtly begs the question, "What about me?"

How come fans never [and I mean NEVER] consider the profitability of their favorite team when they pine for results...it's as though fans believe that the owners will be content with continuing to break even or lose money for the fans' benefit?

Why do athletes talk in the second person [except Ricky, of course]?  "You just have to have a day off sometimes so that you can be fresh for later on in the season."  Oh yeah, "you" as in "me"?  Damned, if it were me, I would be happier than a pig in sh*t and playing for the league minimum.

Why do players have agents as they progress in their careers?  If at the 5-year mark, a player doesn't know how to negotiate on his own and doesn't understand at least some legalese, then I'm willing to volunteer to be his financial planner for free.  [Party at my house]

On that note, why don't players seek more incentive-based contracts?  Oh, they think they'll get screwed by tight-fisted management who will ensure less playing time?...use percentages then.  The truth is, if a player produces and the fans like it, the playing time will not be an issue lest the fans stop attending.

Why do players like Terrell Owens believe they can just sit out and force the ownership to renegotiate?  Do owners ever get to do the same thing to players... "No, I'm not going to pay you what the contract states because, well, you just didn't produce up to what we envisioned!"

Would it be hypocritical for me to criticize people who randomly but frequently sprinkle politician bashing in this forum even though I myself give a web address to a libertarian leaning blog on my signature line?  Okay, yeah, I thought so too.  But for heavens sake if you brink up politics in a thread then do not be surprised if someone is willing to debate you on the spot and possible cause you to look ill informed - especially if that be the case.  

This should be much better than the diary I posted at around 5:30 PST.  I deleted that diary to spare myself from certain ridicule.  This one may provoke some ridicule too but I think is far less retarded in thinking.  Why the heck I thought the Phillies were out of it, I'll never know.

.................................................

Conventional wisdom says that Beane should go out and acquire a bat with significant pop to solidify the lineup.  Okay, who is it, where do you put him, and how much will we have to compensate both the player and the team who coughs him up?  Also, how long of term is that player's contract and will he have a future market in case he's just a rental?  Keep in mind that any additional bat in the lineup is going to displace someone else.  With that in mind, who do you wish to see displaced?

I'm beggining to warm up to the fact that this lineup is set for the duration and I'm actually okay with that as a fan.  But am I fine with the rotation?  I was thinking I was because they're doing pretty well.  For starters, any starting pitching acquisition is going to be costly both in terms of player movement and monetary compensation.  And, that any starter will have only several starts remaining in order to make any real difference.  Is it worth it?  Realistically, it appears that a starter wouldn't make a difference until one considers that our current number five - Saarloos - has a Quality Start percentage at 29%.  Some knock the QS statistic; I'm not one of them.  If a starter can go six innings minimum to qualify and give up three or less runs, he's giving a team a really good chance to win and also sparing the bullpen some activity.

Now, almost all teams have some type of mediocrity in their four and five holes in their rotation - this includes good team, too - Oakland being no exception.  Very good teams either have dominating ones and twos or a deeper rotation with the number four being better than just mediocre.  I think Oakland should take the step in the next few days and make that leap, acquire a quality number three from someone else, and insert in into the rotation.

Should we pursue Burnett or Schmidt?  Perhaps, but I think that they'll be on the pricey side.  Which teams are going to be sellers?  Anyone who's not in contention who's also willing to part with older, higher priced players.  Who would be on my radar (while I'm arm-chair GMing) that possibly could be acquired on the cheap only because the baseball punditry hasn't coroneted him and put him on the radar?  How about a Milwaukee starter by the name of Doug Davis?

Davis, a crafty lefty, seems to do nearly as well with RH batters as he does against LH ones.  He has a quality start percentage of 64% - would top the team [partly because Harden was pulled in the sixth inning on two occasions while keeping the ER three or lower] - and be twice as consistent as Saarloos.  He's older - at 29 - and makes just under 2.5 million but I'm not sure how many years are on the contract.  What do any of you think it would take to get him?

Please post your criticisms, support, or both.

Over the course of this season I have read from several AN members who exclaimed that Beane should have kept Tejada instead of keeping Chavez.  Not only did I think those AN members were misguided [ignoring the realities of Crosby in the waiting, the fact that Chavez had higher OPS each season prior to this one, and the Gold Glove thing], I also felt that Chavez was much more consistent on a day-to-day basis than was Tejada.  So, I set out to prove it with data [going back to the 2002 season with game logs] and an Excel spreadsheet.  Only, I came up with a different conclusion; Tejada was actually more consistent on a day-to-day basis.

The statistics page I used did not have sacrifice flies, sacrifices, hit by pitch, or plate appearances so I used a modified plate appearances by adding ABs plus BBs.  Next, I deleted all the games in which Chavez and Tejada did not have at least 3 modified plate appearances - there were fewer than 10 such games for each player in the 3 1/2 years.  If the player got a hit or received a walk during a game with 3 modified PAs or more, he'd get a value of 1 (irregardless of how many BB or H the player actually had in the game); if not he'd get a zero.  I did the same thing with runs scored and RBI...only values of 1 or zero.  In other words, if the player scored or drove in a run during that game, he was given a value of 1 no matter how many he scored or drove in.

The idea here on my part was that a player would be more valuable to the team if he got on base with more frequency from day-to-day rather than getting on base more often per plate appearance...ditto with runs scored and driven in.  Imagine a player that get hits or draws walks and only drives in runs or scores them in bunches while the other days he takes 0fers.  Now imagine another player who will plug along nearly every day, contributing but just not in bunches - who would you rather have?  I myself want the more consistent batter in the lineup but maybe I'm alone in that sentiment.  Anyhow, I thought Chavez was just that consistent guy when being measured against Tejada, but you know what?  That wasn't the case!

Tejada, as it turns out, got on base by way of H or BB in 83.2% of the games in which he had at least 3 modified plate appearances.  Chavez's percentage was also 83.2% but actually lower, fractionally.  No big deal right? [It just so happens that 83.2% equates to getting on base at least once, 135 out of 162 games].

However, in scoring or driving in runs in games that the player had at least 3 modified plate appearances, Chavez's percentage was 56.6% and Tejada's was 64.6% [Chavez 92 out of 162; Tejada 105 out of 162].

By the way, the number of qualifying games [at least 3 modified PAs] since the beginning of 2002:  Tejada=560  Chavez=511.

Why am I sharing this?  Because I put in over an hour preparing the data.  Trust me, it has nothing to do with seeking attention [yea, right!].  Besides, I'm not even supposed to be posting until the Athletics are 5 games over .500 and, what's more, I know that very few, if any of you will be impressed.

..........................................................................

Two others:

Player         Qualifying Gms    H or BB (per 162)       R or RBI (per 162)
Hatteberg           480                    83.1%  (135)                 52.5% (85)
Bonds                424                    96.2%  (156)                 72.6% (118)

Looking for a starting player that may not be all that consistent.  Any suggestions?

Dear Fellow Athletics Nation Member,

I have been cranky, irritable, mean-spirited, and I have also posted things to provoke fights between some of you that I vehemently disagree with - a violation of the rules and etiquette for members.

I am taking a hiatus from this site (no, not from reading it silly...from submitting posts) until the Athletics are a full five games above .500.  I do not have a separate alias, so I will not be cheating and posting under a different idiotic name.

My length of absence is in the player's hands.  This may cause some of you to actually believe that you're now somehow torn on whether or not you'll want Oakland to play well any time soon.  Rest assured, this stunt changes nothing...and neither do any of your rants about who should get benched or traded; the only thing that you could possibly do to affect a move - short of having lunch with the "has-Beane" (hey that's what I'm hearing) - is your attendance at the games.

So, Ta ta for now and I'll be back probably around next month...when it's safer to be an optimist.

The record is 13-15, as we are all painfully aware of.  The team has struggled to find offense but the pitching had been very good.  Now it looks as though both may be shifting directions, although the pitching to the extreme (don't fear, nothing is static).  Speaking of extreme directions, what's up with most of us?  Is it possible for cooler heads to prevail?  Don't answer.  I don't think I want to know.

I actually enjoy reading all of the opinions that get posted here.  Venting, ranting, and soundly criticizing what happens to the team that we follow is a sport by itself.  But are many of us jumping the gun on what we're proclaiming?  Are we really doing some clear and levelheaded thinking?  I'd say that many are not.  But hey, that's your right and in my view, at least you're bringing something to the table [if nothing else something for me and others to laugh about while we're not bumming about the team's performance].

Oh well, no good rant or vent should go unnoticed or not be relied to, so, here's my poll.  If you don't respond by voting than I can only guess that it wasn't a good enough rant & vent.