SB Nation User Blog: alamedaman

Lew's first four years are a failure, imo.

alamedaman — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:47:54 -0000

This is the fourth year of Lew Wolff’s tenure as owner and managing partner of the A’s. It’s pretty clear that the results are bad, very bad. Lew inherited a franchise that was performing well on the field. The previous four years showed two first place finishes, and two second place finishes—two 100+ game winning seasons, a 96 and 91 win season. And of course the setting of a major league record for winning streaks, at 21 games. Attendance had grown to 27,000+ per game, not great but improving. Oakland was a little less than average in the major leagues—19th out of 31 teams. Playoff results had been disappointing, and there had been fan disappointment with the loss of some high performing and loved players—Giambi and Tejada for example. But in my view, and I believe many fans at the time, we were excited about the teams prospects.

And in fact, the team continued to win in the first two seasons of Lew’s reign, as the momentum on the field continued from the cadre of players in place—a second place finish, first place finish, and an advancement to the American League playoffs. Unfortunately in Lew’s first year attendance began to slip, and has continued to slip each year. In 2005 where the A’s finished 2nd behind the A’s, just as in 2004, attendance fell 4.2%--disturbing since the team had such a similar year as the one before. Then in 2006 the A’s had a fantastic year, but attendance again slipped, this time 6.3%--even more disturbing. Results on the field have slipped in 2007 and 2008, and attendance has continued to drop—running 10.4% behind last year so far this season. If the current attendance rate holds even for the remainder of this year, which it won’t, attendance will have slipped an incredible 21.8%.

Clearly on the field performance has a lot to do with this slippage, and that can’t be put at the feet of the owner. But attendance began to slip immediately as Lew came in, even as the team was performing well, and in fact, performance climbing to an exciting trip to the League playoffs in 2006. My view is that Lew has been a major cause of this attendance slippage. One of his earliest and strongest themes upon coming to the A’s was that the A’s had to have a new ballpark. He even brought in the Commissioner of Baseball, and his college frat bro, to emphasize how important this was for the A’s. Bud Selig basically said the A’s could not survive without a new ballpark. Lew did say that Oakland was his first choice, but the A’s fans are not total idiots, and knew that while Oakland was a possibility, the odds against that happening had to be at 3 to 1 or worse given the financial straits of the city of Oakland and the lukewarm attitude to the A’s by Mayor Jerry Brown and most of the politicians--at least that was my guess.

The Oakland scenario of course did not play out, and in November of 2006 Lew announced that the A’s were moving to Fremont. He of course hoped that current A’s fans would drive 30 miles down the car packed 880, or take Bart—wait, not Bart, to see their beloved A’s. In my opinion, this was an incredibly reckless decision. The availability of the new stadium date was a little up in the error, but for purposes of discussion let’s assume a target date of 2011. That meant that Lew announced the move of his team 5 years in advance of the move!! What in the world did he think was going to happen to the fan base? Obviously some fans would begin to drop out. And just as obviously new fans living, let’s say, north of the Coliseum would have second thoughts about becoming A’s fans. Then again, most A’s fans new when Lew came in before the 2005 season that it would play out with a move. So in reality, current fans and potential new fans knew from before the beginning of the ’05 season until the projected 2011 season that the team would be in Fremont. So actually the fan base and potential fan base has been in limbo for 7 years!! But of course there could be slippage on the move in date—and the current A’s website says "Estimated to open sometime before the 2013 season, Cisco Field", so maybe there is at least one more year to add to all of those estimates.

So how about the new fans from Fremont and San Jose? It was certainly not realist to think they would buy tickets in Oakland prior to the move.

But as I wrote in a January diary, it’s more than possible that the Fremont stadium will never open. And that possibility came out in some of Lew’s recent comments—thanks to New A’s Ballpark for identifying the following stories and links.

But where that future will take place remains in as much question as ever, especially after managing partner Lew Wolff told Bay Area News Group he's unsure if the team's attempt to build a new state-of-the-art ballpark in Fremont will succeed.

"I don't know. I honestly don't," Wolff said Wednesday when asked if Cisco Field will come to fruition. "But say it doesn't. We're still under a lot of pressure to get a park that is our own. That isn't going to go away. So my hope is that we'll find a way to make it happen. It has not been as easy as I thought it would be."

One day after these comments Lew put a more positive spin on them,

A day after Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff publicly stated he wasn't sure if he would succeed in building a new baseball stadium in Fremont, he told the Mercury News that he's frustrated at the lingering pace, but ultimately thinks "Ballpark Village" will rise in the Bay Area's fourth largest city.

Wolff is troubled about the length of time it's taking to satisfy major property owners near the proposed 32,000-seat Cisco Field and to complete an environmental review.

"I still think it's going to happen," Wolff, a major South Bay developer, said today from his office in Los Angeles. "Otherwise I wouldn't be doing this."

But clearly the possibility of the deal falling through is on his mind.

While Lew talks mainly about the delays with the Environmental Impact studies, I continue to think the main problem will be that the project will not make sense because of its dependence on both residential and commercial real estate. I said then,

The 2007 debacle with subprime mortages and plummeting housing prices will kill the new ballpark in Fremont. The A's will have to rethink their planned move, and likely remain in Oakland………But the dramatic changes in our economy are causing Lou Wolff and his investors to rethink this project. It would not be in their interests to let this out to the news media. But Lou and his investors are pretty savvy investors, and they are not about to invest huge dollars into a project that depends upon new homes and a thriving economy. There is no need for them to announce today that the project is dead. They don't have to put their money down today. But no one would invest in this project today. So you will see this drama play out, Fremot and the other players going through the motions, but this project doesn't make sense now, and when the time comes for everyone to pony up--they will not.

I basically think the same today. There is some chance of a "bear market" housing rally, imo, in the next 12 to 18 months, but demographic trends are very negative. I would guess there is an 80% chance the management group pulls out of the deal. And a 20% chance they read the economy differently and move ahead—and imho it would turn into a financial disaster.

The problem for Lew, the A’s, and for hardcore A’s fans is that this strategy will have long term negative impact on the franchise. This huge loss of attendance is a major problem financially, and will impact decision making in the business. And the momentum right now is going the wrong way. I believe attendance will continue to fall this year and next. And a combination of ego and uncertainty on the part of Lew and his partners will prevent them from making a quick decision and turning this situation around. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this linger on into 2010, when reality just forces a decision to stay in Oakland. But attendance and the franchise will have suffered greatly by then.

So I would have to give Lew a failing grade for his performance in his first four baseball years, the 2005-2008 seasons. He made, or accepted, an assumption that the most important objective of the franchise was a new ballpark—I don’t think that was true. Since he accepted that assumption, he chose a very high risk strategy which clearly was going to tell the fans the team was moving 5-7 years before the move date—incredibly demoralizing to fans. I can’t totally blame him for this one, but he clearly misread the economic environment when he pulled the trigger on the move to Fremont. But I can blame him for this one, he didn’t, doesn’t, have a fallback strategy if his plan failed. And it is failing.

The Hardin and the un-Hardin

alamedaman — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:55:59 -0000

All of us know we can't count on Hardin. On the one hand, when he pitches, the guy is unbelievable. If he ever had 30 starts in a season, he would finish with a win/loss of 20-5, an ERA of 2.5, and the Cy Young. But what breaks our hearts, is that is never going to happen--never. What is going to happen is that he is going to get somewhere between 3 and 10 starts--and probably the same W/L ratio, and the same ERA, and of course no Cy Young. I would propose that we can count on him for 5 starts, with 3 wins and 1 loss.

Since a # 2 or 3 starter, whatever, gets 36 starts a season, and Hardin gets 5 of those starts, that means the un-Hardin gets 31 starts. The un-Hardin will have an ERA of something like 6.5, and in those 31 starts will go 7-14, with 10 no decisions--at best. Unfortunately he will be death on the bullpen, but it's hard to capture that in the stats. But his average start will be about four innings, meaning that in 31 games the bullpen will have to pitch 5 innings--ugly!

So the combined Hardin/un-Hardin will have a W/L of 10-15. He will have an ERA of 6.0. So for the 5th starter, it's not too bad.

But the Hardin/un-Hardin is a not too bad 5th starter. We don't have a Hardin #2, or whatever, starter. We have an average 5th starter, who is composed of a great #2 starter combined with a #6 and #7 starter.

It's just the way it is with Hardin. Accept the reality.

Is Fremont move dead? Implications?

alamedaman — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:56:26 -0000

The 2007 debacle with subprime mortages and plummeting housing prices will kill the new ballpark in Fremont. The A's will have to rethink their planned move, and likely remain in Oakland.

Sports writers are of course brain dead, and unable to think a few steps ahead. Or maybe I have missed their articles on this, as I have been out of town. But the dramatic changes in our economy are causing Lou Wolff and his investors to rethink this project. It would not be in their interests to let this out to the news media. But Lou and his investors are pretty savvy investors, and they are not about to invest huge dollars into a project that depends upon new homes and a thriving economy. There is no need for them to announce today that the project is dead. They don't have to put their money down today. But no one would invest in this project today. So you will see this drama play out, Fremot and the other players going through the motions, but this project doesn't make sense now, and when the time comes for everyone to pony up--they will not.

So what will happen with the team, with attendance? Personally, I was surprised at the increase in ticket prices for box seats--I bought them before I saw the Swisher trade. Not sure I would have done so had I known.

I think Lou has a disaster on his hands, and needs to respond quickly. With fans thinking that the team is going to Fremont, the crowd to the North is going to fall away. He had better decide soon, and make a public decision. Right now, I'm sorry I renwed my seat, for something north of $6,000 for two seats with parking.

More fun, sans Crosby & Chavez

alamedaman — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:34:03 -0000

For a true baseball and A's fan, it is just so incredibly frustrating to watch Crosby and Chavez bat. It's been wonderful for me watching a game without the frustrations of watching them at the plate.

Crosby at bat:
A's Fan #1: Do you think they'll pitch him on the outside part of the plate?
A's Fan #2: Duh, like the last 30 AB's? Of course they will. Do you think he'll try to kill the ball, pulling it into left field?
Rather than going with the pitch, hitting it the other way?
A's Fan #1: Duh, after seeing this movie for years, no he'll try to pull it, and might even swing so hard he'll break a rib! Ha, ha,,,,oh wait, he did that didn't he?
A's Fan #2: Do you think the coaches work with him on this? Does he not want to adjust? What do you think?
Repeat the above conversation 81 times a year at the A's ballpark. It used to be called a "do loop" when you wrote computer programs.

Chavez at bat, just coming back from an injury:
A's Fan #1: Wow, did you see that? Chavez laid back and went with the pitch,,,hit it into left field. Do you think he'll keep doing that?
A's Fan #2: No.

It's just so much more fun not watching these two guys bat. I do miss Chavez at 3rd, obviously. But Crosby, the new guy is better D anyway.

It's been a lot more enjoyable without these two, who just can't seem to learn, to adjust.

Injury, the final irony.

alamedaman — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:16:39 -0000

Huston Street is not ready to go over two innings, but there he was in the bottom of the 9th, two out--having pitched 2 1/3. He was mainly there because our key set up guy, the Duke, was hurt and couldn't play.

The previous game matched Kenny Rogers against our true #1 pitcher, but Harden was in spring training form, just--due to injury.

Both pitchers would have looked directly behind them up the middle, and not seen the fielding range that might have been, with Ellis (should be Golden Glove) and Crosby,,both out with injuries. Ellis in particular was missed at the plate as well as the field--he was not only hitting .286 for the last 30 days of the season and the Divisional playoffs, but his ability to work the count and get 10 pitch at bats was critical--a stat that doesn't make the box score. And his two errors all season were matched by two errors by his replacement in the LCS--but that didn't cover it, because he would have reached a number of other balls, that is replacement did not. I think two or three moe balls--would that have changed anything?

Who knows with Chavey? Playing with injury,,,,was he prevented from making plays he normally makes. Ron Washington said he turns that double play in the 2nd Tiger game "10 out of 10 times"--but just off the tip of the fingers of the glove.

Kotsay, Harden, Bradley, and Duke,,,,,maybe they are just injury prone,,bad backs, etc. So maybe that's an ongoing problem, and they come with that. Crosby too?--I don't think so, but looking at the record you have to consider that.

But the irony of Huston on the mound in the final game 9th inning, due to injury--it capsulized the whole season for me. Yeah some would say injuries are part of the game, and it's true. But this was an injury plagued horror show.

Most would agree this was an excellent season, and I somewhat agree. But my expectations were at the top--when I saw the roster, I thought it was a World Series team, and with the weakness of the NL, likely a World Series winner. Good that we got past that jinks of the first round,,,yes for sure. But I'm disappointed right now.

A's should increase lead this weekend

alamedaman — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:45:47 -0000

The vagaries of the schedule have dictated that the A's have already played some of their tougher intra-league opponents, and the Angels have some key challenges left. Specifically, the Angels have 10 games left with the Yankees and Tigers, while the A's have finished with those teams and done well, 6-3 and 3-3 respectively. (Details in earlier post.)So now there is opportunity (opportunity, not guarantee) to stretch the lead this weekend, when the Angels play the Yankees, carrying over to a fourth game on Monday), while we play Tampa Bay at home. These are the opportunities that division winners need to take advantage of--really beat up on the weaker teams!

The Angels are also 14 games through a tough period of their schedule, in which they play 24 games in a row. They are 7-7 so far, and have lost some ground to our guys. They lost the last two to Cleveland by a combined score of 18 to 2. (Gloating material except we split the last two giving up 20 runs and scoring 7--funny ole game, baseball.)

Like most of you, I think the season is likely to come down to the last 10 games, of which 7 are the A's vs. the Angels. It's just someone is going to have a lead going into that period, and I'm thinking it could be the A's with a 6 game lead or better,,,,,if we can take advantage of our schedule advantage (hard earned advantage, I should say.)

Small Schedule Advantage to A's for rest of year

alamedaman — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 07:45:09 -0000

I think, and I believe most on the site agree, that the race for the Western Division will be between the Angels and A's--as in recent years. Looking at the schedule for the rest of the year, clearly the most interesting feature is the last 10 days of the year, where the Angels and A's face off in 7 games. This is as it should be in baseball, and will likely be incredibly dramatic.

But,,,,who will come into those last 10 days with the lead--a 1, or 2 or 3 game lead? If these two teams are very equivalent talent wise, the schedule may play a role in this, and there are very interesting aspects.

The biggest difference is that the A's have already finished their season with two good teams--Detroit and the Yankees. And the A's did well, taking 6 of 9 from the Yankees, and spliting with Detroit. So while we're done with those two, the Angels have 10 games left to play--7 with the Yankees and 3 with Detroit. So the Angel's have some tough going ahead.

Other than this difference, the two teams play very similar schedules. Roughly half of the remaining games are in the division, and the schedules are about the same.

Outside the divsion each team plays Toronto, Boston, Baltimore, Chicago, and Cleveland about the same number of games (exception is the A's play Chicago 3 times and Cleveland 4, and the Angels do the reverse). But no real difference here either.

It really boils down to the following:

A's Angels
Yankees 0 7
Detroit 0 3
Tampa Bay 6 0
Kansas City 4 2
Minnesota 3 0
Texas - 1

(the Angels have one more game to play than the A's, and it's probably logical to record that as a Texas game if you review the schedule.)

Obviously there is an advantage in these 13 games, 22% of the rest of the season, and it goes to the A's. But how much of an advantage. One mathmatical approach would be to apply each of the above teams win % for the year against these games, and therefore determine how many they would win/or conversely and more importantly, how many the A's and Angels would win. This approach would say the A's will go 7.4 wins and 5.6 losses in these 13 games, while the Angels would go 5.6 and 7.4--a swing of 1.8 games,,,let's say a 2 game swing for the A's.

Looking at other aspects of the schedule, the Angels have 33 home games and 25 away, but they've actually done slightly better on the road. The A's are half home and half away, and have the same record so far this season home vs away.

On to some more qualitiative aspects of the schedule, the Angels have played two games of a 24 game schedule without a day off. There is a particularly weird part of that schedule when in the middle of it they leave Annahe (well, where ever their home games are) to play one game in Chicago on August 7, then go to Cleveland, on to New York, then to Texas, and back to LA (whatever),,,,and all of this with no off days. Certainly stretching a team generally, but moreso with some pitching injuries.
Meanwhile the A's get every Thursday off from now until September 21. However they do finish the season with 17 straight games (and God willing a healthy Hardin).

Of course the schedule evens out over the season, but the A's are in somewhat better shape having played some of the tougher teams already, and doing well,,,,and now hopefully in position to benefit from that.

The better team, or maybe it's healthier team, will win in the end. But if it comes down to two very even teams,,,,perhaps it will tilt our way.

The Serenity Prayer in Baseball--Street vs Blanton

alamedaman — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 06:47:47 -0000

My impression in watching Huston pitch is that he has been well taught, probably by his dad, to focus completely on only those things you can control. I have watched Huston get some horrible ball/strike calls, and when he does, he goes through his exact same routine of catching the ball from Kendall, turning to his left and walking around the back of the mound, getting on the mound, getting the signal, and throwing another pitch. In other words, he doesn't lament the bad call, get all worked up about what might have been, etc. etc. He just completely focuses on the only thing he controls--his next pitch!

Sort of like the Serenity Prayer;
God,

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

the courage to change the things I can,

and the wisdom to know the difference.

You can't change the last call. You can only change the next pitch that you throw!

Contrast this to Blanton tonight. Roaming around the mound, feeding on his anger and frustration, becoming moreso. If anything pissing off the umpire, rather than persuading him to become a better umpire, or whatever he thought he was doing. Mind you, I understand he was getting bad calls,,,,but the real question here is what do you do that most improves your situation. IMHO, it's Huston's approach, and not Joe's.

I remember reading that Ted Williams' had a fantastic eye at the plate. But he very rarely argued a call with the umpire (as opposed to arguing with the press and the public which he constantly did). The article said he just accepted that umpires were human. (and probably as a star he tended to get the benefit of the calls, so let's not get too carried away with this theory). But still, it's the result that counts,,,,and letting yourself get upset just doesn't help the result--it just puts you outside the zone.

Were I Macha, I would try to get this lesson deeply ingrained in all of my young pitchers. And the assignment for letting the umpire know your dissatisfaction with poor calls would be with my veteran catcher, Kendall in this case, and the coaches and the manager.

I hate watching these losers bat!!

alamedaman — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:41:30 -0000

I know how unfair this comment is. I've been positive all year on this team. It's the "worst team we'll have for the rest of the decade". But waiting for Chavez to come up and look like an idiot in the 9th, on 3 pitches--I knew he would do that!!

I guess it's just being a diehard fan. I'll be at every home game the rest of the season (except one). And we still may overtake those Annaheim losers. But man, this team is so, so painful to watch when they are at the plate--I watched the '69 Cubbies blow it to the f,,,,,ing "miracle mets". and believe me, these are similar feelings.

Erik you make me sick!! on offense. I admit I love the D. But can't you work with someone one going the other way??? What is this all about?

A's must now answer Angel's challenge.

alamedaman — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:49:18 -0000

Last week and this one coming are mirror images of each other. last week the Angels played two top flight teams in the Red & White Sox, and they went 4--2. The A's played two teams out of everything, Seattle and Texas, and went 3--3.

this coming week the situation is reversed with the A's playing the contenders (Indians and Red Sox) and the Angels playing the losers (Seattle and Detroit). Dropping two games in the standings here will likely build a hill too high to climb.

The odds are obviously against us--but hey, teams beat the odds. Our bats have to step up, and now. The fifth starter slot is a problem, so trying some creative ideas like the 5th starter is two pitchers-- Kennedy (4 innings)/Cruz (until he gives out--may be called for. (an idea mentioned by Bambi on the Cruz starter diary).

this has been a great year, looking at the rebuilding aspects coupled with the injuries. Hopefully it's not over this week, but it could be.