The decision to trade for Matt Holiday is still one that bothers me today, though at this point that horse has been flogged to the point that I can't be bothered by it.

Or can I?

Today Tim Kurkjian wrote an article on ESPN, discussing how the A's have largely closed the gap with the Angels during the off-season, and are now poised to be competitive for the division in 2009.

What struck me about this article is the emergence of a common theme I get from Beane's quotes regarding the A's moves this offseason: the importance of improving the offense so that pitchers don't feel as much pressure in winning games.

The major need the A's addressed was their offense. Last season, the A's were last in the major leagues in slugging percentage (.369) and batting average (.242), second-to-last in on-base percentage (.318), 27th in runs scored (4.01 per game) and 25th in home runs (125). They had only one player with more than 13 home runs (DH/outfielder Jack Cust hit 33). They had no one with as many as 78 RBIs -- the Angels had four guys with at least 78 RBIs.

 

Beane laughed and said, "4.01 runs per game? That seems a little high. You'd better check those numbers … obviously, it was critical that we address that for the young pitchers. You don't want them going out there thinking that they have to pitch a shutout.''

It seems like every time I see a quote from Beane regarding the Holliday trade or Giambi signing, this issue of protecting the pitcher comes up.  Previously, I'd kind of written off Beane's statements about this subject as typical "safe answer" blather.  That is, Beane can't say, "We traded for Holliday because our numbers show us that we are vastly superior to the Angels and we are going to run away with the f*@#ing division this year!" because if that doesn't happen he looks like an idiot.  Similarly, Beane can't say, "we sold high Gonzales.  The guy can't take a walk to save his life, and his defense is not as wizard as y'all think."  But Beane can say he made the trade to protect his young arms.  Hard to argue that.  So the question is, to what extent should I believe him?

There are a lot of things to consider here:

Do pitchers really "go for the shutout" if they don't have good offensive support?

If they do, does it really matter?  Does it mean they are a bigger injury risk for trying harder?  Or does it limit development by not allowing youngsters to experiment with their approach?

Will Anderson/Cahill/Mazarro even be up in time to feel the benefit of Holliday in the lineup?

If you haven't been following Dave Cameron's series on defense at FanGraphs, I recommend you go and check it out. The focus of the articles has been on adjusting defensive metrics by position.

First post
Second post
Latest post

I'm fanposting now because Cameron's latest article is on 2B/3B, and he uses Ellis and Chavez as examples.  Specifically the article gets into what makes second basemen and third basemen different

Despite 2B being considered a premium defensive position, there’s little evidence that the players who occupy the second base position are actually better defenders than the guys who play third base. Both groups come from the failed SS pile of players, but there’s one big difference - the guys who end at third base can hit a lot better than the guys who end up at second base. Why?

I strongly recommend you read the series from the beginning for context.

Enjoy

Outside of Rex Hudler, nothing has edumacated me more about baseball than AN.  I consider myself decently well read on the National Pastime, but I don't have time to keep up on minor leaguers, SABR revelations, or how good Swooney looked yesterday stretching.  Thankfully, I can get all of that here.

...But not just that.  Also: AN culture.

As a thanks to this wonderful community, and a fun first season with AN, I wanted to create a fANpOst where people can share how AN has edumacated them.

Thanks all, and looking forward to your comments

Continue reading this post »

Continue reading this post »

Got this from DePo's blog

The Padres signed, according to ESPN rankings, the #3, 5, 6, and 10 Latin American players, and an Aussie Rules player who oozes athleticism.

A number of ANers have wondered aloud about whether it is better to go all out for a talent like Inoa ($4.25 m pricetag), or to take the shotgun approach like the Padres and spread the money ($5m) amongst some of the lesser prospects with the hopes that a few pan out.

Continue reading this post »

Hardball Times provides this PITCHf/x analysis:

Link

With our current depth in the OF positions (see post below), and the addition of The Hurt, Cust has become increasingly under my microscope.

Yes, he's still getting lots of walks, but chicks dig the long ball.  If Cust continues his current level of production, at what point should the A's cut back on his ABs, or ditch him altogether?

Or should he stay in regardless- either because of a lack of better options, or because walks are sexy too?