Long time listener, frst time caller here.  Well that's not entirely true, but it's been some time since I posted a Dump. In fact, it was more than 2 years ago, from a balcony in Amsterdam, and now I find myself in New York City, in a windowless office. Sigh; being an NRAF is hard, particularly this season.  At least the Yankees aren't doing anything this season, though I'd prefer that to the Red Sox having success.

So, some link love, and to get the Link Dump party started right on a Thursday (forgive the shameless self-promotional links to my website, Blogadilla.com: The Tijuana of the Internet):

1) Check out this new video from the Ghostride the Volvo guys (in case you don't remember them):

Damn it Feels Good to be a Banker

2) Check out this crazy alarm clock-- entitled The Wake-N-Bacon-- that wakes you up to the savory aroma of cooked bacon:

The Wake-N-Bacon

3) Mark Kotsay is now a Red Sock, sadly (and he needs to get some sleep):

Sleep Deprived Kotsay Debuts with Red Sox, going 0-0 with a walk (Billy would be proud)

4) MC Hammer, Chamillionaire, Mistah FAB on a panel at stanford

The Pinnacle of Academic Inquiry (though actually quite interesting!)

 

Link away, my friends, and go A's.

I know it's official, the A's are moving to Fremont.  I'm pretty bummed, but I'm trying to see the upside of it.  Still though, I think it pretty much sucks for me as a fan from Oakland, even if I can see the reasons for doing it as a franchise.

In any case this is for all of us who have tried hard to keep the A's in Oakland, despite an owner with sights elsewhere and a city council that couldn't put together the right deal.

My friends Ben and Nate put this together, and I can't stop watching it...or cracking up.  Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlTvSUCCqPo

Hey AN,

You guys know me as rungood, but in the real world, my name is John Heywood.  What's up everybody!?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I love AN.  I love the community and being a part of it.  And what I've loved most is seeing real friendships form through AN, and reading stories about how ANers meet up with one another before, at, and after games-- and sometimes even randomly to talk A's and talk sports even when the team isn't playing. I've met a number of other users, all who have been very friendly and nice to me, and I never hesitate to approach someone when I see them wearing their Bill King or AN shirts.  That is the beauty of AthleticsNation and our community.

In any case, I'm 23, and after a year in Estonia on a Fulbright Scholarship, I'm back in the US and just got my first real job out of college, with a company called Jambo Networks.

Why am I telling you all this, right?  Well, for one, because I'm super stoked on the job and the company, and I like sharing good news with my fellow ANers.  But I'm also writing because Jambo makes a great piece of software that is free to download and to use, and will add a few cool functionalities to AN, most notably location-based messenging capabilities.

As some of you undoubtedly know, jambo is the Swahili word for 'hello.' What we've done at Jambo Networks is create Wi-Hi technology-- that is, wireless hello technology-- that is always on and allows people to connect with members of various groups they belong to when other group members are nearby.  In a cafe or sports bar, at a conference, in the airport-- even at the ballpark!

Jambo works even when there is no Internet connection, by utilizing the Ad-Hoc mode on existing WiFi and Cellular devices.  It is this feature that makes Jambo particularly useful somewhere like the Coliseum, as many A's fans are already coming together every night there's a game.  Jambo would put ANers instantly in touch and could enable AN-meetups, great tailgating, AN-gatherings at away games (wouldn't you want to meet other A's fans in, say, Kansas City or in Detroit), not to mention a million other things.  I mean, what better reason do we all have to come together than the A's? :)

Because I think Jambo would be a great fit for AN, I've taken the liberty to create an Oakland A's fan group on Jambo.  All you have to do is download Jambo and click this link, and you'll be up and running and can connect with any other ANers that sign up: http://www.jambo.net/groups/oaklandathletics.

I know many of you guys feel like I do-- that Athletics Nation is a great community and we're lucky to have it.  It is with this being said that I hope you take the chance with Jambo and start making connections with one another.  Invite your friends and fellow ANers, and the possibilities are limitless.

If anyone has any questions about Jambo or wants more of an explanation, I'd be more than happy to talk, anytime.  My email is jheywood@jambo.net.

See you guys out there, and hope to connect with you face-to-face someday soon.
-John

Hey Everybody!

Since I just moved back to the Bay Area for the first time in 5 years, and it's the first time I've lived here since being of legal drinking age, I must confess that I'm not so hip as to which spots are good ones to watch A's games over a beer when I can't go see them in person.

So, I wanted to open up the forum to all of you, because I know that 5000 minds (plus however many non-posting trolls we have out there) are better than one, and I was hoping you could give me some insight.

I've been to Raleighs in Berkeley as well as Triple Rock, both of which are fun, but are there better places to go watch the games?

Thanks, Woo-Hoo, and Go A's!!

After 5 years of not living at my parents house, they're turning my old room into the guest bedroom.  It's kind of sad, but then again, it's really not.  I don't need a bed with the sheets from Full House (if anyone remembers those, I seriously had them on my bed back in the day), I don't need my 49ers aluminum trash bin, I don't need my Pez collection on the wall, nor do I need the pennant with an inset photo of me from when I was 12 and played on the Texas Rangers (hiss) for little league beside it.  So just burn it, right?

<sigh>

If only it was that easy.  Some of the stuff is total junk, some of the stuff I want to keep, and some of the stuff undoubtedly has value to others.

A lot of things are easy to know if I should keep, from my digeridoo to my stereo to Alaskan art.  But one thing that I'm totally on the fence about I can't decide what to do with are my old A's hats that no longer fit me.  Do I hold onto them and treasure the sentimental value that remains, while keeping clutter around my place?  Do I keep them around for my kids in the future?  Or do I part ties with them and give them away, or even sell them at the garage sale I'm gonna have next week?  The upside here is that someone else, another A's fan, gets to have a hat and show his or her support for the team.  But still, somehow that seems sacreligious...or does it?

Maybe this is just what growing up feels like, but my desire for order in my life is battling the degree to which I care about order with regard to my passions.  It's kind of sad, but it's almost like order is overtaking passion.  Have any of you gone through situations like this, even if not about baseball or the A's?

So, back to the practical matter at hand, what do I do?  Keep 'em, Sell 'em or Give 'em away?

These are the hats I have:
Green hat with White A's logo - size 6 7/8

White hat with green brim and yellow (green outline) A's logo - size 6 7/8

Old Philly A's hat (with tags) - 7

Old KC A's hat (with tags) - 7 1/8

Oh, and the green and white hat has a Scott Spiezio signature from back in 1997.  Speaking of Spiezio, does his goatee really look like this?  
It looks like red fur or something...

Thank you all for your insight!

Poll

Keep 'em, Sell 'em or Give 'em Away?

14%

Give 'em away.

5 votes

80%

Keep 'em.

28 votes

5%

Sell 'em.

2 votes

35 votes | Poll has closed

I just got back from tonight's game against the Mariners, and oh man, it was an awesome game!  My buddy called me at 6:45 tonight saying that this girl he was sposed to take to the game bailed on him and he had an extra seat on the 3rd base line, 10 or 12 rows up, so we jetted down to the Coliseum and entered the stadium yelling to anyone who would listen, "Who's in first place?? OAKLAND!!!" and "Who's in last place?? The Giants! and stuff like that.  Everyone seemed to love it; it was the perfect way to enter the Coliseum, especially since the game had already started.

We got a few drinks and went down to our seats, just as Zito was getting out of the runners on 2nd-and-3rd-with-nobody-out-jam in the 3rd or 4th, I believe.  What a way to welcome us to the park.

The energy in the stadium was awesome, even though the crowd could have been larger.  Then again, it is a Monday night after all.  But after FT and Ellis' homers, respectively, the crowd was jumping.  And from the 7th inning on, the energy was some of the best of any baseball game I've ever been to.

I know some people don't like the wave, but it was hard not to like it tonight.  In the top of the 7th inning a double wave got going around the stadium and must have gone around at least 15 times before dying out as Gaudin set down the Mariners.  It was definitely the longest lasting wave that I've ever experienced in person.

And in the 8th inning, I totally called Swisher's home run.  I said to my friend as the inning began, "This is our inning.  Swisher's gonna hit a 2-run homer to right field."  No joke.

It looked like Ichiro might come down with it, but when my buddy and I saw the umpire signaling home run, we (and the rest of the stadium) just lost it.  We were hugging random people around us and slapping 5's with anyone and everyone.

The drummers in left field get a lot of the credit for the energy tonight; Once again they were amazing.  I have to say, the Milton Bradley beat is just SICK.  Absolutely filthy.  And when you guys were playing all throughout the 9th behind Duke, it was tremendous.  A tip of the cap to you all.

After the game ended and my bud and I were leaving out of the north exit, we heard the drummers and saw the left field brigade leaving the game.  Saint, Duke of Left Field and High Street were playing their hearts out, and I was able to say whats up quickly to them, but I'm not sure if they realized it was me, since we'd only met once before, last Wednesday.  Everyone's energy was so high after the Ichiro pickoff put us 5.5 up on the Angels and Rangers, it's understandable if they didn't.

In any case, on the walk back to the BART parking lot, I felt like I was on Cloud 9.  What a great game.  My friend said to me that tonight showed him that the A's have a good shot to win the World Series this year.  Normally this comment would get me freaked out over potentially cursing ourselves, but tonight it didn't.  The fact of the matter is that he's right: tonight's game is proof that this team is resilient and resurgent, and can pull out the necessary games to go far in September and (hopefully) October.

Then again, just to be safe... <knocks on wood>

As many of you know, I was in Estonia this past year, but I'm finally back.  I got back like a week ago and it's been crazy.  From family and friends to my dog, to all of the comfort foods, 700 channels and TiVo, I'm realizing all of the things I took for granted before moving to Eastern Europe.

But the one thing I was missing most?  Our Oakland Athletics.

No doubt that I had you guys this past year, which was tremendous in terms of satisfying (and intensifying) my baseball addiction throughout the offseason, spring training, and the first half, not to mention the all-inclusive MLB.tv package I got by forking over $100 (~€77.8).  But this was no comparison to actually going to the games in person and feeling the Oakland mojo flow.

But as my job search has yet to fully materialize, I've made it a point to get to as many games as I can, while I still can.  I hit up the Coliseum Yesterday and Today (well, I guess technically it's yesterday and 2 days ago, but who's picking nits...besides monkeyball?) for the 2nd and 3rd games of the Rangers series, and I had a great time both days, but the games were entirely different, as you guys know.

Tuesday night was one of the best games I've been to in recent memory, as it was exciting throughout, not to mention the fact that I was sitting 5th row behind home plate thanks to some tickets my friend somehow acquired.  I was there with 5 high school friends (wow, high school was 6 years ago, I feel old), so it was great to see them, and the highlight of the game was definitely the Back-2-Back magic of Swish and JayPay.  When "Nicholas," as the people next to me were calling him, hit his 3-run homer, the stadium erupted. Then, just as we all were realizing that the game was starting again and that we needed to calm down, JayPay unloaded, as if to say "Keep cheering, OAKLAND!!!"  It was the encore of encores, and I slapped 5 with complete strangers around me.

Saarloos came in and dominated, which made him the player of the game, in my opinion.  He bailed the rookie out; I hope Komine was taking notes.

Street gave us a scare in the 9th, as we easily could have lost the game, or at least gone to extras, but he got the job done.  Or rather, Kendall got the job done.  But regardless, a win is a win, even it is not the prettiest thing in the world.

Less than 14 hours later, I was back at the the stadium formerly know as The "Net-Ass Coliseum," where I was hoping to witness a sweep of the Rangers and the A's head to an off day with a 7 game winning streak.  Problem is...exactly the opposite happened.

14-0?!?  That's a football score, after the first quarter.  Zito gave up 4 homers...what gives?  I mean, we haven't had a loss like this since Opening Day, when the Yankees trashed Zito.  But luckily, he bounced back after that start, and hopefully can do the same thing this time.  I'm not worried, but this wasn't pretty today.  But, then again, just as a win is a win, a loss is a loss.  It doesn't matter if your opponent scores 1 or 14 runs, if you don't score any yourself.

But while the A's just didn't have it today, it still was a lot of fun at the game.  Today I was in the more economical (though nothing compared to the $2 seats of old) left-center field bleachers with my parents, and as the game progressed, I scarfed down 5 dollar dogs.  YUM.

Before leaving for the game, I'd posted back and forth briefly with saint , and knew that we'd be in same the vicinity during the game.  So when I spotted who I thought to be him, I went over and said whats up.  Nice meeting you, bud!  I also met Duke of Left Field, high street, and JLaff.  Hopefully sometime soon I'll get a chance to catch a game with them and chill drummer-style in left field.  They definitely do it right and the energy, mojo, or whatever you want to call it, that they generate is off the charts.  It's definitely one of the reasons I love the A's so much, and one of the reasons that catching games live in person is so much fun.  Rock on guys and gals.

Even though it was H-O-T, I had a great time, and can't wait to get back to the Coliseum again soon.  I'm out of town for the TB series, but I'm back again Monday and think I'll catch at least 2 of 3.  I'll definitely be going to the Wednesday game-- would anyone be down to do a mini-tailgate before, possibly in the BART lot, and then hit up the $1 Dogs inside while watching the A's mash the Mariners for the 15th straight time? {crosses fingers} {knocks on wood} If there is interest we can definitely make sometime happen.

Well, it's great to be back, to be going to A's games, and to be meeting some of you guys.  Let's hope our August mojo continues-- 6-2 so far, with the D-Rays and the M's next.  Go A's!!

[editor's note, by rungood]

{crosses fingers} {knocks on wood} {breaks finger} {cries} {bandages finger} {types using hunt & peck method} {injures back while squinting at keyboard} rungood placed on 15-day DL

Hey gang-

I'm a long time listener, first time caller to the DLD, so I hope you enjoy this as much as I will.

In any case, it's midnight on the 22nd of July where I am: Amsterdam.  I'm actually comin' to you live from the balcony of the Hotel Di-Ann here in The Netherlands, using stolen wifi from the building next to me.  I'm about a 5 minute walk from the Flower Market, right next to the post office, for anyone who knows the area.

I just finished up my European Fulbright adventure in Estonia, and since leaving Estonia on July 14, I've been in Stockholm, Copenhagen, and now Amsterdam.  Tomorrow I head to Munich, then to Milan and finally to Paris before flying back to OAK on July 29th.  After being gone for a year from the US, I'm both sad to leave Europe and excited to come home.  I'm a bit scared as to what I'll find has changed-- either my home environment or...god forbid...myself.

In any case, walking/stumbling around the Amsterdam streets today, I had 2 A's sightings!!  I've written a post or two on A's sightings around the world, and it always gets me really excited to see some A's representation outside of the Bay Area, let alone outside of the country.

The first was an Asian tourist and the colors of his hat weren't really the exact A's colors (it was a tan/green A's cap), so it's possible he just had the hat without knowing the A's...but of course I hope he does know the team.  Possibly a Yabu fan?

The second A's sighting was a hat on a 10 year old kid in the Van Gogh Museum.  Based on his parents' accent when speaking, I'd likely guess that he's from the Bay Area (Piedmont, I'd guess....haha, Piedmont).

While I didn't talk to either of the A's fans, I thought you guys would dig the fact that there are A's fans all the way over here, even in Amsterdam.

Has anyone out there had A's sightings outside of Oakland?  What was the most ridiculous place you saw the A's logo?

A few links for fun, European style:
-Check out the Heineken Experience where I went yesterday...10 Euro for a tour, 3 beers and a free gift.  Oooh la-la.
-"Chocolate Factory" theme park to open in Amsterdam
-For anyone who wasn't paying attention the last few days (and might care) Manchester United Rejects Real Madrid's Bid for Van Nistelrooy

And just for fun, a poll.  If Lew Wolff moves the A's out of the country, what city would best suit the team?

Update [2006-7-23 14:13:59 by rungood]: As I posted below, I've made this into a weekend DLD. Thanks J^3-6^2 for the heads up on why there was such low volume... all this travelling has left me confused as to what day it is! ~rg

Poll

If Lew Wolff moves the A's out of the country, what European city would best suit the team?

9%

Los jugadores di Roma

5 votes

25%

Los Atl?ticos de Barcelona

14 votes

11%

Os Jogadores Do S?o Paulo

6 votes

22%

De Spelers van Amsterdam

12 votes

22%

Athletik Munchen

12 votes

9%

Paris A's

5 votes

54 votes | Poll has closed

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls!  The Antonio Pérez Fan Club has just initiated a new membership cycle, and you're invited to join!

There's never been a better time to join than now!!  And in honor of Antonio's recent playing time and Chavez' likely trip to the DL (d'oh!), we've even waived the already low membership fee of $.092!  

So join now and become part of a one of a kind club, dedicated to the A's Dominican Dandy, Antonio Pérez.

Not this Antonio Pérez:

Or this Antonio Pérez:

Or even this Antonio Pérez:

Nope, this is the guy I'm talkin about:
   . . . . .   . . . . .
    . . . .     . . . .
     . . .       . . .
      . .         . .
       .           .
   

I know, I know-- you're thinking something like, "MAIN MAN???/ WHAT? This guy's OPS is only .376.  Not is OBP, his OPS!"

or,

"He's K'd in 5 of his last 10 at-bats and in 31 of 65 at-bats all year!"

or,

"Maybe one of the 3 guys above our Antonio could actually hit better than .092 this year."

But mark this day, my friends.  Saturday, July 15, 2006.  The Ides of July.  Today is the day that Antonio Pérez turns it around.  Right? Right??

Hmm...well maybe not today, but if not today, then tomorrow.  Or the next day.  My point is just that Pérez isn't a bad hitter-- he hit .297 last year and had a .360 OBP!  All he needs to do to get back on track is to have standard playing time, which he's finally gonna get.

To date, he's been Ginterized...and you can't really blame a guy for sucking when there's no real opportunity to get in any type of a rhythym.

And the strikeouts-- I chalk them up to trying to hard to do too much.  Now, with more constant playing time, our boy can chill out at the plate a little bit, and not chase pitches.  I'd be curious to see how many of his strikeouts this year have been swinging versus looking.

With Pérez' inevitable increase in playing time in mind, the APFC is looking for members.  Or at least to try and increase the Pérez-Mojo going around AN.  Hopefully we can inspire him to shines given this opportunity and he can be one of the  plusses for our guys in the second half.  If Pérez can turn it on and spell Chavez so that he actually is healthy for a run up and into the playoffs, then we can still do big things.

Go A's and Go Pérez!  Who's with me?

I know, I know, I qualify as a lurker, and for that I apologize.  But I'm an Oakland A's fan for the most part, and usually spend my time over on AthleticsNation.

In any case, I have no beef with the Reds, and in actuality, I'd love for them to do well this year and in general.  I love Hatteberg from his A's days, I wish Griffey wouldn't get hurt so often, I've always liked Jason LaRue, and I've been watching Austin Kearns since the beginning.  I was sorry to see Wily Mo get traded, but I'm so stoked for Reds fans that Arroyo has been tearing it up, both offensively and defensively.  Those 2 homers he hit were legit bombs.  I hope he keeps up his great year and shows the Red Sox they were stupid to trade him after he gave them the ol' hometown discount.

In any case, I decided to post this diary to ask what's up with Chris Denorfia?  I was searching for possible pickups today in my fantasy league, and I searched by OBP for the 2006 season, and there, at the top of my list, was Chris.  3 appearances going 2/2 with a single, a double and 2 runs scored.  Not so bad, if you ask me.

But he's N/A and appears to have been demoted to AAA.  So what exactly happened on April 8, anyways?  OK, so he was sent to Louisville, but who came up?  And with Griffey going down, why isn't Denorfia back on the roster in Cinci?

Looking at the Reds' transactions, I see that the Reds traded "A Player to be Named Later" for Cody Ross, who's now the 5th outfielder on the Depth Chart, but what does this mean for Denorfia?  Why would they trade for another outfielder when they have Denorfia tearing it up in AAA?

Did they just feel as if he wasn't MLB-ready?  Or is it possible that Denorfia is the player to be named later?  Or do they see Denorfia as a AAAA player?  I mean 2/2 in the big show along with his .977 OPS in AAA this year seem to dictate otherwise.  And last year's .785 OPS in 18 games in the bigs isn't terrible either.  On the contrary, in 20 MLB games over 2 seasons, Cody Ross has managed only a .529 OPS, while batting a measly .182.  

OK, OK, I know what you're thinking: small sample size.  So let's compare the 2005 AAA stats of the two.  These should better tell the story.

Chris Denorfia (Louisville):
90 Games, .310 BA, .391 OBP, .505 SLG, = .896 OPS

Cody Ross (Las Vegas):
115 Games, .267 BA, .348 OBP, .509 SLG, = .857 OPS

Denorfia is 5 months and 8 days older than Ross, but has an additional year on his arbitration "clock" than Ross, it appears.  Both are right handed batters (though Ross throws lefty), so there's no real difference there.  And Denorfia's listed as OF, indicating that he can play all of the OF positions, whereas Ross is listed only as a RF.

So what gives?  Why is Denorfia in AAA still?  It seems he's more deserving of the shot in the bigs than Ross, but to no avail.  So perhaps some of the Red faithful can shed some light on this subject.  Is it possible that this move is only the product of what the Reds think they are supposed to do with a straight-from-high-school former hotshot prospect, rather than a division III college player who has earned it at every level?  Or is there something else going on here that I'm just not aware of, cuz I don't follow the team as closely as you all?

Fill me in, Reds Nation.

[editor's note, by rungood]I should note that much of my interest in Denorfia stems from the fact that he and I both went to Wheaton College (MA). Although I didn't know Chris and wasn't even aware of him when we were both there (he was a senior when I was a freshman), it's still exciting to have someone from a small school like ours make it to the big leagues. I hope he gets his chance!

I won't mince words: I think Oakland will be making a big mistake if they let the A's go.

Sure, it's a lot of effort, land and money to deal with up front, but a new ballpark does a lot more than just give the team a better place to play.  It not only will generate revenue for the city, but I believe it will go a long ways to improve the city in ways that are more difficult to measure in terms of sheer dollars and cents.  For instance, it seems only logical that local businesses will step it up and improve their service if they know that they will have more patrons, likely providing more jobs on a number of different levels.

As a result of investing in a new ballpark, the city will have a new, expensive asset to protect, which will very likely inspire more effective policing of the area and a general "improvement" (in political terms) of the city.  I'm not always a fan of police, but if they (and the message they stand for) are more visible in the community, it can and will likely have secondary (and perhaps unanticipated) "cleaning up" effects on crime, which will in turn increase property values throughout the city, in addition to providing a safer, more friendly community.

I have been reading Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point and he discusses the drop in crime in New York City in the 1990s, pointing out that there wasn't just one factor in reducing crime; in fact, it was due to a number of factors working together.

It wasn't just police presence.  It wasn't just a better economy.  It wasn't just a general aging of the population.  It wasn't just the waning crack problem that had plagued the city in the prior decade.  No.  On top of all these things, Gladwell points to something called the "Broken Windows theory," the concept born by criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling:

...crime is the inevitable result of disorder.  If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and no one is in charge.  Soon, more windows will be broken, and the sense of anarchy will spread from the building to the street on which it faces, sending a signal that anything goes.  In a city, relatively minor problems like graffiti, public disorder, and aggressive panhandling...are all the equivalent of broken windows, invitations to more serious crimes...

Gladwell goes on:

This is an epidemic theory of crime.  It says that crime is contagious-- just as a fashion trend is contagious-- that it can start with a broken window and spread to an entire community.  The Tipping Point in this epidemic...[is] something physical, like graffiti.  The impetus to engage in a certain kind of behavior is not coming from a certain kind of person but from a feature of the environment.

Now, cleaning up graffiti or issuing more citations to non-paying subway riders are not identical to building a new stadium, and one might even argue that they're not even along the same order of magnitude.  But regardless of how one views the relationship between these examples, they are all similar in that they can be very important parts of a positive Tipping Point for Oakland.

Improving a city, however, is not something that one (or even a city as a whole) can do overnight.  It takes time, and as Gladwell makes clear, a number of factors working together simultaneously.  But perhaps an investment of this magnitude (both in terms of money and of space) will "tip" Oakland upwards.  Instead of trying to save Oakland in one fell swoop, our city must systematically improve itself, and keeping the A's in Oakland is a big step in this process.  The money might not come back right away, but aside from the day-trading of 1997-1998, no investment reaps big rewards immediately.

This ties in to what I've never understood about the way cities (and often individuals) operate: they are extremely conservative in terms of making investments and taking risks.  Granted, one cannot invest in everything, and there certainly risks in everything we do, but this does not (and should not) mean that we should sit on our hands as well as our assets.  What it means is that we must consider all of the options and then make the best decision, or decisions, for the city.

At this point it's important to ask ourselves, "How many cities are clamoring for a major league franchise??"  The question is obviously rhetorical, but Oakland needs to appreciate what we have in the A's, and not just say "Well, we've got the Raiders and the Warriors, so who needs them?"  The reality here is that while we do have an abundance of franchises, one can only imagine that as the other Coliseum facilities age more, the Raiders and Warriors will soon be seeking alternate locations to play, from cities that are ready to step to the plate.  And what's more is that the cities clamoring for a franchise are ones that will take any franchise (the Expos/Nationals?!?).  Oakland would be losing a competitive team that many are predicting as possible favorites this year.  Maybe there's an obvious answer to this question, but I can't find one other than "Oakland": What city wouldn't be concerned with losing a World Series contender?

It sure would be irony for you, Oakland, to lose the A's to somewhere like Fremont or SJ and have them win the World Series in their inaugural year.  And it could happen.

I must point out that I haven't lived in Oakland full time for 5 years (and am thus not 100% versed on all of the issues), but it seems that our city wants to improve.  Any city should want to improve.  But the vibe I've gotten from the all of the articles written about the pursuit of a new ballpark is that Oakland (wrongly) feels some sense of entitlement to greatness, or at the very least toward improvement.  It's true, Oakland used to be a great city with booming industry (around the time of WWII), but it's not the case any more.  We were a city full of energy in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but this energy over things like civil rights and equality has now virtually dissappeared in favor of pure crime. Instead of being a rising metropolis, teeming with possibility, Oakland is annually in the running to be the "Murder Capital of the World."  Oakland is not a terrible city by any means, but compared with the Silicon Valley boom, Oakland appears to have fallen from grace.

Oakland didn't really have much they could do about the tech boom of the late 90s and early 00s, but what happened nonetheless was that Silicon Valley began emerging as the counterpart to San Francisco that Oakland had once been.  People know SF and Silicon Valley now more than they know Oakland.

But it's not too late for the city I call home.  A big reason people know Oakland is for the A's.  If we lose them to Silicon Valley (or the South Bay in general), it will just be the next step in Oakland's decline from former greatness, particularly in contrast with the success of the rest of the Bay Area.  Oakland needs to put its money where its mouth is and pony up some cash that will not only bring a ballpark to the city, but will bring a newfound resurgence to the city.  The new park will create jobs and get people out of their houses, infusing the local economy with money that will get spent and respent.  Furthermore, committing to our team will show the city and its citizens that Oakland is serious about becoming the place it once was.  Someone just needs to step up and commit to Oakland, which will show the rest of the city that it is time to do so as well.  It appears, however, that all parties are afraid.  But with certainty I can tell you that if nothing is done at this juncture, Oakland will keep slipping as a city.  Keeping the A's is both good for the fans, as well as for the city.

With all this being said, the Oakland government must end its apathy about the state of the city in favor of a proactive plan; our city must make a splash that is designed not only to deliver the city a high quality product to citizens, but to show the rest of the city that Oakland is serious about becoming a better place.  I've said it before, perception is reality, so if people start believing Oakland is becoming a better place and act accordingly, it will become one.  What better way to demonstrate the vision for the city than making a dedication to a franchise that has brought the city 4 World Titles over nearly 40 years?

The building of a new park, in conjunction with the continuation of city-wide programs like those relating to education and the reduction of crime, could likely serve as a Tipping Point for the city, or at least would be a massive leap in the right direction for Oakland.  A new ballpark would help Oakland far beyond the simple measure of dollars and cents. I hate to say it, but one could argue that the A's deserve much better than they have received from Oakland over the years, and I'd be surprised if Wolff & Fischer aren't feeling this. There is no doubt in my mind that Oakland deserves the A's, but unless they do something to show the franchise this, both the city and the fans will suffer while the A's move on. Step to the plate, Oakland.

OK OK, I know that many of you flocked to my diary armed and ready to say "I AM!! I AM!!" and in your own right, you may be.  In fact, a diary for people to compare the crazy stuff that they've done as an A's fan or to see the A's would be a great diary in itself, so we'll tackle that momentarily.

But what initially inspired this diary were a few videos I found on the net, through Google Video (I searched for "oakland athletics").  What came up were 3 videos, 2 of which were taped game segments from games in 1999 and 2002 respectively, of an Asian guy holding up a bright yellow poster-board sign saying that he was the A's number one fan and he had flown in from Oakland just to see the game.  The first was from Texas, and the second from Comiskey park in Chicago.

The videos were hosted on the number 1 fan's website-- crxchai.com, which I checked out, and actually found 3 more videos of the number 1 fan on TV-- from games at the Ballpark in Arlington and Safeco Field.

So, I was wondering...is the "number 1 fan" aka crxchai a member of AN?  If so, I give you big props for making those voyages and getting on TV...I used to try at like every game to get on Diamond Vision or on TV...ahh, if only we all could be as lucky as this guy.

With all this being said, if crxchai is willing to fly to games all over the country, make bright neon yellow signs and get on TV, all in the name of the A's, how do the rest of us stack up?  Is he really the A's number one fan?  I suspect some people on this site might disagree...so let's hear it:

What makes YOU the A's number 1 fan, as opposed to the guy flying all over the country claiming to be him?  In other words, what craziness have you engaged in that would earn you the #1 position among A's fans?  Or even the #17 position among all A's fans?? (#17 is arbitrary, yes, but still pretty good when you consider how many A's fans there are out there...and growing)

How have you earned your rank among A's fans?  Has anyone...
-Painted his (or her!) chest?
-Streaked on the field?
-Made outrageous signs?
-Come to the park in uniform?
-Started the wave?
-Drummed in Left Field?
-Heckled the right fielder? (IBAÑEZ.......IBAAAAAAAAAAÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑEZZZZZZZ.......)  
-Been to every playoff game?
-Met more that 10 team members? 15? 20? The ENTIRE 40-Man roster + Staff + Front office?

OK, OK, you get the point.  There's undoubtedly more stuff that people have done that I haven't listed here (for space's sake), like spring training trips, seeing the a's play at every 'away' stadium, etc.

So...sound off AN, I want to hear the ridiculousness!  Who is the A's number one fan?

Hi, my name is rungood, and I'm an AN-aholic.
[in unison]Hi rungood...
The past 3 days have been nearly impossible.

I'm on Oslo, Norway now, and the last time I logged on to AN was in Berlin, Germany, where I was kicking it with my friends' band that's currently touring in Europe.

Sure, I've had stuff to do and overall, life is good, but something is missing.  I don't have my computer with me like normal, so I haven't been able to fulfill my daily AN cravings and scour newly posted threads for thrown chairs, Zonis' scary links, and Nico v. Monkeyball pun wars.

This has become my offseason haven for everything baseball (and then some), my connection to California and the U.S., and a nice place to distract me from the dark and cold days of this long winter.

I can't say I've ever been addicted to anything before, but this community is the closest thing to an addiction that I've had, and I don't know if that's a bad thing.

It didn't seem bad when I had Internet access and a computer every day.  But when I'm away from my apartment and my normal life, and I start to miss AN and wonder what's going on that I'm missing, has it gone too far?  Is being an AN-aholic a bad thing?

I guess this is as good a time as ever to come clean.  I can't and won't break myself off completely, nor do I want to, but I can at least begin to come to terms with the fact that I am an AN-aholic-- at least in the offseason.  I've come to love the idiosyncracies of you guys, and even if I don't always reply to individual posts, it's probably cracking me up, wherever in the world I am.

And when even if we get a slew of regular-season-only posters around here, I'll remember these days.  So goodbye to the offseason, and thank you to all who made AN a fun place for me and other AN-aholics when baseball was the farthest thing from reality.  You've helped me deal with my addiction (and have definitely fueled it, though these things are not mutually exclusive).  It's an addiction that I welcome, so not only can I say I'm proud to be an AN-aholic, but I'm glad to be back.

~rungood

Grover and Sal were commenting on projections and stats in the LD yesterday, and I thought this diary was as good a place and time as ever to talk about which sets of information and which ranking systems we think are most appropriate to be trusted.  Because I'm further exploring a discussion primarily based between two people, I'm calling this the first-ever 'joint-diary' on AN.

Moneyball taught us that the A's have been one of the most stat-oriented ballclubs, and it seemed for a while that Stat-Ball was winning out over Old-Ball (gut feelings, hunches, non-quantifiable experience).  But with the recent overhaul of the Dodgers, perhaps the pendulum of baseball ideology is swaying back in the other direction.

Grover commented before that it's a thin line he tread-- navigating the waters of stat-land and mixing in projections.

PECOTA isn't omnipotent and they can't say for certain... because no one can... how anyone will pitch next year. If they were willing to sacrifice their 1st born children if they mess up a projection THEN their data should be given more importance.

All I'm saying is a preseason projection shouldn't have the power to sway opinion on deals from the previous years. Their 2006 performances should be the measuring stick for any such judgement.

And then he says...

The A's have a couple prospects (Putnam and Buck off the top of my head) who should be able to match Barton's current projected production at the big league level. The difference between Barton and those guys is age, Daric's younger so he has more "potential" than the other two.

Sal read it as apathy, and I agree to an extent, but I definitely hear what Grover is saying.  In reality all PECOTA is attempting to do is quantify players' abilities, and create projections about how a guy will perform.  But it's not a perfect science by any means.  In fact, it all boils down to which stat set or method of projection you believe does the best job of doing so.

With this being said, I originally was just going to ask Grover to elaborate on how he handles the intersection between stats and projections and intangibles, but as I was writing my response to his post, I got curious as to how everyone regards this complicated and complex intersection.

In terms of religion, I'm agnostic, because there's no way to know the truth-- like to actually know it.  And I guess I'd term myself 'agnostic' in terms of baseball too.  What I mean is that stats are all we have in order to find 'truth' in baseball, so to disregard them would be foolish, but at the same time, I wonder if statistics and numbers tell the whole story, or what other factors might be in play?

Statheads put their faith in stats because stats most often correlate to results, but perhaps we must step back yet again and consider the idea that something else causes numbers in the first place.  What I'm talking about is basically like the reason that Daric Barton is a professional ballplayer and not, say, me or you.  And that certain players perform consistently better than others.  Some people call this 'talent,' others call it 'potential.'

But I have a lot of problems with these words.  Talent and potential are two things that don't exist intrinsically, or maybe they do, but in reality they are things that can only be measured definitively in retrospect.

Sure, stats tell a lot of the story, but what percentage of the story do they tell?

100%? 99%? 90%? 75%? 50%??

I think most fans will concede that the stats we have tell at least 50% of the 'story of baseball,'  as they provide a quantified history of the game, as well as an up-to-date snapshot of what is occurring in baseball.  

But I have a really hard time believing that we're anywhere near being able to totally quantify the game-- unless, of course, you have a mathematical breakdown at an atomic or quantum level and can completely understand the way particles interact (and if you do, we should talk, because then we can go beyond baseball and revolutionize the modern paradigm of thought).

So, assuming we don't have the second coming of Einstein reading AN, who's ready to apply quantum theory to baseball, we're left with a slew of stat-sets to choose from.  To which do you subscribe, AN?

[And just one last caveat to the uber-statheads who I (and many other AN'ers, I'm sure) admire: there are many people who know less than you, but want to learn.  So if you can classify what is specific to each stat-set, what makes it unique in itself, and why you favor it, I (and countless others) would appreciate it.  Thanks and looking forward to some good discussion!]

Yankees? Red Sox? Giants? Secret option D??

It's a topic I got thinking about from CHFDigital's recent diary about switching allegiances fully from the Yankees to the A's, and hacotton wrote an impassioned post that I agreed with, and it got me thinking about which team I hated most.  I'm also curious who you guys hate most.  And to those who think hate is too strong a word, feel free to replace it with the phrase "strongly dislike."

I lived on the East coast for 4 years and just like hacotton I hated the Yankees before I moved out there and rooted for the Red Sux as the logical alternative.  But I soon realized that I actually liked the Yankees better than the Sox, primarily because sox fans are SOOOO annoying.  I only have 2 or 3 sox fan friends that I can tolerate, because they know their stuff, give love to players that can play and don't just ride the R-sox bandwagon to ride it.

It's this feeling of entitlement Sox fans have that irks me, not to mention all the shit talking people who don't know what they're sayin do.  Yankee fans at least understand that they are to be hated because they spend more, and they relish in the fact.  I've gotten over that.  But the Boston Red Sox are "New England's team" so they draw from like 10 states, and pull in a fan base that includes pink-hat wearing girls who can't tell me anything about the team except that they're better than [insert random team name here].  That's just ridiculous.  Like last year I asked one girl who was particularly loudmouthed when the sox beat the a's in the back-to-back walkoff games in May <grumble, grumble> who the best pitcher on the Sox that year was, and she replied "Pedro Martinez."  I mean, COME ON!!

In reality though, the Sux pay a ton of money for superstars, and steal them from other teams.  I was so happy when the Yankees took Damon from the Sox, and I openly laughed in Sox fans faces when they complained. I said "SEE! Now you know how it feels."  The thing is, less than half the sox fans even knew that Damon came from Oakland, and less than half that knew he had played for Oakland knew that he originally came from Kansas City.

I will concede that the Red Sox do have some fans who know a lot about baseball, diehards in their own right, but the fact is, they are becoming the neo-Yankees.  I understand it on one hand, they feel they must spend to remain competitive with the Stankees, but their fans don't admit this.

Being in the greater-Boston area for the past 4 years was tough, for freaking 3 Patriots super bowls, including the snow-bowl AFC championship with the infamous (cough*bullshit*cough) "tuck" rule, and then the "miracle comeback" that the media worshipped oh so much.  It was these events that solidified my notion that Sox fans are not only bad losers, but they are bad winners.  And it's here that they earn my disrespect as an A's fan.

The icing on the cake was that damn movie Fever Pitch with Jimmy Fallon and Drew Barrymore, where they ran on the field after the WS victory in real life to film for the movie.  DUDE, Jimmy Fallon's originally from Brooklyn!!!!  This is a perfect testament to the bandwagon-ness that pisses me off so about the Red Sox.

I do hate the Yankees, but I can tolerate them more than the Red Sox.  If it were up to me, they'd both lose, even when they played each other.  Or maybe Bud Selig'd allow the game to end in a tie...that'd be fun.

I can tolerate the Giants much more than the Yanks or Red Sox, but I don't actively root for them.  Barroids is a joke; I hope he doesn't take the HR title from Aaron, just so the game's records retain some dignity.  I'll root for the Orioles in the AL East and the Padres in the NL west, but never the aforementioned teams.  I will occasionally go to games at SBC when I get free tix (my sister used to work for KNBR..it was a sweet deal for me), but I always wear my A's gear and try as hard as I can to get on Diamond Vision to display it.

But this is just me.  Aside from the Angels (DUH!), who do you guys hate (strongly dislike) most??

Hey guys,

I don't have much time to make this intro long, but Mychael Urban is on KNBR right now (1:30).

Macha will be on with the Razor and Mr. T at 5:00om tonight as well.

Listen live on KNBR.com!!

This is just a forum for people to post/discuss the on air conversations....especially for those who can't listen.

I'll do my best to transcribe but would love some help, particularly with the Macha interview, which I won't be able to listen to!!

-rungood

ARGH, it won't let me submit because it's under 300 words.  I'm really not trying to skirt the guidelines so I'll begin transcribing right now.

Urban:
It's a low risk, high reward deal.  Less than Jay Payton, who's making 4 million.

Urban thinks they'll get rid of Payton. "Tough to say whether or not he'll be out of Oakland before the season or as more time passes."

OK, on to the diary.

[Update at 2:12pm, 1/27/06 by rungood]: In addition to discussing/recapping Mychael Urban's appearance on KNBR, this thread will serve as a place to post about/discuss Ken Macha's interview on KNBR with the Razor and Mr. T. I can't do it since I'm 10 hours ahead of you guys, but I'd love to read your comments/highlights/lowlights. Thanks!! ~rungood

I hate to be the pessimist in the crowd, but isn't anyone worried about the possibility of a "sophomore slump" for our awesome 2005 rookie A's?  

For the record, I read AN daily--ok, I lied, I come back like 5 times a day-- and I love the optimism we share about our A's.  My optimism runs high today: In the most recent A's fan poll (oaklandathletics.com), I voted that we'll win between 90-100 games next season.  I certainly hope this is the case and I PRAY that the A's stay healthy this year and perform to our potential, and if we can do this, I'm confident that we'll be competitive with the best teams in baseball.

I know many of you feel this way too, which is evidenced by comments like "THIS IS OUR YEAR!" and "Next stop, World Series!" etc., and while I'm SO hoping these people are correct (hell, I've even made a few of these comments myself!), I feel the need to come back to Earth occasionally and be a realist, even if that means being slightly pessimistic this offseason.

Which brings me to my diary topic; something I haven't seen discussed at all around these parts is something I think we've all heard of: the so-called "Sophomore Slump."

Back in April of last year (feels weird to say that!), Hardball Times did a piece on this very topic, trying to prove once and for all, whether or not the 'sophomore slump' exists.  To spare you all the nitty-gritty details (though for people interested, I suggest you check it out!), I'll cut to the chase:

The sophomore slump, in large part, exists.

Looking at 114 of the most recent 118 ROY winners (not including the 4 most recent winners: Huston Street, Ryan Howard, Bobby Crosby and Jason Bay since the research is from April, 2005) in terms of Win Shares,

"-73 declined in their second year (64.0%)
 -37 improved in their second year (32.5%)
 -4 stayed the same in their second year (3.5%)"

But going beyond simply who declined and who improved, if we look at Gleeman's research, he breaks it down by percentage increase or decrease:

"Of the 73 players who declined as sophomores, 54 of them saw their Win Shares drop by at least 25%, 23 of them by 50% or more, and 10 of them by at least 75%. On the flip side, just 11 players increased their Win Shares by at least 25% in Year 2 and only four improved by 50% or more. Only [2 players, John Castino and Dwight Gooden] improved by 75% or more as sophomores:

         Decline     Improve
>75%        10           2
>50%        23           4
>25%        54          11
>10%        66          26"

Now, the reason for bringing this all up?  Well, as any A's fan knows, our success in 2005 was in large part due to our rookies' successes, and in 2006, we're relying on them (albeit to a lesser extent with the acquisitions of Loaiza, Bradley and Perez) in order to have success as a team.

It's not to say that the 'sophomore slump' makes any player that was good in his rookie terrible by any means, but rather, that we simply have reason to suspect a possible drop-off in year 2.  Actually, many of the players who had sophomore declines turned out to be great players (Willie Mays, Rick Sutcliffe for instance) or have at least rebounded after their second year (the jury's still out: Dontrelle Willis, Kerry Wood for instance).

Surely the 'sophomore slump' study isn't perfect, as the sample space is limited to just two rookies a season (and we had 4 great ones on our team last year...and some even count Haren as a 'rookie' given his lack of PT in '04), but I felt the need to throw this into the fold and hear your thoughts, since it seems a pattern has emerged.  If it has the possibility of affecting any team, it's us.

With this all being said, even if our guys do end up being great down the road, do we have reason to worry about a possible drop-off in 2006?  Sound off, AN.

I didn't know where to put this, since no one is gonna look back to Blez' original article about ESPN's bias and the lack of coverage on our acquisition of Milton Bradley.

But anyways I got a letter back from ESPN's assistant to the ombudsman and thought I'd share it with you.  I'm sure it doesn't mean much since it's only an assistant, but it was good to see that other people complained too.  I'm wondering how many others were AN members...

Here is my original letter and the response I received this week from ESPN is below:

Dear Mr. Solomon,
I write because frankly, I was quite dissappointed tonight with ESPN's coverage of the Oakland Athletics' acquisition of Milton Bradley.  It was given practically no airtime on ESPNEWS (in favor of a trade rumor from the New York Post...which in my eyes, is a not a reliable news source), and when it finally was covered, the information provided was inaccurate!

What's up with that?  For the A's, this is a BIG acquisition.  In all of baseball it's a big acquisition!  We gave up only 1 minor league prospect for 2 MLB-ready players!  How is a trade RUMOR bigger news than actual NEWS??

The error in reporting, combined with the lack of attention anyone other than the biggest-market teams get, is incredibly frustrated and reflects a clear bias in your programming.  In my eyes, it takes away from any integrity ESPN has, because it's clear you only focus on the major markets--nothing else.  I'll put it in stark terms: YOUR TOP PRIORITY IS NO LONGER SPORTS, IT IS MONEY.  This is wrong to make clear to fans, even if it is the truth.

Coupled with ESPN.com's shift to the insider service, which completely precludes me from having access to ANY useful information that I previously could get on your site without having to pay, this latest ESPN guffaw is the last straw.  I'm done with you guys, unless you can do something to ameliorate the situation.  I know I'm not the only one that's unhappy and I'll make sure to spread my dissatisfaction with ESPN to all those I know, which is actually quite large considering the voice weblogs give people today.  Then again, I doubt I'll ever hear back from you or anyone else at ESPN regarding my actual opinions on the matter because you're too busy focusing on the Yankees/Red Sox, Lakers/Heat or USC to care about a mid-market contender that won't go away.

Regretfully,
rungood

-----
rungood,

You're certainly not the only one upset about the Bradley coverage. Hopefully George [Solomon] will get some thoughts in his next column. Appreciate your email. Thanks.

--
Scott Goldstein
Assistant to the Ombudsman
espn.feedback@gmail.com
-----

This is hardly the response I wanted, so I'm not going to go away.  I'm gonna keep pestering them.  You all should too if you want to see more of the A's on Sportscenter.

Then again, when we win world series this year, they'll have to talk about us. <knocking on wood>  But first, I expect them to do some good talking when we get Frank Thomas! <increases frequency of knocking!>

Rotoworld's saying that because the Dodgers won the Nomar sweepstakes, they will likely trade or non-tender Hee Seop Choi.

"It appears likely that Garciaparra will play first base, which should lead to Hee Seop Choi being traded or non-tendered by Tuesday's deadline."

Now, can the a's pick Choi up on the cheap?  Even if he is offered arbritation, maybe we could snatch him away from Coletti like we did with Bradley.  This is how i see it going:

"Hi Ned, Billy here. So, this guy, Choi. Yeah, he's OK, I guess. Yeah, OK, I guess we'll take him off your hands. What's that you say?  In return wou want a MOC Dave Stewart Starting Lineup?  Hmm that's a bit steep. We'll give you this nice bag of baseballs, and because I'm feeling so generous today, I'll even throw in an Eric Chavez bobblehead doll, but that's it! Done and done."

Vazquez to White Sox

Looks like Javier Vazquez got his wish and got out of AZ, while the D-Backs succeeded in adding a bit more pitching (though I'm sure they'd like more).  In exchange for Vazquez, the Diamondbacks receive pitchers El Duque and Luis Vizcaino, not to mention outfield prospect Chris Young, who Baseball America ranked at #7 in the ChiSox farm system, and within the farm system was also labeled as the Fastest Runner and Best Athlete.

Check out the bottom of this article:

"The Sun reported the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and Chicago Cubs are also interested in Tejada."

If the Angels get Tejada I would be so angry.  Think about seeing him in an Angels uniform.  And playing him so damn often.  I know it's totally preliminary and the O's may not even end up trading Tejada, but if the Angels get him, it would really irk me.  Part of the reason I was happy the O's signed him was so that I could still root for him, ya know?  If he goes to Boston I'd be similarly angry, but it wouldn't be as bad as having him in the division.

I realize this is more my opinion than real news, though I was unaware of said talks.

Javier Vazquez has reportedly asked for a trade out of Arizona, despite having $24 million coming to him over the next two years of his contract.

http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20051111&content_id=126725 9&vkey=hotstove2005&fext=.jsp

"As a pitcher traded in the middle of a long-term contract, Vazquez had the right to request a trade. The Diamondbacks, who acquired Vazquez last January in a trade that sent Randy Johnson to the Yankees, would have until March 15 to deal the right-hander. If they do not trade him by then, he can elect to become a free agent or rescind his trade request. If he elects free agency, he would void the final two years remaining on his contract at a total of $24 million."

I know that some people on here have proposed the idea of an Oakland-Arizona trade, being that the D-Backs are desperately in need of pitching, and we would like to acquire a right handed batter.

Vazquez's almost certain departure from AZ will only exacerbate their need for pitching.  Also, Vazquez says he wants to go to an east coast team, so perhaps Billy will works his 3-team magic.  Anyone got any ideas?

Hey guys.  Inspired by BaseballGirl's front page diary, I got to thinking about what clutch is, and I decided that "clutch" is the ability to not underperform in a given situation.

I liked the points made by Capper3 and A's Eh about clutch potentially be quantified only in "when it matters situations," and A's Eh made an interesting start to the disucssion of quantifying clutch.  So I thought that perhaps a player could get a "clutch point" a la the save, the hold or the quality start if he does something deemed "clutch."

I tried to conjure up a system where something called Clutch Points (CP) are only awarded to players on teams that are tied or losing a game in the 7th inning or later, and point values were given to certain goings-on like hits and runs and RBI.  But then I realized that clutch goes beyond single games, and often can be a subject judgement.  It often has to do with the fact that a team is in a playoff chase, or on larger and larger scales, in the playoffs and in the World Series, respectively.

I had originally thought that (following the above conditions-- a team is tied or losing the game, post 7th inning, etc.) if a runner reaches base, he receives 0.5 CP.  If he goes on to score, he receives another 0.5 CP.  If his hit results in a run (an RBI), the batter receives 1 CP for an RBI in this type of situation (as well as the 0.5 from getting a hit in this situation).  Similarly, things like stolen bases would be worth something like 0.5.  The values are rather arbitrary at this point, but exist to show how something like this might work.

What might actually be easier (in the long run; it would take a shitload of time now and would require the help of a computer) would be to look at all possible situations that could arise in a baseball game, and assign each situation a maximum point value.

The idea: There are a finite number of things that can happen in a 9 inning game.  For example, 54 outs have to be recorded (sometimes 51) in each game.

Also, in in each post-6th inning situation, there is a maximum output for any player.  In a 1-out, bottom of the ninth situation with a man on first and your team down by 1, the best case scenario for a player is to hit a home run to end the game.  Similarly, the worst case scenario would be to ground into a game-ending double play.  So just as there is a best case scenario for a player, there is also a worst-case scenario.  The best and worst case scenarios are given point values (can be decided on later), and each intermediate outcome-- a run scoring hit, a hit to advance the runner, a groundout to advance the runner, a strikeout, etc.-- gets assigned a point value between the maximum and minimum value.  Not only would hits and runs be quantified, but the situation in which they happened would be factored in the equation (like run differential between the teams, inning, runners on base, number of outs, count, etc.).  Each situation would have a predetermined scale of points which a player would "earn" based on performance.  

Let's agree for now that clutch only be considered a late inning thing, so our stat will only look at innings 7, 8 and 9.  Also, we must decide in which situations one can be "clutch."  Personally, I would say a clutch situation is one where a player's team is tied or behind and he has the opportunity to take the lead, tie the game or cut into the lead (within reason, blowouts shouldn't count in the clutch consideration).  Also to note, often times a player only appears clutch if he "starts a rally"-- as in the players behind him are clutch as well.  This is where subjectivity comes in, and we must agree on how to quantify this.

As suggested, each situation would have a maximum point value, and the player would be assigned a point value for what he actually did in the situation.  Clutch could this way be measured game-to-game, and if you add all of a player's actual outcomes for a year up, and you add all of his corresponding maximum outcomes up, and divide the actual results with the maximum results, you get a decimal number that serves as a relatively accurate assessment of a player's 'clutchess' in situations presented to him.  Or, what might be a more accurate assessment of clutch would be to add all of these actual values up, and then compare 'clutch totals' bewteen players.

Does anyone think it would be possible to perhaps just tweak Apricot's Baby WinExp experiment?  That whole discussion has revolved around Win Expectancy and the statistical breakdown of situational plays by batters, so maybe it could work for this...

This obviously would be an enormous undertaking, and people might not even agree with my reasoning, but it seems to make sense to me at the moment.  

What do you guys think?

AL MANAGER OF THE YEAR

Ozzie Guillen, White Sox

Preaching his brand of Ozzieball -- heart, brains and guts -- Guillen, a second-year manager, transformed a staid, station-to-station group into an all-for-one, aggressive club. Guillen, 41, kept his team in control when its 15-game lead in the AL Central was cut to 1 1/2 in September; the Sox won their last five games and finished with an AL-best 99 victories.

"He did a tremendous job with the team he has, and he gets the best out of his players," Indians manager Eric Wedge wrote on his ballot.

The top three
Voted on by all 14 AL managers

   1. Ozzie Guillen, White Sox (6 votes)
   2. Ken Macha, A's (5)
   3. Eric Wedge, Indians (2)
-----

It may be hard to believe, but 5 of 14 American League managers voted for good old Kenny Macha to be AL Manager of the Year, while only 6 voted for Ozzie.

I may not be the biggest Macha fan, but clearly other AL managers respect the guy and thinks he's doing a good job.  Personally, I was happy to have him gone when the initial announcement was made, and I was looking forward to having another manager to start anew with.  But when he was resurrected as our manager, I wasn't as pissed as some people, and now that I've calmed down a bit, I've been able to rationalize the whole thing, and believe that having Macha back won't be as bad as we all think.

In my previous diary, I enclosed a letter I wrote to Ray Ratto about how the A's manager was relatively unimportant, pointing squarely to the financial issue at hand, as opposed to a personality clash.  And while the money is and always will be the end-all-do-all with Billy, I do think Macha has some value (never thought I'd say that and I'm bracing myself for the firestorm of FIRE MACHA NOW's that I know will ensue) to the A's.

Most recently and most notably, this value is evident in Macha's respect throughout the league.    Macha finished only 1 vote behind Ozzie Guillen for Manager of the year, and Ozzie has his team in the World Series for the first since 1959.

It definitely came as a shock to me to see Macha in this position, but perhaps this is indicative of his (underappreciated) worth.  I mean, even the dreaded Mike Sciosca voted for Kenny for manager of the year!

Positives about keeping Macha:
-Even though he didn't make the playoffs this year, he didn't screw up too much (he was at the helm when the A's rose from 15 games under)
-He has respect around the league
-The players like him
-Keeping him means maintaining continuity, as in, the players won't have to start from ground zero again in terms of what to expect from their manager, and in terms of overall managerial philosophy
-We don't have to find a replacement for Geren or Washington if either had been selected for the A's job
-Both Beane and Macha know what to expect of one another
-We didn't overpay him

The moral of the story is that Macha is not the worst manager we could have by any means.  Granted, his use of pitchers is often suspect (Rincon, et al.), but he made improvements over 2004, and he will make improvements in each subsequent year.

Whether you think Macha deserves to be where he is in AL Manager of the Year voting is up to you, but it is hard to ignore what his peers in the rest of the league think about him.  What I think we can all agree upon is that he will get the job done year in and year out, even if he makes our hearts stop occasionally.  Macha's peers think highly of him, so perhaps we should begin to do so too.

And do you think Macha and Guillen voted for themselves???

In the 10/6 edition of the Daily Link Dump, Salb re-introduced us to good ol' Ray Ratto, and his latest article about Macha v. Beane, The Firing.  The article can be found here: History repeats: Beane and his manager at odds

Ratto questions Billy Beane's notion that managers are not very valuable, stating that Beane has a "well-known view of managers -- that you can find them working Wal-Mart aisles."

In this diary, I post my emailed response to Ray, not necessarily disputing the fact that managers are generally worthless, but pointing out that in Oakland, they pretty much are, since we have Billy and a wealth of talented position coaches to draw from.  I even subtly poke at his prediction of the A's only winning 65 games this year-- always a fun thing to do. Let me know what you think, and I'll let you know if/when I hear back from this guy.

--
10/7/05
Dear Mr. Ratto,

It's pretty clear that you believe that Macha deserved to stay in Oakland, but did he really?  How good of a manager was Ken Macha?   Sure, he did a decent job, but who's to say that someone else couldn't do this?  As Beane himself said, "I thought Ken did a good job. ... Art did a spectacular job, Kenny followed up, and it was a fairly seamless transition." (Source: Macha will not return to A's)

This just goes to show that Beane didn't think Macha was worth the extra $700k/year that Nero first proposed, or even worth the extra $400k/year in the revised contract.  And Beane is right in thinking this.  Macha essentially rode the coattails of prior success, and didn't get the A's in the playoffs the past two years.  Sure 85-90 wins/year is a good thing, but the A's still didn't make the playoffs.  So why pay when you don't have to.  As is evidenced by Macha's succession of Art Howe, Terry Francona's success with the Red Sox, and the Devil Rays' interest in Ron Washington, the A's have a talented staff from which to draw in selecting a new manager, and will do so while saving precious money that can be used in efforts to resign Barry Zito or sign a right handed power hitter (though I believe the former to be more likely).

Perhaps Macha doesn't have a contingency plan (though if I were a betting man, I'd tell you he'll end up Pittsburgh), but I believe that Beane does.  Washington is under contract through 2006, and while he'll be tempted by the D-Rays, he won't go there.  Beane will hire Bob Geren, bullpen coach, to replace Macha, as Geren and Beane already know each other and how the other one works.  Beane knows the value of his staff better than anyone, so why dip outside of this extensive pool of talented coaches?  From here he'll hire a new bullpen coach who can learn the job from Geren, and any "dropoff" from Macha will be negligible.  In fact, I believe that there will be no dropoff, as this young A's team will only get better with age.

Then, in 3 years when Geren's (read: the next manager's) contract is up, he'll want more money and Beane won't give it to him.  A's managers have obviously read Moneyball, and thus know that Beane allocates money to his manager like he allocates money to  his players; they won't be overpaid in Oakland, as baseball there is a business.  All parties should know this by now (see Giambi's singular offer, Miguel Tejada's non-offer, and the trades Hudson and Mulder).  To put it bluntly, Billy sets a value on an individual based on his performance, and he doesn't stray from it.

You point to Bobby Cox, Tony La Russa, and Joe Torre in dismissing Beane's notion that the manager is less important than most people think.  I can't dispute the success these managers have had, but consider this: neither John Schuerholz, Walt Jocketty, or Brian Cashman is as involved as Beane is in daily baseball operations, not to mention the fact that all have spent quite a bit more money per year than Beane (Braves: $85,148,582, Cardinals: 92,919,842, Yankees $205,938,439). For reference, Oakland only spent $55,869,262 this past year.  If Billy Beane had more hours in a day, and could be two places at once, it is safe to say that he would be the manager of the A's as well.  Billy is by far the most valuable GM in baseball, and one of the things he does is "help out" with managerial duties.  Thus, to think that Ken Macha was as valuable to the A's as Cox, La Russa and Joe Torre are to their respective teams is ludicrous.  Frankly put, the A's just don't need someone like the 3 managers you point to, so why would Billy pay for one?

If anything, Macha should be happy with the opportunity he got in Oakland.  He demonstrated to the rest of the league that he is a capable manager and had moderate success with the A's.  He'll use his opportunity in Oakland as a springboard and he'll make the "big bucks" in Pittsburgh or somewhere comparable.  It will be there that we see his success or non-success, and only then can we truly evaluate him as a manager.  We must all realize that it is Billy who runs this team, and whether or not you call him GM, manager, part-owner, or whatever, it will remain this way.

Macha and Beane weren't so much sick and tired of each other, but rather, Macha/Nero overjudging their net worth to Beane by a quite sizeable sum, which made the decision a quick and easy one for Beane.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts, as you've strongly second guessed (dare I say misjudged?) Billy Beane's decisions in the past.
--