A's Legacy

Bradley DFA'd

2007-06-21T20:13:00.001-07:00

I figured the post that would bring me back from the brink would be on Bradley. I'm seeing too much naivity as well as first impression reactions that it's making me think people really don't get how this front office works.

Bradley is known for having a temper that causes him to do stupid things that piss off his current orginization. So why would anyone believe what Beane says when he states the issue of playing time as the reason why they let him go? What makes Bradley's past indescretions null if the guy is upset about being delayed two days so that the A's could decide if they need to demote an infielder or pitcher?

Because Bradley bitched about not being activated quickly, the A's could not decide whether they should keep IF JJ Furmaniak or demote one of the extra pitchers they have been carrying. Instead, Bradley's actions caused the A's to have to re-call an infielder when they DFA'd him.

Then there's this: back in May of '06, Bradley was on the DL for a knee injury at which time he was expected back in 15+ days. However, he then suffered a setback and had a shoulder injury that forced his return to be delayed until the All Star Break. According to someone who posted on the ESPN forums, someone who had posted inside information before hand about clubhouse activities, Bradley went on a tirade and injured himself. Flash-foward to Tueday when Bradley had a noticable limp and it's not far-fetched to state that Bradley may have re-injured himself on account of his temper.

Frankly, the A's did the right thing in designating Bradley for assignment; they are able to control what little trade value he has based on his past performance without worries that between activiation from the DL and the days leading up to the trade deadline, Bradley does not do anything to harm his value even further. His athletic potential won't nab the A's a top prospect when he's in a walk year, owed 2 million dollars, and has the type of issues he does.

Walking away but always looking back

2006-07-03T01:33:00.000-07:00

So when the A's were supposed to win the division on the hands of a cool-headed Milton Bradley and an ace in Rich Harden, why did I stop posting? Could it be that I was some bandwagoner who was to lazy to talk about how terrible Dan Johnson was for two months of the season? (Actually, it was three months since September when I wrote about his hitting chart)

No, it had more to do with the fact that I was pissed with the A's. For the third year in a row, the A's have underachieved; Macha being at the helm isn't a coincindence. In fact, you could make an arguement that they have underachieved since 1999, but that wouldn't be the case.

They didn't make the big splashes they did the past few years; signing Redman and beefing up the bullpen, trading declining talent for younger, thus better talent, signing Thomas, Loaiza, and trading for Bradley to make an A's run in '06. Oh don't tell that this wasn't "the year." The A's were supposed to go all the way, even the commercials said so. Don't think of some clever cop-out that "A's in '06" meant the A's were going to play durring '06 season. That's like saying water is wet or that Macha sucks; we know, we know.

Basically, I would rather laugh and enjoy to see the A's lose their division lead to the Mariners, that team that sucked ass for the majority of the season but now is right behind the A's for the lead. Perhaps Bavasi should start getting the PR department to make a new "M's in '06" ad campaign. It did wonders for the A's.

It's been a while

2006-04-25T21:07:00.000-07:00

It's been a while.... since I have posted.

It's been a while... since Crosby was any good.

It's been a while... since the A's were good.

Just one question, why is Zito given such a long leash when the last time he won a Cy Young was 4 years ago? If Zito's sucking and "not executing on his pitches," he needs to not keep pitching.

I'm back and I hope the A's will be back soon.

Moneyball Movie notes

2006-01-27T02:49:00.000-08:00

As of right now, the movie seems to be just at the script/pre-production phase. Clooney had been rumored for the lead role as Beane but there is some history between him and the current scriptwritter, Stan Cheverin. From 1999-2002, Clooney had been trying to make "The Catcher was a Spy" but the film never got greenlighted, apparently for good reason.

RB: Since Moe Berg keeps coming up, is the movie going to be made?

ND: I don’t know, they just keep getting horrible screenplay after horrible screenplay. George Clooney really wanted to make it. And that would be great.

Almost all of Cheverin's scripts are connected to films that were in development hell, a term used to describe films that never got made due to studio, script, casting and all other sorts of changes.

In all likelyhood, it may take the A's winning the World Series for this movie to be made at all least of all true to reality.

What a lil bugga'

2005-12-17T15:22:00.000-08:00

Happened to be on the sfgiants.com page (sacrilegious!) and I came across this nugget:

I would be pissed too if I had a damn seal interrupt me enjoying some pizza.

Report: A's interested in MLS team for San Jose

2005-12-16T23:28:00.000-08:00

The A's official website, along with AP, are reporting that the A's Management Group is looking to acquire an MLS team should the league decide to expand in San Jose. MLS League Commish Donald Garber is already making it known that MLS will make San Jose their top priority to expand and place a team in San Jose. According to some reports, meetings will take place in January over selecting a new investor and securing a stadium plan which is "essential" in getting a new franchise in San Jose.

Now should this means that the A's can get into San Jose or not, I don't know. All I know is that the A's have already put their notice in that they want a team and such a commitment would also mean that they have some semblance of a stadium plan in order to get Garber to the negotiating table. It may have something to do with San Jose's plan of buying parcels in Downtown...

Another thing I'd like to know, as most people would, what is in the Major League Agreement in regards to whether having a team as an extension to your territory rights. The late Doug Pappas found a 1999 copy of the Agreement and found that it stated the following:

3/4 majority in the affected league, plus a majority of clubs in the other league: expansion, sale or transfer of control of a club (except that control passing to a spouse or descendant requires only a majority vote), relocation of a club to a city not within the other league's circuit (transfers into another club's territory require 3/4 majority in both leagues)

Note that to move a team from one city to another within the team's own territory, there still has to be a vote on it. That is astonishing that if Selig is to be believed that the territories are supposedly so sacred, than why can't a club do what it pleases within their own area? Not only that, but there has to be a simple majority in the other league.

The Giants' territory includes San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey and Marin Counties, plus Santa Clara County with respect to another major league team.

EDIT: A hat-tip goes out to the folks at the Business of Baseball website for having the 2005 version of the Major League Agreement. In that version, the above phrase has been changed to: "provided, however, that with respect to all Major league Clubs, Santa Clara County shall also be included."

What exactly does that last phrase mean? It's not as if it has anything to do with a different sports league because if so, San Francisco would be included on account of the 49ers being there. And the A's have no such term under MLB's definition of their territory. What gets me is that in the 2005 version, it seems as if the Giants have a claim to all other counties except for Santa Clara, unless there is an MLB team trying to move in. Why is it that SC County is not just lumped together with the rest of the territories? There has to be some special rights that the Giants have in the other counties that they do not in Santa Clara.

As additional territorial protection, Rule 52 allows a major league club to block any other major or minor league clubs from playing within 15 miles of its territory without permission.

Are the clubs in question teams that only play baseball? One would assume this has to refer to independent leagues as "other major leagues" and "minor league clubs" as in MLB-affiliated minor league teams. Otherwise, the Astros would probably be objecting to the new MLS franchise in their city.

I hope to get some more answers here because there has to be a reason why the A's made it so pronounced that they were going to get an MLS team. Even if they were going for an angle in which they would be viewed in a positive light by the voters of San Jose for rescuing soccer, it wouldn't help them much even if they got a stadium bond because MLB would have to vote on the relocation matter.

Either there has been a change in the Major League Agreement, Wolff is going to put Selig and MLB in a bad light, or Selig wants MLB to have an affiliation with MLS and this would be the best way of doing so.

A's get Milton Bradley

2005-12-15T01:57:00.000-08:00

Mercurial, firery, temperamental, pissed-off, bad ass; in any article you read about Bradley, you're gunna see one of these terms, and for good reason. It's not as if Bradley hasn't earned some of these titles. This doesn't make him a bad person, it's just a stigma that has been following him around since his days in the Montreal Organization.

But that doesn't change the fact that he's one hell of a talent, albeit an often injured, one. All one can really hope is that the birth of his first child will change him as such momentous occasions usually do.

I'll have more in a bit; I am trying to finish up a Loaiza v. Redman post for your viewing pleasure.

Thoughts on Thomas

2005-12-06T20:26:00.000-08:00

Mychael Urban's article made some definate connections as to the A's interest in Frank Thomas. Apparently Beane defines him as a "great presence" and goes on to say Thomas' picture would be next to "presence" in the dictionary. I'd say the candid quotes make it pretty certain that Thomas is going to be an A so long as the White Sox do not offer arbitration, which is likely.

However, once Thomas is off the market, the A's have to be ready to pounce on another hitter, an outfielder to be exact. Payton had a flukish August and Brad Wilkerson, who the Jays are after, could be had and represent an upgrade to the position. There is also the Milton Bradley possibly as the Cubs no longer seem to be looking at him and instead are focusing on Juan Pierre.

One great or many low/medium-yields?

2005-12-02T02:02:00.000-08:00

As we are coming up on the Winter Meetings, I wonder whether the A's should go after a big name like Bobby Abreu or Adam Dunn or take the other route and get 2-3 players who could provide average or above average production.

If you look at the question marks going into the season, you have Loaiza possibly reverting to sub-par performance, Harden's shoulder, Haren, Saarloos, and Blanton's possible regression, and on the offensive side, Crosby's ankle and performance, Chavez's shoulder, Payton's flukish August, Kotsay's back, Swisher's performance, Johnson's regression and spray charts, Kendall's regression, and Ellis' career season.

While many low payroll teams have many question marks, these question marks are based on players who aren't yet to be proven. Every team has health issues but when they affect your top two players, that has to raise eyebrows on whether there is enough depth to carry the team. Although some of the ones listed are lower on the scale of worry than others, Chavez's shoulder is a major one from a game-to-game basis. If the A's were to get only one player, they would have to rely on that player heavily should Chavez have issues. But if the shoulder is not an issue, than the offense has a great production potential.

The other side is to get guys like Thomas, Nomar, or players of similar value in trades in order to make sure that if one player goes down, the team's success won't hinder on it.

Is it really that big of a deal? Can you go wrong either way?

Dotel Suggestion

2005-11-20T02:34:00.000-08:00

Apparently, Dotel is getting some interest from a lot of teams and it got me thinking about how the A's could keep him. Obviously, they have cash if they can give Witasick $3 million for two years, so how about this: Offer him arbitration.

Seeing as how he made $4.75 million, he can't get more than that and if at the most, $5 million. And while that is a steep price to pay, you have the possibility to get draft picks as relievers are always a premium. Looking at the Yankees Tom Gordon, should he not re-sign with the Yankees, they will receive draft picks for his services. A solid 2006 campaign will undoubtably get the A's draft picks should Dotel perform.

But the other part of offering arbitration is that the A's are highly likely to win their case should they submit an offer around $2.5 million. Dotel cannot have the same value he signed his '05 contract for on account of the Tommy John Surgery which has made him an uncertain for the start of 2006. Knowing this, the A's could offer a two year contract guaranteeing him the amount he submits for arbitration or Dotel could risk losing 2+ million dollars.

Either way, the A's have the ability to bring in additional draft picks should he accept a contract or arbitration, all the while having a quality arm in the pen, which is of interest should they trade Barry Zito.

Changing of the Guard

2005-11-01T01:13:00.000-08:00

Although Theo Epstein and Paul DePodesta left via different methods, they both had their decisions made by incompetent writers. DePodesta was fired from L.A. solely because of L.A. Times writer Bill Plaschke. From the moment DePodesta got the job, Plaschke has been using the same jokes surrounding DePodesta's laptop. There was the one about the computer getting a virus when Drew was signed and now there's a joke about how the computer was hacked because players like Hee Seop Choi did not produce like DePodesta predicted he would. And then there were the times he used other cheesy jokes on ESPN's "Around the Horn" program.

It's somewhat funny because the fault lies with Manager Jim Tracy who would play Choi for a game or two and then inexplicably bench him even if Choi played well. You would think those are the things that writers would focus on, but being a part of the baseball old-school club can cloud judgment.

As for Epstein, he decided to leave Boston after the Boston Globe's Dan Shaughnessy wrote in Sunday's column that Epstein, being a protege' of Lucchino's, was in-debted to him as Lucchino "took the fall" for some of Epstein's moves. After that column ran, Peter Gammons has said that it infuriated Epstein and it made the decision for him.

I have stated before my questions surrounding assistant GM David Forst and how much of a coincidence it is that the A's fell into a rut when DePodesta left. Then again, DePodesta was around for the Redman trade/signing as well as the Karros signing. It would be interesting to see DePodesta come back or Epstein to come into the fold, but they would positions that are subject to either finding another GM gig. But here is something to note:

Beane has an Epstein-like assistant in David Forst, the former Harvard baseball captain. Forst is on the fast track to becoming a general manager, but he recently turned down an offer to become GM of the Diamondbacks, a job that went to Byrnes, and appears in no hurry to end his apprenticeship with Beane. There is a good likelihood, in fact, that Forst winds up as Athletics GM in another year or so if Beane moves upstairs.

This is the second time I have read that Beane may move up to being Club President, similar to former GM Sandy Alderson who is now the President of the San Diego Padres. If this were true, it would be nice for DePodesta to be the GM for the A's with Beane his boss. Even though the titles would be changed, the power structure would be the same.

OT: Some thoughts

2005-10-29T02:12:00.000-07:00

I know that the blog has been slow, but I am working on a project regarding Jay Payton and that should be up next week.

In the mean time, I thought I would discuss about what I have been doing lately. Along with school work, I have been doing some little repair jobs regarding some things that broke around the house.

I had a dvd/vcr combo system suddenly forget how to record in Super Long Play mode or SLP for short; the audio was garbaled and the video played fast. Turned out to be some dirty vcr heads so that required opening up the system and cleaning the heads using pieces of paper soaked in alcohol. I also got the service manual from www.manualzone.com which seems like a neat site for diy-ers.

Another project I am working on is a small Yamaha PSS-80 toy synth from 1989 that I found at a thift shop. I had been looking for one to fiddle with and convert into a midi controller for my computer desk. As of right now, it's waiting for some parts in order to add such as a headphone jack, volume control, and an automatic shut-off circuit for the batteries in case it hasn't been played for a while and I forget to turn off the synth. After these upgrades, I'll be looking into how I can modify it to have midi outputs.

I mention these things because I think durring the offseason, when there isn't many day-to-day events that require analysis, I will add musings and just thoughts regarding things in the news and in my life. Think along the lines of Andy Rooney.

RIP Bill King

2005-10-22T00:15:00.000-07:00

While I'd like to think that I knew the impact King had on the Bay Area and with sports in general, I don't. I'm too young to have really listened to King enough in order to grasp his complete resume but I will share one story I have.

When the A's were going for win 20, and they blew the lead, I was pretty pissed off. I couldn't believe that the same team that had just beaten on of the top closers in the league, Eddie Guardado of the Minnesota Twins, could lose such a huge lead against the lowly Royals. Although I couldn't stand listening to the tv announcers, I decided to see if the radio side would be any different. In the 9th inning, when Hatteberg hit that pinch-hit homer to win the game, I remember how King made sure to acknowledge that this was a game that the A's should have won in 8 and a half innings.

It may seem mundane, but even then, in a moment of overwhelming-excitement, it was King's professionalism which accentuated the point that the A's blew a huge lead. He could have been like any number of other team personalities and rambled about how the A's "just accomplished the improbable" or some hyperbole along those lines, but that wasn't Bill King; it wasn't his nature.

It was a character trait that we should all strive to have.

It's as if he never left

2005-10-16T01:52:00.000-07:00

By now you have heard that Macha is back and with others saying how bad of a decision it is, I can help but feel that my suspicions have been verified.

In my post, "The Company Man," I talked about how Hatteberg had been playing a lot more than he should have and that he should have been placed on the DL. Through a lot of the message boards and other blogs, you will see that a lot of the blame of 2005 is placed on Macha. This blame is unfounded as it should only be going to the top, squarely at Beane.

By bringing back Macha, it tells me that most of the decision that were made during the 2005 season had Beane's hands all over them. If Hatteberg playing too much, or Ellis not playing in the earlier part of the season, or even Chavez not moving from the third spot until Crosby came back, would have been grounds to fire Macha, it seems that these issues were perfectly fine with Beane to the point of retaining Macha. And Beane is the one with a pseudo-lifetime contract with the A's.

The only thing that Beane could not control to a varying degree is the bullpen usage and that is where Macha failed at a manager. It was almost as if he spaced out during the games and allowed pitchers to stay in the game for too long. In actuality, that was his biggest mistake. Many times, as document by my post, Cruz Control, Macha would allow a reliever to create a tense situation and then bring in another reliever at the most inopportune time. Yet this is the only credible strike against Macha that has a tangible difference from him being re-hired and what another manager would do. Everything else is under Beane's control.

So honestly, if someone wants to talk about lineups and how Ken Macha is the one at fault, they are completely mistaken. Think about it this way: When Tejada was struggling in 2003 and had a thumb injury, Ken Macha talked about how it was best to move him from the third spot. Now, with Chavez struggling and his shoulder sore, Macha is talking about how a lineup change won't matter. And we all know that Chavez is a Beane favorite so there is no doubt in my mind that Beane had far more leeway with Chavez than Tejada.

Sometimes, conventional thinking can prevail.

Macha's Departure

2005-10-07T14:49:00.000-07:00

By now you know about Macha leaving the A's and while it's great news for the future of the team, I thought it would be appropriate to convey the feelings of the wonderful-ness that is Ken Macha.

Enjoy.

"The Blame Game"

2005-10-03T20:14:00.000-07:00

The A's decided not to renew hitting coach Dave Hudgens contract after 2 and a half years of having the job. While it's safe to say that the A's weren't offensive forces, this was hardly just his fault. While Hudgens told MLB.com's Mychael Urban that Beane did not ask any players, Susan Slusser said that Beane "contacted a number of people."

What's funny is that the player with the biggest endorsement of Hudgens, Eric Chavez, was apparently not asked his opinion. Makes you wonder if this is because of the hands-off approach the '99 team complained about, it makes you wonder if Beane feels Chavez likes Hudgens because he is free and easy? The one problem I have is that it's not very smart to talk bad about a former employee to the media, but he did open up the fundamental issue with the 2005 Oakland Athletics: "We were the type of offense than needed 15 hits to score eight runs." It's a complaint that every A's fan has and yet it took the disgruntled employee to bring the situation to light.

NAME	YEAR	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	TB	RBI	BB	SO	SB	CS	GIDP	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
Hudgens	2005	162	5588	764	1462	306	20	155	2273	731	536	812	31	22	153	0.262	0.330	0.407	0.737
Hudgens	2004	162	5728	793	1545	336	15	189	2478	752	608	1061	47	22	142	0.270	0.343	0.433	0.776
Total	2003	162	5497	768	1398	317	24	176	2291	742	556	898	48	14	118	0.254	0.327	0.417	0.744
Hudgens	2003	108	3665	513	930	208	17	120	1532	501	377	610	41	17	78	0.254	0.326	0.418	0.744
Bosley	2003	54	1832	255	468	109	7	56	759	241	179	288	11	5	40	0.255	0.328	0.414	0.742
Bosley	2002	162	5558	800	1450	279	28	205	2400	772	609	1008	46	20	128	0.261	0.339	0.432	0.771
Bosley	2001	162	5573	884	1469	334	22	199	2444	835	640	1021	68	29	131	0.264	0.345	0.439	0.784
Bosley	2000	161	5560	947	1501	281	23	239	2545	908	750	1159	40	15	147	0.270	0.360	0.458	0.818
Hudgens	1999	162	5519	893	1430	287	20	235	2462	845	770	1129	70	37	128	0.259	0.350	0.446	0.796
Walling	1998	162	5490	804	1413	295	13	149	2181	755	633	1122	131	41	120	0.257	0.334	0.397	0.731

In 2004, his first full season with the A's, the team had the 4th highest OPS amongst the others and that team did not have Giambi or Tejada. He came back for a third season where circumstances mainly out of his control took place. I take issue with is that this is going to mask he fact that Beane made decisions like allowing Hatteberg to continue to play. The fact is this team did not hit for many homers and with the amount of injuries, that is to be expected.

One common thread between the 2004 and 2005 A's were their numbers with runners in scoring position. And it is very likely that the failure was because of his ideals that you should look for a pitch to drive. But I can't help but notice that the team as a whole failed at this aspect, yet when you look at Mark Kotsay and Jason Kendall, both led the A's in AVG with RISP and Kendall had a horrible season. So either his production "in the clutch" was an aberration, or it goes against the argument that it was all Hudgens fault.

Something to think about is the close relationship Hudgens had with Durazo. Throughout his tenure with the A's, Hudgens became, as close to being a personal hitting instructor as possible with Durazo. In 2003, he worked with Durazo in getting closer to the plate; in 2004, he worked on getting his hands inside the baseball; this year, he was going to work with Durazo to get him back to hitting, but it was discovered that he needed Tommy-John surgery. That Hudgens was released makes it almost a certainty that Durazo will not be back.

Durazo was a big loss to the team from the get-go; the way the rest of the team was constructed, the foundation was made of players who put the ball in play rather than their ability to slug the ball. So when the team grounded into their highest GIDP total in 7 years, who's fault was that? The failure of the team to produce offensively is also shared by Beane. But, Hudgens, just like every other coach Beane has fired, became a scapegoat as the sole problem that plagued the A's.

Empty Spaces: Part III

2005-09-29T21:42:00.000-07:00

The '99-'05 A's

Year	Total Att.	Att. Stnd.	Wins	Loss	Pct.	AL West Stnd.	Avg. Batting Age	Avg. Pitching Age	Total Payroll	Median Salary
1999	1,434,610	12th out of 14	87	75	0.537	2	28.7	31.4	$24,150,333	$462,500
2000	1,603,744	11th out of 14	91	70	0.565	DIV 1	27.1	29.5	$32,121,833	$400,000
2001	2,133,277	7th out of 14	102	60	0.630	WC 2	27.1	28.0	$33,810,750	$350,000
2002	2,169,811	8th out of 14	103	59	0.636	DIV 1	28.4	27.4	$40,004,167	$812,500
2003	2,216,596	6th out of 14	96	66	0.593	DIV 1	28.1	27.4	$50,260,834	$1,032,500
2004	2,201,516	7th out of 14	91	71	0.562	2	29.6	28.4	$59,425,667	$1,357,500
2005	1,927,201	8th out of 14	84	68	0.553	N/A	28.9*	28.1*	$55,425,762	$591,667

							*: Not Weighted

1999 marked the beginning of a new era in A’s baseball. With the emergence of rookie starter Tim Hudson and first-baseman Jason Giambi, it was the first season that the A’s were over the five-hundred mark since 1992. It also had the highest attendance figure since 1993. With the winning season of 1999 followed up by a division championship in 2000, the A’s attendance went up by 200k each year. And in 2001, the A’s crossed the 2 million-plus attendance figure since 1993. And with the winning, came the playoff berths.

Oct. '00	TIME	OPPONENT	REC	ATT
Tue. 3	5:05	NY Yankees	1-0	47,360
Wed. 4	5:05	NY Yankees	1-1	47,860
Fri. 6	5:05	at NY Yankees	1-2	56,606
Sat. 7	4:30	at NY Yankees	2-2	56,915
Sun. 8	5:05	NY Yankees	2-3	41,170
Oct. '01	TIME	OPPONENT	REC	ATT
Wed. 10	5:05	at NY Yankees	1-0	56,697
Thu. 11	5:05	at NY Yankees	2-0	56,684
Sat. 13	4:30	NY Yankees	2-1	55,861
Sun. 14	1:30	NY Yankees	2-2	43,681
Mon. 15	5:05	at NY Yankees	2-3	56,642
Oct. '02	TIME	OPPONENT	REC	ATT
Tue. 1	1:05	Minnesota	0-1	34,853
Wed. 2	1:05	Minnesota	1-1	31,953
Fri. 4	1:05	at Minnesota	2-1	55,932
Sat. 5	10:05	at Minnesota	2-2	55,960
Sun. 6	1:05	Minnesota	2-3	32,146
Oct. '03	TIME	OPPONENT	REC	ATT
Wed. 1	7:05	Boston	1-0	50,606
Thu. 2	1:05	Boston	2-0	36,305
Sat. 4	5:05	at Boston	2-1	35,460
Sun. 5	10:05	at Boston	2-2	35,048
Mon. 6	5:05	Boston	2-3	49,397

If you look at the attendance numbers of the 2002 ALDS vs. the Minnesota Twins, the A’s could not attract people to the park solely based on their making the playoffs. But a circumstance to consider is that all the A’s home games during that series were played in the day time and that the final game on Sunday was played when the Niners were at home playing against the A’s for the same time slot and the Giants were going to play their playoff game at 4:30. There was also the issue of the ticket pricing; the cheapest seat for the 2002 division series was $35 dollars.

Now that the A’s have had seven straight years of winning seasons, apparently, that is not enough for the casual fan in the Bay Area. The A’s have already been labeled as chokers due to their playoff collapses and as such, it could be that the A’s have seen drop-offs in both the 2004 and 2005 season because of the stigma.

It’s well known that the A’s draw well when their opponents are top-draws like the Yankees and the Red-Sox. But if you look at the attendance numbers this year, you can see a correlation between winning and the attendance per game:

(Note: Click chart for larger image)

The first series is the Attendance numbers through games; the second is the difference in winning percentage between the A’s and their opponents, or d-WP%. When the winning percentage was -.100 or less, the attendance was very low and conversely, the attendance was low when the d-WP% was +.100 or more. The only times the numbers deviated were due to noted events such as promotions on these games. So even though the A’s had a winning season in 2005, they could not draw by solely on their merits.

Empty Spaces: Part II

2005-09-24T01:14:00.000-07:00

The '93-'98 A's

1993 and ’94 were tough years for the A’s from an on-field perspective, but the attendance was better than the team’s performance. Even though the team winning percentage of .420, the A’s still drew 2 million+ fans. In 1994, the A’s brought back free-agent Rickey Henderson and with attendance climbing as the team started to climb in the standings after a horrible start, all would be for naught. The season stopped on August 12th because of the labor strike and coupled with the losing record, there was a significant negative impact on the following season in regards to fans coming to see the team.

Year	Total Att.	Att. Stnd.	Wins	Loss	Pct.	AL West Stnd.	Avg. Batting Age	Avg. Pitching Age	Total Payroll	Median Salary
1993	2,035,025	11th out of 14	68	94	0.420	7	28.2	30.9	$35,565,834	$575,000
1994	1,242,692	13th out of 14	51	63	0.447	2	29.2	29.8	$33,169,500	$413,500
1995	1,174,310	12th out of 14	67	77	0.465	4	29.6	30.9	$35,961,500	$235,000
1996	1,148,380	14th out of 14	78	84	0.481	3	28.2	27.1	$19,404,500	$152,500
1997	1,264,218	14th out of 14	65	97	0.401	4	28.1	27.8	$21,911,000	$194,000
1998	1,232,343	13th out of 14	74	88	0.457	4	28.8	31.0	$20,063,000	$270,000

Yet the A’s had no problems finding someone to buy the team. When Steve Schott and Ken Hoffman purchased the A’s from the late Walter Hass in the winter of 1995, they purchased a team that was barren in the minors and full of deferred moneys. Simultaneously Al Davis, owner of the former Oakland Raiders and then-current LA Raiders, could not acquire a new stadium in Brentwood, a suburb of LA. So as Schott and Hoffman prepared renovations for the Coliseum, Davis decided to move back to Oakland and the Oakland-Alameda Sports Authority welcome the team with open arms. As part of the agreement, the Coliseum was to be renovated with a massive structure in center field to provide maximize the capacity for football games.

Frustrated that their new investment would suffer from an un-pleasant to the eye surrounding, Schott and Hoffman sued the city of Oakland for $48 million dollars because they felt that they had incurred diminished value for their investment. They won the arbitration suit but there were to be no renovations from the ownership group.

So with a drastically changed ballpark, the A’s could not bank on the ballpark itself to bring people in. And what was once a pitchers’ park now became more neutral with nooks and crannies along the outfield wall. In order to get attendance up the team would have to win; naturally, that’s easier said than done.

SEASON	TEAM	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	SB	CS	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
1993	Oak	27	84	16	28	6	0	9	24	21	19	0	1	0.333	0.467	0.726	1.193
1994	Oak	47	135	26	34	3	0	9	25	37	40	0	0	0.252	0.413	0.474	0.887
1995	Oak	104	317	75	87	13	0	39	90	88	77	1	1	0.274	0.441	0.685	1.126
1996	Oak	130	423	104	132	21	0	52	113	116	112	0	0	0.312	0.467	0.730	1.197
1997	Oak	105	366	48	104	24	0	34	81	58	98	1	0	0.284	0.383	0.628	1.011

While McGwire had produced well, he played a limited number of games from ’93 to ’95 because of a reoccurrence of plantar facisitis. 1996 marked the best season for McGwire as he helped create a credible offense; unfortunately, the pitching was utter crap to the point that the A’s had 12 pitchers with at least one start. On top of that, McGwire was traded in July of 1997 after the A’s decided they would not re-sign the soon-to-be free agent. The problem was that the A’s front office decided that they could not trade McGwire earlier in the season for fear that it would alienate the already-hurting fan base. But by waiting so long to trade McGwire, the return would be small, as teams would not give up the farm for a free agent.

To start the 1998 season, the A’s add Ken Macha as bench coach and Dave Hudgens as hitting coach to round out a coaching staff that included Rick Peterson as pitching coach, Ron Washington as third base coach, and Brad Fisher as the bullpen coach. Although this would become the coaching core for the future, it could not stop the snowballing effect the A’s had with failure. In this time period, the A’s had some of the worst stretches in comparison to other teams' attendance figures. From 1993 to 1999, the A’s were no higher than 11th in the American League in total attendance. But from failure, there would be a resurgence the A’s and fans had not seen since 1987.

Empty Spaces: Part I

2005-09-23T01:27:00.000-07:00

"What shall we use to fill the empty...
Spaces where we used to talk..." - Pink Floyd

There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of attendance with the Minnesota Twins series as the focal-point. The complaint is basically: "How can attendance be so low when a team is in the thick of a playoff race?" But what people forget is that unless the A’s show something tangible to the casual fan, such as moving past the first round or having a superstar player, people will not go out to just see a winning team. They have seen that for the past 6 years and the A’s have nothing to show for it. Not to mention the amount of roster turnover that prevents casual fans from having a player to cling on to. But when the A’s do retain players, they aren't high-impact players like Bonds, A-Rod, or Guerrero. In a three-part series, I will examine the modern era of A's Baseball analyizing connections between their play, roster make-up, and attendance.

The '87-'93 A's

Many point to the fact that the A’s had high attendance figures in late 80’s/early 90’s as a reason that if you build a winner, the fans will come. But if you look closer, you will notice that the team was a collection of older players who the A's could not keep throughout the 90's without seeing a drop-off in talent. So while the A's were able to see a spike in attendance, the play of the team past 1992 was horrible and because of the long-term contracts of the players, they could only eat the contracts.

Year	Total Att.	Att. Standings	Wins	Loss	Percentage	AL West Standing	Avg. Batting Age	Avg. Pitching Age	Total Payroll	Median Salary
1987	1,678,921	11th out of 14	81	81	0.500	3rd of 7	27.7	28.1	N/A	N/A
1988	2,287,335	7th out of 14	104	58	0.642	AL 1	28.1	28.1	$11,380,183	$377,500
1989	2,667,225	2nd out of 14	99	63	0.611	WS 1	29.3	30.0	$14,602,999	$375,000
1990	2,900,217	2nd out of 14	103	59	0.636	AL 1	29.2	31.7	$19,987,501	$272,500
1991	2,713,493	3rd out of 14	84	78	0.519	4th of 7	29.9	30.9	$33,632,500	$900,000
1992	2,494,160	4th out of 14	96	66	0.593	DIV 1	30.3	32.0	$39,957,834	$680,000
1993	2,035,025	11th out of 14	68	94	0.420	7th of 7	28.2	30.9	$35,565,834	$575,000
1994	1,242,692	13th out of 14	51	63	0.447	2nd of 4	29.2	29.8	$33,169,500	$413,500
1995	1,174,310	12th out of 14	67	77	0.465	4th of 4	29.6	30.9	$35,961,500	$235,000

If you look at the major strength of the 1989 World Series team, you would see that pitching was the main core that the team kept together, even though their ages were on the wrong side of thirty. It also happened to be the biggest chunk of money of the total payrol;, about one-third of the payroll from 1991 to 1995.

Dave Stewart moved on to Toronto after the A’s lost to them in the ’92 ALCS. Although he could not pitch with the Jays to the level he had in Oakland, the A's brought him back in 1995 where he would have a 6.89 ERA in 81 innings as a thirty-eight-year-old.

Mike Moore could only duplicate his success one more time in 1991 with a 2.96 ERA in 210 innings. Moore left the A's at the age of 32 in 1992.

Bob Welch, the 1990 CY Young winner, suffered a season-ending elbow injury in August of 1992. He was retained until 1994 at the age of 37.

In an attempt to update the rotation on the fly, the A's traded for the 30 year old Ron Darling in 1991 and signed him to a 4-year, 9.7 million dollar contract in the offseason. 1992 was his only good year posting a 3.66 ERA in 206.3 innings. He left the A's after the 1995 season at the age of 34.

Even Dennis Eckersley could not avoid age as he fell off the table in 1993 at the age of 38, posting a 4.16 ERA in 67 innings; a far cry from the 1.91 ERA in 80 innings of the '92 season. He would leave the A's after the '95 season at the age of 40.

So without pitching, the A’s were guaranteed to fail in 1993, the first season where their roster was virtually changed from head-to-toe. So without a winning team, and no real connection of the fans to the plethora of stars the 1987-1992 teams had, the A’s needed a corner-stone player to step up and help to create a new era. In 1992, Barry Bonds, formerly of the Pirates, became a free agent and signed a six-year contract with the Giants that would pay him $43.75 million. Of course, if the A's weren't locked into their contracts that they payed solely out of wanting to keep a core together, they could have easily afforded Bonds.

But the A's had someone who could fill the job: Enter Mark McGwire.

In the next post, I will talk about the '93-'98 A's.

Posts coming soon

2005-09-23T01:26:00.000-07:00

Just a head's up: By tommorow, I should have two posts up: one regarding the attendance issue of 2005 and the past; another regarding the bullpen.

More fun with spray charts!

2005-09-19T08:19:00.000-07:00

While I was watching this Boston series, I noticed that Dan Johnson had been really struggling as of late. So let's delve into to some analysis:

	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	TB	BB	SO	SB	CS	AVG	OBP	SLG
vs Left-handed Pitcher	9	12	3	2	0	0	0	1	2	3	3	0	0	0.167	0.333	0.167
vs Right-handed Pitcher	17	49	3	7	0	0	2	5	13	4	8	0	0	0.143	0.208	0.265

Home	6	24	2	5	0	0	0	1	5	1	7	0	0	0.208	0.240	0.208
Away	11	37	4	4	0	0	2	5	10	6	4	0	0	0.108	0.233	0.270

Day	5	19	1	3	0	0	0	0	3	1	4	0	0	0.158	0.200	0.158
Night	12	42	5	6	0	0	2	6	12	6	7	0	0	0.143	0.250	0.286

Sept. Total	17	61	6	9	0	0	2	6	15	7	11	0	0	0.148	0.235	0.246

Besides the slide he is having this season, two important points: he has 5 GIDP's for September and July 21st was his last off-day. His amount of GIDP'S is one less than Kendall's, who happens to lead the league. And that he has played in so many games in a row is indicative of the trait amongst the A's 3-6 hitters.

With that in mind, is there a possible mechanical problem with Johnson? Let's look at his spray chart for this month:

(Note: Hits are solid circles, Outs are X's)

As you can see, alot of his hits have gone to left field. Of the nine hits he has this month, 7 have been pulled to right field. In fact, the last time he went opposite field for a hit was on the 7 of September.

Johnson is pulling on the ball and this is because of a change in the way opponents pitch to him. Durring an A's telecast, Johnson mentioned as much and that he has changed his approach as they are throwing far more inside to him and with more offspeed pitches. What has happened though is that he is gearing up for the offspeed pitches so much that he is barely catching up to the fastball causing him to lose his ability to place good contact on the ball.

Hopefully, someone drills in to his psyche that he needs to think opposite field and try to hit the pitches where they are thrown. Another issue is that Johnson has been taking more pitches for strikes even though they are pitches he could hit:

"It's very frustrating," Johnson said. "In hindsight, I would have bunted. I took two pitches that I probably should have swung at. Then he snuck a fastball in there. I just rolled it over for him."

Frankly, Johnson needs to be one cool cat; perhaps he could channel Don Johnson's tv character, undercover cop Sonny Crockett...

The Company Man

2005-09-17T23:06:00.000-07:00

Here's Adam Melhuse, a 33-year old backup catcher who has played that role his entire career. The A's signed Melhuse to a one-year contract after he became a six-year free agent. When the A's let Damian Miller go last year, Melhuse was thinking "hey, this is my shot for a full-time gig." However, Beane said not so fast and acquired Jason Kendall. Once he received word, Melhuse asked to be traded but was denied by Beane.

Melhuse appeared in 69 games last year, and his agent hoped for a situation where Melhuse could compete for the everyday job or share it.

The agent will ask the A's if he can shop his client to a team that would give Melhuse more playing time.
...

"Adam was the backup the last two years and did a great job," Beane said. "We're very happy with him in that role."

Seeing as how the A's have yet to add Melhuse into the lineup, I am surprised that Melhuse didn't look at what Jay Payton did, fighting with Boston manager Terry Francona, as an answer. So why didn't Melhuse go off in August about not playing enough and forcing the A's to move him because of disruptive failure? Well it could have something to do with that he played in 7 full games, the highest amount in any month prior to that. But it is because Melhuse has been a real company man and has come to ease with being a seldom-used backup.

So where do you play Melhuse? How about for the slumping DH? I know, I know, I should ease up on Hatteberg. Ok, no problem; I acknowledge that Hatteberg has been run down. He has played in 23 straight games and for a player of his age, that is just asking for disaster. Not only that, but Johnson hasn't had a day off since July 21st, and Chavez hasn't had a day off since August 23rd. So if the A's don't want to disrupt Mr. Kendall, why hasn't Melhuse played a few games at DH, and for a game move Hatteberg to 1st and possible move Melhuse to third for a game? Melhuse came up as a third baseman and while playing him there, you can get his bat into the lineup unlike playing a lesser bat like Ginter. Melhuse is a switch hitter after all and he hasn't had enough AB's to really say that he does not perform well from that side. In fact, he has a mirror-image stance while he bats right handed.

So what could be the reason as to why the A's are so reluctant to play Melhuse? Well, after looking at his arbitration status, Melhuse is arbitration eligible after this season. By not playing Melhuse, they are able to save money when it comes to agreeing to a contract for 2006. There is no other explanation for not playing him when you have Kendall catching more games than necessary and thereby risk him becoming a dead contract.But you are probably saying to yourself: "self, that just sounds like a big ol' conspiracy." Well, chew on this: When Melhuse was going off with the bat in July and August, Macha was talking about getting a third catcher, but Beane said no:

The situation, however, might change down the stretch. General manager Billy Beane has said there are no plans to add a third catcher, which would free up Macha to put Melhuse and Kendall in the lineup on the same day without worry. But Macha admitted that he's given some thought to playing them at the same time, anyway.

Even though Macha still thought about using him at the same time, the decision was made for him by the front office.

In Ellen Goodman's short-story, "The Company Man", a tale is woven about the death of a "company man..."

"At the funeral, the sixty-year-old company president told the forty-eight-year-old widow that the fifty-one-year-old deceased had meant much to the company and wouild be missed and would be har to replace.

...

By 5:00 P.M. the afternoon of the funeral, the company president had begun, discreetly of course, with care and taste, to make inquiries about his replacement."

Melhuse has had one year of his life, wasted because he is a "company man." Hopefully for the A's and Melhuse, he goes the route of Greg Zaun and finds a resurgence in his career by becoming a full-time catcher.

Force Play

2005-09-17T14:14:00.000-07:00

"But it's too late baby, now it's too late...
Though we really did try to make it"- Carole King

Last night's game exposed the A's weakness; if the Duke has to relieve a starter in the 7th inning, you are likely to not win an extra innings game. When the bottom of the 10th inning rolled around, with the game tied, it made a lot of sense to go with guys who could go multiple innings.

Allowing Juan Cruz to start the inning against a righty was a huge advantage for him but he was unable to put Tony Graffinino away. At that point, with Johnny Damon up, I would have gone with lefty Ron Flores who could get you a ground ball with his little breaking piece.

But once Macha left Cruz in to face Damon, I knew then that the options were limited. Thankfully, Damon didn't decide the game although putting Graffinino on third sucked. So now, you have Edgar Renteria, and at that point, you have to bring in someone else; Cruz has already been tagged twice. Even though Renteria is in a huge slump, so has Cruz, and I would trust Renteria to break out of a slump than for Cruz to.

At that point, that very point, is when Macha lost the game. You have to get someone like Keiichi Yabu in there to get you the groundball. Unlike Cruz, Yabu has sinking pitches like his awesome splitter. But Macha left Cruz in and Renteria was hit by a pitch. That AB was very crucial and was WORSE than Yabu hiting Manny Ramirez. Pressure wise, the situation was far less for Cruz and yet he still hit Renteria.

Now you know that Cruz is a major headcase and any crap about him wanting to stay in but "he doesn't make the decisions," is completely false. Cruz forced Macha to make the decision for him by hitting Renteria.

Many have brought out Macha's recent quote on playing about the win; at that point in the game, he's worrying about avoiding the loss. The way the A's bats have been swinging, putting Street in that inning would not have guaranteed him a win. He would have to go at least, at least two innings if the A's scored and that's very optimistic with Kendall, Kotsay, and Chavez,(Kotsay and Chavez: 1-8 combined), due up in the next inning. And if the A's didn't score, you would have to use Cruz, Yabu, Flores, Witasick or Garcia to close out the game in Fenway.

Yabu was the right decision, but it came two batter late.

"The bravery of being out of range" - Roger Waters

2005-09-16T00:02:00.000-07:00

Many have said that Jason Kendall has gotten back the stroke that made him an All-Star catcher; Macha had preached this to whomever would listen. But after watching this month's games, I realized that, in my opinion, he really isn't setting the world on fire. Sure he has had a nice September numbers wise, but how about actual performance?

First off here are his numbers for September and in contrast to his previous stats:

By Month/Games	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	HBP	SO	SB	CS	GIDP	PIL*	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
April	89	10	23	3	0	0	11	9	1	12	0	0	-	-	0.258	0.333	0.292	0.625
May	94	10	22	6	0	0	6	8	3	5	2	0	-	-	0.234	0.314	0.298	0.612
June	90	15	27	3	0	0	3	12	2	5	3	2	-	-	0.300	0.394	0.333	0.728
July	103	12	32	5	1	0	12	8	4	4	1	0	-	-	0.311	0.373	0.379	0.752
August	114	11	23	3	0	0	7	6	5	9	1	1	-	-	0.202	0.268	0.228	0.496
Totals	490	58	127	20	1	0	39	43	15	35	7	3	19	1	0.259	0.338	0.304	0.642

DATE	OPP	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	HBP	SO	SB	CS	GIDP	PIL*
Sep. 1	@LAA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9
Sep. 2	NYY	2	1	1	1	0	0	2	1	1	0	1	0	0	1
Sep. 3	NYY	4	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Sep. 4	NYY	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Sep. 5	SEA	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2
Sep. 6	SEA	Did not play
Sep. 7	SEA	5	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2
Sep. 9	@TEX	4	3	3	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	2
Sep. 10	@TEX	4	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	2
Sep. 11	@TEX	4	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2
Sep. 12	@CLE	4	0	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
Sep. 13	@CLE	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
Sep. 14	@CLE	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	2
Sep. 15	BOS	5	1	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2

	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	HBP	SO	SB	CS	GIDP	PIL	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
Sept. Totals	48	7	15	3	0	0	3	3	2	2	1	0	5	2	0.313	0.377	0.375	0.752
*PIL = Position in Lineup

If you notice, he has been pretty consistent, unlike Hatteberg who has had three great games in the past two months and about 30 horrible ones. The problem I had had with Hatteberg was that the press was praising him for his numbers, without really looking at how those numbers were composed.

Likewise, I had felt that Kendall was sucking just as bad as Hatteberg, but that Kendall was lucky enough for the batted balls to be just out of the range of fielders. So what I decided to do was gather up a spray chart of the month of September, excluding tonight's game. My thought here was to see where his outs were made and where the hits landed. Here is what I was able to come up with:

Note: Outs are X's Hits are solid O's

The problem with the hits chart is that they are recorded not from where the ball has landed but from where the fielder has picked up the ball. For instance, if a hit was to bleed through shortstop and third-base, that hit would be recognized at the point the left fielder picked up the ball. Only if the ball is a double does it show the point of impact. This is true for all available spray charts.

So what I propose is to look where the hits are indicated in comparison to where his outs are made, with the theory being that in order for the ball to get to the indicated spots from home plate, they must travel on a straight line through the infielders. From observations of these month's games, it is fairly reasonable to assume this is the case as most of his hits have not been of the fly variety.

Looking at the general clusters, it can be seen that a lot of his hits go through areas where infielders would normally play for the double-play; as such, you will notice that in Kendall's game log above, I have included a double-play chart.

My hypothesis is that Kendall has indeed received a vast majority of his September hits when men are not on base. Here is a hit log(Word fmt.) for all 15 hits including situations. Looking at the log, ten of his hits have come when a runner was not on first, when the defense is not playing for a double play. While sample size is small, Kendall has yet to show that he is really hitting the ball with authority.

So I feel that the A's should really consider moving him down in the order perhaps ninth AND if there is a runner on first, either hit and run or have the batter steal second, thus eliminating a high probability of Kendall grounding into a double play. It's a move that just may produce more of Kendall's infamous bloop shots.

The Rundown

2005-09-13T01:30:00.000-07:00

So Hatteberg seems to be swinging a hot bat, huh? Last night's 3-walk performance was not too shabby and he had the best AB of the season resulting in one of those walks.

But with all that he did at the plate, there is one lasting image from the game:

I guess even veterans can be dumbasses.

Running on empty

2005-09-04T23:20:00.000-07:00

"Running on - running on empty;
Running on - running blind;
Running on - running into the sun;
But I'm running behind."
- Jackson Browne

Zito was pounded all because of a stupid missed start streak. Apparently, he injured a left rib against the White Sox earlier in the season and last night it "popped." The problem here is that Zito is relying heavily on his new-age medicines to the point where pain is being hidden from the trainers. Last year, he was on a diet which was the cause for Zito not eating breakfast against the Orioles. After the game, Zito mentioned that he felt "airy," and that he only ate a baggle. It was later revealed that he was on a special diet which consisted of protein shakes.

On May 12th, Kielty injured his left rib cage when he hit the stand railing in left field trying to catch Varitek's homer. Last night, he swung akwardly on an inside pitch from Mariano Rivera and re-aggravated the injury. The astonishing thing was tha Kielty was in obvious pain after the swing, yet head trainer Larry Davis was nowhere to be found. It's is very unprofessional for Davis to not check out this guy who had already missed time with a related injury. With Crosby hitting BP twice before a single x-ray was taken shows indiscretions on Davis' part which may mean he's not back next year.

Another problem the A's face is Jason Kendall's continous slump this season. The A's are banking that he would improve in September as that is historically his month. However, that is yet to come and it's possible that it never will. Here are some of Kendall's numbers over the last few months and games:

Month/Games	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	SB	CS	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
August	114	11	23	3	0	0	7	6	9	1	1	0.202	0.268	0.228	0.496
September	10	1	2	1	0	0	2	2	0	1	0	0.200	0.385	0.300	0.685
10 Games	40	3	7	1	0	0	3	2	2	1	0	0.175	0.225	0.200	0.425
Last 30 Games	124	12	25	4	0	0	9	8	9	2	1	0.202	0.250	0.234	0.484

Seeing as how the A's did callup Castillo to be a backup catcher, the A's need to suck it up and tell Kendall that they are going to go with Melhuse in more games. If that is too much to ask, then they should at least move Kendall as far away from the leadoff spot as possible. While on the subject of callups, should the A's be uncomfortable in moving the infield around in order to get Scutaro off days, then they should call-up Mike Rouse to be Scutaro's backup. Though, with a homer yesterday and a double today, Scutaro may be out of his slump.

Diggin' for hits

2005-09-02T02:16:00.000-07:00

After watching his pitiful performance tonight, I wonder if Hatteberg has Beane hostage. How else could he continue to play? How can Melhuse still be relegated to a pinch-hit, back-up role EVEN after the A's used the "nuclear option" and called up Castillo?

First, let's look at Hatty's last 10 games, including tonight.

DATE	OPP	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	SB	CS	GB
Aug. 16	BAL	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Aug. 19	KC	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Aug. 20	KC	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Aug. 21	KC	Did not play
Aug. 23	@DET	Did not play
Aug. 24	@DET	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
Aug. 25	@DET	3	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Aug. 26	@BAL	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3
Aug. 27	@BAL	Did not play
Aug. 28	@BAL	3	2	3	0	0	1	2	2	0	0	0	0
Aug. 29	@BAL	5	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	3
Aug. 30	@LAA	3	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Aug. 31	@LAA	4	0	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	2
Sept. 1	@LAA	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3

DATE		AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	SB	CS	GB	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
Totals		31	5	9	0	0	1	3	4	4	0	0	14	0.290	0.419	0.419	0.839

w/o Aug. 28		32	3	6	0	0	0	1	2	4	0	0	15	0.188	0.250	0.188	0.438

The first total is the last 10 games Hatteberg has played in. Not great but not far from dismal. The second total is the last 10 games excluding the Baltimore game where everyone was walking as Orioles pitchers issued 11 walks. Not exactly a situation that occurred throughout the last ten games.

You can see that without that Baltimore game, Hatteberg has really stunk up the joint. Not only that, but he has grounded out at an extremely high rate. The guy just seems to be rolling over pitch after pitch as he continues to use his crouching batting stance.

With that in mind, let's look at the catching situation. Macha the Svengali says that Kendall will not receive any more days off. The main idea behind this is the talk Macha had with Pirates bench coach about how September is Kendall's month.

What means that for Melhuse is he can only replace Hatty on an everyday basis. Castillo will be an emergency catcher in case he wants Melhuse to get into games, not start them.

In that same article, Macha indicates that if Kielty continues to struggle, he will lose playing time to Matt Watson. If Macha feels that Kielty is performing less then desired, how could he NOT think that Hatteberg is performing less then desired?

The A's really need to make the decision of getting Hatty out of the daily lineup. No, Hatty isn't their sole problem right now; Yes, Bobby Crosby and Mark Kotsay would be upgrades over Scutaro and Kielty, but if the A's fail it is not because of them, it is because they insist to use that as an excuse. Every little bit helps and by continuing to play Hatteberg, they can only fall back on the injuries as the reasons why they failed.

"We're missing two of our top guys, but that's what happens over the course of a season," Macha said.
...

"This time, we didn't have a couple guys. We need to get these guys back on the field. To me, that's of vital importance."

Why should Crosby and Kotsay be anchors to the problems when you have a sub 700 OPS DH? Is that really fair to Crosby or Kotsay? Should the club struggle with them gone, do they need the added pressure of carrying the team all the while Hatty continues to ground-out?

We all understand that Scutaro and Kielty would not be playing everyday unless they were replacing injured players. But who exactly is Hatteberg replacing? Quite simply, a former shell of himself.

"Robbing Peter to pay Paul"

2005-09-01T00:51:00.000-07:00

Susan Slusser is saying that the A's will call up outfielder Matt Watson, right-hander Juan Cruz, and recently-signed Alberto Castillo, a defensive-minded catcher.

The problem here is that Castillo's call-up came a week too late. The whole idea is to get Melhuse's bat into the lineup. But to see if Melhuse would actually be a solution cuts into the A's ability to make that determination.

Then there is the matter of Castillo not being on the 40 man roster. Let's look at the position players remaining on the 40 man but not with the club:

John Baker
Jeremy Brown
Mike Rouse
Jason Perry

Of these players, one would have to designated for assignment(DFA) in order to make room for Castillo.

Jeremy Brown repeated Double A for the third time in 2005, and while he is crushing the ball with 20 hr's and still has a great OBP, this type of production is expected when you are competing against younger players. However, the A's still consider Brown as a serviceable major leaguer. Earlier in the season, Kevin Goldstein of Baseball America said:

The A's are convinced he'll have value in the majors as a backup, because of his on-base skills.

After Baker posted great numbers for Midland in 2004, he had started the 2005 season with a poor slump with the Rivercats until he slow started to regain some power. Seeing as how he will be 25 next year, his time is running out. With that in mind, the A's may feel that he is not in their long-term plans and so DFA'ing him would be acceptable.

Last year, Jason Perry started the year with the Rockhounds but after having a slump, he went back down to Midland where he posted a 1.117 OPS in 325 AB's. However, he repeated Double A this year and saw a 300 point drop off in his OPS, mainly because of an increase in strikeouts coupled with a decrease in average. Age, again, plays a factor but the A's do not have the OF depth to lose a low-risk high-reward prospect.

Mike Rouse is an interesting prospect but the problem is that the A's are trying to find out what to do with Bynum. It seems as if they are trying to see whether Bynum can become a super-sub as he can play 3 infield and all 3 outfield positions and is pretty fast. But that can only take you so far when it comes to actual production which Rouse has a significant edge.

The twist to all of this is that Erubiel Durazo is not on the 60-day DL, so he is still taking a 40 man spot. While the A's could use that as a way to get Castillo on the DL, it would be an ill-advised move. Should the A's want to get another bat on the team who could help in a possible postseason series, they would be able to use Durazo's spot as 60-day DL players allow for "retro" moves. Case in point, the A's moved Ellis to the 60-day DL last year in order to get Swisher on the roster and to be able to have him for the postseason.

They need to keep that option open until it becomes certain that a callup of someone like Barton. To waste it on Castillo is a very bad move, IMO. With Crosby out for a good part of September, Payton starting to struggle over the past two games, and with Hatteberg continuing to roll over pitches, the A's need to make a strike and get the AL West crown.

But what is the best decision? Well each player had their downsides to being saved but to break the choice down further, let's look at the major league club.

Melhuse is still under the A's control at least into next year so the A's can bank on him being a backup to Kendall. Kendall hs a strangle-hold on the position and payroll of the team until '07 when the A's get 7 million from the Pirates. But it looks as if Kendall's ability is starting to degrade so the A's may be forced to eat the value of his contract and make him a backup.

Of the catchers who would have the best chance of being serviceable, Brown could at least post decent OBP numbers in the Majors and provide more power then Kendall has this year. Thus, I would DFA Baker as age and a dismal year has to knock down any value he had after 2004.

These decisions are based on the idea that Barton WOULD be called up, thus needing Durazo as a loophole. If the A's are not committed to that idea, then that not only speaks to their idea of this team, but that Melhuse would be the regular DH as that is a very precious card to have.

I do think they need Barton up with the club; there is no more "they weren't supposed to win." They are in a position to win and they hold the keys to winning.

Something's rotting...

2005-08-29T01:46:00.000-07:00

In light of the second demotion of Keith Ginter and the first promotion of Freddie Bynum, I have decided to do some gamelog and stat scouring to explain my opinion on these events.

For the former, I think the A's dropped the ball, and for the latter, it's a pretty good move.

Keith Ginter was called up when Chavez had complaints of shoulder pain. He had been demoted about two weeks earlier when it seemed as if he could use the time in the minors to get his swing back.

But what other information is there to explain the decision? Well last year, Scutaro played 3rd along with Mark McLemore when Chavez was on the DL with his broken wrist. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that Ginter's experience at third was the deciding factor. However, let's compare their performance this year...

Ginter played how many games at third before being demoted? Just 1:
May 15th New York @ Oakland

A-Rod grounded out to third

Giambi popped out to third

Sheffield grounded out to third

T Martinez fouled out to third

Scutaro played how many games at third before Ginter was demoted? Just 1:
May 5th Texas @ Oakland

No Chances in 1 inning

Since Ginter was recalled Ginter has had 3 errors in 20 chances since being recalled. Scutaro had no errors at third while playing in 5 games with 21 chances. With the limited amount of time for each, the A's based their decision on Ginter playing a great deal of third base in 2004 with the Brewers. But what about other options in the minor leagues?

On May 21st, the A's recalled Jermaine Clark for the second time. On the 28th, they designated him for assignment, for the second time, to make room for Britt Reames. On May 30th, they optioned Ginter to Sacramento. So when he was recalled on the 15th of June, only Ginter, Rouse, and Bynum were on 40 man roster. The decision was based on calling up a guy someone on the 40 man roster as opposed to dfa'ing another guy to get someone who wasn't on the 40 man like Clark or Bobby Smith or Andrew Beattie.

But we cannot rush to judgement as Clark was on the DL with a broken wrist; said as much on the Rivercats telelcast that weekend. But what about Smith or Beattie?

What happened here was that the A's did not have the foresight to let Clark stay on the roster; from the time they demoted Clark to when they demoted Ginter, Ginter had played in 1 out of 5 games. Why would it have been so hard to keep Clark and designated Harikkala for Reames? Harikkala was designated for assignment 4 days AFTER Ginter was called up; he made room for Ron Flores on the 40 man roster. But the decision to DFA Clark and not Harikkala was baseless as Macha was not going to use him as a righty specialist which was his strength. And from the point of the Reames decision to Harikkala's demotion, Harikkala pitched 5.2 innings consisting of 3, 1 inning appearances, so dependancy is not an issue here.

When the A's called up Reames, they must have wanted him as a long man because it just so happened that on his callup, he was needed to pitch in relief for Blanton who went 1/3rd of an inning against the Devil Rays. That can be the only reason why Harikkala and Reames did not switch places; the A's were going to need another arm in the pen. Ok, fine, you need a mediocre arm in the pen.

However, as Clark was dfa'd for the second time, they had to have realized that Bynum or Rouse were the next options to be called up in case there was a need with the big club. Why those two? Because the A's could have allowed Ginter to stay in triple A to get more swings then two weeks worth. The A's blew the chance to let Ginter build up value; But they are letting Cruz and Thomas build up value. Which says alot because Cruz and Thomas were recieved for Tim Hudson. In order for them to save face with the press over trading one of the Big Three, they need to make sure their trade investments improve, hence the reason why Kennedy was choosen over Cruz on last Saturday's start.

So let's look at a 13 minor league game stretch for Ginter and Thomas:

Ginter	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	AVG
5/31/2005	4	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	2	0.250
6/1/2005	4	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0.250
6/2/2005	5	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.231
6/3/2005	4	0	2	2	0	0	3	0	0	0.294
6/4/2005	4	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.238
6/5/2005	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0.192
6/7/2005	3	1	2	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.241
6/7/2005	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0.219
6/9/2005	5	1	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	0.278
6/10/2005	3	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	2	0.282
6/11/2005	6	1	2	0	0	1	3	0	2	0.289
6/12/2005	4	2	4	3	0	0	2	0	0	0.347
6/13/2005	4	2	2	0	0	2	3	0	0	0.358

Thomas	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	AVG
6/11/2005	6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0.000
6/12/2005	4	2	2	1	0	0	0	0	1	0.200
6/13/2005	4	1	2	0	1	0	0	0	1	0.286
6/14/2005	5	2	3	1	0	0	2	0	0	0.368
6/15/2005	4	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0.348
6/16/2005	3	1	3	1	0	1	2	1	0	0.423
6/17/2005	4	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0.400
6/18/2005	5	2	3	1	0	0	0	0	1	0.429
6/19/2005	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	1	0.405
6/20/2005	4	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	3	0.390
6/21/2005	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0.364
6/22/2005	2	2	2	0	0	0	1	3	0	0.391
6/23/2005	5	0	2	0	0	0	1	0	1	0.392

Thomas did not deserve a promotion just like Ginter didn't either. They both just started to heat up, but eventually Thomas regressed.

They A's messed up big time and are very likely to have a negative net value when they trade Ginter in the offseason. If Clark or Smith have no future with the team, why not let them rot on the bench? And Clark would have been abled to play all three middle infield and all 3 outfield positions, unlike Ginter. Instead, they lost trade value by forcing Ginter to stay on the bench, all the while rotting away.

Rattling the Lumber

2005-08-26T14:05:00.000-07:00

So the A's have gone off on a "Bunyan-esque" rampage since the return of Eric Chavez; that doesn't mean that they won't struggle against the soft-tossing Chen tonight, but it gives hope that Crosby is out of his slump.

When Crosby came back from his April rib injury, he was inserted into the third spot, allowing Chavez to get more comfortable in RBI situations. But after a torrid June, Crosby started to decline and until last week, he had not homered in 100+ ab's.

Well yesterday, Bobby homered again and although he may be on the rise, the fact is his "swing harder, every time" approach is very troublesome. I hope that he has learned from what caused him to wear down over the season last year was not so much the amount of playing time, but the effort he put into every swing.

We need him to go for the gaps, not the fences. Tonight, it would be nice to see Bobby oblige.

Out of reach

2005-08-21T23:15:00.000-07:00

So the A's lost 2 of 3 to the Royals. No, the Royals did not win in any true sense of the phrase, the A's just plain sucked ass. The Royals, who HAD a 19 game losing streak before the A's played the role of "slump-buster," were able to shut down the A's juggernaut of an offense. How the A's lost a game with Scott "Big Words, Soft Stick" Hatteberg, I will never know.

But let's rewind to the beginning of the week with the Orioles series. They were unable to win ONE game against the Orioles even though two of those losts were practically handed to the A's as wins. But of course, the A's had to be the team that broke the Royals losing streak; look on the bright side, do you even know who the '88 Orioles broke their losing streak against? Didn't think so.

Kotsay's lost ball was a parallel to how the last week has been in regards to the A's playoff chances. So long as Hatteberg is not on the DL to get "rest" and Melhuse is not the full time DH, meaning he hits as a lefty AND a righty, then the A's have no shot at finishing August on a positive note. I may be mistaken, but isn't the fucking disabled list used for players who need the proverbial "rest?" Why is it that Hatteberg is unable to go on the disabled list?

Oh and what the fuck is Ginter doing on the bench? When was the last time he even started a damn game? Yeah, that's right, I don't remember either. How about calling up a third catcher so there is actually a replacement for Kendall in case we don't need one of his patented weak bloop shots?

You may have noticed, this post was full of question marks and not a whole lot of periods. Sort of like this damn A's team. For a final thought, let's turn to everyone's favorite svengali, skipper Ken Macha:

"My main concern is that we gave up a three-run lead," said Oakland manager Ken Macha after his team's seventh loss in nine games. "Our bullpen has to not do that.

"We need to throw better out of the bullpen to close out that game, we absolutely do."

The Scorched-Earth Policy

2005-08-18T13:16:00.000-07:00

The definition of scortched earth via Wikipedia:

"a military tatic which involves destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy whilst advancing through or withdrawing from an area."

Almost every player is put on waivers where teams can claim a player in an order based on the current standings. If a player clears waivers, he can be traded to anyone. The process is abit complicated, so here is a detailed explanation of how the "waiver wire" works. More on this in a bit...

With the A's having lost 5 of 6 games, the leader of this club, Eric Chavez and Bobby Kielty have spoken out to the media about neededing more help:

Eric Chavez - "To me, it's pretty apparent that another hitter would really help, especially this late in the year," he said. "I think the guys in here have hit a little funk, but remember, I didn't wait to say this now -- I was saying this a month ago. Just a big presence, that's what we could use."

Bobby Kielty - "These are the dog days right now," said Bobby Kielty. "Some of us aren't feeling too well with the way we're swinging the bat right now."

As the team is starting to struggle offensively, the A's are at a crossroads in the sense that if management gets another hitter, the players know that there is support from the front office with their play. By getting the best player from the pool of those who have cleared waivers, the A's are able to: move past other teams, rejuvenate the existing players, move Hatteberg into a part time role, and for postseason/franchise success.

So who's cleared? Well, the information is sketchy at best but two players who are known to have cleared are:

Mike Piazza. The Catcher with the DH Bat.

Dmitri Young. Above average DH bat who can play LF and 1st adequately.

I have gathered their stats along with a control, Phil Nevin, to compare and contrast the two possible acquisitions.

Mike Piazza:

SEASON	TEAM	G	AB	2B	HR	BB	SO	OBP	SLG	#P/PA	GIDP	GB	FB	G/F	XBH	BB/PA	BB/SO	IsoP
1992	LA	21	69	3	1	4	12	0.284	0.319	3.50	1	29	12	2.42	4	0.054	0.33	0.087
1993	LA	149	547	24	35	46	86	0.370	0.561	3.73	10	211	157	1.34	61	0.076	0.54	0.243
1994	LA	107	405	18	24	33	65	0.370	0.541	3.54	11	151	129	1.17	42	0.075	0.51	0.222
1995	LA	112	434	17	32	39	80	0.400	0.606	3.44	10	150	119	1.26	49	0.082	0.49	0.260
1996	LA	148	547	16	36	81	93	0.422	0.563	3.54	21	226	117	1.93	52	0.128	0.87	0.227
1997	LA	152	556	32	40	69	77	0.431	0.638	3.49	18	218	151	1.44	73	0.109	0.90	0.277
1998	LA	37	149	5	9	11	27	0.329	0.497	3.33	3	62	37	1.68	14	0.068	0.41	0.215
1998	NYM	109	394	33	23	47	53	0.417	0.607	3.64	12	160	103	1.55	56	0.105	0.89	0.259
1998	Fla	5	18	0	0	0	0	0.263	0.389	2.79	0	7	10	0.70	1	0.000	0.00	0.111
1999	NYM	141	534	25	40	51	70	0.361	0.575	3.58	27	194	182	1.07	65	0.086	0.73	0.272
2000	NYM	136	482	26	38	58	69	0.398	0.614	3.47	15	161	163	0.99	64	0.106	0.84	0.290
2001	NYM	141	503	29	36	67	87	0.384	0.573	3.71	20	171	162	1.06	65	0.117	0.77	0.272
2002	NYM	135	478	23	33	57	82	0.359	0.544	3.81	26	161	156	1.03	58	0.105	0.70	0.264
2003	NYM	68	234	13	11	35	40	0.377	0.483	3.52	11	88	83	1.06	24	0.128	0.88	0.197
2004	NYM	129	455	21	20	68	78	0.362	0.444	3.67	14	162	137	1.18	41	0.129	0.87	0.178
2005	NYM	97	351	23	14	34	60	0.326	0.444	3.52	6	133	103	1.29	37	0.088	0.57	0.185

Dmitri Young:

SEASON	TEAM	G	AB	2B	HR	BB	SO	OBP	SLG	#P/PA	GIDP	GB	FB	G/F	XBH	BB/PA	BB/SO	IsoP
1996	StL	16	29	0	0	4	5	0.35	0.24	3.50	1	8	10	0.80	--	0.118	0.80	0.000
1997	StL	110	333	14	5	38	63	0.34	0.36	3.69	8	148	74	2.00	22	0.101	0.60	0.105
1998	Cin	144	536	48	14	47	94	0.36	0.48	3.52	16	210	139	1.51	63	0.080	0.50	0.172
1999	Cin	127	373	30	14	30	71	0.35	0.5	3.51	10	162	90	1.80	46	0.073	0.42	0.204
2000	Cin	152	548	37	18	36	80	0.35	0.49	3.28	16	240	130	1.85	61	0.061	0.45	0.188
2001	Cin	142	540	28	21	37	77	0.35	0.48	3.19	22	242	150	1.61	52	0.063	0.48	0.180
2002	Det	54	201	14	7	12	39	0.33	0.46	3.31	12	84	47	1.79	21	0.056	0.31	0.174
2003	Det	155	562	34	29	58	130	0.37	0.54	3.69	16	200	131	1.53	70	0.091	0.45	0.240
2004	Det	104	389	23	18	33	71	0.34	0.48	3.46	8	143	96	1.49	43	0.076	0.47	0.208
2005	Det	105	400	23	18	25	87	0.32	0.47	3.62	12	155	95	1.63	44	0.057	0.29	0.208

Phil Nevin:

SEASON	TEAM	G	AB	2B	HR	BB	SO	OBP	SLG	#P/PA	GIDP	GB	FB	G/F	XBH	BB/PA	BB/SO	IsoP
1995	Det	29	96	3	2	11	27	0.318	0.33	4.03	3	28	29	1	6	0.100	0.41	0.12
1995	Hou	18	60	1	0	7	13	0.221	0.13	3.38	2	22	22	1	1	0.103	0.54	0.02
1996	Det	38	120	5	8	8	39	0.338	0.53	4.15	1	36	23	1.6	13	0.062	0.21	0.24
1997	Det	93	251	16	9	25	68	0.306	0.41	4.01	5	78	69	1.1	26	0.090	0.37	0.18
1998	Ana	75	237	8	8	17	67	0.291	0.37	3.92	6	87	52	1.7	17	0.065	0.25	0.14
1999	SD	128	383	27	24	51	82	0.352	0.53	3.85	7	120	126	1	51	0.116	0.62	0.26
2000	SD	143	538	34	31	59	121	0.374	0.54	3.81	17	187	126	1.5	66	0.098	0.49	0.240
2001	SD	149	546	31	41	71	147	0.388	0.59	4.06	13	168	137	1.2	72	0.114	0.48	0.28
2002	SD	107	407	16	12	38	87	0.344	0.41	3.8	12	151	109	1.4	28	0.084	0.44	0.13
2003	SD	59	226	8	13	21	44	0.339	0.49	3.9	9	81	66	1.2	21	0.085	0.48	0.21
2004	SD	147	547	31	26	66	121	0.368	0.49	4.03	16	191	146	1.3	58	0.106	0.55	0.2
2005	Tex	16	64	4	2	3	15	0.265	0.38	4.26	5	16	24	0.7	6	0.044	0.20	0.16
2005	SD	73	281	11	9	19	67	0.301	0.4	3.88	2	96	81	1.2	21	0.062	0.28	0.14

So after looking at their cumulative stats, lets look at the dollars and sense of this:

	2005 Salary	2005 Remain	SLG	Delta SLG	dSLG:d$ ratio
Piazza	$16.071	$3.952	0.444	0.084	2.51
Young	$8.000	$1.967	0.473	0.113	8.28
Nevin	$9.492	$2.334	0.399	0.039	2.25
Hatteberg	$2.450	$0.602	0.360

In that last column, you have the percentage of the ratio between the diffence in SLG and Dollars with Hatteberg; clear and away, Young provides the biggest margin in which acquiring him would be the best upgrade. But the problem with Young is that he has vesting option for 2006...

DH/1B Dmitri Young, Tigers. His $8 million option for 2006 vests if he reaches 500 plate appearances this season or 1,000 combined in '04 and '05. He's closing in on both totals.

A's would have to be able to either get the Tigers to take on a little bit more of his contract, or they may be willing to bite the bullet as there is a bit of leeway in next year's budget.

Said Forst: "A lot of it is that we like the team we have. And guys who get through waivers oftentimes are guys with big-money contracts. ... But certainly, ownership has made it clear adding payroll for this year is something that they would consider."

In past conversations, Wolff has mentioned that the goal of building a new park is to have a larger season ticket fanbase which helps prepare the yearly budgets with up-front funds. Even though the A's are having some nice attendance figures, Wolff is unhappy with day of game sales as they are not forms of guaranteed money. So as he pushes his new ballpark plan, a postseason push would allow for more sales of 2006 season tickets.