The Pastime

I'm moving

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:35:00 +0000

Well, sort of. I'm moving from blogger to wordpress, so the site may be acting funny for a few hours to a couple days...

Should "Steroid Era" players get into Cooperstown?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 07:45:00 +0000

"You get to the Hall of Fame mainly through the voting of baseball writers. I just hope that the writers judge the players on what they did on the field."
--Donald Fehr

It's easy to dislike Donald Fehr. Many people still place the majority of the blame on him for the infamous 1994 strike. He's the head of the players' union, so of course he's biased. He's only seen when he's arguing on behalf of players, and when collective bargaining rears its ugly head, overshadowing what's happening on the field.

Nonetheless, after reading Fehr's comments about Mark McGwire and Hall of Fame voting, I couldn't stop thinking about what he said, and what it meant.

Why should people vote in, or more to the point, not vote in a player? Is it fair to consider aspects of that player outside of what they did on the field?

That's the question that every writer with a Hall of Fame vote (and many without) is asking themselves. I, of course, have no vote, but I do have an opinion and a theory about the matter.

But before I can just come out and pass my judgement on the matter, I think we need to examine the issue from the beginning. That is to say; just what is the Hall of Fame?

From Wikipedia, here's the short version of how the Hall was founded:

The Hall of Fame was dedicated on June 12, 1939 by Stephen Carlton Clark, grandson of Edward Clark, who was a founder of the Singer Sewing Machine Company. Stephen C. Clark was owner of a local hotel and sought to bring tourists to Cooperstown, which had been damaged by the Great Depression, which significantly reduced the local tourist trade, and by Prohibition, which had devastated the local hops industry. A legend that U.S. Civil War hero Abner Doubleday invented baseball in Cooperstown was instrumental in the early marketing of the Hall, though the truth of the Doubleday story is doubted by some. Major League Baseball, seeing the marketing opportunity, soon began cooperating with the Hall of Fame in promotion and the acquisition of artifacts for display.

So the Hall was created as a tourist trap. Sure, it's evolved into a semi-sacred shrine of Baseball lore since then, but it's important to know that it's changed over time, and people's ideas of what it meant to be enshrined have also changed.

The initial class was Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson. There is no doubt that they belong, and if we were to start over today, they would be included in a heartbeat.

Over the ensuing years, the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) selected many more players, and the Veterans Committee added a few, to bring the total roster of Hall of Fame players to 225. Among them have been notorious racists, alcohol abusers, cheaters, murderers, criminals and other people who were as awful off the field as they were great on it. But the spectre of steroid use falls into a grey area.

The use of steroids (or any performance enhancing drug, PED) is reprehensible both morally and professionally. It overlaps the line between personal vice and professional ethics. To be as clear as possible, I believe that the use of any PED is simply wrong. It contaminates the game and affects the historical record.

But when there is no proof of PED use, and no precedence of excluding players based on suspicion or evidence of "cheating", you have to fall back on the decades of precedence that are there.

The Hall of Fame selection criteria has little to do with "fame". It's the stats that get players enshrined. There are a few exceptions, but most of the "unworthy" players either were transcendent defenders in an era of poor defensive metrics, or were put in by a Veterans Committee that was at best shaky in its reliability, and at worst a glaring example of nepotism.

The single best method of deciding whether someone was worthy of being enshrined in a Hall of Fame must be by comparing them to their peers. If they were consistently in the top few percent of the league, certainly they must be worthy of induction, right? That's the premise that many voters have used over the years, and it's led to many worthy players joining the baseball pantheon of honor.

Achieving certain individual benchmarks can also lead to entry into Cooperstown, but it can also lead to dubious exclusion. Fred McGriff ended up a few home runs short of 500, and Bert Blyleven came up a couple wins shy of 300. If either had crossed those arbitrary lines, they would be almost assured of being in.

This all bring us to the debated players from the "Steroid Era", roughly 1987 to 2003, as I would consider it to be.

For your consideration, here's a list of the top 10 players who hit at least 400 home runs over that period, ranked in terms of OPS+ (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage compared as a ratio to the league average; 100 is average, 100+ is above average).

Name                OPS+  PLAYER OPS  LEAGUE OPS   HR   
1  Barry Bonds      140      1.049      .750      642 
2  Mark McGwire     131       .985      .751      580 
3  Frank Thomas     131       .996      .762      418 
4  Jeff Bagwell     126       .959      .761      419 
5  Ken Griffey Jr.  124       .940      .758      481 
6  Juan Gonzalez    119       .907      .762      429 
7  Rafael Palmeiro  119       .896      .753      525 
8  Fred McGriff     118       .889      .751      491 
9  Sammy Sosa       118       .895      .761      539 
10 Jose Canseco     116       .877      .753      424

That, ignoring the objections about PEDs, certainly looks like a list of three or four Hall of Fame locks, a few borderline members, and an also-ran or two.

Which brings me to my conclusion as to whether they should get in or not, now that I can consider the steroid rumors.

Here's an important thing to consider, though. Steroid rumors now apply to not only to the top hitters in the league, but everyone, from Wally Joyner to Ken Caminiti to Barry Bonds. We can consider this entire era to be statistically tainted.

Just as we consider the Dead Ball Era to be, just as we consider the Pre-Integration Era to be, just as we consider the late 60's pitching era to be. All were affected in one way or another.

It's simply a relative effect on the overall stats that has to be corrected and adjusted for.

As much as I, and most everyone else, is against PEDs and celebrating those who abuse them, we have to reach a logical conclusion. The top few players from this era should be in the Hall.

It would be hypocritical and unfair to hand down judgements on this generation of players based on criteria that was categorically ignored in the past. Only betting on baseball would get you eliminated from consideration in the past seventy years of the Hall. It's too late to start figuring in other factors now, especially when it's impossible to determine conclusively just who was effected by those factors.

It won't sully the Hall's reputation to induct these men. The induction of dozens of less-than-savory folk in the past hasn't. We all will know just what the Steroid Era inductees were suspected of, and can intelligently interpret their legacy knowing so. Ty Cobb stabbed a black man, choked a woman, and beat up a handicapped fan. If his Hall membership doesn't smudge Cooperstown, then certainly Mark McGwire's will not.

So I say this: induct those that were statistically worthy. But don't forget the conditions under which everyone played during those years. After all, the Hall is all about remembering and preserving baseball's rich past. It's not our responsibility or right to change the criteria set down by our forefathers of baseball.

A Modest (trade) Proposal

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:40:00 +0000

I don't usually engage in rumor-mongering like so many others tend to do when the snows of winter suspend the actual playing of baseball and encourage chatter about rosters and trades.

I'll make an exception this time, though, for no better reason than that I'm bored, and I think I've found a reasonable target for the A's, and one that's actually being mentioned in legitimate trade talks.

With Jay Payton signing with the Orioles for a surprisingly reasonable contract in this off-season of inflation, the A's have a hole to fill. Payton played good defense, was flexible in where he could play, and hit decently well as far as average goes. Payton didn't walk often, or take many pitches, but he could double in a runner with surprising regularity. When Mark Kotsay had to take a rest after back spasms hit him, Payton stepped into the centerfielder's shoes and played excellent defense.

So how to replace the versatile and useful Payton? Fill the void with Ryan Church, I propose.

Ryan Church is a soon-to-be 28 year old LF/CF from the Nationals. He spent four years in the Cleveland minor league system before being traded to the Expos after the 2003 season. He made his major league debut at the end of the final season for the Expos, 2004, and hit under .200 in 63 at-bats.

In 2005, Church started the season at AA, but after 18 at-bats, moved up to the new Nationals club in Washington. In his rookie campaign, he hit a respectable .287/.353/.466 with 9 home runs and 15 doubles in 268 at-bats.

Church spent half of 2006 at AAA New Orleans, slumping to .246/.345/.400 with 7 home runs in 175 at-bats, but hit much better in the majors during the last half of 2006, with a .276/.366/.526 line, smacking 10 home runs in 196 at-bats.

Church has been named as someone Washington General Manager Jim Bowden is looking to trade, supposedly for pitching. Church makes the league minimum, and could probably be signed to a 3 or 4 year deal for under $5 million a year. To get him, the A's would need to offer someone in the range of Ryan Madson, who the Phillies have reportedly offered to Bowden in a trade. I'd be surprised if a package of two of Joe Kennedy/Brad Halsey/Kirk Saarloos/Shane Komine didn't land Church.

Church could be a good contributor to the team, and an outfield of Mark Kotsay, Nick Swisher, Milton Bradley, Church and newly acquired Ryan Goleski seems pretty solid. Church can fill in for Kotsay when the back spasms hit, and is insurance in case (knock on wood) Bradley and Kotsay are both under the weather.

Church isn't a high profile player in this year's offseason, unlike other possible targets like Cliff Floyd and Geoff Jenkins. He's a bit old (27+)for how little playing time he's had in the majors, but he's shown some of the skills the A's value in a fourth or fifth outfielder, with a good OBP and power.

I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to think I know what moves Billy Beane should make, but if he was to go out and get Church, I think it would be a good move.

A's sign Embree, Piazza

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:21:00 +0000

According to the A's official website, Alan Embree is now the designated LOOGY for Oakland. He signed a two year deal, and it's not clear how much he's earning.

I like this signing for two reasons. Most directly, he's a reliable leftie who is effective against both righties and lefties, though he has a reputation as just a LOOGY.

Since 2002, Embree has had a ERA+ numbers of 204, 111, 118, 58, and 129. The 58 is a one year abberration that he spent with Boston and New York. Last year in San Diego, Embree posted a 3.27 ERA and struck out 53 in 52 1/3 innings, and only walked 15.

Secondly, the indirect benefit is that it frees up Joe Kennedy to compete for one of the open spots in the rotation, so the A's don't have to look for a starting pitcher on the wild free agent market.

-----

Also being reported is that Mike Piazza has agreed to a one year, $8.5 million deal to be the DH in 2007 for Oakland. Considering the market, and Piazza's age, I'd consider it a good deal in terms of years and money. $8.5 may sound like a lot, but when Paul Bako, who hit .200 last year, gets $1.15 million, Piazza is worth it. If it doesn't work out, it's only a one year commitment, also.

Bill James has projected Piazza to hit .267/.344/.467 with 16 home runs, but that's only over 315 at-bats. Only once in his entire career has Piazza had that few at bats. If you scale his numbers up to the 450 he's been averaging over the last few years, you get about 23 home runs. Personally, I think that's a low ball estimate, since it doesn't take into consideration that Piazza will be a DH, not catching or playing first base, so he should stay healthy and be able to produce.

Piazza is moving to the American League for the first time in his career, a switch that has troubled many hitters (Mark Kotsay, Jason Kendall) at first. The AL has the reputation of being a breaking ball league, as opposed to the NL being a fastball league.

I don't know Piazza's reputation as to whether he's a fastball or breaking ball hitter, but I'd assume that a guy who endorses a curveball pitching machine can hit one:

“Other than a ball, glove or bat, I can’t think of any piece of equipment more critical to my development than The JUGS Curveball Pitching Machine. No serious hitter should be without one.” - Mike Piazza

Oh, and one more thing about Piazza...

If you thought seeing Frank Thomas on the basepaths last season was ugly, and Piazza might be an upgrade, consider this. In my inbox today, I got this week's edition of John Dewan's Stat-of-the-Week. It was a summary of the baserunner +/- system that was introduced in this year's Bill James handbook. See for yourself:

Top Five
   Name            +/-
1. Chone Figgins   +28
2. Chase Utley     +27
3. Mark Ellis      +24
4. Orlando Cabrera +24
5. David DeJesus   +24

Bottom Five
   Name            +/-
1. Josh Willingham -30
2. Adrian Gonzalez -24
3. Mike Piazza     -24
4. Frank Thomas    -23
5. Jason Giambi    -22

The good news? According to James, Mark Ellis is the third best baserunner in baseball.

But the bad news is that Mike Piazza is worse than Frank Thomas...

A new small market peril?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:18:00 +0000

After a discussion prompted by my roommate Tony, and after writing earlier about the ever-increasing amounts of money being doled out to free agents this year, something occurred to me. This market inflation will serve to hurt small market teams in more ways than being priced out of the top end players-for-hire, as usual.

Not only will they not be able to retain their top players once they reach free agency, but arbitration is going to likely become a more popular option for players still under the team's control.

With the huge contracts handed out to mediocre-to-above-average players, the comparisons for arbitration eligible players will be very favorable for them. Many teams will find it difficult to work out reasonable contracts with players to take them through the arbitration eligible years.

Imagine this scenario, if you will: A 25 year old pitcher, after declining his team's contract offer of $3 million a year through his arbitration eligible years, takes his team to arbitration in the winter. He's an average starter, with an average ERA, and an average amount of wins. His agent can point to the deals handed to Adam Eaton, Vicente Padilla, Randy Wolf, and Woody Williams. All are average starters, and all are making between $6 and $11 million a year. It's likely that the agent would offer closer to $6 million, and the team would counter with the $3 million deal. It seems very likely that the arbiter would lean towards the higher figure with all of the precedence that's being laid in contracts this winter. The team would be forced to trade the pitcher or have his large salary take up a disproportionate part of the overall team payroll.

I've been a nonbeliever in the idea that the lack of a salary cap has hurt small market teams, since many have found ways to succeed by looking for undervalued assets, but a large part of that success has always been young players who are under club control, and older mediocre players with one or two good skills. With the precedent being set this winter, I'm concerned that arbitration will increase salaries too quickly, and the once cheap older players will see their stock rise out of control with the scarcity on the market.

Of course, I hope this doesn't happen, but watch out for it.

Is the market out-of-whack?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:46:00 +0000

Name	Years	$ per year
Alfonso Soriano, LF	8	$17,000,000.00
Carlos Lee, LF	6	$16,666,666.67
Aramis Ramirez, 3B	5	$15,000,000.00
J.D. Drew, RF	5	$14,000,000.00
Mike Mussina, SP	2	$11,500,000.00
Vicente Padilla, SP	3	$11,333,333.33
Tom Glavine, SP	1	$10,500,000.00
Greg Maddux, SP	1	$10,000,000.00
Gary Matthews Jr., CF	5	$10,000,000.00
Jim Edmonds, CF	2	$9,500,000.00
Nomar Garciaparra, 1B	2	$9,250,000.00
Frank Thomas, DH	2	$9,060,000.00
Julio Lugo, SS	4	$9,000,000.00
Juan Pierre, CF	5	$8,800,000.00
Moises Alou, RF	1	$8,500,000.00
Adam Eaton, SP	3	$8,166,666.67
Randy Wolf, SP	1	$8,000,000.00
Ray Durham, 2B	2	$7,000,000.00
Danys Baez, RP	3	$6,333,333.33
Woody Williams, SP	2	$6,250,000.00
Dave Roberts, CF	3	$6,000,000.00
Orlando Hernandez, SP	2	$6,000,000.00
Jose Guillen, RF	1	$5,500,000.00
Pedro Feliz, 3B	1	$5,100,000.00

That's a list of players who got contracts of at least $5 million per year.

That's a lot of players getting big money. But are they worth it?

As the free agent signings keep rolling in early this winter, I keep shaking my head at the escalating prices. I realize that, for the most part, teams have more money to spend this year. Revenue sharing, new TV deals, and the XM radio deal bring in money to everyone. But it seems to me that the market may be inflated beyond reason.

I'll attempt to gauge that by comparing their production to the dollars they got. Since most contracts are based on past performance, it should correlate. Right?

For position players, I ranked the players by dollars per career Runs Created per 27. For pitchers, I tried a couple measurements, career ERA+, career average wins per year, and strikeouts per 162 games.

The spreadsheet I used is available via Google's fantastic Docs and Spreadsheets tool, at this link.

Consider the following chart. The players are sorted from the left by how much money they make per year. It should show how much an effect 2006 had on a contract. If a player had a good season last year, and a poor career, it will show that he's being paid for it because his RC/27 bar for 2006 will be higher than his career bar. (A lower bar means the RC/27 is costing the team less; it's more efficient)

[click to enlarge to readable size, it's big]

As you can see, Gary Matthews Jr. is being paid for last year, while Jose Guillen is making money off of his career numbers. For ease in deciphering what the chart tells you, just remember this: the lower bar tells you what numbers they're being paid for.

Sinins CBE update

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:51:00 +0000

Lee Sinins got back to me, and he's apparently going to mail me a new Cd of his Complete Baseball Encyclopedia.

I'm still wondering, though, did anyone else have these errors and problems that I found?

Errors in Sinins' CBE?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:11:00 +0000

I've been using Lee Sinins' Complete Baseball Encyclopedia (formerly the Sabermetric Baseball Encyclopedia) for the past year or so. It's an invaluable program for anyone doing any kind of research on baseball stats.

I ordered the newest edition, and I've had a ton of problems with it. The worst thing that can happen to a database of stats is that it's inaccurate, and that seems to be the case. I don't know whether I've received a bad CD, or if there's something else going on.

For example, here's a screenshot of what the result is when I do a pretty basic query, asking it to tell me the top 10 home run totals from 2006:

That's not even close to being right...

And here's another example of an error:

It's duplicating/splitting season data (as you can see for 2006), and it's not right, either. Thomas hit 39, not 26 HR, and his AVG was .270, not .229...

I wrote an email to Lee Sinins on the 12th, when I got the CD and noticed the errors, but I didn't get a response. That's probably normal, my email might have been eaten by his spam filter, or he just might be really busy.

I sent him another email on Wednesday the 29th, and I haven't heard back from him yet, but I'm going to give him some time.

What I'm asking, though, is this: Has anyone else had problems with the CBE?

This is a pretty serious problem, and it would be good to know if it's an isolated incident or if there's an error with the database...

I hope I can get this resolved soon, the CBE is a fantastic tool.

MVP, but not an All-Star?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:13:00 +0000

So Justin Morneau won the AL MVP. I don't have a huge problem with that. I think Joe Mauer should have probably won it, based on his higher OPS and excellent play at the key defensive position of catcher. As much as I dislike the cult of worship of Derek Jeter, his passable defense and excellent offense this year put him in a position that he would have also made a good MVP.

I think I need to go cleanse myself after typing that.

Anyway, my friend Tony, a Twins fan, asked an interesting question. He pointed out that Justin Morneau wasn't selected to the All-Star game this year, but he was voted the MVP. He wondered how many times that has happened.

As best I can tell, it's only happened ten times since the All-Star game was begun in 1933. I'll see if I can figure out why.

Here's the lineup: (and a fairly good one it would be, if assembled as a fantasy team)

Justin Morneau  2006
Chipper Jones   1999
Juan Gonzalez   1996
Terry Pendleton 1991
Robin Yount     1989
Kirk Gibson     1988
Willie Stargell 1979
Dave Parker     1978
Don Newcombe    1956
Hank Greenberg  1935

We'll start with Morneau, and work backwards.

2006 - Justin Morneau - Twins - 1B

This one seems pretty easy. In the All-Star game this year, the host city was Pittsburgh, meaning NL rules; hence no DH. When you look at the excellent crop of 1B/DH options that the AL brought to the table in July (David Ortiz, Jim Thome, Travis Hafner, etc...), it's easy to see why Morneau was excluded. He was hitting .300/.352/.587 with 23 HR at that point, but he had started the season by hitting .236/.297/.450 with 11 HR through his first 53 games, by the time most voting had taken place.

1999 - Chipper Jones - Braves - 3B

One of the more infamous All-Star snubs of recent memory, Chipper Jones somehow was not selected for the midsummer classic the only time he won the NL MVP. Jones should have been the third baseman on that team, but for Matt Williams. Jones was hitting .313/.422/.589 with 21 HR at that point, but Williams edged him with a line of .318/.355/.581 and 23 HR. Jones had a far superior OBP that distanced him from the otherwise similar numbers Williams put up, but that was before the dawn of on-base-percentage as a valued statistic.

1996 - Juan Gonzalez - Rangers - RF

As of July 7, 1996, Juan Gonzalez was hitting .320/.381/.652 with 22 HR. But with Brady Anderson in the midst of his ~~steroid-powered~~ inexplicable 50 HR season, Albert Belle at the 40-50 HR, 1.000+ OPS peak of his career, Jay Buhner having the best year of his career, Joe Carter still getting mileage from his World Series heroics, and Kenny Lofton hitting well over .300 while on his way to 325 bases in his first five years in baseball... the outfield was rather crowded, and Gonzalez was the odd man out.

1991 - Terry Pendleton - Braves - 3B

The original Braves 3B All-Star snub, Pendleton had a great start to the year, hitting .324/.377/.512 with 8 HR at the All-Star break. He had the unfortunate luck to have his best year at the same time as Chris Sabo and Howard Johnson, though, the NL 3B selected to the team. Sabo was only hitting .269/.345/.463 with 12 HR at that point, and was still riding the tide of the previous year's World Series win. Johnson had 19 home runs, third best in baseball, which is the kind of stat that will get you voted onto an All-Star team.

1989 - Robin Yount - Brewers - CF

Robin Yount has a great year in 1989. He was solidified in his new position of center field, having moved there for good in 1986, and was making great progress towards 3,000 hits and the hall-of-fame. As of the All-Star Break, he was hitting .299/.369/.468 and had 10 HR. However, there were some notable outfielders that year that overshadowed him. Jose Canseco had just ~~injected~~ become the first 40/40 man the previous season, Bo Jackson was at the height of Bo-Knows-how-to-play-baseball, Kirby Puckett hadn't hit any lower than .328 in his previous few seasons, Devon White was cementing his reputation as a perennial Gold Glove outfielder, and Ruben Sierra would end up finishing second in the AL MVP vote. This may sound like a broken record, but the reason Yount didn't make the team was more due to others having great years, instead of him starting out slowly or a voter backlash.

1988 - Kirk Gibson - Dodgers - OF/gimp

Is there a more overrated hall-of-fame candidate than Kirk "I live on only through Vin Scully" Gibson? I may be biased, as an A's fan, but I think that Gibson's MVP was undeserved, and he didn't really even deserve to make an All-Star team. In fact, he never in his career was voted onto one. Selected for the outfield on that team were Vince Coleman (after stealing 100+ bases in each of his previous three years), Andre Dawson (after hitting 49 HR and winning the MVP the last year), Darryl Strawberry (pre-drug problems), Andy Van Slyke (.850+ OPS in 1987 and 1988), and Rafael Palmeiro (hit .307 as a 23 year old for Chicago, 2nd in the NL). In 1988, Gibson hit .290 with 25 HR, and he was the MVP? Strawberry led the league in OPS and HR, while Andres Galarraga led total bases. Both would have been better choices than Gibson, as they led him in nearly every statistical category.

1979 - Willie Stargell - Pirates - OF

Willie Stargell tied with Keith Hernandez on the vote for 1979. Hernandez led the league in batting average, but Stargell had three times as many home runs to make up for his lower average. For some reason, the 1979 team had seven outfielders on it. Lou Brock, Dave Parker and Dave Winfield were all pretty much locks. To complete the set of three Daves, Dave Kingman was also a qualified choice. That leaves us with Jack Clark, Lee Mazzilli and Gary Matthews as picks over Stargell. Matthews had the highest batting average and most home runs of his career in 1979, while Mazzilli and Clark had only decent years, by most standards. I'm really not sure why Stargell wasn't picked, as he was near the end of a very good career and a household name at that point.

1978 - Dave Parker - Pirates - OF

Like the Braves 3B in the 1990's, the Pirates OF in the late 70's was a bit of an aberration in MVP -- All-Star coincidences. Parker would be voted to the All-Star game the following year, but in 1978, it appears that the voting for the game was somewhat non-sensical. The All-Star voting in the late 70's was widely criticized by players and fans, and Johnny Bench, who was named the starting catcher even though he had spent the previous month on the DL, said, "The whole thing hands me a laugh. Two years after I'm dead I'll still be getting All-Star votes."

1956 - Don Newcombe - Dodgers - P

The only pitcher to make the list, Newcombe had already won 11 games by the All-Star break in 1956. Of course, it's entirely possible that Newcombe wasn't picked because he was one of the first successful black pitchers in the majors. This was 1956, after all. But the manager of the NL team was Walter Alston, Newcombe's manager with Brooklyn and one of the people who helped Jackie Robinson break the color barrier. Perhaps Alston didn't want to play favorites, since he had already picked Roy Campanella, Jim Gilliam, Clem Labine and Duke Snider from the Dodgers.

1935 - Hank Greenberg - Tigers - 1B

It would be easy to attribute the delay in All-Star appearances for Greenberg to anti-semitism, but that's not the case. Until 1946, the entire roster was selected by the team manager. Mickey Cochrane, the manager of the Tigers, didn't want to be accused of playing favorites, so even though Greenberg had 100 RBI by the All-Star break, Cochrane chose Jimmie Foxx and Lou Gehrig instead. Not bad choices, if you ask me.

-----

I think that it's very interesting that from 1933-1946, the managers picked the roster, and then until 1970, fans could only elect 8 players per team. In that 37 year period, there were only two MVPs who weren't All-Stars. In the 36 years since then, there have been eight. I don't think it's a coincidence that the managers were better at identifying deserving players than the fans.

I'm not calling for an end to the fan voting, though. I'm all for it, in fact. I'd rather see the MVP some out of nowhere than end the tradition of stuffing ballots for your favorite players.

New Ballpark Pics

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:27:00 +0000

After looking over the following pictures, I've come to a few conclusions:

- I really like the look of this ballpark. It's brick instead of concrete. The rounded front of the stadium reminds me of Ebbets Field, or perhaps Shibe Park, the A's old home in Philadelphia.

- The double-sided scoreboard is an inspired touch. Fans outside the park can watch the game during sellouts, which will be often due to the 30-35,000 capacity.

- There seem to be no bullpens...

- It fits in well with the surrounding buildings, and seems to just go there. If you look at the picture from the outdoor park towards the stadium, you can just imagine walking down towards the park, and having to take a breath as it comes into view. Very nice.

- Notice the rooftop seats on the right field side of the park. From what I understand, they are on top of a hotel or apartment building. Also, the "ROOF TOP BAR" beyond the left field fence.

- I'm not too enthused about all the shops, it reminds me too much of Disney World... but it's not exactly a deal breaker.

- In the following picture, look at the center field wall. It's see-through, allowing the crowd in the park to see onto the field. The park behind is a great, great idea. I can't say that enough.

- Looking at the following picture, I'm reminded of Wrigley, Camden Yards and Petco, three parks that combine surrounding buildings really well with the park.

- There's no batter's eye in center field, something that will need to be fixed...

- I love that there seems to be tons and tons of free, outside the park standing room space to peek in at the game. This can build the area around the park as a place to be around game time, much of what makes Wrigley so appealing.

Mark Ellis, anyone?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:26:00 +0000

The Gold Glove awards were announced for the American League today, and as expected, Eric Chavez won his sixth consecutive award, tying him for second most all time at Third Base in the AL.

Mark Ellis set the Major League record for highest fielding percentage by a second baseman.

Let me repeat that. Highest ever for a second baseman.

And he didn't get a Gold Glove.

Now, nothing against Mark Grudzielanek. He had a fine year in the field. A Gold Glove worthy year, actually.

But Ellis was better.

I applaud the voters for getting that far, as to give the 2B GG to a deserving candidate, and not just a mediocre fielder in a large market (Derek Jeter...)

But if they're going to go that far, why not just give it to the guy who was the best?

I'd draw this analogy; If Joe Mauer were to have hit .363 or higher this year, he would have set the record for highest batting average by a catcher (with 502 plate appearances, to qualify). If the Silver Slugger for catcher was then given to Victor Martinez, who hit .316, there would be outrage. Sure, Martinez had a fine season, but when someone sets the Major League record for a relevant statistic at the position under question, you have to give it to them.

I know there are a few flaws with this argument. And there are flaws with the award, too. Fielding percentage isn't the best metric to measure a fielder with. Gold Gloves often don't go to the deserving. And Joe Mauer only hit .347 this year.

But Mark Ellis is still a great fielder, and among the top few in nearly every defensive metric you can throw out there.

Ellis should have a Gold Glove on his mantle.

Western League statistics

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:31:00 +0000

This is a little out of the ordinary for what's usually written about here, but I'm starting a new project.

I'm working on finding and compiling all of the individual statistics from the old Western League minor league from 1900-1937.

This is especially interesting to me for a few reasons:

- The Western League had teams in Omaha and Lincoln, and was the top minor league in baseball in the first decade of the 20th century.

- I get to spend more time in the Historical Society looking over microfilm of newspapers. A good place to be in the winter, when it's cold outside and there's no baseball being played.

- The stats seem to have been lost to time, for the most part, and I'd hate to see them disappear completely. By digging through old newspapers, I can save them from vanishing completely.

- I hope to contribute to SABR's goal of compiling all minor league stats from all minor league seasons. It's an epic undertaking, but a worthwhile one. Minor league baseball is the biggest hole we have in what we know about baseball.

So far, I've found the complete stats for the 1910 and 1911 seasons, and I'm entering them into spreadsheets. I'll keep this site updated with my progress, and possibly make some of the stats available to people who'd like to see them.

Oakland's Year in Review

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:23:00 +0000

[This is cross-posted here, and on Beyond the Boxscore]

---

“I've come loaded with statistics, for I've noticed that a man can't prove anything without statistics. ”

-- Mark Twain

“There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else.”

-- James Thurber

---

Before I begin this sort of review of the A's recent season, I'd like to say that I'm as big a believer as you'll find in the ability of statistics to understand baseball. But I'm nevertheless amazed when, against all odds, something else happens. To me, that just means we need to look deeper, and look in a different way.

With that said, here's what surprised me about this season.

---

In 2006, Oakland scored 771 runs, and allowed 727. Their Pythagorean record was 85-77, second best in the AL West, behind Texas.

They actually won 93 games, and lost only 69, an eight game improvement over the expected win-loss record. That was good enough to take the AL West crown.

That eight game difference was the biggest overachievement in baseball. It was the second largest difference between expected wins and actual wins, trailing only the befuddling Cleveland Indians, who lost 11 more games than expected.

To what should this difference be attributed? I have a couple of ideas.

Was it that the A's were so stellar in one-run games? They played the second most of any team in baseball (54 to the Pirates' 55). They had the fourth highest winning percentage in those games in the majors (.593). They were also 10 games over .500 in one-run games, 32-22, the best in the AL.

That could be an answer, but it doesn't address the why of the matter. My guess is that the runs scored were just timely. When the A's scored, they did so at an opportune time. They didn't “waste” runs.

For instance, I'd draw your kind attention to the Opening Day. The A's were waxed by the Yankees to the tune of 15-2, then won the next game 4-3, a great example of how things happened for the rest of the season.

Yes, I know the concept of “wasting runs” is ridiculous, but what I mean is that when the A's scored, they usually just happened to score enough to win. They had few blowout wins, and played most teams rather closely. No less than 107 of the games that the A's played were decided by 3 runs or less.

Adding to that effect was that the A's, when they did give up runs, gave up a lot of them. They gave up more than six runs just 34 times this season, but in those 34 games they gave up an average of 8.88 runs. They gave up 42% of their runs in only 21% of the games. In the other 128 games they played, the A's only allowed 3.32 runs per game.

Let's examine games that would be consider blowouts, where runs would be “wasted”. There were 18 games that the A's lost by 6 runs or more, and 14 that they won by 6 runs or more. Over those 32 games, Oakland scored 137 runs and allowed 174. They went 14-18 in those “blowouts”, a reasonable record for having a run differential of -37, over a run a game.

If, for argument's sake, you removed those games, Oakland's expected winning percentage (with a new RS-RA of 634-553) would jump from .528 to .560, much closer to the actual winning percentage of .574.

Of course, that all smacks of cherry-picking the stats, but I think it's nevertheless interesting to dig into.

---

How in the world did the A's manage to score any runs this year? Everyone has heard about the A's woes when hitting with runners in scoring position. With men on second or third, they were 29^th in average, 25^th in on-base-percentage, and 26^th in slugging.

Of course, much of that is weighed down by how awful the A's were before the All-Star break. After July 14^th, the A's ranked 5^thin AVG, 3^rd in OBP and 12^th in SLG, a marked improvement.

Nick Swisher was dead last in hitting with RISP among everyone in baseball with 100 plate appearances. How he managed to get 95 RBIs is a minor miracle. Hitting 35 home runs will help, especially when 21 of them came with runners on base, and only 4 with RISP.

---

If you predicted that Frank Thomas would have the kind of season he had, please get in contact with me so we can go to Las Vegas in the offseason.

Production from a designated hitter to the tune of .270/.381/.545/.926 with 39 home runs is outstanding. As a DH, Frank Thomas only trailed Hafner, Ortiz, Thome and Giambi in EqA, my personal favorite way to evaluate a hitter. Thomas put up an EqA of .309, 49 points higher than league average. Last year Oakland got so little production from the DH spot that at some points they resembled a National League team.

The general consensus on Thomas at the beginning of the season was that at best he'd play in perhaps half of Oakland's games, and might hit around .240 with an OBP of .350 and hit 15-20 home runs. The worst case scenario was that he'd break his foot off and never play.

Baseball Prospectus' PECOTA topped out at a 273/.384/.597 line for Thomas, with 30 home runs. He met or exceeded his 90^th percentile projection in almost every way. And he's not the comeback player of the year...?

---

On May 31, Jason Kendall did the impossible. After a string of 961 at-bats without a home run, he hit one. It cleared the left field fence by a few inches. It ended the longest homer-less streak by a major league player since the immortal Rey Sanchez went 1,094 at-bats in 2000-2002 without a round-tripper.

---

Oakland's infield was a fascinating mix of surprises this season.

In 632 total chances, Mark Ellis only made two errors. That sets the record for highest fielding percentage by a second baseman at .997, and should win Ellis a well-deserved Gold Glove.

Eric Chavez developed tendonitis in both forearms, limiting him to his worst statistical season at the plate since his rookie year, but he had perhaps the best defensive season of his career. He made just 5 errors, fielded .987, and turned 43 double plays. He led all third baseman in those categories, and should be in line for a sixth consecutive Gold Glove.

Bobby Crosby fell further into his offensive slump, doing his best Neifi Perez impression, before he was injured twice and spent most of the season on the DL. Marco Scutaro, super-backup and the most “clutch” hitter on the team (take that for whatever it's worth), filled in for Crosby. Scutaro hit .218/.292/.309 with one home run before the All-Star break, and .305/.396/.470 with four homers afterwards.

Dan Johnson had the dubious distinction of being the major league player to go the longest without a hit to start 2006. He started 0-for-26, and by the second week of July, was hitting only .237/.326/.373, and was demoted to AAA Sacramento. Nick Swisher moved in from the outfield to first base, and then proceeded to drop off his torrid offensive start. As late as June 24^th, he was hitting .289/.402/.570 with 19 home runs, but after Dan Johnson was went down, and Swisher became the full time first baseman, Swisher hit .248/.364/.472, and only hit 15 home runs the rest of the season. Whether Swisher's offensive numbers tie in with where he plays would be difficult to figure, because he played 1^st and OF interchangeably throughout the season, although he played OF more often in April, May and June, while the rest of the year he was more often at 1B.

And then there's the case of Antonio Perez... In just 110 plate appearances, Perez managed to strike out 44 times. His line for the season was (look away if you're squeamish) .102/.185/.204/.389. Yes, that's an OPS of .389.

Here's an interesting list of the worst batting averages in baseball for players given at least 110 plate appearances.

	YEAR	AVG	PA	SO	H
1 Sandy Nava	1884	.095	127	35	11
2 Mike Jordan	1890	.096	143	19	12
3 Antonio Perez	2006	.102	110	44	10
4 Ben Egan	1915	.108	132	14	13
5 Jose Gonzalez	1991	.111	134	42	13

Antonio Perez has the worst batting average since 1890. Also notice that no one on that list has more strikeouts. That's a rough season.

---

There were few surprises in the A's starting rotation this year. Barry Zito pitched like he has over the last few seasons, didn't miss a start, and will leave as a free agent this winter. Dan Haren had moments of brilliance, a few rough starts, and looked like the talented young pitcher he is. Joe Blanton had the drop off that most foresaw at the end of last season, and Rich Harden showed yet again that he has a gallon of talent and an ounce of health. If Harden can ever stay healthy enough to start 30 games in a season, he should be unstoppable. But his elbow and oblique may get in the way.

Esteban Loaiza was nothing short of unpredictable this year. He began the season with high expectations, then posted an astronomical ERA and was only hitting the mid-80s on radar guns. He went on the DL with a phantom arm problem, came back, got arrested for DUI and speeding, and then proceeded to pitch a great complete game win. Take a look at the following chart:

	ERA	K/9	BB/9
First 4 starts	8.35	2.9	4.4
Next 2 starts	2.77	4.8	2.1
Next 8 starts	7.21	5.6	3.9
Next 7 starts	1.42	6.2	0.9
Next start	13.50	11.8	1.7
Next 2 starts	2.45	5.5	1.2
Last 2 starts	8.00	6.0	1.0

I know that I'm selecting streaks of uneven length, but I wanted to illustrate how unpredictable he's been. He reeled off four awful starts, two very good ones, eight terrible games, seven masterful ones, a terrible outing, two good games, and then two poor starts to end the season.

---

Some would say they were taken by surprise at Huston Street's mediocre season. Well, mediocre by the expectations they placed on him after his stellar 2005 rookie campaign. They expected a closer who would put up sub-2.00 ERA seasons with a 9.0+ K/9 rate and 40 saves a year for the next 20 years. Street was just 22 years old this season. He had a decent year, 3.31 ERA and 37 saves. Yes, he blew a few too many save opportunities, but he pitched extremely well for a kid in his second full year in the majors. After all, he was pitching in the College World Series only 30 months ago.

---

I'd love to write something witty and insightful here about the 2006 postseason for the A's, and how they miraculously swept the Twins, a heavily favored opponent. I wish I could write about the disappointment of being steamrolled by the Tigers. I have three things keeping me from doing that, though. One, it's still too soon to look back with any kind of perspective. Two, we're talking about only seven games here, so you can't draw any real conclusions based on that kind of sample size. Three, it's already been, and will be, completely over analyzed by hundreds of people. I'm not going to contribute to that annual avalanche.

Another possibiity on statline graphics

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:30:00 +0000

Here's another version of the statline graphic.

I've included the BB/SO ratios, and EqA (a great way to measure a hitter, league average is always .260).

I think I may be pushing it, and trying to include too much now.

Let me know what version you prefer, and any suggestions you'd have.

Statline graphic update

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:03:00 +0000

OK, here's the newest look for the statline graphic I'm working on:

I like how SLG and OBP are both shown as extensions of AVG, since AVG is incorporated into the stats anyway. I think it looks a little cleaner, too. I also eliminated the line for OPS, as it was redundant.

It's also a more compact graphic, but it still allows for vertical comparison between players.

There's some discussion of this over at AN. I've enlisted the aid of my friends there, and they've already come forward with some great suggestions.

A better way to visualize hitters' stats.

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:30:00 +0000

As I was poring over 2006 stats for the A's, something hit me. The lines of numbers that I was looking at weren't really giving me an easy visual comparison. I wanted to know how the hitter's numbers stacked up against his teammates, and the league averages. It wasn't easy to just glance at the numbers and see it right away.

So I came up with this system.

[click to enlarge]

(I included all A's with at least 100 at bats, and Antonio Perez, just to show how awful a season he had...)

The blue bar represents batting average; the green bar on-base percentage; the red bar slugging, and the brown bar OPS.

The tick marks indicate the number of home runs hit.

The vertical black bars represent American League average numbers for AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS, in that order.

So, for instance, you can see that while Nick Swisher had a below average batting average, his OBP was higher than the league median, as were his slugging and OPS.

I'm still working on refining it, but I think this has a lot of potential.

Also, I'd love to be able to automate making it. Spending two hours getting up close and personal with Microsoft Paint wasn't much fun. Anyone with some programming skills want to help out?

And so it ends. For this year...

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:07:00 +0000

Dan Haren pitched a good game, the A's got some hits, but Magglio Ordonez decided to finally show up for the Tigers.

I'm not as upset as I initially thought I would be, since this has been coming for a couple days now.

The A's had a great season, winning the AL West, and sweeping a very good Twins team for Oakland's first playoff series win since 1990.

Detroit was simply the better team over these 4 games. Eric Chavez took a lot of heat for saying that, but he was right. They made very few mistakes, and took advantage of the A's miscues.

I don't need an email from Tommy Lasorda, but I will still watch the rest of the NLCS and the World Series.

I've got to get going on my season-in-review article for Beyond the Boxscore, and then... I can begin looking forward to all of the offseason Hot Stove action, and Spring Training, and then Opening Day.

It's up to Danny now.

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 07:53:00 +0000

And it comes down to this.

Game Four, down 3 games to none, and it all rests in the splitter of Dan Haren and the dormant bats of the A's.

Here's hoping Haren can outpitch Jeremy Bonderman, and the A's can outhit Placido Polanco.

Mark Kiger Trivia

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:52:00 +0000

Here's an interesting bit of trivia from yesterday's loss.

When Mark Kiger entered the game in the bottom of the 8th as a defensive replacement, he made a major league first.

He became the first player in major league history to make his big league debut in the postseason. That's pretty amazing.

Also as a result of his entry into the game, there seems to have been a spike of google searches on Mark Kiger, and a lot of them seem to be leading people... here. Overnight, this humble blog has become the 6th ranked site when you google him. If you throw out the statistics-only results, autographed card, and AN comment, The Pastime is the top ranked source on Mark Kiger on Google.

Here's hoping Kiger doesn't become the only player to have played in only a postseason game, and not a regular season game, and that I can write more about his days as an Oakland A.

Sigh.

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:39:00 +0000

I'm not giving up yet, but a 0-3 deficit is hard to swallow.

I can hear the proverbial fat lady warming up, but I'm hoping the A's can put off her singing for a game or two more. I'd like to see Haren pitch well tomorrow, and the A's offense score at least a few runs. A win would allow Barry Zito one more start wearing the green and gold; a chance to redeem himself and go out on a higher note than Game One.

So don't throw in the towel yet, but prepare for a long, hard offseason.

The Most Important Game of 2006

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:16:00 +0000

This is an incredibly important juncture in the 2006 A's season. If they lose today, it's a forgone conclusion that the Tigers win the series. I'll start writing my season-in-review article for Beyond the Boxscore, and we'll start counting down to pitchers and catchers reporting for Spring Training.

If the A's win, though, they stay alive for another day, and revive hope. 0-2 is a tough thing to come back from, but 1-2 is feasible. They have to just go out there and play it one game at a time, like the old cliche. If Rich Harden has his good stuff today, the A's can take one back in the cold (and possible snow).

I want to delay getting the email from Lasorda as long as possible.

I haven't given up hope yet for the A's.

Why Oakland Lost Game Two

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:24:00 +0000

In Game Two, we saw good, we saw bad, and we saw a lot of ugly. The A's are simply playing like they don't want to win.

The Good (sort of)

- Mark Kotsay, Milton Bradley and Jay Payton are the only ones who are hitting. they're a combined 13-for-25 in the ALCS so far. They've notched 68% of the A's hits so far, and 5 of the 6 runs batted in. The problem is, they are the ONLY ones hitting. The rest of the lineup has been horrendous. Other than Eric Chavez's home run, they've done nothing.

- The A's bullpen, when used, has been good. They've allowed just 6 hits over eight and one-third innings, with the only run coming on the solo shot by Granderson off of Huston Street.

The Bad

- With the exception of Milton Bradley and Mark Kotsay, this team looks uninspired. Up and down the bench, the A's look disengaged, a far cry from their usually upbeat attitide. They look like the Twins bench did last week in Game Two. We know what effect that had on the Twins chances of coming back from an 0-2 deficit.

- Esteban Loaiza was cruising through the first three innings, then imploded in the 4th. He was still shaky, but got through the 5th inning. I would have warmed up Joe Blanton or Kirk Saarloos, and probably put him in after Craig Monroe hit the double off of Loaiza. Macha is managing the bullpen like this is still the regular season. Every inning, and every run is important.

The Ugly

- Nick Swisher, Frank Thomas and Marco Scutaro look lost at the plate. They are a combined 0/22 with 11 strikeouts in this series. There's no way to analyze that, or sugarcoat it, or anything. It's just awful. I expected that from D'Angelo Jimenez, but he's been more productive (2/7, 1 K).

- You can't win when you strike out 13 times in a game. The A's swung on so many first pitches, I swear I was watching a different team.

- D'Angelo Jimenez made another error, his second in as many games. Mark Ellis made 2 errors all season long. I cannot stress enough how much the A's miss Ellis right now. This is a massive loss. The only thing Jimenez is bringing to the team right now is mediocre hitting and congratulatory high fives.

- Eric Chavez looks unsteady in the field at times. He's muffed two balls so far, very uncharacteristic for him. He was trying to do too much when he ranged far to his left for a try at a double play. He just barely missed the ball, knocking it off course and out of the reach of Marco Scutaro. He needs to tighten up his play, and do the same thing in the field that he's been doing for years.

- The A's have a lot of trouble with Placido Polanco. He's 4/8 with 2 walks in this series so far, and his lifetime numbers against the A's are now 37-for-75, a .493 average. They need to find a way to neutralize him.

Game Two Preview

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 06:06:00 +0000

Esteban Loaiza takes the hill against Justin Verlander for Game Two.

Well, not literally. It's not like we're going to tune in and see some kind of American Gladiator battle on the pitchers mound between Loaiza and Verlander, going at it with foam staffs. Although that would be fun. I'm sure Steve Lyons would have commentary that's just as insightful as what he offered in Game One...

Here are the stat lines for Verlander and Loaiza over their last 15 starts of the season. I tend to think the last 15 games are more indicative of how they're going to pitch than their whole season.

Wow, I'm surprised. They are very, very alike. The only real differences lie in Loaiza's lower walk rate, and his higher percentage of unearned runs. Plus, he doesn't throw the ball 100, like Verlander does.

Both pitchers tend to stay around the strike zone, keeping walks to a minimum. They don't have huge strikeout rates, but they rely on their defenses to take care of balls put in play to generate outs.

That could be a problem for Oakland. Loaiza gets about half of his outs via the groundball, and with Jimenez and Scutaro up the middle, the Oakland defense isn't what it should be. I'm worried that Jimenez could bite the A's again with his fielding, or lack thereof...

Well, that was a weak attempt.

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 05:45:00 +0000

The Tigers took advantage of too many Oakland mistakes tonight to take Game One.

I'm not going to dwell on it and go over the things Oakland could have done better, but here are the areas I think the A's need to address to win:

- Macha needs to use his deep pen. Zito was done an inning before he was pulled, and the Oakland pen shut out the Tigers for the rest of the game.

- Oakland's failure to score with runners in scoring position. They get on base, but then are erased by double plays and untimely hitting. Macha should really get the runners moving a little more often, but with free swingers like Swisher, Jimenez and Payton in the lineup, that may not be a great idea, either.

- Mental mistakes need to stop, now. The A's played error-free, perfect baseball against Minnesota. The loss of Ellis really hurts, but even Chavez and Swisher made mistakes, which is unlike them.

- Hope Jerry Crawford doesn't get back behind the plate. His strike zone was awful tonight. There's a reason his 2006 stats were so out of line. His strike zone is terrible.

It's a seven game series, though. There is plenty of baseball left to be played, and Oakland has home-field advantage. I'm still confident that the A's can pull it out.

Harden is the Game 3 Starter

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Armbrust) — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:06:00 +0000

I'm not sure how I feel about this news.

From AN:

"I was just watching Ken Macha's new conference before game 1 and he said that Harden is now officially the game 3 starter. He said that they specifically limited his pitch count yesterday so that he could go again on Friday in Detroit. He said that it was tough to push back Haren who has been great but that Harden was the man for now."

Yesterday, I said that Harden could slot into the 3rd and 7th spots if he was healthy and pitched well in his fall league tune-up.

He didn't pitch great in his start, but it wasn't terrible, either.

"...Rich Harden might not have helped himself with a somewhat shaky outing in an instructional-league game in Phoenix on Monday.

Harden allowed six hits and five runs in 3 1/3 innings, with the damage coming in his final inning. He didn't walk a batter, struck out four and hit 94 mph on the radar gun.

"He looked like Rich Harden,'' assistant general manager David Forst said of the report he'd received. "

If Harden pitches like he did in 3 out of 4 of his last games, this will be good. But if he pitches like he did in Arizona, or in this game, it may be a poor move to take away one of Dan Haren's starts.

I like the risk, though. The payoff would be huge, if it succeeds.

[UPDATE]

Oakland's Official Website has confirmed that Harden will be the Game Three (and possibly Game Seven) starter.

After days of waffling, the A's announced Tuesday that righty Rich Harden, who missed much of the season with back and elbow injuries and hasn't pitched in a big-league game since giving up six runs over 3 2/3 innings in the regular-season finale in Anaheim on Oct. 1, will make his 2006 postseason debut Friday in Game 3 of the American League Championship Series at Detroit's Comerica Park.

"We've gotta find out what Rich can do," Oakland director of player personnel Billy Owens said before Game 1 of the ALCS at McAfee Coliseum. "Now, he's ready to pitch."