Mid-season report: Athletics

[sweaver]

The A's have become a consistent power in the AL West, although they have yet to make it out of the first round of the playoffs. Many of us thought this would be their year. They are trailing the Mariners and in 2nd place, but have a 44-32 record and are in great position for their customary blistering second half.

The A's best offensive player has been......Eric Byrnes? Yes, the young outfielder is getting everyday playing time and posting an OPS over 900. Part-timer Billy McMillon is jockeying for more PT himself with a mark near 900. Erubiel Druazo has done what statheads thought he could, keeping his mark over 850. Eric Chavez and catcher Ramon Hernandez are staying around 800. Chris Singleton is trying to keep his PT from going to Byrnes with an OPS over 750, not bad when combined with his defense. The rest of the team has been disappointing, and it may be time to cut bait on Scott Hatteberg. Miguel Tejada is not close to repeating his MVP season, Mark Ellis and Terrence Long are hitting poorly, and Jermaine Dye has struggled very badly.

Eric Chavez, normally an excellent defender, has struggled, as has Hatteberg. The outfield defense has strengthened considerably with the addition of Singleton and Byrnes' fine play.

The A's real strength is their pitching. Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, and Mark Mulder are terrific as usual, although Ted Lilly and John Halama have struggled. Keith Foulke has been great, although the rest of the bullpen has been up-and-down. Perhaps the mid-season acquisition this year will be a 1B and/or a RP.

The A's are in great position to make their patented fast finish, especially after they make another brilliant trade. It's what we've come to expect.

[qtlaw]

The big disappointments have been Chavez and Tejada although the two of them are showing some signs of life recently. The big three have been fine but nos. 4 and 5 have been dreadful and the middle relief has been no relief at all (ask Huddy how he feels about it.) Foulke has been a typical find for Beane and Co. I think the As will be right there at the end for the Wild Card/Div.

[Firpo Marberry]

I keep getting the impression that people think Eric Byrnes is some kid. He's 27. He's actually 13 days older than Terrence Long. No one seems to think of Long as "young."

[OaktownTribeFan]

They probably get that impression because he looks a lot younger than he is. He looks no older than 22.

Looking back, it's hard to believe that Byrnes bounced up and down from Oakland to AAA for 3 years. One of Art Howe's many mistakes was not allowing Byrnes consistent playing time.

[OaktownTribeFan]

may be time to cut bait on Scott Hatteberg.

He's still posting a .350 OBP, which is what Beane cherishes the most, according to Moneyball. Also, his hitting helped them come back twice against the Rangers this week.

[Firpo Marberry]

Originally posted by OaktownTribeFan
They probably get that impression because he looks a lot younger than he is. He looks no older than 22.

Looking back, it's hard to believe that Byrnes bounced up and down from Oakland to AAA for 3 years. One of Art Howe's many mistakes was not allowing Byrnes consistent playing time.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but there's usually a reason that, in retrospect, a decision by a manager or GM looks awful. I always ask myself, "If this was is obvious now, was it obvious then?" Then I go back to see what that player looked like at any point in time, without the advantage of reflection.

My understanding is Byrnes was not a polished defensive player, even at age 25. And although he won a high Class A batting title at about 21, 22, he demonstrated no power.

Those kind of outfielders are a dime a dozen. I've personally known guys who could hit and even field at AA and AAA, played the outfield, but with little power; that's the end of the road for many of those players, unless they happen to be in the right organization, that is, a crappy one. The A's have been pretty good the last few years. Byrnes might have surfaced in Tampa or Detroit, but I think he had a real challenge in Oakland.

It's never hard to find an outfielder who can hit for average in AA, AAA, be OK in the field but not hit for power.

I'd have to wonder where Howe would find playing time for a guy like Byrnes. He eventually showed some power in Sacramento in 2001 (at age 24; sudden power at that age always raises an eyebrow with me).

I really don't see where he was even a good enough ballplayer to stick in Oakland in part-time capacity until 2002.

[OaktownTribeFan]

Originally posted by Firpo Marberry
My understanding is Byrnes was not a polished defensive player, even at age 25.

According to Moneyball, Beane doesn't think defense is the most important attribute. So I don't think this is the reason why Byrnes wasn't given a good shot until this year.

Those kind of outfielders are a dime a dozen. I've personally known guys who could hit and even field at AA and AAA, played the outfield, but with little power; that's the end of the road for many of those players, unless they happen to be in the right organization, that is, a crappy one.

I don't believe they could really evaluate Byrnes, since he was never given 3 games in a row to prove himself. There was a spot for Byrnes to play, because Long and Justice didn't exactly burn up the league last year. But Howe likes to play it conservative and stick with the established players, even if they only hit .240, like Long did last year. It's "safe," but it also holds down more deserving hitters like Byrnes.

[Firpo Marberry]

Originally posted by OaktownTribeFan
[b]According to Moneyball, Beane doesn't think defense is the most important attribute. So I don't think this is the reason why Byrnes wasn't given a good shot until this year.



I don't believe they could really evaluate Byrnes, since he was never given 3 games in a row to prove himself. There was a spot for Byrnes to play, because Long and Justice didn't exactly burn up the league last year. But Howe likes to play it conservative and stick with the established players, even if they only hit .240, like Long did last year. It's "safe," but it also holds down more deserving hitters like Byrnes.

I think the operative words here are "according to Moneyball," which doesn't make it true -- this is important to keep in mind -- and "Beane doesn't think."

Regardless what Beane thinks, that neither means that he was the final arbiter of who would be in Howe's outfield, or that what he is said to have thought in general applies to Byrnes in particular.

In every organization, there's always a tug of war between the development side of the organization and the big-league side. And being the GM doesn't always mean you'll get what you want over what the manager wants.

As for evaluting Byrnes, you do that at the minor league level. If you're an outfielder into your 20s and not hitting home runs in A and AA, you don't need to bring that player to the big club to confirm it.

Being Byrnes is 27, I wouldn't go cornering the market on his rookie baseball card.

[OaktownTribeFan]

It's interesting that you're saying this the very day he hit for the cycle, one of only 5 Oakland A's to ever do that. The whole age thing is overblown. It was Howe, that supreme judge of talent, who kept him out of the majors until he was 27. The real key to Byrnes isn't his age, it's the .335/.400/.575/.975 he's posting this year. And the sample size is fairly large.

Anyway, this Byrnes Business is probably somewhat off-topic. If there's a hole in the A's, it's the 4th and 5th starter. Will Harang or Lilly be adequate? It's questionable over the long haul. It would be exciting to see Rich Harden (9-2, 2.99 ERA for Sacramento) get a shot before September.

[Firpo Marberry]

Originally posted by OaktownTribeFan
It's interesting that you're saying this the very day he hit for the cycle, one of only 5 Oakland A's to ever do that.

Hitting for the cycle doesn't tell us that he should have been in the bigs two years ago, or a year ago, and it doesn't tell us that he's going to be a significant contributor nexxt year, or in 2005. We know he's playing capably now, but he didn't need to hit for the cycle to confirm this.

[OaktownTribeFan]

it doesn't tell us that he's going to be a significant contributor nexxt year, or in 2005.

And neither do minor league numbers. To those who think that MLE's are always a guide to the future, I point to Sosa's numbers in the minors: just 35 homers in parts of 6 seasons. Not that Byrnes will be another Sosa, mind you. But there are always players who are hard to predict. Byrnes is likely to be one of them.

[Firpo Marberry]

Originally posted by OaktownTribeFan
And neither do minor league numbers. To those who think that MLE's are always a guide to the future, I point to Sosa's numbers in the minors: just 35 homers in parts of 6 seasons. Not that Byrnes will be another Sosa, mind you. But there are always players who are hard to predict. Byrnes is likely to be one of them.

Now we're really off topic, off topic from the original thread, and off topic from this recent detour. Who said anything about MLEs, Sammy Sosa or the death of Buddy Hackett?

You watch a guy, you can see what he does. And you don't need any MLE's to see Byrnes had no power until, recently in his career. Perhaps he's just a "late developer". Anyway, had they called him to the majors earlier, it's pretty clear he would not have hit for power. And again, the minors are littered with outfielders who have no power.

Also, I never buy into arguments where Player A's career is cited and someone tries to draw a parallel between him and Player B. Their careers are mutually exclusive. If, say, the careers of Jim Kaat and Robin Roberts seem in many ways alike, it is not because one career affected the other.

Louie Meadows didn't hit homers in the minors, and he didn't hit them in the majors. It makes as much sense to pick him as to pick Sosa. Meadows' career and Sosa's career tell us the same about Byrnes career: Nothing.

[huskerdru]

I really think the A's should look to deal with the Pirates, if, indeed, the Bucs are interested in/willing to trade Brian Giles. He would certainly be a perfect fit in the Oakland offensive philosophy, and it sure would be nice to see him play on a team that won't deflate his Rs and RBIs so badly. They need some offensive production (#15 in Runs scored in MLB) and stability in the OF. Plus, they've got to have a couple prospects in whom Pitt would be interested.

[Gosfgiants]

I think the big weakness on the A's is the bullpen. They do not seem to have the guy who can keep the game on hold for them on the late innings. It seems like Foulke and a cast of everybody else. I would not be surprised to see Beane pull of a trade for a good set up guy.