OK, he missed the point of the article. Studes claimed there was value in signing these old guys, not predict the Giants to win anything whatsoever.

Raise your hands, those of you who thought that this was going to be about Fran Healy.

Willful misreading or ignorant jackarse?

The problem with this article is that it entirely misses the point. On the Giants - Alou, Vizquel and even Matheny have all been surprisingly good. None of them have anything to do with the team's struggles. It's true to say that the money could have been spent elsewhere, but the only one of these guys whose contract I'd undo is Matheny. The largest single factor in the Giants' troubles is Bonds, and no-one knew he would miss this much time. The human factor is certainly important - but what touchy-feely "chemistry" issues do the Giants have?

What should Sabean have done differently? If I'd been in charge I wouldn't have signed Matheny (Free yorvit!) and I wouldn't have given Feliz all that money. Instead I would have spent some money on the bullpen, brought in a good platoon partner for Snow, and saved some flexibility. In retrospect this would have worked out a little better (no Hawkins trade, avoid Feliz's suckitude) but the team would still have run into the same problems - Grissom's collapse, Bonds' absence, Schmidt's disintegration - and would have a similar record. In addition, there would have been no Niekro. I would have tried to trade for Cameron, but I doubt I'd have been able to give the Mets anything they wanted.

Even with 20-20 hindsight I still don't know what Sabean could have done. When a team suddenly finds itself without its staff ace and uber-slugger, it's going ot struggle. Trying to blame it on Vizquel and Alou is silly. Moises Alou is hitting .297/.404/.544 for f's sake. If that's the problem, gee whizz.

I will leave others to bicker over the A's.

http://www.gothambaseball.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1748#post1748

Willful misreading or ignorant jackarse?

Yes.

AO

Great post, TwoAlous.

Although the A's deal with the Braves has looked terrible so far.

There is nothing better than reading nyyfans.
Go look at the collective wisdom of the pros and cons of trading for Adam Dunn thread.

I will leave others to bicker over the A's.

OK. OK. Fine. So the A's suck a lot more than than any of us seam-head A's fans expected. We all saw these trades as a move for the future, but were confident in the fact that there would be little if any drop off this season. Well, we were wrong, and now have to console ourselves in the long term value of the trades.

But its not the trades alone that are at fault for the dropoff. Charles Thomas wasn't getting into games, Calero was on the DL a bunch, Harden still is, we were missing our shortstop for almost two months, and our big star slugger, Chavez, wasn't hitting s*** until a couple weeks ago. A lot more went wrong on this team than the Hudson and Mulder trades could possibly explain or account for.

It should be noted that this idiot is "Heals," the same guy from NYFS who "reported" that the Mets signed Moises Alou:

NYFS has learned that Moises Alou has agreed to sign with the New York Mets. Staff reporter Mark Healey was informed of the signing from a source close to the situation. Alou has spent the last three seasons with the Chicago Cubs.

/FWIW

Great post, TwoAlous.

I agree! MBS-worthy! Except... You forgot Benitez.

That Dunn thread is awesome. "195 strikeouts and average defense, with only 46 homers - we don't want him." I only hope Steinbrenner feels the same way. Last year A-Rod made 131 strikeouts and hit just 36 home runs. Tell you what, Cashman, cos I'm feeling generous - I'll give you Ray Durham and Marquis Grissom for A-Rod and $15m a year.

MBS-worthy! Except... You forgot Benitez.

MBS? I left out Benitez because he wasn't mentioned in the article, and isn't really relevant. Losing teams don't need closers.

That Dunn thread is awesome.

I like the part where the guy compares him to Rondell White.

Oh man, there is some great stuff there. "Dunn K's too much, lets get Wily Mo Pena!"

The Mulder trade has worked out great for the A's. Haren has been nearly identical in performance so far, is 3 years younger, and is being paid $6.2 mil less. Then throw in Barton, one of the highest rated position prospects in baseball, and Calero who is useful despite the injury issues.

Its the Hudson trade that has questionable value so far with Cruz struggling, Thomas sent down, and Meyer rehabbing a shoulder strain. Even so the A's saved $6.5 mil in the transaction and Meyer is expected to fully recover so I'll wait to see what is outcome is before making a real judgement.

Not to mention in his comments about 1050 ESPN radio, he says that Steven A. Smith is the bad show on 1050... not Colin Cowherd?

Are you ####### kidding me?

I'm quite curious about the story claiming a potential Olympic Stadium/new Jets Stadium/new Mets Stadium in Flushing Meadows, but with the dreck on Gotham Baseball, I'm skeptical.

I like the part where the guy compares him to Rondell White.

"He is young and can improve, for sure, but it's not like he's Miguel Cabrera or anything."

This is true, but not in the way you mean it.

I thought analysts made a mistake not separating the Hudson and Mulder deals in the offseason, but to not do it now is really sloppy. Yeah, the Hudson and Kendall deals have not worked out a lick, but the Mulder deal looks pretty good. A mainstream guy should be able to notice that Haren's ERA is a hair under Mulder's ... and that's with the former in the DH league. Granted, we know that Haren's unearned runs tell a different story, but still, the VORP difference is only 9.9 to 5.1, AND the A's get one of the best hitting prospects in baseball and a live arm for the bullpen.

Of course, to repeat, the Hudson and Kendall deals = BAD (so far).

Am I the only one who actually likes Colin Cowherd?

As to the A's ...

Unless Hudson and Mulder were going to fix the A's offensive problems, having them on this team would have only moved them up to 3rd place. Those trades may or may not work out in the long term, but they aren't the reason the 2005 A's have been stinking up the joint.

Heck, right now Mulder and Haren have the same ERA (advantage probably to Mulder due to park effects and his ERA inflated by a handful of awful starts). Hudson's got a nice ERA, but his walks are up, K/BB down substantially (1.4), putting his WHIP at a not-so-appetizing 1.45. That WHIP is the same as Kirk Saarloos!! And before you chime in with "yeah, but Hudson's given up just 6 HR in 83 IP", check out Saaloos' 2 HR in 60 IP. (No, I'm not suggesting Hudson doesn't wipe the floor with Saarloos, just pointing out that so far Mulder and Hudson haven't pitched that great compared to the A's replacements).

We will leave Blanton out of the discussion. :-)

I'd like to see a quote of someone calling Thomas a "good young OF". In the A's preview, I wrote: "Thomas, after an incredibly mediocre minor-league career, appears to have turned into a solid 4th OF and is a very useful part." "4th OF" and "very useful part" are not, to me, synonymous with "good young OF." Of course they aren't looking synonymous with "Charles Thomas" anymore either. I know he wasn't referring to me (I assume), but I don't think I saw anyone refer to Thomas as more than a 4th OF type.

The key players in those trades are Meyer and Barton (Haren being an average or slightly better pitcher is gravy). If they don't turn out, then the A's will have gotten almost nothing out of those trades. But still, Hudson was gone after this year and he wouldn't have made a substantial difference this year. Mulder would still be around next year when, maybe, the A's will contend again.

Rickey's old maxim that it's better to trade a player a year too early than a year too late is even more true in the FA era for lower-payroll teams. Apparently the A's weren't going to resign Hudson, so he was gone after this year. He wouldn't have made the difference this year (Beane was right about that, me not so much). So as long as you can get more value than 2 draft picks, why not trade him, especially if it saves you $6+ M?

Mulder's a tougher call because of the longer contract, but I know I was worried he was hurt or in mysterious decline after last year's collapse, so Rickey's original meaning possibly applied. And the A's got more in return for Mulder.

Heck, right now Mulder and Haren have the same ERA (advantage probably to Mulder due to park effects and his ERA inflated by a handful of awful starts).

Isn't St. Louis as much of a pitchers park as Oakland. Anyway, Haren has a better DIPS and a better BABIP. He's also faced a tougher schedule. The average batter Haren has faced has had an .755 OPS compared to a .725 for Mulder. More simply, Haren has allowed a .250/.319/.383 line while Mulder's been hit at .302/.356/.444 (worse than last year). I'd give the edge to Haren thus far.

FWIW, I thought Thomas would make a nice platoon partner for Byrnes (offense/defense or L/R).

BTW...who the hell is Jeff Capellan? Maybe he was the better Capellan the Brewers got in the trade that hasn't showed up yet. Also enjoyed the use of the quotes when refering to someone as a writer. What a jackass

For what it's worth, Eric Chavez remembered how to hit today.

For what it's worth, Eric Chavez remembered how to hit today.

Actually, he remembered a few weeks ago.

Posted by Regis Philbin on June 12, 2005 at 04:13 PM

BTW...who the hell is Jeff Capellan?

...and Ben Sheets?

Willful misreading or ignorant jackarse?

Yes.

Double yes.

This is a joke, right?

BTW...who the hell is Jeff Capellan? Maybe he was the better Capellan the Brewers got in the trade that hasn't showed up yet. Also enjoyed the use of the quotes when refering to someone as a writer. What a jackass

Don't forget Mark Littlefield.

i think its real, i really wish he would come post in this thread, it would be ever so much fun.

i think its real, i really wish he would come post in this thread, it would be ever so much fun.

Am I the only one who actually likes Colin Cowherd?

Why yes I think you are. I don't think Mr. Cowherd wants women to listen to his show. He is very disrepectful of us'n's the few times I listened for a moment. I now just turn him off and go to just news, I don't need to listen to that kind of doggie doo.

Walt was the first to say it in this thread, but I've pointed out repeatedly that all of the pundits predicted the collapse of the A's based on a lack of pitching. Well, it's not a lack of pitching that's been hurting the A's. It's a lack of hitting. When you have a league-average pitching staff and a MLB-worst hitting lineup, then I'm pretty sure it's the latter that's causing you to lose games more than the former.

Show me someone who claims that he said that losing Mulder and Hudson would make the A's lose because they wouldn't be able to hit worth a lick, and I'll show you a liar.

Even with 20-20 hindsight I still don't know what Sabean could have done. When a team suddenly finds itself without its staff ace and uber-slugger, it's going ot struggle.

Exhibit B: The Atlanta Braves. Not the staff ace, necessarily (although you could make a case that Thompson's been the best pitcher), but lose 2/5 of your rotation, along with Chipper Jones, and all the sudden the team's in a tailspin. And the Braves have a lot more young talent available than the Giants do.

Show me someone who claims that he said that losing Mulder and Hudson would make the A's lose because they wouldn't be able to hit worth a lick, and I'll show you a liar.

Better yet, Inquisitor, I would like to see someone explain how it's possible.

It's called ratings, and ESPN Radio's are in the toilet in this town. I wonder why?


The Max Kellerman Show on ESPN is the ########## ragio show goin...OPS and Def. metric #'s thrown out to frightened NY fans...the nightly stomping of Woemack...the biting of ESPN's grubbing hand (Kellerman..."the powers that be at ESPN know nothing about boxing")...the on-going fight with Bob Raissman over the value of batting averages.

Coool stuff!

The Max Kellerman Show on ESPN is the ########## ragio show goin...

Repoz,


Anything other than that involves incrimination factor... ;-) ...

-----------
trevise :-) ...

>Better yet, Inquisitor, I would like to see someone explain how it's possible.

Exactly. =P

I understand what Beane was doing with those moves, trading his aces. Couldn't he have paid the money he is paying to Kendall to Mulder or Hudson? Did Beane decide that Kendall was more valuable than either pitcher? Am I simplifying it?

I don't think it was a matter of not being able to pay Mulder or Hudson. I think they could have fit either into their budget. I think it was a matter of getting something back for them. Hudson walks after this year, so he had to resolve something with him or risk losing him for mere draft picks. Mulder's health issues, I think, convinced Beane that he was only going to drop in value.

Kendall has hit better recently, and I don't think they're paying his whole salary. Besides, getting him allowed them to dump those bums Redmund and Rhodes (gulp!).

Nothing's worse the Steven A. Smith yelling at everyone. Is he the one on the Frusion commercial as well?

I understand what Beane was doing with those moves, trading his aces. Couldn't he have paid the money he is paying to Kendall to Mulder or Hudson? Did Beane decide that Kendall was more valuable than either pitcher? Am I simplifying it?

But Beane doesn't just have Kendall. He also has Meyer, Haren, Thomas (OK, he sucks), Cruz, Calero, and Barton. Plus, he had young pitching coming along, so he made moves based on trading from potential strength.

It hasn't worked out this year, but the real test will be the next few years. While Beane was unwilling to call this a rebuilding year (like any GM in his position - you don't set expectations low before the year starts in his position), the risk was always there that it would turn into one.

Nothing's worse the Steven A. Smith yelling at everyone. Is he the one on the Frusion commercial as well?

they had Stephen A, an ESPN talking head, and some ex-jock on the other day. The ex-jock gave sorta the "as a player this is the mindset ... " thing, and Stephen A. shouted him down saying how he didn't believe it or something. Who does he think he is?

chris, I've seen him do that on basketball shows as well. Legler or someone will be talking about something and they'll go to Smith who says something like "Don't you EVER say that player X has heart in front of me, because he is an absolute zero, loser!"

I'm always shocked that one of the ex-players doesn't pound the crap out of him.

Might be fun to see him and Walton on a telecast together. Maybe not fun, but interesting.

yeah it was legler!

I'm still going to need an answer on the frusion question.

i did a google search for: dannon frusion voice over

the first hit was a btf lounge.

lol. I just asked about it there. what was the gist?

linky

google search

Walt was the first to say it in this thread, but I've pointed out repeatedly that all of the pundits predicted the collapse of the A's based on a lack of pitching. Well, it's not a lack of pitching that's been hurting the A's. It's a lack of hitting. When you have a league-average pitching staff and a MLB-worst hitting lineup, then I'm pretty sure it's the latter that's causing you to lose games more than the former.

Show me someone who claims that he said that losing Mulder and Hudson would make the A's lose because they wouldn't be able to hit worth a lick, and I'll show you a liar.

This is a fair amount of revisionism. "Most pundits" thought the A's had become a mediocre offense that was dragged into contention - better yet the playoffs - by very good starting pitching.

It wasn't difficult then for "most pundits" to say that the still mediocre offense A's would be unabvle to compete for a playoff spot because the startign pitching was no longer able to drag the mediocre offense up over 90 wins.

While it's true that the offense has done more to hurt the A's this year, both aspects of the team were not good enough for the A's to compete.

Give the A's the average offense that it apparently their devine right because PECOTA and ZiPS says so and they still would not be a very good team.

I've said it before and apparently I'll end up repeating myself every few weeks, but the pathetic showing of the A's offense is the very best thing that could have happened to head in the sand A's fans.

There's something to be said for just taking a rhetorical beating - not unlike the one the A's have taken on the field - and just letting it go. The continued attempts to draw and redraw the lines to make the current A's failure more palatable can be a little unseemly imo.

chris, I've seen him do that on basketball shows as well. Legler or someone will be talking about something and they'll go to Smith who says something like "Don't you EVER say that player X has heart in front of me, because he is an absolute zero, loser!"

Player X was probably Rasho Nesterovic. I think Nesterovic killed Smith's whole family or something.

Maybe it was Xavier McDaniel. X, get it? I'm tired. G'nite.

On the Giants - Alou, Vizquel and even Matheny have all been surprisingly good. None of them have anything to do with the team's struggles. It's true to say that the money could have been spent elsewhere...The largest single factor in the Giants' troubles is Bonds

as an A's fan who catches alot of Giants baseball, this seems clearly accurate.

The Mulder trade has worked out great for the A's. Haren has been nearly identical in performance so far, is 3 years younger, and is being paid $6.2 mil less. Then throw in Barton, one of the highest rated position prospects in baseball, and Calero who is useful despite the injury issues.

Its the Hudson trade that has questionable value so far with Cruz struggling, Thomas sent down, and Meyer rehabbing a shoulder strain. Even so the A's saved $6.5 mil in the transaction and Meyer is expected to fully recover so I'll wait to see what is outcome is before making a real judgement.

i could maybe be sympathic to this take, but honestly i'd be at least as intersted in the perspective on these deals from the viewpoint of long-time close critical viewers of either the Braves or Cardinals..

:-)

now that i look at it, i could pretty much be sympathic to the article's take as well:

The Hudson deal: Charles Thomas (.109 batting average and just demoted to the minors), Juan Cruz (0-2, 8.18 ERA), Dan Meyer (1-3, 6.62 ERA at Triple-A). Not good, not great, not excellent.

The Mulder deal : Danny Haren (4-7, 4.26 ERA), Kiko Calero (2-0, 6.57 ERA), Daric Barton, (.282 at Single-A). A better deal, as Haren is a nice young pitcher. We'll see.

fence sitter..

:-)

not that the above in any way exhausts the spectrum of possible 'takes' on the matter, regardless of team allegiances and followings..

i'll stfu now..

;*i)

I posted a reply there. Not that I should be considered "the" person to make a response, but we'll see what kind of reaction it gets from either the author or the "Editor-in-Chief".

I posted a reply there. Not that I should be considered "the" person to make a response, but we'll see what kind of reaction it gets from either the author or the "Editor-in-Chief".

I invited Mark Healey to come on-board earlier in the day...no response, yet.

Sorry, Repoz...Sunday's family day (and my only day off) didn't get your message until early this morning...Well, this "Jackass" has been reading your comments and I have a few things to add.

First of all, thanks for reading Going Nine, and for visiting Gotham. Secondly, let me apologize for the errors on Capellan and Littlefield, bad job. Thirdly, I fully understand where a lot of you guys are coming from. You love the DIPS, the PECOTA, the whatever. I don't. I am concerned with wins, losses, what guys hit with RISP, and the amount of times guys strike out with men on third and less than two out. I also am tired of Billy Beane and his laptop armada of apologists. I wrote Bay Area Bumblers back in March, and got so many different e-mails from the Beane camp about how "this is a playoff team" and "his deals were brilliant" and no GM in baseball "could have gotten what he did for Hudson and Mulder". I'm tired of it. As to Sabean, he has spent his last two offseasons doing his best imitation of Steve Philiips, and Giants fans have no problem with that? I do.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The difference is, I happen to be right. :-)

visit us at GB, we'd love to have you!

Also, FYI, I killed Cowherd a few weeks ago http://www.gothambaseball.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204

with the exception of occasional segments of Kay, Mike and Mike, and the V show, that entire station is unlistenable.

Heals9,

First of all, I fully understand where you are coming from. And like how you like the wins and the losses and the strikeouts with runners on second and less than two outs, I like it when writers understand what the hell it is they're getting criticized for, and your unwillingness to embrace the DIPS and The PECOTA ain't it. Secondly, the use of "writer" to describe Studes was completely uncalled for. Thirdly, you kind of missed the point of his article, as The Other Kurt kindly noted in the first sentence of this thread. I realized that the graphs and the numbers Studes uses may be intimidating, kind of the way my son was a little scared the first time he read a book without pictures, but if you put your mind to it, you can do it too. You see, NOWHERE IN THAT PIECE DOES STUDES PREDICT GREAT THINGS FOR THE GIANTS (I wrote this in big letters, to help you along). It's not even close.

If you're going to show contempt for a fellow writer, the way you did to Studes, at least have the decency to understand what he's written.

Of course, I told you all of this in the e-mail I sent you, as I'm sure Jeff K. did, so I'm not expecting you to admit anything here.

Crazy. First of all, I get a link to one of my articles from Primer, and it's about an article slamming me! Sheesh, thanks Repoz!

Seriously, I never predicted great things for the Giants -- I just tried to explain why Sabean seemed to be doing crazy things. If someone sent an email to this "writer" using my article to claim the Giants were going to be great, they used the wrong article.

BTW, I do watch an occasional game. Very entertaining. And what's so bad about graphs????

Give the A's the average offense that it apparently their devine right because PECOTA and ZiPS says so and they still would not be a very good team.

Well, let's take a look back at PECOTA. It had the A's projected to score 834 runs. Through 62 games, that would mean the A's would have been projected to score 319 runs. They've actually scored 251 runs, leaving them 68 runs behind their projected pace.

The A's were projected to allow 760 runs, which would be 291 runs through 62 games. They've allowed 302 runs so far, leaving them 11 runs worse than PECOTA's pace. I know a run scored does not have the same value as a run allowed, but it's close enough to say that 68 of A's the 79 run under-performance of PECOTA is offensive, or 86%.

If the A's had matched their PECOTA projection on offense so far and had 319 runs with their actual 302 runs allowed, they'd be in contention. I don't think any projection system had them as a "very good" team.

I've said it before and apparently I'll end up repeating myself every few weeks, but the pathetic showing of the A's offense is the very best thing that could have happened to head in the sand A's fans.

The very best thing? You're implying that A's fans would rather win some ideological argument than see their favorite team win games. Do you really believe that?

There's something to be said for just taking a rhetorical beating - not unlike the one the A's have taken on the field - and just letting it go. The continued attempts to draw and redraw the lines to make the current A's failure more palatable can be a little unseemly imo.

You projected the A's for about 84 wins, Diamond Mind had them at 85 wins, and PECOTA had them at 89 wins. You said a couple weeks ago that there's very little real difference between these projections, yet you still feel the need to apply a "rhetorical beating" because you were a few games closer to what is actually happening?

studes >> Dannon Frusion > stathead flamewars > the "article" at the top of the page. > Stephen A. Smith

Sorry, Repoz...Sunday's family day (and my only day off) didn't get your message until early this morning...Well, this "Jackass" has been reading your comments and I have a few things to add.

First of all, thanks for reading Going Nine, and for visiting Gotham. Secondly, let me apologize for the errors on Capellan and Littlefield, bad job. Thirdly, I fully understand where a lot of you guys are coming from. You love the DIPS, the PECOTA, the whatever. I don't. I am concerned with wins, losses, what guys hit with RISP, and the amount of times guys strike out with men on third and less than two out. I also am tired of Billy Beane and his laptop armada of apologists. I wrote Bay Area Bumblers back in March, and got so many different e-mails from the Beane camp about how "this is a playoff team" and "his deals were brilliant" and no GM in baseball "could have gotten what he did for Hudson and Mulder". I'm tired of it. As to Sabean, he has spent his last two offseasons doing his best imitation of Steve Philiips, and Giants fans have no problem with that? I do.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The difference is, I happen to be right. :-)

visit us at GB, we'd love to have you!

His "laptop armada of apologists"? Really? Well, considering that you wrote a Bay Area message board (I assume, with the name) critiquing both Bay Area teams, are you really surprised that you got a bunch of emails back saying you're wrong? I mean, if I called into WFAN before the season and said the Yankees were going to be below .500 in June, what do you think the reaction would have been? If your essential reason for writing the article was to "prove" that you're right in the face of home-team fan disagreement, then as I said in my reply on the thread, you're going to waste a lot of time.

I notice that you didn't apologize for the air quotes around writer. That says all I need to know about you. An off-hand slur in an article is one thing; being called out on the comment and refusing to even acknowledge the criticism, much less apologize, is quite another thing entirely.

Oh, and I really love how you guys deleted all the comments. Very mature. If that's what passes for "discourse" on your "site", then you "journalists" can keep polluting your own little ####-buddy world.

Just read Healy's comments in the article thread on their site. He doesn't like Win Shares, bullet points, graphs or quadrants, and assumes I don't watch baseball games. In fact, I make his blood boil! Wow, I have an enemy.

Oh, and I really love how you guys deleted all the comments. Very mature. If that's what passes for "discourse" on your "site", then you "journalists" can keep polluting your own little ####-buddy world.

I take this back. Apparently the link has been changed. Yesterday, the link here took me to the comment section, and today it just takes me to the article. But going to the forums brings the comments back up. Mea culpa.

Studes...

I don't know who you are, don't know if you're a blogger or a writer (yes, there's a difference) and while I'm sorry if you're offended, I don't apologize for not knowing whether you are or not.

That's why you got quotes around your name, and because of the quadrants.

Well, considering that you wrote a Bay Area message board (I assume, with the name) critiquing both Bay Area teams, are you really surprised that you got a bunch of emails back saying you're wrong? I mean, if I called into WFAN before the season and said the Yankees were going to be below .500 in June, what do you think the reaction would have been? If your essential reason for writing the article was to "prove" that you're right in the face of home-team fan disagreement, then as I said in my reply on the thread, you're going to waste a lot of time.

I wrote a Bay Area message board? I don't know what you're talking about. Going Nine is a widely read column. Not a blog, not a post, A column.

As to Studes, if that is indeed his name, I've repolied to him in this thread. Real writers have a name, not an internet persona, hence the quotes.

I wrote Bay Area Bumblers back in March, and got so many different e-mails from the Beane camp about how "this is a playoff team" and "his deals were brilliant" and no GM in baseball "could have gotten what he did for Hudson and Mulder".

That is what you wrote. I can't find "Bay Area Bumblers", so I assume that it's your nickname for a Bay Area forum or blog.

And some writers have pseudonyms. Or maybe that Mark Twain guy wasn't a "real writer".

Real writers have a name, not an internet persona, hence the quotes.

I guess Publius wasn't a real writer then.

Or George Eliot. Or Stephen King. Or Daphne DuMaurier.

And as for column "legitimacy", we must then consider real writers to include astrologists, bridge experts, and local weatherpeople.

Esteemed company.

Going Nine: Bay Area Bumblers was a column, hence the title Going Nine: Still Bumbling.

Heals9, baseball statistics are easily available.

Moises Alou - .298/.406/.547
Omar Vizquel - .282/.350/.366
Mike Matheny - .227/.291/.405

All of them are outperforming their career marks. Matheny still isn't doing that well, but that's because he's never been a good player, not because he's got old. Where is the age-related decline?

Of course statistics aren't the whole story. So I repeat my question - What exactly are the Giants' "chemistry" issues?

Going Nine is a widely read column. Not a blog, not a post, A column.

I am a writer! My column is very popular My -- My column is very popular! I am read by 29 people! Twenty-nine people read my column! I don't write in a blog! I write columns! People enjoy what I do!

...I drive a Dodge Stratus!

"Your search - "Bay area bumblers" - did not match any documents."

This must be a very high traffic site, this Gotham baseball.

That's why you got quotes around your name, and because of the quadrants.

Wait until you read my Win Probability Added aritcles!

If you don't consider bloggers real writers, then I understand where you're coming from. I think you're incredibly misinformed, but at least I understand you. But if you had taken a little time to look at the Hardball Times, you would see that we're not really a "blog" (though I don't mind being called one).

THT is an online magazine with a couple of articles a day, an in-depth stats section, divisional standings, etc. read by over 10,000 people a day. We published our own Baseball Annual at the end of last year and we have a weekly radio gig. The fact that you didn't bother to research our site before publishing your article makes me wonder about the journalistic standards that "real writers" hold themselves to.

Healey is getting is @ss kicked. Har-har.

Good lord. I'm getting hammered on the GB thread. This is getting fun.

Moises Alou - .298/.406/.547

Is that Moises Alou of the New York Mets?

A "real writer" told me it was.

If you have press credentials, than yes, you're a writer. If you don't, well, I'm sorry, than you're not.

At least in my estimation. Doesn't mean you don't have something valid to say, just stating fact. I make my living as a writer. It's not a not a hobby, so yeah, I have a problem with bloggers who don't use their real names passing themselves off as writers.

One day, you might feel the same.

This guy had press credentials, too.

If you have press credentials, than yes, you're a writer. If you don't, well, I'm sorry, than you're not.


Hm. So Bill James is not a writer? Or David Halberstam?

You love the DIPS, the PECOTA, the whatever. I don't.

Correction. some of us like DIPS and some of us don't. Tell Backlasher he likes DIPS and then cover your ass.

I am concerned with wins, losses, what guys hit with RISP,

So are we. That's why numbers are so useful, so you don't have to rely on anecdotal observation so much.

and the amount of times guys strike out with men on third and less than two out.

Is popping out with a man on third and less than two outs any more useful?

I also am tired of Billy Beane and his laptop armada of apologists.

So are a lot of us, my friend. So are a lot of us. We all use laptops here and there are some true Beane-bashers here.

I wrote Bay Area Bumblers back in March, and got so many different e-mails from the Beane camp about how "this is a playoff team" and "his deals were brilliant" and no GM in baseball "could have gotten what he did for Hudson and Mulder".

Skip Bayless, no stat-geek, was highly praiseworthy opf those trades. Before you start generalizing, you should consider that. Also, just because the A's are struggling now doesn't mean those trades won't work out. The payoff on young players can be rather slow. Let's talk again in two years.

I did not see that last paragraph coming...

Why not, Danny?

Ok Heals, you've established what a writer is, a fellow with press credentials (pity poor Updike, Hornby and the like, who I once thought of as writers), but please define for us what a reader is?

Is it someone who could read a piece, even one all tricked up with graphs and quadrants, and discern what the writer actually was saying? Or does a reader just get to make up the point of the writer (whoops, blogger, since studes don't have him them fancy credentials).

This guy was made famous by having press credentials.

James Dale Guckert a.ka. Jeff Gannon worked as a White House reporter between 2003 and 2005, representing Talon News. After Guckert came under public scrutiny, in particular for his journalistic background and involvement with various homosexual escort service websites using the professional name Bulldog, he resigned from Talon News on February 8, 2005.

Guckert has stated that he obtained frequent daily passes to White House briefings. He attended four Bush press conferences, and appeared regularly at White House press briefings.

So are a lot of us, my friend. So are a lot of us. We all use laptops here and there are some true Beane-bashers here.

And there are a very large number of us who are agnostic with regards to Billy. Yet anyone who visits a "stat site" is labelled a Beane worshipper. It still irritates me, even though it shouldn't.

Kevin's doppelganger continues to post. The world's all topsy turvy.

Billy Beane went into this offseason knowing that he was going to lose Hudson and/or Mulder. The question becomes whether he should have traded them then or whether he should have waited (as Mr. Healey suggested: he could have held on to both Hudson and Mulder and fleeced a playoff contender at the trade deadline.).

When I look at deadline deals in recent years, I don't see a lot of value going to teams trading marquee players. Last year, the Mariners traded Freddy Garcia (a pretty good pitcher, albeit not in the Hudson/Mulder class) to the White Sox in June. The Mariners had to throw Ben Davis *and* cash into the deal to complete it, acquiring Miguel Olivo, Jeremy Reed, and Mike Morse in exchange. Houston got Carlos Beltran - who everyone *knew* was going to be unloaded, and who is at least of comparable value to Hudson and Mulder, if not more valuable as an everyday player - for Octavio Dotel and John Buck. Nomar Garciaparra - another pretty valuable commodity at the time - cost the services of Alex Gonzalez, Brendan Harris, Francis Beltran, and a minor league pitcher; not a lot of future stars there, either. Sure, there are a couple of deals where marquee players who everyone knew would be available did fetch value - Brian Giles for Oliver Perez is one - but those are getting rarer, and are more than balanced by deals of the type mentioned above. So I'm of the opinion that Beane would have gotten *less* for Mulder and Hudson the longer that he held onto them - not more.

However, in trading Mulder and Hudson, I think Beane did a poor job of addressing organizational needs. The extent to which the A's lineup is dependent on one or two hitters was last year, and is this year, all too obvious. There is very little hitting talent in the organization, almost nothing nearly ready - yet Beane, in moving Hudson and Mulder, got only a marginal bat and a prospect who is at least three years away from contributing on the offensive side of the ball. My feeling is that the A's offensive problems could have been anticipated without too much of a stretch, and Beane, with two big cards in his hand to play, probably should have done a better job of addressing those problems in any deal involving Hudson and Mulder.

-- MWE

I can't believe the arrogance of equating writer to accredited journalist. Writing covers a wide range of non-journalistic activities. I am reading an excellent book by a "writer" called Gunter Grass and on thursday evening I went to see a play by a "writer" called William Shakespeare. Get a life.

And there are a very large number of us who are agnostic with regards to Billy. Yet anyone who visits a "stat site" is labelled a Beane worshipper. It still irritates me, even though it shouldn't.

Because it is laziness on the part of the writer. Rather than actually address the arguments, he uses code words to signal that anyone who disagrees with the writer need not be taken seriously.

I am not sure why this surprises anyone, given the content of the article. He essentially has written the following:

A) the A's and Giants made off season moves:
B) the A's and Giants are playing poorly: and
C) the off season moves are the reason for this poor performance.

While it is just plain silly to think these moves are the only reason, it does have the benefit of not requiring the writer to think.

I am reading an excellent book by a "writer" called Gunter Grass and on thursday evening I went to see a play by a "writer" called William Shakespeare. Get a life.

Did you know that Tom Wolfe walked up to Gunter Grass at a cocktail party and said "Gunter Grass. How's your a$$?"

Does anyone here that has read the comments on the article on Gotham Baseball think I'm being unreasonable or illogical? I really would like to know.

Keep piling on guys. Keep scoring points about a silly throw away comment. I agree w/the guy's point: How's he supposed to know whether "Studes" is a real byline? But, instead of focusing on the point, let's continue to pound the visitor and earn points w/each other.

Tin Drum or Crabwalk? The "Tin Drum" is a brilliant book

As for the Giants:

I agree with studes that the Giants' off-season moves on offense were defensible. Like Billy Beane, however, Brain Sabean more-or-less ignored what was potentially a gaping hole - the pitching, in the Giants' case - choosing to believe that Brett Tomko and Kirk Rueter could continue the smoke-and-mirrors routine for another season, that the bullpen would be *fixed* by the addition of a quality closer (who promptly got hurt), and that he could afford to part with Dustin Hermanson, who has been a reasonably effective utility pitcher the past few years. As with the A's, it's easy to focus on the obvious (Bonds's loss, etc.) and ignore the less-obvious. The Giants haven't been able to get consistent innings from anyone, and the only guy who is even a decent bet to bounce back is Jason Schmidt.

-- MWE

I thought the rationale for paying Kendall a lot of dough was that if you're going to be bringing in a staff of novices (other than Zito), you sure as hell want a veteran catcher working with them to bring them along. Can't recall if Matheny was off the market already then but Kendall certainly fits the bill.