Bleacher Report - Articles by Nathaniel Stoltz

Here's a Thought: Reacting To Andrew Bailey's ROY Victory

Nathaniel Stoltz — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:11:11 -0500

Like most sports fans, I take a lot of pride in my predictions that come true. I said the Red Sox would win the 2004 ALCS even when they went down 3-0. I predicted Kurt Warner would be a great NFL QB before he ever took a snap in the league (and I was only nine at the time). I've made a number of other far-fetched predictions that came true in different sports.

However, baseball is a game that is largely random. The year-to-year player variations are staggering, and nobody, no matter their expertise, gets them all right.

To me, that's a big part of what makes the game great. No matter how much you know, or what approach you take, several players a year will always surprise you. Who thought Michael Bourn would be an excellent player in 2009? Who thought Chien-Ming Wang would be terrible?

And hey, I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. And Andrew Bailey has certainly proved me wrong.

Even I, a follower of the minors, had no real enthusiasm about Bailey coming into 2009. I knew who the guy was—don't get me wrong—but he was coming off a season where he put up a 4.42 FIP in Double-A. Wow , I thought.

In 2007, he had a mildly interesting year, putting up solid numbers in the Cal League and shutting down the opposing team in one end-of-year Triple-A start, but he was 23, so I projected him as a possible fifth starter or middle reliever. The poor year in Double-A the next year pretty much sealed his fate, I thought. He'd be lucky to ever throw a big league pitch.

Then, all of a sudden, it was mid-March, and Athletics Nation was penciling the guy into a major league bullpen spot.

I found this ridiculous. Why on earth would we give a bullpen spot to Andrew freakin' Bailey? Okay, it's nice that he had a nice run to close 2008 in the bullpen, and he's looked nice in the spring, but he's never even seen Triple-A (save the one start in '07) and he's only a few months removed from being one of the worst starting pitchers in the Texas League!

It made sense at the time—the don't-trust-a-guy-with-small-sample-spring-success argument is right more often than not—but what I didn't realize is that Bailey the reliever was a much different pitcher than Bailey the starter.

Upon converting to relief in mid-08, Bailey was taught a cutter by Gil Patterson, the A's minor league pitching coordinator. It's Patterson's favorite pitch, and he teaches it to many of the A's farmhands. The pitch gave Bailey a reliable offering to set up his plus curveball and keep lefties at bay, and his career took off.

It was the effectiveness of this pitch that made it an easy decision to put Bailey in the majors, rather than any small-sample stats stuff.

Now that I've explained Bailey's journey and my own journey of analyzing him, I can finally get to the (ostensible) point of this post, which is his, you know, Rookie of the Year season.

It was great.

Bailey struck out 9.83 batters per nine innings while walking only 2.59. That epitomizes getting the job done. His cutter-curveball combination was simply unhittable all year. Batters made contact on only 69.8% of their swings against the righty, far below the 80.5% league average.

When they did get lucky enough to hit the ball, they couldn't square it up—Bailey had a ridiculously low 12.9% line drive rate for the year. Statheads who yell about his .234 BABIP need to realize that the low liner rate explains it. Bailey allowed just 49 hits in 83 1/3 innings and had just a 0.88 WHIP for the year.

Statistically, it's tough to do much better in relief, and Bailey's two plus pitches prove he's got substance, not smoke and mirrors.

Did he deserve the award, though?

I think Rookie of the Year awards are a matter of taste in some respects. It all depends how you weigh the value of certain positions. For example, in MVP voting, hitters are traditionally valued higher than starters, who are valued higher than relievers.

I can say with confidence that Bailey should win Rookie Reliever of the Year, but after that, it all depends on what someone likes.

Personally, I would find it tough to give it to second-place guy Elvis Andrus, though. It's not that I don't think Andrus has a chance to be a good player; it's that I just don't see a .702 OPS year as a true impact year, even when combined with the good speed and defense. There are holes in Andrus' game he must improve, whereas Bailey is an All-Star caliber, elite reliever already.

Rick Porcello's 4.77 FIP didn't impress me. Well, I shouldn't say that. Actually, it's quite impressive, given that he was straight out of High-A. But there's no difficulty curve in these awards, and if there was, then Bailey's would be pretty high too.

Porcello's low strikeout rate is worrisome, and he allows far too many homers for a groundball guy in a pitcher's park. I have a sneaking suspicion the guy might just turn out to be Aaron Cook 2.0, not an ace. Again, plenty of room for improvement.

Jeff Niemann presents an interesting case. He was solid across the board rather than exceptional, but he pitched for a better team in a more important role. I'd still probably pick Bailey, but I like Niemann's '09 more than Andrus' or Porcello's.

It gets tricky with Gordon Beckham as well. He was a more complete player than Andrus, and again, it depends if you value position players over pitchers. He only played in 103 games, though, so I think Bailey beats him too.

That brings me to the final (and ultimately sixth-place) candidate, the other Athletic in the running, Brett Anderson. I'm a huge Anderson fan, and I'm an A's fan, so perhaps I'm biased, but I honestly think he and Bailey were the top two rookies in the AL this year.

Anderson's season was way better than Porcello's and a little better than Niemann's. Like Bailey, he had a K/BB ratio over three, and he also did a nice job keeping the ball on the ground. Honestly, I think he has more star potential than any of the other five candidates, and the Bailey-Anderson decision comes down a simple question.

What's better, a very good starter or shutdown reliever?

I'm going to say Bailey is the rightful winner by just a small amount, with Anderson second, Niemann third, Beckham fourth, and then Andrus, and Porcello. I think that Anderson is ultimately going to be the best player out of the bunch, though.

Congratulations, Andrew Bailey, on the award, and proving that spring training success does sometimes carry over to the regular season.

Here's a Thought: Optimizing the Oakland Athletics' 2010 Rotation

Nathaniel Stoltz — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:59:29 -0500

As the A's continue to build what they (and all of us fans) hope is going to be a dynasty that peaks in 3-7 years from now, the core of the team is going to be the starting pitching, which has been the symbol of the A's since Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson were on the staff. However, many of the young future cornerstones, especially Trevor Cahill and Vince Mazzaro, struggled in 2009. The A's are presumably looking to improve next year, as the "building" begins to take hold. Thus, the rotation will need to improve on 2009's struggles. SInce there are so few guarantees as to who will break camp in the rotation, I decided to take an admittedly premature look and suggest an Opening Day 2010 rotation.

Begin Slideshow

Here's a Thought: Examining Ryan Sweeney

Nathaniel Stoltz — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:13:53 -0400

In my last article, I evaluated one speedy Oakland center fielder, Rajai Davis. Now, I'll look at the other one, Ryan Sweeney.

STATISTICAL EVALUATION:

Sweeney has performed similarly the last two years, hitting .286/.350/.383 in 2008 and .293/.348/.407 in 2009.

Sweeney puts the bat on the ball on 88.6 percent of his swings, well above the 80.5 percent league average, so it's not surprising that he posts strong batting averages.

Sweeney hits a good amount of line drives, with a 23.7 LD percentage this season. His BABIPsare consistently high as a result (.325 career, .331 this year)—with average luck this year, he likely would have hit .300. His BABIP this year actually should have been in the .360 range, but bad luck pushed it down to .331.

Sweeney's BB/K ratio is fine (.6), but he doesn't walk a tremendous amount. He isn't a "classic" Jack Cust/Erubiel Durazo/Matt Stairs/Jason Giambi A's player in that sense, but it's difficult to walk much when you make such consistent contact on swings. As long as Sweeney keeps roping line drives and making contact on about 90 percent of his swings, he can get by with an average walk rate.

The most troubling aspect of Sweeney's game is his power production. Despite being a hulking 6'4", 225-pound outfielder, Sweeney has a career slugging percentage of .387 and an Isolated Power of .103. Those numbers went up a bit this year (.407 and .114), but he's far from the 20-HR player he was once projected to be.

In fairness to Sweeney, he did show substantial improvement in the second half, hitting .319/.378/.463, for a .144 ISO. Even then, however, he just went from a singles hitter to a doubles hitter, only knocking three balls over the fence in 64 games.

While athletic, Sweeney is not a big threat to run. He's 15-for-22 in steals for his career, and was 6-of-11 this year.

Defensively, Sweeney is a premier right fielder. His UZR/150 for all three years he's played there has been above 20. His UZR/150 for his career in RF is a whopping 25.4, and he posted a 21.5 mark there this season.

The most glaring statistical question about Sweeney is what to make of his center fieldUZR numbers.

In 2008, he put up a terrible -22.8 UZR/150 at the position (by comparison, Jack Cust's career UZR is -18.9, so we're talking sub-Custian defense). This year, he rebounded to post a +13.7 mark, which would make him the ninth-best defensive center fielder in baseball, and fourth-best in the AL behind Dewayne Wise (really?), Franklin Gutierrez, and Coco Crisp (OK, those two make more sense).

What makes the 35-runs-per-150-game improvement so bizarre is that Sweeney's RF defense actually went down from 2008 (29.6) to 2009 (21.5). So there's nothing magical that Sweeney did that made him a better defender overall.

It will be interesting to see if he can keep up the stellar CF defense in 2010 (although Rajai Davis will likely be playing there a lot), or if Sweeney reverts to ineptitude.

SCOUTING EVALUATION:

Sweeney has an ideal baseball body and has the strength to be a massive power hitter. Unfortunately, he employs an inside-out swing designed for singles, effectively turning him from Josh Hamilton to Mark Kotsay.

Sweeney doesn't use his lower half enough in his swing to generate power—though some mechanical adjustments incorporated his lower half better in the second half of 2009, likely triggering his batting surge and leading to an increase in doubles.

Despite his huge frame, Sweeney has good speed but isn't a burner on the basepaths, just like his SB numbers indicate. He is an intelligent, heady baserunner.

Defensively, he is a plus in either outfield corner—he can play center on occasion, but lacks tremendous range in that position. As his body continues to thicken, he will probably lose playability in center and need to stay permanently in right field. His arm is average-plus.

MY TAKE:

It's easy to get caught up with what Sweeney doesn't do—hit for power. His swing is somewhat frustrating to watch, and you can't help but wish the guy would just swing for the fences once in a while.

However, Sweeney has made himself into a serviceable offensive center fielder who rarely strikes out and can hit .300 with a few doubles here and there. His offensive surge in 2009 lends hope for him getting even better in the future, and if he can hit .319/.378/.463 for a whole season, he'll be a huge asset.

Scouts and pre-2009 UZR agree that Sweeney shouldn't play center field. If 2009 UZRis right that he is now a plus defender there, that really helps Sweeney's value. It's tough to be a good corner outfielder when you're barely slugging .400—but in center, that's fine.

The questions of power and center-field defense will be crucial to Sweeney's development. Right now, he's got a nice singles bat and is a great defensive RF, but that's not enough to make him a good starter. If he finds power and continues his good run in center, he'll be an All Star. If he does one or the other, he'll be a good starter. If he does neither, he'll ultimately be a bench outfielder or poor starter.

Here's a Thought: Examining Rajai Davis

Nathaniel Stoltz — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:28:19 -0400

Now that the season is over, I can stop looking at minor league players in my examinations and focus on some major leaguers.

First up is speed demon center fielder Rajai Davis, who seemed to break out this year. Is he for real? Let's take a look.

STATISTICAL EVALUATION

Davis spent 2008 hitting .243/.272/.346 between San Francisco and Oakland. He was 27 at the time, and it looked like he would forever be a below-average hitter whose speed (29-for-35 in steals) made him an acceptable backup outfielder.

Many A's fans spent April and May 2009 calling for Davis' release as he continued to struggle early, but the A's kept him.

Suddenly, in the second half of the year, he caught fire, became the everyday center fielder, and finished the year with a .305/.360/.423 line nobody saw coming. His .354 wOBA was well above average for the CF position, and he went 41-for-53 in steals as well.

If we look deeper, we can find that Davis is not as bad as he was in 2008, but not as good as he was in 2009.

Before we get there, though, let's look at what he did improve. Davis more than doubled his BB/K ratio (.41, up from .20) and cut down on his popups (13.6 percent, down from 18 percent in 2008). Popups are basically automatic outs, going for hits one to two percent of the time on average, so minimizing them is crucial to a hitter's success.

However (and here's where the problem starts), Davis' line-drive rate and groundball rate both declined from 2008 to 2009, which is bad for a speed-oriented player like himself.

That's not to say that his line-drive rate (20.0 percent) and groundball rate (45.6 percent) are poor; they're actually quite good. However, his 2008 levels (22 percent LD, 48.2 percent GB) are more ideal.

So why did Davis hit .242 in 2008 and .305 in 2009? Luck.

It's been shown that taking a player's line drive percentage + .12 is a decent formula for predicting batting average on balls in play. That means that Davis should have a BABIP of about .340 in 2008 and .320 in 2009.

Instead, his 2008 BABIP was .287 and his 2009 BABIP was .366.

What am I getting at here, you ask? Basically, I'm saying that, with average luck, Davis is not as bad as his 2008 numbers suggest nor as good as his 2009 numbers would have you believe. If a .366 BABIP makes him hit .305, and a .287 BABIP makes him hit .242, and his actual deserved BABIP is about .330, that puts Davis' expected batting average in the .270-.285 range.

Sorry for the inundation of math there.

Anyway, Rajai Davis appears to be about a .280 hitter. I'd project a .280/.335/.395 line from him next year, which makes him a passable starting center fielder, but far short of a star.

Defensively, Davis posted a quality 10.6 UZR/150 this year in center field. That strong defense, when combined with his speed and the okay offense, not to mention his low salary, makes Davis a good option in CF for 2010.

SCOUTING EVALUATION

Davis is something of a slap hitter, but he has some meat on his frame and isn't completely at a loss for power, with 27 doubles and three homers last season. He is one of the fastest players in baseball.

He shows average plate discipline and isn't afraid to choke up and play for contact with two strikes. Davis is a decent bunter but could improve his skills to get more infield hits. Being a right-handed hitter, he needs to bunt extremely well to get bunt singles.

Defensively, his instincts are below average, and he struggles to get breaks on balls, especially those hit over his head. He has so much speed that he usually outruns these mistakes. Davis plays aggressively shallow to make up for his arm strength, which is average at best. His throws often lack accuracy, especially to the plate.

Overall, Davis' speed is what drives him, and there will come a point in a few years where he can't handle center anymore. At that point, he will lose a ton of value a la Juan Pierre, but until then, he's an exciting player who can start 150 games per year and help a team win in a variety of ways.

Here's a Thought: Examining Aaron Cunningham

Nathaniel Stoltz — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:59:00 -0400

In the last week, I've looked at two of the A's top Triple-A hitters, top prospects Brett Wallace and Chris Carter. Now, I'm switching gears slightly and looking at another top Triple-A hitter, but one who has gotten a little bit of big league time the past two years: outfielder Aaron Cunningham.

If you're wondering why I've stuck to Triple-A guys this past week, it's because I'm waiting for the season to end so players stop accumulating stats and I can look at the season as a whole. So rest assured, in a few days, I'll be looking at some bigger (at least right now) names.

But for now, here's my evaluation of Cunningham:

STATISTICAL EVALUATION:

In his 45-game big league career, Aaron Cunningham has hit a meager .211/.271/.338. In 103 career Triple-A games, however, he's crushed the ball at a .317/.389/.510 clip. His numbers at both levels were better in 2008 than 2009, although he still posted a .378 wOBA in Triple-A this year.

Cunningham is a prolific hitter for average who has something of a chance to hit .300 in the majors at some point. He's a career .309 hitter in the minors. However, his flyball style may not be conducive to .300 hitting in the majors, and he needs to improve his MLB line drive rate (14.0 percent career) to reach his peak.

Cunningham brings a decent eye and doesn't strike out excessively. His MLB K/BB ratio is bad (40/9), but his Triple-A one is much better (90/44). Cunningham appears to be a hitter who will strike out and walk more or less an average amount once settled into the majors.

Cunningham brings a dash of speed, stealing 11 bags in 15 tries this year in Triple-A, but isn't a tremendous sprinter.

We don't have much UZR data on the outfielder with just 45 MLB games, but he's been just about dead-average on defense, which matches up fairly neatly with the scouting report that I will now present.

SCOUTING EVALUATION:

At the plate, Cunningham will probably remind A's fans of Eric Byrnes without all the random fits of intensity. He's a flyball hitter with a big swing, like Byrnes, but also like the Diamondbacks outfielder, his power is more of the 15-25 homer variety than that of a big slugger.

He showed a tendency to overswing in the majors, dragging his numbers down, but showed good balance and leverage in Triple-A. Once he gets settled into the majors, this should be less of a problem.

Cunningham's outlook for contact is somewhat cloudy, as he could hit anywhere from .260 to .315 at his peak. It comes down to maintaining his swing balance and hitting a high number of line drives: he doesn't have enough power to hit .300 just through homers and flies off the wall.

He has decent speed, nothing special, similar to former Athletic Mark Kotsay when Kotsay played in Oakland.

Defensively, Cunningham can handle center as well as Nick Swisher ever did in Oakland, but he's best utilized in left field, where he's an above-average defender. He's average in right, but his merely average arm makes him better fit for left.

Cunningham would be a tremendous player if he could handle center well, but since he can't, he, like Byrnes, will ultimately be an acceptable starter, perhaps above-average for his position two or three different times, or a top-notch fourth outfielder. Unless his CF defense drastically improves, improvement of his line drive rate will be crucial to Aaron Cunningham's career.

Here's a Thought: Examining Brett Wallace

Nathaniel Stoltz — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:43:30 -0400

A few days ago, in my ongoing series of thorough A's player breakdowns, I looked at mega-prospect Chris Carter. But Carter isn't the only slugger on the Sacramento River Cats who has scouts and A's fans drooling about his potential.

Brett Wallace, the centerpiece of the Matt Holliday deal with the Cardinals, hit extremely well after joining the A's organization and seems like he could be a major factor in Oakland next year. Is the hype justified? Let's take a look.

STATISTICAL EVALUATION

Wallace, 23, hit well in his first full professional season after being drafted 13th overall by St. Louis in 2008. Beginning the season on the fast track at Double-A, he hit .281/.403/.438, showing excellent on-base skills and gap power, in 32 games.

He was quickly promoted to Triple-A, where his numbers declined to .293/.346/.423. While his batting average went up slightly, his power numbers fell off slightly and his K/BB ratio declined from approximately 2/1 to 3/1.

Then again, an average Triple-A performance less than a year after being drafted isn't too bad, is it?

I was slightly concerned about the lack of power (.130 ISO) and mediocre walk rate when the A's acquired Wallace from the Cardinals in late July. Switching organizations, Wallace alleviated the former concern, if not the latter, hitting .302/.365/.505. On a less positive note, his strikeout rate increased from 18.9% to 22.0% after the trade.

Overall, Wallace is a solid Triple-A hitter with emerging over-the-fence power (20 combined homers this year; 15 in 106 AAA games) and average on-base skills. He needs to get his walk rate back to the 12% range it sat in at Double-A this year to be a superstar. It sat in the 6-7% range in Triple-A.

Wallace offers little other than his hitting. I'll get to his defense in the scouting evaluation, but he has little speed to speak of, going 1-for-3 in steals this year and failing to get any triples.

At his present level, Wallace projects to be something like a .300/.360/.475 hitter, sort of like Brad Hawpe (if all parks were equal). However, he could add walks and become more of a Nick Johnson-style OBP asset, add power like Kendry Morales, or add both and become the next Kevin Youkilis. At 23 and with just over a year of pro experience, he has some development time left.

SCOUTING EVALUATION

Wallace is seen as a natural-born hitter with a pretty, loose swing. He has a slightly funky setup at the plate that reminds me a little of Mo Vaughn, but it works for him.

Scouts generally echo the stats with Wallace's hitting. Some even go as far to say that he could be a future batting title winner, although he has to cut down on the strikeouts to get there. Others think he may reach the 30 HR mark at some point (I myself think 25 is a more realistic goal, but then again, we can never really know these things.

It seems like the scouts often praise Wallace more than the stats do; this could be due to Wallace being rushed to Triple-A. Perhaps, once his track slows down a bit, his numbers will improve to match the scouting reports: There was some evidence of this with his big August and September post-trade.

Defense is another matter entirely. Wallace, 6'2" 245 lbs., is built similarly to Tommy Everidge, and like his bulky counterpart, Wallace is thought of as a decent first baseman whose body makes third base a real stretch.

He is said to be fundamentally sound on the balls he gets to, but his body doesn't allow him to get to many, and his arm is nothing to write home about.

While the .300/.360/.475 line is above-average from third base (especially in contrast to Eric Chavez and Bobby Crosby's recent performance), it's only average-ish from a first baseman.

So, the big question: Do the A's keep Wallace at third and hope he improves on D and/or hits so well that the D stops mattering, or move him to first, block Barton and Everidge, and get an average offensive and defensive player for their troubles?

It's not an easy question, and it will be interesting to see what Beane and Co. do with Wallace over the offseason. Scouts seem to place his ceiling at the Miguel Cabrera (.330/.400/.550) level, but Wallace isn't really close to that yet, and like Cabrera, his bad body may move him down the defensive spectrum. We'll see.

Here's a Thought: Examining Chris Carter

Nathaniel Stoltz — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:34:06 -0400

Lately (before my computer crashed last week, rendering my Internet time scarce; sorry for the recent lack of material), I have been doing comprehensive evaluations of A's players to see where they are in their careers and what to expect from them in 2010 and beyond.

The first two evaluations were of pitchers—Dallas Braden and Josh Outman—so this time, I'm switching gears and looking at the player who has seemingly all A's fans excited: Triple-A first baseman Chris Carter.

STATISTICAL EVALUATION

Carter sure can hit. He hit .337/.435/.576 (yes, really) at Double-A this season before hitting .259/.293/.519 in a brief Triple-A look in August.

Concerned about the dropoff? Don't be. Carter went off during the Triple-A playoffs, homering in four straight games. Those numbers aren't included in his overall line, but do show that he already is a more than competent Triple-A hitter.

Carter hit 28 homers (not counting the playoff spree) between the two levels this season, which was actually 11 fewer than he hit in the previous year. Again, don't sweat the drop: It's mainly league-and-park-based, as Carter spent 2008 in the hitter's paradise Cal League. In 2009, he hit 11 more doubles than 2008 as well, so his power hasn't gone anywhere.

At 22, Carter wasn't young for Double-A, but a .450 wOBA would make him a prospect even if he was 26. For good measure, he even stole 13 bases in 18 tries.

Carter is a disciplined hitter at the plate who walked 85 times this year, up from 77 in 2008. His one weakness—strikeouts—improved this year, as he cut his whiffs from 156 to 133. This allowed his average to jump from .259 in High-A to .337 in Double-A, despite playing in a higher level and more pitcher-friendly league.

Statistically, Carter is a beast.

SCOUTING EVALUATION

With hitters, the numbers pretty much speak for themselves. There was concern entering the year about Carter's swing: Some scouts thought it was too long and would keep his K's up and averages down, but his improvement has put the majority of those concerns to rest.

Scouts agree that Carter has 40-HR potential and will walk a fair amount as well. The question is what type of average he will hit for. Some scouts think he'll be an Adam Dunn-style .250 hitter, while others think he could hit .320. The most common figure tossed out is .280-.290.

Barring something unforeseen (and hey, with prospects, anything can happen), Carter will develop into an excellent hitter, but his batting average will dictate if he's a fringe All-Star (.250), Silver Slugger contender (.280) or MVP candidate (.320).

Carter is a good athlete for his bulk (6'4" 235) and has 10-SB potential.

Defensively, Carter isn't very good. While he's athletic, he lacks instincts or quick reactions, leaving him with subpar range. He also has hard hands and doesn't field the ball well.

Carter does possess an excellent arm, and while he isn't very good at any position, he does have experience at first, third, left, and right, so he does bring versatility to the table. His ability to play third in the majors is questionable, but he's an OK first baseman and is at least as good as Jack Cust in the outfield.

Ultimately, Carter is a player to be excited about, and he'll enter 2010 with a legitimate shot to burst onto the scene. There are some parallels between Carter and Ryan Braun, who had a huge offensive explosion in 2007. While expecting Carter to get off to Braun's Pujols-esque start is stupid, a 25-HR season isn't setting the bar too high, in my opinion.

Of course, Carter still has only one month of AAA experience, so another one or two months in Sacramento wouldn't hurt. With Daric Barton, Tommy Everidge, and Brett Wallace all on the first base depth chart as well, the A's have some other more experienced options to consider at the position.

Carter should be a factor in Oakland no later than next July. He has the potential to be a right-handed version of David Ortiz.

Here's a Thought: Examining Josh Outman

Nathaniel Stoltz — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:55:43 -0400

In my last article, which looked at Dallas Braden, I introduced my idea of giving a single player on the A's a full-scale statistical and scouting rundown, to break down where they are at this point in their career and what to expect from them going forward.

I chose Braden to examine first because he's going to miss the rest of the season, so there won't be any 2009 data added to his pitching line. In the same vein, I'm going to look at Josh Outman in this article, since he'll miss the rest of the season. I'll probably look at Vince Mazzaro next, since he's only going to make one or two more starts.

Anyway, if you want to look at the Braden article, it's here. As for Outman...

STATISTICAL EVALUATION

Outman made 14 appearances this year, 12 of them starts, and posted a sparkling 3.48 ERA and 4-1 record.

Don't be too fooled by those results: the hard-throwing lefty is not an ace yet. His 4.36 FIP and 4.38 tRA show that his ERA is about one run luckier than he deserved.

Outman struck out 7.08 batters per nine innings while walking just 3.34, good for a 2.12 K/BB ratio. That's very solid but not quite overwhelming.

Outman did struggle some with the home run ball, giving up 1.20 homers per nine. This is somewhat troubling: you'd like a pitcher to keep his HR/9 below 1.00, especially in a park as big as Oakland's.

Outman is a flyball pitcher (37.8 GB%) who does an average-ish job of limiting liners (18.9 percent). This would lead an analyst to project his BABIP to be in the .300 range, but instead, he posted a .243 mark in that category this season.

The low BABIP explains the discrepancy between Outman's ERA and his FIP/tRA: the defense just made plays behind him.

Outman doesn't throw a lot of strikes (just 47.9 percent of his pitches are in the zone) and gets an average amount of chase swings (25.1 percent of his outside-the-zone pitches draw swings).

He makes up for that somewhat by missing more bats than most (21.9 percent swing-and-miss rate, up from 19.5 percent league average).

This isn't the best of approaches: Outman throws fewer first-pitch strikes than average (55.4 percent to the average of 58.2 percent), leaving him to fight from behind in the count a lot. He eventually gets most batters out, but he often runs the count to 3-1 or 3-2 before doing it.

This explains his inefficiency as a pitcher—he'll give you five or six good innings, but you need a good bullpen to help Outman out.

Statistically, Outman is a pitcher still growing into himself. He's got the ability to miss bats and keep his walks reasonable, but he falls behind in the count too much, leading to some ill-placed 3-0 or 3-1 pitches that get hit hard. These pitches help explain the elevated homer rate.

With more first-pitch strikes, Outman can move from pseudo-ace (which he is now because of that 3.48 ERA) to actual ace, or at least toward the front of the A's rotation.

SCOUTING EVALUATION

Outman throws four pitches: a huge fastball, a hard slider, a changeup, and a big curveball.

He uses an unusual pitching motion as well. In high school and college, he used what many scouts consider to be the strangest delivery they've ever seen, but he ultimately changed it to a more conventional, if still odd-looking, motion.

Basically, he starts off really slowly, keeping most of his weight back through his legkick, until he gets to roughly the position you can see in the picture above. At that point, his body suddenly comes forward very quickly, and he releases the pitch. It's a somewhat deceptive, if mechanically iffy, delivery that makes the ball jump on hitters some.

Outman's fastball averages 92.8 mph, which may not sound too special until you realize we're talking about a lefty starting pitcher.

The 92.8 figure also underrates Outman's velocity somewhat: he averaged 94.0 with it last year, and was around that number again (93.8, if I remember right) before his second-to-last start this year. He averaged about 91 in that start, and then 88 in his final one, before his season ended with Tommy John surgery.

There's only one other lefty starting pitcher in the majors who averages 94 mph or more on his fastball, and his name is CC Sabathia.

The pitch has a bit of late life up in the zone, but its movement is fairly unremarkable. For all its velocity, Outman doesn't use the fastball too much—just 59.8 percent of the time this season, only slightly higher than Dallas Braden uses his heater, which goes about six mph slower.

I did an article a month or two ago about how fastball velocity doesn't correlate to fastball effectiveness, and Outman's heater appears to be a prime example, registering at just .13 runs above average per 100 pitches according to PTLWs.

It could be that the lack of movement counteracts Outman's excellent velocity somewhat, or maybe hitters always look for the pitch since scouts rate it as Outman's best offering. Whatever the reason, it's a solid pitch, but Outman's velocity doesn't mean that his fastball is unhittable.

Outman's second pitch is a slider that earns average reviews from scouts. It's a low-80's pitch, averaging 81.7 mph this year, so it's well over 10 mph slower than Outman's fastball.

The pitch has average velocity and vertical drop, but it has 3-4 more inches of horizontal "sweep" than an average slider.

The extra horizontal movement makes the pitch extremely tough on lefties, and also allows Outman to work the slider inside on right-handed batters as well.

Outman throws his slider 18.2 percent of the time, which isn't a whole lot for a No. 2 pitch.

According to PTLWs, Outman's slider rates as one of the league's best, at 3.77 runs above average per 100 pitches. The excellent horizontal movement on the pitch certainly works in his favor.

The incredible results with the slider also support the "batters are really worried about the fastball" theory; in sitting on the heater, they leave themselves vulnerable to the offspeed stuff.

Further adding weight to that theory is the success of Outman's changeup, which was 1.75 runs above average this year. Like his slider, Outman's change was thought to be a usable if unexceptional pitch by scouts. Some even suggested that it wasn't good enough for him to start, and suggested that he should move to relief this year.

It comes in at basically the same speed as his slider, which, again, is far slower than the fastball. As I mentioned before, Outman's slow-early and quick-late delivery also adds some deception to the pitch.

It has average sink and slightly below-average fade to it, so the movement on the pitch isn't what's making it effective.

Outman uses the changeup 17.7 percent of the time, a pretty high amount, so it's not like hitters don't see it. The deception in his delivery, and again, the worries about his mid-90's velocity probably are the two factors that drive the success of Outman's changeup.

Outman also works in a slow curveball with impressive tilt, although scouts aren't enamored with it. He locates it well, particularly as a backdoor two-strike pitch to right-handed batters.

The pitch goes 75.8 mph on average, almost 20 mph slower than his fastball. It has the same amount of horizontal movement as his slider, but drops about 7.5 inches more, and ultimately has slightly-above-average movement for a curveball.

Despite the good movement of the pitch, Outman hasn't seen much success with it, with PTLWs rating it 1.18 runs below average this year. It was 2.88 below average last year.

Outman doesn't use the curve much—just 4.6 percent this year—so it's ineffectiveness could be just a small-sample issue (he's only thrown it 5.7 percent of the time in 93 big-league innings), or maybe I'm just missing something with it. Anyway, it's a usable fourth pitch at least, and could be better than that.

With the second-hardest lefty starter fastball in the majors (perhaps tied for second with Clayton Kershaw), two very effective secondary pitches, and even a usable fourth pitch, Outman clearly has the stuff to be a frontline starter.

I mentioned the ability to get ahead in the count as the biggest need for the lefty to work on, and that applies scouting-wise as well. The only other thing I'd add in this section is perhaps the need for more rhythm in his delivery. His stuff is so good that he doesn't need to get all out of rhythm just to add a bit of deception.

Outman can easily lose his release point in a delivery like the one he uses, and as we've seen, it also causes elbow problems due to the quick acceleration of the pitching arm in mid-delivery. I'm not a biomechanics expert, but I'm fairly confident that Outman's motion does more harm than good, both on the field and in the trainer's room.

With some mechanical tweaks and more consistency, Josh Outman (assuming he comes back fine from Tommy John surgery next year) could progress to be a truly dominant left-handed starter with a devastating four-pitch mix.

Here's a Thought: Examining Dallas Braden

Nathaniel Stoltz — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:01:41 -0400

At this point in the season, the 61-76 Oakland A's have little to play for.

As a columnist, this fact gives me rather little to write about them. There are no playoff aspirations at this point, and it doesn't really matter how well certain players do in the next few weeks. At the same time, there's no real need to go on some sort of rant against the team: I'm confident that the long-term plan will work.

What is the long-term plan, you ask? Well, the A's clearly are building around a very young and surprisingly competent pitching staff. They also have a number of top hitting prospects, most notably Chris Carter, Brett Wallace, and Adrian Cardenas, in Triple-A. Once those three make it to the majors, they should begin to turn a terrible offense around.

As the offense goes from bad to decent, and the pitching goes from good to great (which it should if most of the pitchers follow normal development patterns), the A's could have similar results to the teams from the first half of this decade: namely, 90-plus wins and playoff berths.

Anyway, since I have plenty of hope for the future, but the immediate present doesn't matter, the amount of subject matter that inspires me to write about the team is little.

I considered just doing some prospect profiles to give A's fans some hope for the future, but that wouldn't relate too much to the big league club right now, which is the main thing I'm here to analyze.

So, eventually, I decided that it would be a good idea to examine each player individually, to get a good idea of where they are at this point in their career and see what the A's can expect from them in the future.

I'm going to start with Dallas Braden, simply because he's probably out for the season, so his 2009 performance won't change.

So here goes...

STATISTICAL EVALUATION:

Braden went 8-9 with a 3.89 ERA this year. The win-loss record is bad luck: on a team with an actual offense, he'd have won at least 10 games. The ERA is pretty much right on, as FIP (3.72), and tRA (4.03) peg his run-prevention ability at a very similar level.

Braden only struck out 5.33 batters per nine innings this year, a pretty bad number. However, he's shown plenty of strikeout ability in the minors. He makes up for the lack of strikeouts with very good command and few walks (2.77 BB/9).

Braden keeps the ball in the park (0.59 HR/9), but it's worth noting that this could be somewhat lucky: his 4.7 percent HR/FB ratio is much lower than his career rates, and the A's play in a very pitcher-friendly ballpark. The account for this low HR/FB is what drives Braden's tRA above his FIP and ERA.

Braden is a pretty flyball-oriented pitcher, and he allowed a disturbing number of line drives this season (21.1 percent). His BABIP against is .307, which is probably a bit lucky given the high liner rate, although the flyball tendencies in a pitcher's park help correct this.

Braden's pitches find the zone 53.7 percent of the time, well above the MLB average of 49.3%. He gets ahead in the count nicely, getting strike one on 62.1 percent of batters.

In 2007 and 2008, Braden only threw about an average number of pitches in the strike zone, but got more batters to chase pitches out of the zone. This year, he seems to have changed his style, throwing a lot of strikes and pitching to contact instead of trying to miss bats like he did in the minors.

Because he throws a lot of strikes, Braden naturally induces an above-average number of swings (47.1 percent of his pitches are swung at; 45.2 percent is average). Batters also make contact on a good amount of their swings (83.7 percent; 80.5 percent is average), likely because most of Braden's pitches are in or near the zone.

Braden appears to be a No. 3 starter deserving of an ERA around 4.00. At age 25, he has a little bit of growth left—perhaps he can recover some of his strikeout ability, or perhaps he can refine his command even further—and should be a worthy No. 2 starter in the end.

SCOUTING EVALUATION:

Braden throws four pitches: a fastball, a slurvy breaking pitch, a cutter, and a changeup.

The fastball, coming in at 85-91 mph, averaged 87.9 this year, a career best. There's nothing particularly special about the pitch, as it's pretty straight and obviously doesn't have premium velocity, and Braden sensibly throws it less than most pitchers offer up their heaters (55.6%).

Braden does spot the pitch well, and excels at pounding righties down and in with it.

Statistically, Pitch Type Linear Weights show Braden's fastball to be pretty consistently below-average over his career, although not in "awful" territory. It was worth -.62 runs per 100 pitches this year.

The breaking ball is equally unimpressive, as it has pretty soft arc to it, coming in from 72-79 mph and averaging 75.5. Despite the lack of velocity, the pitch is technically a slider, not a curveball. It has a lot of sweeping action from left to right, but below-average drop, and the lack of velocity on the pitch hurts as well.

As with the fastball, Braden does show good command of the slider, rarely leaving it over the middle of the plate. He also is sensible enough to not overuse such a poor (at least in scouting terms) pitch, throwing it just 12.3 percent of the time.

Surprisingly, Pitch Type Linear Weights shows the pitch to be quite effective in both 2008 and 2009, coming in at 1.33 runs above average per 100 pitches this season.

The two factors that probably drive the breaking ball's success are Braden's command of the pitch and his low usage of it. His low usage—just one in every eight pitches is a breaking ball—makes the pitch more of a surprise to batters than Braden's fastball or changeup, and his premium command of the slider ensures that it will be spotted well.

Braden shouldn't start doubling his slider usage or anything just because PTLWs say the pitch is good. At its present usage, Braden's slider is quite good, but if he uses it much more, it will likely get overexposed and hit hard.

Braden just added the cutter this year, and nobody is going to mistake the pitch for Mariano Rivera's. It comes in very, very slow for a fastball at just 82.3 mph.

Braden's cutter moves similarly to his slider, but since it averages about seven more mph, the movement is considerably shorter and tighter. Like the slider, the cutter actually has pretty good movement compared to other cutters, but its relative lack of velocity makes the good movement much less impressive.

Braden uses the cutter to give hitters a different look from the fastball and slider, throwing it 10.3 percent of the time. Like the slider, it's pretty effective in that low usage, at 1.06 runs above average in the PTLWs.

It's worth noting that PTLWs had the cutter in the 2 runs above average range a couple of months into the season. Thereafter, Braden upped his usage of the pitch some, and its effectiveness went way down.

It could be that Braden's increased usage of the pitch doomed its effectiveness, but a more likely scenario is that the scouting reports were updated to include the cutter (remember, he didn't start throwing it until this year) and hitters figured it out once the pitch had been around the AL a few times.

Whatever the reason, the cutter's effectiveness will be something to watch in 2010.

Finally, there is Braden's famous changeup, which is thrown 65-76 mph.

There are a growing number of people, myself included, who think that when the pitch dips into the mid-to-high-60's range, it's actually Braden's mythical screwball.

If you don't know the screwball backstory, it goes something like this: Braden absolutely dominated the minors with a slow screwball nobody could hit. Then he blew out his arm, missed a year, then rocketed to the majors soon after returning. Once he got to Oakland, fans noticed that he didn't throw a screwball. We all wondered what the heck happened to it, until about a year later it was revealed that the A's told him to stop throwing it because it was a major cause of his arm problems.

But this year, about four or five times a game, he's thrown a pitch that certainly doesn't look like his regular changeup, going much slower and breaking much bigger. It's very possible that this pitch is the screwball, thrown on a very limited basis.

Anyway, largely in place of the screwball, Braden has developed an unbelievable changeup that seems to just stop in midair. He has the biggest fastball-changeup velocity differential in the majors this year, with 15.6 mph separating his fastball (87.9 mph) and change (72.3 mph).

The pitch actually doesn't have a whole lot of movement on it, with just average run and sink away from righthanders, but it's the velocity difference and deception on the pitch that make it so difficult. It's Braden's one plus pitch (if you exclude the screwball or lump it in with the changeup) and I don't feel hyperbolic in saying it's plus-plus.

Again, Braden understands this, and throws the changeup 21.4 percent of the time, far more than anything but the fastball. PTLWs show that the pitch is still very effective at this high usage, at 1.94 runs above average. It registered at 1.96 last year, so it's no fluke.

Scouting-wise, Braden has three poor pitches and one great one, but it's his poise, command, and effective use of what he has that makes it possible for him to succeed in the majors. He knows how much to use each of his pitches to get the most out of them, and his good command ensures that the pitches will be spotted well and tough to drive.

Here's a Thought: Possible Oakland A's September Callups—The Outfielders

Nathaniel Stoltz — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:18:26 -0400

Continuing what I began a week or so ago in looking at possible pitching callups for the A's, I'm taking a look at outfielders who could get a big league look come roster expansion on Sept. 1 (which is today, but so far the only callups have been three left-handed pitchers: Jerry Blevins, Dana Eveland, and Brad Kilby).

As with the pitching and infield articles, I'll briefly look at each player and then state whether I think he will get called up and whether he should get called up. Keep in mind that those are two very different things.

Chris Denorfia hit a weak .267/.314/.390 for Sacramento this year. While he offers some of every "tool," Denorfia doesn't really do anything all that well. He's a fine placeholding backup center fielder or pinch-runner, but he shouldn't see extended starting time anywhere.

He is on the 40-man roster and has plenty of big-league experience, so it can't hurt to call him up. I wouldn't be surprised to see him omitted from the roster, however, because of his underwhelming performance this season. It's not really a big deal either way.

Travis Buck is at the center of perhaps the biggest debate among A's fans.

Buck's supporters point to his excellent 2007 OBP and say he should be starting in right field in the majors. They also think Billy Beane and A's management have a vendetta against him and are keeping him in the minors for some undisclosed, petty team reason. They think it's ridiculous that Buck isn't in the majors.

Buck's detractors note that he hasn't hit since 2007, never showed that much power, and can't play center field, so they don't see much of a problem with Buck's Triple-A status. They believe that it's his performance, not some personal reason, keeping him away from Oakland.

Personally, I can't speak to the "vendetta" thing, but I do know Buck was terrible at the outset of 2008 after messing up his swing. He also didn't hit well in the majors this year. Yes, he's hit well in the minors, and certainly should be up now in September.

However, suggesting that keeping Buck in Triple-A characterizes the entire A's organization as stupid (and believe me, I've seen multiple bloggers, thankfully not on B/R, suggest that) is an unbelievable stretch.

In reality, yes, he probably should have been up before, but he needs regular at-bats to hone his swing mechanics. With defensive whizzes Ryan Sweeney and Rajai Davis complementing Scott Hairston and Jack Cust in the outfield right now in Oakland, Buck wasn't going to get regular playing time in the majors.

Anyway, Buck has hit .272/.349/.415 in Triple-A, which isn't spectacular, but he should be up. If he doesn't get recalled at some point this month, then I'll start buying the "vendetta" theory a bit more.

Matt Carson has flown under the radar this year, but he's bashed 24 homers for the River Cats, so at least he's got some power. Carson is also capable of playing all three outfield spots, and heck, he even pitched in six games for Sacramento.

Carson doesn't have much other than the decent glove and good power going for him, as he's 28, hit just .264 with a .329 OBP, and isn't on the 40-man. The homers are nice, and I'd like to see him if he was on the 40-man, but Carson isn't the type of talent that you DFA someone to make room for. A call up is possible but doubtful.

Aaron Cunningham has passed Buck on the depth chart at this point, as he has far better numbers (.312/.383/.502) and can play center if needed, unlike Buck.

Cunningham hasn't been very good in Oakland this year, but should and will get another crack at the majors later this month.

Matt Spencer is a huge longshot, but I thought I'd mention him anyway. After a midseason promotion from Stockton to Midland, the 23-year-old has hit .301/.350/.480. Between the two levels, he has 19 homers.

Spencer hasn't even gotten to Triple-A yet, and he doesn't walk much or play particularly good defense. However, his solid lefty stroke could make him a playable starting corner outfielder down the line. He's not on the 40-man roster, so a September look is extremely unlikely, but he's not too far off and bears watching.

Here's a Thought: Possible Oakland September Callups: The Infielders

Nathaniel Stoltz — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:17:07 -0400

Continuing what I began a few days ago in looking at possible pitching callups for the A's, I'm taking a look at infielders who could get a big league look come roster expansion on Sept. 1.

As with the pitching article, I'll briefly look at each player and then state whether I think he will get called up and whether he should get called up. Keep in mind that those are two very different things.

Yung-Chi Chen: Chen, a former Mariners prospect, has hit .318/.383/.426 across three levels this year in 49 games. He has the versatility to play anywhere on the infield, although he's not very adept at shortstop.

Chen, 26, is approaching the age where he goes from prospect to filler, and he doesn't offer too much beyond a decent batting average and some defensive versatility. He isn't on the 40-man, and while he'd likely be a decent or better utilityman in the majors, getting a utility job requires some luck.

In this organization, with more heralded players like Jemile Weeks and Adrian Cardenas not far behind him, Chen isn't really that exceptional. Out of context, calling him up isn't a bad move, but in the context of the Oakland organization, clearing roster space for him isn't all that smart.

Chen's not without value, but he doesn't mean too much to the A's. I believe they recognize this and will leave him off the September roster.

Eric Patterson: Patterson is hitting .310/.380/.503 with 42 steals in 48 attempts in Triple-A. He better be up Sept. 1, and if he isn't, I will be very angry.

Brett Wallace: When the A's traded for Wallace, I was concerned not only about his suspect defense at third base, but also about his power stroke, as he was only slugging .423 in Triple-A at the time of the trade.

He's taken steps toward silencing those doubts since the trade, however, as he's slugged .512 in 30 games with Sacramento.

There's not much doubt that Wallace can be a competent hitter for the A's right now. On a team like the A's with very little offense, the decision appears simple: just call him up.

However, there's the issue of starting his arbitration clock a month early and already giving him a 40-man spot just a bit over a year out of college. Are these costs worth giving Wallace sporadic playing time for one month?

Honestly, I don't think they are. I believe that there's no harm in letting Adam Kennedy, Tommy Everidge, and Daric Barton play out the string at the infield corners this September. Then, in the offseason, Kennedy will likely depart, freeing third base up for Wallace next year.

Eric Munson: With the ability to play first, third, and catcher, Munson and his lefty power have some major league value. The problem is that he's about to turn 32, isn't all that good at catcher or third, and sports a measly .214 batting average in a pretty large-sized (360 games) MLB career. He's also not on the 40-man.

That said, Munson has improved a bit behind the plate this year, and has also really cut his strikeouts down, helping him hit a solid .274. He could also be used to rest Kurt Suzuki (who has been ridden hard in his career) and Landon Powell (who has a huge injury history and has been playing hurt all year).

I'd want Munson up if he was already on the 40-man, because he's got some positives, but the A's are rebuilding, so why go out of your way to create roster space for a 31-year-old catcher when you already have two better, younger ones?

Gregorio Petit: I've been saying for years that Petit is nowhere near a big-league caliber ballplayer. It seems like everyone else thinks he's some sort of decent shortstop starter/excellent utility prospect. I think he belongs in Double-A.

Petit's abysmal 2009 (.240/.290/.326) seems to back me up, and he's his usual negative contribution on the basepaths as well.

His one positive is very good defense all over the infield, so that's something, but I'd rather see Petit DFA'd and Chen called up then Petit getting yet another big-league look.

Adrian Cardenas: Everyone agrees that Cardenas is a great prospect. However, many think he has really declined from Double-A (.326/.392/.446) to Triple-A (.237/.310/.317).

Those numbers overstate Cardenas' AAA struggles. In fact, he was completely overmatched in a May callup (.177/.254/.258 in 18 games), and was sent back for all of June and July before getting another look in August. Since his recall, Cardenas has hit .286/.356/.364, a solid contribution from a middle infielder.

Like Wallace, Cardenas could probably do a decent job in Oakland right now, but he's not on the 40-man, and there's no sense in rushing him. He shouldn't get a look until next spring, and I doubt he will.

Chris Carter: Carter hasn't even gotten called to Triple-A yet, but with a .337/.435/.576 line in Double-A, he has little left to prove at the plate. He continues to struggle in the field, but it just won't matter with numbers like this.

Carter is another top prospect who would have a decent chance of success in the majors if given the opportunity, but with the organization unwilling to even put him in Triple-A yet, there's no way he sees the majors in 2009. A part of me is anxious to see him in the bigs, but giving him more seasoning is probably the right move.

Corey Wimberly: This small speedster has hit well at Midland this year (.303/.375/.361) while playing a variety of positions. He offers the versatility to play almost anywhere on the field and hit from both sides of the plate. He also would be the fastest player on the A's if recalled, even faster than Rajai Davis.

Wimberly doesn't have any power, he's 25, and he hasn't gotten a Triple-A look, so there's very little chance of him making the A's this September.

However, I'd like to see it happen. I've explained my dislike of Petit—why not DFA him and give Wimberly a September look?

He would be a great infield version of Rajai Davis—a guy who offers good defense, unbelievable speed, and the ability to slap enough singles and draw enough walks to post a decent OBP. Wimberly's versatility adds to that Davis-like package.

Here's a Thought: Possible Oakland September Callups—The Pitchers

Nathaniel Stoltz — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:36:21 -0400

Back from a nearly two-week vacation hiatus, I'd like to take a look at some pitchers in the Oakland A's organization who are in the running for September callups.

So I'll look at a few different guys and analyze: first, if they should get called up, and second, if it's likely they will.

Later on, in another article, I'll look at position players.

Dana Eveland

Since his early season demotion, Eveland has done little to inspire confidence at Triple-A, pitching adequately at best in the River Cats' rotation and getting hammered in his one major league start.

Eveland's one benefit is that he's a proven decent pitcher in the majors, so he's got a decent track record. That track record likely lands him in the majors in September. While he's not likely to pitch well, he'll keep the young arms fresh and healthy by soaking up some innings, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Mike Benacka

A former independent leaguer, Benacka was signed late last year at age 26, and has dominated the minors since. He was recently promoted to Triple-A, and has K'd nine batters in just four innings there.

A deceptive pitcher with a plus-plus changeup, the 27-year-old righty misses plenty of bats and hasn't allowed a homer in 69 innings across two levels this year, despite pitching in hitter's leagues. He's a very intriguing player and deserves a chance soon. However, Benacka's not on the 40-man and only has four innings of AAA experience, so seeing him get the call would be surprising.

Brad Kilby

Those who think Eveland is out of shape (as he clearly is in the picture) should take a look at Kilby, who makes Eveland look like a jeans model.

Despite the poor conditioning, Kilby has a nice fastball-slider combo that has led to 67 K's in 59 Triple-A innings this year. He sports a 1.98 ERA as well, and has strong peripherals to back it up.

Like Benacka, Kilby deserves the callup, but isn't on the 40-man roster. However, his greater experience makes him a better bet than Benacka. I'd say Kilby's got a 50-50 shot at wearing the green and gold this year, although he really deserves to now (at Jay Marshall's expense).

Jerry Blevins

Blevins' velocity was down about three mph on all his pitches this spring, and he hasn't gotten it back. Like Eveland, he's been something less than a disaster in Sacramento, but he hasn't really excelled either.

Like Eveland, Blevins has a 40-man spot, drastically increasing his chances of making it back to Oakland. Personally, I'd rather see Kilby.

Henry Rodriguez

Rodriguez's triple-digit velocity has led to a whopping 61 K's in just 36 2/3 innings, but his command—always a weak point—is a big problem, as he's walked 33. His 6.14 ERA overstates his struggles, however, as he's just had some bad luck stranding runners.

Rodriguez is an interesting candidate for a burst-onto-the-scene September, a la Bobby Jenks or Francisco Rodriguez, and he is on the 40-man, but I'd rather see someone like Benacka up. Rodriguez has all kinds of time to work on his command—which is a big weak point—whereas Benacka, at 27, is running out of time to make the majors.

Putting Rodriguez up would be an interesting move, but I'm on the fence as to whether it will happen. If he wasn't on the 40-man, there's no way he'd get called up, but since he is, the chance is definitely there.

Chad Reineke

Another adequate pitcher in Triple-A, Reineke's only hope for MLB success is a move to the bullpen, a move that he hasn't been asked to make in the Oakland organization. Like Eveland, he's not terrible, but he's not someone you really want pitching in any meaningful major league games or situations.

Reineke is on the 40-man, and like Eveland, it can't hurt to have him throw 10 September innings to help rest Brett Anderson's arm. That doesn't mean he really belongs in the majors, however.

Clayton Mortensen

Mortensen has distinguished himself a bit better than Eveland, Blevins, or Reineke, but not to the point where he's an obvious major leaguer. He does have youth and 40-man status on his side, however.

I think he's a pretty safe bet for a September look, and there's no reason why he shouldn't get one.

James Simmons

Something of a favorite of mine, Simmons and his 5.10 ERA may scream "not ready," but he's actually pretty close to being a major league fourth starter.

A flyball pitcher with strong command, Simmons would take well to Oakland. The ERA is mainly the product of a .325 BABIP (elevated, especially for a flyballer) and 64.3 percent strand rate (easily a career low, and bad luck). His FIP is a nice 3.97.

Simmons, however, is not on the 40-man roster, and the A's likely won't want to start his service time clock early, so he'll probably stay down. I understand that logic, and it's fair enough, but I do think Simmons could pitch decently now if given the chance.

Chris Schroder

A former Washington National who put up some nice K/9 numbers in D.C., Schroder has seen his performance head south in his first year in the A's organization. With a nearly even (37/31) K/BB ratio in 46 2/3 innings, the slider specialist hasn't merited time in the big leagues.

Schroder was dropped off the 40-man earlier this year, and it's unlikely the A's would clear space for him to come back up. He doesn't deserve to come back up anyway.

Here's a Thought: Is Kurt Suzuki Really Much Better Than Landon Powell?

Nathaniel Stoltz — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:48:26 -0400

Oakland catcher Kurt Suzuki gets a lot of love from A's fans, and I certainly appreciate his playing.

Suzuki is a competent hitter who rarely strikes out, and he's an excellent defensive catcher, blocking seemingly every ball an A's pitcher throws in the dirt—all while doing a good job controlling the running game.

However, I'm going to take a very unpopular stance here and say that backup Landon Powell should see a good amount of playing time at Suzuki's expense.

Why?

Let's compare the two players.

Suzuki is hitting .283/.319/.419; Powell .253/.327/.402. While Suzuki rarely walks (4.3 BB percent) or strikes out (8.7 percent), Powell will often do either (10.3 BB percent; 24.1 K percent).

This means that Suzuki has better contact skills, but Powell is likely to post equal or higher OBPs despite the contact gap. The OBP figures of the two catchers reflect this.

Powell also hits for more power than Suzuki, with a .149 ISO to Suzuki's .136 mark.

Coming off the bench is also a difficult task for hitters, so it's very possible that Powell's numbers would improve from here with more consistent playing time. He showed excellent power in Triple-A last season (.187 ISO) and in Double-A in 2007 (.210), so he certainly has more power potential.

The other key with Powell and Suzuki is their splits against lefties and righties. Powell has hit righties at an excellent .286/.343/.429 clip, while wilting against lefties (.167/.286/.333). Suzuki, on the other hand, is at .292/.321/.419 against righties and .261/.315/.420 against lefties.

Yes, Suzuki and Powell both hit righties better than lefties, but compare the OPS splits.

vs. LHP vs. RHP
Powell .617 .772
Suzuki .735 .740

While Suzuki's batting average is 31 points higher against righties, he's got more walks and power against lefties, making his platoon split basically zero. Powell, on the other hand, is far superior to Suzuki against righties (especially when you factor in the difficulty of the bench role), but far worse against lefties.

Defensively, Suzuki is indeed excellent, but so is Powell. We don't have a whole lot of major league performance to go on, but every scouting report on Powell I've read gives him very high marks for defense and arm strength.

In 2007, in Double-A, Powell threw out a whopping 54 percent of basestealers—that's Ivan Rodriguez territory. Scouting reports praise his soft hands and receiving skills, and his wide, stocky body helps block pitches in the dirt.

So, while Suzuki is an excellent defender, Powell is a similar blocker and better thrower. Suzuki likely gets the edge in calling a game, but Powell's no slouch at that either.

So, why is Powell 27 years old and just a rookie backup catcher if he has all of these skills?

He's had two different ACL tears in his minor league career, delaying his progress through the system. When he's been healthy, he's always done well, but as a college draftee who entered pro ball at age 22, missed all of 2005, and missed a lot of 2007, the injuries and age severely hurt Powell's status.

The skills are there for him to be a top-flight catcher, offensively and defensively, if his body can hold up.

It's no slight to Suzuki that I'm saying I like Powell better. It's just that I think Powell is that good.

So what exactly am I advocating for here?

I think that Powell should usually be the starting catcher when the A's are facing a right-hander and Suzuki should start against lefties. Suzuki can also come in late in games to give Powell some rest or to face a lefty reliever.

Having this arrangement would allow both catchers to stay healthy and also keep from being rusty as so many bench players seem to be. In any given week, each catcher would see action in at least three games, whether as the starting catcher, DH, defensive replacement, or pinch-hitter.

Taking playing time from Suzuki and giving it to Powell wouldn't be a popular decision, but I think it would be the right move.

Here's a Thought: The Experience Of Being a Far-Away Fan

Nathaniel Stoltz — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:09:19 -0400

Many of you know me as the Featured Columnist for the Oakland A's. I'm a dedicated fan to the team and watch most of their games. While I look at baseball in an objective, impartial way, I certainly am every bit as rabid of a fan for my favorite team as anyone else.

What sets me apart from that is that I don't live anywhere near Oakland, and never have.

I've lived in Virginia since I was six months old (I was born in Philadelphia, for what it's worth), but, for whatever reason, I never really connected with the local teams. I lived my early childhood in the southern part of Virginia, three hours from D.C, so the closest teams were still far away.

Nevertheless, I was a huge sports fan growing up, but since I didn't really have that home team rooting interest, my favorite teams often changed when I was very young.

In football, I started out liking the Seahawks and eventually switched to being a Rams fan when I was in fourth grade. It was a good time to switch—I became a fan of St. Louis toward the end of their 4-12, 1998 season, and they won the Super Bowl the next year.

In basketball, I started out liking the Sonics (for whatever reason, I liked all the Seattle teams at age six) before later cycling through the Lakers, Pacers, Knicks, and Clippers (I somehow managed to deal with being a Clippers fan for two whole years). I eventually settled on being a Warriors fan a bit before high school.

In baseball, I started out liking the Mariners, then went through the Rangers, a terrible Tigers team, the Cardinals, and the Cubs. One day in late 1999, I saw Matt Stairs hit a long homer on a highlight reel, thought he was a cool-looking guy, and became an A's fan.

So my favorite teams are the Rams, Warriors, and A's, and it's been that way for about a decade now, so my jumping-around days of age six through age nine are long past me.

Why am I bringing this up now?

Well, yesterday, I finally got to see an A's game. I live in the northern part of Virginia, about 45 minutes west of D.C, so it was a two-hour drive up to Baltimore to watch the visiting A's take on the Orioles.

I've been to plenty of baseball games before, but I never really had a rooting interest in them. All I went to the ballpark for was to get the "ballpark experience" and see some good baseball (which is pretty tough to see when the Nationals are the closest team around).

The A's won 9-1, and I was treated to watching a dominant start by Gio Gonzalez and good at-bat after good at-bat by the A's hitters. I've been an A's fan for 10 years, and with my attendance of a game that long in the making, I sure picked a good one to attend.

It was extra-special to see my favorite player, Tommy Everidge, on the field, after I've been pulling so hard for him over the past year. He went just 1-for-5, but hit a couple of flies that just missed leaving the ballpark.

I don't know how many of you who live near your favorite team often see games where you don't care who wins, but it's a much different experience.

It's obviously much more emotional to go to a game where your favorite team is playing, but it also changes what you want to see in the game.

For example, I went to a Blue Jays-Nationals game two months ago. If someone made an error in that game, I would think "Wow, that was a terrible play." In yesterday's game, if an A's player made an error, I would be disgusted and frustrated, but if an Orioles player made an error, I would be ecstatic.

Obviously, the ecstasy/disgust reactions are far more extreme than the objective "He messed that up" response.

And of course, the emotions are somewhat similar when you watch a game on TV (I have MLB.tv, so I still catch all the A's games, and I can see many of their AAA affiliate's games on MiLB.tv as well), but there was something different about it. Seeing the players themselves is far different from seeing images of them on a screen.

As much as I love Tommy Everidge, when I see him get a hit on TV, I'm happy, but not to the point of yelling. Even when he hit his first big-league homer a couple of days ago, my reaction wasn't as strong as actually seeing him line a single to right field off of Jeremy Guthrie yesterday.

It's cool to watch Everidge on TV, but it doesn't begin to compare with sitting 20 feet behind him when he's in the on-deck circle.

Even being a fan of the away team didn't really subtract from the experience. I was pleasantly surprised to see that about 25 percent of the fans at Camden Yards were wearing the green and gold of Oakland. I didn't expect that, given the A's low home attendance, but the presence of other A's fans made me feel more at home.

As someone who has always had that long distance between himself and the teams he loves, it was a really amazing experience to get a view of the A's in reality. If you, like me, live far away from your favorite teams, I strongly encourage you to make an effort to go see them and have this incredible experience.

Since I don't regularly see the A's, I don't know if the awesomeness of the experience becomes slightly more subdued the more games you attend. I do know, however, that it's an experience to be cherished and treasured, because there's nothing like it. If you do often get to see your favorite team, don't take it for granted—plenty of people, like me, would kill to attend even five games a year.

Here's a Thought: Mickey Storey Emerges As a Dominant Relief Prospect

Nathaniel Stoltz — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:01:28 -0400

Mickey Storey had a horrible senior season of college last year, posting an ERA above seven.

Given that he was a senior with poor performance, Storey wasn't heralded at all, and the Oakland A's got him toward the end of the 2008 draft in the 31st round.

Many 31st round picks don't ever even sign or play pro ball. Of the ones that do, few ever become notable players.

The medium-sized righthander pitched decently in rookie ball after signing last season, posting a 3.27 ERA with a 23/6 K/BB ratio in 22 innings. Still, as a 22-year-old, he was expected to dominate the younger hitters, and his merely above-average performance was the bare minimum for him to stay with the Oakland organization.

Storey didn't even make a full-season roster to open 2009 because of this, but after some injuries hit the roster at Low-A Kane County, he got sent in as a replacement.

Seemingly instantly, Storey became an unhittable closer. He picked up nine saves in 13 appearances, posting a 0.52 ERA and sparkling 23/1 K/BB ratio in 17 1/3 innings.

Noting Storey's success, the A's quickly jumped him to the High-A Stockton team. If he was to be any sort of prospect, he needed to move quickly, since he was already 23.

The California League is death to pitchers, but Storey was unfazed by it, notching seven more saves in 16 appearances. He posted a 2.16 ERA and 24/3 K/BB ratio in 16 2/3 innings.

This week, the A's continued to aggressively push the Florida Atlantic alum, having him skip Double-A and go to Triple-A Sacramento.

The move was initially though to be temporary, but then Storey struck out the first three batters he faced at the new level. The A's didn't send him down as expected, and he's since had another appearance. He's faced nine batters over two appearances, retired all of them, and struck out four.

Storey has jumped from a 31st-round draft pick to dominant Triple-A reliever in 13 months. He's jumped from extended spring training to dominant Triple-A reliever in just three months.

For the season, he has pitched 37 innings, allowed nine runs (five earned), and put up a whopping 51/4 K/BB ratio. He's only allowed two homers, both in the high-offense Cal League.

So what is the disconnect here? Why was Storey rated so low, yet performed so well?

Well, he was a dominant pitcher his first two years of college, and then had injury issued that messed him up the last two seasons.

Storey, at 6'1" 185, isn't a physically imposing pitcher, and he doesn't have premium velocity, sitting in the 87-92 mph range with his fastball.

Storey's size, pedestrian velocity, injury history, and lack of success post-sophomore year combined to really drop his draft stock.

However, watching him pitch, it's easy to see why Storey has so much success. He has pinpoint control of his fastball, which has a lot of run into righties and away from lefties. He consistently spots the pitch on the corners for strike one.

His changeup is less than stellar, but like the fastball, he spots it consistently, and can throw it down and away to lefties for strikes.

The key to Storey's success is a low-70's curveball that breaks hard and late. Since he's consistently ahead in the count with the early-count fastballs and changeups, Storey can bury the curveball down and away out of the strike zone to finish hitters off.

He throws the pitch to both lefties and righties, and they have difficulty laying off the pitch or making contact with it. Storey also can throw the curve in the strike zone if he needs to, but so many batters chase it that he rarely needs to get it over.

With incredible numbers, pinpoint command, and a major league out pitch, this low draft pick could be a shutdown reliever for many years.

Here's a Thought: Wait, Hector Luna is a Power Hitter?

Nathaniel Stoltz — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 03:41:28 -0400

Cardinals, Indians, and Blue Jays fans may remember Hector Luna.

A utility player, Luna played parts of five seasons in the major leagues from 2004-2008. He hit .270/.324/.388, respectable enough for a bench player who played everywhere but pitcher and catcher.

In fact, in 2005, Luna hit .285/.344/.409 for the Cardinals. He was even better in 2006, posting a .291/.355/.417 line in St. Louis.

Then, Luna was traded to Cleveland at the 2006 deadline. He hit just .276/.306/.394 the rest of the way, and has only played in 23 major league games since.

In 284 career games, Luna hit 11 home runs. He knocked enough doubles and triples to be something more than a slap hitter, but Luna was never any sort of slugger. If he was between the No. 3 and No. 6 slots in a lineup, something had probably gone horribly wrong for that team.

He spent the majority of his career batting seventh or eighth, or coming off the bench, occasionally hitting second or sixth in the order.

Luna's lack of power was in line with his minor league numbers. He never slugged above .421 or hit more than 11 homers in a season.

After a year-plus bouncing between Toronto and Triple-A Syracuse (with the vast majority of his time coming at Syracuse), Luna signed with the Dodgers this offseason and was sent to Triple-A Albuquerque.

In 66 games there (he missed some time with an injury in late June-July), Hector Luna is hitting .353/.416/.651 with 13 home runs.

He would be leading the PCL in average and slugging percentage if he had enough at-bats.

Going into 2009, who could have seen this coming? I make my fair share of bold predictions, some of which come true, but I sure couldn't have foreseen this.

Now, to be fair, Albuquerque is one of the most hitter-friendly parks in baseball, so expecting Luna to post career-best marks would be fair. But there's career best, and then there's blowing your career highs completely out of the water.

He's actually hitting better on the road (.347/.427/.694) than at home (.362/.402/.596), further invalidating the park-inflation theory.

Luna is 29-years old, and you just don't see power spikes of this nature in 29-year-olds very often. Cynics will probably point to Luna as a steroid user, but he's never failed a drug test and there's zero evidence against him. Assuming it's a PED thing is just plain lazy, in my opinion.

He has bulked up some from his days in St. Louis and Cleveland, PEDs or no PEDs. Luna now carries 225 pounds on his 6'1" frame, meaning that he isn't a playable shortstop anymore. He's currently playing third base every day in Albuquerque.

It's difficult to pinpoint a reason for Luna's power breakout other than the added bulk. I personally don't know of any swing changes he's made, but as Ben Zobrist has shown, swing alterations can transform a singles hitter to a power threat fairly quickly.

Perhaps Luna's made some mechanical adjustments; I'm not sure.

But his numbers certainly speak for themselves.

Hector Luna, light-hitting utility player, has transformed into a fearsome Triple-A hitter this year. It will be interesting to see if he'll get a look in the majors with his newfound power. If he does get a look, will the power come with him from Albuquerque to Los Angeles?

Here's a Thought: Bryan LaHair Deserves Another Shot

Nathaniel Stoltz — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:40:22 -0400

For years, first baseman Bryan LaHair always had power potential. A hulking first baseman drafted by Seattle in the 39th round in 2002, LaHair's bulky physique offered hope that he could have over-the-fence power.

After two nondescript years in the low minors, the 6'5" first baseman busted out with 22 homers in the High-A California League in 2005.

LaHair's backers used the nice homer total to argue that he was translating his raw power to games.

His detractors said it was all park effects, as the Cal League is known as a hitter's paradise.

LaHair split the next season between Double-A and Triple-A, but his homer total declined to 16. He did hit .323/.397/.525 with 10 homers in 54 games in Triple-A, however, offering some hope of a major league future.

LaHair gave all that progress back in 2007, however, as he only hit 12 homers in a full year at Triple-A. He did rope 46 doubles, but only slugged .431. That sort of line as a 24-year-old was a big red flag for LaHair.

He did manage 12 homers in the first four months of 2008 in his third crack at Triple-A, but his .263/.356/.465 line wasn't impressive for a 25-year-old first baseman in his third year at the level.

Nevertheless, the Mariners grew tired of incumbent Richie Sexson's terrible hitting, released him, and called up LaHair.

He completely flopped.

LaHair showed a bad approach at the plate, and very little of his raw power showed up in games. He had just seven extra-base hits (four doubles and two homers) in 45 games, and had an ugly .096 Isolated Power.

So LaHair entered this year with a track record of major league failure and complete inability to use his bulk to produce homers. He's also 26, well past the age where players take big steps forward.

LaHair was sent to Triple-A Tacoma. It's the fourth straight year he's spent extensive time there.

LaHair has smashed 22 homers in just 92 games with the Rainiers, and has even upped his batting average significantly, hitting a nice .305/.366/.555.

He's also taken well to the outfield corners, where the Mariners are trying him in hopes of increasing LaHair's versatility.

It seems like the 6'5" 235 first baseman is finally hitting like one, and with the Mariners falling out of contention, it's a good time to give LaHair another 100 at-bats to see if his newfound power plays at the major league level.

With Mike Sweeney currently hitting worse than the 2008 incarnation of LaHair (.239/.293/.370) and being a worse and less versatile defender, he's certainly the logical choice to be let go. LaHair, even if he struggles again, would be an upgrade over Sweeney.

Since he's finally showing the over-the-fence power some have long projected him to have, Bryan LaHair deserves another shot with the Mariners.

Here's a Thought: How Can a Pitcher Succeed Against the Yankees?

Nathaniel Stoltz — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:24:19 -0400

The Yankees lineup has lived up to its pre-season billing; the best in baseball.

With a .362 Weighted On Base Average and OPS of .831, the Yankees have been able to bail out their struggling pitchers night in and out, while striking fear in opposing ones.

With a playoff berth in reach, my question is simply: "How will you get these guys out?"

While there isn't much hope of completely shutting the Bronx juggernaut down, especially in their launching pad of a home park, there are ways to minimize the damage this lineup can inflict. But no one has found those ways out.

Once that strategy is determined, I'll look at what pitchers on the potential AL playoff teams may be able to perform against the formidable lineup.

The first thing to consider is platoon split, or how the team does against left-handed pitchers and right-handed pitchers.

This season, the Yankees have crushed lefties to the tune of .293/.377/.490 and hit righties at a .270/.350/.465 clip.

With right-handed hitters like Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter, and switch-hitters Jorge Posada, Nick Swisher, Melky Cabrera and Mark Teixeira getting everyday at-bats, that's not too much of a surprise.

So righties are more likely to have success against New York than lefties, although the Yankees' OPS against RHPs (.815) is still higher than any other team's overall OPS.

But, for the sake of this argument, the ideal pitcher against New York is right-handed.

However, given the Yankees' high number of switch-hitters, the righty will need to be able to get lefties out.

Next, let's take a look at plate discipline.

The Yankees chase the fewest pitches outside the strike zone of any team in baseball (21.8 percent). They also swing at the second-fewest pitches overall (42.2 percent), just behind the Mets.

Because of their excellent plate discipline, the Yankees make contact on 83.7 percent of their swings, the third-highest rate in the majors.

From these numbers, it's clear that a pitcher needs to throw quality strikes against New York to succeed. While that seems extremely obvious, it's not the approach I'd advise taking against a team like the Giants, who chase 32 percent of pitches outside the zone.

With a team like that, pitchers who throw lots of chase pitches are likely to succeed. With New York, however, hitting the corners of the strike zone is imperative.

Since the Yankees make a lot of contact, it's preferable to pitch to contact against them. They aren't a particularly groundball-or-flyball-heavy team, but when they do hit the ball in the air, it goes a long way. 13.7 percent of the Yankees outfield flies clear the fences, easily the highest mark in the majors.

Some of that may be due to the hitters' park the Yankees play in, but a lot of it has to do with the power hitters in the lineup.

Because of the power threat, it's a big plus to be a groundball pitcher against the Yankees. If they can't lift the ball, no amount of raw strength or park effects can push it over the wall.

So thus far, it seems that a right-handed groundball pitcher with good command is best suited to face the Yankees.

The final aspect I'm going to look at is individual pitch types. Let's take a look at this quick table of the Yankees' rank against each pitch:

Pitch Fastball Slider Cutter Curveball Changeup Splitter
Yankees Rank 1 11 10 1 5 18

The Yankees are the best team in the majors at hitting fastballs and curveballs, and the only pitch they rank in the bottom half of teams in is the splitter.

Clearly, pitchers who throw lots of fastballs and curves are poor bets for success against New York.

So what we'd ideally like to see in a pitcher "born to beat the Yankees" is a righty with good command, groundball tendencies, and an excellent slider, cutter, or splitter. The pitcher can't overuse his fastball or curve though.

Now that we've got the ideal profile, let's see if there are any pitchers on AL contenders that meet it.

John Smoltz looks like a decent bet. He only throws his fastball about 40 percent of the time, and throws a good slider and splitter. He has pinpoint command, with only 1.23 walks per nine innings this year. He doesn't have the pronounced groundball tendencies one would like to see, but he's got an average GB/FB split.

Mark Buehrle throws a lot of cutters and changeups, has pinpoint command, and does a nice job keeping the ball on the ground, but he is a lefty.

Jose Contreras, the former Yankee, has a good slider and splitter that make up half of his pitch selection. He gets a good amount of grounders as well, and while he doesn't have pinpoint command, he throws enough strikes to get by.

Texas' Scott Feldman throws an excellent cutter, gets a good amount of grounders, and pitches to contact very nicely.

Those four look like the closest matches for the ideal pitcher to face New York. As you can see, there aren't many who really fit all the criteria to keep the Yankees' lineup in check.

As the statistics will tell you, it's not an easy task.

Here's a Thought: Kevin Jepsen, Jose Arredondo, and Deceiving ERAs

Nathaniel Stoltz — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 04:48:54 -0400

As an A's fan, I'm always particularly interested in what the rival Los Angeles Angels are doing.

I also often look through the FIP-ERA difference leaderboard to see who's getting lucky or unlucky.

For those of you who don't know, FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) is a statistic that basically says what a pitcher's ERA would be if he had average defensive luck behind him.

Anyway, two pitchers with very high FIP-ERA differences are Angels relievers Kevin Jepsen and Jose Arredondo.

Arredondo has an ERA of 5.55, but FIP shows him to be a very effective pitcher, with a 2.33 mark.

Jepsen's ERA is 6.66, but his FIP is a sparkling 2.99.

What happens when a pitcher has a dramatic split like this is that you get two very different opinions.

Traditional, old-school guys who look at just ERA say these two pitchers should be sent to the minors for their poor performance.

Stats guys will look at the FIP and say Arredondo and Jepsen are excellent relievers.

Who is right? Is it A) the old school or B) the new school?

The correct answer is C) we don't have enough information.

ERA and FIP are both incomplete metrics. If you go exclusively by one metric or the other, you'll often make incorrect predictions.

Let's look at Arredondo.

On the most superficial level, he looks like a bad pitcher with the 5.55 ERA and 1.64 WHIP.

On a second, deeper level, he looks merely unlucky, with the 2.37 FIP, .402 BABIP, and 62.5 percent strand rate.

But looking to that second level isn't enough to determine Arredondo's 2009 level of performance.

Stats guys might argue "The .402 BABIP must come down! It's all bad luck!"

And it should come down...to about .380.

The average BABIP is .300, and a lot of sabermetric analysts mistakenly assume that everyone's will come near that level.

That's simply not true. Line drives usually fall for hits, ground balls sometimes do, and fly balls rarely do. Depending on the amount of each hit a pitcher allows, the BABIP he deserves could change dramatically.

A fairly good, if inexact, formula to calculate deserved BABIP is line drive percentage +.12.

Twenty-five percent of hits off Arredondo were line drives in 2009. Combine that with far more grounders than flies allowed, and his BABIP should be in the .370-.390 range.

Batters are smoking the ball of the righty this year, and that's his own fault, not the defense's.

So yes, .402 is a bit high, but it's not way out of line like the "it regresses to .300" conventional wisdom would have you believe.

And sure, the strand rate is bad luck.

Taking all that into account, it's reasonable to project Arredondo's true ability in high-fours ERA range. That's in between his ERA and FIP, but far closer to the ERA.

Arredondo is a great example of where some of the more advanced stats simply don't capture what's actually going on.

Now let's look at Jepsen.

On the superficial level, he's got a 6.66 ERA, 1.75 WHIP, and .332 batting average against.

On the second, deeper levl, the rookie righty has a .405 BABIP and just a 55.1 percent strand rate, putting his FIP at 2.99.

Examining his batted-ball splits, we see Jepsen allows 17.4 percent liners, 64 percent grounders, and 18.6 percent flies. Using the LD% +.12 formula, we get a deserved BABIP of .294. That should go up a bit because of the extreme GB/FB split, but only to the .310ish range.

Jepsen's high BABIP, unlike Arredondo's, is pretty much all a fluke. The ghastly strand rate likely is as well.

There's no real statistical evidence that shows Jepsen to be anything other than the 2.99 ERA pitcher his FIP claims him to be.

The only indictment in his stat line seems to be toward the Angels defense.

So, while ERA shows Jepsen and Arredondo to be terrible, and FIP shows them to be great, in reality, it looks like Arredondo is poor and Jepsen is very good.

I have to give the Angels credit for leaving Jepsen in the majors while sending Arredondo down. Obviously, they saw through the statistical mess as well and picked the right pitcher to stay in an L.A. uniform.

The lesson here: Look at the big picture, not just one stat that claims to show all of a pitcher's value by itself.

Here's a Thought: Oakland Athletics Organization Signs Two Players

Nathaniel Stoltz — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 03:40:33 -0400

If you haven't heard, the A's have added right-handed pitcher Brett Tomko to the roster of AAA Sacramento. They have also added first baseman Kala Ka'aihue to the roster of High-A Stockton.

Tomko, 36, was released by the Yankees on July 29. He was terrible for New York this season, posting a 6.17 FIP in 20 2/3 innings.

From 2006-2008, he had three passable, nondescript seasons between the Dodgers, Padres, and Royals organizations.

He has posted a FIP below 4.00 just once in his 13-year career (3.97 in 1998 with Cincinnati).

I can't say I'm a fan of this move. It's fine to bring outside guys into the organization, as Double-A pitcher Kyle Middleton (signed out of the independent leagues earlier this season) proves, but Tomko has never really been a difference-making pitcher, and he has no place on the major league A's, no matter what his Triple-A success is.

If Oakland is to bring someone in from outside the organization, I'd much rather it be a younger player with more potential upside and use to the major league team.

The A's have found some good arms from indie ball in the past two years (Middleton, Mike Benacka, and Jon Hunton, who are all excelling in Double-A), so why not just go that route again?

Ka'aihue is a 24-year-old ex-Braves prospect who hit a miserable .157/.306/.262 in Double-A this year before being released by Atlanta.

The brother of Royals Triple-A slugger Kila Ka'aihue, Kala mashed 22 homers in High-A in 2007 despite playing half his games in Myrtle Beach, the most notorious pitcher's park in the minor leagues.

Last year, he only hit 14 homers in Double-A, but walked 88 times, posting a sparkling .417 OBP.

Ka'aihue has shown he has a ton of power and a ton of patience, but, for whatever reason, things obviously completely fell apart for the Hawaiian first baseman this season.

I love this pickup for Oakland. If Ka'aihue can rediscover his potential, he could give the A's a big lineup presence down the line. He's also an excellent defensive first baseman.

At 24, he still has time to turn his career around.

And hey, if he doesn't, all it cost Oakland was a minor league contract and High-A roster spot.

So I really like the Ka'aihue pickup but dislike the addition of Tomko. It will be interesting to see what these two players do with their new organization.

Here's a Thought: MLB's 10 Most Effective Fastballs

Nathaniel Stoltz — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 02:52:53 -0400

Based on the success of my articles on curves, sliders, changeups, cutters, and splitters, I decided to look at the 10 most effective fastballs this season. I'm measuring fastball effectiveness by Pitch Type Linear Weights, which says how many runs a pitcher prevents above average every time he throws 100 pitches. So, if I say a fastball's effectiveness is one run above average, that means that every 100 fastballs that pitcher throws, he allows one run less than average. I set two ground rules. First of all, pitchers have to have thrown at least 30 innings this year. Second, they have to use the fastball at least 10 percent of the time. For each pitcher, I'll list the average fastball velocity, average fastball movement relative to an average major league fastball (if you want to know why I'm comparing it to a fastball, just ask), fastball usage (how often the pitcher throws the fastball), and fastball effectiveness (as measured by Pitch Type Linear Weights). Also, just to clarify, this is me taking the leaderboard on fastball effectiveness, listing the top 10 pitchers, and analyzing their fastball's success. This is NOT a subjective list. So don't tell me I'm "leaving somebody off." It's just the leaders in the stat and my analysis for why they're leading. Let's take a look.

Begin Slideshow

Here's a Thought: MLB's 10 Most Effective Cutters

Nathaniel Stoltz — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:11:43 -0400

Based on the success of my articles on curves, sliders, changeups, and splitters, I decided to look at the 10 most effective cutters this season. I'm measuring cutter effectiveness by Pitch Type Linear Weights, which says how many runs a pitcher prevents above average every time he throws 100 pitches. So, if I say a cutter's effectiveness is one run above average, that means that every 100 cutters that pitcher throws, he allows one run less than average. I set two ground rules. First of all, pitchers have to have thrown at least 30 innings this year. Second, they have to use the cutter at least 10 percent of the time. For each pitcher, I'll list the average cutter velocity, average cutter movement relative to an average major league fastball (if you want to know why I'm comparing it to a fastball, just ask), cutter usage (how often the pitcher throws the cutter), and cutter effectiveness (as measured by Pitch Type Linear Weights). Also, just to clarify, this is me taking the leaderboard on cutter effectiveness, listing the top 10 pitchers, and analyzing their cutter's success. This is NOT a subjective list. So don't tell me I'm "leaving somebody off." It's just the leaders in the stat and my analysis for why they're leading. Let's take a look.

Begin Slideshow

Here's a Thought: MLB's 10 Most Effective Splitters

Nathaniel Stoltz — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:05:27 -0400

Based on the success of my "MLB's 10 Most Effective Curveballs" and "MLB's 10 Most Effective Sliders" articles, I decided to look at the 10 most effective splitters this season. I'm measuring splitter effectiveness by Pitch Type Linear Weights, which says how many runs a pitcher prevents above average every time he throws 100 pitches. So, if I say a splitter's effectiveness is one run above average, that means that every 100 splitters that pitcher throws, he allows one run less than average. I set two ground rules. First of all, pitchers have to have thrown at least 25 innings this year. Second, they have to use the splitter at least 10 percent of the time. For each pitcher, I'll list the average splitter velocity, average splitter movement relative to an average major league fastball (if you want to know why I'm comparing it to a fastball, just ask), splitter usage (how often the pitcher throws the splitter), and splitter effectiveness (as measured by Pitch Type Linear Weights). Also, just to clarify, this is me taking the leaderboard on splitter effectiveness, listing the top 10 pitchers, and analyzing their splitter's success. This is NOT a subjective list. So don't tell me I'm "leaving somebody off." It's just the leaders in the stat and my analysis for why they're leading. Let's take a look.

Begin Slideshow

Here's a Thought: MLB's 10 Most Effective Changeups

Nathaniel Stoltz — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:40:55 -0400

Based on the success of my "MLB's 10 Most Effective Curveballs" and "MLB's 10 Most Effective Sliders" articles, I decided to look at the 10 most effective changeups this season. I'm measuring changeup effectiveness by Pitch Type Linear Weights, which says how many runs a pitcher prevents above average every time he throws 100 pitches. So, if I say a changeup's effectiveness is one run above average, that means that every 100 changeups that pitcher throws, he allows one run less than average. I set two ground rules. First of all, pitchers have to have thrown at least 30 innings this year. Second, they have to use the changeup at least 10 percent of the time. For each pitcher, I'll list the average changeup velocity, average changeup movement relative to an average major league fastball (if you want to know why I'm comparing it to a fastball, just ask), changeup usage (how often the pitcher throws the changeup), and changeup effectiveness (as measured by Pitch Type Linear Weights). Also, just to clarify, this is me taking the leaderboard on changeup effectiveness, listing the top 10 pitchers, and analyzing their changeup' success. This is NOT a subjective list. So don't tell me I'm "leaving somebody off." It's just the leaders in the stat and my analysis for why they're leading. Let's take a look.

Begin Slideshow

Here's a Thought: MLB's 10 Most Effective Sliders

Nathaniel Stoltz — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:05:15 -0400

Based on the success of my "MLB's 10 Most Effective Curveballs" article, I decided to look at the ten most effective sliders this season. I'm measuring slider effectiveness by Pitch Type Linear Weights, which says how many runs a pitcher prevents above average every time he throws 100 pitches. So, if I say a slider's effectiveness is one run above average, that means that every 100 sliders that pitcher throws, he allows one run less than average. I set two groundrules for this. First of all, pitchers have to have thrown at least 30 innings this year. Second, they have to use the slider at least 10 percent of the time. For each pitcher, I'll list the average slider velocity, average slider movement relative to an average major league fastball (if you want to know why I'm comparing it to a fastball, just ask), slider usage (how often the pitcher throws the slider), and slider effectiveness (as measured by Pitch Type Linear Weights). Also, just to clarify, this is me taking the leaderboard on slider effectiveness, listing the top 10 pitchers, and analyzing their sliders' success. This is NOT a subjective list. So don't tell me I'm "leaving somebody off." It's just the leaders in the stat and my analysis for why they're leading. Let's take a look. You'll never guess who's #1.

Begin Slideshow

Here's a Thought: MLB's 10 Most Effective Curveballs

Nathaniel Stoltz — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:06:53 -0400

I thought it would be an interesting idea to see who has the most effective curves in the major leagues this year. I'm measuring curve effectiveness by Pitch Type Linear Weights, which says how many runs a pitcher prevents above average every time he throws 100 pitches. So, if I say a curve's effectiveness is +1 run, that means that every 100 curves that pitcher throws, he allows one run less than average. I set two groundrules for this. First of all, pitchers have to have thrown at least 30 innings this year. Second, they have to use the curve at least 10% of the time. For each pitcher, I'll list the average curve velocity, average curve movement relative to an average major league fastball (if you want to know why I'm comparing it to a fastball, just ask), curve usage (how often the pitcher throws the curve), and curve effectiveness (as measured by Pitch Type Linear Weights). Let's take a look.

Begin Slideshow

Here's a Thought: Is Paul Smyth the Next Brad Ziegler?

Nathaniel Stoltz — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:47:53 -0400

In the 2003 MLB draft, the Phillies selected right-handed pitcher Brad Ziegler in the 20th round. Ziegler threw six nice innings in short-season ball and was cut the next season, heading to the independent leagues.

The A's eventually picked Ziegler up in late 2004. He spent the next three years as a decent starter in the high minors, but there was nothing exceptional about him that made him stand out.

Going into 2007, Ziegler was a 27-year-old with only four games of Triple-A experience. As a finesse righty with a nice change and little else, he was thought of as a depth guy in the minors.

However, inspired by their success with submarining righty Chad Bradford in the majors, the A's thought they'd try dropping Ziegler's arm slot way down and putting him in the bullpen.

The conversion was initially thought of as a mere curiosity. Even after Ziegler dominated Double-A and Triple-A in 2007, he had few believers.

Fast-forward to 2009, and Ziegler is the owner of the longest scoreless streak to start a career (39 innings in 2008). He also is one of the most trusted setup arms in the majors.

Just like Bradford's success may have brought on the Ziegler idea, Ziegler's success may have contributed to the A's decision to draft University of Kansas reliever Paul Smyth in the 35th round of the 2009 draft.

Like Ziegler, Smyth wasn't highly regarded coming out of college, as the draft position attests.

This is largely due to his arm slot, which is a little bit higher than Ziegler's or Bradford's, but is certainly far below where most pitchers throw. He's also a short right-hander (5'10"), further hurting his status among scouts.

From the sidearm angle, Smyth fires a low-90s cutter, a two-seam fastball with a lot of run and sink (like most sidearmers), and a decent slider.

Since he had significant college experience, the 22-year-old Smyth was sent to short-season-A-ball upon signing in June.

To say he's been dominant there would be an understatement.

In 22-2/3 innings, Smyth has struck out 27 batters. He's allowed eight hits, no homers, and two walks.

He hasn't allowed a single run.

Obviously, projecting Smyth to be as good as Ziegler when he hasn't even gotten to full-season ball yet is hyperbole.

However, his utter dominance is an excellent sign.

Smyth also throws harder than Ziegler, and has that cutter that he can throw in on the hands of lefties.

With Bradford and Ziegler, the A's have shown great ability to find (or make) sidearmers who can excel in the bullpen.

While Paul Smyth is still far from the majors, he may continue that tradition.

Here's a Thought: What Should The A's Do When Jason Giambi Returns?

Nathaniel Stoltz — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:37:12 -0400

On Tuesday, Jason Giambi is eligible to come off the disabled list for the Oakland A's.

Giambi claims to be healthy and expects to be activated once he is eligible to return.

Since Giambi went on the DL, however, the A's have traded Matt Holliday and Orlando Cabrera, while giving young players such as Tommy Everidge, Daric Barton, Eric Patterson, and Cliff Pennington a look.

Veterans such as Rajai Davis and Nomar Garciaparra have also hit well in the time that Giambi has been out.

The success of the veterans and the need to play the youngsters gives the A's a tough decision for who to drop off the roster when Giambi returns.

I've narrowed it down to Giambi himself, Garciaparra, Everidge, Ryan Sweeney, Russ Springer, Edgar Gonzalez, and Santiago Casilla.

I'm just briefly going to present the for-and-against arguments for each.

Giambi should go because: He was hitting a paltry .193 this season. He's 38-years old and has no future in Oakland after 2009, so the A's should let Everidge or Barton (currently on the DL himself) play first instead. Giambi is also a bad defender.

Giambi should not go because: He has a proven track record of success and was still walking and hitting the occasional homer this season. If he catches fire upon his return, perhaps the A's can trade him in a waiver deal. It also looks bad to release a player just as he's coming back from an injury.

Garciaparra should go because: Like Giambi, Garciaparra has no future in Oakland post-2009. He's got just a .681 OPS and is not a good defender. Garciaparra is also extremely fragile, and misses a lot of time with injuries.

Garciaparra should not go because: He hit .324/.359/.405 in July, and if he keeps it up, perhaps he can be traded in a waiver deal and the A's can get something in return. Garciaparra can also play third and short in addition to first, so he's more defensively flexible than Giambi.

Everidge should go because: He's hitting .250/.321/.375 in limited duty. He's an average first baseman who can also play third in a pinch, but he's not a defensive asset.

Everidge should not go because: He's only 26, crushed Triple-A at a .382/.432/.636 clip this season, and has only had six games to prove himself. He hasn't embarrassed himself at the plate, and should get at least a month of playing time to show his ability.

Sweeney should go because: He has no offensive skill other than hitting a few singles. His batting average of .274 looks respectable; his .681 OPS does not.

Sweeney should not go because: He plays good defense in the outfield and is only 24. Sending Sweeney down would leave the A's with just four outfielders: Eric Patterson, Scott Hairston, Rajai Davis, and Jack Cust.

Springer should go because: He's 40 and not pitching particularly well. Like Giambi and Garciaparra, he's an average-or-worse performer in the present who is not a part of the future.

Springer should not go because: Like Giambi and Garciaparra, Springer could be moved in a waiver deal if he plays well in the next few weeks. Also, exchanging Giambi for Springer would leave the A's with just 11 pitchers, which might stretch the bullpen some.

Gonzalez should go because: He's got a career FIP of 5.37 and has a terrible 24/20 K/BB ratio this season.

Gonzalez should not go because: He hasn't allowed a homer in 39 2/3 innings, although that's likely a fluke. Again, it's not the best of ideas to carry 11 pitchers when guys like Trevor Cahill and Gio Gonzalez are prone to early exits, stretching the bullpen. Gonzalez is really important because he can go several innings to lessen that stress.

Casilla should go because: He's struggled to a 4.76 xFIP this season. His K/BB ratio is also bad (27/20), and he's now 29 years old, so he's unlikely to get much better.

Casilla should not go because: He's got a good arm, and there's still the 11-pitcher issue. Casilla's put together some good years before in 2007-2008, and he's showing signs of improvement since the All-Star Break.

After reviewing all the pros and cons, I have to say that just getting rid of Giambi makes the most sense. He provides the least flexibility of any of these players, has no future in Oakland after 2009, and is arguably the worst performer of all these players.

If the A's insist on keeping Giambi, I think optioning Sweeney to the minors wouldn't be a bad idea. He needs regular at-bats to work on driving the ball, and the A's could employ a Patterson-Davis-Hairston outfield, with Cust DHing and occasionally spotting in left or right.

If it's a pitcher who goes, I'd say Springer makes the most sense. Casilla has more upside, and Gonzalez eats innings.

So, in order, this is my list of who should go the most:

1.) Giambi
2.) Sweeney
3.) Garciaparra
4.) Springer
5.) Casilla
6.) Everidge
7.) Gonzalez

What I'm scared of is that the A's are going to send Everidge down, which would be a really stupid idea in my opinion. I think Everidge and Barton (when he gets back) should take the spots of Giambi and Garciaparra.

So those are my thoughts on a pretty difficult decision. What do you think?

Here's a Thought: Mariano Rivera's Weird Walk Rate

Nathaniel Stoltz — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:34:19 -0400

When we talk about a pitcher's "control" statistically, one of the first things we often jump to is walk rate. Pitchers with better control walk fewer batters.

Or so we think.

Another way to measure "control" is by using plate discipline variables. These aren't "fancy stats" by any means, but they describe every aspect of a batter-pitcher interaction.

The plate discipline variables are:

Swing%--Percentage of pitches swung at.

O-Swing%--Percentage of pitches outside the zone swung at.

Z-Swing%--Percentage of pitches inside the zone swung at.

Contact%--Percentage of swings that make contact (O-Contact% is for outside the zone; Z-Contact% is for inside the zone).

Zone%--Percentage of pitches thrown by a pitcher that are in the zone. This does NOT mean "percentage of pitches that are strikes." It means the percentage of pitches that find the zone (according to the ultra-sensitive MLB cameras meant to specifically measure this), regardless of whether they're called balls or strikes.

F-Strike%--Percentage of first-pitch strikes.

Sorry for that long list, but it's necessary information.

Anyway, these variables give us a nice look at a pitcher.

The higher a pitcher's O-Swing%, the more he gets batters to chase pitches, and the more "deceptive" he and his pitches are.

The higher a pitcher's Contact%, the more "hittable" his pitches are.

Obviously, Zone% and F-Strike% are very important as well.

At first glance, it may appear that Zone% is similar to walk rate: the more a pitcher pitches in the zone, the fewer walks he'll allow, right?

Well, sort of.

There's something of a correlation between the two, but it's not as strong as one would expect.

Just to use an extreme example, Jamie Moyer only finds the strike zone about 44 percent of the time, but he walks just about two batters per nine innings.

The Zone% and walk rate are both very low. Moyer doesn't throw strikes, but rarely walks hitters.

There's an easy explanation, however.

For one thing, batters chase a lot of Moyer's pitches. His 29.2 O-Swing% is well above the average.

Also, Moyer throws a bunch of junk to the plate, so when batters swing, they make contact and don't walk. Moyer's Contact% is 86.5, well above the MLB average.

Moyer also throws a lot of first-pitch strikes (61.7%), so he gets ahead in the count and then throws the ball out of the zone.

So, while Moyer doesn't throw many pitches in the zone, he does three things to counteract that and lower his walk rate:

1.) Get batters to chase out-of-the-zone pitches, turning balls into strikes
2.) Inducing contact when batters do swing
3.) Getting ahead in the count

Those three things combine with Zone% to be the four important factors of walk rate.

Since Moyer's 3-for-4 on the factors, his walk rate is good.

However, while the four factors correlate to walk rate in most cases, occasionally, they don't.

There's no better example of this than Yankees closer Mariano Rivera.

Let's run through Rivera's performance in the four factors.

Rivera's pitches have hit the strike zone just 46.3% of the time, well below the average of 49.3%.

He does a decent job of throwing first-pitch strikes, coming in just above the MLB average in F-Strike%.

Batters do chase a lot of Rivera's pitches outside the zone (35.4%), and make a slightly-above-average amount of contact (83.3%).

So Rivera throws far fewer pitches in the zone than normal and rates slightly above average in the other three factors.

One would think Rivera has an average or maybe slightly better than average walk rate, right?

He's walked just 1.04 batters per nine innings.

Now, I'm sure most of you are thinking, "Well, Rivera's special and awesome, so he makes it work."

And I would totally agree with that, if it wasn't for the fact that he's never pitched like this before.

Consider Rivera's four-factor stats going back to 2002:

Year O-Swing% Contact% Zone% F-Strike%
2002 23.3 78.6 58.5 63.1
2003 29.9 75.2 55.0 60.7
2004 27.3 80.1 57.4 64.9
2005 26.0 80.0 52.8 61.1
2006 34.4 81.1 54.1 62.5
2007 35.4 76.6 53.4 60.7
2008 36.3 76.3 51.4 62.6
2009 35.4 83.3 46.3 59.4

Rivera's 2009 Zone% and F-Strike% are career-lows (at least since 2002, which is when pitch-by-pitch data began to be collected). The Zone%, especially, is far below any other one Rivera's put up.

His O-Swing% has basically held steady for four years as well.

Rivera's been slightly more hittable this year than in the past, but not enough to make up for the decrease in Zone% and F-Strike%.

Despite that, Rivera's walk rate is at the second-lowest mark of his career (2008 was the lowest).

If we look at 2007, just to pick an example, Rivera had the same O-Swing%, a much lower contact rate, a far higher Zone%, and a higher F-Strike% than 2009.

Yet Rivera's 2007 walk rate was 1.51 BB/9, higher than this year's 1.04 mark.

Rivera's numbers show that walk rate doesn't always reflect a pitcher's control properly. It's clear that he's thrown fewer strikes in 2009 than ever before, but his walk rate describes him as a pinpoint-control pitcher.

It will be interesting to see if Rivera's walk rate increases if his plate discipline numbers stay in this range.

Here's a Thought: Analyzing the Orlando Cabrera Deal

Nathaniel Stoltz — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:39:13 -0400

Today, the Oakland A's sent starting shortstop Orlando Cabrera to the Minnesota Twins for minor league shortstop Tyler Ladendorf.

The deal is an upgrade for the Twins, who have been playing the offensively inept Nick Punto and defensively inept Brendan Harris at shortstop this season.

Cabrera is a better hitter than both.

The Twins only gave up Ladendorf, who's struggling in Low-A at age 21 and has a lot of work to do to get to the majors.

So this deal works for Minnesota.

As for my A's, trading Cabrera frees up shortstop for Cliff Pennington. I was hoping to see that.

Cabrera's batting average is about all he has going for him at this point, and while he's clearly the best option in Minnesota, the presence of Pennington made him possibly the second-best option in Oakland.

Cabrera is hitting .281, but only has a .318 OBP and .365 SLG. That means he hits enough singles to get by but contributes little else besides the occasional steal (11-for-15).

Defensively, he's now a minus, as his -9.6 UZR/150 attests. Once a very good gloveman, Cabrera has really declined in the field this season. He's a big defensive downgrade from Punto and about as good as Harris. It's his superior hitting that makes Cabrera a good idea for Minnesota, although being a superior hitter to Harris and Punto isn't that difficult.

Cliff Pennington, on the other hand, is hitting .264/.345/.367 in Triple-A. He's a similar offensive player to Cabrera, except for two main advantages: he's a switch-hitter, and he draws a lot of walks.

Last season, Pennington hit .242/.339/.293 in a brief look in the majors. That performance (.299 wOBA) is similar offensively to Cabrera's 2009 (.303 wOBA).

Pennington is a legitimate 30-steal threat, and he is rarely caught on the bases (27-for-31 this season), providing another upgrade on Cabrera.

Defensively, Pennington is solid, with average range, and a huge arm that is considered one of the best in the minor leagues.

Pennington should be able to produce at least as well as Cabrera overall, and the A's get younger and save money by trading Cabrera and starting Pennington.

On top of that, the A's acquired Ladendorf. The A's biggest weakness in the minors is shortstop depth. They have first-rounder Grant Green, who has yet to sign, and Dusty Coleman, a decent prospect in Low-A, but there's not much shortstop talent anywhere else in the system (other than Pennington).

Ladendorf is considered an excellent defender with good bat speed and the potential to become something like Cabrera (who used to be much better than this) in the long run. He crushed Rookie League pitching early in the year, hitting .400/.500/.721, but has struggled in 15 games in the pitcher-friendly, Low-A Midwest League.

He's far from a guaranteed big-leaguer, but Ladendorf gives the A's another quality defensive shortstop with some offensive potential, which is their biggest need in the minors right now.

The Twins got their shortstop upgrade for a C+ prospect, and the A's upgraded their own shortstop position, saved money, and added depth to their weakest position in the minors.

Both teams accomplished their goals, so it's something of a win-win, but I think the A's benefit more from this trade than the Twins.