Bleacher Report - Oakland Athletics

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.

Read more Oakland Athletics news on BleacherReport.com

Why Andrew Bailey Should Have Ran Away with the AL Rookie of the Year Award

Steven Resnick — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:57:46 -0500

Andrew Bailey should have been a near-unanimous selection for the American League Rookie of the Year Award. Bailey was by far the best rookie in the American League in 2009, and it's ridiculous that he only got 13 first-place votes out of the 28 votes that were cast.

Elvis Andrus of the Texas Rangers finished second and Rick Porcello of the Detroit Tigers finished third. The Chicago White Sox feel like Gordon Beckham should have been also near the top.

Here's the reason why Bailey won the award: He was consistent throughout the season. He didn't just have one long stretch of doing a great job while struggling otherwise. Throughout the season, Bailey came into a game and shut teams down, and only a couple of times was Bailey ever really hit hard.

The problem with Andrus and why he never was going to win the award is that offensively he isn't anything special, as he's primarily known for his glove.

Porcello came in third because his numbers of 14-9 were impressive, but his strikeout-to-walk ratio 89 to 52 and 23 home runs were less than stellar. Brett Anderson another A's pitcher won 11 games but had a way better strikeout-to-walk ratio, with 150 Ks to 45 walks, and he gave up 20 homers.

So it's easy to see why Porcello wasn't able to surpass Bailey or Andrus. Yet, I think the most questionable decision was the fact that Beckham didn't make the top three. In my opinion, he should have been No. 2.

In just 105 games, Beckham hit .270 with 14 homers, 63 RBI, 28 doubles, a triple, 102 hits, and 58 runs scored. The reason why those numbers do not surpass Bailey's season is the fact that Beckham played 45 games in the minors is defensively below average.

He appeared in 102 contests at third base and committed 14 errors in those games, for a fielding percentage of .952. Andrus committed 22 errors but had a fielding percentage of .968 because he also played 145 games at shortstop.

As for why Bailey won, like Andrus and Porcello he was up for the entire season. One part that played a role in Bailey winning is the fact that he finished No. 6 in the American League in games finished. The only names on the list that were above him were Fernando Rodney, Joe Nathan, Jonathan Papelbon, Brian Fuentes, and Mariano Rivera.

I would call that pretty good company with Nathan, Papelbon, Fuentes, and Papelbon on the list, considering each one is an All-Star closer.

Another reason why Bailey won is the fact that his success was surprising. Coming into spring training, Bailey was a struggling starter for the A's organization. Yet in spring training he was taught how to throw a cutter and won a job in the bullpen for opening day.

It didn't take long for Bailey to win the closer's role in the season as well; in fact, Bailey didn't give up a run until his seventh game, and that came after 10.1 innings. Part of Bailey's success was his ability to keep hitters off balance, not only with his 96 mph fastball, but if he had a hitter guessing fastball, no matter if it was a two-seamer or four-seamer, Bailey could throw a curveball and just freeze the batter.

Being a starter for most of his minor league career also benefited Bailey as well because he had the ability to throw more than just one inning, hence why he appeared in 68 games.

Bailey finished the season with a 6-3 record, appeared in 68 games, threw 83.1 innings, struck out 91 while walking 24, and posted an ERA of 1.88 and a WHIP of 0.876. There's no doubt about it, Bailey was the best rookie in the 2009 class.

Read more Oakland Athletics news on BleacherReport.com

ROY Andrew Bailey Just the Latest Product of Oakland Athletics' Closer Factory

Lewie Pollis — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:25:08 -0500

Let’s be honest; Moneyball hasn’t quite worked out over the last few years.

The Oakland Athletics had gone 457-353 under Billy Beane’s leadership when Moneyball was published after the 2002 season. They continued their success for the next four years, going 368-280, but have gone just 226-260 since 2007.

Players Beane maligned in the book—Carlos Peña and Prince Fielder, for example—have emerged as superstars . Meanwhile, the most successful of the prospects he lauded are Nick Swisher and Mark Teahen.

That Rajai Davis was allowed to steal 41 bases this year is proof that this is not the same team Michael Lewis wrote about.

Maybe talking about undervalued skills loud enough for other teams to hear made it harder to find affordable talent. Maybe revealing his strategies to the world was a bad idea. Or maybe the team has had a few years of miserable luck.

However, one division of Beane Enterprises continues to enjoy unprecedented success: the Closer Factory.

In case you hadn’t heard, A’s closer Andrew Bailey was just named the 2009 American League Rookie of the Year. Bailey put up a 1.86 ERA, a 3.79 K/BB ratio, and an astounding 0.88 WHIP in 83.1 innings en route to earning 26 saves in 30 opportunities.

At the end of last season, Bailey was a nobody who no one thought would make much of a splash in 2009. The closing role wasn’t open anyway; a healthy Huston Street was supposed to compete to reclaim his job from Brad Ziegler, who took over as a rookie in 2008.

Street’s story should sound familiar; in 2005, he was unexpectedly thrust into the closer’s role, put up 23 saves and a 1.72 ERA, and was named Rookie of the Year. A’s fans with good memories might also notice similarities to Keith Foulke, Billy Koch, Jason Isringhausen, and Billy Taylor.

What’s the point of all this? Why does it matter that the Athletics have been so successful with their closers?

It matters because the A’s approach the idea of closing very differently than other teams do.

Like wins , saves, Beane decided, were absurd ways to measure performance. “The situation typically described by the save,” Lewis wrote, “was clearly far less critical than a lot of other situations pitchers faced.”

He’s right. The man who comes in to pitch in the ninth inning with nobody on and a three-run lead doesn’t need as much talent to do his job as does the guy who takes the mound with the bases loaded in the seventh with the score tied.

Saves, Beane discovered, are not only meaningless, but comically overvalued. “You could take a slightly above average pitcher and drop him into the closer’s role, let him accumulate a gaudy number of saves, and then sell him off,” Lewis said. Having had multiple previous successes, Beane “assumed he could do so over and over again.”

Seven years later, the plan has continued to go off without a hitch. The worst that happens is Beane can’t find a good trade, so the A’s let their closers leave via free agency and get draft picks in return, as happened with Jason Isringhausen.

The best case scenario is that they trick a desperate team into giving up one of the best players in the game, as happened when the Athletics dealt Street to the Rockies just over a year ago.

This isn’t shrewd management; this is a Ponzi scheme. The difference is that, while Bernie Madoff forced false information upon his clients, Beane’s trading partners actually seem to enjoy using inaccurate metrics.

To be fair, Bailey and Street are more than just “above average” pitchers. Saves may be overrated, but Bailey’s other numbers demonstrate great skill, and while Street’s rookie year turned out to be a fluke (a 1.72 ERA usually requires more than 2.77 K/BB), he’s still been quite effective (3.28 ERA over the last four seasons).

On the other hand, it’s worth noting that Oakland closers haven’t held up very well after they were traded. Taylor and Koch imploded on impact when they joined the Mets and White Sox, respectively. Foulke had one good season with the Red Sox before his career started spiraling down.

Of the players mentioned in this article, only Isringhausen has had more than one season with an ERA under four after leaving Oakland.

A’s fans, don’t get too used to having Bailey pick up saves. If his future truly is closing, it will be elsewhere. With another season or two at the same level of dominance he displayed this year, he could foreseeably join the Athletics’ rotation (after putting Jeremy Giambi in right field, converting a closer to a starter isn’t much of a stretch).

But if Bailey’s peripherals worsen and the team loses faith in him, Beane won’t hesitate to see how much teams will offer for his inflated stock on the trade market. He’ll be sent packing, and the A’s will find another poor sap to develop into the next trade bait.

Just ask Huston Street.

Read more Oakland Athletics news on BleacherReport.com

A's' Andrew Bailey Wins American League Rookie Of The Year Award

Adam Bernacchio — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:30:17 -0500

My Preseason AL Rookie of the Year Pick: Travis Snider

AL Rookie of the Year Winner: Andrew Bailey

Here is what I wrote back in August about the AL Rookie of the Year Award.

“Once I looked deeper into the numbers, I have realized there might not be a better choice than the Oakland A’s closer. His biggest competition will come from Elvis Andrus, Gordon Beckham, and fellow pitcher Rick Porcello. David Price and Matt Wieters will get some votes as well because voters will look at the names instead of the numbers.”

-snip-

“I know it’s hard to compare closers versus position players, but if I had a vote, I would vote for Bailey. Despite playing on a bad A’s team, he has had a great season, has been a stud at the end of games, and I think it should be recognized.”

Well today, the Baseball Writers’ Association of America recognized Bailey’s accomplishments in 2009. Bailey was voted American League Rookie of the Year today, receiving 13 first-place votes and 88 total points.

Texas Rangers’ shortstop Elvis Andrus finished second with 65 total points.

This vote came down to–do you vote for the guy who had a great year on a bad team or do you vote for the guy who had an average year and was a key part of a good team?

The voters went with the guy who had a great year on a bad team.

Bailey appeared in 68 games for the A’s in 2009, finishing with 26 saves, a 1.84 ERA, a ridiculous 0.876 WHIP, and 91 K’s in 83.1 innings.

Bailey really came out of nowhere to win this award. He wasn’t even ranked in the top-10 A’s prospects in 2008 or 2009 by Baseball America. Heck, he wasn’t even the A’s closer going into the season.

That job was Brad Ziegler’s.

Bailey just proves that you don’t have to be a top prospect to have success in the major leagues. Bailey was drafted in the sixth round out of Wagner College in New York.

Minus the four years I went to college in Massachusetts, I have lived in New York my whole life, and I have no idea where Wagner College is. It may be in Staten Island, but don’t quote me on that.

Bailey becomes the seventh A’s player to the win the Rookie of the Year award since 1986. That’s pretty impressive.

You can follow The Ghost of Moonlight Graham on Twitter @ theghostofmlg

Read more Oakland Athletics news on BleacherReport.com