First of all, I’m honored to be invited to write here alongside some of the giants of analytical writing today. I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that it’s humbling, and I’m happy to have the opportunity to lend my contributions.
All season long, I’ve made a point of commenting on how wildly optimistic and unrealistic one of Joe Sheehan’s pre-season projections was. How could anyone (much less Joe Sheehan, whom I find myself agreeing with more often than any other writer) possibly conclude - after a week of research, nonetheless - that the A’s would allow just 695 runs in 2009?! Dallas Braden was the team’s Opening Day Starter, for goodness sake! Even PECOTA, with an optimistic 130 IP expectation for Duchscherer, projected almost 800 runs allowed!
And, after 30 games, we should start to see just how flawed this observation was… they’ve allowed 124 runs already, in just 30 games! That’s [gets out abacus] 4.47 runs per game, a pace for 724 runs allowed. Ha!
What? Extra innings? Hmm… I guess that would make a difference. The A’s pitchers have pitched an average of 9.34 IP/G so far, compared to 8.92 IP/G in the AL last year. That’s, um, a pace for 691 Runs allowed, given the 2008 pace for IP/G.
More adjustments? League Run Rate?! Yeah, the A’s have already played a couple games at New York and at Texas, so it’s probably nearly correct to just adjust for league run rate differences between 2008 and 2009. And, as we all know, run scoring is UP this year. Way up. 4.99 Runs/Game this year, compared to 4.68 last year! Assuming the run projections were for a 2008 environment, either “741″ runs becomes the new “695″, or the A’s (2008 adjusted) runs allowed rate is just 648.
That the A’s have been able to do this without Duchscherer or Devine is simply astonishing. And Mr. Sheehan was spot-on with some of the reasons - namely the high “replacement level” of pitching the A’s have at hand due to talented high-minors pitching, and the “fantastic” bullpen (Bailey being a prime example of both). The team DER isn’t as great as we’ve come to expect from the A’s, but it’s not bad. The relievers won’t continue their .252 composite BABIP, but the fact that they’re already doing BETTER than the seemingly optimistic projection, while weeding out some non-contributors (such as Eveland), is a great sign for the A’s pitching.
The latest Depth Charts still foresee 120 IP from Duchscherer, with a good 3.97 ERA, and yet PECOTA projections have the team allowing another 615 runs this season. Don’t be so sure, though it is a good reminder that it’s still very early. But for now, the projection of 695 total seems to be more accurate.
But how about ironic exclamation points, which acknowledge the "laughing-at-one's-own-joke" quality while simultaneously mocking those who are unaware of that quality and take their own excitement so seriously (that's how I'd interpret Geoff Young's premier post's punctuation, at least)?
Or is that all to post-modern hipster to contemplate?
I suppose one could look at it that way. They missed Ichiro for three of six games. They missed Hamilton. They got Teixeira in New York. They may not have faced Ibanez, but he went .211/.250/.256 vs. Oakland last year.
Instead, one could focus on who they have played. Six vs. Toronto (#1 in runs in AL), three vs. Boston (#2), four vs. Texas (#3), three vs. Tampa Bay (#5) and three vs. (New York (#6). That's nearly 2/3 of their games against the better offenses in the league.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
I was negative rated like crazy for saying the same thing. The BP writers were nuts in believing in Oakland. I mean Cahill looks like the real deal....but after that...???
I have this to say about the Oakland pitching. They are last in the majors in innings pitched by starters. Not coincidentally, they are first in the majors in innings pitched by relievers. As the Rangers have found over the years, an overtaxed bullpen tends to wear down. If the A's don't find a way to keep their starters out there longer, their number one bullpen won't stay that way.
This is a good observation. I didn't mean to draw too many conclusions, which is why I used the "Unfiltered" forum instead of a full analytical piece. I am still waffling on how I think the rest of the season will go for their pitching staff, but - other than avoiding some notable offensive stars, as other comments have noted above - there's little debate about how great they've been so far.
Good stuff Rob. Now just tell me who you're bidding on in our Strat League (FOD).
As for the overworked Oakland bullpen, that is true, but Billy Beane has demonstrated a knack for pulling relievers out of thin air. He's got Santiago Casilla coming off the DL and probably another Ziegler or Bailey up his sleeves.
Heh. I have a great field manager in FOD (as some BP guys know from NASA), so I get some leeway in team construction. :> That said, if the $150mil/6yr bid to retain Pujols holds up, the other players are are just fluff. Never thought I'd be happy to spend >25% of the team budget on a first baseman.
Robicl,
It's good to see you'll be posting and writing articles for BP. I remember you well from we were both "regular guys" posting often on another baseball forum a few years ago.
Looking at some team statistics at http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/teams/
It looks like Oakland's low runs allowed total is due more to luck or defense or home ballpark than to pitching. K/BB for the staff is below normal. DER, HR/Fly, LOB% are all a little better than normal so maybe the cumulative effect is influencing their runs allowed total. In any case, I'm not convinced yet that it's mostly pitching that is responsible for the Athletics low runs allowed total.
24 comments have been left for this post.
New Unfiltered authors, now with more exclamation points!!!
Bigger, better, and with bold fonts.
I have to admit it worked. I was pretty excited for no reason reading this article.
I'll give him bonus points if he does his next Unfiltered in Zapf Dingbats.
"An exclamation point is like laughing at your own jokes." - Fitzgerald.
But how about ironic exclamation points, which acknowledge the "laughing-at-one's-own-joke" quality while simultaneously mocking those who are unaware of that quality and take their own excitement so seriously (that's how I'd interpret Geoff Young's premier post's punctuation, at least)?
Or is that all to post-modern hipster to contemplate?
"I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!!!" - Tamland.
LOUD NOISES!