OC Register: A’s have done what Angels have not: overcome a rotation ravaged by injuries

[gurn67]

A's have Billy Beane. Arte Moreno has never shown any intention that he's willing to pay the going rate for a proven GM.

[arch stanton]

Tony Reagins, Jerry Dipoto, and Billy Eppler each have as many championships as Billy Beane and Jon Daniels combined

[mulwin444]

4 hours ago, arch stanton said:

Tony Reagins, Jerry Dipoto, and Billy Eppler each have as many championships as Billy Beane and Jon Daniels combined

But do they have a movie about them?!  Full of hype?!!  About a season in which they won nothing ?!!!

I think not...

[floplag]

12 hours ago, stormngt said:

Are we reall blowing 43% of our save opportunities? 

Per ESPN sortable stats, yes.   
You can explain that away in 100% different ways im sure and whether its the 6th or the 9th really doesnt matter but that is the fact and in my mind the primary reason we are behind the A's specifically as it pertains to pitching, which is the topic of this article. 
They have better offensive numbers as well but thats not what this article is about, even though i think thats largely the difference, they have score more runs and saved more leads, its not rocket science .

[floplag]

11 hours ago, mulwin444 said:

A lot of our starters were not pitching past the 6th inning (a lot of 5.1 and 5.2 IP) and our offense was pretty meh so, if the Angels led by 1 or 2 runs, the bullpen would have to hold that lead for almost 4 innings or get a blown save.  Subsequently, a lot the Angels blown saves occurred in the 6th and 7th innings.  Get a better offense and some starters that can pitch past the 6th inning and, voila, the bullpen is better.

while this is theoretically true, i researched this earlier in the season and the difference was less than an inning per start.  We actually have the same amount of quality starts as the As do and the BBA is within .03 points as a starter.   They average exactly 2 outs per start more than we do, and we are both below league average.   Their guys arent going significantly deeper into game, their pens is holding them.  

There was a long argument on this earlier in the year and some people are just so convinced that we need better starters, that this entire game is about starting pitching, i vehemently disagree.  Regardless of opinion on the matter we arent replacing that many guys.   And we frankly dont need to if the pen held more of those games.

To me the difference between the As and us is simple in terms of the starting pitching situation, they saved more games for their starting staff and scored more runs, starting pitching had little to nothing to do with it, i think the stats support that position. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

Yes, the A’s bullpen is better than the Angels. It is a major reason they are better than the Angels. (I personally wouldn’t use saves and save percentage as the best measure of that, but whatever measure you use will probably yield the same result. WHIP is probably the best metric for relievers.)

On a side note, do you remember who the A’s biggest offseason acquisitions were?

Stephen Piscotty and Yusmeiro Petit.

I think if you look around at the teams that make big jumps from year to year you’ll find that it’s not the “marquee” offseason additions that make a difference.

It’s a) guys you already have getting better or b) guys you pick off the scrap heap have comeback seasons. 

Same with the Braves. 

How  often do the teams that “win the offseason” really win on the field?

[mulwin444]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

while this is theoretically true, i researched this earlier in the season and the difference was less than an inning per start.  We actually have the same amount of quality starts as the As do and the BBA is within .03 points as a starter.   They average exactly 2 outs per start more than we do, and we are both below league average.   Their guys arent going significantly deeper into game, their pens is holding them.  

There was a long argument on this earlier in the year and some people are just so convinced that we need better starters, that this entire game is about starting pitching, i vehemently disagree.  Regardless of opinion on the matter we arent replacing that many guys.   And we frankly dont need to if the pen held more of those games.

To me the difference between the As and us is simple in terms of the starting pitching situation, they saved more games for their starting staff and scored more runs, starting pitching had little to nothing to do with it, i think the stats support that position. 

The difference between the pens is the Angels BP works with more leads with 1 or 2 runs while the A's BP, while better as a whole, also works with more leads of two runs or better meaning their best relievers are not usually leveraged as often. I recall a game where Barria left in the 6th inning with the first two runners got on with no outs with a 1 run lead:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/ANA/ANA201807230.shtml

This is not an unusual position for this BP to be in.  The offense is pretty meh so the BP is expected to hold a 1 run, maybe 2 run lead, for 3+ innings which ups the chances for opposition to score a run to tie and, thus, a blown save.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

@mulwin444 and @floplag

This is like “tastes great” vs “less filling.”

You guys are both right. The A’s bullpen is better than the Angels. 

Also, the A’s offense is better than the Angels, which shows up in helping their bullpen be better than the Angels. 

Thats why they’re 17 games ahead. 

[floplag]

6 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

The difference between the pens is the Angels BP works with more leads with 1 or 2 runs while the A's BP, while better as a whole, also works with more leads of two runs or better meaning their best relievers are not usually leveraged as often. I recall a game where Barria left in the 6th inning with the first two runners got on with no outs with a 1 run lead:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/ANA/ANA201807230.shtml

This is not an unusual position for this BP to be in.  The offense is pretty meh so the BP is expected to hold a 1 run, maybe 2 run lead, for 3+ innings which ups the chances for opposition to score a run to tie and, thus, a blown save.  

Fair point, due to scoring more runs it is possible that they simply didnt blow them due to having a bigger lead, but then you looks at other stats like the fact that our pen has allowed 30 more runs in only 4 more innings pitched and that seems less likely.   Their bullpen ERA is almost half a point better, 3.33 vs 3.73, they walked 25-20 less, struck out about 20 more,  OPS against was fully 60 points higher, and had a better whip 1.19 vs 1.32... none of these suggest that all things being equal it was just that their pen inheritied larger leads.  
I cant find a stat on that, you may well be right in a few cases im sure, but the overall numbers dont suggest that to me

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

@mulwin444 and @floplag

This is like “tastes great” vs “less filling.”

You guys are both right. The A’s bullpen is better than the Angels. 

Also, the A’s offense is better than the Angels, which shows up in helping their bullpen be better than the Angels. 

Thats why they’re 17 games ahead. 

Yes Jeff, and thanks for that, but the ongoing debate here this year has been bullpen vs starters. 
Some here think the pen is fine and the starters are the problem, others like myself feel the pen is much more of a problem... the reality is that both have had issues but for me it comes down to which has been a larger problem and what can be fixed easier and more realistically, and replacing a rotation isnt on that list. 
We've made great steps this year in that regard with some of the arms we've picked up but the overall numbers tell a different story to different people based on their perceptions of the value of one verses the other.  It makes for fun debate but in the end were both right and both wrong i guess, lol 

[Jeff Fletcher]

3 minutes ago, floplag said:

Yes Jeff, and thanks for that, but the ongoing debate here this year has been bullpen vs starters. 
Some here think the pen is fine and the starters are the problem, others like myself feel the pen is much more of a problem... the reality is that both have had issues but for me it comes down to which has been a larger problem and what can be fixed easier and more realistically, and replacing a rotation isnt on that list. 
We've made great steps this year in that regard with some of the arms we've picked up but the overall numbers tell a different story to different people based on their perceptions of the value of one verses the other.  It makes for fun debate but in the end were both right and both wrong i guess, lol 

As I said earlier, I think you’re better off trying to spend money on good starters than good relievers. 

I think you fix the bullpen just from having a ton of volume in cheap arms with some potential. You almost fix the bullpen by accident when you stumble into Petit, Norris and Parker. You don’t fix it by signing Greg Holland. 

Craig Kimbrel is the only reliever I’d say is worth spending any serious money on, and the Angels still probably have other needs that are more pressing for the resources they have. 

[mulwin444]

13 minutes ago, floplag said:

Fair point, due to scoring more runs it is possible that they simply didnt blow them due to having a bigger lead, but then you looks at other stats like the fact that our pen has allowed 30 more runs in only 4 more innings pitched and that seems less likely.   Their bullpen ERA is almost half a point better, 3.33 vs 3.73, they walked 25-20 less, struck out about 20 more,  OPS against was fully 60 points higher, and had a better whip 1.19 vs 1.32... none of these suggest that all things being equal it was just that their pen inheritied larger leads.  
I cant find a stat on that, you may well be right in a few cases im sure, but the overall numbers dont suggest that to me

They have a better offense and BP.  Our pen is more stabilized now but, about the same time we were losing our starter depth we were also getting innings from the likes of Deck McGuire, Oliver Drake, Eduardo Paredes, and Akeel Morris simply because they had options and our "A" squad was overworked (Parker, Bedrosian,  and Ramirez are all on pace or exceeded their career highs in games and innnings and Alvarez leads the league with 73 games appeared in).  We have no one like Treinen and Trevino and the A's have added rentals Familia and Rodney ...three closers that can take cover the 7th through 9th.

[mulwin444]

22 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

As I said earlier, I think you’re better off trying to spend money on good starters than good relievers. 

I think you fix the bullpen just from having a ton of volume in cheap arms with some potential. You almost fix the bullpen by accident when you stumble into Petit, Norris and Parker. You don’t fix it by signing Greg Holland. 

Craig Kimbrel is the only reliever I’d say is worth spending any serious money on, and the Angels still probably have other needs that are more pressing for the resources they have. 

Yeah, some of the best Angels relievers in recent memory were either failed starters (KRod, Shields, Arredondo, Walden, Alvarez, Middleton, Anderson) or a converted position player (Percival)

[floplag]

25 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

As I said earlier, I think you’re better off trying to spend money on good starters than good relievers. 

I think you fix the bullpen just from having a ton of volume in cheap arms with some potential. You almost fix the bullpen by accident when you stumble into Petit, Norris and Parker. You don’t fix it by signing Greg Holland. 

Craig Kimbrel is the only reliever I’d say is worth spending any serious money on, and the Angels still probably have other needs that are more pressing for the resources they have. 

Well in general you may be right, but i think roster composition plays a part in that. 

I'm mostly in the opposite camp, I've never felt starters were worth it, unless you have a lot of them.  Even if we got a true bonafide ace, Kershaw in his prime, it still leaves issues the other 4 days and even they aren't automatic.  Now if you have a 90s Braves staff or a lot of depth in that regard its a different story, but we don't, and aren't likely to anytime soon. 

I guess my question to you would be this, based on the roster we have today, and the starting depth we have, which would have a greater impact, a true Ace, or a legit lockdown closer/bullpen?  Put me in the latter column, which by the way would also be cheaper in terms of resources. 

[Stradling]

Looking at the YTD stats the A’s score half a run more per game than the Angels.  Also 2 more outs from the starters is a huge deal.  That is one less time per game on average that you are going to your 6th inning guy.  It is probably three more times a week you are seeing Cam or Noe.  I don’t think either team has that guy that basically gives your bullpen the day off.  No one that you can count on to give you 7 strong innings most times out.  When you have that guy you use your pen different the day before and the day after that dude pitches.  Also when we show stats like 20 more k’s or 20 more walks, that is whatever when you are this deep into a season.  That is essentially one more k and walk every 8 games.  Also save percentage is a horrible stat.  The team has 24 blown saves, how many save opportunities does the team have?  145.  So that isn’t really 43% blown saves.  I am not saying it is good or it shouldn’t be upgraded, I am showing that it is a confusing and terrible stat.  Plus of those 24 blown saves, how many of those games do you think we won?  8.  Once again, I am not saying it couldn’t improve, I am just saying that when we throw out stats lets just understand what we are looking at.  Boston has 20 blown saves and the Astros have 19.  It is a bad stat to measure a bullpen.  

[Angel Oracle]

Main issue with this team in 2018 was lack of depth of true MLB caliber players, partly from the farm still developing and partly therefore from the dreck brought in like TrashBlash and Marte over the past 3 years.

Will we finally see better MLB caliber depth between here and AAA in 2019????

Will this rotation finally produce at least four pitchers with at least 162 innings pitched in 2019, for the first time since freaking 2012????!!!!   How many MLB teams have gone THAT long since having even just FOUR pitchers pitch at least 162 innings? 

@$#^&&#$^& U, J. Pierpont Reagins and Dip*ssy!!!!

[floplag]

12 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Looking at the YTD stats the A’s score half a run more per game than the Angels.  Also 2 more outs from the starters is a huge deal.  That is one less time per game on average that you are going to your 6th inning guy.  It is probably three more times a week you are seeing Cam or Noe.  I don’t think either team has that guy that basically gives your bullpen the day off.  No one that you can count on to give you 7 strong innings most times out.  When you have that guy you use your pen different the day before and the day after that dude pitches.  Also when we show stats like 20 more k’s or 20 more walks, that is whatever when you are this deep into a season.  That is essentially one more k and walk every 8 games.  Also save percentage is a horrible stat.  The team has 24 blown saves, how many save opportunities does the team have?  145.  So that isn’t really 43% blown saves.  I am not saying it is good or it shouldn’t be upgraded, I am showing that it is a confusing and terrible stat.  Plus of those 24 blown saves, how many of those games do you think we won?  8.  Once again, I am not saying it couldn’t improve, I am just saying that when we throw out stats lets just understand what we are looking at.  Boston has 20 blown saves and the Astros have 19.  It is a bad stat to measure a bullpen.  

Bos may have 20 blown, but they have converted 69%.  Hou has converted 68%, Both are a higher percentage than us by large margin on more save opportunities.  Where is the confusion in that?

Bos has 103 holds (2nd MLB),  Hou 91 (8th),  we have 87 (11th).   We actually have more than Oak in that regard surprisingly, they have only 75 (20th) 

No its not the end all beat all but it certainly tells a story.  A lead was lost.  This puts more pressure back on the offense and we weren't good enough there enough to over come it. 

I'm sorry to me its really very simple, I feel like you are over complicating it.   But were re-hashing at this point so its moot, we see it differently and we value the positions differently, and thats fine.  

[Stradling]

I would love to have a lock down pen, but those are developed not bought.  In addition getting a couple more outs a game from your starters helps a ton, not to mention a few more runs a week.   I’m not over complicating it, it’s a shitty stat.  We have four less holds than Houston, and 12 more than Oakland, that’s all you need to know about those stats.   If they want save percentage to mean something, especially considering one inning pitchers get blown saves in the 6th inning when they would have never got a save, then at least divide blown saves by save opportunities instead of adding saves with blown saves and doing the math.

[Lou]

holds are a ridiculous stat 

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

I would love to have a lock down pen, but those are developed not bought.  In addition getting a couple more outs a game from your starters helps a ton, not to mention a few more runs a week.   I’m not over complicating it, it’s a shitty stat.  We have four less holds than Houston, and 12 more than Oakland, that’s all you need to know about those stats.   If they want save percentage to mean something, especially considering one inning pitchers get blown saves in the 6th inning when they would have never got a save, then at least divide blown saves by save opportunities instead of adding saves with blown saves and doing the math.

so which is easier, replacing all 5 starters, or upgrading the bullpen? 

[mulwin444]

3 minutes ago, floplag said:

so which is easier, replacing all 5 starters, or upgrading the bullpen? 

Why would they replace all 5 starters...Heaney, Skaggs, Barria and even Pena give you 4 solid rotational pieces...a healthy Tropeano and Shoemaker give you two more...Skaggs was pitching like an All Star prior to his groin injury.

You need one - maybe two - solid SP options.  

Angels can help the BP by giving them greater leads to work with and that is on improving the offense.  We could realistically find offensive upgrades at 3B, C, RF, and 2B which would help BP as much as signing a Kimbrell-like BP piece

[floplag]

1 minute ago, mulwin444 said:

Why would they replace all 5 starters...Heaney, Skaggs, Barria and even Pena give you 4 solid rotational pieces...a healthy Tropeano and Shoemaker give you two more...Skaggs was pitching like an All Star prior to his groin injury.

You need one - maybe two - solid SP options.  

Angels can help the BP by giving them greater leads to work with and that is on improving the offense.  We could realistically find offensive upgrades at 3B, C, RF, and 2B which would help BP as much as signing a Kimbrell-like BP piece

You miss the point, but no matter, im not getting back into this holy war   we can see it differently and both be right and wrong, im fine with that

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 hours ago, floplag said:

Well in general you may be right, but i think roster composition plays a part in that. 

I'm mostly in the opposite camp, I've never felt starters were worth it, unless you have a lot of them.  Even if we got a true bonafide ace, Kershaw in his prime, it still leaves issues the other 4 days and even they aren't automatic.  Now if you have a 90s Braves staff or a lot of depth in that regard its a different story, but we don't, and aren't likely to anytime soon. 

I guess my question to you would be this, based on the roster we have today, and the starting depth we have, which would have a greater impact, a true Ace, or a legit lockdown closer/bullpen?  Put me in the latter column, which by the way would also be cheaper in terms of resources. 

I wouldn’t really invest much of anything in the bullpen. There are just too many examples of guys you pay for being busts and guys off the scrap heap being good. 

Id rather go try to pick up 5 Blake Parker’s for nothing than buy one Greg Holland. 

[kevinb]

6 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Yes, the A’s bullpen is better than the Angels. It is a major reason they are better than the Angels. (I personally wouldn’t use saves and save percentage as the best measure of that, but whatever measure you use will probably yield the same result. WHIP is probably the best metric for relievers.)

On a side note, do you remember who the A’s biggest offseason acquisitions were?

Stephen Piscotty and Yusmeiro Petit.

I think if you look around at the teams that make big jumps from year to year you’ll find that it’s not the “marquee” offseason additions that make a difference.

It’s a) guys you already have getting better or b) guys you pick off the scrap heap have comeback seasons. 

Same with the Braves. 

How  often do the teams that “win the offseason” really win on the field?

You don't have to win the off season. What this team needs to do is upgrade positions that suck and right now that's 1st 3rd Catcher and get some lock down pieces for the pen.

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Kevinb said:

You don't have to win the off season. What this team needs to do is upgrade positions that suck and right now that's 1st 3rd Catcher and get some lock down pieces for the pen.

You’re completely ignoring that last years lock down pen pieces are this years busts.   It’s the most volatile part of any roster.