Red Mosquito

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I'm with phil on this one. The common theme for Billy Beane detractors is the bats are never good enough to go up against the good pitching in October, so has teams that can win in the regular season but not in the playoffs. But last night the bats were not the problem, it was the pitching. But your starting pitcher has one of the best post season resumes around. Sounds to me like shit luck.

Absolutely. Those, detractors, by the way, are probably wrong anyway. The whole "good pitching beats good hitting" thing is pretty much completely garbage.

You need good both to win. And then you need to have things fall your way.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I'm with phil on this one. The common theme for Billy Beane detractors is the bats are never good enough to go up against the good pitching in October, so has teams that can win in the regular season but not in the playoffs. But last night the bats were not the problem, it was the pitching. But your starting pitcher has one of the best post season resumes around. Sounds to me like shit luck.

Absolutely. Those, detractors, by the way, are probably wrong anyway. The whole "good pitching beats good hitting" thing is pretty much completely garbage.

You need good both to win. And then you need to have things fall your way.

Exactly. A run scored is worth just as much as a run saved.

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I'm with phil on this one. The common theme for Billy Beane detractors is the bats are never good enough to go up against the good pitching in October, so has teams that can win in the regular season but not in the playoffs. But last night the bats were not the problem, it was the pitching. But your starting pitcher has one of the best post season resumes around. Sounds to me like shit luck.

Absolutely. Those, detractors, by the way, are probably wrong anyway. The whole "good pitching beats good hitting" thing is pretty much completely garbage.

You need good both to win. And then you need to have things fall your way.

Exactly. A run scored is worth just as much as a run saved.

Well, not entirely. You can't win 0-0.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I'm with phil on this one. The common theme for Billy Beane detractors is the bats are never good enough to go up against the good pitching in October, so has teams that can win in the regular season but not in the playoffs. But last night the bats were not the problem, it was the pitching. But your starting pitcher has one of the best post season resumes around. Sounds to me like shit luck.

Absolutely. Those, detractors, by the way, are probably wrong anyway. The whole "good pitching beats good hitting" thing is pretty much completely garbage.

You need good both to win. And then you need to have things fall your way.

Exactly. A run scored is worth just as much as a run saved.

Well, not entirely. You can't win 0-0.

But... you can't lose 0-0 either.

In a 0-0 game, would you rather have a run-saving defensive play or a run-scoring offensive play?

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I'm with phil on this one. The common theme for Billy Beane detractors is the bats are never good enough to go up against the good pitching in October, so has teams that can win in the regular season but not in the playoffs. But last night the bats were not the problem, it was the pitching. But your starting pitcher has one of the best post season resumes around. Sounds to me like shit luck.

Absolutely. Those, detractors, by the way, are probably wrong anyway. The whole "good pitching beats good hitting" thing is pretty much completely garbage.

You need good both to win. And then you need to have things fall your way.

Exactly. A run scored is worth just as much as a run saved.

Well, not entirely. You can't win 0-0.

But... you can't lose 0-0 either.

In a 0-0 game, would you rather have a run-saving defensive play or a run-scoring offensive play?

Run scoring offensive play. No matter how many runs you save you'll still eventually have to score one.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I'm with phil on this one. The common theme for Billy Beane detractors is the bats are never good enough to go up against the good pitching in October, so has teams that can win in the regular season but not in the playoffs. But last night the bats were not the problem, it was the pitching. But your starting pitcher has one of the best post season resumes around. Sounds to me like shit luck.

Absolutely. Those, detractors, by the way, are probably wrong anyway. The whole "good pitching beats good hitting" thing is pretty much completely garbage.

You need good both to win. And then you need to have things fall your way.

Exactly. A run scored is worth just as much as a run saved.

Well, not entirely. You can't win 0-0.

But... you can't lose 0-0 either.

In a 0-0 game, would you rather have a run-saving defensive play or a run-scoring offensive play?

Run scoring offensive play. No matter how many runs you save you'll still eventually have to score one.

But you can only have one or the other, damnit! If you pick the run-scoring offensive play then you don't get the run-saving defensive play and the game is tied 1-1. Try to follow along.

We still see this pretty similarly, my point is you might not need the run saving play, but you'll always need the run scoring play.

I really, really appreciate your correct spelling of the word damnit.

cutuphalfdead wrote:We still see this pretty similarly, my point is you might not need the run saving play, but you'll always need the run scoring play.

Oh I know, I know... all this agreeing stuff just threw me off and I needed to argue something.

I'm enjoying this debate everyone has going on. I'm kind of Switzerland here. I think I might overvalue pitching but at the same time how nice is it to have a great rotation?

My friends and I have been chatting about the A's trading Cespedes and overtrading for Samardzija. They obviously have zero shot of resigning Lester. At the same time did they have a shot to resign Cespedes after 2015? Probably not. They can use their money to try and lock up Donaldson to a team friendly deal. Same with Norris and Sonny Gray (who I can see winning a Cy Young in like 2016). So I'm torn if I'd make the moves they did. The A's farm is kind of thin with guys who will contribute next season. They have some good prospects who should contribute come 2016. I see the A's taking a step back and finishing 3rd (maybe 4th) in the west next year.

Despite the price they paid, I thought the Samardzija deal made sense. They got another piece to anchor the rotation without sacrificing pieces that were going to help you win this year. Trading Cespedes for Lester seemed pretty stupid. They didn't really need the rotation help at this point and they traded their only true power thread who had a history of big october hits.

I like Shark a lot. I'm not sure what I see him as moving forward. I'd be afraid he has already peaked. I'm incredibly high on Gray. Despite his questionable frame. I could see him signing an extension....buying out some of those arb years.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Despite the price they paid, I thought the Samardzija deal made sense. They got another piece to anchor the rotation without sacrificing pieces that were going to help you win this year. Trading Cespedes for Lester seemed pretty stupid. They didn't really need the rotation help at this point and they traded their only true power thread who had a history of big october hits.

I think referring to Cespedes as their only true power threat ignores the fact that he was third on the team in home runs, doesn't it? I agree with the point, but I think a lot of people overstated his value to the team because HOME RUNS!

He was first in slugging percentage.

cutuphalfdead wrote:He was first in slugging percentage.

Yeah, I saw that right after I posted my argument. I just kind of hoped no one would notice at that point.

Oakland scored 8 runs.

@SkitchP wrote:Oakland scored 8 runs.

Céspedes is obviously a stud (4.1 WAR, that arm!, etc) but he comes with issues. OBP of .294 and .301 in 2013 and 2014. His OPS has decreased from .861 in 2012 to .751 this year. Great talent for sure but he turns 29 this month. I'm curious to see how he progresses. It'll be interesting to see what he does in a full year at Fenway.

Haha omg.