Idiots Write About Sports

I don’t know why, but I found Friday’s loss to the Angels profoundly dispiriting. Maybe it’s the fact that another punchless offensive performance wasted a 2002-vintage performance from Barry Zito. Maybe it’s having to listen to the Soviet State TV-stylings of the Angels broadcast crew for two-and-a-half hours. Maybe it’s because the loss put Oakland in sole possession of last place in the AL West, with all signs pointing to a lengthy stay. Maybe the success of the past few years have spoiled me. Maybe I jump to conclusions too quickly. Maybe I should have another drink.

Whatever. The point is, I’m dispirited. And unless Rich Harden can come through with a big outing today — and his teammates can support him by maybe scoring more than a run or two — it looks like dispiriting will be our theme emotion throughout the weekend.

You can talk about how it’s early yet, and, with only 10 games in the books for the 2005 season, you’d be pretty much right. But a disturbing trend has emerged with the team’s offense — namely, these guys can’t ever seem to get a hit with runners on base.

Following last weekend’s disaster in Florida — Hey, did we check to make sure all the A’s made the trip back? Some of them still might be stranded on the Tropicana Field basepaths… — and the first two pratfalls against Toronto, Ken Arneson over at Catfish Stew ran some numbers to pinpoint the problem:

Let’s have some fun with small samples:

The A’s offense per game in their:
Three wins: 9.3 hits, 5.0 walks, 2.0 HR, 6.7 runs.
Five losses: 7.6 hits, 2.2 walks, 0.6 HR, 1.8 runs.

Looks like the A’s have been extremely dependent on walks and homers to score so far. That’s a problem if (a) the pitcher isn’t walking anybody, and (b) you don’t have a lineup with power.

We can update those numbers a little bit. In Wednesday’s win over Toronto, the A’s tallied eight hits, four walks, one homer, and six runs. Last night against the Angels, it was two hits, no walks, no homers, and one run. It does not take a trained scientist to see that problems with lousy on-base percentage and non-existent power continue apace.

What else did we learn from last night:

• We learned that Eric Byrnes has no business manning an outfield position on any team with designs on playing winning baseball. Perhaps Steve Finley scores from first base on Rob Quinlan’s double even if Spaz fields the ball cleanly. But with Byrnes dropping the ball — twice — there wasn’t any doubt Finley was going to tie the game; there wasn’t even a play at the plate. For those of you keeping score at home, that’s two brutal misplays this homestand, a figure that does not include Byrnes’ usual circuitous routes to fly balls.

The Byrnes apologists out there will either argue that the Angels scored runs after last night’s miscue (which assumes the if Finley gets held at third, subsequent events transpire exactly the same as they did once Finley tied the game) and that it isn’t like the A’s offense provided Zito with much run support. Of course, Byrnes contributed on that front, too, with an 0-for-3 effort on the night. Byrnes is now 1-for-17 against right-handers with an OPS of .217. (It’s a much better 4-for-8 and 1.750 OPS against lefties, once you mutter the usual disclaimers about small sample size). I realize that Byrnes is usually lauded for providing a spark to the offense, but there’s only so much energy you can provide trotting back to the dugout after making another out.

• It’s not like Byrnes is the only guy named Eric who’s not helping out Oakland right now. Eric Chavez’s slow start continues, with an 0-for-3 with one strikeout performance. Chavez’s relevant numbers on the season so far: .206, average, .333 on-base, .324 slugging. This is not what I’d call a solid return on the team’s investment thus far.

More troubling than the performance is Chavez’s attitude. I don’t think we should have to take the guy’s belt and shoelaces away from him after a slow start, but it might not be a bad idea to appear a little bit more chagrined in public. This gives the fans the impression that you care about winning as much as, or a little more than, they do. Quotes like this, offered after last Saturday’s slaughter in Tampa, do not:

“Zito and I were actually laughing about how slow we start. It takes us a long time to figure it out,” Chavez said. “We’re supposed to be the two solid veteran guys, and here we are pulling up the rear.”

I’m not sure laughter is quite the emotion I’m looking for here, Eric.

• The good thing about being a displaced A’s fan in Southern California — I know for certain that every game against the Angels will be televised. The bad thing about being a displaced A’s fan in Southern California — all those televised games feature Rex Hudler and Steve Physioc.

I have long since made my peace with the fact that the TV crews for opposing teams are going to pull for their home club, either a little bit or a lot. I understand that telecasts featuring a broadcast team employed by the Angels are not being produced with me or my fellow A’s fans in mind. I accept the fact that broadcasters from outside of Oakland feel a need to root, root, root for the home team.

But does that mean the broadcast have to be so lousy?

My problems with Hudler and Physioc are two-fold. First, they trot out meaningless statistics that do nothing to enlighten their audience. I guess I’m not expecting them to fling out terms like VORP or DIPS, but why are batting averages and win-loss records held up as the gold standard of statistical achievement? Instead of pointing to the fact that Zito won only 11 games last year as an evidence that he’s not the pitcher he used to be, why not point out the dip in his strikeout totals and the modest jumps in walks and homers allowed compared to his Cy Young year? Wouldn’t that be more helpful than quoting a stat that’s usually more of an indicator as to what kind of run-support a pitcher got than how well he actually pitched? (I mean, if you want proof that win-loss records may not be the best indicator of pitching performance, look at last night. Zito turned in eight magnificent innings and got tagged with the loss. If you go solely by win-loss records, his performance last night was no better than last Saturday when he didn’t make it out of the fourth inning.)

Problem number two: Hudler and Physioc go to such great lengths to praise Angel players and ownership, conferring qualities and attributes out of the reach of the mortal men, that I sometimes feel like I’m watching a hostage video. “Arte Moreno is a great owner… we are being well-fed and cared for… make no attempt to rescue us from the press box…”

Look, I don’t doubt that the mass of men on the Angels lead lives of stellar character. But if Hud and Phys want to try and convince me that, to a man, everyone who puts on the Anaheim uniform is a hard-working, team-first family man with excellent hygiene and good moral fiber, I’m going to have call bullcrap. And I’m going to be less inclined to believe them the next time they praise someone properly. All you have in this business is your credibility, after all.

Post a comment