Old Posts:
San Jose is in the past man . . . Oakland is the future.
No, seriously. 5 years ago, San Jose was a great place to move a sports team. You didn't even need to trees to grow money, you could print it right off the internet. Then the bubble burst. You were left with a large city on the edge of its metropolitan area with businesses constantly downsizing and looking to cut costs. Its not the panacea it seemed to be.
Population wise, it is the largest city in the region, tipping the scale at just under a million people, while SF has a bit over 600 thousand and Oakland is just over 400,000. In terms of metro area, however, it is on the edge of the region, with almost the entire Bay Area's non-SJ population to the north, as much as 40-50 miles away.
Oakland is actually about as central to the region as you can get . . . without building in the largely unpopulated hilly region between Oakland and the inland suberbs. Its actually closer to far more people than San Francisco, which is convenient for almost nobody. Seriously, less than half a million people live within a twenty minute's drive of PacBell Park, whereas the city of San Jose is only about half an hour from the Oakland Coliseum.
The problem clearly isn't location. Its also not about winning . . . as a billboard on the way to SF reminds us "0 Splash Downs, 4 Championships." Nor, do I believe, is it about current talent. I mean, honestly, who on the Giants (save Barry) would you really want to see play (OK, I'd like to see Schmidt pitch too, but the casual fan hasn't even heard of him)?
Marketing? The A's have won awards for their ad campaigns.
Uniforms? Orange and Black is just hideous, especially on road greys. Green and gold, on the crisp, white uniform, with those white shoes, I tell you, it grows on you.
OK, well, the answer is actually obvious. Its not the A's v the Giants. The A's win that hands down in virtually every respect. Its Oakland v San Francisco. Oakland is seen as a cheap, second class, ghetto city, San Francisco is, well, among the finest cities in the world. Who would you, the casual fan, want to associate with? The ghetto team or the classy team?
So is there anything we can do about it? Well, to a certain extent, no, San Francisco will always be San Francisco. But Oakland doesn't always have to be the ghetto, ugly stepchild. While much of this transformation has to happen far away from the baseball field, the park plays a significant role in perpetuating this image with the fans. A new park would go a long way in winning them back. (they came in droves in the late 80s, early 90s when the alternative was the 'stick)
Mon Mar 01, 11:16:54 PM . Devin Lavelle
So, names are being named. Did they do it? I don't know, it seems kind of likely, but who knows? Does it matter? Well, of course. How much does it matter? Well, that'll depend on a couple of things.
The first is how definite the evidence against Bonds, Giambi, Sheff, et al turns out to be. But this is no where near as important as the second question.
That question is, how will they all perform this year . . . and next? What will happen to their legacies, particularly Bonds' if they cease to be the best in the game and become merely very good, good, average, or worse. Well, its pretty clear, their legacies would be tarnished irreperably. But would this be completely fair? Not to them, of course, if they cheated, they deserve the punishment they'll receive. But would it be fair to the history and traditions of this great game?
Sheffield was 34 last year. Through the age of 34, his most similar batters were Duke Snider, Reggie Jackson, and Billy Williams. Guess what each of them did at age 35. Snider posted an OPS of .899 . . . but only over 158 ABs. He was down to .745 the next year and retired after posting an OPS of .625 at 37, hitting 23 jacks over his last 3 years.
Reggie dropped from an OPS of .995 at 34 to .758 at 35. He was chased out of New York after that season.
At 34, Williams knocked 37 dongs, drove in 122 and batted .333, but at 35 dropped from an OPS of 1.004 to .807, never hit more than 22 jacks or drove in more than 88 runs again.
Bonds' #1 guy, naturally is his godfather . . . who gives him plenty of hope, he had great seasons at 39 and 40, before falling off, largely due to injuries at 41. Frank Robinson was fine at 39, but fell off at 40. Mel Ott, his #3 doesn't offer much of a comparison, as he retired after his age 38 season, going 0 for 4 for the year. #4, Hank Aaron had one of his finest seasons at age 39, but age and injuries slowed him considerably after that.
Giambi's #1 through 32 is Mo Vaughn, he sat out his age 33 season and was never productive again. #2 is Hal Trosky. He retired after posting a .664 OPS in his age 33 season. #3 is Ted Kluszewski, who amassed 667 ABs between age 33 and 35, never posting an OPS over .789.
Well, regardless of what substances they might be taking, it seems that we should be expecting at least 2 of these 3 to drop off significantly, probably due to injuries, but, not necessarily. Which could mean that we will assume their performances were due to performance enhancing substances.
But how much so would they have been? We'd probably assume it was significant, but there's no way to tell. Suffice it to say, I'd rather not know the truth. I've greatly enjoyed watching these men do incredible things on the baseball field and I don't want to be robbed of the memories. All I really care about is what happens between those chalk lines.
Sun Feb 15, 01:37:52 PM . Devin Lavelle
Yeah, the Yanks did get A-Rod, but lets look a little closer.
First, some basic analysis:
A-Rod: .298 47 hr 118 rbi 17 sb
Sorianano: .290 38 hr 91 rbi 35 sb
so, on the surface, great player for younger very very good player and a hell of a lot of payroll flexibility.
But, there's more:
A-Rod: .396 obp .600 slg .995 ops
Soriano: .338 obp .525 slg .863 ops
ok, now we have a huge difference . . . but, think of where these numbers were compiled:
Check out A-Rod's 3-year home-road ops splits
home----road
1.082---.939
Don't get me wrong, he's a great player any way you stack it, but thats a huge difference.
Soriano goes in the exact opposite direction
3-year home-road ops splits
home----road
.771----.891
and that doesn't tell the half of it, since it includes 2001, when he was a completely different player. The last 2 years, he has been at .917 and .933 on the road.
But, then, A-Rod played a hell of a lot of road games in Oakland and Seattle, Soriano played road games in Boston and Toronto . . . so thats a solid advantage for Soriano. Lets check out park adjusted OPS+ (this means the percentage of league average ie 100=league average).
A-Rod: 148
Soriano: 128
Is that it? Of course not.
Remember, Soriano has only played three full years in MLB . . . in A-Rod's third full season, he posted an adjusted OPS+ of 135.
So, Soriano really isn't A-Rod, but he's pretty damn good and he's only going to get better. Are the Yanks better? Yeah, but not as much as you'd think, they also got a couple years older and are committing way more cash.
They are also making a hard cap more and more likely and have a ton of cash invested in only a handful of players, which could easily come back to bite them in the ass WHEN the cap happens.
Remember, the Marlins' best player wouldn't have started for the Yanks last year . . . winning takes more than just a hell of a lot of cash.
San Jose is in the past man . . . Oakland is the future.
No, seriously. 5 years ago, San Jose was a great place to move a sports team. You didn't even need to trees to grow money, you could print it right off the internet. Then the bubble burst. You were left with a large city on the edge of its metropolitan area with businesses constantly downsizing and looking to cut costs. Its not the panacea it seemed to be.
Population wise, it is the largest city in the region, tipping the scale at just under a million people, while SF has a bit over 600 thousand and Oakland is just over 400,000. In terms of metro area, however, it is on the edge of the region, with almost the entire Bay Area's non-SJ population to the north, as much as 40-50 miles away.
Oakland is actually about as central to the region as you can get . . . without building in the largely unpopulated hilly region between Oakland and the inland suberbs. Its actually closer to far more people than San Francisco, which is convenient for almost nobody. Seriously, less than half a million people live within a twenty minute's drive of PacBell Park, whereas the city of San Jose is only about half an hour from the Oakland Coliseum.
The problem clearly isn't location. Its also not about winning . . . as a billboard on the way to SF reminds us "0 Splash Downs, 4 Championships." Nor, do I believe, is it about current talent. I mean, honestly, who on the Giants (save Barry) would you really want to see play (OK, I'd like to see Schmidt pitch too, but the casual fan hasn't even heard of him)?
Marketing? The A's have won awards for their ad campaigns.
Uniforms? Orange and Black is just hideous, especially on road greys. Green and gold, on the crisp, white uniform, with those white shoes, I tell you, it grows on you.
OK, well, the answer is actually obvious. Its not the A's v the Giants. The A's win that hands down in virtually every respect. Its Oakland v San Francisco. Oakland is seen as a cheap, second class, ghetto city, San Francisco is, well, among the finest cities in the world. Who would you, the casual fan, want to associate with? The ghetto team or the classy team?
So is there anything we can do about it? Well, to a certain extent, no, San Francisco will always be San Francisco. But Oakland doesn't always have to be the ghetto, ugly stepchild. While much of this transformation has to happen far away from the baseball field, the park plays a significant role in perpetuating this image with the fans. A new park would go a long way in winning them back. (they came in droves in the late 80s, early 90s when the alternative was the 'stick)
Mon Mar 01, 11:16:54 PM . Devin Lavelle
So, names are being named. Did they do it? I don't know, it seems kind of likely, but who knows? Does it matter? Well, of course. How much does it matter? Well, that'll depend on a couple of things.
The first is how definite the evidence against Bonds, Giambi, Sheff, et al turns out to be. But this is no where near as important as the second question.
That question is, how will they all perform this year . . . and next? What will happen to their legacies, particularly Bonds' if they cease to be the best in the game and become merely very good, good, average, or worse. Well, its pretty clear, their legacies would be tarnished irreperably. But would this be completely fair? Not to them, of course, if they cheated, they deserve the punishment they'll receive. But would it be fair to the history and traditions of this great game?
Sheffield was 34 last year. Through the age of 34, his most similar batters were Duke Snider, Reggie Jackson, and Billy Williams. Guess what each of them did at age 35. Snider posted an OPS of .899 . . . but only over 158 ABs. He was down to .745 the next year and retired after posting an OPS of .625 at 37, hitting 23 jacks over his last 3 years.
Reggie dropped from an OPS of .995 at 34 to .758 at 35. He was chased out of New York after that season.
At 34, Williams knocked 37 dongs, drove in 122 and batted .333, but at 35 dropped from an OPS of 1.004 to .807, never hit more than 22 jacks or drove in more than 88 runs again.
Bonds' #1 guy, naturally is his godfather . . . who gives him plenty of hope, he had great seasons at 39 and 40, before falling off, largely due to injuries at 41. Frank Robinson was fine at 39, but fell off at 40. Mel Ott, his #3 doesn't offer much of a comparison, as he retired after his age 38 season, going 0 for 4 for the year. #4, Hank Aaron had one of his finest seasons at age 39, but age and injuries slowed him considerably after that.
Giambi's #1 through 32 is Mo Vaughn, he sat out his age 33 season and was never productive again. #2 is Hal Trosky. He retired after posting a .664 OPS in his age 33 season. #3 is Ted Kluszewski, who amassed 667 ABs between age 33 and 35, never posting an OPS over .789.
Well, regardless of what substances they might be taking, it seems that we should be expecting at least 2 of these 3 to drop off significantly, probably due to injuries, but, not necessarily. Which could mean that we will assume their performances were due to performance enhancing substances.
But how much so would they have been? We'd probably assume it was significant, but there's no way to tell. Suffice it to say, I'd rather not know the truth. I've greatly enjoyed watching these men do incredible things on the baseball field and I don't want to be robbed of the memories. All I really care about is what happens between those chalk lines.
Sun Feb 15, 01:37:52 PM . Devin Lavelle
Yeah, the Yanks did get A-Rod, but lets look a little closer.
First, some basic analysis:
A-Rod: .298 47 hr 118 rbi 17 sb
Sorianano: .290 38 hr 91 rbi 35 sb
so, on the surface, great player for younger very very good player and a hell of a lot of payroll flexibility.
But, there's more:
A-Rod: .396 obp .600 slg .995 ops
Soriano: .338 obp .525 slg .863 ops
ok, now we have a huge difference . . . but, think of where these numbers were compiled:
Check out A-Rod's 3-year home-road ops splits
home----road
1.082---.939
Don't get me wrong, he's a great player any way you stack it, but thats a huge difference.
Soriano goes in the exact opposite direction
3-year home-road ops splits
home----road
.771----.891
and that doesn't tell the half of it, since it includes 2001, when he was a completely different player. The last 2 years, he has been at .917 and .933 on the road.
But, then, A-Rod played a hell of a lot of road games in Oakland and Seattle, Soriano played road games in Boston and Toronto . . . so thats a solid advantage for Soriano. Lets check out park adjusted OPS+ (this means the percentage of league average ie 100=league average).
A-Rod: 148
Soriano: 128
Is that it? Of course not.
Remember, Soriano has only played three full years in MLB . . . in A-Rod's third full season, he posted an adjusted OPS+ of 135.
So, Soriano really isn't A-Rod, but he's pretty damn good and he's only going to get better. Are the Yanks better? Yeah, but not as much as you'd think, they also got a couple years older and are committing way more cash.
They are also making a hard cap more and more likely and have a ton of cash invested in only a handful of players, which could easily come back to bite them in the ass WHEN the cap happens.
Remember, the Marlins' best player wouldn't have started for the Yanks last year . . . winning takes more than just a hell of a lot of cash.