We'll take the win

Not that it matters much in the larger scheme of things (since the M's have a pretty good lock on last place in the AL West), but I'll take a win any way I can get it, even if it's as ugly as the one tonight. Eight walks allowed by Mariner pitchers. In fact, if you look at the box score, you'll see that more Padres got on base than Mariners. With 8 hits, 8 walks, and a hit batsman, the Pads got one more on base than the 13 hits +3 walks by the Mariners. The M's did, however, show quite a bit of power, getting 23 total bases vs. San Diego's 13 total bases.

The tradition of Runs, Hits and Errors is so entrenched (Krylon spray paint even had a slogan based off it) that I doubt it will change any time soon, but including walks in that list would sure help give a better synopsis of the game, since they tell us a lot about the pitching and offense. Tonight, they'd tell us that the 7-3 win by the M's wasn't a dominating one. But like I said, I'll take 'em however they come.

What KC knows about Beltran

Just so you know, word in Kansas City is that Carlos Beltran doesn't really have the arm he used to, due to elbow problems. I can't verify this or disprove it, but thought I'd offer it for what it's worth.

I went to my first Royals game of the season on Sunday, with 20-year old Zach Grinke not able to match Tom Glavine and--surpise, surprise--the Royals lost. Beltran badly misjudged the distance on a ball that turned out to be a home run, crashing painfully into the outfield wall; and this is in his home ballpark.

None of this means the M's shouldn't pursue him in the off-season, but he may not be quite the defensive juggernaut that some believe him to be.

If you don't read Sports and Bremertonians, then you missed their link to an article with Carlos Guillen's comments--which strike them and myself as pretty accurate--about the Mariner's foolish dismissal of Guillen's talent and potential.

Protecting Outs

Scott at Caffienated Confines, with whom I used to banter with over on the Mariners official web site fan forum during its glory days, scoffs at the notion that the M's are lacking "fire." I agree. The M's are lacking hitters, pitchers, and fielders.

I really can't stand it when people say things that have no meaning, especially when they try to dress up vapid content with words that are supposed to sound hip or sophisticated. I see this in papers of undergraduates that I grade, and in sales pitches from people that don't know their product. To those people I say: you're only fooling yourself. The rest of us know you don't really know what you're saying. The key to effective words are significant ideas behind them.

But getting back to what Scott also says:

"Outs are guarded jealously, like Gollum with his “Precious", losing sight of the consideration that outs are merely a means to an end. The end being runs, which last time I checked was what they count up when they want to know who won or lost. The 2003 Marlins were one of the most go-go teams in baseball of the last several years, and they finished a lot further along than station to station teams like the Athletics."

First of all, the Marlins did not finish "a lot further along" than the A's. People who decry the Athletics approach to baseball often try to paint the A's as a failure, but they've made it to the playoffs more than the M's have in the last five years, and have done it in a tough division spending less money than any of their divisional opponents. The post-season is unpredictable, and the A's have just run into some hot teams or had some unfortunate breaks. But most teams should be jealous of the A's.

Secondly, outs, by themselves, aren't a means to an end. The recent talk about "Productive Outs" are an attempt to distinguish between outs that accomplish something, and those that don't. But it's far better to have good batters who get on base and don't make outs in the first place. Perhaps Scott's suggestion that Bob Melvin should take more risks is a good one, but not because Melvin should be making more outs. The real reason to give for running more would be that the benefits outweigh the risks. For a Mariner team that doesn't hit many extra-base hits, and does have a few speedy players, snagging additional bases is certainly a laudible goal. But the last thing bunt-happy Melvin needs to do is be less careful with his outs.

"Empty" Batting Averages, Exhibit A

Peter over at Mariner Musings goes through the M's and Expos' lineups to see if one good team could be made from both their lineups. If you're curious, go see what the answer is. Buried in that post is this little example of why batting average is so over-rated as a statistic, something I know in my head but have a hard time accepting intuitively. But when Peter compares left-fielders, he gets:

Raul Ibanez (.268/.330/.505, 23 XBH, 16 BB, 194 AB)
Brad Wilkerson (.236/.355/.455, 21 XBH, 36 BB, 191 AB)

Those averages are Batting, On-Base Percentage, and Slugging. XBH is extra-base hits. If someone offered you a .268 hitter or a .236 hitter which would you take? But Peter rightly notes that "essentially, the difference between Wilkerson and Ibanez is 5 singles (in Ibanez’s favor) and 16 walks (in Wilkerson’s favor). That’s 11 more times on-base, a.k.a. “11 fewer outs”, in Wilkerson’s favor." It's not like Wilkerson's advantage in OBP and Ibanez's in batting average cancel each other out: Wilkerson has been the better batter this year.

Oh, and by the way, Wilkerson is getting paid a near-league-minimum $375K this year, far less than Raul's near-$4M salary.

To be fair, Ibanez's isn't a totally "empty" batting average (see Dan Wilson for that). But I think the comparison here between Ibanez and Wilkerson is instructive.

Misc. thoughts on tonight's game...

*Koch issues an intentinal walk to Edgar after a 1-2 count? There are benefits to having a reputation such as Edgar's.

*Good to see Ichiro continue to see better success on the basepaths. His game is so dependent upon speed that losing a step would be devastating for him.

*How absurd is it that Dave Hansen has the same amount of plate appearances as Willie Bloomquist? Tonight's game adds to the small sample size of Hansen's performance this season

*Let's hope Melvin continues to put Winn in left field. He will likely do so for the wrong reasons--to keep Winn more relaxed in the batter's box--but at least he's doing it. Now, about actually putting your best defender in centerfield (psst! it's Ichiro) ...

*I don't usually listen to the post-game show, mostly because I can't stand to listen to callers who don't know what they're talking about. (Maybe I should call in myself, right?) Anyway, tonight was no exception. The first caller I heard actually called Melvin out, but did so for failing to bunt in the sixth. The next caller complained about not using the suicide squeeze; to their credit, radio men Norm Charlton and Tom Hutyler both cautioned about wasting an out, not to mention the risk that the batter won't make contact and the runner will just be tagged out. (I would be curious if someone has done a study specifically on suicide squeezes.)

As for the first caller's suggestion, let's look at that inning.
-D Hansen hit a ground rule double to deep center.
-S Spiezio walked.
-R Aurilia popped out to shortstop.
-D Wilson popped out to first.
-H Bocachica flied out to right.

Notice that bunting would have accomplished nothing. The inning would have ended with runners on second and third, instead of first and second.

Fans that think Melvin isn't bunting enough just haven't been paying attention.

*Also on the post-game show, Randy Winn pulls out the old "I'm not really looking to hit a home-run line" when asked about his massive shot. Why do players think trying to hit for power is something to be ashamed of? Winn's comments are by no means rare; so where did this line come from?

On Vacation

...in California (ye olde stomping grounds before Grad School) and will return in a week.

Stumbling into Strategy?

I don't know what prompted Melvin to start using his relievers wisely, but yesterday's game was an excellent example of how to use a bullpen. Up 3-1 in the eighth, J.J. Putz relieves Freddy Garcia and gives up a walk and an infield single. The go-ahead run is coming to the plate, in the form of left-handed hitting Bobby Higginson, who's having a decent year, hitting .280 with a .791 OPS.

Prior to this game, we'd expect Melvin to go by The Book: bring in your lefty one out guy ("LOOGY"), who for us is Mike Myers. After all, lefty Carlos Pena is up after Higginson. And it's not the ninth inning, so it's not time for your closer.

Except this is a situation where you need your best reliever pitching, particularly one that can get you a lot of strikeouts. A hit makes it a one-run game with the tying run at third, waiting for a sac fly. The ninth inning will come with a clean slate, but right now, you need outs in rapid succession, and you can't afford any more base-runners. Happily, Melvin finally realizes this, and brings in his best guy, Eddie Guardado, who by the way, is the best on the team at getting strikeouts. (It would almost be defensible to leave Putz in, since he's been pretty good so far. But again, there's no room for error now, and the infield single was a hard shot off Putz that may have injured him.)

Now it's time for Detroit manager Alan Trammel to play bunt-foolish baseball, as he attempts to have Higginson, a power hitter, bunt. A waste of his talent, and Higgy can't bunt anyway, and pops it up to Olerud. One down, but the fire's still burning. Guardado proceeds to strike out two of the next three batters, giving up a walk on a 3-2 count to Rondell White.

Now that the Tigers' eighth-inning potential rally has been quelled, we can breathe easier. The ninth is not a problem for Eddie, who retires the side in order, with two more strikeouts. In total, Guardado threw 31 pitches, which is something he certainly can handle (he threw 37 against New York on May 15th). At his current workload pace, Eddie will throw 919 pitches this year, which would be the lowest total for him since 1999, when he missed part of the season. In fact, this will be his 11th full season in the majors and he has exceeded 1000 pitches in all but two of those seasons.

This win can be credited in large part to an intelligent use of the bullpen by Bob Melvin, and we should laud him for making good moves. We'll have to see if a similar situation comes up when the M's are tied, because that will be the true test of whether Melvin has learned.

Around the Internet

A few of you may not look around at other blogs very much. The USS Mariner, who continues to ignore me (insert sad violin music here), but continues to be an excellent daily resource of opinions and links (insert cool MTV indie-rock music[?] here), really should be the first thing you read, before you read the paper, or, god-forbid, the M's official web-site.

For a look at how badly the M's are performing even compared to the statistically-minded pessimism of the blogosphere last off-season, check out this post at Sodo Oh No*. First column is what actually happened in 2003, second column is what we thought would happen in 2004, and third column is what is actually happening.

As Larry Stone put it, The M's are done. The only way for Bavasi to save this season is by making smart trades. See David Cameron's post about how to clean house.

Also, Steve goes into great detail into why Bob Melvin needs to read the Baltimore Sun. Read the whole thing, but if your wondering about the Baltimore Sun reference, scroll down to the bottom.

*No to be confused with the wife of the late John Lennon.

How Bavasi can increase the importance of his scouts

We know how much Bavasi loves his scouts. He was let go from his GM job in Anaheim in part because of his refusal to fire scouts in his organization. Not that Bill would be reading this, but for rhetorical effect:

Dear Bill,

I know you love your scouts. Those guys know baseball, like they were born in the dugout. You know there's no substitute for actually seeing a player, watching the way he approaches the game, the at-bat, the pitch. It tells you about character, whether this player has what it takes to fight his way through adversity and make it to the Show. You want to show the world how important your scouts are? Get a stats guy.

Face reality: in 2004, any team that doesn't lean heavily on statistical analysis just isn't playing on a level field. Your competition has laser levels, and you're eye-balling it. Betting the future of the organization on a young guy without some objective measurement is too expensive and takes too long for trial-and-error. You've gotta have some sort of foundation.

That stats guy will show you where to start. He'll keep you from missing the guys your competitors are signing and turning into all-stars. He'll warn you about signing the guys that will likely fall off the table next season. The point is this: You'll now have the same tools that every other team has. The numbers are easily available, Bill, and there are thousands of guys out there—literally thousands—who can help you make sense of them. Every team—every one of them—can do statistical analysis. This isn't a zero-sum game, where if you look at the stats, the other guy can't, or vice versa. Not having a stats department would be like not employing a pitching coach. You'd be starting three meters behind everyone in the race. Getting your organization looking at statistical analysis just puts you on the same playing field.

This is where your scouts come in. Once you have (and use) the tools that every other team has at your fingertips, your scouts become your most important resource. They'll tell you that that young pitcher you were thinking about drafting has the worst mechanics in the world, and won't make it out of A-ball before injuring himself. The numbers can't tell you that. They'll tell you that your young hitting prospect is going through some personal issues, but you should hang onto him for another year to make sure he really isn't going to develop before you let him go.

But remember, until you start paying attention to the vast amount of objective baseball information out there, your organization will be fighting with one arm tied behind your back. That's the same arm other teams are using to cut you up with right now.

Remember, everyone has access to the same statistical resources that you do. Once you start using them, you'll be on the same playing field as everyone else. That's when your scouts are going to give you an advantage, but not before then.

You've got your scouting department. Get your statistical department, now. Because your team's broke, and you need to make sure you make it better, not worse. We don't care about your loyalty to your scouts, or how great an executive your dad was. We want this team to win, and that ain't gonna happen with your best hand tied behind your back.

Sincerely,

Nate Woodward

A couple of longer posts are percolating in the ol' noggin right now, but the end of the term in grad school is keeping my hands full right now. But how far the mighty have fallen--we're looking up at Texas. Hey, did anyone else notice they got better after they dumped Alex Rodriguez? No, I don't really think there' a correlation there, but it's fun to wonder about what the baseball gods are laughing at.

Franklin's history

A quick rejoinder to Steve's recent post about the reasons for pessimism put on display by the Mariners yesterday, one of which is "Ryan Franklin looking much more like the Franklin of his career through 2002."

On the contrary, we would be happy if Franklin were performing as he did pre-2003, because he was effective then. The reason for pessimism about Franklin in the off-season was not because he had a career year in 2003, but because his so-called "peripherals" (Ks, HRs, Strikeouts, BB as opposed to ERA or W/L record) were bad in 2003. The thought was that Franklin's low ERA was masking his declining effectiveness, that he wasn't good, but lucky, in 2003, and that the luck was more than likely to run out.

RYAN FRANKLIN STATS
	ERA	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	H/9
pre-2003	3.89	5.7	2.33	1.25	8.77
2003	3.57	4.2	2.59	1.44	8.45
2004	5.55	3.6	3.57	1.19	9.52

Besides the low ERA, 2003 wasn't a particularly good year for Franklin. The problem this year is that 1) he's given up more walks per 9 innings than he ever has since he's been a regular major-leaguer and 2) he's giving up a lot more hits, too. The hits allowed probably have a lot to do with a worsened outfield defense, but the walks are all on Ryan.

So my response to Steve is: Yes, Franklin is struggling this year, both because of his own apparent control problems and because of our outfield defensive sieve. But we didn't expect this because of his pre-2003 numbers.

Messing with Meche

Down by only two runs, Meche comes out for the sixth inning, and promptly walks two batters, the second on five pitches. His ball/strike ratio is poor, his pitch count is near 100. I'm not listening or watching this, just following it on the pitch-by-pitch "Gameday" from MLB.com. Is there any reason Meche isn't pulled immediately?

Meche stays in, and gives up what looks to me like a near-homer to Mark Scutaro. Runners at first and third, one out, and the pitch count continues to rise. Melvin leaves him in. Meche luckily (or bearing down one last time) gets Adam Melhuse, the next batter, to strike out. EARTH TO MELVIN! PULL HIM NOW!

I started writing this before the next batter, Esteban German, singles in Hatteberg. I don't know how this game will end, but I do know that I would have made the pitching change before German got up to bat. Of course, since Melvin is bringing in Jarvis, I'm not sure things are any better.

I was hoping Melvin would have learned to use his pen a little more sanely than he did last year, but he seems to have adopted the organization-wide practice of refusing to learn new things.

Still, even if we go on to lose this game, taking 2 out of 3 from Oakland is good. But that doesn't make Melvin's decision-making any less ridiculous.

(Well, Jarvis got the out to end the inning. Are you watching, Milwaukee? Isn't he great? Don't you really want to trade for him?)

It's not the clutch that's your problem; you're just not getting any power

-Does it seem to anyone else that the Mariners are stranding a lot of runners? Well, they're not, even though it seemed that way to me. The Mariners are hitting quite well in so-called "clutch" situations. As a team overall, the Mariners have a .318 OBP. With runners on, it jumps to .352, and with runners in scoring posn., it goes up to .404. If you don't believe "clutch hitting" is a skill, this is yet another ominous sign, since they've actually been lucky to score as many runs as they have (M's are 26th in the majors in OPS, but 20th in Runs scored). If you do believe in "clutch hitting," then this isn't an area likey to improve. As many in the blogosphere have pointed out, the biggest problem has been preventing runs. Of course, if the Mariners had guys who could hit it out more, situational hitting wouldn't matter quite as much.

-The M's have allowed 10 stolen bases this year, and caught 1. That's ugly. The guys at USS Mariner have done a series of posts about how many extra base hits we've allowed so far (a whole heck of a lot). That's the equivalent of allowing opponents to turn 10 walks or singles into doubles, or 1 in 10 (the M's have allowed 99 singles + walks). Put another way, if we adjust the M's current SLG allowed by adding stolen bases to total bases (turning 10 singles into doubles), the SLG allowed increases from .474 to .500. Having Ben Davis find his swing again might be helpful in this regard, since he's had better success throwing runners out than Wilson in the recent past. But Davis won't get playing time unless he starts doing something at the plate.

The semester ends in three weeks, at which point we'll have a better idea about how much this abyssmal start is an accurate reflection of the Mariners' true ability, and at which point I'll be able to pay a little better attention to their games and this blog.

Update:Thanks to Steve at Wheelhouse for reading my little observation and refining and correcting it, showing his customary thoroughness and reason.

Penless

Well, I got what I asked for--Bob Melvin used what I thought were our better relievers--and between the two of them, Soriano and Mateo gave up 3 runs in a combined 1 inning pitched. Pineiro didn't pitched very well either, but our bullpen looks downright awful; maybe Jarvis isn't all that much worse of an option after all. The abysmall performers of so many pitchers doesn't give Bob Melvin any good options, so it's absurd to blame Bob Melvin for this loss. What's a manager to do when your best young starter and your two best young relievers hand the game away? The Grand Salami blog, who will get a link here when they give me one on their sidebar, makes Melvin the scapegoat, but the truth is that our pitchers, and not Melvin, were the ones that lost last night's game. And these were all guys who we had last year, so Bavasi had nothing to do with it either. The pen has to start carrying its weight, and untill they stop collapsing, we're in for a long month of losses.

Picking up where he left off

Melvin continues to frustrate with absurd bullpen usage. One would think that especially at the beginning of the season, especially as consecutive losses start to mount, that Melvin would increasingly rely on his best relievers. But we saw Villone and Jarvis yesterday, and Myers was warming up in the bullpen.

Take a look at Mariners pitchers ranked by Innings Pitched. Why is Jarvis not at the bottom of that list?

Granted, we're only six games in. But Jarvis is no. 12 for a reason, and Melvin should use him accordingly.

Well, at least we got the win yesterday. Now let's return the favor and stick it to the Angels in their home opener tomorrow.

Ouch--but it's just one game

Not a pretty opener, but at least we're playing real baseball now. Critics will be quick to point out that Kevin Jarvis did very badly. I have no doubt that Jarvis is bad, and it may be best if he is so bad for a month that the Mariners give up on him quickly. However, if we are drawing conclusions from one game, then clearly Bret Boone will be a disaster this year, and our only hope is that Melvin starts Willie Bloomquist and Dave Hansen, since they provided the offense yesterday. Oh, and Ibanez did get a hit, so apparently he is not going to be the disaster some are predicting he will be.

Oh wait. It was just one game, which is just a little less than an acceptable sample size from which to be drawing conclusions. Jarvis has shown he's been bad for a years, and that's why he's bad. Not just because of yesterday. Let's not set open the door for someone to turn the argument around on us if Jarvis has a good two innings next time he's on the mound.

Not living in the Pacific Timezone for the first time, it somehow just occured to me that I'll be missing the end of a lot of home games, or will be really cranky for a lot of mornings.

In fairness to the guys at USS Mariner, Jason Michael Barker said he had doubts about giving up Nageotte, and David Cameron said he would do it. That's the beauty of having more than one author on a blog, and I'll try to be more carefull characterizing their statements. Of course, it's all moot now, as Bradley has gone to the Dodgers. Opening day tommorow!

Wished-for Headline: M's acquire Board Game Manufacturer

U.S.S. Mariner first alerted me to the news that Milton Bradley is available, and the M's might be interested despite Bradley's rep as a hothead. Then they say that they agree with the M's previous decision that giving up super-prospect Clint Nageotte is too much to pay. Hogwash. The M's have NO position-player talent in their farm system, and oodles of pitchers. This is a way to take some of that pitching talent they've been hoarding and leverage that to their advantage. And there really is no such thing as a pitching prospect, remember? Nageotte could very easily get injured in a week and never pitch again. He's inherently risky because he's a young pitcher. Bradley is less of a risk, and is more of a need.

Clarifying the experience question

I'm not sure I was clear in my previous entry about the question I was asking. We see that Bavasi puts a premium on "experience," which usually means "old." I am not asking whether older players are better than younger ones, because plenty of work has been done on the age-production curves--when most players peak in their production, and how they decline. Preferring an older player to a younger one--for instance, preferring Rich Aurilia over Carlos Guillen--strikes me as fairly counterproductive. The question is whether years of major league play correlate at all with success. If we compare players with statistically similar profiles, will the one with more major-leauge (or post-season) experience be more likely to improve than the inexperienced one? My instinct is to say "of course not"--but just going on instinct is no better than what Bavasi is currently operating with. I don't have the time or knowledge to put together that sort of a report, but I wonder if anyone has.

A Google search brings upthis article from ESPN and Baseball Prospectus which looks at experienced teams, but that's not the same thing. The google search also brought me to this old exchange by some folks of the Baseball Primer persuasion, who wonder if experience (rather than age) matters for pitchers more than for batters.

Anyone who knows something substantive about this, please drop me an email.

So will the M's be the next Baltimore? That sounds like what Derek Zumsteg fears, when he predicts (in a Seattle Weekly article featuring him and USS Mariner) that "in three years, they’ll be playing .400 ball, will be losing money, and won’t know what hit them: ‘We have such a great bunch of veteran guys! How could this happen?'" (assuming things don't change in the M's front office).

Mariners: the next Baltimore, or the next Atlanta?

USS Mariner points us to several P-I articles today of interest, including a couple about Bavasi. These articles confirm my confusion about Bavasi: he clearly isn't ignorant of statistical analysis. He even says he's trying to find a good analyst for the team, and that the guy he tried to get--Craig Wright, who decined for "personal reasons"--is "a billion times smarter than me." So Bavasi wants a guy who really knows stats, and he knows he himself could use some help. What's the delay then? If Bavasi is decisive, as Howard Lincoln commends him, why doesn't he get going and find someone who's going to help him avoid such questionable decisions? But this article is mostly good news: Bavasi knows statistical analysis is a valuable tool, and he's trying to find someone to provide real expertise.

On the other hand, Bavasi says "In general, I'd prefer to have a veteran club that has enough youth to it to stay healthy." I'm really not sure how age, or years of major league experience, has much significant correlation to being a good player. I would do an analysis of it, except 1) I don't have ready access to any data that lists players' stats along side their years of experience or age, and 2) I don't have the statistical expertise to know how to rule out other factors. That is, all things being equal, are more experienced players going to play better? Besides the well-known trend for older players to decline, is there some advantage that playing at a major league level longer gives a player? Can we measure it?

Bavasi makes the comparison with Atlanta, but part of me fears that, with his fixation on veteran-ness, we are more likely to become the next Baltimore. I hope he finds his stat-guy soon.