Bavasi signs first baseman to long-term 7-figure per year contract

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/1998/11/25/angels_vaughn/

History is not on our side.

Besides the USSM, though, most bloggers seem to be focusing on the positive. That's fine for now, but doing that, without looking at the real risks-- is probably what allowed the M's to offer this kind of a contract in the first place

Two posts in one day, I know, but hey, the semester just ended here in KC, and I've got a little time.

You're ignorant, but at least you act on it. Again.

I have a sinking feeling I'll be using that line from Calvin and Hobbes more. (Here's the first instance.) To impatient to wait out the market, desperate to make a statement to an increasingly antagonistic (or worse, disinterested) fanbase, the Mariners throw money at the nearest big name, as much as it took to get him signed now. No way were they going to lose out to Baltimore again.

Richie Sexson is now the highest paid player on the Mariners. He makes more than Ichiro. More than the Mariners refused to pay Ivan Rodriquez last year (he makes $10M a year). More than the M's refused to pay Jason Schmidt in 2001 ($8M per). He makes about the same amount as Ken Griffey Jr, and we know how well that contract has worked for the Reds.

If Richie Sexson were a good bet to be a great player for the next four years, of course, this wouldn't matter. But Sexson's shoulder problems--cleared by the same medical staff that has brought you the bum shoulders of Gil Meche, Ryan Anderson, Matt Thornton, Rafael Soriano, and many others--make him a gamble at any price for any amount of years, let alone the absurd twelve and a half million he'll be pulling down for the next four years. Oh, and his agent says that he wouldn't accept any clauses about the shoulder in his contract, because it "wasn't necessary." How comforting.

The larger point is that the M's wanted to get something done, and in making that decision, lost any remnant of rational risk analysis or strength in their barganing position. Maybe the fans will start talking about the M's now, but the smart ones will be shaking their heads.

If Beltre is still on the horizon for this team, that's good news, and could help to redeem this foolharding aquisition.

File Under "Society:" AP Roe v. Wade Poll

The AP released a story about a poll it ran about what people think about overturning Roe v. Wade.

(Ok, before I continue, if you can't think of one person who has a different opinion about abortion than you whom you respect, just stop reading. Everyone has enough stress in their life without getting worked up about one Mariner-loving Kansas City resident's opinion. I'm commenting on the article about public opinion, not commenting on the abortion itself, so keep you socks on.)

Briefly, the poll says 59% oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, 31% would want a Supreme Court nominee who would reverse it, leaving 10% somewhere else. The article then follows with this quote:

"While I don't have a strong feeling about abortions personally, I wouldn't want
the law overturned and return to the days of backdoor abortions," said Colleen
Dunn, 40, a Republican and community college teacher who lives outside
Philadelphia.

I guess it's a good thing we have a court to listen to reasoned arguments, because apparently a community college teacher (of what, by the way?) doesn't understand the basics of even the most well known case. Let's be clear: overturning Roe v. Wade would not make abortions illegal. Rather, overturning it would mean it would then be possible for state legislatures to pass a law restricting abortion; it would remove the restriction on legislative action regarding abortion that currently stands. There may be a concern that some States would revert to pre-1973 laws that outlaw abortion, but it is these laws, not a court decision, that would prohibit abortions, and only in those states. (Washington State, by the way, would not be one of these states.) Since most Americans favor keeping at least SOME abortions legal, it's quite likely that even in these states, new laws would be enacted.

Moreover, the most likely candidate for replacement on the Supreme Court bench is Rehnquist, who's currently suffering from thyroid cancer. Even replacing him with a Scalia clone would not change the so-called "balance of power" on the court.

I get much less worked up about the issue, and much more worked up about people distorting the issue in order to incite. It's not that the poll isn't a worthwhile enterprise, but a quote that high in the article should be subject to some factual scrutiny. I'm also disappointed that I can't seem to find the actual quesitons asked, since they play a large role in how people respond.

Maybe if something would happen with the Mariners, I won't be so prone to wandering into dangerous off-topic waters. But it's been pretty quiet from First Avenue South.

A hit in his first at-bat

A Welcome to Mariner Morsels, another M's blog. I'd recommend reading their first entry, posting an email exchange with Bob Finnigan. Some observations about the exchange:

• Finnigan generally doesn't expect anything much different from the M's front office, even though this is the first complete offseason for the new GM. He implies that CEO Howard Lincoln is the main instigator of organizational philosophy.
• Finnigan breaks down the "$10-12 Million to resign veterans" figure he published. Meche-$3M, Wilson 2.5, Villone 2, Cabrera 1, Olivo .75. He says his figures are based partly on his estimates and partly on what he hears from the organization, so we don't know if the suggestion that Dan Wilson is worth $2.5M is his lunacy or the M's. The Villone and Cabrera figures are also worrisome, but not as surprising.

What boggles my mind--assuming Finnigan is somewhat accurately representing Lincoln--is how a business shark like Lincoln would stand for overpaying mediocre veterans. If he's so wrapped up in the bottom line, wouldn't he expect frugality? Furthermore, we've seen the M's offer raises to young players who don't even qualify for arbitration. Wouldn't a cut-throat business model eschew that kind of charity?

Finnigan would probably be a lot more credible in his reporting if he either 1) refused to publish figures without independant coroboration or 2) continually prefaced his assertions with, "The Mariners front office says..." or "According to Lincoln, ..."

If you're reading this blog--and I hope you read more than just mine--you are fortunate not to have to rely solely Finnigan repeating the lines the front office gives him. There are some great web resources run by fans who pay attention and care about baseball. For instance, if you're curious about the M's payroll, check out the comprehensive reports on Dugout Dollars.

Many roads to greatness

Do the Mariners a favor--don't believe one word from them or the media if it tries to lower expectations for next season. The only reason the Mariners can't get significantly better this year is their own stupidity.

Two of the better Mariner bloggers still going--it's been a tough year on everyone--have laid out specific plans for the offseason that fall well below the publically declared budget contraints and don't morgage the future, while improving the team now and for the long haul.

Trent at Leone For Third outlines his plan and comes in at $76.2 Million. Dave at USSMariner explains his proposal and comes in at $86.1 Million. Trent's plan relies on trades a lot more, which makes it a lot more speculative, since it depends on the cooperation of other GMs. But let's look at the similarities in Trent's and Dave's plan:

Each recommends signing Adrian Beltre, Matt Clement, and J.D. Drew. Taking the highest estimates for each player, that would cost $26 Million. Each plan recommmends trading Randy Winn and Ryan Franklin, who are guaranteed a combined $6.1 Million next year. Both agree that Wilson will be back for $1M and that Guardado will be the closer, even if that's a bad idea. Both agree that the M's need a viable shortstop option if Jose Lopez doesn't work out. Both say that considering the options, sticking Ibanez at first base is probably the best route. Neither expect anything out of Spiezio.

The most important thing to take away from this is that two knowledgable fans were, in a matter of weeks, able to assess the Mariner's needs and make a plan that would fit within their resources and meet those needs.

Of course, both plans aren't as comprehensive as the a front office strategy needs to be, since they offer one scenario, not a multitude of choices if one or more trades or signings doesn't pan out. In addition, both plans are, I think, optimistic about the Mariners' willingness to let go of players that they have thought were valuable and easy to retain--Winn and Franklin. Both players play positions that can be upgraded, and the big disappointment for me would be to see the M's hedge offers to Clement and Drew because they figure they already have a full outfield and rotation.

So a big barrier to the M's succeeding in the off-season is tentativeness. They need to be decisive and resolute. If the worry about letting current players go is public perception, there's an easy response to nay-sayers: "You don't want us to field the same team we did last year, right?"

Of course, they also have to be reasonably intelligent. Being decisive about the wrong moves just digs us into a deeper hole.

R.I.P., Bambino

What a marvelous run. After such a thrilling comeback against the Yankees, Boston's World Series win seemed almost like a let-down, since they didn't get much resistance from the Cardinals on their way to taking the title and forever putting to rest the years of nonsense about the curse.

But both the ALCS and World Series wins were impressive. The ALCS was such an emotional roller-coaster, such a thrilling ride. But the Series was impressive in another way: the Sox dominated the entire thing, never even allowing St Louis to lead once. Think of all the heroes, as there always are: Mark Bellhorn becoming as dominant an offensive force as Manny Ramirez. David Ortiz channelling Barry Bonds. Keith Foulke proving that closers just have to be good, not throw their arm off. And of course, the Curse of the Bambino can be replaced by the legend of the Bloody Ankle.

St. Louis looked like a good team coming in, but they were on the wrong side of a tide of changing history. Congratulations Boston, and you may now rest in peace, Mr. Ruth.

Stretching to God Bless America

Paul at Nice Guys Finish third says he's tired of "God Bless America" in the 7th innning, pleading "Please stop policitizing my baseball!" I suppose that means we should do away with the National Anthem at the beginning, too?

No, the reason to stop singing "God Bless America" during the middle of the 7th inning is that continuing to do so trivializes the sentiment that started us singing it in the first place. It has stopped being an expression of our solidarity in crisis. It seems like it's just another opportunity for celebrity showcasing. To continue singing it dillutes, I think, the poignancy of the song, and the solemnity with which we remember September 11th.

In addition, the 7th inning stretch has traditionally avoided a serious tone--we stand up, stretch, belt out a low-brow bar tune, which is more fitting for some fans depending on how many beers they've consumed.

Ouch and Ouch and Random thoughts

Boston's down 0-2 in the ALCS. No biggie, right? Only they've lost behind Curt Schilling and Pedro Martinez. Ouch and Ouch.

I've said nothing about the M's end of the season, because I've been very busy, but a few quick thoughts:

-It was great to see that big grin on Ichiro's face. What a great moment, and great to hear Neihaus call it. Ichiro is an exciting player to watch and a uniquely talented hitter, and those things should be honored, not disparaged. What other kind of player would have been able to break Sisler's record? Nobody intelligent is suggesting that more players should be like Ichiro, but just being different from other players isn't good reason for calling into question his talent or accomplishment.

-I saw The Double live. I have never been so ecstatic or so unable to hear myself scream at the top of my lungs. What a great "greatest moment" of a great career.

-Props to Bud Selig for naming the DH award after Edgar. That's a huge HOF endorsement if I ever saw one.

-Polical season is in the final rounds, too, and I'm still one of the few swing voters. As for last nights debates, Bush should be ashamed of his unwillingness to raise the minimum wage, and Kerry should be ashamed of himself for putting his head in the sand about social security. Neither of these issues are going to turn the election, but neither position is defensible, as their remarks last night proved. If I were president...well, heck, as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like the M's to sign Beltran, Beltre, and Clement this year, and fire their color commentators.

File Under "Society:" Reaction to Debates

Non-Baseball:

I have yet to see or hear anyone mention that Bush looked at the camera a lot more often than did John Kerry, except during the closing statements. I wondered afterward if this was an intentional move of the Kerry camp, trying to "save the best for last," so to speak. But more likely, Kerry just didn't remember to look up into the camera--it's too bad for him, because a major goal was to present him as a kind of person people should trust, and like.

For all the people that can't stand Bush's style, there are an equal number of people who are put at ease by his folksiness. Though Kerry isn't ever going to appear as down-home neigborly as Bush does to some people, he still could appear more approachable than he has. That could happen by showing a little bit of humor, but the subject matter last night wouldn't allow that. His lack of "eye contact" with the TV audience obviously didn't ruin his performance, as polls seem to indicate a slight win for Kerry.

But people often have a hard time looking you in the eye when they aren't telling the truth or aren't sure what to say, and this perception could reinforce, subliminally, some voters' questions about Kerry's consistency. Bush came across as sincere in part because (ironically) he looked at the camera so much. Kerry certainly didn't appear insincere, but he'd appear more personable if he looked at the camera, too.

Overall, though, it was a good debate, for both candidates, I think.

BP & TJ: Prospectus profiles the most famous baseball surgery

I don't know exactly why this sort of thing fascinates me, but Baseball Prospectus has a great article detailing the Tommy John procedure. They also link to Kris Benson's web site, complete with pictures of his arm. And it's free, for all you fellow (meaning: I am one, too) cheapskates. Perhaps its because so many arms in the organization have gone down to injury, or because we hear a lot of talk about pitcher's injuries but not much actual information.

The one thing that the article doesn't go into much detail about--and that it says is a very important aspect--is the rehab process. I've gone through an elbow injury myself, complete with a rehab process, and though I didn't have surgery, I can testify that therapy on elbows can be both very helpful and painful.

Free Agents reminder

I'm happy to keep updating the Free Agents by Position list to include players that are rumored to be non-tender candidates. Please email me (see the email address in the sidebar to the left) if you read or hear any such rumors (with where you heard them, preferably).

Randy Winn, concerned citizen.

Does anyone know if Randy Winn drives a Saturn?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002033730_monlets13.html
(See the last letter.)

Section 101

I'll be the lone blogosphere dissident. The USS Mariner continues to bemoan the loss of the bullpen market due to the installation of "temporary" bleacher seats in center field (That's nine posts that I count so far). I don't really care that much.

Why? Because I enjoy baseball with some peanuts and a conversation with a friend or family member, not with a beer in a crowd of hecklers. I understand a lot of baseball fans like the beer and heckling, but not me, and I don't morn the loss of something I never wanted anyway.

Second, in my opinion, Safeco Field has some serious design shortcomings for a new facility, and I'm saying this having seen several ballparks. The addition of those bleachers in section 101 happened because the stadium has a serious lack of good outfield seats. Safeco is a large cavernous steel structure that somehow uses two thirds of the outfield for something other than seats, and there aren't fountains like we have here in KC at Kauffman stadium to make up for it. Just think of how the bullpens occupy the entire left field fence, and how many home runs are collected by the relief corps of the two teams instead of by fans. In dead center field above the batters eye, where fans might want to stop and watch, large steel plates block the view from the pedestrian walkway (the only place, I might add, where you can't see the field from that level). With so many outfield seats and views taken away from fans, it's that much more likely that seating expansion would attempt to address that gap.

(Just as an example, imagine if the bullpens ran lengthwise back from the outfield wall, instead of width-wise across it. In about half of the span of one of the current bullpens, you now have both bullpens, and you can use that space to put good seats right at the outfield wall.)

Granted: the installation of seats in the bullpen market area is a poor solution to a problem more fundamental to the stadium's design. I understand that a lot of fans had fun in the bullpen market, and I don't begrudge them that. I do think that it's a little silly trying to get more seats in the stadium when the fans aren't coming any more. But I'm having a hard time being too upset, because the Bullpen Market wasn't ever a place I hung out, so I'm not going to miss it if it goes away. I might even consider buying tickets to those seats.

Refuting Dayn Perry

Mike Thompson at the P-I Blog points us to Dayn Perry's argument that Ichiro is just good, but not an "elite" player. Read Perry's article, and you'll find, as I did, that he's conveniently ignoring some things:

Perry says that Ichiro doesn't hit for enough power for a right-fielder, but says his career OBP is "merely good." In other words, he chooses to compare Ichiro to other right-fielders when looking at his power, and at the entire league when it comes to his OBP. If we look at both statistics in the same context, we'll see that while Ichiro doesn't hit for as much power as some RFs, he has a clear advantage over other RFs in OBP.

Perry says that Ichiro's OBP isn't as impressive because most of it is because of his batting average. Here, he completely misses the point of preferring OBP to BA. Batting Average isn't bad, it's just incomplete. OBP is a more effective measure of offensive contribution, and Perry's argument essentiall says that more walks are preferable to more hits. I have yet to see anyone make a case for a high walk-to-hit ratio, and it would make more sense that hits are slightly more valuable for their ability to drive in runners. Ironically, Perry himself makes this case when he argues that Ichiro's infield hits decrease his value because they don't score runners. Would Perry prefer that those infield hits be walks? That's absurd!

Perry says that stolen bases aren't all that valueable. I'm aware that Bill James also thinks that stolen bases don't factor significantly into run-scoring, although my recollection is that James' argument is based on large sample sizes for teams. The James-influence philosophy of the Oakland A's, as profiled in Moneyball, is NOT that speed is irrellevant, merely that it is over-valued. If Dayn is going to count infield singles against Ichiro--a very case-specific criticism--then he also should count his stolen bases for him.

Let's combine these two problems: let us say that every stolen base for Ichiro is the same as if he hit a double instead of a triple. Therefore, each SB counts toward his total bases. Conversely, each time he is caught stealing, Ichiro makes an out and removes himself from the basepaths. Therefore, each Caught Stealing should be subtracted from both his total bases and the numerator (H+BB+HBP) of his OBP. (Notice that getting caught stealing is doubly bad.) If we adjust Ichiro's OBP and SLG accordingly, his marks this year are .397 and .507. His career adjusted marks are .364 and .487. Would this more typical OBP and SLG make Perry happier?

Finally, Perry bases a number of his arguments that Ichiro is in right field, and therefore his defense isn't as much of an asset. Fine. (By the way, this is exactly why Ichiro should have been in center field all year long.) But we should at least allow that Ichiro is a center-field quality outfielder. If Perry is arguing not about Ichiro's ability, but his actual contribution, then I suppose we should start introducing other context-dependant statistics, like RBI. It's not quite the same thing, but it's a fine point that Perry didn't bother taking the time to make.

I think perhaps the most absurd line I read was that OBP, when compared with batting average, "is the more evocative statistic." Ooooh, big words! I should note that Perry isn't wrong about everything, but he seems so bent on debunking the Ichiro myth, so to speak, that he uses sloppy arguments.

Free Agents by Position

For anyone interested, I've sorted potential free agents by position, and back-dated it so that it doesn't take up all the space on this page. Follow this link to see it, or the link on the sidebar to the right. My data is taken from Ken Bumbaco's list; he did all the footwork to compile the list of players, and I just re-sorted them.

Measuring Melvin Managing

Note: I had errors in my numbers the first time I ran this post. They've been corrected, and the conclusions have been modified accordingly.

Larry LaRue may have been the first local columnist to suggest it, but this sort of season begs the question: will Bob Melvin be fired? (LaRue says Melvin's firing is both guaranteed and undeserved.)

There isn' t a whole lot of consensus about objective ways to measuring managing effectiveness. How much is a won-loss record influenced by a manager? We can't measure how much a manager affects his players' productivity at the plate, on the mound or in the field. Any attempt at keeping records of strategic errors and converting them into runs-that-would-have-scored would be hopelessly speculative and subjective.

(If you don't want to read the details, skip to the bottom for the conclusions)

One tack may be to look at how efficiently an offense or defense operates, as Tom Tippett of Diamond Mind did after the 2002 season in this article. To sum that article up, Tom looked at how efficient teams were at converting total bases + walks into runs, and called it the Run Effiency Average (REA). Take the opponents numbers, and you measure how ineffiecient your team made your opponents. Tippet also took the widely-held view (within the sabermetric world) that Bill James' Pythagorean method is a good way to translate runs scored and runs allowed into expected wins . Using all these measures Tom attempts to answer this question: based on the raw offensive production of a team, how efficient were they at converting that into wins?

So I ran the numbers for the Mariners from 1999-2004, with the idea that one way a manager might have a measurable influence on a teams' performance is translating that teams raw numbers into wins. (I excluded the 2001 season, which I felt wouldn't give Melvin a fair shot, and I couldn't get TB allowed numbers for before 1998.) This should allow us to see how Melvin's teams compare to Piniella's at effiency. Here's a table comparing wins above expectation, using both the Pythagorean method, and the two Run-Effiency (offensive and defensive) methods:

	Pythagorean Wins	Offensive REA Wins	Defensive REA Wins	Total Bonus Wins
1999	2	3	-16	-10
2000	-2	7	-1	4
2002	0	4	2	5
2003	-6	4	5	3
2004	-3	-4	-2	-8

Conclusions:
1) Piniella's teams seem to have been consistently better at converting runs scored into wins.
2) This year's team has the most inefficient offense of any in recent history.

That's about it. Derek Zumsteg, among others, thinks the Pythagorean method is suspect, and so we might not want to put too much stock in those figures. If the Pythagorean method measures anything, it may overlap with REA expected wins. Tippet adds them together, but that may be faulty reasoning.

So does Melvin deserve to be fired? Well, he's got a lousy offense of which he's making poor use--which is what we'd expect with all the bunting. There are other factors which could contribute to ineffiency, of course--an out-making bottom of the order, for example--but there certainly isn't anything to support his cause. Given all the additional anecdotal evidence against him--making absurd bullpen substitutions, failing to pinch-hit in obvious situations, championing Willie Bloomquist and Ron Villone--I think's it's time ol' Bob was shown the door.

If there's an upside, it's that the last time the M's lost so many games to inneffiency (though that was on the defensive end), they rebounded and made the playoffs the next year. Of course, they also signed good free agents that year (Arthur Rhodes, Kaz Sasaki, and John Olerud). Ol' Bill needs to be given a quick exit, too, if this ship is going to right itself.

Wasting Spaces

The only good reason for Ramon Santiago to be on the Major-League roster is make he doesn't take at-bats away from better players at AAA. In other words, Santiago, if used like the bench-warmer he is, won't get many as at-bats at the major leagues as if he was starting in Tacoma.

But he certainly isn't the 25th best player in the Mariners organization. Santiago has an Equivalent Average of .176, the lowest on the M's 25-man roster. That's lower than Neifi Perez, who was just released from the Giants. If we look at the Major-League Equivalent Average, which approximates what minor-leaguers would do in the major leagues, we see that there are five Rainiers over .215, well above where Santiago is playing.

I suppose the other factor is that Santiago plays short, whereas A.J. Zapp, who's been on a tear recently, plays first; and we already have enough corner infielders on the big league roster. Mostly, I continue to be flabbergasted that we traded the best shortstop in the majors (even if you count A-rod) for Ramon Santiago.

Updated Links

Thanks to USS Mariner, who now joins the list of blogs that link to me. I can't stress this enough: if you ever wonder anything about what's going on with the Mariners, go there to find straight, smart answers.

Also, The Safe has returned as a news aggragator. It has only commentary-free links, and it will get you to most of the stories around the web each day.

Leone out: proves he's not a "Gamer"

Justin Leone is out for the rest of the season with a couple of broken bones in his left hand. Listen to Bob Melvins reaction reported in the Times:

It's really too bad," Mariners manager Bob Melvin said. "After his first three weeks, teams have had a chance to scout him. And he was in the stage of adjusting, a time when you can really tell about a young player.
"When you play the game, you get an opportunity, and this was his big chance, and now this happens. It takes the edge off this game."

Does that sound to anyone else like Melvin is just about ready to write Justin off? The way I'm reading between the lines is: "The success he had to this point was probably just a result of being new in the league, and we were about to find out what he's really like. This was his chance to prove himself, but now he got himself injured, and he's gonna be really rusty now. Too bad for him." That may be to pessimistic of an interpretation, but nothing I've read has Melvin commending any aspect of what Leone has done so far in the big leagues.

Sure, Leone hasn't been the next Scott Rolen, but his low batting average is somewhat misleading. Though he hit only .216 in his brief stint in The Show, he also hit 6 home runs, and showed enough power to bump his OPS to .739, right between Edgar Martinez and Bret Boone. Melvin is right about needing to see Leone more to really see what he can do in the big leagues, though his minor league stats aren't completely irrellevant, as Bill Bavasi would have us believe.

What's unfortunate is that third base will probabaly be manned by a combination of Bloomquist, Speizio, and Ramon Santiago, none of whom are long-term or short-term solutions.

"Wait, I thought the trading deadline was in July"

If that's what you're saying after hearing rumors of trades, then you should check out--again, I can't believe I'm saying this--Jayson Starks Waiver Deals 101 column on ESPN.com. July 31st is the last day teams can trade players without those players first clearing waivers; but August 31st is the last day for teams to trade players at all, as well as the last day to set their post-season roster, making a trade after that date pointless anyway.

For a more general explanation on the rules of rosters and transactions, see the ever-useful Rob Neyer Transaction Primer.