- I'm glad the M's are limiting Felix's workload. I'm bummed that the start he skipped happened to be the one game I knew I was going to watch in person this season.
- Crucetta didn't have a bad inning to start, getting the first batter out and inducing the next two to hit groundballs. The second grounder was part of a hit-and-run, made successful by the inexplicable choice to have Betancourt cover second on the steal instead of Lopez. But Crucetta couldn't keep his head, and fell apart. I'm really ignorant when it comes to pitching mechanics, but it did look like his delivery was way out-of-whack when he went to the stretch, especially when employing the slide step.
- Snelling had his work cut out for him in right field, and made some solid plays. Ichiro had a nice grab in center, but Ibanez didn't look to great in left, especially when he couldn't come close to throwing a runner out tagging from third on a fairly shallow fly ball.
- It's fun to watch Betancourt make plays.
- My dad (in town this week) and I both wondered what the purpose of replacing Snelling with TJ Bohn in what was still a close game at the time (albeit between two last-place teams in September). Bohn promptly hit his first Major League home run. It's fun when baseball surprises you.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Eyewitness from 9-15 Game at Kauffman Stadium
Went to the game tonight, and thought I'd jot down a few thoughts:
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Beyond identifying the problem
I’ve taken such a long hiatus from this blog because, among other reasons, it’s hard to find something interesting and unique about the M’s these days. The guys at USSMariner and Lookout Landing are my regular reading, and the rest of the blogosphere gives some great perspectives, too.
But another reason I’ve been silent is that I usually like to address a problem with a solution. The Mariners’ problems have been well-documented by the aforementioned bloggers: an organizational approach to player development that discourages a patient, disciplined approach to hitting, a manager prone to obviously ridiculous decisions, poor starting pitching, underperformance by players expected to excel.
Identifying these problems are a good beginning, and it’s most frustrating as a fan to hear and see things from the organization that suggest they aren’t even aware of the magnitude, or even the existence, of some of these problems.
As we head into the off-season, though, simply identifying problems—pointing out actions to avoid—won’t provide a plan for what actions to take. It’s the classic role of the armchair GM: point out the foibles of the existing regime without suggesting a plausible course of action.
For example: most bloggers are pretty tired of Mike Hargrove’s shenanigans. Time and again, he employs strategies that work against his players’ strengths, routinely botches the management of his bullpen, and ignores plains facts. But what are the realistic alternatives? Hargrove himself is a replacement for incompetence, if you can remember far enough back to the Bob Melvin days. I’d love to see Tacoma’s Dan Rohn succeed, but I’m not sure there’s any guarantee that Rohn will be any better. Rohn’s predecessor, Dave Myers, had great success in Tacoma but bombed as a third base coach here. The point is, I think there's a good chance that a Hargrove replacement won't be much better than Grover himself.
Most recently, Dave Cameron reminds us that long-term contracts for veteran pitchers are a bad idea. We all know that the Mariner’s rotation is terrible. Optimists at the beginning of the season saw Joel Pineiro returning to his early success, Felix blowing everybody away, and Washburn serving as a serviceable innings-eater. That hasn’t worked out so well. Many fans are chomping at the bit for some big acquisitions, and Dave says that we’re more likely to be snakebit than strike it rich.
There are two problems with his critique: first, the free agent market isn’t linear, especially for pitchers. To get top quality talent, you have to pay a premium, above and beyond the market rate for pitching. Nate Silver demonstrated this a few years back at Baseball Prospectus, and Jeff did his own analysis at lookout landing a year later. Nate Silver’s graph illustrates how much more premium pitching costs. Contracts for premium pitching are nearly always going to look exorbitant, so in general, you can either “overpay” for pitching (in terms of dollars, duration, or both), or you let premier talent on the free agent market go to the teams that will.
There are some exceptions, of course, which is where Dave wants the team to look. Find the pitcher that won’t take a huge bite out of your payroll for five years straight, but that will help make your team a winner.
This is, of course, easier said than done. I’m not here to pick on Dave Cameron, but he has put forward a proposed plan for the offseason the last several years, and his plans are evidence of just how hard it is to find reasonably priced effective pitching talent. For example, last year, he wanted the team to go after A.J. Burnett. Now? His current contract “doesn’t look so hot” to Dave. He also advocated for Esteban Loaiza and Kevin Brown, neither of whom have impressed (though Loaiza, as it happens with the A’s every season, has looked strong in the second half). The previous year, Dave suggested Matt Clement, who for signed for only three years but has been a disappointment this year as well.
Certainly, long-term contracts for veteran pitchers are a very risky endeavor, with more failures than successes. But good alternatives are hard to find, and I don’t see the difference between having the same mediocre pitcher on your roster for five years, versus three mediocre pitchers in those same five years. If avoiding long-term contracts allows you to buy short-term mediocrity, you haven’t accomplished much.
Now, there are bad long-term contracts, including one Jarrod Washburn, whom Dave rightly predicted would be a poor choice. Washburn is not only an albatross on the payroll, he likely will never be a good pitcher for the M’s. But avoiding bad long-term contracts is not the same as categorically ruling them out.
Update: I won't flatter myself by suggesting that Dave Cameron read my post here and decided to respond, but I will give him credit for following up his first post with a concrete suggestion: read it here.
But another reason I’ve been silent is that I usually like to address a problem with a solution. The Mariners’ problems have been well-documented by the aforementioned bloggers: an organizational approach to player development that discourages a patient, disciplined approach to hitting, a manager prone to obviously ridiculous decisions, poor starting pitching, underperformance by players expected to excel.
Identifying these problems are a good beginning, and it’s most frustrating as a fan to hear and see things from the organization that suggest they aren’t even aware of the magnitude, or even the existence, of some of these problems.
As we head into the off-season, though, simply identifying problems—pointing out actions to avoid—won’t provide a plan for what actions to take. It’s the classic role of the armchair GM: point out the foibles of the existing regime without suggesting a plausible course of action.
For example: most bloggers are pretty tired of Mike Hargrove’s shenanigans. Time and again, he employs strategies that work against his players’ strengths, routinely botches the management of his bullpen, and ignores plains facts. But what are the realistic alternatives? Hargrove himself is a replacement for incompetence, if you can remember far enough back to the Bob Melvin days. I’d love to see Tacoma’s Dan Rohn succeed, but I’m not sure there’s any guarantee that Rohn will be any better. Rohn’s predecessor, Dave Myers, had great success in Tacoma but bombed as a third base coach here. The point is, I think there's a good chance that a Hargrove replacement won't be much better than Grover himself.
Most recently, Dave Cameron reminds us that long-term contracts for veteran pitchers are a bad idea. We all know that the Mariner’s rotation is terrible. Optimists at the beginning of the season saw Joel Pineiro returning to his early success, Felix blowing everybody away, and Washburn serving as a serviceable innings-eater. That hasn’t worked out so well. Many fans are chomping at the bit for some big acquisitions, and Dave says that we’re more likely to be snakebit than strike it rich.
There are two problems with his critique: first, the free agent market isn’t linear, especially for pitchers. To get top quality talent, you have to pay a premium, above and beyond the market rate for pitching. Nate Silver demonstrated this a few years back at Baseball Prospectus, and Jeff did his own analysis at lookout landing a year later. Nate Silver’s graph illustrates how much more premium pitching costs. Contracts for premium pitching are nearly always going to look exorbitant, so in general, you can either “overpay” for pitching (in terms of dollars, duration, or both), or you let premier talent on the free agent market go to the teams that will.
There are some exceptions, of course, which is where Dave wants the team to look. Find the pitcher that won’t take a huge bite out of your payroll for five years straight, but that will help make your team a winner.
This is, of course, easier said than done. I’m not here to pick on Dave Cameron, but he has put forward a proposed plan for the offseason the last several years, and his plans are evidence of just how hard it is to find reasonably priced effective pitching talent. For example, last year, he wanted the team to go after A.J. Burnett. Now? His current contract “doesn’t look so hot” to Dave. He also advocated for Esteban Loaiza and Kevin Brown, neither of whom have impressed (though Loaiza, as it happens with the A’s every season, has looked strong in the second half). The previous year, Dave suggested Matt Clement, who for signed for only three years but has been a disappointment this year as well.
Certainly, long-term contracts for veteran pitchers are a very risky endeavor, with more failures than successes. But good alternatives are hard to find, and I don’t see the difference between having the same mediocre pitcher on your roster for five years, versus three mediocre pitchers in those same five years. If avoiding long-term contracts allows you to buy short-term mediocrity, you haven’t accomplished much.
Now, there are bad long-term contracts, including one Jarrod Washburn, whom Dave rightly predicted would be a poor choice. Washburn is not only an albatross on the payroll, he likely will never be a good pitcher for the M’s. But avoiding bad long-term contracts is not the same as categorically ruling them out.
Update: I won't flatter myself by suggesting that Dave Cameron read my post here and decided to respond, but I will give him credit for following up his first post with a concrete suggestion: read it here.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Report from the latest Northwest SABR meeting
My dad sends me this report of the latest Northwest SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) meeting. The report summary is Mike Rice, with my Dad's comments in italics (I interject things in brackets for explanation) . One important thing to note is that the 36th National SABR convention is being held in Seattle at the end of June. Click here for more details.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting, and thought I'd share it. It's tough finding things to say about the M's these days in part because they're so confusing due to their inconsistency.
| On Saturday May 20th, over 30 SABR members and guests gather at the Renaissance Madison Hotel, site of SABR36, for the May meeting of NWSABR. As President of the chapter, I have to say it was a great meeting. Anthony Salazar led off the meeting with a convention update. 6 weeks out and we are ready to go. Salazar is a great promoter, a researcher of Latinos in baseball. It looks like it will be a fascinating convention, which I hope to attend some of. Not mentioned by Rice is that Mark Armour showed galley proofs of the book he edited, to be released at the convention, titled (wonderfully) “Rain Check: Baseball in the Pacific Northwest.” Only two of the articles are about major league teams, one on the Pilots and one on the Mariners. The rest is mostly about minor league experiences. I’ve decided I’m going to use it in my baseball seminar next fall. [My dad teaches a seminar on the history of Baseball at Seattle Pacific University, where he is a history professor] Mike Carter, who has umpired for over 30 years, passed out a very challenging rules quiz. We had till the end of the meeting to work on it and many of the questions left most of us stumped. You realize how little you know about this game, when you get quizzed on the rules. Some examples: What is the difference between a foul ball and a foul tip? Both starting pitchers throw a complete game and face the minimum number of batters: who won the game and what was the score? When a National League manager turns the order (“double-switch”), when do they go to umpire first to make the change? What defines a catch in baseball? When is a balk ignored? Who was the Executive Officer of Union Forces at Fort Sumter during the bombardment that started the Civil War? There was also one about batting out of order that was too complex to repeat here. I got 5, maybe 5.5. right out of 21. We then did introductions. Everyone introduced themselves and told the group what their favorite, earliest or most lasting baseball memory. As you can imagine the 1995 Mariner playoff run got several mentions, but what stood out most was just the love of the game that the people in the room shared. Many started with some quick things they WEREN’T going to mention (wink, wink), so I did likewise. I said I wasn’t going to cite the last game (loss to Cleveland) of 1995 when everyone stayed in the stadium demanding a curtain call, nor my childhood agony in 1964 as the Phillies were losing 10 in a row, tuning my radio to KMOX St. Louis after the Phils lost again to hear Harry Carey describe the Cardinal game to find out if they won again. Cardinals eventually edged the Phils for the NL title, ruining my childhood and warping me for life—at least until the Phils’ World Championship of 1980[My dad grew up just outside of Philadelphia, and yes, he was, incredibly, able to get KMOX out of St. Louis on his old radio. I had a similar experience in Santa Barbara...near the water one evening, I picked up a faint signal of the Mariner broadcast on 710 AM, all the way from Seattle]. What I did relate was the story in September 1998 when Will and I went to Camden Yards, got standing room only seats, and standing behind the right field seats caught a T-shirt fired from a giant slingshot that went a little farther than intended. It was a Cal Ripken T-shirt, and the next day we read that Cal would sit, i.e. the game we saw was the last of the Streak. (I also jotted down but didn’t mention: seeing my first MLB game—an 8-1 Robin Roberts victory over Pittsburgh--in stunningly green Connie Mack stadium with my father--and Griffey making a home-run-preventing catch in the very last game at the Kingdome.) Alex Cartwright (yes, of the baseball Cartwrights) then talked about his efforts to get a Vintage Baseball League going in the Northwest. This league will be playing 1880's rules. See http://www.mrbaseball.com/pnwvbl/index.php if you want more information. Very weird to be sitting next to the great-great grandson and namesake of the man who wrote the first set of rules for the game of baseball for the NY Knickerbockers club in 1845. He passed out equipment; the glove looked and felt like biker leather gloves. There are enough of these vintage leagues, especially in the Northeast, that there are specialty manufacturers that make the equipment. We had a very special guest. Mariner General Counsel Bart Waldman spoke. Bart gave a talk about what his duties are, how he got to be General Counsel and how much he loves his job. Bart them took questions from the group and was very candid and open with the group. I’ve had Bart guest-speak in my class; he’s very articulate. He also is a pitcher in a local senior hardball league that reached the national championship tournament last year. Jeff Angus spoke about his new book, "Management by Baseball". It is a book where Jeff shows how the worst MLB Manager (say Don Zimmer) is a better manager than 95% of the top managers in Fortune 500 companies. It seems like a very interesting topic. There’s mention of this book in the PI, apparently (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/270924_theinsider22.html) He’s a consultant, and this is actually a serious book on management. His line, which he says baseball has long known and business is just now discovering, is that “talent IS the product.” [The general premise of this seemed absurd--the worst manager is better than 95% of the top business managers? Jeff Angus obviously hasn't been paying attention to Hargrove. Here in Kansas City, we've seen some pretty dumb decisions by Buddy Bell, too. In both cases, these managers have been inhibiting the talent they've been given (see Jose Lopez and Justin Huber). How is that a good model for business? It's like promoting your 65-year old chief mechanic a database administrator, while telling your 24-year old assistant database admin that the copiers out of toner, and could he please figure out how to make the coffee pot brew automatically in the morning?] Jeff Bower then spoke about the demise of minor league baseball in Buffalo, New York in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Jeff grew up in that area and had always wondered what the story was. Jeff did a great job and it is now safe to say that NWSABR knows more about the history of Buffalo baseball than we thought possible. The best is that Jeff has promised to give a talk in November about the return of minor league baseball to Buffalo. This was a lot more interesting than it sounds. Buffalo was a possible choice for the expansion team that went to Montreal. Jonah Keri of Baseball Prospectus spoke briefly to the group about BP latest book, "Baseball Between the Numbers". As with all BP efforts, this book is very well researched and very well written. The book answers questions like, "Why Billy Beane's Stuff Doesn't Work in the Playoffs" and "Is A-Rod Overpaid?" among other questions. Saving the best for last, The Savvy Girls of Summer, Jackie and Diedre gave a very entertaining and informative talk about their project to write a book about baseball that is directed to women on an intelligent and entertaining level. As it has turned out, they have had such great response form women just wanting to do baseball related events and talk baseball that they are having a hard time actually writing the book!!!! These are savvy girls of marketing. Seattle women and long time friends, they have been juicing up the attention to their project with press kits, interviews etc as a way to attract a big publishing house when (and if) they finally get their book written. And of course they have a website: http://www.savvygirlsofsummer.com/. Despite the orchestrated approach, they were interesting to listen to, as much for their stories of winning the attention of the Mariners and other groups as their insights about what women want to know about baseball. |
Friday, April 21, 2006
Surprises/Frustrations so far
Usually we think of pleasant surprises, but some of the surprises for the M's at this early point in the season are far from pleasant. The fact that they are problems we've had before makes them not only disappointments, but frustrations.
But first, the good surprises (from my subjective point of view, of course):
The result is that the M's are neither hopeless or dominant, teasing us with excitement and ability at times, while aggravating us with incosistency and blown opportunities. (Four walks, Eddie? Ouch.) Every year in Kansas City, however, reminds me that it could always be worse--all I have to do is look at the local team.
But first, the good surprises (from my subjective point of view, of course):
- Jose Lopez can actually hit at the major league level
- Joel Pineiro has stopped getting worse (thanks in part to an improved GB/FB ratio)
- Raul Ibanez hasn't fallen off the table (let's hope the M's can still realize that he's about at the end of his productive career, and follow Branch Rickey's advice that it's better to lose a player a year early than a year late)
- Kenji Jojima is all that we hoped for and more. There is no curse of the Mariner catcher
- Betancourt isn't completely futile at the plate, though his OBP is still below .300.
Disapointments and Frustrations:
- Where did the Ichiro that we all know go?
- Let's hope Richie Sexson is getting back on track. He's in the second of four years on his contract.
- Can we say Carl Everett is a disappointment, or did we expect him to be this far below replacement-level DH?
- Adrian Beltre. Let's play "Which one of these is not like the others?"
- 835, 721, 729, 714, 1017, 716
The result is that the M's are neither hopeless or dominant, teasing us with excitement and ability at times, while aggravating us with incosistency and blown opportunities. (Four walks, Eddie? Ouch.) Every year in Kansas City, however, reminds me that it could always be worse--all I have to do is look at the local team.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
"If he were just given a real chance, he'd be able to prove himself."
It used to be said about Willie Bloomquist. Maybe it's time we pick up that mantle for Jose Lopez. Bloomquist has had his shot at the major leagues, and has proven quite conclusively that he is a great 25th man. But let's be clear; for every ten plate appearance, Willie will average an out in more than seven of them. He's had four years and over 700 P.A.s.
It's time Lopez got his shot, an extended one (see: starting role, full season), if for no other reason than we need to know how soon we'll be in need of a good second baseman. If Lopez is the guy for the next four plus years, then we can turn our attention elsewhere.
But we hear from the skipper that there are three candidates for second?
The definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior and expect a different outcome. How many hapless seasons will it take for the M's to question their approach instead of their luck?
It's time Lopez got his shot, an extended one (see: starting role, full season), if for no other reason than we need to know how soon we'll be in need of a good second baseman. If Lopez is the guy for the next four plus years, then we can turn our attention elsewhere.
But we hear from the skipper that there are three candidates for second?
The definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior and expect a different outcome. How many hapless seasons will it take for the M's to question their approach instead of their luck?
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Soriano: a starter or a reliever?
With Soriano signed for the year, the question remains what role will he play? In his debut in 2002, when he was only 22 years old, he started 8 games, got hurt, and has pitched only in relief. He's coming off surgery, so he hasn't pitched competetively in some time, and is entering his prime, physically.
His track record seems clear at first: he struggled as a starter, but has done well as a reliever. In 42 innings as a starter (all in 2002), he compiled a 5.10 ERA, striking out 14% of batters faced and walking 9%. For comparison's sake, the 2005 Joel Pineiro struck out 13% of batters he faced and walked 6% (The league average is about 16% for Ks and 9% for BBs). One big problem for Soriano was facing lefties (.870 OPS allowed).
Conversely, in 69 2/3 career innings as a reliever, he has a 2.07 ERA. His K% is 16% and his walk rate is 6%. He still was more successful against righties, but he was still good against lefties.
Most qualitative observations I've heard note that Soriano lacks a good change. Conventional wisdom (and I've heard little dispute from even the most die-hard statheads) is that pitchers with two good pitches excel in relief roles, but struggle as starters, because hitters adjust to a smaller repertoire after fewer innings. Once Soriano makes it through the lineup twice, so the story goes, he has run out of things with which to fool batters.
This is a broad generalization of Soriano's performance so far, however. It's normal for a younger, inexperienced pitcher to struggle at first, especially if his development has been quick (as Soriano's was). Moreover, his 2002 season ended with injury, suggesting that he was not only young and inexperienced at the time of his starts, but also may have been hurt. Comparing his starts to his relief appearances may be comparing apples to, you know, that other thing.
Furthermore, it's not entirely clear that Soriano was less effective the longer he stayed in the game:
If Soriano were easier to figure out after a couple times through the rotation, we'd expect his numbers to get consistenly worse the longer he pitched...but that's clear from these numbers. You might say that he stopped missing bats after about 60 pitches, but then he looks unhittable after 75 pitches. There's probably not a large enough sample size to draw many conclusions.
In the context of the Mariner's current rotation, Soriano could be one of the better starters, but only if he performs as well as his career reliever numbers, not his career starting numbers. As a starter, he had similar numbers as Gil Meche's last three years--both have K% and BB% of 16 and 9 respectively, and Soriano actually gave up HRs more frequently as a starter (4.7% to Meche's 3.5). As a reliever, Soriano's HR rate plummets to .4% (yes, that's right: a tenth of his % as a starter), and his K rate a walk rate improve significantly, too. But can Soriano bring his more recent effectiveness into a starting role? I don't think his numbers can tell us.
That leaves us with qualitative rather than quantitative analysis. Soriano does have electric stuff, but does he have enough pitches to make it as a starter? If Soriano makes an okay starter but a dynamite reliever, which do we want?
His track record seems clear at first: he struggled as a starter, but has done well as a reliever. In 42 innings as a starter (all in 2002), he compiled a 5.10 ERA, striking out 14% of batters faced and walking 9%. For comparison's sake, the 2005 Joel Pineiro struck out 13% of batters he faced and walked 6% (The league average is about 16% for Ks and 9% for BBs). One big problem for Soriano was facing lefties (.870 OPS allowed).
Conversely, in 69 2/3 career innings as a reliever, he has a 2.07 ERA. His K% is 16% and his walk rate is 6%. He still was more successful against righties, but he was still good against lefties.
Most qualitative observations I've heard note that Soriano lacks a good change. Conventional wisdom (and I've heard little dispute from even the most die-hard statheads) is that pitchers with two good pitches excel in relief roles, but struggle as starters, because hitters adjust to a smaller repertoire after fewer innings. Once Soriano makes it through the lineup twice, so the story goes, he has run out of things with which to fool batters.
This is a broad generalization of Soriano's performance so far, however. It's normal for a younger, inexperienced pitcher to struggle at first, especially if his development has been quick (as Soriano's was). Moreover, his 2002 season ended with injury, suggesting that he was not only young and inexperienced at the time of his starts, but also may have been hurt. Comparing his starts to his relief appearances may be comparing apples to, you know, that other thing.
Furthermore, it's not entirely clear that Soriano was less effective the longer he stayed in the game:
Situation Batters K% B% Balls in
faced play%
Pitches 1-15 34 15% 6% 79%
Pitches 16-30 40 18% 13% 65%
Pitches 31-45 34 12% 9% 76%
Pitches 46-60 29 21% 14% 66%
Pitches 61-75 30 10% 0% 90%
Pitches 76-90 20 25% 5% 50%
Pitches 91-105 11 9% 9% 73%
Inning 1-3 102 11% 12% 75%
Inning 4-6 74 18% 5% 72%
Inning 7-9 9 22% 0% 67%
If Soriano were easier to figure out after a couple times through the rotation, we'd expect his numbers to get consistenly worse the longer he pitched...but that's clear from these numbers. You might say that he stopped missing bats after about 60 pitches, but then he looks unhittable after 75 pitches. There's probably not a large enough sample size to draw many conclusions.
In the context of the Mariner's current rotation, Soriano could be one of the better starters, but only if he performs as well as his career reliever numbers, not his career starting numbers. As a starter, he had similar numbers as Gil Meche's last three years--both have K% and BB% of 16 and 9 respectively, and Soriano actually gave up HRs more frequently as a starter (4.7% to Meche's 3.5). As a reliever, Soriano's HR rate plummets to .4% (yes, that's right: a tenth of his % as a starter), and his K rate a walk rate improve significantly, too. But can Soriano bring his more recent effectiveness into a starting role? I don't think his numbers can tell us.
That leaves us with qualitative rather than quantitative analysis. Soriano does have electric stuff, but does he have enough pitches to make it as a starter? If Soriano makes an okay starter but a dynamite reliever, which do we want?
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day
Similarly, even Steve Kelley gets it right twice a year. This is one of those times. Kelley somehow sees that Washburn isn't the pitcher he used to be, though some would argue that saying Washburn is only good, not great, is still a gross overestimation of his abilities.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Off-topic rant: White Elephant Gift Exchanges
With news out of Marinerland being a bit depressing as of late, I'll turn to other subjects. In this case, the "White Elephant" gift exchange. This is important to any of you who are organizing christmas parties for your neighbors, friends, or co-workers and are thinking about or are asked about doing one.
A white elephant gift is a gag gift. It's not supposed to be cute, or pretty or nice. It's supposed to be innane, ugly, useless or generally innappropriate in a funny way--and always nearly worthless. It's a great opportunity for re-gifting, and the possibilities are nearly endless. For example, your cousin just went through a knitting phase and has given you four hand-knitted toilet-paper-holders. You are going through a junk drawer and find a happy-meal toy from 1993. You still have a pair of MC Hammer pants. You were sent a recruiting DVD in the mail entitled "The National Guard Experience." All good stuff.
Lamer but still acceptable white elephant gifts would be things that aren't quite so funny, but are still worthless. For example, a cell-phone charger to a broken and obsolete model. A 2004 wall calendar. A partially used can of burguny shoe polish.
But let's be clear about what a white elephant gift is NOT. It's not a $10 set of body lotions. It's not an animatronic singing snowman from a Hallmark store (possible exception: you were given it last year). It's not a christmas tree ornament. It's not a fruitcake (possible exception: you were given it 5 years ago). These are kitchy junk, but their not funny or useless or worthless.
If you want to do a sincere gift exchange that means something, organize a secret Santa, where each person is assigned one other person to go find a personalized gift. If you want to make things easy and funny, do a real white elephant gift exchange. But please...don't have everybody bring gift-bags filled with kitchy junk.
A white elephant gift is a gag gift. It's not supposed to be cute, or pretty or nice. It's supposed to be innane, ugly, useless or generally innappropriate in a funny way--and always nearly worthless. It's a great opportunity for re-gifting, and the possibilities are nearly endless. For example, your cousin just went through a knitting phase and has given you four hand-knitted toilet-paper-holders. You are going through a junk drawer and find a happy-meal toy from 1993. You still have a pair of MC Hammer pants. You were sent a recruiting DVD in the mail entitled "The National Guard Experience." All good stuff.
Lamer but still acceptable white elephant gifts would be things that aren't quite so funny, but are still worthless. For example, a cell-phone charger to a broken and obsolete model. A 2004 wall calendar. A partially used can of burguny shoe polish.
But let's be clear about what a white elephant gift is NOT. It's not a $10 set of body lotions. It's not an animatronic singing snowman from a Hallmark store (possible exception: you were given it last year). It's not a christmas tree ornament. It's not a fruitcake (possible exception: you were given it 5 years ago). These are kitchy junk, but their not funny or useless or worthless.
If you want to do a sincere gift exchange that means something, organize a secret Santa, where each person is assigned one other person to go find a personalized gift. If you want to make things easy and funny, do a real white elephant gift exchange. But please...don't have everybody bring gift-bags filled with kitchy junk.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Be careful what you wish for...
Remember two years ago?
We were all ridiculing Bob Melvin and Pat Gillick and Seattle sportwriters for their allegiance to "Speed and Defense" ballplayers, their tentativity in the offseason, their emphasis on character and clubhouse leadership.
Well, we've now got Carl Everett, who represents none of that.
The biggest problem with signing Carl Everett is that he's not very good anymore, even as a hitter. But if you go read the comments and posts around other Mariner Blogs, you're going to find a lot of dismay over Everett's character. Well, we can't have it both ways. Either character matters or it doesn't. Carl Everett's history of outrageous, offensive, stupid behavior shouldn't matter any more than Dan Wilson's community service.
And I think it's also important to temper our criticism with humility, because our understanding of the importance of defense has and continues to evolve. We aren't the pantheons of baseball knowledge, and calling any Mariner official who doesn't do what we want an idiot is a little presumptuous.
That said, I still think signing Everett was a lot about desperation...the M's needed to make some move, and Everett was the closest guy available who fit the job description.
We were all ridiculing Bob Melvin and Pat Gillick and Seattle sportwriters for their allegiance to "Speed and Defense" ballplayers, their tentativity in the offseason, their emphasis on character and clubhouse leadership.
Well, we've now got Carl Everett, who represents none of that.
The biggest problem with signing Carl Everett is that he's not very good anymore, even as a hitter. But if you go read the comments and posts around other Mariner Blogs, you're going to find a lot of dismay over Everett's character. Well, we can't have it both ways. Either character matters or it doesn't. Carl Everett's history of outrageous, offensive, stupid behavior shouldn't matter any more than Dan Wilson's community service.
And I think it's also important to temper our criticism with humility, because our understanding of the importance of defense has and continues to evolve. We aren't the pantheons of baseball knowledge, and calling any Mariner official who doesn't do what we want an idiot is a little presumptuous.
That said, I still think signing Everett was a lot about desperation...the M's needed to make some move, and Everett was the closest guy available who fit the job description.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Tracking Pineiro's mechanics
Jeff at Lookout Landing has done some fascinating work on the mechanics of pitchers using screenshots from television broadcast. Most recently, he has taken a look at Joel Pineiro. You'll need to read his blog entry, and probably the earlier one examining Felix Hernandez, in order to understand what I'm talking about here.
Jeff was comparing release points in a single game and seeing how consistent they were. Oddly, in one of Pineiro's worst games, he had the most consistent release point. As Jeff points out, consistency is only a benefit if you're consistenly good. Observers of that game thought Pineiro's release point was consistenly bad.
Still, wouldn't it be great to be able to compare one game to another? That way we could look at the range of release points in two games, and see how they differed. This would confirm an observation that a pitcher's release point was consitently bad for the game.
The trouble is that Jeff's work is based on screenshots from TV broadcasts, in different stadiums with different camera configurations. For example, here are (from his site), the three shots of Pineiro delivering a curveball from the three games Jeff analyzed:
(Click on the images for bigger ones)
If we try to superimpose these images on top of one another, we can see clearly (from the colored lines I've added to Jeff's release-point box) that in each game, the cameras are positioned and/or aimed differently):
The Magenta area is where Pineiro's back foot appears (having just pushed off the rubber), and is the reference point I used for aligning the three images. Pineiro's body is positioned very similarly in all pictuers (the slight differences in outlines could even be only because of slight differences in the timing of the screen shot). But, as the horizontal line indicates, home plate appears in a much different place for each picture.
Because of these discrepancies in camera angles, the release-point box appears in different places in each picture. That makes comparing game-to-game very difficult, if not impossible. That doesn't make Jeff's analysis less interesting or useful. I'm just showing why taking Jeff's already-difficult work further is problematic.
Jeff was comparing release points in a single game and seeing how consistent they were. Oddly, in one of Pineiro's worst games, he had the most consistent release point. As Jeff points out, consistency is only a benefit if you're consistenly good. Observers of that game thought Pineiro's release point was consistenly bad.
Still, wouldn't it be great to be able to compare one game to another? That way we could look at the range of release points in two games, and see how they differed. This would confirm an observation that a pitcher's release point was consitently bad for the game.
The trouble is that Jeff's work is based on screenshots from TV broadcasts, in different stadiums with different camera configurations. For example, here are (from his site), the three shots of Pineiro delivering a curveball from the three games Jeff analyzed:
 |  |  |
If we try to superimpose these images on top of one another, we can see clearly (from the colored lines I've added to Jeff's release-point box) that in each game, the cameras are positioned and/or aimed differently):
The Magenta area is where Pineiro's back foot appears (having just pushed off the rubber), and is the reference point I used for aligning the three images. Pineiro's body is positioned very similarly in all pictuers (the slight differences in outlines could even be only because of slight differences in the timing of the screen shot). But, as the horizontal line indicates, home plate appears in a much different place for each picture.
Because of these discrepancies in camera angles, the release-point box appears in different places in each picture. That makes comparing game-to-game very difficult, if not impossible. That doesn't make Jeff's analysis less interesting or useful. I'm just showing why taking Jeff's already-difficult work further is problematic.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Vote early, vote often
Please, do your part to give Dave Neihaus his due. Nominate him as a finalist for the Baseball Hall of Fame Ford Frick Award.
The Post-season, in hindsight (Abridged)
The second annual curse-breaking award goes to the Chicago White Sox, who really did do a horrible thing when they threw the 1919 World Series, unlike the Red Sox "curse," which was really invented in the 1980s, and has little basis in fact.
The Pale Hose' history is much clearer and darker ("Say it ain't so, Joe!"), and I'm glad that franchise can be known for something other than the 1919 scandal, at least for the time being. Not being from Chicago, too, I don't really understand why the Cubs are so much more beloved than the Sox, and I'm happy to see the underdog in the city take home the big prize.
Even though the final series was a sweep, it was a great post-season: the Yankees eliminated early, the penant winners not being recent champions, Texas getting it's first world series (but not before Albert Pujols stunned them--that was an amazing moment).
Sometimes, it seems like there's nothing longer than a 4-hour baseball game in the middle of July, but that long season is what makes the post-season so exciting, every moment--you know you're really watching the best, and yet the game could turn on something as improbable as homer by the AL pitcher playing in the NL park.
The number of teams never to make it to the World Series just got reduced by one...we're due for a shot one of these years, it's a brand new season next year, and hope always springs eternal. On to the hot stove league...
The Pale Hose' history is much clearer and darker ("Say it ain't so, Joe!"), and I'm glad that franchise can be known for something other than the 1919 scandal, at least for the time being. Not being from Chicago, too, I don't really understand why the Cubs are so much more beloved than the Sox, and I'm happy to see the underdog in the city take home the big prize.
Even though the final series was a sweep, it was a great post-season: the Yankees eliminated early, the penant winners not being recent champions, Texas getting it's first world series (but not before Albert Pujols stunned them--that was an amazing moment).
Sometimes, it seems like there's nothing longer than a 4-hour baseball game in the middle of July, but that long season is what makes the post-season so exciting, every moment--you know you're really watching the best, and yet the game could turn on something as improbable as homer by the AL pitcher playing in the NL park.
The number of teams never to make it to the World Series just got reduced by one...we're due for a shot one of these years, it's a brand new season next year, and hope always springs eternal. On to the hot stove league...
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Friday, September 30, 2005
Worst Mariner Free-Agent Signings Ever?
From Bob Finigan in the Times:
Really? Scott Spiezio is the worst Mariner free agent of all time? My first thought was that if that's true, the M's haven't done too badly avoiding terrible free agent signings. So I did some reasearch (the operative word being "some").
Most of the really bad contracts we remember were indeed trades: Jeff Cirillo, Al Martin, and Kevin Mitchell all come to mind. But what are the worst free-agent contracts, bad from from start to finish, in Mariner history?
Here are some candidates:
So how do we pick the worst? If I had calculated Win Shares, Hibbard's has undoubtedly got to be the worst dollar-per-win-share there, since he played so little. However, and argument could be made that its worse to both pay AND play a bad player, because it makes your team worse and costs you a lot of money. Pete O'Brien's scores high in this regard.
So I don't have a diffinitive answer, but I think a few things are clear:
1) The M's don't have any Mike Hamptons or Derek Bells on their rap sheet. Their conservative approach to contracts--well, that and their history miserly owners--has help them avoid castastrophically bad contracts.
2) Milt Wilcox, while certainly bad, can't come close to qualifying as a "worst free agent in M's history, even if the average MLB salary in 1986 was $411K. (in 2002, it was $2.4M).
3) Scott Spiezio does belong on this list, though $9M dollars today isn't as bad as O'Brien's $7.6M in the early 90s.
Am I forgetting anyone? Are there more factors we should consider? This is one I'd really appreciate some feedback on.
| By late August, Bloomquist was also injured and Spiezio was dumped to the relief of all, ending a free-agent signing that wiped out Greg Hibbard and Milt Wilcox as the worst in club history — unless one counts (or even remembers) [Pokey] Reese. |
Really? Scott Spiezio is the worst Mariner free agent of all time? My first thought was that if that's true, the M's haven't done too badly avoiding terrible free agent signings. So I did some reasearch (the operative word being "some").
Most of the really bad contracts we remember were indeed trades: Jeff Cirillo, Al Martin, and Kevin Mitchell all come to mind. But what are the worst free-agent contracts, bad from from start to finish, in Mariner history?
Here are some candidates:
| Player | Contract Value | Year(s) | Comments |
| Milt Wilcox | $150,000 | 1986 | 10 games started, 0-8, 56 IP, 5.50 ERA |
| Greg Hibbard | $8.3M | 1994-1997 | In '94, was 1-5 in 14 starts with a 6.69 ERA; was injured and never played again after that. |
| Pete O'Brien | $7.6M | 1990-1993 | In four years (all as a starter), O'Brien managed a .237/.304/.366 line in a position (1B and DH) where most teams get their hitting and power |
| Scott Spiezio | $9M | 2004-2006 | Sandfrog's leading man averaged .198/.283/.340 as a corner infielder over 414 ABs before being released this year. |
| Mike Felder | $850,000 | 1993 | Suggested by Peter White's inclusion of Felder in the worst Mariner seasons ever, Felder hit .211/.262/.269 in 342 ABs. |
So how do we pick the worst? If I had calculated Win Shares, Hibbard's has undoubtedly got to be the worst dollar-per-win-share there, since he played so little. However, and argument could be made that its worse to both pay AND play a bad player, because it makes your team worse and costs you a lot of money. Pete O'Brien's scores high in this regard.
So I don't have a diffinitive answer, but I think a few things are clear:
1) The M's don't have any Mike Hamptons or Derek Bells on their rap sheet. Their conservative approach to contracts--well, that and their history miserly owners--has help them avoid castastrophically bad contracts.
2) Milt Wilcox, while certainly bad, can't come close to qualifying as a "worst free agent in M's history, even if the average MLB salary in 1986 was $411K. (in 2002, it was $2.4M).
3) Scott Spiezio does belong on this list, though $9M dollars today isn't as bad as O'Brien's $7.6M in the early 90s.
Am I forgetting anyone? Are there more factors we should consider? This is one I'd really appreciate some feedback on.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
In the bleak late-summer...
...we remember. Dave Cameron got all nostalgic over at USS Mariner, and it was fun to reminisce with others about the days of yore. Even 1986, when the M's were terrible, but when I began to really root for them.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
What happened to Joel Pineiro?
Two years ago, Joel Pineiro was going to be the linchpin of our future rotation, backed up by a plethora of young arms nearing the majors. Those young arms haven't worked out so well for mostly medical reasons. Besides, young pitchers are risky commodities, being so prone to injury. But Pineiro was a good bet. What happened?
Why have we gone from extolling his virtures to calling for his outright release? He's been a lousy pitcher this year, mostly because of he's lost the ability to strike batters out. Look at this:
The best theory I've heard to explain this is that Pineiro's health isn't at 100%, and he doesn't quite have the velocity he once did. Batters put the ball in play when they use to miss entirely, and are making solid contact when they didn't before, because they have a little bit longer to adjust. Or, a lingering injury is compromising his control.
Either way, the cause would be an injury--which is far different from saying that he simply lost the ability to pitch. If Joel is injured, then that problem needs to be diagnosed first, before we give up on him. We need to know if this is an injury that will keep him from being good again (see "labrum, torn"), or one that, once healed, will not prevent him from returing to form. Calling for Pineiro's release now is absurdly premature.
Why have we gone from extolling his virtures to calling for his outright release? He's been a lousy pitcher this year, mostly because of he's lost the ability to strike batters out. Look at this:
We can see that, in 01 and 03, he did a better job (if we're going to give him credit for it) keeping hitters from making solid contact. Batting Average on Balls In Play and Slugging Allowed were both down those years. He walked more batters in 03, but took care of that in '04. This year, however, the big change is in his inability to strike batters out. Coupled with a much higher BABIP, it has spelled disaster.
YEAR ERA IP K/9 BB/9 BABIP SLG
2000 5.59 19.1 4.7 6.1 .333 .481
2001 2.03 75.1 6.7 2.5 .235 .263
2002 3.24 194.1 6.3 2.5 .285 .411
2003 3.78 212.2 6.4 3.2 .276 .359
2004 4.67 141.2 7.1 2.7 .299 .442
2005 5.56 139.1 4.8 2.8 .319 .468
The best theory I've heard to explain this is that Pineiro's health isn't at 100%, and he doesn't quite have the velocity he once did. Batters put the ball in play when they use to miss entirely, and are making solid contact when they didn't before, because they have a little bit longer to adjust. Or, a lingering injury is compromising his control.
Either way, the cause would be an injury--which is far different from saying that he simply lost the ability to pitch. If Joel is injured, then that problem needs to be diagnosed first, before we give up on him. We need to know if this is an injury that will keep him from being good again (see "labrum, torn"), or one that, once healed, will not prevent him from returing to form. Calling for Pineiro's release now is absurdly premature.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Middle Infielders, Musical Chairs
Tonights lineup includes:
3B - Bloomquist
LF - Ibanez
DH - Beltre
...
SS - Morse2B - Betancourt
If you patrol any of the comments over at USSMariner, you'll see that a lot of folks wonder what the point of sacrificing your infield defense when Hernandez--an extreme groundball pitcher--is on the mound. Beltre and Betancourt are clearly the superior defenders for the left side of the infield. Furthermore, they muse, why isn't Jose Lopez, he of the .911 OPS at AAA, up to play second anyway? It would be as simple as releasing Speizio, who's not doing anything for anybody right now.
It's fashionable to pile on the M's these days, and it's easy to take pot-shots at the management and roster construction with the team playing so poorly. But there are legitimate explanations for tonight's lineup:
Hernandez, of all M's pitchers, relies on his defense the least. If you're going to give Beltre a break, get Morse some at-bats, let Ibanez remember what a glove feels like, this is the night to do it. As David Cameron pointed out on tonight's game thread at USSMariner, Morse has never played anything except shortstop, and Betancourt will still be very effective at second.
And there are legitmate reasons for the current roster:
Lopez played very poorly in his audition in the majors this year. He didn't get a long look, but what opportunites he got, he squandered, managing a microscopic .545 OPS in 24 games (80 plate appearances). Lopez clearly is the future at second, so the M's should be thinking about his developmental first and foremost. That likely means getting him regular plate appearances and not messing with his psyche nor ruining his confidence. Tacoma is the best place for this.
Even if regular major league at-bats were desirable for Lopez, he'd have to displace Betancourt or Bloomquist, neither of which are going to appeal to the Mariners. Bloomquist, for all the moaning at USSM, is having a fine second half (coincidentally hitting a triple in tonight's game), and is a fan favorite. He'll be on the roster next year, and he provides some measure of offense, so he does help keep a few more fans trickling in. Replacing Betancourt compromises your defense by requiring either Bloomquist or Morse to man short, and either pushes Betancourt to the bench or back to Tacoma. Exchanging one future regular infielder for the other isn't much use. Finally, replacing Speizio means somebody has to go to the bench.
Tonight's lineup is unusual, for sure, but it's hardly evidence that the M's don't know what they're doing. I look forward to see Lopez next year, but nobody needs him to displace one of the current regulars only to struggle at the plate.
3B - Bloomquist
LF - Ibanez
DH - Beltre
...
SS - Morse2B - Betancourt
If you patrol any of the comments over at USSMariner, you'll see that a lot of folks wonder what the point of sacrificing your infield defense when Hernandez--an extreme groundball pitcher--is on the mound. Beltre and Betancourt are clearly the superior defenders for the left side of the infield. Furthermore, they muse, why isn't Jose Lopez, he of the .911 OPS at AAA, up to play second anyway? It would be as simple as releasing Speizio, who's not doing anything for anybody right now.
It's fashionable to pile on the M's these days, and it's easy to take pot-shots at the management and roster construction with the team playing so poorly. But there are legitimate explanations for tonight's lineup:
Hernandez, of all M's pitchers, relies on his defense the least. If you're going to give Beltre a break, get Morse some at-bats, let Ibanez remember what a glove feels like, this is the night to do it. As David Cameron pointed out on tonight's game thread at USSMariner, Morse has never played anything except shortstop, and Betancourt will still be very effective at second.
And there are legitmate reasons for the current roster:
Lopez played very poorly in his audition in the majors this year. He didn't get a long look, but what opportunites he got, he squandered, managing a microscopic .545 OPS in 24 games (80 plate appearances). Lopez clearly is the future at second, so the M's should be thinking about his developmental first and foremost. That likely means getting him regular plate appearances and not messing with his psyche nor ruining his confidence. Tacoma is the best place for this.
Even if regular major league at-bats were desirable for Lopez, he'd have to displace Betancourt or Bloomquist, neither of which are going to appeal to the Mariners. Bloomquist, for all the moaning at USSM, is having a fine second half (coincidentally hitting a triple in tonight's game), and is a fan favorite. He'll be on the roster next year, and he provides some measure of offense, so he does help keep a few more fans trickling in. Replacing Betancourt compromises your defense by requiring either Bloomquist or Morse to man short, and either pushes Betancourt to the bench or back to Tacoma. Exchanging one future regular infielder for the other isn't much use. Finally, replacing Speizio means somebody has to go to the bench.
Tonight's lineup is unusual, for sure, but it's hardly evidence that the M's don't know what they're doing. I look forward to see Lopez next year, but nobody needs him to displace one of the current regulars only to struggle at the plate.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Recent Games
Day1: Snelling ignites a comeback.
Day 2:Felix shows why he's the heir apparent.
Day 3:Willie Bloomquist boots it.
Top of the Ninth, with Guardado going for his 29th consecutive save, and Bloomquist throws the ball away, giving the Twins' Michael Cuddyer an extra base to add to his infield single. That extra base would prove critical, as Cuddyer's pinch runner would score on the next play, a left-field single.
Betancourt gets on base to lead off the ninth, and Chris Snelling, of all people, bunts, so that the fearsome Wiki Gonzalez can drive Betancourt in. I can understand playing for one run in this situation generally, but you don't have Snelling bunt when he's followed by Gonzalez. Really, why is Snelling down there in the order anyway? Especially when, after a groundout and an intentional walk to Ichiro, Willie Bloomquist is up to bat?
"Time for him to redeem himself," says Dave Valle. "The hottest hitter on the Mariners for the last six weeks," says Rizzs. "That can't be right," I say to the TV. Yes, I talk to the TV. You gotta problem?
Since the beginning of July, Bloomquist actually has done very well. But he hasn't been the best hitter on the M's during that time. He is tied for second in average (.314), with Sexson, over that period, trailing Ichiro (.324). Sexson blows everyone else out of the water in OBP (.407) and SLG (.645). So while Bloomquist has hit for a good average over the last six weeks, he certainly isn't the guy you want when you can't afford to make an out. No, for that you'd want Ibanez, Ichiro, or--you guessed it--Chris Snelling, all of whom have a better OBP.
Day 2:Felix shows why he's the heir apparent.
Day 3:Willie Bloomquist boots it.
Top of the Ninth, with Guardado going for his 29th consecutive save, and Bloomquist throws the ball away, giving the Twins' Michael Cuddyer an extra base to add to his infield single. That extra base would prove critical, as Cuddyer's pinch runner would score on the next play, a left-field single.
Betancourt gets on base to lead off the ninth, and Chris Snelling, of all people, bunts, so that the fearsome Wiki Gonzalez can drive Betancourt in. I can understand playing for one run in this situation generally, but you don't have Snelling bunt when he's followed by Gonzalez. Really, why is Snelling down there in the order anyway? Especially when, after a groundout and an intentional walk to Ichiro, Willie Bloomquist is up to bat?
"Time for him to redeem himself," says Dave Valle. "The hottest hitter on the Mariners for the last six weeks," says Rizzs. "That can't be right," I say to the TV. Yes, I talk to the TV. You gotta problem?
Since the beginning of July, Bloomquist actually has done very well. But he hasn't been the best hitter on the M's during that time. He is tied for second in average (.314), with Sexson, over that period, trailing Ichiro (.324). Sexson blows everyone else out of the water in OBP (.407) and SLG (.645). So while Bloomquist has hit for a good average over the last six weeks, he certainly isn't the guy you want when you can't afford to make an out. No, for that you'd want Ibanez, Ichiro, or--you guessed it--Chris Snelling, all of whom have a better OBP.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Why this isn't 1995
Apparently, the Mariners still aren't convinced they have no hope of reaching the post-season. So says Larry Stone. The wonderful ride of 1995 enables us to think nothing is impossible. But we're in a much different place than in 1995. John McGrath agrees, but doesn't get into details. I will.
Today, the Mariners have 10 days till the trading deadline. They are 41-52, 14 games out of 1st place and seven games out of third place. They are ten games out from the wild card, with eight teams ahead of them in the wild card standings.
In 1995, this is what the standings looked like in the AL West on July 21st:
Moreover, in this strike-shortened season, the season up to this point did not carry the same significance. That is, the 93 games the Mariners have played this year are a greater body of evidence to their true ability than the 78 games played on this date in 1995. The Mariners have had 15 more games this year to show how bad they are.
In addition, the 1995 M's had individual reasons for optimism: an ace starter, who would go on to lead the league in ERA and W-L percentage (Johnson), a designated hitter who would go on to lead the league in batting average, OBP, and doubles (Martinez), and a perennial all-star scheduled to return from injury (Griffey). Power and timely hitting came from Jay Buhner and Tino Martinez, who, along with Edgar, were 3rd, 4th, and 5th in RBIs.
The M's don't have the players they did in 1995, particularly anyone that comes close to what Johnson did. But more importantly, they are nearly twice as many games from a post-season berth this year--in either the divisional or wild-card race. In the wild card race, they are looking up at six more teams than in 1995.
Making the post-season this year would be even more improbable than in 1995. The next chance the M's have of making the post season starts in the spring of 2006, and they need to act accordingly.
Today, the Mariners have 10 days till the trading deadline. They are 41-52, 14 games out of 1st place and seven games out of third place. They are ten games out from the wild card, with eight teams ahead of them in the wild card standings.
In 1995, this is what the standings looked like in the AL West on July 21st:
Team W - L Games BehindThough hanging on by a thread, the Mariners were clearly not wildy irrational in 1995 to shoot for a strong finish and a possible first post-season berth in franchise history. (They acquired Norm Charlton on June 14th, and traded for Andy Benes on July 31st.) Though their run to the division title was improbable--it required both a Mariner surge and an Angel collapse--the Wild Card was still within reach.
California 46 - 32 -
Texas 42 - 36 4
Seattle 38 - 40 8
Oakland 39 - 42 8.5
And the Wild Card Standings on 7-21-1995:
Team W - L Games Behind
Texas 42 - 36 -
Baltimore 38 - 39 3.5
Seattle 38 - 40 4
Kansas City 36 - 39 4.5
Oakland 39 - 42 4.5
New York 36 - 40 5
...
Moreover, in this strike-shortened season, the season up to this point did not carry the same significance. That is, the 93 games the Mariners have played this year are a greater body of evidence to their true ability than the 78 games played on this date in 1995. The Mariners have had 15 more games this year to show how bad they are.
In addition, the 1995 M's had individual reasons for optimism: an ace starter, who would go on to lead the league in ERA and W-L percentage (Johnson), a designated hitter who would go on to lead the league in batting average, OBP, and doubles (Martinez), and a perennial all-star scheduled to return from injury (Griffey). Power and timely hitting came from Jay Buhner and Tino Martinez, who, along with Edgar, were 3rd, 4th, and 5th in RBIs.
The M's don't have the players they did in 1995, particularly anyone that comes close to what Johnson did. But more importantly, they are nearly twice as many games from a post-season berth this year--in either the divisional or wild-card race. In the wild card race, they are looking up at six more teams than in 1995.
Making the post-season this year would be even more improbable than in 1995. The next chance the M's have of making the post season starts in the spring of 2006, and they need to act accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)