The Power Valley

Where the M's stand after 10

2006-04-14T15:38:00.001-07:00

Year W L RS RA P/PA BB/PA RC/27
2004 2 8 45 59 3.77 .077 4.57
2005 5 5 55 44 3.74 .076 4.26
2006 5 5 55 56 3.82 .096 5.06

What does this mean? Not much since it's a small sample size, but it is encouraging. The pitches per plate appearances is up significantly as well as the BB per PA, although that could all be due to one game in Cleveland. Still encouraging I think.

Year ERA
2004 4.76
2005 4.49
2006 5.56

After being teased by encouraging performances by Meche and Pineiro both came back with bad second outings. Four upcoming games against the Red Sox followed by three with the Rangers shouldn't help much.

The Good:

Johjima 333/421/606
Ibanez 333/409/487
Lopez 282/333/513

Soriano 5IP/1ER
Putz 5.2IP/10K

The Bad:
Beltre 143/268/143
Everett 125/317/281

Mateo 6IP/6ER
Meche 9.1IP/7ER

Welcome Back, Jamie . . . and Congrats

2005-04-24T17:00:00.000-07:00

With today's 8-inning gem, Jamie Moyer hit some pretty amazing milestones.

First and foremost, he tied Randy Johnson for the Mariner franchise record for wins, with 130 (more surprisingly, he also tied Mark Langston for second on the club's all-time strikeout list, with 1,078; RJ leads the list with a formidable 2,162). Second, he became the first pitcher in the American League to win four games.

What should be most encouraging to Mariner fans are some of Moyer's peripheral stats so far. Jamie is still pitching to contact (which, given the recent research into master changeup artists' greater ability to prevent hits on balls in play, isn't necessarily a bad thing), but his walks are down (a little less than 2 per 9 innings), his strikeouts are up (almost 6.5 per 9 innings, roughly 1 better than his previous levels over the past 5 years or so), and his groundball-toflyball ratio is much more skewed to groundballs (1.22 groundballs to every flyball, which reverses a nearly 5-year tendency to give up far more flyballs than ground balls). Not surprisingly, his ERA (2.53) and his pitches-per-plate appearance numbers are as good as they have been in any of his best years.

What all this tells me is that Moyer is successfully throwing the low strike, and getting ahead of hitters. Failing to do this last year was the root of most of his problems, so even though the season is still very young (and predicting the future performance -- or even health -- of 42-year-old pitchers is foolish at best), there is good reason for optimism that Jamie is much closer to being the Jamie we saw in 2001-2003 than the Jamie we saw in 2004.

Congrats Mike Hargrove . . .

2005-04-14T20:58:00.000-07:00

. . . on your 1001st major-league win today, which coincides with the Mariners' first above-.500 appearance in the standings since sometime in late 2003, I think.

Mike Hargrove's achievement is noteworthy. With 1001 wins (as of 4/14/2005), he stands in 50th place all-time and seems a pretty sure bet to finish the season somewhere around #45 all-time. That is pretty impressive, particularly considering Hargrive doesn't appear to be anywhere close to the end of his career.

However, I found it slightly amusing how the local media tripped over themselves to find a way to put it in persepctive (and, really, failed). In many ways, this showed just how far away the mainstream media is from understanding or properly reporting statistical achievements.

For instance, over at the P-I, John Hickey compared the feat to hitting 400 homers (38 players have done this), getting 3,000 hits (25 players), or stealing 500 bases (36), or a pitcher winning 250 games (43), getting 2,000 strikeouts, or 200 saves. Uhhh, no.

There is a major difference in those achievements and Hargrove's climb up the managerail wins ladder. It's called opportunity. I saw Sean Forman (the founder of the incomparable Baseball-Reference.com) quoted as saying that just over 16,200 players appear in the Baseball-Reference.com database. On the other hand, there have been only just over 600 managers in baseball history. So, ranking 50th on a list of 600 is akin to ranking about 700th on a list of about 8900 hitters who've had the opportuntiy to play (assuming that about 55% of the 16,200 are hitters, and 45% are pitchers -- which is just a guesstimate but the point is still valid), or close to 600th of some 7300 pitchers. Hargrove's achievement, however impressive it may be, is not comparable to those Hickey listed -- particularly when after 1001 wins you're still only 34 wins over .500 (which is tied for 98th all-time, far lower than the win total), and several of your contemporaries (Bobby Cox, Tony LaRussa, Joe Torre, Lou Piniella, Art Howe) have anywhere from 100 to 1100 more wins than you do.

Hargrove's achievement is all about opportunity. I don't say that to denigrate what Hargrove has done, because the real achievement is just getting and keeping a major league job long enough to manage almost 2,000 games. There are only 30 of these jobs, and half of them are going to be losing jobs that won't be turned around even by a good manager in the short term (see Piniella, Lou in early managerial years in Seattle and Tampa Bay, or even Hargrove himself in the early Cleveland years). Perhaps it isn't even fair to judge a manager by wins -- except that in the end, that's how their employers judge them, so . . . fair enough.

Mariners 2, Royals 1

2005-04-13T17:25:00.000-07:00

The M's climb back to .500. Remember that?

Man, I'd love to be wrong about Aaron Sele (who I never thought was all that good, and don't believe is or ever will be the pitcher he was when he was last here). He's still not missing many bats, but that's a pretty good start today . . ., though again, let's remember that the Royals aren't a very good offensive team. I'll be more of a believer when he repeats this a few times, including one against the likes of an offensive juggernaut like the Red Sox.

Jack wrote:

"It's interesting about pitches per plate appearance and it's a trend that I think we should watch as the season progresses. What is more disturbing to me is the BB/PA which is at a four year low of 5.5% compared to 7.7% last year, 9.3 % in 2003,
and 9.9% in 2002. Boone and Olivo have yet to draw a walk."

I think it is part and parcel the same thing, Jack. And, I agree that we should watch this along the way.

Some Royal Slop

2005-04-13T17:04:00.000-07:00

Today marks my annual ritual of forking over $15 to MLB for my yearly subscription of MLB radio for the main purpose of avoiding the noise of Rick Rizzs invading my ears. I will gladly pay $15 for this service. I wonder if the Mariners are aware how much fans disdain this broadcast crew and moreover wonder how much they care. I suspect that their advertisers care however, but how does one get that message across? Hmmm...

Today's game was one of those frustrating afternoons of inept play on both sides of the diamond, with the Royals winning the contest of futility. I decided to jot down some random thoughts during the game:

Mike Hargrove set the tone early ordering Jeremy to bunt Ichiro over after a leadoff walk. I subscribe to the philosophy that if you play for one run you will only get one run, which makes it even more frustrating when you don't even get that.
Calvin Pickering being sent from first on a hit and run. Interesting.
Royals second baseman Ruben Gotay intentionally dropping a pop fly with Wilson Valdez at first base hoping to set up a double play. The second base umpire mercifully ruled it a catch since the best Gotay could have done is forced Valdez at 2nd leaving Ichiro at 1st.
Mike Hargrove continuing the tone by attempting to sacrifice Randy Winn over to 3rd following a leadoff double. Bunting guys over who are already in scoring position doesn't set a very good vive for me to start off the season.
Wilson Valdez getting picked off second with two outs and Sexson at the plate is inexcusable.
Wison Valdez getting caught stealing second base puts the Mariners at 40% SB success rate thus far.

It's early...so what?

2005-04-12T22:24:00.000-07:00

We are all now in agreement that it is early. Brian Roberts leads the American League in home runs with four (his career high is 5), the slimmed down Edgardo Alfonso is hitting .519 without the luxury of hitting behind Barry Bonds, and Greg Zaun has 10 RBIs in seven games (his 10 year career high is 36).

Of course Pete is correct about Ryan Franklin. His start against K.C. was a combination of facing a subpar offense and a little bit of luck. If there are those who believe (or want others to believe) that this one game was the turning point of his career that's fine. It's hard to believe anything has changed based on his 7.15 spring ERA, but it seems we will soon find out. He faces another struggling offense Sunday in Chicago, and then Cleveland at home followed by Oakland. If Franklin goes 4-0 in April with a sub 3 ERA will he actually have some trade value?

It's interesting about pitches per plate appearance and it's a trend that I think we should watch as the season progresses. What is more disturbing to me is the BB/PA which is at a four year low of 5.5% compared to 7.7% last year, 9.3 % in 2003, and 9.9% in 2002. Boone and Olivo have yet to draw a walk.

Ichiro is hitting .484 and has three RBIs. How can that by you might ask? Well, he has only batted four times in 28 attempts with runners in scoring postion. Let's not get into the OBP at the bottom of our lineup.

I'll leave this on a positive note. Ichiro got on base about 316 times last year and only scored 101 runs ( 32%). This year he has reached base 16 times and scored 7 runs ( 44%). Believe it or not that number could even improve when J-Reed gets on track (and he will get on track!).

One Week In . . .

2005-04-12T14:31:00.000-07:00

Jeff Shaw, over at the USS Mariner, has already lent us all this cautionary piece of advice about drawing conclusions about a baseball team's season based on one week of play:

"If a baseball season is a marathon, a week is one city block."

Apart from my own smartass observation that it is really more like one mile of a marathon, he's absolutely right. Take all this with a grain of salt. Statistically speaking, it's really early, and a tiny sample from which to draw conclusions. That doesn't stop us from forming opinions, and some of the observations we're making might be meaningful. Sorta. Kinda.

First, my prediction that despite his 0-13 start Jeremy Reed is going to be OK . . . seems to be on track. After that 0-13 start, he's been 5-for-his-next-13 (.384), and three of his five hits have been doubles. That's good -- though probably no better indication of Reed's long-term ability than the first thirteen ABs were, or even his first-25-game (64 ABs) career line of .333/.404/.417. I note that I heard Harold Reynolds say on Baseball Tonight that, in his opinion, Reed might be among the most overrated rookies to come along in a while and that the Mariners expectations for him are too high. Reynolds made a comment about "lots of holes in his swing." I dunno. Maybe Harold caught him the first part of last week instead of last September. When he is on, my observation is his approach at the plate is as good as any rookie hitter I've seen in a good long while. Then again, Harold does have a bit more experience with the game than I do . . . but I'd venture to say I've watched Reed more closely than he has.

My friend Dave Cameron at USS Mariner has some interesting comments today about the Mariner offense, all previous caveats noted. I have a slightly different take.

While it is hard to fault an offense that is scoring runs as the Mariners have, I agree with Dave that the hitting with runners on base and in scoring position will regress to the mean over time. Their overall numbers -- which aren't so good -- are a bigger sample and I would argue more telling (even if neither is very telling at this point). So what may account for this not-so-good hitting early, and is there any reason to disregard the early trends?

Well, I have a theory. One thing I've noticed early this year is a lot of Mariner hitters swinging pretty early in the count. Most people who reading an obscure basesball blog like this are aware that getting deeper into counts (particularly when ahead in the count) benefits the hitter, who will see his rate stats jump considerably the more patience he shows. Occasionally, you jump on a first-pitch fastball that is too good to pass up, but most pitchers (like Johan Santana in the Mariners second game) will make the adjustment if you develop a pattern of it, and the second and third times through you won't see the same pitches, nor experience the same success. Patience is a virtue.

Anyway, I decided to check this out, and was surprised to learn that every batter in the Mariner line-up except Raul Ibanez and Randy Winn is seeing significantly fewer pitches per plate appearance than they did in either of their past two seasons. Most of them are seeing pretty dramatic drops (yes, this is most likely a product of small samples): Ichiro is at 3.26 (vs. 3.51 and 3.50 in the previous two seasons); Adrian Beltre is at 3.40 (vs. 3.74 and 3.80 in the last two); Richie Sexson is at 3.34 (vs. 3.93, 3.95); Bret Boone is at 3.39 (3.96, 3.93). Some of the bit players are chiming in, too: Miguel Olivo is at 2.75 (vs. 3.84, 3.97); Dan Wilson is at 3.14 (3.87, 3.52), and Willie Bloomquist is at 3.25 (3.81, 3.76).

I believe that, for the vast majority of players, a high P/PA average is a good predictor of offensive success. To have this many players significantly below their established levels -- if it continues -- is troubling. Not only do players with low averages tend to be swinging at the pitcher's pitch (rather than the hitter's pitch they will get if they are patient enough to work the count), they aren't going to walk much, they are giving their own pitcher less time to rest between innings, and they are allowing the other team's pitcher to work deeper into the game than they otherwise would. None of these things is good. I'd really like to see a reversal of this incipient trend.

And one final observation: We now appear stuck with Ryan Franklin as a starter, at least until Bobby Madritsch heals and as long as Aaron Sele avoids implosion. Pleeease, people, don't read too much into Franklin's impressive performance against KC yesterday. It's one game, against a team that probably isn't very good offensively, and it doesn't tell us any more about a "changed" Franklin that Aaron Sele's 12 Spring Traning innings told us about him.

What got me off on this rant was this article from this morning's P-I. It went on about a "new" and "improved" Ryan Franklin, who is using a sinker more and becoming a groundball pitcher. That's a bit much for me, and I note that Bryan Price didn't go that far, noting that Franklin is historically an extreme flyball pitcher before commenting that his ratio yesterday was a high groundball ratio for Franklin.

Breaking News: Ryan Franklin continues to be a flyball pitcher. The same article made a note of the fact that homeplate umpire Ted Barrett established early that he would give both pitchers the low strike. Why wouldn't Franklin try to take advantage of that? Even so, Franklin still gave got more flyballs than groundballs in this game, and his GB/FB numbers on the season thus far are only slightly more groundball-oriented than they were in each of the last two (0.86, vs. 0.78 and 0.76 the previous two years).

It's nice to know that Ryan Franklin is smart enough to take advantage of an umpire's low strike zone, and that he has come to realize that it isn't smart for a pitcher with below-average velocity to challenge hitters up in the zone with fastballs, particularly (like last year) when your outfield defense isn't that good. I'm glad he realizes that the 2005 Mariners infield defense should be pretty good (so far, we haven't really seen it though), and that trying to induce a few more ground balls should be a good idea. But I'm tired of hearing that Ryan Franklin is a changed pitcher every time he pitches a good game. He is a likeable guy and I love his competitiveness, but . . . he is what he is, and "frankly" I'm not sure that is he is good enough to be a #5 starter on a competitive major-league team (as a long reliever and spot starter, he's more than adequate). That he is, for the Mariners, tells me that maybe the Mariners won't be as competitive as most of us hope they will be.

New Season - Time for a New Start

2005-04-09T12:17:00.000-07:00

Well, that was a season of gross inactivity.

Fortunately, we can't say the same for the Mariners. After watching as much Spring baseball as I could, and attending Opening Day in some awesome new seats (section 237, row 3), I am convinced that (a) Adrian Beltre won't be too negatively affected by Safeco, and (b) Richie Sexson has enough power to hit it over the left field bleachers and onto Royal Brougham, regardless of prevailing winds. Also, please ignore the collective hand-wringing over Jeremy Reed going 0-for-his-first-13 at-bats this year. The kid has a fine approach at the plate, and he will come around nicely (I just wish I could say the same thing about Miguel Olivo). Finally, Ichiro! is Ichiro! I know I am about the eleven-millionth person to make this observation, but I think he is the one guy who would not surprise anybody if he made a run at baseball's most hallowed records -- Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak, and becoming the first man since Ted Williams to hit .400.

Now, if only we could do something about that pitching.

I truly believe the Mariners will be better this year. Actually, it's hard not to improve on a 99-loss season, but I mean "improvement" in a more meaningful way than that -- .500, or maybe a game or two better than .500. Still, this is not a team that should contend. I know that stranger things have happened, and I'm not ruling it out or anything, but until we address that pitching, I don't expect contention out of this team, and I will be very happy with a .500 club.

It says something about your staff when your Opening Day starter is a 42-year old change-up artist. No disrespect to Jamie, but he is not exactly "ace" material, even if I do think he will bounce back nicely this year, to a 14-15 win season. Now, granted, if Joel Pineiro was healthy, he would have gotten the Opening Day start, but does anybody really think Joel is a #1? I think it is a stretch to call him even a #2. Let's face it: the Mariners have an entire starting rotation filled with once and future #3 starters. That may be good enough to get to .500 (if they stay healthy -- and please, Bobby Madritsch, get well soon), but it isn't the kind of staff you contend with.

Next year? That's a different story. I haven't given up on Clint Nageotte, or Travis Blackley. At some point in 2006, those guys may be ready to help the club. But, better than that, Felix Hernandez has potential "ace" written all over him, and he may be ready this year. In fact, I put the over/under on his major-league arrival at July 15 -- his first post-AAA-All-Star Game turn in the Rainers' rotation (of course, I expect he will pitch in the AAA All-Star Game, but . . .). Add to that a healthy Rafael Soriano, and you have significantly upgraded both your starting staff and your bullpen. There are not a lot of good free agent pitchers coming available this next offseason (it's a list populated with guys like Paul Byrd, Tim Wakefield, Kevin Millwood, Kevin Brown, Shawn Estes, and Ryan Dempster . . . though a few names, like A.J. Burnett, Brad Penny (if healthy), and Chris Carpenter are reasonably intriguing), but I expect the M's to pursue somebody who is a solid #2-#3 type. Like this year on the offensive side, I think next year they will be players for the best 2-3 pitchers available on the market (assuming they can figure out who those pitchers are -- I still twitch at the memory of the 2003-2004 offseason and what it showed us of the Mariner front office "talent evaluators"; yes, they've redeemed themselves somewhat this past offseason, but I am still in "show me" mode). Gone are the Ryan Franklins (if he wants to start, anyway) and Aaron Seles of the world, to be filled with the bought and the promising. Hitting + pitching = contention. Hitting + a staff of stopgaps = .500, hopefully.

So there you go. Hopefully, Jack and I can get up for blogging again. Go M's.

Sexson or Delgado?

2004-12-03T20:49:00.000-08:00

It's time to break this bout of writer's block once and for all. It seems inevitable at this juncture that we are going to be signing one or the other of Richie Sexson or Carlos Delgado this off season to a multiyear contract. In fact, it would seem as though we may have already made offers to both of them with the intention on signing one.

It's been written that Sexson has already turned down two deals with the Diamondbacks ranging from three to five years and valued around $10M a year which probably had dependencies written into them requiring him to stay healthy. As everyone knows, Sexson missed most of last season with two shoulder injuries.

In my opinion signing Sexson has trouble written all over it. The above mentioned shoulder injury has to be a concern going forward. Aside from the shoulder, let's look at the numbers:

Year Age AVG/OBP/SLG
2000 25 272/349/499
2001 26 271/342/547
2002 27 279/363/504
2003 28 272/379/548

These numbers don't knock you over, especially when you consider the fact that Sexson has played in relatively hitter friendly parks over his entire career. In 2003, easily his best year, he ranked 7th among MLB first basemen in OPS. He never finished higher than 12th in any year prior to that. Did Sexson have a career year in 2003 or was he just coming into his own? If it's my $30M dollars on the line, I don't want to find out.

On the other hand here are Delgado's numbers:

2000 28 344/470/664
2001 29 279/408/540
2002 30 277/406/549
2003 31 302/426/593
2004 32 269/372/535

Yes, Delgado is slightly past his prime. Yes, Delgado had an off year which was marred by his own injuries. However, Delgado's numbers last year in his "off year" are comparable to Sexson's best year. Although I will admit that Delgado's best years are probably behind him, I'm not convinced that his next three years aren't going to be better than Sexson's despite the age difference. To put it another way, Delgado's numbers so far are somewhat similar to those of Edgar Martinez at the same age, while Sexson's numbers more resemble Tino Martinez. While that seems to be a crude and unfair comparison, all the same it's a gut comparison. My money is on Delgado.

AROD Observation

2004-10-20T07:41:00.000-07:00

Is it my television set or does AROD have purple lips?

postseason thoughts

2004-10-19T06:28:00.000-07:00

Carlos Beltran has just priced himself out of Seattle.

David Ortiz is blackballed by the umps. (My opinion)

Could Mariano Rivera possibly pitch four games in a row?

I prefer Grady Little over Mike Hargrove if those are my only two choices. I am estatic that they have nixed the Don Baylor option.

Gary Sheffield may have quicker wrists than Barry Bonds. Hmmm.

Al Leiter is a pretty dang good color man. At least Bret Boone isn't in the booth this year.

Do you get the feeling that Bret Boone could be in the Mariners booth when he retires?

When is the last time you have seen three passed balls in one inning without a run scoring?

Looking Forward to Next Year

2004-10-07T15:05:00.000-07:00

So where do the Mariners go next year? The first of many questions you have to answer in order to come to any conclusion to that Big Question is how much money will the Mariners have to spend?

Well, first we need to figure out how much they have already committed. According to Dugout Dollars, as near as I can tell the M's have about $55.5M in salary committed for next year (Boone $9M, Cabrera $1M, Franklin $2.4M, Wiki Gonzalez $2.25M, guardado $4.5M, Hasegawa $3M, Ibanez $3.75M, Jarvis $500K buyout, Moyer about $7M with all earned incentives, Pineiro $4.2M, Spiezio $3.1M, Ichiro about $11M with earned incentives, and Winn $3.75M). Benefits (which the Mariners do count when the quote us payroll figures) are about $7.5M. Gil Meche will make a minimum of $3M in his first year of arbitration-eligibility. They have to pay non-arbitration-eligible players on the 25-man roster about $350K, and "optioned" players who are on the 40-man roster generally earn a pittance of about $50K. Being generous with salaries and those who will be kept around, I would add about another $9M to that (Atchison $400K, Bloomquist $400K, Bucky $400K, Blackley $50K, Choo $50K, Dobbs $50K, Leone $50K, Lopez $400K, Madritsch $400K, Mateo $400K, Meche $3M, Nageotte $50K, Olivo $500K, Putz $400K, Santiago $50K, Snelling $50K, Soriano $400K, Strong $50K, Taylor $400K, Thornton $400K, Reed $400K, Sherrill $400K, and some extra just because). This is generous, because not all these guys will be here, many I've counted as making the major league roster won't, and most of those who do will make the minimum rather than $400K. Add to this $5M for contingencies and unexpected incentives met, and the Mariners have "committed" $77M.

Now, Howard Lincoln claimed yesterday that the M's ownership group is willing to sustain "an operating loss in the many millions of dollars" in order to turn things around. What does that mean? Well, Howard Lincoln just said on KJR that it means they will keep payroll right where it is (which isn't "top ten," Howard). I guess that means they think they will lose money based solely on attendance losses, which doesn't add up.

In 2001, based on figures that Major League Baseball itself released, the Mariners were the most profitable team in baseball by a wide margin ($14.8M after revenue-sharing, based on gros revenues of over $202M; that's more than $6M more in profit than the Yankees made). Components of Mariners' revenue reported there that can only have remained steady or, more likely, increased since then are: $38M in local radio, TV, and cable contracts; shared national TV/media/licensing revenue of $24M; and "other" local revenues (things like parking, concessions, naming rights, etc.) of $56M. "Game receipts" or ticket revenue, can vary. The Mariners reported $77M in game receipts for 2001 (a figure some $3M less than what the Team Marketing Report average ticket price and attendance figures would indicate, by about $4M, BTW), but since then average ticket prices have increased by over $2 a ticket, so even though the 2004 Mariners drew roughly 600,000 fewer fans in 2004 than they did in 2001, the net loss in ticket revenue is only about $6M from what they reported in 2001. That figure is very likely made up by increases in local and national revenues (the latest radio contract, from the 2003 move to KOMO, covers most of this alone). The other variables are player payroll (up), revenue sharing (up), and national and local expenses (way down, due to retirement of debt after the 2002 season, and the fact that they counted the $13M they paid to Orix for the right to negotiate with Ichiro in that figure).

In 2002, MLB made no convenient financial disclosures, but we know that Forbes estimated the Mariners profit was $23M (and Forbes' figures were on the money -- even a bit low -- in 2001, when MLB released audited figures) and the Mariners made a big stink about that, insisting they made "only" $10.7M while also retiring debt and reducing their cumulative losses by $36M. I don't know what the Mariners' claims were for the 2003 season, but despite a $10M increase in revenue-sharing expenditures, Forbes still concluded the Mariners made a $17M profit last year. So, I think it is safe to say that revenues and profit are increasing at a greater rate than is payroll, and the Mariners are very likely to make money this year, even under their own accounting, which is often at odds with independent analysis.

If -- as Mr. Lincoln just said -- ticket prices stay the same ($24.01 on average), even if attendance decreases by 15% (which would be about 2.5M fans), it is very difficult to see how the Mariners will lose money by maintaining payroll at the same level, or even a figure that would allow them to move into the top ten (like, say, $100M including benefits and full 40-man roster expenses). So, taking Lincoln at his word, I think the M's may spend (or claim to spend) $100M on payroll next year.

That means the M's have $23-$25M to spend next year. If they want to spend enough to actually jeopardize profitability, even by their own accounting practices, they could probably spend $30-$35M. Given their need to make a big splash, I will use $23-$33M as a working figure for what the Mariners have to spend this offseason.

Now . . . on to where to spend it.

Art Thiel's Howard Lincoln Interview

2004-10-06T10:45:00.000-07:00

I have been digesting all that last weekend meant to me as a baseball fan, which I will post about at some point along with my thoughts about a new manager and the direction the organization should take with overhauling this team. In the meantime, I can't resist reacting to Art Thiel's interview with Howard Lincoln in the P-I today. I'm just going to throw out the many jaw-dropping quotes (somewhat edited here) and react:

"Q: If you were a major shareholder of a company whose main rival for three years put out a better product at half the price, do you think the CEO of that company might be vulnerable?

"A: I certainly think that CEO would be subject to legitimate criticism. . . . I'm cognizant that our fans -- and I'm one -- are very, very disappointed with what happened in 2004 and, while we had winning records in 2002 and 2003, we didn't go to the playoffs. [However,] I'd . . . point out that in the five years we've been doing this we've been to the American League Championship Series twice and we've had four years of good baseball. I think overall it's fair to say we've brought great joy to the community and we've turned an entire region to Mariner baseball.

". . . While I know our fans are upset now, I venture to say that they would agree to the following: When I take my 2-year-old grandson to the park when he's 10, . . . the last thing on my mind will be the win-loss record of the 2004 season. Instead, I will be saying to him, 'This is the field where Edgar Martinez played, and I was here for his last game. This is the field where Ichiro Suzuki established the new single-season hit record. I was there. Baseball is more than wins and losses. It's the joy of coming to Safeco Field and watching extraordinary performances by world-class athletes. . . . I would hope that 2004 would be viewed as an aberration (that no one) in the organization felt was acceptable."

There is a lot that bothers me about both the tone and content of Lincoln's response to this question.

First, it is telling that it is so obvious that Lincoln views major league baseball as a business like any other that Thiel feels the need to phrase the question this way. While it may be a business, it is certainly unlike any other, given both its legally-sanctioned monopoly status and the reality that nearly every franchise is highly subsidized with public dollars. But, even accepting the construct of the question and Lincoln's thinking, does anybody think that Lincoln -- a former president of a publicly-traded company in a highly-competitive field -- is being straight with us here? You regularly get your butt beat by a lesser-capitalized competitor and all the CEO should expect from shareholders is "legitimate criticism"? Please. Any CEO of a company like that knows his head is on the block, and rightfully so.

We are the "shareholders" of this operation, folks, because we are citizens of the country whose government has legitimized the monopoly that is major league baseball, and of the city, county, and state that (through the leverage provided by that monopoly status) was squeezed out of some $350 million provided to this operation -- not to mention nearly free rent for and free reign over a public asset. We have the right to expect some public accountabilty from the Mariners for the way they have mismanaged their product. And I'm not just talking about "legitimate criticism" here.

Some may say that the time is not right for a clean sweep, one season of abject failure after consecutive 93-win seasons -- and I might be convinced to allow this management group one more season to make good progress toward righting the Good Ship Mariner. However, let's not kid ourselves: this is not one season of failure, but the culmination of three years of failing to address growing and foreseable problems that led to this year. If there isn't significant progress next season, everyone from Lincoln to Bavasi to the scouting staff has to understand that calls for their heads and not just "criticism" will be "legitimate."

Second, I am astounded that Howard Lincoln continues to offer up "we've been fun and we've been contenders" as if that is really enough.

Memo to Howard Lincoln: It is nice to have a beautiful ballpark and to contend -- we are certainly grateful for the myriad ways our experience as Mariners fans has improved under the watch of the ownership group you head. We all agree that this is a compelling and entertaining game that not even strikes, mismanagement, or Bud Selig can ruin. But, the object of all this is not to "contend" or to be satisfied with coming up a series short or with 90-win seasons that don't go anywhere, or even to witness terrific individual achievements. The object of this game is to win. While we all must recognize and reconcile ourselves to the reality that only one team can win, the most difficult part of being a Mariners fan under Howard Lincoln's stewardship is not failing to win but management's consistent willingness to accept less than winning and call it "success" -- and then look to all of us for applause rather than criticism.

End rant. On to more from Lincoln. Thiel next asks Lincoln if he will elaborate on what mistakes he believes were made that led to this point. This seems to me a reasonable request, given that I think as "shareholders" in this public-private joint venture we have a right to assess whether the team even recognizes its mistakes; in the rhetoric of the day, I believe that recognizing one's mistakes is a prerequisite to fixing them. Anyway, after petulantly refusing to give Thiel "a litany of my mistakes" and seeking to leave us all assured that he won't forget the mistakes and will learn from them, he offers this:

". . . [S]o many baseball decisions that are wrong are judgments . . . [that are] easy to identify . . . with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. . . . In baseball, there are no guarantees. With hindsight, it's easy to say you shouldn't have done this or that. . . . We came in with high expectations. There was nothing in spring training to suggest we would suffer these significant and unexpected declines in performance that we saw from too many of our best players -- not only from those we brought in, but from those here . . ..

[But] when we make a player move that doesn't work, we need to ask ourselves how we did that. It wasn't obviously a mistake at the time we made it. But did our people do everything they could that that decision was the right one?

More excuse-making. Where to start?

Well, first, the idea that nobody suggested this could happen is not true. At Monday's press conference, Bill Bavasi was quoted as saying "Did [Melvin] have enough to win? No. We knew (in spring training) that we had some weaknesses, some holes. We knew [that] to be competitive, we'd have to get fortunate." See if you can reconcile that with Lincoln's comments; I can't. Second, and probably more importantly, how are we supposed to be assured by someone who keeps saying "we couldn't have known this was coming"? If that's true, how will they prevent it from happening again? In light of the excuses, how can we view the Mariners' collective navel examination as anything but simply for show?

I've written about this before, but it is difficult to make the case that decline is unforeseeable when you've seen one of the league's oldest teams fade in each of the past two seasons, and you spend the entire offseason before the third replacing nearly every outgoing player with even older players. While talent evaluation -- or lack thereof -- was certainly a big part of this, this consistent failure to recognize the risks of something as basic as the aging process is very disturbing, and gives this fan exactly zero confidence that this management group will not repeat its mistakes.

"Q: There is no consensus among [the ownership group] to change the club's approach?

"A: The most important thing we can do is maintain a very high major league payroll, at least in the top ten. If we can do that, that's the most significant contribution the ownership group can make to the Mariners [and t]hat's precisely what we intend to do in 2005, even though in doing so we will budget for a loss."

Again, it is hard to know where to start.

First, while I appreciate the significant monetary commitment this ownership group has made and will make, this is a collossal cop-out. Putting up the money is not all the ownership group can do, and at this stage I'm not even sure it is the most significant thing. It would be at least as significant if ownership exerted its influence to change obviously flawed decision-making processes, to encourage more openess to new and creative ways of assessing and solving the club's problems, and replacing employees in baseball operations who are resistant to that.

Second, especially in light of the club's seeming unwillingness to address the first point, even this financial commitment is probably not enough. Accoriding to USA Today, the Mariners were not in the top ten in payroll in 2004. They were eleventh, despite being in the top two or so in revenues and profit. Six of the eight playoff teams this year were ahead of the Mariners, and of the two who weren't, only the Minnesota Twins significantly trailed the Mariners in payroll. Unless you are willing to re-assess the club's approach (ala the A's), if you are to seriously compete you are resigned to playing a game of escalating payrolls that this club has historically refused to play. Unless you get to the top five or so, and get lucky, you will fail with this approach.

Third, it bothers me that the Mariners would expect me to think of the prospect of losing a couple million dollars as a huge sacrifice. Just because they look at things year-to-year doesn't mean I have to. This team has made huge amounts of profits at least in every year since Safeco Field opened. Sinking a bit of that profit back into the on-field product to stem the possibility of even greater losses if they do not is not sacrifice, it is just good business. Especially considering that if they had spent much less at mid-season in either of the last two seasons and made a run at a championship instead of a second-half fade they wouldn't be in position to need an expensive, big splash to win back its credibility with fans and players, I don't feel sorry for them. Get it done, already.

Moving on . . .

"Quite frankly, I'm shocked that anyone would think we're arrogant."

Ha! Hahahahahahah!! Oh, man, sorry. It's just that I'm amused that you're shocked that anyone would find this club arrogant, Howard. This reeks of disrespect for fans, their intelligence and desire to know whether the club is capable of fixing its problems before again committing their dollars to this club, and is exactly the kind of failure to understand the public-private partnership I was talking about before, that gives fans the right to ask questions about why the club thinks it failed and what it expects to do to fix it. We're "stakeholders," remember? Want to know why we think you're arrogant, Howard? Take a look at your answer to Thiel's question about whether, in light of Melvin's firing and the poor performance of last year's acquisitions, there is something the club will do to improve upon their practice of "the art of baseball judgments" this time around. ["Yes, but I'm not going to get into that. It would be inappropriate to get into the specifics."] Father knows best!

Next, in response to a question about public and private expressions of doubt about the Mariners commitment to winning by players around the league . . .

"There's been a lot of misperceptions built up around the Mariners. We could spend the rest of the day trying to disabuse the media of those."

And you should, Howard. Players largely get their information about the clubs intentions from the media. Fans certainly do. Neither group trusts your commitment. Perception is reality. You must do what is necessary to change that perception -- which after all, whether reality or "misperception," is the result of your deeds, actions, and inaction. If we misunderstand your intentions, perhaps you and your organization need to do a better job conveying your intentions?

". . . This idea that we're not committed is simply not true. Our payroll is higher than most other teams."

Except for those in the playoffs, or as judged in relation to profits.

If this interview was supposed to make me feel better as a fan, it didn't. Sure, there are some nice nods to the need to re-evaluate where mistakes were made, but no indication that they will reassess how they got to this point enough to provide any assurance they will do enough differently to avoid making the same mistakes again. Lincoln makes clear that Bavasi will be allowed wide leeway to build the front office staff, coaching staff, and roster as he sees fit . . . which seems designed more to protect Howard Lincoln and set up Bavasi and his hires as the next Fall Guys than a vote of confidence. That seems fairly transparent to me, and will make it harder for Bavasi to hire a good manager and attract better free agents, but that's another post.

Don't hold your breath for the return of 2001, folks.

Congrats Ichiro! and more...

2004-10-02T13:54:00.002-07:00

On September 1st I predicted that Ichiro would fall five hits shy of breaking Sisler's single-season hit record. Eleven hits in three games down in Anaheim against the Angels put him over the hump to seal the deal. Congratulations to Ichiro...I'm very happy that I was wrong.

After hounding Pete for nearly a year to get this blog started, I have lately become slow to post. Having a newborn is a lot more time consuming than I ever imagined. My box seats behind the Mariner dugout when unused last night while I comforted the poor guy through the stomach flu all day yesterday. The real record will come on Sunday though and I will be there (barring I don't get the stomach flu).

Today my wife and baby sleep in bed (both with the stomach flu) while I enjoy game 2 of the A's/Angels sudden death showdown. The A's have just taken a 2-0 lead and if it holds up will set up a final game showdown to determine who will take the West. I had just turned 8 in 1972 when the Red Sox/Tigers had a similar showdown. The Red Sox were up by 1/2 game over the Tigers with the final three games against the Tigers. How can that be you ask? Well, a players' strike in April caused a "modified" schedule which allowed the Tigers to play one more game than the Red Sox. Well, to make a long story short the Tigers took two out of three to finish 1/2 game ahead of the Red Sox ( zero in the loss column) and thus began my lifetime of heartbreak with the Red Sox. The Tigers went on to lose to the A's in the fifth of a five game series in the ALCS in a game in which Reggie Jackson stole home. Reggie pulled his hamstring on the play and missed the World Series which the A's ended up winning without him on their way to three straight World Championships against the Reds, Mets, Dodgers.

Jeanie Zelasko on a FOX game update just showed us a right handed batter (who turned out to be Devi Cruz). She said that Giant fans have seen this nearly 700 times as the right handed batter hit a fly to the left field wall. The left fielder caught the ball and the camera showed Bonds returning to first. Jeannie said that Bonds had to settle for a single. I'm sure that Jeanie's info is scripted, but come on!

The A's just took a 3-2 lead after Vlad tied the game with an 800 foot home run to center earlier in the inning. A strong John Kerry and now a season ending like this! What a week!!

Random Thoughts

2004-09-30T13:44:00.000-07:00

* I know Jeremy Reed has a very small sample size of just 50 major league at bats, and guys like Willie Bloomquist (.455/.526/.576 in 33 ABs two Septembers ago) are constant reminders of the danger of reading too much into a 2-3 week hot streak, but . . . MAN! .440/.491/.520!

It's damn clear Reed's no Willie Bloomquist, either. Willie was a career .255/.294/.310 hitter over 491 ABs in AA, and .257/.304/.352 over 540 ABs in AAA, while Reed hit .409/.474/.591 over 242 ABs in AA, and .289/.361/.436 over 509 AAA at bats. I think there is plenty of statistical evidence to conclude that Bloomquist's September Surprise was far flukier and less representative of what might follow than Reed's. This is a guy who regularly shows an understanding of the strike zone and good patience. After an initial adjustment to major league pitching (he went 0 for his first 5 with no XBH or BB until his sixth appearance, at which point he was hitting .308), he seems to be showing he has the potential for at least gap power -- since he got that first XBH, he's hit .486/.547/.590 over more ABs (37) than Willie got in his big September . . .. What's not to like here?

I'm not saying that Reed can come close to sustaining this over a rookie season, that he will have enough power for a corner outfielder or the arm and instincts to play centerfield (I like his range, but his arm has looked suspect at times and so has his ball trajectory/route judgment -- remember that throw that hit the back of the mound? Very Winn-esque; remember Reed pulling up on a Trot Nixon shot off the base of the wall that Reed thought had left the yard?), but he certainly deserves a fair shot at the 25-man roster next Spring. If he can get 300 major league ABs next year, I don't see that sending him back to AAA will serve any useful purpose except saving a year of service time and extending the time the M's can cheaply keep Reed around further into his prime. That's not insignficant, but for a team with the resources of the Mariners, it shouldn't be the much of a concern, either.

* Man, Ichiro! just laced number 256. I don't want to root against him, but I sure hope he doesn't get more than one more hit today. It's bad enough that he could tie the record in Oakland; I definitely don't want him to break it there -- especially since I bought tickets to Friday's game specifically to see him break the record. [Post-game update: only one hit, thanks to a nice running catch by Eric Byrnes . . ..]

* Speaking of Ichiro!, there is a good discussion on USSM about whether Ichiro's Japanese statistics should be considered for Hall of Fame purposes. Derek makes some rough translations of what Ichiro might've done had he been in MLB his whole career, not to make the argument that he would have done those things but rather to give him the benefit of the doubt in considering a likely short but excellent MLB career that he was capable of putting up HoF numbers had he been given a full chance. At least that was my understanding of Derek's argument . . .. Anyway, most of the comments focused on the imperfect analogy between Japanese baseball and the Negro Leagues as they relate to the Hall of Fame, the fact that Cooperstown is not an international Hall of Fame but the National Baseball Hall of Fame, and therefore Japanese players and performances shouldn't be considered.

Here's my take: Unlike black ballplayers before Jackie Robinson, Ichiro and other Japanese ballplayers at least had the opportunity to sign with MLB teams (ala Mac Suzuki) rather than pursue a career in Japan. While it is true that agreements between NPB and MLB prevent players in the NPB system from freely moving for something like 8 years once they are in the system, that is a far cry from what black players faced before Jackie. I don't think players who played exclusively in Japan should be enshrined in Cooperstown, but if a player with a significant career in Japan comes to MLB and plays ten seasons here (the minimum for consideration in the HoF absent special circumstances such as the banishment of black players pre-Robinson, which I don't think applies to Japanese ballplayers), there is nothing wrong with voters considering the quality of his career in Japan in deciding whether the player is Hall-worthy.

Ichiro! is likely to fall into that category. By the end of Ichiro's age 36 season (2010), he will have played 10 years in MLB. Using Bill James' aging pattern findings as a rough guide for how Ichiro! might perform in those years (using Ichiro!'s best numbers for each particular stat between 27 and 30 as his peak "season"), Ichiro is likely to get roughly 2000-2100 hits, 260 doubles, 60 triples, 95 home runs, 550 RBI, 375 or so stolen bases in about 500 attempts, about 700 strikeouts and 425 walks, and career rate stats of something in the neighborhood of .320-.325 BA, .375-.385 OBP, and about .430-.450 SLG. While that is not a slam-dunk HoF career in and of itself, it gets much closer to being one when you consider at least 2 batting titles, probably 8 All-Star appearances, an MVP, a significant MLB record, several Gold Gloves, and a prominent role in opening MLB to Japanese position players. If you consider his dominance of Japanese baseball before that (1278 hits, and a career .353/.421/.522), and especially if you think he'll play at better than league average level past his age 36 year, it probably is a slam-dunk HoF career.

* And speaking of the Hall of Fame, I've been known to make heavily statistical arguments for Edgar Martinez's Hall of Fame credentials, here's a decidedly un-statistical argument: How many players -- at least players who aren't considered slam-dunk Hall of Fame candidates -- are given special ceremonies by opposing teams in virtually every ballpark, and see the Commissioner make a special appearance at his retirement ceremony? Hall of Fame voters are supposed to consider character as well as performance; the kind of reverence and respect Edgar has been shown by his peers on this Farewell Tour speak volumes about why Edgar deserves enshrinement -- probably more than statistics ever can.

Thanks, Papi. I'll see you this weekend.

Ichiro! Watch, 9/23 Edition.

2004-09-23T11:58:00.000-07:00

[Editor's Note, 9/26: I noticed this weekend that I had screwed up the probables here, listing Harden before Zito, when in fact it will go Zito-Hudson-Harden-Redman-Drese-Rogers-Park. I have adjusted the post to correct the errors.

Ichiro got three hits over the first three games profiled in this post, to sit at 251. he needs 7 hits over the last 7 games. He needs to hit something around .230 -- depending on how many ABs he actually gets -- to break the record. I think that is very do-able for Ichiro. I do think he will fade some over the last week, but I think much less than about 8 hits (.275 or so) is unduly pessimistic. Let's say two against Zito, maybe one each against Hudson and Harden, one or two against Redman -- Ichiro will be at 256 or 257 on Friday, at home.

Personally, I think the record will be tied and/or broken on Friday against Drese. In fact, I am confident enough about that that I made sure I had tickets for Friday (to go with the Saturday tickets I already had, and the Sunday-Goodbye Edgar-tickets I still plan to get). This record is going down.]

Hits: 247
Games Remaining: 10
AB/G: 4.37
Projected ABs Remaining: 44
Hits/Average Needed to Break Record: 11, .250
Average Needed to Break Record in 154 Games: .846 (11-13)
Average Since July 18: .451
Hits/ Average Needed to Hit .400: 35, .795

Next Five Games' Pitching Probables:
(R) J. Benoit, 5.83 ERA, 5.0 IP/ST, .274 BAA, IchiAVG: .188 (3-16)
(R) C. Young, 4.50 ERA, 5.0 IP/ST, .242 BAA, IchiAVG: never faced
(R) R. Drese, 3.80 ERA, 6.1 IP/ST, .274 BAA, IchiAVG: .500 (8-16)
(L) B. Zito, 4.47 ERA, 6.0+ IP/ST, .267 BAA; IchiAVG: .386 (17-44)
(R) T. Hudson, 3.33 ERA, 7.0+ IP/ST. .265 BAA; IchiAVG: .211 (12-57)

Aggregate IchiAVG vs. Next Five Pitching Probables: .301 (40-133)

Aggregate IchiAVG Against Texas Relievers: .313 (25-80)
Aggregate IchiAVG Against Oakland Relievers: .365 (19-52)

Pete's Prediction for Hits Over Next 5 Games: 6, leaving 22 projected ABs to get 5 hits (.227) to break George Sisler's record. My first instinct was to say seven, but I think once again it will be better to err on the low side. Of course, I hope he maintains this ridiculously hot streak over the next 3 games, and breaks the record in 154 games. Certainly, with Ichiro, anything is possible . . . but I think that is more than a bit unlikely.

I had been seriously overestimating Ichiro's number of hits per each 5 game period between these updates, until the last (9/18) edition, when I underestimated the number by 5. Overall, I am only off by two hits (too many) over the last 15 games, though. This illustrates one of my favorite points to make about statistics, very well: average is only a poor approximation of reality/truth, which you can only really see in variation of performance. Over short bursts, just about anything is possible, and average over small samples isn't really very instructive.

I think, as I've been saying for the better part of a month now, that Ichiro will break the record. I expect he will do it either on Friday, October 1, or Saturday, October 2.

Ichiro! Watch, 9/18 Edition

2004-09-18T07:21:00.000-07:00

Hits: 235
Games Remaining: 15
AB/G: 4.36
Projected ABs Remaining: 65
Hits/Average Needed to Break Record: 23, .354
Average Needed to Break Record in 154 Games: .742
Average Since July 18: .447
Hits/ Average Needed to Hit .400: 46, .696

Next Five Games' Pitching Probables:

(R) T. Hudson, 3.36 ERA, 7.0 IP/ST, .267 BAA; IchiAVG: .208 (11-53)
(L) M. Redman, 4.94 ERA, 6.0 IP/ST, .268 BAA; IchiAVG: .381 (8-21)
(R) J. Lackey, 4.67 ERA, 6.0+ IP/ST, .276 BAA; IchiAVG: .207 (6-29)
(R) A. Sele, 4.88 ERA, 5.0+ IP/ST, .304 BAA; IchiAVG: .588 (10-17)
(R) B. Colon, 5.08 ERA, 6.0+ IP/ST, .268 BAA; IchiAVG: .375 (9-24)

Aggregate IchiAVG vs. Next Five Pitching Probables: .306 (44-144)

Aggregate IchiAVG Against Anaheim Relievers: .275 (14-51)
Aggregate IchiAVG Against Oakland Relievers: .380 (19-50)

Pete's Prediction for Hits Over Next 5 Games: 7, leaving 43 projected ABs to get 16 hits (.372) to break George Sisler's record. To have a decent chance, Ichiro! will have to do better than one would expect against one or both of Hudson and Lackey, and continue to rake the other three . . ..

Pitch Counts

2004-09-17T13:02:00.000-07:00

There's been a fair amount of talk about Melvin letting Bobby Madritsch and Gil Meche throw too many pitches in recent games. Madritsch has thrown over 120 pitches in two of his eight starts (the last two). Since he was called back up, Meche has thrown 120+ pitches in three of eight starts, including 2 of his last 4.

It's tough to justify letting two pitchers with the collective history of shoulder trouble these two have throw that many pitches in a lost season, when both are being counted on to play significant roles in next year's rotation. The "risk vs. reward" analysis weighs heavily in favor of the "risk" side. I went to several of these games (Meche's 8/10, 8/15, and 9/12 starts, and Madritsch's 9/9 gem), and at least at the 9/9 and 9/12 games bent the ear of my seat partners about pulling them before their last inning -- not necessarily because they were no longer effective but because it just doesn't make sense to ride these guys so hard in games that don't matter.

But let me play Devil's Advocate here . . . there is another side to this argument.

Two years ago, Bobby Madritsch was pitching in the Independent Leagues, and came up this July after not much more than a couple of months (12 starts) in AAA -- he spent almost a month and a half on the disabled list with a strained oblique muscle -- and fewer than 40 games pitched above the Independent Leagues/A-ball. Two months ago, Gil Meche was struggling to a 1-3 record and 5.05 ERA over 57 innings (over ten starts) in Tacoma, after being demoted for stumbling out to a 1-5 record with a 9.00 ERA over 43.1 innings (over ten starts) in which he averaged over 20 pitches per inning. In their second-half call-ups, I'm sure it has been important to Bob Melvin -- to the extent their performance would allow him -- to help each guy gain confidence, come to believe they belong in MLB, and learn to pitch through a variety of situations.

For example, take a look at Madritsch's comments after the 9/9 game against Boston (in which Madritsch threw 126 pitches in eight innings). They are telling, both about how he had developed confidence over his previous 6 starts, and how Melvin letting him pitch through the 8th helped build on that.

Madritsch walked the first batter of the 7th inning of that game, and even though he came through it unscathed, he threw 23 pitches to get through the inning -- not a huge number, but more worrisome than it would otherwise be because it came later in the game. After the inning, Madritsch had thrown 100 pitches, and he led 7-0.

I would have been just as easy to let Madritsch take a seat with a win in his pocket and only 100 pitches thrown, but the kid is throwing a shutout, and the confidence gained by working through the top half of the order of the best offensive team in baseball.

This is what happened, as described in the P-I:

"If there was one moment when Madritsch could have wavered, it was in the eighth inning. With one out [the ninth hitter, Gabe Kapler, grounded to third on Madritsch's 104th pitch], he walked Johnny Damon [on 7 pitches] and Mark Bellhorn singled. All that did was bring up MVP candidates Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz, who came into the game with 235 RBIs between them. Seattle manager Bob Melvin let Madritsch work out of trouble. 'When he didn't come out to get me, that's a load of confidence for me,' Madritsch said. 'He could have taken me out there. But I had confidence in what I was doing.'"
Ramirez and Ortiz did what they usually do -- they worked the count -- but Madritsch got Ramirez to ground into a fielder's choice (on a nice play by Jolbert Cabrera), and Ortiz chopped one off Madritsch's glove to Jose Lopez, who got the last out.

I don't really have a problem with that. Pitch counts aren't everything, even if they should be part of the equation . . . but so should be instilling confidence in young pitchers. Now, I have a bit more of a problem with sending Madritsch out to pitch the 9th in his next start. Even though he was throwing a shutout, he was at 116 pitches through eight, was beginning to leave "mistake" pitches way up in the strike zone, and threw more pitches in the eighth (19) than any other inning. The "confidence" lesson was learned the game before and didn't need to be repeated, and I do think it is a much bigger deal to throw consecutive games with over 120 pitches than it is to throw a single game of 120+. To Melvin's credit, he had a relatively short leash (6 pitches -- though 2 hits and a stolen base -- into the 9th), and again I think you've got to weigh the value of building confidence in a guy by letting him try to get his first complete game shutout versus the risks associated with high pitch counts in fragile pitchers.

We may disagree with how Melvin conducted that risk/benefit analysis, but I think it is unfair to criticize him for it without even acknowledging the other side of the argument. I don't want to speak for Bad Bob -- whom I've criticized as much as the next guy -- but I think he would say to those who've said he is managing as though he could give a shit less about the future of a team he knows he won't be managing (a fait accompli I am not entirely convinced of) that this is precisely how he is caring for the future of this team.

If you look at pitch counts by inning for these guys, I think it becomes clearer what Melvin is doing.

I've always thought that high pitch counts in individual (or worse, consecutive) innings are much harder on a pitcher than simply high aggregate pitch counts. That's one reason I didn't have a big problem with Meche's complete game -- he never threw as high as 20 pitches in any inning after the first, and he was still throwing hard and effectively in the ninth (12 pitches -- one of which he threw 95 mph). When I see a starter throw 20 or more pitches in a couple of innings between, say, the 2nd and the 6th innings, I would be much more hesitant to let that guy pitch another inning much after 100-105 than if I've got a guy cruising along throwing 10-15 pitches per inning. A poor analogy, but: I would expect fighter who had to go a couple of tough five minute rounds mid-way through a 10-round fight would fight more tired in the rounds after that than the guy who cruises through twelve three-minute rounds. The second guy would probably be fresher in the 12th round than the first guy is in the 7th round -- even if they were the same guy in different fights.

I think Melvin's usage patterns with Madritsch and Meche reflect similar thinking. The games where you can reliably predict that Melvin will remove these guys are games where they labor through a few long innings. The exception is occasionally when the pitcher is close enough that he wants to give them a chance for a win (if they are tied or down by a run or two and the offense looks like it has a chance) or when the pitcher is up but has a chance to achieve something special like a shutout or a complete game, but even then he will rarely if ever let a pitcher go past 130 pitches. I might hope for a bit more caution than that, especially given the history of pitching injuries on this team, but I don't have a big problem with it and I don't think it is as big a deal as it is commonly made out to be in the Mariners Blogoshphere.

Will It Matter if it's in 162 instead of 154?

2004-09-14T09:24:00.000-07:00

Especially after an 0-fer against Escobar last night, It's probably pointless to even talk about Ichiro! breaking George Sisler's record in 154 games (the number of games played in Sisler's era) anymore. Does this matter? I don't really think so.

Larry Stone penned an excellent piece in Sunday's paper that raised some of these issues in explaining that Sisler only holds the modern hits/season record, as a couple of old-timers named Tip O'Neill and Pete Browning each had 275 "hits" in 1887.

Of course, in 1887, things were a bit different from what we're used to. For one, walks were counted as hits (so O'Neill actually had "only" 225 hits, and Browning only 220, since the former walked 50 times and the latter 55) and required five balls rather than four. For a couple of others: foul balls were not counted as strikes (and wouldn't be until 1901); "gloves" were little more than just that; the pitching mound was forty-five feet away rather than 60'6"; and pitches were delivered underhand (the latter two rules changing to their modern form in 1893). The game that Browning and O'Neill played was far different from the one Sisler played, and comparing the two is akin to comparing the proverbial apples and oranges.

This got me to thinking about how different the game Ichiro! plays is from Sisler's. I'm not just talking about the advent of night games, relief specialists, and computer-chart-assisted pitching and defense (though the role of those things in today's game certainly makes Ichiro's task more difficult than the one Sisler faced). I am also not just talking about the five-fold increase in the pool of potential major leaguers (and presumably similar increase in ability of the best players) over the last hundred years just by virtue of the United States population growth -- not to mention the increases due to inclusion of black players and foreign players, which has likely had at least as big an effect on competitive levels as that.

Apart from all that, there were other changes within the game itself during Sisler's time that profoundly affected performance. After the adoption of the foul-strike rule in 1901, mean batting average in MLB fell rapidly from an all-time high of .307 in 1894 (where it had jumped, from the .240s in the early 1890s, after the mound was moved back) -- too precipitously for MLB, which introduced the cork center ball in 1911 in part to counteract this trend and quickly saw mean batting averages move upward. The Black Sox scandal, coupled with the awe that greeted Babe Ruth's mind-boggling 29 home runs in 1919, prompted MLB to adopt several more changes that would again send mean batting averages soaring (breaking .300 for the second -- and only other -- time in 1930). Beginning in 1920, trick pitches were banned; no more spit balls, emery balls, or "shine" balls. Maybe even more importantly, umpires now supplied new white baseballs any time they became scuffed or dirtied. Before 1920, soft, scratched and darkenened balls were kept in use as long as possible; fans were even supposed to throw back souvenir foul balls for continued use. These changes, according to Bill James and others, had as much or more effect as any (unproven) "juiced" ball could have had, and the results were immediate and obvious.

I don't think it is coincidental that George Sisler set the record Ichiro! is now chasing in the year these changes were adopted, before pitchers began the slow process of adapting to them. People often argue that the "juiced" 1990s and early 2000s should be looked at as some kind of abberation in baseball, even though the 1920s and 1930s were far more "juiced" (and the causes of spiking offense much more easily attributed) than today's game, and the year Sisler set this record was the beginning of it.

All in all, I think it is fair to say that the game Sisler played was nearly as different from the game Ichiro! plays as the one Sisler played was different from Browning's and O'Neill's. Just as modern baseball historians now universally recognize Sisler's record rather than Browning's and O'Neill's, and just as the asterisk was long ago removed from Roger Maris' single-season home run record, if Ichiro! manages to pass Sisler in the coming weeks, we should all justifiably think of him, without proviso, as the Single-Season Hit King.

Ichiro! Watch, 9/13 Edition

2004-09-13T15:58:00.000-07:00

Hits: 231
Games Remaining: 20
AB/G: 4.38
Projected ABs Remaining: 88
Hits/Average Needed to Break Record: 27, .308
Average Needed to Break Record in 154 Games: .509
Average Since July 18: .464
Hits/ Average Needed to Hit .400: 52, .591

Next Five Games' Pitching Probables:

(R) K. Escobar, 3.97 ERA, 6.0 IP/ST, .250 BAA; IchiAVG: .174 (4-23)
(L) Washburn, 4.84 ERA, 5.2 IP/ST, .268 BAA; IchiAVG: .268 (11-41)
(R) J. Lackey, 4.83 ERA, 6.0 IP/ST, .280 BAA; IchiAVG: .200 (5-25)
(R) A. Sele, 5.01 ERA, 5.0 IP/ST, .256 BAA; IchiAVG: .588 (10-17)
(L) B. Zito, 4.44 ERA, 6.1 IP/ST, .267 BAA; IchiAVG: .390 (16-41)

Collective IchiAVG Against Anaheim Relievers: .298 (14-47)
Collective IchiAVG Against Oakland Relievers: .367 (18-49)

Pete's Prediction for Hits Over Next 5 Games: 7 (I'll err on the conservative side this time), leaving 66 projected ABs to get 20 hits (.303) to break George Sisler's record, or 20 hits in 31 ABs (.645) to break the record in 154 games.

A Few Quick Hits

2004-09-11T09:05:00.000-07:00

A few thoughts from my last foray to the Safe (Thursday) and beyond:

* Bobby Madritsch is a very pleasant surprise. I thought he would be an effective pitcher, but probably not the best of the Tacoma call-ups, as he has been. Hell, he has been the de facto ace of the staff for the last 4-5 weeks. His periperals are fantastic -- 1.18 WHIP, works deep into games (7.1+ average innings pitched as a starter), pretty good K/9 (6.5+) and K:BB (40:22) numbers, terrific against both lefties (.212/.300/.288) and righties (.238/.317/.338), and as Dave Cameron noted today, keeps the ball in the ballpark. Madritsch has definitely earned a place on the 25-man roster next year, and IMHO, somewhere in the rotation.

* Why does Ichiro! think that bunting with two outs and a man on second (particularly when trailing) is a good idea? He must, since he did it two nights in a row. I mean, if you are hitting .460 in the second half, and most base hits will score a run in that situation, how are your improving things by bunting? Even if you think you have a better than .460 shot and successfully getting the bunt down (which Ichiro! didn't do in either game he tried it this week), you only move the runner up to third where he still needs a hit to score him, but you are now relying on a guy who has hit about .285 after a torrid July-- and is slowing (.265) in September -- instead of your .400+ hitter to get that hit. I just don't get it.

Bob Finnigan and Bob Melvin did their best to offer up Ichiro's thought process in a piece for yesterday's rag. Melvin says: ""We were down by two runs (5-3 Wednesday), the middle of the order was coming up behind him. I know this is not the most popular play in that situation, but he was trying to put us closer to the middle of the order, with the power hitters. Ichiro is not profiled as a home-run hitter, so it was something he felt he had to do." Sorry, Bob, but that's not very persuasive. Next, Finningan. He first justifies the move on the basis that Ichiro has used it successfully before, this year. I don't think that makes it smart, Bob, and I would be interested to know how "success" is defined here. How many times did Ichiro get the bunt down safely and the following hitters also came through? Finnigan also implies that Ichiro has so few RBIs this year because outfields play him in, and therefore any non-bunt hit he gets in this situation is unlikely to score the runner anyway. I don't buy it. First, RBIs despite a .370+ average with runners in scoring position isn't evidence of outfield defenses successfully squeezing Ichiro, but rather lack of opportunity to drive runners in because of poor hitters hitting in front of him. Second, even if outfield defenses play Ichiro in, the runner is going on contact on that play, which increases the chances of scoring from second over the similar situation with less than two outs, even with the outfield in. Third, even Finnigan doesn't offer the answer to the critical question: if Ichiro is hitting .460 in the second half, and what you need is a base hit to score a run, why are you better off with Randy Winn hitting that Ichiro? Even assuming outfield defense on Ichiro can keep a runner from scoring on 30% of his hits, that still means you're trading a 30-35% chance of scoring for a 26-28% chance . . .. It just doesn't make sense to me.

* Jose Lopez looks to me like he's making the adjustments to be a decent major league hitter. When he was first called up, he wasn't hitting for power. As late as twleve games into his MLB career, he had a sub-.500 OPS and hadn't yet gotten an extra base hit. Since then, he has hit seven doubles and four home runs in 24 games, and has an .868 OPS in September. Against Wakefield on Thursday, he looked like he had a plan, stayed back nicely, and was rewarded with two doubles and a home run. All very encouraging things for Mariners fans.

* With the loss of Bucky Jacobsen for the year, why not let A.J. Zapp get a cup of coffee? I know the company line is the Mariners want to see Raul Ibanez at first some, but that hasn't happened. In fact, Ibanez hasn't played 1B all year; instead, we've been treated to the likes of Willie Bloomquist and Jolbert Cabrera at first since Bucky went down. Keeping Zapp in the organization should be important to the M's, if they want to have flexibility at first base next season. Zapp has as much as said he needs a call-up in order to feel wanted enough to stick around if he isn't added to the 40-man roster by the October 15 deadline: "Zapp is uncertain whether he would re-sign [if he isn't added to the 40-man roster]. 'They're in a rebuilding year, and if I don't get a shot at the end of the year I just don't know if I'm in their plans for the future. It has crossed my mind along with a lot of other things . . ..'" So, how would it hurt to give him that shot, especially now that Bucky is out?

* Speaking of Bloomquist and Cabrera, what is the thinking behind playing these guys instead of Edgar Martinez, who is as hot a hitter (well, almost) as any the M's have right now? Let the man play first if you have to -- there is no reason to "save" him. Unless 'Gar bags off for some reason, I want to see him play someplace every day from here through October 3.

* Speaking of first base, Baseball Weekly's Bob Nightengale reports in his "The Buzz" column in the latest issue that the Mariners are intent on signing either Carlos Delgado or Richie Sexson for next season (which may explain their indifference towards Zapp). I've already explained ad nauseum why I think it would be a mistake to sign Delgado, at least unless he comes on the cheap and for a short contract, but I'm similarly somewhere south of ambivalent about Sexson, who'll be 30 next year, is coming off shoulder surgery, and whose PECOTA and Baseball-Reference comps suggest might not be a player who ages well or without nagging injuries. I'll say it again: the M's are better off focusing their attention and money at positions of greater need that first base -- which is a good part of why I think it is important to keep Zapp around.

* The same Baseball Weekly article says that Angels bench coach Joe Maddon, who managed the Angels in parts of 1996 and 1999, "is expected to replace Bob Melvin as manager in Seattle." I don't know much about Maddon, other than his interim stints as Angels manager coincided with Bill Bavasi's 6-year tenure as GM there, so it makes some sense.

* John Hickey and David Andriesen were the Mariners apolgists of the week, offering this curious pre-justification for the Mariners not pursuing Carlos Beltran: "Right fielder Ichiro Suzuki, center fielder Randy Winn and [Raul] Ibanez are all locked into contracts for at least two more seasons. That would make it hard for the Mariners to go after a big-name free agent outfielder like Houston's Carlos Beltran." Why is that? Although he may be a bit expensive for the role, Randy Winn's best role is probably as a 4th outfielder who gets 400 or so ABs a year, plugging into left field mostly when Ibanez fills the DH role or plays first against righties. Furthermore, if Jeremy Reed, Chris Snelling, or Jamal Strong appears to be ready to fill that role at some point next Spring or beyond, Winn should be a fairly tradeable commodity. He hits (admittedly, in a very streaky way) for average, has improved power, and his contract is not out of this world ($3.75M next year, followed by a mutual option year in which the Mariners can elect to bring him back at $5M but if they decline it becomes Winn's option to come back at $3.75M; he also can make an additional $125K in each of the next two years with 650 plate appearances -- he had 674 PA for Tampa Bay in 2002, 660 for the M's last year, and is on pace for just over 700 this year). It is also curious that the M's would be floating rumors of their interest in historically expensive players like Delgado and Sexson while simultaneously crying that poverty because of their long-term contract mistakes with the likes of Ibanez and Winn (not to mention Scott Spiezio) will prevent them from pursuing players like Beltran, who is both younger than the others and plays a position of greater need. A healthy dose of skepticism the next time the M's float this stuff, gentlemen. Please.

* It may appear that my Ichiro! prediction for hits in the five games between Wednesday's Cleveland game and tommorow's game against Boston was a tad optimistic. But all is not lost -- I need Ichiro! to get three hits apiece in tonight's and tomorrow's games to prove my prediction skills. I expect that Bronson Arroyo may not have as much success against Ichiro! this time as he did the first time he faced him, Ichiro! has just about killed Sunday's starter Derek Lowe, and the BoSox' bullpen hasn't had a lot of success with Ichiro!, so all is not lost. A little quick math reveals that Ichiro! can break George Sisler's single-season hit record by batting .302 the rest of the way, or .468 to break the record in 154 games.

3 reasons why the Dodgers won't sign Delgado

2004-09-09T18:09:00.000-07:00

1) DePodesta will not be able to move Shawn Green and his $17M contract without paying at least $10M of it. Is it really worth paying $10M just to get rid of Green and then pay another $10M for Delgado?

2) DePodesta of all people is smart enough to realize that Delgado is on the wrong side of 30 and shouldn't be signed to an overblown contract. DePodesta inherited the bad Shawn Green contract.

3) The Dodgers will need to spend big money if they want to keep Beltre. I don't see them locking up additional money on the corner infield when they already have Green's $17M and Beltre's potiential $12-14M to deal with.

Ichiro Watch

2004-09-07T13:03:00.000-07:00

Hits: 226
Games Remaining: 25
AB/G: 4.4
Projected ABs Remaining: 110
Hits/Average Needed to Break Record: 32, .292
Average Needed to Break Record in 154 Games: .429
Average Since July 18: .486
Hits/ Average Needed to Hit .400: 57, .518

Next Five Games' Pitching Probables:

(L) C. Lee, 5.48 ERA, 5.1 IP/ST, .274 BAA; IchiAVG: .333 (1-3)
(R) T. Wakefield, 4.67 ERA, 6.1 IP/ST, .263 BAA; IchiAVG: .250 (2-8)
(R) C. Schilling, 3.38 ERA, 7.0 IP/ST, .251 BAA; IchiAVG: .250 (1-4)
(R) B. Arroyo, 4.23 ERA, 6.0 IP/ST, .256 BAA; IchiAVG: .250 (1-4)
(R) D. Lowe, 5.15 ERA, 5.2 IP/ST, .292 BAA; IchiAVG: .500 (7-14)

Collective IchiAVG Against Cleveland Relievers: .294 (5-17)
Collective IchiAVG Against Boston Relievers: .472 (17-36)

Pete's Prediction for Hits Over Next 5 Games: 9, leaving 88 projected ABs to get 23 hits (.261) to break George Sisler's record, or 23 hits in 53 ABs (.434) to break the record in 154 games.

[Note: Okay, maybe that nine hits was a little optimistic. I almost said eight. Really.]

More Delgado Thinking

2004-09-07T10:45:00.000-07:00

The team Jack mentions that I've seen most often linked to Delgado is the Dodgers, and I think they'll be interested if they can find the money and/or dump Shawn Green in the off-season.

That won't be easy, as I think Green is beginning his decline. He's slumped his way through most of the last two seasons, has seen his OBP and SLG (the components of most of his value, because he's never been a hitter for average -- he's only hit over .300 once, five years ago) erode, and is beginning to struggle against left-handed pitching. Although he has been better in the second half, he's hitting .262/.348/448 on the season, hardly numbers you want to see from your first baseman (where he has gotten 65% of his ABs this year). Why wouldn't the Dodgers be interested in improving at that position? Well, for one thing, Green makes $16.7M this year and a similar amount next year in his contract year. Hee Seop Choi makes close to the minimum, is hitting .198/.319/.302 after the All-Star Break, and only .253/.372/.452 on the season.

The Yankees will have interest, but their profligate spending over the last few years will finally complicate things. However, there is no question about their need at the position.

Whether Jason Giambi is healthy or not going into next season, there is no denying that his numbers began a slow decline in 2002 that began to gather more speed this year. Though still a dangerous hitter, the 2003 version of Giambi was 92 points worse than his peak (2001) in batting average, 65 points off his peak OBP, and 133 points off his peak SLG. That would be reason enough to worry even if he had held steady at that plateau this year . . . but he hasn't. Instead, he's lost another 29 points off his batting average, 53 points off his OBP, and 124 points off his SLG, while seemingly suffering every malady known to man. I think most people realize Tony Clark is done, at least unless he is hitting right-handed pitching (only .243 average, but an .889 OPS). John Olerud has had a moderately successful stint as a Yankee, but you wonder if he has interest in another year in Gotham at a significantly reduced salary. He and Clark don't make an effective platoon, either, since neither man hits left-handed pitching.

It seems to me that the Yankees are in the same boat as the Dodgers: if they could find a taker for even half of Giambi's monster salary ($13.8M next year, $21.8M in 2005, $24.8M in 2006, $21M in 2007, and a $5M buyout of a $22M otherwise owed for 2008), they might be interested. I don't think there will be any takers, and thankfully, even the Yankees have to have some limit to payroll dollars they can commit to aging players, so I agree with Jack that they aren't a likely shopper for Delgado's services.

I don't think the Red Sox, Orioles, or Braves will be players, either. Doug Mientkiewicz is under contract to the BoSox for $3.75M next year (and the club has an option at the same salary for 2006), and undoubtedly doesn't want David Ortiz to become a full-time DH if that means Manny Ramirez has to become a full-time leftfielder. The Orioles got burned with a lot of big signings that didn't result in contention in a tough division, and if they spend much this off-season, I think it will be on pitching. Rafael Palmeiro hasn't had much of a year, but he is probably a better bargain at $4.5M (club option) next year than Delgado would be for twice that. The Braves have been in salary-cutting mode for a couple of years now, and seem unlikely to chase the declining years of a star for near-star money.

The Mets might be a player. Except for some non-insured, deferred money, Mo Vaughn comes off the books after this year, they don't have any other logical candidates (except Mike Piazza, who has more ABs at 1B than catcher this year and seems finally ready to accept the position change), and that division seems as up for grabs as any in baseball. They have the money, and depending on Piazza's health and willingness/ability to become a full-time first baseman, the need.

If everything falls into place, the Mariners might have little competition for Delgado's services. I still think it would be a mistake to sign him, especially if the cost is four years. I wouldn't got there, even if the value of the entire contract is only $25M ($6.25M per). I think the Mariners should indicate interest for one year (or maybe a year and an option/buyout) if there is no competition/market for Delgado's services, then focus on more important priorities and come back to him only if and when he finds nothing better or longer. At some price point, though, despite their salary issues, the Yankees, Mets and Dodgers will consider this. If the Mariners get pushed into anything beyond a couple of years, or much above an average of $7M salary for Delgado, I think they are making a mistake.

Delgado thoughts

2004-09-06T01:20:00.000-07:00

I remember reading John Hickey's article on Friday and nearly spitting out my coffee when I read his thoughts that Carlos Delgado "might" have to take a 25 % pay cut when he signs his next contract. I don't see Delgado getting the $60M over four years, but I've been wrong before. I think we need to start by figuring out what teams will even be vying for Delgado's services. Going through all 30 teams I came up with the following list of teams who might need a full time first baseman:

Yankees
Orioles
Devil Rays
Twins
Mariners
Braves
Marlins
Mets
Pirates
Dodgers
Giants

I reduce the list to teams which I think can afford at least $27M over 3 years:

Yankees
Orioles
Mariners
Mets
Dodgers
Braves???

Out of those teams, what is the lucklihood of each getting into the mix:

Yankees - Whether or not the Yanks are in or out, they will say they are in to drive up the price. If Giambi can't return, you have to think they are interested although starting pitching will be their priority.

Orioles - They have already invested heavily in Tejada and Lopez for offense. Like the Yankees they are going after pitching first.

Mets - I'm not sure that the sting of the Mo Vaughn contract hasn't gone away. Like the Yankees, they might act interested to drive the price up.

Dodgers - They are probably not in the mix at all. They like Green at first and Choi also deserves a chance. Why would they invest in Delgado.

Braves - They probably don't have the money. Besides, Adam LaRoche is making $300K.

In summary, I don't see much of a market for Delgado. I agree with Pete's post that he is probably somebody we should stay away from for $10M+, but there has to be some point where he is a good gamble for us. Four years at $25M sounds ridiculously low, but where else will Delgado get something like that?

223

2004-09-05T13:09:00.000-07:00

The Amazing Ichiro! went 5-5 yesterday, as all of you who didn't crawl under a rock for Labor Day Weekend already know.

To those who have suggested teams will not pitch to Ichiro!, and that he will see a lot more walks down the stretch, let me offer this quote from yesterday's pitcher, left-hander Mark Buehrle (against whom Ichiro! is now 9-20 lifetime):

"I threw the ball an inch off the ground, over his head and he still hit it. I even tried an eephus pitch. I can't get him out with my other stuff, so maybe that would work."

The only way you're gonna walk Ichiro! is if you throw four wide ones. Even then, you better make sure they're out of his reach.

There is simply no evidence that teams have tried to pitch around Ichiro! as he has gotten hotter in the second half (or at least, if they have, there is no evidence that it has worked). Ichiro!'s walk per plate appearance rate has actually declined in every month since June (his highest rate, at .094 BB/PA) -- .084 BB/PA in July, .050 BB/PA in August, and .058 so far in September. His walk rate from July on (.066) is not significantly different from his career walk rate (.061).

Ichiro's PA/G rate suggests he will get another 110-120 AB this season, even if he is walked at higher than his career high rate (.094 BB/G). With that many ABs, Ichiro! needs only to hit somewhere between .292 to .318 the rest of the way to break Sisler's record. While certainly improbable, I don't think you can even say .400 is completely out of the question. To reach .400, Ichiro! will have to hit somewhere between .504 and .509 the rest of the way (59 to 62 more hits, depending on how many ABs he gets). That seems impossible, but then again, Ichiro! has started off September hitting .647, and he has hit .490 since July 18, with each month after June being a bit hotter than the month before.

Ichiro! and Barry Bonds are the only players in baseball today that give me the feeling that nothing is impossible. I consider myself privileged to have seen both players play this historic season.

Carlos Delgado?

2004-09-04T10:53:00.000-07:00

I meant to post this yesterday, but didn't get to it. Edgar Martinez made his pitch for the M's to pursue Carlos Delgado in yesterday's P-I, a subject I thought worthy of comment.

USSM's Dave Cameron shared his thoughts on this recently, and while I am not as down on Delgado as Dave is, I mostly agree with his view that it would be a mistake to sign Delgado. Here are the pros and cons to signing Delgado, as I see it:

Pros:

Edgar summed up many of them in the P-I article. "If they asked me, I'd definitely recommend Carlos," Martinez said. "He's got great power, he's a great hitter and left-handed hitters with power in Safeco Field do well. If anyone could come to Safeco and do well, Carlos could. He's the kind of guy who wants to play every day. He's great with younger players. He's great in the clubhouse. He's just a great teammate. He'd be a great choice, for sure."

I can't vouch for the intanglibles (though I'm sure if Edgar's evaluation is the consensus opinion, that will weigh heavily with the Mariners front office), but the rest is true. Delgado has had an off year this year (.249/.351/.501 in 369 AB, with 25 HR/43 XBH and 77 RBI), but some of that has been attributable to injury. Delgado came out of Spring Training with a nagging knee injury that bothered him right up to the point where he pulled a rib cage muscle that cost him more than a month on the DL. Since his return in mid- July, he has been much better, and hit .317/.411/.653 in August. After his MVP-runner up season in 2003, it is difficult to make the case that this season represents the beginning of his decline.

Delgado has always loved to hit in Safeco Field, too. His career line in Safeco, going into this season: in 72 AB, .389/.476/.792, with 9 doubles, a triple, and 6 home runs among his 28 hits and 14 RBI. Of course, he won't get to face Mariner pitching anymore, so take that with a grain of salt . . . but at least his Safeco numbers don't throw up a red flag.

Defensively, though not great, Delgado has improved in recent years. According to BP, he's played to a 106 Rate2 this year, a 97 last year, and was a 108 in 2002. For his career, he's a 99 -- about average -- and recent years suggest he's playing to at least that level or better now. The scouting report says he is better going to his left than his right, which is fine because Bret Boone has more than enough range to his left to cover Delgado's more limited range to his right. Certainly, Delgado is an improvement defensively over Bucky Jacobsen, and no worse than any other option the M's currently have at 1B.

Cons:

To me, the biggest reason to avoid Carlos Delgado is his age, coupled with the fact that I don't think you can realistically expect the Mariners to seriously contend for at least the next year or two. I do expect them to be better next year, but there are simply too many holes to fill, and too many that will have to be filled with very young players, to expect peak performance from the team as a whole.

Delgado will turn 33 next June. The Bill James Aging Pattern study (which I am still in the process of updating) I referred to in one of my first posts here suggests that on average you should expect a 33-year old player to play to 82% of his peak value (measured by Win Shares), a 34-year old player to play to 72% of his peak value, and at 35, to 65% of his peak value. Granted, Delgado's two best seasons (2000's .344/.470/.664 and 2003's .302/.426/.593, the combination of which represents a .323/.448/.629 over 1139 AB, with 180 XBH representing about 49% of his hits) are absolutely monster, but any GM signing Delgado would have to expect that they will be getting something between 65% and 80% of that player -- 73% of that player, over the life of a three-year deal. This is what you can expect, on average:

Year Expected % Decline From 2000 Peak
2005 18% .282/.385/.544
2006 28% .247/.338/.478
2007 35% .224/.306/.431

Obviously, as is true with anything representing an average, Delgado's actual performance might end up differing significantly -- for either the worse or the better -- but when you are considering a prospective signing, this is as good a guide as any. I actually think these projections are low (absent injuries, ala this year), but I would use them rather than any rose-colored, Bavasi-esque projection that players are almost indefinitely capable of repeating peak level performance going forward.

The downside and upside can be seen in the career paths of BP's PECOTA most similar players to Delgado: Boog Powell and Fred McGriff. Powell actually improved in his age 33 season over his age 32 year, but fell off a cliff after that. McGriff fared better -- with some notable exceptions, he declined modestly from his peak and mostly stayed there until he hit his age 39 season. How much are you willing to risk in a rebuilding phase to find out which path Delgado takes?

The other major reason not to sign Delgado is the money it will likely take. John Hickey speculated that Delgado may have to take a 25% salary cut or more from the $19.7M he made this year. While I think Hickey is still far too high (a 25% cut from Delgado's 2004 salary would still leave him making nearly $15M in his age 33 year, while Vladimir Guerrero couldn't get that last year entering his peak), I would expect Delgado to be looking for 3 years, $30-$36M minimum, and I don't expect he'll have to settle for much under $9-$10M per season.

So I ask you, is this where you want to spend your free agent dollars? The only year I would expect Delgado to approach a performance that would justify this salary is 2005, which also happens to be the season where I would least expect his performance might make the difference one way or the other. For that reason alone, I would pass.

The only way I would consider signing Delgado is if the market for him is softer than I expect both in terms of dollars per season and contract length. I wouldn't go higher than $10M in 2004, or longer than two years with a buy-out club option in the 2nd, or possibly a threeyear deal with a Guardado-esque mutual option in the second year and a club option/buyout for the third. The base salary would have to decline by at least $1M each year, too, and the buyouts would have to be no more than $1M.

The Mariners will be much better off if they focus on very good players entering their prime, particularly if they play defensive positions (well) where the kind of offensive production they offer is more rare.

Apathy?

2004-09-03T10:27:00.000-07:00

Jack wrote:

"Starting at first base today and batting ninth is William Paul Bloomquist who possesses an OPS of 589 which is incidently lower than the OBP of Barry Bonds. . . . Can Edgar not play first or is Bloomquist's defense at first so much better than Edgar's that we accept the tradeoff? Are we saving Edgar for the playoffs? We have over 10 spots open on the roster. Would it be wrong to call up Zapp for one of those spots?"

In response, a couple of points:

(1) Although the magic number is down to one, the Rainiers are still not mathematically eliminated from capturing a tie for first place in the PCL's Northern Division. I don't think you'll see the Mariners expand the roster until after the Rainiers are eliminated, and possibly not until after their season is finished (next Monday) even if they are eliminated.

(2) You know I agree with you about bringing up A.J. Zapp -- who BTW, with a three-run homer last night became the first Tacoma player since 1968 to drive in 100 runs in a season last night and set a new PCL record for strikeouts (176) -- but he's not on the 40-man roster. Even with the expanded rosters in September, I believe the call-ups have to be on the 40-man roster. This wouldn't be all that hard to achieve (somebody who has been shut down like Chris Snelling, Justin Leone, or any of about a half dozen pitchers, could be moved to the 60-day DL and replaced with Zapp), and it appears that Zapp needs to see this kind of interest in order to stay with the organization next year.

As I said yesterday, I am all for doing this. However, the Mariners appear to be spooked by all the strikeouts, ala Mike Cameron, despite an otherwise productive season. Once again, the refusal to look and production and instead focus on one particular kind of out despite ability to get on base and create runs.

The last-linked article mentions that the Mariners think Zapp could be a good hitter for average if he cut back on the strikeouts (his average on balls in play is .459). That's a debatable point -- the adjustments he makes for greater contact might also result in more weak grounders and such -- but it seems reasonable to assume he would improve some by making better contact. Benny Looper mentions a hole in Zapp's swing (up and in) that would likely be exploited in MLB. But, like Clint Nageotte seeing the need to develop his change-up, what better way to convince Zapp of this than to let that happen in a September cup-of-coffee, which also would allow the Mariners to evaluate whether a stop-gap, placeholder platoon of Zapp and Bucky Jacobsen might work next year?

(2) Melvin has said that whether Edgar plays first is Edgar's call, but despite indications from Edgar that he wouldn't mind, Melvin says he couldn't live with himself if Edgar got injured playing first. Why? What's left to play for? As Jack mentioned, if you are trying to win, you don't play Willie Bloomquist over Edgar. Bloomquist is incapable of playing enough defense at first to overcome the difference in offense between these two. But . . . well, Melvin is enamored with Wee Willie. I don't think this is going to change.

Melvin has given up

2004-09-02T17:43:00.000-07:00

It doesn't bother me so much if the Mariners lose 100 games. They lost 98 games in 1992, but I never really felt like they gave up. They just weren't very talented and they didn't have any money to spend, but I don't remember leaving the Kingdome very often with the gut feeling that we weren't attempting to win.

Starting at first base today and batting ninth is William Paul Bloomquist who possesses an OPS of 589 which is incidently lower than the OBP of Barry Bonds. As you can see from THIS CHART which displays the OPS for first basemen for all 30 major league teams. The WORST team on the chart is the Mets with a 713 OPS. I remind you that Bloomquist is 589. Can Edgar not play first or is Bloomquist's defense at first so much better than Edgar's that we accept the tradeoff? Are we saving Edgar for the playoffs? We have over 10 spots open on the roster. Would it be wrong to call up Zapp for one of those spots?

The worst part of this season to me isn't the poor offseason free agent signings or the losing. The worst part is that we have apparently given up early.

To Pitch to Him or Not to Pitch to Him

2004-09-02T12:35:00.000-07:00

Just as I posted my thoughts about why it is stupid to intentionally walk Ichiro!, the Blue Jays did exactly that in the 7th inning last night. I stand by my comments, though; the Blue Jays faced a situation that I explained was rare -- facing Ichiro with a runner on third base (and two outs, even rarer).

I should have clarified my comments, though. YES, the fact that runners hitting behind Ichiro! aren't doing much (collectively, the #2 hitters are .262/.337/.409, the #3 hitters are .287/.378/.502, and the #4 hitters are .258/.337/.478 on the season, which actually isn't all that bad and much better than it was not long ago) would make it more likely that an opposing manager would walk Ichiro! under any circumstances, but particularly if one or more of the 7-8-9 hitters are on base ahead of him. But the fact that Ichiro is almost exclusively a singles hitter, and even in his best stretch will make an out 40-50% of the time, has to give a manager pause before giving him first base for free -- particularly since Ichiro! is also a threat to steal. Sure you would rather face Randy Winn, Bret Boone, or Raul Ibanez than Ichiro!, but if there is nobody in scoring position (which is true for Ichiro! more than 80% of the time) and he is a threat to be on second shortly after you put him on, is that a situation in which you want to put your pitcher? I don't think so. Also, Winn has hit .298/.356/.431, Boone .279/.335/.464, and Ibanez .302/.360/.426 after the All-Star Break. It is a far riskier proposition to put Ichiro! on than it would appear at first glance.

Also, since it seems Jack is in the Ichiro!-doubter camp, I'll explain why I also don't think the quality of pitching the Mariners are going to face down the stretch will necessarily slow Ichiro! down (or at least not enough to prevent him from a good shot at the hit record). Jack's reasoning is sound -- it's based on opponents batting average against the teams the Mariners will face -- but like all arguments based on team averages, is vulnerable to the vagaries of individual performance and variation.

The next three pitchers the Mariners face are right-handers Justin Miller (5.26 ERA, .310 BAA), Jon Garland (4.91 ERA, .266 BAA; Ichiro is 5-14 against), and Mark Buehrle (4.13 ERA, .287 BAA; Ichiro is 5-16 against). After that, they will likely face either Freddy Garcia (against whom Ichiro! is 2-3 and we all know can be either very good or very bad), or one of two right-handed rookies who haven't faced Ichiro! but have ERAs well over 7.00 and BAAs over.325. Jack's assumption that Ichiro! can average two hits a game against the likes of these guys seems reasonable to me given who he is facing and the groove he's in.

Next comes Cleveland. I don't know who the probables are for that series, but Ichiro is a collective 17-42 (.405) against Cleveland's top four pitchers. He should be able to knock them about for 2 hits a game, too. Four games against the BoSox will be a bit of a chore. Ichiro! hits their starters to the tune of .289 collectively -- though he loves to hit Derek Lowe (7-14). Anaheim pitchers, who he'll face seven more times, are a mixed bag. Ichiro! hits them collectively at .282, but he mashes Bartolo Colon (.375, 9-24) and Aaron Sele (.588, 10-17) while struggling against Kelvim Escobar (.174, 4-23) and John Lackey (.200, 5-25). My guess is he'll move toward the mean some against the latter two, and continue to mash the former two.

Ichiro! has hit surprisingly well against Oakland's starters. He's 33-79 (.418) career against Mulder and Zito combined. He's hit Mark Redman well (8-21, .381). He's only struggled against Tim Hudson (2-11, .208) and Rich Harden (0-4) in relatively few ABs. I don't think the seven games against Oakland will be as big an issue as you would guess, and I doubt that the Oakland brain trust will be much into giving away bases to avoid him, either. That leaves only Texas for three games. With all their injuries, it is hard to know who they will throw at the Mariners, but none of them except Kenny Rogers (6-24, .250) and Chan Ho Park (3-15, .200) has had much success against Ichiro!, who has hit Ryan Drese and R. A. Dickey to the tune of .500, John Wasdin .444, and Colby Lewis .421. These guys don't seem likely to slow Ichiro! either.

Ichiro! is a career .338 hitter who has hit .466 since the All-Star Break. His current pace suggests he'll get 136 more ABs in which to get the 44 hits he needs to break the record. That's only .324, well within what I would expect him to do. Even if you think he'll lose 16 of those ABs to fewer ABs and/or intentional or semi-intentional walks -- which I think is unlikely -- he still would need only to hit slightly worse than his seasonal pace (.367) to get the record.

I'm not going to come out and say Ichiro! is going to set the record. There are too many things that could happen to prevent that, and I don't want to jinx him. I will say this, though: I wouldn't bet against him.

A.J. Zaaaapp!

2004-09-02T09:50:00.000-07:00

The Tacoma Rainiers are floundering to the finish of the PCL season, their roster decimated by the needs of the Big Club. They've 5 of their last 6, and 7 of their last ten, while the Portland Beavers have won 7 in a row to catch and pass the Rainiers for 1st place in the Northern Division of the Pacific Conference of the PCL. The Beavers have turned a 2-game deficit when they came to Tacoma last weekend into a 4-game lead, with 5 games remaining for both teams.

There has been a bright spot for the Rainiers of late, though. A. J. Zapp has been on an absolute tear. Since I last went to a Rainiers game on August 18 (when he was hitting .284), Zapp has gone 19-50 (.380) with 4 doubles, 5 HR (that's a .760 SLG, folks), 11 runs, and 16 RBI. He's now hitting .294/.367/.528 as a left-handed hitting first baseman. Baseball Prospectus projects his major league equivalent average at .239, which is a helluva lot better than Scott Spiezio.

In that time, Zapp has had a couple of really special games. On August 20, he went 5-5 with a double, two home runs (a Grand Slam and a 2-run bomb), and nine runs batted in against Fresno. Then, last night, Zapp became the first man to hit a home run over the 29-foot high center field wall in the 44-year history of Cheney Stadium. That wall is not only really high, it is really, really far away -- 425 feet from home plate. That is just a MONSTER shot -- I have my doubts about whether the estimated 505 feet the ball traveled is quite a bit too low.

Zapp still strikes out way too much (174 times this season), but he's had quite a season for Tacoma -- as he did for San Antonio the year before. He's quite a bit better than Bucky Jacobsen defensively, and might make a decent platoon with the right-handed hitting Jacobsen next year. He's not on the 40-man roster, but you've got to think he's earned a September call-up, not to mention a reasonable chance to compete for a spot on the 25-man next Spring, if the Mariners look to positions other than 1B to fill their offensive needs (as they should).

More Thoughts on Bell and Ichiro!

2004-09-01T17:38:00.000-07:00

No argument from me that the team would be better off if they had kept David Bell and never gone down the Jeff Cirillo-Kevin Jarvis-Scott Spiezio road. I only suggested it wouldn't have been a good idea to give him $9M over three years when his market value was about $1.5M over one year, and if he had stuck around, the itch to improve at that position (as well as left field) would have continued unabated, and appropriately so.

I might argue (and did) that it was foreseeable at the time that Cirillo would not be the player he was in Milwaukee, given both his age and the decline in his road splits he had already begun to experience in Colorado, but nobody -- at least nobody telling the truth -- could say that they expected him to be as bad as he was, or that he would be a lesser player than Bell had been. I just thought that if Scott Rolen had been willing to waive his no-trade to come here in a trade in July of 2001 (that's a big "if," but there were some indications at the time that he would have, though his preference was to stay in the National League), I thought it would have been better to pay a steeper price to acquire Rolen entering his prime (26 at the time) than Cirillo entering his decline, but nobody asked me for my opinion (not that that stops me from offering it). I also agree with you that acquiring Spiezio -- especially to play third base -- was foreseeably foolish. After all, Spiezio was entering his age 31 year -- you're no longer getting this guy's prime years -- and he was, going into this season, a career 98 OPS+ hitter and at best an average fielder who would be playing out of position. That this front office doesn't seem to see a difference between 3-year contracts offered to age 32-ish guys like Raul Ibanez, Spiezio, and Randy Winn while balking at only slightly higher and/or longer-length contracts to guys entering their prime (like Miguel Tejada last offseason, or perhaps Carlos Beltran or Adrian Beltre this offseason) is disturbing. I am all for fiscal prudence, but rebuilding will require some risk-taking and there is a big difference in the return on your investment you can expect from the latter compared to the former. There just is.

Now, on to another subject. Ichiro! just got his second hit of tonight's ballgame, and now needs 44 hits in 30+ games to beat George Sisler's season-record for hits. At his current season's pace for AB/G, that will only require him to hit somewhere between .330 and .340 the rest of the way to get there.

Some people are suggesting now that Ichiro! won't be able to break the record because teams in the playoff hunt will not pitch to him. I just want to go on record saying I think that is complete BS. First, if you don't give him much in the strike zone to hit, Ichiro! will swing at it anyway. Secondly, if these folks ("The Groz" being prominent among them) think teams will intentionally walk Ichiro!, may I ask why you would walk a guy who has 181 singles among his 215 hits? If the chances are roughly 37% that Ichiro! will get a hit (a figure only increased by about four percentage points by bases on balls), and only about 16% of those his hits will go for extra bases, why give him a 100% chance of a base for free? How often does Ichiro! come to the plate with runners in scoring position? Not much -- only 98 times all year going into tonight's game, about 17% of his ABs. Take a look at the team splits for the 7-8-9 hitters and the 2-3-4 hitters hitting around Ichiro! There just isn't much reason to pitch around him, because he can't hurt you much by himself and isn't getting much help. I mean, how often would you expect a .372 leadoff hitter with 215 hits good speed to score only 84 runs?

Ichiro! will get his chances. The bigger threat to his record chase is facing some of the league's best pitching down the stretch (the teams the Mariners face the rest of the way rank 11, 12, 13, 1, 4, 2, & 8 in batting average against, respectively), but right now, I think Ichiro! can hit anybody.

Jack's Ichiro! prediction

2004-09-01T17:08:00.000-07:00

Ichiro fininshed the month of August with 212 hits for the season on his quest for 258 leaving him 46 hits short heading into tonight's game. Assuming that he averages 4.4 at bats per game he would need to go 46 for 136 putting him at a .338 clip for the month of September. Ichiro! hit for a .432 clip in July and a .463 clip in August which makes .338 appear to be a piece of cake. But just to be sure, let's look at the numbers:

Ichiro has hit .283 for the month of September in his American professional career. It's speculated all over that Ichiro wears down in September. I don't know that I buy that theory, although I do think it's possible that Ichiro plays worse in cooler weather since he also posts a .298 average in April. A typical Ichiro September would produce 39 hits putting him 7 short of his goal.

The next 7 games are against Toronto, the White Sox, and Cleveland. Opposing teams hit 274 against these three teams which is amongst the worst in the league. In my opinion he needs 14 hits in those 7 games. That comes out to two hits per game. It sounds like a lot right now, but the schedule gets scary after that. 18 of the 24 remaining games after that are against the Angels, Red Sox, and A's who own three of the top four spots in AL batting average against. I think he would be fortunate with 18 hits in those 18 games keeping in mind that Schilling and Pedro are sure to pitch and Hudson, Mulder, and Harden are pitching lights out lately. Even Zito seems to be back as the Oakland staff seems to have found life in August. All three of these teams are contending, and will not be giving in to Ichiro because more than Ichiro needs the hit, these teams need to win. The remaining six games are against Texas who are in the middle of the pack in batting average against. Since these games are in the last two weeks of the season, the Rangers may or may not be still in contention which could have a lot to say on how they pitch to Ichiro. In my opinion these are the make and break games for the record. I think that Ichiro will get between 9 and 12 hits during these games, but I am leaning on the low side toward nine.

To recap my prediction:

Ichiro needs 46 hits to break George Sisler's record.

Ichiro will get 14 hits in the next seven games against the weak pitching of the Blue Jays, White Sox, and Indians.

Ichiro will get 18 hits in the 18 games against the strong pitching of Oakland, Boston and Anaheim.

Ichiro will get 9 hits in the six games against the Rangers.

This adds up to 41 hits which is 4 shy of tying the record and 5 shy of breaking it.

For whom the David Bell tolls?

2004-08-31T19:48:00.000-07:00

I need to reclarify my stance on David Bell. I was not meaning to suggest that the Mariners missed the boat by letting Bell move on at the end of the 2001 season. In fact, I was pleased when we were able to unload him to the Giants for Desi Relaford in order to avoid abitration on him. I was also thrilled when we acquired Jeff Cirillo who consistantly posted 400 OBPs while player for the Brewers all the while playing a mean defensive third base. I ate crow with a lot of people on that one. I was appalled at the Speizio signing from the minute it was talked about. My point was that three years of Bell at $9-$12M although admitedly overpriced, would have been a bargain had it avoided us making the Cirillo ($28M) and Speizio ($9M) deals with the added bonus of not having to see Kevin Jarvis get lit up all over town in April, when we had obviously better options in Tacoma. I am not blaming the M's for letting Bell go, I just think it might have saved us a little heartbreak in the long run and as mediocre as Bell is, he wouldn't have been as terrible as our two headed monster and would have been much cheaper.

Potpourri

2004-08-29T19:59:00.000-07:00

I am back from a week of camping at Pearrygin Lake State Park, a now-thrice-annual trek during which I have missed the Mariners losing 15 of 20 games -- a particularly dubious achievement considering that, even including this year's horrible 49-80 record, the Mariners are 18 games over .500 since the beginning of the 2002 season, and 27 over if you don't count their record during my camping trips. I used to feel guilty about that, as though I were personally causing their losing streaks by my inattention, but nothing in this god-forsaken year can make me feel guilty.

Anyway, I'm back and feel the need to resort to the trusty "bullet-point" potpourri column to say all I have to say -- especially since Jack already took this route a couple of days ago.

I agree with Jack about Dan Wilson. He seems like a terrific guy, a clubhouse and community leader and all that, but what's he offering on the field? Wilson fans pointed this year to his first 6-7 weeks or so (topping out on May 19 at .320 but still with a sub-.800 OPS of .795), but since then he has hit at the sub-Mendoza rate of .195. He barely broke through for a .500 OPS in May (.504), and he hasn't even done that since (.438 in July and .483 thus far in August -- hell, Ichiro! nearly beat those OPS totals with his batting average alone in July and August). According to Baseball Prospectus, Dan Wilson's adjusted "equivalent average" is .022 worse that his actual batting average (.225 to .247) and his "value over replacement player" or VORP is -3.9 (yep, that makes him worse than freely available replacement talent at his position, despite making $4.5M). I've touched on this before, but Dan Wilson is not the defensive catcher he once was. At his best now, he is probably no better than league average defensively and no amount of imagined defensive prowess is going to make up for a sub-.500 OPS.
Dan Wilson will be 36 years old next year -- ancient for a catcher, especially one who has played 1250 games. It is insane to be talking about re-signing Wilson for any significant role next year, particularly since Wilson and Miguel Olivo share the offensive Achille's Heel of being unable to hit right-handed pitching. Yes, I think Wilson has experience and game-tested wisdom to share with Olivo, but unless he is willing to do so for something close to league minimum, it's just not worth using a roster spot on him. Better to hire him as a bullpen coach or something and go sign a replacement-level catcher with some upside who can hit right-handed pitching.
Ichiro! Update: I wrote about Ichiro's chances for breaking George Sisler's single season record for hits not long ago, and despite a bit of a blip (0-11) before getting his 200th hit, he has done little to damage those chances. With 32 games left to play, Ichiro! has 209 hits. With three more hits today, if he continues to get the same number of at-bats as he has through this season (about 4.43 AB/G) and hits at his seasonal pace (.3686) the rest of the way, he'll get another 142 ABs and 52 hits -- which would break Sisler's record by four hits. Considering that this would mean Ichiro! needs fewer than 50 hits (48 minus however many he gets on Tuesday in Toronto) in September -- a feat he has achieved in three of five months this season -- and that he slows his second-half pace considerably, I wouldn't bet against him. Ichiro! has truly had a remarkable season. He's earned that exclamation point.
I have to disagree with Jack's speculation that the "performance" of the two third-basemen the Mariners are paying some $10M this year might make the Mariners front office pine for David Bell. Well, at least I wouldn't be pining for him . . . the Mariners' "talent evaluators" might. Jack seems to suggest that a 3-year, $9M contract for Bell, coming off a 93 OPS+ year, was reasonable. I say that the $1.75M 1-year deal he got from the Giants in 2002 was far closer to what Bell's market value was. By the way, Bell rewarded the Giants with a decent-but-still-close-to-league-average year in 2003, which got him a bloated four-year $17M contract with the Phillies (which he prompted rewarded with a .195/.296/.283 year in 2003). Uhhhh, no thanks . . . not even if I knew he would rebound this year. Even people with Jeff Cirillo and Scott Spiezio voodoo dolls in their basement couldn't have imagined how badly each would underperform expectations. Granted, my expectations for both of those guys were much worse than what the Mariners thought they would do, but they have still been much worse than even that. Bell has at times been both a fair bit better and quite a bit worse than I would have expected in his post-2001 years, but on the whole, has shown every bit of why the Mariners were looking to improve at third base after the 116 season. I might fault their choices (I would have pursued a Scott Rolen trade much more seriously than the M's did in 2002, and I probably would have resigned myself to either Jolbert Cabrera, Willie Bloomquist, or Justin Leone (or some combination thereof) at 3B this year rather than overpay Spiezio for three years beginning with his age 31+ year, knowing going in that he is a career 98 OPS+ hitter, and then pursued somebody better for 2005 (Adrian Beltre, Troy Glaus, Corey Koskie, Bill Mueller . . . well, Koskie and Mueller are kinda old, but both would be significant improvements over what we've had, and the point is there are free agent options out there for third base). Let's not mistake the shit stains on our glasses from 2002-2004 for rose-color when remembering David Bell.
I believe -- it's actually something closer to faith than belief -- that Edgar Martinez will finish with a flourish. That is, unless Bob Melvin continues to overthink his line-up into playing guys like Willie Bloomquist and Jolbert Cabrera over Edgar when facing middlin'-to-bad lefties Edgar can still mash. Edgar is hitting .308/.403/.430 in the second half. Granted, the OBP is a bit worse and the SLG quite a bit worse than what we have come to expect from Edgar, but he's 41, and more importantly, who the hell outside of Ichiro! and maybe Randy Winn has been better after the All-Star Break? Is their any reason to sit this guy much through his Farewell Tour? And don't give me that "getaway day" crap -- Willie Bloomquist??!? Are we not past thinking that Wee Willie is much better than this year's model Charles Gipson?
I guess from what I've already said that it's pretty easy to know where I stand on Jack's comments about Bloomquist. I actually sympathize with Willie's comments to the effect that the Mariners seem far more willing to give late-20s guys like Leone and Bucky Jacobsen an everyday chance, but realistically, Bloomquist never had the success in the minors that either of those guys did, nor has he shown in any extended playing time that he deserves to be thought of as anything more than a replacement-level utility guy (or worse). Willie Bloomquist has now played in 176 major league games, and has 388 ABs. His career averages are .265/.323/.340. That's just about league average for batting average, and significantly worse than league average for OBP and SLG. Bloomquist is basically an average singles hitter who can't overcome that with patience at the plate or any kind of power. He also doesn't make up for it with good defense at any position. Like Mark McLemore, his strength is decent speed and an ability to play at something approaching league average at several positions, but he doesn't get on base at nearly the clip Mac did for most of his Seattle tenure, nor is he a switch-hitter who offers a real platoon advantage, as Mac was and did against RHP. Willie's most natural position is probably second base, but he is not going to displace Bret Boone next year, and after that, the job is probably Jose Lopez's to lose. If his offense was better, maybe . . . but it's not.
I am ambivalent about the idea of trying to acquire Wilson Betemit to play third next year. Sure, take a flier on him if he doesn't cost much to get and you want to create competition among (say) Leone, Bloomquist, Betemit and Greg Dobbs for the 3B job in camp next year, but I don't think a switch-hitting former shortstop with a mostly failed AAA resume' and next to no power is the answer. Yes, this team needs more speed (though Betemit's 16-for-26 record as a base-stealer in AAA makes one wonder if he comes with speed but little baserunning sense), but it needs more power even more than that and third base is one position where you can usually find it.
I think even "the Grand Pooh-Bah of the Raccoon Lodge" would see the wisdom of trading Bret Boone for Kevin Youkilis. But why would the Red Sox entertain such a trade? Granted, Mark Bellhorn and Pokey Reese are not particularly appetizing choices at 2B for the stretch run this year, but their numbers aren't really worse than Boone's. In fact, Bellhorn's are better. Youkilis is the reason the BoSox can afford to let Bill Mueller walk after this year. Why give up your future at 3B in a trade for an aging 2B due to make $9M next year and who isn't outperforming who you already have? Don't blame Moneyball for this trade not happening; blame Theo Epstein for having the brains to realize it would be a dumb idea.
I would never criticize somebody for holding onto the idea that once-highly-thought-of prospects might be the kind of guys on whom to take fliers in lost seasons, Jack. You have to wonder, though, if all of the injuries Alex Escobar has suffered have taken their toll. Also, Escobar is out for the season with a broken right foot. Unless he came cheap and then was put on the 60-man DL, the Mariners are better served by using the 40-man roster to look at deserving guys in their own system, and/or using extra spots on the 40-man to claim guys like Brett Evert, who O.D. of USSM likes and whom the Rainiers can actually use to try to win their division.
I share Jack's lament about fans' negative overemphasis on the strikeout, and pining for Mike Cameron. Cammy was always one of my favorite guys, and not just for his defense. On a team with little speed and little power, Cammy brought both, with patience at the plate and Gold Glove defense in CF to boot. The strikeout is often a necessary byproduct of power and patience in all but the most superhuman of ballplayers. In my view, all outs are created equal. True, some "productive outs" (what and idiotic, oxymoronic term that is) are made by putting the ball in play and advancing a runner, but there is also the risk of the double-play, which pretty well offsets this. I'd rather take Cammy's strikeouts and plus-.800 OPS any day than settle for some "productive out" machine.
That said, there was a reasonable case to be made last offseason that it was time for Mike Cameron to leave. Right or wrong, the majority of fans were very frustrated with Cammy's Safeco Field foibles . . . how much patience do you think fans would have had with him and the front office if, in addition to the team stumbling out to a 23-36 record, Cameron had started the season here as he did in New York, and found himself hitting .193 with a .642 OPS as late as June 11? In my opinion, the real mistake made by the Mariners was not in deciding to let Cammy go (especially given what the Mets were willing to pay him) but in failing to realize that they needed to replace his defense in CF with something other than noodle-armed Randy Winn. If nothing else, the answer still stares them in the face: play Ichiro! in center, Winn in left, and Raul Ibanez' in right. Take advantage of Ichiro's range and arm, minimize the damage Winn's arm can do, and play Ibanez' at his most natural outfield position, where his lack of range is best hidden and his decent arm better utilized.
Derek Zumsteg is all worked up about the "temporary" (. . . ahem) seats the Mariners have erected in the Centerfield Landing, and frankly I can think of no better person to hound the Mariners and beat some sense of accountablity into Lincoln & Friends than DMZ. I know of no one who has taken a stronger interest in calling the Mariners on their financial deceptions and public bullying than Derek. That the Mariners have trashed one of the coolest parts of Safeco Field, ultimately at public expense, without consulting the public or any seeming oversight by the PFD, is unconscionable. Stay on this one, Derek. I'll be right beside you.

a different view on Safeco

2004-08-28T14:15:00.000-07:00

I had the opportunity to take a 7 and 9 year old to the game last night. The challenging part was that the children knew absolutely nothing about baseball and that their primary apeaking language is French. I armed myself with hot dogs, kettle korn and peanuts knowing I might be in for a challenging evening.

Nothing gets past kids. The first thing the 9 year old noticed was the batter adjusting his crotch. The seven year old quickly pointed out to his sister (as well as everyone with a few rows of us) the dynamics of a cup, what a cup is used for, and why players wear a cup. So much for lesson one.

There are so many intricate nuances of baseball that most of us don't even think twice about, because we have been aware of them since the age of seven. I thought that I had the concept of a strikeout down for the kids, until Guiel swung and missed at strike three and went running down to first base after Olivo dropped the ball. The children were so confused.

After 4 1/2 innings we decided to take a stroll. As I rarely leave the confines of section 138 during a game, I thought it would be an interesting journey for both me and the kids.

Center field is an absolute hang out haven. First we got our reserved times (yes, you actually need reservations) to get the children into the Kid's Zone. We were about 30 minutes away from actually getting into the "Zone", but luckily for us the Mariners thought enough ahead to put a "kids" Mariner's store right next door where we could wait. (Aren't they great people?). As you might guess, the Mariners' Kids store sells nothing but Mariner products geared toward kids. Needless to say the cash registers were clanging away on overdrive here.

I picked up (literally) the Mariner monopoly game and there on the back was a picture of an exciting game of Mariner monopoly in progress. The properties are all named after players on the team...or not on the team. The person playing on the back of the box was the proud owner of Ben Davis, Carlos Guillen, Freddy Garcia, Mike Cameron, and Kaz Suzaki. What are the odds of that? Also, Raul Ibanez fotoballs are 50 % off. Apparently the front office told marketing that Ibanez would be a fan favorite. The fans are apparently getting less gullible by the minute.

Next we toted our bags of fresh Mariner gear down to the bullpen to watch Scott Atchison warm up. The bullpen is still one of my favorite spots and while there I felt kind of guilty that I don't make it down there more often especially to see a premier closer warming up such as Rivera, K-Rod, or Gagne. Fortunately, the Mariners added a nice smoking section behind the bullpen next to the back door, so that while watching your favorite reliever throw smoke you can partake in breathing some second-hand smoke of your own. I'm sure the players appreciate that as well.

After a 15 minute stint of bouncing, sliding, crawling in the Kids Zone, the kids were getting tired and had seen enough of the ol ballyard. On the walk back to the car, the nine year old asked what the difference was between a run and a home run. I realized that we still had a long ways to go.

Tidbits

2004-08-20T20:58:00.000-07:00

1) I've beaten this dead horse enough, but I just can't seem to let it go. The numbers absolutely amaze me. After slugging 205 in July, Dan Wilson is now slugging 118 for the month of August. Wilson hasn't had an extra base hit since July 6th when he hit a double against the Jays. Jeff Cirillo, who wasn't close to this bad of a hitter with the M's, was run out of town, yet Bo-Mel considers Dan to be a valued member of the team who he wants back for next year. And why doesn't the media run with this?

2) Speaking of Jeff Cirillo, our $10M two-headed monster at third base is a thing of beauty. Scott Spiezio is currently sporting a 622 OPS for us (461 OPS after the all star break) while Jeff Cirillo is posting a 553 OPS with the Padres. Do you think anyone in the Mariners front office wishes they had just given David Bell the three year $9M contract that he was looking for?

3) Willie Bloomquist sucks. He is wasting a spot on the 40 man roster. Alex Escobar was put on waivers and claimed by the White Sox. Pete will probably argue that I tend to hold on to hope that certain can't miss prospects will eventually break out. It's true - I do. I've got to think that Alex Escobar has more of a potential future than Willie Bloomquist.

4) A caller called in to the post game show three weeks or so ago, and brought up a point that Mike Cameron's defense is sorely missed in center field and that the Mariners might have missed the boat by not signing him. Of course that point is true and is almost getting to the point where it's been beaten to death. The caller should have hung up there. He went on to say that even though Cameron was a much better center fielder than Winn, he would be "significantly" less productive offensively than Cameron. Cameron got a bad wrap for his offense with the Mariners. I admit that he was frustratingly streaky, but he never got due credit for his patience at the plate which resulted in high walk outputs (much overlooked in Seattle). His high strikeout totals were blown way out of proportion. Seattlelites (as true with most fans) still consider a pop out to third or a ground ball double play to be more of a contribution than a strikeout. How ridiculous does that sound when it's worded that way?

5) Before giving up 4 runs in 6 innings tonight, Ron Villone had an 11+ ERA after the trade deadline. It's good that we held onto him, and I'm glad to see we are making it a priority to sign him to a contract extension.

6) Kevin Millar of the Red Sox had a 732 OPS when the Red Sox came here on July 20th. He went on to hit six home runs in five games starting with the game immediately following the Seattle series. He has followed that up with a 1093 OPS so far in the month of August. He credits his remarkable turnaround to watching Miguel Olivo's approach at the plate while in Seattle.

7) Speaking of third base, I would like to see the M's go after Wilson Betemit. He's still young and doesn't seem to fit much into Atlanta's future plans.

8) How about Bret Boone to the Red Sox for Kevin Youkilis? Nah! MoneyBall is voodoo!

9) The M's have moved from 29th to 26th in runs scored over the last few weeks.

10) Olerud is hitting about .322 with a dinger and 12 RBI in 14 games with the Yanks. Willie Bloomquist has 11 RBI in 68 games this season.

Ichiro!

2004-08-19T11:12:00.000-07:00

Sorry for so many delays in posting. August is vacation month; Jack's just back, and I am about to leave once again (for a week, for my traditional camping trip during which the M's tradition is to lose nearly every game), but we'll be better in September.

For now, though, here is a little tidbit: Ichiro! is doing things I would have said 6 weeks ago are impossible. So who's to say that he can't break George Sisler's record of 257 hits in a (154-game) season?

Ichiro! has hit .483 in 145 AB since the All-Star Break, and .508 over 65 AB in August. Even though he hit only .255 in April, and just .274 in June, he is now hitting .3663 for the season. While I usually don't advocate the arbitrary practice of engaging in "if you don't count these two months . . ." kind of analysis, I can't help but marvel at the fact that, if you do take out those two months, Ichiro! has managed to hit .435 over 60% of his at-bats (308) for the season.

So let's engage in a little bit of "what if" projection. Since the Royals decided it was better to bean Ichiro! than to pitch to him, there is a good chance that Ichiro! won't play all of the Mariners' remaining 43 games. Conservatively, let's say he plays 40 of the 43 (I say "conservatively" because I doubt his beaning will cost him more than one game, and if he is at all close to Sisler's record, I don't think Melvin will sit him in September) games left.

If Ichiro! maintains his current AB/G pace (4.373 AB/G):

* If Ichiro hits at his seasonal average pace (.3663) the rest of the way, he will get 253 hits (64-for-175). If he manages to get 185 AB instead of 175 -- either through getting more AB/G or playing more games -- and hits for his seasonal average, he will tie Sisler's record.

* If Ichiro! hits at the pace he has since his awful April start (163-for414, or .3937), he will get 69 more hits and break Sisler's record by one. If he gets 185 AB instead of 175 (and his current AB/G pace will give him 184 more AB if he only misses one of the Mariners' remaining games), at that pace he will finish with 262 hits.

* If Ichiro! maintains the torrid pace he has maintained since the All-Star Break (.483 over 145 AB), he will absolutely shatter Sisler's record, finishing with 274 hits. Even if he slowed to a possibly-human pace of .400 over the likely 175-185 remaining AB he should get, he will easily break Sisler's record, finishing with 259-263 hits.

How likely is it that Ichiro! can maintain any one of the projected paces? Well, normally I would say not very likely, but he has already done that and more over a similar extended period (Ichiro! has 86 hits over his last 187 AB, or .460), so who am I to say he can't do it?

I am probably not the first to say it, but I will say it anyway: Ichiro! is the one guy in MLB I think is capable of someday hitting .400 for a season. Hell, if he had just hit for his career average (.336) in April and June of this year, he would be flirting with .400 right now (he would be hitting about .395 and looking at a stretch drive fueled by the knowledge that he could slow down and still reach .400).

Regardless of what super-human feats you can see Ichiro! performing the rest of the way, though, he's not going to hit .400 this year. To do that, he would have to maintain something very close to his .508 August hitting pace for the rest of the year. If you project Ichiro! to 691-700 AB for the season, he'll need to hit right around .500 the rest of the way to finish with the 277 to 280 hits it will take for him to finish with a .400 average. I suppose it's only fair to Ichiro! to say that's not impossible, but I think it is pretty damn close to impossible to do.

If Ichiro! has taught me one thing this year, though, it is "never say never."

So Long, Papi -- See You in Cooperstown

2004-08-10T14:30:00.000-07:00

One of the reasons I started this blog was to make a public case that Edgar Martinez should be in the Hall of Fame. It is my hope that if there are some among the 380 or so voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America who are on the fence or leaning against voting for Edgar, at least a few of them will do a Google search and find my argument for Edgar's HoF case. I'm not so arrogant as to believe that it isn't possible that someone could come away unconvinced of my position, but consideration of the argument is really the least someone with a vote should do.

People who know me know that I am an unabashed Edgar Martinez fan who began insisting that Edgar's career numbers were Hall of Fame worthy as long as a couple of years ago (go to the Mariners Newsgroup and see for yourself). I still firmly believe that, yet worry that such a lackluster finish to a borderline HoF career -- at least as usually judged by the BBWAA -- will hurt Edgar's case when the time comes.

It really shouldn't.

I don't want to hear about the DH (what an illogical, head-in-the-sand argument that can be). The DH is over 30 years old, and is used in every league except one. It's not going away, and we shouldn't be penalizing guys' defense just because they are playing a position (usually against their will) that doesn't require defense. The Hall of Fame has always been about offense. Sure, there are guys (like Ozzie Smith) who got in mostly on the strength of their defense, but they are the exception and not the rule -- there are many more average-to-terrible defenders in the Hall than there are great defenders who were middling hitters. Bill James is one of many analysts who've tried to quantify how much defense versus offense contributes to winning baseball (he pegged it at about 17%), and it always comes up on the short end of the stick as compared to offense. Not to mention, in Edgar's case, he played 563 games at third base (no cake walk) and another 28 as a first baseman -- which, if you're counting, is about 30% of Edgar's games played.

What, exactly should a Hall of Famer be? One thing I'm sure is not the standard is Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Wille Mays, Hank Aaron, Tris Speaker, Stan Musial, blah, blah, blah. The upper echelon does not define the Hall of Fame. Somewhere between 15,000 to 20,000 men have played major league baseball over the years. Shouldn't a man Don't you think the top 1% of figures that high ought to draw serious consideration for the Hall of Fame?

Please, please, please, dear writers, before you write Edgar off, consider his record:

When Edgar Martinez announced his retirement, if he didn't play another game the rest of the season, Edgar would finish, all-time (and I don't just mean the modern, post-1900 era):

* In the top 200 (2013, #184) ALL-TIME in Games Played;
* Among the top 150 players in ALL-TIME in runs scored (1203, #147), and hits (#145, 2205);
* Among the top 100 ALL-TIME in home runs (310, #95 currently), runs batted in (1244, #100 currently) and Total Bases (3661, #99 currently);
* Among the top 75 ALL-TIME in batting average (currently .312, #74), slugging percentage (currently .519, #60), extra-base hits (831, #67), and times on base (hits + walks + hit by pitch; currently 3566, #73);
* Among the top 40 ALL-TIME in doubles (currently 511, #35), walks (1272, #36), on-base percentage (.420, #21), OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage, at #38, .938), and OPS+ (OPS, compared to league average -- defined as 100 -- for career and adjusted for park differences; 151 through 2003, #32).

None of these accomplishments, considered alone, stands out as HoF-worthy, but together they do. The sheer breadth and variety of accomplishment, and what it indicates about the versatility of Edgar's offensive ability at a very high level, certainly does.

Moreover, if being the premier player at a given position is what floats your boat, there is little doubt that Edgar Martinez is the preeminent designated hitter of all-time, too. Among players with at least 2500 plate appearances as a DH, Edgar is #1 in virtually every offensive category. Edgar has been ranked first among DH's by the Elias Sports Bureau (for free agent compensation purposes) in seven of the nine years prior to this one in which he has been primarily a DH, and has won five Silver Slugger awards (1992 at 3B, and 1995, 1997, 2001, and 2003 at DH) as the premier offensive player at his position. Only four men have won more -- Barry Bonds (11), Mike Piazza (10) Alex Rodriguez (7), and Manny Ramirez (6) -- and all have top-notch HoF credentials. Forget about just DH's . . . Edgar is one of only 18 men to top 1.000 OPS at least five times, and one of only 26 men ever to hit .200 better than league-average OPS at least seven times.

As impressive as this laundry list of achievements is, it is even more remarkable for two reasons.

First, Edgar accomplished all this as a right-handed hitter. Most of you probably already know about the inherent advantages a left-handed hitter enjoys over his right-handed counterpart: he's a couple of steps closer to first, and he often enjoys the benefit of a huge hole on the right side to hit through, created by the need for the first baseman to hold a runner on first. Beyond that, Edgar has played in an age of specialization, when dominant hitters like him almost never face a tired or a left-handed pitcher in later innings. It is no suprise then, to find that most of the players ahead of Edgar on these "leader boards" are left-handed or switch hitters. For instance, among right-handed hitters, Edgar's current ALL-TIME ranks are: 33rd in AVG, 4th in OBP, 31st in SLG, 15th in OPS, 17th in OPS+, 43rd in TB, and 26th in times on base. Edgar is one of only 21 right-handed hitters to hit .330 in a season at least four times, and one of only 11 right-handed hitters to hit .320 or better at least seven times -- and the last year any one of those other ten men played was 1951 (Joe DiMaggio). Edgar is one of only seven right-handed hitters to post a .400 or better OBP at least nine times, and one of only three post-war players to do that (Frank Thomas and Rickey Henderson being the others).

Second, Edgar amassed these numbers despite missing 2-3 years languishing (and flourishing) in AAA while Jim Presley mostly struggled. Edgar was a career .344/.449/.495 hitter in AAA, and the fact that it took Mariners management as long as it did to notice is more than borderline incompetence.

One could argue (given the questionable "quality" of his competition) that Edgar showed enough promise in his first stint in AAA (in 1985 -- .363/.467/.517 in 68 AB) that he deserved a shot, but that wasn't even enough forMariners management of that era to return him to AAA in 1986, let alone MLB. However, by 1987 at the latest, it should have been clear he was ready. Edgar hit..329/.434/.473 at Calgary that year, yet only earned a late call-up to the M's where he hit .372/.413/.581 over 43 September AB. Considering Jim Presley hit .247/.296/.433 (87 OPS+) that year, that should at least have been enough to take over the job in 1988, right? Not to the Mariners. They sent him back to AAA, where he hit .363/.467/.517. Incredibly (because Presley was hitting .230/.280/.355, with a 74 OPS+ that year), Edgar again didn't get called up until late, and again he hit much better than Presley did -- a respectable .281/.351/.406. STILL, that wasn't good enough for the Mariners, who decided to go with Presley and even converted OF Darnell Coles to 3B to share time with Presley. Presley hits .236/.275/.385 in 1989, and Coles hits..252/.294/.359 while once again Edgar tears up the PCL, hitting .345/.457/.522 at Calgary for 113 AB before he finally gets a chance. Unfortunately, he never gets any consistent playing time thanks to a 4-way job share (Edgar appeared in 61 games at 3B in '89, Presley 90, Coles 37, and Cochrane 9), and his numbers were the worst of his career -- but mostly better than his competition. Thankfully, they don't return him to AAA to start the 1990 season, but even though Presley leaves, the M's still don't fully commit the full-time job to him -- that is, until his .302/.397/.433 over144 games makes them commit. By that time, he's 27 and probably a year-plus into what should have been his prime.

It wasn't as if the competition was good, or the team needed veteran presence for a stretch run in any of these years . . . these were bad players, on bad teams. Any competent GM could have seen that Edgar Martinez should have been handed the keys to third base by mid-1987 at the latest, and it is not his fault that those who managed the club in those days didn't do that. What more can you do but to hit .344/.449/.495 over several seasons in AAA?

Management ineptitude probably cost Edgar 275-300 major league games. If you assume he would have hit according to his cumulative MLB averages for 1987-1990 (.291/.377/.411) -- a conservative estimate given that Edgar hit .300 in every healthy full season he played until he turned 40 -- that would project, over 275 additional games, to approximately 256 additional hits, including 49 doubles, 4+ triples, 16 home runs, 116 runs, and 95 RBI. If you assume he would have hit to his cumulative MLB averages for1987-1991 (.298/.389/.428, probably a more reasonable assumption), over 275 games he projects to an additional 271 hits, including 54 doubles, 5 triples,19 home runs, 139 runs, and about 100 RBI. If you add those totals( plus 200-300 additional games played at 3B) to Edgar's career totals now, Edgar would be somewhere in the neighborhood of .310/.415/.515, with about 2500 hits, 900 XBH including maybe 325 HR, close to 1400 RBI and 1300 runs scored, and 900-100 games competently played at third base. Quite simply, there would be no debate about Edgar's HoF credentials then.

Bill James believed and has persuasively argued that HoF voters should take into account the fact that a career is cut short by things outside of a player's control, like late call-up, war service, etc. (but not injury, as being injury-prone is part of one's skill set in a way that living in wartime or being held back by a stupid GM is not). The idea is that players blocked by the kind of managerial incompetence (for example) that Edgar endured should be given, if not a credit, at least some recognition that they were good players at a time when they were prevented through no fault of their own from playing and accumulating numbers that might make a difference for them in terms of HoF consideration. That's not to saythat you *assume* they would have put up X additional counting stats, butjust that you give them a break on the necessity for "magic number" counting stats that are essentially unreachable for them despite sustained excellence over a career.

[After all, to reach 3000 hits, you need 15 years averaging 200 hits . . . what are the chances that someone who doesn't play even close to full-time until 27 (and then reduces opportunities to get hits by walking a lot -- no doubt very valuable contribution to winning baseball even if it isn't valued much by HoF voters -- so that his career high for hits in a season is 182) can get close to that? Not much, as we have seen.]

I agree with James, and Edgar deserves exactly this kind of benefit of the doubt. This is one big reason why I would more highly value and consider Edgar's excellent "rate" stats over his lesser counting numbers. I think it is what any thinking BBWAA voter should do, even if they usually don't. However, "the way it has always been" is not an anchor, and is not a persuasive reason to ignore good arguments based on sometimes overlooked stats.

I like statistics because, when not overly manipulated, they can illuminate areas left dark or overshadowed by what we think we "know." No doubt there is a compelling statistical argument to be made for Edgar's HoF case, but there is an equally compelling case built on the testimonials of his peers, who consider him one of the greatest hitters of his generation, and along with Frank Thomas and perhaps Manny Ramirez (if he sustains his current performance well into his mid-30s), the best right-handed hitter in the game over the last 15 years. Even more than any statistical argument, that should be strongly considered by any HoF voter.

I've written enough for now -- or maybe, as usual, too much. I will revisit this subject in another post or two, though, because there are some statistical arguments that get tossed around for Edgar that I don't particularly like (but which, even when viewed in proper context, lend proper support to his cause), and there are some writers who are making a public and mostly one-sided and even misinformed argument against Edgar's credentials that I would like to rebut. But, another day. I've got a game to get to.

Ahhh, Pitching Injuries

2004-07-27T13:30:00.000-07:00

Good comments on Pineiro, Jack. The Mariners have a dubious record of over-using pitchers, and have a full stable of injured pitchers to prove it. Steve from the Mariners Wheelhouse did a great piece on how the Mariners have bungled pitcher development and incurred unnecessary injuries at a rate that is hard to ascribe simply to chance.

I've always thought that overall pitch count was less important than high pitch counts per inning, which have always seemed to me like they would be more taxing and tiring than just a high cumulative total. While I don't know how to find data on how often Mariners pitchers have had innings where they throw more than, say, 25 pitches, I do know that they are among the worst in baseball in things like pitches per batter faced (P/PA) and pitches per inning pitched (P/IP). Among 547 men who have appeared as a pitcher this year in MLB thus far, here are where Mariners pitchers rank (a lower ranked number is bad, obviously):

PITCHER            P/PA (RANK)          P/IP (RANK)

Rafael Soriano     4.1 (62)            28.5 (12)
Travis Blackley    4.1 (64)             21.3 (32)
George Sherrill    4.2 (45)             21.0 (34)
Matt Thornton      4.2 (54)             20.2 (49)
Clint Nageotte     3.8 (237)            18.8 (108)
Mike Myers         4.1 (84)             18.4 (122)
Shiggy Hasegawa    3.9 (198)            17.5 (187)
Ron Villone        4.0 (131)            17.3 (204)
J.J. Putz          3.7 (316)            16.9 (250)
Jamie Moyer        3.9 (157)            16.8 (262)
Bobby Madritsch    3.4 (505)            16.3 (321)
Ryan Franklin      3.7 (339)            16.2 (323)
Joel Pineiro       3.8 (292)            16.0 (365)
Julio Mateo        3.6 (396)            15.7 (396)
Freddy Garcia      3.7 (353)            15.3 (454)
Eddie Guardado     3.9 (165)            14.7 (498)

To make matters worse, the M's have high pitch counts too, with six pitcherson their staff (or who spent most of the year on their staff) among the highest pitch counts in MLB, including a RELIEVER and a guy who hasn't pitched in the Bigs in almost two months (Pineiro is #5 with 2246 pitches, Garcia is #15 with 2162, Moyer is #38 with 2068, Franklin is #63 with 1883, Villone is #137 with 1142, and Meche is #168 with 889).

I don't know that much can be done about this. You would hope that with good coaching (and playing in what's considered a pitcher's park), Mariner pitchers would challenge hitters more and throw fewer pitches than this, but I tend to think this is a performance issue rather than a coaching issue. From a manager's perspective, though, if you don't want to burn these guys out, I think you want to watch high pitch-count innings and maybe let guys who do that more often throw fewer pitches overall.   Particularly when you see guys who have arguably been over-used become ineffective (like Meche) or hurt (like Pineiro -- who BTW was in the top 16 pitchers in Pitching Abuse Points before he was injured, according to Baseball Prospectus), and when you have an organization-wide epidemic of pitching injuries.

It wouldn't hurt to correct mechanical issues (like pitching in front of the rubber) that might be contributing to high pitch counts, though. Yeah, that might be a good idea.

Pineiro Update

2004-07-26T19:01:00.000-07:00

FOX Sports has changed their story and now report that the injury does not require ligament-transplant surgery.   This doesn't mean that the news on Piniero isn't ominous on the day after Piniero pitched his best game of the year. While waiting at the bus stop early this morning I read the following blurb in the morning rag:

     Pineiro displayed some discomfort near the end of his eight innings of work, gingerly rotating his pitching arm on the mound. Admittedly, he felt tightness after delivering a changeup, two pitches before he was done. He shrugged it off.

     "I kept on pitching," he said. "I'm not worried,"

I was worried.

Should this be surprising? Let's review what we know:

In 2003 as a 24 year old who had never started more than 30 games in a season, he was seventh in the American League in pitches thrown.
That same season Piniero was allowed to throw 5 games with pitch counts of over 120 including 125 and 129 pitch count games in September. This kind of workload is alarming for any pitcher not named Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, or Livan Hernandez. ( For further information on pitcher abuse please see Rany Jazayerli's excellent study on the effect of high pitch counts on young pitchers from the 2002 Baseball Prospectus.)
In 2004 in his second full season as a starter, Piniero is currently 3rd in the league in pitches tossed.

But that's not all. Piniero was quoted in Sunday's Seattle Times:

"It's been little things. For instance, in that last game[against Boston] I didn't have much of anything so I wound up trying to compensate by overthrowing".

That doesn't sound good to me. But the real kicker came in the same Sunday Seattle Times article:

"When Mariners pitching coach Bryan Price checked the film, he found that Piniero was putting his right foot about 3 inches in front of the rubber.

"You don't usually look down to see where your foot is" Piniero said. "I'm like almost everyone else, I use the rubber to drive off to throw a pitch. And here I was not using it and didn't even realize it."

"It doesn't work that way. It throws everything off. One thing to try to do is to be consistent in your mechanics. It was crazy to be off the rubber like that, but I hope that's what was making me not pitch good."

Now I am not a pitching coach. Not even close. But shouldn't somebody have noticed this? We have a pitcher who has a noticeable decrease in velocity and effectiveness this season compared to his first two seasons in the majors, and we are finally checking his mechanics at the end of July, all the while allowing him to throw more pitches than all but two pitchers in the league?

Pineiro Blows Up

2004-07-26T16:21:00.000-07:00

Fox Sports' (and The Sporting News') Ken Rosenthal reports that Joel Pineiro has a torn elbow ligament and "could" face ligament-replacement surgery that would sideline him for 12-18 months. The Mariners have not yet confirmed this, but if true, this is a MAJOR blow to any attempt by the M's to buy their way back into contention next offseason. Pineiro will have to be replaced with a middle-of-the-rotation guy, and I think the M's already thought they needed one of those. Paying two pitchers for the rotation will put a damper on what else they can do, particularly with all the penny-pinching noises still emanating from the Mariners' front office. [Notice I did not say I don't think the M's have the money to do all they need to. I believe they do, but probably will not. They will cry "budget" and aim low with the excuse that they need to spend what money they have across the board, to fill many holes, and we will end up with a lot of Spiezio/Ibanez type signings rather than any serious attempt at Beltran-level guys.]

More thoughts on this later. One thing I know for sure, though . . . Jamie Moyer, if ever he was going anywhere else, isn't now.

Whither Sweeney . . .

2004-07-26T11:27:00.000-07:00

Well, first let's hope we're talking about Mike Sweeney and not Mark Sweeney -- though the latter actually has slightly better (though Coors-enhanced) numbers for about 5% of the price, and he's left-handed.

I kid because I care, Jack.

Although I doubt the veracity of this rumor (Royals GM Allard Baird was quoted as saying that "he owes it to Sweeney to see if he can find a home for him with a contender," which doesn't exactly sound like the Mariners), there is no question that Jack's right about Sweeney. It's even worse than he said: if Sweeney is traded, the $11M per year he is owed from 2005-2007 would increase to $12.5M per year. That's the same money Vladimir Guerrero will make over the same time (although he will get a minimum of $17.M more after that, in the form of $14.5M in 2008 and at least $3M buyout in lieu of a $15M salary in 2009 . . . but we're talking about Vladimir Guerrero here, who's 28 and a helluva lot better than Mike Sweeney). Miguel Tejada, the guy the M's balked at last winter and most people thought the Orioles overpaid to get, will make less and put up better numbers through his (upcoming, he's 28) prime than Sweeney did in his (past) prime.

To me, this is exactly the kind of deal the M's have stumbled over in the past. They're almost like the bad fantasy owner who catches on to the fact that a player is pretty good after he has already begun the decline from his peak. The Mariners look at Sweeney, and they think he can repeat, in his age 32-34 years, the run he put together from 1999 to 2002, his 26-29 years. I am in the process of updating Bill James' "Aging Patterns" study that I referred to in a post a couple of weeks ago, but trust me, that very rarely happens. Some guys have one year during this age span where they approximate something resembling their peak, but the chance of Sweeney performing to the level of his contract for more than 3-6 months out of three years is somewhere between slim and none.

This is especially so because Sweeney has already suffered a serious injury and has not seen his performance recover. Before wrenching his neck (when his teammates apparently slapped his head too hard after a game-winning hit against the Giants on Father's Day) last year -- an injury that cost him six weeks -- Sweeney was putting up what had been (for him) typical numbers: .321/.440/.540. After he came back, he hit only .260/.325/.379 with only 12 XBH. He was simply not the same hitter he was before the injury. Over the off-season, Sweeney reportedly opted against surgery so that he could be ready for this season, but he has not returned to previous form. He's hitting .289/.344/.503 -- not bad numbers (though probably inflated a bit by the Royals' home park), but not $12.5M per year over three years kinds of numbers, and the age/injury issues have to give any reasonably competent GM pause to consider that he will never again be the same player he once was.

That the Mariners are consistently fooled on exactly these kinds of things is the most distressing thing about being a Mariners fan. Forget about giving up Gil Meche (although I question the wisdom of trading up a 25-year old pitcher with 70+ ML starts and an over-.500 record -- not to mention the kind of stuff scouts drool over -- for aging hitting, no matter how big Meche's current struggles are), it's just a bad idea to acquire somebody like Sweeney and the contract that comes with him, no matter who we give up.

runs standings

2004-07-25T22:19:00.000-07:00

Again we have surpassed the Brewers for 28th place on the MLB run list. Here are up to date standings on where we are at and see who we are going to pass next:

Rank Team Runs Runs Behind
29 Brewers 400 --

28 Mariners 404 4

27 D'Backs 406 6

26 Royals 410 10

25 Marlins 414 14

24 Mets 422 22

23 D'Rays 430 30

22 Blue Jays 431 31

21 Padres 437 37

Sunday funnies

2004-07-25T08:29:00.000-07:00

While perusing the Sunday papers this morning, I ran across the following tidbit in the Akron-Beacon Journal:

ANY MINUTE? -- An American League source believes that Kansas City first baseman/DH Mark Sweeney is on the verge of being traded to the Mariners for Gil Meche and one or two minor-leaguers.

What are some of the facts that we already know:

1) Sweeney is owed (at least) $11 M per season for 2005, 2006 and 2007.
2) Sweeney will be 32 years old next year.
3) Sweeney has a history of back problems limiting him to 126 games in 2002 and 108 games in 2003. He has already missed 10 games this year.
4) Sweeney's back problems limits his ability to play 1B full time making him a 1B/DH when/if healthy.
5) Sweeney is unhappy in the DH role.
6) After posting OPS numbers of 916 and 980 in 2001 and 2002 he has declined to an 858 OPS each of the last two years.

If this is even being considered, what can Bavesi be thinking? Acquring another over-priced declining player on the wrong side of 30 is the last thing we should be thinking about. Add another one of these players to the list of Spiezio, Ibanez, Cirillo, Aurilia. The front office simply isn't learning from their mistakes.

Also, why does this deal take several minor leaguers to complete? Baird would love to get out of Sweeney's contract!

What's the next rumor? Giambi to the Mariners for Gil Meche? Maybe Meche to the Indians for Vizquel? How about Meche to the Mets for Mo Vaughn?

New paper - The LA Times (you need a subscription, but it's free)

After Scott Spiezio rejected the Angels' offer of a bench job, the Seattle Mariners signed him as a starting infielder, for three years and $9 million. Although Spiezio entered Friday's game hitting .211, Seattle General Manager Bill Bavasi would not say he made a poor investment."You can't say that yet. It's a three-year deal," Bavasi said.Bavasi said Spiezio would be Seattle's first baseman next season. In this last-place season, the Mariners have cut shortstop Rich Aurilia and first baseman John Olerud, and second baseman Bret Boone and designated hitter Edgar Martinez were hitting below .250 before Friday's game. "We've had failures in other spots that were supposed to be more productive," Bavasi said. "He was brought here to be an everyday player, not to carry the club. Guys like him and [Raul] Ibanez have been trying to carry the club when they're not supposed to."

Let's read between the lines a little here:

1) Spiezio is not a very good player, because he has taken it upon himself to carry the club when others around him who have supposed to have carried the club such as Boone, Edgar, Olerud, Aurilia have failed.

2) Spiezio will be 32 next year and has a lifetime OPS of 750. This is our idea of the numbers we are looking for from our first baseman of the future. Let's forget about the fact that a 750 OPS from our first baseman would rank just above John Olerud. This is our idea of a sound three year investment.

or possibly:

3) Here we have a solid corner infielder who has failed this year because he has tried to do too much. The Angels could use a 3B for the stretch run and Speizio is practically a folk hero (how can these things be only $20) in Anaheim. Let's throw a bone to the LA Times and see if we can't unload a bad contract for say....Ramon Ortiz? Nah...too good to be true.

The willie watch

2004-07-23T22:55:00.000-07:00

With his 0-2 tonight, Dan is now slugging .200 for the month of July to go with a .212 on-base percentage. A 412 OPS ranks him 318th out of 328 players with at least 25 at bats in July.  In June he ranked 343 out of 368. Mike Restovich sounds pretty good to me right now.

Regarding Pete's post about Hole-Bert Cabrera's beef with home plate umpire Phil Cuzzi, this is the way I saw it from my vantage point behind the third base dugout. Barry Zito tossed a slow curve ball, as he so often does, in the dirt for a ball. Cabrera asked Cuzzi to take a look at the ball and Cuzzi refused. After yelling at Cuzzi for awhile, Cabrera looked into the dugout for a little help only to find B0-Mel utterly confused with the situation at hand. It took some convincing by Hole-Bert to get B0-Mel out of the dugout to help plead the case, although I was never fully convinced that Bo-Mel got the full jest of what it was he was arguing about.   It seems as though this was another example of an umpire showing up a player and making a point that the man in blue is above the game. I wonder if the same situation would have existed had Alex Rodriguez been the batter and Travis Blackley had been the pitcher.

The Brewers scored 7 runs tonight to our 2 which puts us back in 29th place in runs scored.

Of course Pete is correct about Ichiro stealing 3rd with nobody out. I am haunted by the thoughts of Chuck Armstrong a few weeks ago, who insinuated that the Mariners make decisions based on fan polls. Many of these poll people are women and families who may not make the best sound choices.   What they may or may not want to see may or may not be best for the team or the best choices for scoring runs and winning ball games. Many of the fans want to see Ichiro steal bases. Is it advantageous for the M's to send Ichiro in ways other than for scoring runs and winning ball games?

Speaking of stolen bases and Ichiro, it seems that Ichiro stole a base tonight on a 3-0 count. Niehaus, who is always the master of the understatement, said that he didn't think he had EVER seen that happen before. Well Dave...Ichiro did it once last year...once the year before...and twice the year before that. Oh wait...Randy Winn also did it this year.

Speaking of 3-0 counts, the M's are 3 for 6 with 86 walks on 3-0 counts. ( Dan Wilson is 0 for 2.)   Incidently, the Red Sox are 8-9 on 3-0 counts with 5 doubles and 2 homers. Wow!

We're # 28!

2004-07-22T22:34:00.000-07:00

A bit of good news today. We have moved past the mighty Brewers for sole possession of 28th for total runs scored and we are within striking distance of the Diamondbacks and Royals.

By my calculations Dan Wilson now has a .214 slugging percentage for the month of July. Thank goodness "he hits the ball with authority" (according to Shane O'neill).

Over the last 7 days we are 2nd in the majors in Runs Created despite playing some good teams. It might not seem like much now, but it's a baby step...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=runsCreated&season=2004&split=61&group=9&seasonType=2&statType=batting&type=type4

Bucky Jacobsen -- The Mountain Man of The Power Valley

2004-07-22T11:42:00.000-07:00

All hail Bucky Jacobsen, the Mountain Man of The Power Valley. Although heading into Wednesday's game Bucky was one for his last nine (a single in the 8th against Boston on Monday) and would stretch that to 1-for-his-last-12 before his 10th inning blast to win the game, he comes out of this game looking like God's Gift to the Mariners, winning games and hitting .333/.500/.762. Yes, pitchers are pitching him (and Justin Leone) much smarter, and he's going to struggle some, but he's giving the Mariners something they've lacked all year -- a personality fans can relate to, and a Big Bat threat. That he is doing so while showing patience at the plate is very refreshing.

I went to this game with my seven-year-old son, who is spending all day every day this week playing baseball. Both Travis Blackley (51 strikes, 42 balls, 43 Game Score) and Barry Zito (62 strikes, 44 balls, 30 Game Score) were far from having their best stuff, and this game took forever to play, so we had to leave before the 8th (10:00 PM, roughly) so my boy could get some sleep, but I managed to catch the 10th on TV at home. This was an entertaining game, on a beautiful night.

A couple of random thoughts:

* What the heck was Jolbert Cabrera arguing about during his AB in the 3rd? I didn't see all of it, but he appeared to be talking (animatedly) to somebody in the Mariner dugout rather than the umpire . . . I just couldn't figure it out.

* Why is Ichiro attempting to steal third in the 4th inning when he is already in scoring position on second and his team is up 5-3 with nobody out, on a 0-0 count with the team's second-hottest hitter for the month up to bat? Granted, from my perspective, it looked like Ichiro beat the tag (and I booed lustily), but that's not smart baseball.

If you look at this year's Expected Run Matrix and Situational Run Probabilities reports from Baseball Prospectus (these are premium reports, but there really is no excuse for not subscribing to BP if you are a serious baseball fan), you'll find that the difference between average runs scored from the 2nd/no outs situation (1.1647) and the 3rd/no outs situation (1.4897) is not that great; if successful, you do decrease the probability of going scoreless (from .375 in the 2nd/no outs situation to .832 from 3rd/no outs), but your probabilities of scoring more than a single run (which increase from .329 to .534) are left basically unchanged. And, of course, this play is not without substantial risk of failure. Even though Ichiro is a pretty good base stealer (stealing at a 77% success rate career -- though probably less than that when stealing third), you're going to fail almost 25% of the time even with a good base stealer trying. If he fails, you've gone from the expectation of scoring 1.1647 runs on average, with a fairly low probability (.375) of not scoring and a decent chance of scoring one run (.329), two runs (.157) or more (.078 for 3 runs, .035 for 4), to an expectation of 0.5330 runs on average, with a very good chance you won't score at all (.832) and severely reduced probabilities of scoring any number of runs in comparison (.099 for 1 run, .040 for 2, .018 for 3, .007 for 4).

This is not a situation where one run was desperately needed. This was a situation where a team that has struggled to score runs all year long, facing a former Cy Young winner, had a chance to break open a big lead and traded it away on a risky play for a chance to play for one. Not smart . . . exactly the kind of bad baseball that helps you become a .400 team.

Of course, Ichiro was called out, and Randy Winn (who, as Peter White of Mariner Musings pointed out, had the courtesy to fake a bunt on strike one down the middle and then duck out of Damian Miller's way for the throw to third -- gee, thanks Randy) promptly doubled. A very concrete example of "How to Kill a Big Inning & Other Theoretical Ramblings about the Idiocy of Sacrificing and Stealing with Men Already in Scoring Position." Of course, had Ichiro been (correctly) called safe, we would have heard endless babble about what a fine, aggressive play it was . . . but it wasn't. Whether he succeeded or failed, this is just bad, dumb baseball.

Ole Redux - Cycle Trivia

2004-07-20T14:02:00.000-07:00

"Wordy yet elegant?" Let's just leave it at wordy and be done with it, shall we?

Jack's note about Olerud being the last Mariner to hit for the cycle, and yet having only two triples as a Mariner, got me to thinking about Cycle Trivia. I assumed that John Olerud would be close to the highest ratio of cycles to triples (2:13) all-time, and probably among the players with the fewest triples ever to hit for the cycle. He is, on both counts, but he is not the top in either category (5th in ratio, 18th and climbing in fewest triples among players with cycles), though he does have the fewest triples among all men who have hit for the cycle more than once. He's also one of only three men who have hit for the cycle in both leagues.

Among the 244 players who have hit for the cycle, here are the players with the fewest triples (15 or fewer -- Edgar has 15, so I figured not hitting more than Edgar would be a good cut-off point):

Triples:Cycles & Percentage Ratio of Cycles to Career Triples

1. Bill Salkeld, 2:1 .500
2. Daryle Ward, 3:1 .333 (active)
3. John Mabry, 4:1 .250 (active)
4. Chad Moeller, 5:1 .200 (active)
5. Travis Hafner, 5 .200 (active)
6. Roy Carlyle, 6:1 .167
7. Mike Blowers, 8:1 .125
7. Albert Hall, 8:1 .125
8. Bill Collins, 10:1 .100
9. Jeff Frye, 11:1 .091
10. Greg Colbrunn, 12:1 .083 (active)
10. Miguel Tejada, 12:1 .083 (active)
10. Eric Byrnes, 12:1 .083 (active)
10. Scott Cooper, 12:1 .083
10. Rich Gedman, 12:1 .083
10. Jack Brohamer, 12:1 .083
10. Curry Foley, 12:1 .083 (1st man to ever hit for the cycle)
11. John Olerud, 13:2 .154 (active, sort of)
11. David Bell, 13:1 .077 (active)
11. Randy Hundley, 13:1 .077
11. Andujar Cedeno, 13:1 .077
12. Eric Chavez, 15:1 .067 (active)
12. Tony Horton, 15:1 .067
12. Buddy Rosar, 15:1 .067
12. Brad Wilkerson, 15:1 .067

For inquiring minds who want to know.

What's eerie about this list is how many guys with ties to the Mariners are on it. Blowers, Olerud, Bell, Mabry, Colbrunn -- and Jay Buhner (1 cyle, 19 triples) isn't far removed. Hell, Bill Salkeld is probably related to Roger Salkeld, at this rate.

[BTW, Jay Buhner is one of only six men to have hit a Grand Slam as part of the cycle. Only one of those six -- Tony Lazzeri -- ever hit a "natural" (i.e., in order -- single, double, triple, home run) cycle with a Grand Slam to top it off, which he did on June 3, 1932. However, his singular feat was overshadowed by one Lou Gehrig (himself the author of two cycles), who became the first modern player and firstAmerican Leaguer to hit four home runs in a game (and he barely missed a fifth), in the same game.]

Inside the numbers on Johnny O

2004-07-19T22:39:00.000-07:00

There is not much I can add to Pete's wordy yet elegant obituary toward John Olerud, yet here are some numbers just the same: (this information is unofficial and it's a little late for me to be doing math in my head)

1) 9th on the all time Mariners hit list with 705.
2) 238 extra base hits puts him 10th on the Mariners all time list.
3) John was the last Mariner to hit for the cycle, doing it on 6/16/2001.
4) The triple on the night of the cycle was just one of two he hit as a Mariner.
5) The home run that he hit to complete the cycle was just the second ball ever to reach the right field second deck at Qualcomm stadium.
6) 164 doubles puts him 8th on the all time Mariners list.
7) 5th all time in walks with 418.
8) Tied for 10th with Mike Cameron in runs scored at 353.
9) The Mariners never committed more that 100 errors in a season while he was a Mariner. A feat they only accomplished once before in their history in a non-strike year season. It's hard to say how much he had to do with that if anything. ( Although the New York Mets swear that their infield errors went up significantly the year after he left.)
10) 10th on the Mariner all-time list in total bases with 1093.

Olerud is only 35 years old. I think it is likely we will see him in the playoffs this year and it's not inconceivable that he will see this as a kick in the butt to work his ass off in the off-season and come to spring training in shape to win a starting 1B job somewhere. San Francisco or Anaheim perhaps? At least I hope that happens.

As Expected?

2004-07-19T11:43:00.000-07:00

At the All-Star break, I was mulling a post about how, even though the Mariners need to take a good look at some of the guys on the Farm, what we have seen thus far (and can expect to see) aren't a whole helluva lot different from what we've heard about and seen from these guys in Tacoma. Now, I'm beginning to wonder.

With the pitchers, that's been mostly true. Clint Nageotte showed pretty much what his minor league peripherals suggested -- good power pitcher with good K rate, but he would struggle with control and needs work on his change-up. Ditto for Matt Thornton, except emphasize the part about struggling with control, and not so much about needing to work on other pitches. If the theory holds true, this also strongly suggests that Gil Meche isn't ready to return, either. The theory buckles a bit under the weight of the collective struggles of Travis Blackley and George Sherrill (both Blackley and Sherrill looked more ready to me than Nageotte or Thornton, though anybody who saw Blackley struggle early in the Rainiers season knows that if he can't locate and/or struggles with his change, he has trouble), but it is still early.

But what are we to make of Bucky Jacobsen and Justin Leone? For both Jacobsen and Leone, the minor league numbers suggest (actually, shout) that we should expect a lot of strikeouts, to go with patience and power. Well, OK, the strikeouts have proven true, but did anybody expect the power and patience to translate so quickly? And in Bucky's case, the average?

Cheney Stadium is the biggest pitcher's park in all of minor league baseball (in fact, all of the M's farm teams play in the best pitchers' parks in their leagues), so maybe these results shouldn't be entirely shocking. But I think we'll see this begin to moderate. Bucky looks to me like he has a chance to be a Buner-esque figure, both in terms of popularity and in what his stats might look like down the road, but I don't expect him to hit much more than .260/.345/.450 this year. Mind you, that's pretty damn good. Leone should put up pretty similar numbers -- probably a little worse for average and SLG. Both look to be solid major leaguers, though probably not stars. If Leone can play the outfield (as was reported to us by Bad Bob Melvin soon after he was called up -- "He's comfortable at third base, shortstop and left field, so those are good options"), he could become a semi-regular Mark McLemore-type utility guy except with some power and ability to actually pick it a bit, but that would require the M's to recognize that Willie Bloomquist just isn't that good a player, and I don't see that coming.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this. Big surprise -- Mariners minor leaguers show about as expected based on what they did in the minors. One thing this portends that is kind of exciting, however: Jose Lopez should be pretty good when he gets the call sometime in early August. He's not great defensively, but he'll do as well as the guys we're playing there now, and he should be able to hit .265/.325/.450, I (optimistically) think.

Mr. Wilson

2004-07-16T13:19:00.000-07:00

Good points about Dan Wilson, Jack. I might quibble with a little bit of your criticism of Wilson, but not much.

First, I would probably agree with Shane O'Neill that Miguel Olivo "doesn't have Wilson's experience or feel for working with pitchers or calling games." But hey, that's an advantage a catcher with almost 1100 more career games played is supposed to have; it's hardly an indictment of Olivo's skills.

Second, while I am not Dan Wilson's biggest fan, I disagree with your implication that there is no appreciation of Dan Wilson's defensive skills outside of Seattle, or that this lack of respect is the reason he has never won a Gold Glove. The main reason Wilson has never won a Gold Glove is because he has spent all but two years of his AL career competing for that award with Ivan Rodriguez (AL GG winner 1992-2001).

We all know that defensive statistics are elusive at best, and I think defensive catching statistics are among the murkiest. There is a lot more to catching than blocking balls and throwing out runners, and much of the comparison based on things like catching ERA are very dependent on the variation of performance among pitchers over a pretty small sample. Catching defense is one area where I would be inclined to rely more heavily on subjective observation and traditional "scouting" opinion than I would the kinds of rudimentary defensive statistics we have available to us.

Having said that, judging by some of the better measures of defensive performance, like Bill James' fielding Win Shares and Baseball Prospectus' "Rate" statistics (a figure Clay Davenport came up with to measure how many runs better or worse than an average fielder -- defined as 100 -- is per 100 defensive innings played, with a 105 being 5 runs better than average, 96 being 4 runs worse, etc.) and "Fielding Runs Above Replacement" (or FRAR), it is pretty clear that had Rodriguez not been in the AL in 1995, 1996, and 1997, Wilson was probably the next most deserving of the Gold Glove. That's not to say he should have beaten Rodriguez in those years (though in 1995, it should have been close), but there is no shame in being runner-up to Pudge. Over Wilson's time here, the average of Dan Wilson's yearly Rate statistics is 104 (rounding up) -- a fair bit better than average, though certainly not elite (though his best seasons, from 1994-1997, were).

Shane O'Neill probably overstated the case when he suggested Wilson may be the best catcher never to win a Gold Glove, but I think most baseball analysts and close observers recognize that Wilson is (or at least was) a pretty damn good defensive catcher. The problem is, Wilson has also had some pretty average (or worse) defensive seasons -- inluding 1998, 1999, 2002, and maybe even 2003. By the measures I've looked at, Wilson would struggle to even be in the Gold Glove conversation in all of those years, while in the years when Wilson was in the conversation, he was never better than a moderately close #2 or #3 guy. If O'Neill is suggesting Wilson should have won one by now, he's just wrong.

[BTW, Bengie Molina is the only other AL GG winner in Wilson's time. He was a decisive and deserving winner in 2002 and 2003 (over 4-5 guys in each year who had much better cases than could even conceivably be made for Wilson).]

Third, I disagree with your implication that Wilson's defense has been no better over the years than other catchers the Mariners have carried during his tenure. If you look across a range of fielding statistics over Wilson's tenure, there are only a few of seasons where more than a few defensive statistical measures suggested that maybe Wilson wasn't the best defensive catcher we had, and most of those have been in the latter half of Wilson's career. This may say more about the shitty second catchers the Mariners have collected over the years than it does about Wilson, but still . . ..

Despite playing many more games and innings than his back-ups, Wilson has about the same number of errors and passed balls as the others combined. He has a better fielding percentage than any of them (.995 as a Mariner), and a better range factor (6.85 as a Mariner) than any of them (the closest are John Marzano, at 6.04, and Ben Davis at 5.89).

You could argue, based on at least the second half of Ben Davis' 2002 season and the first half of his 2003 season, that he was a better option than Wilson. Here are some of their stats for 2002 and 2003:

2002: Wilson - 97 rate, .998 FPCT, 7.17 RF, 4.12 CERA, .283 CS% (not real good). Davis - 110 rate, .998 FPCT, 6.81 RF, 3.99 CERA, .439 CS%.

2003: Wilson - 98 Rate, .997 FPCT, 6.68 RF, 3.79 CERA, .300 CS%. Davis - 103 rate, .991 FPCT, 7.33 RF, 3.88 CERA, .347 CS%.

Setting aside for a moment things like whether pitchers are more comfortable pitching to Wilson than Davis -- no small matter, and something that I don't think can be measured but is nevertheless very important -- Davis was pretty clearly the better defensive catcher in 2002, statistically. However, his offense kept him on the bench in the first half (.230/.306/.278, versus Wilson's .314/.343/.416); it wasn't until the second half that he proved to be the better player all-around (hitting .294/.324/.559 to Wilson's .276/.307/.374). That performance led me, you, and a lot of other followers of the Mariners to conclude it was time for Dan Wilson to step back in favor of Ben Davis, and his offense in the first half of 2003 (.294/.333/.490) did nothing to discourage that thinking. However, just when he should have been ready to step up to more regular duty in the second half, he collapsed (.140/.204/.204). Neither his offense or his defense ever recovered.

You could argue Tom Lampkin was better defensively in 2001, but they were really both about the same, and both only moderately better than average. Wilson had a 104 rate, .999 FPCT, 7.11 RF, 3.51 CERA, and a.281 CS%, while Lampkin had a 105 rate, .995 FPCT, 7.11 RF, 3.57 CERA, and a .278 CS%. However, Lampkin had a poor year at the plate and, besides, this was basically a platoon between lefty Lampkin and righty Wilson. It's pretty difficult to make the argument that Lampkin should have been elevated to the #1 catcher based on this year. In 2000, Lampkin and Joe Oliver combined to be a fair bit better than Wilson offensively, but not defensively.

Lampkin probably was better than Wilson in 1999. Wilson had a 95 rate, .995 FPCT, 6.78 RF, 5.47 CERA, .243 CS% (uhhhhgly), while Lampkin had a 116 rate, .985 FPCT, and a 5.70 RF (I can't access his CERA and CS% numbers, but they can't be much worse than Wilson's). Neither of these guys was anything to write home about defensively, but Lampkin was certainly the better offensive player. He probably should have caught 121 games while Wilson caught 56, rather than the other way around. And John Marzano may have been a better defensive catcher in 1998, but he had done nothing the previous two years to suggest that would be true, and he and Wilson were about equally poor offensively that year (typically, Wilson hit for better average, and Marzano for better OBP and power -- though in relative terms, since both were 15-20% worse than league average in adjusted OPS).

In all the other years, Wilson was hands-down the clear choice, at least defensively.

BUT I do I agree with you about this: Wilson has had some relatively poor years defensively, and even his record as a whole doesn't really justify the reverence for his defense generally accorded him in this town -- at least in the latter part of his career.

Still, it's always been his offense that's bugged me. Wilson's as empty as they come. Even in "good" years, he is all about hitting singles, with almost no patience at the plate, and little-to-no power. Wilson has never been even a league average hitter his entire time in Seattle (he's a career 82 OPS+ -- 18% worse than league average, park adjusted -- and he's been better than league average in OBP only once in his career and has never slugged at or above league average). Paying this guy an average of $4.1M per year over the last four years was insane, and had to be based on a serious over-valuation of his defense, because offensively, he's a black hole who can only be expected to even approach league average in his best years. But let's be realistic: the Mariners kept Wilson because they correctly felt they had no other good option, and the believed good-guy Wilson is worth something at the box office and in the community (which he is). Fault them for giving him too much money, but not necessarily for bringing him back when they did.

I generally agree with you about Olivo, but it is probably too early to say with much conviction how much better he will be with our pitchers than Wilson (other than the arm -- we know that will be better). We will certainly find out, as I fully expect that Olivo will catch 60-70% of the games from here on out. I think there is value in having Wilson help Olivo learn our pitching staff this year, but to re-sign Wilson to continue that process next year would not be smart (at least unless Wilson will work for $1M or less). To the extent they can, they should find a decent defensive catcher who hits right-handed pitching well (since Olivo has had trouble doing that (.214/.278/.292 from 2001-2003, .192/.243/.317 this year) -- as has Wilson, before this year). Damian Miller (at 35 next year, a bit old, but .302/.352/.488 vs. righties this year and .245/.315/.415 over the previous three) and Jason Varitek (expensive and also getting up in age, but a good defender and (switch) hitter who hits respectably well against righties are among the free agent-to-be catchers on the market next winter, and I think either one would be a better (short-term) investment than continuing to pay Dan Wilson anything close to what he is making now. The best bet is probably to scour the four-A types for a minor-league free agent, left-handed hitting catcher (maybe a guy like Mark Johnson of the Brewers, who is good defensively and a patient left-handed hitter with more offensive upside than his stats suggest), but I don't know how plentiful or available guys like that might be.

Time to Go, Johnny O

2004-07-16T10:16:00.000-07:00

Well, John Olerud is gone now, perhaps the victim of his own unwillingness to accept a trade (now he can be claimed on waivers by anybody, and if he wants to keep playing, he'll have to go), and certainly the victim of team-wide offensive ineptitude -- even though he was far from the worst offender.

Although I am sad to see him go this way, this is an understandable move. Even though Olerud hasn't been the M's biggest offensive disappointment, he plays a position where his under-production was pretty glaring, and despite his reputation as a stellar defensive first baseman, he had slipped there too in recent years. Scott Spiezio has been worse, but while Olerud comes off the books after this year, Spiezio is signed for three years -- the Mariners aren't going to eat that contract -- and while Spiezio has virtually no trade value, once designated for assignment (a move signalling to all teams that the M's are willing to eat a significant part of his contract in hopes of getting a trade for little-to-nothing in return), Olerud may have some value.

Although Bucky Jacobsen is the grateful recipient of Olerud's spot on both the 40-man and 25-man rosters, it is unlikely he will play a whole lot at first base, where (in part thanks to a bum knee he's been nursing) he has only played 5 games this year for the Rainiers. Scott Spiezio will play the lion's share of first base (with Dave Hansen also getting time there, unless he is traded, and possibly also Jolbert Cabrera), and Justin Leone getting a real look at third. If Bucky plays much, it appears it will be at the expense of Edgar Martinez at DH or in a pinch-hitting role. As much as I hate to see anything detract from as graceful an exit for Edgar as is possible in such a horrific year, this is probably all for the best. This is (and has been for probably a month longer than anybody has cared to admit) a lost season, and the Mariners have to see what they have in late-20s guys like Leone and Jacobsen. These moves will probably make the team worse in the short-run (though maybe more entertaining), but better in the long-run.

I wish the best for John Olerud. He's a class act, and probably deserved a classier ending than this. As we say goodbye, I also want people to remember want a great player John Olerud was through the decade of the 1990s. Among all players in MLB with at least 3000 plate appearances from the 1990-1999 seasons, Olerud was among the top thirty players in batting average (#26, .301), hits (#24, 1431), doubles (#9, 322), extra-base hits (#28, 505), walks (#8, 820), on-base percentage (#8, .406), OPS (#20, .888), runs created (#14, 954), runs created per game played (#18, 7.28), runs created above average (#15, 299), total average (#18, .912), and total bases (#30, 2291). He was a batting champ (and a runner-up in the batting race another year), once finished in the top three in MVP voting, a two-time all-star, and a three-time gold glove winner. That's a hellluva career, and I hope that is not lost in the ignominy of his release.

Dan "the Man"

2004-07-14T21:57:00.000-07:00

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/181899_msmidseason13.html

Shane O'Neill writes in Tuesday's PI about Dan Wilson:

* The best catcher to never win a gold glove
* Wilson continues to be a major assett behind the plate
* He still blocks balls in the dirt and tracks foul pops as well as any receiver in the game
* He's hit the ball with authority from left-center to right field and gotten some big hits.

Shane O'Neill writes about Miguel Olivo

* He doesn't have Wilson's experience or feel for working with pitchers or calling games.

* If Olivo continues to develop and learns from the heady Wilson, he can be a fixture behind the plate for several years.

My thoughts:

* The reason Dan Wilson has never won a gold glove is because he is not respected outside of Seattle. There is a reason for that. He is not all that good. This city has love affairs for certain athletes which clouds its vision on the value of that athlete to the team. Dan Wison is a $3.5 million dollars anchor on this team.

* There is an allusion that Dan Wilson calls a great ball game. Where is the evidence for this? Historically, Seattle pitchers have pitched no better with Wilson in the game than any other catcher. Also, you don't generally hear about free agent pitchers lining up to sign with the Mariners in the offseason knowing that the "do-nothing-wrong" catcher is instantly going to shave 1/2 a run off their ERA.

* After getting off to a fairly good start in April, Dan Wilson is ranked 18th in OPS
for catchers with at least 70ABs. 18th! There are only 14 teams. He slugged .250 in June and .278 so far this month. He hits the ball with authority?

* Olivo may be young and have less years than the "heady" Dan Wilson, but there is nothing proving that he is not already a better defensive player and pitch selector than his "protege". We do know that Olivo threw out 36% of basestealers against him last year which is something Dan Wilson has only come close to matching once in the last six years.

* To suggest that Olivo needs Wilson to "develop" and "learn from" in order to become a fixture behind home plate for the M's might be the most absurd statement of the bunch. Olivo will either develop on his own or he won't. To waste $3.5 million dollars and a roster spot on a mentor for Olivo as opposed to picking up a decent back up catcher is insane.

Here's Something That's Been Bugging Me . . .

2004-07-12T11:39:00.000-07:00

I know this is old news, and others have covered this pretty well, but what the hell . . .

Bob Finnigan wrote an Independence Day analysis that was laughable on many fronts. For a change in the M's blogosphere, I'm not going to focus on Mr. Finnigan (he has his faults, and says some dumbass things, but let's face it, the basic premise of the article -- its title was "Mainers Analysis: No Speed, No Power, and a Struggling Bullpen" -- was on the mark, even if patently obvious) but on the comments of some of the Mariners players/management/apologists. There is plenty enough "dumb" going around that picking on writers seems a bit silly.

Not to pick on Jamie Moyer, who has been his usual professional self this year, but this is kinda dumb:

"You've got players here who have been successful. How do you know suddenly they aren't going to be? Are you supposed to anticipate that, when you're geared to try to win, to do all you can to win. If you've got a chance, you try to fill in your roster holes with the right people and you go for it again.

"Is it an age thing?"

No, he said.

"Rebuild? How do you determine when is the time? How do you do it?"

With all due respect to a guy who has been able to defy the odds for years now, and understandably let's his competitive nature lead him to expect the same of others, this is a cop-out.

First, of course you are supposed to anticipate that a long-successful team will reach a point, even (seemingly) suddenly, when it is no longer going to be successful. It involves foresight, planning, and a willingness to risk being wrong (and weathering the inevitable criticism that will accompany prophylactic moves, whether wrong or right), but that's what well-managed teams do. Second, I would dispute whether this has ever been a team "geared to try to win" by "do[ing] all you can to win" and "fill[ing] roster holes with the right people." If that were the case, demands to fill obvious needs at mid-season in each of the last two seasons would have been met rather than answered by drive-numbing pablum about being up against an illusory budget. Teams that are "geared to try to win" maintain the financial flexibility -- even if it means foregoing tens of millions of dollars in profit for a year -- to act not just in the offseason but during a competitive season. Third, this is not a team that spent the past offseason "fill[ing] roster holes with the right people." This is a team that spent the offseason trying to clear away players it saw as either attitude problems or guys who didn't fit the team's antiquated view of performance analysis (or both) in favor of "clubhouse guys." And fourth . . . sorry, Jamie, but it is an age thing.

For the last two years in a row, usually right when I go camping the last week or so in August, the M's have begun folding up their tent with about 6-8 weeks to go. In 2002, the M's were in first place on August 15, at 74-47 (.612) and 1.5 games up on Anaheim and 4 games ahead of the A's. By Labor Day, they had dropped 10 of 17 games and found themselves in third place, 6 games behind Oakland and 4 behind Anaheim. They would play only .500 ball (12-12) the rest of the way and finished 10 games back of Oakland. In mid-August of 2003, the M's were playing .607 ball and had a 5 game lead on Oakland and a 16 game lead on Anaheim. By the beginning of September, the A's had caught and passed the M's, who would continue to muddle about (13-12) the rest of the way, continuing to give ground to the A's, who finished 3 games ahead of the M's. In both years, "the stretch" was a time when the Mariners became a sub-.500 team.

Folks, that kind of consistent, late-season fade is one pretty good sign of an aging team, and not a good indicator for avoiding future, precipitous, age-related decline. Average weighted team batting age in 2002 was 31.2 (for pitchers, it was 30.3); in 2003, it was 31.9 for batters and 29.9 for pitchers. These are not ages at which anybody should expect performance to continue at peak levels, much less for three straight years. After all, we are all -- even Edgar and Jamie -- human.

At least for hitters, Bill James did a study of this in one of his early abstracts, and he revisited it in Win Shares more recently, in a random essay called "Aging Patterns Among Great Players" (pp. 199-202). He looked at all inactive players in major league history who had earned 280 or more career Win Shares (with no more than 10 of those as a pitcher) and looked at the average distribution of Win Shares across the players' careers, relative to their peak, by age. He argued that this was the best way to look at aging patterns, because lesser players get released when their skills decline just a little bit, and thus "great players are the only players who have 'clean' careers with a full opportunity." He came up with a database of 148 great players, ranging in value from Ty Cobb at the top to guys like Ron Cey, Bert Campaneris, Fred Lynn, and Earl Averill on the bottom.

The results were pretty interesting, and very telling about the situation in which the Mariners found themselves this past off-season (and to some degree, the off-season before that, too). By far, the biggest drop-offs (in terms of WS earned at a given age years, relative to peak) were the very years in which the average Mariners hitter found himself -- the years after a player's age 32 year (the last year, on average, where you can expect a great player to perform at within 90% of peak value), and the year after a players age 33 year. James' research suggested that the average M's hitter entered 2004 knowing that the probabilities were that performance should decline by at least 8-10%, even if they were a player of the caliber James studied.

Of course, some of this is due to actual decline, and some to increased injury, decreased endurance, or to some combination of all of these, and it's all based on averages across the database. Some players (like Edgar, for many, many years, or Jamie with the M's) defy this, but not many: Of the 148 players, only 47 had their best year when they were 30 or older, 25 when they were 32 or older, and only 16 at any age later than 32. Forgetting about any specific player, to me this is the biggest single reason to be hesitant about acquiring (or keeping) a player who has already played his age 32 year, or will have a number of years left on a hefty contract after that point. It's just a bad bet, like hitting a 16 when the dealer shows a 3.

But, as I usually do, I digress. The point is, any competent baseball management team should be well aware of this kind of thing or, at the very least, the M's fade in 2002 and 2003 (the M's played under .500 ball after August 15 in both years - 19-22 in 2002, and 19-21 in 2003) should have piqued their interest in figuring it out.

So, what did Mariners management do this offseason? In almost every case where the Mariners chose or were forced to replace a player, they opted for an older player. Carlos Guillen (heading into his age 28 year) almost became Omar Vizquel (37), and then did become Rich Aurilia (32); Mike Cameron (31) became Raul Ibanez (32); Greg Colbrunn (34) became Quinton McCracken (also 34 this year, but a lot worse hitter: a career 81 OPS+ hitter -- meaning 19% worse than league average (which would be a 100 OPS+ by definition) versus Colbrunn's 107 career OPS+, a pretty significant difference); Arthur Rhodes (34) became Mike Myers (35); Armando Benitez (31) became Ron Villone (34); Dave Hansen (35) took the spot of either Colbrunn, or John Mabry (33), depending on how you look at it. Even where they got a younger, it was only by a little, and never with players younger than 30. The only instances I can think of where the M's didn't swap a player for an older player (or a player the same age) are Eddie Guardado (33) for Kazu Sasaki (36), and Jolbert Cabrera (31) for Mark McLemore (39) -- hardly a youth movement.

Now, I am not saying I knew this would result in the kind of collapse we've seen, but this I did know: adding older players like this to an already aged group that has already shown signs of decline put this team at far greater risk for something like this happening than was necessary, or prudent. Forget about talent analyses (I think most of these moves are charitably described as lateral moves offensively, at best, and a fairly significant drop defensively -- but that's a whole 'nother post); the risk of age-related decline alone was never addressed, other than to exacerbate it.

The Mariners never saw it coming. They didn't even see the risk of it coming. As so many of their moves demonstrate, they seem to believe (and count on) guys' ability to repeat career years, close to indefinitely, and express genuine surprise when it doesn't work out that way (despite such basic statistical truths as "regression to the mean"). This quote in the same article, from Howard Lincoln, is typical:

"When I took over we went to the ALCS and you start telling yourself this is the cat's meow. Well, I know now it is a lot harder. You assume it's going to continue that way, it's a shock when you don't. Out of spring training our expectations were rightfully high. Guys did pretty well in the spring. There was nothing to suggest this was going to happen."

That's just sad.

So, to answer Jamie's question, how do you do it? I'm sure, as we go forward, their will be a lot of discussion about this, as the fans and front office demands that Bavasi & Co., with the resources they have available, re-tool rather than rebuild. Re-hashing the past, specifically, doesn't help much, but here are the broad outlines: Build a team that has some balance, between power and speed, the ability to get on base and the ability to clear them, offense and defense, age and youth. Find an offensive style that fits your team's personality and personnel. The 2004 Mariners (and to a lesser extent, the 2003 Mariners) show none of this kind of balance. Zip.

It may be more difficult, even painful, to make the changes necessary to find this kind of balance. But can any of us say that the risk presented by the alternative, especially when realized, is better?

Update: Peter White of Mariner Musings made largely the same observations -- much more concisely -- in a recent post called Slip Sliding. If you are here and aren't aware of Mariner Musings . . . well, I doubt that might happen but you should check it out. Along with my friends at the USS Mariner, the good folks at the P-I and Steve at Mariners Wheelhouse, Peter is one of my regular staples in the Mariners Blogosphere. There are others, but these guys are regular and consistently good. Check them out.

A Bitcher, Not a Thrower

2004-07-09T17:09:00.000-07:00

Lord knows the blogosphere is already chock-full of Mariners bloggers, but I can no longer sit back and watch my team implode without offering my thoughts for all to see. I intend to be a Bitcher, not a Thrower, a right-handed griever out of the 'pen.

This has not been an easy year to be an M's fan. Move after questionable (or worse) offseason (and on-field) move, continuing in a long line unabated until Big Bald Bill surprised us all by sending Freddy Garcia to the White Sox for something more than a bag of balls. Since I am getting kind of a late start, I'll intersperse some comments on "old stuff" together with the current stuff that catches my attention.

Here's to hoping somebody besides me reads this, and enjoys it.