About a Contract - Wok's and Chone's (2)

Q. Has Wakamatsu earned Zduriencik's loyalty?

A. Stuff happens. How could Capt Jack know what Figgins was going to do this year? Lopez? Bradley? Kotchman? Well, OK, he coulda read SSI and figured it out about Kotchman and Snell :- )

Zduriencik's great. But this season imploded because Capt Jack let the April 6th offense fall below critical mass. (That and the fact that the rebuild was further behind than we all, other than James, thought, of course.)

E does not equal MC^2 when you're talking bats and gloves. You can't replace #3 and #4 hitters with extra leather. Name the team that did. Fangraphs breaks down when RBI's go below critical mass.

..............

In the first series of the season, this ballclub began to suspect that it could not score enough runs to win. But it did rally from a 1-4 record to go 9-7.

Then, April 23-24-25 against the White Sox, the walkoff losses to the White Sox after blowing scoring chances .... this ballclub had it utterly confirmed: the 2010 Mariners were not capable of scoring important runs, and its season was doomed. (Following the three walkoff L's were a crushing 1-3 loss to Felix Hernandez against a lousy team.)

...............

Wakamatsu, and the 25 players, have known since April that this club can't challenge good pitching. But he has never said a word against Zduriencik's roster, other than "the problem was RBI's tonight, not pitching" and that kinda stuff.

Wok has earned Z's loyalty, sure.

Q. If Z is loyal to Wok, does that mean Wok keeps managing here?

A. Not at all.

Like we say, sports-coaching jobs aren't government issue. They're not based on education, college credits, or references. They're based on context, on how well you match up with the people you coach.

Socialism has its uses: I don't want the military privatized, do you? But the standings are one place where socialism won't take you far...

..................

A tennis player might play lousy with one coach, change coaches, and go on a winning streak. It's just about how well the coach matches the athlete at that place in time. It's almost like picking a psychologist: it's not about which psychologist has the most education. It's about which one "fits" the patient.

Everybody in baseball understands that principle. And if Z has to change managers, 30 ML teams will understand that this wasn't Wakamatsu's fault. He'll get other chances.

Part 6

Printer-friendly version

Add new comment

Filed Under

Sports

Don Wakamatsu

Chone Figgins

Replies

Got Glove?

You ask who can replace 3/4 hitter with glove and win?

Try the 1991 Braves.

In 1990, the last place Braves had a 90 OPS+. Their 3B was Jim Presley, who hit 19 HRs and had 72 RBI that year, (both 3rd on the team). The club had an ERA+ of 88.

In 1991, they picked up Sib Bream to play first (moving Justice to the OF to plug the hole from dumping franchise icon Dale Murphy). They also brought in Rafael Belliard to replace the 101 OPS+ bat of Jeff Blauser - and brought in Terry Pendleton - a glove-first 3B, who had posted a .601 OPS (65 OPS+) in '90 with St. Louis.

Pendleton would hit 22 HRs and win the MVP award, with a 139 OPS+, (finished with a 90 OPS+ for his career).

While the FA moves were across-the-board focused on defense, the offense improved from a 90 OPS+ to a 98 OPS+ that year. The pitching went from 88 to 112 ERA+.

There is a difference between "acquiring" offense ... and "getting" offense. The Braves acquired a veteran glove and GOT an MVP bat. But, the Braves got "career years" out of about 6 regulars. The offense would swoon to 93 OPS+ the following year, but they continued to make the playoffs for 15.

Complaining about not getting a #4 hitter misses the point. The Ms acquired three starters for 2010: Kotchman (career .332 OBP) -- Bradley (career .366 OBP) -- Figgins (career .360 OBP). The club made a push to improve team OBP. Kotchman is at .300, Bradley BELOW .300, and Figgins at .331. They didn't GET what they acquired.

If the club gets a combined .350 OBP from those guys, who knows what the offense looks like. But, when you acquire three guys to help with OBP, and you remain dead last in OBP as all three have career disaster seasons ... then would it be reasonable to say ... "If they had acquired Pena and Aaron Hill and those two had combined for 15 HRs, then the problem with the offense was too much emphasis on power instead of OBP?

If there is an underlying problem with the Ms ... going back quite a ways ... and continuing to linger under Z ... it is that success is not JUST about talent acquisition. It is about getting talent *AND* about getting the most out of whatever talent you have.

CLEARLY, the Ms have gotten far, far less out of the talent they have had for MOST of the past half decade. The litany of export successes and import failures is amazing. IMO, the Ms (and their fans), have too long blamed "the park" for this reality. The truth is the culture of veteran entitlement was FAR more entrenched than the single 2009 season, (which focused heavily on Griffey and Sweeney), than was believed.

Angels fans warned us about Figgins.

There was some thought in Angel fandom that giving Figgins a huge contract would cause him to lose his hunger. It did. He plays like he doesn't care now, because he got his payday and the team is losing. The only way to motivate him now is to win...of course, he's supposed ot help with that, but I suspect that his bat would instantly improve if we suddenly had three MOTO bats behind him.

Bradley has been a disaster...the explanation for why a good hitter suddenly went SPLAT has to be largely mental...what is it about this team that causes players not to be in the right frame of mind?

Overlapping philosophies

Clearly you're right, Sandy, that they sought OBP and didn't get it.

And Taro is right that adding SLG without OBP won't help either.

But the combination of philosophies Z is taking is problematic.

They are set up now for youth at 1b, 2b, LF & C (but they don't want too much youth), and they are still set up for glove-first at SS & C (which is ordinarily OK by me, but the glove strategy requires a bullpen, too), and they are set up for low-SLG guys at RF, 3b (assuming Figgins moves there) & 2b (assuming Ackley -- obviously 2b is not ordinarily a SLG position anyway, but still). Then the attempt to layer the clubhouse chemsitry guys on top of all of that.

Each might be OK in isolation, but the combination seems deadly.

Z has left himself remarkably little room to overhaul the offense from my perspective (other than hope that Smoak, Ackley and Saunders get to be really really good really fast).

Is what you see, what Z wants?

Spec,

You make great points.

But, IMO, there's some wiggle room between what Z "wants" vs. what he has managed to get so far.

Yes, defense *IS* a priority. And having watched the Braves go to the playoffs 15 straight times, it's a priority that CAN work.

But, did Z "choose" a glove-first guy in Ackley?!? I don't think so. He drafted the #1 hitter available with a concensus of the planet. In point of fact, moving Ackley to 2B could EASILY be viewed as pushing OFFENSE over glove. Ackley isn't a "born" 2B, who has played it for a decade. Moving Ackley to 2B is a way to INCREASE the offense out of a normally defense-first position.

Clearly, in 2009, the choice of Branyan at 1B was NOT a "glove-first" decision. He got a cheap, 1-year masher at a position of need. In 2010, Branyan said he would no longer be a cheap, 1-year player. Z went out and got a cheap, 1-year, glove-first guy to play first.

Bradley was also not a case of -- "if I can have anyone I want - THIS is the guy!"

From my perspective, the only "truly" glove-determined move Jack has made was Jack Wilson replacing Yuni. And in THAT case, the reality (at the time) was ... I can have a no-hit, no-glove SS ... or I can have a no-hit, good-glove SS. (Hasn't worked out - but the philosophy is a winner, as far as I'm concerned).

I think where fans get frustrated and (IMHO - confused) - is equating every move "as if" this is Z's "ideal" outcome. It ain't. Z did not WANT to inherit a club at the bottom of the world in DER ... with little upside youth ... with bloated contracts in several positions, (who were underperforming en masse). He likely didn't want to see his available budget cut, either. But, that's what he got.

Yes, he DID do an incredible job in re-making the roster almost overnight in terms of dumping Bavasi fodder as fast as possible. But, fans have focused on the players ... NOT the terms. Gutz, Felix, Figgins ... that's the complete list of guys voluntarily signed by Z for more than a season. (Wilson I view as simply splitting the cost of the original salary acquired over two seasons).

I look at what Z was doing ... and I see a guy who came into an org with MISERABLE talent in the minors, and no history of developing any. He has simultaneously attempted to stay competitive on the field, (while slicing payroll), AND build up the minors.

Too ambitious? Probably. But, Gutz has been a solid plus - (despite his current slumpage). Vargas is beating all expectations. Saunders is starting to put it together, (and is actually starting to hit lefties). Planet-M is agog over the possibilities with Smoak. Pineda is looking more like the second coming of Felix. Ackley is moving up rapidly. Adam Moore is putting things together. Halman and Mangini are beginning to show some REAL progress. Liddi is showing cause for optimism.

Jack's job of GM is not only to assemble a winning team, but ALSO to sell tickets. So, like all GMs, he's gotta TRY and paint a positive picture for the fans (and players), whether he believes it or not. (one of many reasons to never believe words that are coming out of a GM's mouth).

From a "strategic" standpoint, the "perception" of Jack emphasising defense is brilliant, because he can pull that out as a negative against great offensive players. It doesn't change the primaries - but it could benefit Jack in regards to which throw-ins he gets (or gives). Pitching & Defense *IS* Jack's "stated" focus. So, he goes after a big bat (Monterro or Smoak) ... and gets a bunch of pitching thrown in, too.

For 2011:

CA - Moore/Johnon
1B - Smoak / (Carp/Mangini)
2B - Figgins - (Ackley?)
3B - FA? - (Figgins / Tui)
SS - Wilson(s) - ????
LF - Saunders
CF - Gutz
RF - Ichiro
DH - Bradley / Halman?

There's still lots of unknowns. Will Ackley be ready? What about the other prospects, (Halman, Mangini, Tui, Moore)? Is Lopez as much a lame duck as everyone (me too) believes? Is a 1-year deal for somebody like Ty Wigginton or Jorge Cantu going to happen? Is the club REALLY ticked at Figgy - and will they flip him at a loss?

For me ... I see ONE "bad" contract from Z so far -- Figgins. Everything else has been short or complicated by attempting to remedy Bavasi situations. For me ... show me a 3-year contract, and I see a GM commitment. Show me a 1-year, and I see a stop-gap.

Mostly agree, Sandy

I wasn't grouping Ackley as a glove-first move. Indeed, moving him to a middle infield spot is an excellent use of resources (assuming he will handle it, as I do). I think he will eventually show a solid SLG, but it will take him a few years. Putting him at 2b means he'll contribute greatly even if he never develops a lot of SLG (but, like I said, I think he will).

I totally agree that Z won the JJP trade massively and won the Lee flip massively. Overwhelmingly. Just to end up with Guti and Smoak is a huge win. Not to mention Vargas and the potential for Lueke, Beavan, maybe even Cleto, etc.

So I'm not all that down. You are completely right that some of the moves have been in reaction to BB failed moves (Yuni, Silva, etc.).

And I don't doubt that a run-prevention strategy can work. San Diego this year is an example, I think. But they do have a star hitter who can deliver SLG and not just OBP (obviously, Z wants one, too -- not saying he doesn't; let's hope it's Smoak, and soon), but, more importantly, they have had a lock-down bullpen.

Baker emphasizes the lack of offense as demoralizing the team, but I think it was equally the early bullpen failures.

Like I said, I'm not against having a bunch of high-OBP guys and glove-first guys in principle, and I'm not arguing to go out and get a bunch of sluggers just so you can prove that you have sluggers. I just think the combination of routes that Z has taken puts enormous pressure on the pitching staff, and this bullpen couldn't handle it.

Well said ...

Sounds like we're on the same page.

I think Z has done well with a bad situation. I think he recognized the bullpen was an issue, and (right or wrong), he flipped Morrow for League, because he felt League was a much stronger bullpen arm - and felt the club was in solid shape in the rotation, (and likely was betting against Morrow pulling it together - at least in Seattle).

The Aardsma, Lowe, League, Kelley, White bullpen was viewed by *MOST* as a team strength coming into 2010. (I was one of the few naysayers - though Doc was one of many not thrilled with Aardsma as the closer).

I just believe the "defense-mindedness" of Z is overstated. Figgins, Branyan and Bradley were NOT selected based on leather. I still view Z as trying to improve the team with each move. Sometimes things don't work out - (Kotchman, Bradley, Figgins), sometimes they do, (Gutz, Vargas, Aardsma ('09), Branyan ('09)).

I guess I missed your point on the 1991 Braves

1. Ron Gant, David Justice and Terry Pendleton were all impact bats (and all 127-140 that particular season).

Both Gant and Justice were thrilling young players who had OPS'ed 140 the year before.

The 1991 Braves were comparable to a 2012 M's team if Justin Smoak and Dustin Ackley were to OPS 140 in 2011.

What a terrible comparison to this '010 M's team. Of COURSE you could go "value" acquisitions around a pair of 140-OPS youngsters.

.................

2. All principles are relative. It's hard to find a 102-win team with a mediocre pitching staff, but the 1976 Reds managed it. It doesn't mean you want to try to win 100 with mediocre pitching, or that you want to try to contend without a single RBI man.

3. If your point is that you don't need a "name" bat, I agree -- though Justice and Gant were of course "name" bats.

I'd have been glad to have a couple of Russell Branyan types. I'd have been thrilled with Justice, Gant, a "value" Pendleton acquisition and savvy moves to back them up.

Names aren't the point. These guys thought you didn't need to hit to win, 'cause they play in Safeco and thought they could win 3-2 every night.

WRONG

Doc...I can GUARANTEE...GUARANTEE!!!!....you...that Z did not think he was going to wi 95 games 3-2. He thought this team would contend because he thought this team would hit about 15 OPS+ points better than it has. He thought they could win bunch of games 4-2 and 5-3. That model has been done successfully before. You were RIGHT WITH ME when I gave you my WAR stack posts...saying that on paper, the offense should be better. Now you want to go back and claim you had a different take?

Nomination

++ Doc...I can GUARANTEE...GUARANTEE!!!!....you that Z did not think he was going to win 95 games 3-2. He thought they could win bunch of games 4-2 and 5-3. ++

Nomination: for the Talking Past Each Other Volley of the Year.

Um, yeah, Matty, I know. Blengino didn't project a 2.00 club ERA.

The idea was to win tight, lowscoring games.

:blinks: In the 1995 STATS AOL days, that line would have become somebody's signoff :- )

So...what exactly is your point, Doc?

Are you going to try to argue that Zduriencik tried to build a club in a way that cannot possibly produce a good team? (because that's a non-starter in the loss column for you)...or are you going to argue that this is the most offense one could legitimately expect from the club as constructed pre-season (and that Z should have known better...that's an instant loss for you in this discussion as well)?

Fact is...they built a defense/pitching favoring club...but they expected the offense to be a full R/G better than it is...if the offense were a full run better...we would not be out of contention right now. Period. So why are you using this club as some PROOF that you were somehow right all along about the defense-first mantra being a bad idea?

Point is that a legit ballclub needs a couple guys

who can knock runs in.

If you were to ask, say, Johann Santana about it, he would confirm for you that some teams "challenge" him and others do not.

Since the weekend in Chicago, this team is one of those that does not. They'd only embarrass themselves if they did, and that's primarily because they've had no Dunns or Branyans or Fielders at all.

You've got Lopez and Bradley and Jr. as your cleanup hitters, you're afraid to look the other team in the eye.

So they don't, and it shows in the seasons they all are having.

Branyan didn't fix the offense

A couple of guys to knock in runs is a great thing to have.

It doesn't make a bad offense good - or even average.

Z picked up Branyan to replace Sexson and Griffey/Sweeney to replace Vidro. The team hit 36 more HRs. The team scored 31 FEWER runs.

Does the current club need some guys to knock in runs? Yes. And they need some guys to BE knocked in. Pick a role ... they need a bunch of guys.

I guess where I'm on the same page with Matt here is that your focus on "glove first" decisions seems to have become a dominant thread throughout many of your writings. The sub-text is that "if Z weren't so focused on defense, we'd be much better."

But, the data doesn't match the position.

Branyan (in '09) was NOT a "glove first" decision.

Figgins in '10 was NOT a "glove first" decision -- (I'm gonna laugh at anyone who suggests Beltre to Figgy was about improving defense).

Bradley was NOT a "glove first" decision.

Even Kotchman wasn't a "glove first" decision -- it was a "contract length" decision.

==========

There's an undertow in your writing that seems to suggest "if we had a star in the middle of the lineup - a masher -- then the rest of the lineup would be better." Except, we have real world data that says this belief is completely false.

In 2009, THIS TEAM - with Branyan mashing to the tune of 1000 OPS finished dead last in total runs scored. But, what were the two BEST months for scoring for the 2009 club? August and September, (when Branyan had stopped hitting - or was completely gone).

The club had its best offensive months in terms of OPS, HR, and runs scores *WITHOUT* Branyan being a part of it.

============

The good news? At this instant - the #1 (non-injured) bat on the Mariners team is Saunders. If Smoak can get puffin', then it's possible that Seattle 2010 could end the season with the Justice/Gant foundation to build on.

Do you imagine...

...Do...do you think that Zduriencik built this team with the belief that they'd have no legitimate bats and that this would be a GOOD thing? Do you think that just because the team didn't acquire a thumper..it means Zduriencik doesn't want to get a thumper? Do you imagine the "glove first" mantra the team preached was meant as an absolute in any decision-making process?

The answer to all three of these things is no. And your constant hammering of that drum is meaningless as a result.

Hypothesis

We all agree that this roster has greatly underperformed expectations. The question presented is why? In 2004 it was easily attributed to age related decline. However with 2010 it seems that we have a very different set of factors.

Doc is hypothesizing that a key factor in the offensiveness of the offense is the lack of a true MOTO hitter. The opposing pitcher doesn't fear anyone on the line-up card and therefore the line-up is rendered punchless. Confidence in sports plays a tremendously underrated and impossible to quantify factor in production. The best evidence seems to be the fact that superstars tend to be cocky as all get-up. Doc has written quite a few posts encapsulating this idea.

I guess I don't understand where you are coming from Matt. The drum beat is regarding a proposed hypothesis, a light-bulb turning on, attempting to render sense from this unpredicted collapse. Seems to me that intention of the front office is irrelevant.

Personally, I don't buy it. I think this team could of, and should of produced with the line-up they went into the season with. I further don't believe it was the result of opposing pitcher confidence due to lack of 'thumper'. I, like many others, envisioned this offense as the culmination of annoyance. Single by Ichiro, walk by Figgens, double steal, sac fly, steal, sac fly, and before everyone is ushered in the M's are up 2-0, supported by solid pitching and a lock down bullpen and what do you get? Lots of wins. What happen though? Walk off loss after walk off loss. The offense and starting pitching did their job in April/May and the bullpen blew lead, and frankly this team flat gave up. Or at least they went into each game thinking they'd find new ways to lose it - and that negative attitude was self-fulfilling.

Here is where I believe the greatest knock on Wakamatsu lies. His preference for and insistence on a 'belief system' - when that 'belief system' was counter to and often in direct opposition of winning that ballgame was a de-facto acceptance of losing. There is only one acceptable 'belief system' in professional sports - WINNING. Continuous use of your worse reliever in high leverage situations, continuous use of your worst hitter in the middle of the line-up, failure to play better producing players, etc, etc, etc, sends a clear, clear, clear message that results didn't matter.

The other team not caring if they win or lose gives way more confidence to the opposing side than lack of that MOTO thump.

Just my $0.02.

- Ben.

GREAT post, Ben.

Okay ... hypothesis #1 is "glove-obsession" (or lack of MOTO masher) is the (or at least one of the major) keys to the 2010 collapse.

As I noted above, the 2009 offensive results were better w/o Branyan than with.

*MY* #1 hypothesis - (accepting that there is more than one variable in play, and this is just the "leading" reason for the underperformance - not the only one) ...

Veteran Entitlement

The 2009 results "seemed" to be an indicator that Veteran Entitlement (TM) was over. But, in hindsight, there was plenty of evidence (as the year progressed) to call that perception into question.

The "idea" was that players had to produce ... they had to EARN their spot in the lineup. Endy lost PT to Wlad early on -- then got hurt. When Yuni wasn't producing, Cedeno started getting PT. When Cedeno could get it done ... trade for Jack Wilson.

Problem is ... the winning record obscured the reality. Griffey/Sweeney were the "feel good" story -- but they were also producing at reasonable levels, (Sweeney especially, once healthy). But, lost in the midst of it all was Beltre hitting like MARY Cedeno for two full months ... and he never batted lower than 5th in the order all season.

The 2010 Griffey debacle just made the treatment of Beltre much, much more obvious.

As an entitled vet, Griffey got a pass on his Spring Train-wreck-ing. And he also got to continue hitting 5th in the order long after your average 7 year old fan could tell he well beyond finished. And, even at the end ... the CLUB didn't choose to release Griffey, (or ASK him to step aside). No ... Griffey just up and decided ... "I don't think I'll come in any more".

Seriously, if Bradley isn't hurt or getting counseling, and Griffey doesn't DECIDE to retire, does Saunders get any PT at all? They opted to keep Byrnes out of Spring training, and he had to post pitcher hitting numbers to earn a ticket out of town.

Lopez and Figgins are hitting in the .500s and that doesn't even earn a day off. Except, apparently, Figgins had already made Wak aware that he wasn't particularly thrilled with the whole V.E. rules in regards to Griffey (back in April) ... so AFTER he hits .830 for a couple of weeks, he's put in the #9 slot, so Bradley, (with a robust OPS in the .300s during the same span), takes over in the #2 hole.

So ... the club, under Wak ... has special rules for ...

Ichiro -- always bats first - no days off.

Bradley -- forgiven for ALL transgressions.

Saunders - the rookie - the BEST hitter on the team - has started a grand total of ONE game all season hitting above 7th in the lineup.

Kotchman was moved DOWN in the order when hot. Figgins was moved DOWN in the order when hot. Ichiro, Lopez, Gutierrez ... they retain juicy lineup spots regardless of how they're hitting at any given moment.

Griffey got 33 games and 108 PAs to "prove" himself. Carp got 11 and 34, (and Carp actually outhit Griffey by a smidge).

The sequence seems to be ... Vet Entitlement in full force ... and Figgins raises an objection to this ... and the punishment is *HE* loses Veteran Entitlement privileges.

And *THIS* is part and parcel with the approach of attempting to "build from without". Personally, I don't think it is possible to build an organization through free agency WITHOUT the Veteran Entitlement culture from thriving. Prospects, who HAVE to work to crack a lineup ... and are playing for the first time in the majors ... and earning pennies on the dollar ... *THEY* experience the entire organizational structure that GOT them to the majors. They associate THEIR success with the organization.

Free Agents ... they associate their tie to a new team based primarily on money ... UNLESS there are a core group of "home grown" talents who set the standard for that organization. In NY ... the Mecca for Free Agents ... Jeter, Posada, Rivera ... the club has a solid foundation of "true" Yankees that outsiders are expected to live up to. Today, they're adding Cano, Hughes, Chamberlain.

Ichiro is it for the Ms ... and he wasn't home grown ... and he's got a cultural divide that makes him less than ideal as a role model. He's got the work ethic and production, but that's not enough.

Seattle desperately needs for Saunders and Ackley to succeed to start building that base. Smoak and Gutierrez are slightly less ideal ... having developed elsewhere. But, if their first real success is in Seattle, (while they're still cheap), then perhaps that'll work, too. (Smoltz was viewed as a Brave foundation piece, though he was an import).

Typically, analysis focuses on the monetary edge of having young players. But, I believe there is a CULTURAL aspect for organizations where the home grown successes are the ones who actually set the tone of the franchise. Today ... that tone is being set by Lopez.

Of course ... others may just view it as bad talent recognition skills or any number of other variables in play. Me? I view the Griffey choice (starting in ST), just as detrimental to the outcome of the club in 2010 as the Johjima extension was in 2008.

UNLESS there are a core group

UNLESS there are a core group of "home grown" talents who set the standard for that organization.

And last year, Griffey was it for Seattle - the prodigal son coming back - and with his attitude all about a smile, and a team-first spirit, that permeated the clubhouse and team. This year, he's back, but with a different agenda (maybe not even a conscious agenda, but nonetheless, he wanted desperately to go out a winner on a personal level, so his problems at the plate poisoned the place...and because he needed to be in the lineup to go out a winner...you're right back at the only calling card he could use for this year - Veteran Entitlement...I'm Griffey, you can't bench me, can you?).

I guess I think you're very very right on this, Sandy.

Dix

My problem...

To Ben...I would say my problem with Doc's drumbeat of insistence that the offense can't produce without a thumper (and that the lack of said thumper is what caused all the other hitters to flounder)...is that it's unsipported by any real evidence and in fact, as Sandy has pointed out more than once here...most of the vidence we do have runs contrary to that idea.

Doc complains vociferously about organizations clinging to axiums to support their decision-making process, but then he goes and clings to his own axiums...an offense needs sluggers to make the pitcher afraid and the other hitters more confident? The 1985 Cardinals would beg to differ. As would the 1993 Braves. As would the 1998 Yankees (lots of very good hitters...not one of them was a thumper...no one had more than 27 HRs for that team...go look it up)...as would the 1993 Phillies (again...good hitters up and down the line-up...but no sluggers...When Darren Daulton is your big scary RBI guy...you don't have a big scary RBI guy.

Z was trying to move this team toward an OBP heavy strategy...Billy Beane gets praised for doing the same with his clubs when he can't find sluggers for cheap. They had a lot of holes and he did the best he could...and then all the guys he acquired did way...way...WAAAAYYY worse than career norms and no one can figure out why.

The idea that you have to strike fear in the heart of the pitcher with a big scary thumper or two is not supported by the bulk of baseball history...there are lots of ways to win...and lots of ways to create fear (you don't think if Figgins were getting on base and Ichiro were having a big year...that opposing pitchers wouldn't have been distracted into making lots more mistakes to Guti and Bradley and the like? You don't think a team drawing 4 P/PA consistently wouldn't have been a pain in the butt to pitch to?

I think Doc is just plain old wrong on this one...I'm not trying to be mean...I'm just saying I think he thinks he's got a light bulb on but it's actually his house on fire.

Ya good stuff Ben :cpoints:

Minor clarification: we're saying that a total lack of #3-#4 hitters, intersected with a very questionable lineup up-and-down, creates more 1982 Mariner seasons than I care to remember.

I've seen what, 20-25 versions of Mariner teams that realized, in May, that they had a AAA lineup -- and who were embarrassed to go out and pretend they belonged on the same field with the big dogs.

Twenty, twenty-five seasons I've watched Mariner teams crestfallen in May.

......................

Bill James called it in March. So did Geoff Baker. This was a team that needed its lineup legitimized, precisely because it didn't have a roster full of underrated David Delluccis.

So, it's not quite as simple as Dunn = a few close wins = confidence, but it IS as simple as 8x AAA hitters + Ichiro = a ballclub that quits early.

Good post man.

Two quick points

1. To me, the evidence indicates that Z built the team as if he had some "inside intelligence" that Fielder or A. Gonzalez, or both, would be available before the deadline and that the Brewers and/or Padres were amenable to what he had to offer. Supposedly, he had been close to a deal for AGone before. One of the reasons he didn't want to give Branyan a 2-year deal or open the checkbook for Jason Bay -- keeping his powder dry.

Kotchman and Jr would be there to see what could be squeezed out of them before the real help showed up. Just me speculating, but notice that once it was clear that no such trade was possible, he went out and got Branyan for what he could have gotten him for in the off-season.

Obviously, Phase II never made it off the drawing board. Sometimes you can keep your powder too dry.

2. Don't forget "nap-gate" -- it showed early on that there was plenty of dissent in clubhouse centered around Jr's privileges epitomizing veteran entitlement.

agree to disagree ...

Doc,

I get what you're saying -- 8 deadbeats and Ichiro is going to fold up like a cheap tent.

But, while you were watching 20-25 years of M - barassment ... I watched 20 years of the Braves ('70 - '90) putting slugger after slugger after slugger into the heart of the lineup, and managing to reach the playoffs ONCE in 20 years.

How many 30-HR hitters did the Braves have from '70 - '90?

1970: 2 (Aaron, Cepeda)
1971: 2 (Aaron, Earl Williams)
1972: 1 (Aaron) - (Williams just missed with 28)
1973: 3 (Davey Johnson, D. Evans, Aaron) - actually all three had 40. finished 5th
1974: 0 (won 88 games - most of the entire decade)
1975: 0
1976: 0
1977: 1 (Burroughs)
1978: 0 (but a trio with 23 each - Murphy, Horner and Burroughs)
1979: 1 (Horner)
1980: 2 (Horner, Murphy)
1981: 0 (strike year - but Murphy & Horner likely wouldn't have made it)
1982: 2 (Murphy, Horner) - 89 wins - only playoff trip in 20 years
1983: 1 (Murphy)
1984: 1 (Murphy)
1985: 1 (Murphy) - (Horner missed with 27)
1986: 0 (Murphy 29 - Horner 27)
1987: 1 (Murphy 44) - Ozzie Virgil missed with 27
1988: 0 (Gant with 19 as a rookie - Murphy with 24 and fading at age 32)
1989: 0 (21 and 20 top two sluggers)
1990: 1 (Gant with 32 -- Justice missed with 28 as a rookie)

I watched Horner and Murphy mash together for a decade while the Braves crashed and burned year after year after year.

In truth, this shows that just HAVING a couple of home grown studs does NOT guarantee anything. For 20 years, the Braves had some home grown, studly talent - and never surrounded it with enough quality to matter. But, for 20 years, Atlanta Fulton County Stadium was known as "The Launching Pad". It wasn't actually a HR friendly park. The Braves just were good at keeping HR hitters around -- and REALLY bad at developing pitching.

Two mashers in a lineup WILL NOT turn a bunch of deadbeats into decent hitters. Go check out Jack Wilson's rookie season, when he OPSed 40. Brian Giles and Aramis Ramirez were destroying the NL that year -- and the Pirates would finish last in nearly everything ... again.

My opinion? The prescence of a "star" MOTO hitter is vastly more important to fans enjoyment than actual winning. Not like Bonds and AROD were racking up tons of rings for their careers. (Of course, AROD is getting some these days, because he's in a lineup with 7 or 8 real hitters).

The reality of baseball, unlike every other major sport, is that "star" players don't get to be "the guy" when they want. The "star" doesn't get (significantly) more opportunities to do something important each game. The paradox of baseball is that while the player is totally own at the plate - the actual team results aren't determined primarily by stars - but by the combined efforts of everyone. Ichiro may get ONE more chance than Jack Wilson or Rob Johnson ... and it may be up to Wilson or Johnson to come thru just so Ichiro GETS that one extra chance.

Lebron or Favre can touch the ball almost every play. AROD or Ichiro ... one out of every 9. The Angels didn't score 883 runs in 2009 because Vlad and Abreu *COMBINED* to hit 30 HRs. They scored 883 runs because they had ten guys hitting above 100 OPS+,

In Basketball a star player

In Basketball a star player has a MASSIVE impact. 5 players on the field and the star player can theoretically be involved in every play offensively and defensively. THAT is a sport where you need to go stars and scrubs to the extreme.

Baseball not so much. Dominant pitching and defense give you a big advantage in the playoffs, but the regular season is about whose 25 combined were the most productive.

The reality here is that if you had Adrian Gonzalez over Kotchman at the beggining of the year, you'd STILL have the worst offense in baseball.

IMO the big MOTO hitter is

IMO the big MOTO hitter is usually a bit overrated in baseball. Its usually a 1B or DH who gets more credit than he deserves for the team's actual W-L record nabbing HRs off of scrub pitching and not provided much else either than O.

In the playoffs most MOTO hitters aren't as impactful as dominant pitchers. We've seen Team Japan win in a tournament format with great pitching, defense, and contact hitting (that is strong against power pitching, but no power hitters).

Cliff Lee's impact is underrated, Adrian Gonzalez's is overrated IMO.

Not sure of the math

But unless every one of your guys is an OBP whiz, I can't imagine getting close to 100 OPS+ unless your SLG at least approaches .400.

It's not about 30-HR guys, it's about having a few guys SLG in the .400s and somebody approaching .500.

I didn't go back and look, but I can't imagine the Braves didn't have several regulars with .400 SLG and the occasional .500 during their success years.

I suppose my argument is different from what you are characterizing, and maybe different from Doc's.

But they knew that it was almost certain that C & SS wouldn't SLG .400 or probably anywhere close. They know that Ichiro maxes out in the mid .400 range. They knew that Guti wasn't likely to go much over .400. They knew that they would need a good year from Lopez to get much over .400. They knew that Figgins would need another banner year to even get to .400. Their .500 guy from 09 they didn't bring back.

That left them hoping that Kotchman, Bradley, Sweeney and Griffey could generate SLG from 1b, DH & LF and also stay healthy. Or, it left them hoping that they could hang in and get another bat (one with both OBP and SLG -- not just an empty 30 HR "thumper") at the deadline.

Those all turned out to be bad bets, and I think it's a legit criticism. But I don't think it's because they made all their decisions based on "glove-first" philosophy. It was a combination of philosophies that didn't work out.

I agree with you there

I agree with you there man.

If Doc's criticism is that the Ms didn't go after enough offense in the offseason, I agree. I specifically did not like the decisions made at 1B, DH, and LF (either than Bradley, who didn't work out).

The Ms have a hilariously bad offense. Get guys that are competent at 1B and DH and its a huge difference. SS, 2B, 3B have been disasters all season as well.

I don't agree with overpaying for big boppers at those DH/1B positions though. Its not that hard to fill those positions competently.

On the other hand . . .

We will come out of this season with:

1. A 1b with huge potential under club control (from the Lee flip, which was all Z's doing)

2. Probably a stud college pitcher close to MLB-ready such as Gerrit Cole (from the 2011 draft, which is deep enough that we'll get someone solid drafting in the 3-6 range)

3. Some intriguing potential role players such as Josh Lueke (from the Lee flip)

4. Absolutely no loss of likely MLB-impact young players or prospects (except maybe Brandon Morrow).

There's a lot to like about going forward; not so much to like about 2011. But we always seem to have "surprise" years when less is expected.

I liked our chances in '12

I liked our chances in '12 and beyond until the Haren trade. Arizona really ticked me off there.

Z did great in the Lee trade. Sometime between now and '12 Z needs to find a SS of the future and hopefully another impact SP or two. Its going to take another great move or two to catch up.

Arizona seems to not have any clue what they're doing. Maybe we can talk to them about Stephen Drew and Miguel Montero?