In case you missed it, Baker is reporting that Chone Figgins will not only be seeing significant playing time, he'll be playing virtually every day, and batting first. So everybody that had your spreadsheets defining playing time drawn out with Chone Figgins getting 150- PA, scrap that and move him right on up to 650+. Where do those come from? Mostly Kyle Seager as he's getting most of his time at 3rd, then a small chunk from Ackley, Carp, and Wells (I think Gutierrez doesn't lose playing time to anything but his stomach).
So let's look again at Chone Figgins. It's good to find out that Chone Figgins extended stay on the DL was due to more than just terrible-itis. I'm not a Swing Engineer, but a torn muscle that gets stuck in your hip sounds like it would make it difficult to swing, and unbelievably unpleasant to run. The difficulty running is obviously what crushed Figgins' season where he ran: career low BABiP (.215 vs. Previous Career Average .337), career low SB% (65% vs. 74%), career low Stolen Base Attempt %(17.7% vs. 24%), career low Extra Base Taken % (44% vs. 60%). We had all written this off as career collapse, assuming the DL stay was simply an opportunity for Jack to get the entitled vet out of the way and let the kids play, but apparently, Chone Figgins was indeed in very much pain.
So what does this mean for 2012's Chone Figgins and the Mariners? Assuming a healthy hip returns him more or less to his previous running ability, we may begin hoping again for a similar batting line to 2008; .276/.367/.318 with a similar running line to 2010; 74% SB%, 24% SBA%, 62% XBT%. Can a player with sub-.690 OPS be a legitimate leadoff hitter? Yes, Otis Nixon led off for some excellent early 90's Braves clubs, Scott Podsednik led off for several surprising White Sox teams. There is an advantage to having a guy who will often be on base with singles and walks and will rarely hit home runs, which is that they will often be on base, and not just on base but on first where pitchers seriously worry about the runner taking second.
As far as I know, there's no study that I know of that shows this, but my thinking is when there is an elite level base stealer (15%+ SBA%) on 1st, with 2nd Base open, that the pitcher will be more distracted than if say, Justin Smoak is on 1st, and will expend more energy attempting to eliminate the threat. Often, we've seen pitchers throw to first 5, 6, 7 times trying to catch Ichiro sleeping off first. These are full velocity, cross body (when right handed) throws that don't get counted in the pitch count but surely get counted in the pitcher's shoulder. Coming back to the factor of distraction, when Smoak is on first, the pitcher can focus entirely on the pitch without trying to look out the corner of his eye at what Smoak is doing (he may still do this, but doesn't need to), paring his disadvantage down to the fact that he is throwing from the stretch. When Chone Figgins or Ichiro are on base, most pitchers will not take their eyes off the runner until they absolutely have to, complicating a precision process. What's more, the pitcher is more likely to throw a fastball, quick to the plate and easy to catch. So a guy that is always on first at the end of his at-bat could actually be benificial, as long as he does make it to first often.
So if Figgins can consistently make it to first 36 or 37% of the time, and make a nuisance of himself then yes, he can be a successful leadoff hitter, but if through April his OBP is less than, say, .335, he can go back to the bottom of the depth chart.
Comments
Arrrrgh
I read this, too. I must say, I am bothered by this immensely.
Betting on a Figgins' return to his '08 year is a worse gamble than betting on his upside being '10: .259-.340-.306, with 24 extra-base hits in 700 PA's. I don't see Figgins being carried by BB's anymore. Why the heck would any pitcher just not challenge him?
And for this we sit Seager? Or Liddi?
Already I'm bummed out...and we haven't even had a ST game.
Maybe this is all a last-ditch effort before the inevitable dumping.
Otherwise, I see bad signing made worse, I fear.
moe
He was mostly the same in '10 and '08
A little better walk rate, strikeout rate, and BABiP, he actually had (extremely) slightly better power in 2010. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Chone Figgins being given real consideration for every day play, he would be one of the easiest players in the game to bench or release, so the Mariners have nothing to gain by declaring him an everyday player, I can't imagine it adding to his value until he actually performs.
Yeah
Yeah, I'm with Moe. Ugh.
Two ways of seeing...
One... They caved to the Veteraness of Figglet.
Two... It's the Chone Ultimatum... Perform or we'll dump you. You've whined all this time. Now bring it. Or it'll be the axe.
And...
It can also indicate that Wedge has the best understanding of Ichiro since Lou.
Ichiro is flexible, he just needs to know in advance. Figgins... Well, we'll leave it at that.
#2 Chone Ultimatum
#2 is it for Figgy, but I'd add that this is ST. It seems reasonable to give him every opportunity to succeed or fail. It is all on him. Even if he performs, he may still be traded for whatever remaining value he is perceived to have.
I am very skeptical about
I am very skeptical about assigning any performance dip to a physical ailment or injury. If it is not bad enough to force a player on the bench, then both the player and the medical staff think that the player can perform at a high level. Meaning, 90% capacity or something. Meaning, that it's probably not the main cause of Figgins' 2 years of offensive ineptitude.
This goes for the issues with other players as well. Guti (stomach ailment), Smoak (2 thumbs and family tragedy), Trayvon (astigmatism), et al...
Do we really have any idea what the correlation is between performance and injury? Intuitively, obviously even, there is a link. You feel worse, you play worse. But my guess is it is a weaker link than we realize. If it's so painful that the player can't perform, he sits. If it isn't, then adrenaline and medication helps get you through.
My feeble memories of amateur athletics tell me that how I felt didn't match exactly how I performed. Competition has a way of turning off the pain and other distractions. And sometimes you show up to the field feeling great and then nothing goes right.
Feeling good or feeling bad, Chone Figgins is still Chone Figgins.
So I'm with commenters #1 & #2. Yeech.
hindrances and excellence
Let's go through the players mentioned:
Guti - hit very well for a CFer before mysterious digestive ailment. Lost weight, muscle, strength etc while suffering from stomach ailment. Has regained muscle this offseason amid reports that he has said ailment under control. IMO, this is like diabetes: if well-maintained it can have a negligible impact on a career (see: Morrow, Brandon) and if not...look out.
The question is whether Guti can maintain it. I have doubts, but I'm not in doubt that dropping 15 pounds of muscle can have a dire impact on someone's performance at the plate, to say nothing of the mental grind of knowing something is really wrong with you and the best doctors in the world are shrugging to your face when you ask em how to fix it, or even what it is.
Smoak - you can't really swing for power without thumbs. It's hard to swing at all. We know what happens to a batter's power when he breaks the hook on the hamate bone in his palm: an immediate and drastic reduction in power. If they identify it and fix it, it doesn't have to destroy the season. If not, it can be a lingering problem. The thumb is the other part of the lever on the bat. It has the same power-sapping effect, especially if it's both thumbs.
I think Smoak is due to return to his early season form, personally.
Trayvon - I would think any vision problem would be a problem for a hitter, and this answer dovetails nicely with the weird problem we've seen with Trayvon and his pitch recognition on some specific pitch locations. That said, some guys just have holes. Carlos Peguero comes to mind. So does Jeff Clement. Trayvon may never fix this. If the problem isn't this previously-uncorrected astigmatism then I don't think he WILL fix this. So I guess I choose to hold out hope that this is the needed correction that stands between Trayvon and ML success until proven otherwise.
Figgins - I really, REALLY dislike Figgins. I'm not happy to hear that we're planning on letting him get the 3B job without even competing for it, really. Or at least starter-level ABs. That said, Chone is a mental midget. He cries when he's moved out of the leadoff spot, cries when someone gets in his face about mental errors, cries when injury strikes. He's a cry-baby.
If he's healthy, AND people give him positive strokes AND he's in his favorite lineup position AND...can he then get it together?
Sure, that's possible. Coddle someone and make sure nothing is ever their fault, and maybe they can produce. Aurillia and Spiezio and Cirillo all did better once they left. They had productive years left. The park and their own inadequacies killed them here. I believe Chone is the same, but we'll find out, I guess. Should I pray that a healthy Chone Figgins can be a good 2012 leadoff man for us? Sure. Do I expect it? Heck no.
And for me the fifth guy on this list is Saunders, with his swing work and different approaches to try to correct his AAAA disease. I'm not feeling that either. I guess for me a physical ailment is different than a mental weakness. Chone may have had a physical ailment, but he also is mentally weak. Saunders appears to be as well.
Trayvon was not afraid in the bigs. He never had the dinner-plate eyes that Saunders had, or at least I didn't see it that way. Overmatched, perhaps, but the question is why. Smoak dominated as the only player contributing to the offense. He may have been ground down by that, or his father's death, or his thumbs, or a combo-platter. But his problem originally was trying to do too much, not being afraid to.
I guess there are just some players I would pick to face their fears and overcome, and some I would not. I'm a yes on Smoak and Trayvon, a no on Chone and Saunders, and on the fence on Guti simply because I need to see his disease regulated before I can believe that he can get through 162 games with his off-season strength levels intact.
We'll get to find out. The more of these recoveries the Ms can get, the better they'll be.
But I'm with you that there are some that are bound to be smoke and mirrors, because we had enough TERRIBLE seasons that not all of them are simply mistakes and chance.
Some of it is talent and mental toughness too.
~G
Figgins Quote
I really don't like the Figgins cry-baby routine. His quote in Geoff's latest really, really bugs me.
'I'm going to be ready for wherever you play me in the lineup, as long as you play me every day,' " he said.
Given his recent history, the threat there is not-so-veiled. "Play me every day or I will be a problem, just like I was for Wakamatsu."
This is by far the most depressing news coming out of ST. The entitled vet is going to be handed a starting gig and the top of the lineup not because he came into camp and earned but...just because he's an entitled veteran. Disgusting.
disappointing to hear, but the end game begins
I had much the same reaction as Moe and Griz. Except instead of Argh and ugh, I say *sigh*.
Still, with two years and some good money left I guess this was inevitable. The good news is this is the beginning of the end game with Figgins. Giving him 3rd, returning him to leadoff, announcing it all at the beginning of camp . . . they're doing everything they can to take away this guy's excuses. Which means if--
A) He still stinks, they can say they legitimately gave him every opportunity and he's gone by June.
B) He returns to something like what he used to be and they deal him in July.
C) The Mariners are in legit contention with him playing something like he used to, they'll keep him for the entire year before trading him in the off season.
As Doc likes to say
Games in April are just as important as games in September. More, in some ways, because you can play yourself out of contention earlier and destroy your gate receipts and momentum in April in ways you really can't in September.
I don't like the idea that we're willing to flush 4-6 weeks worth of games for no reason other than "Figgins is owed a lot of dough." We must REALLY not like Seager at 3B, which is just odd to me.
This would be like proclaiming Jack Wilson the starter after seeing Nick Franklin get a couple hundred plate appearances with "eh" defense, and before seeing whether Nick had improved his D over the off season.
I don't get it for baseball reasons, so either it's for non-baseball reasons or Jack really believes that Chone is a better option than Seager/Liddi.
If he believes that, then I hope he's right. I just don't buy that he believes that at this point.
Which makes me wonder if this is more about getting Ichiro out of the leadoff spot and to theoretically change his approach. A multi-pronged attack that could fail at its stated goal (ie, returning Chone Figgins to productivity) and still provide useful results (changing Ichiro's approach to better determine his non-leadoff future).
I can absolutely see this being done as the Ms decide how to proceed with Ichiro. I want this to be his last year with us but the Mariners...I have my doubts that they feel the same, and this could absolutely be a step toward a decision in that regard.
Even if it costs us in April and May. Here's hoping Seager comes out on fire in ST, I guess. Short leashes are better than long ones when entitled vet syndrome is in place.
~G
/cosign, the whole board
Good post Mal ... and it looks like the M's motivations are going to fool no one, except perhaps Figgins...
Figgins swung the bat well in his single game at leadoff in 2011. As we all apparently agree, there is some chance, let's say 20%, that the Coddle-Fest will bring the 34-year-old Figgins back to a useful level of performance. Not as good as 2008 or 2010, but up to (say) 2.5 WAR or something.
Bet the farm that if Figgins hits .181/.181/.181 in the first three weeks, he's in the past tense.
But do they say that? No. Right now it's broad smiles all around, but the smiles don't reach the eyes.
We can't afford to pay for an MLB-certified third baseman...
but we can afford to risk blowing off April/May 2012 and start-of-the-season momentum if Figgins hits .250 / .310 in spring training, just enough to sustain life support on hope that we can get value out of him.
We can't afford to maintain payroll in the face of dwindling attendance, but we can afford delaying the central theme of our offseason, continuing to develop at the MLB level a rising core of young talent in favor of avoiding the financial angst and embarrassment of DFA'ing or benching Figgins.
"Gentlemen, the object of our endeavor is NOT to kill the enemy. It is to make sure our P's and Q's are all in order."
Looks like an Accountants War to me.
I know, I know, I hear the response. "You can't blame the team for trying to get value out of Figgins. Any other team would." In an typical context you may be right. But this Mariners franchise is by no means in a typical context.
I know, I know, I hear the other response. "All they're trying to do is scrub Figgy up a bit, spray some eau de cologne on him, and hope somebody out there think's he's worth a one night stand."
A cutsie little game, I say, when your enemy has the high ground at Cassino and his 150mm guns have been obliterating your exposed positions for weeks while your supposed offensive withers and dies. Meanwhile, your generals are worried about whether the engines on the supply trucks have had their spark plugs changed at prescribed intervals.
Gosh I hate the stench of the way the Mariners run things. Even when they go on a full bore youth movement they can't resist reverting to their habit of slapping a vet-past-his-prime patch on a position.
To me, it's things like this that foil the M's year after year. After year.
Headlines I'd LOVE to read:
BRASS TELLS WEDGE NOT TO WORRY ABOUT FIGGINS
---------
(Seattle, WA) Howard Lincoln and Chuck Armstrong called a "short and sweet" meeting yesterday with Jack Zduriencik and Eric Wedge in which among other things they told their primary baseball managers "don't worry about things like Chone Figgins' contract." Representing the M's managing partners, With Lincoln nodding assent, Armstrong made it clear that "we can't let such distractions get in the way urgently pressing ahead with the business at hand, which is rebuilding the on-field success and credibitiliy of this franchise,"
Worrying about obligations on Figgins' contract is "backward thinking," they said, and "all our attention needs to be forward toward what this team of ours is going to become."
The meeting was called because the two were greatly concerned that the buzz in the early days of spring training has concerned two players, Figgins and Ichiro Suzuki, who are not seen as part of the core going forward, whose contracts recently have not matched their on-field contributions to the team's progress.
The focus on Ichiro has been what looks to be his dislodgement from the leadoff spot in the lineup, a spot where he has been entrenched since coming to the Mariners in 2001.
high upside
If it works. It should have been done in 2008. I always liked the idea of the patient Figgy (74 walks in 2010) hitting ahead of bat maestro Ichiro. If Figgins is done, You can move Seager in there, or some other solution will be readily apparent.
What I think every fan deserves from his team, no matter how bad, is a semi-plausible way to contend, based on some sort of feasible set of "hey, it could happen"s. Let's try the Figgins-Ichiro scenario, before we turn to the kids.
Hey, it could happen.
When to fish and when to cut bait?
This team sucked last year, and the year before, because they recieved little to no production from their high priced talent. Of their top paid positional players Ichiro ($18m, .2 WAR), Milton Bradley ($13.3m, -.6), Chone Figgins ($9.5m, -1.2), Jack Wilson ($5m, .2) and Franklin Gutierrez ($4.3, 1.1), they paid over $50 million for 0.3 wins below replacement. We have to add in Jack Cust ($2.5m, -.1) and Miguel Olivo ($2.5m, .9) until we finally get above replacement level, barely, and at over $55 million in payroll. The only silver lining I see in the above is that there is no long term commitments to those players.
We've already cut bait on Bradley, Wilson and Cust.
Ichiro and Olivo have one year remaining on their deals, Figgins two.
I understand the anger against Figgins - but this is not simply about counting beans.
If the M's were to cut loose Figgins, after he spent most of the year battling injuries and on the disabled list, a year after he was jerked around in the line-up and forced to play a new position on the field - do you think other potential free agents wouldn't notice? It would be callous to DFA Figgins, and it wouldn't resonate well with the players.
Nor would it be an optimal strategy for maximizing our resources. In order to succeed the M's need to get more production out of their roster and cutting Figgins guarantees 0.0 WAR out of another $9.5 million spent.
I harken back to Bill James's conversation with Geoff Baker pre-season two years ago. Talking about the risk associated with the ill-fated (and ill-advised) position swap of Lopez and Figgins. I think it was this post: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/marinersblog/2011361700_geoff_bake...
But I can't get that video to work for me, so, off memory, his comments indicated a negative view of the position swap and indicated that we've learned what's best in regards to Figgins, essentially stick him in one place and don't mess with him.
So, that's what the M's seem to be doing... and what's the risk? You're already paying him, why not see if you can get some value out of him.
At some point a player is done, but many players have bad years due to injury, luck, change of scenery, etc. How can you tell the difference?
I realize that Figgins's salary is essentially a sunk cost. But, certainly cutting every player that has a bad year isn't a strategy that tends towards success. Maximizing the value of your assets seems to be a better play to me.
- Ben.
When to fish and when to cut bait?
This team sucked last year, and the year before, because they recieved little to no production from their high priced talent. Of their top paid positional players Ichiro ($18m, .2 WAR), Milton Bradley ($13.3m, -.6), Chone Figgins ($9.5m, -1.2), Jack Wilson ($5m, .2) and Franklin Gutierrez ($4.3, 1.1), they paid over $50 million for 0.3 wins below replacement. We have to add in Jack Cust ($2.5m, -.1) and Miguel Olivo ($2.5m, .9) until we finally get above replacement level, barely, and at over $55 million in payroll. The only silver lining I see in the above is that there is no long term commitments to those players.
We've already cut bait on Bradley, Wilson and Cust.
Ichiro and Olivo have one year remaining on their deals, Figgins two.
I understand the anger against Figgins - but this is not simply about counting beans.
If the M's were to cut loose Figgins, after he spent most of the year battling injuries and on the disabled list, a year after he was jerked around in the line-up and forced to play a new position on the field - do you think other potential free agents wouldn't notice? It would be callous to DFA Figgins, and it wouldn't resonate well with the players.
Nor would it be an optimal strategy for maximizing our resources. In order to succeed the M's need to get more production out of their roster and cutting Figgins guarantees 0.0 WAR out of another $9.5 million spent.
I harken back to Bill James's conversation with Geoff Baker pre-season two years ago. Talking about the risk associated with the ill-fated (and ill-advised) position swap of Lopez and Figgins. I think it was this post: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/marinersblog/2011361700_geoff_bake...
But I can't get that video to work for me, so, off memory, his comments indicated a negative view of the position swap and indicated that we've learned what's best in regards to Figgins, essentially stick him in one place and don't mess with him.
So, that's what the M's seem to be doing... and what's the risk? You're already paying him, why not see if you can get some value out of him.
At some point a player is done, but many players have bad years due to injury, luck, change of scenery, etc. How can you tell the difference?
I realize that Figgins's salary is essentially a sunk cost. But, certainly cutting every player that has a bad year isn't a strategy that tends towards success. Maximizing the value of your assets seems to be a better play to me.
- Ben.
Smoak's Thumbs
I'm hopeful for a Smoak break-out season, but his thumbs worry me.
I've played in rec-league level volleyball for several years, and an extremely common injury among novice players is jamming the thumb when setting a ball improperly. It takes a long time for those thumbs to get back to full strength. Some people say their thumbs never feel the same even years later.
Is one offseason of rest enough for his thumbs to be at full strength? Any medical docors in the house that can speak into this?