Seattle Sports Insider

Death by UZR

Posted by

11/30/10

A spirited resistance from Grizz and Matt, to Dr. D's assessment of the 2009-10 train wreck... we looooov eeeeet...

You are looking at two years worth of data on "Jack's spots" and are losing all perspective. He's had a seriously declining payroll and many holes to fill.

All that said, separate the M's experience from his resume and look at how he built the Brewers. It's not like the Brewers had this "defense first" philosophy. They had lumber throughout the lineup and certainly didn't try to win 92 3-2 games.

Or, what has happened is that youse gumbys and pokeys have assumed that whatever Jack Zduriencik's boss did, in 2006, is necessarily the same thing that Zduriencik is going to do all his life. ;- )

Even if the Brewers had been Zduriencik's team, which they were not, the fact remains that Safeco has influenced Jack Zduriencik. Just like it "influenced" Adrian Beltre, Mike Cameron, Richie Sexson and Franklin Gutierrez.

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

It is true that Capt Jack has stated, many times, that he is willing to go wherever the bargains are, that lots of roads lead to Rome.

Zduriencik is eclectic in personal philosophy. Blengino tries to emphasize this for him, whenever he's on radio.

=== Electroshock Dept. ===

However, after the giddy 2009 experience they spent the offseason talking about how leather is where the bargains are right now.

They enjoyed their experience with Endy Chavez, and Franklin Gutierrez is their pride and joy, and they spent last winter falling madly in love with UZR bargains.

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

When they put Jack Wilson at shortstop, we were nervous, but when they geometrically expanded that concept by ADDING Casey blinkin' Kotchman at 1B ... we screamed bloody MURDER.

They didn't stop there, choosing to put rookies at catcher, choosing to blow their big $$ wad on a defense-first player (Chone Figgins) and blowing their big trade move on pitching. (Figgins' gaudy WAR in 2009 was a wind-blown HR carried by an ephemereal +2 wins on defense.)

They passed on Russell Branyan, Adam LaRoche and a bunch of opportunities to add at least one 100-RBI guy.

We remember Adam Dunn coming up and the Mariners saying, with respect to Dunn, "Whoever we get is going to be able to field his position."

So you have these acts leading up to the final play:

Jack Wilson, a NO-hit glove shortstop, ossified into SS
Casey Kotchman, a 1B with a lifetime SLG of .392 (!!), added to that mix
The big $9MM FA being a glove wizard with a lifetime SLG of about zero
No LaRoche, Dunn, or even Cust type being secured for LF, DH, or anything
The big trade being for an ace pitcher
The M's comment on TTO sumo wrestlers as being "we don't want jokes in the field"
A what-me-worry wave goodbye to Russell Branyan

But those were lead-ins. The telling decision of the 2009-10?

The Mariners made absolutely no effort to obtain either a #3 hitter or a #4 hitter.

In 2009, Branyan had carried their offense, slugging almost .600 through the whole first half. But as last winter wore on, and SSI screamed bloody murder about no #3 or #4 hitter whatsoever, the Mariners simply didn't care.

It doesn't matter what Zduriencik's (sic) track record was with the Brew. Last winter he had bargain bats available, and his actions spoke louder than his words. He simply didn't believe that his lineup needed an RBI man.

If Zduriencik holds to that belief for 2011 -- if he again blows off the need for even a single man who can ever knock in a run -- he's looking at another lost season.

Your friend,

Dr. D

Comments

This 75% thing is nonsense.

Most linear weight methods suggest the break-even ratio on steals iis closer to 2 to 1 than 3 to 1...meaning even with Figgins' relatively low SB% for a fast runner, he's still gaining runs on his steals. And I assure you that malcontent was talking about baserunning volume when he used the phrase "premiere base stealer"...ie.e his capacity to disrupt the pitcher...whether he's seen as a legit baserunning threat. Not the runs gained or last on the bases...I can say that with confidence because he TOLD YOU that's what he was talking about in his own reply. :)

Could we knock this off, please

The rude contradictions of other posters' ideas do not encourage them to post again.
If you're going to have one of the top two or three volumes here, please post in such a way as to help others enjoy their visits.
Thanks.

75% isn't 'nonsense,' by the way

The breakeven point, as you know, changes with the base-out situation and the score in the game.
Here's one discussion that puts the breakeven point at 73%. It might be right or wrong, but is NOT "nonsense."
Supposing that the right number were 68% or 72%, that hardly overthrows the discussion. You're talking about a couple of bases over the course of a season.
...............
I personally use 2/3, but that doesn't mean that other values are nonsense.

His number is not what I was calling nonsense

What I was calling nonsense was the absolutism with which he USED his number to make a claim about Chone Figgins' offensive value gained by base-stealing. Perhaps that wasn't clear enough, so apologies for not being perfectly clear. I think using one number to score whether Figgins helps his club by running the bases is a bad idea...I think it dramatically oversimplifies what is a very complex problem.