Maybe this isn't reflected in your tone - (which is clearly to laud an organization making lots of good moves - and deservedly so) -- but it seems like much of the blog-o-sphere is taking some sort of joy in Snell's "failure", (if you can even really call it that).
By every pitcher metric other than ERA - Snell has, without question, outpitched RRS *THIS SEASON*. What happens when you line up their TTO stats?
RRS: 4.63-ERA; 23.1-IP; 10-BB; 5-K; 6-HR; (7.54-FIP)
Snell: 4.66-ERA; 19.1-IP; 10-BB; 12-K; 3-HR; (5.72-FIP)
The guy with the .5 K/BB stays in the rotation?!?
Granted - Snell has not been near as good as Vargas or Fister. And I would be first in line to agree that (barring some earth shattering change between now and Bedard Day) that Snell should follow RRS out of the rotation. But, in all honesty, the numbers and actual performance all say RRS should get the boot before Snell.
The RRS/Snell call, (IMO), is clear - even before one thinks about the mitigating circumstance with Snell this season of pitching one start with a family crisis in his head - and following that one throwing a game while suffering from the flu.
That said -- in the long run, with Bedard close on Lee's heels -- the order of demoting Snell/RRS isn't that big a deal. But, considering the previous RRS as swingman article, I'd think there'd be less enthusiasm in regards to lauding the Snell move as evidence of making the 'proper' move over the 'looks good' move.
In truth, while I am personally giddy about the performances of the rotation as a whole, I see a LOT of room for concern about performance going forward - specifically in looking at the primary "luck" column for pitchers: BABIP. Which pitchers are beating (or getting beaten) by the BABIP gods so far -- and what did we see in 2009?
In 2009, with the #1 defense, the team en masse had a .274 BABIP allowed. Felix (a great litmus test for reality) came in at .280. Miguel Batista was the only qualifying pitcher on the entire team to exceed the league avg. BABIP of .300, (getting a .324 result - which IMO - was the ultimate trump card for - you no longer have an MLB arm).
2009 BABIP results for Ms pitchers
Vargas: .288
Felix : .280
Fister: .271
Bedard: .271
Snell : .266
Jaku : .254
RRS : .253
Washburn: .245
That's the baseline to compare to -- what about 2010 pitchers? (.291 league avg.)
Kelley: .350
Snell : .328
White : .310
League: .286
Felix : .277
Lowe : .273
Vargas : .247
Fister : .241
RRS : .192
Aardsma : .133
K-Tex (.435) and Colome (.368) are looking wholly inadequate thus far - but reliever samples create problems, (like Aardsma's).
The point here is the club has THREE starters with completely unsustainable BABIPs. Vargas, Fister and RRS. So, Snell has actually been the 'unluckiest' starter on the squad, and RRS has been the 'luckiest'. (In truth, some of RRS' hit 'luck' is a result of the HRs going over the fence instead of off the wall for doubles. But, I don't see how that could be viewed as a positive).
Unless he fixes what ails him - RRS is a disaster waiting to happen. Hopefully, the club has seen some indicators that the control and gopher issues are transient. If not, the club could very well spend a month suffering from Snell Shock.
=== Scorecard ===
Hey, you keep one in golf, so why not in virtual baseball :- ) ... put SSI down for a 3 on this hole, kiddies...
The 25 men that the Mariners put on the Opening Day roster were SSI-sanctioned all the way, and we all know how much the M's care about that :- /
The two rook catchers, the Fister-nator, Mike Sweeney, Tuiasosopo, the early take on the 5-man bullpen, the decision to bring back Erik Bedard, the decision to flip Lopez and Figgins, the decision to put a bat rather than a glove in LF, etc .... only twice this winter did the M's zig where SSI zagged:
- Ian Snell
- Casey Kotchman
And see what happens when you fail to heed the shtick, gentlemen. ;- ) Granted, Kotchman gives our heroes some shot at a Y-2010 push with SSI.
...................
In fairness, once Lee and Bedard went down, it was more than reasonable to give Snell a month's worth of starts. The questions that we had were over the course of the winter. Snell came to camp slotted as the top starter in the M's org, after you got past the Big Three. The SSI power rankings read quite a bit different, and the 2009 K/BB's had been fairly clear.
Still and all, there's no harm no foul: he threw three reasonable games in four attempts, the M's won one of them, the M's gathered a lot of data, and they're making an agile decision now. Kewl.
.
=== Tuesday ===
Snell with his worst nightmare behind the plate, Tim Tschida, a man who has caused Ian's demise previously.
GOOD
- Only 2 runs allowed: beat Zack Greinke, of all people
- Battled hard
- Again showed swing-and-miss stuff in spots
BAD
- Allowed 8 hits in 5.1 IP
- Royals were 2-for-14 against him with RISP, IIRC (2 runs = very lucky)
- e.g. bases loaded, 0 out (!) in first inning, 0 runs scored
- and the Royals are not the Yankees
- Even at 94-96 mph, his FB is very comfortable
SUM
It sounds very odd, but watching him Tuesday, we started to wonder. We'd be interested in seeing whether Snell could hump up to 97-98 in the bullpen. And he does have a strikeout slider. Who knows -- limited exposure, an inning at a time, max velo, maybe the change of scenery will be the trick.
.
=== Jack for U.S. Senate ===
"Everybody in the league knows that Seattle has made one outstanding move after another after another" - Bill James, Baker interview
SSI was still expecting the M's to make a rotation choice other than what they did -- despite the fact that Jack Zduriencik has yet to make a single decision that is driven by what people outside the organization will say.
It's hard to get used to. Next decision up, I'll probably still be expecting them to make the "book" call. What a great organization.
.
Comments
He got demoted...to the bullpen. If RRS implodes two or three times in a row and Snell puts up some good long relief appearances...then you flip flop them. No big deal. We would argue, BTW, that although Fister and Vargas have been a tad lucky on BABIP, the difference between what they've actually given up and reality is not likely to be huge. Both Fister and Vargas are sub-neutral fly ball pitchers and the Mariners' team BABIP allowed on fly balls last year was .241 (on grounders: .303). Look no further than Washburn's .252 BABIP in '09 to see what can happen to a flyball pitcher who ha Gutierrez, Ichiro, and Byrnes/Bradley to pitch to.
I understand that Snell is just moving to the pen.
MY issue is that Snell has outpitched RRS by every measure - *AND* - RRS is a lefty, (when the bullpen currently has no lefty option available).
The "logical" move - based both on performance and flexibility - and ignoring all the 'political' variables - (home grown - import - salary - options - etc) - would be to move RRS to the pen first - and have Snell follow when Bedard returns.
The honest truth is that Z's choices regarding pitchers specifically have not be overly successful to date. Vargas turning around is the first nominal sign of a correct read on a pitching prospect.
I can appreciate the reality that Jack is willing to demote a guy he personally selected (Snell), over one that was already in-house (RRS). But, in this case, the numbers don't support the decision.
You want to make an argument that Snell is as good as he'll ever be (no upside), while RRS is a work-in-progress? Okay, I can accept that. But, that wasn't what I was reading. I was reading this was a performance-based decision - when the numbers don't fully support that conclusion.
Honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Snell thrive in a bullpen role, where his pitching set is 'dumbed down' - and perhaps his neuroses turn out to be more help than hinder.
Clearly, Snell and RRS are the 4/5 guys - so the demotion choice was a list of two. So, in the grand scheme of things, with Bedard on the horizon, it's not a big deal which goes first. But, I suspect the REASONS for choosing Snell were not production-based -- but more likely psychologically based. I'm guessing that they're weighing the order of demotion with a keen eye toward what emotional impact it'll have on the two guys involved. Snell, the vet, may be (ironically) less apt to take the demotion hard. I don't know the guys personally - so it's all guess work.
On the point that Z is showing excellence in ignoring the 'political' variables in roster choices (in this case), I agree. On the point that this is about production - not so fast.
The REAL hard choice on the political front is what to do with Griffey. How much longer can they allow him to bat 5th while hitting like Ronny Cedeno? The Snell situation - political quibbles. Junior? He's the political Moby Dick.
In Seattle we have an org that has given 28 starts to a 6.46 ERA Carlos Silva - in the middle of a 101-loss season - because they trusted the credentialed MLB(TM) veteran to work his way out of it.
Cast-in-stone MLB mediocrities like Batista, Silva, Washburn, even Jeff Weaver (27 starts in 2007) etc have been the norm in Seattle.
What I am celebrating is the shift in focus from Union-Seniority thinking to 90 Victories thinking. Snell will not become the next Jeff Weaver here in any case. SP's will perform or the next ones will get their chances. Yes I like that.
Here is my original Snell article, in response to everybody else guffawing about Ian's public problems. This article, we daresay, changed the blog-o-sphere conversation in Snell's favor.
Nobody on the blog-o-sphere has defended Snell, on a personal level, more. Ian is young, rich, and famous, and has much to give thanks for. But the M's, with their 82 OPS+ offense, don't have the luxury of prejudiced decisions.
Snell's failure is unfortunate, but the M's response to it is very fortunate.
..............
Sandy, there are a lot of times that you (1) quick-scan my articles, (2) assume you know what my sentiment is, and then (3) confront me based on your mistaken assumptions. Is this going to continue to occur frequently in the future? Because this happens a LOT with you.
You're not that good at reading my mind. I have enough problems accounting for what I do believe, without having to deal with rebukes for things I don't believe. :- )
.................
The performance-based arguments on Snell are interesting. Why not just stick to stuff like that and leave the confrontational stuff out, unless you're going to slow down and make sure you have an author's position straight.
I would argue that although RRS has not pitched as wlel as Snell to date...the club is trusting guys with leadership capabilities and mound presence (I think this is a positive step toward winning games) ahead of guys whose small-sample numbers may be better but who look worse doing it. RRS is not pitching well right now...but he's WAY more capable of adjusting his game and battling with a bulldog toughness than Snell...I would submit that the Mariners picked Vargas and Fister as fringe SP guys in ST because those were the two that had the right attitude (they could have gone with Olsen or French or Pauley or Hill or SILVA! (had they decided they needed someone who could eat innings and the entire clubhouse buffet to keep the rest of the club healthy)...they went with Vargas and Fister because they wanted the guys who would battle and limit damage during rallies and be leaders on the diamond. And they picked RRS over Snell for the same reason.
my apologies, Doc.
's all good :- )
Behind Felix, Lee and Bedard the M's have a good 5 SP's that are not only similar talentwise, but diverse in their arsenals...
Snell vs RRS vs Fister vs Vargas vs French vs Pauley could keep us arguing all summer... a healthy situation...
And, have to say, right now the decision not to offer Washburn much $, is turning out to vindicate the M's judgment...
I am looking dead wrong about Washburn...the Ms saved their pennies for mid-season acquisitions and got Washburn-level production out of the RLP junker arms without breaking a sweat. Good on them.
Thanks a lot Doc. I had just managed to purge these memories and you have to go around and bring this stuff up again.
:- )