Why keep looking at Josh Wilson? Because he's *NEVER* had a chance to play full-time in his baseball career. He's a career backup, whose PT (in the majors) has come almost exclusively in mop-up duty or injury-plug-in. For his 3-year (in the majors) career, Josh has a grand total 35 PAs seeing a pitcher for the 3rd time.
No, we shouldn't leap to wonderful conclusions based on his .773 OPS with the Ms. But his 71 PAs with the Ms is about as big as any split he's generated to date. They're ALL effectively useless.
There were people supporting the contention that Branyan would never hit lefties because he went oh-for-12 in 2008. In 2007, Josh got a decent audition -- 105 games, 310-PAs, (mostly with Tampa). No, his .251/.291/.354/.644 line with Tampa (at age 26) isn't impressive. (Neither was Lopez' .232/.263/.367/.630 debut line in 218 PAs).
The ultimate truth in all this is that if you EVER want to get cheap, undervalued players that can break out and shine (at bargain prices) for your club -- then you have to acquire guys that do NOT look (at first blush) to be "good" players. THEN, you have to play them. This doesn't mean Josh is a candidate to hold down shortstop for the next 10 years. But, his .750 minor league aggregate suggests there's at least a chance he could supply a .700 OPS in the majors. (His .615 in the majors suggests he can't). Of course, his current M stats go 100% contrary to your lead point in this essay -- his eye is an off-the-charts awful 3/17. But, he's managed a .773 OPS, which is more than 100 points higher than any of the other shortstops the club has displayed in 2009.
Why you're looking at Josh Wilson is because in his brief audition, he's pounding out a 200 ISO!?! Odds are REALLY strong that this is phantom data. But, it's WAY better than anything JACK Wilson has ever done. But, when you go out and get Josh Wilson, it AIN'T because you've got a strong yen for a .615 OPS backup --- it's because you have a hunch there is something more there than what the raw stats show. Odd thing with Josh -- his minor league AND major league lines show 60 points of patience. No, that ain't great. Unless you compare him to: Lopez, YuBet, Beltre (this year), Ichiro, or Johjima. Of course, he's only showing 41 points of patience with Seattle, (in exchange for the off-the-chart power surge).
The question for 2010 is this ... do you want to pay $8 million to keep Jack Wilson around, hoping he can produce something over his .684 career OPS (in a park that murders RH hitters), as he turns 32? Or, do you want to gamble on the 28-year-old nobody that might be able to post numbers similar to Wilson, (if you're right), for something close to league minimum? (Given the absolutely miserable results from Yubet, Cedeno and Jack Wilson, the track record for Z and the shortstop position have NOT been stellar thus far).
Whoever the 2010 shortstop ends up being, he doesn't need to be posting a 103 OPS+, (Josh Wilson's current number). But he DOES need to post something over 80 if the club hopes to contend.
=== Ryan Rowland-Smith ===
Has been excellent all year, but his last three starts he has engaged autopilot on the TOR navi screen:
KCR - 8 innings, 1 walk, 7 strikeouts
Oak - 8 innings, 1 walk, 4 strikeouts
LAA - 7 innings, 1 walk, 5 strikeouts
In those starts, he has thrown 213 strikes and 112 balls. I feel like I'm watching Jeff Fassero buzz through the NL back in Montreal.
............
Earlier in the year, Rowland-Smith was a flyball pitcher, including a 14 flyball / 3 groundball performance in Toronto.
But in the three starts above, he has tossed 31 groundballs against only 22 flyballs. He has settled into a pleasant routine of taking batters up the ladder with a quick 89-92 heater, and then when he pulls the string on the change and curve, they top it.
The FB, hook, and change all come in at the same vector. The FB stays up; the change and curve don't. And the two offspeeds drop at different angles. Very tough.
Rowland-Smith's LH three-pitch game is strikingly repeatable, both in theory and in this particular case. The ease with which he now cycles through his pitch sequences is seen in the walk ratios, and strike/ball ratios, above.
.
=== M's Offense ===
Several weeks ago, we noted in this column that the Mariners' offense was posting an 0.30 EYE as a team -- and only two of the 29 other teams were even below 0.40.
They have impressively continued their two-hops-and-flop-again Offensive Potato Sack Race into September. The last 30 days (now), they're at 7.0% walks, at 23.3% strikeouts and of course #30 in strikeout/walk ratio. As James says, baseball is about the strike zone. Being #30 in EYE is about Pythag'ing 85-90 losses despite having the #1 ERA in the league.
They're not only missing the ball, but when they do hit it, they're hitting it weakly (.269 team BABIP the last month). That's a devastating combination.
We appreciate the tryouts for 2010, but what is it about Josh Wilson and Jack Hannahan that requires evaluation? If evaluation is important enough that shutout losses are okay, why isn't Jose Lopez playing 3B, Osvaldo Navarro up here, Mike Carp in the lineup, etc?
.
=== Sizzlers & Fizzlers ===
Mike Sweeney is, maddeningly, batting .350/.410/.570 the last month, with a great eye ratio. He's hit three long HR's in his last 18 games. This raises the legitimate question of whether he could perform well in 2010, because his 105 OPS+ could be low due to small PA's this year.
Assuming that Griffey isn't coming back, why wouldn't Mike Sweeney come back for the coach-on-the-bench role? Do not undersell Sweeney's impact on the club's chemistry. He is literally a sports psychologist on the bench, except doing it from a more effective angle: he's in uniform.
Because of his 2H and his EYE, Sweeney offers the possibility of a 300/380/500 performance (in short AB's) in 2010. As John Benson says, a player is the player we last saw him as, in July-September of the previous year. Very possibly, Sweeney's back is feeling better, and here he is mashing like a MOTO.
We don't know much about what causes a team to beat Pythag or lose to it. But you know and I know that this team has earned a .500 record, despite its run differential. Who's to say that Mike Sweeney hasn't been an element in that?
................
I didn't say I'd bring him back. I said he is making it a maddeningly tough decision.
Maybe that's why Sweeney is playing so much? Because the Mariners are trying to make their minds up on him? If so, he's currently in the process of making the 2010 roster.
Cheers,
Dr D