Griffey must go. The club no longer believes in him as a leader and Griffey no longer believes in himself as a player. You can see it in his eyes at the plate...he looks scared, timid, old...he can't hit a fastball right down the middle anymore. Pitchers throw him 4 straight fastballs above the thighs and he strikes out or pop ups or taps into double plays. Griffey has to leave...immediately. Everyone knows it...he's gone from clubhouse hero to absolute cancer.
By the way, Ryan Rowland-Smith also has to leave immediately. Doc, some of the panic you observed was caused directly by RRS imploding yet again. The club plays samurai tough when they think the pitchers will keep them within a run or two, but RRS can't do that and they try too hard and end up pressing worse than usual. RRS is completely dead...he needs to go away.
Replace Griffey with a minor leaguer and RRS with Snell or Shell or Pineda for all I care. Anyone byt RRS.
...............
Man, what a weird season. They'd have won 5 of their first 6 with Alonzo Powell, except that a fan reached over the fence and deflected a Saunders catch into the crowd - and nobody complained, not even Saunders. But they did lose that one, and lost another walkoff, and that's like 11 last-AB road losses in 14 L's, or something. The unrelenting tragicomedies are taking their toll on the self-belief.
Idle thought: it's weird how, in sports, a run of bad luck is read by your brain to mean that you're not good enough. This happens to me all the time. Three or four ping-pong shots graze the table or don't, and now the momentum is against you, and you get blown out of a 13-game set (or vice-versa)...
.
=== Critical Mass ===
The mantra we hear is: a run saved is as good as a run earned.
Well, to a point. Baseball systems (the lineup, the bullpen, the catcher) can fall below critical mass and implode. A horrible weakness can get into a team's head - never mind the fact that at a certain point of incompetence, the opponent can focus play around your weakness.
Joe Morgan talks about having a "balanced ballclub." This makes no sense to saberdudes, who merely add the R and RA columns. But Joe is thinking in terms of ballclubs that have fatal flaws - and who give up in May or June, knowing that they can't win.
There is a 3-dimensionality to a championship team's battle that doesn't completely make it through the stargates of our 2-D computer monitors. This concept of "critical mass" is part of that.
You couldn't play a Sumo wrestler at shortstop and just subtract 40 runs defensively; the other team would bend its play to the weakness. All of our EqA and WAR and Pythag stats presume that the 18-man battle is in stasis. A ballclub missing 50-70% of its homers has a stasis problem. Other teams start to smell the fact that they can lock you down. Here comes strike one...
...........
Zduriencik, Wakamatsu & Co. remain just as smart as they ever were (very). But the decision to run 60* homers out there, because the DER seemed to compensate, provided Seattle fans with a living illustration of the concept of "unbalanced ballclub." Jack Wilson woulda been okay. Wilson add Kotchman add a 5'4" free agent? Hmmm...
Kotchman arrived on the very conviction that "a run saved is as good as a run earned." Only in Strat-O. A real contending baseball team has legit RBI men.
...........
Hardest thing to add, midseason, is power. Which hints very strongly at its true value. As Earl Weaver preached, the home run is the greatest play in baseball, and it's just about the first thing he ensured when he built a roster.
Adam Dunn, anybody?
.
Cheers,
Dr D
Comments
Interesting that the two clubs in baseball that 'doubled down' on defense this offseason (Mariners, Red Sox) are two of the bigger disappointments in baseball.
Home Run is the one play where you can guarantee a score. Anything else, and you're relying on a sequence of (unlikely) events. With each event you reduce your chances to score. When you have almost zero power, then you need more events to happen in succession, making scoring that much more diffucult. Maybe exponentially so? I'm no math guy.
We've seen that so many times this year, the 2-on-nobody-out situation last night being just the latest. The M's can have had innings this year where they get 3 hits in an inning, including a double, and end up scoring only one run on a passed ball.
Anyhoo, I'm hoping that this season will quiet the Defense-uber-alles mantra for building a successful team, because clearly a) just getting the greatest defenders doesn't necessarily make you a great defensive team, b) the balanced team is necessary to win as you describe, and c) it is pretty uninspiring to watch.
Sorry, glum, but I'm gonna have to disagree with the assessment. Seattle didn't "double down" on defense. They simply didn't want to give two years to Branyan (34 and gimpy). They WERE willing to give one year to Sweeney (36 and gimpy - and LESS capable of playing defense than Branyan).
And while there is no doubt that Kotchman has been a huge disappointment with the stick (after the first two weeks) - he's still ahead of Branyan in total bases 41 to 28 and RBI (14 to 9).
Bradley wasn't a "glove first" pickup. He was a swap of bad salaries with the Cubbies that was SUPPOSED to be a massive offensive upgrade - (and many saw him as the eventual DH - again, coloring the move as NOT a defensively motivated one.
Kotchman has been PAINTED as a "glove-first" pickup. I never believed it. I think Z thought Kotch was an upside BAT pickup. An underappreciated talent, who had struggled to get playing time. Like ... oh ... Gutierrez or Branyan?
Okay - Kotch has stunk up the place, (but no worse than Lopez or Griffey or Bradley or ... why bother). But, Kotchman was *NOT* a Vidro redux. He was a gamble on a YOUNG up-side bat - with the potential to blossom into something big at pennies on the dollar. He's (situationally) Carlos Pena - only YOUNGER. (just fyi - Pena is currently 70th in OPS+ in the AL - exactly one slot above Kotchman).
Am I the only guy who understands that Kotchman and Gutierrez were born on CONSECUTIVE DAYS? Kotch is one day YOUNGER than Gutierrez.
Z won the bet on Gutierrez. Kotchman is the exact, same, identical bet.
If Kotch were the ONLY guy slumping, I think Carp (or Langerhans) would already have the spot. But, I think given the team-wide slump, the org is in a bind. If he's the only deadbeat - you bring up Carp and move forward. But that move is meaningless if Lopez and Figgy (et al) continue stinking up the place.
=====
As for Boston. TRYING to upgrade defense and succeeding aren't the same thing. Boston is 7th in DER and next to WORST in ERA. The Boston offense is currently 3rd in R/G.
But, let's look at the top of the DER chart for a moment: Tamp, Yankees, Seattle, Texas. Three of those four teams would make the playoffs were they to start today.
Focusing on defense does not cause failure elsewhere. Seattle bats stunk just as badly back in 2008 when the defense was absolutely miserable. Hey - as soon as Lopez and Figgy and a catcher and a LF come around and start producing - I'll be first in line to say, dump Kotchman and get a masher.
If there is an organizational root cause to the current problems it is this -- they haven't developed a quality MLB bat in over a decade. And until this organization can produce its own version of Heyward or Pedroia or Utley or Pujols or Zimmerman or Longoria or Morneau, etc., etc., etc. -- the club will CONTINUE down the path of trying to snag the underappreciated (and cheap) "potential upside" bats. And many will fail.
If you cannot produce a 400K productive bat - then you have no choice but to try and find them from the discard pile - or else spend $200 million like the Yankees to fill your roster.
"Figgins’ taking more strikes has helped put his back against the wall more often and has likely contributed to the elevated K rate. In 2009, 50.5 percent of his plate appearances reached a two strike count (48 percent MLB average). This year, 55.5 percent of his PA have gone to two strikes (thanks, Baseball-Reference)." -David Golebiewski, Fangraphs.com
The article also points out that Figgins is swinging more often, swinging and missing more often, and those swings are coming on balls out of the zone.
Drop Figgins to the 9-spot and hope he relaxes into his game. Figgins is easily the greatest offensive disappointment of the season so far.
Batman vs. Gotham City criminal types = Mismatch
Barney Fife vs. Mayberry criminal types = Mismatch
Velociraptor vs. slow, medium-sized, delicious dinosaur types = Mismatch
Jack Nicklaus vs. Tom Weiskoph (and I liked Weiskoph a bunch) = Mismatch
Skanky bimbo types vs. Tiger Woods self-control = Mismatch
Germany vs France in any 20th Century war = Mismatch
Jim Palmer vs. Freddy Patek = Mismatch
Any MLB pitcher vs. Jr. Griffey = Mismatch. A bigger one than those above.
Maybe he had a head ache or missed his pregame and during-game nap or had a hang nail...but Jr. was as pathetic as a MLB batter can be last night. It was ugly. A mercy DL trip is needed. Desperately. Please.
RRS = linedrives and launching pad right now. Let's see Kelly in the rotation. Or Griffey. It wouldn't be a downgrade...and then he wouldn't have to hit!
moethedog
I have a news flash for everyone in this room...the Mariners are not losing because they tried the 95 OPS+/120 ERA+ defensive dynamo strategy and it didn't work. They're losing because they tried that dynamo and are OPS+'ing 78 with a BA of .229. The 2010 Mariners do not prove one gosh darned thing about the viability of a defense-first strategy. They prove that when you have two guys in the line-up hitting near their career norms, you're going to suck.
Seattle's defense-first strategy would be WORKING...BEAUTIFULLY!...if they were getting career normal performances from everyone other than Griffey.
This year, in the AL, the ChiSox have the following big bats doing incredible damage:
Konerko - 1022 OPS - leads AL with 13 HRs (4th in OPS+ at 170)
Alex Rios - .941 OPS - (11th in AL OPS+ at 150)
Andruw Jones - .931 OPS - (12th in AL OPS+ at 147)
That's 3 of the top 12 hitters in the entire AL. A THIRD of their lineup is out-hitting the Ms top hitter (Gutz). (Longoria is the only Tampa hitter in the top 19).
At this moment, the ChiSox stand 9th in run scoring in the AL (4.11 per game), which is 1.5 runs less than the Yankees, and 1.2 runs less than Tampa. Why is the ChiSox offense not even average with 3 of the top dozen hitters in the league on the roster? The answer is simple -- they have no other hitter posting more than an 80 OPS+. The 4th best hitter for the ChiSox is posting a .669 OPS (Carlos Quentin). HALF of their top 10 hitters have an OPS+ below 65.
Seattle is in the same boat - (two 130 OPS+ guys - Bradley at 91 - then everyone else who has 60 PAs is below 80.
The math is simple -- 3 Hall of Fame bats CANNOT overcome 6 Mario Mendoza's.
Glum here,
So Sandy, you disagree that 'defense uber alles' is not a good strategy for roster construction, that you need a balanced team to win, and that abysmal offense with good defense is boring to watch? I can understand you taking issue with the 3rd conclusion, but you'll have a hard time convincing me or anyone else that the other two conclusions aren't valid.
You appear to have a knee-jerk reaction to the term 'double down', which I borrowed from some espn or other reporter - actually, I think it was the NY times article. It's not meant in the literal sense, it's meant to indicate a continued focus on defense above what other orgs have, and what has historically been the case in MLB.
In Figgins & Kotchman, the M's chose the guys in FA with less bat and more glove. Also, it should be noted, younger options over older ones.
Bradley, IMO, doens't even enter in to the discussion. He was the best you could do in getting Silva off the roster and trying to boost your offense a bit.
You're right that Kotchman was about the same bat as Guti. Except last I checked they play very different positions. The M's knew that with Kotchman, even best-case, they'd be below-average offensively at 1B. So yeah, the fact that he was esteemed as one of the very best defensive 1b's on the planet, that leads to a conclusion that defense was a priority for the team.
In Seattle's case, I believe that defensive focus has in fact caused problems elsewhere. It's left a sucking chest wound where the home runs and doubles should be.
The club had Beltre - the #1 3B glove in baseball.
The club picked up the #1 OBP infielder available on the FA market. Nobody else came close. (The club finished dead last in OBP during 2009). Figgins WAS an offensive pickup. This is supported not only by his OBP -- but also by the fact they did not choose to play him at his best (statistically to that point in his career) defensive position.
The focus from '09 to '10 was *NOT* defense. It was OBP. Did they make a concious choice not to go after HRs? Yeah - I'd say there is evidence to support that. But, it was not because of a fixation on defense - it was a priority on OBP over slugging.
But I don't recall any upswell of support for the idea of bringing back Beltre or Bill Hall.
The same guy who opted to bring in Branyan in the first place - (which was greeted with an across the board shrug until AFTER he hit 30 HRs) - is the guy who opted to bring in Kotchman.
The honest truth is that the 2010 problems are "mostly" centered on two players: Ken Griffey - posting a .452 OPS in the DH slot -- (by definition this is NOT a defensive minded decision -- if defense were overly important NEITHER Sweeney nor Griffey would be on the roster, since neither can play defense at all). And the other gaping chest wound in the offense is Jose Lopez - the 25 HR hero from 2009 - who is carrying a .528 OPS.
The two guys who CLEARLY and emphatically were NOT retained for their defensive prowess are the two guys with the absolute lowest OPS figures on the club. Jack Wilson is out-hitting BOTH.
But, then again - maybe you're unintentionally onto something. If the guys targeted for their gloves are ALL out-hitting the guys targeted for their offense, then perhaps the club WOULD be better off obsessing over defense more than it has.
Sandy,
If you're going to argue against points I haven't made, then I'm not going to bother responding.
Did I say Figgins was a glove pickup? No. I said that Z chose FA's who were less bat and more glove. Polanco was available for the infield, with more bat and less glove than Figgins. 1B, there were definitely other options with more stick.
This is not a 1-dimensional argument. Obviously Z chose players that he thought, on the whole, were the best options. I'm saying, maybe the focus on defense was too heavy. Or really, because you're 100% right about the club trying to get patient hitters, maybe they undervalued power production to their detriment.
You're right, Beltre was a great example of a great glove that didn't help the M's much because the bat was so feeble.
We had this debate in the offseason, but Kotchman was not the same bet as Gut IMO.
I loved the Gut move at the time, because he was already an above-average regular with legitimate upside offensively and potentially the best defensive CF in baseball.
Kotchman at the time was a 0-5 run scrub over his career with signs of a further declining bat.
Polanco's career OPS+ is 98. Figgins is 97.
Polanco is two years older.
In the past three seasons - the comparison is:
Figgins: (OPS) .825 - .685 - .789 - by OBP - .393/.367/.395
Polanco: (OPS) .846 - .768 - .727 - by OBP - .388/.350/.331
The notion that Polanco was more bat / less glove is questionable at best. I could easily make the argument that between the two - given the age difference and Polanco's downward offensive trend, (and Polanco's two GGs - including one in 2009) - that between the two Polanco would have been the More-Glove - Lesser-Bat option.
The oddness of the Polanco suggestion is that he's almost the exact prototype of the Bavasi-era fixation on low-K, put-the-ball-in-play hitters with no patience. The fact that he's 34 would've made him a near carbon copy of the Vidro acquisition - (accepting the fact that he's actually capable of playing GG defense).
And, of course, Polanco is right-handed, while Figgins is a switch-hitter.
Age - handedness - 2009 results - career RC27 (5.2 to 5.1 edge for Figgins) *ALL* say Figgins was the better bat. The 2009 GG for Polanco at 2B would almost certainly been viewed as a more obvious "glove first" pickup - (especially if accompanied by the Lopez shift to third, since both of Polanco's GGs are at second).
Is defense *A* factor in Z's choices? Certainly. But, the only pickup that I personally see as clearly and obviously motivated by defense over offense would be Jack Wilson at short. Gutz was snagged because he was good defensively AND Z felt he was going to emerge offensively. It happened.
Hindsight - going after LaRoche would almost certainly have been a better result. But, there were some pushing to trade with Tampa to get Carlos Pena, too, (currently in a dead heat - ((emphasis on dead)) with Kotchman for hitting prowess. Bat-first pickups flame-out, too.
Honest truth - when Z took over, he had 8 holes to plug. He's down to 7. Mostly, he's a victim of his own success. Because he DID manage to morph the team from worst to first in a single season defensively, his inability to do the same with the bats seems to be getting blamed on that success.
If Figgy and Lopez and Kotchmand and Wilson and Bradley were all putting up career average lines - and the offense was still putrid - I'd absolutely be willing to listen to the argument that perhaps Z needed to change course. But when 8 of 11 hitters tank, it starts getting tricky to blame it on a single thing.
Agree with San-Man that the 2010 M's are no incrimination of a D-first strategy. As he notes, the strategy would click if the bats were anywhere *near* league-average.
The strategy isn't getting a fair shake when the offense falls below the tipping point... get it to 92 or so and then check it...
......................
We all loved the Figgins signing - no mistake there -
......................
The problemo, IMHO, was that we tempted the fates on the boundary line for fewest HRs / lowest SLG a ballclub can live with...
What this season definitely illustrates is that all runs are NOT created equal. The old-school guys who said we needed a coupla RBI men were right and, in this specific case, the saberdudes were missing a coupla light bulbs.
...what is the MLB record for most walk-off losses in a season?
Seattle is threatening to break it.
Offense is failing, but the team could still approach respectibility if not for bullpen failures. Doesn't the high-wire, low-HR approach require a bullet-proof bullpen, too? And it seems that bullpen management might be one of Wak's weak points as well.
Help me with the math, Matt. If you're in more close, low-scoring games because you're strategic approach is 95 OPS+/120 ERA+, don't you need the 120 ERA+ to be not disproportionately weighted toward starters? Otherwise you get a bunch of 7 IP, 2 ER starts and still lose. Bullpen stats will look respectible, but the breakdowns will be magnified because the margin of error is so small.
Or has the losing and futility gotten to you too, Jeff?
Doc, it appears your site is being highjacked.
When the doctor's away, the asylum patients will play.