.
Our resident scratch golfer --- > unfolded the 3-foot step tool, climbed up and screwed in a 150-watt Zen lightbulb for us. :: golfclap ::
Even as we try to SABR-matize baseball evaluation, the sport's best evaluators miss WAY more than they get right.
My point is that Smoak and Ackley "appeared" to be more talented than Seager, and Montero did too. But they weren't, for reasons nobody identified.
.
In the NBA, you can give a high school draft pick $80,000,000 before he ever plays a game (1 game) in college, much less playing a game in the NBA. If "you" are Nike, that is. Think about the level of confidence in projection there. Think about it. He was 18, was going to be playing against people like Tim Duncan and Lance Stephenson, and you knew he was going to be a megastar.
Baseball is "draws at the deck." Dr. D approves of this fact. Billy Beane was scoffing, just last year, at the claim that it is even possible to select Mike Trout #25 overall because you knew he was going to be a star.
There is a silver - um, gold - lining to that, because under these circumstances, it allows the Seahawks to draft much better than their rivals do, and ... Jack Zduriencik and Tom McNamara? How much better do you think they are at building the base of the talent pyramid, than what we had before?
There are times that SSI believes that it's worth taking the good with the bad, until Z retires, just for the base of the talent pyramid. By "times that," maybe we mean when we've got +5 wins in a row and a day off to savor it :- )
.....
But even in light of that objective evaluation, the M's subjective eyes continued to believe in some Ackley and Smoak talent differential that wasn't there. Now, they weren't terrible wrong, just 10-15%, but that is the margin that makes all the difference.
:: taps chin :: I hadn't thought of that.
The Mariners are unusual, it seems, in their decisiveness after they point the index finger and say, "THAT one." If you don't buy that, two words. Those two words playing right field.
Dr. D also approves of decisiveness. But Moe's point stands: the Mariners did get Justin Smoak wrong not on draft day, but (apparently) also in January 2014. After 1,700 MLB at bats, plus the minors.
Justin Smoak's OPS+ this morning is 86. That's after 2,200 major league plate appearances - well beyond the Carlos Guillen finish-line ribbon, which was 1,800 mediocre AB's and then MVP status.
(Michael Saunders' OPS+ this morning is 125. He's also a terrific RF defender and terrific after he's on base. In that case, the patience may net us a 5-, 6-win player and the playoffs.)
That's a different conversation. It's a brand new conversation, a brilliant one, Moe. Getting Smoak wrong at the time of the Cliff Lee deal? We all got that wrong. But getting him wrong now? Why is that?
....
As Moe sums it up - spraying the green with a gorgeous shower of fine sand -
We can continue to saddle up on Smoak and Ackley because "they are just about to figure it out."
.
....
We don't mean the question disparagingly. We mean it literally. (Bill James asked, last summer, after watching Smoak one series in Boston, "How long until they pull the plug on Justin Smoak?")
Of course, the Mariners have an investment. That's not the answer; they won't "marry" guys just because they gave up Michael Pineda for him. If you cause Zduriencik's confidence to collapse, he's got a Divorce Court.
What is the answer to Moe's question? Assuming that they are wrong on Smoak, what is the thinking process that leads to this error?
I believe the answer to your mostly rhetorical question, Doc, is emotionalism. I don't like it...but it's human and part of the game despite the big business that it is. The Mariners have a sense of BELIEF in Smoak and Ackley...and belief is far...far more powerful than data.
I "believe" that your next post will be more baseball-literate than one that my wife puts up.
Are "beliefs" driven by 100% emotion - motivation - desire - what we would like to be true, and 0% "evidence", or 90-10, or somewhere in between?
I don't think of "beliefs" as being opposed to evidence/data, either technically or in a general sense. Maybe you could clarify here?
.........
Maybe you're saying that the M's wishful thinking can override their better judgment? To a greater extent than would be the case with, say, the Cleveland Indians? If so, that's possible ...
IIRC Taro was pretty negative on Smoak right from the start, after he saw some tape. I think he complained about his bat speed and also foot speed as well as expressing surprise that Smoak did not seem to be an elite defender as had been advertised.
Again he hit an HR and lumbered around the bases, no kidding, like he weighed more than Prince Fielder. Have you seen that Doc? He SLAMS down into the ground with every step. You can feel the shock all the way from the heel up through the spine.
It's funny, too ... We remember Bill James selling the minor league Frank Thomas super hard because... wait, lemme grab a URL off this ;- )
I'm a Catholic. So obviously, I accept that belief is both rational and necessary to the human condition.
What I am saying is that the Mariners are a bit of an echo-chamber - insular and resistant to outside criticism or points of view...and that because they still believe in Smoak and Ackley, but do so without counter-arguments, they can't cross-examine properly...they are uniquely prone to a state of emotional belief rather than a well-reasoned belief system.
I am Catholic because I have studied Catholicism and found it to be rich with a cultural heritage of scholarly study and reason...a rational philosophy of faith formation drew me in. That required a real challenging of my initial beliefs though...that's the step the Mariners sometimes miss, IMHO. But I don't work there, so I can only go on what the impression of them is elsewhere.
Wonderful post Matt.
Left center field. Not down the line. Like McGwire off the Unit, you had Junior laughing into his glove.
Echo chamber. Hm. That was part of what Blengino claimed.
Are you really sure you'll get more production using other organizations's failed projects? Cole Gillespie? Perhaps, as a one year flash - very conceivable, but a risk. In 2011, The Mariners were a winning team at this stage as well - same 31-28 record, in fact. Things were clicking and Smoak was our stud hitter, and the entire Mariner nation was anticipating Dustin Ackley. Only the Mariners were, for some reason, hesitant. Smoak's bat then disappeared, Ackley couldn't carry the weight, and we ended up terrible. But oh, what a rotation: Felix, Pineda, Fister, Vargas, Bedard.
I hold on, for another month, because in the very recent past both players has demonstrated the ability to put up great numbers over a month or two. Last June and July, Smoak OPS's .888 and .842. Ackley as recent as last August hit 1.017 - superstar territory for an entire month.
The Mariner front office may be emotional in their attachment. After all, these are the first two they introduced to the Mariners that were their very own. Well, Smoak was more of a show off alchemy move (hey, look what I can turn into gold) but an adopted Z boy just the same. They know, because they watch them closely, what these two are capable of. I always tried to coach my own kids in baseball, because you don't want a stranger ignoring your kid. And my kids always performed better when I was their coach. They knew I believed in them. I knew what they were capable of. When a player feels that from a coach, it's a powerful motivator. But that never caused me to sit a kid who could play better. It just caused me to make sure I didn't favor kids who were worse. And it ended up causing them to play at a level in which they were reliable contributors to a winning team. One child rose to the very best in the league. But I digress. Thing is, there is emotional attachment, so long as no one is demonstrably better. Montero, to be honest, isn't doing what Franklin did, only not nearly as consistently. Ackley owned AAA, and put up much better numbers in his demotion than Montero is. But, yes, Montero may be motivated differently. The Z regime knows this.
But I think it is also possible to get overly emotional when you give up on a player. Are your alternatives really better than what Smoak and Ackley might offer in the next two months? Or it this merely a way of saying, "anything's better than what we have now"?
But...Ackley is currently tapping slow rollers again to second base (aaaarrrrrhhhhhggggg!!!!!!), and Smoak is either striking out or hitting long flies. Ackley is certainly worrisome, but you gotta figure he's been through this and is good enough and smart enough to fix it. Well, I do anyway, in large part because he's done so in the past. Smoak...well, an .840 OPS over the next month or two with excellent defense is mighty desireable. Montero should mash lefties, I'll give you that.
Lloyd is playing it right, giving veterans a chance to show they are ready to offer that one, special, stand out season. Montero will get his chance, the Z regime is invested in him as well, and he had put up interesting big league numbers. And Felix likes him. But Chavez, Lloyd thinks...that dude can really cook for a month or two. Look what he did for Texas! And he does what I tell him to do, and he understands. Bloomquist too. Can Ackley learn something from Bloomquist?
This is the moment of truth for Lloyd as much as it is for Ackley and Smoak. It's interesting. Lou brought in his Reds, and results were mixed but overall good (Wilson and Charlton especially). Lloyd now is the guy who has to have his finger on the next hot hitter. He's really the guy to watch. And remember how much the Tiger players loved him. If Cole Gillespie is Lou Piniella for a season, or Endy is Stan Javier, Lloyd has to see it.
Lloyd is the guy to watch right now. I'm becoming a fan.
And the Safe kills him. That 10-20% shows up on the road. So other teams inquire but aren't willing to pay enough. Probably 10+ teams each year they watch him flounder here. His best split career and most years is RH Away. He'd be a beast in Boston Tomorrow. Might have even approached those lofty comps if he'd stayed in Arlington. I think his confidence is all locked away in the Safe now and his road numbers that even now look decent enough would be even better if his home park weren't killing him. He's not the first. Won't be the last.
What happens if DJ and AJ have the same issues at Safeco? Continue to blame development and stubborn leadership while ignoring the park effects? Look at Beltre. How about that Mike Morse? We should know this is ongoing. RH hitters are affected by Safeco even more than LH are and the parks effect on LHB is negative. Different sources come up with different numbers, none are good regarding the future prospects of hitting in Seattle. Never thought this was to come when watching the Trident era in the Kingdome though...
Ackley? I've got no idea. He adjusts and still sucks. Home, road, vs. same or opposite...all crap. I'm wondering if Trout would've been as bad for us anyway...Safeco might have sapped him too.
We can hope it's not that simple. We shouldn't forget Safeco's history though. It would make the repetition hurt more.
Rick,
As I climbed into bed last night, the one comment I had made that I began to wish I had qualified was saying that I would give LF to Gillepsie. I realized that Gillespie probably doesn't have any great chance of running a 115 OPS for the next 50 days than Ackley does. I am appropriately chastised. On the other hand, its 50/50 who has the best chance of running a 100 OPS line out there.
Chavez I have no use for. None. He makes me cringe.
Since it doesn't look like a trade is in the works, then we work with what we have. Options are limited.
Smoak I am done with. I would sit him now and platoon Montero and Morrison. But heck, if we played Morrison fulltime at 1B at home and them played him in LF on the road I could well live with that. Smoak's lifetime .730-ish OPS on the road is better than his home numbers. But .245-.320-.400 (ish) isn't much to brag about.
In fact, such an arrangement would be interesting and probably ground-breaking. Is the Skip cutting edge enough to go to a Home-Away platoon?
And if this team is going to improve, we must be willing to see guys like Ackley and Smoak go elsewhere and do fine, especially if they bring us something that would do fine here.
Smoak and Ackley are probably what we see, I think you make a strong argument. But I think there is another run in each of them. I believe they are .700+hitters, and if so, there is likely another run in each to go past that barrier and into the .750 range, and at that point, it's time to sell. I remember feeling that way about Harang, and to a lesser extend about Saunders last season. They were stinking up the joint and people wanted to cut bait and bring in Walker and Paxton, and I would say, "but look at those yummy xFIPs! And can I tempt you with a delicious SIERA with your coffee for dessert?" And we'd see a couple shutouts we would have missed out on. Jeff Weaver had a similar run for us in 2008 before stinking up the joint again. Is there an xOPS I can appeal to for these guys?
But if they did break out like the Gis in Normandy this summer, we wouldn't sell then, would we? Because they are our kids. Z and company would believe they have turned a corner. It's not like dealing a super lucky Washburn to the Tigers.
Spec keeps suggesting a Blash Splash may be coming our way this summer. When does Choi return? Can we catch some lightning in a bottle later? Like Lou tried to do with Snelling? Or Lloyd with Jones?
Gracias,
I will add to Matt's point: I think the emotionalism he mentions is rooted in investment. Were Smoak a 14th round draft pick who performed like this, would we continue to "saddle him up"? I think not. He would have been Deep-Sixed long ago (at least as a fulltime starter). Ditto with Ackley. Our investment in them is real (the lost opportunity cost of someone else) and we're trying to recover the investment. OK, the smart people didn't panic when their General Motors stock crashed in 1929, they saw the real value in the company and doubled down (if they had the cash).
But at some point, the empirical evidence must trump the emotional attachment. We've gone well past that point with our duo. I wish I had confidence that Z and McClendon were finally at that point. I don't know who to be more disappointed in, the GM or the Skip. Z has had ample time to see that the topside for these guys is limited, yet made no real effort to find replacements this winter, unless it was Logan Morrison....but I sure didn't get that vib. Z was "all in." The Skip came in with a blank slate, yet he got on board immediately. Didn't he phone Smoak up last winter and tell him, "You're my man. The job is yours." I suppose you could call that Manager talk, but I'm unconvinced of that.
The proof may well be found in how soon we use Logan Morrison and Montero or in any trade for B. Butler (rumors persist).
This past win streak shows we can compete, but I fear that the GM (maybe more than the Skip) may decide that we will be in really deep cotton "just as soon" as Smoak and Ackley warm up, because they "are due to get real hot."
When we weren't winning (pick any recent year) I suppose you might excuse giving those guys R-E-A-L long leashes. But now that we in the hunt, rolling them out there at 22% of your positions is a terrible course.
We have, in hand, replacements for Smoak and guys hitting better than Ackley. (We're short a DH, too, BTW) Right now, I think I would use LoMo and Montero in a 1B platoon, make use of Kelly at DH use Gillespie more in LF. Demote Ackley again and move Smoak to the Yankees or Tidewater..
But I think the continued error on Smoak is partially driven by the fact that he "looks like" a ballplayer. He's our own "Big Country," chaw included. Once Montero collapsed, we didn't have lots of other in-house options at 1B. But we didn't look to bring in many, either.
It would indeed be interesting if Choi were still hot and still available. Would he be here now? Would Smoak have lost beaucoup time to Morrison 15-20 games ago, if Morrison were available? But if Morrison were available all along, would Saunders have got a chance?
If we have missed our evaluation of Smoak's talent level by only 15%, he would have been a 122, 100, 130 OPS player the last three years. If so, we would have had something decent. That 15% error on his talent is probably not too far off. But it makes all the difference.
Doc, I love your comment about decisiveness and your approving of it. I love identifying young talent and then moving them up quickly. I"m all in on that. That's the standard method of attack in both the NBA and NFL, after all. But those guys tend to identify the missed evaluation pretty quickly, too. In the NBA you give the 1st round pick minutes early, but if he's a dog, he finds the end of the bench pretty quickly. The NFL plugs rookie corner backs in there left and right. But they don't run them out there for 4 years if they haven't got the chops. Man, by week 15 of Year One the 12th Round pick from Appalachian State has rocketed by them on the 2-Deep Chart.
Talent is a weird thing. Pete Rose was one of the most talented hitters in the history of the game, but he gets credit for hustle and grime and dirt dog competitiveness. Nobody ever calls him an incredible talent, yet he surely was. We often refer to failed guys as "incredibly talented" athletes who somehow failed. What we probably missed was that they weren't as talented as we thought.
Draft day errors are the rule of pro sports. I've never beat up a team for that. It is always a bit of a crap shoot. But down-the-line errors, especially ones that are repeated year after year, are worthy of snide comments and cat calls.
I'm there.
Edit: I will add here that I wish I had come up with something as astute as Matt''s comment on the insular nature of the M's top floor offices. Good stuff.
I nearly mentioned Blash as a potential LF option. But the 30% K rate needs to drop some. In his last 10 games he's K'ed 13 times in 43 PA's.....still 30%. Get that down to 20% in Tacoma and he might get the call.
If you could send the Yankees something useful for 80 Ichiro starts in LF, would you?
Ichiro in the 2-hole would be an interesting thing, wouldn't it. Ichiro-Jones-Saunders (w/Romero in reserve) would work, wouldn't it. Ichiro as a mentor for Jones has its own unique value, as well.
Gimme a 1st base platoon of Montero/Morrison (or Morrison at home and Smoak on the road if we must) and we could have something.