Bill James Grades Jack Zduriencik (redux)
Hey Bill

.

Originally published August 28th.

On Geoff Baker's blog, he is rebuffing the Blog-O-Sphere's accusation that Zduriencik "abandoned defense in a panic move."

I haven't been keeping up on it, but if the blogs are *still* demanding that their 2009 approach be vindicated, this SSI article would be my own comment.  I'm taking Geoffy's side of this one, and not through loyalty. 

Below, Bill James gives his 30,000-foot view as to whether Zduriencik's field-full-of-DH's was a panic move:  "When things aren't working, it is natural and good to consider ADMITTING that things aren't working.  That's what you do in baseball." 

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

I know.  Our "English Soccer News Aggregate Bait-and-Switch Titles" have gotten way outta hand.  Sue me.  I got triple the traffic goin' here :- )

On Hey Bill!, today:

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

 

hey bill The Mariners have the worst outfield I have seen. And I saw Kevin Reimer play on the turf in the Kingdome. They have the worst defense in baseball. Have you ever seen a GM and organization change their team philosophy so quickly from high defensive metric guys like Jack Wilson, Casey Kotchman, Franklin Gutierrez, Brendan Ryan to horrible should be DH's like Mike Morse, Raul Ibanez, Jason Bay, Ackley in CF, etc? Seems self destructive to change your core philosophy in two seasons.
Asked by: therevverend
Answered: 8/28/2013
Well, if your Chevy breaks down you don't have to buy a new Chevy.   You can try a Honda.     My own organization, for which I labor and which I love, kind of drove down a blind alley a couple of years ago, turned around and went in a different direction.
 
I have seen organizations radically change their philosophies in a couple of years, many times.    In my childhood the Kansas City A's would rush off in some new direction every six months.    The Angels in the 1970s would try to be a speed team one year, a power team the next year, a pitching team the third year.   Obviously, when you do that, you're floundering, but on the other hand, when you're floundering, you need to look carefully at whether you're going the right way. 

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

 

Guys who are REALLY smart can explain things simply.  With 6th-grade words, in four or five sentences.  Jealous sabermetricians sometimes accuse James of becoming popular "because he's so good with the English language."  

Um, yeah.  Words are important things.  They are little wheelbarrows that carry ideas from one human being's mind to another's.  James is really good at transferring ideas.  It's partly because those ideas are of superior quality, and partly because he understands his own ideas more profoundly than others understand theirs.  

Sorry.  I'm like way into Zen, dude.  ... which values clarity and conciseness as the hallmarks of true wisdom.

........

"Get on with it!"  ::cue Floyd classic::

Two observations about Jack Zduriencik's first five years here:

1.  He's floundering.  He fundamentally doesn't know what he's doing.  Not like a Pat Gillick does.

2.  He has a flexible and open mind.  He's self-aware and not afraid to admit mistakes.

2a.  It's fundamentally okay, in Zduriencik's specific case, that he's floundering.

..........

That's James' quick take on Zduriencik, based on a 10-second glance.  Looking at it from that angle, and having (of course) studied Zduriencik for five years ... guess what:  I agree.   You'd have to be awfully jealous of James not to shake your head in admiration at the Zen qualities in his answer.

What was it Jack Nicholson told Helen Hunt ... "You make people feel better, and because I get that about you, I feel better about myself."  Or somesuch.  In my opinion if you get why Bill James is special, you're doing well.  Think about what that makes him.

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

We never decided which of these two fugues would predominate, did we?

If the Mariners could get Gillick or Cashman -- to take all the talent and turn it into a ballclub -- that would be great.  If they can't, in this specific case, I'm glad to continue with Zduriencik for 2-3 more years.  Even though he apparently hasn't figured his job out yet.

Bottom-line-ily,

Dr D

Blog: 

Comments

1
M-Pops's picture

My understanding of the Z regime thus far is as follows:
• took over org bereft of talent
• traded overvalued assets for undervalued assets to plug holes, retaining some degree of MLB credibility without sacrificing MiLB health
• waiting on all MiLB top 50 talents to jell (Smoak, Ackley, Montero, Franklin, and Zunino)
Defense-first/only players were never a core philosophy, IMO; it was simply Z's only option. The players Z has drafted provide a better insight into a possible organizational philosophy.
POTD: Org Philosophy?
What do all of Z's most prized players have in common?

2

There are a lot of folks who look at Z's moves thus far, do not see a coherent strategy that follows cleanly from one to the next to the next, and assume that Z must be an idiot.
I look at his moves and assume that Z was in an impossible position at the start, tried several things to improve his position, some worked, others didn't but in net, he's gained a TON of talent for the entire organization, and as yet, that talent has not jelled into a winner.
The coherent thing about Z is that he will grab talent with both hands even if it doesn't seem to make sense. He'll trade his back-up catcher for yet another DH because...the DH is better than the back-up catcher. That's my take, at least.

3

he's in over his head. Talent-grabber, yes. Clear-headed, savvy builder of an MLB roster, I'm not yet convinced and increasingly doubtful as this season deteriorates into the same morass as the past three.
Smoak has proven to have some value as on OBP guy who plays a pretty doggone good first base, but that's all.
Franklin is looking as confused in the second half as Ackley did from his sophomore season until a month ago.
Miller's a good-looking young SS who brings an intangible spark. But let's not pretend he's setting the world on fire. He's not.
Saunders' progress may indeed have been hobbled by injury (as recent article suggest), but we still don't know for sure if what we have in him is a player who is breaking out or just plumb inconsistent.
Seager is a good, solid, steady player, but he not so good that he should be considered the main guy in a championship lineup.
Ackley looks to be on the way to solving his problems, but again, what has he actually proven over the course of a full campaign?
Zunino opened eyes during his limited time, but we cannot yet know what we have there.
Jesus Montero is presumably a bust.
Our Big Three is now a BIg One and some question marks.
In fact after five season, while we CAN say the talent is better, this team is still mostly question marks. And our exclamation point, Seager, is a top third in the league 3B-man but not a top echelon player overall. We don't have one of those.
Count me skeptical that this is anything more than the floundering of someone in over their head, maybe not completely, but too much to be successful at the job.
We'll go into next year with the same kinds of questions we went in this year, and the last. Honestly, this "bereft of talent" mantra, however true after 2008, is starting to sound like the blaming of George Bush nearly five years after he was booted out of office (forgive the political reference, it is only introduced because it is such a perfect analogy in my view.)
It starts to sound like, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me FIVE times, shame on me." How many times does it take until we start to say maybe we've been operating too much on hope and not enough on reality."

4

I think Jack has said the core philosophy all along has been to improve the quantity of talent. That has not always been the case with particular moves. Some of the quantities have had no quality. Overall I think that continually improving the organizational talent base has been achieved in any given year even. I don't see any other single common link in the moves of most offseasons, being that there are usually purchases and sales even. The ex-early pick/pedigree angle on acquisitions does fit many, but not so many that it can be certainly construed as their philosophy or even preference. It does seem that way.
There doesn't have to be a corrolation between the thought "good defense/weak bat vs bad defense good bat" and "who should we acquire" for the offseason to have gone that way anyway. We need bats, all agreed? Where can we put those bats without completely displacing those bats we have varying hopes for? We can't afford more than, maybe, one complete player and really need the best bats we can get...I would guess that they looked at all those angles, truly. But to say it's a new philosophical paradigm because it was a choice made, even in short repetition in one offseason, is overstating things in my opinion. Decisions made are sometimes counter to our own core philosophies. It happens.

5

Great points on GMZ - I agree with virtually everything you have written. One minor quibble with this statement: " as this season deteriorates into the same morass as the past three." The M's ended 2012 on a relatively high note:
1) Winning record in second half
2) Emergence of Iwakuma and promise showed by E-Ram to bolster rotation, with 3 highly ranked prospects close to the bigs to complete rotation
3) Pen solidified behind closer TW, young righties Capps & Pryor, solid lefties Furbush & Perez, more coming from minors
4) Montero hit better in 2nd half, Jaso was a stud, Seager/Saunders improved, Smoak a resurgent Sept, Ackley's troubles explained by ankle spur
5) Team was playing well, competing hard every game, defensively very tight
Contrast to 2013, right now:
1) Rotation uncertain: Maurer failed as starter; Hultzen injured shoulder; Paxton inconsistent; Felix bombed 2 of last 3 outings; Walker talented but uncertain
2) Bullpen a mess: TW bombed as closer, Pryor hurt, Capps can't get lefties out, Perez bombed 2nd half
3) Defense: Atrocious, exacerbating pitching problems
4) Outfield: One huge question mark - not a single proven all-around day-in, day-out OFer to build on. No help from high minors
5) Young players: Smoak & Ackley still question marks; Franklin struggling; Montero a bust. Zunino promising but hurt.
6) Overall team playing poorly, finding ways to lose games, veteran leadership garnering fewer wins and worse RS/RA than last year.
2013 is ending, IMO, on a worse note than 2012. GMZ's main push for 2013 to rely on veterans Morse, Ibanez, Morales, Bay, Shoppach, J. Saunders -- combined with the firm hand and clear vision of Manager Wedgie -- to lead the team to an improvement over 2012 has failed miserably, IMO.

6

So what are the chances that Felix is tipping his pitches to the Rangers. I agree he appeared to wear out late last year, but the Rangers really seem to have his number and I think the boys are sitting on pitches.

7

About a week after this when looking at LD% among young players and veterans acquired under Zduriencik. A higher % of Mariners regulars have 20%+ LD% than of All Stars this year. I went back a few years looking at LD% of other acquisitions and most seemed to fit that preference of line drive hitters. It's not an end all be all stat but seems indicative of potential hitting production. I'm sure some guys line out so often it might as well be grounders. But a consistent star hitter with low LD% is rare.

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.