Kotchman is the classic example. Z may have believed (spelled d-r-e-a-m-e-d) that Kotchman was a 110+ hitter about to blossom....but in the end it was decision made because he could glove it at 1B.
When you have the best defense in the league....adding a defender at 1B to replace your only bonker reveals much about a GM's philosophy.
I think Jack is wedded to the idea that you can win 92 3-2 games (or 2-1) and make the playoffs. Maybe Safeco has shapped this attitude. I don't know...
But you can't. You have to mash the ball some to win games.
You don't have to hit the ball out of the park...but you better whack a bunch of doubles.
Even the Figgins acquisition was a result of losing sight of this. If you have guys in the line up who get 40+ extra-base hits you can have Figgins at his norm. (in '08, the Angels had two guys with 50+ extra-base hits and another with 40+. In '09, an out-lier year for Figgins, LAA had 5 guys with more than 40. 1 of those had 50 and another had 79!)
In such a line-up, a normal Figgins has value. In the M's lineup of last year, he doesn't.
LRod (or some other acquisition) has to be an improvement on Jack Wilson, and if he is healthy, you keep JW as your defensive late inning guy.
Can Z change spots? I don't think you can use the Smoak and Ackley moves as evidence either way so you have to look elsewhere? I think there is a trade move coming up.
We need some bonk at DH or 3B or LF (actually we need it at two of the three).
When that trade occurs, we'll have an idea of Jack's current philosophy.
Whether Mike Wilson gets a real ST chance will also be indicative.
Actually this is a great time to be a fan! Lots to chew on and mull over.
I'm hoping Jack changes spots.
I'm not betting on it.
moe
Grumpy
Maybe Jack promised him a shot at being a full time starting SS in order to get him. If L-Rod had indeed jumped a plateau then that will end up looking like a good move.
This was our feeling as well.
.
L-Rod MUST have had his pick of orgs, and why would he pick us? Jack had to have convinced him that this was his best shot at playing time.
Sometimes we speculate. But this one is getting pretty close to necessary inference territory. L-Rod has got to be big in the 2011 plans, at least tentatively.
And, if so, he could provide a 2.0 WAR shortstop for free. IF the M's will hold their dainty, gen-teel noses and tolerate a bat-first player.
.
.
SABRMatt
Does no one remember that this chump is 30 years old? IKs there any evidence that L-Rod did anything unusual last year other than get lucky on some doubles becoming dingers? Not a drop. He's a 30 year old never-was...and he's Z's brilliant gamble? GREAT!!!!
If money is an issue for Nishioka...then we might as well just quit right now and fold the team...
Agree that if you can't pay $8M a year for even a single free agent who is an ideal fit, then you are hosed.
It's not exactly Twilight Zone for a middle infielder to bloom late. SSI likes the way in which L-Rod did his damage: bat control steady, yet picked his spots and hit the ball harder.
.
...the WHOLE TEAM...hit WORSE...than WILLIE Bloomquist. When that happens...you OWE it to us to do something big to fix it. You OWE it to us to make changes. If Josh Wilson is our SS (Or Luis Rodriguez) in 2011 and there aren't three much better hitters at the other positions of need (LF, DH, C)...then Z has lost me forever.
And in 2011, we'll enjoy watching you ride him like Seabiscuit :- ) ... you're the designated Don Rickles for next year...
The silver lining: when your whole team hits worse than Willie Bloomquist, then it's awfully easy to improve.
We remember in 2009, our man Tony Blengino was asked Hey! How'd You Get So Good So Fast! Tony's reply: when you have holes like we did, it's easy to find the putty to fill the holes...
In all seriousness, gentlemen. It will be easy to add 150 runs in 2011. The question is whether they are willing to throw out their "A Run Saved Is As Good As A Run Scored" mantra.
.
.
Comments
Sorry Moe, but I think this line of logic is bunk. You are looking at two years worth of data on "Jack's spots" and are losing all perspective. He's had a seriously declining payroll and many holes to fill. He got lucky on some gambles in 2009 and unlucky on some gambles in 2010. That's what happens when you gamble - you win some and you lose some. There's just no way in the hot place to add offensive firepower through free agency while dropping your payroll $30+million in two years. Unless you get lucky. You can probably add a whole lot of defense and pitchers that your park will make look better than they really are, though. Follow the money.
All that said, separate the M's experience from his resume and look at how he built the Brewers. It's not like the Brewers had this "defense first" philosophy. They had lumber throughout the lineup and certainly didn't try to win 92 3-2 games.
The M's draft and trade philosophy seems a much better indication of Jack's priorities than how he spends the scant $ he gets to use in free agency. Ackley, Smoak, Chavez, Poythress, Seagar, Franklin - he's been stockpiling hitters at every level. Defense first guys? Not so much. Not one of those hitters can really be considered a great defender. Some of them might not even be decent defenders.
It's just going to take time (as in years) for the minor league tree to bear fruit. Until then, the team is playing craps and trying to stretch every dollor that it can to fill every hole that it can.
I also think Doc is full of manuer when he tries to claim that the 2010 Mariners are an indictment against a fielding-led dynasty lacking emphasis on hitting. A run saved *IS* as good as a run batted in. That's a *FACT*. The problem with the Mariners in 2010 is actually three-fold.
1) A bunch of the hitters they brought in to add OBP/driven offense failed to get on base (Bradley, Figgins, Kotchman) while a bunch of guys who had previously demonstrated they could hit had appauling years (Lopez, Gutierrez, Griffey)...it's not like they all had down years for identical reasons either. Lopez was being spectacularly lazy (a sign of a clubhouse with a losing attitude), Gutierrez was pressing and Griffey was done. Figgins hit well in the second half...just took him too long to get there. Bradley got hurt a bunch and had a nervous breakdown. Kotchman proved he couldn't hit in the AL. It happens. This isn't some proof that if you build a weak line-up, you get anti-synergy. If they ALL became overly aggressive and they ALL had increasing K rates and they ALL had bad contact rates etc...then you might have a case to make on the anti-synergy front. That's not what happened. It was a bad year. When you try to take away 50 offensive runs to add 50 defensive runs...and in the process you lose 180 (!!) offensive runs...yeah...you'll lose games.
2) Their vaunted defense was actually not as good in 2010. In their supposed zeal to add defense, their third baseman played only par instead of being Adrian Beltre awesome, their second baseman was attrocious (worse than Lopez!!), their first base combo was a good step worse than last year even with Kotchman, Gutierrez had a down year with the glove as well as the bat, Ichiro had a bad year defensively by his standards).
3) Their pitching got noticeably worse as well...especially their relief pitching.
The point is...the club did not suck out and lose 101 games because Jack's defense first strategy worked exactly as he expected and produced a 101 loss team. The team lost 101 games because everyone sucked...far worse than most of the casual and serious analysts around the web thought was possible. Worse than any of them had individually sucked before with the exception of Lee, King Felix, Jason Vargas and Ichiro. When you go for -50 on offense and +50 on defense and get -180 on offense and -25 on defense...you're not getting what you paid for.
The model of defense first, average offense, average pitching has worked in the past, will continue to work when you can get it, and will continue to win lots of post-season games when deployed properly. The 70s Orioles, 60s Dodgers, 80s go-go Cards, 2005 White Sox...I could keep reeling off teams with average offenses, great defenses and average pitching who won WS all day...but you get the point.
Doc is just as bad as the scouts sometimes regarding pounding on dogmatic "truths" that he thinks he's discovered.
Jack's constraints are underestimated... your point about the payroll is a sub-plot with traction, my man...
As to "Zduriencik's" philosophy with the Brewers, there's a post lead-in... gracias for that too :- )
And the point about draft philosophy is gold.
.................
Do believe that you're forgetting a couple of things about LAST offseason...
It's just going to take time (as in years) for the minor league tree to bear fruit. Until then, the team is playing craps and trying to stretch every dollor that it can to fill every hole that it can.
As CA said, all it will take is Ackley and/or Smoak to start knocking the ball into the gap, for the base to buy into the entire rebuild...
Get those young studs out onto the field and even a Tampa Bay can suddenly look ready for the cover of GQ...
Grizzly,
It's quite possible I might be wrong...but let me explain my reasoning. I think Z's Brewers'experience is not really applicable here. That was a different time,a different lineup and a different ballpark.
The M's clearly overachieved in '09, despite an anemic offense.
Z made 4 moves in the offseason following:
1. He acquired Cliff Lee
2. He signed Kotchman
3. He signed Figgins
4. He swapped for M. Bradley
And he made two un-moves....not resigning Branyan and not resigning Beltre.
The first move listed was clearly not an offensive move. It was terrific, however.
The 2nd move is somewhat revealing, I think. It indicated that Z felt you could save enough runs with a 1B glove to make up for the ton of runs you were sacrificing with the bat.
3. The Figgins move represents (IMO, again) what Z saw as the way to move the M's offense forward, minus a left-handed masher. That was by signing a punch and judy hitter to a mid-length contract. Small ball was his answer. I think this was a really bad acquisition, btw. I've said that before. Figgins works in an offensethat rattles some fences, not in the M's offense, at this point. And Figgins upside performance in LAA was created by two out-lier years. ONe with an exceptionally high BABIP and one with nearly a 40% higher # of walks than he haad ever demonstrated before. At $8M per, he rolled the dice betting on a longshot.
Acquiring Bradley was essentially a switch of sunk dollars. It was a pie-in-the-sky type of deal....and not a realistic effort to jump start an offense. We got rid of something we hated for something equally hated in Chicago. Bradley's career was defined, BTW, by one offensive miracle year in Texas. Everybody mashes in Texas.
So I see a GM who made a bunch of moves that certainly didn't revolve around acquiring mashers, when it should have appeared that they were badly needed. Perhaps he thought that Lopez would improve another notch and have been an upper 20's HR guy? Perhaps the thought that Guti had 20+ homers in him. I don't know. What I do know is that when given the opportunity he didn't resign our one slugger and made no real acquire to replace him. He did go small ball in one of his significant offensive acquires....and bet on a real longshot in Kotchman somehow showing an offensive prowess he had never shown.
I don't know what he did in Milwaukee. I doknow what he's tried to do here...in this park.
My 2 cents. Probably 100% over priced.
moe
I don't think that the team was constructed strictly with a paradigm in mind. However, it was constructed with what would have to be considered a large stretch to having even an average offense. Not going to rehash runs saved=runs scored. There is a minimum offensive output required to compete, without it other factors (pitching and defense) are irrelevant. The last truly poor offense to win the world series had 3 HOF starters on staff.
Serious analysts seem really to bristle when WAR calculations, especially those who account for very suspect defensive numbers are questioned. I'm curious as to the saber side of things.. The overall dogma seems to incorporate the idea of playing the %'s when predicting future success. Why then advocate team building where absolutely everything has to go well to succeed offensively?
OBP is great, if throughout the lineup. Ignoring power as old-school and unsophisticated seems foolish when we had several guaranteed poor OBP players in the opening day lineup? That seemed then and does moving forward to be recipe for disaster.
Whatever your position on the matters at hand, the M's are walking the tightrope this off-season. Again, its not tenable to run out another 500 run season. You would think that the pressure is on not to count "inevitable" bounce backs making up a large chunk of the disparity. Thus, change HAS to be made. You won't sell many seats claiming that Figgins had bad luck last year. The base won't accept it and I think that neither will the FO. I was in pretty early on wanting the Rasmus move, and would move some pretty good parts to do it. Sizemore? another possibility. Upton? Not if he costs what's been speculated, (but I doubt that he will).
oops...I forgot that he acquired Jack Wilson for 5M clams.
Another move...certainly without offense in mind. Although you can understand this one due to the importance of SS defense.....but if you don't have hitters elsewhere in the lineup you better look at a SS with some pop.
And I forgot the Junior debacle. that was a feel good thingy, certainly not an offensive move.
Matt,
In the second half of the season Figgins had a 93 OPS+ with a .339 slg pct. Playing every day, he had 12 extra-base hits.
I'm not sure I classify that as "hitting well."
The questions about Nishioka:
1) What's his true level as a player? I keep hearing 3 WAR player tossed around like some kind of law or bare minimum of achievement.
His career average is .292/.364/.426.
His best composite line from all of his pre-2010 years is .300/.366/.463.
His 2010 is .346/.423/.482, better than his previous career bests in AVG and OBP by 40 or 50+ points.
Sure, if I just drop 40 slugging points off his 2010 like he's an incredible player. If I drop it off his 2009 line of .260/.360/.427 he looks a whole lot more like Chone's 2010 than like a 3 WAR player.
Which is the real Nishioka? What are we paying for?
2) Figgins this year was rated as a 1.3 WAR player. A .650 OPS player can indeed be a liveable MIF bat, scarily enough. If Nishioka is only a 1+ WAR player instead of a 3+, how hard is that to replace? Can we get a Bloomquist type to do it? Can we expect the bounce from a 65 OPS+ at the position to become an 85 OPS+ and render it merely annoying instead of diabolically detrimental?
That's what L-Rod's task is: to provide a 1+ WAR player for nothing. Can he do it? I'm doubtful, even with his sudden power spike in AAA. Do I believe a SS patch can be found or traded for that is merely adequate instead of a hole? Yes.
3)Is he a SS? We all speculate he is, but if he's not then we're in deep trouble, because we already HAVE the 2B of the future in Ackley. He has no place to play if he can't hold down short. The guys who won the bidding on him have no such problem - they're hiring him to play 2B. We don't have that luxury.
Personally I think #3 must have been the deciding factor. If he's not a SS it's all moot. I don't think L-Rod is really a SS either, and his defensive numbers bear that out, but if he can hit enough then it won't matter. If Jack thought Nishioka's 2010 wasn't representative of his true talent level and put his offense much lower, then had doubts about his defensive position, then it's not worth it.
If he could be a SS, then even a 2010 Chone Figgins line at that position is better than what we've been getting for the last 2 years there.
So now we get to take the 3-4 million a year that we didn't spend on Nishioka and spend it on a different position, trying to get that WAR boost. Maybe we can get a cheap DH or LF with club controlled years, or a 1-year deal on a guy that falls through the cracks on the cheap.
Whatever it is, since we're not spending it to fix the hole at shortstop we had better use those funds to fix a different offensive hole.
No more Kotchmans. We need a couple of plus bats added to this lineup, and we need em now. If we choose to keep that money for a power position, I'm fine with that. We need power and MOTO hitters, and Nishioka offered neither.
I can see how adding Nishioka at SS as our major offseason addition to the lineup could be viewed as making the same mistake as adding Chone in 2009 - OBP infielder that adds zero pop and leaves the run-producing sections of the lineup barren.
But that means we still NEED those bats. I smell a trade. A trade and a short-term DH contract for a guy who loses at musical chairs.
Fingers crossed it's the right guy, then.
~G
...that is Figgins' MO. He gets on base, steals bases, plays nice defense at third, and doesn't hit for ANY power...he hit the way he usually hits. Period. We don't need Figgins to be a slugging superstar to get us runs...he just needs to get on base, move runners along and make pitchers work. He did that.
1+ WAR would be an absolute extreme downside scenario for Nishioka (assuming he doesn't hit at all and can't play SS at all).
At $3-4mil a year including posting (which is all he'll cost if you go 3-4 years), thats all you'd be paying for.
The risk vs cost here was a no brainer IMO.
Jack Wilson was a 1.1 WAR player last year in ~200 ABs. Josh was ranked as a 1.2 WAR player, all on D (0 offensive WAR).
Raise your hand if you feel like you got 2.3 WAR out of the SS position last year.
Right.
So first it makes me doubt WAR. Second, if that's what 2.3 WAR looks like, then yes, Nishioka can do that.
But if we're already getting 2.3 WAR for our pathetic players at the position, what's the problem? Gloves rule!
~G
Fangraphs has them at both sub-replacment level last year.
I see Bref is way optimisitic on them, but Bref had 'em both prorating to about +30 runs defensively, which just isn't right.
Using the consensus of the defensive ratings, they were combined to be worth about RL or slightly below.
Bref's WAR stat is based on some BS stat called Rtot, which is, IMHO, a complete waste of time to even look at. It's about as good as Pete Palmer's old TPR fielding stats (i.e. crappy).
According to sources that are actually relevant...Josh Wilson was a slightly below replacement level player and Jack was even worse. Nishioka is a good 3-4 wins better than that combo if he does what other similar Japanese players have done on the average.
But here's to hoping this doesn't get lost in the shuffle of comments right now. Ian Desmond is apparently available, and while at first glance, his mediocre right handed power, -8 UZR, and 5% rate make him look like he would be the second coming of Betancourt, I think he has promise to be a lot better than that.
I can't say much for the right handed power thing, he's a shortstop, that's going to be almost everyone (I know, I really wanted Nishioka too), but he did hit almost all his home runs to center last year, which is at least really weird, if not particularly helpful in Safeco unless he can push them a little more towards right. As for the defense, almost the entirety of the -8 comes from errors (34 last season), his range was +2.7 or so (too lazy to look it up again right now). Errors can be fixed, it's pretty rare to gain range. The walk rate looks bad, but in the minors he averaged above 8%, so I think there's a good chance he can at least approach league average. If he does all that he could easily be a 2 win shortstop, and maybe 3 or 4.
The problem is acquiring him, obviously, as it would probably take Michael Pineda. That's a lot to give for 2/3 win shortstop (if that's indeed what he becomes), but the Nationals do have some decent talent, including both Wilson Ramos and Derek Norris. Everybody remembers Ramos from Cliff Lee speculation fame, Derek Norris is another catcher who was only in high A last year, but walks (and strikes out) a ton, and hits for good power so far, so I think there's room to make such a deal work. What do you guys think?
If I'm trading the best player in the deal (Pineda), I'm getting something I desperately need and he's going to be a sure thing. Desmond is going to become a second baseman or outfielder sooner rather than later...his high error rate is largely caused by his large frame forcing him to rush on balls he has to range to get. Yes, he's got average range right now...but that's going away in a few years and he'll have to work even harder to get throws over to first. Even if he were a SS, though, he's far from certain to ever make gains offensively enough to justify his being our big piece for Pineda.