.
1. It doesn't matter! whether you, as a fan, quit on the season, or whether you do not. Your emotions mean nothing to anybody other than to one person.
In July, the M's will go on a 20-for-26 streak or they won't. If you quit, they could still go on a tear. Teams do. If you quit and the M's surge -- as young, talented teams can -- you can hop back on at any time.
It is unlikely, but not farfetched, that the M's could have a big second half. Right now they're not looking like it. In the immortal words of Brian Bosworth, their offense blows chunks. Like, it totally sicks you out, man.
..............
2. For Dr. D, this road trip is Last Call. If the M's don't rip off a series of wins against the A's and Angels, he goes into his Can You Win Your Next Pennant With This Player mode. Just so you know.
It's an intensely personal decision, you know. I've come to face my own identity.
.
M's 3, Oakland 2
The M's needed to poach a series opener with Bazooka Joe, and then he could kneel down in front for Felix Hernandez and Mr. WBC to fire their muskets from behind him.
Hey, guess what. This in fact occurred.
Our 1-2 starters are dangerous, and might easily sweep the series all by their ownselves. If so, the road trip gets interesting. Enjoy the moment, Pepper. This very moment --- > might be your last of 2013. Savor the next 48 hours, it sez here.
.........
The A's had gone 21 and 5 over the last month, and even when behind on Friday night were laughing, high-fiving, and planning their postgame lemynades. Did you see that?! Just f'r instance, behind 3-2, their catcher made a nice play and they pointed fingers at each other like "we got this." When they made the final out they were disoriented.
We'd like to see the disorientation if Felix kicks their keisters Saturday, and if Iwakuma is cruising through another shutuout in the 5th on Sunday...
Enjoy da next two games, mates. How sweet your last few sips of real baseball might be. Independently, Geoff Baker has arrived at the same recommendation. Shows you how heavily his head must sit on his shoulders, no?
.
Primal Mode
There comes a time, in sports, when everything is going wrong and you revert to an early stage of evolutionary strategy. This occurred the first time Dr. D recruited friends to play park-and-rec basketball. First three trips down the floor, none of the plays worked at all and we were down 6-0 on fast break baskets. Know what I'm saying?
Throw the ball to your best player and hope he can score. The prefight strategy lasts until the first punch.
............
Zduriencik and Wedge are desperate not to write off this season (from which we infer that their Overlords have signaled that their jobs are in evaluation). Their offense has been a joke -- and they have reverted to using any weapon that might be at hand.
Bay and Ibanez are in there every day* because they're reliably mediocre; what does that tell you about how much of a Rearguard Mode the offense is in out there?! Nick Franklin showed two good games' worth of AB's and BANG!! he's your second baseman, with Dustin Ackley playing catcher, or setup relief, or something, in AAA. Mike Zunino has three or four pro AB's in his first game and BANG!! Keith Shopley is an ex-Mariner.
It has a very primal feel, and Dr. D approves in a deep, sincerely wholehearted manner.
.
Closer
When Oliver Perez took the mound, it occurred that this was either a profound, or a primal, choice. One of the two. :- ) Good on yer, Sgt. Wedge. Somebody write a book on profound-and-primal choices.
Dr. D wouldn't bet anything he was afraid to lose, that Oliver Perez was going to sustain the 9th inning. He's kind of wild, and kind of simplistic, and he looks "solvable." The odds against his saving 30 games next year, even given the chance to do so, are what ... 8:1 or thereabouts.
But he's got real swagger, makes up his "styling" windups on a pitch-by-pitch basis, thoroughly enjoys the mano-a-mano ... remember, this guy won 15 games for the Mets, has been one of the league's best starting pitchers (2004) and any relief role (even "Closer") is a comedown for him. That matters when you're talking about Definitions Of Success.
Perez' game is based on a VERY sharp inside-outside concept. He throws both the fastball and slider from a wide 1B angle, and the pitches either nip the inside corner (on a left hand batter) or sweep across to catch the outside corner. Up-and-down is no factor in his game. A lot of his F/X charts, you'll see pitches clumped on the inside and outside edges -- this from a guy whose pitches are coming sideways to begin with.
There is no defense, practical or theoretical, against these pitches properly executed. Will they be? We have our doubts, but right here right now we're good with Perez. He's my choice for tomorrow night's ninth.
Go M's,
Dr D
In last night's game, Perez was his closer because he didn't want the As to be able to pinch hit Jaso or Crisp or Moss and make it harder on him as he moved through the bottom of the order. Tonight, if the second batter is, say, Yoenis Cespedes, his choice will be Carter Capps.
They are definitely fighting oh so hard for every win at this point. It's kind of unsettling and awesome at the same time.
Of course, as soon as you blow a few saves as a committee, like Tommy did by himself, everyone points out how it's flawed. But it sure sounds right the way you explained it, Matt. I want to go into every inning thinking like that. If you don't have a Mariano Rivera, why put the load on one guy? When Matt Thornton blows saves, it somehow demonstrates he can't close. When Wilhelmsen does, it means he needs to get re-adjusted, ease off a bit and have a soft landing. I know it comes from having a string of closing successes you can point to. It just means that when you get that chance, you better succeed. Perez did, so he gets another chance. If he hadn't we'd be looking at Capps, or Furbush. Nobody would be talking about Perez again, had he thrown a mistake like Danny did in the eighth (and impressively settled in afterwards). Get a few successes in a row, and you earn the role.
Perez, Capps and Medina have been the guys Wedge has counted on to get big outs...so he's going to use those three interchangeably for a while until we see a few good outings in a row from the bartender. It will just depend on who's comign up to bat. Perez may get a lot of chances here because most teams these days have a couple of lefty sluggers in the MOTO.
"The prefight strategy lasts until the first punch." I love the way the M's Brass is competing, adjusting, scrambling -- working hard to win every game, even if it appears untidy, or that they lack a plan. Injuries and poor performances by a number of key players have forced this approach, but the Brass is showing flexibility and a willingness to change course on a dime when needed. Good for them. Go M's.
You don't yet have a feel for the fact that for-consumption press releases are massaged? Your intern job is not paying many dividends as far as comprehension of the way athletes (like Wedge) think.
Yes, we all heard the "committee" public statement. We get the TV telecasts out here in Seattle also. But thanks for bringing the class up to speed again.
...........
The discussion above was a look at what they meant by their for-consumption "Committee and we'll see" statement.
Perez is the guy he went to, not because of lefties at the plate. That tells you a lot. Technically it is a committee. Which means you don't want to put pressure on anybody, because you haven't made a final decision. Perez is a very tentative Closer Of The Moment, and can (will) be replaced based on one ugly outing. But the first-draft plan is Perez 2/3, Medina 1/3, hope Perez can do it ...
... and hope it doesn't have to last long anyway.
..........
You've been outrageous before, you've run off many valued posters such as Inside Pitch, Gordon, and M's employees, and now that you've got an ID badge your confidence is restored, and you're being outrageous again. If your current mode here is to respond to me when you think you've found something to contradict on, we can escalate, sure. You served the first tennis ball, with that ludicrous "Know your stat before you comment Doc" post.
After I dust you off we can still be friends. ... Alternatively, you can recognize your issues, such as your total lack of concern for whether you are alienating anybody with half-naive, half-overconfident blunt contradictions of their thoughts, and you can correct them.
... so even after Perez gets the first four saves, your take will have been correct? Here you are already providing for the games to immediately contradict your explanation.
You're not going to see Dr. D writing that way, "Nick Franklin is your new second baseman, folks, bank it! ... um, but if you see Ackley in there Monday it's because we see some righties next week."
You're going to take a know-it-all tone in Paragraph 1, and then give yourself an out in Paragraph 2?! If you're going to try to come at me head-on, then at least have the guts to own your material.
...................
Perez will probably get a lot of chances, because strong indications are that he's the lead.
Not because the AL is lefty. But because Yoervis Medina has 21 innings in the majors, not 1,000 innings like Perez has. Carter Capps is shaky and the club's confidence in him is questionable; Medina was up in the 9th behind Perez because Carter Capps is already slightly over his head, pitching the 7th and 8th with slim leads. That's quite white-knuckle enough.
3 of the 4 Athletics on Friday were righty. Perez wasn't in there to face lefties. He's in there because he's self-secure, he's on a roll, and the options are very unappetizing.
But like we said, all they want is for Wilhelmsen to find his radar again and they'll get back to him.
I was just giving my impression as to why I believed Perez was chosen (to keep lefties on the bench who were better hitters than the righties that were scheduled to hit)...I wasn't trying to put down your post. Did anyone else see my post as outrageous? I made no personal attacks, said nothing insulting you, Doc. I am actually seriously hurt. I have no idea what the heck brought this on.
I wouldn't call myself an "insider" BTW...I'm a meaningless low level intern. The Yankees have lots of interns. Nothing I say is derived from some sense of confidence or entitlement...I am just completely bewildered. I'm truly sorry if what I said sounded outrageous or offensive...if anyone else thinks I've been offensive, I'll leave today.
I don't even know how to respond...
I have now reread the first post that upset you a dozen times looking for somewhere where I said "Doc is wrong"...I didn't say that...I have reread it looking for a know-it-all tone...I don't see it...if I'm really that blind, perhaps I should just never talk. All I can see is me stating what I believed was behind the choice of Perez (he's been one of our top three guys...the As have lots of good lefty bats...they went with the guy who would keep the lefties on the bench). Am I really so incompetent at communicating on the web that I can't see something that would get you this upset?
And I do appreciate your saying that you meant no confrontation.
..................
What I'm looking at is a pattern -- a long past history of unfortunate relationships, including DOV/SSI losing many critical posters because of it.
This follows on a 1-year ban, which was lifted after a promise to maintain positive relationships...
A recent sharp clash with the board author/editor/moderator (me) , for which you were completely unapologetic...
And now, since that clash, a 100% contradiction rate in the substance of your posts.
................
What I am wondering, is what your relationships at SSI will be like in 6 months or a year, after your baseball career has evolved. Your self-image and view of others has always been an issue.
..........
ALL THAT SAID, in view of your posts above, I'm willing to re-boot starting ... 3, 2, 1, ... NOW. :- )
We'll see how it goes. Blank page begins.
Man, I dig that about Jack Zduriencik. Would take him in a foxhole any time.
I didn't see anything wrong with Matt's post either Doc. I took him to be saying his best guess is that Perez was in there based on the situation at hand, not any sort of arrogant, I-have-the-inside-scoop thing. My take.
I guess there's really no such thing as a second chance without historical context. I'll be on my way. Nice knowing you, Doc...and I mean that truthfully...you're the person I respect most out of all of the writers I've ever encountered in online sports talk. That's not something said with any irony or motive...that's just a fact. If I can't shake my past to the point where any disagreement I might have with you is seen as proof that I'm still your enemy here, then there's really no point.
I'll continue reading the posts...but I don't want to upset the whole blog...obviously what I have said in the past cannot be fixed.
Hey Doc, I'm with Nick here. Post-ban Matt hasn't been even remotely like the old Matt. If you forgive past indiscretions you're not allowed to bring them back out the first time you and the guy have a different take. Just my two cents.
I've been reading this site since it was Dr Detecto, a member for a while after that, and a contributor lately. I remember some of the earlier contention, and, at first, that did give me pause about joining or contributing. But meanwhile, TNT, the Times, Prospect Insider, USSM, LL all got far worse in the snarkiness and childishness, and this site got better. And the thing was, I enjoyed the insights of SABRMatt/ghost, I just didn't like the tone.
Over the past year-plus, my observation is that Matt is much improved -- and you know I DO value both civility AND insight. I may not always be the most cordial myself, but I try. I suggest a compromise. You agree that all your comments will be on present behavior or reference only the most current warning. Matt will agree to read his comments out loud to himself prior to posting, to ensure the tone is what he MEANS to convey and isn't as easily misconstrued. (It will be a useful exercise, Matt, believe me).
I used to have to write a weekly one-page letter to the Admiral (first Rickover, later others) to discuss the most important issue I worked on that week. After getting my a$$ handed to me more than once, I learned to read things aloud and make sure I said what I really wanted to say. It really helped. I don't always do it on posts, but I try to be careful. It's a valuable lesson to learn.
Unrelated to the current situation...I still think I am likely to be largely gone from here given the continued weight of past conflicts on my name - I just don't think I'm going to have any fun if I'm not allowed to disagree sometimes and I'm certain Doc isn't happy with me here - but I am curious. What years did you serve in the Navy. My father tells "Rickover stories" all the time. His favorite is when he was shipping off to Nuke School in the fall of '77 (graduated from the Naval Academy in '77) and the Admiral looked at his grades and said "why are your grades only acceptable with you obvious talents! How much are you studying? You should be studying 35 hours a week!" My father says he promised he would if he was allowed into Nuke School training and Rickover said "I want you to write me a letter every week telling me that you studied 35 hours and detailing what you studied." My father then always laughs and says "and I sent that letter every week SAYING I studied 35 hours a week and describing what I was studying. Doesn't mean I actually studied 35 hours a week...but (expletive), I wrote that letter!"
Thank you for your service...growing up in a Navy home, you realize how much the vast majority of our servicemen gain insights into the world that you can't get any other way.
I served from Jan 1971 to July 1995. I was commissioned in April 1980. I worked for NR from 1978 to 1989, when I was asked to take the NIMITZ job because of issues they were having with maintenance. While I worked for NR, I was maintenance project officer for SEAWOLF, PARCHE, POGY, and RICHARD B. RUSSELL, as well as dockside test coordinator for NR for 38 submarine test programs. Your Dad will understand and can explain what that all means.
I would take a deep breath before you decide to leave our little group, Matt. There's better discussion about not just baseball, but a wider range of human values than you'll find almost anyplace. We all have issues making ourselves understood the way we would like to be - but in this group, even with Doc's history with you and recurring irritation (like a scar that itches), you could continue to be of value to the rest of us. You have valuable insights to contribute, even when you say nothing about comparative performance or other things that might get you in trouble in your job. And, as your Dad or any other good leader will tell you, we're really judged by what we overcome, not just what we do. You have a chance, if Jeff agrees with my suggestion, to grow in your communication skills in a forum where people are truly interested in what you have to say. Contrast that with the discussion of Lit Profs in another thread (my youngest daughter is a Lit major :-) ).
My colloquy with Thirteen started because he made a very definite statement that I didn't agree with. In general, being too definite on things that really are open for discussion and analysis is a poor choice. I think that is a good part of your problem with others here. Even when I'm certain of something, I try to write as if I entertain the notion that I'm wrong sometimes. And, sure enough, sometimes I am.
The technique of reading your writing aloud will grow on you, I assure you. It is by far the best way to judge the tone of your writing, to ensure it is both respectful and clear. And it will be a strength for you in writing grant proposals, analysis, or anything else that you may face in the future. Give it a try - don't abandon us!
"In general, being too definite on things that really are open for discussion and analysis is a poor choice. I think that is a good part of your problem with others here. Even when I'm certain of something, I try to write as if I entertain the notion that I'm wrong sometimes. And, sure enough, sometimes I am.
The technique of reading your writing aloud will grow on you, I assure you. It is by far the best way to judge the tone of your writing, to ensure it is both respectful and clear."
The first paragraph is a way of thinking, a way of life. The second an excellent habit that supports the way of life in a practical manner.
Matt. Doc can be gotten along with quite easily if you are determined to do so, and it is after all his playground.
My wife and I started watching a new reality TV series called "Does Somebody Have To Go?" The last two episodes featured a young woman who seemed to have all kinds of talent and smarts, but she simply could not conduct herself with respect towards others. That is not you, Matt (I don't mean to give offense, but I realize I risk it). You work hard at trying to avoid such conflict, but in the end sometimes it appears as if the certainty of your convictions can override your efforts. Nothing creates conflict like two strong-willed people equally convinced that their opposing opinions are right.
All this is meant constructively and with concern for your well-being. I hope you stick around. C'mon, man, you know you'll be back anyway. Just remember that if it were your site and Doc knocked heads with you, the positions would be reversed. Doc is not unreasonable. We all have our "buttons" that, if pushed at just the wrong time, cause us to react strongly.
Time to go to bed, I think I'll take off my "Counselor" hat. It doesn't fit me very well anyway.
FYI to Doc: One editorial comment about Klat, the Comment Box, at least on my computer screen, is VERY short, just three lines. Granted we can compose our posts in another program and then paste them in, but most of the time I just grab and go with it. So I end up going ahead and posting and then editing after the fact. It would be great if we could see at least ten or twelve lines of text when composing and editing. Just a thought.
...I frequently these days *DO* read my poss out loud before submitting. And in fact, I just mentioned today even after KNOWING that what I said in the original post Doc took as a harsh disagreement and called "outrageous" that after reading with prior knowledge, I couldn't find the problem with the tone.
I got myself in trouble several years ago by posting in anger...but I never post in anger any more. NEVER. I have a strict rule about waiting half an hour if something made me frustrated before I come back and try to answer it. I even try, usually, to edit posts to add caveats to make sure people aren't seeing every opinion I express as though I'm stating fact.
I have re-read the original post and near as I can tell, the only thing in it that expresses anything that could be taken as an outright disagreement/dismissal of Doc's article was the TITLE - "Wedge is Going By Committee" But I am a scientist...we use simple declarative sentences in all of our writings...and especially the title to maintain an atmospheric of objectivity and to keep things easy to read. The title expresses the main thought of the post...then the post expresses simply and efficiently what I believed was going on last night with the decision to use Perez. My adviser has trained me well in getting to the point...I used to write way too much text. But because of my history here, Doc sees every simple statement of even remote disagreement as an attack. I don't know how I am supposed to get past that. When I am spending all of my time trying desperately not to remind Doc of mistakes I made 7 or 5 or 3 years ago...how can I have an honest and fun discussion?
I woke up this morning hoping against hope I hadn't caused offense to you. I want you to know how impressed I am at how you responded to my post, especially when it looks like I am covering ground that you have already fought through. I hope you and Doc are able to come to terms that will work out over the long haul. I have "known" you (internet-wise) for a while now and don't want to lose you as an internet friend.
Amazing how often church is relevant to the current goings on in a person's life. Today, the topic at my local parish was real Christian forgiveness. Too funny how that happens all the time to me (some problem I'm having gets brought up in service). We Americans haven't exactly perfected real christian forgiveness, have we? We do so many things so well, but think putative thoughts when we win and lose elections...the other side will pay for not making changes we wanted!
The relevant piece for this forum was Fr. Tony's point that you haven't forgiven if you are still angry...that the point of forgiveness was to do a merciful thing and let someone else have a second chance...and in so doing, to let go of the hurt and the pain. It's not enough to say you've forgiven...you have to in some sense forget...you have to let go of the anger. This hits Doc and I equally, I should think. He is obviously still furious with me because I cost him online connections with friends in the past, so he hasn't truly forgiven me. Otherwise, why would he bring up Inside Pitch every time we disagreed? But since I was the one who did wrong all those years ago, perhaps I should forgive Doc for his anger and ask for forgiveness a second time.
I don't really know. I wonder how productive it is to keep trying when the relationship is this broken and the anger this deeply rooted. I obviously have caused Jeff a lot of misery over the years. Maybe my being here just ruins everyone's day.
And none against, so ... I'll assume that you all are seeing things I'm not.
I'll check myself first in the future on potential conflicts with SABRMatt. Thanks for the reality check guys.
I like Flexible Jack - now he needs to wade through:
1) Starting pitching - get E-Ram up here now, not later, and figure out whom to shed between Harang and Bonderman; when can we get Maurer back up?
2) Outfield - get Ackley and possibly Gutierrez up and figure out whom to shed among Bay, Chavez, and Rauuul - or send Morse or Morales to the DL, perhaps
3) Bullpen - it's leaking right now and needs shoring; perhaps Bonderman to long man and Beavan down to continue starting in AAA, perhaps Kinney for Capps who goes back to AAA to get curveball and or changeup sorted out; when can we get Pryor back up
Jack has to sort all this out while trying to win as many games as possible to keep his own job. Going to be interesting to watch.