But with this team the trouble over the years since 2003 is an endless succession of promising youngsters whose potential we drool over from Dec 15th through May 15th (or thereabouts), dreaming of breakout seasons that never quite actually happen.
Will we ever SEE upside Saunders? Who knows. Recent experience as an M's fan suggests we expect Letdown Suanders, or at best Mediocre Saunders. Mariners history would give even Eeyore plausibility until such time as reality proves skepticism unnecessary. After years of disappointed "Trust," I find myself drawn to the "But Verify" side of things. It's sorta like HOPING that North Korea will honor the agreements it has made with regard to it's nuclear program. Hope is a good, healthy thing. Hope without Verify not so good, not so healthy.
Year after year Seattleites are being transformed into Missourians. Here's to a bright future Michael. Show me. And the same goes for Ackley, Smoak, Miller, Franklin, Zunino and to some degree Paxton. Walker gets a pass. Like Felix, he'll be nails in a couple of years, and pretty doggone good right away. Don't trade him. Whatever you might get for him now he'll be worth half again as much in a couple of years.
.
Q. Is Michael Saunders a legitimate defensive center fielder?
A. I think that he is, yes.
.
Q. What are your qualifications for saying so?
A. My qualifications are totally unimpeachable. Thusly:
1. I have a keyboard and a blog.
2. I watch more games from the 3rd deck than any of you mooks. And have been doing it since, literally, the days of Ruppert Jones.
Take it or leave it :- ) but I believe that Michael Saunders is a plus center fielder, perhaps about as good as Franklin Gutierrez was during his mythological "death to flying things" era.
Saunders' "glide" is actually very similar to Gutierrez', very rangy and effortless, long-striding, and his angles look picturesque to me. I could be wrong. If you asked me to eyeball it, I'd say that the two CF's (Saunders and early Gutierrez) were a push.
Except for one thing: Gutierrez played real deep, and Saunders plays real shallow.
.
Q. Doesn't UZR put "paid" to this conversation?
A. It does not, no. Here are Saunders' UZR's in center field across the FOUR (4) years of his play there:
| Season |
UZR runs gained/lost per 150 games |
| 2010 | +14 (!) |
| 2011 | +11 |
| 2012 |
-5 |
| 2013 | -20 |
.
Q. He got old? Or injured?
A. Um, no. Not old, anyway. Like Yogi sez - you could look it up.
Injured? Well .... he stole 13-for-18 bases, his triples were the same, he looked fast to me .... but! Supposing he was injured. That means he's back to good UZR's next year, now doesn't it?
.
Q. What accounts for the -20 UZR in 2013?
A. A number of things, probably ... John Dewan's research uncovered two important things in September 2013:
- Playing shallow saves you +1 runs per year on shallow fly balls
- Playing shallow coses you +10 runs per year on deep fly balls (on average)
- Michael Saunders played very, VERY shallow in 2014
Okay, that's three things, no extra charge. As you know, we live to serve. Speaking of selfless service, here is SSI's own article on the subject.
.
Q. So playing shallow costs you 10 runs. Saunders lost 10 more runs than that.
A. Or somebody lost an extra 10 runs. Namely, Maurer, Saunders, Bonderman and Harang. As you'll recall, the M's defense was fine with Felix and WBC-san in there. Once you had Joe "Human Mortar Shot" Saunders on the mound, the M's shallow outfielders suddenly lost an important step.
....
And remember: shallow play costs you +10 runs per year on average. The Mariners "shallow outfield" situation might have been worse than average. It also might have been far worse than average.
.
Q. Does anybody besides Dr. D think that Michael Saunders can play a legit CF?
A. You mean besides the Seattle Mariners? And their crack saber staff, with whom Zduriencik is daily engaged? :: whistling ::
Actually this was provoked by an ML scouting report we stumbled across a coupla days ago:
Fielding: Strong outfielder who is capable of playing all three outfield positions. Gets great reads on fly balls, and glides to the ball with effortless speed. Has strong range in all directions. Shows average arm strength and accuracy. GRADE: 60 (plus).
I don't say it's the gospel, but I can tell you that I agree with it entirely.
The scout likes Mickey. The Mariners like Mickey. I like Mickey. And so do the fans on Tango's "Fan Scouting Report": Mickey gets 70's across the board for first step, speed, and instinct.
Note carefully that the fans' report is unchanged across the seasons 2010-13. Think it through for a minute. That's inadvertent on their part, you know.
.
Q. Leaving the Mariners where?
A. Replace the bad pitchers with good ones, and station Michael Saunders reeeeel deeeep, and I'll bet you a donut that he's +10 runs next year. In center field.
Chocolate donut, creme filled.
You come across that scouting report, and it hits you. You go "Now wait just a cotton-pickin' chicken-pluckin' minute. If Michael Saunders is a good defensive center field, that changes a LOT of things, up and down the roster."
BABVA,
Dr D
Comments
First off, sabrmetrics tend to self-consistency. The positional adjustment from LF and RF to CF is 10 runs for full time duty and roughly speaking, the defensive performance of a player should vary by about +10 runs when shifting from CF to LF/RF.
Just using familiar players as examples: Franklin Guitierrez is +22 runs/150 games in RF and +14 runs/150 games in CF, Ichiro is +12 runs/150 games in RF and +6runs/150 games in CF, and Endy Chavez is worth +14 runs/150 games in RF/LF and +5 runs/150 games in CF.
So what about Michael Saunders in general and last year in specific? Well, for his career he is -5.5 runs/150 games in center and he's been +5.1 runs/150 games in RF/LF. Last year's outfield metrics are totally bizarre. Saunders was -20 runs/150 games in CF, but +27 runs/150 games in RF. That is numerical nonsense -- not sure if it is noise, positioning in CF, bad luck, play-by-play errors in charting or what have you, but it has no predictive value. So the numbers indicate that Michael Saunders in the outfield when combining his glove performance and positional adjustments is basically average/neutral. The M's won't gain by moving him to LF or RF for a great glove no bat player.
If Michael Saunders is healthy enough to play 150 in CF, I'd put his median performance at 2.5 WAR with a 70% chance that the performance falls between 1.5 and 4.5 WAR. Given his history, the chance that he plays 150 healthy games is problemly only 50/50, hence the primary risk associated with Michael in my mind. He tends to get dinged and when he does, he struggles to be league average. I think this is a particular problem for Saunders because it seems to take him longer than average to get in a groove, that combined with the injures makes his performance erratic.
Michael in the past 4 years has had 5 months with an OPS over 750... and another 5 months over 850..
The remaining 14 months filled with injuries and time in Tacoma, and a LOT of bench time... its a wonder he is still here.
He obviously has talent, but no manager has been able to get him to consistently produce... hopefully Lloyd can.
He's had a 108 and 106 OPS+ the last two years.
That's the same as Brett Gardner and Austin Jackson; there were only 5 center fielders in the AL who hit better than Saunders.
But the point has traction. In asking about the REL of UZR for a given outfielder, that would be the first place to look, an OF's own position splits. Good call.
...........
He does seem to take a while to find his rhythm - undoubtedly that's related to his pitch recognition issues. And the 106-108 OPS+ captures the down times, right?
I've never felt that getting a starting CF was our big priority, as we already have one in Saunders.
Now, if Austin Jackson had come available that would have been ducky....but we're good with our Canuck.
But we're still a player short. If one of our OF's is named Ackley and the other is named LomoGuti, then we're OK, as Smoak and Hart fill the 1B/DH needs.
But anointing Ackley as our LF seems pretty premature.
We can always hope that Kendrys falls back into our lap....and I think that might happen, but I sure would like us to get a COF via trade. Any old Van Slyke would do.
moe
Tell him not to run into anymore walls... he'll do just fine now that he's over the shoulder injury.
I LOVE upside Saunders. Honestly, a Saunders who who truly tapped his potential (no sky-high ceiling needed, just entering the reaches of his upside) would transform our outfield situation. If both Ackley AND Saunders would do this, and if Zunino did the same, this team would be transformed.
I am just concerned that without better health he will continue to be eratic. I like Saunders as a player. He looks the part athletically and has demonstrated the ability. I think he is more that a 4th outfielder.
I'm agree with Moe that banking on Ackley is my primary concern. His bat says CF, but I don't know if his glove will improve sufficiently to be a league average CF -- athletically he has the tools, but he never played outfield in HS, college, or the minors until last year. I don't want Ackley in LF, or Michael Saunders for that matter.
I am pretty sure Ackley played some outfield in college, due to a shoulder injury.
How is Saunder's depth play in CF determined -- by him or by the coaching staff?
They've got access to the hitters' spray charts in real time ... when Saunders is in CF, he is supposed to be able to see the catcher's signs, and glove positioning, so that he can shade accordingly ...
He was an infielder in HS (3B) and started as an outfielder in college but moved to 1B due to elbow problems which ultimately required TJ surgery following his sophomore year.