I sat forward unblinking to give all my attention to the movement, shape and speed of his pitches. He seemed fairly balanced and throwing easy, but I didn't notice the rest of things you noted. My response was something like "Wha! Why has he been written off by so many? That is a nasty combination with that speed, angle and movement of just his fastballs... from the left side? !?" which is most of what he'd thrown by the time I had that reaction. It was, for me, reminiscent of young Randy as well. Not identical, just as close as I could recall seeing in the overall package. Very rare pitcher type that I think has the highest baseline of any, does it not? I mean, isn't failure either injuries or only 1 all star team? Maybe I'm too high on that, but feel free to name any that just fizzled.
Seager, Paxton and Walker are the list of guys I'd definitely try to lock up, buy out a FA year or 2. Paxton and Walker can probably be done at a good price right now and Seagers already earned it. Paxton and Walker both seem like safer pitchers to bet on their health, though there's never safety in pitchers. Locking up both hedges each bet with the other.
.
Q. What do scouts mean, when they say "He's got to learn to trust his stuff"?
A. Non-players like you and I need to be very, very careful to NOT just LAZILY assume that these are meaningless cliches. Usually, in the chaos of battle, The Big Insight That Jumps You A Plateau is something very simple.
Kyle Seager explained why he's so good with runners in scoring position. He tries to do less. He just tries to zing a line drive to the off field. Contrast Justin Smoak.
Point is: the Key Adjustment is something simple. In golf, swing keys are defined in two or three words. How much can you think about when you're swinging a bat?
.
Q. So.
What do scouts mean, when they say "He's got to learn to trust his stuff"?
A. The day comes when a (certain kind of!!) pitcher realizes that he can challenge good hitters, and he's going to be okay. He can come down the middle at 96 MPH and the sky isn't going to fall in, and he's not going back to the minor leagues.
Sandy Koufax is the poster boy for this. Early in his career, Sandy overthrew the ball, feeling like he needed 101% velocity to get the ball past hitters. then EUREKA!! came the day when he realized he could ease off the gas pedal, throw 95%, and still throw the ball by people.
.........
Randy Johnson had this occur in 1992-1993 - he started Trusting His Stuff, throwing 96-97 rather than 99. We remember it well. After one game about 1992 the umpire (!!) remarked postgame. "Wow. He was terrific. He just said Here it is, Hit it, and stayed there all night."
..........
James Paxton, against the Cardinals, came in with his fastball all night. It was plenty 'nuff. And it looked like it will continue to be plenty 'nuff. He throws it from a real high release point, and it comes in heavy, and it naturally moves around the zone, and it's just real hard to square up.
.
Q. What was that again about "redefining success"?
A. I'm optimistic that will benefit from not trying to do too much in the bigs. In AAA it was like, well, I'm a hotshot, I should be blowing these guys away. In MLB it's like, if I win the game 4-3, that's awesome.
If true, that would be a second factor that is helping him with his control. Not trying as hard to miss bats. Certainly, against the Cardinals, he was in a "here it is, hit it" mode. I don't remember a single pitch where he aimed for a corner.
As with Randy Johnson, here you have the rare pitcher who can afford not to worry too much about location.
.
Q. There are only a few pitchers for whom this idea is so important: Trust Your Stuff.
A. Right. Paxton's fastball is so quick, is so heavy, that even when his changeup and curve aren't helping him, he still seems to be okay. If he stays ahead in the count, you're looking at a Matt Moore outcome.
After game one against Tampa, I was wondering if that 95.1 velo was just because he was amp'ed up. But he did exactly the same thing against the Cardinals, and it was easy velo.
Nope, James Paxton throws harder than Kershaw and Moore, and about as hard as Stephen Strasburg. From the left side!
And with a grounder rate?! That one weapon is so bread-and-butter that all he has to do is decently execute.
.
Q. Whew. What happens when the yakker and change are at CC Sabathia levels?
A. Paxton's upside is to be the best pitcher in the major leagues.
I don't know how long it would take him to evolve like Clayton Kershaw did, but if he does, he's got advantages that Kershaw doesn't. Delivery, release point, changeup, shape of his fastball. Don't remember the last time we saw somebody exactly like James Paxton ... Sabathia would be the closest, probably. Matt Moore.
Yes, yes, we realize that Paxton's control bears watching. So did Randy Johnson's. So does Matt Moore's.
But no need to ride the More Objective Than Thou train too hard on this kid. Not when we finally catch a break. Taijuan and K-Pax rock.
BABVA,
Dr D
Comments
BUT... Is Jack and his crew part of the same church or same religion even?
I'd love to see our rotation be Felix, Kuma, Paxton, Walker and some FA #3 starter like Garza or Kasmir.... I just do not see Jack with his job on the line trusting two rookies... even as good as these guys look now.
By the way, how much money do you guys expect the Mariners to spend this off season? especially considering they already have spent about $38M for next year.
Just over $90 million total (52+added). I can't see below $80 M but it's possible that they think a few costly players are the right ones to snag up including several possible Int'l FA and then...Extensions to ease Paxton and Walker off field as much as possible/pay Seager the stud. I want those boys as focused on the game as possible. Could get costly if all of that. Would be surprised but probably pleasantly if it cleared $105 Million (67+added)
There's really no way to know how much money they intend to spend. There's simply no information to base an estimate on. Personally, I don't think they need to have a high payroll next year to succeed. The roster is stacked with young players and the free agent market is horrible. Maybe they make a trade of some kind to bring in an outfielder or two, in which case the payroll may need to go up a bit.
Guessing and hoping.
I would argue that if Jack can't trust these two rookies then perhaps he doesn't deserve to be a MLB GM.
moe
Just because they raise the budget doesn't mean they'll spend the money well. One concern I have with bringing in a new GM is that they'll give this person more money to spend and he'll just come in here with a wrecking ball and trade away a bunch of guys for mediocre veterans with an established track record that are all making more money. Maybe this gets us to 85-90 wins for a season or two, but then those guys start declining and we're back where we were. It's Bavasi 2.0 more or less.
...with the "no one's home upstairs" thesis that Larry Stone has been putting out there. If there was a larger organizational strategy in place and the GM was just one cog in that machine, then replacing the GM wouldn't be as risky. But with the M's, changing the GM probably means changing out the bulk of the front office and implementing a whole new approach with a whole new team that doesn't know the players in the system and is therefore bound to make mistakes and trade the wrong guys.
I've argued in other posts that Jack Z. needs to go. This is essentially the counter-argument to that.
I also share what appears to be your skepticism that the same people who've hired in the past will hire again, so why should we believe they'll do any better this time? All good arguments in my book. But you don't just sit there with the status quo if you believe it's going nowhere. Sure, change for change's sake is no recipe. But so is no change for no change's sake. Inaction because of a lack of confidence in the future is paralyzing. So the whole thing goes in circles logically until your head explodes. Some people are conditioned to losing franchises by their formative years as sports fans. Losing is status quo. It is to be expected, so why not immerse yourself in minor leaguers and live on hope (note, I am NOT suggesting all are into minor leaguers for this reason)? I was raised in an environment where championship sports was a fabric of the very air I breathed. Everywhere I turned, in whatever sport at whatever level, the teams I rooted for were constant contenders and frequent champions. No doubt I was spoiled, but I simply cannot bring myself to accept such sustained mediocrity (or worse!).
Don't beam me up, Scotty. Beam me to St. Louis, at least when it comes to baseball.
I whole heartedly agree with both GLS and Daddy O.
And it is for these reasons that jack should not only get next year, but also a three year extension beyond that.
Give us some stability somewhere, and let baseball minds tweak their current plan and move on.
Most of us believe that Jack has done a great job in re-building. Perfect no, but very good by most standards.
The issues most of us have with Jack and his team is winning at the MLB level... so give them time to adjust their plan to winning at this level, without a short leash of win now.
Yes, put Jack on the hot seat, and make him convince the people and the media that they are on the right path... He is a big boy, and I am sure very capable of defending himself and his plan.
Just please do not force another GM to create a winner over night when it is obvious that winning a playoff series next year would take a minor miracle.
I don't think keeping Jack Z. in place would be no change for no change's sake. I think the best reason to keep him in place is the progress that's been made developing a core group of young players at the major league level and significant depth in the farm system. This is the strategy upon which Geoff Baker heaps endless amounts of scorn, but it is progress nonetheless and it's fairly significant.
The problem is the lack of progress in the W column. That's what most people point to when they say Jack Z. has to go. But with this kind of rebuild, I would argue that wins are a lagging indicator. Also, as I've pointed out before, in this cycle of premium draft choices, we weren't able to get a Griffey/ARod-style aircraft carrier position player. Walker and Paxton may turn out to be the pitching equivalents, but they're just now getting to the major leagues.
I am, however, opposed to bringing Jack back with a one-year "win or else" ultimatum hanging over his head. That's a situation that lends itself to short-term decision making, which I think would be self-defeating. So for me, it has to be a 3-year extension or bye bye.
I posted a link to one of the Mariners' 2011 commercials, which shows a man going through the painful process of getting his chest hair waxed. The shot pans to Jack Zduriencik saying he feels our pain as fans, and I believe him. The camera zooms in, and Jack, looking directly at it and pointing insistently, says "we are developing some impressive young talent" that will "play good, hard, smart baseball."
Two full seasons have passed since then, and there is no evidence of good, hard, smart baseball. And the talent for the most part has yet to evidence it's impressiveness. Jack sold the fans something and hasn't delivered on it.
We have a young core that exists solely in the realm of hope rather than fact.
Kyle Seager = The Realm Of Fact as far as the young core goes, and even he has now dwindled to an OPS+ of 123. You might be able to squeeze in Brad Miller at SS with a 104 OPS+. Other than that, where is this young core? You HOPE Ackley's hot streak in August is indicative of success going forward, but how should we weight his September (.231 so far)? As pointed out in the Shouts by someone, Smoak, our non-slugging OBP first baseman has seen his OBP for the season drift down to .338. Franklin has managed to shrink Ackley's entire career into less than four months. Saunders has managed to put up another in a string of seasons that have a few brilliant weeks but total up to "meh." Zunino so far enjoys the same thing all these players did when they first come up, the hype of untested hope. I will not mention Jesus Montero (oops, I just did).
Where is the Young Core except in the realm of hope? And all these I have listed were at one time subjects of great hope. Some remain so, but only Seager has truly fulfilled it. Who other then the hopeful can say that undoubtedly this group collectively will suddenly gel into a bona fide Young Core? One could just as easily say that they will not. You might argue that what is happening is only what is expected with young players. It takes time for them to develop and become reliably productive. This is no doubt true, but it seems to completely embrace the potential of fulfilled hope while ignoring the facts so far as well as the very real potential for unfulfilled hope.
"W's as a lagging indicator" is, quite frankly the exact same thing. We don't yet see anything in fact, so we embrace the realm of hope yet again assuming that the wins will come. We've now been making such assumptions for three years running without appreciable results. At some point the emperor has to find himself some clothes or the crowds will begin to notice that he is naked as a jaybird.
Hope is good thing. It is a necessary thing for a fan base. It becomes troublesome is when it removes itself farther and farther from a basis in reality, at the extreme becoming a replacement for reality.
I hear you. And I, uh, HOPE you are right. But that's the best I can do. I cannot marshal evidence that convinces me a Young Core has been formed.
If someone thought Paxton was about to embark on a HOF career, they could by the Los Marineros jersey from his rookie debut (current bid 775), now, save it, and then sell it later for top dollar.
He is the most mythical of pitchers. The power lefty. Cryptozoologists swear they exist, but there is no convincing proof of this, except for some grainy footage of a specimen named "Randy" exploding a bird with a baseball.
(This is an obvious photoshop. Everyone knows that baseballs don't blow up birds).
Paxton's emergence is as exciting at finding a live Yeti. After all these years of searching and speculating! What if someone told you that Sid Finch is real, he's left handed, and he's going to play for the Mariners? What if you then saw him with your own eyes, and verified that it was all true?
The Coelacanth Lives!
To sarcastically bash a poster who was doing no harm.
I am more excited than Doc is about Paxton. He thinks Paxton will be historic I think he may be legendary. Power lefties do not grow on trees. Besides I have never seen the kid lose. Should he ever do so I reserve the right to change my assessment.
I'd also probably take a flier on the debut jersey if I could talk my wife into it. It's like a penny stock.
Then I totally agree. I kind of said the same and I thought it might have been commentary on me saying the type is very rare. I thought it would have been unlike you to mean it like that, just wasn't sure. Sorry for seeing the worst possible to even wonder. Hate it when stupid thoughts like that creep up. Paxton for commissioner? Already have a king and a cop.
What do you think about trying cheap extensions for Walker and Paxton. 4 million first year maybe, up from there?
If I had 1k plus to drop for a 15+ year investment. Sell a car, quick! 5 years could make it more than double even. Just can't, myself, right now.
It is good to hear about the offense so I can clear it up. My wife won't go for the 1k bid on the jersey but it would be fun to put an SSI pool together of $100 each to bid on the jersey.
Walker and Paxton will play next year for the league minimum or something very close to that number. When they get close to arbitration is when you start thinking about extending them. So, Seager yes, Walker and Paxton, not quite yet.
That's when. I'm saying in this case... worried about that 7th year? Get it cheap now. More risk, I understand that's the cost paid in exchange for the lower price. But with that much more perceived risk how much less would the cost be. And what you'd do with these guys. Money can cause problems too, so I'm not standing behind it clearing their heads necessarily. If you check them off on health concerns, what contract would you agree to with either? Just wouldn't want 8 or 9 years now with either at any price?
Up to a couple hundred if conversations went that far. I think I'd do it especially if a picture of it went up here. Hmm.
It closes at 7pm, long after Paxton's 3rd start should have concluded. Bringing in more/higher bids after more awesomeness. I'll envision Jon Lester smooth career trajectory (without disease) until he actually loses it. He's focusing and keeping pitches down now, regardless of the minors. He may just be the guy that clicks and rolls, heaven knows we could use one.
Would you bet on his future? Literally.
if a novelty item, latin team name (I know, I know) etc? Would it be like more than $100,000?
Where did you grow up in a city spoiled with champions? Yankees / Islanders / Jets Giants? or Dodgers / Lakers / Raiders Rams?
I grew up faithful to Seattle sports, so a bit different fabric. Did really enjoy my first love, late 70s Sonics. Husky football also a consistent winner. Wasn't all bad!
Your post reminded me of a friend who also grew up here in WA with me. His dad was from NY, so my buddy also was a Yankees fan like his dad. But then things got weird. He had Cowboys for football, Florida Gators for college fb, North Carolina for college hoops. NBA he used the UNC/Jordan connection to claim Bulls. What a can't loose situation there! Not saying you picked and choosed like this, just reminded me of him.
Anyhow, just curious where you were that had championship sports around every corner. Take care!
Teams just don't normally behave that way and I've never seen any indication that the Mariners would be an exception. This is not a team that likes to take these kinds of risks. If they were to make an exception and extend them early, I don't think it would happen until after next season. Also, I think that sort of exception is easier to make with a breakout position player than it is with a pitcher.
I wouldn't say there's NO evidence. I agree there are still plenty of questions, but that's always going to be the case with a team at this stage of development. Limiting my response to position players, I think when you look at Franklin, Miller, and Zunino, you can see that they have several present major league skills/tools but their offensive games are still coming together. This is a typical young player development pattern. I think the major question marks going forward are Ackley, Smoak, and Saunders. Of those three, the biggest question is Ackley, but not because of his bat. The critical issue is how well he will adapt to the outfield going forward, especially in center field. Center Field, I am beginning to believe, is the biggest problem on this roster. Gutierrez (presumably) won't be back next year and the good part about that is that it forces them to think about a long term answer at that position. My gut feeling is that in spring training we will see a new and improved version of Dustin Ackley in Center Field. But that's just an educated guess on my part. What really matters in that evaluation are the opinions of the coaching staff that have been watching him play there for the last six weeks or so. Have they seen enough improvement to believe that Ackley is capable of playing league average defense sometime soon?
On the subject of a "Young Core" and whether or not it actually exists, I'll reiterate a point I keep making, which is that this team has not been able to draft or acquire a young aircraft carrier position player, someone like Griffey that was pretty good right away and became great almost overnight. But if we had that player, even if it was just one guy, I imagine the perception would be very different. The ghost of Adam Jones continues to haunt us.
Baseball -- Dodgers (in World Series 3 of my first four years as a fan, won twice), Koufax, Drysdale, Wills, etc.
Football -- Rams (Fearsome Foursome, consistent contenders), USC (O.J. Simpson) or UCLA (Gary Beban) perennially in the Rose Bowl hunt, frequent winners.
Basketball -- Lakers (West, Baylor, later Chamberlain), UCLA under Wooden (Lew Alcindor>Kareem Abdul-Jabbar)
Most of these teams also thrived in the '70's and '80's. So you can see I was spoiled. Some of them might have a down year or two or three (for example, the Dodgers in 1967-1970 were not very good, but in the '70's went to the World Series three more times, winning once). But an entire decade of futility built on ineptitude and a lack of determination to compete at the highest level was unknown to me until I moved to the Northwest in 1988, Seattle in 1995. In 1995-2003 I saw a Seattle Mariners franchise that had a stable of extraordinary players matching anything I had seen in LA, but not the determination to do what it takes get the team over the top and win. And the ineptitude I've seen since 2003 has left me sickened as a baseball fan. To watch season after season roll by without meaningful games after the first month or two is alien to me. And with that track record, when people just accept it and talk about a bright future as if it's just around the corner mystifies me. I've been saying the same thing for about five to seven years now, since it became clear to me that the so-called glory years of '96-'03 are not returning any time soon, that not only would we not play in or win a World Series, but we would be conditioned to think of a .500 season as a height to be reached.. All that time the response has been the same. All that time things just stay the same, and no bright future materializes. It's always a couple of years down the road. There is nothing in my history as a sports fan to prepare me for such an estate.
Some great names and teams you had the pleasure of growing up with. If you think the being a fan of the M's 2003-2013 was dismal, well their desire to win and competency is still a few notches above my earliest years of being a fan starting in 1978 to the early 90s. Ownership was uber-cheap or determined to move the team. There were no Felix's to enjoy. We did manage to keep some of the guys around for awhile like an occasional Alvin or Julio Cruz. Otherwise anyone showing promise was shipped off within a few years for a package of even cheaper players. Guys like Danny Tartabull. I'll never get over trading him away after a splendid rookie year, it ripped my teenage guts out. Hated it then, looks even worse 27 years later.
Glad you had such wonderful teams to root for. I'll never forget that Sonics team, first live sporting event my dad ever took me to in the 77/78 season.
to ya blissedj. You're absolutely right. I was privileged beyond measure as a sports fan. Alas, Seattle has not been so much well-served by it's teams, although there have been some moments with the Sonics (a good period when I moved here in '95), the Mariners' all-too-brief run of partial success that I mentioned, and a few moments with Husky basketball and football, though no championships except the one Sonics' season and the Don James' Husky co-championship, both of which came before I moved here.
I think that's the hard part. People here want a championship, they dream of it, but they really don't expect it. I can't say that I blame them, nor do I consider myself any better than them, as if the place of my birth and my sports heritage has anything to do with my own contributions. I just can't fathom it.
Also, I don't expect Seattle teams, with their built-in disadvantages compared to teams from LA, Chicago, New York, etc., to always be able to go toe-to-toe with them. But I do expect them to have the passion to win that some less-advantaged teams do who have achieved pretty good success. I expect the will to win, I expect a passion to deliver winning teams as a reward for the loyalty of local fans. It CAN be done in Seattle. It just ISN'T being done by the local MLB team. I expect sprinkled in with the disappointing seasons a generous helping of successful ones.
Frankly, I don't care if the team spends $120 million or $80 million dollars in any given year, so long as it's willing to do what it takes to win. The incredible pettiness of ownership when it had the real chance to win in the 1995-2003 period to me showed a lack of such resolve. The record of the last decade smacks of complete incompetence. On top of baseball incompetence to me the reputation of Lincoln/Armstrong as savvy businessmen is a joke.
But I live here. And I suppose I'll continue to do my best to buy into the dream when it seems warranted. But I must admit I have a streak of Oklahoma's "Show Me" attitude. I don't buy hype and promises, especially when the franchise doing the hyping and the promises have shown over a decade that when they fail to fulfill them there are few consequences.
Maybe with the passing of Yamauch we have a chance for some change.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us!
Are you at all a fan of the Seahawks? Now there is a franchise with a will to win. Love the recent shift toward letting the players on the field decide who plays. And after a successful 2012 with a young team what do they do? Instead of sitting on their hands waiting for the young players to (hopefully) blossom like the M's would, they go out and make some key additions to further improve the team! Love it!
So yes. I even liked the Chuck Knox Seahawks while I still lived in LA, partly because I liked Knox during his successful run with the Rams.
This last couple of years has been a blast watching a football franchise throw out all the rules and rebuild itself from the ground up. I know there are those who think Zduriencik, given enough time, will do the same thing. Count me skeptical based on what I've seen.
The owner gets mad, feels unappreciated, and moves the team. That is my reality as a Seattle fan. We came within a whisker of losing the Mariners and the Seahawks, which would have made it a 100 percent major league team desertion.
So, yes, DaddyO, your experience is different. My reality is that it's a success to merely KEEP a team. I have very low expectations: that once a decade we may have a contender. Maybe.
A team that has neither the commitment nor the savvy to field a winner is not worth having. I know a lot of people, especially here in Seattle, will disagree with me. But I'd rather see the M's relocate than watch another decade like we've endured. At least then I'd be free to select and root for a team worthy of it's fans.
But I get it. If you're satisfied with just having a team, and watching while other franchises that take the game more seriously beat up on you year after year, that's one way of approaching it. To be fair, I know you have bigger hopes that that. But that's what you've had to endure for the last decade.
We aren't going to spend like the Dodgers or the Angels. We can "demand" better owners. But what will that do for us? It's like demanding sunshine for our picnic. It's a powerless demand. We can try to outsmart everyone else, but there's only one Billy Beane. But what we can do is out draft and out farm build everyone else. We can build a new way of going about our business. We can experiment with new approaches. We can build on our strengths. I don't trust us when it comes to trading. Anyone remember how Jack got praised for trading Mike Morse for Ryan Longerhans? We can't even trade two minor league nobodies without it blowing up our faces. So, how about we build the whole darn thing internally? Let's do what we do best, and do it to the max.
We may have the best scouting organization in baseball. That's something that can actually set us apart...and we can afford it!
Growing up just North of Seattle, I got into baseball because Rickey Henderson was fascinating to watch. The statistics and math of it all kept my interest early too. I was an A's fan for about 4 years but when Rickey left there again I was already watching the Mariners too. Took almost 10 years for me to pick a winter sport and it was NBA. I no longer pay much attention to that sport after following the Sonics about a decade, so having no team doesn't necessarily allow you to pick another. The way it goes down can change your view of the entire sport. With Baseball I would have picked another team most likely because the M's weren't my first team anyway. I will support the NBA if it returns, but honestly don't miss it much now.