But I seriously don't think that people like Dave Cameron really respect Jack. Instead, the puppy dog love stems simply from Z doing things the "right" way. That's why when Z does something that doesn't fit with thier defense-first paradigm, they don't stop and think that maybe he's on to something, that maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt. No, they don't have any humility, they instead think that they are just as smart and competent as Jack and so when he strays from the pasture it doesn't cause any introspection and second thoughts, only a quick dismissal.
Jason Churchill is the same way. When Ackley was tried at second, he ripped it as incredibly stupid and foolish, that it would take a couple of years before he would be merely decent which would set him back since his bat would be ready before then. The fact that Jack, who is clearly an elite talent evalutator who has a whole lot more information on Ackley, bought into it meant absolutely NOTHING to Jason. It didn't have the slightest sway with him. Same thing when the M's drafted Denny Almonte in the 2nd round a few years back, Churchill was livid and it never crossed his mind that the opinion Bob Fontaine with his far, far more extensive scouting reports deserved any consideration.
They seriously think that they are just as fit as any major league executive to evaluate baseball desicions and that having a computer and some "scout friends" is enough justify ridiculing everyone elses opinions. It gets really, really old.
Geoff Baker argued that Matt Tuiasosopo has a logical place on the roster as its backup shortstop.
Notice, going in, that Jack Zduriencik and Don Wakamatsu agree with him. (Can you feel my glee as I play this trump card over and over? Reminds me of my baseline Kiki Vandeweghe J. Oh yeah. Can you Deal with This. :- )
.
=== Paradigm Paralysis, Dept. ===
In 21st-century AL baseball, everybody has four people on the bench:
- backup catcher
- utility infielder, usually a glove-first SS who owns four mitts
- an outfielder who can either field or hit, but not both (else he'd start)
- Guess what? Now you get to pick one, as long as he owns a 1B mitt
In Seattle in January and February, we all fixated on the question of, where do the Mariners get a "credible" backup shortstop into this equation. By credible we meant, glove-first.
But just because a procedure is very popular, doesn't make it "correct." The Mariners thought a bit outside-the-box, and asked the question, "if we accept the use of a backup SS who is BAT-first, what advantages accrue?" Here are a few of them.
.
=== Quoth Geoffy ===
With all of those non-roster guys creating questions, the team isn't about to waste time worrying about the backup infield spot that Tuiasosopo has made a case for himself at. Yes, Josh Wilson is also making a case for himself, but he's not on the 40-man roster. To add him, you'd have to take someone off. And then to send him back down to Class AAA, you'd risk losing him to another team.
Here is how it will all play out: Tuiasosopo will be on the team Opening Day as the backup infielder. Josh Wilson will go to AAA as insurance in the event that shortstop Jack Wilson gets hurt.
The team can live with Tuiasosopo at shortstop one or two days a week if need be.
But they can't live with it if Jack Wilson gets hurt and goes on the DL, or has to miss significant time.
In that case, Josh Wilson would be called up and Tuiasosopo sent to AAA because he still has options. The club would then worry about what happens with Josh Wilson when Jack comes back, but will cross that bridge if and when it comes to it.
Got it? Take it to the bank.
...........
If Wilson goes on the DL and Josh Wilson comes up, I don't see why Tui goes down in that event. But I suppose Geoff means: if Jack Wilson is hurt and not on the DL.
.........
It has always been assumed that Tuiasosopo is, ahem, a joke at shortstop.
But. Based on what? Why did we assume this?
Tui has looked remarkably nimble at 2B to me. And remember: the whole reason that Weaver was able to start the Ripken Revolution, was because Cal Ripken had a throwing arm that allowed him to play three paces deeper. Tui's arm, at SS, doesn't extend his range? Say, to "average"?
SSI is comfortable -- tentatively -- with Tui backing up at SS because of these two factors:
- His arm allows him to play deep
- He's got golden-boy sports psychology (no nervous errors)
.................
Tuiasosopo's appointment at backup SS shows, one more time, that this is not a front office that is paradigm-paralyzed. They think about problems. And they have the guts to go outside the book and accept the second-guessing later.
I flat enjoy watching these people work.
Comments
I'm glad you said it CPB. I warn't gonna. :- )
.............
I think the standing O's at the blog functions over Gutierrez probably have, at their bottom, a sense of "look what happens when you do things our way!"
Which, whatever.... it begins to dawn that Zduriencik was always doing things *his* way...
..............
As I see it, Zduriencik is a booked-up Good Ole Boy, one with immense intuition, a 15-years-younger Pat Gillick who has an acquaintance with hard data -- but who is just as likely to bypass them in favor of his own good judgment.
Early on, folks read Zduriencik as a Ricciardi or DePodesta plus old-timey connections. That wasn't him at all, IMHO.
................
It need hardly be said that SSI credits Zduriencik with having twice the light bulbs that SSI has (or that Bill Bavasi had). He and Wok are real finds. But they've never brought a uniquely sabermetric approach.
It maybe hasn't hit me to the point of getting 'really old yet' CPB m'man. But it is a constant puzzlement that when Cognitive Dissonance hits -- Tui plays short or Jack keeps Bedard, or the M's trade three scrubs for a Star in his walk year, or the M's trade Morrow for League...
When cognitive dissonance hits, people just ::blinkeyes:: and move on, never processing what the moves mean.
That baffles me.
Two things strike me as being possible, concerning other blogs reactions to Z's moves that they disagree with:
- They are preaching to the choir, in that by and large their readership expects them to spout only the things they expect them to say...therefore they say them so as not to "disillusion" the existing readership. (Although one could argue that their readership will fall in lock-step with anything they say anyway).
- Blogs are not dissimilar to talk-radio...far easier to be reactionary in a negative way than to express simple agreement with a decision.
It's never been clear to me why negativity sells. That's counterintuitive to me. If a pundit was going to err on the side of 'we're going to win' or 'we're going to lose', wouldn't the audience prefer he err towards the fun?
Honestly don't get that.
I get why the pundits themselves wish to be viewed as Objective Journalists, but don't get why the audience eats that up.