That would make for some great post-game reading, if we could get like 10 different summaries of what happened out there. Like getting 10 roto experts' recaps of a draft. As usual Dr. Naka, your observations are fresh.
........
Assume that you are talking about centered mitts from MLB catchers when they are calling for offspeed pitches. That's food for thought.
Maybe it is more usual for NPB pitchers to have the command needed to locate their 2nd and 3rd pitches. For many reasons, a high-class curve or change *with bite* will draw a strike in MLB, wherever it is in the zone.
Splitters, in MLB, are understood to be located so as to drop down out of the strike zone. Maybe this is a communication gap. It's possible that MLB catchers intend a certain location, but don't want to give away the location with an early target.
Still, an excellent thought, that maybe NPB pitchers have more command than MLB catchers expect that they do.
........
I'll bite. Why do you call him Iwakuni?
...............
IceX has a report, from onsite. Not just onsite as in "I was at Safeco last night," but onsite as in "I watched Ken Griffey Jr. in 1989-1999, and I watched him in his last season." IceX Onsite:
9-3, the Giants didn't score in only 2 innings.
Iwakuma... Write him off. Let's hope he can put it back together in short relief. He has the control and location, but his stuff is pure mush. Can't throw much more than 135 kph.
Iwakuma himself apologized to the press: I felt okay, no injuries, but I just couldn't execute my pitches the way I expect. Fair enough, Mr. WBC-san, out of thine own mouth will we judge thee.
.
=== Putting the Text in Context, Dept. ===
The Seattle Mariners are at the end of spring training, and Iwakuma-san runs out there to Show Us What He's Got. This is not a work in progress. This is the delivery of the wedding cake to the botanical gardens. Whisk away the sheet and we will decide whether we can use your shop for future weddings.
And, at this time of day .... sorry, he just can't do it?
........
Compare Kevin Millwood with Hisashi Iwakuma. Both came into camp with serious questions about their ability to perform. Iwakuma's arm has been made out of paper for three, four years. Millwood? He's going to be done some year. For both pitchers, spring training WAS -- or should have been -- their opportunity. Okay, 30 days to show you still got it. Go.
And that's plenty fair enough. Millwood showed he still got it. Iwakuma showed he still don't. Sayonara. We got 12, literally 12, talented starters here and we need the office space.
.
=== Sense and Sensibility, Dept. ===
Iwakuma has given up 29 hits in only 16 innings. Stop and visualize that for a second. Visualize two full 8-inning starts from, say, Anthony Vasquez. Vasquez gets pummelled for 14 base hits in the first game, and then for 15 more base hits in the second game. I'm not saying, end the argument with that visualization. I'm saying, start the discussion with that visualization.
Anthony Vasquez' thirty base hits, in two games, didn't occur because Vasquez was lookin' good. Get that part clear in your head, and then move on to the next step.
We saw it argued, someplace or other :- ) that only an idiot would even look at base hits (because of Voros McCracken's BABIP). That is no misrepresentation of the argument. The author was angry that anybody would mention Iwakuma's base hit rate.
We'll reduce a 2,000-word rebuttal to one paragraph: it is one thing to be aware of the fact that a base hit rate could be based upon luck. It is a different thing to forbid one's readers from watching a pitcher, and ASKING whether the pitcher is giving up a .400 AVG because --- > he is pitching badly.
Dogma benefits nobody. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing: dismissing 29 hits in 16 innings as "meaningless" is a harmful, not helpful, add to the discussion. Hisashi Iwakuma is pitching badly, as Hisashi Iwakuma stated after the game last night.
It's one thing to pitch badly. It's a different thing for Hisashi Iwakuma, at this particular moment in his career arc, to pitch this badly.
.
=== F-500 Politics 275, Dept. ===
It may not be politically feasible to just cut Iwakuma.
The nature of the problem, in F-500, is that a powerful executive (or executives) have argued loudly for the Iwakuma project. He, or they, have stood up and debated the case for. The exec, or execs, are now married to the project, and when people think of the project, people think of that exec.
It's extremely uncomfortable to ever go back into the committee room and even suggest that the project be scrapped. It feels like suggesting that the powerful exec be fired. Only a couple of people in the org can pull this off -- other powerful execs, of course -- and everybody waits around for those people to actually do that. There is a huge twisting-in-the-wind feeling while everybody waits. You get so you don't talk about the project at all, if you don't have to, and then only in hushed tones....
........
Zduriencik's ability to deal with this situation is unknown. The Mariners don't advertise their internal dyamics, the extent to which he could flush a Hisashi Iwakuma with no hard feelings attached. The guess here is that on Iwakuma specifically, Zduriencik had better wait until he has consensus. Including from the suit or suits who argued in favor of.
Which means that Iwakuma stays for a while. That's the guess that we gingerly put on the board.
.
=== Ethics 245, Dept. ===
Bill James views right behavior in terms of "ethics" - the desire to manage the repercussions that one expects from the community. That's as opposed to viewing right behavior in terms of "morality" - one's commitment to harmonizing with an Objective Standard in the universe. Ethics are intelligence-based, a question of wisdom and expediency; morality is character-based, a question of good vs. evil.
James seems to use ethics, to the complete exclusion of morality. Dr. D? He begins with morality, of course, and tries to be aware of the ebb and flow of ethical standards around us.
James addresses a semi-Iwakuma situation with this ethical position:
Q.A team signs an average veteran outfielder after a career year and pays way too much for way too long: 5 years/75 million+. After two years they essentially stop playing him during a pennant race when they have several better options. What are the ethics in such a case? What do they owe this guy, anything? What would be the "right thing" to do? He's been a good clubhouse guy, always played hard, and hasn't publicly complained about his demotion. Should they carry him for once-a-week duty? Should they find a club that can use him and pay most of the salary? Just release him? Obviously I'm talking about. . .Asked by: rennyAnswered: 8/25/2010A.Well. . .nobody owes you playing time. Any veteran who thinks that he is entitled to playing time because of something that happened in the past has missed a really important memo earlier in his career. We pay you to win.There IS an "ethic of decent treatment" involved, and it's involved because you want the players to feel that they will be treated with respect by your organization. If you can move the guy where he will have a chance to play and a chance to get his career back on its feet, that's decent treatment. If you CAN'T make a deal that's good for him and good for you, then you've got to do what you've got to do.
The Mariners were clear that Iwakuma was coming to camp with a chance to compete. It says there that they've got a clear green light to make a few calls and do their best to see whether somebody else can use him, and if not, to wish him well.
Iwakuma-san has been a terrific pitcher, but he'd have needed his A-Game to match up to these young hosses.
Comments
...but I think you actually might wish to say the reverse.
[Friendly note: If the reader doesn't like silly semantic discussions, please feel free to ignore the rest of this message]
[/gnat straining mode on]
"James seems to use ethics, to the complete exclusion of morality. Dr. D? He begins with morality, of course, and tries to be aware of the ebb and flow of ethical standards around us." -- Jemanji
It's strange, but originally, the words morality and ethics meant the following:
Morality: what 'is' at present -- in culture. How people live/believe/behave right now. Morality therefore fluxuates with the changing of culture depending on how the majority collectively interprets right from wrong.
Ethics: what 'should' be -- based in an unchanging standard -- but aren't necessarily reflected in the morality of the culture.
Perhaps a reasonable picture of the difference would be the actual original meaning of the words contained in the U.S. Constitution vs. how people (not singling out any group -- just an example) choose to interpret or ignore (or perceive as anachronistic) the words in that document.
In other words, ethics are unchanging with no ebb-and-flow, morality, unfortunately, is not.
[/gnat straining mode off]
*grins*
I think it is too early to give up on Iwakuma.
Hasegawa was on TV as a commentator and explained the difference in MLB and NPB catching. Many NPB catchers locate their mitt where he wants the pitch but MLB catchers just locate it in the middle of the strikezone.
As for Montero he located it always up in the zone.
Typical was the pitch bottom of 3rd inning 2outs pitchers count 1-2 to Murata.
Iwakuma should have pitched a splitfinger coming from strikezone in the dirt but pitched a splitfinger coming from upper strikezone to lower strikezone which Murata hit for a single to center.
Here if Motero had his mitt in the dirt for a aim it would be much easier for Iwakuma to execute that pitch.
So either Iwakuma must get used (but it will be very difficult for him) or Montero or other MLB catcher must learn.
BTW Quiroz was very very bad. Not only passed balls from Sherill but also he did not watch the 3rd runner at a double steal play.
That is a fundamental play just to turn the head to 3rd before gunning to 2nd but he did not do it.
Also Luetge was horrible.
Bottom of 5 when Kamei had a outfield fly to center and Ichiro caught it and throw a strike to homeplate.
I do not know what Luetge was thinking but he jumped and tried to cacth that ball. It was inches of his glove but he could have reflected it. It is a play he should not do. He must learn how to field more.
The young kids have much more to learn I think.
Just spell miss and it is corrected now.
And I'm not exactly sure which word is supposed to represent which idea. Good post Tuner.
..........
This dictionary entry does define "moral" as that which involves Right and Wrong, what is intrinsically just as opposed to what is *delared* just, and that which involves conscience.
However, similar entries give the same weight to "ethics," which in the dictionaries doesn't seem to mean anything very different from "morals."
........
In business, we use "ethics" in the transitory sense: Boeing's ethics, legal ethics, one's own set of ethics, etc. Certainly Bill James uses "ethics" to refer to the smaller concept of "behavior that will reduce fallout from the community." But that could just be his own use of the term.
........
Every human being has a conscience - a little voice that tells him that he should jump into the river to help the drowning person, even when the natural-selection ROI does not benefit him mathematically.
True and genuine altruism - behavior contradicted by natural selection - is coded into every human's conscience. And those consciences mainly agree across cultures: there is no culture in which people's consciences tell them to lie.
It's this inner voice that I think of when using the term "morality," but maybe you're right that society at large uses the term differently.
Thanks Tuner.
By the way, it's interesting that at Bill James Online, he freely mixes politics, "ethics," philosophy, etc. into his discussions at about a 10%, 20% air/fuel mixture.
He'll keep several themes running at a time; he might be discussing steroids in one conversation... discussing Joe Paterno and lynch-mob mentality in another ... discussing racism in a third.
And it works out great. It doesn't degenerate into flame wars. The entire site continues to discuss baseball, and non-baseball, matters intelligently and civilly.
The common assumption is that the very mention of ethics, religion, values, politics, etc., guarantees a degeneration of the idea exchange. I think that's tantamount to admitting that we're all 6-year-old brats.
We are adults here, and we are not incapable of disagreeing intelligently. On the contrary, we should expect that of ourselves, to be able to exchange ideas intelligently when we disagree. This is true also, when the ideas are important and there is a lot at stake.
Are we adults, or aren't we? So let's converse.
The difficulty I have is with the changing nature of language. It's clear that somewhere along the historical line the meanings of the words in question have become blurry -- and are now used interchangably. A comparison of historical and modern dictionaries proves this out.
I find that frustrating. But it's no one's fault -- just the normal variability of language.
I picked up an autobiography of George Muller the other day. It was updated from a translation done in the 1800's from German into English -- the translators felt the receptor language had changed so greatly in such a short timeframe that a revision was required. The changes were made to simplify for the sake of understanding.
I agree with their intentions, but dislike the loss of specificity and nuance. Our language is shrinking. I find it hard to wear at times. Like an old and favorite shirt that is way beyond it's wearable comfort -- because I've eaten my way to a larger waistline.
[turns toward wife]
"Honey? Does this sentence make me look fat?" [silence]
[grins]
I'm sure Japanese pitchers have better control and that their catchers cater to that. But Iwakuma is not the first Japanese pitcher to come to the states. There have been many before him and plenty have had success right out of the gate. The reality is that his arm is mush and he is going to get hammered unless and until his velocity improves.
I don't think NPB managers accept pitchers who can't hit their spots with offspeed stuff, do they? And they are willing to sacrifice velocity to achieve that. John Halama and Jorge Campillo would be welcomed onto NPB staffs.
And without a doubt, there must be communication gaps - MLB catchers could probably do a better job of helping out pitchers like Iwakuma.
Like you say, though, if it's my team I make a few calls and see what I can do to get Iwakuma-san onto his next team. The M's have a LOT of pitchers fighting for that spot, and they need to be fair to those pitchers, too.
........
If Iwakuma rises out of the ashes like a Pheonix, I'll issue an engraved apology. 'cause if it's my team, he's cut.
Now, Kawasaki, that's another subject :- )