That is perhaps the perfect descriptive divider between scouting and analysis: "The Ms *DID* X" ... compared to "The Ms should have done X".
Personally, I believe my inability to see much Mariner ball is a plus in terms of bringing a "differently" biased view to the discussions. Of course, even stats guys can look at the numbers and say ... "well, that's not likely to happen again". We even have well understood numerical measures which are viewed as "mostly" luck, like BABIP, (though I believe the 'mostly' may be significantly overstated ... and where standard interpretation seems to have migrated to "only" ... but I digress).
One edge in "box score" analysis that I believe I have is that I tend to look at the whole thing in order to form an aggregate opinion and perhaps that allows me to not become "distracted" (poor word, but I can't think of a better one), by the emotional spikes based on things like the hot smash caught or the 2-inches foul HR blast.
Oddly ... here is what I took away from scanning the box BEFORE reading Doc's description of the "bad luck".
1) His view of Tomlin could not have been more dead on the money. The Ms finished with 8 Ks and 0 walks. He dared any Mariner to hit a HR. None did.
2) When the club did make contact, they were smacking the ball hard. Out of 5 hits, 4 were doubles. That is a sky high ratio of XBH to Hits.
3) With no HRs, 8 Ks and 0 walks, the club only had 19 balls in play ... oops 18, thanks to the Olivo DP. With 18 balls in play, 6 hits would be a .333 BABIP. That would be high. The 5 hits the Ms got was, in fact, right about where it should be, (from a box score analysis).
4) It's hard to score runs with no walks AND no HRs. These two stats are understood to be inherently linked. If the enemy is attacking the zone with gusto, you SHOULD be smacking some over the wall. Once you smack some over the wall, they'll have no choice but to back off some, at which point you should draw some walks. If you *DO* not make them pay for aggressive pitching ... that is not "bad luck".
Ultimately, I think the box score alone gave me a solid picture of what happened in the game, (which I DVRed ... but have not yet watched). I completely agree with the assessment that the lack of HRs is going to be a weight (wait?) on the offense.
But, when I parse the game, the stat that for me speaks most directly to the "why did we lose?" question ... balls taken. Here is a line by line comparison of total balls seen for the game.
# - SE - CLE
1 -- 4 --- 13
2 -- 8 --- 9
3 -- 3 --- 5
4 -- 3 --- 10
5 -- 2 --- 11
6 -- 1 --- 5
7 -- 2 --- 9
8 -- 3 --- 1
9 -- 3 --- 3
Now ... Felix was dealing and matching zeroes for 8 innings and he ultimately fanned way more Indians. But, Ackley was the only Mariner to see more than 4 balls for the entire game. The Tribe had only two players see fewer than 5.
Ultimately, stats are backward looking. They tell us what "did" happen -- not what should have happened. And because there are some cases where statistical flukes happen, stats aren't always the best tool for determining what will happen next. But, the picture painted by this game is one that heavily suggests Seattle is *too* aggressive ... and they failed not because of good glove work -- but because they failed to punish an opposition pitcher who DARED them to punish him.
..............
=== 30,000 Foot View ===
The story of the game wasn't League's blown save. Tell ya something: 97 MPH is serious cheese from a sidearm pitcher. Brandon League can close my ballgames.
Story was that the Mariners should have scored more than one run. By "should have," we don't mean that they blundered away the game with bonehead plays. By "should have," we mean that more balls should have missed fielders.
If games were scored by average MPH off the bat, the M's would have again cruised. The bottom of the 4th was one such. Dustin Ackley doubled sharply, and moved to 3B on a wild pitch.
Justin Smoak hit a ball that I didn't see; I miss about 0.2% of all live pitches at the park, but on this one I looked away for a second. My teenage son John stated that it was the best defensive play he'd ever seen, a 110-MPH* blast with glove specialist Casey Kotchman playing wayyyy in on the grass, trying to cut the run off a fast runner at the plate. A line drive like that, with the infield in that far, and you are talking at least 10:1 odds against the defense surviving.
The very next play, Seager singled up the middle for the RBI ... except that the shortstop dove, flung desperately to 1B, and Kotchman made a play that looked, from the third deck, like the best diving foot-on-the-bag play I've seen in about five years.
There were several others ... the M's had five hits and every single one was scorched. Usually only half your hits are scorched, if that. Baseball is a game of inches. When the game's close, luck decides most of the time. Don't dog the Mariners for 90-MPH shots that hit leather.
.
=== Par Is Meant To Be a GOOD Score ===
Also from commercial-airline height: the M's have hit for 168 total bases and walked 33 times. Their enemies have hit for 179 total bases and walked 31 times. They've hit about 25% line drives to their opponents' 20%, yay. They have a lower HR/FB percentage though; it is the M's tennis volleys against the opponents' mortar fire.
In terms of bases gained and bases lost, the M's richly deserve a .500, 7-7, record. Don't sweat the close losses. .500 is what the M's deserve.
Golfers will tell you that if the course par score is 72, then shooting 72 is supposed to be a high compliment. It proves that you have mastered golf. The Mariners are shooting par, .500, against tough competition. That is with shim wedges holding the hut together at SP3, SP4, SP5, and every bullpen slot except two. The M's should be proud of their first 14 games. End of story.
Well, the postscript, maybe ... the M's are within 0.5 games of every team but Texas and Detroit (Baltimore being a nonissue). The M's are +2.5 up on the Angels and +2.0 on Boston. Coming out of the blocks, the M's are in great shape.
.
=== 1-Run Games ===
Saber dogma calls for fealty to the idea that results in 1-run games are either (1) luck, or (2) simply reflective of one team being better, overall, than the other team.
Is there no room for the idea that a team could execute well? It's not possible for one baseball team to substitute a fast baserunner who scores the lead run, or for another team to not substitute a power arm in the outfield to throw him out at the plate?
It's not possible for one second baseman to throw wildly home, in a panic, and for another to remain calm in that situation?
The Mariners are executing well, for a young team, it seems to me. I agree with G-Money that the moratorium on late-game tactical substitutions, that pays a heavy price in close and late games. We take the good with the bad -- I think Eric Wedge is just the man for this team, and I would give him a raise -- but in this case, the ossified game lineups can cost dearly in the "leverage" game situations.
Of course, they can pay off even more dearly in terms of player development. It's hard to guage.
.
=== Chicks Dig the Long Ball ===
Again as G-Money noted ...it's blinkin' tough sledding to win an AL game in which you hit no home runs. Earl Weaver would start his roster construction by making sure his team had 150+ homers, and that was in a different offensive era. Nowadays he would make sure that his team could hit 180, 200 homers, and then go from there.
Zduriencik tried to do this in offering Prince Fielder $180 million. When it appeared that Carlos Peguero might have a shot at the 25-man roster, Big Blog threw crumpled paper cups. Mike Carp is here because he hit 50 homers in his last 176 minor league games. Jay-Z wants taters worse than Samwise Gamgee on a diet.
The M's have hit 10 homers in 14 games, much better than last year, but are still 12th in the league. Until those HR's arrive, it's going to be nine innings of tension and stress every night.
Waiting on Smoak and Montero, yeah. But we could also use some homers at either RF or LF, and you guess which one is negotiable. Carp for Figgins would make a LOT of difference for this specific baseball team. Do you think Figgins would pout if he played 4-5 games a week, different positions, but hit leadoff when he did play?
BABVA,
Dr D
Comments
High level stuff.
Observed:
Tomlin was really tough, as Doc predicted. I think his secred is rhythm. He gets the ball and fires it back, right now. I'll swear that in the second inning, with two strikes on Ackley, somebody yelled at Dustin to step out and ice Tomlin a bit. Was it just me? I can't recall watching a pitcher work more quickly in a long time. I loved it.
Felix threw 93, no worries. Especially did it against lefties, when he was throwing that tailing heater on the outside edge. Inside against them, it looked like he was in the 91 range. Did we just see a bunch of those pitches in his first couple of starts....and no outside heat?
I thought Saunders was fooled on both his hits, but managed to keep the bat head back long enough to flick them into RF. He looked open and ahead on both of them. I wasn't sure if I should be encouraged or just assume it was more of the same.
I missed Figgins tater the other night. It hasn't changed my incredibly dismal opinion of his bat skills. Wells can still play LF, can't he. Is he still breathing? Carp hasn't hit in Tacoma...but I'm so ready to see him in LF, too.
Felix......sheeeeeeeeesh!
We're OK...but a little Dr. Longball would go a long way to an early healthy recovery.
moe
"3) With no HRs, 8 Ks and 0 walks, the club only had 19 balls in play ... oops 18, thanks to the Olivo DP. With 18 balls in play, 6 hits would be a .333 BABIP. That would be high. The 5 hits the Ms got was, in fact, right about where it should be, (from a box score analysis)."
Um... with no HRs, 8 Ks, 0 walks, and a DP, they had eighteen balls in play that resulted in outs. Not eighteen balls in play total (or there would have only been 21 outs in the game). This means that they were 5 for 5+18. 6 hits would have been a .250 BABIP, which is still low.
Ah, never mind. /promote
I tend to be among those that weight defense lower than most of the UZR and DER fanatics, but even I could see that this game was lost (or won) by the defense.
The Indians should be credited with extremely good defense, they stole AT LEAST two hits (and RBIs) away (the ones you talked about above).
However our infield defense was pretty suspect as well. This is probably the first game we can point to and honestly say that moving from the all world defensive team to stretching guys with better bats into harder defensive positions has really bitten us.
Off the top of my head I can think of at least two balls that with different defenders out there are probably outs and both occurred in the 9th. One was the infield "hit" to Dustin Ackley (I think Brantly hit it?). Yes it would have been a nice play, but it is one that we see second basemen make pretty routinely. And in fact Dustin got to it no problem, but it looked like he was trying to rush and probably was over thinking it and instead of catching the ball, standing up and throwing the guy out at first (by a step) he was already looking up and had the ball glance off his glove. Funny enough Rizz and crew were calling it a great defensive play that saved a run because the guy on second could only make it to 3rd because Ackley kept it in the infield. They way I saw it though I would have charged Ackley with an error. The other play was the game winning hit by Hannahan (another former Mariner to be dreadful for us, but go on to have success elsewhere SMH). It pretty much went right under Seager's glove, and it wasn't a slow roller or anything, but it wasn't a "Smash" either. Even Rizz calling it on the radio go excited and started to go into to the double play call, but then had to stop himself and glumly sigh that it got past the 3rd baseman and into right field. Again a good 3b makes that play. Sigh, oh well.
Don't get me wrong. I certainly wouldn't trade out Ackley and Seager out for any defensive whizzes. And I definitely don't want to move them from their current positions. I am glad to have offense a priority again in Seattle, just pointing it out that this game really hinged on a handful of great (for the Indians) and bad (for the Ms ) defensive plays.
I love Ackley but other 2Bs get to that ball, and Seager DID get to the 3B hit, just didn't get his glove down on it. Of course, gold-glover Brendan Ryan has cost us a bazillion runs this year with a couple of boneheaded mistakes in the field, so it's not just the underwhelming defenders letting us down in crucial times.
We are 7-7. The sky is not falling. But our mistakes as a young club tend to be critical ones, made at the worst possible times, and that haven't been overcome either at the plate or on the mound.
Is it positive that we could realistically have 3 more wins? Sure.
Does that help us in the standings right now? Nope.
We need the kids to have a few easy games. Even when they put it together at the plate, the pitching tries to give it up, which keeps the pressure on the lineup to produce more, more, more...
And in tight games when the offense can't score, they hang the pitchers out to dry...and the pitchers have hung themselves along with the laundry a couple of times too.
Tough games. To watch, to lose...just tough.
We need some easy ones, STAT.
~G
For some reason there seem to have been an unusual number of balls JUUUUSSSST outside the edges of his range, and it's made him look borderline unacceptable out there.
Dewan has him as -2 runs lost already, and UZR has him as a -40 runs glove over the course of the year. He ain't that bad -- last year his numbers were plus -- but right now we are seeing the downside of a bat-first infielder.
Let's get some strikeout pitchers in here, please.
Everything with Ackley right now feels rushed and like he is push WAY too hard for everything to be perfect.
Ackley strikes out 3 times against a guy like Tomlin not because Tomlin is any good or actually beat Ackely, but because Ackley beat himself and is in his own head. I htink he either needs a couple days off or maybe a couple days at DH or something... :(
And then the first step suffers.
..........
Didn't see much last night from the CF camera, but saw him swing at a bill-high FB to strike out on the replay. That is pressing for sure.
Tomlin's game is obvious, take you up out of the strike zone, and a hitter has to make him come down some. Didn't look like the M's had the right plan on Thursday.
that playing Ackley and Seager out of position were risky moves from the very first moment. It's still weird IMO that we have to watch 3B Figgins in LF, LF Ackley at 2B and 2B Seager at 3B. But all that confusion starts with Ackley at 2B and everything else is a consequence. I wonder what else we're going to watch when Carp is back and what's the final prize for all this chaos.