Saunders - Mariners Feud
.
Dr. D sez,
It is amusing that Michael Saunders had exactly 50% of Kyle Seager's K's and BB's, in almost exactly 50% of the games played:
| Player | G | K | BB | OPS+ |
| Seager | 159 | 52 | 118 | 127 |
| Saunders | 78 | 26 | 59 | 128 |
.
Granted, Saunders' plate appearances were 40% of Seager's, not 50%. That's because Saunders was frequently used as a bench player / defensive substitute. But when you have EYE ratios this similar, there may be other similarites, and ... check it out.
| Player | G | K | BB | OPS+ | AVG | OBP | SLG | Remark |
| Seager | 159 | 52 | 118 | 127 | .268 | .334 | .454 | infielder |
| Saunders | 78 | 26 | 59 | 128 | .273 | .341 | .450 | fast on bases |
.
Yes, there are differences that don't show in the above table. But the salient points are:
- The 2015 Kyle Seager his ownself won't imitate the 2014 Kyle Seager as well as the 2014 Michael Saunders did
- Saunders did it in less exposure, yes, and has other demerits compared to Seager, but...
- ... Don't forget that Saunders is also much better than Seager at "Runs Scored"
- And Saunders has UPside left; Seager really doesn't
It isn't a question of whether Saunders may, some day, become good. In 2014 he was already very, very good.
He's a bizarre, ungainly player. His weaknesses are weirdly noticeable. That's why he's underrated. It's much easier to perceive his problems (like his huge strike zone, like his teenager-looking strikeouts and teenager-looking curse words thereafter) than his contributions (like his going 1B-to-3B in eleven strides, like his hitting a 96 MPH jam pitch into the cheaps).
.
Grizzly sez,
MtGrizzly: Disturbing article from Churchill regarding Saunders. Given the quotes from his agent and the M's history of dealing with these types of things, I'll bet he's gone in the off season. http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/10/08/churchill-mariners-lack-communica...
.
I ran across this article independently of you guys, and was thinking, Wow, that's an impactful article from Jason.
How much credibility do you give it?
Churchill is, unquestionably, relaying a scouts' groundswell of season-long sniping at the Mariners about Saunders. That's what Jason is best at: passing on to you --- > what the scouts "groupthink." No disrespect intended.
Zduriencik's thinking is also known. He made some polite, thickly-veiled remark that relays Zduriencik's and McClendon's groundswell of sentiment about Saunders. Which is: "Saunders mightily ticked the Mariners off, in one way or the other." If you don't realize that "doghouses" are a part of sports, you haven't been paying attention.
Zduriencik quite obviously has a deep, dark doghouse, like Snoopy, where you can pull Andrew Wyeth paintings out of the basement of the doghouse. Saunders got in it. End of story. actually, middle of story.
So you have this spitting-fest between Mickey and the M's. You also have the information that scouts think the M's are being ridiculous about it. Those are the known items about the case; you process them as you like.
.......
OK, OK. For what it's worth, here's the Mainframe Crunch on it: I personally am annoyed with the way that Fortune 500 senior execs respond to people who annoy them. Powerful people don't like it when you smirk at them. They won't tolerate it.
The second Mainframe Crunch (MCTM) on it --- > sort of echoes Jason's: here you have one good outfielder, and you missed the playoffs by 1 games because of 9,000 shutouts, and you've got the one good outfielder on the bench because of a personal vendetta? Not exactly Win At All Costs, now is it?
But your mileage may vary. The Saunders-Mariners feud is nuanced, but that's the "doghouse" melodrama we're all enjoying so richly. It has happened 9,000 times before, in every sport under the sun, and will happen 9,000 times more.
.........
Will anybody pay 90c on the dollar for Saunders this winter? You don't normally get 90c for a guy who just had 231 at-bats. So the M's weren't "showcasing" Saunders, either. They mighta been showcasing the Ack Attack...
.