Add new comment

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.