Add new comment

I use the "zero evidence" phrase less often than some folks (the SABRJohn character Doc refers to, for example)...but when I do use it,I'm usually trying to refute a claim that seems to be too big of a logical jump to be tenable to me.  The 2010 Mariners are an example of why building for defense first will get you 100 losses.  That's what Doc is claiming.  I think he's way...way off base, and one particularly important pillar in his logical house (possibly of cards) is that many of the hitters we did have had bad years together specifically because we didn't get a line-up legitimizer.  I think one hitter wouldn't have done a thing to save the 2010 Mariners other than what he actually did himself...and I've got many examples (which I've discussed here) of teams that did not have a straw stirring the drink for their offense and were a glove-first roster and yet still won 100 games...teams (including the 2009 Mariners) that did not have a legitimizer of any great note without this anti-synergy affect...AND team that had 3 or 4 big boppers and still couldn't score runs.
I don't literally mean zero evidence at all to prove Doc's theory...I do however mean that what evidence there is is very thin and sketchy and deeply outweighed by the evidence I've found to the contrary.