Should We Stay or Should We Go?
NAH-NAH NAH, nah-nah, nana-NAH!
Though we don't want to appear (overly) narcissistic, there *are* times when it is useful for Dr. D to remind his fellow bleacherites that D-O-V is not a safe haven for pollyanna thinking...
............
This Mariner Central reply shows the turning point in the JJ-Malaysia / Dr Detecto postal chess match.
JJ is a master-strength postal player when analyzing while moving the pieces. Notwithstanding, he had played an overly-optimistic opening, leaving a Swiss cheese of dark squares in his center and queenside, after Black had repulsed the initial offensive.
Dr. D has played this kind of position a googolplex of times before and had already chalked up the win. Weirdly, this particular position happened to allow a bizarre maneuver of Re4 and d3-d4, bursting White's bonds and turning the tables to White's advantage. If I've seen this position 1,000 times before, I have NEVER seen this particular maneuver working. This time it does, though. White wound up perfectly even in the center. How odd.
After JJ's 30. a3!! it turned out that he had a disguised advantage on the Queenside as well. Another turn of events that was so strange that I had to blink my eyes and stare and stare again, finally convincing myself that danger lurked in this routine technical win for Black.
................
After 30. a3!! if Black had made even ONE more move, under the delusion that he stood better, then White would have had all the time he needed to launch an unstoppable attack.
Fortunately, my 30... h5 did manage to achieve full damage-control mode in the NICK of time, not one move to spare. I managed to cobble a draw out of the position against JJ's fine play.
................
The point is, damage control is second nature to a chess nerd. You might someday meet a dentist who has never heard of flossing. But you won't find a tourney chess player > 2200 who does not have a V-E-R-Y concerned attitude about the limitations of his position.
If a player didn't worry about when it was time to stop pressing for the win, he'd never get above 2200, period.
But!, a player who wussies out and loses his will to win every time he gets a bad position -- that guy never makes 2200, either.
.
==== Four Games Out ===
The questions persist about whether the Mariners should fight for the pennant, or whether they should quit.
This being the middle of July.
A 4-game race.
With a weak division leader.
Give you one more chess aphorism when you can't make up your mind about something: if you had exactly this position every game -- would you make the same move every game? (Often you wouldn't, and that's when you know you'd better play something else.)
If you were 4 games out in July every year, would you quit every year? Which raises the question: don't be a blinkin' wussy.
.
=== And For What? ===
It would be one thing if you were talking about potential July trades that were offering us Weiterses, Prices, and Escobars by the handful.
Nobody is saying that the M's are going to get back major building blocks if they sell off.
People are suggesting that we quit so that we get either (a) minor league corn starch or (b) at best, NL shortstops -- way past arbitration -- hitting .232/.300/.376.
When we are calling for selloffs that bring back shorstops OPS'ing 79, we are quitting for the sake of quitting. No cheering in the press box, babe.
...............
If and when you are talking about bringing in young franchise players, then you can TALK about wasting the 2009 season. But to quit on 2009 for the sake of players who are fungible? Come on.
.
=== When Is It OK to Quit? ===
In chess, you cut your losses and play for a draw when it is no longer reasonably possible to win. Profound, isn't it?
Are we saying that being -4, -6, -7 in July means that "it is no longer reasonably possible to win"?
If that's the case, is it okay for the players to quit, too? Supposing the Seahawks walk off the field down 21-10 in the third quarter next September. That will be understandable, right?, because an intelligent man knows when it is no longer reasonably possible to win?
................
How about the fans? Does Capt Jack want the fans to feel like, -6 in July, it's time to stop coming to the park?
Or would he hold the fire sale, and just hope that Soccer Mom is too dumb to realize that the Mariners are no longer seriously trying to win?
.................
Yes, I know that the national sportswriters agree that it's OK for the Mariners to quit. That's because of their view of the Mariners, not because the AL West division is Sisyphus' mountain. ESPN's contempt for the M's doesn't excuse Seattleites' lack of nerve.
.
=== C'Mon, Could THIS Team Really Win? ===
This team is genuinely elite in its pitching and defense. Its ERA+ is 116 (!) and it is #1 in ERA.
Its offense includes Ichiro, Branyan, Gutierrez and Lopez. It's not a 1979 Mariners offense.
This team needs a few more runs. But yes, it has the resources it needs to win.
If I give you a 116 ERA+ in July, with two major offensive stars, and you're within one or two series of the lead ... and you want to quit?! You need to be doing something else with your time, bro'. Like, quilting is very sedate. Give it a whirl.
.
=== Tell Ya What Your Problem Is, Amigo ===
Over their last 21 games, the LA Angels are 15-6.
On a subconscious level, you're thinking the Angels are just too good. So ask this one: is it "reasonably possible" that the Angels are going to cool off? And go (say) 4-6 or 3-7 over their next ten?
You're buying into the Angels' hot July. That's all.
Give 'em a chance to cool down. The Angels are a team with a 103 OPS+ and a 94 ERA+. And we want to send over a Harry Potter Owl with the message that we acknowledge that Lord Voldemort cannot be challenged? Pass the emetics.
The Angels are going to be good every year. You still have to fight them, dude.
Cheers,
Dr D