24-27, Summary
They said it was impossible. They said it couldn't be done, and that the Mariners were only wasting their time by trying. Undeterred by the skeptics, however, the Mariners persevered, and with a little hard work and creative innovation, were able to achieve a feat previously thought preposterous. For the Mariners managed to undo two games of progress in as few as four innings.
It's tempting to rationalize something like this by pointing to last night and calling it even. And in a way, it's true - the Angels at one point had a win expectancy of 97% yesterday, while the M's topped out at 98% today. Each team won a game they should've lost, and if you forget about the jarring heartbreak, the M's still came away on top in the series.
But while that may be the calm way to approach a loss like today's, I don't know that it's the best one, because it doesn't matter what happens in the rest of your games; any time you blow a late seven-run lead, you know something went dreadfully wrong. Yesterday was an independent event. It didn't mean anything as soon as Santana threw his first pitch. The M's built a massive advantage and gave it away, and though such accidents happen every now and again - that's why their win expectancy was never 100% - they feel devastatingly bad, and are always the fault of at least one or two goats. We should be mad. Yeah, the M's ripped the hearts out of 40,000 people last night. But today they blew a lead they shouldn't have blown, and at the end of a series that could've breathed some life into a dying hope to stay in the race, that's just about the most deflating thing they possibly could've done.
It's interesting to me to see how many different people have been getting blamed for this collapse. Aside from the obvious David Aardsma, there have been barbs volleyed in the direction of Yuniesky Betancourt, Don Wakamatsu, Bruce Hines, Adrian Beltre, Franklin Gutierrez, Garrett Olson, and Endy Chavez. Had these players done a better job in certain crucial situations, people say, the game would've ended differently.
And in some ways, they're right. Who's to say what happens if Yuni makes a play on Abreu's grounder in the sixth? If Wakamatsu doesn't intentionally walk Torii Hunter? If Hines doesn't wave in Beltre from third? If Beltre doesn't force Ichiro at home? If Gutierrez doesn't strand four guys? If Olson doesn't bean Erick Aybar? If Chavez gets Lopez home from third? All of these things could've changed the result, and if even just one of them goes differently, maybe the Mariners walk off the field celebrating a sweep.
The problem, though, is that in cases like this, win expectancy is king, and win expectancy doesn't think any of these things were nearly as significant as David Aardsma falling apart when the game mattered most.
The Mariners' odds of winning after Abreu's single were 92.2%. If Yuni somehow converts that grounder into a double play, they would've been 98.0%. That's a difference of 5.8%. The Hunter walk lowered our WE by 3.6%. 3.2% for the Hines decision. 4.9% for the Beltre FC. -5.7% for Gutierrez on the game. -0.7% for the bean ball. -2.7% for Chavez stranding Lopez.
-90.6% for David Aardsma.
In hindsight, yes, any number of things would've been nice had they gone differently than they did. But none of the things that people have pointed to really mattered that much at the time, and I can't get behind that sort of thinking. Yeah, I know I called Wakamatsu out for that intentional walk, but that decision obviously wasn't anywhere near as big as Aardsma's decision to stop throwing strikes ever, so it's not like I blame this loss on the manager. I blame it on Aardsma, because he's the one who actually blew it. And that's how I think it ought to be.
Lost in all of the late-inning drama is just how good Garrett Olson looked through the first five frames. Olson needed just 58 pitches to record 15 outs, and of those 58 pitches, 43 (74%) were strikes, and 8 (14%) were swinging strikes. The Angels hit one home run and one line drive, but weren't otherwise making real solid contact. Olson was cruising in a way that many envisioned he would back when he was one of Baltimore's top prospects. He was missing bats with his fastball and locating his secondary stuff, and against a lineup with eight righty hitters. Those were the best five innings that Olson has thrown as a Mariner, and while he's probably not long for the rotation given his sixth inning and with RRS on the way back, I should hope that he opened some eyes and convinced at least a handful of people that he should be taken seriously as an option down the road. That slurve that he threw to get Hunter in the first was a sight to behold.
While Olson was dealing his handsome heart out, the Mariner offense was giving Ervin Santana a second consecutive thrashing. Santana somehow lasted into the sixth inning, but it wasn't because of anything he was doing well; he wasn't fooling anyone, he wasn't throwing many strikes, and the fastball that helped him take a marked step foward a year ago was once again nowhere to be found. The first pitch of the game was an 89mph heater that Ichiro hit for a double, and that pretty much set the tone for Santana's entire start. The Mariners didn't let up, and Santana had to live with the damage.
In all, Santana threw 56 fastballs, ranging from 86.3-93.3mph and averaging 90.2. Four starts into his season and the velocity isn't showing any signs of picking up. What's more is that, of the 56, the Mariners only missed one, and they put 15 of them in play, racking up two homers, three doubles, and three line drive singles. The fastball that put Ervin Santana on the map currently looks like a terrible pitch, and I don't care what they say about it still being early in his season - the Angels have to be worried. They were counting on Santana being a rock in their rotation, and so far he's looked awful. Being slapped around by the Mariners should be grounds for termination.
Unfortunately the Mariners' productivity came to a halt just about the instant Santana got yanked, and while that isn't in and of itself a bad thing when you're leading 8-1, it becomes a bad thing when your starting pitcher decides that blowouts are boring. Out of nowhere Garrett Olson beaned Aybar to lead off the sixth, and that set off a sequence of the Angels hitting four consecutive first-pitch fastballs and putting four runs on the board. Neither the Figgins nor the Abreu singles were hit particularly well, so I can't hold Olson responsible for the entire mess, but the Hunter home run came as a striking reminder that there was still a lot of baseball yet to be played. The Mariners had a WE of 86.4% after Hunter went deep, but I defy anyone to come forth and say they still felt comfortable. Just like when Terry Francona brought in Pedro in relief to pitch in Game 7 against the Yankees back in 2004, the lead felt a lot more unstable than it was at the time.
Miguel Batista came in and settled things down, but just as we thought things might get relaxing again after a Jose Lopez leadoff double in the seventh, Endy and Gutierrez stranded him at third and the Angels pushed another run across in the bottom half. What's funny is that it was in that bottom half that Sean White and Vladimir Guerrero teamed up to provide one of several soothing moments that I took to be indicators that the trouble was done. White's humiliating strikeout of Guerrero in the seventh, Batista getting Napoli to fly out in the sixth, Ichiro doubling in the eighth, Napoli striking out in the eighth, Aybar flying out in the ninth - when each of these things happened, I exhaled and leaned back in my chair, confident that the worst was already over. Turns out I'm a moron.
For a scoreless inning, the eighth packed quite the punch. It came complete with frustration for everybody. First, Adrian Beltre came up with Ichiro on third and bounced into a fielder's choice on a 2-2 breaking ball way down and out. Then Griffey yanked a double into right and Bruce Hines decided to wave Beltre home even though Kendrick had the ball before Beltre even rounded third. Next, Sean White induced Mike Napoli into an inning-ending foul pop-out, but Russell Branyan failed to call off Jose Lopez and as they came together the ball bounced off of Lopez's chest. Finally, the tables turned on the Angels and Napoli blew his chance at redemption by striking out on an inside fastball. (That strikeout, by the way, being White's 11th, against 12 walks.) We headed to the ninth with the M's in good shape. Worse shape than we would've liked, but good shape nevertheless.
After the top half passed with little incident, we came to a bottom half of Aardsma against Izturis/Aybar/Figgins. It was imperative that Aardsma put himself in good position before the Angels got to the meat of their order, but with his having worked on three of the past four days, Aardsma didn't fill me with a whole lot of confidence. The walk to Izturis certainly didn't help, and following Aybar's fly out with a walk to Figgins put us in a world of trouble. Now, the pitch on which Figgins actually walked was a strike according to Gameday, but that aside, Aardsma clearly didn't have whatever level of command it is that he usually has, and that made for a nasty situation with the 3-4-5 coming up to bat.
Over the next two at bats, Aardsma did his job. Now, granted, a right-handed pitcher with little control generally doesn't want to fall behind a talented lefty 3-1, but Aardsma got Abreu to fly to left on an outside fastball in what felt like a stay of execution, and then he jammed Vlad with an inside heater and induced an opposite-field pop up, that, based on the contact, should've ended the game. It just so happened that Vlad placed the ball perfectly down the line and wound up with maybe the girliest double of his life. The Angels were still kicking, and they were sending a rejuvenated Torii Hunter to the plate with the winning run 180 feet away.
At this point, Aardsma had thrown 9 strikes out of 20 pitches, so I didn't much care for Wakamatsu's decision to put Hunter on and load the bases for Juan Rivera. Pitch to Hunter and you're worried about his ability to get a hit. Pitch to Rivera with nowhere to put him and you're worried about his ability to get on base. It's not like there was any platoon issue to take into consideration. Wakamatsu was just scared off by Hunter's terrific start to the year and wanted to pitch to someone worse, and though I get why he felt that way, I can't understand loading the bases with a one-pitch pitcher who couldn't locate. Even if you are afraid of Hunter's bat, at the very least why not just try to pitch around him instead of walking him outright? He's not the most disciplined hitter in the world, and you might be able to get some weak contact. I suppose Wakamatsu might've been scared of Aardsma piping a fastball that was supposed to be off the plate, but then if you're worried about your closer missing by that much, maybe he shouldn't be closing the game.
Anyway, Hunter jogged to first and Juan Rivera came up with the bases loaded. This happened.
David Aardsma threw a good first-pitch slider in the zone that got called a ball, then followed that with a borderline high fastball that also got called a ball. After two pitches, Aardsma should've either been ahead 0-2 or even 1-1, but instead he found himself in a terrible mess and couldn't recover. Rivera drew a four-pitch walk, and the tying run came in from third base.
I could sit here and complain for hours about the injustice of inconsistent umpires. Gameday and PITCHf/x have only served to elevate my level of dissatisfaction with umpire strike zones, and a case could be made that Bill Miller put David Aardsma in a bad situation he didn't deserve with the game on the line. But realistically, this is something we have to live with, and it's not like I can pretend that Aardsma obviously would've come back with better pitches to save the game had he gotten a call or two. He wasn't putting the ball where he wanted to, and who's to say that things wouldn't have gone just the same after going 0-1?
Rivera's walk took all the wind out of my sails, and lacking the stomach to go to extra innings, Morales' game-winning single that followed almost came as a relief. Ironically, Morales' hit came on maybe the one pitch that Aardsma located perfectly all inning long. Aardsma put a 2-2 fastball right on the low-away corner of the zone, but Morales got his bat on it and stung a grounder the other way to drive home Gary Matthews. The game was over, and everything the Mariners had accomplished through the first two games felt like it had gone for naught. That isn't true, of course - the Mariners did manage to gain a game on the Angels - but this was as crushing as a defeat ever comes, and I'd call it a statement game if we hadn't already established that that's a bullshit expression.
So we begin June at 24-27, two back of the Angels and 6.5 back of the Rangers. I don't think we're going to sell. Not yet. The two wins in Anaheim gave the team a little life, and the next 21 games come against teams with a combined record of 115-138. There is an opportunity here for the M's to go on a bit of a run, and with the Rangers drawing a much tougher schedule, Zduriencik might want to wait and see where we stand in three weeks. But just because that's the situation now doesn't mean that'll be the situation later, and if the Orioles roll through Safeco and deal a beatdown, then everything changes in a hurry. This team is hanging from the cliff by its fingers, and it's in a race to pull itself up before something tickly comes along.
236 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well, lessee.
Bartolo Colon: traded June 27
Freddy Garcia: traded June 27
Rich Harden: traded July 8
Joe Blanton: traded July 17
I’m fine with GMZ waiting for a few weeks for things to sort out a bit. My concern is that yeah, while June is a soft spot in the schedule, May wasn’t particularly brutal- Boston and Texas, OK, but outside of that, it was a month of non-entities that we didn’t look impressive playing (the recent OAK/SFG span where we got WORSE playing bad teams, for instance).
All in all, this team is where it sort of should be: scuffling a bit under .500, starting pitching and OF defense improved, too many RHB, bullpen doesn’t throw strikes so good, middle infield problematical, Ken Griffey’s going to retire. As such, they really need to take off the next three-four weeks to convince me it’s not sell-high time. I’m pretty skeptical that they can do that, though- this is a BETTER team than last year’s, but better’s not good enough.
by eponymous_coward on May 31, 2009 7:57 PM PDT reply actions
I need some help here with the timing of when a team decides it's over.
When is it time to give up the season and unload those contracts that stink or the FA’s you don’t plan to re-sign? I get that if any other team offered anything for Silva, Batista, or Yuni we could probably take that offer and the team and the fan-base would not think the season is over. However, and more likely, we might get offers within the next few weeks for Bedard and Washburn possibly even Beltre and Branyan. If we entertain just one of those offers before the ASB, what does that tell the team? We’re in rebuilding mode and we have to get value for them, because the season is already lost? I don’t want to play on that team and that team is as worth rooting for as last years. This is the AL West. The Angel’s did suffer early with many key players taking stints on the DL, but they aren’t much better now that they’re semi-healthy. I don’t think the Ranger’s pitching is going to keep this up all season.
We aren’t very good and we are sort of where we should be, but I’m not sure that couldn’t win the West. Teams have outplayed and underplayed their expectations before. I think with what we’ve got plus the addition of a left-handed power hitter (who might be sitting in Tacoma as we speak) and some kind of upgrade for the middle infield, we could actually contend. The post-season is a crap shoot anyways. How/when is the decision made this year to give up and get rid of Bedard, Washburn, Beltre and Branyan? I know the effect that has on fans, but what does it feel like to play for that team? Just work on your individual stats? Just phone it in?
The decision to give up on the season or not doesn't only have to do with our current playoff chances.
If we can’t add decent depth to our farm system with trading away our players, then there’s no reason to do so as long as we have a somewhat plausible shot at making playoffs. However, even if we have a somewhat real shot at making the playoffs, it’s not worth hanging on to all of our FA-year players and only taking a couple of sandwich picks in what looks to be a bad draft year at the expense of re-tooling our minor league system by making good trades.
I really hope we give up on this year pretty soon. The playoffs may be a virtual crapshoot but we would have probably less than a 15% chance at making it to the World Series even if we somehow struggle our way into the playoffs. According to fangraphs, we have the 7th best pitching and 11th best lineup in the AL. We’ve played like a below average team so far and honestly I don’t think we are really a lot better than that.
So I think it’s about time to sell sell sell. Despite being about as good of a team now, the Orioles are coming in tomorrow with a much brighter future (or at least it would be if they weren’t in the AL East). I would love it if we could try re-inventing our minor league system like they have and produce some quality internal talent. Once Tillman and Matsuz hit the MLB, the Orioles will be a couple of players away from an absolutely outstanding team.
Ok, but I didn't think we had that many FA players who we would get prospects for if we lost them.
Which players are we talking about?
by Sinking Away on May 31, 2009 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I thought a team automatically got prospects for free agents they didn't re-sign.
So if we don’t re-sign Bedard after the season, we would likely get 1, maybe 2, (if he continues his winning ways) prospects. Isn’t that how this works? It would depend on whether is was a type A or B player. Beltre is a B at best at this point. Who else would we be giving up for prospects only?
by Sinking Away on May 31, 2009 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Only when free agents qualify for an archaic formula that is loosely based on skill level.
The majority of our players cannot be considered skilled, even loosely. So we get nothing.
...and now I'm here
Bedard is the only FA likely to be type A at the end of the season unless Beltre really turns things around
And that’s not really set in stone either.
I thought there was no way he was type A because of his limited playing time last year.
...and now I'm here
Last I heard it is still possible provided he keeps pitching like he has been
I guess I shouldn’t say it’s “likely” that he will be a type A though, because he probably won’t sustain this level of performance.
He needs to basically match his 2007 performance to be type A
Judged by whatever bizarre ranking system Elias uses.
This probably should've been painful for me.
But it really isn’t. Probably because I didn’t watch the game from the very beginning. I was catching up via DVR but accidentally caught the score of the game during one of the College Softball broadcasts (showing 8-3 Mariners). I quickly sped through the proceedings and by the time I caught up it was 8-5. Sadly, the game felt blowable by that point.
I can’t get worked up over Aardsma blowing the game because it could’ve happened in virtually any of the games he’s been in (and it almost did the last time he was in Anaheim). The Aardsma Express leaves no room for error. So today we got a tired Aardsma, a bloop Vlad double, and a squeezed strike zone.
On a side note. It’s amazing that this was only the 2nd game in the month of May in which we lead by more than 3 runs. We’ve blown 50% of those games.
And the main reason this isn’t painful is because this team is walking the line of being a contender and being potentially one of the biggest sellers of the season. Not to mention given the current state of the division is selling really equivalent to punting the season?
On the pitching front between Bedard and Washburn you’re shipping off guys who contributed 2.6 wins combined. Immediately, the replacement trio of Jakubauskas, Vargas, and Olson have contributed about 0.5 wins. That’s a pretty sizable drop.
Oh the offensive side, where we really need help, Beltre has only put in about 0.5 wins (Good defense, Bad offense), while Lopez and Yuni are still killing us with -1.7 wins.
If you ship off Bedard, Washburn, and Beltre while punting Lopez and Yuni and replace them all with replacement level guys you would figure to give up say…1.5 wins? Of course that’s if you keep Branyan and his 1.7 wins.
Griffey and Sweeney are collectively slighty below replacement and we’ve got a messload of 1B/DH types in the minors. We could stand to potentially gain some value back on that front. And we haven’t even considered the possibility of the players we trade being able to help us now as well as later.
This may not be the right way to analyze the situation but my main point is that I can envision a scenario where we sell off our players and not be too much worse than we are now while adding more upside.
My goodness. I'd missed the update this evening.
Huskies reach Women’s College World Series championship round
After losing 9-8 in the first game of the day, the Huskies earn a 9-3 victory over Georgia to advance to the best-of-three title round against Florida, starting Monday.
Can softball pitchers pitch everyday?
After that win against Georgia, they displayed the pitch counts of Lawrie, and they were huge compared to baseball standards, and that she pitched Friday and two games on Sunday.
Even though I am not into softball, just like basketball, I have to root for my alma mater during the playoffs.
by Fin on Jun 1, 2009 1:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Softball throwing is a completely different motion
I don’t know the rules, but it wouldn’t surprise me if softball pitchers could go every day.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- P&P&Z
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Jun 1, 2009 2:19 AM PDT up reply actions
They can go every day
In high school, I’ve seen kids go 4 days in a row then pitch in a travel team tournament that weekend. The motion is much more natural than a overhand motion and puts almost no stress on the elbow and a lot less on the shoulder. 2 fewer innings in the game as well.
"I’m going to go out and buy pizzas for everybody, and we’re going to have a pajama party out there waiting for Wieters..." - Dave Trembley
Yes, this.
Washburn, for instance, has been really, really good this year, but he has years like this every few years. Most of the time he’s an “eh” 4th starter good for 190 IP and 30 starts of mediocre pitching. I don’t see why Vargas, RRS or Olson are a lot different.
Bedard and Beltre would hurt, but since our odds of keeping them are negligible and we won’t get a ton for them offering arbitration, yeah, we’ll have to trade them. Bummer, but that’s the way it goes.
by eponymous_coward on May 31, 2009 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Let me try again. When does the FO or Z give up?
What will it be based on this year? Last year on this date we were in 4th place 11 1/2 back. We didn’t have anyone except Ichiro that any other team might have wanted. We could have been sellers but had only one thing to sell that the FO wasn’t going to deal away. Last year was a no-brainer. We were done on June 1st.
We aren’t done now. Or rather, we aren’t conclusively done now. I’m not positive we should give up. Back in May when we were “on a tear” (that is so un-Mariner-like), I remember reading on USSM that we were 3 games better than anyone predicted we would be at the time. Dave Cameron made a good point in stating that those were 3 wins that couldn’t be taken away. What if we go on another binge and win another 3 games in June that no one would have expected us to win (and couldn’t be taken away)? Maybe we are good enough to win the AL West then. I know we could also lose 6 or 8 games that wouldn’t be predicted, but what if we didn’t? When do we give up on a season in order to be better next year and beyond?
The White Sox did an infamous "surrender" trade back in 1997 when they were something like 5 back in July.
by eponymous_coward on May 31, 2009 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You are right, I remember.
They made a trade at the deadline, but they were less that 5 games back at the time, if I remember correctly. They got something like 5 or 6 minor league players from the Giants. And they did win the division a few years later. Why/what propelled them to give up on the season so early?
by Sinking Away on May 31, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, that's what happened.
When memory fails, I should Google. Thank you. So the whole point of their “surrender” trade was what? Giving up when they still had a chance, giving up when it wasn’t at all clear that they needed to – what about us, this season? Do we surrender in a couple of weeks, at the ASB, at the deadline? When and more importantly, why? If the season is a total bust we are stuck with some bad contracts anyway (Silva, Batista, Johjima). We will probably lose some FAs (Bedard, Beltre) anyway. I just am not sure of the downside. Someone please explain and I will no longer make these annoyingly short posts. I do understand that we lose value for anyone we can’t unload, but that only means something if we should unload.
by Sinking Away on May 31, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, thank you.
3 games back is not the time to “give up”. Baseball is meant to be played. I care about Win Expectancy, but no matter what the WE is, that’s why we play the games.
by Sinking Away on May 31, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm wondering how much that trade actually hurt them since they finished with a nearly identical record.
For me, it's not about how the trade might have hurt them
it’s about how it was viewed at the time. It was a we give give up on this season trade. The fans thought that, the players surely must have. A competitive player, a real player, doesn’t ever give up, but what does that do to you when the FO or the team is suddenly not competitive on purpose? We are playing for next year, or for 2011, that can’t make any sense to someone who always plays to win.
by Sinking Away on May 31, 2009 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions
What Dave said was negated by our recent stroke of bad luck (and some regression)
Plus now Texas is well outperforming their true talent level and the same applies to them: Nobody is going to take away their extra wins just because their true talent level is not as good as their record, and they’re sitting 6 1/2 games ahead of us much further into the season.
I agree. No one can take those extra wins they got away.
I think my point is that we can’t say for sure that there is no way we can win the division. (I hope my double negatives didn’t cancel out – what I mean is “we could win the AL West, and the rest of the post-season is a crap-shoot”). I’m saying now that we have to play the games. I’m a Mariner’s fan who hopes that we can be better than our projections and I think the Rangers will be worse than their projections. I know, it can all be done on spreadsheets before the season even begins, but that isn’t necessarily how the season works. The games have to be played. They have to be won or lost. The fat lady has’t sung anything yet. What I’m curious about tonight, is when you hear her sing.
by Sinking Away on Jun 1, 2009 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions
We can't say for sure that we won't win the division
But we can say with near certainty that we are much more likely than not to fall short, and the less likely it is the more you have to think about winning later rather than winning now since the longer you wait to deal your trade pieces the less you will get in return.
I’m cool with waiting a few more weeks just to see what develops, but I’m not getting my hopes up.
I'm looking for guidance from someone like you, OlSalty.
Your name just reaks of veteran experience. That’s really all I wanted. You suggest waiting a few more weeks, that works for me. That’s at least an answer. I’m not going to push it any further, since it appears I would get nowhere here. I’m dissapointed I got nowhere here, but I can live with it – I’ve been an M’s fan since 1987 and frankly there haven’t been that many seasons this was ever an issue.
I'm pretty sure Z gives up on this season
as soon as he is made an offer he can’t refuse.
by jimmylauderdale on Jun 1, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions
We seem to have a really hard time winning on the days that Texas loses
Will Ferrell once said, "Get up you crazy black man, I'm gonna make you drink my piss!"
I can't blame Aardsma so much
He’s been good for us in plenty of close games, and today he blew one game.
It was a gut wrencher, but for that dummy Morrow it would be just an average day.
Morrow’s sucking cost us at least 4 douchebag losses and I don’t remember him saving our asses in any games.
For Aardsma it’s like 10 (good) to 1 (terrible) so far.
And I don't think WPA tells the whole story
in terms of Beltre’s, Chavez’s, and Yuni’s gaffes in the latter innings.
Psychologically, the Angels probably think they’re a better team than us. Give them an opening and they’ll come back.
Beltre etc. hitting like clowns in scoring chances again and lazy Yuni showing zero range in the field again, probably made them feel like they could own us again.
The clowns (Beltre, Yuni, etc.) let the dogs in again.
I think it does.
The lead we had should be more than enough and there comes a point when piling on a run or two more doesn’t help your odds of wining very much. The lion’s share of the blame goes to the run preventers.
I can't deny the main "blame". Never seen a WPA of negative (or positive) 90% before. However,
Just impressions, from the psychological side.
WPA can only tally the scores, results (and calculate probabilities from past data) which appear on paper.
I think there’s a psychological advantage given to the opponent when some guy goes up there and looks like a fool in making an out (and ruining a scoring chance) rather than when he makes a “normal” (business as usual) out.
Or for example, runners get on due to sloppy “clown play” versus business as usual.
It won’t appear in the WPA because this is a total of ALL events (including antics form the clowns).
We make plenty of deflating "usual" outs all the time.
I see no reason why they should be counted differently.
I'd think the opponents perceive it different.
For example, runner on 3rd, 1 out, a “usual out” might be that the batter (let’s say Branyan) hits it sharply but lines out to an infielder and the runner can’t get in.
Next case, Beltre, goes fishing for junk again for the millionth time, and grounds out, chance killed.
One guy looks like he knows what he’s doing, the other guy looks like a laughable clown. If I was an opponent I would feel heartened by the clown ruining a good scoring opportunity to really add on, and think I had some chance to get back in the game. I think there’s a difference in mood, morale for opponents.
But I agree that the bigger psychological (advantage) difference is probably in lazy fielding. Runner on 1st is the same in WPA terms, but if it was due to lazy fielding. opponents would be more likely to think they have a chance because if they could just make contact, then the clown would be likely to let them get on base easily.
Thinking rationally it’s probably a small effect. I just hate sloppy play or players who keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over and over and over (Beltre fishing for junk).
I would argue the lineout is more deflating
Which, since the degree to which an out is “crushing” varies from person to person, it pretty much undermines the idea they are a significant factor that WE doesn’t account for.
What I was writing was not from our viewpoint, but the opponents.
There are days, that with a big lead you don’t open up the door, and your opponent just quietly shuffles off to a loss. Later comments: they were “just beat today”, “Have to tip the cap” to us, etc.
Opponents won’t tip their cap and shuffle off, if you’re playing like a clown.
We fine then, if I'm the opponent I'm probably more enbiggened by cheating death via the lineout, then getting a free out from a bad hitter
The change in POV makes no difference, and my point still stands.
Alternatively they could see us fuck up and still be in the lead and then get down on themselves
by Jeff Sullivan on May 31, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Great point, I didn't think of it that way.
To see some clown antics and still lose to that team would be a morale-crusher indeed.
sigh another lost opportunity…
This loss didn't phase me
Maybe it’s unreasonable, but I pretty much felt any realistic chance of reaching the playoffs ended with the first Morrow meltdown in Texas. Yay for apathy I guess?
I don't think it's time to give up on hopes, at least not yet
We’ve shown we can keep up with Anaheim, and the only team that looks like a threat to walk away with the division is Texas, which is something I really don’t see happening. Their pitching isn’t going to keep up the way it’s been going, and I feel like we could definitely stay in it for a lot longer, especially with the weak June schedule that we have coming up. But I do wish I could just be apathetic about losses like today’s.
Will Ferrell once said, "Get up you crazy black man, I'm gonna make you drink my piss!"
Huh?
We’re really banged up, this isn’t even the ~79 win team we had on opening day. Finishing .500 (let alone getting a handful of games over which would allow us to theoretically reach the postseason) is an extreme long shot.
Well, Sean Kelley, RRS, and Corcoran are all going to be back really soo thn... other than that the only real missing piece is Kenji
And that doesn’t seem like an injury that’s going to make or break a season. And I’m not saying I really like our chances, I’m just saying anything could happen, and I think we’ll be in the race for a while longer
Will Ferrell once said, "Get up you crazy black man, I'm gonna make you drink my piss!"
In the mix? I don't know what a better phrase is. We could stay in the mix for at least the full month of June
Will Ferrell once said, "Get up you crazy black man, I'm gonna make you drink my piss!"
We have a 4% chance at the division
Our playoff odds are considerably worse than the Pirates. Any type of playoff berth would be an honest to jove miracle.
That's like our chances of winning on Saturday!
by Jeff Sullivan on Jun 1, 2009 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Well I believe in miracles
Where ya from? You sexy thing
Will Ferrell once said, "Get up you crazy black man, I'm gonna make you drink my piss!"
You also ahve to question whether it's worth making the playoffs just to make the playoffs.
While I suppose that anything can happen once you reach the playoffs, I wouldn’t start betting large sums of money on advancing past either of the AL East teams that make the playoffs.
Actually no
In a short series anything can happen. Making the playoffs is 100% worth it if you can get there.
Not by very much, and the lineup is much more important than pitchers
They didn’t field their A-lineup until game 1 of the playoffs. I think, similar to last year’s Dodgers, it’s somewhat misleading that the Cardinals won 83 games that year: while they weren’t nearly as good as the six Cardinal teams that preceded them on that run they were banged up all season long, and Chris Duncan just killed the ball that year and he wasn’t given a job until the end of June.
And there's also something to be said for talent level vs. performance.
Weaver, Suppan, and Anthony Reyes all turned in some pretty good starting pitching.
Well true, but Carpenter was also a legitimate ace
and Wainwright had TOR starter stuff coming out of the pen. I’d say the both teams staff were similar
Especially with Felix and Bedard as your 1-2
by Jeff Sullivan on Jun 1, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, especially now that there are so many off days
if the Mariners managed to avoid the Medicore Sinker Throwing Righty of Death I could envision them coming up with three wins.
Problem is...
Not only do playoff teams have these guys, they have GOOD Sinker Throwing Righties of Death.
This team has real vulnerabilities you could exploit in a playoff series, as it’s currently constituted.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
If we make the playoffs I would have to think those weaknesses would have been addressed
to at least an extent.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 1, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, that's the problem.
Is this team in a “trade kids to win now” mode? I’d argue kind of not, considering how much of their talent is ALREADY free agent material come October. Arguably, this team needs something at every middle IF position other than 1B (given that Beltre’s a FA). That’s a huge patch job to do in a pennant race.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Ehh, start Cedeno pick up another 2B
you won’t find a star, but finding someone better wouldn’t be so difficult
There are two left-handed middle infielders in the NL who are available and one of them needs to be ours tomorrow
by Jeff Sullivan on Jun 1, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I guess if the Braves are convinced that Infante and Prado will be fine
We can’t trade them one of our MIFs thought, so what would it take?
I'm pretty sure Lopez + Endy or Aardsma would get it done
by Jeff Sullivan on Jun 1, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
You would think they have too many second basemen to begin with
and they wouldn’t want to trade a productive one for someone who is struggling
But by all means I’d trade Endy even if he is one of our best hitters.
I was really impressed by Johnson
when the Braves had him move to second. He worked his ass off to get decent at turning the double play. Plus, he is a couple years younger than Fontenot.
by jimmylauderdale on Jun 1, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Fontenot has been unlucky this year too
Which probably deflates his value a bit.
My point was that if this team were to make the playoffs
they likely would be less vulnerable to RH sinkerball pitchers than they currently are. I wasn’t advocating one way or the other.
Also, it’s possible to solve some of the current team’s problems without going into “trade kids to win now” mode. You don’t necessarily have to upgrade a position to get better when the issue is handedness/plate approach/defense.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 1, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
I tend to think we have a lot of problems.
Some of which are somewhat hard to fix immediately.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
No sane person is saying the Ms should trade kids to win now.
I don’t know who you are arguing against.
Yeah, but the players who are banged up mostly suck or aren't particularly key to this team.
OK, Kelley, but if you were expecting much out of Joh, you weren’t paying attention to how many lifetime games he’s caught, and Griffey and Sweeney being old and done given their ages and recent performance is very much a [surprised face] kind of thing.
I would also argue that the offense isn’t this bad. Loafie and Beltre aren’t 600-.650 OPS true talent hitters. I fully expect them to go wild ala Big Richie circa 2006 (and I’d like that for both of them because it would help their trade value).
So in all, I think that IF you kept the team around (Washburn, Bedard, etc.), you’d still have a 75-80 win team at the end of the year, and a small chance they’d catch fire. However, if they don’t catch fire before the end of June and insert themselves in the race (we’re talking something like a 12 out of 14 stretch where they push themselves back over .500, to where they were in May), I think it’s time to sell. Somehwere close to .500 and 6-8 games out in third? Not worth it.
I also figure GMZ will have a better idea of what he wants in trade (and what other teams will offer) by mid-to-late June post draft…
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Lopez has had two years in his career above a .675 OPS, and both of those (naturally)
involved his highest career BABIPs. He probably isn’ t this bad, but even at his likely fluky best from last season he’s a .328 WOBA hitter. His approach is still stupid (8 unintentional walks this year) and he doesn’t have the power to justify all the fly balls he hits.
Right, but is he a .600 true talent OPS?
FWIW, Loafie outhit Yuni in the minors, by a lot. I do think his approach sucks, but he’s in a crappy ballpark for his type of hitter, and was pushed through the minors too fast, I think (grumble grumble Bavasi grumble player development).
I am more than willing to give up on him at this point, though, because I think if he ever DOES come back to be a decent player, it’s not going to be with this organization, and his defense is cratering like Yuni’s has the last couple of years. So I’m done.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Loafie was supposed to outhit Yuni by a lot
Jose Lopez was an honest-to-God top 30 prospect coming up.
by seattlebruin on Jun 1, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
The biggest blow to the team this year were the injuries to clement and Morrow
So I don’t see how you could say our injuries haven’t been our undoing.
But, at the same, I agree that I wouldn’t sell unless I got a very good offer. Forgetting his volatility for a second, 4 months of Bedard is worth much more in a trade than two or three months. I think it would be foolish to risk getting a significantly worse return on a player in order to go off on a snipe hunt and chase the playoffs.
Clement wasn't on the roster on Opening Day, and Morrow was pretty fungible.
Basically “reliever with plus velocity on four-seamer and no idea where the hell it is going” describes most of the Mariner bullpen. I think you can question the wisdom of a rehab plan where your extended spring training is pitching the 9th inning on the MLB ballclub, though. Morrow should have NEVER been on the opening day roster- they should have rehabbed him in Peoria, gotten him work in simulated games or a 15 day minor league rehab, THEN brought him up.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions
What?
Having nothing at catcher a crap in the back slots of the rotation has murdered us this year. It doesn’t matter if they were MIA on opening day.
And Morrow as fungible? Even if he’s not starting his meltdowns are a huge reason we are losing. Hypothetically I bet we win two more of the games our relievers blew if our pen is heathy.
Your quote was "this isn’t even the ~79 win team we had on opening day"
If Clement isn’t on the roster on Opening Day, how does his continuing absence reduce that number? Or did you mean “~79 win team coming into Spring Training”?
And OK, Morrow- except I think this bullpen was going to be problematic anyway, as most of the pitchers have basically the same positives (plus fastballs) and negatives (minus offspeed and command), and we all knew that coming out of spring training, and part of why it was a ~79 win team. Aardsma’s kind of been a positive surprise, Morrow a negative one.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Clement wasn't known to be injured on opening day and it was assumed he'd return soon and thus the lost PT would be negligible
I would argue since Aardsma has been mediocre, that Morrow’s negative performance far outweighs any positive contribution from Aardsma, but the situation isn’t the black and white.
No, it was pretty obvious Clement wasn't in this org's plans for 2009 on Opening Day
At least, that’s what I recall from LL and USSM- that for whatever reason, Clement was not part of the future.
FWIW, though Dave’s ~79 win offseason projection assumed Clement at C.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
No, it isn't over yet.
Morrow will be in Tacoma soon, learning how to pitch. He shouldn’t even have been pitching in Texas.
by Sinking Away on May 31, 2009 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm increasingly convinced that he's a bona fide nutjob.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 1, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Uh, really?
I think it’s more a case where Bavasi’s ZOMG PUSH THEM UNTIL THEY FAIL SPECTACULARLY philosophy has screwed us again.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
So why has he lost it, then?
I tend to think all the bouncing between roles + injuries + lack of minor league time’s killed him. Plus not making him develop a good secondary pitch.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions
He had no Spring Training and was hurt.
I would put a large amount of blame on those two things.
OK, that's reasonable.
JJ had many of the same issues last year…
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think he's a nutjob, I think he's a normal guy who's basically indifferent regarding baseball.
Would he like to be great? Yeah, sure, I guess.
Would he like to work extraordinarily hard to be great? eeeehhhhhh
I think he's completely incapable of handling failure of any sort
and he seems willing to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid situations in which he is afraid of failing.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 1, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Then that's on the organization for allowing it.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 1, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Which goes back to ac's original point of Morrow being a headcase.
It’s a pity no one was able to convince him otherwise.
He apparently wanted to be a closer
which entails the greatest risk of spectacular failure, and trotted out there after failing early in the year in Minnesota and then obviously the back-to-back games in Texas.
I think he’s not afraid to fail because he doesn’t see it as some sort of massive problem. Huh, sometimes you win, sometimes the batters win, oh well.
On the one hand, I was demoted from the closer role, but on the other, I just got a kick-ass new book, so I’ve got that going for me….
Well, not giving a shit about failing makes him even more of a nutjob than being afraid of it.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 1, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
So are disagreement concerns the meaning of nutjob, then.
His apathy (if that’s what it is) would make him normal or well-adjusted for a human being, but psychotic for a baseball player, I guess.
I find it hard to believe he was able to succeed for so long at competitive baseball
and then suddenly out of nowhere decide he didn’t really give much of a shit. He seems very different this year in terms of demeanor and it seems like it started in the offseason.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 1, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
I think he's a guy who throws a fairly easy/sneaky 97
and that alone will make you successful at every level of competitive baseball except for this one.
It’s tough to tell because he just hasn’t stumbled like this in the past. Would his demeanor be the same last year if he’d blown 3 saves? I’m guessing yes, but obviously I have no idea.
That's pretty much when I gave up on the season too
There’s nothing better than beating the Angels though, and sweeping them at home would have been complete tits.
All wins are a potentially meaningful.
Especially, this early.
Might be a case of glass half-ful, but still.
If Griffey were anyone but himself I think he would have be DFAed soon to make room for Clement
(which was the main reason I was against that signing)
We have any number of players on the bench who could be DFA'd.
Griffey is the least of our problems. He’s the third best hitter on the team. That’s pathetic, but we could get rid of several players, (who aren’t selling any jerseys and bring in someone who could be more productive) and still get value out of Griffey.
by Sinking Away on May 31, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Um
We could get rid of several players, (who aren’t selling any jerseys and bring in someone who could be more productive)
Like who?
a 45 year old who hasn't swung a bat in two years?
No thanks.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
He was talking about Bobby Bonds.
I will smash your face into a jelly.
by Phil Hatzenbuehler on Jun 1, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Sweeney.
He’s basically the RH version of Griffey that doesn’t walk, ever. And it’s not like we need extra bad RHB.
The problem is that you’re benching Griffey if you play Clement at DH.
Another option would be to DFA Sweeney, put Griffey on the DL for suckitis and tell him to catch some his kjds games this summer and stay in shape, and come back when it’s September for the curtain call and roster go to 40, and bring up, say, Shelton AND Clement, or Saunders, or whoever.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
OTOH, given the injury history here, it might happen without suckitis.
But yes, Griffey is kind of a giant-sized roadblock.
Theoretically, if we traded Beltre and moved Branyan to 3B, called up Carp and Clement, ditched Sweeney, we’d be OK, I think. Loafie can back up 1B in a pinch- AND we’d actually have some competent LHB.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Beltre + Branyan >>>>> Branyan + Carp from here on out
I’m no MiL expert, but I am skeptical of Carp being ready for the majors after spending two months at Tacoma.
Probably, but realistically, do you keep AB unless you are leading the division come June?
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Sure, this is just a bit of inference.
Beltre is probably going to fetch more value back than, say, Loafie, unless the GM is really stupid. Ergo he’s more likely to be part of any fire sale.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Something tells me Lopez has more value on the market than Beltre does
by Jeff Sullivan on Jun 1, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
I would imagine Beltre would have more value to a team desperate for a short term 3B
and Lopez would be more valuable for a team with a hole at second and wanting a potential LT solution.
It's possible, I guess...
But Beltre’s still a decent player if he’s struggling on offense thanks to his defense, and is pretty low-risk due to FA status upcoming. Lopez has Yuni-itis, where he just goes into these funks where he’s contributing NOTHING other than outs and errors.
I grant that he’s still young enough to bounce back (hell, he’s younger than Clement), but given that his salary is getting up there, I would wonder if a team would want to commit to a player with a history of struggling on a multiyear deal.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
"I would wonder if a team would want to commit to a player with a history of struggling on a multiyear deal."
I don’t understand this. Beltre would cost more for another team than the entirety of Lopez’s contract combined. If a team had to weigh the options of both, one is a commitment of >6 million for half a year, while the other is a commitment of 4 million for 2 years. It’s not like they have to keep Lopez on the 2010 club if they don’t want to. It would only be like a 2 million dollar loss, which teams lose all the time on various free agent risks.
...and now I'm here
If you DFA Sweeney and recall Clement you run the risk of not having enough infielders, but ok
but that’s not what I’m getting at since Sweeney was never promised the lion’s share of the playing time. I’m getting at that having obligations to Griffey are a huge distraction and any other aging 1 yr DH would probably be out on their ass right now.
Oh, I don't disagree.
I think if you look back to when Griffey was signed, you will see that I said the person who gets screwed hardest by the Griffey signing is Clement.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, from a baseball perspective it's hard to regard the Griffey signing as anything but a mistake
But I guess if the extra revenue he’s generating gets put back into the team’s payroll in the future somehow maybe it’s not so bad.
Not selling Jerseys? I'm thinking no one is buying Sweeney's or Johnson's.
I’ve given up on buying jerseys for the new guys. My next jersey will just have “New Guy” on it. But, honestly, Clement could probably sell a jersey or two after following this blog for a year.
I bought Rob Johnson's jersey
I was called out on strikes by a random passerby twelve seconds later
by seattlebruin on Jun 1, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
So if this is a "statement game,"
don’t the Angels have to lose their next seven in a row? We might possibly gain a game or two on them in that span!
Also, the closer we stay to the top of the division, the more we make someone else pay for Bedard and/or Beltre and/or Others, so let’s win some ballgames for the sake of the team’s future!
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- P&P&Z
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Jun 1, 2009 2:25 AM PDT reply actions
Looking back I don't really have a problem with this game
When the team looks like hell it’s bad but only Aarsdma looked terrible, so I’ll take the good. How about Ichiro! these days?
Hopefully this might help Aardsma adjust his approach a bit
Aardsma’s always been a guy who pitched off his FB, but this year he’s turned himself into a one-pitch pitcher. He throws the fastball about 90% of his pitches, which is well above his (high) career average.
As a guy with serious control issues in the past, that may not be a bad thing. If he can command the FB and not the slider, well, cool. The problem is, his walk rate is now over 6 per game. It’s solidly above his career line. The K’s are up, but so is his FB rate.
It’s pretty clear that Aardsma hasn’t seen a need to change the approach – yeah, he’s walking people, and yeah, he’s given up about 2 ground balls, but he was 6 for 6! ERA under 2!!! Maybe this will remind him to use the slider every now and again. In his 2007 season with the Sox he threw the slider about 20%, and had a better K rate and BB rate than any other year. But his ERA was over 6 and he gave up some HRs, and I fear he learned the wrong lesson from that experience.
My favorite bit of wisdom came from the mouth of Blowers after Aardsma had just walked Aybar with one out in the inning.
He said something along the lines of:
“Aardsma is not able to locate his pitches, which is something we haven’t seen from him this year.”
The very next words from Sims’ mouth:
“And that’s Aardsma’s 16th walk in just 25 innings.”
I will smash your face into a jelly.
by Phil Hatzenbuehler on Jun 1, 2009 10:32 AM PDT reply actions
Said Aardsma:
Aardsma, who had converted all eight save chances and hadn’t allowed a run in his previous 14 1-3 innings, failed to protect an 8-6 lead for starter Garrett Olson(notes).
"I knew from the first pitch I threw," Aardsma said. "I gave it everything I had, but I couldn’t put enough pitches in the strike zone. And by the time I did, I hadn’t earned any close calls. I can live with hits—but the walks? I didn’t give us a chance."
>:(
by Jeff Sullivan on Jun 1, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions
I like that Aardsma is honest in his self-appraisal.
I wonder if he is as receptive to advice as his apparent self-awareness hints toward?
Would have been nice if Wak had come to the same conclusion.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 1, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
It would have been better than watching Aardsma not have any idea where his fastball was going.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 1, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
I would have preferred someone like Stark giving up a ton of hits to watching what happened
and there’s definitely an argument to be made that the Aardsma that pitched yesterday is significantly worse than anyone on the team.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 1, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I wasn't surprised because he's the closer
and while I think Wak is smarter than most managers I still don’t think he’s actually all that smart. I was surprised he left out there because it was obvious from the get go that he had nothing.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 1, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Well next to no one I guess
Usually managers designate their closer as unavailable if they are tired, and designate a new player to be that days closer… which, um, roles are stupid.
I have not been particularly pleased with his bullpen management this year in general
I mean, his hands have been tied a bit by injuries, but he’s made some pretty bewildering choices.
And the bunting….oh god, the bunting….
The bunting hasn't been that terrible.
I’d prefer he do it less often (or never) early in games, but it hasn’t been a huge problem. The bullpen managemtn though; yeah.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 1, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Guh.
“I knew from the first pitch I threw,” Aardsma said.
So, did you tell anyone else? Like the manager? The bullpen coach while you were warming up?
.
"I could feel my arm dragging, but I couldn’t correct it. A loss like this hurts, yeah. But I’ll never say no to (entering) a game. That’s their decision. I’ll always take the ball."
Athletes are so fucking stupid.
You don’t think their decision to hand you the ball was based on them thinking you might throw strikes? That if they knew that you felt wrong in the pen, that might have changed the decision?
What sort of precedent is there for players essentially pulling themselves for non-injuries?
Baseball culture sort of dictates playing until someone says you can’t.
That's not just baseball.
And it’s still fucking retarded.
I'm not saying it is.
But as a coach, and this being your only job, I feel like you should be able to notice something like Aards’ arm dragging.
Otherwise, what the hell are you there for?
What exactly is he going to notice?
Velocity? Location? It’s David Fucking Aardsma – I doubt he puts the ball on the black every time he throws, and his velocity was basically fine.
No one’s going to know his arm was ‘dragging’ but Aardsma, which gets back to your original point.
Mechanics.
You can notice a change in mechanics.
Was there one?
Or was Aardsma just missing his spots?
Again, the baseline here is David Aardsma
I think you’re asking a lot of the bullpen coach to pick up a tiny mechanical difference – if there is one – in a guy who has walked over 6 per 9 this year.
The bullpen catcher seems like he’d be in an even better position, but I just have no idea if Aardsma throws like 80% in the pen, or if he was nailing his spots in the pen only to run out of gas on the mound.
I’ve almost never seen it done, but it’s damn clear that Wak could see Aardsma didn’t have it. He could’ve done something about it, or NOT done something that made Aardsma’s job more difficult, but everyone hates taking out the closer for some reason.
Yes, Wak and every other manager ever
have left closers in to win or lose the game.
Not just on the closer.
He’s been slow to get other relievers warming up when trouble is a’brewin.
And now you know he won't tell you if his arm is dead...
So you bring him into the office and chew him out, and tell him, no, if you don’t think you can go, you say so.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I think it's more difficult then you make it out to be.
Ever been told by a supervisor to not work if you are sick/injured, even had a boss upset with you because you’re calling in sick?
Yup.
Can’t work in food service if you’re spreading flu.
And yes, I understand the macho issues involved, and that Aardsma, after having washed through multiple orgs, must think the clock is ticking, so I don’t blame him for being a bit overzealous, but yes, you still chew him out. Not publicly, but you let him know he HAS to be honest with the coaches.
by eponymous_coward on Jun 1, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I feel that you are assuming I am taking a stronger position on this than I actually am.
I am not blaming the bullpen coach or catcher for not seeing every little mechanical flaw that comes about. I am saying that since Aards had closed out the prior three games, perhaps you should be on high alert for signs of fatigue.
And I have a hard time thinking that if Aards knew something was off from the get go, that he would or should have been able to hide it from the coach whose only job as far as I can tell, is to watch these guys pitch and talk to them.
My point is also simple:
When dealing with David Aardsma, it’s got to be extraordinarily difficult to determine when he’s ‘on’ and when he’s not.
More generally, I would guess that if a bullpen coach is eagle-eye’d enough to spot small mechanical flaws in guys who’ve pitched a lot, that the false-positive rate would be unacceptably high. But I have no idea, that’s just intuition.
I don’t think either of us are staking out strong positions, by the way.
To me it seems like he should know Aardsma well enough to say
“Hey, you’ve thrown a lot lately. You good today?” and be able to tell how likely it is that he’s lying when he says yes.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 1, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
That would leave Denny Stark (and Chris Jakubauskas too, I guess)
I dunno. Are we really supposed to be pissed at Aardsma?
I feel like my responses
Are going to be leeching off this piece but it does bring up an important point.
Our bullpen is gassed like crazy. Mark Lowe had worked the last two games so he’s likely as tired as Aardsma was. We saw what a tired Mark Lowe looks like vs. the Giants. It wasn’t pretty.
As far as White goes I guess the issue would’ve been when to use him. In the eighth or in the ninth inning?
I think any decision Wak could’ve done differently would be considered patchwork. Probably could’ve used Jakubauskas after Olson but if he was an ideal candidate he would’ve still been starting.
He could’ve used Denny Stark but Wak looks at him the same way we do. He’s not very good.
Not many options available when a good chunk of the bullpen are too tired to perform to true talent level. This has been a problem for at least half of May. That’s why it’s hard for me to get worked up over this.

by 




















