Lookout Landing: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Along The Olentangy for Ohio State Fans!

Time for a Griffey Poll

There's some question about how often Griffey! will be appearing for the Mariners next year. While we have had a few indications that the Mariners are looking for him to take on a diminished role, we won't know for sure how often he'll feature until we actually get the season underway. But we can guess, and that's fun too, right?

Poll
So, how many games does Ken Griffey Junior start in 2010?
Fewer than 20
88 votes
20-50
701 votes
50-80
1159 votes
80-110
710 votes
110-140
138 votes
More than 140
36 votes

2832 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs  |  Comment 455 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Remember when the media thought he was going to be the everyday left fielder?

This FO group is smart and they don’t care what everybody else thinks. They know it’s a bad idea and they won’t do it.

by Poochie on Jan 16, 2010 8:06 PM PST reply actions  

If Langerhans or whoever starts in LF struggles

Wak might be tempted to put Bradley out there and DH Griffey especially against righties with an average or below fastball. Or when Bradley gets injured Griffey will fill in.

by Scrupio on Jan 16, 2010 8:56 PM PST reply actions  

IMHO it'll be reduced but not by as much as everyone is thinking

I don’t really see where everyone is getting these indications that he’ll be this 25th man, only 40-50 starts deal. (Unless the FO slipped something out at the LL/USSM meetup) Until something gives me an indication that Junior is indeed the LF bat off the bench (Like for example, Wak or Z mentions that Langerhans is gonna be given an expanded role or The Front office signs a FA like Nady or Winn) I’m assuming 80 to 90 starts

Although as graham said in the other thread, it’s all opinions.

by IceStormV1 on Jan 16, 2010 9:08 PM PST reply actions  

I'd put the number at somewhere around 50, for sure

I like Don Wakamatsu – I really do, but for me anyway, he certainly made his share of questionable lineup decisions last year, and I’m not sure I’d put it past him to overuse Griffey. We’ll see.

My Mariners blog - SodoMojo, Twitter Feed, Fuck the fucking Angels!

by gregrabble on Jan 16, 2010 9:13 PM PST reply actions  

I could honestly see him getting less than 20 starts

But I don’t think Bradley will stay that healthy so I went 20-50.

by 200tang on Jan 16, 2010 9:14 PM PST reply actions  

Alright.

Griffey started 102(?) games last year (91 as DH). I voted for “80-110” due to reading the numbers wrong (though he started 117 games when that’s the number of games he’s appeared in). It’s probably somewhere between “50-80” for this coming season.

by ThundaPC on Jan 16, 2010 9:34 PM PST reply actions  

Announcing your Home Game DH

Ken Griffey Jr.!!

Griffey at home last season 168 AB .930 OPS
Griffey on the road last season 219 AB .584 OPS

Small sample size, sure, but even if you think that Griffey isn’t actually 346 points of OPS better at home…I expect Wak will be pretty comfortable starting Junior at home against righties. I’m guessing around 50 starts.

by short on Jan 16, 2010 9:58 PM PST reply actions  

Announcing your Home DH vs. RHSP

Ken Griffey JUNIOR!!!

Otherwise, he’s your LH pinch hitter on the bench. That’s about it.

Until Bradley gets hurt and Griffey becomes the every day DH against RHSP.

Or so I hope.

by CMC_Stags on Jan 16, 2010 11:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Hopefully Wakamatsu figures out how to use a pinch hitter this year.

2009 Safeco Field Record: 6-0 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 10-4

by Fin on Jan 17, 2010 12:51 AM PST up reply actions  

50-80 games seems about right to me.

He’ll get DH starts when Bradley needs a day off, plus the occasional pinch-hit.

Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?

by Benne on Jan 16, 2010 11:21 PM PST reply actions  

More than 140, less than 20!?

Would anyone who voted in these groups care to share their thinking?

I can see thinking he’ll be the everyday DH against RHP which gets you >110 and I see thinking he’ll just start once or twice a week which gets you 20-50. But how do you get outside the 30-120 range?

FWIW, I voted 80-110, but hope I’m very wrong. I believe the “reduced role” but right now he’s our starting DH with Bradley in LF.

by AdamSt on Jan 16, 2010 11:41 PM PST reply actions  

I voted 80-110, but lots of things could make him play less than 20

The odds of Ken Griffey Jr sustaining a season ending injury during Spring Training are quite high.

120+ means something really bad happened

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org

by Corco on Jan 17, 2010 8:26 AM PST up reply actions  

The 140 group

Is assuming he shows up at ST with no gut and a bionic knee or two.

In the unlikely even that doesn’t happen… nevermind.

by wandergeist on Jan 17, 2010 11:28 AM PST up reply actions  

Somewhere around 70 seems like the default.

But I would venture his actual performance will greatly affect his playing time. Hopefully if he plays more it’s because he’s producing.

Griffey!

by Big Jared on Jan 17, 2010 2:56 AM PST reply actions  

120 starts somethning went wrong?

Or something went oh so right?….. Jr. did tell wak he is coming back “cut”! Jr. had his crappiest year by far last season and i doubt hes gonna repeat the same numbers i see him having numbers closer to what he did a few years back, even at his age you may be the only one capable of hit 30+ hrs this year.

by Andrew E on Jan 17, 2010 10:32 AM PST reply actions  

The something going wrong would be injuries

I think he meant that if Griffey starts more than 120 games it would almost certainly be because one or two players got injured on a permanent basis (or very long DL stint).

I hope you’re right about his resurgence.

by Snuffleupagus on Jan 17, 2010 10:37 AM PST up reply actions  

I think between Griffey and Bradley

the latter is far more likely to repeat his numbers of a few years back simply on account of youth and vigor. Griffey can work out all he wants, the fact remains his knees are shot and no amount of surgery or exercise will bring them back. Even if his bat speed is what it was (which seems doubtful) and he’s in peak physical shape, he just can’t use his legs well any more.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 17, 2010 11:02 AM PST up reply actions  

Bat speed is the problem

Legs drive the ball, Jr. had 19 homeruns in less than 400 abs with bum knees he had surgery to fix the knee problem hes working out, if he can get his bat speed up he will be just fine im sure he doesnt want to go out on a bad note hes well aware that he was a dissapointment last year and hes doing everything he can to be a productive player this year.

by Andrew E on Jan 17, 2010 11:17 AM PST reply actions  

Just like last year
Griffey’s performance was compromised last season due to a knee injury he hid for most of the year. Griffey had his left knee drained three times, according to Goldberg, and it was finally repaired surgically three days after the season.

Sound familiar? It should, except that this quote is from January 2009.
link

by Janic on Jan 17, 2010 11:36 AM PST up reply actions  

Homerrunon!

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 17, 2010 1:14 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Griffey is not getting any younger.

There’s only so much he can do to fight the inevitable.

Also, don’t forget to hit the “reply” button on the bottom of comments you want to respond to. It helps maintain the flow of the conversation.

by ThundaPC on Jan 17, 2010 1:20 PM PST up reply actions  

It's not just that

Even the best eyesight starts to go in your late 30s/early 40s for example (just ask Edgar). There are a lot of things that conspire against baseball players once they reach that age, even if their bodies aren’t littered with “repairs.”

by wandergeist on Jan 17, 2010 3:08 PM PST up reply actions  

Tickler is a position, right?

Kind of like DH? I bet Wak writes him into that spot almost every game.

by wandergeist on Jan 17, 2010 11:29 AM PST reply actions  

It is fun to speculate what will happen with Griffey

I think a more to the point poll regarding how much would Griffey would play would have been how many PA’s he will have this year. I believe he had 451 PA’s last year. We all know that he will not get as many this year. I would guess he will have around 275-325 PA’s in 2010.

by Coug1990 on Jan 17, 2010 2:22 PM PST reply actions  

Your so cool!

Dont act like some bad ass. “I believe he had…..” like your recalling it or something? you know you looked it up so just say “He had”….

by Andrew E on Jan 17, 2010 5:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, looking up facts is for fags.

Real men base all of their statistical analysis on numbers they think are more or less accurate.

by Vatinius on Jan 17, 2010 5:32 PM PST up reply actions  

What's your problem?

He posted something, you replied to him as if to correct him, and he replied to you to show that his original post was right.

Also, f you’re going to go all sarcastic on someone it’s a good idea not to make basic usage errors since that leaves you open to ridicule.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 17, 2010 6:00 PM PST up reply actions  

His so cool?

Don’t get mad because someone corrected you when you failed at correcting him.

by Kirk on Jan 17, 2010 7:26 PM PST up reply actions  

80+ Starts

Here’s why I think Griffey will start much more than many expect. The biggest reason for me is that Milton Bradley will be our everyday left fielder. Even a bad year for Bradley is much better than what Saunders did last year and personally if he stays healthy I think Wak and Griff will keep his head right and Milton will have a great year (somewhere around .280 and 20 HRs). Second, reports are that Griffey has lost five pounds thus far and his repaired knee is pain free. He hit 19 HRs last year with very few at bats and being healthier can only help him. Obviously he still could get injured and be out for the year but it seems that he is getting in better shape. Lastly he will actually have some better hitters around him this year. He will have better hitters in front of him and behind him because of the off season moves of adding figgins and milton to the lineup. I still expect him to walk a lot because he is very discipline at the plate but last year sadly teams would actually pitch around the .220 hitting griffey because most of our lineup he actually was somewhat of a threat to leave the yard. I predict Griffey to start about 110 games and pinch hit frequently in the games that he does not start in and produce about a .245 AVG with 24HRs. Most will say I’m a hopeless romantic but I think this year is a better situation for him to succeed and there have been other 40 year olds to succeed in this league and Griffey is better than the majority of them.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 3:17 PM PST reply actions  

I think you are being optimistic about Griffey's health and conditioning

I think I took a dump and lost five pounds the other day. I just don’t see Griffey producing since he hasn’t done it since basically 2007 which was a long time ago if you are a aging player.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 17, 2010 3:36 PM PST up reply actions  

You want him to play everyday, so he can hit.

In a perfect world he would be our everyday DH and Jr. would be some sorta of moral coach? But since Jr. has a spot on the roster i will continue to be optimistic about him taking a 15lb dump and coming into sring training “cut” and ready to come somewhat close to his 07 numbers

by Andrew E on Jan 17, 2010 3:45 PM PST up reply actions  

He was not in shape last year

He was a fat ass from spring training throughout the year. He will be in better shape this season, whether it will do any good, only time will tell.

by Coug1990 on Jan 17, 2010 3:55 PM PST up reply actions  

No no no

See, the reports this year that Griffey is going to be in shape and healthy are exactly the same as those from last year. Ergo, if you believe this round of reports to be accurate, Griffey has to have been in good condition last spring.

Of course, we could just accept that fluff journalism is bullshit rather than attempting to have our cake and eat it.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 4:03 PM PST up reply actions  

yes yes yes

 Griffey has always had a fat ass ask my sister she loves it but he was so far gone last year he made a fool of himself so i will believe the reports this year.

by Andrew E on Jan 17, 2010 5:21 PM PST up reply actions  

This is your second warning to capitalise properly here

And it’s your choice to believe whatever you want, but you appear to be disregarding any information that doesn’t fit your preconceptions, which isn’t really a hallmark of rationality.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 5:25 PM PST up reply actions  

He was not in physical shape at any time last year

He had a gut on him that a sumo wrestler would be proud of. You are misrepresenting what I wrote, I did not say he is going to be in shape or healthy. You are the one who said that, but I am guessing that you were being sarcastic?

I did say he was going to be in better shape than last year, but that is not saying much because the only “shape” he was in was “round.”

by Coug1990 on Jan 17, 2010 5:32 PM PST up reply actions  

I wasn't trying to correct you

I was attempting to clarify my position on stories about Griffey’s health and fitness (i.e. they’re not real data and thus should be discarded). My initial comment was too pithy and thus misinterpreted, apologies.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 5:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Saunders's performance last year is not what we should expect from him going forward

And given his potential with the bat and what we’ve witnessed from him in the field I would much prefer him in left and Bradley as DH than Bradley in left and Griffey as DH.

Putting Bradley in left increases his value by about 10 runs (I say this thinking he’s roughly average in left), but also increases his chance for injury. Therefore, all Saunders needs to do in left is to be 10 runs more valuable than DH Griffey. With a conservative estimate of +5 runs in the field, Saunders needs to be 5 runs less valuable than Griffey with the bat. Maybe he can’t do that, but Griffey’s been ~average with the bat for the last two years (I kinda expect him to be better next year due to his .222 BABIP last year but not too much better because he only has legs in the loosest sense of the word), and being 5 runs less than average shouldn’t be too tough for Michael Saunders given his minor league track record. Plus, it’d give him valuable experience and help the Mariners determine how good he is.

The only argument I could see for Griffey DH would be to give Saunders more time to develop in AAA, but given that the team is in a position to contend this year I think it’s best to try to maximize wins this year, and Saunders in left does that.

by Dewey N on Jan 17, 2010 4:08 PM PST up reply actions   4 recs

Saunders needs more time

First off I want Milton to be the everyday left fielder because he is a better hitter and better outfielder. I have a friend that works in the scouting office for the Mariners and he says that Saunders is a zoo in the outfield and takes horrible routes and gets bad jumps on balls. He was even iffy on how good a hitter Saunders will develop into. The thought was that he needs to develop more in AAA. As far as Griffey’s health I didn’t track the comments about his health last year but it seems that a 39 year old with out a team would probably not be very motivated to work out. This year a 40 year old desperately wanting a ring and playing for a team that just added one of the best left handed pitchers in baseball plus chone figgins would be much more motivated to work out. I realize that he’s never been a great care-taker of his body and thats largely why he isn’t with out question the best player of his era but if there was an off season that he did turn it up a few notches I would think this would be the one.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 4:20 PM PST reply actions  

.
and he says that Saunders is a zoo in the outfield and takes horrible routes and gets bad jumps on balls

Firstly, if your friend does indeed work for the Mariners, he should be fired immediately for leaking damning reports on Saunders’s value. Secondly, he’s in a very slim minority regarding Saunders’s outfield play. Thirdly, playing Milton Bradley in the outfield is a good way to break him. Fourthly, trying to guess about a player’s to do anything motivation is nothing but speculation, and when you use that to try to support an argument, it doesn’t reflect well on said argument in the first place.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 5:21 PM PST up reply actions  

Michael Saunders is a kid with crazy speed then.

If he does take crappy routes and gets bad reads.

You got slurved!

by Slurvey on Jan 17, 2010 6:12 PM PST up reply actions  

It's nice to have inside information but there are many many scouts who have looked at Saunders

and their consensus seems to be that he is a very capable outfielder with a bat that is likely to develop 20 home run power with decent contact and on base skills. Most prospecting publications have him pegged as a 280/330/450 hitter and possibly more, which, combined with his speed and ability to play CF makes him pretty damn valuable. Dude’s 23 remember?

As for Griffey and his motivation to exercise, I really think it’s beside the point. Watching him whiff on 88mph fastballs from opposite handed pitchers last year made me think it was not an issue of a few (or even a few dozen) extra pounds that he’s wearing. I think either his eyesight is starting to betray him or his bat speed is suffering. These issues can be compensated for by being more patient and swinging from the heels (old player skills etc etc) but being in shape won’t help it. Actually, the extra pounds should be able to help him hit the ball farther.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 17, 2010 6:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Lots of wise speculation on this subject

But let me throw another concept at ya’ll.

Let’s say Griff is healthier than he’s been in years. He knows this is either his last year or very close to it. The team is confidant and happy and he regresses to a time when he was MVP style stud. Suddenly, the bat speed is back, the team is dominating and he wants that series ring. He brings it from the DH, he brings it from the pitch hit spot and suddenly they have to bring out a second candy bar cause he’s just that awesome.

It’s Ken Griffey Jr. The prodigal son is back. Let’s believe the very best scenario possible. I already love this new team more than any so far. They’re going to make movies about this year.

by Emperor_Doom on Jan 17, 2010 4:35 PM PST reply actions  

I don't want to 'believe' anything. I want to win.

And we are a much better team without Griffey, and a much better one with Saunders in left field. I don’t think there’s any more to the story.

by diderot on Jan 17, 2010 5:48 PM PST up reply actions  

I am not convinced Saunders is better than Langerhans right now

And if that’s the case, I think Saunders should be in Tacoma.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 5:51 PM PST up reply actions  

There are a lot of different answers I could give here

I guess the most accurate one is that it’d depend on the situation.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 6:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes, it would be fantastic if his batspeed came back

I think everyone, including Griffey, would be surprised by it, but yes it would be nice.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 17, 2010 6:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Hi everyone

I am trying to write a post and would really appreciate it if that time did not go into moderating an absolute trainwreck of a thread. So if you all could behave, that would be peachy.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 5:35 PM PST reply actions  

Take it easy man

you’ll pull a muscle or something

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 17, 2010 6:26 PM PST up reply actions  

I apologize

If someone could delete my comment about Langerhans that would be great. I’m sorry for devaluing him on here. I will stop posting but this is my final statement. Many on here think that this team would be better without Griffey and that is because you all are so caught up in the numbers and measurables. Obviously if we could go out and sign a DH that hits .280 with 30 HRs then yes our team would be better but since we don’t have that Griffey is a huge asset to this team. If you are trying to say that Griffey’s presence in the locker room wasn’t a huge influence on why the worst offense in the AL ended up winning 80+ games then you do not understand club house dynamics and chemistry. If you think he didn’t have an impact on Ichiro who was very annoying until last year in that he finally became a team player and actually enjoyed being a mariner then you don’t understand the value he brought. If you think that the Mariners would have been nearly the team they were last year without him than you are someone that does not understand all of the dynamics of the game. I have played college baseball and have coached baseball for years and my dad was a college baseball coach and I know first hand that you can have all the talent in the world but without chemistry you will not win championships. I have seen some very talented teams crumble and very average teams achieve great success because of chemistry and leadership and that is what Griffey brings.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 6:10 PM PST reply actions  

Although I should say that if you want to have an open mind about the ways of us saber-nerds you're more than welcome

We will not look very fondly on the ‘you didn’t play so you didn’t know’ card, though.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 6:28 PM PST up reply actions  

That's fair

I’m not saying that if you didn’t play you don’t know but I’m saying there is a reason that professional analysts talk about chemistry a lot and there is a reason that Wak talks a lot about chemistry and leadership. Do you really think that when players were interviewed post game last year that Griffey payed them to say that he was the heart and soul of the team or do you think that maybe sweeny and others new what they were talking about when they said he was the heart and soul of the team. And no I can’t back up his importance with numbers but if you think this team would have won as many games last year with out him then I think you couldn’t be more wrong. My last thought as far as the didn’t play didn’t know comment is that I’m not saying you don’t know but I know myself that I don’t know as much about business and finance as someone who actually does that for a living. I can say what I think about the economy but until I know that I don’t understand the way experts in that area do. Not saying I’m an expert because I’m not but I have spent the majority of my life at the baseball field and so have lots of others that will tell you chemistry is crucial. I will hand it to you in that you guys break down the game numerically in ways I don’t even want to think about but you are arrogant if you think that these statistics can explain everything just like I would be ignorant if I thought that my experiences in baseball told me everything.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 6:39 PM PST up reply actions  

Here's the chemistry argument in a nutshell

Good teams win. Winning breeds happiness and camaraderie – good chemistry. Bad teams lose. Losing breeds ill-feeling and unhappiness – poor chemistry. It’s not immediately clear that people aren’t simply confusing cause and effect: from my standpoint chemistry is a by-product of winning rather than a cause.

There’d be a couple of ways to prove that chemistry is a significant factor in building baseball teams, but believe me, they’ve been tried and haven’t come up with much of anything. And so I remain chemistry-agnostic, because you can predict wins fairly well by looking at talent alone. Chemistry isn’t useful when you’re trying to do a real analysis.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 6:47 PM PST up reply actions  

If you can predict on talent alone?

Then what would your system have predicted the Mariners of 2009 to be record wise not after the fact but before the season. I have a hard time believing that your system would have put the Mariners even at a .500 let alone 80+ wins so then what was the reason for the success. If it is just well guys overachieved then you must ask why did they over achieve or in the case of Felix why did he finally reach his potential, what made this year different. Well what was different? We had a new GM a new Coach and Griffey. What did they do? Kept players relaxed, positive, and believing in the system. All of a suddent Felix was competing instead of crying, pumping his fist instead of sulking and you can say that was because he was successful but the difference was that he was competing when things were not going his way. If you remember Wak had to have a little talk with him after the first month or so because he wasn’t performing well and his body language was poor. Therefore from that point on something that happened in the club house between him and Wak caused his future success. Felix has always been good but there was a reason that he became great last year.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 7:08 PM PST up reply actions  

78-85 wins was the consensus, the Mariners ended up on the high end

The difference between the 2009 and 2008 Mariners was easy to spot, even last January: the defence got much, much better.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 7:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Sorry

Sorry about the long blocks. Here’s the deal, there is a reason they ended up on the high end. They had leaders and coaches that made coming to the yard a blast for an entire summer. These guys seemed to have more fun than any other 85 win team I have ever seen (again not measurable) and when you are enjoying yourself you are going to perform better.

Here’s an example. I went to a division three college which does not give out scholarships yet we were able to land highly touted players that had been drafted in high school but for some reason or another usually character issues they did not make it at a division one level.

You would assume a division three team with a roster that included a handful of draft guys and former D-1 players would win their league. Well we didn’t because the guys had bad attitudes and made the daily grind miserable. Reminds me of some of the Yankee teams from this decade that were stacked yet failed to make the playoffs.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 7:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Alternate perspetive:

The Mariners had such good chemistry that they struggled in the clutch and scored 640 runs.

None of us mean to belittle. We’re all quite familiar with the chemistry argument. It’s just that it isn’t in any way falsifiable, and everything the M’s did last year can be explained with regular math.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 17, 2010 7:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Hmmm

If I remember correctly the mariners won a whole lot of close games and lost a whole lot of blowouts. That’s why their run differential was so bad and if you go off of run difference they should have been below .500. So I would say that chemistry and leadership helped the Mariners pull through in the close games that lead to a respectable record rather than losing those and being a below average team.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 7:37 PM PST up reply actions  

That is only one of countless potential explanations

And the fact of the matter is that, in the past, overperformance in one-run games has been shown to regress heavily in the following season. The fact that we went 35-20 in one-run games last year makes me more nervous than excited.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 17, 2010 7:51 PM PST up reply actions  

There's no way of proving that attitudes and chemistry were responsible for that, though

It’s just pure speculation. You can’t separate luck from chemistry in this scenario.

by OlSalty on Jan 17, 2010 7:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Nope I can't prove it!

It’s like faith you cannot prove a God exists but you can believe it and you can have personal experiences that in your mind confirm it. I cannot prove that leadership or chemistry matters but I have a lifetime of experiences that confirms that it does.

Also the professionals in this industry (the actual MLB players, coaches, GM, and analysts) speak of chemistry and leadership quite often. You can twist numbers just as easily as anything.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 7:43 PM PST up reply actions  

.
Also the professionals in this industry (the actual MLB players, coaches, GM, and analysts) speak of chemistry and leadership quite often. You can twist numbers just as easily as anything.

The good professionals in the industry weight stats over chemistry (MLB players and coaches don’t build teams, so their input isn’t too relevant anyway). And the last sentence is a thought that I really take umbrage with.

You can only twist numbers if your audience doesn’t know how they work. Statistics cannot prove the untrue true. Real, serious, analysis is devoted to stripping out the bullshit numbers and getting closer to the truth. There is no agenda but that, and nobody wants numbers ‘twisted’.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 7:47 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

The argument is..

That there is a reason that the people that experience this game for years and years believe in the importance of leadership and chemistry. They understand the interactions between teammates and between players and coaches and that it really has an impact on performance. My cousin’s profession has to do with bank loans and he happens to be an avid mariners fan as well.

When discussing this stuff with him he says that for instance in his job that he can twist numbers all he wants to make him say that this person should or should not have a loan. Basically stats and numbers are not always all telling.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 7:53 PM PST up reply actions  

"Basically stats and numbers are not always all telling."

You are trying to compare a salesman’s job to a scientist’s. Your cousin’s job is to sell things, and so he has an agenda to make the numbers reflect a truth that isn’t there, which would be immediately obvious to people who understand the numbers properly.

The only people who think that numbers can be twisted are the ones who don’t understand them properly. Or the ones who are trying to sell things.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 7:57 PM PST up reply actions  

I have no doubt that there is a reason why the people who manage/play the game believe the way they do

That doesn’t mean they are right, or weighting the importance of it correctly with actual talent at the game of baseball.

by OlSalty on Jan 17, 2010 7:57 PM PST up reply actions  

It sure as heck doesn't mean they are wrong!

I will take a pro coach, manager or player’s opinion on the importance of chemistry over anyone blogging about it online.

by Andrew E on Jan 17, 2010 9:19 PM PST up reply actions  

Just so you know you have been spelling capitalize wrong.

It’s ze not se so if you are going to correct people on capitalizing words on a blog you should spell capitalize right.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 9:51 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

It is?

I thought it him explaining himself in a perfectly reasonable manner when he was in no way obligated to do so.

by Aaron Campeau on Jan 17, 2010 10:07 PM PST up reply actions  

No

I was thinking more along the lines of no matter what I say you guys have a way to refute it, this time the guy happens to be English.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 10:14 PM PST up reply actions   3 recs

Still not getting it

I think its funny because when I actually think I have a point that is 100% undeniable the guy ends up being English. It’s like I can’t win on here haha.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 1:36 AM PST up reply actions  

Dude, England invented English, not America

if Graham happens to have gone to college there and spells common words as they do instead of as they’re spelled in America… seriously…

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 12:24 AM PST up reply actions  

No one expects you to be perfect,

I think you just have to show some effort since it affects readablility. And it’s not that hard really.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 17, 2010 10:14 PM PST up reply actions  

So... you trust Dayton Moore over Dave Cameron?

please go be a Royals fan for the time being and enjoy the 107 losses

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 12:23 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

The above, plus there was only one Yankee team that didn't make the playoffs this decade

They’ve missed the playoffs (with an 89-win season in ‘08) exactly once in the past fifteen years – using them as a model for the perils of ignoring chemistry just doesn’t make any sense.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 7:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Granted

But other Yankee teams have been loaded but choked in the playoffs. Also the Mets have been loaded lately and have choked repeatedly.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 7:39 PM PST up reply actions  

I really think that you're missing out on just how random baseball can be

Over a short series it’s really easy for a worse team to beat a better team (see the 2006 Cards contriving to win the WS). If chemistry played as large a part in these events as you believe, we’d see some pretty tell-tale patterns in the data. But we don’t – it looks like pure randomness, and explanations tend to be bolted on after the event has occurred: it’s basically post-hoc storytelling.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 7:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Met's

You have somewhat addressed the Yankee issue but it seems to me them choking in the Playoffs was a trend for a while.

You have not addressed why the loaded Met’s choked two years in a row.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 7:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Ok

1) Trends will appear in data all the time. Ten coin flips will yield some number of heads in a row, but that doesn’t mean the coin isn’t fair. Baseball, of course, is more complicated than that, but at its heart, the coin analogy holds.

2) The Mets ‘choked’ because they were unlucky one year and really weren’t as good as people believed they were next. They were hit by injuries, made some stupid free agent signings (Oliver Perez!), and didn’t make any allowances for age-related decline whatsoever. They just weren’t as good a team as ESPN would have had you believe.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 7:52 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Just saying

It seems when you all can’t explain something you turn to well it was just luck or randomness. To me that’s to easy why not try and find out why something happened. There is a reason that teams consistently fall apart in the playoffs or down the stretch and there is a reason certain players such as Felix have a breakout year and it has to do with Leadership (Wak, Griffey) and chemistry.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 7:59 PM PST up reply actions  

We don't 'not try'

We have tried really really really hard, and it turns out it’s luck. Seriously, if you can prove that it’s not luck (and I mean scientifically), then fantastic, I’d love to see it. I’d start with looking at results and comparing them to a Monte Carlo simulation. NB: This has been done before, and it’s luck

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 8:02 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Trends

Also so you would rather say the Yankees by chance choked in the playoffs consistently rather than they had a team of egos that didn’t mesh.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 7:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Much rather, yes

except replace “choked” with “lost”

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 17, 2010 7:57 PM PST up reply actions  

When we lose a 3-game series to the Nationals, do you believe the reason we lost was that we "choked" over the course of 3 games?

There is a reason MLB plays way, WAY more games than almost any other sport: You don’t really get a good idea of how good a team is based on just a few games.

by OlSalty on Jan 17, 2010 8:00 PM PST up reply actions  

No I would would say that we played poorly that series or that they player very well.

Over the course of an entire season chemistry and leadership has its impact but not in an individual series.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 8:02 PM PST up reply actions  

It happen a few times in the playoffs not just once.

Before this year when was the last time the yanks won the world series.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 8:05 PM PST up reply actions  

2000

But as they realistically have a 20% chance max of winning the WS once they reach the playoffs in any given year, having four titles in eleven years is pretty good going.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 8:07 PM PST up reply actions  

In fact, why not look at the Mariners for an example of bad chemistry?

We’re far less successful in the playoffs with teams stuffed full of Hall of Fame calibre talent.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 8:08 PM PST up reply actions  

Mariners

It seems that you are confusing my argument against numbers as an argument against performance. Performance is first and foremost but is influenced by chemistry and leadership.

Personally I think the 2001 Mariners greatly overachieved in the regular season. They lost in the playoffs because of the lack of top end starters. Sorry you can’t win a world series with Freddy Garcia and Moyer as your aces.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 8:12 PM PST up reply actions  

You're citing cliches

That’s not an acceptable argument. Why can you not win a world series with Freddy Garcia, Jamie Moyer, and the best team of position players ever assembled?

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 8:17 PM PST up reply actions  

What?

I loved that team as did everyone but they needed one more big bat (too bad we didn’t have arod for one more year) and we lacked one more top end starter.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 8:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Again, cliches

Things are not as the media and ESPN told you back then

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 8:30 PM PST up reply actions  

Big bat, top end starter

They led the AL in runs scored. They allowed the fewest runs. They were the best team.

by stupidquestions on Jan 17, 2010 8:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Many of those guys had career seasons

When you have that many guys doing things they don’t normally do such as Boone and Garcia plus some age with Edgar Olerud and Sasaki then you have the recipe for losing in the playoffs to a team with top end pitchers that have dominated for years rather that a few months and home run hitters that have done it for years rather than one season such as Boone.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 8:41 PM PST up reply actions  

Boone was exceptional in that ALCS

Even though, as others have mentioned, a five-game sample tells you next to nothing about a player or a team.

by stupidquestions on Jan 17, 2010 8:47 PM PST up reply actions  

Edgar and Olerud did not have anything close to career seasons

and Boone had a similar year in 2003, Moyer and Garcia weren’t too far over their career norms and Sasaki was more than a one year wonder as well.

by Poochie on Jan 17, 2010 8:47 PM PST up reply actions  

Edgar, Olerud, and Sasaki

were mentioned as some what old in my post meaning that in the post season they could break down a little

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 8:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Not all old players break down

Plenty of aged players have played well in the post season

by Poochie on Jan 17, 2010 8:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes but I'm just saying that could be a factor

In the M’s not winning the 2001 world series rather than just luck. They were the best team in the regular season but not the playoffs.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 8:51 PM PST up reply actions  

Let's end this even though it has been very fun.

Now before I go I want you guys to answer these questions.

True or false

Griffey’s clubhouse presence was important to last years success?

Wak was important to last years success?

Chemistry and leadership have no influence on performance and success?

Stats and numbers systems are constructions just like chemistry and leadership?

answer with true or false

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 8:56 PM PST up reply actions  

We've answered all of these like a million times

I’m beginning to suspect you’re just not very open-minded.

by OlSalty on Jan 17, 2010 8:57 PM PST up reply actions  

It makes watching games more entertaining

but the impact on the club’s success? Eh.

by BrianL on Jan 17, 2010 9:01 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't even know if I'd say that

I just know that since we can’t quantify it, we’re a lot better off evaluating things that we can quantify, and if the chemistry is good, then cool!

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 12:32 AM PST up reply actions  

I really like pdb's comment from a while back

that the best way to quantify chemistry would be from a sociological or anthropological approach. I’d love to see what anthropologists would make of a baseball clubhouse.

by Decatur on Jan 18, 2010 12:42 AM PST up reply actions  

So why have a coach

Why don’t we have you guys make the lineups, coach third base, and go to the bullpen based on computer analysis? What’s the point of having a human do the job if it’s all about numbers and managing players egos and attitudes isn’t important?

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 9:05 PM PST up reply actions  

Haha

Okay thanks guys it was good to debate.

Well I want to say thanks for doing a great job its fun to read Lookout Landing! I’m very excited for this upcoming year and will be making the trip from Spokane as I do every year many times. GO MARINERS!

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 9:16 PM PST up reply actions  

Coaching is probably more important in the lower leagues where players are still learning skills

“Managing egos” and keeping players happy is a very, very small part of what they’re supposed to do. Most of them don’t even really do that at all, or do a pretty poor job of it, and still win baseball games.

by OlSalty on Jan 17, 2010 9:13 PM PST up reply actions  

It probably is important to some degree

There just isn’t much difference among guys already in that position.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 17, 2010 9:13 PM PST up reply actions  

So basically you think that because Boone had a career year that disqualifies the team from having the best collection of position players ever?

One guy?

I’m willing to concede that Boone was lucky offensively in 2001, but it’s not like he sucked every other year. And that doesn’t change the fact that there has not been a group of position players of that level collected on the same team ever before or since.

by OlSalty on Jan 17, 2010 8:55 PM PST up reply actions  

...but you can win a World Series with Jeff Suppan and Jeff Weaver?

Garcia and Moyer were very good pitchers, and changing the facts to fit the story is not good analysis.

by Poochie on Jan 17, 2010 8:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Having ace pitching is huge in post season play.

If you have two aces that you can throw on short rest you can beat teams with great position players and above average pitching…..especially when its 35 degrees.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 8:27 PM PST up reply actions  

I just want to say,

that although I disagree with this guy on every other point, there is an overemphasis placed on top-end starters in post-season play. I don’t recall the exact figure, but didn’t New York give something like 85% of their innings to Sabathia, Burnett and Rivera in the post-season this year?

It isn’t as important as this fellow is implying, but its importance is multiplied going from regular season play to post season play as the short schedule de-values roster depth.

This is one platitude that has a grain of truth at its core, although I’m sure that Steve Phillips and his ilk would never understand a number as complex as 85%.

by Vatinius on Jan 17, 2010 11:54 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm not saying that this is why the '01 Ms lost in the playoffs.

They lost because anything can happen in the playoffs.

But I figure that with all the indefensibly crazy things that this gentleman has asserted thus far in what can only loosely be termed a “debate,” we should at least give him credit when he inadvertently gets something sort of right.

by Vatinius on Jan 17, 2010 11:57 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Indefensibly crazy things?

You sir are sounding very arrogant especially when I am saying the same things that real baseball people say as far as the importance of chemistry and leadership. I understand what you guys are saying about randomness but my point is that its not random it is simply one team outperforming another.

Some teams are built for the playoffs better than others and whether the 2001 M’s were or not is open for debate but forgive me if I’m not willing to bet the house on Freddy (Poor man’s Felix) Garcia and Jamie Moyer. The point is that you can analyze a win or loss and say this is why a team won or lost rather than just oh it was random.

I don’t think top end pitching means everything but if you have it then it is often an advantage in post season. For instance Felix and Lee would be very tough in a 7 game series but thats only if the M’s score a few runs to win the games that they pitch.

It would be interesting to see what Wak and Jack would say about this.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 1:49 AM PST up reply actions  

You are right.

I am extremely arrogant.

by Vatinius on Jan 18, 2010 2:05 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

Legendary Coach John Wooden states:

"Seek players who will make the best team rather than the best players. Astute leadership understands the chemistry of teams and organizations. Often the most talented individuals will not be a good fit for your group. Be alert to overall impact-chemistry. Remember future All-American Sidney Wicks, who achieved personal greatness soon after he began putting the team first."

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 2:15 AM PST up reply actions  

Please don't quote John Wooden to make points like this one that are clearly not correct

it’s insulting to me, my university and to Coach.

Also, it’s important to remember that chemistry certainly does play a role in sports such as basketball and football which lack baseball’s collection of individual matchups to determine the winner of the game

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 8:50 AM PST up reply actions  

Baseball

There are more players on a baseball team to manage than basketball so I would argue that chemistry is more important. Also basketball has five players matched up with five opposing players every play (unless a team is playing a zone) and in baseball there is one match up every single play and that is pitcher and batter.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 11:53 AM PST up reply actions  

Correct, you now have a basic understanding of sports

In baseball, we can measure individual contribution because each matchup is one on one.

This is unlike basketball, where a great scorer certainly had input into his production from his teammates, whether they be setting screens, getting him the ball in position to score, rebounding missed shots, allowing him more opportunity, etc.

The sheer volume of the people has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not chemistry is important. In basketball, if Chris Paul hates Emeka Okafor, maybe he passes him the ball less. In baseball, if Barry Bonds hates Jeff Kent, their results are still completely independent of each other.

This really isn’t a hard concept. Chemistry probably has value. We have no way to quantify that value. Thus, we do not discuss chemistry because it is akin to you throwing out random assertions with no possible way to back them up.

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 12:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Coaching is coaching.

First off if you don’t think John Wooden’s coaching philosophy is relevant to other sports than you do not know what you are talking about. There is a reason that millions of coaches in all sports read his books. Coaching is coaching and team sports are team sports and a lot of the principles for success are transferable.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 3:17 PM PST up reply actions  

It is.

Baseball is a sport where it is very difficult for one player to take over a game. Unless you have a pitcher on the mound that is absolutely lights out and striking out nearly every hitter it is very much a team sport.

Think about this you can have a guy on the mound throwing a gem getting ground ball after ground ball and show casing great control but if the players behind him are not making plays then it won’t matter.

Also I could go 4-4 with 4 HRs and my team could lose if the pitching or defense bombs or if the rest of my team fails to produce any runs.

Let’s look at a classic ground out. For a successful out on a ground ball you need three players to do their job correctly (pitcher, fielder, first baseman). How about a double play ball to the ss? Now we need four players doing the right thing. Compare this to basketball where one man can dribble the ball all the way up the court and score with out anyone else getting involved. Even on a strikeout two people are involved (pitcher and catcher.

This is more of a team sport than basketball because in basketball one guy can dominate the game with little help from his teammates. Classic example is Stephen Curry and his dominance in the NCAA tourney for Davidson.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 3:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Ok

If basketball is less of a team game than baseball, please do isolate individual player performance in a basketball game. And do it properly, too. Strip the influence of teammates away.

by Graham on Jan 18, 2010 3:45 PM PST up reply actions  

Seriously?

I’m going to say that although I don’t agree with most of your points on this topic I do respect most of what you have been trying to say. I have to draw the line at baseball is barely a team sport. That is one of the most outrageous statements that I have ever heard. Statements like that take away from your credibility.

You will not find support for that statement anywhere but here I can tell you that. I know that you are thinking, well I know more about the game than every MLB player and coach out there but if that is true then do me a favor. Go apply for GM and head coaching jobs in the MLB and present to them this philosophy and see how far the “baseball is barely a team sport” statement gets you.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 4:10 PM PST up reply actions  

Did you know that there's a person in every front office who uses my research?

Did you know that I get talked about on the radio by MLB executives? I don’t give a damn whether you think I’m credible or not. They do.

by Graham on Jan 18, 2010 4:13 PM PST up reply actions   3 recs

I think you are credible on a lot of things.

Just not on the whole baseball is barely a team sport. A team sport is one that cannot be easily dominated or taken over by one player. As I have already stated it is very difficult to take over a baseball game unless you are on the mound and happen to strike out 15+.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 4:20 PM PST up reply actions  

No, a team sport is when the entire team is competing at any one time

Baseball is a collection of individuals playing one game. Basketball is a team game.

by Graham on Jan 18, 2010 4:21 PM PST up reply actions  

The entire team?

Bench players don’t compete in any sport.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 4:23 PM PST up reply actions  

Look up team sports.

I looked it up on Wikipedia and it has a definition and a list of team sports and what do you know baseball is listed.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 4:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Consider the length of the game!

Sure there is a lot of nothing going on sometimes during a baseball game but that is why baseball takes so much longer than other sports. MLB games often go 3+ hours and over the course of this contest every player in the line-up usually gets 4+ at bats. This allows for every player in the game to make a positive or negative impact on the game, which ends up having an impact on the outcome of the game.

The biggest reason why this is clearly a team sport is that you cannot be successful with 3 amazing players and 6 horrible players in the lineup. Complete teams with depth 1-9 fair the best. Therefore it is a team sport because it is better to have a complete team or solid players.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 4:35 PM PST up reply actions  

This drama is very boring.

Griffey sucks. Graham loves chavs.

angels fan in seattle

by Eyebrows on Jan 18, 2010 4:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Oh but it does!

The fielding percentage impact’s pitchers performance and players in the lineup are impacted by what the guy in front and behind them are doing. If you are constantly hitting with no one on and the player behind you is garbage its a safe bet that you won’t be getting any good pitches to hit. Therefore your performance would go down and be impacted by another teammates performance.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 4:43 PM PST up reply actions  

You actually have a good point about getting better pitches to hit

but there have been studies done on it, and the effect is fairly negligible because of the fairly standard distribution of runners on in front/good hitters behind.

With regards to fielders impacting pitcher’s performance, this is why we don’t use stats like ERA to determine pitcher’s performance. We use stats like tRA or FIP or xFIP to try and eliminate the noise caused by fielders and isolate pitcher performance only.

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 4:45 PM PST up reply actions  

I get that but

in terms of a pitchers ability to impact the game at hand the fielding is important. For instance errors lead to more pitches thrown which leads to fatigue which leads to decreased performance.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 4:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Still far more than you guys give credit.

I still think that one player can take over a basketball game much easier.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 4:53 PM PST up reply actions  

That's completely irrelevant

we are talking about basketball and football players needing to work together on each play. You are talking about baseball players all needing to contribute to make a whole.

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 4:55 PM PST up reply actions  

They don't really work together they

each have an assignment and they either are successful in doing that or not. Just baseball players have a job and they either do it or not.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 4:57 PM PST up reply actions  

This is not true at all!!

have you ever watched a game of basketball or football take place? Or participated?

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 4:58 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes played both

but saying they work together is just like saying that fielders work together as far as backing up bases, cutoffs, and relays. So if one is working together so is the other.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 5:00 PM PST up reply actions  

OK, for example, here's a typical random basketball play

PG dribbles upcourt and starts a motion offense. Bigs screen down to allow wings to come up to the top of the key. PG looks to either drive or get the ball to a scorer. If one guy is covered, he looks to the other guy. If that guy is covered, he can look for a big to slip to the bucket, or he can drive to the rim. Everything he does is directly dependent on what the rest of his teammates have done in that play.

Here is a typical baseball play.
Batter is up to bat. He swings at ball and may or may not hit it.

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 5:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Again

thats why a baseball game is so long to even this all out. Also a pg can get crazy hot from three and light it up with out much help from anyone else. MJ often took over going one on one and using the fade away which did not use other players.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 5:03 PM PST up reply actions  

OK, so this CAN happen

this doesn’t mean it always does. That’s the whole point – it’s much, much rarer for one player in basketball to not use his teammates than in baseball

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 5:04 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm going to dinner.

Hopefully I have frustrated you number crunchers enough to consider the importance of things like coaching and intangibles. Until you have experienced the daily grind of a baseball season it is tough to understand what goes on.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 5:06 PM PST up reply actions  

That's my favorite part is that this guy thinks he's big shit because he coaches at a D-III school

here’s the level play in D-III. My brother hadn’t played ball since he was a sophomore in high school. He goes to a D-III school, my dad took him to meet the baseball coach, the coach watched him play and immediately offered him the starting shortstop position.

Frankly, there are probably three people in my house who are good enough to play for your current baseball team. Good luck with that.

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 5:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Number crunchers?

If you had called us “basement virgins” you could have hit the trifecta and won that set of steak knives.

Now there is nothing to make you stand out above all the other random trolls with an aversion to maths.

by Vatinius on Jan 18, 2010 5:14 PM PST up reply actions  

OK, what's the effect of an error?

One extra out? Two extra batters? Maybe two extra batters every other game, so say one batter per game or like 3-4% of the total plays that a pitcher will face.

So team hurts the pitcher on 5% of plays (let’s be generous) and let’s tack another 5% on for reverse errors, great defensive plays.

Now the pitcher is impacted by his teammates on 10% of plays. In basketball, a player is impacted by what his teammates do on 100% of plays. 100% is more than 10%.

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 4:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Errors can lead to long innings

that can ruin an outing and a game for a pitcher and that team. Also a player is not impacted by his teammates on every play in basketball especially in the NBA where players tend to go one on one a lot.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 4:59 PM PST up reply actions  

Congratulations for the ridiculous generalization that fails to take into account any sort of basketball acumen

first of all, my earlier post was simply quantifying the effects of errors. There aren’t that many errors made in games, and I was being wildly generous as to the effect.

In the NBA, how do you think players manage to go one on one? Because the rest of the team clears out a side so that a player can do that. If a big man fails to draw his guy across the lane, how can Carmelo Anthony take his guy one on one?

Please, the entire point of this whole stupid thread is that if you want to make assertions, YOU MUST PROVIDE PROOF.

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 5:03 PM PST up reply actions  

So what you're saying is...

It’s important to have players with talent all through your lineup because each player has to contribute.

And while the horrible players are batting, the amazing players can’t do anything to help them play better because of their aforementioned horribleness.

It’s almost like you’re arguing in favor of Graham’s point vis-a-vis chemistry because you’ve painted yourself into an impossible to defend corner because you were incapable of simply accepting that what you originally asserted was demonstrably wrong.

I’m sure you’ll have a snappy quote or touching anecdote though, so keep on keeping on little buddy.

by Vatinius on Jan 18, 2010 4:55 PM PST up reply actions  

I am amazed that this is still going on

My patience for this guy ran out hours ago, he’s just arguing about anything now in a desperate attempt to save face.

by OlSalty on Jan 18, 2010 5:00 PM PST up reply actions  

... this is the thinnest argument of all time

one time during the Super Bowl, I looked up the list of currently practicing Nazis and Bruce Springsteen was among them

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 4:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Baseball is barely a team sport

90% of the result of a play will be the effect of just one player

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 4:28 PM PST up reply actions  

If you ask Wooden

he would agree that his philosophy supports my beliefs on chemistry and leadership.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 4:36 PM PST up reply actions  

John Wooden coached basketball

chemistry is very important in basketball

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 4:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Now you've pissed Corco off

Boise State is a research institution. Not so much 20 years ago, but BSU is just as much a research institution in 2010 as a University of Idaho, a University of Montana, or any Cal State school

Heck, the other day, I, as a non Boise State student was quite surprised that the required textbooks for one of my senior level classes was written by a Boise State professor.

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org

by Corco on Jan 18, 2010 5:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Boise State is a JC basically

and thats why they are good they get lots of players in that are bad students. Also football is the only sport they are good in.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 5:08 PM PST up reply actions  

The Braves won the World Series one time in 15 tries

I guess they should have bet the house on a team built around starting pitching

by Poochie on Jan 18, 2010 9:45 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

Of course it is

But there is more than one way to win

and you haven’t defined “ace”

I would take the ’01 Mariners pitching staff over about half the teams that have won the World Series since, some of those team have won with much less.

by Poochie on Jan 17, 2010 8:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Only after the fact, though

You only hear about chemistry on winning teams, and only after they start winning.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 8:37 PM PST up reply actions  

shouldn't the yankees be looked at differently

Based on the players they have year in and year out because of how much money they spend shouldn’t they not go anymore than 5 years without winning a world series.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 8:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes, they should be looked at differently

That’s why I gave them a massive allowance over average in how likely they are to win a WS in any given playoff run.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 8:15 PM PST up reply actions  

If we could redo your post a few days ago about what we would change

for the NFL. I would get rid of kickers from the NFL (just field goals and extra points). They are just annoying. Nobody likes kickers and nobody wants to put the game in a kicker’s hands.

Imagine all the exciting 4th down conversions in the red zone and 2 pt conversion opportunities. I’d love it.

Also, we can keep punters. That way I can maintain my dream of having an NFL career.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 17, 2010 10:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Maybe they all had character issues that led to them being drafted in the 37th round instead of the 3rd

and when you put a bunch of players who don’t work hard together, they won’t work hard

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 12:20 AM PST up reply actions  

I think Dave, Graham, Jeff, Matthew and Derek all had them pegged around .500 +/- 5 wins or so

81+5 = 86, so the 2009 Mariners fell within the expected error judgment of most of the major prediction systems

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 12:19 AM PST up reply actions  

I think everyone here is happy that Griffey is on the team.

You are mistaken about how most of the authors and commenters on this blog feel. However, I think we’ve all seen how he’s aged, and read reports of him getting 10mL of lymph drained from his knees (which were supposed to be a-ok last year) and are therefore loath to project him as anything more than a sometime contributor to the team.

Griffey himself has said that he doesn’t expect to play much, and when a player comes out and says that you ought to believe him.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 17, 2010 6:24 PM PST up reply actions  

I can see your point

I understand what you are saying and I respect that opinion and who knows maybe all he is this year is a glorified pinch hitter but when I look at the lineup this year I see more protection and I don’t see anyone good enough to replace him as DH assuming that Milton takes over in left field. Hopefully his health actually is improved but if its not than your opinion will most likely prevail.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 17, 2010 6:43 PM PST up reply actions  

The protection thing is something that is dicey too

A good study may be found here. The author, Tom Tango, works for the Mariners as a consultant.

by Graham on Jan 17, 2010 6:52 PM PST up reply actions  

I would not assume that Milton takes over LF

It’s a possibility, but it’s far more likely that the team acquires an outfielder and platoons him with Langerhans.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 17, 2010 7:18 PM PST up reply actions  

It's Griffey's opinion, not mine

and the stuff about batspeed is not so much opinion as measurable fact. Again, don’t get me wrong – I love they guy and I’m happy he’s on the team. But he’s not a starter any more and wishing won’t make it so.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 17, 2010 10:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Here are the problems with your long, tired spiel.

First, it would be hard NOT to find someone better than Griffey for DH. Start with Saunders.
Second, do a little research (freely available on the Internet) and you will find former teammates with not-so-nice things to say about Griffey in the clubhouse.
But most importantly, even if you do believe that he’s the magic potion, then why not just make him a coach? He can do all of the wonderful things that he does for his teammates—but not waste a roster spot on someone who can not play baseball well now, and hasn’t for several years.

by diderot on Jan 18, 2010 12:34 AM PST up reply actions  

Saunders? Griffey then compared to Griffey now.

First Saunders was worse last year .221 AVG. and 0 HRs with only 4 steals. Second I know about Griffey’s past in the clubhouse but fortunately that has nothing to do with who he is now therefore that info is irrelevant. Griffey was amazing in the clubhouse and reportedly never was in a bad mood all year (do you know how difficult it is to do that?) like I said earlier the players repeatedly said that he was the heart and soul of the team for a reason.

Maybe his roster spot isn’t a waste maybe Jack and Wak know a little more about baseball than all of us. Maybe they like a guy that has a knack for the big hit with great plate discipline and draws lots of walks. I’m sure if they decided that he would be wasting a spot that they would have asked him to be a coach.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 2:02 AM PST up reply actions  

Clutch hitting is important

it’s also completely random, and players are not particularly better at hitting in clutch situations than they are in normal situations. As Michael Lewis said, “it makes a funny kind of sense – no one who performed differently in pressure situations would ever make it to the Major Leagues”

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 8:52 AM PST up reply actions  

Knack for the big hit

2009 OPS with 2 outs and RISP (55 PA): .571

2009 OPS in games Late and Close (78 PA): .608 (late & close defined as PA in the 7th or later with batting team tied, ahead by one, or tying run at least on deck).

On the other hand, in his 11 PA with a runner on third, he OPS’d .909.

It’s all here.

Scroll down for “clutch stats,” and remember that it’s random.

by stupidquestions on Jan 18, 2010 9:02 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm not.

Fuck Old Man Badonkadonk, give me Mike Cameron.

by Aaron Campeau on Jan 17, 2010 9:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Can I just say that it's awesome how patient and welcoming a place LL has become

but once due diligence has been done maybe the MagicMike treatment is not uncalled for?

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 17, 2010 10:04 PM PST reply actions  

This is patently false.

The problem with this thread is that it is frustrating but not funny. Usually when we are angry it gets funny. But there are considerably worse threads than this.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Jan 18, 2010 2:41 AM PST up reply actions  

I had the exact same thought last night! I kicked myself for not asking.

Just straight up, are you interested in statistical analysis applied to baseball? If the answer is no, after that if I get torqued it’s my responsibility. It becomes a situation where you (meaning me) just have walk away.

by Kermit. on Jan 18, 2010 8:22 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

It goes both ways.

You are just as closed minded about the influence of intangibles on the game as I am about statistical analysis. Take this argument off this blog and insert it on baseball tonight or into a coaches clinic I think you would find many in disagreement with you guys.

Here’s what I will do. I will read up on your statistical analysis because it could probably help me somewhat as a coach. In return I would encourage you guys to open your mind to the possible importance of intangibles and coaching in baseball. Read some sports psychology books or books by famous coaches before you judge my argument.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 11:26 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

We appear to be close minded because nobody can prove it has an effect

If including ‘chemistry’ cannot help predict what will happen to teams, then its value is by definition, nil.

You can cite Baseball Tonight and coaches all you like, but they’re not competent analysts. Try asking Theo Epstein or Andrew Friedman about just how important intangibles are. They’re the ones who build the rosters, and they think a lot more like us than they do like you.

by Graham on Jan 18, 2010 11:35 AM PST up reply actions  

I wasn't talking about predicting.

I never said it was something that should be used in predicting but it is something that is important to a teams success. You are right it is impossible to predict how chemistry will affect a teams success but my point is not about predicting it is that when observe certain teams you can tell that it did play a significant role in success or failure. For instance after watching the M’s all year last year I feel it was obvious that chemistry was an important part of that team and Griffey was definitely a part of that.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 11:57 AM PST up reply actions  

UCLA's 2006 Final Four team was noted as a team that had great chemistry and that helped them reach the national finals

it was later revealed that most of the players hated each other, including the two point guards, who ended up getting in a fistfight midway through the season.

Unless you’re there, you cannot judge chemistry at all. It is absolutely God damn insane to try and infer what is going on behind the scenes from players on-field behavior towards each other. Please stop trying to pretend otherwise. If you think that chemistry helps your own college team, then cool, it’s very possible that this is a legitimate point since you are a coach and thus around them every day. Unless you are a coach or someone else with intimate access to the 2009 Seattle Mariners baseball club, why should we believe you that the team had such great chemistry?

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 12:06 PM PST up reply actions  

You're not just wrong about predicting though

Your whole philosophy is wrong. You’re looking at the results of a season or series and saying “That result was because of chemistry” instead of all other possible explanations. Explanations which have evidence to back them up, unlike your opinion. That is not thinking critically, it’s just foolishness.

by OlSalty on Jan 18, 2010 12:07 PM PST up reply actions  

You don't understand

I’m not saying that it always matters but for certain teams it does. Most often with teams that are less talented it matters for success. Obviously sometimes there are teams that have terrible chemistry that win and sometimes there are teams that have great chemistry that lose. There are examples of it mattering throughout the history of sports I feel it happens quite often that it is significant.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 12:23 PM PST up reply actions  

And you base this criteria for chemistry mattering on.....?

Yeah, absolutely nothing. It’s stupid. It’s a really stupid argument. You’re entitled to your opinion but if you want to share it with others be prepared for people to call it what it is, which is stupid. There’s nothing more to be said here that hasn’t already been said, so if you aren’t willing to acknowledge that what you say doesn’t really make sense I think we’ll just have to leave it at stupid.

by OlSalty on Jan 18, 2010 12:29 PM PST up reply actions  

If it matters only for certain teams and teams with great chemistry lose and teams with bad chemistry win,

that doesn’t seem to be a very strong effector. You may as well be arguing that bat color is important for success as a hitter. Some hitters that use painted bats can be bad hitters (although some can be good) and some hitters that use unpainted bats are good hitters (although there are some that are bad). You’ve just undermined your causality relationship and are now just arguing based on narrative.

by abender20 on Jan 18, 2010 12:32 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

It's one of many important factors.

I’m saying it is one of many important factors to consider. At times for certain teams it is very significant but in certain situations other factors can override it such as talent and make it less important. Yes we beat Drabek he played on a team called the Banditos they were 99-2 that year and a little team from the south hill of Spokane beat them (his slider was nasty).

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 2:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Then the question to me becomes "Who cares?"

If it’s not something you can use to predict something, then it’s not something you can plan around.

If it has no predicative value, then there’s no possible way to build a baseball team around it.

Sure, chemistry is a good thing. But once again, if it has no predicative value, we have no idea why it happens or how it happens, so we can’t plan around it.

You’ve made no assertion to disprove the point that chemistry is an effect of winning baseball games rather than the other way around, and now you’re saying it has no predicative value.

And if it’s not something we can do anything about, which you’re saying it isn’t, then who cares?

Chemistry is good. Cool. We all agree here. But if we can’t do anything about it, then there’s no point in even talking about it.

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org

by Corco on Jan 18, 2010 3:47 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

Let me take your argument in a bit different direction.

Most people who are very successful, and while I am not one of those people I work with many who are, consider motivational speakers to be a massive waste of money.

Why? Metrics applied to workplace success, which are proprietary right now, have shown repeatedly that the best employees in terms of performance are self-motivated. People who need external motivation consistently run out of gas and must return for a refuel of motivation. They do not take that motivation and stay the course. It is no better than a pep rally.

You want us to believe that external factors play a massive role in athlete performance, but the reality is that only a player motivated internally will ever achieve top of the mountain status. The “chemistry” you speak of is an ephemeral and fleeting emotional wave that does not have long standing effect on performance.

Also, Baseball Tonight is for entertainment only while a coaches clinic is a way for someone to make money.

by Sec 108 on Jan 18, 2010 11:59 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

Baseball Tonight is fucking horrible

please, tell me when they do a better job predicting teams records than my dog who put all the teams at 81-81

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 12:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Here's the difference though:

Many compelling arguments have been presented to you in this thread which have evidence to back them up and which suggest your opinion is wrong in many different aspects. Logic and evidence which you seem to refuse to even acknowledge.

The reason our take on your argument is not closed-minded is that there is no real evidence you’re providing at all to back up your claims for us to close our minds off to. It’s not that you are necessarily wrong in your assertion that intangibles are important, it’s just that we (and you, and everybody) have absolutely no idea how important they are because they are, well, intangible. It makes no sense to place an enormous amount of value in something whose value you cannot possibly ascertain.

And telling us “coaches know better than us” is just silly. There are some astoundingly stupid coaches out there, and the whole lot of them are not really involved in building the actual talent of the baseball team.

To put this in Family Guy terms, the argument you’re advocating is like taking the mystery box over the boat. It’s really stupid to believe that something you don’t know or understand is supremely valuable instead of worrying more about the things you actually do understand and can quantify.

by OlSalty on Jan 18, 2010 12:01 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

We all fucking think that intangibles are important

it’s simply to the degree of which they matter, which you do not seem to understand. Most importantly, since we tend to study what we can quantify, intangibles do not enter in the equation because by definition, intangibles cannot be measured.

by seattlebruin on Jan 18, 2010 12:03 PM PST up reply actions  

You know what's funny is some of my earliest comments were about coaching.

Big whoop with Teej, et al, about Johnny Sain and coaching, threw Felix in there. Big brouhaha. Then I read the most recent book by Bill James and no shit, he had a chapter in there that outlined our entire conversation. Point by counterpoint, in exact order. It was amazing.

by Kermit. on Jan 18, 2010 12:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Most of you said

that chemistry is real but not important so that is why I’m trying get through to you that all though its not measurable it is significant.

Also about the internal motivation piece. Chemistry is not built from motivational speakers it is built for having a strong core of players that are internally motivated that allow their motivation and positiveness to rub off on and change those players that perhaps previously were not so motivated and dedicated.

I’m saying that I have spent my life on the diamond and have played and or coached a thousand plus games and I have experienced what chemistry and intangibles do. If you want me to tell you all the examples from my life I will but you probably would just disregard it anyways.

My baseball team growing up played in many national tournaments against the likes of Travis Snider and Kyle Drabeck and we consistently beat these teams which had superior talent. Again this happened repeatedly not just once. We placed in the top five of national world series three different times and we were almost always one of the smallest and least talented teams in the tournaments which at times help 60+ teams. We had great leadership, chemistry, and baseball intelligence.

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Jan 18, 2010 12:18 PM PST up reply actions  

You're wasting your time.

You’re not going to convince anyone here of anything with stories or platitudes. Sorry, this just isn’t the place.

by Matthew on Jan 18, 2010 12:28 PM PST up reply actions  

If I may ask

What exactly are you looking to accomplish making comments like these? Your point has been made, that you feel chemistry is more important than any of us do. From what I can see, nobody has come out and said that you are wrong, only that from our point of view it is hard to quantify things like chemistry. I appreciate you trying to “educate” us but with our way of watching and enjoying the games we will not just latch on to your theory and abandon our own beliefs. Additionally, nobody is making it a point to try and “convert” you to our belief system, so what are you trying to achieve with the constant rehashing of your point?

I want to poop at your house - Thingray

by tootthekazoo on Jan 18, 2010 12:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Disappointing to come back and read in the morning

Beyond the “GRAHAM’S NOT ENGLISH YOU’RE OUT TO GET ME” subthread, there was absolutely nothing redeeming and it was a waste of my time.

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org

by Corco on Jan 18, 2010 8:56 AM PST up reply actions  

This thread is done

Thank you to everyone who kept their patience in front of overwhelming odds

by Graham on Jan 18, 2010 5:14 PM PST reply actions   4 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.
Start posting about the Mariners »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Just how disappointing has the Mariners offense been?
Small
4 September OT: Oktoberfest
Small
CC has wins. Felix has everything else.
Clemente_small
OT, Sept. 2: say what?
Tridentnew_small
Please, please dear God..take him from us
Small
OFFTOP 08/31/10: Fall Days
Royconrad_fullthrottle_small
25 for 25: Mariners
Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Colevatar_small
Thank You, M's fans
Clemente_small
No game tonight OT-Aug 26

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SBNation.com Recent Stories

Cincinnati Reds relief pitcher Francisco Cordero celebrates the final out in the Reds' 6-1 victory over the St. Louis Cardinals in a baseball game Saturday, Sept. 4, 2010, in St. Louis. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson) link

Reds Beat Cardinals Again, Extend N.L. Central Lead To Eight Games

Colorado Rockies' Carlos Gonzalez, left, and Ubaldo Jimenez, right, celebrate in the dugout after Gonzalez hits his second home run of the game in the sixth inning of a baseball game against the San Francisco Giants at Coors Field in Denver on Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010. The Rockies won 6-1. (AP Photo/Chris Schneider)

Five Numbers: Carlos Gonzalez's Home Dominance, Baseball's Wave Of Flamethrowers, And More

Colorado Rockies' Jason Giambi, right, watches the flight of his two-run home run as San Diego Padres catcher Yorvit Torrealba looks on during the second inning of a baseball game Friday, Sept. 3, 2010, in San Diego. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy)

Padres Keep On Losing, Drop Eighth Straight, 4-3, To Rockies

More from SBNation.com >


Sexy People

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan

Small Matthew

Marioavy_small JonBBT