Assorted Quick Thoughts On The Chone Figgins/Russell Branyan Dugout Dust-up
I'm coming to you from San Diego right now and probably won't be watching much baseball for a few days, but I did get myself all caught up on tonight's happenings after touching down, and what follows is a quick and incomplete rundown of the thoughts going through my head right now regarding the whole dugout kerfuffle. It's three in the morning and I've barely slept in two days, so be kind.
- From a fan perspective, there are few things worse than having a little bit of knowledge. Fans are always trying to arrive at conclusions, and a proper conclusion cannot be reached without all the details. However, when all the details aren't available, the temptation's still there to run with what you have and make a few assumptions. Don't go down that path, here. We don't know very much about what went on. We don't know why it happened, where it came from, why certain people were involved, or what it means. All we know is that there was a brief, heated disagreement in the dugout involving Chone Figgins, Russell Branyan, Don Wakamatsu, Jose Lopez, and some other people, related to Figgins getting pulled from the game for a mental mistake. Do not make too much of what we don't yet understand.
- There was a lot of confusion when the M's traded for Russell Branyan in the middle of a lost season, especially since it doesn't look real likely that his 2011 option will be picked up. It was assumed he was coming here to make the final few months a little more palatable, and to provide a bit of veteran leadership to a barren clubhouse from a guy who's been here before. I think there might be another angle to it as well, though - Branyan likes Don Wakamatsu. The two got along famously last year, and Branyan is firmly in Wak's camp. And having a leader on Wak's side is something this clubhouse has really needed with the whole Griffey situation turning sour, and with the Mike Sweeney situation going worse as well. For a little while there, it seemed like Wak had lost the clubhouse, and getting Branyan might've been an attempt to stem the tide. Who knows what might've happened tonight without him?
- Baker says Zduriencik will meet with Wak and Figgins behind closed doors tomorrow in an effort to get to the bottom of what's going on. Note that it's Wak and Figgins and only Wak and Figgins. Jose Lopez will not be a part of the meeting, even though Jose Lopez wound up losing his jersey in the disorder. I'm not really sure what Lopez was doing but I'm pretty sure he got lost.
- A lot of people have been wondering why Chone Figgins got benched when other guys haven't gotten benched for their mistakes on the basepaths. Figgins was probably wondering as much. And me, I completely believe Wak when he says the reason he benched Figgins was because at least the other guys had some excuse. Figgins had no excuse, other than carelessness. It's easy to bench a guy for being careless. It isn't so easy to bench a guy for being aggressive. Lopez's mistake at first base the other day, of course, was far more of the former than the latter, but then at the time Wak was dealing with a shorter bench than he was today, complicating things.
- Recently, Wak talked about taking it easier on Felix's arm down the stretch, and soon thereafter he took Felix out of a game far earlier than he has in the past. A few days ago, Wak was talking about holding players accountable for their mistakes, and soon thereafter he benched Figgins for screwing up. These things aren't coming out of nowhere. Wak has issued warnings. They've just been warnings that things are going to change, and nobody likes to be the first example. Felix didn't like getting pulled, and Figgins didn't like getting pulled, but if things like this had been happening all season, they probably would've taken them a little better. Anyway, either they weren't paying attention recently, or Wak didn't sufficiently communicate his intentions.
- Already, this incident is being interpreted by some as evidence that the M's clubhouse is the worst that it's been all season. It's important to understand that the feelings that spilled over tonight were already there. Wak was already frustrated. Figgins was already frustrated. Everybody else was already frustrated. The melee doesn't represent a new level of misery - it just represents a new expression of the same misery, in response to a new action on Wak's part. If a team or some players are upset, it doesn't really matter to me if they show it outwardly or not. What matters is that they're upset. You have to treat the disease, and not the symptoms.
- The key now is for Z to talk with Wak and Figgins and evaluate their current relationship. Let's face it: they kind of have to get along. Figgins is here for a while. Wak, it seems - for all of his flaws - is still the front office's guy, and I doubt they're in any hurry to show him the door. So the team has a vested interest in making sure these two get each other. The big thing is probably going to end up simply being Figgins' performance. If Figgins is performing, he's not frustrated, and Wak's not frustrated, and none of this ever happens. As is, though, Figgins is among the proudest and hardest-working players in baseball, so when he's not playing up to his standards, he doesn't take it so well, and sometimes players in that position need to vent. Said venting is unpleasant for everyone.
- Though it seems ugly, this could actually be good, or at least not that bad. How many times do you feel like you just need to vent? Have you ever gotten really upset about something, acted out, and felt better in the aftermath? We should be glad there's still some fire on this team, and the fact that Chone Figgins got really mad for a little bit doesn't mean anything other than Chone Figgins got really mad for a little bit. It happens to everyone, and in any other context it's not even much of a red flag. Remember that Figgins cooled off in the clubhouse and stuck around until the game was over. He cares. He cares about his performance, and he cares about this team.
There's going to be an opportunity, now, to build from this. To rally together. Figgins and Wak will get a chance to patch things up and see where the other is coming from. The team as a whole, meanwhile, will see if it can get over adversity under its current leadership. If Russell Branyan and whoever else can lead these guys to a better place following an ugly episode, then that'll be good for everyone, and it'll set the right example. Players become leaders by observing other leaders, and this could end up being a positive experience for a number of younger Mariners.
0 recs |
168 comments
|
Comments
Let's hope so.
Some of the pitchers seem to have found a way to get in touch with their core professionalism and pride, even when there’s little chance of a W because the team cannot hit. Was Cliff Lee an influence here? Maybe so.
The position players, the hitters need to demonstrate some of this kind of toughness. Well, we’ll see.
ignacio
Nice writeup, Jeff.
However, I think you’re being way too easy on Figgins.
Honestly, Figgins has no grounds showing such ‘tude to the manager for Christ’s sakes.
“Figgy” needs to look at all the video of how he’s been performing this year, batting and defense, and how badly he’s sucked and hurt this team.
I wonder who’s empowering Figgin’s bad attitude and inaccountableness? Underperforming fellow vet Lopez? Because they’re brothers? If it’s so, such crappy cliques stink.
Thank God for Branyan.
And Z has to be behind Wak 100% here or the Mariners are lost (not just this year but for the future also).
You can’t have players playing like crap being inaccountable and going after managers like that.
Please Z, when you have the meeting, be hard on Figgins like he deserves.
by NeighborTom2 on Jul 24, 2010 3:52 AM PDT up reply actions
RE: However, I think you’re being way too easy on Figgins.
Honestly, Figgins has no grounds showing such ‘tude to the manager for Christ’s sakes.
"Figgy" needs to look at all the video of how he’s been performing this year, batting and defense, and how badly he’s sucked and hurt this team.
I wonder who’s empowering Figgin’s bad attitude and inaccountableness? Underperforming fellow vet Lopez? Because they’re brothers? If it’s so, such crappy cliques stink.
I think you completely missed the point Jeff was trying to convey. Read bullet point 7 again.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jul 24, 2010 4:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Confusing the symptom with the disease.
I think you’re jumping to conclusions if you think either Wakamatsu or Figgins is going to be here next year.
No matter how many times Dave Cameron blandly says, “He’s going to be fine,” Figgins is not going to be fine. He was an unnecessary addition, an old player without skills that age well that most people could see was going to fall off a cliff. An increase in patience late in a player’s career is often a sign their skills are rapidly declining. He doesn’t have anything close to a bat that can cover third base, and his defense anywhere on the diamond isn’t very good. I’d be shocked if he was with the Mariners in 2011.
As for Wakamatsu, this looks absolutely horrible for him. You allege the org had to expend talent to bring his buddy Branyan here? Whether it’s fair or not, manager is the most expendable team on the position, and nothing our manager has done this year except not do cocaine over the ASB bodes well. He’s a huge longshot to come back.
by superluminal on Jul 24, 2010 5:18 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
...

Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jul 24, 2010 5:45 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
I could be wrong, but I think you missed the point
Certainly, when you called Figgins a player “without skills that age well,” you were talking through your hat; fast, athletic players who are good fielders do age well, especially if they have good strike-zone judgment and plate discipline.
by The Ancient Mariner on Jul 24, 2010 6:36 AM PDT up reply actions
He was a 6 win player last year at 3rd base.
by Humbled Fan on Jul 24, 2010 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions
A couple points
No matter how many times Dave Cameron blandly says, "He’s going to be fine," Figgins is not going to be fine.
You have no way of knowing that.
He was an unnecessary addition, an old player without skills that age well that most people could see was going to fall off a cliff.
It’s fairly agreed upon that speed, patience and defence are skills that age well.
An increase in patience late in a player’s career is often a sign their skills are rapidly declining.
How about the fact that Figgy builds his entire game upon patience and getting on base. The dude also hit close to .300 last year.
He doesn’t have anything close to a bat that can cover third base, and his defense anywhere on the diamond isn’t very good. I’d be shocked if he was with the Mariners in 2011.
6 WAR player at third last year defence and offence included and his defense was rated among the top at third base. And be shocked.
You got slurved!
by Slurvey on Jul 24, 2010 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
"It’s fairly agreed upon that speed, patience and defence are skills that age well."
Boy did Andruw Jones miss that memo.
There are other theories about Mr. Jones.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jul 24, 2010 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you may be off on the Figgins assessment.
He’s only 32; career BABIP of .337, compared to .286 this year; his BB/K rate is actually a few points higher compared to career rates; and his batted ball profiles are largely similar, with a slight downtick in LD%, which may be some cause for concern. Regarding that last point, I’m not well versed enough to know if the ~3% decline is meaningful/statistically significant. Anyone?
LD fluctuates a bit from season to season.
A 3% change in LD rate is fairly normal. It may well represent something that’s changed in the player’s approach, but it doesn’t typically represent decline for a hitter. In other words, it’s the sort of thing a player will bounce back from; insofar as it fluctuates, it’s not typically a trend.
And besides, his 20% LD rate is a virtue in a hitter, not a vice. When it drops to 17% or below, you can start to feel like he’s not getting on the ball like a slap hitter should. (But it’s worth noting the the LD factor for parks is weird and looks like it may have to do with where the scorer sits.)
From Olney on twitter this morning
Buster_ESPN
Heard this: There is currently a major split between the Mariners’ on-field staff and the front office
JD’s like, "you want some fucking pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, bitches!"- RCCook
I would have to assume coaching staff
Hopefully the Figgins/Wak/Z meeting today will help clear it up.
This is looking more and more like a 2008 blow up. At least this team has some level of talent, though.
by seattlesundevil on Jul 24, 2010 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't imagine this is really breaking news.
I’d assumed there was at least a divide from the point that the team they were given failed to produce what the FO had claimed they would, based on their numbers. I don’t care about your WAR, give me someone who can hit a homerun once in a while.
Not even sure what that means....
Wak: I want Sean White!
Jack: Sean White Sucks and I’m tired of watching him
Wak: Who will get groundballs?!?!?
Jack: Not Sean White.
Wak: He’s double play magic!
Jack: He’s a flyball pitcher…
Wak: Hogwash!
by PLU Tim on Jul 24, 2010 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 8 recs
I don't see this as a big surprise.
GMZ would never ever manage the team the way Wak has.
by Mariner Melee on Jul 24, 2010 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions
How hard was it to resist the temptation?
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jul 24, 2010 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Last night, Drayer was asked what had to happen next
and the fiirst thing she said (this is all paraphrasing) was there needed to be a meeting with Wak and Figgins, as Figgins obviously did not interpret Don’s actions the way Don intended them, going back to the line-up move. Don said at the time “I think he is doing everything he can now. He has hit .300 over his last twenty at bats. For me it is looking to see if we can generate more offense that way.” and Figgins saw it as his manager not thinking he was doing his job.
She has more on Figgins and the way he thinks of his job today
Yeah, these two have to settle things quickley. This is twice now that Figgins has
been upset/angered by a decision Wak has made, and the second time he’s voiced it so that everybody could see it. You just don’t do that stuff.
I’m sick of Figgins. That play last night was embarrassing. If you slow it down and see where that ball bounces (on the outfield grass) and how long Figgins had to adjust and cut the ball off, it’s mind boggling why he’s still standing and doing nothing as the ball slowly rolls across the infield
Agreed. Figgins has no leg to stand on.
- He should of made an effort to get to that ball. I couldn’t believe neither Sims nor Blowers mentioned it when it happened. It was clear he made ZERO effort.
- There’s a time and a place to do things like this. One of the oldest baseball rules alive is you keep things in house. Figgins could of avoided this whole situation by playing hard and acting more professional.
This isn’t to say only Figgins is guilty, there’s plenty of “blame” to go around, but all he did was make a bad situation worse
I like bunting. Apparently I should go to some sort of rehab for this
Dang it. Meant 2 on the second point obviously
I like bunting. Apparently I should go to some sort of rehab for this
In my mind, Wak has brought far more embarrassment to the team than all the current players on the team combined.
Being a major league ball player is hard, and unless someone is a total asshole, has no business being a player (e.g. Griffey), or is at a Yuni level of boneheadedness or laziness, I might bitch but I don’t really hold it against him. Making the same damned proper and intelligent in-game and lineup and pitching decisions that you made all throughout last year, Wak, is not. If Wak’s a good manager, he’ll iron this out without suspensions or summary punishment, whatever might be justifiable or as per usual regarding the response to Figgins’ behavior.
Figgins does not have the right to feel entitled to anything, even if he is a clubhouse leader.
"I hope he arouses the fire that's dormant in the innermost recesses of my soul. I plan to face him with the zeal of a challenger."
-Ichiro on Dice-K
If Wak is making a distinction between kinds of stupid
Then I have to disagree with his methodology. Being stupid and aggressive is just as bad as being stupid and lazy. (And I’m not sure Lopez was being aggressive and not just running on autopilot.) The distinction I would make is between physical mistakes and mental mistakes. The former are about your talent level and, often, luck. Jumping on guys for butterifngering a ball doesn’t do any good.
But mental mistakes are, or should be, under a player’s control. Just because you were being aggressive doesn’t excuse blantantly stupid decision-making.
The problem with pulling Figgins for a mental mistake was that Wak had been letting it slide with everyone else up to that point. I think Figgins had a right to feel picked on and Wak should have made any changes as a result of the incident in the next game…not that one…giving him time to explain his decision and avoid the kind of scene that erupted.
My bias: I like Figgins and expect he’ll rebound, but have not been a big fan of Wak this season. So there’s that.
Aggressive mistakes aren't as bad if your'e being instructed to be aggressive
If the coaching staff is saying ‘be aggressive on the base paths’ all the time, and then you screw up doing what they’ve asked you to do, it is hard for them to get extremely mad about it. They are at least partially responsible.
No coach was saying ‘take it easy, pay less attention and be a bit more lazy in the field.’ For me that’s a key distinction between these kinds of mistakes.
But I understand Figgins getting pissed because he busts his butt 99% of the time, but I see a pretty clear distinction between his mistake and others we’ve seen.
by Snuffleupagus on Jul 24, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Damn you Jeff
You and your well-presented call for calm, cool and collected thought. Great write up, as always.
Rooting for lovable losers since 1984.
For the record I would 100% love to see Chone Figgins in a fight
by Jeff Sullivan on Jul 24, 2010 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
I can see the headline now
“Figgins in fight with manager..STILL doesn’t hit”
"Get offa my lawn!"
by Greybear on Jul 24, 2010 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I can only imagine this fight being hilarious in any situation
Like if the robot from Fallout 3 went up against a Roomba….
The 2010 M's makes me sad.
2008 was hilarious because we could all see it coming.
It was not supposed to be like that this year. I would like to pretend that I don’t care, but I do. This is painful.
I'm so unsure what to think
as I acutely feel the lack of knowing what has been and is being said behind closed doors.
ignacio
Figgins should be upset
Hes watched Lopez do stupid shit all year and not be punished for it. Get here soon Dustin.
I was hoping something like this wouldn't happen
Please make it all better, Jack Z.
by Aaroniero Arruruerie on Jul 24, 2010 12:52 PM PDT reply actions
Incidents like this will always bring out the boneheads whose sole purpose in life is to jump to conclusions. I'm sure all the sport talk radio shows are more insane than usual right now.
Like all the smart folks here are saying, flair ups like this have a lot of upsides. Obviously they still care, they still have some pride and performing well matters. Remember the dust up between Longoria and Upton? They worked it out and the Rays are still doing well.
The Mariners are obviously not on the same level as the Rays right now, but still, dudes will work it out.
Milton Bradley apologist
by sanford_and_son on Jul 24, 2010 1:03 PM PDT reply actions
We're finally the Indians from Major League.
I’m so happy.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 24, 2010 1:13 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
You're saying the solution is for Felix to sleep with Figgins' wife?
It could work.
by Snuffleupagus on Jul 24, 2010 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions
If we're going by positional accuracy, wouldn't that be Lopez's wife?
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jul 24, 2010 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I was more thinking along the roles on the team
The veteran presence who is under performing for various reasons. But the current Mariners don’t really cross compare well with the Major League team. We better change strategies and hire a 14 year old manager.
by Snuffleupagus on Jul 24, 2010 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Although I hardly ever dream about baseball, I had a dream last night that Jack Zduriencik got fired in the aftermath of this incident while Wak and Figgins were left untouched.
So I’m actually feeling pretty damned good about the state of the Mariners after looking at the situation in this light :p
I had a dream a month ago like this.
Z and Wak decided to retire, and I went on a quest to get Z to stay. It was bizarre.
33!
I had a dream several years ago in which Bavasi traded Felix and Balentien to the Reds for six players that weren't all that exciting.
Dreams of baseball are just weird.
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors
by JY on Jul 24, 2010 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Felix and Balentien?
Wow.
According to my calculations, your problem doesn't exist.
by the other side on Jul 24, 2010 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Probably a product of late-night minor league recap writing.
They say you shouldn’t eat anything or think about Bill Bavasi right before you go to sleep.
This would probably explain a lot of things.
Like those recurring dreams I’ve had where my dad was the LF for the M’s in the late-80s/early-90s.
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors
by JY on Jul 24, 2010 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Face it - Wakamatsu sucks and is out of his depth as a manager
Inconsistency, overreaction, lousy in game tactics, over-reliance on bad players, undervaluing good players, infinite patience with favorite players…
So Figgins made a mistake. To the best of my knowledge, it’s an isolated incident. So why overreact and yank him from a game, especially when so much has been let slide (yeah, we’re lookin’ at you Loafie…). How in the hell is Loafie still batting cleanup? The least he could have done for the doubled off gaffe the other day was drop Loafez to 6 or 7 in the order.
He waits too long to decide something must be done (as he waits too long for most things to happen), then he overreacts and goes off on one of the players that’s actually trying most of the time. And yes, Figgins results at the plate have been awful, but that’s not a very exclusive club this year, is it?
And… how much of the Figgins/Lopez thing can be laid at the feet of the position switch in spring training?
I sincerely hope Wakamatsu is gone next year – he’s a good bench coach (smoother) but a horrible manager (tough decisions in a timely manner).
by Dave Paisley on Jul 24, 2010 1:27 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
IF Saunders hits the cutoff man
Figgins doesn’t get thrown on the bench for being where he was supposed to be, namely, on the right field side of second base covering the bag on a double.
Where is the anger towards young Saunders? It’s his fault Figgins got benched.
And why was the first baseman standing on first base and not moving up towards the mound? Was rookie Smoak too busy thinking about his last at bat that his head was not in the game at the moment.
"Where is the anger towards young Saunders? It’s his fault Figgins got benched."
Throws from the outfield are bad all the time. It’s the job of the infielder to get the ball. You can blame a lot on Wak, but if you watch the play that was 100% Figgins on that one. Once the fielder was safe at second, he needed to go after it, not stand there and watch it pass.
...and now I'm here
In case you didn't see it

...and now I'm here
Smoak is nowhere to be seen in that video
He should be standing somewhere between first base and the mound. I think in another video you can see he’s still standing behind first base and has to race in to make an off balance throw to third. That’s your bad guy. Smoak wasn’t paying attention.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions
If you can't see him on the video, how do you know where he is?
His job is to back up 2nd base, ergo, he’d be behind the second baseman on the throw, and not on screen, since the throw was at an angle.
...and now I'm here
In other words, if he is where he is supposed to be, he's not going to be on the video.
You clearly don’t know where he is, since originally you erroneously claimed he was on first base. If I were you I would stop commenting until you are informed.
...and now I'm here
The throw was coming in to the short stop
The right fielder is the back up. Or the pitcher is the backup. It’s not the responsibility of the second baseman to come off the bag should the runner round second and get caught in no-man’s-land…
Imagine if there had been someone backing up the play and Figgins was at second base waiting for a throw to catch Cameron being too aggressive on the bases. Imagine that.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
The throw dribbled past!
And Cameron clearly doesn’t round second until he realizes the throw is going through.
According to my calculations, your problem doesn't exist.
by the other side on Jul 24, 2010 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions
The replay is in slow motion
Saunders can throw a ball in the high 80s to low 90s. That replay at normal speed and a different angle shows Figgins about 30 to 40 feet from the ball. The backup, whoever it was supposed to be, was not and should not be Figgins. I think there’s more to Figgins getting benched than the play. It was the culmination of several months of… something between Figgins and Wak. But that’s something we’re likely not going to hear.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Really? Did you time it? Did you bring your radar gun with you to the ball park? Was it really 90 miles per hour?
STOP MAKING UP FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Jul 24, 2010 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
actually, Saunders can't throw at all
He has guinea pigs in his back pocket that run the ball in for him. Hence, the lack of direction of that particular relay.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions
whut
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors
by JY on Jul 24, 2010 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions
So now you're saying Ichiro should have been behind Figgins, not Smoak?
Maybe you should stop commenting and make up your mind first. To address your points:
1) If Cameron is already safe at second, what reason does Figgins have to cover second?
2) If no one was backing him up on the play, what reason does Figgins have to cover second?
3) Even if Figgins needs to stay near second, why does he stand behind second base and not even move toward the ball?
4) Stop commenting until you have proof to make your point. Stop making assumptions that are proven wrong and then finding new ways to support your point. First you said Smoak was on first, and he wasn’t. Then you said he should have been on screen, and he shouldn’t. Until you actually review all the video, don’t make up facts to support theories that are still wrong.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Jul 24, 2010 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Right fielder backs up second on a throw from left field or from third/ shortstop
First baseman backs up second and home.
Pitcher backs up third and home… and occasionally a cutoff man in left field
Catcher backs up third base and first base.
Shortstop backs up second on a throw from right field and backs up second and third base, depending on which base the throw is coming in to.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, since I'm here and this is annoying me, Figgins is still supposed to back up an errant throw, so this is still his error.
...and now I'm here
Did they give it to Saunders?
According to my calculations, your problem doesn't exist.
by the other side on Jul 24, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
The error was on the overthrow, missing the cutoff man
His throw was 10 feet over Wilson’s head and there was no one backing up Wilson… and there should have been a body behind the cutoff man… If Figgins was the backup, who is covering second base?
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Who gives a shit who covers second base if the runner is already safe at second?
You can’t get him out, and there is no force play. No one needs to guard second. When you play basketball, and you are on offense, do you stay on the opposite end of the court guarding the basket because that’s where the other team scores?
...and now I'm here
A throw behind the runner happens a lot
The second baseman is supposed to cover second base, hence, the name of the position. It’s Figgins responsibility to be at second base should Cameron round the base, pull a hamstring, trip over the bag, impersonate Lopez… whatever, to possibly get an out.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions
If everyone is playing the correct position
then Figgins has backup as well, so if he needs to get the ball, someone else will be near second. If Cameron is safe anyone, Figgins needs to make an effort to get the ball.
...and now I'm here
Also, if you look at the video, Figgins isn't even on second base.
He’s standing 6 feet behind it. If, as you say, his job is to be ON second, he wasn’t, and he still failed.
...and now I'm here
Quit being a hater
look, Figgins has to give up the bag to Cameron coming in or it’s interference. That’s what you do when a guy is coming in to second standing up. But the second baseman must also remain in a position to cover the bag should the baserunner round the bag. That’s when Figgins would have stepped nearer the bag and waited for a possible throw from the shortstop
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Did you really just say "Quit Being a Hater"?
...and now I'm here
Okay, here you go:
This is what you have argued so far, and each one of them has been falsified:
Smoak was on first
This was wrong.
Figgins needed to be on second.
This was wrong.
Smoak should be on screen backing up Figgins
This was wrong.
The right fielder should back up Wilson
This was wrong
Figgins is not the backup of Wilson
This was wrong.
Quit being a hater
This was a 12 year old white buy with sagging jeans.
Michael Saunders threw 90 miles per hour
This was made up.
Figgins should stand behind second and only move if the ball is cut off by Wilson
Finally, if Figgins can be 6 feet away from second and is supposed to move toward the base if and only if the ball was cut off by Wilson, when it wasn’t cut off, was he supposed to stand there like an idiot? Should he have moved closer to second? If he can be 6 feet behind it, does that mean he can’t be six feet in front of it when the ball goes over Wilson’s head?
Take a break. Sit there and wait until you have facts before you make outlandish claims. Even if you are right, which you are not, you have made at least 5 claims in this thread that have been proven wrong, and if you had simply waited until you knew more about it instead of making things up, then maybe it would be easier to respect your opinion on this.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Jul 24, 2010 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 11 recs
Okay, I'm done with this argument.
...and now I'm here
....aaaand scene!
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 24, 2010 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions
CapSea, you are such a funny guy
You are still completely wrong no matter how much time you spent putting your argument together!
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I'm a fucking stitch.
...and now I'm here
This is just simple baseball fundamentals.
You learn when your young to make a line to the base that the relay is coming to. Figgins was next in line, the throw was off he should cover that. According to his logic Smoak should have just let the ball roll by too. Because he is backing up Figgins.
by mont_mariner on Jul 24, 2010 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions
The camera angle is bad
Figgins is in position to move in behind Cameron should Cameron round second base. Cameron is between Figgins and the ball. Smoak is about 20 feet from first base, about where he was standing when the ball was first hit. Hence, he has to come racing in to pick up the errant throw
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Really this whole play is one that sums up the season.
Bad. Not just bad, we can’t seem to do anything right fundamentally. When a play goes bad for the M’s it goes really bad.
by mont_mariner on Jul 24, 2010 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course.
I don’t mean the “Scorecard” error, I mean the mistake error.
...and now I'm here
Right I get you, curiosity on the scorecard error.
According to my calculations, your problem doesn't exist.
by the other side on Jul 24, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
The throw caused the problem
If the throw hadn’t been so bad, there wouldn’t have been an opportunity for Cameron to go to third base.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
The throw was five feet off the bag.
According to my calculations, your problem doesn't exist.
by the other side on Jul 24, 2010 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions
And it bounces slowly past.
The throw is fine.
According to my calculations, your problem doesn't exist.
by the other side on Jul 24, 2010 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions
No, it was a bad throw.
He missed the cut-off man by a mile.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 24, 2010 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm arguing levels of bad here.
Yes Saunders needs to get that throw to Wilson. But it’s not totally out of reach as suggested by the comment.
According to my calculations, your problem doesn't exist.
by the other side on Jul 24, 2010 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Figgins looks bad
due to the positioning of everyone else on the field at the time. And he’s in every shot. It’s a natural reaction to blame Figgins initially. But, he’s not the one at fault on the play. If there had been someone between the mound and first base, behind the cutoff man, Cameron would never have tried for third base.
So, if the reason for Smoak standing behind first base is to back up second… where is Vargas on the play? Why isn’t he backing up the cutoff man? Someone is not where they are supposed to be and it is not Figgins.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions
You have your opinion and it is obvious arguing is convincing no one.
Agree to disagree.
According to my calculations, your problem doesn't exist.
by the other side on Jul 24, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
It's not bouncing slowly past
Saunders got the error on the play for his bad throw. Figgins is on the right field side of second base, where he is supposed to be if Saunder’s throw is accurate. Cameron took off because he saw there was no one backing up the cutoff man…
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay, you are completely right, since the throw wasn't perfectly to Figgins, fuck it, not his problem.
According to my calculations, your problem doesn't exist.
by the other side on Jul 24, 2010 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
the throw was not supposed to go to Figgins
the throw was intended for the shortstop in short left field, between second and third…
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions
The point is that someone should have been designated to back up the cutoff man
And if Wak thinks Figgins should cover both second base and the cutoff man… he needs a bigger second baseman!
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions
The throw is going to second base, therefore, yes he is supposed to cover second base and the cutoff man.
According to my calculations, your problem doesn't exist.
by the other side on Jul 24, 2010 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
The cutoff man is supposed to be standing on a line between Saunders and 2B.
Hence, Figgins is both covering second base and “backing up the cutoff man”.
The throw was not only over the cutoff man’s head, it was a bit off line to the 3B side of 2B. But if a throw is intended for a fielder and is off line, the fielder is not supposed to stand there idly and watch the ball bounce past him. He’s supposed to go get the ball.
by Ralph_Malph on Jul 25, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
The Bottom Line
is that unless there’s a runner coming TOWARD your base, you don’t stand there with your thumb up your butt and watch a loose ball 10 feet in front of you roll past. Not even in Little League.
"Get offa my lawn!"
Uh, there was a runner coming toward his base
Hence, he was in position to move behind Cameron and possibly catch him rounding the bag
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Cameron rounded 2nd
HELD UP to allow the ball to pass in front of him, which then put it in front of Figgins, with the runner already past the base. Figgins didn’t even twitch. Should Figgins have moved onto the grass prior to Cameron rounding 2nd? NO. Should Figgins have made SOME effort to corral the ball and make a throw to 3rd? YES
"Get offa my lawn!"
We used to have a rule in Ultimate
“The only bad throws are unreachable.” I feel this should apply to all sports.
Don't know why Smoak would be halfway between first and the mound.
Seems to me that on a double to left, Smoak should stay about where he was in case the throw is to straight to second and airmailed. If it just misses the cutoff, Figgins should go get it. That’s is unless logic and baseball practices are in disagreement. They often are.
by Jon S. on Jul 24, 2010 2:34 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
That's the way it's supposed to go.
Smoak did nothing wrong if Figgins would have went after that ball Smoak covers second then.
by mont_mariner on Jul 24, 2010 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Smoak is standing near first base
He didn’t move from his position. He didn’t move to back up anybody. He’s just standing there and then has to run in to get the errant throw and fire wildly to third base.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Where are you getting this from?
...and now I'm here
Show me a link to where Smoak is standing by first base.
Every replay I have seen of this Smoak is in his correct defensive position for that play.
by mont_mariner on Jul 24, 2010 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Smoak makes the throw to third base
He picks up the ball in the dirt about 20 feet from first base…
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Smoak's responsibility is not to cover second base... ever
Smoak at second would only occur in some crazy rundown play. Smoak is either covering first or a back up to a throw. That’s the job of a first baseman. Cover first, back up second, back up home.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions
You're right.
Wrong word usage on my part. I guess I wanted to say that Smoak would be back up, not covering. My bad.
by mont_mariner on Jul 24, 2010 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
.
back up second,
EXACTLY. If Figgins goes after the ball, like he is supposed to, then he backs up Figgins by going to first base. Jesus you are answering your own claims in your comments now.
...and now I'm here
*Second base.
I am now doing the same thing. Crap
...and now I'm here
Look, bottom line, Wak made a judgement call from the dugout
He chose to punish Figgins publicly… in front of the home fans and for all baseball to see. Wak could have benched Figgins for a few games… but to do it publicly like that…. there’s something else going on.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, benching Figgins for a few games is not doing it publicly
Nobody will know about it. Yep.
Wak took Figgins out in the middle of a game
It wasn’t before a game when the lineups are made. Wak pulled Figgins from a live game. There is a difference between getting grounded for coming home late and having your ear pulled to the car from inside the grocery store. That’s why Figgins took the benching so badly. It was in front of the cameras and now we’re talking about it.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
I think he must be gettin pressure from above.
So, he’s tryin to show that he is going to try to fix the problems and make the players more responsible. He’s just a few months late on starting this.
by mont_mariner on Jul 24, 2010 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I agree.
I think Griffey and Sweeney as co-managers probably wasn’t the best way to go into this season. Could be that Wak never really had control of this team and alliances were formed that brought us to this point of futility
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions
And for what it is worth ...
Drayer added this note:
Update…Just wanted to pass this on as something to think about as this situation moves forward. I am not offering this as an excuse for Figgins, just passing on something that I was told…I talked to a couple of people who have had access to different video feeds including NHK’s of the play that led to Don Wakamatsu benching Chone Figgins and they tell me that there is a shot with an angle of the play that shows that Figgins would have been blocked by the oncoming Mike Cameron in getting to second base. It will be interesting to see if this is talked about today.
Oh, wow.
That’s… fucking egregious. First time I’m seeing it.
Indeed.
Wak, in an interview I saw (seattle PI blog, maybe) said soemthing to the effect that there is a distinction between laziness and other types of mental errors. His view is that Chone’s mistake here was one of laziness, hence an afternoon off.
Where is Smoak?
What is he doing? Talking to the first base coach? Where is he? He has no bag to cover. He’s the backup. Figgins is covering second base. That’s his job.
It's not the positioning
It’s the fact that he just stands there as it rolls by. Of course, this is all speculation, we don’t really know what exactly Wak’s issue was.
by Snuffleupagus on Jul 24, 2010 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree, there's more than just this play
as to why Wak did what he did.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions
And getting beyond the play that amounted to no runs scored... thank you, Mr. Vargas
Josh Wilson hit a double in place of Figgins. And that was one heck of a call on Wak’s part.
by Shnarf Shnarf on Jul 24, 2010 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions
"Ye-but, uh, somebody's gonna help the people off their, their rooftops, right?"
“That’s not important right now, son. What’s important is figuring out whose fault this is.”
by Matthew on Jul 24, 2010 2:42 PM PDT reply actions 10 recs
I think the last bullet point is exactly right.
Anyone who has been on a sports team knows it sucks to lose. When it’s your job to win baseball games and perform that’s what you have to do. We all knew this was going to happen at some point this season. This group has been a powder keg waiting to blow this whole year. At least as pointed out, this shows that they are still trying and don’t want to lose and maybe a little fire through the clubhouse is just what this team needs to perform up to the level they should.
I just re-watched this on MLB.TV, here's what I saw.
Saunders over threw past Wilson. It almost looks like he was trying to past the cut off guy to Figgins at second, but the throw was wide and short. It was weird, too, because it seems like Saunders made a last minute decision to go after Cameron instead of throwing to Wilson.
Figgins was covering second base, and would have been in position, maybe, for a put out if the throw had been good.
After that, it’s hard to say. Figgins might have been able to play the missed throw if he’d gone off the bag but the ball was really clipping along. Justin Smoak backed up the missed throw almost perfectly and nearly threw Cameron out at 3rd.
From some angles, it really looks like Figgins is just standing there, but that was not a slow, chopping ground ball. Saunders threw it hard. And other angles, it looks like he didn’t really have a chance to play the ball. Honestly, the whole thing was just weird. It looked like it might be a stand up double but then the throw looks like it might have been intended for Figgins, who, for all I can tell, did not expect the throw to be to him.
Wak's Responsibility
Is to decide who is in and out of the game and where they bat in the lineup. If Figgins is doing well and has a problem with the decisions the manager is making, he should talk peacefully with him, not make a big scene.
With his current performance, he is in no position to complain. Creating a scene because he thinks he is entitled to play or bat second is interfering with Wak doing his job.
Wak has to make judgment calls. They may not be correct. If benching a player for messing up is not acceptable because he didn’t do it before, then he can never bench a player.
Figgins’ job is to support the manager to do his job and perform well on offense and defense. Strike Three!
ESPN is reporting that Figgins is in the lineup.
Jesus Christ.
And there was ANOTHER closed door meeting for 30 minutes.
I hope they brought in a T-ball team to bitch-slap every one of those guys.
Which is fine
It is their business to evaluate the proper course of action and we don’t know anything.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jul 24, 2010 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, I know. Sometimes it's frustrating that you can be so reasonable.
The rational side of me agrees, but the irrational and disappointed ( to say the least!) fan side of me wants a public hanging.
You want a public hanging of a black person?
by Decatur on Jul 24, 2010 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 9 recs
Shit. Shit. Shit. Not what I meant.......hang the whole damn team.
It was a purely emotional response, wasn’t meant literally.
I missed the game last night and am just trying to piece together what the hell happened.
Figgins messed up for being “lazy”. Wak benches Figgins as an example to the team that they need to stay focused. Figgins takes this personal and is pissed at Wak and yelling ensues.
What the hell was Lopez doing and how did his jersey get torn off?
I like Jeff’s take on it as being important but not making it overblown. I expect this to get settled out pretty quick. Everybody is frustrated and sometimes tempers flair up. Figgins seems competitive (and not batshit crazy) so I don’t think this is a disaster, just one of those things that happens. Hopefully people don’t taken this to fuel the Figgins hate.
It seemed like Branyan went after Figgins, Lopez stepped in between them, and Branyan pulled his shirt off.
by I Lick Squirrels on Jul 24, 2010 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions
So was Lopez pissed at Wak? Were players pissed at each other?
by Edgar for Pres on Jul 24, 2010 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Apparently (and this is all apparently)
Wak & Figgins argued, players worried it would escalate, Lopez got between them, and everyone else all tried to move each other around at the same time, causing mass confusion.
I think there is a very simple explanation.
According to my calculations, your problem doesn't exist.
by the other side on Jul 24, 2010 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs

by 















