Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

Seattle Mariners Lose Baseball Game

The other day I was talking with Matthew about baseball, which is something we do sometimes, albeit less often than you might think. We were discussing some early-season observations and possibilities, and at one point Matthew remarked that what he really wishes we had was more data.

We're definitely in that awkward part of the season right now. Every team in baseball is only three series in, and still has more than 94% of the season left to play. It's too early to arrive at any sweeping conclusions, or really any conclusions at all. But we're also getting to the point at which some things become a little more clear. We aren't talking about one- or two-game samples anymore. We're starting to see trends, or at least we think we're starting to see trends, and people are champing at the bit to say that this player looks like a surprise, or this team looks like a disappointment.

Without enough data, though, it all feels so uncertain. It's so early that we all want to stick with our preseason expectations. But enough games have been played that we also want to try to consider the new information we have. In most cases, we'll stand by what we projected, but, well, consider how you feel about the following teams. Here are a few teams off to notable starts, and my assumptions:

Red Sox: they'll be fine
Rays: they'll be fine
Orioles: they'll fall off
Royals: they'll fall off
Indians: they'll fall off
Astros: they'll continue to suck
Giants: they'll be fine

In each of these cases, despite the first three series, I'm still standing by my preseason expectations, because I don't think we have enough information to change them. But then you have the Mariners. The Mariners are 2-7, and might be 1-8 were it not for some lousy Oakland defense. And I'm decidedly more down on them now than I was a week and a half ago. I haven't yet changed my opinions of the other teams in baseball, because it's so early in the year, but I have bumped my Mariners expectations down a peg or two.

And I think it's because, having watched all their games, I feel like I have more information on them than I do on everybody else. I don't just have their box score results. I have their processes. I have observations on how they've looked, and I have memories of instances of good luck and bad luck. The Mariners have played as many games as everybody else, but I feel like I've learned more about them to this point, and so their start has had an influence on my opinion of them.

I don't know if that ought to be the case. I mean, sure, on the one hand, I have learned more about the Mariners from watching their first nine games than I have about the Orioles from not watching their first nine games. Viewers are supplied with extra information that non-viewers miss. But maybe I'm just so desperate to have information I can analyze that I'm reaching to interpret an insignificant sample size. The Mariners are 2-7, sure. But the Red Sox are 1-7! The Rays are 1-8 and have scored 20 runs! The Royals and Indians are a combined 13-5! If I'm not willing to change my mind about those teams after a week and a half, I probably shouldn't let the Mariners' slow start get me so down.

But, I don't know. The Mariners are 2-7 and have lost seven games in a row. They haven't looked good while doing it. Ryan Langerhans holds the team lead in home runs while the usual 3-4-5-6 hitters are tied for last with zero. No matter how early it is, it's hard not to feel like this team is doomed to another season-long nightmare.

This is always an awkward part of the year. That's fine. I'm ready for that, and I've managed in the past. I just don't want it to be a terrible part of the year too. I want some signs of life. I want a God damn lead.

Star-divide

I didn't take any notes today because I had to play catch-up and wasn't in the mood, so here are just a few quick bullets:

  • Erik Bedard was hit hard once again, with the Indians slamming seven line drives and two home runs. Bedard is no stranger to solid contact, and he'll give up his dingers, but games like this are far from the norm, and serve as a reminder that he's working his way back from a long layoff, and is accordingly layered with rust. Bedard's stuff isn't so good that he can afford to miss his locations, and the Indians jumped all over him.

    The good news is that he did strike out six guys. And he should also only get better as the season goes on, health permitting. His repertoire seems to be intact, and one figures that he'll eventually find a groove. But those of us who daydreamed about Bedard pitching like an ace from the get-go were guilty of visiting Crazytown and buying a bunch of I <3 Crazytown souvenir t-shirts. We shouldn't have even entertained the possibility because in the end it just makes us frustrated with a guy who worked his ass off to get back on the mound.

  • Jamey Wright worked a scoreless inning of relief and threw a few really good breaking balls. Jamey Wright also reportedly made a few mechanical tweaks after coming to Seattle last season, so now let's play Jamey Wright Fun Facts!

    Wright, 2007 through mid-2010: 58% strikes
    Wright, with M's since mid-2010: 61% strikes

    More, if you combine 2011 Spring Training and the regular season, Wright has now thrown 16.1 innings on the year, with 13 strikeouts and one walk. This is a guy with a career K/BB of 1.1. Now, Jamey Wright is 36 years old. He's well established as being exactly what he is, and nothing else. I'm not bringing this up to suggest that Jamey Wright has suddenly had a career breakthrough. But he's thrown the ball well since joining the M's, and that's neat for reasons the fans won't find interesting, but that Wright and his family sure will.

  • With two outs in the top of the fifth, Gameday's PITCHfx information feed stopped working for about half an hour. Mariners fans weren't the only entities to completely zone out when this got out of hand.

  • The snarky thing to say about Ryan Langerhans' home run is that he hit an 87mph fastball from a righty in the middle of the strike zone and still barely got the ball out of the yard, but he got the ball out of the yard, and that's the second time he's done it on the year. Ryan Langerhans has two home runs, and the rest of the Mariners also have two home runs. I remember making fun of Jose Lopez's embarrassing home runs in 2009, and look where that got me. In 2010 I didn't have any home runs to make fun of because I didn't have any home runs. You know who gets to act all snobby about home runs? Fans of good teams. I'm just going to go ahead and take what I can get. Unimpressive dingers are still dingers. I'm the annoying dog under the dinner table. I know I can't have a fillet. Just drop me some scraps.

  • This was also a good day for Michael Saunders. After driving in the team's only run on Saturday with a blooper, he flashed a more impressive array of skills on Sunday. He started off by robbing Michael Brantley of an extra-base hit to lead off the game when he sprinted to his right and made a diving catch of a low liner. In the fifth, he worked a six-pitch walk. And in the seventh, two batters after Langerhans went deep, Saunders got a low-inside cutter from Chad Durbin and ruined it, blasting the ball way deep to right field. It was a no-doubter off the bat - the Mariners' first such dinger of the season - and we'll see what this does for Saunders' confidence going forward. We're always talking about Saunders' confidence at the plate and monitoring in which direction it's headed, and that can get kind of old, but at least this time the arrow should be pointing up, which it seldom has been in the past. I'm already so close to writing Saunders off entirely that if he can actually establish himself as something, that'd just be peaches.

Felix Day tomorrow as the Blue Jays come to town. Your calendar will tell you it's Monday, but your calendar is wrong. It is Felix Day. Had Felix been born thousands of years ago we could've avoided this little complication, and ifs and buts and all that. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, this sentence would read very differently.

Comment 185 comments  |  5 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Dude.

This has to be one of the weakest offenses in history. I dont know the answer or the solution at this point.

What I do know, is the Jack Z’s days are numbered if this continues. Its proven he can build a farm system. However, farm systems dont win world series. Look at the history books.

by Sizzeth VanDammage on Apr 10, 2011 6:21 PM PDT reply actions  

Whip out your S Encyclopedia Britannica...

Its clearly laid out : Seattle Mariners, American professional baseball team based in Seattle that plays in the American League (AL). The Mariners were founded in 1977 and posted losing records until 1991 (an all-time mark for the longest period before a franchise’s first winning season). The team is one of two current organizations to have never played in the World Series

by Sizzeth VanDammage on Apr 10, 2011 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's cheating.

You didn’t say we could use encyclopedias.

by ThomasG on Apr 10, 2011 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Z is still working with some of the burdens bavasi left him

His payroll flexibility has been hampered by Bavasi’s moves. If Cust and Ryan end up being flops for us, then we can say his brilliant moves before the 2009 season might have been more luck then talent. However he’s still made better moves then bavasi. Once the payroll crushing contracts Jack didn’t even sign are off then books, then we should start judging him on his major league talent evaluation. Something tells me that if he had more money, we would of ended up with better players then Ray and Cust this year. Do you really want the M’s to go looking for another GM and risk brining in another Bavasi?

Believe Big! I mean HUGE... believe Gigantic! like the Titanic.
Mariners Baseball: Believe Big.

by Robert Praetor on Apr 10, 2011 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Also..

It takes more then 2.5 years to build a strong farm system. At least we should stick with farmer Jack long enough to bring in as many talented prospects as possible. We know its going to take time, so we can wait.

Believe Big! I mean HUGE... believe Gigantic! like the Titanic.
Mariners Baseball: Believe Big.

by Robert Praetor on Apr 10, 2011 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes...

We should have a pretty good farm system if we have a top 3 draft pick every year…

Btw, I am not advocating getting rid of Jack (right now). Just saying if losing 100+ games 3 out of 4 years… yikes.

by Sizzeth VanDammage on Apr 10, 2011 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

True..

Maybe he’s quietly planned for us to totally suck. He could be sneaking stuff into the players food! Its Z’s fault that Guti is out :(. He just wants to build a good farm system for the LOL’s.

but in all seriousness, your right… i’m not looking forward to another 100 lose season and its understandable that people would be upset. We just need to give him more time. One more year minimum i’d say.

Believe Big! I mean HUGE... believe Gigantic! like the Titanic.
Mariners Baseball: Believe Big.

by Robert Praetor on Apr 10, 2011 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Is it?

Optimistic predictions were for around a 70 win season and we’re already losing games that we can’t get back. 100 losses isn’t unreasonable at all.

by Smegmalicious on Apr 10, 2011 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

You're right I was a little off on my numbers there

However, games lost now are games we can’t get back and given that I don’t think 100 losses for this team is in anyway an unreasonable prediction for the team at this point.

by Smegmalicious on Apr 10, 2011 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Using the logic applied below in the conversation with BVB, if the Mariners were projected for 71 wins before the season,

that’s a .438 W%. M’s are now 2-7. That leaves 153 games, where we’d be expected to win 67 games. That’s put the projected total at 69 total wins, so 93 losses. That’s a reasonable prediction.

by abender20 on Apr 10, 2011 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

He's been choosing for what, 2 years now?

Relax. Baseball is a slow moving sport in terms of player development and evaluation. Being compulsive and reactionary is the worst thing you can do.

by Shmelix Shmernandez on Apr 10, 2011 11:40 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

This is kind of a downfall of results based analysis.

If Cust and Ryan end up being flops, that doesn’t necessarily mean they were bad moves. They were minor upgrades that were made during an off-season where we had no money. Regardless of how their seasons end up, I think those moves were still very justifiable. He probably won’t strike gold that many more times like he did with the Putz trade, but it’s easy to argue that he’s done a good job overall.

by Zwakamatsu on Apr 10, 2011 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Should the GM bear the brunt of the criticism if Figgins continues on this course?

"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels

by GhettoBear04 on Apr 10, 2011 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

His last 5 years before signing the deal he was worth on average about 3.5 wins.

The deal is 4/36, which comes out for about 9 million a year, or somewhere around 2 years, or a league average player. The deal was favorable, and this is a prime example of why results based analysis is not optimal. The decision made at the time was a good one.

I guess that’s a long way of saying no, he shouldn’t.

by Zwakamatsu on Apr 10, 2011 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Perhaps,

but one could also argue that it was too many years to give to a highly variable 32 y/o player who derived most of his value from BABIP-fueled offense and a too small UZR sample.

Also, I have his previous 5 years as being 2.4, 0.0, 3.2, 2.7, and 6.1 WAR for a 2.88 WAR average? With age-related decline of a player who relies on speed, I’m not sure that mean projection of 8 WAR is all that favorable to the team.

"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels

by GhettoBear04 on Apr 10, 2011 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ah,

well, the point remains that I don’t think it’s fair to say that Figgins’ struggles now were impossible to see coming or that the GM should be absolved of all blame. To say that he shouldn’t have been expected to be this bad is fair, but he’s a rather variable player that was given a 4 year contract at an age that made that…risky.

"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels

by GhettoBear04 on Apr 10, 2011 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Given how much of his value (whether fWAR or bWAR) came from his defense

it was especially speculative given that Z instantly changed his position.

He averaged 3 batting runs above average in the 3 years prior to 2010, with a ton of variability. It was tough to see him as a hitter worth that much, though I think Zwakamatsu is right that paying for ~ league average wasn’t much of an overpay. The big gamble was moving him, and that backfired (for reasons I’m not clear on).

More than the $/win accounting, I think this is a really good question. Say Figgins WAS league average last year – is that what the M’s needed? Given the payroll flexibility that many have mentioned, was this the best way to deploy $9m per year for 4 years? I know, it’s way too easy to second guess this now, but seriously, what was the point of getting a fantastic 3B/leadoff hitter and changing his position and line-up spot?

by marc w on Apr 10, 2011 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

He was replacing Beltre.

The M’s needed a win better than average at least.

by harkening on Apr 10, 2011 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

If he was replacing Beltre,

why was he playing 2B? That’s sort of flip, so I’ll rephrase – I agree that he was brought in to replace Beltre’s production, and since Beltre had been a poor hitter in 2009, they didn’t need Figgins to repeat his 2009 WAR. But they got a guy whose value was so tied up in being a (good) 3B and moved him. I…I think I agreed/understood this at the time, but it seems odd to me now.

Also, I’m much more suspicious now of players without power who have great walk totals. Whether its context, luck, etc., I’m just not sure how the whole ‘pitchers throw you balls and you don’t swing’ thing is supposed to work for a guy like Figgins. Yeah that’s right Brett Gardner, I’m calling you out.

by marc w on Apr 10, 2011 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

OK, forget I said anything about Beltre's specific 2009 line.

Beltre’s 2009 production shouldn’t have any bearing on the amount of money the M’s spent on Chone Figgins, should it?
My point was that the M’s didn’t need Figgins to be a 6 WAR guy, any more than the M’s needed Beltre to be a 10 WAR player when they signed him. My reference to Beltre’s 2009 line was confusing and dumb.

by marc w on Apr 10, 2011 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, no, they didn't need him to be a 6-WAR guy.

But to replace a 3+ WAR guy with a league average player would just be dumb.

by harkening on Apr 10, 2011 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

The idea that teams "replace"

players lost with other players is overly facile and makes for poor analysis. The 2010 Mariners were different from the 2009 Mariners in more than just 3B. There are too many moving parts to simply subtract one player and add another and assume that’s all of the variance in performance that will be seen.

"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels

by GhettoBear04 on Apr 10, 2011 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Your comment reads like the Mariners went about their decision making process thusly:

Well, we have Beltre here and he’s a 3-4 WAR player. Nah, fuck him, we should sign a league average player and then go pour soy milk in our boots and make love to our Quaker-brand instant oatmeal.

by Matthew on Apr 10, 2011 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions   6 recs

That's a really good point actually

and you are correct in your assessment of the point I was trying to make. I guess some of the criticism definitely lies with Z for changing his position and lineup spot.

by Zwakamatsu on Apr 10, 2011 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

It only makes sense to me,

if you are convinced that you will be competing over the next 2 years. The issue isn’t in paying Figgins as a league average player in 2010, it was doing so for 4 years.

Perhaps they already knew they were going to trade for Lee at this point and had decided to go all in, but that doesn’t seem to absolve the GM or front office of making a bad decision; it just punts it down to a different area.

Your points about moving him are also thought-provoking, though. If it’s a risk to base a contract in part on 2 years of UZR data, how much greater is the risk if the player’s position is changed?

"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels

by GhettoBear04 on Apr 10, 2011 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

From the statistics-based perspective,

I think it made sense in terms of gaining immediate reward at future cost. I don’t think it was safe to assume that Figgins would be a 2 WAR player each year and doubted that he would be one during his age 36 season. However, it’s hard to get up in arms about a contract in the $9M range; that doesn’t seem like it should be prohibitive for a team with Seattle’s revenues.

I do wonder what scouts said that we aren’t privy to. Zduriencik is supposed to be excellent in that area, but Figgins has often looked awful at the plate during his Seattle tenure. I can’t help but wonder if there was some warning that scouts had that didn’t show up in the stats. And if there wasn’t a warning, if there should have been.

"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels

by GhettoBear04 on Apr 10, 2011 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

I guess I hadn't thought about it that much beyond considering the total WAR projection over the lifetime of the contract

The scouting point is very interesting, and you’re starting to sway my mind a little bit. But even after your points I think your last sentence in the first paragraph essentially sums up my thoughts.

by Zwakamatsu on Apr 10, 2011 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

We basically all thought we'd be competing.

Assume that, at the time, Z thought the team would compete in 2010 and especially in 2012-13. Does that change you assessment of the deal? I can see an argument for and against – OBP is awesome, but the ‘pro’ side means you think a 35 year old speed/defense guy would be an average/better than average player in 2013. I know what young/old player skills are re: batting, but again, how SHOULD Z have projected his defense to age, and at what position?

My gut tells me that this move is now pretty clearly in the ‘bad call’ bucket, but I’m trying to fight through the hindsight and the whole 100 losses thing. It’s a more interesting question if Figgins was a league average player, but… spot the M’s 20 wins (20!), and I’m not sure what the point is. How was this the best $9m for THIS team in 2010?

The counterargument to that, of course, is Matt Tuiasosopo. The team had just lost their gold-glove 3B and the in-house options were Tui and whoever was on the waiver wire (Joe Crede, maybe?). This brings us back to the position switch, of course, but the bare cupboard probably played a role in this, and I can assure you, most everyone here was thrilled to get an external solution to the 3B problem.

by marc w on Apr 10, 2011 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

You think it's unreasonable to look at his UZR totals

and think that Figgins was more likely to be a 0 < x < +5 run defender more years than not as opposed to a x > 10 run defender? Especially considering his age?

I agree that this contract now seems worse than it did when it was signed. I’m not arguing for a complete savaging of the GM for it, but I don’t think it’s right to absolve him of all or even most of the blame for it, though. I brought it up previously, but it seems to me that the scouting information of Figgins should have at least given some clue to as to how rapidly his play could decline.

"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels

by GhettoBear04 on Apr 10, 2011 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

To be clear: I'm agreeing with you, and this Z in no way gets off the hook

for 100% or ~50% of the blame here. This is now a mistake, and while no one thought it would turn out this horrifically, it’s just really difficult to see how this was the best use of that $36m back in late 2009.

My point re: his defense was that it WAS unreasonable to project him as a +10-15 defender. This is of course magnified when you change his position immediately after signing him. The point was that, while his offensive skills were ‘young players skills.’ that’s only a portion of what he brought to the table. So much of his value was tied up in defense, and it’s tougher to argue that he would maintain his value over the life of the contract because of it.

by marc w on Apr 10, 2011 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ah, ok.

I originally posited the question because I disagreed with the implications of this comment:

This is kind of a downfall of results based analysis.

If there’s anything that the advanced baseball analytical world tells us, it’s that we need to evaluate and re-evaluate what we think is true. The level of Figgins struggles in Seattle suggests to me that there was some warning that should have been heeded. I’m not sure that warning would have been apparent to fans, even with all of the advanced statistics at our disposal, but I do feel that the Mariners’ FO should have at least had it on their radar.

"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels

by GhettoBear04 on Apr 10, 2011 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

I gotta be honest, I originally was ready to fully back Z on this move

but the conversation here has kinda made me change my stance. I still do stand by the point that judging the move completely on Figgins’ performance last year and thus far this year is flawed, and that in itself is a downfall of results based analysis, but after reading some of the deeper analysis of the trade I think I made that statement in err.

by Zwakamatsu on Apr 10, 2011 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

And that wasn't my comment.

I’ve been pretty damned opaque/confusing in my comments, but yeah… agreeing with you.
Just noting that it’s tough to look past every terrible thing that’s happened since the signing, at least for me.

by marc w on Apr 10, 2011 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's also a valid point

but I still don’t think expecting 2 WAR/year makes it a bad move. If we paid him like a 3.5 or 4 WAR/year player it would be different. I’m also not saying it was the absolute best move he could have made, but at the same time I don’t know personally exactly what the market was looking like. I liked the move at the time and I still think in hindsight it shouldn’t be a mark against Z.

by Zwakamatsu on Apr 10, 2011 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think this is an example

of where focusing on the mean without regard for the variance is a bad idea. Especially over 4 years, though I can buy the argument that the M’s salary was expected to be maintained at a high(er) level.

"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels

by GhettoBear04 on Apr 10, 2011 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Assume he GOT the mean. Stipulate that Seattle would instantly cure the variance

(though he wouldn’t be a 6-7 WAR guy). So what?

The problem here wasn’t that Figgins wasn’t worth 2 wins, it’s that the team was utterly fucking terrible. A more interesting question is: should this team sign an average, maybe a touch above, 3B/2B for 4 years?

Again, I think that idea is really, really questionable now, but just how badly everyone underperformed make that answer a bit too easy. That said – this was a team that started Casey Kotchman at 1B, Jose Lopez at 3B and Rob Johnson at C. Were we really a league average IF away from a pennant run? Really?

by marc w on Apr 10, 2011 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thinking that Seattle was ready to compete in 2010

is a really, really complicated question. You have to take into account strength of division and the potential upside that the rotation had in it. Furthermore, evaluating whether the Figgins deal would have been worth it also means you have to have a good understanding of where the Mariners’ budget was and where it was/is heading.

We often talk about the win curve and how it affects value. I don’t think the Mariners were at the point on the win curve that we traditionally think of where paying the going rate for league average players made complete sense from a risk/reward point of view; however, it doesn’t seem to be folly to think that they were close enough to the rest of the likely division leaders to find the investment worth it. The danger is that the penalty for a miscalculation of thinking you are a 90-91 win team is less than the penalty for being wrong about being worse than a 88 win team.

"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels

by GhettoBear04 on Apr 10, 2011 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly.

I think we DID/DO have a pretty good sense of the M’s budget in 2010 and where it was heading. I don’t think the view of the division was all that wrong either. Oakland may have been a touch better than people here thought, but really, the gap was pretty immaterial. Texas ended up better than we thought, but it’s tough to compare given the Cliff Lee trade and all.

Completely agreed on the win curve argument. If anything, Figgins is just a microcosm (or a distraction from) the real argument: where on the win curve the team was. Most here (and some projection systems) had the team as a mid-80s team in a division without a 90-win team. That makes the investment a bit more understandable, and, if anything, points the figure back to guys like Rob Johnson, Casey Kotchman and others.

by marc w on Apr 10, 2011 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Still, a GM that takes big risks

and has them not work out should not expect to avoid criticism or feel very safe regarding his job.

"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels

by GhettoBear04 on Apr 10, 2011 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think you have to acknowledge the fact that....

Erik Bedard, Milton Bradley, Jarrod Washburn, Michael Saunders (assuming he doesn’t develop) and Adam moore. All of these players probably wouldn’t be here or wouldn’t have burdened us if not for Bill Bavasi. And if you look at our team now, all of our desirable players, not good, but players that make a solid contribution, are all here because of jack zdurendcik unless their name is Ichiro. I am counting Felix because of the amazing deal he locked him into, even though he would still technically be here. Players like Vargas, Fister, Olivo (to some extent), Guti, Jack Wilson (to some extent) these guys are all acceptable major league regulars, and sure he’s acquired some duds, like chone figgins so far, its unfair to judge him for a decision that most of us probably would have made, we can’t expect every deal to pan out perfectly.

by Sambearpig on Apr 10, 2011 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

I honestly wonder what the holy hell causes every hitter we sign to suck.

Between Figgins and Bradley and Saunders and Cust and, to a lesser extent, Smoak, nobody hits upon coming here.

I mean, its kinda understandable for power hitters like Cust and Bradley being swallowed alive by the park, but Figgins? Cheap-ass plink hits are cheap-ass plink hits whether they’re in PETCO Park or Coors Field.

by craig3410 on Apr 10, 2011 6:31 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

I believe that its still a tad too early to imply that none of those guys will hit.

Saunders and Smoak have barely had a full year of experience, if that, Bradley was bad before we got him and is trying to work his way back and Cust has had all of 9 games in a Mariner uniform before you throw him under the bus. Figgins is the only one whose fall strikes me as a surprise but hey guys have bad years all the time. The season just started, lets not get all depressed while its still April.

by Robby The Kid on Apr 10, 2011 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Why is seattle sports cursed with bad offense?

Seahawks are able to get Field goals not touchdowns, M’s can’t score some damn runs, sounders can score fuckin goals, and the sonics…well you know..

by nflnbafanatic on Apr 10, 2011 6:33 PM PDT reply actions  

Yeah but,

The M’s and the Seahawks have recently (sorta) had very prolific offenses. What happened since 2005?

by ary201 on Apr 10, 2011 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Just listened to the last podcast.

Wow, I’m even more depressed hearing even THAT minimum optimism after these last three games.

Dawg! He put da team on his back!

by JAH on Apr 10, 2011 6:42 PM PDT reply actions  

My expectations haven't changed. Still sticking with about 76 wins.

For all the talk about offensive woes, perhaps the team should try and be a little harder to score against? Thanks to this series, we’re currently in the bottom 5 in runs allowed (47). It’s not going to be just offense that buries the team if it continues, it’s going to be both.

Given how some of the runs were scored against this team, I don’t think cutting down on this is out of the question. We got swept by Texas while scoring 9 runs and got swept by Cleveland while scoring 8 runs. Last year, we swept Cincinnati while only scoring 7 runs. Granted we only allowed 1-run while throwing out Felix and Cliff Lee at the time. Still, I would think that even with that limited production, winning at least 1-of-3 in a series would be realistic.

That’s why I’m looking forward to Felix Day. We get to face a team that not coming off a sweep of the Red Sox but having gotten steamrolled by Jered Weaver. Keeping them off the board as long as possible would be a nice change of pace. The opponent has scored at least 2 runs in a game while generally scoring first. Also, it was kind of nice to see the team cut the deficit from 6-0 to 6-4. Generally didn’t see that last year.

I still think there’s a decent Major League Baseball team in there somewhere and I believe it will come out eventually.

by ThundaPC on Apr 10, 2011 7:30 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

You can maintain your position on the team's skill, but you have to revise your expectation of their record

It’s fine to think that the team will perform approximately in line with preseason expectations from here on out, but the fact remains that the Mariners have gone 2-7 when you would have “expected” something more like 4-5 – i.e. they’ve lost two more games than expected. So if you expected them to play .469 baseball, there’s no big issue with thinking that they’ll play .469 baseball for the rest of the season, but these nine games are “in the books” and you now have to expect 74 wins rather than 76.

by austinh on Apr 10, 2011 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

How the hell does this make sense?

Averages go up and down, they can still win 76 games if that is their talent level. Tomorrw they could start a 20 game win streak and still finish with 76 wins. I don’t even know how to explain what’s wrong with your logic.

by BaronVonBullshit on Apr 10, 2011 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

He's right.

If you believe is a true talent X%, you should expect them to perform at that level from any given point unless you revise that. Even if you flip heads 5 straight times, you would expect a heads to come up 50% of the time on the next flip. If their true talent was 76 games (a .470 clip) before the season and it still is, the expectation would be that they would win .47% of their remaining games regardless of what has happened before. You’d have to revise their win total down.

by abender20 on Apr 10, 2011 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions   5 recs

Ok, this explanation makes way more sense than the way he worded it. Although it makes sense, I'm still not convinced it's true.

Say I predict over the next 2 games Ichiro will hit .500. Tomorrow he goes 0-4, by what’s being said here since this game is “already in the book” I have to believe that after this point he can live up to the potential of a .500 batting average, but only from that point forward. If he goes 4-4 instead my original prediction of a .500 batting average over 2 days is correct. Saying a team will win 76 games doesn’t mean they HAVE to have a .470 average throughout the season.

A coin could be flipped 9 times and come up 2 heads, 7 tails. That doesn’t mean that since the true average is 50% that over 162 flips it will find that true average. Just because the M’s went 2-7 doesn’t mean that over 162 games their true talent will emerge as a 76 win team.

by BaronVonBullshit on Apr 10, 2011 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes, it could indeed work out that the flips will fall such that the originally predicted total occurs,

however after the initial outcomes have happened, it is no longer the most likely case. Remember that probability is not a certainty but a range out possible outcomes with the most likely case being the average. Over stuff can and does happen, but you should always expect the average outcome moving forward. Like Rob Johnson not hitting 162 homers after the first game of last season.

by abender20 on Apr 10, 2011 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

You agreed with us in your last sentence.
A coin could be flipped 9 times and come up 2 heads, 7 tails. That doesn’t mean that since the true average is 50% that over 162 flips it will find that true average.

The preseason prediction of win number or number of heads or whatever is a prediction of rate (an estimate of talent in the baseball case) converted into a win total based on number of games played. The rate will not change (you know, barring revised stuff like injuries or trades or new data) and so the win total will depend on whatever actually did happen in the past plus your expected rate of winning times the number of remaining games. I think you get it and are just caught on the win total.

by abender20 on Apr 10, 2011 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

I guess you're right and I do agree, but I think what I might be getting at is that 9 games is too small of a sample size.

Say we continue losing and go to 2-20. Then I’d absolutely go with what you’re saying, but like with any average it changes so rapidly with a small amount of data. It’s completely reasonable that the M’s win a few games and all of a sudden are back on the .470 clip and finish the rest of the season at that clip. At 2-20 it would be near impossible to catch back up to the .470 overall season average.

by BaronVonBullshit on Apr 10, 2011 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not sure if this helps at all

but this is assuming the team plays say .470 the rest of the year. If they do, they will win about 72 more games. If you add into that their current record, they will only have 74 wins, or two less than .470 ball over 162 games. No one is saying that there is no way they can win 76 games, but you would have to revise your prediction for the team, and if there isn’t a good reason to do that then you have to take 2 wins off your projected total.

by Zwakamatsu on Apr 10, 2011 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, once the math was better explained it makes total sense to me now

I’m just going to fall onto the small sample size crutch with why I disagree… for now.

by BaronVonBullshit on Apr 10, 2011 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Coins don't know how they landed before. They only fall 50% of the time on either side.

Wrap your head around that, read through the comments above and it should all click into place.

by abender20 on Apr 10, 2011 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

No, I totally get what you guys are saying and it makes 100% sense

But If a coin is flipped 100 times and I predict by the end it will be 50/50. The rate to get there may and almost absolutely will fluctuate as we go, but as long as when we get to the end of the flipping it comes out 50/50 my original prediction was correct.

I am making some sense to you guys right? I’m not just some total loon, right?

by BaronVonBullshit on Apr 10, 2011 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

You are right, to get back to 50/50 overall you'd have to expect some streaks.

The problem is in a given set, you don’t predict a streak, you predict the expected 50/50.

by harkening on Apr 10, 2011 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Unfortunately you are leaning toward loon.

Your prediction isn’t of a total, it’s of a rate. You are predicting 50% heads and because you have set your flip # to 100, you expect 50. After 10 coin flips, you still expect 50% heads and so you predict 45 heads to come up from that point on. If the first 10 flips were all heads, you’d accurately predict a total of 55 from your trials. If the first 10 were tails, you’d accurately predict 45 from your trials and so on. Rate. Rate rate rate.

by abender20 on Apr 10, 2011 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is the part that I don't understand, why doesn't the size of the sample predicted matter?

If you ask me to guess the number of times a coin is flipped heads out of 10 tries I might guess 4 or 6 or 7. I understand that with so few opportunities that, even though the chance of gettting heads on any one flip is 50%, I could see a wide range of outcomes. But if you asked me to guess how many times I’ll get heads out of 162 tries I’m going to guess a number between 78 and 83, something right at that 50% mark. As you expand your attempts you’re more likely to hit that expected outcome, the streaks offset each other and become lost in volume of flips. It seems to me that the larger your set of attempts the less likely it is to correlate with any particular small subset of attempts.

A preseason prediction is what you expect their win% to be after 162 games, not 9. If you predicted the Mariners to win 47% of their games, and still feel that that’s a fair assessment of their talent, then theres no reason to think they won’t make up the two wins missing from this set of games over the next 153 games.

by Nate Dogg on Apr 11, 2011 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Right, but there isn't a 47% chance the Mariners will win or lose their first nine games

there is a 100% chance they will win two and lose seven. Now we need to figure out how many we think they will win of the remaining 153, and add those numbers to what has already happened.

by seattlebruin on Apr 11, 2011 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

I feel like I'm just rehashing everything thats already been said

but I’m not sure how that response addresses what I’m asking since it’s breaking up the set of outcomes.

If I predict the Mariners will win 47% of 162 games theres an X% chance that over any 9 game sample they will have only won 28% of the games. Isn’t there also an X% chance that they will have won 72% of their games? I wish I had the math skills to figure out what X is but, assuming it’s not incredibly small, it seems reasonable to expect that over the 17 other sets of 9 games there would be one that evens this first one out.

Maybe I’m way off on this. It just seems to me that we shouldn’t be adjusting our expectations, again assuming that you still think a 47% winning percentage is the Mariners talent level, based on 5.5% of the season.

by Nate Dogg on Apr 11, 2011 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

The size of the sample that already took place, from a probability standpoint, only matters if you use it adjust your expectation moving forward.

Using your example, if you were to look at your coin flip scenario as a distribution of probable outcomes with 50% and the surrounding options at the peak.

If your first flip is a tails, a prediction of the rest of the flips conforming to your original prediction isn’t so crazy because it’s still up near the peak (but not the peak itself!). This is the point that seems to be missed the most, so it’s easier to demonstrate with extremes. If you predict 50 heads out of 100 (sane) and the first 50 flips come up tails and you decide the coin isn’t rigged, you’d have to get 50 straight heads to get to your prediction. Why would you assume the coin would do that now? It doesn’t know it just came up tails 50 times.

The only difference between this scenario and the current Mariners scenario is that sticking with your original win total prediction doesn’t require the most unlikely possible of all scenarios in order to fulfill your prediction because the required deviation from “true talent” to make that up is smaller now than it would be if the Mariners lost 15 more in a row. The more losses the Mariners put behind them, the further down the curve you slide into the land of even more unlikely events. But the concept remains the same. Predicting the same number you started with is predicting a scenario that is no longer the most likely and is therefore “incorrect”.

by abender20 on Apr 11, 2011 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

This all makes sense.

The chances the Mariners hit that .470 winning rate has decreased, even if it’s only a very slight decrease. I’m just not sure that we’ve seen enough games to make that decrease meaningful.

by Nate Dogg on Apr 11, 2011 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

But the point is that the overall win total is likely to decrease slightly

if you think their true talent level is the same, then they are still a .470 club, but only for the remaining 153 games

by seattlebruin on Apr 11, 2011 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Again, don't confuse "reasonable" with "most likely".

The M’s could in theory accomplish every possible combination of wins and losses from here on out (though not at the same time) but our expectation at any given moment should be “Win X% of their remaining games”. Probability doesn’t have a memory. Whatever kooky shit happened before will either serve to revise our expected win% or not.

The sample size, as you say, is limited. Based on that, we shouldn’t really revise our expected win% and should instead continue to expect them to win X% of the remaining games.

by abender20 on Apr 10, 2011 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

While 76 wins may have been the original projection,

I would bet that a drop to 74 still leaves it firmly within the original projection’s error range. A current projection of 74 wins doesn’t rule out 76 or even make it highly unlikely.

"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels

by GhettoBear04 on Apr 10, 2011 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Or,

you could stick with your original pre-season projection moving forward.

"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels

by GhettoBear04 on Apr 10, 2011 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

His logic is actually quite clear, and I don't really know how you are misunderstanding it.

He isn’t saying that there’s no way the team could end up with 76 wins. What is saying, essentially, is you can’t get back these losses. They have played below the win percentage that was expected so far, so to make up for it they have to play at a higher win percentage.

by Zwakamatsu on Apr 10, 2011 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

I do not have to revise my expectation of their record.

To win 76 games you have to lose more games than you win. The losses have to come from somewhere. It doesn’t matter which days those losses come. I did not expect them to go 4-5 because the record for the first week of the season is irrelevant. The Houston Astros started last season 0-8. Final record: 76-86.

I’m using the idea from Jeff’s assumptions. Despite horrid starts, he can still presume that the Red Sox and Rays can meet his preseason expectations. The teams just have to win more from this point on to get there. Same idea here.

The only reason to change my expectation is if I see things specifically about the team that are either better or worse than I expected. I fully expected this team to be a work in progress and I fully expected the team to have problems earlier in the season rather than later. With this year being about development and establishing a solid foundation, plus the implementation of yet another new managerial staff, anything above .500 at this point would’ve surprised me. I expect better results/more wins later in the season. If they end up winning only 68 wins instead of 76 then they would have fallen below my expectations.

by ThundaPC on Apr 11, 2011 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with your point.

I haven’t seen anything to really change my overall perception of the team’s true talent. We can pitch and play defense well enough to be pretty successful long-term in run prevention. While there’s been a dispiriting overall lack of dingers, I look at our lineup and see a group that can generally take their walks and hit for a little power, enough to scrape together a competitive, if not actually good amount of runs.

I see a lot of bad luck involved in our recent struggles with run prevention. According to Fangraphs, our pitching has a 3.6 FIP yet a 4.37 ERA, mainly due to a 58% strand rate, dead last in the majors. I don’t think it’s reasonable to think our pitchers will continue to fail to strand runners so badly.

Then again, six games in this slide, my irrational mind is beginning to fear that, indeed, there is no floor.

by VivaAyala on Apr 10, 2011 7:51 PM PDT reply actions  

Re: Crazytown

Now I can’t get “come my lady, come, come my lady, you’re my butterfly; sugar, baby” out of my head.

by hcoguy on Apr 10, 2011 8:02 PM PDT reply actions  

I'm done

- No more Dave
- No offense to speak of whatsoever
- Both Wilson and Bradley appear to be crazy and/or benched
- Trotting out Bedard, who’s not only 2008’s scarlet letter for this franchise, but is also completely fucking broken, BTW.

And to top it all off, I found out today that Dixie/Porters BBQ at the stadium has been replaced with some kind of off-brand, sub-standard BBQ, the kind you usually find in the Northwest (i.e. shitty).

Sorry, Mariners… we’re done. You’re just not bringing anything to this relationship.

by Luscious James on Apr 10, 2011 8:27 PM PDT reply actions  

No Dave, fair enough.

No offense- sorta true, still really early. Bradley got a day off, why do you care so much about Wilson being benched, and Bedard has made essentially 2 starts in 2 years.

Really?

by Zwakamatsu on Apr 10, 2011 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm sure the Phillies or Red Sox will welcome your fandom

Me, I’m sticking with the Mariners. For the 27th year. They’re my team (win or) lose.

by pdb on Apr 10, 2011 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions   9 recs

That new BBQ place ooked terrible when I walked by.

I was always a regular for a Porter Special.. now it looks abysmal.

by ambrosia2112 on Apr 10, 2011 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, I really appreciate the M's helping me stay focused on my courseload this quarter.

But I want some damn wins. Went to my first game of the year this year, and unfortunately the highlight was either finally seeing the stadium with the roof closed or getting robbed on a ball tossed into the stands.

It was kind of a bummer how much it felt like 2010 in the first series at home this year. Sometimes I feel like my Mariners love is just a festering case of Stockholm syndrome.

by SgtSasquatch on Apr 10, 2011 10:01 PM PDT reply actions  

Here's the crazy thing about the other teams you list

Have a look at the team BABIP over at Fangraphs. The Rays are at .195, so yeah, it’s safe to say they’ll get better. But who’s right above them, at the bottom of the BABIP barrel? The Orioles, at .246! That’s worse than the Yankees, who are somehow worse than the Red Sox; the Twins and Cardinals are the other teams in that sub-.260 hole. Meanwhile the Mariners are hovering at a low but much more respectable .277 (which is actually slightly better than the Rangers’ .275 and slightly worse than Jays’ .280, but much worse than the Indians’ unsustainable .327 or the Angels’ .449)

So while I think the Mariners are better than this, they’re probably not a lot better. And in the category of team that just might surprise everybody (while still probably not going to the postseason), the early leader has to be the Orioles.

by Ugly Dickshot on Apr 11, 2011 1:35 AM PDT reply actions  

Well, on the other hand:
d_a_cameron
The Orioles have a .487 team OPS with the bases empty, .908 with men on base, 1.144 with RISP.

by ThundaPC on Apr 11, 2011 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think you're selling the M's offense a little short.

According to Fangraphs (apparently updated this morning, so some numbers have changed since you posted), but the M’s BABIP is currently .262. Last year, our BABIP was .282, second worst in the majors (to the FB-heavy Jay’s .269), which is probably a reasonable floor for a team that has Ichiro! on it. So, I see some substantial improvement coming in that category.

However, I see the most improvement coming in power. Right now, the M’s have an ISO of .097, which is slightly worse than last years’ total of .104. What strikes me as flukey about this is that literally every regular save Figgins and Ryan has a better career ISO than that, which is equal to what Ichiro! has done for his career. Many of them (Olivo .179, MB .170, Cust .204, Smoak .150 and Langerhans .148) are significantly better, and yet only Langerhans is exceeding his career number.

Essentially, the Mariners pretty much have to get better at getting hits on balls in play, but I think they’re also gonna get significantly better at hitting XBHs. Even this shitacular losing streak hasn’t altered that opinion.

by VivaAyala on Apr 11, 2011 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

Rays

I was going to say I don’t think they’ll be fine. Then you posted their babip. Still, their flyball rate is higher than most and their iso isn’t all that high. I think babip and all, they are not going to be fine, if fine means .500 this year.

by wobatus on Apr 11, 2011 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions  

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.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Starlin Castro's fit with Seattle
Kawasaki80_small
Lists! So many lists!
M_s_hat_copy_small
OT -- May 22nd In Memoriam
Ichiro_small
Why do managers and media members hate walks?
Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
Dustin Ackley BP swing vs game swing
Beastquakerwallpaper_small
More on the Struggles of Smoak
Randy2_for_sbn_small
Albert Pujols 2012: Three Retrospectives
Small
On Batting Orders
Niehaus_small
More on Dustin Ackley and the strikezone

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Sexy People

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan

Small Matthew

Claw_small JY