Chone Figgins
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 19, 2012 11:14 PM PST
in Seattle Mariners Regular News
Email
PrintThere has not been a whole lot of news out of Mariners camp so far. Nor would you expect there to be - camp is just getting going. It's probably a good thing that there hasn't been a whole lot of news so far, because I think most news around this point is bad news. This guy's out of shape. That guy's still getting over an injury. That other guy has tuberculosis. I hope you like tuberculosis jokes because there are going to be a lot of them.
There's one thing now that's getting a lot of attention, though. Geoff Baker's been all over it. Chone Figgins has apparently been told by the team that he's going to play very very often, and Baker expects that Figgins will be named the new leadoff hitter within a few days.
Immediately, it sounds unpleasant. Immediately, the temptation is to snark. I saw a handful of #6org remarks floating around Twitter earlier in response. Last season, there were 265 batters who came to the plate at least 300 times. Chone Figgins had the worst OBP out of all of them. Chone Figgins also had the worst slugging percentage out of all of them. The Mariners, it would appear, want to see more of that guy. More of that guy who just posted a .484 OPS. That is a four, and then that is an eight. I didn't just make a typo.
But as much fun as snark can be, there's a reason it comes easily. It doesn't add anything worthwhile. It doesn't say anything worthwhile. I'm not wild about the idea of Chone Figgins playing a lot and batting leadoff myself, but you can understand where the team's coming from.
First of all: Chone Figgins hasn't been named the leadoff hitter, yet. He hasn't been regularly put in the lineup, yet. At this point, right now, it's all words and speculation.
But let's say Figgins does start out with plenty of playing time. Let's say Figgins does supplant Ichiro at the top of the order. Then what?
Then we see. Then we see, and then the team sees. If the Mariners name Chone Figgins their leadoff hitter this week, that wouldn't mean anything for September, or August, or July, or so on. That would mean something for the end of March and the beginning of April. From there on, things can change. Things do change, all the time, often unpredictably.
It's important to understand that, if the Mariners commit to Figgins, it won't be to reward him. Chone Figgins has done nothing for which he ought to be rewarded. But that's exactly the thing. If the Mariners commit to Figgins, it'll be because they're trying to get him going. They're trying to get him going by making a change. Chone Figgins claims that he's most comfortable batting leadoff. Okay, then the Mariners can give him a trial. If it works, it works. That would be interesting and weird. If it doesn't work - and it should go without saying that I'm skeptical - then the Mariners can be like "well we tried."
If the Mariners commit to Figgins, and Figgins keeps on underachieving, he's not going to keep playing all the time, and he's not going to keep batting near the top of the order. It would really just be a test. It would be the Mariners exploring another option before having to cut bait. You and I can say that they should just cut bait now, or a year ago, but the Mariners invested a lot in the guy, and you can understand why they'd have more patience. Especially in a season like this.
Remember, the Mariners are probably looking at playoff odds around, I don't know, three percent. Put another way, the Mariners as constructed are probably a mid-70s win team, with upside and perhaps more downside than we'd care to acknowledge. If the Mariners play Figgins a lot from the beginning and he's bad, what is that really going to cost them? A win? A win that presumably isn't going to mean very much? If that's what it would take to know for sure that Figgins is a lost cause, well, okay. This year is about learning and developing. It's not going to be about contending unless a whole lot of things go really really well.
Chone Figgins is an unpopular player, at least among the fans. Of course he is. He's been bad, and he hasn't been particularly likable. People don't like hearing talk that the Mariners are going to try to get him going again. But if the Mariners could get him going, wouldn't that be great? Weren't most of us supportive of the contract at the time? Would it really be so crazy for the Mariners to try one last thing? Let's face it - it's not like Chone Figgins is blocking a big-time prospect at the moment. Kyle Seager has half a season above double-A. Plus he's Kyle Seager. And so on.
I don't see anything particularly objectionable about the Mariners trying to get Chone Figgins back on his feet. I don't think that playing him all the time and batting him leadoff is the answer. I suspect that Chone Figgins is just not that good a baseball player anymore. He's 34 and little. But I get it. I get what it seems like the Mariners are thinking. This would get objectionable if it gets to be June or July and Figgins is bad and still playing a lot. Now? Give him a shot. Whatever. Maybe, right?
I've written a lot of words explaining why I don't think something is a big deal. And that something isn't even official yet. I haven't even touched on the other side of Chone Figgins batting leadoff, which would be Ichiro no longer batting leadoff. I also don't think that would be a big deal, although it would definitely be strange. Ichiro's a leadoff hitter. That's long been a part of his identity. Now that part of his identity could be changing, just like other parts of his identity.
Lots of words. Maybe not worth this many words. Chone Figgins as a regular and a leadoff hitter? Ehh. It probably wouldn't work. But it could work, if batting order position is as important to Figgins as he seems to think it is. I don't like this idea if Figgins is bad and they keep it up, but Figgins hasn't been bad yet. Not post-change Figgins. So let's see where we are after a handful of weeks. Then we'll have data, and it's always better with data.
217 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I guess he can't be any worse than he already is.
God is going to screw me over. I know he is.
Roar! I'm a Dog!
by qwertyiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm on Feb 19, 2012 11:25 PM PST reply actions
It would be pretty spectacular if he got a couple hundred at bats and never got on base.
I don’t think I could even be mad if that happened.
by Patrick Stites on Feb 20, 2012 12:04 AM PST up reply actions
This really sounds like some sort of challenge directed at the Baseball Gods.
But honestly seems like kind of a wasted challenge. How about, “hey, I bet there’s no way Ichiro could break his own hits record!” Or, “I guess there’s no way Montero breaks McGwire’s rookie HR record.”
Let’s make the Baseball Gods work for it!
[no religion]
And Nemesis cracks her knuckles
How come you can do all this other great shit, but you can't lie the fuck down and sleep?
by JAH on Feb 20, 2012 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It could be worse
I’ll let you know when I think what could be worse.
I Figured It Out
We could be the Astro’s. Even the Astro’s don’t want to be the Astro’s.
There may not be a downside for the Mariners.
There is a big downside for fans of the team. If Figgins bats leadoff we have to watch more Figgins at bats than any other player’s. That means more than Ichiro’s, more than Ackley,s, more than everyone else’s in the order. Aren’t we suffering enough without more Figgins?
It won't last long if he's still bad.
by ThundaPC on Feb 20, 2012 12:10 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It took them 46 games to figure out Carlos Peguero might not be ready for MLB.
It took them a month and a half to figure out Junior was done as a player.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
Perhaps they're setting it up so that when the team falls out of contention by the ASB, they can blame Figgins and DFA him
Wheels within wheels! The kids can all take 2012 to develop and Chone is the scapegoat for any pesky “losing” or “finishing third in the West again”…
by Chris_FB on Feb 20, 2012 9:47 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Rule of thumb is 2 months per bad player
Unless they do something Bradley-esque, then you can run them out in a month
You mean like batting Olivo 4th?
It took them way too long to figure out that was dumb.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 11:34 AM PST up reply actions
Jeff, you were right.
That’s a lot of words. Too many. But then, the two words in the headline were scariest of all.
"There is no sports event like Opening Day of baseball, the sense of beating back the forces of darkness and the National Football League."
—George Vecsey
by extavernmouse on Feb 19, 2012 11:44 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
It's hard to get too worked up about Figgins failing in 2012
As long as that’s the last we regularly see of him in a Mariners uniform. While part of me wants him to post a .375 OBP in April and May, because awesome, there’s another more fed-up part of me that just wants him to blow his last opportunity then get the hell out of my sight, and the sooner the better.
by destroy my sweater on Feb 19, 2012 11:55 PM PST reply actions
The fed-up part of you is probably going to be estatic
by SuperDopaLiciousFunkStar on Feb 20, 2012 3:11 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
OK, let's say he bounces back to about where his projections put him, stays healthy all year, plays all year.
So, he plays 150 games, mostly at 3B, hits something like .265/.330/.320, still steals some bases, average defense at 3B. Let’s say he goes on to a WAR between 1.5-2, which is probably the best case scenario unless we’re huffing gasoline and thinking he’s going back to his peak performance years.
OK, so what? You’ve got someone making $9 million under contract who’s turning 35 who is a somewhat below average player in a not too farfetched best case scenario. Oh, and he helped get a manager fired, has some past injury issues and poor years behind him, and whines a lot if he’s not a starter, even though he’s done nothing from 2010-2011 to deserve it, other than flashing the “I’m a MLB veteran” entitlement card.
And this is on a team that probably won 75 games and needs young players to develop to have any chance to beat that.
Is he actually going to HAVE value to another team ($9 million for a mediocre player)? And what makes you think Kyle Seager couldn’t produce 1.5-2 WAR under a fairly similar optimistic projection (with the advantage that he might actually be around when the Mariners are in position to contend)?
This is what drives me nuts about this. It’s all sunk costs fallacy. The $36 million is GONE, don’t use that in the evaluation. What you have is someone who isn’t likely to be a useful player when the M’s are ready to contend in a year or two. So why do you care if he’s going to sulk if he’s not promised a leadoff spot, a starting position and a pony? If 2012 isn’t about contending, don’t use it to waste time on players who don’t have any upside for the NEXT contending team.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 28 recs
Rec'd and applauded.
"Perhaps the worst comment I've ever seen on LL." - sanford_and_son.
by Ride the Apocalypse on Feb 20, 2012 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
The $36 million isn't totally gone.
If he bounces back, some team may be willing to take a fraction of his salary. Since he’s no use to us, we may as well try to dump however much of his remaining salary as we can. The only way to do this is to have him play. We don’t really lose anything by having him play, and we could potentially get back, oh I don’t know, $2 million? Point is, this isn’t a completely sunk cost
by Dewey N on Feb 20, 2012 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 6 recs
I'd be happy
If he got a hit and a walk in the first game in Japan and we flipped him for ten pounds of peanuts and a subscription to The Atlantic.
by q.t.mcwhiskers on Feb 20, 2012 12:19 AM PST reply actions
Reminds me of Milton Bradley last year.
Even though he was cut in early May, he showed that he still had a little bit left in the tank. Figgins’ sudden collapse is odd enough as it is. I’m okay with trying to see what Figgins has left.
If Ichiro doesn't revert back to his old self can we start a campaign claiming it's because he's out of the leadoff spot?
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Feb 20, 2012 12:45 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
If he reverts back to his old self and they don't put him the leadoff spot to keep chasing records, I will be pissed for no rational reason whatsoever.
by harkening on Feb 20, 2012 12:59 AM PST up reply actions 5 recs
It's rational in the sense that we, as Mariners fans, enjoy watching Ichiro chase records.
For the past decade, it’s been the one reliable thing that we’ve always been able to root for without feeling like we’re just getting our hopes up.
"Perhaps the worst comment I've ever seen on LL." - sanford_and_son.
by Ride the Apocalypse on Feb 20, 2012 1:47 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Part of the reason the team doesn't contend is they routinely screw things like this up.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 9:54 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
This decision won't cost the team that much.
by yuniform on Feb 20, 2012 12:15 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
Neither did playing Griffey in 2010 or Bradley in 2011, in the big scheme of things
I’m just tired of Same Shit, Different Season, where we decide (insert name of poorly performing veteran) deserves another shot because of (insert hackneyed baseball cliche used for lame decisions since time immemorial).
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Using logic to examine the current situation is not a hackneyed baseball cliche
by Matthew on Feb 20, 2012 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
When we get tired of "Felix is ours..."
…Matthew’s subject line would make a splendid replacement.
Inmates running the asylum
What is a young player coming up in the M’s system supposed to learn from KGJ in 2010, or Bradley in 2011, and now Figlet in 2012?
This all seems right in line with what Wedge has been saying.
Doing what works best for the team. When Ichiro was struggling last year and there was talk about moving him out of the lead-off position, who would have replaced him and been better? Ryan? Seager? Ackley would have brought more juice to lead-off, but then who do you replace him with? Ichiro also had 40 stolen bases with only 7 caught stealing. So yeah, move him out of lead-off last year to see if it gets him going, but not to improve the offense by replacing him at lead-off.
Trying Figgens in his last successful roles, 3B and lead-off, makes sense for the team. It might work out. Wedge gives the impression he believes there is a shot at getting Figgens going again. The best way to do that, as with any player, is by giving him the best chance to succeed. With Figgens, that’s putting him in the same role where he was last successful.
If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work, and then go to plan B. I’d bet that Ichiro would be ecstatic to hit behind a rejuvenated Figgens as opposed to hitting lead-off with no one worthwhile hitting second as in 2011.
This "batting behind someone will hurt Ichiro" is a fallacy
His batting average (sorry) and OBP (less sorry) do not take a nosedive with a runner on first, but rather they hold extremely steady. I know it’s counterintuitive, and I know this comment lacks a link, but there it is anyway.
by fiftyone on Feb 20, 2012 3:02 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Here's
a link for those who want to see for themselves. With a man on first, his BABIP drops from .353 to .338 but he makes up for that by not striking out. Also interesting to note, over Ichiro’s career he’s been best with a man on second, with a .400 BABIP and a .924 OPS. If Chone can rebound a little and hit doubles or get on first then steal second, him batting ahead of Ichiro could actually help Ichiro’s numbers.
by Dewey N on Feb 20, 2012 3:19 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Should note that he's only had a season's worth of PA with a man on second so that number should obviously be taken with a grain of salt
by Dewey N on Feb 20, 2012 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks for the numbers, good sir.
by fiftyone on Feb 20, 2012 4:04 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Ichiro?
I know he’s coming off a terrible season himself, but damned if this isn’t unfair to Ichiro. Dude’s been the M’s leadoff hitter for a decade. If they were replacing him at the top of the order with Ackley, that’d be one (entirely reasonable and just) thing—sports are supposed to be a meritocracy and all. But to bump him for the worst hitter in all of baseball?
99% of the time I’m not in favor of veterans getting special treatment just for being veterans. But this is a Hall of Fame franchise icon and a guy who posted a .484 OPS last year. That just seems disrespectful.
by walkie on Feb 20, 2012 1:49 AM PST reply actions 6 recs
If he gracefully accepts a new role with the team, especially with Figgins in his place
I hope that once and for all, everyone can agree that Ichiro is NOT a selfish player. If you were the best to ever do what you do at your place of work (in this case, on the Seattle Mariners) and were told that you were being moved to a different department after one year of average-mediocre production so that the guy who was the worst at doing your job last year could replace you, wouldn’t you be upset? And especially knowing that if you don’t do it, you’ll be seen as selfish and not a team player, which you’d had to deal with around the office for years anyways just because you did your job a little differently (and to much greater success).
If Ichiro accepts whatever role the team gives him and plays hard, trying to help the team win first and foremost, I don’t see how anyone can continue to dog him.
"Perhaps the worst comment I've ever seen on LL." - sanford_and_son.
by Ride the Apocalypse on Feb 20, 2012 2:01 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Oh boy, I sure hope so
I still think Figgins at leadoff is a ridiculous idea, but if Ichiro handles it with class and it quiets the obnoxious “selfish Ichiro” crowd, well, at least it will have done that. Unfortunately, I kind of doubt evidence to the contrary will change that criticism much, since it’s not exactly founded in rationality to begin with.
by walkie on Feb 20, 2012 2:56 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree.
Aaron Curry is the first Seahawk since Walter Jones to have a legitimate shot at Hall of Fame induction - John Morgan
by Fearless Frog on Feb 20, 2012 8:15 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Ichiro in the #2 slot
In 2011 Figgins had an OBP of .241. In other words, if Ichiro bats behind him in the order, in 3 games out of 4 it will be like Ichiro is still the leadoff hitter, but with a weird 2-out inning to start the game.
I think what he was trying to say is that it would be like Ichiro leading off as usual, just that for the first inning the Mariners have only two outs to give before the inning is over
Because Figgins sucks
"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good and let me be judged accordingly. The rest is silence." ~ Dinobot
by beastwarking on Feb 20, 2012 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
I think Tucci got that and was joking.
by yuniform on Feb 20, 2012 1:32 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
Sarcasm is hard
"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good and let me be judged accordingly. The rest is silence." ~ Dinobot
by beastwarking on Feb 20, 2012 1:33 PM PST up reply actions
For once, it would be lovely for one of our hitters to bounce back...
…I just can’t see Figgins being that man. That said, I am not immune to trying since this is basically a lost season anyway.
by EnglishMariner on Feb 20, 2012 2:01 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
You know who I could see being that man in the leadoff spot?
Ichiro. Wait a second.
A move like this might cause much of the fanbase to actually dislike Figgins even more.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets booed at Safeco the very first time he goes 0-4. Seems like an odd way to try to build up his confidence.
At this point I probably care more about Ichiro's personal records than the team's record.
This move might not cost the mariners any games, or even if it does cost us a game, it’s 73 wins instead of 74 wins (this seems to be the standard thinking, right?)
But it very likely will cost Ichiro some PAs, and that’s enough for me to dislike it. And it’s not that I’m concerned about it affecting his performance, but his counting stats could suffer. The difference between 74 wins and 73 wins is less important to me than 203 hits and 198 hits. Stupid? I don’t know.
Obviously, I'm assuming an Ichiro bounceback and the team to otherwise generally perform to expectations.
A couple big assumptions, but who ever said sports fandom was rational?
If the experiment is successful,
and Ichiro bats 2nd or 3rd, he shouldn’t lose any PAs if the team OBP is better than if he were leadoff, and could actually get more.
"Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp" B. Dylan
"it’s 73 wins instead of 74 wins (this seems to be the standard thinking, right?)"
Hmm, I thought the conventional wisdom was .500 was in sight. Some time ago, I moped about this upcoming season holding another 90-100 losses, and was called unduly pessimistic.
I was told that the Mariners have a good chance of finishing at .500 this season
Not “oh, we’re getting there.” I guess that’s still “oh, we’re getting there” in the context of returning to contention, but that’s not what people told me.
You were lied to. On the internet.
by yuniform on Feb 20, 2012 12:18 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
Point out to me
where someone says we have a good chance at finishing .500, because I don’t see it.
It was in 2009.
In 2009, we were talking about how good things would be by now.
I believe that was Dave saying we could get back to .500 not people here
But to be fair I think he said that before we traded Pineda and when he was still thinking that we would use the remaining payroll space which didn’t get used on Prince Fielder to upgrade the team in other ways (like through the rotation by signing Edwin Jackson or at 3B with somebody like Mark Reynolds). I doubt he still would project the team that high.
That said just because the projection is 74 wins doesn’t mean finishing .500 is out of the question, either. It only takes a few breaks here or there to finish .500 with a 74 win true talent level. It’s just 7 wins difference. Contention is very likely not realistic but .500 is not well out of the realm of possibility. It’s just not the most likely outcome.
It's also possible to win 67 with a 74 win true talent level.
Possibly more likely, since you may have seen this one before:
- team completely tanks April-May, is a bit unlucky
- false hope in June, followed by more tanking in July
- GM trades off some of the 74 true-talent players like the close about to go to free agency and the midlevel starter in his last year of arbitration
- team is now not a 74-true talent team and sucks some more in August and September as the rookies flail a bit getting their feet wet. Maybe we start Vazquez some more. Good times!
And then we wake up at the end of the season and it’s another 67-95 M’s team with a bunch of unresolved questions…
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 3:18 PM PST up reply actions
More data?
Not sure what another month of data will do. If he hits well for a month you’ll start getting visions of 2009 Figgins, and if he flops all over again after that you’ve lost half a season or so of seeing if Seager can pick it up. And by then Liddi or Catricala may be knocking on the door.
Not a big deal, sure, but I’d rather get a better idea about Seager then about Figgins. Figgy can be super-utility and pick-up for Seager if Seager starts off ice cold.
Martinez
Almost forgot. You’ve got 4 4 3b prospects with a partial season of AA on up to major league level. You’re better off seeing what Seager has than seeing what Figgins hs, as long as you’re season-punting.
I actually like the M’s to surprise a bit this year. Actually building the nucleus of a good line-up. A lot based on potential, sure. Ackley, Smoak, Montero, Carp, Seager or any of the 3b behind him stepping up. Nothing compared to the arms on the farm, of course.
I know there's no point in worrying about this,
or paying any mind to what players have to say, but in one of the Times’ posts on Figgins, Baker asked him if he thought where he hit in the lineup made a big difference to how he approached hitting. Figgins said it did. (Sigh.) He said he tried to get on base if he was in the lead-off position, and tried to be more aggressive if he was in another spot in the lineup. So maybe this (hitting him leadoff) is the only way to counteract the fact that Figgins does not understand the first thing about hitting or his value to a team.
I want Figgins to fail horribly.
Just because if he actually succeeds in the leadoff position we’re going to have to listen to yet another wave of “Selfish Ichiro” people talking out of their ass.
by Cascadian Man on Feb 20, 2012 7:52 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
It just seems so odd to me to do this publicly now.
I mean, I know spring training numbers don’t mean much, but I don’t think anyone would even notice if Wedge started Figgins at leadoff in most of the cactus league games, and I just don’t believe that, if after a month of fake games, Figgins is batting .210 and Ichiro is batting .350 Figgins will be leading off much in April. I don’t see why you would risk saying something like this now and risk pissing Figgins off when you have to go back on it later. It kind of reminds me of the thing with telling Iwakuma he would start one of the games in Japan (assuming that was actually true).
by wetzelcoal on Feb 20, 2012 8:30 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Agreed.
Let’s talk about this in mid-March. I understand the reasoning, but I don’t think Figgins has done anything to justify being entitled to playing time anywhere, much less at the top of the lineup, before they even start intrasquad games. Obviously ST stats are next to meaningless, but the idea makes more sense if Figgins shows some signs of life first.
Secondly, this whole “lets move Ichiro out of the leadoff spot” seems really knee-jerk reactionary to me. Yes he’s showing signs of slowing down, but he stole 40 bases last year and barring some sort of Figgins miracle or giant step forward for Trayvon there’s not anyone better suited to leadoff on the team. Just seems like making a move for the sake of making a move.
Also
How come we never heard about this “torn labrum” Figgins was suffering through last year? Given his shitty performance you’d think the team would have jumped all over an opportunity to put him on the DL to clear his head/clear a roster spot. This just reeks of a made-up injury.
Spring training stats are nearly meaningless.
There’s a SSS problem, along with MLB players getting at-bats against really shaky competition, and the Cactus League inflates hitting numbers too.
So Figgins hitting .210 or .410 in spring training is pretty much irrelevant in the evaluation. At this point, you’d actually want to do a more scouting-style evaluation.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
I'm aware of the lack of value in ST stats
So do a scouting-style evaluation.
I would notice immediately if he batted lead off.
This team has shitty bats and using the worst one most often isn’t going to help at all.
by philosofool on Feb 20, 2012 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
I was a little irrational about this,
but as we all know batting order does not matter that much. And with the amount of money Figgins is owed the Front Office has to do everything they can to try and get him going. So now when Figgins fails again then they have a pretty solid argument to just dump him. They can just say hey we gave you shoot, you shit the bed again now go away and stop being a baby.
by InSpokane on Feb 20, 2012 8:31 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Batting order doesn't mean that much when you get it mostly right.
But I think when you bat the person who should be 9th, first, then you’re talking actually taking runs off the scoreboard (at a season level).
Mariners fan in SF :: @Eric_Dykstra
I'm not going to pretend to know how long they'll try this experiment.
But, I highly doubt it will last long enough to influence the season run totals in any meaningful way.
They already have the solid argument to dump him.
.484 OPS last year.
And no, they do not have to do anything because of the $18ish million they’re going to pay him the next two years. It’s irrelevant because that money is a sunk cost they will pay no matter what happens. That ship has sailed.
If the front office and coaching staff have an working argument that Figgins is the best leadoff hitter and 3B they have on the roster, fine, and they are in the best position to determine that, but anything else is engaging in sunk cost fallacy- letting past decisions (giving a player what turns out to be a bad contract) affect the present (playing a worse player over a superior player because the worse player has the bad contract, and there’s a need to get a “return”).
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
And let's say that Seager and Figgins have approximately equal baseball skills at this point in their careers.
Basically, 1.5-2 WAR supersubs.
If the argument is “let’s play Figgins so we can trade him”- who is stupid enough to want a 1.5 WAR supersub for 9 million in 2013?
So you’re sending cash, right? Probably getting back not very much, like the Wilson deal, since expensive utility veterans don’t usually get much.
So, why not trade Seager, who’s young and cost-controlled, and might fetch actual players back, and let Figgins play out his contract, since we’re already assuming he’s not a disaster and has value as a player?
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
I agree the numbers should
be enough, but I think the Front Office and ownership feel they have to give this one last try. It is desperate, but with amount of money dumped into the guy they have to try everything.
I’m not saying it’s right. I’m just saying I understand it. And I trust that the it will not last long enough to really hurt the season overall.
Well, I'll put it this way.
If for all the “wow, GMZ is such a massive improvement” talk (and he is, though being better than Bavasi is like competing in the Special Olympics when you’re not “special”), we’re still stuck with sunk costs fallacy, maybe our GM isn’t really the guy who is going to take us to contention.
There have just been too many times where I go “WTF Mariners?!?!?! Really? This is the best you could do?” the last few years to make me feel Zduriencik is really one of the best GMs in the game.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
Speaking of sunk cost fallacy
You should know that future cost is relevant and Figgins cost in 2013 is not sunk yet. If it was, for example, the Vernon Wells that effectively made Toronto’s future “sunk cost” disappear would not have been possible. The only thing that’s guaranteed is that Figgins gets the money owed in his contract. What’s not guaranteed? Whomever pays him.
People could discuss the likelihood of a Figgins trade happening at some point in the future all day long but the possibility exists that the team doesn’t pay 100% of the remaining contract, however remote the possibility.
by ThundaPC on Feb 20, 2012 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
So why do you make decisions on playing time contingent on "maybe we can dump his ass" instead of who the best player is?
Either he is the best 3B/leadoff guy on the roster, or he isn’t.
If he isn’t, why are you playing him? “Because he makes 9 million and we might find a sucker if he doesn’t suck too badly” is sunk costs fallacy: you’re using the bad contract to justify a bad decision (putting a worse team on the field).
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 11:56 AM PST up reply actions
They're not making a decision based on "maybe we can dump him"
They’re making it based on “maybe he can return to form,” which is what virtually every team with a bad contract does if they believe the possibility exists. The debate becomes whether it makes sense to do so and with Chone Figgins, the Mariners have their reasons which include the apparent injury he had last year. I’m not a big fan of the move but I don’t think it’s that big of a deal.
by ThundaPC on Feb 20, 2012 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I'd have more confidence in the team's judgment if there wasn't such a bad track record at excercising it.
Jack Wilson, Milton Bradley, Ken Griffey, Richie Sexson, Jeff Cirillo, and Player A come to mind. None of them were worth a damn once they started falling off the cliff- at best, you had decent bench players in Cirillo or Player A (which is about where I think Figgins should be, after 2010-2011, a bench player, not leading off and playing every day). Why is Figgins any different?
I tend to think that Chone Figgins really is a Willie Bloomquist, 0-0.5 WAR player at this point in his career (aside from the fact that he’d whine like a little bitch if he was getting 200 PAs as a backup, like Willie gets when he’s used correctly), and Seager’s probably the better player (and is younger, and more likely to have some breakout potential). So this feels like the same old “we’re not dumping the veteran before giving them ONE MORE CHANCE because he’s a big name signing” that this team never gets past.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think it's too much of a stretch to call it a sunk cost (even if it's not, technically)
If you agree to pay $240,000 for a house in increments of $10,000 per month over two years, and 2 months into owning the house you find out that it has a mold problem, caterpillars, termites, and the ground is contaminated and suddenly your home is worth $5,000, then it’s still a sunk cost. You owe $220,000 on something that’s worth a tiny fraction of that.
Yes, you might find some sucker to pay you $100,000 for the house now, but until then you have to consider the entirety of the difference between the value going forward and how much you owe a sunk cost. Anything you recover is dumb luck, unrelated to the terrible price paid in the beginning for a flawed investment.
Mariners fan in SF :: @Eric_Dykstra
I don't think it's too much of a stretch to call a cat a dog
even if it’s not, technically. I mean, by DNA, they’re almost the same thing!
by Matthew on Feb 20, 2012 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 6 recs
Sunk cost, negative asset, whatever. Point remains that the Mariners have something undesirable.
Mariners fan in SF :: @Eric_Dykstra
Some reasons to not really like this:
Bad Figgins probably doesn’t keep his leadoff job by July, but it seems to me that managers are a little too resistant to change (How long can Carlos Peguero bat high in the lineup? Or be in the lineup at all? We read articles from Dave at USSM and you guys here about minor league players lighting it up who should make The Show in a matter of days and it turns into weeks), so we could easily see Bad Figgins in the leadoff spot through April and May and maybe longer, especially if he shows some flashes of goodness.
Figgins becoming a good player in the leadoff spot and a bad player anywhere else tells me that his mental game is a piece of crap. Forgetting the numbers for a second, I can’t trust a player with a bad mental game in a key situation.
Figgins becoming good also potentially brings the Ichiro Haters out of the woodwork, and that’s pretty annoying. I wish he could be good and I wouldn’t hear any of that mess.
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Feb 20, 2012 8:50 AM PST reply actions
Is there a Good Figgins?
Or is Bad Figgins a reference to other "bad"s, i.e. Bad Bad Leroy Brown…
All hail JZ
by Mariners_win on Feb 20, 2012 1:21 PM PST up reply actions
"Mariners Baseball: Sure, hey, why the fuck not"
If this goes as expected, I wonder if the King’s Court will be able get away with chanting “D! F! A! D! F! A!”
Really though, I’m so tired of complaining about him and being frustrated by him, that I’ll probably cheer him on for the first month just for the change of pace.
I suppose this puts the top of the lineup as Figgins-Ackley-Ichiro? Or will Guti bounce back so completely that he can hit second… in which case, where do Ackley and Ichiro bat, as I can’t imagine either of them batting lower than third… (yes, yes, insert standard disclaimer about how batting order doesn’t matter much).
by Chris_FB on Feb 20, 2012 9:42 AM PST via mobile reply actions
I don't see the King's Court chanting anything negative about our own players. That kinda goes against the spirit of the section.
Hell, they did chants last year for Olivo, and a really good one for Jack Wilson, when Wilson didn’t do anything yet in the game.
by Patrick Stites on Feb 20, 2012 2:46 PM PST up reply actions
Fair point, but if they were going to set a precedent with any player, it'd probably be him
Perhaps it’d just be a passive-aggressive chant for Ichiro whenever Figgins is at bat. They could claim they were chanting it out of habit.
First thing I thought of
Lookout Landing -Chone is ours and you can’t have him.
I care so little about Figgins at this point. I don’t believe he’ll be better. He was so bad that it would almost be interesting/entertaining if he was worse than last year.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 20, 2012 10:07 AM PST reply actions
I fail to see the point of working Chone Figgins into form
Why not just commit to the future and see what Kyle Seager can bring to the table? Figgins, in all likelihood, will not be a part of the next contending Seattle Mariners squad. Kyle Seager may very well be, and his development is far more important than Chone Figgins figuring out how to play baseball again.
This delusional commitment to re-invigorate Chone Figgins is, in a word, asinine.
by cwel87 on Feb 20, 2012 10:20 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Because we still owe Figgins $17MM
by Eric Wedge's Mustache on Feb 20, 2012 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
Regardless
You need to figure out what you have in Seager, who is better anyway, before you have a how-many-clowns-can-fit-in-this-car pile-up of maybe decent 3b prospects all waiting for a chance. Seager, Liddi, Martinez and Catricala. I get the idea that they want to give Figgins one more chance to earn his considerable paycheck. I’m frankly shocked he became so bad (although not surprised he couldn’t match 2009). But they have 4 guys with different skills and drawbacks and if they are playing Figgins they aren’t learning much about them. Martinez and Cat are just coming off AA, but they’ll be knocking on the door soon. By the time they are ready I’d want to know more about Seager’s abilities at this level.
Not saying I like this move but again it's not a sunk cost if some of that cost could feasibly be recovered
Without opportunity cost lost elsewhere in trying to do what it takes to recoup some of it. Almost certainly some of the cost is unrecoverable but as long as the possibility exists of recovering some of it it’s not a truly sunk cost.
I think he’ll have a pretty short leash to flash something of value. If not, we can burn that tree bridge when we come to it.
Where does the line get drawn?
Is 100ABs worth trying to recover $1MM? $2MM?
If those 100ABs are a disaster, would that cost the team a full win? But let’s say the risk is a full win. Wouldn’t we have to be able to get around $4MM back from his contract to make the risk worthwhile?
The problem isn't strictly in the money spent on Chone
It’s also the stunted development/potential MLB-caliber player evaluation of Kyle Seager, and the difference in performance between the two players. We can’t reasonably project Chone doing much better than Seager; therefore, the cost is already sunk. Whatever value we might get from Chone will not make enough difference to warrant playing him over Seager.
Seager isn't bad but I get the impression his upside is rather limited by his lack of power and/or speed
He’s likely to get his shot this year anyways but it’s not like you’re blocking the long term plan at 3B by playing Figgins for a little while. I don’t think Seager is realistically the future 3B for a contending Mariners team. He’s probably just going to be decent and if he’s just decent that’s a position they’d probably be looking to upgrade when it comes time to go for it. So that opportunity cost probably isn’t as important in terms of the future. Whereas recouping some money next year might be as those savings are put back into the pool for free agent signings that can be much more flexibly utilized to upgrade the team.
I don't think he's realistically our 3B of the future, but it's possible he is.
Key difference between him and Figgins,
Nobody thinks Figgins is the 3B of the future, that's not the point
Playing Figgins now may get us some money back that could be spent on the actual 3B of the future. Or spent somewhere else to make the team better.
Clearly, my explanation was not superlative
When I say ‘Chone Figgins’ and ‘sunk cost’, I mean that the player value output will never reach his originally expected dollar value. I never intended to infer that the entire value of the contract was sunk – but, by virtue of having a player on the roster that makes $650,000/y that can, on the whole, reasonably project to give similar value that a $9,000,000/y player brings, it does not make sense to play the richer one strictly because you owe him more money. The team could lose win value from the $650,000/y player during a year when that win value means something because he was blocked by the $9,000,000/y player.
None of this wholly excludes the notion that the Seattle Mariners could, in theory, recoup a portion of the $18M owed to Figgins in the future if they do play him, and another team becomes interested in paying his future wages. Which technically would not make Chone Figgins a sunk cost to the Seattle Mariners from 2013’s or 2014’s perspective. However, Chone Figgins would still himself be a sunk cost. Unless miracles happen.
I do not believe in miracles of such magnitudes.
I just hope
If they do this, that it means more Ichiro Dingers!
I am imagining this apocalypse where Figgins does just well enough to keep the job
while Ichiro struggles, then the Ichi-haters come out of the woodwork, and Figgins returns to being shitty but not QUITE shitty enough to be moved (a la Peguero) and Ichiro gets really pissed at the situation, and Figgins gets pissed that people still don’t like him (since he’s a huge baby who sucks at baseball) and the clubhouse fights and Ichiro returns to Japan and Wedge quits and all the stress makes Guti’s stomach issues return and Montero injures himself breaking up an on-the-field, all-Mariner team brawl started by Figgins throwing a punch at Ackley after Chone bungles a routine double play. :(
I am irrational and hate this decision to bat Figgy leadoff SO MUCH.
by HititHere on Feb 20, 2012 10:52 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Then the upside would be Wedge leaves the team and quits screwing it up making dumb decisions.
I have to suspect he’s the reason Figgins is batting leadoff and playing every day. Much like Peguero, this is why I’m not particularly impressed that GMZ brought him in as Wak’s replacement. Wedge isn’t a disaster as a manager, but neither is he very good.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 11:23 AM PST up reply actions
Managers don't matter much.
It seems bad to have a new manager every year however.
by Mariner John on Feb 20, 2012 12:24 PM PST up reply actions
If they don't matter much, I don't see that churning through them to find the ones that suck less matters much.
I’m as much for consistency in organizational approach as the next guy, but you don’t want “consistently bad” or “consistently mediocre”.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 12:27 PM PST up reply actions
Well, his hip is ok
Supposedly. Maybe I’m being too pessimistic. If he can get to his career level of .280/.350/.370 with speed back, it may be the gamble to take. Damn I’m wishy-washy.
.280/.350/.370 with speed is worth $9 million
Unfortunately, it was 2009 the last time he was at that level, and it seems clear that’s a pipe dream.
.298/.395/.393
was where he was 30 months ago. A .350 ob isn’t that outrageous. He finished .341 in 2010.
Not likely, maybe.
30 months is 2.5 years. That's not a short amount of time.
He was so bad. There is nothing to indicate he will suddenly revert to a higher level than he played at 2 seasons ago. He’s 34.
I don't expect him to repeat 2009
I’m just saying that we’re talking about getting back toward his career average that includes the 2 most recent, awful seasons. 2 1/2 years ago he was much better than his aceer average is now.
But I still agree it’s sorta pointless to even hope Figgins gets there when you really want to figure out if Seager can contribute to the next Ms playoff contender.
I concur
This better not be one of those things that drags on for weeks longer than it needs to. I hate those things.
Olivo should lead off.
At least this puts a guy who wasn’t the worst hitter in baseball in the lead off spot.
by philosofool on Feb 20, 2012 11:10 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
You'll probably only be frustrated to know...
that Guti was much closer the being the second worst hitter in baseball than Olivo.
Guti might actually regress to the mean.
Olivo is what he is. Neither he nor Figgins can draw a walk.
Figgins cannot draw a walk?
Really? You’re going with that?
How many of you would rather see a randomly picked fan lead off?
I would go to many more baseball games if there was a ~ 1:40,000 chance I get to be a lead off hitter. Plus, how much worse could a random person be at hitting than Chone Figgins.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 20, 2012 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
Chone Figgins would probably be a jerk and just buy all the tickets though...
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 20, 2012 12:59 PM PST up reply actions
Sorry, just being a nitpicking ass.
by fiftyone on Feb 20, 2012 4:41 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Not to be over defensive or anything
But since he couldn’t be bothered to capitalize, all I was going to give him credit for was the bastardized version of Carlos’ name. It was more pedantic snarkery than effective comedy. And now this thread has gone on waaaay too long, so I’ll shut up now.
Pressure
Maybe Chone sees this as something that he can take advantage of, but he’s basically put himself in a pressure position. Not sure how this came about, but I imagine the conversation went something like this:
CF: “If only I was batting leadoff, I’d be much better.”
Ms: “Ok, go ahead.”
The guy doesn’t strike me as someone who responds well to pressure, at least so far during this contract. And while there won’t be pressure on the team to win, there will be pressure on Figgins to produce since he’s taking an icon’s spot in the lineup. There won’t be a lot of room from the fanbase for him to “get going”.
All hail JZ
by Mariners_win on Feb 20, 2012 1:18 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
To be fair to Figgins
He does have 3-4 WAR potential if 3 things happen:
1. His BABIP bounces back from .219 to something near his career .329
2. His BB% bounces back from 6.7% to career 10%
3. His defense goes back to +10 run defense
All things that could very easily happen, especially the BABIP and walk rates. And if he’s playing well, maybe a team like the Tigers (M-Cab at 3B, seriously) would eat most of the contract at the deadline.
3 months of AAA isn’t going to kill Seager, and if we can recoup 50-80% of Figgins’ contract it could help adding pieces starting next year instead of 2014.
He should not be anywhere NEAR lead off though, fuck that.
So, we're going to ignore that he's 34 and has injury history?
Part of the reason people start sucking at baseball as they age is, well, because they age. So in actuality, six things need to happen:
1. His BABIP bounces back from .219 to something near his career .329
2. His BB% bounces back from 6.7% to career 10%
3. His defense goes back to +10 run defense
4. His previous declines in performance have NOTHING TO DO with him aging, so expecting him to bounce back to career norms at age 34 is completely reasonable, instead of expecting that as with most players, he won’t be able to get back to his career norms (see every season Griffey played after 2000 for an example of that)
5. He stays injury-free until we find a suckertrade partner
6. The Mariners decide that, no, they don’t really need a 3B who’s contributing 3-4 WAR for 9 million because they are absolutely crammed full of talented players capable of 3-4 WAR performances at 3B.
Incidentally, his comps and his projections are not predicting this for him at all. That would be because those would take into account that he’s 34.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
So if I'm reading #6 right, we have multiple players capable of putting up 3-4 WAR at third already?
And here I thought it was a problem position for us!
by Mariner John on Feb 20, 2012 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, as long as we're assuming Figgins is going to bounce back, why not assume we have multiple 3-4 WAR players at 3B?
Heck, let’s assume the 2012 Seattle Mariners are World Champions!
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
His career norms
include his latest 2 years of suck, so it’s possible to be decent without a full comeback to his level of 3 years ago. 3 war instead of pushing 7. But yeah, thanks for pushing me back to this isn’t a good idea. But that’s mainly because no matter how good Figgins is, he’s preventing you from finding out more about Seager before the rest of the 3b prospect posse comes along.
Right, but those years also include a lot of time < 34.
Keep in mind the most important elements of projecting performance are the most recent performance
His Baseball Ref comps and projections aren’t thinking “oh, hey, sure, back to the .330 BABIP and 160 games, NO PROBLEM!”
Is it possible? Sure- maybe it’s all because of a hip, and it’s all better now, no chance of relapse or other injury. Any number of things are possible, including Anthony Vasquez starting to throw 95 with a new pitching motion. I’m just not a fan of handing out leadoff spots and starting based on completely pie-in-the-sky scenarios for a 34 year old player coming off of an injury and two bad years.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I know
If you emphasize the last 2 years, the bet is more like .260/.340/.335, where Bill James’projects, and he’s a cockeyed optimist.
It doesn’t really matter if he can do better than that. It’s more important to see what Seager or Liddi have since F(M)art and Vinnie Aspirins are right behind.
I understand this argument, but everything about his BABIP just screams that it's not a fluke
It’s still possible it is, obviously, it just seemed like he was NEVER making solid contact with the baseball.
Could someone please write a new article so I'm not forced to see "Chone Figgins"
every time I access the site? Because he’s seriously approaching Carl Everett levels of disdain.
by Llewdor on Feb 20, 2012 2:59 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
That reminds me- we do need a left handed power bat, right?
Hey, he could bounce back. And he’s a proven veteran.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 20, 2012 3:03 PM PST up reply actions
But look at how much fun
everybody is having going wack over this!
I really hate this idea. There doesn't seem to be any logic to it at all.
What are the chances that Figgins is able to bounce back? 5%? 10% maybe? It seems like giving that playing time to Seager or Liddi or some random AAAA guy we pick up for nothing makes way more sense.
And why on earth would we hit him leadoff? I just can’t wrap my mind around this making any sense at all, even after reading the counter-arguments. This doesn’t seem like a decision that a well run team would make.
I do think Figgins has a place on the 25 man roster, just not anywhere near this.
Yep.
All kidding and hyperbole aside…Figgins being a super utility/bench guy made the most sense to me coming into ST. Granted it is only ST so it’s possible that the coaches and front office will take a look at what he has to offer and give more playing time to Seager/Guillen/whoever in the long run but it just seems like too little too late right now. Just let Figgins kinda sorta earn his salary by filling in wherever he’s needed (LF, SS, etc) and go with the whole youth movement thing at 3B to see what the long term solution there might be.
Guess I don't see the harm in trying Figgins at leadoff with a very short leash.
Seager gets everyday work at third in Tacoma, and if (or more likely, when) Figgins proves to everyone he can’t play worth a damn anymore he is DFA’ed. A month or so should do it, and the M’s can say (truthfully) that Figgins was given a fair chance to succeed.
by Bart's Evil Twin on Feb 20, 2012 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
My thought is that he has been given more than a fair chance.
I don’t see who they need to prove otherwise to. Salary should not matter when it comes to playing time/usage.
If I were a player being blocked by Chone Figgins, I would be absolutely irate over him not only getting a spot on the roster, but batting leadoff at that.
I might consider injuring him myself if I were in that situation. And that’s not just the internet-tough-guy talking. Okay maybe it is. I probably wouldn’t cause him harm. But I would be really pissed off.
This shit is depressing.
I’m gonna listen to Abe Vigoda on headphones again.
ignacio
One thing that makes me think that change to lead-off could make a non-negligible difference
is Figgins is on the record (forgive me for not having a link) saying that his spot in the lineup will determine what his approach at the plate will be. He basically said that the reason he was not patient last year was due to his spot in the lineup, and that a move back to the lead-off spot would cause him to be more patient. It’s monumentally stupid but it’s something to note.
This may sound mental but,
if this is a mandate from Z, I can appreciate the move.
If this is the brainchild of Eric Wedge, I don’t like it one bit.
The motive behind this matters a lot to me and I don’t trust Wedge to do something like this for reasons that make sense.
by abender20 on Feb 20, 2012 7:34 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I can think of a reason that isn't entirely crazy...
One of those two men has the ability to unilaterally cut him from the team. The manager should be setting the lineup to try to maximize games won (perhaps with some eye to the future by playing younger guys), not to make a player look bad enough to get cut. Or, even worse, believe Figgins really stands a chance of sustainable improvement.
I can see a GM being in a position where he might tell a manager to try something for a couple of weeks, and if it doesn’t work roster changes will be made. The manager isn’t going to be dictating those terms to the GM.
by Sidi on Feb 20, 2012 8:14 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lookout Landing
Related FanShots on Lookout Landing
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
