Reviving Chone Figgins
Earlier Thursday, Ken Rosenthal published a column about how the Mariners ought to move Chone Figgins back to leadoff. This post is not intended as a direct response to what Rosenthal wrote, since I've heard the idea from a number of people, but there will necessarily be some overlap.
Chone Figgins has a bad contract. At first, it was not a bad contract. Or maybe it has always been a bad contract, but at first, we didn't believe that it was a bad contract. Figgins looked like a useful and valuable player to have. Then he became Chone Figgins as we understand him today. The Chone Figgins with a bad contract.
The Mariners are not alone in having a bad contract. Without checking, I'm going to assume that every team in baseball has at least one bad contract. Not all bad contracts are created the same, and Figgins' contract is worse than some other bad contracts. But it's also better than some other bad contracts. Hey there, Vernon Wells, won't you please stay a while? I would like to discuss your bad contract. Or as you call it, your super awesome unbelievably amazing contract.
Figgins, needless to say, has not turned out. When you have a player in Figgins' position, there are people who think the team should just cut its losses and eat the rest of the contract. There are other people who are okay with keeping the player around, but know that his best days are behind him. And there are still other people who insist on the possibility of a revival.
A player with a bad contract was given a big contract for a reason, right? Who's to say players can't rebound?
You and I probably figure that Chone Figgins is a lost cause, and that his greatest hope now is becoming a utility guy of moderate use. But something I've heard from several people, most recently Rosenthal, is that Figgins might bounce back if he's returned to the leadoff slot, where he hit with the Angels. Chone Figgins is a leadoff guy. The Mariners didn't let him hit leadoff. No wonder he's fallen flat!
It's an appealing concept, because the idea of Figgins being good again would change so many things. I guess it wouldn't change that many things, but it would change at least one thing, and presumably a handful of others. Chone Figgins coming back from the dead would be a miracle, just as anybody coming back from the dead would be a miracle.
But pardon me if I think that sounds a little too simplistic. A little too easy. To assert that Figgins could rebound as the leadoff guy is to assert that this has been a matter of psychology, not tools, and to assert that the difference between batting first and batting second is so great that it made Figgins sufficiently uncomfortable that he became a bad player.
There's no doubt in my mind that Figgins believes he could be better as leadoff. Figgins kind of has to believe that. He has to believe he can be fixed. And the last time he was good, he was leadoff. The two are connected in his mind. To Figgins, the thing that changed between Anaheim and Seattle is his spot in the batting order, so that must have a lot to do with his struggles.
But there are times when I believe in a player's explanation, and there are times when I don't. I want Figgins to be good. I want him to succeed as a Mariner, because of course I do. But I can't bring myself to buy this one.
Look at some of the lines in Rosenthal's article. It's said that batting second presents a different kind of challenge. It's said that batting second behind Ichiro presents a uniquely different kind of challenge. Perhaps Figgins has struggled because he's tried to adapt to that. But:
"It would be great to go back to leadoff and do that again," Figgins said. "If not, I have to change my mindset as a '2' hitter. I haven't really changed my mindset to be a '2' hitter. I've stuck with being a patient hitter."
Figgins hasn't changed his mindset after two years. He's "stuck with" being the hitter that he was. Except in terms of results. The results have been way worse.
So maybe it's sticking with that old approach that's gotten him in trouble? That seems to be the sentiment.
"Being in that spot and understanding that Ichiro is an aggressive player - that's what makes him great - I need to understand that when he is aggressive, I need to be aggressive, too," Figgins said. "A lot of times I get behind in the count too much."
First-pitch Strikes:
2009: 57%
2010: 58%
2011: 57%
Behind 0-1:
2009: 49%
2010: 50%
2011: 50%
Two-strike counts:
2009: 53%
2010: 51%
2011: 51%
In 2009, after getting ahead 1-0, Figgins batted .333. After falling behind 0-1, he batted .259. The last two years, after getting ahead 1-0, Figgins has batted .251. After falling behind 0-1, he's batted .212. This is about more than getting ahead and falling behind. This is about quality of contact.
Something else we can look at - what about when Figgins hasn't been hitting directly behind Ichiro? When leading off an inning in 2009, Figgins batted .275. When leading off an inning over the last two years, Figgins has batted .213. When leading off an inning, Figgins hasn't had to be in the mindset of a No. 2 hitter. It hasn't mattered. He's been bad.
I get uneasy about these things. On this matter, I have one opinion. Baseball people involved, and baseball people not involved, probably have another opinion. A lot of them probably do, at least. And I'm not so confident in myself that I think I know more about how baseball works than they do. If baseball people think that Chone Figgins could bounce back by being returned to the leadoff slot, we can't just ignore that outright.
But color me skeptical. I won't be mad if they try. There's probably not a lot of harm in trying, when Figgins plays. Again, one figures the Mariners aren't even getting within sniffing distance of the playoffs, making this a development and experiment season. Batting Figgins leadoff would be an experiment. But I've done a lot of experiments. Even the ones where I know how they're supposed to work out, they haven't always worked out. If Figgins' problem this whole time has been batting order position, we can learn from that, but chances are it's not that simple. It so infrequently is.
101 comments
|
7 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What's struck me is that if Figgins were that psychologically unstable that the difference between lead off and 2nd
destroyed him as a hitter, what’s the say the difference between hitting with the Angels and hitting with the Mariners isn’t a cause? Or any of the other probably equally possible changes?
by Matthew on Feb 9, 2012 3:30 PM PST reply actions 18 recs
I don't know about you but I think he's just fucked
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 9, 2012 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 28 recs
You don't know about me, Sullivan.
AND YOU NEVER WILL!
by Matthew on Feb 9, 2012 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Well, that is tradition on the wedding night.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Feb 9, 2012 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
Well, we're not competing this year, so
let’s move the team to Anaheim, change the name to the Angels, and acquire every player and coach from the 2009 Angels team. It’s worth a shot.
I think that all highway signs should be written in Copperplate.
by Mariner John on Feb 10, 2012 9:24 AM PST up reply actions
If he's that fragile then the odds of fixing him are quite low no matter what you do with him.
It’d be so refreshing to hear him accept blame for his poor play, go about watching film and working with coaches to fix it, and then making some statement regarding his dedication to the team. When guys start playing poorly and blame everything else, I start suspecting that they never really knew what made them successful in the first place and aren’t likely to recapture the combination of so many factors that clicked previously.
by abender20 on Feb 9, 2012 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I am the type of player, for any game / sport, where I tend to play better surrounded by lesser talent, and play worse around better talent.
Psychologically what made me successful was knowing that I am better than the players around me. It was easy for me to be confident in that situation. Surrounded by better talent was tougher for me because I felt like I there was more pressure to be better than my peers. Even though, as I type this is seems like it should be the other way around.
Maybe Figgins is the opposite. Or maybe they should sign me to play some 3B.
It sure seems to be the mainstream radio mindset, that his not leading off at the very start of the game just ruint him.
by msb on Feb 9, 2012 7:08 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not normally in tune w/sports radio-listening M's fans, but I find it
incredible that a sizeable segment of M’s fans now think the biggest problem with Figgins was that he simply didn’t get enough at-bats.
Wow.
Yeah, I don't buy this "move him to lead-off and he'll bounce back" theory for a split second.
Maybe if you haven’t seen him at the plate for the last 2 years, you could trick yourself into believing this. But, some things cannot be unseen.
by sanford_and_son on Feb 9, 2012 3:43 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I wish the solution were that simple...
But I just don’t buy it either. It would be really great if that fixed him but I don’t think it will work.
by ShipstadPilot11 on Feb 9, 2012 3:45 PM PST up reply actions
Truth.
Figgins was more painful to watch than Peguero.
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 9, 2012 10:32 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
So what affected Ichiro!'s psychology last year? I mean, he hit lead off.
If it’s all just position in the lineup, what the fuck?
by harkening on Feb 9, 2012 3:46 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Maybe he has Seasonal Affective Disorder?
Meh?
Nicholas Placentia Minnott
by Nicholas Placentia Minnott on Feb 9, 2012 3:49 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Because
‘Log in with Facebook’
Nicholas Placentia Minnott
by Nicholas Placentia Minnott on Feb 10, 2012 12:24 AM PST via Android app up reply actions
Also like he had in Anaheim, maybe we can move him to a different position every day - the occasional 2B, 3B, SS, LF - whatever works.
Because that’s psychologically different than a steady position, too.
I don't know man.
Most of my worst Figgins memories were when they DID put a bat in his hand.
by TheBishop on Feb 9, 2012 3:55 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Probably too late now
But no harm in trying. Bill James told Baker before the 2010 season that the best thing to do with Figgins was give him a position and leave him there. The M’s did the exact opposite, moving him to 2nd base and batting him second. Combine that with leaving your comfort team, and you can really mess with a player’s comfort level. When that guy that pcompetes with the elite in his field, you can really exacerbate the situation.. These guys aren’t chess pieces.
The "risk" in batting Figgins first is that it gives him the most at bats possible.
That doesn’t seem like a very good idea.
by Easley on Feb 9, 2012 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
No problem if he produces,
if not he gets bounced after a fair trial.
"Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp" B. Dylan
Good question.
And another – What is the criteria for success?
I was trying to address the issue of most at bats, not promote a trial, which may or may not be worthwhile.
"Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp" B. Dylan
But I tend to agree with
n8tron3030’s dissertation on turnip blood below.
"Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp" B. Dylan
These guys are chess pieces.
Meant to get the Mariners wins. Wins, dammit.
It was a Bosox brain trust observation
Something they determined through extensive scouting and study, iirc.
Do you think SheaWasBettor21 felt a disturbance in the force when this was posted?
by C Dubya on Feb 9, 2012 4:07 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
If he leads off, I don't know if I'd be more upset that he fails this year
Or more upset if he succeeds because it likely had nothing to do with leading off and all of the dingi that have been promoting that idea for years will feel vindicated.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Feb 9, 2012 4:09 PM PST reply actions 4 recs
I don't really buy it either
but a Figgins miracle would be so refreshing this year!
by Eric Wedge's Mustache on Feb 9, 2012 4:15 PM PST reply actions
Well, the thing about it is, why the hell not?
What have we really got to lose? Wouldn’t it be better to eliminate that as a reason for his decline? If it fails then we can all pat each other on the back for being right all along that he’s just a super sucky player, but if it does work, then yay, we have a real leadoff hitter. If he sucks then we’re right back where we started, but if he succeeds than we’ve made a significant step forward. So I say go for it. See if we can squeeze some blood out of this turnip.
Because by leading off we would have to see him more often.
And he has a history of making eyeballs bleed.
by stredarts on Feb 9, 2012 6:07 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I thought we aleady wasted one year trying for the big Figgin's revival?
And I think that Chone was overvalued in his Angel years, for being productive in a lineup stacked with scarier hitters.
What is more surprising to me is how Ichiro managed to score 100+ runs from 2004~2009 with some of the worst gawdawful lineups hitting behind him.
Or Figgin's problem may be a different kind of attitude problem (not the leadoff blah blah thing)
Figgins may have just fell into an entitlement rut after snagging the huge contract, in contrast to being a hungry overachiever all his Angel years.
He sure has seemed arrogant as a Mariner despite his bad performance.
Perhaps...
he’s using the apostrophe to shorten it from Figgings…
by JY on Feb 11, 2012 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The Mariners haven't always had a super shitty lineup.
If I remember correctly the 07 team was at last decent for am offense, they just couldn’t pitch much. It has just been the last two years that we have sucked hard on offense.
by Kirk on Feb 9, 2012 5:40 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
It's true that the last two years have been bad, actually Historically bad,
but the other seasons were pretty feeble also. I agree that compared to the other shitty years 2007 was OK.
Yeah, shouldn't work, but...
if there were baseball players with the psychological makeup such that this would be important, I would totally believe that Figgins was one of them. For some reason, that’s just the read I get.
We’re already supposed to believe that which position he played made a difference.
by HailStanfordHail on Feb 9, 2012 5:16 PM PST reply actions
This could very well be the case.
It’s easy to dismiss that which we cannot accurately measure, but knowing that everyone reacts differently to various stimuli, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least that there are players out there, such as Figgins, who place so high a value on their spot in the line-up that they let it affect their play.
Or maybe he just got old.
One minor, irrational reason I don't want Chone to succeed at leadoff is that it helps revive the "Ichiro is selfish" meme.
All the Ichiro haters would have one more reason to say “see? if Ichiro had just gotten out of the way Chone would have been useful, but he and Yamauchi blah blah blah”.
Moreover, if Figgins isn’t going away, I’d like him to be useful just so we don’t have to hear about how much he’s “battling”.
by Chris_FB on Feb 9, 2012 5:20 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
You can say that again.
I suspect that Baker is pounding this drum for just that reason.
by daveinny on Feb 10, 2012 1:41 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
What none of us have realized is how amazing Chone Figgins is as a Cleanup hitter.
by ICANHIT on Feb 9, 2012 6:49 PM PST reply actions 7 recs
We should just try winning all of our games in order to get better batting numbers from him.
What I really wonder is if we could find a batter who systematically hits worse in wins than in losses.
I always thought
That Chone Figgins’ failures had to do with being stabbed by a double edged sword. That sword being first what you had outlined in your article. The second was his position change. From my experience, little as it is, and from what I remember changing positions takes a hit on your batting as you spend more and more time concentrating on fielding.
Roar! I'm a Dog!
by qwertyiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm on Feb 9, 2012 7:10 PM PST reply actions
I have to ask, what happened to "u"?
by the other side on Feb 9, 2012 8:54 PM PST up reply actions 10 recs
Do we have to have this question
Every time qwertyiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm posts?
Or is this some running joke I’m missing out on?
I have to ask, what happened to "O"?
by Chris_FB on Feb 10, 2012 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I missed that.
A quality fanpost if I’ve ever seen one.
by the other side on Feb 10, 2012 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
Because...
There is no “U” in me alphabet. I would change it if I knew how to. I’m getting sick of being asked this question.
Roar! I'm a Dog!
by qwertyiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm on Feb 14, 2012 8:12 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The guy was a super utility for most of his time with the Angeles.
Having to play only one position is something he’s apparently said he doesn’t like. So yeah, I think you are wrong.
Thanks for pointing out my wrongness.
Roar! I'm a Dog!
by qwertyiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm on Feb 14, 2012 8:15 PM PST up reply actions
I am rooting for Chone to do a Washburn
Electrifying for the last bit of contractyness. Maybe develop a special grounder that loops over the shortstop he can call a ‘roadrunner’ or something. If putting him leadoff and changing his position ala bloomquist makes him remember to be useful I am all for it. I doubt he gets full leadoff bats since he will likely be replaced later in games for defensive or power needs.
by Whoopetydoo on Feb 9, 2012 9:48 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
While Vernon Wells does have a bad contract...
at least he occasionally does interesting things, like hitting an odd home run. A Chone Figgins at bat usually ends up with a weak dribbling grounder or a soul-crushing strikeout.
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 9, 2012 10:37 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Figgins is a bargain
compared to Wells.
"Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp" B. Dylan
I guess technically it could be slightly harder to get an infield hit when batting second compared to leading off
If there’s someone on base ahead of you that probably increases the chance of a fielders choice resulting from what might’ve been an IFH otherwise.
But when you look at Figgins IFH% it’s not really different than it was when he was leading off so that doesn’t even begin to explain what happened. He’s just been awful and it’s mostly explained by his GB% and IFF% and falling LD% that all tell the story of him not making contact as well as he used to.
His hip problem could be a factor,
if it was and it’s not completely cured I don’t see how any change will help him.
"Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp" B. Dylan
I really don't understand this.
If anyone else, for the most part, does crappy at work they either lose their job or their responsibility is down graded.
My company doesn't have that much treasure invested in me
Not to attack you specifically, but I disagree with comparing professional athletes to some schlub in some regular job (like myself). If my company had a significant amount of their operating costs sunk into me whether I perform or not, it’s in their best interest to see if they can fix me back to where I contribute at the level I’m being paid. Hell, my company, even with it’s smaller investment in me, will do the same before they just cut me loose.
Anyway, I think some professions, including entertainers are just different, because the circumstances are so different. And I also think that in reality, the expectations on pro athletes in terms of their performance is really high, and, contract issues aside, they are much more of a meritocracy than most other jobs. They’d be cut far earlier than I would be in my job.
by phiat on Feb 10, 2012 8:57 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I see your point, but it's not just "trying to fix him," it's giving him a promotion.
I mean, you’re giving the worst hitter on the team the MOST number of ABs of anyone on the team. That just insanity. He had an OPS+ of 39 last year. His slugging % was lower than his OBP, and his OBP was .241.
He was arguably the worst full-timer in the league. His OPS+ is the same as Cliff Lee’s and Clayton Kershaw’s. The only other MLBer with REMOTELY as many PAs and that low of an OPS+ is Jeff Mathis, a catcher, who had 32 fewer PAs..
It’s in their best interests to fix him, sure, but it just seems outrageous to give him more plate appearances.
by HititHere on Feb 10, 2012 3:40 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I don't even understand why a hitter would say something like this
“It would be great to go back to leadoff and do that again,” Figgins said. “If not, I have to change my mindset as a ‘2’ hitter. I haven’t really changed my mindset to be a ‘2’ hitter. I’ve stuck with being a patient hitter.”
Granted, I am not a professional baseball coach, but it seems like you would never tell hitters to have a “2 hitter” mentality or a “leadoff” mentality, or whatever. You would look at each hitter, analyze his strengths and weaknesses, and come up with an approach for him depending on the game situation. Some hitters are going to want to be really patient with a runner on first base (maybe give the baserunner a chance to steal), some have enough power to want to drive him in from first base, maybe the score/inning changes how you approach the situation (the next run will win the game), etc. And sure, a leadoff hitter will come to bat more often with no runners on base than a cleanup hitter, but sometimes the leadoff hitter is going to be up with the bases loaded.
Joe Posanski says...
And I quote:
It seems to me that if we can have laws in America demanding that people wear seat belts for their own safety, we should also have laws that prevent Eric Wedge from moving Figgins into the leadoff spot.
The full article is worth reading, but the point is plain: players who get significantly better one season to the next once they cross into their 30s are the exception rather than the rule.
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/02/aging-with-chart.html
My opinion: the leadoff spot has to be earned, and should go to someone who has a decent on-base percentage. Figgins’ OBP in 2011 was a craptastic .241 — are we seriously discussing the idea of the leadoff hitter being a guy who gets on base less than one time in four?
by MMonkman on Feb 10, 2012 11:29 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
In my humble opinion,
Ackley should be be our leadoff hitter next season and for the next 10 seasons.
Mariners/D Broncos/BSU Broncos fan in Seattle
The first rule of Lookout Landing is...
by appleshampoo on Feb 10, 2012 2:13 PM PST up reply actions
I don't care if Figgins gets "significantly better" than he has been before.
I just want him to perform to his pre-Mariner levels, even his shitty pre-Mariner levels. That’s not improvement so much as getting back to his averages.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Feb 11, 2012 7:20 AM PST up reply actions
Wow I agree completely.
I’m surprised there isn’t more outrage about this.
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 11, 2012 6:56 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Where To Move Figgins
The top of the Space Needle. He can tell us if the British are coming.
by SandlotSam on Feb 10, 2012 2:01 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
So this is fun
Who had the most success in the lead-off spot last season? Yay small sample sizes (and a glum reminder of another, departed player, now reduced to a trivia question)
He had a double and we won
Let him lead-off forever.
by GasolineSnuggie on Feb 11, 2012 11:32 PM PST up reply actions

by 




















