Review: 2005 Offseason Plan
Every year, I annoint myself ruler of the Mariner Kingdom and start wildly spending money in my imaginary universe, rebuilding the M’s with my kind of players to build a roster that would hopefully not suck. The results have been a mixed bag, from the good suggestions (Vladimir Guerrero!) to the not so hot (Matt Clement!), but it’s always entertaining for me, at least. So, we’ll do a 2006 Offseason Plan after the season ends, but for now, let’s take a look back at my suggestions for last year and see how they look a year later.
Dave’s A Genius!
Kenji Johjima
I suggested signing him a 2 year, $7 million deal, which is just a bit less than he actually got, but the idea was basically the same. We were pretty sure Johjima was going to be a significant upgrade offensively, and he certainly has been. No question, he was one of the best free agent signings of the offseason.
Jamie Moyer
He continued to defy age and gave the Mariners 150 decent innings, then waived his no-trade clause and brought us a couple of pitching prospects with a pulse. For the cost, this was clearly a win for the M’s.
Jacque Jones
He got one more year than I expected, but the $5 million average salary was right on target, and he’s been as good as advertised. He’s hitting .285/.330/.501 while playing a quality outfield. Since the plan called for Jones to start in left field, with Ibanez shifting to DH, he would have been something like a 30-40 run upgrade over Carl Everett. Additionally, he would have given us another CF option when Reed sucked and got hurt, allowing us to skip the whole Bloomquist/Choo/Jones center field debacles. He also would have made Ben Broussard unnecessary. Clearly, the M’s would have been significantly better off had they signed Jacque Jones, and he was a very good fit for the needs of the organization. Unfortunately, we got C-Rex instead.
Wes Helms
I argued that the M’s needed a RH bat who could spell the corner infielders and hit lefties, as well as be a top pinch hitter off the bench, and that Helms would be perfect for that role. Indeed, he has been, but for the surprising Marlins instead of the Mariners. His .306/.364/.520 line has made him one of the best reserves in baseball. His presence would have allowed us to skip the regrettable Asdrubal Cabrera for Eduardo Perez trade as well. Helms, like Jones, would have been a fantastic low-cost role player, but the M’s eventually had to go out of the organization to acquire a player to fill this role during the season, at the cost of one of their better prospects. Ouch.
Dave’s An Idiot!
A. J. Burnett
We all knew he was a health risk, but I supported throwing significant money (4/46 was my suggested offer, not that far from the 5/55 he signed for) at the best pitcher on the market. He’s pitched well when he’s been healthy, but he hasn’t been healthy enough to justify the contract. He may yet be worth the money, but after one year, this is a thumbs down.
Esteban Loaiza
Loaiza tried to pitch through an injury early in the season and was one of the worst pitchers in baseball in the first half. After shutting it down and getting his velocity back, he’s been terrific, and he was named AL pitcher of the month in August. That said, the total package hasn’t been worth the contract, and the A’s would probably go another direction if they had it to do over again. It’s certainly a better deal than what they gave to Washburn, but signing Loaiza wouldn’t have made the M’s any better than they have been.
Kevin Brown
He retired, so, who knows. I still think the idea was sound, if not the player who became the role model for the idea.
Overall
If you look at my suggested roster, you certainly don’t see a playoff team. Jones and Helms would have helped the offense significantly more than Carl Everett, for sure, but not enough to compensate for the sucking wound that was Jeremy Reed and the decline of Richie Sexson and Ichiro. The team’s offense would likely have been average at best.
The pitching might have actually been worse, believe it or not. Between the DL stints of Burnett and Loaiza, we’d have ended up giving 150 innings to random Triple-A starters, and Burnett/Loaiza haven’t been any better than Washburn/Meche. Instead of having a long term commitment to a mediocre pitcher, we’d have a long term commitment to a seldom-healthy pitcher.
The organization would probably be in better shape going forward, as they’d have valuable assets like Jones, Choo, and Cabrera instead of Perez and Broussard, but the overall change in performance and cost wouldn’t have been significant.
All this to say, essentially, that while Bill Bavasi made some very questionable transactions last winter, there probably wasn’t much he could have done to make this team win. The Mariners hopes for contending rested squarely on the shoulders of Felix, Beltre, Sexson, and Ichiro, and those four were underwhelming this year. The supporting cast as a whole actually performed well enough to get this team into the playoffs (especially the bullpen, which was downright awesome), but the franchise players weren’t good enough to win with.
The story for 2007 will probably be similar. The M’s are going to have some chances to improve this ballclub, but in the end, this team probably rises and falls with Felix, Beltre, and Ichiro. If they succeed, the Mariners should have a chance to succeed as well.
Comments
117 Responses to “Review: 2005 Offseason Plan”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
USSM uses and recommends
I certainly wish we’d signed Jones instead of Everett (and ditto on Helms), but it seems to me there are an awful lot of Cubs fans who loathe the guy and think he’s one of the things wrong with their team. Any idea why?
Cubs fans aren’t that bright?
Between the DL stints of Burnett and Loaiza, we’d have ended up giving 150 innings to random Triple-A starters, and Burnett/Loaiza haven’t been any better than Washburn/Meche.
Some xFIP, FIP, and IP:
4.70, 4.63, 176.3 — Meche
4.72, 4.21, 138.0 — Loaiza
5.21, 4.64, 184.7 — Washburn
3.80, 3.66, 115.3 — Burnett
Given Woods’ and Baek’s numbers, and my general intuition about replacement level, I’d say a reasonable level for a replacement level pitcher is something like 5.75 runs/9. So if give the difference in innings to those theoretical replacement level pitchers, and using xFIP, I get Burnett/Loaiza/Crap allowing about 9 fewer runs than Meche/Washburn. With FIP, I get Burnett/Loaiza/Crap allowing about 7 fewer runs than Meche/Washburn.
But that’s all before adjusting for park. Loaiza probably wouldn’t get much of a boost going from Oakland to Seattle, park factor wise, but it seems like in most categories, Toronto’s park plays as a hitter’s park, as opposed to Safeco being a pitcher’s park. I still kind of prefer the Burnett/Loazia configuration, I guess.
I notice the significant omission of Sexson from your list of core players going into next year. Are you anticipating a trade in real life, or just in Dave’s Imaginary Kingdom?
Jones had a very slow first couple of weeks (.500 OPS, Beltre-esque) and the fans were all over it. Small sample size, yadda, yadda, but the first impressions of a big ticket guy seem to stick more than most (also see Beltre, Adrian). I also seem to recall some questionable defense plays early on, too. I was paying attention mostly because of how highly touted he was here.
Given that the Cubs season was over by, oh, the end of April, he was a bit of a scapegoat, even though he turned out OK in the end.
Question for Dave or anyone that can answer.
Since we are on the topic of off-season signings, I was wondering about Washburn. Was Washbrun going to get this big of a deal (4 yr 37.5 mil) and the M’s were just the team that gave it to him, or did the Mariners give him considerably more money than any other team would have?
I certainly wish we’d signed Jones instead of Everett (and ditto on Helms), but it seems to me there are an awful lot of Cubs fans who loathe the guy and think he’s one of the things wrong with their team. Any idea why?
Jones can be an extremely frustrating player to watch. He looks positively hack-tastic at the plate, especially against lefties, and his accuracy on throws from the outfield is inconsistent at best. Of course, platooning him would cover up at least part of the problem. Anyway, he’s had the same frustrating approach at the plate for a long time, but it works for him, so the fans should probably just quit their moaning and focus a little more on what Jacque does well. And some Jones splits:
.280/.333/.474 — vs. RHP, ‘03-’05
.304/.354/.525 — vs. RHP, ‘06
.238/.295/.363 — vs. LHP, ‘03-’05
.230/.254/.429 — vs. LHP, ‘06
Someone, for the sake of everyone involved, find Jones a manager with the good sense to platoon him.
I notice the significant omission of Sexson from your list of core players going into next year. Are you anticipating a trade in real life, or just in Dave’s Imaginary Kingdom?
It’s possible that Sexson won’t be much of a core player even if he’s retained. There are enough bad signs in his performance this year that combined with his age and defense, it’s pretty easy not to think of him as much of an asset going forward.
Well, the cubs are getting a new manager next year so maybe that’ll happen (would make a good interview question, anyway).
I still kind of prefer the Burnett/Loazia configuration, I guess.
Washburn’s always going to outperform his FIP and xFIP in Safeco because his skillset is perfectly suited for the park. That’s not an illusion, and that has to be accounted for. Burnett/Loaiza/Crap might have saved us a couple of runs, but the overall point is the same – my rotation wouldn’t have been any better this year. I like it better for 2007 too, but for this year, it wouldn’t have been good enough.
I notice the significant omission of Sexson from your list of core players going into next year. Are you anticipating a trade in real life, or just in Dave’s Imaginary Kingdom?
In my kingdom, he’s gone. In reality, he’s probably still here next year, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility that he gets moved.
Since we are on the topic of off-season signings, I was wondering about Washburn. Was Washbrun going to get this big of a deal (4 yr 37.5 mil) and the M’s were just the team that gave it to him, or did the Mariners give him considerably more money than any other team would have?
The M’s blew everyone else out of the water. There wasn’t another team even close. It was an awful deal, both on real value to the team and relative value in the market. Just brutal.
Dave, I think you undersell how much better the Ms would be if they’d followed your type of plan instead of Bavasi’s. This is just one year, so it doesn’t seem all that significant. But, the fact is that the Ms could have been a little better this year AND hung on to significant assets like Cabrera and Choo AND had the benefit of significant assets going forward like Burnett and Loiaza instead of Washburn. Take the Bavasi style of doing things year after year this is what you get… a thoroughly mediocre team with an above-average payroll and not a whole lot of reason for optimism.
Don’t forget that Bill lives in the real world and has to deal with real world issues. In my world, A.J. Burnett signs with me because I want him to, and not because he has any real say in the matter. Bavasi doesn’t have that luxury. I’m sure if he could play by my rules, he’d do better too.
Agreed. Bavasi couldn’t have done exactly what you suggested, for many reasons, not the least of which is that it would have cost too much – all your guys signed for a little more than you predicted. I guess you could just reduce it to this: “Bill, don’t do the stuff that Dave absolutely would not do under any circumstance, like sign Everett or Washburn or Sexson for way too much money.” That is, we don’t know what he said to “no” to, but we do know what he said “yes” to. Anyway, I would rather have Russ ranyan, Jason Johnson, and Wes Helms (just to use as examples guys that have been absolutely available recently and extremely cheap).
That link links back to 2004.
Right. My exact suggestions aren’t really the point of these things – it’s the theory behind the suggestions. It’s not that I loved Jacque Jones, as much as I was in favor of getting Raul out of the outfield and bringing in another guy who could add value with his glove and his bat, and give the team a backup plan in case Reed failed.
I wish the M’s agreed with the ideas behind my plans, even if they didn’t care for the specifics.
Dave, I think you undersell how much better the Ms would be if they’d followed your type of plan instead of Bavasi’s. This is just one year, so it doesn’t seem all that significant. But, the fact is that the Ms could have been a little better this year AND hung on to significant assets like Cabrera and Choo AND had the benefit of significant assets going forward like Burnett and Loiaza instead of Washburn. Take the Bavasi style of doing things year after year this is what you get… a thoroughly mediocre team with an above-average payroll and not a whole lot of reason for optimism.
I’m not so certain a lot of this stems back to Bavasi; there’s an organizational philosophy at work that, of course, selected Bavasi, but still seems to stymie him when he tries to implement decision. For example, we STILL see marketing matters have an effect on personnel matters, DESPITE his declaration last year that he was disabusing some of the higher ups about it (see the Ibanez extension). And it seems to me that there a real reluctance among upper management to cut veterans and replace them with youngsters (see how they hung on to Boone far too long two years ago and Everett this year–I get the impression Bavasi would have cut bait on them far sooner). And there’s an almost pathological problem with blending in youngsters into the team (see how Lopez was yanked around and how they’re screwing him and Felix up by a rather rigid playing approach).
It seems to me that none of this is Bavasi specific, but is more organizationally rooted. And that makes it tougher to root out (starting with the probability that they’re not even aware of their own ineptness).
I would have rather seen Cabrera and Choo packaged for some starting pitching prospects but in reality I think that losing them really will make a minimal impact on the Mariners in the future. Cabrera is a SS who can’t hit. Frankly, we don’t need one of these guys because of Betancourt and other guys lower in the farm system. Choo would have been nice but he can’t hit lefties and I expect some of his numbers he put up this year for cleveland to slip a little if he sees more playing time. Once again, corner OFers with ok defense and can hit only RHP are not hard to find. I would probably like to have Cabrera and Choo over Brousard and Perez but its not that big of a deal.
Cubs fans aren’t that bright?
Ouch, low blow. Hit a team while they’re down, why don’t you.
It’s been said somewhat, but Jones was the Cubs big off-season signing for the lineup. He got off to an awful start (9-48) including a couple of 0-3 with 3 K games and got in the fans doghouse. By mid-May he’s numbers had bounced back to reasonable and I haven’t heard any fans complaining. As a Cubs fan, I’m sure happy they signed him (one of the few things that has gone well for the Cubs the past couple of years). And with Baker gone, Jones will be more valuable as he doesn’t waste time against LHP.
The one “failing” of Dave’s plan was the Loiaza was hurt and tried to pitch through it. Injuries happen and are sometimes hard to predict. That Meche and Washburn would be mediocre was easy to predict.
I do wonder how the lineup would have played out with Jones/Borchard instead of Everett.
10- Yeah I thought that was the case. I didn’t remember hearing of any other teams really going after Washburn.
You know I was listening to a Bavasi interview during ST and I think there was maybe a little insight into why we gave Washburn so much. He mentioned that in 2004 (prior to the 05 season) he went after Jaret Wright real early and ended up getting blow out of the water by other GM’s. He also talked about not wanting to offer a player something real low and them taking it as an insult, I dont have that 100% but it was something along those lines.
Anyways, I wonder if Bavasi was a bit nervous because of what happened the year before? So he decided to just give Washburn big money instead of going low and having another team out-bid him.
Obviously this could all mean nothing, but it was just an observation I made.
The M’s don’t negotiate against the market. They identify who they want, then offer a “fair market” deal, based on what they think comparable players have signed for.
Everett would have gotten 1 year, $1 million from someone else – maybe. Washburn would have gotten 2/15 or something. But the M’s viewed them as better players than the market, so they paid them better than market prices, despite the lack of competition.
It’s just how they work. They don’t get in bidding wars. They say “we want you, this is what you’re worth, sign it.” It works – they get who they want. The tradeoff is that they get players at above market rates.
I just want to make sure im getting it correctly.
So basically the M’s know what they want, they don’t judge the player based on what other teams might offer them, they judge the player based on what they see and they give that player a contract that they see fit. The contract doesn’t depend on what another team might offer.
#20: It works – they get who they want.
I thought they wanted Alex Rodriguex before he signed with Texas. I thought they wanted Miguel Tejada. I thought they wanted Carl Pavano.
I thought they wanted Alex Rodriguex before he signed with Texas. I thought they wanted Miguel Tejada. I thought they wanted Carl Pavano.
They didn’t get into a bidding war for any of those guys. They made their offers, and let the players choose if it was good enough to get them to come to Seattle.
Dave, can you shed any light on how the Mariners go about making decisions about trades and free agent signings? It seems that Bavasi gets blamed for the bad moves (C-Rex, Carlos Guillen, etc.), but I have the impression that the problem may be that he doesn’t have enough leeway, that things happen by consensus and that he’s hamstrung not only by a budget but by a general reluctance in the FO to be decisive when a big decision needs to be made(eg raising the stakes to get Tejada). Any thoughts on that? Would the M’s be better off if the front office was more willing to roll the dice on player moves(say like Steinbrenner or Moreno)?
This looks like the second consecutive year Ichiro! is going to hit right around .300. Maybe Rob Neyer is right, maybe he *is* a .300 hitter, give or take.
This looks like the second consecutive year Ichiro! is going to hit right around .300. Maybe Rob Neyer is right, maybe he *is* a .300 hitter, give or take.
.317 is “right around” .300?
Ichiro’s worst season batting averages are .303 and .312. He’s batting .317 right now. His career average is .330. Would any other hitter with those numbers be described as basically a .300 hitter, give or take? Would any other hitter be called only a .300 hitter when .300 is lower than every single season in his career?
Maybe Rob Neyer is right
Rob Neyer? Didn’t there used to be a guy named Neyer who posted baseball stuff on ESPN? Flannel shirt? Seems like I remember a guy by that name.
Even hitting .317, and for all his lovingly documented flaws, Ichiro remains a very valuable player: he’s third among AL right fielders (and fourth in the majors) in offensive value this year (according to Runs Above Replacement), and that’s not taking defense into account.
#23: They didn’t get into a bidding war for any of those guys. They made their offers, and let the players choose if it was good enough to get them to come to Seattle.
Exactly; thank you for making my point: in three high-profile cases, it didn’t work, and they didn’t get who they wanted. (#20)
But, hey, their strategy got us E.R.A. Washburn and Jurassic Carl, so what’s to quibble with about it?
Exactly; thank you for making my point: in three high-profile cases, it didn’t work, and they didn’t get who they wanted.
Well, in the sense that we didn’t get Carl Pavano, I’d certainly say it worked. And I was totally on board with passing on Tejada.
But trying to get me to defend the Mariners free agent spending tactics is a lost cause. I’ve been very critical of the way they ignore market value, and if you’re looking for someone to defend the strategies that brough us Washburn and Everett, I’m not your guy. I was just answering the man’s question with an explanation of how the team negotiates.
Dave wtote:
After reading this, I started wondering whether this is an example of a basic analytical failing of Bavasi’s, or if he was bamboozled by some agent who sold him on an overblown market value for Washburn. Neither makes much sense to me, since I generally have a pretty good impression of Bavasi’s intelligence. So it made some sense when Dave explained . . .
This does seem to be the M’s M.O., but what you are really doing is substituting your idea of those players’ market value for the Mariners’/Bavasi’s. We can’t really know. And, while I’d like to believe your estimates are closer to reality (they certainly are more reasonable), I suspect that Bavasi has more information about how other teams are valuing players he’s targeting than the general public does. Granted, it may well come through the filter of these players’ agents . . . which brings me back to my original moment of pondering . . .
What leads Bavasi to so overvalue targeted guys? Is it interference from the FO / team marketing types, coupled with the knowledge that the team has the resources to overpay and might need to overpay some to get guys to come to Seattle? Is he too wedded to guys he knows well (like Washburn) and the idea that guys can repeat their career years seemingly in perpetuity (a notion that has struck me about Bavasi on more than one occasion)? Is he gullible, and susceptible to what agents tell him about their client’s perceived value around the league?
I just can’t believe the M’s approach this completely in a vacuum, with absolutely no regard for what they think somebody else might pay. Less regard, sure. No regard? I doubt it. If they have even some regard for market value, then questions about why Bavasi is so bad at judging what that might be in particular cases is about as basic a question about his viability in his position going forward as there is.
#30: Maybe I’m not understanding you. If the M’s wanted player X and didn’t get him because of their policy of how they bargain (or actually don’t bargain) with free agents, I’d say their strategy didn’t work.
Whether wanting player X is a good idea or not is a different discussion.
Which is a better indicator of Ichiro’s! current level of ability, his .330 career average, or his batting averages the last two years — .303 and .317?
LB, they wanted player X, but not at any cost — they wanted player X at price X. If they get player X at price X, their strategy worked. If player X signs at price X + 5 and thus they avoid overpaying player X, that’s also an example of their strategy working.
Of course, if they get player X at price X and price X is also a significant overpayment, then that’s a dubious sort of “working” — which is where Dave’s critique comes in.
Dave, can you shed any light on how the Mariners go about making decisions about trades and free agent signings? It seems that Bavasi gets blamed for the bad moves (C-Rex, Carlos Guillen, etc.), but I have the impression that the problem may be that he doesn’t have enough leeway, that things happen by consensus and that he’s hamstrung not only by a budget but by a general reluctance in the FO to be decisive when a big decision needs to be made(eg raising the stakes to get Tejada). Any thoughts on that? Would the M’s be better off if the front office was more willing to roll the dice on player moves(say like Steinbrenner or Moreno)?
Well, let’s be honest, Bill’s job is to get blamed for the bad moves (and get credit for the good ones). It’s one of the functions of a GM. They are the public face of the baseball operations department, and for better or worse, they are evaluated on the decisions of the organization. No GM in baseball is a one man show with total authority to do what they want, but the GM is the one who gets credit or blame. That’s part of the deal, and they know that going in.
Anyways, to the question about him being “hamstrung”, I think a lot of that is overblown. Bill didn’t have to call up Howard Lincoln and say “hey, I’m about to trade Asdrubal Cabrera for Eduardo Perez – may I sir?”. The M’s don’t work that way. By and large, Bill and his staff have the right to make decisions as it comes to roster construction.
There are exceptions. If he made a franchise altering trade that went beyond adding talent to the team without letting his bosses have some input, he’d be in a lot of trouble. In other words, he can’t trade Ichiro without permission from the top. And, for reasons relating to the clubs desire to continue to draw the common fan, Raul Ibanez will retire a Mariner, and that’s just part of the deal no matter who is the GM of the team.
There are things he can’t do without ownership permission, just like any other franchise in baseball. But there’s not some bureaucratic chain-of-command that has to sign off with three carbon copies on every baseball move. For the most part, he’s given a budget and told to build the best team he can within that budget. There are organizational philosophies handed down from the Pat Gillick days that haven’t totally disappeared yet, but overall, the villainization of Howard Lincoln and Chuck Armstrong has mostly been a creation of angry fans looking for someone to blame, and upper management is always an easy target.
This isn’t supposed to be a critique of Bavasi or a defense of Lincoln and Armstrong, but I do think that most people who have strong opinions about the inner workings of the front office have based most of their thoughts on ignorance of the situation.
33: Whatever you answer you choose, it doesn’t amount to Ichiro being “a .300 hitter, give or take”.
32: No strategy works all the time. I’m not saying it’s a good strategy, but show me a team that gets every free agent they target. Not even the Yankees manage that. In any case, Dave hasn’t been saying the Mariners’ strategy “worked”, so it’s hard to tell what you think you’re arguing with.
#32 – whenever a discussion is made of whether a player is wanted, the GM always needs to factor in the cost and term. They may want a player at a certain cost point (or number of years) – but not want the player once either point is exceeded. It appears to me the M’s set those points and make that offer accordingly without trying to get a better deal.
#34: Okay, but then it’s really not accurate to say: It works; they get who they want. [#20]
Clearly, sometimes they do not get who they want.
I would not argue if you wanted to say: Sometimes it works; they get who they want (if they player wants to sign for the price they’re willing to pay).
Guess what: that’s true for teams that bargain, too.
#36
Sure it does: If Ichiro! hits .303 year after year, and that’s his established level of ability, then he’s a “.300 hitter, give or take.”
He *is* aging, just like everyone does. Maybe he *is* a .300 hitter now.
I know I am a cynic, and more apt to believe conspiracies than most, but….Is it possible that Bud and MLB puts out a list with suggested ballpark prices for groups of players…like the slots / suggested signing ranges per draft position in the MLB Amateur draft, and the Mariners FO adheres to the list while others may not??? I hope I am wrong on this…
…the decline of Richie Sexson and Ichiro.
Ichiro didn’t decline a whole lot. His EqA is down 4 points from last season (.291 to .287), and his kick-ass September tells me that gap might close a bit. His VORP this season is already higher than last season’s. By RCAA, he’s already ahead of last year’s total.
#40
I believe that would be called “Collusion”. Didn’t MLB lose a fairly recent collusion lawsuit? It wouldn’t be the first time.
This does seem to be the M’s M.O., but what you are really doing is substituting your idea of those players’ market value for the Mariners’/Bavasi’s. We can’t really know. And, while I’d like to believe your estimates are closer to reality (they certainly are more reasonable), I suspect that Bavasi has more information about how other teams are valuing players he’s targeting than the general public does. Granted, it may well come through the filter of these players’ agents . . . which brings me back to my original moment of pondering . . .
The world of contract offers is a landmine of misinformation. I certainly don’t have access to any kind of super-secret data storage facility where all offers are filtered through, so you’re right, my critique is that the team pays more than what my perception of the market value is for their free agent signings. There’s certainly some of my bias’ and lack of information built in. I’ll concede that point in a heartbeat.
But I’m not sure I’d make the leap that the M’s front office has significantly better information. They have more information, certainly, but I’m not sure they have more good information. For the most part, teams do not know what other teams have offered for a given player. They’re not aware of all the negotiations going on around the game. There are many, many times where a player signs for an amount and I’ll hear from several different teams that they had no idea the player would sign for that low of an amount.
Establishing a market value in baseball is tough, but for the most part, a large majority of the teams work in the same general area. The M’s are one of the outliers. They consistently pay amounts that make the other teams scoff. From my conversations with guys in other organizations, the general belief in the game is that the M’s are willing to overpay to make a fair deal, and they don’t really care to get “good deals.” Billy Beane will negotiate enough cash thrown into trades to be able to buy blackberries for his staff because he has to. The M’s don’t have such constraints, so they’re not interested in saving money by getting into negotiations that may cost them a chance to acquire the player they’ve decided they want.
That’s a philosophical difference the organization has with most of the rest of baseball.
#42: Didn’t MLB lose a fairly recent collusion lawsuit?
That depends on what you mean by “fairly recent.”
MLB owners were found guilty of collusion during the 1986-87 offseason.
Sure it does: If Ichiro! hits .303 year after year, and that’s his established level of ability, then he’s a “.300 hitter, give or take.”
But he’s not hitting .303 year after year, is he? .317 is not .303.
There is no reasonable way to say that his established level of ability is below what he has hit in every season of his career. “Give or take” doesn’t make it more reasonable. It’s just plain contrary to fact.
Incidentally:
Wade Boggs, age 34-35: .259, .302
Wade Boggs, age 36-37: .342, .324
John Olerud, age 27-28: .274, .294
John Olerud, age 29: .354
Derek Jeter, age 30-31, .292, .309
Derek Jeter, age 32: .340
Just as two season that average to .310 don’t make a guy a .300 hitter “give or take”, they also don’t mean that a .330 career hitter has necessarily declined to a .310 hitter. I’m betting Ichiro still has a .340 season or two in him.
I’d be surprised if he didn’t. There is so much statistical noise in his batting average that a couple of .400 months coming together is fairly likely.
#45: You may be right, but Boggs and Olerud had to get every one of their hits with their bats. Speed was not one of their tools. If they got a more than handful of infield hits over the course of their careers, I’d be very surprised.
Ichiro gets a fair number of hits with his legs, and guys do slow down as they age.
There are things he can’t do without ownership permission, just like any other franchise in baseball. But there’s not some bureaucratic chain-of-command that has to sign off with three carbon copies on every baseball move. For the most part, he’s given a budget and told to build the best team he can within that budget. There are organizational philosophies handed down from the Pat Gillick days that haven’t totally disappeared yet, but overall, the villainization of Howard Lincoln and Chuck Armstrong has mostly been a creation of angry fans looking for someone to blame, and upper management is always an easy target.
This isn’t supposed to be a critique of Bavasi or a defense of Lincoln and Armstrong, but I do think that most people who have strong opinions about the inner workings of the front office have based most of their thoughts on ignorance of the situation.
Is it fair to say, then, that the shortcomings of the Mariners are systemic and not shouldn’t be focussed on an individual or a set of them, then?
Ichiro! might have another .340 season in him. I would be inclined to bet against it, as about .040 of his batting average is tied up in infield hits, and he’s certainly not going to get any *faster*.
Who knows? The fact is that we don’t know for sure what’s going to happen in the future, but we would like to try to figure it out…that’s a big part of what makes this fun, at least for me anyway.
Looks like #47 beat me to it.
Ichiro gets a fair number of hits with his legs, and guys do slow down as they age.
There’s a general perception that guys dependent on speed ought to age worse than guys who aren’t, but it isn’t so; historically, speed guys age better than non-speed guys.
There are organizational philosophies handed down from the Pat Gillick days that haven’t totally disappeared yet, but overall, the villainization of Howard Lincoln and Chuck Armstrong has mostly been a creation of angry fans looking for someone to blame, and upper management is always an easy target.
This isn’t supposed to be a critique of Bavasi or a defense of Lincoln and Armstrong, but I do think that most people who have strong opinions about the inner workings of the front office have based most of their thoughts on ignorance of the situation.
What, you mean if the higher-ups decide that Bavasi needs to be defenestrated from the Kremlin, they might not go out and hire Cam Bonifay, Jim Bowden or Allard Baird as his replacement?
But seriously, yeah, that’s my argument, too. It’s one of the reasons that (when you get around to it) that post in the pipeline about who does what in the M’s front office is going to be valuable. Anything that gives some insight would help. Much of the time, we’re all doing the blind man/elephant routine when it comes to our insight into the front office.
And for the record, since I was one of the guys who hated the idea of Kevin Brown, I DO agree with you that going for a cheap guy who looks like might have some unexploited value is the way to go for a rotation backend enhancement (and that applies to this upcoming offseason as well as last offseason- having multiple options for 4/5 and guys who are ready in Tacoma is by no means a BAD thing). I just thought Kevin Brown had almost NO shot of being that guy.
I don’t know that the Burnett signing would have been a bad idea. That is to be determined. Maybe in 2006 it would be a wash, but I would much rather have the starter that has the ability to dominante during the playoffs. Personally feel that that was the only good marque pitching contract last offseason. Burnett, when healthy, can blow you away.
Loaiza on the other hand, is a little too inconsistent to count on. His feel for the release point comes and goes away too unpredictably. When hes good, hes really good, but when he isn’t good, hes terrible.
Still, neither contract would have been a disaster. And both, in my mind, are far prefferable to signing a #4 starter for $38mil.
Dave wrote:
Yeah, I agree. That was kind of the point of asking questions about why you think Bavasi and the FO tend to consistently overvalue guys. You hint that people in baseball believe it is a willingness to overpay, but don’t speculate on why that is (Need to, in order to get players to come to the NW and accept double the travel time of most teams? Have enough money that they just don’t care?).
I also think that you are making a bit of a leap from “the M’s consistently make deals that make other teams scoff” to “the M’s don’t care how other teams value players.” The picture you paint is a bit too black and white for my taste, though certainly you have more information than I do. If you accept that there is middle ground here, the questions about why the M’s consistently overpay are much more important in assessing Bavasi’s future.
If I’m remembering Nate Silver’s study from “Baseball Between the Numbers”, the speed guys and power guys declined at roughly the same rate, with the guys who demonstrated both skill sets aging more gracefully than either.
Is it possible that Bud and MLB puts out a list with suggested ballpark prices for groups of players…like the slots / suggested signing ranges per draft position in the MLB Amateur draft, and the Mariners FO adheres to the list while others may not??? I hope I am wrong on this…
I wish you were right. If they were doing this, it would keep player salaries down (or rather, cause them to increase less rapidly) — as slotting has with signing bonuses — which would tend to benefit the smaller market teams and competitiveness in general. And it’s exactly what the owners did in 1985-87, and it had exactly that effect. Of course the players would oppose this, and if they got even a whiff this was happening to their union members (and they would, just as they did in the 1980s) they would sue (again), and win (again). Given that none of this has happened, I’d say your conspiracy theory holds no water.
Ichiro! might have another .340 season in him. I would be inclined to bet against it, as about .040 of his batting average is tied up in infield hits, and he’s certainly not going to get any *faster*.
If Ichiro’s slowing down, you’d have a hard time proving it.
Infield Hits, by season: 47, 37, 57, 32, 38
Bunt Hit Rate, by season: 9/16, 9/22, 4/10, 6/9, 1/3
SB Rate, by season: 31/15, 34/8, 36/11, 33/8, 39/2
He got a ridiculous amount of IF hits in ‘04, but no one’s arguing he’s going to hit .372 again. He obviously doesn’t need that many IF hits to hit .340. He’s got basically the same this year as every non-04 year in the last five yeras.
He’s bunting less, no doubt. But I’m totally fine with that – he wasn’t a good enough bunter to make it worth our while anyways, and he did it in awful bunting situations far too often for my tastes.
His stolen base rate is at its career high, and he’s stolen more bases than any season in the last five.
You know why his average is down this year? His GB% is 50.4%, his lowest since ‘03. When he hits ground balls, he gets hits. When he hits flyballs, he makes outs. It’s that simple.
He’s not having less ground balls go for hits because he’s slowed down. He’s just hitting less groundballs.
Ichiro’s obviously not a .300 hitter, and Rob Neyer doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I think the M’s believe they absolutely have to overpay to get guys to move to this corner of the country, due mainly to the travel and distance from family, etc. You can add to that their recent history of losing and they have several major barriers to attracting top talent. I don’t have a problem with the over-paying philosophy as long as they apply it for the top players (i.e. Vladimir Guerrero, Carlos Delgado, Miguel Tejada)instead of just the second and third tier stiffs (Carl Everett, Jarrod Washburn, Scott Spiezio).
#58 – I’d tend to agree with that sentiment as well. To most people that I’ve talked to from other parts of the country, Washington state might as well be SW Canada. We’re seen as some obscure outpost by a lot of people east of the Mississippi.
It is that simple yes. When Ichiro is inside outing the ball hes great, when hes pulling the ball and/or lifting it, he gets in trouble.
But it isn’t Ichiro’s approach that is flawed this year (for the most part). Hes been dead tired, mentally and physically for the past two months. He is “muscling his swing”, and as a result his timing is off, and his swing is late (resulting in weak fly outs). His mental focus is also off – you saw very uncharacteristic swings and misses from Ichiro despite staying back on the ball, and he doesn’t seem to be excecuting his hitting plan when he steps in the box. He hasn’t been grinding his ABs until recently.
Any manager with any sort of brain would have given Ichiro a day or two off a while ago. Hargrove has destroyed Ichiro’s second half much like he destroyed Sexson’s first half.
If Hargrove is indeed fired I fully expect those two to have big comeback seasons.
I’m with you Lee. I’ll even go one further, and say I am fine with the philosophy of not getting into bidding wars for top players, so long as it isn’t an absolute but rather is a philosophy of saying “we’ll go no higher than $X and will walk away when the bidding goes higher” even when it is a player they really like.
But, ultimately, all this begs the question of how and why they set that $X figure in particular cases, and why they seem more willing to overpay for mediocre (or worse) talent than for top-notch talent.
#60 – What percentage of Ichiro’s fatigue can be attributed (indirectly or directly) to the change to CF? I suspect that we’re still in small sample size theater and therefore cannot accurately determine this.
Ichiro had a terrible year when Melvin was managing the club too.
Blaming everyone’s poor performance on Hargrove is just a massive leap in judgment that you’re not qualified (nor is anyone) to make. Fatigue could be a factor, but firing Mike Hargrove isn’t going to guarantee a .040 point jump in Ichiro’s average.
61 – The M’s remind me of the well-off guy who will buy the nicest Toyota he can find but won’t step up to the Lexus. Why? Who knows? The main problem is that while the M’s may think they are shopping for a nice Toyota, in most cases they are getting Hyundai’s. In the end it doesn’t matter what the philosophy is – as long as they can’t judge talent, they’re screwed.
64 – I like that analogy (though as an owner of a Toyota Highlander hybrid who specifically rejected looking at the Lexus hybrid, it hits a little close to home
).
There are legitimate and defensible reasons for picking a nice Toyota over a Lexus. The core issue, as you said, is why the M’s seem to consistently value Hyundais as top-of-the-line Toyotas, and pay for them as such rather than what everybody else is willing to pay for a Hyundai.
This is a tough game, and almost every player needs a day off or two every now and then. When a player is so beat up that its effecting his performance, that is when you bench a player. This is a fundamental managerial skill that Hargrove lacks and it has had a negative effect on Ichiro’s season.
To what degree I dont know (and neither does anybody because we can’t resimulate the season with a manager that has a brain), but Hargrove is a big factor for Ichiro and Sexson’s subpar seasons.
Ichiro is on pace to play every game this season. Sexson played every game in the first half despite a HUGE slump when he was strangely topping the ball (his timing was off) and it started to make him fall out of his game mentally (pulling the ball with a long swing instead of staying back on it with the quick, compact swing).
#36: … show me a team that gets every free agent they target. Not even the Yankees manage that.
You know, I’m sure you must be right, but I’m racking my brain for a free agent who turned down a NYY offer in the last ten years. I’m not coming up with one.
#67 I found one so far.
David Wells
Roger Clemens
Ichiro is on pace to play every game this season. Sexson played every game in the first half despite a HUGE slump when he was strangely topping the ball (his timing was off) and it started to make him fall out of his game mentally (pulling the ball with a long swing instead of staying back on it with the quick, compact swing).
Of course, there’s little to no evidence that suggests giving a player a day off has any tangible effect on their performance. It might, it might not, but the key is that we don’t know.
When we don’t know, we should err on the side of not berating someone else’s intelligence for also not knowing. WIth the point that Hargrove overplays his veterans, we’re in agreement. I’m just not willing to make the jump in conclusions that not resting Ichiro directly resulted in his reduced groundball rate.
Anecdotally, I don’t recall Richie getting days off in the second half, either, and he’s been doing just fine.
Andy Petitte also. Spurned a return to the Yankees in his free agent year to sign a deal with the Astros.
64 – Nothing wrong with a nice Toyota – I drive a Camry myself. Best car I’ve ever had. I guess to be fair I should say that Sexson and Beltre were definitely viewed by most as top of the line Toyotas when they were purchased. Unfortunately, despite running smooth at times, they have both had severe maintenance problems far too often, resulting in limited resale value.
#33
Which is a better indicator of Ichiro’s! current level of ability, his .330 career average, or his batting averages the last two years — .303 and .317?
I’d say neither. I’m alarmed by his HUGE drop in extra base hits, and also his drop in runs scored and runs batted in. For someone who leads off all 162 games, gets 200+ hits per year, and steals 40 to 50 bases, he’s struggled to score 100 runs for the last few years. And his 40 or so RBI is pretty sorry, too. But his low RBI total could just be a small sample case (i.e., one year) where he’s not hitting with RISP. It happens.
That being said, I still love the guy, and am especially happy to see him in center field. But his production has really tailed off. Batting average is so overrated.
Sorry if this has been mentioned, and I don’t have numbers to support this, but it seems that Felix tends to struggle more in a start following one that was skipped, as if he is rusty or out of rhythm. Has anyone else kept track of this?
#73 Isn’t scoring runs more a function of those behind him hitting him in? For while this year Beltre was a giant suckfest, then Lopez after the all-star break. If those two had been consistent, or if you had say, Doyle, in the 2 hole all year you may have seen Ichiro score 100+ runs.
Plus Ichiro! is at 96 runs scored right now. I would guess he will top 100 again. Also I don’t think he has ever stolen more than 39 bases (he will this year).
#68: The text of the article about Wells says: The Yankees declined Wells’s $6 million option for 2004, and the pitcher rejected the Yankees’ arbitration offer. Rejecting an arbitration offer isn’t what I had in mind when I said “turned down a NYY offer.” Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
I distinctly recall that Clemens did not reject an offer from NYY. He “retired” and the Astros talked him out of retirement after his buddy Andy Pettitte signed with Houston.
As for Pettitte, they Yankees botched his negotiation by not discussing contract terms during their window of exclusivity after the 2003 World Series. From a December 12, 2003, story in the NY Times: Pettitte is proud and sensitive, and he seemed bothered by what he considered the Yankees’ lackluster effort to keep him.
I’m not sure they how much they wanted Pettitte, and I don’t really think his case is a very good counterexample to the thesis that the Yankees get who they want.
#76: Also I don’t think he has ever stolen more than 39 bases (he will this year).
He stole 56 in 2001 (and was caught 14 times).
#78 You are right. I keep forgetting about that year. Don’t know why.
#77 I think the Yanks agressively pursued Albert Belle in 1998 when he became a free agent after the White Sox refused to make him one of the top 3 highest paid players in baseball. I believe he ended up signing with Baltimore. Of course the Yanks lucked out there.
#79: You have bingo on Albert Belle, but only kind of sort of:
Then the Orioles jumped in with their 5-for-65 offer to Belle, and the Yankees decided that if they were going to have to spend that much to get Belle, they might as well give it to their own outfielder. In addition, Boston had made an $87.5 million offer to Williams, and the Yankees did not want him playing for their archenemy.
– 12/2/88 NY Times
The Bernie Williams angle does throw a monkey wrench into the discussion. NYY got who they wanted (as usual), it just wasn’t Belle.
#80: Oops on forgetting to close the italics, but you get the idea.
I think they went after Pedro too for awhile before the Mets jumped in. I can’t remember exactly but I think their pursuit of Pedro was also hinged on the Yanks attempting to get Johnson in exchange for Vazquez.
I do know it torqued Steinbrenner a bit when Pedro signed with the Rival Mets.
Ichiro actually seems to avaerage more than .040 of batting average from infield hits, since he’s been in the 30’s on infield hits most years. With 600 AB, 30 infield hits would be .050 of batting average, and he gets more than 600 AB a season. But how many infield hits does he just barely beat out, and how many does he beat by a step or more? Losing a step isn’t going to cost him all of his infield hits. Ichiro at 40 will be a heck of a lot faster than Olerud at 28.
#82: Not in any serious way, they didn’t. Pedro paid Steinbrenner a courtesy call during the offseason, but there were only two teams seriously interested in Pedro.
The whole NY/Boston saga with Pedro and Johnny Damon is discussed in great detail in Seth Mnookin’s Feeding the Monster.
Ichiro still appears to be in great shape and seems pretty quick to me these days. I don’t see him losing much speed next year. There’s a certain point where generalizations stop being useful. By looking at Ichiro in detail, I think we can do better than “speed players do this or that.”
It would be kind of fun to see his times to first base over the last few years, though, in the way of data (other than IF hits) supporting whether or not Ichiro is losing speed. He still seems like one of the quickest in the league to me, but I’m clearly less accurate than a stopwatch.
#83: But how many infield hits does he just barely beat out, and how many does he beat by a step or more?
I can’t find the stats on the web to support this, but I seem to recall in 2001, fully 25% of his hits were infield hits (nearly .090 worth of BA). Then the league figure out how to align their defenses against him, and the number of infield hits went down dramatically. I think now the infield hits are mostly ones that he just beats out, because the defenders are positioned better than they were his rookie year.
72 – Nothing wrong with a nice Toyota . . . I guess to be fair I should say that Sexson and Beltre were definitely viewed by most as top of the line Toyotas when they were purchased. Unfortunately, despite running smooth at times, they have both had severe maintenance problems far too often, resulting in limited resale value.
Following this analogy (perhaps beyond its point of usefulness), I have no problem characterizing Beltre as a top-of-the-line Toyota. New even. Now Sexson, I’d say he was a top-of-the-line Toyota we bought used, with 80,000 miles on it, after it had been in a wreck, and paid for as if new.
The fact that Beltre has demonstrated some “lemon” tendencies shouldn’t necessarily be held against the buyer. However, when your used car begins showing problems, I think you can fairly criticize the buyer who overpaid for it – even if the problems relate more to how many miles it had (and one could reasonably have expected to get enough more clean-running miles before you expect to be through with it than you ended up getting) than to the wreck you probably should’ve been more worried about.
In either case, though, I have fewer problems with those signings than I do with ones like Speizio, Aurilia, Everett, & Washburn (or even Ibanez, though he has performed well enough to perhaps fall out of this category), where we identified Kias and Hyundais as middle-to-top-of-the-line Toyotas an paid them as such. The question is who is valuing these cars? Do they really think the Hyundais and Kias are adequate to their needs, and feel they need to pay them like Toyotas to get them here (and if so, why?), or can they simply not tell the difference?
Ya, Hargrove being one of the worst managers I’ve ever seen probably has less to do with his intelligence and more to do with his refusal to learn.
When you play intense baseball nearly every day for 162 days it tends to get to the (vast majority of) players at some point in the season, both mentally and physically. When the wear starts negatively effecting a player’s performance (when a player is late with his swing due to fatigue/when a player falls out of his gameplan because of a slump/etc), thats when a player needs a day off or two to recover. Hargrove’s solution is to run his star players into the ground.
Sexson didn’t get a real rest until the all star break. Ichiro isn’t ever getting his – hes just going to have to reach within himself for motivation.
Dave is an idiot. Morse is the MAN
Morse may well be “the Man.” He is just not a major league baseball player.
Chiro1623 is “the Troll.”
In today’s Seattle Times, Felix says:
“I don’t really care about striking people out, because when I do that … my pitch count is pretty high and I don’t get past the sixth, or fifth inning,” Hernandez said. “I want to make my pitches and be sure they put the ball in play. I know I have a great defense behind me.”
That’s nice to hear. But shake off more of those fastball calls!
From Peter Gammons today, talking about potential offseason happenings:
“…Daisuke Matsuzaka (considered a Yankee if they will pay the posting fee)….”
yikes
Chiro1623 is now the moderated. You won’t be seeing his comments on the site anymore.
#93
Gammons. Meh.
#95 — more from the same article:
“I was perusing the morning box scores in the Cape Cod Times when I brusquely asked my nurse, “Linda, how did Austin Kearns get to the Nationals?”
Linda Stetharces-Caruso had no idea what I was talking about, but she knew me well enough to allow me to grab my BlackBerry and fire off that question, which two general managers answered within the hour.”
Gammons is connected. GMs call *him*.
I would be shocked if he M’s didn’t win the bidding for Matsuzaka.
Gammons is in the mob? (Duck/run for cover)
Gammons apparently likes to show off how connected he is. Of course, for all we know it was actually assistants calling him back, and he chose to write it his way. Or perhaps his Blackberry email went something like “I’m dying to know…” Only they, he, and perhaps his nurse, know for sure.
98 — that’s “connected,” not “made”
There’s “connected” and then there’s “made.” Like Tommy DeVito. He got made because his roots could be traced back to the old world, and then “he was gone.” And there wasn’t a damn thing they could do about it. And no open casket funeral. But I digress greatly.
In any event, Gammons is better connected than 99%+ of everyone out there.
Just curious Evan, why would you be shocked if the M’s didn’t win the bidding for Matsuzaka?
#99: Moneyball makes it plain that at least one GM thinks Gammons is the most important baseball journalist in the business.
Peter Gammons is revered in the game. Players, coaches, GMs, whatever, they all love the guy.
It doesn’t mean he’s always right, or that Matsuzaka is a Yankee, but he’s as credible as they come.
Can anybody help me take a massively long link into the small ones I see on here usually?
Peter Gammons has a great article on ESPN today about his aneurism, recovery, and a very sad (but intriguing) look at the top pitching prospects of the last 10 years.
Wow, nevermind! By the time I got back to finish my post, everyone has already read the article!
Sorry!
Can anybody help me take a massively long link into the small ones I see on here usually?
Tiny URL is your friend. Enter a long link, click “make tinyurl”, and you’re done. Easy as pie. Mmmmm, pie.
So that will shorten any link for you? Just copy and paste it into tinyurl?
I not only learn baseball stuff from this site, I learn so much more!
So that will shorten any link for you? Just copy and paste it into tinyurl?
Ayup. It even copies it to your clipboard, if you’re using IE. If not, it displays the short link so you can copy/paste it. The shortened links (as far as I know) never expire.
So when is the write-up on Matsuzaka going to be posted here?
Ichiro! might have another .340 season in him. I would be inclined to bet against it, as about .040 of his batting average is tied up in infield hits, and he’s certainly not going to get any *faster*.
Math time.
Ichiro already has 38 infield hits this season, as Dave already pointed out above. Assuming 700 at bats (not insane for him, he’s already at 640 with 12 games left), Ichiro would need 210 hits to bat .300. He would need 240 hits to bat .340. In other words, he’d need one more hit every 5.4 games (assuming 162 games played).
Why the hell would that have to automatically mean “infield hit”? One more hit a week. That’s it. A little dunker, fister, floater, seeing eye single, excuse me swinging bunt, line drive, worm burner, deep into the hole at short, squibber, tee shot, duck snort, belted deep to right field, tight-roping hit here and there and he gets to .340 instead of .300. It doesn’t have to be 30 more infield hits. It can be anything.
As Peter Gammons’ role with ESPN diminishes each year, so diminishes ESPN’s credibility.
It’s a little late for this, and let me be clear that this is no criticism of Gammons and any way, but doesn’t his statement just state the obvious? Grrr…Yankees rich…uh…Matsuzaka play for team pay posting…argh.
I mean, does that say anything at all? Couldn’t it just as easily read, “Matsuzaka (considered a Royal if they pay the posting fee)?” Obviously, we know the Royals won’t pay the posting fee and that the Yankees (along with the Mariners) are on the short list of teams that are prepared to seriously pony up for the guy.
But Gammons doesn’t even claim to know if the Yankees will pay the posting fee. So his credibility, flawless though it may be, is completely irrelevant. Right? Am I missing something?
#110: That sounds just like the Crash Davis soliloquy in the pool hall in Bull Durham.
CRASH: (drunken, mad)
You know what the difference is between hitting .250 and hitting .300? I got it figured out.
Twenty-five hits a year in 500 at bats is 50 points. Okay? There’s 6 months in a season, that’s about 25 weeks — you get one extra flare a week — just one — a gork, a ground ball with eyes, a dying quail — just one more dying quail a week and you’re in Yankee Stadium!
So, what would Willie Bloomquist’s BA be if he could get one extra hit a week? Richie Sexson’s? Rene Rivera’s? You make it sound like it’s not a big deal to add 40 (!) points to your batting average, but from what I hear, hitting is pretty hard. If it weren’t, we’d all be playing major league baseball instead of reading a blog about major league players.
So, what would Willie Bloomquist’s BA be if he could get one extra hit a week? Richie Sexson’s? Rene Rivera’s? You make it sound like it’s not a big deal to add 40 (!) points to your batting average, but from what I hear, hitting is pretty hard. If it weren’t, we’d all be playing major league baseball instead of reading a blog about major league players.
Willie Bloomquist, Richie Sexson, and Rene Rivera != Ichiro Suzuki.
113, point is, we don’t know. Here’s what we do know:
1) Ichiro does not appear to be any slower than he was. Evidence SB%, and also that no one in baseball is indicating he’s lost a step. It always seems like a possibility as he ages, but there’s no evidence of it yet.
2) Singles are the most random hitting result in baseball. It’s why Ichiro’s batting average is all over the map from month to month. Since there’s so much random variation in the way Ichiro hits, adding 40 points to his batting average (while not particularly likely), is not as unlikely as it would be for other players who show less variation in their results. Not because it’s not hard, but because so many random things go into batting average and especially Ichiro’s batting average.
3) Adding 40 points to his batting average is not actually what anyone is talking about. They’re talking about adding .40 points to his supposed “true .300 plus or minus” ability (which is crazy to say for a career .330 hitter, but we’ve been over that). It’s only .10 points to his career average, and only .23 points this year. So…
If Ichiro is about to suffer some major decline, it would be smart to move him before anyone else notices. However, it would be the height of paranoia to do so just because we’re afraid it might happen.
Also, for what it’s worth, the way he’s stealing bases this year, I think it’s foolish to focus too much on Ichiro’s lack of power. If we assume getting caught is 2-3 times more costly than a steal is an advantage (I’ve heard both, so let’s say 2.5), then Ichiro has added a total of 36 bases through stealing. I’m also going to make a very contestable sort of approximation here, but it seems half-way reasonable to me, that the amount of times he’s gone first to third when other players couldn’t, or even first to home, makes up for a good chunk of the fact that his steals don’t move other runners along the same way hitting a double instead of a single would.
But, we’ll still penalize him for it, another 6 bases. If you think that’s too little, go ahead and come up with some other number (11 maybe to keep us at nice round numbers); this is just an exercise in thought anyway. If 25-30 of Ichiro’s singles were actually doubles, would anyone be complaining about his lack of power this season? Of course, they’d be complaining about the fact that he hasn’t stolen any bases (having transformed them all into doubles)…so I’m not exactly sure what this says, but I think you all get the basic idea. Valuable.
#115: A single plus a SB is not as good as a double. Suppose there’s a runner on first. A double is very likely to score him. A single plus a SB is not.
It’s no accident that Bill James’s classic “Runs Created” formula ignores stolen bases.
LB, seriously, that’s what you come up with after reading my post? For the record, I explicitly state in my own post that a single + SB does not equal a double. That’s why I continue to knock off additional bases in my admittedly ridiculous approximation. If you think the numbers are off, go ahead and say that, but don’t pretend I’m calling a single plus a stolen base a double. Really, what about the following quote makes you think I don’t understand your point?
I’m also going to make a very contestable sort of approximation here, but it seems half-way reasonable to me, that the amount of times he’s gone first to third when other players couldn’t, or even first to home, makes up for a good chunk of the fact that his steals don’t move other runners along the same way hitting a double instead of a single would. But, we’ll still penalize him for it, another 6 bases. If you think that’s too little, go ahead and come up with some other number (11 maybe to keep us at nice round numbers); this is just an exercise in thought anyway.
Enough of your straw men, already. I know my example is kind of silly. But contesting an obviously incorrect point that was never put forward doesn’t help your case any.