Youth, again
Hi!
So Geoff takes issue with my post on the Braves, illustrating that it’s possible, and good, to work youth into the lineups of contending teams. A couple points to pick on before I move to a whole other point, though:
As was mentioned, the young Braves were all Rookie of the Year contenders, which implies they got most of a full season to work their way in. With Jones, we’re talking about a 3 1/2 week “sink or swim” indoctrination, which is hardly the same discussion. Not even in the same ballpark.
The post wasn’t intended to prove that Jones should play. That’s just a given. It was intended to offer a larger example of how a successful franchise, while competing, can still develop their young players and get them playing time so they can blossom into beautiful flowers.
And I’ll point out that refuting that list of RoY candidates misses the larger point of the post. I used RoY voting because it was handy, but you can go through those teams and see how they continually found time for players mid-season and in smaller roles as they prepared them to start, as well as sometimes handing them starting jobs. Giles is a great example of this.
Anyway, to youth and Jones.
There’s a couple discussions here: one, did the M’s clear a spot for Jones at the start of the season? No, and I don’t think it’s at all fair to expect that the team would go into the year with an outfield spot open for him in case he was. You don’t know, right?
Then: once it became clear in, say, May/June, that Jones was dominating Tacoma, did they make a role for him? No, and here you can throw some garbage at the screen and boo them or whatever. It’s clear that they could have, especially with Ibanez’s slump and horrible defense all year, and could have found a way to put Jones out there a couple times a week.
Now, there’s the final argument, which is: having failed to clear a spot for him to start the year, and having failed to get him regular playing time, should the M’s have played Jones down the stretch in important games?
Dave and I have both argued at some length and frequently at some volume that you do. You put the best team on the field. And I’d argue the Franceour isn’t a particularly good comp for Jones, but anyway —
Baker’s argument against playing Jones down the stretch, and I’ll quote two paragraphs for the point:
So, which of those monthly OPS totals would Jones bring to the table these final few weeks if the M’s throw him in the lineup every day? Don’t know? Neither do I. Neither does the team. If Jones were to put up a .688 these next few weeks, in-place of the .800 by someone else on the team, it would potentially be a disaster.
But as I said, maybe he puts up a .900. It’s a risk. And it doesn’t matter what his minor league predictor stats say. This is too small a sample period for anyone to predict how he’d do every day with any accuracy. At the beginning of the season, or even in July, it’s a different story because there is margin for error, or an off-month for a rookie trying to adapt. In Francoeur’s case, he took the league by storm, then cooled off. But who’s to say what order Jones would perform in. I know this is becoming a tired debate in some respects. But I’m just pointing out the issues I’ve yet to see covered and to explain my feelings on the Braves. I agree that any team loaded with young talent should try to use it or trade it. Just not right now, not this late.
We’ve made this point too before: you don’t know what any player is going to put up in any situation anyway. Rookie having “an off month trying to adapt”? Vets have off months. If you’re looking at two players, one a veteran hitter and the other a far superior talent (not that that’s the comparison we’re making w/Jones v Ibanez, but bear with me) you want the better hitter. All players are different, all situations different, and so on and so forth. You can find months where horrible hitters tore it up, and great hitter stank up the joint.
You want the better hitter. You do. In the same way, you want the best team you can field. That team has Jones in the field.
But let’s say you take this whole argument, and you say “well, we could play Jones and improve the outfield defense a ton and he might hit some, he might not, I totally discard minor league track records and scouts and think that he has to prove himself at the major league level even though he can’t prove himself at the major league level because I’m going to play veterans because I totally discard minor league track records and scouts so I guess he’s screwed and we should trade him for pitching or something but veteran pitching because as I mentioned– BUT instead, I’m going to play Raul for this critical stretch against the Angels and whenever, because he’s hot for August and the team needs him and we can’t afford to try a rookie.”
Ibanez went 9-34 with no power at all from August 27th to today’s game. .265/.324/.265 over that stretch of nine games.
How can that be? Adam Jones is hitting better than that on the season, and he’s pretty regularly mocked as not being major league ready on the basis of his 35 at-bats. Is Ibanez not major league ready?
Shouldn’t veteran consistency have come through? Isn’t that what you count on? How could Raul fail so? If you’re supposed to count on veterans in these kinds of circumstances because you can’t afford a cold streak and veterans go cold like that, what then? What’s left?
Veterans are no different than any other hitter. They hit, and they don’t, and just like you want a good veteran hitter over a bad one, you want a good young hitter over a bad veteran one.
And, just to re-iterate, the case I’m making is not that Ibanez should be out of the lineup entirely. I’ve been arguing, and I think Dave largely agrees with me, that a player as talented and as ready as Jones can help the team, and if someone can help the team, you find a way to make the most of that, and it doesn’t matter if it’s June or September if you want to win.
I’m going to throw out one more analogy I think is particularly apt: Matt Kemp. Matt Kemp got spotty playing time last year for the Dodgers (52 games, 153 AB) and this year, at 22, they gave him some time in April, but he banged his shoulder into a scoreboard trying to make a catch in April, and went down to Las Vegas to hang out for a while. A long while. Matt Kemp’s not the defensive player Adam Jones is, but they’re not that dissimilar hitting prospects: a lot of Ks, nobody knows if they’re ever going to walk a lot, but they’re aggressive in the strike zone and put a charge into the ball when they make contact.
Anyway, when Kemp’s ready (and they really take their time), there’s a problem: the Dodgers are in contention and they’ve got an outfield: in left, veteran leader Luis Gonzalez, hitting .282/.362/.431. In center, Juan Pierre (.291/.325/.349) and in right, Andre Ethier, not quite as young, but played well last year and doing well again (.289/.354/.448).
The Dodgers, in many ways, faced an even worse situation than the Mariners did, with no DH to help shift defensive alignments, and without a June pretext for shifting things.
So what’d they do? We know what the M’s did, faced in June with a similar situation. The Dodgers kept trying to find ways to play Kemp, and even though it meant their outfield rotation’s had some fits and starts, and Kemp’s still sitting on the bench 2-3 times a week, since he came back up and played again June 8th, they’ve managed to get Kemp 215 plate appearances.
Kemp’s hitting .338/.372/.537 with Dodger Stadium as his home park. By VORP, he’s the third-most valuable hitter on that team. He’s a huge reason the Dodgers are in the NL wild card race.
There’s no way to know if Jones would produce like he’s capable of if he’d gotten the same opportunity. They’re different players, in different leagues, facing different situations, and so on. But other teams, faced with the same kind of dilemma, found ways to work similar players who can help into their lineup.
Finding Jones playing time wasn’t going to transform Horacio Ramirez into a good pitcher. Or Jeff Weaver. It wasn’t going to solve Sexson’s hitting issues. On the grand scale of things that deserve some blame for the slip from contention, or if you prefer the failure to seize the opportunity they had, it’s not that big a deal. It’s a game or two.
But I don’t at all agree that game’s not worth trying for, just as I don’t agree that there’s any reason not to field the best team possible, or that veteran hitters are any more reliable over short, arbitrary stretches of the season.
Comments
USSM uses and recommends
Why this team refuses to put it’s best lineup on the field is beyond me.
DMZ i can’t wait to see the rebuttal on this one
As frustrating as this season seems right now, it will be dwarfed if they “learn” all the wrong lessons about what constitutes the best team.
DMZ, did you clear this topic with COUGS129?
Other than that, I got nothing. Because really, it’s the position I’ve argued all along.
I also am a lot more sanguine about Bavasi’s chances of clearing the muck off the roster (coughRichieSexsoncough) than other of your co-authors are… and while I know Bavasi raves about Adam Jones, I saw him rave about Doyle, too.
Over-under for Jones at-bats the rest of the way, 35?
I’m starting to wonder if Baker has had the reigns tugged on him a bit, and he’s arguing to protect the team line.
Yeah, that’s the real kicker. There were good solid reasons to play Jones earlier. TRADITIONAL wisdom ones. Yet, they made their decisions out of fear of the unknown, instead of informed probability.
And didn’t they ride their vets through this stretch and NOT give them a whole lot of days off?
Feh.
We’ve made this point too before: you don’t know what any player is going to put up in any situation anyway.
I think this point cannot be overemphasized. It’s really easy to watch a team day in and day out, and after the fact, try to reason your way into why things were the way they were. It’s only human nature to watch things and want to ascribe reasons to them.
But sometimes there are no good reasons why a good player flops or why a bad player plays remarkably well for 10 days. Or for a month. Or for two months. Or sometimes, after the fact, it seems like there was a reason things went the way they went, but it’s one of those things that no one could have known ahead of time.
We need to accept, though, that no one can accurately predict the future. No one with the best scouting eyes and no one with the best statistical measures. (Not even anyone with the best astrological charts.)
In lieu of actually predicting the future, you throw your best players on the field and hope for the best. Sometimes it’s unclear who the best player is, and those decisions can be difficult. However, one thing that is very clear to me is that there’s no cookie cutter solution like “veteran players win championships” or “rookies get managers fired” that can easily be applied to make these decisions. All other things being equal, trusting the vet over the rookie is probably a wise decision, but all other things are rarely equal.
My guess is that Baker’s burned out on this season somewhat, as he hinted about in his latest blog entry, and gives up the tit-for-tat.
Every paragraph Baker writes, I become less impressed.
“Which Class AAA numbers for Adam Jones will help us predict how he’d do over the next 3 1/2 weeks? And if they are projected as good numbers, how do we explain his .257 average and .687 OPS so far?”
How can you explain it? HOW??? How could he possibly not be exactly his projected average? What manner of madness is this?
Good Christ.
“Is it only a lack of playing time, or needing to adjust to the majors over a longer period?”
C.
“Because the M’s don’t really have room for rookie adjustments here. How many games does Jones have to play per week for the magic numbers to kick-in? And how certain can we be that they will kick-in quickly?”
The math… it is magic.
“As in, say, right now? Because we saw from Jeff Francoeur’s example that even a Rookie of the Year finalist can plunge statistically after six solid weeks of playing every day.”
I think you meant “…even a sure first ballot hall of famer can plunge statistically… anytime at all.”
“I’m not aware of numbers that can make that prediction and am curious. So, are they out there? Or are they better-suited to projecting stats over a full season — in which case, this argument is best left for spring training?”
Yes, Mr. Baker, 162 games is a magic, supernatural number. Playing a player for shorter periods than that is risky in the extreme, you never know what you’re going to get.
Only with rookies, of course. With Veterans you always know how they will perform. That is why month to month Raul’s numbers have been pretty much identical, hardly any variation at all.
I’m with #9. Baker’s recent posts have bordered on bizarre. His writing shows a lot of the signs of someone who isn’t used to having his opinions and analysis being subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
The good news: this discussion is actually taking place. A fair debate with true thought going into each side. In years past, media articles on the M’s were low-brow at best.
With 9 and 11, me too. Baker said a few months ago when I started reading that he wanted a place where all manner of fans could come together. It worked OK until about the end of July and he picked up some really nasty posters, intent more on screen time than dialogue. Clearly, it took him by surprise, and the blog has gone downhill since. Now he’s got a pretty steady diet of posters berating him every day, which, I suspect, is how he got into this weird cycle. Be interesting to see what he does next year.
Also, Jose Vidro during the losing streak – OPS about .670. Last five games – .472. That hot streak is sure looking pretty dang cold now.
As for Baker and commenters, the Times really needs to invest in a proper userID management system for comments. That free for all crap they have right now means anyone can post anything under any name, hijacking other commenters names, etc. It’s a mess.
Not sure what he can do about having his old school baseball wisdom questioned, though.
Here’s my take on the Mariners organization after watching a total collapse for the second night in a row.
When the Mariners called up Adam Jones on August 3rd, the team’s veterans were angry, even though several of the M’s high paid players had not been producing to that point. Jose Guillen went out of his way to approach Geoff Baker of the Times before Jones had even arrived in Seattle (after the game of August 1st) to say he was very pissed off about the call-up, that the team was doing fine, didn’t need Jones, that this wasn’t Triple-A, etc. It seems that Jones was speaking up because he thought that Ibanez and Vidro wouldn’t speak up for themselves.
Now contrast that with the New York Yankees in the past ten days. Mike Mussina, a probable Hall of Famer (247 wins in an era when barely anybody wins 300 anymore) gets removed from his rotation spot (in favor of a rookie who’d never pitched in the Majors). Did the players in the Yankees clubhouse go ballistic, like Guillen? No, they didn’t.
What’s the difference? In my opinion, the Yankee players care more about winning and they trust their management more. The Yankee players look at Joe Torre and the NY front office and see a track record of success and they seemingly say “Hey, these guys want to win. If Joe Torre thinks that a rookie gives us a better chance to win, OK.”
And over in the Mariners clubhouse you’ve got veterans worried about losing playing time to a rookie that might just have helped get them to the post-season. To me that smacks of selfishness and more interest in their own playing time and their own egos than in the team winning.
Now, none of us know exactly what has been said in the clubhouse conversations between John McLaren and the veterans but it seems that the vets made it clear to Mac that they didn’t think Jones should be in the starting lineup on any kind of a regular basis. In my opinion, it seems likely that McLaren, being a rookie manager who took over in mid-season, didn’t want to rock the boat and play Jones over the veterans. There may also have been orders from above to play the veterans, but we don’t know about that either.
This team has the talent but it’s pretty darn obvious that they won’t be going to the playoffs this year – while NY goes to the playoffs for the 13th straight year. Now which clubhouse attitude do you think is better if you want your team to get to the World Series?
I would love to see someone in the Seattle papers call out the vets on the team over this collapse. They bitched and moaned about chemistry and not wanting younger players in the line-up and they got their wish. It will be interesting to see where or if they point any fingers at the end of the season. Ibanez, Guillen, Vidro etc. all got their playing time and forced the rooks to the bench during the stretch run. Way to come through in the clutch guys!
Exactly. What has all this veteran leadership accomplished, exactly? It’s the old-line thinkers who are taking a few weeks of random hitting out of context to “prove” that Ibanez is still da man, et cetera, not Dave and Derek. But those carefully-delineated snapshots have faded now, haven’t they?
Minor-league numbers are EXACTLY AS GOOD a predictor as major-league numbers. Not “almost as good”; not absolute certainties, either. Major-league numbers of the usual type are fairly weak predictors, too. Especially when you pick and choose the ones that tell the most dramatic story (”he’s turning his season around just when we need it the most”.)
It’s the kind of thinking that clogs this team with useless veterans, and causes McLaren to adopt the most useless patterns of use for his young players imaginable – a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. Witness the random dice rolling during our meltdown yesterday. Witness Jones’s whole season.
The Yankees example above is perfect. I hate the Yankees but they manage their team and their talent brilliantly. Yes, they have an intimidating lineup but they’re doing quite well for a team with about 40% of a pitching staff. We are the opposite: we will always underplay our potential.
Talent over experience, every time. This pennant race proves it. Experience dropped the ball.
5 – Depends on the Tigers series. If they tank, McLaren probably throws in the towel and then decides to use him more in meaningless situations. AJ might have a bad streak, to reassure the organization they were right all along.
Baker is missing USSM’s point in this whole “debate”, which DMZ has now made perfectly clear: no one is saying that Jones needs to *replace* someone in the lineup. He simply needs to be worked into the lineup so as to maximize his value. There are plenty of ABs to go around so that Jones, Ibanez, Broussard, Sexson, Vidro, and Guillen can get 4 starts/week, depending on matchups. Jones is currently getting about 1 start/week which is a total waste.
Interesting that you point out Matt Kemp as your counter example, because we Dodger fans spend most of our time complaining about how the Dodgers young players don’t get any playtime.
It should be noted that until very recently, all of Kemp’s playtime came at the expense of Andre Ethier, and not either of the two proven veteran presences in the outfield. Kemp maybe isn’t the best possible example for the point you’re trying to make.
Just out of curiousity … for those of you with hiring/firing responsibilities at your workplace…
Say you have a hugely important project that’s crashing on a deadline, with your continued employment at said workplace probably hinging on whether this project succeeds or fails. Your choices for staffing are longtime employees who are steady in their effort and results (unlikely to win any awards but also unlikely to go down in flames), or the new kids from college who might be great, or might be overwhelmed if thrown into the deep water. You know that, your workplace being what it is, you will probably get a lot more flak about your decision-making abilities if you pick the young guys and they fail, because letting the kids cut their teeth on a project that’s this high-stakes is going to be second-guessed if it proves too much for them. Who do you choose as the key members of your team?
I don’t disagree with the point that Jones has spent way too much time either in Tacoma or on the pine. I just wonder how many people here would make the equivilent choice in their own workplace with their own position at stake.
Yeah, I’d stick with the old guys who are just phoning it in too. Not those hot-shots down the hall who are always bugging me with their crazy “ideas”.
15- Geez, where are you going to find a bunch of professional athletes who have been playing the game their whole lives thinking they don’t need help?? Guillen thinks he can help the team so why not play? Torre is trying to work Mussina back into the lineup, and with Clemens out I imagine he will get it.
I am pretty sure the Yankees getting into the playoffs has nothing to do with what you are saying, chemistry. It has more to do with them being the best team in pythag and us over achieving for 5 months. The Yanks are a better team plain and simple.
Great post, DMZ and I agree with you 100%. It’s ironic to me how you used the Dodgers as an example though; I was watching the Dodgers/Cubs last night on ESPN as the Dodgers fell apart in the 8th. The ESPN commentators (I have no idea who they were, sorry) were going ON AND ON about how Grady Little’s decision to play rookies has ruined the Dodger’s chances this year, how it pisses off the veterans, ruins team chemistry and on and on and on. I actually turned it off and watched my TiVO’d episode of The Closer from Monday night.
I have no idea why, but it just astounds me that so many people have this mindset about playing rookies vs veterans. Put the best talent on the field, period. It’s not brain surgery here, folks!
Jimmie
As #21 illustrates, a whole lot of the world values experience over talent, and has this idea that talent and youth is more volatile. It probably has something to do with our perception of children and their mood swings…but I’m sure we have some psychology majors here that could tell you for sure.
I really agree that someone in the media needs to ask some tough questions to the team. I mean, we are paying for this stadium, and they have a huge payroll. As much as I hate Boston and New York, they care about their team, and they don’t put up with any crap (remember Grady?). I’m not sure that Baker is our man for this. Not sure I blame him a whole lot though, I’d watch what I said too if I had to deal with Jose Guillen in the same room in the midst of a long losing streak.
We’re not asking management to be perfect. We’re just asking that they live in the 21st century.
Your choices for staffing are longtime employees who are steady in their effort and results (unlikely to win any awards but also unlikely to go down in flames), or the new kids from college who might be great, or might be overwhelmed if thrown into the deep water.
That’s not the case at all, though. Your choices, if you’re going to make this a relevant example, are not slow and steady veterans: they’re workers who have just as much variability in performance as anyone over the next chunk of time, and young kids not “out of college” but who’ve been performing the same kind of work in smaller environments with huge success.
Plus, if the project’s crashing, you’re pretty much screwed either way and double screwed if you swap people, but that’s a whole other project management rant.
A city makes its citizens pay for an unbelievably expensive new movie theater complex (it good for the economy right?
) In fact, it’s the most expensive movie house in history. However, instead of playing new, popular, well reviewed movies, they just play 1970s made-for-TV, after-school specials.
This is my favorite team, the Seattle Mariners.
Owwwwwwwwwwwww.
You’d actually probably do well briefly with “Schoolhouse Rock”.
See DMZ, because this team is full of grittiness and veteranness, there’s no way that the Mariners would completely collapse in the most important series of the year. Wait… What’s that you say?
Clearly the only reason we lost is because the roster expanded and threw off the team chemistry.
#26 — You have to post that project management rant sometime during the offseason. I feel that pain.
21 (bermanator) – That really is not a good comparison. You are talking about long time employees who have tons of experience, and still have the abilities to do the job as good, if not better, than a young guy.
To more accurately compare an office employee to a baseball player in this scenario, you’d need something like a valedictorian fresh out of college but no experience, and a 45 year old graphics designer with severe arthritis in the fingers and carpal tunnel. Would it hurt losing the experience and past success? Of course. But the guy just can’t do the job anymore. You need to stick the guy with upside in ASAP.
Your point would be more like comparing Adam Jones to Ken Griffey, Jr. A guy (Jr) who has been in the league a long time, whose skills have diminished some, but still provides enough offense and defense in right to justify a roster spot. Do you push Junior out for the young guy? A case could certainly be made for waiting another year or two for Junior’s contract to expire.
Raul Ibanez isn’t a Ken Griffey, Jr. Never was, and won’t be next year. Time to get a head start on the future.
How about the D-Backs as another example? They’re playing a bunch of rookies and near-rookies and are leading their division…….
Aaaand.. DMZ beat me to the punch. Maybe I should stop letting work interrupt my blogging.
The ESPN commentators were going ON AND ON about how Grady Little’s decision to play rookies has ruined the Dodger’s chances this year, how it pisses off the veterans, ruins team chemistry and on and on and on.
Ironically I talked to a friend in the Dodgers organization yesterday before the game and he was psyched that Kemp was getting to play (and raking) and LaRoche was about to join him as a regular with Garciaparra relegated to pinch hitting duties. And that if the Dodgers missed the playoffs by a game, it would be because they had stuck with the veterans for so long.
I’m sure there are individuals who are pissed when other veterans lose their jobs. I doubt there are players who are pissed about winning. To a man, I hope there’s no one in the Mariners clubhouse who thinks “well, we just lost 10 of 11 and tanked our season but by at least we did it with the veterans we’ve used all season”.
[no, no, no]
35 (panman) – Jones himself has said he doesn’t think he could make the plays Yuni makes. I know that is short and not second base, but AJ is a very confident kid. If he thought he could play 2B and help the team, he’d probably have made a big stink about it by now.
Besides, I don’t think they want to tinker with him at this point. They have decided he will be an outfielder, and so that is where he’ll play.
Re 24: One of the commentators in last night’s Cubs / Dodgers game was Steve Phillips. I’ve listened to him several times on the radio and decided that he’s a borderline fool. After last night, I’m removing the “borderline” adjective.
He’s just the kind of GM that the M’s would hire if they fired Bavasi, though.
35 – He’s not a middle infield prospect any more, nor will he ever be a middle infield prospect again.
Don’t even start…
Mat said:
“We’ve made this point too before: you don’t know what any player is going to put up in any situation anyway.”
I think this point cannot be overemphasized. It’s really easy to watch a team day in and day out, and after the fact, try to reason your way into why things were the way they were. It’s only human nature to watch things and want to ascribe reasons to them.
Amen. This, and the point that DMZ and others have made about nobody here arguing for outright benching anybody (just a more sensible distribution of playing time, depending on match-ups), is the crux of the entire discussion.
Baker’s (and the Mariners’0 unstated assumption is that, when you come down the stretch, you have to play veterans because they will be more consistent. The problem is, that’s just not true. At least it isn’t if you’ve made a good scouting decision that a young player is major-league ready, as I believe the M’s (properly) have with Jones.
If Jones played and failed down the stretch, it is no different than when Vidro or Sexson or Ibanez plays and slumps down the stretch, except that with Jones, you at least have upgraded your defense during that period. Oh, and you get to use the “well, at least we went with the vets” and get understanding, “what more could you have done?” pats on the back from traditional baseball people, while subjecting yourself to 20-20 hindsight criticism (or even put your job in jeopardy) from those same types if you go with Jones. Considering McLaren’s and Bavasi’s fairly precarious positions, it isn’t all that surprising – just frustrating, because it is based on an assumption that has no basis in fact.
How about playing Ibanez at second in order to free up left field for Jones?
Rick White is clearly the anti-chemistry veteran. The collapse dates exactly from his arrival.
Interesting how the M’s solved a bullpen problem that most of us didn’t see with White, and then the bullpen embarked on a gut wrenching, season ending implosion.
I, of course, agree with Derek on Jones, and always have. But it is the disastrous pickup of Parrish and White, as the stabilizing veterans, that gets me angriest. It was the most clearly avoidable misfortune of the last two weeks.
I think the real crux of these arguments lies somewhere that has not been investigated, that I know of. The real underlying question is “are veterans more consistent than rookies?” Even if you say that people may agree that Jones’ talent is greater than Ibanez’ or Vidro’s — their counter argument is that they trust vets to deliver their career numbers and fear rookies’ performance will be more volative. The research question then is: is this true? Are vets more consistent? Geoff’s argument is (or was), even if Jones is better with the glove, Ibanez is putting up good numbers RIGHT NOW and we don’t know if Jones will, so no sense taking “the risk”.
So, not knowing that this has been researched, I did a very quick scan of month-by-month variability between three vets we’ve been talking about, along with 3 rookies we’ve been discussing. The real research would be to look at hundreds of vets and rookies to truly assess variability across the two populations — so small sample size cautions apply here big-time — this is just back of the envelope calculations.
I looked at the last two years. Seems most relevant to the core question that has been being asked of who will deliver in the final month of this season.
Looked at every month in those two years that each player had more than 40 AB’s.
Used OPS as the one and only measure.
And used Standard Deviation as the measure of “consistency”.
RESULTS:
Ibanez OPS .882 StdDev .182
Vidro OPS .748 StdDev .099
Sexson OPS .771 StdDev .166
Jones OPS .887 StdDev .158 (minor league numbers)
Francoeur OPS .764 StdDev .095
Kemp OPS .895 StdDev .051
(All numbers are major league numbers only, except for Jones which are minor league numbers only.)
This sample is far too small to even be worth water-cooler chatting, but as a very first peek at an answer to the question of who’s got more consistency, it certainly does not scream out that vets are more consistent.
Reactions?
Dave in Palo Alto -
I agree with you that the White and Parrish acquisitions were foolish and maddening, but McLaren didn’t have to use them (especially White) as he did. With White, it is almost as if, when White threw that up-and-in pitch to (I can’t remember who) bunting (even though he still got it down), McLaren decided he had sufficient “veteran-ness” for him and started using him in increasingly high-leverage situations, with increasingly disastrous (yet still ignored) results.
“I, of course, agree with Derek on Jones, and always have. But it is the disastrous pickup of Parrish and White, as the stabilizing veterans, that gets me angriest. It was the most clearly avoidable misfortune of the last two weeks.”
Great point Dave.
Oh, now you’ve done it. Using a real life, true technical term. That’s actually used in hard cpre statistical analysis.
You’ve made so many fan’s heads explode (never mind the Ms front office) that we’ll never get anywhere…
I remember an earlier post in which one of the USSM authors put it clearly and simply. Jones was brought up to help the team by playing on the field and hitting in the lineup, but the M’s chickened out. That’s it, end of story.
It really does make you wonder: just what exactly were and now are the Mariners thinking about this? Did McLaren and Bavasi talk about the Jones call-up ahead of time? Did they have a basic plan? Are they talking now? Is it really “chickening out”? It can’t be that. You have to think they had a plan — and it can’t possibly be that their plan was to call up Adam Jones to be a younger Jason Ellison… it can’t be that they think that sitting on the bench and chatting with major leaguers really will help him grow… So, did they not have a plan, or not follow the plan? Who is accountable? This whole thing borders on incomprehensible….
re: Jones in the infield: Won’t work. Bob Fontaine says that it’s far easier to convert an infielder to an outfielder than vice versa, because you can take an arm that throws short, quicker throws and teach it to make longer throws… but it’s much harder to take an arm accustomed to making long throws from the OF and teaching it to shorten up and throw accurately in the infield. The only real exception is 1st base, where relatively few throws are required.
In other words, Adam Jones as an infielder probably wouldn’t fly.
Won’t work? Or just not optimal?
If Jones was a lifetime OF I’d tend to agree but Chone Figgins says hi (transitioned from 6 positions, but mostly OF in 2006 to mostly 3B this year.)
Would it work this week? Not at all, but there’s nothing to say it couldn’t work longer term. Still, if the driving reason is keeping Ral in LF, then we have a much bigger problem.
Mac on KJR:
“it’s not the time for mixing and matching, I have faith in these guys, they have faith in themselves, it’s just a matter of getting on a roll, we believe in each other, it just a matter of getting it done, we gotta get it going.”
F-You, Mac.
Screwing with Jones’ head and mechanics in the field during limited playing time in a season that, for all practical purposes, is lost seems like a bad idea to me. His career path looks like he’s going to be a starting OF, not like Figgins.
49. Won’t work as in ‘can’t practically expect a player who hasn’t done it in so long to make that kind of adjustment’. It’s like asking Adrian Beltre to learn how to steal bases and then hoping he’ll be your leadoff guy.
Chone at least plays regularly as a big leaguer at the infield positions, and AFAIK always has.
Here’s a better example: you have a fast runner who runs sprints. You train him over several years to run long distance races, 5Ks and such.
Can you reasonably expect that guy to then competitively run a 100 meter sprint cold turkey?
Isn’t there other things to talk about then the daily Adam Jones topic… Seriously, its AJ this AJ that. I think everyone has made their points on this issue like a thousand times over.
McLaren and many fans vastly overrate this team. The August surge represents the best they can do, and it is not sustainable. A team that endures multiple extended losing streaks during the year, and especially during the stretch, is not anywhere close to being a legitimate contender.
McLaren can believe all he wants in the vets, but they aren’t going to get it done. The root of the M’s troubles goes back to last winter, when they made a decision last winter that they would bring in some vets and screw the younger, more talented AJ. The priority was saving the jobs of Hargrove and Bavasi. Bavasi, I guess, keeps his job, but he did it with smoke and mirrors.
Putting a contending team together for 2008 is going to be all that much harder as a result, assuming they continue to regard their aging veterans as the answer. I do not expect a change in philosophy because the team has shown no sign of learning from these mistakes.
Sexson, Ibanez and Vidro all need to go, but given their contract status I just don’t see it happening. Young, talented players need to be able to come in next spring and have a realistic chance to contend for starting.
Who’s saying cold turkey? If anyone IS, it’s not me. Jones is what, a couple of seasons away from playing SS? Your example in 55 is simply not valid.
Some sprinters run 100, 200 and 400m races, or 400, 1500 and 5000m, and do well at each (if not gold medal winning at all), despite the different cadences to those races.
If he worked on it at winter ball Jones could easily be prepared to move back to the infield and do credibly well.
It probably isn’t in his best interests, or the team’s but it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible or even stupid.
If Bob Fontaine doesn’t think Adam Jones is suited to be an infielder, that’s good enough for me.
56 – I’d say that one or two of Sexson Ibanez and Vidro has to go (make it two or three if you throw in Guillen too). I think Ibanez as a DH works well, as he should only DH against righties, but that’s 75-80% of the time, so he’s be OK. But for that to happen, Vidro must go, and Sexson is presumably halfway out the door as we write.
I think we’ll lose Sexson, but the others will probably remain to clog up the future of the team.
You make sound as easy as a few weeks of practice. When we talked with Bob Fontaine at the meetup in Everett, he did not concur with that notion.
There is a LOT of adjustment required, even if you played the position before. You have to not just shorten an outfielder’s throwing motion, but sharpen it, as an outfielder’s throws don’t have to be nearly as quick and accurate as they must be in the infield. And that ignores the physical quickness and reaction time required to field grounders.
It’s not as easy of an adjustment as you think it is.
And if my runner example is invalid, name some distance runners who are also winning sprinters. I doubt you can, because I doubt that point is even true. And 400m races don’t count as long distance: those are also run as sprints.
Matt Kemp just homered against the Cubs. Luis Gonzalez (respected veteran) followed that up with a pop out to short.
I’ve been saying all year that much as I hate it, I don’t see any way to get rid of Sexson. Now I think that there has to be some kind of blame for this season. Fans have already booed Sexson, so unless he comes in and brings this team to a pennant, I think he’s gone. You do the shift with Raul, and we have a better team with Sexson gone and AJ in left. What a weird way to get him there.
With respect to Jones flipflopping between the infield and outfield, it might be good to cite some examples where it was doable. We should question established wisdom when there’s a basis for it…but that’s generally best done if there are at least anecdotal examples, and even better if there’s systematic, statistical data.
Recently, many posters have been saying that we can’t get rid of Sexson. Don’t forget that Detroit claimed him on waivers about a month ago. It seems more that the M’s won’t get rid of him.
However, his being mired in a slump and then going on the DL can’t help this situation.
64 – For me, the difference is what the M’s want back for him. I suspect they’re willing to let him go now while paying a bigger chunk of his salary. But that could just be my daydreaming.
Um…Willie Bloomquist, Mark McLemore, and hundreds of other utility players say hi. It is obviously quite possible to flip back and forth between the infield and outfield. Now, I haven’t looked up UZR numbers for any utility guys, so maybe it’s not possible to flip back and forth and get ABOVE-AVERAGE defense, but it’s clearly possible to get ACCEPTABLE defense while changing positions on short notice.
Baker’s blog commentators are so ignorant it hurts. But hey, Baker now advocates playing Adam Jones (but you can’t seem to have a Baker blog lately that makes a good point without making a terrible one. So he also advocates using Vidro at 2nd and Ibanez in LF, while DHing Adam Jones on occasion)
66. Yes, but they have always regularly played the IF. There is nothing unlearned or lost to time. And neither McLemore, Chone or Willie would be mistaken for someone with a strong arm, so who’s to say they particularly developed their OF arms? The only rule in adjusting to the OF is ‘throw longer’ so adjusting from the IF to the OF isn’t particularly difficult, and if you’re not away from playing IF for too long, little adjustment is required.
In Adam Jones’ case, you’re talking about a guy who hasn’t played infield at all since the low minors. Not the same thing.
So how about Casey Blake?
After a few cups of coffee with the Twins as a 1B/3B, he became the full time 3B in 2003 and 2004 for the Indians with a handful of games at 1B and NONE in the outfield.
He became the full time RF in 2005 with a handful of games at 1B and 3B.
Then in 2006 he remained the full time RF with a few games at 1B and NONE anywhere else. Then, out of the blue, he’s the (almost) full time 3B this year, with a few games in RF and 1B.
So maybe he’s superman, and maybe he’s not, but he’s a pretty good player who has been able to adapt from IF to OF and back. The timeframes are comparable to Jones conversion too. And Jones was converted because of two factors: a) Betancourt clogging up SS for the foreseeable future and b) Ichiro’s possible departure.
and neither of those things has worked out the way the M’s hoped in the first case and feared in the second.
Oh, and BJ UPton of the Rays has split time about equally between 2B and CF this year.
Again, nobody is saying this is optimal, either the best thing for Jones or the club, but it HAS been done, will be done again, and isn’t quite the absolute impossibility you have asserted.
Re 50: It’s painful to see the “clap louder so Tinkerbell will live” principle applied to baseball management.
BJ Upton was a disaster at 2B (and SS), and the only regular worse than him in the AL was his teammate, Ty Wigginton. Guys like Figgins and Blake were good enough fielders to make the majors as infielders and were moved to the outfield due to team needs.
Jones was never a major league quality shortstop. The organization moved him off shortstop after about 60 games in AA at age 19 largely because he was an error machine and was growing out of the position. He looks about 20 pounds heavier now too.
Moving Jones from the outfield to the infield would turn his defense from an asset to a liability, significantly diminishing his overall value as a player. Why would you do that?
Are we actually having a debate about moving Jones to shortsop? The season really is over…
REgarding yesterday’s debacle of a game, Dave or DMZ: Is there any indication from the Mariners that they might send a tape of the blown calls by the umpires on Ichiro in yesterday’s game, in some form of protest, to the league?
(from the write up on MLB.com: “Ichiro Suzuki was called out twice on calls that replays showed were blown by umpires. When he tried to steal second in the third inning, he was called out by second base ump Gerry Davis even though SS Derek Jeter missed the tag. In the fifth, Suzuki appeared to beat out a grounder but was called out by first base ump Tony Randazzo. Manager John McLaren unsuccessfully argued the call.”)
Sure, they might be “judgement” calls, but it certainly displayed poor judgement. Like someone said, that made up for the Willie Bloomquist blown call in May once, and once again for good measure.
Sorry, I meant 2nd base. Regardless…
Unfortunately not true. Michael Johnson, arguably the best 200-400 crossover runner of all time, was never a factor (if, indeed, he ever competed) in the world of Maurice Greene and his 100m compatriots. Similarly, though 1500-5000 doublers are relatively common, those runners would never factor in the 400.
From Baker:
So, what would I do? Right now, I’d put Vidro at second base tomorrow night, Jones in left field and make Ibanez the DH. After that, maybe I switch things up and put Ibanez back in left and make Jones the DH. And if Vidro continues to struggle, I sit him down for a rest, put Lopez — or maybe Willie Bloomquist or Nick Green — in at second base for a night and do the Ibanez-Jones shuffle any way possible. Take it day-by-day.
WTF? No. Ibanez shouldn’t see the field, period. Play Jones, platoon Raul and Vidro (and give Vidro some PH duties to keep him fresh).
If you MUST bench Lopez, I suppose- but IMO giving up on a 23 year old who’s 14 months removed from an All-Star game is pretty crazy. You would be better off fixing him. Right now, I blame the “no, don’t pull the ball, just ground out to second” philosophy instilled by Hargrove et al last year for mucking things up. If I’m a savvy GM, I am SO on the phone to Bavasi saying “Hey, let’s do a deal at the winter meetings! I have another pitch-to-contact lefty with a flashy ERA to replace Horacio Ramirez for you!” Knowing this organization’s love affair with Willie’s grit, I fear what’s going to happen next…
w/r/t umps: maybe, but probably not. They don’t want to make it a controversy, or embarrass the league.
I suspect, though, that someone up in the organization, like Bavasi, or even Armstrong, calls MLB and talks to one of their on-field people and says “look, we’re not going to file a protest or anything, but this crew made some horrible calls, could you have one of your people look it over and do whatever you think’s right?”
And then they hope something happens.
You could put Richie Sexson at shortstop, too.
That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Although it’d be a lot of fun to watch with the playoff race basically over. Maybe his height is an advantage at SS, like people keep claiming it is at first base!
It’d be hard to hit a ball over his head.
The point I’m trying to make, pretty sarcastically I’ll admit, is that there were tools and skills-based reasons for moving Adam Jones away from the SS position, especially since it was done well before Betancourt was established as the future of the team at SS.
At the lower levels of play, SS is often the place you stick your best athlete, and then you wait for them to play their way out of that spot. Jones did, so he’s an outfielder now.
69. And maybe Blake had an entire offseason to get reacclimated with 3B. AND maybe he has actually played some infield since his time in the low minors… actually, as you mentioned, he had.
I admit it’s not just an issue of time away, but of when in Adam’s development he last played the infield. It’s one thing to have last played infield a year or two ago if you had played infield in the majors, and quite another if your last experience was in AA as a teenager. If Adam Jones had played a lot of infield in Tacoma, I’d probably be more in line with your assessment. But….
Also, what Grizz said in 73.
Speaking of youth and learning lessons: (and realizing this is preaching to the choir)
Oops, forgot the attribution:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-indianssummer&prov=ap&type=lgns
Seriously, does anyone really think the answer is to move Jones to the infield? We have a large left field, we need an fast, mobile guy with a plus arm in that position. Whoa, look at this….Adam Jones is a fast, mobile guy with a plus arm, he’s under club control for some years, has hit well…maybe we should let him play OF.
Even thinking we need him at SS is why none of us are either scouts or GM in MLB.
Oh for god’s sake. To listen to you guys go on and on and on about AJ, the sheer volume of commentary devoted to AJ getting more playing time, is, well, seriously out of scale to the value-added his presence in the lineup would have created as compared to, oh, a REAL addition to the rotation.
It’s like you’re spending all your energy trying to bail water instead of fixing the gaping hole allowing the water to pour in.
And you know, I’ve watched a lot of baseball in my life. AJ is a very good player and he’s made great strides over this past year (small sample size, against AAA pitching), but he is not a one man savior worthy of this much commentary. And before you say it’s more generalized about the Ms not giving a chance to young players, please try not to forget all the young players (rookies or 1 solid year behind them ‘vets’) on their roster.
Okay, look, I sympathize, but here’s the problem: we got all the whining out about Horacio pretty early, and gave up. This happens to be the most recent symptomatic issue.
But, also — no one’s forcing you to read Jones-related stuff. There’s plenty of other stuff here. Like pitching-related whining! Lineup-related whining! Transaction-related whining!
85 – Get a hold of yourself man. We discuss AJ because it’s a move the team COULD make. Not a hell of a lot to do about the rotation right now.
Send Morrow down to be a starter, check. But what do you propose to do about the rotation right this minute? Yeah, me either.
No one here is claiming Jones is a savior and you know it. It is a no-brainer move that the team refuses to make. That makes it worthy of commentary. If we had a starting pitcher as good as Jones, we’d be talking about that, too.
So get over yourself and let people talk about it if they feel like it.
And our starting nine, as I posted about yesterday, have 78 years of experience between them. A few youngsters in the bullpen doesn’t make up for that.
lets say AJ gets very few hits in his appearances, if perhaps he were in the line on more occasions. He would still not have hurt the team as we know it today.{ I really think that other teams are more well prepared for post season play than the M’s are this season.} Next season would be the turning point and comfort zone for this young outfielder with ample athletitism to be a peranual allstar for years to come, I’m sure. my three cents worth.
87 – Combined service years doesn’t mean squat, nor does youth.
You guys occasionally point out that TALENT is the factor, talent applies to old folks and young folks alike and there ARE certain vets that are worth the money and playing time just like there ARE certain rookies that aren’t.
All the ranting, as if age or service time should be some kind of primary indicator weakens your arguments when the real argument should be about how the Ms do (or more accurately) do not evaluate talent or contribution between players effectively. THAT argument holds just as much weight when you’re discussing how they CHOSE to acquire the vets they did as it does when discussing whether or not to play AJ.
86 – you’re right, for a brief time there was intensive McLaren-related whining, but again…this very site has discussed how little impact the manager makes overall. I’m just saying, the two most recent whines (AJ playing time + McLaren in-game moves) that took up a lot of blog space, well, both are relatively minor contributing factors to the real problem (Ms evaluation of talent and consequent choices, both on acquisition and playing time related to their flawed strategies on that).
89 – Huh?
Are you agreeing with me, then? I brought up how old the line-up is to respond to your ‘Don’t forget all our young’ns!” statement, not to say that experience is bad.
Is anyone here not saying that talent should be the deciding factor? I’m confused who you think you are arguing with.
As to discussing Aj and its importance or non-importance, perhaps we can set up some kind of intensity queue for you to vet what issues cause us angst.
AJ is notable and worthy of discussion because it was a big step the team could have made at no cost and didn’t.
I don’t think you are going to find anyone who doesn’t think we need starting pitching, you’re not being exactly revelatory there. We just can’t get it at the moment. And had few options to improve it earlier… those we did have were discussed.
AJ is an ongoing issue. As was, say, Parrish and White, also much discussed.
This from “30 year veteran” Steve Lubratich, Cleveland Indians director of player personnel and candidate for GM of the Houston Astros, as reported last night on MLB.com
“Look at the game today — the Yankees have a $200 million payroll and they’re counting on two draftees from 2006 to help them now. The Red Sox have a $150 million payroll and they’re calling up guys drafted a couple of years ago to help them in the playoffs, and possibly go on further in the playoffs. The game’s getting younger and it’s important to have young players. You have to be able to count on them.”
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070906&content_id=2193564&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb&partnered=rss_mlb
Maybe, outside of Seattle and the ESPN commentary booth, the conventional wisdom is not so conventional anymore.
Just piling on here but to add what #91 and Dave have been saying, division rival Anaheim has Kendry Morales batting cleanup in place of an injured Vlad. They are playing a 1st place team, they are fighting for the best record in the AL and home field advantage and yet they have a call up batting 4th.
Free Adam Jones!