Calling a horse a pony is simlar to thinking that a wolf is a dog, or calling a boat a ship – there might be similarities but they are not the same.

In regards to the McLaren interview, his comments on a potential Reed call up were confusing. McLaren immediately brought up Balentien in the Reed context. McLaren stated the M’s are not going to platoon Reed and Balentien, with Wlad getting the chance to prove he can play everyday in RF. Fine.

Reading between the lines, however, the Mariners’ thinking seems to be installing Reed in RF, if Balentien flops. Does this make sense? Shouldn’t Reed (or Saunders) be called up to play LF, with Balentien staying in RF (with all the required moves in regards to Ibanez, Vidro, Cairo and Sexson)?

Did anyone else come to the same conclusion as I did in regards to McLaren’s comments?

the whole going-on-contact tactic with a runner on third.

[I'm a day late.]
Someone: what’s the deal here ? Usually with a man on 3rd, and less than two out, the broadcasters will say that either a long fly ball or a grounder to a middle infielder will do it. http://tinyurl.com/5wrn6b
Should Balentien’s grounder have done it ?

From Jesse Sanchez’ (who?) mlb.com article:

Either way, Bavasi said he stands by the leadership and personnel on the field and in the dugout, but is simply not pleased with the way his club has performed.

This is the equivalent of the captain of the Titanic saying, “I stand by the course we plotted and the deckhands’ ability to keep the deck free of gull shit, but I am simply not pleased with the ship’s insistence on running into that iceberg.”

I’ve never posted here before – and may never again – but this piece of writing is so spot-on that I felt compelled to register here so that I could thank you personally for sharing it at this site.

Denial will inevitably be rampant amongst a fan base of a team so hyped as the 2008 M’s when said team is their respective league’s piñata throughout the first 1/4 of the season. That being said, you are obviously on the right side of the bell curve on this one – several S.D.’s above the mean if you ask me – and clearly don’t buy into the “we didn’t play over our heads last year and, in fact, we added the one piece (TOR pitcher) that should put us over the top” B.S. that most media and the F.O. believe (want us to believe?). I also happen to be in the camp w/ those who think that the M’s were overachievers last year as opposed to underachievers so far this year and – as I am sure you are already aware – most stats seem to confirm this hypothesis.

I especially like how you point out the importance of a good defense in fielding (you decide whether pun is intended) a good team, despite its stats not being as easy to interpret as offensive stats. Very true.

…and with stats to back everything up (vs. the subjective approach), man I am going to keep my eyes on this place for a while:)

Buy the author a refreshing beer? Man, that is simply not enough. How about a nice piece of real-estate?

But two wins over the season is a lot — if the Mariners could upgrade half the roster by 2 wins, they’d go from sucky to best team in baseball. The manager of the Mariners matters a lot more than the guys on the bench (unless we had an effective platoon), the 5th starter, or the pitchers in middle relief. None of those guys are worth two wins. The difference between a bad manager, and McLaren seems pretty bad to me, and a neutral one could certainly be 3 or 4 wins.

As well, firing a manager is one of the few ways you can upgrade during the season. Balentin for Wilkerson is a small tweak (is it 2 wins over the season?). If you cut Sexson, and replaced him with waiver wire fodder, it might feel good, but it probably makes the team worse.