Game Six Recap
Dave · April 10, 2010 at 7:52 pm · Filed Under Mariners
Yay, 2-4.
Try not to get used to the recap-right-after-the-game-ends, as I’m not going to be able to watch every game live, especially on weekends. On Saturdays, we’re going to run into a lot of Fox blackouts, so I probably won’t have much to say on those days, since it kind of helps to be able to watch the game in order to talk about it.
So, here’s an abridged version – nice hit Guti, nice catch Guti, nice win guys.
What poem is that from? Is that James Joyce?
Extra points to anyone who knows what movie that’s from.
Was nice to see Felix show much better command (yes, he was squeezed in Oakland – he still wasn’t Felix) and it was nice to see team ‘responded to adversity’ and all those other cliches.
Step Brothers I do believe.
The abridged version should include the little deatail about the corpse of a Ken Griffey Jr pinch hitting for Figgins. No good can come from this.
Felix deliver us from mediocrity! (Single,walk, sac bunt, single, single and GW single) at least there is 2 wins.
My abridged version of a reaction- amen, double amen and an AMEN booming through the room.
I don’t know if that’s Joyce, but it sounds stylistically similar. Maybe e.e. cummings? And I haven’t even the beginning of a clue as to what movie it could be from.
I live in Louisiana and I was there!!! That was the first time I’ve watched the M’s in 10 years.
I’m firmly in support for pinch hitting Griffey. I know it makes no sense in any statistical way, but we have to acknowledge that Griffey has a certain flare for the moment. Even if in reality he doesn’t. I’m going to get berated for this comment.
By the way, by the time Griffey pinch hit, he was hitting in front of a home field. We took over that ballpark for about an inning. It was awesome.
I do want to say this about that game.. and it is truely worrying me.
Griffey pinch hitting for Figgins in the ninth down by one with one out and runners on the corners… what the heck is wrong with Wak? I am wondering more and more about his managerial skills.
I know, I know… Griffey came through, but still… that was just plain stupid.
Jordan, no doubt, that’s probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen Wak do. Looking at possible extra innings and you give up one of your best hitters, who can play basically any position, to pinch hit someone who shouldn’t even be in MLB? I couldn’t believe it.
Also Guti is amazing.
Wak admitted himself that this was a sorta “in the moment” decision, and that he probably won’t do that again.
Maybe “at that moment” Griffey looked all confident and eager, so Wak let him go for it?
I still don’t support this decision, but just making some sense of it.
The score should be 4-2 Dave. I know technically 2-4 is correct becuase Texas was the home team, but after 4 loses in a row 4-2 sounds way better. It’s going to be the little things in April that matter. Can’t wait for Cliff to come….
Any chance the rules allow us to have a DC, Designated Catcher? We could let Rob Johnson call the game and all, but have someone who actually knows what that leather thing on his left hand is used for do the, um, catching.
I think you misunderstood him there. 2-4 is our record. And the score was 4-3, not 4-2.
I find it so funny that all the idiots that post on the Mariners official website think Rob Johnson is some sort of god. Lol
Team wOBA leader! Don’t think Fangraphs has updated for today’s game, though. Guti could have passed him. Yay for small samples!
Or, better said: Nice win, Guti.
Guys,
Let’s take the wins when we can, yeah? The Griffey move worked. Good move or bad move isn’t really debatable on that one. No matter how much we love stats, results trump them.
Statistically it was a bad move. But in the real world of baseball it ended up brilliant.
Think of it like Russian Roulette. No matter how many empty chambers there are (or empty DH’s), and statistically how safe you are, the odds that matter in the moment are just 50/50– there are only two outcomes: the click either kills you or it doesn’t.
Would any single one of us have made that move? Absolutely not. No way. Not in a thousand years. Wak even admitted he “can’t say I’d make the move again this year.”
But it worked. I tip my cap. Just like I’m sure Ron Washington did afterwards.
Thanks for the win, Wak! Now let’s enjoy it. And let’s go get ’em again tomorrow.
(Seriously, are we really already at the point where we complain about Wak’s moves that work and that lead to wins? Nah, not yet. Can’t be. Personally I’m still fully in shock that it worked, and we won. But I’m thankful all the same, and definitely not complaining.)
I think Tom Tango just did a spit take.
First time I could catch the M’s live in 12 years!!! Yeah! Moved to Dallas in January. My thoughts:
On the Rangers: The Harrison Kid seemed to have a nasty curve or splitter or something. Even Ichiro was swinging at pitches in the dirt. Cruz is a beast. Nice young team.
On the M’s: Need to know that it’s okay to score in the middle innings! Felix is much taller and not as heavy and he appears on TV. Gutierrez is A-M-A-Z-I-N-G-! He is the best CF without question right now. Realized how key Wilson is to the infield. Without it, both Lopez and Figgins are a little lost. Could see Wilson coaching them out there. Lopez…doesn’t yet have a good feel for 3B. Should have charged the bunt that Felix fielded (I worried that Felix would hurt himself). It sucked that Sweeney was playing. What happened to the .558 spring BA? Lowe…besides command issues looked very strong (and not as tall as I thought he was). On Wak…what was he thinking with Jr. hitting for Figgins? And in the bottom of the 9th…inserted Tui at…2nd base? Seemed it would have been better to move Lopez to 2nd and put Tui in at 3rd…but, maybe I’m over analyzing. Did I mention Gutierrez?
Overall…I had 3rd row seats next to the M’s dugout. Just a great day to see the Mariners win!
JM–
Yeah, but in the theories of Systems Design, the fact that Tom Tango is on the Mariner’s payroll means he was systematically a part of the decision process that led to the Mariners choosing (inexplicably or not) to bat Griffey for Figgins.
My only point was that with all the information available, no matter the odds, given say a (picking random numbers here) 90% failure rate you have no idea of knowing if the moment at hand will fall within the 10%, or the 90%.
And if the moment is within the 10 and not the 90, would you rather be wrong, but know that you made the best decision possible given the information you had available and followed the trends currently said to produce the best results?
Or would you rather be right? Despite the odds?
Or to put it another way– how many people would pull the trigger if 9 of the chambers are empty and 1 has a bullet?
Wak pulled the trigger. I certainly wouldn’t. And I wouldn’t have batted Griffey there either.
Tom Tango and I would have possibly led us to a 1-5 start. Wakamatsu led us to a 2-4 start.
I’ll applaud him.
I don’t mind Wak having a “Blink” moment now and again. Griffey had a look in his eyes like he was seeing Francisco’s ball better than he’s seen just about anyone since he came back last year. Just an “I got this” look. Don’t make a habit of this particular move, Don.
So if I follow this line of reasoning:
My odds of winning the lottery are also 50/50. Either my ticket wins…or it doesn’t? My odds of being killed the next time I fly are 50/50….either the plane crashes and I die…or it doesn’t?
But it gets better:
Sorry…but the laws of probability, and reason, will always win in the end. Wak dodged a bullet this time. He bet against the odds and it worked. Bully for him! Let’s just hope he’s sensible enough to realize what happened and not make a habit of it. Exciting? Sure. A great story? You better believe it! Smart thing to do, long term? Not so much.
Chicks-
There is no longterm in the moment though. That was my only point. And I also said that I wouldn’t have made that choice myself. I would have lost.
I agree that 90 out of 100 times that situation fails (using my fake numbers). But that moment only happened once. And it worked. No law of probability, and no amount of reasoning, will make us lose the game that happened yesterday.
Your odds of winning the lottery are what they are. The 50/50 comment was a gross exageration naturally. But for the individual, in a singular moment that will not be repeated, there are two possible outcomes to buying a lottery ticket. In fact, the lottery is a good point to use. How in the hell has anyone ever won a lottery, when the odds are so clearly against it, and no one in their right mind would ever buy a ticket.
Yet somebody out there is fool enough to bat Griffey (er, I mean, buy a ticket). And he/she won millions doing it.
(Consider: If fewer people buy lottery tickets than the odds against it, it would seem illogical that someone could win. But they do.)
And that’s also a good example because I don’t buy lottery tickets. So there’s some devil’s advocate in me here.
That contradiction (statistics versus reality) is what facinates me– and led me to being interested in this site to some degree.
I find it fascinating when things don’t turn out the way we expected. And wonder about it. And like to see our comprehension and statistical abilities catch up and correct themselves over time to better quantify what happens.
And we won tonight! Sweet! Even though it probably shouldn’t have happened.
(I used a bad phrase there– “statistics versus reality”… Statistics are very real. I mistakenly used “reality” as shorthand for “realized outcomes”. I was trying to not be anymore long-winded than I already am.)
MrZ,
I really think you need to learn about probability. Saying something either works or it doesn’t as a validation of the process is just horrible reasoning. To use your Russian Roulette example, the trigger is pulled, the hammer falls, and a click is made, but I’m still alive. The end results do not justify my being stupid as fuck enough to put a gun to my head and risk death.
I ran across this explanation of the Bradley incident on Friday night on a Ranger blog in the comments:
If that is true Bradley is a dick.
TypicalIdiotFan–
I agree. I wouldn’t do it either. That wasn’t the point. And I like to think I understand probability fairly well.
All I’m saying is that in regards to an individual at bat last night– we were all “stupid as fuck” as you put it, and Wak won the game for us.
There was a 90% (still using that imaginary number) chance that Wak would be the one bleeding from a Griffey misfire and yet it was the Rangers who took the bullet.
And that’s incredibly interesting to me. It shouldn’t have happened that way, as you and I both understand probability.
Yet, just because it doesn’t sit well with us (me included), doesn’t seem to definitively make Wak stupid. I for one am willing to applaud that sort of stupidity(?), bravery(?), gumption(?) when it defies reason. And I hope to hell he can pull it off a few more times (though not with Griffey, please), ’cause we could use a few more wins.
If the single moment, 50/50 thing doesn’t sit well, another way I like to look at the shortcoming of probability is to flip a coin 100 times.
Very seldom will you ever come out with 50 heads and 50 tails. If you do the 100 throws enough times, over and over again, the average outcomes will (or should) move closer and closer to 50/50… But, it’s more difficult than probability would suggest to actually flip it 50 times heads, and 50 times tails in any specific 100 flips.
Well, no. No on both counts.
We certainly can and will debate decisions the team makes. Your saying it isn’t debatable certainly won’t stop anyone here.
And, small sample size short term results certainly do not trump the law of large numbers which will come out in the end.
People that think that results trump stats end up losing their savings at a casino, because they bet once and won, and they have a friend who won money there, and they just know that if they keep betting and betting they will win big eventually.
But the more bets you place, the more the house advantage determines the outcome.
Good move or bad move isn’t really debatable on that one. No matter how much we love stats, results trump them.
That was the sort of feeling that got us Jose Vidro as our DH in 2008.
Paul/Eponymous,
Okay, I supposed I’ll keep my fasciation to myself. I personally agree with what you’re both saying.
It was poorly worded when I used “debatable”. Naturally, it’s debatable (which is what I was doing by writing that, yes?). I was referring to the fact that objectively viewing that single, individual move, after the fact, as a bad move seems a folly to me, even though when it happened I thought he was nuts. “Griffey? Here? Really!?”
“The score should be 4-2 Dave. I know technically 2-4 is correct becuase Texas was the home team, but after 4 loses in a row 4-2 sounds way better”
Hint marinermanjk….its the Mariner record..not the score of the game. It will become clearer when he posts 62-20 sometime around the break…ok…maybe not…
But that same fascination is also why baseball is my favorite sport. Teams that win 6 out of 10 games go to the world series, while teams that win 4 out of 10 are in the basement.
Success rests on the ability to hit a ball 30% of the time.
Take that 9th inning. What were the odds we were gonna have 3 hits in a row to win the game? We should have all turned it off. It was a loss. What was the point? (Not serious, of course.)
Go M’s.
And that was a 50/50 proposition too. 50% chance Jose Vidro would prove he was just done-in by injuries and didn’t belong on a roster any longer, and 50% chance he still had gas in the tank and returned to form. Where he would hit like a NL Second Baseman. In the DH spot.
Perhaps we should call him Schroedinger’s Vidro, since I think he did both.
Kazinski, I was there for most of Mariner’s batting practice and noticed no commotion where he was standing in left. Plus, it was mainly just Mariner’s fans standing along the third base line for batting practice. I don’t know if I believe all that. I might believe some of the things he supposedly did on Friday. To be honest, he was pretty subdued, despite the bad day he had at the plate.
Fans are going to try and vilify Bradley whenever they get the chance.
By the way, Guti is a sexy beast!
I was referring to the fact that objectively viewing that single, individual move, after the fact, as a bad move seems a folly to me
If I take the mortgage money to Vegas and put it all on the roulette wheel, just because the number I picked comes up doesn’t make it a bad move. It just means I used a strategy that had a non-zero chance of success (but was still sub-optimal).
Here is a handy chart by Paul DePodesta that explains how this works.
Good Process, Good Outcome: Deserved Success.
Good Process, Bad Outcome: Bad Break.
Bad Process, Good Outcome: Dumb Luck.
Bad Process, Bad Outcome: Poetic Justice.
Are we now glad/unglad that Wak pinch-hits, like, never?
Bad Process, Good Outcome: Good Luck, and best moments in baseball ever.
No one is disputing you. I don’t think this is an argument over what should have happened. Some of us (including myself) are just expressing glee at the outcome.
And hopefully Wak never does that again.
One game winning streak!!
If the M’s do this the rest of the season they’ll be 158-4.
clearly Felix needs to pitch every night.