Game 69, Mariners at Diamondbacks
Noesi vs Miley, 6:40 pm.
Ichiro’s been awful in June, so he gets tonight off. It will be interesting to see what the reaction is like if the Mariners put up a bunch of runs tonight, and they very well could – the temperature in Phoenix as I type this is 111 degrees, and the D’Backs park is one of the best places in baseball to hit. But, no one’s going to talk about park factors or the relationship between weather and offense tomorrow if the M’s hit with some effectiveness with Ichiro out of the line-up, especially if Casper Wells has another good night at the plate. Instead, all the talk will be about how the team doesn’t need Ichiro, and how a rebuilding team shouldn’t be bothering with a 38-year-old near the end of his career.
There is an argument to be made that Ichiro doesn’t need to play everyday on this team, but please don’t act like tonight is evidence of his offensive value one way or another. Ichiro’s not in the line-up, and the offense is probably going to do better tonight than they have lately, but the former is not going to be the cause of the latter. We’ll talk about Ichiro’s playing time in a post I’m working on for tomorrow, but all I’m asking is to not play cause-and-effect with Ichiro’s absence the team’s likely improved offensive performance tonight.
Oh, also, no DH, so Wedge had to pick one catcher from among the three. He chose Montero. Yay.
Saunders, LF
Gutierrez, CF
Seager, 3B
Montero, C
Wells, RF
Smoak, 1B
Ackley, 2B
Ryan, SS
Noesi, P
Comments
116 Responses to “Game 69, Mariners at Diamondbacks”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Brian LaHair also has a higher batting average than any Mariner. And 12 home runs.
I’m not rooting for it to continue – I’m just glad, in the grand scheme of things, that they didn’t immediately launch ten runs at the start of this game.
I’d love to see them score 6 or 7 right here… not that I expect it.
I actually fell asleep for a couple innings watching this dynamic game. I haven’t done that for a long, long time. I did see that Ackley had a couple hits. Id he keepa this up, The 24 year old Ackley may just catch the 38 year old Ichiro in WAR by the All Star break.
Yes, all components that comprise WAR, matter … vetted Coach
I’m looking forward to Dave’s post tomorrow.
Mike-Explain your WAR comment to me. It doesn’t connect with anything I recollect saying…
Move the fences in?
I mean at this point, shouldn’t the M’s get a special fence about 200 feet from the plate so they can play with the big kids?
I am looking forward to it too. Although I have no idea what he will write, I can predict two things that he will not say:
1. “… But it only minimizes the value of our discussion to resort to defensive mechanisms in protection of a long time favorite
2. Two seam fastballs rise
Quite frankly, you shit the bed with those two comments in the past few days.
I didn’t say “two-seam fastballs rise. “. Blowers said it. I was just quoting/criticizing him.
Being defensive about Ichiro (or any player) does not add anything constructive to the integrity of an argument. You know exactly what I mean by “defensive.”
Mind your own bed. Quite frankly.
And, you should consider it to be a badge of honor (of sorts). I slept in Shitty sheets on more than one occasion in the past two years – and I learned from it.
Learn WAR, wRC+ ans wOBA.
It should help.
Probably
Are you pulling my leg, or do you really NOT understand what I mean by “defensive.”
I’ve been reading saber metrics since 1986, so you’re continual reference to it perplexes me in the context of this conversation. There’s nothing relevant there.
You’ve already totally misread and misunderstood the 2-seam fast ball thing, so I’m not confident we’re on the same page.
I can assure you that I understand WAR, wRC+, etc.
No, I did not know what you meant by “defensive.” I do not “pretend” anything. Since WAR is comprised of offensive and defensive metrics, there was some ambiguity in uour statement and your “motive” has been questioned by other(s) … Today even.
Cant say I recall anything about you having quoted Blowers other than to say the analyst should explain “why” and “how” two seamers and four seamers differ. Since you did not respond when immediately questioned at the time, I have to assume you did not see it, so will take you at your word.
You do appear to have a specific axe to grind with Ichiro, so if you are going to grind it, you should at least be aware of all metrics used to evaluate player performance. It will help prove that you might not just be suffering from old dog / new trick syndrome.
Edit:
1986? … Again, I will take you at your word.
Well said, msfanmike.
Mike,
1. Why wouldn’t you take me at my word?
2. My original post regarding the Blowers comment on fast balls is readily available. Re-read it. What you do ” not recall” is not my responsibility.
3. The axe I was grinding was ( and is) specifically this: If it is objectionable to account for Mariner offense success by attributing it to the absence of Ichiro (or anyone) in the lineup, then it is equally objectionable to protect Ichiro (or anyone) by “rooting” for the Mariner offense to fail when he is not in the lineup.
None of this has anything to do with saber metrics or the specific formulae. Your continual reference to those stats in the context of what I was saying is totally irrelevant.
Consequently, your rebuttal was not particularly “well said.”
Edit: For Mike…
By “defensive mechanisms”, I was not referring to defense in the context of baseball play. I was referring to “defensive” in the context of emotional, argumentative strategy. As in, “He is being a little too defensive in his response to your accusation.”
(Perhaps Ichiro is the “old dog” in your syndrome analysis, not me.)
Vetted: I did re-read your post in regard to Blowers comments (I read them last night as a matter of fact). You questioned why Blowers (as an analyst) would not explain why a two seam fastball rises. You did not question the physics of it. Nor did you respond to my post a couple minutes later in regard to the impossibility thereof. Therefore, I reached a conclusion – based on what you wrote – and based on lack of rebuttal. I did not base it on what you may or may not have been thinking or intended to write. How could I. How would I know what you were thinking?
Maybe you could consider going back to read your post and see where it may have been ambiguous.
In regard to me taking you at your word, and you asking why I wouldn’t … you are overthinking it. There is no reason to re-open the dialogue. I wasn’t being snarky.
In regard to the phrase you used specific to “defensive mechanisms” … it was not the word “defensive” that threw me for a curve. It was the word “mechanisms.” I reacted to my interpretation of what I think you wrote or intended to write … not to what you may have been thinking – because again, how could I know what you had been thinking.
I do appreciate the clarificaiton, though. I am not sure if that puts us on on the same page or not, but I will be sure to not make “continual” references (I believe 2 or 3 was the extent) to the stats you have stated you do understand. When I brought it up the first time – that would have been a good time to mention the depth and breadth of your knowledge.
I used to subscribe to the Bill James newsletter right around that same timeframe you referenced (mid-80’s). It was interesting, very confusing – and there were skirts to be chased, so I put it away for another day; revisited it – and am glad I did.
vetted_coach on June 16th, 2012 9:49 pm
“How can Blowers answer a question about the difference between a 2-seam and a 4-seam fastball without once mentioning the actual seams and how they are gripped? I know he knows. But he’s supposed to be a broadcast analyst now. One rises, one sinks. OK, but why? And how? What does the pitcher do with his grip? Isn’t that part of an answer. (Of course it is.). Do these guys consult with anyone after their broadcasts. Speak up, Mr. Krueger.”
^ this is your post from the other night. “One rises, one sinks. Ok, but why?”
Vetted … that is not evidence of you disagreeing with the Blowers statement. As a matter of fact, you said “OK, but why and how”
My post a few minutes later challenged you on the physics. You either missed my comment, ignored it, or pretended it didn’t happen.