Game 87, Mariners at Athletics
Felix Hernandez vs. Bartolo Colon, 1:05pm
Happy Felix Day! It actually has the potential to be relatively happy, as the M’s could win their final series of the first half today. While that’s a pretty lame consolation prize after the slog that was the first half. More than taking two of three from the second-worst team in the division, another offensive performance like last night’s might help us imagine that the second half won’t be as impotent and frustrating as the first. That’s not strictly rational or anything – the M’s have already knocked Bartolo Colon around once this year and it didn’t portend anything – in fact, Colon came back and shut the down the following week. But it would be nice, and a nice moment or two is all we can ask for in a season like this.
Bartolo Colon’s making his fourth start of the year against Seattle, though after making his first three starts of the year against the M’s, it’ll be his first since April. After some poor games in May and a skipped start or two, Colon’s performed fairly in recent starts. As we’re well aware now, Colon’s now a strike throwing machine who’s basically abandoned breaking balls/offspeed pitches in favor of mixing a four- and two-seam fastball. The sample isn’t huge, but this approach seems to result in some large-ish platoon splits. After a nearly .100 point gap in wOBA between lefties and righties in 2011, he’s at .101 this year (the sample’s around 500 PAs for both over 2011-12). Honestly, this is probably the best possible situation for Carlos Peguero, so….he sits while Jaso DHs (nods) and Olivo catches (sigh).
1: Ackley
2: Ichiro
3: Saunders
4: Jaso (DH)
5: Seager
6: Wells
7: Smoak
8: Olivo
9: Ryan
SP: King Felix
Best of luck to Taijuan Walker in today’s Futures Game.
Comments
133 Responses to “Game 87, Mariners at Athletics”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It is mighty embarrassing to be worse than a team pinching pennies for a new stadium. God I hate this. I’d like to have some hope.
Has anyone made the joke that it is appropriate that the M’s were wearing Rainiers unis today, given that most of this team will be in AAA soon enough?
Eric Wedge in the post-game: “F–k it, I quit. I don’t care. Call Daren Brown for all I care. I’ll be down at the hotel bar.”
We will drink along with him.
I was trying to find the Kent Brockman reference for that, but can’t. It’s the one where it keeps showing the video of the goat drinking milk.
This, but there is more.
We had a weekend series with bookend 1-run games. This team will do whatever it has to do in order to average 3 runs per game – pretty much regardless of where it plays.
The organization might have to call in a world renowned Gastroenterologist in order to “flush” away its problems. This team is currently the Sigmoid Colon of the baseball world.
AA pitchers are figuring out Stefan Romero. He dipped below the double Mendoza line a couple days ago.
And you can all keep whining and moaning until you are blue in the face because this organization will continue to morph into the Kansas City Royals – perennial losers but,hey, next year will be different because we are doing it “right” by developing young talent – until the fan base says we have had enough of Lincoln and Armstrong and want change.
The fan base has zero power to change who owns the team. The owners are who get to decide who runs the team.
If Ichiro leaves or retires, does that make it any more likely that the owners finally sell the team to someone better?
Why would it make it more likely? Ichiro wasn’t on the team when the current owners bought it.
Eponymous, Nintendo has owned the Mariners since 1992. Given that Ichiro started in 2001, I’m thinking that the same ownership is involved.
Because I really get the feeling that the ownership doesn’t give two shits about the performance of the team, which sort of defeats the whole purpose of a front office trying to field a successful team. While they were here first, maybe Ichiro leaving would be the final straw and Nintendo would finally wash their hands of the matter.
Book book: check those Stefan Romero numbers again. He is hitting .397 in AA.
I think you got his stats confused with someone else. He has only struck out 6 times in 16 games – and is tearing things up as well as anyone could ask in a small sample size
Eponymous, Nintendo has owned the Mariners since 1992. Given that Ichiro started in 2001, I’m thinking that the same ownership is involved.
I’m thinking I probably knew that, and was pointing out that Japanese ownership predates any Japanese players being on the team, so losing a Japanese player, even one of Ichiro’s stature, would be an irrelevancy as far as ownership’s attitudes on wanting to own a baseball team.
Because I really get the feeling that the ownership doesn’t give two shits about the performance of the team, which sort of defeats the whole purpose of a front office trying to field a successful team.
Same ownership as in 1995 and 2001, incidentally. Oh, and Lincoln and Armstrong were around then, too.
So, were all those wins just a fluke?
While they were here first, maybe Ichiro leaving would be the final straw and Nintendo would finally wash their hands of the matte
What makes you think an ownership change would actually change anything positively? Edward Bennett Williams sold the Orioles to Peter Angelos. How’d that work out? Has David Glass made things better for the Royals since taking over for Ewing Kauffman? Or maybe we’d luck out and sell to our version of Clay Bennett! I’m sure that couldn’t backfire, right?
The problems have multiple levels:
– the team has cut a third of their salary over the past 4 years. Yes, I know, you can win without writing huge paychecks to every FA on the market. The problem is that this has meant that any screwup on the FA market (Figgins, Olivo) is fatal when you are cutting budget all the time, and we’ve ended up with players like Ichiro sucking up a bunch of salary, who don’t really fit in with a Cleveland-style rebuild.
– the team’s been bad at talent identification (drafts) and retention (stupid Bavasi trades) for some time in the past, so there’s been very little in the way of reasonably priced talent in the pipeline. Thus you get bad teams when combined with point 1 (salary cuts making even good deals out of reach, meaning you have to play Large Item Pickup Day all the time).
– our GM isn’t the ZOMG BETTER THAN BILLY BEANE guy we thought he would be. He’s been an improvement for sure, but there have been some pretty serious bumps on the road where things haven’t gone right, which when combined with points 1 and 2, means the organization is still scuffling along. And no, “hey, it’s OK, they’re on a Glorious Five Year Rebuilding Plan” is a load of crap. Three 90-95 loss years in a row? Please find me some good GMs who have three bad years like that during their career.
– the organization is still bringing in stiffs like Wedge, and is still doing things like “playing the hot hand”. They have Tom Tango, but they aren’t using him correctly. If this is Armstrong and Lincoln’s influence from being stuck in the 1980’s-1990’s… -shrug- Whatever it is, it’s unlikely that we’re going to get past it soon.
There isn’t anything horribly wrong with this team that injections of talent won’t fix (hey, even Pittsburgh is winning these days), but the organization needs to do some reflection on where they are. Won’t be here for the USSM event, but I imagine you might want to ask some pointed questions along the lines of “so, we’ve seen Zduriencik for a few years now and the losses are still there: what needs to change and what are you learning from your failure?”
If Billy Beane can put together .500 teams from spit, duct tape and bailing wire, then I think it’s well past time for Zduriencik to start showing he’s that caliber of GM. No more excuses. Put up or shut up. I don’t want to hear how smart he is until there’s a decent team on the field. At some point, if your process isn’t yielding results, you need to re-evaluate your process.
How can u let Olivo hit in the 9th? How can u let Olivo hit in the 9th? How can u let Olivo hit in the 9th?!!
Mike, the double Mendoza line would be twice the .200 of a normal Mendoza line. I had an irrational moment of disappointment last night when I saw he’d slipped below .400 (despite going 3 for 5 in the latest game.
I’ve been around baseball since 1962 and, yes, that includes observant years as an adolescent paying close attention to franchise changes and management styles that included the demise of the St. Louis Browns and Kansas City Athletics. Who knows what resonated culturally in the 1890’s and 1920’s? But we do have an inkling of what worked and what didn’t.
I’ve been close to the Seattle Mariner ownership since Danny Kaye and company ushered them into the city in 1977. I saw the opener with Diego Segui and bounced around the press box chatting with various execs. (I even contributed to the pursuit of free agent Jeff Burroughs in the 80’s…a non-event as it turned out.)
For whatever reasons and through several ownership changes and one stadium change, my position is that while rooting vigorously for a successful baseball club and getting to know a fair number of participants both on and off the field, the Seattle Mariner organization since 1977 has been perhaps the poorest front office in the history of “modern” major league baseball in the area of producing a winning product on the field. They haven’t known how to to do it, they have never achieved any prolonged success in doing it, and what is the very worst indictment, they haven’t in my estimation done anything to convince me that they are truly committed to doing it.
Chuck Armstrong is said to be a genuinely nice man, but judging him purely on what he has said publiclly, and the decisions he has made regarding the team, he doesn’t seem to know much about how to create a winning franchise. The same could be claimed about Howard Lincoln. It would be a stretch to imagine that the overall perception of long-time Seattle baseball fans of these two is much different than mine.
The list of botched trades, free-agent signings, player personnel decisions and questionable hires (Piniella excepted) is readily available for all to judge.
They have waded their way through 4-6 hall of fame calibre players – all of whom have been released, traded, or lost to free agency. They have accumulated a list of “former Mariners” that would assemble on its own a fairly admirable 25-man roster, beginning with Ruppert Jones in the 70s, extending through the likes of Omar Vizquel, Tino Martinez, the infamous big-three, all-stars such as Raul Ibanez and Jason Veritek, and nearly a dozen or so who are succeeding today. (The popular rejoinder that “this happens with every franchise” is a bunch of bunk. You cannot create a list for any other team dating back to 1977 that comes close to the embarrassing inventory of our own.). Sadly, it appears as if the Felix Hernandez window will close without the front office having been able to assemble anything competitive enough to take advantage of his presence before 2014.
What remains at the all-star break of 2012 is a tragic collection of players who together do not represent anything close to a formidable or even representative major league roster. It’s anybody’s guess how much the present front office really cares on a level that comes anywhere near approaching urgency. It’s less of a guess as to what degree they are even equipped to execute the feat.
Sad for Mariner fans – but true.
Ahh, thank you bookbook. New vernacular: “Double Mendoza Line.” It means exactly what it says. Twice the fun for the same price.
Gotcha.
For whatever reasons and through several ownership changes and one stadium change, my position is that while rooting vigorously for a successful baseball club and getting to know a fair number of participants both on and off the field, the Seattle Mariner organization since 1977 has been perhaps the poorest front office in the history of “modern” major league baseball in the area of producing a winning product on the field.
Seriously?
Remind me, when was Kansas City’s last playoff game? How about Pittsburgh’s? Washington or Montreal?
And like it or not, the stretch from 1995-2003 was pretty decent. No, they didn’t bring home hardware, but some of that is just flukey, unless you think the Marlins were one of the best organization in baseball over that time, what with multiple titles…
I think the more interesting question is “what’s different”? And one of the answers to that is pretty much incontrovertibly “almost no production from the draft compared to the rest of baseball, which hasn’t been balanced out with the non-draft FAs like Ichiro and Felix”. Contrast with the Mariners of the early 1990’s under Jongewaard.
They have accumulated a list of “former Mariners” that would assemble on its own a fairly admirable 25-man roster, beginning with Ruppert Jones in the 70s, extending through the likes of Omar Vizquel, Tino Martinez, the infamous big-three, all-stars such as Raul Ibanez and Jason Veritek, and nearly a dozen or so who are succeeding today. (The popular rejoinder that “this happens with every franchise” is a bunch of bunk. You cannot create a list for any other team dating back to 1977 that comes close to the embarrassing inventory of our own.).
No, actually, you can.
“Same ownership as in 1995 and 2001, incidentally. Oh, and Lincoln and Armstrong were around then, too.
So, were all those wins just a fluke?”
You can’t seriously think that Armstrong and Lincoln are good at what they do and that the team’s record of utter incompetence for a decade merits keeping them. The very fact that you have to go back 11 years to cite any example of good performance speaks volumes.
“Remind me, when was Kansas City’s last playoff game? How about Pittsburgh’s? Washington or Montreal?”
That’s the test for success? How a franchise that had, until the incompetence of the front office, tremendous revenue (with a brand spanking new $500 million ballpark) measures up against KC, Pittsburgh and Washington? You’ve been watching very bad baseball for far too long if that’s your standard.
“…the Seattle Mariner organization since 1977 has been perhaps the poorest front office in the history of “modern” major league baseball in the area of producing a winning product on the field.”
So true. I guess you have to be one of us old-timers to appreciate just how bad this franchise has been run.
You can’t seriously think that Armstrong and Lincoln are good at what they do and that the team’s record of utter incompetence for a decade merits keeping them.
Didn’t say that, but thanks for the strawman.
The assertion that I was responding to, if we want to roll the tape, was:
the Seattle Mariner organization since 1977 has been perhaps the poorest front office in the history of “modern” major league baseball
That is clearly, obviously not true, since part of that record was 1995-2003.
That’s the test for success?
You sure like strawmen.
Again, the most obvious problem with the team has been production from the draft and farm system. We can add other things onto that, but the fact that Felix is about it for an entire decade plus is more than enough to run the team into a ditch.
“That is clearly, obviously not true, since part of that record was 1995-2003”.
Why is that “obviously not true”? What is the standard? Overall won-loss record? Playoff and World Series appearances?
Why is that “obviously not true”?
We have some examples of teams that I’ve pointed out as counterexamples.
If you’re making an argument that the Mariners are historically awful and always have been, it helps to actually explain the actual history, including the sustained period where they weren’t actually terrible, and in fact were pretty good (including a year where they got a MLB record for regular season wins). Were Lincoln and Armstrong locked in a closet by Piniella and Woodward from around 1993 to 2003, and Bavasi let them out?
And before you can bring up the straw man I suspect you’re dying to bring up: I’m capable of being convinced that Armstrong and Lincoln are past their pull date as MLB executives, in fact, that’s perfectly plausible, given the last decade and some of the hires I’ve seen. But an argument of “they always sucked” flies in the face of the actual history.
My interpretation is Lincoln mostly focuses on dollars, and Armstrong, like a MLB manager, isn’t deadly if surrounded by adequate talent on the roster and at GM. What’s killing this team is the dearth of talent from the past, and some mistakes by the present GM, plus a dash of bad luck.
The problem is that the guy who’s likely to take it on the chin if it’s time for the Yearly Safeco Field Executive Ejection is Zduriencik (and there’s an argument that this churn in the organization is part of the problem)- Lincoln and Armstrong are likely to be safe until they retire. So should our goal be “wait for them to retire”, “find a better GM and hope we can recreate a period when it didn’t matter that Chuck Armstrong was a Mariner executive’, when it see”, or “hold on, Zduriencik’s got a lot of manure to shovel, give him more time”? What’s your argument? (I’m somewhere in between the second and the third right now.)
Make that:
“find a better GM and hope we can recreate a period when it didn’t matter that Chuck Armstrong was a Mariner executive, when it seems we survived having him in our front office”
My thinking is this team’s downfall has been talent: dumb moves with it, and conforming to some MLB “good old boys” thinking. There’s been progress under Zduriencik, but not enough (*cough*Olivo*cough*Wedge*cough*).
I’m not sure how much of that to throw in the direction of Lincoln/Armstrong, though I suspect they had a hand in the Wakamatsu/Griffey debacle and in Wedge’s hiring, and they surely had a big role in hiring Bavasi. The problem is if they fire Zduriencik, who knows, maybe we end up with Cam Bonifay…
If you feel a team has had an unsuccessful season because they failed to reach the playoffs, or World Series, you’re in for a lot of disappointment, no matter what team you follow.
“Armstrong, like a MLB manager, isn’t deadly if surrounded by adequate talent on the roster and at GM.”
Maybe we should aim a bit higher than “isn’t deadly”.
While complaining about straw men, you have evaded the fundamental question – what is the standard by which we should judge how successful – or how bad – a franchise is? Most franchises have periods where they do better than at other times. The Mariners have had some “good” years (NONE of which got them to the World Series and how many other teams can say that?) and many, many bad ones. The fact the Mariners had some “good” years doesn’t tell us anything about how they compare to other teams over the same period of time. So give us the basis on which you can conclude that any other team has a worse front office than the Mariners have had since 1977 – which is what you said was “obviously untrue”. Is it won-loss record? Is it a formula based on won-loss record taking into account payroll and/or revenue? (It’s one thing for a team to lose 100 games and quite another to lose 100 games with a $100 million payroll). Simply arguing that Armstrong isn’t an idiot (and lots of us would disagree with that) doesn’t refute the proposition that the Mariners have had the worst front office in baseball since 1977.
If you check Baseball Reference you will find that there are only two teams with franchise won-loss records that are worse than the Mariners: San Diego and Tampa. San Diego’s record is much better than the Mariners since 1977 but of course that doesn’t take into account its first 8 years as an expansion team. Tampa has only been in existence since 1998 (but has already been in the playoffs 3 times and made it to the World Series). Does anyone think Tampa’s won loss record, after 35 seasons, will be worse than the Mariners’ record from 1977 to the present? Or that Tampa will make the playoffs only 1 more time (to equal the number of times the Mariners have made it to the playoffs in 35 years) in the next 21 seasons? So why is it “obviously untrue” that the Mariners have had the worst front office in baseball?
So give us the basis on which you can conclude that any other team has a worse front office than the Mariners have had since 1977
So, the Mariners haven’t changed any owners or front office executives since 1977?
If you’re going to argue that everything since 1977 has to be evaluated as a group, without any distinction between front offices that had success and ones that did not, with a common factor that links why this franchise is historically bad, what does the 1977 team have in common with the 2012 team, other than a miserable win-loss record, and they both play in Seattle? They’re owned by different corporate entities, have different players, have different staff in the front office.
So please, continue: what links the 1977 team with the 2012 team other than the name on the uniform the city they play in, and the crappy baseball?
My argument’s this: I don’t think the 1977 and 2012 Mariner teams are connected past the name on the uniform, the city they play in, and the crappy baseball; the mistakes that each made are owned by the people responsible. To paraphrase Dostoyevsky, bad baseball franchises that are separated by decades are crappy in their own way. This is why I’m perfectly happy to say that the 1995-2003 teams were successful. Seasons get evaluated on their own basis, and the M’s figured things out for a while… and then lost the plot.
As for what makes the teams successful: winning games. Duh. The problem is the reasons why the 1977 team didn’t win games, the 1982 team didn’t win games, the 1998 team didn’t win games, and the 2012 team didn’t win games were all somewhat different (with a common factor of Mistakes Were Made™). Just like you can’t say that Jeremy Reed was the same person as Junior, you can’t say that Danny Kaye is the same person as Hiroshi Yamauchi. Roger Jongewaard is not the same person as Bill Bavasi.
“So please, continue: what links the 1977 team with the 2012 team other than the name on the uniform the city they play in, and the crappy baseball?”
Well, that’s a bit misleading. Armstrong was in charge from 1981-1989 and then from 1993 to the present. So there’s a lot more continuity to the incompetent front office decisions than you suggest.
I would add a second point. The original poster didn’t claim that the same front office has made all the bad decisions since 1977 – only that the Mariners have had the worst front office (however many people have participated) since 1977. You said it was “obviously untrue” but your only defense seems to be that the Mariners have had lots of different incompetent front office personnel over 35 years, not that the team hasn’t been the worst run franchise over that period of time. In fact, the numbers back up the original poster’s assertion.
Do you really not get it, Dan? The point, which was perfectly clear, is that there have been many people involved over the years, and each are responsible for their own actions. There have been many bad years, bad personal, but there was a very good stretch as well, with good personal. And eponymous gave you examples of teams worse off. Can you drop it now?