The manager’s fault
DMZ · August 7, 2005 at 9:38 pm · Filed Under General baseball
“A good defensive team gets licked 1-0 or 2-1 and you know what the fans say? They say, ‘They played so good and still they lost. It’s got to be the manager’s fault.’”
– Mike Kelley, who played various roles on the Minneapolis Millers, in 1965 on prefering players who can hit even if they can’t field
Comments
65 Responses to “The manager’s fault”
A hearty welcome to the first hindu diety on the USS Mariner staff, unless peter’s poetry really is divine.
Speaking of lack of hitting, I’m getting a little tired of Jeremy Reed’s consistent 1-4, 0-4 games. If he doesn’t pick it up by next season, Reed should be the next guy on the trading block. His great glove isn’t enough to help us win and contend.
As Derek’s post shows, the biggest problem for the Mariners is that currently, their offensive production is below average at 6 positions, and above average at 1. No wonder they’re last in the the AL in runs. The other problem is that there don’t appear to be many fixes on the way, unless Beltre significantly improves on this year, they go get a power-hitting corner outfielder and move Ichiro to CF, and their young middle infielders live up to their potential.
Speaking of lack of hitting, I’m getting a little tired of Jeremy Reed’s consistent 1-4, 0-4 games. If he doesn’t pick it up by next season, Reed should be the next guy on the trading block. His great glove isn’t enough to help us win and contend.
He’s a rookie. Go look at some other rookies fromr recent years and what they went onto in their second season and beyond.
Grady Sizemore got a cup of coffee last year like Jeremy, then had to earn the Indians CF spot this year in order to keep it. He’s doing great.
At a certain point the Rookie argument doesn’t wash. One of the reasons Bloomquist gets so much playing time is because he’s equivalent to Reed at the plate… Reed OPS .664, Bloomie .668. If Reed was hitting more like .720 or .750, then the rookie argument carries more weight. At that rate of production we can wait for his power or on base % to boost it to .800.
Reed was handed the centerfield job with no competition this year. Next year he should have to earn playing time, and hopefully his competition won’t be Bloomquist.
Wow, you’d almost think these comments were from that other thread.
At a certain point the Rookie argument doesn’t wash.
Yes, WHEN HE’S NOT A ROOKIE ANYMORE.
One of the reasons Bloomquist gets so much playing time is because he’s equivalent to Reed at the plate… Reed OPS .664, Bloomie .668.
It could also be because HE’S A UTILITY GUY.
If Reed was hitting more like .720 or .750, then the rookie argument carries more weight. At that rate of production we can wait for his power or on base % to boost it to .800.
Chone Figgins’ OPS in 2003: .704
Coco Crisp’s OPS in 2002: .694
Boy, the Angels and Indians should have released both of them immediately after those poor showings, because their production just wasn’t going to show up.
Jeez, people, give these kids their rookie years. It’s like everyone wants Insta-Corner-Outfielder (just add 1/2 cup water, 1 egg, and a shot of stanozolol!) and they want them RIGHT NOW.
Oh… I guess I should mention: The predicted peak for Reed is a Rusty Greer sort of peak year (.280-.290/20 HRs). Bloomquist’s peak? You’re looking at it. He’s 27.
One must remember…
The M’s are rebuilding folks.
But we’re incredibly impatient because of our behemoth budget (compared to other rebuilding teams).
This is rebuilding? I don’t see the players coming up from the minors to get excited about.
I also wonder what Ichiro thinks of this 2-3 year “rebuilding” plan.
Hi. Felix.
And what does this have to do with the post?
It has to do with number 9.
Along with Snelling, Lopez, Betancourt, Morse, Reed, Sherrill, and, for a brief time, Campillo.
#5 Another reason why Willie’s getting some time is because he’s SURGING!!!
How many games has Hargrove cost us this year? He is about as lifeless as a fish @ Pike Place Market. Given the need to make all the moves this year, would Melvin or Lou done any better?
Lou would do better. Melvin would do worse.
While the offense truly hurts this team. The starting pitching is just as culpable. During the previous month, neither Sele nor Piniero gave the team a glimmer of hope to win a game. The other starters were, at best, 50/50 to help the team win.
Hargrove’s probably cost us, oh, a tenth of a game or so. At worst. Managers don’t make that much difference. He’s a bit slow, taciturn, inert even. That has advantages as well as drawbacks.
I doubt Lou would have done better with this team. I believe he would have spontaneously combusted during one of Piniero’s starts back in June. One improvement he would have made though – no way would this team still carry Matt Thornton if Lou had to watch him pitch so much as once a week.
How many bases would Lou have thrown by now?
Bases? Why would Lou have stopped with bases?
By now he would’ve thrown the whole freakin’ field!
Unfortunately, I believe that we are getting the “After he was a genius” Hargrove. He did well with a great Indians team and could not seal the deal. Repeatedly.
Have not been thrilled by what he has brought to the club — my perception. Given another season like this we need a Lou-type throwing a few bases and taking names.
Does no one realize that Lou Piniella, since taking over the Devil Rays, has a 176-259 record, good for a .404 winning percentage?
Talent wins ballgames. Mike Hargrove doesn’t have enough to win here.
Yeah…it’s the talent, stupid (to paraphrase someone, somewhere…).
Focussing on the manager might be appropriate when you’re talking upper division, differences of 5 to 8 games, but when you’re talking about 15, 20, 30 games below .500, you’re talking about some fundamental problems that reach far beyond the manager’s office and even the general manager’s office.
Chicken vs. egg argument. The front office (GM & ownership) build the team (including the manager), the players are the team, the manager decides who plays when. The players are the car, the manager’s the driver, and the front office is the manufacturer. It’s not an either-or thing, really, the problem is the negative cumulative sum of all three.
Or, to put it in plain language — when all three suck, you’ve got yourself a problem.
Soooooo when do we start rooting for the M’s to loose? They are currently the 5th worse team in baseball. They are a game ahead of Pittsburgh. If they could loose 6 wins in the standings, they would have the 2nd overall pick next year. How is the draft looking for next year?
and FWIW, last year, Lou was thrown out of the same number of games as Bob Melvin. For that matter, when here, Lou didn’t have quite as many Mt. Lou explosions as people seem to remember… he has 57 tosses in 14 years as a manager and is running way behind Bobby Cox whose up to 112 or so in 22 years.
But Lou had more tosses in Late and Close Situations.
Dude, you owe me a new cup of Tully’s!
Jimmie
I am intrigued by how so many people’s complaint about Hargrove — and about Melvin before him — is a lack of “passion”. Sure it’s fun to see a manager get riled up, but the most important things managers do are (1) decide pitching changes, (2) write lineups, and (3) make in-game decisions.
All of which Melvin did badly. I have had some problems with Hargrove’s decisionmaking, but it’s not as bad as Melvin.
Temper tantrums don’t win games. Yes, every once in a while a team stages a big comeback after a manager throws a tantrum. But every once in a while a team stages a big comeback when the manager doesn’t throw a tantrum. That doesn’t mean he caused it.
I’m more interested in winning than in being entertained by a manager throwing a base. I guess that’s the same reason I don’t like pro wrestling.
If I may, I think part of the problem people have with Melvin-Hargrove v Piniella is that Piniella believed (even if he didn’t realize it) in the Weaver school of thought on disputes — that it was his job to argue with the umpires so his players wouldn’t risk being thrown out.
The other day with Bucknor v Sexson, that’s a situation where Lou would have bolted out of the dugout because Bucknor’s likely to toss Sexson (being that Bucknor was both wrong and seems to toss guys who question him when he’s wrong), and argued the case.
Hargrove doesn’t do a lot of lobbying at all, like Melvin (though, to his credit, when Melvin flipped over a call, it was a little startling and he got a lot longer to vent than a normal ump might), and I think it’s not the best way to handle things.
“that’s its his job to argue so his players won’t be thrown out”
ABSOLUTELY, thats what’s most bothersome about Hargrove, doesn’t he see Sexson getting thrown out probably costs him a close game, with the way the others are hitting! It shouldn’t cost the game, but it feels like the air just got sucked out of their steams.
For me it goes deeper than the on field emotional antics. Hargrove has always been terrible when deciding to pull pitchers. Also he is a terrible sound bite. You would think that someone from Texas would be more entertaining.
“sails”
Sound bites are among the lesser responsibilites of a manager. Protecting a player from getting thrown out is a much greater responsibility, and THAT is a much lesser job than deciding on a lineup and making substitution in-game.
I wanted Dan Rohn to be the Ms manager. I still do. He had a pretty fun ejection (on the 3rd batter of the game) last Sunday in Tacoma, but more importantly – he’s a great baseball guy, interesting to talk to (and therefore listen to on the radio or in print), has great rapport with his players, and manages fairly aggressively.
I think he’d be a great choice to replace Hargrove for next season, since so many of the players that’ll be in that dugout will be guys Rohn has already managed.
Plus, he puts the game in motion. I know, I know, studies have shown extremely limited value in stolen bases. But purely from an entertainment perspective (somebody who has Ms season tickets and drives up from Oly 40+ times a year in hellish traffic), small ball is what I want to see. ESPECIALLY in a park that plays like Safeco. As long as they’re doing it somewhat judiciously with a reasonable chance for success (i.e., not sending someone with Edgar-like speed), it at least gives me the illusion that they WANT to win the game.
But purely from an entertainment perspective (somebody who has Ms season tickets and drives up from Oly 40+ times a year in hellish traffic), small ball is what I want to see.
I want to see my team win.
I like Rohn a lot, and I think he’d be a decent manager, but his in-game tactics are mechanical and he’d have to adapt in the major leagues, where those kind of things get scouted.
Well yes, I want to see them WIN also (I thought that was a given).
I just think that their chances of winning at Safeco improve if they’re not just waiting for the long ball, and trying to spark the team using all the available tools at hand. Even the A’s resorted to occasionally running this season.
You can’t get the long ball when you’re bunting.
In fact, in all of the history of baseball, no one has ever attempted to lay down a sacrifice bunt and hit a home run. Never happened.
Even in Safeco Field, you only get 27 outs. Giving them away is the height of folly.
I seriously doubt Melvin would do worse. He’s got a fair amount of kids and veterans and crappy pitching on a team that lost more than the Ms did last year and he seems to be doing pretty well.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – there is a cancer in the front office. Replace Hargrove, replace Bavasi, replace the whole coaching staff and team, and this team will continue to suck as long the upper management and ownership doesn’t change. My humble opinion.
35 – thank you Derek. Couldn’t agree more about wanting to see the team win. Phil Garner in Milwaukee last-place small-ball doesn’t entertain me half as much as early millenium first-place A’s bashing three run homers right and left. I will never get people who admit small back is bad for the team and then lobby for it on the grounds of entertainment.
#38 I am hardly a defender of Howard Lincoln, and agree that his “we’ll continue to field a competitive team” statement in lieu of a “we’re playing for a World Series berth” statement was both short-sighted and ill-advised.
On the other hand, he has continued to sign the checks (his most important job), and supported Bavasi’s quest to make this team better. Remember, the M’s shelled out a lot for Sexson and Beltre, and Pavano didn’t sign with the Yankees because the M’s failed to make a competitive offer. While it’s true that this change of approach on Lincoln’s part came too late to net the M’s Miguel Tejada at short, it is also true that he seems to have made a serious 180 from his previous stance about not adding salary.
The proof is in the pudding, though. The M’s will have serious freed up payroll this off-season (around, what? $30 million?). It will be interesting to see how they spend it.
Also, with regard to Bavasi, I didn’t attend the feed where he spoke, but I’ve come to believe that he’s doing a pretty credible job as GM. After all, Gillick left this team’s minor league system (your main tool, either through promotions or trades, or replenishing your major league roster unless your last name is Steinbrenner) in a smoking ruin, and that sort of thing takes time to rebuild. Also, Gillick’s the one who signed Boone to that insane contract after his insane 2001 year. How much difference would having the combined total of Boone’s and Cirillo’s (another Gillick signing, remember him? No one could have predicted the level of his approaching bust, but we knew he was going to be overpaid for at least part of his career) 2005 salaries off the books have made in free agency?
You can argue that it wouldn’t have made much difference, and you’re likely right, but that doesn’t change the fact that those two signings were not Bavasi’s fault. Given more salary room, might he have been able to land Delgado, giving the Ms a rotating cadre of players to fill the 1B/DH/LF slot? Possibly. I know that having more money to spend, and the willingness to use it is only a bad thing if you’ve got Peter Angelos as your owner, or Sid Thrift as your GM (because then you’re not going to have the brains to spend lavishly on anything but over-the-hill, “estab;ished” ML players).
While it’s true that Rich Aurelia and Scott SpIEzIO are on Bavasi because he signed them, does anyone here recall just who was still available when Bavasi was finally signed as GM and able to go shopping? I don’t know for sure, but I seem to recall that the M’s dithered a LONG time after Gillick announced his retirement (which was also late in the year), and many ML calibre free agents had already signed with other teams.
That’s one thing I’d like for people grousing about Bavasi to bear in mind. If a Curt Schilling is available, then signing him is either a no-brainer or a calculated risk, depending on one’s point of view. However, if he’s not, and your best free agent pitcher on the market takes the hometown discount to play in the House that Ruth Built, what do you do? You’ve got holes to try to fill, will you “Stand Pat”? No, you’ll gamble against greater odds for a lower potential return.
After all, although I was less than thrilled by the SpIEzIO signing, I couldn’t imagine that he would turn out sucking MORE than Cirillo. Which reminds me, any news on an impending DFA for SandFrog?
I simply don’t believe small ball is bad for the team, given the park it plays in. For a variety of reasons we do not attract free agent serious home run hitters, and even when/if they come here, their home run totals fall – partially because of the temp/humidity and its’ impacts on the physics of the ball and its ability to travel, partially because of the size/layout of the park itself. Face it, as long as the Mariners play in Safeco Field, and in a corner of the country that means players signing here don’t generally get as much national exposure (and therefore lucrative national product endorsement contracts), don’t hit as many home runs, and have to travel more than any other team in MLB just to play their normal schedule… the Mariners will never BE a team that bashes three run homers right and left. Ain’t gonna happen.
I don’t have to face that, because it’s not true. We have to look no further than successful Mariner teams in Safeco to see that you can build high-OBP, high-SLG teams in Safeco that succeed. Maybe you don’t get the HR, but you can double the other team to death. There’s no reason to give away outs, ever.
Small ball works in the right ball park with the right players (1985 Cardinals with only one bona fide power hitter in Jack Clark, are the perfect example of that). My only other suggestion for playing small ball, as crazy as it sounds, would be to rip out the grass at Safeco and replace it with a field turf ala the Seahawks or UW football.
As for Hargrove, I think he’s part of the problem, but not THE problem. His in-game strategy, especially in regards to his middle relief, is questionable. But the players have to play, the scouts have to sign the right players, the front office has to acquire the right players, and the ownership can’t insist on having name players alone. I’m from NY, and I’ve seen what happens when a team simply throws money at name players (Vince Coleman, Bobby Bonilla and more recently Mo Vaughn) So I say the manager is partly at fault, but not entirely.
For those who say bring back Lou, keep dreaming. Also, this idea of a kick-butt manager only works if he knows what he’s doing strategywise and doesn’t anger his players with withering public and private criticisms to the point that they tune him out, like Larry Bowa. Bobby Cox only seems to chew out umpires and the last time I checked he had the Braves in the playoffs every non-strike year since 1991.
I simply don’t believe small ball is bad for the team, given the park it plays in.
Small ball is always bad as a 1-9 inning strategy, because it’s a conservative approach to offense that severely limits a team’s ability to score multiple runs. Trading bases for outs only makes sense close-and-late.
Give me Weaver’s three-run homer any day over the small ball bunt-the-guy-over-in-the-first-inning idiocy.
For a variety of reasons we do not attract free agent serious home run hitters, and even when/if they come here, their home run totals fall – partially because of the temp/humidity and its’ impacts on the physics of the ball and its ability to travel, partially because of the size/layout of the park itself.
You left out barometric pressure, wind effects within the park, the ratio of sushi restaurants to diners in metro Seattle, the psychological effects of the Gregiore-Rossi debacle, ferries, blackberry brambles….
I mean, what are you getting at? Here, let me edit that down for you:
“For a variety of reasons we do not attract free agent serious home run hitters (since Sexson and Beltre are clearly not serious about the long ball.) Even when/if they come here, their home run totals fall – because it’s a big park at sea level that was built to favor line-drive hitting lefthanders.”
Face it, as long as the Mariners play in Safeco Field, and in a corner of the country that means players signing here don’t generally get as much national exposure (and therefore lucrative national product endorsement contracts)
Remind me how many national endorsement deals Todd Helton has signed. Or how many Derek Lee currently has.
don’t hit as many home runs
Guys who want to do nothing but hit the long ball have Cincinnati and Houston and Denver, but at the same time the Reds and Astros and Rockies aren’t going to be natural stopping places for big-time pitchers. And before you say it, may I remind you of where Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte grew up?
and have to travel more than any other team in MLB just to play their normal schedule
That’s a bit overrated, honestly. All the teams west of the Rockies have this problem. It’s only the Boston-Washington corridor teams that have the short flight times (that are neutralized by the corridor traffic).
the Mariners will never BE a team that bashes three run homers right and left. Ain’t gonna happen.
OTOH, they’re could be a 20-30 HR, 30-50 double hitting team with an unreal starting rotation. And the right bat can hit beaucoup homers in Safeco, either a RH with tape-measure power to get over the walls (Sexson, Dunn) or a LH with line-drive power (Palmeiro). This just isn’t ever going to be Great America or Coors or the Juice Box. It’s going to be Dodger Stadium with zero parking and a roof. And the Dodgers have had some sluggers over the years that helped them get to the playoffs.
on the plus side– it’s hell to get out of that Dodgers parking lot
There’s no reason to give away outs, ever.
All generalizations are wrong.
83% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Small ball works in the right ball park with the right players (1985 Cardinals with only one bona fide power hitter in Jack Clark, are the perfect example of that).
1. The ’85 Cardinals aren’t the epitome of “small ball,” the ’82 Cards are.
2. Despite their “no power” rep the ’85 Cards had a team OPS+ of 109, good for a share of the league lead.
3. Why did they have such a good OPS+? Because they led the league in OBP (.336). For that matter, they led the league in BA as well (.264).
4. They also lead the league in fewest GiDP: 91.
5. Did I mention their 59 triples?
6. Or that the slide-step was still a couple years away from being adopted in the league?
In short, the ’85 Cards were a high-OBP team that used its speed to reduce its outmaking ability and convert doubles and triples into runs during an era when pitchers hadn’t yet adopted to the speed game. They were not “small ball” in the sense of scraping runs across the plates with lots of so-called “productive” outs. They were “small ball” in the sense of doubling and tripling the other team to death.
I will say it again: The only time “productive” outs are productive are close-and-late. You need to push a run across in the 8th or 9th to tie or win when a double play would kill your last chances? Then moving the runners down makes sense. In the 1st or 2nd, it’s idiocy.
My only other suggestion for playing small ball, as crazy as it sounds, would be to rip out the grass at Safeco and replace it with a field turf ala the Seahawks or UW football.
Oh, and the ’85 Busch Stadium turf? Basically concrete painted green. Padding had been worn down years earlier. Hard shots would shoot 20-30 feet in the air. FieldTurf is nowhere near that bouncy and slows the ball down considerably. Yes, the ball rolls farther on FieldTurf, but not that much farther. If it makes small ball so much easier and better, why aren’t the Twins and Rays playing small ball?
God I love arguments where people class each other into either/or. Thus attributing my argument to be something completely different than it in reality is.
If I like small ball, I hate homeruns? Om, no.
Or I must love small ball above winning, or want bunts and stolen base attempts even in situations that do not warrant them? (i.e., ‘giving away outs’) Please note the use of the words ‘judiciously’ and ‘with a reasonable chance of success’ in my first post on this topic
If I recognize that yes, physics (including temp and ballpark size/location) play a role in a ball’s ability to travel, then I must be saying that it is a physical impossibility to hit HR’s in Safeco? Again, no.
Yes, of course sluggers can HELP you get to the playoffs. So can great pitching, defense, and wise use of small ball tactics – like hit and run, stolen bases, bunting or sacrificing the runner over in a close game. To focus on any one to the exclusion of others will get you a seriously unbalanced team that won’t be able to ride out the inevitable ups/downs of any particular component over the long haul of the season. I.e, if you have the best pitching ever, but can’t score a run, you won’t win games consistently. If you score profusely, but your pitchers allow the other team to do the same, you won’t win games consistently. The judicious use of small ball tactics, combined with constant focus on fundamental defense, can help to balance out the imbalances when your pitching staff or your sluggers hit their inevitable slumps over the course of the season.
Back to the original thread topic however, even if your roster is balanced in that you have good enough pitching, good enough hitting, good enough defense – it’s also possible to mismanage those resources. I won’t argue that we HAVE ‘good enough’ in all those categories (because I don’t believe that we do), but there have been plenty of times that I’ve thought that Hargrove is either asleep at the switch or living in some fantasyland given the moves he’s chosen to make (or not).
48. When I say small ball, I’m talking about doubles and triples, as well as sacrifice flies, well-timed stolen bases, and aggressive yet smart baserunning. Speaking of stolen bases, didn’t the ’85 Cards blow the National League away in that category as well?
I never said anything about productive outs earlier, although I don’t mind them as long as they’re followed by clutch hits. In short, my attitude towards scoring is that it doesn’t matter how, as long as they get done. Ron Fairly, why do we need to score runs? (Wink, wink)
As for the turf, it was a crazy idea, and nothing more. Certainly I wasn’t suggesting that Safeco should become a green concrete jungle. I think MLB teams have wised up to the effects this surface has on players’ bodies, especially their legs.
Giving up an out for a single base is crazy. Teams that do that better have a whole list of other things they do outstandingly well if they want to win.
The other side of the “long ball” coin isn’t “small ball”, it’s on-base-percentage. If you lead the league in OBP, you’re going to score a ton of runs, even if you don’t hit homers. If you lead the league in Sacrifice Bunts, you’re never going to win anything.
Remember, on base percentage is simply the “not-out percentage”. If you don’t make outs, your runners will eventually score. THIS IS HOW OFFENSE WORKS. If you keep giving up outs to move them over, you’re killing your offensive potential. Maybe when it’s the bottom of the ninth and you need a run to tie or win, and your batter is Willie Bloomquist.
Overall “small ball” is a stone loser of a strategy. It doesn’t balance out anything; it reduces the number of runs your team scores. That’s always bad.
I don’t believe that anyone can hit sacrifice flies deliberately.
Speed? Sure. Stolen bases are good to have. But no one who advocates “small ball” ever calculates in the cost of caught stealing. The difference in run scoring potential between “man on first” and “man on second” (i.e., from a stolen base) is quite small. The difference between “man on first” and “bases empty, ONE OUT” is huge. It’s not just about the lost runner, IT’S ABOUT THE OUT.
If you’re not stealing three times as many as you’re getting caught, you’re hurting the team, whether you have five or a hundred.
FYI, the 1985 Cardinals had 314 stolen bases. I wonder if the Mariners have stolen that many in the last decade.
Was this your way of preparing us for a bunch of 2-1, 1-0 contests between the Twins and Mariners over the next three days, DMZ? It certainly seems to me that they’ll be playing “first team to 2 runs wins,” given the Twins’ propensity for not scoring or allowing runs, the M’s propensity for not scoring runs, and Safeco’s run-diminishing effects.
As for “small-ball,” consider me in the Earl Weaver school of small-ball tactics. “Don’t play for one run unless it’ll win you the game” and “if you play for one run that’s all you’ll get” are two of my favorite axioms when it comes to in-game tactics. Bunting has its place, but you aren’t going to find that place until the 8th or 9th innings.
Excuse me while I eat crow for lunch today. The Mariners have stolen 495 bases since the 2001 season began.
Guess my perception came from the gradual decline since 2001 culminating in the 66 they have this year to date. The Mariners stole a club-record tying 174 in 2001 and won 116 games. They have 66 SBs this year and have only won 47 games. In between, both the stolen base and win totals have declined every year. I don’t see a coincidence in that.
Ichiro and Reed are guys who can pilfer plenty of bases. One thing I would like to see Hargrove do is turn these guys loose more often once they get on base. Or is he scared of IBBs to Sexson and Beltre if a base is open, not to mention getting thrown out. This team was unafraid to run then; why should they be now?
48. When I say small ball, I’m talking about doubles and triples, as well as sacrifice flies, well-timed stolen bases, and aggressive yet smart baserunning. Speaking of stolen bases, didn’t the ‘85 Cards blow the National League away in that category as well?
Yes, but keep things in perspective here. 1985 was a wide-open year for speed. Three things have happened since then:
1. The slide-step
2. The end of Astroturf
3. The return of the long ball
The Cards added 314 bases to their offense at a cost of 96 outs. That’s 78 HRs at a cost of more than three games worth of outs, or .813 HR-equivalents per out. I know the math is inaccurate, but that suggests the Cards were scoring about an additional run per game just with stolen bases. If you assume that it only takes three SBs to make a run, that’s 1.1 runs per out.
The problem is, no current team can steal 300 bases. The SB is not dead (contrary to an idiotic SI.com article recently), but you’re not going to see a team with half the defense played by 30-SB guys anymore (as the Cards had). The slide step really did a number on SB numbers, and it hasn’t gone anywhere, so outside of the Podsedniks and Crawfords you’re not going to have a 75 steal player, not when 20 HRs will get you promoted faster.
I’m not saying that a speed-driven team won’t ever happen again. Baseball is a very cyclical sport. But I don’t think you’ll see a team steal 300 bases again.
And in order to steal and with abandon, you need a high OBP. Coleman’s OBP was only .320, but putting him on first meant he already had second. Tommy Herr, though, stole 31 bases on a .379 OBP. Willie McGee stole 56. Cut their OBPs back to Coleman’s level and I don’t think you see Herr cracking 25 or McGee cracking 45. In short, speed is a nice thing, but you need a high OBP to do it.
One thing I just left out with the climate change towards SBs: Pudge. Before he came up, catcher’s arms weren’t coveted as a potential weapon against the steal. After Pudge, everyone had to have a strong-armed catcher to stop the thieves.
So, I wouldn’t rely on the steal to generate offense, because you need a lot of steals to generate the same level of offense you can get out of a cadre of 20 HR guys.
I never said anything about productive outs earlier, although I don’t mind them as long as they’re followed by clutch hits.
I don’t mind throwing money into an industrial shredder, either, as long as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy appear to give me a new plasma TV.
In short, my attitude towards scoring is that it doesn’t matter how, as long as they get done.
Look, that’s everyone’s belief here. You ask Derek, Dave, Jeff, the women, that freak from Idaho, and they’ll all say the same thing: So long as they score more runs than the other team, who cares how it’s done? But what’s the best, most inexpensive way to generate offense?
– High OBP from a number of players
– XBHs (including homers)
– Smart baserunning and game tactics
You need to get guys on. Then you need guys behind them to get them home. And in the process, they shouldn’t do anything stupid on the basepaths and know when to steal and when not to. That’s all you need. You have that and some pitching, you’ll do damn well.
BTW, did you know that the Cards had a 3.10 ERA in 1985 and allowed the fewest homers and runs? Might that have helped them just as much as their bat-out-of-hell running?
vaguely OT, Jim Street has some interesting comments by Baylor on Ichiro & bunting more
dw said: You need to get guys on. Then you need guys behind them to get them home. And in the process, they shouldn’t do anything stupid on the basepaths and know when to steal and when not to.
I’m not disagreeing with you on any of these points. The frustration when I watch the Mariners is that there is too much of an emphasis on the long ball. We’ve got the guys who can provide that in Sexson and, although not as much as expected, Beltre. The top two (Ichiro, Reed or whomever) are struggling with getting on base and I don’t think Hargrove trusts his guys to be smart yet aggressive once they are on.
In regards to BTW, did you know that the Cards had a 3.10 ERA in 1985 and allowed the fewest homers and runs? Might that have helped them just as much as their bat-out-of-hell running?: Yes, and of course.
Too much emphasis on the long ball? In what way? There isn’t any long ball, except for Sexson. They know that; they’re not waiting for the long ball, because they know and we know it’s not coming. Just because they’re not taking off in a blind quest for the stolen base doesn’t mean they’re waiting for the long ball. What they’re waiting for, or should be waiting for, but not getting, is another baserunner behind them, and another after that. It doesn’t matter what kind of hits or walks you get, as long as you don’t make out: OBP. OBP. OBP.
Here’s an example of how damaging CS is. Boston (currently 32-for-39 stealing, a .82 clip) is getting more value from the stolen base overall than Chicago, who have a MLB leading 113 SB, but have been caught 50 times. That’s at a valuation of 0.3 runs for a SB, -0.6 for a CS, which is exceedingly generous.
Another example from the past: Rickey Henderson’s stolen bases were hugely valuable. Harold Reynolds’s hurt his team, running his way out of as many as 29 scoring innings a season.
re 59
Well, when it comes right down to it, I think the emphasis is on the long ball because it’s more efficient than the stolen base–and the homer department is yet another area where the Ms are deficient. Focussing on just the stolen bases is missing all the other problems which might be more pertinent [for example, stolen bases will naturally be down if OBP is down].
Also, I think a) Ichiro is not stealing as much is a much older trend that just this year, and b) Reed should NOT be stealing if he can’t get a better stolen base percentage than 4 out of 11….
argh, I mean re 58, not 59
59. I’m only going by what I’ve seen up to last weekend, which has included some dreadful overswinging by certain former members of this team as well as Beltre’s home run cuts even before he recognizes down and away pitches. Since I was in Snoqualmie at a blues festival and didn’t see the series with the ChiSox, I’d like to know if this weekend’s lack of offense was a matter of poor pitch recognition by the hitters, overall pressing, or just good pitching by Buehrle and Garland, two of the game’s best.
The frustration when I watch the Mariners is that there is too much emphasis on the long ball.
Huh? I see them bunting and hit-and-running and not hitting very many home runs. I don’t know what you mean by this. My frustration when I watch them is that they aren’t very good.
Beltre’s problem, as far as I can tell, isn’t his home run cuts, but his bizarre attempts to pound pitches that are a foot low and outside down into the dirt. He’s scaring the worms to death, but not threatening the fences much.