Comments on: Willie Bloomquist, starting second baseman

By: eponymous coward

eponymous coward — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:32:14 +0000

By: DMZ

DMZ — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:35:33 +0000

No it doesn’t. The issue there is that there are two equally (if differently) talented characters, one with a work ethic and who is reliable, the other who is not. In baseball terms, this would be like comparing the peak Rickey Henderson, a super-talented workout and preperation freak, with a young, care-free Griffey.

Or something close to that.

By: vj

vj — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:10:21 +0000

Derek, do you realize that your opposition against Willie as starting second baseman contradicts your logic on Hermoine Granger and Harry Potter?

(for those who do not know what I’m talking about: http://www.zumsteg.net/milhous/2005/04/hermione-hero.html)

By: terry

terry — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:23:03 +0000

#46: willie’s *defensive versatility* is less valuable in the late innings because he isnt particularly good at any of the positions he plays.

His versatility does makes him more valuable from a roster standpoint both because he offers short term insurance in case an injury situation crops up and it allows Hargrove the ability to carry an extra pitcher over a position player. I think there have been many discussions on USSM about the wisdom of this second approach.

By: gwangung

gwangung — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 05:25:28 +0000

That it is even possible enough to be discussed by the local media is revolting.

Says more about our local media than it does about Hargrove, Bavasi or anyone else with the team….

By: John in L.A.

John in L.A. — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 04:48:53 +0000

That it is even possible enough to be discussed by the local media is revolting. I was very sad the day we hired Hargrove… and I haven’t gotten one bit happier about it.

gwanggung… No. The time to get mad about it is BEFORE the decision is made. Do whatever pitiful little we can do to influence them against this idiocy.

God, I wish they would fire about 80% of the management of this team.

By: jtopps

jtopps — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 04:02:22 +0000

47- i am not saying it is a forgone conclusion that Lopez will start the season, though it should be. The fact that Willy is a great bench player works against him to a certain extent, and I hope the Mariners (whether because of this or because they actually look at the stats) choose Lopez to start. I don’t want to be too optimistic, especially considering the Mariner’s past, but I really feel like this is more of a press-story sentimentality than Bavasi/Hargrove predilection.

By: Dave in Palo Alto

Dave in Palo Alto — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:59:34 +0000

Maybe, but lazyboy Jose Lopez has had two good springs, both times hitting the ball harder and more often than WFB. To be fair, though, I haven’t found any spring stats for GRIT or HUSTLE.

By: eponymous coward

eponymous coward — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:31:35 +0000

Finding someone to be the next Charles Gipson is easy, if the M’s want to start Bloomquist and send Lopez to Tacoma.

Hypothetical scenario: Bloomquist rips the cover off of the ball in ST for a couple of weeks; Lopez does OK but not spectacular. Given the public promises to Willie that he gets to compete for the job, and given the Mariners are prone to succumbibng to the illusion of Small Sample Size Theatre (see: Bloomquist, Willie, 2002 and Sele, Aaron, 2005), what do you think’s going to happen?

By: jtopps

jtopps — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:33:35 +0000

that’s not very clear, is it? it should read…

“starting Lopez makes more sense, as you want Bloomquist’s defensive versatility and pinch-running ability on call for the late innings.”