Randy Johnson signs with the Giants
DMZ · December 27, 2008 at 10:16 am · Filed Under Mariners
This means there’s a reasonable chance he’ll be starting against the M’s here in Seattle in one of the May 22-24th games.
Ooooh boy.
Comments
55 Responses to “Randy Johnson signs with the Giants”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I remember all of the problems when he left, but I’ll stand and give him a big cheer if I’m at the game. Heck’ I’ll cheer him if I’m watching the game at home. He deserves as much.
With a little luck, he may even be going for his 300th victory. He currently sits at 295. That would be awesome. I’d root for him. He’s had quite a career.
Is there another 300 game winner (assuming RJ gets there) who earned such a high portion of his career victories after the age of 30?
And he gets a starting salary less than Washburn. Wooo!
puke
The FO should have apologized publicly in the most humiliating way possible for whatever it is they did to him.
It’s sad we couldn’t have brought him back for 300/5000.
Well, I’m hoping he’s going for win 300 in Denver. =)
Glad he couldn’t crack the rotation here. Its not like Seattle needs a #3 pitcher, or 4, or 5.
/sarcasm
Colm – Yes, there are four. Phil Niekro had 264, Warren Spahn had 255, Cy Young had 225 and Gaylord Perry had 219. Johnson currently has 214 wins from age 31 on. BTW, next on the list is Jamie Moyer with 200.
Thanks Connor! I was wondering about that myself. So how many post will it take for someone to try to argue that RJ tanked it during the summer of 1998? Please, anyone tempted to make that argument, look at RJ’s raw stats before you post. It is a very tough discusion to win if you look past Wins and loses and ERA.
We wrote a whole long post debunking that, so I’m hoping it doesn’t come up
Yes that would be this post (which is now the second google result after this very thread if you search USSMariner.com for “Randy Johnson”) — I suggest anybody who wants to argue that do it in that comments thread, where you’ll be easy to ignore.
It will be cool if he comes up in the rotation when the Giants are here, but I sure wouldn’t want to see him on a regular basis (ie, if he’d signed with another AL West team).
Also, I look forward to the inevitable “Bring your kid to work day” pictures of him standing next to Tim Lincecum.
Any bets on whether the M’s will celebrate by making the Giants games premium tickets?
With Chuck Armstrong’s arrogance/stupidity it’s certainly possible.
I’ll pay the premium. RJ is still a wonder to watch when he’s healthy and on. 8 million… Seems to me the publicity of him going for 300 and MAYBE 5k S/O’s should be worth some $$ back. What a deal for the Giants.
RJ and Lincecum possibly pitching in the same series. Sounds like fun!
I sure hope the M’s don’t jack up the prices on those games.
Chuck Armstrong’s arrogance/stupidity is why we’re in this situation in the first place, wrt Johnson.
although– even if they were to make an offer, what are the odds he’d have any interest in coming back; especially when he could continue to pitch in the NL, and do it in SoCal …
I understand that Seattle wouldn’t be at the top of his list. But obviously SoCal wasn’t a requiremet.
nope, not a requirement, but with his mom still living in the area, it was “a positive” said his agent last week…
MLB has game 5 of the ‘95 ALDS on their free baseball feed today– I got it tuned in just as E. Martinez hit a double (not that double) and T. Martinez (with an unfortunate early attempt at a mustache) came up to bat. It’s only the 6th, so there is almost a whole other game to go …
msb, SanFransisco is not generally seen as Southern California.
I was there!
You can also download that game on iTunes for $1.99 if you are at a place where you can do it.
hahaha, and I never even noticed Tino’s mustache before! Too funny.
It doesn’t beat Adam Morrison’s (Gonzaga basketball) attempt at a mustache though in terms of mustache ineptitude.
hey, it’s south of Sacramento
it was really interesting watching the game again, and to see all the connections between the Ms & the Yankees, and between so many of the players and coaching staff through the last 15 years or so …
Tell that to the climate.
As Mark Twain once said, “The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco.”
oh man. Candlestick in September? that was a treat.
Big Unit and Jr back in Seattle it only seems fitting, but i guess stuff like that doesn’t happen. For any of you guys who say there is no such thing as team chemistry take a look at this years Dallas cowboys. They have top 3 talent in the NFL, but hate each other and only look at themselves so they don’t make the playoffs. I think the M’s had 75-80 talent last year, but with a clubhouse divided it tore them apart and became a 100 loss team. The 1993 Phils are a perfect example of this. They didn’t have the best talent, but they all got along so well they played great, and were the Best TEAM that season until joe carter got to them.
He didn’t actually say that (see this link).
For those of you saying there’s no such thing as good ball control and tactical awareness in baseball, just look at Barcelona.
Oh, I don’t recall anyone saying there’s no such thing as tactical awareness in baseball. Isn’t that exactly what we were always criticizing Hargrove about?
You don’t read this site very carefully, do you?
That was a very insulting statement.
“”That’s all we did was fight in the clubhouse. We fought more in the clubhouse than we did on the field. The guys were always fighting.” — Rollie Fingers.
You can’t analyze football the same way you do baseball, not really. There are 11 guys doing kinda their own thing but in concert with either other. The same rules don’t apply.
Either Randy vs Felix or Randy vs Morrow would easily be worth $15 for an upper deck seat.
For any of you guys who say there is no such thing as team chemistry
Saying we don’t have the tools to adequately measure and quantify something is not the same as saying it doesn’t exist.
The problem is that “chemistry” is it’s often invoked in discussions as a post hoc explanation for why teams are good or bad (such as what you’re doing right now) rather than having any predictive value.
So really, in order to analyze baseball we only have to look at football, since teams (and team play) in one sport are so similar to teams in the other. Brilliant! And here we were wasting our time paying attention to actual performance on the field.
There are many examples of championship winning teams that were later revealed to be riven by hatreds and cliques, as msb has already noted (my first thought when I see comments like this is always “Let’s ask Reggie Jackson’s teammates.”)
Really. You think so. Well, I guess that’s all the evidence we need. Case closed (unless you’d like to add that up for us). (In actual fact the Pythagorean formula based on Runs scored/against suggests the M’s record should’ve been more like 67-95… so does that suggest their clubhouse chemistry was actually better, or worse?)
And either of those guye vs Lincecum would be fun too. That there’s a chance for either or both of those matchups is a reason to circle that block of games on your calendar.
Joser — I agree that football analogies don’t work with Baseball. But wrt expect 75-80 wins of talent, even our beloved Dave predicted 82-83 wins for 2008.
http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/14/2008-win-values/
Chemistry or not, I think the 2008 Mariners just underperformed as badly as they overperformed in 2007.
Really? I think they got injured repeatedly.
You don’t read this site very carefully, do you?
That was a very insulting statement.
Actually, I am on this site everyday. I think this site is great, but i always thought it missed the point on team chemistry. I realize it cant be measured or even traded for, but when it does come together it is very recognizable. Everybody brings up my cowboys point, and i know football and basketball are like the Great John Chaney says apples and oranges. I did bring up the 1993 Phils though which i think is an even better point. Obviously there are teams that hate each other off the field and win ie bird and Mchale, but on the court they were much different. Dallas doesnt get along anywhere I bet, and I think that effects their overall performance.
Richie Sexson was bad last year because Raul Ibanez was mean to him in the clubhouse.
Did someone just try to use the Dallas Cowboys as proof that chemistry is real?
Different sport. Chemistry is more important in football, but I’m not talking about the same chemistry you probably are. Timing, execution, improvising when coverage is thick. That sort of chemistry is important between quarterback and receiver.
The type of chemistry you speak of, the magic fairy dust that gets sprinkled to make the team better just because you like each other, doesn’t exist in football anymore than it does baseball.
In fact, I’d be willing to bet “chemistry” is a lot harder to find in an NFL locker room than a MLB clubhouse. There are far more egos. How many commercials are there with baseball players vs football players?
How many baseball players get beat up at night clubs, get caught with massive weapon caches, have dog fighting rings, or shoot themselves in the leg?
Congratulations, you squeaked in “Worst Analogy of 2008″ with only a couple days in the year left.
If the 93 Phillies are living proof that chemistry is so important why did the 92 and the 94 Phillies such so bad? Seems like some of that chemistry would’ve carried over from 93 to 94.
Seems to me that Chemistry is used by most fans as a replacement for “luck”
“How many baseball players get beat up at night clubs, get caught with massive weapon caches, have dog fighting rings, or shoot themselves in the leg?”
- So…since the NFL can say they’ve had one player of each that make them worse? How many NFL teams can say they’ve had coaches caught gambling on games. This is way to simplified…
Ok, let’s talk about the ‘93 Phillies. In terms of WPA they were the best team in baseball that year. Now, you may want to claim that’s the result of chemistry, because you seem to think the individual talents weren’t very good but somehow the sum was greater than the parts. But those parts were very good, just summed up, no “chemistry” fairy dust required. The offense (per wOBA) was one of the top four in baseball that year; the pitching (per FIP) was top five — and that will get you into the playoffs most years, even if nobody is bringing in cupcakes for everybody in the clubhouse. Even more significantly, note that none of the teams ahead of the Phillies in offense were even in the top ten in pitching. That’s a balanced, talented team. And you’re saying that was the result of chemistry?
I’m sure there were several other teams where every guy going to the plate or the mound had good feelings about his teammates, so why didn’t they end up going deep in the postseason? Perhaps because they didn’t have the talent. That ‘93 Phillies may have been warm and happy, but much more importantly, it was good.
That ‘93 Phillies may have been warm and happy, but much more importantly, it was good.
So with your theory every good team will go deep in the playoffs and maybe win the World Series? What is the reason that some so called great teams with great players don’t make the playoffs? I think the people making these arguments have never played team sports, and cant measure chemistry so it must not exist. Teams overachieve and underachieve every season what do you think the reason for this is good or bad luck? Oh wait that cant be measured either so that can’t be correct. School the dumb jock who actually played sports and saw it firsthand.
I tried to play team sports, but they won’t let me put a baseball diamond in my parents’ basement.
Absolutely it’s often (not always) luck — not just injuries but also where the ball falls in a key situation. People love to think everything has a meaning, but some things are just luck.
I would think even a dumb jock who actually played sports and saw it first hand would be, if anything, more aware of the role of good and bad luck.
No, and that’s not my theory. I was just refuting your specific assertion that the ‘93 Phillies “didn’t have the best talent” and only got into the postseason because of “chemistry.” I’m not sure why you remember that team as being less than very, very good, because by lots of measures it was one of (if not the) best that year.
We have two contending theories of why the ‘93 Phillies had a good run into the post-season. The way we choose between competing theories is to look at the supporting data. I just provided mine; I’m waiting to see yours.
I played college hockey, and soccer all my life.
Good try though.
I think the people making these arguments have never played team sports, and cant measure chemistry so it must not exist.
Once again, since you seem to be rather slow picking this up:
Saying we don’t have the tools to adequately measure and quantify something is not the same as saying it doesn’t exist.
Teams overachieve and underachieve every season what do you think the reason for this is
There could be any number of reasons that don’t present themselves adequately to statistical analysis: luck, chemistry, injuries, aging effects on players that don’t always manifest as gradual improvements/declines, but are sometimes quite dramatic changes in performance, inadequacy of our statistical measurements, and so on.
The problem is we honestly don’t possess the tools to untangle all of this, on top of the fact that pure, dumb, craps table luck is a confounding element to our analysis- a .500 team is something like a 1-in-20 shot to win 90 games, and then all you need is a bit of luck to win some playoff series…
So, let’s put it this way: since you feel chemistry is a real element that needs to be part of analysis:
I think this site is great, but i always thought it missed the point on team chemistry. I realize it cant be measured or even traded for, but when it does come together it is very recognizable.
How would you “recognize” chemistry in a way that’s independent of a team’s win-loss record and playoff performance after the fact- in a way that tells you BEFORE the season “hey, these guys might have some”? Please note that we can project and evaluate player and team performance using statistical analysis, and do a decent job of it (statistical systems regularly beat writers/”experts” in predicting win-loss records over a season, for instance).
This is the problem- a lot of people use terms like “chemistry” as part of a confirmation bias to explain what happens in baseball (good teams must have chemistry, bad teams don’t). The problem is that without testable hypotheses (like, say, teams with higher OBPs score more runs) that we can confirm through data and observation, we’re not saying anything meaningful in an empirical sense when we say “yeah, that chemistry sure is important”, because we can’t untangle it from any other number of factors like luck… and why should the site authors write about things that basically boil down to “I have no idea how to evaluate this”, when there are lots of other areas to write about that CAN be evaluated, and it’s not like a couple of sabremetrically inclined bloggers would have insight into clubhouse chemistry, anyway?
THEN READ MORE CAREFULLY.
I repeat. That was an insulting statement. It thoroughly missed the point everyone here has made about chemistry. AND YOU’RE STILL MISSING THE POINT.
You enjoy insulting the people around here?
My bad guys lets not argue, but focus all of our energy on a winning season for the Mariners next year! Lets Go M’s!
Seriously… Don’t get your panties in a bunch.