Belief Systems
This post might meander a bit. I have a lot of disjointed thoughts in my head, most of them tangentially related to each other, but haven’t yet figured out how to make them into one cohesive post. Hopefully, it happens as I write. We’ll see.
Don Wakamatsu says the words belief system so often that it’s become a punchline, but he doesn’t care. He keeps repeating the phrase, using it as an explanation for why he does things the way he does, even those things that appear quite curious on their face. But while this Wakism might not be the verbiage that most people use, he’s really just describing a trait that most good leaders have – confidence.
The man has the courage of his own convictions. When he believes in a player, he goes out of his way to let everyone know that he has confidence in him in an effort to transfer some of his own confidence to the player himself. He carefully protects the minds of the core players on the team, creating an atmosphere where they believe they can fail without being punished. By allowing room for failure, he believes that he is actually cultivating success, and he has a lot of successes he can point to where his belief system in a player has paid off.
This steady brand of leadership is a really good trait to have in a manager. While some react to every perceived problem, tinkering with roles or jerking players around, Wak holds true to what he believes, even if the present results aren’t necessarily a match for what he expected. We’re big process people around here, and constantly talk about not judging players on small sample sizes or results they can’t control. Wak might not use the same words, but his belief system is essentially the same philosophy.
It’s one of the main reasons why I believe he’s one of the better managers in baseball. Steady decision making and the ability to instill confidence in a player can create an environment where players can develop into more than what they’ve been before. We saw that last year with Branyan, Gutierrez, and Aardsma, and may be seeing that now with Kotchman. A manager who can help players improve their talent levels is far more valuable than one who makes the right strategic decisions or uses his bullpen perfectly. Wak’s belief system, as cliche as it may be at this point, is a boon to this franchise.
However, it’s not just enough for a manager to believe in a player – there has to be underlying truth in the belief to begin with. Believing in Gutierrez’s defense, Branyan’s power, or Aardsma’s fastball is one thing, as they all have plus plus tools that are among the best in the game in a particular area. The things that Wak believed in were real, and his beliefs were vindicated by their natural abilities when he gave them a chance to shine.
It’s when he starts believing in things that are not real that the belief system becomes something of a problem. A leader with the courage of his convictions is a double-edged sword, because while he has the ability to stand his ground when the results are not matching the process, so too can he rely too heavily, and for too long, on something that is not able to justify the faith.
His belief system in the ability of Ken Griffey Jr and Mike Sweeney have led to the team placing two bad hitters in the middle of a line-up that is struggling to score runs, while his lack of belief system (to date) in Milton Bradley and Casey Kotchman have left the team with two of their best hitters setting up RBI opportunities for the catchers and Jack Wilson. His belief system in Sean White has led him to put an inferior reliever into high leverage situations while better pitchers sit as leads disappear. And it can be highly frustrating to watch. Believe me, I feel it too.
But if I had to choose between a manager who showed too little patience with good players or too much patience with bad ones, I’d go with the latter every time. And so, while the batting orders can be frustrating and we all sit around and wonder how much longer the team will put up with a DH platoon that can’t hit, keep in mind that this is the downside to a philosophy that brings with it more good than bad.
We can get caught up in the minutia of the day day to aspects of line-up construction, bullpen usage, and things of the like that we miss the big picture. This is why almost every single fan base has a problem with their manager. It’s much easier to focus on the things they do wrong, that we’re confronted with everyday, than those things that they do right, which only get born out over longer periods of time.
Wak does some things that frustrate all of us, but he’s an excellent manager. I have a belief system in the man, and I hope that we don’t take him for granted.
I have to admit that I’ve been pretty critical of Wak so far this season, and in some cases probably even blamed him for things that weren’t his fault. I do recognize, though, that we could certainly be a whole lot worse off in terms of a manager, and this post is a nice, well put reminder of that.
It really seems like you’re getting hung up on the batting order. I find this shocking seeing how you have said “put your good hitters close to the top but overall batting orders really don’t matter” (I’m paraphrasing). What’s the difference of having an optimal order as opposed to the order we’ve been running out over the course of a season? 5 runs? 10 runs?
Hi Dave,
I’m a long time lurker that has always been hesitant to comment, especially since my first comment was shut down so clearly and objectively. (I was trying to argue that Bret Boone hadn’t lost a step on defense…) Since that day, you and DMZ have made baseball come alive to me in a way I have never known possible. You’re really good at what you do. Really good.
Anyway, something about this post spoke to me and I felt obliged to thank you for your thoughts. This is a wonderful look in at what it is to be an effective leader. You don’t typically get to read such an eloquent evaluation of a manager’s challenge. I think that you hit the nail on the head.
As a leader, you need to allow room for failure in order to foster success. That’s a tricky concept to articulate and you did it far better than I could have done.
So, thank you, and here’s to Wak.
This has nothing to do with anything but I kind of want to start a band called Belief Systems now. Thanks, Wak!
I am curious why Milton Bradley is regarded as one of the best hitters on the team. His .208 average and .323 OBP seem to lump him into the Griffey/Sweeney category that no post can go without lamenting.
The belief in his players is one of the key traits of successful managers and we have had the oppportunity to watch one of the best in Lou Piniella. We may be watching it again………
Dave is right it can be maddening but it beats the alternative.
I wish my written products turned out this well when my thoughts are disjointed and I am at risk of meandering.
I think this was a timely reminder for those of us frustrated with small issues (batting order) while losing track of the big picture. Thanks.
BTW, I think you dropped an “e” from “borne”.
Great point about believing in the players almost to a fault, but Wak also isn’t a stupid guy. There has to be a point where he will stop using Sweeney and Griffey. Is it out of his hands until Jackie Z makes a roster move?
I agree with this. It’s because of Wak’s belief systems that we don’t have to endure decisions like sending a Carlos Zambrano to the bullpen.
I admit significant bias toward Wakisms and Wakish behaviors. Note my screenname.
Personally, with Bradley, I just like his swing/bat speed and fault a lot of the lagging of his stats to the early slump/slow start he had. I mean, isn’t he batting like .429 over the last 7 games or something like that?
I am curious why Milton Bradley is regarded as one of the best hitters on the team. His .208 average and .323 OBP seem to lump him into the Griffey/Sweeney category that no post can go without lamenting.
Because we don’t judge players on the results of one month’s numbers.
I think a lot of the impatience that we see with Wak sticking with players like Lopez and Griffey is the way that it reminds people of mistakes of yesteryear.
The organization had similar patience when it came to Richie Sexson, allowing him to play every day while he flirted with the Mendoza line for a year and a half. Of course the “organization” now is completely different from the front office down, but the scar tissue obviously lingers.
The most intriguing part of this to me suggests a question I’m guessing we’ll never know the answer to.
Any manager may have a mistaken opinion (statistically speaking) of a player. He may be using his own instinct to believe that said player will soon break out of his funk…based on what he sees firsthand, what the player did in the past, etc.
With the Mariners, there is a department we might call the ‘anti-instinct’ group that comes up with projections of how that player may perform in the future, based entirely on individual data and similar precedents .
So the question is where (if ever) Wak and Blengino intersect on an ongoing basis. How is the data placed in front of Wak to question his instinct? Is it done through an intermediary, like Z? (I’m guessing not–they seem too open for that).
But in any case, does Wak have the final say? Or does Jack suggest it’s time to switch cleanup hitters…or DH’s…or whatever?
Like I said, I don’t think we’ll ever know te answer, but knowing would be cool.
Great post. I’m assuming that many of us who are reading this are also professionals (albeit not professional ballplayers). But no matter the field, I think we’ve all experienced the boost in productivity that comes along with a boss/manager who is a good leader and has confidence in our abilities. Wak seems to be that kind of person.
I don’t know how we quantify this quality, but it sure seems real.
That is a good point…I hope to God his belief system doesn’t lead us down that path! I remember the rage I felt watching Sexson whiff!
I think one reason Wak is being patient with Griffey is that there are quite a few DH’s around the league struggling this year. Here are all the DH’s with a Sub .700 OPS with at least 50 PA:
At some point in time Wak is going to have to make a move if it continues. But keep in mind that most of us here thought that putting Griffey/Sweeney in the DH spot was a mistake before the season started. Wakamatsu obviously disagreed, if he thought that at the beginning of the season I don’t think it has been long enough, or bad enough for him to change his mind.
After all if we are going to make decisions based on current performances, we need to move Rob Johnson up to bat behind Gutierrez to give him some protection based on his gaudy .358wOBA and .172ISO.
Remember Wak’s Belief System still got Yuni on the bench by mid season, then traded. He maybe more patient than me, but he isn’t stupid.
It’s unfortunate that Don Wakamatsu is also setting up Sean White to fail by putting him in high leverage situations. (or batting Ken Griffey Jr. fifth)
Turns out others have taken note of this recent trend as well.
This post reminds me of the way Earl Weaver discussed having patience with certain players in his book, Weaver On Strategy.
And it wasn’t just, “I have a plan and I’m sticking to it, even if the ship sinks.” He used reason and judgement similar to Wak.
It’s refreshing to hear this being discussed. Unfortunately, sports writers follow trends and can rarely see the bigger picture. I’ve probably never heard this kind of talk in other sports writing.
Another thing that fits into Dave’s thesis is the switch of positions for Figgins and Lopez, which he started at the beginning of spring training and stuck with. While I would not be surprised if part of Figgins’s slow offensive start is still dealing with the change, there’s no question in my mind that the range he adds at second is going to be a net positive for the team, and Lopez seems to be okay at third (certainly more okay not needing the lateral range that second base requires). He has never wavered that this would work. That, I think, enables it to work.
The Sean White thing, though, just makes no sense.
Part of the belief system is getting the players to believe as well. The coaches are trying to get the players to do things a certain way. If the players are working this way and sticking with the system, then Wak will believe in the players and stick with them. Last year with Yuni, he wasn’t following the coaches and he was gone. I’d like to think that Rob Johnson is listening to the staff and taking more pitches. He now believes in what the coaches are teaching and is trying to put it into practice. I think last year Wak was frustrated with Brandon Morrow and his pitch selection and also with Beltre and Lopez on the pitches they swing at. When players don’t buy into the system, then the staff won’t stick with the players. So while Wak’s decisions can be frustrating at times, I think in the long run the Mariners are building the team the right way.
Yes. But those runs add up to one win. Make three or four 5-10 run mistakes (misusing the bullpen, having 7 relievers) and that’s two or three wins. And that can be the difference between winning the division and sitting home.
And that’s why “we” care so much about the small things. They are indeed small but we want the Mariners to get every edge they can.
“day to day”, I’m guessing.
I like Wakamatsu and I, too, am glad he has his belief system in place. After watching Hargrove, McLaren, and Riggleman, I’m happy to have him.
Now, if only his belief system in aggressive baserunning would take a hike.
I have to wonder how much the belief system extends the other direction, to Zduriencik and higher. I have no clue to the inner workings of management, other than what we see is the team they gave Wak to work with.
If Wak believes that Zdriencik has given him the best players to work with, then it’s his job to get the best out of those players, all of them.
In this respect, it seems that Wak tries to find a comfort level for batters relative to their position in the line-up. And there may be other team dynamics at work, such as players with a lot of respect for Griffey feeling like he needs the chance to work out his batting woes, not as a 7 or 8 hitter, but in the position he’s earned with his past performance. If Griffey gives them all respect, then that respect is owed in return.
So maybe it’s a more holistic approach rather than this player slots individually best here or there in the line-up. If this is the case, and I’m not saying it is, then it’s a bit of complaining about the apples when Wak is working with oranges.
With some luck the Mariners’ way, or 3 or 4 guys coming out of the gate hot rather than cold at the dish, the Mariners could have been 3, 4 or 5 games better at this point. We just may find that in a couple of weeks, or months, the even-keeled, belief system approach has worked very well.
Hear hear! Now can we please bat Milton fourth (and Kotch fifth if possible)?
The problem I’m having with Wak is not the belief system; as pdxmsfan says above, we all work better when the boss has confidence in us.
Where I am having a problem is that it appears Wak has forgotten he has a small-ball ball club. It looked like he started last year fully committed to manufacturing runs anyway he could. But about mid-season last year it he went away from it and started playing for the big inning. And now this year he looks to be continuing to manage that way.
No doubt the man has clubhouse skills, but once it’s “Play Ball” time, I’m just not as comfortable with his in-game decision-making.
jmho…
Good post. I love our management. Its the best part of the team. So far they have maximized talent with some guys (some are just helpless). It seems in a couple of cases Wak is holding out a little too long. And what makes them frustrating to watch is they seem like
elementary moves that aren’t being made.
All in all, Wak and Jack Z are doing an absolutely amazing job, saving this sinking organization. It just needs a few tweaks.
Friday Cliff F’ing Lee is pitching. Thank you Jack Z.
This reminded me of Morgan Ensberg’s post about leadership.
I loved Lou when he was with the M’s but looking back at it now I wonder what Wak could have done with a team that had Randy Johnson, Griffey and A-Rod all in their prime. Not to mention Edgar, Buhner, etc.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the M’s of 1995-2001 were the most underperforming team in history based on their talent level and lack of playoff success. Never even made it to a WS, let alone won one.
When you look at what Wak has done with less talent on the field, it really makes you appreciate him.
Meanwhile, Lou is not exactly taking the Cubs where they thought he would.
I think Wak is the best manager the M’s have ever had and I hope he stays around for many years to come.
He does things that don’t make sense in the context of a single game but that’s because he’s looking at the big picture. He’s willing to accept a loss today if it helps a player develop more success over the long haul.
In addition to small sample size, which Dave already mentioned, we also don’t judge performance based on BA, at least not alone.
wOBA:
Bradley: .319
Griffey: .254
Sweeney: .240
I read here a little jab at the Mariners…
And I’ve been wondering how many more runners the Mariners need to put on base to make up for a lack of home runs. There must some over-generalized statistic about the likelihood of a base runner reaching home, and I assume we need X number of runners for every home run the other team hits more than us.
I believe in Wakamatsu’s approach to the game, that defense matters and power is over rated. I also really like the players he’s built this team around; but I start to have doubts when I think of these statistics. Am I wrong?
Gomez: The Crasnick article you linked to doesn’t make ANY sense to me…anybody who has read Geoff Baker clearly knows it’s easier to be a DH than have to play in the field…
After all if we are going to make decisions based on current performances
Griffey’s wins over replacement, by year:
2006: -0.3
2007: 0.2
2008: 0.3
2009: 0.3
2010: -0.3
I think we can safely say that when it comes to Junior being a bad player on the field, we have a pretty sufficient sample size to make that call.
I realize that Griffey isn’t performing at a level that any of us would call stellar, or even acceptable. But Wak and Z both recognize that teams play better with the right attitude and environment. As this post so aptly points out, Wak is good at developing that. It is hard to retire the “icon” of the organization by removing him from the line up during the season. That could be very damaging to the attitude or beliefs of other players.
In some ways it reminds me of Ripken’s consecutive game streak. He could have been 0 for his last 100 but there was no way any manager would have pulled him from the lineup. If I recall correctly, it was Ripken who said, “Today is the day it ends.” Perhaps it will take the same from Griffey
I remember the belief system Lou had in Bobby Ayala and Norm Charlton.
Close Game? Bring out the guys with the 7+ ERAs!
I’ll take a stab at answering
I assume we need X number of runners for every home run the other team hits more than us.
To simplify:
A home run has an average run value of 1.402
A single is .46, walk .303, stolen base .193, a double 0.75, triple 1.033
So, if your team only walks and singles, then you need two walks and two singles to overcome one home run.
http://www.tangotiger.net/runscreated.html
Nice post. I actually made a Belief Systems Wak fan page on fb a month ago, only two fans though. I coach a softball team and have adopted this belief systems approach to some of the players.
Griffey and the team went into the season understanding he would have diminished playing time.
At the very least, he (and Lopez) could be moved to 6th or 7th in the batting order.
I mean….*sigh*…how many WS teams do you see put their washed up superstar in the middle of the batting order? Just, historically speaking, who are they? How is that a recipe for success?
But Wak and Z both recognize that teams play better with the right attitude and environment.
Has this ever been empirically proven anywhere? Seems that there are plenty of a-holes with World Series rings.
This is true, but we’re in luck! The average team hits a little over one home run a game (something close to 1.04). But the average team walks 3.4 times a game and hits 5.9 singles, according to 2009 MLB data.
On average, you’ll be okay with singles and walks.
0.46 average runs * 5.9 singles = 2.71 average runs
0.303 average runs * 3.4 walks = 1.03 average runs
2.71 + 1.03 = 3.74 average runs
Meanwhile:
1.04 home runs * 1.402 runs = 1.46 average runs
So:
3.74 average runs > 1.46 average runs
It doesn’t work that way. An average team hits 1.04 HRs a game AND 5.9 singles and 3.4 walks.
So an average team gets 5.2 runs per game (excluding the contributions of their average number of doubles, triples, HBP etc.), 3.74 of which come from singles and walks.
Great post.
I used to cringe when I heard the term “belief system.” But I buy into it, and a lot of it has to do with the difference between “belief” and “hope.”
The “belief system” presumes that a player will perform in a certain way given a certain set of circumstances. This manager uses a combination of observation, stats, and gut-feel to develop those presumptions.
As opposed to crossing your fingers and hoping that a player will perform better than he should. As in, “Sure hope Betancourt can improve his defense and cut down on his swing. Let’s run him out there and give him another chance.”
Re: Griffey, his role on the team is more about hope than belief. We sure hope his bat comes around. But it’s folly to expect or presume that it will.
I think the Griffey belief system revolves around the expectation that he’ll retire if he’s not performing.
I have to believe—there’s that word again—that Jack and Griffey had this conversation when the Mariners offered him a contract. And I *hope* they sent Chuck Armstrong a memo.
I don’t think it matters whether teams perform better if the chemistry is better in the clubhouse. You construct a team with a fun clubhouse because people deserve to work in the best possible work environment that management can provide.
Think about your own work environment, if your manager has two possible new hires, one is cooperative and friendly, the other is sullen and morose and the latter has slightly more experience and you expect a marginal increase in performance. I think most of us would say that the marginal increase in performance just isn’t worth the cost of being around an asshole all the time.
I do a fair share of hiring and personality is a factor. I used to discount it and just hire the best performer. I regretted it every time.
It’s actually more like 4.7 runs/game once you add(/subtract) everything up, and that wasn’t the point. The point was that every team gets a lot more of their runs from walks/singles than home runs, which while a bonus are a relatively tangential part of a team’s offense.
Adam Moore is also one of those players that Don Wakamatsu is showing patience with.
The Mariners certainly aren’t hitting the average in home runs. Over 22 games, they have 9 home runs, which averages to .41 HR per game. If the league averages 1.04 HR per game, and a home run on average is worth 1.402 runs, then the Mariners need a small-ball equivalent of .88 runs per game ((1.04-.41)*1.402) to compensate.
If a single is worth .46 runs, the Mariners need 1.91 (.88/.46) more singles than the average home run team to win (excluding walks, doubles, triples).
I agree the long ball isn’t the main feature of an MLB offense, but if you’re not going to hit it, you’ve got to make up the 1.42 runs some how.
I believe in Waks system, but I don’t think the Mariners are going to win when Figgins is batting under .200, Bradley is struggling, and the Griffey/Sweeney tandem play DH.
The Mariners are 21st in the MLB in hits right now and 26th in OBP. They just need more hits.
Here’s the deal, though. I’m one of those pansy, non-statistical fans who like Griffey and Sweeney, and I just have one question. Why did Wak go from using 120 different lineups last year to being so consistent this year? I’m behind the “belief system,” and have read business models (Google, most significantly) that fit exactly what he’s doing. Applying those ideas to baseball seem like a perfect way to get the maximum value from a player (employee), and that’s what this site seems to elevate above all other points.
So what changed this year? Why is he approaching the lineup situation so differently? I’m not asking to put a thorn in anyone’s side. I’m asking, because I just don’t get it. Thoughts?
Oh, and I should also point out that like last year, he’s not reacting to performance (or lack thereof). Thus, the “belief system” theology. It’s interesting that in two completely different ways to prep a lineup, he’s at least consistent in that.
I think Wak’s belief system for Griffey can really be interpreted as “Lincoln & Armstrong are forcing me to put Griffey out there.” I think Wak & Z wouldn’t play him at all if it were strictly up to them.
In regards to Sweeney, I’m not really sure what keeps him in the lineup. I think that must be due to Wak’s belief system. I have no other reasonable explanation (nor do I think Lincoln/Armstrong have anything to do with that one).
I am not convinced that Armstrong and Co. are pulling any strings for Jr. I believe that Wak really believes that Griffey is his best option at DH against a RH pitcher.
This post is about that type of belief system. When your players believe that they will perform because the Manager believes that they will perform. Jr is testing his system but Wak has stuck with it.
138 different lineups to be exact.
I count 15 different lineups so far. As for last year, look at all the injuries and roster turnover.
I think it’s a pretty clear distinction between showing patience with a Catcher in his mid-twenties and showing patience with an overweight 40-year old DH.
Unfortunately the most likely scenario under which the “belief system” fails for Griffey and Sweeney is that they suck for a few more months, the M’s kind of flounder on offense and fall out of the race, and Zduriencik comes to Wakamatsu in late July and goes “might as well play Saunders every day in LF and DH Bradley since we’re not going anywhere, oh, and I am trading Cliff Lee for some kids”.
I think it’s pretty unlikely that if they aren’t hitting but the M’s are still in contention that they’ll be replaced. After all, it must be the hugging and chemistry that’s helping the M’s contend, right? I mean, if they were garbage last year and that didn’t get them replaced because (according to the belief system), their leadership was critical, what’s going to get them replaced THIS year? Seriously- I think that if it’s late July, and Sweeney and Griffey are OPS’ing under .600 but the team’s still in contention, you won’t see anything happen other than more hugs.
And this is the cruicial part of the evaluation. Why did Wak believe in Branyan, Guti, Aardsma, and why does he believe in Griffey, Sweeney, White? Plus, why didn’t he believe in Yuni, why doesn’t he seem to believe in Bradley, etc.
I’m not necessarily criticizing Wak here, but anyone can get lucky. Was he lucky last year, or good? That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
Process isn’t just making a choice and sticking with it, though the “sticking with it” part certainly matters. Process is about how you make those choices. Hargrove once had a “belief system” that Julio Mateo could get groundballs in a situation that called for a double play. All the confidence in the world didn’t make that work. The old organization had the belief, noted already, that Richie Sexson still had productive ABs left in him. The old org had all sorts of bad belief systems, like veteranosity, firey clubhouse guys, good defense defined by how hard the guy made the play look…
I want to know what process is behind the belief system. The team did not come into the season with a plan that – to my eyes – optimized their chances. What flaws in their process have led to the mistaken beliefs, and are there strengths in the process that will correct those?
The potential for Power is more pivotal later in games when outs are scarce. With dwindling oppotunities to manufacture runs the team needs that ‘one-swing’ production. A team does not need power up and down the lineup to be successful. But no power in a power league?!?!?!?
When was the last time an AL team made the playoffs with this bad of offense?
9 HR (29th place), 82 Runs (24th place) the M’s have scored 3 runs or less in half their games. What silver lining do you guys see in this offense?
Side note the M’s are in 28th place of K/9ip with 5.71. Thankfully the defense offsets this a little by making plays on batted balls.
There’s one more aspect that isn’t getting much attention–the ‘triangulation’ of the belief system.
The fundamental way we’re considering this is the individual relationship between manager and player. In other words, how much ‘belief’ does the manager exhibit for a struggling player before he pulls the plug?
But during that time, there are also beliefs being challenged elsewhere in the clubhouse.
To remove this from our own biases, take for example the Phillie’s continued reliance on Brad Lidge to close last year. When a guy blows more than a quarter of his save opportunities, when is enough enough? How did this affect the starters’ belief systems? For a minimum salary guy on the bench (if the Phils had any of those), how did it affect that player’s belief in whether he’d receive a World Series share?
Every individual decision also has group ramifications.
15 different lineups, maybe, but not with the randomness in order that we dealt with last season. Injuries and turnover aside, even at the beginning of the season, we basically had Ichiro batting first, Beltre at 4 and multiple guys switching all over the place.
That’s not the same thing we’re looking at with the 15 that have been trotted out this season. Figgy is always 2, and Guti’s been sitting in 3 for the most part. Jack Wilson’s also consistently sitting at 9 with the catching tandem at 8. All the other randomness has more to do with platooning than anything else. Or maybe I’m crazy. Sorry to waste the comments space if that’s the case…
When was the last time an AL team made the playoffs with this bad of offense?
Off the top of my head, the 1985 KC Royals won a World Championship with an offense that was 13 out of 14 in the AL.
Yes, in an ideal world, you’d like the 2001 Mariners. But sometimes, you have to take what you can get- and the roster the M’s have is light on power and heavy on defense and pitching.
Not really. Run production doesn’t get harder each innings. It’s no harder to score a run with 6 outs left in the game than with 24. What matters is how many outs are left in the inning because the situation resets every three outs.
For instance, the highest scoring innings for the M’s this year are the 5th, 9th, and 3rd. Half their runs have come in those three innings. They average 0.417 runs per inning the 1st through the 6th, and 0.458 r/inn from the 7th through the 9th.
You can score runs with the longball, you can score runs stringing walks and singles together. The problem for the M’s is they aren’t doing either very much right now. 24th place in offense is certainly not going to cut it. But 14th would probably be okay, given good pitching and defense.
They don’t *have* to score a league average number of runs. It’s not unreasonable to project slightly below average offense (better than we’ve seen so far) and stellar runprevention. The M’s play in a pitcher’s park, have two of the best starting pitchers on the planet and great defense at multiple positions.
I’m not holding out hope for the team pushing Junior off the team and onto the golf course before the all star break, but I’ll still hope everytime I open this blog that I’ll be reading a post about Mike Sweeney riding off into the sunset.
Eponymous Coward- Fair enough about the 1985 Royals. But was it more of an anomaly or actual skill?
JMHawkins- I understand that it isn’t harder to score in any inning…. What is different is the amount of outs/time to string 2 walks and 2 singles together. Especially with a team that HAS to manufacture runs (trade outs for bases) and take lots of risks on the basepaths (SB, 1st to 3rd).
There’s no more or less time to string the hits/walks together than any other point in the game. If you mean there are fewer innings to do it, well sure, but there are also fewer innings left to belt a home run too.
Home runs are no more or less powerful late in the game. They’re just another way to score a run. If you’re down by two to start the 8th, it doesn’t matter whether you typically score your runs with a bloop and a bomb or a string of singles, all that matters is how frequently you score them.
I prefer to score the runs early in the game (especially at the beginning of a series) to chase out the starter and wear out the bullpen. In that case, walks and singles are preferable to a home run.
Eponymous Coward- Fair enough about the 1985 Royals. But was it more of an anomaly or actual skill?
Well, we don’t really have advanced metrics to judge their defensive abilities, but using ERA in their league as a proxy for pitching+defense (and realizing that it’s at best only indicative but not definitive):
1985: 2nd
1986: 1st
1987: 2nd
1988: 3rd
1989: 3rd
You can also note that the 1985 Royals had Dan Quisenberry and a rotation with the following Triple Crown numbers:
167-117, 3.34 (Bret Saberhagen)
140-119, 3.71 (Charlie Leibrandt)
121-116, 3.84 (Bud Black)
132-136, 3.96 (Mark Gubicza)
112-131, 4.01 (Danny Jackson)
Yes, I know, win-loss and ERA. The point is that a five man rotation where EVERYONE hung around MLB for 2000+ innings pitched (so ~10 full MLB seasons or more) is an awfully good rotation. Everyone was a legit #3 starter or better.