Game Twenty-Seven Recap

Dave · May 5, 2010 at 10:02 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Boo, 11-16.

I don’t really know if there’s anything much to say about this game. Lee pitched well, but Tampa’s got some good hitters, so a shutout was unrealistic. Matt Garza’s really good, and the Mariners line-up is not, especially without Milton Bradley. Some good hitters hit some good pitches for the Rays, and some bad hitters did not hit good pitches for the Mariners. Thus, the Rays won. It doesn’t take a lot of statistical analysis to offer insight on the result.

So, I guess we’ll talk about Jack Wilson’s durability again. He left the game with a tight hamstring, and while I wish this was a surprise, we knew going in that this is who Wilson was – a guy with chronic leg problems that couldn’t hold up over a full season. Like Bradley, he gets dinged up a lot, and this is just part of his overall package. Unfortunately, they already have Milton on the roster but not really available and Sweeney as a no-position bench guy. Again, the inflexible bench and 12 man pitching staff are proving to be a huge problem.

So, tomorrow, the team has to make another move. They can’t bring Tui back unless they put Milton on the DL (or bereavement list), so that would be the expected move, but this is still a long term problem. The Mariners can’t keep playing without any reserves because they’re relying on brittle guys in their 30s to play every inning. We’ve said it a million times, but a major league team can’t carry both 12 pitchers and two guys who can’t play the field. They have to pick between Sweeney and the seventh arm, or they’ll continue to play short-handed way too often.

M’s try to salvage one game out of the series by throwing Ryan Rowland-Smith at the Rays tomorrow night. He’s going to have to give the team his best start of the season, or the M’s will head into the weekend as losers of six in a row.


112 Responses to “Game Twenty-Seven Recap”

  1. Shanfan on May 6th, 2010 11:28 am

    May God bless Milton Bradley and he gets the help he needs. Though this team has been frustrating and disappointing so far this year, it certainly has become entertaining. Now if only we could get an ignorant fan tasered occasionally out on the field…

    I have a question that I’m not bright enough to know how and too lazy to figure out (so I’ll ask on here), but how is offense overall faring around the league so far this year compared to other seasons?

  2. MrZDevotee on May 6th, 2010 11:28 am

    I think a mistake that’s easy to make is to take a single slice of this team, on a single day, and decide that static opinion is an accurate portrayal of what to expect moving forward.

    In the case of “this team is all about pitching and defense” I don’t necessarily believe that is a true assessment of how this team will look moving forward. I certainly don’t think Z dislikes offense.

    To use team building as an analogy to baseball itself, we’re in the 2nd inning of rebuilding an organization, and by Z’s assessment, the quickest way to get the team to “competitive” without breaking the bank, and following the Bavasi model, was to capitalize on the most undervalued portions of the game: Defense and pitching.

    All the while attempting to seize bigger opportunities when they arise (like the Cliff Lee steal– which is pitching, yeah, but is being used here to show that he isn’t against going after BIG acquisitions when they make sense).

    Take the last draft as an example. Our top choice was neither a pitcher, nor a great defender (he’s actually a guy in transition from no longer being able to play the outfield). What does he do well? He was widely considered by many to be the best pure hitter to come up in the draft in quite a few years.

    I think that’s a glimpse of the “bigger picture”. I DEFINITELY think the idea is to build the team with balance going forward, but that in the meantime, the choice was made that the quickest way to returning to a “competitive” state was to invest fewer dollars in more players, with an emphasis on pitching and defense.

    And THEN go after the really BIG changes to the roster, that perhaps won’t show fruition in 2010.

    This is all speculation of course, but seems to make sense.

    1) Blow up the former roster
    2) Fashion a substitute team of average players, on the cheap, who can be competitive because the pitching staff is able to hold other teams to modest runs. (And throw in a couple of feel-good stories for the touchy-feely, non-diehard Seattle baseball fans/families.)
    3) Begin rebuilding the franchise, carefully, and with an eye towards sustained success (ie- thru a few select, key acquisitions and thru the draft, not a QUICK route to take, but a smart one)

  3. loveMeSomeStats on May 6th, 2010 11:36 am

    Everyone seems to take it as a given that while learning a new defensive position, the offense may suffer a bit.

    Figgins changed defensive positions. That may have affected things… but what about the difference in going from lead-off to batting 2nd? Maybe they need to switch Figgins to lead-off to see if the issue is that he can’t hit behind someone on base.

    (yes I know that he is only guaranteed to bat 2nd in the first inning … but I bet he bats 2nd more than 1/3 of the time)

  4. blackc5 on May 6th, 2010 11:38 am
  5. MuadDib on May 6th, 2010 11:48 am

    Rayvensdad –

    I have a couple quotes you mind find useful to ponder:

    “I wouldnt give a hoot for simplicity this side of complexity”

    “For every complex problem there is inevitably at least one simple solution and it is always wrong”

    I’m not a medical doctor but it seems to me that the practice of medicine is way too complex to be addressed in such limited terms. I dont discount the signifiance of Shiatsu massage but question whether it is applicable to every circumstance in the way that you imply. Are you an MD? I would be more inclined to lend weight to your argument if I knew that you offer your critisism from the perspective of someone who has endured the whole gamut of medical training required to be an MD.

  6. scott19 on May 6th, 2010 11:50 am

    After being cut by M’s, Eric Byrnes joins softball league
    Can’t make this up…

    Actually, this sorta sounded like one of those Onion stories at first, but that is too funny!

    I’d laugh even harder if it was a co-ed league with Jennie Finch in it and she wound up striking his arse out!! 🙂

  7. dem on May 6th, 2010 12:55 pm


    After being cut by M’s, Eric Byrnes joins softball league

    Can’t make this up…

    LOL. I wish Mascot or Jr would see that it’s over for them too and join him in the softball league. 🙁

  8. Mister Baseball on May 6th, 2010 1:08 pm

    Mister Baseball,

    Everything you said sounds all nice and dandy, but unfortunately it is nothing other than unsubstantiated opinion. Please support your opinion with evidence and facts.

    As evidence I submit the entire standings of every years since major league baseball has been played.

    Go look.

  9. Rick Banjo on May 6th, 2010 1:26 pm

    This team is just having a lot of bad luck right now. We will regress to the mean. Here is an analogy. If I am playing poker, and I have Ace King, and the other guy has 9 10, off-suited, yeah.. the other guy can win sometimes, even though I have the better hand. But if we play 1000 times, the Ace, J is going to win about 80% of the time.

    However, while in poker, losses with strong hands can be chalked up to probability and statistical variance, a lot of luck factors during a baseball season have far less to do with probability than they have to do with the fulfillment of talent level.

  10. eponymous coward on May 6th, 2010 1:41 pm

    As evidence I submit the entire standings of every years since major league baseball has been played.

    OK. So you’re arguing the reason the 1914 Miracle Braves won it all was Joe Connolly, not Rabbit Maranville or Johnny Evers (both HOFers with much longer careers)?

    Or take the 1959 White Sox- dead last in HRs, below average in runs scored… and AL Champions. the 1973 Mets (NL champions). The 1985 Royals (13th in runs scored, World Champions).

    If you’re going to give me EVERY MLB season to play with, it’s trivial to find examples to rebut you. Try better.

  11. scott19 on May 6th, 2010 1:50 pm

    The 1985 Royals (13th in runs scored, World Champions).

    Not to mention their opponents in the World Series, the Cardinals…who clinched the NL Pennant that year with 101 wins — and only 87 home runs!

  12. mattlock on May 6th, 2010 2:07 pm

    As evidence I submit the entire standings of every years since major league baseball has been played.

    Go look.

    The preponderance of the evidence is against you. Statistics and facts have been presented that disprove your position and you have yet to support yourself with actual statistics and facts. Just pointing to standings proves nothing other than records of teams.

    It’s ok to admit you’re wrong. It won’t make you look dumb. Blindly sticking to your guns with no support, however, will continue to make you look quite dumb.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.