On ESPN 710 Today
I got bumped from the normal Thursday at 12:30 time slot due to yesterday’s Mariners game, so we’re doing it today instead.
Also, my newest post went up on their blog yesterday.
Game 72, Cubs at Mariners
Hernandez vs Lilly, 12:40 pm.
Happy Felix Day.
Good to see Saunders in there today against a lefty. His home run off Sean Marshall last night was impressive not just for where he hit it, but who he it off – Marshall is one of the best LH relievers in baseball, and Saunders has been generally hopeless against southpaws as a big leaguer. The experience of playing everyday, regardless of what hand the pitcher throws with, should be good for him.
Ichiro, RF
Figgins, 2B
Sweeney, DH
Lopez, 3B
Gutierrez, CF
Josh Wilson, 1B
Johnson, C
Jack Wilson, SS
Saunders, LF
A Post in Five Parts
You know what’s better than having just one or two or four of something? Having five of that something. That’s the incredibly tenuous premise on which this post is built.
If it helps, consider this a “notebook” piece — except instead of “reporting facts,” I’m “making wild speculations.”
I. INTRO
When speaking to a large audience, it’s best to do one or both of two things: both/either (a) tell a joke and/or (b) imagine everyone naked. I have no interest in doing the latter, so I’ll do the former thing twice.
Here are two Mariner-related light bulb jokes, from my brain to your eyes.
Q. How many Mariner fans does it take to change a light bulb?
A. None. They just sit back and watch in horror as Don Wakamatsu removes the broken light bulb and then pencils it into the lineup as a DH.
Q. How many sabermetrically oriented Mariner fans does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Three. One to analyze whether the light bulb is actually burnt out, or if it’s just due for regression up to the mean; one to speculate upon the trade value of the light bulb; and one to name the light bulb the sixth-best light bulb in the pack of 30 light bulbs.
_ _ _
II. SOME RESPONSES TO YOUR COMMENTS
First, I’d like to thank you for your warm reception last week*. Second, I’d like to address a couple-few of the comments you guys made in response to post numero uno.
*Including to the guy who suggested that my post was indicative of USSM having jumped the shark. I don’t know if you know this, but it was FRIGGING AWESOME when Fonzie did that.
From flashbeak: [J]ust out of curiosity… what is your favorite team?
A. I addressed this briefly in the comments section, but allow me to repeat myself: I actually don’t really have a favorite team. On account of I was born in New Hampshire and grew up there (and attended high school at a fabulously prestigious boarding school in the Boston area), I certainly have been a giganto Red Sox fan. The weird thing is, after 2004, everything just felt different. I mean, that run against the Yankees was amazing — maybe one of the best weeks or whatever of my life — but afterwards, things were different. I don’t exactly know why.
From BennyG (in re NERD): What about negative numbers?
A. Before rounding (to fit the 0-10 scale), there actually are nine pitchers currently sporting NERD scores below zero. They are, in order of “best” to worst:
David Hernandez
Joe Saunders
Dana Eveland
Todd Wellemeyer
Brian Burres
Oliver Perez
Carlos Monasterios
Ryan Rowland-Smith
Ian Snell
Yes, that’s right: Rowland-Smith and Snell have been worst by NERD standards.
From MKT: The NERD scale seems to consist solely of integers from 0 to 10… Worse, there’s a hint that the variables which go into the scale are being added as integers (Felix getting a 1 point bonus).
A. Actually, NERD is calculated primarily using weighted z-scores (i.e. standard deviations from the mean) for its components. So, like, let’s look at Felix. Felix has an xFIP that is 1.18 standard deviations better than the mean. Because overall quality of pitcher is important, we double that score. Felix has a swinging-strike rate that’s about one standard deviation above the mean and strike rate (as percentage of all pitches) about a half of a standard deviation above the mean. Because those things are relatively less important than xFIP, we halve each of those. His velocity is about 1.3 standard deviations above the mean, so we add that to the mix. And then, finally, there’s his age. The average age of the pitchers who qualify is 28 and the standard deviation is about 4 years — which, that’s why Felix gets the one-point bonus for age, because he’s 24 years old. After that, you just add a constant (about four), and you got your NERD!
_ _ _
III. A BRIEF CORRESPONDENCE
Last week your fearless captain, Dave Cameron, prefaced my inaugural post here at USSM with some kind words. I was compelled to recognize his gesture. Below is the correspondence that ensued.
From: Carson Cistulli
Sent: Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:06 PM
To: David Cameron
Subject: USSM PostThanks for the kinds words. It means alot.
From: David Cameron
Sent: Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:07 PM
To: Carson Cistulli
Subject: USSM PostThe words weren’t that kind. I said you had a unique voice. So does Fran Drescher.
Note: Dave Cameron is a huge jerkface.
_ _ _
IV. SOME SUPER-DEEP PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONINGS
If you’re familiar with my work over at FanGraphs, you’re aware that Carson Cistulli is the sort of guy who asks the big questions. Questions like: What are we doing here? What does it all mean? Where’d that strange rash come from?
Well, one of the questions I’ve been asking myself recently is, What can a neutral supporter like myself — a man who feels no allegiance to any one team — what can I offer to a community that cares deeply about a single baseballing club?
It’s caused me a little grief, this — for a couple reasons. For one, I respect Dave a lot (and DMZ and the other guys who currently man the site), and I’d prefer not to disappoint him/them. For two — and as I mentioned in last week’s post — I respect the community you, the readers, have helped foster here, and I’d prefer not just to barge in and tear up the place. And for three, I’m getting paid a lot, a lot of money to write these weekly posts, and I don’t want to screw it up.
As an answer, let me say: I don’t know what the exact answer is to this question, but I have one idea.
My day job for the past six or so years has been as a writing instructor (teaching college writing, composition, or whatever else you wanna call it). Just as in sabermetrics, one of the things we writing instructors emphasize is the value of process over product, and part of the writing process is peer editing. Here’s how I explain it to my students: “When you write a text, you get very close to it — so close that it’s hard to really see the text anymore. The value of peer review, beyond copyediting or whatever, is to get a second pair of eyes on the text in question. The second party, coming to the text anew, might be able to see a glaring issue that just invisible to the author. That’s an important thing to have.”
It’s possible that reading the occasional dispatch from a disinterested (not uninterested, which’d be different) party might be a little like receiving peer review. I’ll presume that most readers of USSM are “close” to the Mariners — meaning, they (you) are exceedingly familiar with the various narratives, anxieties, etc. surrounding the club. Of course, I’m not immune to these narrative threads — like, I know that everyone is kinda sick of Mike Sweeney and know Brandon League should throw way more splitters — but there’s a good chance I don’t feel these issues as immediately.
So, uh, that might be a good reason for me to be here. That and all the white-hot prose.
_ _ _
V. TOTALLY SUPERFLUOUS FIFTH PART
Having five parts is a lot more pleasant, aesthetically speaking, than having just four, even if the fifth part is almost entirely meaningless. This may not have anything to do with baseball, per se, but it’s definitely something to remember.
Cliff Lee Appreciation Thread
86 2/3 innings pitched, 4 walks, 76 strikeouts. Are you kidding?
This guy is amazing.
Michael Pineda’s AAA Debut
With all the talk of the imminent trade of Cliff Lee, M’s fans need some good news – some hope.
Well, hope’s taking the hill for the Tacoma Rainiers tonight. Michael Pineda faces off against the Salt Lake Bees tonight at 7, and you can switch over to the audio on 850am or pick up the live stream at the Rainiers’ website.
Jay and I are in Tacoma, and will keep this updated with notes and photos. This season hasn’t gone how we wanted, but I’m still really happy to say that the M’s system has Cliff Lee and Michael Pineda pitching on the same night. Enjoy this.
–Update, 7:04 —
Pineda’s through one inning with two weak grounders and a strikeout of lefty Michael Ryan. He worked at 94-95 with a slow slider at 82. Mostly FBs. All systems go.
Peter Bourjos, an Angels prospect, led off tonight. He was also the lead-off man in Cliff Lee’s rehab start. Poor guy must have a really skewed idea of the Rainiers (although he torched the non-demi god portion of the R’s rotation in Salt Lake earlier).
And he’s through 2 IP, with two pop-ups, one more weak grounder. Lots and lots of the mid-90s FB. Hoping to see more of his offspeed stuff later.
–Update 7:26–
Meanwhile, a Greg Halman broken-bat single plates David Winfree, and it’s 1-0.
Game 71, Cubs at Mariners
Wells vs Lee, 7:10 pm.
At this point, it’s probably wise to treat every start by Lee as if it could be his last as a Mariner. We’re five weeks from the trade deadline and the team is still 13 games out of first place, even with the recent winning streak. Every start Lee makes for Seattle is one he can’t make for a contender, and the offers are likely to be better now than they may be in a month. Remember, the Indians traded CC Sabathia on July 7th two years ago for that very reason. Maybe Lee makes his scheduled start next Tuesday against the Yankees, but if this weekend goes badly and some team offers Jack a deal worth making, maybe not. Take advantage of watching him pitch while you can – he won’t be here much longer.
Ichiro, RF
Figgins, 2B
Bradley, DH
Lopez, 3B
Gutierrez, CF
Josh Wilson, SS
Kotchman, 1B
Johnson, C
Saunders, LF
In The Interest Of Fairness
During Jarrod Washburn‘s tenure as a Mariner, we spent a lot of time talking about him. Way too much for my taste, but he was something of a lightning rod, especially last year, as he became the biggest beneficiary of the Mariners decision to build a great defensive team. While people wanted to chalk up his improved ERA to “the Dolphin” or some other magical ability to get people to hit the ball right at his defenders, we staunchly stood our ground and said that he couldn’t possibly sustain his ERA with the way he was pitching. The low strikeout/high flyball combination can look good for a while, when the ball is staying in the park and fielders are running them down in the gaps, but it’s not the recipe for long term sustained high level success.
So, since we wrote that about Washburn, it’s only equitable that we write the same about Jason Vargas. Vargas is far easier to root for than Washburn, considering he doesn’t eat up a huge chunk of our payroll and complain publicly about his catcher, but in reality, they’re basically the exact same pitcher. As David Golebiewski wrote on FanGraphs the other day, it’s eerie how similar Washburn’s 2009 and Vargas’ 2010 seasons are. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same pitcher.
So, yes, Vargas was exceptional last night, and he’s had a fantastic run to start the season. Yes, he’s a perfect fit for the Mariners, given how his skills line-up with Safeco Field and the roster the M’s have put together. And considering that he’s still both young and cheap, the Mariners should pencil him into their rotation for the next several years. But, as we warned with Washburn a year ago, this ERA won’t last. It is built on a foundation of a .259 BABIP and a 4.9% HR/FB rate, both of which are among the lowest in the league and generally have very little predictive ability.
Even factoring in Safeco and the outfield defense, the best we can hope for from Vargas is a 4.00ish ERA going forward. That still makes him an asset, but he hasn’t turned a magical corner and become a front line starter.
Game 70, Cubs at Mariners
Dempster vs Vargas, 7:10 pm.
Since the line-up was posted on Twitter, I’ve gotten a few questions about why Jack Wilson is back at shortstop. The answer is actually pretty simple – he’s better than Josh Wilson. Yes, I know, Josh has gotten some hits and played decently in Jack’s absence, but keep in mind that he’s a career .242/.298/.344 hitter in 700 major league plate appearances, and he wasn’t much better than that in the minors. He had a nice hot streak thanks to some balls finding holes, but he is what he is a – a bench player. Jack Wilson is better than Josh Wilson, and when he’s healthy enough to play, he should spend most of the time at shortstop.
There’s also the argument to be made that the M’s should be trying to get out of the second year of Wilson’s contract by dealing him to a contender looking to patch a hole up the middle. It will be hard to convince teams to take Wilson’s $5 million contract for 2011 if they don’t get to see him play regularly, and the M’s may decide that they are best served going another (healthier) direction at the position and spend the money they would save somewhere else. If this is something they’re considering, than they need Jack Wilson to play often and play well.
There’s no reason for Jack Wilson to not be in the line-up on most days. Don’t overreact to a slight increase in batting average over six weeks of playing time.
Ichiro, RF
Figgins, 2B Josh Wilson, 2B
Bradley, DH
Lopez, 3B
Gutierrez, CF
Carp, 1B
Alfonso, C
Jack Wilson, SS
Saunders, LF
Sweet Lou and Fiery Managers
After the 2002 season, the Mariners and Lou Piniella parted ways in a strange fashion – the M’s traded him to the Rays (with Antonio Perez) for Randy Winn. You don’t see managers get traded very often, but he had market value even though he didn’t want to manage this franchise anymore. Since Piniella left, the team has run through a handful of replacements, none of whom have had much success, and all of whom fell short when measured up against Piniella’s charisma and goodwill with the fans. Because he yelled a lot and the team won while he was here, fans grew quite attached to Lou, and it is still quite common to hear people talk about how Wak needs to be more like Piniella and “show some fire” or some such thing.
I wonder if any of the people who think Piniella is a managerial genius are aware that he’s 496 and 542 since leaving Seattle, good for a .478 winning percentage? He’s now in his 7th season since taking off for greener pastures, and he’s finished last as often as he’s finished first. He wasn’t able to turn the Rays into anything while he was there, and he’s now in charge of yet another massively disappointing Cubs team.
The fact of the matter is that Piniella, like pretty much every other manager on earth, wins with teams that have talent and loses with teams that don’t. He doesn’t get more out of his players than anyone else. He doesn’t inspire his men to greatness. He doesn’t make brilliant tactical decisions or teach bad players how to become good ones. Right now, in fact, he’s making a debacle of the Cubs catching situation by benching Geovany Soto (who is really good) in favor of Koyie Hill (who is really bad).
I get that people love to watch Lou Piniella because he’s entertaining. I get that the media loves him because he’s a fantastic post-game quote. He’s an affable, charismatic guy, but that doesn’t make him a great leader. Between the two guys running the clubs at Safeco over the next three days, I would much rather have the guy in our dugout than in theirs. Wak doesn’t need to be like Lou, because he’s not that kind of guy, and because Lou Piniella just isn’t that good of a manager to begin with.
Leadership
Mike Salk is a co-host of Brock and Salk, which you can listen to weekdays beginning at 11 am on ESPN Radio 710. We’ve agreed to contribute to each other’s sites this year, and he brings a perspective to the game that we don’t generally write about.
When the Mariners decided to call a players only team meeting last week, it got me thinking about the importance of leadership. It may be the hardest trait to quantify. There is definitely no stat for it. It’s a label that gets applied typically to veterans, disproportionally to Caucasians, and usually to guys that hustle and speak well to the media. But that doesn’t mean we label the right guys.
So… who are baseball’s leaders? What to they do to help a team? And, why is leadership so different in baseball?
To start with, it seems to come in three forms.
-Quiet leadership by example.
-Vocal leadership in front of the team (team meetings)
-Vocal leadership behind the scenes, where the leader pulls another player aside for a quick talk.
The quiet leadership is easy to spot but harder to accept by those outside the clubhouse. Teammates point to Ichiro and Franklin Gutierrez as “leaders” because they arrive early to the park and conduct their business the right way.
“You see a lot more guys who lead by example,” explains Ryan Langerhans. “It’s much tougher to be a vocal leader. But Guti is a good example of a quiet guy who leads by example. He is always prepared. Always. He knows how to play this game the right way.”
That’s fine, but does it help a team through a tough spot? Does it help a young player eliminate mistakes or correct bad behavior? Does it offer encouragement when someone needs it?
That often takes a vocal leader, which are a lot tougher to fjind. That’s partly because it takes a certain type of personality to lead, but also because the culture of baseball tends to try to silence players. I figured players were reluctant to speak up because of a fear of standing out, but Josh Wilson explained it much more clearly.
“It’s maybe a little tougher to lead vocally in this league because it’s a game of failure,” reasons Wilson. “It’s hard for guys to stand up in front of their teammates and say ‘do better,’ especially when they know they could be in a slump next. The ups and downs make it so hard. And you have the split between the pitchers and hitters – guys don’t want to start blaming anyone or else the finger could get pointed right back at them. It’s real tough to play the blame game in this sport.”
That seems to be the central problem with leading in baseball and why it’s so hard to find a truly great leader. Football, basketball and most other team sports have an accepted level of consistency. Good players can, for the most part, play at a similar level throughout a season. Even more, their level of play can often be traced directly to their in-game hustle or pre-game preparation.
But baseball has slumps. Slumps unlike any other sport. And if you happen to be in a trough rather than a peak, it can be very tough to feel like a productive member of the team, let alone an authority figure.
It’s almost as if baseball players are too self-conscious to stand up in front of their peers.
But there are guys who have been through it before and know that someone needs to pass on words of encouragement or advice to the younger players. That’s why many leaders simply take a teammate aside for a quick conversation.
“Being vocal isn’t always about speaking at a team meeting,” offers Langerhans. “Often it’s just pulling a young player aside for some advice. Sometimes it’s baseball related, sometimes it’s how to deal with management, or the media or whatever.”
Ah, the media.
Baseball players worry about the media so much I sometimes wonder if they would need all the leadership if they could simply play without us buzzing around them.
“Having a leader is even more important now in the era of the 24 hour news cycle,” according to bullpen coach John Wetteland. “Guys have to know that they’re protected. In an era in which anyone with an opinion can say whatever they want and have access to an audience, there is something even more than a microscope. Guys need a safe place and a good leader can help foster that.”
—
Ask a few Mariners about leaders they’ve been around and some of the names won’t surprise you. Coming up in the Florida system, Vargas was immediately exposed to a trio of young leaders when he first came up to the big leagues and was confronted with Josh Beckett, AJ Burnett and Dontrelle Willis. He says all three commanded respect and were excellent resources for all of his questions.
“The most important thing about leadership on a team is having veteran guys to ask questions of,” he says. And all three helped in some way. Being around Beckett myself, I would guess his advice was dripping with sarcasm and more than a little cynicism. But the best advice Vargas got was from Willis who warned him, “Don’t be nice! Not on the mound.”
Wilson has been in six organizations and can point to a handful of guys. Todd Helton stands out to him as does Mike Sweeney, Todd Jones and Mike Lowell. Langerhans came up with Atlanta where I expected veteran Chipper Jones to run the clubhouse, but he mentions John Smoltz as the true leader of that team at the time.
Going back a little deeper, Wetteland points to Kirk Gibson as one of the best leaders.
“Gibby was a great leader because although he was purposeful, he also kept it fun,” remembers the quirky Wetteland. “Those lemonsuckers get tiresome over 162 games. There is a time and a place for being serious, but you have to have some fun in this game or you’ll go nuts.”
And here we are back to the nature of baseball. It wasn’t a goal of mine to prove that baseball is different from other sports but the theme seems to be carrying over from my last piece to this one. Because baseball is played every day with lots of downtime and even more travel, chemistry becomes more relevant than in other sports. Because baseball is a game built around dealing with failure, you need leaders who can help you through the bad times.
—
I was the first to scoff at the Mariners team meeting last week. It seemed like it was too little, too late. I wondered why any young player would possibly buy in when it was being conducted by a pitcher about to be traded, an infielder who had just complained about being dropped to ninth after not producing, and an outfielder who had abandoned his team just a month earlier.
I stand by comments. But maybe I missed one aspect.
“Team meetings are to make sure everyone still cares,” Josh Wilson explained to me. “I’ve been on teams where at the end of a long year where we are way out of it, people just play for themselves and their own stats. Guys get selfish. We don’t want to be that team – especially not now. Not this early.”
It’s about staying together and playing hard even when you’re out of it.
“And staying together and gutting out the end of a year can have a good positive effect on the next season. If you know that as a core team you fought together and battled and refused to give up, it really does help.”
I don’t know if Wilson is right. I don’t know if it caries over to next year. But it doesn’t really matter what I think. If the players believe it helps, then it will help. And if there is any chance that it has a positive effect on the team, then it was probably worth everyone’s time.
I just wish they had tried it a little sooner.