Hey Geoff:

Football Outsiders is a website that deals with statistical analysis of football - basically sabermetrics for football.

Also, the poster you cited from Lookout Landing talking about Football Outsiders was John Morgan, who runs FieldGulls - a Seahawks blog site, basically the football version of Lookout Landing. IMO he provides top-notch analysis and features some great write ups on his site, especially during the season. I'd encourage anyone who wants to learn more about football to go there - it's very informative...even if you're not a stat-head.

Geoff,
Why? Why did you bring this up again? :)
As interesting as this might be to talk about, there is no right answer. There are so many variables, as you pointed out, that to try to reduce a season to metrics or Pythag is just a dog chasing its tail.
Numbers can be turned around to benefit almost any side. However, if it makes the kids happy, that's fine with me.
I did want to ask you one question I brought up on the last thread.
I think guys like McClaren are extremely loyal to the vets like Sexson, but if Richie is hitting .215 for the first three months and it's pretty clear we're headed for another repeat, do you think he would have the guts to sit Sexson and put Vidro or Ibanez at first, thus opening the door for guys like Clement (dh) or Balentien (lf) to get a shot at the everyday lineup?
I'll hang up and listen.

What about the stats that show that teams outperforming their Pythag one year are likely to do so again the following season?

Geoff, I'd like more info on this. LL's chart in the probability thread shows the opposite, that there is no correlation (R^2=.01).

I'm not a slavish devotee to the Pythag (I'm assuming it's done at a 95% confidence level, which means it should reflect reality (within the +/-3 margin of error) 95% of the time. But I do think it's extremely useful as a starting point. Like most baseball stats, it's more predictive for a large group than any one individual season.

Besides, it makes intuitive sense to me that it's a whole lot easier to win games if you score more runs than your opponent.

I would so no, McLaren wouldn't have the guts to sit the vets for the kids. He's on a one year contract (supposively like Bavasi) and is gone if the team does terrible this year. He needs to WIN NOW, and no matter how much we can argue who would perform better (Sexson/Vidro vs Balentien/Clement etc), John will side with the vets thinking they have the better chance of putting up better stats. For the love of God I hope they don't pull another Melvin and give him an extension in the middle of a 7 game losing streak to say his job is secure then dump him a month later and eat the $750,000 contrcat for 2009 (or whatever we're paying him).

It also makes intuitive sense that a team will win if its pitching can hold the other team to fewer runs than the offense scores.
See what I mean about a dog chasing its tail?

First, if you haven't seen "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead," you really should. Its first minutes deal with the protagonists' attempt at grasping probability. (I never thought of it as a baseball movie before now!) This is just the first of many scientific principles they observe but never quite understand.

Second, it is undeniable that predictions can be made within a range, and with a percentage of probability. But never with certainty. We need ever to keep in mind that statistics result from games being played, they do not determine the outcome of games being played. Stats result from games; games don't result from stats. Simple, obvious, and often lost sight of in stathead discussions.

String enough of those games together, and they still can be those nine heads in ten tosses (like that 2001 Mariners season, for example). The stats are right much of the time, but fortunately not always. What a dull season that would make!

Roundtable discussion on Hardball times about the trade
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/tht-round-table-erik-bedard/

Actually covers the main points of both sides fairly well.

In regards to defense, Ibanez's defense has been measured as bad to such a degree, by many metrics, that he'd have to rated as below-average at least.

If we make the playoffs I think we actually have a good chance to go far, given the great pitching and good bullpen (although less so without Sherrill).

Our offense though really makes too many outs.

Hi Geoff,

I wrote that post, and I tried to stress that a set of baseball games is a much trickier proposition than a coin flip - I was just using the little story to try, as you said, to illustrate a disconnect between mentalities.

Perhaps I should have elaborated on this line further:

"No, things are never going to be as simple as a coin toss - these are athletes playing a sport, not random numbers dancing around a spreadsheet - but that's not a prohibitive barrier with all the research that goes on these days."

Everyone does projections, even if it's subconcious most of the time. The conventional wisdom approach can be boiled down to a set of rules that predict, with rough accuracy, what will come about. And it's not like these are terrible tools - if they were, someone would have noticed and it would no longer be considered wisdom. How accurate is this approach? I have no idea, really - but I can't imagine it's very high, as baseball is an incredibly complicated game, almost by definition difficult to predict.

Call the accuracy of this approach 'x', if you will.

I'm of the belief that if all the sabremetric analysis in the world can build on this, and increase it by even a fractional amount, it's a worthwhile endeavour. Furthermore, I don't see how it would be possible to get worse at predicting outcomes by using a more numbers-oriented approach, because the stats-crowd (which I'll claim to be part of for now) doesn't just make things up, but applies the scientific method to baseball on top of what's already widely known. Can we improve x by looking at the numbers? Almost certainly, I would argue, even if that improvement might be tiny.

Anyway, that aside, you seem to have picked up on the spirit of my post - I believe that arguing the outcomes of a prediction is futile, and wht should instead be debated are the mechanisms and assumptions that went into generating said prediction. It's a much trickier proposition than just waiting to see who's right or wrong, of course, but for my money it's the only sensible approach.

Personally, I think we play the game to see if the Mariners can defy probability - that doesn't mean the odds weren't set in the right place to start with, though. And it would be very boring if the M's stuck to some script laid out for them. But they won't, and that's awesome.

Cheers.

Arguing about specific instances (like the super bowl) doesn't help either side.

Here's the thing. Any theory needs to be falsifiable, including Football Outsider's analysis. The quote above taken by itself implies that there's no way to disagree with FO. If that's the case, then FO isn't a theory, it's a religion.

But the flip side of that is that one instance of FO's analysis being wrong doesn't prove their whole system false. The question is this: does a given system have predictive value in the long run? What's it's track record? If FO can beat another system (say, the Vegas odds) more often than not, then even if they're fantastically wrong sometimes, you can conclude that, overall, their system is better.

The problem with the back-and-forth '08 M's analysis is that it's been arguing about a specific case. Anything can happen in a specific case. It's true that if the M's win it all in '08, that won't prove that the USS Mariner is always wrong. Likewise, if they tank it won't prove that USSM is always right.

We should be looking, historically, at who has the best track record of predicting seasons. That's the system we should be taking seriously.

With a stats-based system it's easy to go back in time and run predictions for each season in history. Not so much for other types of analysis. That's one of the reason why stats-based analysis is so appealing.

I'll take my Pocket Aces (Bedard & Hernandez) and risk a bad beat (an occasional poor outfield defensive play) any day!!

1. Looks like the tone and quality of the debate is rising quickly. Kewl. Geoff deserves it.

2. At D-O-V we're as heavily into probability theory and Gaussian distributions as the next blog :- ) ...

2. And where Graham's argument is in the spirit of "don't get too cocky about what you know and what you don't know," he is using probability wisely...

3. But the history of the Seattle blog-o-sphere (LL excepted) however is more along the lines of "I was right -- whatever happened. And I'll be right about the M's needing to bail on the 2008 season -- even if they win 100 games." In this case, the use of probability theory to justify circular reasoning is a logical abomination.

.................

4. As many of you know, SABRMatt (at D-O-V) has published an improved version of the Pythagorean formula that (a) adjusts for blowouts, and (b) correlates with actual W/L's better than Pythag does.

His formula strongly suggests that the 2007 M's "deserved" a record of 87-75, not the 78-81 wins that everybody has been preaching with so much gusto all winter. The 2007 M's happen to have performed terribly in blowouts -- but eliminate the 46 blowout games in which they had a 23-23 record, but a huge negative run differential, and you see a very interesting picture of a team that DID "deserve" its 88-win season in 2007.

It's not clear to me why, if Pythag is going to get so much play, that Matt's additional information on that is being studiously ignored. ;- )

Cheers,
Jeff (& Matt)

... and, BTW, in the post above we mean "adjust for" or "normalize" the tendency to lose 13-2, but win 8-3, not "eliminate" those games.

Matt has published the explanation for, and the evidince for, his improved version of Pythag. And the fact that it happens to also predict *the 2007 Mariners themselves* should be very interesting to anybody who has been focusing on the 2007 run differential.

..................

From a standpoint of "that's why they play the games" .... none of us watched a 78-win team out there last year. We all know, as tools scouts, that the 2007 Mariners were a whale of a lot tougher than that. :- )

Geoff makes an interesting point about Ibanez's D not necessarily costing the team runs or even wins. But I would argue than when we evaluate his offensive contribution we give just as much credit for his meaningless home run in a 5 run loss as we do any other. Shouldn't the same standard hold for fielding?

And though Geoff watched more Ibanez chances than me, I seem to remember a whole lot of balls that I thought someone swifter would have gotten to.

Merrill and I have mused over fielding metrics and I give them more validity than him primarily because successful major league teams are using them but I do admit it would be interesting to see plays in zone not made by, say, Ibanez and let my own lyin' eyes take a look.

Gee, it's fun to read and post before sunset. I may try this more often.

John, I wasn't trying to imply any specific way to get to scoring more than opponents. Better pitching is certainly one that I would include. I was just addressing the raw runs scored/runs against aspect.

I've seen a lot of non-numbers people make fun of the pythag, but not many of them have conceded that the theory of scoring of more runs than your opponent is a good one. Absolutely, there are aberrations like the Dbacks, but over time, I'm not sure you can win many championships that way. Haven't done any research on it, though, so I could be wrong.

A lot of posters have said the M's have to get to the Series to be a success. I'd be interested in knowing how often that happens with a team that allows more runs than it scores.

And for all the arguing over whether the M's were a 79, 82, or 88 win team last year, the bottom line was that, in September, we weren't in serious contention for a playoff spot. Whether you use all scouting, all metrics, all intuition, or something combining the 3 of them (which is what I would recommend), I don't see how the M's are a favorite to get to the playoffs this year.

Thanks to Graham for posting here. He's one of my favs at other sites. What he said sums it all up for me. I want to use my logic to try to forecast what I think will be reasonable. But then, as he says, Personally, I think we play the game to see if the Mariners can defy probability - that doesn't mean the odds weren't set in the right place to start with, though. And it would be very boring if the M's stuck to some script laid out for them. But they won't, and that's awesome.

To understand how statistics works, consider the probility of ONE coin flip - it will be either heads or tails, 50%. So with one flip, since it didn't land on its edge, we can conclude that statistics don't work (adequately).

Geoff,

I'll agree it's not a straight coin-flip analysis, but here's the thing. What you ignore is the fact that poor talent evaluation and improper player usage is employed all the time by this team. If bad analysis is employed 10 times, at least some number of those moves are bound to turn out ok. Does that make the methodology that lead to it valid, or preferrable? Absolutely not. And that's where there is a disconnect with what you are saying and the objective situation. It's not a coincidence when the poor evaluation leads to a bust in the case of the M's.

You should be asking whether or not the reasons for and means employed to achieve the team's moves make sense and increase or reduce the chances of success. You point out how one move or another worked out to support your points, but neglect the why and how. In fact that's your whole argument about the season - let's see who is right when the games are played. But that's the wrong way to look at it since you are reviewing it in hindsight pretending that the "how" is irrelevant. But a championship team is built before the season (with some tweaking along the way). Yes a one-hit wonder team can emerge with bad talent evaluation and line-up usage, but why hamper your chances that way? And why not seek to build a team that can annually compete? Why not advocate for smart moves that increase your chances of success in the long-term. Some approaches are better than others, and you can't ignore that. I think it would help for you to explain why you think a HoRam-type deal makes sense. Or how Rick White and friends were moves that were really going to do anything (did you look at their stats, or see their previous gas can performances?), or how the package sent for Vidro plus price paid for him relative to other options made sense, given the fact that this team needs an actual DH and not a pretender?

Go through the moves, and not just the Bedard move (that loses a 6-year bargain with solid skills, a top set up guy, and promising pitching prospects for two years of a pitcher with a health history). Talk about any trade but that one if you like. I think if you go move by move, you'll see that - over the long run, and with the exception of no-brainers like Ichiro and Beltre (I'd argue) - that there is something a bit off about how this team looks at talent, and those who (in your opinion) rely too heavily on stats tend to be right more often than not about the probability. These aren't mistakes.

As for defense, please read these:

http://actasports.com/detail.html?session=96d8eec78d65c7fa9d24ec8660746da0&id=0-87946-297-3

http://ussmariner.com/2006/01/24/evaluating-defense/

They should at least give you something to think about. You can argue all you want about Raul not costing us runs with his defense - I watched nearly every game last year too and disagree. The defensive measures agree with me and not you. But that's besides the point. A smart team sacrifices positional defense only when the offensive production outweighs the defensive downgrade (and they shouldn't do it in both corners). Raul was streaky last year, and is not an amazing hitter when we look at what he costs us defensively. You deal with Manny Ramirez's defensive wanderings because of his big bat. I am not sure why a smart team would sacrifice the defense in the outfield for the hitting Ibanez provides. He's a reasonable risk at DH, though.

Geoff---Since you are writing about probabilites, I have a question. First, the general disagreement about the Bedard trade seems to have centered on the chances of the Ms winning now. If I might paraphrase the pro-trade side, "Bedard puts us either over the top or neck and neck with the Angels."

If I thought Bedard gave us a 50-50 shot I'd have been willing to swallow hard and make the trade. Obviously I don't and I don't think you do either because you are still picking Anaheim to win the division.

So what do you think the Ms chances are and would you have supported the trade if you thought the odds were even longer? I guess I want to know where you would draw the "probability" line. 10%? 20%? 30%? 40%? 49%?

Other pro-traders (and anti-traders too) feel free to weigh in.

Again, Mike, who gets to define a worthwhile season?

Who got to assume that % chance of winning the division is the correct definition of a worthwhile season?

My definition is, "being in the fight." If the Mariners are in striking distance when they go to LAA for a 4-gamer on Sept. 11, and have Bedard game 1 and Felix game 2 ... will they have to actually win that series (and the division) for the season to have been worthwhile?

Would losing the Sept. 11-14 games mean that the April-August games were not enjoyable?

Was the 1995 Mariners' run pointless, because it had almost no chance to succeed? Was the 2005 Seahawks' season pointless because they lost?

My vote is that a SINCERE AND INTERESTING FIGHT for supremacy is the essence of a pennant race. But who gets to define success here?

Dr D---So it sounds like you think the trade was worthwhile if it puts us in the race. I would personally set the bar higher because of all we gave up but your point is valid. Who doesn't love the exhiliration and agony of a real race?

Here's the problem I have with the anti-traders:
If Seattle makes the playoffs in 2008 or 2009, which I would suggest is the threshold for this being a successful trade, I can 98.6% guarantee (there's my statistical analysis) that you will not admit to there being anything wrong with the statistical analysis you've done that you say point to this trade being a bad deal.
You'll just say it was an anomaly.
And the dog is getting dizzy.

I thought they played the games to make money.

Branch Rickey famously said that luck is the residue of design. If you're going to run Ibanez out there in left, you had better hope to get lucky enough times to offset his misplays. Get those double play grounders, or get him to knock in a run to make up for the ones he blows in the field.

But you need the design to produce that luck. As much as I look forward to Bedard every fifth day, it's the 3 back-end rotation guys whose starts terrify me; the team did nothing to design better to support those guys, meaning get better on defense and on offense. Our outfield defense is not going to be better than last year, and with an aging Raul out there it's likely to be worse. The spacious outfield at Safeco requires a speedy, skilled outfield across the board; we have one of three. Not enough.

Good argument. There's always the old saw that "there are 3 types of lies: 1) Lies, 2) Damn lies, and 3) statistics" I think that in some ways, the starting point gets picked depending on the point that the author is trying to make. Doesn't make it wrong, that's just human nature. Pre-sabermetrics, I would probably be more excited about the rotation than I am now. Again, that's not a bad thing. Blind optimism is also no way to go through life!
After all, who has built better lineups on paper than the Yankees and Red Sox over the last few years? Titles since 2000 (2). The A's are the 'sabermetric kings'...and they have one playoff series win to show for it? Now granted, they have overachieved within the framework of total salary, but ultimate success of a team rides on so many other factors. Each player taken on his own can be looked at, but to drag out another old saying, 'when you dissect a cat, you have blood, and guts, and fur, but you don't have a cat'.

Finally, we laud Bob Fontaine for his job with the draft and talent development. Isn't it realistic to think that he had some input with Bill Bavasi on the trade package? That in the new Mariner talent development/acquisition framework, what was valued by the old guard isn't so anymore? That in their judgement, the youngsters we kept are the future? And I'd like to see what John Mclaren does this year. I don't think he had a fair shot at it last year, it wasn't his clubhouse. Now it is. His coaches, his clubhouse. Let's play ball!

John, you picked a point for the anti-traders to have to confess their errors. I'm curious about at what point the pro-traders have to 'fess up.

"you will not admit to there being anything wrong with the statistical analysis you've done that you say point to this trade being a bad deal."

A single outcome isn't enough to say that an analytical system is wrong, ie see the 9/10 heads coin-flip analogy. Now if the upcoming two years has these elements I'll see that the pro-traders had a point.

1) Bedard is wicked good and doesn't get hurt

2) Our contact pitchers' (Washburn, Batista, Silva) ERAs don't suck, ie our defense isn't bad enough to really hurt them

3) AJ sucks (although realistically he'd have to suck for the next 6 years or at least just be average)

4) Bedard signs a reasonable extension, perhaps due to liking Seattle, the FO, whatever. In other words the trade made him more likely to sign here for not an outrageous price.

Geoff - I appreciated your analysis today. For me, one important pro-trade factor is hope. I now have real hope that the M's will have a good year, that the September games will really mean something, and that making the playoffs is a real possibility.

There is one factor about the trade that I haven't noticed anyone commenting on. The Angels are the M's primary target. Having Bedard and Felix pitch 40% of the games against the Angels should mean more wins against them (not just more Mariners wins). To me this means that the M's could win 4-5 more games this year than last against the Angels. This prospect alone, gives me plenty of hope for 2008.

I find myself posting these kind of things a lot recently, but here we go again.

Semantics.

This is pointless. We all understand the concepts of probablity and predictive chance, but this is baseball. Things do happen. Fans grab foul balls from the stands. Rallies happen. Emotions swing. A team gets momentum. There is not a single statistic or sensical analysis that could have predicted what happened in 1995, period. Nobody though the Angels would have the biggest collapse in baseball history. Nobody thought the Mariners would have done what they did without Griffey for the majority of the season. Nobody would have thought the Rockies would have caught fire this past year.

There is nothing wrong with the statement "that's why we play the games." Nothing. Jeff's response to that on LL was stupid and condescending, IMO. I didn't find it witty, I found it uncalled for and pointless. I don't feel Geoff has ever used the term "that's why we play the games" to scoff at an actual prediction or numerical value. He's just pointing out that anything can happen, in the most recent case, players assumed healthy falling to pieces. Boom, hit to the rotation. Can't predict that, sabermetrics are worthless when it comes to the randomness of health and everything else. I love stats as much as the next guy, and baseball lends itself to statistical analysis more than any other sport.

But, at the same time it lends itself more to pure emotion, chance, and momentum just as much as any other sport. Just because it has a large sample size per season doesn't mean performance can't be swayed. I know I'm rambling.

Finally, I just think this whole petty "poke holes in Geoff's statements" things from the other blogs is pretty classless. If you're going to respond to Geoff, be a man about it and say it's in direct response, don't tiptoe around it in a cutesy way.

I'm all for getting Beddard - just not giving up 5 players (as Everett fan said, giving up 5 $5 bills for one $10 bill - by the whay, what happened to EF?).
I think throwing in one of the three prospects would have been more than fair. But, they weren't going to help us this year.
What is going to help us? RF; LF; DH; 2B; 1B - All need improving. If we run the old guys out there and 'expect' them to all have career years, we're in trouble. That's five out of nine with big problems - over 50% for you statiticians.

"If Ibanez allows one double to fall into the gap in left center for a run, but later hits a grand slam and Seattle goes on to win 8-1 in a three-hitter, how badly was the team and pitcher impacted?"

I think this is exactly the sort of post-hoc thinking that the coin flipping example was about.

Maybe through a freak accident of luck Ibanez's defensive lapses didn't actually cost us ANY games last year, but how does that help us predict what's going to happen next year? Is there any reason to think he's going to hit a grand slam following every double he lets drop?

I don't know how to measure the relative value of defense, and if you want to argue that defense doesn't make much of a difference then maybe you have a point. But if defense matters then it matters.

Weebs

I think you are wrong about the influence of the other Seattle blog's. The advent of the blog's has given a voice to others besides the newspaper reporter. Prior to the blogs, the reporter's could submit trash and not be openly critiqued. No longer (some of them still submit trash but that's another story). I think Geoff would say the other blogs end up making him a better writer. He knows he has to has to submit well thought out arguments or he will get hammered. Is it unfair sometimes? Sure. It goes with the job and I am confident that he has thicker skin than most of the "amateur bloggers" that contribute to this post.

In all honesty, Geoff has one major distinction with the other blog sites (in addition to actually being paid). He has direct communication with the players/coaches/front office. To that end, he has to be a little more careful in what he writes. What's the point of having a newspaper reporter that is 100 percent open with his viewpoint but the players/coaches won't talk to him. He has to walk the line. To that end I think Geoff does a great job.

AKMarinersfan:

No, I get it. Trust me, I went to the blog event with Geoff and I totally get it. I just don't see why those sites have to be so smug and cutesy about it. If you want to criticize somebody, just do it. I appreciate what Geoff does, I don't think I criticized him in the least in my post, and if I did, it was an accident. So I'm not sure what you were getting at with your 2nd paragraph.

I really like the fact we got Bedard finally but I think we need a bat with some pop. I think we sign Barry unleats until he goes to jail. If we had that at dh we could win.

Weebs I think you've got the target of the LL post's criticism wrong. It wasn't Geoff Baker it was criticizing but those who argue that using statistic to project human endeavors is useless because human behavior is unpredictable.

Graham, the author of the post, was making the point that a single outcome does not invalidate probabilistic analyses. And that saying that "we why we play baseball" isn't a good counter-argument to statistics-based baseball analysis.

Geoff-This really doesn't have anything to do with how good we'll be but I'm curious if there have ever been baseball contracts where instead of going up every year actually go down.

For instance:

2007 18 mil, 2008 14 mil, 2009 9 mil

The reason why I bring this up is say we sign Bedard to a 5 year deal but at year three of that deal now Felix is ready for his big contract and now we are paying Bedard like 20 mil a year but now we have to give Felix 20 mil a year. Yet if we gave Bedard more up front it wouldn't kill us when Felix is ready for the big bucks.

Also for instance if we are signing a high risk player to multiple years. We give them a high amount at the first year and less the next few years so that if they suck then it won't cost that much the following years if we have to bench them or something to that effect.

I mean you can still give bedard like 80 mil over 5 years just make it top heavy. Do they do that at all?

Weebs

I think the other Blog's critize Geoff (along with the other reporters) for trying to explain the M's management viewport.

My 2nd paragraph indicates why their is a belief that the other sites "attack" Geoff. If he likes his job he can't share his viewpoint as openly as the the other Blog's do. If he want's to talk to Bavasi (and as painful as it to fans we really do want to hear Bavasi's viewpoint) than he can't continually critize him.

It is obviously that the vast majority of "experts" and "fans" alike do not think that this trade was equitable for the M's. Geoff is just trying to provide a viewpoint of why there is hope, as dim as it might be.

I think people are making way too much out of this corner outfield defense. Granted, Ibanez isn't great. But he's not Manny Ramirez either. He's somewhere in the middle, and his offense, which isn't up to the level of Manny's, isn't that of some spray-hitter .250 guy (Patterson) either. Again, it's somewhere in the middle.
I personally don't think he's "costing" us games out there. To me, this is a case of making metric mountains out of mole hills. It's not as if there are base hits falling every game that other outfielders would be catching. The average corner outfielder makes two to three put-outs a game - hardly worth wringing ones hands over.

To answer Oregongal's question, I would say I answered that question in the same post. :) (No offense. As I stated earlier, my wife's an oregongal, and I like your sense of humor on this blog.) But if Seattle doesn't make the playoffs in 2008 or 2009 AND Jones and Tillman go on to great careers, the trade will have been a dud. I would add one thing, however. If Seattle can extend Bedard, and during his career in Seattle we make it to the playoffs, I would also consider that a successful trade.
I think that's fair.

"It is obvious that the vast majority of "experts" and "fans" alike do not think that this trade was equitable for the M's."

What "experts" are we talking about? All the ones I've seen on ESPN, etc., say this trade puts Seattle in very good position in the AL West.
And for every "fan" who doesn't like this trade, there appears to be a fan who likes it.

I always love it when people we agree with automatically become the "vast majority."

John - Based upon the value that you put on defense I can understand why you think it was a good trade for the M's.

Being sucessful in baseball means having good team balance. That doesn't mean that you have to have the best offense, defense, or pitching but you have to have the best combination of the three. My viewpoint is while the M's have certainly improved their pitching, their offense and defense are seriously lacking to be considered a true contender. That doesn't mean that they can't make the playoffs, it's that their chances of making the playoffs are poorer than other teams.

Geoff has written several times that access to the club has no bearing on what he writes. He said the same thing at the blog event. I take him at his word.

The relationship between the media and a high-profile organization is very complicated. The Mariners have as much to lose by dissing the area's largest newspaper as the Times has to lose dissing the M's. Media coverage is important to a baseball club's bottom line, to get fans in the seats and to get the ancillary gear sold. Even if Geoff published a story calling someone idiotic, the team would still have to deal with him.

I think Geoff's "bias" if there is any, comes from being the beat reporter instead of the columnist. It's his job to report on, not to change, the M's behavior. The blog blurs that line to some extent, but I suspect he has some strongly held opinions that he doesn't think are appropriate for him to put in print in his position.

As far as the blog, my sense is that he tries to keep us centered, not veering too far toward an absolute, no matter what it is.

He's said he wants this to be a place for all baseball fans to congregate and I think he does a pretty good job of it. Anyplace that has both Mr. X and me is pretty inclusive. I do get tired of being told I'm not a baseball fan, and I also get tired of anybody saying they "know" or "can guarantee" that something will happen. We're all guessing here. And if you really do know the future, you should be doing something much more valuable with your time than hanging out at a baseball blog.

If you want to play the "who's better at guessing" game, put down your guess for what the M's are going to do this season, and let us all compare that in November with what actually happens. A few of us have done that already, although I would say wait until after Spring Training to do something more realistic.

On the other hand, if you just want to watch games, I'm with you on that too. It's fun to have a place to come to after a game and talk about Ichiro's catch or Yuni's hit. Or should that be the other way around?

We all just need the season to start so we have something new to talk about.

I guess this rambling entry is why I usually stay away from here during the day.

Seattle finished six games behind Anaheim last season with the same "poor" defense and offense that we go into this season with. The one thing that is vastly improved is our starting pitching. Even you must agree that Bedard and Silva are a big improvement over Weaver and HoRam.
Even if our offense and defense do not improve AT ALL, it is entirely plausible that the better pitching of Bedard and Silva WILL be enough to catch Anaheim.
As has been debated over and over, there are tons of variables - some of which could help Seattle and some of which could hurt Seattle.
As someone who covered minor league baseball for more than a decade as a reporter, believe me, I know the value of having balanced team.
But one other thing I've learned is that it's also good to have a balanced view on our own opinions and how many people agree with us.

John, I didn't mean to sound snarky, but I only saw you mention anti-traders. I honestly wanted your opinion on the pro side, which is actually a little different than just flipping what you originally said. I'm not sure what I would consider the benchmarks for success or failure, so I thought you made an interesting comment. :)

John,

A lot of people think that Raul IS comparable defensively to Manny. You seemed to be making an case of sorts for some sort of inverse relationship between defensive prowess and offensive potency. If that were true then a great fielding plus bat at a corner outfield spot would seem to be an extremely valuable asset.

What's that you say? You know of one? Ooh and he's only 22? Under club control for six more years? Hallelujah our outfield problems are solved!!! Let us all bask in the glorious era of.....

Oh, yeah, right.

Oh well. I do really love Erik Bedard.

Oregongal

"Team Access" and being able to get a decent interview are two different things. If you listen to interviews (and you pay attention to who is doing the interviewing) it is obvious that players respond more openly to some reporters. For example the FOX reporters (very pro team in addition to a large TV contract) get very detailed interviews (albeit very pro-Mariners). Some of the more lowly and/or critical reporters often get the brushoff.

If you don't believe that Geoff column is influenced by the direct contact you are not be very realistic. I don't blame him, we all would be influenced. But its important to understand that distinction when you consider the viewpoint that he has and the viewpoints of the other Blog's (that don't have direct team interaction).

That last comment came out more snarky than I intended. Bad day at work. I am honestly excited about Erik Bedard. I really am. I'm just pained by the king's ransom we gave up. Everyone go about your business.

AK, I appreciate the comment, but I'm sticking with my story. I've had a lot of years of working with the media, sometimes in very heated situations. Granted, there are some individuals who may act like babies, but there will always be Raul or someone like him who understands the dance being played, that the team can use as a bridge until things cool down.

FSN is a special case because of its unique relationship with the team. Neihaus et al are part of the Mariners. But FSN viewers are a niche market (and a lifeline for those of us outside Seattle), and the daily newspaper gets to that average fan that pays the bills.

How about this question...
What are the odds that if you flip 10 coins, that they will actually end up 5 of each?

Gosh, Geoff, you beat me and beat me like a drum. I started reading your post, excited as usual because I like how BS-free your are, if there's such a term, but after six or seven paragraphs, my eyes just glazed over. I guess I'm not as big a baseball fan as the rest of you, and that's okay. No offense intended nor taken. I will say this, though: I can't wait for the games to start so we can talk about the game-winning hit and pitching changes instead of this "if a tree falls in the forest..." stuff. Go M's, and congrats to GB on a killer pick before the Super Bowl.

hawksfan4life,

If you read the link to Graham's post at LL, you'll find that he gives the answer: 24.6% of the time, 10 flips will end up 5 heads, 5 tails.

BTW: you only get 5 and 5 about 24.6 % of the time.

6 and 4 is much more likely. (41%)
It is actually almost just as likely to get 7 and 3 (23.4%) than it is 5 and 5...

:)

I don't need any defensive metrics or any other stats to tell me that our defense suffers with Raul in the outfield. I can just see it. You know how a lot of people, especially the M's announcers, like to say that Yuni may make a lot of errors, but he gets to so many balls that other SS's don't? Well, I think the opposite is true of Raul, but you never hear them say that. I think it's blatantly obvious for everyone to see though.

John, if a corner outfielder has ever averaged 3 put-outs plus assists in a season, I'd be shocked. Ichiro never even recorded 2.5 per game when he played right field for us. The obession that some have over left field defense is embarassing and unwarranted.

"A lot of people think that Raul IS comparable defensively to Manny."

And that has hurt the Red Sox how?

A king's ransom. LOL

Pitchers and catchers in less than 3 days. Thank God.

I'm in your camp, Mr. X. I was just trying to be generous. I watch a lot of baseball, much to my wife's frustration. For 10 years it was my job. And anyone who gets carried away with corner outfield defense clearly needs some better things to be concerned about.
And no, that doesn't mean I discount defense for crying out loud. But good defense is more important in certain areas of the field - up the middle, obviously.
I, frankly, cannot believe this is even a discussion topic. Sure it would be nice to have a corner outfielder who can hit .310 and belt 30 homers and have great defensive speed, but I can't think of very many who currently do all three. AND DON'T SAY ADAM JONES!!!! Until the guy actually does that, you pro-Jonesers need to just hold your peace. If and when he ever does reach those numbers, I'm betting he wouldn't be with the Mariners very long anyway.
By the way, pro-traders, if Adam Jones, Tillman and the rest of the future Hall of Famers we traded away somehow manage to get the Orioles into the playoffs, you will have my full apologies. From the way you guys have deified them, I would expect the Orioles to raking in the Ws in the coming years - blasting right past those Red Sox and Yankees.

"A lot of people think that Raul IS comparable defensively to Manny."

And that has hurt the Red Sox how?

A king's ransom. LOL

----

X - just because the Sox win doesn't mean Manny's defense didn't make them a worse team...

Surely you understand that point.

By the way, pro-traders, if Adam Jones, Tillman and the rest of the future Hall of Famers we traded away somehow manage to get the Orioles into the playoffs, you will have my full apologies. From the way you guys have deified them, I would expect the Orioles to raking in the Ws in the coming years - blasting right past those Red Sox and Yankees.

For crying out loud, John. I try to be very civil and polite in my replies (although I do let X have it a bit more), I'm really struggling to refrain from getting downright rude with your words above.

Please, cite for me just ONE example where anyone even comes close to calling Jones or Tillman or Butler "Hall of Famers." Cite for me one example where anyone calls Jones the next Griffy. Quit relying on this lame-ass straw man.

For the 100th time, the reason the package we gave up for Bedard has value isn't because each is a potential star, but rather because their skill sets, age, cost, and contract status make them valuable to a team - even if they don't turn into superstars. Many fans don't understand the value of such players. This value, coupled with Bedard's relatively short track record, his health concerns, and his contract status, make the deal a win for the Orioles.

So, unless you've got a quote calling these kids Hall of Famers, drop it. And don't give me this crap that you were just making a point, because all it does is make your straw man even weaker.

The probability of the outcome wasn't the cruz of Graham's argument. The idea is that an outcome that goes against the probability doesn't discount the validity of the probability.

Flying in an airplane is a safer mode of transportation than driving a car. If I die in a plane crash, that doesn't affect that validity of the previous statement in any way.