At least we can say we aren't the worst team in baseball still. We're not even the worst in the AL (by record). Detroit has a worse record. I'd say they have something seriously going wrong there if they're that bad so far... they certainly have hitting and they should have pitching... let's hope we keep them in the cellar this week. Funny how we have back to back series against the league-worst records.

Here's to minor vicorties!

For those of you that care, Derek Zumsteg wrote up an excellent piece last night regarding team 'chemistry' last night on USS Mariner.

http://ussmariner.com/2008/05/19/evaluating-chemistry/

Once in my life I'd like someone to say "This team has great chemistry and we're going to win because of that" before they started playing.

Chris Antonetti could come in next season and the team could be just as bad as its been this year. But it won't be because he keeps on thinking Vidro is a major-league hitter or that Ibanez's defense doesn't hurt the team.

I don't know of any system that predicted they would be this bad.

Well, PECOTA had the Mariners at 73-89 before the season started. That doesn't seem that far off...

Wow, I don't log in for a few hours and I miss all the vitriol aimed at Geoff.

Actually, I don't miss that. Keep up the good work, Geoff!

Boo hoo. You cover a baseball team for a living. Grow a pair.

Who runs to the blogs when things are good?

eternal - And what did PECOTA say the Tigers were going to do?

My point is, most experts, or statistical systems, had the Tigers at least winning the division if not the entire A.L. Most experts had the Mariners finishing no lower than 2nd in the A.L. West. Many had them winning the West outright.

This series is a great example of two teams that have drastically underperformed. Why that has happened is open for public debate.

We knew the Mariners was going to struggle to replace Guillen's RBIs. But that alone doesn't explain the total lack of offense seen this year. We knew the defense wasn't great last year, but it's far worse this year, with no clear explanation why. We knew the bullpen would struggle trying to replace Sherrill's setup role, but the other bullpen slots have struggled far worse, with no real reasons.

The Tigers have similar issues. How does an entire team underperform all the experts predictions? I guess that's why they play the games.

Re: the post Jason mentioned...
(http://ussmariner.com/2008/05/19/evaluating-chemistry/)
Just wanted to second that it's well worth the read.

Also, I'm curious if any thought has been given to having this forum be moderated? Not to block out dissenting views (well presented arguments are one of the best parts of the experience!) but I'm getting a little tired of scrolling through *endless*, repetitive posts where people say, for example, "the team sucks! fire bavasi!"... and do it without adding really adding anything to the argument. It's like a baby screaming at the dinner table, just wanting to be heard.

I'd love to see some of the repetition, the pointless "YA HE SUCKS!!" posts not get posted. The people who don't agree with Geoff but present a good argument and back it up - love reading those posts. But it's obvious a lot of people are posting here simply because they *can*. It reminds me of hanging in a bar talking sports, where the conversation gets louder and louder as people get more drunk, just because they want to stomp on the last opinion. But without any facts or an interesting point of view (or at least being humorous, if nothing else...) it's just boring, and maked it less and less worth the time to scroll through here looking for the posts by the people who really put some thought into it.

Ted

First, I want to see whether I'm still able to post, or not. Do not ask for whom the bell tolls..., and all that stuff.

Secondly, Geoff, I have a question for you.

You've got to be some kind of writing machine. Or, writing fanatic. Or, both. I don't mean that in any disparaging way. I think it's pretty amazing, actually.

Other local Mariners bloggers/beat writers, and probably most on a national level, too, don't come close to your volume of input. And, it's quality input, IMHO, which only adds to my amazement.

So, my question is, do you actually type this stuff out? Do you dictate it to someone else (or, has that even become archaic?). Or, do you use some kind of 'voice recognition' software? That's my thinking. Or, do you really type 500 WPM.

This might be secrets of the blog trade, but the next time you're answering questions I hope you have a reply to mine. Thanks, if so.

Chemistry is one of those "It's only important sometimes things". The 78' Yankees were one of the most dysfunctional clubhouses of all time, but they ended up winning it all. I think Chemistry can have an impact in some situations though, and one of those is turning around a losing streak. When players don't like each other or aren't close it can have a negative effect on getting things turned around. Players stop doing things to help make each other successful and so the team suffers. One the other hand if players like each other they will go out of their way to help other players to get over slumps. I think the Mariners can overcome their lack of chemistry and win but it will be harder than if they liked each other.

This blog just isn't fun anymore. Just a bunch of venom and bitter argumentation from people who seem like they want the M's to lose. And Geoff, you seem to get sucked into it too much. You don't need to constantly prove that you know more about baseball than the rest of us. I started following this blog because I am a diehard Mariners fan and I will never give up on them! So, peace out fellas.

Geoff:

Chemisry comes from winning or winning breeds chemistry, chicken or the egg. But you build a team based on what you need to win. The M's management built a slow-footed team with some declining pluggers (Sexon, Vidro, Wilkerson) and only one left-handed power bat (Ibanez) in a ballpark that favors speed, gap hitters and power to right field. They carry TWO pinchrunners when many of their guys can't even get on base.

Yes they addressed the starting pitching, which is one of the main reaons we're not even further behind the eight-ball. But you cannot deny the well-chronicled history of this team bringing in past-their-prime "sluggers" who had virtually nothing to offer, all the way back to Gorman Thomas, to Carl Everett, to Eduardo Perez, to Wilkerson, and on and on. That is poor decision-making, plain and simple. And you do not win the Ameican League with, at best a singles hitter in a key power position like DH -- and this year Vidro can hardly even do that.

You can count the truly inspired trades and free agent pickups on one hand, i.e., the trade of Ken Phelps after a solid year in Seattle for a scuffling youg right fielder, Jay Buhner.

Why didn't we go after Josh Hamilton from the Reds?

Why didn't we sign Carlos Pena with that sweet left-handed swing to minor league deal when Texas and others gave up on him, knowing if he ever put it together Safeco was the perfect park for him? No imagination.

Yes, it's easy to second guess. But last night Evan Longoria hit the game-winning home run for the Rays in extra innings, and this wet-behind-the-ears rookie is showing that dumping Clement back to the minors in such haste for a has-been like Vidro may not have been the best move.

Keep Balentien in right field instead of platooing him. Move Ibanez to first base, maybe part-time with Sexson and part-time as DH. Want to improve team chemistry? Keep working on things. Make some moves that actually look like you care, and that show you have some baseball acumen. There will be guys available that could help this team. Will we have the foresight to pick them up? Not based on our track record...

We are funny people. We want this, we want that, we want, we want, we want. People are funny, anyone or anything that brings discomfort or something below our "personal standards of perfection" brings out the whines. We can't see that we, the people, aren't computer machines finely tuned to our conceptions of whatever. I love the perspectives, Geoff. Boy, if we only had Computer Mariners, we would be in dizzy-land!

In my opinion, chemistry is the often overlooked element to a teams success, or lack therof. I've played the game from t-ball through the college level, and after my hardball days were over, I enjoyed playing men's slowpitch until about 3 years ago at age 38. I've been on teams that on paper should of dominated, but between the lines we failed, miserably. I've been on teams that on paper, weren't that impressive, but when the game started, we excelled. We would 10 run teams that were younger, faster, stronger, more athletic, etc.. Why? Difficult question to answer, but in a nutshell, I'd say it was because we were smart baseball players with good ability, and we just loved being around each other playing a game the we all loved. We had CHEMISTRY. After the game was over, we didn't just jump in our cars and drive home. We stuck around, had a beer, had a bbq, shot the bull. During the off season, we'd have team "get to gethers". The point is, we really felt like we were a family. We were successful because we weren't a team of individuals. We were a team that, like George Sherill was saying today, were always pulling for each other, always picking each other up.

It's a difficult thing to find on a baseball team with so many different personalities. Our 2001 Mariners team had that feel to them. These M's don't. It's like these guys expect to lose. It's kind of like a momentum thing in football. You're up by 21 points with 3 minutes left. All of a sudden, the other team scores, then recovers an on-side kick, scores again, etc... Now, momentum is on their side. Did we just get worse? Nope. But momentum is a powerful thing, and I see the same thing happen all the time in baseball. Watch this team over the next 3 weeks. If they go on a 10 game win streak, all of a sudden you'll see a lot of back slapping going on. A lot of smiles. A lot of interaction between the "cliques" that seem to be in place on this team now. That's what needs to happen. That's how chemistry starts to build. That's when the guys actually start to enjoy each other, and start doing things together off the field. That's how the winning will start getting easier and easier. Now, if they go and lose 7 of the next 10, you can kiss it all good bye. The divisions will get deeper. The finger will start to get pointed. Heads will start to roll.

Chemistry isn't the "end all" to winning, and certainly there have been teams in the past who have won and couldn't stand each other. But when good chemistry is present, when it's real, it's huge. The winning streaks get longer, and losing streaks shorter. That's when it's fun to go to the ball park again.

I'm glad you touched on the subject of chemistry more in depth this time.

Now I've played sports my whole life, but never at a professional level so i can't speak to that, but I've been on some great teams that have won championships and some stinkers that never could get it together.

One thing that I've always tried to recognize is that when you're team is down and nothing seems to work usually something dramatic has to happen. What this does is give every player on the team a common thread OTHER than losing. It's something they can all be/or were a part of.

Picture it like a war (I'm only using war as an example, not to suggest a baseball game is anything close by comparison). In a war you're forced to band together. Forced to trust the guy next to you. When this happens you build a bond that is sometimes never broken. The M's have no bond to one another other than losing. Again baseball isn't war so just because you're losing doesn't mean you'll band together and overcome even the smallest obstacle.

I honeslty thought the Sexon Mound Charge would be that catalyst for the M's. That could have been the perfect point for the team to rally behind one another and collectively say "We're not going to be pushed around anymore!" and then go out and be an aggressive, fun, hard-charging team. Sadly this didn't happen.

What's my point? My point is that this Good Ship Mariner has all the pieces it needs to be successful (let the tidal wave of negativity wash over me now) But they lack a good wind (spark, bond - whatever) to propell them. They are adrift at sea.

The Mariners havn't really underperformed, scrapiorn. Well, a little bit. But a lot of people didn't think they'd be any good.

As for the Tigers, they've run into a myriad of problems. Verlander is almost certainly injured, Bonderman finally came back down to his real skill lever, Sheff can't hit and the rest of the team isn't playing well either. Nevermind Granderson missing a good chunk of time.

The difference between the M's and the Tigers is that the Tigers are significantly more talented than the Mariners are. The Mariners were banking on multiple players having bounce back years at over 30 and wish-casting others to vastly outperform their skill set.

What happened with the M's was that everyone saw, 'TWO ACES!!!!!1111oneone' and thought, 'WORLD SERIES!!!!!11111oneoen'. They didn't think about the 3 sinkholes in the spots behind them. They didn't think of Putz regressing from other-worldly to what-happens-when-he-gets-hurt. They didn't think about how the team didn't improve their horrid defense from last year.

See, this is why just become some moron played baseball or ran a franchise into the ground doesn't qualify them to set at on set and pretend like they know everything going on with a team. I don't doubt there's quite a few of is (Geoff most certainly included) who know much, much more about the Mariners.

Geoff -

Regarding blaming players vs. management: I think we all agree a lot more than we think. This argument is like splitting hairs.

I say it's the management's fault for putting a team together that is incapable of producing runs consistently, and won't accomplish their stated goal of winning the division.

You say it's the players fault for not performing. ...Well, yes I agree with that. It is their fault for not performing. They are not very good.

But didn't we know that it was likely they wouldn't perform? Shouldn't management have known that?

It's a circular argument.

The fundamental difference is this: I don't think the roster is capable of what you think it is. You think they are capable of winning the division. I think they're incapable. Who's to blame? I say management for not realizing the team stinks in the first place. You say the players, for stinking.

I think we're both right.

But as I say, the fundamental difference in our argument is perspective: you think the talent is there. I don't.

In the end, I say, How can you blame stinky players for playing stinkily?

Mr. X says:

"There is no such thing as "first amendment rights" on a baseball blog. Every day this blog pushes me closer and closer towards having my children homeschooled."

Maybe you should get yourself "homeschooled" and then try attending a good college or university, then you might have an opportunity to make something of yourself in life other than a nuisance.

Quite the smug little blog post, Geoff. Nobody addressed your bit about Wagner because there was nothing to address. You found one player who was upset with his teammates and vented to the media about it one time, in the face of overwhelming evidence that 99% of the rest of the guys are completely indifferent to media interaction.

Nice work, detective.

Is siding with Billy Wagner the new Chewbacca Defense? If so, then you sure showed us.

Geoff,

Good afternoon to you from the southern right coast!

You miss the point of the argument. It is a matter of a data-driven decision. It is impossible to make decisions based on things unquantifiable, such as "chemistry". However, there are a plethora of exceptionally valuable predictive and analytical tools out there that can add to the business intelligence of a baseball team.

Well-run, successful businesses operate based upon data-driven decisions. And before you go off telling me "this is different, we're talking about people here", it's not. Most other businesses rely on people and people's ability to have a predictable amount of variation in their performance.

It is a curious development in blogs and other internet forums where people feel free to rip on other people or in this case the blog author all the while hiding behind an anonymous screen name. The ironic part is the subject as of late has been personal accountability.

Frankly, I am getting tired of seeing people whine about things that can not be changed. Bavasi is still the GM, Lincecum pitches for SF, Bedard is our Ace. BTW, didn't see much responise from the Bedard naysayers after his last outing.

I am sure team chemistry has a lot to do with this recent skid, but chemistry won't keep Sexson from swinging at every ball in the idrt when he has two strikes, or allow Raul to play balls correctly in LF. This is more about poor managerial choices that have been made in the season so far. In the interview last week with McLaren oin Mitch's show, McLaren says he doesn't think keeping Cairo over Norton was lunacy. McLaren seems like a nice guy and all, but that statement is just ridiculous. This team is so flacid the only emotion it has shown was when Richie charged the mound. Someone has to step up and get guys jacked up, which is why I think losing Guillen has been the biggest change ot the team this year over last year. We have had a string of milque toast managers since Lou left, and for the sake of this season I hope someone steps up as the vocal leader of this team.

"I challenged readers to tell me why.. blah blah blah..."

Nobody bit because few people really care whether a player talks to the press after a game.... that is except for the press.

Boy, there is alot of hostility on these blogs today.

I think we can all agree that Vidro and Sexson have underperformed at the plate. We've beat that dead horse many times. I know that Bavasi isn't the smartest GM, and McLaren may not be the best manager, but you have to have fatih that these guys ( namely Vidro) will start hitting. I don't care if Sexson hits .210 or .220 as long as he gets 30 and 100. Clement was given his chance, and he didn't do it, so we have to go back to square one.

Well, people are half right. A lot of projection systems projected the Tigers as good, but the same systems projected the Mariners as terrible.

http://tinyurl.com/2xu5rf

Basically, the M's weren't being called out as division winners, but as a .500 team at best, a 90 loss team at worst.

A the risk of it being a bit early to do the "what went wrong" retrospective, I'd argue people in the M's front office looked at 88 wins, didn't look at being outscored by opponents, looked at the shaky rotation and forgot about the shaky (at times) bullpen, hot-and-cold offense and shaky defense. The decisions NOT to cut bait on Sexson and to dump Guillen/trade Jones without a really adequate plan in RF really loom large here.

Does that mean you deserve to be fired if you're Bill Bavasi? Well, consider the guy has 10 years as a GM in a four team division, and he's had one team (the 95 California Angels) get close to the playoffs, and that's pretty much it- the majority of his teams aren't even over .500, and the franchises in question (Angels/M's) aren't exactly KC or Tampa that are forced to play with crappy payrolls- Bavasi's HAD every shot at getting the players he wants, like Mo Vaughn and Richie Sexson, he's just done a bad job of identifying the good ones. In my thinking, if you get 400 million plus to play with over 5 years, plus guys like Ichiro, Felix and Beltre, you should do better than 88 wins and second place during that time.

Also, Geoff: why is Carlos Truinfel suspended? Is the team commenting?

Team Chemistry is a by-product of an organization’s collective self-image - You are, who you think you are.

With all the talk and banter about the problems at DH, is it time to consider letting the pitchers bat for themselves?

Really, how much of a hit would we take?

We play like a lousy NL team from the 80's anyway. Why not make the transformation complete? In fact, can we just petition to be re-aligned into the NL West. Maybe we could trade positions with the Diamondbacks or Rockies or something.

"At least we can say we aren't the worst team in baseball still. We're not even the worst in the AL (by record). Detroit has a worse record. I'd say they have something seriously going wrong there if they're that bad so far... they certainly have hitting and they should have pitching... " --- Ben

Says a little something about a team being "fat" vs a team being "hungry", doesn't it? Both teams have ownerships who think the answer is about throwing huge amounts of money around to undeserving players. So, look where both teams are.

And, on another, but possibly related, note:

"He's been our best player here from spring training to today, That's not knocking anybody, that's just paying praise to somebody who deserves it." --- John McLaren on Jose Lopez

I found this quote amusing. Not that I disagree with what Mac is saying. JLo is probably the one player who has actually been playing "winning baseball". Unfortunately, he's one of two (Raul being the other). Offensively, anyway.

My point is that Mac feels the need to add that he's not knocking anybody. He doesn't want to ruffle any feathers by heaping deserved praise on one of his players.

Ruffle feathers, Skip! If other guys take it as a "knock", so be it! This team, sans Raul and JLo, need a wake up call. On offense, anyway. The pitching, for the most part, has done its job.

Has managing this team become all about stroking egos of "fat" ballplayers! No wonder we're where we're at?

After a very disappointing April this team is playing .250 ball in May alone! .250 ball, losing three of every four games! And, this trip isn't likely to help that.

HOW LONG CAN MAC LAST?!!!!!!!

How is telling a reporter, "Ya. I sucked", translate into being accountable?

Jason, et al - show me the preseason "expert" that predicted the Mariners would be in last place and backed it up with reasons that we have seen on the field, and that will be the baseball god.

I didn't see any expert that had the Mariners lower than 2nd in the standings. So if the Mariners were in second place and 8 games out, then I would say that the "see I told you so" crowd was right. But like we've talked about endlessly here, even the people that said the Mariners were going to be bad didn't think they'd be this bad. So you've got to say that the Mariners are underperforming, plain and simple.

Now you're getting these blowhards out of the woodwork saying that they knew the Mariners were the worst team in baseball all along. The reasons, they'll say, is because Bavasi sucks or McLaren is an idiot. Sorry, no credit given for 20-20 hindsight, especially since you can't show me a preseason analysis that puts you on record as saying that you knew this team was terrible and gave statistical reasons why.

Both teams have ownerships who think the answer is about throwing huge amounts of money around to undeserving players.

Uhmmm, you're not paying attention. Not every deal Dombrowski's made while in Detroit is awesome, but taken as a whole he's done a fantastic job turning that franchise around. The Tigers are losing because almost the entire team is performing well below their skill level. The M's are losing because the players simply aren't very good anymore. Why is that so hard to understand?

Chemistry?

What about the math? The math sucks.

What about the physics? The physics sucks, too.

Social studies? Sucks.

English? Sucks.

P.E.? Sucks worst of all.

I guess these guys need study hall, or something, because it seems they're flunking everythin

Thank God Bavasi and McLaren know what they're doing, though. This team would be an utter disaster without their leadership and ability.

I think "chemistry" can be important. I remember in HS - we had seniors in 8 of the 9 lineup spots and were favored to win our league. We really played poorly early on at about .500. Then our coach, who normally was a pretty high-strung guy, totally relaxed and we started having fun at practices and games - and we didn't lose until we got to state.

I tend to side with Leyland - chemistry is good when you are winning. But ultimately it doesn't look like the M's are having fun. Whether that is a by-product of losing, or just is how the guys are, I don't know.

But personally, I think the team needs to lose some players (Washburn, Sexson, Vidro) who don't seem to be helping on or off the field.

There is just a bad culture around the team right now, and a change is needed.

"Jason, et al - show me the preseason "expert" that predicted the Mariners would be in last place and backed it up with reasons that we have seen on the field, and that will be the baseball god."

http://tinyurl.com/2xu5rf

Composite record of the projection systems: 77-85, battling it out with Texas for dead last.

You could look on USS Mariner as well. Basically, they projected that veterans like Sexson and Wilkerson wouldn't hit, and the defense was shaky.

I'll be happy and go out on a limb, though, and say the 2008 Mariners > the 2004 Mariners (and thus they are underperforming right now). A simple look at both rosters should tell you why. The only established players worth a damn on the 2004 M's were Ichiro, Freddy, Raul and Jamie. I'd say Ichiro, Beltre, Putz, Felix, Raul and Bedard are CLEARLY a better group to build around. The problem is that the supporting pieces for both teams aren't very good.

This team won't threaten to lose 100 games, but I'm not very convinced they will contend, now that they have to fight past THREE teams in their division.

Anyways, as to the "well, what about accountability"...fans, even the blogosphere ones, care more about results on the field than whether or not players give good clubhouse interviews. Richie Sexson's "accountability" for being bad for half of 2006 and all of 2007 seems to be letting him continue to stink up the joint in 2008. Maybe the M's need to be less seemingly infintely patient with veterans at the plate OR in the clubhouse.

"Try doing that at your next company softball game. Go sit in the stands when your team takes the field, chat with the guy from accounting, buy a soft cone, pet the dog, then try to walk in cold and hit. Then do it all over again for another hour. And pretend the pitcher is throwing 95 mph instead of lobbing it to you underhand."

So, basically, you want us to try something that we wouldn't do if we were a major league DH, go in and try to hit a pitch we wouldn't see if we were a major league DH, and then try to turn that experience into a lesson of what it is like to be a major league DH? Got it.

Last I checked, Jose Vidro doesn't pet dogs or eat ice cream while the rest of the team is fielding. This analogy is beyond silly. He has insane amounts of resources at his disposal. Endless video. Batting cages. Scouting reports. With that in mind he should actually be MORE prepared to hit than the guys who have to go field a position.

Why have there been other guys who have proven that their focus on that job has led to success? I could make the easy Edgar reference. There's David Ortiz, Frank Thomas, Harold Baines, and many others we could point to who at some point did just fine.

So, maybe Jose Vidro just doesn't focus? Is he screwing around while the rest of the team is playing the field? Arguing with his brother Pepe about which side of the plate is best to bat from?

No, Geoff, the guy stinks because he's washed up. Stop making excuses for him, and using it as an opportunity to take pot shots at all of us "pessimists" who want to see this team have a DH who utilizes the H portion of the acronym.

For what it's worth, I think the M's current plight has a lot more to do with poor team construction (what are both Cairo and Bloomquist doing on this team? why is Vidro still here?) and bad field management (Cairo batting second? Bloomquist pinch hitting in the 9th?) than anything to do with "chemistry". Chemistry only becomes important if the basic ingredients are in place.

I wonder if there is any data based prediction on what might our "genuis" front office people would do in next season?

It's not the player's job to talk to the press. It's the player's job to play baseball well. Not talking to the press harms only the press. It does not harm the team; it does not harm the fans; it does not harm the players.

I do find it refreshing, though, how transparently self-serving you're being.

I believe chemistry is the most important thing on any team. When you spend 6 to 8 months with a group of guys you have to get along. Iam not saying that there wont be arguments here and there but they will be eaiser to solve if everyone gets along.

I am sure some of you think that talent is the most important thing but these guys are in the Majors so they have talent. I believe chemistry starts with the leader. I dont remember the last time I saw Mac sittin on the bench joking around laughing with the players.

I played alot of ball growin up and its eaiser to perform when things are loose in the dugout, you dont put as much pressure on yourself when your relaxed and things come more natural.

Geoff i really enjoy your blog I can tell you care about this team as much as most of us. The thing that I like is you speak your mind and dont sugercoat things.

I think losing a guy like Jose Guillen is a huge reason this team is less successful. He wasn't afraid to let his voice be heard, and I think part of the clubhouse issues can be blamed on losing a guy like that. We seemingly don't have anyone on this team that can get in guys' faces and hold them accountable the way Guillen could. Geoff, you may have seen differently, but I do not recall hearing any issues arising from Jose Guillen's attitude (an attitude that was looked negatively on most everywhere else he has played). He didn't take any abnormal heat in Seattle that I was ever aware of, and I don't think it's merely a coincidence.

Oh, and I loved Lopez's display of emotion after that big first pitch double. How often do we see any of our Mariners really pumped up like that. Maybe Jose will someday grow into a real clubhouse leader.

Side note: I enjoy reading your blog daily, and the only thing getting in the way of it being even better is the time you have to spend clarifying yourself everyday. I say let your writing and inside point of view do the talking and don't even bother addressing some of unintelligent comments this blog gets. And cue someone ripping my comment...

Prediction: M's will go 4-14 in the next 18 games ending with the BOS series on June 8th.

Prediction based on the fact that the M's cannot beat "good" teams even when they are playing badly. Ex. Detroit and NYY. They will lose to these teams apparently simply because they are Detroit and NYY and not the Padres.

When they are supposed to lose they are very good at doing so.

Wonder how M's feel when decent teams are licking there chops once they hit a rough patch and the M's are next to play on the schedule.

Adam - Your post @10:50 AM makes some good sense today.

I played alot of ball growin up and its eaiser to perform when things are loose in the dugout, you dont put as much pressure on yourself when your relaxed and things come more natural.

Blah, blah, blah. A lot of us played ball growing, did you know that? I could offer anecdotal evidence as why I don't believe think chemistry is more important than talent. I played with some serious a**holes. We hated each other. But on the field we just played the best we could.

Hi Geoff,

I'll take a swing at a couple of your questions/challenges.

Why are the M's losing? I'd have to say the main PREDICTABLE reasons are:

1. An addiction to older, overpriced, declining free agents (Vidro, Sexson, Wilkerson, Weaver and HoRam) who are risky bets at best. I'll give Bavasi a pass on Sexson because he was good the first couple of years, and I thought that was a good signing at the time, but as others have mentioned, you can't put a winning team on the field playing washed-up-player roulette.

2. Bad personnel/lineup moves. Under Hargrove, it was playing veterans who weren't producing too long -- under this administration it's the obvious erratic scrambling to put every possible person in every possible position/spot in the lineup and hoping things work out, and then changing things the next week. It smacks of amateurism, just trying anything (w/ seemingly little insight or wisdom) and crossing fingers hoping it will work.

These issues have something in common -- hope (and not the good kind). Not solid analysis, gut instinct, wisdom, relying on experience. It's just a lot of action, hoping something will work. That's a sure recipe for failure.

On the Interview-Avoidance issue, for myself, it's because I simply don't care whether players do post-game interviews or not. I think they're largely irrelevant, and I think if I were a player, I'd find them extremely annoying. And I'll grant you that it may annoy teammates when certain players avoid them, but suggesting the M's are 9 games under .500 because Felix doesn't do post-game interviews is...a stretch. In other words, personally, I give Felix (and anyone else) a pass because I think it has little to do w/ the team's success.

Frankly, Geoff, I'm shocked that we're STILL talking about this -- this seems to me like the epitome of making a mountain out of a molehill. You mentioned in a previous post about arranging deck chairs on the Titanic -- that's EXACTLY what I consider this issue. Why are we spending time worrying about whether Batista spent 5 minutes w/ the media instead of 25 when our lineup is hitting, like, .075? What a waste of time, what a distraction from the real issues. If Felix and Batista are seriously ticking the rest of the team off, to the point of arguments and grudges and a fractured clubhouse, that's one thing. But I've seen nothing to suggest that is what is happening. Barring that, in my mind, this issue rates a big "Who cares?" in my book.

Moving onto the DH-distraction issue -- THAT seems like it would be the biggest worrysome factor in moving Raul to DH. I've heard players/coaches (I think maybe even Edgar) say before that it's hard to stay focused on the game when you're only participating for maybe 15-20 minutes of it. That's a valid point, and I think what I would worry most about in terms of Raul. But I respect Raul's focus and ability as a player, so I'm hopeful he would be able to handle it.

Jason - how far did you go. I played mInors for the Reds in the late 80s with all sorts of different personalites from different countries and chemistry was important. Yes we all went out and played because we enjoyed the game of baseball but like i said when you spend all that time with each other you have to get along. Did you just play HS ball or further because whats the HS season 3 months long.

What role do the coaches play in all of this? If the hitters aren't hitting, why does Jeff Pentland still have a job?

If I am still allowed to post....I'll add the following to Mironos's post....
As a few people before have stated,
RAUL has played DH for an extended period in the past, and he did well doing so...if I recall right, Raul hit over 275 with an OPS of over 850.
I will concede that Raul said publically that he did not enjoy DH'ing, but again, this is a TEAM, and if Raul does not want to do what is best for the TEAM, he should be traded!!!

Geoff,
I think the hypothetical situation you pose with how GMs and managers should be evaluated is seriously flawed. You suggest that if someone like Chris Antonetti were hired, made a series of smart moves, but continued to lose, there would be clamoring for him to be fired. A GM should not be evaluated solely on results. You have to consider the logic and soundness of strategy behind the decisions. This is why Bavasi needs to be replaced, not solely because the team is losing but more importantly because his strategies are not logically sound or well executed.

I think chemistry played a part in 2001, but it was a different type of chemistry...ala, better living through chemistry.

Just my opinion, not trying to start a fight, but I don't think 01 will go down in history as anything but the Mariners last fling at a chemical imbalance.

Hope this year turns around to respectability, but it starting to feel like the old days, went you went to the ballpark to see the other team, not the Mariners.

Robb -- I think you're absolutely right. Jose Guillen was able to light a fire under players' butts. The Mariners' refusal to resign Guillen hurt the team a lot more than they thought it would. The M's not only lost a decent bat and a better fielder than Wilkerson, but they lost a motivator and a team leader. That may be more important than having chemistry. I was impressed by Guillen last year, having heard stories about how difficult he could be in clubhouses. He played hard, and he led by example.

I was at the game on Friday night. Batista gave up all those runs in the first, and you could tell by the Mariners' body language that the game was over. Until the game got closer, they played like they were expecting to lose -- and this made the fielding appear lazy at times. I wonder if this is one of the reasons for all the errors -- if you play like you're expecting to lose, the motivation isn't there to be good defensively. So who on the team can get the message to the players that if you play like you're expecting to lose, you will lose? Clearly, McLaren's not getting it across.

I think it's difficult to quantify or even qualify the impact of chemistry. Y'all are right that some teams (I think the '78 Yankees were mentioned here) can win without it. I skimmed the USS Mariner post, and it's debatable just what impact chemistry really has. However, if any of you have a copy of Art Thiel's book "Out of Left Field," go and read the chapter on the 1995 season. A couple of players mentioned that the experience they had in 1994, playing on the road all the time after the tiles fell in the Kingdome, really brought the team together -- and attributed this to the team's success in 1995.

Just my two cents. I can't respond for a while if anyone comments on this, FYI.

by "rain"

"this is a TEAM, and if Raul does not want to do what is best for the TEAM, he should be traded!!!"

I'm seriously not trying to be argumentative, but I think Geoff is trying to say that what is best for this team is not to disrupt our best hitter (currently). If Raul is unhappy about moving, while childish, he's still human and has feelings and emotions that may be difficult to put in check. Therefore his emotions and brain may just get the better of him and distract him from his job at hand. Is that simplistic and ridiculous? We'd all like to think so, but if you've played sports then you know there was a time where you got upset at something and it threw your game off. People aren't robots. You can't give commands and instantly get results.

It's funny to me that everyone is harping on statistics. And while I completely agree with and enjoy these arguments it seems that we forget that eventhough these players at the best of the best (maybe not all the M's) and they make millions of dollars a year and in our, ahem, more modest lives we think they should be immune to complaining, failure, weakness, do we forget they're people just like us? They get happy (like us) when they get the game winning hit. They get upset (like us) when they strike out with a RISP. Wouldn't you possibly, maybe, somehow get a little rattled when someone (Mac) tells you (Raul) that you're a liability in your job and are being replaced?

Hi Geoff,

Great job of making the bloggers think and challenging their conclusions instead of following the blog-o-sphere which is negative and will never have a good thing to say unless they thought of it first.

Keep up the good work. You're doing awesome. I'm just sorry that we will miss what you bring to the table when you leave to a city that has fans who actually are supportive and know what they are talking about.

Jason - how far did you go. I played mInors for the Reds in the late 80s with all sorts of different personalites from different countries and chemistry was important

Well the extent of your baseball career certainly trumps mine. Congratulations.

However, I don't think it invalidates my point. It's great that you got along with all your team mates. But it's not Mac's place to keep the clubhouse 'loose'. Have you ever seen Joe Torre wandering around, yukking it up with the players? How about Jim Leyland? Or Tony LaRussa? He's not a friggin' pyschoanalysist. He's a baseball manager, and he can't even do that right.

If you want to argue that one of the players needs to take charge or something, fine. But this is a by product of losing. Finger-pointing, calling guys out in the press. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the team was winning.

I do believe that good chemistry (not good chemicals!) can improve the performance of a team based sport, just as it can at work or in combat. When players are inspired by good leadership and so committed to one another that they cannot bear to let down the side, you see a devotion and effort you may not find otherwise. Will that get Sexson to stop striking out? No. But you may find people making catches they would otherwise not bother to try for, pitchers finding something that will get them a few more outs, and a conviction that you will never give up on the game until it is over. Unfortunately, it seems that with the Mariners, that over-praised and over-priced "veteran leadership" isn't doing this part of the game.

Listen to Jon Lester talk about his teammates and coaches when he had cancer and you get an idea of what good chemistry can do. Or remember the Coast Guard rescue decades ago that used a rowing boat, risking 12 Coasties, rather than a motor boat, risking only 4. Bad decision for the sabermetrics crowd in the Coast Guard, but as the captain said: Engines quit, my guys don't.

I wonder if they have a psychologist come in and drone on and on like in The Natural, can you put insight on that Geoff?

Roy Hobbs: "I remember signing a contract, to play ball not to be put to sleep by some two bit carney hypnotist! I won't do that Pop! I can't"

First, Geoff, I think it'd be helpful to know who you mean sometimes when taking folks to task on the blog. I start to feel bad even though I don't take any of the positions you are writing about in strong terms. I do have differing opinions, but I am always (I think) civil about that, and have made clear I hold you in high esteem. I just think it should be clear that you are talking to the crowd that says stupid things like, "Geoff you are an idiot" and not the rest of us who get passionate but stay respectful. You're a cool guy, and I comment here because I enjoy the back and forth.

On to the topic - the M's and the Tigers are both teams underperforming. Some of it is blamable on individuals, a lot of it in recent weeks is bad luck. For Detriot, they've had a couple of mainstay pitchers just disappear for all intents and purposes and some other weird things happen. Both teams are better than they are playing right now, but it's hard to know how much. Detriot is a bigger disappointment for the fanbase because they came out of nowhere and have contended, and then dropped off a cliff.

"So, is this team performing like this because of poor planning by Bavasi?"

He has a poor sense of roster construction, an over-reliance on veterans past their primes or looking for a comeback from injury (his constant bargain hunting, but at exorbitant cost), and a tendancy not to go to or stick with younger kids in place of those players who aren't working out. He has done a lot to rebuild the farm system, but that hardly matters if you won't use it or if you trade it away in a move that gives you very little in return or is designed to "save" the team, but covers over only one hole, while creating others and making others worse. He's been flat out taken on some trades, and appears to undervalue defense. So he has a share of the blame. I wouldn't leave out John McLaren's role either, as he refuses to play some of the folks he has in the right way and makes odd substitution calls, but managers don't have as big of an impact as the GMs that assemble the talent. Still if McLaren can make the calls that help the day to day defense and would recognize some splits, etc. once in a while in putting together line-ups, it would help. He just seems lost at times.

"Or because of chemistry and other factors more in the players' hands? Or, does the GM take the heat for bad chemistry?"

I agree with Leyland and Bavasi. There are circumstances where a player can significantly distract other players, causing loss of focus, but the M's don't have that situation here. By and large, chemistry is something to blame when you are losing and ignore or positively identify when you are winning. I will say a team that has won something tends not to tear at eachother's throats so quickly. I get to witness the Rockies on a daily basis, and the team is having a crappy season after last year's success. You don't hear much about this kind of garbage. There are other reasons that make that a close-knit clubhouse, but coming up together and winning help.

On the DH distraction stuff, I can see your point. But that's where a professional like Raul who has shown himself to be a hard-worker and a guy who takes pride in his work will step up. He will call up a guy like Edgar to see what he should be doing between innings. He'll watch tape and get on the bike to keep his legs fresh. He won't chit chat with fans or grab a hot dog. He'll approach the DH role the same way he approaches hitting and playing LF now - like the dedicated major leaguer he is. I have full confidence in that.

I do believe that good chemistry (not good chemicals!) can improve the performance of a team based sport, just as it can at work or in combat

Yeah, no offense, but my cousin training in Fort Bragg probably wouldn't appreciate you equating playing baseball to trying to not get killed.

I accidentally posted this is the previous thread....please forgive my repetition.

This Vidro situation illustrates to me, one reason I am so frustrated with the Ms management. They value "veteranness" over young talent.

We have a pretty good idea of Vidro's upside, which at this point might be a .750 OPS. But he delivers nothing in 30 games so his replacement with much higher upside struggles equally but is pulled after 15 games. Adam and others have shown comparable 15 game stats for great young players but the Ms pull the plug early in the hope that Vidro becomes the Vidro of 5 years ago. I think Clement stands a better chance of putting up good numbers right now than Vidro.

We spend millions on veterans who end up giving us less, or at least nothing more than young players. Vidro, Aurilia, Spiezio, Everett, Washburn, Cairo, Wilkerson, Sexson. Geoff is right, life is not fair, unless you happen to be an overpriced deteriorating major league vet within sniffing distance of Bill Bavasi, then the world is your oyster.

Seriously, how many of Bavasi's moves would you go back in time and redo? Beltre for sure. Guillen worked. Batista? Too early to say but I think his contract will be an albatross well before it runs out. Silva? I'd be willing to bet the same thing.

Geoff, it seems you are siding with the Ms viewpoint favoring aging veterans because they've "put up the numbers" in the past over young players who haven't proven anything in the majors yet. Am I right?

Posted by Mike

11:34 AM, May 20, 2008

Oops, I forgot Kenji. I think signing Kenji (the first time) was a good move.

Geoff, this post was a good warm up for you. Seems like you're getting ready to write another racist hatchet job, this time may I suggest that you rag on international players. The players may avoid talking to you either becuase they don't speak English or they think you're a tool (Felix, Bedard, Batista) but the unifying factor is that they're all foreign. Therefore, international players aren't accountable and YOU can call them out on it. I hope you take this opportunity because I really can't wait to see another boring, self serving article from you.

FYI, anyone who doesn't know Baker's history read the new version of Moneyball with the addendum about Baker's coverage of the Blue Jays where he accuses them of favoring caucasian players. That's the type of journalism this HACK resorts to when the team he's covering goes downhill.

I don't think that anyone should be discounting the value of post game interviews. Saying that Geoff is the only one who has a reason to care about of speaking with the players is ridiculous. The media is an extension of us as fans and it is tool to keep the team accountable. Much of what is said after games is cliche but at the same time there is valuable information to be had.

I see the importance of sabermetric stats and projections but I dont think that you can completely remove the human element and speaking to reporters is an extension of that. I even saw someone on USSM comment that the players should boycott the media after games. We can say that we dont care about what a player says after the game but what happens when a player who projects highly, consistently dissapoints. Do we just continue to talk about how good they are going to be and disregard any other factors? For example a player like Felix, we all love him and expect him to be an ace starter some day. Still what if he remains inconsistent like he has been. Do we just continue to look at the numbers and drool over what he could be? I say no. I think that it is important to have the ability to talk to him about why he isn't living up to what we all believe he can be.

It is the team and the player's responsibility to remain accountable to the fans who buy tickets. I think what Geoff is doing is an important part of that. I am as frustrated as everyone else over what has happened with this team. I think that frustration makes holding the players accountable even more important

RE: Arthur - "Yes, it's easy to second guess. But last night Evan Longoria hit the game-winning home run for the Rays in extra innings, and this wet-behind-the-ears rookie is showing that dumping Clement back to the minors in such haste for a has-been like Vidro may not have been the best move. "

Lol....How is Evan Lognoria showing that is a mistake? He is a completely different player and has nothing to do with Clement. Does that mean Adam Lind showed that we stuck with Clement for too long? That 'logic' makes no sense.

I absolutely agree wholeheartedly with Leland, Bavasi (and USSM) that "chemistry" is completely a product of winning.

And George Sherrill might take notice that he's having a better time this year because:
1. He's been promoted to closer and has 17 saves.
2. His team is (or should I say was) winning.
3. The beer is colder in Baltimore.
4. He's a nice guy and some reporter asked him if the chemistry is better here than in Seattle, and he took the bait.

Check back with George after the O's post an 11-game losing streak and he blows a few saves. But then he won't be asked about "chemistry" then, will he? Not if the reporter values his jawbone.

And Jose Guillen helped the M's because he hit baseballs, not because of his eloquent clubhouse speaches and butt-slaps. He's currently on one of his hot streaks (13 for 26 in his last seven games, raising his average 59 points to .224), and now the Royals are predictably talking about his great "chemistry!"

Aside to Geoff: Please don't take all the comments seriously. Some of them are mean and unkind and really should be ignored. I've noticed that some of the better posters are starting to leave the blog, and that's too bad. Don't let the trolls run you off.

Geoff,

Why do you continue to defend John McLaren? You have done this for 2 years now! He is horrible, he makes mistakes almost every day. The latest "apology" was for using Clement as a DH. He said " He is too young and I should not have used him as a DH" then why the hell did you do it? Johjima is a joke, I think if all the pitchers were honest, they would all say they can't stand throwing to this guy. It has become a pattern now, especially with new pitchers who come up and give hints that they do not like throwing to this guy. I could care less if he signed for 3 years, make Clement the everyday catcher just as you made Balentin the everyday Right Fielder. McLaren is a bench coach, plain and simple. He has had his chance time to bring in a true manager who is not afraid of pissing guys off and making some moves.

If our chemistry is so out of whack and it’s being caused by week hitting and constant losing lets go out and sign Bonds. He can hit better then Vidro in his sleep. His major knock is he’s horrible in the clubhouse. Who cares… our clubhouse is already separated into its own cliques I don’t think he would make it any worse. Yea I know he has some major legal issues and may be heading to jail… But why not just let that play out in the court and see if he can help the team in the mean time.

I think the reason why the other blogs don't write about the players not talking to or going off at the media is because they don't care. You only care because it's your job, to the other blogs, it's not like it really effects them if they talk to the media...

DH distraction? Why does that issue keep coming up? Raul can play FIRST BASE (145 games in his career) and we can get Richie out of the whiff position in the lineup.

Or Raul can play some at dh, some at first, letting Richie try to flail away against left-handers. But to not make a move that may be better for the team because we "might" ruffle Raul's feathers? You've got to be kidding me. The guy is a pro, and he can hanle it, as he has so many times in the past.

This team isn't losing directly because of Bill Bavasi, but their struggle to make the playoffs during his tenure, is his fault.

This is a team that very well could go out and win the majority of their series and be in first place right now, but they are all underperforming.

Is that Bavasi's fault? No.

But what is Bavasi's fault? How about trading away Asdrubal Cabrera, Rafael Soriano and Carlos Guillen for nothing? Or signing Jeff Weaver, Brad Wilkerson, and a host of other bad players to million dollar deals?

Or bringing in clubhouse cancers like Matt Lawton, Carl Everett, and Scott Speizio? He just barely got lucky with Jose Guillen and then we let him walk and traded away Adam Jones. Rather than re-signing Guillen and deciding what to do with Jones later?

He really is, simply, a bad GM who has made bad deicisions and he must be let go. Now. Before he makes anymore bonehead deals. I don't want him feeling like he's on the hot seat so he has to do anything and everything to make this a winning season, including trading away our top prospects for aging vets during a lost cause.

Never trust anyone over 30
So how are we going to fix this team? McLaren has almost a full season at the helm and it appears to me his style preference is to have a fast, agressive baseball team, that is defensively sound. His hands are tied this season since this team is old and slow. So let's "retool", instead of "rebuild", so we can put a winner on the field in 2009. A winning team might convince Bedard to not become a free agent in 2010, and we've got to build the team around Bedard, Felix and Ichiro.

So let's address the age issue, which also seems to be the source of much of our speed issue as well. Let's put everyone on the over-30 group except Ichiro and Putz on the trade block and acquire young major league or major-league ready prospects. Emphasize speed and defense with your acquisitions. The below players should have value at the trade deadline to a contending team looking for final pieces to get them to the postseason.

The over-30 club:
38 - Rhodes
37 - Batista
36 - Burke
35 - Ibanez
34 - Cairo, Ichiro
33 - Washburn, Sexson, Vidro
31 - Putz, Johjima
30 - Bloomquist

The Bavasi era has been earmarked by acquisitions that are "pieces of the puzzle". I'd rather a Billy Beane style plan of having all acquisitions fit a specific desirable skillset (Moneyball). Having a team filled with like-minded skillsets also seems to create this team chemistry we are talking about today.

This year Beane flat out admitted he was rebuilding, and said he had to admit his team was getting old and it was time. Not only did he get younger, but his players fit his template, and the result is a rebuilt team that is challenging for first in our division.

So McLaren likes a team that plays defense and is aggressive on the basepaths. Let's go get some players that are sound defensively with high OBP, and Stolen Base success rates. If they happen to be doing it at AA or AAA, so be it, let's rebuild the farm system with this skillset

Geoff, I think your missing my point on why you didn't rail Batista like you did Felix. I read the post about accountability, but that's not what I was getting at.

The point was blasting one person and ignoring others for their actions is a BS move. You railed into Felix for staying away for 45 minutes but you really didn't rail into Batista the same way when Batista straight up disappeared. You talk about Felix's attitude and the way he acts as a 22 year old, yet you don't even mention how Batista always finds some sort of excuse for his failure(which is very frequent) yet you've glorified in the past on numerous occasions the positives of Batista.

Seriously though, and this is just my point of view, your writing tends to reflect a negativity towards the younger players with more scrutiny with their performances and actions. With more leeway and excuses for veterans and their performances and actions. That's just my opinion though.

Spending a post on people needing to be held accountable which includes mentions of Batista and other players. Is no where near the same as spending an entire post and more on how one player failed their team by only going 6 ip and giving up 3 runs not all earned and having 3 not so good starts or the attitude after the game. Yet using that same criteria to show how many quality starts other players have had or what their positive performances have been.

You can't just use one way of reasoning and excuses to defend or analyze a player and neglect that reasoning for another. Which has been something you have done since last year. If you disagree, that's fine, I'll still enjoy your work, but that's what I was getting at.

Geoff -

I second the sentiment expressed by someone earlier in the thread:

There are trolls on every blog. Don't let the trolls get you down. Just ignore them and filter through to those who are thoughtful. The rest of us do.

It'd be interesting to know what qualifications are needed for GM. Why can't a talent scout be one? Or a psychologist? An MBA? How about a computer guy to develop how-to-build-a-good-team software? Bill Bavasi's pedigree and training have obviously not made him a great GM

Thougth I would chime in with a few thoughts. What if we rephrase the ideas above, and instead of team chemistry use the phrase "cultural atttude" or some other type of business buzzword.

I'm am more of an NFL fan. In just casual reading, I really get the sense teams that have been, or are continually succesful have a institutional culture of expected success. A winning attitude. Call it what you like. In even casual reading, you'll find articles where players both current and past talk in glowing terms about the attitudes and expectations on the Patriots under Belicheck, the 49ers under Walsh, etc...

It would seem like more often than not, in teams that are considered consistenly successful, that attitude comes from the top down.

What that means for the M's, I'll let people who know more than I discuss...but that is my two cents.

There are some really interesting perspectives shown in this thread. Some are of the "I just like to rip you cuz" ilk. Most are quite interesting.

On the subject of chemistry, I view chemistry as a weighting factor. It can make a good team better and it can make a bad team better or worse as the case may be. However, it cannot, on its own, make a good team bad or a bad team good. That seems to lend explanation to why winning teams fail to have chemistry issues.

Why is this team losing? I like the reference Geoff makes to softball leagues. A basic equation exists in softball. If you are not fast, then hit it over the fence. There is no in-between in softball. The same exists in baseball and explains this team's offensive issues. The "sluggers" are slow and do not hit very far, if at all. There is no way to "fix" this team with existing parts, unless those parts begin performing at career levels. You cannot go from first to third on a base hit (a team mantra) if you run like Edgar.

I like the poster that says, "Skip, ruffle some feathers." That is the same impression I have. As an athlete, you need someone to “slap you upside the head” when things are not going well. It gives you a different focus. When players struggle they start to focus on the negatives. There are many of those in baseball. The skipper head slap gives them a different something to focus on. It can also backfire. Mac tried that when he lit into them some weeks back. As the manager, you can only rip them so often. You have to find new ways to ignite them.

BTW, the idea of moving Clement to first base is as bad as extending Joh for three years just before bringing Clement up. Leave Joh handing a bit and let him beat the new kid out. IF he does, then give him the new contract. That was a bad decision and was executed at a bad time. Clement should be the future of this franchise. Left handed batting catchers are a commodity. He is too light hitting to be a commodity at first base.

Um, can we please put the Felix thing to bed? Felix DID talk to the media on the night that Geoff felt slighted...Geoff had just taken off too early and missed him.

from KOMO's Shannon Dreyer:

"As for last night, he (Felix) was not avoiding the press. It was reported that he avoided the press by hanging out in off limits areas for 45 minutes after the game. This is misleading. When the game ends there is a ten minute cool off period before the media is let into the clubhouse. When we are allowed in we go directly in to first talk with the manager, then we head to the clubhouse to talk with the players. Quite often, the clubhouse is empty and we have to wait for players to filter out or to be brought out by PR staffers. I checked the time stamps on my interviews Tuesday night and Mac spoke at 10:12. We got Raul at 10:32 and Felix spoke at 10:39, 27 minutes after we were allowed into the clubhouse. It is not uncommon for a starting pitcher to take awhile to come out. Some are fast, others are not. Newspaper reporters are on deadlines and if they can’t wait, then they can’t wait.

That night I along with a reporter from MLB.com waited for Felix. When he came out he was surprised that there were only two of us left. I explained that the others had deadlines and Felix replied, “But it is early.” He then gave us the interview. From the interview I could tell that he wasn’t quite sure how to handle himself in this particular situation. He didn’t want to say that he pitched poorly. He spouted the company line on how they were struggling and how he believed that the bats would come along. He seemed a bit confused on just how he was supposed to answer the questions. He did give one good nugget, he said that he believes he has been throwing the fastball too much in his recent starts and needs to mix in more breaking balls. It was a decent interview, and while not as timely as some would want, no arm twisting was required."

link: http://www.komoradio.com/marinersradio/shannon/18965989.html

Care to explain that one, Geoff?

Also, I agree with Al.

I think your job is hard. And sometimes I think you're so busy that you don't get across what you are actually feel. You briefly mentioned Batista not facing the media, but used 1,000 or more words on Felix not facing the media. The seeming discrepancy in emphasis gives off the impression that a young player skirting the media is more damning than a veteran doing so. Likely, you didn't mean to leave that impression.

I think this happens quite a bit in this space, with lots of issues across the board. We incorrectly read into the number of words you spend on one topic and mistake it for your actual belief system. In reality, you are probably just crunched for time, and write more when you have time, and less when you don't.

...just some feedback.

As an athlete, you need someone to “slap you upside the head” when things are not going well. It gives you a different focus.

As a professional athlete at the highest level in your sport you shouldn't need to be slapped in order to focus.

Lastly,

I'd like to add that I agree that we are spending way to much time talking about who does post-game interviews and who doesn't.

Seriously, who cares whether a player stands around to give 10-second sound bites that rarely sound any different than the day before? If it really does make teammates that upset, they should address it in the clubhouse and move on. It's such a small, unimportant aspect of the game.

From USSMariner: "If you can prove that team chemistry is significant, you’ll have made one of the most interesting breakthroughs in baseball research"

CHEMISTRY EXPERIMENT
2007 Mariners:
-marginal starting pitching
-excellent bullpen
2008 Mariners through May 20th:
-solid starting pitching
-marginal bullpen

For the purposes of this experiment, the blog masters of all Mariner-related sites have allowed us to call this a wash between the two seasons, thus far. After all, lack of offensive performance has been identified as the major problem of the 2008 Mariners that has caused the poor record to date.

Offensely and Defensely, this team changed only one variable between 2007 and 2008:
-M's got rid of Jose Guillen in RF
-All other everyday players remained the same.

What did we lose with Guillen?
Specifically,
- 99 RBI's
- lifetime .273 batter
- 2007 Batting Average of .290
- 2007 OPS of .813
- replaced by Wilkerson/Balentiens 2008 avg of .225
- combined, in 2008 Wilkerson/Balentien are on track for 56 RBIs and an OPS of .685
- Net result will be 43 RBI's lost, and a decline in OPS of .128 for the Right Field position.

More importantly,

after testing the Mariner position players and Guillen with a battery of Psychological tests, taking into account the Forer Effect, Rorschach blotting, Myers-Riggs profiling, item responses and confirmation factor analyses, we determined scientifically the following with the absence of Jose Guillen:

-The M's are missing a fiery clubhouse personality in a clubhouse that lacks extroverted leaders among the position players.

This is resulting in:
- the team batting average declining from .287 in 2007 to .248 thus far in 2007.
- OPS declining from .762 in 2007 to .686 thus far in 2008
- The M's were in the race from day one in 2007 until late Aug.
- By mid-May 2008, realistically, the Mariners are on the verge of being eliminated.

Scientific experiments are contingent on controlling the variables. This example is as close to a controlled study as ever conducted in the real world of MLB. Guillen is the only everyday player gone from the team. The impact of his absence proves the value of chemistry sparking a higher level of performance among fellow position players.

Conclusion: Offensively, the Mariner team of 2008 has suffered dramatically from the absence of Jose Guillen and the CHEMISTRY he brought to this specific team.

I expect USSMariner to send my grandchildren through college for my "breakthrough in baseball research."

And my HTML coding skills are not awesome.

Thank you Carson for pointing out Geoff's nonsensical analogy of the distractions faced by a major league DH.

Geoff, sometimes you really sound stupid.

Now we know why the M's designated hitters suck. They go up to the stands between at-bats to eat ice cream instead of working on their swings or studying the pitcher or all the other things a DH could do to stay loose and in the game.

Geoff, great post, but I'd cut out the entire first part where you reacty to all the flame-spittin posters out here. Anytime you talk to us in your posts it just fuels our idea that you're hearing us...definately answer the team related questions and do what you do best, which is anlysis of the M's, but stay away from all us yahoo's and our wild antics.

That said, If Sherill is telling you the Chemistry in the Oriioles dugout is better, and they are, have been, such losers, it hints that winning has nothing to do with it. That said, when all you do is lose, if you can't do anything about it, you have to find something to get you through the season, thats where good chemistry is a MUST.

The plain fact of the matter, and the reason the M's are losing, is production. Sexson, Beltre, and even Ichiro to an extent are ALL under-producing. Everyone who pointed the finger at the M's at the beginning of the season and said: "The M's will win IF..." usually had some line about a mediocre offense playing to the peak of its ability, they haven't done that, and the M's have lost.

Chemistry is important, but its not making the BP blow saves, the hitters strike out, Ichiro and Beltre have abismal averages WRISP.

The Mariners offense is the problem. If we could manage to wake them up enough to get 4+ runs on at least 4 out of 6 starts, that would be a HUGE difference. right now we're lucky to get it once.

Figure out the offense, get em rolling, and you've got a contender on your hands.

Anytime you talk to us in your posts it just fuels our idea that you're hearing us...definately answer the team related questions and do what you do best, which is anlysis of the M's, but stay away from all us yahoo's and our wild antics

Uhm, it's within Geoff's best interests to listen to us. If he stopped and people quit buying the paper he'd be out of a job. Besides, isn't that the point of blog? To have further contact with people? Otherwise he'd just submit articles and that's it.

I would be eager to hear more of the players opinions about clubhouse chemistry. Like what does Felix or Sexson think? How much would the opinion differ say, between a vet like Beltre and a young buck like Jose Lopez.

Just from my personal experience, I believe that chemestry IS a factor, as is winning and losing breeds it.

I have been on teams where no one got along and it was definitely a drag. I mean you love to go to the park and play, but when ya get to the park, there are a bunch of a-holes waiting for you. It definitely takes away from the joy of the game. It breeds a level of negativity. And even when you win, which is awesome, you still have a-holes surrounding you.

On the other hand when I have been on a team where the majority of the players groove together, the whole experience is a blast. The game is what it should be,,pure joy. You wish you could play till the sun comes up. The travel is tolerable, even fun. You go out with your teamates after games or on weekends. It is great.

I would have to imagine that the latter is the best way to go. Meaning that a happy ballplayer tends to put forth his best game on the field, not only that he can relax because he doesn't have negativity hanging over him. He is playing the game like a young boy, with a smile.

Talent is not to be overlooked in discussions of chemistry. Sure, these guys have to have talent to be where they are. However, since there is no such thing as a player who is perfect at everything, let alone a team with nothing but perfect players, the best teams are able to cover up individual weaknesses with team strengths. Sure, teams try to stack the rosters with all-stars and superstars, but we've seen how well that usually works. Chemistry is more than just camraderie among the players; it's about having the right combination of players doing the right things to help the team win.

To some degree, extra effort and attitude is one of those team strengths that can cover up for an individual weakness here and there, but it's not the be-all and end-all. I think that's where the 2001 team was especially good and deceptive. On paper, the individual parts weren't really that good, but everyone knew their role, the roles meshed they way they were supposed to, and the result was at least good.

The other heartbreaker this season is that we have been sold that this team was going to contend....not just this year. On KJR yesterday, weren't they quoting Chuck Armstrong in 2004 saying "we're going to the playoffs?" Every year, they've said, "our goal is to contend." I think it would be way different if they told us they were rebuilding rather than acting like they are retooling. It would make more sense that way. But we're EXPECTING a team that wins 90 games. Because of that, they have to keep patching holes here and there instead of stripping it down and carrying forward a clear plan of progress. I'm not saying that we should waive all the veterans and bring up the Tacoma Rainiers. Bavasi may have rebuilt our farm system from where it was under Gillick/Piniella, but I don't see any signs that it is full of Major League ready talent right now. That may be what this is about....buying time until we have more minor league talent available.

This year, I have low expectations. I see this team as .500 or slightly better, and I don't see many blockbuster changes until the offseason.

another thought, when you lose it definitely SUCKS big time!! But if you are surrounded by a-holes it sucks like nothing else, cuz they always blame someone else. When you lose with a group of good teamates, it still sucks, but you know what, most everyone mans up and takes responsibility for their own and it's like you say ok man we lost that sucks, let's beat the crap outta them tomorrow.

Geoff

I want to read read this and read it good because its true

http://ussmariner.com/2008/05/20/we-dont-care/#comments

OK? Good.

I think if you read the entire comment Jason you'd see that I said:

"...definately answer the team related questions and do what you do best, which is anlysis of the M's, but stay away from all us yahoo's and our wild antics." - in other words, best not to get to wrapped up in the whiners and a complainers and pay more attention to the people who actually want to have an open discussion.

But don't let my posts distract you from your getting your USSMariner commercials on here, I'm sure many more bloggers are interested in your cut rate analysis and are waiting for you to post your website again...

A high percentage of the national media thought the Tigers were going to be good; a high percentage of the Seattle media thought the M's were going to be good.

Dombrowski, historically, has made some good moves; Bavasi, historically, has made many, many more bad moves than good ones.

Yeah Maybe Ibanez' feathers would get ruffled a bit by getting shuffled to DH or 1B. But I'll bet that when he goes home and checks his bank account and sees that multi million dollar balance he breaks into a big shit eating grin and says awww what the hell 1B ain't thaaaat baad.

"Some fans are blaming GM Dave Dombrowski and manager Jim Leyland. Most are blaming the players. That's ultimately where I think most of the blame in Seattle lies. "

Well...yeah. Of course the blame lies with the players, they're the ones who aren't playing well enough to win. But the managment is who is responsible for picking the players.

In the case of Detroit, they have good players and their current record is a huge surprise to me. In the case of Seattle, we don't have enough good players.

Also, Chemistry is a crock. You can't tell me that when one of the most highly skilled players on the entire planet is in the batters box that his concentration isn't good enough to focus on the pitch instead of whether he likes the music selection of his lockerroom buddies.

But don't let my posts distract you from your getting your USSMariner commercials on here, I'm sure many more bloggers are interested in your cut rate analysis and are waiting for you to post your website again...

Don't worry, you're not going to distract me from anything.

I'm going to try to be as nice as possible about this but Geoff isn't any more qualified to be an analysist than many of us. He's certainly an axcellent jouarnalist. I enjoy Geoff's personal looks at the game and the team.

However, I take issue with his methods of analyzing this team and others. If he didn't want to be questioned than he wouldn't post them online for everyone to comment on. I do agree that inane comments and name calling have got to stop. Did you used to have to register in order to post?

My point of posting is to try to share my knowledge (learned from a lot of others) with anyone who'll listen. I enjoy the game even more the more I learn. If you're threatened by new information that's not my problem, it's yours. This is still essencially an open forum.

Sorry for the overly long quote below but it is interesting. It is part of a dialogue between Rob Neyer and Jonah Keri at ESPN.com. Seems there were some baseball analysts not so rosy about the Ms at the start of the year. Link here and quote below.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=mlb/080520

Rob: OK, so how about the Mariners? Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it, that they were everybody's favorite dark horse?

Jonah: Not mine! I didn't like them at all at the start of the season. I wasn't quite as optimistic about the A's as you were in late March (kudos on that one), but I had no problem with anyone predicting a third-place finish for Seattle, even last place if the Rangers ever got their pitching together. To me, the biggest issue with the M's was their woeful lack of secondary players. You had four stars on this team: Erik Bedard, King Felix, J.J. Putz and Ichiro, with Adrian Beltre a fifth player you could classify as very good. After that, ugly. The Bedard trade subtracted a very important bullpen arm in George Sherrill and what would have been a valuable defensive outfielder in Adam Jones.

In fact, for all the wailing about the M's offensive problems, it's been their inability to catch the ball that's been their most consistent problem over the past couple of years. They turn fewer balls in play into outs than just about any team in baseball. Raul Ibanez resembles a mummified Boog Powell in left field, and plenty of others on the roster have defensive reputations that far exceed their actual contributions. Throw in injuries and ineffectiveness turning Putz into half the dominant force he was last year, and Ichiro, at least to date, looking like he may actually be human, and I just don't see enough here. The Mariners don't make the playoffs, they don't contend for the playoffs and we see wholesale changes between now and Opening Day 2009.

Rob: I think that's right. The M's went to a great deal of trouble to improve their rotation, and the guys they got have been fine. But they're still stuck with Miguel Batista and Jarrod Washburn, both of whom make good money but can't actually pitch. And the M's are last in the league in OBP and only figure to improve a few slots once Ichiro gets going. Fork, meet M's.

Excuse me bsstecks....but Jason is not an approved member of the USSM Blog.
Further, he has neither stated or sited any USSM approved mantra in this thread.
Thus, please refrain from blaming USSM for jason and his comments.

Obviously Howard Lincoln is the real problem, and he will go nowhere since he is NINTENDO's boy. He seems to want to hire mediocre people who won't disagree with him. They let Bob Melvin go, replaced him with a manic depressive "veteran" and replaced him with a "nice guy". They signed mediocre overpaid free agents (like Sexson and Beltre) and overpriced mediocre starters (like Batista, Washburn and Silva) instead of growing young pitchers (like Morrow).

Q. Will Beltre ever get to 100 RBI as a Mariner?

Q. Will Sexson have a second straight >75 RBI season?

Q. Other than Ichiro can you name another field player that ecxites you?

Q. Can you believe you used to take for granted a team that trotted out Griffey, A-Rod, Edgar, Jay and Randy every day?

It's totally depressing. They'll pick it up and win 80-85 games. And then more stupid offseason stufff will happen. Bavasi has no guile, he wears his "strategy" on his sleeve. And we inevitably overpay and/or get taken.

I don't think I ever said I was afraid of new "knowledge" and I'm not afraid of your opion for that matter either.

I like how you mock the guy who plaid professional ball earlier, saying "we all played ball." and then when he clarifies you write off his opinion on team chemistry when he's actually experienced it.

I also like how you post your blog links all over Geoffs blog, and then turn around and bash his analysis and qualifications. I'd like to see where Geoff does that on USSMariner...

I do believe being a beat reporter and at EVERY game talking to ALL of the players, constanly writing and living Mariners baseball does IN FACT qualify Geoff as a baseball anlyist over you and I. I have to think I'd probably LEARN a lot more about a team if I spent my entire job engulfed in them.

Do I think Geoff is God and therefore ALWAYS right? Nah, I disagree with him at times, he's certainly got some biases, but he usually does a pretty damn good job of covering all points of view and thats good writing.

You don't have to like that I think he's smarter and more qualified than you, you don't like to think anyone is, but the proof is in the experience, he's got it, you don't. So you should go play on your other blog some more.

"All other everyday players remained the same."

Incorrect. Hint: a 32 year old baseball player is not the same as a 31 year old baseball player.

The only way to affect change on this team is to quit buying tickets. Thats the only power fans have, and as long as M's fans support mediocrity, mediocrity is what we'll get.

Cheetah,

My apologies if Jason is in fact, un-affiliated, his previous comments have indicated otherwise. If he is really un-affiliated, then I withdraw my comments about his contributions on the USS Mariner, though I am pretty sure he is affiliated. I do however maintain a low appreciation for USSMariner content, just personally speaking, I don't speak for anyone else.

My frustration with Geoff is based on how there hasn't been more detailed criticism on Bill Bavasi and the front office. I understand Geoff goes into the clubhouse for interviews and works with the team in person. I can understand he doesn't want this site to be a forum to "vent angst against the front office. It's reasonable for a man not to want to endure that on a daily basis.

However, when Geoff worked with the Toronto Star, he showed an easy willingness to rock the boat and become critical with angst towards Ricciardi and the Jays organization for their sabermetrics induced decision-making. I won't go into detail, but it even forced the Sabr-cult bible founder Michael Lewis to bash Geoff in his book.

Most fans here would like to see more accountability on why Clement and Balentien were even put into a position their immediate success would have to determine the team's success for 2008 in the first place. I don't agree they should be the scapegoats for Bavasi's stupid moves the past 4 years. Fans want the truth they don't want fluff or excuses for possibly 4 last place finishes in 5 years under Bavasi.

I actually agree with Dave Cameron for once and agree that Washburn, Vidro, and Sexson deserve the criticism. Even though Dave has advocated signing veteran broken down players ranging from Kevin Brown to Jim Edmond's in his ridiculous Bavasi style/trade prospects off-season plans the past few years. He's made a complete 360 degree turn from the "Bavasi deserves more time" ramblings to the Antonetti in '08 campaign. So I find it humorous he calls out Geoff in his blog today for not being critical of Bavasi's failed acquisitions.

Nevertheless, when you take into account that Beltre and Sexson were Bavasi's $100+ million dollar winter signings back in 2005. Those two players are Bavasi' s heart of the order offensive players. I've stated this before, when you look at Beltre and Sexson in comparison to other team's best hitters, we fall short. For as good as Beltre measures up with other third baggers, he fails in measuring to the $64 million dollars for being that 40 home run hitter he was supposed to be.

Most of all I wonder why Geoff has changed his approach at being critical at an organization that is poorly managed. He did it in Toronto but refuses to do it in Seattle.

Bsstecks,
My apologies on 2 fronts.
First, my note was in gest...just trying to add some levity to a discussion that appeared to be getting nasty.
Second, that I did not see that jason had in fact sited the article on the USSM blog early on in this thread.
While I do not agree with USSM half the time, there are many articles I do agree with though, and virtually very person I have interacted affiliated with USSM has been a gentleman and a scholar...atleast more than I.

Nah Cheetah, you're right, I'm being an ass. I'm off my USSM hater wagon for now...I still say Geoff is smarter though....

I don't think I ever pretended to be a gentleman and I can't even spell scholar...I don't think...

I like how you mock the guy who plaid professional ball earlier, saying "we all played ball." and then when he clarifies you write off his opinion on team chemistry when he's actually experienced it.

I wasn't mocking him. If it sounded like that I'm really sorry. I think it's fantastic he was that good of a ballplayer and had that oppurtunity. Kudos to him. My point is that someone's view of something may be slightly tinted when they're 1) wrapped up in it and 2) 20 years removed. I have doubt that all there's some element to baseball teams and chemistry. I'm just not going to use it as a catch all.

I also like how you post your blog links all over Geoffs blog, and then turn around and bash his analysis and qualifications. I'd like to see where Geoff does that on USSMariner...

It's not my blog. I read things there and a lot of other places. Don't blame USS Mariner, man. Also, like I wrote earlier, I disagree with much of Geoff's analysis of the team's construction, management and potential. If that pisses Geoff off, I'm really sorry. It's not meant to. It's meant to be a constructive arguement.

I do believe being a beat reporter and at EVERY game talking to ALL of the players, constanly writing and living Mariners baseball does IN FACT qualify Geoff as a baseball anlyist over you and I.

And I don't. So we'll have to disagree. It CERTAINLY makes him much more qualified to have insider information and he's certainly more than qualified to have an informed opinion on player's personalities and what not but it has nothing to do with him sitting down, looking at the numbers and figuring out- what's next?

but he usually does a pretty damn good job of covering all points of view and thats good writing.

Agreed. Totally agreed.

You don't have to like that I think he's smarter and more qualified than you, you don't like to think anyone is, but the proof is in the experience, he's got it, you don't. So you should go play on your other blog some more.

Uhm, because Geoff writes about baseball for a newspaper doesn't make him necessarily smarter than the next person. It makes him a talented writer and obviously very intelligent, but you don't know how smart I am or anyone else for that matter. I don't know Geoff so I don't know if he's smarter than me, you or Stephan Hawkings.

It's to bad that you seem to believe the only people qualified to have a worthy opinion of baseball analysist are those who either played it or cover it.

I did not say Geoff was not either...and in fact on this team chemistry point....

Mike (2:00) - great post. Ibanez is a "mummified Boog Powell"? That's pretty harsh.

Horray for proof-reading.

My first paragraph should read (you find it): "I have NO doubt there's some element to baseball teams and chemistry..."

THIS IS COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC...but.....

Slipped into the report about swapping Jeff Clement for Jeremy Reed, there was mention of picking up a pitcher (Tracy Thorpe?) off waivers from Toronto. Definitely nothing to get excited about by itself, but is it:

1. The first domino in a trade or set of trades yet to come?

2. Bavasi expects him to contribute sometime this year?

3. One of those low-risk signings that Bavasi likes to do every year?

4. Just a player to take up space on the 40-man?

5. Something else entirely?

Nah, I just take the word of those who are emerged in it. for 162 days of the year, Geoff is forced to watch the game, and watch it carefully, its his job, he can't not do it. When you are exposed to something so much you begin to accoustom yourself to it, you get familiar with what you see, how things are done, what moves a coach will make and what his reasoning is, why? because you ask him that question after the games and he tells you the answer...this is all boiling down to being able to analyize a situation because you know where the people are coming from because you're working out of experience with them. Thats makes Geoff MUCH better qualified to analyze the Mariners than either you or I. Does it make him more qualified to analyze the Detroit Tigers? Nope, he doesn't have near the experience with them.

You are right, doesn't make him smarter, smart is a relative term, I meant it makes him smarter on THIS subject, but not in general. I concede on this point.

To the original point of the post, chemistry's got nothin to do with M's problems. We need offense, pure and simple and there ain't nothing more individual in baseball than stepping into the batters box to face a pitcher, no amount of chemistry will help you there.

notagreener - Thorpe was assigned to Tacoma. He's a AAA filler, nothing more.

To the original point of the post, chemistry's got nothin to do with M's problems. We need offense, pure and simple and there ain't nothing more individual in baseball than stepping into the batters box to face a pitcher, no amount of chemistry will help you there.

I will totally agree with you on this point. No doubt about it.

As for the other points, we'll have to agree to disagree.

http://forums.seattletimes.nwsource.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=79010

Wow, that's not cool.

Maybe this has already been linked... or maybe someone should wait around after the game a little longer.

http://www.komoradio.com/marinersradio/shannon/18965989.html

"If Raul is unhappy about moving, while childish, he's still human and has feelings and emotions that may be difficult to put in check. Therefore his emotions and brain may just get the better of him and distract him from his job at hand. Is that simplistic and ridiculous? We'd all like to think so, but if you've played sports then you know there was a time where you got upset at something and it threw your game off. People aren't robots. You can't give commands and instantly get results."

That's funny. People weren't saying this when Ichiro was reluctant to move to CF. I remember people calling him selfish, and not a leader.

"but the proof is in the experience, he's got it, you don't. "

Experience has it's benefits, but at this point I don't think there could possibly be anything more overrated.

Bill Bavasi has tons of experience. He's "been around the game" his entire life. Nuff said.

There are lots of people who played the game for years that couldn't possibly know any less about the game. You don't seem to get that.

Now I'm not dogging Geoff. He usually has very reasoned arguments even if I don't agree with the conclusion. But the idea that someone knows more about the game because they played it, or are around it all the time is just a complete myth.

"I actually agree with Dave Cameron for once and agree that Washburn, Vidro, and Sexson deserve the criticism. Even though Dave has advocated signing veteran broken down players ranging from Kevin Brown to Jim Edmond's in his ridiculous Bavasi style/trade prospects off-season plans the past few years. He's made a complete 360 degree turn from the "Bavasi deserves more time" ramblings to the Antonetti in '08 campaign. So I find it humorous he calls out Geoff in his blog today for not being critical of Bavasi's failed acquisitions."

Dave was advocating the hiring of Antonetti since before Bavasi was even hired.

Secondly, it's not suprising that you don't see the difference between signing an old Jarrod Washburn to a 4 year 37 million dollar deal, and a Kevin Brown to a 1 year 1 million dollar contract.

I've heard some people say that there is a huge English barrier in the clubhouse. But it's not as if the Mariners are the only team with multi-languages.

What do people want? In the off-season they have English class in the Diamond Club?

The people at USSMariner worship the creators and believe anything they say. Those who oppose numbers, or those who have played the game at a reasonable level, understand that baseball is about faaaaaaaaarrrrrrr more then just numbers. They ban anyone who has another belief about it.

USSMariner is an extremely bias site ran by a good statistician (Dave) and an author who tries to be a good statistician.

It just looks pretty ridiculous when casual fans start telling the PLAYERS that chemistry doesn't matter...

AJ---What a ridiculous statement. The guys at USSM advocate incorporating statistical analysis (here's thr tricky part) AND scouting. This idea that statistics and actually playing baseball are somehow opposite is just plain silly. And besides, EVERYONE uses numbers. The stats based crowd just uses numbers that correlate more to scoring runs and preventing runs.

Scrap---Just to be clear, the mummified Boog Powell-Ibanez reference comes from ESPN writer Jonah Keri, not me. Not that I don't wish I hadn't thought of it.

From Jeff at Lookout Landing....

I'm not going to jump onto the Geoff Baker dogpile. God knows there are more than enough people doing that already. Let me just say this: you'd be a bit of a prickly pear too if you had to interact with a colossal disappointment of a team on a daily basis, write about it on a deadline, and then go home and deal with the kinds of people who frequent that blog. All the while trying to maintain some semblance of a normal personal life. I don't agree with a lot of the stuff Geoff has said these past few weeks, but he doesn't have it easy, and I'm not going to hate him for it. If you don't like him, don't read him.

That said, there is one thing I want to address. And I'm going to use Geoff as an example, but only because it's convenient for me. The following is the kind of argument I hear from countless people all the time, and it just isn't true:

Yes, the defense could be upgraded. But right now, the defense -- bad as it's been on some nights -- is not what is losing the majority of these games. It's an offense hard-pressed to score more than two or three runs per contest.

For one thing, defense really may be our biggest problem right now:

Offense: 12 runs below average (by Runs/Game)
Pitching: 9 runs below average (by FIP)
Defense: ~17 runs below average (by THT +/-)

But that's a point specific to the Mariners. More importantly, there's this: any improvement is still an improvement. The goal of any successful baseball team is to maximize the amount of runs it scores and minimize the amount of runs it allows. An added run at the plate is (for all intents and purposes) worth no more and no less than a subtracted run in the field. If you're a team with a given deficiency, it's bad strategy to limit yourself to solutions that address only that one particular shortcoming. It doesn't make sense. If you can't score runs, you shouldn't only look for bats. If you can't prevent runs, you shouldn't only look for pitching. That department may be perceived as your biggest weakness - and it may really be your biggest weakness - but any gained run is still a gained run, no matter how you look at it or from whence it comes.

So far this season, the Mariners have been outscored by an average final of 4.7 to 4.1. A lot of people would like to see the Mariners add a run to their total to turn it around. But it would be every bit as helpful to subtract a run from the opponents instead. Either way, you're still coming out on top. The lesson being: don't try to improve problems. Improve the team. It's easier to do, and it's just as effective. I promise.

For whatever it is worth....

Wow, there are a lot of angry M's fans on here. A quick thought on team chemistry. While I don't think that team chemistry is the end all, be all for a team; I do think it is a very important component for championship quality team. If you look at most teams who win championships in professional sports, they have good, if not great, team chemistry. I think this is especially important in baseball since these guys are together non-stop for 7+ months from spring training to the playoffs (hopefully).

My question is what specifically is Mike Hargrove's role as a consultant for the M's? I know he shows up from time to time to consult with management about "things," but does any of his consultation involve personnel? I ask this question because Mike Hargrove might be ragged on for his in-game management (or lack thereof), but he has always been good at integrating different personalities in his clubhouse and seems to always be able to create a good clubhouse atmosphere. Just a thought though. He is one the payroll, might as well talk to him about his take as to the team's chemistry in the clubhouse.

What do people want? In the off-season they have English class in the Diamond Club?

Actually most teams, through MLB, have something similar to this. Mostly for young, Latin ballplayers though. Some of it is learning English, but mostly it's cultural information.

Come on Geoff. It's your elitist attitude that I find unbearable. You're not an HOF all-star broadcaster who truly understands the clubhouse unlike the rest of us ignorant peasants.

Furthermore, I believe the majoriy of your material is derived from having your nose stuffed in a laptop 12 hrs. a day.

What, you didn't recieve nearly enough comments to inflate your bloated ego over the weekend? Is that why you have shut people up, and slammed the cyber door in their face. Everyone is speachless over your infinate wisdom. Give me a break.

I spent the beautiful weekend fishing on the lovely Lake Couer d' Alene.

If you don't want to hear what the casual fan has to say then close all comments to your blog or find a different career path. Better yet, just go the route of U.S.S.M. and delete, censor, and ban all posts and posters that don't further your agenda.

If you can't stand the comments, just don't read them.

Geoff's blog is 1000 times better then USSMariner and other blogs out there. Atleast he listens to others points and has atleast a certain degree of respect.

USSMariner only applauds readers who have the same viewpoint as them. They will beat you to death if you have an alternate viewpoint. Finally they will disrespect you and there will be 100 commenters who will agree with the "disrespecting path" and add to the insults. Disgusting crap.

I don't think it's a by product of losing. I blame this again, on the FO, for getting guys because they want to 'come home' ie: Cirillo etc., for getting guys because they want to move their families to Issiquah, for many reasons other than their will to win. End of story