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 n