That sucked.
As you've probably figured out by now, I'm one of those people who wants to see the Mariners picking first next June. I've made no secret of it. Neither have a lot of other people. Historically, the first overall pick has offered a far greater return than any other in the draft, and being able to select from every draft-eligible player in the world is a position in which I would like the Mariners to find themselves next summer as they look to add talent to the system.
This isn't about being a good fan or a bad fan*. This is about myself and many others thinking bigger-picture than the present day. We're willing to sacrifice whatever joy there is in winning meaningless baseball games in order to see the team end up with that first pick. Forget the name. The name doesn't matter. The position matters. The first pick is the best pick, and it's been the best pick by a wide margin. Landing on top of the list would give this team the opportunity to very rapidly right a lot of prior wrongs.
That's what we're cheering for. We're not so much cheering for losses as we are cheering for a win in something more important than a game in late September. I know that seems like spin, but it's true. Yes, we take pleasure in seeing the team fail now, but that's only because every failure now brings us that much closer to a shot at major success down the road. Major success that could help get the organization turned around quicker than you might think possible.
Some people watch the Mariners these days because they still want to see them win. That's perfectly fine. Admirable, even, and a little romantic. After all, we watch baseball more than anything else to be entertained, and when you're content to let the longer-term play out as it will, there's nothing more entertaining than victory.
But others of us watch to see the occasional highlight from a young player while the Mariners secure for themselves a higher pick. It's not a worse approach, and it's not a better approach; it's a different approach. But it's an entirely valid approach, as is the other. Which is why I'm kind of getting sick of people on both sides accusing those on the opposite side of being bad fans. It's a silly argument. We might disagree on what we'd like to see happen at the end of the day, but at the end of the year, we all want the same thing. We're all Mariners fans, and we all want to see the Mariners do well. It's just that at least a few of us have to keep an eye on the bigger picture, because not doing so is what got us into this wreck in the first place.
I wish the Mariners would've lost today. The Nationals gave them an opening to build a little cushion, but they blew it by coming back, and so they continue to lead the race by only the slimmest of margins. But as displeased as I was with tonight's turn of events, there are at least a whole lot of people who enjoyed it, and you know what? I'm happy for them. They deserved a rally like this. It's been a long time. I'll just have to suck it up.
It's funny to think about - it required an awful lot in the way of heartbreak and tragedy, but the Mariners have found themselves in the unusual position of being able to make a lot of fans happy every day, regardless of the final score. And really, that's something. If nothing else. What a weird year.
* I've never really understood the idea of there being "good" and "bad" baseball fans. Certainly there are more knowledgeable baseball fans, and there are more devoted baseball fans, but for every fan on the planet, baseball is simply a pastime, something with which we occupy ourselves for purposes of entertainment, the way a fisherman occupies himself with lures, or a birdwatcher occupies himself with binoculars. It seems to me there can be no "bad" baseball fans any more than there can be "bad" readers.
0 recs | 77 comments
I for one, had trouble giving in.
I have always been a member of the crowd that believe that it’s never okay to play the game to lose. Perhaps it’s something ingrained in me as child or some simplistic notion of right and wrong, but I struggled to watch the M’s blogs go nuts over “winning” the sweepstakes.
I’m not stupid, I understand the value of the Number 1 overall pick, and I hope we get it. But not because we “successfully lost”, but because we truly sucked shit this year and ultimately will deserve it. I mean, seriously, how can even the Nationals be worse than us at this point?
I guess you have to reach rock bottom sometimes to ultimately pull yourself back to the top*. I hope this truly is the bottom. Please, please, let this be the bottom.
*Or as close as the M’s could be to the top.
batura - September 24, 2008
There is no floor
mariners124m - September 24, 2008
M's number one picks
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/draft/index.shtml
Alex Rodriguez, Ken Griffey Jr., Mike Moore, Al Chambers
In other words, they are 2 for 4 in drafting future hall of famers.
vj - September 24, 2008
In other words...
SSS
brayden04 - September 24, 2008
Having a SSS in this regard may not be such a bad thing
Ask the Pirates about that.
Gomez - September 24, 2008
Mike Moore was decent
and A-Rod and Griffey aren’t your run in the mill hall of famers.
JI - September 24, 2008
I was in my car coming home from work the other day
and I tuned in to Kiro to see if we’d won or lost.
As I listened for clues in Matt Pittman’s recap to the final outcome, I found myself hoping for a loss, and I literally burst out into spontaneous cheering, clapping and “yeahs” when I found out that we did.
I understand the desire to win, particularly if you’re looking for progress from the players or are simply watching every day to squeeze every last morsel of joy out of this season, but that’s not me.
Jeff said it, a #1 pick can swing a franchise’s fortunes around in a hurry.
Omerta - September 24, 2008
Oh I've been hoping for the worst record since the start of June.
I don’t see what benefit winning, even say, a .500 record would have for a team that clearly doesn’t have “it” and needs a future. I’d also like to also point out the often overlooked aspect that not only is the #1 pick sweet, but ya draft #1 in all the other rounds too. So our 2nd rounder will almost certainly be 1st round quality, and so on and so on…
SethGrandpa - September 24, 2008
Provided, of course...
…they don’t sign any arbitration-offered FA’s. We’d lose the 2nd round pick, if that’s the case (but there’s no way we’d lose the first, of course).
PositivePaul - September 24, 2008
I know. For some reason I retain the optimistic point that the new GM isn't gonna suck.
I know this will come back to crush me.
SethGrandpa - September 24, 2008
only Type A
Matthew - September 24, 2008
I've never been more mad to see a comeback...I hate this team for even putting me in the situation to hate them for winning.
Bastards
kentroyals5 - September 24, 2008
Amen
Nice to hear that I am not the only one rooting for them to lose. Or rooting for the Nats to get on a hot streak. A loss last night would have made it easier to root for Felix tonight.
This thing looks like it is going to go down to the wire. The M’s lose a tie with the Nats, so all these games are critical. Now would be a great time for a 5-game losing streak.
This could be a franchise-altering draft. The M’s will have early picks in all rounds, plus extra picks for Ibanez and a comp pick if they don’t sign Fields. They could potentially have the #1 overall, the #22 overall pick (for Fields), a supplemental first rounder, a pick at the end of the 1st round or the beginning of the second, and their own pick at the top of the 2nd round. That would be 5 picks before the mid-2nd round. You can get a lot of talent at those slots.
I have to admit that I am not sure what to think about Fields. I hated the pick, and would prefer to just take the pick at #22 next year. However, that could lead to potential money issues. With all those potential early picks, the team would have to spend a ton of money on bonuses. Many teams in that situation decide to go cheap to stay under budget. If the M’s can’t pony up slot-or-above bonuses for all those picks, it might be wise to just sign Fields.
The M’s situation with the draft also makes things more interesting with the GM situation. Whoever the M’s hire, they will come in with a great chance to bolster a pretty weak farm system. I am hoping it is someone focused on player development (say, Brian Cashman or Jed Hoyer or Ben Chernington from Boston). The wisest thing the M’s could do is cut back the big league payroll and funnel that money to amateur talent acquisition.
Jerry - September 24, 2008
The money thing...
If they don’t sign awful free agents to humungaloid contracts, they can use that cash more wisely on the draft.
PositivePaul - September 24, 2008
I mean the only problem with giving picks the money is they are unproven. But the M's give money to proven suck, so what's the issue?
Sad but true.
SethGrandpa - September 24, 2008
If the M's go cheap on signing money next year . . .
I am going to blow a gasket after the way Chowie assured us after the Washburn fiasco that the M’s were not limited by financial considerations. They better stay consistent to that . . .
300ZXNA - September 24, 2008
"Hock", stay consistent???
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHA
The only thing they’re consistent at is being meddling imbeciles.
PositivePaul - September 24, 2008
In general I want them to win
But the thought of the #1 pick is too much to root against with it this close to our sights
Also… The hilarity of this losing streak was so awesome that I just wanted it to continue
mariners124m - September 24, 2008
Jerry's post has alot of good points
The potential of five picks that early is awesome, but it really makes me worry that they’re going to be willing to pony up that kind of money on bonuses. I could be way off base, but this seems like something the higher ups would love to royally screw up. I guess all of our chips are with our future GM. Don’t mess this up guys.
BigR - September 24, 2008
Logically, the #22 or #23 pick next year would cost the same or less than the $1.5M the Ms would save by not signing Fields this year
so logically, there is no money problem. Logically.
The Mariners might choose to spin it a different way, but they’d be lying.
Matthew - September 24, 2008
M's book keeping
This is just my impression, so take it for what it is worth, but the M’s seem to have a pattern of dividing up their money pretty rigidly. They haven’t been willing to turn over unused payroll between years. And I have always gotten the impression that budgets for the draft, int’l market, and payroll are set early in the season. This would lead me to think that they could very likely just close the book on the 2008 draft, and possibly not add that unspent money in 2009. It doesn’t make sense to me, but they seem to operate like that.
But who knows. Things are pretty fluid right now in terms of what the club will do next year. I just hope that they make these decisions based primarily on talent, not rigid figures. A pitcher like Strasburg is worth going well over slot for. Others might not be. But they didn’t go significantly over slot on anyone besides Luke Burnett last year, but the team is obviously going to be coming in with different goals next year.
Regardless, they will have to spend a ton on their first pick (unless they pull a complete Matt Bush). If the M’s do cheap out on subsequent picks, it wouldn’t be that odd. Teams with tons of picks skimp on a few pretty regularly. It wouldn’t be a rare disservice if the M’s pulled that. It would be lame, but it does happen.
Jerry - September 24, 2008
I have different reasons for thinking this win sucked.
Not only do I think losing is better at this point but where was this when we needed it? Faced with less than a 10% chance of victory and then we manage to turn it around and win? I can’t remember that happening against the Angels in the last two years.
Oh well, onward to today. Garland 4 Cy Young.
ThundaPC - September 24, 2008
Well said Jeff and thanks for the comment about good and bad fans.
I often get annoyed at some of the things I see at the ballpark. I also get tired of people who I have never seen before telling me to stop standing up, cheering or yelling at the opposing right fielder. Then those same people go apeshit for the hat trick and hydro race.
However, I am very thankful that so many people are willing to drag their butts to the ballpark no matter what kind of fan they are. I hated living in fear of this team leaving town.
For the better part of a decade this franchise threatened to leave all the time. As much as I make fun of some fans I am thankful this team has such a strong following because I love having Major League baseball in my hometown.
Sec 108 - September 24, 2008
Eh, I like to see the team win.
You never know with pitchers anyway. Hola, Ryan Andersen!
Paytheline - September 24, 2008
There's a reason I never mentioned the name "Strasburg"
The first pick is the first pick. No matter who it ends up being, historically, he’s got the best odds, and by a fair margin.
Jeff Sullivan - September 24, 2008
Bryan Bullington
JI - September 24, 2008
Chipper Jones
What are we playing?
Jeff Sullivan - September 24, 2008
How has this changed over time?
I keep thinking of Rany Jazayerli’s draft study that ended up challenging some long-held notions about the draft – i.e. that HS pitchers were basically 1/10 as valuable as college pitchers, that HS catchers were a losing bet, etc.
Part of the reason for this was that things change dramatically over time – in the 1980s, pitchers drafted out of HS really were poor choices in comparison to college pitchers. But then, from the 90s-present, that’s been less true.
So could we be seeing something similar with the “#1 overall pick is X times more valuable than any other” idea?
How you measure this become important, because if you take the average EqA or VORP or BRAA for #1 picks, you’ll end up with a really high number that’s based on everyone free-riding on Alex Rodriguez and Ken Griffey Jr.
But look at the past 10 drafts or so – there are at least as many clear-cut ‘wins’ for the 2nd pick over the 1st as there are for the 1st over 2nd. Some are obviously still undecided: Delmon Young over Rickie Weeks, for example. And what do you do with Mauer over Prior (yeah, it’s a clear-cut win, but let’s just say there are extenuating circumstances there).
There’s not enough data to make a definitive statement either way, but I just wonder if the league’s insistence on slot, Scott Boras, Matt Harrington, etc. have conspired to push the value of the #1 overall pick down towards the average of picks 2-4 or something.
marc w - September 24, 2008
Nothing
That pick makes me giggle, that’s all.
JI - September 24, 2008
This list is encouraging
http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/
As long as we don’t make a pick that’s completely retarded we’re going to end up with at least a solid regular or a minor star.
JI - September 24, 2008
The history on the second pick ain't bad either
http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/index.cgi?draft_type=junreg&overall_pick=2
JI - September 24, 2008
I notice from that list that hitters tend to more reliably turn out as quality regulars
Gomez - September 24, 2008
My first uneducated guess would be less attrition.
JI - September 24, 2008
True
There are certainly strong reasons why it’s that way. It’s just a notable correlation.
Gomez - September 24, 2008
I think that's pretty clear in general...
Hitters are a lot more predictable and consistent than pitchers. I’d feel a LOT more comfortable giving $25 million/year deal for 4-5 years to an upper-tier hitter than I would to an upper-tier pitcher.
PositivePaul - September 24, 2008
For the most part, yes.
JI - September 24, 2008
Darin Erstad!
He was a punter, you know.
Eyebrows - September 24, 2008
I just figured it was bait.
Kirsten Schlewitz - September 24, 2008
Jeff is right
There have been several studies that show that the top pick is much more likely to pan out.
Other studies have gone beyond just looking at bust rates, and instead have looked at the likelihood of various picks turning into players who are well above average or better. Those results favor the first pick particularly – and elite draft prospects in general – as well.
I read another study that looked at the top talent instead of the top pick, and they best player in each draft has a very high likelihood of turning into a very good player. If I remember correctly, the top highschool position players in each draft were especially likely to develop into excellent players. Your example above illustrates this problem, as BJ Upton (the #2 pick after Bullington) was widely considered the best player overall and definitely the top prep position player. He worked out pretty well for TB.
One other interesting tendency involves pitchers. Pitchers are more likley to be busts (particularly highschool picks). However, pitchers picked in late rounds are far more likely to be productive or better big league players than position players. This tendency is also strongest among prep pitchers. The rate of busts among first round college pitchers wasn’t significantly different than prep or college position players. Basically, it seems like prep pitchers are notably riskier early picks, but have more upside as later picks.
The general conclusion from all this is that scouts are pretty good at what they do. You can bring up examples of busts, but it isn’t the crap shoot that people suggest it is (except perhaps prep pitchers). And a large percentage of those busts are injury-related, which is really tough to predict.
Sorry I didn’t post links to the articles I mentioned. One was in BP, and another was by Jim Callis at BA a few years ago.
Jerry - September 24, 2008
"Top Talent" is in some sense a cop-out
Given that we’re talking about the value of finishing with the worst record. If we do finish last and sign a highly signable college senior, we won’t have ‘won’ anything. As Dave mentioned at USSM yesterday, the odds of the consensus “#1 pick” actually going first are even at best.
The Rany Jazayerli series on the draft a few years back was really amazing stuff, but I’ve let my BP subscription lapse. Do you recall if there was any change in the value of the #1 pick (as opposed to top talent) in recent years? Again, whatever set A-Rod gets dumped into will have some amazing amount of total value, but I’m still not sure that’s useful here.
marc w - September 25, 2008
I'm not fond of strictly slot based draft recaps
because of things like Andrew Miller dropping in 2006. Andrew Miller was the consensus #1 talent. That he fell for signability reasons has nothing to do with #1 picks not being incredibly valuable and yet a slot-based draft review is going to say that.
No matter how they PR spin it, the Mariners can afford to select anyone they want in the 2009 draft.
Matthew - September 25, 2008
So what's the argument?
That you go find the most valuable player in the draft and call him the ‘real’ #1?
I know the M’s can select anyone they want, and that was/should have been just as true in 2006.
marc w - September 25, 2008
No.
From my view, the #1 would be the consensus #1 heading into the draft. Who the draft experts viewed as the best talent in the week before the draft. It’s not foolproof but I think it’s a hell of a lot better than just going by who got picked first because time and again we’ve seen small market teams shy away from the top overall talent. It’s something that
A) doesn’t apply to the Mariners and
B) cannot be assured to continue
Matthew - September 25, 2008
Gotcha
Might be somewhat tough to do for, say, 2000 and back (though someone with a BA subscription might have it), and it’s tough given that there isn’t always a consensus #1.
Still, there are legitimate reasons for NOT taking the ‘consensus #1’ even if you have the chance, and while that may not apply to the M’s, it’s going to apply to plenty of teams going forward.
More fundamentally, I’m still not sure that the ‘consensus #1’ has the kind of clear-cut, bankable advantage that it used to have. Griffey, A-Rod, sure. But I still think things have changed when Andrew Miller and Justin Upton are clearly behind others in their draft classes (to this point), when the top 3 guys in the ‘04 draft have all been passed by Verlander, and when the 7th, 9th and 23rd picks in ’03 have shot past the ’can’t miss’ guys.
I’m still trying to think of why this might be. Some of it may be the emergence of ‘better’ HS pitchers (Kazmir, Hamels, Cain, Greinke from a single, usually derided, draft class) and part of it is clearly bonus demands. There are undoubtedly other variables at work too…
marc w - September 25, 2008
probability
I think the important thing here is probability.
The best prospect in the draft will rarely be the best player to come out of the draft. But those picks have a very high rate of not just reaching the big leagues, but very good ML players. If I remember correctly, the probability of those elite guys developing into very good ML players was much higher than everyone else in the first round. The results of the analysis (again, can’t remember if it was Callis or Jazayerli) were really striking: the numbers for the top guy was notably different from everyone else.
The important thing is going with the highest probability player. A few years down the road, some other guy might end up being a more valuable guy, but that is exceedingly tough to predict. The right decision is to just pick the guy who has the best shot at being really really good.
Jerry - September 25, 2008
Units of analysis
I read a really good study of the draft that looked at signing bonuses as an indicator of true talent. It isn’t a perfect method, but at least it helps cancel out signability picks early in the draft. Thus, guys like Andrew Miller rank closer to their true talent level.
Another option would be to just use Baseball America’s rankings, but that will only give you the top 200 players. I like analyses that look at the entire draft.
That is another benefit of looking at bonus values. It is objective, quantitative, and readily available for the entire draft.
Jerry - September 25, 2008
No recent data
None of the work I have seen consider recent drafts because it takes at least a few years for things to sort themselves out. I would argue that 5 years is the minimum.
Jerry - September 25, 2008
It's fun to go through the drafts.
Sometimes #1’s work as expected. Sometimes Steve Chilcott gets drafted ahead of Reggie Jackson. It’s always better to pick earlier, but the statistical likelihood of #1 being materially better long term than #2 doesn’t make me enjoy losses today.
Paytheline - September 24, 2008
You don't have to enjoy losses,
you just have to understand that probability says losses today mean more wins later. It’s delayed gratification.
Matthew - September 24, 2008
I agree-- the best overall might be a hitter
Which, in my opinion, the Mariners need more. I am hoping over the next 8 months a super-star hitter emerges that can play a good defensive 3b or SS. I think in the long run, that might be more valuable than a pitcher. A Hanley Ramirez or Evan Longoria type. Though, Ramirez was an undrafted free agent and Longoria was the third overall pick.
batura - September 24, 2008
Hanley Ramirez cannot play the infield.
Matthew - September 24, 2008
Is that still true?
He’s looked decent this year in RZR. Yeah yeah, 1 year, player-specific metrics, etc.
But it’s at least possible that he’s not a freak show out there. On the other hand, Miguel Tejada leads MLB SS in RZR, so….
marc w - September 24, 2008
Yeah.
I suck at the National League. I don’t see enough of it to evaluate defense on my own and its just too hard to get good data on defense. I do really wish UZR was more public so we could get in-season numbers.
batura - September 24, 2008
At best he can't throw from short to first.
JI - September 24, 2008
Grant Green
The guy you described is USC SS Grant Green.
However, most view him as well behind Strasburg in terms of overall talent.
It is early, but this draft seems like one of the years where one player is just well above everyone else. Sorta like David Price and (the more common comp) Mark Prior a few years ago.
I think you have to pick the best player in that situation. I agree with you if all else is relatively equal. But at this early point, it doesn’t seem that is the case.
Jerry - September 24, 2008
Price went first, but Prior didn't.
Going into last year, Alvarez was far and away the top player. He went 2nd. Andrew Miller was in a somewhat similar position going into 2006, and ended up going 6th.
Then there’s 2004, but that was such a special, unique, historic brand of fuck-up that it’s probably not relevant.
marc w - September 25, 2008
What's your point?
You are correct that the best player doesn’t always go first. But why does that matter? The reason why getting the #1 pick is nice is because they can pick the best talent without worrying about what other teams might do.
It seems like teams are far more aware of the value of young players right now, so I am thinking we will see fewer guys slide due to bonus demands. This year, the top talent was pretty debatable. A lot of teams had Alvarez ranked #1, but Beckham was in the conversation. The picks at the top of the draft went pretty much according to talent.
I think we will see fewer situations like Prior in the future. Hopefully, the M’s will get the #1 pick and make the decision based solely on talent.
Jerry - September 25, 2008
Reminds me of the 1992 Seahawks
I remember back in ‘92 when the Hawks SUCKED and went 2-14, they actually won a pretty exciting game, knocking off Denver on MNF at home. I was ecstatic, finally a redeeming aspect to the season! (other than Tez’s monstrous domination that year) However, that win put us from the #1 overall pick to the #2 overall pick. I’m sure I don’t need to remind people what happened, BUT Bledsoe went first and went on to a great career. Mirer went second. He had a NOT so successful career. That exciting MNF win set the team back several years. I hope history does not repeat itself here. I too wish we had lost so badly last night. A 2 game lead with 4-5 games to play is a LOT prettier than 1 . . .
300ZXNA - September 24, 2008
Man, Rick Mirer was so overrated
Gomez - September 24, 2008
Third party! Third party!
Dewey N - September 24, 2008
No politics stupid.
Matthew - September 24, 2008
The word party does not always refer to politics and this is one of those instances where it did not
Dewey N - September 24, 2008
Bullshit Fagel
JI - September 24, 2008
I will be going to 3 of the last 5 games, starting tonight.
I will miss seeing baseball this winter, but I will be glad that this year is over. There is a lot of hope in a new GM, and whole new direction for the team. I am looking forward to having hope again.
I want the team to have that #1 pick as well.
mark sobba - September 24, 2008
I see the logic
and appreciate it. I just get caught up in the equivalent of GTE sometimes.
But if they win I would prefer to see one of the young starters get the W.
ignacio - September 24, 2008
You should change the site headline to 'We Control Our Own Destiny'.
Ill keep you guys updated with the Nationals again tonight. They play the Marlins in about an hour, and its local. Im sure half of you have the technology regardless, but I need something to do with my knee currently blown out.
Slica - September 24, 2008
NATIONALS UPDATE
1st pitch: Home run for Ramirez.
2nd pitch: Double for Maybin.
3rd pitch: Hit By Pitch.
Wow. 3 pitches folks.
Slica - September 24, 2008
2nd pitch was a foul, not a double.
Matthew - September 24, 2008
Got it.
Another note: Ryan Zimmerman ‘isnt feeling well’, thus is not playing. The Nationals are taking away the big guns now.
Slica - September 24, 2008
Ok 4 pitches actually.
I missed one to Maybin, apparently.
Slica - September 24, 2008
2-0 on a wild pitch.
Oy Vey.
Slica - September 24, 2008
Rays getting killed already.
5-0, man on 2nd, 1 out. 1st inning.
Slica - September 24, 2008
Nevermind, the commentators are HORRIBLE.
Scott was thrown out trying to get a triple.
So noone on. One out.
Slica - September 24, 2008
I'm enjoying your commentary
Robert - September 24, 2008
You caught me on a good day.
6-0 Orioles over Rays, 3rd inning.
6-0 Marlins over Nationals, 3rd Inning.
Slica - September 24, 2008
Dave Niehaus is used as the call announcing the Angels AL West Title in the latest post season commercial.
Robert - September 24, 2008
So....suddenly the Rays are back in it 5-6.
ThundaPC - September 24, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.