Lookout Landing

If Rob actually starts playing acceptably well, won't we have to start making longing, homoerotic references to him when he does something great?

Man, that would feel really strange for a while.

Decatur - July 11, 2009 reply

I think I would be okay with it

I don't think there is any going back from the level of disdain I've built up for him

If he suddenly stopped being a worthless taintrag I don’t know what I’d do.

I heart my Johnson!

ralphie81 - July 11, 2009 reply

QUAAAASSSSSAAAAAAARRRRRRR

Yeah I agree,

Although it’s surprising that a career .191 hitter has a .257 avg with an OPS of .858. Although I’m in no way proclaiming that Rob’s actually clutch…

If this is a picture of a giant gamma ray burst

then that’s bad for all of us, I think

Not if it destroys the galaxy where Silva and his kin comes from.

EnglishMariner - July 12, 2009 reply

I have a question about the game today.

One of the Rangers hit a pop fly that our center fielder didn’t catch. The Ranger on first ran to second then starting going back to first (I don’t know if he touched 2B, is that important?), but when the M’s CF didn’t catch the ball and threw it to 2B the Ranger who was going back to 2B was called out (I’m quite sure he wasn’t tagged). The Ranger was called out, the manager argued, but he was still out. What happened there and what rule was applied? The announcers really didn’t say.

From the game thread

Rule 7.08(d) Comment: Runners need not "tag up" on a foul tip. They may steal on a foul tip. If a so-called tip is not caught, it becomes an ordinary foul. Runners then return to their bases.
(e) He fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner. However, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out. The force is removed as soon as the runner touches the base to which he is forced to advance, and if he overslides or overruns the base, the runner must be tagged to be put out. However, if the forced runner, after touching the next base, retreats for any reason towards the base he had last occupied, the force play is reinstated, and he can again be put out if the defense tags the base to which he is forced;

I guess I should have read the game thread. Although, I'm still slow at understanding this.

I apologize, this is still a little new to me. If I quoted a rule in contract bridge it might make no sense to someone who wasn’t familar with the game. So let me try to explain what I think I do understand and please correct what is wrong. According to the rule and your explanation is that the Ranger running from 1B to 2B is the “forced runner” and since he touched 2B (although I didn’t see that on TV), and then started to run back to first when he thought the ball would be caught (at this point he would have had to tag up at 1B before he could advance to 2B) and then saw that it was not caught and that he could go to 2B, the M’s didn’t have to tag him out? All they had to do was throw to 2B to force him out at 2B? Is that right? I don’t remember this from grade school kickball.

You may be overthinking this... it was a force out.

Runner on first, ball goes into the OF, runner thinks it’s going to be caught, so he runs back to first to avoid being doubled off. Instead, it drops, so the OF throws to 2nd. No different than if the shortstop fielded a grounder.

So, what was all the angst about?

Why would the Texas manager be upset about what seemed pretty routine to me? The Ranger from 1B was clearly thrown out by our good-looking center fielder. It wasn’t even close.

Not everyone understands all of the rules.

Managers and players included. He needed to have clarification of the rules.

Wilder. - July 11, 2009 reply

It is a pretty arcane rule.

Thank you, I just wanted to make sure I understood the rule.

That one didn’t seem that complicated when put in perspective.

Yeah, I think the discussion/complaining made it look more complicated

or made it look like the ump ‘missed’ something, when it was in actuality a really routine, simple call.

It seemed pretty common sense to me

But I’ve actually read rulebooks. I bet many players and even managers haven’t. Arguing that to me seemed pretty ridiculous.

Ballard Erik - July 11, 2009 via mobile reply

On the list of things managers argue

that did not rank that high.

I doubt that comes up more than once a year in the major leagues

I’m not surprised in the least that Byrd and Washington didn’t know the rule – hell, I had no idea either

Can't remember ever seeing it in play before

yet the ump had no problem calling it. They are good.

Paytheline - July 12, 2009 reply

Besides their decidedly non-robotic characteristics.

They have to work many, many years in the minors before making it to the majors

I wouldn’t be surprised if this kind of thing does happen in rookie ball or short-season low-A ball. Maybe he screwed up that ruling 14 years ago in a game in Iowa somewhere and definitely remembers it now.

Inkara1 - July 12, 2009 reply

Here's the part where the quoted chunk of the rulebook becomes important.

The Rangers thought that once a player touches the bag, the force play no longer applies. I don’t know WHY they thought that apart from “it would really help out right now if the rules worked that way,” but that’s apparently what they thought.

As it is, I think the rule aligns pretty well with common sense…. the force play doesn’t somehow get waived off because you touched the bag and then ran backwards.

Again, thank you, That makes perfect sense.

I guess this is a play that doesn’t happen very often, otherwise everyone would know that touching the bag at 2B doesn’t effect what happens if the fielder doesn’t catch the popup.

One more question, if I can. This particular play aside, wouldn’t it make sense on a popup to the deep out-field, for the runner on first or second to stay on first or second and tag up and then run to 2B or 3B rather than run when the ball is hit and then have to go back to 1B or 2B and end up there? If the runner stayed on 1B or 2B until the left or right-fielder caught the ball, wouldn’t he be better off trying to ahead especially if the outfielder had a weak arm?

First time I'd ever seen something like that happen

As for running… the manager might have called for a hit-and-run or Byrd might have been attempting a steal.

Yes, and that happens rather frequently.

You don’t often see a runner tag up and go to 2nd on a deep fly out, but it happens. I’m sure it happens more with weak-armed CFs, but the other thing is the stadium itself. My perspective is skewed by Tacoma’s ridiculous CF wall, where a CF can make a perfectly routine catch at 410 feet. In that case, it may be worth tagging and trying to get to 2nd.

And yeah, on this particular play, I think the tricky thing was the fact that the runner was trying to steal second. If he hadn’t been, he never would’ve gotten near 2nd.

I guess my question was a little different.

I’m thinking the popup is either deep to right field or left field, and the runner in on 1B or 2B. Then, why doesn’t he stay, wait for it to be caught and then run on the outfielder?

If it's not a hit-and-run or a steal then that would be the way to go

In the case of a hit-and-run or a steal, the runner is in motion before the bat hits the ball.

Inkara1 - July 12, 2009 reply

The Rangers announcers said it

they weren’t sure of the rule either, but in one of the few times using e-mail to the booth and twitter is actually useful instead of really stupid, viewers pointed out Rule 7.08(e).

Question

Whats the average OPS for a major leaguer. Somewhere in the .700’s?

.761 in the AL so far this year

.756 last year.

ahem

I enjoy the “show averages” button on Fangraphs.

Aaron Campeau - July 11, 2009 via mobile reply

We havce an awesome pitching staff. Opponents are hitting .701 against us this year.

Our pitching staff has actually been below average this year

It’s the defense that’s been phenomenal.

And our clutchness

Agree, most analysts only look at the ERA or runs allowed and think we are good.

I think our starters are B and our relievers are about C. So overall, I give them a B- or C+. Not too bad though.

I would say the relievers are worse than C-level but it's not worth nitpicking

It kinda depends whether you use FIP or tRA though.

Cause a cursory glance says that FIP has us just above average and tRA has us below. I think they’re close enough that I would call this about a nearly average staff.

I think at this point, tRA has matured enough where we can safely say it's better than FIP

the problem with FIP was always that it ignored all batted balls profiles – tRA gets us around that hurdle

If our opponents hit .701 against us, we'd be fucking screwed

Seriously, we'd give up 2,500 runs

Evenf if they all hit singles and no one else ever walked or got hit by a pitch, they'd OPS 1.402

that’s pretty sick

The AL All-Star team couldn't score 2,500 runs in a season

I doubt they could score half that

We're a team that if I was an opposing fan I'd be really angry to lose to...

We’re like this year’s uncool version of last year’s Rays.

Dude we're cool

appleshampoo - July 11, 2009 reply

I don't think anybody ever likes to lose to a bunch of run preventers

It always feels limp.

That sounds like the San Francisco Giants.

The mindset of most fans is so offense-oriented

that losing to a team that fields Jack Hannahan, Ryan Langerhans, Rob Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr’s rotting corpse and Ronny Cedeno is going to be annoying.

It just makes it all the more glorious to win with that offense.

We allowed the fewest runs in the AL, but the Giants allowed 49 runs fewer than us, that's amazing.

Cain, Lincecum, Johnson, Zito, Sadowski

Pretty damn good rotation, even though Sadowski is pitching over his head.

Oh yeah and their spot starter just pitched a no-hitter.

The Giants have awesome pitching and awesome defense

we have average pitching and awesome defense

Especially when your team keeps on lining hit after hit RIGHT at the pitcher

Finally. Rob Johnson = Warren Hymer.

msb - July 11, 2009 reply

But I think the best things that could happen for this team is to have Washburn continue to pitch well, but the team somehow gets out of the race in the next 2 weeks.

That’s the only chance that Jack Z will consider trading Washburn. It wouldn’t be too cool if the team hangs around by the trading deadline and you trade Washburn.

The best thing would be for Washburn to continue to pitch well and help the team stay in the race.

The team can trade Washburn and still be in contention, especially if we get a player that helps us upgrade at another position.

But I don't think the players in the club house see it that way.

They do not really matter.

He's a warrior.

Doesn't matter how they see it.

If Washburn gets traded for something of quality, it’s not like the rest of the guys are going to lay down and say “okay, we’re out of it.” And if it helps improve the talent on the team, they will play better.

Does anybody think Washburn can continue to pitch well down the stretch?

Because I think the only reason our team would realistically trade him, is If we got something seriously good back. I don’t believe that we’re gonna be outa this race in two weeks.

I believe we can contend with or without him.

Teej - July 11, 2009 reply

You would be surprised then.

By what?

By what the front office would do.

Believe me, I believe in Jack

He’s done an unbelievable job. Here Matthew, you can rub it in my face when it happens, because it most likely will. I’m afraid of what quality the arm we’ll get back. Whats available for Washburn? (sorry for the length of time in between posts, I type extremely slow)

It doesn't matter what we get back.

Literally. It does not matter.

Clearing his salary is a win.

While I said the exact same thing before the season, I'm not sure I would now.

Not because I think Washburn has become so much more valuable, but because this team seems to not carry money over from year to year, so his salary wouldn’t affect next year’s budget, and there isn’t really a free agent market for us to use that money on.

If they are right up against their budget, so much so that they can’t aquire someone that might be useful, then yes. But if they aren’t going to use the money on something, it doesn’t do that much good to clear the remainder of his salary.

draft picks, IFAs

etc.

So, does his salary for this year give us more money to spend on signing our 2009 draft picks then?

Cause if that is the case then I’m back on the salary relief bandwagon.

It might. Who knows.

I was kind of hoping you.

I wish I knew too

but the team is tight lipped enough about even the most mundane things. Good luck asking about their accounting practices.

But we have two lefties who are roughly washes against Washburn (no pun intended)

if you can get something back for him, we can easily replace his production, get a few prospects and free up some money for (whatever the team wants to do with it)

I would honestly rather not

if all we’re really getting out of it is some salary relief this year and some B-level prospects. Vargas and Olson would roughly replace Washburn’s production, but their tRA’s are higher and while Wash on the year has been worth 0.7 WAR, Olson is -0.4 and Vargas is 0.1.

It’s not a huge difference, but if it’s only a salary dump, I’d rather go for it this year with Washburn. That is, of course, unless the freed-up salary is going towards adding a SS.

Again, like Vatinius said above

it all depends on where the money is going, which is one thing we don’t really know.

You're forgetting about RRS

and don’t forget that WAR is a counting stat – the more Wash pitches, the more WAR he accumulates. He’s made every start this season – Vargas didn’t move into the rotation until June

Point taken.

There seem to be concerns about RRS’s velocity. If not, I would say dump away!

And we also have to take into account that Olson/Vargas/RRS/Morrow will be fighting for two spots to begin with. So if Washburn is dumped, the third best in that group is essentially who we should be comparing him to.

Garrett Olson seems to have gotten his walks under control (which was one of his main problems last year), but tRA and FIP both don’t like him too much, and his BABIP is low, strand rate high.

Maybe I’m just not trusting enough that Olson’s semi-success is sustainable, Morrow will improve, or RRS will fully recover to dump Washburn as purely a salary dump.

Which contending team is desperate for a starter?

Phillies? I think they are signing Pedro and may still go after Roy. Who else will want Washburn? I saw Andy Pettitte pitched poorly again today. Maybe the Yanks want him?

Every team wants starting pitching.

Realistically, what kind of prospect we can get for Washburn? What's the starting point that jack Z can ask for?

a major league ready infielder? Keep in mind that if he leaves as a FA, we probably get a draft pick.

No, we do not probably get a draft pick.

We are not likely to offer him arbitration.

Yeah I would bet that he's neither a type A or type B agent.

He's got a shot at a Type-B

but goodness would I be terrified if we offered arbitration. I think I’d die if he accepted and we were stuck with him for another year

We only get the draft pick if we offer him arbitration.

I understand. But he's top 5 in ERA and WHIP. Not saying he will stay there, but

you think someone will sign him. It’s the same situation with Ibanez last off season. So why not offer him arbitration?

Teams seem to be getting smarter, but who knows someone could offer him a big contract.

Nobody is going to pay him that much and it's not worth the risk of paying that much to offer him arb

Because he is making $10+ million this year.

Ibanez made $5.5 million last year.

And if he finished with good numbers in ERA and WHIP

he’d be a risk to get $15m or so in arbitration.

That's true, but it also depends on who will enter the FA pitching market this off season.

By all accounts, it’s not a strong one. So it looks good for him to get a long term contract.

No, it really does not.

And even if it was. It is not even close to worth the risk.

I am struggling to find a way to say it more strongly. NOT WORTH THE RISK. Not within the same galaxy as worth the risk. It would be in an entirely different and unrealized universe from worth the risk.

GMZ isn't an idiot.

He doesn’t look at shiny ERAs and WHIPs

Thank God you’re not in charge of this team, otherwise we’d all be praying for Harper around here

There's no way to tell what we could get until we get an offer, but GMZ has worked miracles before

I have faith.

Brewers and Phillies seem like the big two.

But Matthew is right, there is usually always a market for starting pitching.

Kenny Williams to the white courtesy phone!

Kenny Williams!

Well, the problem is: is the White Sox more of a contender than the M's?

I live in Chicago, and the White Sox got pretty good starting pitching now. Washburn would be their 5th starter, and they are not giving up Gordon Beckham, not even for Jake Peavy.

I don't think anyone is expecting us to get Gordon Beckham for Washburn.

We're not trying to trade Washburn for a top prospect.

That’s just ridiculous.

I understand, but even if we can get 2 grade B prospects for Wash, I'd be happy.

That is a really too much to ask.

If we can get one of Yuni...

*for

Yuni only made 2M, and the M's are paying for his salary this year + 2M for the next 2 though.

BUT IT'S YUNI!!!!

Those are not really grade B

but yes, if we ate a sizable portion of Wash’s salary, we could then probably ask/expect to get about a B back

If that's the case, then they might just keep him and make a run for the playoff.

They might.

Or they might realize that he offers little to no upgrade over RRS and trade him

Trading Washburn and making the playoffs aren't mutually exclusive.

Cortes isn't grade B?

He at least was going into the season right?

SethGrandpa - July 12, 2009 reply

At this point he's probably C+

Jeff Sullivan - July 12, 2009 reply

He should study harder.

He's studying, it's just Douchebaggery 403

Mariner John - July 12, 2009 reply

I think it depends on how much of Wash salary we will pay. If we pay

all of his remaining salary, we should get a better deal.

Maybe one B and someone only very minorly interesting

Keep in mind there is a lot of salary in play here also and a lot depends on how much of that we want them to pay. They’re only getting him for the rest of the year also and he’s not going to get them draft picks so for them to give up a top 5 prospect for him is a very, very long shot.

Trading for a starting pitcher from Kenny Williams is a lot like buying a Chevrolet

Everyone knows you’re getting something that will be broken before you can say “Ambesol,” but people still do it.

The Typical Idiot Fan - July 12, 2009 reply

At this point

Wasburn might be the best SP available (unless you want to take on Wells salary and trade your top prospects of course). I’m including Pedro. How many league average starters are on the market?

Ballard Erik - July 12, 2009 via mobile reply

Roy Halladay is on the market.

I’m going to go way out on a limb here and say that he is maybe a little better than Washburn.

Vatinius - July 12, 2009 reply

Obviously

but did you see what I put in the ( ). Of course he is better, but most teams don’t have the ability to 1) give up top tier prospects and 2) take on the amount of money the Blue Jays would want them too (packaging Wells). So why he might be ‘available’ in actuality he isn’t really ‘available’ to many teams at all.

Ballard Erik - July 12, 2009 reply

Why would the Jays package Wells with Halladay?

They know that would chase everybody off.

Or Jack could trade Washburn and get awesome stuff.

Then trade for Carl Pavano, who is a better pitcher having really bad luck this season, without giving up too much. Assuming, of course, that the Indians do not properly value Pavano, which I doubt.

JLC - July 11, 2009 reply

HOW COULD US FALLING OUT OF THE RACE BE THE BEST POSSIBLE SCENARIO

WHAT

why god why

I see you have a new schtick.

I can't just yell SWING SWING SWING anymore now that Yuni is gone

Plus this new one is good for your comment count.

SC has discovered 'the Spartans bullpen'.

msb - July 11, 2009 reply

Great, now it can be embarrasing on a national level.

You find it embarrassing?

Wilder. - July 11, 2009 reply

The only thing worse than our bullpen is that movie.

Aaron Campeau - July 11, 2009 via mobile reply

300 is a powerful movie advocating gay rights.

300 is a giant pile of rotting horse penis.

Aaron Campeau - July 11, 2009 via mobile reply

No religion please.

royalcurve - July 12, 2009 reply

No politics please.

Fin - July 12, 2009 reply

x

appleshampoo - July 12, 2009 reply

Never seen it.

Wilder. - July 11, 2009 reply

Me neither, and having seen the South Park parody, I don't need to.

(Our bullpen isn’t quite that bad, aaron).

Hyperbole, thy name is H ot D Adam.

Aaron Campeau - July 11, 2009 via mobile reply

Meh. Let the kids have their fun.

It’s not like their dressing up as rally fries

JAH - July 12, 2009 reply

I think it's an apt comparison

Like the Spartans, our bullpen is completely overmatched and latently homosexual.

Crap!

I could screen grab that if I were at home.

ThundaPC - July 11, 2009 reply

Ruh rohs!

royalcurve - July 12, 2009 reply

Maybe someone here is a really creative stats-sorter

I’m curious what the AVG or OPS is against Millwood by batters averaging .200 or below or OPSing .600 or below entering the game. He always seems to give up big hits (and, often, well-struck HRs) to the Rob Johnsons of MLB, but I’m wondering if it just seems that way or if there’s real evidence to back that up.

Baker's new blog about Washburn's new weapon, the "Dolphin"

The Typical Idiot Fan - July 12, 2009 reply

Definitey One Less Pitch He Is Needing.

Both have blowholes.

Washburn is a golden God!

Trading him or Bedard would be asinine. The Mariners could very well win it all this year and then we could watch as the team is dissembled by free agency. Good times never the less.

mw3 - July 12, 2009 reply

Dolphins are terrible creatures that eat their young...

(Thinks)

You know what? I’m just gonna pass on the very vile Washburn joke I had.

Classy.

SethGrandpa - July 12, 2009 reply

I just realized Ronny did not earn biggest suckfest.

Kirsten Schlewitz - July 12, 2009 reply

So we go for it, right?

Trade Washburn or Bedard and get ourselves a SS? I love Z. He’s not as sexy as Gutz, but he’s the MAN when it comes to re-building this team.

Sinking Away - July 12, 2009 reply

At what point do we get rid of Richie Sexson as the site logo?

Don’t get me wrong, I loved its creation and subsequent use, but it seems we’re no longer the most embarrassing franchise in baseball.

When a successful season is concluded

Any earlier would be whistlin’ past the graveyard

lemonverbena - July 12, 2009 reply

One exciting season

cannot erase the endless weltschmerz of Mariner fandom.

Paytheline - July 12, 2009 reply

Never

and people bringing it up every month or so just hardens our resolve to keep it.

Matthew - July 12, 2009 reply

Didn't know this was happening. Sorry.

This is Washburn’s mechanical adjustment:

That image is my favorite image

Jeff Sullivan - July 12, 2009 reply

I think it would take a championship

Then it would be a big smiling face of GMZ.

Snowman1025 - July 12, 2009 reply

When we win the World Series.

Goose - July 12, 2009 reply

So

“Well, try this for me,” Adair replied. “Stick your butt out more when you’re pitching.”

ThundaPC - July 12, 2009 reply

Now we know why Johnson is Jarrod's personal catcher

If you know what I mean. Hint hint.

Because they’re gay.

Snowman1025 - July 12, 2009 reply

You lost me.

The Typical Idiot Fan - July 12, 2009 reply

Yah, Washburn mentioned it a few days back.

My first visual was Dom Deluise demonstrating how to do the French Mistake.

msb - July 12, 2009 reply

That pitch to Johnson was spectacularly bad.

Goose - July 12, 2009 reply

Does this really need to be said of any pitch that Rob Johnson hit for a home run?