Otto Greule Jr - Getty Images
*sigh*
This could've gone as a fun fact, but I wanted some headline variety.
Following that puzzling midseason trade, Russell Branyan appeared in 57 games with the Mariners, batting .215/.319/.483 and in no way making them more watchable. Over those 57 games, the M's scored 171 runs, for an average of 3.0 per game.
In the Mariners' 105 games without Russell Branyan, they scored 342 runs, for an average of 3.3 per game.
In the Mariners' 31 games without Russell Branyan after he was already acquired (note: he missed a lot of games), they scored 87 runs, for an average of 2.8 per game. Many of those games were over the final two weeks, when the M's were fielding most of Tacoma's regular lineup.
One of the explanations for the Russell Branyan trade at the time was that having his presence in the middle of the order would allow the other hitters to loosen up, having had some of the pressure on their shoulders relieved. What we find is that, if they felt looser, they weren't playing like it. Overall, the Mariners' offense was actually worse with Branyan than without him, and if you limit the window strictly to those games played after the trade went down, you see only a tiny improvement - presumably because of Branyan's .802 OPS, and not the effect Branyan's .802 OPS had on others.
This post isn't intended to argue that protection theory is wrong. I think it does make some sense, even if it's difficult to investigate. It's easy to believe that, as the Mariners continued to sink lower and lower, the hitters started putting too much pressure on themselves to make something happen. Pressure they might not have felt were there a productive slugger in the middle.
Rather, this post is intended simply to show that, even if a lack of protection was the lineup's biggest problem in 2010, Russell Branyan wasn't the answer. Russell Branyan wasn't even close to being the answer.
0 recs | 34 comments
My theory is that protection theory is at least partly right
but that the “protection” isn’t big bats in the lineup. It’s wins. It’s clubhouse chemistry-redux.
Matthew - October 4, 2010
That sounds better to me
Ultimately, pressure doesn’t come from not scoring. It comes from not winning.
Jeff Sullivan - October 4, 2010
How do you test that though?
Maybe you could check actual performance versus projected performance for winning teams and losing teams? Meaning, perhaps the players on a playoff team would on average beat their projections, while the players on a losing team would on average miss their projections? I’m not sure how you’d determine causality though, meaning how would you determine that the players on a winning team did better than projected because of chemistry or just luck? Having your players beat their projections is a good reason that some teams end up with winning records, and as the 2010 Mariners showed, having a bunch of players miss their projections is a good reason why some teams end up in last place. Was it bad clubhouse chemistry and pressure that caused the M’s to have 101 losses, or was it bad luck? Likely both, but isolating the various factors is tough.
urchman - October 4, 2010
I don't claim it's verifiable.
That’s part of why I said “theory” and not “hypothesis”.
Matthew - October 4, 2010
Don't you have that backward?
It sounds more like a hypothesis than a theory.
nathaniel dawson - October 4, 2010
No, a hypothesis is something you set out to prove.
Since Matthew doesn’t believe this an be proven, it’s a theory.
Aaron Campeau - October 4, 2010
Don't you have that backward?
A hypothesis is something like “I have an idea, but I don’t have any proof of it, it’s just a thought”. A theory is something more like “I’ve developed this theory based on a lot of empirical evidence that supports it”.
A hypothesis is basically just a whim, while a theory is something that has been researched, proofed, and come to be accepted as a working construct.
nathaniel dawson - October 5, 2010
Let me Dictionary.com that for you
Jeff Sullivan - October 5, 2010
Well?
nathaniel dawson - October 6, 2010
Well now that I have your permission
Jeff Sullivan - October 7, 2010
Scientifically, they should both have evidence supporting them.
joof - October 5, 2010
But the definition of the word theory and a scientific theory are not synonymous.
A theory is just an an abstract idea. If it’s studied it becomes a hypothesis, and once the study garners results that lead to the hypothesis being “proven” (or, more realistically, the null hypothesis being disproven), it become a “scientific theory,” which is essentially fact with the belief that it is possible for it to be disproven someday.
So Matthew is correct, since he was using it informally. My theory though is that this discussion is strange and will someday be hidden in the interests of science.
CapSea - October 5, 2010
Actually the null hypothesis is not disproven, just rejected
Statistics never proves anything. It points in the likely direction of truth. Only a deductive proof from first principles can prove a theory
New England Fan - October 6, 2010
Not so
The laws of gravity are impossible to prove from first principles, for example, and yet there they are.
Graham MacAree - October 7, 2010
I wish at this moment I could remember who it was who said this..
But I was listening to the radio recently, nationally syndicated, and a well respected baseball person (might have been Joe Torre or someone of that respect) basically re-iterated this same point. “Clubhouse chemistry” is a result of winning. I thought that was cool to here from someone who I would have expected the opposite kind of answer. I just wish I could remember where I heard that.
Kenneth Arthur - October 4, 2010
Sounds like Jim Leyland (Detroit Manager).
ThundaPC - October 4, 2010
I think it was Torre
In the Tenth Inning thing on PBS.
surfmonkey89 - October 4, 2010
I am still trying to understand how things ended up as bad as they did.
I just read Rob Neyer’s blog over at espn and even though I knew this team was really really bad offensively seeing the complete, across the board failure was still stunning. Was it just bad luck? The popular explanation for the 2004 team was that they just got too old all at once. What’s the explanation for this team?
quacker27 - October 4, 2010
Explanation: Mariners.
Eyebrows - October 4, 2010 via mobile
Well, "perfect storm of suck" is the best explanation I've heard.
Some of it was bad luck, some of it was self-inflicted. It was a combination of events and moves that the team and the organization simply couldn’t recover from during the season. That includes having to add Branyan in mid season rather having him at the start of the season (including the DL stint) because he initially wanted a multi-year deal.
ThundaPC - October 4, 2010
Right.
People looked at this team and said that it could make the playoffs if things went right for them, but the offense would have to be effective in order for it to get that far. The more conservative commentators said “yeah this team is just going to win 80 games and that will be that”. Little did they know…
JY - October 4, 2010
If there was a way to look at the coaching, like pitches per plate appearance... I wish I could do this stuff
As far as checking strike zones for changes and such, for individual players. I’ve been wondering about guys like Chone falling off on his hits, and Loafie losing his barely adequate home run power. Could they have been trying to take so much they laid off a bit on the swings? I’m only spit balling here and this could be idiotic.
Kermit. - October 4, 2010
I sure remember Loafie swinging at a lot of pitches nowhere near the strike zone
New England Fan - October 5, 2010
gayy
Dewey N - October 4, 2010
That the acquisition of Russell Branyan amidst a very losing season isn't the most headscratching Mariners moment of the past year is a testament to just how fucked up this year has been
Dewey N - October 4, 2010
Is it safe to say that a cup protects Adrian Beltre more than whoever is hitting behind him?
Janic - October 4, 2010
As someone with many fewer braincells than a mildly retarded woodland creature,
I must say it would hurt my heart not to have Russell around next season. While he certainly is not “The Answer” to our offensive woes, he can’t hurt to have in the lineup. What are thoughts on Russell DHing next year if that were an option? How many are simply against bringing him back?
kevin_ess - October 4, 2010
Of course, this is obviously contingent on what Jack does this off-season, but bear with me.
kevin_ess - October 4, 2010
At his $5M mutual option cost? No.
At $1M-$2M? Sure.
Janic - October 4, 2010
Well, OK. But 20ish homeru--- Sigh.
kevin_ess - October 4, 2010
I could be one of those posters
who argues hypotheses, I guess.
kevin_ess - October 4, 2010
Jack Zduriencik still believes in the idea of a big bat protecting other batters in the line-up
based on his chat with Salk this afternoon
msb - October 4, 2010
Protection theory works if your name is Edgar Martinez
surfmonkey89 - October 4, 2010
Okay, but I doubt Ellensburg wild turkeys are anything to run from.
kevin_ess - October 5, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.