SB Nation - Login for mobile commenting

Lookout Landing

36-58, Game Thought

Losers of 14 of their last 17 games, the Mariners sit 11 back of third place, 19 back of first, and just 5.5 ahead of Baltimore for the worst record in baseball. Things are bad, and now they've gotten spectacularly so, as the losses are piling up in frequency and predictability. This does feel a lot like 2008. On a day-to-day basis, these days I'm approaching the 2010 season the way I approached the 2008 season. Some things are different, of course - some important things, things for which I'm thankful - but far too many things are the same for me to deny the similarities. We're doing it again. There's a little more hope this time than the last time around, but in terms of on-field play, the Mariners are doing it again.

We've now reached the point in the year where all the fans are fed up, and selective criticisms that were once directed at specific underperformers like Chone Figgins and Jose Lopez now blend together into generic critiques against the whole team. The Mariners can't hit. The Mariners can't hold leads. The Mariners can't win. The Mariners can't do this, and the Mariners don't do that.

Which is all well and good, because truth be told there is a very long list of things the Mariners can't or don't do, and fans are entitled to be upset. We're all upset. This is a nightmare, and the team is showing no signs of pulling itself out and somehow salvaging what's left of this interminable poop cruise. There is, though, just one critique - one common, inevitable critique - that I'd like to nip in the bud. And that's the critique that a losing team has given up and stopped trying.

You'll hear it pretty often. You'll hear it after mistakes like Milton Bradley getting caught off first base tonight. You'll hear it after other things. You'll hear accusations that the Mariners are just mailing it in, now that everyone realizes their season is toast. You'll hear people declare that there's no reason for them to pay to go to games anymore when even the players themselves have long since stopped giving a shit.

I'm fine with a lot of critiques. I like a fanbase that doesn't lose its passion. This is just one that I can't get behind. There are certain situations where it might apply. Certain other situations, with other teams in other cities. But I don't see it here.

Think about it yourself and you'll understand why, with these Mariners, it doesn't really make sense. Who are these players who would be giving up? Milton Bradley, who continues to undergo counseling for putting too much pressure on himself to produce? Chone Figgins, who's had to prove himself at every single stop along the way and is among the proudest players in the game? Ichiro, who's hit .323 for his career in September while making the playoffs just once, and who broke the all-time hit record in a season like 2004?

Justin Smoak, the rookie who's looking to adjust and establish himself in the Major Leagues? Michael Saunders, the second-year prospect who's looking to adjust and establish himself in the Major Leagues? Casey Kotchman, who has to perform if he wants to land a job after this one? Rob Johnson, one of the hardest workers on the team who wants to prove he can withstand the rigors of a full season? Jack Wilson, who's grown so frustrated with his struggles and injuries that he's thought about retiring? Josh Wilson, who wants to break through and stop being everybody's 26th man?

Josh Bard, who's narrowly clinging to a Major League career and can hardly afford to slip up? Franklin Gutierrez, who's being looked to as a team leader? Russell Branyan, who's worked his ass off for the kind of opportunity the Mariners have given him? Jose Lopez, who...I don't really know, but if Jose Lopez started mailing it in, would we notice?

What about the pitchers? Can you imagine Felix Hernandez taking so little pride in his efforts? Can you imagine Ryan Rowland-Smith giving up and endangering the rest of his career? Can you imagine Jason Vargas or Doug Fister taking these hard-earned opportunities for granted? What about the rest of the staff, made up in large part of journeymen or off-the-radar arms? How many of them do you think would give up, and how many of them do you think are just cherishing every single day they spend in the big leagues?

This team will lose, and this team will lose ugly. When it loses ugly, this team will make a lot of stupid mistakes. But giving up? Phoning it in? Going through the motions? I've never liked the idea, and I don't like it now. Not on a team-wide basis, not as some kind of pervasive malady. I just don't get it. Nevermind that all of the players in the clubhouse are professionals. Each of them, individually, has worked far too hard to get to where he is to just throw it all away because things aren't going well.

I do think players may lose focus from time to time. They may lose focus a little more often than they would were the season going better. That's just the kind of thing you have to expect, given how difficult it is to maintain constant concentration when the games lose their greater significance. You'll see a missed sign, or a bad angle, or a missed cutoff man, or whatever. Some players may, on occasion, not prepare as well for the next game as you'd like. But there's a difference between making the odd careless mistake and just going through the motions. Every team makes careless mistakes. Contending teams make careless mistakes. Careless mistakes look bad to the naked eye, but they don't always signify some crippling bigger problem.

Chone Figgins made a couple rangey, diving plays to his right on groundballs today. Balls that, if they got through, I would've understood. Franklin Gutierrez dived a couple times - I think on consecutive plays - and came up with a catch. The Mariners aren't mailing it in. The Mariners aren't losing because they've given up. The Mariners are losing because they're bad. Fans of bad teams often like to believe there's something sinister at play, but the truth is that bad teams just do bad things, often absent any bigger issue. Being bad is big enough.

5 recs  |  48 comments

Comments

Ah, that last point is huge.

Bad teams make mistakes and play poorly. If they didn’t make mistakes and play poorly, they’ wouldn’t be a bad team. But I’m also guessing the “not trying” idea is also about comfort. It’s probably easier to believe your team is losing because they are not trying than it is because they still suck.

.

I find it much harder to root for this team to lose than the 2008.

Rendon is not a Strasburgian talent. And while 2008 seemed like one last awful Bavasi season before the rebuilding process finally began, regressing to 100 losses now would completely destroy and progress that had been achieved. Teams don’t come back from 100 losses to make the playoffs the next season. It doesn’t happen. The 2009 Mariners are about as close as it has come. The complete awfulness of the season makes me think 2011 is a lost cause already.

On that note, we caught you, Diamondbacks! #3 pick!

It's not so much rooting for the team to lose as it is knowing that losing will still have good consequences.

I’d like to see the team do well, but if they don’t, hey, we’re that much closer to Rendon.

Don't worry, we'll win our last 2 out 3.
This is completely false.

Rebuilding teams don’t gradually get better every year. The Rays lost 96 games the year before their world series run. Cleveland was 78-84 before winning 96 games in 2006. I could give you more examples but i’m much to lazy.

78-84 is a lot different than losing 100 games.

I am pretty sure no team has come back from losing 100 games to make the playoffs. Yes rebuilding not a steady progression of wins but losing 100 games does set back the schedule.

The Rays may be a bit of an exception.

Lots of "exceptions"

Not sure about playoff runs, but just a quick search revealed this:

1990 Braves went from 65-97 to 94-68 the following year. They followed that up with 98-68 and 104-58.
1988 Orioles lost 107 games (54-107) and followed that up with 87 and 75
2002 Cubs went 67-95 and followed that up with 88-74
200 Cubs went 65-97 and followed that up with 88-74
1997 Cubs went 68-94 and followed that up with 90-73
1983 cubs went 71-91 and followed that up with 96-65
1966 cubs went 59-103 and followed that up with 87-74
1976 white sox went from 64-97 to 90-72
1898 Brooklyn Superbas (Dodgers) went 54-91 and followed it with 101-47
1977 Brewers went 67-95 and followed it with 93-69
1983 Mets whent 68-94 and followed it up with 90-72
1992 Phillies went 70-92 and followed it up with 97-65
2003 Padres went 64-98 and followed it up with 87-75
1992 Giants went 72-90 and followed it up with 103-59
(as noted) 2007 Rays went 66-96 and followed it with 97-65
1985 Rangers went 62-99 and followed it with 87-75

Now, it would be a bit of a miracle for Z to make next year’s team a playoff team, but it wouldn’t surprise me, given the massive under performing of many players this year and JZ’s brilliance, for him to put a playoff contender on the field next year, albeit not the best chance in the world to actually make the playoffs, but at least decent enough.

oh and interesting fact: you know who's had a ton of 100+ loss teams?

The Athletics (17). They’ve also won 100+ 9 times. :-)

Rice Owls Redux

Getting Rendon would allow us to finally put to bed the ghosts of the ill-fated 1997 trade deadline deal of Jose Cruz Jr for Paul Spoljaric & Mike Timlin, and solve our power problems at the same time. I still can’t believe the M’s choked on getting Strasburg (no offense to you, Mr. Ackley). Just sucks having to deal with high draft picks again…

Why would will still worry about the Cruz trade?

It was a bad trade but Cruz is out of the league and so are the two relievers we got back. Unless one of them went to Rice or something?

Jose Cruz Jr went to Rice
I didn't know we were curse because of that I guess.
No mention of Dave Sims Hat night?

I had to work and couldn’t go – what ever became of this tribute to our dapper announcer?

Two Rs and Two Ls was one of the winners, with his sweet green fedora.

A number of us who planned to go, couldn’t.

Many hats were worn.

The team's schedule has been quite terrible as well.

Figgins notes in his post-game interview that it’s tough facing 1st and 2nd place teams every night while explaining the progress they’re trying to make at the plate. He’s not really exaggerating. Between May 21st and August 5th, a period of 67 games, the Mariners will have only played 9 games against non-contending teams (Cubs, Brewers, and Royals). Pretty hefty for a team sporting the kind of weakness the Mariners show on a regular basis. Can’t take down the White Sox at home? Maybe we can do it on their turf for 4 games. Along with 4 games with the Red Sox, 3 games with the Twins, and 3 games with the Rangers. Oh dearest me.

I thought the same thing during the All Star break when I looked at the upcoming weeks.

Could you imagine if we were actually in the hunt and had that schedule? Shit would be brutal. We would probably not be in the hunt anymore after the next month or so.

I wish this team would have been good.
The only Mariner so far this season to do better than expected is Doug Fister

And sort of Mike Sweeney and Jason Vargas. Boy are those some exciting names

Cliff Lee

:(

I believe he's a Ranger
Ryan Langerhans

:)

Justin Smoak has produced a lot more for us than expected.

But if Now Me came and told Past Me we were going to start Justin Smoak at 1B on July 21, I’m pretty sure I would have been disappointed at the time.

He's an amazing consolation prize during a lost season.
How has Justin Smoak produced a lot more for us than expected?
On day one, I was pretty sure he was going to be producing for the Rangers.

The point of the joke was that until very recently, and only after a lot of failed expectations, some one we did not expect to be a Mariner became one.

And how would you be disappointed?

If I knew we were going to have Justin Smoak on July 21, I would be ecstatic! In a vacuum, anyways.

That facepalm photo is almost up to the Sexson standard.
I almost think it's better.

Almost.

I find that Loafie's nonchalance is endearing at this point.

Where as when he’s on a team that I still have hope in, it’s totally aggravating.

The collective impact of several lapses in focus = mailing it in

… teams with something to play for invariably stay just a little bit more engaged in the details of the game which creates the separation between them and the non-contenders.

I agree that no one has out right given up, but those moments of lost focus are what lead us to believe that they are going through the motions.

I just have a hard time believing that a career that can last re lucky, anybody would need extra motivation.

And those that do eventually get weeded out for the most part.

"re lucky" That's really weird. I wrote "anywhere from less than a year to 15 years if you are lucky" but not in so many words.
Who was it - the Dodgers who made three baserunning mistakes in the ninth inning of a close loss to the Angels?

I agree that a bad team might be just a little more careless, but sometimes these things just happen. Nobody can maintain focus on anything 100% of the time.

Yep that was the Dodgers
Lopez isn't mailing it in

He doesn’t have a job with this team next season and he knows it. He’ll be lucky to get $2m from the team that signs him in the off-season, and he might end up with a bench role if things stay this bad. Right now, the best possible thing that could happen for him is to get traded to a team where the park doesn’t kill him to establish enough value that he will get a decent contract from someone next season.

Well said, Jeff.

I hate the effort theme, which of course as a Royals fan I hear pretty much annually. And then, every Spring, we’ve got a new culture/vibe/feel, and then it supposedly sucks again by May.

I wonder how you feel about the chemistry idea now. My understanding is that you’ve grown more open to considering clubhouse chemistry more important in the last few years… or, at the very least, you don’t patently dismiss it.

What if someone said they’re losing because the chemistry was out of whack from the beginning?

Not speaking for Jeff

but personally, I don’t dismiss that chemistry in the clubhouse can matter. I dismiss that it can be quantified. I dismiss that it can be predicted. I dismiss that building a team around it is a good idea.

It is intangible. You cannot build on intangibles.

I think that you can get good chemistry by having a winning team.

It doesn’t work the other way around.

If someone I trusted said that the chemistry's been out of whack from the beginning, I would listen to him

I am not to the point where I’m comfortable blaming team-wide struggles on some nebulous idea we can’t define, but I could see it playing a smaller role, after the losing begins. I am not sure how. I just won’t dismiss that it could have an effect.

I have been wondering if there isn't some kind of despair happening right now that undermines their performances

I would’ve laughed at that before the season began, but seeing this team fail time and again, I’m starting to wonder if that hasn’t taken hold. For three months now, I’ve been expecting them to start winning games, and they just keep getting worse. I look at them, and think there’s no way this team should be this bad. They simply should not be losing this many games. I’m starting to think that perhaps they’ve started to believe they’re going to lose, and we’re seeing it’s impact on the field. Sort of the bizarro 2001 M’s.

Basically it doesn't make sense for mediocre players to give up otherwise they lose their job

The M’s right now look like they are full of mediocre players.

I watch now to see the young players succeed just like i did in 2008. They contain all my hope for the future. Unless they perform well, Texas is going to be in charge of the AL West for a few years at least.

That picture has "new site logo" written all over it
NOT GOING TO CHANGE PLEASE EVERYBODY STOP
In all fairness, this is eerily hilariously similar to what we already have
This is eerily more similar to the Mike Sweeney one
Actually, it appears to me that they are trying too hard ...

My best friend is an internist, (like me) nearly 60 years old. That gives us license to be philosophical when we choose.

And one of the things we sometimes talk about is the “impatience of youth”. He often mentions how when he was an intern the older docs repeatedly drilled into him the importance of “first do no harm”.

There is a natural human tendency, when we feel as if we’re sinking, impelling us to “do something”. It’s almost impossible to consider that what we are doing might actually be the best optimum strategy, and the wisest thing to do is to just keep on doing what we are doing. Instead we have this seeming instinctual compulsion to change things; to “do nothing” is perceived as incompetence or indifference.

Instead people start getting panicky and start trying to force things. In a casino, you’ll see a person who is having a string of bad luck change their strategy and start to make lower odds bets. In the business world, I’ve seen companies suddenly go through reorganizations and create all kinds of new management initiatives that stifle the good things. In institutional governance (corporate, political, social, or any other arena) we devise cures that are worse than the disease. Because doing “something” is always better received than “doing nothing”.

And on baseball team you see guys starting to take chances. They swing at pitches they would ordinarily take. They gamble on the basepaths. They try to make spectacular catches. Managers juggle the lineup and put guys in situations that really don’t work well.

The pressure to succeed begins clouding judgment, and leads to mistakes.

+++++++++++

That’s what I see from the Mariners. Not that they are mailing it in, but instead they are trying too hard and letting their frustration lead them to make bad decisions.

And, incidentally, I think this is perhaps the single most critical discriminating factor in assessing a manager. In situations such as this, the manager needs to be able to keep the players on an even keel and reinforce that they can’t let their frustrations lead them into making bad decisions.

A manager who slavishly follows “the book” isn’t really going to cost his team more than one or two games per year. The traditional strategies don’t really deviate that drastically from optimum strategies. But when a team starts losing runs during a bad stretch because of trying to force the action, the added losses due to bad decisions swamp the inefficiencies of “book strategies”.

The manager can’t get panicky; he needs to take an even and level perspective, and keep the team on that same plane. He needs to recognize that good process sometimes simply has less than optimum results, but that makes it even more important to hew to what makes the most sense in the long run.

You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.