Lookout Landing

Popular way to refer to occasion:
Pitchers and catchers report to spring training.

Not popular way to refer to occasion:
Pitchers and catchers have entire bodies physically examined.

Very unpopular way to refer to occasion:
Mariners insist that Felix Hernandez sees doctor.

I don't intend to bury Matthew's post below, nor do I feel like a whole lot has to be said about today anyway. Mariners pitchers and catchers are in Arizona, and today they got looked at. All of them were presumably given a clean bill of health. Maybe one of them was given a clean bill of health and has tuberculosis. Doctors don't know everything. Soon, pitchers will pitch to catchers. Some other position players are already in Arizona, too, and they've been doing position player-y things.

I don't think the day that pitchers and catchers report to spring training ought to be a holiday, like so many people say they do. I'm guessing those people are only half-serious. The day that pitchers and catchers report does not mark the return of baseball. There will not be baseball tomorrow. There will not be baseball in a week. There will not be baseball, the way we want there to be baseball.

But I think what this day stands for is the return to thinking about baseball in terms of the day-to-day. It's still the offseason, in that it isn't the season, but we're not thinking about big roster moves. We're not thinking about trade options, or how the Mariners might look in 2014, or anything like that. It's time we start thinking about the day's events, and what they might mean for tomorrow's events.

Welcome back to the routine. It's probably going to take you a little while to adjust. It's kind of spring training for everybody.

Does the headline need any further commentary? Greg Johns provides some and some additional details about how the Mariners will handle their early winter training in preparation for the season opening trip to Japan. Greg also writes about Mike Carp spearheading a tribute to Greg Halman. The Mariners will unfortunately spend a second straight season with a death in the family at its forefront and based on how 2011 went (tribute-wise, not player performance-wise), I believe the organization will handle it with suitable grace.

But I don't want to get too bogged down in that just this moment. Pitchers and catchers reported. Baseball is almost back and regardless of how sucky the team was and might be, baseball is always better than no baseball. By the way, among the players checking in today was Jesus Montero.

For those of you who read my post about the most extreme pitches hit for home runs during the 2011 season, this post is obviously inspired by that one. Earlier today I already put together and published the Mariners' version of the home run post. This is a joke about how the Mariners didn't hit any home runs. Here I want to examine something more Mariners-appropriate. I decided something more Mariners-appropriate would be bad swings.

Below you will find the five worst pitches at which a Mariners batter swung last year. For our purposes, the five worst pitches are the five pitches the furthest away from the center of the strike zone. I guess you could argue that these aren't actually the five worst swings, since there could've been just horrible swings at regular pitches. Maybe a guy fell down. But I would argue that the worst swings are the swings with the lowest chance of succeeding. Swings at pitches way out of the strike zone are probably the swings with the lowest chance of succeeding.

"This is pretty negative, Jeff," you might say. So were the 2011 Seattle Mariners. Did you watch the Mariners? Did you continue to watch the Mariners long after they faded away from relevance? I did. I watched them through to the bitter fuckin end. I'm entitled to treat their 2011 season however I want, and at the moment this is how I want.

You might assume that a countdown of the 2011 Mariners' five worst swings would be 100% Carlos Peguero. You'd be wrong. It's only 40% Carlos Peguero, which is twice as high as anybody else. It's 0% Miguel Olivo. You wouldn't believe how many times this made me re-check the data.

Continue reading this post »

Jeff Cirillo was a Mariner in 2002 and 2003. The Mariners gave up some talent to get him, and also paid him good money. He posted a 64 OPS+. The three years before, he posted a 106 OPS+. Over the remainder of his career, he posted a 93 OPS+. His Baseball-Reference WAR was -0.3. His FanGraphs WAR was 0.9.

Scott Spiezio was a Mariner in 2004 and 2005. The Mariners paid him good money. He posted a 57 OPS+. The three years before, he posted a 106 OPS+. Over the remainder of his career, he posted a 108 OPS+. His Baseball-Reference WAR was -0.4. His FanGraphs WAR was -0.8.

There's a musician or band that everybody seems to hold in high esteem. You, however, can't stand him, her or it. Who is that musician or band? Why?

Earlier Thursday, Ken Rosenthal published a column about how the Mariners ought to move Chone Figgins back to leadoff. This post is not intended as a direct response to what Rosenthal wrote, since I've heard the idea from a number of people, but there will necessarily be some overlap.

Chone Figgins has a bad contract. At first, it was not a bad contract. Or maybe it has always been a bad contract, but at first, we didn't believe that it was a bad contract. Figgins looked like a useful and valuable player to have. Then he became Chone Figgins as we understand him today. The Chone Figgins with a bad contract.

The Mariners are not alone in having a bad contract. Without checking, I'm going to assume that every team in baseball has at least one bad contract. Not all bad contracts are created the same, and Figgins' contract is worse than some other bad contracts. But it's also better than some other bad contracts. Hey there, Vernon Wells, won't you please stay a while? I would like to discuss your bad contract. Or as you call it, your super awesome unbelievably amazing contract.

Figgins, needless to say, has not turned out. When you have a player in Figgins' position, there are people who think the team should just cut its losses and eat the rest of the contract. There are other people who are okay with keeping the player around, but know that his best days are behind him. And there are still other people who insist on the possibility of a revival.

A player with a bad contract was given a big contract for a reason, right? Who's to say players can't rebound?

You and I probably figure that Chone Figgins is a lost cause, and that his greatest hope now is becoming a utility guy of moderate use. But something I've heard from several people, most recently Rosenthal, is that Figgins might bounce back if he's returned to the leadoff slot, where he hit with the Angels. Chone Figgins is a leadoff guy. The Mariners didn't let him hit leadoff. No wonder he's fallen flat!

It's an appealing concept, because the idea of Figgins being good again would change so many things. I guess it wouldn't change that many things, but it would change at least one thing, and presumably a handful of others. Chone Figgins coming back from the dead would be a miracle, just as anybody coming back from the dead would be a miracle.

But pardon me if I think that sounds a little too simplistic. A little too easy. To assert that Figgins could rebound as the leadoff guy is to assert that this has been a matter of psychology, not tools, and to assert that the difference between batting first and batting second is so great that it made Figgins sufficiently uncomfortable that he became a bad player.

There's no doubt in my mind that Figgins believes he could be better as leadoff. Figgins kind of has to believe that. He has to believe he can be fixed. And the last time he was good, he was leadoff. The two are connected in his mind. To Figgins, the thing that changed between Anaheim and Seattle is his spot in the batting order, so that must have a lot to do with his struggles.

But there are times when I believe in a player's explanation, and there are times when I don't. I want Figgins to be good. I want him to succeed as a Mariner, because of course I do. But I can't bring myself to buy this one.

Look at some of the lines in Rosenthal's article. It's said that batting second presents a different kind of challenge. It's said that batting second behind Ichiro presents a uniquely different kind of challenge. Perhaps Figgins has struggled because he's tried to adapt to that. But:

"It would be great to go back to leadoff and do that again," Figgins said. "If not, I have to change my mindset as a '2' hitter. I haven't really changed my mindset to be a '2' hitter. I've stuck with being a patient hitter."

Figgins hasn't changed his mindset after two years. He's "stuck with" being the hitter that he was. Except in terms of results. The results have been way worse.

So maybe it's sticking with that old approach that's gotten him in trouble? That seems to be the sentiment.

"Being in that spot and understanding that Ichiro is an aggressive player - that's what makes him great - I need to understand that when he is aggressive, I need to be aggressive, too," Figgins said. "A lot of times I get behind in the count too much."

First-pitch Strikes:

2009: 57%
2010: 58%
2011: 57%

Behind 0-1:

2009: 49%
2010: 50%
2011: 50%

Two-strike counts:

2009: 53%
2010: 51%
2011: 51%

In 2009, after getting ahead 1-0, Figgins batted .333. After falling behind 0-1, he batted .259. The last two years, after getting ahead 1-0, Figgins has batted .251. After falling behind 0-1, he's batted .212. This is about more than getting ahead and falling behind. This is about quality of contact.

Something else we can look at - what about when Figgins hasn't been hitting directly behind Ichiro? When leading off an inning in 2009, Figgins batted .275. When leading off an inning over the last two years, Figgins has batted .213. When leading off an inning, Figgins hasn't had to be in the mindset of a No. 2 hitter. It hasn't mattered. He's been bad.

I get uneasy about these things. On this matter, I have one opinion. Baseball people involved, and baseball people not involved, probably have another opinion. A lot of them probably do, at least. And I'm not so confident in myself that I think I know more about how baseball works than they do. If baseball people think that Chone Figgins could bounce back by being returned to the leadoff slot, we can't just ignore that outright.

But color me skeptical. I won't be mad if they try. There's probably not a lot of harm in trying, when Figgins plays. Again, one figures the Mariners aren't even getting within sniffing distance of the playoffs, making this a development and experiment season. Batting Figgins leadoff would be an experiment. But I've done a lot of experiments. Even the ones where I know how they're supposed to work out, they haven't always worked out. If Figgins' problem this whole time has been batting order position, we can learn from that, but chances are it's not that simple. It so infrequently is.

Here enclosed you will find the Seattle Mariners-related podcast that has previously been referenced in today's postings. A great flower awaits you if you look in the right valley.

Lookout Landing Podcast with Jeff and Matthew

iTunes link! RSS/XML link!