Could we pursue Joe Blanton?

[blue911]

Well I would be willing to bet that Seattle's intentions were not, in fact, to replace a good defensive and bad offensive team with a bad offensive, bad defensive team.  It looks like, and I'm willing to admit that I'm no expert on the 2010 Mariners, they wanted to become as good a defensive team as possible given their payroll limitations and their home ballpark. 

It does not appear that they played guys with a little more offensive ability if it impacted their defense.  As the year wore on and they lost more and more games, this probably changed.  But their philosophy of 'defense first' looks pretty clear.

But you're saying they went to the extreme with a good defensive team, they didn't. They fielded a team that looked like a train wreck from day one.

[Tyler Durden]

I'm saying Mike Rizzo does not have an extreme focus on defense. 

I brought up the Mariners as an example that went too far in their focus on defense.  I brought up the example of having middle infielders playing 3B - another is Casey Kotchman.  I'm not saying that the Mariners were all that successful in implementing the strategy - just that they had a strategy.

[blue911]

I'm saying Mike Rizzo does not have an extreme focus on defense. 

I brought up the Mariners as an example that went too far in their focus on defense.  I brought up the example of having middle infielders playing 3B - another is Casey Kotchman.  I'm not saying that the Mariners were all that successful in implementing the strategy - just that they had a strategy.

So did Napoleon at Waterloo, doesn't mean it was carried out correctly. To say the Mariners lost because they focused on defense too much is incorrect. They lost because they put a poor defensive team on the field and didn't have any offense.

[Tyler Durden]

Well again, I didn't say they carried it out correctly.  They fielded a team of terrible baseball players who played baseball terribly.  That was the reason they lost.  But that doesn't make incorrect my saying that the Mariner's focus was defense to the detriment of their offense.  That is still clearly evident to me.  Casey Kotchman, a career .717 OPS, was their starting 1B for the majority of the season.

This debate started with someone saying Rizzo had an extreme defense-first philosphy, which I do not agree with.  Then I cited the Mariners as an example of an extreme defense-first philosophy.  I didn't say they were successful. 

But my comment was much more about Rizzo than the Mariners, who honestly, I don't really care all that much about.

[NatsDad14]

In what world is Chone Figgins not an upgrade over Jose Lopez?

[blue911]

In what world is Chone Figgins not an upgrade over Jose Lopez?

Planet Earth.

Fangraphs UZR: Secondbase: 2009 Lopez 0.3, 2010 Figgins 12.6

Fangraphs UZR: Thirdbase: 2009 Figgins 17.9, 2010 Lopez 7.5


Baseball Reference RTOT's: Secondbase: 2009 Lopez 0, 2010 Figgins 7

Baseball Reference RTOT's: Thirdbase: 2009 Figgins 20, 2010 Lopez 17

[Lintyfresh85]

Aren't you proving his point?

Figgins has better number in what you just posted.

[blue911]

Aren't you proving his point?

Figgins has better number in what you just posted.

Red numbers are negatives


EDIT: Additionally I want people to look the numbers up themselves. Or add numbers from another source, I don't care. The fact remains that Seattle screwed the pooch when it came to improving their defense.

[tomterp]

Red numbers are negatives

      

I would recommend the use of either a "-" or parentheses in denoting negative numbers, else mass confusion ensues.

The use of a bold red color seems intended to provide the location of focus for the reader, as opposed to a negative number.

[blue911]

I would recommend the use of either a "-" or parentheses in denoting negative numbers, else mass confusion ensues.

The use of a bold red color seems intended to provide the location of focus for the reader, as opposed to a negative number.

I would recommend sticking to spelling errors  

I far as I know red numbers have always meant negative i.e. "In the Red". That having it red and a negative sign would make it a positive number, then I would have to explain that to some wise-ass.

Bold because my eyes are for crap

[Lintyfresh85]

For those of us, like me, who failed Liberal Arts math twice... stick with (-).

Much easier for me to understand.

[tomterp]

I would recommend sticking to spelling errors 

I far as I know red numbers have always meant negative i.e. "In the Red". That having it red and a negative sign would make it a positive number, then I would have to explain that to some wise-ass.

"In the red" is a quaint historical reference.  No accounting systems use color to denote negative (or credit balances) amounts, nor so published financial statements, whether publicly filed with the SEC or not.  The problem is that one never knows if the statements would be copied or printed on a non-color printer, at which point the color coding system would be completely useless at best, and misleading at worst.

For example, the Marlins P&L for 2008/2009:

http://deadspin.com/5619235/florida-marlins-financial-documents//gallery/2

[JCA-CrystalCity]

I prefer (x) for negative . . .

Blue has a point.  They made one defensive upgrade going into last year, Kotchman for Branyan.  The other intended infield moves were downgrades - Lopez for Beltre and Figgins for Lopez. The Figgins signing was to replace Beltre's offense, not his defense.  From '07 - '09, Figgins had a higher average, OBP, walk to stirkeout ratio, and, for 2 of three years, wOBA (darn new fangled stat).  That move was to upgrade the offense at the expense of defense.  The Kotchman move was not just about defense, either.  Kotchman was also younger (Branyan had some injury issues in '09) and had been highly regarded through '07/ '08.  He was a year or so from being traded for Mark Teixeira.  The difference in defense from '09 to '10 was a heck of a lot less than the upgrades from '08 to '09.  Don't hear much snark about what they did then or how they went from 2d worse record to near the playoffs.

[blue911]

I prefer (x) for negative . . .

Blue has a point.  They made one defensive upgrade going into last year, Kotchman for Branyan.  The other intended infield moves were downgrades - Lopez for Beltre and Figgins for Lopez. The Figgins signing was to replace Beltre's offense, not his defense.  From '07 - '09, Figgins had a higher average, OBP, walk to stirkeout ratio, and, for 2 of three years, wOBA (darn new fangled stat).  That move was to upgrade the offense at the expense of defense.  The Kotchman move was not just about defense, either.  Kotchman was also younger (Branyan had some injury issues in '09) and had been highly regarded through '07/ '08.  He was a year or so from being traded for Mark Teixeira.  The difference in defense from '09 to '10 was a heck of a lot less than the upgrades from '08 to '09.  Don't hear much snark about what they did then or how they went from 2d worse record to near the playoffs.

Not to mention batting Chone behind Ichiro was stupid. Figgins is a OBP guy and Ichiro is a BA guy.

[NatsDad14]

Not to mention batting Chone behind Ichiro was stupid. Figgins is a OBP guy and Ichiro is a BA guy.

You can't move Ichiro off of leadoff or else he would complain. I don't think batting Figgins behind Ichiro is bad assuming you got the normal Figgins. A good OBP guy in the 2 hole with Ichiro's OBP should have been a good start to a lineup

[PANatsFan]

Good Lord  I hope they aren't clearing salary room for Blanton.

[Lintyfresh85]

Fat Joe in the house!

Oh.

[asindc]

Fat Joe in the house!

Oh.

No go on Fat Joe.

[RyanTheRiot]

Dave Cameron makes a good case for shoeless Joe Blanton.

www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/another-case-where-era-deceive/

[PANatsFan]

I officially decided that Blanton > Pavano and won't cost too much in terms of players.

[Eddie the Expos fan]

I'd take Blanton over any FA pitcher still on the market.

[Kevrock]

Every time I have watched this guy pitch he has been horrible. I know what his stats look like, but the combination of him sucking up my television and being a Philthy make me despise the dude.

Plus I don't like the idea of dealing with Philly on this one since they have to dump Blanton for salary purposes.

[Vega]

No. He wears his hat weird.

[PANatsFan]

No. He wears his hat weird.

Silly Hat already has that roster spot?

[TheCerebral1]

I think if you're going to be trading for someone Garza would be the route to go.  If it is through free agency, Webb and otherwise Pavano/Penny.