by | March 10, 2010 · 12:21 am

Spring Training Thoughts- 3/9

Good Guys Sports, where you go to read more thoughts about spring training that mean absolutely nothing and will probably be rendered irrelevant in about three days!

  • Coming into the spring, the bench was expected to be Hannahan, Byrnes/Langerhans, Garko, and a catcher, with the other outfielder making it if they went with 11 pitchers instead of 12.  It’s certainly too early to make any declarations, but some guys might be forcing their way into the picture.  Matt Tuiasosopo is hitting the cover off the ball and playing some at SS, and reportedly playing it well.  He’s actually playing there a lot more than Hannahan has, as far as I’ve heard.  Good Guy Mike Sweeney, an expected extreme long shot for the roster, has been the best hitter in camp so far.  He’s still a long shot, especially since he can’t really play the field, but do they keep him if he’s looking like he’s going to have a resurgence?  It was kind of missed, but his second half last year was surprisingly good.  There’s a long way to go and things will certainly change, but either of these guys forcing their way onto the team means they’re hitting well, which could be an unexpected positive.
  • Tuiasosopo is an interesting case.  The people who like him feel he doesn’t get his due.  Others say he just hasn’t shown much so far.  A quick profile (which might be a Y2010M! post soon): excellent athlete (elite college QB recruit); drafted as SS, moved off position fairly quickly; most think 3B or outfield would be best position; frame to hit for power, hasn’t really shown it yet; promoted aggressively by Bavasi, which might have slowed him a bit.  He had glowing reviews when drafted, so it’s possible it could gel for him to be an impact player.  I’ll save further thoughts for another post, but I was interested in Wakamatsu’s quotes today (or maybe Van Burkleo’s) saying how getting him some versatility is important.  It certainly makes sense for this year, but I wonder what they’re thinking for the future for him.  Not sure if they see him as a potential regular or just a utility guy.
  • Handicapping the 5th starter race, if you can call it that: I think Vargas and Fister are clearly the two being considered most strongly, followed by French and then Olson.  Vargas has performed well.  Lots of groundballs, few runs, some Ks. I heard The News Tribune’s Ryan Divish point out that last year he was coming off surgery still and couldn’t prepare very well, and this year he looks a lot more confident and just better.  Might not make any difference, but some unexpected improvement is always welcome.  Fister was a little rough today, but not horrible like Olson was the other day.  It sounds like French might have a little more juice back in his arm than last year, but he probably isn’t in the discussion with the other two yet.  Lots of time left, so who knows.  We might even see another arm added, but if not, I’m sure we’ll see plenty of both Vargas and Fister and a few others as well.
  • First round of cuts coming this week, I believe.  Who goes doesn’t matter at all at this point, but things start to get a little more serious with each cut.  Between spring training and college basketball, not too many times of year I like better than this for sports.

-Matthew

2 Comments

Filed under Mariners

Tagged as , ,

by | March 9, 2010 · 11:39 pm

Beating a team 3 times in a row

With the Huskies facing Oregon State for the third time on Thursday the saying “It’s hard to beat a team 3 times in a season” is sure to come up.  I thought we’d take a look at that saying from a number of different aspects to test the validity of it. 

The first aspect we’ll take a look at is the physicality and in-game coaching.  When playing a team twice in a season you can learn their tendencies, this enables coaches to expose match-ups that they’ve found.  Using the Huskies-Beavers example, the Huskies will look to take advantage of Isaiah Thomas’ quickness cutting through the Beaver zone.  Romar and his players have seen that their team is quicker than their opponent and will try to speed up the game because of this.  Unfortunately, they knew this before the very first time they played.  The Huskies may have figured out what works with defensive matchups against OSU over the last 2 games.  The Beavers, on the other hand, may have learned a little bit more.  Half way through the 2nd half last week it seemed as if Roeland-Schaftenaar figured out that he was quicker than the UW big men.  I expect Craig Robinson to try to take advantage of this earlier in the game.  Speaking in general, this aspect seems to favor the team who has lost twice just slightly.  It’s always easier to figure out what you did wrong and what you need to do better after you lose than after you win.  I don’t think this provides a big advantage to OSU but I do think them playing the Huskies twice helps them more than it helps UW in this aspect.

Another view to take into account is the psychological aspect.  If a team beats someone twice that team is likely to have a good amount of confidence playing the team the third time.  The thought of, “We beat this team twice, we can obviously do it again” is one that brings confidence to a team.  With that confidence could come overlooking a team.  With a potential semifinal showdown with ASU looming, the Huskies could overlook the Beavers.  The Dawgs know they are superior but if they don’t show up and play to their potential then they could lose quite easily.  There are two different angles the losing team can take.  Playing a team who has beat you twice can inspire an attitude of “Here we go again.”  This is what Coach Robinson will try to stay away from.  The angle he will try to inspire is a feeling of being overlooked.  If he can convince his team that they have something to prove then he’ll do his job.  I’m sure the Beavers will say that they are ready to prove that they aren’t the same team that lost to U-Dub twice already, but are they past that mental block?  I think it’s very difficult for players to get past that which is why I would give the Huskies a big edge in this department.  Plain and simple, you want your team to have confidence in who they’re playing.  The Huskies will have that and it has yet to be seen if the Beavers will. 

For the final view lets look at the mathematical aspect.  What is the probability of a team winning 3 games in a row.  Lets drop the Huskies-Beavers example for now and pick two teams that are evenly matched (we’ll call them team A and team B).  If the two teams are evenly matched than it becomes the exact same as flipping a coin 3 times.  Like a coin flip, the third game is completely independent of the first two games (this is strictly from a math viewpoint).  The math is pretty simple on this. If team A has a 50% chance of winning each of the three games the equation would be .5^3 which equals 12.5 % probablility of winning all 3 games.  Say the Huskies have a 75% chance of beating the Beavers each time they play, the probability of beating them all three times would be 42.19% (.75^3).  Of course, this doesn’t mean that the Huskies chances of winning this game are 42.19%.  After beating the Beavers twice already the probability of winning this game is the same it was last week, 75% (the 75% is just a guess by the way, that seems about right to me).  But this is part of where the beating a 3 times in a season argument comes from.  The probability is against a team winning 3 in a row unless they have a substantial edge on their opponent.  This doesn’t take into account the matchups teams have against each other, which is obviously a big part of basketball.  But the mathematical aspect of this makes it easier to see why even the Royals don’t get swept in every 3 game series they play.  Although a team may be significantly worse than the team their playing, the probability will soon catch up to the superior team and they will lose.  This is when upsets happen.  So, should we be concerned about the mathematical probability of the Beavers beating us on Thursday?  It definitely has a level of intrigue but it won’t matter if the Huskies play to their full potential and the Beavers play to their full potential.  It’s important to remember that this game is its own separate trial, its own separate coin flip if you will.  Except this coin is weighted towards the Huskies.

I see where people are coming from when they say beating a team 3 times in one season is difficult.  It makes sense to some degree, especially from a mathematical standpoint but I don’t think that view takes everything into account.  The psychology in sports is very important and it’s favoring the Huskies at this point.  This 3 game saying may be part true but it’s definitely part myth.  I sure hope it’s all myth come 8:30 Thursday night.

Andrew

1 Comment

Filed under Huskies Basketball

Tagged as , ,

by | March 9, 2010 · 3:00 pm

A Few Quick Notes

A few interesting things of note on this Tuesday.

  • Seahawks backup quarterback, Seneca Wallace was traded to Cleveland for a late round pick in the 2011 draft today.  I don’t think this is a big deal but I wasn’t a big Wallace fan.  He did have some exciting plays from time to time, but I didn’t think he had much of a future here.  The big question now is who becomes the Seahawks backup?  Will they go to the draft and pick someone or will they pick up a veteran?  Here’s my choice.  They sign Derek Anderson who was just released, with that signing they’d have improved on the backup quarterback spot.  Then, I’d draft Tim Tebow with the 40th overall pick.  I don’t know how well Tebow’s skills will translate to the NFL but I think he will fit in somewhere.  The last step to this plan?  Lose a lot this season and then pick Jake Locker next year, obviously.
  • Husky running back, Curtis Shaw, has decided to transfer to a smaller school in search of playing time.  While Shaw’s blazing speed was always intriguing, he never turned into a strong player for the Huskies.  He was buried pretty far down on the depth chart and now will get an opportunity.  Does this hurt the Huskies?  Maybe a little bit.  Depth is what makes good football programs and losing someone with speed is never favorable.  With that being said, I don’t think Shaw would’ve seen the field much and some attrition is needed to fit in this large freshman class.  I hope Curtis has success at whatever school he ends up at, I always liked the guy for some reason.
  • I was watching Uconn in their Big East tournament game today.  They lost by 20 to St. Johns.  Coaches generally want players that will imitate their character and attitude, this backfired on Uconn today.  Jim Calhoun had some of the worst body language I’ve ever seen from a coach in that game.  As soon as St. Johns got up by a little Calhoun started pouting, discouraging, and not coaching his team.  I know it’s been a tough year for Connecticut but if I didn’t like Calhoun before I definitely do now.  Say what you will about Romar’s on the court coaching ability but Romar coaches, encourages, and believes in his players for all 40 minutes of the game.  That is usually reflective in the way the Dawgs play.  They may not make shots and might get burnt on defense but they generally play hard for 40 minutes, just like Romar coaches.
  • The Jose Lopez-third base experiment has gone down hill.  He made two bad plays yesterday and another today.  I imagine they’ll keep giving it a chance, which is fine by me, but he needs to show more improvement than this.
  • Quincy got robbed.  Enough said.

Andrew

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

by | March 6, 2010 · 8:35 pm

Y2010M! Adam Moore

I just bought a copy of the Maple Street Press Mariners Annual, edited by USS Mariner’s Dave Cameron and featuring a whole bunch of writers from local blogs and newspapers.  Everything I’ve read so far is great, and it’s fun having all my favorite local writers under the same cover and hopefully making a little bit of money.  Art Thiel has a piece on Griffey in particular that was excellent.

Jon Shields of Pro Ball NW has a long piece in the annual detailing the Mariners’ struggles to develop a good catcher.  Trading Varitek and striking out on Ryan Christianson and Jeff Clement and a myriad of others has led to the probability of Rob Johnson as your 2010 starting catcher.  Catcher is a tough position to project and understand, so a lot of analysts just write it off a little bit.  Determining how important catcher defense is and how to calculate who is good on defense seems to be outside the realm of most metrics so far, at least that I know of.  And yet, teams are willing to take a catcher who can’t hit if he’s good on defense.  Further complicating things is the pitch calling issue.  It’s confusing.  And so we end up with Rob Johnson.

Rob Johnson starting means I’m cheering hard for Adam Moore.  Moore reportedly has solid, if unspectacular, defense, and unlike Johnson, he can hit.  Not like Joe Mauer, but like one of those catchers you hear about and go, “Hey, he’s a pretty good hitter,” and maybe you see them in an all-star game or two, but you don’t really know that much about him because mostly he’s a good hitter for a catcher but not if he were playing somewhere else.  Maybe he won’t hit much at all.  And maybe he’ll still be a good catcher without hitting.  I don’t really know.  All I know is he’s the Mariners only hope for a catcher who can hit without going outside of the organization, which means he could be one of the most important players on the roster for next five years.  A good hitting catcher who plays solid defense is a huge step toward a pennant.

-Matthew

2 Comments

Filed under Mariners, Y2010M!

Tagged as

by | March 6, 2010 · 8:32 pm

Y2010M! Rob Johnson

I, like many other Mariner fans and writers, don’t really understand the enigma that is Rob Johnson.  He’s lauded for his defense, and yet he drops pitches and can’t block them and generally seems like a fairly bad defensive catcher.  Save for about two weeks last summer, he’s given no indication that he’ll be even an average offensive catcher.  His one skill that draws raves from teammates and coaches is his pitch calling, but it’s hard to know how true that is and how much it helps.  Talk radio show hosts point to catcher ERA, and maybe there is something to that, but I have a hard time believing there’s anything to that stat (I’m sure I’ll have a good rant on that sometime in the next few months).

Then we went to Mariners Fan Fest and saw a little Q & A session with Johnson and David Aardsma and I think Tui, and I understood the attraction a little better.  He just inspires confidence.  He acts like he’s supposed to be there and appears to be one of those take charge types who everybody loves because he’s just a cool guy.  Which is admittedly what I’d want in my catcher if I were a pitcher.  And yet, he’s not really good at most other baseball skills.  He’s also coming off surgery on both hips, which can’t be good for a catcher. 

So, what are we to do?  I’m hoping, save some crazy improvement from out of nowhere by Johnson, that Adam Moore hits so well at some point early in the season that they have to start him, making Johnson the backup, and a surprisingly good one at that.

-Matthew

Leave a comment

Filed under Mariners, Y2010M!

Tagged as

by | March 6, 2010 · 11:05 am

Most Hated Mariner

Recently we did a NOT Y2010M! post. In it, Andrew compiled an entertaining line-up of dreadful players to suit up for the M’s in the past few years. I threw up 5 times after reading it. And again just now when I pasted it…

Catcher: Miguel Olivo
1st Base: Richie Sexson
2nd Base: Jose Vidro
3rd Base: Jeff Cirillo
SS: Yuni
LF: Willie Bloomquist
CF: Wladimir Balentin
RF: Brad Wilkerson
SP: Carlos Silva
RP: Miguel Batista
Manager: John McClaren

This got me thinking, heading into 2010, with most of the bad names gone, who is your least favorite Mariner? Let’s run a poll and find out! In case you care, my vote is for Garrett Olson, who I’m sure is a nice guy and all, but good lord he is bad. Everything is between 80 and 89 mph, nothing moves too well, and he walks a lot.

-Dan

3 Comments

Filed under Mariners, Y2010M!

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | March 5, 2010 · 7:45 pm

Husky Position Overviews – Fullback

This is one spot where the Huskies have to replace their starter.  Paul Homer had a great four years at Washington and he will be missed.  I will also miss Matthew saying “He’ll take you Homer” anytime the guy touched the ball.  The Dawgs do have some young talent at fullback.

Austin Sylvester, 6-1, 241, SR:  Sylvester has played on special teams for the last two years.  He won’t do anything flashy but that’s hardly what the fullback position is for anyway.  Sylvester is a solid blocker and could be a good contributor to the Huskies run game because of that.  As far as potential goes, Sylvester’s ceiling is not very high.  You basically know what you have in him and while he will improve, he might not have the skill that the other fullback’s possess.  I put him first on this depth chart because he’s older but I think he might get passed up before September.

What Sylvester needs to improve on this spring:  Sylvester needs to improve his play making.  In Sark’s pro-style offense the fullback is used out of the backfield more than the typical fullback.  If Sylvester wants to be the starter he needs to be able to catch the dump off pass and turn it into a positive play. 

Kimo Makaula, 6-2, 248, RS FR:  As far as the coolest Husky name goes, Kimo is right up there.  Makaula red-shirted last year and was one of Sark’s first recruits.  He is very strong and is supposed to be quite athletic.  He might fit the mold of fullback better than Sylvester does but lacks the experience.

What Makaula needs to improve on this spring:  Makaula needs to make sure that he’s got the offense down and is comfortable with it.  As far as physical skills go he has the edge on Sylvester but he doesn’t have the same amount of experience, he needs to make up for that this spring and show that he’s comfortable with his job.  He’s a good young player who will only improve.  He has a good deal of potential and needs to maximize that. 

Position Overview:  This is one of the few positions in the Husky offense that is up for grabs.  When it comes down to it I think Sylvester and Makaula will split time this year.  They each need to have a solid spring and show an understanding of the offense since neither have seen significant time in games.  Zach Fogerson will be here in the fall, so he won’t be practicing with the team during spring practices.  He is a very highly rated fullback and will be a good contributor for the Huskies for years to come. 

http://www.uwdawgpound.com/ has also been doing position overviews as of late.  They are quite a bit different from mine and very good.  Check them out.  As always, thanks for reading!

Andrew

1 Comment

Filed under Huskies Football, Huskies Position Overviews

Tagged as , , ,

by | March 5, 2010 · 1:52 pm

3 Topics (but none deserving a full post)

Here’s your 3 for 1 special. 3 topics of food for thought, minus the food. Enjoy.

Ackley for A-Gon
A couple days ago on 710 ESPN, Kevin Calabro was making his argument for an Adrian Gonzalez to Seattle trade. His case was that this team plus Adrian Gonzalez would be an American League favorite to make the World Series, and likely a contender next year as well. The price is never too high for glory days like Calabro was painting, and no one could disagree with the excitement that A-Gon in Seattle would bring. But while most of us talk about a package including the likes of Saunders, Carp, Lopez, Fields, Halman, Triunfel, French, Matthew Long…Calabro says give em’ Dustin Ackley if that’s what it takes. At first, it sounds ridiculous, but the more I think about it, the more intrigued I am. Here’s why.

In Ackley, you get high upside (he was the #2 pick overall last year) and the potential down the road of say, Chase Utley at 2nd base. He is also under team control for 4-6 more years. In Gonzalez, you get a stud, who has already reached the potential we can only dream that Ackley may achieve. But he is only under team control for 2 more years. Money is not much of a factor because Gonzalez will only make $10.25MM from 2010-11. What is a factor is the value over replacement that Ackley and Gonzalez may provide. Ackley might be the starting 2nd baseman in 2011, and that’s probably an upgrade over Lopez. The same can be said for Gonzalez over Kotchman at first base. But just how big would the upgrade be this year, when essentially all the stars would be aligned to go for it with the Cliff Lee and A-Gon additions? Here’s what CHONE projections say.

’10 Dustin Ackley- minor leagues, +0 WAR
’10 Jose Lopez- 19 hr, 89 rbi, .283 avg, +2.6 WAR
’10 Adrian Gonzalez- 33 hr, 98 rbi, .280 avg, +4.2 WAR
’10 Casey Kotchman- 10 hr, 58 rbi, .265 avg, +0.9 WAR

In 2010, Ackley won’t be a factor, so losing him, at least for this season, is not going to impact the wins total. In future years, his value will likely only increase. A-Gon could add 23 hr, 40 rbi, and about 3.3 wins more than Kotchman, and both play terrific defense. Is that enough to enter “go for it” mode and give up Ackley? Probably not, but whose to say Gonzalez wouldn’t re-sign and stay in Seattle just as long as Ackley would? And what if Ackley doesn’t develop and reach his potential? In Gonzalez, you have a player who already has reached his potential.

Ultimately, there are too many unknowns to pull the trigger on this deal, though I’d bet San Diego would take a deal that included Ackley. If we knew Cliff Lee would be in Seattle next year as well, then maybe you risk it all to have 2 years of win-now baseball. But Lee past this year is no guarantee, and Ackley in the next five years is too enticing to trade for what may only be two years of Gonzalez. The Mariners aren’t quite into full win-now mode so mortgaging the future with the team’s top prospect would not be wise. But come mid-July if a bidding war is on for Gonzalez and the M’s, sitting atop the AL West, don’t have a package to make the deal, maybe Ackley becomes realistic bait.

What if…
I love day dreaming about “what if” scenarios related to my Seattle sports teams. In my mind there are two types of “what if” questions; negative outcome and positive outcome. The negative scenarios seem to stick with me longer. What if Howard Schultz had sold the team to a Seattle group stead of the Okies? What if a couple penalties went our way in Super Bowl 40? What if the Seahawks had kept Hutch. What if the Mariners had drafted Lincicum over Morrow? What if Holmgren, Leiweke and Paul Allen had gotten along? Of course there are positive “what if” scenarios too, where knowing the eventual outcome makes me smile. What if Ichiro had ended up with Los Angeles? What if the ’95 team never made their August push, would baseball be in Seattle today?

The two scenarios I can’t seem to get over are both “what if” questions regarding the Mariner’s 2008 season. What if Bavasi hadn’t made the Bedard trade? And what if the Mariners hadn’t swept Oakland to end the year? My theory is that if Bedard had not been acquired, the team would have likely still sucked, because Adam Jones, Chris Tillman and George Sherrill weren’t going to make up for many more wins than Bedard provided in ’08. And if we had not swept the A’s to end the year, we would have had the #1 pick in ’09, and Stephen Strasburg would be a Mariner today. Based on these two scenarios, our rotation going forward for at least the next 3 years would have likely been Felix, Strasburg, and Chris Tillman. Wow.

NHL vs. NBA
If I had it my way, Seattle would have the NHL, NBA, and a regular PGA tour stop. As it is, we have none. In the future, I think we will have one or two of these, and I’m beginning to want the NHL more than the others. My wife is a huge Red Wings fan, so I’ve watched more hockey since getting married 3 years ago than I did the previous 20 years. Playoff hockey is amazing. So is Olympic hockey, like the world just saw. A new arena is necessary for the NHL or NBA, so this dream is still years away, but similar to how the Sounders have been received, I think a hockey team would be a sell-out machine as well. In my opinion, it’s more entertaining than the NBA, and while a new arena could bring both leagues back to Seattle, I’d rather have hockey. Build an arena, and there would be 5 or 6 teams, Phoenix, Nashville, Florida, Tampa bay, Atlanta, to name a few, fighting to get to Seattle first.

-Dan

3 Comments

Filed under Mariners, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , ,