in the early 80's. Then he got Jack Clark and knew he had a legitimizer in the middle of the lineup. Hendricks led the team in home runs with 19 in 1982 when the Cards won the title. Pitchers absolutely pitched to him with respect. Of course the key was that the people batting in from of him were constantly in scoring position. RBI's were there for the picking and he ended up with over 100. If Ackley, Seager et al don't get on before Morales comes to the plate then there won't be much of a lineup to legitimize.
.
=== Chicks Dig the Long Ball, Dept. ===
I/O: Mojo sez in this comment, that Zduriencik likes the "balance for the offense" that will be coming through the Kendrys Morales pay station. He points out 28 one-run losses in 2012, a potential influence on Jesus Montero, and the third-order impact of having dangerous (HR-hitting) hitters.
CRUNCH: Without a doubt, the first thing the Mariners need is GOOD hitters. Of any kind. Nick Swisher would help. Barry Bonds, even today, would help. Mike Hargrove 1972 would help. We all get that. A 6-run-per-27-outs hitter is what he is.
That said, sabermetrics has a huge blind spot, and that is the issue of "What CAUSES a team's players to have good seasons by their own standards?" None of us can use math to solve that question -- and yet it's a question that Jack Zduriencik has to address. Helping a ballplayer hit well is important, and we sabermigos are of zero use in that realm.
Zduriencik and Wedge appropriately and necessarily use their judgment, their intuition, to address this. Wedge hit the young Justin Smoak sixth and he did great for a while; he moved him to third and the spiral down started. Wedge's experience with batting-order slots doesn't give baseball fans as much as we'd like, analytically speaking, but it's all we've got.
When it comes to the question of, "What's the best way to help Ackley and Montero jell?", experience and judgment are the best tools available.
...................
How many Jack Zdurienciks, Pat Gillicks, Tony Larussas, and ... Geoff Bakers around baseball believe in the concept of a Paul Konerko? How many of them believe in the concept of a "lineup legitimizer", and how many of them say, "Ahhh, it doesn't make any difference. Hitting isn't contagious. It's you against the pitcher."
Lemme put it this way. Grant for one second the premise that lineup legitimizers ARE a factor in baseball. Now ask yourself where the 2010-12 Mariners have been with respect to this factor. The degree of their lack in this department is astounding. In terms of lineup legitimizing, their ERA is 8.25 recently; they're an expansion ballclub. So they've added a Jason Vargas to an 8.25 ERA pitching staff, have they? The first time the Seattle Mariners had a legitimate starting pitcher - Floyd Bannister? - it was kind of a big deal.
SSI is a big believer in Jesus Montero, and the fact that Kendrys Morales speaks his language (sort of) don't hurt none.
SSI is a big believer in the idea that a ringing RBI double can kick a Colby Lewis out of his rocking chair.
SSI is a big believer in the idea that if you blow off conventional ideas about batting orders, and just go with a bunch of WAR-efficient players like Endy Chavez and Casey Kotchman, that you're going to learn all about the concept of Critical Mass (and 513 runs a season).
......................
Is Kendrys Morales a lineup legitimizer? I've got my doubts. He's hurt a lot, he's kind of funky-looking, his work ethic is dubious, and Cuban isn't an easy language to understand. Further, he's a dead man walkin' as far as Safeco is concerned. He's very possibly gone in July, for Drew Smyly no doubt. :- )
K'Mo would look a lot better hitting 5 than 4; add a second 100-RBI man and now we very definitely do have a maypole for the kids to dance ribbons around. But give us six or seven April home runs, dude, and we'll call it square.
Comments
Assuming that, under certain conditions, a cleanup hitter can help a ballclub hit contagiously, it wouldn't eliminate the fact that other baseball factors come into play also.
The idea of "legitimizing" a lineup --- > presumes that there's a lineup to legitimize. :- ) Albert Pujols couldn't legitimize the Everett AquaSox playing in the AL West, because the AquaSox AREN'T legitimate.
Assuming lineup legitimizers exist, shouldn't it be wise to try and quantify the legitimacy?
So, since 2002 ... who were the "lineup legitimizers" for every "new" WS team (had not been to WS in 4+ years).
2002 - Angels - Best OPS - Tim Salmon. Best slugging - Garrett Anderson .539 - (127 OPS+)
2003 - Marlins - Derrek Lee - .888 (131) 31 HRs. (Mike Lowell actually led team in HR/RBI (32/105)
2005 - ChiSox - Konerko - .909 (136) - first 40-HR guy to show up
2005 - Astros - Morgan Ensberg .945 (144) - Berkman .934 (143)
2006 - Detroit - Carlos Guillen .920 (136) - 19-HR; Mags had 24/104 HR/RBI and Thames had an .882 OPS
2007 - Colorado - Holiday 1012 (150)
2008 - Phillies - Howard .881 (125) - Utley was better .915 (136)
2008 - Tampa - Pena .871 (129) and Longoria .874 (127)
2010 - Texas - Hamilton 1044 (170)
2010 - San Fran - Aubrey Huff (142) 26-HR/86 RBI. Posey - .862 (133) 18-HR/67-RBI
My theory is that it matters that you "develop" legit bats. So, on this list, please name the "legitimizers" that were brought in from an external source AND would have been considered lineup legitimizers when they were picked up?
Pena?
Huff?
So ... based on the above, the standard seems to be about a 126 OPS and about 30 HRs.
2005 - Sexson .910 (144) - 39-HR; 121-RBI
2006 - Ibanez .869 (125) - 33-HR
2007 - Ibanez .821 (122); Beltre .831 (121) - 21 and 26 HRs
2008 - Ibanez .837 (124)
2009 - Branyan .867 (130)
2010 - none
2011 - none - (Carp was .791 (125) with 12 HR in 1/2 a season
2012 - none - Jaso had .850 (144) but only 1/2 time
Me? I agree the team does need a legit 127 OPS+ hitter before they can hope to be a true competitor. But, I also believe it matters where that body comes from. If it is Montero or Ackley or Seager or Carp ... fine. But, I've been preaching against the concept of "saviors" for a long time. To date, I still haven't found a case where an imported "savior" turned a team around.
Mind you, Kendrys could be a 127 OPS+ guy. But, if that happens simultaneously with some of the on-board kids who is "responsible" for the coming success?
A deep comment that warrants a sofistikated reply. Until somebody comes along with one...
Within that list there are certainly a number of teams that found their 'lineup legitimizers' - if that's what Longoria was - from within.
I'm sure you yourself could find any number of cases in which a big bat was brought in externally, and lifted the level of a ballclub, such as Vlad with the Angels. But the question of "internal vs external" seems to me to be a bit artificial. IFF a team needs a closer, and lacks one, why the bias against IMPORTING a closer as opposed to developing him?
You're still just bitter over the FA Greg Maddux fiasco in Atlanta. ;- ) I can sympathize with a Braves fan who doesn't believe you could start a ball rolling via free agency....
Doc,
I HAVE looked for externally imported legitimizers that turned a franchise and have found ZERO.
Vlad did NOT raise the Angels. LAA won a WS without him - and after a bad season, Vlad took them back to the level they were at without him - (except, of course, they never got back to the WS with him).
I have stated on numerous occasions that I believe pitchers work differently and there are in fact dozens of cases where pitching imports elevate franchises. (Though this would NOT apply to Atlanta, who became good BEFORE they went and added Maddux).
My honest expectation was to find SOME teams that turned things around by bringing in a big bat. I would figure that with the number of FAs moving all the time, this would have happened by random chance somewhere along the way. This is, in fact, one of the major reasons I have moved further away from the big-bat mentality to thinking not that they are not in fact "saviors", but more often than not, they are, in fact, detrimental to the development of the internal talent, rather than aids.
I think part of the difference between savior bats and savior arms is math. SPs are unique in how much they control each outing. A batter, no matter how good, will only be a little over 1/9 of the offensive inputs each game. But, I think there is also a psychological aspect in play where the aggregate impact tends to be more negative than positive,
Obviously, Pendleton was a major boost to Atlanta in their turn-around season. But there is no doubt also that he was not "expected" to be anything remotely close to the offensive producer that he turned out to be. (Part of the reason they went for Pendleton was because they were more concerned with shoring up the defense than the offense where Justice and Gant were already established "legitimizers" before Pendleton arrived.
Mind you, I'm not saying that imports cannot improve offenses. They can. But the historic results simply do not support the notion that "big name bats" produce the "franshice-altering" effects that are the foundation belief that accompanies the pleas by the fans to go out and get help.
It's not just the negative examples like AROD or Juan Gone, but the utter lack of actual titles won after import stars arrived.
One could argue Bonds turned the Giants around, since they went from 72 to 102 wins the year he arrived, (though Will Clark was already an establsiehd star). But, the fact is, San Fran didn't make the playoffs until Bonds' 5th season - and they never won a title with him, (but they've won two with Buster Posey).
IMO, people see "winning" teams bringing in FAs (after they are alread good), and are conflating the addition of talent to already winning franchises with the impression that the FAs were the key to "getting" good.
... then our preferences are impeding our investigation.
;- )
That either you were expecting a bad team to suddenly be great by adding a bat or went into it with other expectations that were as unlikely.
If you're only checking teams that made world series runs. Discounting any that were already good before adding a bat. That leaves only an expectation that bad teams could suddenly be world series bound by adding a bat. nobody else seems to be saying they'll get to a world series next year if they add a legitimate bat, so I fail to see how the research even applies to the mariners position.
If you're looking up teams that start with more things in common with the Ms, then added a lineup legitimizing bat and seeing how much they improved it would seem to fit more to the actual, situation.
Not that I didn't learn anything from your research. Just don't think I learned much that applies to roster construction from the 2013 Mariners.