1
Love your articles on this, Doc. I've got about three dozen light bulbs going on after reading these 'four quadrant' pieces. Great, great stuff.
.
One of the things that Green-Quadrant thinkers focus on, is --- > safety.
You want to avoid the DOWNside scenario. A CEO may have several lawyers on his staff, all of whose primary function is to keep the CEO out of jail. Boeing has a Quality Assurance department, naturally, and they spend a penny or two to make sure that planes don't fall out of the sky.
.
Yellow Quadrants, Theorems, Axioms and 0.0 WAR, Dept.
Fangraphs takes it as an AXIOM that a major league ballclub can return 0.0 WAR, at any roster slot, merely by being competent.
ax * i * om (noun) a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
But the Yellow Quadrant has taught us that it is okay to question dogma. :: smiles innocently ::
.......
Therefore: would somebody please point me to a web page that establishes this proposition?
I don't think that it was ever established that an ML team has 0.0 WAR available to it, at all positions, in all contexts, in all situations, for $0.00 (beyond the minimum wage). I don't think that was ever established, because I don't think that it is true. More than that, I think it is self-evidently false.
You can click on the b-ref.com link, for ANY baseball team EVER, and find lots of players who returned negative value.
Let's take an example ... oh, who should we take ... how about the 2013 Mariners? :: whistling ::
| Player | Games | WAR |
| Ryan | 87 | -0.7 |
| Triunfel | 17 (!!) |
-0.7 |
| Liddi | 8 (!) | -0.3 |
| Andino | 29 | -0.2 |
| Total | 141 | -1.9 |
That's just on the infield. There was also Mike Morse at -1.2, Endy Chavez at -1.3, Jesus Montero at -0.4 ... shall we talk relievers? Any given year, the Mariners have 4-5 relievers who combine for -3 WAR.
In fact, when you scan down the M's history with sub-zero players, you get to thinking the easiest way to add cheap WAR, is to get decent stoploss players at the bottom of the roster.
Without any question, fans underestimate this "stoploss" factor. GM's know that they can step into a land mine and be left with a 7.00 ERA fifth starter, if they don't make real blinkin' sure to have a Jeremy Bonderman on hand. If Blogger X were ever to become a real GM, this "stoploss" issue would be one of the first things to clarify itself for him.
Real quick.
.
Q. Does it prove that you have fouled up somewhere, if you have a hole at backup infielder?
A. Not at all. Even supposing you have great player development, well ... the Seahawks are deep at defensive line, but think at offensive line, right?
You're going to be strong in some areas and thin at others. Even if your top 40 players are -- ON AVERAGE -- doing very well, you're going to be hemorrhaging AT SOME PARTICULAR SPOT in that roster.
.
Q. Would Dr. D have signed Willie Bloomquist on this basis, that he's a "stoploss"?
A. Probably NOT, no, not in this specific case. The Mariners don't expect Franklin, Miller, OR Ackley to provide negative WAR. And I would challenge myself to find a backup SS who didn't hurt me.
But Willie Bloomquist is not a 0.0 WAR player. He's a 1.0 WAR player, prorated. And because I'm signing him AS A COACH, now then, the secondary benefit of "stoploss WAR" is a nice bonus into the equation.
.
Q. Leaving the Mariners where?
A. I think that if this were the St. Louis Cardinals, or the New York Yankees, they wouldn't need this "shim" in the clubhouse. I think that their winning culture, the presence of Joe Girardi, Tony Larussa -- > Mike Matheny, etc., would take care of these concerns.
This being the Seattle Mariners, I think they had best attend to the issue of establishing a winning culture. And yes, without any question, Willie Bloomquist is a logical means to that end.
Comments
2
Out of its utility infielder/outfielder, then it's money well spent. Raul carried the team on his back for a while there, as our fifth outfielder. And it's kinda strange how the blogosphere could do nothing but complain about it. Yeah, Frankie broke down, and Saunders got hurt, and Morse got hurt, and Raul stayed healthy and kept this team in the hunt through May. And all the blogosphere could do was snark about it. And I just don't get why this Ibanez signing was treated with such derision. Anyone think Cap Wells would have carried this team on it's back?
3
In his 11-year career, Willie Bloomquist has played on a three winning teams (not counting his September callup with the Ms in '02 or his ~3 weeks spent with the '10 Reds). He's played more seasons for 90-loss teams in his career than teams with winning records, and he's never played back-to-back years for a winning team.
I get that Willie supposedly has intangibles coming out the wazoo in the minds of some people, and I know that Willie isn't responsible for the overall quality of the teams he's played for.
But I'm not sure how a career spent primarily with losing teams makes him some sort of huge clubhouse asset and example for the young kids. Even if I credit a lot of your theories on why a team needs a great clubhouse presence to foster a winning culture, what possible reason could there be to believe that Bloomquist is that guy? Why should we expect him to be the kind of glue guy who fosters a winning culture for the '14 Mariners, when he's never actually been part of a winning culture himself?
I'm not railing against this deal. I think it was a slight overpay for a guy with very limited value on the field, but the stakes aren't that high for a reserve utility infielder, so I'm pretty indifferent about it. I don't buy into Bloomquist as a magic clubhouse guy who will make others better by the simple joy of basking in his presence, though. At the very least, I'd want my "winning culture in the clubhouse" guy to have experience playing for winners, and Willie falls short in that department.
4
"Which teams, specifically, did Bloomquist play for? And did they IN FACT manifest the improved work environments advertised by his apologists?"
It's a great question. However, simply adding up the playoff appearances / >.500 seasons for his teams, that would not be the right way to answer it.
(Are we going to evaluate Ken Griffey Jr. by postseason appearances? When James takes a stab at a player's effect on his teams, he starts with pre-season win expectations, and then compares the manager/player's results against that expectation. Not simply counting >.500 seasons; after all, Willie didn't come up in the Yankee organization.)
................
Since we're on the subject, Veteran Willie was added to two franchises in his career:
The 2009 Royals, where he joined Trey Hillman mid-stream, and made no discernible difference in the Royals' fortunes.
The 2011-13 Diamondbacks, where he joined Kirk Gibson's revolution and the D-Backs went from 97 losses to 94 wins (+29 victories) in Willie's first season there.
I don't say that's conclusive, either.
.................
What it looks like, is that Kansas City added Bloomquist for his baseball skills, and accomplished nothing. And that Arizona added Bloomquist as part of a culture change -- which occurred to the tune of +29 wins.
Not sure that Willie's resume contradicts the idea that he can -- if other factors are in place -- be an important part of turning around a team's attitude.
If such a skill exists, it would be useful for about four months, and then the objective would be accomplished. The year-3 records of the player's teams wouldn't be the issue here.
5
I get that neither of us think these anecdotes are proof of anything, but the flaw in your response is that it ignores the 2012-2013 Diamondbacks, which were both .500 teams despite employing Bloomquist. If I credit everything you're saying as true, then there's possibly a honeymoon period of a year with Bloomquist, best-case scenario.
Willie's not responsible for his team's W/L record. Any given team he's been on probably would've been about 1-2 wins better if he was replaced with the best utility infielder in baseball. I just don't see how he gets credit as a guy who can be relied on to create a winning culture when he's never been part of a sustained winning culture.
Some of the intangibles you mention are real, and some of them are coachspeak (and I don't think you'd disagree with that). The rub is that it's pretty much impossible to tell which is which. Nice, guy + grit + a history on winning teams doesn't automatically mean a guy has the "glue guy" factor. Nice guy + grit WITHOUT a history on winning teams certainly doesn't = "glue guy" in my book.
If you're going to factor in things like "creating a winning culture through good chemistry" in roster decisions, I'd think that past experience as part of a winning culture should be a minimum requirement.
I don't think anyone--not even people who quote WAR in every baseball discussion-thinks that intangibles can or should be ignored entirely, it's just that you get much more predictable results by basing your decisions on things that are concrete and measurable. For all we know, notorious bad teammates like Jeff Kent and AJ Pierzynski actually do more to create winning chemistry than gritty coaches' favorites like Bloomquist -- more than a few ballplayers throughout history have said they play better when they're angry. On the other hand, more often than not a team's performance lines up pretty well with the talent of its players, as expressed in ways that are capable of at least rough measurement.
I'm not saying there's nothing to your point about a player-mentor like Bloomquist having immeasurable benefits. I still think the best argument for signing him is that he's got a high likelihood of being above replacement level, though.
6
Starting with the idea that Bloomquist's effect on "Keeping the Clubhouse Together" -- IF it exists -- IS fleeting.
And that's fine. If Bloomquist (HYPOTHETICALLY) served the purpose of "launching" a successful Lloyd McClendon era, and then left four months on, then the M's would be thrilled.
............
I also "prefer the things that are actually in the box score." Like I said, I personally wouldn't have wanted to sign Bloomquist; for me it would have been a grudging concession that Lloyd McClendon needs help.
I'd much rather use a Robert Andino, and spend $3M a year on a reliever. But that assumes Andino can get me +0.5 WAR rather than -0.5 WAR, and it assumes I won't have a clubhouse mess that torpedoes the whole thing before it starts. Things like that have capsized a lot of Ricciardi and DePodesta offseason plans.
The M's logic seems to be --- > how many more WAR are you going to get from your 25th roster slot, than Bloomquist gives? Probably none. So isn't that the right place to put the player-coach?
7
I don't think we really disagree on that much (though I don't agree that the utility infielder is the "25th roster slot" - it's a much more important position than 5th OF or 7th bullpen arm, but that's quibbling). There's a moderate amount of value on being able to count on your utility INF for somewhere between 0 and 0.5 wins (to use the language of WAR) with a high degree of probability, and the Mariners have gotten burned by a lot of below replacement level talent in recent years. And he's got grit, and intangibles, and a good attidude, and grittatude, and all that junk.
What we're left with is the consensus that this is a defensible but pretty questionable move with limited downside. This is the kind of move that makes people say "meh" when they otherwise trust their FO on the big moves. On a bad team where the FO has lost the fans' trust, though, it's further confirmation of the notion that they don't know what they're doing and value the wrong things. I'm somewhere in the middle. The degree that the FO decided to overpay Bloomquist doesn't matter to me much in isolation, but it raises all sorts of red flags about what other skillsets they overvalue, since we know that more big moves are coming.