Dipoto's Delightfully Insane Front Office

Jerry Dipoto more or less locked in his whole front office this week (manager included!) A few weeks back I had a list of people who did not know their fates. Those fates are now known. Let's start there:

The remaining unknowns:

• Tom Allison (pro scouting director) - staying with the Mariners in the same position
• Roger Hansen (assistant to the GM) - staying with the Mariners in the same position
• Jeff Kingston (assistant GM) - staying with the Mariners in the same position
• Tim Kissner (international scouting director) - staying with the Mariners in the same position
• Tom McNamara (amateur scouting director) - staying with the Mariners in the same position

I find this non-news rather remarkable news in itself. Dipoto did not come in and blow up the leadership. Only Hansen pre-dates Jack Zduriencik, so it isn't like any of these people are lifers within the Mariners franchise. They were Zduriencik hires and now they remain. This will not get enough attention because the lazy narrative has already been written: New GM comes in, fires manager, cleans house. Dipoto let Lloyd McClendon go over differences in approach, which seemed like a convenient euphemism for "I'm not dealing with another Mike Scioscia situation."

However, given how many people Dipoto kept on from the Zduriencik regime, it sure seems like Dipoto legitimately talked with McClendon and took time to discern whether he and McClendon could work together. Dipoto clearly gave everyone in the front office some time and thought, and ended up deciding their vision fits with his.

However, Jerry Dipoto made one splash, and it looks significant. He hired Andy McKay as the new farm director. McKay replaces Chris Gwynn, who resigned - though, now that we can see the whole picture a bit more clearly, he was likely either going to choose to leave or be told to leave.

Nobody knows how McKay will do as farm director, McKay included. He was the "peak performance coordinator" in Colorado when Dipoto reached out to him about the M's opening. He was a mental coach of sorts.

Dipoto and McKay did not know each other before McKay's interview with the Mariners, though Dipoto knew of McKay. Apparently Dipoto reached out about a position with the Angels a few years back, but one way or another an interview never happened.

McKay seems to have some strong opinions on how teams develop players, especially mentally. He went as far as saying no team does a good job developing the mental side of the game. McKay added that he has developed a program for mental training. Seems pretty obvious that the 2016 Mariners will be his first real guinea pigs.

I knew nothing about Andy McKay until roughly Wednesday of this week, but I am convinced this is a huge hire. The idea of Andy McKay is what's so powerful. None of us know how this move will work out, but I love the theory and there is only one way to find out if the theory actually works - put it into practice and see what happens.

Sports psychology has been a big topic rumbling around the back of my head for a few years, probably thanks to where my research as a high school teacher has led me. I say with some confidence that I think about student metacognition on math problems more than 99% of baseball bloggers, but every now and then those thoughts drift perilously close to baseball.

For instance, one of the most powerful ideas I've ever read about is Carol Dweck's research on mindsets.* Her research suggests that human beings approach contexts with either fixed or growth mindsets. The basic notion is that people with fixed mindsets believe they are permanently only so good or so bad at something. Meanwhile, people with growth mindsets believe that their abilities change over time depending on what they do and experience.

*I also say with some confidence that I am among, I don't know, 1-5% of baseball bloggers who could quote research from Carol Dweck in a baseball post? I know you've all been waiting for some educational research to show up on the Musings! #Shocktober

Theoretically, two people with identical pre-requisite skills and knowledge could approach a situation with different mindsets. What Dweck's research has shown is that these two theoretical people, over time, will end up in different places. The person with a growth mindset is more likely to grapple with challenges, persist, and ultimately get better. A person with a fixed mindset is more likely to feel threatened by a challenge and avoid it, which results in a skill plateauing or possibly even fading.

It's not that mindset is everything, but it is clearly something. Moreover, there are ways to frame communication and rephrase feedback which promotes growth mindsets over fixed mindsets. Mindsets can be cultivated, or in sports terms, be coached. There are moves I make which research suggests push my students towards growth mindset in math. Sometimes I've paused and wondered if similar moves could be used in a minor league system. It seems like something that would generalize quickly and easily.

I don't know what McKay's program entails, but I thought about things like mindset. They matter, they have been shown through scientific research to make a difference, and sports have been more blind to them than just about anything else that could impact performance. This is why sports psychology has struck me as a field for potentially massive growth, and I've wondered who would be the first team to make an aggressive push into the field.

Answer: the Seattle Mariners. Shocktober!

Of course, there is a reasonable chance many (or all) teams are doing something with sports psychology. However, nobody with McKay's background has held such a significant leadership position, with the power and responsibility that such a position entails.

McKay is a bold hire, and if he works out like Dipoto hopes, the Mariners will enjoy a significant advantage over everyone else for a few years before other teams catch on. If he doesn't work out - oh well. The Mariners player development has been a disaster for several years now. It is the most logical explanation for why the team cannot develop MLB talent despite high draft picks that are consistently praised as good picks across baseball. The draft is a crapshoot, but it's not nearly as bad of a crapshoot as the M's player development track record suggests.

It is also interesting to see how surgical and open-minded Jerry Dipoto is. He kept Zduriencik's leadership in tact except for two key places, farm director and manager. Adam McKay brings a revolutionary approach to player development, and new manager Scott Servais comes from a background in player development. It's very obvious now that Jerry Dipoto believes the main (if not only) problem with the Mariners under Jack Zduriencik was player development.

Dipoto now has a manager who has never managed and a farm director who has never directed anything in a front office that he had never met until a week or two ago. These are the men charged with fixing the Mariners, especially given that nobody else changed. How could this possibly go wrong?

The plan has a self-evident disaster factor, but the Mariners player development was already a disaster. There is nothing to lose. This is an obvious situation worth taking a wild risk in with hopes of a massive reward. I kind of like this Dipoto guy.

Servais at Mariners Service

The Mariners have themselves a new manager. Scott Servais will take over the reigns. Tim Bogar will also reportedly be his bench coach. The hires are mildly surprising, but about as mild as mild gets.

I wrote my major Dipoto post two and a half weeks ago and predicted that we would see an infusion of Angels front office personnel. Both Servais and Bogar were in the Angels front office with Dipoto. They were obvious candidates to follow Dipoto up to Seattle. However, among the two men, Bogar has managing experience and Servais does not. Moreover, Bogar's managing experience includes lots of winning (albeit in the minor leagues).

So, it would seem more logical to hire Bogar as manager and Servais in another position. The men hired make total sense, but the positions are a bit surprising. However, Dipoto is considered more "new school," which means the manager executes the general manager's vision to a large degree. This is a paradigm shift for the Mariners as a franchise. Servais does not have the same leadership role within the Mariners as Lloyd McClendon did, or if you prefer to harken back to the good old days, certainly different from Lou Piniella.

The early takes on Servais's hiring are focused on his lack of managerial experience and how that is a trend in baseball at the moment. I don't think that is the most interesting angle in this story. Really, Servais provides us another glimpse into Dipoto's vision.

Scott Servais carved out a respectable 11-year career in the big leagues, which should immediately buy him credibility in the clubhouse despite his lack of managerial experience. Moreover, Servais's post-career experience all came in front office roles, and more specifically in LA of A he was involved in player development. So, this hire strongly suggests to me that Dipoto is placing a premium on developing the Mariners core that has already reached the major leagues - so much so that he was willing to hire a man without managing experience.

This is where Tim Bogar comes in. The bench coach is the manager's right hand man. He is the guy the manager always checks in with about moves, tactics, and strategy. Bogar's minor league managing experience will be valuable in this role, plus Dipoto knows he can work with Bogar and trusts that Bogar's tactics will not deviate from the overall vision Dipoto has for the Mariners.

The Mariners finished hiring the major leaders within their front office over the week but I have not had time to write about those hires yet. That post will come out tomorrow. The restructuring already suggested that Jerry Dipoto more or less liked everything the Mariners were doing, except in player development - but he really, really disapproved of what the Mariners were doing in player development from the looks of it. More on this later. All I am saying right now is that Dipoto is clearly focused on fixing the M's player development track, and hiring Servais as the manager fits within that focus.

Fixing Utley's Slide

There should not be room in baseball for a "slide" like this:

That's not a slide. Utley performed a hybrid between a flop and a roundhouse kick after he passed second base. The "slide" served no strategic advantage for Utley. It did not help him avoid a tag or get to the bag faster. The move had one purpose, and one purpose only. Break up the double play. Utley was successful, to say the least, and broke Ruben Tejada's leg in the process.

Incredibly, Chase Utley was awarded second base in this play - even after he trotted off the field assuming he was out. Sanity was restored to some degree by Joe Torre when he suspended Utley for games three and four, though of course the suspension is being appealed. Torre's decision might not have any ground to stand on, but I admire the effort. Something had to happen here.

With all that said, a juicy question remains: did the umpires screw up, or did they follow the rules? If they followed the rules, then how can the rules be fixed?

Unsurprisingly, Major League Baseball - the same group that created things like designations for assignment, super-two status, qualifying offers, and the balk rule - has a lengthy set of rules governing how runners are allowed to run. I have pulled the rules potentially relevant to Chase Utley as he barreled down on Ruben Tejada straight from section 7 of the the MLB rulebook. You can scour the section for other applicable rules if you want. Here we go:

Part 1 - Why was Chase Utley safe? Or, stated negatively, why was Chase Utley not out?

Here is what the rulebook has to say about when runners are out:

7.08 Any runner is out when --

(a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from his baseline to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner’s baseline is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely;

Utley clearly broke towards Tejada to take him out. However, Utley's arm could have touched second base at any point. If his arm could touch, then he we was within three feet of the base. He was within the baseline according to this rule, so the slide itself was legal, or at least did not violate rule 7.08(a)(1).

There are more rules that could apply though. On to the next one, which still comes from 7.08, the situations that define when a runner is out:

(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;
Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out.

This rule is more problematic, and it is hard to tell exactly how the umpires interpreted Utley's slam into Tejada. A very literal reading of 7.08(b) would suggest that it does not apply, because it only talks about batted and thrown balls. Tejada, very technically, was hit by Utley with the ball in his hand. Tejada clearly intended to throw, but the throw had not happened yet. Additionally, Tejada had been thrown the ball by another fielder, so the ball was no longer a batted ball either.

Theoretically, if the umpires judged that 7.08(b) was not relevant for Utley's play, then the comment also does not apply. However, the comment has something interesting worth noting. Chase Utley was ultimately awarded second base, which suggests that the umpires interpreted Utley as on the bag when contact happened with Tejada. The comment to 7.08(b) clearly gives the runner a base if the runner hits a fielder while they are on a bag unless the contact is judged intentional. The rulebook does not define intentional contact, so intentionality is entirely up to the umpire's discretion.

The comment in 7.08(b) looks like the most solid and reasonable explanation for giving Utley second base, even though it may or may not apply in Utley's situation. At the very least, the wording is vague enough to leave questions about what is and is not legal as a fielder transfers a ball from their mitt to their throwing arm. It would seem to make sense that the rules on batted balls and throws would extend to transfers, but 7.08(b) leaves wiggle room.

Also, perhaps more importantly, what constitutes intentional hindrance if Utley's slide into Tejada was not an intentional hindrance?

Part 2 - Chase Utley did not get called for interference. What is interference then?

The MLB rulebook dedicates an entire rule, 7.09, to interference, and a couple parts of it seem almost relevant with the Utley slide, such as 7.09(e):

(e) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.

In plain English, this rule says that a runner can't kick or swat the ball so that a fielder misses it. It says nothing about a thrown ball or a fielder trying to turn the double play around a base. So, Utley is fine according to this rule. However, 7.09(i) continues with the double play scenarios:

(i) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball;

This rule, in other words, says that a runner cannot run into a fielder as they try to make a play...with one small piece missing. It is the same piece missing in 7.08(b). This rule clearly covers fielders making a play on the original batted ball, as well as any fielder in the middle of throwing the ball. A very literal reading of this rule would not cover the Utley-Tejada situation because Tejada, as stated earlier, had the ball in his hand. He was neither fielding a batted ball nor throwing it.

Rule 7.09 finishes by saying the penalty for interference is being called out, hence why Chase Utley clearly was not called for interference.

There are only two justifications for the non-call on Utley. The first possibility is that the umpires read the rules on interference extremely literally and decided the rules on interference did not apply because Ruben Tejada was neither fielding a batted ball nor throwing the ball. This is defensible within the current rules, but hardly within the spirit of the rules.

The transfer that Tejada was in the middle of completing before Utley broke his leg is a transitional stage between actions that are covered by interference rules. It makes no sense at all to have an entirely different set of rules for transfers than for fielding a batted ball and throwing the ball. Fixing this loophole would be simple enough: just add language in the existing rules that extends the rules to defenders in the middle of a transfer.

However, if the umpires looked past this small technicality in the rules, then they did not believe Utley's contact was willful or intentional. If this is the case, then the problem is harder to fix. It would require a culture shift in baseball with retraining of umpires and additional accountability until the new definition takes hold.

I see a third fix that could work nicely. Major League Baseball could take a page out of the NBA's rulebook and create a definition for a flagrant foul. In basketball, flagrant fouls are called when a player commits a foul in such a way that it clearly goes after a player instead of the ball. Flagrants are meant to deter from dangerous fouls and also cover up a potential loophole in basketball. Without flagrants, a team could tackle shooters before they can get a shot up and the foul would not result in free throws. However, flagrants always result in free throws, plus the shooting team keeps possession.

Major League Baseball obviously does not need free throw rules, but a flagrant could be defined as any play in which a batter, batter-runner, or runner makes contact with a defender in a way which does not improve their chances at evading a tag. This definition is still a bit ambiguous, but clearer than "intentional hindrance," the current standard umpires must use. In the event of a flagrant foul, the player would automatically be out and also automatically ejected. The flagrant foul definition would also cover collisions at home plate without the need for a special rule like there is now.

I am not opposed to crafty slides at second base that make double plays harder to turn, and I would hate to see this small art form neutered out of the game altogether. Runners have rights to bases and there is room for a slide to both improve their chances of being safe and make life more difficult to turn a double play. However, when someone uses their body as a two-by-four after they get past the bag, and subsequently gets awarded the bag, something needs to change.