continuing with the errors in the post 2007-season assessment ...

2) Age decline -- After the 2007 season, with 88 wins, the blame for not doing even better was laid at the feet of the pitching staff.  The offense in 2007 finished 2nd in BA, 7th in OBP, 7th in slugging, 6th in OPS, and 7th in runs scored in the AL.  It was a middle-of-the-pack offense, which would return 8 of its 9 starters.  While nobody was thrilled with replacing Jose Guillen with Brad Wilkerson, the general belief was that Wlad Balentien would eventually step into the OF picture, and that the offense would likely be similar to 2007, (middle-of-the-pack).  The optimists would also point out YuBet had just had his best season (.725 OPS), and was only 25, and that while Lopez had a bad year, he was only 23, and still had room to grow.  Another log on the optimism fire was that Sexson's horrid 2007 campaign, (.694 OPS) was driven by an unsustainably bad BABIP, so he had just been 'unlucky', and he could bounce, too.

The error in all this is that the process requires creating a reason for improvement in individual cases with zero thought spent on the OVERALL picture.  The larger the data pool, the better projective power.  The reality for the 2007 to 2008 team was that the club was returning 8 of 9 players ... but 5 of those returning players were over age 30, and so was the bat acquired to replace Guillen.  The club had only two regulars in a position where development would point to potential upswing.  (Lopez and YuBet). 

From a general scan of the regular hitters, the deck was stacked 7 to 2 AGAINST improvement.  In truth, Vidro, Beltre and Ichiro had ALL had their best season in three years.  But, the good feelings from the surprise 2007 results left too many analysts creating reasons why the good year guys would repeat, while the bad year guys would rebound.

While having 7 guys in their 30s and 2 guys in their mid-20s doesn't mandate a decline in offense, it certainly should be viewed as a warning bell that loss of production by loss of ability *OR* loss of playing time could easily be a problem. 

The warning here is not to ignore the individual assessments for future production.  But to not ignore the assessment of future performance for the AGGREGATE picture.  They are two different ways of looking at the same issue.  Looking at things from multiple angles is much more likely to uncover details that might be missed otherwise. 

MOST teams with a 7/2 age break for their lineup are going to decline the following season.  This is historical fact, and precisely why every projection system around shows steady trend line downward after the late 20s peaks.  INDIVIDUAL players don't trend down nice and smooth.  They have spikes and valleys and are largely impossible to predict.  But GROUPS behave much more linearly.  The GROUP evidence in wake of the 2007 season said the Seattle team was likely to trend downward BEFORE they replaced their 3rd best hitter on the team with a guy universally viewed as inferior. 

• Point 1: Don't ignore pythag
• Point 2: Don't ignore overall age