1
I believe I read that by WAR they were 82-83 wins, not park-adjusted.
Mariners '10 - Jumping off point
So, how good were the 2009 Mariners REALLY?
By record, they were 85-78, and 12 games behind the Angels, (and 10 out of the WC).
Comparing offensive to defensive OPS, they were .716 - .710 -- (about as close to .500 as one could get).
If you simply normalize for the 1-run game record, (35-20), to a standard 18-17, (willing to give them the extra half win just to avoid fractions), they would be 78-84.
By pythag, they were only 75-87, (640-692 run split).
The truth is, to reasonably assess a team in hindsight, one SHOULD look at as many different angles as one can. The range runs from 75 wins to 85. Personally, I think judging the 2009 Ms as a legit 80-win team (dead center of the range), seems not only reasonable, but likely correct. Doing too much work on comparing to previous teams is likely a fool's errand, as they had a particularly unique skew of remarkable defense, tepid pitching, and miserable offense.
As for what this portends for 2010 ... IMO, not much. The problem in viewing the 2009 team as a starting point and viewing season-long stats is the team CHANGED during the season, and it is highly likely that 2,000 PAs (probably more), in 2010 will be coming from hitters that didn't supply those ABs during 2009. The team only had 6113 PAs -- so it is likely 1/3 of the offensive stats for 2010 are a complete unknown at the moment. In truth, at this moment, the only filled positions in the lineup are CA, 2B, CF and RF. Decisions have to be made on 5 of the 9 starting slots. While many are already penciling Branyan back into the lineup, the UPSIDE is that 1/3 of PAs in 2010 are new. The current landscape says more than half of the PAs in 2010 will be from new hitters.
Take any random 5 starters off of ANY team, and tell me whether it would make sense to begin thinking of building based on the aggregate team stats? When you're flipping SO MUCH of your lineup, the final combined stats for a team become meaningless. One can look at the Catcher Hydra, Lopez, Gut and Ichiro -- and at least begin making some guesses as to the foundation blocks for the 2010 offense. But, the offensive roster is only slightly ahead of where you'd expect an expansion franchise to be in year 3.
The pitching is equally troublesome. Felix is obviously returning, and is a wonderful foundation block. But Wash is gone, Bedard is a huge (fragile) question mark, Snell is a curiosity, RRS may be on an innings leash, Silva is a money pit who might be healthy (shudder). And outside of Aardsma and Lowe, the bullpen for 2010 is largely a mystery, too.
The 2009 Ms were a .500 team talent-wise, that played a bit better than their talent suggested. They had a world class defense, and a King of Aces. The Hot Stove for this team is going to be scalding, because instead of 2 or 3 obvious spots to address in an otherwise static team, the 2010 club has sooooo many decisions to make that Z is going to need to hibernate come next summer, because he ain't gettin' no sleep this winter.
Comments
2
The Ms also had a higher strength of schedule. They actually finished pretty close to where they deserved to be this year despite pythag. Its not the same as '07 when it was true dumb luck.
If you want judge where they are at right now before the offseason you could come up with an estimated WAR for each remaining player on the roster. Dave at USSM did something like this a couple weeks ago, although his WAR calculations were probably a little pessemistic.
The biggest issue with the Ms is that a lot of key players had UP seasons. The position players were carried all year long by Gutierrez and Ichiro's superstar seasons. Branyan, Lopez, and Beltre also contributed above-average seasons. Unfortunetly Ichiro, Gutierrez, and Lopez are all unlikely to do as well in 2010, and Beltre is gone. Felix had a CY Young type season, and Bedard+Washburn combined for 4.6 WAR.
The flip side of that is that the Ms also have several positions they can potentially upgrade. The Shortstops combined for a -1 WAR season. LF and DH were barely above replacement level. The pitching is also suprisingly thin after Felix, RRS, Aardsma, and Lowe (which leaves a lot of room for improvement).
3
You're claiming Beltre had an above average season?
Ummmmm...no?
4
It would be interesting to go back and check what was being said after the 07 season as far as overachieving/underachieving. Was the general consensus that the team was due for a letdown? USSM was pretty much harping on it, but I don't really remember what others were saying. Maybe that means they thought the team was going places?
As to next year, Z will have a little more money this year. While it would be difficult to be as WAR/$ efficient as he was with his signings last year, it does seem like a good year to go EBay shopping for free agents (per Cameron on Fangraphs).
5
I should have said that by above-average I meant > 2 WAR.
'09 wasn't an above-average season by Beltre's standards, but its still roughly 2.5 WAR that Z is going to have to replace.
6
Ya, even just something like Hudson+Thome+Branyan with a trade for Seth Smith would be an enormous upgrade. Its doable financial-wise as well.
SS is where you might need to get a little creative.. Unless Z thinks Jack Wilson can rebound offensively next season.
7
...but what forecast do you want to give Matt Tui? I, personally, think he's already at least average with the glove and fully capable of league average offense with the bat. And he's free...Zduriencik is probably not going to acquire anything at all to address third base...at some point you have to try to insert some youth...and what I saw from Tui this past month convinced me that he should be given that chance. Hall and Hannahan can cover third base in the very short term if Tui has a bad ST or whatever. And we'll easily get back any lost WAR there with the almost unavoidable gains we'll be making at short (we were so bad at SS this year...it's hard for me to imagine the results being that bad again, even if we're stuck with Jack Wilson)
8
I like Tui at 2B. He has the athleticism to play there despite some infamiliarity with the position. If he can be mediocre-average there in year 1, it might make sense to move Lopez over to 3rd (where I think Lopez would be a plus defender).
I'd bet on 1-1.5 WAR in Tui's first year. He'll be adjusting to 2B and MLB pitching, but will probably be respectable enough thanks to his plate patience and positional value. The upside at 2B is pretty exciting long-term.
9
...if you get 1.5 WAR from Tui at 2nd or third (doesn't matter which) and the customary 3 WAR from Lopez...then you haven't lost much ground. Considering the fact that our team shortstop collection in 2009 was deeply in the red...a condition that is not likely to continue...I'm not worried about eplacing Beltre.
10
You lose 1-1.5 WAR. No, its not significant as long as you can cover that with other spots on the 25-man.