TOTO, Back end rotaion, Bullpen, bench, baserunning...How many things have to improve to quell the "if the MOTO (OF bats, young players..)fail to produce, we're screwed" thoughts I keep hearing.  The team is not made up of only 1 aspect, therefore it's success does not rely purely on any one.  All you can do (Dipoto, anyway) is attempt to improve every aspect.  Aside from lower minors depth, I do believe he has done exactly that.  And significantly.

You point out that anything Segura does is a plus over last year's dismal output at SS.  The top of the order is a huge improvement as well.  Guys that can get on base ahead of a MOTO that will still produce (just likely not at "is it the best MLB MOTO" level they were at last year).

Options that weren't in Seattle last April, but have a decent chance to be on base at an above average clip ahead of that MOTO include Segura, Valencia, Haniger, Dyson, Heredia, Vogelbach and O'Malley.   Those that haven't previously produced at some point above the .321 MLB average OBP of last year have done significantly above it in AAA.  Motter and Gamel have put up above it at AAA as well,though not as significantly.  You could add Ruiz and Freeman to that list and I think everyone expects O'Neill simply needs the AAA PA in order to be added as well.  I'm not saying they're all ideal top of the order bats but give me a .350 OBP and we can work around the flaws.

The list of removed players that would have fit the OBP criteria last year were mostly older guys.  Lind, Guti, Aoki, Smith, Ianetta and the Marte/Taylor logjam.  Only Smith remained as productive.

I'm pretty secure in thinking they may hit less HR but will score more runs.  And give up less runs.  If those 2 things happen, it should have more affect than any other 1 aspect would. 

Replace a -1.0 WAR SS Position (Remember Luis Sardinas face planting in 30 games?) with an All Star.  Replace a -0.5 WAR 1B Position with a guy that has a 20% BB rate and power in the minors and another that hit Lefties at an .865 OPS the last 3 seasons.  Keep the Outfield offense more or less the same (sans 200 AB from Cruz moving to DH) -15 Home Runs, +45 SB, but increase the defense by maybe 50 Runs of value.  Change the bullpen from something that featured 60 innings from Mayckol Guaipe, Cody Martin, David Rollins, Jonathan Aro, Steve Johnson, Donn Roach, and a very near 40-year-old Joel Peralta to one that has maybe one of the top 5 Closers in the game, with a former closer set-up man, and that is otherwise massively more stable than last season, and features a depth of backups with an average velocity around 96mph.  It's mystifying to me the low rating for a team that was 2nd in the AL in wRC+ last season that made those improvements against losing a pair of platoon outfield bats.  

"Oh no!  The game's second best DH will be 36!"  Who was the best?  41-year-old David Ortiz, who is still projected for a 132 wRC+ by fangraphs were he to play vs. Cruz' 125.

"Oh no!  The future Hall of Fame 2B will be 34!"  It's funny that Daniel Murphy, who is only 2.5 years younger and coming off a 157wRC+ season fueled by a .348 BABiP and has exactly 1 season of the last 5 above a 110 wRC+, is projected to be a point better (122 vs. 121 wRC+) on Fangraphs, while featuring a BABiP 13 points above his career average.

Meanwhile, the 29-year-old Kyle Seager and his 3 year average 129 wRC+ needs to be tamped down to a 119 wRC+ projection with a BABiP 4 points under his career average and 9 points under last season's BABiP in spite of hitting the ball the hardest of his career (38.7%! Hard Contact).

Jean Segura is supposed to slip down to a 94 wRC+, virtually identical to Andrelton Simmons projection.  Jean Segura is a year younger, hit the ball Hard 29.7% of the time last season (compared to Simmons 23.4%), has a career wRC+ 6 points higher.  Does anybody besides projection systems think that you won't be able to tell Jean Segura's and Andrelton Simmons stat lines apart at the end of next season?

Go figure on projection systems, it's hard to find reasons beyond a lazy resort to age that the Mariners' offense will shrink drastically next season; pretty much nobody (but for Segura) was particularly lucky in their contact, and every one of the four MOTO guys hit the ball as hard or harder than they had for their entire career.  The Starting Pitching might be a little dodgy, but even that feels much more stable than last season if not particularly improved.  This is a team I'm excited to watch this year.

My job is to literally forecast sales for a Fortune 100 company. Our team basically talks about 2 things when it comes to doing a good job. There is the science of forecast and then there is the art. I know Matt has a ton of forecast training with his background, so I won't be surprised when/if he steps in and has great points that counter or support what I'm typing. Probably others here too that I can't specifically remember.

On science, we have fancy, expensive software that takes history that includes similar items, applies the latest and greatest math, and gives you a base forecast. Every company has software and everyone's base forecast with math is similar. Some software is better, but they'll all give you essentially the same number. It's why Zips and Steamer, etc. all have similar numbers for the vast majority of players.

The big differences would come from which historical group of players were selected as the basis to run the formulas. Given the time and amount of money the people that run Zips, etc. get paid, I doubt there is a lot of historical selection for player forecasting. For example, Seager is being forecast using a ton of players, not just LH gold glove 3B with a great work ethic. That gigantic group of players will drop Seager's #'s much further down if there was time, money, and a benefit for Zips to narrow the comp players to a more similar group. Of course there aren't a ton of player comps and how you limit the group for Seager is art, but math still would be applied and you'd have a better base forecast. Joking aside, take Robin Ventura's same age season when healthy and bump it up by a WAR or 2.

That'a still a base forecast. If you want a good forecast, that is where the art comes in. There are so many variables that can't be built into software that a good forecaster needs to be aware of and adjust the numbers before the final forecast is made. The math will probably take you in the right direction, but let's look at Segura.

Math-wise, he had a couple of bad years, but with one average year and one good year. That 100 wRC+ is a real nice math forecast. If I built the software and didn't care about individual player numbers, I'd be happy with the forecast. If I was being paid by a MLB team, I wouldn't stop there. Why did he have 2 bad years? Was his mind not focused because of the death of his child? I've been around people who have lost children and 2 years seems like a reasonable, if not a short time, for it to impact work performance. I know people 35 years later that are still affected daily by that loss. I don't know Segura, but if was going to forecast his numbers, I'd account for that in the 2 years data and adjust. And that's just one tiny piece of the "art" that goes into forecasting his numbers.

Thats a lot of words, but the point is the Zips or Steamer or whatever forecast that we look at will give you a nice start. The M's at 84 or so wins is cool. A good forecaster would look deeper and adjust. I'm not a good sports forecaster, but I'd start the M's at 86-88 wins. If Felix or Paxton has an "ace" season and I'm a bullish fan, I'd go to 95 wins. DiPoto will pick up the extra pen arm or OF bat or whatever piece is missing in mid June or July. And I think the affect of an ace goes more to winning actual games than the innings calc of WAR on BRef does.

And one little edit, you will always be wrong forecasting. You have to enjoy learning and the process of improving to do the job. It's like playing an instrument where you need to enjoy playing if you want to be good.