1
Lets not forget 9/11. IMO that derailed the 2001 Ms concentration. Subsequent dropoff in wins years could just as easily have been explained by aging or minor injuries.
Talent vs Winning - the 116-win Mariners
.............
=== Most Talented Roster Ever ===
Just in terms of the talent they fielded for their Opening Day ballgame, which team was the greatest ever assembled?
The 1931 New York Yankees.
They had 8 players in the regular lineup -- of these, 6 were Hall of Famers. The shortstop was not; he scored 107 runs and drove in 100. The LF was not one of the HOF'ers; he scored 120 runs, had 122 RBIs, and 61 stolen bases.
In the starting rotation, they had 3 more Hall of Famers (Ruffing, Gomez, Pennock) plus the #4 starter, Hank Johnson.
If there was ever a team of Hall of Famers, the 1931 Yankees are it. They finished -13.5 games behind the A's. They underachieved. Can we agree on this point? If you sign off on that, you sign off on 1,000 other questions that relate to chemistry and bull hockey.
The 1932 Yankees, fielding the same team, won 107 games and swept the World Series. What happened in 1931? Things that will not be found on Baseball Prospectus, anywhere. And therefore, things that offer us a chance to understand baseball.
If anybody should have ever won 120 games, here you are. A team comprised not of All-Stars, but of Hall-of-Fame players. Both in the lineup and also on the mound. Why didn't they win? ... you tell me...
.
=== Greatest Overachievers ===
In all baseball history, per James' method, were ...
... the 2011 Seattle Mariners. "You wouldn't normally expect a team with Mark McLemore in the lineup, and Paul Abbott on the mound, to win 116 games."
............
The 116-win M's had good players, of course. But they had pretty much the same roster in 2002, when they won 93. And the year after that, 2003, when they also won 93.
The 2002 Mariners had Boone, Ichiro, Edgar, Olerud, and Cameron, their five hitting stars. They had McLemore and Wilson and Guillen. The 2002 had Freddy and Jamie Moyer, and Pineiro had a great year. They had Daimajin and Rhodes and Nelson. ... they won 93, not 116.
It appears that the 2001 Mariners outplayed their talent by about +25 games. Why did they do this? I think I know why. Bill doesn't offer an opinion -- his main two reasons for overperformance are managers and "natural overperformance," which we could talk about later.
The 116-win M's were picked to finish 3rd. They just all played great in 2001, not because of luck, but because of certain real factors that coincided.
.............
I've always been very bitter about the 2001 Mariners, and how the front office wouldn't improve them in July, and how the Yankees' store-bought rotation crushed them.
I'm relieved, and greatly cheered up, to realize that nothing unjust happened in 2001. The M's just weren't as good as we thought they were. They needed one more Randy Johnson or Felix Hernandez in the rotation.
It's a load off my mind.
.............
You want to know what else? The 2000 Mariners had also improved, by a lot. Here:
| Wins | Improvement | |
| Seattle 1999 | 79 | |
| Seattle 2000 | 91 | +12 |
| Seattle 2001 | 116 | +27 |
Gillick improved the Mariners by +12 wins in his first year. These weren't the 12 wins between 60 and 72! They were the 12 wins between "mediocre-crummy" and "legitimate World Series contender."
And then, having jumped by 12 games in 2000, the M's needed no consolidation, but tacked on the 27 wins that are between "playoff team" and "one for the history books."
Pat Gillick has GM'ed four teams, and achieved four miracles. If I want to know something about baseball, I'll ask him first.
[Next]