They're about to lose:
John Lackey (Inside Pitch claiming he's almost 100% to leave Anaheim)
Vlad Guerrero (unless they overpay to re-sign him, which they can't afford to do)
Kelvim Escobar (he didn't factor in this year, but still)
Darren Oliver (their most useful swing reliever)
Chone Figgins (coming off a huge fluke year)
Bobby Abreu (also coming off a huge fluke year in some regards)
That's the FA they're going to lose this year. Tack on the subtraction by addition of Scott 'broken' Kazmir and their lack of any really attractive options to replace Vlad in the line-up...they're about to be in a world of hurt financially. They way WAY overpaid for Hunter, Fuentes, Kazmir and Matthews Jr., and they're about to be forced to way overpay for a SP to replace Lackey, a slugger to replace Vlad and more bullpen help. If they contend next year...it'll probably be the last time they can afford to do so.
Q. How do you figure that only +100 runs added gets us anywhere near the playoffs?
A. The M's did have a negative run differential in 2009, but as pointed out several times, their team OPS was even-steven with their opponents'.
The difference between you and me, is that I'm giving the '09 guys credit for being 50-50 on bases (runs) gained and lost. For 2010, I'm starting from the premise that the 2010 run differential will be =, give or take a few.
.............
If we could agree that we're starting from 50-50, then of course an added +100 leaves us at a nice even +100 runs. ... and if you'll check it, you'll see that +100 is plenty 'nuff for a strong contender.
Minny was +62 this year, the Tiggers actually -2, the Angels (97 wins!) only +122, Texas +44. (The Yankees and Boston were close to +200 and +150 respectively, but they're not the minimum standard for a playoff run.)
..........
In the NL? Philly won 93 games with a +111 run differential, St. Louie +90, Colorado +89, the Marlins only +6. The Dodgers were well over +150.
...........
If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that (since the 8-team tournament) the best RD in each league is around 170 -- and that the average run differential of the other six teams is somewhere around 90-100.
But every year, the playoffs include teams with less than 100 on the RD, and frequently a run differential around 0 is fighting for the playoffs on the season's last week.
Another way to look at it is that +100 RD is +10 wins to an 81-win team, and is a 91-win team a contender? Hey, if you've got to pencil in 95 wins to even ante into the pot, you've left yourself a tough blind there.
............
+200 isn't the goal for a playoff run. +200 is the goal for the New York Yankees when they're spending $250M and trying to win 100+ games. :- )
.............
We might mention, offhand, that the Big Plan offered in the blog-o-sphere this week nets maybe 50 runs. The SS-2B-SP sidestep is fundamentally a lateral move, and then you've got whatever time Nick Johnson can spend on the field.
We can argue about what you expect from this Lopez or that Danks or the other Morrow, but it's still a 3-for-3, add Johnson, buy Sheets rather than Bedard. That's not +200 runs and it's not +100.
Content yerself with a +100 goal and you've got plenty 'nuff to deal with right there. Zduriencik isn't likely to add +100 without Dunn and Scutaro, but considering the upside of the young pitching, it might get added for him.
.
Q. It wouldn't suprise me if the Angels finished last next season. Its the second dumb-luck season in a row except this year they did it with high BABIP and RISP in addition to the customary +5 games over pythag. Add into the fact that Figgins, Lackey, and Abreu are all gone and the the Angels have a lot of work to do.
A. An interesting take from the champ. Of course, he's coming at it from the premise that Oakland and Texas might (along with us) finish at .500 or above.
The Angels have been crushing Pythag every year, and did so again this year, beating it by +5 games. They do this, in my view, because they are a team that knows how to win. Each year their talent looks suspect, each year they come into Safeco in April and restore order, and each year they prove it again.
Still, their OPS+ was 104 and their ERA+ 102. If you do subtract three key players, you see where Taro is coming from.
...........
The 2010 AL West looks, on paper, like any team could win it. And every team, therefore, has the responsibility to attempt to win it.
That 2010 effort begins now (unless you're the Yankees, in which case I guess the 2010-15 pennant runs begin now).
Cheers,
Dr D
Comments
Why is it, when speaking of the Ms, EVERY conversation is about gaining here, there and everywhere. While examining the competition, every conversation is focused on losses, as if the other teams aren't going to do anything to stay competitive?
If you're going to give all the reasons why LA (with lots of money to spend) is going to be talent-gutted, then a reasonable analysis would include the same amount of pessimism about the Ms. Joh is gone, (offensive loss at catcher), Branyan is unsigned, Beltre is unsigned, Wilson hit under .600, Saunders was a disaster. DH is empty *OR* the aging and declining Griffey is returning.
The problem is not the analytical methods. The problem is using one set of metrics to use on the home team, and another to use on the competition. After 2007, I didn't hear ANYONE noting pitching OPS was significantly worse than hitting OPS. What I heard was, "If you look at these particulars, our surplus over pythag was REAL and (assumed to be) sustainable.
Hey, I understand that it's a tricky thing to figure out what is sustainable and what is transient. And an effort should be made to figure those things out. But, what I see is the Mariner analysts looking *ONLY* for reasons to promote success in 2010 for the Ms -- and reasons *ONLY* to promote failure for the competition. That isn't analysis. That's homerism shrouded in mathematics.
========
All that said -- I find the hit/pitch OPS argument compelling. (Then again, I recently pegged the 2009 team as an 80-win team -- the median from a half dozen different angles). And I could REALLY see that becoming a useful pythag-check for EVERY team. (Angels posted .792 team OPS -- .350/.441 -- with a pitching OPS of .769 -- .338/.432).
The team BABIP is high, (.322). So, yeah, I understand the skepticism of repeating. But, SOME players run high BABIPs -- Ichiro is one of them -- for reasons that are repeatable. The Angels put together a team that is aggregately fast. So, what about some individuals?
Here's a BABIP chart for the 2009 Angels - Career and 2009 BABIP shown
Player --- Career -2009
Napoli --- .299 - .321 (a tad high)
Morales - .302 - .329 (a tad high)
Kendrick - .351 - .338 (a tad low)
Aybar ---- .318 - .338 (a tad high)
Figgins --- .341 - .356 (a tad high) - did .391 in 2007
Rivera ---- .287 - .281 (a tad low)
Hunter --- .301 - .330 (a tad high) - steadily better w/ Angels
Abreu ---- .347 - .338 (a tad low)
Vlad G. -- .319 - .313 (a tad low)
Izturis --- .298 - .313 (a tad high)
Matthews .298 - .313 (a tad high)
You know what *I* see looking at that list? I see a team that LOOKS for guys with good BABIP numbers. I also see a team that DEVELOPS plus BABIP numbers. If .330 and up is the "questionable" area for BABIP, who was there? Kendrick, (below his career avg), Aybar, who has a career .318, Figgins, who is a .341 BABIP guy for his career, and Abreu, who was also UNDER his career BABIP.
=========
The logic train derails when one begins to use EXCELLENCE in a particular area of production as an indication of some form of incompetence.
I specifically remember Matt dismissing the Angels strength at SS after the 2007 season, giving reasons why Aybar and Izturis were both likely going to swoon. Instead, the Angels had TWO shortstops hitting over .775.
The 2009 Angel team had *TEN* (10) players post OPS+ figures of 100 or greater. Seattle had 5. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that the team with the 10 100 OPS+ guys is the one in trouble?!? You can't make the WS with more than 2 guys under 80 OPS+. They don't have any under 100!!! In truth, the only thing that prevented them from winning 100 in 2009 was their defense was sub-par.
The Angels have a young catcher who hits .800. They've got a young 1B who hit .900. They've got a young 2B who hit .778. They've got TWO young SS who both hit over .775. They've got a 30-year-old LF, who just finally got healthy for enough to play 130 games, and he hit .810. So, the PROBLEM is they have 3-potential Hall of Fame guys in the OF and DH, that might not be sticking around. Who is older Ichiro or Abreu? Oh, wait they were BOTH 35. Hunter and Vlad are both younger. Hunter, is of course, the same age as Branyan, (but has actually played full seasons without getting hurt before).
...a list of Angels most of whom posted BABIPs above their career norms in 2009...I'm not sure why you intentionally ignored that.
The Angels aren't going to have "a whole lot of money to spend" either. That was my point. Because they overpaid for Hunter, Matthews Jr., Fuentes and Kazmir, when salary comes off the books, there's not going to be a deep reservoir of room available to buy the next free agents that are supposed to sustain them. And all of the players who might help them internally are already ON the big club, so they're not going to replace any of their losses cheaply. The Angels' current Payroll according to Cot's is 113.7 million dollars. Assuming they're not magically going to gain additional cap room next off-season...here are the contracts they're commited to in 2010:
Hunter (18M)
Matthews Jr. (11M)
Brian Fuentes (9M)
Kazmir (8M)
Scot Sheidls (5.4M)
Ervin Santana (6M)
Juan Rivera (4.3M)
Mike Napoli (~3.5M arb estimate)
Maicer Ituriz (~4M arb estimate)
Rob Quinlan (~2M arb estimate)
Kendry Morales (0.7M)
Joe Saunders (~1.0M arb estimate...he's a super-two for sure)
Howie Kendrick (0.5M)
Jered Weaver (0.5M)
Erick Aybar (0.5M)
Jeff Mathis (0.5M)
Reggie Willits (0.5M)
Dustin Moseley (min)
Jose Arredondo (min)
Brandon Wood (min)
Jason Bulger (min)
Kevin Jepsen (min)
Matt Palmer (min)
Sean O'Sullivan (min)
Shane Loux (min)
Total cost: ~76.8 Mil
They've got more contracts commited than the Mariners do and many of their contracts are also escallating rapidly. What's worse, they've got about 8 players who are about to hit arbitration or are in their first or second year of arbitrartion and are therefore going to be much more expensive AFTER 2010...on top of that, most of the commited contracts do not expire in 2010...they're stuck with Fuentes, Hunter, Matthews, Kazmir and Santana (who BTW gets REALLY expensive after 2010...up to 13.5 mil by 2012) for a number of years. So they're going to have very little room for flexibility unless Moreno decides to increase his budget.
So they can't go crazy and spend all of their available funds (roughly 35 million) signing long term free agent contracts. They're going to have to go looking for players who will accept 1 or 2 year deals like they got from Abreu. Which means they're not going to be able to replace Vlad Guerrero (the biggest loss) fully in the production department, nor will they be able to compete with the big spenders for free agent pitching to replace Lackey.
Basically, the factor you missed, Sandy, is that Moreno signed so many massive escallating contracts that he's committed too much of his capital in future seasons (mortgaged off his future) in the hopes of winning today. Now their farm system is very thin (it's all been promoted) and the guys they're using from their minor league affiliates are starting to hit arbitration as well, which will force a whole bunch of difficult decisions.
The Mariners have no such dilemma.
I too am very skeptical of speculation on the Angel's imminent demise.
Gotta say though, BABIP seems to me one of the most poorly understood and misused stats out there. Not that I understand it, mind you... just that whatever point people are arguing, they can use BABIP to bolster their argument. Player X is going to improve because his BABIP was unlucky and it will correct. No, Player X will not improve because his BABIP has been trenging downward...
The argument with Sexson was his BABIP was so epically low that he was guaranteed to improve. Well, he didn't, really. Same argument being made for Junior going forward, and I don't buy it.
Baseline BABIP seems to be a different number for different players. What would be interesting to me is to determine how different players 'beat' BABIP. In some cases it's obvious, like with Ichiro. Speed, ability to transition from swinging to running quickly, ability to hit the other way and aim the ball, those are skills that improve it. If you could isolate and quantify those skills and others that lead to improved BABIP, well then you can scout and evaluate talent a little better. And you could identify which of those skills is more likely to deteriorate more quickly, to help determine when to bail on a given player.
Maybe that is something like what the Angels are doing in talent eval. Or maybe they just look at players with above average BABIP and figure, however they are doing it, it's repeatable and we want to bring them in.
I'll believe the
Have not looked at the Angels' payroll, what their plans are for reloading, but Matt and Taro do have a point about the exodus.
They might have switched paradigms there, but (a) it's just a conversation, not a formal analysis whatever that is, and...
... (b) Lackey is pretty much their Felix. If Seattle were losing Felix plus a ton, we'd be a little worried, yeah...
Why are they losing John Lackey? If he's a FA, has he indicated he's not coming back?
I'm getting that third hand, of course, so it's just repeating speculation passed to me through MarinerCentral. But last I heard was that Lackey was unlikely to be back in Anaheim because he is probably going to cost too much given his periodic injury bouts as a risk factor.
But...I *gave* you the Angel payroll information in my previous post...please...take a look at what I said there and let me know where I am wrong in my subsequent analysis of their escallating payroll commitments.
must have scanned past the payroll info. Gracias.
If Pitch calls the shot, that's good enough for me. What, did TopCat quote him?
TopCat is the one who made that claim re: Lackey and IP.
Lackey actually exemplifies my problem with the Angels as currently constructed. The reason the Angels may have to pass on Lackey is that he's going to be asking for 15 mil/year type money and they have several other new holes on the roster to fill, so commiting that much to a pitcher with significant recurring arm issues (albeit generally not super-serious ones) would be very risky given their already top-heavy payroll going forward. They've got a whole bunch of guys about to hit expesnive arb years, a whole bunch more about to cash in on backloaded contracts, and enough holes on the roster they'll need to address to keep them from splurging on many big name FAs...they might get ONE to replace Vlad and that'd be it.
So I agree that adding +100 in run differential could put us in the hunt. That's not the same as +100 in RS, unless we hold our position in runs allowed. I fully expect that we may revert closer to the mean in that department, in which case the difference needs to be made up in offense. That puts us needing to add ~+180 in RS.
Sure we play in a pitcher's park, have a good defense, Felix is a stud, and we have other pitchers with upside. But we benefitted from Wash's best innings of 2009, and Bedard is damaged goods and can be a FA. We need some good things to happen for this to come together again for 2010.
I guess we'd better invest some of the offseason bucks to guarantee the good pitching outcome.
If you think this team, standing pat, would be -80 runs worse in 2010 than it was in 2009, then yeah. We would need 180.
Sorry, I should have read your post again before responding. If you assume (and you did) that we start 2010 even with RS and RA, then adding +100 RS will be the same as +100 run diff. So I guess my premise is that we may not be starting even. I still haven't bought into the lost unlucky 50 runs (I still think it has a cause still TBD, not luck, and it is probably in the data), and I think our pitching stands as good a chance as any to be worse as it has to maintain.
'cause the M's *were* #1 in ERA, and you can't pencil THAT one in for 2010...
Kind of surprised at the lack of play Wak's comments to Hickey have been getting.
http://www.seattlepostglobe.org/2009/10/20/johjimas-departure-leaves-mar...
“It’s like now the work starts all over again,” Wakamatsu said. “Realistically, we have two returners (offensively), maybe three with (Jose) Lopez. We have to rebuild the whole damn thing all over again.
Maybe? Weird to see him telegraph like that.
Going into 2009, whodathunk that the M's would lead in ERA and runs allowed? I sure thought the prospects were good enough with Felix and Bedard, though not that good. Morrow and Hyphen were coming off a promising end of 2008. And we all were wondering how Chucky could have nixed unloading Wash. Silva was looking for another In-N-Out. In the end of 2009, Wash had put up his best number as an M before being traded, Bedard had great stuff when healthy, Morrow was nothing, and Hyphen didn't show up until the second half. We had also picked up Snell from the Pitt scrap heap, but Silva was still looking for the In-N-Out. Even so, I can think of several other pitching staffs that I'd rather have than ours, if money were no object. But our 2009 staff out-pitched them. Still, no, I can't pencil in the repeat. All I feel I can count on is Felix, and Z's eye for turning bullpen fodder into gems. Let's see what he can do to fix what ails our lineup and find the missing 50 runs. So who is the best FA that can actually hit at #2? Start there.
ERA is heavily affected by ballpark and defense. The M's play in a pitchers park and have a great defense, both of which should return (the loss of Beltre will be offset by having a competent fielder man shortstop the entire year). The actual performances of the pitchers weren't that great. Both the rotation and bullpen were patchwork affairs. There was only one pitcher who spent the whole year as a starter and only two relievers who were any good. Fangraphs rated the M's staff as 11th in the AL by WARP. Sean White, Vargas, Batista, Jaku, Silva, French, Roy Corcoran and Olson combined for nearly 500 innings (more than half the teams total) and yet produced NEGATIVE .3 wins! It's going to be easy to get improvement over those guys.
So who is likely to regress? Felix had a big year, but he's a great bet to repeat. He's fully capable of having seasons better than the one he had in '09. Aardsma my slip and Washburn was valuable while he was here, but Ian Snell and Brandon Morrow are also very likely to do a whole lot better than they have so far. Plus, Bedard missed most of the year so whether he comes back or someone else is signed, it will be hard to get less production from our #2 starter. Add Josh Fields and/or Aumont to the bullpen plus a rebound from Shawn Kelley and whatever Aardsma clone Jack picks up and things are looking good.
Basically, this team will likely give up even fewer runs in 2010.
That right there is a team with a BABIP way higher than career norms.
Do the Angel's have a team of high BABIP players? Yes. Are they a true talent .320+BABIP. No.
With all the talent going out the Angels are going to have to have a monster offseason, otherwise I think '09 is the last year they win the division in a while.
CPB,
I love your optimism, but it still seems to be a faith based initiative. it's not like we are going to go out and sign a CC Sabathia in the offseason. Jack is actually going to have to earn his salary, make some silk purses from sows ears, and rob from the rich and poor alike.
We had a below average pitching staff. It doesn't take an elite pitcher to improve upon that. Again, we got 500 innings of replacement-level performance. Why do you think we would do even worse?
Our staff *didn't* outpitch those other staffs you might prefer. Once you adjust for team defense and park affects, our staff was 5th best in the AL, not first best. So the key to our RA column next year probably is not going to be the fluctuations in pitching performance for the unknown quantites (Snell, Mororw, Hypehn etc)...it's going to be whether we continue to be a great defensive club or not. A lot of the analysis needs to be focued on whether our defensive performance was repeatable, because there is legitimate reason to think that maybe we had a team-wide caqreer year on defense and that even with the same cast, it won't be that amazing again.
Because realistically, we have Gutierrez, Ichiro and Branyan as slam dunks to return (yes, I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that Branyan will get re-signed) and Lopez as a hard maybe (in that he's unlikely to get traded but on the block if something better comes along).
Our "below average pitching staff" was the best in the league in ERA and RA. Isn't there something incongruous about that statement? If we had the best pitching staff and under-performed, one might expect they would improve. In our case, we have a one year track record with Jack and Wak, Hyphen has had his ups and downs, Morrow didn't exactly hit the bigs like Tim Lincecum, and the rest of our replacement level staff. Yes, so it requires a lot of faith for me to see it happen.
I think you are just DEEPLY understating the importance of team defense. I emphasize that not to yell at you or sound arrogant...just to try to get you to focus on what we are saying. This team...much like the 2003 Mariners and the 2001 Mariners was blessed with severely skewed team defense. We were like 11th in K rate, 8th in walk rate and near the bottom of the league in park adjusted home run rate, M's Watcher. The very definition of average-at-best pitching. A proper analysis of pitching skill must begin with the necessary first step of recognizing that not only are league and park a context...but so is team defense. Most of the time you don't see massive swings like this because the Mariners' 2009 defensive performance was OUTLIER good. Like...once in-a-decade good. But Seattle's team FIP was 4.39 this year (league average is right around there) compared to their team ERA of 3.87 (we led all of baseball in E-F at -0.52). That means our team defense was saving half a run PER GAME. That's a LOT of runs saved by a defense...84 of them to be exact. You cannot ignore this when you make an evaluation of where we stand in team run prevention going forward.
Thanks Matt, I am not offended. Can you point me to where I can find these fielding stats, so I can compare with contemporary and historical teams? That would help my perspective. Reviewing "old-school" fielding stats on baseball-reference makes the 2009 M's defense look un-remarkable. For me, team defense is an area of concern going forward, though Jack clearly values it. Or at least he found a Moneyball value to it this year. He saved a half a run per game with defense. Try saving that with pitching alone, and what will it cost you in salary? We have the prospects of losing Beltre's and Wilson's gloves, and LF could end up a DH-type player. We'll have to see how this plays out as Jack remakes the 2010 version of the team. It may be quite different from the former model.
fangraphs.com has some excellent defensive statistics (that's where you find UZR, ERA - FIP and defensive run values included in WAR statistics. You can click around the fangraphs database and find all kinds of interesting info.
Also check out thehardballtimes.com for defensive win share data and RZR metrics (including out of zone (OOZ) plays)
The problems with traditional fielding metrics are documented and numerous.
There are 27 outs in a game...that is true whether your defense is awsome or crappy. Which means there is actually in INVERSE relationship (albeit slight) between team range factor and team quality (because bad teams tend to have slightly lower K rates on average so they get more defensive outs)
F% makes the Mariners of 2009 look horrible because they were getting to many balls that other teams flat out missed (and turned into hits)
In fact, even traditional field-level scouting has a tendency not to be reliable for judging defense because it's often the best fielders who make all plays look routine, while the average fielders get to some balls but have to make spectacular plays to do it. Which is why you saw Yuniesky Betancourt make a lot of highlight-reel-looking plays even while suckig horribly on defense.
As it turns out, even simple stats like DER miss a big chunk of the picture in cases like Seattle's. Why? Because when your team strength of OUTFIELD defense, you save not just singles...but XBH as well. Which means DER often misses the total scale of how much defense is helping out the pitching when your run 3 CFers out there all year long, one of whom happens to be the best center fielder in baseball and another of whom happens to be the best right fielder in baseball.
So I wholeheartedly recommend checking out fangraphs and thehardballtimes (and baseball-prospectus.com if you want even a third readily available fielding uberstat). It should give you a good idea as to why some of us think the Mariners are in fine shape to repeat a high level of run prevention despite our pitching being a little shaky.
Its sounds like Lopez might be on the block. Z may be looking to sell high and replace him with Tui.
I'll give you that the OF defense may remain strong in 2010, even if we get a relative DH type in LF, as Gut and Ichiro make it look easy. Watching Phllly make it to the WS makes me miss Ibanez even more. In spite of any debate on his defense, he would have made a huge difference as a MOTO hitter in our lineup. Half the IF is still TBD in the offseason, and Tui is no Beltre with a glove, but who is?
Matt,
Good call on (AL) OF defense. Looking on Fangraphs ar E-F over the past decade, two things struck me. The first is that great E-F doesn't seem to be very repeatable, almost random, though usually associated with a team having an overall good year. The second was the Mariners in 2001 and 2003, two of the three years with Cammy and Ichiro in the same OF. In 2003, we had the trifecta of 3 CF in the OF with the addition of Winn. Both years we were ~-0.50. In 2002, the other year with Cammy and Ichiro, E-F was near zero. I would like to hypothesize that E-F ~-0.50 may be more likely to recur with Ichiro, Gut, and whomever in LF. It is worth looking into it in more depth. The M's have done it three times now in the past decade, and all with Ichiro and a great CF.
One needs to explore why the 2002 Mariners didn't have the kind of outfield D that the 2001 Mariners did (and the 2003 team too). Cameron seems to have had an "off year" in 2002...if there is a legitimate physical explanation for why he slumped in 2002 and came back uber-strong in 2003, I haven't heard or seen it. In 2003, the synergy got super-stacked by the addition of a legit third center fielder (Randy Winn) and that team produce some outfield statistics that are "top 10 all time outfields" good if I'm to believe my own research.
So the key to predictability with the Mariner outfield defense is...will we continue to run super-synergized three-CF alignments out there and will Gutierrez have an "off year"? Those seem to be the lynchpins.
I think the comment was just referring to players under contract, not that Branyan wasn't figured to re-sign.
Matt,
As I mentioned in the pitching/defense thread, a major change in M's starting pitching occured during 2001-2003. The types of pitchers changed, as did their innings contributing to E-F and perceived defensive contributions to run prevention. It looks like strikeout pitchers run less favorable E-F. A good example may be Verlander becoming worse for E-F as he strikes out more batters. It just figures. It doesn't make the fielders any worse, or slumping, just that those pitchers don't need them as much. It is probably similar to park effects for stud aces. So E-F is a synergy between pitching and defense. The good thing for the M's for 2010 may be that the current prospective rotation is full of pitchers that need defense and may be expected to run great E-F. The issue becomes how many runs they give up vs. how many runs we can score, regardless of how many runs the defense saves.
Sorry about that. The last post was me. I forgot to login.
WHoever you are :) you may have a point regarding E-F vs. DIPS skill. But not all non-DIPS-friendly pitchers run high E-F...I wonder what types of pitchers will run high E-F (speaking in terms of archtype).
But I agree...even if we allow no more runs than we did in 2009, we still need to add 100 runs to the offense to go toe to toe with the Angels, Rangers and even the As.