Add new comment

I don't think that the team was constructed strictly with a paradigm in mind.  However, it was constructed with what would have to be considered a large stretch to having even an average offense. Not going to rehash runs saved=runs scored.  There is a minimum offensive output required to compete, without it other factors (pitching and defense) are irrelevant.  The last truly poor offense to win the world series had 3 HOF starters on staff.  
 Serious analysts seem really to bristle when WAR calculations, especially those who account for very suspect defensive numbers are questioned.  I'm curious as to the saber side of things.. The overall dogma seems to incorporate the idea of playing the %'s when predicting future success.  Why then advocate team building where absolutely everything has to go well to succeed offensively?  
OBP is great, if throughout the lineup.  Ignoring power as old-school and unsophisticated seems foolish when we had several guaranteed poor OBP players in the opening day lineup?  That seemed then and does moving forward to be recipe for disaster.
Whatever your position on the matters at hand, the M's are walking the tightrope this off-season.  Again, its not tenable to run out another 500 run season.  You would think that the pressure is on not to count "inevitable" bounce backs making up a large chunk of the disparity.  Thus, change HAS to be made.  You won't sell many seats claiming that Figgins had bad luck last year.  The base won't accept it and I think that neither will the FO.  I was in pretty early on wanting the Rasmus move, and would move some pretty good parts to do it.  Sizemore?  another possibility.  Upton?  Not if he costs what's been speculated, (but I doubt that he will).