| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 02-01-2013 |
With 11 days remaining until pitchers and catchers report for spring training the Seattle Mariners continue their search for starting pitching and otherwise ready themselves to evaluate what they have. There are still many improvements necessary to expect the club to contend, but the other clubs in the division, including the three that finished in the top spots in the American League West a year ago.Let's discuss the enemies of the Mariners.
Texas Rangers
The Rangers, still the most talented team in the division, in my opinion, albeit by a small margin, they do have missing pieces. As of now, the starting outfield in Arlington would likely be Craig Gentry, Nelson Cruz and David Murphy with Leony Martin the top reserve. That isn't exactly a championship caliber unit and pales in comparison to that of the A's and perhaps the Mariners, too.
Gentry can run, isn't a terrible hitter and can play defenser, but Cruz is declining, a well below average defender and there's a chance he's suspended for 50 games as one of the players named in the reports by the Miami New Times in connection with a company in Florida known to administer performance enhancing substances.
General manager Jon Daniels says they aren't pursuing free agent Michael Bourn and Justin Upton has already been traded.
It's also worth noting that the Rangers went into the offseason with starting pitching a priority and they added exactly zero starting pitchers. They will get Alexi Ogando back in the rotation after a year in the bullpen, but Zack Greinke, Anibal Sanchez and Josh Johnson landed elsewhere this winter.
The Rangers also lost Josh Hamilton and did not replace him, so there are concerns with their lineup balance and their rotation, as well as how much they'll have to lean on unproven players.
Los Angeles Angels
The Angels, on paper, look pretty darned good. Albert Pujols, Mike Trout, Mark Trumbo and Hamilton lead the offense, their defense up the middle is very solid and they added Ryan Madson to the bullpen.
The rotation is still a strength despite virtually swapping Dan Haren, Ervin Santan, a half season from Zack Greinke and a half season from Jerome Williams for Jason Vargas, Tommy Hanson and Joe Blanton. Not sure that's an upgrade.
Offensively they did part with Kendrys Morales to get Vargas, and basically replaced Torii Hunter's fine 2012 with Hamilton, which may be closer to an even trade off than it seems on paper.
Where the Angels need help is left field and third base, for in the injury luck department, but if more of their roster lives up to expectations than the rest of the division, they'll run away with the pennant, despite the question marks.
One thing I keep asking those in love with the Angels is "what if Pujols is simply starting a decline rather than having had an off year?"
He's 33 years old and posted an .859 OPS, the lowest in his career by 47 points. For those who say "yeah, but he struggled early and was the MVP the rest of the way, I say try again.
Pujols did scuffle in April (.217/.265/.304 with zero long balls), but he wasn't great in May, either (.263/.309/.491). He was vintage Pujols in June, July and August, batting .323/.390/.635, but finished up in September with a pedestrian, but his standards, .283/.333/.443 with one home run.
Seems to me the better pitching, the ballpark (Angel Stadium is a pitcher's park) and perhaps some declining physical skills got to Pujols in 2012.
It's probably not a coincidence that his second-lowest OPS in his career is .906, posted in 2011, his last season in St. Louis. There may be a pattern developing here.
Oakland Athletics
For me, the biggest question with the A's is whether or not they can recapture the magic they bottled last season. In terms of talent they have it, but despite the win-loss record last season that roster doesn't exactly scream repeat performance.
Can Brandon Moss repeat his .291/.358/.596 triple-slash as a platoon player? Can the A's replace Jonny Gomes' .262/.377/.491 line with more Chris Carter and Chris Young? What about shortstop, where Cliff Pennington and Stephen Drew played a year ago? Neither are back in 2013, and they'll be replaced by Hiroyuki Nakajima, whom most clubs do not believe will hit much.
The A's pitching staff led them last year and while everyone returns, it's difficult to believe they'll all repeat or improve upon their performances. It's a good, solid team, but they don't have a lot of performances to ride like the Rangers and Angels can, so it will surprise me if they get to 90 wins again without making another significant addition or two.
Speaking of the A's
I strongly suggest anyone heading to Arizona in March to head over to A's minor league camp and check out Addison Russell. He was the No. 11 pick in last June's draft and is already one of the top 15 or so prospects in baseball, in my evaluations.
MLB.com ranks him No. 48, but I think that's a total joke. The kid can flat out play, and it appears he may stick at shortstop, which could have him at No. 1 overall this time next year.
The A's play at Phoenix Municipal Stadium, which is about 10-15 minutes from Sky Harbor Airport. Russell is tops on my list to see outside the M's organization, followed by Francisco Lindor of the Cleveland Indians, and the entire Texas Rangers organization.
spring-training-countdown:-11-days
Comments
The following 30 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Paul Martin on 02-01-2013 06:35:12 While it is possible Oakland slips and all of our young guys do more than projected, this is another 4th place finish for Seattle. At least we have Houston to beat up on! I would be thrilled if our young guys gain experience and grow, and we can stay within 5 games of .500 ball. Add a Felix extension to that and the season is a big success. |
| 2. By: jbltzfk on 02-01-2013 07:28:13 Many bloggers are expecting us to fatten up our record by beating up on Houston - the problem is that Texas, Anaheim and Oakland all have that same opportunity. No advantage to us, even in the WC, because we still have to beat out one of those three. |
| 3. By: Jerry on 02-01-2013 09:30:19 I agree that the M's are looking like a 4th place club, but I'm thinking its a distant 4th. The Rangers and Angels are two of the best teams in baseball. I think the A's overachieved a bit last year, but they made some good moves this offseason. They have a lot of depth and a lot of good young players, particularly in their starting rotation. They could be really good if some of their starters step up - like Brett Anderson, Jarrod Parker, and Dan Straily. I think the A's have a wide range of potential outcomes, but a lot of upside. I think there is a large gap between the top three and the bottom two teams in the division. I think we're at least a year behind the A's in terms of returning to contention. Hopefully the M's can close that gap in 2013. I still think this is a development year, with so much talent currently at the AA/AAA levels. I wouldn't be surprised if the M's roster looks VERY different between April and August. The key guys who can help work towards closing that gap, in my opinion, are Justin Smoak, Jesus Montero, and Dustin Ackley. The M's REALLY REALLY need two of those guys to pan out. They certainly have the talent. If Ackley can get on base at a high rate and emerge as a good leadoff guy, with Montero and Smoak hitting for power in the middle of the order, this team could be interesting. If they fail, I don't think Morales and Morse are enough to carry this team. Not by a long shot. |
| 4. By: short on 02-01-2013 10:08:46 Not to disparage the projection systems or anyone who's looking at our team and sees nothing better than fourth place, but there's a reason they play the games. Nobody saw the A's or O's in the playoffs at the start of last year. Especially the way the A's won the AL West...nobody saw that coming. Even if the M's will have a hard time competing for the division title, they can be in the wild card hunt. Weirder things have happened, and happened recently. This team has upside on a lot of young and developing players who could take steps forward. These things build on themselves. Once a few players stop making so many outs, the offense can start to look significantly better. I don't know how many rallies were killed last year by the likes of Figgins and Olivo who won't be haunting us any longer. This gives me hope and along with the changes to the park and watching how they affect the game on the field, I'm pretty psyched for opening night. |
| 5. By: eknpdx on 02-01-2013 10:29:23 Are the Houston Astros so bad they don't even get a DNP reference? LOL |
| 6. By: Edman on 02-01-2013 10:56:02 I agree, short. Nobody in the world (that didn't want to be laughed at) would have picked the A's and the Orioles to be in the playoffs. Yes, both teams played over their heads, but as we saw in 2009, it can happen. And just as quickly, the A's could do what the Angels did last year, and fall short of expectations. Any team in the division could. Of course Smoak, Ackley, Montero and even Seager have to improve. The M's are counting on it. And to help, they brought in Morales and Morse, to take some of the pressure off to allow then to not push themselves too hard. The M's are doing it the right way, IMO. They are trying to become a playoff caliber team. But further, Jack is building a strong farm system, so that they can sustain it, without having to dig into the Free Agency market too much, which is cost prohibitive. Patience. The M's don't have to do anything more than show progress. If they make the playoff, great. But, they are still developing their own personality. |
| 7. By: maqman on 02-01-2013 11:21:33 I agree with short and Edman, this team is better than credited. Texas is weaker in my opinion at this point, they may sign a high cost free agent yet or swing a big trade that will improve them but if they wait until the trade deadline it might be too late. The Angels should win the division but they lost some significant pieces and Pujols and Hamilton may not produce to expectations, they are on or about to be on their downhill declines and their farm is fairly barren. The A's could repeat, they got as good as they lost during the off-season but they will still need some luck. I personally just can't fathom those who lament the M's chances and rubbish the team. They are damn well better than last year and will finish over .500 but I don't expect them to contend this season but they will next year. |
| 8. By: WSChamps2014 on 02-01-2013 11:26:31 2, if we are a weaker team, then we will win more games, trading 2 games against the Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Jays, Rays, Tigers, White Sox, Royals, Indians, and Twins for 19 games against the Astros. If the Rangers win 55%(11 of 20) against good teams and 65%(13 of 20) against below-average teams, and as much as 75% (9 of 12 the last two years in Interleague) against the Astros. The Rangers would probably win 11-12 games out of 19 if they were still playing the ALC and ALE instead of those games going to Houston. But with Houston, they're going to win probably 14-15 out of 19 games. The Rangers will win 3-4 more games with the new schedule. If the Mariners are a "4th place team" then they would win about 40%(8 of 20) against good teams, 50% (10 of 20)against below-average teams, and against the Astros as much as 70% (14 of 20), because once a team falls to the level of the Astros, it's just a matter of by how much, not if you'll win. The Mariners probably would've won 8-9 games against the ALC and ALE had those games not been given to Houston. so figuring they now will win 13-14 games against Houston, they'll win 5-6 more games with the new schedule. It's worth noting that Texas gets hurt the worst by the inclusion of the Astros as they now have to find a new Interleague partner for 6 games. While everyone in the division is trading 19 games against ALC and ALE opponents for 19 games against the Astros, the Rangers are just adding 13 games against the Astros to what was already 6 games a year, while adding 6 games against NL teams which will surely be more difficult than the Astros. Which puts the Rangers real win increase at something like 1-2 games. Oakland will fade, the Angels are hugely overrated and all of their key players are due for some form of regression. Hamilton, Pujols and Trumbo had big dips in performance for long periods of time. Trout will regress in all likelihood due to an unsustainably high level of performance in 2012, as well as sophomore slumps that seem to effect everyone. For the Angels to win 89 games again this year is a very ambitious prediction. I've meantioned the core hitters. As for their bullpen, it's a joke and is led by a closer who missed all of 2012 with TJ surgery. Their rotation lacks upside rebound candidates like Haren and Santana, who were replaced with 3 low-ceiling back of the rotation starters in Vargas, Hanson, and Blanton. Not one of those guys is more than a #4 starter. Wilson has gone from a #2 to a #3 as he gets older and Weaver is a very interesting case, albeit not a good one if you are an Angel fan. Weaver never has been overpowering and while his control hasn't abandoned him, it appears his command has, which is a problem for someone who is an extreme flyball pitcher with low strikeout totals. There are people that love to quote Cy Young stats like wins (20) and ERA (2.81), in that regard he had a great 2012. But looking close we see his WAR was only 3.0 (if he made the 3 starts he missed, he wou've had a 3.3 WAR), the lowest total of his career when factoring starts/IP. He also failed to reach 200 IP, while leaving his last start for fatigue reasons. His K/9 and HR/9 is the lowest since 2007. He might start to regress significantly due to his size/durability (6'7"/200lbs.), workload (223 IP/season avg. 2009-2011, a lot for his thin frame) and his age (30). While ERA- had him at 72 (great!), FIP- had Jered at 94 (much less great!), which is a stone's throw from average, which is just slightly better than 2.4 WAR Jason Vargas in 2010. It's also worth noting his brother Jeff fell off a cliff at 29-30 years old and genetic correlations are not worth nothing. I would bet Weaver puts up similar peripheral numbers while seeing his Cy Young numbers fall by about a run per 9 IP and his win total fall to around 13-15 due to less offense. For people less inclined to use advanced statistics, the other stats will start to reflect the same thing I'm already starting to see. Sometimes it is just noise or outliers, but in this case, I think he's just regressing to his true talent level. What is really great about the Mariners is that they won 75 games in a worst case scenario. Not including the bullpen (small sample size/too volatile to predict), only Seager and Saunders exceeded expectations, and Felix turned in his typical Cy Young season. Aside from that, we have huge amounts of positive regression to look forward to this year. Smoak, Ackley, Montero, Ryan, and Gutierrez did the least possible to help the Mariners win that wouldn't result in them playing in the Korean league for the rest of their baseball careers. There really only is one direction to go from here. Our offensive cuts (Figgins and Olivo) have earned us an extra 1.5 WAR. Sherrill, Delabar, and Noesi (I'm sure he won't make the 25-man), are worth another 1.5 WAR in terms of pitching cuts. That's 3 wins just from getting rid of crap players. |
| 9. By: WSChamps2014 on 02-01-2013 11:36:09 3, that's ridiculously negative. The Jays, Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Tigers, Indians, White Sox, Royals, and yes the Mariners are just as talented as the Rangers and Angels. If we had one solid starter (Smyly/Porcello), we'll with the upgrades from the farm mid-seasn will be as good as any team in the AL. We won 75 games with everything going wrong except Felix, Seager, and Saunders. The only guys we lost from our rotation are Millwood and Vargas. We can find guys like that on the scrapheap. As for the other teams like Oakland, Anaheim, and Texas, they had everything go right for them to win just 15 games more. than us. We win 10 more games against our division, we'd have 85 wins. they'd each gain 3 losses, which would push them to 86-91 wins. 5-6 wins is within the margin of error allowed for luck. We are not THAT FAR from contending, we are already there. I'd bet we finish a minimum of 2nd and miss the playoffs by no more than 3 games, if we miss it at all. |
| 10. By: dewey on 02-01-2013 12:31:44 #9 Where can i sign up for that bet? I will be glad to take it |
| 11. By: Wishhiker on 02-01-2013 12:32:21 I don't think this division is as strong as last year. More talent lost than gained by all 3 opponents from last year. I also won't put much stock into backward looking projections that don't take talent into account at all. Talent wise we're right near the top this year. Whether they put it together is the question, but projections don't seem to ever catch those years by any player. How many on the roster are young with a year plus of MLB experience and talent to potentially rise. Better protection, less pressure to be the guy to get it done, more optimism and support in the clubhouse. Safeco will hopefully not be in the heads of our hitters, especially with others in the lineup that don't fear it now and produce to prove it. The potential for a teamwide breakout is bigger than any team I can remember. We don't know how to quantify those things, but the contrast of them between last year and this is huge. I think the division is more up in the air than anyone is predicting. I believe this team has a chance to be buyers at the deadline. I also think they could fall right back into 4th place. It's an impossible read in my view. |
| 12. By: Jerry on 02-01-2013 12:42:49 "3, that's ridiculously negative. The Jays, Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Tigers, Indians, White Sox, Royals, and yes the Mariners are just as talented as the Rangers and Angels." Do you honestly believe that? You've lumped a lot of teams. The Jays, Yankees, Rays, and Tigers have a lot of talent, and are all in win-now mode. The Royals, Indians, and Red Sox are in completely different situations. Unfortunately, the M's fall into that latter group. Its funny how history repeats itself. We've had this exact same conversation on this blog the last five years. I realize that there is a reason that we play the games, but its not like this is a complete crap shoot. Good teams on paper tend to win more than bad ones because they have more talent. All the "projections" in the comments above are based on best-case scenarios for us and worst-case scenarios for other clubs. You guys are cherry picking data. It is possible that the M's could win the division if everything goes right for us, and everything goes wrong with the three teams ahead of us (or all but three other teams in the AL). But that isn't likely to happen. Its not impossible. But its highly improbable. Even if the M's are very good, they still need help from several other clubs. And by help, I mean epic failure. Right now, the M's don't have nearly as much talent as the Rangers, Angels, or A's at the ML level. If you disagree, I'd recommend you learn more about those other clubs. And the AL has gotten better overall and far more lopsided. The AL West is strong, but the AL East is probably better. That makes it really tough for a team like the M's to win the wild card. Every year there are 1-2 teams that vastly outperform expectations (the A's and Orioles in 2012). Every year, there are 1-2 teams that fail to live up to reasonable expectations (the Phillies and Red Sox in 2012). But every year, the other ~26 teams are more or less what we expected. To resort to simplistic math, that correlates to a 14:1 chance that the M's "surprise everyone". Its sorta like saying "that guy won the lottery, why can't I???" If your main point of evidence in suggesting that the M's will contend this year is by pointing out other statistical anomalies, you might want to reconsider your argument. The AL is strong right now. On paper, I think the M's are about the 10th best team in the league. They are probably better than the Astros, Twins, Indians, and Royals, and just below teams like the Orioles, Red Sox, and White Sox. The M's are in a tough spot. To win the division, they have to beat the Rangers, Angels and A's. To win the wildcard, they have to be one of the top two teams from both the AL West and the AL East. Both divisions are very good. Just look at the East. Every team in the division has more talent than the M's right now. The M's just aren't going to make the playoffs with less than 90 wins. No way. It'll probably take ~95 wins next year with the divisions becoming so lopsided. I'm not saying the season is doomed. It is certainly possible they could contend. But its highly unlikely. This year is all about development and getting back to respectability. The M's can have a successful season without making the playoffs. If you guys go into this season expecting the M's to contend, you're very likely to be disappointed. In a lot of ways, I think this club is sorta like the 2009 club: better than their previous years record, but not a contender. Pretty much everything worked out well for that club, and they won 84 games. We are probably a bit better than that club, but not much. I think this club is about an 80-win team. If they overachieve, they could easily win 85 games. But 90+ is highly unlikely. The way the AL is right now, even 90 wins won't likely get them into the playoffs. |
| 13. By: Jerry on 02-01-2013 12:57:30 "Talent wise we're right near the top this year." Nearly every analyst or authority on the subject would disagree with you on this. The OVERWHELMING consensus is that we are the 4th best team in a VERY good division. We do have talent. Unfortunately, most of it is in AA/AAA right now. I love the M's too. But with all due respect, many of you guys are falling into the cliche "spring training enthusiasm" that afflicts fans of all shitty teams around this time every year. Go check out an Astros, Marlins, Rockies, or Twins blog, and you'll probably see this same rationale: "We have a legit shot...all it will take is for a, b, c, d, e, f and g to happen, and q, r, s, t, u, v, and w to happen to x, y, and z ! It happens all the time! Look at the A's and Orioles!" a-g = best case scenarios r-w = worst case scenarios x-z = other teams in their respective division |
| 14. By: Paul Martin on 02-01-2013 13:03:26 2013 versus 2012: Positives: Better lineup, real middle of the lineup presence, young guys can't do any worse, fences moved in, offensive numbers should also spike on road games played in Houston(hot weather and ball carries real). Bad: God awful starting pitching (unless some moves are made). Defense will be worse. I think that translates to 80 wins, maybe more if they pick up other players. BTW. Miguel Olivo gets a minor league deal with the Reds |
| 15. By: Wishhiker on 02-01-2013 13:09:09 I didn't say "based on statistics from previous seasons" I said talent wise. The skills, not past performances. I made it clear that a large chunk of that is young players with lots of talent that haven't put it together yet. There's no guarantee that they do, but the talent is there. Projections and prognosticators don't check talent, they check past performances by and large. They and you can split performance levels of past seasons into different "talent levels", but that's not what talent is. It's backward thinking, projecting the past onto the future which is not how young players with talent progress. |
| 16. By: cpuglisi on 02-01-2013 13:27:02 i actually think that the rangers are not as good as in years past. that outfielder martin looks like a stud though. they let napoli go and hamilton go and they traded micheal young. that's a lot of offence to turn over in one year. there bullpen is iffy at best. there starting pitching is okay its passable. but well see. the Angels will struggle if two things happen. 1) ryan madson struggles after him who can close for the angels 2) after weaver and wilson, who do they have. blanton is iffy, hanson is really injury prone, and how well will vargas do outside of safeco is really going to be key. he gave up alot of home runs on the road last year. the oakland a's are going to have to win differently because there is no way that the a's are getting 14 walk offs this year. They are going to have there pitching staff for a full year. i am really curious to see how aj griffin and dan staily do for a full season. There offence is not as good because of the subtractions. I don't see how Nakajima is a better shortstop than Drew and pennington. Gomes is gone. I think Reddick and Cespedes are going to do there thing. but you can't rely on just those two. The way i see the division ending up this year is angels seattle oakland texas houston i do think seattle and oakland place will go back and forth. |
| 17. By: Wishhiker on 02-01-2013 13:33:22 Last year alone, Seager, Saunders, Cespedes, Harper, Trout, Middlebrooks, Nieuwenhuis, Frazier, Posey, Encarnacion, Barney, Desmond, Reddick, Craig,Davis, Golschmidt, Headley, Ruiz and probably a few hitters I'm missing all vastly outperformed " The OVERWHELMING consensus". Young players with talent do that and predictions don't account for talent. |
| 18. By: Jerry on 02-01-2013 13:38:25 #15, I wasn't talking specifically about quantitative projections either. I was talking about preseason rankings by baseball writers and people who cover the game, as well as projections. In the next few weeks, we'll see lots of predictions from all sorts of different types of sources: national sports journalists, bloggers, and everything in between. Here's my prediction: almost none of them will pick the M's finishing anywhere else but 4th place. There is a very broad consensus that the M's are a team that has talent, but is still a ways away from contending. And yes, I realize that the M's have a greater range of potential outcomes than...for instance....the Yankees, who have a veteran club that won't rely much on young players. In post #3 I said that I thought that Montero, Ackley, and Smoak were the key players on the club, since all three clearly have talent, but haven't turned that into on-field performance yet. The reason why this time of year is amusing for me is that everyone thinks that the talented players on MY club will have breakout years, while the talented players on YOUR club will fail. Most non-contending or improving teams have guys like Ackley, Smoak, and Montero on their rosters. Most of them are operating on the same assumptions you are now: "All it takes is [insert 5 names] to play up to their true talent level, and this team could contend!!!" That's the beauty of spring training. But that optimism is always the source of lots of arguments that will look stupid in 6 months. If you don't believe me, go back and look at posts on M's blogs from February 2012 or 2011 or 2010. Its like Groundhog Day. |
| 19. By: Jerry on 02-01-2013 14:09:36 #17: "Predictions don't account for talent." Of course they do. Why would you say they don't? That is absolute nonsense. Further, there wasn't OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS about those players you list failing. Prospects and international imports are always uncertainties. What is missing from your list are the guys that didn't pan out. The M's have had lots of those types, so I'm sure you're aware that this happens. Your argument about individual players is totally irrelevant to this debate. Its sorta like listing the names of lottery winners to support your argument that you have a good shot at winning. When predicting how a TEAM will do, you look at all the people on the roster and make a judgement based on the talent on the club, including the mix of veterans versus young guys. Every year, some prospects bust, and some play very well. And lots just sorta keep their heads above water. Contrary to your argument, any valid prediction of how a team will do will take this into account. Every year there is a young and improving team that people pick as a 'fashionable pick" to contend. Thus, when you project what a team like the Royals will do next year, there is a wide range of potential outcomes. They have a good core of veterans like James Shields, Alex Gordon, Salvador Perez, Billy Butler, and Alcides Escobar, a good bullpen, plus a ton of young players who could break out, like Erik Hosmer, Mike Moustakas, Danny Duffy, Jake Odorizzi, Mike Montgomery, etc. Any of those young players could turn into stars. If several of those players - plus some guys with upside like Wade Davis, Luke Hochevar, Ervin Santana, etc - have huge years, the Royals could be better than the Tigers. But that is highly unlikely to happen. If the average good prospect or young player has a 30% chance of being really good, you can't realistically expect that to happen to 7-8 guys. Its certainly possible. But its not probable. And I think the Royals are far more likely to contend next year than the M's. Your argument, like many of the posts in this thread - is based on faulty logic: -We have lots of young talent! -Sometimes young players play really well! -If all of our player play really well, we'll be in great shape! That not likely to happen. You are assuming that several independent unlikely events will all happen during the same year. Thats never a good bet. I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but many you guys have very unrealistic expectations. |
| 20. By: Wishhiker on 02-01-2013 14:19:55 ...Zimmerman, Rios, Butler, A Escobar, A Jackson, Rutledge, etc. etc. Sure, every team has a couple. The Mariners this year have more than any team I can recall. People making predictions by and large look at projections. There's some guesses here and there about effects if this and that that result in differences of opinion, but they start with projections. I contend that the projections I've seen are skewed so far to the low end of possibilities for the Mariners this year that there's little point even looking at them. Noesi is starting for'em too, what are those odds? I'd think Maurers chances alone are greater. Morales producing identically to last year seems a low estimate to me considering his return from injury. Injury plagued stats projected forward? He's got company with Guti, Wells, Ackley, Ryan, Carp, and Erasmo. The prognosticators are probably right on standings around 50% of the time and I may be giving credit that's not even due there. They do miss things and I'm just trying to point out the things that could, added together, be great things. We have no idea what the fence changes mean, but it could be a great elixir to have an inviting LF fence that's lower and closer in the corner and much chooser in the gap. It could be big to actually have veterans performing and acting like leaders. It could be big to have 2 PWR threats for the first time since 2006. Those changes are much greater than any average year. I'm not talking about the average "if these things go right" because there are way more potential breakout players and reasons for optimism in changes and additions than the average year. |
| 21. By: Wishhiker on 02-01-2013 14:35:50 I didn't say they were expected to fail, i said they put the talent together and succeeded beyond prognostication. Sure, about 8 of the about 20 young guys were rookies. We have more lottery tickets than at least most, if not any other, if not any other in recent memory. Projections are not based on talent, rather past performance, age arc, etc.. Numbers derived from what a player has done and how that age group had improved on average. Not even that player type, let alone natural aptitude or skill, but something as vague as age. Skill/talent/aptitude may be somewhat reflected in past performance, but it's in young players that they especially can't accurately apply past to being future outcome. And I didn't say they will win the West. I said they may be buyers. Also said they may be 4th. |
| 22. By: Wishhiker on 02-01-2013 14:58:10 You keep quoting me as having said "will" this and that. I had only used any synonym of "will"in the phrase " Safeco will hopefully not be in the heads of our hitters". Even in that it was followed by "hopefully". Otherwise I've been using the words: may, possibly, could, might, potentially, probably, seems, etc. Please don't put words into my mouth. and don't forget that I also said this; " young players with lots of talent that haven't put it together yet. There's no guarantee that they do, but the talent is there" |
| 23. By: Wishhiker on 02-01-2013 15:13:57 my flawed logic also included; Protection Fences Leadership Injury recovery Less pressure more positive attitudes But not at any point did I act like I could predict the future. Baseball is still 90% mental, the other half is physical. . Projections and prognostications still account for very close to 0% of that 90%. |
| 24. By: Jerry on 02-01-2013 15:17:43 Wishhiker, I think you are confusing "projections" and "predictions". I agree with you that the numbers spit out by various projection systems seem low. But I thought that last year, too. All those systems are going to have some way of determining a probable level of production, as well as the likelihood of breakout/improvement/collapse. PECOTA is the only one I know of that presents all the data, though. Those are obviously going to be conservative. But its not the case that they under-value talent and young players. Look at the M's ZIPS forecasts: it projected the M's best players as Ackley, Zunino, Seager, Montero, Ryan and Miller. Its not like they are overvaluing established players. Those projections are one way of predicting the upcoming season. Then you have various sports columnists, bloggers, and such that will come up with more subjective predictions. You got a good idea of their feelings on the M's chances after the Morse trade, as tons of analysts didn't understand why the M's would add a bunch of guys with expiring contacts when they aren't likely to contend. Again, we will see tons more of both types of predictions in the upcoming weeks. But the overwhelming consensus is that the M's just aren't that good. When lots of people who spend time writing about/studying/analyzing/predicting baseball come to the same conclusions, its probably a good bet they are right. "We have more lottery tickets than at least most, if not any other, if not any other in recent memory." This is a huge exaggeration. You say this because you follow the M's predominantly, and don't pay nearly as much attention to other clubs. The M's farm system is undoubtedly good. But lots of other clubs - such as the Rangers, Cardinals, Mets, Marlins, Cubs, Pirates, Padres and Diamondbacks - also have very good systems. And look at the rosters of the Cubs, Royals, Orioles, Rays, and Pirates, among others: lots of good young players. The M's do have some interesting young players, but this isn't a historic group by any means. Many teams have lots of young guys on the roster. Its not like the whole rest of the country is completely oblivious to what is going on here. Again, having lots of young talent is in no ways a guarantee of success. Look at the Royals. They have had the best young collection of talent in baseball the past few years. Their farm system two years ago WAS unprecedented. They WERE predicted to do big things. And it hasn't happened yet. Thats what happens when you have a team that COULD BE good instead of a team that IS good. Prospects and young players have ups and downs. This shouldn't be a novel concept to any M's fan. I'm sorry to piss in your cool-aid, but I don't think it is at all reasonable to suggest that this team is a contender. Waaaaaaay too many question marks and unestablished players. |
| 25. By: Wishhiker on 02-01-2013 15:56:46 I am not saying that they are, will or are guaranteed anything. Again I feel you are misrepresenting me. Like when I say "We have more lottery tickets than at least most, if not any other, if not any other in recent memory." You seem to be acting like I only said "Any other in recent memory" when anyone could just as easily act like I only said "We have more lottery picks than most". I understand all of the things you're saying, but we can look at any year and find how right any set of estimated guesses were as well as how wrong others were. That's what all the systems we are talking about are, estimated guesses. There are historical facts that support and historical facts show they're incorrect often as well. A lot of the things I've talked about have to do with the mental state of players which is something almost all players and coaches give credence to while almost no projections, predictions and prognostications give more than a tiny bit of weight to. The mental state of hitting in Old Safeco is a huge topic of discussion. Projections, prognostications and predictions allow that the hitting improvement will be approximately equal to the pitching degredation. That ignores the mental aspect that hitting woes could spiral when your confidence of hitting in a situation (say, half your at bats because the situation is your home park) is entirely gone. There is a mental aspect to the game that many within it call a big part of it. There are many mental negatives from last year that seem like they could instead be either not as negative or very positive this year. Safeco has gotten into players heads, I have absolutely no doubt of that at this point. The hope is that that is alleviated to an extent this year. Young players have trouble with getting away from their game when they feel they have to be the guy. This is found in quotes of several of the young Mariners from last year alone. Adding 2+ experienced MOTO hitters to a young club with those struggles could have a somewhat exponential impact in that they improvement they add also adds improvement to others who are put in a better position to succeed. These are, none of them, particularly new theories or ideas in the game. The Safeco factor isn't something that I can particularly recall coming up at another park as a disadvantage. I can make a case for the Safeco factor if you don't agree or aren't sure, but it seems pretty obvious we have been talking about hitters moving on and doing better on other clubs when we should have been talking about them moving on to other parks. Since the SABR community can't quantify these things we are supposed to ignore them. I can't concur with that prognosis. |
| 26. By: docsmith on 02-01-2013 18:08:02 I'll only care about how the rest of the AL West is doing if we are in the race in August. This year is about getting better. I want to see the M's play better baseball, entertaining baseball, fundamentally good baseball and win 82-85 games. After that this season is all about individual performances. I want the real Dustin Ackley to please stand up. I want an answer on Smoak. I want another year under the still very young belt of Jesus Montero. And I want to get 1-2 of our prospect pitchers, and maybe Zunino/Franklin/Miller into the bigs to see what we really have. Things break well for the M's, we get an entertaining year of competative baseball, solidify a few positions and are in good shape for 2014. |
| 27. By: dewey on 02-01-2013 19:02:43 I keep hearing this vetran leadership could someone point out to me one of the guys who will make the team who has won World Series and knows what it takes to win one? We have a ton tom of ifs and when plain and simple we here how all these guys are this and that its time to perform we can dream all we want but honestly these guys may be what they are as Denny Green once said hope is for suckers results are for winners please players get us some results if its 4th place again its time to bring in new people plain and simple it aint working if it happens again. |
| 28. By: dewey on 02-01-2013 20:33:55 When i say Vetran leadership the new guys that have been brought in |
| 29. By: DKulich44 on 02-02-2013 04:29:30 Wishhiker, If there is an advantage of moving the walls in for hitting, wouldn't the inverse be true about the mental state of our pitching? Shouldn't the advantage gained by the hitters also work for the opposing teams? And has there ever been precedent for a structural field change impacting the results of a team before? Sure, there may be a mental effect, but all research on this topic shows it's nearly negligible over a long baseball season. Generally speaking, teams win because they're good, and teams lose because they're bad. Some teams beat their projections and predictions, some teams do worse. That's why we play the games. But for the most part, good teams play predictably good and bad teams play predictably bad. Unfortunately, the Mariners haven't done much to change the fact they're probably still bad, besides move fences and hope a lot of young guys take massive steps forward. I'm ok with that, and in totally ok with most projections and predictions saying this is a bad team, because there's little to no precedent, besides unexpected performance or luck to say otherwise. |
| 30. By: maqman on 02-02-2013 11:50:21 "Unfortunately, the Mariners haven't done much to change the fact they're probably still bad, besides move fences and hope a lot of young guys take massive steps forward." They played over .500 the last half of last season, that wasn't a fluke. They got rid of Figgins, Olivo, Kawasaki and Ichiro. Ackley, Smoak, Guti, Montero and Carp all played below expectations, do you expect them all to do worse this year? And if they do they will stay on the team all season? That's not "massive steps." Bay is a long shot, Ibanez is a bench bat and emergency fielder but Morales and Morse are legitimate MOTO bats. Even Andino is an improvement over Kawasaki. Any of Zunino, Hultzen, Paxton, Franklin or Romero could conceivably make a meaningful contribution to the big club this season, not that it is projected or expected. They gave up Vargas but they get full seasons from Iwakuma and probably Erasmo Ramirez, but they do need another starter, unless and until Hultzen or Paxton show up. You have to open your eyes to see the changes. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
| Copyright 2013 Prospect Insider, Inc. | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |