WaCougMBS wrote:I am setting the bar at 73, which could be incredibly adventageous (and is, of course, subject to change). What do you guys think if you had to choose right now?
UNDER!!!! I see like 65...no more than 70...there is no offense on this team even with the return of The Kid...
WaCougMBS wrote:I am setting the bar at 73, which could be incredibly adventageous (and is, of course, subject to change). What do you guys think if you had to choose right now?
UNDER!!!! I see like 65...no more than 70...there is no offense on this team even with the return of The Kid...
65 from an even more shameless homer than me? Yikes! Game over - book another 100-loss season
I doubt that same team would win that many games if they played it all over again, but I just hope they can build on this in 2010 and at least stay over .500 for a second straight year
I doubt that same team would win that many games if they played it all over again, but I just hope they can build on this in 2010 and at least stay over .500 for a second straight year
I did!
And why don't you think they'd win that many games again? If you're thinking that way because of run differential/pythag record, then you're probably mistaken. The problem with using run differential is that it's not luck-independent. For instance, team hitting with men on base or in scoring position, relative to their overall performance, is not a repeatable skill (good or bad). The Mariners were terrible in both instances this year, so they weren't really the worst offense in baseball, simply a bad offense that was extremely unlucky. In reality, that performance with men on/in scoring position greatly impacts run scoring, which in turn impacts the differential and therefore pythag record.
When you look at some of the other record projections, you'd see that they're not really that far off. Baseball Prospectus has both second-order wins (based on equivalent runs, which are based on overall batting lines) and third-order wins (based on equivalent runs adjusted for strength of schedule), which had the M's at 81.8 and 83.0 wins, respectively. In addition, the wins above replacement calcs graded them out as an 83 win team (total of 37 WAR above replacement, with replacement level being a 46 win team). So the variation in their performance and their actual record was not so big. Certainly not big enough that you should see them as a below-.500 true-talent team or anything.
I'm familiar with all of those numbers, but I was just talking about gut feelings and what I saw on the field in the parts of 60 or so games I watched last year...Now I'm just like the rest of us, crossing our fingers and hoping Jack Z can work some magic and get us back to the promised land sometime before I croak
I'm familiar with all of those numbers, but I was just talking about gut feelings and what I saw on the field in the parts of 60 or so games I watched last year...Now I'm just like the rest of us, crossing our fingers and hoping Jack Z can work some magic and get us back to the promised land sometime before I croak
So far so good heading into 2010--+Lee, +Figgins, +Bradley....AND NO MORE FAT SILVA!!!
I don't think it's a mistake at all. Silva was a sunk cost, so this like signing Bradley to a $3M a year deal. There's virtually no risk. In fact I wrote back in November that one move I'd make this offseason was to trade Silva for Bradley. You're basically turning a worthless pile into a great hitter with upside. Sure he's had some anger issues, but who cares? Hopefully Griffey will tickle him so much he's happy all year, he stays healthy, and hits like he did in Texas. If so, you just stole a great switch-hitter who fits the park great and whose skills addresses your team's biggest weaknesses (DH and OBP). If not, you cut him loose and move on. For the price, the gamble is absolutely worth it.
I'm stoked about the move. Now just get me Ben Sheets to be the #3 and all my 2010 Mariner dreams will have come true.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Thracken » Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:08 am 
