Getting to five hundred was hard too
To add something to Dave’s post on why the M’s approach this off-season will look different as involves different trade-offs, there’s something we should briefly touch on:
What just happened with the team is not common or easy. If we remember back to the start of this off-season, it’s obvious: all we really wanted is some forward progress. We should be overjoyed we got more than that. But there’s this perception that the first part of this, the rebound to respectability, is an easy first step, and sometimes it’s easier the worse the team did. It’s not, and it’s not. We should be heartened that the front office made it look like that.
Even excepting teams that are woefully underfunded by their ownership, look at how many teams stink and stink for long periods of time. The Pirates haven’t been over .500 since 1992, new stadium and all. The Orioles play in a tough division (but so do the M’s) and have a ton of cash, they haven’t been over .500 since 1997. Since 1996 (all the full-seasons post strike/lock-out), a quick rundown of teams who reached the depths the 2008 Mariners did:
Baltimore: bottomed out in 2001 at 63, then won 67, 71, 78… still haven’t made it to .500
Detroit won 53 (!) games in 1996, got to 79 the next year (+26) and then won 65, 69,79,65,69,79,66,55,43(!), 72 (+29!), 71, and finally 95 in 2006. And they had money.
The Royals have had 2008 Mariner-like win totals repeatedly and only once bounced back in 03, and immediately fell back.
The Twins won 63 in 1999, improved a little the next year and then won 85 in 2001.
Oakland won 65 in 1997 and steadily improved each year to their 103-win peak in 2002.
Tampa won 63 games or less five times and only turned it around in 2008.
Or just to take an example from our own recent history: the M’s won 63 games in 2004, and only improved 6 games the next year and 9 games the year after that.
If it’s so easy, why couldn’t the last bunch of guys do it? Why can’t various rotating crews of people, under cash constraints or not, do it? Why does it happen so infrequently?
Because it’s hard. Getting to .500 is hard. Building a championship team may be harder, and it certainly involves different tradeoffs. But last year’s roster rebuild was a huge victory, and one that we should value accordingly. Other franchises, you can be sure, wish they had had such success.
Comments
26 Responses to “Getting to five hundred was hard too”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I have really liked Jack Z since I first saw him in action. I am thoroughly impressed with the guy. This makes it even more so. He really did make it look easy, even after a 101 loss season! I am very excited to see what he does this off-season with the already improved team coupled with all that freed up money. Thanks Derek!
Remember it could all turn around in the blink of an eye. An injury to Guti or Felix could make this team 77-85 instead of 85-77.
I hope they keep Langerhans around, and Hannahan. Their contributions on defense were pretty obvious.
Very few (none?) of the teams you cite have had payrolls like the 2009 Mariners. With a $100M payroll and a half-way decent GM (Z is better than I know) .500 shouldn’t be hard.
Agree with the premise, but “last year’s roster rebuild”? What rebuild? This roster was not rebuilt. I am still not sure what direction this team is going.
Comparing 2008 to 2009 is not that useful, which I think is the point of DMZ post. But to me, comparing 2008 to anything has little value to me. You could just as easily compare it to 2007 team, which was the same result.
2008 was fluke to the loss side, 2009 was a fluke to the win side. All those 1 run games– flukey, a team that could not score any runs, a -52 run diff– flukey, Aardsma and Washburn pitching like All Stars– flukey, Branyan — flukey…
“Getting to 500” implies that 101 losses was an accurate measure of the 2008 roster. The 2008 team was the first club to spend $100 million in payroll and lose 100 games.
If JackZ is going to bring the pitching and D era to the Safe, well fine, that may be a recipe for lots of .500 teams.
However, just watched two teams play for a WS with shaky bullpens and average to below average defenses…
Agree with the premise, but “last year’s roster rebuild� What rebuild?
Our comments section sucks.
Yes.
Exactly how many of the players on the ’09 roster were the same as the ’08 roster?
and wasn’t that a big topic of discussion here, there, and everywhere?
Wouldn’t you also say that it’s even harder to go from .500 to playoffs? I completely appreciate the job that Z did and how quickly he did it. I can only hope that he can get to the playoffs just as quickly!
I MIGHT EVEN SAY THAT IN THE POST ITSELF ARRGGHHH
Apparently Big Hawna has been off planet for the last year or so.
Maybe you should have said it in the title as well because some of us don’t read more than that before we comment.
Oh, crap, we have to read?
Uh, what? I thought it implies that the M’s, you know, got to .500 and stuff.
OK, let me take this quote from hawna totally out of his context in order to say I think it makes sense.
We do know Z invested in the undervalued asset of defense last season and it worked. And he also picked up undervalued assets in the form of discounted players, the prime examples of which were Branyan and Aardsma. Which proves he and his staff know their stuff.
But at the same time, he also chose to fill roster spots with ‘proven veterans’ like Sweeney and Griffey. That cost us the opportunity to find out if Clement could ever hit over a full season.
So where I agree with hawna is that we don’t know exactly how this is going to play out this season. Dave’s piece on the free agents focused on the 1B/DH and starting pitcher slots, which is exactly where we should be looking. But if Griffey comes back…and if Moore, Tui and Saunders are replaced with free agents more in the ‘proven veteran’ mold, then I think this quote in and of itself is true.
So that makes them 1 for 11 on sentences making sense. Sweet!
TP,
Well, sure, point taken. All I’m saying is I still have a concern about the level of commitment to developing our players…as opposed to buying someone else’s.
Stockpiling ‘free’ arms and letting the cream rise to the top? Sure. That makes perfect sense.
Making the best bet you can (Branyan) to fill the gaping hole at first? Absolutely.
On the other hand, I still don’t quite understand forcing Hall out to left when he clearly couldn’t play there, injury or otherwise. If that’s a sign that Saunders isn’t going to get everyday at bats, I worry.
Well, from a KC fan, who lurks here alot, I have been tremendously impressed with the ability by Jack Z to improve your team. It should give me hope that KC could do the same thing, but instead we pick up your leftovers. Huzzah Meche, boo everyone else.
Until proven otherwise Jack Z is a topshelf GM, who is going to make the Mariners a consistent and sustainable winner.
As was discussed here at the time, Wakamatsu wanted to work on Saunders’ hitting, and not in a game situation. With the team out of the running for the division by that point, it didn’t really matter who he ran out in LF (other than maybe hurting Felix’ Cy Young candidacy a little). You can quibble with that decision, but it certainly doesn’t suggest they don’t want to give Saunders “everyday at bats” in the future when it matters.
If the solid write-up wasn’t enough, the comments were.
Launch the “Buy the author a beer” link, Derek! You’ve earned one.
Part of the issue is that it’s a zero-sum game. The total number of wins in a season for all teams is set, and the average is always 81. You can improve your talent level without increasing your wins if the other teams improve more.
In most MLB divisions in most years a .600 record gets you into the playoffs.
Yes, fortunately the M’s get to play six games against the Padres every year and nine against the Royals, while only playing 9 games each against the Yankees and Red Sox.
This is MLB’s idea of parity. Lovely isn’t it?
I agree with this post. This season’s W-L improvement was uncommon and particularly successful. Historically, that quick rise has been unsustainable (like a housing bubble). I wonder how the Ms 2009 roster composition and the theory behind it compares to other +24 or better win seasons since UZR is available?
Without knowing that data, I’d like to think Jack Z has the ability to avoid those pitfalls of the past. He sure has shown himself as a top notch GM.
I tip my cap to the Royals fan who commented earlier. That’s fan-class.
And check out the great write-up on Guti’s insane UZR on Fangraphs.
Sometimes I don’t understand the snide comments made by you guys and sometimes I find them hilarious. I chose to look at these two comments as hilarious…especially given the comments that preceded them! 😀
Given all that, I do appreciate the work you do in putting all this info and off-season possibilities together. I don’t follow this stuff nearly as closely as you guys so I want to than you for the ‘enlightenment’. It’s going to be fun watching Z operate. I absolutely believe he can and will make that next tough step and get this team to the playoffs. Maybe I’m just being a homer, but everything he’s done has been impressive to me so far.