....
Q. Okay, on to the consensus. Do you agree that the M's need to add "twentyish" wins this winter?
A. Notice first of all, the calculation is for the current roster -- less Branyan, Bedard, Beltre, Junior, Sweeney, and Jack Wilson -- to post +27 wins above replacement (RLP).
This is said to equate to 75 wins -- and then the statement is that 15-20 more than 75 are needed (on paper).
Here is my first full stop.
.
Q. Because?
A. The minor point is that if +27 wins above replacement equal 75 wins, then 48-114 is replacement level.
Replacement level is hotly disputed. The most usual figure I see is a .380 winning percentage, which is 61 wins, not 48.
You see a lot of different places saying that RLP is 48 wins teamwide, or 55, or 61, or whatever. I think 48 is the lowest RL I have seen.
48's reasonable. If you took 25 real good PCL players, 48-114 might be the outcome. But I wouldn't go any lower. Are Jason Vargas and Brandon Morrow pieces of crud that go 5-13 in the majors?
I'd say 48 wins is the lower bound here.
...........
So the first thing that GM jemanji asks his highly-paid saber staff is this: "Okay, I've got +27 wins above replacement. Do you guys see that as starting from 48 wins, or 52, or 55, or what?"
That's important. Because if I'm +27 wins above a 54-108 triple-A team, then I'm at .500 already, right?
So I dunno. +27 WAR is only 75 wins? At minimum. Maybe the range is 75 to 81 wins. Then I don't need 20 more wins, do I?
...........
That 48 + 27 = 75 estimation had the September roster, logically, at 75-87. But did anybody see the Angels, Rangers, and Yankees series? :- )
You watched the September Mariners team, and next year, you project it to nearly 90 losses? Really?
This team has some serious pitching.
.
Q. Okay, what was the major question about the 75 wins needs "twentyish more wins" paradigm?
A. Because with this young, talented team, I don't think I need 95 pre-season wins on paper anyway.
I've just figured Morrow, and Snell, and Tuiasosopo, and Saunders, and Johnson, and Fister, and every other young player for very unimpressive seasons.
If I pencilled in 85-88 wins ... based on the assumption that Morrow and Snell and Fister and Bedard won't do much ... then couldn't I say "Well, I'm comfortably over .500 and if my pitching comes through, it's going to be a fun year?"
I could say that, and in real life, GM jemanji actually would say that.
Building to a roster that has 88 wins before you get to the upside of 3-4 exciting pitchers, I think that paradigm is fair too. And it is the paradigm I'd use, incidentally.
............
It would be different if I were asking Jose Vidro and Ryan Langerhans for upside. But the 2010 Mariners have legitimate upside talent.
.
Q. Leaving the math where?
A. Assuming 75-78 wins as is -- Ichiro, the King, Gutierrez, Lopez and co. -- I think I need about ten more wins. Plus the upside of the young pitching.
The thing is, we started compounding interest on the conservatism. RLP was only 48 wins, and hey, I need 90-95 wins going into the season, and hey, Brandon Morrow will be below average, and ...
Einstein said that compounded interest is the greatest force in the universe. LOL.
.
Q. So you're at wanting 10 wins more than currently under contract. Is that too optimistic about next year's outlook?
A. I'd be fine with the M's adding 20 wins this offseason. :- )
But it's not biased to say that the M's were .500 in bases gained and bases lost; it's math.
And from there, the fact is that this team does have Brandon Morrow, Ian Snell, Doug Fister ..... the delta between Tui and Hannahan .... if everything Erik Bedard gives you is gravy, that's pretty gourmet gravy.
The team is .500 already and heading North with a bullet. I simply don't agree that a 15-20 win infusion is the minimum offseason standard for that kind of team. I don't think the Devil Rays need to go out and get 20 wins, either.
...........
Now, granted, overtaking the Anaheim Angels is a rough ride, bro'. And granted, things can go wrong, too.
.
Q. Do you agree with the $25M-available figure?
A. No quarrels there. Beautiful assessment. The M's could do more if they wanted, but I'm a phantom GM, not a CEO. :- )
.
Q. One main premise is that Beltre and/or Wilson have to go. Agreed?
A. You know 'dat.
If this kind of calculation is the key to agreeing that these two guys are not the right ones to try to win a Safeco pennant with, then it's all good.
Add comment