Add new comment

Great read as always, Doc.
The thing about the deadline in 2009 (for me), was that typically there was little attention or discussion whatsoever about how good are we TODAY, really?  Your article does a great job of capturing that notion.  How many games back are we?  This is the prime question for 90% of the people, and where 90% of the arguments begin.  But games behind is only a single data point among dozens that need to be considered before making roster changing decisions.
I agree completely that in the "general" 4 games back is obviously a deficit that is extremely manageable.  But, after 3 months, Seattle has a run differential of 296-314.  But, they were a couple of game over .500.  The screams from the sideline were "if we could just score a few more runs, we'd be a real contender."  Except, based on what actually happened during the season, the opposite is true:
Months where Seattle outscored the opponent:
April: 93-84  (13-9)
June: 99-84 (15-10)
Sept: 101-98 (14-12)
Months where Seattle was outscored by opponent:
May: 104-146 (11-18)
July: 100-132 (14-13)
Aug: 129-135 (15-14)
In July, Seattle managed a winning record DESPITE being outscored by 32 runs.  And August, when they actually had their single best offensive month, they were outscored, and didn't have better W/L results. 
Honestly, if the Mariners had REALLY wanted to go for it in 2009 without costing themselves dearly in prospects or gutting future potential, they probably could have -- but what they needed wasn't a big bat, (which would cost way too much, and not solve the actual problem of having 5 of 9 starters hitting under .700 for much of the season).  The club's only realistic shot for 2009 was RELIEF PITCHING.  The bullpen was NEVER very good.
Do you know who finished 2nd for the Mariners in reliever FIP?  (Aardsma managed a 3.01 to finish first).  The first 6 guesses don't count -- because it's VARGAS.  And OLSON had a better FIP as a reliever than: Batista, Kelley, Jaku, and Morrow. 
The problem with "going for it" for Seattle was that they were such a severely skewed team from the norm that normal rules simply did not apply to them.  Because of the exponential impact of run differentials, the truth is that Seattle's "optimal" strategy for competing in 2009 was NOT to get more offense, but to push the run suppression even harder.  And, because overall, the pitching was slightly worse than average, there WAS potential for improving the pitching. 
But, nobody was buying that at the time.  NORMALLY, the easiest place to improve is wherever you are worst.  So, yeah, more offense was the obvious choice.  But Seattle's offensive woes were NOT because of 1 or 2 deficiencies, but due to 4 or 5.  In truth, there was only one logical way to give Seattle a fighting chance in 2009 -- *AND Z DID IT*. 
Now, I don't know that Z "intended" for Olson and Vargas to end up saving a bullpen that was bad and getting worse.  But that is, in fact, what happened.  Cordero never made it back.  Nobody miraculously materialized from the minors to shore up the pen.  But, when Fister and Snell stepped into the rotation, and Vargas and Olson moved to the pen, it was just enough help to obscure how bad the bullpen truly was.
And one really has to wonder ... if Branyan doesn't miss 40 games, how many games closer might Seattle have come in 2009? 
What I loved about what Z did at the deadline was that he didn't give up -- but he also didn't surrender the future.  Washburn wasn't the future.  Wlad wasn't the future.  Even Clement wasn't the future.  (Jeff finished 2009 with a .224/.313/.459/.772 line for the Pirates AAA club, and didn't get a call-up, just fyi -- playing 22 games at 1B and none catching at Indi).
I love the concept that given the typical pundit choice of "are you going for it -- or are you quitting?", Z refused to accept the binary premise and said, "I'm gonna try to win today AND tomorrow."  It's a vastly more difficult job to perform.  And it will typically leave those stuck in binary-land feeling disenchanted, regardless of which side of the coin they believe is bet-worthy.