So, the picked-for-last 2011 Mariners stand at 31-28 (as I begin writing this) with just over 1/3 of the season behind them. They also stand at 220-215 in run differential. That run differential is identical to the one Seattle held at the end of May in 2007, (they were +5 runs after 50 games, heading into June and +13 after exactly 59 games with a 33-26 record). The 2009 club was a different story, sitting at -25 runs after 59 games, but only at 29-30.

On the surface, the current club is constructed more like the 2009 team, which would finish the season with a 111 ERA+ but only a 92 OPS+. The 2007 club was tilted the opposite way with a 103 OPS+ and only a 92 ERA+. The 2007 club had disasterous bottom of the rotation, dragging the ERA+ down, but the offense was one without strength or weakness. The worst regular was Jose Lopez, (71 OPS+), while the offense would finish 7th in OBP and Slugging. The 2009 club had a solid rotation and bullpen, held back a bit by a lot of early season turn-over. The offense was tepid at best with black holes at catcher, short and left field.

So, is the 2011 club likely to end up with a 52 run deficit like the 2009 club, or is the final run deficit likely to be more like the 2007 club? It's not an easy question to answer. It is also dangerous to ask this type of question while in the midst of a winning streak.

Baseball is rife with cliches ... but, most are couched in reality that makes them valuable. The difficulty is in paying attention to the 'correct' cliche at any given time. During any slump or streak the cliche most apt is "a baseball season is a marathon, not a sprint." I think it is extra important to remember that in both the best and worst times. When you have won 15 of 20, (or lost 15 of 20), the emotional response is to judge the team based on that performance, almost as if that is the baseline for going forward. It's not. The season taken as a whole is a better yardstick to judge a team than any hand-picked subset of that data pool. Perhaps the most recent results should carry 'slightly' more weight when analyzing a team, but not nearly as much as most pundits and fans tend to give.

In May 2009, the club went 11-18 and was outscored 146-104. Were the May results a better yardstick to measure the rest of the season than the 24-27 overall record and 197-230 run differential? The April+May .470 winning percentage was closer to the final result than the .379 from May. In 2007, the club went 10-10, 16-14 and then 18-9 in June. The pattern was one of steady improvement. So, was the .667 winning percentage from June a better judge of the team than the .556 for the year (at that point)? No. Once again, the aggregate of 3 months was closer to the final tally than the most recent month.

Of course, team personnel is not a constant. It makes sense to adjust expectations and projections as personnel changes, unless one is (perhaps) only taking into account those variables that will move the final picture in a single direction, (be that for the better or worse). The mistake too many pundits and fans make is in attributing too much impact from a single personnel move. If you trade out a replacement level player for a 6 WAR All-star, how much impact does it have DIRECTLY? Well, if done on July 31st, you get 1/3 of the year-long WAR, meaning, that player would add 2 wins. A team destined to win 81 without said All Star would win 83 with him, (all other things being equal).

The aspect of baseball that makes it unique among sports in that you cannot choose to give your best players significantly more opportunities than your worst. A closer can be utilized selectively, of course. But, even the hardiest of relievers will typically appear in only half of the games played during a season. Over the course of a game, the leadoff hitter can get "at most" a single extra plate appearance than the worst hitter. Pujols cannot light up the scoreboard for 20 points in the 4th quarter (or 5 runs in the 9th as it were), like a Lebron can. He may not get a trip to the plate at all.

The mathematical reality in baseball is that each batter gets roughly 11% of the opportunities, (top of the lineup get a few more, bottom a few less). The underlying paradox in baseball is that while each player takes his turn at plate as an individual, the ultimate responsibility of generating runs is vastly more dependent on the team as a whole rather than a single player. A couple of All-Star (.850 OPS) bats cannot overcome the results if the rest of the team is hitting .600. And a single hitter hitting .580 isn't going to cause a lineup filled with .730 hitters to implode either.

In the case of the 2011 Ms, they dumped two of their better hitters at the time, (Bradley and Langerhans were both posting mid 90 OPS+ figures when DFAed). This resulted in increased playing time for Saunders (whose OPS+ was around 50 at time and has slowly plunged into the mid-30s). It also allowed rookies Carlos Peguero and Mike Wilson to come up. Peguero ended up getting nearly all of the extra PT, and has responded with a solid power stroke despite an 8 to 1 K/BB ratio. Ultimately, the 85 (ish) team OPS+ when Bradley/Langerhans were dropped hasn't moved much, but instead of continuing to play the gone-next-year vet, just because he had a pricey contract, the club opted to give some young guys a shot at the brass ring.

The ugly truth about the 2011 Mariner offense was that it was a league-worst offense in talent on April 1st, and it still is today. There were and are simply too many holes to fill to expect a lot more. Of course, the 2011 Ms have watched their offensive certainty (Ichiro) experience the worst season of his career, which has largely been ignored because another veteran (Figgins) is hitting so poorly Ronny Cedeno would be an upgrade. But, as ugly as the offense has been, the future holds all kinds of possibilities that have not visited the great northwest in nearly a decade.

The key point to take away from the current Mariner offense is not about its 2011 production ... nor whether it can improve enough to keep the team in the race behind the otherworldly pitching. The single most important thing to understand and appreciate about the 2011 Mariners is that for the first time in a long time struggling batters got better. This is *NORMAL* for good organizations. All players slump. All organizations must deal with slumping players. But in Seattle, for far too long, if a player slumped, his career was soon over. Sexson slumps and retires ... Vidro ... Wilkerson ... Johjima ... Lopez ... Wlad ... not only could they never fix themselves while with Seattle, they were basically done as MLB hitters after living in Seattle. Others managed to return to former glory after departing Seattle: Beltre ... Bill Hall ... Kotchman (as I write this his 2011 slash line is .351/.405/.463 (.868).

But, nobody who slumped in Seattle seemed to ever recover while still playing on the Puget Sound. In 2011 alone we watched Olivo, Ryan and Cust have dreadful April performances and then pull it together and become as productive as ever. For almost a decade Seattle made hitters WORSE. But, beginning with Smoak in late 2010, Seattle seems to finally be able to work a player through adversity and emerge intact. Mind you, no team has 100% success rate at this. Figgins has collapsed completely with no sign of redemption. Bradley was never more than a distant echo of what he once was. Jack Wilson, though healthy, remains a pale imitation of what was hoped for. No team is 100% successful ... but, no team can hope to compete if they are 100% unsuccessful in this regard.

In addition to the positive outcomes for Olivo, Ryan and Cust is the added bonus that they are different kinds of hitters. And this cannot be stressed enough ... if your pitch-stalking slugger, slap-hitting infielder and sneaky power catcher *ALL* rebound from slumps, then it is pretty much a given that the club has stopped trying to make every hitter operate within some strict paradigm. Somehow, some way, the club is figuring out how to work WITH hitters rather than against them. That is a humongous step forward. That change suggests that the youngsters like Peguero, Smoak, Carp, Ackley, etc. are far less likely to suffer the fates of the Reeds and Wlads that have sputtered and died previously.

Going forward, instead of watching prospect after prospect crumble and die in Seattle, (or blossom and thrive when traded), the Ms are likely going to see more Peguero's popping out of nowhere to contribute. This doesn't mean they won't have some players fail. some players are good at adaptation ... Carp returned to AAA, lost some weight, altered his approach and morphed into a home run machine in Tacoma. Whether that translates to the majors is too soon to tell, but the excitement of getting to watch these kids grow into major leaguers is going to be well worth the struggles they will undoubtedly go through on that journey.

The rest of 2011 is likely to be a bumpy ride. The new kids on the block are bringing enthusiasm and hope where previous prospects have spasmed and died so quickly it was hard to remember that at some point there had been enthusiasm for them. As with most rookies, it is likely that they will go through bad spells. The major leagues are not easy. There are adjustments to be made. If Jack doesn't go nuts chasing a 2011 title via trade, the club could have a core of young talent throughout the rotation and the lineup. Smoak, Ackley, Peguero, Carp, Halman ... maybe even Moore. But, if the club is going to build that youthful foundation, then they must play these kids.

For those desperate for a mid-season "big bat" acquisition, I would ask one simple question. Why can't that "big bat" be one of those rookies? Posey was the "big bat" that San Fran added last year. From my perspective, if a trade were to happen, I would rather trade the often broken Bedard than one of the younger arms (Fister/Vargas). But, the club doesn't have a shiny prospect (like Pineda this year) being blocked at this moment. So, in the current situation, I would prefer to see Jack gamble on extending Bedard, even if that risks him walking with no compensation pick.

In the final analysis, 2011 was supposed to be a rebuilding year ... and it IS a rebuilding year. The club just happens to be winning more than most thought. If the club stands pat and lets the kids play, the odds are looking better each moment that the Mariners might actually become a truly contending organization ... rather than just a team that makes a failed run at the playoffs every couple of years when taken too lightly. Ask the White Sox how thrilled they are to have the "sure thing" DH Adam Dunn this year. I for one am hoping the club doesn't opt to throw away its future by chasing some other veteran's past.