|
Back in February, there was loads of optimism about 2010. Cliff Lee and Felix as the one-two punch with Bedard coming back at mid-season, and the Ms would have the most dominant top of the rotation in baseball. With RRS moving in as a solid #4 and Snell (or maybe Fister) as a #5, the Ms would have the best rotation in baseball. The offense was a concern, but Milton Bradley would solve the 2009 offensive problems in LF, Figgins would solve the offensive black hole that third base was with Beltre in 2009, Sweeney would take the bulk of the ABs at DH, so Junior could be productive in selective situations in his final hurrah. The defense would be #1 in baseball again - that was a given. Half way through June, the Ms are 24-39, 15 games under .500, 11 games behind the Rangers, (and 10.5 back of the Angels, who once again seem poised to run away with the division despite once again being pegged as doomed to finally fall from their lofty perch as Western Champs). So, many have already called it "quits" on the Ms for 2010. And many are suggesting either a need for a "fire sale", or at least questioning whether one is imminent. Oddly, however, there has been very little actual analysis of WHAT went wrong and WHY 2010 has turned into a wake so quickly - (outside of the knee jerk -- "We just suck!"). So, here I'll attempt to isolate the pieces and analyze the whys and wherefors -- because if you don't examine what you did wrong - then blindly groping for ways to fix things won't be much use. The blind groping should be left to the kids on prom night. IT'S THE OFFENSE, STUPID! That's likely the leading cry from the cheap seats for explaining the debacle of 2010. Unfortunately, it overlooks the facts. In 2009, the team won 85 games while finishing last in the AL in runs scored (3.95 per game). The "blame the offense" contingent will point out that the club is only scoring (3.51) runs in 2010 - so the offense is much worse. Except that the LEAGUE score per game has swooned from (4.82) to (4.56). So, while the offense is "nominally" worse than 2009, the club has actually moved from 14th to 13th in run scoring, (Baltimore is worse in 2010). Many want to blame the departure of Branyan, (and the selection of Kotchman at 1B). Of course, Branyan missed much of April, and Branyan hasn't exactly turned Cleveland into the Yankees. Oh, there is no doubt his .796 OPS for Cleveland is vastly more helpful than Kotchman's .562 for Seattle. But, Cleveland ranks 11th in runs scored. One guy - no matter who the guy is - or how well he is hitting - can can overcome a half dozen other guys who stink at the plate. That's the reality in Cleveland and Baltimore ... and Seattle. The offensive reality is that Adrian Gonzalez would not have changed much had he been the starting 1B for Seattle from day one. If CA, 2B, 3B, SS, LF and DH are *ALL* posting OPS figures below .700, it WILL NOT MATTER that first, center and right are productive. The difference between 7 black holes in the lineup and 6 is effectively meaningless. Through 6/13, Seattle had 7 positions where the aggregate offensive output for the season is below the .700 OPS level. CF and RF were the only exceptions. Albert Pujols instead of Kotchman would've only moved this offense from 13th to 12th. Blaming Kotchman (or Griffey - or Figgins, etc.) misses the point. The offensive debacle of 2010 is a team effort. But, even at that, the offense wasn't supposed to be great - they were supposed to be 'adequate' - with the wins being generated by pitching and defense. THE BACK OF THE ROTATION WILL KILL US! That was the pre-season wailing from many sectors. Felix and Lee were understood to be Cy Young arms. But, until Bedard's return, many felt that the rest of the rotation was suspect at best and down right awful at worst. The actual truth has been that Fister STILL leads the team in ERA, Vargas leads the roation in wins (and winning percentage) - and both have a better ERA than Felix -- and only the #5 slot has actually been a problem. RRS and Snell have both been ineffective, (though it was actually only in the last couple of weeks that Snell fell completely apart). Tampa is the only team that has a higher Quality Start %, (the Ms are at 59% compared to league avg of 53). The rotation has actually been magnificent. Felix leads the league in quality starts, but is only 4th on the TEAM in ERA. In 2009, the club managed 51% quality starts while winning 85 games. The league wide SP ERA is 4.29. Seattle comes in at 3.81. (numbers thru 6/14). DESPITE a complete collapse by RRS ... despite losing Cliff Lee for most of April ... despite Bedard not making it back into the rotation as early as some had dreamed ... despite the #5 slot in the rotation continuing to have headaches ... despite ALL those things, Seattle has had one of the best rotations in all of baseball. =================================== Those were the cries of why 2010 could be a problem from the analysts and pundits. The defense and bullpen? Oh, THOSE were in great shape. Well, there was this one guy who suggested the areas of concern for 2010 would be defense and bullpen. How has the club done in those areas? *JUST CATCH THE DARNED BALL!* In 2009, the club jumped from (almost) worst to first in DER -- getting to balls in the field of play better than any team in all of baseball. Based on previous cases where this had been done, I suggested that it was likely that the Seattle defense would slip to 4th in DER. I was too optimistic. Currently, they are 6th in DER, at .695. In 2009, the club was not only first (at .712), they were first by a humongous margin, (Yankees finished #2 at .698). Since the 2010 league avg. DER is only .691 -- the current Ms defensive effort is barely above average. But, preventing runs is "mostly" about pitching, right? What's the club's ERA? Well, the runs allowed is 4.62, which is 8th in the league (league average is 4.54) -- so the Ms are *ALLOWING* more runs than the average AL team. By ERA, they fare a bit better, (4.19), 7th in the league and a smidge about the 4.26 league average. Mostly, this just points out the Ms are making too many errors. In 2009, the team allowed 4.27 runs (3.87 ERA), ranking #1 in both stats. In 2010, they have fallen to 4.62, while the LEAGUE is allowing about a quarter run LESS per game. Relative to the league, Seattle's run allowance has ballooned DRASTICALLY. (For those who have been dismissive of the importance of defense and DER -- the top three teams in DER so far in 2010? Yankees, Tampa, Texas. Okay, ERA and Runs allowed should paint a clear picture -- but let's try it one other way -- HITS allowed. At the end of 2009, Seattle was #1 in the AL with 8.4 hits allowed per game, while the league allowed 9.2 hits. In 2010, the league is allowing 8.9 hits per game so far, while Seattle is giving up 9.1. The Seattle DEFENSE (relative to the league), is allowing more than an extra hit per game than in 2009. (And before you think about blaming the pitchers for HRs -- in 2009 1.1 HR/9, while in 2010, it's 1.0 HR/9.) The actual #1 reason for the failures of 2010 (compared to 2009) are without a doubt due to the MAJOR decline in defensive performance. Though there have hardly been two words even mentioning the subject. **BULLPEN BY COMEDY** The #2 reason for the 2010 travails of the Seattle team lie with the bullpen. In 2009, the bullpen was mediocre by most standards. But, they were good enough to be perceived as better than that, thanks in large part to the best in a generation defense helping them out. They get no such benefit in 2010, so the combination of actually being worse, AND losing the defensive obfuscation, and the 2010 bullpen is revealed as completely and utterly horrid. Here's a comparison of starting and reliever numbers for 2009 and 2010:
SP 2009: 3.89-ERA; 1.287-WHIP; 6.3-K/9; 2.01-K/BB; .272-BABIP
RP 2009: 3.83-ERA; 1.335-WHIP; 6.8-K/9; 1.87-K/BB; .278-BABIP Can anyone see which numbers seem out of place? The 1-run worse ERA kind of screams incompetence, doesn't it? But, the 27 point leap in BABIP for the bullpen actually illuminates WHY the bullpen ERA is a disaster. In truth, the 2010 Seattle bullpen deserves a little slack, because injuries have turned a weak bullpen into a dreadful one. Mark Lowe pitched for the month of April, (and personally lost the one game he pitched in May before going on the DL). In April, the club went 15-17. In May, 9-24. While April wasn't a great month, the runs allowed jumped from 130 in April to 170 in May, (reliever runs allowed went from 23 to 44, almost doubling). In addition to Lowe, Sean White was on the DL for a bit, and has been awful since returning. League, Kelley and Aardsma have all been okay, but nothing special. But, the swooning defense is making each one look a bit worse than they would otherwise. K-Tex and Colome got as much PT as they did partially due to injuries. It's too soon to tell whether Cordero is back "for real", but Olson has actually been the most outstanding reliever on the entire staff, (in terms of percentage of scoreless outings). His K/BB numbers scream that this cannot last for long, so this is not to suggest Olson is a bullpen savior - but more to underscore just how weak the ENTIRE bullpen actually is. ============== Ultimately, since defense is so poorly understood - and even the most advanced metrics are easily questioned - nobody WANTS to blame the defense for the 2010 collapse. It's 40 times easier to rail about the offense and the multitude of sub-.700 OPS figures, (a legitimate complaint - but no less legitimate during the 85 win 2009 season). From a purely mathematical perspective, the blame for 2010 points squarely at the defense, followed closely by the bullpen, with the bumbling, stumbling offense coming in a distant third in importance. The club wasn't BUILT to have a great offense. It was built with the intent to have a great defense. The truth is, Johnson is coming around, Figgins is hitting, Lopez is starting to show his power, Bradley has finally managed to get his OPS over .700. The offense *IS* coming around - and the team continues to lose. From a "strategic" standpoint, I believe the failures of 2010 are all built on the foundation decision to give Griffey one more year. THAT choice ended the policy of "production" before "entitlement". THAT choice likely influenced the return of Mike Sweeney to the DL-revolving-door position that he now holds with Seattle. THAT choice cost the club TWO positions, which might have been filled by players capable of supplying offense *OR* defense. It is my belief the club essentially surrendered any possibility of winning in 2010 when it re-signed Griffey. Moreoever, the choice to continue playing him for almost two months while he proved on a daily basis he was no longer capable of doing the job likely unravelled much of the genuine belief in the organization that was fostered in 2009. Why SHOULD anyone work their buns off playing defense (a generally thankless task to begin with), if the club is going to continue putting the .400 OPS over-the-hill guy out there day after day? And though Griffey is gone, (and Sweeney on the DL), the ship has sailed, and it will be difficult, (if not impossible), to remedy that situation this season. While 2010 is almost certainly a done deal and a lost cause, if there is any hibernating hot streak left in the club, it *MUST* come from a rekindling of the defensive prowess that led to the victories in 2009. A sign of a turn-around will happen if and when the team DER begins climbing. The tiniest of hopes is that when Jack Wilson returns, he takes over and begins playing a superb defensive short, which cascades to the rest of the team. Perhaps Josh Wilson can continue getting playing time subbing for the other infielders, (and maybe even some ABs at DH). But, even that move is difficult to support, since Josh has been productive with the bat. In the end, that half step of jump from the "why bother" mentality of a losing season is nearly impossible to overcome. If the DER continues swooning, then a 100 loss season doesn't become a likelihood, it becomes the upside. |