| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 04-26-2012 |
The Seattle Mariners have been shut out three times this season by three different teams and have scored fewer than three runs in a game on three others occasions. That means they have scored four or more runs 12 times and exactly three runs three times for a total of 81 runs in 20 games. That is an average of four runs per game, and the club needed the big series in Detroit to get there.Still paltry, right?
Not so fast.
The M's averaged 3.4 runs per game a year ago and 3.16 runs per game two seasons ago, marking the 2012 version as a fairly significant upgrade even by the terms of raw data. Furthermore, the M's may be averaging only four runs per game, but that's better than 14 other clubs, including five other teams in the American League.
The point is, the times continue to change in favor of pitching and defense in the game of baseball and the Mariners are not far from respectable production. Only five clubs are scoring more than five runs per game this season, suggesting a "good" offensive club doesn't need to score 800 runs anymore. Perhaps 730, which is 4.5 per, is enough to be competitive assuming the pitching and defense are also up to par.
If that is the case -- and it's worth mentioning here that four teams made the playoffs in 2011 having plated 731 runs or fewer (The Cardinals scored 762 and won it all) -- the Mariners' current pace of 656 runs isn't a great distance being good enough that one might have thought before our little exercise.
Clearly there needs to be significant growth, both in terms of those on the roster now becoming and necessary future additions, but there's no doubt progress has been made. And, yes, these numbers after two good games in DetroitIt's also worth noting here that the Mariners have played 14 of their 19 games in severe pitcher's parks and the colder weather never helps the hitter.
In the end, through 20 games, the M's are on pace to score 100 runs more than they did a year ago and 143 runs more than in 2010, despite the subtle but clear fallback in offense around the league. If you aren't sure those are facts, take another look and believe it.
In 2009, MLB clubs scored an average of 4.59 per game, per team. That fell to 4.38 in 2010 and then to 4.28 a year ago. Since 2008, the run production has fallen by .72 runs per game. The M's, since '09, have improved, and if they continue their progress in 2012 will eventually meet the league somewhere in the middle -- and perhaps beyond.
Before the season began I tossed out a reasonable number of 650 runs scored this year as a possible positive expectation. I still believe that's reasonable, though in order to sustain that pace the big guns in the middle will have to hit. It's too early in the year and too early in his career to start worrying seriously about Justin Smoak's career, but if he doesn't right the ship to a large extent, 650 might become a bit too much to expect.
The Mariners aren't sitting where they are -- middle of the pack in baseball -- by accident, however. They aren't hitting at unsustainable rates with runners in scoring position, they haven't skipped all the better arms in each series (though they did miss Justin Verlander this week) and as mentioned above have played all but five of their games in a pitcher's ballpark. What they are doing, while not spectacular, is real and legitimate.
The days of more than a few choice lineups, such as Boston's, the Yankees' and the Rangers', boasting several well above-average to star hitters each are gone, at least for now. Pitching is dominating baseball these days, and in that department the Seattle Mariners should be fine for a little while.
Just don't underestimate what the Mariners have brewing at the plate. It's better than some may think, despite the raw numbers in batting average, on-base percentage and slugging percentage telling us otherwise. And the best part is, the majority of the damage is being done by players that are under club control for several years and still developing.
the-m\'s-offense
Comments
The following 21 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: k0o56 on 04-26-2012 19:20:15 "And the best part is, the majority of the damage is being done by players that are under club control for several years and still developing." That definitely is the best and most encouraging part. |
| 2. By: Blowgun7 on 04-26-2012 19:29:58 I'm pleased with what we have in Ackley, Montero, and Seager. Even Liddi and Saunders have me interested. Unfortunately Justin Smoak is bordering on bust status in my opinion. Would be a blow if he doesn't pan out. However, I suppose a guy like Catricala could step in at 1B and be decent. |
| 3. By: Jason A. Churchill on 04-26-2012 20:29:24 Blow, What has Seager done? Nothing. He's done less than Smoak and has very, very limited upside in comparison. |
| 4. By: dewey on 04-27-2012 04:39:13 How many at bats does upside take to come out in a young player in the majors? I guess the question is how long to they wait on Smoak its been 850 at bats ,219 avg? Thats more then most young players ever get isnt it? |
| 5. By: Rudolf on 04-27-2012 09:31:34 Speaking of upside, and doing very little, and poor walk rates, and other things that haven't been mentioned: what is up with Denny Almonte? Is this a Sams, Dunigan, Peguero mirage, or has he made some improvements? Clearly he is still hacking. |
| 6. By: maqman on 04-27-2012 11:13:27 Almonte is not the only one whacking the whiz out of the ball is High Desert, which is not uncommon. Catricala and Carp don't deserve to be with the big club at this point given their bad performances in Tacoma. I would not be surprised to see the M's inconsistencies become more or less consistent throughout this season, they seem to be a boom-or-bust bunch. Surely eventually some will be consistently good and some will not make the hurdle and become a pro in some other field. Hopefully reinforcements from the farm will arrive and make positive contributions. Eventually some additions will come via subtractions of poor performers, Figgins and Olivo seem to be the best qualified by blogworld addicts. What this Detroit series has confirmed is that they can produce at least sometimes, which allows one to watch and hope they will do it more often and while we are watching them. Hope has value. |
| 7. By: 11records on 04-27-2012 11:31:24 Right, but Almonte is doing it in Jackson... (Where thankfully Paxton had a nice bounce back start last night with 9 K's and only 2 BB's.) Almonte has 6 bombs, but he also has 23 K's in 20 games, so... |
| 8. By: teddyb on 04-27-2012 11:35:00 23 k's yeah but batting like 359 so...... |
| 9. By: rjfrik on 04-27-2012 12:04:20 We need to add Saunders along with Seager from Blow's list. What has Saunders done? Nothing. And his upside is just as limited. Liddi is hitting the ball well right now, but I'm sure he will regress. Hope not, but they usually do. It's way to early to give up on Smoak. Let's evaluate him after the season. |
| 10. By: Edman on 04-27-2012 12:05:20 dewey, there is no specific number of at bats before a conclusion can be made. Tino Martinez took time to develop. Lou recognized his potential and stuck with him. The number of at bats isn't as important as seeing development. What will determine Smoak, or any player's timetable is showing development. If they ask him to make changes, and he can't make adjustments, then the length of rope he'll get will be short. If he shows that he's improving, then they'll keep working with him. At some point, you have to conclude that there is a limit, but counting at bats is a foolish, and potential mistake in waiting. This is a young team, and it's going to take patience by both the coaching staff and fans. Some will adapt quickly, others won't. And the number of strikeouts a player has is relative. There isn't much value in a contact hitter who lives around the .200 BA mark. But, there is a big value in a guy who may strikeout a lot, but can hit the ball. You don't want a team filled with players who strikeout a lot. Just like some are infactuated with a pitcher's K/9 ratings. It is a useful stat, but getting outs is more important, regardless of how you do it. |
| 11. By: dewey on 04-27-2012 12:36:51 So Edman is the rope getting shorter / When do you feel it should get shorter? This player gets hurt alot also is a guy like Rob Deer valuable? I allways believe sample sizes or 100-200 at bats not 850 myself. |
| 12. By: Edman on 04-27-2012 14:23:56 The rope is always getting shorter, it depends on how much length he started with. He gets 550+ ABs this year before I start to worry. |
| 13. By: slamcactus on 04-27-2012 14:31:11 rjfrik: might want to take another look. Saunders has a .723 OPS, second on the team among guys with 50 PA or more. Nobody on the team is tearing it up right now, but Saunders has been one of the closest things to a bright spot this offense has had so far. |
| 14. By: Blowgun7 on 04-27-2012 19:37:40 All I said was that Saunders has me interested. He's a good outfielder and he's not been worthless at the plate this year. Two homer night this evening, and another walk. He's started the season well. As for Seager, of course his upside isn't at the level of Justin Smoak, but I think Seager is a league average 3B. Good defender and based on what I've seen from him, I think he'll be a good enough hitter that he's a 2 win player. Smoak on the other hand has a ton of more MLB at-bats, and for a 1B his production over the last year and half isn't satisfactory. |
| 15. By: Mackie on 04-27-2012 22:41:07 Ideally, Liddi will bust out and become the regular third baseman and Saunders will continue to show everybody he is a much different player than what we saw the past two seasons. Saunders has been in 18 games, and in that period has posted a line of .254/.343/.508/.852. Granted, what he did tonight gave him a huge stats boost, but what if he was able to average those kind of stats through each 18 games he plays? I'd take that. It's early in the year and numbers may not mean all that much at this point... but if you extrapolate his 3 HRs and 11 RBI in 18 games to 162 games, that's a pace for 27 HRs and 99 RBI. If he keeps hitting, what will the M's do when it's time for Gutierrez to come back? Anyway, when the guys we didn't expect to do much this year take advantage of their opportunities and do some positive things for the team, it sure makes things interesting. I like Seager, and while I'm not sold on him as a regular third baseman I think he could be a very good utility player at worst. I can see him playing 3B, SS, 2B, maybe some LF, maybe even 1B, and possibly some DH. I think his versatility could be what ultimately makes him most valuable for the M's. |
| 16. By: dewey on 04-28-2012 00:36:02 Every body is explaining why they like this guy or i like that guy i think Seager is a Utility player Saunderrs is a reserve and Smoak doesnt fit i also think Montero is better served at 1st the catching will kill that big body. OK I will be the bad gut but are big league club is just so so even after 4 wins in a row a bunch of generic players.I like mONTERO AND aCKLEY THEY ARENT STARS BUT GOOD PLAYERS |
| 17. By: Jason A. Churchill on 04-28-2012 01:26:21 I agree with dewey, but I'm not willing to give up on Smoak. Absolutely agree on Montero catching. Not much point. |
| 18. By: Edman on 04-28-2012 11:28:52 So dewey, after twenty-plus games you've determined that Montero and Ackley aren't stars, but good players? Were you expecting that they would be star players right away? Every star player was a good player, at some point. Griffey's first year, he was by no means, a star. If you're saying what they are at the moment, there's nothing to disagree. If you're going to evaluate their futures based on less than 100 big league games, then I have to firmly disagree. Being a star player seldom starts with a player's first major league at bats. |
| 19. By: dewey on 04-28-2012 12:54:43 Why didnt you say Jason and Dewey he agreed with me? So im not a homer like you there is a huge diffrence between the Griffey A-rod type young players.What is wrong with being a good player? Ive watched a few players over the years also Ed you arent the only one who knows baseball on this site and i stated my opinion and every time i do you disagree with allmost everything i say.I dont get what you issue is with myself and alot of the other people who post here? I would love to have 7 good players instead of 2 star players mtself. |
| 20. By: slamcactus on 04-29-2012 12:20:19 For the love of God, Dewey, learn to use punctuation. Your post is virtually incomprehensible. |
| 21. By: Edman on 04-30-2012 10:36:50 dewey, I didn't add Jason because I doubt that he agrees that Montero and Ackley have a ceiling of being just good players. I guess it gets down to definitions. Griffy and ARod are not star players, they are Superstar players, of which there are very few in baseball. And I would agree, that Montero and Ackley will probably never reach that level, because it's a high platform to reach. However, Edgar Martinez, Jay Buhner, John Olerud, etc. were star players. And I do believe both have a chance to reach that level. Where in the world did I say that I am the only one here who knows baseball? What part of your body did you pull that one from? I have issues with most everything you say because because you say stuff that is either too negative or barely understandable. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
| Copyright 2013 Prospect Insider, Inc. | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |