We're 10% of the way through the season (already?!) and a current look at the PECOTA-adjusted playoff odds shows this:
Yeah, that's the Mariners up top both in current standings and in likelihood to still be playing after game 162. Interestingly, each individual team is projected to finish below .500, though it is still likely that one of the teams takes advantage of its crippled zebras for companions and breaks away from the pack. As it stands now, PECOTA thinks the Mariners are the most likely candidate to be that team.
Have we over achieved to date? A bit, yes. You cannot really count on continuing to win 1-0 games all season long. But there is no escaping the math and the math said this division lacked a top tier team and the two at the top have both experienced key pitching injuries. And importantly, the games already played aren't going to be replayed. They are history and the history favors us. It is a tenuous lead though - the Mariners cannot let the coming regression from the pitching staff overtake some hope for progression from the bats. Today is the start of three games against Anaheim. Keep going Ms.
0 recs | 154 comments
I feel like we're backing into the post season and it's still April.
When the rest of the division loses, just win for once!
Kermit. - April 24, 2009
Pitching is definitely due for some regression
I just hope it coincides with the offense picking up a bit. Between Branyan coming back, Beltre learning to not hit the ball at people, and Lopez and Ichiro getting to a more normal pace, we may be ok.
tootthekazoo - April 24, 2009
I feel like it's the hitting
that is way out of line with career norms not the pitching. Bedard is pitching very much the way he has when healthy. Felix too. Washburn you can argue has been producing unexpected results but he was also one of the guys standing to gain the most from an improved defense in Safeco during a cold spring.
There are more reasons for the run scoring to improve dramatically than there are for the prevention to worsen, even marginally.
Bearskin Rugburn - April 24, 2009
What of the bullpen, then?
It has been over performing, no?
Susheel Ramasahayam - April 24, 2009
Not really
we figured if you tossed ten live arms out there, you’d find five or six good ones, and that’s exactly what’s happened. They may be overachieving slightly, but there’s no reason to believe they shouldn’t be really good, assuming they don’t live up to the Ministry of Silly Walks moniker.
seattlebruin - April 24, 2009
I can't wait to be the AL west winner
with a losing record.
pdb - April 24, 2009
Stop stealing our ideas
Thief.
davidcameron - April 24, 2009
You're getting beat to the punch both here and at fangraphs today.
Eyebrows - April 24, 2009
This proliferation of smart baseball writers
is horrible for my career.
Oh well – at least none of you losers get to write for the Wall Street Journal.
davidcameron - April 24, 2009
I hear Matthew's got a column in next month's Auto Trader though
pdb - April 24, 2009
Look for my new column in Better Homes and Gardens!
I talk about growing hops.
Matthew - April 24, 2009
Penny Trader.
Phil Hatzenbuehler - April 24, 2009
Cat Fancier is looking for a sports writer I heard.
JAH - April 24, 2009
That gig is as good as mine.
Aaron Campeau - April 24, 2009
You only have yourself to blame for LL
Graham MacAree - April 24, 2009
I understand the words printed under your name in the Wall Street Journal are 100% authentic and the job doesn't cause you any stress
Jeff Sullivan - April 24, 2009
After the year we went through in 2008 this concept completely blows my mind.
Being in the race is all that I wanted in my best case scenario but to be the favorites and have a sizable lead after 10% of the season? This year has the potential to be more fun then 2000 and 01 combined.
Robert - April 24, 2009
I'm already having more fun this season than I did all of last season
and I haven’t even watched every game. This season is great so far.
pdb - April 24, 2009
It's so utterly foreign to be back into the this line of thinking again.
I was asked about going to see the movie Sugar this weekend and my first response was to ask about showtimes that didn’t conflict with Mariner games. I look forward to watching baseball again! It’s been 20 months!
Matthew - April 24, 2009
I couldn't watch any of last night's game
and I actually regret that this morning. It’s been a long time since I felt like this, and I love it.
How was Sugar?
pdb - April 24, 2009
Most people didn't get to watch yesterday's game. Thanks FSN!
I have not yet seen the movie.
Matthew - April 24, 2009
Was FSN broken up there too?
I called Comcast and the guy was incredibly cranky, which is not necessarily out of the ordinary, it just wasn’t very helpful.
pdb - April 24, 2009
Lightning hit the transmitter
there wasn’t a damn thing Comcast could do about it
JI - April 24, 2009
Ah. That's annoying.
But it would have been mildly helpful had Comcast told me that (if they knew).
pdb - April 24, 2009
There is no ceiling!
Grow the tree!
PDXTai - April 24, 2009
Can't wait to see that movie.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a good baseball movie, but everything I’ve read/heard about it sounds terrific.
sammy - April 24, 2009
Major League? Bull Durham? Eight Men Out? For the Love of the Game? Fear Strikes Out?
Aaron Campeau - April 24, 2009
Mr. Baseball, The Rookie
Wilder. - April 24, 2009
Rookie of the Year!
abender20 - April 24, 2009
Field of Dreams, The Natural, The Sandlot
Can’t believe we forgot these.
Wilder. - April 24, 2009
FIELD OF DREAMS IS NOT A BASEBALL MOVIE
pdb - April 24, 2009
Could have fooled me.
Wilder. - April 24, 2009
It's a chick movie wrapped in a baseball context
I have nothing really against it, but it’s more about the quest for a relationship than it is about baseball. Baseball’s just a plot device. It could have been set in any industry and worked just as well.
pdb - April 24, 2009
This is the reason I would argue For Love of The Game is not a baseball movie.
Wilder. - April 24, 2009
I agree with this.
sammy - April 24, 2009
Never seen it so I don't know.
pdb - April 24, 2009
I really dislike the romanticizing of the 1919 White Sox
JI - April 24, 2009
I've always felt sorry for Weaver.
Other than that, yeah.
Rollo Tomasi - April 24, 2009
That sounds like Tin Cup and golf.
Faux - April 24, 2009
It seemed totally realistic
to take 14 shots with an identical outcome in the last round of the US Open, before totally nailing the last one, didn’t it?
pdb - April 24, 2009
I wouldn't know, I never made it that far.
Faux - April 24, 2009
So, we've come to the conclusion that...
Kevin Costner in all of these movies ruins the sports aspect of them
Fuzz - April 24, 2009
Kevin Costner usually is the reason Kevin Costner movies suck.
Jed MC - April 24, 2009
What the heck is that?
Eh, I’ll look it up.
royalcurve - April 24, 2009
This is the same as saying that Serenity isn't sci-fi because it is a western by genre.
Baseball movies aren’t a genre; by definition baseball is a plot device. You could say the same thing about Bang the Drum Slowly (it’s a drama about mortality) or Bad News Bears (it’s a coming-of-age comedy) etc etc etc. Field of Dreams is absolutely a baseball movie.
Aaron Campeau - April 24, 2009
This
johnbai - April 24, 2009
This
Limerickx - April 24, 2009
isn't this a dead meme by now?
pdb - April 24, 2009
Yes
Matthew - April 24, 2009
Not to be circularly pedantic
Baseball movies aren’t a genre
and yet
Field of Dreams is absolutely a baseball movie
hmmmm.
I guess what I mean when I say Field of Dreams isn’t a baseball movie is that the baseball in it is incidental to the plot – the plot being a guy trying to reconnect with his father. Yes, the same can be said for Bang The Drum Slowly and Bad News Bears; but when I think “baseball movie” I think of things like Major League, Bull Durham, and the like, where the actual playing of baseball games in the context of a season is more of a central character than it is in Field Of Dreams, where the playing of games is tangential to the plot.
It’s a very fine line that I’m not explaining very well here, but that’s the line I draw.
pdb - April 24, 2009
Genre and plot device/story setting are entirely different things.
Samurai movies are westerns even though there aren’t cowboys.
Aaron Campeau - April 24, 2009
Or maybe cowboys are samurai! Magnificent Seven baby!
I like both your points actually, and find it odd that I think of Bull Durham as more of a relationship movie (aging player increasingly marginalized by youth and facing life after baseball), and For Love of the Game more of a baseball movie (aging player flashing on his life for inspiration while on the mound giving the best performance of his life). Those might actually be close to the same movie, now that I think about it.
Kermit. - April 24, 2009
If that is the case, I would argue For Love of The Game is not a baseball movie.
Wilder. - April 24, 2009
Why aren't any of the players black?
JI - April 24, 2009
All those guys were pre-Robinson.
pdb - April 24, 2009
None of the Nergo League players were allowed to come?
Why would James Earl Jones give a shit?
JI - April 24, 2009
I was kinda kidding
pdb - April 24, 2009
Yeah I know
but that movie was running on cable the other day and that’s the first question that popped into my head
JI - April 24, 2009
This is a Simmons-patented complaint.
sammy - April 24, 2009
I swear I don't know who that is
JI - April 24, 2009
You don't know who Richard Simmons is?
pdb - April 24, 2009
Richard Simmons is a movie critic?
JI - April 24, 2009
No but Bill Simmons is
pdb - April 24, 2009
To the Googlemobile!
JI - April 24, 2009
ehh
I just don’t think it’s a very good film.
JI - April 24, 2009
It is implied in the movie that who ever was watching the game "Their childhood hero would play".
So yeah Josh Gibson would be playing as soon as I got there.
mark sobba - April 24, 2009
I've said it before.
Curveballs along the way: the Joe Torre story.
msb - April 24, 2009
Eight Men Out is so very awesome.
Sec 108 - April 24, 2009
The presence of both John Cusack and John Mahoney make it so
pdb - April 24, 2009
It's an ok movie, the problem is people take it as fact when it is not.
JI - April 24, 2009
What others take from their experiences is their problem.
Sec 108 - April 24, 2009
I usually take other people's wallets from my experiences with them
side note: your license is expired.
pdb - April 24, 2009
I use a fake ID when I go to Oregon anyway.
Sec 108 - April 24, 2009
Sure, but at the same time
portraying Shoeless Joe Jackson as a misunderstood hero irks me. I guess there’s something interesting to be made of Weaver, Cicotte, Jackson as a tragic figures, sure, but they get off way too lightly. That and that the 1919 White Sox weren’t even close to being the greatest team of all time and actually had a worse record than the Reds. Baseball is hard and even if they were trying their best, the Sox couldn’t have just won the World Series if they only wanted to.
JI - April 24, 2009
I don't think the film posits them as the greatest team of all time, though
In fact it does a pretty good job of portraying the 1919 Sox as an above-average team with horrific ownership and several players with a desire to “get what’s theirs” in the Series rather than to win.
pdb - April 24, 2009
I remember the manager saying that it was the best ballclub he ever saw
Sure that’s, open to interpretation, but that implies they were really really really special.
JI - April 24, 2009
Yeah, but what's a manager of a baseball team supposed to say in a movie?
The movie as a whole doesn’t romanticize the Sox, I don’t think – it does cast players in a rosy light, but the team as a whole isn’t really portrayed as a mortal lock or anything.
pdb - April 24, 2009
I'd honestly have to watch it again
JI - April 24, 2009
It's worth pointing out that as much as I love John Sayles
every single movie he’s over made is revisionist and overly simplified.
Aaron Campeau - April 24, 2009
I'm curious - how should SJJ have been portrayed?
I haven’t looked into this since the 80s; have historians determined he really was in on the fix?
marc w - April 24, 2009
Last I read,
He took the money, of that there was no doubt. Whether he actually tried to throw games? He claims he didn’t and based on the play by play, it would be hard to claim that he did than didn’t.
Matthew - April 24, 2009
Didn't he have a couple of uncharacteristic defensive issues?
Phil Hatzenbuehler - April 24, 2009
according to DMZ he asked out of playing the first game
and if my memory is correct he played uncharacteristically poorly in the field at key moments.
JI - April 24, 2009
Jinx.
Phil Hatzenbuehler - April 24, 2009
Yes, lots of triples according to wikipedia
There’s some bizarre stuff about him being forced to waive immunity, and having the team lawyer shove whiskey down his throat before testimony.
I have no idea what to think. The defensive stuff points one way, his offensive performance points the other. The other conspirators seem to exculpate him, but he took some money.
marc w - April 24, 2009
Alledgeldy he also tried to give the money back.
Not sure if that point has been categorically disproved by historians yet or not.
appleshampoo - April 24, 2009
I see all that.
I immediately suspend all reality when I watch movies so it affects how I feel about them.
Sec 108 - April 24, 2009
Lots of people think Showgirls is just a story about a stripper but it's still an awesome movie.
Aaron Campeau - April 24, 2009
Hell yes.
royalcurve - April 24, 2009
For the Love of the Game is a great movie
gregrabble - April 24, 2009
Eight Men Out was pretty good.
I’ve never seen (or heard of) Fear Strikes Out. The other three are meh to me. I loved the Natural as a kid, but it’s unbelievably hokey to me now. The Sandlot’s a good kid’s movie, but not really about baseball.
sammy - April 24, 2009
For the Love of the Game
I swear I saw a different movie. I’ve seen it recommended around these parts, but the movie I watched in high school was one of the worst movies I had ever seen. I’m not the Costner hater that a lot of people are, but the acting and dialogue were unbearable.
Teej - April 24, 2009
Saw it on a plane and thought the exact same thing.
sammy - April 24, 2009
Also, the Detroit Tigers had the best defensive game in history
How hard would it be to consult a real baseball person to make the action feel real? … unless I’m completely missing something
JI - April 24, 2009
Maybe they shouldn't have played the Yankees
so they players could have realistic numbers, not have all the players wearing #62 and such
seattlebruin - April 24, 2009
That would be a start
JI - April 24, 2009
If you just pay attention to the 10-minutes of game action, it's a great movie.
Wilder. - April 24, 2009
The best part of that movie was the whole flashback idea
seattlebruin - April 24, 2009
Aside from Spider-Man I'm a huge Sam Raimi apologist.
Aaron Campeau - April 24, 2009
This whole thread, and no mention of Mr. 3000.
That made me happy.
Faux - April 24, 2009
Again, basic consulting
Wouldn’t Mr. 4000 make more sense?
JI - April 24, 2009
You expect a movie starring Bernie Mac to make sense?
Also, 3000 is the number that the sportscasters use to define a HOF career (“he has a chance to make it to 3000 at his pace”), much like 500 HR until they felt that list was getting crowded.
Faux - April 24, 2009
Note: I can only recall Morgan and Phillips reciting this. (HR part)
But it was said often enough to warrant a search for the mute button.
Faux - April 24, 2009
No?
JI - April 24, 2009
League of Their Own, bitches
There’s no crying in baseball!
appleshampoo - April 24, 2009
Little Big League.
How hast his not been mentioned yet?
andrewgolfsalot - April 24, 2009
I saw about half of 61* on cable once.
I thought that was pretty good.
Eyebrows - April 24, 2009
It actually is pretty good.
Then again, I like Barry Pepper more than I probably should.
Phil Hatzenbuehler - April 24, 2009
I very much enjoyed 61*.
Goose - April 24, 2009
It almost made me forget Berry Pepper was in Battlefield Earth.
JAH - April 25, 2009
This whole thing feels like ironic foreshadowing to me.
Aaron Campeau - April 24, 2009
With hilarious consequences!
pdb - April 24, 2009
Fun experiments!
Jeff Sullivan - April 24, 2009
It's not ironic if you expect to lose
JI - April 24, 2009
I'm somewhat terrified that if the M's don't continue to pull away
the Angels will come bulldozing back into first place once Guerrero, Lackey, Santana, and Escobar are reactivated. They will all be back by June, barring new setbacks, which is plenty of time to make up something like 4-7 games in the standings.
A sweep of the Angels in this series will widen the gap to a point where even a healthy Angel rotation may not be able to bridge it. The odds are in our favor, as they get to face Shane Loux, Jered Weaver (fun fact – the awful hitting, righty-heavy Mariners of the last several years own the second best team OPS against on Weaver, behind the Yankees) and a guy called Anthony Ortega, who spent most of last year being a hair worse than average in AA.
Bearskin Rugburn - April 24, 2009
The current projections already account for the return of those four players.
Matthew - April 24, 2009
I know
but the Angels have outplayed their projections the last couple of years and I am not yet willing to believe that I am not hallucinating when I watch the Mariners play. The fact that they have been bale to beat some good teams even while missing the top 3/5 of their rotation bodes poorly for the rest of the division.
Bearskin Rugburn - April 24, 2009
I'm not entirely convinced Vlad is much to worry about at this point.
I also thought the Angels were decidedly mediocre (moreso than most) with an optimal lineup and rotation. So while I’d love to see the M’s put some distance between themselves and the Angels, I don’t think this is a situation where once LA gets back to full strength they’re going to start blowing everyone away. Oakland’s inevitable positive offensive regression is far more worrisome to me.
Aaron Campeau - April 24, 2009
The only thing that worries me is ourselves.
d0nkey - April 24, 2009
That's not how it works
The games that have been played are already in the books.
Just because Oakland has had subpar offensive performance to date does not mean that any regression will necessarily erase the lead we’ve gained.
manyoso - April 24, 2009
IOW
You can flip a coin a 100 times and it is possible (not probable) that it’ll come up heads all 100 times. Still, the chances it’ll come up tails that 101th time is only 50/50 :)
manyoso - April 24, 2009
You're reading something that isn't there.
Teej - April 24, 2009
Oh, ok. Sorry.
manyoso - April 24, 2009
He's not making a logical error
He just believes Oakland’s true talent could be greater than the M’s, and by a large enough degree that it would wipe out the current advantage. You can agree or disagree, but this isn’t a gambler’s fallacy.
marc w - April 24, 2009
I am more than aware of that.
But I think Oakland is still the best team in the division on talent alone and they scare me more than the Angels.
Aaron Campeau - April 24, 2009
This is my freshly poured bowl of cornflakes.
There’s no room in it for people to crap. Thus I will ignore your first paragraph.
pdb - April 24, 2009
Cornflakes are pretty tasteless to begin with.
Matthew - April 24, 2009
That doesn't mean I want any added flavor to be that of poop
pdb - April 24, 2009
Recced for pithiness
johnbai - April 24, 2009
I just know Clement would rake against the Angels were he to play
this weekend. He went to USC so he’d have that weird Jeremy Reed only hits in Anaheim thing kind of going for him, plus he’s a lefty which we sorely lack. And he’s so awesome.
I’m guessing he’s taking care of his new child though, which is more important, and the team would surely snub our Jeffie anyway.
marinerdan - April 24, 2009
Jeremy Reed is also from SoCal
Jeff Clement is from Iowa
seattlebruin - April 24, 2009
I know, hence the "kind of" going for him
marinerdan - April 24, 2009
Can you imagine how it will feel on June 9th
if we increase our lead to 5 games and the Nationals miraculously pass on Strasburg?
Robert - April 24, 2009
We'll be mourning your death from a giant erection or something, so it will feel bad
seattlebruin - April 24, 2009
Here's what will happen
We will have a 1.5 game lead over the A’s going into the final weekend of the season. We will get swept and the A’s will sweep. And two seasons would have been jaw-droppingly perfect if only the last three games of each had been swapped.
Such are the trials and tribulations of being a Mariners fan
Graham MacAree - April 24, 2009
And I will accept this outcome and be ridiculously happy about it
because it’s a damn sight better than the last three years.
pdb - April 24, 2009
That's going to hurt considering we'd have to beat Oakland in the penultimate series to make this happen.
JI - April 24, 2009
You forgot the part about Griffey being re-upped as player-manager.
Matthew - April 24, 2009
This year has been a confluence of Mariner wonderfulness.
I found LL this offseason (or at least started paying attention to it), learned more about advanced statistics in baseball than I had ever even heard of, Bavasi fired, and now the M’s are churning along at a competent rate.
I haven’t been this excited for Mariners baseball since Felix got called up.
abender20 - April 24, 2009
It's encouraging that this team has won while actually not playing a whole lot different than we expected them to
The lineup is terrible like we thought it would be, but it will probably end up playing a little better than it has so far as Beltre and a few others start hitting. The rotation has been great like we thought it would be if a few things went right with Bedard and the defense, and obviously more than a few things have gone right with both (Though Washburn is probably due for some big regression). The defense has been stellar as expected. And with all that we’re 10-6.
OlSalty - April 24, 2009
They've been way way way worse offensively than I expected and slightly better at run prevention
which makes me somewhat optimistic because I think the offensive improvement will more than offset the pitching regression.
Aaron Campeau - April 24, 2009
Set us up oh cursed fate! So that we are struck down all the greater in the end of days... of the season.
This is shaping up to be a fun year. We all knew it would be a very close season. With every M’s win the final results just get closer.
Current Mariners status: Cautious Optimism.
mark sobba - April 24, 2009
Sharp turnaround from last year.
Where the season was basically over in May. Then we sat around waiting for heads to roll. Once that happened we had to plod through months of meaningless games to see who the new GM was going to be.
Give me a season where we’re at least playing meaningful games in September. I’ll take it.
ThundaPC - April 24, 2009
I don't plan to go to Safeco this year.
But I’m leaving £2000 set aside for if we get to the playoffs. How much would a single ticket for a playoff game cost off a scalper approx.?
EnglishMariner - April 24, 2009
You should maybe adopt a kid so that you can trade it for a ticket.
Aaron Campeau - April 24, 2009
I'm not sure how well I would react in the playoffs after all these years.
Robert - April 24, 2009
What about if Randy Johnson throws a no hitter for us to beat the Red Sox?*
*After being traded to us for Rob Johnson at the trade deadline.
EnglishMariner - April 24, 2009
Mlb.com headline: Mariners, Giants play with each other's Johnsons.
Eyebrows - April 24, 2009
Johnson Swap
New reality show?
ralphie81 - April 24, 2009
Sounds more like late-night PPV
pdb - April 24, 2009
I have a hard time believing it would be more than $100-200 to the first 2 rounds for the cheapest seats.
but I always got my tickets direct.
Matthew - April 24, 2009
$200 for the playoffs seems pretty darm reasonable to me.*
*If we win.
EnglishMariner - April 24, 2009
Nice usage of footnotes*
*In your last two comments.
abender20 - April 24, 2009
I'm trying to create a meme that is worthy of being declared dead.
EnglishMariner - April 24, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.