Inside the Mariners' run differential

by zagreusmd on Jul 5, 2006 2:26 PM PDT

A lot has been made lately about how the Mariners have the best run differential in the AL West. I thought I'd take a closer look at that and see how it breaks down.

Overall differential: +14 runs (421 scored, 407 allowed)

Teams the Mariners have a positive run differential against:
Padres: +16
Royals: +13
Giants: +12
Diamondbacks: +12
Devil Rays: +9
Dodgers: +6
Rangers: +4
Angels: +3

Teams the Mariners have a negative run differential against:
A's: -30
White Sox: -9
Orioles: -7
Twins: -6
Tigers: -5
Indians: -2
Rockies: -2

Run differential by opponent's division:
AL West: -23

Driven entirely by Oakland, which has not only owned us this year, it's threaded a chain through the Mariner Moose's nose and dragged it around in the mud.

AL East: +2

Positive rating driven by the +9 with the Devil Rays, but the jury is out until we've played a few games against the Yankees and Blue Jays.

AL Central: -9

+13 against Kansas City, -22 against the other teams in the division.

NL West: +44

Thank God for the Padres, Giants, and Diamondbacks, who have three of the four worst run differentials against the Mariners this year.

Overall, that +14 run differential doesn't look quite so exciting when that breaks down to +44 in interleague play and -30 against everyone else. If the Mariners are to be taken as a team with legitimate playoff aspirations, they need to start scoring some runs against American League opponents.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Ummm...

...so, when you notice the rest of the AL West being below .500 against the NL West, that change anything for you, seeing as they are all the same opponents?

by eponymous coward on Jul 5, 2006 4:12 PM PDT reply actions

Not really

Looking at things in terms of wins and losses: Mariners against the NL West: 14-4 Mariners against everyone else: 28-39 There's only so much chest-beating you can do about interleague play. Unless the Mariners can swing a transfer to the National League, we have to judge them against the standard of the AL, and by that standard they're not getting it done.

Pregnancy takes nine months, no matter how many women you put on the job.

by zagreusmd on Jul 5, 2006 4:45 PM PDT reply actions

Crap

Accursed retroactive formatting.

Pregnancy takes nine months, no matter how many women you put on the job.

by zagreusmd on Jul 5, 2006 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions

OK, so...

M's: 14-4 against NL West. Must mean the NL West sucks.
A's: 8-10 against NL West. Must mean the A's suck, huh? Since they can't beat the bad teams we crushed, right?

Or is this a "tails I win, heads you lose" sort of deal?

I'm not beating my chest, I'm pointing out that arguments that boil down to "The M's beat up on crappy NL West teams" ignores the fact that nobody else in the AL West beat up on those exact same teams. My argument would be the M's got hot in June, it happened to be when the NL West was swinging through and didn't particularly relate to WHO the opponent was, and finally came back to where their record and some reasonable preseason predictions put them (like Derek Zumsteg, who pegged them as a 770 RS/750 RA, 83 win team)...somewhere around .500. And that's where we stand today.

by eponymous coward on Jul 5, 2006 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Go back

and read the first sentence in my original post: I was interested in looking at run differential because there's been some speculation lately that the M's positive run differential is a significant sign of how they stack up against the other teams in the division. So my question was, if we look at the components of that run differential, what do they say about the team? And I think it's undeniable that those components don't say very nice things. Boiled down, it comes to this: great in interleague play, otherwise not so much.

I think the Mariners are a .500 team, too. I'm a little pissed at them right now, because they're wasting that hot streak against the NL West; if they had otherwise played like the .500 team they should be, they'd be in great shape in the division. But all that aside, interleague play is over and it's time for this team to start playing better against the opponents who really matter.

Pregnancy takes nine months, no matter how many women you put on the job.

by zagreusmd on Jul 5, 2006 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions

I think your logic is flawed

by John Morgan @ Lookout Landing on Jul 5, 2006 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Um...

....wrong standard.

Ultimately, it's still whether you win more than the rest of the teams in the division, and where you do it doesn't matter, really...

It's only true that the AL West doesn't meet the NL West for the rest of the season, but it's a lot smaller point than what you're making it out to be.

by rtang on Jul 5, 2006 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions

People jumping on him for saying this

keep in mind...

NL Teams: rarely ever see us, save for our "Natural Rivals"
AL Teams: see us several times a year

I happen to agree with his sentiment. When a team is familiar with the tendencies of a younger team, they can lock that team down, so to speak. A young team with hustle can often play better against those that aren't familiar with them.

SWUNG ON AND BELTED! DEEP TO... shortstop....

by Gomez on Jul 5, 2006 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions

whoopdy doo

It might mean something if how we play against the AL West is what determined our playoff chances.

For the most part, every team in the AL West has played roughly the same schedule.

by Matthew on Jul 5, 2006 5:41 PM PDT reply actions

SO the nl west doesn't count

I say oakland doesn't count since we play a simalar amount of games against them and our al run differential is even.

Saying we suck cause we only beat up on the nl west is fucking stupid cause it can be said that outside of oakland games we are by far the best team in the division.

Having moronic logic in one direction does not mean your retarted logic in the other direction is right.

by tkjinak on Jul 5, 2006 10:56 PM PDT reply actions

You hear what you want to hear.

Where, exactly, did I say that the Mariners suck? And where's your anger coming from, given that all I'm doing is pointing at some facts? Sure, I may be the one raining on your parade, but it's the M's offense that's the problem, not the fact that I chose to talk about it.

Pregnancy takes nine months, no matter how many women you put on the job.

by zagreusmd on Jul 6, 2006 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions

Well...

....it's mostly because the facts you're using really don't support your arguments.

The offense IS the problem, but that's because it's streaky and not very consistent. That goes beyond trying to look at run differential against specific teams.

by rtang on Jul 6, 2006 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions

There is one uncommon denominator

These AL teams see the Mariners every year. The NL teams, save for the Padres, do not. They aren't as familiar with the M's tendencies and how to play to them. Also, it's possible that the M's don't match up well with AL squads, but match up well with the squads they happen to play. The M's strengths may have played perfectly to their NL opponents' weaknesses.

Truth be told, the M's could be a decent team. It's just that their fellow AL teams are better.

SWUNG ON AND BELTED! DEEP TO... shortstop....

by Gomez on Jul 7, 2006 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions