The History of the Seattle Mariners In Graphical Form
Not sure much commentary is required on my part. Lots of big graphs after the jump, showing our rank in the AL for the rotation, bullpen, offence, and defence. FIP was used for the pitchers, wOBA for the hitter, and defensive efficacy ratio (DER) for the gloves. There were 14 American League teams in each of the 33 seasons the Mariners have played.

Figure 1 (above): Inverted rotation rank (AL only) by FIP.

Figure 2 (above): Inverted bullpen rank (AL only) by FIP.

Figure 3 (above): Inverted offence rank (AL only) by wOBA.

Figure 4 (above): Inverted defence rank (AL only) by DER.

Figure 5 (above): Sum of inverted rotation ranks from Figures 1-4 above. Winning percentage shown dashed.
0 recs |
65 comments
|
Comments
Nice. Any chance at seeing an overlay?
Not for any particular reason really.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 9, 2010 9:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
My first pass was an overlay
It’s way too messy to make any sense of.
by Graham on Feb 9, 2010 9:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gotcha
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 9, 2010 9:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why not try a 3D Graph?
Do you think you could send me your data? I love making graphs!
by vivaelpujols on Feb 9, 2010 10:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fun!
For a second I thought the 2009 Mariners led the AL in wOBA until I realized the labels were below the graphs, not above.
And judging by these graphs, I’m going to assume the 2001 team was pretty solid.
by Teej on Feb 9, 2010 9:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It works as an elevation map in profile.
Naming the peaks and valleys is fun. The Bavasi Trench?
by Kermit. on Feb 9, 2010 10:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Spiezio Defile
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 10, 2010 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
How is the summary axis scaled
on the final graph. Did you attempt to make crossing the winning percentage imply anything, or are these just general trends?
by Andersean on Feb 9, 2010 10:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Also, really cool post
sorry I didn’t gush earlier, it’s just that the above was my very first thought.
by Andersean on Feb 9, 2010 10:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, What?
The 2001 team actually UNDERperformed?
by BigR on Feb 9, 2010 10:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
No, I don't think the scaling of the sum
corresponds to any sort of expected performance. Possible winning percentage sort of becomes asymptotic.
The point, I think, is more that they go up and down together.
by Andersean on Feb 9, 2010 11:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It seems like we were rather good in 2001
by seattlebruin on Feb 9, 2010 10:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Awesome
The M’s get way better at defense around every turn of the decade.
by stupidquestions on Feb 9, 2010 10:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The 2008 to 2009 improvement on defense is amazing.
by niceguysfinishlast on Feb 9, 2010 11:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So is GMZ
Rooting for lovable losers since 1984.
by seattlecougar on Feb 9, 2010 11:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So the late 90-s bullpen was exactly as bad as I remembered it being
I do not miss the epic meltdowns from Ayala, Sloccumb and Mesa.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
by Benne on Feb 9, 2010 11:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
What are the Y-axis values
Save for the last graph, no labels, no tick marks, and no units.
by Steve Nelson on Feb 10, 2010 12:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
That 2001 team was freakin' awesome
IIRC – they were first in MLB in DER, 1st in OPS, and third in SLG.
Gillick was always an old school guy – he was pretty openly caustic about Micheal Lewis and, by extension, the whole numeric analysis crowd. But coming from a scouting basis, he did know how to put together a winning team.
++++
It’s always seemed to me that one aftermath of the Gillick era was that Lincoln and Armstrong seemed to buy into Gillick’s philosophies, not recognizing that Gillick was almost a unique master at what he did. (Terry Ryan and Gillick seem to me to stand apart in that regard. And I’m deliberately setting aside Gillick’s attitudes about drafting, as that isn’t germane to this point.) When Lincoln and Armstrong hired Bavasi, they were seeking Gillick 2.0, and they were totally confident that in Bavasi they had found what they were looking for.
by Steve Nelson on Feb 10, 2010 12:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
They've said as much, I believe
I don’t know where it is, but I think after the Bavasi firing one of them said that they saw Bavasi’s methods as an extension of Gillick’s, with which they had obviously seen success. Four years later they decided they were wrong. In this article Lincoln even says upon letting Bavasi go, that they wanted a new look.
And here we are.
by Andersean on Feb 10, 2010 1:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Neat. Alwasy love some more graphs.
One note – “Offence.”
by SethGrandpa on Feb 10, 2010 12:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
These are awesome!
How hard would it be to make these graphs for other teams, for comparison’s sake?
by Nadingo on Feb 10, 2010 8:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I was just peeking at fangraphs
They have tERA instead of tRA now. Is that the same as tRA but scaled to be comparable to ERA instead of RA?
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 10, 2010 9:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yes. Appelman doesn't like tRA being on the RA scale because it confuses people.
by Graham on Feb 10, 2010 9:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But now at least we know that Max Scherzer actually uses tRA to evaluate his own perfornance
which is kind of sick in and of itself
by seattlebruin on Feb 10, 2010 9:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know how you feel about this but I think I agree with him
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 10, 2010 9:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Give me a reason to use the ERA scale if we had all been using RA up to now
by Graham on Feb 10, 2010 9:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We should use it for the same reason we should use wAVG
by Poochie on Feb 10, 2010 9:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I love that our pitching scale
Is a function of runs scored and errors made in a season. Makes a lot of sense to me!
by Graham on Feb 10, 2010 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My feeling is that if I can understand the difference between ERA an RA
then anyone can
by Poochie on Feb 10, 2010 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that if people are smart enough to find FanGraphs, they are smart enough to understand the RA scale
by seattlebruin on Feb 10, 2010 9:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I really do think they're overdue for comment moderation over there.
David keeps tinkering with the “ranking comments” thing, but it doesn’t seem to make a difference. And without fail, any whiff of a mention of any player attached to PEDs will instantly turn into a shitstorm.
FG has awesome articles, but it’s really time to raise the standards of the community over there.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
by Benne on Feb 10, 2010 5:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh, its not really a blog
and I don’t think most people care too much about the comments section besides maybe the author and the people who like to yell at each other. I imagine the author scans for intelligent responses and ignores the bullshit.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 10, 2010 7:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Then maybe a simple "you must be registered to post" requirement?
That should at least reduce the amount of troll posts if David doesn’t want full-on moderation.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
by Benne on Feb 10, 2010 8:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think he wants to do any moderation
I don’t think registration really helps much either.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 10, 2010 8:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They should just eliminate comments altogether
Except for the odd time when Tango or MGL shows up, they almost never provide any real value. They could leave the comments enabled for the RotoGraphs section — who cares what shit the fantasy players toss at each other.
At the very least it would be nice if there was a way to turn off viewing of comments, so that those of us who want to could avoid stepping in it and getting it on our shoes.
by wandergeist on Feb 10, 2010 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think part of the problem is the retarded threading system they have there
There are only 3 comment threads, and then you just get one big line where you can’t really tell who’s replying to who.
They should either have a threading system like SBNation does, or just go to a BBTF style numbered comments.
That and having a preview and forcing people to enter a verification code before they can post comments. That would make it more annoying for people to post stupid one liners.
by vivaelpujols on Feb 14, 2010 1:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Legacy
you didn’t say it had to be a good reason
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 10, 2010 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Damn it Graham, thats just how we do things around here.
We weigh ourselves in pounds but measure our daily intake of fat in grams . Drink a gallon of milk and then 2 liters of soda. We care about runs allowed but evaluate pitchers on an ERA scale. If we were good at conversions we would have switched to a unified system a long time ago but that just ain’t gonna happen.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 10, 2010 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think anyone disagrees with that view
And if FanGraphs wasn’t becoming so popular, I think David would have switched FIP to the RA scale instead of the other way around.
by vivaelpujols on Feb 14, 2010 1:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Could the ranks be weighted
to more closely fit the winning pct. line?
If so, we could determine whether or not one rank is more important than another, and narrow the y-axis.
by CBF on Feb 10, 2010 10:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
THIS is what you've spent your time doing?
Looks like the Cascades. No snow though….. Disappointing
by Scott71267 on Feb 10, 2010 6:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 















