Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Robbie Marriage's avatar

I do have one perspective to add on this... Isn't this the way to win in modern baseball?

Hear me out on this. I understand that baseball is a regular season sport, and (in my experience) it's much more fun as a fan to be good in the regular season, but let's pretend winning the World Series is the goal here okay?

Ever since MLB expanded the playoffs to ten teams in 2012, these are the pythWL ranks of the teams who made the World Series.

2012: 9 vs 12

2013: 1 vs 2

2014: 7 vs 11

2015: 6 vs 8

2016: 1 vs 4

2017: 2 vs 4

2018: 2 vs 3

2019: 1 vs 6

2020: 1 vs 3

2021: 4 vs 7

2022: 2 vs 10

2023: 4 vs 15

Of the 24 WS participants since this expansion, ten of them are outside the top five, which I would describe as 'good, but not a contender.' If a team's stated goal is to be good, but not a contender, and it's the truth that they will hold to it (which is the problem with Seattle), I wouldn't mind it all that much as a fan, especially in a market like Seattle where the big ticket players aren't going to go, whether the money is there or not.

In fact, for a small market team, this may be a better strategy to win a World Series than actually trying to be a contender at any point. Another team whose goal is to be perpetually good, but never great, is the Milwaukee Brewers. I don't know if anybody is talking about boycotting them, because they're at least keeping their promise of always being at least good.

Once again, I would love a 100 win team more than I would love winning a World Series, because I've accepted that baseball is about the regular season for me, but if the goal is to win the World Series, I can actually get behind the never even trying to be a contender strategy. Shoot for 87 wins and the sixth playoff spot, keep retooling at every deadline, never go all-in at any point, and attempt to ride the variance all the way to the championship. It's not fun, but it might be the optimal way to win for small market teams these days.

So I'm not sure there are grounds to be angry at this 'always competitive' approach. Now, in Seattle's case there's grounds to be mad because they're bad at it, but the approach shouldn't be a reason for the boycott. The poor quality of the people involved should be. The Seattle market ought to bring in somebody who can land them 87 wins every year, because I'm not sure Seattle would have much luck trying to be a contender anyway.

Expand full comment
Alan Levine's avatar

You’ve nailed it on the head. As long as we continue to support the Mariners there is no financial motivation to win.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts