coco irrelevancy

Re: coco irrelevancy

Yeah, I don't follow that at all.

by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 19, 2006 11:29 PM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I mean, it's pretty much a wash I guess, as Coco's EQA is at .254, Michaels at .257, according to what I just saw on BP.

Coco's defense in CF probably makes him the more valuable player in 2006 but it doesn't necessarily mean he would have been more valuable for Cleveland in LF in 2006.

by cheech99 on Sep 19, 2006 11:46 PM EDT reply actions

Yeah, I'm comfortable calling it a wash. Which is more than what the Indians were hoping for - unfortunately, it wasn't Michaels overperforming, it was Coco underperforming (with an assist to injuries).

Actually, the team that really was helped was the San Diego Padres. Because Josh Bard couldn't handle the knuckler, he was shipped off along with Cla Meredith for Doug Mirabelli. Both have helped the Padres, who have a good chance of making the playoffs.

by Ryan on Sep 20, 2006 8:37 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I actually think that Coco's defense in CF insures that Michaels is the more valuable player. Coco is not a major league CF (as we all knew); I haven't seen anything reliable lately, but I've got to assume he has cost the Red Sox quite a lot of runs on defense this year.

by jdudas on Sep 20, 2006 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I think the term destiny is not that absurd term to use with this team. It's underperformed at an unbelievable level. A lot of people get so angry at Jason but he's about 10th on the list of things that didn't work out well this year in my mind. He's not been great but it was a pretty good gamble, in my opinion, and Marte is a player that I find pretty exciting.

by afh4 on Sep 19, 2006 11:49 PM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Lets take a look at the big picture...
Who would the Tribe prefer to have performing for them in 2006?
Rhodes, Riske and Crisp
OR
Marte, Micheals and Mota

Unfortunately, I have to say with the struggles the bullpen has had, Riske and Rhodes would be stronger arms, not to mention "club house leaders" among a young team. I don't think the marginal difference between Crisp and Micheals is worth the painful downgrade the team took to its bullpen...Also, Crisps season has definitely been limited and hindered by the injury and playing on SUCH a massive stage! He has also had to hit leadoff for stretches of the season, something he has never been that good at to begin with.
With all this in mind and Martes struggles throughout the 2006 season, there isn't any telling what the Red Sox would have done with him. I wonder what their asking price would have been after he "underperformed" for an entire season?

by Brandini on Sep 20, 2006 9:31 AM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I wonder what their asking price would have been after he "underperformed" for an entire season?

Well, what's Coco's present trade value?

by Ryan on Sep 20, 2006 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

0 VORP.

by Brandini on Sep 20, 2006 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Do we honestly have to rehash this bullpen thing once again. This must be the 25th time in the last two months it has been brought up.

Please, the bullpen failures have had nothing to do with Riske or Rhodes. The one we do miss is Howry, although I would not have resigned him at his price.

Where the bullpen failed us was our returning players (except for Wickman). Betancourt, Cabrera, Sauerbeck all stunk it up early and often. Not to mention Miller and Betancourt got hurt in the same inning.

So please forget all this hogwash about the bullpen players we lost. They were not the problem. The problem was the guys we retained (and a few of the newbies - Graves, etc.) They all stunk!

by talonk on Sep 20, 2006 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

All I said was with the struggles the bullpen has had this year - I don't care who it was, or why it was - that those two arms who had relative success in the past with the club would have been immidiate upgrades.

I DO however like how quickly you wrote off Mota. He was a big part of the pen even being the 8th inning guy for a large chunk of this year. Who was our 8th inning guy for stretches of last season...Thats right, Rhodes!

You need not write off the value of certain players and suggest it was "just a bad season" for others. Possibly Betancourt isn't built for high pressure situations like that of the 8th inning. Possibly Cabrera isn't "the closer of the future"...So yes, the problem is the players they didn't keep, because the players they DIDN'T keep forced the players they DID keep into roles they may not be any good at.

Again, this is hindsight, because with Graves as an exception - though I liked him as a potential sub in closer - I liked the bullpen. I thought Mota was going to turn the corner facing hitters for the first time. I thought Cabrera had all the makings of a dominant reliever. I liked Betancourt and Davis to eat innings. Sauerbeck, Miller, they are solid situational relievers that winning teams require...
HOWEVER
Looking back, possibly the team was HOPING a lot too much. They were HOPING Graves regained his 40 save form. HOPING that Betancourt could develope into a high pressure reliever. HOPING Mota turned the corner and could regain his top flight potential. HOPING that Cabrera was the closer of the future...Sometimes these HOPES falls short.

So standing looking at the current roster and WHERE the team has struggled most, I'm not sure I trade:
Crisp+Rhodes+Riske
FOR
Marte+Micheals+Mota
I would probably stand pat.

by Brandini on Sep 20, 2006 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Well obviously we will not agree on this.

First Rhodes was the 7th inning guy mostly since we had Howry. He also missed the last 6-8 weeks when we were hot, so he wasn't a factor in our run.

I didn't mean to write off Mota. I wrote Graves, etc. which would include him.

Betancourt and Cabrera both had very good seasons in 2005. This year not good at all. And Miller got hurt. So in essence ... out of our 7 relievers last year, we only had 1 (Wickman) perform as we thought. The other 6 all underperformed mightily (Cabrera, Betancourt, Sauerbeck, Miller - hurt, Davis/Mota, Graves)

The Tribe never expected 40 saves from Graves. They expected better than his last two years, but not his dominant self.

And I will point out (Once Again), that EVERY team goes in with hopes on their bullpen since they are so volatile from year to year. It is very rare that a team has a spectacular bullpen from season to season (especially with the same guys).

And I seriously doubt our record would be any better with Crisp Rhodes and Riske instad of Marte, Mota, Michaels. Michaels/Crisp cancel each other out (I'm giving Coco the benefit of the doubt here since he was hurt, Michaels has been a little better). Mota/Rhodes cancel each other out (look at Rhodes numbers, not pretty). And Marte is defitely better than Riske (he was traded to ChiSox and has not been all that good there either).

Please forget it. The deal didn't work out like we thought it would. But we are still marginally ahead (with the potential to make it a steal if Marte fulfills his potential). The bullpen guys don't matter. They wash.

by talonk on Sep 20, 2006 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I was CERTAIN Rhodes was the set up guy for atleast the beginning of the season, in any event, his departure forced a guy who CLEARLY isn't capable of high pressure situations into a job he wasn't and isn't comfortable with. So maybe, you add in Rhodes who has PHENOMENAL home/away splits this year and with the Tribe in 2005 would have eased a substantial amount of pressure off Betancourt and Cabrera. I need you to ACTUALLY look at Rhodes' numbers, not the ones that are MURDERED by pitching in the best hitters park in the majors!

Also, just some quick work tells me you are relatively incorrect with your "bullpens are volatile" statement. From 2005 to this year there are 6 teams that remained in the top 10 in 7+ inning. This isnt an exact representation of the bullpen numbers, however its close! So not "very rare" at all!

I'm trying to figure out when I said the team would have a better record if the changes were NOT made? I do remember saying I would prefer the changes to not have been made, I also remember saying the bullpen would have been better served...I don't remember saying anything about the record.

While I am as big of a supporter as any with Marte and believe he will one day be a superstar, sometimes I wonder about trading for prospects, ESPECIALLY ones out of the Braves system. The Braves are rarely - if ever at all - wrong about the prospects they "dont want". If you doubt me check this out .

I think the expectations of Graves were that if anything happened to the old and overweight Wickman, he could easily step in until they were certain Cabrera was ready. Not one of those 3 things occured.

by Brandini on Sep 20, 2006 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I think the expectations of Graves were that if anything happened to the old and overweight Wickman, he could easily step in until they were certain Cabrera was ready. Not one of those 3 things occured.

The expectations were that he would suck. Those were met.

by Ryan on Sep 20, 2006 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Haha...I had higher hopes then that. But I didn't get to see him pitch in spring training as much as I would have liked, had I known his fastball was at 86mph and it had absolutely no movement left, I too would have lowered my expectations. But what about Mota?

by Brandini on Sep 20, 2006 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

But what about Mota?

Expectations were that he would be a decent setup man if healthy - after all, that's what he'd been successful at before. And he's capable of doing it - just look what he's done since going to New York. Maybe Carl Willis messed him up, who knows?

by Ryan on Sep 20, 2006 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions

What Rick Peterson did with Mota!

Hello Ryan,

According to a Mets fan I spoke with on MinorLeagueBall.com, Mets Pitching Coach Rick Peterson moved Mota to the 1B side of the rubber. This fan doesn't think it was the only reason Mota was better; I thought maybe the change to the NL could be another reason why Mota has done much better of late.

I had speculated too that he has done better because the Mets were in the playoff race, but the Indians were in the race as well in April and May, yet Mota pitched poorly then, so I'm not sure that was a valid reason.

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Sep 20, 2006 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: What Rick Peterson did with Mota!

Pitching Coach Rick Peterson moved Mota to the 1B side of the rubber.

I read somewhere that they also have him throwing his change-up more often (about the same percentage as when he pitched for the Dodgers).

Mota and Cabrera were both huge disappointments early, and both of them have pitched well lately.

Shit happens.

by CaptainEasy on Sep 20, 2006 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: What Rick Peterson did with Mota!

well apparently someone had a good idea on how to help the guy improve (mota),,, kind of makes our guy (Willis / Issac) look pretty bad to me.

by hans on Sep 20, 2006 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: What Rick Peterson did with Mota!

Now this is something worth discussing. It certainly appears that Willis/Isaacs are doing a subpar job at helping our pitchers adjust. If true, this is a real problem that might be solved without going out and spending a crap-load on middle relievers and set-up guys.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Sep 21, 2006 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Post of the month nominee.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Sep 20, 2006 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Thanks! :-)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Sep 20, 2006 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

uhhh

by homelytourist on Sep 20, 2006 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

HOPING that Betancourt could develope into a high pressure reliever.

Given that Betancourt's been a quality setup man for three years now, I think developed he into a high-leverage reliever a while ago.

Who was our 8th inning guy for stretches of last season...Thats right, Rhodes!

Arthur Rhodes has been used by the Phillies in a similar way to last year, and he's been much worse. Is it the role, or is it the performance?

I just don't follow your line of thinking - all of the relievers involved in the trades have been used in precisely the same roles they've been used in for most of their career, so why should their perceived role have anything to do with their performance?

Looking back, possibly the team was HOPING a lot too much. They were HOPING Graves regained his 40 save form. HOPING that Betancourt could develope into a high pressure reliever. HOPING Mota turned the corner and could regain his top flight potential. HOPING that Cabrera was the closer of the future...Sometimes these HOPES falls short.

Hoping is SOP for bullpen construction.

by Ryan on Sep 20, 2006 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Arthur Rhodes has been used by the Phillies in a similar way to last year, and he's been much worse. Is it the role, or is it the performance?

No, its his OBVIOUSLY his home and away splits!!!
2006
Home 7.32
Away 3.81
2005
Home 0.90
Away 3.09

I think it is MIGHTY obvious that Rhodes season THIS year is awful due to his AWFUL stats at home, I had hoped I wouldn't have to spell it out. It is ALSO obvious that pitching in one of the better pitchers parks in the majors last year helped his home/away splits.
So who is the "performance" Rhodes that the Indians would have gotten, well, hes ATLEAST significantly better then Mota given the home/away splits.

by Brandini on Sep 20, 2006 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

So it's not the role, it's the park. Thanks for confirming this.

by Ryan on Sep 20, 2006 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Hmmm, are you saying that his home stats don't count? Or that Philly's park doubles everyones ERA, making it the most extreme park of all time.

THIS is one of MY favorite STRATEGIES when looking AT statistics. Find a SPLIT which shows AN extreme DIFFERENCE, and THEN totally discard THE split that doesn't FIT my ARGUMENT.

by dgcambridge on Sep 20, 2006 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Nope, I use split stats to look at TRENDS. His away stats this year look VERY familiar to his AWAY stats last year. His 7+ ERA at home looks disgusting and NOTHING like he has ever pitched before. That said, I am not IGNORING anything, I have not stated WHAT he would have done in Cleveland, yet I have hinted that the descrepencies in home/away splits are obvious - you are even welcome to look at Mota.
b/

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Sample size is a huge problem for any evalution of reliever stats. When you start splitting them, it gets even worse.

What I'm getting at is, when you see some extreme differences in low-sample splits, it's far more indicative of the low sample size than of anything else. It's a fluke.

As extreme as those numbers are, odds are we're seeing all three factors at the same time -- different ability level, different parks, and different luck.

by Jay on Sep 21, 2006 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Given that Betancourt's been a quality setup man for three years now, I think developed he into a high-leverage reliever a while ago.

I'm not certain how high leverage of a pitcher Betancourt has ever really been. Though his 57 saves in the minors aren't anything to scuff at, it appears OBVIOUS that last year he benefitted from pitching in VERY low pressure situations. His ERA this season is nearly identical to that of 2004 when he had the same role he currently owns.
I wish I could find somewhere that has stats for the actual inning pitched. I do know that he is only 8 for 11 in hold or save situations.

by Brandini on Sep 20, 2006 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I don't have time to look up the game logs from the past few seasons, but I believe Betancourt has been used mainly in the 6th and 7th innings in pressure situations, not in blow outs ala Riske last season.

My belief is that any reliever brought in with a lead (especially close) whether it is the 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th IS a HIGH leverage situation. Betancourt/Cabrera was used by Wedge at least in the 6th or 7th last season to bridge between Rhodes/Howry in the 7th/8th. And when Rhodes was gone, I do believe one of those two slotted into his spot and their numbers were just fine.

by talonk on Sep 20, 2006 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Over the last 3 seasons Betancourt has 12, 10 and now 7 holds. His highest season of holds also equals the season in which he has the most saves. That was also the season in which his ERA was MORE like this years ERA and A LOT like last years ERA.
With ALL that information in mind, can you NOW come to a conclusion of Betancourts ability to "hold" a lead...He hasn't typically been used in "hold" situations and therefore hasn't been the strongest or most used in high leverage situations.

I hope this doesnt sound as if I am arguing against his ability, I love the dopers arm, I'm just worried about the bullpen having him as the 8th inning guy in 2007.

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

*"and a lot like last years ERA"
SHOULD READ
"and a lot LESS then last years ERA"

Awful grammar either way.

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Ok, let's assume with your ballpark splits we kept Rhodes and Riske and let Howry walk.

The bullpen (start of season) would be:

6th-7th: Miller/Sauerbeck,Cabrera,Betancourt
8th Rhodes
9th Wickman
Mop-up: Graves, Riske

Even if Rhodes duplicated his home magic this season, the way these relievers have thrown as a whole, I doubt the results would be at all different since the 6th-7th guys would still be blowing leads left and right.

by talonk on Sep 20, 2006 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Again, I never stated that the team would be better in the W-L column. HOWEVER, there is no telling what kind of "mentor" that Rhodes was to Cabrera and Betancourt. I know we are looking at small sample sizes in both cases, but possibly he had a positive effect on those two - being that he is a VERY similar pitcher to them in regards of "stuff". Who right now do those two have to ask questions too? Who did they have on April 1st? Maybe Rhodes was meant a lot more to this team then any of us could imagine!

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I have my doubts that Rhodes would be anyone's mentor, JMO. Heck, he wanted to kill Omar over the earring thing a few years back. But I have no knowledge one way or the other. If anyone was a mentor last year it was Millwood, at least that was what described in the press.

by talonk on Sep 21, 2006 2:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

To the starters, obviously...And don't take it as if I was CALLING Rhodes a mentor, I was simply stating it as a possibility. It is strange that two pitchers quite similar to him took such a step forward in 05 and SUCH a step back in 06. It could have been his presence alone, or possibly he came with a slight amount of credibility? Or, maybe it was nothing and it was the fact that Cabrera and Betancourt COMBINED for fewer holds then Rhodes did last year and now are trying to fill his shoes.

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Holds are not the be all end all stat. If a RP comes in a tie game or down by one, pitches an inning and nothing changes in the score, he is not creditied with a hold. But to keep the game tied or within one is just as important as keeping the lead at one.

by talonk on Sep 21, 2006 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I agree in a sense...However, a bullpen could ALWAYS keep the score within 1 and the team could technically lose 162 games. If you don't have pitchers who are able to shut the door on a close game, then you have a problem. Theres a reason the Tribe leads the league in Blown Saves for...The third straight season?

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

2006 -- 23, 5th worst (three-way tie)
2005 -- 15, 28th worst
2004 -- 28, 3rd worst (four-way tie)

Here's a great idea for everyone, look at the numbers, and THEN propose your grand unification theory of why the Tribe suck or doesn't suck.

by Jay on Sep 21, 2006 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

3rd worst in the majors, or in the AL?
Wheres my jump to conclusions mat?

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Talk about crackpot theories ... Rhodes and Cabrera were only on the roster at the same time for about three weeks.

by Jay on Sep 21, 2006 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

And spring training...I suppose that makes zero difference. Rhodes could have said, "curve your hat different" and if that made a difference, then he was an influence...If you want to get on 'crackpot theories' how about you ACTUALLY read a persons post...I said Rhodes COULD have been a mentor to them, not that it was a sure thing!
Wheres that jump to conclusions mat again?

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

You're suggesting Arthur Rhodes COULD HAVE been a mentor, and I'm the one jumping to conclusions?

Really?

by Jay on Sep 21, 2006 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Do you have information that says he wasnt a mentor?
Is it a surprise that Betancourt had his best career year with Rhodes around?

I simply stated it as a possibility, not an impossibility.

by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Do you have information that says that Rhodes wasn't cleaning Betancourt's pool?

Do you? Do you?

Do you have information that says that Rhodes wasn't Betancourt's weed source?

Do you have information that says they weren't lovers?

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I believe Sizemore provides the weed, he's got this dude from highschool that hooks him up. They often sit around watching Fletch lives and smoking it up. There's a good possibility that this team's failures this year are due to an overall decrease in the quality of weed distrubted by Sizemore's dealer.

by hans on Sep 23, 2006 3:25 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Here are Betancourts stats from last year after Rhodes departed (8/2). [Note - he did come back for 3 appearances in early Sept]

So this all takes place without his "mentoring" and without Rhodes being the 7th/8th inning guy.

Date    Inning    IP    H    ER    BB    K    Score
8/5    8    1    0    0    1    2    9-6
8/10    7/8    2    0    0    0    2    5-1
8/16    9    1    0    0    0    1    8-2
8/18    7    1    0    0    0    1    5-4
8/19    8    0.1    2    3    1    0    1-1
8/22    8    1    0    0    0    1    11-4
8/25    7/8    2    2    0    0    4    12-4
8/29    6/7    1.1    1    0    0    1    10-8
8/31    7/8    1.2    3    2    0    2    2-2 (L)
9/2    9    1    2    1    1    1    6-0
9/4    7    0.2    1    0    0    2    3-4
9/8    6/7    1.2    2    0    0    1    2-2
9/11    9    1    1    0    0    1    12-4
9/12    7/8    1.1    0    0    0    1    0-2
9/19    7    1    1    1    0    2    4-4 (W)
9/20    8    1    0    0    0    0    6-7
9/22    7-9    2.1    2    0    0    2    11-6 (S)
9/24    7    1    0    0    0    0    6-1
9/27    9    1    1    0    0    1    3-5
9/29    9    1    0    0    0    1    6-0
9/30    9    1    2    0    0    1    2-2
total        26.1    20    7    3    27

I count 21 appearances, for a 2.39 ERA, 1-1 and 1 save.

I'll edit for "high leverage" situations (which are not always holds)

Date    Inning    IP    H    ER    BB    K    Score
8/5    8    1    0    0    1    2    9-6
8/10    7/8    2    0    0    0    2    5-1
8/18    7    1    0    0    0    1    5-4
8/19    8    0.1    2    3    1    0    1-1
8/29    6/7    1.1    1    0    0    1    10-8
8/31    7/8    1.2    3    2    0    2    2-2 (L)
9/4    7    0.2    1    0    0    2    3-4
9/8    6/7    1.2    2    0    0    1    2-2
9/12    7/8    1.1    0    0    0    1    0-2
9/19    7    1    1    1    0    2    4-4 (W)
9/20    8    1    0    0    0    0    6-7
9/27    9    1    1    0    0    1    3-5
9/30    9    1    2    0    0    1    2-2
total        15    13    6    2    16

I count 13 appearances, with a 3.60 ERA (one really bad outing) and pretty fine peripherals.

And remember this is just late 2005. I didn't bother with previous years. I think this shows he was pretty reliable as a "high" pressure guy.

by talonk on Sep 21, 2006 3:17 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

So what happened this year? What about the year before? Are you going to IGNORE trends based on one seasons stats?
Theres no arguing he had a FINE season last year, none whatsoever. He just doesn't seem like a "shut the door" type pitcher, and even that 3.60 ERA in the last two months screams loudly to that!

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I agree with your core point, which seems to be that Betancourt is not the dominant kind of pitcher you'd like to see in a setup role. But really, how many teams have a pitcher as dominant as you are imagining in the setup role?

by Jay on Sep 21, 2006 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I guess a response question would be how many "good" teams have a set-up guy that fits that dominant role. A look in our own division at the top two teams shows that it is the case for both of them.

If we are going to contend and not just be an avg. team then I think Brandini is bringing up a good point (the point about bentencourt not being a good enough eigth inning guy)

by hans on Sep 21, 2006 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Yeah, but look at who those setup guys are, and where the came from. It's not realistic to think you can go out on the market and get two sure things to close out games. They're not out there.

by dgcambridge on Sep 21, 2006 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Better then Betancourt. There aren't many teams that don't have ATLEAST one reliever who is better then Betancourt. Infact, looking at holds and era alone, Betancourt is one of the worst set up men in the league.

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Look, I was only putting out stats to refute your earlier claims about Betancurt not being in "games that mattered". I know he was good last year, and stunk this year.

You put a few claims on home road/splits, mentoring, holds, whatever but when I point out flaws you jump all over me for misquoting you.

And that 3.60 ERA is based nearly on the one poor outing of giving up 3 ER in less than inning. If you take that out, his ERA drops dramatically. Which just proves the stupidity of trusting ERAs since this is a VERY SMALL sample size. Not to mention it ignores inherited runners allowed to score, etc.

All I have been trying to claim from the beginning is that the guys we lost last year would not have helped our bullpen this year. Our bullpen in 2004 stunk, but was awesome in 2005 with mostly the same guys. It's called volatility and happens alot. Howry could have helped, but losing Rhodes and Riske are not what ailed us. It was the RETURNING guys AND guys we brought in that led to the collapse of the bullpen.

by talonk on Sep 21, 2006 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

You are missing my ENTIRE point.
You are right when you say it was the returning guys, HOWEVER, who knows what these guys would have done in the same situation as last year. It is becoming a TREND that Betancourt isn't the same pitcher when he has to pitch the 7/8th innings. This is obvious from 2006 and 2004. Your two month sample size that wants to somewhat ignore a poor outing to me is not good enough.

That said, I wasn't "jumping all over you", but for the last 24 hours I have been continually misquoted. People said I said this team would win more games.
So let me state it ONCE again...
The bullpen would be better served had Rhodes and Riske been around. That is mostly my opinion, but I do have numbers to back it up. The numbers that show Rhodes is a better pitcher then he is showing this season. The numbers that show Betancourt has had two poor seasons in the same role, these seasons are surrounding one GREAT season where for the most part he was great - possibly due to roids, or the role. I'm certain Riske wouldn't have done much, but I am also certain he would have done more then Guthrie, Sauerbeck, Graves and Sikorski.
In short: "The bullpen would be better served had Rhodes and Riske been around"

The future of this team is DEFINITELY better served having made the trades though. Marte is a future stud. They got to see what they have in Cabrera. AND all this failure has given them a much higher draft pick!

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

"The bullpen would be better served had Rhodes and Riske been around"

Well I for one do not believe this to be the case since almost all of our bullpen implosions have been in the 6th and 7th innings this year (again, not enough time to look up game logs). Even if Rhodes is here, the guys throwing this year would have stunk it up the same (because that IS what happenend already) and never gotten to Rhodes in his 8th inning. Id on't recall many meltdowns in the 8th this year, but I could be wrong. And Riske would probably have had the Graves role, although I'll grant you he'd be better than him, but only marginally.

by talonk on Sep 21, 2006 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't understand how you can continually quote numbers on Betancourt & then throw out all this stuff about knowing how Rhodes would've performed this year in Jacobs Field or how he's this great clubhouse presence or whatever.

Just taking the numbers, looking at this year's park factors, CBP really only inflates HRs and doubles and isn't that awesome of a hitters' park otherwise. Looking at Rhodes' splits on the year, he has given up fewer doubles at CBP than away and just 1 HR at home, so it's hard to blame the park for the fact that he's just given up many more HITS there than he has on the road.

The numbers may show that Rhodes has been a better pitcher in the past, but the way he's pitching indicates that he's just not that good this season.

As for Riske, I think he's a non-factor given that Wedge never showed a lot of faith in him. If he hadn't been dealt in the Crisp deal, he probably would've been dealt somewhere.

by zempf on Sep 21, 2006 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Yeah, I think we should have passed on the deal, too. I mean, think about where we'd be with Rhodes and Riske.

Oh wait...still fourth place. Rhodes and Riske, who are both upcoming free agents, have a combined 2.7 WARP. Mota and Jason Davis, the two guys you could say replaced Rhodes and Riske, have a combined 1.8 WARP in Tribe uniforms. Even if Davis and Mota blew a bunch of games for us, they certainly haven't blown enough to put us anywhere near contention, so I'm not quite sure I see your point. You want Arthur Rhodes and his 5.32 ERA back pitching for us in the eighth inning, but you're bashing Betancourt and his 4.02 ERA because he "isn't built for high pressure situations?"

You might want to do your homework before you go making these types of outrageous claims. I'll take the 22 year old Marte, thank you very damn much.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 20, 2006 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Kos, you might want to do your homework as well.
First, refer to THIS .
Second, refer to THIS .
Now that we have noted a SIGNIFICANT deviation between home and away, given that the Jake is CLEARLY one of the better pitchers parks in the majors, let me back this up with THIS and note for the last 4 years Jacobs field has been in the bottom half of Ballpark rankings according to ESPNs ballpark factor. To do the leg work, the Jake was 18th twice and 27th twice. Therefore, not ONLY in the bottom half, but its also safe to say, "one of the best" for pitchers.

As for me bashing Betancourt, its OBVIOUS that he isn't much of a 7th/8th inning pitcher - the role he has been in for this season and failed. It is no wonder that in 2003 when he was a regular in the 7th/8th inning his ERA was MUCH higher then it was last year, when he was in the ZERO pressure situations!
So while you may not like "my homework", I have numbers to support my statements, 9 times out of 10 I have numbers to support my statements. I just wish you wouldn't have jumped at me with WARP...The reason is All I said was with the struggles the bullpen has had this year - I don't care who it was, or why it was - that those two arms who had relative success in the past with the club would have been immidiate upgrades.
In short, having a reliable 8th inning pitcher and a solid middle reliever like Riske would have been VERY beneficial to this roster!

Can you answer me something...
Would you be happy if the team went into next year with its current bullpen alignment? Maybe bring in some run of the mill old closer, have Cabrera in the 8th, Betancourt in the 7th...Would that make you confident for 2007?

by Brandini on Sep 20, 2006 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

9 times out of 10 I have numbers to support my statements.

Well, there you go.

by homelytourist on Sep 20, 2006 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

9 and 10 are numbers.

by homelytourist on Sep 20, 2006 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

You can keep harping on riske, but he would not have given any high pressure opportunities here. He had burned that chance with Wedge last year. He would have been the mop up guy, not the "high-pressure" leverage guy. He would have had Graves role at best.

by talonk on Sep 20, 2006 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I don't think I ever mentioned that Riske was a high leverage guy...I prefer when people quote me on things.

by Brandini on Sep 20, 2006 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

What do you propose the Indians do to move forward?

by homelytourist on Sep 20, 2006 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Hmm...I really don't know.
I would LOVE to see them buck up and bring in Gagne and Dotel. Give them 1 year contracts that are loaded with incentives that can then activate a 2nd, 3rd maybe even a 4th year. Gagne has been dominant as a closer and Dotel has been dominant as a set up man...And as the old adage goes, you've got to spend money to make money.

The rest of the jobs could come from in house.

by Brandini on Sep 20, 2006 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Do note that Dotel has a slick 11.05 ERA this year with the Yanks, is 33 years old, and is coming off of pretty major surgery. I'm all for giving injured guys a chance to come back, but I think he may be toast.

by zempf on Sep 20, 2006 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

How many pitchers come back the following year after Tommy John and are right back into the groove of things? Answer, next to none! Most take a year of pitching to get back to their old self, and ALL claim that when they are back to their old self, they are throwing much harder and have greater velocity.
I do agree that he is getting up there in age, but to me its worth the gamble.

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 2:10 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Oh and if you really think Rhodes would have duplicated a 0.90 ERA at home this year, buy a lotto ticket. He may have been better than the 5+ ERA at home with Philly, but no way he duplicates that number since it is so far to the extreme. He may have gotten a high 2 ERA, but I am guessing he would have been around 4 like everyone else this year.

by talonk on Sep 20, 2006 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

This is the same Author Rhodes who was one of the best set up men in the league during a two year span in Seattle. I know its not the best sample size, but it shows was he is capable of. I think last years numbers with the Indians were phenomenal, but I wouldnt doubt if they are repeatable.

by Brandini on Sep 20, 2006 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

And Mota was one of the best set up men in the league a couple years ago too, and look at him. Setup men are what they are because they aren't consistent. Otherwise they'd be closers.

by tyler083 on Sep 20, 2006 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Look at him! Hes dominating in NY! Hopefully this isn't an "internal" issue that the Tribe will have to iron out in the offseason.
Why is it that Wickman and Mota are pitching so much better for their respective teams now, then when they were with the Tribe?

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 2:12 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Don't even equate Wickman to Mota. He had one bad outing for us this year (I think it was 4 or 5 runs in less than an inning).

by talonk on Sep 21, 2006 2:14 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

His month of June wasn't very good altogether. 9 era, 3BS, 4L...However, while Mota pitched worse for the Indians then he is for the Braves, Mota is pitching even BETTER for the Mets...For the most part in garbage innings.

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 2:19 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

These splits are just stupid. David Ortiz hit two home runs today. Therefore, he must average 162 HR a year in Fenway. There's this thing called sample size, and it's important. If you want to make outrageous claims based on reliever's splits, just don't waste your time because I find them almost completely irrelevant.

9 times out of 10 I have numbers to support my statements

That's because you just find any random numbers that support the argument you want to make. If you want to show me useful numbers, maybe you should look at Arthur Rhodes and his 29 BB in 45 2/3 IP. But I'm sure all of those walks are because of that damned park he plays in, right? You keep saying Rhodes is an upgrade, but he has sucked this year. And Riske was NEVER used in high pressure situations last year, so I don't see why he's some savior.

Would you be happy if the team went into next year with its current bullpen alignment?

I might be alone in this, but sort of. I wouldn't be thrilled, but I wouldn't be disappointed. I know, pick your jaw up off the floor, but I'd be okay with it. Relievers are pretty hard to figure out from year to year. They could be good, and they could be bad. Betancourt, Davis, Mujica, F-Cabs, Mastny, Miller, Brown, and a new closer could make a decent bullpen. It might not be dominant, but it could be cheap and effective. I think Betancourt, F-Cabs, Miller, and a new closer (say a risky pickup like Eric Gagne) could be a fine back end for our bullpen. Of course, you never know with relievers. I do think that's a better idea than going out and signing guys like Howry, Eyre, and Farnsworth to expensive three years, though.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 22, 2006 4:40 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Did I use a one day split? How about you say something even more ridiculous! You are using complete opposites here. My claim is that Rhodes is a better pitcher in a pitchers park. Why is it his numbers were so dominant at the Jake last year? Clearly SOME of it had to do with the park! Why are his numbers so pathetic at CBP? Clearly SOME of it has to do with the park! Lets be reminded, we aren't talking about a guy who has NEVER done what he did in Cleveland last year. Infact, last year wasn't even his best career year!
As far as Riske, could you quote me on where I said he was used in high pressure situations? Maybe here or "solid middle reliever like Riske would have been VERY beneficial to this roster" or "I'm certain Riske wouldn't have done much, but I am also certain he would have done more then Guthrie, Sauerbeck, Graves and Sikorski." So to sum up those quotes...I said he would be an upgrade to our middle relievers.

As for your comments on being happy with the bullpen. Its tough to argue. I was thrilled with what they had starting this season. The season has since gone by, and there has been so many failures, its tough to imagine the bullpen doing worse. But what if they dont do worse? What if they do exactly what they did this year? I have no problem with the Tribe taking their time and making a serious run for it all but standing pat doesn't really sound like they are trying anything.

by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

A minor point, Howry hasn't been anything with marveling over, particularly when you consider which league he's been pitching in.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Sep 20, 2006 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

The NL isn't bad on the WHOLE, its just "easier", mostly for starting pitching, because the lineups are constructed differently due to the automatic out...I've never read anything that states the NL is easier on relievers. That said, I think Howry was also a product of pitching in a strong pitchers park like the Jake.

by Brandini on Sep 20, 2006 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Talk about misquoting... my post is mostly about the fact that Howry's performance in the NL hasn't been stellar. I find it a little interesting that you go ahead and describe the NL as "easier" owing to the lineup construction, i.e., the presence of a pitcher in the batting order makes it so. The problem with that statement, which you allude to, is that in the late innings, it is highly improbable that a reliever is actually going to pitch against another pitcher. In the late innings a pitcher set to bat, is GOING to be lifted for a pinch hitter in the NL, particularly in a close game. So if the implication is that a relief pitcher in the NL has it easier than a relief pitcher in the AL because of the presence of a pitcher in the batting order, I don't buy it. You might be able to make a valid argument along these lines for affecting the statistics of a starting pitcher, but frankly, I fail to see how a relief pitcher has it easier in one league versus the other. That said, the only thing that you have to fall back on is your suggestion that the ballpark makes all the difference. Howry's splits (BAA .261 home/.226 away and ERA 3.76 home/2.73 away) certainly aren't in line the with huge differences noted with Rhodes previously in the thread. So I'm not seeing your ballpark argument stick with Howry either.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Sep 20, 2006 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Possibly this goes to the "full house" theory that was mentioned in the Oakland game thread(game 1 I believe). Maybe pitching with the pressure of 30,000 at Wrigley with your face being all over the newspapers and name all over the radios has something to do with it. ESPECIALLY in Chicago, where every pitch he throws will be compared to that of their AL counterparts on the other side of the city.

Also, I apologize if it sounded as if I was calling you out. I wasn't, I was just stating its something I hadn't heard. Possibly there was something you had that showed the NL was actually inferior, so I was more ASKING then trying to show you up.

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 2:15 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Hmmm, I don't live anywhere near Chicago, perhaps someone else can weigh in on how critical the media there is of Bob Howry, e.g., how often he graces the front page. I guess I'm more prone to just take a look at his numbers and try to assess how he compares to last season. I think his numbers show a drop off in effectiveness, leading me to speculate that the decision to not try and compete with the Cubs for his services, particularly when they were offering arguably more than his value, was sound. Even if this full house theory were true, I still don't see why we should have wanted to bring him back, the reason being: Why would you want a reliever who folds under the pressure of pitching in front of a large crowd? When it matters most, e.g., playoffs/WS games, there is going to be a crowd and you need that guy to be ready to answer the call whether there are 50,000 in the stands or 500. Anyway, I'm willing to concede that you may have a point regarding Rhodes effectiveness when looking at splits, but I don't think the same point can be made for Howry.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Sep 21, 2006 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I never said I wanted Howry, ESPECIALLY not for the money he signed for! Like everyone else, I was confident Cabrera could EASILY slide in and fill his role, with Mota/Betancourt being the 7th inning/rest day pitchers. None of that happened and its time to evaluate whether or not letting a reliable pitcher go - for any amount of money - was a good idea.
However, I slightly confused as to why you are ignoring Howry's split stats? Hes over a run better on the road then he is at the marginal hitters park. Compared to last year, his road ERA is nearly identical while his home ERA sparkles - pitching in one of the best pitchers parks. All that said, I think hes been a pretty effective pitcher this season, and given the consistent high leverage situations he has pitched in, hindsight would tell me that was an alright "overpayment". Once in a while those things exist IMO.

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

A one-run difference in one season's ERA splits is not all that significant. Here's an excerpt of BP's up-to-date reliever rankings. This is based on the WXRL stat, which is heavily weighted for "leverage."

46.    Joe Nelson
47.    Taylor Tankersley
48.    Mike Timlin
49.    Bob Wickman
50.    Hector Carrasco
51.    Jose Capellan
52.    Chad Bradford
53.    Joe Kennedy
54.    Latroy Hawkins
55.    Matt Thornton
56.    Bob Howry
57.    Mike Stanton
58.    Jonathan Broxton
59.    Mark Lowe
60.    Trever Miller

So there's some interesting things in this list, the main one being that several recognizable names are mixed in with many, many guys that you've probably never heard of (I haven't, anyway), another blunt reminder of how pointless it is to try to predict who the good relievers will be next season.

Another is that Howry is ranked #56 for the season, and while I agree that you have to overpay ... do you have to overpay a guy who would be the third best reliever on several teams and the best one on almost none? (And remember, this stat DOES take high-leverage situations into account, so that's not a bonus.)

I think it's a good point that last season we had three relievers who got virtually all of the high-leverage innings, and we let two of them go. That could have been a problem this season, but it wasn't -- not while we were still in the race. Our problem in the first half, remember, was that we couldn't even deliver the lead to the 8th or 9th innnings, between the bad middle relief and the constant need to use it, fueled by by defenders shortening every outing by a starter.

by Jay on Sep 21, 2006 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

How quickly we forget...you nailed it in your last paragraph,,,the starting pitching took a dive for awhile there (CC aside) and the infield defense has been bad pretty much all year.

Problem was, when the starters finally started to right themselves (sometime around JJ's departure if I remember correctly) The bullpen's glaring weakness came through and pretty much crushed any chance of getting back into contention.

The defense's inability to field was a problem all year.

by hans on Sep 21, 2006 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I'm trying to figure out HOW you are bashing Howry who being ranked #56 would be the second best reliever on 25% of teams and the 3rd best on EVERY team! He is in some MIGHTY fine company too! Stanton and Broxton right behind him, those are two of the most dominant set up men in the league right now.
However, my comment on overpaying, was based on hindsight, as I mentioned, I was thrilled with this bullpen starting the season.
Just some questions:
How many Indians rank above him?
How many Indians rank in the top 100?
How many of the top 100 remained in the top 100 from last season?

As for the players on this list, it appears as though only Thornton is the only pitcher on this list I haven't heard of. There are names on this list (Tankersley, Capellan, Lowe and Broxton) who have VERY bright futures in the majors.
What I don't understand is what you are attempting to say with your last paragraph. Yes we lost those 2 relievers, that means we had to replace them. That means moving pitchers up the pecking order. That means guys who weren't normally involved in close games became MAJOR contributors. So while the 8th/9th innings haven't been a problem...AS I SAID ALL ALONG having Rhodes in the 8th and a slew of others in the 6th/7th would have VASTLY improved this team.

by Brandini on Sep 21, 2006 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

What I'm TRYING to FIGURE out is how YOU decide what WORDS to capitalize.

Is there ANY method to THIS madness?

by afh4 on Sep 21, 2006 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I like it, it makes me picture him yelling random words while dictating the rest in a normal tone. Kind of a psychotic Christopher Walken or something.

by hans on Sep 21, 2006 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I don't really think this is very hard to figure out. Brandini is Stephen A. Smith. Could it be more obvious?

by dctribefan on Sep 24, 2006 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Yes we lost those 2 relievers, that means we had to replace them. That means moving pitchers up the pecking order. That means guys who weren't normally involved in close games became MAJOR contributors.

What I was implying is that the sliding-pecking-order argument can only slide down so far. We had eight quality relievers on the team last year, and none of them was really a long reliever. In an average bullpen any one of them probably would have become a 7th/8th inning guy, so it was reasonable to assume that we wouldn't have trouble filling those roles this year.

I mean, look again at those 2005 numbers. You telling me that anyone would have thought we didn't have someone to pitch the 6th and 7th innings this year? You'd have been laughed at had you suggested that in March.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I completely agree with you...I actually stated that I was excited about this bullpen (please read my posts). That is why my ORIGINAL post stated.
I think I have used the word hindsight 100 times in the last two days.

by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

We've read your posts. They're confusing.

by dgcambridge on Sep 22, 2006 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Ask and I'll give you the answers.

by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I put my comment at the end. Right after Ryan suggested we stop discussing it.

by dgcambridge on Sep 22, 2006 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Next time, try not to have Micheal Moore as your mentor...Thats like watching FoxNews for election coverage!

by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

There's an article in the THT today that's the first part of a multi-part series looking at the Tribe's failures this season. Today's piece looks at the bullpen.

by APV on Sep 20, 2006 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Thanks for the link. Here's the cliff notes for those not interested in reading the article: The Indians bullpen wasn't good this year.

This whole thread is famously amusing.

by Thommy on Sep 20, 2006 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I think most of the commenters on this site conistently ignore counter-factual scenarios when looking at this move and others. That is to say, we should not compare what Coco has done this year to what Michaels has done, but rather, what Coco WOULD have done if he had stayed here to what Michaels has done.
If he's here, he's more comfortable hitting in the no. 2 hole, playing with his friends, and without the Boston media. Maybe he gets hurt, maybe he doesn't, but there's no reason to believe he would do anything less than the .300 16-80-100-20 he did the two prior years.

Coco got to balls that Michaels does not. Michaels has no speed, and does not hit for average or power. With the emergence of Kouz, Marte may not end up being essential to this team. Meanwhile, stoppach is no better than Bard, and Mota is clearly worse than Riske and/or Rhodes.

I'm not a Shapiro-Hater, but right now, this transaction is NOT a success, and not even a wash.

by Alvaro Espinoza on Sep 20, 2006 12:50 PM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

How does that saying? OK I'll bite ...

Even if Coco stayed here and didn't get hurt, his numbers probably (not absolutely) would have dropped. His last 1-2 seasons numbers were way above what we he was projected to be. While that was nice for us and him (paycheck$$), I don't think he could have kept it up whether he was comfortable (in Cle) or not (in Bos). We did what most stock guys do, sell high. I believe he is better than he has shown this year. But not as good as his last season with us.

And while Kouz has been tremendous this year, there is no way the FO will project him to be over Marte unless Marte completely and utterly tanks next season. Why do you think they are trying Kouz and 1B and LF? Because Marte is our 3B for the next few years barring injury. He is only 21-22 while Kouz is 25-26. Yes Kouz is a slightly better hitter at the moment, but Marte projects to be a better hitter given his age.

by talonk on Sep 20, 2006 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Marte our 3b for the next few years? Maybe, maybe not. If he still is hitting .230, with an OPS of .600 next June 1, or July 1, and Kouz's OPS is over 1.000 again in Buffalo, I could see them changing places. Not saying or hoping it will happen. I'm just not confident yet that Marte will learn to adjust to good ML pitching.

by plato on Sep 20, 2006 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Sorry, Marte's OPS currently is .700, not .600.

by plato on Sep 20, 2006 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Marte has about 210 career plate appearances in the big leagues. What happens if we split them down the middle?

First 105: .126/.206/.179 = 385 OPS
Last 105: .281/.337/.521 = 857 OPS

Could there be a trend here?

by Jay on Sep 20, 2006 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I was just thinking about the "Tuff Love" A-Rod is now getting in NY, and the potentially HUGE production / salary ratio Marte is beginning to yield, and I started feelin' pretty good.

by homelytourist on Sep 20, 2006 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Well, the statistics Michaels and Crisp put up this season actually happened. We can play what-if games till doomsday, but we'll never agree on on what either would do, because no one would know for sure.

Coco got to balls that Michaels does not. Michaels has no speed, and does not hit for average or power.

OK, the Indians traded Coco's Speed and one year of David Riske for Andy Marte. I can live with that.

by Ryan on Sep 20, 2006 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

There is no doubt that the Crisp trade hurt the tribe this year. I do not see how one can argue against this. It was known from the beginning that it would, and this was my main argument against it. In hindsight, the tribe sucked (for reasons that can be debated - cough bullpen), so it did not really cost them a chance at the postseason which was my big fear. So for 06 the trade was a wash, but for reasons that none of us wanted (the tribe just plain sucking).

So does it help the tribe going forward? Even with my still current doubts about Marte, he is marginally more valuable than Crisp is as of today. Kouzmanoff could man 3B, but defense is not what this team needs to skimp on going forward. I'd have to say it does help the tribe going forward, but really not by very much. Hopefully Marte can prove me wrong.

I still would not have done it, but I can understand why they did it. Previouis posters in this thread have made the correct argument that comparing Crisp and Michaels stats this year is not the only affect on the team for this year. Crisp is way better defensively as a LF, and the bullpen losses were hurtful, and the gains (Mota) were even more hurtful. These cannot be ignored.

by oxforddave on Sep 20, 2006 2:35 PM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I think Shapiro knew how well the Tigers would overperform this year, and this is thus the greatest trade ever made.

by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 21, 2006 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

One of the key sweeteners in the overall swap for the Indians was performance against lefties -- Sizemore and Crisp were a total outmachine at the top of the lineup last year, .296 and .305 OBP against lefties respectively.

This year, Sizemore actually has been worse in terms of OBP, with an unbelievable .283., but Michaels has provided a huge boost at .360. Crisp actually improved this part of his game (.325) but almost every other part of his hitting has collapsed, including a truly miserable 695 OPS against righties.

Crisp was a bad complementary fit for this club. Michaels has underperformed and has been injured, but has still been more valuable for this team than Crisp would have been.

I would also add -- we traded Crisp at the absolute peak of his value. By a lot.

by Jay on Sep 20, 2006 3:25 PM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

i think (in hindsight) that it was a mistake to assume Micheals could be an everday player. Michaels has given us exactly what I expected and hoped for against LH pitching and I can live with and even be somewhat happy with a platoon of Choo and Micheals next year.

To me the deal still favors us for the long-run but definetly put us back this year, not so much because of the Crisp for Micheals factor, but for the Mota factor. To Wedge's credit they pulled back on his use much sooner than Wedge tends to make changes (Peralta in the three hole for example), but the hole that he created in his inability to be effective (plus the injuries to Bentencourt and Miller) added up to disaster. Danny Graves,,,yuck, this is where Wedge and Shapiro made a mistake, A. Thinking that he was a better alt. than Davis and B. Sticking with him as long as they did.

On a side note, I love this thread, I don't necessarily agree with many of the posts but this is actually a pretty good argument going on here.

by hans on Sep 20, 2006 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I somehow knew this thread would take off, just like every other Crisp thread since the trade was made.

Jay/Ryan, next time a diary is posted about this, maybe you can guys can link all the old threads so we can stop repeating ourselves. [/sarc]

by talonk on Sep 20, 2006 3:36 PM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I think that blaming the failures of this season on the Crisp/Marte & Michaels/Rhodes deals is kind of shortsighted. A LOT of things went wrong for this team this year -- Boone continued to suck, Peralta came back to earth, Jason Johson somehow managed to pitch in 14 games, Cabrera lost whatever he had at the beginning of last year, Carmona threw a fat pitch to David Ortiz & was never right in the head after that, Miller's elbow fell apart, whatever. It seems like a pretty futile exercise to point to one trade & say that's the cause of our fourth-place finish this year, especially since the trade will likely pay some pretty good dividends long-term.

The funny part is, lots of Boston fans think the Crisp trade sucked too.

by zempf on Sep 20, 2006 3:42 PM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I'm flabbergasted by how many people are evaluating this trade using the words "Rhodes, Riske, Mota, Crips, and Michaels" while hardly uttering the word "Marte."

Seriously, evaluating this trade for 2006? Whoever said that was the way to evaluate a trade? Bill Russell was traded from the St. Louis Hawks for two guys who helped the Hawks win a chmapionship that year. Then Russell started his run in Boston. Trades can rarely be evaluated on a one year basis especially when extreme youth is involved.

Let me get on the record as saying Andy Marte, within the next four years, is going to make the Red Sox Nation want to run Theo out of town.

To requote Jay, Marte's ML ABs:
First 105: .126/.206/.179 = 385 OPS
Last 105: .281/.337/.521 = 857 OPS

I don't care if he doesn't look scrappy, isn't 29 years old and getting his first chance, and takes a while to get going at each level. He's just a highly touted prospect which every major source says has out of this world talent and since coming to the majors he's settled in and has started bringing the goods. He even plays ok defense! He's even gotten big hits when it counted a few times!

Awesome. I am pumped. Andy Marte for ROY 2007 (he'll be eligible, right?).

by afh4 on Sep 20, 2006 4:20 PM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I think a position player has to have fewer than 150 at bats and /or 50 games going into a season to qualify; someone else 'round here probably knows for sure.

Marte was a damn fine acquisition.

by homelytourist on Sep 20, 2006 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Nope, he's already over the 130 AB limit this year, not even counting what he had last year. Anyway, whenever I think ROY, I think of guys like Bob Hamelin and Pat Listach.

by zempf on Sep 20, 2006 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Good point. Marte for second AL 3B in ASG!

That's not as much fun to say or chant.

Btw, anyone obsessing over this BP thing should really check out the THT article alluded to earlier:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/where-it-went-wrong-for-the-tribe-part-1/

Yeah the stats are a little bit new-fangled but Rhodes gets more or less thrown out the window as does the idea of keeping the bullpen together as the best option.

It's not THT's best work but it's interesting and Indians related. Scott Sauerbeck actually gets fingered as one of the biggest mistakes.

by afh4 on Sep 20, 2006 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Feels a lot like hindsight being 20:20 and all that...

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Sep 20, 2006 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Yeah, but that's all anyone really has for bullpens right? Anyone claiming to know how to put together a bullpen in February and March, year after year, is either uninformed or about to embark on a very succesful career as a GM.

I guess the more interesting stuff is just how bad the BP is. Like our best relievers' PRC/IPs not matching the average for the twins and tigers' entire bullpens.

by afh4 on Sep 20, 2006 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I'm more interested in part 2, considering that everyone knows our bullpen sucks this year. The teaser basically implies that everyone but 1B on the Indians has been subpar this year, which I'm interested in seeing.

by zempf on Sep 20, 2006 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

hey, does anyone know if coco put on any concerts at fenway this year? i think his rapping in 2005 was more important than most people realize.

speaking of ex-indians who totally rock the mic: has anyone heard broussard's latest single since being dealt to seattle?

it's real slow, real sad, goes like this:

i hope eduardo remembers my face
shin-soo choo f'in sucks a.

mark shapiro never gave me a chance
come on, baby, you can do more than dance.

cleveland gave me a steamer. (repeat 3x).

It's probably the worst song ever.

by thetravishalffull on Sep 20, 2006 5:35 PM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Between the truly bizarre capitalization, total lack of perceptible logic on one person's part (Arthur Rhodes "good" road ERA is higher than his overall was last year and yet we argue that he is "phenomenal"?) and these brilliant lyrics, this may go down as the best thread of the season.

Wait 'til next year... or something like that

by Brad D on Sep 21, 2006 5:33 PM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Thanks for your input...I'm sure glad that Indians fans have such an incredible viewpoint...Whats your THEORY on life?

I hate people with pointless posts!

by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Coco is most definitely not irrelevent.

</end topic>

by Ryan on Sep 21, 2006 9:58 PM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

No, I think I've got it now. It just took me a long long time. Here's your argument, sarcasm-free (seriously):

We had many excellent relievers in 2005. We kept several of them, and they performed worse.
We traded away two, Rhodes and Riske. If we had kept them, our bullpen might have been better, even if Riske was only used in low stress situations.
Rhodes might have been excellent in Cleveland in 2006. The number used to back this up: his current road ERA.
Futhermore, Rhodes (and Riske?) may have served as a mentor improving some of the other relievers. The evidence: better performance from last year's relievers when Rhodes was around.
Dropping Betancourt to lower leverage situations might have improved his performance.
Most likely, none of this would have improved the W-L record.
All of the above are maybes, and no one can prove that it's impossible.

To that I say: OK, I can't prove that it's impossible. Nor am I convinced.

by dgcambridge on Sep 22, 2006 10:00 AM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

There was also an argument about Howry that was left out. But I don't really want to get back into it again.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Sep 22, 2006 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

To all of that, I say, "dont quit your day job, but possibly pursue a job in being a comic".

We moved everyone up the food chain, "they all performed worse". 2 + 2 is ???
What was the ERA of the 3 or 4 pitchers whom Riske would have made worthless? 5+? 6+? Did Riske perform better? Would that have improved the overall stability of the bullpen?
The numbers to back up Rhodes is his PREVIOUS track record with the team, his statistics in the same role with the Mariners and his road ERA this season. Have you ever heard of Micheal Moore? You leave out stats as quickly as he does.
RHODES may have served as a mentor due to his similar "stuff" (you also need a reading class). I backed this up with Betancourts AWFUL seasonS without Rhodes, not just the one season, stop leaving out facts. Riske could have been a positive clubhouse presence...You know, "veteran leadership".
Betancourts best career season was when he was mostly out of high pressure situations. 2 + 2 is ???
There is a possibility it could have affected the W - L record, however its not something I got into. I think ANY positivity in the bullpen would have increased the W - L record, "but only because I believe that one of the most difficult things to do as a young team is win when people expect you to win." Getting younger CLEARLY didn't help this team!
All of the above were my opinions. In the past I have admitted when my opinion was wrong. Countering my opinions with, "but no, I am not convinced" is probably the least classy and least educated thing a person could do.

x + y = z because I don't like it and I heart Shapiro...Then ask yourself, what good has he done for this franchise?

by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

It dunno... it sounds like you're saying, "I'm a guy who admits when he's wrong, and I since don't feel like admiting anything here... I must not be wrong." And if that doesn't make any sense to you, well, now you know how I've also felt in trying to read through this thread.
Also, I though dgcambridge's remarks were as polite as could be. His remarks are a moment of clarity amidst all this noise.

by homelytourist on Sep 22, 2006 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

So Betancourt for Cy Young?

by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

nah, Arthur Rhodes

by homelytourist on Sep 22, 2006 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

hey its an interesting theory, (the effect of roles in the bullpen one), I don't know why people were having trouble with that, If we all agree with the idea of leverage as the innings rise.

One of the best things about this site is that people are quick to point out off-based hindsight remarks as simply complaining about things after the fact.

But if we are going to try and learn from this season than we are going have put that stuff aside and use hindsight which you admit to doing in this case. Heck, haven't heard anyone else take a try at explaining without simply stating that old chestnut "building a bullpen is a crapshoot" response. Thanks but, for such an important part of the game there has to be a better answer than just throwing darts at a board.

by hans on Sep 22, 2006 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Thanks Hans...Finally someone response isn't, "well look at Rhodes 5+ era" or "Betancourt is a great reliever, look whats he done for one season in his career - at age 30".

by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

I wrote a very long reply to this but, bah, its gotten stale. I really was trying to play nice.

Your post is entertaining as it stands, and I'll wait patiently for the next theory. I guess I just heart Shapiro. (or wait, is it you that supposedly hearts Shapiro? Man, I do need a reading class.)

by dgcambridge on Sep 22, 2006 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

Maybe we should change this diary title to "coco irrationality"

July 28, 2006 - The Andy Marte Era officially begins. Proud to be the unofficial Andy Marte Apologist.

by woodsmeister on Sep 22, 2006 3:29 PM EDT reply actions

Re: coco irrelevancy

yes who gives a crap about Coco now, All FO make mistakes. look at Boston, and they have five times the money to spend and they will be watching the play off with us.

Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2006 8:00 PM EDT reply actions