Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Big 12 Football: Beyond The Boxscore Bar-right-arrows

Marte

Todd_tiny by SpringTrainingFun on

This excerpt from Paul Hoynes of the PD.

Marte is out of options after this season. The Indians must keep him in the big leagues next year, trade him or risk losing him on waivers.

Scouts who have seen Marte with Class AAA Buffalo say he looks bored and isn't showing good bat speed. Marte opened this season as the Indians' starting third baseman.

"It's not something I'm prepared to talk about right now," said Tribe manager Eric Wedge, referring to projected infield moves. "We have some decisions to make this winter."

0 recs | Comment 175 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: Marte
If you assume that Peralta projects out as at least equivalent to Marte at third, it looks like a horserace between Marte at 3b & Cabrera at ss.  Thoughts?

by stuart dean on Aug 19, 2007 7:55 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: Marte
I think Asdrubal Cabrera is a long way from proving he's an equivalent option to Peralta, or Marte and Barfield, for that matter. Not that he can't be in the infield next year, but sheesh. He's been up for a week.

by fleerdon on Aug 19, 2007 9:02 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
I don't know why there isn't room for all of them to start the season.  For that matter, it's also not settled that Barfield -- 679 OPS in 1005 plate appearances -- is more worthy of a spot than Marte.

It's entire possible that Marte-Peralta-Cabrera would be the best configuration, both offensively and defensively.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 11:00 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Purely for defense, I'd go with Marte-Cabrera-Barfield. Barf is a much better 2B than Jhonny is SS.

by JulioBernazard on Aug 19, 2007 12:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Good point.  I didn't consider that specific combination because, for offensive reasons, we of course will not leave JP out of the picture.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 12:43 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Yeah, my alignment was for late-innings leads.

by JulioBernazard on Aug 19, 2007 12:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
I don't disagree, but I don't think you'll see Asdrubal shifting over and Jhonny exiting in those situations.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 1:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
He is along way away but the battle is also at least 6 months away...

by stuart dean on Aug 19, 2007 10:43 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: Marte
When I went back and read that thread yesterday from when Garko was promoted, the first thing that jumped out at me was the quote that "he was bored". Immediately Marte's current situation came to mind.

Now does Marte have any reason to be moping around? Hell no, he had an opportunity up here to shine and he stunk up the joint.

But for anyone who saw Marte during spring training down in Winter Haven, he looked liked the cockiest SOB around. Smiling after errors, terrible plate discipline, no effort during warmups...he was a man who had been annointed as our starting third baseman, and he certainly acted like it.

I think everyone shares some blame in this. Our organization for promoting a guy who hadn't proven himself. And Marte for developing too big an ego too soon.

I would've hoped that at some point this year, either Shap or someone would've gone down to Buffalo and had a heart-to-heart with Marte (plus interpreter if needed). Explaining that they understand why he's been dogging it, how they're partly to blame as well, and that if he gives 110% from here on out they'd be willing to give him some playing time come September.

Since Marte has become the black sheep of the organization, my guess is that never transpired. It'll be a shame if this situation doesn't work itself out.

by supermarioelia on Aug 19, 2007 12:02 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Marte
Without mentioning the unmentionable, having we seen this all before?
LeBron must GO!

by mauichuck on Aug 19, 2007 12:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Yup we have. Which is why I'm slightly concerned.

by supermarioelia on Aug 19, 2007 1:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
I still think Marte has the potential to be an above-average 3B in the major leagues.  Eventually it seems this will come down to a "how long can we wait for that day" scenario.  

I'm only speaking from anecdotal evidence, but the Indians organization seems to be very hands-on with their players in the sense that I would be surprised if someone hadn't approached Marte in the way you suggest.  

I must and do take your word for it in regards to Marte's ego.  I saw him once at a signing and to the passerby's eye he seemed very shy and overwhelmed with the crowd that showed up.  Perhaps this played a hand in the ego he developed.  I hope a simple humbling is all he needs, although his "bored" play at Buffalo suggests the contrary (that it's had a negative effect).

by nickjs21 on Aug 19, 2007 12:21 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
I hesitate to defend a guy for being "bored," but after seeing what Garko has done this season, I'm a lot more sympathetic than I would have been a year ago.

Marte has had almost 3000 plate appearances in the minors, most of it outstanding.  He's coming up on 1200 plate appearances in Triple-A alone.  He certainly has been given every expectation that he was "about to be" a major leaguer for two years running now.

So I don't really blame him for being bored.  How would you feel if you proved ready for promotion and then waited around for two years?  It's not like he's someone like Brad Snyder, who's never really done well at Triple-A.  He checked that task off two year ago.

Hell, if Ryan Goleski can complain about not being in the majors, certainly Andy Marte can.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 1:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
What's his current line at Buffalo again?  Oh yeah, here it is: .250 .284 .436

Baseball, like all sports, is about how you're performing now not last year or the year before.

If Marte truly wants to play in the big leagues he better start hitting  like a big league player now.  Right now he's, at best, a AAAA'er.

LeBron must GO!

by mauichuck on Aug 19, 2007 1:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Marte now:  .250 .284 .436

Garko a year ago:   .247 .352 .420

Garko was also two years older and a bad first baseman -- and didn't have Marte's track record as a hitter.  Marte is, by his manager's assessment, an excellent third baseman.

So what you're claiming here was simply not the case where Garko was concerned.  Go ahead and acknowledge that, and we can move on.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 1:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
You got it.

The Garko thing is way outside of two standard deviations.  That is the probability of a AAA .250 hitter hitting over .300 in the majors is highly unlikely - much less than 1% - but it happens.  It's just not the way to bet.

To expect Marte to perform well outside the norm would be very risky.

LeBron must GO!

by mauichuck on Aug 19, 2007 1:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Yeah, but it was also Garko's make-up that helped him regain his form after he stumbled through AAA, something Marte seems to lack.
c'mon now dawg....

by GermanysTribeFan on Aug 19, 2007 2:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Marte has always been considered a guy with great makeup.  You don't get to be the #1 prospect in the Braves organization without having great makeup.  It's one of the reasons he was promoted so aggressively through the minors.

I won't compare him to Garko, who was considered one of the top makeup guys around, period, but Marte has not been lacking in this category.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 2:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
"Garko didn't have Marte's track record as a hitter."

I disagree, and I think you need to acknowledge the reverse. Garko hit >.300 every stop in the minors before his substandard AAA performance. Marte hasn't topped .280 ever. Garko came in with the better track record. It is not like Marte struggling for half a season like Garko did. Marte has struggled for 2 full seasons now.

Average isn't everything, but it is important.

by oxforddave on Aug 19, 2007 2:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Okay, as long as we (a) pretend that batting average is really important, and (b) pretend that age/level is not at all important.

Since both of those statements are totally, totally false, we know that Marte had a much, much more impressive track record as a hitter than Garko.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 2:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Operative term being "had".  

Right now he doesn't look like he's ready for the major leagues.  And as you well know next year is make or break.  I don't see the sense of urgency on Mare's part that I'd like to see before he gets promoted.

LeBron must GO!

by mauichuck on Aug 19, 2007 2:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Is winter league an almost certainty for him at this point? Because there's no way between two weeks at Buffalo, a month here playing in spot duty, and spring training can he possibly show us enough (or show himself enough) to push his way onto next year's 25-man.

by supermarioelia on Aug 19, 2007 2:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Well, it won't be in Puerto Rico.
"We've talked about it so many times," Wedge said, "but this is a special group."

by CarnegieAndOntario on Aug 19, 2007 2:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Again, why is this the opposite of what everybody said about Garko, who had less going for him?

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 2:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Because he's awesome now... duh.
"We've talked about it so many times," Wedge said, "but this is a special group."

by CarnegieAndOntario on Aug 19, 2007 2:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
I don't know about everybody re: Garko.

All I'm saying is this: it's unreasonable to expect a average AAA hitter be an average ML hitter the next year.  That's all.

LeBron must GO!

by mauichuck on Aug 19, 2007 2:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Generally, I would agree.  But again, Marte has a stellar track record.  Guys who find success very young in the minors tend to come around eventually.  Franklin Gutierrez being a great example -- how quickly we forget how much he struggled, and for how long.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 2:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
But then again, I think that Rich Ankiel is gonna be a plus ML power hitter - but then I'm a romantic.
LeBron must GO!

by mauichuck on Aug 19, 2007 2:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
First, I think that "everybody wanted Garko" is a little revisionist on your part. We debated it pretty extensively, with a lot of opinions on both sides.

That said, if your premise is that Marte is every bit as deserving of irrational favoritism as Garko and that the fact that there's an undercurrent set against him suggests ... something awry ... then I'm inclined to agree. Casey Blake has had a good year, but he's no long-term solution at third. We should be Marte's biggest backers. What explains that?

Subtle racism would be the cynical answer. Ryan Garko is white, personable, intelligent, a Stanford grad, well-spoken, built like a refrigerator, and had the whole ex-catcher thing going on. Andy Marte is a not-that-talkative Latino and also he's a tremendous athlete who's struggling at his natural position. No matter how much creedence you give to the racism, there's definitely a sense that Garko succeeded DESPITE the odds being against him, whereas Marte is failing even though the odds seem to be in his favor.

Which is all hogwash, of course. Garko is also a superior athlete, albeit a different sort of athleticism than Marte's. Andy Marte may be an eminently likeable personage -- how the hell would I know? And it's thoroughly unfair to expect Marte to be a productive major leaguer yet. We're essentially blaming him for being part of the 99.99% of major leaguers who aren't Miguel Cabrera. But you asked.

by fleerdon on Aug 19, 2007 3:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Said a lot that I was thinking about.

I don't know where you get that Garko is the better athlete.

I think the real answer is that even though you'd think most readers here are savvy to (1) batting average, (2) sample size, (3) age/level effects, (4) peripherals, we're still seeing fundamental attribution error here.  If a guy does a bad job at age 21, in a handful of AB's, even sophisticated fans have trouble believing in the strong fundamentals of years of minor league data.  And on the other side, if a guy has a good batting average and racks up some RBI for a few weeks, it's undying love for years and years -- even if he's older and the peripherals are not great.

Basically, people still allow their gut instincts to be informed by the Idiot Stats, rather than by their brains.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 5:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
See the real trick in successful GM'ing is finding the guy who's gonna be a good to great player and doesn't have the great stats.  

Picking Phil Hughes as a great player is easy - all of the scouterazzi (love that BTW) had him as a potential AS.  But nobody - nobody - had Mike Piazza as a future AS.  That's where a GM makes his money - finding that gem that everybody overlooked.

By the same token a great GM knows when a guy's future is less than his numbers predict.  

So latching onto a guy like Marte is a no-brainer - everybody had him as a future AS.  It's knowing when they're wrong is the trick.

LeBron must GO!

by mauichuck on Aug 19, 2007 5:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
But nobody - nobody - had Mike Piazza as a future AS.

Including the team that drafted him in the 63rd round, purely as a favor to a family friend.  (Not the best example perhaps.)

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 5:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Just wanna to show that there's no "certain locks" either plus or minus - in baseball.  It's the hardest sport to scout and predict.  

But scouts who have great instincts and can spot the gems from the posers are worth their weight in gold.

And yeah - Tommy knew all along that Mike was the real deal.  Just ask him.

LeBron must GO!

by mauichuck on Aug 19, 2007 5:34 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
"Garko is also a superior athlete." As compared to the rest of the planet, not to Marte in particular. Point being, the "changing positions against the odds" thing is bunk. It's cool that Ryan turned out to be a decent first baseman, but he was already athletic enough to be a fully functioning baseball player. It's not like he was Jim Abbott out there.

I don't hear "lackadaisical" attached to many white players in general. I wonder if there's just a cultural rift there. Maybe Latino kids' dads don't chew them out after the game for not running out an infield pop-up. Grimacing after an error is a learned behavior, too; what if Dominican kids razz each other for taking mistakes too seriously as opposed to not seriously enough? I'm just throwing crap out there, but my deeper point is the same as yours: We could, if we chose, perceive the identical fact pattern quite differently.

by fleerdon on Aug 19, 2007 5:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Garko was actually known as a particularly bad athlete among draft prospects.  He was one of the best college hitters in the nation, and a catcher, and he still made it to the 4th round.  The scouterazzi didn't like his tools, even though everyone said he would hit.

I don't hear "lackadaisical" attached to many white players in general.

We don't have a lot of non-white managers or GM's -- or coaches.

Reversing the perspective a bit, I think you could say that white players have a peculiar ingrained desire to impress each other by showing how upset they are over a mistake, running hard for no reason whatsoever (like out to the field) just to show how hard they run all the time.

Certain behaviors and body language will have one meaning within one cultural group, and another meaning -- or no meaning -- in another group.  Garko's performance cannot be distinguished meaningfully from Marte's, but their behaviors are perceived differently.

I think this goes in both directions, too.  I think Wedge is impressed by certain players' behaviors that aren't really indicative of anything, other than it's what he likes to see.  How else to explain the way he regards Blake and Mastny, among others?

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 6:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
You read stats differently than I.

       Marte          Garko
age BA OPS level   BA OPS level
18  .281 .831 A       N/A
19  .285 .841 A+      N/A
20  .269 .889 AA   .368 1.010 Stanford
21  .275 .878 AAA  .314  .995 Stanford
22  .261 .773 AAA  .402 1.185 Stanford
23  .252 .719 AAA  .330  .950 A+/AA
24     N/A         .303  .882 AAA
25     N/A         .247  .772 AAA
ML  .199 .614      .302 .861  

The ML are major league career starts.

At what age did Marte have a higher OPS? Who looks like they had one blip in their record, and who looks like a sustained downturn?

I grant that Marte's 19-21 stats are quite impressive. But do we punish Garko for going to college (Stanford nonetheless)? It's not like he was struggling.

Furthermore, BA does matter. Marte's problem is that he cannot square up the ball from his long swing.  

I'll say it again, I find the Marte excuses to be similar to the Crowe excuses of indiansfan.

by oxforddave on Aug 19, 2007 10:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
The first thing that struck me is that Marte's Age 21 is nearly the same as Garko's Age 24, and Marte's Age 22 is nearly the same as Garko's Age 25.  Doesn't look as bad for Marte looking at it that way!

I have no idea how to compare college stats with minor league stats for a given age, so I don't know what to do with those numbers other than ignore them for the moment.

by jds16 on Aug 19, 2007 11:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Oh my God, Dave.  Did you really just compare Marte's stats in Triple-A to Garko's performance against amateur 20-year-old pitchers while wielding an aluminum bat?

Even a top college program is facing competition that is Low-A caliber at best.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 11:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
I was just giving an age to age comparison. I could have skipped the stanford years as not eligible for comparison. But then there would only be two years of track record for Garko.

You can ignore the college stats if you want to, even though they were equal or better than recent major conference college players like Tulowitzki, Zimmerman, Beau Mills (while at Fresno St.).

Maybe we should ignore the major league stats also. Maybe we should ignore everything but Marte's 20 and 21-yr old seasons and keep dreaming.  

 

by oxforddave on Aug 20, 2007 10:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Of course we should not ignore his age 18 and 19 seasons, which were also terrific.  It is exactly the four years of outstanding performance and advanced progression that make such a strong case for his eventual success.

Just for fun, let's go ahead and look at those major league stats.  He's been called up six times -- three times in 2005, once in 2006, and twice this season (start of the season and off the DL).  How has he started off each callup?

June 2005 -- 1 for 14
July 2009 -- 0 for 9
Sept 2005 -- 1 for 13
July 2006 -- 1 for 13
April 2007 -- 1 for 13
May 2007 -- 2 for 11

Lord knows this is nothing to be proud of, but again, this is just confirming what we always knew about the guy.  Whatever his strengths, he's not going to hit the ground running.  Take it for granted.

What about a little further out?

June 2005 -- 500 OPS, 52 PA
July 2006 -- 346 OPS, 45 PA
April 2007 -- 553 OPS, 41 PA

Again, slow starter, nothing to be proud of.  But what happpens after he gets 45 PA?

August 2006 -- 828 OPS, 133 PA

That was the one time in Marte's career that he's been given the chance to get past those first 45-or-so PA in the majors.  I don't know if this proves a damned thing -- and if it does, if it's something good about Marte.  I only know that it makes me want to see what he can do given some time to settle in.

by Jay on Aug 21, 2007 1:49 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't follow the comparison!
Hello oxforddave,

Are you referring to the OF/2B excuses I speculated for Crowe last year as a possibility for his difficulties?  I'm not sure I see how the excuses for Marte and the excuses for Crowe to be that similar - they are two different kinds of prospects on two totally different paths - Marte's prospect status continues to take a hit due to his lackluster performance at AAA, while Crowe's status has taken a hit, but is beginning to rebound a bit thanks to his play over the last two months, similar to what he was doing at High-A.  Plus, Marte was highly-touted as an International signing into the Atlanta system; Crowe was highly touted coming out of the Univ. of Arizona.

I don't see where the two are that similar, and as a result, I don't see where the excuses for them are that similar either.  Please elaborate - thanks!

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Aug 20, 2007 1:27 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I don't follow the comparison!
That's funny, I thought the main difference was that Crowe, going on 24, has never done anything as a pro ballplayer to suggest that he will eventually be a good major league hitter.

by Jay on Aug 20, 2007 1:34 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I don't follow the comparison!
Crowe only wishes he could hit 8 HR at age 23.  Let alone the .383 average, the .12 walk rate, the 65 SB ... I feel faint.

by Jay on Aug 20, 2007 1:43 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Another notable difference, which is all the
more reason why I don't see how the excuses for the two are that similar.  Crowe still hasn't made it, but is rebounding a bit to at least have some value.  Marte is stagnating at AAA; whether he'll make the impact Garko has made, despite struggling a bit in AAA, only time will tell, but I have my doubts, just because he's been so streaky during his time at the ML level and at AAA.  

Plus, Garko didn't allow the ML opportunity to slip through his fingers, either in 2006 or in 2007, whereas Marte did this year.  

Just my 2 cents.  :-)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Aug 20, 2007 8:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Another notable difference, which is all the
Sorry indiansfan, the comment was in jest as Jay always smacks down your Crowe excuses. Personally, I am not a believer in Crowe or Marte, but one or both of you guys may be right in the long run. I'd bet against it though.  

by oxforddave on Aug 20, 2007 10:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That makes sense now - thanks!
Hello oxforddave,

Now I get it - LOL!  :-)

Heck, even I can't support the Crowe in CF vs. LF/RF theory now, not after he was in CF all of the first half and did next-to-nothing offensively, then when ahead and is hitting more like he did in High-A in the second half, mostly playing CF, though I think he had a few appearances in the corner positions as well.

At the time, I was just trying to see if there was some correlation, but obviously now, there wasn't.

As for Marte, I sure hope this theory about that he's moreless just bored and/or pressing to try to get back to the MLs and can do similarly to what Garko did when he finally got a chance holds true, but like I said, Garko didn't let the opportunity slip through his fingers either time in 2006 or 2007, whereas Marte did this season after he was named the starting 3B.

Now, I don't think he shouldn't get another chance, but if he doesn't start showing signs of being more consistent and using the whole field more regularly the next time he's up here, then I have to start thinking he won't be a long-term piece of the puzzle, especially with the progression guys like Wes Hodges, Jared Goedert, and Beau Mills are making this year.  

Just my 2 cents.  :-)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Aug 21, 2007 11:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Hell no, he had an opportunity up here to shine and he stunk up the joint.

This is revisionist, bordering on idiotic.

Marte had all of 41 plate appearances, 13 starts at 3B, before he went down with an injury.  In what universe do you condemn a 23-year-old rookie after a rough couple of weeks?  He has not had an opportunity.  He's had less opportunity than Garko had at the same point, less than Barfield, less than BP, less than Ben f-ing Broussard.

Marte was sent down because of Blake's performance, not his own.  Of course his performance in Buffalo is disappointing, but how is it any different from Garko in 2006?  I mean, other than the fact that Garko had less of a track record and less defensive value and was two years older?

This talk about "black sheep" and "ego" is for the drama queens.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 12:53 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Revisionist....it sounds so...adult.

I have no idea what you're arguing here. That you think Marte should be given another chance at the major league level now? That you feel bad for the guy and understand his situation?

by supermarioelia on Aug 19, 2007 1:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
You wrote:

Hell no, he had an opportunity up here to shine and he stunk up the joint.

I'm arguing that that is a load of crap.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 1:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Fair enough, but I view any at-bats at the major league level as an opportunity. Not necessarily a fair indicator of future performance, but an opportunity nonetheless.

by supermarioelia on Aug 19, 2007 1:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
The context:  "Does Andy Marte have any reason to be moping around?  Hell, no -- he had an opportunity ..."

So you're now parsing words to the point where your original comment doesn't mean anything.

I don't think he has reason to be mad at anyone, but I do think, after what he has already achieved in the minors, that 41 plate appearances is not an "opportunity" to be thankful for.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 1:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
I can't believe we're talking this much about the one line in my post I felt least strongly about.

That's enough meta for me for one day.

by supermarioelia on Aug 19, 2007 1:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Then why didn't you just acknowledge that it was a careless and incorrect remark five comments ago?

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 1:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Marte has had 2 seasons to force his way on the tribe roster. AsCab did it in one season. Garko and Marte both were given shots without "earning it" in AAA last year. Garko performed in the majors and Marte did not.

by oxforddave on Aug 19, 2007 2:15 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
If we had an award for "least astute post of the week," this would get nominated.

Garko had a 710 OPS in April.  But you say "he performed."  By that point, Marte was on the DL and hasn't gotten another chance.

Cabrera did not "force his way" onto the roster.  That would imply huge numbers in Buffalo, which he didn't even have a chance to do.  There was an opening for him -- they felt confident he could be at least as good as Rouse and, at least against RHP, maybe as good as Barfield as well.

There is no reality-based measure by which Garko had done more, shown more or proven more than Marte.  I've been pimping AstroCab for a full year, but he too is not more accomplished than Marte.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 2:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
OK, let's quit dancing around it.  

I don't think that Andy Marte will ever make a substantial contribution to the Indians pennant hopes.  You think that he'll be insturmental in the Indians team development.  

We'll see.

LeBron must GO!

by mauichuck on Aug 19, 2007 2:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
No.  I don't make pronouncements like that.

What I think is that given everything we know about him, it would be unwise not to give him an extended tryout -- months, not days.  I think there is very little chance he can't manage a 775 OPS.  And I think the upside is huge -- for many years to come, and even just for next season.

PECOTA showed him with a 40% chance of developing into a star by 2010, and 20% a superstar.  On any team I'm running, we're giving him a nice long tryout.  That's all.

by Jay on Aug 19, 2007 2:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
I'm glad I won an award. I'm just disappointed that it would stand up to scrutiny.

Both Marte and Garko were given chances with the big league club last year, and this is what I was talking about. Marte hit .226/.287/.421/.708; Garko hit .292/.359/.470/.829. Despite this, Marte was handed 3B in spring training, and Garko barely made the team. Defensible, given their overall backgrounds, and defensive abilities.

Now Marte struggled (very limited stats) and then got hurt. Rehabbed in Buffalo, and still did not hit. Still got brought back to the big team. Wedge then preferred Blake/Garko to Marte/Blake. Marte got optioned. Still did not hit in Buffalo. Blake cooled down, Marte hit a little in Buffalo, but not enough. Last I checked Marte's stats were still worse than Brad Snyder's and Luis Rivas's.

Is there anything in this recap that is wrong?

All Marte has to do is hit .300 with some power in the minors for a month (a freaking single month), and he'd be back with the big team. He is given more leniency than anybody currently in the minors. But he just can't seem to do it.

I don't know. Maybe Bobby Cox and John Schuerholz knew something. Nahh, they are baseball idiots.

by oxforddave on Aug 20, 2007 10:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
hard to argue with that. I don't even think he has to hit that well for avg. if he would at least put up a decent slg or iso he'd be an option. but like you said, he hasn't even done that. I do find it hard to feel sorry for the guy, he certainly could be doing a better job at pushing for a spot on the MLB roster with the way Blake has struggled since the all-star break.

by hans on Aug 20, 2007 10:38 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
I have to admit, that is a pretty fair recap, in all respects.

The real mystery with Marte's performance isn't with his power (26 XBH coming off rehab) or average (nobody cares).  The real mystery is with his evaporating walk rate -- under .05 in Buffalo this year, over .11 for 2003-2006.

Marte is a work-the-count hitter.  His whole game keys around selectivity at the plate, and he just hasn't done it this year.

For me, it's an Occam's Razor question.  What is the simplest explanation for this development?

  • Marte lost the ability to be selective?
  • Marte is hurt?
  • Marte is bored?
  • Marte is frustrated?

I'll let you pick from any of the last three, but there is basically no precedent, ever, for a guy being extremely selective from ages 19 through 22, and then "losing it."  Guys lose lots of things -- bat speed, steroids, you name it -- but pitch selectivity is a highly specialized skill, and Marte clearly had it.  As Andrew noted, those four full seasons simply can't dismissed as a fluke.

That he could be hurt or bored or frustrated makes all the sense in the world.  That he could "lose" his ability to be selective doesn't make any sense.

So the simplest, and best, explanation is just this:  He's the same Andy Marte he was a year ago.  He's just a little hurt and/or bored and/or frustrated, and he hasn't had a chance to settle in.  Now, you might think he wasn't anything special a year ago, either.  That's fine.  But nothing he's done this season should have changed your opinion, one way or another.  For any player, you have to trust the track record more than the fluke seasona.

by Jay on Aug 21, 2007 2:12 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Jay, what are you doing making posts at 2:12 AM ?  When do you sleep ?

by SpringTrainingFun on Aug 21, 2007 2:21 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
Agreed. We just have slightly different interpretations of the track record. That is fine.

by oxforddave on Aug 21, 2007 8:03 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Marte
What's striking about the 2006 comparison of Marte and Garko in Cleveland is that the numbers they put up are probably deceptively similar.

ISO power (SLG - AVG):
Marte - .195
Garko - .178

ISO discipline (OBP-AVG):
Marte - .061
Garko - .067

K%
Marte - 23.2
Garko - 20.0

BB%
Marte - 7.3
Garko - 7.0

All remarkably similar.  Where the difference comes is in BABIP:

Marte - .264
Garko - .333

That .090 point difference in BABIP likely accounts for the .120 difference in OPS.  The question then is whether or not Marte's BIP data suggests some substantive reason why Marte's numbers are lower (or why Garko's higher - Garko's BABIP data this season is .357).

Here are their BIP numbers for 2006:
GB/FB:
Marte - 0.70
Garko - 1.03
LD%:
Marte - 17.5
Garko - 16.6
GB%:
Marte - 34.1
Garko - 42.4
FB%:
Marte - 48.4
Garko - 41.1
IFFB%:
Marte - 13.1
Garko - 8.1
HR/FB%:
Marte - 8.2
Garko - 11.3

I'm not an expert, but there are some fundamental differences here.  Marte is much more of a flyball hitter, which means he's likely to have a slightly lower BABIP than Garko (ground balls go for a higher average than fly balls).  What's hurting Marte though (and helping Garko) are the last two numbers.  Marte's 13.1 IFFB (13% of his flyballs are infield flys - almost automatic outs) is bad.  He's also not generating the HR/FB% one might hope for a power hitter.  

So...Marte's not going to turn into Garko, because he's a different kind of hitter.  But there's probably not any reason to think he could be just as good, if not better.  If he can figure out how to cut down on his infield flys (likely pitches he's getting fooled on) and/or drive a few more fly balls, his numbers would look a lot better.

by APV on Aug 21, 2007 4:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs