Lessons of 2006?

by peter m on Apr 15, 2008 10:07 AM EDT

Although it’s still pretty early in the season, it might be worth thinking about the 2006 Indians season and the lessons it holds for this year’s team. The 2005 team narrowly missed the playoffs, just as last year’s team narrowly missed the World Series. The 2006 team started the season with high expectations (like this year’s team) but never got going. What did we learn from that experience?

a. Bullpens are a black box (but a crucial one) – The 2005 bullpen was very good, but several of its key members left or were traded in the offseason. The 2006 bullpen was much less effective and really hurt the team’s chances. The 2008 bullpen isn’t as toxic as that one, although Bob Wickman was better in 2006 than Joe Borowski has been so far this year. The Indians need to get the bullpen straightened out if they’re to avoid a repeat of the 2006 implosion.

b. Don’t stick too long with a faltering starter: Jason Johnson was the 5th starter for the 2006 Indians. He was consistently ineffective, but the Tribe stuck with him for weeks, which undermined the bullpen and led to numerous discouraging losses. By the time Jeremy Sowers replaced him, the Indians’ season was stagnating. The Indians can’t wait too long on Paul Byrd if they want to avoid a repeat of 2006.

c. The bottom of the lineup matters. In 2006, the bottom portion of the Indians line up was not strong, often featuring journeymen Aaron Boone, Todd Hollandsworth, Ramon Vasquez, Joe Inglett and struggling rookies (Gutierrez, Marte, etc.), which made pitching to the lineup as a whole easier. So far in 2008, a similar pattern has emerged (with Blake, Gutierrez and Michaels hitting poorly). Those guys need to hit better (or the Indians need to replace them) or their offense will continue to stagnate.

d. Defense is important. The 2006 Indians had various defensive problems, including weaknesses in the middle infield, poor outfield throwing arms, and Martinez’s struggles throwing out runners. Those problems didn’t disappear in 2007, but the team improved defensively. Statistically, the Indians defense this year is ranked about the same as the 2007 team. But, defensive problems have again hurt the Tribe, notably weak play at 3rd, some problems behind the plate, and some weak outfield play (especially in left). The Indians need to play strong defense if they’re to contend; they rely on pitching to win, and that means defense. They have to be strong defensively and may need to replace players like Blake and the left field platoon to do that.

It’s a long season, and patience is a virtue, but up to a point. So, while it’s early, the Indians front brain trust can’t wait forever to adjust. Hopefully, they've learned the lessons of the season of Jason Johnson, Aaron Boone and Guillermo Mota!!

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

rabble rabble rabble

by afh4 on Apr 15, 2008 10:56 AM EDT 0 recs

a. The bullpen imploded in 2007 too. Remember Odberto and F-Cab?

b. Lee sucked donkey balls for a while in 2007 too, as did Sowers.

c. The bottom of the lineup was positively frigid last year. Remember Marte, Barfield and Dellucci?

d. I’m not seeing any difference between this year’s defense and last year’s.

I’m with you on need to shove Borowski out the door, but three of your four omens of doom actually occurred in 2007 as well.

NBR (No Borowski Run): Refers to that run which puts the Indians up by 4 over an opponent, thereby drastically reducing the chances of Joe Borowski pitching in a game.

by crazymoloh on Apr 15, 2008 11:02 AM EDT 0 recs

Didn’t mean these as “omens of doom,” but as reasons to stop just saying “it’s a long season.” A quick response:

a. Yes, the bullpen was initially shaky in 2007, but they did something about it before it became too late—Hernandez and Cabrera were dumped and Perez quickly established himself (Lewis did so later). This year, the problem seems to be, above all, Borowski, but my point was that an uncertain bullpen can really sink a team that relies so much on pitching.

b. Lee was indeed awful, and Sowers not much better. Again, they pulled the trigger before it was too late (forced to, in some degree, by Carmona’s emergence). My point was they need to be similarly assertive if Byrd continues to pitch poorly (not wait two months a la Johnson).

c. You’re right about that one. I guess I had forgotten how bad the bottom of the line up was early on in 2007. Let’s hope the Indians get the same kind of starting pitching this year to compensate!!

d. Statistically, there isn’t much difference between this year’s and last year’s Indians defense (I said that in my post). But, Blake played a solid third base last year, while this year he’s been awful (have another look at the 9th inning of last night’s game to see that errors don’t tell the whole story of his play!!). Martinez and Shoppach have had some bad games, which hurt the team. And Dellucci in left field is hurting them defensively. Maybe the pitching issues have magnified the team’s defensive limitations, but I still think the defense needs to be sharper than it has been.

by peter m on Apr 15, 2008 11:58 AM EDT up 0 recs

Hate to burst your bubble, but….

a. Perez was called up in May and Jensen in the middle of June. There was plenty of suckage going on through the first month.

b. The Indians got 29, read that, 29 starts out of Sowers and Lee in 2007. Both of them had 6ish ERAs and I don’t recall Jason Johnson getting that many starts.

d. SSS!

NBR (No Borowski Run): Refers to that run which puts the Indians up by 4 over an opponent, thereby drastically reducing the chances of Joe Borowski pitching in a game.

by crazymoloh on Apr 15, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

Ooops….

Lewis was called up in mid-July!!!!

NBR (No Borowski Run): Refers to that run which puts the Indians up by 4 over an opponent, thereby drastically reducing the chances of Joe Borowski pitching in a game.

by crazymoloh on Apr 15, 2008 2:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

Actually, it was similar for Lee/Sowers and Johnson.

Johnson was cut after 14 starts, though I maintain it wasn’t entirely for ineffectiveness.

Lee was demoted after 16 starts after coming back from the DL. His last four games were out of the bullpen, not starts, in September.

Sowers was demoted after 12 starts, and he made a meaningless spot start the last week of the season. Actually, we were still playing for home field, and he pitched 5 scoreless, but the lead was blown and then given away by Borowski and then Fultz.

by Jay on Apr 15, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

Jay’s numbers, below, say 14 for Johnson. I still say they need to be pro-active—they can’t count on getting Cy Young seasons out of two of their other pitchers again to counteract uselessness elsewhere. I really hope Byrd gets better and he should get several more starts. But, if he doesn’t show signs of being a viable starting pitcher again, I’d call up Laffey.

Yes, Perez was called up in May. And, he really stabilized the pen—he and Betancourt were incredibly consistent for virtually the entire rest of the season. Borowski was annoying, but got saves. So, they had something they count on (more or less) by some time in May. I’m arguing we need to get to that point this year too. I’m not saying we have to do something today (although we did!), but that we can’t wait until the all-star Break or the trading deadline to stabilize the pen.

by peter m on Apr 15, 2008 3:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

I’m with you on the need for action, just saying that we had the same problems last year. I’d love for nothing more than Byrd getting canned.

NBR (No Borowski Run): Refers to that run which puts the Indians up by 4 over an opponent, thereby drastically reducing the chances of Joe Borowski pitching in a game.

by crazymoloh on Apr 15, 2008 5:03 PM EDT up 0 recs

Lee didn’t suck yet at this point in 2007. He was still on the DL. Fausto was in his spot and starting to find his groove.

The possible comparison to 2006 that worries me some is that, in both cases, the team did very little to improve itself in the off-season.

by SuddenSam on Apr 15, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

I’ll take the slow start as my top worry. Yeah, yeah, it’s only April, but as Jay pointed out below. We were out of it at 21-22 in late-May 2006. Right now, we need to go 16-14 over the next 30 to get to 21-22. That’s not far off from what you would expect us to do over 30 games.

I get it that, excepting last year, the Wedge-era is full of slow starts. It’s also full of golfing in October.

by CBusSteve on Apr 15, 2008 12:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

The difference between being out of it at 21-22 in 2006 and where they will be this year is the start of the 06 Tigers. Luckily no one is off to a start like that this year.

by JK in CBus on Apr 15, 2008 12:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

True enough assuming we don’t have any surprising performances amongst the others in the division. I just get tired of this notion that these games somehow matter less than those in September. The spring games that didn’t matter all happened in March.

Also most of these 13 games have been against relatively weak opponents (2-4 against OAK!?). I would think we should have expected to be no worse than 7-6 at this point.

by CBusSteve on Apr 15, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

Anyone with a memory span that encompasses 2005 knows these games matter.

by SuddenSam on Apr 15, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

We actually would have been 7-6 (before Tuesday’s game) if Borowski had not blown his 2 saves, save opportunities he should never have been out there for, due to the triceps injury he suffered in March.

I agree that we’ve got to get this thing turned around soon. However, Byrd had a very nice start tonight; let’s hope CC can finally deliver tomorrow. That would help to take care of the starting pitching (presuming Carmona bounces back in his next start and Westbrook and Lee continue to pitch well.)

The offense is really a worry to me – too many guys are off to slow starts – Michaels, Blake, Gutierrez, Cabrera. The bullpen is also a bit of a concern – Betancourt and Lewis both look a bit off, not as crisp with their command as we need them to be – I hope they find that command very soon. Julio needs to harness it more as well, or otherwise, bringing up an Elarton, Santos, or even an Adam Miller might be a better option, especially since it would be for the front-end of the bullpen.

And definitely, keep JoeBo OUT of the closer’s role and the back-end of the bullpen. If he must return to the bullpen, make it the front-end of the bullpen and have him EARN a position in the back-end of the bullpen, and then eventually, perhaps, the closer’s role (presuming everyone else really falters in that role between now and then.)

Just my 2 cents – no offense. :-)

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Apr 16, 2008 12:40 AM EDT up 0 recs

Also, 2006 is just a terrible example to point to of what not do. In terms of pure numbers, it was a great year for the team. But by some bizarre vodoo, +88 run differential turned into a 84 loss season.

NBR (No Borowski Run): Refers to that run which puts the Indians up by 4 over an opponent, thereby drastically reducing the chances of Joe Borowski pitching in a game.

by crazymoloh on Apr 15, 2008 11:29 AM EDT 0 recs

I agree with you on (a) and (d), but not the other two. Our lineup didn’t kill us in 2006 and won’t kill us in 2008.

Jason Johnson, popular punching bag, was never a real problem in 2006. He left with a 5.96 ERA, which is bad, but you’ll find that most teams don’t have a better #5 starter than that, even competitive teams. And anyway, here’s a little breakdown of his 14-game Indians career:

Games 1-5: 3.41 ERA, 6.1 IP/G, two real gems and no trainwrecks. So obviously you don’t get rid of this guy.

Games 6-9: 12.42 ERA, 4.0 IP/G, three real trainwrecks and one quality start. If you’re going to cut him, I guess this is the time, but they didn’t. By this point, May 20, the season was practically over anyway, as we were 21-22 and already 7.5 games behind two teams in our own division.

And by the way, Johnson was getting killed by our defense during those four games—his BABIP was .470. He induced 46 groundballs and 11 flyballs in play, yet the result was 22 singles and only 43 defensive outs. He was one of the most extreme groundballers in the majors that season, 59.5%, but we had the worst infield defense in the majors behind him.

Games 10-14: 5.02 ERA, 5.2 IP/G, so he bounces back and basically pitches how we expected him to pitch. This is a high-quality performance for a #5 starter.

And yet we got rid of him. Why? Because there was no point keeping him at that point, and the team didn’t like him. Apparently he rubbed people the wrong way, didn’t take accountability for his struggles—well, that’s what they said, anyway, but he did improve after struggling.

Mainly, there was just no point keeping him – his spot was better used to give Sowers an extended tryout. But having him, and sticking with him, had nothing to do with our problems in 2006.

by Jay on Apr 15, 2008 11:43 AM EDT 0 recs

Already did a mea culpa on c (see above). But, we can all agree that a bit more production at the bottom of the line up would take some pressure off everyone else.

I think a lot of people would disagree with you about Johnson. He essentially replaced Elarton, who had been a reasonably effective #5 in the previous season (certainly better than Johnson). While Johnson was in part victimized by defensive lapses, he also was barely mediocre (as you say) and didn’t pitch very deep into games on more than a few occasions (again as you indicate). He wasn’t THE problem, but he did contribute by putting pressure on the bullpen and being a pain in the neck (as you say). Byrd is obviously a good guy, but a team is forced to run uphill if one of their pitchers consistently fails to give you any quality starts. I think your point about Johnson having his moments is relevant here; so far, Byrd has been WORSE than Johnson. If that continues, they need to explore options and not wait, especially if the bullpen continues to struggle and be unable to compensate.

by peter m on Apr 15, 2008 12:10 PM EDT up 0 recs

Johnson not pitching deep into games was at least as much the fault of the defense as Johnson.

And again, the question is, what can be expected reasonably of a #5 starter. Johnson’s xFIP was above league average when he left. I don’t think he really was above average, but he pitched close to average and did not cause the team to run “uphill” more than most #5 or even #4 guys.

by Jay on Apr 15, 2008 1:40 PM EDT up 0 recs

Ask Fultz how much patience the team has…

by JK in CBus on Apr 15, 2008 12:13 PM EDT 0 recs

In 2006, the Indians were tied for 1st after 13 games; of course, they had a great first week.

There fate depends on whether one or two teams get hot in the next month. If none of the other Central teams gets hot, the Indians have more flexibility.

Shapiro ususally talks about making an evaluation after 40 games, but in 2006 it was too late by then.

by palcal on Apr 15, 2008 1:03 PM EDT 0 recs

Palcal makes a good point. We’re just getting started.

2006 was our most recent death march of a season, but aside from the fact that we were coming off a heated title run in the previous season, we’re faced with different conditions now than we had then. Not vastly different, perhaps, but things could still go a number of ways this season just as they might have in 2006 (e.g. we underpreformed out pythag., suffered an accute bullpen meltdown w/ very little depth, and the White Sox and later the Twins were surprisingly awesome).

by jhon on Apr 15, 2008 2:38 PM EDT 0 recs

Also, a perhaps suspicious lack of offseason upgrades—although with better reason in 2008 than in 2006.

The Indians opted to go for “one more year” with a number of veterans … Byrd, Borowski, Fultz, Blake, $20 million in total, all guys who were guaranteed nothing, all guys who will be 35+ by the end of the season, and all guys who would be free agents after another year. It is pretty incredible how little return they’re getting on those decisions as a whole.

by Jay on Apr 15, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up 0 recs

Yeah. It’s kind of like they forgot that all of those guys were question marks LAST year and that they got surprisingly good, in fact incredibly good, production out of people they were gambling on. I guess you can’t beat the odds twice in a row!

by peter m on Apr 15, 2008 3:35 PM EDT up 0 recs

Sure-they were question marks-but aren’t most players to some degree?

It’d be very strange if all of these guys collapsed at once, though it looks as if they’ve taken a secret blood oath—if one guy sucks, all of them suck. I won’t understand what lesson there will be to take from this, until this worst-case scenario actually happens.

A good ammount of weird stuff is going to happen in any given season. I still insist that 2006 might have been a good year for us. The ‘right’ pieces were seemingly in place, and even in retrospect it was confirmed as a ‘not as bad as it looked’ season. Even for Jason Johnson.

2008 is not going well, but it’s way to early to assume disaster, even the low-ceiling 35 y.o. sucks its way to oblivion.

If one of the other teams in our division goes on a massive winning streak, and we continue to play as we have, /then/ we might have another 2006 on our hands.

by jhon on Apr 15, 2008 5:03 PM EDT up 0 recs

for some reason, i’m reminded here of john schuerholz’s philosophy of jettisoning players a year too soon instead of a year too late . . . of course, this is not unique to schuerholz by any stretch; his is the name that first came to my mind in baseball circles.

seems that the decisions regarding the 4 listed above come from a different philosophy (and with different rationale, reasoning, and other factors, granted) that places significant value in the disposability/low-risk nature of one-year contracts.

by macasson on Apr 15, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

It’s interesting that Shapiro was clear all along that he wouldn’t bring Lofton back, pretty confident that 2007 was his last hurrah as an everyday player.

I realize this is extreme redboarding, but it sure looks like Borowoski and Byrd were squeezed at least as dry last year. I can think of two possible explanations for this difference: the logjam in the OF (coupled with “you can never have enough pitching”), and the fact that Kenny was always seen as a rent-a-player.

by SuddenSam on Apr 16, 2008 12:48 PM EDT up 0 recs

I think the depth difference is the whole difference. Borowski and Byrd were relatively cheap options in areas where it seems like you can’t ever have enough, and also where we aren’t facing any option crunches with players already signed. Lofton, however, plays positions where we have an overabundance of adequacy, indeed, where even without Lofton, we’re still going to have to let a player go in another month or two if someone else doesn’t get injured, and that’s with Francisco whiling away the time in Buffalo.

by Jay on Apr 16, 2008 2:46 PM EDT up 0 recs