Some Random Rants
by ClarkM on Apr 21, 2008 9:40 AM EDT
Email
PrintThe Indians are 7-12, which is good for 4th place in the AL Central. They have scored 79 runs and given up 90. They haven't won a series since the first one. Our Ace has pitched awful and has shown no signs of turning it around. We owe Travis Hafner 49 million after this year. That contract looks worse everyday. Our most productive hitter bats 6th, behind the potent bats of Dellichaels, Hafner, and Peralta. Seriously, who wants to bet me that Garko won't hit better than both Hafner and Peralta in '08? Our lineup has little power, 10th in the league in homers and dead last in slugging. The lineup has made Greg Madduxes out of John Danks, Dana Eveland, Justin Duchsherer, Armando Gallaragga, Joe Saunders, Nick Blackburn, and Scott Baker. For whatever reason, the Indians kryptonite seems to be young, league average or below starting pitchers. The approach against these pitchers has been horrendous. Our 34 year old third baseman has an OPS+ 51 and he has only been given 2 days off. Andy Marte has gotten one start. A common criticism of the '08 Tribe going into the season was that they weren't going to get much production at 3rd, Left, and Right. Good thing that turned out to be totally off base. Obviously there have been some bright spots to start the season, but I am too frustrated to highlight those, and small sample size is acknowledged for most of the stats.
54 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So what would that take? If we figure that in the first 19 games, at least 4 were lost due to horrendous starting pitching (mostly by CC, but also two by Byrd and one by Carmona) and two were blown saves by Borowski, their 7-12 takes on a different look. Byrd seems to have settled down, and the bullpen has been less combustible in the last few games (although still far from settled). If CC starts to pitch as he can, then the 6-2 is not out of the realm of possibility. Even with the hitting being atrocious, they managed to win more than half of the games in which their pitching didn’t blow it.
That said, they need CC to get better NOW, and they need to DO something about the hitting. I’m not sure I know what they can do, but running the same guys out there and hoping things will change doesn’t seem to be working. At the very least, give Marte a shot. And, don’t bat Peralta fifth!!!
We’re percentage points behind the Pirates. Eew.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Apr 21, 2008 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
We need to stop with the whole “Dellichaels” thing. There’s no comparison between these two guys. Delluci is OPS+ing 123 (third best on our team), and Michaels is at a nice, round 0. I know the tendency is to lump them together because they platoon in LF, but it’s not fair to say they’ve performed at an equally inept level thusfar.
Caroll is a nice role player, like Dellucci. Cabrera has the potential to be a regular who can be an elite fielder and and a solid hitter. He’s not there as a hitter yet, but give the guy a chance. Maybe playing Caroll a bit more (for Cabrera sometimes and for Peralta sometimes) makes sense, but I don’t see benching (or demoting) Cabrera (or Peralta, to be honest) so early in the season. If he’s still hitting .200 in late May, then you have a case.
I hate to subscribe to danab’s inane remark, but one can believe that Cabrera is a real potential star (as I do) while still believing that Carroll will be a better player this season, even as a full-time player. That is, Cabrera’s eventual stardom doesn’t mean necessarily he should be in the lineup every day right now, or for that matter even in the majors. I’m not there yet, but I’ll be giving up on AbaCab’s 2008 season as a major-leaguer literally years before I give up on him as a future All-Star.
I think we actually agree. Cabrera deserves a longer look right now (especially in the absence of real options). They aren’t going to contend with Carroll as their regular second baseman, I don’t think. If a. Cabrera continues to be bad (and I don’t think he’s been THAT bad so far) and/or b. they are way out of it and Cabrera is still dragging, then optioning him to Buffalo makes sense (so HE gets better, not the team). Barfield might make things interesting, though, if he plays well in May and makes a case for his own promotion.
Whats frustrating is that that because of vets like Blake and Michaels totally blowing out this year so far, its pressuring us to make moves on younger guys like AsCab and Gutz (and marte as well) who all can be gaining much better experience in the majors at this point than if we send them down to AAA.
Sending-down is not an issue for Gootz and Marte, as they are out of options. I actually would rather Marte play every day in Buffalo than rot on the Cleveland bench, but at the same time, it’s hard to argue he’d have benefitted or progressed, given not just his track record, but also the track-record of Triple-A three-peaters Garko and Phillips. I’d find it easier to argue that ready or not for the majors, he’s done in Triple-A.
As for AbaCab – and give it up, dude, it ain’t ever gonna be “ascab”—a few things I think are worth noting. One, he very possibly would develop better given a few months in Buffalo. Two, he has already survived being over-promoted once, going to Triple-A at age 20 in 2006, and he ultimately didn’t let himself get overwhelmed or “ruined” by it. Three, on the other hand, he thrived most of all after being demoted, following that over-promotion.
And for whatever it’s worth, the Indians have very little service time incentive to demote him if they don’t believe strongly it’s best for the 2008 squad and possibly for him. He’d need more than two months in the minors to push back his free agency and almost four months to push back arbitration.
Okay, I’ve been away so I guess I missed it. What’s with AbaCab?
The best I can come up with is abalone, as in pearls. But that can’t be it, right?
Jay, it appears as if the incessant need to explain this nickname’s origin is probably its greatest liability.
Really, it’s only the regulars who didn’t see it who need it explained. Nobody else cares.
Sam, it’s just sort of a compromise nickname among many others that have never caught on and/or are just too stupid to be “the nickname.” It’s main virtues are that it’s easy to say, type and remember, and its letters are all actually in his real name.
It’s the last good Genesis album.
Free Andy Marte!
by woodsmeister on Apr 23, 2008 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions
If that was directed to me, your off by many, many years. If it was directed to emd2k3, none of my business.
Age is no barrier to disliking post-Gabriel Genesis. By the same token, some high school students have (happily) moved well beyond Hannah Montana (and Phil Collins) and could teach all of us a thing or two about popular music.
Some things come down to taste, of course, but summary dismissals of everything related to Collins are just pseudo-musicology and faux sophistication. It is every bit as valid to dismiss nearly all of Gabriel’s career as flimsy and pointless theatrics.
Many well versed listeners and musicians would say that Genesis’ best work was A Trick Of The Tail, made after Gabriel’s departure, and still others would speak highly of The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway, made mostly in Gabriel’s absence.
But of course, your deep-deep take on music has it that these records are no better than something Hannah Montana could have done, or perhaps already has done. Next you’ll tell me something really deep, like everything R.E.M. did after Murmur is crap. Go ahead, I’m ready.
And the Beatles? Too poppy. If the kids love it, it must be garbage, right?
Many well-versed listeners and musicians would disagree.
I guess I pushed your button on Collins. Sorry if you don’t like what I like. I just don’t like Phil Collins’ music, never did, and doubt that I ever will. As you say, it’s a matter of taste. That’s all that we were discussing, I thought. Lots of people I know like later Genesis music—that doesn’t make them bad people or mean I don’t like them or think they’re stupid or arrogant or whatever.
I actually defended the kids, if you recall (I’m not the one who used being in high-school as a dismissive term).
I hardly think you were “defending the kids” by insisting that you aren’t one of them. Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with having juvenile tastes when one is actually a juvenile. Let them have their Hannah Montana.
I’m no big fan of Phil Collins, not at all, and my work involves a healthy mix of commercially oriented stuff, “art music” and mostly stuff somewhere in between. Nonetheless, the knee-jerk rejection of those who have found enormous success in the pop realm reflects not taste or refinement, and certainly not musicianship. A real artist can appreciate good work in its own right, and a real art lover evaluates work on its own terms, separating “loving” or “hating” something from broad genre preferences and other pronouncements.
But I probably shouldn’t bother saying anything. The fact you can dismiss A Trick Of The Tail while lauding the earlier records speaks for itself.
never get into an argument with Jay about taste. also! I know nothing about music.
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.
by Gradyforpresident on Apr 23, 2008 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll try one more salvo here.
I defended the kids by saying that many high school kids have really good taste and could teach all of us (myself included) about music. I think that’s true. There are also high school kids who like music I find unlistenable. So be it.
The fact that I don’t like Phil Collins (or Hannah Montana) doesn’t mean I don’t like music that’s commercially successful. You have no idea what I like, in point of fact (apart from the fact that I don’t like those two musicians). I don’t think anyone else is interested in what I (or you) like in music, so I won’t make lists. I’ll just say that I like some music that’s commercially successful and some that isn’t. I agree that commercial success is irrelevant to whether something is good or bad as music.
The fact that you like A Trick of the Tail doesn’t mean you’re an uncritical fan of all “top 40” music. The fact that I don’t like it doesn’t mean I’m a music snob who only listens to bands that don’t get played on the radio. We just don’t like the same things. That’s okay and we get to say so.
I have in fact a pretty good idea what you think you like and don’t like, but that’s beside the point.
I don’t know if you like Phil Collins or you don’t. I think when you’re driving alone at night, if “In The Air Tonight” comes on the radio, you look around to see if anyone’s looking and then, seeing no one around, indulge yourself in the air-drumming just like a grown woman singing “Mandy” at the top of her lungs. But that’s just a guess.
No, it was the the pat, un-nuanced praise of early Genesis and the pat, un-nuanced dismissal of their later material that revealed your Point Of View, and that Point Of View has nothing to do with music. Super-arty, less commercially successful stuff good, less arty more successful stuff bad—no need to listen or appreciate anything when it’s all that simple. I get it.
Abacab was referred to as the last good album by Genesis (by Woodsmeister), although it came out well after Gabriel (and even Hackett) had left the band. So we assume that peter disagrees with Woody?
Beyond influencing the band members themselves, the early Genesis albums turned out to be far less important than the later ones. Though I am not sure how great the musical influence of an album like A Trick of the Tale ended up being, I think it’s pretty easy to make a case for Duke, Abacab, and Genesis as very significant in the music industry as a whole. Granted, this doesn’t necessarily mean the music was good. But it clearly wasn’t bad, and, more importantly, it was the first and most complete transformation the industry ever had seen (unless you count the Beatles in the other direction).
Most of the early Genesis prog rock pales in comparison to the output of their contemporaries. The transition era and later “pop” albums were closer to the fore of the music scene from a relative standpoint, with Abacab being arguably furthest to the cutting edge at the time it was released.
p.s. I just got extremely bored just thinking about the early albums—and this conversation. Why did you make me do this?
p.p.s. Michael Jackson’s Thriller? Complete crap.
You’re right, the sweep from Duke through Genesis is the band’s most influential work, by far, and there is a case to be made that it’s their best work (once we get over the idea the obscurity or inaccessibility are virtues in and of themselves). There is something of a debate in prog rock as to whether these records art part of that genre at all, but that debate isn’t really about the records’ quality or influence, but rather only their style.
Trick may seem not to have had as much reach, but you would be surprised how frequently it comes up in conversations with musicians who would seem to have only a passing interest in prog rock; it does seem to be persistently admired. I think most prog rock diehards would put it in the highest echelon of masterpieces, and for whatever it’s worth, Wikipedia says it out-sold the entire Gabriel-era canon combined.
There is a case to be made that Gabriel’s role in Genesis is not much more significant than Tony Kaye’s role in Yes, i.e., they did their best work as he was leaving and after he left. That may seem harsh, but it’s not inaccurate.
Well, I think Trick was the last and probably the best of the prog rock albums. But Duke and Abacab weren’t pure pop either. I think that’s what makes them interesting. The prog rock genre had become somewhat of a prison for them, and ironically breaking out of that mode led them toward a more pop sound. I don’t even think they were trying make “pop” with Duke or Abacab, but rather just trying out some new sounds and avenues. Abacab is so stark at points that it’s almost the polar opposite of the earlier prog albums.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that Trick had tremendous reach, but that’s not quite the same thing as influence is it?
And the comparison to Tony Kaye is way harsh. I think we can assume that since Gabriel had some success on his own that he has a bit more influence on the band itself.
by randallhank on Apr 25, 2008 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I was SO there last night, man. I just got too tired and faded off to bed.
by randallhank on Apr 25, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow – I had no idea that my throwaway snarky joke line would trigger this kind of discussion. My familiarity with Genesis is primarily with the post-Duke period, and I think after Abacab that they tended to make more effort to write pop hits than to follow their prog-rock muse.
As for Phil Collins, his first solo album was brilliant. I progressively lost interest in the solo albums that followed, pretty much in the inverse ratio to the number of fake synth-horns and Disneyfication and movie sountracking of his tuneage.
Free Andy Marte!
by woodsmeister on Apr 24, 2008 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I’ve never owned any of his solo work, though he unquestionably has been a very successful pop musician by any definition.
Two common mistakes people make. The one about musicians in general is that they’re not following a powerful muse when it comes to working in the pop realm. Just like music lovers, for many of them their actual interest eventually is drawn toward popular songcraft, and popular songwriting is of course a great tradition and art form, particularly in America, from blues and soul to country and roots music and including most of the rock canon as well. Can there be any doubt that powerful muses are at work here, too?
The one about Genesis is that their albums at some point stopped having significant non-pop material, and while I haven’t listened to any of their stuff in the past ten years or so, I think that’s just not true. Huge parts of Abacab aren’t radio-friendly at all, and Genesis opens with Mama, which, while it may be out place in prog rock, is not exactly commercial pop. Even Invisible Touch has long, exploratory compositions, but the question by that point in their career is, was any of it any good?
Jay you clearly missed the memo, once something reaches a certain level of popularity it is no longer good. This even goes for bands that people used to like, but then got popular. This is a very annoying habit amongst the “sophisticated” music fans, which I am often guilty of as well.
It’s that way with many things in life. I caught myself ripping Cakebread wine last weekend—only because its reputation has allowed it to become widely known and expensive. Is that an indictment of the product? Well, it’s so popular that it’s hardly cool to like it these days.
We call these “penis wines.” Caymus and Silver Oak are far worse/better examples of this phenomenon. I think they’re all great wines, but just not THAT great.
by randallhank on Apr 25, 2008 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Jay,
I’m heading over to the Turtle Studios page now, but I always like to get opinions from people in the industry (both my brothers made spirited runs at commercial success, reaching only regional touring stardom). Any quick recommendations on artists we’ve probably never heard of? My ipod is currently stuck on Mike Doughty, Loudon Wainwright, The Format.
I’m in some ways blissfully ignorant of up-and-comers outside my immediate radar—I spend a lot of time listening to the stuff we’re working on, or the people we might soon be working with, and it doesn’t leave me much headspace to just find stuff I like. Sad but true.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Citi Field All-Star game has finally been made official for 2013
- Brett Lawrie receives four-game suspension, fined for ‘aggressive actions’ toward umpire
- PNC Park security guard loses finger in struggle with fan during Pirates game
- Create-a-Caption: Partying like it’s 1988
- The Ron Washington puppet is watching you while you sleep — and has possibly jinxed the Rangers
