Losing with the Right Guys
Oh, hell, where to begin.
Since my buddy Jason moved to Maryland several years back, we've caught a few games at Camden Yards when the Red Sox or Indians have been in town. When it's the Red Sox, sometimes we'll sit out in left field, often in the front row, the better to observe all the mirth and magic that is Manny Ramirez, Defender. I'm talking about pretty much the exact seats where Manny jumped up and high-fived that guy a few days ago.
Watching Manny the Defender live and in person is different than watching him on TV, because you're watching him all the time, not just when he's making a play or for a few seconds in between. And when you're watching Manny the Defender live and in person, what jumps right out at you is that he doesn't seem to be paying much attention to what's going on — at all — very much like a little league corner outfielder. He's bored, he's looking around, chewing gum or something, he's listening to music through his little earbuds.
Most amusingly, most of the time, he's not even wearing his glove. At the end of a play, the glove comes off, and again, he doesn't seem to be paying too much attention to when the play is about to start. Many times, when the pitcher is in his windup, Manny is still not wearing his glove.
So we would start shouting: Hey, Manny! Manny! Ballgame! Manny! Ballgame! Manny, there's a ballgame going on! Right now! Glove! Put your glove on! Ballgame!
Just to be clear, Manny was absolutely close enough to hear us doing this — although who knows how loud the music is blasting in his ears — and we found the whole situation deeply amusing of course. It wasn't long before we had several other people joining in the fun of helping Manny pay attention, and the most we ever got out of him was a quick grin. Like all ballplayers, Manny must be well accustomed to fans shouting who-knows-what at him at any given moment.
But watching the game last night, I had that same funny feeling — except it was a sick feeling, since it involved the Indians — and I just couldn't help thinking, does Eric Wedge realize that there's a pennant race going on?
Hey, Wedgie! Wedgie! Pennant race! Wedgie! Pennant race! Wedgie, there's a pennant race going on! Right now! Brain! Put your brain on! Ballgame!
And then ... ballgame.
Just about anyone who's talked baseball with me can tell you, I'm not a fan of quibbling over managerial decisions. Few managers are that bad or that great, in-game strategic decisions rarely represent massive swings of probability, and in making those decisions, managers have access to information about the players that we just don't have — for example, whose jock itch is really acting up badly today. I've gone so far as to say that fire-the-manager is the lowest form of baseball discourse, both for the above reasons and also because that discussion tends to be engaged with quite a bit less intellect and attention to detail than the average guy gives to picking his nose. So I end up downplaying the significance of a lot of moves, explaining others, downplaying the whole subject for the most part.
And yet, what Indians fan at this point cannot be irked by Eric Wedge? By his my-kinda-guy biases hiding behind stringent professionalism, by his denial of reality with regard to in-game probabilities and long-term strategy, and now, last night, by his apparently not even paying attention to the game?
One real good way to score a run is by putting the leadoff batter on, so you have a baserunner to advance with no outs. I won't bore you with the math, just trust me, this is a real good way to score a run. The Indians did this three times last night, and the first time, Blake' s infield single in the 3rd, we did in fact score a run. The second time was Dellucci's leadoff double in the 5th, but he promptly got caught napping between bases when Blake bounced a ball to second — caught in a rundown, end of scoring opportunity.
The third time was in the 7th, when Garko led off with a single. By this point, we're down 2-1, and — Wake up, Wedgie! — it's not so much that it's really late-late — Wedgie! — or that the Chicago bullpen is so indomitable as the fact that — Wedgie! Wake up! Pennant race! — we haven't been scoring a lot of runs lately, as you may have noticed even if — Wedgie! The lasagna! We want it! — the manager possibly hasn't. So, you know, it's rather incumbent on the Indians to, you know, do whatever they can to actually — Ballgame! There's a ballgame going on! — you know, score a run, whenever possible — and maybe to stay alert to those moments where we might actually score a run.
So here's Dellucci, the lefty, coming up to the plate, and out walks Ozzie to remove Contreras, replacing him with Matt Thornton, a lefty of course, to face Dellucci. After all, lefty batters are well known to be terrible at hitting other lefties — the traditionalists and statheads can share a toast to common ground on this one — and Dellucci is, compared to other lefties, especially bad at hitting other lefties. What you will see in this situation, well over 90% of the time, is the batting team's manager sends up a righty pinch-hitter, and then the pitching team's manager has to decide whether to play the matchup and burn a pitcher, or go with the bad matchup. Of course, Ozzie knows this, but he also knows Thornton gets out righties just as well as lefties, and that's why he sent him up there — he doesn't really care what Wedge does, he's going to stick with Thornton either way.
Wedge sticks with Dellucci, who promptly grounds into a double-play. Now, I can defend the move — Thornton has those weird splits, and I'm sure Wedge knew that Dellucci once hit a home run off him. Of course, context is everything; that home run came on the 58th pitch of Thornton's relief appearance, and Dellucci was facing him for a second time — not exactly a typical relief-split situation. And consider: Dellucci is especially bad at hitting lefties, and Dellucci has been pretty terrible for the past three weeks or so — and Wedge had plenty of right-handed hitters available: Peralta, Gutierrez, Shoppach and Marte.
Ha ha, I'm just kidding about Marte, who of course was not "available." Shoppach isn't that great at making contact and is a good candidate for a double-play if he does. Gutierrez has been hitting just as bad as Dellucci if not worse, and again, this reliever isn't easy on righties. But there's Peralta, he of the 830 career OPS against lefties ... and there's Dellucci with his 572 ... hm, what to do, what to do ...
Hey, why is Peralta on that bench anyway? He's on the bench, and in the lineup instead are pretty much the worst two hitters on the roster, Cabrera and Carroll. Peralta has had a rough season, but so have most of the hitters, and Peralta still grades out as possibly the fourth or best hitter on the team, and like I said, we are struggling to score runs. In fact, Peralta is on a little bit of a tear — five-game hitting streak, with two doubles and two homers in there!
Hey, that's great! Finally, one of our hitters getting hot! We better jump on that! Maybe it's time to move him into the #2 spot. Wedgie?
"We're going to give Jhonny another little break. Hopefully, that will get him back on track."
Wha ... huh? Back on track? On track from hitting .389 with two doubles and two homers? This is a joke, right?
"When you talk about the middle of the diamond, you've got more responsibility than others. He has such great potential to be a very, very good hitter and a very, very good player. We've seen signs of it. I just want him to be more consistent."
Ah, I see. It's a defensive slump — Jhonny was charged with a two-base error in his last game, that is true. But you know, other guys make errors, too. Dellucci, only three innings earlier, had made that boneheaded baserunning error that may have cost the Indians a run. And just a few days before that, Dellucci grounded out after working the count to 4-2 — that's right, he'd already gotten four balls called, and he grounded out anyway. I don't know whose mental error this is — obviously the ump's, but also the batter and his coaches — but Dellucci hasn't been hitting all that well, or fielding all that well, and, well ...
Don't you have the uncomfortable feeling that some players are allowed to make dozens of mistakes, and others aren't allowed to make any?
And even aside from that — Wedgie! Pennant race! Wedgie! — is it really that important to make an example of Jhonny Peralta yet again when (a) we're struggling to score runs, (b) it's a tight game, (c) there's a pennant race going on, and (d) we're facing the team who may well turn out to be our only important rival for a playoff spot when it all shakes out? And isn't it just possible that for damned near any shortstop, the very fact that you made two errors in a game is all the wake-up call you really need?
I know Wedge understands that all the games count, and possibly even that these games might count double. But could anyone really claim that he's acting like it?
Peralta started the game on the bench, and if there was a right moment to use him in Wedge's mind, it never came, despite a game that was always within two runs and usually two. Peralta isn't allowed to make mistakes, even though Dellucci and Blake make mistakes by the bucket.
Dellucci and Blake are The Right Guys.
Quick aside here to revisit Marte and Blake. As I suggested a week ago, Blake seems to have improved when given a little more rest, and he's put up a spiffy .303/.395/.485 line over the past two weeks. True, the average is a bit propped up by BIP luck, the OBP by free passes, but if he can maintain that level even luck-adjusted, he'll be fine. Of course, what works for Blake is not ever going to work for Marte, who will struggle to raise his average to .200 with playing time this limited, but if that's the strategy for now — maximize Blake — I'm fine with it. I'm not clamoring for Marte to play today, or tomorrow, or on any given day; I want Marte to play four times a week at a minimum.
Short of that, playing him twice a week or not at all are absolutely the same thing as far as cultivating Marte as a long-term asset to the club. So if they want to keep him locked int he closet until he's needed, that actually would fine with me, as long as Shapiro could give us this guarantee: "We're not going to dump Marte without giving him a long look, because he was our starting third baseman a year ago, and we'll need him to resume that role no later than next April." But I don't think we're going to get that guarantee, and the reason isn't Blake but rather Francisco, Gutierrez and Choo.
Francisco has been hitting his way into a job, and Gutierrez out of one, but Gutierrez is out of options and can't be sent down, just like Marte and Choo. Aubrey will eventually get sent down once Borowski returns, and Westbrook will displace Laffey if all the starters stay healthy — don't argue, you know he will. But once Choo is ready to come back, somebody has to go, and if Francisco keeps hitting for the next 18 days, it won't be him. That means either trading or trying to sneak one of the other guys through waivers — Gutierrez, Marte or Choo. Gutierrez's package of skills would never get passed up by all 29 teams — and we value having another premium defender around anyway — and Marte probably wouldn't get through, either. As for Choo, he's one of Wedge's Right Guys, just like Francisco.
So if Francisco can avoid going into a slump, we may be about to find out just how expendable Marte is considered by Shapiro. Could it really be the case that they've kept him around all this time just in case Blake got injured — just as in 2006, they incredibly kept Phillips clear through Spring Training, just in case something happened to Peralta or Belliard?
Shapiro has long emphasized that he wants to not just win, but to win with The Right Guys. Guys who play the game "the right way," guys who are professional in their approach, guys with drive, guys who respect the game and their teammates. I am not critical of this in the least, although I think it is fair game for criticism — after all, it limits the pool of talent available to a team already severely limited by financial considerations. How smart can it be to put up more barriers? But I believe this policy has helped Shapiro keep the payroll under control and retain their best players, i.e., that the a-hole-free clubhouse pays off at the negotiating table.
And anyway, Shapiro's definition of The Right Guys seems to be a pretty big tent, encompassing guys who once punched a cop or appeared in porn, moody guys like Brandon Phillips, and laid-back dudes like Belliard, Peralta and Marte — and as an aside, my God, what a chubby infield that would make — and they even tried to make things work with Milton Bradley. So the policy hasn't seemed to prevent Shapiro from doing anything except perhaps trading three key prospects for Manny, and let's be honest, was he really going to do that anyway?
Thing is — and forgive me for sounding a familiar theme here — Wedge has his own definition of the Right Guys, and it doesn't seem to include Jhonny Peralta or Andy Marte or (of course) Brandon Phillips. Whatever it is that they're doing or not doing, they apparently don't look like they're trying hard enough for Wedge's taste. Or something. As with Shapiro's preferences, it's one thing to do it when you're winning. Winning with the Right Guys — that's great, truly, it is. But we're losing, and we're still struggling to score runs, and we're about to win or lose a bunch of games against a key rival, head-to-head.
So when the manager puts the priority on giving one of our better hitters "another little break" to "get him back on track" — and leaves in a struggling lefty hitter to face a not-struggling lefty pitcher, and lets a hitter go back up to the plate to ground out on a four-ball count, and muffs a double-switch apparently just to avoid putting Marte in the game — there's only one response I can think of.
Hey, Wedgie! Wedgie! Pennant race! Wedgie! Pennant race! Wedgie, there's a pennant race going on! Right now! Brain! Put your brain on! Ballgame!
I mean, it just seems sometimes like he doesn't really know what's going on. He seems to have trouble putting personal nonsense aside and focusing on the right things, and at some point you have to start wondering ... if he's the Right Guy.
20 recs |
165
comments
Read Related
Comments
It’s funny, I was looking at the batting splits on baseballreference yesterday & almost pointed out that - ha ha - their splits included an at-bat with a 4-2 count for Dellucci. Then I figured it was just a bug in their software & went back to watching the Tribe disappoint me.
Despite all of my best intentions, I have not, in fact, grown up to be a debaser.
by zempf on May 21, 2008 5:33 PM EDT 0 recs
Note that I’m not addressing the actual content of this article, because it’s too depressing. But well-written & very true. Sending Dellucci out there to face the lefty with a man on in a 2-1 game may have been the straw that tipped me over into the “Wedge isn’t actually a good manager after all” (or you know, maybe some stronger words about Wedge’s managerial ablities, or lack thereof) camp.
Despite all of my best intentions, I have not, in fact, grown up to be a debaser.
by zempf on
May 21, 2008 5:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I have absolutely nothing to add other than a rec and a solemn nod of agreement.
by Voltaire on May 21, 2008 5:38 PM EDT 0 recs
BEST POST.
LIKE EHVVVVAHHHEEEEEEEERRRRRRRR.
Give Marte a Chance. FIRE SHELTON. Find Wedge a Hot Seat.
by westbrook on May 21, 2008 5:45 PM EDT 0 recs
This is steincat and I recommend reading this post. Well done Jay.
I also find it incredibly ironic that our offense is this bad but we still are screwed on roster spots. Doesn’t seem to make any sense, but I’m with you.
by steincat on May 21, 2008 5:48 PM EDT 0 recs
Well, that’s a big part of the problem. We’ve got a ton of guys with talent who aren’t producing. Gutz, Garko, Hafner, Dellucci, Asdrubal, Blake, Marte (yeah, I know), Peralta (kind of). Just a huge pile of guys too talented to kick off the team, but not talented enough (evidently) to hit the freakin’ ball.
by dgcambridge on
May 21, 2008 6:06 PM EDT
up
0 recs
This is strictly anecdotal—and I’m sure I’m overlooking obvious contradictions—but there are a few players who have gone from the Cleveland 40-man to success elsewhere. Brandon, Barton, Guthrie come to mind. But the reverse doesn’t seem true. Do the offensive players we pick up from other teams blossom? Carroll? Barfield?
by odradek on
May 21, 2008 6:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Hafner is a good example, but Cabrera hasn’t been hitting like Alan Trammell. Grady maybe.
I guess I was thinking more about waiver guys, but we don’t have the roster space for rule 5 players.
by odradek on
May 21, 2008 7:06 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Cabrera wasn’t even expected to be in the majors at this point. He unquestionably has thrived since joining the organization.
by Jay on
May 21, 2008 7:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
There are also guys who have left us and sucked. Those guys always get forgotten, but we here about BP and Giles for years.
by dgcambridge on
May 21, 2008 7:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
You identify Brian Barton as a guy who has found success elsewhere. Besides the fact that Barton has only 71 at bats, making it silly to judge his future success in St. Louis, those 71 at bats have not been awesome, OPS+ 75.
by ClarkM on
May 22, 2008 12:41 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Yes, I recognize this is a silly thought. I’ve thrown in the towel on this one.
by odradek on
May 22, 2008 12:46 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Was Marty good or bad? Jody Gerut sucked here and elsewhere. Ditto Branyan, Belliard and Broussard.
Blake, I guess, is a player who came from another organization to prosper with Indians.
by odradek on
May 21, 2008 7:26 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Jody Gerut did not suck in 2003, he was quite good. He was also decent in 2004.
by ClarkM on
May 22, 2008 12:44 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Well, he came well before the current guys, so not necessarily relevant, but I always think its a great story. He came in for a year and was definitely good, not great. And then he was gone. Always nice to grab a guy’s career year.
by dgcambridge on
May 22, 2008 10:06 AM EDT
up
0 recs
By the way, I was going to write “good, if not great” but I think there was a long argument about that phrase last year.
by dgcambridge on
May 22, 2008 10:06 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Yes to all of the above. And, I’d add that Wedge also identifies “wrong guys” and either punishes them or tries to “educate” them in ways that don’t really seem to be very effective, either for the team or for the individuals in question.
by peter m on May 21, 2008 5:50 PM EDT 0 recs
The eighth inning was just depressing, watching Wedge send Carroll, followed by Astrubal, out to face Linebringk, when he had several guys with much better splits against righties benched. Then, watching Lewis go into a slow motion wall crash—well, he was moving fast, but the crash took a few batters—while Wedge had two very good and better rested right handers sitting in the pen (Julio and Kobayashi)—was just inexplicable. I hate second guessing managers just as much as Jay does, but I can’t stand watching a potentially great season get sacrificed to the false gods of “plan” and “temprament”, when I’m more interested in performance. In this lifetime, thank you very much.
Great post Jay. Send it to the PD and ask them to turn it into a guest editorial. It rates higher than a mere letter to Hoynes.
by MTF on May 21, 2008 5:52 PM EDT 0 recs
Nice post, Jay..
I used to be a big Wedge basher, until last year in the playoffs every decision that he made that I doubted, it turned out he was right (small sample size, I know, but he did pitch Byrd twice (both Ws), and kept Jake in game 7 much longer than I would have). So I decided to give him a break. He is privy to about 10,000 times more info than I am.
I’m not happy about Wedge’s “role” managing (each player has his role, and deviations are not done lightly). I never have been. I will never get over him not skipping Elarton’s start the last week of 05. I guess he has his reasons. But the big thing I don’t get about the post is we’ve watched Wedge for 5-6 years now, and he is exactly the same as he has been before. You pretty much know what he is going to do. Why the outrage now?
by oxforddave on May 21, 2008 6:02 PM EDT 0 recs
You pretty much know what he is going to do. Why the outrage now?
This is exactly Jay’s point and I feel like maybe it’s being missed a little. The outrage now is about the fact that this team won 96 games last year and was very close to World Series ring. Eric Wedge, manager of the rebuilding Indians, might not be equal to the task of managing a contender. Or he might not possess the talent-managing skills that a full 25 man roster requires.
Three years ago you could afford to neglect a bullpen guy or bench player because they were roster-filler. Not anymore.
No doubt Wedge was equal to the task of turning a bunch of AAAA players into a Major League roster. The question Jay is addressing is whether he’s equal to the task of managing a perennial contender in one of the stronger divisions in baseball (or at least we thought.)
At least I take that to be Jay’s point, and he expressed a thought I’ve been noodling for a while. Baseball seems like it’s a personality game and Wedge and his staff might not have the personality for perennial contention; i.e. they might be better teachers of players than managers of players.
by NickFantana on
May 21, 2008 6:47 PM EDT
up
2 recs
Similar but not exactly what I’m saying.
We’ve struggled before — mid 2007, early 2006, early 2005 — but I never had the sense before that we weren’t basically sending our best talent out onto the field. That (to answer Dave’s question) is why the outrage now.
It is in my mind a much bigger deal to leave Peralta on the bench last night than to leave Marte there for two weeks straight.
by Jay on
May 21, 2008 6:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs
One AB by Peralta? Is that it? I have a hard time believing this still is not about Marte.
Aubrey gets called up for who knows what reason (defense I suppose), but he has hit 2 homers already. That is how one makes an impression. Or you can hit .333, like Francisco.
This being said, I was thinking about this more on my bike ride home, and one thing that I now think is true that is most upsetting. If Blake gets hurt, I bet Carroll would get the ABs instead of Marte. Now that is truly upsetting, and if it occurred, I would share in your outrage. Maybe you saw this already, and if so, I totally understand.
Still really like the writing of your post. I wish I could be so eloquent.
by oxforddave on
May 21, 2008 9:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Not the one AB, that’s just the icing on the cake. Peralta was crushing the ball late last week, and Wedge benched him two games in a row for vague reasons.
This stuff about how one “makes an impression” is just foolishness. At best, it expresses an intolerance for different types of players that is akin to what I’m criticizing with Wedge. Some players start hot but fade quickly, others start cold but thrive later on. See also: how awful Francisco was after his first 20 PA last season. See also: Shane Spencer’s post-rookie career.
There is nothing especially better about players who tend to “start hot.” And as with the personality issues, no matter how widespread that tendency might be even at this highest level, it’s still stupid, and we can’t afford stupidity.
by Jay on
May 21, 2008 9:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Vague reasons to you and me, but maybe they were patently obvious to everyone in the dugout and the organization. They just don’t have to tell us, nor would I want them to.
You got me on the start hot reasoning. But Marte has to give Wedge some reason to play him.
by oxforddave on
May 21, 2008 10:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
What does your comment refer to? The last sentence in my 1st paragraph, or the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph?
by oxforddave on
May 22, 2008 12:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The two are very different issues. One is that Wedge won’t tell us what is happening in the dugout (which I agree with). The second is that Marte can’t hit. I’m confused on where you stand.
by oxforddave on
May 22, 2008 12:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
wedge has to play marte for marte to prove something. if wedge won’t play him until he proves something, it’s impossible for him to prove something because wedge won’t play him.
by Brick. on
May 22, 2008 12:52 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I wasn’t saying that Marte can’t hit, but nobody is expecting him to come in and hit off the bench at all. He cannot (almost certainly won’t) give Wedge a reason to play him, other than being well prepared and playing solid defense — but gloves rust, too, at some point.
Keep in mind, Francisco and Aubrey both have hit the ground running this season, but both also were fresh off of regular playing time in the Buffalo lineup, not the Cleveland bench. Marte has 26 PA over the past two months, but Aubrey and Francisco each had four times that many in Buffalo when they were called up, and Wedge (to his credit) didn’t let them get rusty on the bench before putting them in.
by Jay on
May 22, 2008 12:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
As for Wedge giving us reasons, I don’t expect that we’re ever going to know everything, but if Wedge is going to call out a player in the media by name — and it’s always Jhonny, you know — then both the player and the fans deserve a better answer.
by Jay on
May 22, 2008 12:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
What about the patently obvious fact that the rest of the team is not hitting either? I understand your complain that Marte has sucked in limited at-bats, but so has everyone else
by Roger Dorn on
May 22, 2008 9:04 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Yeah, the whole team has been stinking, but Marte has been much much worse hitter than the rest (he is slugging .115!). But with Marte starting the tribe is 6-2, while the tribe is 14-20 with Blake starting. I’m willing to have Marte start for superstitious value.
by oxforddave on
May 22, 2008 12:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Marte’s performance at the plate this season, good or bad, is not even worth commenting on.
Do you understand that?
by Jay on
May 22, 2008 12:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That statement is patently ridiculous. Everyone comments on Betancourt’s last 3 appearances, when he has faced, oh about 15 batters (PAs). Oh, his stuff is down, he can’t locate, etc. Betancourt has only faced 78 batters all year.
But it is impossible to discern anything from Marte’s 30 PAs? Nothing. We just pretend they don’t exist? Why even keep records? It makes life easier. I’d like to think that the season up to now was a figment of my imagination also.
by oxforddave on
May 22, 2008 12:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs
30 PA’s is what, 6-7 games if played in a row, max? How can you base anything about any hitter over a 6 game stretch, much less if it’s spread out over a third of a season.
by Brick. on
May 22, 2008 1:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That’s basically right, except for the part where you think it’s ridiculous.
There’s no question here, except for whether you can understand this.
by Jay on
May 22, 2008 1:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
OK. I guess I am stupid. I will now change.
MARTE IS GOD.
FIRE WEDGE.
by oxforddave on
May 22, 2008 2:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
It is obvious that I have the same opinion about your view on this issue. This is a well-trodden road.
by oxforddave on
May 22, 2008 5:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
You think that it’s absolutely certain that 30 PA spread out over seven weeks are worth considering?
You think that the data is not rendered meaningless by not only the completely insignificant sample size, but also by the fact that the batter was seeing live pitching for the first time in over five days when he stepped into the batter’s box, for most of those PA?
And that more or less all professional baseball men would agree with that statement, that those numbers are worth considering, you’re absolutely sure of that?
If you answered “yes” to all three of those questions, then you do have the same opinion of my views as I have of yours. I don’t like the pissy stuff, either, but at some point it has to be pointed out when an argument is entirely off the Map of Reasonable.
You’ve made more than one totally valid point about Marte — stuff I don’t agree with, stuff I’m not inclined to believe but have to admit it’s reasonable, and no, I don’t like it one bit — but considering 30 PA spread out over seven weeks is certainly not one of them.
by Jay on
May 22, 2008 6:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
You are forgetting the fact that Wedge has had Marte waste 2 strikes in about half of those at bats, attempting to bunt. It is impossible to prove yourself in the hole 0-2
by Roger Dorn on
May 22, 2008 7:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don’t think it’s anything like half, but point taken.
Marte has faced five 0-2 counts, and he has a hit and only one strikeout from those. His three successful sac bunts are also not helping his numbers.
by Jay on
May 22, 2008 7:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I have to say that I’m a real Marte skeptic, but agree that we can’t really know until he’s given more playing time. And here are two words that make me pretty sure that we have to give Marte ABs at the major league level before we give up: Brandon Phillips.
At age 23, Phillips had 521 AB at Buffalo, where he had a .793 OPS and 22 with the Indians, where was basically a non entity (.523 OPS). At age 23, Marte had 352 AB at Buffalo with a .766 OPS and 57 AB with the Indians, where he was basically a non entity (.549 OPS). The next year, when Phillips was 24 (Marte’s age this season), he spent most of the year at Buffalo and his OPS dropped to .735. Then he had his shot with the Reds at age 25 and had a respectable season, only to break out at, surprise, age 26 (a year early for a major league player to peak).
But this whole exchange raises an important question for the FO, which is what is a statistically significant sample for projecting a player’s future performance. Is the threshold different for relief pitchers than for starting pitchers than for batters, and how would we know? And what is the value of Marte’s stats from Buffalo (or any AAA player) for the past two seasons for predicting his future MLB performance levels? I know some of you have probably read more about this than I have, but if you can point me to something about this by a respectable SABR person, I’d love to read and think about it.
by Denver Tribe Fan on
May 22, 2008 4:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Your reasoning is that the similarity exists because each has, or had few major league plate appearances. If you rethink through this and consider plate appearances at Buffalo to be part of giving BP a chance, the similarity is reduced. BP had plenty of plate appearances when you include Buffalo and the staff looked at all his numbers and all of his hitting tendencies and concluded he wasn’t making the kind of progress either quantitatively or qualitatively that would justify a further investment in him.
We don’t know, at this point, what Tribe coaching has decided about Marte, given his experience at both Cleveland and Buffalo. And don’t assume that conclusions are reached only by a quantitative method.
by elsandito on
May 22, 2008 5:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Sabremetrics won’t tell you anything. This is where scouting plays the major role. Any 30 AB stats will tell you pretty much nothing, I agree with Jay on this. But if you watch 30 ABs they will tell you something. And Marte looks like crap to me. He stands so far back, and has such a long swing, that it appears that he has huge holes in his swing. I am not the only one saying this.
I didn’t see Phillips play at all in his first go around with the tribe. I did see a few ABs in spring training in 06. He looked like he had a quick bat, but swung at way too much.
It is obvious I am not a scout. But the tribe has scouts. And I am sure Wedge has his own scouting opinions. And many decisions are based on these observations. Finally, if the visual scouting observations for 30 PAs (swing looks like crap) matches the stats for 30 PAs (the stats look like crap), well that says alot more than just looking at 30 PAs on a stat line. This is my main point that Jay can’t seem to get. Now, if he has a different opinion on what he sees visually, than that is fine, the stats mean little. But I think he sees what I see.
by oxforddave on
May 22, 2008 5:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
If you’re claiming that Marte’s atbats have been predominantly bad this year, then yes, you are the only one saying this. Either you aren’t actually watching the games and choosing to comment on them anyways, or you’re absolutely clueless. Either or.
His last two games he’s looked terrible, I’ll admit, but before that he was having some of the best atbats on the team. And I agree that he’s standing too far back…soo….why doesn’t one of the coaches tell him that? I can’t imagine that a guy not seeing any playing team would blatantly ignore a suggestion so simple.
by supermarioelia on
May 22, 2008 6:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
“If you’re claiming that Marte’s atbats have been predominantly bad this year, then yes, you are the only one saying this. Either you aren’t actually watching the games and choosing to comment on them anyways, or you’re absolutely clueless. Either or.”
This is a bold statement that needs to be backed up with more support than just, “he had some of the best at bats on the team.” What was so good about those at bats?
by ClarkM on
May 23, 2008 1:02 AM EDT
up
0 recs
This is the kind of subjective thing that you either agree with or you don’t. I’ve loved his patience at the plate…despite his ugliness in his past couple of appearances he’s upped his P/PA to 3.90…although I’m beginning to believe more and more that a good P/PA on our team means you’re struggling. Our top 3 regulars in P/PA are Carroll (4.43), Blake (4.17) and Proon (4.10).
I’ve (generally) loved his selection of pitches, again he started off the year swinging at very few pitches out of the strike zone. And he’s putting good wood on a lot of balls, but is falling victim to some bad BABIP luck in the field. Granted when you get that much air under that many balls, you’re giving the fielders a pretty good chance of getting under them. But the hope is that those fly balls eventually find gaps I guess. Cinci would’ve been a great time to test that theory out.
And does his swing look ugly? Hell yes. But hasn’t it always?
by supermarioelia on
May 23, 2008 9:24 AM EDT
up
0 recs
again he started off the year swinging at very few pitches out of the strike zone. And he’s putting good wood on a lot of balls, but is falling victim to some bad BABIP luck in the field.
I understand that you admit that this is a subjective statement, but why make it then? Especially when there are statistics that can pick apart some of this.
If he was putting good wood on a lot of balls wouldn’t you expect him to have a higher LD% than 15%, considering league avg. is around 20%? A BABIP of .150 certainly screams unlucky!, but thats if you consider a large enough sample size. In 30 plate appearences, where 73% of his batted balls are fly balls (90% of which result in an out typically), non of which are home runs, a BABIP of .150 is completely acceptable as some bad luck, but mostly not hitting the ball well. Is this a big deal? No. Its 30 fricking plate appearances. Its ok for Marte to struggle in his 30 plate appearences spaced out over 40 games of the season. We don’t have to argue in his defense over it, basing any decision on whether or not he should be playing regularly at 3B for us on a sample size of 30 plate appearances (particularly spaced out over 40 some odd games) is ludicrous. Marte’s talent alone is reason enough for him to be playing at 3B for a full year on this team before a decision is made whether or not he is to our 3B for the near future.
by hans on
May 23, 2008 3:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
If you knew that the decision is already made to start Marte at third base next year and the team doesn’t intend to do further evaluation, does this change your thinking?
by elsandito on
May 23, 2008 4:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I’m not completely sure what you are getting at. But, going off of your idea that they are simply going with Blake as the best choice for this year’s run and then will go to Marte for next, year….. I consider a full season of basically riding the bench as detrimental to a prospect. He is going to be worse off going into next season than he was going into this season. Maybe thats there plan, ruin the prospect so the prospect can’t come back a year later to bite you in the ass on another team.
by hans on
May 24, 2008 2:04 AM EDT
up
0 recs
This is pretty well said. The only thing I would add is that I hesitate to get too caught up in the LD% and FB% stats, because again with such a small sample size these numbers are virtually meaningless. I know it’s a bit of a cop-out to be describing him subjectively when stats are available, but especially early on I felt the stats weren’t doing him justice. I would concede though that his low LD% is pretty spot-on with the inability he’s shown to drive the ball. But again, we’re just pissing into the wind until we can see some consistent atbats.
by supermarioelia on
May 23, 2008 9:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I think we are basically agreeing, My point being that he hasn’t been that good, but expecting him to be good in 30 plate appearances over 40 some odd games is crazy. The talent that brought him to the Indians is what should be the argument for playing him regularly.
by hans on
May 24, 2008 2:06 AM EDT
up
0 recs
This brings up an interesting point, how strong is the correlation between p/pa and being a productive hitter?
by ClarkM on
May 23, 2008 6:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs

