Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Baby Boilers no more: Michigan State-Purdue Preview

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?

Star-divide


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 meat loaf!  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  |  Comment 165 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

More from Let's Go Tribe!

Indians of the Decade: Prologue

Jan 2010 by Ryan - 38 comments

Game 162: Red Sox 12, Indians 7

Oct 2009 by Ryan - 45 comments

Comments

Display:

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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   0 recs

Holy s* Jay. Great piece.

by mrich on May 21, 2008 5:41 PM EDT reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   0 recs

Hafner? Sizemore? Cabrera?

by Jay on May 21, 2008 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   0 recs

Nailed it, Jay. Excellent read.

--
Have to wake up bats!

by vbc3 on May 21, 2008 6:00 PM EDT reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   0 recs

No, he doesn’t, because he can’t.

by Jay on May 21, 2008 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions   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 reply actions   0 recs

Doesn’t really matter.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   0 recs

call it a Catch 15

by Brick. on May 22, 2008 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions   1 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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   0 recs

You aren’t stupid, you’re just stuck.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   0 recs

This swings both ways, but you are exactly right.

by hans on May 23, 2008 2:40 AM EDT up reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   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 reply actions   0 recs

I don’t disagree with this as much as you might think — although I will note, sometimes what the eye says and what the stats say just aren’t the same, and when they agree over 30 PA, it still doesn’t mean much. He could look terrible but be getting good results, and since 30 PA is only 30 PA, you still have to be mindful that he looks terrible.

To me, Marte looks reasonably comfortable up there and often hits the ball hard, but I wouldn’t say he’s had a bunch of great at-bats, and I wouldn’t say his swing looks good. I have no real reason to doubt what the scouts say about that, and I think I’ve only seen maybe 10-12 of his PA anyway — not to mention, I’m no scout.

Thing is, what we’re seeing in those PA is just as subject to the lack of playing time as the numbers are, if not moreso. It doesn’t tell us what we would be seeing if Marte were facing live pitching more than once a week. If you’re that concerned with how he looks and stands and swings, then surely you’re not going to tell me that regular playing time wouldn’t help him settle in and make adjustments — at the very least, that it might.

And this is not limited to Marte — you rightly noted above that we make snap-judgments about how relievers look all the time. I don’t know about you, but I don’t assume that we know anything about whether Breslow or Mastny can do a job, all I know is how they look after going two weeks without entering a game. I’m not critical of Wedge for that, because almost all relief pitchers are totally fungible — and Marte may not be.

Put it this way, there’s less chance that Mastny will become a truly dominant big-league relievers for several years than that Marte will become a solid-average starting third baseman, and at that point, they’d be equally valuable. But as of this moment, I no longer have any much idea how Mastny would be as a regularly used major league reliever — well, I have some slight idea — and also no real idea how Marte would be as an everyday starter, other than an above-average defender.

Do you see it all that differently?

by Jay on May 22, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, I don’t see it differently. Totally subjectively Marte “looked” better when he batted on the second day of two days in a row.

Again the Indians are 6-2 when Marte starts. The tribe’s only good run this year started when Francisco and Marte were inserted into the lineup to shake things up for 2 games. I’d be willing to start Marte for 3-4 games straight just for the superstitious value. I could care less if he hits .100 as long as the tribe wins those games!

by oxforddave on May 23, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

For some reason Wedgie being Wedgie doesn’t seem quite as funny to me as Manny being Manny.

Great post, Jay. Thanks for the insight.

"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.

by Harry Doyle on May 21, 2008 6:03 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I can’t even tell you how much this hurts, but I’m starting to believe it’s Gutierrez who’s the odd man out. Wedge may even prefer that it be Marte, but as shallow as the organization is at the hot corner, I just don’t see that. But Gutierrez - speed, arm, 3-outfield position defense, plus CF - well, if he’s gonna hit in the low 200s and not walk, don’t we have one of those with Snyder? And Brad’s still got on option.

And I’m beginning to think that’s what Frank’s got. Set aside his June and July from 2007—his OBP has been .300-ish ever since. Just as I don’t let myself chide Marte based on 100 big-league PAs (90 since 2006, actually), I ought not to keep believing that Guti is the same guy he was for 100 PAs nearly a year ago.

I love watching Frank play - I love the way he just seems to tattoo his home runs, I love the way he never breaks a sweat in the outfield, I love the way the ball screams out of his hand - but I’m coming to grips with it. The guy keeps looking more like an NL centerfielder all the time.

by fleerdon on May 21, 2008 6:05 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I have heard that some scouts did like Francisco better than Gutierrez as prospects, so its quite possible that Gutierrez (as a reworked prospect in the Indians system) may struggle to find out who he is as a hitter (the free swinger with power, or the savvy OBP guy with good gap power) old habits are easy to slip back into…and in any case can lead to prolonged slumps and developmental set-backs. Whereas Francisco appears to have a nice little compact swing and easily repeatable hitting habits. More of lock to be a major leaguer (what kind of major leaguer is another story) than a reworked Gutierrez.

by hans on May 21, 2008 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Some scouts like Cisco better. I’ve never seen that.

by dgcambridge on May 22, 2008 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

There was a quote somewhere (perhaps the PD) that had one scout quoted as preferring Francisco.

I think it’s quite simple. Francisco has always been the better “hitter”, i.e. defined as the ability to square up balls consistently and hit line drives. Gutz has a higher ceiling because he’s younger and has more raw power, so if he ever learns how to square up the ball more consistently, he’ll be better. But if not, Francisco will be the better offensive player even with an .800-ish, high-BA driven OPS.

Francisco will play more now because he’s better able, at least right now, to better impact the club with some offensive ability. Gutz has improved his approach, but he had so many holes to begin with that he’s still got a ways to go. If I had to guess, he’ll never fully get there. But even if he doesn’t, he holds value as an excellent platoon player who can also impact games with his speed and his glove.

by TribeJay on May 22, 2008 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I believe it actually was an account on a blog of having talked to a scout from another organization.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And I neglected to say, I pretty much agree with your entire description of both players.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well said TribeJay. You often express my opinions much better than I can. I need to improve my writing.

by oxforddave on May 22, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m going to stand by a statement I made in the offseason that I think Fransisco, can give us a year or two similar to what Coco Crisp gave us (minus some of the defense). He’ll be hitting his peak years this year and the next. Gutz will be the better of the two over in two years and may end up being lightyears better in three or four years, but for right now, Fransisco in my oppinion is the safer bet for this season.

by hans on May 22, 2008 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s a reasonable interpretation, but I think we have to allow the significant possibility that Gutierrez never puts it together to hit major league pitching consistently, at any point. While hitter typically peak around 27, I don’t know that it’s their ability to make solid contact that is actually improving from 24 to 27, although their selectivity may improve. Making solid contact has always been the challenge for Gutierrez, and it would not be a shock if simply never got any better at it.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think you called it out a while back, that Gutierrez is an interesting player, as the Indians basically reworked his hitting approach after coming over from the Dodgers because of contact issue and overall selectivity issues. Who knows if it will ever take, who knows if it means that he’s going to need extra time to get to an acceptable level of balancing his contact/selectivity and power to be a productive major leaguer. I think the Indians did the right thing in making the gamble, but I’m wondering if its going to prolong his development, and falling into old habits (not saying that there is evidence of this yet) while getting his lumps in his first full season, may end up being the one step back before he can take two steps forward.

The problem, as I see it, is that because of failures of Hafner, Garko, Blake, and even Victor to a degree on offense this season, guys like Gutz and AsCab, who weren’t expected to be the anchors of our offense in the first place, are now being seen as sores in the lineup. Unfortunate.

by hans on May 23, 2008 2:51 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with that last paragraph wholeheartedly. And, that probably puts even more pressure on young guys who are struggling. The veteran leadership hasn’t been there (at least in terms of performance), so the very real struggles of the young guys are placed under a microscope. I really hope they don’t mess Cabrera up totally in the process. He looked clueless to me last night—pulling off the ball and swinging pretty wildly (despite the walk).

by peter m on May 23, 2008 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah he is striking out at a pretty high rate. If they demoted him to AAA for the rest of the year, I think he would benifit. That would be only if we aquired someone worth demoting him for.

by hans on May 23, 2008 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

No doubt it makes it harder for the team to be patient with AbaCab and Gootz, but their numbers would be considered horrendous and problematic regardless.

by Jay on May 23, 2008 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

No argument on that one. Yuck is the word.

by peter m on May 23, 2008 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

From a scouting perspective, I agree with you to a degree. Andy Marte has the type of swing that will less consistently produce solid contact. Ben Francisco, on the other hand, has a much shorter swing and a more controlled bat which is why you see the higher batting average.

That said, a player with a swing like Marte’s HAS to get consistent at bats to start squaring on the ball or else he will never hit anything solidly. Marte is a flawed player in the sense that he will not consistently put good wood on the ball, but his raw power absolutely dominates Francisco’s. The stats back this up too, at every level Marte has been a slow starter and then gone on a torrid streak at some point during the season.

I would expect Andy to perform similarly in the big leagues. Low batting average, but maybe the best raw power on the team if you assume Proon’s is gone.

The risk of course is that big league pitchers are just absolutely good enough to continually exploit Marte’s long swing and he never adapts. I think most of us agree that the risk exists, but we at least want to find out.

by Roger Dorn on May 22, 2008 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Love it.

As I said in the game thread yesterday, I was indifferent to Wedge pretty much since he started managing this team, but the quotes about Peralta and subsequent benching set me off. There is absolutely no excuse for letting your personal biases shine through like Wedge has done this year.

by Roger Dorn on May 21, 2008 6:05 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Personal bias? Really?

I just posted this in last night’s game thread, but Wedge is a lot closer to this than we are. If he sees that Peralta is losing focus that is causing him to give away AB’s and perhaps not be ready in the field and wants to sit him a couple of days, I have no problem with that at all. Now, using him as a pinch-hitter last night is a separate issue. If he held him back just because of the “benching”, then I might have an issue with it. I don’t think that’s the case, though, as he double-switched with him Sunday. Jay alluded to the reasons that Wedge had for letting DD hit, but I still would’ve pinch-hit either Gutz or Peralta at that point. One other reason – he would’ve rather had DD face Jenks in the 9th if it got to that point. Gutz would’ve been an automatic out against Jenks. And yes, DD is sucking wind right now as well.

I don’t know if this has been building for a few days or weeks or not. Only Wedge knows. Nobody on this forum does. But to suggest he benched him because he “doesn’t like him personally” is a bit too simplistic for my tastes.

by TribeJay on May 21, 2008 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It may seem simplistic, but Wedge has a growing track record of giving more than fair shake to certain guys he likes, and something less than a fair shake to guys he doesn’t.

by Jay on May 21, 2008 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I just objected to “personally disliking.” I’ll agree that he has a track record of getting down on guys who he perceives aren’t doing everything they can within their control to be the best players they can be.

by TribeJay on May 21, 2008 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wow. Put this way – and it may or may not be true – how can Wedge’s decisions be seen as anything but unprofessional? It’s as if his ‘likes’ have taken on a tangible quality wherein effort can trump mistakes.

by macasson on May 21, 2008 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you follow a manager long enough you can say that about every one of them.

Leaving Dellucci out there was the wrong call. Peralta should have been sent in. But this fair shake thing happens in every clubhouse with every team.

by gahnki on May 21, 2008 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Even if I accept the premise, that doesn’t make it okay.

The Indians are supposed to be smarter, and frankly, they have to be.

by Jay on May 21, 2008 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree that the perception of Wedge favoring players because of personal bias could be true. However, without the information of everything going on around the team I can’t say that it is true.

Phillips clashed with Wedge and it was probably better for everyone involved that there was a trade. I can blame Wedge partly for this because Phillips was just a kid. But Wedge didn’t trade Phillips.

Marte, well, everyone is frustrated by his lack of playing time. But signing Blake to a decently sized contract kind of tied our hands there. If we wanted him to be a super sub then we should have made that clear at the start of the year. I think we basically agree that if Marte is going to get a shot it isn’t going to be this year. And I think that Wedge and Shapiro agree on this.

Peralta does make stupid mistakes. He does take plays off on defense, but he also produces at the plate and I think Wedge realizes this. I mean, how many games has Peralta missed over the past two years? Peralta played in 152/164 games last year. He has played in 38/ 45 games this year. While he is on pace to sit more games than last year that hardly sounds like someone in the doghouse.

My original comment was meant to insinuate that it may appear that a manager has a personal bias in all clubhouses, but usually that bias is because of some other reason; FO orders, player bad attitude, etc.

It’s entirely possible that Wedge has a personal bias for/against certain players. I just think it is ridiculously hard to ascertain that unless we are privy to all of the information.

by gahnki on May 21, 2008 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You guys are being generous. How often does Wedge publically call out players? He has done it to Peralta on more than one occasion, but like Jay mentioned players like Dellucci who make a bonehead move on the basepaths get a pass because they are “veterans who have been there.”

I think it’s oblivious to think that Wedge is not showing clear favoritism to certain players

by Roger Dorn on May 21, 2008 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And to add to that my comment. Why the f is Jamey Carroll playing every other day if Wedge is not allowing his personal bias to affect his decisions?

by Roger Dorn on May 21, 2008 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Inconsistency to players can be unfair. But I will guarantee you that a lot more is said in private than what is said in the media. If you want to castigate a manager off of what is said in press clippings, well, I guess you can. I just think that is an extremely weak way to judge a manager.

by gahnki on May 21, 2008 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree. My point though is that a public lashing is just that, public. If you are calling out one of your players so that anyone interested knows you are upset with him, it is more damaging than talking to him in the clubhouse.

In a way it is akin to throwing your guy under the bus, in Wedge’s case he likes to make sure the public knows he disapproves of Jhonny’s approach, but curiously we don’t know how he feels publically about anyone else’s approach.

by Roger Dorn on May 22, 2008 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Phillips clashed with Wedge and it was probably better for everyone involved that there was a trade.

Ridiculous. Obviously it was not better for the Indians to have traded a player who turned out to be an above-average middle-infielder for a player who, four years later, may or may not turn out to be an average reliever. Phillips would have sulked on the bench or not, hit when given a chance or not, but either way, we’re out of the playoff hunt by the end of May, trade Belliard in July, and BP gets the last 10-12 weeks of the season to try to make an impression at 2B, and given how unimpresed Wedge was with Peralta at that point, BP probably gets significant time at shortstop even before that point.

But Wedge didn’t trade Phillips.

True, but it’s been reported that Wedge pressured Shapiro heavily not to put Phillips on the roster, which forced a trade. My criticism makes no distinction between Wedge’s judgment and Shapiro’s tolerance of it. I have no way to distinguish between those two things, and also no need.

But signing Blake to a decently sized contract kind of tied our hands there. If we wanted him to be a super sub then we should have made that clear at the start of the year.

The contract did not tie and has not tied and is not tying our hands, but I agree that they should have established Blake as a multi-position player back in Spring Training. What amazes me about this is that they had the formula perfect a year ago — start Blake in the outfield and Marte at 3B, and if Marte struggles, use Blake at 3B as needed — and now, based on Wedge’s actions, it’s as though that approach is unthinkable. My view is that nothing happened in the intervening year to make that plan less of a good idea for 2008 than it was for 2007.

Peralta played in 152/164 games last year. He has played in 38/ 45 games this year. While he is on pace to sit more games than last year that hardly sounds like someone in the doghouse.

All a matter of perspective. He’s on pace to start only 133 games, compared to 152 last year. He started the first 17 games of the season, but then just 20 of the next 28 — that’s on pace for just 121 games. He definitely has been getting sat a lot more than ever before, and the alternatives still can’t hit for crap.

by Jay on May 21, 2008 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

I think there’s an uncertainty here about what Wedge knows. He must have some reason we can’t discern for this. Maybe the reason Blake isn’t playing in the outfield is his ankle hurts or something. The Indians certainly seem averse to playing him in right field.

I can remember two occasions in the past two seasons where Wedge personally calls out Peralta, by name. I can’t remember him doing that once with another player, though he most likely has.

by odradek on May 22, 2008 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you take what Phillips has done at Cincy then it wasn’t better for the Indians. I just believe that Phillips was never going to produce like he is at Cincy for us. He didn’t get along with management and he stopped putting up great numbers. He may have played well for us if we held on to him but I just can’t see that happening.


The contract did not tie and has not tied and is not tying our hands, but I agree that they should have established Blake as a multi-position player back in Spring Training. What amazes me about this is that they had the formula perfect a year ago — start Blake in the outfield and Marte at 3B, and if Marte struggles, use Blake at 3B as needed — and now, based on Wedge’s actions, it’s as though that approach is unthinkable. My view is that nothing happened in the intervening year to make that plan less of a good idea for 2008 than it was for 2007.

I think that the contract has tied our hands in the sense that it means we have to play Blake somewhere. Right now, the option is either third base or outfield. In the start of the season we had Michaels, Sizemore, Gutz, and Dellucci. Gutz was given the chance to start at right. He started off terribly so Francisco was called up after Michaels was traded. During that time period Blake wasn’t going to start in the outfield because of Gutz opportunity to play at right and Michaels/Dellucci’s platoon.

So now it stands as the offense stalling and us struggling to score runs. Francisco has been hitting well so he has been getting a large amount of starts. Dellucci/Gutz seems to be the new platoon. Now one could argue that Blake/Dellucci should be the platoon with Marte starting at third. However, I think management and the staff believe that Gutz is more important to our future than Marte. I believe that they want Gutz to continue developing, and they want him to secure an outfield spot for the future. That theory makes sense to me. I’m not sure if it will to others.

by gahnki on May 22, 2008 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you take what Phillips has done at Cincy then it wasn’t better for the Indians.

Ah, but it isn’t all or nothing, is it? As it is, all we’ve got is Jeff Stevens — and God bless the guy, but we are talking about a non-elite relief prospect here. How good would BP had to have been in order to be more valuable than Jeff Stevens? Not even half as good as he’s been for the Reds.

But that’s just one way for you to lose the argument — there are others. If we keep BP for 2006, there’s no way we’re trading Kouzmanoff and Brown for Barfield — even if we don’t love BP by the end of 2006 (and we might), we still wouldn’t trade for Barfield, who wouldn’t have represented enough of an upgrade. (In real life, all we had was Barfield, Hector Luna and Mike Rouse.) So we keep Kouzmanoff and Brown, and we probably flip them for something else.

(One might speculate that we also don’t trade for AbaCab if we still have BP, but that probably is not the case. AbaCab was never expected to arrive in the majors in 2007, he was more of a 2008-2009 guy, and the Indians love to pile up middle infield depth, and they still had very little. So it remains likely that when Bavasi says, “Would you have an interest in Asdrubal Cabrera?” Shapiro still tries to keep from bursting out with “Are you KIDDING ME OF COURSE YES RIGHT NOW!”)

So now we’ve got BP and KK and Brown and AbaCab, and we can trade some of them for other stuff, and the only guy we don’t have is Barfield.

Or … we could have AbaCab and Barfield and Jeff Stevens, as we have now. Now tell me again … how much worse does BP have to play in the alternate reality before the choice isn’t a no-brainer?

I just believe that Phillips was never going to produce like he is at Cincy for us. He didn’t get along with management and he stopped putting up great numbers. He may have played well for us if we held on to him but I just can’t see that happening.

Well, this goes firmly in the category of “I’ll say whatever crazy-ass thing I feel like it with no foundation all, and since you can’t prove a negative, that’s just too damned bad.”

Let me first say that I don’t need to accept the premise that we keep BP but Wedge is still a jerk to him. My criticism is that Wedge needs to be more tolerant of different personalities so as not to screw the team. I believe we could have kept BP in an environment where Wedge was professional enough to not make him feel like a total jackass. Marte seems to be keeping his head up okay and had very positive things to say about the organization in Spring Training.

BP now likes to talk about how great it is to have the team behind him, the manager, the GM and the owner. He’s drawing contrast with Cleveland, like the petulant little turd he is. But let’s face the reality here: BP may have benefitted from clean break, but mostly, he jumped his big-league opportunity and was energized by it. He didn’t think he was highly coveted by the Reds. He knew he was traded for little more than a bag of balls — he knew it wasn’t Adam Dunn coming back in that deal — and he knew that was the top bid for his services.

The one thing he could really say at the time about the Reds was that they wanted him on their big-league roster. And if the Indians had kept him, they’d have beens saying the same thing, essentially.

What exactly makes his performance so hard to see in Cleveland? You say he’d given up on Wedge, but when Phillips was in Buffalo, just mailing it in, Wedge was nowhere around.

I think that the contract has tied our hands in the sense that it means we have to play Blake somewhere.

Uh … no. Sunk cost, my friend. Money is already spent. They will not play him at the team’s expense just to play him. The front office is way too smart for that, and why would Wedge care about his salary?

I think management and the staff believe that Gutz is more important to our future than Marte. I believe that they want Gutz to continue developing, and they want him to secure an outfield spot for the future.

It actually makes a lot of sense. I find them both to be important and about equally promising, but Gootz has a clear edge in that he’s a significant defensive asset and would be more-than-credible replacement in CF in the event Sizemore was ever out for any amount of time — not unlike the Victor/Kelly situation, actually. So that gives Gootz priority over Marte.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You make very good points on Brandon Phillips. He did mail it in while in AAA but that was probably nothing more than boredom setting in. Wedge probably was unfair to Brandon Phillips. It really does look like that was the case.


Uh … no. Sunk cost, my friend. Money is already spent. They will not play him at the team’s expense just to play him. The front office is way too smart for that, and why would Wedge care about his salary?

See, the problem I have with that is you’re not taking into account that the season has only had 40 some games take place. If you’re going to pay Blake a decent sized amount of money then you are going to have a place for him to start the season. That place was third base so he is going to get his chances there. Now, if Blake continues at this torrid pace and does not creep up to league average then I think you will see a change. But because it is still fairly early and we have him under contract then I doubt that Marte will take over any time soon.

by gahnki on May 22, 2008 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

A reasonable point — and this is why several folks (including the DiaTriber and me) were advocating moving Michaels before the start of the season. We knew that Gutierrez would have the highest playing time priority, but we feared that Michaels would keep Blake from being used in the outfield and thus take away Marte’s playing time, and this is exactly what has happened.

Gutierrez’s struggles could have opened up more playing time for Marte in addition to providing an opportunity for Francisco, but now, since Blake hasn’t been used in the outfield all season, and Marte hasn’t been used at all, that shift is seen as too risky with a struggling offense. It didn’t have to be that way.

Last point on BP is just that we’ve seen several examples of “repetition myopia” in Triple-A — where a player has performed more than well enough to be promoted and then is asked to repeat instead, and has trouble keeping his motivation up. If it can happen to Garko, and he’s such a swell guy, then how can we dump on Marte and BP for the same thing? (Marte also had to contend with switching organizations, twice, and some injuries as well.)

It makes sense, too, that we would see this a lot more in Triple-A than at lower levels, since the lifestyle/income screwing is a lot more pronounced, and since players in Triple-A have been toiling in the minors longer than anyone else. And by the way, Ben Francisco didn’t seem any too energized or motivated repeating Triple-A this season, either — not that I would ever make a big deal out of 100 PA.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The whole thing about putting up disappointing numbers in AAA is overblown. Players that are major league ready can put up disappointing numbers BECAUSE they are working on specific parts of their game and not treating their time there as dress rehearsal. This is where the qualitative evaluation becomes primary in the decision process. BP’s performance in his final time in Buffalo must have been dismal, and not only from a stats perspective. These evaulators put their careers on the line with every decision, and Monday morning qbing of what they saw based on BP’s success in Cincy is wrong wrong wrong.

by elsandito on May 22, 2008 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Except that there were evaluators on both sides of the fence, from what we understand.

I don’t blame the evaluators, I blame Shapiro for not recognizing that giving Wedge the utility player personality he wanted was less of a strategic imperative than keeping a player of BP’s talents in the system.

At the time, I said BP’s skills simply had not ever developed as his raw talent suggested it would, but I said that under the assumption that Shapiro wouldn’t have dumped him unless his evaluators were telling him that.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Can we agree that this is an indictment of all GMs? Had any of them guessed that there would be a remote possibility of BP blossoming into a worthwhile player, Shapiro would not have been forced to accept a bag of balls for BP.

by elsandito on May 22, 2008 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Except that we knew the player ten times better than any of those other GMs.

An unproven player who’s out of options is a tough sell in any event.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Whatever opportunity the Indians missed by not having BP at second base now, is an opportunity every other GM missed. In BP’s head, Cleveland undersold his ability, but he fails to recognize that, based on his lack of progress and high strike out rate, every other org undersold him also. Any team could have had BP for a reasonable prospect or role player. If it was a no brainer to take the former centerpiece of a trade at a tender age and just let him work it out, how come no team thought of it?

by elsandito on May 23, 2008 8:20 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m not sure how this answers my previous comment, so I’ll just re-post:

Except that we knew the player ten times better than any of those other GMs.

An unproven player who’s out of options is a tough sell in any event.

by Jay on May 23, 2008 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m not sure if you’re saying we knew the player or we only thought we knew the player. At any rate, results do not improve unless the process improves. Should our process be one that nobody else is using? Other teams’ scouts got to see BP play games and they are paid to give good advice to their teams. Our coaches and scouts operate much like everyone elses. What is it our own coaches should see that they don’t see? If our GM’s logic is flawed, did it differ from other GM’s logic?

by elsandito on May 23, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t know exactly. I do know that a case like BP is very unusual though not unheard-of, so it’s a failure deserving of scrutiny. I can excuse the situation with Guthrie because we really didn’t have space for him, but the same cannot be said for BP.

by Jay on May 23, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

you know how they say that if you are guessing on a multiple choice test, that you should go with your first choice, instead of going back, erasing, and choosing another?

They liked BP enough to make him the centerpiece of the Colon trade, they liked Marte enough to make him the centerpiece of the Crisp trade. Ride it out, in neither case was there an alternative that represented more promise than what we had originally traded for in BP and Marte. They can’t go making a decision to cut loose highly rated prospects like BP and Marte before those players play a game at the age of 25.

by hans on May 23, 2008 3:07 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

One other reason – he would’ve rather had DD face Jenks in the 9th if it got to that point. Gutz would’ve been an automatic out against Jenks. And yes, DD is sucking wind right now as well.

intuition tells me that, with a man already on base and no outs, the Tribe has a better chance to score in the seventh using advantageous matchups than they would in the ninth, against Jenks, with any selection of batters. i think math would probably back me up on that.

intuition also tells me a manager probably shouldn’t use concern over who will hypothetically face the other team’s closer as an excuse to virtually guarantee that his team will in fact still be trailing when the ninth inning comes, guaranteeing in turn that the other team’s closer will in fact enter the game to collect the hypothetical automatic outs.

in other words, Dellucci being a very tangible automatic out in the 7th, with no outs and a man on first, is a MUCH bigger deal than Gutz being a hypothetical automatic out in the 9th, situation unknown. someone please correct me if i’m wrong.

and Delucci didn’t even come up in the 9th… partly because he grounded into a #$%^ing double play in the 7th. so i hope you’re wrong and this possibility never crossed Wedge’s mind.

i can’t believe i just typed 200 words about this. verb baseball bullnoun.

by still ill on May 21, 2008 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions   2 recs

Yeah, and that’s why I said I would’ve liked to seen a pinch-hitter in that situation and try to get the lead instead of facing Jenks.

Though I disagree about DD being an automatic out, based on Thornton’s lack of a platoon split and Dellucci’s previous success (albeit VERY limited). I’m just saying that it was somewhat defensible, but I still disagreed with it at the time. Like I said, DD has also been sucking wind lately.

by TribeJay on May 21, 2008 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

...

i went way overboard on that, but at least it was sort of cathartic.

by still ill on May 21, 2008 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, it was damned fine comment.

by Jay on May 21, 2008 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Losing is a disease as contagious as polio, syphillis, and the bubonic plague.

by cheech99 on May 21, 2008 6:25 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Jay, I really think that unless they start having problems in the rotation, they’ll go with an 11-man staff when Choo comes off the DL. Hell, they’ve only needed 10 pitchers all year.

Also, I don’t think they’d dump Gutz, unless it was part of a bigger trade. Wedge GUSHED about Gutz during the spring regarding his approach and what he was trying to do to become more consistent. Gutz still has a ton of value with his defense and his ability to crush LHP.

by TribeJay on May 21, 2008 6:30 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

That’s what I said, they won’t dump Gootz.

I guess they might try to stay with a six-man bullpen for a while longer, but it doesn’t take much to push that button. Who do you foresee getting sent down, though? Lewis? Betancourt to the DL?

by Jay on May 21, 2008 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, I should’ve clarified the comment about Gutz. I wasn’t specifically replying to your post, but was just too lazy to respond separately to fleerdon.

For now, they’ll probably go back to a 12-man staff when JoBo returns Friday, and send Aubrey down. When Choo is ready, I think they DFA Breslow assuming everything else stays the same between now and then. But that could be a long time, and a lot can happen between now and then.

Of course, if Choo has a couple of more good games right away, they may make the move earlier in desperation just to try something else in the lineup.

Your comment about Betancourt is interesting. During the past couple of weeks, his velocity hasn’t been as consistent as it usually is. In the final Oakland game, he started out at 88-89, and then amped it up to 93 when he started getting into trouble. Also, his location hasn’t been as good, which can be an indication of an arm problem. But this is PURE speculation by me…but I am worried about his health.

by TribeJay on May 21, 2008 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Betancourt has screws in his elbow. Always a concern.

by odradek on May 21, 2008 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

anyone still think the FO would sign bonds?

by macasson on May 21, 2008 6:35 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Did anyone ever think that?

by Jay on May 21, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I really enjoyed reading your post, Jay. And may I add a few observations?
Firstly, I think the correct in game move is to bunt DD and move Jhonny in as pinch hitter after when necessary.
Secondly, we concede that Wedge is not A material with in game moves, but he has other attributes that are considered to be valuable and those need to be remembered.
Thirdly, it is possible that we move DD for a prospect rather than letting Marte or Guti or Choo or BenFran go, because DD has less future upside.
It is unfortunate that the tone of recent posts by many fans has turned so negative or sarcastic. We have lost patience with, not only the losing, but the way in which we are losing. I question why so many of our players have lost focus or can’t seem to play to potential. These guys can’t be having any fun out there right now. And maybe Wedge is setting a tone that is sapping the fun out of it for these guys? Whatever it is, it’s contagious.

by elsandito on May 21, 2008 6:42 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Peralta back in the lineup tonight, hitting 6th. I was kind of liking him hitting 2nd…hmmm.

Sizemore
Francisco
Hafner
Martinez
Dellucci
Peralta
Aubrey
Blake
Cabrera

by TribeJay on May 21, 2008 7:06 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Wow. Casey plays again.

by odradek on May 21, 2008 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Aubrey gets the nod over Garko/Marte vs. Vasquez

by macasson on May 21, 2008 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

ooops, not meant as a reply to odradek’s casey comment, rather just a general note …

by macasson on May 21, 2008 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also! Weglarz!

by dgcambridge on May 21, 2008 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

sleepy

A great post, Jay. I’ve long called Eric Wedge “Sleepy” to all my baseball friends who aren’t into the Tribe as I am. Wither bullpen mismangement, bizarre benchings (Remeber the Travis Hafner benching against Detroit just before the all star break a few years ago?) playing crappy veterans, or just generally acting like he’s just awoken from a nap on the bench just in time to make a pitching change, we’re not going anywhere with “Sleepy” at the helm. Its already a long season, i’m afraid its going to get a lot longer.

by youngfinster on May 21, 2008 7:09 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

But not a sleepy kitten, i’d hope.

Disclaimer: this post doesn't mean what you think it means.

by AngG on May 21, 2008 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think he is referring to some sort of troll or hobit, or possibly a leprechaun.

by hans on May 21, 2008 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

sleepy swamp thing?

by rog on May 21, 2008 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Shapiro is watching Borowski (and Huff and Hodges) in Akron tonight.

by dgcambridge on May 21, 2008 7:26 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

This is sort of off-topic, but maybe not so much.

Is it time for a discussion of managerial alternatives? Assuming that Buck Showalter (please!) and Joel Skinner are not serious alternatives, and assuming that Travis Fryman is nowhere near ready, who are the candidates? I wonder, for example, what LGT fans in Buffalo would have to say about Torey Lovullo.

by ken from alexandria on May 21, 2008 7:35 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I think I’ve seen one comment ‘round these parts regarding Lovullo, and that comment was, essentially, “Nah.”

Disclaimer: this post doesn't mean what you think it means.

by AngG on May 21, 2008 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I actually think the guy sounds like a solid alternative. So mark me down as a “Yay” on Lovullo

by hans on May 21, 2008 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is a contender for post of the year. Think of it this way: If Terry Pluto penned this for this morning’s PD, we’d have our collective jaw on the floor, speechless with admiration.

You don’t need to hear someone blowing smoke, Jay, I realize (and why is blowing smoke a metaphor for any kind of friendly behavior, anyway?) , but I want to express appreciation for the time you took on this. You have a real talent for summarizing the feelings and observations that build over time; this post is a tour de force of insight and clarity.

The danger is that eventually enough fans might realize the diversity of quality at LGT (real statistical analysis that would substitute for actual reporting at the PD; opinion and insight like this post that eviscerate the columns hacked out by the print press) and all of a sudden LGT morphs from a fan site into the trusted source for all things Tribe.

(That last part is pure fantasy, of course, and I sort of think it would be cool while not actually being plausible for myriad reasons).

by tabler84 on May 21, 2008 7:36 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

It would mean we couldn’t swear during game threads though. Which would not be acceptable.

by supermarioelia on May 21, 2008 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Other than not having the time to do that much that consistently … I can’t think of any reason that we would be aiming for less than that.

by Jay on May 21, 2008 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

What I meant is that we would actually displace the current print media. And of course, in a sense we already do that.

Last year several posters asked if you and Ryan might look into securing some interviews or at least email conversations with Tribe management or personnel; I don’t recall your reply exactly, but I know you weren’t completely comfortable with the idea. There are obvious reasons, but I’d like to hear your thoughts again on whether it’s appropriate or desired at LGT.

by tabler84 on May 21, 2008 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i can’t imagine what this post would have been like if wedge started an internet rumor after the game last night too.

by Brick. on May 21, 2008 7:38 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Eric Wedge, link aggregator.

by odradek on May 21, 2008 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

When the general manager has to take away players from the roster to prevent his manager from using them incorrectly, there’s trouble.

Jamey Carroll was picked up for his flawless defensive track record, yet Wedge finds it necessary to use him as more than a defensive replacement and substitute for the struggling Asdrubal Cabrera…he’s now in some sort of rotation that includes Jhonny Peralta.

The shotgunner in me says Mark Shapiro should deal Blake and leave Wedge with only Marte, but there’s no fungible talent-say, somebody like Casey Blake-at third base in AAA to take Blake’s place to spell Marte.

And re: Craig Breslow, there’s something to be said about easing a guy into the Majors, but this is not it. For a team that’s under .500, you would think giving some guys an opportunity would be in order.

by xrickx on May 21, 2008 8:51 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I’d love to see Casey gone, too, but the problem is that, used correctly, Casey is a great player to have on the team. The guy can play, by my admittedly drunk count, five positions on the field.

Your point about having to get players off the roster to keep the manager from misusing them is right on, though.

Since I’m replying, great job, Jay. Thanks.

Il faut d'abord durer.

by CU Adam on May 22, 2008 2:01 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

What if the whole point as to which players get to play is this. Wedge plays guys who display the best work ethics in practice and during the game? Guys who tirelessly work on improving where they are weak. Guys who don’t take plays off during the game. These guys make physical and mental errors, but not errors due to laziness or lack of focus. These are the guys Wedge plays. It might explain why guys seem to get hot at the plate and then get sat down.
Perhaps Wedge’s message is that you get to play when you work hard and stay focused and not necessarily when you are finding success.
And the same guys usually work the hardest and stay focused and appear to be Wedge’s favorites because they understand the message. What if it’s just that simple?

by elsandito on May 21, 2008 10:50 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

So, carried to its logical conclusion, you play Delucci over a Manny (wouldn’t you kill for a Manny right now?). In general I agree with the sentiment, but at some point talent has to have a say in the conversation. Wedge might be that simplistic, but these are professional athletes we’re talking about; it’s tough to find the hardest-workin’est guys for 25 roster spots.

by rog on May 21, 2008 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Manny works extremely hard at hitting. He is always in the cage hours before games taking extra practice. You do not get that good without hard work, and Manny has always worked hard at being a great hitter.

by gahnki on May 22, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It’s possible to look like you’re working hard when you’re really not, or to look like you’re not working hard when you really are.

Disclaimer: this post doesn't mean what you think it means.

by AngG on May 21, 2008 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

“We’ve got him in there [Wednesday],” Wedge said of Aubrey. “He’s a good first baseman, he’s always hit, and he’s a very smart player.”

by madherb on May 22, 2008 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i consider myself something of an expert in the former. i think if i were on the team, Wedge would foolishly play me every day.

by still ill on May 22, 2008 3:58 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, that is basically my point. If it’s just that simple, then it’s too goddam simple.

by Jay on May 21, 2008 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You get to play when you work hard and stay focused and not necessarily when you are finding success.

I agree this is the way he’s managing, but that is really astonishing. I doubt even Billy Martin would manage that way. He would play guys he detested if they were successful. What is this, a seminary or a ball team?

by odradek on May 22, 2008 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Let’s Go Tribe!: What is this; a seminary or a ball team?

by NickFantana on May 22, 2008 8:13 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

I’m sure if this is true it’s an “or”.

by dgcambridge on May 22, 2008 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m not sure this is entirely true, actually. How do we explain Gutierrez, who Wedge singled out just a couple of weeks ago for praise, talking about how hard and well he practices and how he’s an example for unnamed others. In his case, it appears his lack of results are what’s keeping him on the bench. In Peralta’s case, the results have actually been reasonably good lately, but he sat. We don’t know if Peralta is a hard worker in practice, but it’s clear that Wedge has concerns about him for some reason (unexplained, largely— and, “he’s got to be better” is focused on results, not practice habits).

On another front, I was a little disturbed (maybe wrongly) about the report in the PD this morning that Victor, in frustration, put his foot through a bucket of sunflower seeds, with the result that Sizemore and Hafner cracked up. It probably was funny, but when a guy is “working hard” and staying focused enough to care that much, you’d think the other guys on the team would react differently. Probably nothing, but their reaction seemed a little off-key to me.

by peter m on May 22, 2008 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

C’mon – Victor Martinez with his foot caught in a bucket of sunflower seeds is funny, no matter when it happens or how the team is playing. Maybe the next time Victor has a game winning hit and gets interviewed, they can sneak up behind him and dump some sunflower seeds on him and loosen up this team’s booties.

Free Andy Marte!

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on May 22, 2008 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, it is funny. But neither guy got off their butt to help him, nor did they turn it into a pie-in-the face kind of event - good-natured, but silly. They just laughed at him. They SHOULD have dumped some seeds on his head, I agree; that would have turned it into fun, rather than just frustration.

by peter m on May 22, 2008 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

it’s not a big deal, by the way. I just thought it was weird, especially since Victor is kind of the team leader, is a really good guy, and tries harder than just about anyone. I felt bad for him.

by peter m on May 22, 2008 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Consider how tight this clubhouse must be now. All the expectations, and with the exception of starting pitching, everyone is pretty much sucking. It sounds like it was just a tension breaker type of thing. These guys are human.

It's the Arizona talking, really.

by RD74 on May 22, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t see how anyone could not have laughed at that. Try to imagine yourself in that dugout, Victor stomps around, steps in a bucket angrily … and gets his foot stuck. You would have to laugh.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’d be more worried something was seriously wrong if nobody laughed, to be frank.

Hard truth: Your eyes lie.

by AngG on May 22, 2008 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jay, Jay, Jay.

Wow.

by afh4 on May 22, 2008 12:02 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

seriously, when stuff makes me this upset and mad i just get depressed and mope and wander around aimlessly. jay goes all seymour hersh on us.

by Gradyforpresident on May 22, 2008 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jay: He’s fired up.

Disclaimer: this post doesn't mean what you think it means.

by AngG on May 22, 2008 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

He’s eloquent when the rest of us just want to bury our heads under a pillow.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on May 22, 2008 8:49 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just a quick note that I clarified two points in the main post.

First, Jhonny did not commit two errors in last Saturday’s game, rather, he was charged with a two-base error.

Second, Dellucci’s past success against Thornton is highly suspect, as his home run against him came on Thronton’s 58th pitch in relief, and Dellucci was the 12th batter he faced (as well as the 3rd), so it wasn’t exactly a matchup situation.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 12:44 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Wow – with follow-up depth like that, you could be in the running for a job at MLBTR!

by steincat on May 22, 2008 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Can’t believe nobody mentioned the Wedding Crashers reference.

by Jay on May 28, 2008 10:47 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Constantly updated Indians news, lots of in-depth analysis, live in-game discussions — and more fanatical and thoughtful Indians fans than every other web site combined.
Start posting about the Indians »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

39135485-59af19dbb26654095f910f34176af094_4ae8a81e-scaled_small
Predictions Group
Small
I think we found our utility infielder
Small
Baseball in Japan
3444ant_black_small
Spring Training Trips
Hans_small
Trade Peralta?
3444ant_black_small
Beware the year of the Ox
Bos-fod_small
award-winning independent baseball documentary released
Calavera_small
Create your own 2010 BA Top Ten list (then sign Grady to an extension)
Img_0108_small
Jason Grilli Signs Minor League Deal?
Mariahcareyglitter_medium_medium_small
2009 AL Central Off-Season Transactions and Rumors

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Featured Poll

Poll
Who would you like to see hired to manage the Cleveland Indians?
Bobby Valentine
106 votes
Travis Fryman
41 votes
Manny Acta
113 votes
Don Mattingly
78 votes
Torey Lovullo
30 votes
Other
51 votes

419 votes | Poll has closed

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Lee has Foot Surgery
Jamey Wright Signed to Minor League Deal
2010 Cleveland Indians draft preview
Jim Ingraham Angers You.
BP Calls John Hart One of the, STRIKE THAT, BEST GMs of the 90s
Sizemore Addresses Offseason
Can we reach 1,000 on a post about Adam Kennedy?
"At this time, we're looking to make the biggest impact possible on the...
Casey Blake shaved his beard
ICBWDSTGFO550K

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

Sweet Baboo

Sweet Baboo, now with glitter


Managers

427px-nap_lajoie_1913_small Ryan

Dosequisman_small Jay

Authors

3444ant_black_small APV

47b8dd28b3127cceb64839d9746800000026102bauwjrq3za_small afh4