"The Indians may be the biggest recipients of random bad luck over the last four seasons." Pinto...

"The Indians may be the biggest recipients of random bad luck over the last four seasons."

Pinto over at Baseball Musings, wonders why Wedge "never seems to be on the hot seat.

3 months ago Denver Tribe Fan Comment 20 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Better than that is the article on Wedge that it links to.

The 2008 Cleveland Indians: Home of the Triple Steal, Unassisted Triple Play, and not a heck of a lot more.

by westbrook on Jun 19, 2008 5:20 PM EDT 0 recs

Does the anti-Wedge faction prefer the return of Charlie Manuel (a 1st place manager now) or Mike Hargrove
(12 games over .500 when he left Seattle last year)?

by palcal on Jun 19, 2008 7:26 PM EDT 0 recs

and don’t forget Joel Skinner, who did as well with the 2002 team as Manuel did.

by palcal on Jun 19, 2008 7:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

I thought Andrew made a great point re: Skinner a few weeks ago … he had a great track record in the minors, so maybe he’s just in the wrong job.

by Jay on Jun 19, 2008 11:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

Stay puff??

Yeah, I think we should go Skinner + Lovullo for bench coach.

But, looking at that interview somebody posted, Shap seems dead set against “change without definite reason.”

by afh4 on Jun 20, 2008 1:28 PM EDT up 0 recs

Sucking isn’t a reason?

Let's Go 2009!

by emd2k3 on Jun 20, 2008 2:14 PM EDT up 0 recs

Well … no, not if those in power don’t believe the sucking is a result of the coaching staff.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jun 20, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

i prefer Jay, or Andrew, or Brick, or Adam, or any number of others here

by Gradyforpresident on Jun 19, 2008 8:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

Earl Weaver is still alive, isn’t he?

by odradek on Jun 20, 2008 12:41 AM EDT 0 recs

It’s interesting that he talks about bad luck, but never cites any actual evidence about items that could be categorized as lucky/unlucky. I could see his point if talked about BABIP or injuries this season (early on) or the Pythagorean records (especially in 2006).

You can count me in the anti-Wedge faction. I know he doesn’t have much impact on how the team fares, but just listen to how he responds to adversity … he sounds beaten, defeated, a man with a lack of desire, no fire, no passion in his voice … and that is coming across in how the team responds to adversity on the field.

His a** should be feeling the heat after the Rockies series.

Let's Go 2009!

by emd2k3 on Jun 20, 2008 10:06 AM EDT 0 recs

Yeah, as the last out was recorded last night at Coors, I yelled out “How does Wedge not get fired after THIS series?”

Pinto is actually pretty sophisticated in most of his analyses and I don’t think he would just say bad luck without considering the factors that you suggest. Btw, as of today, our Pythagorean record should be 38-35, which would put us 3.5 back with several major players injured, an anemic offense, and a back end bullpen that belongs in a horror film.

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on Jun 20, 2008 10:46 AM EDT up 0 recs

yeah the fact that we are below our pythagorean record is really what kills me. This is such an open division, if we at our record we’d be talking about adding a bat and making a run at it…

by hans on Jun 20, 2008 12:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

Pythagorous giveth and Pythagorous taketh away.

Last years pythagorean projection, 91 and 71. Actual record 96 and 66

At some point you will come to realize that the “Pythagorean Record” is just curve fitting. It’s nice and all but you’re gonna fall somewhere outside those projections most of the time. Last year we were ahead, in 2006 we were behind and this year it looks like we’ll under perform too. But when you put the three seasons together – or 20 or 30 better still – ol’ Pythagorus’ll hit it pretty close. But season to season, not so much.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Jun 20, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

I’ll repost this:

Since 2000 (including this season), the Twins have had 7 (of 9) years in which they exceeded their win expectancies, for an accumulative +25. Minnesota is the "luckiest" team in the AL Central in both number of better-than-expected seasons and in accumulative wins.

The Tigers are the unluckiest. They exceeded their expectations only one year. They are an aggregate -22 games below Pythagoras.

The Indians have had three plus years in the past nine, and are 20 games below expected wins.

KC has had four plus years, with an accumulative -12.

Chicago has had five years of winning more than Pythagoras predicts, and is +9 for the decade.

by odradek on Jun 20, 2008 2:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

Although, if I recall we started cruising into the playoffs by rolling over a bunch of teams that had already thrown up the white flag and were using their 40 man rosters at the time to the fullest extent. I know over at the baseballprospectus counter-part for the NFL , Football Outsiders have been dabbling with either ignoring or reducing the impact of the stats/outcomes from week 17 of the season due to most of the playoff teams resting their starters and playing the scrubs which often result in skewing of the overall pts scored vs. pts. against numbers. In the NFL its a bigger deal due to the shorter season, but I wonder if it also effects baseball teams toward the last month of the season.

by hans on Jun 20, 2008 4:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

Right, the Pythagorean is just a measure of baselines. I assume that Chuck is right, that it is more accurate over a larger number of seasons as an overall predictor. Still, it’s a projection of what a team is expected to do, on average, with those run differentials. To the extent the team over- or underperforms its Pythagorean prediction, good or bac luck might play a role. Sorry to go all SABR on you, Chuck.

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on Jun 20, 2008 6:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

What, you’re saying Wedge lacks grit? And I thought that you were a sabermatrician.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Jun 20, 2008 1:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

You can count me in the anti-Wedge faction. I know he doesn’t have much impact on how the team fares, but just listen to how he responds to adversity … he sounds beaten, defeated, a man with a lack of desire, no fire, no passion in his voice … and that is coming across in how the team responds to adversity on the field.

This is rather simplistic, based on what you see on STO. From what I’ve heard/read about Wedge, that description is polar opposite of what his actual personality is. Someone wrote into the PD a few weeks back with a similar complaint, and Hoynes said that if you spent 5 minutes with him, you’d realize that doesn’t fit him at all. This is consistent with what I’ve read from other sources. Not that I believe everything that Hoynes writes, but I’ll believe a guy who spends time with him every day over someone who is trying to characterize someone from afar.

Wedge drives me nuts sometimes, just like any other manager would. But if the bullpen had pitched so far like it did in 2007, I suspect Wedge would look a lot smarter.

by TribeJay on Jun 21, 2008 3:13 PM EDT up 0 recs