Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Falcons and Chargers Recap: The Win Is The Thing Bar-right-arrows

Reining in Expectations for Marte

Hans_tiny by hans on

I think the majority here would support the idea that Andy Marte should be receiving more plate appearances than he has thus far and some would argue should be given the third base job outright (with Blake moving around in a super utility role since all of the planets have aligned and Bizarro Blake is knocking in RISP likes its going out of style). Some have dissented and stated that Marte doesn't deserve the shot because of not showing anything that would be considered "forcing his way into the lineup" this year or in his time in the Indians organization in general. I don't want to get into this argument again as I think it was covered well in this article Jay wrote back on May 14th of this year. What I want to talk about is what we should expect from Marte assuming he will be given more plate appearances going forward (although this isn't necessarily going to happen with Wedge in charge and the offense struggling as it has).

Star-divide

As with any rookie or young player in general, the lack of an extensive history at the major league level lends itself to greater variability in projecting what kind of production you are likely to receive in those early years at the major league level. It is quite possible that Marte will be much worse offensively at third base than Casey Blake this year. But, I'm coming to believe that the Indians need to trust their talent evaluation. If he was good enough to trade for, than he should still be good enough as he ages into his prototypical prime years of production (Marte is only 24 right now). This belief is directed toward the high end talents that the team acquires, such as the players received in the Colon trade, Marte, and even a guy like Barfield to a degree. Many things can stop a prospect from becoming a regular in the bigs, but most of them can be observed (i.e. a major injury, development of bad hitting habits, exacerbation of an already bad habit as a player moves through levels, off the field problems, etc.) But simply losing the talent the player has already displayed is not likely one of them. The Indians need to trust their judgment unless there is an identifiable problem (and I don't want here all you armchair scouts and your claims that Marte has developed a "hole" in his swing in the past year or two, thanks for your subjective assessment, but I'll pass).

So this brings me to what was expected of Marte this year by some of the better projections systems used in projecting future performance. I'm starting off with PECOTA's projections:

A weighted mean projection of 460 plate appearances:

.737 OPS and an EqA of .257

Not exactly "eye poppin", and he's going to have to start getting some more playing time to hit that plate appearance mark, but you get the idea. He'd be somewhere around avg. to below avg. for AL 3B. Now check out the next two lines:

75th percentile = .782 OPS and a .276 EqA

25th percentile = .647 OPS and a .231 EqA

That bottom number is pretty pathetic, while that top number is just as likely yet gives us an above avg. third baseman in the AL.

You know who currently has an actual OPS similar to Marte's mean projected OPS? Yeah that's right Casey Blake at .722 prior to today's game. What I'm getting at here is its likely that if Marte is given the at-bats that most of us would like (including me) that for this season his production is likely to be somewhere near what we are going to get out of Casey Blake. Much like Gutierez, there is a high risk/high reward in playing Marte this season, and increased playing time could allow Marte to hit near his 75th percentile projection or more likely his mean projection, Neither of which is near the "future all-star" level that was mentioned when we traded for Marte, but not terrible either, and certainly not going to be the reason this team's offense tanks this year (Mr. Hafner and Mr. Martinez, that's your cross to bear).

To bolster my point that although most of us agree Marte should be playing more, we'll need to temper our expectations for his performance, are the OPS projections for the other major projection systems:

Marcels predicts 248 plate appearences and a .710 OPS

Bill James predicted 154 at-bats* and a .755 OPS

CHONE predicted 508 PAs and a .725 OPS

Miner predicted 469 PAs and a .725 OPS

ZiPS predicted 497 at-bats* and a .702 OPS

*plate-appearances not projected

Marte needs to be playing, but he also needs to be hitting in the bottom third of the lineup and not be counted on as a major offensive performer. (I'll argue my socks off that he's a better defensive third baseman than Casey Blake though and this alone should be the reason Marte needs to play more).

0 recs | Comment 112 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

This makes a lot of sense, but it doesn’t seem to matter. The problem is that the Indians front office isn’t even sure if Marte is a replacement-level third baseman. He’s not going to get a chance in Cleveland, and he doesn’t help his cause on the rare occasions when he does get an at-bat with runners in scoring position. He would be better served playing every day somewhere, but it certainly won’t be on a Wedge-managed team unless we have further injuries. I think he will be gone by the All Star break.

by odradek on Jun 7, 2008 11:33 PM EDT   0 recs

Great write-up hans. It exemplifies every thing that’s wrong with SABRmetrics. I see Marcels, CHONE, Miner, ZIPS and the infallible baseball genius Bill James quoted here and the repeated use of the term “projected” in one form or another. And I know that I’ve been warned not to be “subjective” but then again that’s what I do. So let’s do a little “objective” evaluation here.

Players on average play to the league average. Any statistician will tell you that, and the math is set up to produce exactly those results. But it’s identifying the non-average, end-of-the-bell-shaped-curve player where a manager and GM make their money. You and I almost alone on this site were early on in violent agreement on Rick Ankiel’s future – the right end of the bell shaped curve. Marte just might be on the left end.

Has anyone gone back and looked at Marcels and CHONE’s and Bill James’s track record for this year? Weren’t the Indians and Tigers supposed to be tearin’ the AL Central up – the Twins drifting along and Ozzie screamin’ into the cameras two or three times a week (oh, yean they got that one right)? Look these “projections” just like everything else in baseball, are fallible and I don’t care how much “higher” math or composite stats they use – they can be off base. Sometimes way off base.

But then again I can see how the scouts can be seduced by Marte’s flashes of talent. Like I said before, the kid looks like a ballplayer. The problem’s been, up to now, the Indians haven’t had the luxury of risking a chance at the play-offs to see what he can do. Now that our play-offs chances seem to be receding into the distance, he may get that chance. Comparing Marte’s “projections” against Blake’s flesh-and-blood performance is sophistry. Wedge, Shelton, Shapiro et al see what the see from Marte and what they’ve seen so far just doesn’t cut it.

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

by mauichuck on Jun 8, 2008 8:40 AM EDT   0 recs

Going back and looking at 2007 predictions. No Marcels, Chone, etc. But the Sabermetrically inclined predictions (Neyer, and the two from BP) did pretty well. These projections based on “higher” math don’t claim to be perfect, they just claim to be better than Average Joe, or whoever ESPN is trying to tell you is an expert, insider, or analyst. And in 2007, they looked to have been right.

by 7foot3 on Jun 8, 2008 10:03 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’ll give you that comparing the actual production give by Blake to what most projection systems have predicted for Marte this season presents plenty of holes in the argument. Certainly it wouldn’t make any sense to do so if there was comparable sample sizes for each player, but alas there isn’t since Marte has a grand total 51 plate appearances this year, far short of drawing any statistically meaningful conclusions.

I also should make it clear that I only offer up Blake’s performance (which most on here complain about) as an example of what some of the projection systems (specifically PECOTA) predict Marte could do given the chance. Point being all of this clammering for Marte needing to get a chance (which I support fully) shouldn’t blind us to the likelihood that for this season he isn’t going to be any better than league avg. and likely even below that level.

by hans on Jun 8, 2008 9:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Andy Marte has taught me that a player can actually have a negative OPS+ number. Never knew that.

I’ve been in some heated Marte talks here on LGT. But my bone of contention is that Andy hasn’t shown ANYTHING that merits more playtime. He hasn’t had back to back games where he looked like a major league player. Hell, he hasn’t had a multi-hit game in his past 30 starts.

by Toxicadam on Jun 8, 2008 9:38 AM EDT   0 recs

My main point of contention with Marte all along has been that you cannot continually jerk around a player and expect much of anything. He has at times this year looked absolutely miserable, you are correct, but let’s see if he continues to look miserable given an extended tryout.

by Roger Dorn on Jun 8, 2008 11:16 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

(and I don’t want here all you armchair scouts and your claims that Marte has developed a “hole” in his swing in the past year or two, thanks for your subjective assessment, but I’ll pass).

You may not want to hear it, but it’s extremely possible that this is why he has been struggling when he’s been in there.

In 2006 he had 357 at bats putting up a .260 BA and an OPS of .773. In 2007 he had 352 at bats in Buffalo putting up a .267 BA with an OPS of .766.

Pretty disappointing compared to earlier numbers. The injury trouble he’s had combined with boredom at the Triple A level may have lead to some bad habits that he has developed at the plate. I wish there was some video on him in Buffalo compared to some video when he was in the Atlanta organization. It would be very interesting to compare those two swings.

by gahnki on Jun 8, 2008 4:38 PM EDT   0 recs

I don’t think hans is saying that it isn’t possible that he has developed a hole in his swing, its just that none of us on here have the expertise to definetively say that he has.

by ClarkM on Jun 8, 2008 4:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

This is exactly my point. It’s possible that Marte has developed some bad hitting habits, etc.. and/or had these bad habits previously, but the analysis to determine this isn’t available for us on this site to evaluate (which gahnki points out himself when he talks about wishing there was video to compare Marte’s time in Buffalo to his time in the Atlanta organization).

What I’m getting at in short is that I believe Marte should be playing fairly regularly and that I accept that he’s not likely going to hit that much better than league avg or slightly below league avg. for this season.

by hans on Jun 8, 2008 8:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

But if you’re going to get roughly the same numbers from Blake and Marte who do you think is going to play?

The guy who gets paid millions or the kid?

It’s just a rough situation for the management/FO to handle.

by gahnki on Jun 8, 2008 9:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well this is the argument I hoped to avoid, but here it goes anyways. It should have never been an either/or situation for this season. Blake has the versatility to play multiple positions (RF of which is probably his best defensive one), yet up until recently hadn’t been moved off of the third base bag. Blake should have been in the outfield when Michaels and Gutz were struggling, and Blake can play 1B when Garko struggles and needs a day off.

Marte wouldn’t be taking away any at-bats from Blake per se, as much as he would be from which ever player (1B, RF, LF,) was struggling, injured, or needing a day off.

by hans on Jun 8, 2008 9:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Oh no…I thought Blake should’ve been a supersub to. it’s just that we’ve waiting too long to set defined roles and now we’re in this mess.

by gahnki on Jun 8, 2008 9:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow..Hooked on Phonics failed me on that post.

by gahnki on Jun 8, 2008 9:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

What mess?
As of game 1, we had CC’s last gasp and a team that won 96 games last year with the same roster. Bosses made a decision that the prudent course was to play the veterans that got us the 96 wins until some other evaluation became possible.
Game 41 allowed a new evaluation whereby it is now clearer that this team will not be able to duplicate last season’s successes. The new prudent course of action is to run the team in a more conventional fashion involving the development of young talent. At game 82, there will be another evaluation and bosses will again direct a course of action prudently.

by elsandito on Jun 8, 2008 9:38 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The situation with Marte/Blake is clearly a mess. There was no plan as to how to work Marte in with Blake. Marte plays at random time (s) every few weeks and there is no way to accurately judge his play. It took an extreme amount of injuries and struggles to open up space for him on the field. No decision was announced that he would have a regular number of days to play each week. It is still going by the managers feel.

by gahnki on Jun 8, 2008 9:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

But who would announce that Player A would be granted three (or two, or whatever) days a week? I don’t recall such a thing ever happening.

by odradek on Jun 9, 2008 1:21 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Seriously? It happens all the time. Any time there’s a player on a roster who seems to be something in between an everyday starter and a bench guy, the media asks how much playing time he’s going to get, and the GM and/or manager usually give an answer, because usually, they actually have a plan in mind. Think about Dellucci or Alex Cora when we signed them, or Gutierrez when we called him up. There is nothing at all unusual about this.

by Jay on Jun 10, 2008 12:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes, that’s true for an Alex Cora type player, an established spare part. But what if you had Felix Pie? Would you announce that you’re going to give him three starts a week, come hell or high water? Maybe that’s the case, but…

by odradek on Jun 10, 2008 2:58 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, this is just a big ball of false premises.

First … if it was Felix Pie, yes.

Second … there is no “hell or high water” situation. Generally a team will announce a basic intention of how many starts or AB a player will get, and then events take their course and plans evolve based on how people play. What’s evident in this case is that (a) if there was a plan, it was either a ridiculous plan or a plan that didn’t get followed, and (b) it also failed to evolve to fit the needs of the team.

Third … let’s not lose sight that what’s unusual about Marte’s situation is precisely that he gets slotted in for zero playing time. Guy makes the roster, basically a rookie, very recently considered an elite prospect, the normal situation is that he’s either getting 4-5 starts a week or (more unusually) at least 2-3.

I think you would have trouble finding even two examples where a prospect with Marte’s resume made a roster with no plan to give him any playing time. That makes this situation either a brilliant innovation or historically retarded.

by Jay on Jun 10, 2008 10:18 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Pie isn’t a good example.

Yes, the Indians have clearly bollixed the Marte roster situation. It is driven, I think, by necessity and a fear of repeating the Phillips debacle. Desperation, I guess. But obviously no explicit plan. Maybe Shapiro and Wedge figured it would sort itself out—somebody would be injured or a sign would appear in the sky.

Marte’s presence on the roster indicates an implicit plan: keep him from going to another roster. But I would agree that his is a “historically retarded” situation.

by odradek on Jun 10, 2008 12:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I can’t say it any better than I did in that article:

If the plan wasn’t to give Marte playing time in the event of struggles at 1B and 3B and LF and RF and DH … then what the hell was the plan?

As an aside, that article started as a three-paragraph blurb in a Week In Review piece, then I blurted it out into a 15-paragraph rant, not that well thought out, mostly Marte-vs-Blake. At that point, however, I got lots of great feedback in the discussion, and I ended up expanding and rewriting significant parts of it. The result was a much better and more refined argument making the larger point, that when the lineup’s truly global struggles still didn’t get Marte into the mix, it revealed some combination of plan-lessness and a rift between GM and manager.

by Jay on Jun 10, 2008 12:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

How has that been different for guys like Choo, Aubrey and Francisco?

In the end, it comes down to daily performances (and sometimes matchups) and rest days.

by Toxicadam on Jun 9, 2008 2:24 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Those three players were all given consecutive games to get into some sort of rhythm not to mention regular playing time in the minors. Marte has not had any regular playing time. It’s a huge difference

by Roger Dorn on Jun 9, 2008 7:53 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, that’s true, but it’s also true that those guys all did something right away, to varying degrees. That’s a big reason why they got additional chances.

Marte certainly hasn’t been given an extended run, but when you’re in his situation you have to show something. Getting worked over by Kenny Rogers with a man on third and one out won’t help your cause. Rogers abused a young player with huge holes.

by TribeJay on Jun 9, 2008 8:18 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

So you are saying if a young player does not show anything at all in 50 scattered at-bats at age 25, we should determine that either
a.) player is not talented
b.) player should not be getting playing time unti….when?

by Roger Dorn on Jun 9, 2008 8:50 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

He’ll get more time once the FO decides we’re out of play-off contention. Given Marte’s circumstances it all makes sense to me. If we were a contender Marte get the Phillips treatment and traded for a single A relief prospect by now.

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

by mauichuck on Jun 9, 2008 9:34 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I assume you’re hyperbolizing, but why trade Marte if we’re a contender? Even if you want Blake starting, he provides depth and defense when the organization is lacking at that position. And contenders who play in the same financial league that we do can not afford to toss off cheap commodities for marginal returns, even in playoff seasons.

by tabler84 on Jun 9, 2008 10:27 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think the most likely reason is that a contender doesn’t have the roster space to hold someone who is getting absolutely no playing time. Which leads to my concern, if we were a contender would we ultimately end up dumping Andy without giving him a legit tryout and without getting anything substantial return?

by Roger Dorn on Jun 9, 2008 11:56 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The 2007 Tribe put together the best record in baseball while having at least one roster spot that got no playing time.

by tabler84 on Jun 9, 2008 12:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes, but it was less by design than it just turned out that way through performance. You have to assume the latter will happen in some form, which is why doing the former is stupid.

by Jay on Jun 9, 2008 12:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Of course. I’m simply refuting the statement that a contender “doesn’t have the roster space to hold someone who is getting absolutely on playing time.” It’s not true, but obviously you don’t plan for such a circumstance. And so would a contender trade someone who is not playing at all and has no options? I suppose. Better to adjust playing time, especially if that player has some value.

by tabler84 on Jun 9, 2008 1:02 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Lots of times a contender will make a trade when not even struggling to further bolster the team in a weak area. Maximizing the utility of each roster spot goes hand-in-hand with this.

by Jay on Jun 9, 2008 2:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think we’re in agreement on all points here.

by tabler84 on Jun 9, 2008 3:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m glad you and yourself can find common ground.

by NickFantana on Jun 9, 2008 4:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Funny funny; you now see that the post tree is out of room, so maybe I wasn’t talking to myself.

Anyway, what do you think sounds good for dinner? I think chicken. Hey, I do too!

by tabler84 on Jun 9, 2008 4:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I like chicken.

by Jay on Jun 9, 2008 7:01 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

So does Jay.

by NickFantana on Jun 10, 2008 8:55 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m definitely with Roger on this one. Anyone trying to gain anything from Marte’s performance in 3 at bats a week is wasting their time.

There was no plan for Marte. You’ve all heard the news conferences and statements. He is just on the team because we have no where else to put him.

by gahnki on Jun 9, 2008 1:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Put down the hyperbole pen, Roger. You seem to get that out when anyone posts a contrarian view on Marte. Yes, of course, it’s obvious 50 at-bats shows he’s not talented.

My point was that in his situation, he has to show something. He’s trying to take at-bats away from Blake, who like him or not, has started for this team the past 5 years and has been serviceable. And if he hasn’t shown anything in the limited chances he’s got. So why is it so tough to understand the reluctance to sit a 5-year starter to give Marte a chance on a team that was one win away from the World Series last year?

Marte’s career line over 4 scattered stretches (350 PA) is .194/.253/.330. That’s unfathomably bad, even when only getting sporadic play.

I’ve posted before that I think Marte should get some more playing time, and the point about moving Blake around or sitting him more is valid. I will also say that it would be really stupid to dump Marte now, and if/when CC gets traded and they wave the white flag, Marte better get the majority of time at 3B.

by TribeJay on Jun 9, 2008 11:34 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Look, I don’t mind a contrarian view on a player, in fact I don’t even disagree with you that Marte looks awful in the playing time he has been given. What we are arguing about though is whether or not the scattered time at the major league level is fair to evaluate Marte on. This I will not budge on, you absolutely cannot figure out what you have in the player until given extended playing time. This does not mean that Marte will become a good player, which I think you are assuming is the position that I am taking. It is the exact same situation as Brandon Phillips, we just cannot afford to give up on our top prospects after they struggle early in their careers.

As for Casey Blake, you say serviceable, I say maybe serviceable in his best years, but for the most part well below average. When you look at defense and hitting for the 3B position, Casey Blake just doesn’t cut it. Does the fact that we were one win away from the World Series mean that we shouldn’t look to upgrade at one of our weakest positions?

by Roger Dorn on Jun 10, 2008 8:08 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

At no time have I argured that the time he’s been given is fair to evaluate him. I”ve never said that. So if you think that’s what we’re arguing about, it’s not.

I’m interpreting that you seem to feel that he should’ve been given an extended look early this year. I’m not necessarily opposed to that, but I’m trying to make the point that you should be able to understand why it isn’t happening in reality.

They should always look to upgrade…but in my opinion, Marte would be a downgrade in 2008. And I think that’s obviously the opinion of Wedge and probably Shapiro, too. If Marte turns into a decent player, I think it will take time. More time than for a normal prospect, and the numbers he’s had so far in his career back that up.

by TribeJay on Jun 10, 2008 8:18 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t think we are really at odds over this then. The main problem I have had with Wedge is Marte has seen less playing time than such standouts as Jamey Carroll and Michael Aubrey, and every time Marte is in a position where Wedge thinks the game is on the line, Marte is removed from the game.

by Roger Dorn on Jun 10, 2008 9:37 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

TribeJay, you know I’m a fan, but you’re showing a real blind spot here.

Marte’s career line over 4 scattered stretches (350 PA) is .194/.253/.330. That’s unfathomably bad, even when only getting sporadic play.

I can hardly count the ways this is wrong.

First, it’s not even that bad — not for a little more than half a season, not for a 22-year-old rookie, which is when Marte had about half those PA. We’ve had plenty of guys who’ve done worse recently on the team — although granted, mostly they’ve been 2B not 3B — and the HOF has more than a few who did worse at the start of their careers. You could easily dig up 50 All-Stars who started worse.

Second, the only thing really wrong with those numbers is the BABIP, which is .228. Normalizing to .305, you get .262 / .315 / .429. I’m not saying we should just go ahead and credit the guy with a 744 OPS, but it is sensible that we treat the effects of an aberrant BABIP with suspicion, and a 744 OPS would be quite good for a 22-year-old rookie.

Third, the Blake comparison again — here’s 351 recent PA from Blake, OPS of 664. Of course, Blake had the benefit of playing every day to get those numbers, with a little offseason wraparound. Has Marte ever had such an opportunity? Yes — but shorter of course. Here’s Marte from a year earlier, basically the only continuous, regular MLB playing time of his career, from his 2006 callup to when he went on the DL in 2007, with an OPS of 678 — and again, this is mostly as a 22-year-old rookie. (The point isn’t that Marte’s number is a little higher than Blake’s, the point is that neither number is particularly bad given only 2-3 months of data.)

If you want to be even slightly intellectually honest about it, you at least separate those 219 PA from the other 131 in which he was playing only sporadically — and put up an OPS of 425. It’s tempting, in fact, to look at this as a reasonable baseline difference between a rookie starting sporadically and a rookie starting 4-6 times a week — 250 points of OPS.

(Side-note to Dave: Note that I am not even doing my usual trick of discounting the first 40-ish PA, Marte’s famous “settling-in” period. I am counting all the PA for the start of both 2006 and 2007.)

The last problem is simply that to extent that Marte went up-and-down a bit between the majors and minors, the numbers aside from 2006 basically just amount to cherrypicking. His struggles in Atlanta (at 21!) were brief clusters of AB, and the rest of the time he was more or less kicking ass in Triple-A (at 21). Yet you want to pick up his 57 PA, ignore everything else he was doing that year, and toss them in the pile with the rest of his PA. Believe me, if I took that kind of liberty with Casey Blake — a bad week here, a bad week there — it would be easy to make him look like the worst hitter ever over 350 PA.

In sum: You got this totally and incredibly wrong.

by Jay on Jun 10, 2008 11:58 AM EDT to parent up   1 recs

I was referencing that line more as an explanation of why hasn’t gotten extended playing time from his current manager, not as a reason to indicate he’s not good or never will be good.

I think it’s safe to say that if he had produced more with his at-bats this year (such as drive in a run), he would have had more opportunities to date. Now whether or not that’s the proper approach is surely up for debate, as indicated by this and many other threads.

by TribeJay on Jun 10, 2008 1:43 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Finally have a chance to get to the PC for more than 3 minutes, and after reading your post more thoroughly Jay, I have another comment (putting it here so it doesn’t get lost with the below stuff).

Showing a real blind spot…I wasn’t intending to put his career line in context. I wasn’t referring to it as an indicator of why he shouldn’t get playing time, or why it shows he can’t play (neither of which I believe, by the way). Again, I was using it to explain why he hadn’t gotten the same opportunities as guys like Francisco, Choo, and even some extent, Aubrey.

Standing alone, his line is bad. Period. And I can’t see how you can argue that this is “totally and incredibly wrong.”

You put it into context to make your points…most of which I agree with.

by TribeJay on Jun 11, 2008 6:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I get the clarification, and thank you, but it seems to me that you’re basically saying that the Indians (or Wedge) are somehow less capable of contextualizing the data than you and I are. I find that very hard to believe, even in Wedge’s case. We already know that the Indians track “hard-hit ball average” for every Indians prospect, tracking this as a stat for every game of all their minor league teams. I’m quite sure they are looking at the numbers every day that show how well he’s hit the ball and where, how well he’s worked the count, his success in bunt situations, etc. I’m not even saying those numbers are particularly good, but they’re going to look better for Marte than his raw “results” data.

Basically, I don’t believe Marte’s playing time is suffering due to anything like his low career OPS. I believe the Indians have a far more sophisticated take on the subject, and I believe they are accustomed employing metrics every day that we don’t even have access to, both on offense and on defense. I don’t imagine OPS comes up much at all.

by Jay on Jun 11, 2008 1:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes, though I’d probably use “unwilling” instead of “less capable”. And I think you’d find that in most teams that are considered contenders at the beginning of the year, not just the Indians.

I don’t think Wedge gives a flying you-know-what about Marte’s historical “hard-hit” average when making out the lineup for any given night.

I remain convinced that if Marte had done something earlier in the year that he would’ve gotten more AB’s than he has up til now. Not saying he would be the regular, but he would’ve gotten more opportunities.

by TribeJay on Jun 11, 2008 6:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think Wedge is a lot more astute with the data than generally might be assumed. I’m not saying he’s looking at Marte’s hard-hit average historically, I’m saying he can look at those numbers for the current season for an overview.

That said, while I’m pretty sure I’m right about that, I think you’re nonetheless right about that last paragraph.

by Jay on Jun 11, 2008 7:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Forgot to add, with his swing plane, I’m not sure that BABIP is that much of a fluke.

by TribeJay on Jun 10, 2008 1:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I wouldn’t even bother to disagree with this, but if his swing-plane is screwed up, the lack of consistent playing time can’t be helping.

by Jay on Jun 10, 2008 2:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Maybe I should just defer to TribeJay when discussing Marte. I have agreed totally with his arguments and observations, and he is more succinct than I have been.

But one more remark about his swing plane. It has looked the same to me over the last three years, and I assume it was the same before then. My feeling is that Bobby Cox saw 20 ABs of that swing, and said he didn’t want any part of it.

by oxforddave on Jun 10, 2008 3:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Could be.

by Jay on Jun 10, 2008 3:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

but then why would we have traded for him? we have scouts too

by Gradyforpresident on Jun 10, 2008 3:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

And wouldn’t it hinder him at all levels? If he had that same swing plane back when he was excelling in the minors, it wouldn’t make sense unless it has changed since then

by Roger Dorn on Jun 10, 2008 3:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Exactly. I don’t buy the swing plane argument at all. First of all, we haven’t seen enough of him to decide whether it’s a legitimate concern. Secondly, we don’t know how long his swing has been like that…and if it was there when he was raking then it’s not a real problem.

by gahnki on Jun 10, 2008 5:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think you nailed this awhile back up above…..it would be nice for us to have video of him prior to coming to Buffalo and then at Buffalo (or even now) but we don’t. Without the data its all just speculation

by hans on Jun 10, 2008 5:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t think the Tribe ever thought they were getting a high-BA guy. His strength is (was) a good walk rate and good power. My best-case scearnio for Marte doesn’t involve him hitting over .260. But if he walks a fair amount and hits for power, then he’ll be a good player.

by TribeJay on Jun 11, 2008 6:50 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Best-case is still only .260? That seems a little stretched. I imagine you would be very pleasantly surprised but not astonished if he grew into a .280 hitter.

by Jay on Jun 11, 2008 12:56 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Maybe I used the term “best-case” a little too loosely. But he never hit over .275 above A-ball, and even then it was .281 and .285. I just don’t like his swing, and his lack of ability to hit the ball hard the other way. I actually did see him line out to right last week (maybe it was Texas?), and almost fell off the couch.

So yes, I’d be surprised if he hit .280, but probably not astonished.

by TribeJay on Jun 11, 2008 6:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Again, maybe I should only post when I have suffiicient time to really explain my points…my problem, not yours. :)

My use of the term swing plane was very simplistic. I’m not a hitting coach, nor do I claim to be. But it seems to me that his swing isn’t necessarily a “line-drive swing” that will produce a high BA. I’m not an expert in BABIP, so please correct me if I”m wrong. It seems to me that the hitters with higher BA’s tend to have higher BABIP…generally, it seems, by definition.

I also don’t think that it’s “screwed up”...he opens up and has an upper-cut swing. I think his swing will always be that way. Therefore, I think it’s faulty to assume that his BABIP will normalize to .305. It likely will improve from where it is, but I would predict it will be less than normal.

Again, I like BABIP as a tool, but I’m not an expert, or at least not the expert I’d be if this stat had come out 20 years ago. ;)

by TribeJay on Jun 11, 2008 6:48 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The only reason it’s a “mess” is because Marte’s play stinks. If he’d just OPS 750 or so there would be no decision. He’d have the job.

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

by mauichuck on Jun 9, 2008 6:51 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t think he’d have the full-time job if he’d “just OPS 750.” 750 is not spectacular, and he’d be putting up those not-spectacular numbers in piece-meal playing time at best, so why would Wedge decide to sit his favorite kind of player? At this point it seems that Marte would have to explode for multiple games to get a regular job.

by tabler84 on Jun 9, 2008 9:11 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

He has OPSed over 750 even when he’s struggled! The only time he hasn’t is when he gets one day a week to show his stuff. How do you expect him to prove his worth if he never plays?

by gahnki on Jun 9, 2008 1:43 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs