Paul Hoynes' Analyzes What Went Wrong and How to Fix It

Wow, I'm in violent agreement with every point Hoynes makes. When did he get so smart?

about 1 year ago mauichuck 68 comments 0 recs |

Comments

Considering that his list includes such profound insight as “get healthy,” I’m not surprised you agree. Just don’t read the comments – I feel like I need to wash my brain.

by FredOx on Jul 17, 2008 10:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Seriously. He also includes gems like “Fix Betancourt,” “Look to the Future” and “Find a Closer.” These ideas might be too revolutionary.

I’m pretty sure you’re in “violent agreement” because Hoynes makes one obvious point after another. Who doesn’t already know what went wrong this year?

by joeee on Jul 17, 2008 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

don’t forget the time tested:

...but how about someone expressing a sense of urgency?

by Brick. on Jul 17, 2008 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s obviously a lack of grit. And beards.

by FredOx on Jul 17, 2008 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only interesting point was about Dolan. He is so out of the limelight, I didn’t even know what he looked like. But, obviously, that is a concious decision on his part … so why would you want him to be something he is not? That’s just a recipe for disaster.

I don’t have a link handy .. but Pluto had a better companion piece. It actually provides some statistical research to back up his viewpoints (OMG research!). But it’s nothing new he hasn’t said before (or we have discussed to death here).

The biggest misnomer about the 2008 season is that Shapiro “sat on his hands”. In a way, Shapiro was handcuffed by the budgetary constraint of being a declining middle market team and the incredible success of relatively young guys.

Baseball common sense tells you that those young players will do as well, or even better the following year. Some could fail or struggle, so you hire cheap veterans to back them up (Blake and Carroll). Both of those veterans have come in handy and filled their purposes. Baseball common sense tells you that relievers will also have down years. That was addressed with Kobayashi and he has been a good signing too.

It’s natural to want to find someone solely responsible for something when it fails. But, I think this is one of the years where you can’t really pin it on one person or philosophy. Moves were made and they were additions without any subtractions. Which is a great, sound philosophy for a team that won 96 wins and had incredible chemistry.

2008: Shit happened.

by Toxicadam on Jul 17, 2008 11:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

All excellent points – but it’s just not good enough. At some point Shapiro and Antonnetti, as well as the support staff – need to be accountable. If you’re gonna take the praise when you’re named the GM of the Year, then you need to take the heat when your team totally tanks.

And I ain’t buying the “budgetary constraints” argument. If what many of you guys say about signing CC is/was true and that we do have $15-20M layin’ around for FAs, they Shapiro has/had the resources to sign somemore mid-level players. How about takin’ that ~$17M and using $9M for some relief help and $8M for a bat?

And I’m wiht Hoynes here: the training/medical guys screwed up by letting Vic play earlier in the season after he injured his hamstring. Hamstring injuries are the bete noire of catchers – especially in cold weather. There’s no way in hell that the Indians should have relied on a 37 yo closer with a very questionable shoulder. Maybe Kobayashi was supposed to be the answer, but I haven’t seen any evidence that he’s the guy. And the Hafner thing just gets more and more egregious as additional information oozes out. Somebody from the training group should have their head on a pike on the corner of Carnegie and Ontario.

Yep, bad luck for sure. But there’s no way in hell that this team would be so bad with better planning and management.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 17, 2008 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just can’t behind holding Shap and Antonetti accountable when the team performs at this level on average. Every other year for the last 4 they’ve won over 90 games. That’s great not just for the market but for baseball, period.

It’s easy to get real upset in a year like this but honestly we’re nowhere near needing to hold anyone accountable if by that you mean firing. If you don’t mean firing, well, I’m confident they’re holding themselves accountable.

by afh4 on Jul 17, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It isn’t easy to stay sober and stick to your methods during trying times. I can’t agree more with you. The knee-jerk lets-find-who-did-this-to-us-reaction is a bad one. Instead of “who did this to us?” we need to ask “what is happening to us?” My answer: reworking the soft-spots and setting up for a legitmate 09 team.

by joeee on Jul 17, 2008 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, let’s pretend that there was a magicial player out there this offseason that would fill LF and only cost 9 million. Then pretend that there is a closer that would only cost 7 million.

You basically terminate any possibility of signing Sabathia (which was still a possiblity until this Spring).

Even if we had a league average LF and a capable reliever, you still have to expect the season to play out the same way (with injuries and poor performance from key members). So, how many wins could/would those two imaginary players affected? Maybe 4-6? You would still be looking at a team that is sub .500 and probably looking to deal Sabathia (since we have zero chance of signing him when we signed those two imaginary players). Season would still be lost.

All things considered, if you want to assess blame, it lies directly on the shoulders of Betancourt and Garko. If those two guys could have stepped up and filled the holes … we might be in a different situation right now. But there was nothing before this season that would indicate that those guys would have such miserable years. Garko is a bit streaky, but not someone that would go into a “funk”. Betancourt couldn’t have matched 07 … but there is no reasons why he couldn’t have been as good as ‘06 and ‘07.

The playing through injuries angle is all speculation. We (the fan) have no idea to know who was injured in the past and how it affected their performance/season. Maybe Victor had a bad back for 2 months last season? How would you know? It is a valid point, but one that is easy to make in hindsight. Hopefully, it’s a learning experience going forward.

by Toxicadam on Jul 17, 2008 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well of course there’s that magical player out there: Quenton, Ludwik, Hamilton, Sherrill, Capps. But of course those are just some of the top of the line performers. It’s just as possible that we couldda got Guzman or Aquino. But that’s not the point. The only two acquitions we got were Carroll and Kobayashi – both servicable players but far from what we needed.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 17, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If we had made a move in the offseason it’s about 95% would’ve involved shipping Cliff Lee. This stuff exists in a context.

And Ryan Ludwick is bull.

by afh4 on Jul 17, 2008 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t forget having to trade Asdrubal, or Gutierrez (well, maybe), or Adam Miller. Those were players Shapiro was being asked to trade. In hindsight, maybe Quentin would be worth one or more of them, but I can understand the Indians’ unwillingness to give up any of these players. About the only thing I can see, again in hindsight, would have been to sign Linebrink to a three-year deal.

by odradek on Jul 17, 2008 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Serious question: Was Garko ever good? I’m starting to wonder if the reason the front office made Garko work so hard to earn his spot was that they had a better grasp on his talent than some outside observers, like me, believed. Even last year, looking at it objectively, he really wasn’t THAT awesome. Maybe the slowest guy on the team, minimal defensive value, crumby walk rate. I guess slap-with-some-pop + get hit by pitches just isn’t a reliable skill set. 20+ HR is 20+ HR, but Ryan hitting the wall this season may have been more predictable than I’d like to think.

by fleerdon on Jul 17, 2008 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Garko’s margin for error has always been razor-thin, because his range of assets is so limited. He’s a strong contact hitter, and that’s pretty much it. Mediocre power and selectivity, negligible defensive value. If he’s seeing the ball well, he’s a solid guy to have in your lineup, as long as he’s cheap. But if there’s anything at all wrong with him at the plate, he becomes sub-replacement immediately.

by Jay on Jul 17, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

don’t have a link handy .. but Pluto had a better companion piece

Here

by Brick. on Jul 17, 2008 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No. 5: That’s where the Indians rank in the AL with 23 sacrifice bunts, so Eric Wedge does use it. A year ago, the Indians ranked 10th with 32 sacrifice bunts, so they are bunting more this year.

by Brick. on Jul 17, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn’t that more an indicator that our offense has been horrible and Wedge is trying anything to scratch out runs?

by Toxicadam on Jul 17, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe, but the point is that when you look at the numbers, things aren’t as bad as they seem. Last year, fans screamed that the team didn’t bunt enough, and now they’re bunting more. Pluto points out that in terms of runs and OPS, the offense isn’t quite as offensive as it seems. The bullpen, however, is just as crappy on second glance as first. Except for Perez.

by FredOx on Jul 17, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It reflects Andy Marte’s occasional presence in the line-up.

by peter m on Jul 17, 2008 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A guy who writes professionally for cleveland.com blames Dolan first? I’m shocked, shocked!

Free Andy Marte!

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Jul 17, 2008 11:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think that it was elsandito who argued that management is most needed when things are going poorly – not when you’re on top.

I don’t think that Hoynes was blaming Dolan. I think that he’s saying that now is the time for Dolan to be more active in operating the team. Not necessarily making trades or signing players, but asking S&A what is it you need? And letting them know that he’ll give them the resources they need, but they better deliver.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 17, 2008 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You don’t think this is the constant state of the Indians?

Dolan’s job is to shut up and sign checks, and he’s great at it.

by kwoog on Jul 17, 2008 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I’ll add this. Saying that the Tribe would not have contended even with additional front office moves is not a credible defense for the front office.

by elsandito on Jul 17, 2008 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why not?

by kwoog on Jul 17, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The dog ate my homework. Okay, but did you do the work correctly? Doesn’t matter, the dog ate my homework.

by elsandito on Jul 17, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Any possible acquisition wouldn’t have been a 3 or 4 hitter, or a 2 or 3 starter, which is what they lost ot injuries. So now you’re down to the bullpen, which also happens to be the most problematic area. But what should they have done, specifically? Sign Linebrink and Dotel, to theoretically pitch the 5th and 6th?

by kwoog on Jul 17, 2008 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again you miss the point. Here’s my concern: the moves they made, the actions taken by Shapiro and Antonetti showed that they were not sufficiently concerned with the bullpen – you know that sense of urgency thing. Because if they were, we wouldda acquired more than Masa – traded Miller or Asdrubal or Garko. Or Sexson for Wickman or Giles for Rincon – oops, bad example. It’s not the specifics per se, it’s the methodology that concerns me – and I’m not a methodology kinda guy.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 17, 2008 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s easy to sit here on July 17 and say “the bullpen sucked, they should have fixed it.” But in the offseason, other than closer, were we sitting around saying “the bullpen is going to be our downfall in 2008”? i seriously doubt it – Betancourt and Perez were coming off great years, and even if Betancourt lost 150 points off his ERA+, he’d still be at 162. The pen last year had four guys with an ERA+ of 150 or better, and most thought Eddie Moo and Tom Mastny would be ready to step up. I’ll hang Shapiro out to dry for sticking with Borowski, but I certainly didn’t see the fall of Betancourt and Lewis coming, and neither did you.

Once it became obvious the pen was so stinky, there wasn’t much they could do for this season. No, they didn’t make a lot of moves, but sometimes the best deal is one you don’t make.

by FredOx on Jul 17, 2008 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The fall of Lewis? From where? I’m willing to accept that Shapiro made some poor assumptions. What I dislike is his hiding behind his dog.

by elsandito on Jul 17, 2008 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In 2007, Jensen Lewis had an ERA+ of 214, with 34 Ks and 10 BBs in 29 innings. He became the primary link between the starters and the Raffys. I’d say he’s fallen farther than anyone expected.

by FredOx on Jul 17, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let’s forget about Betancourt and Perez for a minute. Are you telling me that you had little if any concern for Borowski? Maybe I’m missing something here, but it was pretty clear in March of ‘07 that Borowski’s health was shakey at best. Do you think that after a year of closing it’d get better?

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 17, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, Borowski sucked in 2007 and I fully expected hi to suck in 2008. Shapiro deserves criticism for failing to get a closer (thus, the reason I said “I’ll hang Shapiro out to dry for sticking with Borowski”). He doesn’t deserve criticism for failing to trade Lee or a prized prospect for a replacement for Perez, Betancourt or Lewis.

by FredOx on Jul 17, 2008 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My guess is the only reason they didn’t trade Lee was that nobody in Major League baseball was willing to give up anyone who looked like a servicable relief pitcher for a guy who’d been demoted to AAA. Let’s face it: Lee wasn’t worth much in February ‘07.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 17, 2008 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Other than the implosion of Joe Borowski (which nearly everyone saw coming), did anyone think the Indians’s bullpen would be such a weakness? Betancourt, Perez, Lewis, Kobayashi, with Mastny waiting in the wings.

The Indians ‘pen – even without JoeBlow – looked to be fine going into the season.

by Peter Bendix on Jul 17, 2008 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s what I’ve been saying. Before the season began, everyone assumed this club was going to have a strong bullpen, aside perhaps from Borowski. I’m pretty sure they weren’t talking about the aroma.

by FredOx on Jul 17, 2008 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure that’s true. I’d say people were pretty sure that Betancourt and Perez would be good, but not as good as last year. I think no one knew what to expect from Masa. And, I think people figured Lewis would be good. After that, a black box. So, an ambiguous looking bullpen, with the possibility of being good.

by peter m on Jul 17, 2008 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t remember expecting a strong bullpen. We had some good pieces from last year and we added a few guys that had a chance of helping — Julio, Breslow, Kobayashi — but certainly nobody who was considered a really strong bet to contribute. Nobody expected Betancourt to collapse entirely, but nobody expected him (or Perez or Lewis) to repeat 2007, either.

by Jay on Jul 17, 2008 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but you actually know stuff. I actually meant the pundits, who seemed to agree that the strength of this team would be starting pitching, the bullpen (save Borowski) and Grady.

by FredOx on Jul 18, 2008 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But didn’t we, at the very least, expect an adequate bullpen? Between The Fists and Stomp, I thought that the 7th, 8th, and 9th were more or less taken care of. Nobody I know expected them to replicate their 2007 success, but this?

I thought the cavalry would come from the likes of Kobayashi and Atom Miller (or a Mastny, Mujica, or Stevens showing that they belonged) transitioning in to help as The Close inevitably flamed out and everyone moved up the ladder.

I seem to remember thinking that our bullpen was what would separate us from Detroit and how foolhardy the White Sox were to think that backing the Brinks’ trucks up for Linebrink and Dotel would somehow resolve all of their problems.
Ah, hindsight…

The bullpen, to me, is the biggest culprit in this whole thing and I can’t see what we witnessed (to the degreet that it has happened) could have been anticipated after 2007.

by The DiaTriber on Jul 18, 2008 8:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that the bullpen is the biggest culprit. But, I remember thinking that we’d compete with Detroit because a. our starting pitching looked so strong and b. THEIR bullpen looked terrible (not OUR bullpen looked great). My assumption was that our bullpen would be adequate, with a concern about Borowski and some worry that the big 3 (Raffies and Lewis) would regress at least a little. I never figured it would be this bad, though. That’s for sure.

by peter m on Jul 18, 2008 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another poor defense of the front office is the one where someone contends that most of the FAs or players on the market haven’t had the kinds of years that would have made it worth our while.
This is irrelevant. This was CC’s final contract year. In what year are we planning to overpay for insurance? Surely not next year. GMs won’t suddenly stop assuming risks just because a percentage don’t work out.
I’ll be the first to admit there are dozens of viable defenses for doing what Shapiro did. But some of the reasons assumed here don’t make sense to me.

by elsandito on Jul 17, 2008 3:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There’s only one defense that matters:

He had a top 3 team in baseball, top to bottom, plus a healthy farm. He stood pat.

by afh4 on Jul 17, 2008 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re right. On the flip side, it’s a poor criticism of the front office to say they should have replaced players who have had poor seasons, unless you can point to something objective to demonstrate that their poor seasons were foreseeable.

The burden is on those criticizing the organization. What move(s) would you have made last off-season that could have been made but weren’t? And don’t say trade Dellucci for Josh Hamilton.

by FredOx on Jul 17, 2008 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly what I think. Looking back at the off-season, I just don’t think we had a whole lot of chips. Fausto, Miller, Laffey, Huff, Weglarz, Mills, and Asdrubal were unavailable (except maybe for Haren). Besides that, which Indian would you want badly enough to give up the impact talent? Sabathia, I guess, and we know how that played out.

And that’s the issue, for me. We didn’t fail because we lacked role players. A number of our role players are doing okay. We failed because we ran out of stars. Kind of like, our team was a really fast car, but we didn’t have any replacement parts and couldn’t afford the service. The car broke.

by fleerdon on Jul 17, 2008 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

NO, no ,no, this is exactly what I’m arguing against. It’s not about our failure. It’s about whether the front office conducted itself doing everything it could during the off season. The failure was going to occur regardless, but it doesn’t take the FO off the hook. Assumptions were made about young players that had done well in late 2007 based on less than adequate sample sizes. Sure, we could have been luckier with those guys. Is this prudence? Yet, we keep circling back to the injuries and failure of stars.
What question are we asking? Is the question, why did the season fall apart? Is the question, did the front office do as much as it should have done to position us to succeed?

by elsandito on Jul 17, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is that we can only prove that the null hypothesis failed: that standing pat with a 96-win team didn’t work.
Disproving the null hypothesis doesn’t really prove anything.
We’re in the situation we’re in for any one of a number of reasons. Just off the top of my head,
1. The players just aren’t as talented as we think they are and we caught lightning in the bottle last year.
2. Key players have had a SSS run of bad luck, injuries, and the like that has caught the team off -guard.
3. The collapse of the bullpen has specifically undermined the team and it’s largely irrelevant what other moves were made.
4. Shapiro needed to add a few more players.

It’s fair to say that the FO can take some of the blame for certain failures. I think Shapiro would agree to that. But I don’t know that we can prove how much of that blame should be allocated to the FO. And, moreover, I don’t think that the FO has done anything that deserves any more sanction than maybe a more rigorous examination of future moves. So I guess, my question is, even if the FO did not do enough, what should Ownership do?

by DaveE on Jul 17, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We were damn lucky to get 96 wins last year – check out your boy Pythagorus. If we know it then Shapiro and Antonetti know it too. We needed BP help and more production from the usual corner slots. For whatever reason the FO didn’t make a move.

Like I said before, the FO hasta be flawless – flawless – for the Indians to contend every year. And just like every other FO, they’re not.

Now as to what Ownership should do, that’s pretty simple: make a profit. They’re doing that I’m sure and will probably continue to do that. It just makes it a little tougher to be a fan of the Indians, that’s all.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 17, 2008 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree on the corner outfield issue. And I am not talking about a Trot Nixon or David Dellucci situation

by Roger Dorn on Jul 17, 2008 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, too, but you have to look at what our options were.

The free agent options were few and poor — um, Andruw Jones?

The trade options require giving up comparable talent — and we didn’t have it to give. We simply did not have any major league-ready talent of significant value, nor did we have excess, quality players to give up. Our most tradeable (and least untouchable) pieces were Blake and Garko, but either of those would have resulted in either a significant depth problem or a giant hole in the lineup.

Now, you can blame the front office for not developing enough talent in the farm system, but they have produced an awful lot of quality big-leaguers over the last few years.

by Jay on Jul 17, 2008 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t necessarily want a Jason Bay type where we would be giving up a lot to get him back in return, but rather a Carlos Quentin type that would have not cost as much at the time. It’s easy to say in retrospect now that we should have been involved in trying to acquire Quentin, but I think there are more players out there similarly rated to Carlos that can be had for cheaper than what Bay would cost. An acquisition like that provides at the worst depth to the point that one of these guys should pan out ,and at best a potential every day corner outfielder.

It’s quite possible that we were involved in trying to acquire Quentin, and we just lost.

by Roger Dorn on Jul 18, 2008 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Indians have drafted a lot of players from Stanford, but I wonder if
the fact that Williams played there caused him to value Quentin higher than other GMs.

by palcal on Jul 18, 2008 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Indians should trade Garko to the White Sox, then. Pablo Ozuna has been released.

by odradek on Jul 18, 2008 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jose Guillen. He signed a three-year, $36 million contract in December with the Royals. Admittedly, the Royals had to pay a premium to get Guillen to play in KC. Maybe the Indians could have had him for three years at $30 million.

by odradek on Jul 18, 2008 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So, basically: you just want to complain, because you expect the front office to be perfect.

by Voltaire on Jul 17, 2008 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn’t it a bit absurd to expect our FO to be /flawless/? We had a team last year that relied on starting pitching, a strong bullpen and decent offense. This year we expected our offense to be about the same with some development from Gutz and Cabrera and we expected our bullpen to be a bit better with the addition of Masa hopefully taking some strain off The Close. There was no way, no way, of seeing this implosion coming. It’s easy to sit here now and say we needed all of that, but when we were one win from the WS it surely didn’t look like we did.

Proud supporter of the Cleveland.

by fwembt on Jul 17, 2008 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t say I expected the FO to be either perfect or flawless. What I said was that in order “for the Indians to contend every year” the FO would hafta be flawless. Other well heeled franchises do not have the same pressure.

And everybody keeps coming back to the “one win away from the WS” stuff. I kinda like that arguement, but really, does anyone here think that the Indians weren’t a little lucky last year? Ol’ Pythagorous does. So now this year we’re really unlucky – Pythagorus again, and injuries – but we’ve got no where to turn. No big mid-season trades, to veteran RH hitter pick-ups, etc. Not that we’d make any changes, given our financial situation and position in the standings.

I’m sure everybody has seen Bob Costas’s baseball piece on HBO by now and saw Shapiro speak briefly about the plight of mid and small market clubs. The salient piece being that, given the inequities of the income distribution, clubs like the Indians would cycle up and down forever. So now we’re in our down cycle – who knows how long it’s gonna last. All of the FO’s decisions must be flawless and perfect in order to avoid these down cycles. Good luck with that.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 18, 2008 6:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chuck, you have been beating the Pythagoras drum aimlessly for months now. Let me ask you this … where has it ever been proven that Pythagorean variance is primarily or necessarily a function of luck? And I’ll point out for the millionth time … there are types of luck that a baseball team can have other than things like one-run and extra-inning records.

On the other hand, I’m finding that I agree with you about being perfect, when I read your words carefully. What you’re saying is that for the Indians to contend in several consecutive years would take perfect execution by the front office, and that perfection is more than we can hope for from this front office or any other. Is that right?

Well, it is a functioning thesis, as the Indians swing from 93 to 80 to 96 to 72-ish. Beane of course accomplished better than that for quite a few years, but you could argue that it was a less competitive environment then — the richest teams are spending even more proportionately than they were five years ago, and teams overall have gotten smarter, too. And as impressed as everyone is with Beane’s ability to rebuild on the fly, they’ve only made the playoffs once since 2003.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since the start of 2004, Oakland has won 403 games to the Tribe’s 388, a difference almost entirely attributable to 2008. Beane’s team has an every-other-year thing going, too, they just do well in the even-numbered years.

by FredOx on Jul 18, 2008 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well maybe you see my constant reference to Pythagorus as aimless, but I see it differently. Here’s what I say it says: teams, on average, perform averagely. That’s the soft spot in the use of statistics to analyze human performance. Luck is only on of the insensible variables when you talk about people. There are other factors: determination, chatacter and that oft lampooned factor grit.

And yeah, my other point about the FO is that we operate under much different conditions than the big spenders – no real revelation there. But often we forget that, myself included. Shapiro hasta take more chances, operate on a much finer edge than morons like Cashman. Shap doesn’t have the luxury of picking up a Roger Clemens for $20+M for a coupla dozen starts. He’s gotta take more risks, so he’s gonna make mistakes. I get this. But what he can’t afford to do is blunder – the catastrophic mistake that can potentially substantially reduce his maneuverability. And you know the move I’m talking about. So I can understand and even forgive a few mistakes, it’s the blunders that get my goat.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 18, 2008 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I’m getting with Pythagoras is, it’s only one way to look at luck, and not very reliable. I think Pythagorean variance is less significant, and ultimately less luck-driven, than a group of key players (pitchers or hitters) taking a beating on BIP — and Pyth variance doesn’t even isolate that factor out, it just further masks it.

So you can’t make Pythagorean variance your one big argument in a grand, sweeping statement about luck and the true talent level of a team. You want to talk about luck as an indicator of talent, you need to talk about more than just Pythagoras.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Taking a beating on BIP is a classic sign of bad luck, yes?

Not scoring your runs in an advantageous distribution is also bad luck, yes? But not the alpha and omega of bad luck?

by odradek on Jul 18, 2008 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We can be pretty sure that luck plays a huge role in both, but we also know that it isn’t all luck in either case. We know, for example, that when all the non-closer non-setup guys in your bullpen are surprisingly good, it helps your Pyth record a lot more than your real record. Having unusually good relievers for your low-leverage innings is not unlucky (or bad managing), but it will produce a Pyth variance that gives the impression of bad luck (or bad managing).

These two effects may be the alpha and omega, and there are other factors in between such as theta. Chuck’s statements have suggested (for many months now) that Pyth alone is the alpha and the omega and everything in between on the subject of whether a team got lucky.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Boy I must be the worst writer on the planet. No my point is not that Pythagoras is anything other than a meat cleaver, with all of the implied subtlety and accuracy. I was poking fun at the whole idea. A while ago I mentioned that the basis of the Pythagoras record was simple curve fitting. And as any of the other engineers on this site will tell you, curve fitting is what engineers do when they can’t figure out what the underlying principles are to a particular phenomenon.

What I really believe is that the Pythagoras projections are BS and the fact that they are included in a team’s record on websites like Baseball Reference is staggering and disorienting to me.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 18, 2008 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah. You’re not to the worst writer on the planet, but you do propose a lot of crazy-ass ideas without much foundation, and to be honest, it is hard to discern when you’re kidding and when you’re just nuts.

Pyth records shouldn’t get you all worked up, they’re just a modified way of representing how many runs a team scored and allowed.

by Jay on Jul 19, 2008 3:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If defensive metrics are perceived as wanting, luck metrics are far worse. Which seems weird. Someone should be studying spray charts to see what happens to teams that give up more chalk hits than they hit. (I know; they lose.) Everyone will acknowledge the existence of luck, but nobody seems to be able to prepare even a rough definition of it. As Justice Potter Stewart said about the definition of pornography, “I know it when I see it.”

by odradek on Jul 18, 2008 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those aren’t two questions. They’re the same question. If the season falling apart was predictable, the FO should have put the pieces in place to prevent the falling apart or to recover from the falling apart. If the falling apart was not predictable, I don’t want the FO spending $20 million stashing insurance in Buffalo or making foolish trades just because certain of the key players in 2007 were here for half a season.

by FredOx on Jul 17, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re putting more emphasis on my last sentence than I intended to give it. Poorly written on my part. It’s that first paragraph that matters to me. I think we can agree the free agent market was basically crap, so you’re essentially saying there should have been trades. My point: The trades were too rich for our blood. The only pieces we had of value were too valuable to us.

If you were trading with the Indians last winter, who would you ask for? Because I can’t think of anybody good that we actually would, or could have afforded, to move.

by fleerdon on Jul 17, 2008 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs