Andy Marte
by Matt in LA on Aug 12, 2008 4:27 PM EDT
Email
PrintYeah, he's finally getting his at bats.
No, he's not producing.
What gives?
Looking over his stat line, it's not surprising to see why his numbers are so low: a BABIP of .221.
In 2006, in the same numbers of at bats he has YTD, he put up a respectable 707 OPS at the age of 22. Has he really regressed that far?
In 2006, he had an XBH in about 1 of 8 at bats. This year, it's more like 1 in 18.
Walks are down slightly, from few to very few, while Ks have held steady.
His LD% is the same and he's hitting fewer grounders, but the flyballs aren't flying enough.
Even in 06 his BABIP was unusually low at .264, about .030 lower than expected, and this year it's more than 40 points lower.
So is it just prolonged awful luck, small sample size (he's approaching a full year's worth of PA for his career) or can he just not hit?
95 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
There’s a huge difference between a full year’s worth of PA over the course of a year and several years.
Steel Nick
That’s the direction I was looking in. Andy Marte’s 2008 is going to have an asterisk behind it, just as do his 2006 (rookie, small ML sample size), and his 2007 (injury, small ML sample size). The Indians all but sat the dude for half the season. I’m not sure Andy - or most anybody - can pick the splinters out of his butt that fast. That’s the choice the team made by not playing him; to my mind, delaying Andy Marte’s development was part of the price of Meloan and Santana.
Truth be told, after lobbying for him for all that time, I’m just ignoring Marte now. I expect young pitchers to get shelled and I expect young hitters to struggle. I think it’s a mistake to conflate our familiarity with Marte, with meaningful experience on his part.
by fleerdon on Aug 12, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Here’s a question I’ve always had about BABIP: is a low BABIP really a good explanation for why a guy isn’t hitting for any power? Seems to me that BABIP would account more for guys who have had bad luck with balls “not falling in” or not getting the usual seeing-eye singles. For instance, it’s not like Marte’s been crushing gappers that are caught by Curtis Granderson everytime or like he’s been robbed of eight homers by Toriiiiiiii Hunter. He’s essentially hitting the ball poorly, and it’s looks like he’s hitting even worse than he really is because he’s not getting as many bloopers or seeing-eye singles.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
So is it just prolonged awful luck, small sample size (he’s approaching a full year’s worth of PA for his career) or can he just not hit?
a) luck or b) SSS are possible, but not probable. Logically, this leaves only c) can’t hit.
Except there is also evidence which shows that© is not true.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 12, 2008 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Damn formatting again….and this just happened on here yesterday to someone else! You’d think I would learn . . .
How about c) is not true.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 12, 2008 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
My comments from yesterday’s Game Thread …
Now on to Marte. No real reason to be down on him.He’s been a regular more or less since July 4, and his numbers are .221/.275/.368 — not good, certainly, but also not atrocious considering he had barely played at all since Spring Training before that point. This basically is his Spring Training, and there’s just no sense fretting over five weeks.
For another perspective … as of July 5, his numbers were .125 / .169 / .143, so that’s a 312 OPS during the "domino days" vs. 648 OPS since then. That is a trend in the right direction, and he is very, very likely to finish the season over .200, for those who care about that.
... and a bit later …
Well, do the math. Domino days … .125 average in only 56 AB. Since then … .221 average in 95 AB. So he’s on pace to bring it up to 200 in another 100 AB or so.He also has a terribly unlucky .225 BABIP — which might seem like it can’t just be bad luck, but remember, it’s only 164 PA, about six weeks of regular playing time, and it’s just not that weird to have that extreme of a BABIP. His PrOPS is 650 … slashed out to .233 / .285 / .366 … and that’s taking into account groundballs vs. line drives vs. flyballs vs. popups.
So he’s merely been bad … and aside from the domino days, not incomprehensibly bad. He’s not Mickey Rouse up there.
Domino Days at the Rabble and Grouse. If Andy Marte plays, free crappy pizza with your first drink purchase.
Y’see, thiz NOWAY he cou’ be anudder Brann’n Phillipi, b’cuz PHILLIPS, PHIL [hic] PHILLIPS was TALEN’ID. Anyone could seeth it … An’ Marchay, this Annie wha—wha’ver, Marchay CANNIT! Lookit the STAZ!
by fleerdon on Aug 12, 2008 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
But the Indians will make a decision based primarily on what he does the rest of this season. Fair or not, they will be unlikely to continue to assess him into next season. Maybe he gets a shot in spring training to change their minds, but I would imagine he will not get the 800 PAs you referred to earlier.
And what conclusion can be expected based on his performance this season?
Fair or not, they will be unlikely to continue to assess him into next season.
Not going into how Marte’s evaluation got limited to so many at-bats, but I don’t see Cleveland screwing Marte over like that at this point. I’m sure they realize how small a sample they have of this guy at the ML level and will take a long look at other aspects of his performance because of it.
Do you see Marte getting the boot just because he hit .200 after not having any playing time at all? Maybe I’m being naive, but I have faith in the team to hold onto Marte until they have a chance to really know what they have in him. A recent example of this paying off is Shoppach. We knew he had some pop in his bat, but now that he’s been starting for a good part of the season it adds a whole other page to his resume and gives the team more options as to how they may use him in the future (i.e. as a starter, rather than a backup).
I think Marte will end up staying past this season.
Well, small sample size on Shoppach, too. I’m not entirely sure he’s a 20 HR .340 OBP guy yet. This has been my point before: when it’s good news, we want to believe it, and when it’s bad news, we cite small sample size or other extenuating factors. Look at how we felt about Asdrubal in 2007. That was a small sample size, but we wanted to believe he is a good hitter. Then came this year. I happen to think he is a good hitter, and just got his swing out of whack, and now he’s hitting again. But my point is we latch on to positive signs and dismiss negative signs as incomplete or irrelevant.
I think a lot of these decisions are made on intuitive feels, hunches. Marte got a raw deal having to play dominoes every day, but that also indicates what Wedge thinks about him. (To be generous, he’s raw, not always in control of his swing, not even a particularly good fielder—this is what it seems Wedge thought of him until Blake was traded).
Marte has not particularly endeared himself to Wedge, it would seem. It is now apparent to everyone how good a fielder he is. It seems like he is trying to take pitches and hit to right field—no doubt showing he is a good student. Sometimes the ball comes off his bat pretty well (like his homerun in Progressive to left center). But then he has an at bat like he did the other night with the bases loaded. Wedge was sending a message to Andy when he pinch hit for him.
Jay said earlier a player needs 800 PAs to be properly assessed. And I said few teams other than the one situated in Kansas City can afford to give a player those at bats. I don’t see how the Indians can let Andy go to the plate 400 more times, unless they can carry his bat with strong players at 1B, LF and DH.
Dave, do we really have to go back to remedial learning with the 40 at-bats over three months?
It’s not cherry-picking, it’s common sense. You can’t find a single professional baseball man who would tell you that a rookie’s performance with that kind of playing time means a damned thing.
If I really wanted to cherry-pick, I could make him look a lot better than that. I’m looking at specific time periods for perfectly understandable reasons.
Time for you to get over this nonsense.
i don’t understand the continuing fascination with marte. he’s holding down a spot on our 25 man roster on the strength of some great seasons in A+ and AA ball from four years back. scouts seem to have soured on him, and he hasn’t accomplished anything since coming to our organization.
i know that it’s extremely rare to see a 21 year old OPS .878 in AAA, but that 21 year old is now 24 (and will be 25 in november). i’m glad that we’re taking the remainder of 2008 to give him a legitimate shot to prove his worth, but to me it’s beginning to look more and more like marte’s physical development really just went in the wrong direction-whether it’s his size, flexibility, bat speed, swing, whatever-and we’ve always known that that’s just an inherent risk with young prospects.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 13, 2008 2:23 AM EDT reply actions
I agree with you, but it’s not like he is blocking anybody in the minors. There are no real options about to hit the FA market (unless you want Casey Blake back for a multi-year deal), and his glove is actually an asset in the field.
In summary, I don’t see why we can’t start off 09 with him and see where he is at. If by early-summer, he hasn’t turned it around .. you DFA him and go from there.
I think we’ve been over this a billion times, but where I’m coming from is that he hasn’t gotten a “real shot” with the Indians. No consistent lengthy stretch of healthy at-bats.
I don’t even care if he can hit at this point—okay, I care. I want him to do well. But if the Indians move on all I need is a legitimate sample size before they make their decision.
Steel Nick
What concerns me is that Marte has shown very little, even in legitimate sample sizes, in triple-A over the last two years. I agree that his major league numbers need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, because he really hasn’t gotten a “fair shot.” But his minor league numbers suggest that, even with a fair shot in the majors, Marte is likely not to produce.
In 96 triple-A games in 2007, Marte hit .267/.309/.457; in 96 games in triple-A in 2006, Marte hit .261/.322/.451. Yes, it’s quite possible that Marte is better now than he was then, but scouts have soured on him and he simply hasn’t produced particularly well, at any level, in the last three seasons.
If we have legitimate hopes of contending next season, it might be difficult to stomach giving Marte an extended trial at third base.
by Peter Bendix on Aug 13, 2008 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
While everything you said may be true, this team has many more pressing issues than finding a 3B for next year. Marte is cheap, he may turn out to be league average, and is a good defender (considering we have a lot of groundball pitchers, this is a good thing). Unless something comes up in trade discussions, I don’t foresee Shapiro actively pursuing a 3B this offseason.
If we could put up with Barfield’s numbers for most of 06 while in contention, we can put up with Marte’s in 09.
I think you mean 2007 with Barfield, but the point is the Indians scored 870 runs in 2006 and 811 in 2007. It was a better offense in 2006 than what will be for this year or next.
You are correct, I meant to type 07 for Barfield.
If (and I know it is a large if) Vic returns close to normal, and Hafner returns to an average DH (not Pronk levels), that puts Grady on in front of Vic, Jhonny, Hafner, and Shoppach. I think that lineup can score near what we did in 07. While the corner outfielders we have now are not special, they are still better then Michaels and Nixon from 07. AbaCab will be better than Barfield 07.
I still think we can do with Marte in the 8/9 position hitting around .240 with some pop in that lineup.
And hey, there’s always a chance that Barfield will be better than Barfield ‘07.
A boy can dream.
by fleerdon on Aug 13, 2008 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
If we have legitimate hopes of contending next season, it might be difficult to stomach giving Marte an extended trial at third base.
I agree, Marte could have done better in the minors, and we’d all feel better about ourselves if he had. And still, at his age and level, he was our most viable third baseman candidate. The difference between the Indians contending in 2008 and the Indians not contending in 2008 was not the difference between Casey Blake and Andy Marte; the difference between contending and not contending in 2009 isn’t going to be the difference between whomever we could afford and Andy Marte. No free agent or trade in our price range could possibly be that good, and Andy Marte is approaching passable right now.
by fleerdon on Aug 13, 2008 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I wonder if we can trade for that Kouzmanoff guy in San Diego. The Padres need a 2B, think they’d be interested in Barfield?
by Peter Bendix on Aug 13, 2008 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Besides that being a pretty dead meme, Kouzmanoff isn’t that good. He’s miles ahead of Marte in terms of what he’s produced, but I agree with Tyler. I’d much rather improve other areas.
Steel Nick
I think this is the wrong way to look at it. If I’m the Indians, I have several potential areas that could stand to be upgraded, so I explore multiple options in the offseason, and I pounce on the ones that I think are the best value. I wouldn’t close the door on upgrading at any of the corner positions.
I’m sure they’re not going to close the door on ugrading 3B, but I think the point is that other areas are a great priority. As mentioned above, there really aren’t attractive FA options. Check the list (although I don’t see Casey on there—not that I want to sign him).
I could see the Indians exploring a trade, but I doubt they give up too much. There are greater needs on this team.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 13, 2008 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
What are these greater needs? Sure, I’d like to pick up a starter and a reliever, but you run into the same problems as third base.
Signing our draft picks? Extending Cliff Lee? Having the money in case something better comes along?
I can’t really think of any addition this club will make, except possibly in a trade of Jhonny Peralta, that will help the 2009 club more than could having the players we’ve already got show up healthy and productive. If that happens, third base may well be a moot point, because our production will be good enough to give Marte some more room and time to develop.
If the team is still a mess in 2009 - the starters never sort themselves out, Hafner never comes back, etc. - third base will probably also be a moot point, but for a different reason: We can’t afford to rebuild a team on the fly, and we’ll be back to the drawing board for 2010. In either case, I think our best option is to ride it out, frustrating though that may be.
by fleerdon on Aug 13, 2008 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I think his point is that Peralta is the one guy we could trade (and might consider trading) who would bring good players in return. That doesn’t mean we SHOULD trade him, obviously.
I agree, the only two trading chips we have now that “could” net us valuable pieces back are Jhonny and Vic/Kelly.
Not that we “should” trade any of them, but those guys would fetch is valuable players back (ie help the 09 squad, not the 11-12 squad).
Dean and Peter are right. I would hate to trade Peralta. But Jay and some others have convinced me there’s a non-insignificant chance we’d be selling high on him this off-season.
by fleerdon on Aug 13, 2008 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
The DiaTriber’s salary piece reminded me how absurdly cheap Peralta is next year (and the year after that)...
I agree with this. Marte is better than Greg Norton. And there ain’t a lot else. But what happens if you give Marte 400 more plate appearances and he hits .187? What if he doesn’t advance, as we all hope he will? I guess nothing, but he would be a millstone in the eighth or ninth slot that would make Aaron Boone look like Eddie Matthews.
It is possible that, given a full and fair chance, Marte is not even a replacement level 3B. Maybe it’s only a slim possibility, but it is within the realm of plausibility.
Yes, it is totally plausible.
But it’s no more plausible than it was for Cabrera and Gutierrez coming into 2008, or Garko in 2007, and we went with them anyway. We chose to spend our money on areas where a cheap, in-house solution was highly improbable, or where depth was considered more likely to be needed.
Millstones in the lineup? You mean like Blake, Broussard and Boone in 2005? Barfield and Nixon in 2007? Our best seasons have not been built on perfect, impenetrable lineups. Marte presents a cheap, plausible solution for 2009 with substantial upside — just as young players have presented for us many times in the past.
The case for him in 2009 is the same as it was in 2007, and had he not gone on the DL, he’d have gotten his 400-600 PA that season, and one way or another, we wouldn’t still be talking about it.
by Jay on Aug 13, 2008 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I agree with nearly everything you say. The Indians lineups, excepting the 1990s, always sports a couple or three or four millstones. Garko and Gutierrez now appear to be approaching millstone status, so who’s going to go?
I don’t think you’d disagree, but after Marte’s injury in 2007—which as I remember was not a long stint on the DL—Marte simply wasn’t given another chance. Blake did so well (in the minds of certain parties) that Marte lost his job while he was on the DL. He never had another shot. Was he hurt the full year? I don’t remember that being an issue.
The fascination with Marte is that he’s a freely available, cheap alternative who not long ago was arguably the #1 prospect in the world.
The fascination is that arguably no prospect has ever been so highly rated, and succeeded at every level in the minors, and then not gotten a meaningful chance to succeed in the majors, and Marte has not gotten that chance.
The fascination is that the limited statistical record that gives the impression of a poor performer is rife with perfectly understandable and unusual circumstances — trying to impress a new organization in 2006 after being traded twice in two months, playing hurt for much of 2007, being stuck in the minors (2007) or the bench (2008) having lost his job due to an injury, and having to perform in extremely sporadic at-bats (2008) when he’s never even had much chance to adjust to major league pitching.
The fascination is that when removed from those extenuating circumstances, Marte has performed like a rookie still trying to adjust, but not like a scrub who is simply overmatched — though even the evidence of that is tainted by tiny samples.
When Marte gets 25 starts in a month, three months in a row, then I’ll consider shutting up. Until then, they’re throwing away a potentially valuable player in an almost unprecedented fashion.
by Jay on Aug 13, 2008 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
This has been my position with my friends. I’m a little late on this thread, and these may have already been mentioned, but here are some additional thoughts anyhow:
(1) In the same email, a friend of mine complained that Shapiro didn’t get anything for Phillips and that Marte sucks and we should get rid of him. My head nearly exploded.
(2) Why not give the job to Marte next year? With the bullpen in shambles, Westbrook and Miller out until the mid-end of the year, a rotation that will consist of a second year (Laffey), a project (Reyes) or a rookie (Huff) or Sowers, and questions at 1st and DH, we are not winning anything next year, unless literally everything goes our way. In the unlikely chance this happens, you can pick up someone serviceable.
(3) If Pronk and Victor are healthy and hitting, we probably aren’t having this conversation. I think that’s more of a reflection on Pronk and Victor, than on Marte.
2003: V-Mart, age 24, 159 ABs after debut season of only 32 ABs: .289/.345/.333, .678 OPS
2006: Marte, age 22, 164 ABs after debut season of only 57 ABs: .226/.287/.421, .708 OPS
I guess we could have written off V-Mart after that year too. The difference, in my opinion, is after 2003, Victor was given an everyday job and he thrived. Last year, Marte struggled out of the gate and then got hurt, only to receive 7 token ABs in September as the Tribe pushed towards the playoffs. As of today, Marte is still short of those 164 ABs that he received in an everyday routine starting July 28, 2006, while being pretty much available since day 1 (was he on the DL in May?) He hasn’t been given the same chance at PT that Victor did.
You can accuse me of cherrypicking a player here, but Martinez was the first I thought of, found the comparison to be relatively valid, and didn’t feel like going any further. I’m just surprised that all of a sudden, a 1-month sample of everyday PT is enough to know what we’ve got in Marte. As has been hinted at, start him everyday next year… the difference between him and a FA 3B is not going to make or break the season.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
2003: V-Mart age 24, in triple-A: .328/.395/.474, with 32 Ks and 26 BBs.
2007: Marte, age 23, in triple-A: .267/.309/.457, with 64 Ks and 21 BBs.
Not to mention Martinez produced extremely well in 2002, while Marte was mediocre in 2006.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Marte’s major league sample is the end-all. The problem is, Marte’s lines from his last two seasons in triple-A haven’t suggested that there’s much room for improvement.
I agree with the general consensus that Marte may be the best option, simply because he’s the only option. But “best” really needs quotes around it, because there’s a reasonable chance that Marte is a below-replacement-level player.
by Peter Bendix on Aug 13, 2008 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m totally confused by the comparison at the top here. You’re not even comparing apples to oranges, it’s more like apples to bricks.
24 (Vic 03) is not 23 (Andy 07), especially when the 23 was recovering from an injury.
23 (Vic 02) is not 22 (Andy 06), especially when the 23 spent half the year at one level below 22, and the other half at two levels below — Victor spent all but two weeks in Double-A at 23, while Andy spent the last 2.5 months hitting decently in the majors. If you translated all their stats for the whole season, the difference wouldn’t be that great — and Victor was older.
It’s incredible, the contortions you went through to try to make Victor’s minor league record better than Andy’s. It simply isn’t. Andy was succeeding in Triple-A at the same age that Victor struggled with a 610 OPS in a month at Kinston.
The entire reason that an untested Marte was worth a shot in the first place, was that we had nobody else in the system and other trade and FA alternatives didn’t look attractive. That hasn’t changed since the trade. So, until some other option becomes affordable and attractive, we may as well ride the Marte train until some other option is more attractive. We won’t know that until we know whether Marte can be league average with some additional chances. In this case, staying the course is both prudent and economical.
Here’s a more encouraging small sample size. Since his recall in mid-July, here is Asdrubal’s line:
.301/.400/.493, 10BBs, 17Ks, 86PAs
I know you weren’t attempting to draw a comparison, but for those tempted to see it that way, remember that Asdrubal had 185 PA in the majors before he got sent down, plus another 152 PA in Buffalo, for a total of 337 PA in the first 3.5 months before his callup. Before essentially becoming a starter on July 5, Marte had 62 PA all season. The point being that Marte came into this stretch of PA pretty cold, while Asdrubal has gotten consistent reps against live game pitching all the way back to February.
It wasn’t really meant in any relation to the Marte discussion. But Marte needs to either start getting luckier on balls falling in or start hitting more balls over the fences. Whether he’s been given a fair shot or not, he needs to start doing something now. He has a shot now, maybe the only real one he’s had, but he needs to take advantage of it. Playing great defense, as I commented above (or below?), isn’t a bad start, though.
If anyone has a copy of the Bill James Goldmine lying around, there’s a great section in there under I think the Royals about rookie third basemen. It’s about Alex Gordon and a couple of other young third basemen (it might be under one of their teams, sorry) and he basically shows that very few great third basemen have produced well during his first extended stint in the majors.
His argument hints at the idea that the position is just too hard defensively but mostly he just points out that it doesn’t happen-if I remember correctly, he shows how putrid both Schmidt and Brett were.
Schmidt was a September callup in 1972, and posted a .619 OPS in 40 PAs over 13 games. He also struck out 15 times. In 1973, he had 443 PAs, and posted a .196 / .324 / .373 line. It wasn’t until 1974, his second full season in the majors, that he really started to show something. Brett had 41 PAs over 13 games in 1973, with a .300 OPS. In 1974, he had 468 PAs, and a .282 / .313 / .363 line. He did better in 1975 (OPS+ of 125), but his first truly great season was 1976, his third full year in the majors. By comparison, Marte still hasn’t had a full season, and has less than 500 total PAs over portions of four.
There we go.
If anyone has the book there are about 6 other good examples in there as I recollect. It’s at my apartment and I am not there.
There are 15 3B in the HOF who played in the modern era (not counting Ripken, who came up as a SS). Of those, only 6 had an OPS+ in triple digits in their first full year. And Killebrew hardly counts, having played parts of five years before becoming a regular in his sixth.
Isn’t everybody here ignoring the fact that Marte can’t hit?
by fleerdon on Aug 14, 2008 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
No, we’re ignoring the fact that he is not hitting well right now. That is different than saying that he can’t hit and, what you seem to be implying, that he never will hit.
Andy Marte is free at last! Now, if only he could hit a breaking ball...
by woodsmeister on Aug 14, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, I know. I’m just jumping the shark for kicks.
by fleerdon on Aug 14, 2008 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions
why didn’t we think of this before?
by Gradyforpresident on Aug 15, 2008 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Chipper’s lowest OPS was 108 in his first season. He then went 136, 119, 148. Then the dynamite went boom to the tune of 168.
Man you know… Larry can really hit.
If you need me, I'll be senselessly rooting for Sizemore 40/40 for the remainder of 2008.
Chipper Jones is the most underrated player of this era, in my estimation. His age 33-36 seasons are unbelievable.
Since 1993, of players who have appeared in at least 5 seasons worth of games, Jones:
-Has the 16th highest OPS+
-Has the highest OPS+ of anybody laying 50% of their games at 3B. By 17 points.
-Has the 13th most HRs.
-Has the most HRs by a 3B. By 85.
-Has the 6th most Runs Created.
-Has the most RC. By 538.
He was obviously the best 3B in baseball from 1990 to 2000 by an extreme margin and he’s basically repeated the feat from 2001 to 2008. The only wrenches in the works are A-Rod who has been Jones equal, with better durability, since moving over to 3B and Wright, who is trying to catch Jones to be the best 3B in the NL East. The only problem is that Jones, right now, at age 36 is demonstrably better than Wright is at 25, injuries aside.
There’s a decent argument that he has dominated the 3B position the same way Rodriguez dominated SS. The difference in OPS+ is about the same between those two and the runners up if you look at 1990 to 2008 and let pretty much everyone come to play-a minimum of 810 games at the position.
He’s had durability issues late in his career but, lord. Chipper Jones is inner circle to me. Since 1901 only Schmidt has a higher OPS+ and it’s only by 2 points, and Jones could catch him too, I guess.
Jones’ bat takes tons of great players behind the woodshed and just dispatches them-George Brett, Wade Boggs, Ron Santo, all of ’em.
Pure hitters, man. Love them.
And, of course the durability matters at this point. But it’s still pretty effing sick. This season in particular is just, I don’t know. An act of god.
None of this will make any difference. The Indians will sign Casey Blake to a three-year deal and Marte will go on to play third base in the NL.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
