Some Modest Goals for the Season
by Logodaedalus on Sep 11, 2008 1:12 PM EDT
Email
PrintIn this lost season I find myself looking for scaled back goals for the team. With a record of 71-73 as I write this, and 18 games left to play, what are some realistic things to hope for?
There's the obvious: Finishing above .500
This seems highly realistic, requiring a record of 11-7 going forward to be above, 10-8 to be *at* .500.
Winning the Pythagorean race
This is a stretch, as we're 4.5 back. If the White Sox and Twins both Play .500 ball from here on in (or, say, 9-8), we'd have to go 13-4 to tie, assuming "average" run distributions. If we win our wins by a lot and lose close ones as we've been doing, however, it may not be such a reach. If we achieve this goal, we get to play in the hypothetical Pythagorean playoffs on a series of right-triangular fields. Should be an interesting challenge for our diamond-accustomed players.
Finishing closer to 1st than the 2007 Tigers
We're pretty close to this goal. The Tribe buried the Tigers under an 8 game lead by the end of last year. We're 9.5 back now, so this is more than feasible, especially with a series each against the teams ahead of us.
Obviously there are some goals for individual players that could be discussed, but does anyone else have any suggestions for team goals?
164 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My latest one that I have been eyeballing for the past few weeks.
Finish better than the Yankees.
by Toxicadam on Sep 11, 2008 1:23 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
That would be satisfying. I guess we’re only 5 games back of them…. Tough order but not impossible.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 11, 2008 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d rather finish in the bottom 15. I won’t feel any better about this season if we finish a game above .500 but lose draft picks for signing guys.
Steel Nick
A goal almost certainly incompatible with finishing ahead of the Yankees, sadly. The Marlins and Dodgers stand between us and the Yanks right now (we’re in 16th overall). We could maybe have both if the Yanks completely tank, we surge, but those two teams surge more. The Rangers and D-Backs could also help us out by winning a lot down the stretch.
Is the only benefit of finishing 15th vs. 16th the Type A Free Agent situation (I mean, aside from being one pick higher in the draft in general)? It just doesn’t seem like we’re a team that signs guys like that. But good to keep our options open, I guess.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 11, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Having the option to sign a Type A player and keep a draft pick, even if we don’t do it, seems more of a plus to me.
Steel Nick
Sure. Finishing ahead of the Yanks would have no tangible significance, whereas a first round draft pick or not could be huge in a few years. Of course, while I’m happy to passively root for the teams that are close to us in the rankings now (FLA, LAD, TEX, AZ) in the interest of finishing in the bottom 15, it’s not possible to root for the Indians to lose (nor is it possible to root for the Yankees to win, except maybe against Boston, in the greater interest of keeping the Bosox out of first). So on a larger scale level I agree with you, but on a day to day level it becomes difficult to feel invested in finishing in the bottom 15.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 11, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I rooted for the Indians to lose hard in the days when they were teetering on the ledge of “will-they-or-won’t-they-trade-CC?” It was painful. I think we had a couple of game thread arguments. Long term success is always more important to me than momentary satisfaction, unless momentary satisfaction = World Series Champions.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
About the only thing that I would like to see happen would be for the Tribe to eliminate the White Sox from the playoffs during the final series of the season- preferably with them needing to win only one game out of three but getting swept nonetheless.
Allowing us to see Ozzie in all his glory -
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on Sep 11, 2008 5:05 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
Even it that one extra win takes us out of the bottom 15 … Tempting. The most tempting argument I’ve heard.
Steel Nick
To put a consequentialist spin on it: it’s conceivable that the revenue that the White Sox would get by making the playoffs would improve their team enough to cost them wins in future seasons, thereby improving the Indians’ chances. To possibly sacrifice a draft pick (damaging the distant future success of the Tribe) in order to damage the immediate future success of the Sox (thereby improving the immediate success of the Tribe) might be worth it, if you weigh probabilities of damage against each other. Then again, we’d just be helping the Twins, so maybe it would wash out in the end. Depends who’s more likely to contend next year.
But more importantly, it would also be really satisfying to stick it to those barstards
by Logodaedalus on Sep 11, 2008 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Too bad the series is in Chicago. Because I can imagine a whole bunch of signs with this picture on it being hoisted at the Jake.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Sep 11, 2008 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
That would be nice; we could also do serious damage to the Red Sox’s postseason chances in that last week as well.
However, it’s likely one of the two Sox teams will make the postseason, provided the Rays and Twins both make it; the only chance both Sox teams will miss out is if the Yankees pull off a bigger miracle than last season, which seems very unlikely, so at least one of those two Sox teams will make the postseason.
I’m not sure which I’d prefer to make the postseason (and get knocked out in the 1st Rd. :-) and which one to be left out. While Chicago not making the postseason would be good, I can find equal, and maybe even better, reasons to keep Boston out of it. If they need to win the Wild Card, with the Rays winning the East and the Twins winning the Central, I could live with it, though I’d like Boston to be knocked out in the 1st Rd. (which would be against the Angels in all likelihood).
If Chicago wins the Wild Card (if they win the Central, it’s likely Boston would get in too unless Minnesota can overtake them, and they’re like 5-6 games out as of right now, so it’s not that likely), then let them be taken out in the 1st Rd. (presumably by the Rays in all likelihood).
I could go for either scenario when I think about it more. :-)
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Indians should run the table. Draft choices are overrated, in my mind. 89-73 would look nice for next year. Failing that, as many wins as possible. From 2004 to 2005 Tribe went from 80 to 93 wins, a 13-game improvement. From 2006 to 2007, they went from 78 to 96, an 18-game improvement. An 81-win 2008 season positions the Tribe nicely for a 15-game swing back to 96 in 2009.
Look at the Orioles, going through the motions. It’s nice that the Indians played their lousiest baseball in July, and can finish strong. This will have definite psychological advantage next year.
Hello odradek,
I understand your point, but to play devil’s advocate, from 2005 to 2006, we went from 93 wins to 78 wins, a 15-win drop. From 2007 to 2008, we’re going to drop from 96 wins to, at best, 89 wins, and likely less, so let’s say at least a 10-win drop, so I don’t think we can presume that because a team finishes strong or not one year is going to have that much impact on next season, and especially after there are roster changes from season to season involving players who weren’t with the team the previous season and vice-versa.
After all, as you stated, the Indians went from 68 wins in 2003 to 80 wins in 2004 and from 78 wins in 2006 to 96 wins in 2007. Based on what you are suggesting, you wouldn’t have expected the Indians to rebound like that due to the fact they played so poorly the year before (and especially in 2006 when they didn’t have as inexperienced a team as they did in 2003, where improvement could be expected), but they did, which negates to an extent what you are suggesting about psychological advantage from winning a certain number of games the previous season.
I think the fact that the Indians have a good organizational plan in place and are willing to stick to it through good and bad times, which involves utilizing draft choices, International signings, and astute trades of those draft choices, moreso than FA signings, have helped the Indians be able to bounce back quickly from season to season and avoid a prolonged rebuilding period like KC and PIT have gone through; I think having an organization that has a good plan in place and sticks with it, including sticking with the same FO staff, has as much or more to do with a team being able to improve upon the following season than how many specific games they win the prior season – after all, KC won 83 games in 2003, yet only won 58 games in 2004, again indicating more than a psychological advantage to winning a specific number of games that goes into whether you can win a specific number of games the following season. In our case, having a deep farm system, making astute trades, and sticking to a specific organizational philosophy, is a key reason why we have been able to avoid prolonged losing seasons, even when we do have a losing season,
While one can argue that the 2008 Indians season was strongly affected by injuries, less of an argument can be made for the 2006 season (bad bullpen and a more severe dropoff from players you were expecting to contribute, such as Peralta and others, etc.) Yet the Indians rebounded with 96 wins in 2007, again negating the psychological advantage you mentioned from winning a specific number of games the previous season.
While psychological advantage can be useful to an extent, I doubt the effect will be negated much if you only win 79 games compared to 83 games or 85 games compared to 89 games, etc., and those few extra wins or losses may be all that it takes to finish #15 versus #16. I’d prefer keeping that option of being able to sign a Type A free agent without losing our first-round draft pick, if at all possible.
And, as for draft choices being overrated, realize that our last two wins were by draft picks from the 2004 Draft class – Sowers in the 1st Rd. and Lewis in the 3rd Rd. Granted, it’s a SSS, but just imagine who we might have had out there if we hadn’t had those draft picks to choose from (perhaps Jeff Weaver and John Halama? Which two would you rather have out there? I’ll take Sowers and Lewis, being that they have better chances of providing more of an impact long-term than the prior two).
And, as I mentioned above, without the draft picks, International signings, and astute trades, it’s likely we wouldn’t have put up the 90+ win totals in 2 of the past 3 seasons, and 80+ win totals in 3 of the past 4 seasons (and 4 of 5 if we finish with 80+ wins this season). Having a deep farm system has been vital to our success, especially in 2005 (Sizemore), 2007 (Carmona, Gutierrez, Perez, Lewis), and 2008 (Shoppach, Francisco, Choo, Sowers, Perez, Lewis, and even Reyes, who was part of that 10-win streak we had recently and has put up quality starts in every start since coming here, being that we traded a Minor Leaguer, Luis Perdomo, to get him).
Therefore, if we can keep our 1st-Rd. draft pick while signing a Type-A FA, I think that would be more beneficial long-term and short-term for us than the psychological advantage we’d gain from winning a few extra games in 2008.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Indiansfan, aren’t you doing a bit of cherry-picking here regarding first-round draft choices? Surely, there must have been first-round draft choices that didn’t pan out? Are they all locks?
The Indians aren’t likely to sign a Type A free agent anyways.
I know it’s causally insignificant, but a team is more likely to win 96 games a year after it has won 85 games than after it has won 75. To me, that’s more important than a draft choice.
It’s causally insignificant. It does not cause a team to win more the next year. Just that teams that win in year one are more likely to win in year two.
It’s hard for a team to go from 72 wins to 95, regardless of the reasons for the 72-win season.
But if this team plays like it has and still loses some unfortunate games, keeping us below .500, you know and they know they’re better than that.
I think you’re just speaking anecdotally at this point. It’s hard for a 72-win team to improve to 95 because most 72-win teams have deep cracks in their foundation. There are a lot of serious problems that need to be fixed, and they take time. Sometimes they take multiple good drafts, new regimes, rebuilding strategies. And sometimes you’re the Pirates.
But sometimes you have a team decimated by injuries and uncharacteristic performances that is a move or two— not to mention some rookie infusion —away from being back to 2007 levels. I’ll believe that before I believe we’re Pittsburgh, and most of all I don’t believe our record from here on out is going to affect how well we play next year whatsoever.
Unless you think people like Bullington and Rincon are going to play a significant role in 2009. And if that’s the case, what does it matter how we finish the year, because we’re going to suck next year anyway.
Steel Nick
Okay, I agree the Indians aren’t in Pirates mode (another losing season for them, by the way, which is the record, or ties the record). Most 72-win teams have deep cracks, that’s true. And it’s true the Indians have been the victim of underperformance, bad luck and weirdness. But, I say, a 72-win team is a 72-win team. Ipso facto. And it’s hard to maintain such a team is a move or two (plus some rookies) away from contending. The greatest indicator of a good team is wins, and to me that trumps mitigating factors. If you’re a 72-win team and you say, “Hey, don’t confuse us with the Pirates. We’ve had some bad luck this year, and a couple of guys let us down. We’re close to being back on top next year,” I’m going to think, hell, that’s what every 72-win team thinks. Bullington and Rincon are mostly playing by default. They’d be playing if the Indians were in the pennant race, because there have been a lot of injuries. Let’s hope the Indians don’t have the same problem in 2009.
Obviously, a hopeful person can believe the Indians are just a few moves away from returning to their winning ways. It’s possible. But it’s more plausible if the Indians finish with a record closer to .500.
I disagree with you about the effect next year of having a strong finish. I think it can help, though the effect is minimal. If it helps, it doesn’t help much.
Aren’t you the one who just pointed out that the Indians improved by 18 wins between 2006 and 2008? So … I just don’t see what you’re arguing here. Or I see it, but I just don’t see any right answers in there.
The greatest indicator of a good team is wins, and to me that trumps mitigating factors
No, no I can’t get on board with this. The Seattle Mariners were not as good as their wins suggested in 2007. They were not a good team. The 2006 Indians were not as bad. There ARE mitigating factors, even one Pythagoras doesn’t show. Injuries are one such factor.
Steel Nick
I’m saying wins are irrefutable. Mitigating factors are subjective, sometimes open to question. Less certain, if you will. The Mariners were a very good team. They were lucky, too. But they were an awesome team.
As i said above, from 2006 to 2007, the Indians went from 78 to 96 wins, an 18-game improvement. That’s pretty rare. The Diamondbacks went from 65 wins to 100 between 1998 and 1999. That’s the greatest improvement in winning percentage in baseball history.
I guess I’m saying 65-win teams are not simply or purely the victims of bad luck or injuries. They may also be considered as a bad team (or even a bad team that has had injuries and bad luck).
You can say (if the Indians end with 75 wins), I know they’re a better team than that. And I would respond, Maybe that’s so. Maybe they’re a 80-win team that had a few bad breaks.
Awesome? They ranked in the bottom half of AL teams in every offensive category except singles (and, consequently, batting average). They ranked 10th in team ERA, 13th in hits allowed and 9th in walks. They were far from awesome.
My apologies. You meant the 2007 Mariners. The Pythagorean wonders, eight games above their projections. The juggernaut that featured over-their-heads Jose Guillen and R. Ibanez. The team that froliced in the snow when Hargrove filibustered on the mound (what one more win would have meant to the Indians last season!).
You are right, and I am sorry. I was thinking of the 2001 Mariners, of 116-46 fame, which was also seven games better than the Ionian mathematician projected.
Teams play over their heads, and teams disappoint, but at the end of the day, wins make the man.
… But they don’t predict definitively how many wins the team will have the following year.
Which is my point.
Steel Nick
I will go look it up, but I would guess there is no better indicator of victories than the previous year’s.
I disagree with you about the effect next year of having a strong finish. I think it can help, though the effect is minimal. If it helps, it doesn’t help much.
That’s your quote. So do you think it doesn’t help much, or that there’s no better indicator?
Unless you meant “strong finish” to mean something other than a lot of wins. But I know that’s what you meant.
Steel Nick
Two separate things.
(1) By strong finish I meant a team doing well in September, or, say, the final 40 games. I think a crappy team that has a 20-8 September can use such a strong finish as a positive sign for the next year. I believe there can be a hangover effect, though it’s minor. This is just conjecture on my part, obviously.
(2) But as to the correlation between victories in season A and season B, I think there is no better indicator. A team could finish the season on a 8-20 slide and end up with a 95-win record. That would not be a strong finish, but would be a strong season.
There are two separate ways in which finishing strong could “predict” success in the following season. One is that finishing strong is unlikely for a Pirates-type team…i.e., if a team finishes strong then that is a backwards indicator that they were good (though the strong finish doesn’t, in itself, have an impact on the next season). In other words, though the two are correlated, they’re not causally interconnected, but rather share a common cause, much in the same way that SAT scores “predict” college GPA.
Alternatively, finishing strong could have a positive causal impact on a team’s collective psyche. They say, “hey, look at that strong finish… maybe we can do this contention thing next year after all”. They approach games with more confidence and focus in the following season, and voila.
On the flip side, a team overperforming their true ability by random chance can have a negative impact. Management says, “hey, look what these guys have shown”, and hangs on to guys that aren’t really cut out for a contending team. That is, “undertinkering” could result in mere regression to true ability, whereas if the players perform to their true levels, more of them get replaced with better pieces.
It’s difficult to distinguish these.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Alternatively, finishing strong could have a positive causal impact on a team’s collective psyche. They say, "hey, look at that strong finish… maybe we can do this contention thing next year after all". They approach games with more confidence and focus in the following season, and voila.
I guess what it comes down to is, I don’t buy that.
Steel Nick
Well it’s obviously complicated, with a lot of factors at play. But I do think it’s a mistake to ignore psychology. The enterprise of baseball statistics tends to treat occurrences as some “true” underlying abilities and tendencies, obscured by completely random noise. Which is fine as an abstract model, but it’s pretty clear that psychological pressure exerts a variety of influences, some positive, some negative, and in any case, difficult to predict. If it didn’t, the concept of “closer” wouldn’t exist — pitchers who were good in the 8th inning would always be good in the 9th.
I’m not saying I think that confidence and focus resulting from a strong finish will be a more important factor than regression to the mean, but if you look at the Tribe’s last few seasons in terms of expectation and outcome at the very end, it’s pretty remarkable.
In 2005, we were surging at the very end, and started to develop high expectations, which were ultimately dashed. What happens? 2006 we get off to a crappy start, and are out of it by mid-season. But then, we finish strong, after having no expectations. In 2007, we have a great year, and make the playoffs. No one expects us to win against the Yankees, but we do. (Performance – Expectation = ++) Then, no one expects us to do well against the Red Sox, and all of a sudden we’re up 3-1. At that point, though, we’re expected to win, so we don’t. Ultimately, the last part of 2007 is major disappointment. 2008, we get off to a horrible start.
Could all be coincidence, or cherry-picking, but it looks pretty compelling to me…
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I think this is not only a gross exaggeration of the effect of psychology, it’s also a gross misunderstanding of how psychology affects a baseball team.
I think this particular Indians club doesn’t need to have a strong finish to know that they can come back strong in 2009, because most of them did it in spectacular fashion in 2007.
So a gross comment, in any case…
I didn’t intend to suggest that the effect of psychology would dominate over other factors, nor that the absence of a strong finish would spell doom for 2009, but I stand by the assertion that most statistical analyses underestimate, or wholly ignore, psychology. It may turn out that all the various psychological effects roughly balance out and amount to statistical noise…. But I suspect that a team with so many young players, without the major league experience of all the ups and downs that naturally occur, will be more strongly affected by psychological factors than, say, a team full of sage old veterans. And while you are right to point out that the end result may not have as much of a psychological impact as the way it occurred, people do overattribute random events to factors within themselves — it’s “human nature”.
I don’t mean to make too big a thing of this… I just think it’s one, perhaps minor, factor that should at least be acknowledged to exist.
(See also: The Fundamental Attribution Error)
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Caveat: the F.A.E. is intended to explain people’s explanations of other people’s behavior, not necessarily the outcomes of their own actions. But I think the concept can be extended reasonably.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Performance analysis by definition excludes psychology. It’s the performance that’s being analyzed.
The problem with psychological considerations is that it’s a sponge for total BS to enter the discussion. A baseball team’s performance fundamentally is the sum of its individual performances, and those are impacted infinitely more by each player’s confidence IN HIMSELF rather than in his team. That is the fundamental BS of the “strong finish” argument.
Spoken like a true quant. If it can’t be enumerated is it BS? I concur with the good doctor’s observation: “It’s pretty clear that psychological pressure exerts a variety of influences.”
Is this observable? I think it is. Is it just noise because it cannot be measured?
The strong finish might well be BS, but psychology has a place, I think.
Spoken like a true distortionist.
1. I never said it couldn’t be enumerated, I said it wasn’t part of the performance results, thus it doesn’t show up as part of performance analysis.
2. I never said it’s BS, I said that it’s a discussion attracts and for matter invites BS.
I think the effect is so tenuous, and so variant an unpredictable, that it can’t possibly be observed on TV or from a seat at the ballpark. Fun to talk about, yes, but it’s light-years away from serious analysis.
Absolutely. It is not “serious analysis”; it is fun speculation on a blog.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure, it’s not serious analysis. I’m with you there.
(1) Psychology affects performance. I would imagine that if you went through players’ performances during a two-week period before one of their parents died, you would discover a suppression of performance possibly correlated to their psychological conditions.
(2) I would say any discussion attracts BS. Admittedly, it’s harder to argue that two plus two equals five than it is to say that weather affects the performance of ballplayers, but where would we be without BS?
And I’m a distortionist of the first order, thank you.
Oh, I agree that it’s a slippery slope to make any strong conclusions — I am only advancing this “argument” as a casual observer who would like to see his team finish well, and would not advocate incorporating psychological factors into any formal model, as they’re too hard to quantify. I also agree that individual confidence is what matters most. Nonetheless, a strong team finish is pretty correlated with individual performances. So perhaps the strong team finish is meaningless, conditioned on individual performances. All I’m saying is that, through a complex web of connections to other things, a strong team finish may have some predictive power, partially independent of its being an indicator of a team’s underlying “true” ability.
Again, regardless of what the exact causal pathways of the psychological factors are, I suspect that you could capture a bit of extra variance in following year’s performance by taking a strong finish into account, over and above several other things. This is not a specific generative model, just an broad ("gross") intuition that if prediction is all that matters, you could hypothetically improve prediction by paying attention to strong finish as a very loose stand-in for some psychological things.
::wishes he had a virtual whiteboard to draw pretty graphs….:: :-)
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, individual confidence (positive or negative) can be contagious. To throw some more hand-wavy BS into the picture.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Just because psychological factors are too hard to quantify doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
By the way, Tampa had their best month of the 2007 season in August, and then went 11-16 in September. No strong finish indication there.
Psychological factors (and therefore the effect of a strong finish) will presumably be useful to the extent that the team contains the same players it did the previous year…
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
But will a strong finish be based on strong performances from the individuals who really matter to us for 2009 and/or whose confidence might actually be at issue?
The connection is so abstract, unpredictable and tenuous that it really is not worth considering.
We’ve run out of indentation room, so I can’t tell what this is a reply to, but again, yes. It is useful only to the extent that the team has the same composition, which is another way of saying, the extent to which team performance reflects performance of players who will be on the team next year.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
This started by my saying (I think) that given the choice between winning and not winning for the remainder of the year, winning is better. Given the uncertainty of draft choices, winning is preferable. And the best indication of a good team is its number of victories.
This started by my saying (I think) that given the choice between winning and not winning for the remainder of the year, winning is better. Given the uncertainty of draft choices, winning is preferable. And the best indication of a good team is its number of victories.
And my original point was that this is wrong in my opinion. A draft choice is better than a meaningless win, whether or not we’ll even be in a situation where that pick needs protection— we don’t know, that’s the point.
There is a tangible, real benefit to not winning the rest of the year. There is no such thing if we finish above .500, so I don’t get how you can say that winning is definitely better.
Performance! Not results. Wins. Are. Meaningless. In. Two Thousand. And. Eight.
Steel Nick
Results are derived from performance. As Hans points out, “wins are the more likely result of successful performances and successful performances this year are more likely going to result in successful performances next season.”
This draft choice is a chit given to a loser, a pat on the back, go redeem your coupon for a free gift, son, and come back tomorrow.
To ordradek:
But if the process is good, and the wins don’t come (because Zach freaking Jackson gives up a home run or two), that’s still good.
Wins mean a good process (most of the time). Losses DO NOT mean there wasn’t anything good happening in the game. And you’re worried more about the wins. Yes, a win means something good happened. But don’t miss the forest for the trees.
If everyone ever drafted failed to become a major league contributor, I’d believe you. I’m sure the Rays are pretty bitter about all those high picks now. How demeaning those chits look to those losers. The Brewers are glad they got CC, but they’re ashamed they even had that pat-on-the-back trade chip LaPorta to begin with. And I bet they wished they’d never played bad enough to deserve the coupon that is Ryan Braun.
They’d give it all back for 8 or 9 more wins a few years ago at the end of a meaningless season, I’m sure.
You know what a draft pick is? A real, tangible benefit following a losing season. You have not yet been able to show me anything that tops that. You’re fighting a losing battle if you want to keep contending that a draft pick means nothing. I’ll take the coupon.
Steel Nick
A draft pick is merely the possibility of meaning. You can’t bank it. And the conversion rate is not necessarily favorable.
Since you mention the Rays, let’s look at how they got their roster. Yes, Longoria and Upton were first-round draft choices. And Delmon Young became Matt Garza.
Carl Crawford was drafted in the second round in 1999. Andy Sonnenstine was drafted in the 13th round in 2004. James Shield was drafted in the 16th round in 2000.
The Rays traded for Kazmir and Balfour. I don’t know how Cliff Floyd or Gabe Gross or Jason Tyner got to the Rays, but I suspect it had nothing to do with high-level draft choices.
Carlos Pena was signed as a free agent. Dioner Navarro was traded by the Dodgers for Mark Hendrickson. Iwamura was a celebrated free agent the Tribe should have got.
Baseball isn’t the NBA or NFL, where you can stockpile draft picks. The only way to get a lot of good ones is to suck consistently for a long time (see the Rays, Rockies or Brewers). Dombrowski did well with the Marlins, so maybe an astute judge of talent can buck the odds and turn picks into gold.
But draft picks are derivatives, they award you the right to select talent, which is different from awarding you talent.
I know we’re going to continue to disagree, so I’ll stop here, but to play for draft choices in baseball—to me—is like playing dice. Yes, maybe you can win money, but maybe you won’t.
A draft pick is merely the possibility of meaning. You can’t bank it.
You could have just stopped there, and then explained to me why the maybe psychological effect of finishing with a couple of wins in a lost season is better than a very real draft pick which could go either way.
You haven’t yet.
How is the draft pick worse than meaningless wins (again, as long as the process is still there)? This question has gone unanswered even by you.
Steel Nick
How is the draft pick worse than meaningless wins (again, as long as the process is still there)?
Wins proceed from good performance. Good performances have validity and have a chance of helping next year.
Your parenthetical surprises me. Does it mean we should play as well as possible, but then bring in Danny Graves in the ninth inning to blow the game so we keep our hand in on the draft choice? Otherwise, how can the good process be there? (I know a team can play well and lose a game when a kid reaches onto the field or something, but that’s a rare phenomenon.)
If you’re asking me, all other things being equal—that is you perform just as well and go 6-13 as you would when you played 15-4—would the draft picks be worse? I’d say no, if everything else were the same. But it would be unusual to have similar performances and widely variant results.
The point is sailing over you. It’s not about a high or low drift pick, it’s whether or not the pick is there if we sign anybody.
It boggles my mind a little that you can’t really separate a win from a loss in which Choo, Sizemore, and say, Hafner do well, but Zach Jackson, Juan Rincon, and Sal Fasano stink up the joint. Really?
Wins proceed from good performance. Good performances have validity and have a chance of helping next year.
You are officially running around in circles. I said this:
Wins mean a good process (most of the time). Losses DO NOT mean there wasn’t anything good happening in the game. And you’re worried more about the wins. Yes, a win means something good happened. But don’t miss the forest for the trees.
So I don’t feel like repeating myself, but go right ahead if you’d like.
You just can’t separate the wins from the process. I feel stupid even chasing my own tail like this.
What you haven’t answered, curiously enough, is the quote you started your last post with.
I’ll give you all night to ponder it.
Steel Nick
All right, then I’m giving up.
Wins, meaningless or not, proceed from good performance. I prefer good performance in any form to the derivative potential of value inherent in a draft choice.
As you point out, good performances can and do result in losses. But, since I clearly don’t understand what you’re saying, I will ask a stupid question: Are you suggesting the Indians should aspire to play well but hope they play well and lose because of the additional benefit of protecting the draft pick? Because if that’s what you’re saying, I have no answer for you Nick.
I’m not suggesting there is some sort of Lamarckian correlation whereby wins in 2008 will result in wins in 2009 or 2010.
I’m saying that all other things being equal, wins are to be preferred to losses at any time. And the benefit of the draft protection is minimal at best.
There is a tangible, real benefit to not winning the rest of the year.
And even though I disagree that protection of a draft choice is a real actual benefit, I would say: there is an intangible benefit to winning that may exceed the value of the draft choice.
So-called “Rational Choice Theory” would tell us to place a value on a potential benefit/cost in proportion to the probability of its realization. So the value of protecting a draft pick is equal to the value of the player that we’d be protecting (in itself a calculation involving probabilities) times the probability that we’d actually be in a situation that we’d lose the pick if we didn’t protect.
Is this more or less than whatever intangible benefit there may be for winning? It’s impossible to tell since we can’t really quantify that benefit. Should we hope the team wins? Probably, since if they do that will not only correspond to the intangible benefit, but also the very tangible indicator that our players are good. Nick of course is right that it makes sense to distinguish between wins that result from the performance of key players, and those that result from the performance of extraneous ones, since the latter only have value corresponding to that intangible benefit. Whether that intangible benefit is greater than the probabilistic “expected value” of the draft pick protection is really impossible to know given the massive number of uncertainties involved in both.
That said, I simply can’t sit and watch a game and not hope the Indians win, however it happens and whoever is involved. It’s just not in my skill set.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 14, 2008 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions
And just a final bit of beating a dead horse even more (and to come full circle back to my original comment in this thread), there is an in principle distinction, even within how the performance of individual key players correlates with winning next year… and that is between performance as an indicator of latent ability, and performance as a causal influence on confidence and thereby on future performance. Hans is right to point out as well that that causal link may be washed out by intervening events, to the point where it is no longer significantly predictive.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 14, 2008 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m glad to move on. I do want to address this one last question:
Are you suggesting the Indians should aspire to play well but hope they play well and lose because of the additional benefit of protecting the draft pick?
Of course not. That’s stupid. I’m saying that’s what I’m hoping happens. The Indians should try to win every game because they’re baseball players.
Steel Nick
I think you might be giving some of these players a bit too much credit in regards to psychological make-up. And I don’t think this:
But will a strong finish be based on strong performances from the individuals who really matter to us for 2009 and/or whose confidence might actually be at issue?
is the point (so in a way I agree that its too abstract and tenuous to really matter).
But back to my first point, confidence in oneself and abilities is likely high up on the list of psychological traits the Indians look for in evaluating players. Scoring high in this regard doesn’t mean one is immune to losing confidence in oneself (or to an extension in one’s team). I guarantee a collapse at the end of this season where we sink to last place in the division (as arbitrary as that is in the whole scheme of things) as opposed to finishing strong (i.e. finishing in third and above .500) will result in two separate feelings/beliefs in one’s team’s abilities to contend next season. Mood (and by extension self-efficacy), have been scientifically observed to impact behavior and performance, so its shouldn’t be too hard to see that positive results will only help to strengthen the team’s collective self-efficacy, where as negative results will only serve to weaken (even with those who have strong psychological make-up) these beliefs in self-efficacy.
But, but, but, but……the performance at the end of a season is not the end-all-be-all in influencing a team’s expectations for contention in the following season. Offseason conditioning, team transactions, winter-ball, etc. can undo alot of negative feelings about oneself. So ending the season positively will certainly improve the team’s beliefs in their abilities at that time, it’s quite possible that by the beginning of the next season it is no longer statistically significant in regards to impacting team mood and thus team performance.
Chalk me up as wanting us to win as many games as possible the rest of the season because wins are the more likely result of successful performances and successful performances this year are more likely going to result in successful performances next season. The psychological part is going to be a nice little bonus and in a way is simply not separable (good teams will have stronger self-efficacy because they are good, bad teams will have weaker self-efficacy, because they are bad). I want a good team.
I hate the fact that we’re even having this discussion. When you’re winning you count wins, when you’re losing you evaluate performance.
And oh yeah, CC’s gonna choke when the chips are down because of pyschology. See, in the end it’s all about me.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
When you’re winning, you count wins…if you’re Bavasi. If you’re not Bavasi, you ask yourself questions like “is this winning pace sustainable?” so you don’t trick yourself into giving away the future to chase something unattainable.
Aaah the Bavasi shot – how astute of you.
You can bet that Shapiro would trade Grady and Lee for a bag of Big League Chew for a World Series title.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
Chuck, if I hadn’t named Bavasi, the point would still stand. I thought it would be clear that I referenced Bavasi as a stand-in for any GM foolish enough to merely count wins. Conversely, a good GM (or smart fan?) doesn’t merely congratulate himself (herself) when things are going well, as you implied.
The smart manager of anything has that internal dialogue.
Point is, the debate about whether our team is engaged in the right process is not loser talk. It’s just rational. When you’re winning, you evaluate performance, and when you’re losing you evaluate performance. Unless you’re stupid. (That’s “you” the evaluator, not you, Chuck.)
See you’re looking at it from a GM perspective and I’m looking at it from a fan’s perspective. That’s the difference.
Let me give you an old baseball adage: you’re never as good as you look when you’re winning and never as bad as you look when you’re losing. Evaluating either can be very, very difficult.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
No, Chuck — I know you love this fan-as-fantasy-GM meme, but that’s not it.
You’re looking at it from a “I’d like to win every game” fan perspective. He’s looking at it from a “I’d like to win championships, as many and as soon as possible” perspective. (And odrarek is looking it from a “I totally painted myself into a corner and don’t know how to admit that nothing I wrote makes any sense” perspective.)
Your perspective is that of a particular fan who would rather worry about win #80 through #85, no playoffs, than think about how that affects our winning next year.
No that’s not quite it either. Look at last year’s blog string and see how much “evaluating” – like we’re doing now – went on. Not much. We were much more interested in who we were gonna play in the first round and throttling those goddam Yankees. At least I was.
Why? Cuz we were following a winning team. That’s my starting point. When we’re winning we’re counting magic numbers. When we’re losing, we’re arguing over alternate infield utility guys. It just ain’t as much fun.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
I’m always happy to start painting and see where it leads me. And I’m way better at admitting when I don’t make sense. Here’s an executive summary for you:
(1) The “tangible” value of finishing in the bottom half of the standings is so contingent and abstract as to be meaningless. MLB doth not equal NFL.
(2) Winning is to be preferred to losing. Wins are a better indicator of team value than RS/RA.
(3) There is a psychological component to the game of baseball.
False only if you live with Pythagoras. In American baseball division winners are determined by number of wins.
RS/RA has de facto value, but formally it’s wins versus losses.
What is a good team, Nick? You’d say, I presume, it’s a team that scores way more than it allows. And I’d say, as a matter of formalism, it’s a team that wins a lot of games.
You said wins are a better indicator of team value, not team standings. Value is a little more ambiguous.
And yeah, a team with way more RS to RA than another team is a better team. If the second team with a lower ratio has more wins, they’re having a better season.
But (lord we’re getting into again) this means nothing for next year.
Steel Nick
I’m with Nick on this one, Odradek. As a predictor, RS/RA is going to be more useful. If you drew a box-and-arrow picture, you’d have an unobservable variable “underlying ability” at time 1 with a causal arrow to RS/RA at t1, which in turn has a causal arrow to wins at t1. Only that “underlying ability” has a direct causal link coming out of it, going to its own counterpart at t2. The same structure exists at t2. Therefore, RS/RA at t1 is fewer links away from wins at t2, making it a less variable predictor. While I acknowledge that there is likely an unobservable “confidence” variable in there, as Jay pointed out above, that is best placed as being caused by “individual performance”, and less so by wins, and in any case is involved in much more transient causal links than more concrete things.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 16, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Both of you are right, and I don’t want to get into this again. I’m simply saying what is clear and obvious (so much so that my point is obscure): wins matter. And, ultimately, only wins matter. That’s how winners are determined. And the goal of playing a game is to win.
Wins this year do not have meaning beyond this year. But they are nevertheless to be preferred to losses.
Winning the pythagorean pennant doesn’t get you into the postseason.
That’s all obviously true, but we’re not going to make the postseason this year. To maximize our postseason chances next year, we need wins next year, which are predicted by wins this year, but in a fashion that is mediated by RS/RA, such that if you know RS/RA, the additional predictive capacity of wins will be existent, but smaller than the reverse.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 16, 2008 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, but further wins in 2008 are also not going to get us into the postseason — not this one and not any future ones.
Wins are the only thing that ultimately matter within any current season where a team in contending. Outside of that context, wins are not the only thing that matter, and they are not even one of the things that matter most.
When I watch an Indians game, even one where Zach or Bullington pitch, even one where the Indians have no mathematical chance of making the postseason, I want them to win. You may speak about process and any other ineffable values all you want, but wins are what I want to see. For some reason, emotionally, I feel better when the team wins—even if someone who is needed next year doesn’t do well. Even if there weren’t minor victories within the game. Is this too obtuse?
Isn’t it also easier to overestimate the quality of a 72-win team than a 79-win team? Wishful thinking tends to exaggerate. Hope springs eternal.
I absolutely agree with you. Emotionally, I want to see them win as much as possible this year. At this point, actually, there’s pretty little danger they’re going to crack the top 15 anyway, which is the only tangible downside to winning (I think they slipped to 18th with that horrible Royals series)… We should separate emotional claims from predictive claims — and maybe that’s what you were trying to do by reiterating that wins have no causal power, and others of us read the wrong thing into your comments.
Ultimately, I watch the Indians for the games. While the races and the postseason are a nice carrot to give significance to wins, it’s still about the individual games at some level. If it were just about getting to the postseason, I don’t imagine I would spend some 20 hours a week watching each individual game — I could just read about it afterward, and then watch the postseason if they make it. If it were just about the postseason, imagine all the other things I could do with my life! Baseball is like half a full-time job…. is that kind of sad?
by Logodaedalus on Sep 17, 2008 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Not sad at all. Seeing as how I spend a lot of my time at work watching baseball, it’s way better than any job.
You have quite eloquently indicated my position: that emotional claims should (and do) trump predictive claims, and that the reason we watch games is to see the Indians win.
That’s the purpose of the game. The unlikely reward of protecting a draft choice isn’t sufficient (in my mind) to make me want to see the Indians lose.
Forest for the trees. I want to see the Indians win a lot, and for an extended period of time. You just want to see them win on any given day.
Steel Nick
I’m not denying the benefit of protecting a draft pick, although I do think it should be taken with the proper perspective. Ultimately I’m going to root for the Indians in the bottom 15 by hoping for success of the several NL teams near them in the standings, not by hoping the Indians lose.
I also want to see the Indians succeed because it gives me confidence that they’re a better team, though of course we agree that success from the right guys is the most important thing in that regard.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 17, 2008 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
That would be nice — we could agree to just experience it differently — if only you would drop the predictive claims of your argument, which are simply and completely lacking in any real merit.
Hey man, it wasn’t much of a claim to begin with. All I’ve been saying is that there’s likely to be a tiny extra amount of variance that you could account for by paying attention to team wins, over and above that predicted by individual performance, due to attribution and confidence effects. But I’m on record above saying that it’s relatively less important than other things, perhaps even to the point of not being worth considering. It’s pretty much purely theoretical and I never intended it to be applied to any “strategic” thinking. So I’m happy to drop it if we can all just get along!
by Logodaedalus on Sep 17, 2008 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Doc: I suspect Jay’s reply was not directed at you. This is what happens when the threading ends up -——WAY OVER HERE
Hmm, this little “up” button is interesting…. According to said button it wasn’t directed at me. Kind of sounds like it makes more sense in response to my comment than to odradek’s though, dudnit?
Stupid excessively long threads!
by Logodaedalus on Sep 17, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Apparently the SBN 2.0 software prevents the hierarchal replies from displaying beyond a certain number of levels, my quick count was 28. Nice to know the “up” button still knows what’s what, though.
which is probably good, since eventually we’d end up with replies that had one character per line….
by Logodaedalus on Sep 17, 2008 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with Doc that it wasn’t much of a claim to begin with. I was simply playing with the idea that there might be a predictive value equivalent to the value of draft protection. I disagree that such an idea is “completely lacking” in any merit, because it was put forth as something to be considered. But otherwise, yes, I view games as discrete, granular events—binary events—and you see them as part of a longer, macro process. And both are valid.
To be fair, you did go a bit further than that.
I will go look it up, but I would guess there is no better indicator of victories than the previous year’s.
In this decade, previous year’s Pythagorean record has actually been a better indicator of future results than actual record, although neither is particularly accurate. In any case, what I want is to see what, if anything, some of the crew of Next Year guys can do for the rest of 2008, even if that means we lose some games we could have won by playing to win them.
even if that means we lose some games we could have won by playing to win them.
I’ll go with that — although at this point it looks to me like the probable Next Year Guys are the same guys that give us the best chance of winning now, for the most part.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 17, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
From a predictive standpoint, there is something close to zero value in viewing games as “discrete, granular events” rather than as part of a longer, macro process. This part isn’t about having a difference of opinion, it’s just basic math. You don’t get to disagree about what 2 + 2 equals, and you don’t get to disagree about this, either, without rejecting the whole of mathematics including basic arithmetic.
In any event — this is really the point I meant to make a while ago — we’re not debating the difference between 65 wins and 85 wins. This may well come down to whether they end up with 80 wins or 82. Considering "the psychological effect of those extra two wins is:
• unquantifiable
• nebulous
• almost certainly less than other psychological effects
• certainly less than other more tangible effects
• possibly non-existent
… there is simply no basis — NONE — for claiming that said nebulous effect of winning TWO MORE GAMES is more valuable than having a first-round draft pick. I mean, this is like the service time argument essentially. Yes, there is a value to having a player get a little more seasoning in the majors during a lost season. No, that value is not worth spending an extra $4-8 million in arbitration, let alone losing the player a year early.
At some point, the grown-ups need to make decisions, and the smarter ones quantify things as a means of doing that. Some things can’t be quantified, but you have to make your best guess and apply a little common sense in those cases.
Who said anything about two games? Where did that number come from?
Why aren’t we debating the difference between 65 and 85?
And I have thrown in the towel on the predictive effect.
I’m not a mathematician. Nor am I a physicist. I don’t want to go all Wolfgang Pauli on this, but games are discrete events. They last nine innings, usually. The next day a team plays another. i’ll admit that psychology is a matter of indeterminacy on a seasonal or five-year level, but it could have a place in a game. To deny its existence—which I’m not sure you’re doing—is just peremptory.
Why aren’t we debating the difference between 65 and 85?
Well, for starters, we’ve already won more than 65 games. And we’d have to win out to get to 85, which won’t happen. So neither of those totals is really important.
Steel Nick
Nick: true now, but this discussion started a bunch of games ago.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 17, 2008 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, jeesus. Everyone is talking past each other.
Odradek: it’s true that a team who wins 90 games one season will on average do better than a team who wins 70. If that’s all you know. Nick’s and Jay’s point is that the main reason for that is because teams who win 90 games are better in other, more relevant ways than teams who win 70 games (such as RS/RA to give one, easy to measure example). If you have two teams with equal RS/RA, and one happens to win 90 and the other 70, there’s still some value to using that difference to predict future wins, but it will be relatively small. You have to separate the predictive value of information when that’s all you know from the predictive value of that information over and above what you could do if you only had some other info.
Jay: you’re posing a straw-man, methinks, to argue about a 2 game difference. I don’t recall anyone claiming that simply finishing above or below .500, even by the smallest of margins, would have enough of a psychological effect to matter. But the difference between a “really strong finish” and a “horrible finish” is more than 2 games.
Second, I think odradek’s point about games being granular was not a predictive one, it was, for lack of a better word, an “emotional” one. Day to day, what I (and he) care about as a fan (not as an analyst) is whether the Indians win… that day. This is something that allows difference of opinion.
It’s not very useful to have this discussion if we keep misrepresenting each other.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 17, 2008 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions
No, it isn’t a straw man at all.
A month ago, I was saying confidently that we would finish in the bottom ten but not the bottom five. Then we went on a big run, and it became clear that we would finish in the 16-20 range and possibly break into the top 15.
So for the past week or two, we have been projected to win something in the neighborhood of 80 games. It isn’t a straw man, it is the exact scenario in which we find ourselves, as fans, trying to figure out what to root for.
I didn’t mean to mis-represent odrarek’s comment about granularity, and I’m sorry if I did. On first reading it, I thought he was making a defense of the predictive value of viewing games as discrete events, and now on a second reading, it’s at least unclear and seems to lean in the other direction. I agree that we should be making a real effort to read carefully and represent one another accurately.
odrarek, I had a feeling you didn’t realize that a handful of games is what we’re really talking about here — at least, everyone on “this side” of the argument is talking about the difference of a few games, while you might be talking about a difference of 20 — and maybe that’s the whole source of the disagreement. That is, maybe we just haven’t communicated.
My guess is that everyone here would take an 85-win finish over a 65-win finish, for more or less the reasons that you cite, draft pick be damned. Sixty-five wins is a lot harder to come back from, and it takes a lot of crap performance to get to that number. But if it’s 75 wins or 85 wins, that’s a tougher proposition, right?
But we’re not in that situation. We’ve been a virtual lock for 75+ for a couple weeks now, and the only question is whether we surge to 83 and screw up the draft pick.
Check this out, anyone who wants to obsess over this a little more. It’s a day-by-day readout of the Indians projected record (and postseason odds), as of the end of play each day. The date is on the far left, and the next five columns are:
• current wins
• current losses
• current third-order wins
• current end-of-year projected wins
• current end-of-year projected losses
So focus on that fourth column, and you can see how our win-projection has evolved. At our low point, July 9, we were looking at a 70-win seasons. We rebounded to the 73-range by late July and were up to 75 by mid-August. Then came the 10-game win streak, August 18-29, and we have been projected for 79-80 wins since that point.
Anyway, getting back to the main point … everyone can chime in on this … I think if we’re talking about 20 games ore maybe even 12, you won’t get much if any disagreement, and I also think that most of those disagreeing with you believed that what we were debating here was a difference of five wins or less.
yay, effort toward mutual understanding!
For my part, I wasn’t thinking about a specific number at all (in this thread — in the main post I was just setting up some goals that would give a small “incentive” to win, which was before the issue of the draft pick even came up). I was arguing for the relevance of psychological effects in the abstract. As I see it, through this eternal discussion, I probably don’t disagree with either of you. In fact, it seems to be becoming clear that no one substantively disagrees on any qualitative issues — it’s just a matter of what particular weights should be applied to certain things.
Meanwhile, El Pronko just hit his first homerun since who-knows-when. Yay!
by Logodaedalus on Sep 17, 2008 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I approve of mutual understanding. Though this discussion has gone on far too long—much of it my doing, for which I apologize—I nevertheless find much of this quite interesting and enjoyable. Macro vs. micro, quantification vs. qualification, wins vs. performance, psychology vs. analysis, fundamental attribution error—lots of interesting points here.
I was simply trying to assert a pragmatic point: wins matter. I understand that there are big-picture reasons to lose a game now and then. One of my favorite managers, Billy Martin, was a big believer in that. But whatever I’m saying I say in the spirit of inquiry. I’m not trying to be dogmatic or assertive. I am trying to provoke discussion and to understand certain things that intrigue me about the game.
And, no, I didn’t realize you guys were talking about two or three games. I said above, somewhere, that I wanted the Indians to run the table, to go 19-0 or whatever. Your sixth paragraph, Jay, sums up my position nicely. Sorry I wasn’t clearer about it.
Here is my hope for the remainder of the season…
The Tribe sweeps K.C. this weekend, while the W.Sux get swept by the Det. Tiggers, and the Minnesota Twits drop 2 out of 3 to the Orioles. The Tribe goes on to sweep the Twits in the following series, while the W.Sux are swept by the desperate N.Y. Spankmees in a four game series. Next weekend, As the W.Sux go on to drop 2 out of three to lowly K.C and the Twits are in the midst of dropping 3 out of 4 to the T.B Rays, the Tribe takes 2 out 3 from the Tiggers.
The last week of the season is the most rewarding….
The Tribe, continuing their “Rockie-like” run , exact revenge on the Boastin’ Red Sux by taking 3 out of 4 (effectively eliminating them from the playoff picture!). Meanwhile, the W.Sux and Twits have a beanball war and the W.Sux are the last team standing (W.Sux win 2 out of 3). This leaves only the the last weekend of the regular season. The Tribe sweeps the W.Sux. The Twits play K.C. After winning the first two games, the Twits blow the final game in dramatic fashion.
That’s right. CHAMPIONSHIP!
…when broken down, it seems only ALMOST impossible.
ok. Maybe that is not very “modest”. Still, it is not out of the realm of possibility.
LGFT! …are you with me???
Not sure if you are being sarcastic… but it was just an attempt to show some enthusiasm and support for the Tribe. My appologies, if I offended…
…They just came to me. I am sure I may have come across them before. Was not trying to claim them as my own.
The reason I asked was because the more likely ending, as Indians fans should know, is a remarkable run, lots of miracles, luck, and just when you begin to think, could it be? could this possibly be the fortune that has always eluded us?, the team goes into the Chicago the final weekend. The Tribe wins the first two games easily, and the White Sox look demoralized.
The Indians Cliff Lee pitching on Sunday, and the White Sox, surprisingly, go with Lance Broadway. Broadway amazes everyone with eight strong innings, striking out 12, as the Indians blow chance after chance with runners on third and less than two outs. Lee leads 2-1 going into the ninth, when Jamey Carroll (playing at third after pinchhitting for you know who) fumbles a Pierzynski grounder. and throws wild to first (actually, AJ is running out of the basepath and puts a shoulder into Garko as he is making the catch). Lee is then called for a balk, which advances the pinchrunner to third. And DeWayne Wise, pinchrunner extraordinaire, scores on a Baltimore chop to Garko, tie game.
In the top of the 12th the Indians lead off with a Garko walk, followed by a Sizemore double, putting runners at second and third with no outs. Gutierrez strikes out on three pitches in the dirt. Shoppach pops up and Dellucci hits a weak grounder back to the mound.
In the bottom of the inning Betancourt throws two strikes on the black to Uribe. He then throws a pitch right down the middle of the pitch and Uribe hits it over the concourse for a White Sox victory.
That’s how the miracle season ends.
Actually, all real Cleveland fans know that the average Indians season ends when the Tribe is mathematically eliminated, usually in July or August. A few measly years of moderate success are not enough to penetrate our thick and jaded hides.
How many more years before we become the “Lovable Losers” like the Cubs are/were? Do we have to finish last for many years? Can’t we get credit for the torture of the heartbreaking near misses?
I got married in Ashtabula…meh…
by Luis (Tribe Fan in London) on Sep 16, 2008 8:43 AM EDT up reply actions
I got married in Ashtabula…meh…
by Luis (Tribe Fan in London) on Sep 16, 2008 8:43 AM EDT up reply actions
I think we just tied the AL record. The all time record, if I’m reading the thing right, is 148 in 1898 by Baltimore. So, that’s out of reach. I think the “modern-day” NL record is held by Houston, as is somewhere around 100, but I can’t find it any more. Anyone remember?
By the way, another reason to hasten LaPorta’s journey to the majors
thanks for making me skim hoynes.
…the Indians set a club record with 92 HBPs and tied the AL record set by Toronto in 1996. Houston holds the MLB record by getting hit 100 times in 1997.
They must only count that as a “modern day” record if Peter is correct about the 148 tally. Which makes sense anyway.
But I say reach for the stars. Let’s get really critical of other pitchers’ wives leading up to game time.
Steel Nick
Or we could just send Masa Kobayashi to their homes while they’re away…
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Or put him in some games early so he can do either the death ball or holocene slaughter and the other team would be forced to retaliate.
Platooning with Jamey Carroll is not freedom. Free Andy Marte!
by woodsmeister on Sep 12, 2008 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Another option would be to have me pitch for the opposing team. My utter lack of control over 60 1/2 feet would result in a healthy mix of hit batters and wild pitches.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
this is weird, but i think this is the first time i’ve seen/read “sixty and a half feet”. it just sounds off somehow.
It’s a weird distance, isn’t it? Anyone know the history of the choice? The exact center of the diamond is about 63 1/2 feet from the plate.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
from wiki
the front of which is exactly 60 feet, 6 inches (18.4 m) from the rear point of home plate. This peculiar distance was set by the rulemakers in 1893, not due to a clerical or surveying error as popular myth has it, but purposely (further details in History section)
Many sources tend to say that the pitching distance evolved from 45 to 50 to 60 1/2 feet. However, the first two were the “release point” and the third is the “pushoff point”, so the 1893 increase was not quite as dramatic as is often implied; that is, the 1893 rule change added only 5 feet to the release point, not 10 1/2 feet.
whoops, somehow deleted the middle quote i grabbed:
In 1893, the box was replaced by the pitcher’s plate, although the term “knocked out of the box” is still sometimes used when a pitcher is replaced for ineffectiveness. Exactly 5 feet was added to the point the pitcher had to toe, again “to increase the batting” (and hopefully to increase attendance, as fan interest had flagged somewhat), resulting in the seemingly peculiar pitching distance of 60 1/2 feet. (Lansch, p.230)
Well, there you go. Of course, it arose by an arbitrary addition to an arbitrary starting point…. Though at least you get the appearance of round numbers.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
“Pushoff point.” Weren’t pitchers at one time allowed to run up to a certain point before releasing the ball?
Steel Nick
That’s cricket dude. Sometimes – my older brother told me – you could get a running start to pitch in rounders. Don’t know for sure, never saw a rounders game.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
Yes, I’m aware it’s cricket. But since baseball basically developed from rounders, I swear I remember some early 1800’s accounts of the pitcher getting a running start.
Steel Nick
From 19th Century Baseball:
It was agreed upon that for the first time in 1863, that a second line 12 foot line, or rear pitcher’s line, would be drawn on the field three feet behind the original pitcher’s line. This new line was also required to have a “fixed iron plate” placed on its center, was to be nine inches in diameter, circular and painted or enameled white. With the pitcher required to start and end within the two 12 foot pitching lines it was nearly impossible to step when delivering the ball. The pitcher’s running start was eliminated, thus helping to reduce the speed with which the ball was being delivered to the batter.
A big change, but not as big as the rule change in 1858 that allowed umpires to call a strike on a batter who refused to swing at a hittable pitch.
It was Wiffle ball rules before 1858, huh?
by Logodaedalus on Sep 15, 2008 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
True – breaking that record would require playing Garko a whole lot more than he deserves.
Platooning with Jamey Carroll is not freedom. Free Andy Marte!
by woodsmeister on Sep 12, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Here’s a better HBP record to break: most consecutive HBP (as the pitching team), memorably held by (among others), Pittsburgh’s Dock Ellis:
In a May 1 start against the Reds — having announced before the game that “We gonna get down. We gonna do the do. I’m going to hit these [MFers].” — Ellis opened the contest by drilling leadoff hitter Pete Rose in the ribs; hitting the next batter, Joe Morgan, in the side; and then plunking Dan Driessen in the back to load the bases. Although clean-up hitter Tony Perez managed to dodge Ellis’ pitches long enough to draw a walk before being hit, Dock aimed his next two offerings at Cincinnati catcher Johnny Bench’s head, whereupon he was unceremoniously yanked from the game by Pittsburgh manager Danny Murtaugh.
There is a reason other than “momentum”/“psychology” to hope that the Tribe finishes as strongly as possible. That reason is fan interest/anticipation for 2009 that contributes to increased attendance in ’09. This directly affects future budgets and thus the ability to run an effective organization, sign free agents and draftees, etc. I suggest this is more important than the above-discussed draft pick.
That’s a good observation. Regardless of the truth, the majority of fans associate a strong finish with a higher likelihood of success next season.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 12, 2008 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions
They’d be more excited by a splashy offseason move, I guarantee it. We’ve already played well enough now to tread water and still leave the casual fan hopeful for the rest of the year. If you had walked down the street in February of 2006 I don’t think many casual fans could have told you our record during the previous September.
Steel Nick
So Wedge has been playing Carroll so much because he’s trying to ensure we preserve our first round pick? Got it.
by fleerdon on Sep 18, 2008 10:22 AM EDT reply actions
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
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
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.
