Game 32: Tigers 5, Indians 3
There was nothing particularly special about this loss, especially when there's 21 of them to compare it against. I the difference this time is that the Tigers took the lead early in the game, as opposed to their first two victories. But otherwise, the script was the same: the bats were again silenced a young pitcher.
At this point, I think we're about a week from a managerial change. Maybe less. This team doesn't have a complete roster, but there's too much talent here to have the worst record in baseball. The players-only meeting has been held, wholesale personnel changes have been happening all spring long, and I'm sure there's been any number of post-game "talks." All that's left to do is for the all-important vote of confidence to be given.
| Highest WPA | Lowest WPA | ||
| Victor Martinez | .047 | Anthony Reyes | -.257 |
| Jensen Lewis | .030 | Shin-Soo Choo | -.152 |
| Grady Sizemore | .014 | Mark DeRosa | -.102 |
129 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rather than fire Wedge, they should just go all in and rehire Milton, BPhillips, and-y Marte (just realized Andy is the word “and” in two different languages, kind of like what you’re left with trying to justify his existence) and make him play all three at once, every day. Mare could give LaPorta his favorite checkers moves.
Maybe last years resurgence was Marte-related. Like, regardless whether he contributes, the whole team just has a confidence? Maybe Marte deals PEDs? Maybe Marte is the above-depicted dog and you can’t see Wedge pushing him out the window? That’s six “Martes” in one post, oh, seven. Lucky number seven. Nuthin…
by pdxtribefan on May 10, 2009 6:07 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
We did have a run last year when the team almost always won whenever Marte made one of his very rare starts. It was almost certainly a random sequence of events, but his steadiness in the hot corner might have had something to do with it.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
What a great scenario – Wedge’s job is saved by Shap making a calculated move to inject incompatable energy of any kind into the clubhouse by trading Derosa for Bradley and bringing up Marte to man the hot corner. Wedge and Milton publicly embrace, Wedge gets a tight semi-mohawk with the words “bruthas 4efah” stencilled in the stubble, and Milton goes on the most dominant tear of his life, leading the Tribe to a .500 record in a mere two weeks before snapping both hammies trying to make it to third base on a routine infield popup. Marte plays a stellar 3B the rest of the year, ending inexplicably with the exact same offensive numbers he put up in Richmond in 2005, down to the at bat. Cliff Lee outduels Justin Verlander in the last game of the season to get into the playoffs.
Sweet.
The Plan continues to crumble before our eyes. The end of an era? Kind of sad.
I'm *always* in the driver's seat, cugino -- Chuck
Thanks for that. My stomach just fell about three stories.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 10, 2009 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Me too, man
I'm *always* in the driver's seat, cugino -- Chuck
by Turkmenbashi on May 10, 2009 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I have an regular at work who comes in to talk baseball every week or so. Said regular is convinced that firing Wedge will send us on an immediate 10-game winning streak and get us right back into the Central race. Apparently, these sudden winning streaks “always” happen when a manager is turned over since the players are so happy to have someone new to impress or whatever. I’m guessing no one has informed the Arizona Diamondbacks of this phenomenon, but I haven’t had the chance to ask him about that little hole in his theory just yet.
Anyway, I’m honestly not sure that firing Wedge is going to solve many of our problems, but maybe it’s finally time to try someone else at the clubhouse helm and see how that works since nothing else seems to be helping much. Whatever ultimately happens, I’d just like to see us win some games and maybe even make something out of this mess. I may be pretty down on this year, but I would absolutely love to have these guys prove me wrong. LGT.
--
Force quit and move to trash.
Nothing like collapse to bring out the best in Cleveland fans. Many pessimists seem to wait for bad news to come out. I’m a pessimist, but I don’t understand this elation (or the idiotic Kool-aid comments) when the wheels fall off. If nothing else it’s not very sportsmanlike.
The season isn’t over. It’s still cold outside. The team, as it is presently contributing, isn’t good, but a reasonable person can expect improvement from Peralta, DeRosa, some leftfielder and Sizemore. A reliable fourth and fifth starter can be found. This isn’t a 60-win team.
by odradek on May 10, 2009 6:35 PM EDT reply actions 5 recs
Also, we really should have a beer sometime. I think we would enjoy disagreeing more if we actually had met.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Absolutely. Would love to. Let me know the next time you’re in Chicago. We can try the Guys in a Bar theory out.
Here’s my one problem with it: This obviously isn’t a 60-win team… problem is, it might be a 75-win team. Which will equally depress me.
FE WEE
60 wins or 75 wins is not going to make much difference in the grand scheme of things – that won’t win the AL Central, even if it is “unimpressive” or “unspectacular.” Therefore, I agree with your premise.
I do agree that Wedge’s time grows short – he and his staff seem to have lost this team. And, unfortnately, this team under Wedge has constantly started off slowly – how many teams start off so poorly 6/7 seasons? Very few, if any, even with a supposedly good amount of talent on this team – something is clearly not right.
Certainly, I hope they turn this around, but honestly, I’m not optimistic at this point – not just the management likely needs to change, but the fundamentals and the approach of the offense, along with better pitching, is the only combination that’s going to enable us to turn 2009 around. That’s a lot of holes and “ifs” that need to go right in order to turn this season around. Yes, it’s early enough, but these consistent silly mistakes and lack of executing the game plan at the plate and on the mound must be corrected to have any legitimate chance, regardless if it’s May or not, even if it’s only a 7-game deficit – we need to see some consistency on the good side for us to really believe this team can turn 2009 around. So far, we have not seen that for any period, even a short period. As Wedge has put it – (paraphrase) – it’s different aspects of our team that are struggling each night; our team has not “clicked” together in all phases yet. Let’s hope it happens very soon or it will be too late, sorry to say.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I think it depends if 80 wins would win the AL Central, which is pretty unlikely.
Still, I think most people were thinking that the Indians could win somewhere in the neighborhood of 85-92 wins if many or most things broke right. Therefore, 84 would be in the ballpark; 80 would be a bit low, but would be better than what we are doing right now. Speaking of which, what is our projected record right now – are we projected to even win 70 games at this point? I’m pretty sure it’s not 80, and probably not 75 either.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
In the 1970s, this type of season would’ve been a downer, but not a surprise. The frustrating thing about this season is that expectations were legitimately high. All the off-season decisions made sense in response to the shortcomings of the ‘08 team. Everyone except Hafner is healthy (so far as we know), and not many of us were expecting him to be Pronk again this year, anyway. And we’re still in a relatively weak division. It really has been the perfect storm. But some of the luck will turn our way, we won’t always have ridiculous confluences of good/awful performances (Cliffy’s start on Friday night coupled with zero offense), and even this bullpen cannot continue to fail night after night. Odradek is right that this is not a 60 win team. But we’re not a 90 win team, either. We’d have to play .543 ball the rest of the way just to finish at 81 wins like we did last year.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on May 10, 2009 7:13 PM EDT reply actions
That’s why, despite it only being May, we are at a very critical point of this season and it’s not as “early” as we’d like to think it is.
Additionally, if I remember the general rule correctly about assessing a baseball club’s ability to compete, you usually can tell something after 40 games. Right now, after 32 games (4/5 of that 40-game marker), we are 11-21. Even if we would go 8-0 in our next 8 games (which doesn’t seem likely right now), we’d be 19-21 after 40 games, hardly an inspiring vote of confidence in what was expected to be a promising season (though that 8-0 mark would carry some weight).
Granted, as odradek mentioned, we’d had some bad luck with injuries, and we’d all like to think, based on past track records, that some of these guys will improve and turn their seasons around (Sizemore, Peralta, Betancourt, Perez, Lewis arguably being the most notable and likely) – the question is, will it happen soon enough and will it be enough for us to compete for the postseason? The answers remain to be seen, but every passing game and every loss shifts those answers to more of the “no” side.
I think what I find most frustrating about this season is that it looks very much like past seasons – again, the offense is struggling mightily to score runs, which has happened so often in the Wedge/Shelton era. The bullpen, granted, has also had its issues (makes one wonder how much a change in the bullpen coach can affect the bullpen – while it happened twice under Luis Isaac in 2006 and 2008, now it’s happening under Chuck Hernandez in 2009). It just seems like we’re watching “Groundhog Day” or we’re in the “Twilight Zone” all over again, which is probably the most frustrating aspect of this team for me, and why I think that Wedge and company’s time in Cleveland grows shorter – at some point, the manager and coaching staff will likely get blamed for these repeated weaknesses, no matter how much of the blame is directly on their shoulders, though one does have to wonder if their preparation methods in Spring Training and Wedge’s “even-keel” approach sometimes makes this team too even-keel, then when they struggle, they turn on the intensity too much, try to do too much (especially at the plate), and then get themselves into deeper and deeper ruts they can’t get out of. Let’s just hope this season doesn’t end like the other seasons where this script has played out – that’s why I’m not confident in our bouncing back, even at this early date, though I certainly hope I’ll be proven wrong on that. LGT!
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Let’s say Wedge is fired. What then? Skinner takes over? Not much changes except who makes out the lineup card. Same coaches same routine, and Skinner is as steeped in past organizational philosophy as anyone.
I agree that when a team underperforms consistently, at some point the manager is fired. That’s the way it goes on any team in any sport. But to me its relatively meaningless unless there is a real shake up in the day to day running of the team, something that doesn’t just send a message, but actually results in the players feeling something is different when they come to work.
Replacing Shelton and Willis might make a bigger difference than firing Wedge. Taking a chance and putting someone in the manager’s office precisely because they aren’t always on the same page in the executive manual might have an impact. Shap making it clear that he will call the shots and expect the manager, whoever it is, to execute them would be a change.
I don’t know what it would take to really shake this season up before its too late. I just I think it has to be something other than the more or less symbolic act of replacing one organizational soldier with another one with the same marching orders. It needs to be something that actually has a distinct effect on the players’ daily mindset, whether it eventually turns out for the best or not.
Right. There is no reason to fire Wedge unless there is some reason to think the team will perform better under someone new. I’m no huge fan of Wedge, but it’s hard to lay the blame for the season on him. The major flaw of the ‘09 team is the relief corps, and it’s not like he’s obviously mismanaged the bullpen. It doesn’t matter who he puts out there, they have all been consistently awful. The only reason to fire him at this point is to shake things up. Has anyone done a decent analysis on the impact on team performance of firing a manager mid-season?
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on May 10, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions
The only way a Wedge firing makes any meaningful difference is if it is just part of a broader organizational change in philosophy. That’s unlikely to happen in the middle of a season; even if it did, it wouldn’t pay immediate dividends.
I mean, maybe they’re just not playing for Wedge and even a guy like Lovullo or Skinner could motivate them, just by virtue of not being Wedge. But I have no reason to believe that’s true.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 10, 2009 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the second paragraph is the strongest reason for making a change. A change in philosophy could be as simple as what Gene Tenace did in Toronto: tell guys to stop thinking and start swinging.
Every time they get off to a bad start, I think maybe he’s lost the clubhouse. But then they finish the year like gangbusters. Is this year an exception? I don’t think so. Who knows what goes on, though? Maybe the Tenace thing is right on. I’d definitely—like I said in the GT—prefer someone from outside the org. But none of us really has a clue. This is out of our realm.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 10, 2009 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess I’m just more disposed to believe that there’s a physical cause — off-season training, conditioning, something — than that there’s some deeper, sport-psych-y cause for the slow starts.
by fleerdon on May 10, 2009 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I kinda think the whole “organizational philosophy” thing is a load of crap or fairly irrelevant, take your pick, when it comes to the major league club competing in mid-season. At that level, the “philosophy” is whatever works at the time, and can change rapidly.
The Plan has worked in that we have a much greater level of talent in the system than we did when Shap took over. Even if it was thrown in the wastebasket right now, that wouldn’t change. And you’re right, if Shap adopted a different long term strategy, it would have a long term effect.
But I don’t think getting this team to play better has much to do with writing up a new mission statement. I’m just saying that if you are faced with the necessity of relieving a manager of his duties, you should think pretty hard about why that is, and what needs to be different to make it better.
I agree, but they are probably burning the midnight oil right now working on a new mission statement. Philosophy is kind of ridiculous when you’re running a baseball team. Score more runs than you allow: how analytic do you need to get?
This is just conjecture, but it may simply come down to the personality and demands of the present manager no longer jibing with the players. I don’t think, once this is apparent, that it requires further thought. What makes it different, and what makes it better, is another manager. Perhaps another sort of personality. That’s it. Maybe you go with an older guy, somebody more laid back, or someone who has more experience. Whatever.
Score more runs than you allow: how analytic do you need to get?
I liked this.
Also, maybe there isn’t any manager who would be considered to have weathered a record like this with the expectations put on the team. Simply put, its not Wedge its, its the manager.
It’s really not whether or not “Wedge” should be fired because blah blah blah reasons, but rather should any “generic” manager not be fired if in this position?
Really who cares if they keep him or not?
We all seem to agree that this club has too much talent to be dead last this far into the season. If that’s the case, then who is responsible? Ultimately, It’s the manager’s responsibility. If this was a business (oh wait. It is!) we all know what happens when a branch or team performs well below expectations – the manager is usually given a warning and then moved or removed if things don’t improve.
I’m not saying the team’s poor performance is Wedge’s fault, but it is his responsibility. After 6+ years managing the Indians he has a combined record of 507-496 (.505). Only 2 of his six years has he finished above .500 (but those two years were pretty damn good).
by LeftyCatcher on May 10, 2009 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Let me ask you this……when we fired Eddie Murray in 2005, was here any reason to suspect we would go on a crazy tear and almost make the playoffs? Sometimes a different voice just works
Torey Luvullo
Is anyone familiar with managerial style and temperament of Torey Luvullo? I know that he has been interviewed for at least one major league position. I would like to know how different he is than Wedge?
I think the organization feels very strongly about making their prospects play at AAA, and I think Luvollo may be part of the reason.
by fleerdon on May 11, 2009 8:29 AM EDT up reply actions
So what does the division look like 32 games in? The Tigers have better pitching—both starting and pen—than I expected. They’re getting reasonable offensive performances from players I was dubious of (Laird, Larish, Everett, Anderson), and Ordonez hasn’t yet fallen off a cliff. Their rotation seems a bit shaky. With the exception of Verlander, I don’t seem them being so great. The Twins have had surprisingly lousy pitching, which will probably improve. But they still seem to have about a two-and-a-half-man offense. KC probably now believes in themselves, but I don’t think they have the offense to stay in first. Great rotation and pen, though one could expect some falloff from Bannister. The White Sox are thinking of signing Pedro.
Who can win this division? I’d say the Tigers have the best shot, with KC second. But I’d have to say the Indians stand a chance with this competition.
Victor defends Wedge. From the PD:
One of the players who made sure to verbalize support for his manager in Sunday’s postgame clubhouse was Victor Martinez, who happens to be the Tribe’s best hitter.
“It’s not Wedge’s fault,” he said. “I take all the blame, we take all the blame.”
In case you missed it, Martinez does not think it’s Wedge’s fault, which means he does not think Wedge should be jettisoned.
“He’s not the one playing,” Martinez said. “I don’t see any reason why he should pay for this.”
This is what the classy players always say. It makes no difference, though.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
It’s the dreaded vote of confidence from the team leader. The rest of the quote was interesting though: Victor admits the team lacks energy and fight. Is trying too hard.
But is temperament (lacking energy and fight, trying too hard) the domain of the manager or not?
Sometimes, I just like to b****.
I agree, he’s too intense. We used to call guys like him HHAs (humorless hard asses). I have never responded well to this type of boss, but I’m sure others do.
by LeftyCatcher on May 10, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
On the one hand, I can see why you and odradek think he is intense, but sometimes, I think his “take it one game at a time” approach and his lack of getting fired up (except on a few bad calls or when the team is really struggling, like it is now) makes me think that he is NOT that intense, not like some managers – Lou Piniella, Terry Francona, even Joe Torre, seem more intense than Wedge.
As mentioned above, I think the players often copy Wedge’s lead of focusing on a game at a time early on in the season; then, when they start struggling and not performing up to expectations, then they go to the other extreme, become too intense, try to do too much (especially offensively) themselves, and get themselves into horrendous slumps that last for weeks at a time. This seems like the constant pattern that has occurred in virtually every season Wedge has been here (outside 2007).
I don’t think it’s so much that the players don’t care about Wedge or that they’ve lost respect for him – I just think that his persona rubs off on the players in a way where they don’t perform up to their expected abilities, then they overcompensate in an attempt to do better, which then messes them up for extended periods of time for which they can’t recover to make the postseason. That might also partly explain why they seem to do better after the postseason is pretty much out of reach, another trend that seems to exist in the Wedge era. That’s why I think a change at manager may be needed – someone who is not as “laid back” as Wedge and who shows a little more intensity from game to game – that might help the Indians in their focus and concentration from game to game, which seems to be lacking with their poor at-bats, poor pitch selection, and poor execution of both facets mentioned and with their base running and defense as well.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Disagree. This organization regularly talks up the importance of makeup and personality in the clubhouse when acquiring players. I’m assuming Wedge underwent the same rigamorole. If the system isn’t working, I blame the guy who designed the system.
by fleerdon on May 10, 2009 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Fire him, too. Makeup and personality change. The effectiveness of such also changes. What may be appropriate for younger players may not work for veterans. It doesn’t make sense to stick with someone who tested well five years ago but doesn’t seem to be cutting it now. And, I’ll admit, this is just conjecture. Wedge may have a sense of humor and be way more laid back and relaxed than he looks. I just compare his public persona with Ozzie Guillen.
Hmmm. Manoloff makes it sound as though Victor made a special effort to voice his support of Wedge, though I don’t get that impression from Castrovince’s take.
I would guess that at one thing Shapiro would factor into a decision about changing the manager is whether or not he has lost the respect of the players. Other considerations may be more important, but I think the support of a key player (particularly if he really did go out of his way to go on the record) is notable.
I don’t think this indicates Victor’s true feelings. Maybe it does, but it’s purely the politic (and kind) thing to say. This is what they teach you in media training. Nothing much should be read into this, in my opinion, unless there is some sort of unknown schism in the locker room between Anglo and Latin players.
Yeah, could be… hard to say for sure. Still, he could have said things like “it’s our fault, we are the ones playing” without going the extra step to explicitly state “Wedge shouldn’t pay for this.” It’s possible to be polite and kind and still convey one’s true feelings. I acknowledge that we shouldn’t over-analyze the quotes.
Wedge has always commanded immense respect from the players, and they’ve always played hard for him and never quit on him. I don’t really think that’s changed, but you don’t get to stay in a job like this by default. At some point, even under Dolan-Shapiro, it ceases to be about, “How could firing him help?” and starts to be about “How could keeping him help?”
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I honestly have no tea leaves to read on that.
I think they don’t like to do things impulsively or for no reason. But I think at some point, the question is, What is our reason for keeping him? Because we don’t like to do things for no reason, and that includes keeping people around, whether it’s Luis Isaac or Eric Wedge. And if the reason to keep him is that successful organizations have stability, there’s obviously a problem in that this cannot really be called a successful organization right now. It can’t be stability for its own sake.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’m keenly interested in seeing how this turns out. Shapiro and Wedge have had such a close working relationship that presumably it would be especially difficult for Shapiro to replace him — particularly if Shapiro determines that he is largely responsible for not providing Wedge with personnel. But as you note, keeping Wedge solely for the sake of stability doesn’t make sense either.
I wonder what Shapiro is thinking right now. A second straight miserable start to a season beginning with great hope must be forcing him to re-evaluate some of his core beliefs. At the moment I still think it is quite unlikely that Shapiro will dismiss Wedge… though I wonder if he is seriously contemplating such a move in a way that he never did before.
This responds nicely to what I said above.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 10, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we should go with a two-manager system. We’ll have one manager — say Joel Skinner, since he has already proven that he’s willing to sublimate his ego for the team — manage the first four months of the season. Hopefully we’ll be slightly above .500.
Then, sometime in mid-July, on an unannounced date, the Progressive Field lights will dim during pre-game introductions. The giant loudspeaker voice will say, "And NOW… for the STRETCH RUN… managing your CLEVELAND INDIANS… it’s ERRRRIC WEEEEDGE!
Wedge will fly out of the dugout, hugging guys and slapping butts (except Andy Marte, who he’ll carefully ignore). Fireworks will reverberate through the stadium. On the scoreboard, a giant cartoon Wedge will flip a metaphorical switch from “Off” to “World Series.” Out of nowhere, Trot Nixon will hit Grady in the face with a pie.
Boom. Championship.
by Chemo on May 10, 2009 10:42 PM EDT reply actions 8 recs
How many of you guys remember the Billy Martin/Bob Lemon handoffs?
by kennesawmountainwahoo on May 11, 2009 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Ha. Knee-jerk can be very entertaining.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on May 11, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions
He’s coaching third base, since Skinner is managing.
by Chemo on May 11, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Not much left to say that hasn’t been said.
As Victor said, it really is the players. The majority of these guys have essentially been all together for the better part of 4 different seasons. Each year there is this incredible malaise that falls over the ENTIRE team where they can’t break out of their slumps for weeks at a time. In 2005 it was at the end of the season, in 2006 it was the beginning, in 2007 it was during the end of July and beginning of August (then Asdrubal was inserted in the lineup and provided a spark), then last year it was that infamous “do or die” homestand that ended in an utterly hilarious 11 game slide.
I know I am generalizing here and these types of things happen in a 162-game season … but it seems to be a yearly occurrence with these fellows.
I guess my question would be this then:
How many 11-21 stretches have we had at any point during a season in the past 7 or 8 years?
FE WEE
Everyone:
We don’t need giant animated .gifs or whatever within comments. They slow down the site to the point of unusability for many users.
Even if it’s of Raul Ibanez spiking a throw from LF?
by JulioBernazard on May 11, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I hope we can always make an exemption for that one. It’s pure gold.
by woodsmeister on May 11, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m of two minds about Wedge’s impending firing. On one hand, I agree with Jay above that stability for the sake of stability is a weak idea. If there is even a glint of possible benefit in changing the clubhouse environment, we have little to lose in doing so.
On the other hand, part of me suspects that a quick managerial trigger-finger, more common today in all sports, generally speaking (there are certainly exceptions), reflects a toolishly corporatist attitude about performance, where middlemen become fall guys when the bottom line drops, regardless of the circumstances they happen to inherit. (Injuries, Grandersonian web gems, Andy Marte, et al.)
I suppose in the end I sigh in recognition of the fact that my suspicion of the corporatist attitude probably isn’t productive in the immediate term. But I won’t anticipate any improvement after Wedge gets canned, any more than if I rotated my Grady bobblehead to face West. (Which I did a couple games ago.) (I’m in Philly.)
by bentausig on May 11, 2009 8:59 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Hey, Philly.
I think your comments are productive as a reminder of something that is rarely so well articulated. Lefty writes: “I’m not saying the team’s poor performance is Wedge’s fault, but it is his responsibility.” But that is only true to the text that ownership imposes that “toolishly corporatist attitude about performance,” which blames subordinates for results (and root causes) that were not within their control. That is not the way of the world definitively; it is a choice that owners and executives make.
I think we all benefit from being reminded of this, on the one hand.
On the other hand, again, the position of major league manager is an elite one that ought to require an affirmative proof of one’s value. If Wedge’s presence has hurt, obviously he should be jettisoned. That’s the easy part. But there are two other possibilities.
One possibility is that Wedge’s presence actually has helped, but If we are to believe that, then we would have to accept that the projected first-place team is actually worse than 10 games under .500, and that only with Wedge’s help has the hole not grown deeper. I think we can all agree that this supposition is wholly lacking in credibility.
The last possibility if his presence has neither helped nor hurt — and this is a pretty reasonable supposition — then in that case, too, we are at or near the point where he should be fired. There are lots of well qualified men out there with a high likelihood of being harmless. If Wedge is no better than harmless, then it might be time to let some other harmless fellow give it a shot.
This is what I mean by the affirmative reason. We can be pretty certain that Wedge isn’t helping with respect to wins and losses, which are the bottom line. So he is either not-helping or actually hurting the results, and either way, what is the argument or keeping him?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 11, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Agreed entirely; there is no practical argument for keeping him.
Modern Manager is not hired for strategic brilliance – he usually isn’t even given the tools for it. He’s hired for gestalt, and fired for record. The brass presumes they’re related, so if the team is hemorrhaging losses, bring in some new blood.
My being of two minds about Wedge’s firing is not an argument for retaining his services, its an ambivalence about the conditions of his tenure. I wish it were more possible to hire managers as part of a long-term plan for a team, but as we’re seeing right now, long-term plans in baseball can be very vulnerable to short-term volatility. In finance you’d call this kind of reaction panicky; in baseball I think the system has made it rational.
In any case, Wedge’s gestalt never seemed that great anyway. I feel much worse for Torre, who was strategically idiosyncratic but seemed to motivate the club and fans (i.e., to get the gestalt part right), and then had to face the embarrassment of being treated like a failure after his team lost to a better team in the playoffs. In that situation I think the NYFO did fail to look beyond the bottom line for affirmative proof of managerial value. In the case of the ‘09 Tribe, and Wedge, I don’t think there is anywhere else to look – Martinez’s comment was just diplomacy.
by bentausig on May 11, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
There are affirmative cases to be made for Wedge based on his tenure, but I don’t know that they are persuasive anymore.
Something I don’t think anyone has mentioned is that the slow starts may in some way be related to the strong finishes, and despite the bottom-line results, this probably works to the club’s benefit overall. As painful as the slow start have been, the strong finishes have been more profound. Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, that some hard-riding tough guy manager could motivate the team to go 15-11 in April, on pace for 93-94 wins. Isn’t it just possible that that approach is going to leave the team with less spark, passion and tangible, physical energy in the dog days of July and August?
I am not convinced that Wedge’s management has much to do with a starting slow, but if you want to argue that a too-steady approach wins fewer games in April, I think you also have to acknowledge that it might win a lot more games down the stretch.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yeah, I don’t know if the start/finish, April/September analysis really yields any actionable conclusion. You can say that the late summary flourishes have been more profound, but they still add up to one playoff appearance. I do think the slow start theory is just a bunch of noise, but regardless, it’s not like we’ve ever come back to reach the postseason.
I agree with this. It’s where you finish on average, and they’ve only finished with 90 wins after a slow start once, in 2005. Further, a fast start ought to be worth more in a balancing analysis, because a slow start usually results in trading assets in July.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 11, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
You have to factor in that in many cases the “spark” of good finishes was supplied by new players from the farm.
Well, for one thing, that’s supposed to be part of the strategy, and for another, you then have to give Wedge a mulligan for not having all his best talent available in April. Finally, what exactly was the “fresh talent” that appeared in 2005, 2006 and 2008? Was it the scrubs putting up surprising quality starts in 2008? Was it Garko and Marte doing nothing all that miraculous in 2006? Was it … nobody … in 2005?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Jay: “Lefty writes: "I’m not saying the team’s poor performance is Wedge’s fault, but it is his responsibility." But that is only true to the text that ownership imposes that "toolishly corporatist attitude about performance," which blames subordinates for results (and root causes) that were not within their control. That is not the way of the world definitively; it is a choice that owners and executives make.”
So many things wrong with this. What the hell is a “toolishly corporatist attitude” by the way?
When you hire someone, define their responsibilities, and explain what is expected of them, is it wrong to be concerned if that person or the branch or team he or she is responsible for performs below expectations?
In Wedge’s case the expectation is that the team he manages has a winning percentage commensurate with the level of talent management has provided him with, discounting injuries, etc.
I think we all pretty much agree that this team hasn’t performed anywhere near their potential. The question then is, is the sample size of 32 games large enough to conclude that his team is underperforming or just suffering through a normal funk that all teams experience? We can add Wedge’s six previous years record as well to make the sample size bigger (but it also complicates the equation due to differing levels of talent).
I am curious what leads you to write that firing the manager is “blam[ing] subordinates for results (and root causes) that [are] not within their control”? I believe one of a manager’s responsibilities is to get talented ballplayers to work together and win ballgames. Winning games is the team’s bottom line. Managers don’t hit or pitch or field the ball, so one of their responsibilities is to ensure that those who can, do. It’s not like Shapiro has saddled Wedge with misfits and a roster of AAAA players.
I was careful to write that the team’s underperformance may not be Wedge’s fault, but it is his responsibility. I have no doubt that Eric is doing everything he can to get this team back on track, but it’s possible he doesn’t have the tools/skills/personality to get this particular team of 25 players (give or take) to play consistently winning baseball.
by LeftyCatcher on May 11, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The “toolishly” phrase was just quoting from the previous comment. Though I do usually agree with the sentiment, which is that short-sighted organizations make moves based on ascribing responsibility with a foolish disregard for accountability.
You want to say that managers are responsible for things for which they’re not really accountable, i.e., that they can’t control. I don’t think that’s a sensible or wise operating principle.
All lineups go through short-term dead periods, just based on normal distribution of run scoring across games. Is it within Wedge’s control if ours goes through one at an especially inopportune time? (Is there any such thing?)
Is Wedge responsible for Rafael Perez, or for Wood having an ERA north of whatever it’s north of today? Is he responsible for guys like Meloan and Miller and Jackson not being available as depth reinforcements the way we expected them to be?
I don’t think we’ve lost many games because of the players not “working together.” The various DP combinations seem to be highly functional. The outfielders have had some communication issues, but they’re not long-lasting. The pitchers and catchers seem to get along pretty well — or is it “working together” that is serving up all those 8th inning meatballs? No, the fact is that outside of a few tandem relationships on defense, nearly everything that happens on the field is mano-a-mano.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Is Wedge responsible for R Perez’s meltdown or Woods high ERA? If it were just a few players having issues I would say of course not, but when a majority of players suffer meltdowns at inopportune times, I start to wonder, as would anyone.
I think I made the point that 32 games is not a large sample size. You mention that every team goes through short-term dead periods. Are you saying this 32 game period qualifies is a normal funk? It might be, I’m probably too emotional about the season at this point to put this stretch in perspective.
by LeftyCatcher on May 11, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions
No, I said every lineup goes through a short-term dead period. Entire teams, yes, to some extent, but I was more just talking about how regular distribution of run-scoring across games sometimes creates the appearance of struggling when it’s just … those we’re our AB to succeed in. And of course sometimes there is a real struggle across the lineup, but that too is more random than anything else, the confluence of individual struggles. I think the incidence of “contagious” hitting or non-hitting are highly exaggerated.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’ll agree with Jay about the corporate attitude thing. It’s very common in organizations for people some way down the totem pole to be “held accountable” for results over which they had limited control. If you are told to improve some aspect of your unit’s performance, then have your best people taken away from you, are given little support, suffer from economic changes that have nothing to do with anything YOU did, then blamed for your unit’s poor performance, you’re in that situation. Happens all the time. Maybe that’s bad management, but that’s what often happens. It’s not specific to corporations, mind, as schools and universities do this kind of thing too, in my experience.
Wedge IS in some senses a victim of circumstances he can’t control — i.e., he isn’t the one who constructed a series of weak bullpens that have undermined the team’s chances on several occasions in recent years. Nor is he responsible for the team’s financial realities. At the same time, it’s reasonable to say that he has NOT gotten the best of out his team this year, at least, so he’s “responsible” in some sense.
I’m more or less persuaded by the argument several people have made here to the effect that Wedge probably isn’t helping the team at this point; whether or not he’s to blame for the team’s woes, the fact that he’s not helping may remove one of the major arguments for retaining him.
[I’ve got to learn how to do blockquotes on this blog]
peter m: “It’s very common in organizations for people some way down the totem pole to be "held accountable" for results over which they had limited control.”
Yes, I’ve seen it happen all too often, but those are disfunctional organizations. It’s management’s responsibility to provide employees (managers, supervisors, whatever) the resources they need to do the job. I think our front office has provided Wedge with a pretty decent roster, and pretty decent coaching staff and support staff. We’re not talking a team expected to play .540 ball playing .470 ball instead. We’re playing .340 ball right now.
by LeftyCatcher on May 11, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions
When you hire someone, define their responsibilities, and explain what is expected of them, is it wrong to be concerned if that person or the branch or team he or she is responsible for performs below expectations?
It isn’t wrong in the sense of being unjust. You’re right that the terms are explicit or at least implicit from the beginning – in any case, clear enough. And no doubt, Wedge is as sensitive as anyone to the temperature under his seat. But I would argue that an absolutist approach to responsibility – i.e., presuming that every time something goes wrong, in no matter how short of a term, that there must be some individual agent responsible, and furthermore that said agent’s failings predict future failings – is not necessarily the best considered strategy.
Granted, managerial makeovers may be necessary from a P.R. standpoint, and in certain cases (like this one), the long-shot potential benefits of regime change may seem to outweigh the even-longer-shot benefits of constancy. But in the latter case the rational is not so much punitive as … like spending your last dollar on a lottery ticket. I’m not sure we shouldn’t do so, and maybe it’s splitting hairs, but I’m not upset with Wedge about the flat tire or the bird that shat on our windshield.
I think we realize that baseball is a marathon, and stretch of two or six or 20 bad games is the manager’s responsibility. At some point though, it becomes his responsibility, which has got to be frustrating because he is powerless to hit the ball or pitch the eighth inning himself. I would hate to see a manager fired purely as a PR move though.
by LeftyCatcher on May 11, 2009 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions
It's the Pitching, Stupid
According to Manoloff in today’s PD, the Indians are 0-13 this season when scoring three runs or fewer.
So what’s the significance? That they lose when they don’t score? Or, that they don’t score in too many games? Consider the following: Toronto, tops in the AL, is 1-7 when they score 3 runs or fewer. They are 21-5 when they score 4 runs or more (while the Indians are 11-8). I think the most significant number in Manoloff’s column is the fact that the Indians have PLAYED 13 games in which they scored 13 runs or fewer.
I agree that it’s the pitching, but I don’t think a team’s record in low-scoring games is a particularly good measure of that.
So THAT was the problem. Welcome back. Where have you been?
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on May 11, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
So, Vizcaino is said to be joining the team today or tomorrow. Who goes? I’m guessing that Masa will be given an ultimatum leading to his consent of a demotion.
Part of me hopes it’s Lewis. He pitched pretty well yesterday, but I’m not persuaded that he’s “back.” Unlike Masa, Lewis is important to the team’s future, so I’d like to make sure he gets himself straightened out. A trip to Columbus might actually give him the chance to get straightened out long-term. But, I agree that Masa is clearly the most vulnerable.

by 




















