Game 32: Tigers 5, Indians 3

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.

Absolutely. Would love to. Let me know the next time you’re in Chicago. We can try the Guys in a Bar theory out.

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.

How about an 80-win team? That would depress me, too. But 84 might win the Central.

I have a gut feeling the team would play better under a new face. Not 10-game run kind of better, but a shade over .500 better.

And before we may analyze it to death, I will reiterate it as a gut feeling and nothing more.

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.

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.

Agreed

of course, even tho you may think about going on a crazy tear every day, its not like it doesn’t surprise you when it happens.

But is temperament (lacking energy and fight, trying too hard) the domain of the manager or not?

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.

Ha. Knee-jerk can be very entertaining.

Ugh, 2006. So, 4 games ago we had reason to be optimistic… now, we just hope for 81-81.

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.

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.

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.

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.