Gammons Defends Shapiro
Shapiro defends Wedge. The circle of life.
I'm tired of the injury excuse.
almost 3 years ago
FallsTribeFan
73 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Okay, here’s my deal with the injuries:
Pavano wearing out: Completely foreseeable.
Reyes wrecking his elbow: Completely foreseeable.
SLewis wrecking his anything: Completely foreseeable.
Miller wrecking his anything: Very foreseeable.
Carmona not getting his BB/K situation under control: Relatively foreseeable, given that he’s coming back from a year of injuries and control issues.
Sowers only being good for 5 innings: Lots of evidence here.
Minor injuries to Laffey or to anybody: Completely foreseeable.
All of the above occurring within the first two months of the season: Honestly, it’s not all that unforeseeable.
Now, maybe I just walked out of a bar review torts lecture — I did — but this front office had every reason to expect that 4/5ths of it’s opening day rotation, and some of its immediate depth, was not going to be able to get the job done. I think rotation meltdown was an unusually likely possibility. I don’t know what Shapiro could have done differently, unless it was trading Cliff for a passel of arms over the off-season. But I agree with him: it’s his fault the team found itself in that circumstance to begin with.
The bullpen I’m willing to give him a little more of a pass on, if only because we don’t just have guys underperforming, but formerly effective relievers being borderline incapable of getting outs. The rotation, you could reasonably have expected a holocaust. The bullpen, maybe less so. That only goes so far. I don’t think it gets him off the hook for having so few viable replacements.
And 7foot3 is right. Even if the most unpredictable of these things had not happened, are we a 500 team?
by fleerdon on Jun 23, 2009 12:23 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree with you. Where does that leave you? Which course would you like to see the team take?
by NickFantana on Jun 23, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
/shrug/ As I’ve had to consider it these last few days, and as I mentioned in the comments to Jay’s piece, I’m beginning to wonder if the team hadn’t oughta been sellers up through the mid-aughts. I think Shap should have recognized 2005 for an aberration of sorts, kept flipping parts, getting us broader and deeper. Instead, we basically went, Whoopee! We’re rebuilt!
Try this: Sketch out a depth chart for the 2010 rotation, assuming no major trades. Mine looks like:
Lee
Carmona (maybe)
Laffey (if he’s healthy)
SLewis (if he’s healthy)
Huff (fairly safe pick, but…)
Sowers (really?)
Lofgren (a stretch)
Rondon (a stretch)
And don’t even bother about doing this exercise for the bullpen. It’s Wood with a question mark and six blank lines. There’s a chance it all comes together, of course. But to me, those are rebuilder’s odds, not contender’s odds.
by fleerdon on Jun 23, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I recognize, by the way, that it would’ve taken balls of blued steel to make major trades after we came within a week of winning the division in 2005. Which is what leads me to my grand conspiracy idea, that it just takes the better part of a decade to reconstruct a major league organization when your only assets at the start are Bartolo Colon and a teen-aged C.C. Sabathia. Maybe none of this is unusual in the least. Hell, maybe we’re ahead of schedule.
by fleerdon on Jun 23, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
here’s what I want to know: what is the benchmark comparison team(s)? I am looking here for a team that suffered significant injuries, that had depth waiting to come in and play above replacement level, and that ended up contending for the post-season. Unfortunately, I don’t know anything about baseball outside of the Indians. thoughts?
I apologize if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty certain Westbrook is still under contract for 2010. I wouldn’t think he’s a huge injury risk by the time next April rolls around. At the very least, I think he’s more likely to take the mound than Lofgren.
Besides the Westbrook omission, I’m not sure why Laffey is being assigned a higher health risk than any other starter. Oblique injuries aren’t chronic, or at least the pitchers in this organization who have had them (Lee and CC) didn’t have reoccurrences.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 23, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I won’t be satisfied until his career is ended by injury, but missing the bulk of a season would be a good start.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
No, No Jay. You’re being too shortsighted. I want C.C. to be injured/crappy throughout the duration of his Yankee’s contract and then after taking hundreds of millions of dollars of Steinbrenner money, start pitching awesomely for a small market team.
by world dictator on Jun 23, 2009 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I want him to get hurt and then watch him refuse to exercise his opt out clause, pissing off Yankees fans that they have another 4 years
At which point, Steinbrenner blows a gasket and calls him a fat toad, then orders Cashman to trade him at all costs, even if it means eating 90% of his salary.
At which point, he pitches brilliantly for the next six years and goes into the HOF in a Cleveland cap.
That would be okay, too.
But I’ll settle for a career-ending injury.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Westbrook was just an oversight. I still wish we had more starters, or that I felt more strongly about our upper-level starting depth, and I still wonder our overall shallowness in arms isn’t a result of a failure to acquire more over the last 3 or 4 years.
RE: Laffey … I hope you’re right.
by fleerdon on Jun 24, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
In fairness to the Indians, our starting 5 a year ago was CC, Lee, Westbrook, Byrd and Fausto, with Sowers, Laffey, Huff stacked up in the minors. No one really even talked about Scott Lewis at that point, that I can remember anyway. That sounded pretty good — 8, maybe 9 deep. CC and Byrd were dealt, Westbrook got hurt, and Fausto blew up. Very few teams have the internal resources to replace 4 of their top starters all at once. Everyone was amazed by Toronto’s early season ability to do so, but they faded, predictably enough.
I don’t think the problem is that we didn’t have the depth in the minors. I think it’s that we went into the offseason KNOWING we had only one really solid major league starter on the roster and, for whatever reason, we didn’t acquire an experienced starter on whom we could rely to compensate for the loss of CC, Byrd and Westbrook.
for whatever reason
The reason, or at least this was the thinking at the time, was that we spent the money on a closer and a third baseman. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m happy with the guy they got on the KMTS.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 24, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s correct. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to word that (a minute anyway) — I wanted to make sure I wasn’t implying that they hadn’t TRIED to get a starter. I think they did, but determined that they could get more value by trying for a closer and third baseman. Personally, I would have liked to see a starter be the priority, but they did need help in those other spots too, so what they did is defensible. All I was trying to point out is that the problem was not a long-term failure to prioritize beefing up the starting pitching prospects in the minors (which I thought was being implied by Fleerdon).
I do concur.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 24, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I hear the both of you … but this just seems to be an all-too-familiar refrain.
What the injuries have actually done is expose the farm system for being weak in talent that can step in and fill the void … even for a little bit.
And that, too, goes back to Shapiro.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 23, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
The team has had serious injuries two years in a row, and it’s been pointed out two years in a row. Has anyone blamed 2006 or anything else on unforeseeable injuries? And while I’m not saying our depth has been great, I’m not ready to rip Shapiro for it. Are Huff, Sowers and Ohka really pitching worse than other teams 6-10ish SP options? Sizemore, Peralta, Carmona, Reyes, Perez, Lewis and Wood combining for about 1 WAR so far is the issue.
True, but I’m not sure how I feel about the foreseeability of position player injuries, and anyway I don’t deeply believe that they’re the problem.
by fleerdon on Jun 23, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
It may be completely forseeable for each of those individually to happen, but no way is it forseeable for all of them collectively to happen.
For example, to do a quick mathematical exercise, let’s say that each of those statements you listed above had a 75% chance of occuring during the first two months. That’s definately high for some, maybe about right for others, but I’ll just use that number to keep it simple. The probability that all seven of those happen is about 13%, so not very likely. Even if we only look at 4 of the 7 happening, that probability is just 32%. Of course, this is a vast simplification of the issue, but the point is that while they all may have been somewhat likely individually, it is certainly not likely that all of those would happen collectively (especially in the first two months of the season). Probability just doesn’t work that way.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 23, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey man, I earned my C+ in business stats. I disagree in this particular instance, but I don’t think the point’s worth arguing, since what I’m really getting at is overall depth of talent. Didn’t mean to write something controversial here.
by fleerdon on Jun 23, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, no, nothing controversial at all, sorry if I came off with a harsh tone. And you are correct about the lack of depth — the Indians were counting on a lot of risky pitchers for their starting staff and it hasn’t worked out. That’s a legitimate criticism. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that it was reasonably forseeable for the Indians to be down to Huff and Ohka in the rotation by June. Even with all of those risks, it was reasonably likely that 2 or 3 of those pitchers would be healthy and not terrible. That’s all I was trying to get at.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 23, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Not to be a dick, but he actually did it wrong. See below.
The chances of having at least 5 of these things happen (i.e. having fewer than 3 of the pitchers on this list be both healthy and not terrible), assuming the individual probabilities are 75%, is right around 75%. Fewer than 2? 44%. All 7 happening is indeed only 13%, but that’s not even as unlikely as a coin turning up heads three times in a row…
by Logodaedalus on Jun 23, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Now I’m without my probability book so I’m vulnerable here, but I’m pretty sure the probability that there is at least one injury is an astounding .999938965!
You know your starting staff is in rough shape when the probability of them all being healthy is epsilon…
by Logodaedalus on Jun 24, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
But thay’s cherry-picking these seven events. Other problems were possible and didn’t happen.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yes, I’m well aware of that, which is why I said this was an oversimplification. My point, again, was that I don’t think you can say that all of these occuring together was forseeable even though each of these individually was certainly forseeable.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 23, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions
This is moot. Most of the devastating injuries (aside from Sizemore) have occurred within the rotation. A healthy Scott Lewis, Aaron Laffey, and Anthony Reyes does not make this into a .500 team. We essentially broke camp with a #1 starter, a big question mark, and a slew of other guys who are probably back-end fodder. We knew that we’d have to get some lucky bounces with this pitching staff for them to be league average—most of us were just hoping that our lineup and bullpen would be good enough to overcome it.
Furthermore, we’ve gotten BETTER than anticipated performances from Victor, Choo, Asdrubal, Lee, Pavano, and arguably Hafner. That good fortune has to be accounted for as well.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 23, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Eh, I don’t think Choo or Lee is overperforming. Pavano is slightly better than expected but not much after the past few bad games. I don’t think you can argue that we’ve had better performance by Hafner because he hasn’t played that much (even though he’s been good when healthy).
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 23, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Objectively, Lee, Choo and Asdrubal have all overperformed — not drastically, but significantly. This is not to say that their performances should be surprising, but they are beating median and mean expectations handily.
Sizemore was the only one of our hitters projected to exceed 800 OPS by PECOTA. Asdrubal was projected at 707.
Lee’s numbers this year are slightly better than his May-September numbers last year.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Martinez’s PECOTA numbers were stupid. The system didn’t know he couldn’t swing a bat last year, it just interpreted it as a power outage. His numbers are high, but I’m not surprised he’s exceeding his 90th percentile in the least.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 23, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree that some non-performance data might have helped that projection along. However, the projection does reflect the risk that a health issue may impede his performance this year, as it did last year, and that is totally legitimate.
It’s all well and good to say, I assume he’ll perform very well, when you already know he’s not injured. PECOTA didn’t know that he WOULDN’T be injured, and neither did you.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I think it’s fair to say the 90th percentile projection does, in fact, assume no injuries.
Which is not the same as saying he’s not a consistent injury risk by virtue of his history and position. If he remains in the organization, I’ll be relieved once he’s out from catcher full-time.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 23, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Also true for me, but I decided it wasn’t the best line of defense.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 24, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Furthermore, we’ve gotten BETTER than anticipated performances from Victor, Choo, Asdrubal, Lee, Pavano, and arguably Hafner. That good fortune has to be accounted for as well.
Would you argue for Droobs and Hafner? They’ve both missed a chunck of time.
Regardless, if we’re going to tally up “fortune” relative to a projection like PECOTA (or pick your favorite), the bad is going to outweigh the good every time. We can go through player-by-player, or by inning pitched, but there’s an easier way: PECOTA has us winning 53% of our games, and we’re winning 41%. The fact that we’ve had some good performance only highlights how bad the awful has been. What role fortune plays is still up in the air.
Brad – I get 17.3% (.49% * (7 choose 4 = 35))for 4 events (again assuming these were the only 7 possible), and 92.94% for 4 or more.
Keeping you honest,
Steve
Yup, this. Brad, you just took 0.75^4 for 4 events, which is the probability of four specific events that you choose ahead of time occurring. You need to take into account the number of different combinations of events that could have occurred (i.e. “7 choose 4”, or “how many sets of 4 are there in a set of 7”). As Steve says, the probability of 4 or more events occurring out of 7, each with a probability of 0.75, is actually over 92%…. so it would have been quite surprising indeed if fewer than 4 occurred.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 23, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Right, I’m an idiot, I was trying to make it too simple and didn’t think it through clearly. I should know better, of course. I guess that’s why you made it farther in grad school than I did! Thanks
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 23, 2009 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions
The bullpen, maybe less so. That only goes so far. I don’t think it gets him off the hook for having so few viable replacements.
This very much misses the point, in my opinion.
If our bullpen failures were caused by “a few” underperforming/injured arms I’d be more incline to agree with you. But thats not what happened. Our ENTIRE bullpen collapsed as well as the replacement players.
It seems highly unreasonable to expect a GM to have an entire replacement bullpen in case of complete implosion. That’s like expecting a back up magnificent seven in case they all died in a plane…errr horse crash. Considering the difficulties in making one bullpen, two seems especially pie in the sky.
Though I agree with 3/4 of your post
by world dictator on Jun 23, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
The Rays last year, lost Carl Crawford, Evan Longoria, and Scott Kazmir to the DL during the season.
Carl Crawford and Evan Longoria were both on the 60 day DL for the better part of the 2nd half of the season. The ones that were able to step up and fill those gaps and were better than replacement level was Willy Aybar and Fernando Perez with a smattering of Erik Hinske.
You can find replacement level players in the organization for defense and fielding, hitting comes around with plate appearances. The most important thing to shore up is starting pitching and fill in the bullpen behind that.
The 2008 Yankees had horrible luck with the health of their starting rotation. I think that also is what led to them not making the playoffs. I don’t think you can attribute it to lack of offensive talent. Defense and Pitching wins games 90% of the time with decent offense.
It all starts with pitching. I attribute that pitching problem on Shapiro blowing his bankroll on attaining Kerry Wood. Kerry Wood is a liability for this Indians team and from now on I will refer to his signing as “Shapiros’ folley”
If you are going to fire the manager fire the GM at the same time and bring in a manager and GM that can evaluate talent without looking at a stat line. The head of scouting also needs to be looked at too for possible replacement.
I love this team but Shapiro and Wedge are just not cutting it.
“Evaluating talent without looking at a stat line” may just be the least productive approach to building a baseball team that I have ever heard.
But the reality is that for a lot of the players you’re going to put on your team — i.e., almost the entire bullpen — the stat line is not particularly revealing.
I mean, you should still look at it, but if you think it really means that much in telling a replacement level player from a borderline all-star, you’re kidding yourself.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I think the stat line is the only thing that helps in telling a replacement level player from a borderline all-star. Scouting may need to be incorporated more into the FO process, but not to the point that we have a team full of Lastings Milledge, Franklin Gutierrez and Ruben Mateo. I think the GM’s job is to look at the numbers and sort out those guys who scouts love but whose stat lines betray them.
The problem right now is that Shapiro is being given the scouting reports and the numbers and being forced to select the best of that. Unfortunately, our scouting is such that the best of those is simply not that good. It’s the personnel, not the approach.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
I think the GM’s job is to look at the numbers and sort out those guys who scouts love but whose stat lines betray them.
It swings both ways.
by world dictator on Jun 24, 2009 3:59 AM EDT up reply actions
When the numbers fail to achieve the hoped for knowledge, it’s not the fault of quantification, it’s that we are using the wrong numbers. Or we are using the right numbers incorrectly. Or we are using the right numbers in the wrong situation.
“Using the right numbers incorrectly” … there is too much variation to use relief statistics correctly, unless you count ignoring them as using them correctly. Using them correctly, in this case, means recognizing that the standard deviation is so gigantic as to make the data of extremely limited use.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I didn’t say IGNORING a stat line. I said looking at it maybe I should have said looking at it first.
by PewterPirate55 on Jun 23, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
What team that you know of has had major injuries, a complete bullpen collapse, bad starting pitching while still being successful.
The Indians collapse this season isn’t because of one of the above its because all of the above happened during the first two months of the season.
Completely different scenario’s.
by world dictator on Jun 23, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe
Related FanShots on Let's Go Tribe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Citi Field All-Star game has finally been made official for 2013
- Brett Lawrie receives four-game suspension, fined for ‘aggressive actions’ toward umpire
- PNC Park security guard loses finger in struggle with fan during Pirates game
- Create-a-Caption: Partying like it’s 1988
- The Ron Washington puppet is watching you while you sleep — and has possibly jinxed the Rangers
