It's Time to Begin Working Toward 2010!
by indiansfan on Jun 26, 2009 8:09 PM EDT
Email
PrintHello everyone, I think there is little question that this 2009 season will end in only one way, without making the postseason. I think these two Indians articles (here & here) from TheClevelandFan.com mention several ways that we should prepare for 2010, most of which I agree with (the only ones I'm questionable about are whether Radinsky should become the bullpen coach or the pitching coach and whether I want Victor to be the everyday catcher as Cousineau is wanting, though I think I can understand that Victor's trade value would be higher if we did decide to trade him if he plays virtually everyday at catcher, plus the fact that LaPorta would have a permanent spot at 1B, so I could maybe warm up to the idea, but I fear that Victor's bat wouldn't be as consistent if he's playing at catcher everyday, and certainly, his bat will be needed at peak condition if we're going to make a run in 2010).
Just a few highlights I wanted to discuss:
- It's pretty likely there will be no comeback this year - 1-8 in our last 9 games, sweeps at the hands of the Brewers at home, the Cubs on the road, and a near-sweep by the Pirates on the road has pretty much decided that the 2009 season will be without a postseason run for the Indians. Add to that the fact that Pavano has fallen off considerably performance-wise and Sowers is still an ineffective starter, and I think it's obvious that we shoul be looking toward 2010.
- Like the authors of those pieces, the time for guys like Herges, Aquino, and Vizcaino, has come and gone (and the last two are no longer here) - it's time to begin figuring out things for 2010. That means that all possible candidates, including all relevant Minor League pitchers (this includes Herrmann, Wright, Stiller, Putnam, etc.) to get some time up here during the rest of this season to see if they can be viable 2010 options. It's better if we start learning about them the rest of this season than to give them "try-outs" in 2010, a season in which we expect to contend, and the possible final seasons of Lee and Martinez.
- I also agree with the idea of removing Chuck Hernandez as the bullpen coach. It's debatable how much fault lies with him in regards to the 2009 bullpen, but it seems that his skills do not include being able to get guys to repeat their deliveries and to avoid walking people - the guys in this bullpen are walking guys at an exorbitant rate that do not match up with their career norms (this includes guys like Wood and Perez), so it would seem that Hernandez has had some effect, at least in that he has not been able to "fix" them and get them back to pitching at or near their career norms in terms of their command. Additionally, I'd hate to have Scott Radinsky, who is highly-touted and is "on the rise" in most people's eyes, as well as very familiar with many of our up-and-coming pitching prospects, get away as someone else's pitching coach; I'm torn between having him as the pitching coach or as the bullpen coach, but utilize him in some fashion before he gets away (which seems likely to occur sooner rather than later).
- Like Cousineau mentioned, move Sowers into a long-relief role; his skills would seem to match perfectly in that role, and we haven't had a true "long reliever" for a while, and while in past seasons, we may not have needed one, that has not been the case in 2009, and if we rely on more young pitchers in 2010 (Huff, Carmona, maybe Lofgren or even Rondon), it would seem likely that a long reliever may be beneficial to have. Plus, if Sowers could fill that role, at least he wouldn't be a total loss as a first rounder (like Guthrie, Denham, Dittler, Smith, etc.), unlike many of the first-rounders have been in recent years.
- I also agree that we should look to trade, not just DeRosa (that's pretty obvious to most everyone), but also Pavano (we likely wouldn't get much, but he's not a long-term fixture either, and his trade value will likely continue to drop) and even Shoppach (the article mentions why he still would have some value, despite providing inconsistent offense and poor defense), even if that means including him with DeRosa. The main reason is that Toregas is likely every bit of Shoppach's equal defensively (if maybe not even a hair better than Shoppach), and while Toregas likely wouldn't match Shoppach's power offensively, it's conceivable to think that Toregas would provide a more stable BA (he seems to have a better grasp of the K zone, specifically when it comes to K, even taking into account the AAA to ML transition), and thereby, be no worse offensively (and perhaps a bit better). Not to mention the fact that Toregas would be cheaper and be under control for longer. Plus, as Cousineau mentioned, you could mix in Gimenez from time to time as your 3rd catcher if you wish to give Victor and/or Toregas off.
- I also agree with the idea of bringing up guys like LaPorta and Brantley - let them get their feet wet consistently at the ML NOW. Don't wait until 2010 for these guys to get extended ML playing time. Sure, they'll likely go through some struggles, as did LaPorta his first time around (and LaPorta should have gotten more playing time the first time he was up here), but it's better if they learn to overcome those struggles NOW, rather than try to do it on-the-fly in 2010 while we try to make a run at the AL Central in what could be Lee's and Martinez's final seasons here. It's likely that guys like LaPorta and Brantley will be counted upon pretty heavily to come through in 2010 if we are truly going to make a sustained run at the postseason - it would seem reasonable to conclude that having them work out the "kinks" now at the ML level would help to better prepare them to contribute more meaningfully and consistently at the ML level in 2010.
- I also agree that Gimenez should get more consistent playing time if he's being groomed for the super-utility role (which will be needed after DeRosa is traded away). Gimenez should be getting regular ABs at AAA until DeRosa is traded, then have him move around and get consistent ABs up here once DeRosa is traded. Letting these guys sit on the bench (Gimenez now, LaPorta before, even Valbuena before until Cabrera was injured) is not going to help them get acclimated to the MLs.
- I also agree about Carmona, Lewis, and Westbrook - there's NO point in rushing these guys back. Even if all three were to come back and consistently pitch at the top of their games (this is more unrealistic than the bullpen actually finding itself and pitching decently for an extended stretch), it's not likely this team would reach the postseason. And, as Cousineau mentioned, all three (and especially Carmona and Westbrook) will be vital to the Indians' postseason chances in 2010 and beyond - there's no reason to set timetables or to rush them back in the hope that we can get ourselves "back into the race," being "only" 12 games out.
The Indians need to realize, if they haven't yet, that 2009 will NOT result in a postseason birth - pretending that this season will turn around and playing like we're "still in the race" is not the best course of action if we truly want to compete in 2010 and beyond. Continuing to pitch "retread" pitchers, having players in roles that they are not best suited for (Francisco getting regular ABs, Shoppach continuously catching Lee - I understand Lee has pitched well with him, but I don't think that Lee will fall apart if Shoppach doesn't catch him continuously, plus it's debatable whether Shoppach will be here long-term), and having players who are expected to be future contributors either sitting on the bench for most games and/or down in Columbus facing AAAA players that they likely won't see at the ML level is not going to help the Indians make the most out of what remains in a disappointing 2009 season. The main objective for the rest of this season should be to make ourselves stronger for 2010 so that we can make the postseason next year when we have a more realistic chance of making it, rather than try to convince ourselves that we are still in the race and are just a "hot streak" away from getting back into the thick of it. The way the Indians are playing, a "hot streak" of that magnitude is NOT realistic, regardless of whether we get back Cabrera, Westbrook, Lewis, Laffey, Carmona, Betancourt, etc. After all, we are very close to the beginning of July, virtually half the season is over, and the trading deadline is only about a month away, and you have at the very least, one viable trading chip (DeRosa), who has been a pretty significant part of the offense to this point. Would it be better to keep him for that so-called "hot streak" or better to trade him for a piece or pieces that can help you in 2010 and beyond? I think the choice is the latter, being that our chances of putting everything together for that so-called "hot streak" are slim, in my opinion.
73 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Few comments:
-Can’t say I really care about Gimenez’s playing time
-I was fine with LaPorta’s playing time before, but once he is up in the next week or so he should play every day until the end of the season
-I think the Indians did try to trade Shoppach this past offseason and found his value wasn’t what they wanted. I see no reason to think they’d get what they want now after the first half of the season
-I like Victor in his current role, splitting time. Don’t want to change that
Hello Roger,
With DeRosa now gone, developing guys like Gimenez and Head, guys who could contribute on a ML ballclub in a multi-position role, could be vital for 2010 and beyond. Sure, we could pick up a veteran that could maybe fill that role for next year, but it depends whether a veteran emerges that would be attractive enough for us to spend money on that could go for other reasons (starting rotation, bullpen, a more experienced bench bat that can be productive on a consistent basis, etc.). Therefore, I think Gimenez should get regular playing time in that type of role somewhere, whether it’s here or it’s in Columbus. Besides, we have enough question marks regarding several players on this ballclub where Gimenez could get regular, or at least, semi-regular (3-4 times a week) playing time – it certainly would not hurt us in 2009 and could potentially benefit us in 2010 and beyond.
Regarding LaPorta, I think he should get regular playing time (at least 5 days a week) when he gets back up here – no more sitting him for 2-3 games at a time. He’s expected to be a regular, impactful contributor as early as 2010 – he needs regular playing time at the ML. Being that we are very likely out of the race for 2009, there is no better time than the rest of the season to work LaPorta in and let him get the adjustment period out of the way as quickly as possible.
For the record, I too don’t think he should be limited to just 1B – I think he should get some time in LF, in RF (on occasion, since I think he did play the position down at Columbus – say maybe once or twice in a 1-2 week period, say if Choo DHs and Hafner is resting), and at DH (when Hafner isn’t playing & Choo is in the OF).
Regarding Shoppach, as Toregas continues to get closer to the MLs, I think the Indians will likely come to the conclusion that Shoppach will not be a part of this ballclub long term. I don’t know when he is up for arbitration or FA (I suspect arbitration is probably coming this upcoming offseason or after the 2010 offseason at the latest), but the fact remains that Toregas will be cheaper, under Indians’ control longer, and can do virtually everything Shoppach can do defensively. Yes, Toregas will hit for less power, but being that he doesn’t have the extreme K tendencies Shoppach does, it’s likely Toregas can hit for a better BA (.230-.250 long-term, which Shoppach isn’t even close to hitting now that the league has seen him regularly and has a profile on him). Therefore, it would make much more sense to keep Toregas and let Shoppach go unless someone bowls you over with an offer for Toregas, which isn’t likely to happen.
Even if Shoppach has to be included with someone else in another deal, it could add value that could net an additional prospect or two. Perhaps Shoppach won’t be traded by the July 31 trading deadline, but I suspect that this upcoming offseason or sometime in 2010, Shoppach will likely be a trading chip, as I don’t think the Indians will keep him around long-term. His power is greatly neutralized by his high K totals, and with his defense taking a few steps backwards (mostly his throwing), for whatever reason, this would make it seem more likely that Toregas is likely the future back-up to Martinez, and eventually, Santana.
I agree with you about Victor, as mentioned above; I think the fact that he has played more time at 1B has helped to keep his bat and his approach fresh. Personally, I think the “real” Victor Martinez has been present throughout virtually the entire year – Victor is at his best when he is staying on the ball and driving the ball to all fields. Last year, when he was dealing with the shoulder or elbow injury, he was getting a bit too pull-happy. Additionally, in past seasons before that, he seemed to wear down and go through a lengthy dry stretch where he would get too pull-happy and be jumping out at the ball. This season, he’s maintained the consistent approach of staying back on the ball and hitting where it’s pitched. That’s likely why his BA has stayed well above .300 for the entire season, and that was the trademark of Victor Martinez when he first came up, with good BB/K ratios. The power was a bonus, and with that good approach, his power has also reappeared, but the key for him (and for virtually every hitter) is to maintain that good approach and not try to pull everything (which unfortunately, many of our hitters are doing far too often, Shoppach included).
That’s a main reason why our offense continues to show this maddening inconsistency, against pitchers that are hardly elite – Homer Bailey and Micah Owings were just the two latest examples; heck, Aaron Harang is still more proven than either of those two, but we waited back nicely on his offspeed stuff and hit them where they were pitched. We didn’t do that virtually at all against either Bailey or Owings, and though they walked nearly an army of baserunners – 11 total between the two – we did VERY little damage against them. Again, it all goes back to a consistent approach of staying back on the ball and hitting it where’s it pitched – Martinez has been the most consistent Indian in doing that this year, and it’s likely his playing 1B on a more-regular basis has enabled him to stay fresh and keep those good fundamentals in place.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I think I can understand that Victor’s trade value would be higher if we did decide to trade him if he plays virtually everyday at catcher
Are you sure about this?
Victor is playing 1B because we’re looking for ways to keep him healthy not because he’s unable to stick behind the plate. If a team wants him to catch they can play him at catcher. I don;t see why the way we utilize his versatility makes him less valuable.
if anything wouldn’t it make him more valuable since he’s taking less of a beating?
Playing Victor three or four days as a week maximizes his value in the offense, in addition to supplying superior defense at 1b, much better than anyone else we’ve run out there. I don’t think we gain that much sticking LaPorta at 1b every day. I’d rather see him in left field nearly every day.
by woodsmeister on Jun 27, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Strongly agree with this. I think we need to continue expanding LaPorta’s experience and skills in the outfield. It really limits our flexibility to deal with other legit talents — Hafner, Martinez, Weglarz, Mills — if he becomes a full-time first baseman.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
But this has nothing to do with decreasing his trade value by playing him at first.
by world dictator on Jun 27, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it’s well understood that Victor is at 1B to maximize his time in the lineup, and because we have another catcher who hit 21 HR last year. Just as it’s well understood that DeRosa is still a fine infielder, even if we use him in the outfield sometimes. These players are well known to other teams; they’re not exactly fringe guys who need to be advertised and spun.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Once again you said what I tried to say. Just more eloquently.
by world dictator on Jun 27, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Prospects should be promoted when they’re ready for the next level not because some of us are sad that Cleveland’s season is over.
I think a lot of these calls for promotion are rooted more in impatience than consideration for the prospect. It doesn’t do any good for us to call up a prospect who’s either not ready/forced to ride the bench because of a logjam at his position.
I think it matters a bit more when the team has a chance of making the playoffs still. For guys that are fairly close, it’s best for them to take their lumps now, so that they are ready to go beginning next season. I do wish we would throw some of our young high ceiling guys into the fire more often.
To add on to this, I feel like ruining a prospect carries a bigger risk from sitting the player too often rather than playing them every day in the majors when they are not quite ready
I would agree with this, except that it’s far less of a concern than a lot of folks make it seem, both here and elsewhere. LaPorta is not permanently set back by playing a part-time role for three weeks. I mean, that’s just stupid.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I don’t think the argument is that he got “set back” by playing a part-time role, the argument is that his inactivity came because the Indians played Dellucci, Francisco, and Garko in his place at DH, LF, and 1B. His development is not the issue here, putting forth the best possible lineup is and whether or not he would have made a difference or would have settled into the point that he would now be contributing today (or during the last hellish week) is where the frustration comes from.
by The DiaTriber on Jun 27, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess when people get angry, they just start raving on all fronts. (I’m not saying you, but other people.)
It’s not uncommon for fans to confuse a prospect’s potential for his present-day skills. I always remember 2006, when fans were clamoring for Gutierrez (in Akron) to take over in right field for Casey Blake, who was struggling at the plate. Never mind that Gutierrez’s numbers (in Akron) were worse than Blake’s (in Cleveland), they just wanted the guy who was “promising” — and who hadn’t disappointed them yet.
Now we see calls for Brantley in the majors — after all, he had one good month! — and even Rondon in the rotation.
Whether LaPorta would have made the lineup better is a tricky question. LaPorta is very talented and promising, but it’s incorrect to assume that he would immediately be an above-average hitter, which means that he could well be a little below-average for the position. On the other hand, we have a guy like Dellucci, who has a history of being a good hitter but not a recent one.
So you’re weighing a return to form for the banged-up veteran vs. the chance that a prospect will break out quickly, i.e., that he’ll need essentially zero adjustment time. In hindsight, it’s easy to see that Dellucci didn’t really have any upside, so in hindsight, the decision looks egregiously wrong. I don’t think it was egregious, I just think it was wrong.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
By the way … you’ll note that Gutierrez still to this day has never hit as well as Blake — though Gutierrez is in his prime and Blake should be well past his — and it’s not like Blake is even that good of a hitter. It’s not a clean parallel because LaPorta’s potential is entirely in his bat — he almost certainly will hit better than Blake! — but it’s not like the clamoring fans generally have the slightest clue about this stuff.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Do you agree though that in a lost season, who the better player is now doesn’t matter as much as getting the young guy with more promise some every-day experience in the bigs so that he is ready for next year?
Of course — assuming we’re talking about a veteran in his walk year. But I strained to point out to folks last year, we had a vested interest not only in breaking in youngsters down the stretch last year, but also in evaluating our veterans who were trying to come back from injuries or slumps. Last year, it was Dellucci; this year, maybe it’s Garko.
Even for the walk year guys, we do have some concern over maximizing the value of certain veterans as assets, so that, for example, you keep playing Jamey Carroll, because you want to keep him sharp and showcase him for a trade.
Bottom line, it isn’t as simple as “play the young guys in a lost season” in every single instance.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
That may be true on the account of Gutz and Blake, but with LaPorta we’re really talking about a guy who was purported to be close and who is today sitting on a MLE OPS of .779 with a decent probabitlity of getting better at least in the long-term. Nobody is saying there would be “zero adjustment”, just comparable (if not better )production from a player with some ability to improve.
You can confuse the argument by including LaPorta in with the idea that Rondon and including other names and whether they would flourish in the Bigs today, but with guys like Garko and Frisco (not just The Looch) getting AB instead of LaPorta, I think we’re entering “egregious” territory.
by The DiaTriber on Jun 27, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
But who cares about the long-term improvement when the current objective (at that point) is to maximize the lineup for the next 20 games?
I don’t think I’m confusing the argument all that much by throwing in LaPorta with those younger guys. LaPorta has played a grand total of 150 games in the upper minors, only 49 in Triple-A. He has a very nice 910 OPS, but it’s not like it’s a 1050, where he’s just destroying the ball, and he’s not one of these super-young prospects — like Grady in 2005 — who might well have a big jump in skills very quickly.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
But who cares about the long-term improvement when the current objective (at that point) is to maximize the lineup for the next 20 games?
Where is the argument, then, that Garko, Francisco, and Dellucci represented a maximized lineup for those 20 games, which went a long way in deciding the direction of the 2009 season?
by The DiaTriber on Jun 27, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
The argument — not my argument, by the way, but an argument — was that the staff felt Francisco and Dellucci had a chance to be better all-around players in those games than LaPorta. (I don’t think they felt comfortable with LaPorta at first base at the time.) They might have given LaPorta a small edge in terms of projecting his hitting, but maybe little or no edge vs. Dellucci and Francisco against RHP in particular, and that’s the majority of the PA, and certainly no edge on defense.
Did it really have that big of an impact on the 2009 season? I don’t see it.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’m not sure that the “against RHP in particular” just because he’s RH holds a lot of water if you look at LaPorta’s current MLE and body of work in terms of splits:
LaPorta’s MLE OPS vs. LHP-.711
LaPorta’s MLE OPS vs. RHP-.775
LaPorta’s career MiLB OPS vs. LHP-.789
LaPorta’s career MiLB OPS vs. RHP-.995
As for whether it had a huge impact?
Probably not, but at a time that the Indians needed to be putting the best possible team on the field, it became a matter of playing the “known” (if known to be flawed) player instead of the player with more potential.
by The DiaTriber on Jun 27, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Probably not, but at a time that the Indians needed to be putting the best possible team on the field, it became a matter of playing the "known" (if known to be flawed) player instead of the player with more potential.
MLE is projected over a full season, right? Meaning a MLE OPS is not the same as the a projection of a hitter’s ability to hit during a specific time period, IE the first 40 AB during their initial major league exposure.
by world dictator on Jun 27, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
But it’s a limited body of work, and it’s almost certainly going to regress toward historical means for platoon splits.
Okay — just for you — I broke this down a little bit. The controversy, if there is one, is over two short stretches of games when LaPorta basically sat.
May 6-11
• LaPorta — 1 start, 4 PA, 833 OPS
• Francisco — 6 starts, 24 PA, 619 OPS
• Dellucci — 6 starts, 21 PA, 145 OPS
May 20-24
• LaPorta — 1 start, 5 PA, 650 OPS
• Francisco — 4 starts, 18 PA, 611 OPS
• Dellucci — 0 starts, 2 PA, 1000 OPS
Francisco was not terrible over either stretch — he wasn’t good, but a 600+ OPS over a handful of games is hardly cause for concern. A couple of his starts were in CF, which, while ill-advised, meant that he wasn’t playing at LaPorta’s expense.
In between these two stretches, LaPorta started 6 out of 7 games with a 606 OPS. I put no real stock in this, but I mention it only to say it’s not as though there’s real good reason to think we interrupted a hot streak here.
Obviously the big difference-maker, if there is one, is between what Dellucci did over the first stretch vs. what LaPorta might have done with more playing time. Dellucci was dead awful in those games, and it basically ended his career as an Indian. In the club’s defense, however, Dellucci was hitting the ball great in his rehab assignment in the minors, and after he was called up, he continued to hit the ball great in his first few games back. This stretch came immediately after that.
Finally, every one of Dellucci’s starts in that first stretch came with a right-hander on the mound — Masterson, Wakefield, Verlander, Jackson, Porcello and Floyd — and LaPorta also started against Wakefield. Does LaPorta do better against those other five righties than Dellucci did? Of course, he almost certainly does better than a 150 OPS — any player in the majors would very likely hit better than that, including Dellucci himself given another trial run.
But did those 17 PA by Dellucci that could have gone to LaPorta really have a big impact on the season? That’s a much tougher case to make.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I appreciate that and it’s all well and good, but you seem intent on trivializing LaPorta’s time with the Indians to one specific stretch of games or the “what could LaPorta really do that much better in 20 AB than the other guys” argument and I think you’re missing the forest for the trees because of it.
Prior to his promotion, if you’ll remember there was a lengthy discussion over whether promoting LaPorta prior to the beginning of June was counter-productive because it meant, in the long-term, that the Indians could end up paying him an extra $10M over the course of his time with the Tribe. Obviously, if we’re having those discussions, there are internal discussions that go along those same lines.
Despite that, LaPorta was called up to (as Shapiro says now) give Wedge the best possible options to play every day in what was unquestionably an important part of the season. The fact that LaPorta was called up when patience was the more rational avenue to take tells us as such.
With LaPorta up after that difficult service time decision, him not playing because of a “manager’s decision” to put the best team on the field is where I find fault – if the Front Office brought him up to contribute, Super-2 be damned, than he should have played every day, if Wedge isn’t going to play him everyday, then he shouldn’t have been called up and the Super-2 point becomes moot.
Yes, the whole thing worked out because he got sent down, but it showed cracks, to me at least, that the symbiosis of Wedge and Shapiro was not as apparent as the FO certainly didn’t call him up to sit and, if what they’re saying is true that they didn’t tell Wedge to play him every day, then it was an hollow move that accomplished nothing.
by The DiaTriber on Jun 28, 2009 8:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I am intent on recognizing that 20 PA is 20 PA, yes. I’m not really disputing how dumb the move was, I just want to be real about what it really cost us in the standings.
Obviously the callup gets made while recognizing the financial risk, yes, but they always have the option to option in their back pocket, and of course they did use that option. So they did the callup, and yet there now is no service time option.
The context of this move was Hafner going on the DL, and Wedge was saying, just having Dellucci back alone doesn’t address that, he wants another option — note that the gulf between Hafner and Dellucci when it comes to vs-LHP is pretty huge.
Does this all seem dumb to me? Yes. I would have kept LaPorta in the minors, feeling that the financial risk seemed much larger than the on-field benefit, especially if he’s going to play only part-time. But I don’t agree that deciding to call him up means that you have to play him everyday. There is a logic to trying to mix and match.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I get the logic, but that “dumb” decision is the one that grates me, particularly for an organization that seems to make such measured decisions.
by The DiaTriber on Jun 28, 2009 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, this is my point … it was irritating especially because it was Dellucci, but if the Indians’ biggest mistakes only involved the misallocation of 20 PA here and there, we wouldn’t be in last place right now. I guess I’m saying that even the best clubs make mistakes of this magnitude all the time, and we have much bigger problems than this one decision, which I’m not even sure represents a trend of any kind.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
If we’re getting ready for 2010, I want Wedge gone now. I don’t want to see a hugely successful September where the Tiger’s (or Twins or whoever is leading then) go into a nosedive and we steadily gain on them only to fall short at the end, making it much harder to fire him at the end of the season.
Give Joel another chance to be interim manager, he had a great minor league record as manager, and maybe this time the FO will be more amenable to a relaxed, amiable guy as manager.
If you believe it's just a game, you're also probably wondering why Santa keeps skipping your house every year.
A few additional thoughts regarding my fanpost and the resulting responses:
I agree with you guys that a prospect shouldn’t be rushed up here; I don’t know if Cousineau meant that Brantley and LaPorta should be up immediately. Personally, I think LaPorta should be up here relatively soon – 1-2 weeks – and let him play out the season up here. He’s adapted pretty quickly to AAA and has maintained consistent production, plus the fact that LF is essentially a black hole with DeRosa gone (and no, Francisco had his chance to show he could hold it for a while; that time has passed and it’s time for someone else to get regular ABs in LF, and I’m not thinking Barfield or Garko, though if you want to showcase Garko for a trade in LF, I could see it, but I don’t know if other teams will be that convinced that Garko should be used in LF on anything other than an infrequent basis, so I really don’t know if playing Garko out in LF will enhance or hurt his trade value).
As for Brantley, I agree he should get some more time in AAA – it seems he’s just starting to show the consistency he showed at A and AA at AAA now. Therefore, I’d give him another month down there and reevaluate, but it would be preferable if he could get some meaningful playing time up here in 2009, September for sure, hopefully August, while many teams are not in “play out the string because we’re too far back mode” or, perhaps, “play out the string because we’re far ahead mode.”
For the Indians to make a meaningful run in 2010, it’s likely LaPorta AND Brantley will play crucial parts in such a run. Another guy who could potentially make an impact would be Jordan Brown – not only can he play 1B and LF, two of the bigger question marks on this Indians ballclub (and especially LF), but also because his hitting skill and strong strike zone discipline is arguably what this ballclub needs the most – too many guys pull off the ball and don’t work the count effectively enough to put up quality ABs – Shoppach, Peralta, Francisco, Crowe, even Sizemore for a good part of this season – are/were putting up poor ABs where they were virtually easy outs. We need more guys who can put together more consistent and better quality ABs, and then actually be able to drive the ball for hits and extra-base hits. Brown has shown a consistent ability to do that throughout his Minor League career, outside of 2008, which is looking more and more to be the outlier that was likely caused by his injuries. I am hopeful that Brown would also get some playing time toward the end of this season as well.
To make a meaningful run in 2010, we will likely have to rely on our farm system to fill the holes that are apparent on this ballclub (LF, either 1B or C, whereever Martinez is NOT playing, DH due to Hafner’s inconsistencies in both health and performance, along with the pitching staff) – those holes will very likely not be filled by FA, and it’s not likely we can fill them with trades either unless you really want to weaken the farm system (giving up guys like Weglarz, Santana, Brantley, Mills, Chisenhall, etc.), which wouldn’t be a wise course of action, being that Martinez and Lee are up after 2010, Peralta (could he be trade bait within the next year?) after 2011, and Sizemore after 2012 – the farm system’s depth and ability to produce talent will become more crucial than ever to ensure as best as one can that the Indians don’t have a prolonged drought of seasons like the one we are having in 2009.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
To clear it up, I was saying that Brantley should come up when DeRosa was traded, not figuring that the trade would occur in less than two days. I assumed that it would be closer to the trading deadline, which is closer to where the Indians should consider promoting a player like Brantley, not right now when the first crack at DeRosa’s AB should go to LaPorta in some fashion.
by The DiaTriber on Jun 28, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
but also because his hitting skill and strong strike zone discipline is arguably what this ballclub needs the most
When are people going to give this tired BS a rest?
I understand that old-school fans still like batting average. I understand that aesthetically, we all enjoy watching guys who put the bat on the ball well. Naturally. But good hitting is good hitting. The Indians have a fine lineup, and what will improve further it is more good hitters, period — certainly not hitters of a certain type, and certainly not hitters that some people merely fantasize are of a certain type or caliber.
There is about zero chance that Brown — who is borderline for even being considered a prospect, let alone a good prospect — will make an “impact.” A more realistic fantasy for Brown is that he replaces Garko’s mediocre gifts at the plate while being a notch or two better in the field and on the basepaths. Brown’s numbers look extremely similar to when Francisco repeated Triple-A at age 25, and he’s not as fast as Francisco, and there’s little if any reason to think he’ll hit better than Francisco in the majors.
And I’m quite sure that a couple years ago, you were blathering on about how Francisco is just the sort of hitter we could use.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
About the time that we stop complaining that the guys who aren’t hitting need to stop trying to “pull the ball all the time.” Here’s a right-handed hitter who clearly needs to stop trying to pull the ball all the time:
Our sucky hitters need to stop sucking all the time.
by FredOx on Jun 29, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Jay,
First, am I disappointed about Francisco – yes. I thought he was more capable of using the whole field and staying on pitches better. So I got him wrong – it happens. For the record, I never touted him as highly as you and a few others touted Marte, or touted him over Kouzmanoff, and clearly, Kouzmanoff is the better ML player (realize also that he has hit 10 HRs in 278 ABs, and 6 of those HRs at cavernous Petco Park, this from a guy who many, including you, I believe, questioned whether he’d hit for enough power at 3B), even though he’s only hitting .248 and has an OPS of .684 – those are levels Marte could not consistently demonstrate when he had the chance (albeit, limited chance).
Essentially, your statement indicates that I am human, which is true. I think my point about Marte indicates that you are human, and we both make mistakes.
As for your evaluation of Brown being another Francisco, there are a few differences worth noting:
1. Brown has been much more impressive at each level than Francisco was, in terms of BB/K ratio, BA, and even the age of Brown at each level (Brown was 22 at High-A, 23 at AA, 24 & 25 at AAA; Francisco was 22 at AA, but then was 24-26 at AAA).
2. Additionally, you also didn’t acknowledge that Brown was injured last year, and by all accounts, it did take a toll on his swing (according to, I believe it was an interview that Tony Lastoria conducted with Brown on his website and on TheClevelandFan.com).
3. I was not the only one to suggest the idea of adding more bat-to-ball, more consistent BB/K ratios; Tony, who is more qualified than me to make such an analysis since he regularly covers and interviews the Indians organization and players, also made that same argument on his website and TCF a few months ago – if I have time, I’ll try to find the link, but I agree with him. We strike out way too much as a team, especially for a team that has decent, but not great, power. If you can’t make consistent contact, power is virtually useless. Take Shoppach, for instance – his high K totals have greatly neutralized his power. That’s why having more consistent BAs and more consistent BB/K ratios, as Brown has done (and better than Francisco showed throughout his Minor League career), has more value than you are giving to it, and what I think can really help to stabilize this offense and enable it to be more consistent from game to game (look back at the Cincinnati series – Harang is still the most consistent and established pitcher of the three, and because of a good approach and maybe familiarity with him, we hit him; however, Bailey and Owings are less established, but because either we were too aggressive or aren’t as familiar with them, we can’t take advantage of 11 BBs, virtually free baserunners there for the taking, and we score a grand total of 4 runs between the two. More hitters who have stronger fundamentals of controlling the strike zone and are more able to hit for a better BA by using all fields would likely have been able to score more than 4 runs in those two games with 11 BBs. This inability to take advantage of other teams’ walks and taking advantage of scoring opportunities has been evident throughout much of this season, not just in the Cincinnati, as evidenced by our poor RISP BA in many of our games this season).
Adding more power hitters with high K totals, in my opinion, is not going to make this offense more consistent or make it a better offense. As Tony also argued, we need more guys to put the bat-on-the-ball and show a consistent ability to hit for a high BA and show consistently solid BB/K ratios. Certainly, if they can hit for power (like LaPorta, and like Weglarz, Santana, and Mills as well), that’s all the better, but I think giving more credence to more consistent BA and BB/K ratios would be prudent in constructing a lineup that is more consistent from game to game and pitcher to pitcher.
Yes, I was wrong on Francisco, but I think you’re off on implying that Brown and Francisco are the same – I don’t believe they are, and Brown certainly should get a look at the very least before we automatically cast him off as just another name or as trade fodder to throw into a trade.
Just my 2 cents – no offense.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
For the record, I never touted him as highly as you and a few others touted Marte
Of course not. He was never a highly rated prospect. The main point is that old prospects with reasonably high batting averages are not any more likely to help the team than any other type of hitter; this is just a fixation that guys like you and Tony have. It’s not wrong about Brown or wrong about Francisco. It’s wrong all the time, about every aging prospect who lacks defensive skills and pop.
I know you’re not the only one who falls for old prospects with good batting averages. I know Tony has the same problem. That changes nothing. You’re both suckers for a certain type of player, despite the fact that that type of player hardly ever becomes a good major leaguer. Guess who else isn’t going to make an impact? Three-time minor league batting champion Jacob Cruz.
Shoppach is a catcher. Catchers do not need to have perfect hitting profiles in order to have value, but 1B/LF guys do.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Jay,
First, prove this: “It’s wrong all the time, about every aging prospect who lacks defensive skills and pop.”
That might be the trend in today’s game, favoring the power and overlooking the increasing K numbers, as Tim Kurkjian noted in a recent article on ESPN. However, why do you say that that is the “right” approach and what Tony and I are advocating is the “wrong” approach? Isn’t it more accurate to say that what you are advocating is the more accepted approach today because of the smaller ballparks and bigger players, rather than it being more “right”? It’s not that our approach is wrong; it’s different, and maybe more favors the way the game used to be played, and a way that some teams are resorting back to today (the Angels, Ozzie ball, the Rays, etc.).
The main point is that there are successes and failures on both sides of the aisle – those with high BAs and good BB/K ratios versus those who are young, oozing tools, and putting up solid OPS for their ages in their leagues.
Regarding Cruz, you failed to mention that once or twice, he achieved that leading BA in the PCL, which we both know to inflate BAs, a clear red flag. Therefore, he wasn’t as “great” as you are implying – solid, sure, but you always have to take into account which league he’s playing in and adjust accordingly. When you evaluate a PCL prospect, you virtually always have to downgrade the BA and look at other stats – his BB/K ratios were not particularly strong (certainly not as strong as Brown’s numbers in the past), nor was his OPS as strong as Brown’s either.
Regarding “perfect hitting profiles,” it doesn’t or shouldn’t take a perfect hitting profile to get guys who are willing to cut down on their strokes with two strikes and to be adept at using the whole field. This is mostly what has doomed Marte to AAAA status – he is too pull-happy (even down at AAA Columbus, virtually every ball he hits is to LF, and it’s likely to assume that he isn’t hitting every inside pitch coming to him – it’s likely he’s getting a good diet of breaking pitches and fastballs away as well, but he still can’t hit the ball with authority to CF and RF, a necessary skill to really be an effective hitter, let alone an elite hitter, at the ML level).
Shoppach has such a big swing and tries too much to pull the ball. Even in the game tonight against the White Sox, Richard threw a decent, but hardly great, breaking ball. Shoppach swung right over the top of it, not even close to hitting it, striking out yet again.
You describe “value,” but to me, “value” is more about trades and what another team is willing to give to you to acquire one of your players. For me, it’s consistent production and performance offensively and defensively that is most important to me when evaluating players on one’s ballclub. Shoppach’s greatest offensive asset, his power, is greatly neutralized because he can’t make consistent contact. Therefore, his offensive ability is next to nothing. Defensively, he’s very solid, even with a relatively poor 2009 season, but as mentioned, Shoppach likely won’t be here long-term because Toregas very likely can do everything defensively Shoppach can do, plus can likely control the strike zone better and hit for a better average, and as you just stated, catchers don’t have to have “perfect hitting profiles,” so Toregas doesn’t have to hit for power to be a very valuable catcher. Additionally, Toregas will be under control longer and for cheaper than Shoppach will, so Shoppach likely will not be here in the not-too-distant future (say within the next year or so).
Certainly, the pitching has been quite poor, both starting and relieving, so I’m certainly NOT saying that the offense is the sole reason we are struggling in 2009. With that said, we shouldn’t overlook the fact that the offense has also contributed to our poor 2009 season. While we may be 3rd in runs scored, we’ve also had 30 games where we’ve scored 3 or fewer runs – that’s 30/78, or 38.5% of the time, well over 1/3 games where our offense has done very little. And it’s fair to say that we’ve haven’t been shut down by elite pitchers like Roy Halladay or Justin Verlander in all of those games – we only scored 1 run off of Micah Owings, not close to that elite level.
Therefore, it’s important to note that the offense has been far from flawless or blameless – there is certainly room for improvement. Especially when we rank 2nd in Ks, 7th in hits (middle of the pack), and 8th in OPS in the A.L. Sure, the loss of certain players hasn’t helped, but Sizemore and Peralta were part of the reason why we got off to such a poor start because neither were hitting very well when the season started, so it’s not been exclusively to having guys like Francisco and Valbuena in there on a fairly regular basis, but the fact that some of our main contributors weren’t contributing early in the season. And, as I mentioned in my last post, Sizemore and Peralta both get too pull-happy and fall into those funks where they are relatively easy outs for the opposing pitchers, which also explains why we get shut down by pitchers who are hardly elite in over 1/3 of our games. You say we have a “fine lineup” – I think we have some “fine pieces,” but besides having some holes (LF, 1B is a question mark/revolving door, 3B is a question mark/revolving door, C is a question mark/revolving door), some of those fine pieces (Sizemore and Peralta in particular) have some weaknesses that need to be shored up in order for them to really produce at the level we are expecting them to and to really make this lineup a consistent force game in and game out.
My main point is that a more disciplined approach with a greater emphasis on hitting the ball where it’s pitched, cutting down on the Ks, and putting a greater emphasis on finding players who can consistently demonstrate the ability to hit for higher BAs could add to the consistency of the offense to not be so erratic from game to game – much of the reason why we are third in runs scored is because we’ve had several games where we score a bunch of runs, but then have 30 games where we score 3 or fewer runs, so we’re either hot or cold, and a lot of that is likely attributable to many of our hitters’ “all-or-nothing” approach – when we make contact on inside and middle-of-the-plate pitches or the times we actually wait back on the ball and use the whole field (like we did against Aaron Harang last Friday), we can do some damage, but when we get too pull-happy and don’t stay with the gameplan of doing something with what the pitcher gives you (such as like we did with Bailey on Saturday, Owings on Sunday, and against guys with marginal stuff, like Bannister, and none of these pitchers are elite or even close to it), we do virtually nothing offensively.
That’s why I’d like Brown to get a look to see if his skills would translate to the ML level and help to stabilize this offense’s consistency in scoring runs; those types of players have successfully transitioned to the ML level before, and I think we should find out if Brown is one of those types before we cast him off in a trade or as a AAA or AAAA player. Just because he’s not “your cup of tea” does not guarantee he can’t be a useful piece to our future lineups, especially when he has consistently demonstrated the skills (and better than Cruz or Francisco did) that this lineup is sorely lacking, outside of Martinez, Cabrera, and Choo among the ready, everyday players (and no, Hafner is not an “everyday” player; he’d probably be more in that threesome group than Sizemore and Peralta would be, since Hafner’s been pretty consistent with staying on the ball and using the whole field as well, certainly moreso than in 2008).
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Hey Jay,
If you are watching the Tuesday game in the 5th inning, or if you review it later, check out this sequence:
C Kelly Shoppach – two strikes, takes a big swing on a 94-MPH fastball that was pretty much over the middle of the plate, and misses it entirely, with the bases loaded and one out.
SS Asdrubal Cabrera – fouls off a 95-MPH fastball that was up and over the outside corner. Then, I believe with 2 strikes, he stays on the outside fastball and drives the ball to the right-center field gap, knocking in 3 runs.
THIS is exactly what I am talking about - the approach and cutting down on the swing with two strikes. Virtually every hitter can do this, even someone like Shoppach, but no, he takes that huge swing and comes up empty. That’s what I’m talking about with this “all-or-nothing” approach; I’d rather have more guys (i.e. Cabrera) who are willing to go with the pitch than to have these power hitters (i.e. Shoppach) with an all-or-nothing approach, especially with two strikes. That’s why I think someone like Brown should get a look. Note that this is not the only time when a hitter with a better, more consistent approach has come through in the clutch and a hitter with an all-or-nothing approach has failed to get a run in with even a sacrifice fly. That’s what I’m talking about when I talk about consistent offense, consistent approach, good plate discipline, and following through on a consistent plan. That would help this offense be far more consistent than the “all-or-nothing” approach too many of our hitters go up to the plate with. It was even nice to see Peralta go the same way and drive the ball well the opposite way, as well as Carroll staying on the ball as well. It is a fundamental skill and approach that you, no offense, overlook – that is also part of being a good hitter that doesn’t show up on the surface when looking at the stats, but is almost always behind those prospects and players who put up the stats and numbers you look at and consider to be “good hitters.”
In fact, here is the play-by-play from Yahoo:
Bottom 5th: Cleveland
- J. Peralta flied out to deep right
- T. Hafner walked
- J. Carroll singled to right, T. Hafner to second
- B. Francisco singled to left, T. Hafner to third, J. Carroll to second
- K. Shoppach struck out swinging
- A. Cabrera doubled to deep right center, J. Carroll, T. Hafner and B. Francisco scored
- G. Sizemore grounded out to second
3 runs, 3 hits, 0 errors
Chi White Sox 9, Cleveland 4
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
What exactly do you mean by “plate discipline”? I typically associate that with a good walk rate as well as a low strikeout rate.
Brown doesn’t strike out much, but he doesn’t walk much, either. 15 BBs in over 280 AB so far this year. The last time he had a good walk rate was 2007 in Akron.
Baseball Prospectus did a very on-point write-up of Brown, which applies to all players like him:
One would think that would make him a big-time prospect, but it doesn’t. He’s a first baseman without a lot of power, and nobody is quite sure what to do with players like this. In a perfect world, he would be some kind of Mark Grace or Lyle Overbay type, but of the last 20 guys in the minors we could have said that about, the only ones who panned out were Mark Grace and Lyle Overbay.
And that pretty much sums it up. Since Brown is widely viewed as an unimpressive prospect and is being treated like one, I would ask you to provide the proof. Find me three other 25-year-old prospects without significant power or defensive skill who turned into valuable major leaguers.
Your remarks about Jacob Cruz are pretty confusing. Regardless of whether the PCL inflates batting averages, he still had the highest average in the league. Regarding the word “value,” let’s not get caught up in semantics. All I mean when I say “value” is the ability to help the team score runs and/or prevent the opponent from scoring runs. So we really are talking about the same thing, I think.
The fact that we’re #3 in runs scoring and #2 in strikeouts ought to tell you your theories are a little off. The fact that this doesn’t seem to move you in the slightest indicates that you’re more interested in a sort of aesthetic baseball than in scoring runs. Let us make no mistake, Joe: The purpose of a hitter is to help his team score runs. It doesn’t really matter how he does it; it only matters how well he does it.
All teams suffer from “inconsistency” as you describe it. Baseball is a game of inconsistency, full of streaks and fluke hits and fluke outs. This is why batting average is such a flimsy statistic. You say we’re scoring three or fewer runs, 38% of the time, but that is not unusual. Did you even check to see if it was unusual? The kind of “consistency” you would like to see the lineup have basically does not exist in real baseball. Maybe in little league, maybe in high school or even college, definitely in the imagination. But not in the major leagues.
I agree with your critiques of several of our hitters, and I think some of it comes down to coaching as much as skills. Bottom line, however, is that the type of hitters you enjoy watching, the type you admire, very rarely find success in the majors. If that were not the case, then we would have more, and the majors overall would have more. Mark Grace isn’t even in the game anymore, and Lyle Overbay isn’t likely ever to be an All-Star … and Jordan Brown, like Ben Francicso and Jacob Cruz, isn’t likely to have much of a big-league career.
But hey: I hope I’m wrong!
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 1, 2009 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Overbay isn’t going to be an All-Star because he’s a first baseman who struggles to slug .500.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 1, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
My point about Grace was just that since he’s retired, that means there aren’t even two players of this type currently thriving in the majors.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 1, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I get that. Overbay also isn’t a bad player to have if you’re getting your slugging elsewhere. The Indians, for example, could find a place for him.
Three non-huge but significant differences between Garko and Overbay, beyond the basic hitting comparison. First, Overbay isn’t the slowest non-catcher on the base paths in baseball. Second, Overbay consistently rates as one of the leagues most rangy first basemen, while Garko consistently is below-average. Third, Overbay is a lefty, which would make him a better meta-platoon partner for Shoppach than Garko.
You know who might be a lot like Overbay in all three respects? Jordan Brown. But we don’t know if he can hit, and I can guarantee that having Brown take away Garko’s job is not what the bat-control obsessives have in mind.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 1, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Right. And by the time he was Brown’s age, Gwynn already had 500 hits.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 1, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I find this whole thread somewhat disorienting. It’s nominally about the need to work towards 2010, but it’s entirely about hitting. I looked fairly carefully, and couldn’t find a single reference anywhere in the discussion to what we need to be doing about our pitching. Given that the pitching is the problem, that strikes me as peculiar to say the least.
Probably what this reveals is that there’s nothing at all we can do right now to work towards a stronger 2010 pitching staff (or nothing that we’re not ALREADY doing). But, if that’s the case, 2010 isn’t looking very promising. Going slow on guys like LaPorta and Brantley, keeping them under our control for as long as possible, is very rational if one concludes that the team doesn’t have the pitching to be a serious contender in 2010.
Well, the original post has plenty on the subject. There’s less discussion because we’ve already emptied Columbus of its pitchers (Meloan sheds a tear), and people are generally afraid to argue that our big Akron prospects should be pushed. No on knows if that helps or hurts.
Yes, that’s what puzzled me — nobody really addressed the comments on pitching in the original post. Obviously, there is virtually nothing left at AAA to help our pitching. Sending Lewis down was the right move (too late). Putting Laffey back in the rotation is the right move.
I’m not a fan of Chuck Hernandez, but our bullpen was pretty bad last year too and he wasn’t here then, so it’s not clear to me whether changing the bullpen coach will do much. Can’t hurt I suppose, and Radinsky probably deserves a shot. I don’t know if moving Sowers to the pen is the right move for him. I’m sort of inclined to let him stay in the rotation for a while longer — so we can find out, for sure, if he has any real chance of being a viable starting pitcher at the major league level. If he can’t, at least that way we can stop counting him as “depth.”
Related to Sowers, I think they need to make a quick call on Pavano. If he’s going to be ineffective, they need to DL him. HIs only real value at this point is if he can be traded. If he can’t pitch effectively, he can’t be traded, so running him out there once Westbrook and Laffey are back just means displacing Huff and/or Sowers, which doesn’t make sense if we’re thinking about planning for 2010 (as the post advises us to).
The whole fire the bullpen coach issue is subsidiary to whether we fire the manager, and whether Wedge’s replacement is going to get to use his own guys. Firing any coach before we fire Eric Wedge is overreaction.
by woodsmeister on Jun 29, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
As I mentioned above to Jay, note that our offense may be 3rd in runs scored, but has also scored 3 or fewer runs in 30/78 games – 38.5%. I’m certainly not saying that the pitching has not been a problem – it has, but let’s not overlook the fact that the offense has been far from ideal either, as it’s 2nd in Ks, 7th in H, and 8th in OPS (in the AL).
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
We had a post comparing the 3 runs or fewer idea to the rest of the league and found that it didn’t merit mentioning
It’s too late and I’m too lazy to look it up, but I believe the data showed that the Tribe was better than league average in scoring less than 4 runs.
Indiansfan, I think part of your opinion on this subject is influenced by watching the games and getting frustrated when Tribe hitters strike out in key situations, or being unable to come up with a few singles in the games this weekend. Clearly, there are situations where having a guy like Brown up at the plate is better than a guy like Shoppach. But it’s tough to envision Brown becoming a better than average corner bat. He’ll play in the big leagues, and he probably profiles best as a reserve in the NL.
I’ve always wondered about the consistency thing, and whether or not the Tribe (or other teams that strike out a lot) is worse than league average. However, I’ve never seen anyone show any proof that this is the case, or show any correlation with playoff success or even the ability to make the playoffs. And until someone shows that there is a correlation, I think you just have to trust that you’re better off with guys who end up producing more runs than guys who perhaps are better line-drive hitters or guys who square the ball up more consistently.
They have actually scored 3 or fewer at a rate below the league average. You may be thinking of the analysis I did where I looked at boom-or-bustiness(?), finding that relative to how often they scored 4 or fewer, they were somewhat more likely than other teams to score 2 or fewer. But not statistically significantly, and in fact they were less likely than other teams to score 4 or fewer in general, so the overall rate of scoring 2 or fewer was pretty much the same as the league rate.
All of the above links are to that same thread, just to the relevant comments within.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
