More fun with B-Ref numbers

by TribeJay on Jul 13, 2009 9:57 AM EDT Comment 52 comments

Or just another way to show just how bad the pitching is...though it's also worthwhile to note that they've only won 2/3 of their games when allowing less than 4 runs (six with three runs) with an offense that's 4th in the majors in runs scored. Bad team, bad timing. Apologies for the (lack of) formatting.

Records by runs scored per game totals:

0-3 runs

Tribe 2-32  .059
Other MLB  214-827 .206

4-5 runs

Tribe 9-11 .450
Other MLB 341-271  .557

6-7 runs

Tribe 5-7  .417
Other MLB 309-99  .757

8+ runs

Tribe 18-3  .857
Other MLB 390-38  .911

By runs allowed:

0-3 runs

Tribe 16-8  .667
Other MLB  843-208 .802

4-5 runs

Tribe 10-13 .435
Other MLB 272-337  .447

6-7 runs

Tribe 5-13  .278
Other MLB 101-301 .251

8+ runs

Tribe 3-19  .136
Other MLB 38-389  .089

Here's some useful/useless average runs scored by inning info. In the third inning, this is a World Series team!

Runs Scored
Inning	Tribe	MLB
1	0.33	0.53
2	0.62	0.47
3	0.76	0.52
4	0.60	0.56
5	0.62	0.56
6	0.57	0.55
7	0.65	0.51
8	0.40	0.51
9	0.65	0.43

Runs Allowed
Inning	Tribe	MLB
1	0.56	0.53
2	0.71	0.47
3	0.45	0.52
4	0.63	0.56
5	0.59	0.56
6	0.78	0.55
7	0.63	0.51
8	0.80	0.51
9	0.47	0.43

1 recs | Comment 52 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

rec

Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen

by westbrook on Jul 13, 2009 1:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Scoring 6-7 runs, the tribe has a .417 losing record. That is nuts.

by joeee on Jul 13, 2009 8:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This is a complete reflection of the front office. And, I dont want to hear any excuse about injuries.

We knew Westbrook wasnt going to be a factor til summer. Laffey and Reyes arent huge losses that should amount to this bad a staff. Carmona is…I will give you that.

So, either way, the FO went into this year confident in Carmona, Pavano, Reyes, and basically Sowers. Not such a good thought process.

by Tribe Alive on Jul 13, 2009 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not sure why you look at it as Sowers rather than Laffey or SLewis. Laffey was considered the incumbent for the last starter job, and SLewis beat him out for it. You’re also skipping Huff, who was viewed as easily one of the best five starters we had available.

The thought process was that reasonable upgrades were not available at reasonable cost on the market. I can’t speak for the trade market, but that certainly was true of the free agent market — the economic downturn hit position players (especially ones who can’t play defense) far more than starting pitchers, in part because the handful of decent starters were being pursued by multiple teams.

So they accepted that the rotation was the soft underbelly of the team and built a 10-man rotation to absorb some hits. With the exception of Carmona totally collapsing and Laffey getting hurt, I think the rotation has basically gone according to plan, actually.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Jul 13, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I think most close followers of the team were expecting a strong year from Laffey in the rotation. I actually think his loss has been a pretty big factor in the rotation. Reyes was more of a question mark because of his health issues at the end of last season.

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 13, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the response to having spent less on starters was to bolster the pen by adding Smith and Wood. But, RaffyL, RaffyR and JLewis all encountered issues and then Smith disappeared for awhile. There was no way to get to Wood without that bridge.
Our offense was expected to work counts and get to their pen while our pen held them off, but it all went south when our pen didn’t operate to plan.

by elsandito on Jul 13, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, and when we could, Wood has kinda sucked.

Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 13, 2009 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Economic Downturn? We signed a closer to a two year $20+mil deal! We’re talking a guy who’s had serious arm troubles in the past and only one real year of closing. That $10+mil he’s making this year could have gone a lot further in my personal opinion.

by MooneysRebellion on Jul 13, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Compare Wood’s deal to B.J. Ryan’s. Yes, economic downturn. It isn’t just about average annual salary, it’s about the scale of the overall risk.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Jul 13, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A two year $20 mil deal is relatively cheap for someone who is perceived to be a legit closer.

But even still, how could this money have gone further in the area’s we needed? Our needs going into this year were closer, sp, and 2nd baseman. We got a young cheap 2nd baseman of the future, there were no reasonable upgrades starting pitching upgrades, and Wood doesn’t make that much more than any of his closer counterparts.

But even if we had signed a different closer, our bullpen still sucks and our SP is still shaky.

by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We didn’t need a second baseman so much as an “infielder” — both in 2009 and for the future. We achieved both of those by acquiring DeRosa and Valbuena.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Jul 14, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it all comes down to a complete lack of success in drafting and developing starting pitching. we planted the seeds for this kind of failure a long time ago.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 13, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Complete?

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Jul 13, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok—with the caveat that i really like laffey. so far it has been a complete failure outside of the laff-dawg. other than him, our player development “machine” has given us what—a bunch of volatile relievers, an injured would-be ace, a complete enigma in carmona and some other replacement level starters, and guys like rondon and huff who may or may not be viable big leage starters. after 7+ years of drafting and development under shapiro . . . yeah, that’s pretty damn near complete failure in my book.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 13, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll try to respond. Let’s look at the names. These are the guys that reached the door to the majors in the 2006-2009 timeframe as potential starters:

Sowers, Carmona, Laffey, Miller, Huff, Lewis, Lofgren.

So this is the class of guys that the FO signed/drafted and performed through the upper minors.

One of those guys has contributed above-replacement-value to 2009. One. I think it’s reasonable to argue that it wasn’t a horrible class to bet on. It’s pretty frickin’ diverse in terms of style, for one thing.

I know where this goes next – Andrew or someone comes flying in and says that potential doesn’t matter, we need to see results. Well, we do need to see results, but we sure as hell don’t get to acquire results – we can only acquire bets. Those are the rules.

Is this an unusually crappy/shallow 4 year class? I don’t mean looking at the 2009 results, but looking at it as it came up. My unscientific experience from looking at other teams in the league says no, but maybe I’m wrong. Maybe most teams had a dozen starters ready to launch during that time, but that seems unrealistic to me. I don’t remember any national rankings (scout or stat) declaring our young talent a wasteland over the past few years.

All we get to do is gamble.

by dgcambridge on Jul 13, 2009 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think your analysis is reaching a bit. On the other hand, I think those complaining generally are comparing us to Boston and Minnesota, who have enjoyed unusual and recent success at doing this. Those results are not typical.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Jul 13, 2009 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

blech, i don’t feel like having this argument again

i understand your point. but if you really think that evaluating amateur pitching is just one big gamble, you are incorrect. there’s a ton of risk involved, and it certainly is more of an art than a science, but there is skill and knowledge involved. over the past decade or so, teams like boston, atlanta, minny, florida, anaheim, and oakland have all been consistently able to produce starting and relief pitching from within their own systems. those are the teams i see as being elite in terms of player drafting and development, and thus that is where i set the bar for our front office.

but if you want to believe that this front office has just been an unfortunate victim of bad luck and injury, go on ahead. . . i am not going to change your mind, because where you see good decisionmaking and bad luck, i see reasonable decisionmaking based on bad or possibly missing information.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 13, 2009 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, all I’m arguing is that it was reasonable job, in response to your statement that it’s been a complete failure. There is skill and knowledge involved, and the FO should get better. But attaching a big old F is not right.

by dgcambridge on Jul 13, 2009 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is true. I think taking the approach of “complete failure” is a bit of a stretch. We had good starting pitching as recent as May of last year.

by Roger Dorn on Jul 13, 2009 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

barely any of which was the result of our amateur drafting and development

obviously my statement excluded other areas where shap & co. have done relatively well—plucking players from other farm systems, and some free agent signings (i mean, honestly, kevin millwood and carl pavano worked out much better than expected, and in retrospect inking paul byrd’s deal was pretty shrewd as well).

but man, when you’re a team like the indians, you can’t afford to do so poorly in the draft and latin america. maybe guys like rondon, gomez, and de la cruz will change my opinion of this regime. let’s hope so.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 14, 2009 7:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

barely any of which was the result of our amateur drafting and development

So?

I’m sorry but your point continues to make no sense. Should I value Lee less because the Indians traded for him rather than drafted him? All things being equal, why does the way we acquire the a player matter more than the fact that we acquired a good player?

by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well stated. So we’re either bad at drafting or have gotten bad results, so what? Some teams establish their minors in the draft, some do it by trading established players for prospects. Turning Colon into Lee and Sizemore and then Lee into whoever we end up getting for him isn’t a bad return. Those prospects are just as prospecty even though we didn’t draft them.

by junkballer on Jul 14, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

are you familiar with the term “opportunity cost”?

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 14, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you familiar with the term Eduardo Perez? Ben Broussard?

by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

nobody’s discounting how awesome those trades are. but you’re acting like it’s an “either/or” proposition—that is, it’s ok that we have sucked in drafting/signing our own pitching because we’ve gotten good players through other means.

for me, it’s all about foregone opportunity. as i’ve said in the past, many, many times—player development through the draft and the amateur FA market is one of the cheapest and most effective ways a small-market team can improve itself. it’s not like the resutls of shapiro’s regime have been impressive enough to write off those failures, however.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 14, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No you;re the only person acting like it’s an either/or proposition. Harking back to our original argument you’ve consistently said that the front office basically sucks because they don’t draft well and mid market size teams “have” to draft well.

That, is just silly. So is the “magic bullet” argument that anything wrong that ever happens to the Indians is because of poor drafting.

I’ve been very critical of the Indians draft strategy throughout the years. I know I was one of the first people to express disappointment in our “reliever” draft this year and our tendency to shy away from high school arms.

But the draft is only one method of acquiring talent. And the Indians front office has consistently shown that has the ability to acquire talented prospects.

Do we need to draft better? Yes. Do we need to go after more starting pitching prospects? Yes But are draft issues the end all be all of the front office? Not even close.

by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What’s going unsaid here is that Shapiro has dramatically outperformed his peers in trades for prospects.

So some folks see the regime as having done a fine job of acquiring young talent, all things considered.

The other side takes the trades for granted and sees only the missed opportunities of poor draft yields.

Each side has a point.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Jul 14, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sometimes I wonder if the front office views the draft as an inefficent method for acquiring high upside talent. It kind of explains why they emphasize drafting players with the highest probability of contributing at the major league level as opposed to high ceilings

I wouldn’t be surprised if Shapiro prefers to “steal” young talent from other organizations while using the draft as a tool to acquire young solid players.

Just a thought.

by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Could be.

I think the pure numbers in terms of ROI are obviously and strongly on the side of players who are 20-21, as compared with players who are 17-18. And the fact that the “high upside” crowd buries their head in the sand about this is just the usual “I believe what I feel like believing BS,” or to use the trendy term, “denialism.”

Beyond a pure ROI argument, the other thing that seems to be overlooked is the simple matter of when the ROI is going to happen. For a team with tight resources, even given equal bonus money, there’s a huge difference between help arriving in 2012 and help arriving in 2015.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Jul 14, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Brad Snyder, drafted at 20, has got a 1020 OPS in Iowa. Put that in your time-value pipe and smoke it.

by fleerdon on Jul 14, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do we need to draft better? Yes. Do we need to go after more starting pitching prospects? Yes But are draft issues the end all be all of the front office? Not even close.

well we agree there. let’s leave it at that.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 14, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And for the record, we have a lot of players on our roster that we’ve drafted. The “problem” is that we haven’t drafted any hot stud prospects lately. But one could make the argument that any time you draft a player and he becomes a major league player you’ve done well.

Drafting a Garko or Laffey isn’t the worse thing in the world

by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well put.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Jul 14, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i was trying to limit the conversation to our starting pitching. we kind of got away from that, but yeah, i also agree with this. my problem isn’t the lack of “hot stud prospects” (ok i laughed a little writing that). it’s the lack of ANY home-grown pitching (outside of the laff man, of course) contributing at the big league level. i still see this as a very big problem, shrewd trades and FA signings notwithstanding.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 14, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, we did draft Lincecum.

Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen

by westbrook on Jul 14, 2009 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We signed and developed Branyan, whom we traded for Broussard, whom we traded for Choo. We signed Bartolo as an amateur, and Einar Diaz, too.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Jul 14, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

under john hart, yeah?

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 14, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not the trades!

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Jul 14, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What stands out is A) runs allowed in the second inning by our pitchers and B) without Betancourt in the 8th inning we’ve gotten destroyed in the eighth.

What does that tell me…our starters are mediocre and getting rocked by the middle/bottom of teams lineups in the second inning…and losing Betancourt for a month skyrocketed the 8th inning numbers. Now, that’s not to say that Raffy B. was great this year…but him going down didn’t help any. We’re also missing that 7th inning guy too, which is where most of the problems start, or end, or whatever at this point.

by MooneysRebellion on Jul 13, 2009 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think you would find this is just a fluke — it’s only 13 runs above average, or one extra run per week.

We gave up 12 second-inning runs in the first three games of the season.

I take your point about Betancourt, but here again, the 8th inning runs didn’t just come in close games, they came in games in which comfortable leads were destroyed that inning. That doesn’t really involve Betancourt.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Jul 13, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There are no answers. Only more questions and pain …. always pain.

by Toxicadam on Jul 13, 2009 11:28 AM EDT reply actions 4 recs

Indeed. I would think this comment appropriate of a greenish hue.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Jul 13, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by fleerdon on Jul 13, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Always knew that Breslow guy was a bum……

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 13, 2009 11:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

sorry, wrong thread.

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 13, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dunno where these stats came from, but I’d love to see the best and worse teams at each spot.

LeCavs!
If you were good enough, maybe we'd name it after you.

by Matt in LA on Jul 13, 2009 12:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It’s from Baseball-Reference.com. I just compared the Indians to the rest of MLB. There are probably league standings out there somewhere.

by TribeJay on Jul 13, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hugh-scoring team underperforming MLB average in scoring in first inning. Is this reflective of a suboptimal lineup?

by odradek on Jul 13, 2009 9:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sorry: high-scoring team…

by odradek on Jul 13, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t have the time to look it up, but I don’t think Grady has done that well in the first inning. That drives that number a lot.

by TribeJay on Jul 13, 2009 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed…he’s been subpar in the first inning to say the least. Then when we found somebody (Cabrera) to place higher up, he got injured. Leaving us with the likes of Francisco (and his .248 avg) at the top of the lineup. So I’d say your absolutely right. Sizemore being down has really hurt us in the first inning. Then if you throw in the recent slump that Victor has been in, and now that we’ve got sizemore back and in business there’s no one there to really drive him in the way El Capitan was earlier.

by MooneysRebellion on Jul 14, 2009 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This season, Grady has a .189 OBP leading off 37 games and only one HR. That’s about six fewer first-inning leadoff runners than we would normally expect.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Jul 14, 2009 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs