BPro: How the Indians got this bad
This is pay content.
Jay Jaffe at BPro via ESPN Insider takes a look at why the Tribe has disappointed. Interesting article that finds what most of us already know, the bullpen is primarily responsible. The author also questions Shapiro's loyalty to Wedge.
over 2 years ago
Roger Dorn
109 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Ultimately, a failure to produce top talent from within is the bane of a midmarket franchise’s existence, for it magnifies a team’s more expensive mishaps, such as the injuries sapping the value of Hafner’s four-year, $57 million deal and Jake Westbrook’s three-year, $33 million pact. This season is bitter enough given the dashed expectations for the Indians, and unless the prospects they’ve acquired in recent weeks can develop to cover for the system’s recent mediocrity, the team will only keep disappointing.
that gives you a little taste. it’s the harshest article i’ve ever seen a BP writer pen about shapiro & co.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 4, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Seems like he’s mainly questioning:
*2007 – Mills
*2006 – Huff
*2005 – Crowe
*2004 – Sowers
*2003 – Aubrey/Miller/Snyder
*2002 – Guthrie (to Balt)/Whitney/Schilling
*2001 – Denham/Martin/Dittler/Foley (don’t get me started)
*2000 – Smith
Shapiro has been absolutely terrible at drafting high-ceiling guys, yet this was a very taboo topic for many years amongst Indians fans for whatever reason. Unfortunately, we´re really feeling the effects of those drafts right now.
Last time I checked, it was still taboo. Unless by “high-ceiling,” you mean “good.”
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Aug 5, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
and by “fans” you mean “LGT posters”
ok, i’m done. promise.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 5, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s not a taboo topic, but it is one which has been discussed ad infinitum here without much in the way of substance. Evaluating a draft is incredibly difficult. Comparing the relative efficacy of two teams individual drafts, let along long-term drafting philosophy, is even more difficult. I think we’ll all acknowledge that our returns from the draft have been unspectacular, particularly high in the draft. But beyond that, unless you want to do a lot of leg work to look into the issue, I don’t know if there are many directions for the conversation to head.
i agree with this. there are just too many variables to sort out when it comes to evaluating draft performance. since it would be really difficult and time consuming to do any comprehensive draft analysis, every discussion about the draft ends up just being just two sets of incompatible assumptions butting heads. it’s kind of like getting wrapped up in an anti abortion/pro life debate.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 5, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
duh, i meant pro life/pro choice. i’m retarded.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 5, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
There is far less substance to the draft “debate” than the abortion debate.
Specifically, the “pro-high-ceiling” crowd has no evidence and is basically just a bunch of aimless whiners.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
well, i’m talking more about the ongoing argument between the “shapiro’s FO f’ed up big time by wasting a bunch of drafts” crowd versus the “shapiro didn’t do so bad in those drafts, plus he acquired talent elsewhere to make up for it” crowd.
you’re talking about a prescriptive argument, which i see as being separate altogether.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 5, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
The “wasting a bunch of drafts” argument has become indelibly associated with the prescriptive argument, which is incredibly stupid.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 5, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Legit question… why should we get excited about trading for “high-ceiling” prospects in A ball but you’re automatically a moron for wanting to draft “high-ceiling” types? Not saying we should draft only HS players, but what is the big disparity there?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
Because the wheat separates themselves from the chafe (is that the expression?).
I propose giving Victor a 2012 World Series ring.
by Gradyforpresident on Aug 5, 2009 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you have misunderstood the draft debate. Wanting high ceiling players in the draft does not make you a moron
Correct. What makes you a moron is thinking the problem with the Indians draft is not taking enough high school pitchers in the first round. And on and on from that initial, fatally flawed premise.
As a side note to Turk, plucking other clubs’ draft picks a year or two later is a much meatier proposition than actually making your own picks. Any team would prefer it.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Of course. And we must do both, and we haven’t. But the one is clearly meatier than the other regardless.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I dunno. Our team’s best players, in the last twenty five years anyway, have come throught the draft: Manny, Belle, Thome and CC. Granted we’ve picked up some good players by trading vets for prospects notably Grady and Lee. In the end though, it’s been the draft that’s produced the best – possibly a HoFer or two – and not the trades.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You dunno? Dude, it’s obvious. We used to be horrible at trades, and we certainly didn’t make a habit of plucking others team’s first- and second-rounders from the last two drafts.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
So you think the A-Cab, Grady, Lee, Phillips, Choo haul is gonna be better than Manny, Belle, Thome and CC? That’s the part I’m just a little uncertain about.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
We signed the best catcher in franchise history in the international market. Grady is well on his way to being included in your first tier group. We acquired your mancrush in a trade for Bartolo Colon.
I thought we got the best catcher in franchise history via trade (hint: I’m from the future; your 2016 self says hi).
I feel like this should have already been recommended to me.
by NickFantana on Aug 12, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
we don’t draft in the same spot every year. we sucked for long enough to be able to draft early and take the CCs and Mannies of the world. we were good for a while so at the back end of that we had to trade bartoloes away to get talent. in the meantime we were decidedly medium, so a combination of everything has been employed. i want to hear about the rays drafting after they spend a number of years winning.
Chuck, don’t be a moron.
I’m saying, in general, having a high draft pick is not as valuable as having the ability to acquire a high draftee of your choosing a year or two later.
Jim Thome was selected in the 16th round. A year later, he had slugged .754 in rookie ball, and I daresay would have gone with a higher pick. Thus, a 16th rounder essentially had become a 3rd rounder or better.
Sabathia was selected #20 overall. A year later, he had struck out 82 batters in his first 54.1 innings while giving up only 15 runs — all before turning 19. At that point, there are few if any players from the 1989 draft you would have selected ahead of him.
The point is that we know a lot more about the value of each potential draftee a year or two after the draft, a year or two into their professional careers. We are a lot closer to knowing which ones are going to become Sabathia, and which ones are going to become Seth Etherton and Tony Torcato.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Here’s my problem with this. Players like Belle and Manny are outliers. Of the hundreds of players selected in the first round of the draft very few are potential HoFers. But that’s the guy(s) we need to identify and draft – and certainly luck takes a huge roll here. It’s great to have a lot of good to great players on your team. But, if you wanna win WS Championships, you’ve got to find that super-star player. We’ve have a better track record drafting those guys than trading for them.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Oddly enough, you are far underestimating the historic nature of those picks. I don’t think any team has ever drafted three hitters that great in the span of just a few years (plus Giles soon after, plus Sexson). I’m not proposing that every trade for prospects will have the ROI of the greatest of all such trades — you know the one — but you are essentially arguing that for the draft.
Bottom line, it’s easier to pick out the superstar a year or two after he’s drafted than on the day he’s drafted.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 7, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
it’s easier to pick out the superstar a year or two after he’s drafted
It’s also a hellava lot harder to pry those guys away from their drafting club.
And I never, ever underestimate our luck – that would be Hart’s luck at following Peters – with those drafts. We’ll likely never see a run of draft luck like that again. Which also makes me pessimistic about another seven year run like we had then.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I think this line was perhaps the most eye-opening to me. It almost seems a little hard to believe.
Shapiro will have to answer for his pledge to keep his skipper in place — and, ultimately, for the drying up of the team’s talent pipeline amid years of unimpressive drafts. From 1997 through 2008, the Indians organization produced more major league talent than any other AL Central team, according to the value production standings work that Steve Treder presented at the most recent SABR convention. Alas, an increasing proportion of that value, from Manny Ramirez and CC Sabathia down through Jeremy Guthrie, was delivered for other teams.
It seems hard to believe because it is pretty wrong, isn’t it? It is completely inaccurate to suggest that Manny Ramirez and CC Sabathia were “delivered for other teams.” Both of those players delivered a tremendous amount of value to Cleveland (nearly 4100 plate appearances with an OPS of .998 for Manny, and more than 1500 innings and an ERA under 4 for Sabathia). And their departure had nothing to do with identifying and developing talent, and everything to do with the economics of baseball. And while the draft is a problem, as we have said many times, talent acquisition does not solely occur in the draft.
by APV on Aug 5, 2009 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
And of course talent acquisition is also subject to the economics of baseball. I don’t give the Yankees any more credit for the checks they cut to their draftees than I do for the checks they cut to their free agents.
by fleerdon on Aug 5, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions
this is actually an interesting topic. have the red sox, dodgers, angels, and other large-market teams who have been successful in the draft actually spent more, per pick, than the indians?
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 5, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Clearly they are more willing to just throw away a multimillion check, because, hell, who else are you going to draft at the end of the first round anyway? So they have reason for concern with making an investment that 28 other teams think is terrible.
The more significant issue is the ridiculous money being pumped into the Dominican at this point.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Interesting topic … Olney happened to mention today that of the teams with the top 8 payrolls, only the Mets seem to adhere closely to the Commisioner’s slot recommendation.
by FallsTribeFan on Aug 5, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s wrong on many levels.
1. Manny Ramirez was certainly not drafted within the 1997 to 2008 timespan.
2. CC Sabathia, as you said, has (up until the last full season) delivered almost all of his value to the Indians.
3. I’ll trust the numbers, these guys seem way smarter than me. But, if the Indians led the Central in producing major league talent, I’d love to see how wide the gap was over the Twins … because it cannot be by much.
by FallsTribeFan on Aug 5, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Point #3 just seems like juked numbers, and I wouldn’t hold my breath getting them corrected.
If you asked all 30 GMs whether they’d rather have Sabathia and his contract or LaPorta/Brantley, at least 20 and maybe 25 or more would take the latter.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Oh I’m with you … apparently this research was presented at SABR … I’d just like to see it for myself …
I have a hard-time reconciling in my head that the Indians drafts produced more talent in the span than Minnesota.
by FallsTribeFan on Aug 5, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
I believe Hardball Times has a whole series of articles on these “value production standings” going way back into baseball history. If you search their archives, I’m sure you can find it.
I actually checked … I saw the historic ones but did not see the more recent research … I’ll keep digging.
by FallsTribeFan on Aug 5, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
the recent stuff, given it was just presented at SABR, may not be there….but my guess is that it will go up sometime in the next few weeks
All that’s missing is 2008. Here’s the cumulative MLB win shares for each of the AL Central Teams for 1997-2007. Cleveland led the Central every year except 2003, when the Twins had 265 total win shares to Cleveland’s 263.
Cleveland 3491
Minnesota 2782
Chicago 2493
Kansas City 2417
Detroit 2006
Need to see the original study, but to really evaluate effective development, you have to cut off the wins/runs accumulation after the first six full seasons. Keeping the clock running indefinitely implies that clubs generally can keep the fruits of their farm systems indefinitely, and we all know that is most definitely not true.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
The data that Treder compiles actually presents each year as a discrete set, and doesn’t (or hasn’t in the past) attempt to draw cumulative conclusions. I added the win shares for the period manually to try to assess Jaffe’s claim that the Indians have developed the most talent over the decade-long period. I don’t think Treder posits that you should keep the clock running; he certainly hasn’t presented it that way before, although it’s possible he did so in his presentation in DC.
I was going to do a fanpost last year showing that this drafting time period (2001-2005) was especially disasterous for our team (by comparing the success of our division rivals). You what? The resuts were not as cut and dry as you would think. Minnesota seems to have done a better job overall, but everyone else did pretty poorly too. Chicago was just as inept as us and KC and Detroit were really bouyed by hitting on their first round SP prospects (Grienke and Verlander). But otherwise? Their drafts were pretty shoddy like ours.
There’s at least one part that’s cut and dried.
Greinke: drafted 6th overall
Verlander: drafted 2nd overall
Of those picks cheech lists above, one of them was in the top ten — Sowers. In fact, Sowers was one of our only recent picks in the top thirteen. How this isn’t where every discussion about the Indians’ drafts starts, I’ll never know, but I still think about two-thirds of the criticism of the Indians’ drafting is basically a complaint that the major league squad finished too high in the standings. And most of the remainder is a complaint that the Indians don’t spend enough. If that’s not the lens you’re viewing this through, then you’re not criticizing, you’re moping.
by fleerdon on Aug 5, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That should say “you still can’t argue that the indians drafted well.” The didn’t.
Eph it. who cares.
by Cols714 on Aug 5, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
i think the only thing anyone can really say with confidence is that “the indians have not gotten much production from their draft picks from the early and mid 2000s.” go any further in either direction and you’re getting into unbacked assertions territory.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 5, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Why? They didn’t draft well in the early and mid 2000s. This is obvious. The reasons behind it are not so obvious.
Because there is not a working definition for “draft well” in major league baseball. I’m still of the opinion that the Indians’ haul from the draft over that time period might very well be average or even above average by draft position and that might be defined as “well.”
One of the other huge issues is that drafting is binary: do you get a major league value or do you not? Thusly, there’s no point in “averaging” picks. Hence, KC seems like they draft pretty well because they pick Alex Gordon and Zach Greinke. Still, how do you evaluate those two binary successes if literally every other pick KC made flopped (not asserting that, just creating example)?
Or, what if a team in the years 2000-2005 drafted no major leaguers with the exception of Albert Pujols and Barry Bonds? I’d assert this kind of thing probably happens. Are they a “good” drafting team? By win shares, most definitely. By more nuanced methods, perhaps not.
by afh4 on Aug 5, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sure, you can probably find some metric where the Indians drafts don’t look terrible, but I don’t think you can make a good case that they’ve drafted well.
A big part of the reason for that seems to be based on luck, though. Any scout would tell you that with some players, you see the breakdown coming, and with others, you simply don’t. Based on his performance, Adam Miller was a phenomenally good pick — a year or three after he was drafted, he looked a lot better than nearly all the guys drafted ahead of him. Yet injuries, apparently unforeseeable (wtf this finger nonsense?), reduce his value to zero.
So how does Adam Miller “count” in your evaluation of that draft?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’m still waiting for a definition of “drafting well.” Is it simply drafting guys who excel in the big leagues eventually, regardless of draft position or injuries or bad luck or alien abduction, or is it more nuanced than that?
Alien abduction, that is what happens to Miller next year.
by Brad D on Aug 6, 2009 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree that a big part is luck. But I don’t get the arguments that the Indians have drafted well or, rather, haven’t drafted poorly. And yes, luck has a part in it.
But those arguments would sound pretty hollow if first-rounder Adam Miller were in the rotation with a 4.18 ERA right now.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions
OK, but there are a lot of things that if they happened ,the draft record would look better. My point is that the drafts have been bad. That’s all. No argument about why. I don’t see how anyone could say that the drafts haven’t been bad. But go for it if you want to.
No, your argument is that we don’t have the players from the draft that we should have. That’s not the same thing as saying the drafts were bad when they happened.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
So, you’re saying because Adam Miller got injured, that makes that draft worse. Right?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yep, that’s right. No way to predict that Miller would get hurt, true. But his injury still impacts the quality of the draft.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I purchased a used car back when i was in highschool for a good price. the next week, a building collapsed on it. what a piece of crap car it turned out to be for all the money i spent on it.
by Brick. on Aug 7, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If you’re gonna take credit for drafting Thome in the thirdteenth round, which took a lotta luck, then ya gotta wear the jacket for Miller too.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Who’s taking credit for that, other than you?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 7, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
This has become a semantic discussion, i.e., one best left for idiots with more spare time than even I expend here.
You want to talk good drafts vs. bad drafts, fine. You want to define that as purely results-oriented, that too is totally fine.
You want to talk about how well the team drafted, however, that refers to the conditions on the ground as of the day of the draft, i.e., not considering bad luck which occurs or is discovered five years later. Some folks are trying to have their cake and eat it, too — admit that there is bad luck and yet still insist on accountability. If there wasn’t bad luck, then there should be accountability, but if there was, then that too needs to be accounted for.
When someone figures out which conversation we’re having here, I’ll be happy to join in. Until then — I’m out.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 7, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Here’s the point: it’s not enough for the Indians management to be good at all facets of baseball operations, they hafta be lucky too. They can’t paper over their mistakes with expensive FAs. They hafta have good – as in productive – drafts, make excellent trades, sign quality foriegn players and hope they all develop as advertised and that none of them get hurt. A daunting task. But if you wanna collect those megabuck pay checks for long, that’s what ya gotta do.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
And that’s all well and good. But it’s still dumb to criticize them for not being lucky enough.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 7, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Here’s a pretty good definition of “drafting well”.
’86 Greg Swindell
’87 Albert Belle
’88 Mark Lewis
’89 Calvin Murray – Jim Thome in the 13th round
’90 Tim Costo
’91 Manny Ramirez
’92 Paul Shuey
’93 Deron Kirkreit
’94 Jaret Wright
This is what some fans remember as “drafting well” – pretty much one of the best runs in baseball history. Looks like our “luck” has regressed.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Always fun to think of who we passed up…
Some of the guys taken in the top 10 after Lewis (2nd pick) in ’88:
Steve Avery
Jim Abbott
Robin Ventura
(Granted, Cleveland also took Nagy at pick 17.)
And picks 3-6 after Swindell in ’86:
Matt Williams
Kevin Brown
Kent Mercker
Gary Sheffield
by cleveland teamer on Aug 6, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions
So drafting well means getting some first-round draft picks that end up being successful in the big leagues, plus Tim Costo. Is that it? Also! During that time period, the club had the second overall pick three times, plus #8, #10, #11 and #13. Draft advantages not accorded to Shapiro.
Which is exactly the point fleerdon has been making all along. It’s a lot easier when you have multiple top 10 picks thrown in a stretch.
For this reason, you could argue that the Rays’ drafting has been disappointing. I’m couldn’t say whether it’s true, but it’s not ridiculous.
by fleerdon on Aug 6, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
i think that’s an exaggeration
looked it up the other day. . . sure, longoria, upton, price, and niemann were very high picks. garza and bartlett came over in the very shrewd delmon young trade, another #1 overall. they’ve benefited from the high picks, but they’ve also done pretty darn well with their later round picks (crawford, shields, sonnanstine, etc.).
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 6, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions
really? you think those four players would already have added an additional 14 wins over the players they would be replacing?
keep in mind price’s 5.39 FIP and upton’s .314 wOBA. not saying that those two aren’t fantastic players—they are—but their contributions to the rays this year haven’t been all that significant.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 6, 2009 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Longoria has a WARP3 of 9.1 this season. So far.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I am not really a believer in looking at the sum of WARs and saying this is how many wins better your team is. I think a lot of baseball builds off of having more stability, particularly in the starting rotation. Notice, I was careful to mention players “like” them which means first round picks that actually pan out. Yes, I don’t think we are that far off with a few more pieces in place, and yes I think if we had those pieces we would be in the hunt.
Wins, over the period Chuck highlights, versus wins during the seasons relevant to the Shapiro-era drafts:
86-94 00-08
84 90
61 91
78 74
73 68
77 80
57 93
76 78
76 96
66 81
by fleerdon on Aug 6, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I think — and this may be something Dolan alluded to today — it’s interesting that even when they’ve been comparatively bad, the Shapiro-era teams have generally not been sub-basement. Backhanded compliment, I know, and clearly not good news for our scouting department. Just saying, as rebuilds go, you can certainly find worse.
by fleerdon on Aug 6, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions
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.
