Whither the Tribe, a Poll
by mauichuck on Sep 21, 2009 8:40 PM EDT
283 comments
Just how bad is the current Indian’s team? I put it at the bottom of all Cleveland baseball teams for the last 50 years – and that’s bad, real bad. In fact the only Cleveland team that was clearly worse than the current bunch would be the ’99 Cleveland Spiders. Other than that collection of stiffs, this team can compete with any other Indians team in total ineptness.
Now you can disagree with me here as to whether this is the worst club in 50 years – I think it’s futile, but you can give it a shot – but here’s my point. The last two truly awful Cleveland teams – ’85 and ’91 – were better baseball clubs than the Indians as currently constituted. The ’85 club was just a little dip in the Tribe’s ongoing journey of Horribleness only to be followed by a struggle for mediocrity The ’91 club though had the seeds of a Juggernaut growing below the surface. Belle, Baerga and (Sandy) Alomar were already on the big club, Thome had been called up for a cuppa coffee, the sainted Hank Peters was about to draft the savant know as Manny Ramirez and Hart was a step away from two of the biggest talent heists in club history – Taubensee for Lofton, followed by Fermin for Omar. In other words many of the pieces needed to produce one of the longest runs in Cleveland history were in place or on the way. But still it took three more years for the Tribe to compete for a Championship.
Now I recognize that the AL Central was measurably stronger than the current division. And I know that the ’93 Indians had to deal with the sudden, unexpected loss of three of its players but still. Given were we’re at and what we have, I think we’ll be lucky if it takes just three more years to assemble the talent needed to get back into the play-offs.
I’d like to know what the rest of the LGTers think.
0 recs |
283 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Belle, Baerga and (Sandy) Alomar were already on the big club
Sizemore, Choo, Cabrera, Valbuena.
Thome had been called up for a cuppa coffee,
LaPorta, Brantley.
the sainted Hank Peters was about to draft the savant know as Manny Ramirez
Whoever we draft #4 overall next June, but Chisenhall is pretty good.
and Hart was a step away from two of the biggest talent heists in club history – Taubensee for Lofton, follwed by Fermin for Omar
Can’t say what heists lay ahead, but Shapiro is peerless in this area, so I’m not concerned.
Of course I’m not saying things will come together in the historic fashion they did in 1995. But if you’re asking if the pieces are coming into place on the same pace, based on the above, I believe we’re closer to a contending club now than we were in 1991.
You may not feel that the lineup pieces are of the same caliber, but despite Belle-Baerga-Alomar, the 1991 Indians were dead last in the AL in runs per game. The 2009 Indians are 5th.
by Jay on Sep 21, 2009 9:13 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Should the title be more “Whither The Tribe?”
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
by emd2k3 on Sep 21, 2009 9:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 21, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then my answer is 2011. I’ll buy you a craft beer to celebrate the playoff run.
by jds16 on Sep 21, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the year of Gomer Hodge
I was only 12 but I knew bad baseball from listening to it and reading my baseball cards.
by IndyDave on Sep 21, 2009 9:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sorry Dave but that team had Fosse, Chambliss, Nettes and one my favorite Indians, Vada Pinson. Nope the ’09 Tribe is worse.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 21, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope the ’09 Tribe is worse.
How can you make a proclamation like that? The amount of hubris here is truly numbing.
by fwembt on Sep 22, 2009 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why it’s an opinion fwembt. Plus, no reasonable baseball fan could possibly chose the ’09 Indians over a team with Sam McDowelle starting every fifth game.
And, oh yeah, gimme one player on the current squad who you’d put up ahead of Chris Chambliss.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That team lost 102 games. McDowell had a decent season, but wasn’t anything special that year at all. Chambliss was 22 and had an OPS of 749, an OPS+ of 104 at first base. I’d rather have Grady, Asdrubal or Choo.
by fwembt on Sep 22, 2009 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OPS+ and ERA+ aren’t perfect tools, but let’s use them anyway. The 1971 team has a clear advantage at the infield corners, but even an injured Sizemore was better than Pinson in CF, Asdrubal is on another planet compared to Heidemann and Choo beats Foster. Catcher, 2B and LF (using LaPorta) are essentially a wash. Pitchers hit in 1971, so advantage 2009.
Bad as the end-of-2009 rotation (Laffey/Masterson/Huff/Sowers/Carmona) is, they still beat the 1971 starters in ERA+ at every spot. Even Carmona’s 66 is the same as Hand and better than Paul.
This year’s team is 6th in RS and next-to-last in RA. The 1971 team was 9th in runs and last in runs allowed. The hazy fog of nostalgia and the bitter aftertaste of expectations denied doesn’t change the facts.
by FredOx on Sep 22, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Is OPS+ adjusted for league and period? ERA+ as well?
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s adjusted for league and era, but only in the sense that it’s normalized to league averages. The movement in league averages doesn’t really tell the whole story as to differences in eras, but that’s all that tends to be used.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really only have one clear memory of the 1971 season. The Indians had a chance to break the franchise record for losses (102 by the 1914 Naps, at that time), but Vince Colbert screwed it up and pitched a gem on the final day.
I just looked up the details. Colbert out-dueled 25-game winner Mickey Lolich (the “Hefty Lefty”), 2-1. The Tigers even had some of their regulars in the lineup.
It was a true act of insubordination by Colbert. The team had lost seven in a row and 14 out of 15, and they richly deserved this honor. There were 2596 witnesses.
The ROY did his part, though: 0-4, 2 K’s. Clutch.
by SuddenSam on Sep 23, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They couldn’t have been worse, they had one of chuck’s favorite players.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 22, 2009 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The amount of hubris here istruly numbingtypical.
Fixed. I pretty much expect the gods to strike Chuck down pretty much every time he posts something.
"But people are stupid, and their memories are short." - FredOx
by woodsmeister on Sep 22, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey I was one of three members of the Charlie Hall fan club…
by stuart dean on Sep 22, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my was Tony Horton, sad year 1970, good part was the great Ken Harrelson 1 hr total for the year, he had to be one of the worst Indians we every had, hated the guy.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m with IndyDave. I moved to Cleveland right before the 1971 season. They were really, really terrible. Yet, that was the team I fell in love with and hooked me for life. Damn them!
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Sep 22, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When we compete comes down to when we turn out a good pitching staff. I can see it happening as soon as 2011, or not at all with the current crop. Who among us can successfully predict what will happen with our current AA, AAA, and AAAA pitchers?
by jds16 on Sep 21, 2009 9:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why, which pitchers do you see that is going turn this staff around? as it stands today not one of our pitchers is good enough to be a 4th starter on a championship team. Carmona may never find it again, Huff/Sowers/Laffey are 5th starters at best, until Masterson comes up with a pitch that he can use to get LH hitters out, he is best suited for the bullpen. Where do you see this good pitching staff coming from?
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Laffey would be a 4 just about anywhere right now. And probably a 3 on most teams.
Huff, Masterson, Rondon, Corrasco all have enough success in the minors to have a decent chance at being solid contributors. Carmona has to have a least a small chance of bouncing back to something a little useful. Also, Westbrook.
It is by far, in my opinion, the most worrisome organizational weakness. But if you don’t see even the chance for a decent rotation in there, you aren’t looking hard enough.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 22, 2009 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I started a reply to fanintexas, then realized you’d already said it for me. There’s a pretty wide range of possibilities for our rotation a year and a half from now.
by jds16 on Sep 22, 2009 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said same thing to my friend and co workers back in the 60’s & 70’s and after 20 years stop saying it but still keep thinking it. Do I think we can turn our rotation around in the next two year, Hell yes, I’m a tribe fan for life.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 24, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who among us can successfully predict what will happen with our current AA, AAA, and AAAA pitchers?
I’ll take: disappointment, overestimation, injury, regression, mystery.
by odradek on Sep 21, 2009 9:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
These sound like the tags to an Adam Miller Fanshot.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 22, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If so, it also needs the modifying phrase “regularly scheduled.”
"But people are stupid, and their memories are short." - FredOx
by woodsmeister on Sep 22, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In all fairness, you are comparing a team strippped of Vic and Cliff for prospects to teams that hadn’t undergone stripping in that year.
by elsandito on Sep 21, 2009 10:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Let me be sure that I understand you. Are you saying that the Indians today, right now, are a better baseball team than any of the clubs over the last 20-30 years, is that right?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because you disagreed with him, of course.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the Indians right now are a better baseball team than the worst of the clubs over the last 20-30 years. They’re plenty bad, but we’ve all seen worse.
by FredOx on Sep 22, 2009 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chuck forgets that we are in the AL Central. The talent level needed to “compete” is not that far away.*
- - Sorry, Royals fans.
by Toxicadam on Sep 21, 2009 11:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This changes every few years. from 2005 – 2007 the Al Central was one of the best.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Until we see a significant shift in the game’s economic balance, I think we can expect that in any five-year period, the AL Central and AL West will each score one Wild Card bid while the AL East gets the other three. That reflects the medium-term strength of each division.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I picked 2011, but still think we have about a 20% chance of making the playoffs next year.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 21, 2009 11:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
How are we measuring bad here? If it is losses obviously this team doesn’t qualify (or come close). If it is failing to meet expectations then last year and 1987 leap quickly to mind. What are the qualifications? This seems like just another “Woe is me, I’ve seen this all before and I have it figured out already” diatribe to me.
If someone new came on here and made this Fanpost we would run them off the site.
by fwembt on Sep 22, 2009 12:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We’ve had two incarnations of the Indians this year. One had Victor Martinez, Cliff Lee, Carl Pavano, DeRosa, Betancourt and Garko. The other one didn’t. I’m talking about the latter, not the former. You’re referring to the agregate. A team that no longer exists.
I’m claiming that the team we’ll have next year will look a lot more like the team that ends this season and not the one that started it.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fact is, we didn’t get that much production out of the hitters that have been traded, and the younger guys have been doing fine since they left.
It’s really just the pitchers where we have to wonder how bad it will continue to be.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 5:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Take it back before you hurt Victor’s feelings.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 22, 2009 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d like to know what the rest of the LGTers think.
Some of us think that you need to come up with some new material, because it feels like we’ve heard everything you’ve got to say.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 22, 2009 1:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And some of us don’t. This is a perfectly valid, if somewhat overstated, case (e.g., the Spiders). I’m not sure I agree with Chuck because i can’t believe the Miguel Dilone Indians were actually better than the present or near-term incarnations. But every time I go back to look I see a couple of players who are way better than what the Tribe now has.
There is the slim possibility one of the present players (Brantley or Valbuena, say) turn out to be as good as Chambliss and 20 years from now people will point to the 2009 Indians as having a couple of good players that we are not at liberty to consider at present. But…
Chuck’s point is controversial, as always around here. The Indians are a bad team. Historically bad, even by franchise standards. The mere fact that someone can not posit a worse team in the past 50 years is amazing—especially for those of us who watched through the dark years.
Attacking Chuck doesn’t do anything to diminish his assertions. There is a possibility he is right. In this case, that’s pretty amazing.
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except that he’s not right, which makes it a good deal less amazing. A good portion of the “points” he makes have been refuted in above posts. To wit: there have been worse teams in the past 50 years, remembering that results are the only meaningful measure of such; this team has players on it that are quantifiably as good as or better than some of the historic good players on bad teams; we’ve got a very good offensive ball club with no reason to believe that it will not be one next year.
It’s not my intent to attack Chuck, but his consistent “I’ve been here before” condescending negativity makes him come across as a one-note fiddle. Variety’s the spice of life.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 22, 2009 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s futile, but you can give it a shot
by Brick. on Sep 22, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is the slim possibility one of the present players turn out to be as good as Chambliss
I’m sorry, do you mean the Chris Chambliss with the career OPS of 749 as a 1B/DH? The Chris Chambliss who averaged 14 HR a season at a power position? The guy with the career OPS+ of 108? That one? Ryan Garko is as good as he is. If Luis Valbuena, a second baseman, doesn’t have a higher career OPS than Chambliss in ten years, I’ll eat my hat.
The mere fact that someone can not posit a worse team in the past 50 years is amazing
Except several people already have. 1971, 1987, 1969, 1985, and 1991 all come to mind as easily being worse. And ‘71, ’87, and ’91 have already been “posited.” It’s not controversial, it’s rabble rousing. Chuck is old, bitter, and accepts no evidence beyond what he has seen with his own two eyes.
by fwembt on Sep 22, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Killing time before we go to the Dr. to find out if it’s a boy or girl.
by fwembt on Sep 22, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
which is also futile if you allow him or her to play soccer.
by Brick. on Sep 22, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Him, and he’ll definitely be a footballer.
by fwembt on Sep 22, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Meh. Joel II is already off the board for names, so I’m unenthused.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 22, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Totally did not know that was today. Thanks for keeping me in the loop.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 22, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cmon Brick, we all love showing chuck when he’s wrong. He just won’t ever admit to it.
Over the last 50 years, we have had 11 squads with 90 or more losses: 1969, 1971, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 2003, and 2009 (only 2 more losses to go).
Based on record, they look like this, Actual with Pythag:
1991 57-105 .352 -4
1971 60-102 .370 +2
1985 60-102 .370 -9
1987 61-101 .377 -1
1969 62-99 .385 -2
2009 61-88 .409 -7
2003 68-94 .420 -5
1983 70-92 .432 -3
1978 69-90 .434 -5
1973 71-91 .438 -3
1977 71-90 .441 +4
Even if we lose the last 13 games, this year won’t end with the worse record. It can however end up with the worst Pythag of the group.
Ok, well chucks justification that 1971 can’t be the worst because of Chris “awesome” Chambliss (thanks to fwembt above).
Well first off, it is easier to determine based on the OPS+ and ERA+ of each team.
I don’t want to list all 11 squads, so we’ll just name the worst 5 of each:
OPS+: 1971-76, 1969-80, 1991-83, 1983-92, 2003-92
ERA+: 1985-84, 1987-86, 1973-87, 1971-89, 2009-90
Well 1971 has the worst OPS+ and 4th worst ERA+ while no other team cracks the Top 5 in both OPS+ and ERA+. I think it is pretty evident 1971 is the worst squad so far.
Ok, to chucks arguments about “star” players. So let’s look at the Top 3 hitters and pitchers from 1971 and 2009.
1971 hitters: Nettles 114, Roy Foster 105 and Chambliss 104
1971 pitchers: McDowell 112, Alan Foster 92, Lamb 114
2009 hitters: Choo 125, Garko 113, Hafner 110
2009 pitchers: Lee 145, laffey 111, Sipp 140
I don’t think it even close between the stars of both teams.
by talonk on Sep 22, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yeah, but Lee and Garko aren’t involved in the discussion. We’re talking about the post-trades iteration of the 2009 Indians, not the season-long version.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 22, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1971 hitters: Nettles 114, Roy Foster 105 and Chambliss 104
1971 pitchers: McDowell 112, Alan Foster 92, Lamb 114
2009 hitters: Choo 125, Garko 113, Hafner 110
2009 pitchers: Lee 145, laffey 111, Sipp 140
See, now you guys have gone in the other direction. Garko and Lee, aren’t with this team any more. I keep talking about the the Indians as they are currently constructe, without Lee, Pavano, Martinez, Bentancourt, Pavano, DeRosa etc.
That team, the May Indians, was obviously a better club than the ’71 or ’91 Indians. The September Indians are not.
It’s also interesting that I’m described as “old” and therefore “bitter”. In September of ‘07 I was described on these pages as a “cheerleadeer” who was overly optomistic – I was absolutely positive that the Tribe would crush the Yankees’ into dust – about the Indians chances in the play-offs. Fascinating.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Positions, Chuck. Positions.
OPS+ is not relative to positions. You fail completely — again! — to use stats to identify the best position players.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, that’s a cut-and-paste from talonk – that’s talonk’s argument, not mine.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I only pulled the top 3 OPS+ numbers who “qualified” as the leaders at their position, trade or no trade
by talonk on Sep 22, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine. Use Choo (125), Cabrera (107) and Sizemore (103) instead, which it bears noting include a SS and a CF. Laffey (111), Masterson (102) and Sowers (92) are better than their 1971 counterparts as well.
by FredOx on Sep 22, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry chuck, but you cant just compare a Sept (one month) versus a a full season (1971) team. That is just a small sample size. I am sure there were other months over the last 50 years that we actually perfomed worse thn we have.
by talonk on Sep 22, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You wanna use next year as a large enough sample fine. We’ll talk then.
But the fact of the matter is this: the ‘09 Indians have a long way to go to become competitive again. Just as they’ve fallen a hellova long way from being on the doorstep of the WS less than 2 years ago.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just as they’ve fallen a hellova long way from being on the doorstep of the WS less than 2 years ago.
Which goes to show how quickly things change….
by Roger Dorn on Sep 22, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can you imagine how many things would hafta go right for that to happen? But again, it is possible. Just don’t bet the rent money on it.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would never bet on a Cleveland sports team.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 22, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and I never referred to you as old or bitter above. I would qulaify you more as jaded myself.
by talonk on Sep 22, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t forget “and equates ‘a team with guys on it I remember liking’ with ‘better’”
by FredOx on Sep 22, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Garko’s not on the team. He’s on the Giants. Really! He plays occasionally. But, then, that’s a tough division.
by peter m on Sep 22, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Ha ha, rec.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 22, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently so does talonk. But then again that was before Garko transferred from the weak AL Central over to the much tougher pitching NL West.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but Garko also plays for the team in the NL West with the most impressive pitching— he doesn’t have to deal with Lincecum, Cain, Zito, et al. And sure, he does have to face the likes of Haren and Kershaw and Jimenez, but on the other hand he faces guys like Yusmeiro Petit, Billy Buckner (whose VORP is -9.9), and the entire San Diego rotation.
by ameliorate on Sep 22, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right now, Chambliss is better than Valbuena. In ten years, you’re probably right. But Steve Olin looked like a sure thing, too. And, by the way, Garko is nowhere near the player Chambliss was.
And what exactly is wrong with being old and bitter? Is that worse than young and naive?
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh my sweet Lord, did you really just invoke Steve Olin as a guy who didn’t reach his potential?
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 22, 2009 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I invoked Olin on the perils of projectibility.
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m just saying that you probably could have chosen a more tasteful illustration.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 22, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty sure he’s neither a prospect nor a more tasteful choice.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 22, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I think he was Chuck’s favorite player at the time.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 23, 2009 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They won the World Series at least. I could swear Chuck has heralded Jim Bagby and Stan Coveleski.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely Coveleski – Polish boy in the HoF. Hell yeah!
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 23, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is Chambliss getting so much love here? What did he do so spectacularly well? We are talking about a player who was essentially a league average hitter. Ryan Garko, who is about as mediocre as one human can get, was better than Chris Chambliss.
And I’d venture that I am neither young nor naive.
by fwembt on Sep 23, 2009 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve seen Chambliss play. Ryan Garko is nowhere near him. That comparison is ludicrous. CC has a career .109 OPS+. Doesn’t that signify better than league average? (Casey Blake, the much-heralded slugger, has a career OPS+ of .107.)
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that may be true, but Garko’s career OPS+ is 105. that really is not a whole lot of difference.
by talonk on Sep 23, 2009 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s nothing conditional about it. Where I come from, 109 is better than 105, even if it’s close. And Chambliss did it over 2175 games. Care to wager that Garko gets 2000+ games?
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For one, I am not saying Garko will achieve Chambliss success. Two, the original comparison was for the 1971 season when Chambliss had 749 OPS with 9 HR to this years Garko production.
That was the original comparison. Somehow we got off track by career numbers. Mea culpa.
by talonk on Sep 23, 2009 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, point taken. Chambliss was 22 in 1971. When Gark was 22 he was tearing it up in Mahoning Valley.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forgive me then, he’s slightly better than Ryan Garko. That is the baseball epitaph of Chris Chambliss: very slightly better than Ryan Garko. Happy?
It’s not ludicrous. Neither of them are very good. As I suspected, you value Chambliss because you saw him play. That, contrary to what you and Chuck may believe, doesn’t mean a thing. His numbers are truly, incontrovertibly, average. He is not a player that we should set on any sort of pedestal. If neither Brantley nor Valbuena equals Chambliss then we acquired some truly miserable “talent.”
by fwembt on Sep 23, 2009 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No but we saw Tony Horton play, and Fred Whitfield and Joe Adcock. Compared to that bunch he was Babe Ruth.
What I do remember is trading Chambliss and Nettles for a bunch of rag-armed, wife-swapping pitchers followed by 20+ more years of bad baseball.
I imagine oradek and I wouldda traded the whole damn club for Chambliss and Nettles in 1974.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 23, 2009 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And compared to you I’m Lionel Messi, that doesn’t make me great at soccer.
The comment was that Brantley or Valbuena have a slim chance to be as good as Chambliss. Brantley is already better in his age 22 season and Valbuena shows every sign of being better. Saying that someone has a slim chance of being as good as Chambliss ignores the fact that Chambliss wasn’t good.
by fwembt on Sep 23, 2009 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey I’m sure I could compete with you at ballroom dancing either.
But then Chambliss stuck around on a pretty good club for almost a decade. I just hope that Valbuena and Brantley can do the same.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 23, 2009 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oy could = couldn’t. I type to fast.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 23, 2009 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know about that, I just had knee surgery. I’m guessing neither of us is tearing up a dance floor in the near future.
by fwembt on Sep 23, 2009 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see how you can say Brantley is already better than Chambliss. Brantley, in his age 22 season, has appeared so far in 18 games for an OPS of .773 and 28 total bases. Chambliss, who was AL rookie of the year in his age 22 season, played in 111 games with 20 doubles, an OPS of .749 (inferior to Brantley) and 169 total bases. Valbuena had an OPS of .662 and 17 total bases in his age 22 season with Seattle. Again, Chambliss did better.
You’re missing my point. Chambliss isn’t anything great. I’m saying that not many players achieve even the limited success Chambliss did. And, unfortunately, that will probably be true with this generation of Indians.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s no accident that the Shoppach-Garko disconnect is replaying here over Valbuena-Chambliss.
Positional value.
Having said that, folks obviously have jumped the shark on Valbuena. We think he’s going to be great, but he certainly hasn’t done it yet. Chambliss had zero defensive value, like Garko, and in his very best year had a 123 OPS+.
In today’s game, with more attention paid to secondary numbers and the age curve, Chambliss would have been forced into retirement perhaps eight years sooner. By the start of the 1978 season, he was 29 years old and coming off four years over which he posted a .324 OBP, while averaging about 13 HR.
Much of Chambliss’ reputation is based on a stellar 1977 ALCS performance, but in today’s game, he gets left off the postseason roster and never plays for a contending team again.
by Jay on Sep 23, 2009 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Positional value, of course, but my point is that Chambliss showed greater promise at the age of 22 than Valbuena or Brantley—and as he grew older he never developed into the player he was expected to become. Part of Chambliss rep is also based on his ROY season, as well as the fact he played in the Bronx. (Small point: Chambliss was a better fielder than Garko.)
Interesting thought about whether he could play today. I suspect he would be viewed more strictly, but aren’t there Chamblisses playing today? Mostly in the NL? If you’re right, it means the game has become more enlightened.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ROY is about as dispositive as Silver Slugger.
“Promise” includes defensive value. I’m not saying your basic point is wrong, but don’t be so quick to sell Valbuena short.
I think the importance of OBP is now observed everywhere to some degree, except perhaps Washington and Kansas City.
by Jay on Sep 23, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right about rookie of the year, of course. I’m pointing out that was a part of Chambliss’s reputation, just like playing in the Bronx (talk about dispositive).
I’d like for Valbuena to be great. He’s one of my favorite Indians, and I like his swing. But it is premature to pencil him in for 2000 games.
Hope is the poor man’s bread. Back in the dark days, the Indians rolled out a variety of players who were going to be very good. Most of them weren’t. So I warn against premature (and hopeful) projections.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with the basic message.
It is premature to pencil in Valbuena for 2000 games.
At the same time, Chambliss himself would not get into 2000 games. That was my point.
by Jay on Sep 23, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I saw Garko play too, and I don’t value him. I saw Jack Brohamer play, too, and I’m not saying anything nice about him. I mostly watched Chambliss play for a very good Yankees team in the mid-1970s. As I said above, a .109 OPS+ is actually, incontrovertibly, above average (look it up).
Nobody is setting him on a pedestal, though. It’s more an expression of how far Brantley and Valbuena have to go before they can be considered even average.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is actually, incontrovertibly, below average for non-skill position players.
by Jay on Sep 23, 2009 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but you have to add that category (“non-skill position players”) in order to make your point. You’re defining a subset.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A subset to which Chris Chambliss and Garko both belong.
"But people are stupid, and their memories are short." - FredOx
by woodsmeister on Sep 23, 2009 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are we, or are we not, talking about the overall value and quality of various players?
Offensive skills are irrelevant if not measured against positional value. Absolutely, totally irrelevant.
by Jay on Sep 23, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m talking about OPS+ above 100 being better than average. From THT: “An OPS+ over 100 is better than average, less than 100 is below average.” Slice and dice that statement all you want, but it’s still true.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Go back up to the top, and you’ll find that the point was to define Chambliss as an aspirational figure — “maybe someday” some current Indians will be “as good.”
by Jay on Sep 23, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Valbuena or Brantley are as good as Chambliss, that would be okay. I hope they’re better, but if that’s all they are, it’s better than being Frank Duffy. There are a lot of names in the Baseball Encyclopedia, and most of them were lesser players than Chambliss. The preponderance of players in major-league history are. Through 2005 there have been 16,219 players in major league baseball. Someone who finishes 176th in career doubles is exceptional, if not extraordinary.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Valbuena or Brantley are as good as Chambliss, that would be okay
Only because they are both far more skilled than he is in other aspects of the game. Brantley with a 109 OPS+ adds stolen base value (whatever weight you give that) Valbuena with that OSP+ gives above average defense in the middle infield. Chambliss brings nothing else to the table other than being the Ryan Garko of the 1970’s.
by fwembt on Sep 23, 2009 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chambliss brings nothing else to the table other than being the Ryan Garko of the 1970’s.
Your defiance is admirable, but you’re wrong. The early 1970s were a tougher offensive period. And nowhere in your wildest fantasies will Ryan Garko hit 300+ doubles. Valbuena may have a hard time reaching that figure, and he has some of the best 2B potential on the team.
There were plenty of Ryan Garkos in the 1970s. They sucked, and that’s why you haven’t heard of them.
However you want to spin it, the chances are neither Brantley nor Valbuena will accomplish what Chambliss did.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your ignorance is depressing, but I’m going to try explaining things to you anyway. OPS+ is calculated against other players for that specific time period, be it a year or a career. An OPS+ of 109 for a career from 1969-1982 is the exact same amount above average for that era as an OPS+ of 109 for a career spanning 1996-2009. The final counting and rate stats may look nothing the same, but each player is the same amount above average for his time period.
The bottom line is that an OPS+ of 109 is in and of itself unremarkable. If a player with that number doesn’t boast positional value or bring some other skill set to the table, he’s nothing to get excited about. He is Bernard Gilkey or Ken Harrelson, tied for 650th among players with more than 3000 plate appearances.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 24, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see no reason to be impolite.
Since you are far less ignorant than me, perhaps you would explain something to me. As I understood Jay above (“It’s adjusted for league and era, but only in the sense that it’s normalized to league averages. The movement in league averages doesn’t really tell the whole story as to differences in eras, but that’s all that tends to be used”) these numbers are not strictly comparable from one era to another. Is this not so?
I don’t know why you persist in stating that I am “excited” about Chambliss. He is a slightly above average hitter who played a decent first base. That’s it.
Perhaps he benefited from the ignorance of his era—though I’m not so sure baseball has suddenly discovered that players like Chambliss are actually worthless bums—and perhaps he was lucky to have had such a long career. But not many players have career OPS+ above 100. Simple statement of fact.
Bernard Gilkey had some good years with the Cards in the early 1990s.
by odradek on Sep 24, 2009 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying you’re excited about Chambliss, nor do I intend to be impolite, but it seems like the only way to not see that’s he’s garden variety is to willfully ignore it. He was, for his era, a barely above average hitter who played the least premium defensive position. Forgive my optimism, but I feel like there is reason to hope for more from Val and Brantley.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 24, 2009 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you’re right. I’m more guarded in my optimism. There have been more than 16,000 players in the bigs since 1876. The vast majority of them were not as good as Chambliss. I cite that not to prove CC is a good player, but to indicate the profound rate of failure inherent in the game.
by odradek on Sep 24, 2009 2:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Analytically, that cutoff point is totally arbitrary. There is a range of achievement for ballplayers from little league up through the Hall of Fame. Appeared in one major league game is one logical cutoff point but not a particularly meaningful one.
B-Ref has about 14,000 players since 1901, but only about 8,000 of those are position players — and only about 3,000 reached their 1000th plate appearance.
Only about 1300 hitters have played in 1000 games, a threshold reached this season by Casey Blake, for example. This reflects a player who was an everyday player for at least four or five years. I believe this is a meaningful threshold for discussing a player like Chris Chambliss.
If you’re going to compare everyone to all 16,000 one-time major leaguers, then every retired player that we’ve actually heard of ends up looking really great. Context is all.
by Jay on Sep 24, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chambliss is 176th in career doubles. Even out of 1300 hitters who played 1000 games, that puts him in the 87th percentile. Even in that cohort Chambliss is above average, no?
by odradek on Sep 24, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, only as a pure hitter. A somewhat below-average 1B/DH might still be an above-average hitter. Thus, an above-average hitter can be a below-average player.
Thus, you can’t judge a player’s quality relative to other players by looking only at an offensive number.
Then there is the issue with the counting stats and the playing time. If my hypothesis above is correct, then Chambliss ultimately finishes up with more like 250 career doubles.
On top of which, you’re isolated out the most favorable parameter with which to rate Chambliss against his peers — and it’s not even all that exceptional! He hit about 27 doubles per full season. That isn’t exactly amazing.
I will note, charitably, that he hit 32 or more doubles in four different seasons. Do you know how often a batter hits 32 doubles? Would you believe it’s happened 2,870 times since 1901?
Would you believe it happened 157 times just from 1975 to 1980, when Chambliss was doing it?
Would you believe that over those six seasons — when Chambliss was at his most prodigious as a doubles hitter — other players exceeded his career-best 38 doubles in a season 43 times?
Not sure what point I’m getting at, but maybe this: Even viewed through the most favorable lens, Chambliss presents as an entirely unexceptional player.
by Jay on Sep 24, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, point conceded. I also get the positional thing, too.
I am a big fan of doubles, so I overemphasize them. I don’t know how to do the math, but if something has occurred 2,870 times among X number of people (I don’t know what the proper cohort should be), what is the likelihood someone should have done it four times?
I’m more intrigued with your idea that Chambliss today wouldn’t get the playing time he did in the 1970s, primarily because of greater attention being paid to OBP. This suggests he actually was an overrated player.
Is it possible that baseball people in the 1970s saw something of intrinsic (not false) value among players like Chambliss? That is, is the current thinking somehow faulty in its strict reliance on OBP?
Pitching was better than, right? Three years after lowering the mound. Maybe Chambliss was better than the numbers show. I have a hard time belieiving that if Casey Blake were transported back to 1973 he would be one of the better hitters in the game.
In other words, I find it hard to believe baseball had it wrong for a century until someone figured out ten years ago that OBP mattered more than it seemed.
by odradek on Sep 24, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitching was better then, or more likely, hitting has improved more than pitching since that time. Fifth starters likely have diluted things considerably.
I think Blake would be a good hitter who was considered a mediocre hitter, transported back to those times. In these times, it’s the other way around.
What folks saw in Chambliss was a reasonably good batting average and personality; not much more. Many fans and writers obviously remain very attached to batting average, and people were aware of positional value back then but never really did the math. The fact that Morneau has been an MVP contender more than zero times is evidence that these things still have not really penetrated in many circles.
But they have finally penetrated into front offices. Branch Rickey knew about OBP, and no doubt many others did, too, but it was still counter-cultural to value it over batting average until perhaps ten years ago. I believe that in 25 to 28 current front offices, everyone is aware of it, while perhaps not swearing blind fealty to it.
There is no strict reliance on OBP, however, so there is no point figuring out if there’s a problem with that.
by Jay on Sep 24, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
everything was better in the 60’s & 70’s women/beer/cars/rock&roll and of course a double hitter on a sunny Sunday afternoon.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 24, 2009 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
beer was not better then than it is now.
by Brick. on Sep 24, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
is “double hitter” a drug thing or a sex thing?
by Brick. on Sep 24, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sometimes a little of both
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 24, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s not discount Chambliss’s defense too much. He was difinitely better with the glove than Garko and Hafner and arguably better than Vic.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 24, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Arguably vetter than Vic? Really? I don’t know what kind of argument you have, but it should be a good one.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 24, 2009 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well Chambliss does have more of the coveted Gold Gloves than Vic does.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 24, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That sounds right. One final question: If a 22-year-old Chris Chambliss played with the Tribe next season, would be put up numbers equivalent to what he did in the 1970s? I guess that’s what I’m trying to figure out.
by odradek on Sep 24, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure that he’d put up better numbers than Andy Marte.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 25, 2009 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s because they’d pinch-hit him for Marte.
by peter m on Sep 25, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that he would. I think he’d be about league average. It’s possible that he’d get eaten up by aggressive modern AL pitching, but that’s really tough to say.
The interesting thing about Chambliss is that he never really got any better than he was at 22. He posted a 749 OPS, which is also his career OPS.
by Jay on Sep 25, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better than Jhonny, who got worse after he turned 24.
by afh4 on Sep 25, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bernard Gilkey THE ICE CREAM MAN!
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
by emd2k3 on Sep 24, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But a first baseman with an OPS+ of 100 and a shortstop with an OPS+ of 100 have immensely different values. That has to be taken in to consideration.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 23, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
guess there needs to be an OPS++. can’t there just be a “Baseball Goodness Number” so that people can stop looking at context?
Garko’s BGN is 77.
by Brick. on Sep 23, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve been an Indian’s fan since ‘53 so I know where Chuck is coming from. While I can’t think of anything more depressing than trying to identify, then justify, the worst Indian’s teams in the last 50 years, there is something about this year’s season that has depressed me more than just about any other season in the last 50 or so years (granted, it’s hard to feel worse than I felt when Herb Score was smashed in the eye or Colavito was traded).
Last season and this season combined have made me face facts I’ve tried to avoid – maybe this is as good as it gets: we’re a small market team playing in a struggling rust belt city, playing a sport that favors the wealthy teams. Clever can take you only so far, and now I’m not even sure our organization is that clever.
If you believe it's just a game, you're also probably wondering why Santa keeps skipping your house every year.
by LeftyCatcher on Sep 22, 2009 1:01 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
I think what make it so hard for guys like Chuck and me is that we have waited a life time for the 1994-2001 Indians, and now we may never see them field a championship team again. In the past we have seen good prospects come up that builds up our hopes, to only see them traded away for more prospects, and I know that it is because of economics in Cleveland, but I do not see this changing until the owners and players wake up to the fact that they are killing the game.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2009 1:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Prediction: 2009 is the Indians lowpoint for the next 10 years.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 22, 2009 1:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
our position player are one thing our pitching is another alot of years between Perry and CC.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do Perry and C.C. have to do with anything? Did we win anything with Gaylord Perry?
It’s great if you can develop an elite pitcher, but what a team really needs is depth of merely good pitching.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
by the way, did you get my email from last week?
by talonk on Sep 22, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but a ace would help, some say that is why we did not win it all from 1995-2001.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Some” are mistaken. The Braves had three or four aces every season, and they “won it all” one time in 14 tries.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In 1995, the Indians led the American League in pitching with an ERA of 3.83 (ERA+ of 122). In 1996, they once again led the American League in ERA (4.34, ERA+ of 113). 1997 – 9th (and were within one out of winning it all). 1998, 5th. 1999 – 6th. 2000 – 7th. 2001 – 9th.
"But people are stupid, and their memories are short." - FredOx
by woodsmeister on Sep 22, 2009 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two things: (1) Don’t pass judgment on the Tribe’s future by looking at the current major league rotation; and (2) having a Cy Young winner is hardly a guarantee of success. I think the last player to get that trophy and a ring in the same season was in 2001. Of the last 9 WS champions, only 4 had a pitcher that had ever won a Cy Young Award, and a couple of those were pretty far removed from their glory days.
by FredOx on Sep 22, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which “future” are we talking about? ‘10, ’11’ 12. Which future?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I voted for 2011, but it doesn’t actually matter to the larger point, which is that one shouldn’t look at the current rotation in trying to determine whether 2009 is a low point or the beginning of an even larger decline.
by FredOx on Sep 22, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man, we can’t possibly decline any more. My heart wouldn’t stand it.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes we could …. we could decline down to that 1971 team
by talonk on Sep 22, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good point you do not need a Cy Young but I’m not seeing anyone that I would call a good #3 starter, maybe couple will develop into good pitcher or maybe they will not. But until they do we have a staff of #4 and #5 starters.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just for grins, check out Bartolo Colon‘s stats as he emerged on the scene. Now, I didn’t know you back in ‘97 (not that I do now), but I don’t think, if you’re honest with yourself, you would have been calling him a future ace based on his first experience in the bigs. I’m not saying that CC or Masterson or anyone else on the staff right now is going to post a year next year like Colon did in ’98, just that it pays to be mindful of the jump a young pitcher can make between when he showed up and his first full season.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 22, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes they can, but most do not, I would love nothing more than to be wrong and the team contends before 2012
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weather we have a good core of young hitters to build around or not, we still have no clear ace, nor do we have a good bullpen. The front office has already said they won’t be willing to spend money, so how do we plan on fixing those situations?
Right now this is what next years rotation would look like:
“Ace”- Carmona
2- Laffey
3- Huff
4- Sowers
5- Westbrook/Carasco/Barnes/Reyes/Rondon
*This is in no specific order *
by ClevelandCrazy29 on Sep 22, 2009 5:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Who might be our “Ace” going into next season.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 22, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he could, if he starts getting lh hitters out, until then I do not see it.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My guess is that their first step to fix the situation was to acquire 9 pitching prospects before the trade deadline (which excludes Pino.) Yes, they are working at it, and no, they are not finished.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 22, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t see how anyone can say Pino isn’t a prospect. A great prospect? No, but he is a real prospect.
So, that’s 10 pitching prospects, plus Masterson.
Having said that, nobody is going to emerge as an ace next season. The hope is that an ace may emerge over the course of the next three seasons among Rondon, Hagadone, Knapp, De La Cruz — and maybe even Carmona.
Among those who don’t become aces, one or two of those may become Very Good Starters, along with (potentially) Laffey, Masterson, Carrasco, Huff, Pino, Gomez, Barnes and Graham.
They have a lot of candidates for guys who could form a very good rotation, but nobody who is expected to shine as soon as next season. That’s how I see it.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t mean to exclude Pino, I had just used the July 31st trading deadline as a cutoff point for my tally.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 22, 2009 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and also, I agree which is why I like the strength in numbers approach they are taking.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 22, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And a healthy Westbrook is really probably our #2 starter.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
More like #1
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I thought about that after I posted. What are the chances he is the opening day starter?
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure Shap has said he is the opening day starter if healthy. I haven’t heard anything about his recovery lately, but your question is totally health reliant. (unless the new manager or new acquisition changes things)
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 22, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well if he is healthy I think he is the only one halfway deserving of it.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guess what? He’s currently not healthy!
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, Einstein.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and pencil in Adam Miller for the rotation, too. Plenty of people around here were sure Jake would be back in the first week in June 2009.
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a more than a bit ridiculous.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A healthy Adam Miller might be a good pitcher too. How about a talented Tomo Ohka?
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guess what? It’s not currently Opening Day!
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 22, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a certainty Jake will be awesome come April 4. I don’t understand such unwarranted optimism. Unwarranted pessimism, I can relate to as an Indians fan and a Clevelander. But this sort of pollyannish blissfulness is better suited to Cubs fans.
Where does it say that we are assured a future free of doubt and worry?
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Number one or number two starter sounds pretty good to me, even on a lousy team. JW will not have pitched in the bigs in nearly two years. Does that sound like a reasonable number-two starter?
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 22, 2009 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It does happen, but I don’t think this one is strictly comparable. Carpenter had shoulder surgery in September 2002, and missed all of 2003. In 2004 he pitched well, but had only 28 starts and missed the postseason. He came back strong in 2005. Jake will have to build up arm strength, and will have gone longer than Carpenter without pitching.
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I seem to remember him doing some pitching in the minors this year.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not enough to help, and he was still hurting. He’s starting over when he next pitches in spring (unless he pitches in winter ball).
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Starting over sure, but that is about 2 months of throwing a baseball, pain or no pain.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 23, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe. Hard to get more than 120 innings out of him, though.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps, but I see that as a “we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it”. I would love for this to become a problem, because that would mean we need more innings from him because we’re in contention and he’s pitching well.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 23, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s one possibility. The other is desperation.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is planning to pitch in winter ball as per today’s Plain Dealer.
by fwembt on Sep 23, 2009 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can you say he’s starting over? He’s already got his first two or three setbacks out of the way.
by Jay on Sep 23, 2009 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, good point. He might even be ahead of schedule in that regard.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’re going nowhere with him for the next two or three years, why not use his value to prepare for 2011/2013?
Hmm, yet it would appear over half of LGTers think we will compete in 2011 or sooner. And if you throw out the 10% currently in “Not in your lifetime category” as the true outliers they are, the amount increases. Not using this as a case that I’m right, but definitely using it to show you that you’re in the minority.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 6:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m shocked – SHOCKED -to discover I’m in the minority in advocating trading a LGT darling for prospects.
No, I expected the push-back re:Sizemore. What I’m really interested in is the general consensus as to when we’d be back in the Hunt. My guess is next to impossible in ’10, something less than 10% in ’11, 20-40% in ’12 and 50-50 in ’13.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sarcasm aside, I still just think you’re wrong, on both accounts. But whatever, potato-potahto.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gee, where were you last week when I was advocating trading Choo?
by talonk on Sep 22, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s not go back to last week.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is Sizemore an “LGT darling” by any stretch of the imagination?
I think you will find more support for trading him for prospects here than on any other website.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wanna do a poll?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How would that poll even work? “Do you like Sizemore?” Really, even if no one answers “no”, because they won’t, it doesn’t make him a darling. Marte probably qualifies for that title before Grady does.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How’s this:
Are you in favor of trading Grady for any organizations’s #1, #3 and #5 prospect?
How’s that?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How much more vague can you be? Any organization’s 1 3 5 may not be prospects we need or really want, depending on the system. I don’t see the point of this.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we could trade him to Oakland for their best 5 or 6 prospects . . .
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 22, 2009 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I figured it’d get our minor league experts in a tizzy. You’d hafta be nuts to trade 3 of your top 5 prospects for Sizemore. Ya think that a backwards club like Baltimore would trade us Chris Tilman, Matt Wieters and Brian Matusz for Sizemore? Hell, they’d be crazy to make that trade and we’d be even dumber to turn it down.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 23, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on, Jay. Grady Sizemore Top Five Player? Grady gets more love here than perhaps any other player.
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Either I haven’t been paying attention or I can count a handful of players that get more attention than Grady on here.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grady may be overrated here, but he’s rated even more highly elsewhere.
Any Indians fan would resist trading Grady, but the cohort here in general is going to be much more open to the potential benefits of a trade. Vastly more open, in fact.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I agree with that. Overrated, but less so here than elsewhere.
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And who are LGT darlings? Marte, of course. LaPorta? A lot of minor leaguers, for sure.
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure I see the point of all this antagonism.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No antagonism intended. I’m just asking who are LGT darlings. Such things do exist, and I’m musing over who they would be. The list of anti-darlings is pretty easy.
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess Marte would qualify. Valbuena. Choo.
I think the view of various players here is more sober than you may think. We allow ourselves to be enthusiastic about young players and prospects, but that’s because it’s fun to be enthusiastic about them. And deeply enjoying a player is not the same thing as overrating him.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This sounds about right. Baboo among a select group perhaps?
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a great example. We enjoy him immensely, but we know what he is. Sal Fasano, too.
For other players, we enjoy a more even mix of their intangible qualities and their objective playing ability — our enthusiasm is a blend.
We like Nick Weglarz; he’s a fine prospect. We enjoy the idea of Nick Weglarz. His youth, his power potential, his Canadianness.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s what we’re all aboot.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 23, 2009 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Carroll is a good example. Choo I’m not so sure he’s overrated here. He’s a real player.
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was assembled in a lab. 2 parts looker, 1 part ballplayer.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 23, 2009 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coming in to this season Grady was legitimately considered one of the 5-10 best players in baseball. By many knowledgable baseball people, not just Indians fans and not just on LGT. That’s not overrating him. Now, of course, his bad season this year knocks him down some notches, but maybe that was just because of injuries and he bounces back next year. Or maybe not, and he took a sudden and unexpected fall. But that doesn’t change the fact that he was definitely one of the 5-10 best players in baseball coming in to this season (when we had that “Grady is overrated discussion”). Plenty of non-Indians fans back that up — it’s not Indians fandom bias. Grady led the AL in VORP last year — as a centerfielder! What more evidence do you need?
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 22, 2009 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brad, I don’t want to revisit the Grady dispute—and I’m sure you don’t, either—but a Sporting News poll in May of this season had him twelfth. My exception is to the assertion expressed earlier that he is a top-five player. I’m not saying he sucks. I’m saying he is somewhat overrated here, which is understandable among fans of the Cleveland Indians.
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sorry, but the people voting in that poll don’t understand how to value baseball players. I know they’re former players and writers and such, but these are the same people who judge players based on RBI and W-L record. After all, Manny Ramirez is fourth in that poll. Fourth!?! Do you really expect me to take that seriously?
There are many, many intelligent baseball writers and fans who would rate Grady at or near the top 5 (prior to this season) who are NOT Indians fans. That’s my point. You seem to think it’s only Indians fans who feel that way, and that’s just wrong.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 22, 2009 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only a select few teams in baseball have that low of a chance of making the playoffs two years out. I have news for you, we aren’t one of them.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 22, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pirates, Royals..
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Reds. Ah. That’s how I know when someone isn’t a baseball fan around here. They tell me I’m better off rooting for the Reds, like somehow that’s acceptable since I’m from Ohio and they are somehow light years ahead.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate the Reds finishing ahead of us this year.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you don’t even live in Columbus. Yeah, it is embarrassing after all the off-season hype about how the Indians would contend for them to fall so far as to finish behind the Reds.
"But people are stupid, and their memories are short." - FredOx
by woodsmeister on Sep 23, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d include Orioles and Jays just because of their competition in the division.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 22, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Orioles could run into one, though maybe they’re only good for 10%. They have some talent coming.
by odradek on Sep 22, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wedgism-rec.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 22, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m talking pennant contender, not the Tigers or Twins of this year, mere cannon fodder for the eventual champ.
You can book mark this post and beat me over the head with it if you wish, come mid-October.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 22, 2009 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The TIgers or Twins of this year are cannon fodder, but so were the 1997 Indians and the 2006 Cardinals.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
because we came so close
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The whole point is that we could have won, but coming into the postseason that year, that club is what Chuck would have called “cannon fodder.”
Incidentally, I basically agree with Chuck. I have no great enthusiasm for sending a club to the playoff’s with the 10th or 12th best record in the game.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Make the playoffs, you’ve got a shot. The closest we came in the 90’s was with the worst Indians playoff team of that decade.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 22, 2009 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably the worst Indians playoff team ever. I think there have only been 10.
by Jay on Sep 22, 2009 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
See now, that would be a much better discussion than the worst 10 teams over the last 50 years.
Of course, you would be correct about 1997.
by talonk on Sep 22, 2009 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
See I already won the “argument” We’re not comparing this year’s club to the Indians of 1920, or ‘48 or even the ’54 Tribe. We’re comparing this sorry lot to the ‘71, ’91 and ’85 clubs. That’s about the level they’re at – not ’40 or ’95 or ’97.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 23, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
cmon chuck, you didnt win any argument here today. You just spouted off your opinion (which is ok). Just don’t get riled up when people disagree with you.
I stand by my statement that you cannot just compare the 2009 club from Aug 1 of this year to any other full year squad. You are trying to compare a team of 55 games to full seasons of 154-162. That isn’t a fair comparison and you know it.
Why not compare these last two months to the first two of last season (when we tanked it with Vic and Hafner gone) or to any other 45 game chunk when we went 15-30. That is a more fai comparison.
As bad as we are playing right now, we will not surpass that weak 1971 team. You cannot convince me of that.
by talonk on Sep 23, 2009 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, this is nowhere near what you originally said.
by fwembt on Sep 23, 2009 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
What’s the title of this post? Worst Indians Team of All Time? No, that’s a side issue. What I asked and polled was, “When will the Tribe compete for a pennant?”
So maybe they’re better than the ‘71 Indians – maybe, but ya gotta admit it’s close. Or maybe they’re better than the ‘85 club. I don’t believe that, but say it’s true. Of all the awful clubs we’ve discussed here – and there’s a lot of material to work with – none of them – none, zero, zilch, oogatz - got back into contention in less than three years. And for most it took decades before they were rebuilt.
I think it’ll take at least three years for us to be taken seriously and then we’re gonna need some luck. But three years – minimum.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 23, 2009 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are a few different questions that speak to your ultimate question, i.e., how far away are we from contending.
The first question is, how bad is the team currently on the field? So we’ve debated that a lot.
The second question is, how much is the current group of players likely to improve over the medium term? I think we all know that’s tough to answer, but I don’t know that we’ve even tried to make a serious projection.
The third question is, what kind of shape is our farm system in, and how much can it contribute to contention at the big-league level, and how soon?
The fourth question is, is the club being managed by people who can leverage what resources we have effectively?
by Jay on Sep 23, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The second question is, how much is the current group of players likely to improve over the medium term? I think we all know that’s tough to answer, but I don’t know that we’ve even tried to make a serious projection.
This to me is biggest part of the equation. Remember when Jhonny was going to get awesomer and awesomer and Carmona was Cy Young-in waiting? How depressing it has been to see such promise squandered. The failure of continued development from talented youth is quite a blemish on the management. (From Wedge on up.)
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
by emd2k3 on Sep 23, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that is a problems we as fans have, we always think that if a player has a good year, he will continue to get better and better, most of the time that is not true.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 23, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’ve said much better what I’ve been trying to say.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
on my keyboard, the L is next to the T. true story.
by Brick. on Sep 23, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m curious what you answers would be to your questions.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 23, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Surrealism rec.
"But people are stupid, and their memories are short." - FredOx
by woodsmeister on Sep 23, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The promise of youth on this team is CLEARLY light years ahead of the1985 team.
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
by emd2k3 on Sep 23, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
let’s hope so if not we will not contend until 2018
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 23, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I would have been ok with it had they won.
by fwembt on Sep 23, 2009 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
after watching tonights game I want to change my vote to Not in mauichuck’s lifetime
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 24, 2009 12:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Coda:
Here’s what I’ve learned from my little poll:
Over half of you knuckle heads think that the Tribe will be back in the play-offs in two years or less, another fifth think that it will take only three and less than a fourth of us think that it will take longer than three years. That and when the strength of the Indians play-off chances and the quality of the current club are question you guys go after the Doubting Thomas like a she wolf protecting her cubs. So despite all of the New Age/OPS/Bill James BS you guys are much like – no make that exactly like – the Old School Tribe Faithful.
Frankly, I’m proud of you boyz. Pig-headed, cantankerous, irrationally optimistic, argumentative – just like the guys I usta sit with down at old Municipal Stadium in late September shivering under a cold drizzle watching the Tribe drop both ends of a double-header to the A’s and arguing about who was better: Chris Chambliss or Tony Horton. See that’s another thing about baseball: the more things seem to change, the more they stay the same.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 25, 2009 6:57 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
You know, I’m oddly sort of proud about this.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 25, 2009 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would just simply say, in the AL Central, anything is possible.
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
by emd2k3 on Sep 25, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You spelled “boys” wrong.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 25, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, i’m glad I caught ya. Back in ‘07, before you were around I think, I was on an absolute glassy-eyed rampage about the Indians chances in the play-offs . Here’s a sample,
BTW, if you’re gonna correct my spelling, you’re gonna hafta post more.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 25, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh well, I guess he left.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 26, 2009 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was tongue in cheek, as I’m assuming you know how to spell certain words and instead intentionally present them as you do to create a certain “feel” in your posts. I was around then, but not registered or posting because of the dial-up connection with which I am saddled. Be Rad finally pulled me into the fray this year.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 26, 2009 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No rec’s for this post yet? Fixed.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Sep 26, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What a weird story Tony Horton was.. Another sui generis Indians phenom.
by odradek on Sep 26, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was his story similar to Jimmy Piersall?
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Sep 26, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
KInda. Pierdsall played longer – he was a Red Sox before he was an Indian – and ended up in therapy for bipolar disorder and/or maniac depression. Horton was depressed also but alcohol contributed to his demise. Also! Horton was gone the time he was 25 and Piersall played until he was 37.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 26, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coincidentally, another Indian. Not quite as public or abrupt as Piersall. I remember them more as a severe case of the yips. Performance anxiety.
by odradek on Sep 26, 2009 4:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He didn’t hit the reply button. Pretty sure this was in response to KMW up thread about two posts.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 26, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
