Fire Everyone! - Larry Dolan
by afh4 on Sep 7, 2009 2:10 PM EDT
in Analysis
Email
PrintThis is the first installment in a 12-part series.
Larry Dolan purchased the Cleveland Indians in 2000 for $323 million dollars; for his trouble, he has watched the Indians advance to the playoffs just twice, a sharp contrast to the five consecutive playoff appearances that preceded his purchase of the team. On the surface, Mr. Dolan appears to be a near perfect fit for the ownership of the club: born in Cleveland Heights, he graduated from St. Ignatius and has lived and worked in northern Ohio for the majority of his adult life. At the very least, it's clear that Dolan purchased the Indians not simply because he wanted to own a baseball team but because he wanted to own a baseball team in Ohio. I'm sure no one needs to be reminded that this is an exceedingly salient point in any discussion of small-market ownership.
Despite these marks on the positive side of the ledger, it's time to take everyone to task. It's now been nine years of the Dolan Era and the returns have hardly been encouraging. Is it time to fire Larry Dolan?
- We sent a rational human being to do a raving lunatic's job.
Dolan is, by all accounts, a highly capable lawyer and businessman of high intelligence. I'm sure he can adequately perform some rudimentary risk analysis and I'm also relateively sure he can balance a bank book. That is, frankly, a bad thing. In baseball's current economic climate, which is not yet on trial, the owner of a small market team can only guarantee his team's success by behaving in ways that are wholly financially irrational. If Dolan wants to compete more than twice every decade, he ought to give up the ghost on this measured approach that he and Shapiro are peddling and go out and purchase a handful of all-stars. There's no guarantee that you'll win a world series but there's always a chance that you'll get a chance to rip the heart out of a squad of hometown stars from some sleepy hamlet.
- An entire organization has been infected with the disease of ferociously wrong-headed loyalty and it came from the top.
Fans of the Cleveland Indians' became acclimated to immediate success throughout the late 1990's. The perception is that nearly every signing or trade that the Peters/Hart era executed returned immediate dividends and there's more than a grain of truth to that. It's easy to say that the previous regime was blessed with some luck at the beginning and were able to parlay that into financial flexibility at the end. It might be more accurate to say that Peters and Hart showed Dolan, and everyone else, exactly how perfect a front office had to be in order to build a winner in a place like Cleveland. You can't whiff in trades, free agency or the draft, at least not very often. As soon as it became clear that Shapiro had holes in his swing (namely free agent position players and the draft) Dolan should've been making moves to suck Shapiro's knoweldge out of his skull and replace him. If your GM isn't near perfect at the beginning of a small market rebuild then you simply can't build a consistent winner and Shapiro was imperfect from the beginning, evidenced by the Alomar trade and the draft classes in 2001 (supposedly Shapiro's handiwork), 2002 and 2003.
Fine, though, it's understandable to give Shapiro, a holdover from the Hart regime, a number of free passes at the beginning of his tenure. Indeed, this loyalty seemed to be rewarded when the Indians burst onto the scene in 2005, exactly ten years after the last great Cleveland dynasty had emerged. However, the Indians' inability to consistently contend since that point (the late, great team of 2007 notwithstanding), all while everyone involved in the Cleveland front office and coaching staff seemingly stood around and told each other how great a job they were doing, has become simply unpalatable. Now, just four years on from what should've been the return of winning baseball to the shores of Erie, the Indians are entering another rebuilding process, largely because Dolan was so loyal to Shapiro and his methodologies that the GM was infused with the hubris to not make changes when things weren't working.
Perhaps Shapiro deserved Dolan's loyalty all along but the confidence in him created a culture in which everyone seemed totally confident in everyone else: Shapiro was supremely confident in Eric Wedge, Eric Wedge was supremely confident in David Dellucci and ESPN pundits were supremely confident that the Indians were contenders. The only person who didn't inspire confidence was Luis Isaac but, no worries, Chuck Hernandez made everyone feel supremely confident, again.
- Attempts were made to create stability above all else, a foundation on which the Indians can't afford to build.
There has been a grave miscalculation on the part of both Dolan and Shapiro as to just how small the margin of error is for a small market team in this era of baseball as opposed to any other and just how agile the organization must be in order to compete. The values that the Indians have adhered to since Dolan's purchase and that were assumedly coming from the top, things like stability and loyalty to both players and coaches, are the values of an old guard, old money breed of baseball. They are the sorts of things that the Yankees and Red Sox can talk about a lot because they don't have to worry about outfoxing the Yankees and Red Sox.
The Indians ought to have been more willing to be impulsive and even rash, to take bigger risks, whether they be firing a manager fifteen games into a season or deficit spending more significantly in order to patch over the holes in the 2006, 2008 or 2009 rosters or paying Ozzie Guillen a bunch of money to come to town or finally sitting David Dellucci down for good or having five games a year where tickets only cost a dollar. The only chance to consistently compete on the field or at the box office without matching Boston's payroll is to be so far ahead of the curve as to be pushing the boundaries of what is even socially acceptable. I understand that doesn't sound like a particularly rational approach or like a particularly appealing business model but this is the world into which Dolan purchased.
When you try to run a highly professional/stable organization, it makes it unacceptable to do something that might come across as unfair or somehow uncouth. This has never been better exemplified than by the outrage that local columnists expressed over the firing of Luis Isaac; Hoynes et al were just parroting what Dolan's regime had told them about the importance of a guy like Luis Isaac, of the human element, of keeping your friends close. In reality, moves like firing Luis Isaac ought to have been routine; the Indians should've been doing things far more incomprehensible every season, things that bloggers couldn't get their heads around, to the point that local columnists wouldn't express anything but a shrug over Isaac's dismissal and perhaps a comment to others in the press box: "What are they doing in there?" Dolan should've been cultivating a culture of mad scientists not one of polo shirts, pleated khakis and fanny packs.
To distill: Mr. Dolan, the perception of your team by both fans, analysts and industry professionals is one of steady-handedness, nearly computerized decision making and a maddening level of dittoheading surrounding terms like professionalism, integrity and loyalty. In short, it appears that you tried to run what amounts to a mom and pop operation like a Fortune 500 company. That's not going to work. If you're bringing a knife to a gunfight, the only way you win is if everyone else thinks you're insane. You're the Continental Army not the British: don't you get that?
319 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This post made me think of an interesting article by Joe Posnanski last week about the Royals (and other small-market teams) who are constantly losing. He said they need to be more unconventional because they just can’t compete doing things the same as the big-money teams. He thinks that the management of those teams are too concerned about looking “professional” rather than trying unconvential things (which may not work and thus could be embarassing).
He mentioned that Bill James had an idea for a small-market team — stop going after pitchers who threw above 90 mph. Spend all your money and all your time and energy trying to find pitchers who throw in the 80’s but have good stuff. Of course you won’t hit on all of them, or even most of them, but if you find a few who would normally have been overlooked then you can develop a good pitching staff. The thinking is that every team goes after the pitcher throwing in the 90’s, of course, so they’re much harder to get and cost more money. That was just one idea Bill James had. Now, he of course said he doesn’t know that this will work, but it’s an idea that some team could possibly try.
Joe goes in to much more detail in his blog (of course) and has some other examples — get a lineup of all switch-hitters or find a great defensive player at every position — but the idea was that teams like the Royals, Pirates, Reds, Indians, etc. need to think unconventionally to compete with the big boys. Much like what Billy Beane did with the A’s a decade ago. He thinks too many teams try to look professional and do the same thing every other team is doing, and that just won’t work. And we’ve seen that in Cleveland, as you said.
Huh. Pos said it a lot better than I could’ve.
I will say that I think Dolan/Shapiro have a slightly different problem then Dayton Moore: Shapiro didn’t simply try to do what the big market teams do (get into FA and get some power pitching, power hitting), he tried to game the system in terms of player acquisition, just as he should have.
I think the larger point, though, is that teams like the Royals, Indians etc do need to throw aside the entire mantle of “professionalism” whether that means being more willing to try something like a lineup of switch hitters or simply being open to the value of being different and a little bit nuts.
Beane is really the case study for this and, frankly, it’s not like he’s been all that great in the last five years. However, I admire Beane’s willingness to dismiss managers whenever they no longer serve his needs: he views most things, it seems, from a perspective of results not of relationships or “accepted practice.” I think the Indians could learn from that perspective.
I’ll also tack on that I think the problem extends significantly beyond player acquisition strategies. I’ve never understood why a small market team wasn’t more willing to go “minor league” with their promotions. What is the harm in running things a bit more like Veeck would’ve?
I would think the press you’d get off having a section of “$1.00 tickets” for a late season game in a season like this would be more than worth the losses.
If you’re gonna be unconventional – be unconventional. Find out what Posnanski and James would do, and then do exactly the opposite.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Despite his substantial influence, James cannot really be considered conventional just yet.
I mean, just ask Brandon Phillips about OBP.
by Jay on Sep 7, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Bill James is a correspondent for the Red Sox, a team that has won 2 WS since he joined the org and nearly made a third.
He’s an analyst, not a correspondent. I doubt they employ correspondents.
by Jay on Sep 7, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions
“And now back to Bill James, embedded behind front office lines…”
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 7, 2009 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions
This is like the Goth kids. Let’s be different – let’s all wear the same clothes and listen to the same music, etc., etc. So you think that all of the James dogma is somehow unconventional? Dude, that’s so 2004.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
What is “all of the James dogma”? This isn’t about using OBP and more advanced stats. The things he was talking about in that article are very unconventional — they’re things that no other team has tried, and they having really nothing to do with the kind of advanced stats that James is famous for. So I’m not really sure what your point is. Did you read that blog post by Posnanski? Did any of that sound conventional to you?
Honestly, I don’t care if it’s conventional or not. I don’t care whats stats, scouting, or psychological profiling James uses. Bottom line is that he has directly helped the Red Sox win.
OK, let’s pattern ourselves after a team with a $100M payroll – that’s seems appropriate.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You are adept at labeling me into categories that oppose your viewpoint that on the surface make me look foolish, when in reality none of it has been anything I have expressed.
Wait, Roger, weren’t you the one who was touting Bill James based on his association with the Red Sox?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You still haven’t answered my question — did you even read that post about Bill and Joe’s ideas? It doesn’t seem so from any of your comments, because you are completely misintepreting what the post was about. How do you consider “don’t sign any pitchers who throw faster than 90 mph” not unconventional?
There’s a key distinction between tying him to a winning team with a large payroll and claiming that his abilities will work without modificationfor our different market. If you can’t see the distinction then you’re just being willfully ignorant.
Let’s get back to the actual discussion, which started out very promising. I would think that teams don’t have any marketing data points for how many tickets you would sell with $1 seats. You’d have to sell the place out or you’d lose money, I would think. How do you value to the PR you’d get? If you create a culture of novelty, that would probably sell tickets to normal games, too.
As a results-oriented boob, I thought you would be a fan of James given his success with the Sox. At no point did I say the Indians should emulate the Red Sox since I do understand the differences in resources.
Gabe Paul was a hellova GM – in New York. Not so much in Cleveland.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
When I saw “ova” in your post, it made me think of eggs. Gabe Paul did things in Cleveland that would have been stupid in any city, regardless of market size. That’s why his teams lost here.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Because he didn’t make stupid moves there like he did in Cleveland.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Nope, cuz he had the Yankee money behind him. Hell with the payroll differences, the Yankees should never ever lose a pennant – never.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You’re right Chuck, the Yanks GM doesn’t need to make good decisions because he has lots of money. The bottom line is, Paul made fewer stupid decisions in NY – or at least his ratio was better – than he did in Cleveland, and that’s why they won. I won’t deny that money helped.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Our payroll is actually a lot closer to $100 million than the Red Sox payroll.
by Jay on Sep 7, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Most of the comments so far are about whether the front office chose players well or poorly (with the obvious exception of Andrew’s). I don’t think that’s really Dolan’s job. His job is to bankroll the team, to choose the guys who choose the players as well as the guys who market the product, and to make sure the guys he’s chosen are effective and accountable. To me, the point Jay makes about loyalty raises questions about how well Dolan has done on the last point. I also don’t think the Indians have done a great job marketing their product (either locally, where they’ve lost “market share” to the appallingly bad Browns and to the Cavaliers, or nationally, where Indians players and merchandise aren’t popular).
If you’re going to “fire” Dolan, it would have to be for those two reasons, I think.
By the way, it would be interesting to investigate at what point people began discussing team owners as if they held a “position” from which they could be “fired!”
Pretty sure the idea of “firing” him here is just a thought experiment.
Fire everyone! is just an amusing way of exploring who’s responsible for the mess.
For the record, I wrote the original piece. I don’t want Jay to get burdened with defending my ill formed opinions.
I think we’ll make more money in Up and Coming Columbus than Flat on Its Ass Cleveland.
Yeah, I guess the Cardinals should move too. Maybe they could move to Miami; that’s an up and coming town with a growing population that likes baseball. Bet they’d sell the park out down there!
I’m probably introducing nuance where it doesn’t belong, but a large part of the problem with the Marlins is that they play in a stadium located halfway between Miami and Ft. Lauderdale. If you live in Miami, a 7:05 game requires you to leave the city in rush hour traffic; in south Florida, that’s a huge consideration. When the Marlins inevitably left that site, the best place for them to go wasn’t Las Vegas or Portland or Virginia. It was downtown Miami.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 7, 2009 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions
If you’re bringing a knife to a gunfight, the only way you win is if everyone else thinks you’re insane. You’re the Continental Army not the British: don’t you get that?
That sums it all up for me. The only time the “little guy” really has a chance at winning is when he does things to increase his chances that the “big guy” is unwilling to do. Whether that is sign nothing but soft-tossers or to let the paid attendees vote on the lineup via text message two hours before the game starts, you’ve got to be willing to do something that will make you look like an idiot if it doesn’t work. Just ask Boise State. Or Oklahoma.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
If you’re bringing a knife to a gunfight, the only way you win is if everyone else thinks you’re insane. You’re the Continental Army not the British: don’t you get that?
So, I guess it’s time for unpaid furloughs (“it’s like a vacation, Kerry”) and rationing (“only one firecake for you, Kelly”)?
These are the times that try men’s souls.
by still ill on Sep 7, 2009 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is staggering. Usually when anyone suggests something unconventional or outside the box on LGT everyone gets all bristly. (Care to see my wounds?)
If you believe it's just a game, you're also probably wondering why Santa keeps skipping your house every year.
I’m a bit bristly. I’m all for playing around at the edges, but the idea that something was fundamentally wrong with the team and we should start trying a bunch of crazy, short-term ideas doesn’t sit well. The Indians are unusually committed to stability, maybe overly so. But they’re are plenty of examples team in baseball and the other major sports with short attention spans (we’ve got the hot manager, nope now he’s cold – fire him!, use the wildcat, 2-7-2 defense, two point guards, no point guards, run and shoot, blah blah blah). We could have had 5 managers over the last 5 years, and tried to throw a bunch of weird strategies at the wall…and I think it’s likely we would have missed 2007.
The problem isn’t going away – how do you project future player performance? But we don’t get anywhere by throwing out all we’ve learned. I love Joe Pos’ crazy ideas. I would love to see them – see them tried by the Royals and the Pirates and those garbage organizations. For the Tribe, I want more competitive seasons, not less. We don’t need to play the lottery.
Mostly I’m bothered by the accusation that the Shapiro and co are interested in their reputation and not winning. I think that’s a total fallacy, based on fan frustration. It’s pure cleveland.com bunk. If it’s true, they should be fired, today. During the game. But I hear frustration from Shapiro.
I don’t think ShapiroCo focused on professionalism and integrity because they were concerned about their reputations. I think they did it because they thought it was a way to create an organization that could compete consistently. I don’t think it worked.
I also don’t think they’re quite as plodding as I’ve made them out to be here; they are now, apparently, going to make some changes and they also made the Wood signing.
I think an unstated point here is that whatever advantage the Indians might find for even a year is gobbled up immediately by smart front offices all over the league, just as the Indians gobble up other people’s good ideas. I think they’ve got to work harder to use more new ideas and new methods each season, whether they be in the overtalked player acquisition or in marketing, accounting, medical whatever.
To put another way, I think the Indians ought to be doing a number of things that are totally unique each year if they want to compete consistently. I don’t see how they can win, on the field or at the box office, without doing so.
by afh4 on Sep 7, 2009 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
To show just how off the deep end I can get with this, you can dig up threads where I defended some of Dayton Moore’s offseason acquisitions essentially because I was wishing that he was doing something like this.
Moves that looked insane but reflected internal scouting data that we didn’t have access to and would make him look like a genius. Clearly, that’s not the case but I do think small market need to be making true What the…?" moves more consistently. We’ve got to find Raul Ibanez on the regular, not receive praise for the ‘safety’ of Dellucci.
Yeah, I guess Dayton Moore is my point. It’s the coolest when a head-scratching move works, but usually it doesn’t, and people forget.
Was Dellucci a safe move? Was it much different than DeRosa? (it was certainly longer, which may be the key) I’m confused if going after mid-30’s medium value players is low risk or high risk.
Anyway, fine I’ll try an idea – let’s increase our number of spring NRIs, and hold open a spot on the bench and at the end of the bullpen. Say to scrapheap “at least two of you will make the team.”
Kenny Williams would be a better example of someone who’s been successful with head-scratchers. But his payroll constraints are obviously far different.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 7, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions
They’re different, but I don’t know that they’re FAR different.
by Jay on Sep 7, 2009 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I was parroting stuff you’ve stated before, but you and Andrew are on to something. It’s not good that the amateurs are on board with every move.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 7, 2009 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I just meant that the payrolls aren’t vastly different.
There’s a theory that says, basically, that it doesn’t do you much good to have $100 million rather than $70 million, because at that level, the only money you can spend is on expensive free agents, who are going to be high-risk and low-ROI over the long haul. So basically, you have to have minimally $140 to $160 million to have a significant advantage over a team with an $80 million payroll, i.e., before you can reliably get chunk of marginal wins for your marginal dollars.
I basically subscribe to this theory, and I basically don’t give Shapiro a free pass for not competing with the White Sox.
This makes sense to me, although I’d need to see the math before I committed to it. The underlying point—that Kenny Williams has had more success in his tenure than Shapiro despite doing things we would, and do, call “stupid”—stands on a more solid foundation if you minimize the differences in budget.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 7, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
The crude version is something like this … you can buy marginal wins at $2M per up to $40 million — that would be an 80-win team — and then after that, they cost $5M per. Only you don’t get to just buy them one at a time, you buy a 25% chance of four marginal wins for $20M.
by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions
According to Cot’s the WS payroll over the last three years was $326 million, and $504 million over the last five years. Ours was $222 and $298 million respectively (3 year/5 year). Only in 2009 were the two payrolls really close to comparable, at $81.6 million for the Indians and $96.1 for the WS, and usually they’ve shown a sizeable gap over the period.
The Rockies are more comparable to us, and have had some some success at the margin. Their payrolls have aggregated $198.3 million and $287.6 million (3 year/5 year), again according to Cot’s and reached the WS. Since this year the Rockies stand a shot of making the playoffs, while the Indians and the Sox don’t, it might be worth thining about their success too.
I think they are running the organization the way they know how to run it, and running it as the kind of organization they’d like to run in an ideal world. It is not, however, an ideal world.
by Jay on Sep 7, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I think I agree with this mostly. When I mentioned Joe’s ideas, I didn’t necessarily mean that the Indians should try such drastic measures — I think it would be grossly unfair to compare the Indians to teams like the Royals and Pirates. I do think the Indians should try some different things, and they should have been quicker to fire Wedge this season, but I still think that Shapiro and Dolan have generally built a good organization here. Of course there is room for improvement, but not drastic measures like some of Joes’ suggestions. They do need to be constantly looking for new ideas to stay ahead of the Yankees and Red Sox.
The Royals and Pirates, though, should really be trying some drastic things.
I think the Pirates have taken a step in the right direction. Fire sell your mediocre players for young talent. They never really went through that process with Littlefield as GM. Let’s see how they turn out in a few years, but I think they will be a respectable franchise come 2011 of 2012.
Mostly I’m bothered by the accusation that the Shapiro and co are interested in their reputation and not winning. I think that’s a total fallacy, based on fan frustration. It’s pure cleveland.com bunk.
I agree wholeheartedly. Nobody has shown more guts, more willingness to suffer personal slings and arrows based on professional decisions, than Mark Shapiro.
by Jay on Sep 7, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
And when Eric Wedge is the manager in 2010, this point will be reinforced.
By the way, and I mean this sincerely, did I call Shap gutless or reputation focused? I want to know if I was unclear here.
I was reading this, and the paragraph that follows it:
However, the Indians’ inability to consistently contend since that point (the late, great team of 2007 notwithstanding), all while everyone involved in the Cleveland front office and coaching staff seemingly stood around and told each other how great a job they were doing, has become simply unpalatable.
Perhaps you meant this to more about how the front office speaks to/of the coaching staff, as opposed to how they view themselves and own results.
I was pointing towards the way that Shapiro talks about Wedge and then, cascading, how Wedge talks about players like Gimenez. More than that, it’s also just about inaction: the constant restatements of how safe Eric’s job was, even in the midst of 2006 and 2008. I guess I can’t fault them for making a decision and sticking to it but it certainly looks asinine to me at this point.
I agree with your point, but Gimenez has become an unfortunate and undeserving posterboy. He got a long leash after his hot start in the majors, but he’s been buried on the bench for awhile now. It’s like we need a Blake/Garko caricature, and Julie has put Baboo off limits… so Gimenez will be pilloried, damn the facts.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 7, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
My apologies to Chris but it’s not like we’re wanting for examples. Garko and Blake will do just fine when looking at the last 5 years. Could there be any better example than Wedge’s perception of Garko in the OF?
Meh. I think Wedge’s affinity for veterans has been overstated. It’s one of those things EVERYONE criticizes their manager about, like bunting (too much or too little, depending on your inclination) or having a quick or slow hook. You’ll always have anecdotal proof, so you always have something to criticize.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 7, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t remember Hargrove getting criticized for this.
by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 1:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Isn’t this statement the exact opposite of your grand plan for Indians resurrection?
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Absolutely. But Marte – common Marte – or Peralta you still believe in these guys?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
More than I believe in not having Santana.
by Brad D on Sep 8, 2009 1:37 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You really think Blake does anything for this team at all? He’s not a dynamic middle-of-the-order guy who boosts the whole lineup, and he’s going to be closer to his first hip replacement than his last all-star game by the time this team needs a 3B for a run at contention.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
That’s why I said this team.
And don’t count Casey out too soon. The boy has surprised everybody over the last 3-5 years. He may play til he’s 40.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
If Casey makes it to 40 as a productive major league player, he will be the first player of any who have had a similar career arc to do so. I’m not saying that it’s impossible, just that it hasn’t happened before.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Name me the last guy to be kept off a play-off team, sent to AAA and come back the next year and win a CY.
That’s what’s great about this game – it’s unpredictable.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
When Casey debuted, his closest comp was Bill Renna. Right now, his closest comp is Chris Sabo, who was out of baseball at…35.
All but one of Casey’s comps by age was out of baseball by 35, except one. He played until he was 36.
See V these things are all imaginary.
BTW, exactly how do they do these comps? Similar OPS at age? Height and weight, eye color, astrological sign? Just curious.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
By what statistics they posted at what ages. It’s pretty simple, really, but there is some math involved and I think it’s done by a computer.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Yep, there’s some arithmetic involved – don’t try to dignify it by calling it math – but it’s all based on some arbitary values for various hitting outcomes. In the end it’s got a lot of mumbo jumbo in it. Very, very subjective, and hardly science. It does have the virtue of allowing you the confort of using someone else’s system.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
If you go to BRef and click on the “Explanation of Similarity Scores” listed on every single player page right above the numbers, you could find out. Here, I’ll do it for you.
That is remarkably simple, yet also very useful information. Thanks.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
No problem. It looks like at this moment, Casey’s best hope is to turn into Melvin Mora, who is still kicking as a regular at 37.
I’m sure that dynamite .700 OPS he was sporting last time I saw him will keep him in the bigs three more years.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Jhonny’s is .745; I don’t know Marte’s because his b-ref page isn’t one of my favorites. Mora’s OPS is actually .685 this year, which is brutal by any standard and not too enticing to GMs when you’re 37.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
In the National League. Are we seriously going to do this all over again? Everyone that matters will tell you the NL is worse. The competition is lower, so his numbers will be higher.
So the stats mean something – unless they don’t. And what if Peralta never face Roy Halladay, and Blake didn’t hit against Lincecum?
So we’re gonna somehow weight the various stats? Is that it?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Why would you not weight the stats if you want them to have any predictive value? If you don’t, my 3.778 OPS from last year is looking pretty darn good, never mind that it came in a co-ed church softball league.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Of course I’m going to weight the stats, for much the same reason my brother does. Are you suggesting we just take them at face value?
Then you are a hopeless moron and I’m worth 3 times as much as ARod at the plate.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Sep 8, 2009 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Obvious divisional boost to Blake’s numbers aside, I’d still rather have Marte/Peralta than Blake on this year’s team, as each of M/P has some promise for the future.
Side note: Blake’s OPS at Jhonny’s age was .668.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Just watch the guys play. Marte’s a better defender but Blake ain’t all that bad. Marte may eventually turn into a major league ball player. Who knows what the hell is going on with Peralta. Hell he could be Albert Pujols next year or selling insurance. Blake’ll put up another .800 OPS next year and hit fifth on a contender.
Either way, we can’t afford him, so he’s gone.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I think it’s our pitchers that can’t afford him, but whatever.
by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 8:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Chuck,
This is hardly the first time you’ve trotted out the “baseball is unpredictable! Look at Cliff Lee!” trope. The fact that it generates any response at all is staggering. For the last time: You can’t compile a team with a fingers-crossed, here comes a Cliff Lee situation mentality.
But that’s exactly the point. Cleveland has to rely on some dumb luck since we can’t afford 25 good to great baseball players. And when we do get lucky and turn up the surprise (good ones like Millwood, not bad ones like you know who) we gotta go all in and to hell with the next five years.
And if you don’t like Lee, how about Gene Bearden in ’48? or Zoilo Versalles in ’65? hell Fausto Carmona in ’07. All those guys played waaaay over their head for one year and then disappeared.
None of this – none of it – is as predictable as Fluid Mechanics – and that ain’t all that predictable.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
That’s nice. But today, now, when they’re actually playing the games, not in some fantasy league, Blake’s a better ball player.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Ok, I will play this game.
Peralta’s top comps have averaged a 15-year career. That gives Peralta playing time until he is 35.
Marte’s top comps have averaged a 3-year career. That means Marte trips over a dog and breaks his legs tomorrow.
Blake’s comps have averaged a 10-year career. That means Marte goes back in time to the trading deadline of ’08 and shoots Casey.
I think another problem with Dolan is the greater public’s perception of him and the organization. Perhaps they should put more emphasis on correcting this. There is a lot of mockery around here about the prevailing wisdom about Dolan (he’s cheap), and sure, most, if not all of that is misplaced, but it’s still there.
It also doesn’t help that they seem too quick to concede that they are rebuilding and aren’t likely to compete next year. I’m not saying that this should necessarily affect roster moves, but there could be a better spin placed on things, I think.
They need better PR, period. Which is strange to say considering how on top of the world the Shapiro FO was just a few years ago.
That said, winning is really the only effective PR in American sports.
Your point probably is that they couldn’t really be on top of the Cleveland sports world, while competing against the Browns and LeBron, but they’ve managed to generate as much positive PR as you would expect they could generate. If the Indians had gone to the WS instead of losing to Boston, I wonder what impact that event would have had on season ticket sales. Given the economy and the competition, there is probably zero likelihood of returning to the days of reliable home game sell-outs even with team success on the field. Attendence would be probably be short of that bar, though the baseline might be higher. On the other hand, if LeBron moves to, say, New York, the Cavs will be less of an attraction. Could it be that LeBron’s decision outcome might be as economically important to the Indians as the team winning on the field?
No, I’m saying that Indians management never had the full confidence of Cleveland fans, even during and after the 2007 season.
In your estimation, then, had we won the Boston debacle and gone to the Series would team management have won that confidence? And, would that confidence have meant something more to revenues than whatever LeBron’s decision turns out to be? In a small market, with two other teams competing for fan dollars, I don’t see that fan confidence alone would have had a meaningful impact.
Jay’s right. I can’t tell you how many fans I passed in the street on the way to game 5 against Boston who were saying things like, “At least they brought back Lofton… But this would be in the bag if we had Thome and Manny!” Many fans were just beginning to get familiar with a healthy chunk of that team. I was stunned, though I shouldn’t have been.
Winning the World Series would have meant never having to say you’re sorry to anyone, ever.
Getting to the World Series would have garnered a chunk more respect, no doubt.
I think the club’s local reputation has been damaged immensely by having only two good years, both of them “tainted” by the public perception of a choke. The worst thing they could have done was to go up 3-0 or 3-1 in the ALCS and then lose, two years after staging an 11th hour playoff elimination that was nearly impossible mathematically.
by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
The only way to change the perception that Dolan is cheap is for him to spend money recklessly on big name free agents. Not gonna happen. Or for the Indians to win the WS. There is no amount of public relations spin that is going to change the mind of an average cleveland.commie that Dolan is Cheap.
I don’t think anything short of winning it all will tilt the perception of Dolan into the positive. Even if he does recklessly spend there will be blow back on some facet of the player’s caliber coming in or their performance with the Tribe. Dolan will always be “cheap” in the casual fan’s eye because they can’t see the difference between the Yankees and Indians financially. They have this simple view of Dolan being super rich so he should spend like it.
Let’s be serious here. Dolan is super rich.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 7, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
No one’s disputing that. What’s simple is the view that
- Steinbrenner is rich
- The Yankees spend a lot
- Dolan is rich
- Ergo, the Indians should spend a lot, too.
Never mind that the Steinbrenners aren’t spending any of their own money, nor should the Dolans be expected to.
Oh, don’t worry, I’m with you.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 8, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
What we lack is a workable strategy. We – that would be the FO – haven’t come to grips with who we are. We are a small market club in a dying city. What are our assets? Well, we’ve got an above average CF who’s injured on a reasonable contract. We’ve got a good RF with some pop under contract. We’ve got a fist full of soft tossing LHP, and a better than average DP combination. That’s about it. Of the rest, Peralta, Shoppach, the Perez’s et al, there’s not much to work with.
Whatta we need? Money – a whold lotta spending money. And some pop in the line up and I mean Pronk, Big Poppy in their hay – day type pop. And a number one starter and probably a two also. A catcher would be nice, some mid-inning relief could come in handy and a third baseman. A coupla corner outfielders and a closer we’d be back in business. Kinda sounds like we need pretty much a major league baseball starter kit.
So what’s our options? I say let’s go in the tank and I mean all the way in the tank. Let’s see if Sizemore bounces back next year and if he does trade ‘im for as many prospects as possible. Same with Choo. Or see if we can package Sizemore and Hafner for a case of beer. Same with Choo and Wood. Cut the payroll down below $25M and – even if nobody show up at the Jake – we can still turn a profit offa revenue sharing and TV rights. Bank roll somma that cash and play for the first pick of the draft. And not just next year but 2011 too. And since we’ve got control of the park in Columbus, play 20-30 games there next year. Might help the revenue stream. And, oh yeah, get the shysters on the horn that handled the Browns move. See if we can move the whole kit and kabootle down to Columbus. I think we’ll make more money in Up and Coming Columbus than Flat on Its Ass Cleveland.
Now, forget extending our players past their arb years. Pay ‘em straight arb money. If they’re any good we’ll pay ‘em what they’re worth, if not, let ‘em go. That whole John Hart extension thing has run it’s course. Keep exactly zero players past their walk years. None of our players should be over 29. We should be able to keep payroll below $40M ’til 2012 – just about the time our young guys should be ready to contend.
Now if it looks like we’re in the hunt in 2012 let’s go buy us a coupla super stars. CC or Manny types. Pay ’em their $25M and pump the payroll up to $95M or so. Roll the dice. And if we win it – we do a ’97 Marlins and blow the whole thing up and start over again.
Like the boyz out here in the 442nd usta say: “Go for broke”.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You’re not keeping payroll under $40MM in 2010 with Carmona, Wood, Westbrook and Hafner taking up $38MM. I don’t think any of those guys are really tradeable.
You do a Mike Lowell/Josh Beckett type deal and he is. Wood too.
Now that’s who we should be stealing ideas from – the Marlins and Rays, not the BoSox and Yankees.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You have to give the Rays one thing — they manage expectations a lot better than the Indians. They’ve done worse, but our fans are more disappointed.
by Jay on Sep 7, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it’s closer than you would imagine. The natural ebb and flow of a small market team has the Rays on top now, but let’s see what happens in the next year or two.
I will say one thing that is advantageous for the Indians. We aren’t fighting directly every season with the Red Sox and Yankees for at most 2 spots.
Well, we’ve been goin’ nowhere since – what? May? The Rays have been out of it since late August. So, yeah, there’s a difference.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Meh. If we don’t make the playoffs, I don’t care if we win 80 or 70 games. The only place “being out of it earlier” makes a difference is ticket sales.
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
Yeah, well, my interest – or excitement – whatever – began to wane in July. Man I really, really enjoyed 2007. Lots of good stuff happened that year. Had a coupla highlites in 2008 – I’ll never forget that Delucci shot offa Justin at old Yankee Stadium. This year the only thing that really stands out is the ass-whoppin’ we put on the Yankees at the start of the season. It’s kinda been down hill ever since.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’m surprised you feel that about that Yankee game.
~~cough~~
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
I wanna World Series trophy. And I’ve seen suck for three decades – the kinda suck most of you guys haven’t seen – without one. One decade of bad baseball for a WS trophy seems like a reasonable trade-off to me.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’ve read your entire post and it seems like we still lack a workable strategy.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Let me break it down into components then:
1) Acquire as much young, cheap, pre-arb talent we possibly can
2) Trade all of our “older” established players – Sizemore, Choo, for either develpmental players or in a package with our unmovable high priced talent – Hafner, Wood, and maybe Westbrook.
3) Acquire as many top five draft picks as we can by fielding a team with a few developing – LaPorta/Santana type guys – who maby a year or two away from ML ready.
4) Hoard whatever money we net over the next three years
5) When it looks like we’ve got 15 of the 18 guys we need to win a WS, go out and buy the two or three missing pieces
6) Win the whole deal and then sell off our best players for prospects
7) Never, ever extend any of our players – trade the best ones a year before their walk year or let ’em go for the compensatory draft picks
8) Rinse
9) Repeat
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It can’t possibly make sense to sell low on your most expensive assets.
by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions
They have a variable value. Pre-FA you pay ‘em ~$2-4M a year. In their FA year they’re getting $15M plus. The trick is to unload them the year before. Shapiro’s got this part down pat.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Talking about Hafner, Wood and Westbrook. Hafner may not be selling low at this exact moment, I grant you that. But there is an excellent chance that we can get actual value back for Westbrook and Wood by next July.
by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Westbrook is taking the AL by storm in 2009. He’ll have a 1.21 ERA at the break, leading the first place Indians with 13 wins.
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
Well, obviously Westbrook’s value can only go up.
As for Wood, lemme tell you what they’re going to say about this season. They’ll say that it was an off-year that wasn’t even that far off — ERA just 0.40 or so higher than his career mark. They’ll say he still got tons of strikeouts, and that his command suffered because there were never any save situations. So when he’s a little better next year, this year won’t even be that much of a blot on his résumé.
by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions
So Chuck, are you basically advocating for the Florida Marlins approach?
(it pains me greatly to know they have two World Series titles…)
by APV on Sep 8, 2009 7:35 AM EDT up reply actions
What I’m advocating is finishing what Shapiro started in July of this year. We’re going no where. We’ve got 2 maybe 3 players who are valuable. Cash ’em in for either developmental players or package ’em with our contract mistakes. It makes no sense to hang onto a coupla guys who may help us finish 3rd. Plan on winning the whole deal in ’12 or ’13 and be monomanical about it. To hell with attendence next year or the year after. Cut the payroll to the point that our out side revenues covers our nut and go for broke.
Half steppin’ ain’t gettin’ it done.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I guess with knowledge of nothing else, I would emulate as much as possible, the elements of the $41MM payroll/93 win team of 2005. Those are:
*Only 6 starting pitchers (some being quality guys) making starts the whole year. Unfortunately, that’s not realistic.
*Outstanding defense in left field to complement very good defense in center field (really outstanding defense overall in the outfield as Blake was great out there in 2005). That is very realistic if we want to give left field to Brantley.
*An incredible bullpen, almost unnecessarily so. We’re starting to carve out the pieces with Wood/Perez/Sipp/Smith but we’re not quite there yet.
*Come up lucky with a couple re-treads that hit (Howry/Elarton in 2005). Less likely, we’re not as creative with it as we were back then and more teams are better at it.
*Go after one splashy make-good one-year contract deal (Millwood in 2005). Not saying it has to be a pitcher (Jay mentioned Nick Johnson as a possibility for this type of deal) but the economy would seem to potentially allow for this scenario. I would think it would have to be a starter though. And we’d have to shed at least Shoppach and probably Peralta to do it.
*Get Jose Hernandez (I kid)
To me, Shapiro seems better with the dirt cheap payrolls anyway.
You probably missed the entire point of what the Indians are trying to do. What you refer to as loyalty and stability are not at all the stated goals of the team.
The stated goal is “continuity”. This business is trying to replace money with management tools. They believe that they can groom a better player if that player is taught using the same language and techniques throughout the business. Part of that proces requires retaining the managers who understand the agreed upon language and have been taught the agreed upon techniques.
There may be some less effective managers involved, but they are willing to tolerate that to achieve the goal of building a better player.
I’m not passing judgement on the theory, but it’s important to understand what it is they are trying to do here.
I don’t argue that the “goal” might’ve been continuity but I don’t think it’s worth arguing about the difference between that as a goal and the fact that it was built on the values of loyalty or stability, both of which are things that I think it’s apparent the Indians value.
The point is that the method, its principals, and its goals, have failed. If you’d prefer to say that the entire premise of continuity created through keeping coaches and managers in place for long periods of time and not making somehow more “absurd” moves was a failure, I’m fine with that.
My point is that whatever they were trying to create, be it stability or continuity, it lacked innovation and failed.
The idea that they can “groom a better player” is totally indefensible. This will be covered better later, I’m sure, but the Indians entire problem is that they’ve been almost totally incapable of homegrowing players at all.
The result that we fail at grooming a better ball player may or may not have anything to do with the value of continuity. Perhaps we are not teaching the right things. The notion that teaching a hitter to work the count at all levels of the business and using the same language could result in a hitter learning to do just that very well. Maybe the emphasis on working the count doesn’t yield the kind of result that we thought. Or maybe it alienates the players who would be the better free swingers, like BP. But, the condemnation of continuity seems wrong to me.
I salute the Shapiro management team for at least trying something innovative. I think you have a better shot at seeing Shapiro come up with other useful ideas than most other GMs.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but continuity should be a method, not a goal. The goal is – or should be anyway – winning a World Series. One of the methods employed by the Indians is continuity through out the system. So far it ain’t workin’.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 7, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That’s a really interesting idea. I agree with the theory that the method and the goal have become conflated, though I have never thought of it that way. I wonder at what point continuity shifted to becoming more than it should have been. Milton Bradley? Brandon Phillips? Some other, inconsequential, decision?
I think Shapiro brought it with him. That is his belief that continuity, patience, and sticking to the Plan would eventually lead to success. What Shapiro didn’t account for was his own weaknesses: becoming blinded by his attachment to some players, and the inability to recognize talent outside of Major League baseball’s development system. That is his inability to discover talent at the high school and college level. I think he gets it now, but it maybe too late to save his job with the Tribe.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I don’t think Shapiro is blindly attached to players so much as Wedge is. Time and again Shapiro has pulled the trigger on moving players who were huge parts of the franchise, to the point that I’m glad I’m not the GM because I don’t know if I could keep just cutting bait on dudes like that. The organization’s inability to bring in talent from outside the MLB’s development system is a little overstated as well. The draft has been really bad, but the signings of non-drafted free agents have given us a few really good players. Not enough to balance out the equation, I’ll grant you, but I would be stunned if any of this cost Shapiro his job any time soon.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
What a WS winning team needs is 3-4 really, really good players. I’m talking CC, Cliff Lee, Manny, Belle, Thome type players. We don’t need to hit on every first round pick, but we gotta find those three guys. If we have twenty draft busts – complete, outta pro-ball busts – and uncover three of those guys – Shapiro’s a goddam genius. So far we got – what? – Victor? And, good as he is/was he ain’t one of those guys.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You can’t surround 3-4 top tier players with mediocre talent and expect to win the WS. As I recall, we had Manny, Thome, and Belle all at the same time, surrounded them with very good players, and won zero World Series. You need a lot more than 3-4 really, really good players to have a reasonable expectation of WS victory.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
The 90’s Mariners are the prime example of this. There is no level of talent above Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodrguez, and Edgar and Buehner were pretty good, too. But those teams went absolutely nowhere.
by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions
We were doin’ a hellova lot better with those guys than the bunch we’ve got now.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
But we weren’t winning World Series, which is exactly what you said we should have been doing with that setup.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
All I’m sayin’ is that we have a better chance. Nobody, not even that jackass Cashman, can guarantee a WS.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Statistically, we won 0% of the World Series between 1949 and 2009. That is a result, which is kind of what I thought you were all about. You either win the WS or you don’t, and we didn’t, so, retrospectively, our chances we nil.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Well we had a much better shot in ’54, ’94, ’95, ’97 and ’07 than we will have in the forseeable future.
Right now this team is hittin’ on nothin’. We got no No. 1 or 2 starter, nothing that looks like a WS first baseman, we’re week at third, we need a every day catcher, a set-up guy or two and somebody to consistently close. And – oh yeah – a long baller hitter that scares the crap outta the opposition. And of course somebody to hit behind him and play a corner OF spot. Can you make a rosy picture outta this?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
There is no such thing as “the forseeable [sic] future.” We might hit everything just perfectly next year and rip off an 100-win season. We might go in the tank and win 40. We might be struggling through August and then win 22 of our last 23 like the Rockies and surge into the playoffs. We might put your plan into place, draft the 4-man core that leads directly to WS wins, and then have them all get hurt in AA and have absolutely nothing, not even saleable assets, to show for it.
WS winners come in all different forms; if there were a template, everyone would follow it. Anything might happen next year, and we can’t have lower chances than we did in any of those years because we didn’t win then, either.
It stuns me that you would go from results-oriented to blathering about “chances” just to pursue a meaningless and hopeless point, but whatever.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Sep 8, 2009 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Tell you what – I’ll give you the field – Tigers, Angels, BoSox, Phillies, Dodgers, Cards and Rockies – yeah I think it’s gonna be the Rockies and I’ll take – no, no I just can’t do it. It would leave me with rooting for those douch nozzles. But you know who I think has the horses this year.
And if you’re gonna correct my spelling, you’re gonna hafta post more.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the discussion at hand.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Cuz the Yankees have those three guys, might even have four of them. None of the others do.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
The Yankees are stacked top to bottom. Take CC, ARod, and Tiexiera and plop them on the Royals, and you don’t have a WS winning team.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Maybe not, but they’re in the play-offs. Especially when you consider the fact that they’re in the weakest division in all of baseball.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Not pointless, it’s kinda like imaginary numbers. It’s useful but then again, it is imaginary.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It’s a quantification of actual facts. It is equally as imaginary as batting average, RBI, or HR.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
The only stat that counts is Ws and Ls. Everything else is just conversation.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You hold different dogmas on different portions of this page, which makes it hard to keep up with what brand of ignorant you’re being as I skip through the thread.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Sep 8, 2009 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Chuck isn’t ignorant, he’s just compulsively contrary.
by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 8:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Take him. The Yankees are who they are because their roster is loaded 25 deep, not because they have 3-4 horses dragging a mediocre crew.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
You talk about how Ws and Ls are the only meaningful stats, but you also talk about our “chances” in different years as if they have some meaning. You advocate blowing everything up and mourn the departure of Casey Blake. You cite complete unpredictability in the case of Cliff Lee’s resurgence and yet boldly proclaim that we have no shot for the foreseeable future.
Those are some of them.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Sep 8, 2009 1:58 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Dude, those aren’t dogma’s those are opinions.
Here’s my opinion:
1) The Indians have no shot at the play-offs next year – none.
2) Casey Blake – today, right now – is a better third baseman than any one on this squad.
3) Trading Blake for Santana was a good idea
4) Nobody in 2007 – myself included – ever thought that Cliff would be a No. 1 starter again, let alone a CY winner
5) I – and you – and the sainted Bill James – can be wrong about just about any aspect of baseball.
These are opinions. You got different opinions fine. But the fact is that none of us knows what the hell’s gonna happen next year – except that the Royals will stink once again.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Whether they are dogma or opinion, the larger point is that you disagree with yourself, yet defend every point you’ve made like it’s your first-born child. That’s what turns logical conversation into a raging pissing match.
I feel like Ron Burgundy sipping scotch and talking about how this thing got out of hand in a hurry.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Sep 8, 2009 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Can you make a rosy picture outta this?
Yes, by looking at who we have up now and at our minor league system.
And if Chris Perez doesn’t seem legit to you, you have some serious problems.
Adam Miller never had success in the bigs, which makes him a poor comparison to Chris Perez.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
You think that Perez’s stuff is as good as Miller’s?
Lot’s stuff can happen to young players – even after they make it to the Show. Remember Rick Ankiel? Hell, remember Fausto Carmona?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Currently, Perez’ stuff is infinitely better than Miller’s. We know stuff can happen to guys after the make it to the majors, but there’s no reason to assume it will happen to any one guy over any other.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
So now we marginilize our good players by saying they are just as likely to get hurt as our injury prone former top prospect? You could apply this injury risk theory to any player in baseball.
No, just recognize how often players collapse. To drag out another old saw, we were very, very lucky in the ’90s when two of our first round picks and one from the 16th round turned into HoF caliber talents and one of trades netted us one of the best defensive SS in Indians history.
We may never be that lucky again. Which makes our WS chances that much slimmer.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
So what is to keep Cliff Lee from regressing to his career level? What about Casey Blake suddenly not getting to play in the NL? There is a reason for any player to collapse, you only see them for players you don’t like or for players that don’t fit your myopic view.
Actually it’s just another view of one of Shapiro’s mantra: you need depth – deep depth – cuz you never know who’s gonna collapse.
Look I never, ever thought that Lee would develope into the pitcher he is, or for Fausto to come apart like he has. In fact, I though Fausto would eventually surpass CC. All I’m sayin’ is we’ll need 20 AAA to A prospects to have a chance of producing 9 guys who can win it all.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It seems more like your philosophy has us abandoning the depth emphasis. If we need our depth, then bad things have already happenend, and we’re not going anywhere. So why have depth?
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
If the definition of continuity is something like teaching players to work the count throughout the system, I don’t see how it’s innovative. Nearly every team has something the preach up and down the system, whether it’s the Angels and baserunning or the Twins and strike zone pounding.
My point is that valuing the individuals who supposedly provide this continuity, by being loyal to them, we’ve lost site of the fact that they weren’t very good at their jobs and, again, that they, or this method, wasn’t doing anything to create a competitive advantage over the last ten years.
If you look at our really successful seasons, what stands out is the success of pitching, especially the bullpen which, classically, the Indians seemed to view as a no-man’s land not worth devoting resources to.
And, again, this is about a culture of trying to be “continuous” or “stable” beyond just player acquisition and performance. The entire kit and caboodle, trying to sell fans on loyalty or continuity as a good thing, isn’t bringing people in the gate or winning games. I think it’s the kind of marketing (pointing towards the integrity of individual players and other staff) that teams like Cleveland are never going to succeed with.
My point is that valuing the individuals who supposedly provide this continuity, by being loyal to them, we’ve lost site of the fact that they weren’t very good at their jobs and, again, that they, or this method, wasn’t doing anything to create a competitive advantage over the last ten years.
To clarify, it sounds like you’re saying that the problem is evaluative, even of the guys in our system – they’re following the method, then they must be doing all right, even if the results don’t show it, and perhaps the method alone is not some magic key to success.
Definition of continuity:
A function f(x) is continuous at a point x=a if:
1. f(a) exists
2. lim x→a f(x) exists
and
3. lim x→a f(x) = f(a)
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 8, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
There may be 17 other things that the Indians do better than most other baseball teams. And the sum total result of all those things may be incapable of overcoming the disadvantages of having fewer resources with which to work.
What we know is that it’s not working. Whether it’s because we are doing the wrong things or whether it’s possible at all, is the unknown.
Having observed insane methods, particularly by the Cleveland Cavaliers, over time, 99 time out of a hundred, these insane moves only dig you a deeper hole.
Just curious… are each of these posts sort of the collective view of the 4 moderators or is each of you taking 3 targets and trying to craft his individual style/opinion?
Individual viewpoint. Times Ryan, Jay, Andrew and myself have been in the same room or on the same conference line: 0. There are many issues for which we probably share similar views, but many more for which our views differ.
by APV on Sep 7, 2009 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Please. If Jay posted that there were sea dragons to the west of Spain, there would be 250 comments in agreement.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 7, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 7 recs
I said nothing “editorial”, as in nothing any one of the four author’s pieces is representative of our collective viewpoint.
Mostly because, as Adam said, we don’t really commune enough on these things to have a collective viewpoint.
Well, that’s just because you’re The Odd One.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 7, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you guys should form a boy band.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 8, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
I always liked the fact that in NSync, the (relatively) fat one was actually named Fatone.
by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I really don’t take it kindly when someone questions the integrity of an editor or author.
But to answer your insinuation, there is no pressure to conform to any particular point of view. The only things we discuss off-line is coordinating post schedules or moderation issues. Content is never brought up.
Besides, everyone knows sea dragons are native to the Pacific, not the Atlantic.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
I apologize. It was a light-hearted throwaway comment, and I don’t actually believe it. I vote on the integrity of this site with my continued presence.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 8, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s what I get for assuming. Reading over the thread again, I was completely tone-deaf, and it’s I who should be apologizing.
Kumbaya, my lord, Kumbaya.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 8, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions
On the other hand, it wasn’t green-worthy either.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 8, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
And yet, no Michael Bolton avatar.
(I command all my minions to rec this … ironically, of course.)
by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
What we’ve agreed on is that we want to cover this subject comprehensively. Each of us will be making his own observations as to and cases for and against firing whoever is the subject at hand.
Just so we’re clear here: Does each author believe believe the person they’re writing about should go, or are they just making the case? I don’t believe the integrity of the series is compromised either way, but I’m curious.
Steel Nick
Making the case, for and possibly against. There’s a lot of latitude.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think need to go for the hail mary or the high risk – high reward play each year. I think we have to allow for the possibility that there is really one glaring fault in this organization – amateur player scouting. Would we be having this Fire ________ conversation if we had drafted David Wright instead of Denham, or Matt Cain instead of Guthrie? You can say the same thing for the next three or four years.
My uncle says you've got a screw loose.
Your uncle molests collies.
Maybe if Wright and Cain are drafted into our organization, they become Denham and Guthrie.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
That’s a good point. Obviously I don’t have an answer to that. Maybe the Mets and Giants have vastly superior instructors and they culture talent in such a way that they get the best out of certain players. With high school players I think that’s even more true.
It’s easy to point out failures like not drafting Wright and failing to really pursue and sign Lincecum after the fact. It’s far more difficult to find identify talent beforehand.
My uncle says you've got a screw loose.
Your uncle molests collies.
by gorilla_baller on Sep 8, 2009 11:41 AM 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
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
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.
