| |
|
Friday, April 13, 2007
Free Shin-Shoo!
Hey, I am back -- who knows for how long. Few random thoughts on the Indians so far, in no particular order.
1) Shin-Soo Choo is being wasted in AAA. Sure, Trot Nixon's not doing too shabby up until now in right field, but Choo calmly handled his demotion and is currently hitting .455/.625/.636 in Buffalo. Granted, it appears the Bisons have faced some bad pitching in these limited games, but the Indians would be doing just fine with him in the outfield instead of the kaleidoscopic platooning that is going on now.
2) Andy Marte is scuffling not because he is overmatched, but because he is being overaggressive at the plate. Marte's contract rate is 73%, which isn't great, but it is hardly catastrophic. Normally, a guy with that sort of CT% would be expected to hit about .250. Right now Marte is hitting a robust .136. with a Batting Average of Balls in Play of just .133, which is freakishly bad luck. While Marte's BA will certainly improve with more plate appearances, he is hacking at too many pitches too soon in the count. He's only seeing 3.22 Pitches Per Plate Appearance right now. He needs to relax and be more patient in finding his pitch.
3) How long will The Mad Skipper Eric Wedge remain patient with Marte? In a rather shortsighted move, yesterday Wedge yanked Marte for Garko in the seventh inning. Sure, the numbers said that Garko was more likely to get a hit and put the Indians ahead, but the Indians still had at least two innings of defense ahead of them. Casey Blake was moved to third even though he had only played six games at third since 2004. The results were immediately disastrous, but Hafner eventually bailed out the team.
4) Roberto Hernandez shouldn't be used in high leverage situations for a bit. That isn't saying he's toast, but he needs to work some things out and appears to be trying to do too much. Right now, fielding the ball seems to be sensory overload for Dear Roberto.
5) As for playing games in Milwaukee, I hope that isn't the apex of the season. I made some comments about the absurd situation at Reds and Blues.
Anyway, hopefully I'll be around more here in upcoming days.
bads85 at 1:38:51 PM EDT
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Friday, January 19, 2007
Smitten Shapiro Signs Another Vet
Mark Shapiro confirmed he is not the guy to finish the Indians' rebuilding process by signing Trot Nixon to a one year, three million dollar deal. Nothing against Trot Nixon, other than he is old, in a his decline that appears to have a severe power drop off, and can really only hit right handed pitching. However, the Indians have no need of Trot Nixon's services as they have a much younger and cheaper right fielder in Shin-Soo Chin, who will almost certainly outperform Nixon. The signing only accomplishes taking plate appearances away from other hitters, namely Choo and Garko.
Of course, Shapiro might have some sort of deal in the works that necessitates Nixon being around, but unless Shapiro found a way to neatly package Jason Michaels and Casey Blake for some passes to a titty bar, any future deal probably will be detrimental to the Indians, especially if Choo is involved. No, Choo is not the next coming of Manny Ramirez, but Choo is very young and very inexpensive. As of now, the Indians have a three million dollar bookend crowding the Twenty-Five Man Roster to complete the match Shapiro's other garage sale signing in David Dellucci. Dellucci and Nixon might make for a fine, but old left field platoon, but with Blake and Michaels around, you have a foursome of mediocrity that would terrorize the putting greens of any country club across the land.
If Shapiro can get rid of Blake and Michaels, which I highly doubt he will be able to do, then I'll eat all these words with a healthy portion of Stadium Mustard, even though my supplies are running a bit low. However, this appears to be the type of signing Shapiro can't resist --- the declining veteran who once impressed Shapiro in a more innocent time. Remember Brady Anderson? Alex Cora? Aaron Boone? Juan Gonzalez? (who thankfully had the decency to hurt himself so the Grady Sizemore era could begin).
Shapiro has not been exactly wise with the money that he has been allowed to spend. He signed Bob Wickman to an extension that allowed the Fat Man to purchase a Hometown Buffet for every finer and a few toes. Matt Lawton was paid an obscene amount. With The Hardball Times 2007 Annual breaks down teams spending in terms of contract status (FA, Arb, Non-Arb) with Net Win Shares Value, which essentially estimates the"expected" production from a player based on how he was signed (as a free agent, arbitration-eligible or not eligible for arbitration) and how much he was paid, and then compares that to how he actually did. A positive number is a good thing, a negative number is bad. One note -- the contract status isn't just for what happened last offseason; it is based on service time. Check out the Indians' last year:
Non Arb ARB FA Total
+25,858,000 +8,469,000 -9,544,000 +24,782,000
The Indians did pretty well with their Non Arb and Arb guys, ninth in the majors in both, but were in the negative for Free Agents, meaning overall,.For a reference point, the Marlins and the Twins were the best in Non Arb with +52,382,000 and +48,705,000 respectively. Only the Devil Rays managed a negative number in Non Arb. Fourteen teams managed a negative in Arb, so compared to the rest of baseball, the Indians did fine with their Arb guys. The Diamondbacks had the best Arb compilation with +26,725,000. The Indians were 19th in FA, which isn't good, although the Yankees, who were the worst with -20,890,000, were over twice as bad. The White Sox received the most bang for their free agent buck with a +23,157,000.
Here are the Tribe's leaders on both ends of the spectrum:
Best Worst
Hafner +12,012,000 Byrd -3,030,000
Sizemore +9,478,000 Boone -2,425,000
Martinez +4,785,000 Michaels -2,392,000
Lee +3,775,000 Johnson -2,374,000
Shapiro tripped on his shrinking male appendage with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse on the right.
Blake was a -799,000 while Broussard was a +1,428. Sowers was a +3,679,000, Peralta a +1,645,000, and Westbrook a +1,674,000.
Anyway, now that Reds (and Blues) is running smoothly, and Shapiro is intent on taking an ice pick to the team, I should be posting here with more frequency.
bads85 at 4:49:53 PM EST
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Friday, December 15, 2006
State Of The Blog
There hasn't been much activity here lately because I have been concentrating my efforts at Reds and (Blues). Why? Because here I work for The Man (those ad revenues go to AOL, not me), and over there, I work for me. I'm not shutting this place down, but for now, I am going to post my non-Indians stuff over there. Once the Tribe stumbles out of hibernation, I am sure this place will be more active again. Until then, join us at Reds and (Blues) and bookmark us.
bads85 at 4:03:12 PM EST
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
The Kids Are Alright: Lawrence and Tyler
Through a series of life choices, I find myself teaching journalism classes all day to a collection of students comprised mostly of middle class kids as I near the age of forty.. Once upon a time, I left the field of journalism as the idealism of education seemed to outshine the hollowness of being a rock critic. Empowering the poor seemed like a good idea at the time, but after fifteen years in the inner city, the poor were still poor. Idealism turned to cynicism of the system, and rather than becoming a burned out English teacher, I jumped at the chance to teach kids how the media should work instead of how it does work.
I used to launch little satellites with the goal of orbiting the word with purpose, now I release little commandos who will one day storm the media headquarters across the land. Sure, most of them will end up slaughtered in the lobby, but there is no such thing as a bloodless revolution. I steer the brighter ones away from the impending carnage, but not everyone can be bright. I'm sure in the end, the media conglomerates will prevail, but the sports department will be ours.
Which brings me to Tyler and Lawrence, two of my sharper baseball scribes. Recently, both of them were independently assigned an AL MVP piece to determine which AL player was worthy of the award (the assignment was before the Award was announced). Both of the lad are pretty well versed in rudimentary statistical analysis. They have worked the way up from OPS+ to Win Shares/VORP type stuff, although we have not hit any extensive defensive analysis. Both are excellent ballplayers themselves, so don't get the impression they are nerdy types.
On the day, the assignment was due, I asked Tyler first who was the AL MVP. "Justin Morneau," was his confident reply.
"When did you start doing drugs, Tyler?" I asked. "Are you out of your mind? Have I wasted the last two years of my life with you?" At this point, Tyler lost his look of confidence, but looked at me like I was about to start another one of my Socratic debates.
"He just looked at RBIs! Those are team dependent." Lawrence shouted through his laughter.
"Settle down, Lawrence," I interrupted. "I've heard people throw at you in games, plus it wasn't that long ago you thought Garret Anderson was one of the league's top players." I then looked at Tyler and grumbled something about lazy, shiftless teenagers taking shortcuts.
"I didn't just look at RBIs," Tyler stammered. "I looked OPS, HRs, and Isolated Power. Morneau was better than Jeter. Plus, Morneau had 309 plate appearances with runners on base, and Jeter had 327. Morneau drove in more runs with less chances. You tell us to account for the chances all the time." Suddenly, Lawrence looked as if he was going to pee his pants. His desperately had something to say, but didn't want to shout out in class.
"Okay, Lawrence, speak," I said.
"He got that from BP [Baseball Prospectus]," Lawrence spat. "However, he didn't account for runners in scoring position. It's easier to drive in guys if they are in scoring position, especially if they are on third base. Morneau had 257 plate appearances with RISP; Jeter 234."
"Breathe, Lawrence, it will be okay, " I said, feeling a little bit of pride mixed with a twinge of dread because I knew I had never instructed them to go this route. The lads were exploring on their own. Sure, one of them had his toe caught in a rabbit trap, but he'd be okay. These guys were not even teenagers yet; toes grow back at that age. Lawrence wasn't done yet, however.
"Look, Juneball, Jeter had an OPS over 1.00 with runners in scoring position. Morneau was around .975."
"Jeter is one of the worst defensive shortstops in baseball," Tyler retorted. The only guy on the planet that lets more balls through the infield is you, Lawrence."
"Boys, boys," I interrupted. "Let's not get nasty. You both hit like girls. Tyler, yes, Jeter isn't a good shortstop, but a shortstop has more inherent defensive value than a first baseman. Remember what inherent means? Good. Look, I can see how you picked Morneau over Jeter; I haven't taught you defense. But forget about Jeter for a moment though. Why did you pick Morneau to begin with? He isn't even the best player on the team. How did you overlook Joe Mauer?" Embarrassed silence ensued. Finally, a squeaky voice muttered,
"Mauer wasn't on the ESPN.com MVP tracker. I didn't bother looking him up."
"Next time don't rely on ESPN to do your heavy lifting, " I said, wondering how many MVP voters did the same thing as Tyler.
bads85 at 11:28:57 AM EST
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Friday, December 8, 2006
I Renew Correspondence With My Good Friend, Keith Olbermann
Dear Mr. Olbermann,
I recently had the misfortune of reading some of your book, The Worst Person In The World, at my dentist's office. I am sure it was left there by a masochist who begs to have his teeth drilled without any Novocain or nitrous, but I picked it up and flipped though it for shits and giggles since I quit reading your stuff/watching your show circa 2005. In fact, back then, I used to correspond with you when you used to write ridiculous things about steroids.
I lost interest in you when you started hammering Bill O' Reilly, and he started sputtering in return. Oh, don't get me wrong, I abhor O' Reilly and all the stupidity he is a face for, but you attacks were nothing more than intellectual bullyism to draw viewers. So you can kick Bill O' Reilly's ass in a battle of wits; who can't? Tucker Carlson? You are engaging an unarmed opponent, gleefully making him blubber more than he already does. Sure, you get a few cheers from the anti-O' Reilly, but that is like recruiting the AV Club to cheer for a those taking calculus exam.
You don't really think you are going to change the way those like O' Reilly feel about him? Those troglodytes are set in their ways, and anything ill said about the man who brings them their daily fire just makes them want to defend him more. O 'Reilly should be ignored, not slapped down in a gaudy display and intellectual superiority. Your words, while sharp, don't have the intellectual fire power to penetrate O' Reilly's reptilian skin. Watching you two go back and forth is like watching Stay Puff Marshmallow Man and the Pillsbury Dough Boy get in a fight by the keg after attempting to come down from a coke binge by washing down barbiturates with sour mash. The Clash of the Titans it isn't.
I don't besmirch you for attempting to beat up an intellectual cripple; I just choose to ignore you. However, I can across your "One of The Greatest Pitchers Of All Time" in which you listed Roger Clemens as one of your Honorary Worst People of All Time (written 10/24/05). Normally, I wouldn't bother correcting something that written over a year ago, but you just re-published your hatchet job of Clemens in your book, so since you are trying to make money of your tripe, I suppose it is fair game. The gist of your article was that Roger Clemens was some sort of post season pussy who should not be relied upon in a pivotal post season game. Let's take a look at your piece.
First of all, Bret Boone did not hit the game winning home run in Game Seven of the 2003 ALCS; his brother Aaron Boone did. This is one of those embarrassing mistakes that everyone occasionally makes, well maybe not. Confusing Aaron Fucking Boone with his brother Bret is pretty hard to do. The fact that you hadn't corrected the mistake a year later indicates that not many people bothered to read this piece the first time around.
However, the Boone thing is just a mistake, unlike the rest of your article which is a malicious attempt to stilt statistics and history to assassinate someone's character. This garbage goes well beyond the tactics that your pal O' Reilly employs; your slipping Ann Coulter the tongue. In fact, in your zeal to eviscerate Clemens, you make yourself sound like Rush Limbaugh explaining why global warming is a farce.
Your opening salvo against Clemens is that his team have lost seventeen of the thirty-post season games he has started, even though Clemens is 12-8 in the post season. Perhaps you didn't learn this in your time at ESPN, but if the starter is not the pitcher of record, chances are his teammates are responsible for the loss. However, you imply that the reason Clemens' teams lost seventeen times is because Clemens had to leave the games early or because he blew leads.
Let's take a look at Clemens' no decisions that resulted in a team loss:
Game 4, 1986 ALCS -- Bullpen blows a 3-0 lead in the bottom of the ninth, loses the game 4-3 in the eleventh.
Game 6, 1986 WS -- The Buckner game.
Game 2, 1988 ALCS -- Clemens gives up 2-0 lead in the seventh; Sox tie the game in the bottom of the frame, then Lee Smith loses it in the ninth
Game 1, 1990 ALCS -- Clemens leaves game with lead after 6 IP, bullpen gives up nine runs.
Game 1, 1995 ALDS -- Red Sox lose 5-4 in the 13th inning. Yes, Clemens gave up a 3-0 lead in the sixth, but the Red Sox also blew a save in the eleventh, plus they squandered scoring opportunities in extra innings.
Game 7, 2001 WS -- Rivera blows save
Game 4, 2003 WS -- bullpen loses game in 12th inning, 4-3.
Game 4, 2004 NLDS -- Clemens leaves with a 3 runs lead after 5 IP, bullpen gives up 4 runs. Astrosdon't score after the second inning.
Game 1, 2005 WS -- Clemens leaves after 2 IP with injury, giving up 3 ERs. Astros tie game in top of the third, but do not score the rest of the game and pen coughs up two runs to lose 5-3.
In most of those games, it is obvious that Clemens was hardly the reason for his team's defeat. To parade idea that Clemens was responsible for all of his team's seventeen losses is disingenuous. However, from there, you embark into complete stupidity, faulting Clemens for blowing 8 leads over the course of a game in 34 post season appearances (two of which were 1-0 first inning leads; the other six were 2-0 leads at various courses in the game). This shows a complete lack of any sort of baseball context. Clemens post season appearances are very equitable to what a starter would throw in a regular season in this modern era. Would you chastise a pitcher for blowing eight leads, including two 1-0 first inning leads, over the course of the season?
You then said Clemens was no Christy Mathewson or Bob Gibson. Mathewson's team was .500 in the post season when he pitched, just like Clemens. Let's see how these guys did with your dumb stat of "Blown Leads:
G G w/Blown Leads %
Mathewson 11 5 45
Gibson 9 3 33
Clemens 34 8 24
I don' think we need to spend anymore time on this silly stat rooted in ignorance. You thought you could build a case by counting, but evaluating performance is much more than counting, something they obviously don't teach at ESPN. You also said that "[Clemens] is a guy with a post season record slightly less than that of his journeyman teammate Russ Springer," an obvious attempt at hyperbole. Here is a tip, Keith, hyperbole only works in snark if it is grounded in some sort of fact. Russ Springer hasn't even started a post season game.
Your slam on Clemens was baseball analysis at its worst, riddled with factual inaccuracies and absurdly erroneous evaluations of performance. In other words, your piece was what passes for sports journalism these days in media throughout the country, which is quickly dismissed. However, since you sit behind your anchor desk with an air of snarky moral superiority, kind of like a grumpy Stan Laurel devoid of humor, you should be smacked around when you behave like Coulter or Limbaugh. The fact that you read a teleprompter at ESPN when you weren't occasionally being thrown in a dugout doesn't mean you learned much about sports, especially baseball. Sure, you are capable of belittling the dimwitted O' Reilly, but if you are going to talk baseball, you need to bring better stuff. The last thing baseball needs is an aging tall, skinny Coulter/Limbaugh offspring offering baseball commentary on lower tier cable.
bads85 at 3:10:39 PM EST
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Defensive Hope For The Tribe
Chronicles of The Lads converts David Pinto's PMR into a run value, which is a rather swell thing. Aaron Boone was rather atrocious defensively (no surprise), but in a limited sample size, Andy Marte was much better:
Runs Above Average RAA/350 chances
Marte 4.2 10.7
Boone -11.4 -17
Difference 15.6 27.7
Boone was by far the worst defensive third baseman in the AL according to this metric, about three runs worse than Aubrey Huff. Over the course of a full season, Marte's rate would be 27.7 runs better than Boone, almost three wins. Let's look at second base:
Runs Above Average RAA/460 chances
Barfield 4.2 4.6
Belliard -12.4 -12.3
Difference 16.6 16.9
Alternative Method
Runs Above Average RAA/460 chances
Barfield .35 .37
Belliard -18.4 -17.9
Difference 18.8 18.3
Over the course of the season, Barfield offers about 16.5-19 runs in improvement over Belliard (Luna was quite bad also; -6.6 RR/-19 RAA.460). Peralta did well in this metric also; +12.6 RAA, fifth best in the majors.
bads85 at 10:32:13 PM EST
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
AL Outfield Arms
Yesterday at Reds and (Blues), I made some observations about NL outfield arms using information presented by John Dewan in THT's 2007 Annual. Let's take a look at the AL. Kills are runners gunned down by an outfielder's direct throw (unlike assists, outs with relay throws are not included) and Opps are opportunities the opposition had to take an extra base:
Team Kills Opps Ratio
LAA 26 411 .063
TOR 24 410 .059
TEX 28 517 .054
TBR 25 521 .046
DET 18 411 .044
SEA 20 486 .041
BAL 20 486 .041
MIN 18 422 .043
KCR 19 534 .035
NYA 17 492 .034
BOS 15 454 .033
OAK 15 474 .032
CLE 14 503 .028
CHA 8 455 .018
Not surprisingly, the noodle arm Indians were near the bottom of this list. However, as I said with the NLers, Kills don't necessarily correlate to preventing runners from advancing. Let’s look at Runners Advanced Percentage (remember, the lower the number, the better):
Advanced %
TOR .439
OAK .464
DET .470
SEA .471
TEX .472
BAL .475
MIN .483
LAA .489
CLE .505
KCR .517
CHA .519
NYA .524
TBR .526
BOS .526
AL outfielders are much better at preventing runners from advancing than their NL counterparts. Eight teams in the AL had a better Advance Percentage than the NL's best (Reds) while the NL had eight teams with a worse Advance Percentage than the AL's worst. I would say most of this has to do with league tendencies rather than talent in the outfield.
bads85 at 1:29:41 PM EST
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
THT Article: McGwire
Mark McGwire’s Hall of Fame Worthiness -- The Hardball Times
Update: There is an error in that article:
"However, McGwire played in an
offensive era in which Win Shares were "easier" to amass..."
That is a very poorly worded statement on my part; in fact, the way it reads is flat out incorrect and rather embarrassing. Win Shares adjust for the level of offense in any given period.
bads85 at 12:53:30 AM EST
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
The Curse Of Frankie Frisch
St. Louis Cardinals' fans are still upset that Albert Pujols wasn't named the 2006 NL MVP. I suppose the fortune of being the team with the worst regular season record to win a World Series just doesn't scratch the itch after Thanksgiving. Of course, the conspiracy theories like sportswriters are out to get the fair city of St. Louis abound, which becomes a problem when it is a repeated too often. Suddenly, smart people begin saying dumb things like, "Baseball writers have snubbed St. Louis players forever!"
The above lament is ridiculous because a couple of Cardinals that have won the MVP were terrible choices -- hello, Frankie Frisch. Yes, Pujols was screwed out of the MVP in 2006 as documented here. However, it was hardly the worst slight, so Cardinals' fans need to start moving on, especially since the Cards' players have been the benefactors of some odd voting.
Year MVP WS Win Shares Leader
1985 McGee 36 Raines (39)
McGee had an outstanding season, but Raines was noticeably better. However, Raines played for the third place Expos while McGee played for the first place Cardinals.
Year MVP WS Win Shares Leader
1979 Hernandez 29 Schmidt/Winfield (33)
Hernandez, on a third place team, was Co-MVP with Willie Stargell, who was the patriarch of the "We Are Family" Pirates. Winfield was third in voting despite playing on a team that lost 93 games while Schmidt was 13th in voting on a team that won 84 games, which makes one wonder if the writers had recently discovered cocaine at the time theycast their votes.
Year MVP WS Win Shares Leader
1967 Cepeda 34 Santo (38)
Santo was on a third place team; Cepeda on a pennant winner.
Year MVP WS Win Shares Leader
1964 Boyer 28 Allen (41)
Mays (38)
Santo (36)
Boyer was an indefensible pick -- far worse an injustice than Howard over Pujols. Dick Allen was Dick Allen, but even with the lack of love he received from the voters, there were other picks much better than Boyer.
Year MVP WS Win Shares Leader
1934 Dean 37 Ott (38)
Win Shares shortchange starting pitchers, plus a difference of one Win Shares isn't necessarily definitive of whom had the better season. Even though Dean had less Win Shares than Ott, this was a defendable choice.
Year MVP WS Win Shares Leader
1931 Frisch 21 Berger (31)
Winning an MVP with just 21 WS over 154 games is a complete joke.
Year MVP WS Win Shares Leader
1928 Bottomley 30 Waner (34)
Year MVP WS Win Shares Leader
1926 O'Farrell 23 Waner (28)
Waner was denied twice because he didn't play on a first place team like the Cards' players who won the award.
So 1964 and 1931 were indefensible selections that the Cards benefited from while 1979 was certainly questionable. There were some other years that Win Shares rated other players significantly "better" than the Cards' MVP winners, but Win Shares alone shouldn't determine the MVP. Still, Cardinals' fans should shut their mouths now.
bads85 at 1:51:53 PM EST
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
|
|
