|
Indians Talk
by CSF
Staff
12-13-2006
Hardball Times has a positive spin on the Indians off season
and hopes for 2007.
"I like another team from
the AL Central to break out next season: the Cleveland Indians.
The Indians won 78 games last season, but they should have won
89 based on their Pythagorean record."
"They also have one of the best signings (in terms of production
per dollar) of the offseason in
David Dellucci, and their lineup will further be improved
with a better year from
Jhonny Peralta and a full season from
Andy Marte.
Josh Barfield was a very nice acquisition as well. Then
again, offense wasn't a problem last year for the Indians, who
finished second in the AL in runs, so it doesn't really even
need to improve."
"On the pitching side of things, Cleveland has the most
underrated star in the game in
C.C. Sabathia, who finished eighth in the American League in
Pitching Runs Created last year, and they should also
benefit from a full year from
Jeremy Sowers. Barfield and Marte should help shore up the
Indians infield defense, which was atrocious last year, and
Peralta will likely have a better season than he did last year
as well, which will really help out the pitching staff,
especially
Jake Westbrook. I think this is a 90-win team, and maybe the
favorite in a suddenly tough AL Central."
This is just the type of logic I
complained about in the recent
Cult of GM article and why this incarnation of the Cleveland
Indians has to hope for extremely good fortune rather than
proper planning & evaluation to win.
Let's take the first statement
about Pythagorean record. What this is is an estimation of a
team's supposed winning percentage based on their runs allowed
and runs scored. It really isn't a predictor of anything. It
just shows when a team is a little more lucky or not at various
times throughout a MLB season. The problems I have with the HB
Times quote is that they are taking a W-L record in 2006 for the
Indians that appears to be 'unlucky', given this theorem, and
projecting it onto a new season. This doesn't take into account
any actual moves made by the team - additions and/or
subtractions in player personnel. The assumption is that the
luck will even out this year even given the changes on the team.
Saying David Delluci was one of
the best free agent signings (based on production/per dollar) is
hilarious to me. This is like saying Busch Light is the best
beer in the world (based on quality-amount/per dollar). For some
reason, when I think of Busch Light, I do not think of using the
word 'best' in describing it. So Shapiro got a value deal on a
generic ballplayer - woo hoo! All Hail Mark Shapiro - he can
work a tight budget - put it on the board - yes.
Sabathia is not underrated by
anyone following the game. He is just coming into his own as a
mature (in ML terms) starting pitcher with great stuff.
I guess his assumption with
Jeremy Sowers is that he will keep his ERA below four in 2007.
Imo, that is one of many things that have to break in the
Indian's favor in a big way or they have no chance next year.
"Peralta will likely have a
better season next year . . ."
Wasn't it another stats site -
Baseball Prospectus, that came up with some algebraic expression
that proved Jhonny would be worse in 2006 from 2005? This is
more of the same, calling what is obvious some deep insight.
And then there is the old
fielding defense makes or breaks a pitcher line in regards to
Jake Westbrook at the end. I don't doubt there is some impact,
but you had five starters on the same staff last year with very
different results. How does anyone explain fielding defense as a
significant factor when it appears Sabathia overcame it and Paul
Byrd couldn't? This is one of these things that I do not view as
a significant factor. Pitchers are either good, not, or league
average. Their ERA and peripheral numbers like WHIP, etc. show
what kind of a season they had. It is funny to me that just a
couple of years ago Rob Neyer stated Westbrook was at best a
middle of the rotation starter based on his peripheral numbers
and now, when the conventional wisdom is that Jake is a MOR
starter, somebody else comes along and claims he can be
something more if just the infield defense were improved.
This is all wishful thinking. I
can see Peralta being better as logic would tell you that based
on his track record (including the minors), 2006 is probably the
worst you will see from him. Marte & Barfield are better than
Aaron Boone and Ronnie Belliard? No shit Sherlock. Just like the
infield defense was improved immediately in 2006 when Marte was
brought up from AAA. I don't see any difference in the defense
at 1st base regardless of who ends up playing there - Blake or
Garko. Barfield may be an improvement on Ronnie Belliard's
range, but given the reports of him having issues turning the
double play, it may turn out a wash. That was Belliard's strong
point.
This is the problem with putting
too much emphasis on fielding defense. It is often the case that
most players (the non difference making types of fielders) all
have various strengths and some weaknesses. You can
replace one to improve in one area and lose a little in another.
The writer here has taken it as a
given that the offense was already good and will continue to be.
He did not factor in that the Indians will have Blake as the
primary 1st baseman and Dellucci (a big question mark for anyone
that understands stats that count and the differences in quality
of pitching between leagues) as a full time corner OF. Yes,
Dellucci will have approximately 100 at bats where he will not
face the likes of LHP Rogers, Santana, etc. All's that means is
Jason freaking Michaels will face them instead.
Here is what Michaels did against them in 2006. Not a pretty
sight for a corner OF.
Garko, the rookie who got his
first 150+ ML at bats in the last two months last season and did
an admirable job replacing Hafner in the four hole, will
probably not even be a factor on the 2007 team. If he is not
traded, he will more than likely be back in Buffalo. The idiots
that keep saying he will be on the bench waiting for Blake to
falter are in for a long wait. People that actually have
followed this team the last few years and are not front office
shills know that it is like watching paint dry waiting for these
dummies to make an obvious move.
Everyone also knows that the guy
making the most money gets the most playing time - another
unfortunate new development in the way the Indians are run. Just
like last spring training, performances there will not matter -
ask Brandon Phillips about that. Besides, luster on Shapiro's
talent evaluation skills are fading by the minute with the moves
he's made over the last two years. It would be surprising, at
this point, to see him and/or Eric Wedge get this one right.
So, as usual in baseball, the
thing most people think is least likely to happen (offensive
problems) probably will. The starting pitching may even be a tad
better, but not enough to overcome that and compete with the
other teams in the division that have something this writer
failed to mention - legitimately good bullpens.
This is how it dawned on me that
this writer wasn't a local Cleveland Sports Fan. No, the Indians
weren't 'unlucky' last year. Their biggest problem was that the
bullpen sucked. I don't know how many, but that bullpen lost a
lot of games for the Indians in 2006. The only guy there worth a
damn our talent guru traded away, which has led to his rifling
through the consignment shops this off season hoping to uncover a
gem or two on the cheap. Yeah, that's the main reason I can't go
along with this wishful thinking - the complete ignoring of
facts. Sounds like another fluff piece and just more of the same
GM love to me.
Ask yourselves this; if in August
of 2006 you were told the following would be the significant
additions to the team going into the 2007 season: Roberto
Hernandez, Joe Borowski, Aaron Fultz, David Delucci, Josh
Barfield, what would be your response? Well my reaction, after
the laughter had died down, would have been just incredulous.
The Indians most significant and probably best signing was
Borowski and we have to hope (fingers crossed) he is as good as
Wickman.
top
|