They scored more runs than the Red Sox. They pounded more extra-base hits than the Yankees. Their starting pitchers threw more innings, and had a better strikeout-walk ratio, than that vaunted rotation in Detroit.The article is a fascinating analysis. Check it out.Their leadoff hitter (Grady Sizemore) led the league in extra-base hits. Their cleanup hitter (Travis Hafner) led the league in slugging. They had three different starting pitchers tie for the league lead in shutouts.
And they outscored their opponents by 88 runs -- a bigger margin than what four of the eight playoff teams, including the the World Series champion Cardinals, and two 90-win teams registered.
So …
There is only one question really worth asking about the team that did all this, the Cleveland Indians:
How the heck did they ever have a losing record (78-84) last season?
Friday, March 30, 2007
Indian Summer... and Fall
Check out this great piece by Jayson Stark on the Indians' chances this season. Excerpt:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How the heck did they ever have a losing record (78-84) last season?
ReplyDeleteSimple. Statistics don't always translate into victories.
Silly Moshe. Of course not always, but to some extent, they obviously do. And what the Indians managed to (not) do is unprecedented, statistically, which is why they are likely (not guaranteed) to be much, much better this year.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't even read the article! Hmph.
I was going to email you that article because I knew you'd love it. The truth is Stark is basically right; we should expect the Indians to improve about 10 wins this season, maybe more. Whether that'll be enough to win the AL Central depends on whether the Tigers suffer a regression and whether the Twins manage to win over 90 games again with their poor pitching depth.
ReplyDeleteI think the Indians are going to be a very good team this year, but probably not in the same class as the Red Sox and Yankees. Their bullpen in inferior and their starting pitching doesn't really match up.
Hehe :)
ReplyDeleteI'd say 15 or more games, actually (the article says 93). If a few of those wins are against their division foes, that should be the difference.
The Indians' bullpen is still obviously a question mark, but it's hard to see how the starters aren't not only as good as the Red Sox and Yankees, but clearly better. The Yanks' only solid starter is out for now, and the Red Sox - while close - are still counting on a very old star; a guy who was terrible against good teams last year (see Beckett's splits vs. NYY, TOR, CLE); and a guy coming over from Japan who looks great but is still a big ?; an on-and-off knuckleballer; and an older reliever who has never sustained success as a starter (even on the Indians he was much better suited for the 'pen).
Just compare last year's starter numbers of each team - and that's with Westbrook being shaky and Lee having a terrible year.
Just compare last year's starter numbers of each team - and that's with Westbrook being shaky and Lee having a terrible year.
ReplyDeleteSure. :-)
Westbrook and Lee were basically average pitchers last year, both having an ERA+ slightly above 100. While Sabathia's ERA+ was 39% better than average, he was really it for the rotation last year. And who's going to fill the 4 and 5 spots?
BTW Lee's numbers were only slightly worse (besides wins) than in 05. And considering he's only been a starter for 3 year, you might say his 05 numbers were the fluke. Same with Westbrook. His ERA+ was higher last year than in 05, despite a much higher WHIP.
For the Yankees, both Mussina and Wang threw around 200 innings with an ERA+ over 120. The Yankees replaced Johnson's 88 with Petitte, who should be at least average, if not above average (lefties do better in the Stadium). Igawa's periperhals in Japan were solid (he was among the league leaders in SO), leaving me to believe he should be at least an average 4th starter. The 5th spot is a crapshoot, but we might get to see Phillip Hughes, whose projections are better than anyone on the current staff.
Wang's hamstring injury shouldn't keep him out for too long and despite Mussina's age, I don't expect his numbers to decline too much.
Here we go again.
ReplyDeleteBy my estimation our dear Ez has entered into the next phase of Cleveland fandom, that of guarded optimism. This has followed blind faith, total belief and irrational rationalism. In a few more years he will have reached the stage were I currently reside, guarded pesimism. Such is the fate of those of us who will forever follow the teams of the lakefront.
I've said it before and I will say it again; we will know that the ultimate yeshua is at hand when a professional sports team from Cleveland raises a world championship banner.
How the heck did they ever have a losing record (78-84) last season?
ReplyDeleteEasy, they're from Cleveland.
ERA+
ReplyDeleteOooh, where can I see those?
Westbrook and Lee were basically average pitchers last year
Which was worse than normal for them. If they simply return to form (even somewhat), they'll improve.
And who's going to fill the 4 and 5 spots?
You've never seen Jeremy Sowers pitch, have you? He's going to be better than all of them... and probably already is better than Westbrook and Lee. And while Paul Byrd isn't amazing, he's a fine #5 at 10 wins, 4.88 ERA. If he isn't, they have Carmona or phenom Adam Miller (14 scoreless in spring training, starting in AAA).
As for Lee/Westbrook dropping off etc., look at Westbrook's splits. His home numbers were great last year. There's more reason to think that his road numbers last year were fluky than his home. And Lee was a top prospect who had a good season, then a great one, then a sudden strange year, likely from trying new things to avoid the wall he hit the previous year. I'd guess he'd bounce back, especially since he'll be missing a few weeks which means he won't have to worry much about a wall later on.
Remember also that both Westbrook and Lee would get touched up late in games last year because they were pitching tired, since the Tribe didn't have a reliable pen. (It was very frustrating fantasy-wise to see 6 innings of 1-run ball then 3 runs in the next 2 innings.)
Mussina is 38. There's no reason to assume Petitte will be any better than he used to be for the Yankees, which was average (his W-L gets a nice boost from the lineup) at best, and he's 34 now. Igawa is completely unproven, but as a 4th he may be okay. And 5th is a crapshoot, as you say.
Put it this way: Would you rather have Sabathia, Westbrook, Lee, and Sowers? Or Wang, Mussina, Petitte, Igawa? Perhaps it's not as slam-dunk as I'd said, but I'd still clearly choose the Indians.
Side note: I think Barfield was the best move by any team this offseason.
G - LOL. Or I can get to the level of our friend Y. Howie, which is unbridled pessimism no matter how good the team is.
David - :::grumble:::
ReplyDeleteERA+ is the statistic of choice of Baseball-Reference.com. It's basically ERA adjusted for league and park effects.
ReplyDeleteI think you are seriously overvaluing Westbrook. His career ERA+ is 101, which is 1% over average. Nothing great, just average. He had a great 2004, but that's pretty much it. His 05 and 06 numbers are closer to his career numbers and probably suggest where he should be.
Lee is a different story because he only has 3 years under his belt. And while he improved in 05, his decline in 06 was no fluke. His SO went down and his BB and HR went up, which helped his WHIP skyrocket. You think Lee had a great year because in 05 he went 18-5 but WL record is more a function of team than anything else. And btw his innings went down and his starts up, so while you might be right about his being worse in the later innings, it's not because the bullpen made him pitch more (although many more of his inherited runners might have scored because the bullpen didn't get the job done).
I admit I don't know much about Sowers beyond what his numbers were last year, so I'll take your word for it. But when it comes to prospects no one in the AL has a better pitching prospect than Philip Hughes.
About Mussina and Pettite: Mussina is getting older, no question. But Mussina's peripherals were much better last year than all his other years, which probably means he worked something out. I doubt he'll be as good as last year, but I'd expect him to be well above average.
Petitte on the other hand prospered in the NL, so it's hard to know how he'll do in the AL. But if Pettite puts up the same numbers as he did in 1999-03, we'll be very very happy.
So unless the Indians' prospects really pick it up and other guys have career years, I don't see the Indians' staff being better than the Yankees'.
Disagree on Westbrook. This is one of those things where perhaps numbers are slightly misleading - look at how much higher his WHIP was this past year, while his ERA dropped. If you watch Indians' games, he was often trying to sacrifice baserunners for outs; sometimes, that means there will be more hits, but the runs scored will be less. Also, the fact that his home ERA/WHIP are so much lower than road generally means one is a bit fluky... as is the .259 BA against in the first half against .339 in the second half. That ties into the Indians' lack of a bullpen, because he was going 7-8 innings almost every start after the break. If you look back at those games, you'll see him start to give up hits and runs in the late innings.
ReplyDeleteAlso look at BA against with runners on different bases. With guys on first, the average against is MUCH higher (.361) than any other option. Why? Because he's a ground-ball pitcher. He's willing to give up what sometimes will be a hit in exchange for what will sometimes be a double-play grounder. That's something he's gotten much better at each year... and that was also much worse thanks to terrible defense last year, which should be drastically different with Marte and Barfield. My brother is a stats freak, yet he also likes to talk about the need to sometimes see the teams play, too. I think Westbrook is one of those guys you need to see to understand the numbers.
Agree on W-L being a function of team more than anything. It's why Sabathia can't buy a win. :)
Lee wasn't great because of his record, he simply had great starts. He wasn't walking people or giving up HRs. I really think it was his attempts to not rely on trying to strike people out last year that got him into trouble early, then his overcompensating for that later in the year (along with small injuries).
There's no hype like NY hype, hence Hughes. Sowers is the one who the Red Sox manager sent college film of to his own son to watch as THE example of how to be a pitcher. That's before Sowers struck Ortiz out three straight times on curveballs. :) (And Sowers is NOT a K guy.)
Sowers was drafted in the first round when he was coming out of high school, didn't sign (Reds), and was picked again in the first round by the Indians 3 years later. That's how good he is - the Reds were willing to take the chance on a 1st round pick on a guy they weren't assured of signing.
He's a great pitcher to watch. :)
Mussina & Pettite, I guess we'll have to see.
About Westbrook: Say what you want, but his numbers last year are right around average for his four seasons as a major league starter. The fact his WHIP was so high and his ERA went down is probably more a result of him getting lucky, and in fact he should have been even worse than he was. A 1.429 WHIP is terrible, but his ERA was a little above average, which is fine from a 3rd or 4th starter. But with the exception of 04, there is no reason to believe that he'll be anything better than a 4th starter. His SO, BB, and HRs allowed last year were basically the same as the year before and in 04, which leads me to believe that he got lucky that year. And what do you know, his BABIP was above average in 04, which leads me to believe he did get lucky. To be fair though, his BABIP was very high last year, so that explains his WHIP shooting up, especially since his BB remained the same as the past two years. So what probably happened is he gave up more hits than he should of (which was not always his fault) but got lucky that those runs didn't score (which was not always his fault either). Basically it appears he was as good last year as he was in 06, which is pretty much average.
ReplyDeleteYour claim that he gives up hits with runners on first because he's trying for the double play does not help your cause. That is precisely why SO matter so much. A SO pitcher does not have to try to coax a GB and hope it's hit at the fielder. He can control his own destiny by striking people out. Westbrook got burned unfairly, but that was partly his fault for not being able to strike out a decent number of hitters.
Basically I think Westbrook got unlucky and lucky in the same season. Unlucky that so many hits fell, but lucky that they didn't score. The 2007 Westbrook should be the same as the 2006 Westbrook.
Lee's SO went down and his HR shot up. That's why he was worse last year. But his HRs allowed were consistent with his 04 performance, so I'll need more evidence that his 05 performance was evidence of his true talent.
On Sowers: apparently he's an excellent prospect and only ranked behind Hughes by scout.com as a pitching prospect. He's had some really good minor league and college numbers, so he should be good, although not as good as his stint last year (at least not yet).
Basically what it comes down to, is that you think Westbrook should be better than his career numbers and Lee should be as good as his best season. Maybe, but I don't see it.
Your claim that he gives up hits with runners on first because he's trying for the double play does not help your cause. That is precisely why SO matter so much. A SO pitcher does not have to try to coax a GB and hope it's hit at the fielder. He can control his own destiny by striking people out. Westbrook got burned unfairly, but that was partly his fault for not being able to strike out a decent number of hitters.
ReplyDeleteI think you missed my point there a bit. Westbrook isn't a K pitcher, period. Obviously, that's not a great thing, though plenty of pitchers do fine by forcing people to make contact and hitting it at people. What hurt him last year was the terrible middle defense and Aaron Boone not being great at third, plus Victor Martinez being the worst-throwing catcher in baseball allowing teams to avoid double-plays a bit more.
This year, they have Barfield at 2B, a drastic improvement. Marte is supposed to be spectacular at third. Peralta spent the off-season working on his play at short, and he was already much improved the last couple months of last year, and Martinez spent the off-season working on his footwork behind the plate. Casey Blake OR Ryan Garko are also better at 1B than Martinez was when he moved over, and probably no better or worse than Broussard was. For a groundball pitcher like Westbrook, who plays behind him is huge. Therefore, he was unlucky in '06, but couldn't possibly be that unlucky in '07.
Lee is a tougher call, but I'm basically arguing that yes, he'll be more like '05. He was a rookie in '04 and burned out a bit at the end, and simply struggled last year.
I'm not denying that that Westbrook was unlucky in 06. His BABIP was way high, which leads to that conclusion. But I suggest that while he was unlucky in how many hits fell in (that number was higher than 05) he was lucky that a lot of those runners didn't score. I'd project that his WHIP comes down this year, but his ERA remains the same.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside pitchers who do well by making players make contact are not good because they get players to hit the ball to certain spots. They are good because they don't allow BB or HR allowed. Cliff Lee giving up 30 HR last year is an example of someone whose SO went down and whose numbers dropped because of HRs.