May 21, 2013

Angels 9, Indians 6 — Rich Dad, Poor Dad: The On-Field Production

PRO TIP: A change-up is coming

Major League Baseball is, at its core, comprised of two groups of teams. Both want to win as winning is the root of call competition and baseball is, by and large, rife with highly competitive individuals. One group yearns to do so, so badly, that that they are willing to do whatever it takes in order to better their chances at reaching the pinnacle of their goal-based mountain. The other group, however, hopes for the best and if winning happens, well hey, that’s pretty cool.

Both groups, as often happens within this glorious vortex known the MLB regular season, were firmly represented on Tuesday evening as the Indians played their second of three games against the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The halos trotted out Zack Greinke, a Cy Young award winner with an ERA under 3.50 who they managed to acquire before the recently passed MLB trade deadline. The Indians countered with Ubaldo Jiménez, a one-time All-Star whom they acquired before last season’s trade deadline.

Greinke, on this night, retired 10 of his first 11 batters. Jiménez allowed four runs, five hits, a walk and a hit batter in the first inning alone. As the scoreboard glowed Angels 9, Indians 6, Greinke would take his record to 10-4. Jiménez, not to be outdone, would record his American League-leading 12th loss, tossing yet another wild pitch in the process, while offering up this gem:

“I’m a work in progress.”

It wasn’t all that long ago that the should-be ace turned in one of his better outings as a member of the Indians, fanning 10 members of the Boston Red Sox in what would be a rare win for the Wahoos.  The unfortunate part is that this Indians team, as presently constructed, relies on outings like this, outings which are clearly the outlier for a pitcher who is 2-7 in his last 10 starts. The 2012 Indians are a team which, as we were led to believe by their selective off-season acquisitions, were going to rely on solid pitching and impenetrable defense. But on Tuesday evening, as the fourth run of the inning would cross the plate on a ball hit sharply off of the glove of shortstop Asdrubal Cabrera, subsequently sent trickling into shallow left field, it was clear that neither of these ideals would be executed upon.

Jiménez would go on to say that the Angels “had a good approach.” Said approach was clearly smacking middle-of-the-plate fastballs to all parts of the field, swinging very early in the count. Once the Tribe’s starter opted to mix things up a bit, throwing off-speed pitches early, the ever-talented Angels lineup countered with quality at-bats. After cruising through the second and third innings, a slate which allowed the Indians to cut the lead from four runs to two, Erick Aybar quickly deposited a fastball over the right-center field fence. Catcher Chris Ianetta patiently earned a base on balls. Mike Trout, the soon-to-be unanimous AL Rookie of the Year, waited on an outside curve ball and sent it into left center field. Albert Pujols, the team’s — and baseball’s — big free agent addition, would cap things off by placing an off-speed pitch over the left fence, his second home run in the series, scoring his two teammates and ultimately putting the game well out of reach for the reeling Indians lineup, blind-siding the starting pitcher.

“I don’t even know [what happened],” said Jimenez. “Sometimes I have a good games, sometimes I have a bad game — definitely have been inconsistent. It’s been a really tough year, but I have to keep going, keep working.”

This entire game coming on the heels of manager Manny Acta’s comments regarding his team needing three additional bats as well as a starting pitcher in order to compete. This coming hours after the team opted to place a starting pitcher on the disabled list to clear space for a player who will soon make his season debut after aging three years in roughly three months. This coming during a period of alleged contention. Compare this all to a team like the Angels who knew what they needed, and got it done. As it just so happens, the Angels are also proud owners of the most MLB-ready rookie to take the stage in the history of the game. Sure, they have a payroll upwards of $155 million, but if the Indians are ever going to win — a championship, not just a division title — they will have to do so by contending against teams in the other group. The Wahoos have managed to have the Angels’ number at times through the 2012 season, but as the sample size increases, the quality of roster starts to win out. In the MLB land of East Eggs and West Eggs, the Cleveland Indians are hard-boiled.

This Cleveland Indians roster, at least under the current ownership group, will never have a payroll that even sniffs that of the one currently employed by the Angels. Then again, when a player who was supposed to be an ace, one who was to be the “make or break” player of a crucial season, says he’s a “work in progress,” perhaps there are more issues to evaluate than off-season free agent spending. Moneyball was a fun movie. It won awards. It had the chubby Jonah Hill. It was about baseball. But the movie  was ultimately about a winning streak, not a championship. But surely, had they won the entire thing, well, that would have been pretty cool.

(Photo by Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

  • nj0

    Really glad Brantley is proving me wrong about him.
    Don’t forget – the guy is younger than Kipnis.

  • mgbode

    “Mike Trout, the soon-to-be unanimous AL Rookie of the Year”

    and, if there is any justice in the voting, the AL MVP as well

  • mgbode

    “This Cleveland Indians roster, at least under the current ownership
    group, will never have a payroll that even sniffs that of the one
    currently employed by the Angels”

    cmon Scott, you are better than this statement. you make it sound like there is an owner out there who might sniff the $155mil payroll of the Angels. that is ridiculous. even the famously debt-spending Illitch in Detroit is supposedly losing $20mil/season on the team. so, that gets us to what $80-90mil? where’s the other $65mil coming from?

    we need to be smarter about how we draft, who we pickup in FA and trades, and, yes, be willing to push the payroll up more when we think we have a legitimate shot (but to $75-80mil). that is how we can compete with teams like the Angels that have $150mil/year local TV deals.

    http://losangeles.sbnation.com/los-angeles-angels/2011/12/8/2622757/los-angeles-angels-tv-deal-3-billion-20-years-albert-pujols-c-j-wilson-arte-moreno

  • mgbode

    and this isn’t the first time he has flashed out well. he was having a breakout year last year too before getting (and playing) hurt until the Indians eventually shut him down.

  • nj0

    “even the famously debt-spending Illitch in Detroit” – Which, I might, is still spending over $20M LESS than the Angels.

  • LaundroMat

    It’s “Greinke.”

    Well done with “Jiménez,” though.

  • nj0

    Also, Moneyball wasn’t about a winning streak. It was about a method of evaluating talent in an objective way to find and exploit market inefficiencies so teams with payrolls only a fraction of the big boys could compete. And if you haven’t noticed, every team is doing it now.

    It also was about a girl playing a guitar.

  • EyesAbove

    And the Angels are trailing the A’s in the standings, proving once again that big spending doesnt automatically equal winning. The front office screwed this season up for the Tribe, not the Dolans.

  • http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/ Scott @ WFNY

    One could argue that, while every team may be trying to do it, this one is extremely unsuccessful in doing so.

  • http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/ Scott @ WFNY

    Fixed. And thank you.

  • http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/ Scott @ WFNY

    Even the As went out and added Cespedes. The Indians issues are undoubtedly a collaborative effort of suck.

  • http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/ Scott @ WFNY

    Agreed.

  • SDA

    found this interesting. haven’t had the time to decipher it all but here ya go
    http://www.forbes.com/teams/cleveland-indians/

  • SDA

    If your winning and people don’t show that one thing. But to turn a profit and lose and then complain that it’s because there are no buts in the seats…….

  • nj0

    And traded Cahill and Gio too. Bold moves and an approach I’d like to see us take.

  • nj0

    Hmmm…. interesting….

  • nj0

    One could. Talk all the smack you want about the Indians front office. I won’t stop you. Just don’t diminish the influence of the numbers revolution.

  • MrCleaveland

    Scott, this is one of the best things you’ve written. I really enjoyed it.

  • SDA

    I think the money ball thing applies no matter who you are but the basis still has to be talent evaluation. It has to be a combination of the numbers and questioning how the numbers became what they are.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cb.everett.9 CB Everett

    It’s funny…I was at the game last night talking with a bunch of Angels fans (give away night commemorating their ’02 championship), and some were saying how less enthused they are about this current team as opposed to the ’02, how it’s not home grown, not the same underdog feel, etc. I get the sense they’re a little uneasy being the Yankees west, assembling via tossing money around. I reminded them that it’s a good problem to have

  • matt underwood

    agree – you need talent too; not just numbers.

    Seems as though the Tribe forgets this… only looks at Excel spreadsheets as opposed to watching video or reading scouting reports.

  • Garry_Owen

    Do you really think the Yankees, Angels, Rangers, Tigers, etc. are playing moneyball? I’m not so sure, unless “moneyball” means throwing money like a ball.

  • nj0

    Do I think they use sabermetrics to evaluate talent and make sure they get the best bang for their buck? Absolutely. (Minus maybe the Tigers -Fielder!)
    Do you think they just sign whomever to whatever?
    Seriously, every team in the majors has a statistical component to their talent evaluation now. Some rely on it more than others, but they all do it. The Moneyball revolution is over and the stats won.
    Now, do they practice what most think of as Billy Beane moneyball? No, clearly not.

  • Garry_Owen

    Well, when it’s stated that loosely, I obviously agree with you – but teams have had at least some form of “statistical component” to their talent evaluation since Abner Doubleday was in short pants. I do actually think that some teams sign whomever to whatever. I’m sure they look at the sabermetrics, but as you say, I wouldn’t call it “moneyball.”

  • nj0

    If the Indians (or any other team) is just using spreadsheets then they deserve to lose.

    Sabermetrics may have started out as completely stat dependent, but in the last 15 years it has moved to work hand in hand with scouting and other quantitative measures. Beane brand moneyball is over a decade old now. Even at the time, it wasn’t as revolutionary as many people thought. More than a few clubs were doing their own statistical work at the time.

    Thinking of modern sabermetrics as being “just stats” is way off. Actually, it’s more than that – it’s just wrong. People who unfairly characterize it as such usually are doing so in an effort to belittle sabermetrics and make it seem silly. A better way to think of sabermetircs is the analysis of baseball through objective analysis and measures – stats, pitch tracking data, fielding dats, and traditional scouting.

    As for the Indians, their front office clearly has been woefully unsuccessful. But don’t blame sabermetrics- blame them for poorly applying the information they had (Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom) and sticking to an outdated model for building a team.

  • nj0

    By statistical component, I meant advanced sabermetrics stuff. Something beyond ERA and BA.

    I know the Yankees et al have the rep for spending willy-nilly, but they’re still a business concerned with making money. I’m sure they put a whole lot of thought into every contract they sign and dollar they spend.

  • Matt underwood

    Agree completely – however or whatever the tribe uses to evaluate talent, they had better stop. It sure as hell isn’t working.

  • Steve

    “haven’t had the time to decipher it”

    Well when you do, please share your interesting comments. I’ll give you a hint – there’s a lot more than one year of operating income (which is not profit) that you need to look at. Here’s how you can tell – the bottom four teams in operating income this year were in the top 8 in franchise value, while four of the top five in operating income were in the bottom 8 in franchise value.

    Also, no one complained about the fans since the Indians have been in first place (which they got to by winning).

  • SDA

    This whole subject got started because of people saying we need to support them when they were close to the top. Remember the Perez comments.

    And I said I hadn’t gone through them yet. And I’m no expert but it looks to me like they were showing a profit. .

  • Steve

    When they were in first place they should have drawn better than dead last (by quite a bit in attendance). I completely get people not wanting to come out now, but in April and May they were playing good, entertaining baseball, and myriads of excuses were being given by “fans”.

    And it’s pretty black and white on reading financial statement data. Either you are or aren’t qualified to interpret them. If its the latter, than obviously you shouldn’t bother. If its the former, then you know that just using one year of operating income is not useful in any way shape or form in making a legitimate analysis.