Tribe gets DeRosa for prospects

[CIMO.]

Just posted on the PD website.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2...quire_infi.html

The Cleveland Indians will begin the New Year with a new third baseman.

 

The Indians announced this afternoon at 1:30 that they have acquired infielder Mark DeRosa from the Chicago Cubs for minor-league pitchers Jeff Stevens, Chris Archer and John Gaub.

 

DeRosa, who played six different positions for the Cubs last season, is expected to play third base for the Indians. If that holds true, Jhonny Peralta will stay at shortstop and Asdrubal Cabrera will stay at second base. Last season, DeRosa, 33, batted .285 for the Cubs with 21 home runs and 87 runs batted in. He scored 103 runs.

 

DeRosa, who apparently is the missing piece to the Indians' infield situation, could bat second in the lineup.

 

Stevens is the only pitcher the Indians gave up who is on the team's 40-man roster. Last season, Stevens went 5-1 for the Class AA Akron Aeros and 0-3 with Class AAA Buffalo. The 25-year-old has a career earned-run average of 3.52 during his four seasons in the minor leagues.

 

Archer, 20, had a 4.29 ERA last season while going 4-8 with the Class A Lake County Captains. He has played three seasons in the Indians' farm system.

 

Gaub, 23, also pitched for the Captains, going 1-1 with a 3.38 ERA.

 

DeRosa will make $5.5 million in 2009. Under terms of his contract, which expires after the 2009 season, he receives a $50,000 bonus for being traded.

 

 

Hoynsie says he'll be plugged in at 3rd, but he can play anywhere. He hit .285 with 21 bombs last season, In 2006 and '07 he hit above .290 but only 23 homers combined in the two years. I still think Jhonny has to move to 3rd (or DH) eventually, but DeRosa will be a good fit for 2009.

 

I'm pretty freaking excited, really. If he can give us another .290 hitting year with 10-15 homers while our young guys (Hodges, Valbuena, etc) sort things out, then come off the books next year and all we're giving up are bullpen prospects - which with Wood, Lewis, Perez, Smith, and Miller and Meloan in the minors, we're not exactly hurting for relievers - this looks like a great move. He's not Brian Roberts, but I like it all the same.

 

Just give me a Shoppach for Nolasco (or another 3rd starter) trade and I'm set.

[Guest Masters]

I suspect DeRosa will play 2B. Jhonny P has been playing 3rd exclusively in winter ball, and doing well by reports. I suspect this seals Jhonny P moving to 3B, and Astrubal to SS.

[CIMO.]

I really don't see the point of keeping Jhonny at short, but of course I haven't been watching him play 3rd. I've heard all the talk about reflexes and everything, but he must be terrible if we now have a good shortstop AND a good second baseman forced to play out of position because of a below average shortstop. But I don't know, Hoynes and Castro have both said he figures to be our 3rd baseman.

 

 

Now I'm just waiting for the Shapiro bashers to bring up the last time Jeff Stevens was traded...

[ballpeen]

I think it is a excellent move...as you said...he keeps 3rd warm until Hodges is ready to take over...and he can play about every position on the field, and well enough he isn't going to kill you at the plate or in the field.

 

That allows you to do some things you otherwise couldn't.

 

I think it is a great move that brings a solid vet ...the type of guy who can help you win a pennant in a lot a ways that only real baseball people and astute fans understand.

 

Big thumbs up here.

[Beanpot]

I really don't see the point of keeping Jhonny at short, but of course I haven't been watching him play 3rd. I've heard all the talk about reflexes and everything, but he must be terrible if we now have a good shortstop AND a good second baseman forced to play out of position because of a below average shortstop. But I don't know, Hoynes and Castro have both said he figures to be our 3rd baseman.

 

Now I'm just waiting for the Shapiro bashers to bring up the last time Jeff Stevens was traded...

 

Agreed with every thing you said. And Stevens....was he the guy we got for Phillips? Must have been, based on your comment. As a big time basher of that trade, I continue to fault Wedge (and Phillips, for that matter) for the deal. I know Shapiro ultimately signed off on it and it lands in his lap, but Shapiro bashers should really look elsewhere when they're mindlessly bashing the guy.

 

I'm with you and Masters on 2B being the ideal spot for DeRosa.

 

Beanpot

[CIMO.]

And Stevens....was he the guy we got for Phillips?

 

Beanpot

 

Yep, I don't think there are any of the extreme bashers on here, but I've already heard a couple "How strange that we trade an all-star 2B for Stevens, then trade Stevens for a 2B." And plenty of the typical fans bashing the trade just for the sake of bashing. "Trading more youngsters for a 33 year old whose contract runs up this year." Probably the same people who were saying the exact opposite after the CC trade. Just the typical stuff but I figured the Phillips connection would bring them out harder.

 

 

Still loving the deal though. Fills a big hole, whether it's mainly 2B or 3B, and gives us all kinds of insurance in case of injuries, and flexibility if any of Hodges, Valbuena/Barfield, or Brantley shows he's ready for the big show.

[Merlin]

Ya know...Marte actually hit something like .320 over his last 20 or so games, and .290 over his last 30. Some people are late bloomers. Maybe we should give him a chance to continue what he ended the season with, instead of trading him away and possibly watching him bloom with another team?

[ballpeen]

Living in Braves country, seems I have been hearing the name Marte since Dale Murphy, Bob Horner, and "Knuxie" were the studs on the Braves......ok...maybe not that far back....the point being there is always the same talk about the guy but never anything to back it up....Matre has to be the best player ever who has never really made it in the majors.

 

I think it's time the Tribe looked to find some other sucker who wants to keep him as their best minor league prospect for the next 5 or so years.

[rich4eagle]

I agree with Ballpeen and Beans etc that this was a good trade for the Tribe. I also agree that Peralta has to moved to third because he is a liability at SS

[Beanpot]

Keith Law agrees with us too:

 

Friday, January 2, 2009

DeRosa comes cheap for Indians

 

The Indians didn't quite get Mark DeRosa for free, but they got him on clearance in a post-Christmas sale. I wasn't a fan of the DeRosa signing after the 2006 season, but he increased his walk rate in Chicago, setting two consecutive career highs in both walks drawn and OBP. The power surge in 2008 is likely a mirage, but a .285/.365/.440 line is well within reason, and would make him a significant asset at second base. He's average at best defensively there, but allows Cleveland to move Asdrubal Cabrera to shortstop (his natural position, where he was a defensive wizard in the minors) and Jhonny Peralta to third base (getting him out of harm's way). The net improvement should be two wins, perhaps more if Cabrera turns out to be a plus glove at short once he's playing it every day.

 

None of the three arms going back to Chicago is anyone for Cleveland fans to worry about. Jeff Stevens will pitch in the majors as a middle reliever, but despite high minor league strikeout rates, his stuff is average (he'll touch 93 mph, but sits 89-92) and he doesn't have a pitch that projects to miss bats in the majors. John Gaub looked like a potential first-round pick during his sophomore year in college, but hurt his shoulder before his junior season, after which he had trouble getting on the mound and showed a marked decrease in velocity when he did pitch. He hurt his shoulder again after 2006 and his stuff is fringe-average; the high strikeout rate he showed in Lake County was as much a product of the competition, as he was three or four years older than most of the hitters he faced. Chris Archer has youth on his side, but not stuff and definitely not control. It's a package of bulk, not upside or clear big-league value, making this appear to be a salary dump for the Cubs.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=38...;type=blogEntry

 

Beanpot

 

 

[Beanpot]

Same goes for Pluto. Love Terry mentioning OPS and splits:

 

1. I wish the Indians were plugging Mark DeRosa into second base, moving Jhonny Peralta to third with Asdrubal Cabrera taking over at short. But the Indians insist DeRosa is much better at third base, and he is rated above average at the position. The Indians didn't say it, but he is supposed to have more range at third than Casey Blake or Andy Marte.

 

2. At second base, DeRosa is rated average at best. Cabrera is Gold Glove caliber at second. They think they can go another year with Peralta at short, but he will eventually be moved to third base.

 

3. Not much has been said about DeRosa as an outfielder, but he has an above average right-field arm. If Shin Soo Choo or Ben Francisco falter or are injured, DeRosa is an alternative. If there is an injury in the middle infield, DeRosa can take over at second base.

 

4. DeRosa will be 34 in February. He has one year left at $5.5 million, so he can be one-year rental. It's still mind-boggling that 35-year-old Casey Blake received a 3-year, $17 million deal from the Dodgers. Great for Good Guy Casey, but in this tight market, it's an amazing blessing. By way of comparison, Blake batted .274 (.808 OPS) with 21 HR and 81 RBI for the Tribe and Dodgers last season. DeRosa was at .285 (.857 OPS) 21 HR, 87 RBI for the Cubs.

 

5. Playing at Wrigley Field (and Texas before that) did help DeRosa. Over the last three years, he hit .304 (.844 OPS) at home compared to .278 (.796 OPS) on the road. He actually had more HR away (23) than at home (21) with only three more at bats on the road. He is a solid player. In those last three years, the right-handed batter hit .283 vs. righties, .312 vs. lefties. It was .300 before the All-Star break, .281 after. Based on the last three years, DeRosa's typical season would be .291 with 15 HR and 81 RBI.

 

6. The Indians had to decide if they should wait for a free-agent starter to become available on a one-year deal (much like Kevin Millwood in 2005) right before spring training, or spend what is left on their budget for DeRosa. They could not afford to do both. They decided to go for DeRosa, because if they passed, they could end up with nothing. Also, the Orioles continue to say they had no interest in trading Brian Roberts, so the Indians went after DeRosa -- and beat out the Twins, who also wanted him.

 

7. Last season, DeRosa played 95 games (8 errors) at second, 38 in right field, 27 in left field and 22 at third base with two errors. Obviously, adding DeRosa puts Andy Marte and Josh Barfield in limbo, as Jamey Carroll is the utility infielder. It allows them to start future second baseman Luis Valbuena at Class AAA Columbus, rather than possibly rush him to the majors if Barfield had a poor spring.

 

8. Kerry Wood gave DeRosa a huge endorsement, and the Indians like that DeRosa gives them a No. 2 hitter they've lacked since Omar Vizquel and Coco Crisp in 2005. Last year, they had several in that spot, including Cabrera, Carroll and Dave Dellucci. Over the last three years, DeRosa has a .368 on-base percentage, putting him in the top 25 percent among all players -- and that's an asset at the top of the lineup. Why did DeRosa play second when third is his best position? Because the Cubs have Aramis Ramirez (.289, 27 HR, 111 RBI) at third.

 

9. I like Jeff Stevens and believe he will be effective in the majors as a reliever. He throws in the 93 mph range and was 5-4 with a 3.24 ERA and 81 strikeouts in only 58 1/3 innings between Class AAA Buffalo and Class AA Akron last season. Opposing batters hit only .185. The other two pitchers (Chris Archer and Jon Gaub) were at the Class A level. Maybe they will pitch in the big leagues eventually, but it won't be soon. For more information on them, check Tony Lastoria's excellent farm system blog at www.indiansprospectsinsider.com

 

10. I like the deal because it shows the Indians are playing for 2009, as does the signing of Wood and the deals for Joe Smith and, to a lesser extent, Luis Valbuena. The Indians added all those players and the only big leaguer lost in trades was Franklin Gutierrez.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/blog/index....e_browns_2.html

 

Beanpot

[JohnG71097]

I think the Indians envision DeRosa as a guy who can play a bunch of spots, a cheaper Casey Blake if you will.

 

I would rather see JP move to 3rd with AC playing ss on an everyday basis. Why, Because he is simply the better fielder and DeRosa and Carroll could handle the 2nd sackers job easily throughout the balance of the season

 

The key may be Peralta isn't mentally ready to make the switch to 3rd just yet on an everyday basis and may go into a funk if he is forced to do so.

[gcarl]

This infield won't be set until spring training is winding down. Not only should Peralta be moved to 3rd, Cabrera to SS, and DeRosa to 2nd... but Victor should become the everyday 1B, with Shoppach everyday at catcher. Garko is crap, and the Indians now have several catching prospects coming down the pike. One problem is the LaPorta can play 1B, as well as OF. Definitely need to find a place for him when he's ready for the big leagues.

[Beanpot]

Agree with both John and gcarl (though "crap" is a little strong concerning Garko - but not all that far off IMO).

 

Casto addresses much of this in his latest (hopefully not *last*) mailbag. He also touches on the Shin-Soo's military obligation, which is a pretty fascinating subject involving the AL Player of the Month award winner of last September:

 

Unfortunately, it is my duty to inform you that the Mailbag, as we know it, is no more. MLB.com is doing away with the feature on its club sites and going in a different direction with its content plan for 2009. We'll just take the easy way out and blame it on the economy, like everything else.

 

But because the Tribe Mailbag has become such a popular feature, I cannot, in good conscience, extinguish it entirely. For one, I had promised a new Mailbag on Jan. 5, and I refuse to be labeled a liar. While it won't run on Indians.com today, as previously scheduled, I can certainly run it here at CastroTurf.

 

I will, on occassion, continue to answer some of your questions in entries here. So please, by all means, keep them coming, and check back frequently.

 

E-mail your questions to tribemailbag@yahoo.com, and please don't forget to include your first name, last initial and hometown.

 

Let's see what was on your minds this week...

 

Allow me to be a typical Cleveland sports fan. I think the Tribe has found a budding star in Shin-Soo Choo. He's a .310/25/100 guy. And in two years he'll be holding a gun for the Korean military instead of a bat for the Indians. Figures.

-- Josh H., Mansfield, Ohio

 

Your cynicism is understood in these parts, Josh. It's an innate part of the Cleveland condition.

 

Choo could avoid the obligation by becoming a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, or he could avoid it by helping South Korea to a baseball championship in the 2010 Asian Games (but that is, obviously, easier said than done). And while no one is saying it publicly, there is always the possibility that Choo simply does not return to his native land, thereby avoiding conscription.

 

Whenever the topic of his military obligation comes up, Choo says he's not thinking about that yet. And the Indians haven't shown the slightest bit of concern about the situation. The "typical Cleveland sports fans," as you call them, are the ones fretting, but this might amount to much ado about nothing.

 

I am a die-hard Cubs fan, and I just wanted to tell Indians fans the obvious: You guys got an insanely underrated player in Mark DeRosa. He may have been the Cubs' most valuable asset, and we are sad to see him go.

-- Scott P., Trevor, Wis.

 

I've heard nothing but good things about DeRosa, from a character standpoint. The fans and the media in Chicago loved him. I have no doubt that he'll be an asset to the Indians' clubhouse, and his numbers certainly lend themselves to the belief that he'll be an asset in the No. 2 spot of the lineup.

 

I'm less convinced about moving DeRosa to third, though I understand the Indians' rationale. I suspect the Tribe will work Jhonny Peralta in at third, on occasion, to get a better read on how he'd adjust to the position (his reflexes aren't exactly cat-like at shortstop, and that could become even more of an issue at the hot corner). It's reasonably safe to assume third base is in Peralta's future, but it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to move him to third permanently now, as DeRosa has the versatility to make the move in the interim.

 

If you can't tell, I liked this trade for the Tribe.

 

How do the prospects the Tribe received for Casey Blake in July (catcher Carlos Santana, right-hander John Meloan) compare with the prospects we gave up to get DeRosa (right-handers Jeff Stevens and Chris Archer, left-hander John Gaub)? How are these prospects valued internally by the Tribe, and what is your take on the net cost of obtaining DeRosa for one year? Is this worth it?

-- Craig A., Loughton, Essex, U.K.

 

Santana is already considered one of the organization's top prospects. The Indians couldn't be more enamored with his potential. They felt that Meloan and Stevens both could have competed for a bullpen job this season, but Meloan was probably higher on the pecking order because of his Triple-A experience. It was way too early to have a firm read on Archer and Gaub, who haven't spent so much as one inning above low-A ball.

 

All prospects are unproven commodities. I'd say the Indians received two unproven commodities in Santana and Meloan who are rated higher than the three unproven commodities given up in Stevens, Archer and Gaub.

 

But if you're really going to compare Blake and DeRosa, as so many fans seem inclined to do, the net cost issue is more about contract length than anything else. The 35-year-old Blake commanded a three-year deal in free agency, averaging out at $5.67 million per year. DeRosa, who turns 34 next month, is signed for one more year at $5.5 million. The Indians are much more comfortable with DeRosa for one year than Blake for three.

 

Is first base secretly at all a concern? Is Victor Martinez potentially going to start there, and, if so, will he still bat fourth? I would think Peralta should bat fourth. With last year's injuries and production, Martinez should be looked at as unreliable in the cleanup spot. And if you could choose between Kelly Shoppach or Ryan Garko getting regular playing time, who would it be? It has to be Shoppach, right?

-- Kevin H., Athens, Ohio

 

Kevin supplied the OU anecdote above, so he gets his question answered, too.

 

First base would be more of a concern if the Indians didn't have the perceived luxury of Martinez's flexibility and Shoppach's bat. When it comes down to Garko vs. Shoppach, the Indians are a better team defensively with Shoppach behind the plate and Martinez at first. Then again, I think Garko has more run-production upside than Shoppach, who strikes out too frequently for my liking. The Indians, for now, are just as indecisive on the matter, which is why I think you'll see both guys quite a bit.

 

I've always liked Garko, which made his '08 season all the more maddening. But what he did down the stretch was real, so that has to allay some of the Indians' worries. On the whole, the lack of power at first is a worry. If Martinez returns to his '07 form, it's less of a concern. But if not, that position is a glaring weakness, from the power standpoint.

 

As far as the lineups are concerned, I would be surprised if Peralta doesn't remain in the cleanup spot. You're right, Kevin, that the Indians can't exactly pencil in Martinez's old production until they see how he rebounds from all that missed time last year.

 

Well, the first Mailbag of the New Year, and it happens to be my birthday, as well! Maybe that's a good sign? Anyway, my question is on the farm system. I saw MLB.com's top 50 prospects and noticed that Matt LaPorta (No. 14) and Adam Miller (41) are on it. LaPorta I understand, but Miller? He is always injured. Do you think he deserves that ranking?

-- Aaron M., Erie, Pa.

 

First off, happy birthday, Aaron. May this Mailbag inclusion be, by far, your least-impressive birthday present.

 

It's a testament to Miller's raw stuff that he's still on that list, despite only pitching a grand total of 94 innings over the last two seasons. I expect him to make an impact in the back end of the bullpen this season, if he's healthy. But because that "if" is such a big "if," I personally would have put Santana on this list before Miller.

 

Why would Grady Sizemore play in the World Baseball Classic? Better yet, why does the front office permit him to play? At the end of last season, I recall management saying they need to give Grady days off during '09.

-- Bill, Cincinnati

 

Teams are at the mercy of their players' desires to play in the WBC, unless that player missed significant time due to injury in the previous season. So when Sizemore said he wants to participate, the Indians had no choice but to let him. But it should be a good experience for Sizemore, and he should be a valuable asset to Team USA.

 

And finally...

 

Why don't the Indians trade all of their good players to the A's? The A's are boss!

-- Sean M., Livermore, Calif.

I don't know why, but this might be my favorite Mailbag question of all-time. I'm imagining headlines of "Tribe trades Lee to A's -- for nothing" and subheads of "Shapiro said move was made because A's are 'so boss.'"

 

More than anything, I'm just rooting for "boss" to reemerge as part of our lexicon. That would be gnarly.

http://castrovince.mlblogs.com/archives/20...ry_service.html

 

Beanpot

[Guest Masters]

I don't get calling Garko crap. He did hit .273 and drove in 90, in a line up that was missing Hafner and Martinez.

 

Garko isn't gonna be a big time player or run producer like a lot of other 1B in the league. But he is gonna be playing and starting for a long time, whether in CLE or else where.

[gcarl]

I don't get calling Garko crap. He did hit .273 and drove in 90, in a line up that was missing Hafner and Martinez.

 

That was harsh of me, I admit. I guess I view him as the odd man out. No way you take Victor's bat out of the lineup. However, he is not as good a defensive catcher as Shoppach, but did improve last year. One alternative is to put Victor at 1B. Although, Garko had a good year defensively at 1B last year (4 errors in 1123 total chances). And, Shoppach had good offensive numbers as well (but K's alot). Tough call.

 

[Guest Masters]

That was harsh of me, I admit. I guess I view him as the odd man out. No way you take Victor's bat out of the lineup. However, he is not as good a defensive catcher as Shoppach, but did improve last year. One alternative is to put Victor at 1B. Although, Garko had a good year defensively at 1B last year (4 errors in 1123 total chances). And, Shoppach had good offensive numbers as well (but K's alot). Tough call.

 

I agree with that. Not sure he is totally the odd man out. But he might become a rotation. Victor isn't exactly solid at 1st and will still see time catching. I am not sold Hafner will come back to form either. I am w/ you on wanting Shoppach seeing a good amount of time, but more for his bat. Victor struggles thowing out runners, but he calls a great game. Which sometimes is over looked in baseball. That is huge imo.

 

The plus side is CLE has options at 1B, DH, and C.

 

[CIMO.]

I don't follow baseball all that closely, but this sounds like a really deep batting order to me:

 

Sizemore (30 HR projected)

DeRosa (20)

Francisco (20)

Martinez (20)

Hafner (who knows)

Peralta (20)

Garko (20)

Choo (20)

That one dude named Asdurbledrubal or something

 

I'm sure the order is wrong, but it seems like everybody before the unpronouncable has pop.

 

No question. Francisco and DeRosa are stretches for 20, but hopefully guys like Choo and Peralta will be closer to 25-30 (and that's not even counting Shoppach's 21 bombs). The perfect scenario has more to do with the table setting though. DeRosa gives us another great OBP guy, if Martinez bounces back and Garko gets closer to his .290 avg, we should be back near the top in run producing. Brantley at the top of the order (in time) would make us even better.

[Guest Masters]

No question. Francisco and DeRosa are stretches for 20, but hopefully guys like Choo and Peralta will be closer to 25-30 (and that's not even counting Shoppach's 21 bombs). The perfect scenario has more to do with the table setting though. DeRosa gives us another great OBP guy, if Martinez bounces back and Garko gets closer to his .290 avg, we should be back near the top in run producing. Brantley at the top of the order (in time) would make us even better.

 

Well Fransisco and Choo gave the tribe 15 and 14 HRs last year. If they see more time instead of Deluchi, I don't see why they couldn't come close to the 20 HR.

 

I'd love to see someone be able to take over the top of the order. Grady would be a perfect 3 hole hitter.

[gcarl]

I'd love to see someone be able to take over the top of the order. Grady would be a perfect 3 hole hitter.

 

I was really disappointed the the Indians didn't bring Lofton back for 2008. Yeah, he's up there age-wise, but who the hell cares? He had a fantastic last half of 2007 and a great postseason.

 

[Guest Masters]

Yeah, I was thinkin'... if Sizemore's a 30 HR kinda guy, put him in the 3.

 

I have been saying for a while he'd be the second coming of Robbie Alomar when he hit there. He can hit for power to drive in runs, hit the gaps, or drop down the bunt to move the runners. He can do everything you really want in the 3 hole.

[Beanpot]

I have been saying for a while he'd be the second coming of Robbie Alomar when he hit there. He can hit for power to drive in runs, hit the gaps, or drop down the bunt to move the runners. He can do everything you really want in the 3 hole.

 

It's fun to look at lineup construction. The variables and dogmas attached to the subject make it a silly exercise, but there are a few tools out there that look into the topic. Baseball Musings does such a thing here - http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

 

Essentially, it only takes into consideration OBP and SLG percentage and then determines which lineup would score the most runs given those numbers.

 

I plugged in the 08 numbers for every starter last year (I used Shoppach behind the plate, Garko at first and Martinez as DH) and the lineup which scored the most runs featured....Casey Blake as our lead off hitter. Actually, he was the lead off hitter in the top six lineups that would have scored us the most runs per game (5.049-5.044 - we were at 4.96 last year). Sizemore is in the two hole in all of the top six lineups and Shoppach was at clean-up in all but 6 of the 30 generated line ups. Garko was in the 8th spot in every single simulation.

 

For 09, I just used career numbers and replaced Blake with DeRosa, Gootz with Choo and Garko with Hafner. Again, this doesn't take into count aging patterns, injury history and the fact that there's no way in hell that Eric Wedge (or most any other manager) is going to ignore history and construct his lineup in such an unorthodox way. That said, here's the *best* lineup the Indians could construct next year:

 

Martinez

Hafner

Peralta

Choo

Sizemore

Francisco

DeRosa

Shoppach

Cabrera

 

Such a lineup would score 5.586 runs a game, according to the model used.

 

So, yeah. It'll never happen. But I was surprised to learn that Sizemore in the three hole produced an optimum lineup only twice in 60 models.

 

Here are a couple of links that show the tables:

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/Lin...365&Model=0

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/Lin...534&Model=1

 

Beanpot

[Beanpot]

I have been saying for a while he'd be the second coming of Robbie Alomar when he hit there. He can hit for power to drive in runs, hit the gaps, or drop down the bunt to move the runners. He can do everything you really want in the 3 hole.

 

Man, I was so tempted to say something snarky about the idea of Grady "bunt(ing) to move runners over from the 3 hole." But you know Masters, you're right. I hope like mad it won't happen often, but Sizemore is just the guy for that kinda thing.

 

Speaking of bunts, here's a great passage from a book I've never read. Deals with Robbie, Grover and the '97 ALCS. Just terrific writing:

 

It was October baseball at its best, played in the lengthening shadows of late afternoon and in the shadow cast by the long season that had led to this dramatic moment. An autumnal sense of winding down pervaded Baltimore's Camden Yards, with the light and warmth of summer seeping away amid hints of winter. The lights were on and so were sweaters and game six of the American League Championship Series was scoreless in the bottom of the seventh inning.

 

During the 1997 regular season the Orioles had become only the third "wire to wire" team in American League history -- in first place from game 1 through game 162. But the Indians were leading the Series three games to two when shortstop Mike Bordick led off the seventh for the Orioles with a single. The next batter was Brady Anderson, who, on the first pitch, squared as though to bunt, but took a breaking ball for ball one. He did not want to bunt, but he wanted the Indians' pitcher, Charles Nagy, and catcher, Sandy Alomar, to think he might be bunting and to pitch to him with that in mind. Perhaps they did. The next pitch was a high fastball, a pitch easier to hit than to bunt. Anderson slapped it into right for a single. Bordick stopped at second.

 

If the Orioles could score Bordick, they would be six outs from forcing a seventh game. It would be a home game, so if they could advance Bordick 180 feet they would be favored to advance to the World Series. However, the Orioles were 0 for 8 with runners in scoring position in this game. The next batter, Orioles second baseman Roberto Alomar, Sandy's brother and one of baseball's better hunters, would try to move Bordick the 90 feet to third base, from which he could score on a sacrifice fly.

 

The inning, and perhaps the game, and even the season were coming down to one taut moment, a test of anticipation and execution by Roberto Alomar, and by brother Sandy and the rest of the Indians. Would Roberto Alomar drop down a bunt? And if so, where? That would depend on which bunt defense the Indians chose, and that choice would depend on what the Indians thought Roberto Alomar and the Orioles were thinking. So the first task for both teams was to get some information.

 

To that end, after Alomar got set in the batters box, Nagy, a righthander, stepped off the mound and looked to second. He was signaled to do so from the Indians' bench. Nowadays, managers call for "step-offs" -- for the pitcher to step off the rubber -- and throw-overs to first base, and pickoff plays. (Until relatively recently, managers did not involve themselves in such micromanagement of games. In 1948, the Indians won the American League pennant and the World Series under a player-manager, shortstop Lou Boudreau, who had a spectacular season, batting .355 with 18 home runs and 106 RBI. It is inconceivable that he could have called step-offs and throw-overs while playing shortstop.) Usually a step-off is called to see if some motion by the batter or by a base runner betrays the intentions of the team at bat.

 

Reflecting about that play, Davey Johnson, the Orioles' manager, recalls thinking that the Indians might be looking for evidence that the Orioles were going to try a hit-and-run. Such evidence, betrayed just before Nagy stepped off or in response to his doing so, might be some slight lean or start by Bordick or Anderson, or some adjustment by Alomar of his stance, or some slight movement of his bat.

 

The bat control that makes Alomar a deft bunter also makes him adept at the hit-and-run. Besides, Johnson does not often call for a bunt. On the other hand, in situations like this Alomar sometimes bunts on his own. He has been in baseball since he was in diapers (his father had a fifteen-year major league career) and he has abundant confidence in his situational judgments. Furthermore, he spent his first three seasons in the National League (with the Padres). In that league, for a number of reasons (principally, tradition, and bigger parks, and the absence of the designated hitter) there is somewhat less of an emphasis on "big bang," long-ball baseball, somewhat more willingness to give up an out to advance a runner 90 feet.

 

In any case, when Nagy stepped off, neither Bordick nor Anderson nor Alomar did anything that looked like evidence of a hit-and-run, or a bunt. But Mike Hargrove, the Indians' manager, was not suspecting a hit-and-run and did not doubt what Johnson had in mind and what Alomar was going to do. "The situation," Hargrove says, "was screaming bunt." If ever there was a time to play for one run, this was it.

 

Thinking back on this minidrama, Hargrove says the rush of decisions concerning Alomar's at bat is "a little bit of a blur," but he says the Nagy step off might have been part of a pickoff play at second: The shortstop breaks for third, and perhaps the runner on second thinks he can and should lengthen his lead. The second baseman darts in behind the runner to take the throw from the pitcher. However, the pitcher does not have to throw to second when that play is put on, and Nagy did not throw.

 

Now it was time for the first pitch to Alomar, and it was Alomar's and the Orioles' turn to try to learn something. Alomar shortened up and partially squared to bunt, but he took the first pitch, a buntable breaking ball. His eyes were less on the pitch than on the left side of the Indians' infield, third baseman Matt Williams and shortstop Omar Vizquel. Both are among the best defensive players at their positions; both have won Gold Gloves. Together, they give a manager confidence to put on the "wheel" or "rotation" play in a situation like this.

 

But Mike Hargrove had not done so. Yet.

 

On the "wheel" or "rotation" play the third baseman charges the bunt, as does the first baseman, as the pitcher covers the middle of the infield. The second baseman sprints to cover second. And the shortstop breaks toward third, racing the runner on second and arriving at third -- if all goes well -- in time to force the lead runner. However, on the first pitch to Alomar, Williams had, in Johnson's words, "played it regular." Playing it "regular" means, Johnson says, that "the third baseman doesn't come until he sees [the ball] coming toward him." Williams had not charged. He had been edging in toward Alomar as Nagy prepared to deliver the first pitch, but then had held back.

 

So what information had the Orioles acquired? Precious little. They had learned that the wheel play was not on. Not on the first pitch, at least. Which did not surprise Johnson: "Our reports were that they did not run the wheel." When told that Johnson had assumed the Indians did not use that play, Hargrove said, laughing, "That's what you get for assuming."

 

The trouble is, in baseball, as in the rest of life, we live by assuming. We act all the time on assumptions about how children, the weather, stocks and other things are apt to behave. And in fact the Orioles' reports had been basically right. Hargrove says the Indians only use the wheel play "two or three times a year." But, he says, "we work at it all the time." They were about to work it for what Hargrove thinks was only the second time in 1997.

 

After Alomar took that first pitch, Williams looked in to the Indians' dugout on the third-base side of Camden Yards, then turned toward his teammates and went through a series of signs. Next, he went to the mound and, with his glove over his mouth to frustrate any lip-readers in the Orioles' dugout, spoke to Nagy. As Johnson said later, "Williams is a National League guy." He had spent the ten seasons prior to 1997 with the Giants, and the wheel play was a routine part of his defensive craftsmanship. So Alomar and the Orioles had to wonder whether Williams had signaled a new play -- the wheel -- or whether all this was just a charade to get the Orioles thinking that the Indians would not play the second pitch the way they had played the first. If the Indians were not going to use the wheel, Alomar's job would be to bunt the ball toward third hard enough that Williams, not Nagy, would have to field it, drawing him away from third, leaving the Indians with only the option of getting Alomar at first as Bordick and Anderson advanced.

 

Alomar bunted the second pitch toward third, and he and the Orioles instantly, and to their sorrow, had the answer to their question. This time Williams was charging and Vizquel was on the run to his right, toward third. Williams fielded the ball about 25 feet in front of the plate, whirled and threw to Vizquel, who beat Bordick to third by at least 15 feet for the force-out.

 

The time that had elapsed between Anderson's single touching the rightfield grass and Williams' throw touching Vizquel's glove: one minute and fifty-nine seconds.

 

The Orioles still had a threat going, with Anderson -- who is a lot faster than Bordick is going from second to home -- on second and Alomar on first. But the Indians, having been challenged to anticipate correctly and execute flawlessly, had done so. The next batter, Geronimo Berroa, grounded the first pitch into a double play with Roberto Alomar out at second. The game remained scoreless until the eleventh inning, when the Indians' second baseman, Tony Fernandez, lofted a home run over the right-field scoreboard.

 

That, and one more inning of good relief pitching, sent the Indians to the World Series. However, the hinge of the game was the play four innings earlier.

 

It was not a baseball fan who said that God gave us memory so that we could have roses in winter. Roses are all very well, but real fans are warmed between the postseason and the preseason by the afterglow of episodes like Alomar's bunt and the Indians' businesslike but beautiful 5-6 putout in the seventh.

 

Bunts are modest and often useful things, although they are not always well understood, even by those who are supposed to know when and how to lay them down. In a baseball story in McClure's magazine in 1917, back when the ball was dead and bunting was an essential and admired skill, a manager marveled at a player's misconceptions:

 

"So I asks him, 'Young man, can you bunt?' 'Mr. Ryan,' says he, 'I don't like to brag about myself, but I can bunt farther than any other man on the team.' Them's his very words. Can you beat it?"

 

The origin of the word "bunt" is lost in the mists of history, which of course does not inhibit either speculation or certitude. In the Church of Baseball, the mere absence of conclusive evidence is no impediment to belief. Baseball fans are forever in the grip of originitis, a mild mental illness that manifests itself in a powerful craving for usually unattainable knowledge of when this or that practice originated. Baseball's most venerable "knowledge" is the most preposterous: It is the Abner Doubleday myth, the story that in the summer of 1839 young Abner sashayed into Farmer Phinney's pasture at Cooperstown and said, "Let there be baseball," or words to that effect. There is even a theory about the origin of the use of batting gloves. It is that in 1968 Ken Harrelson, then with the Bostons (concerning that way of speaking, see the essay about Bill Rigney in this volume), assumed he was not expected to play in a particular night game. So he played 36 holes of golf before going to the ballpark, where he arrived with blistered hands and found his name on the lineup card. (That is what you get for assuming.) So he wore his golf gloves to bat.

 

One theory about the origin of the word "bunt" is that it evolved from the word "butting," which is what Tim Murnane of the Boston Red Stockings called it when he used his flat-sided bat -- such bats were legal back then -- to put a ball into play without swinging. Another theory is that "bunt" derived from "buntling" to designate a baby hit. That is a particularly charming theory, so let's accept it until some spoilsport refutes it.

 

I have titled this collection of baseball writings Bunts because they are mostly small, most of them having been written for newspapers, magazines and book review publications. Baseball, unlike basketball or hockey or soccer, is a game of episodes, not of flow, and so lends itself to snapshots. These essays are verbal snapshots taken of baseball during a quarter of a century of usually exhilarating, sometimes exasperating but always affectionate observation of the game. The subjects of these essays range from the nobility of Curt Flood, to the torments of Billy Martin, to the self-destruction of Pete Rose. They range from what baseball has done exquisitely right -- Camden Yards, for example -- to what it has done ruinously wrong -- labor relations. Two of the longer essays, the one on broadcaster Jon Miller and the concluding survey of the game at the end of the century, were written for this volume.

 

Connie Mack, who spent sixty-four years in Major League Baseball -- fifty-three of them in dugouts, and fifty of those wearing a business suit and necktie and stiff collar and managing the Philadelphia Athletics -- said near the end of his life, "I have never known a day when I didn't learn something new about this game." There is indeed a lot to learn. The writings in this volume contain much of what one fan has learned from a lifetime constantly refreshed by sips from the meandering stream of baseball's life.

 

I am sometimes asked when it was that I first came upon that stream which irrigates my life. I answer that I do not know, because I have no memory of life before baseball. My mother recalled that at age six, after listening to a broadcast of a 1947 World Series game that the Yankees lost, I asked her if the Yankees' mothers would be sad. (She said, "No." She should have said, "Not for long.") My interest in baseball was fed by radio. I grew up in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, a university community, and radio was my connection with metropolitan America. As we lived more or less midway between Chicago and St. Louis, the family Philco crackled with the broadcasts of the Cubs (Burt Wilson), White Sox (Bob Elson), Cardinals (Harry Caray) and Browns (Buddy Blattner). Baseball was in the air.

 

For half a century, and especially in the almost quarter of a century covered by the columns and other essays in this volume, the national pastime has been a full participant in the three great dramas of the nation in that period. These dramas have concerned relations between the races, the temptations and stresses of prosperity and the aggressive assertion of new rights. In this period I have come of middle age, and baseball has grown up.

 

These rites of passage are supposed to be tinged with melancholy -- farewell to innocence and all that -- and baseball has in fact paid a price for its growth into an institution more complex and less intimate than it was. In a sense, baseball has become both more and less close to those of us who care about it. It is closer to us in the sense that we know more about its internal workings as a business, and we know more about (and there is more to know about) what the players and managers are doing during games. On the other hand, a certain social distance has opened up between the people on the field and the people in the stands. Players and managers are highly paid celebrities, with all the attendant demands on them, and often a certain wariness from them. The stakes of success and failure are much higher than they were.

 

So much has changed, but the most remarkable thing is that the essential feature -- the enjoyment fans derive from a close connection with the game -- has not. The following writings wend their way through the delights and, yes, exasperations of one fan's experiences with this American delight. The volume ends with a summing-up, an examination of baseball's evolution through the century. It is nice to know that my last words in this volume will not be the last word on anything, because baseball is a work in progress. If you don't believe me, just remember -- and heed -- the fan's familiar cry: "Wait 'til next year!"

 

Copyright © 1998 by George F. Will

 

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/will-bunts.html?_r=2

 

Beanpot

[JohnG71097]

Man, I was so tempted to say something snarky about the idea of Grady "bunt(ing) to move runners over from the 3 hole." But you know Masters, you're right. I hope like mad it won't happen often, but Sizemore is just the guy for that kinda thing.

 

Speaking of bunts, here's a great passage from a book I've never read. Deals with Robbie, Grover and the '97 ALCS. Just terrific writing:

 

 

Beanpot

 

Great stuff Beans

 

"The Wheel" Man that was great situational baseball, I remember sweating through that 1 minute and 59 seconds

As I was reading it I vividly saw it in my mind's eye as it was just yesterday.

 

I remember the tenseness, with Nagy stepping off et al

 

thanks

JG

 

[Guest Masters]

Man, I was so tempted to say something snarky about the idea of Grady "bunt(ing) to move runners over from the 3 hole." But you know Masters, you're right. I hope like mad it won't happen often, but Sizemore is just the guy for that kinda thing.

 

I doubt it would happen oftern, just that he has that ability. Heck, he could probably beat out many for a hit.

 

Great stuff from that book by the way. Thanks.

 

[ballpeen]

If I owned the team and Wedge didn't drop Sizemore to 3rd in the lineup, I would fire Wedge and manage the team myself.

[Guest Masters]

If I owned the team and Wedge didn't drop Sizemore to 3rd in the lineup, I would fire Wedge and manage the team myself.

 

Who leads off?

 

It's easy to say that then really do that. CLE has no other option at the lead off spot than Grady. I am hardly the biggest fan of Wedge, but making a statement like that, when CLE has no other lead off options is just off base.