Text Size

Cleveland Indians & MLB

You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Talk Tribe, talk baseball in this forum.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, pup, paulcousineau

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby peeker643 » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:02 pm

I'm comfortable with giving a C, C+.

I'll say this, he's gettin' to the jump off point sooner rather than later. Gonna need to win if healthy. Soon.

But some people think he's a cross between Dahmer and the Shoe Bomber.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22781
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby statmasta » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:49 am

The Tribe Zone wrote:Saying we're 4th in the league is a crap arguement. I say the whole league sucks at it.

Does it really matter if we're bad at it if we're still better than almost every team, or in some cases, every team? A team may not be good at something, but they can still be the best, and isn't that the goal? To be the best?
User avatar
statmasta
 
Posts: 1743
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:45 pm
Favorite Player: Sandy Alomar Jr.
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby statmasta » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:54 am

Peeker643 wrote:I'm comfortable with giving a C, C+.

I'll say this, he's gettin' to the jump off point sooner rather than later. Gonna need to win if healthy. Soon.

But some people think he's a cross between Dahmer and the Shoe Bomber.

I'd give him a B.

I think you have to grade on a curve. If the average of all other managers is a D, then a C or C+ is pretty good, no? The thing I'm not sure about is how good other managers truly are. We don't seem them on a day to day basis, so we don't see all the "mistakes" they make. We only see the mistakes Wedge makes and the team makes as a supposed result of Wedge's poor coaching (these so called "fundamentals"), so it feels like he's not as good.

Like I said, every other board I go to they're tearing apart the managers. Rays fans weren't happy with Joe Maddon last year. Yankee fans had issues with Joe Torre. Boston fans called for Terry Francona to be fired. St. Louis fans called Tony Larussa an idiot and wanted him gone.

These are some of the best managers in baseball, supposedly. Yet they still get crap from their fans, just like Wedge.

I think fans, not just of the Indians, but all fans, need to take a step back and look more objectively at their managers and with a more open mind. Not many managers are as bad as people make them out to be.

Just my two cents.
User avatar
statmasta
 
Posts: 1743
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:45 pm
Favorite Player: Sandy Alomar Jr.
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby Jennifer » Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:56 am

POLO wrote:I am a baseball purist. If the situation calls for a sacrifice bunt THEN BUNT. Case in point: we are in the 8th inning in Boston down one run....We lead off the inning with a single....instead of having Peralta lay down a bunt and move Grady to second and give Garko a chance to drive him in we let Peralta try to get the hit....Peralta pops out...Now OF COURSE we let Garko swing which he grounds into a double play....The purist in me wants Garko to bunt and let Trav try to drive him in BUT I understand the thoughts of managers not wanting to have a semi-power hitter bunt (WHICH in my opinion is bullshit..because if the situation calls for a bunt and you are a major leaguer you had better be able to get the bunt down.)

Long story short we lose by one run due to a manager's decision to do the wrong thing. And that is but one example. Never mind that we are on the road and are suppose to play to tie the game (MORE BS). PLAY TO WIN.

Wedge can't do what he doesn't know how to do....And that is make a sound baseball decision in the easy games let alone in the tough ones.
Let me start by thanking you for responding. I respect you for that.

To begin with let me recapitulate some of what you said, as opposed to what you might actually have meant:

!. That you are an opponent to the evolution of baseball even when it improves the game.

2. That a decision whether to sacrifice is a pretty simple decisionmaking process.

3. That a manager's decisionmaking should be judged on outcome rather then whether it was the best decision based on the information available to him at the time.

Putting aside that "baseball purists" have differing opinions among themselves let us consider some of the changes purists have opposed over the years:

1. The use of catching equipment by catchers.

2. The change from balls bouncing over the fence being homers into ground rule doubles.

3. The banning of pitchers using doctored baseballs by pitchers.

4. Allowing blacks to play in the majors. There was no greater baseball purist than J. Taylor Spinks who was also probably one of the leading opponents of integration.

5. The specialization of pitching staffs into starters and relievers.

6. The expansion of baseball teams beyond 16 teams.

7. Night baseball.

8. The DH.

9. The wildcard.

10. Interleague play.

11. Etc.

Even though you are a "purist" I'm rather certain there are at least a few of the changes I have listed that you, as well as all, current "purists" believe were good ones. One reason for that is that each generation of "purists" succeeds the next what being a purists means evolves.

So how does the evolving beliefs of a "purist" relate to scarifices? Most purists I beleve agree that baseball decisions should be based on the percentages. The thinking about the percentages in sacrificing have changed over the years. While I don't know whether Earl Weaver was the first he is certainly the most famous manager for his disdain of the sacrifice. If you haven't read it Weaver's book, co-authored by Terry Pluto, Weaver on Strategy , while outdated in some respects, still remains an excellent read.

Weaver was scoffed at by many including baseball "purists." What Weaver understood intutively was later demonstrated by statistics that on average sacrificing should be avoided. In other words, there has been an evolution as to what the meaning of playing by the percentages mean. I would think that real "purists" would embrace these statistics that point to less reliance on the sacrifice than the reliance placed on it 20 years ago.

In your example, you try to set-up the perfect hypothetical for a sacrifice and even go so far as supply as the results the worst case possible scenario -- what about the possibility of Peralta hitting a run scoring double? Outcome is not a reasonable way to judge whether Wedge made the best decision anymore than it would have been if Peralta had poped into a double play in his sacrifice attempt and Garko then followed with a double.
I never learn anything if everyone always agrees with me.
Jennifer
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:15 pm

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby Jennifer » Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:17 pm

Eckersley wrote:Jennifer's rule #39....

When any poster posts facts that are negative towards Wedgie, Jennifer calls them "rants"
When any poster posts facts that are positive towards Wedgie, Jennifer calls them "facts"
:group:
You know better than that. I challenge "facts" whenever they don't lead to the conclusion they are intended to establish. Posts can become rants the more often they are offered after responses challenging them go unanswered. Some posters, whom I won't identify, know that if they offer something enough times that eventually everyone will give-up responding and that is what these posters count on. They are just venting. They have no interest in there vents leading to discussion.

However, in this particular situation I was wrong and I apologize. You took your usual rant about Tribe slow starts and instead directed it as a question.
I never learn anything if everyone always agrees with me.
Jennifer
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:15 pm

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby The Tribe Zone » Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:33 pm

Some posters, whom I won't identify, know that if they offer something enough times that eventually everyone will give-up responding and that is what these posters count on. They are just venting.


And some like to give others enough rope, and save the best for last....

The Earl Weaver reference is somewhat flawed. Even Earl, with his 'extremist' view on baseball, used the sacrifice. So its fair to say someone managing with a more open view of the game, might see greater or better needs for it.

Percentages, as Gardenhire said it best, only show what has happened, they can't say what will happen...

If I have a Grady Sizemore I'm managing, percentages go out the window. I'm totally confident he will do all he can do in a tough, or playoff situation. Percentages be damned.



Me, I'm hardcore baseball. Let's take the rules and push them to the limit, and maybe stretch them out alittle.....

Freshest example is Albert Bell and that 2nd baseman (whatshisname) that Albert decked. Awesome play, within the rules of the game, so much so no one made a noise over it, not even whatshisnames teammates...

What are the percentages a pitcher, or anyone gives Albert any shit after that ....

Hardcore baseball....Talkin the talk, and walkin the walk...I love it.....

Thats playin the game the BEST way.....
SMF Tribe

Testing a new toy

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting..."Holy Shit, what a f'in ride!"
User avatar
The Tribe Zone
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:42 am
Favorite Player: Mattingly
Least Favorite Player: Canseco

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby Jennifer » Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:21 pm

The Tribe Zone wrote:The Earl Weaver reference is somewhat flawed. Even Earl, with his 'extremist' view on baseball, used the sacrifice. So its fair to say someone managing with a more open view of the game, might see greater or better needs for it.

Percentages, as Gardenhire said it best, only show what has happened, they can't say what will happen...

If I have a Grady Sizemore I'm managing, percentages go out the window. I'm totally confident he will do all he can do in a tough, or playoff situation. Percentages be damned.

Thank you for your offering what Gardenhire had to say but I'm not sure why you are offering it. Past performance, all else being equal, provide the probabilty of something happening or not happening. And everyone of else uses probability to dictate our everyday conduct. People who drink but don't drive rely on the probability that they will get into an accident or ticketed than if they were sober. People use electric alarm clocks because of the probability that there won't be an electric outage, people use emails because of the probability it will arrive, people use gas stoves because of the probability they won't explode, etc.

What Gardenhire no doubt meant was that percentages should not be blindly followed but other factors need to be considered that affect how good the percentages predict the future. For example, ordinarily you can depend on your electric alarm clock but you'd be extremely foolish to rely on it waking you on time if you went to bed during a major blizzard.

Well perhaps in your mind the Weaver example is flawed but I think to everyone who understood it the example supported my point. I doubt anyone other than you thought I was suggesting that Weaver never bunted. My point was, and remains, Weaver understood that the sacrifice was a lower percentage play then conventional wisdom deemed it to be.

Second, this is my fault for not spelling it out for people like you. As I wrote earlier the stats show overall results. That means, among other things, they are based on fast runners and slow runners, good bunters and bad runners, turf and grass, pitchers with a lot of movement on their pitches and no movement at all, good defenses and bad, etc. The sample is large enough to create a significant baseline to be used as a baseline. The list of some of the things managers consider is a list of things they are considering in determining whether the percentages increase or decrease in the specific situation.

Your Sizemore example is absurd as written. Would you really instruct Sizemore if he was on first to keep running to home until he got there on a base hit irrespective of where the ball was hit? I think your point was that Sizemore's chances of achieving certain things is higher than average not that you would ask Sizemore to do something where there was virtually no probability he's succeed.
I never learn anything if everyone always agrees with me.
Jennifer
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:15 pm

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby The Tribe Zone » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:17 pm

Weaver understood that the sacrifice was a lower percentage play then conventional wisdom deemed it to be.


Again, the sac is at 83+ success rate for the entire league....

Common sense says the (or your conventional thinking) says its not going to score alot of runs..........But that isn't what it is intended to do......


But as Gardenhire states, you don't know what it will do.....I doubt there's no one here who hasn't seen a stupid bunt play get overthrown around the diamond....

What Weaver understood intutively was later demonstrated by statistics that on average sacrificing should be avoided.


Earl Weavers baseball strategy is such a small sample size in the overall view of what it takes to win in baseball, who's that impressed? Especially since you acknowledge he did use the sac. Your percentages include numbers from teams that suck at it worse than we do (we're 4th we're so damn good, as someone else stated...lol), and your stats do not include all the possible outcomes....

It will always be a part of the game....why? Done properly, it works. Its the when that confuses so many, mainly those that undervalue its use...

Your point you try to make with the alarm clock is so small, if you stood it sideways its invisible.....You look at the surface of the clock and deem its value as worthless in a blizzard, but had you looked deeper you would see that it was dual powered....sort of a backup plan to keep you in the running... :wha?:
:lmfao:
SMF Tribe

Testing a new toy

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting..."Holy Shit, what a f'in ride!"
User avatar
The Tribe Zone
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:42 am
Favorite Player: Mattingly
Least Favorite Player: Canseco

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby Jennifer » Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:02 pm

The Tribe Zone wrote:
Weaver understood that the sacrifice was a lower percentage play then conventional wisdom deemed it to be.


Again, the sac is at 83+ success rate for the entire league....

Common sense says the (or your conventional thinking) says its not going to score alot of runs..........But that isn't what it is intended to do......


But as Gardenhire states, you don't know what it will do.....I doubt there's no one here who hasn't seen a stupid bunt play get overthrown around the diamond....

What Weaver understood intutively was later demonstrated by statistics that on average sacrificing should be avoided.


Earl Weavers baseball strategy is such a small sample size in the overall view of what it takes to win in baseball, who's that impressed? Especially since you acknowledge he did use the sac. Your percentages include numbers from teams that suck at it worse than we do (we're 4th we're so damn good, as someone else stated...lol), and your stats do not include all the possible outcomes....

It will always be a part of the game....why? Done properly, it works. Its the when that confuses so many, mainly those that undervalue its use...

Your point you try to make with the alarm clock is so small, if you stood it sideways its invisible.....You look at the surface of the clock and deem its value as worthless in a blizzard, but had you looked deeper you would see that it was dual powered....sort of a backup plan to keep you in the running... :wha?:
:lmfao:
Maybe I'll respond when I stop laughing. Sacrifices aren't designed to help score runs? Guess giving away outs is done just to prove it can be done.
I never learn anything if everyone always agrees with me.
Jennifer
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:15 pm

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby The Tribe Zone » Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:11 pm

Maybe I'll respond when I stop laughing. Sacrifices aren't designed to help score runs? Guess giving away outs is done just to prove it can be done.


Is that what you took from that? Interesting.

I see the problem.

But its a start. Now you can not use the," If you play for one run thats all you will get arguement...."

:clap:
SMF Tribe

Testing a new toy

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting..."Holy Shit, what a f'in ride!"
User avatar
The Tribe Zone
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:42 am
Favorite Player: Mattingly
Least Favorite Player: Canseco

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby POLO » Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:34 am

Jennifer wrote:
The Tribe Zone wrote:
Weaver understood that the sacrifice was a lower percentage play then conventional wisdom deemed it to be.


Again, the sac is at 83+ success rate for the entire league....

Common sense says the (or your conventional thinking) says its not going to score alot of runs..........But that isn't what it is intended to do......


But as Gardenhire states, you don't know what it will do.....I doubt there's no one here who hasn't seen a stupid bunt play get overthrown around the diamond....

What Weaver understood intutively was later demonstrated by statistics that on average sacrificing should be avoided.


Earl Weavers baseball strategy is such a small sample size in the overall view of what it takes to win in baseball, who's that impressed? Especially since you acknowledge he did use the sac. Your percentages include numbers from teams that suck at it worse than we do (we're 4th we're so damn good, as someone else stated...lol), and your stats do not include all the possible outcomes....

It will always be a part of the game....why? Done properly, it works. Its the when that confuses so many, mainly those that undervalue its use...

Your point you try to make with the alarm clock is so small, if you stood it sideways its invisible.....You look at the surface of the clock and deem its value as worthless in a blizzard, but had you looked deeper you would see that it was dual powered....sort of a backup plan to keep you in the running... :wha?:
:lmfao:
Maybe I'll respond when I stop laughing. Sacrifices aren't designed to help score runs? Guess giving away outs is done just to prove it can be done.


Jennifer,

Sorry I took so long to get back to this and catch up on it's "Evolution."
Been a little busy with AA responsibilities and the like.

First I would like to say I enjoyed your perspective and facts and reference to a good read. I did like the book in the sense of getting to know Earl better. (Incidentally I can still see him tearing up the rule book and throwing it in the umpires face when I was a young man) Although as an Umpire myself I no longer condone that but it was CLASSIC.

I do agree with you about the evolution of the baseball purist and I guess it is all a matter of perspective as to what exactly today's baseball purist is suppose to think and feel about certain situations. Perhaps it would behoove me to stop declaring that I am a purist.

I would like to clarify something about the sacrifice bunt and I believe TheTribeZone would probably agree (Although I am not sure if that is Good or Bad). The sacrifice I feel is there to give you a better chance at getting that run in. Especially with no one out. The sheer numbers of it gives you 2 chances to drive the run in if you are successful at getting the runner to second. I have no idea where TheTribeZone got the 83% number but I would tend to lean to it being in the ballpark.

PLEASE be advised this was only meant as my opinion on the importance of the sacrifice. BUT just to let you know Bruce Drennan made me think twice about the aspect of having a power hitter attempt it during one of my phone calls on the air last year. That being said I still must emphasize that I feel it is worth it. I did not accept the argument that he is not a good bunter. Why you ask? At that time Kenny Lofton was back in Cleveland for another stint and I think they said he is one of the most productive sacrificers and bunters to have ever played the game. So my argument becomes, couldn't he help these guys learn how to bunt?

Just my thoughts

:spar: :group:
POLO.....PEACE OUT
http://www.pmgcash.com
______________________________________________
"There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who talk about work and those who do the work. There is a lot less competition for those of us who do the work!"

These are my thoughts not yours !!!
User avatar
POLO
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:21 pm
Location: Clyde, Ohio
Favorite Player: Mike Hargrove
Least Favorite Player: John Elway

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby jameseboy » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:49 am

"Freshest example is Albert Bell and that 2nd baseman (whatshisname) that Albert decked. Awesome play, within the rules of the game, so much so no one made a noise over it, not even whatshisnames teammates..."

I really have to learn how to use that grey out..anyway if you will recall Albert was suspended because of that play. It was not because he ran into him but because he used a forearm shiver on him. You lose crediblity with that quote.

The game changes, the biggest way it has changed over the last 40 years is the emphasis on home runs and deemphasis on pitching. The mound was lowerd, the strike zone shrunk and pitching inside became against the rules. The reason is that with pitching ahead of hitting and lots of low scoring games with sacrifices all over the place people quit going to the ball park. Instead pitching was made a lot harder and hitting, especially hitting home runs a lot easier. A lot more people began going to ball games and more money was made.

Earl was a while back but in fact with the emphasis on hitting in todays game sacrifice plays of any kind make a lot less sense. The slide step has also shortened the lead off guys can get making sacrifice less likely to be successful while the double or home run is more likely.
jameseboy
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:16 am

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby POLO » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:26 am

jameseboy wrote:"Freshest example is Albert Bell and that 2nd baseman (whatshisname) that Albert decked. Awesome play, within the rules of the game, so much so no one made a noise over it, not even whatshisnames teammates..."

I really have to learn how to use that grey out..anyway if you will recall Albert was suspended because of that play. It was not because he ran into him but because he used a forearm shiver on him. You lose crediblity with that quote.

The game changes, the biggest way it has changed over the last 40 years is the emphasis on home runs and deemphasis on pitching. The mound was lowerd, the strike zone shrunk and pitching inside became against the rules. The reason is that with pitching ahead of hitting and lots of low scoring games with sacrifices all over the place people quit going to the ball park. Instead pitching was made a lot harder and hitting, especially hitting home runs a lot easier. A lot more people began going to ball games and more money was made.

Earl was a while back but in fact with the emphasis on hitting in todays game sacrifice plays of any kind make a lot less sense. The slide step has also shortened the lead off guys can get making sacrifice less likely to be successful while the double or home run is more likely.


OH NO.....I lost credibility. :sillies:

I would like to say that is the first time I lost credibility for giving my opinion BUT I would be lying.

These are my thoughts not yours. (To quote 89x DJ)
POLO.....PEACE OUT
http://www.pmgcash.com
______________________________________________
"There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who talk about work and those who do the work. There is a lot less competition for those of us who do the work!"

These are my thoughts not yours !!!
User avatar
POLO
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:21 pm
Location: Clyde, Ohio
Favorite Player: Mike Hargrove
Least Favorite Player: John Elway

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby The Tribe Zone » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:14 pm

jameseboy wrote:"Freshest example is Albert Bell and that 2nd baseman (whatshisname) that Albert decked. Awesome play, within the rules of the game, so much so no one made a noise over it, not even whatshisnames teammates..."

I really have to learn how to use that grey out..anyway if you will recall Albert was suspended because of that play. It was not because he ran into him but because he used a forearm shiver on him. You lose crediblity with that quote.


Like I said , I'ts hardcore baseball, keep that in mind. Baseball is a contact sport.
The play itself was debated heavily, many stating it was well inside the rules...I was one of them. If I lost credibility with you, fine, my apology goes to others who I may have misled. But if you read what I said, I was talking about the exact moment the play happened.

Vina said he had talked to Gene Orza of the Players Association, who looks at tape of the Vina-Belle collision again and again and swears that it was a legal play, that Belle's elbow never came into contact with Vina's head. But Fernando Vina won't go along.

Squealed like a pig, Vina did. :lmfao:

Memory has it for me Belle was hit with a pitch in that game, no warnings issued. He was ran into a DP earlier to which he didnt break up, letting it become one of routine, and corrected that with this play....

A fight during the game was what I remember to be the main reason for suspension.....and that is because I felt like the Vina incident was PURE baseball..
SMF Tribe

Testing a new toy

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting..."Holy Shit, what a f'in ride!"
User avatar
The Tribe Zone
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:42 am
Favorite Player: Mattingly
Least Favorite Player: Canseco

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby Jennifer » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:39 pm

April 6, 1996: Albert hits Sports Illustrated photographer Tony Tomsic, who was photographing him, with a baseball. He contends that it wasn't deliberate.

May 16, 1996: AL President Gene Budig orders Belle to undergo counseling and perform community service.

May 31, 1996: After getting hit by a pitch in the 8th inning of a game vs. the Milwaukee Brewers, Albert hits Fernando Vina with his forearm on a double-play ground ball, blaming Vina for standing in the baseline.
Aggresively trying to breakup a double play in a manner that might cause injury is accepted as part of the game. Deliberately trying to injure another player is not. The debate over whether Belle's action in almost breaking Vina's nose revoved around his intent. Belle could have broken up the double play with an elbow thrown lower than Vina's face. Those supporting Belle generally argued that the elbow was higher than intended and that Belle did not mean to deliberately injure Vina. Of course, it was primarily Tribe fans defending him and the rest of the world attacking him.
I never learn anything if everyone always agrees with me.
Jennifer
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:15 pm

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby POLO » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:40 pm

The Tribe Zone wrote:
jameseboy wrote:"Freshest example is Albert Bell and that 2nd baseman (whatshisname) that Albert decked. Awesome play, within the rules of the game, so much so no one made a noise over it, not even whatshisnames teammates..."

I really have to learn how to use that grey out..anyway if you will recall Albert was suspended because of that play. It was not because he ran into him but because he used a forearm shiver on him. You lose crediblity with that quote.


Like I said , I'ts hardcore baseball, keep that in mind. Baseball is a contact sport.
The play itself was debated heavily, many stating it was well inside the rules...I was one of them. If I lost credibility with you, fine, my apology goes to others who I may have misled. But if you read what I said, I was talking about the exact moment the play happened.

Vina said he had talked to Gene Orza of the Players Association, who looks at tape of the Vina-Belle collision again and again and swears that it was a legal play, that Belle's elbow never came into contact with Vina's head. But Fernando Vina won't go along.

Squealed like a pig, Vina did. :lmfao:

Memory has it for me Belle was hit with a pitch in that game, no warnings issued. He was ran into a DP earlier to which he didnt break up, letting it become one of routine, and corrected that with this play....

A fight during the game was what I remember to be the main reason for suspension.....and that is because I felt like the Vina incident was PURE baseball..


I like the play even though I am not much of an Albert fan. That is neither here nor there.

Also I am a former second baseman and can't tell you how many times I have been mowed down. Never ever had a problem with. You know that it may be coming every game when you suit up. :thumb up:

BRING IT. I'LL GET UP (whew)
POLO.....PEACE OUT
http://www.pmgcash.com
______________________________________________
"There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who talk about work and those who do the work. There is a lot less competition for those of us who do the work!"

These are my thoughts not yours !!!
User avatar
POLO
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:21 pm
Location: Clyde, Ohio
Favorite Player: Mike Hargrove
Least Favorite Player: John Elway

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby The Tribe Zone » Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:20 pm

POLO wrote:
The Tribe Zone wrote:
jameseboy wrote:"Freshest example is Albert Bell and that 2nd baseman (whatshisname) that Albert decked. Awesome play, within the rules of the game, so much so no one made a noise over it, not even whatshisnames teammates..."

I really have to learn how to use that grey out..anyway if you will recall Albert was suspended because of that play. It was not because he ran into him but because he used a forearm shiver on him. You lose crediblity with that quote.



Polo.....another 2nd baseman here and I couldn't agree more with you! I ate my share of cleats, knees and elbows for sure. Its part of the game....

Runners knew looking at me, if their heading to 2nd and standing, I'm throwing through them.....My tags were hard and firm, if it misguided their feet to the bag, they were too slow, or across their head, it didn't matter....I had runners I knocked the wind out of, having had to hold on to the ball....

Being a 2nd baseman doesn't give everyone a license to kill you. Vina screwed up. He thought Albert was going to routinely give himself up.Nothing more to it.

Thats Pure baseball.... :yessss:
SMF Tribe

Testing a new toy

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting..."Holy Shit, what a f'in ride!"
User avatar
The Tribe Zone
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:42 am
Favorite Player: Mattingly
Least Favorite Player: Canseco

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby Jennifer » Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:28 am

Hey, Hoynsie: What is your take on manager Eric Wedge?

I know Wedge is GM Mark Shapiro's pick to run the club, but given the amount of time he's been on the job without a World Series appearance it doesn't make sense. Charlie Manuel, on the other hand, guided the Phillies to a World Series championship in less time than Wedge. Perhaps Manuel had more talent on the Phillies, but Wedge has had more time. -- Frank Jacetty, Cleveland

Hey, Frank: Manuel inherited a much better club and situation in Philadelphia than Wedge did in Cleveland. This will be Manuel's fifth year as the Phillies manager. Here are the Phillies' opening day 25-man payrolls for his first four seasons -- $96 million in 2005, $88 million in 2006, $89 million in 2007 and $98 million in 2008. Compare that to Wedge's first six years with the Indians -- $49 million in 2003, $34 million in 2004, $42 million in 2005, $56 million in 2006, $62 million in 2007 and $79 million in 2008.

Manuel didn't have to go through a complete rebuild as Wedge did in 2003 and 2004.

Last year Manuel won a World Series with the help of No. 1 picks Pat Burrell, Cole Hamels, Brett Myers and Chase Utley along with Jimmy Rollins, a No. 2 pick, and Ryan Howard, a No. 5 pick. They were all drafted, signed and developed by the Phillies.

When the Indians opened last season, the only homegrown No. 1 pick they had on their 25-man roster was CC Sabathia. It's hard to compensate for low payrolls and a lack of impact players from the draft. Wedge has made his mistakes, but the fact that he enters this season with a winning record (496-476) is remarkable.

One more thing, Frank. The Indians have been playing baseball since 1901. They've made five World Series appearances. If you're into instant gratification, you're following the wrong team.


http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ss ... er_29.html
I never learn anything if everyone always agrees with me.
Jennifer
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:15 pm

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby Spin » Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:57 am

Ive complained about him in the past for not talking to the media, but he was on KNR last week and explained that he will not talk about a player behind his back. He will not yell and scream at a player in public. I think he's a good guy and has the player's loyalty.

Nobody hit their weight last spring. Is that on the manager? Hitting coach? GM? Player? Should Wedge have just brought in 15 slump busters? Lord knows there's plenty of THOSE in Cleveland...

The bullpen sucked. Can a manager make a difference wen all he sees in the bullpen is a half dozen gas cans?

Maybe it's the pre-season optimism, but after hearing his side, and considering what he has to work with, it's hard to bash right now.
User avatar
Spin
 
Posts: 2928
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:16 am
Location: the burbs of Akron
Favorite Player: Jack N. Coke
Least Favorite Player: 72 hour work weeks

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby peeker643 » Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:21 pm

Spin wrote:Ive complained about him in the past for not talking to the media, but he was on KNR last week and explained that he will not talk about a player behind his back. He will not yell and scream at a player in public. I think he's a good guy and has the player's loyalty.

Nobody hit their weight last spring. Is that on the manager? Hitting coach? GM? Player? Should Wedge have just brought in 15 slump busters? Lord knows there's plenty of THOSE in Cleveland...

The bullpen sucked. Can a manager make a difference wen all he sees in the bullpen is a half dozen gas cans?

Maybe it's the pre-season optimism, but after hearing his side, and considering what he has to work with, it's hard to bash right now.


Well Spin, I agree.

But there are at least a few dudes here who will tell you that Wedge mismanaged the hell out of the bullpen in '08 and '06 and that guys just had a great season out of the pen in '05 and '07 and the coaching/managing meant nothing.

That's just how it works here for most Wedge haters. Lose because of the guy, win despite him.

It's boringly predictable.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22781
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby The Tribe Zone » Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:19 pm

Me, I voiced my opinion already, and as someone said earlier, its another new season coming up.

It's baseball......... and we all know anything can happen at anytime. Just gotta hang loose for awhile... :pop:

The old saying, Hope Springs Eternal.....fits here.

Its spring training time, :woot:
we're hoping the season will surprise us all, :thud:
and hope we don't have to keep hoping for a &!*%$! eternity... :gah:

:hic:
SMF Tribe

Testing a new toy

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting..."Holy Shit, what a f'in ride!"
User avatar
The Tribe Zone
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:42 am
Favorite Player: Mattingly
Least Favorite Player: Canseco

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby Charboneau » Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:00 pm

Wedge did a great job in 2007 getting us to within one game of playing for it all. No manager in baseball could have overcome the injuries we had in 2008. By the end of the year we were playing the best baseball in the AL Central.

The man started from scratch with the Shapiro rebuilding project. They had pointed to 2006 as the year - they were off one - 2007 was. 2008 was a mirage with all the injuries.

I look for Wedge to lead us to the promised land in 2009.
Eric Wedge 2007 AL Manager of the Year

Rick Manning is my biological father
User avatar
Charboneau
Wedge Loyalist
 
Posts: 1077
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:33 pm
Favorite Player: Jhonny Peralta
Least Favorite Player: Dustin Pedroia

Re: You know, say what you want about Wedgie...

Unread postby jb » Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:27 pm

Peeker643 wrote:I'm too stunned to speak. This has been up an hour and there's no venom and bile spewing responses from the usual suspects. Must be electro-therapy day?? ;-) ;) :wink: :thud:

perhaps they're each starting 3 anti-Wedge threads of their own to make sure this gets buried. :woot:


Nah.... Eric Mangini came to town.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Previous

Return to Cleveland Indians & MLB

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest