Shapiro is vastly overrated.

The Indians under Shapiro and longtime scouting director John Mirabelli, who started a couple years before Shapiro and actually moved up this past year to oversee all scouting operations, just have not done a good enough job in the draft to support a mid-revenue franchise. It's great to win some big trades, but a mid-revenue team needs a steady pipeline to provide the talent foundation and Shapiro/Mirabelli did not do that with the draft.

And it hasn't helped that for all of Shapiro's trade wins, he's also bled away a lot of talent in smaller deals that just didn't panned out - Phillips, Guthrie, Kouzmanoff, Coco Crisp and a couple others I can't think of off the top of my head.

just have not done a good enough job in the draft to support a mid-revenue franchise

I don't know, I'm not sure it isn't a development issue. It seems to me the Indians have trouble bringing players through the system. Are there clear instances of drafts where the Indians could have had a better player but chose to go with someone out of a hunch or for signability?

Shapiro took over as GM in Nov. 2001. Since then he's had 4 full losing seasons, 2 winning seasons, and 1 playoff appearance. This year looks like a sub.500 year, which would be 5 losing seasons in 7 years. His winning seasons consist of a close call for the playoffs in 2005, and an ALCS appearance last year.

Their 2007 season was remarkable, and I think generally he's been pretty good, but I agree with the overrated comments.

When Shapiro took over, Sabathia, Martinez, Peralta, and Carmona were all already in the system. He had a great first year, getting Sizemore and Lee in one great deal, getting Hafner in another, and quickly getting rid of the aging talent to make room for the new guys.

What has he done since that has worked? It seems like most players picked up since have been major disappointments.

Honest question: how much credit does Shapiro get for the Sizemore trade, given the state of the Expos and Omar/Selig's intentions regarding that team at the time of the trade?

Certainly that was a tremendous deal for the Tribe, but I seem to remember at the time there was a lot of "What the hell is Montreal doing?" vibe.

Certainly that was a tremendous deal for the Tribe, but I seem to remember at the time there was a lot of "What the hell is Montreal doing?" vibe.

Maybe so, but he took the opportunity. You need to get lucky sometimes, but you also need to realize when a "lucky" situation is presenting itself, and Shapiro did just that.

Certainly that was a tremendous deal for the Tribe, but I seem to remember at the time there was a lot of "What the hell is Montreal doing?" vibe.

There was, but I remember it as being shocked that the Expos would give up Lee and (especially) Phillips, not so much Sizemore. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Phillips, Guthrie, Kouzmanoff, Coco Crisp

Shapiro did get a catcher currently sporting an OPS+ of 112 out of the Crisp deal, so I'm not sure you can say he bled talent away. The other guys I'll grant you, though.

Cleveland has a number of guys who seem to be way underperforming on offense this year, and Shapiro can be faulted for a real lack of depth at 1B and OF. Martinez and Hafner getting hurt/sucking has obviously hurt them a lot, too. If you take away any team's two best hitters, they're not going to do well.

Certainly that was a tremendous deal for the Tribe, but I seem to remember at the time there was a lot of "What the hell is Montreal doing?" vibe.

Perhaps. But every other team in MLB could have made this deal too. They had the same opportunity to take advantage of Minaya and the Expos. They didn't. Shapiro did.

I say this as someone who's long considered Shapiro as vastly overrated.

Besides acquiring Jamey Carroll from the Rockies (a guy with a career OPS+ of 81), did Shapiro do anything this off-season to make the Indians a better team? It sure doesn't look like it.

Besides acquiring Jamey Carroll from the Rockies (a guy with a career OPS+ of 81), did Shapiro do anything this off-season to make the Indians a better team? It sure doesn't look like it.

No, and BPro, to its credit, pointed this out in the annual. I agree he should have been more proactive in adding hitting talent on the corners.

The Indians under Shapiro and longtime scouting director John Mirabelli, who started a couple years before Shapiro and actually moved up this past year to oversee all scouting operations, just have not done a good enough job in the draft to support a mid-revenue franchise.
It's great to win some big trades, but a mid-revenue team needs a steady pipeline to provide the talent foundation and Shapiro/Mirabelli did not do that with the draft.

I agree, and this is also the problem out here in SD with the Padres (the Indians are in better shape than the Pads).

I really don't agree with the premise that the disaster this season was due too complete management failure, and that Wedge is completely unresponsible. PECOTA had them to win the division on 92 wins before the saeson, nobody thought they wouldn't be a competitive team. How can you criticize management for that?

First of all the indians have been pretty unlucky. They've had more then their fair share of injuries, and they are 6 games under their pythag. There's not much management can do about that, or is there?

But secondly and more importantly, they've had a bunch of key players performing way under expectations (Hafner, VMart, Garko, CC at the start of the season - just to name a few). It's the coaches jobs to get players playing to their full potential, and they clearly haven't done that. The worst thing that Shapiro has done, is to not bring in a better coaching staff.

I was surprised to find them entering the season with Borowski still entrenched at closer.

They also signed Kobayashi in the offseason. He has contributed.

But secondly and more importantly, they've had a bunch of key players performing way under expectations (Hafner, VMart, Garko, CC at the start of the season - just to name a few). It's the coaches jobs to get players playing to their full potential, and they clearly haven't done that. The worst thing that Shapiro has done, is to not bring in a better coaching staff.

You are blaming this on the coaching staff? Hafner's shoulder is a disaster. Victor was hurt all year, power doesn't just disappear like that overnight. And Sabathia had four bad starts. This speaks to Shapiro bringing in bad coaches?

So perhaps we will see some of Wedge’s novel teaching methods with callow youth, such as letting a young Sabathia pitch from the windup with the bases loaded against the Yankees. (Result: Three-run single.)

What exactly is wrong with this? Yes, you let the runners get good secondary leads, but two guys are scoring on a single anyway, and nobody's going to be stealing, so you might as well focus on the batter.

What exactly is wrong with this? Yes, you let the runners get good secondary leads, but two guys are scoring on a single anyway, and nobody's going to be stealing, so you might as well focus on the batter.

Agreed. Unless the guy on third could potentially steal home, I'd rather see the pitcher throw the way he's most confident in that situation, and for a starter I'd think that would be from the windup.

PECOTA had them to win the division on 92 wins before the season, nobody thought they wouldn't be a competitive team. How can you criticize management for that?

We can't criticize Shapiro because Nate Silver predicted that the Indians would be good? Nate Silver is to Mark Shapiro as Hawk Harrelson is to the White Sox.

First of all the indians have been pretty unlucky. They've had more then their fair share of injuries, and they are 6 games under their pythag. There's not much management can do about that, or is there?

Well, they were 5 games over their pythag in '07, and that didn't seem to stop anyone from thinking of Shapiro as a genius. They were 11 under in '06, and 3 under in '05. At some point you have to think that maybe something other than luck is at play.

And as far as injuries -- does that really have much to do with luck? I know it does sometimes ("I fell over my cat and broke my arm"), but not all the time. The White Sox under Herm Schneider have had almost no significant injuries -- in fact, I remember seeing a Rick Wilton [edited to correct name] email saying they'd had the fewest DL days in the majors over the past five years.

Victor had played 140+ games in each of his four full major league seasons. He's a catcher, they get hurt sometimes.

Westbrook had made 33, 34, 32, and 25 starts the last four season. He blew out his elbow. It happens.

Carmona had no significant injury history (as far as I remember), and strained his hip.

The only one that could have been anticipated was Hafner.

Overrated. Two seasons over .500 during his tenure.

You are blaming this on the coaching staff? Hafner's shoulder is a disaster. Victor was hurt all year, power doesn't just disappear like that overnight. And Sabathia had four bad starts. This speaks to Shapiro bringing in bad coaches?

Well those were the names that immediately sprang to mind, and I did say that injuries were one of the key things that held them back. But if it makes you feel better, I can add a couple more: Gutierrez, Cabrera, Marte, Michaels (before he was shipped to Pit, where he is starting to do much better...)

I do believe that when half your BO is significantly underperforming, you need to take a look at what your coaches are doing.

We can't criticize Shapiro because Nate Silver predicted that the Indians would be good? Nate Silver is to Mark Shapiro as Hawk Harrelson is to the White Sox.

So, virtually every Baseball analyst on the planet, who all picked Detroit Cleveland 1-2 in some order were biased against the White Sox? Riiiiight,,,

Well, they were 5 games over their pythag in '07, and that didn't seem to stop anyone from thinking of Shapiro as a genius. They were 11 under in '06, and 3 under in '05. At some point you have to think that maybe something other than luck is at play.

-3
-11
+7
-5

If you can see any sort of pattern in that, then you are obviousely a much smarter man than I am, but until you explain it to me, I'm going to continue to call it luck.

And as far as injuries -- does that really have much to do with luck? I know it does sometimes ("I fell over my cat and broke my arm"), but not all the time. The White Sox under Herm Schneider have had almost no significant injuries -- in fact, I remember seeing a Rick Wilton [edited to correct name] email saying they'd had the fewest DL days in the majors over the past five years.

So because your team (I'm assuming at this point you are obviously a ChiSox fan) has been unusually healthy, it can't possibly be down to luck? Well, makes sense to me. I'm eagerly anticipating your explanation of how the Sox have managed to keep their team so healthy...

Should be -6 not -5 with an * saying up to this point of the season... meh.

Just a quick question about pythags...would the pythag be more accurate if you eliminated the top 5 wins by run differential as well as the top 5 losses to eliminate the blowouts that may skew the pythag out of the mix? Obviously, I'm no math genius.

So, virtually every Baseball analyst on the planet, who all picked Detroit Cleveland 1-2 in some order were biased against the White Sox?

Some people seem to think a GM's job is to build a team that baseball analysts think is good. In reality, a GM's job is to build a team that wins.

They've had more then their fair share of injuries, and they are 6 games under their pythag. There's not much management can do about that, or is there?

One of the main reasons a team underperforms its Pythag is a bad bullpen, which the Tribe has yet again this year. Shapiro pretty much stayed pat with his pen from last year, which was good with the exception of Borowski. However, despite 2007, building a pen is not one of Shapiro's strong suits.

-3
-11
+7
-5

If you can see any sort of pattern in that, then you are obviousely a much smarter man than I am, but until you explain it to me, I'm going to continue to call it luck.

Right, especially since the -3 and -5 fall under the umbrella of standard deviation noise. Over 162 games, only variances of +/-6 or greater are statistically significant.

So, virtually every Baseball analyst on the planet, who all picked Detroit Cleveland 1-2 in some order were biased against the White Sox?

To a certain extent, yes. That is, they were not biased in favor of the White Sox to an extent that would make them open-minded enough to consider all the good players the team has.

We can't criticize Shapiro because Nate Silver predicted that the Indians would be good? Nate Silver is to Mark Shapiro as Hawk Harrelson is to the White Sox.

Do you think PECOTA is biased toward the Indians?

Do you think PECOTA projected the Indians to be better than other forecasting systems did?

So, virtually every Baseball analyst on the planet, who all picked Detroit Cleveland 1-2 in some order were biased against the White Sox?

I hesitate to expand on this, as Crispix Attacks and Boots Day made their points very well in posts 25 and 28, but I would say that I never claimed "virtually every Baseball analyst on the planet" was biased against the White Sox. I would say that "virtually every Baseball analyst on the planet" has, thus far, been spectacularly wrong about the 2008 White Sox, in a way similar to the way in which they were spectacularly wrong about the White Sox in 2005.

So because your team (I'm assuming at this point you are obviously a ChiSox fan) has been unusually healthy, it can't possibly be down to luck?

It could be luck; maybe it isn't. It's certainly worthy of more inquiry, isn't it? That is to say, it's certainly possible that team X might be better at keeping players healthy than team Y, isn't it? On the other hand, I guess we could all just put our fingers in our ears, close our eyes, and shout "bad luck!" over and over again every time a "stathead" GM's team fails.

As an intern with a team, I can guarantee that Shapiro is one of the best GM's in MLB by far...no question. The comments made by some people on here about Shapiro are ridiculous, but what can you expect anymore.

Do you think PECOTA is biased toward the Indians?

I don't know (how PECOTA is computed isn't public information, is it?)

Do you think PECOTA projected the Indians to be better than other forecasting systems did?

I don't care. One "baseball expert" is as worthless as another.

As an intern with a team, I can guarantee that Shapiro is one of the best GM's in MLB by far...no question. The comments made by some people on here about Shapiro are ridiculous, but what can you expect anymore.

MY BOSS IS BRILLIANT!

And what, praytell, is your guarantee ("by far...no question") based upon? Did he TELL you he is?

[edit: Hold on -- are you an intern with the Indians, or with some other team?]

Nobody mentioned the Max Ramirez for Kenny Lofton deal. That one is looking worse and worse.

To a certain extent, yes. That is, they were not biased in favor of the White Sox to an extent that would make them open-minded enough to consider all the good players the team has.

So all the independent projection systems--which are based on thousands of player-seasons--that thought the Indians had better players than the White Sox simply weren't "open minded" enough?

I think it's pretty hilarious that people think there's a systematic bias against the White Sox not just from all baseball analysts, but also from all the projections systems. Then again, people were saying the same thing last year when PECOTA projected the White Sox to lose 90 games.

I think it's pretty clear that Nate Silver has run through a series of tests and reformulations in order to guarantee that PECOTA consistently punishes the White Sox, and no one else. I mean, no other explanation would make sense. And I agree that it's definitely something worth getting angry about.

There's not a bias for a certain team in these projections. That's just characteristic wounded White Sox pride from Buck.

But they were wrong. Now, it's certainly possible that they were actually pretty close to right, but events of the year have been so far from a fair 50% expectation that they diverge from projections. But it doesn't seem very useful to presume that, when we know how much projection systems must inevitably miss.

It does seem pretty fair to say that the Indians just got creamed by injuries - their #2 and #3 starters, their All-Star catcher and their DH all have been lost, and that seems like more than enough to turn a playoff team into an also-ran. The other issue is that the bullpen has been ridiculously terrible, for which blame must fall to the GM and coaching staff. But a big chunk of the problem appears to just be injuries.

The more interesting question is why no one caught on to the quality of the White Sox' pitching and defense. They've just been excellent top to bottom in run prevention, and they have enough competent hitters to drive the team along from there. Both Danks and Floyd have emerged as good pitchers (though Floyd's component numbers remain scary) while Vazquez-Buehrle-Contreras have been above average and very durable, and the bullpen's been lights-out. It looks like a combination of young players putting it together at the right time, with competent, unspectacular veterans doing their thing.

There's not a bias for a certain team in these projections. That's just characteristic wounded White Sox pride from Buck.

Hey, my pride's not wounded -- the White Sox are in first place. I'm enjoying the ride, and hoping it continues. And I'm glad that Kenny Williams didn't decide to blow up the team because the "experts" said Chicago couldn't compete with the awesome Detroit Tigers and the terrifying Cleveland Indians.

Then again, people were saying the same thing last year when PECOTA projected the White Sox to lose 90 games.

They were also saying it in 2005 and 2006, Danny. Do you remember what happened in those seasons, or shall I remind you?

I think it's pretty clear that Nate Silver has run through a series of tests and reformulations in order to guarantee that PECOTA consistently punishes the White Sox, and no one else.

That's possible. It's also possible that PECOTA just isn't very good at making predictions, and that building a team that PECOTA thinks is good is not the same thing as building a winning team.

And what, praytell, is your guarantee ("by far...no question") based upon? Did he TELL you he is?

I think that it's pretty obvious that he works for another team. And I'd venture to guess that Shapiro is thought of pretty highly in baseball circles. I'm a big fan who has been dissapointed about his work this past offseason, but I'd still rather have him than most GMs.

Besides acquiring Jamey Carroll from the Rockies (a guy with a career OPS+ of 81), did Shapiro do anything this off-season to make the Indians a better team? It sure doesn't look like it.

I think that this is the key. When your a smaller market team, you just can't afford to stand pat. One thing I love about Beane is that he's typically either selling or buying assets. Shapiro should have been buying, even if it was minor leaguers. I for one was pining for Quentin, Hamilton or even Duncan last offseason, thinking that just hoping for value from the Delucci's of the world just wasn't going to cut it. My hope for the rest of the season is that Shapiro looks strongly at trading Blake, Byrd, Dellucci and maybe even Franklin and Betancourt. Gutierrez is being wasted in RF when I think another team would value his potentially gold glove defense in CF, and Betancourt, while looking pretty bad at times this year, should have value as a reliever with a track record. Shapiro should be looking towards contending in 2010 with a pretty good core of starters and position players(+ LaPorta) as far as I'm concerned.

I'm just not sure why the fact that baseball analysts appear to have been wrong about the Indians AND the White Sox (AND the Tigers AND the Twins) has anything to do with whether Mark Shapiro is good at his job. It seems to have a helluva lot more to do with whether those analysts are good at their jobs, doesn't it?

So, to take an example, we have preseason rankings for the AL by 17 baseball "experts" with BP, here. For the AL Central,...

No one picked the Indians to finish lower than 2nd.

Only one person picked the Tigers to finish lower than 2nd (someone named William Burke).

Only one person picked the White Sox to finish higher than 3rd (William Burke again, picking them for 2nd). Six "experts" picked the White Sox to finish in last.

No one picked the Twins to finish higher than 3rd, and four "experts" picked them to finish in last.

The scare quotes around "experts" continues to make me laugh. Hilarious.

So, just to summarize a couple of posts:

We can't use projection systems to decide whether a gm has built a good team, because they are biased.

We can't use analysts to decide whether a gm has built a good team, because they suck.

The only reliable way to decide whether a gm has built a good team, appears to be hindsight, which makes me wonder how the heck gm's are supposed to know if they have built a good team...

Shapiro should be looking towards contending in 2010 with a pretty good core of starters and position players(+ LaPorta) as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think he's got a pretty good core of position players. He's got Sizemore and Martinez. Maybe Peralta. That's not a lot. I also don't see who on this team is ready to develop into a real good hitter, or who he can realistically get in a trade or free agency that will. The pitching looks pretty good, but nothing great. Who am I missing?

The only reliable way to decide whether a gm has built a good team, appears to be hindsight, which makes me wonder how the heck gm's are supposed to know if they have built a good team...

Hindsight is how we evaluate everything in baseball - there's nothing wrong with it. How do we know whether a player was any good? Hindsight? How do we know whether a trade worked out? Hindsight? How do we know whether a draft was succesful? Hindsight.

How do we know whether a GM has been succesful? Hindsight. And if a GM hasn't been succesful, how can we say that he's that great?

We can't use projection systems to decide whether a gm has built a good team, because they are biased.

We can't use projection systems to decide whether a gm has built a good team, because projection systems aren't very good at knowing which teams are going to be good.

We can't use analysts to decide whether a gm has built a good team, because they suck.

We can't use analysts to decide whether a gm has built a good team because analysts aren't very good at knowing which teams are going to be good.

A good team, by definition, is one that wins, isn't it? The only reliable way to know whether a team is good is to play the game.

The only reliable way to decide whether a gm has built a good team, appears to be hindsight, which makes me wonder how the heck gm's are supposed to know if they have built a good team...

But do GMs not have access to information, training and medical records for one, that analysts and projection systems devised by analysts will never have?

An analyst can't tell whether a player getting injured, or not getting injured, is luck. An analyst won't know whether a player has been training like a madman in the offseason, watching his diet strictly, as a prelude to a breakout. An analyst won't know if a player has been struggling in the offseason, not successfully recovering from various injuries. The necessary information, training and medical records, simple isn't available. That information, at least to a greater extent compared what is available to an analyst, is available. to a GM.

As an intern with a team

That's some qualification you've got there. I used to be an intern with a team too, so does my opinion count as much as yours?

I can guarantee that Shapiro is one of the best GM's in MLB by far...no question.

Care to explain how? Sorry that was a question.

And it hasn't helped that for all of Shapiro's trade wins, he's also bled away a lot of talent in smaller deals that just didn't panned out - Phillips, Guthrie, Kouzmanoff, Coco Crisp and a couple others I can't think of off the top of my head.

Crisp didn't have a spot to play with Sizemore there, and they got Marte and Shoppach. Marte sucks, but Shoppach has been decent. Not great, but decent.

There was no way to see Guthrie becoming a major leaguer, much less a good major leaguer. His numbers in the minors weren't great, and even in his last season at AAA where he had a low ERA, he had a bad K/BB ratio.

I don't know, I'm not sure it isn't a development issue. It seems to me the Indians have trouble bringing players through the system. Are there clear instances of drafts where the Indians could have had a better player but chose to go with someone out of a hunch or for signability?

Not that I can see. They've made some picks that haven't worked out (Micheal Aubrey), and some picks that look bad now (Guthrie one pick before Francouer) but the only signability one that is huge is taking Sowers over Stephen Drew. 13 teams passed on Drew, though. This seems to be the issue, though. They've had seven drafts, and Guthrie, Aubrey, and Sowers are the only first rounders to come through (they forfeited one first rounder for Paul Byrd). Guthrie's gone, and neither Aubrey or Sowers looks to be an impact player.

How do we know whether a GM has been succesful? Hindsight. And if a GM hasn't been succesful, how can we say that he's that great?

A good team, by definition, is one that wins, isn't it? The only reliable way to know whether a team is good is to play the game.

If that is true, then there are no great gm's and no bad gm's, and there is no reason to criticize any of them for anything. Because none of them would know whether what they are doing is good or bad...

If that is true, then there are no great gm's and no bad gm's, and there is no reason to criticize any of them for anything. Because none of them would know whether what they are doing is good or bad...

No, you criticize them for what doesn't work, and you laud them for what does work. This is all very simple.

Hindsight analysis, of course, is more than simply adding up wins and losses - it's looking at the value received from the draft, from trades, from free agent signings, looking at the injuries that have hit the team, how they played in the clutch, all the different ways to slice up an organization's performance.

Everyone knows it's possible for a good decision to turn out poorly, or a bad decision to turn out well, and so we know there are clear limitations to this sort of analysis. But I prefer it to an analysis that falsely presumes that we actually had sufficient information about the teams and players and organizations going into the season to make highly confident projections. Hindsight analysis also gives you something to hang your hat on - actual wins and losses, hits and errors - as a check against hte normal human tendency to refuse to acknowledge previous errors and to search out interpretations of data that correspond to already-existing prejudices.

A good team, by definition, is one that wins, isn't it? The only reliable way to know whether a team is good is to play the game.

Other people are addressing this, but it bears repeating:

If playing the game is the only reliable way of knowing whether or not a team is good, then it'd be (more or less) impossible for any GM to do his job. You're a GM. It's the offseason. Do you trade your best players for prospects? Do you trade your best prospects for players? Do you trade pitching for hitting, hitting for pitching, stand pat? If you can't rely on anything other than the games themselves, you're kinda stuck in the offseason -- might as well get those monkeys at the typewriters to quit with the Shakespeare and start suggesting trade (or stand pat) proposals because there's no way of knowing ahead of time whether any move (or non-move) will improve (or worsen) the team.

It gets worse (if that's possible). Your team wins the first game of the season. Two guys hit home runs, one guy goes 0 for 4. Do we know now whether the team is any good? Should we trade the 0 for 4 guy? Give the home run hitters contract extensions? Well, no, obviously, we can't conclude anything from one game... but then again, we can't ask the experts, we can't ask the analysts. We can keep playing the games, of course, and see how things shake out, but then we're still in the position of making decisions only on what has come before when what we need to know is "Will this improve my team from here on out?" You don't win games in the future by acquiring guys who have hit tons of home runs (for instance) in the past; you win games in the future by acquiring guys who are going to hit home runs in the future. (They may be the same people, but sometimes they aren't). And the only way to have any sort of educated guess what's going to happen in the future (ignoring the predictions of Nostradamus and Darren Daulton) is by looking at players' form (scouting -- see scouting experts) and/or looking at their numbers (analysis -- see projections experts).

Strange things happen, and scouts and analysts get things wrong, yes. But that doesn't mean that ignoring them is better than listening and remaining aware of their limitations.

Those of you who are criticizing Shapiro need to understand a few things. First, obviously he's not perfect. In particular, his FA signings and his willingness to allow Wedge to convince him to trade Brandon Phillips for nothing are problematic. Then again, name me a perfect GM.

Second, John Hart left the Indians organization, from top to bottom, in a complete shambles. The major league team was overpaid, bloated, and old. The minor league system was in equal parts neglected and plundered by Hart; while he ignored the draft and the lower levels, he was simultaneously trading Danny Graves, Sean Casey, Brian Giles, Richie Sexson, Jeff Kent, etc. for the likes of Jeff Judin, John Smiley, Ricardo Rincon, Steve Woodward, Ken Hill, etc. Shapiro began to deal with the minor league system in the summer of 2001, and immediately acquired Milton Bradley and Jody Gerut for nothing. Here's a more full list of useful (at least for a while) players that he has acquired for next to nothing during his tenure: Casey Blake, Scott Elarton, Karim Garcia, Brian Anderson, Lou Merloni, Chris Gomez, Rafael Betancourt, Ronnie Belliard, Kevin Millwood (when no one else would take a chance on him) etc. In addition, via trades, Shapiro has acquired: Sizemore, Lee, Brandon Phillips, Asdrubal Cabrera, Choo, Hafner, Shoppach, Franklin Gutierrez, Andrew Brown, Ben Broussard, Jason Michaels, etc. In addition, he was willing to show Omar Vizquel the door when Peralta was ready, signed CC to an extension in 2005 when Sabathia was pitching very poorly (and so managed to extend his stay in Cleveland by 2 years), signed Cliff Lee to what is now clearly a below-market deal, and has now acquired one of the top hitting prospects in baseball (in addition to at least one more plus prospect) for a 3 month-rental. In sum, without Shapiro's herculean efforts and frequent successes, the Indians (who were primed for a lot of terrible years following John Hart's tenure) would have been much less successful; they now feature a productive, healthy organizational structure.

Over rated or not, point me to a GM who has done more with nearly insurmountable circumstances than has Shapiro. Until then, I'll happily side by Shapiro.

Over ratted?

RM -

See post #47. General managers, and baseball organizations have massive, massive advantages on fans and analysts in two key areas: information, and work-hours. They have reams of information from scouts and trainers and managers and video analysts that we don't have, and that Gary Huckaby doesn't have. Further, they are big corporations, who can assign a very large numbers of employees to cull through and make use of this data as well as other data (some of which may also be publicly available.)

Hindsight analysis is particularly useful in situations of massively asymmetric information - GMs knows tons of things we don't and have tons more work-hours to invest in making use of that information - and it's quite reasonable to think that many of hte divergences between our projections and actual events are not merely random happenstance, but make perfect sense in light of that information and analysis that we don't have.

Does anybody have any idea what they plan on doing with Marte?

When you evaluate someone, a player, a GM, whatever, you first do it based on what you think they are going to do. Later, when more information is in, you evaluate them based on what they did do. When Andy Marte started, people expected him to be a star. Do you still think he's a star? No, even though he was projected that way. Once the data is in, you stop looking at projections and start looking at how they actually performed.

Same thing with GMs. Initially, before they have a track record, you evaluate them based on how their moves look, for the future. Eventually, they develop a track record. That track record measures the success of their teams - the ultimate measuring stick for a GM.

So when a GM makes a trade, you try to evaluate the trade based on what you think they'll do. Eventually, they'll go out and play - and you'll know whether you were right or you were wrong.

If a GM selects ten consecutive first round picks that fail to make the majors, you can say he probably isn't very good at drafting, no matter how good those players were projected to be when they were first drafted.

If playing the game is the only reliable way of knowing whether or not a team is good, then it'd be (more or less) impossible for any GM to do his job. You're a GM. It's the offseason. Do you trade your best players for prospects? Do you trade your best prospects for players? Do you trade pitching for hitting, hitting for pitching, stand pat? If you can't rely on anything other than the games themselves, you're kinda stuck in the offseason -- might as well get those monkeys at the typewriters to quit with the Shakespeare and start suggesting trade (or stand pat) proposals because there's no way of knowing ahead of time whether any move (or non-move) will improve (or worsen) the team.

This is all nonsense. No one in this thread has ever said anything close to this, or implied it. Of course you use past performance to help decide who you think will make up the components of a winning team. What you don't do is use past performance (or sheer analysis) to decide who the best team is.

The question is, is a successful GM one who built a winning team, or is a successful GM one who built a team that Nate Silver thought was going to be good? Many of you honestly seem to think it's the latter.

> every other team in MLB could have made this deal too

Not really, only the Indians had Bartolo Colon to offer. They maximized their return well but the Expos were willing to overpay because they were playing strictly for now.

GMs don't build bullpens, coaches build bullpens. This is why Wedge needs to go. Good bullpens are part talent and part preparation. The sheer number of arms that have come and gone indicates to me that they aren't that good at preparation. I wouldn't fault Shapiro except that he needs to recognize when to make a change with the coaching staff. He's a pretty good GM altogether.

GMs don't build bullpens, coaches build bullpens.

Interesting. Kevin Towers gets all the love in San Diego for his "Bullpens", but I have always said that it was all Bruce Bochy.
Nobody did more, with less, than Bochy. He has San Fran in the fight this year too, primarily 'cus of their pitching staff, and bullpen.

Does anybody have any idea what they plan on doing with Marte?

God, I wish I knew. Marte, because of his long swing, seems like the exact type of player who needs an extended run as a starter to truly evaluate, but Wedge has been so determined to trot Casey out there that Marte has had little chance of playing. Casey's rewarded him with a decent bounce back year, but you would think that at this point Marte would get a chance to start consistently. Unfortunately, we're dealing with the same manager who thought Ramon Vasquez was a huge upgrade over Brandon Phillips, so I'm not holding my breath.

The question is, is a successful GM one who built a winning team, or is a successful GM one who built a team that Nate Silver thought was going to be good? Many of you honestly seem to think it's the latter.

I think it has to be a combination of ex ante analysis of moves and ex post.

GM's and teams can be lucky and unlucky. I don't blame a GM for a move everyone thought was good just b/c it didn't work out. Likewise, if a team makes a stupid move, and it works out I won't give full credit.

Sometimes teams have crazy years where everyone out performs, sometimes they have crazy years where everybody is hurt and sucks.

You have to evaluate both the process and the results. Over the short run, I'd weight process more, over the long run, results more.

Crisp didn't have a spot to play with Sizemore there, and they got Marte and Shoppach. Marte sucks, but Shoppach has been decent. Not great, but decent.

And gave up Riske and Bard in the deal. Shapiro lost on that deal unless Marte develops.

There was no way to see Guthrie becoming a major leaguer, much less a good major leaguer.

Horsesh!t. Anyone who watched him pitch at Stanford knew he had major league stuff, which is why the Indians signed him to a huge bonus and a major league contract. Guthrie is a prime example of the Indians not handling a prospect properly, then souring on him like Phillips. Instead of rushing Guthrie after intitial success in the minors, they should have been working with him to change speeds, which is exactly what Baltimore did with almost immediate success. Instead, they rushed their bonus baby to AAA in his first professional season after just 63 IP in AA. When he floundered, he began overthrowing, flattening out his pitches, which made him very hittable. This problem never seemed to be addressed by the Indians. The Indians gave up on him and cut him to make room for Trot Nixon.

If playing the game is the only reliable way of knowing whether or not a team is good, then it'd be (more or less) impossible for any GM to do his job.

No, it's just means GMs must do their jobs w/o perfect information about the future. They have tools to help them make decisions like PECOTA, scouts, etc., but obviously none of these sources of information are perfect. Building a good team on paper as judged by whatever objective source is laudable but ultimately you're judged by results. That said, injuries are unpredictable (to a certain degree obviously), and if the Indians have been decimated by a series of injuries when no previous evidence suggested such a trend, that should be factored in as a mitigating circumstance in evaluating Shapiro.

I don't blame a GM for a move everyone thought was good just b/c it didn't work out. Likewise, if a team makes a stupid move, and it works out I won't give full credit.

Right, but the whole problem is determining whether a move was a good one. Obviously some good decisions turn out poorly, and we have to account for that, but also, sometimes people with imperfect information mis-read a situation and fail to properly evaluate decisions that were made.

Not really, only the Indians had Bartolo Colon to offer. They maximized their return well but the Expos were willing to overpay because they were playing strictly for now.

Well, yes, only the Indians had Colon. This applies to every trade. Only one team has a particular individual player, or particular players, that is / are used to trade for another player. Does that mean that only that team could have successfully traded for that other player? Did Minaya express an overwhelming desire to acquire Colon, over every other (good) pitcher. Other teams had other (good) pitchers to offer. Certainly, the Expos were willing to overpay. That's my point. The Expos were willing to overpay, and the Indians were the team that took advantage of Minaya's willingness to overpay. Shapiro deserves credit for that.

Instead, they rushed their bonus baby to AAA in his first professional season after just 63 IP in AA. When he floundered, he began overthrowing, flattening out his pitches, which made him very hittable

And the following season they put him back in AA where he pitched 130 innings. He then pitched all of 2005 in AAA and part of 2006 there.

God, I wish I knew. Marte, because of his long swing, seems like the exact type of player who needs an extended run as a starter to truly evaluate, but Wedge has been so determined to trot Casey out there that Marte has had little chance of playing.

Yeah its painful to watch. They can't just let him sit on the bench for ever can they. Maybe he will get traded this summer, but I have to believe his value is in the shitter right now. Hafner is on the DL, opening up the DH for anybody, and still he can't find regular AB's.

amazing.

Instead, they rushed their bonus baby to AAA in his first professional season after just 63 IP in AA. When he floundered, he began overthrowing, flattening out his pitches, which made him very hittable

Just to give some context, Guthrie was rushed because he signed a major league contract after he was drafted. Consequently, he ran out of options rather quickly and then the O's picked him up.

The question is, is a successful GM one who built a winning team, or is a successful GM one who built a team that Nate Silver thought was going to be good? Many of you honestly seem to think it's the latter.

The focus on Nate Silver is silly and petty. I'm guessing he underestimated the Rockies at some point.

The point some people are trying to make is that there was near universal agreement (among scouts, statheads, analysts, TV talking heads, fanalysts) that the Indians would be good this year. Basically, they had a bunch of good players who should have been expected to remain good. The fact that a bunch of those players subsequently got hurt or sucked is certainly reason to look back at the reasoning behind the projections, but it's not enough to conclude that Shapiro sucks.

I'm a strong believer that GMs should be evaluated in hindsight based on a large body of work. Yes, some good decisions will go poorly and some bad decisions will go well, but in a large enough sample luck will generally even itself out. Mostly, though, GMs have--or should have--a lot more info than we do. So judging their moves in hindsight as opposed to by what we originally thought of the moves will give us more information to judge on.

But a single season (or a half season, in this case) is simply not enough to judge solely based on hindsight. Just like players can underperform for a few months, so can teams. Sometimes injuries just happen to hit some teams worse than others. If a GM's players keep getting hurt, that's something to be concerned about, but what happens in half a season can be pretty damn random.

Wow, I think it was Treder who felt that the *only* way to evaluate a trade was at the time of the deal, with the information that was available. That doing so years down the road threw a whole bunch of variables into the mix. I think there's some merit to that.

I have to say I can't disagree with Boots more. Or, at least, what he seems to be saying.

Projection systems are just that. Systems. They know what we tell them to. And I think they do a pretty good job all in all, and the fact that in 2008 they haven't pegged a handful of teams (halfway through the year) is... I dunno... wishcasting? Pushing an agenda? Whatever.

Lets take the reverse. The White Sox are never supposed to be any good. They weren't supposed to be good in 2005, when they won the world series, and they weren't supposed to be competitive this year, and they are in first place.

Do you give Williams credit for building teams that sometimes perform very well? Or do you give him no credit, because they White Sox weren't supposed to be this good, and weren't supposed to be that good in 2005?

I have to say I can't disagree with Boots more. Or, at least, what he seems to be saying.

Seriously?

What he's saying is that we judge a GM based on the results of his decisions, not on how we think his decisions are going to turn out. How is that remotely arguable?

He's not suggesting you simply look at W-L record and act accordingly. He's not saying you ignore why things turned out the way they did. He's simply saying that what matters at the end of the day is the team's performance, on the field, and not what we thought they were capable of doing.

I think Snapper put it pretty well in 62:

You have to evaluate both the process and the results. Over the short run, I'd weight process more, over the long run, results more.

The focus on Nate Silver is silly and petty. I'm guessing he underestimated the Rockies at some point.

Yeah, the only reason anyone could ever disagree with you is because of a personal vendetta.

I'm pretty sure I've never read a word Nate Silver has ever written about the Rockies.

He's not suggesting you simply look at W-L record and act accordingly. He's not saying you ignore why things turned out the way they did. He's simply saying that what matters at the end of the day is the team's performance, on the field, and not what we thought they were capable of doing.

CONCUR.

I'm also saying that if your projection tells you one thing, and the results tell you something else, the results aren't wrong.

Yeah, the only reason anyone could ever disagree with you is because of a personal vendetta.

I'm pretty sure I've never read a word Nate Silver has ever written about the Rockies.

I'm just saying that Silver and PECOTA have been repeatedly singled out in this thread as if no one else projected the Indians to be good this year, when in reality everyone did.

I'm also saying that if your projection tells you one thing, and the results tell you something else, the results aren't wrong.

But sometimes, the results are an outlier in terms of performance. Projections aim for the mean/median performance. If your team has a great year b/c a bunch of guys hit their 80%-ile performance, or no one gets hurt, or you're win lucky (vs. Pythag), the performance still counts. But, if you build your plans on it you'll be wrong (paging Bill Bavasi). So, performance can be "wrong" in terms of telling you the things you want to know about your team.

PECOTA was first brought up by the pro-analysis side. The argument was that since Shapiro built a team that PECOTA liked, no one could criticize him.

But sometimes, the results are an outlier in terms of performance. Projections aim for the mean/median performance. If your team has a great year b/c a bunch of guys hit their 80%-ile performance, or no one gets hurt, or you're win lucky (vs. Pythag), the performance still counts. But, if you build your plans on it you'll be wrong (paging Bill Bavasi).

But you don't know what the 50%-ile performance is. It's certainly not PECOTA - sometimes it may be, but many times it isn't. GMs have a whole bunch of information for putting together their evaluations that we don't have, and we can't assume that what is and is not an 80%-ile performance is something we know in advance.

I'm also saying that if your projection tells you one thing, and the results tell you something else, the results aren't wrong.

To echo snapper in 77, the results aren't necessarily right either (e.g. 2007 Mariners).

But you don't know what the 50%-ile performance is. It's certainly not PECOTA - sometimes it may be, but many times it isn't. GMs have a whole bunch of information for putting together their evaluations that we don't have, and we can't assume that what is and is not an 80%-ile performance is something we know in advance.

No, but you have to try to estimate it. Projection systems are one important input. Scouting another.

You can't just say, well we won 92 games (when everyone projected 84) so I must be a great GM and we're good for next year.

If that difference came from overperformance (vs. Pythag) or a bunch of over 30 players having career years, you better pay attention to projections for next year, b/c the results are likely "wrong", as in, don't expect it to happen again.

You can't just say, well we won 92 games (when everyone projected 84) so I must be a great GM and we're good for next year.

No, you can't just use one year to evaluate a GM, any more than you can a player. You need several seasons, and you need to look at the components - what were the drafts like, how did trades turn out, what was the payroll, and so on.

If we only have one year of a GM's tenure to consider, I'll probably focus pretty equally on process and results. Most importantly, I'd say that one year just isn't enough to evaluate a GM. As time goes on, I'll focus more and more on results, and get more and more confident.

EDIT: My point was that it's not so simple as to just say, "this was an 80%-ile performance." Certainly, those happen and must be accounted for, but our methods of determining them are not particularly good at it, and the GMs we'd be trying to evaluate through those methods have lots of information that wasn't a part of the projection.

If we only have one year of a GM's tenure to consider, I'll probably focus pretty equally on process and results. Most importantly, I'd say that one year just isn't enough to evaluate a GM. As time goes on, I'll focus more and more on results, and get more and more confident.

OK, that's exactly what I said :-)

Second, John Hart left the Indians organization, from top to bottom, in a complete shambles.

Complete shambles is an exaggeration. The organization had Sabathia, Carmona, Peralta, and Martinez in the minors. Thome and Westbrook were there, plus the Indians had players with trade value that allowed Sahpiro to re-tool -- which he certainly needed to do. However, Shaprio didn't make something out of nothing.

>>Ken Hill<<<

One of Hart's biggest blunders was not re-signing Hill after 1995 -- Texas only had to ink him to a two year deal. Hill was third in the AL in ERA+ in 1996, but Oates severely overworked him, which ruined him. Would Hargrove had done that? Perhaps.

>>immediately acquired Milton Bradley and Jody Gerut for nothing.<<<

Well, Zach Day, a Hart acquistion in the Justice for Westbrook, was hardly nothing, although injuries ruined him. He received Bard in that trade, who was more of a player than Gerut, but traded Bard in the Marte deal.

>>>In addition, via trades, Shapiro has acquired: Sizemore, Lee, Brandon Phillips, Asdrubal Cabrera, Choo, Hafner, Shoppach, Franklin Gutierrez, Andrew Brown, Ben Broussard, Jason Michaels, etc.<<<

That isn't that impressive of a list. Lee, Sizemore, Phillips, and Hafner are the only star power in that list, and three of them came in one trade. Phillips was mishandled and sent packing, Hafner could be done, and Lee has been inconsistent. You left out Lawton, who was obtained in the Alomar trade, then signed to a ridiculous contract extension which was probably Shapiro's worst move, and Arthur Rhodes, who was expensively obtained to dump Lawton, which leads us to the Michaels trade and stupid contract extension. He also "gave away" Izturis and Church for Scott Stewart.

Guthrie was rushed because he signed a major league contract after he was drafted. Consequently, he ran out of options rather quickly and then the O's picked him up.

Right, signing him to a major leagu econtract was a blunder -- Shapiro's way of making a splash in the draft. The Indians could have kept Guthrie on their forty man roster; they had other players they could have released for Trot Nixon.

Right, signing him to a major leagu econtract was a blunder

Didn't say it was a blunder. In fact, I said, "Just to give some context," but that part was removed in your quote.

And the following season they put him back in AA where he pitched 130 innings. He then pitched all of 2005 in AAA and part of 2006 there.

He wasn't ready for AAA after sixty some odd innings of professional ball. He was ripped, and the Indians lost a half of season of proper development. Most importantly, it destoyed his confidence, and he resorted to overthrowing, something that wasn't corrected until 2006 when his H/IP dropped sharply. Sure, they put him back in AA and by season's end, he was called up to the majors for reasons unknown. They obviously did a piss poor job with instruction. To say that no one could have known Guthrie was going to be a major leaguer is erroneous -- he didn't project to be an ace (and he isn't), but the signs were certainly there. The Indians either failed to recognize those signs or simply became frustrated he wasn't an ace.

Wow, I think it was Treder who felt that the *only* way to evaluate a trade was at the time of the deal, with the information that was available. That doing so years down the road threw a whole bunch of variables into the mix.

the problem is that we often times do not know all the information that was available at the time to those making the trades.

This ragging on PECOTA is kinda silly. The White Sox have outperformed expectations, and not just those of BP, as they did in 2005. No one anywhere had Carlos Quentin pegged as an MVP candidate. ZIPS, Rally, Marcel the Monkey. You name it, they all had the Sox as a pretty mediocre club.

So, let's give Kenny Williams credit for pulling one on Josh Byrnes. Perhaps he saw something in Quentin, who was a player that many liked prior to his struggles in 2007. It isn't the first time that he has done well either trading or drafting.

The problem with evaluating GMs based on results is that a GM can be pretty mediocre (or worse) with the vast majority of decisions while living off a couple of good trades or draft picks for years and years. It's hard to integrate all decisions into a cohesive evaluation when a couple of those decisions can have such an overwhelming effect, especially if some of those highly impactful decisions were basically cases of a blind squirrel finding acorns (Sabean and Bonds, maybe).

Seriously?

What he's saying is that we judge a GM based on the results of his decisions, not on how we think his decisions are going to turn out. How is that remotely arguable?

He's not suggesting you simply look at W-L record and act accordingly. He's not saying you ignore why things turned out the way they did. He's simply saying that what matters at the end of the day is the team's performance, on the field, and not what we thought they were capable of doing.

LOL. If this were really the case, Brian Sabean wouldn't be a running punchline around here.

Just some thoughts ...

I don't know how you evaluate a GM except against "what we expect" at some level. Some here note Shapiro's gonna have 5 losing seasons in 7. OK, that's obviously not cause for celebration but given where the organisation was when he took over (i.e. having made a last-ditch effort to win before the window closed), expecting much more than that is unrealistic.

And a chunk of the seemingly deserved criticism now is also around what we expected out of the team this year ... and what's expected in the future. I mentioned a couple weeks ago that, when looking at the Indians' roster, it looks like their window is already closed. Even if Martinez comes back healthy, he'll be 30. The only players with promise are Sizemore, Carmona (if he comes back healthy) and maybe Laffey, the others are in or past their primes. It's the AL Central, so anything is possible, but it's hard to see them being good again anytime soon.

As to projections -- probably the key variable in their accuracy is the playing time assumptions. It would be interesting if somebody would go back and use the pre-season projections but the actual playing time distributions (and lineups?) and then see how well PECOTA, ZIPS, etc. do. They'll still (presumably) get teams like the 2008 White Sox wrong (their players are outperforming their projections) but a team like the Indians they might get "right."