"Um, Mark, does it suck to just let another awesome player walk away?"

"Mark, did you think about trying to trade for Thome or Manny or Sexson or Albert Belle?"

"Hi Mark, Paul Hoynes here.  Have you seen my wallet?  I can't find the damn thing."

Yep, it's dreadful.  It's practically soul-crushing to try to endure garbage like that.  And we know that Paul and Sheldon are going to ask the lowest-common-demoronator questions, but who let Kevin Keane in?  Is this a big practical joke or something?

"Mark, why don't you just trade Grady now, cause obviously you hate Cleveland fans, right?"

During the press conference thread, several posters debated the idea of trying to get credentialed for that kind of event.  I'd say it's easier than most people realize, but there are longer-term effects to consider.

First, creativity can help if you really want to get in.  I wanted to ask Bruce Arena some questions during the World Cup qualifying run in 2001 so I fudged my way into the press room.  Ended up as the only American asking questions in Spanish to Mexico's manager.  Heh.

But I'd guess that the Tribe runs a little tighter ship.  So if you wanted to get in, you'd have to establish a long-term media interest.  And that would bring us back to whether we even want LGT to become that kind of outfit.

Jay has, of course, addressed this issue before.  LGT is a very different animal, and I give Jay some credit for sort-of defending the Sheldons of the world (though he and I disagree to some extent; I'm much more demanding, deadlines or not).  But I think it's likely that if the LGT community -- more specifically, Jay and Ryan -- decided they truly wanted to become part of the credentialed media for events like this, they could do it.  But once that first credential arrives, things change.  Expectations change for the site, and the role of the site changes.

The real solution to the credentialed press' shenanigans is probably not to alter the nature of sites like LGT (though I'm open to the idea, and I've already advocated for traditional media to cut new trails by hiring the best bloggers).  But the easiest way to get better questions is for the traditional media to perceive a problem and make changes.  That doesn't happen, though, unless there is a considerably large outcry, and we all know that the bottom feeders at cleveland.com aren't upset with Hoynes, they're upset with Shapiro and Dolan.

Bottom line, I guess, is that while it sucks, it's not likely to change.  And even if you wanted to elbow your way in on behalf of LGT, you'd have to be willing to see some real changes here first.

"Last question, Mark.  Why trade for a guy who isn't PROVEN to be an All-Star?  You're trading a Cy Young!  You have to get PROVEN RESULTS THAT CAN BE, LIKE, PROVEN!  I'M BILL LIVINGSTON AND I AM SO PISSED!"

Checking out the media this week...

I love this headline.

That's mainly because I was angered by the split.  Cue Jayson Stark telling us when the last time a team played a doubleheader and its two starters went 9 / 0.  Anyway, my response to Eric would be to bunt more.  Everyone should bunt.  Bunt bunt bunt.

Is downtown really this rough?

I don't get back to downtown Cleveland more than once or twice a year now, but I thought this Globe & Mail blogger's take was excessive: Cleveland is a "sad metropolis that turns into a ghost town at nights and over the weekends."

I wish I would have come up with this idea.

A very nice series on beisbol in the DR from Slate.

I'm beginning to like this blog more and more.

At first I was lukewarm to Anthony Castrovince's blog; I went to college with him, and he was roundly unimpressive then.  As in, Andrew Swift could out-write and out-clever him using only two fingers and 20% of his brain.  But I think Anthony has worked hard to improve his writing and sourcing, and his blog is a lot of fun.  He's got a funny entry on Wikipedia today.

A whiny rant about the DH.

I like to check out the media for teams we're about to play, and I thought this column was silly.  The author essentially argues, "Every late and close situation should be superstar hitter vs. pitcher.  Blah blah I don't like when middle infielders have to bat with the game on the line."  And is there some sort of rule in the NL that prohibits Carlos Beltran from pinch-hitting?

Why do you have a mailbag if you can't answer mail?

Dear John Donovan,

When a reader makes a stupid comment, you can either print their email and refute it in swift, simple, devastating fashion, or you can not print it at all.  Otherwise, what's the point?  (I'm referring to the Sizemore overrated letter).

Six-year olds know more than some managers.

The inimitable JoePos has a rant against the intentional walk, complete with too-cute-to-believe anecdote.  Have you read his blog lately?  The man is prolific.

Nothing gets Manny Downs.  Okay, mildly Downs.

Really, this gets a headline?  He's probably right, and definitely an ass.

And finally, some random observations.

The PD's Tribe section online sucks.  The whole online PD is a mess, really.  You've got half the article printed on the main page.  Readers can't tell if an item was technically an "article," "column," or "blog post."  And that's not really a blog they have; I'm amazed they haven't hired someone who can blog or can teach their writers to blog.

I know I dog Underwood and Manning, but they deserve it.  Just from memory, here are three standouts from yesterday:

Underwood, commenting on a 2-1 count with a runner on first: "This is a good count to try a hit and run or some other offensive play."  What other play would that be? 

Underwood's reaction to AbaCab's dinger: "It's outta here, a la Robbie Alomar!"  I said this in the game thread, but what kind of idiot references one of the worst moments in your team's history to describe a May home run?

And someone needs to tell Manning that the camera angle from center field does not show a straight-on view to judge balls and strikes.  Three times he declared a pitch to be "way off the plate," only to have replay and technology prove him wrong.  And yet he still declared that he was correct.

I know we hate the offense right now.  And I know we like the starting pitching.  But do we know just how good the starting pitching has been?  It's actually been slightly better than 2007 starting pitching, and remember:  We suffered a similar swoon after the All-Star break and it was the starting pitching that wrapped the duct tape around our collective head.

So enjoy this, let it cheer you up, and convince yourself that our bullpen will once again develop a CofT.

Quality Start Percentage

2008:  59%
2007:  58%

ERA

2008:  3.78
2007:  4.18

K / 9 IP

2008:  5.8
2007:  5.7

Innings Pitched

2008:  6.1 per start
2007:  6.25 per start

BB / 9 IP

2008:  4.1
2007:  2.2

Overall Rating

2008:  Proon-Correctingly Awesome
2007:  Pronksmashingly Sweet

The biggest surprise to me was the K rate; Cliff Lee's world-beating April has made up for Fausto's anemic K rate.

The biggest red flag was the BB rate, but the spike is entirely the result of CC and Fausto's wildness.  Considering that those two guys could have split the 2007 Cy Young, it's a pretty good bet that they'll return to better statistical neighborhoods.

Turns out that if we can enjoy any offensive bounce at all, we're going to be very, very good.  We just need to flip that switch before too many losses pile up.

In my recent back-and-forth with Chuck regarding the wisdom of signing Hafner to a 4-year contract, I combed over his month-by-month performance.  Holy God.  Digest this, and then you'll understand why I died inside a little.

Also, as I post this, I'll engage in a (likely fruitless) search for answers.

Cliff's Notes Version:  The 2007-2008 numbers reveal a Pronk who simply fails when he's down in the count.  It's a huge contrast.  But we'd have to ask the scouts -- I'm dead serious -- for why this is.  Pronk is now Proon.

2004

Almost impossible consistency.  Gape at the numbers.  Bonus cool stat: Hafner's walk totals by month, which were 10, 9, 12, 12, 12, 13.

April:  .413 / .591 / 1.004
May:  .386 / .523 / .909
June:  .417 / .484 / .901
July:  .451 / .744 / 1.195
August:  .369 / .568 / .937
September:  .437 / .603 / 1.040

2005

After a very weak start in April and May of 2005, the Stud Pronk arrived to take over the baseball world in June.  It started a remarkable run, 11 months of productive awesomeness.

April:  .404 / .427 / .831
May:  .378 / .432 / .810
June:  .430 / .736 / 1.166
July:  .481 / .795 / 1.276
August:  .389 / .576 / .965
September:  .398 / .660 / 1.058

2006

Missed September, but sick sick sick.  His comparatively poor July has to be considered an outlier after seeing his bouceback in August.  No signs of a coming decline in 2007.

April:  .463 / .644 / 1.107
May:  .415 / .589 / 1.004
June:  .485 / .632 / 1.117
July:  .339 / .577 / .916
August:  .484 / .856 / 1.340 (!)

2007

Outstanding April, if slightly single-heavy.  Who could have known.  September seemed like a step toward the Pronk of 2006, highlighted by a massively huge home run against the nemesis Tigers in the home sweep series. 

April:  .471 / .550 / 1.021
May:  .394 / .455 / .849
June:  .346 / .356 / .702 (!)
July:  .321 / .400 / .721
August:  .366 / .392 / .758
September:  .414 / .551 / .965

2008

We obviously had hopes the old Pronk would return.  His April, while not yet complete, has not only been a disappointment; it is his lowest OPS month ever (excluding the first full month of his career), 16 points below last June's funk, and literally half of his OPS from August 2006.

April:  .305 / .381 / .686

Any lessons here? 

Is he just flailing against left handed pitching?  That's not it.  This April his OPS against right handers is just 28 points higher.  Last year, Swoon Season 1, his OPS was two points higher against left handed pitching.  In fact, he's been roughly even against right and left handers since the start of 2006.  And consider that his OPS against lefties was 400 points lower in 2004 and 184 points lower in 2005.  So that's not it.  I mean, he's not hitting any kind of pitching.

How about K rate?  Going back to his first full season, 2004, Hafner's 2008 K rate is the highest of his career.  But in Swoon Season 1, his K rate was markedly lower.  Take a look.

2004-2006: One k per 4.9 PA
2007: One k per 5.7 PA
2008: One k per 4.2 PA

All this tells me is that pitchers are just not afraid of him these days, as also measured by his falling BB rate.

2005-2006: One BB per 6.3 PA
2007: One BB per 6.4 PA
2008: One BB per 11.8 PA

FINALLY, something that stands out.  The New Pronk is utterly junk when he gets behind in the count.  It's truly staggering.  Hide your eyes if you can:

2005-2006:  OPS after falling behind 0-1 in the count: .888
2007: OPS after falling behind 0-1 in the count: .654
2008: OPS after falling behind 0-1 in the count: .546

2005-2006: OPS after falling behind 0-2 in the count: .810
2007: OPS after falling behind 0-2 in the count: .735
2008: OPS after falling behind 0-2 in the count: .385 (very small sample)

These numbers are more likely symptoms of Pronk's problems and not the root cause, though.

Conclusions

Swoon Pronk (Proon?) flails when pitchers start him with strikes.  He's striking out more than ever this year, but that was not the case last year.  He's not driving the ball, obviously.  And now that pitchers have figured out that they're dealing with Proon and not Pronk, they're not issuing him as many free passes.

A return to 2006 seems beyond unlikely now. 

I refer to what Jay said several weeks ago: The best we can hope for is now flashes of inconsistency, with spikes of power and production that rival old levels.  But asking for a sustained return to those levels is a waste of your hopin' time.

And I say this with no sarcasm whatsoever: The best person to answer what is wrong is a seasoned MLB scout.  Cause I sure as hell will never know.

Now back at home, I'm excited to get back to posting in game and fanpost threads more regularly.  Some recent media irked me (and some impressed me), so here's a little roundup, complete with holier-than-thou condescension and snark.

If you're not really an insider, you're just an idiot fan who likes to speculate.

Paul Hoynes offers the super-insidery tidbit that "Francisco's stay could be brief."  Then he quotes Wedge as saying, "You never know what will happen.  I told him to stay ready."

So, essentially, Francisco is up, but might be sent back down soon, but might not.  Thanks for that.

Oh, and Jeremy Sowers has a sample size-free 20.25 ERA in his career against the Yankees.  So that's something.

Speaking of the Yankees, JoePos nails it.

Great stuff as usual, with the added bonus of targeting Chuck's burning nemesis.  Though I have to say that I grew to like Paul O'Neill in the booth very much last year -- especially when comparing him to his counterparts on other broadcasts.

Holy crap, 40 at bats, 20 walks.

Of course I'm speaking of... what's his name again...

Anyway, Kinston Tribers are taking a bunch of pitches.  If only that will translate as they progress.  And if only the real Tribers would follow suit.  Cause right now we're walking less than Steven Hawking.

Can we end the practice of quoting unnamed scouts?

Cause it's almost always worthless.  But Jayson Stark sees fit to quote the unnamed scout to bolster his assertion that Cliff Lee's insane start is "more real than not."  I certainly hope that's true.

"I think he has to be for real," Stark quotes the wise scout as saying. "He's pitched this way before. Now he's showing the same ability again. And the only glitch was when he got hurt. So why wouldn't he be for real?"

The "only glitch" was when he got hurt?  I can think of a suitcase full of glitches.  But again, here's hoping.

And Jon Heyman thinks he's clever.  But not so timely, it turns out.

"C.C. could stand for Crazy Control."  Good one!  Very biting.

But I'm more interested in the end of his piece, where he lists some walk-year performances.  Many lazy media scribes love to haul out the meme that walk-year equals extra motivation.  I haven't seen anyone do any kind of research to either back this up or (much more likely) take this idea apart.

So if anyone has come across those kinds of numbers, I'd love to see them.  And then I'd mail them to every mainstream sportswriter.

Media outlets continue to report that the A's are shopping Haren and want a similar package of players to the one demanded by the Twins for Santana.  So, we're out of it, right?

Haren is under contract for the next three years for a total of $16.25 million.  Wow.

So while we know that Boston or the Yankees will get Santana, why not try to add an excellent pitcher with a truly excellent contract?

Would you trade Adam Miller, Trevor Crowe, and Paul Byrd -- while eating half of Byrd's 2008 contract?  I'm starting on the extreme end here.

In the current edition of SI, Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus lists five trades which he says would benefit both teams.  Here's number five:

"Indians trade SS Jhonny Peralta to the Cubs for OF Matt Murton and RHP Sean Gallagher.  Rather than move Peralta to second or third base to make room for Asdrubal Cabrera, Cleveland should trade him near the peak of his value for a much-needed corner-outfielder bat.  The Cubs made do with fan fave Ryan Theriot at short this year, but Peralta, 25, is a clear upgrade.  His below-average defense with the Tribe wouldn't be as much of a liability with the Cubs' high-strikeout, fly ball staff."

My first thought was, "Make room for Cabrera?  He's the starting second baseman!"  Rather, we'd be opening a hole in the infield, and as Jay and others have recently pointed out, it's dangerous to assume that Barfield can fill it.

Murton will be 26 all of next season.  Peralta will turn 26.  Gallgher, the wildcard of the deal, will be 22.

Career lines of note...

Jhonny Peralta

1,914 MLB ABs and this season closely mirrors his career average.

.336 OBP, .425 SLG, questionable range - though perhaps his defense is not as bad as when Jay joked that he had a paralyzed left side.

Matt Murton

If he's going to be an offensive force in the big leagues, it needs to happen soon.  He's not a young prospect anymore; he should be peaking soon.

2007 with Cubs: 235 ABs, .352 OBP, .438 SLG.  It's a slight downshift from previous MLB numbers.  

MLB career: 830 ABs, .296 AVG, .365 OBP, .455 SLG.  He's had a solid-if-unspectacular 87 walks in 830 ABs.  But I'm optimistic there's room for improvement on the OBP side.  His minor league numbers are not far off, with an OPS of .851 in 1142 ABs.

Sean Gallagher

I'd like to learn more about him.  Interesting numbers with strong strikeout rates for a young age -- he struck out more than a batter per inning in AA at the age of 20.

Total minor league stats: 452 IP, 452 K, 387 hits, 179 BB, 2.75 ERA, 1.25 WHIP.

The Cubs did call him up and he made eight appearances out of the bullpen this season.  He pitched 15 innings and got rocked, but who cares about that.

I'm curious as to whether someone like Joe would post trade ideas out of thin air, or if he has any inside knowledge.  Likely the former, eh?

And would you make this trade?