The Indians suck everyone sucks blow up the team fire Wedge and Shapiro gkafkasbdj

Not really. Just paraphrasing the general opinion of a number of Intenet denizens who support the Tribe but are having a hard time dealing with their struggles so far this year.

Just today, I read a sharply-critical, piling-on variety of article about the Tribe on The Cleveland Fan. This particular piece, the sort that is quite in vogue with Indians supporters across the blogosphere these days, appeared on The Cleveland Fan and was written by Gary Benz. It was a tad cynical for my taste, and I generally disagreed with the harsh words he had for all things Wahoo (for a more optimistic, levelheaded perspective, check out the DiaTribe). Most of all, though, I didn't like my club being compared unfavorably to the California Angels.

The article is titled, "Making the Wrong Excuses," referring to the Indians' front office apparently trying to sneakily blame their lack of success thus far on injuries via their broadcasting team and "media enablers." Conspiracy! I don't think that it's unreasonable to, for example, point out that missing a dude who was 2nd in the AL in ERA and 4th in pitching runs created last year is affecting the team's performance. There's a healthy dose of Shapiro-bashing as well, criticizing an off-season plan that most analysts thought gave the Tribe a serious chance to win this year (all 11 predictors on The Cleveland Fan pegged the Tribe for between 91 and 95 W's and many national commentators liked them for the World Series). Benz ends the piece with the strangely metaphorical "what troubles this team looks to stick around for awhile, like an obnoxious dinner party guest who doesn't have to work tomorrow, an apt description actually of the 2008 season." What have you done for me lately, Cleveland Indians organization (96 wins, 1 game from World Series last year)?

OK, let's settle down. Lots of key dudes have been hurt, compared to the '07 squad, where the only injuries I can recall (Westbrook missing a few early starts, Dellucci being hurt) actually helped the team. Yeah, every team deals with injuries, but some teams some years get it worse than others. The article criticizes many members of our underachieving Erie Warriors individually, especially Travis Hafner (in this case, deservingly if not very friendly). Oddly, he tries to downplay complaints about Victor Martinez' power numbers (still no HR!), as if a one-year drop in SLG% of .168 is normal, then argues that not having Fausto Carmona and Jake Westbrook hasn't hurt the starting staff that much, and so on. It's a weird article - you can tell this season is really bugging this guy and he's not making his points as clearly as I think he can. There really isn't a paragraph I agree with here, and the overall tone is mean-spirited and defeatist. Cheer up, Gary!

I could at least go along with Benz's analysis if there actually were some in-depth look at the team's statistical performance, which there is not. This is especially true in regards to an extended comparison he makes with the Angels. You see, California currently sports the league's best record, even though they've had some injuries as well and Vlad Guerrero has been underperforming in a Hafnerian fashion. I think his point is that the Angel roster is better-constructed or something (having an extra $40 million to pay helps, I would think) but an inspection of the teams' scoring numbers reveals, mostly, that the Angels have been really lucky this season.

That's right, I said it - lucky. People seem unwilling to talk about luck even in a sport that trends so close to .500, and where the margin between good and bad is so razor thin. Look at the '06 and '07 Tribe if you don't believe me. The '06 squad was prodigiously unlucky - a team that scores 88 runs more than its opponents and finishes 14 games below .500 is an unfortunate club, not so much a bad club. In this case, a historically unfortunate one. Last year's playoff-qualifying Indians had a nice run differential but also had luck on their side and outperformed their expected wins by a few (I think - can't find the numbers but this is my recollection); the '05 team was the other way around and had to sit out the postseason, thanks to an epically fortunate white sock team that won like 297 one-run games, including 56 against the Tribe).

Yes, wins and losses are the bottom line, but a team's record is not the whole story when evaluating performance and, importantly, predicting future results. Consider, as our first exercise, the two teams' run differentials. This may surprise you after reading 645 straight negative pieces about the Tribe, but they've actually outscored their opponents on the year, 283-272 (oops! 284 - CC just shut out the Twinkies!). The Angels, that model of resillience? 274-274. Dead even in runs scored and allowed, yet they're 13 games above .500! There's a word for that, even if, like Obi-Wan Kenobi, you don't believe in luck: unsustainable.

Again, let me re-disclaim, I know the object of baseball is to win, but it's quite instructive to look at runs scored and allowed (and more advanced metrics) as a way to evaluate more in-depth how well a team really plays. Going deeper, consider Baseball Prospectus' adjusted standings. This evaluates teams by 3rd-order winning % (historically a much better predictor than actual win % or 1st-order pythagorean run-differential %) and shows the difference between that and their actual W-L record. Like Han Solo, I call this number luck. Let's look at who, across both leagues, has won fewer games thus far than anticipated, based on this approach:

Teams winning less than expected
1 Toronto Blue Jays (-4.2)
2 Colorado Rockies (-4.1)
3 Atlanta Braves (-4.0)
4 Detroit Tigers (-3.5; uh-oh)
5 LA Dodgers (-2.9)

The Indians rank at just -1.0, meaning that on average you'd expect them to be 30-34, not 29-35. Fair enough. The Tribe have indeed outscored their opponents by a slim margin, but 3rd-order winning % takes into account more advanced factors than just RS and RA, using equivalent runs and adjusting for other teams' performances. Overall, it's typically a good predictor, and here it's got us pretty well pegged through 64 games. Now let's look at who's had the ball bouncing their way so far in 2008:

Teams winning more than expected
1 California Angels (8.0)
2 St. Louis Cardinals (4.8)
3 Minnesota Twins (4.5)
4 Florida Marlins (3.6)
5 Philliedelphia Philas (2.8)

Look at the Angels! Yeah, they have the best record in baseball (for now), but they are eight games above their expected win total, just 65 games into the season. That's astounding. Let's put it this way: there is no way the Los Angeles/Anaheim/Every City in Southern California Angels are going to finish this season 97-65 (projecting, based only on current win %) if they continue to score the same number of runs as their opponents. Are. Not.

In fact, BP's projections, based on performance thus far, predicts a sub-.500 finish for mighty California of .484. Cleveland? .478.

So, if you really like to bash the Tribe for not playing very well so far, fine - almost no one except Ben Francisco and Cliff Lee is exceeding their PECOTA predictions - but when you consider these numbers you'll see that in baseball, the difference between a team like the league-leading Angels and the angst-inducing Indians is rather thin. I know it's tough, Gary - but let's stick with our boys a little longer.

Go Tribe!