Early impressions of Acta

[Lando12]

One of the things I've noticed is that Acta does not seem to be concerned with how innings line up when using the pen. He has put a few relievers in position to go after a group of hitters whether or not that group spans two different innings. I've seen him do it with Laffey and Sipp thus far.

As a general matter, I like it. The need to look at each inning separately makes little sense, though all of the pitching changes in the middle of innings does slow the game down. The 9th remains intact as closer territory, so we aren't all the way there, but I do like the idea.

Anyone notice anything else?

[Furrski]

He also is trying to get a feel for who he has. He hasn't seen these guys like we have, so he will mix and match and see who can get guys out and when.

It seems we are playing a little more aggressively. A few guys have tried to sneak a bunt for a hit. I love the small ball.

What cracks me up is after all of the control problems we had last year, there was an article on Indians.com on Tim Belcher sitting all of the pitchers down and preaching the importance of throwing strikes. Like they didn't know? And what do you see so far? A lot of falling behind in the count, not throwing first pitch strikes, and walks. That's just gonna kill us, and has so far.

But the biggest thing I've noticed about Acta- He doesn't stand there and bugg out like Wedge did. The dugout close ups are no where near as comical. I kinda miss that.

[Lando12]

Wedge always did look like he was frantically trying to remember if he left the stove on. As entertaining as that could be, nothing will ever top the mustache. That thing was a work of art.

As far as the attempts to get pitchers to throw strikes, I guess a leopard really can't change its spots. They talked to pitchers, put together a presentation complete with a few cooked numbers, and even had them horse around batting practice. Obviously, it hasn't taken. It was a nice idea, but I suppose that if the idea was that simple we wouldn't see so many walks.

The aggressive play surprises me a bit. With Acta's stated appreciation for advanced stats, I wouldn't think we would see as many bunts. I suppose that guys are free to do so on their own, but I just didn't see it coming. The Nationals in 08 were pretty average in that regard, so I suppose I shouldn't have expected differently.

[FordPrefect]

Dave your points reflect what I've seen.

I also think he's very, very patient with his lineup. The only changes he's made it putting in Marte late in games. And that's it, really.

We'll see.

[FordPrefect]

In relation to his lineup choices, and putting Kearns at cleanup against a lefty:

"When a lefty is starting, a lot of times, we're going to do that," said Acta, "because if he goes three or four times through the lineup, it will make it a little bit tougher on him. We're just not going to be splitting the lefties thinking about who they're bringing in the eighth inning if a righty is starter.
"I don't think that's the way to go out about it. You try to put the lineup out there that by the eighth inning has scored enough runs to win the ballgame."

http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ss ... st_17.html

I don't know about that strategy - the 8th inning is important too, especially if you're just considering order (the microscopic difference order has is really outweighed by the difference of Grady versus a lefty or a righty). I think I'd prefer that Acta push opposing teams bullpen management more.

That said, he has no right handed bats to do that with. Kearns, LaPorta, and Peralta? Not exactly guys other managers are going to game plan around in the 8th inning. LaPorta has good potential, but it's not like him batting third between Sizemore and Choo would fundamentally change anything.

[Lando12]

I suppose that it stands to reason that if the lineup is a weakness versus LHP, that it is a strength versus RHP. Against a RH starter, that lineup would face a RHP more often than a LHP, and thus it would maximize runs. It would leave a situational weakness, which would mean that those runs wouldn't be very efficiently distributed. In close games the weakness is attacked while in blowouts it is ignored. This leads to pythagorean issues. Essentially it is managing towards run differential rather than wins.

Before anyone jumps on that, I don't really buy it as a big deal. Even if better RHB were available, the difference between lineup arrangements would be slight. Only in close games against teams that have a legitimate LOOGY (big, believable platoon split), and those instances are very rare. Against your garden variety lefties, the difference is hardly worth mentioning. We're talking 100 OPS points of one batter in an inning. Big deal. Ultimately, I would almost always go with maximizing run differential and taking my chances.

I bring up the idea of managing to pythag because I think it fits into a more interesting larger picture. Is there a danger of managing to stats rather than wins? Do the two ever really diverge? Long have people claimed that A's hitters will look for walks to an absurd degree that it will hinder overall performance. That has been crap, but the idea is what I'm after. Is there something of an observer effect with statistics? Does doing certain things geared toward statistical goals alter how those statistics model the game? Does trying to maximize, say, WAR, change how well WAR approximate real wins? I don't think it does, but it's an interesting question.

Acta seems to be more concerned with the big picture than situations, and I wonder if that has a few negative side effects.

[FordPrefect]

I do think that if there was a righty that could be slotted in the top 4, Acta would do it immediately. But all the options there are terrible (let's wait for LaPorta to do anything).

I agree with you Lando that he's more concerned with the big picture; that has to have some negative side effects, but I don't think you can worry about those until the team shows it's willing to win. Then it's like a car hitting another gear: Acta will have to manage more effectively.

Like leaving Valbuena in the game last week against Thornton. It may have been the -bad- move at the time, but there's no real compelling reason not to see what Valbuena could do. He's willing to lose a game to find out things. That's admirable.

It'll be less admirable when we finish a game out of the playoffs.

[Lando12]

It is true that Acta's hands are pretty tied regardless of what he tries. Grudzielanek and Redmond represent half of the bench, so it isn't as if he's dealing with a whole mess of options. I suppose we'll have a better idea of what Acta is thinking when Donald comes up, but even that will come with playing time concerns. Hodges is another guy that could make the bench more interesting, but I doubt we'll see too much of him before 2011.

I haven't seen, nor do I expect to see anything groundbreaking from Acta. I'm just curious as to what might happen if the team really did come up with some kind of sabermetric based shenanigans. Would various statistical truths hold if the playing style was removed from the norm?

I guess that is part of the appeal of hiring Acta. Every crazy idea that every stat head ever had suddenly seems possible. Off the wall speculation about pairing starters and zany bullpen schemes just wasn't as much fun under Wedge. It all seemed much more academic.