Game Eighteen: Twins 3, Indians 0

by Ryan on Apr 20, 2008 9:26 AM EDT in Game Recaps Comment 25 comments

Highest WPA		Lowest WPA
Ryan Garko	.032	David Dellucci	-.131
Jorge Julio	.008	Travis Hafner	-.108
Franklin Gutierrez	-.020	Jake Westbrook	-.075

Westbrook pitched just as well as Nick Blackburn, but Blackburn had the Twins defense behind him. Whether it was good throws, turning hard-hit grounders into double plays, or making good catches in the outfield, the Minnesota glovework essentially won the game.

Jake Westbrook made a first-inning mistake to Justin Morneau, and in this game, mistakes were fatal. Normally throwing 7 innings and allowing 3 runs would be good enough to at least avoid a loss. The non-Sabathia starts have been promising; now the team just has to start hitting.

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Obviously, you have to give Blackburn credit for throwing strikes and getting some ground balls…but, I counted a dozen hard hit balls by the Tribe. They got a lot of good swings the first time through the lineup, but they couldn’t bunch their hits and the bad AB’s they did have came in crucial situations. Other thoughts:

- Worried a bit about Hafner’s shoulder. Missing two games (sounds like he’ll be on the bench today) in a place that he rakes is a bad sign.

- It’s still clear to me that Victor is nowhere near 100%. He is still very cautious on the basepaths, and while he’s still maintaining his line-drive stroke, he has 2 extra-base hits this year. He’s really jumping at the ball and has become a front-foot hitter. He has 2 doubles and one walk.

- Westbrook was pretty good, but he and Victor made a huge mistake against Morneau. It was a long at bat and Morneau fouled off several good pitches. Martinez called for a “comeback” fastball (starts inside but comes back over the inside corner), but Westbrook didn’t start it in enough and it ended up right down the middle. Problem is, Jake only throws that occasionally and to do it against the one big power hitter in the lineup in the very first inning was a questionable decision. Wit two out, just stick with the cutter and the sinker and keep him in the yard.

- ACab made a beautiful play up the middle to save a run in the 8th. No way Peralta turns that into an out.

- Looked to me that Dellucci lost the two second-inning balls in the lights. He was tentative on both.

- Blake is actually swiging the bat well now. It started with two hard-hit outs Thursday night. Also, he hits well in Minnesota and he lives in the Des Moines area, which is a straight shot up I-35 for his family. I’m just saying that it would be a surprise not to see him start all the games in this series, so don’t be surprised to see Marte on the bench today as well.

by TribeJay on Apr 20, 2008 10:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Dellucci said he lost the first one, but the second one got fooled by a big swing/weak hit combo and said he couldn’t hear well so wasn’t able to judge how much contact the batter made.

Why not play Blake in the outfield today and give Marte a shot?

by peter m on Apr 20, 2008 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t see Blake playing in the outfield much this year. He didn’t play there the last few months of last season, and I don’t believe he played there much (if at ALL) in spring training. That’s your big clue.

Also, putting him in the outfield (especially the spacious left field in the Metrodome) in a tough dome stadium with a fly ball pticher on the mound?? Call me crazy, but that doesn’t sound like a recipe for success.

by TribeJay on Apr 20, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually thought he could play right, but you have a point about playing in the Metrodome (viz. Dellucci’s adventures yesterday!!) If you’re right about the season as a whole, Marte better get himself a nice pillow to sit on!

by peter m on Apr 20, 2008 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not worth a Fanpost, but with the Jays DFAing Thomas, they still have to pay his entire salary unless someone claims him off waivers, right?

by supermarioelia on Apr 20, 2008 11:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Leapin’ Lizards, they DFA’d him?
Here’s a link for those as incredulous as I: LINK

by Fiddlesticks on Apr 20, 2008 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can’t believe it personally. Now Matt Stairs gets to face righties AND lefties?!? Or more Rod Barajas action? Either way it’s not the greatest way to throw away 8 mil.

I still contend the signing was a mistake to begin with. They were banking on Thomas somehow coming close to his production with the A’s and staying healthy at the same time. JP thought he was being bright by tying the 3rd year option to a minimum number of plate appearaces. Of course this was without the foresight to realize that the odds were high that Thomas would be posting mediocre numbers in 2008 while staying just healthy enough to warrant Gibby benching him here and there (to prevent him from reaching the PA mark). With Thomas’s personality, they really thought this was going to fly? And now he gets DFAd with some of the most mediocre depth around.

by supermarioelia on Apr 20, 2008 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And yea yea sunk cost blah blah, I know, but that is one helluva sunk cost for a guy in a slump. He was becoming a cancer in the clubhouse, which probably forced the move, but the whole situation played out pretty predictably.

by supermarioelia on Apr 20, 2008 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder who the cancer really is. Isn’t Gibbons the guy who got into a fistfight with one of his players (maybe Hatteberg?)

by Fiddlesticks on Apr 20, 2008 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shea Hillenbrand. Gibbons should’ve been fired before last year….it all makes me very happy I’m a Tribe fan.

by supermarioelia on Apr 20, 2008 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t disagree about Gibbons, but Thomas is a guy who’s always had himself first and foremost in his mind. He got benched because he was hitting about .100 and complained about the benching. So, there’s plenty of “ugh” to go around here.

by peter m on Apr 20, 2008 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s an interesting section from the ESPN report on Thomas’ departure (by mutual consent, apparently). Evidently, they save some money by doing this. Also, Ricciardi’s comment is interesting in the context of Indians fans’ anxiety about the team’s slow start. I think I’d rather have Shapiro as GM, so his patience may be the right way to go. I still worry about someone getting away from us before the 40 game re-evaluation kicks in, though. So far, only the White Sox look even vaguely capable of that, fortunately.

“I don’t know that we have the luxury of waiting two to three months for somebody to kick in because we can’t let this league or this division get away from us,” Ricciardi said, according to the AP.

Thomas’ deal included a $10-million option for 2009 that would have kicked in automatically if he made 376 plate appearances this season. On Saturday, Thomas said the Blue Jays had benched him to prevent him from reaching that mark.

“It’s pretty obvious,” Thomas said. “Sixty at-bats isn’t enough to make that decision. I’m angry, I know I can help this team. My career isn’t going to end like this.”

by peter m on Apr 20, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In Toronto, you have a me-first guy hitting .167 who throws a tantrum worthy of a colicky baby when he’s benched by a manager who loves to antagonize his players, then he’s DFA’d by his wildly overreacting GM. In Cleveland, you have a team-first guy hitting .189 who would never whisper a word of complaint if he were benched, but his don’t-rock-the-boat manager will probably give him 100 more PAs before he thinks about benching him, and they both work for a patience-first GM who probably won’t engage in roster tinkering before June 1. Give me Blake, Wedge, Shapiro and the Tribe every time.

by Fiddlesticks on Apr 20, 2008 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think we disagree.

By the way, Wedge actually has “benched” a couple of guys lately (Asdrubal and Gutierrez), although in a non-confrontational way. I do wish he’d be a little less patient with the veterans who aren’t producing—not bench them permanently or for long stretches, but giving a kid like Marte a chance for some sustainted PT by “resting” a guy like Blake or Michaels for a couple of games.

by peter m on Apr 20, 2008 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course we don’t disagree; I was merely pointing out something I thought was ironic.

by Fiddlesticks on Apr 20, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it is indeed an irony!!

by peter m on Apr 20, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s the thing … when Wedge benches or rests a young player, it’s only temporary. When he benches a vet, he’s pretty much done as an everyday player this season and done as an Indian after that. So it actually makes sense to give the vet more rope.

by Jay on Apr 20, 2008 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That certainly describes Wedge’s approach. So, when is Michaels done?

by peter m on Apr 21, 2008 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Too true.

by supermarioelia on Apr 20, 2008 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kenny Williams and Thomas exchanged some pretty nice barbs when the Sox cut him loose. Personality aside, the guy can still hit. He’s the perfect bat for the Indians lineup, with nowhere to play. That’s unfortunate.

Where’s he go? The Angels are a good fit, but the Mariners make the most sense.

by xrickx on Apr 20, 2008 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Could he go back to Oakland? I’ve forgotten who’s Dh’ing for them now.

by peter m on Apr 20, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mike Sweeney and Jack Cust

by palcal on Apr 20, 2008 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah. Frank’s not going to Oakland, then.

by peter m on Apr 21, 2008 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn’t it sort of unfair to Blackburn to say Westbrook pitched as well as him? One pitcher gave up a run in a manner that had nothing to do with defense, the other didn’t.

I’m not sure how much the Indians’ defense had to do with the other two runs, but a 1-0 loss would have still been a loss.

by Joe. on Apr 20, 2008 12:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t see much of it and haven’t combed over the play-by-play, but it’s not that uncommon for one pitcher to give up 7-8 more hard-hit balls than the other in a game and yet end up with a better looking line in the box score anyway. It’s a question of looking beyond the raw stats to try to isolate the “real performance” of one player.

by Jay on Apr 20, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs