Game Seven - Blowsavski Lives
by Jay on Apr 8, 2008 12:35 PM EDT
in Game Recaps
Email
Print
Apropos of nothing, the most baserunners you can squander in an inning is five — squander meaning only that a guy got on base, wasn't swapped out for another guy on a fielder's choice, and didn't score. You get to five by making the first two outs on the basepaths, after the batter and any runners have all reached safely, and then ending the inning with the bases loaded, stranding three.
The Indians scored three runs in the top of a very, very strange 9th, and it may seem gluttonish to suggest that they should have scored more, but really, it isn't. They put seven men on base and only there scored. That isn't a bad rate for a whole game, but for a single inning, it's kind of atrocious. After the third run scored, we did have the bases loaded with only one out and the top of the lineup coming to the plate.
As for what followed, I'll defer to our astute occasional contributor TribeJay (no relation), who may be confused here for a negativist but is not one. Posted he:
The elephant in the room that the media isn't talking about is that JoBo's velocity is DOWN. He threw 88-89 for much of last year. In Lakeland he topped out at 86 with most of his fastballs at 83-84. Today he was at 85 for the one fastball I saw on the scoreboard (STO's radar readings weren't working later in the game), and his fastball just doesn't look as firm as it did last year. Not that he ever threw smoke, but I can tell a noticeable difference, and the radar readings I've seen back that up. Hopefully it's just temporary and he just needs to improve his arm strength, but I can't imagine how he's going to be able to keep the closer job the whole year if he can't increase his velocity. I mean, he was very hittable LAST year
Mind you, he did not post that last night. He posted it the night before.
Earlier in the game, eight other innings just happened. The offense was anemic though occasionally sparked by a strong return performance by Victor. Fausto had an unsteady performance, pitching six shutout innings, or rather, allowing only one unearned run. It is what it is.
74 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Too early to get really worried, but here's what I saw in last night's game (extending things that have been happening since the beginning of the season) that we need to be worried about. Since I'm always worried about Borowski, I'm treating that as a constant, not a variable that needs to be monitored:
a. Rafael Betancourt continues to not be himself.
b. Left field
c. Weak infield play (particularly short and third).
d. Vulnerablility to left-handed pitching
e. Hafner not hitting the ball hard.
If you ask me which is the LEAST important thing of these to fix, I'd say b. Ironic that we're obsessing about that (myself included). Maybe it's because it's the one that's most easily addressed.
Oh well, at least Carmona toughed it out. And I love watching Martinez hit; the guy's outstanding, plain and simple.
Honestly, I am definitely most concerned with left field and the pen. Hafner's numbers while not like the old Beast Pronk, are still not horrendous - he can take a walk and hit a double every now and then.
As for the infield play, I think this site is pretty much in agreement that we need to see more Marte if only for potential upside. With regular playing time, I think he is more likely to be serviceable as a defensive third baseman given the hearsay from his minor league track record. It's going to be impossible for Marte to get into any rhythm offensively or defensively playing once a week.
I don't mind Blake getting regular PT in leftfield and I would prefer to move quicker than I expect us to on moving either Michaels or Dellucci as I mentioned below.
Bullpens are scary just because of their volatile nature....and the fact that we have Blowsavski backstopping us.
Well, the good news is that JoBo is on pace to statistically match last year. The bad news is that it is statistically impossible to match last year.
That's the rub, we experienced the "best case scenerio" of what Joe Borowski can offer a team last year. We all know the odds of replication are very slim.
-- --
To be a bit optimistic, it was a game we looked TERRIBLE in for 8.5/9 of it. If we would have won the game, it really would have been a "stolen game". The errors we made only resulted in 1 run (and could have been much more). So, do you really lose a game that you never deserved to win in the first place?
The answer is yes. Because we did it a few times last year and is an important factor in having a successful season.
Here's Choo's status. I'm putting it here rather than extending the game thread:
Choo remains in Winter Haven, Fla., at extended spring camp and likely won't be ready to join the big league club until after he completes a rehab stint at Triple-A Buffalo. Such a stint probably won't take place until May.
"He's still just progressing with everything," Wedge said of Choo. "He's playing some at DH to get some at-bats, and he [is] throwing out to 150 feet. It's just a matter of the repetitions. Timeline-wise, he's right on target."
last week on indians.mlb.com
Bit of an aside on the Choo thing. Since teams know that we have to open up a spot for Choo, how will getting rid of Dellucci and/or Michaels shake down? They seem to have too much value to end up on the waiver wire, but are teams going to trade for them knowing that if they wait it out long enough they might be able to get them for dirt cheap off the wire? This to me is the danger in not showing any urgency to shop either one of them right now.
by supermarioelia on Apr 8, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I've never counted on getting anything back for either player. If one of them puts up some decent numbers, then we might get a decent low-level prospect back, especially for Michaels, but otherwise, count on nothing.
Michaels could fetch more as a legit CF or fourth-OF option with a very team-friendly contract — $2M owed for 2008 and shrinking every day, plus a $2.6M club option for 2009 with no buyout. It doesn't get much more team-friendly than that for a veteran.
Dellucci brings less to the table as a defender, and more teams could use a righty bat to supplement than a lefty bat. But the bigger problem is that he's shown zero at the plate since the start of 2007, down to .222 now, and nobody's going to take on a $6M or $7M commitment on a wish and a prayer, even if is for most of two seasons. He doesn't have the upside to justify that kind of investment.
My guess is that if Dellucci doesn't put together a decent couple of months, we'll be looking at trading him to a team while covering his entire 2008 salary and possibly half of 2009. He won't get picked up on waivers, he'll be released.
by Jay on Apr 8, 2008 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I was just about to post the same idea but far less eloquently, so thank you.
That said, I would like to make a move sooner rather than later because as Choo's return approaches, both players' minimal trade value decreases further. I think fairly obviously most fans would rather trade Dellucci than Michaels, but as you pointed out, Michaels will be the more likely candidate to be moved. I fear we are stuck with Dellucci for the remainder of the contract or until we decide to eat the money and move on.
I think the fear that our leverage will be compromised by Choo's return is unfounded. Either more than one team will want the player at that time, or not. We blatantly DFA'ed Milton Bradley and still got a great return. The "pressure deal" really only happens in a situation where one party is confident that he's the only available buyer.
And frankly, the entire topic of "trade return for Dellichaels" is a pretty low-stakes affair. Our time is probably better spent on the Rosario-vs.-Archer debate.
I've said it before, I have no doubt that the Indians will be willing to release Dellucci and eat his entire contract if they at some point conclude that they're better off with some other player on the roster. They know what sunk cost is. On the other hand, on a differently constructed roster, he'd be a pretty good bench option.
by Jay on Apr 8, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Gregorio Rosario is a good example here, because to me it is similar to the Jason Davis situation. There is no way of knowing if we had a better offer for Jason Davis in the offseason prior to us giving him one final shot, but it is possible that we did. In either case, you are correct that it is a low stakes affair and probably not worth worrying about. That said, I would still like to see the move happen sooner to getmore time for Marte at third or for Ben Fran in left.
I also think the Tribe will not be afraid to cut Dellucci when the right time comes, but his contract is still hurting us. If it weren't, then Francisco would be on the team right now.
You're right, the parallel is dead-on.
Dellucci's contract ultimately not a factor; the money is already committed. If he's playing well, he likely will be kept around, and if not, he'll be dumped. Either way, we're probably paying most if not all of that contract.
by Jay on Apr 8, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Just for the record: Jason Davis was a young pitcher with a live arm. Dellucci is not a pitcher, not young, and not likely to get better. So, I think he's even harder to move. But, that said, I think you're right that they'll dump him if they decide he's no longer useful when Choo becomes available again.
Another question, though. Does Gutierrez have options? Not that this is likely, but let's say HE's hitting .220 in May (and Dellucci is hitting .250). Would they option Gutierrez and replace him with Choo? I sure hope not (the righty/lefty thing is messed up anyway), but it's not inconceivable.
Yes, this could clearly be a situation where the roster spot is more valuable than the $$$ the team has already committed to paying both players.
Who cares if Dolan is paying Dellucci to suck somewhere else if it gives the team the opportunity to put a more productive player on the field.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
I've noticed several Tribe pitchers whose velocity is down from last year:
Jensen Lewis - when he was called up, his rising fastball would top out at 94. I don't think he's broken 90 in any of his appearances yet. Some reporter asked him about it in ST and he shrugged it off, but its carried over into the season.
Fausto - I was at the game last April in NY when Borowski butchered another Fausto outing by blowing a 4 run lead. Carmona topped out at 99 that game and was consistently 94-96 all game, and he pretty much kept that up thru October. This spring, while his ball is moving all over the place, his velocity is down significantly, touching 94 occasionally but his sinker more often sitting at 89-92.
Borowski - see above.
CC - still in spring training so far.
Raffy B. also seems to've not yet hit his stride, a little in velocity but more in location. He is not spotting the fastball effectively, and while he had a good tight slider/curve last year, he has yet to show a good one this year. The homer pitch to Hunter last night was a sickly 83 mph slurve that just sat in the middle of the plate and said kill me.
While I think our starting rotation will be the best in the AL over the course of the year, by and large the team is not hitting the ground running and many players still look like they're in ST shaking the rust off, building up arms and sharpening swings.
It's been a criticism of Wedge in the past that he doesn't have his team ready to go full speed in April, and although last year was an exception to it, this year's team is playing like '06, when they sleepwalked thru the first couple of months only to wake up and find themselves close to out of it.
No team will be sprinting out ahead of them this year, but the team hasn't played well so far, and the lack of game readiness as a team was particularly apparent when Vic was out.
Of course, its been one week, and these are just initial observations. If it were the end of April, they'd be... well, I'll wait a few weeks.
I watched most of it too, and I only saw 94 a couple times . But, that was just my one-eyed impression, I was watching Kansas/Memphis with the other.
Even so, last year, Fausto was resting a couple ticks higher.
Since radar guns vary quite a bit, shouldn't we be focusing on the differential between pitches (fastball vs. change) than the actual velocity? Has anyone noticed a pattern there for any of these pitchers? I don't have an agenda; just wondered what the data show.
Also, pitchers do learn to pace themselves. CC is a case in point -- someone who used to try to throw his pitches through a brick wall. Now, he's more likely to ease up a bit in favor of location, etc. Of course, he hasn't pitched well so far THIS year, but last year he was throwing less hard and was more effective as a result.
I feel kind of sad for you Royals fans, really. It's clear you can't enjoy the great start by your time because of the remorse you feel about the way Jose Guillen has destroyed our national innocence.
Free Andy Marte!
I absolutely love the Royals. What is not to like about that team? The rotation resembles a beat up el camino (Meche undervalued by Seattle, Bannister out of the farm system, and Grienke left for dead) and the lineup with some good young players (Gordon, Butler)
I just cant shake the parallels between the fans and Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite. You ever find on the internets a way to go back in time?
God truly does hate cleveland sports.
While the Tribe's poor early showing has been overshadowed by the Kittens' 0-6 (and they're down 3-0 to Boston at the moment), they're too good not to make a big run at some point. The Tribe too, but let's just hope that theirs doesn't come sooner than ours and put us in a hole.
Similarly, while the White Sox and the Royals are pretty outclassed by both us and the Tigers, it'd be dangerous to find ourselves a month or two in and down 5 or 6 to either of them. We all remember what happened a few years ago when the Sox got on a roll and took advantage of seemingly every break that came their way. They rode that to career years for about half their team and a World Series.
I guess what I'm saying is while it's probably too early to panic, it's not too early to start looking for things the team isn't doing well and making plans to fix those things if the solution doesn't present itself. It's also pretty unlikely the Tigers are going to have multiple 6+ game losing streaks over the season, so it be nice to start taking advantage of it while it's going on.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Tigers now trail 4-0 (in the 6th). The immortal Julio Lugo has two hits and two runs scored. Maybe the Tribe need an overpaid middle infielder or two?
Although Aquilino Lopez has been surpringly good for them this year. Wouldn't be surprised to see him in the setup role soon...although with the way guys are used in that pen, who knows. He's been their best reliever, yet was used in mopup duty today for 2+ IP today with the game already 5-0. So if the Tigers are leading late in the game tomorrow their hottest reliever is out of commission. Makes perfect sense.
by supermarioelia on Apr 8, 2008 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Comparing last year to this year is awkward because of the snowouts, but 7 games in:
2007: 4-3, 39 runs scored, 34 runs allowed
2008: 3-4, 28 runs scored, 31 runs allowed
The drop in offense is obviously what jumps out at you, but I'm kinda amazed that we've given up fewer runs, considering the craptastic performances some folks have turned in already.
Didn't Grady homer in the first four games or something ridiculous like that?
by Jay on Apr 8, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Good times. It's just a shame the new wife made him stop ... whatever it was.
by Jay on Apr 8, 2008 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions
So we're still three games up, with a chance to make it 3.5 tonight.
That's up over the Tigers, of course, not atop the division.
by Jay on Apr 8, 2008 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
That's awesome, but we're still not at halftime of the first NFL game of the season yet, percentage wise.
Still, much nicer to see than 7-0.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Comment from BYB game thread:
I wavered in the offseason on whether or not to buy a 27-game package again. My wife and I had just had a baby, and we didn't think spending the money on baseball tickets would be the best use of our income.
But then they went and traded for Miguel Cabrera and, suddenly, we became a favorite in the AL. I imagined a summer full of great baseball in a sold-out Comerica Park. I spent money that I probably shouldn't have spent on tickets because this team looked special.
Well, now I know how absurd that thinking was. My tickets are worthless, and this team is playing like s***.
I want my money back.
I feel (a little) sorry for the true fans. Detroit has some great and knowledgeable fans. But I don't much abide bandwagon jumpers. One trade and its subsequent hype is not a reason to buy season tickets. It's really this whole hype thing that has me so enjoying the flameout.
I'll instantly root against any team that attempts to purchase a world series ring. (see; 1997 Florida Marlins)
to have it be a divisional rival just makes the struggles all the better.
God truly does hate cleveland sports.
I feel the same. And I didn't like it when we seemed to be inching in that direction c.2001, either. It felt dirty when we crushed the Twins that year.
by Jay on Apr 8, 2008 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I find that I'm amazingly placid about the things not going well with this team as long as the Tigers continue to suck.
Imagine the hand-wringing that would be happening if detroit was playing well. Yikes.
God truly does hate cleveland sports.
I also like how the Tigers are keeping the math easy. Let's say 95 wins makes the playoffs in the AL for sure - they gotta go 95-60 (.613%).
Yeah, the math does start to become a problem when you keep racking up the losses.
Let's just start with the assumption PECOTA arrived at, that both teams are basically 91-win teams, that's .561. Well, you now have to start looking at it as, they're .562 teams (at best) for the next 155 games, but those first seven games are in the books already -- and luck doesn't "even out," as Einstein had it, "the dice have no memory."
So PECOTA would now say (at best) that each team is projected for another 87 wins -- 87 total for them, 90 total for us. And that's assuming that their performances aren't so bad that they "move the needle" on the projection -- for them, not for us. Our variance from the projection is too small, but theirs, despite the sample size, is significant.
But for them ... well, if you add this 0-7 run into their 2007 stats, now they're an 84-win team rather than an 87-win team last year, and maybe that makes them an 89-win team for this year. Only once again, there's only 155 games left, so it's really 89 x 155 / 162 ... and now they're expected to win 85 of the next 155, meaning they finish at 85-77.
Granted, this is all really quick and sloppy, but the basic premise is sound. An underperformance can only be overcome by a counterbalancing overperformance -- be it by luck or skill or a bucket of chicken -- which is made less likely by that same underperformance.
In other words, losing seven straight really is not good, and it is in fact a little worse at the start of the season.
by Jay on Apr 8, 2008 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry, Einstein never said that, I don't know who first said it.
Einstein said that he was "convinced that He does not throw dice," implying God.
He also said: "You teach me baseball, and I'll teach you relativity – no, we must not. You will learn about relativity faster than I learn baseball." Though I don't know who he said it to, and that seems like a key part of the story.
Some estimate that fewer than a dozen living people really and truly understand relativity.
by Jay on Apr 8, 2008 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Thinking of Bob Seger? "You always said, the cards would never do you wrong / the trick, you said, was never play the game too long." I knew it. You were thinking of Bob Seger.
by fleerdon on Apr 8, 2008 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Special relativity (no accelerating reference frames, Einstein's 1903 paper) is rather simple to understand if you put your mind to it. I used to TA a class were it was taught to liberal arts and human ecology majors. General relativity (accelerating reference frames and gravity, Einstein's 1919 paper) is much harder as you get into complex geometry, but still makes logical sense. The number of people who can do calculations in it is definitely in the thousands, though there are few calculations one can actually do.
Then there is quantum mechanics. There is a famous quote from Richard Feynman, one of America's greatest physicists. Paraphrasing: "When Einstein's general theory of relativity came out, the papers said that only a dozen people could understand it. This was wrong, it was difficult math, but easily hundreds if not thousands of people could understand it. Now take quantum mechanics. I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (The last sentence is an exact quote).
Hopefully a little edification to go with last evenings meatball.
losing seven straight really is not good, and it is in fact a little worse at the start of the season.
Other than meaning that a team that drops its first 7 games is, in all likelihood, playing from behind most of the season, when, in a season of 162 games, those games are lost has little impact.
The 2007 Mets started the season 5-2, ended it 1-6 and watched the playoffs on TV.
A team that wins 5 games and drops the next four like clockwork throughout the season will end up 90 and 72 with a good shot at the playoffs, and they will be tied with a team that lost it's first 4 and then won 5, and so on and so on.
That being said, I'm not displeased that the Kitties are 1 and 8 with - by far - the worst winning percentage in baseball.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
What I meant by that was, it's a worse indicator to lose your first seven games than to lose seven straight at some other time. For one thing, you should be at full strength, or at least most likely to be at full strength. For another thing, those seven losses worth of performances represent all the data for the season, whereas seven losses later on are a part of a larger set of in-season data for all the players, and the prior season data is equivalent in either case.
This may seem anti-mathematical, but it isn't, and it's consistent with Tom Tango's findings that early-season records become quite significant in early May. They're 2-9 now, and those 11 games will be a big part of their record as of early May.
When using it as in indicator, all I can say is SSS, and we don't know enough about that hypothetical 7 game losing streak mid-season to evaluate it. Is the team at full strength, did they lose games while playing well because of a few key plays that went the other way, etc.
All I can say on this is that not only are the Tigers now 2 and 10, it's a bad looking 2 and 10 - four shut outs, poor starting pitching, poor relief pitching, etc. Those aren't things that all get fixed in a hurry.
So, as an Indians fan, that's a good thing.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
Of the six starters a 0.00 ERA, five have a 0.00 RA and are listed with 0 PRC. Felix has a 0.60 RA and gets 17 PRC. The five PRC = 0 results are not real zeros, they're divide-by-zero errors; the formula uses RA, not ERA, and can't handle a 0.00 there.
Step 1. The custom exponent turns out to be an abnormally low 1.56, but it also turns out this doesn't matter. He could go with a constant exponent of 1.9 or whatever and it wouldn't make much difference, he's just being picky with this step.
Step 2. Here's where the trouble starts, because any version of the Pyth formula would yield an expected win rate of 1.00, regardless of the exponent. And then ...
Step 3. ... when you use the win rate to derive the pitcher's "runs scored" equivalent, you get nothing.
Basic pyth is: RS^y / (RS^y + RA^y) = W%, where y is the custom exponent, usually ~1.9. RS is runs scored, RA is runs allowed, W% is the win rate. The core idea of PRC is that once you have the pitcher's expected win rate, you want to know how many average RS would be needed to achieve that win rate, assuming the RA is league average. He says he fiddled with the Pyth formula to get a formula for RS, which would look something like this:
RS^y = W% x RA^y / (1 - W%)
So if W% = 1, you get: RS^y = RA^1 / (1 - 1)
And since 1 minus 1 is zero, and you can't divide by zero, you get nothing -- not 0 (zero), but ø (null).
So the answer is, Ben Sheets has infinite PRC, because a pitcher who allows no runs is equivalent to a lineup that never stops scoring.
by Jay on Apr 8, 2008 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Borowski Velocity
JoBo needs to get his fastball back up to 2007 velocity to have any chance of being effective. His money pitch is that off speed curve ball. So, if he can no longer sneak his fast ball by hitters, his effectiveness will fall off pretty sharply.
He won't fail 70% of the time, but a success rate around 60% is poison to a club's confidence. (I've been wrong many times before this.)
Something is bothering me about this Bill Buckner thing. The Red Sox all of a sudden win two World Series and now can finally cheer the guy and welcome him back to the city? What a bunch of a-holes, they treat him like dirt for years, merciless booing, and now they are pretending like they did nothing wrong and they can forgive him since they finally were rewarded for all of their self-pity.
I am glad we as Cleveland fans can allow Joel Skinner to come back and be our third base coach this year.
Thanks for the shout-out, Jay (no relation). I am definitely an occasional poster due to lack of time, but I love this blog and appreciate the collective intelligence here. I will also say that during games, I am VERY negative, but have a very positive outlook between games and the Tribe's future as well. Guess it's good that I usually watch the games on the big screen away from the PC so my negativity doesn't show too much here!
When I typed that about the media, I was right, but the lack of velocity from JoBo was in a blurb by Hoynes on Monday. Borowski indicated he wasn't 100% and blamed it on lack of activity.
It will be interesting to see what Wedge/Willis do here. If I can notice the velocity drop, they and the players sure know it as well. I just can't see how they can continue running him out there with the stuff he has.
As far as the radar readings, I thought the Angels were using the slow gun last night, because everybody seemed low...and Borowski had a couple of fastballs at 81. Those were probably more like 84-85. Still not good enough though.
mcrose - I think you're right about Carmona, but I think it's only 1-2 mph...again, the slow gun had him at 89 a few times last night. However, he was consistently 93-94 in his previous start, so I'm not really worried about him.
I haven't figured out Lewis. He largely threw 89-90 last year, but then he would hit 93-94 once in awhile. I thought it might be a difference between his two-seamer and four-seamer, but the 89-90 version doesn't seem to have much movement, so I just don't know. Bottom line, I don't think he's lost a ton of velocity, and he indicated in the spring that he always starts off a little slow to save himself for the full season.
Again, I think we'll be ok here, but the laundry list that Peter provided is worrisome. Hopefully a lot of this stuff will resolve itself. Go Tribe!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Ask Alex: Can Jose Reyes repeat as NL batting champ?
- U.S. Cellular Field: Home of the Chicago Cubs?
- MLB Fan Cave candidate explains the stories behind his 30 MLB mascot tattoos
- Kate Upton’s new MLB 2K12 ad is really something
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
