Game One Hundred: Angels 14, Indians 11

by Ryan on Jul 23, 2008 11:26 PM EDT in Game Recaps

Highest WPA		Lowest WPA
Ryan Garko	.187	Aaron Laffey	-.606
Andy Marte	.104	Tom Mastny	-.277
Shin-Soo Choo	.102	David Dellucci	-.092

The Indians caught John Lackey at the right time, scoring six runs off him in five innings. Ryan Garko almost instantaneously figured out how to hit again. Andy Marte continued to contribute, reaching base twice in four plate appearances.

But bad pitching and shoddy bullpen management negated all those nice things. Aaron Laffey through four innings had been just as bad as Lackey, but had the lead. He had given up four hits and three runs in the fourth inning, and didn't look long for the game. But Wedge let him go out for the fifth inning. No matter how tenuous, any lead is enough for Wedge to suspend disbelief when a pitcher's win is involved. Mind you, he's evaluated for team wins, not for the health of the starting picthers' egos.

So Laffey came out for the fifth, and the Angels picked up where they had left off. LA had runners on second and third with nobody out when Eric Wedge finally decided that Laffey needed to be taken out. But not before walking Garrett Anderson to load the bases. That being done, he summoned...Tom Mastny... to get out of the jam. Mastny hadn't been used for ten days, and hasn't been effective even when used. But because his best relievers just had to be saved for the late innings (and remember, tomorrow is an off day), the longman was good enough for the jam.You know what happened next.

0 recs | Comment 148 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I have a dream .. a dream that one day, David Dellucci is no longer contributing negative win shares to our team.

Free at last .. free at last … yadda yadda etc.

by Toxicadam on Jul 23, 2008 11:46 PM EDT 0 recs

I think we know by now that Tom Mastny does not have a bright future as a successful long man that sees action once every 10 days. I think in his time with us, he’s shown that he sucks in this role.

So can we finally just give him a month-long tryout in pressure-packed situations, and then if he sucks we can finally get rid of him?

by supermarioelia on Jul 23, 2008 11:46 PM EDT 0 recs

Why not just find him an inning here and there, increasing the leverage as his success merits? Seems to be working okay for Ed.

by fleerdon on Jul 23, 2008 11:48 PM EDT up 0 recs

This is another reasonable strategy. But this once every week stuff….the guy just doesn’t pitch well under those circumstances, SO STOP DOING IT WEDGE

by supermarioelia on Jul 23, 2008 11:49 PM EDT up 0 recs

Hello Mario,

I agree with you – Wedge sometimes will go ahead and let relievers sit for 7-10 days at a time, then call upon them to get out of a crucial jam, and most times, they can’t do it.

Now, granted, in this season where a postseason birth is very unlikely, it doesn’t matter, but it does matter in the sense that Wedge has done this even when we’ve been in contention. He doesn’t seem to work all the bullpen pitchers enough in order to keep them sharp. Granted, when our starting staff was going well last year, it’s difficult, but it’s still doable, and it’s his job to find a combination that works, not going with just 3-4 guys in that bullpen, possibly overuse them, then let the other ones get rusty and then falter often when they are finally called upon to get out of a crucial situation.

Unfortunately, the situation with Laffey is not the first time Wedge has done this either – I remember a year or two ago when Paul Byrd was having a rough start, but managed to be tied or have the lead going into the 5th inning. The logical choice would have been to take him out of there and extend the bullpen for that night. Instead, Wedge sent him back out there (and I said at the time, “Wedge is trying to get Byrd the win”), Byrd fares poorly in that 5th inning, Wedge finally sends someone else in to relieve him, but we still lose the lead, and eventually, lose the game.

I too wish that Wedge would consider the best chance for the team to win that game, regardless of whether the starting pitcher goes 5 innings or not – sometimes, it’s not going to happen. And granted, you can’t go to the bullpen every night in the 5th inning, but once in a while is not going to kill your ballclub, and if going to the bullpen in that inning gives you a better chance of winning that game, you have to do it. After all, as we know from the 2005 and 2007 seasons, every game is meaningful, so “tossing away” our best chance to win a game by sending out an ineffective starter to try to get through the 5th inning just because it’s expected of him or because the pitcher would have a chance at a win does not seem like a sound strategy to me, one that has blown up in Wedge’s face on more than one occasion.

Yesterday’s game was just another example of this, and this is something that Wedge must be aware of and avoid when we are back in contention. Overextending the bullpen once in a while will not kill your team, presuming of course you don’t let 2-4 members of your bullpen sit out there for 7-10 days with no work.

Just my 2 cents – no offense.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 24, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

This idea has been expressed before—that Wedge indulges his starting pitchers by trying to get them wins. I’m sure pitchers appreciate the confidence and all, but I don’t think Wedge is trying to get a win for one of his starters. I think he tries to wring as many possible pitches from his starters as he can. I can’t believe he’s willing to jeopardize a win so one of the starting pitchers gets a W. It’s his style to ride his starters as long as possible. He similarly over-relies on three or four relievers, much to the detriment of others in the bullpen. I think this over-reliance has contributed to Betancourt’s, Borowski’s, Lewis’s and (to a much lesser degree) Perez’s down years. The COT meant overuse for three or four relievers, while the rest of the bullpen sat in the outfield telling jokes and tending the tomato plants. Same thing this year, so Mastny (or Breslow for that matter) can’t be counted on in a game situation. Rafael Perez would have made more sense coming in the fifth. Had he been able to shut down the team and hold the lead, then maybe Tom Mastny could pitch a later inning.

by odradek on Jul 24, 2008 8:28 PM EDT up 0 recs

but I don’t think Wedge is trying to get a win for one of his starters. I think he tries to wring as many possible pitches from his starters as he can. I can’t believe he’s willing to jeopardize a win so one of the starting pitchers gets a W. It’s his style to ride his starters as long as possible.

Very strongly agree with this.

by Jay on Jul 24, 2008 11:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

Perhaps it’s more Wedge trying to wring more innings from his starter. But either way, if you’re trying to win the game, and with an off-day tomorrow, you don’t send Laffey out for the fifth inning. Now if the Indians were already down 4 or 5, I could understand it, but they were ahead a run. Even if Mastny was your next guy in, bring him in to start the inning.

by Ryan on Jul 25, 2008 9:34 AM EDT up 0 recs

That may be, but anecdotally I see similar situations where he’ll pull the starter with the lead but leave him in there if tied or down by one. I don’t think it’s solely to get the win, but I think it’s a big factor.

My theory is that he believes that helps in the long run, as starters will push themselves to keep the score where it is because they know he’ll leave them in there. This is a big deal to starters, who still look at that win column as the most important thing. It’s like a lot of things in baseball – it’s easy to say that you wouldn’t do that from afar, or you would do it differently if you were playing a simulation game. But it’s not so easy to do that when you’re with guys 7-8 months a year.

Perez? The same guy who threw 2 2/3 innings 17 hours before? I’m quite sure he was unavailable.

Also, even if Perez was rested and you warmed him up in the 5th, what would’ve happened if Laffey had thrown a double play ball and gotten out of the inning quickly. Would you then warm up Perez again an hour later when you might’ve needed him again?

The way Mastny has pitched over the last year-plus, he can’t be counted on in any situation.

by TribeJay on Jul 24, 2008 11:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

I totally agree about Mastny, especially after he hadn’t pitched in so long. And I forgot that Perez had pitched the day before. But I just meant it was a critical moment in the game. If the Tribe could have somehow gotten out of the inning, the complexion of the game would have been much different. The situation called for the best available reliever, I think. Tom Seaver said something like there are typically three critical outs in a ballgame (I may have the number wrong, but is is small). Those were the ones where he would lay it all out.

I also agree with you about pushing the pitchers. Wins are what factor in contracts, just like home runs. Psychologically it’s good to show faith in them. But I don’t think Wedge is concerned with the starters getting a win. If it happens, great.

by odradek on Jul 25, 2008 11:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

Should we start looking at Raffy Perez as Casey Blake?

Seriously though, you have a point. There’s no real reason to go for the win anymore. I’d like to see Mastny every other day.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jul 24, 2008 12:08 AM EDT up 0 recs

There’s no real reason to go for the win anymore.

And that’s why Laffey came back out.

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 12:10 AM EDT up 0 recs

Hello Andrew,

I can see why Laffey came back out here, but it’s important to note that Wedge has also done this when we’ve been in contention (note the Paul Byrd reference in my post above, which I believe was during the 2007 season, or at least when we still in contention during 2006), and under those circumstances when we are in contention, I cannot believe that sending out an ineffective starter who’s barely managed through 4 innings is going to give you the best chance to win the ballgame.

It seems unlikely to me that a starter who has struggled for the better part of 4 innings is all of a sudden going to find it in the 5th inning. I could see a starter struggling the first inning, maybe the second inning, and then finding it at times, but not struggling through the better part of 4 innings and then finding it – that seems unlikely in my opinion.

Therefore, in this season, you’re right – it really doesn’t matter much, but if Wedge keeps doing this when we’re in contention, and he has done it in past seasons when we’ve been in contention, then it becomes a problem that needs to be addressed and corrected.

Just my 2 cents – no offense.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 24, 2008 7:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

I don’t even know why we bother with starting our starters. In front of everybody but Lee, have relievers throw the first and second, bring the starter in for the third. Make a schedule up. Everybody throws!

by fleerdon on Jul 24, 2008 12:13 AM EDT up 0 recs

Yea … Mastny was really good as a starter this year too.

(sidenote, that was the same day as King Justin Day, right?)

Dear Mr. Sabean, I hear you have a reputation of being stupid. Want to deal Lincecum or Cain? You can pick THREE of these 4 players for either: Borowski, Dellucci, Blake, Byrd.

by westbrook on Jul 24, 2008 1:45 AM EDT up 0 recs

Interesting point from Marte’s dad … Mastny has been in largely the same boat as Marte. He got a shot in late 2006, did pretty well with it. SInce then, he has never really been given a serious opportunity to succeed as a significant contributor.

by Jay on Jul 24, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up 0 recs

Of course, if it were really his pitchers’ egos Wedge was concerned about, he would’ve given the situation to somebody besides Mastny … unless he was convinced that anybody he brought in was going to get shelled, in which case, may as well be the guy who can chalk it up to rust. This is genuinely the most sensible explanation I can muster.

by fleerdon on Jul 23, 2008 11:46 PM EDT 0 recs

As I think about it, the strategery may actually have been, “Tom needs work. Work, Tom; work. Nobody cares.” This makes more sense than my previous comment, but I’m not sure that makes me hope it’s true.

And I may be ruling out the possibility that Wedge decided Mastny could take the heat based on his post-season performance.

by fleerdon on Jul 23, 2008 11:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

Or it could just be that the Tribe hasn’t had a manager that could properly manage a pitching staff in recent memory.

by FredOx on Jul 23, 2008 11:58 PM EDT up 0 recs

It’s hard to quibble with Wedge’s handling of the staff last season.

by Jay on Jul 24, 2008 4:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

Actually, while I wouldn’t quibble with the results, I would have preferred that three relievers not throw more than 60 innings each last year. It’s not necessarily a problem, as the Cubs, D-Backs and Angels did the same, but it’s not always necessary, either.

by FredOx on Jul 24, 2008 4:28 PM EDT up 0 recs

Hello FredOx,

That would be my one concern about Wedge’s handling of the bullpen last season.

Granted, I can understand his trusting the “Circle of Trust” relievers more in their ability to get outs than Mastny, Fultz, etc., but at the same time, I’m thinking that the overuse of those guys could be affecting them this season, and could be a major reason why we fell off so much this year.

Borowski’s shoulder was basically done with, resulting in a loss of velocity and command.

Betancourt is also showing less velocity and less command, and not just from his excellent 2007 season, but even from prior seasons – to my knowledge, he’s never been this erratic or unreliable before in any of his previous seasons (the closest was 2004 when he was overused to compensate for that erratic bullpen, and he eventually went down with an injury).

Perez was a bit erratic at the beginning of the year, but has arguably been the closest to his 2007 form – in terms of velocity, command, and performance.

Lewis still isn’t throwing as hard as he was last season (I still don’t see him getting to or over 90 MPH very often, which he was doing regularly last year, even getting up to 93-95 MPH on several occasions) – he’s been throwing mostly 87-89 MPH with an occasional 90-91 MPH mixed in.

As I’ve said before, I think the overuse last season has really affected Betancourt and Lewis, and I would strongly consider shutting them down before the end of the season. There’s no need to keep throwing them out there in a season that will end up under .500 and when neither seems to be 100%. I probably wouldn’t throw Perez the whole season either, though I might let him throw longer than the other two, only because he has bounced back to some extent, but probably by late August/early September, I’d shut him down also.

This way, you can more fully evaluate Mujica, Mastny, Kobayashi, Stevens, Sipp (if he is ready to contribute this year, though he probably won’t be 100% until next year, so perhaps not Sipp), Buzachero, Rincon, Bullington, Jackson, etc. And, Wedge will be required to use them on a regular basis – that’s the only way you’re going to know whether these guys can actually contribute long-term – throwing them out there once or twice every 7-10 guys is not going to lead to a proper evaluation of these guys, an evaluation that needs to be done in terms of next year’s bullpen. I don’t know who could perform consistently well only pitching once or twice every 7-10 days – very few could.

Therefore, to properly evaluate Mastny and the others, start using them regularly. If they blow up, at least you know they can’t help you long-term, and in this season where we’re not going anywhere anyway, the losses won’t hurt as much (and would boost our Draft Position on top of it).

Just my 2 cents – no offense.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 24, 2008 7:35 PM EDT up 0 recs

I will always remember Mastny’s postseason performance. That doesn’t make him a good pitcher though.

Dear Mr. Sabean, I hear you have a reputation of being stupid. Want to deal Lincecum or Cain? You can pick THREE of these 4 players for either: Borowski, Dellucci, Blake, Byrd.

by westbrook on Jul 24, 2008 1:47 AM EDT up 0 recs

(sarc)

by fleerdon on Jul 24, 2008 9:09 AM EDT up 0 recs

If it is just a matter of work, and victory is irrelevant, why pinch hit Casey for Marte?

by odradek on Jul 24, 2008 6:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

Suggesting, perhaps, the skipper’s answer to the question “is victory irrelevant?” Pinch-hitting Blake makes perfect sense if you’re trying to win the game, and no sense at all if you’re trying to decide whether Marte is in the mix for Opening Day 2009.

by FredOx on Jul 25, 2008 12:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

CC with his 3rd straight complete game. Think the Brewers will sweeten the trade out of gratitude?

by supermarioelia on Jul 23, 2008 11:48 PM EDT 0 recs

Marty the Moose would be a clear upgrade over Slider.

by Toxicadam on Jul 23, 2008 11:52 PM EDT up 1 recs

Very few mascots would NOT be an upgrade over Slider. I’m still waiting for the day, by the way, when the team announces a new partnership with White Castle and Slider becomes Slyder, with his Indians uniform plastered with White Castle logos and featuring Slyder eating contests between innings.

Free Andy Marte!

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Jul 24, 2008 8:32 AM EDT up 0 recs

Yeah, but when is Marty the Moose’s birthday?

I did a Google image search for "Andy Marte." It turned up zero results.

by emd2k3 on Jul 24, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up 0 recs

Whenever he wants it to be. He’s a moose. Are you going to tell him it’s not his birthday? I’m not. He’s a moose.

Free Andy Marte!

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Jul 24, 2008 4:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

I was very conflicted in that game. CC looked like he might have a no-hitter, but I used to live in STL, and root for the Cards as a secondary rooting interest. Bah.

by FredOx on Jul 23, 2008 11:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

http://www.brewcrewball.com/2008/7/23/577917/game-thread-101-b#7595190

by fleerdon on Jul 24, 2008 12:00 AM EDT up 0 recs

The Nl is truly terrible, apparently.

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 12:04 AM EDT up 0 recs

Also, I’m kinda glad we sucked again these past two games. For a while there we were getting perilously close to keeping Blake for a stretch run. Nope, we actually suck, let’s regroup.

by supermarioelia on Jul 24, 2008 12:12 AM EDT 0 recs

It’s time. To blow up this team. In its entirety. Now.

by fleerdon on Jul 24, 2008 12:29 AM EDT up 0 recs

Not that this speeds up dealmaking, but if a deal was already in place today’s off day would be the perfect time to announce it.

So I guess let’s keep our ears perked. Of course I’m unavailable most of the day.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jul 24, 2008 8:02 AM EDT up 0 recs

Are you going to be part of the deal? Casey and a FTBNL?

by FredOx on Jul 24, 2008 9:11 AM EDT up 0 recs

( http://www.letsgotribe.com/2008/5/23/534783/it-s-time-to-blow-up-this )

by fleerdon on Jul 24, 2008 9:16 AM EDT up 0 recs

My team after the carnage, for this year only, would be: C) Kelly Shopach. 1B) Michael Aubrey. 2B) Josh Barfield. 3B) Andy Marte. SS) Asdrubel Cabrera. OF) Ben Francisco, Grady Sizemore, Shin Su Choo, Franklin Guitierrez. DH) Ryan Garko. The Starters: Jake Westbrooke, Fausto Carmona, Cliff Lee, Aaron Laffey, Jeremy Sowers.

Putting aside the “creeative speling” of the players, that’s remarkably close to what we actually had on the field yesterday.

by FredOx on Jul 24, 2008 9:28 AM EDT up 0 recs

Westbrook?

by Roger Dorn on Jul 24, 2008 12:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

I think the post was written back in May, while Westbrook was either in the rotation or just coming off the DL.

by Ryan on Jul 24, 2008 12:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

Which reminds me of a question i’ve been meaning to ask:
>> Would some team desperate for a #5 starter give us something half-decent for Ginter?

Dear Mr. Sabean, I hear you have a reputation of being stupid. Want to deal Lincecum or Cain? You can pick THREE of these 4 players for either: Borowski, Dellucci, Blake, Byrd.

by westbrook on Jul 24, 2008 1:50 AM EDT up 0 recs

by Roger Dorn on Jul 24, 2008 7:51 AM EDT up 0 recs

Anybody else think that Laffey, and not Ginter, could be the starter that Fausto replaces in the rotation, given the fact that Laffey is has obviously fallen on hard times and may benefit from a little confidence boost in Buffalo?

by The DiaTriber on Jul 24, 2008 9:55 AM EDT 0 recs

this wouldn’t surprise me at all.

by Brick. on Jul 24, 2008 10:04 AM EDT up 0 recs

I would not be surprised at all. It’s kind of what I’m expecting. Weren’t there some comments in today’s PD from Wedge that hinted at that? (and I don’t mean to suggest that Ginter actually is in anyway a long-term valuable commodity to the Tribe – he’s almost the definition of replacement level).

by APV on Jul 24, 2008 10:05 AM EDT up 0 recs

Wedge said a decision probably wouldn’t be made until Friday night. The Indians are off Thursday.
“He’s done a good job for us,” Wedge said of Ginter. “He went out Tuesday and gave up three runs in six innings against a great team.”

link

The link also recaps the BLC military service thing, which doesn’t sound very good

by APV on Jul 24, 2008 10:10 AM EDT up 0 recs

maybe we can just get Choo and Caleb Campbell to have an organized fisticuff and call it even.

by Brick. on Jul 24, 2008 10:26 AM EDT up 1 recs

MEGA POLI-SCI REC

by NickFantana on Jul 24, 2008 2:15 PM EDT up 0 recs

I was thinking this even before last night’s start. This makes four trainwrecks in five starts, 8.37 ERA — and let’s not forget those five unearned runs, for a tasty 10.27 RA.

There’s a service time issue, too — his walk year gets pushed back from 2013 to 2014 if he spends just 41 more days in the minors this year. Wouldn’t be the worst plan to let him finish the season in Buffalo, then either shut him down for innings or maybe give him two more big-league starts for confidence in late September.

by Jay on Jul 24, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up 0 recs

From a business standpoint pushing back his walk year is nice. But what public reason would the team have for sending Laffey down? For basically a year he’s succeeded against major league hitting. What’s important is that we’re not going anywhere fast, so it’s no detriment to the team to let him figure it out in the majors. Unless this whole thing is just a confidence issue.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jul 24, 2008 4:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

four trainwrecks in five starts, 8.37 ERA

by Brick. on Jul 24, 2008 4:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

Right. He’s got stuff to work on. But since we know he can do it against major leaguers, let him figure it out against major leaguers instead of kids and career AAAA guys. In a lost season, I don’t see why it’s important to remove him.

It’s kind of like that start when Sowers walked and struck out 8 guys. It was like a spring training start—He seemed to be approaching at-bats differently. Just go out there with the strategy we gave you, and stick to it. We’ll worry about the results in 2009.

I’m not sure I’m making this argument properly, but it makes sense to me.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jul 24, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up 0 recs

In a lost season, I don’t see why it’s important to remove him

There’s a service time issue, too — his walk year gets pushed back from 2013 to 2014 if he spends just 41 more days in the minors this year.

by Brick. on Jul 24, 2008 5:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

From a business standpoint pushing back his walk year is nice. But what public reason would the team have for sending Laffey down?

Is the team going to say, “Well, we want Laffey to work on his stuff in AAA mainly so we can get an extra cheap year out of him”?

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jul 24, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

the public reason is he can’t pitch at the moment…what’s so hard about that?

by APV on Jul 24, 2008 5:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

Laffey is 23. “Because he sucks right now” is a perfectly valid public reason to send him down.

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 5:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

This is going to keep circling a drain, but I just don’t see how Laffey sucking hurts the 2008 Indians. Get it figured out in the majors if the wins don’t matter, IMO. I don’t view Ginter playing any important role on this team.

Aaaanyway I’m not sure it matters. Actually I’m pretty sure it doesn’t. If beating up on AAA hitters is a confidence boost, I guess that’s good enough for me. I really hope Laffey doesn’t turn into Sowers.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jul 24, 2008 5:14 PM EDT up 0 recs

Because in the majors he’s demoralizing our other young talent and overtaxing one of our most valuable assets, Rafael Perez.

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 5:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

Nick, you are simply over-thinking this.

Young pitcher, less than a year of service time, sucks for a month.

You demote him, there is no public outcry. There doesn’t need to be any other reason.

If we didn’t demote him, then people might say, oh, that’s because we’re not contending anyway.

But if we did demote him, they wouldn’t say anything at all.

by Jay on Jul 24, 2008 11:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

I probably am overthinking it.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jul 24, 2008 11:51 PM EDT up 0 recs

Why do off days always seem to follow bad losses these days?

by APV on Jul 24, 2008 10:12 AM EDT 0 recs

Given the number of bad losses these days, probability suggests that’s where off days would fall. Why does my left ear seem to itch after bad Dellucci at bats these days?

by FredOx on Jul 24, 2008 11:01 AM EDT up 0 recs