CC No-No??

CC dominated the Pirates (I bet those LGTers in attendance had fun!) but allowed a supposed hit to Andy Laroche. Laroche hit a slow grounder back to the pitcher and CC misplayed it, an obvious error if you ask me. What do you guys think? Error or not?

about 1 year ago obobcatu 33 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I was there with seats in a good position and it was an error. Laroche is slow and CC clearly touched the the ball—which I had always thought was the key difference between scoring an error and a hit.

by PatBordersHelmet on Sep 1, 2008 12:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I’ve only seen one angle of it on espn.com’s replay. It did look like an error and that he would have gotten him if he fielded it cleanly. However, pitching with the pressure of a no-no in the 7/8/9 innings is a lot different than pitching with 1 hit. So while he’ll probably get the no-no on his record, i have trouble acknowledging it.

by tyler083 on Sep 1, 2008 12:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

CC scoffs at your conception of “pressure”.

by obobcatu on Sep 1, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree. There was clearly a tension release in the air after “the hit” and I doubt that as many Pirates fans would have left if the no-no was intact which would have kept the intensity of the game elevated. The whole thing is soured by the scoring decision and even if it is ruled a no-no, I still won’t feel like I personally witnessed/attended a no hitter because it didn’t feel or end like one. CC was robbed. I was robbed!

by PatBordersHelmet on Sep 1, 2008 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm

i can’t speak with any authority on how the game might have gone had it been ruled an error, and not a hit.

but simply from the visual evidence, it definitely looks like it should have been scored an error. i mean, i hate errors as a statistic in general, but if you’re going to have them, you’d better apply them fairly and evenly. . . laroche ain’t no burner, and sabathia got to the ball with plenty of time to make the throw.

certainly an interesting situation, however, with the pitcher throwing the potential no hitter making the contested play. . . pretty ironic

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Sep 1, 2008 2:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If the umpires can award a run to a team during a game two innings after that run was scored, then why can’t baseball award a no-hitter a day or two after the game is over?

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Sep 1, 2008 3:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Who gives a shit – he ain’t one of our no mo.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Sep 1, 2008 4:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Its kind of a cool story no matter who the pitcher is…

by mjschaefer on Sep 1, 2008 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you’re right

we shouldn’t care about anything that happens in baseball if it doesn’t happen to an indian

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Sep 1, 2008 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you Captain Irrelevant.

by Voltaire on Sep 1, 2008 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s what’s relevant:

CC’s line with us: 6 and 8 with an ERA of 3.83, and ERA+ of 114 and a WHIP of 1.234

With Milwaukee: 9 and 0 with and ERA of 1.43 and ERA+ of 302 and a WHIP of .989

If that big tub of goo wouldda pitched like that for us, we’d still be in this thing. He didn’t, so we’re out. That and the strong likelyhood that he’ll be pitching for the Yankees next year make it extremely difficult for my to join in the hero worship.

BTW, here’s Cliff Lee’s line for all of this year:
20 and 2 an ERA of 2.32 and ERA+ of somewhere north of 182 (not available this early) and a WHIP of 1.05.

All of this in Cleveland Indians uniform. Yet I’ve been reading more – a lot more – about CC, a Milwaukee pitcher – than Cliff Lee on a Indians centric site. Why the hell is this true?

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Sep 2, 2008 7:05 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Consistency is boring. Cliff goes out, pitches 7-9 innings, gives up 1-2 runs, gets a W, says it’s all about taking one start at a time. There’s always a chance that CC will try to eat Rickie Weeks between innings.

by FredOx on Sep 2, 2008 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

CC actually DID pitch well for us after his first few starts. He isn’t the reason the team is out of it — that has to do with a. the bullpen b. injuries to key guys c. disappointing play by guys like Garko, Gutierrez and Cabrera.

The picture in the paper of CC jumping into Prince Fielder’s arms deserves more discussion, whether they play for the Brewers or the Indians. It’s a spectacular sight!! (Don’t know if the link will work, but I’ll try).

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/photos?photoId=2029116&gameId=280831123

by peter m on Sep 2, 2008 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

While CC did get off to a bad start this season, (as I recall, it was called the worst start for a reigning Cy Young winner ever) and had to face AL lineups (with a DH instead of a pitcher) while with the Indians, I’m sure that the lines you posted are easily comparable.

You’re right Chuck – CC tanked it for the first half of the year. He was probably trying to get traded just like Manny. He probably WANTED to get traded to Milwaukee because he thought he could actually eat the Sausage Race contestants.

"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.

by Harry Doyle on Sep 2, 2008 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He wanted to get traded to the Crew because he needed a Comrade in Corpulence. We should have kept Belliard around, he’s pretty large these days.

by FredOx on Sep 2, 2008 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He did pitch like that for us. He just did it against AL teams. In the NL, he faces one less hitter per time through the lineup and generally a lower standard of play. Come off it a bit.

I crave the approval of others.

by fwembt on Sep 2, 2008 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s all I know: when we needed him the most he folded.

Jose Mesa is roundly hated in Cleveland – rightly so – for his one colassal failure in the WS. Meanwhile CC is still worshipped by adoring Cleveland fans even after he folded in the play-offs and refused a lucrative contract. So you’ve got both the Mesa and Thome/Manny/Albert negatives but still he’s followed more closely than a guy having one of the best years in the history of the franchise. I just don’t get it.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Sep 2, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

why enjoy the present or look forward to the future when you can long for the past?

by Brick. on Sep 2, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Manny/Albert negatives =/= CC negatives

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Sep 2, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

negative manny divided by negative albert equals divided by equals negatve C times negative C.

by Brick. on Sep 2, 2008 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The answer is 6.

What do I win? What do I win?

(BTW, I took only one AP test. It was in Latin, and I got a 3 – Can you tell?)

"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.

by Harry Doyle on Sep 2, 2008 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thome lied, Manny was Manny and Albert was a complete douchebag. How does CC fit any of that? Mesa is hated because of the way he handled he WS loss, not just because of the loss. There is absolutely no good reason to some completely loathe CC. Do you just hate fat people?

I crave the approval of others.

by fwembt on Sep 2, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like I’ve said before, we only know about 10% of what’s going on and half of that is wrong. I look at results and ignore the spin – PR – BS – and look at what happens. So ignoring all of the smoke and mirrors here’s what I got: They’re all gone. And they all left for more money. The why’s and wherefores are of little interest.

CC, like all the rest, left for more money. He let us down when we needed him the most. In the very near future he’s gonna be a Yankee. I loathe the son-of-a-bitch.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Sep 2, 2008 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m with Chuck here. C.C. went where the money is. That’s not so bad, we should be used to it by now. That’s how baseball works. But C.C. crapped out four times last postseason—if memory serves—and was appalling at the start of this year. The Tribe is 9.5 games out of first place, despite the bullpen, despite the Garko/Gutierrez/Cabrera collapse, despite the injuries to Hafner, Martinez, Carmona and Westbrook. If C.C. had pitched half as well for the Indians at the beginning of this season as he has done for the Brewers, the Indians could be 6.5 games out. C.C. bears no little responsibility for this debacle of a season. He was a good player to have while the Indians controlled him, and as soon as they couldn’t he was gone. Sayonara. He’s just Ben Sheets now.

by odradek on Sep 2, 2008 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’s better than Ben Sheets (and more durable).

If the Indians played well against Seattle, they’d be 6.5 games out. If Carmona found the strike zone early in the year, they’d be 6.5 games out. If Borowski wasn’t on the team at the start of the year, they’d be 6.5 games out.

Losing a few games here and there isn’t the issue. The issue is long-term, ongoing weaknesses: poor relief pitching, failures by young players who needed to get better, and injuries.

Yes CC pitched poorly in the playoffs last year. But, without him, we don’t make the playoffs. Give the guy some credit.

by peter m on Sep 3, 2008 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I meant he was equivalent to Ben Sheets: a good starting pitcher for the Brewers, another team. C.C. is clearly better. But he doesn’t pitch for the Tribe anymore.

Your second paragraph sums it up. That was the trifecta that doomed this team.

by odradek on Sep 3, 2008 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know you say that. The thing is that you take the 10% you know and assume the other 90% is completely negative. You take the fact that they left and twist the rest to fit your persecuted image of Cleveland. CC was traded, he didn’t leave as a free agent. You can say that he would have but you can’t, and never will, actually know. We sucked this year (and don’t blame CC, he was throwing well) so we traded him.

CC carried our team last year. He threw 256 innings and finally ran out of gas in the playoffs. Surely you don’t expect someone to throw that much and show no ill effects from it? You are willing to fawn all over Cliff Lee for winning games in a lost season, why not give CC the credit for taking us to the playoffs last year? This year, CC has been only marginally worse than Lee. I really do not comprehend loathing the man, he’s really done nothing to earn it.

I crave the approval of others.

by fwembt on Sep 3, 2008 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, technically C.C. was traded. But he left the Indians after he indicated he would not be willing to accept their offers, and the Indians offer was so far from what he expected that it was prudent to trade him and get some value. Which, fortunately, the Indians did. It’s disingenuous to say his departure wasn’t due to his impending free agency.

by odradek on Sep 3, 2008 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We got it right this time. It’s a sign of progress. Come to the light.

by Voltaire on Sep 3, 2008 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The league doesn’t award a no-hitter, the scoring people can simply adjust the scoring of the one play in question, which of course will have the effect of giving CC a technical no-hitter. I have a strong hunch that the call will be changed.

by jhon on Sep 1, 2008 6:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs