Game 15: Royals 2, Indians 0

by Ryan on Apr 22, 2009 10:49 PM EDT in Game Recaps

In five career starts versus the Indians, Brian Bannister has held Tribe bats to an anemic .183/.214/.300 line. The Indians have had plenty of time to diagnose his pitching tendencies, scout his pitches, and moreover, see his pitches. His stuff is rather pedestrian; his fastball tops out in the high-80s, though he makes regular use of several offspeed pitches. MLB as a whole has hit .270/.328/.442 off him over 1663 plate appearances. He didn't make the Kansas City rotation, as he had a poor spring after a disappointing 2008 season (182.2 IP, 5.76 ERA). In fact, tonight's start was his first of the season, against a hot-hitting Indians lineup that was working counts, hitting for power, and driving starters to the showers early.

In this case, the past won out over the present. The Indians again couldn't figure out Bannister's backwards pitching strategy, and for the first time since the opening days of the season looked anemic at the plate. The Indians managed four hits (all singles) and two walks in Bannister's 6 innings, then went in order in both of Jamey Wright's two innings of work. They got the tying run into scoring position against Joakim Soria in the ninth, but Trevor Crowe took one slow-mo curve too many, ending the game with a strikeout.

Cliff Lee went a team-high eight innings, and allowed nine hits and a walk, though he only faced a couple mild jams. He's obviously still not pitching at his 2008 level, but on most nights, with normal run support, his outing would have resulted in a victory. Tony Sipp made his major-league debut, striking out the first batter he faced and retiring the next two on fly outs. There was no bullpen implosion tonight, thankfully, but there was also no lead to protect.

Next Up: The Indians try to finally win a series. Reyes vs. Meche, 12:05 PM.

via www.fangraphs.com

Highest WPA		Lowest WPA
Cliff Lee	.156	Trevor Crowe	-.218
Victor Martinez	.082	Kelly Shoppach	-.127
Tony Sipp	.019	Mark DeRosa	-.122

Tweet Comment 44 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The baseball gods have a wicked sense of humor. I hate April.

by LeftyCatcher on Apr 22, 2009 11:05 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Indeed.

Il faut d'abord durer.

by CU Adam on Apr 22, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, I got my wish, and my friend got a foul ball. It was a fun evening, but boy, was the outcome of the game sucky.

by Voltaire on Apr 22, 2009 11:07 PM EDT reply actions

I really, really don’t get the Trevor Crowe mancrush.

by ClarkM on Apr 22, 2009 11:16 PM EDT reply actions

I think the mancrush has been about Crowe being a better 25th man than Barfield. His PT is making me sick though

by Roger Dorn on Apr 22, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions

You’re talking about the LGT mancrush, I think. Clark is talking about the team’s.

by dgcambridge on Apr 23, 2009 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions

Yes, this is correct. So I take it that they aren’t very comfortable with Garko’s defense in the outfield, otherwise you’d think he would have made more than one start.

I really don’t see any reason to think that Crowe’s a major league hitter. I’m fine with him being the 25th man on the roster, but that’s not how he’s being utilized.

It’s not really a big deal, at all, but I can’t help but think this says something larger about Wedge’s talent evaluation skills.

by ClarkM on Apr 23, 2009 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions

Given the choices, I assume they’re just happier with the total package Crowe brings (hitting/running/defense) than that provided by Francisco or Garko. I think this says a lot more about a mangrudge against the other two than it does about a mancrush for Trevor Crowe. With better pitching, you could see more Garko, with the idea that the defense need not prevent so many runs.

It also tells me the door stands wide open for Dellucci (gulp) or LaPorta (not-gulp).

by FredOx on Apr 23, 2009 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions

mangrudge

Nice.

by cleveland teamer on Apr 23, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions

I can’t see how they can think he’s better than Francisco. In 612 career PA, Francisco has an OPS+ of 99. In 1099 Innings, Francisco is +3.1 in the field per UZR. According to BPro’s Baserunning metric, Francisco was +2.23 last year.

I think it’s a leap of faith to think Trevor Crowe brings more to the table than that. Crowe’s MLE last year was .699 and the year before was.556. That’s a lot of ground to make up with defense and baserunning, categories Francisco is not exactly deficient in.

by ClarkM on Apr 23, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions

I personally think Francisco >> Crowe. I just think it’s wrong to attribute every move we don’t agree with to an emotional mancrush on the part of the manager. We can disagree with Wedge’s reasons for starting Crowe 6 times and Francisco 11, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t reasons.

by FredOx on Apr 23, 2009 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions

Fair point. I guess the only thing I meant by mancrush is the, to me, unwarranted playing time.

by ClarkM on Apr 23, 2009 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions

My larger issue is not lifting Crowe for a pinch hitter when the game’s on the line. There are more people on the bench who can play OF and Crowe is pretty obviously the worst bat on the team excluding pitchers and maybe a 48 year old Tony Graffanino.

by afh4 on Apr 23, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

It doesn’t make sense. Don’t know what else to say. I would have pulled him the inning prior when Shoppach got on base to start the inning. He struck out looking there as well, after getting up 3-0.

by ClarkM on Apr 23, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions

Tony Sipp is probably a better hitter than Trevor Crowe is. Given how enamored the club was with pinch-hitting for allegedly weak hitting plus defenders last year, I don’t see how you don’t hit for Crowe last night with two runners on. Thus leading to the “please don’t use that kind of language where the children can hear” admonition.

by FredOx on Apr 23, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions

In fairness, said plus-defender was actually weak-hitting at the time.

Crowe last night, that was a mistake, and no surprise that he didn’t make it again today.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Apr 23, 2009 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions

I know they’re a division rival, but I can’t help but rooting for Banny (not against Cleveland, natch). Maybe I read Poz too much.

Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile

by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Apr 22, 2009 11:21 PM EDT reply actions

I am the opposite. The Royals are starting to piss me off

by Roger Dorn on Apr 22, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Cliff Lee went a team-high eight innings, and allowed nine hits and a walk, though he only faced a couple mild jams. He’s obviously still not pitching at his 2008 level, but on most nights, with normal run support, his outing would have resulted in a victory.

I disagree, that was vintage 2008 tonight. Great fastball, great command. I think 5 of those nine hits were cheap, and the last two legit hits were his last two hitters. He’s gotten better in every start, and while there’s no guarantee it will continue, I’m much more confident in Lee than I was a couple of weeks ago.

Bannister just kept throwing that cutter…over and over again. Stayed out of the middle part of the plate, for the most part. Two walks and no extra-base hits means zero runs for the Tribe.

by TribeJay on Apr 23, 2009 12:12 AM EDT reply actions

Nothing in the first inning was cheap. He took a bit to settle down.

by Voltaire on Apr 23, 2009 1:22 AM EDT up reply actions

Leadoff double was hit well, then he had a soft line drive to right and a flyball to right, followed by a walk and a K.

Not exactly hammered, but ok, I’ll give it to you that he was better after that.

by TribeJay on Apr 23, 2009 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions

I have to say that pic of Tony Sipp is da bomb. Great photo.

by mcrose on Apr 23, 2009 12:19 AM EDT reply actions

A few comments on Bannister

While his average fastball velocity is in the high 80’s, it tops out in the low 90’s. Especially in the early innings of games (like this one) he usually throws more than a few 91 and 92 mph fastballs. In his prior two seasons, he was strictly fastball-slider-change-curve. In this game, however, he resurrected a cutter which he had back with the Mets but had given up on. Interestingly, in his last couple of innings, he was throwing mostly sliders and cutters (according to Pitch f/x; they actually might have all be cutters) mixing in the change and curve and very rarely his 4-seam fastball. I don’t know if this strategy will continue to work, but it seems like he was really relying on breaking balls and offspeed stuff primarily in this game.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 23, 2009 3:06 AM EDT reply actions

It wasn’t just the last couple of innings. He threw that cutter all game long, and mixed in a few four-seamers, changes, and curves. I wouldn’t call that cutter an offspeed pitch.

I didn’t think the Indians were hurt by his curve or change the entire game.

by TribeJay on Apr 23, 2009 8:39 AM EDT up reply actions

This team is killing me. It’s giving me a slow painful death. Can we get to May already? Please?

At what point does this become a fatal flaw for Wedge?

I just want to believe.

by mjmarble on Apr 23, 2009 3:14 AM EDT reply actions

“This” meaning what exactly?

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Apr 23, 2009 7:26 AM EDT up reply actions

I assume he means starting out slow almost every season.

by ASP on Apr 23, 2009 8:40 AM EDT up reply actions

Apparently, from what I heard on Brinda’s WKNR show yesterday, Wedge has some ideas about changing things up in Spring Training next year to address the poor starts to the season.

by hans on Apr 23, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions

If he’s still the manager.

Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.

by westbrook on Apr 23, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Cancel April?

by LeftyCatcher on Apr 23, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions

At least we gained ground on MIN!

by JulioBernazard on Apr 23, 2009 8:13 AM EDT reply actions

I kind of wish we could look at this season with an internal sample size greater than one. Yes, it sucks that the Tribe couldn’t mount an attack against a soft-tossing junkballer, but you got another good performance from a starter, and the first non-sucking appearance from the bullpen since about forever. Starting pitching trend:

Most Of Our Relievers Still Suck

by FredOx on Apr 23, 2009 9:26 AM EDT reply actions

I agree. If we’d pounded Bannister last night, but Cliff had gotten shelled and the bullpen collapsed again, I would be a lot more worried this morning. Our offense isn’t what I’m worried about over the next 147 games.

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on Apr 23, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions

Next Up: The Indians try to finally win a series…

It’s April and all, but I woke up this morning thinking that today is a must-win. At some point, the Tribe has to win a series. They had the chance in NY and blew it. Of course, no team is running away with the Central Division, but at some point these games have to start meaning something… Don’t they???

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin

by Spidey on Apr 23, 2009 10:29 AM EDT reply actions

I’m not so sure. I feel that even a team that is 8 games below .500 by mid-June will still have a chance to win this division.

Every team that is in this division is so fatally flawed, I can’t see any winning more than 86 games. Maybe the White Sox because they seem to have the strongest bullpen (thus far) and have typically had a team of slow-starting hitters.

by Toxicadam on Apr 23, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions

If we don’t win a series, we will be more than 8 games under .500 in mid-June.

by Ryan Kelsey on Apr 23, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions

Every team in the Central has flaws. Our flaw seems to be that we suck in the first half and get so far behind by July that we can’t come back against all of the competition.

If we lose today, we will have to go 82-64 the rest of the season to finish with 87 wins. That is a 91-win pace over a 162-game season, so that is not unreasonable to assume for the Indians… Okay, I’m stepping back from the edge of the building.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin

by Spidey on Apr 23, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions

Our first-half suckage has been more than balanced by torrid stretch runs, but somehow this trend gets overlooked while we all bash our heads against the wall.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Apr 23, 2009 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions

This is starting to remind me of 2006. Last year, injuries and failures meat 2 of our 3 major parts (offense and bullpen) didn’t work at all the first half of the season, and by the time the offense picked it up, we were too far gone. In this season, like in 2006, it seems like two parts of our team perform well in any given game but the other part performs so horrifically badly that we lose. And though it’s been the BP and the SP more than the offense so far, it’s a different part that poops the bed every night.

I'm *always* in the driver's seat, cugino -- Chuck

by Turkmenbashi on Apr 23, 2009 10:33 AM EDT reply actions