Game 18: Twins 7, Indians 1

by Ryan on Apr 25, 2009 11:40 PM EDT in Game Recaps Comment 22 comments

Kevin Slowey walked just 24 batters in 160.1 innings last season, one of the league's best ratios. If Brian Runge had been his personal umpire last year, the only walks he'd have had would be intentional. Runge's strike zone was consistent, but very wide. Slowey took advantage of the wide zone to silence the Indian bats for eight innings; only in the ninth, when he began to tire, did the Indians manage to score a run.

The Twins have dominated the Indians in all facets of the game in these first two matchup, even offensively.They're still without Joe Mauer (who should return next week), but in this game they got contributions from most of their lineup. Jason Kubel hit two more home runs, and even Joe Crede added a homer.

After his disastrous first outing in Texas, Carl Pavano has been everything the Indians were hoping for, assuming they were hoping for a decent back-of-the-rotation starter. His final line looks a lot worse than how he pitched. In many cases he got his ground ball, but those grounders found holes in the defense. Pavano was chased in the sixth, and Rafael Perez relieved him. This time Perez had his slider working, and he looked much like his old self. Hopefully this is the first step towards him regaining his old setup role.

Just as the rotation and bullpen seem to be righting themselves, the offense has disappeared on this homestand. Victor Martinez is still locked in; he collected three more hits tonight, none of them cheap. But the supporting cast has fallen off dramatically. Mark DeRosa took another 0-4 hitting in front of Martinez; he came into the game hitting .214/.286/.371. Jhonny Peralta sat out tonight's game as he was in the midst of an 0-for-19 slump, but Little Giraffe, his replacement in the lineup, also took an 0-fer.

Explaining the Indians' 6-12 record isn't a easy task. At times it's been the starters. At times it's been the relievers. And the past few losses it's been the offense. There's no one culprit, no consistent weakness. But there's been no consistent strength either.

Next Up: Laffey vs. Perkins, 1:05 PM.

via www.fangraphs.com

Highest WPA		Lowest WPA
Asdrubal Cabrera	.032	Carl Pavano	-.198
Joe Smith	.020	Ben Francisco	-.090
Rafael Perez	.011	Grady Sizemore	-.084

0 recs | Comment 22 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

my god this is wretched.

by emil minty on Apr 26, 2009 12:17 AM EDT reply actions

Pavano may have pitched better than his line suggests but I thought he didn’t pitch as well as in his previous 2 starts – he was mostly avoiding the middle of the plate but too many of his pitches were a little up, more at the belt than at the knees.

by plato on Apr 26, 2009 12:57 AM EDT reply actions

Ya know, I’m seeing all the parts to the World Championship puzzle. Our starting pitching is coming around, our offense – while not productive yet – has all the ingredients – and our relief pitching – don’t roll your eyes just yet – has just enough for us to make a run.

Give it 2 to 3 weeks boyz before you jump off that ledge. It’s gonna turn around pretty soon – I just wish Wedge would sort this crap out in March instead of April.

Resident LGT results-oriented boob.

by mauichuck on Apr 26, 2009 2:55 AM EDT reply actions

Agreed. But they really have to start winning games. Also Laporta in LF (yes upon his service time birthday into the majors) seems to be an upgrade this team could use. That plus another reliever (Masa ain’t got much) and for christ sakes Fausto needs to not be mediocre/bad any more.

by hans on Apr 26, 2009 3:18 AM EDT up reply actions

Fausto was very good the other night, the best he’s looked all year. Better than his line showed. Still needs work, but I’m very encouraged.

Masa has gotten to the point where he can’t afford to throw his fastball over the white part of the plate. I don’t think he’ll see June 1 with this team.

I’m thinking this might be more perception than reality, but I wonder if someone who has the inclination/time could study how we do against pitchers who don’t give up walks. This offense seems to be dependent on walks and the long ball, and while that’s usually a good thing, I wonder if we get exposed more than other teams by guys like Blackburn and Slowey. Again, probably more perception than reality, but these guys have just come right at us and we had no answers.

I will say that from what I saw, there were quite a few pitches each night that split the plate in two. Maybe they’re just pressing and missing pitches. Wedge was a little hot in the postgame last night, in case you missed it:

by TribeJay on Apr 26, 2009 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions

When does Wedge turn that scornful eye his direction?

Bottom of the ninth, bases loaded and you send Tony Graffanino to the plate?

Sometimes, I just like to b****.

by emd2k3 on Apr 26, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Can somebody give me a meaningful idea of what calling up LaPorta a month early would actually cost the team? I mean, if he’s successful, presumably we’re locking him up early, so we’re talking about his leverage in lock-up negotiations, right? Blind, uneducated guess: four, maybe five million, worst-case scenario?

by fleerdon on Apr 26, 2009 12:09 PM EDT reply actions

That’s right; it impacts his worth when they negotiate the deal.

I can’t imagine they’d keep him down if they feel the extra month would make a significant impact on the direction of the season.

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

by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Apr 26, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions

For a position player I would have to agree that adding one player isn’t likely going to be the “make-it/break-it” for a team’s playoff chances. A starting pitcher on the other hand can make a difference I think. I’d have to say that Minnesota’s management of Liriano’s service time last season was an example of it backfiring on them (missing guaranteeing the playoffs by a game).

by hans on Apr 26, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Except that Liriano had more than one terrible start in the minors while they were supposedly suppressing him. There is no particular reason to think they make the playoffs with Liriano up a few weeks earlier.

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

by Jay on Apr 26, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions

You don’t think he would given them a better chance to win at least one more game than their fifth starter gave them?

He pitched 19 games in Rochester with a final ERA of 3.28 and a K:BB of 3.65, I’m not saying he shouldn’t have spent time in the minors, but he was held down to suppress his service time not because he didn’t offer the Twins a better alternative than Livan Hernandez and his 74 ERA+ over 23 starts.

by hans on Apr 27, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I did a guest article on Twinkie Town about this very subject. The relevant portions:

The Twins obviously wanted Liriano in the majors, as they gave him a brief tryout back in April with minimal reason for optimism. The results, as I’m sure you know, were disastrous: 13 ER allowed in 10.1 IP, over just three starts. Back in Triple-A, the results were better but still awful: 7 ER in 8.1 innings over two starts. Liriano obviously wasn’t even close to ready.

Liriano allowed just eight runs total over his next four starts, but he’s been unsteady since then, with total trainwreck performances on May 26, June 20 and June 25 — those last two within the last month — with mostly good games mixed in between. While ESPN reports mindlessly that Liriano is “7-0 with a 2.73 ERA in his past nine starts,” it’s probably more significant to note that just a few weeks ago, Liriano’s ERA was 4.85 over his past six starts.

Basically, the only way you can get to the one-more-win conclusion is if you assume that Liriano in the majors, Liriano wins his next two starts, even though in the minors, he bombed out on those next two starts:

On June 25, Liriano was coming off four quality starts since his last trainwreck, and he been called up that day, he’d have been a lock for Super Two status. Instead, he stayed in Rochester and produced two of his worst starts of the season on June 25 and 30, allowing 10 ER in 10.1 IP — and most troubling, giving up four home runs in those two games. Had the Twins called up Liriano for his next start on July 5, he still would have had a good chance to reach Super Two status — but what team calls up a pitcher after two straight trainwrecks in the minors? Only a team desperate for starting pitching, which the Twins obviously were not.

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

by Jay on Apr 27, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions

So how much do you want to bet his mind wasn’t into those two starts after his agent informed him he just missed out on the possiblity of making millions of dollars a year earlier in his career because the parent club kept him down in the minors.

Looking at the data you present its easy to see your conclusion that it wouldn’t have mattered (if for some reason we believe that how he pitched in the minors for two games is any sort of indication on how he would have pitched in the majors for two games on those days instead) if he was called up two starts earlier. But I simply have to disagree with that conclusion because of my belief that he is a.) A better pitcher than Livan Hernandez, and b.) that those two starts in the minors were likely in my oppinion influenced by his state of mind which was likely a combination of depressed mood and agitation/frustration that he was not promoted by the parent club and lost out on a pretty big chunk of cash.

by hans on Apr 27, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions

I must not have made the timeline clear, and also the fact that there is no one certain cutoff date — it varies every year — so at no one point is Liriano going to be told by his agent, for this specific start, you have to be in the majors.

Had he been called up on June 25, he would have been a lock for Super Two status. But if he does well lon June 25 and gets called up on June 30, he’s still very likely going to reach arbitration. Even if called up on July 5, he still had a chance.

More to the point, he was both brilliant and horrible at times in both April and May. I don’t see how being both brilliant and horrible in June is suddenly caused by an attitude problem. I don’t have any reason to think Liriano himself was consumed with this subject, only that his agent was.

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

by Jay on Apr 27, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree his agent would have benifited if Liriano hits super two status and I’m sure he was the reason such a big deal was made about it, but I have a hard time believing that if service time did not factor into any of this that the team would have kept him down in AAA after he put together 4 quality starts. What he did in those next two trainwreck starts is irrelevent. At the 25th of June Liriano had just completed four good starts in AAA while Livan Hernandez (who did pitch well in his two previous starts I won’t deny that, albeit against poor hitting Arizona and Washington) had an ERA of 5.23. Livan stuck around for six more starts and then appeared in a Colorado uniform the rest of the season.

I just find it hard to believe that service time had nothing to do with keeping Liriano down in AAA after four quality starts while Livan Hernandez was pitching with an ERA over 5.

I may be off on the timing of the complaining by his agent, but I believe it was around the time following those four starts prior to June 25th that this was all a big deal. All Liriano needs at this point is the belief that despite how he pitches he’s not going to be promoted until he has reached a time where he no longer qualifies for super two to feel ill will towards the organization. I assure you he wasn’t happy after pitching that fourth quality start and not being promoted back to the bigs. Having an agent fueling the fire didn’t help, but its human nature to feel any one of the following: apathy, anger, frustration, saddness if put in Liriano’s position at that time. So you don’t have to have any spelled out reason to not think Liriano was consumed with the subject at the time, but rather put yourself into his position and ask yourself how would you feel.

by hans on Apr 27, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Let me be blunt, hans … the timeline is pretty important to the discussion, and I was meticulous about it when I wrote my piece, and you’re just kind of being vague and half-assed about it. You can either (a) decide your position ahead of time (blame the team, make excuses for Liriano’s performance), or you can (b) actually look at the facts first, carefully, as I already have, and then make up your mind. Seems like you’re pretty set on (a), in which case, we’re done discussing this.

If I were Liriano, I think I primarily would have been concerned with the health of my arm and having a major league future at all.

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

by Jay on Apr 27, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions

This is my last post on this topic and the answers to this questions (my mistake for not asking it directly above) would have ended this back-and-forth.

Do you think that the Twins considered service time in deciding when to promote Liriano back up to the majors?

Why does ERA and/or HRs given up matter more than K:BB in evaluating weather a player is ready to return to the majors? Both seem to be a bit more luck driven to me than K:BB, which is why I ask.

by hans on Apr 28, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree, but the Brewers barely missed the playoffs the year they called up Braun. And I believe the Phillies had a similar situation play out with Howard, although they at least had Thome.

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

by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Apr 26, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Absolutely not — the impact could be as much as $15 million or more, if he’s highly successful.

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

by Jay on Apr 26, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions

15 over the course of his eventual contract, or 15 discounted back to this decision date?

I guess what I’m asking is, if we’re talking about a possible cost of $2-3MM/week for 5 weeks, could that ever be worth the marginal contribution of LaPorta over Franciscrowe? I’m shaking up a “no” on my 8-ball, but what’s he know.

by fleerdon on Apr 27, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions

If LaPorta is eligible as a Super Two after the 2011 season, it will cost the Indians between $3 million and $10 million in 2012 alone, depending on how well he has performed. (I am assuming that he won’t reach that status for 2012 by spending much time on the bench or sucking, because of course he has three options remaining.) It also has a spillover effect on 2013, as he will no longer be a first-year case who made 500K last year, but rather a second-year case who made X millions of dollars last year. And then there is further spillover for 2014 and 2015.

These effects are well understood by all parties, and so of course they become factors in any lockup negotation that would take place. But the effect isn’t just that of “moving the bar” in terms of raw dollars. It also significantly reduces the risk to the player of walking away from a deal, who at any point in negotiations is one year closer to a seven-figure payday, possibly high-seven-figures, and therefore less concerned about the possibility that injury or slump will derail his long-term security.

Regarding the reduction in financial security risk, I have in the past been skeptical that it was much of a factor for bonus babies — they are, after all, already millionaires before they ever even step on the field as minor leaguers. But there actually is some anecdotal evidence that long-term security still is a significant factor even for those players — that young players with a million or two in the bank nonetheless value the security of guaranteeing another $20 million or so over the possibility of making even more. LaPorta’s bonus was basically the same as Grady’s, although LaPorta was drafted at 4.6 years older and evidently will reach the majors two years faster.

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

by Jay on Apr 27, 2009 5:42 AM EDT up reply actions