Game 74: Pirates 3, Indians 2
Do any of you remember the Choose Your Own Adventure Books? For those that don't, they were a series of children's books that gave readers a choice every so often, directing him or her to a certain page depending on that choice. If you made all the right choices, you got to read the 'good' ending. In other endings, you had lesser degrees of success, or even died.
This season is like a Choose Your Own Adventure book that doesn't have a 'good' ending. Sure, there might be clues along the way that you're progressing towards ultimate success (choosing to start Cliff Lee would get you most of the way through the story), but at some point, when it's the late innings and the starter's out of the game, you are met with a choice not between victory or defeat but only the type of defeat.
For example....
Congratulations! Your team escaped the eighth inning with the game still tied. The offense couldn't push a run across, though, and now you must choose which pitcher to send out for the ninth. Remember, if the Pirates score, the game's over!
If you decide to stay with Rafael Perez, turn to page 96.
If you go with Matt Herges, turn to page 97.
If you call on someone else in the bullpen, turn to page 98.
Page 96 reads:
You stay with Rafael Perez, who got out the eight inning by getting a double play, think that his success would carry over into the next inning. Unfortunately, he walked the first four batters of the inning to force home the winning run.
THE END
What if you had chosen to turn to Page 97?
You bring on veteran Matt Herges, who at least has experience in these types of situations. But he gave up three straight base hits, and the Pirates win.
THE END
Well, the last option has to be the one, right?
Sorry, but no matter which pitcher you choose, your team will lose the game. Try to get a better bullpen next time, if you're even around for next time.
THE END

| Highest WPA | Lowest WPA | ||
| Rafael Perez | .172 | Matt Herges | -.357 |
| Cliff Lee | .127 | Ryan Garko | -.143 |
| Victor Martinez | .078 | Kelly Shoppach | -.085 |
20 recs |
78 comments
|
Comments
I advocated for this before, but it’s time to stop pretending like Herges is any good. Not that we have another option
by Roger Dorn on Jun 25, 2009 11:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Me, too. I thought he still had something left, but I was wrong. I also thought Smith was going to be a solid right hand set up guy. I know even less than the little I knew at the beginning of the season.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jun 26, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I imagine game threads have pretty much become Mad Libs.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Jun 25, 2009 11:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
At 30-44, Wedge is keeping pace with his 2003 rookie season.
However, this year he is in 5th place instead of 4th and farther out of 1st place
(now 12 games).
by palcal on Jun 25, 2009 11:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Perez was pinch-hit for in the 9th…if you wanted to keep the option open for him to pitch the 9th, Wedge would’ve had to double switch when he came in.
In news at Columbus, it looks like Masa Kobayashi has been watching what’s going on in the bullpen in Cleveland and decided to try to fit in the best way he knew with a 2-run lead going to the bottom of the 9th…
* Pitcher Change: Masa Kobayashi replaces Vinnie Chulk.
* Justin Huber homers (9) on a fly ball to left field.
* Danny Valencia homers (1) on a fly ball to left field.
* David Winfree flies out to left fielder Mickey Hall.
* Dustin Martin doubles (10) on a line drive to right fielder Trevor Crowe.
* Masa Kobayashi intentionally walks Brock Peterson.
* Jeff Christy walks. Dustin Martin to 3rd. Brock Peterson to 2nd.
* Coaching visit to mound.
* Tommy Watkins singles on a line drive to right fielder Trevor Crowe. Dustin Martin scores. Brock Peterson to 3rd. Jeff Christy to 2nd.
by TribeJay on Jun 26, 2009 12:00 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
The old unintentional walk after the intentional walk. Plus whatever Scott Radinsky said on his visit to the mound seemed to work: “Christ, Masa, just throw a strike and let’s get out of here.”
by odradek on Jun 26, 2009 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I choose the option that takes you to page 99 that says:
Wake up! This whole season has been a really bad dream. It is now April 6 and Cliff Lee will be pitching against the Rangers today.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jun 26, 2009 12:06 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
that didn’t even go well. I was in class really pissed off staring at gameday.
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 26, 2009 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This reminded me of sneaking a Walkman into science class in 8th grade to listen to Opening Day, 2000, and the promise coming off a 97 win season.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
by USSChoo on Jun 26, 2009 4:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that was a dream! I was in class watching it with one headphone in my ear and really mad at my computer. Luckily my last class ended after the top half of the first so I missed the really bad stuff.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jun 26, 2009 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To clarify I missed watching it in class. I watched it my room.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jun 26, 2009 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will also be very surprised if Wedge makes it out of the next 10 days. At this point, I think the basic credibility of the team demands a change.
by APV on Jun 26, 2009 12:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I really think we’re heading towards an AS Break shakeup.
I’ve long been saying they would announce the Shapiro/Antonetti succession plan at the break, but I think the timetable will be moved up so Antonetti takes over next season.
The same announcement may now include a Wedge firing, and word that Antonetti will be picking the new skipper.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 26, 2009 8:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Antonetti part would surprise me, only because as a (seemingly) politically-astute guy, I would think Shapiro would want to choose his time of departure to coincide with organizational success, not failure.
by APV on Jun 26, 2009 8:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, but I’ve believed since ST that this would be the year of the announcement … with 2010 being “transition” year … and 2011 marking Antonetti’s full takeover.
However, I think that timetable could be expedited if a managerial change is forced, to enable the new manager and new GM to work together from the beginning.
I also have this bad feeling that Shapiro may force the Dolans to force his hand.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 26, 2009 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My sense is that Antonetti and Shapiro work so closely together, they could essentially have Antonetti make the final call on the next manager even if he isn’t taking over fully just yet. If that were a priority for them.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 26, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those books were bomb, but I always died. It always resulted in me trapt in some basement or falling down a flight of stairs.
by JRontherim on Jun 26, 2009 12:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I seem to recall getting killed by lizard people a lot
by APV on Jun 26, 2009 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was always more partial to the infinitely more nerdy Lone Wolf books (just like Choose Your Own Adventure but with dice and hit points).
by mrich on Jun 26, 2009 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like we are getting into D&D territory.
by bewwolv on Jun 26, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They were great. Love the write-up, Ryan.
by dgcambridge on Jun 26, 2009 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What in tarnations?! We lost again? Dagnabit, those sons of an onion!
by Cleveland Indians on Jun 26, 2009 12:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Clue > Choose your own adventure
Choose your own adventure books were all based on chance and no logic. You could choose the most viable and sensible path and end up dead in a ditch, while the most absurd choice would get you home safely. Nonsense!
by Cleveland Indians on Jun 26, 2009 1:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I guess it;s kinda like real life then (:
by OscarDog on Jun 26, 2009 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
at least those stupid axe ads are history
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 26, 2009 1:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Now watch all the women leave LGT over the next two or three days. Those ads were our secret weapon!
--
Force quit and move to trash.
by vbc3 on Jun 26, 2009 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The ads were pissing them off as much as the real thing.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
by USSChoo on Jun 26, 2009 4:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would seem to bode poorly for you in particular
by Roger Dorn on Jun 26, 2009 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn it, I never think these brilliant ideas all the way through …
--
Force quit and move to trash.
by vbc3 on Jun 26, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So secret I don’t even know what you’re talking about, Svengali.
by Julie on Jun 26, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m still here. Those ads and the real thing were terrible.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jun 26, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
More bad news:
The season probably is over for Captains right fielder Abner Abreu. He injured his left shoulder while attempting to make a diving catch during the June 21 road game in New Jersey against the Lakewood BlueClaws.
Abreu was placed on the disabled list before Thursday’s game. His loss will be keenly felt. The 19-year-old native of the Dominican Republic topped the Captains with a .305 average in the first half. He had team-high totals of 75 hits, 16 doubles and 35 runs scored.
Abner, like Wegz, had turned around a horrible April to rapidly become the best (and youngest) hitter on the Lake County team and had made a good transition to the outfield. At least its his left shoulder.
by mcrose on Jun 26, 2009 2:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ugh. That kid is exciting, but what he definitely needs is at bats and experience.
by APV on Jun 26, 2009 2:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you know why we moved him to the Outfield?
by world dictator on Jun 26, 2009 3:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think because he had 18 errors in 49 games in the GCL last season … (.856 fielding %)
Also, probably because they’re hoping Chisenhall can improve his defense enough to claim 3B.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 26, 2009 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this the title of the book where the recap for this game was based upon?

by jayme on Jun 26, 2009 2:21 AM EDT reply actions 8 recs
Why do I Choo Choo choose to keep watching this awful team. Sigh.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
by USSChoo on Jun 26, 2009 4:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’d have to have the worst luck in the world to find yourself in that position. Probably a good time to sh*t your pants.
by Cleveland Indians on Jun 26, 2009 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that’s what you get for wearing a fur coat
by APV on Jun 26, 2009 2:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, Photoshop Phridays. Some true genius lurks in those forums.
--
Force quit and move to trash.
by vbc3 on Jun 26, 2009 3:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Monet’s of the mouse.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
by USSChoo on Jun 26, 2009 4:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i was at the game tonite, and boy, is ryan’s theme apt … when cliffton walked in the tying run, yeah, it was merely a question of How, not If
that being understood, i had a great time – great seats, nice little park & nice fans, a yuengling, choo scoring victor from first, &c.
the outcome, once expected, was no more or less than the end of another game
"and if it stays fair, it's going to be ... A FAIR BALL!"
by manny trillo electric toothbrush on Jun 26, 2009 4:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Got to hand it to Ryan. The Tribe loses and I sigh (or sob) and go to bed. With Ryan, the Tribe loses and he has to relive the whole game and write something witty about a team that’s pathetic and getting pathetic-er.
If you believe it's just a game, you're also probably wondering why Santa keeps skipping your house every year.
by LeftyCatcher on Jun 26, 2009 8:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ryan lacks the ability to express bitterness without adding humor. At some point, something will have to be done.
by elsandito on Jun 26, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My friend and I predated the choose your own adventures with something we called Instant D&D. I have immortalized one of Kirk’s best efforts by placing a Kirk Hasenmueller Instant Adventure on my website for the world’s enjoyment.
by woodsmeister on Jun 26, 2009 11:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I must have had 3 dozen of those books during my childhood……
Very clever write up. With as bad as things are right now for the Indians (really all three Cleveland teams, Browns rebuilding, despite Shaq, LeBron probably leaving no matter what due to Stern/Nike/ESPN tampering) Nothing else to do at this point but laugh. We need more laughter to keep us all sane!
by mgtbfb on Jun 26, 2009 12:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It’s a little weird, because even though we knew the pen was going to blow it, it was really the offense’s loss, right?*
So I thought, how many times has our offense been held down this year? I picked 4 runs. You can certainly win when you score 4 runs, but it takes a special performance from your pitchers/defense. If this offense score 4 runs or less, they haven’t done their job.
Anyway, 32 games (out of 74), the offense has been held to 4 runs or less.
How about the pitching staff? How many times has it failed as unit. I’m going with 6 or more runs here. Again, you can win if the staff gives up 6 runs, but it takes some serious work by your bats. If a staff gives up 6 runs or more in a game, they’ve taken a big step toward a loss.
In 33 games (out of 74), the pitching defense has given up 6 runs or more.
Pretty close on the failure rates. Maybe I ’m being too strict with the offense, but with this roster specifically, it is supposed to be an offense-led team.
*Note: Given a longer 9th, the pen may have allowed many more runs.
by dgcambridge on Jun 26, 2009 1:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d be curious how that offensive output compares with the rest of the league before I make any judgment on it
by Roger Dorn on Jun 26, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah… A more systematic way to do this would be to choose, say, the 25th and 75th percentiles for runs scored in a game, league wide, and see how often the Indians score in the bottom 25%, and how often their opponents score in the top 25%. The cutoffs may turn out to be about 4 and 6 — that doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable — although I suspect they may be a little bit lower (at least the 4 number).
by Logodaedalus on Jun 26, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, this would be more useful. I think what dg did adds some numbers though to our feeling that the offense isn’t as consistant as it could be considering it’s 4th in the AL in RS.
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 26, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I think that’s true… it has seemed like a boom or bust kind of offense at times. I’m just thinking that cutting it off at 4 runs might be a bit too high a bar for the offense. For example, I was able to find a run distribution for 2004, and teams scored 3 or fewer about 38% of the time. They scored 4 runs or fewer 52% of the time. 32 out of 74 is about 43%, so they are above average in that respect*. On the flip side, only 36% of games had scores of 6 runs or more, so the 44.6% that this pitching staff has allowed is worse than average, by about the same margin (percentage-wise) that the offense is above average. It turns out that the lowest scoring 25% of games just about covers those in which teams scored 2 or fewer runs (these make up about 26.3% of total games). Right around 25% (actually 26.5%) of games had scores of 7 or more runs. So if you want to do a quartile-based cutoff, you should really be looking at 2 or fewer and 7 or more (again, *).
*Keeping in mind that this is with reference to 2004, which is admittedly not ideal. On the one hand, teams seem to be scoring fewer runs these days, so this year’s Tribe might be even farther above average. On the other hand, this report included NL games, which are obviously lower scoring on average. If anyone knows where to find a more recent distribution, broken down by league, that would be helpful.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 26, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They don’t need to be quartile-based, but they do need to be even. So, the 36% and the 38% seem to be good.
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 26, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, of course, 25% is arbitrary — the lower the value, the more severe the level of fail. But the 38% comes from taking 3 or less, not 4 or less, so dg’s original count is asymmetrical.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 26, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So 3 and 6, respectively, would have been a better comparison.
Although, if you look at our team, 4 and 6 are symmetrical numbers.
by dgcambridge on Jun 26, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah. Right. But the fact that they’re symmetrical for our team indicates that our offense is above average and our pitching is below average. Which we already knew.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 26, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely. But now that we’ve compared it to the league averages, we can see that the boom-or-bust label probably doesn’t apply.
by dgcambridge on Jun 26, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I’d argue that using a near 50% standard doesn’t really show that, though. The only numbers we’ve looked at with respect to the offense are 4 or fewer vs. 5 or more, which is near a median split, league-wise. To appropriately test whether a team tends to be boom or bust, you don’t want to do a median split, you want to look at more extreme values (so, for example, how often has the offense scored 2 or fewer (19 games in 2009) and 7 or more (24 games), versus 3 to 6 (31 games)). If they are boom and bust, you’d expect 0-2 and 7+ to make up more than 50% of their games (as opposed to the league, for which these extremes combine for 50%). This year, they’ve combined for 43 games in the extremes, which is 58% of the time. If their long run probability of being extreme is truly 50%, you would expect deviations this size (in both direction, i.e. 58% or higher or 42% or lower) about 20% of the time over any given 74 games. So, although they have had more boom and bust tendencies than other teams, it’s not a big enough difference to really raise eyebrows.
Oh yeah, I found the BRef page you were using for 2009. The 25th and 75th cutoffs for all of baseball are still around 2 or less and 7 or more.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 26, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’re (I’m) beating this to death, but another way to look at it is to look at just those games in which the team has scored 4 or fewer and ask what percentage of those have they scored 2 or fewer. League wide this is about 50.1%. For the Indians it is 59.4% (19/32). Similarly, of those games when they’ve scored 5 or more, how often have they scored 7 or more? League wide is 53.1%. For the Indians it’s 57.1% (24/42).
The probabilities of these differences happening by chance in the directions they are (i.e. if the Indians are no more likely to be boom/bust than any other team) are 19.2% and 35.7%, respectively. But both at once? 6.8%. Doesn’t quite pass .05 muster if you want to be rigorous (plus this is only going one direction), but it’s starting to seem like maybe there’s something going on, that we could see with a bigger sample. But maybe not.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 26, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s fine, we’re just kicking things around. So they’ve scored 2 or less a little more often then one would expect, given their scoring. But you’re right – with these sample sizes, it’s just a game or so one way or another.
by dgcambridge on Jun 26, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah. And it occurs to me that even if there is a real difference, it could be explained by having above average lineup diversity (e.g. due to injuries to key players), or having faced pitching/defense with above average diversity — anything that increases the variance from game to game. It wouldn’t have to have anything to do with psychology or management, etc.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 26, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just curious about how often this kind of game happens. But you’re right that it would be interesting to compare to the league. Give me a second.
by dgcambridge on Jun 26, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK. I just put up the initial numbers because I wondered how often our offense goes cold. Logo’s numbers suggest that I am being too strict with any “failure” label, and yep, my standards are too high.
These numbers are from BRef. And are for MLB. (I couldn’t find the AL only, but the difference in runs scored is always less than I expect).
2007 Tribe: Scored 4 runs or fewer 45% of the time. League average was 53%.
2008 Tribe: Scored 4 runs or fewer 54% of the time. League average was 55%.
2009 Tribe: Scored 4 runs or fewer 43% of the time. League average was 54%.
Nice. And with our run prevention, we still need to drive that offense harder, faster.
by dgcambridge on Jun 26, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m going to save this post for future myth buster purposes
by Roger Dorn on Jun 26, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m a little surprised by this. How about 3 or less? I’d look it up myself if I better knew how to poke around b-ref for this stuff.
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 26, 2009 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
3 or less is 27 times, or 36.5%. League is 41.4%.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 26, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cool. What we really need to find is #s for games played in AL stadiums (or, the Indians’ 2007 first-round selection Al Stadimius)
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 26, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m imagining a whole Body Wars-type scenario…
by Logodaedalus on Jun 26, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hello Ryan,
I remember those CYOA books clearly – they were some of my favorites when my elementary school went to the library. I’d nearly pull every CYOA book off of the shelf that I could find. :-)
Regarding the Indians, and specifically the bullpen, CYOA seems to sum it up quite well. Right now, NO ONE, not even Wood, can be counted on to do his job and keep the opposition at bay. It’s essentially “pick your poison.”
It’s amazing at the time of the 2004 and 2006 bullpens that we thought they were bad; compared to this 2009 bullpen, those bullpens are either full of “Cy Young” contenders or, if the “bullpen from he**” is the worst one of all, then the 2004 and 2006 versions must have just been “bullpens from purgatory,” with the 2009 bullpen being the “bullpen from he**.”
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Jun 26, 2009 6:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
funny, but CYOA has a much different terminology which Wedgie is desperately trying to use right now, Cover Your Own A**
by talonk on Jun 27, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Note to self: Come up with way to blame Peralta for bullpen.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
by USSChoo on Jun 28, 2009 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is interesting stuff. Thanks for all the number crunching. It debunks one of the self-pitying things I believed in.
by odradek on Jun 27, 2009 2:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 





















