Game 60: Indians 8, Royals 4
With tonight's win, the Indians aren't in last place for the first time all season. A lot of it has to do with Kansas City's freefall in the standings, but the Indians have also started to neutralize some of their early-season flaws.
At this point, every Cliff Lee start is just about a must-win. But for most of the game, it looked like Lee was going to be outpitched by Indians nemesis Brian Bannister. The Royals collected 11 hits off Lee in six innings, but if not for a blown call by the third base umpire in the sixth inning, Cliff would have held the Royals to two runs. As it was, Lee left the game in the sixth trailing 4-0, and it looked like he'd be the victim yet again of poor run support.
The Royals let the Indians back in the game in the bottom of the inning. With runners on first and third, Billy Butler made a throwing error on what could have a been a double play. A run would have scored anyway, but in this case the rally still continued, and there was still nobody out. After Mark DeRosa loaded the bases with a single, the Royals made another pretty dumb error; Travis Hafner bounced a ball to first, and although Butler made a good throw to the plate, Miguel Olivo pulled his foot early, and didn't get the benefit of the "neighborhood play." Now it was 4-2, and still there was nobody out. Kelly Shoppach then did his job, flying out to deep right, which plated the third run of the inning, and moving the tying run to third. Then Jhonny Peralta grounded wide of third, which meant that the Royals couldn't turn an inning-ending double play. The runner was forced at second, but the game was now tied.
In April and early May, a tie game going into the late innings might as well be a three-run deficit as poorly as the bullpen was throwing. But now a tie game means that the Indians actually have as good a chance of winning as the other team does. After Lee left, Luis Vizcaino, Rafael Perez, and Matt Herges combined to pitch two perfect setup innings. Perez had his slider once again making left-handed hitters look foolish, which is an excellent sign.
Mark DeRosa broke the game open with a grand slam in the seventh. Ben Francisco singled into the hole between short and third, and then after he was forced at second on a bad bunt by Jamey Carroll, Victor Martinez walked, and Shin-Soo Choo would have walked had Cruz's pitch missed his foot. That brought DeRosa up to the plate with the bases loaded and one out. Jamey Wright left a fastball up on the outer half of the plate, and Mark didn't miss it.
Next Up: Meche vs. Pavano, 7:05 PM

| Highest WPA | Lowest WPA | ||
| Mark DeRosa | .285 | Josh Barfield | -.106 |
| Shin-Soo Choo | .171 | Luis Valbuena | -.093 |
| Travis Hafner | .115 | Cliff Lee | -.057 |
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Herges, Vizcaino, and Aquino. You’d make an awkward law firm, and we rolled our eyes and groaned when you came on board, but… Thanks!
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 9, 2009 11:07 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Ryan, I didn’t watch the game but mlb.com’s box score has Jamey Wright giving up the slam.
Bullpens are weird.
The key’s going to be hanging in there over the next few weeks. Getting Westbrook and or Laffey back makes the pitching better; Cabrera’s return will help too. I’m not counting on Grady in the short term. I worry that Herges/Aquino/Vizcaino will turn out to be a mirage, in which case we’re in trouble. But, having four major league teams with worse records does indeed feel good.
This is OT, but I hate interleague play intruding into the middle of the season like this. We’re trying to get something done here on our road to recovery and they put us into a bunch of stupid exhibition games with teams no one cares about! Of course, if we go 10-5 or better, I take it all back.
I agree. Interleague play sucks. It also seems to mess with the minds of the Indians’ players, at least in recent years. They seem befuddled by it, as if to say: This isn’t fair—why do we have to play these teams? Meanwhile, the Twins just mow them down.
do all of the AL central teams play the same NL teams in the same place? said another way, if the indians play the reds in cinci, do the twins play the reds in cinci, too, or might they play in minnesota? or might the twins not play the reds at all?
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 10, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions
They play mostly* the same teams, but not in the same place. But then each team is playing a home-and-home against their primary rivals.
*For example, the Tigers play the Rockies this year.
gotcha. and logo, i’ll reply to you here as well, i’m reading you. simple math seems to have escaped me (although, i may not have known for sure that the whole of the AL Central plays the whole of the NL Central, but i’m sure that’s un-smart for a whole different set of reasons) on this one.
the reason i ask is because clearly, in the age of the wild card, introducing 18 games of interleague play, where the yankees and red sox play opponents who the AL Central will never even see is pretty questionable. even more, having different matchups within the division (don’t play the same teams in the same places) could play a not-so-small role in what promises to be a close (if mediocre) division race in the central this year.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 10, 2009 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions
let me also just say, before someone else does, that i realize the AL Central and NL Central don’t matchup each and every year…that was just an example.
i’m going to take the next few plays off.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 10, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Doesn’t have any more impact than the fact that we play the Red Sox nine times this year, with seven games in Fenway… whereas the Twins play them only seven times, with four games at the Metrodome (to give one example of teams with historically extreme homefield advantages). Baseball schedules are never completely fair.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 10, 2009 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
sure it has more impact. one the one hand, the indians play the reds 6 times this year—the twins play the reds 0. and on the other, it’s the distinction b/w an unbalanced schedule, and a completely one-sided schedule.
i’ve followed sports for long enough to understand that schedules are never completely fair, but you’d think the schedule makers would at least attempt to approximate a fair schedule.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 11, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m no fan of interleague, myself, but the whole concept of regional interleague rivalries (which, albeit, I’m not sure anyone actually cares about outside Chicago) is at odds with making a schedule maximally “fair”. Beyond that, the fact that not every division has the same number of teams leads to some unbalance by necessity. And I’ve already commented on the home-away issue.
Seems like the only options that would help matters would be a) do away with interleague entirely (my favorite), b) keep interleague but abandon the regional rivalries (the main reason interleague was instituted in the first place), or c) double (or more) the number of interleague games so that every match-up includes home and away series (yuck)
by Logodaedalus on Jun 11, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
couldn’t agree more. a) seems like the best option. do we have any sense for what sort of “popularity impact” interleague has had? i’m sure selig would say that MLB attendance levels since interleague started are at all time highs, but that would be, at best, spurious. i can’t imagine doing away with it would have any meaningful impact.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 11, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions
it also has more of an impact that the red sox example b/c of the AL/NL park DH/P hitting rules.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 12, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions

by 















