Game 132: Tigers 4, Indians 2
by Ryan on Sep 2, 2009 10:13 PM EDT
in Game Recaps
47 comments
This was an ugly game.
The difference in this game were two unearned runs given up by the Indians. There were five errors in all committed by the Cleveland defense, with Jhonny Peralta had three of them, all on fielding plays. In addition, the Indians grounded into three double plays, and for good measure, Grady Sizemore got picked off of first base (and no, he wasn't running).
Aaron Laffey gave up 11 base runners, four of which were walks. Only one of his seven hits given up went for extra bases, so his outing wasn't that bad. Rick Porcello, though, breezed though seven innings on 80 pitches. The last time the 20-year-old went as many as 6 innings was his last start against the Indians, when he went 8 innings.
Travis Hafner was back in the lineup, and he finished the Cleveland scoring by blasting just his 14th home run in the eighth.
Next Up: Carmona vs. Robertson, 1:05 PM
| Highest WPA | Lowest WPA | ||
| Grady Sizemore | .028 | Jhonny Peralta | -.131 |
| Rafael Perez | .015 | Luis Valbuena | -.075 |
| Travis Hafner | .013 | Aaron Laffey | -.073 |
0 recs |
47 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Most errors in a game by the Tribe since 1998? And Jhonny split without talking to the press? How come Porcello is so good, and the Indians have Jeremy Sowers?
by odradek on Sep 3, 2009 12:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Cash. Porcello was the best pitcher in the draft when he came out, but he dropped due to contract demands.
by Ryan on Sep 3, 2009 8:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because they came out in different drafts?
I want it. I've been grinding it out for awhile.
by woodsmeister on Sep 3, 2009 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he was just talking generally about #1 picks.
by Toxicadam on Sep 3, 2009 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, although not because I really have a problem with Jhonny. I just don’t know how he fits in contractually with the Tribe’s future. If we keep him around next year and pick-up his option the year after that, it’s nearly $12 million, and he’d leave after the first year we’re supposed to be “competitive” again.
And, of course, moving Marte to third frees up first for LaPorta and LF for Brantley.
But I don’t know.
-Kyle
by Kyle Garret on Sep 3, 2009 3:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That works for me. It’s not like we’re barren behind Marte. There’s still the Chiz.
by dgcambridge on Sep 3, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Chiz looks to be solidly two years away, though at his age, great leaps aren’t that unusual.
by Jay on Sep 3, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, unless he does a serious Braun.
by stuart dean on Sep 3, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree too, I’m not even considering it for 2010. But possibly for 2011, and definitely 2012. As much as you can have a plan in place for a position two or three years down the road.
by dgcambridge on Sep 3, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Laffey 6th in the AL in ERA; min. 90 ip
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
by westbrook on Sep 3, 2009 1:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
At least, they don’t have to wait long to put this game behind them.
If the Indians are going to face Porcello 3-5 time/year for potentially 10+ years, hopefully they will figure out sooner rather than later how not to be his patsy.
by palcal on Sep 3, 2009 1:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I guess I’m not sure what you mean by “just his 14th home run.” There were plenty of us who wondered if Hafner would hit five more home runs in his career. His HR rate is not his best, but all things considered, it’s not nearly a disaster.
by tabler84 on Sep 3, 2009 8:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Some key Travis Hafner stats:
Year Age AB XBH HR AB/HR AB/XBH OPS OPS+ 2002 25 62 6 1 62.0 10.3 0.716 86 2003 26 291 36 14 20.8 8.1 0.812 115 2004 27 482 72 28 17.2 6.7 0.993 162 2005 28 486 75 33 14.7 6.5 1.003 168 2006 29 454 74 42 10.8 6.1 1.097 179 2007 30 545 51 24 22.7 10.7 0.837 118 2008 31 198 15 5 39.6 13.2 0.628 65 2009 32 260 29 14 18.6 9.0 0.846 117
What we’re not seeing from Pronk this year is a return of the Pronk who scorched the ball into the gaps and was an extra-base hit machine. The AB/XBH numbers for Pronk from 2004-2006 are video-game like.
I want it. I've been grinding it out for awhile.
by woodsmeister on Sep 3, 2009 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. No one would argue that Hafner is right back where he was in his prime. But if you had offered me 846 OPS and reasonably good health, I’d have taken it back in March. Obviously now we wall want more, but it’s not like this is a crater job. He’s got some firepower left.
by tabler84 on Sep 3, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But 29 extra base hits from your big-contract designated hitter isn’t good, or even acceptable. People keep looking at the rate stats and agreeing that he is still awesome. What isn’t awesome is that you cannot project Hafner’s rate stats across 500 (or even 400) plate appearances. Chuck’s prediction almost becomes irrelevant because it is determined by a restricted sample size.
by odradek on Sep 3, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one is saying that he’s worth his contract. We get that – it’s over. We’re just hoping he’ll hit like an average DH, to start.
by dgcambridge on Sep 3, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea what this actually means but I find it interesting to compare the Indian stats of DeRosa and Hafner given that there PA’s are roughly similar. The isolated bb rates are actually pretty close with Travis clocking at .050 over on iso-slg.
by stuart dean on Sep 3, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is saying he is still awesome?
Nobody.
Who is saying 29 XBH for a DH is acceptable?
Nobody.
Who is saying the contract isn’t still a trainwreck?
Nobody.
Who are you (again!) arguing with about this?
Nobody.
by Jay on Sep 3, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I want it. I've been grinding it out for awhile.
by woodsmeister on Sep 3, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
AAAAnd DOWN the Stretch they COME! it’s PC Load Letter by half a length, followed by Hoynsie BS and Dolans Dollars charging hard.
by Brick. on Sep 3, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why note that Hafner isn’t terrible, if not to restore him?
His HR rate is not his best, but all things considered, it’s not nearly a disaster.
Obviously now we all want more, but it’s not like this is a crater job. He’s got some firepower left.
Damning with faint praise, I guess, but I read these comments as tentative efforts in saying Hafner isn’t bad. Part of restoring Hafner to glory, propping him up.
I said “big-contract,” but I frankly could care less about his contract. I didn’t say he “wasn’t worth his contract.” I said (previously) that unless he can play more, he isn’t a suitable DH.
My intention isn’t to argue with anyone. What was the purpose of Woodsmeister’s posting Hafner’s stats? To show how bad he’s been?
by odradek on Sep 3, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damning with faint praise, I guess, but I read these comments as tentative efforts in saying Hafner isn’t bad. Part of restoring Hafner to glory, propping him up.
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying anymore, but I’ll remind you that there’s a wide gap between “Hafner isn’t bad” and “restored/restoring to former glory.” A lot of people are supporting the former.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 3, 2009 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll try to be clearer. What is the subtext of Tabler’s exception to “just his 14th home run”? I think it is to remind us that Hafner is doing better than we might have expected. That Hafner isn’t terrible, considering where he was and what he has gone through. Hard to disagree with that.
And what is the purpose of Woodsmeister’s posting of Hafner stats? I think it is to show that, considering Hafner’s rate stats and washing out his insane 2004-2006 numbers, Hafner is actually doing pretty good. And I humbly suggest that in this case it’s not sufficient to look at his rate stats, because they are not projectable.
by odradek on Sep 3, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In what way do you mean that they not projectable?
by Jay on Sep 3, 2009 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe projectable is the wrong word.
They are abstractions without the number of plate appearances. Hitting a home run every 18.6 PAs when you have 260 appearances is a lot different than hitting home runs every 18.6 PAs when you have 600 appearances. You can say 18.6 is a respectable rate, but you can’t project that rate over a full season with Hafner because of his injury. He can’t do it.
Also, if Hafner were forced to play every day, he wouldn’t be hitting homers every 18 times up. His shoulder(s) can’t take that kind of traffic. So you can’t just say his rate is good, in isolation.
by odradek on Sep 4, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is nonetheless some value in being a quality hitter who is on the DL half the time.
It isn’t half the value of hitting that way full-time, but it has some value.
by Jay on Sep 4, 2009 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That’s certainly true. It’s better to have a good player who can play half the time than a half-good player who can play all the time.
I was thinking about the 1980s, when teams had pitching staffs of eight players. This meant a lot more position players on the bench. Stricter platoons, role players, defined and limited players.
Some players do better when they’re not overexposed. They are valuable at 350 PAs but the returns diminish above that. Maybe it’s a matter of strength or guile or whatever. You don’t see that much anymore. Jamey Carroll follows that model, or seems to. When he plays too much his performances appear to deteriorate.
Ninety percent of John Lowenstein’s PAs were against righthanded pitching. He might have 300 PAs a season.
The only problem with all this, I guess, is you can’t have a 14-man pitching staff if you have two half-DHs.
by odradek on Sep 4, 2009 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’re just parsing here. Hafner isn’t a comprehensive disaster. He’s missed too much time, but his rate stats aren’t bad.
I think all we’re saying is, it could be worse.
by Jay on Sep 3, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Chuck theory seems to be wrong. Wasn’t it either that he would be above .900 OPS or below .700?
by Roger Dorn on Sep 3, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Below .600. But he can still pass .900 with a strong finish.
I think Chuck’s basic point was right, though. Hafner has shown that when rested, he’s still a masher, but he still has periods of serious fatigue. So he’s actually been a 1000 OPS guy for most of the season, but then he has these little dead periods around 300-400 OPS.
He had a few early-season dead periods, but the major one was July 28 to August 18, three weeks with a 483 OPS and just two doubles in the XBH column. Before that, 940, after, 1015.
by Jay on Sep 3, 2009 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only thing that looks seriously out of whack to me is the bb/k. I have this completely unsubstantiated theory that that ratio deteriorates in line with reflexes as the player is forced to guess +/- start the swing earlier…
by stuart dean on Sep 3, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My theory is that if you limit it to one game, Hafner is almost always either an above 1000 or below 400 hitter.
by dgcambridge on Sep 3, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know if this has ever been pointed out by anyone, but Hafner’s 2006 was rather impressive.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 3, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hafner’s performance, while a pleasant surprise based on pre-season expectations, is still distressing given the fact that we paid him 11.5 million this year and still owe him 40.25 million after this season.
by ClarkM on Sep 3, 2009 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
is this where someone is supposed to put a comment about westbrook’s contract?
fine, but i’m going the positive route via pluto:
2. The Indians also will save some money because Jake Westbrook is out for the season. He makes $11 million and the insurance policy on the contract will cover about 50 percent of that. It has to do with the Indians needing to pay for the first 90 days, and then the policy covers about 70 percent of the rest.
by Brick. on Sep 3, 2009 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That he’s about 60% as good as his 2004-2006 heyday, that’s all.
by Ryan on Sep 3, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting, though, that his ISO is a little better than in 2007. If he can play in 90+ games and finish with his best rate stats since 2006, that’s something to attach a little bit of hope to. If nothing else it tells us that if — if — his shoulder improves further in the offseason, we might get some nice, steady production out of him next year.
by Jay on Sep 3, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
nice, steady production
My hope as well and it is not completely unreasonable to expect, no?
by stuart dean on Sep 3, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reasonable to expect? No.
Reasonable to hope for? Yes.
by Jay on Sep 3, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I turned the game on long enough to see Peralta’s amazing play, hard to believe he stunk so badly before that.
by Toxicadam on Sep 3, 2009 9:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
More comments on Brantley and Carrasco from Joe Sheehan at BP. All the Indians stuff is in the free part of the article.
by cleveland teamer on Sep 3, 2009 10:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe!
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
