[Peralta]'s been a regular here for the last six years. We don't have to make any commitment to him, he's proven to be a good Major League player and a productive one for the Indians. We don't have to make any commitment to him. He's earned that right.
about 2 years ago
fleerdon
119 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
This isn’t directed at anyone in particular, but if anyone is surprised by this then your love for Marte has reached an irrational level. Short of an injury or a trade, Marte is going to have trouble getting on the field consistently. Peralta would have to be bad, and be bad for an extended period of time (i.e. 3 months) before Acta would even think about making a move there.
It’s clear that management believes the likelihood of Jhonny getting it back is greater than Marte putting it together.
"...maybe this year, there's no gorilla" - YoDaddyWags
by woodsmeister on Apr 24, 2010 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Peralta would have to be bad, and be bad for an extended period of time (i.e. 3 months)
How about all of last year and the first month of this year?
by JulioBernazard on Apr 24, 2010 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Bad for an extended period of time? You mean like, say, a .683 OPS, 85 OPS+, since the beginning of the 2009 season?
by VA tribe fan on Apr 24, 2010 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought Jhonny’s stats were ugly enough that is was worth clarifying exactly how bad he’s been, instead of just giving what Julio said a rec. Maybe everyone else has the entire team’s statistics memorized, but I was had forgotten precisely how ugly the numbers really were.
by VA tribe fan on Apr 24, 2010 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Obviously not, but I don’t think any of us need the exact numbers to understand that Peralta has been awful over that span of time.
Come on, four billion!
You and me? No, we don’t know the numbers, because we have a vague idea what the numbers probably are.
Everyone else reading this? Perhaps — just perhaps — a few of them actually could use the numbers to drive the point home.
If we’ve gotten to the point where we mock someone for providing statistical evidence that many readers didn’t need … well, we are perhaps a little too exclusionary at that point.
Come on guys. Obviously, that’s bad. I mean off-the-charts bad, like .216/.273/.354. If he was 35 or had never done much more than .683 in the past, then it probably would have a chance of happening. But he’s just shy of 28, and had .771 and .804 the prior two years.
Now if you want to argue that Marte could do what Peralta is doing, then that’s a little different than what I’m saying. I wouldn’t agree, but at least it’s a legit argument. My whole point, as stated above, is that track record means a lot more to on-field personnel than it does here. And that’s why I’m not surprised at what Acta is saying. Now if Marte takes the job in two weeks, I"ll come here and state I was wrong. But I just don’t see that happening at the moment.
Trust me, Peralta frustrates me as much as anyone else here.
Yeah, Marte’s career line is crap. But if those ABs were spread out over 1 1/2 seasons, I would say he’s a failure.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
by emd2k3 on Apr 24, 2010 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Remember how people were pissed that Wedge gave Peralta short shift? Now Acta’s actively supporting him, and people are pissed. Has that much changed in less than a month of a new season?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
I’m not sure the two positions are entirely inconsistent. Seems to me the Wedge stuff could be about Wedge; and the Peralta stuff, about Peralta. For my part, I think Acta’s saying what he should say, though it may mean something different.
The question that dogs me, regarding Jhonny, isn’t so much, “How good is he, now?” but “How good has he ever been?” He’s representative of my darkened view of the organization as a whole — that we’ve been bad for almost a decade, with a couple of unusually fortunate interludes. Is that Jhonny? Do I even care?
by fleerdon on Apr 24, 2010 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think you can look at Jhonny’s stats and doubt he was ever that good. The question is more about regaining that form than wondering if it ever existed.
Come on, four billion!
We have to remember that he was a SS for the majority of his career, and not many shortstops hit with as much power as Peralta. He has apparently lost this ability.
But he put those numbers up from the plate, not the field. Regardless of what position he’s playing, his stat line is the same. The original premise was not that his numbers weren’t good for a certain position but whether he was ever good. Clearly, he once had the ability to post those numbers. Whether he can now post numbers that are viable for a major-league 3B is another question altogether.
Come on, four billion!
I think there was an expectation that Peralta would thrive at third base, particularly that he would be an average or even above-average defender there. As that has not materialized, and Peralta even has shown a degree of indifference about it, then it’s only natural that his schtick would start to get old after seven months of bad hitting.
No, I’m talking about his public statements. Dating back to last year, he’s claimed that Wedge/Shapiro never told him this or that about his position change, claims that frankly were just not believable. It raises the question of whether he only hears what he wants to hear, and maybe only commits to what he wants to commit to.
Jhonny should be a very good defensive third baseman, and evidently he’s not. I am speculating that that has as much to do with his attitude about the situation as talent.
I love Jhonny, but I am kind of tired of him.
Oh my God, he really is the new Casey.
by fleerdon on Apr 24, 2010 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
The dreaded vote of confidence!
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
by emd2k3 on Apr 24, 2010 3:39 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I’m not against Marte getting increased playing time until Peralta gets a pulse. That being said, remember that Marte was ranked as BPs #1 and BAs #9 prospect in 2005. That’s not as a 3b, that’s overall, including pitchers. And this while a member of a well regarded organization with a track record for developing young talent. Marte has just not panned out as a MLer. To my eyes, he’s average at best defensively. Not a huge upgrade over Peralta. He appears stiff and not especially athletic or smooth, at times. I don’t get the regard for him on this site. Right now, he has to be viewed as a huge bust.
Just a longtime fan. Marte brings to my mind Ted Cox. Cox was a highly regarded 3b prospect who the Indians received in the Dennis Eckersley trade. He was even Topps minor league player of the year once. Cox career line: 245/298/324 in 847 PAs.
Respectfully, Dan, this topic has been hashed out to death here, and you’re about 150 debating points behind the curve. I don’t say that as a criticism, just trust me.
Marte doesn’t profile anything like Ted Cox and never did. The similarity is extremely superficial.
It is beyond dispute — go ahead and dispute it, but you’ll lose — that Marte has never gotten an extended trial in the majors. It is also beyond dispute that 700 PA spread out over six seasons is not remotely the same thing as getting a chance to play every day in the majors, which would be more like 700 PA in one single season.
So you are essentially calling Marte a bust because he got a full year of major-league playing time … spread out over six years. It doesn’t wash.
The legitimate anti-Marte argument is that while waiting in Triple-A (or on the bench) for an opportunity that never came in the Indians lineup, his approach collapsed, resulting in mediocre numbers (especially K/BB) in Triple-A (2007) and off the bench in the majors (2008).
The pro-Marte argument is that every time he’s gotten a chance to play every day — at any level — he has eventually adjusted and been a very good hitter. A secondary argument would be that any club that takes an elite prospect and doesn’t give him an extended shot at an everyday job is essentially imbecilic — especially if they’re foregoing that shot for the likes of a mediocrity like Casey Blake.
by Jay on Apr 25, 2010 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 8 recs
An above average Marte in 2009 and 2010 or a few years of suffering through Blake in exchange for Santana through 2016 or so?
Obviously, the latter. I’m not fool enough to think that (a) Marte could have saved the 2008 season, or (b) Marte gets his act together and improves his approach in 2009 without first passing through waivers, i.e., realizing that all 30 teams passed on him.
So given those two facts, yeah, OF COURSE I’ll take Santana. But the Blake-Santana deal was essentially a fluke occurrence. I don’t say that to denigrate the front office, who opportunistically lie in the grass for YEARS, waiting for a deal like this to appear suddenly, and when it does, they don’t choke. Hell yes. Santana, Cabrera, Choo, Hafner, Sizemore/Lee/Phillips. Kudos to the front office, when another GM wants to do something pretty stupid, they are on the scene, happy to help.
So it’s not a fluke from that standpoint, but it’s a fluke that Casey Blake happened to be the guy that we traded for Santana. None of the decisions on Blake were ever made with the idea that eventually, he could be flipped for an asset as valuable as Santana. That would be ridiculous.
So in hindsight, sure, of course. But that basically was a function of luck.
Yup, this. It would not have been rational at the time to make the Blake over Marte decision primarily based on what you thought you could get for Casey. And that’s how you have to evaluate the decision — not with the full benefit of hindsight.
by Logodaedalus on Apr 26, 2010 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I wholeheartedly agree with this comment, Jay, and your comments below. When Blake was here, I always defended him on LGT and elsewhere against what I felt were a lot of over-the-top criticisms.
Yet, Blake’s value was his versatility, and it was always unfortunate he blocked Marte at 3B. In contrast, Peralta’s main value was his production at SS. Now that he’s at 3B and is putting up sub-Blake numbers, it’s really, really hard to justify keeping him as the starting 3B when everything suggests Marte deserves a chance.
Yes, it’s true that Marte has given lame weather-related explanations for his (lack of) performance at AAA in years past, as his critics note. But so has Peralta for his ML struggles. Plus, even though Marte seemed to pout a bit at Buffalo for parts of two years, he really put up great numbers at Columbus last year, even though it seemed the organization had given up on him.
As has been widely noted, there’s no chance that the organization is going to pick up Peralta’s option. The only logic for playing Peralta now is to increase his trade value, as Jay notes below. I can’t imagine that he will have any value unless a team moves him to SS and he’s hitting. Those are both questionable outcomes. The fact that the team received such an amazing return for Blake has, I’m sure, contributed to the hope that Peralta could net something decent in a trade. (Who would have thought a few years ago the team would get an elite prospect for Blake and, maybe, nothing for Jhonny?)
Realistically, though, if Peralta isn’t raking by mid-to-late June, there’s no chance the team can get anything for him by the deadline. One hopes if they even let him play more-or-less full time until then, that he’ll get benched at that point if he’s not producing.
Maybe Acta and Antonetti will bring a fresh perspective, and this comment by Acta is just an attempt to boost Peralta’s confidence in the short term. If not, then I guess it’ll be new boss, same as the old boss.
(Who would have thought a few years ago the team would get an elite prospect for Blake and, maybe, nothing for Jhonny?)
Yeah, if you turn back the calendar to November 2005, this statement would have been seen as preposterous.
Even November 2007, I’d say
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Apr 27, 2010 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
You know the old maxim: “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”? That’s why Marte is preferred to Peralta. We’ve all seen what Peralta can do (though some have forgotten his offensive flourishes), and we’re sadly convinced that Jhonny is a bum, pretty much beyond a doubt. Jhonny has spoken, so to speak.
But Marte has never been given a fair chance, so there is still hope he can succeed. It’s wish fulfillment. I’d say, looked at objectively, both players are failures, but only one of them has been definitively proven to be so. Therefore Marte becomes the preferred player.
There is one more simple fact that seems to be overlooked by everyone.
Marte was a better hitter in 2009 than Peralta. In fact, it wasn’t even that close.
Peralta had a 690 OPS in the majors. Marte had a 962 OPS in Triple-A. Of course The difference in levels is significant, but it certainly isn’t 272 points of OPS.
Based on MLE, which estimates the difference in level in a fairly sophisticated way, Marte scores an 832 — still way above Peralta’s 690. Again, I know it’s not the same level, and MLE is just an estimate. But 142 points is an enormous difference — it’s the difference between Shin-Soo Choo and Mark Teahen.
In any normal veteran-vs.-prospect discussion — Santana vs. Shoppach for example — it would assumed based on those numbers that the prospect is the better hitter.
Granted, it’s only one season of data, so there is no place for certainty in the debate. Peralta looked better in 2007 and 2008, but on the other hand, Marte definitely was the better hitter in his minor league career. If he’s righted himself, and if Peralta hasn’t, then there’s no real reason to be skeptical that Marte is the better hitter now.
Still, if I’m putting my money down on the table? I’m betting Marte is in fact the better hitter now, this season, and regardless of how much Acta gives lip service to track records, the data does little to argue otherwise.
by Jay on Apr 25, 2010 5:17 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Still, if I’m putting my money down on the table? I’m betting Marte is in fact the better hitter now, this season, and regardless of how much Acta gives lip service to track records, the data does little to argue otherwise.
The problem is, if you’re putting money down on the table, I bet Manny Acta would put money down on the other side.
Don’t be so sure. He’s observing protocol with Jhonny, and the Indians have a short-term interest in trying to drive up his trade value. There’s no reason to assume Acta doesn’t agree with me.
by Jay on Apr 25, 2010 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not sure Peralta has trade value, absent. a hot streak at the plate. I don’t have his numbers close at hand but I recall April is his worst career month. So we might see what happens come June or July.
by MTF on Apr 26, 2010 8:04 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Sadly, I think this is what’s happening. May is usually his hottest month, so probably the best thing for the team is to leverage a good streak into some b-level prospect or an injured guy and cut bait on Jhonny. It makes me hurt, but I think it’s the truth.
Come on, four billion!
Yes, that seems to be the situation. And I have lived and died with Jhonny and cheered for him since he was an Aero in 2002. But he is what he is, and to the extent that I can’t figure out what he is, he’s an aggravation, and he’s no longer a good value for this ballclub.
MTF, I agree that he has no trade value at all right now. When I say “drive up” his trade value, I mean drive it all the way up from zero.
I have not been a big Marte fan, but I’m not a hater (though compared to most on this blog, I’m a definite hater). I just never liked his swing. I remember the first time I saw him, and I said to myself “really, that’s your swing?”. The open-up-the-hips-as-soon-as-possible and the step-in-the-bucket approach never won me over.
However, I am intrigued by the numbers at AAA last season, and would be more than fine with him being the Opening Day 3B next year as the bridge to Chisenhall.
The other number that many forget about is 26. His age.
Is that not the Vernon Wells swing though?
by supermarioelia on Apr 25, 2010 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s probably more with the hips.
Actually, the step-in-the-bucket example you should have cited is Albert Pujols, ;)
Yeah that’s a good point too.
Speaking of Wells, for years watching Jays games I’ve always been amazed at the laser beam-type trajectory of Wells’ home runs and how solidly he drives the ball at times. When he hit a homer and would follow it up with months of inepititude at the plate, I would always ask myself “Man that’s a sweet swing when it works, one of the sweetest in the game, what the heck is going on in between?”. And we’re finally seeing consistent results from him at the plate this year, he’s been a dynamo through (only, I know) 3 weeks. Who knows what clicked for him. And yes, he and Andy have vastly different track records, but man do I ever get the same feeling watching Marte up there at the plate. JUST CLICK GOSH DARN IT, CLICK!
by supermarioelia on Apr 26, 2010 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
I think we’ve gotten a pretty good look at Marte, in ‘06, ’08 and again last year. I know he didn’t get even 300 PAs, but he played for stretches each of those seasons.
What I see when I actually watch him play is a close to dead pull hitter with little or no demonstrated ability to make adjustments. I think this is reflected in his #s. I see what TribeJay sees when Marte swings. I don’t think his defense is that special, either.
I just don’t get how much support he’s garnered on this site. I don’t see it. And again Marte was a #1 prospect. Expectations were very high.
He played well at a young age up through his first AAA season and then hit his ceiling.
BTW, I didn’t mean for Ted Cox to be a serious comp for Marte. He just came to mind as a highly regarded 3b prospect who the Tribe acquired from Boston who didn’t flourish as expected.
That being said, I think he should get more playing time now due to Peralta’s slow start.
The only true stretch Marte got as a full-timer was at the end of 2006. At that time, he did pretty well, considering his age and experience. That’s why he got the job to start 2007, which he lost only because of injury, and due to an abundance of deference to Blake, who disliked playing RF.
The other “stretches” Marte got were a handful of weeks playing four times per week, often benched or pulled mid-game for the likes of Jamey Carroll, even in August and September when there was no conceivable reason not to just “play the kids.” It doesn’t remotely compare to the four-month, 25-starts-per-month shots that guys like Phillips and Barfield got.
Marte’s usage has been defensible at times, and it’s defied all logic at other times. At no time has Marte ever gotten the benefit of the doubt, despite his prospect status, i.e., he has never gotten even 1% more playing time than the least pro-Marte person would give him.
I disagree with you on the defense, based on both the numbers (though it’s a pitifully small sample) and my own eyes.
If Marte hit his ceiling at age 21, as you claim, then how can you explain his being a significantly better hitter last season at age 25? Obviously, and definitively, that age-21 season was not his ceiling.
What I mean by ceiling is level of play, i.e., AAA, ML. I would be surprised (pleasantly as an Indians fan) if Marte turns out to be more than a lg avg 3b. I think he’ll be less. But, ofcourse he’s got nothing left to prove in AAA. In my opinion he won’t be much more. I don’t think AAA performance automatically translates into a certain ML level. I understand much is put into MLE. I just don’t think it works the same for everybody, some exceed MLEs ,others fall short. Marte’s limitations are magnified at the ML level.
BTW, Jay, everytime I pass the lifesize Dos Equis display at Marc’s, I can’t help but think of you.
I would be surprised (pleasantly as an Indians fan) if Marte turns out to be more than a lg avg 3b.
So would I. But if he were only average, that alone would be a huge win for the team.
I don’t think AAA performance automatically translates into a certain ML level. I understand much is put into MLE. I just don’t think it works the same for everybody, some exceed MLEs ,others fall short. Marte’s limitations are magnified at the ML level.
I agree with this completely, up until the last thought, which I think has not been proven yet. It’s entirely possible that you’re right, but the bottom line is that Marte simply hasn’t had the extended trial — the ongoing cycle of exposure, failure, adjustments and success — that would answer that question.
Keep in mind, a year ago, most people figured that age-21 season was his ceiling, but we now know that it wasn’t. He can make adjustments, and he is capable of dominating Triple-A. That’s more than we thought he could do a year ago.
Blake, who disliked playing RF.
This is news to me. I often wondered why he wasn’t playing outfield more, because he was a good fielder. Where did you learn this?
due to an abundance of deference to Blake, who disliked playing RF.
As with others, that’s news to me as well. Hmmm.
And in the interest of accuracy, they opened the year with a platoon of Nixon and Garko, with Blake shifting between 1B and OF. Marte went on the DL, and both Blake and Garko went off in May. And the team was playing well. Now, the option was still there to move Blake back to OF, but “veteran grittiness” and perhaps your above comment limited that possibility.
That’s right, Blake was thought to be a swing player when the season started, switching between 1B and RF in a platoon fashion. As the season developed, however, it became clear that the biggest need was in the outfield corners, where Dellucci, Garko and Michaels were combining for a sub-700 OPS. Eventually Gutierrez stepped into RF with a relatively stellar 790. So as it turned out, what would have been most helpful was putting Blake in RF.
Can’t remember the source on Blake preferring 3B to OF, but most players would. I’m thinking it was Pluto, and if I recall correctly, originally it was in reference to the 2005 season. Blake fell into a slump early and never really came out of it. While his defense was great after the position switch, apparently he was going through a divorce at the time, and the relative lack of action in the outfield gave him more time to just stand there and think about everything that wasn’t going well for him. That was the gist of it.
the biggest need was in the outfield corners, where Dellucci, Garko and Michaels were combining for a sub-700 OPS.
Excuse me, Mr. Wedge…do you mean Nixon? ;)
by TribeJay on Apr 26, 2010 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And I botched this line, too …
So as it turned out, what would have been most helpful was putting Blake in RF.
What I meant here was LF, not RF, especially given that Gutierrez’s “relatively stellar 790” was accompanied by stellar D.
But then we wouldn’t have been in the market for a left fielder in July, and then I wouldn’t have chanted KENNY! KENNY! in a New York City bar in front of dozens of angry Yankees fans. So, win-win.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Apr 26, 2010 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you think if we had kept Max Ramirez, there is any chance the FO passes up acquiring Santana for something else because of perceived catcher depth? Or is the opportunity to great to acquire Carlos no matter who else is in the system?
It’s inconceivable that they wouldn’t have acquired him anyway, depth-be-damned.
by Logodaedalus on Apr 26, 2010 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I mean, unless somehow the Dodgers were offering a comparable talent at another position (probably have to be a pitcher). But I don’t think depth would play a role in the least except in the most tie-breaking of scenarios.
by Logodaedalus on Apr 26, 2010 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. Not only was Santana a ridiculous “get” in his own right, but their view seems to be that you can never have enough middle-of-the-diamond talent, and that most definitely includes the catcher position.
What I see when I actually watch him play is a close to dead pull hitter with little or no demonstrated ability to make adjustments. I think this is reflected in his #s.
And this is why you shouldn’t trust what you see. Marte’s numbers actually reflect that, given consistent playing time, he adjusts and eventually dominates. That’s what the numbers show.
They also show textbook mismanagement of an asset.
Why on Earth would there be a textbook for teaching that?
Come on, four billion!
by Joel D on Apr 26, 2010 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
It’s for Business Through Cautionary Tales 206
by Logodaedalus on Apr 26, 2010 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Blake spent 4 years in AAA and OPSed 824-858-861-874. At this point he and Wedge met, fell in love and eloped to Cleveland, where Blake had a 787 OPS/108 OPS+ mark in 5 and a half seasons. He had consecutive <800 OPS months within the same season 4 times: Apr-May 04; Apr-May 05; Jun-Jul-Aug 07; Apr-May 08. He had >800 OPS in consecutive months 3 times: Apr-May 06; Jul-Aug 06; Jun-Jul 08.
Marte, after OPSing 878 in Richmond, OPSed 773 in Buffalo before being called up in 2006; he got about 80% of the starts at 3B from then on and OPSed 707 (606 Jul-Aug, 795 in Sept). He opened ‘07 as the starting 3B and had a 553 OPS when he hurt his hammy and missed a month. When he returned, he started 3 of 4 games, saw the OPS drop to 512 and shuffled off to Buffalo. His 766 OPS there didn’t match Blake’s 776 in Cleveland. In 08 he’s sitting on the bench with a 312 OPS on July 4 when the FO must have decided it was time to shop Blake. He started 27 of the next 32, 84% of the starts, OPSed 636, and wound up with 52 starts of the final 71, with a 667 OPS.
Then he went to Columbus and OPSed 963 last year.
What emerges?
1. Wedge loved Blake more than Marte: Blake, as a career minor leaguer, a 29! year old, opens his first ML year with OPS of 691 in Apr and 747 in May. Didn’t matter, Wedge played him. 19 and 26 errors at 3B his first two years? No matter. Did Marte ever get this Wedge love? No, clearly not.
2. Marte had two significant opportunities, when he was first called up and when (I’m guessing) they were preparing to dump Blake. In one month of those six, he OPSed over 700, and that was a 239/295/500 in Sept 2006, fueled by 9 2B, 1 3B and 4HRs.
3. Marte did not adjust and dominate in AAA for Cleveland until he had played two mediocre years in Buffalo. Third time was the charm.
4. Offense was not the Cleveland problem. Blake was a perfectly adequate offensive component of a perfectly fine offensive team for five and a half years. Was he mediocre? Yes! Is mediocre bad? Not always!
5. Maybe Marte was a top-10 prospect coming to Cleveland, but he didn’t play like it for them, either at AAA or MLB, until last year. I know, he didn’t get FSM, he got 2 months, and 1, and 2 again. Life isn’t fair.
6. What the hell. Instead of Coco Crisp and Casey Blake, we have Marte and Carlos Santana.
BRef:
August 20, 2006: Sent to the New York Mets by the Cleveland Indians as part of a conditional deal.
And nothing after that. Stomach ulcer must have been the condition.
At the time, it was portrayed as Mota+cash for a player to be named, but no player was ever named. Maybe the condition was we get someone as long as Mota isn’t suspended for 50 games.
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
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Giancarlo Stanton busts Marlins Park scoreboard with tape-measure grand slam (VIDEO)
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
