Game 28: Tigers 6, Indians 4
by Ryan on May 8, 2010 5:14 PM EDT
in Game Recaps
Email
Print
Shoddy defense and poor relief pitching cost the Indians a chance at this game. Kerry Wood allowed two runs in his first appearance of the year after he got the first two outs of the inning. The game was tied when Wood entered the game; the Indians had knotted the score up the inning before thanks to an Austin Kearns two-run single. I'm not sure Acta would have had Wood warm up if he'd known the game would be tied, but I guess the Indians aren't paying out all that money for a low-leverage reliever.
Luis Valbuena, who has been filling in for Asdrubal Cabrera at shortstop the past few games, couldn't make a very routine play to end the inning in the eighth; that error pushed the Tigers' sixth run of the game across. Valbuena has been awful at shortstop in Cabrera's absence, and if he's just a second baseman, that gives Jason Donald a definite leg up on him on this roster. Donald is hitting .305/.421/.467 in Columbus, and it's probably only a matter of time before the two players swap rosters.
Justin Masterson matched Justin Verlander in earned runs (3) and innings pitched (6), and almost matched him in strikeouts. Most of Detroit's best hitters bat right-handed, so the Tigers were a good matchup for Masterson; he struck out eight Tigers, and held Magglio Ordonez and Miguel Cabrera mostly in check. It was Scott Sizemore who did the damage against Justin, driving in three with a bases-clearing double in the fourth.
The Indians had some good at-bats against Verlander, and could have scored several more runs against one of the league's best pitchers. After Austin Kearns' single in the sixth, Verlander crossed up his catcher and uncorked a wild pitch, allowing the runners on first and second to move up a base. But Verlander induced grounders to both Jhonny Peralta and Valbuena to end the threat. The Indians scored a run in the eighth off of Joel Zumaya, and could have had more, but the same two hitters struck out with runners in the same position.
| Highest WPA | Lowest WPA | ||
| Travis Hafner | .313 | Kerry Wood | -.315 |
| Shin-Soo Choo | .181 | Jhonny Peralta | -.227 |
| Mark Grudzielanek | .050 | Luis Valbuena | -.190 |
48 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
On the upside, Masterson’s line is encouraging (even though, as Ryan points out, this is a heavy RH lineup).
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on May 8, 2010 6:31 PM EDT reply actions
There’s something tragically funny about Marson striking out 3 times, and then Branyan PHing for him and offering another K. Look, I know Ks are no worse than other outs, but some of our guys are making way too many outs, and happen to be doing so through the strikeout. Can’t have a high K rate if you’re going to walk less than 10% of the time AND not hit for power.
I’m interested in whether the Indians (and other teams) feel the need to disguise the clock game. We might know with Santana. We’ll see if they pull him up right when he’s safe (acknoledging there’s some uncertainty), or wait longer for appearaces. I suspect they did that with LaPorta.
Just send down Luis V already. What’s the fear? That he’s going to be so delusional that he’d be surprised, offended, or bitter?
Who makes the decision on whether a rehabbing Indian is ready to be activated? Whoever it is, they suck at their job.
Frustrating pitching/defense, but I’m still can’t bag on them too much. This offense has continued to be weak from day one, despite the established players there. At least the pitching has been up and down.
i don’t know whether a strikeout is worse than an out where the ball gets put in play, but i do know that the strikeouts we’re seeing aren’t the “good kind” of strikeout—the kind that normally accompanies a lineup that walks a lot and hits for power. ours are the symptom of a lineup that clearly has trouble making contact and controlling the strike zone, so yeah they’re super frustrating..
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 9, 2010 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m dubious about this. So there’s a good type of strikeout (which is accompanied with discernment and power) and there’s a bad kind of strike out (when batters flail at pitches three feet out of the strike zone)? This is casuistry. Either strikeouts are good or they’re bad. Or, more properly, they’re neutral.
I am not convinced that strikeouts are of no importance to an offense. I think this is an area where sabermaticians have convinced themselves they’re smarter than a hundred years of baseball wisdom. Here’s how it can happen: sluggers strike out a lot, but they also hit for power. In the old days you wouldn’t tolerate a second baseman striking out 150 times unless he was exceptionally talented in other areas. In periods of high offense (say 1994-2005) sluggers were dominant, runs were scored like crazy, accompanied by many strikeouts. So Ks are okay, because look at all the runs. This was not the offensive paradigm of 1968 or 1905, and I suspect the current Cleveland indifference to strikeouts is part of the reason the offense is so bad.
Here’s a riddle. If we agree that baseball is a closed system and that conservation laws apply—e.g., what’s good for the team at the plate is bad for the team on the field—how can strikeouts be meaningless or of neutral value to the offensive team while at the same time being the greatest indicator of success for the defensive team? How can strikeouts be so good for a pitcher and of no importance to the hitter? Wouldn’t a hitter be better off making the kind of out that doesn’t strongly correlate with success for the pitcher?
I know there’s some causal confusion here, but no one has been able to explain to me why strikeouts can simultaneously be of great value to the pitcher and of no real importance to the hitter. And, yes, I’ve read the BP article.
One way to look at it is simple correlation.
You want your pitcher to miss bats entirely or at least induce weak contact. Consequently, you want your hitter to make hard contact, and little if any credit is given for inducing weak contact.
For a pitcher, the best indication that he will miss bats and induce weak contact in the future is … missing bats in the present. Although there are outliers (in the form of extreme groundball pitchers), the most weak-contact-inducing pitchers this season will not as a group continue to hold that status next year. Rather, this year’s best strikeout pitchers will not only be next year’s best ones as a group, but also will induce more weak contact as a group next year than this year’s best weak-contact-inducers.
The same is not true for hitters. The ability to induce weak contact, rather than swinging and missing, does not portend good things going forward (and does little good in the present). On the contrary, the weak-contact hitter simply has a chance for more groundouts, which is not particularly well counterbalanced by the opportunities for seeing-eye grounders, reached-on-errors, and infield hits. Not to mention the grounded-into-double-plays, which are awfully hard to counterbalance.
The hitter who strikes out a little more and grounds out a little less is likelier to be a power hitter, and on a related note, the hitter who hits more balls in the air and fewer on the ground is likelier to end up with more home runs (and bloops and gappers), purely as a matter of chance.
So that’s basically it. Pitchers who get more strikeouts tend to also get more groundouts and infield popups, while hitters who get more strikeouts often (or at least sometimes) also get more doubles and homers. It really is that simple.
by Jay on May 9, 2010 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe I’m being dense, but I think you are simply describing the situation, when I am trying to find out how it could be this way. How could a strikeout, when viewed from the perspective of the pitcher, indicate more grounders and popups, but when viewed from the perspective of the hitter, the same act means more doubles and homers? These seem to be contradictory results.
I think you need to look at it as a mix of events. Think about every possible outcome of a plate appearance. Better pitching produces more strikeouts within that mix, and better hitting often produces more strikeouts as well.
It seems like maybe you’re stuck thinking of this in reverse. An increase in strikeouts is not the cause of good pitching and good hitting. Good pitching and hitting both result in more strikeouts.
Because it involves different batters.
You put Jake Westbrook up against Asdrubal Cabrera.
Next, you put Roy Halladay up against Asdrubal Cabrera. Cabrera is the same, but Halladay is better. More strikeouts.
Next, you put Roy Halladay up against Ryan Howard. Halladay is the same, but Howard is better. Even more strikeouts.
There can be little doubt that Halladay vs. Howard will produce more strikeouts than Westbrook vs. Cabrera. There also can be no doubt that Halladay is the better pitcher and Howard is the better hitter.
Strikeouts are only telling a small part of the story, especially for hitters. Maybe that is the simple answer you’re not seeing.
Of course I didn’t really mean to say that some strikeouts are inherently better than others. Of course the result of the strikeout itself is the same, regardless of whether its JhP or Ryan Howard doing the swinging. I just meant that some desirable skills (hitting for power, plate discipline) are frequently be accompanied by an increase in strikeouts, but the good from the skills outweighs the bad from the strikeouts (these are the “good” kind of strikeouts). You can live with them because they aren’t really that much worse than another kind of out when it comes to damaging your ability to score runs, and furthermore the guy who hits for power and walks a lot can’t really cut down on his strikeouts without also reducing his ability to do those valuable things. “Good strikeouts” is just shorthand for all of that.
I think that if there is a problem with the way this organization has viewed strikeouts, it’s in confusing their value as an end result of an at-bat versus their value as an evaluative tool in themselves. We should care about excessive strikeouts because they always indicate, to some degree, an inability to make solid contact with a pitch (or in the case of a called strike, a possible inability to gauge the strike zone). Just because a strikeout isn’t much, if any, worse than another kind of out when it comes to plating runs doesn’t mean it can’t tell you something negative about the batter. That’s just common sense.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 10, 2010 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions
man, i really should have read that over before hitting “post.” whatever, i think i got the gist of my point across
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 10, 2010 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions
As I understand it: for hitters, strikeouts are often balanced by power. But pitchers are facing an average amount of power (because they face high and low power hitters) so high strikeouts are not balanced by high power, therefore high strikeouts are a good thing. This would suggest there are two kinds of strikeouts: (1) those accompanied by power (good Ks) and (2) those not accompanied by power (bad Ks). So maybe you are right. But it does seem odd that we have to admit to two categories of strikeouts.
I think the question is, does it matter if the team as a whole strikes out a lot? All of this other sub-thread has focused on a strikeout vs. an out via a ball being put in play in an individual situation…but I’ve always wondered if it matters if a team strikes out a lot? This basically comes down to 2 questions for me:
1) Does a team that strikes out a lot score more or less runs than it is predicted to score based on other numbers (i.e. OPS or Runs Created)?
2) Does a team that strikes out a lot have a normal variation with runs scored than teams that don’t strike out a lot? In other words, is their standard deviation less than or greater than normal? Perhaps one way to measure this is to look at the Pythag record.
I’ve never seen this type of analysis. I’m sure it’s been done somewhere. My guess is that there isn’t any proven correlation that team strikeouts hamper overall run scoring or consistency of run scoring, and that what we see when watching the Tribe isn’t really different than what other fans see when watching their favorite team. Strikeouts are frustrating, as you start feeling an impending sense of doom once certain hitters get to 2 strikes. I think that’s a big factor when fans discuss strikeouts and their implications.
Strikeouts (and walks) are up across the league, compared to previous decades. They’ve been rising for years. Paul wrote about the Indians’ proclivities yesterday, responding to this SI article.
The Verducci article was interesting:
In April, 28 percent of all major league plate appearances ended in a walk or a strikeout, continuing what has been virtually an unchecked increase in such non-contact plate appearances since the game was invented. Ten years ago, for instance, the rate of plate appearances without the ball being put into play was 26 percent; 20 years ago it was 24 percent; 30 years ago it was 21 percent . . . all the way back to 15 percent in 1920.
This is what I was so incoherently trying to express above: that strikeouts in the context of how runs are scored can be neutral, but (as in previous eras) they can also be negative. Someone who struck out 150 times in 1920 wouldn’t last long, but today—with the reliance on power—such an out is less of a problem. In other words, these are dependent on historical era. Everyone strikes out now, so it’s okay.
Interestingly, Bill James has advocated for evolving the rules of the game so as to create more balls in play. Of course he would advocate a patient approach for the hitter, but he believes that the game is more enjoyable to watch the more defensive plays get made and in particular the more plays there are on the bases. I think he’s right about this.
I forget, but it’s in the big revised abstract from 2000 or so. He may not have proposed a specific rule so much as just advocating changes in that direction in general. Higher fences, for example, or less playable foul territory.
Foul territory is one thing that has changed since the demise of the Riverfront-Three Rivers-Vet type stadium. The new HOK stadiums are short on the foul territory to get people closer to the field.
Watching the A’s games reminded me of how much the extra foul territory helped the Oakland pitching staff.
Tango did a pretty interesting study on what you’re talking about but on the player level, not on the team level. I haven’t seen it on a team level.
I can’t find any numbers, but I don’t recall Valbuena playing SS at all this spring…not even an inning. Perhaps I missed it where he did play there, but his lack of activity at SS was a reason I cited in saying that I thought he might begin the year in the minors. Whatever the case, he looks like a guy that hasn’t played there in awhile.
I didn’t think he was that bad there last year. He’s not a full-time guy there, but I seem to remember him making some outstanding plays. It appears his confidence is completely gone, and it’s probably inevitable that he’ll be sent down at some point. Of course, after an excellent start, at this writing Donald is 1 for his last 15 and struck out three times each Thurs and Fri. Hey, bring him up, he’ll fit right in.
The slumping Donald just struck out with the bases loaded and two outs in the 8th to end Columbus’ threat; Clippers down 5-3. Donald also has one of 4 infield errors for the Clippers tonight.
Sure, let’s go ahead and swap him with Valbuena. That’ll fix things.
And if this keeps up…
I’m in the mood for a thread out of the massive change / intentional overreactions / breaking stuff file.
a thread out of the massive change / intentional overreactions / breaking stuff file.
See the Bruce Drennan fanshot but that may come way to close to home.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Well, as far as I am concerned Luis had his chance. Even if Donald is bad I highly doubt he will be worse then Luis is right now.
Also, I would probably ship Laporta out and just bring back Brantley atleast he provides speed and defense. Hopefully Laporta can go down and get at-bats everyday because with Kearns playing so well he is not going to get the bats up here. That would also allow Marte to atleast get some at bats.
Another option I wouldn’t mind is sending Luis out and let Grudz play everyday for awhile and let those guys compete at AAA (Luis can play some SS, which if he really cant play he is probably useless to the organization) and let guys like Jordan Brown (shock and horror I know) or Cantstandya come up and be the 4th outfield because that is what both those guys are going to be throughout their careers.
Just my 2 cents
Our bullpen has, by my count, 79 IP in these 28 games. In that span the bullpen has walked 50, and struck out 50.
Thank goodness our starters have been relatively fine. When it’s all said and done this could be our worst bullpen yet.
On the bright side, I am mildly impressed with Ambriz with so far, and Kearns is fantastic. With apologies to Choo, Kearns is our best player right now. I also believe Hafner is coming around.
Agreed. Our bullpen ERA is over a run lower than it was in the first half of last year. Seems unlikely to continue. Althought we have shipped out two big walkers in Lewis and Smith. We’ll see how long we stick with the others if they can’t stop the walks.
by dgcambridge on May 10, 2010 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
For some misguided reason I thought Hafner might be having a good year, so I looked up his OPS and it’s .737. Carry on.
(.350 ISO in 2006… sigh.)
by Gradyforpresident on May 9, 2010 10:29 AM EDT reply actions
On the K issue, it seems to me that the most accurate way to study the relative value of K vs. other outs would be to study each individual PA over, say at least one full season. This would have to be based on the relative value of Ks vs. other outs determined over a longer time period.
So, you begin by taking something like a 10 year period and study every PA and assign values to every possible outcome. Then apply those values to a single season or longer. This would also be the best way to gauge player value. Maybe this has already been done, I don’t know. If so, it would seem to be the definitive word on this issue.
A real baseball game is simply made up of many, many specific situations. Sometimes we tend to lose sight of this. Don’t get me wrong, sabermetrics has great value. Especially, when forming an overall philosophy on evaluating talent and constructing a team. But we should not view/analyze the game outside of itself, if that makes sense.
I agree with this. The only fallback I have for the effect of strikeouts is psychology, which is a familiar cause for anything that can’t be quantified. The essential sabermatic contribution, to me, is not that strikeouts are neutral (or even slightly to the good) for hitters, but that they’re not as bad as we had always been led to believe.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
