Game 68: Pirates 5, Indians 3
The good news: Justin Masterson had another good outing, keeping his pitches in the strike zone. When Justin keeps his walks down, he generally has success, for his stuff is good enough to miss bats no matter where in the strike zone he throws it. Also, Carlos Santana went 3-for-4 with two extra base hits. He drove in all three Cleveland runs, hitting a home run in the first and doubling in Shin-Soo Choo in the third.
The bad news: the bullpen. Zombie Perez essentially gave the Pirates a run on the strength of unforced errors in the seventh. After Jason Jaramilo singled to start the inning, Bobby Crosby laid down a sacrifice bunt, and Perez threw wildly to second; if he retired Crosby, then he wouldn't even have had to pitch to Neil Walker. During that extra at-bat, Perez threw wildly again, this time throwing past his catcher, allowing the tying run to score. In the eighth, Jensen Lewis allowed the first two batters to reach, and Tony Sipp couldn't keep them from scoring.

| Highest WPA | Lowest WPA | ||
| Carlos Santana | .289 | Anderson Hernandez | -.193 |
| Justin Masterson (the pitcher) | .184 | Jensen Lewis | -.171 |
| Russ Branyan | .146 | Justin Masterson (the hitter) | -.149 |
29 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Correction: Santana drove in all 3 runs, like he’s supposed to.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
I was more annoyed by this game than I should have been. And not at the bullpen, either. Can we stop being so bad at that little things? Maybe start gettting that stuff straightened out now? And my stance on Crowe is turning into outright hostility.
1. Let’s start taking extra infield now. Fielding bunts, holding runners. And let’s work on our bunting. I want to read an article like the Span one about the Indians in the next couple of months. Why not?
2. I get that Crowe is the perfect player for these 2010 Indians. He’s relatively young and fast, looks like a ballplayer, likes to dive in the outfield, and looks like a leadoff hitter so you can bat him first. At the same time, he’s actively pushing us toward a better draft pick next year - so a perfect fit.
Enough already - Can we replace Crowe with Brantley now? Please? Or as soon as it makes sense in terms of service time? Brantley hasn’t earned anything, and probably will be just as bad, but at least there is room for growth. The only argument, besides service time, for having the current situation is that you think being in the majors will hurt Brantley’s development.
I would imagine the word on the Tribe’s bunt “defense” is getting around the league by now.
by JulioBernazard on Jun 21, 2010 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
The answer on service time is, essentially, July 31.
I try not to advocate moves whose main effect is that I hypothetically will be less annoyed, but I guess at least you’re owning it.
I see nothing in Brantley’s numbers to suggest that he can be Coco Crisp at this point — 730-ish OPS with a fighting chance to break out and reach 800. He’s not a good hitter in Columbus, so there’s basically no logic that says he won’t be overmatched (again) in Cleveland — although he has in fact had a very nice June so far.
I can’t speak intelligently as to what would hold back his development, but we’ve already burned the option year for 2010, it seems a shame not to make use of it when common sense says he needs it.
Also!
It doesn’t matter, but with one out, and runners on 2nd and 3rd late in a tied ball game, don’t you send the runners on any ground ball? I assume that it would have been an easy out at home on Andy Hernderson’s (or whoever he is) grounder, but don’t you force them to make the less traditional out?
Hafner should have pinch hit in that situation for Hernandez.
Even though the pitcher was up in 2 spots in the lineup, the opportunity was at that time to pinch hit Hafner and bother with someone else when the pitcher spot came up.
I’m not sure Kearns didn’t ad-lib the not going, as he was 3/5th of the way down the line before stopping and returning to 3rd.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
I don’t understand Acta’s decision to have Hafner pinch-hit to start an inning.
by JulioBernazard on Jun 21, 2010 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Perhaps he prefers that to having him pinch-hit to end one?
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
by peter m on Jun 21, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Hafner would’ve been intentionally walked, and then it would be up to Donald/pinch-hitter to get in the run. And you make it a forceout at home rather than a tag play. It’s hard for me to say that letting Hernandez hit was the right move, but I think what was.
True, but Donald would have had more of an advantage with the bags juiced.
Marte had already been burned, so I think Valbie was the only other PH left. Donald probably still would’ve hit in this scenario.
by JulioBernazard on Jun 21, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
And there would’ve been a chance for a ground-ball double play. And you burn Hafner and can’t use him later.
There were two men in scoring position in the 8th inning of a tie game. What could possibly be the “later” that you’re referring to?
by JulioBernazard on Jun 21, 2010 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Like you said, it was a tie game. They do play extra innings, you know.
And by burning Hafner, I’m referring to the intentional walk that would have been forthcoming. It’s not blatantly obvious that Hernandez with two runners on was that much better than Donald with the bases packed, but there are pluses and minuses with each. I’m just pointing them out.
Go for the tie at home and the win on the road, right?
by JulioBernazard on Jun 22, 2010 8:45 AM EDT up reply actions
YES!!! And if he gets thrown out (which I don’t think he would’ve), you still end up with the lead run on 3B with two outs, and it’s possible you end up in the exact same situation (2nd and 3rd w/2 outs) if you can get into a run-down.
It’s BAU to run on contact in that situation…that’s why I wonder if Kearns just forgot and froze.
Sure, if you think our guys can execute the offensive aspects of a run-down well enough.
Not here for the women.

by 


















