Game 140: Indians 3, Angels 4 (16 Innings)
There is a lot of noise in baseball. I don't mean by that the sounds of the September crowds at Progressive Field, but rather the sum total of events that go into the ultimate calculation of wins and losses. The Indians, who outhit the Angels 14 to 6, should have won. And they should have lost. And they should have won again. And they lost. Like some epic battle that takes place in the bathroom stalls of a prize-fight between two drunks, no one is watching and the sum total of events only leaves us with one guy on the ground and one guy standing up.
Josh Tomlin got the start once again last night and once again appeared adequate. A two-run HR to Mike Napoli in the 5th and a solo shot to start off the 6th were the only runs he allowed through 6 innings, striking out 4 and walking 2. The Indians offense had only managed to plate one runner at this point, however, courtesy of a Jason Donald double followed by a Trevor Crowe single in the 5th. In the 7th Andy Marte brought the Indians within one with his 5th HR of the season. The Indians mounted another rally in the 8th. Trevor Crowe again came through with a solid AB resulting in a single to start the inning. Michael Brantley followed it up with a single, putting runners on first and second with no outs. At this point, presumably Manny Acta gave Asdrubal Cabrera the signal to sac bunt, which he did successfully. So in a one-run game in the 8th inning the Indians had runners on 2nd and 3rd with just one out. The problem is that the Angels responded by walking Choo, bringing up Shelley Duncan's spot in the lineup. Rather than put Duncan against the righty Kevin Jepsen, Acta elected to go to his bench and pass the opportunity of being a hero onto Jordan Brown. Brown (sigh), responded with a just-strong-enough GB to first base leading to a force at first and a throw and tag on Crowe at the plate. Perhaps taking the bat out of the team's two best hitters, Droobs and Choo, wasn't a great idea. Showing surprising resilience, however, the Indians mounted another rally in the 9th of Fernando Rodney, and this time around Acta brought in Nix to pinch hit, resulting in a game-tying single and pushing the game into extra frames.
Meanwhile on the pitching side of the things the Indians were steady in relief. Relieving Tomlin, Herrmann, Lewis and Perez combined for two perfect innings in the 7th and 8th. Joe Smith preserved the tie game in the bottom of the 9th. Justin Germano made it through 2 somewhat adventurous innings, and Tony Sipp recorded four outs before being relieved with one out in the 13th. If you are counting on your hands, Acta didn't have a lot of bullpen options left at this point, and elected to go with Rule 5 hanger-on Hector Ambriz. Ambriz finished off the 13th, got through the 14th with just a walk, and retired the 15th in order. Rolling out Ambriz for the 16th, his 3rd inning of work, may seem risky, or perhaps just desperate. Keeping him on the mound after giving up a leadoff double suggests the latter. After a Callaspo ground ball moved Hunter to 3rd, some fatal blow by Jeff Mathis, in this case a game-winning sac fly, almost seemed inevitable. And so after 16 innings and just shy of 5 hours of game time, the Indians pick up their 83rd 'L' on the season, and the Angels grab their 67th 'W'.

23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not that I really want to rehash the no-Chris-Perez discussion, but Ambriz didn’t HAVE to pitch 3 innings last night.
I just can’t be mad about this. Acta doesn’t want to bring in Perez and then find that two innings later, it’s still a tie game, and now he’s used everybody AND he’s still in the same spot. Or to have Perez go two innings only to set up a save situation for Andy Marte. Either way, it ends stupidly.
The only way it ends well is if Perez pitches that one inning scoreless, and then immediately after the Indians pick THAT EXACT HALF-INNING to take the lead, and then Perez pitches another inning scoreless. I can’t blame Acta for not managing to that one improbable scenario.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2010 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I totally understand the reasoning you laid out last night. I still think you have to pitch Perez at some point, any point. I’d rather use Perez and take the chance that a lesser guy has to finish the game, than to take the chance that I may never get to Perez. I mentioned this before Ambriz got in the game, so I’m not sure why you’re talking about Acta pulling Ambriz. At that point you’ve already made your bed. As I mentioned last night, I liked Perez in the 9th or 10th. If you’re in the 14th inning and you only have Smith and Ambriz left, then so be it.
The only way it ends well is if they win, I don’t care about square pegs, and I don’t believe that Chris Perez will be permanently affected that he didn’t pitch in a save situation once.
Getting to Perez is not the goal of the game.
I would like to have seen Acta deploy Perez against the heart of the Angels lineup, essentially telling his lineup that they have two innings to take the lead, and then it’s up to Ambriz. But I understand why he did it this way instead.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2010 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Where did I suggest that it’s just about getting to Perez? It’s about using your best relievers in the highest leverage situations. I absolutely agree with the idea of having Perez face their best hitters. 4 of their best 6 hitters (considering Matsui was out of the game by that point) came to the plate in the bottom of the 9th and the heart of the order appeared in the 11th. Those sound like good times for Perez to me. I don’t know, I just simply can’t understand the rationale, in a tie game of going “I still have Perez, Germano, and Sipp – let’s go with Smith!” I’m just not going to agree with how the bullpen was used last night, even if that wasn’t where the game was lost.
Where did I suggest that it’s just about getting to Perez?
Right here:
I’d rather use Perez and take the chance that a lesser guy has to finish the game, than to take the chance that I may never get to Perez.
I think the point is that you’re going to have to get through TWO high-leverage situations in order to win the game, the tie situation and the save situation, and you’ll probably need two pitchers to do it.
There is no need to use your best pitcher in a high-leverage loss. If there’d been a high-leverage win to be had, Perez would have been in there. There is no other type of result, it’s just those two.
good write up, who cares about the win or loss right now.
But the outstanding question is whether Acta would have approached the game differently if we were in a pennant race. I’m assuming so, but we really don’t know.

by 



















