Game 134: Athletics 7, Indians 0

by Ryan on Sep 1, 2011 11:31 PM EDT in Game Recaps

Oakland's Gio Gonzalez put the Cleveland batters to sleep.

Gio Gonzalez continued his mastery of Cleveland hitters, shutting out Tribe hitters over seven innings while allowing 4 hits while striking out seven. In three outings last year, he didn't allow a run in 20.2 innings pitched, so after today's game, the Indians haven't scored on Gonzalez in their last 27.2 innings against the Oakland left-hander.So while the Indians may have been tired after finishing a 16-inning game just 12 hours before, they also were facing a pitcher whom they haven't been able to solve. in two seasons.

Fausto Carmona had to be perfect for the Indians to entertain thoughts of winning the game. He wasn't. He allowed eight base runners in 6 innings of work, though he managed to keep Oakland off the board until the fifth inning, when singles by Cliff Pennington and Coco Crisp gave the A's a 2-0 lead. Carmona pitched into the seventh, but two costly errors led to two more runs. After Anthony Recker led off the inning with a double, Eric Sogard laid down a sacrifice bunt; Carmona thought the ball would go foul, but it didn't. Jermile Weeks then lined a ball to left fielder Jerad Head, but Head let the ball bounce off his glove, and a scored with an out being recorded. Cliff Pennington then reached on what was ruled an infield hit, but Jason Donald should have recorded an out by throwing to first instead of trying to get a force at second. That was Carmona's last hitter.

The Indians had added two Columbus relievers before the game to help a tired bullpen, and they use the two to finish things off. Both Nick Hagadone and Corey Kluber made their major-league debuts today; Hagadone, who came over from Boston in the Victor Martinez trade, allowed three eighth inning runs, though he wasn't around when they scored. He loaded the bases with two out in the eighth, and Corey Kluber (Jake Westbrook deal) allowed two singles to score the runners Hagadone left behind.

The Indians didn't lose ground to Tigers, who lost to the Royals 11-8. They did, however, fall back into second place with the White Sox, who didn't play.

20110901_athletics_indians_0_20110901141657_lbig__medium

via www.fangraphs.com

Highest WPA		Lowest WPA
Marson	.081	Hannahan	-.125
Santana	.064	Cabrera	-.124
Hagadone	.017	Carrera	-.112

Tweet Comment 47 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Well, we gained a game in that series. I can’t help but think this experience is preparing the team for a serious run in 2012.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin

by Spidey on Sep 2, 2011 8:30 AM EDT via mobile reply actions

The next six games are key as to whether there will be a division race past the first week in September. Detroit has three with Chicago and three with the Indians. If the Tigers go 2-1 or 3-0 on both Chicago and Cleveland, they just about have the division locked up; at worst they’d be 5.5 games up on both teams. If either team sweeps them, then it’s a race again.

by Ryan on Sep 2, 2011 8:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Looks like Verlander goes tonight, so unfortunately that means Detroit should get him once in each of these next two key series.

by Jeffrey R on Sep 2, 2011 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions

Is he really going to win 25 games? Doubtful. He is most definitely in the zone, but the man is not a robot.

I suppose I’m just tired of hearing that V. starts are automatic wins.

Rather scared. Inquiring about dog.

by T.O. Tribe on Sep 2, 2011 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions

Well you are right that the Tigers record in games Verlander starts isn’t a perfect 100% winning percentage. They are 21-8 in games he starts, a .724 winning percantage. They are due to lose a game in a little more than one in four starts of his.

by hans on Sep 2, 2011 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions

If any team (ours preferably) can get to V. for half of the rest of his starts, that evens the playing field considerably. With the mediocrity of their other starters, I’d take those 1-2 losses and see how the rest pans out.

Not that I have much choice.

Rather scared. Inquiring about dog.

by T.O. Tribe on Sep 2, 2011 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions

We had to beat Johan Santana like 4 times in 2007. Gotta be able to beat the best if we’re going anywhere.

by jhon on Sep 2, 2011 12:15 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Didn’t we own Santana in 2007 though?

by Ska.t73 on Sep 2, 2011 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Five times.

I like ex-Phillies prospects.

by Gradyforpresident on Sep 2, 2011 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions

This was a painful game to watch. Everyone seemed either exhausted or disinterested.

by callmrplow on Sep 2, 2011 8:41 AM EDT reply actions

You mean uninterested?

(Sorry, that’s a pet peeve of mine)

by Ryan on Sep 2, 2011 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs

Oh, good, we really need a new pet peeve.

by Jay on Sep 2, 2011 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs

Yea the subject line one is getting old...

by Ska.t73 on Sep 2, 2011 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions

How about the incorrect use of irony?

by fivekmd on Sep 2, 2011 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions

That’s my least favorite pet peeve.

by Roger Dorn on Sep 2, 2011 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Incorrect use of the word “irony,” or incorrect use of irony as a rhetorical device?

The latter is overrated both in its frequency and severity. If it weren’t for Alanis, nobody would ever talk about this. And isn’t it ironic.

by Jay on Sep 2, 2011 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions

You guys should add a grammar guide to the Essential Links section.

by cleveland teamer on Sep 2, 2011 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions

I see via googling this that there is a debate about disinterested/uninterested. However, I note that Merriam Webster online’s first definition of disinterested is “not having the mind or feelings engaged : not interested.” I don’t get how it is a pet peeve if a dictionary actually defines disinterested as not being interested.

by sandyalomarfan on Sep 2, 2011 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions

The two words impart different meanings based on the context in which they are used. Disinterested should be used in cases where a person is impartial or not having an interest (a stake) in the results. Uninterested should be used in cases where a person is not interested (ie, bored) in the subject.

by Ryan on Sep 2, 2011 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions

I have to disagree. Looking at the defintion given, it seems to be to mean that you are bored. Not having the mind engaged = bored. Also, another example given by MW is no longer interested (example- husband and life are no longer interested in each other, i.e. bored). It may be your personal opinion that there is a distinction between the two words, but if a definition clearly accepts a certain use of a word, I don’t think you should correct other people for using it in a way that is not wrong, even if you view it as wrong.

by sandyalomarfan on Sep 2, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Sorry, I mean if a dictionary clearly accepts a certain use of a word.

by sandyalomarfan on Sep 2, 2011 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Gosh, I meant husband and wife. Super sorry for the typos.

by sandyalomarfan on Sep 2, 2011 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Don’t tell husband, but life’s been seeing other people on the side.

by YoDaddyWags on Sep 2, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Merriam and Webster were hacks.

by Jay on Sep 2, 2011 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Ryan has got this right. “Disinterested” is a legal concept, like, you’d want a disinterested judge to hear a case.
Uninterested / uninterested pertains to boredom.

by jhon on Sep 2, 2011 6:52 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

God damned internet.

by jhon on Sep 2, 2011 6:54 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

You guys keep saying this, but you aren’t giving support. I agree that there is a debate on this, but there is a school of thought, and dictionaries, that say either usage is correct. You can’t just say the word usage is wrong when there are legitimate dictionaries that say you can use a word that way!!

by sandyalomarfan on Sep 2, 2011 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Strunk and White’s Elements of Style is where I first saw it in print.

by Ryan on Sep 2, 2011 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Of course, I saw it much earlier written in red pen on various English papers.

by Ryan on Sep 2, 2011 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions

I tend to question Strunk and White, as language evolves and changes over time. But I know a lot of people follow it.

by sandyalomarfan on Sep 2, 2011 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions

And it also tells me that I should write to-day with a hyphen. Guess we don’t do that anymore.

by sandyalomarfan on Sep 2, 2011 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions

And not to be annoying, but I am an attorney for an Ohio appellate court and courts in Ohio frequently cite MW or Webster’s when defining words. So I find their definition to be an appropriate use of a word.

by sandyalomarfan on Sep 2, 2011 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Ryan has got this right. “Disinterested” is a legal concept, like, you’d want a disinterested judge to hear a case.
Uninterested / uninteresting pertains to boredom.

by jhon on Sep 2, 2011 6:52 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

There are plenty of words that have a specific meaning in a specific professional field and more general applications in everyday use. “Theory” is a very common example of this.

by Jay on Sep 2, 2011 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Grady went 3-3 with a double in his rehab start in Akron.

Hoynes thinks he could be up with Tribe sometime next week

by AllenSmith on Sep 2, 2011 10:38 AM EDT reply actions

Take it to the bank, then.

My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.

by Ockus_NYC on Sep 2, 2011 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions

Nice, and Kipnis tweeted that he is doing some fielding work to to test the hammy, and then flips in the cage… Hope we have both back next week…

by Ska.t73 on Sep 2, 2011 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions

Hey, if this keeps up, the Indians might actually have a major-league lineup by Monday.

by Ryan on Sep 2, 2011 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions

Woah, woah… let’s not get too a head of ourselves there.

by Ska.t73 on Sep 2, 2011 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions

The smiley faces have to stop.

Trombone/creamy/soda.

by Joel D on Sep 2, 2011 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Got it…

by Ska.t73 on Sep 2, 2011 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions

I say give him another day or two to see how his body responds and then bring him up. Jared Head needs not to be a major league says I.

by hans on Sep 2, 2011 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Yea, sadly Mr. Head has had a rough go.

by Toxicadam on Sep 2, 2011 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Which is sad, because it could have been like Al Snow in the WWE and ECW… Millions of maniquin heads…

by Ska.t73 on Sep 2, 2011 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Head is a league like Brodzoski is a close?

by Jay on Sep 2, 2011 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

yeah nothing can possibly go wrong with rushing Sizemore back to the big leagues

by AllenSmith on Sep 2, 2011 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Well the counter would be that, “Would you want Sizemore using those plate appearances in A ball or the ML level before he goes and injures himself again?”

by hans on Sep 3, 2011 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions