Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

by Ryan on May 24, 2007 8:26 AM EDT in News

Recap
Box Score
Win Probability Added @ Fangraphs

Highest WPA:

Grady Sizemore .087
Trot Nixon .087
Victor Martinez .019

Lowest WPA:

Cliff Lee -.554
Travis Hafner -.056
Jhonny Peralta -.029

Not much of redeeming value here. Scott Elarton wasn't very good, but Cliff Lee completely overshadowed him. Not only did Clifton pitch poorly, he fielded poorly. After the Indians put 3 runs on the board in the first, Cliff allowed two earned runs that should have been unearned runs (though in this case, that they were earned seemed poetic justice). He allowed seven runs in his first two innings, and was gone in the fifth, exposing the Royals to the tasty underbelly of the Indians' bullpen. Mike Koplove allowed two doubles after entering the game, and unfortunately, he was the most effective pitcher of the evening. Fernando Cabrera didn't deviate from his recent gopher ball trend, allowing yet another home run (to Mark Grudzielanek, of all people), and another two runs. Travis Hafner's ninth-inning home run made the score look somewhat respectable, but the Indians needed pitching, not offense, tonight.

Next Up: The Indians try to prevent a Royals sweep. Sowers vs. De la Rosa, 8:10 PM.

Tweet Comment 51 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Is covering first base one of the "little things" that Steve Phillips talks about? CC never seems to bother, and now Lee does the same. Sowers may be getting hammered recently, but at least he covers first.

by oxforddave on May 24, 2007 9:31 AM EDT reply actions

In defense of CC, I don't recall the last time CC

didn't cover first; Lee, on the other hand, seems to have a game or two like this every year - like I asked in the game thread, where is his mind at? That's inexcusable, especially for a veteran ML pitcher whose performance has been steadily declining over the last year or so.

I sure hope Wedge's wake-up call did just that - wake Lee up. I'd be all for sending him down to Buffalo if he comes up with more lackluster performances like he did last night. Totally inexcusable - moreso than the results, the lack of focus and effort.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on May 24, 2007 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Would it be such a bad idea to option Cliff Lee to AAA as a means for shaking him up? Not covering first? What the hell?

-Erik

by drerikbrady on May 24, 2007 9:41 AM EDT reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

I'm furious about it, and he made two other mental errors on defense as well. But I don't think you do it for one start.

I also don't think we have a great option to replace him, at least not until we see what happens with Sowers tonight. If Sowers tanks again, I really think he'll be swapped with Miller. That would make sending Lee down much less attractive.

As important as this season is, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that we'll see Sowers and Lee in Buffalo at some point. Historically, it does take a huge crater of a performance to send a guy down who's been up for four years straight.

by Jay on May 24, 2007 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

I agree, but those mental mistakes...I just can't reconcile that with a ML player. Contrary to some opinions on this site, we have a shot at the WS this year. Frankly, I think Wedge and Shapiro have a chance to send a message here. Sending a player to the minors who has been in the majors exclusively for 4 years might make the point. It might have to wait until Westbrook is ready, and it might only have to be for a couple of ML starts for Miller in Lee's place. But Geez, not covering 1st? Is there a better reason to kick a pitcher in the ass?

-Erik

by drerikbrady on May 24, 2007 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

There is precedence with this. Joey came back as Albert when Grover sent him down for not running out a groundout. From that time forward Al seemed pretty focused, and seemed to have developed a severe hatred of baseballs.

by JK in CBus on May 24, 2007 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

If this was a guy who hadn't been here for a while, he'd already be on a plane to Buffalo - his mind was totally out of the game. Not only didn't he cover first, but when he fielded the comebacker, he didn't run right at the runner so that the runners behind him couldn't move up a base.

Lee still has options remaining, so they could send him to Buffalo. But I think Wedge settled for a major chewing out instead.

by Ryan on May 24, 2007 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

That's not really a precedent. Belle hadn't even spent a year in the majors at that time, where Lee has been in the majors continuously since 2003. Do you really think Belle would have been sent down in 1994 rather than 1991?

by Jay on May 24, 2007 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

True. And the team was much worse then as well. I think Cliff has some talent, and I think a kick-in-the-pants moment that actually lasted a few days might do him some good.

Precedent only in the act (lack of huslte, being sent down), not the situation (winning team, player service time)

by JK in CBus on May 24, 2007 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

I think it has been documented that changing his name was what caused the improvement. Maybe Lee should do the same. drop the Cliff and use something a little more intimadating like "General" or something.

by hans on May 24, 2007 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Nah, he keeps pitching like this, he can drop Lee, and we can call him Cliff Clavin ...

by talonk on May 24, 2007 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

"Ahhh, little known fact..."

-Erik

by drerikbrady on May 24, 2007 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Always liked Stagger Lee...

by mcrose on May 24, 2007 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions

He should go with "Clifton Lee"! :-)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on May 24, 2007 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

I'm much more concerned about Lee's pitching than his fielding. I'm sure he got the point about the "little" things - he got called out in the national press for it.

The "big" thing is being at least an avg major league pitcher. Cliff has changed a lot since his rookie year, and not for the better. Gone is his curve ball, which was a weapon. Gone is his low nineties fastball which was deceptive enough to be a strikeout pitch.

What's left is the stubbornness that I used to like because he didn't give in and which I thought helped him win games. I'm not so enamored of it right now because its devolved into dumb insistence on throwing a now-mediocre fastball 98% of the time.

Hopefully the real lesson he learned last night is that he HAS to mix in a good helping of off speed stuff to make his fastball worth a squat. He actually pitched ok when he was forced to back off and use his changeup - it should continue to be a part of his gameplan. We'll see.

by mcrose on May 24, 2007 10:58 AM EDT reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Yeah, it's weird you bring it up because I was just thinking how when Cliff came up I always thought of him as a curveball pitcher. Granted, I was considerably less saavy than I am now and didn't watch nearly as many games (no mlbtv) but that was really my perception.

Now, I'm not even sure he throws a curve.

Here's a fun old prospect list.

by afh4 on May 24, 2007 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

He threw one last night and it got hammered.

by mcrose on May 24, 2007 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

I agree about that curve ball. I don't remember him throwing often, but he would use more than he does now and it was effective because of the drastic change in speed and the nice break he had on it...now maybe because his fastball has tailed off in regards to speed he doesn't throw it as much...or maybe he is afraid of injury or something...I don't know, but A guy throwing 87 MPH who's not necessarily known for his pinpoint control strikes me as scary.

by hans on May 24, 2007 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

He's always been a fastball pitcher, in fact has a power pitcher's mentality. Which is fine when you have a fastball that sits in the low nineties and can drop in a good curve for strikes. He has neither right now (I don't know why), but still has the mentality.

I know it may appear different to the batter in terms of release, etc., but Lee's fastball has been no faster than Sowers' since Jeremy came up last year.

by mcrose on May 24, 2007 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

It's interesting that Lee, Sowers and Caberra are all de-laminating at the same time. Carl Willis should be all over this. To paraphrase our born again brotheren: What would Lee Mazilli do?

Sometimes you just gotta be gritty

by mauichuck on May 24, 2007 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Delaminating is a great word for pitchers sucking.

by afh4 on May 24, 2007 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Or Saint Leo Mazzone. Guthrie has turned in some performances that, shall we say, are not representative of his time in Cleveland.

by mcrose on May 24, 2007 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Geez, what the hell was I thinking - of course Mazzone, not Mazzilli.

I've been listening to too much Keith Hernendez here

Sometimes you just gotta be gritty

by mauichuck on May 24, 2007 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Ugly is too nice of a word for Lee's start last night. But I'll be the official Lee apologist here. Bad starts happen. Westbrook has been pretty ugly in all of his starts, Lee has been up and down. He still seems to be feeling for his command, like Byrd did all of last year.

The mental failings are ridiculous, and Lee deserves to be called out on them. But so does CC. He is much more consistently egregious about not covering first base.

Lee hit the daily double yesterday (sucking as a pitcher and mentally). But neither of these is chronic yet. I expect a good start from him against Boston.

by oxforddave on May 24, 2007 12:26 PM EDT reply actions

Like I said - when was the last time CC didn't

cover 1B - sometime in 2006, or was it 2005? I honestly don't remember the last time CC didn't cover 1B when he was supposed to - heck, he even went down to his knees, picked up a ball, and flipped it to 1B for the out in a recent game. His head seems to be in the game and has been for some time.

Lee, on the other hand, always has this type of brain cramp every year for the last few years; this is NOT the first time Lee has not covered 1B - if you ask me, he takes the cake for a starter having the most braincramps on not covering 1B on an annual basis, not CC.

Like I said elsewhere, CC looked like he was out of it the other night against the Mariners - even his body language didn't look right to me, but did CC have an obvious braincramp like Lee did last night, after a 3-0 lead noless? No, he didn't, so right now, Lee is all alone in terms of having monumental braincramps - when was the last time Wedge called out CC for having a braincramp? I don't recall.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on May 24, 2007 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Like I said - when was the last time CC didn't

Joe, you really don't have to post the exact same message twice in the same thread, or at all.

by Jay on May 24, 2007 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Like I said - when was the last time CC didn't

I've seen CC do it twice this year.

by oxforddave on May 24, 2007 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

The thing that annoys me is that most people here dislike Cliff Lee for his few bad starts this year instead of understanding how he has gotten to this point. I just hope Lofgren does not follow a similar career path.

by Joe. on May 24, 2007 12:37 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

If you're going to make gross generalizations about "most people here" you might as well make some attempt to make them accurate and not so condescending. I'd wager 10 of the 50 most knowledgable Indians fans in the world are readers/posters/authors of this blog.

by afh4 on May 24, 2007 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Post of the week guys, the high five line forms to the right.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on May 24, 2007 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions

+1! I also give you a high-five like Erik! :-)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on May 24, 2007 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Most ridiculous post of the month nominee.

Founding member of DrBradyQuinn's Medicine Ladies.

by Brad D on May 24, 2007 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Look Lee isn't as bad as he comes of sounding here (only because good pitching across the league is so scarce), prior to this year he was a guy you could count for 200 innings of league avg. or slightly above pitching, for not alot of money. But, the future does not look that bright for the fella, and his performance yesterday was unexcusable (the not having his head in the game stuff). He's probably not going anywhere though, as it would be crazy to trade away pitching right now, and our rotation has been in a state of flux since the beginning of the year with injuries, Sowers poor performance...Miller may be an option, but they are not going to push him too hard this year, so he has to be looked at as a short-term solution. Lee is in the plans for this team for the rest of the year barring a miracouls turn around by Sowers or an surprise mid-season trade for another starter.

by hans on May 24, 2007 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

sorry should say "barring a miraculous turn around"

by hans on May 24, 2007 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

For what it's worth, I don't think your post is that ridiculous. I don't know if "most people dislike" him, but why split hairs? Plenty of folks have gotten way too hysterical about Lee since last night.

I'm angry with Lee over the mental lapses -- three by my count. But I think he return to form as a solid 3-4 starter. I do understand that he's only a few starts removed from the DL and the start of his season. Some inconsistency probably was to be expected.

On a gut level, I probably will never fully appreciate Lee as a 3-4 starter because I expected him to be a #2 starter. And that same thought process, in reverse, is why I appreciate Westbrook so much.

by Jay on May 24, 2007 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions

+1 - I agree with your last two lines, Jay -

that's exactly my thought process - you took the words right out of my mouth, verbatim! :-)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on May 24, 2007 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

So, a couple of losses and this place turns into lament central.

I think i've read each of the following names on this site in one place or another in the last 48 hours:

brandon phillips, ricardo rincon, richie sexson, jeremy burnitz, bob wickman, brian giles, kevin kouzmanoff, dave burba, sean casey, willie tavarez, macier izturiz, arthur rhodes, brian anderson, omar vizquel, scott stuart, aaron boone, russel branyon, jeriome robertson, bob howry and guillermo mota...

What, no mention of Robbie Alomar - how about Rocky Colavito?

Sure, Lee sucked last night, but remember - he's not far removed from spring training in some respects.

Where's Turk with some positivity training?

by Brick. on May 24, 2007 2:39 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Hey you left out Steve Klien and Pedro Guerrero. What, my rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth doesn't count?

Sometimes you just gotta be gritty

by mauichuck on May 24, 2007 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

I'll be on tonight, holding it down! The best I can say about last night is that it should serve as a wake up call for the next few tough series'. Good news is that the bats are coming around, and we can't fault SP that has been solid for most of the year for a few bad games. Look at it this way... better we blow up against the Royals than against the Tigers or BoSox, no?

Now the Lord can make you tumble, and the Lord can make you turn, and the Lord can make you overflow... but the Lord can't make you burn

by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2007 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Guthrie pitches tonight for the Orioles against Toronto. He has given up 3ER in 4 previous starts
and has a .084 ERA in 3 starts in May.

Sowers takes the mound in KC with a May ERA of 13.15 in 3 starts. He had 4 QS in April, none of which resulted in a decision for him.

Not by coincidence, Adam Miller is making his first start in 12 days for Buffalo in Louisville tonight. He has 6QS (out of 7) and a 2.45 ERA in AAA.

Who will be pitching in Sowers' rotation slot in Boston and Detroit in 5 and 10 days?

The performance of Lee and Sowers the rest of the year is likely to be a significant factor in Shapiro's evaluation of Willis and Wedge at the end of the season. If Guthrie continues to be successful and Lee and Sowers continue to struggle, Shapiro may be looking to make a change.

by palcal on May 24, 2007 2:59 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

I don't think Guthrie has anything to do with anything. He was given every opportunity to succeed with this organization and failed every time. There was no other option but to cut bait. I certainly don't think his nice month of May is an indictment of any of the training staff that surrounded him. For one, his pitching coach is Mazzone; I'm sure if we could trade Willis for Mazzone we would. Second, his ERA in April was 5.87 and that still counts.

Plus, while he did pitch well against the Red Sox, his other two opponents in May were the Nationals and the DRays.

by afh4 on May 24, 2007 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

DRays can hit nowadays.

by hans on May 24, 2007 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

The buzz around the DRays youth movement has always been a lot stronger than it's actual oomph.

The Devil Rays are 12th in the AL in runs scored. 14th last year (dead last).

Still, they've outscored the Nats by 27 runs (169-196). There's some league adjustment there but geez, the Nats are putrid.

by afh4 on May 24, 2007 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Tigers are tuning up for the Indians with a raking of the Angels, leading 12-0 in the 6th.
Santana gave up 8 runs in 3 2/3.

by palcal on May 24, 2007 3:12 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Game Forty-Four: Royals 11, Indians 7

Question...

Is ESPN really putting the Sunday night game between the Indians and Tigers up against the NBA's game between the Cavs and the Pistons? .... Yeah good luck on pulling in the ratings.

by hans on May 24, 2007 4:19 PM EDT reply actions