With a couple of exceptions—a 12-run outburst against Toronto, notably—the Cleveland Indians left their bats down in Winter Haven, Fla. The only regular starter hitting over .300 is Victor Martinez, who, as a No. 4 hitter, has yet to hit one home run. Though some are starting to come around—Hafner has hit in his last few—the offensive state for the Wahoos is still certifiably anemic.
The complaining and negativity end here, I promise. The Indians are 22-19 and back in first place in the AL Central. What's there to complain about, really?
The starting pitching staff has handcuffs on every single hitter in their American League, going an epic 55 1/3 consecutive innings without allowing an earned run. As of Friday, it's been a week since the Indians' starters have given up an earned run. In that time span, they threw three complete-game shutouts, if you count Cliff Lee's nine-inning goose egg that amounted to a no-decision (and I count it.)
Lee threw a eight innings of shutout ball in his previous start against the Yankees, and two starts before that, he threw a two-hit shutout in Kansas City, sandwiching in there a "terrible" start in which he gave up a three-run homer and still won. (In some circles, that's known as a "quality start.")
The defense has been stellar. Sure, Asdrubal Cabrera turned an unassisted triple play, but he also has made some mind-boggling catches in the field. Grady Sizemore is running down everything hit in the air to center field, and both Franklin Gutierrez and Ben Francisco have been showcasing their strong arms, throwing out numerous base runners.
To me, the real stunner is Aaron Laffey (pictured). Laffey was solid last year as the Tribe's No. 5 during the second half of the season. He logged a 4-2 record with a 4.56 ERA in nine starts last year and assured that Cliff Lee would stay at AAA (turns out that was a very good thing for Lee).
No one really gave Laffey much of a shot to win the No. 5 starter spot out of Spring Training, and they were right. He didn't pitch particularly well in Winter Haven. But he's hit his stride since the call-up, filling in more than adequately for Jake Westbrook, who was tremendous himself before he got hurt.
Laffey must stay up with the varsity when Westbrook comes back, in my opinion. Maybe the Indians should try a six-man rotation? It will save some innings from the rest of the staff for later in the season. Can you imagine? A six-man rotation with three lefties and three righties? Three hard-throwers and three finesse guys? Preparing for that kind of versatility would give managers, hitting coaches and hitters absolute fits.
In short, the Tribe has the most depth in baseball at the most coveted position. If they can move Betancourt back to the eighth-inning role, where he is most effective and comfortable, they will be set in the bullpen, as well. And I think Eric Wedge can make this move now, as Masa Kobayashi appears to have the moxy to close out games.
The Tribe lose the designated hitter this weekend as they travel down I-71 to play a set in Cincinnati, but I don't think it matters. They've been playing National League baseball—scratch that, 1960s-era National League baseball—for the past two weeks.
The pitchers hitting might actually help them. Jeremy Sowers starts tomorrow night, and if he twirls a gem, the Indians will have a logjam in their rotation so tight that the only thing busier than Mark Shapiro's cell phone—with offers from other general managers for a starter—will be Carl Willis', who will receive calls from reporters who want to feature the next Leo Mazzone.
Small ball: It worked in 1948. Why not now?
3 comments Last one added about 1 year ago — Leave a Comment
Nino Colla about 1 year ago
I heard the six man rotation mentioned somewhere, and at first I just scoffed at the idea. But, the more and more I think about it, it wouldn't be a bad idea if we had the roster spot.
Obviously I think we'd have to carry one less reliever. Something would have to be lost in order to keep six starters on our roster. In that sense, it doesn't make a lot of sense to do it. But, in other sense it makes almost perfect sense.
Too many sense..
But yeah, it is an interesting idea, and really if we had the roster spot, I'd be all for it, it would take away a few starts from CC and Fausto and Lee, but would that actually be a bad thing after watching the post-season last year? I guess not.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jeff Smirnoff about 1 year ago
Have 7 starters is a great problem to have. I'd rather have it that way than too much hitting and not enough pitching. Hitting is easier to fix. Although it does make for some excrutiaing games!
Edit Comment Cancel
charlie adams about 1 year ago
I agree that a 6-man would work very well for the Indians....if you could guarantee health for all teh starters. Keep Sowers and Laffey trucking between Buffalo and Cleveland to spot start and fill in for injuries. There is just too many things that could go wrong in a 6-man rotation with only 1 back-up starter. Stick with 5 and have the flexibility of 2 starters you can plug holes with.
Next year we may lose Sabathia and Byrd (we should cut him loose, as much as I like him) so trading away 2 proven starters isn't somethign I relish. I would say you wait this year out, get your ducks in a row and make sure Miller can stay healthy and productive in the Bigs and then you ship out Laffey or Sowers for a corner OF bat.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.