That's right, folks. As if celebrating Easter a week late, the Mighty Heyward rose from the dead after a 3-day slump, and rose with a vengeance. Jay Hey came up 5 times and reached base safely each of those times, including a momentum-changing solo HR to put the Braves on the board and tie the game at 1. Heyward added an infield hit, an RBI single, and 2 walks to complete his dominant afternoon.
Less dominant was Braves starter Derek Lowe who somehow managed to give up only 1 ER in 6 IP despite walking 7 (!!!) Giants (2 intentionally). That number, which easily eclipsed Lowe's previous career high of 5 BBs, is especially remarkable considering the free-swinging ways of the Giants hitters, none of whom has even an average career walk rate. One thing we've learned about Lowe so far this season: never tell him what he can't do and still win. Give up 3-run and 2-run jacks? Walk 7 dudes? Piece of cake. At this point I don't know what to expect next... 6 WPs? 3 errors in the field? Pitching left-handed? It's all on the table. Never doubt Derek Lowe's ability to win despite himself.
Despite the walks, Lowe did make a lot of good pitches. He just seemed to save them for after he had loaded the bases rather than doing the sensible thing and making the good pitches first. His final line was 6 IP, 1 ER, 4 H, 7 BB, 4 K, and a 0.173 WPA. This was not a "DerekLoweWin"--he actually pitched too well!
(More recap and Awards after the jump)
Giants starter Todd Wellemeyer seemed to have the Braves bats mostly under control, holding them scoreless through 5 innings (though he had some brushes with danger, too). But then Heyward hit his HR--a low screamer hit the opposite way that just cleared the fence in left-center--and that seemed to open the floodgates for the Braves' bats. Wellemeyer started the 7th, but soon fell apart, giving up a single to Melky Cabrera, throwing a wild pitch, and then walking Nate McLouth. Martin Prado (your new NL batting leader!) followed with a perfectly executed sac bunt, which of course necessitated an intentional walk to McCann. That brought up Troy Glaus, who was looking to redeem himself after a couple of defensive miscues. Wellemeyer then hit Glaus(' jersey) with a pitch, driving in a run and knocking himself out of the game.
Brandon Medders came on for the Giants and induced what looked like a sure double-play from Yunel Escobar, but the Giants infield (which had a terrible game, with 2 errors and numerous misplays between them) could not turn it, allowing another run to score. The Giants then brought in the lefty Dwayne Runzler, who promptly gave up another runzler on a Heyward single, his first off a LHP this year. That gave the Braves a comfortable 4-1 lead. They would add 3 more off the Giants' pen, which looked dead tired from Friday's marathon game (in which they all pitched). The Giants ended up with 4 wild pitches and a balk on the night, which should give Derek Lowe something to shoot for in his next start.
Peter Moylan and Takashi Saito pitched scoreless innings, each looking quite good, before Jesse Chavez came in to close it out in the non-save situation. He looked shaky, giving up a run, but just as Billy Wagner started warming up, Chavez got a nice double play to end the game.
The Braves now have a shot to win the series if The Dragon Slayer can take down The Freak, tomorrow at 4 P.M. Eastern (weather permitting).
MVP: Jason Heyward (who else): 3/3, HR, 2 R, 2 RBI, 2 BB, 0.297 WPA
LVP: Eli Whiteside: 0/3, 2 K (in key spots, too), gave up 4 WPs (not all his fault, but still), -0.217 WPA
MVPILE (MVP in a losing effort): Juan Uribe, 1/1, R, RBI, 3 BB (this from a guy who once walked 13 times in almost 500 PAs...), 0.084 WPA
Clutch Play of the Game: Heyward's HR, 0.176 WPA
0 recs | 105 comments
Couldnt watch tonight. So glad to hear about heyward!
nick9314 - April 11, 2010
Check my new signature.
It’s a keeper.
EricGreggWasPaidOff - April 11, 2010
idk if you can advertise your own sig, can you?
JKowalek - April 11, 2010
Even considering it’s a quote from this article?
EricGreggWasPaidOff - April 11, 2010
You can always advertise your own sig.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
How the hell does Derek Lowe have 2 wins?
What a joke.
Scott Coleman - April 11, 2010
He leads the majors in wins!
EricGreggWasPaidOff - April 11, 2010
Derek Lowe
only knows how to WINZZZZZZZ BABY. BEST PITCHER IN THE BIGS.
Erihury - April 11, 2010
in his 2 starts we’ve score 23 runs; in the 3 games he didn’t pitch, we’ve scored 7. horseshit.
Scott Coleman - April 11, 2010
I think i mentioned this in an earlier post. Sorry I don’t have the math to back me up, i only watch the games. I don’t crunch #’s during the broadcast.
samxrm - April 11, 2010
Tied with Jeremy Affeldt!
Distinguished company!
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
Nothing funny about Wins. We take ’em anyway we can get ’em.
fandave - April 11, 2010
He did get a lot of GBs tonight.
And anyway, I’m glad he has 2 wins. Sure beats 2 losses, right?
The problem isn’t’ really that Lowe has 2 wins. It’s that our other starters have been hung out to dry. But that will change. It’s only been 5 games.
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
Reyes is still on the roster, but just hasn’t pitched yet, right?
Lennox - April 11, 2010
correct
My money is that we’ll see him Monday in SD, but who knows…
Scott Coleman - April 11, 2010
I’d rather not…
Gage23 - April 11, 2010
He had a great spring...
maybe relief is his spot? Never know until we let him pitch.
Mr. Sanchez - April 11, 2010
What year?
Not this spring, imo. He was bi-polar, never knew which side of him we would get :(
HEYJUDE - April 11, 2010
JoJo was actually pretty good out of the ’pen in ST this year.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
I listened or watched every game,
and I disagree, as I said above, it’s just my opinion.
HEYJUDE - April 11, 2010
Fair enough.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
Jo-Jo
is blowout insurance and nothing more. Bobby clearly has very little confidence in him (nor should he). We’re all just biding our time until Scott Proctor is ready.
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
So...tomorrow is gonna be rainy all day in San Fran
but I heard that we only have 1 or 2 days off that the Giants have off as well…and IIRC, both of those days have us in the middle of a homestand.
My question is: Face Lincecum tomorrow in horrible weather or fly out to San Fran much later on an off day and (probably) face someone besides Professor Snape?
Scott Coleman - April 11, 2010
Professor Snape?
priceless.
apoxonbothyourhouses - April 11, 2010
Tim, I am your father
Scott Coleman - April 11, 2010
I'd take my chances
with Lincecum vs KK today and hope you don’t get no-hit in 5 innings. Honestly, flying back to SF for one game would be horrible. I’d take just about anything over that.
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
I agree,
but the weather doesn’t seem to, just checked, and the rain does not seem to be leaving anytime soon :(
Rain, rain, go away……..
HEYJUDE - April 11, 2010
I don’t get the WPA stat. Maybe that’s just me. Seems like if you get a positive #, you have contributed to your teams chances to win and if the number is negative, you had a crappy game. Maybe it’s just me, but i don’t really need a number to tell me if someone contributed to the victory or is wearing a golden sombrero with 2 errors. seems like a useless stat. I’m really not wondering about whether someone who has gone 4-4 with 3HR’s and 6RBI helped the team win, obviously they did.
Just my 2-cents
samxrm - April 11, 2010
you are obviously unlearned in the majestic awesomeness of advanced statistical
gibberishanalysis.fandave - April 11, 2010
Well, sure, but I also don’t need batting average to tell how good someone is if he’s gotten two hits every game, or only gets one hit every three. A statistic isn’t useless unless it also doesn’t tell you what you didn’t already know about guys who are close to the middle.
AllSaintsDay - April 11, 2010
WPA tells you what a player added to his team's chances of winning.
Not all stat lines are created equal. Sure you don’t need WPA to tell you the guy who hit 3 HRs helped his team win, but it can tell you just how much he helped his team win. And more importantly, it can tell you how much all the other players helped their team win—the players who didn’t have such obviously dominant (or sucky) games.
A player who goes 1-5 but gets the game-winning hit can be just as valuable as a guy who goes 4-5 but strikes out in a key spot. WPA weights those situations appropriately so that you can compare those two players. That is immensely valuable. If you don’t like being able to better understand what happened in a game, feel free to ignore any mentions of WPA and all other statistics.
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
What confuses me about WPA is that if you look at Uribe’s and Heyward’s, Uribe’s is higher despite having not contributed to an actual win for the Giants. Could someone explain to me how the stat is determined in language someone who sucks at math would understand?
UMDBHIK - April 11, 2010
That's my fault, sorry. Big typo there
I left out a 0 in Uribe’s WPA. It should be 0.084, not 0.84. That is probably the source of your confusion. Heyward’s WPA was much higher.
As for the stat, I’ll try to give you a quick summary. WPA measures the percent of a win that a player adds in a given AB/Game/etc. Some nerds went through all the historical data and found out about what chances a team has of winning in any given situation (ie, down 3, bottom of the 7th with 2 outs and runners on 2nd and 3rd). So you take the teams % chance of winning at the start of an AB, and subtract it from the team’s % chance of winning after the AB. That’s his WPA for that AB.
For instance, before Heyward’s HR, the Braves’ chances of winning were only 29.1%, based on similar situations. After his HR, however, the Braves’ chances of winning were 46.7%. Thus, Heyward’s WPA for that AB was 0.176, or 17.6% (46.7 – 29.1). I hope that helps. Please anyone let me know if you want more explanation of any stat I use.
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
Thank you. That clears things up nicely for me.
UMDBHIK - April 11, 2010
Derek Lowe 2-0? I guess Bobby knew something the rest of us didn’t when he named him opening day starter. Also I guess we better cancel the ticket to Gwinnett some wanted to give to Heyward.
redwards95 - April 11, 2010
My money is on Heyward being in the MLs to stay.
fandave - April 11, 2010
No he should be down...
the smart people around here have already said so, knowing all the ins and outs and details about the situation.
Mr. Sanchez - April 11, 2010
Lowe is on pace to win 35 games. If he wins the Cy young, I will highly consider not taking the award seriously anymore.
romone_braves91 - April 11, 2010
The voters are smarter than they used to be
A 35-win Derek Lowe who pitches like this would have no shot at all, don’t worry. Even the old fogies look at ERA and walks.
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
are you sure
about that?
Erihury - April 11, 2010
Yes.
Greinke won easily despite having fewer wins than other guys, right? He was just better, and they rewarded him. Same with Lincecum the last 2 years
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
So, I guess we are all onvinced that Lowe is a sucky pitcher all of a sudden? I mean, I get that the guy hasn’t been spectacular, but he hasn’t been horrible either. We Braves fans are starting to resemble Cubs and Yankees fans. So far this season, we have decided that Glaus is horrible, Melky shouldn’t play, JoJo Reyes can’t pitch (without ever even pitching out of the BP this season) and now that Lowe sucks.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
You forgot that Heyward is a bust.
schlagdawg - April 11, 2010
I didn’t read a whole lot of that around here…if any. In full discloser, I still think we should have kept him down for 2 weeks, but that is not performance-based at all.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
No, it's based on an assumption of future events...
events which other people have a MUCH greater understanding of the factors involved and felt he should be up now, not later in the month.
Mr. Sanchez - April 11, 2010
It’s based on what we know right now as fans.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
which ain't much in the grand scheme of things...
those directly involved in the decision making process might, just might, have a bit more info and “know” a bit more right now.
Mr. Sanchez - April 11, 2010
Or maybe, just maybe, the FO did what 70% of the fanbase wanted, and started Heyward as more of a PR/“field-the-best-team” move instead of a financial one?
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
Again, assuming things you've got no clue about...
either with their actions, or with the future likelihood of Heyward signing an extension to buy out his arb years perhaps into a year or two of free agency.
Mr. Sanchez - April 11, 2010
My assumptions have just as much merit as yours.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
I'd agree...
both are completely lacking in merit.
Mr. Sanchez - April 11, 2010
Which only means that I can continue to have my opinion, and you should probably stop trying to criticize it at every opportunity you have, since you have admitted that your opinion on the matter is just as sound as mine.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
No,...
what I said was neither one of us know why the front office decided to have Heyward up on opening day or the likelihood he signs an extension.
Your opinion is shite.
Mr. Sanchez - April 11, 2010
No it is not. It is valid. You should probably learn to respect differing opinions.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
And it looks like the kid adjusted well, ....
so if he signs an extension in the coming months for say the next 7 years, will you keep saying “we should have kept him down for 2 weeks”?
Mr. Sanchez - April 11, 2010
answer this, and ....
for the sake of other’s sanity, I’m done, since you clearly have to get the last word.
Mr. Sanchez - April 11, 2010
The old pot/kettle issue comes up a lot with you.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
thank for noticing Ma Kettle
Mr. Sanchez - April 11, 2010
Absolutely not. The only point for keeping him in the minors for 2 weeks is to have more control of him down the road. Signing a 7 year extension is a perfect outcome of bringing him up early.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
If we are to believe what Chipper has said, the players’ opinion was a factor as well, not just fanbase-based. I’m guessing Wren is going to do what he can to avoid arbitration with Heyward, unless he’s Mickey Rooney crazy.
UMDBHIK - April 11, 2010
This
I don’t think sending him down was even an option from a clubhouse perspective. Wren would have risked losing all the veterans on the team. We’re trying to win this year, so there’s no way they’d buy into sending down a player who can help us do that, even if only for 2 weeks.
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
I disagree. The players, Union players especially, know above all else that MLB is a business. It isn’t a business that operates on a one way street. Players have no qualms about trying to get the most money that they can, so they should not be surprised or take offense when a team tries to save as much money as it can.
Had the situation played out the way I feel it should have, I can imagine Chipper saying something, then 2 weeks later never even remembering that it happened.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
Except Glavine’s release last year.
“But Glavine said, “It usually is about the money.”
Glavine would have earned a $1 million bonus by being added to the 25-man roster."
UMDBHIK - April 11, 2010
Forgot link.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4234187
UMDBHIK - April 11, 2010
That supports what I am saying.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
“Players have no qualms about trying to get the most money that they can, so they should not be surprised or take offense when a team tries to save as much money as it can.”
So, no, that actually does not support what you are saying.
UMDBHIK - April 11, 2010
Let’s go ahead and include everything I said:
Please see your very example of Thomas Glavine leaving Atlanta for greener pastures in NY for more money, and then criticizing an organization when they try to save money. Like I said, it isn’t a one way street. Players have no ground to stand on when they complain that a team makes a money-based decision. The fact that Glavine himself said that it is about the money proves this.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
I don't think he sucks at all
In fact, I’m kind of in awe of what he did last night. It takes some kind of talent to get into and out of so many jams without giving up more than 1 run.
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
The 1 run is a small miracle...
Seriously, how often does Derek Lowe pitch and only give up 1 run?
EricGreggWasPaidOff - April 11, 2010
82 starts (with 0 or 1 run)
Out of 291 career starts, or 28% of his career starts. I could be wrong, but that seems like a pretty strong number.
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
He is a good pitcher.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
Do me a favor? Check the distribution of those 0/1 run games over his career? I don’t know this for a fact, and I don’t know how you go about obtaining such specific data (please tell me? I’ve never found a good resource for that sort of thing), but I’d wager that a large number of those games were in his early seasons with the Red Sox (1999-2002).
Also, I never said Derek Lowe is a bad pitcher. I just think he’s an average pitcher who gets incredibly lucky.
EricGreggWasPaidOff - April 11, 2010
from 1999-2001 he was mostly a reliever, btw.
Here’s the breakdown:
1997 – 1
1998 – 1
2001 – 2
2002 – 15 (wow)
2003 – 6
2004 – 4
2005 – 8
2006 – 12
2007 – 11
2008 – 16 (double wow)
2009 – 5
2010 – 1
No wonder we gave him $15M/year after 2008. He pitched great in half his games. Too bad that didn’t carry over to 2009…
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
Isn’t it amazing that once you start to dig into the actual stats, what you find out? I am not convinced that Derek Lowe is done being a very good pitcher.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
Me either
He’s got some things to work on, but I’m guardedly optimistic. One positive from last night is that he only gave up 1 fly ball all night. If he keeps that up and straightens his control out a bit, he’ll win 15 games… And actually deserve to.
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
Yeah. The walks are worrisome, but the fact that he was making pitches that he wanted to make, getting results that he wanted (GBs) makes me tend to think he is fine.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
I think you've created more work for yourself...
As one of your readers, I demand you do the research necessary to find out why 2002 and 2008 were such good years for Lowe in terms of not allowing runs. Will he have another year like that in 2014?
EricGreggWasPaidOff - April 11, 2010
Oh,
and I use baseball-reference’s play index:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/
The free version is a bit of a hassle, since they block out the top 5 of any search, but you can still get a lot of info. The whole b-ref site is awesome, really.
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
I agree...
dunnytwogloves - April 11, 2010
oops...
sometimes it feels like some Braves fans want him to have a 20-loss season this year. I didn’t think he pitched all that bad last night. Yeah, he had 7 walks, but 2 of them were intentional. It looked to me like he was making good pitches that the Giants just weren’t offering at. He still only allowed one run to score. There were hardly any hard hit balls last night by the Giants. Clearly, he didn’t have his best stuff…but he grinded through and gave us 6 innings, which had to help the bullpen some.
dunnytwogloves - April 11, 2010
I think most fans (at least on this site) still feel pain from the Vazquez trade. Sure we got a really great prospect and OF help but on a basis of who was the better pitcher, it was clearly Vaz. Lowe is going to have to pitch out of his mind for me to like him again (like a no hitter or a scoreless streak of 5 games). I can, however, accept him as our pitcher for now. It’s really not his fault in a way. He did not know Vaz, Hanson, and JJ were going to set the bar so insanely high last year. By comparison, he was just ehh. He is still a innings eater with flashes of brilliance. I don’t know what else to say. Go Braves.
romone_braves91 - April 11, 2010
Is it just me or does Glaus seem like a remake of Garret Anderson so far?
- gets hits, but not in the clutch
- is really slow (Glaus is much slower than Anderson though. He may be the slowest person in the majors)
BravesFanScout - April 11, 2010
Bengie Molina
would beg to differ
Erihury - April 11, 2010
This is completely ridiculous.
A) Wait more than 5 games before saying someone doesn’t get hits in the clutch
B) Glaus isn’t fast, but at least he tries, unlike GA.
C) There are plenty of slower players, starting with Bengie Molina
Seriously, calm down about the guys who aren’t off to good starts, everyone. It’s unbecoming
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
This is ridiculous... how serious everyone is.
seriously calm down, I was joking around. It’s okay to make fun jabs at a player after 5 games, i think there are plenty other people who do the same
BravesFanScout - April 11, 2010
If you're just joking around,
I’d advise you not to compare players to FUGA. Just FYI
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
Right.
You should make all comparisons to FYF. That’s what I do! :)
EricGreggWasPaidOff - April 11, 2010
Exactly!
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
Yes, it is probably just you – at least, it should be. Hopefully nobody else confuses a guy with a career OBP of .359 (and .333 on the current season) with a guy with a career OBP of .326 and .303 in a Braves uniform.
Glaus has 24 plate appearances. Let’s turn down the main a bit here, Skid Row.
Glaus plays 1B. Garret played LF. One of those positions requires some speed. The other does not. Can you figure out which one?
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
how about Hinske, he is on fire right now.. we should try to get him some more at bats!
Adamal24 - April 11, 2010
Yes. That man is a beast!
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
A double and a triple on the year for a bench player
Me likey
award6 - April 11, 2010
If the game wasn’t likely to get rained out, I’d say he’d be perfect to have in the lineup against Stony McSmokerton.
UMDBHIK - April 11, 2010
So, in every game the Braves played that the Heyward homer GIF hasn’t been up on the homepage, Heyward has homered. I guess we will never see that thing ever again.
BullManUGA - April 11, 2010
that puts Jay Hey on pace for about 159HRs
sounds good.
Scott Coleman - April 11, 2010
Let's be reasonable here...
He has hit 2 HRs in 5 games played, thus:
162 / 5 = 32.4
32.4 * 2 = 64.8 → round up → 65
There. Heyward will hit 65 HRs this year. I’m calling this now.
EricGreggWasPaidOff - April 11, 2010
i was being reasonable
2 games without HR logo = 2HRs.
3 games with HR logo = 0HRs.
We have 157 games left without the HR logo, so…
2HRs + 157HRs = 159 homers.
BOOM!
Scott Coleman - April 11, 2010
Ok. Ok.
You convinced me…
EricGreggWasPaidOff - April 11, 2010
Your logic is irrefutable.
Bravo, sir!
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
No chance we get this one in today
Rain alllll day
Scott Coleman - April 11, 2010
Holy shit! Thats alot of green!
At least we miss the freak
Zeus12888 - April 11, 2010
Anyone notice Javier Vazquez's line from Friday night?
hard to believe but advantage Lowe
GTwill - April 11, 2010
The real comparisson needs to be the lines from Huddy or Hanson. SERIOUS advantage Atlanta.
justincredubil02 - April 11, 2010
Excellent point
Huddy will outpitch Vazquez this year. Bank on it.
Jacob Peterson - April 11, 2010
Agree that the decision was more likely based on extending Huddy
I was trying to add some perspective to the whole Lowe conversation
GTwill - April 11, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Talking Chop to post a comment.