Warning: Rant Ahead.
This one might get me thrown right out of the ZLC.
Although Coach said that he was expecting a full report from the Bronx, there really isn't too much to say in terms of who "looked good" on the Jays, since no one did. As far as the inside scoop of what's going on in Yankee Stadium, most observations are predictable; the Jays' adoption of their alternate caps was subject to ridicule, Godzilla is a huge fan favourite, and beer is $7.50 (all figures U.S.)
Mike Mussina's ability to spot the location of both his fastball and his changeup was incredible last night. He had that rare combination of aggressiveness and precision that enabled him to paint the black in a way that challenged hitters, rather than nibble at them. Doc had the big hook going, but simply got outpitched. Prior to Nick Johnson's double off a tired Halladay, Doc had only surrendered singles save the Posada solo shot.
OK, on to my rant. I support J.P. and Tosca, but there are three things that really bothered me about last night's game. I'll try my utmost to keep my words within the BB "fair criticism" guidelines.
1. Kitten in the Outfield
Cat got on base, as always, but he is not a big-league rightfielder. In fact, I don't know if I could confidently identify a minor league in which Frank Catalanotto would be considered a solid defensive RF. He gets very poor jumps and reads on fly balls and line drives. And his arm...oh, his arm. His four-hopper to the cutoff man as Bernie Williams managed to both do his taxes (just in time!) and score from second on a Ventura single was truly a thing to behold. It's not Cat's fault, of course; he's a 2B born and raised, both by grooming and by physique. I concede that Cat's RF defence has not yet cost the Jays a game. But one day, it will.
2. Asleep at the Wheel
The eighth inning was a disaster from a managerial standpoint, as far as I'm concerned. Here's the scene: After Hinske's one-out single (more on that in Rant 3), Greg Myers added a single after a real battle with Mussina. O-Dawg comes to the plate, and Mussina misses badly with Balls 1 and 2. Nobody's in the bullpen, and Mussina looks tired for the first time all game. Sounds like a surefire "take" sign, doesn't it?
Nope. Hudson swings away, and fouls back a high-and-away fastball. Ultimately, Hudson worked a walk in the AB, but why wasn't the coaching staff alert? Where was the premium on patience at the plate?
Next up is Mike Bordick -- bases loaded, one out. Fine, Bordick's a .290 hitter lifetime against Mike Mussina. But today, Moose has been keeping the ball down all game, and Bordick's 0-for-2 with two groundouts. Remember, it's the eighth inning; the Jays don't need to go for broke here, but a run or two might force the shaky (and tired) bullpen into action. The ONE thing a team can't afford with bases loaded, one out, eighth inning, is a routine or sharply hit ground ball.
It's easy to second-guess. But here are the questions I was considering while first-guessing last night.
a) Is Mike Bordick really the available guy most likely to avoid an inning-ending double-play groundout?
b) What's the player-development purpose of letting Bordick (rather than the more powerful Woodward) hit for himself?
c) Why did we call up Reed Johnson if he isn't going to be used right here and now?
d) And what about Tom Wilson?
The rest, as they say, is history. Whatever Tosca's reasons were for leaving in Bordick, I sure hope "resignation to defeat" wasn't one of them.
3. The Red Light Blues
Rewind a couple of minutes. Eric Hinske comes through with a one-out single in the eighth. Even though Hinske was 13-for-14 in stolen bases last year, and has plus speed, the Yankees play off the bag at first base, as if to either (a) concede defensive indifference in a 5-0 game, or (b) acknowledge that they've been scouting the Jays this year. Red-lighted, Hinske stays put. Defensible, at least.
Then the count gets to 3-2 on Greg Myers. So even though Mussina's getting grounders, Myers is having a selective at-bat, the Jays have already hit into two DP's at this point and Giambi is playing off the bag at first, they don't send Hinske. Voila, a Myers single as Hinske trots contentedly into second base.
Regardless of what you believe about the relative merits of sending a runner, even the most hardline sabermetrician must admit that it's a competitive disadvantage when the opponent knows you will never, ever, ever put a runner in motion. Even if we discount entirely the hard-to-quantify disruptive effect on a pitcher -- although Mussina made zero throws over to first last night, even with Cat on base twice and Hinske once -- it must be admitted that (a) giving the defence more range by their not even having to hold runners and (b) giving the catcher the freedom to call whatever pitch he likes (and no pitchouts) is valuable to the opposition.
Let's compare the Jays' strategy to that of the Yankees, who I respectfully suggest know how to play the game a little bit. They didn't run recklessly, but they did send runners three times:
i) Erick Almonte stole second, successfully, and scored;
ii) Bernie Williams went in motion, avoiding a double play on a ground ball by Matsui;
iii) Giambi and Williams both went in motion on a 3-2 pitch, one out, to Matsui. Matsui hit a towering pop-up, the runners retreated, and nothing was gained. Note, however, that the Yankees sent Jason Giambi from second on a 3-2, 1 out pitch while the Jays held Eric Hinske on first -- with the 1B playing behind him -- in the same situation.
By the way, for all the talk about the Jays being smart and aggressive on balls in play while putting the red light on steals per se, they haven't consistently shown it in this series. On Monday night, a play went 1-6-3-2 and Hudson was still nearly cut down while trying to score from third!
It's become chic in sabermetric circles to bash on Joe Morgan lately, presumably because one of the most intelligent, fundamentally sound and complete middle infielders in baseball history "doesn't get it" -- at least not like John Q. Calculator gets the nuances of baseball. (I don't mean to offend statheads. But Joe Morgan "doesn't get it?" Come on!) Fact is, though, I saw the Morgan tirade on the A's offence on Sunday Night Baseball, and I think his point has merit: The A's offence is not perfectly built for the postseason. As Morgan explained, a walks-and-power offence is tremendous during the regular season with the right personnel, because there is so much vulnerability out there among AL rank-and-file pitchers. When you have the pitching and the power to reliably out-homer the opposition, you'll win a lot of regular season games.
But in the playoffs, when the pitching wheat is separated from the chaff, you need to have a team that is at least remotely capable of manufacturing runs during pitchers' duels. And Morgan's criticism of the A's is that there isn't anyone who can execute a small-ball play or take an intelligent extra base on the basepaths; he prefers a more versatile offence in a short series with good pitching, like the Yankees or Angels. Certainly, reasonable minds can differ on this point. But an Earl Weaver attack, even if it's the organizational philosophy, can't win every game under all circumstances.
Last night was one of those anti-Earl nights. The Jays could have played a doubleheader before last night's version of Mussina hung a curveball over the fat part of the plate. Simply put, the Jays needed to scratch and claw to score last night, and they didn't do so. Six baserunners, no "plays on," three double plays.
I recognize that the Jays will hang a 10-spot on the Devil Rays next week with a walk/extra-base hit attack, and they'll look great doing so. I'll be cheering for it. But while I apologize for my vitriolic ramblings in general, I stand by my specific point, which is that strategic rigidity gave me the "red light blues" last night.
This one might get me thrown right out of the ZLC.
Although Coach said that he was expecting a full report from the Bronx, there really isn't too much to say in terms of who "looked good" on the Jays, since no one did. As far as the inside scoop of what's going on in Yankee Stadium, most observations are predictable; the Jays' adoption of their alternate caps was subject to ridicule, Godzilla is a huge fan favourite, and beer is $7.50 (all figures U.S.)
Mike Mussina's ability to spot the location of both his fastball and his changeup was incredible last night. He had that rare combination of aggressiveness and precision that enabled him to paint the black in a way that challenged hitters, rather than nibble at them. Doc had the big hook going, but simply got outpitched. Prior to Nick Johnson's double off a tired Halladay, Doc had only surrendered singles save the Posada solo shot.
OK, on to my rant. I support J.P. and Tosca, but there are three things that really bothered me about last night's game. I'll try my utmost to keep my words within the BB "fair criticism" guidelines.
1. Kitten in the Outfield
Cat got on base, as always, but he is not a big-league rightfielder. In fact, I don't know if I could confidently identify a minor league in which Frank Catalanotto would be considered a solid defensive RF. He gets very poor jumps and reads on fly balls and line drives. And his arm...oh, his arm. His four-hopper to the cutoff man as Bernie Williams managed to both do his taxes (just in time!) and score from second on a Ventura single was truly a thing to behold. It's not Cat's fault, of course; he's a 2B born and raised, both by grooming and by physique. I concede that Cat's RF defence has not yet cost the Jays a game. But one day, it will.
2. Asleep at the Wheel
The eighth inning was a disaster from a managerial standpoint, as far as I'm concerned. Here's the scene: After Hinske's one-out single (more on that in Rant 3), Greg Myers added a single after a real battle with Mussina. O-Dawg comes to the plate, and Mussina misses badly with Balls 1 and 2. Nobody's in the bullpen, and Mussina looks tired for the first time all game. Sounds like a surefire "take" sign, doesn't it?
Nope. Hudson swings away, and fouls back a high-and-away fastball. Ultimately, Hudson worked a walk in the AB, but why wasn't the coaching staff alert? Where was the premium on patience at the plate?
Next up is Mike Bordick -- bases loaded, one out. Fine, Bordick's a .290 hitter lifetime against Mike Mussina. But today, Moose has been keeping the ball down all game, and Bordick's 0-for-2 with two groundouts. Remember, it's the eighth inning; the Jays don't need to go for broke here, but a run or two might force the shaky (and tired) bullpen into action. The ONE thing a team can't afford with bases loaded, one out, eighth inning, is a routine or sharply hit ground ball.
It's easy to second-guess. But here are the questions I was considering while first-guessing last night.
a) Is Mike Bordick really the available guy most likely to avoid an inning-ending double-play groundout?
b) What's the player-development purpose of letting Bordick (rather than the more powerful Woodward) hit for himself?
c) Why did we call up Reed Johnson if he isn't going to be used right here and now?
d) And what about Tom Wilson?
The rest, as they say, is history. Whatever Tosca's reasons were for leaving in Bordick, I sure hope "resignation to defeat" wasn't one of them.
3. The Red Light Blues
Rewind a couple of minutes. Eric Hinske comes through with a one-out single in the eighth. Even though Hinske was 13-for-14 in stolen bases last year, and has plus speed, the Yankees play off the bag at first base, as if to either (a) concede defensive indifference in a 5-0 game, or (b) acknowledge that they've been scouting the Jays this year. Red-lighted, Hinske stays put. Defensible, at least.
Then the count gets to 3-2 on Greg Myers. So even though Mussina's getting grounders, Myers is having a selective at-bat, the Jays have already hit into two DP's at this point and Giambi is playing off the bag at first, they don't send Hinske. Voila, a Myers single as Hinske trots contentedly into second base.
Regardless of what you believe about the relative merits of sending a runner, even the most hardline sabermetrician must admit that it's a competitive disadvantage when the opponent knows you will never, ever, ever put a runner in motion. Even if we discount entirely the hard-to-quantify disruptive effect on a pitcher -- although Mussina made zero throws over to first last night, even with Cat on base twice and Hinske once -- it must be admitted that (a) giving the defence more range by their not even having to hold runners and (b) giving the catcher the freedom to call whatever pitch he likes (and no pitchouts) is valuable to the opposition.
Let's compare the Jays' strategy to that of the Yankees, who I respectfully suggest know how to play the game a little bit. They didn't run recklessly, but they did send runners three times:
i) Erick Almonte stole second, successfully, and scored;
ii) Bernie Williams went in motion, avoiding a double play on a ground ball by Matsui;
iii) Giambi and Williams both went in motion on a 3-2 pitch, one out, to Matsui. Matsui hit a towering pop-up, the runners retreated, and nothing was gained. Note, however, that the Yankees sent Jason Giambi from second on a 3-2, 1 out pitch while the Jays held Eric Hinske on first -- with the 1B playing behind him -- in the same situation.
By the way, for all the talk about the Jays being smart and aggressive on balls in play while putting the red light on steals per se, they haven't consistently shown it in this series. On Monday night, a play went 1-6-3-2 and Hudson was still nearly cut down while trying to score from third!
It's become chic in sabermetric circles to bash on Joe Morgan lately, presumably because one of the most intelligent, fundamentally sound and complete middle infielders in baseball history "doesn't get it" -- at least not like John Q. Calculator gets the nuances of baseball. (I don't mean to offend statheads. But Joe Morgan "doesn't get it?" Come on!) Fact is, though, I saw the Morgan tirade on the A's offence on Sunday Night Baseball, and I think his point has merit: The A's offence is not perfectly built for the postseason. As Morgan explained, a walks-and-power offence is tremendous during the regular season with the right personnel, because there is so much vulnerability out there among AL rank-and-file pitchers. When you have the pitching and the power to reliably out-homer the opposition, you'll win a lot of regular season games.
But in the playoffs, when the pitching wheat is separated from the chaff, you need to have a team that is at least remotely capable of manufacturing runs during pitchers' duels. And Morgan's criticism of the A's is that there isn't anyone who can execute a small-ball play or take an intelligent extra base on the basepaths; he prefers a more versatile offence in a short series with good pitching, like the Yankees or Angels. Certainly, reasonable minds can differ on this point. But an Earl Weaver attack, even if it's the organizational philosophy, can't win every game under all circumstances.
Last night was one of those anti-Earl nights. The Jays could have played a doubleheader before last night's version of Mussina hung a curveball over the fat part of the plate. Simply put, the Jays needed to scratch and claw to score last night, and they didn't do so. Six baserunners, no "plays on," three double plays.
I recognize that the Jays will hang a 10-spot on the Devil Rays next week with a walk/extra-base hit attack, and they'll look great doing so. I'll be cheering for it. But while I apologize for my vitriolic ramblings in general, I stand by my specific point, which is that strategic rigidity gave me the "red light blues" last night.
