Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
In The Pitch, a Kansas City weekly, Andrew Miller recounts a trip to the ballpark with Bill James. If you want plenty of background and personal stuff, you'll enjoy this.

There's also an interesting recent piece by Ben McGrath in the New Yorker :

To some, he’s a philosopher-hero who brought baseball out of the Dark Ages; others consider him a calculator-punching pedant with too much time on his hands. The once proud and conservative Red Sox, by hiring James to be their Senior Baseball Operations Adviser, have joined the ranks of those teams—such as the Oakland A’s and the Toronto Blue Jays—which are now emphasizing the principles of “sabermetrics” as an alternative to the steadfast reliance on weather-beaten scouts with radar guns, hunches, and cigars.

McGrath suggests that the public is witnessing only part of the management revolution in the game.

“What I’m trying to do is to create ways to think about the real problems of baseball front offices in an organized way,” James had told me earlier in the spring. “I’ve actually had some really interesting insights into the game and developed some very interesting methods in the few months that I’ve worked for the Red Sox, and it’s very frustrating not to be able to discuss them with the public.”

I'm sure similar innovations are being adopted in Toronto; proprietary stats and methods of analysis that the Jays would never share with their competitors. As fans, the ZLC may be "enlightened," but we're still very much in the dark.

For Bill James Fans | 26 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_DS - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 01:54 PM EDT (#97149) #
Hopefully they can figure out some proprietary relief metrics so we don't have to endure another year of the Tams, Sturtzes and Creeks of the world.
Gitz - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 02:12 PM EDT (#97150) #
Dang it, Coach, I mentioned this New Yorker piece a while ago, but I could not find a link to it. I really am clueless about this Internet thing.
Coach - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 02:49 PM EDT (#97151) #
Gitz, I don't think it was available on their site until recently.

DS, it's a lot easier to identify the best relievers than to pay them on Toronto's budget. Until some homegrown talent emerges, or the Dome starts selling out again, more inexpensive free agents and Rule 5 types will be auditioning until they find the right guys. As I've said before, if the 1B didn't make $18 million, they could afford a better bullpen.
Pepper Moffatt - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 03:19 PM EDT (#97152) #
http://economics.about.com
Hopefully they can figure out some proprietary relief metrics so we don't have to endure another year of the Tams, Sturtzes and Creeks of the world.

Heck, if they could just come up with a way to figure out who is hiding an injury the Jays would have avoided a lot of horrid bullpen outings. Better yet, they could invent a new way to repair rotator cuff damage. I'd volunteer as a guinea pig.

As I've said before, if the 1B didn't make $18 million, they could afford a better bullpen.

To be honest, I don't think they'd have done anything differently with the bullpen even if they weren't paying Delgado so much. A lot of the more "SABR" oriented teams seem to think it's not a good use of resources to buy middle relievers for $4 million a year and I've got to agree with them looking at the stats. I think they'd more likely spend the money on the rotation, which would also help the pen because it would cut down on the number of relief innings needed, plus it'd be improved as marginal starters would become pretty good long relievers.

Mike
_Chuck Van Den C - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 03:39 PM EDT (#97153) #
While I agree that having money to spend is certainly better than not having money to spend, I don't think it's really all that simple to just go out and buy a good bullpen. Sure an extra $10M to spend on a John Smoltz would be nice (if not exceedingly extravagant), but I think luck is at least as important as money and talent recognition when assembling a good bullpen.

According to Baseball Prospectus, Anaheim's bullpen ranks #1. While Percival has provided a very expensive, solid 29 innings, and has been a consistenly good reliever, just look at the other names: Donnelly, Shields, Weber. Who are these guys?

LA ranks #2. We all know how Gagne is a silk purse made from a sow's ear. Would anyone have bet the farm that the troika of Quantrill, Mota and Shuey would also be world beaters?

Minnesota ranks #9, though I'm quite sure they were much higher last year. Aside from the obviously skilled Santana, their mainstays are Hawkins and Guardado, two failed ex-starters who did an awful lot of bumbling for a good long time before becoming any good. That they got to hang around long enough to even become good is less a testament of the Twins' talent recognition than it was motivated by keeping around cheap arms and not having alternatives. Neither would have hung around very long in the current Toronto regime, and justifiably.

Atlanta is a case where Mazzone deserves immense credit for turning every year's crop of castoffs into a formidable pen. Aside from the obviously gifted Smoltz, the cast of characters that have arrived in Atlanta and put up solid years just never ends. This year's lot includes names like King, Hodges and Bong who, admittedly, can't match last year's "big names" Hammonds, Holmes and Remlinger.

Like I said, I'd rather JP had the money to spend on a bullpen than not, but what, aside from, say, paying $8M for a top flight closer could he realistically expect to do what that money? Just where are the relievers to be bought? Very few are blue chippers who can be counted on year to year, a lesson that Ed Wade has learned the expensive way.
_Mark - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 04:02 PM EDT (#97154) #
http://jeays.net
Having read the NHBA it always irritates me to hear James' bullpen ideas dismissed as "closer/bullpen by committee". That implies some sort of haphazard approach, as in, no one can be trusted, so they just take turns. The whole idea is that the best reliever pitches when giving up a run is most critical. Committee (to me, at least) implies that the pitchers don't have roles, which is not the point of James' idea at all. They do have roles, it's just that the roles correspond to the score (primarily) rather than the inning (primarily). I assume the pitchers would be selected corresponding to the leverage of the situation, i.e. higher leverage, better reliever.

It was unfortunate for the Red Sox that their bullpen melted down earlier in the year causing the media to jump all over the plan, but there's no managerial decision that can make up for a lot of bad pitching and/or bad luck.
_Chuck Van Den C - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 04:16 PM EDT (#97155) #
The fact that Bill James has actually said his bullpen is not a bullpen by committee has meant little to all those with a fondness for the meaningless, yet pejorative, handle.
Craig B - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 04:19 PM EDT (#97156) #
look at the other names: Donnelly, Shields, Weber. Who are these guys?

Well, Donnelly's been striking out nine men per game in the minors for years and years. Shields has been a dominant, high-strikeout pitcher everywhere he's ever been. Ben Weber had a number of decent years in the Jays system, then Pat Gillick or somebody decided they didn't like his face and he spent three years trying to get back to organized ball, but really as you suggest he came out of nowhere. But generally, these guys are guys you would expect to have success.

Would anyone have bet the farm that the troika of Quantrill, Mota and Shuey would also be world beaters?

I would. Quantrill and Shuey have been terrific relief pitchers for years. Mota hasn't been as good, but he does throw the ball nearly 100 miles per hour, that's a pretty good building block and he's been very effective in the minors.

Minnesota ranks #9, though I'm quite sure they were much higher last year. Aside from the obviously skilled Santana, their mainstays are Hawkins and Guardado, two failed ex-starters who did an awful lot of bumbling for a good long time before becoming any good.

Hawkins was another guy who surprised me, but he had success at very young ages in the minors who just couldn't put it together on some really stinky bad Minnesota teams. The kind of guy you'd hope Sturtze could become, except Hawkins is laser-intense and Sturtze wouldn't get angry if you pissed in his dinner. But since becoming a reliever, Hawkins has been pretty good.

Guardado has been a very effective reliever for eight years, and made the conversion very young, at 24. This isn't like Tam or Sturtze or Creek... signing a 30-year-old guy with a significant track record of getting harmed and expecting to turn him around.

What most of these guys have in common is a consistent record of success.

Finding bullpen guys is hard, just like at every other position - but they are a little less in demand, they *are* out there. And bringing guys to Toronto on NRIs and so forth is quite hard when there are other offers; generally the guy is going to prefer the team in the States. But generally, good pens aren't built out of dredged-up crap, they are built out of good relievers. Anaheim didn't just throw a bunch of guys off the waiver wire in the pen together and wait for the magic to happen; most of those guys are good players from their system, and they made the right moves by promoting and trying out the guys who make batters swing and miss.
Craig B - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 04:20 PM EDT (#97157) #
OK, including Tam there was harsh, since Tam has a track record of success.
_Lurch - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 04:34 PM EDT (#97158) #
Tam had 2 years of success...not the greatest of track records.
Dave Till - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 04:46 PM EDT (#97159) #
As I've said before, if the 1B didn't make $18 million, they could afford a better bullpen.

I don't begrudge Delgado his salary, to be honest. Hitters with his ability are rare. I'd rather have somebody with Delgado's level of ability and a $3 million salary, of course - but until somebody comes along who is as good as Delgado, I'd stick with Carlos.

(Phelps could wind up being that good, but it's too early to tell.)
Mike D - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 04:57 PM EDT (#97160) #
Not to be too much of a sourpuss, but I think we can agree that the Jays' brain trust could have assembled a solid bullpen on a shoestring -- they just didn't succeed. It wasn't for lack of trying, but at the same time, the Jays' relief acquisitions in the offseason were first-guessed -- both here at the Box and elsewhere -- as low-upside, high-downside pitchers.

I asked this question on an earlier thread: Is it Mazzone-esque coaching magic that the Jays have lacked with relievers this year, or a clairvoyant Stoneman-esque eye for bullpen talent?
Craig B - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 05:12 PM EDT (#97161) #
Tam had 2 years of success...not the greatest of track records.

Nope, much longer. Tam pitched very well from 1996 to 2001, six years, with the possible exception of 1997 in Norfolk when he gave up a lot of hits. The numbers are available on the Baseball Cube.
Gitz - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 07:01 PM EDT (#97162) #
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1582683.html
Since Rob Neyer was a Bill James disciple, I'll mention here that Neyer today wrote a belated piece about sabermetricians being colour blind. Our discussion at BB covered most of what Neyer says, but our discussion lacked a quote from Keith Law. Click my name if you haven't already read the piece.

(If you have read the piece, pretend you're bopping me on the nose and click my name anyhow.)
_Shrike - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 07:08 PM EDT (#97163) #
Ooh, can I? ;)
_Jabonoso - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 07:22 PM EDT (#97164) #
Mike D:
I am with you. Also it is important to consider releiver usage patterns. Cox has been here for ages and Scioscia is pretty smart and has a knack for bullpen optimization. Is it me or Tim Vet Johnson was much better at this than his succesors?
Coach - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 07:33 PM EDT (#97165) #
pretend you're bopping me on the nose

Mmm, bop!

That's the second time in a month that Neyer has singled out our irresponsible local columnist. Griffin's contention that "patience at the plate and taking no chances on the bases" is "a pre-WWII style of play" was even more ludicrous than his feeble attempt to play the race card. When Rich is charging to the rescue of traditional wisdom on his anti-J.P. horse, he can conveniently forget any fact, including the reign of Earl Weaver.
_Lurch - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 07:50 PM EDT (#97166) #
Hmmm...I wasn't taking minor league time into account. Pretty short peak.
_Wildrose - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 10:41 PM EDT (#97167) #
Regarding finding relievers, both Weber(91-95) and Donnelly (99-2000) are both former Bluejay farmhands dispatched by Gordo and his acolytes
_John Neary - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 12:00 AM EDT (#97168) #
Wildrose,

If you're just commenting on Weber and Donnelly's time in the Jays' minor league system as a curiosity, that's one thing. If you are trying to suggest that Ash should have known how they would develop, I think you're stretching things a bit.

Donnelly pitched 52 innings for Syracuse in 1999-2000, allowing 55 hits and 31 walks while striking out 43. His total stats in the period 1998-2000 were:
Year  Level   IP    H   BB  K 
1998 AA/AAA 82.2 72 40 86
1999 AA/AAA 76.2 66 27 74
2000 AAA 59.1 72 33 48
Donnelly's 1998 and 1999 seasons were mildly impressive, but he was awful in 2000. I don't think you can fault Ash for not holding on to a 29 year old journeyman minor league reliever having a rotten season.

In 2001, Donnelly pitched 70.1 innings for the Angels' AA and AAA affiliates, allowing 58 hits and 21 walks while striking out 87. Did the Angels have any reason to expect that kind of improvement? Perhaps, but I would say it's also quite likely that Anaheim just lucked out. Donnelly was drifting from farm system to farm system when all of a sudden he turned his career around. It could just as easily have happened when he was in the Reds', Pirates', Rays', Jays', or Cubs' farm systems in 1998-2000.

Weber's last season in the Jays' minor league chain was 1995, at which point he was 25 years old. His total stats for the period 1993-1995 were:
Year  Level    IP     H   BB  K 
1993 A 83.1 87 25 45
1994 A/AA 122.0 128 21 74
1995 AA/AAA 117.0 137 33 54
Again, I don't see anything in these numbers to suggest that he was a better prospect in 1995 than Cam Reimers or Vinny Chulk is today. He was so highly regarded by other teams that in 1996 he pitched in Salinas (which I believe is in one of the Mexican leagues), moving on to Taiwan for 1997 and 1998. When he returned to North America in 1999 (in San Francisco's organization) he was a much better pitcher.

I agree that Gord Ash neglected the opportunities provided by minor league relievers. However, I don't think it reflects poorly on him that Weber and Donnelly came and went under his watch, at least based on the numbers available to me.

Cheers,

John
_Jurgen - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 12:35 AM EDT (#97169) #
Tam had 2 years of success...not the greatest of track records.

But Bobby Kielty is a better player than Shannon Stewart because of a season's worth of AB?
_John Neary - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 12:49 AM EDT (#97170) #
No. Bobby Kielty is a better player than Shannon Stewart because:

1. His overall major league and minor league record suggests that he's no worse of a hitter than Stewart is right now.
2. He can actually play outfield competently.

He's also a more valuable player (if not necessarily better) because:

3. He's making $300K, while Stewart's making something like $6 million.
4. His rights are tied up through 2006 or 2007, whereas Stewart is a free agent after this year.
5. He doesn't have Stewart's track record of nagging injuries.
6. He's three years or so younger than Stewart.

I may have missed one or two points, but I think six will do.
_Jurgen - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 01:52 AM EDT (#97171) #
I won't argue any of those points, John.

I think it's a good deal for Toronto. Mostly, I just hated the bitching about Stewart ' round these parts as if he were Roger Cedeno or Terrence Long.

I do think it's odd that Kielty's one year of being slightly better than Stewart proves something while Tam's two "effective" years proves nothing, as Lurch insisted in both instances.
Coach - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 08:56 AM EDT (#97172) #
Mostly, I just hated the bitching about Stewart ' round these parts as if he were Roger Cedeno or Terrence Long.

Not even I would make that comparison, Jurgen. Stewart's a much better hitter than those guys, and there's not much to choose among them defensively -- they're all rotten outfielders.

There would have been no bitching on my part if Shannon had accepted years ago that he's a liability in the field and tried harder at his natural position (DH) instead of sulking. His refusal to do what was best for his team annoyed me even more than his horrible defence. He was overpaid for his one-dimensional contribution, and I'm delighted he's gone. J.P. fleecing the Twins for Kielty makes it even better.

By my reckoning, the Jays are now a dozen games over .500 this season without Stewart, seven games under when he played. The team won't miss him any more than I will.
_John Neary - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 09:13 AM EDT (#97173) #
Jurgen,

Actually, you should have argued one of those points. Given that the Jays are paying Stewart's salary for the rest of this season, point 3 goes out the window ;)

It's often difficult to argue that someone is overrated or overpaid without sounding like you think they're a bad player. I think that most of the people who griped about Stewart would admit that he's still a pretty good baseball player, as Coach did in his last post. But I understand your frustration over this matter.

Tam has put up worse-than-baseline numbers over a larger sample than Kielty did; moreover:

1. Tam is in his thirties, an age at which players sometimes just fall off a cliff
2. Pitchers get more significant injuries than hitters -- and, as we've seen this year and last, they don't always let on.
3. Tam never had a high strikeout rate, which I suspect is a risk factor for sudden collapse.
4. Despite his slump, Kielty was still somewhat useful over the last two and a half months; he continued to get on base at a reasonable clip. By contrast, Tam has been at or below replacement level for the last year and a half.

I think Tam's two effective years in the majors (and several more in the minors) did prove something. I don't believe that his poor record in 2002-2003 proves that he can't pitch anymore, but it makes me darn suspicious. My threshold for proof is a lot lower for pitchers than for hitters, simply because they're less predictable.

John
_Wildrose - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 11:49 AM EDT (#97174) #
John I made no ancillary comments so I was essentially pointing out the irony of the situation.

Weber after being released in 95 played in an independent league in 96 and in 97/98 played in Taiwan. He returned to AAA in 99 with S.F. and started showing promise. I agree he showed nothing with the Jays to warrant being not released.

Donnelly after leaving the Jays started to show immediate promise. You have to ask yourself was he;

-injured and finally healthy?

-had access to better coaching with his new club?

-did he adopt a new pitch/motion that was beneficial?

Hard to say what happened, but I did read somewhere that the Angels look for pitchers with high groundball/flyball ratios. Certainly both these fellows have really helped the Halo's.
For Bill James Fans | 26 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.