Today's fascinating fact: Tom Candiotti listens to Duran Duran. Somehow, I can't picture Candiotti as a big hair guy.

Gross. The "Fighting" Jays just played some small ball. walk, walk, sac bunt from clark the leadoff hitter, rbi groundout, groundout. Way to play a potential big inning into a single run. And of course we have the announcers praising the strategy the whole time.

1-0 Jays through 3.

One must have delicate hands and well groomed nails to throw a knuckleball. Statistics show that Duran Duran fans have delicate hands and well groomed nails, moreso than the rest of the population.
Therefore, JP should scout Duran Duran concerts for bullpen help.

Wicked play from Hudson, ranging FAR to his left and throwing out the runner from his knees. It's all the more satisfying with Robbie in the house.

Come off it, Mark. Small ball is designed to increase the chances of scoring exactly one run, while decreasing the chances of both scoring zero runs or, as you note correctly, having a big inning. Here, it worked exactly as one might predict.

Jon Garland has been groundball-tastic today, and has been lights-out against the Jays this year. Why not use his pitching to your advantage before he gets tired to steal a run?

Sure, it's possible that Howie Clark hits a three-run bomb off of Jon Garland. But isn't it much more likely, against this pitcher pitching well, that Cat's going to put the ball in play with a man on third, one out? With the Jays' lineup, and with most of the pitching in the AL, a sacrifice is usually a bad idea. But this was one of those rare instances where it was sensible. Plus, with Chicago's infield D, the odds of Howie beating out a hit or forcing an error on his bunt are better than most.

If you like, we can put a sabermetric asterisk next to that run. If the Jays win 4-3, we'll all know that they really (morally) only tied.

Heard on the FAN:

"Guillermo Quiroz went 2 for 5 with 2 home runs, 2 RBI, 2 runs scored and 8 total bases."

Way to market those two solo home runs, Tom!

Wicked play from Hudson, ranging FAR to his left and throwing out the runner from his knees. It's all the more satisfying with Robbie in the house.

For years, Alomar's patented play was ranging to his right, jumping in the air, twisting his body and throwing to first.

Hudson's great plays this year seem to have him consistently ranging to his left.

Alomar's defensive numbers (zone rating, range factor, etc.) never matched his defensive reputation. Some argued that he was able to make his dazzling plays because he overplayed to his right.

In that vain, could it be that Hudson is overplaying to his left? This is not a loaded question nor a backhanded indictment of Hudson's defensive ability. Hudson seems a more athletic defensive second baseman than I thought he was. I'm just wondering if some believe this to be part illusion.

And if they lose 3-2, we'll know that one run didn't do them a bit of good. One-run strategies are great...in the 8th inning.

That reasoning is what leads people to hit on 15 in blackjack when the dealer's got a 6 showing just because "this dealer's so hot they're bound to draw out on me."

Hit away!

Rob Faulds: "This is the first rain delay at Skydome since [1994] when there was a 7-minute rain delay in Texas."

Sabermetrically speaking, a sac bunt with runners on first and second an no outs is a winning strategy - increases both total expected runs and probability of scoring at least one run.

Right call.

Would everybody kept Kelvim after 26 mins delay?

Sorry, my bad. I check the run expectancy tables again, and it slightly decreases total runs expected [link]

I think it increases chance of scoring one run, though.

I know there's been at least one other rain delay at SkyDome since 1994. It looks like the Blue Jays haven't updated that section of the media guide in recent years.

On the other hand, in actual practice, bunting with runners on first and second and no one out has a positive run value.

The discrepancy between this table and the previous one is likely that only poorer batters tend to be asked to bunt.

An exercise for the reader whether Howie qualifies under these criteria.

On review, grammatical corrections to earlier posts (for Gitz):

...I checked the run expectancy...

...it increases the likelihood of scoring...

...qualifies under this criterion.

Put me down as officially fed up with that Jays commercial involving Chris Woodward "singing" in a canoe.

Aquilino - aka The Only Bullpen Pitcher Carlos Trusts - is out there again.

Why the heck was Ordonez running? Dumb dumb dumb.

I was arguing with a friend at yesterday's game: I claimed that Hudson is better defensively than Alomar was. He disagreed. Discuss.

And now, the pitching changes commence. Sigh.

Aw crap. Here we go again. I better see Jason Kershner start the 9th. Or else, he'll bring in Scott Service then Trever Miller, and we'll be stuck with Acevedo or Reichert again.

I was arguing with a friend at yesterday's game: I claimed that Hudson is better defensively than Alomar was. He disagreed. Discuss.

Ok, but not sure if I can really help. Maybe you and your friend have a more deep seeded issue that was simply manifesting itself through a baseball discussion?

And now, the pitching changes commence. Sigh.

Actually, Faulds was just saying that he and Tosca had a conversation and the skipper was wondering if it wasn't time to let pitchers stay in longer and battle out of trouble. Hope it's true. Yahoo whoopee!

Rob Faulds & John Cerutti.
Rob Faulds & Tom Candiotti.
Rod Black & Pat Tabler.
Vic Rauter & Pat Tabler.

COULD WE POSSIBLY WE SUBJECTED TO WORSE TV CREWS??? I think the Jays may have the most inane collection of on-air talent (term used loosely) in the Western Hemisphere.
I miss the days of Dan & Buck with a passion. We didn't appreciate them when we had them, that's for damn sure.

COULD WE POSSIBLY WE SUBJECTED TO WORSE TV CREWS???

I remember Fergie Olver. I'd rather have Cerutti, Candiotti, or Tabler than Fergie. Heck, I'd rather have Brian Williams, and I don't say this lightly.

This is in no way an endorsement of any of the Jays' TV crews.

I never understand why managers allow non-pitchers and non-Rey Ordonezes bunt with two strikes unless they're Rod Carew or Omar Vizquel. Is it that important to get the bunt down?

Ok, but not sure if I can really help. Maybe you and your friend have a more deep seeded issue that was simply manifesting itself through a baseball discussion?

[rimshot] :-) Seriously: do Da Boxers think the O-Dog is better than Alomar?

By the way, the Jays have been outscored 67-41 in the 9th inning.

I think O-Dog at his peak could be better than Alomar at his peak - say, a 35% chance.

I think O-Dog right now is better than Alomar right now.

Defensively, I'm distrustful of my instincts, which tell me that Alomar was the better defender. But I don't think there's enough time built up to look seriously at O-Dog's defensive stats. I'm suspicious of defensive stats unless there's a very strong trend across many measures and many years.

Seriously: do Da Boxers think the O-Dog is better than Alomar?

No. Alomar was consistently above average as a defender during his time here. Hudson goes through lengthy stages of boneheadedness. I think O-Dawg (it is Dawg right, as the kids say?) might eventually get to a point where we can say he's great but now, for me, he's a little too sketchy for high praise.

Checking grammar for me? That's write. You batter knot scruw up again, Mrs. Edwords.

Well, at least Kershner got to face more than one batter.

How tough is it on relief pitchers to come in two games in a row? The Jays need to score, now.

Back to my earlier disdain for the sac bunt (had to watch The Amazing Race and by the looks of things didn't miss much since there was a rain delay). The run expectancy tables I assume are based on average hitters. With the top of the order coming up it seems silly (although, yeah, Clark is presumably below average). Plus the out significantly reduced the chance of Delgado, he of othe 1.000+ OPS getting to bat with runners on.

I took a look at those charts (Run Expectancy Matrix that Andrew linked to -- that first link didn't work for me), which does seem to suggest it's slightly better not to bunt. Personally I'd play for one run maybe seventh to ninth inning in a one run or tied game, that's about it. (Then again, with this bullpen that might not be the greatest idea.)

Kershner looked pretty good there tonight. However, it's still going to be another game where the Jays use 5+ pitchers. Is Toronto leading the league in relief appearances?

http://economics.about.com
Kershner looked pretty good there tonight. However, it's still going to be another game where the Jays use 5+ pitchers. Is Toronto leading the league in relief appearances?

No.. Texas has used 314, Toronto 306. I imagine whoever uses the most this year will set an AL record, but I'm not sure because I don't know exactly what the record is (I think it's probably around 450-480). There's about a half dozen NL teams that have used more. There are actually a handful of teams with significantly worse bullpens than Toronto.

I've criticized the bullpen and the handling of the bullpen a lot and will probably continue to in the future... but the problems aren't exactly unique to the bluebirds.

I've got an exam tomorrow, so I gotta go to bed. I was really hoping to find out who will win this game tonight.. guess I'll learn tomorrow morning.

Cheers,

Mike

Well, Tanyon's up in the pen, so this game won't be going too much longer.

Mark: Is it the 'actual practice' link that didn't work for you? Because that one at least puts it up for debate as to whether a bunt is better.

Although you're right that making outs in front of Delgado is nearly always a Bad Thing.

Tanyon Sturtze sucks. Does he ever get anybody out??

I just had a daydream ...... "(AP) Tanyon Sturtze was given his unconditional release by the Toronto Blue Jays after Thursday's game ...."

WHy is he still on this team? Why does he get brought in in a pivotal situation? Why couldn't Miller have pitched more than one inning?

I honestly don't know what Sturtze is still doing on the team. He doesn't throw hard enough to get by on velocity. He has insufficient movement on his fastball. He has no effective breaking pitch and can't spot his pitches nearly well enough.

Why not leave Service in there?

Sturtze, you are SO cut.

Lopez 2 batters faced. Miller 3, Service 3. Can anyone explain this to me?

The kind people.... have a wonderful dream .... Tanyon Sturtze, unconditional release.

The actual practice one worked fine, the "link" link didn't though. Looks like Yahoo does a redirect or something but I found it by looking Run Expectancy on google. Tangotiger's chart was the first result. And yeah, it's pretty close. I have the book "Curve Ball" which lists the probability of scoring each number of runs based on the situation (Page 192). It does show that the sac bunt increases the probability of at least scoring one run increases from about 60% to 73%. For the two instances in question.

1 and 2, 0 out:
0 runs = .395
1 run = .220
2 runs = .131
3+ runs = .254
total exp. 1.471 runs (tangotiger has 1.573)

2 and 3, 1 out:
0 runs = .270
1 run = .240
2 runs = .280
3 runs = .210
total exp. 1.560 (tangotiger has 1.467)

Strange. Well, looking at the source for the data the author got it from a study done in 1963. Maybe the difference is due to that being a lower-scoring era.

I'm surprised Toronto's not "leading" in relief appearances but there are still 60 odd games to catch them...

Good (if unfortunate) prediction on Sturtze.

Billy for the bottom of the inning?

I can't fault Tosca pitching changes tonight. I presume Carlos was getting a bit tired and wanted to go home to bed. Bringing in Sturtze was therefore the correct choice...

He showed more faith in Sturze, gave him 5 batters. What message does this send? Pitch like crap, try to work through your problems until you give the game away, get yanked. Pitch well, give the team a chance to win, get yanked.

Both starters in tonights game went 7. The Sox used two pitchers to go the next four, the Jays? 6 at least. Horrible.

Mark:

Interesting data. You're probably right that the era accounts for the differences. I'd definitely take Tango's numbers (the link I had went to that chart), which suggest that moving from x-x-0, 0 out to 0-x-x, 1 out is marginally bad.

However, you obviously need to adjust for context.

That's why I was looking at the actual practice numbers, which distinguish bunting the runners over intentionally from, say, hitting into a fielder's choice, or advancing them on a long flyball, or a double steal and a strikeout, or whatever.

I assume that ML managers are using the bunt in at least a semi-appropriate way - for instance, rarely bunting with Todd Helton at the plate. If that's true, then the 'actual practice' numbers give us a bit better sense of how a bunt pays off in a proper usage, and it does seem to have positive run value. The 'actual practice' numbers should also incorporate things like beating a single out of it.

You'd have to do a much more complex analysis to get at whether bunting with Howie in the leadoff slot is an 'appropriate usage', so I think it's still in the air in tonight's case. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a bunt in that situation isn't an automatic boner, the way a bunt moving a runner from 1st to 2nd is.

Does that make sense?

Vernon's not giving up easily. Go Fighting Jays!

...et facta est lux.

Oh well. Vernon tried. I blame Sturze.

Many hurlers have a pitch count; Tanyon must have a "run count".

Suppose someone had asked this question before tonight's game started:

The following pitchers will appear in tonight's game for the Blue Jays: Kelvim Escobar, Jason Kershner, Aquilino Lopez, Trever Miller, Scott Service, Tanyon Sturtze. They are listed alphabetically and not necessarily in order of appearance. Which of these pitchers will give up the game-winning run?

Would anyone not have named Sturtze?

I don't really fault Tosca for his bullpen-handling tonight. I didn't like the decision to pull Lopez after two batters, but he did pitch yesterday. Similarly, although I would have liked to leave Miller and/or Service in longer, other BB readers have pointed out that it's not quite like Tosca's pulling Octavio Dotel.

The real problem is how bad these pitchers are. I wouldn't trust Sturtze, Acevedo, or Reichert in a close AAA game. In particular, I see no reason why Reichert should be expected to pitch more effectively than Brian Bowles or Josh Towers. If anyone would like to consult their stats and make an argument for Reichert's presence in the majors, I'd love to hear it. And I know that the Jays aren't really trying to contend this year, but why not bring up an extra hitter instead of having three sub-replacement level pitchers on the team? Hell, Mike Colangelo's pitched for Syracuse this year, and his DIPS aren't bad; maybe he could be our Brooks Kieschnick ;)

To look on the positives, that's more good outings from the usual suspects (Lopez, Miller, Kershner) and from Service and another good one from Escobar (no longer Escoboob!)

Fire-bomber Tanyon Sturtze isn't always going to successfully blow a lead (a week or so back voice on Da Boxes were hoping he'd return to the rotation!) but he must be on the bubble now. The return of Politte and Walker aren't too far away and after a couple of back-breaking disasters from Sturtze, his chances of staying with the club seem somewhat slim. Unlike Escobar, who was himself poor in the bullpen, Sturtze does not have the upside or a previous record of success. Sturtze, like Tam, and Creek before him, were worth the risk I think, but not for the money they were paid.

I agree about Reichert. Dan Reichert has great stuff, but he should stay in the minors until he harnesses it. And if he never harnesses it in the minors, why do the Jays expect it in the majors?

The trouble is, who would you replace him with? The best AAA pitcher (Kershner) is already up, and nobody else is even close. (Unless you count Thurman).

http://jeays.net
Yup, makes sense. It's definitely closer than I thought it would be at first. I suppose you could take it to the extreme and have a computer in the dugout, factoring in the hitters, pitchers, park factors etc., because it looks like this decision is close enough to depend on that. Also you're right about having to factor in the outcomes even after you decide to bunt (like the TWO two-strike foul bunts by the White Sox tonight, or even if you're going to alter your strategy after getting two strikes like managers usually do). Gets complicated.

Oh well, next up, three games vs. Tampa Bay at SlowClosingRoofDome.

Dr. B: I would replace Reichert with Brian Bowles. In his three cups of coffee, Bowles has shown mild promise: 25 IP, 20 H, 15 BB, 23 K, 0 HR. Reichert, by contrast, has proved over the course of 380 innings that he cannot pitch effectively in the major leagues. In the absence of a better option, I would say that Bowles deserves the opportunity to prove that he's as bad as Reichert.

Besides, his name is two typos away from being "Brain Bowels," which would be an apt description of the intangibles of pitching.

Personally, I'd like to see Thurman up, but there may be factors at play of which we are all ignorant.

How much do those charts take into consideration the ability of a player to actually get the bunt down successfully? I imagine the Jays as a team are worse at bunting - how much do they really practice it anyways? Certainly not too much in actual game situations. Their greatest chance at scoring seems to me to approach AB's they way they usually do, with patience and an eye to getting on base.

Uh.. three games coming up against Baltimore, that is..

Geoff: the charts are just averages of actual outcomes. There is no consideration of player skill, i.e. exactly *how* we get from 1st and 2nd, 0 out, to 2nd and 3rd, 1 out. You're right, if you are bad at bunting you could pop out or fail to advance the runner, or bunt foul on strike three -- or if you're good you could bunt for a base hit to get the bases loaded with 0 out.

Phelps is up, and Werth goes down. As well, Dan "I like throwing a knuckle for an intentional walk" Reichert is going to make room for a (hopefully) healthy Cliff Politte.