Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

The bats were booming in the minors last night, as this post-Farm Report review of the Jays' top prospects reveals, but there were also some marvellous pitching performances, in what may be the first time this season every farm team came away victorious (including two doubleheader sweeps).

Syracuse 16 Pawtucket 7

The Skychiefs went yard on the PawSox last night. Kevin Cash cracked two homers, doubled and walked in a 4-RBI night: there's that power we've been waiting for. He's now up to .271/.333/.449. Gabe Gross continued his own hot streak with his 4th homer and 3 RBIs: after 100 ABs, the official arbitrary we-can-now-take-these-numbers-seriously line, he's at .277/.360/.485. If he keeps this up, right field at Skydome could be in his sights sooner than expected. Three hits and 3 runs scored for Simon Pond, and a triple, single and 3 RBIs for Jorge Sequea. Evan Thomas pitched well again for the win, and Bob File and Jeff Tam each threw scoreless innings in relief; the damage was done by John Wasdin, who allowed 4 runs in just 2/3 of an inning to push his Syracuse ERA to 9.53. I trust he'll never appear in a Toronto uniform again.

New Haven 6 Norwich 5

Always happens: as soon as you finish praising a guy to the skies, he gets whammed. Dustin McGowan had one of his worst outings of the year, giving up 4 runs on 7 hits and 4 walks in 4 IP, striking out just 2. The win, ironically enough, went to Jordan DeJong, who pitched 1 1/3 scoreless innings. Adam Peterson struck out 1 in a hitless 9th for his 6th save. Three more hits and his 9th stolen base for Lexi Rios, while Guillermo Quiroz had 2 hits and a run scored. Dominic Rich drove in 2 with a pair of singles, and Tyrell Godwin had a 5-1-1-1 night: in very early New Haven action (20 ABs), he's at a comfortable .400/.429/.500.

Dunedin 13-3 Clearwater 3-2

A doubleheader sweep for the D-Jays came courtesy of batting in the opener and pitching in the nightcap. Everybody hit in the 13-3 win: at least 2 hits, a run scored and an RBI for Aaron Hill, Jason Waugh, Mikail Jova, Mike Snyder, Tim Whittaker (who doubled twice) and others. Brandon League threw 5 messy innings (3 runs on 9 hits and 2 walks, striking out 4), but got the win. In the nightcap, borderline prospect Chuck Kegley got the victory with 2 innings of hitless relief (1 BB, 3 Ks): his season totals are 3-0, 1.45, and a nicely symmetrical 18 IP, 18 H, 8 BB, 18 K. He's had terrible control problems in his career (165 walks in 240 minor-league IP before this year) and he's 23, so if he's putting it together, now's the time. Two more hits for Jason Waugh and an RBI: his season line at Dunedin is now .305/.379/.452 in 200 ABs.

Charleston 6 Savannah 1

You know it was a good night in the minors when the Alley-Cats bring home an easy win. The victory came courtesy of the struggling DJ Hanson, who fired 6 innings of 1-run ball on 5 hits, 2 walks and 7 strikeouts. A triple, single, 2 runs scored and an RBI for Rodney Medina.

Auburn 2 Batavia 0

The offensive fireworks in Auburn have been slowing down lately, but the pitching keeps on dominating the opposition. Last night it was Tom (Nasty) Mastny's turn, 5 shutout innings on 2 hits and 2 walks (5 Ks): for the season, he's 6-0, 2.82, 44 IP, 39 H, 9 BB, 48 K, 2 HRs, 26.9% KBF. The offence was delivered by -- who else? -- Big Vito Chiavarolotti, whose two-run homer (his 9th) decided the matter. Vito's line: 151 ABs, .358/.471/.636, 30/38 BB/K ratio. Dunedin calling.....

Pulaksi 4-6 Bristol 2-4

The P-Jays completed the Blue Jays' minor-league sweep by taking a doubleheader from Bristol. Jayce Tingler went 3-for-7 with 2 RBIs on the day, while Robinson Diaz had 2 more hits and 2 RBIs in the nightcap. Yesson Berroa and Russ Savickas, who've both been struggling somewhat, got the wins, though neither was dominant.

Posted by Jordan on Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 12:06 PM EDT.

Minor-League Update | 107 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

_DS - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 12:32 PM EDT (#95281) #

With the way Gross seems to be establishing himself, and with the emergence of Johnson, I think it's safe to say that F-Cat won't be back with the big club next year. It's too bad, because he fit in nicely with this offense, but his current slump and his redundant status on this team makes him expendable. But this team needs to spend that money on bullpen help. Badly.

I wonder how much Cash and Werth are deemed prospects in the minds of other teams. Cash is older, but he seems to be a decent hitting catcher with outstanding D. That has to have some value. And Werth, although toolsy, is still fairly young and putting up respectable stats at AAA.

I'm surprised how much New Haven has turned their season around. I guess that what happens when a team brings in two frontline starters, last night's McGowan start notwithstanding.

Great work as always, Jordan.

Pistol - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 12:38 PM EDT (#95282) #

With the way Gross seems to be establishing himself, and with the emergence of Johnson, I think it's safe to say that F-Cat won't be back with the big club next year. It's too bad, because he fit in nicely with this offense, but his current slump and his redundant status on this team makes him expendable. But this team needs to spend that money on bullpen help. Badly.

Since the Jays control F-Cat's rights for next year I suspect that they will try to trade him. He can certainly be useful for someone, and the price tag should be reasonable. I'm not sure he'd bring a lot in return, but something is better than nothing.

_Shane - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 01:09 PM EDT (#95283) #

Nobody's commented on this, so i'll bring it up...

The Blue Jays traded Shannon Stewart for Bobby Kielty? When did that happen? And where the hell is Brad Fullmer? Bob Elliot says in today's Sun: "The Jays added outfielder Bobby Kielty, a nice pick up, in exchange for soon-to-be free-agent outfielder Shannon Stewart. But to think that Kielty will some day replace Carlos Delgado is silly."

Umm, what is he talking about? Aquilino Lopez is a fine pitcher but he'll never replace Mother Theresa.

_Nigel - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 01:17 PM EDT (#95284) #

I have no idea why, but somewhere in the back of my brain I have this vague notion that F-Cat will come back - as next year's second baseman. As valuable, major league youngsters go, Hudson might be JP's most valuable trading chip and most expendable. Within a year or two there are some viable options in the minors (Alvarez, Sequea, Adams, Rich, Hill) and Hudson's age and apparent inability to hit lefties suggests that what you see is what you get (which is pretty good). I would be sorry to see Hudson go, because I think he's the best second baseman since Alomar but I could understand it. The only issue is F-Cat's price tag.

Gerry - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 01:20 PM EDT (#95285) #

Bob Elliott is cranky these days. He is a not a JP fan and takes subtle shots at JP when he can. In the article he also mentions Rich Thompson. I think this is the second time I remember Bob talking about how well Thompson is doing in AAA for Pittsburgh. I think he is hoping Thompson makes it so he can take more shots at JP.

_Spicol - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 01:41 PM EDT (#95286) #

Since the Jays control F-Cat's rights for next year I suspect that they will try to trade him.

As horrible as Cat's slump has been for the Jays (AND the Red Mosquitos), it really might be a good thing for the club in the long term. Were he to play at peak form for the rest of the year, his price tag would go up considerably. I'd argue that a 282/327/436 player with upside making $2.5MM in 2004 is easier to trade than a 294/355/457 player with little upside who makes $4MM or more.

_Jordan - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 01:53 PM EDT (#95287) #

For the record, Rich Thompson is batting .271/.325/.371 in his first 70 AB for AAA Nashville, with 14 steals in 17 tries and a 4/15 BB/K rate. As expected, hardly any power (14 singles, 3 doubles, 2 triples). It's no surprise that Elliott is hoping Thompson can make JP look bad; the man really shouldn't be allowed to cover baseball anytime after 1982.

That said, I'm rooting for Rich to make it to the majors (and if he'll do it anywhere, Pittsburgh is the place, where the manager still overvalues speed and batting average), because he's evidently a good guy, and it'd be cool to see a player I've tracked from Double-A make it to the show. He had no future in Toronto and his skill set didn't fit into the system, so I don't regret his being dealt away. But I said at the time that John Wasdin wasn't worth the admittedly modest price, and he wasn't; he's been close to an unqualified disaster. That's the way the cookie crumbles, though, and if Elliott has to rely on Rich Thompson to base his anti-JP rants, he's clearly losing the battle.

_John Neary - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 02:04 PM EDT (#95288) #

Jordan: Do you think Wasdin was necessarily going to blow up? Or did you just think the chance of him being Pete Walker v2.0 was so low that it wasn't worth Thompson?

_R Billie - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 02:09 PM EDT (#95289) #

Cat will not be playing second for any team any time soon. He's just not a good defensive infielder or else he'd be playing second for someone right now. I don't think the Jays can afford the downgrade in defence from Hudson to Cat. They're pretty bad on the infield as it is with Hinske and Woodward having been woeful for the most part.

JP recently said on the FAN that he expected Arnold, McGowan, Bush, and Peterson to be pitching strong in AAA next year. I wonder if the Jays will convert Peterson back to starting...I suspect he was relieving this year from fear of being overworked in college. Not that the Jays can't use relief help but pitching only 1 or 2 innings at a time is not a good way to develop a future major leaguer. Even if he's on a pitch count of 90, I think he's better off starting and getting more experience.

If the Jays can trade Cat and get a reliable bullpen arm, it will be worth it. If they trade Cat and two outfield prospects in the off-season, plus dip into the non-compensation free agents, they have a chance to make some real strides in pitching. Not counting the potential for Arnold, McGowan, Bush, and Peterson to come up some time next season.

Craig B - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 02:21 PM EDT (#95290) #

Well, it's not that I don't wish Rich Thompson well, but he's going to have to distinguish his skills from the pack to have a major league career longer or more significant than the last Rich Thompson's. Stealing even more bases would help, from the 30-50 range to the 60-80 range.

As far as I can tell, he's a pretty common type of AAAA player... a zero-power outfielder who can play center, looks real good on a corner, will put up a .340 or .350 OBP and can run well and steal some bases. Roger Cedeno with better defense and less power and speed. Tom Goodwin with a touch less speed and glove.

Still, a guy like Thompson can be an extremely valuable player if he develops right. High upside is Juan Pierre, probably, or Luis Castillo in centerfield. These types of guys used to be more common: Brian L Hunter, Chuck Carr, Rudy Law, Miguel Dilone, I can go on and on... the only guys like that now are old guys and Juan Pierre, really. Too many CFs who can hit the ball out of the park.

Craig B - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 02:31 PM EDT (#95291) #

Incidentally, call me a sentimentalist, but I'd love to see Ken Huckaby get a September call-up, and I think he will. Huckaby is the kind of obviously flawed player it's impossible not to pull for.

He's been hitting quite well in the backup role at Syracuse, and getting time in at first base to boot, where he's done well defensively by all accounts.

How can you not love a guy who said, after socking a home run, that "A blind horse finds water sometimes, doesn't it?"

_Spicol - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 02:35 PM EDT (#95292) #

You're too kind with your Cedeno and Tom Goodwin comparisons. To me, Rich Thompson projects to be this guy.

Blech.

Craig B - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 02:41 PM EDT (#95293) #

Spicol, Thompson already gets on base better than Curtis Goodwin.

Blech is an understatement.

_Shane - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 02:46 PM EDT (#95294) #

Craig B, Considering the Jays have Myers and Wilson kicking around, who would you rather see up in September: Huckaby or Cash? Would you dare give Tosca four catchers to go with the fifteen/sixteen pitchers he might get for the month? as he'll be able to diddle himself into rotiseree baseball heaven.

Craig B - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 02:48 PM EDT (#95295) #

Oh yeah, one other thing re Curtis Goodwin. He had one of the all-time worst throwing arms. His throwing arm made Johnny Damon look like Johnny Callison.

He was also traded straight-up for David Wells. Man, that's a bad deal.

Craig B - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 02:51 PM EDT (#95296) #

Why not both? Yeah, I know, four catchers. But if Tosca wants to go rotogeek-wild with the substitutions, you may as well give him the horses to do it with. It's not like the games "matter" in the sense that the Jays will be moving up and down in the standings.

Cash is getting close to ready, so I think a September call-up would be OK.

Dave Till - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 02:57 PM EDT (#95297) #

I agree that Cat is not being considered for second base. If that was a possibility, the Jays would have played him there at least once. They played him at first twice, so I guess they're trying to sort out whether they want to keep Kielty, Cat, or Wilson.

September callups? Werth will be back for sure. Cash will probably
come up. Lots of bullpen guys will be up: Tam, Bowles, maybe
Reichert and Towers, File if he's healthy. (If Tosca is going to
swap pitchers with mad abandon, it's probably best to have lots of
them to choose from; the alternative is to wear out Lopez and
Kershner.) Howie Clark might be back. The kids will probably
stay down, to keep their service time down. Huckaby might come
back up because people like him.

Dave Till - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 02:58 PM EDT (#95298) #

Sorry about the weird formatting: my mailer doesn't word wrap, but Da Box does. Occasionally, I get the two of them mixed up.

Gerry - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 02:59 PM EDT (#95299) #

I was looking at the Syracuse boxscore and I saw Gross had his batting average up to .275 - that is good I thought to myself. Then I look down to the next player, Huckaby, BA is .287. Oh oh, Gross has a way to go yet ;-) I think Huckaby will get a September call-up, maybe just to continue to babysit Cash as he gains on-the-job experience.

(in case you miss it - the above comment re: BA's is an observation that means nothing)

_Ryan - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 03:05 PM EDT (#95300) #

Does anyone know what Reed Johnson's minor league platoon splits were like? In his brief major league career he's done most of his damage against lefties (.729 vs. R, .979 vs. L). I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to sign Catalanotto (or someone similar) to platoon with him until Gross is ready.

This, of course, assumes that we can expect Johnson to keep producing at a reasonable clip. I'm not sold on him just yet.

_Shane - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 03:05 PM EDT (#95301) #

Considering Kevin Cash is getting ready to be a grandfather and has 550 Triple-A AB's under his belt, when Ricciardi returns from his week in Syracuse he should bring Cash along as a carry-on.

_Spicol - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 03:16 PM EDT (#95302) #

Re: September call-ups (maybe this should be a separate thread?)

JP is limited to calling up only those on the 40-man, unless he wanted to release one of the players on that roster. We already know he has to ditch one player when Bob File comes off of the 60-day DL and that player is probably one of Diegomar Markwell, Dan Reichert, Scott Service or Tanyon Sturtze. I'd guess Markwell.

Calling up Simon Pond or Ken Huckaby means that someone else from that list of 4 has to be let go. With that in mind, and considering that Cash, Clark and Werth are more likely September call-ups, I'm doubtful that Pond or Huckaby makes the climb...that's too many hitters sitting on the bench.

The Jays probably want to take a look at File on the big club. If Jeff Tam continues to pitch well, he probably gets the call at the expense of one of the list of 4. Brian Bowles has pitched well lately. While his ratios are still nothing special, he's much better than earlier this year when he was walking 1 an inning. Pete Walker, if not up with the big club prior to, will certainly spend time in the majors in September.

So, in summary...

Up: Cash, Clark, Werth, File, Walker, Tam, Bowles.
Out: Markwell and oh, let's say Service (since Sturze seems absurdly untouchable)

_Shane - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 03:22 PM EDT (#95303) #

For me, if the first pitchers called up aren't named Chulk, File, Smith or Bowles, and you instead see the Tammers and Rickety Reichert's, than I just don't get it. For me the sooner you cut the Acevado's and Sturtze's out your diet, all the better. They don't throw gas, they give you it.

_Ryan - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 03:24 PM EDT (#95304) #

I think Vinny Chulk will get a look. He's had a pretty good full season in AAA and he's not that young (he'll be 25 in December). I don't think there's much risk of rushing him.

I also expect Mike Smith to finally get a chance to pitch in the majors this season.

_Shane - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 04:05 PM EDT (#95305) #

You want to hear something terrifying from someone who is on glue? A supposed "connected" Padres/Pirates poster at a website TBNL says the Blue Jays have claimed Jason Kendall off waivers. Imagine.

_Jordan - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 04:05 PM EDT (#95306) #

John, here's what I wrote about Wasdin at the time of the trade:

Wasdin's having a fine year at AAA, but then again, so was Doug Linton in 2002, and that didn't exactly pan out. Wasdin's trademark is control: a 184/416 lifetime BB/K in 594 major-league innings, a 121/404 ratio in 537 minor-league innings (entering this season). Unfortunately, he hangs around the plate a little too often -- he's allowed 99 HRs in those 594 ML IP, or about one every 6 frames; less than ideal for a reliever who'll be put to serious use right away. I predict he'll be an improvement on the spring-training NRIs who made the ballclub, but not much of one.

I was wrong on two points: he was used as a starter, not a reliever, and he made Doug Linton look good. It's easy to second-guess trades that didn't work out, and his actual performance was beneath even the lowest expectations, but there wasn't much reason to believe major-league hitters had forgotten the book on Wasdin during his absence. Or, put differently, if the Pirates didn't think he was worth a major-league rotation spot....

_Sulsal - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 04:15 PM EDT (#95307) #

yeah i agree with ryan and shane i really dont feel like seeing washed up guys in sept. we are not goin to the playoffs so lets see wat our young guys can do. who knows they could be the answer we were looking for. I personally think we should give both Arnold and Chulk a chance in September in the rotation. And Smith, File and Bowles in the bullpen. By the way jus saw the score for Syracuse game where Arnold was pitching. With JP watching his line was 7IP 4 hits 2 ers.
go Arnold.

_Shane - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 04:20 PM EDT (#95308) #

Now, watching said "connected" poster back away from his claim is beyond funny. I can't stop laughing. Ahh, he's being murdered. The laughter ensues.

_Spicol - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 04:22 PM EDT (#95309) #

yeah i agree with ryan and shane i really dont feel like seeing washed up guys in sept. we are not goin to the playoffs so lets see wat our young guys can do.

I don't really care about Reichert, Service, Sturtze or Acevedo. I agree, let them go. But I think Tam can really be of use. He was pretty good, just a short time ago. There seems to just be something, perhaps small, he needs to work out. If he's doing just that in AAA right now and he can come up in September and throw lights out at the major league level, then what you have is a guy you have first crack at to sign for 2004 and could be an integral part of the bullpen. How can you be sure he's turned it around if he's pitching in Syracuse?

Kendall? *Spicol cocks an eyebrow*

robertdudek - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 05:06 PM EDT (#95310) #

With Kendall due $42 million from 2004-2007, I think that J.P. is more likely to sign Attila the Hun to a minor league contract than to claim Kendall on waivers.

_Ryan - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 05:18 PM EDT (#95311) #

I dunno, Attila the Hun would give the team some veteran leadership.

Craig B - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 05:22 PM EDT (#95312) #

Yeah, right. The Jays claimed Jason Kendall. That's hilarious.

I could fill my office with boxes of U.S. dollar bills, and throw big handfuls of dollar bills out of my office window, continually, *every* second of *every* minute of *every* hour of *every* day, for an ENTIRE MONTH, and I would not waste as much money as the Jays would be wasting in claiming Jason Kendall off waivers.

Yes, I calculated it. And yes, I was awfully generous to Jason Kendall. That's just the wasted money... I'm assuming he's worth quite a bit.

_the shadow - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 05:22 PM EDT (#95313) #

Jordan what are the numbers on File at AAA

Craig B - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 05:26 PM EDT (#95314) #

Four innings, three hits, no walks, one K. Follows on three innings and one hit (a home run) with 0/0 K/W at Dunedin.

_Jordan - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 06:04 PM EDT (#95315) #

Kendall on waivers? Too funny.

Now, Giles on waivers....

_Jacko - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 06:53 PM EDT (#95316) #

Kendall is due:

2004: $8.0M
2005: $10.0M
2006: $11.0M
2007: $13.0M

Wow. 10.5 million per year. He'll clear waivers with no problems :)

Giles, makes around the same money, but is worth every penny. I suspect he is the reason why that SD-Pit deal is not happening (i.e. other teams keep claiming him when they try to slip him through waivers).

jc

Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 07:10 PM EDT (#95317) #

http://economics.about.com
With Kendall due $42 million from 2004-2007, I think that J.P. is more likely to sign Attila the Hun to a minor league contract than to claim Kendall on waivers.

This sounds like a fun new game: "Things that J.P. is more likely to do than to claim Kendall on waivers".

My entry: J.P. is more likely to win the LPGA Wendy's Championship this weekend than claim Kendall on waivers.

Mike

_Shane - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 07:35 PM EDT (#95318) #

"Things that J.P. is more likely to do than to claim Kendall on waivers"?

Hmm, how about, J.P. is more likely to take a bubble bath with Geoff Baker and Richard Griffin than claim Kendall on waivers.

robertdudek - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 07:38 PM EDT (#95319) #

Question to throw out:

What would the Blue Jays record be this year so far if they had a reliever of the approximate quality of Rivera/Smoltz/Gagne?

_Spicol - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 08:33 PM EDT (#95320) #

JP is more likely to run for governor of 'Caulifornia' than claim Kendall on waivers.

Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 08:39 PM EDT (#95321) #

http://economics.about.com
Question to throw out:

What would the Blue Jays record be this year so far if they had a reliever of the approximate quality of Rivera/Smoltz/Gagne?

I'd say that it would only give them an extra 3 wins. Adding just one guy isn't going to make a huge difference. It takes a team effort to have a bullpen perform that lousy.

Mike

Dave Till - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 09:06 PM EDT (#95322) #

"Things that J.P. is more likely to do than to claim Kendall on waivers"?

Get into a simultaneous fight with Milton Bradley, Carl Everett, and Paul "Mr. Calm" O'Neill.

What would the Blue Jays record be this year so far if they had a reliever of the approximate quality of Rivera/Smoltz/Gagne?

The Jays are 10-18 in one-run games. The league's best record in one-run games is 14-7 (Seattle). Let's assume that, with an awesome bullpen, the Jays would be 18-10 in one-run games. This would put them at 65-51, which would still be 2 1/2 games out of the wild card race.

Now, if they'd had two more good starting pitchers and a better bullpen...

[ Reply to This ]

Dave Till - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 09:07 PM EDT (#95323) #

My italics run amok!

_Jonny German - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 09:26 PM EDT (#95324) #

I think Mike's estimate is a bookend to Dave's "Best case scenario". Adding one guy at the top pushes all the other arms down into roles they are more able to handle. That is, the improvement is not just seen in the performance of the new guy and the subtraction of the worst guy out there.

Here's an even harder question to answer: What would the Blue Jays record be this year with optimal bullpen usage rather than Carlos Tosca's Adventures in Reliever Roulette? Actually, I'm going to revise that from "harder" to "impossible"... there's no way to prove that Carlos hasn't gotten the best possible return out of the arms at hand.

Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 09:53 PM EDT (#95325) #

http://economics.about.com
I think Mike's estimate is a bookend to Dave's "Best case scenario". Adding one guy at the top pushes all the other arms down into roles they are more able to handle. That is, the improvement is not just seen in the performance of the new guy and the subtraction of the worst guy out there.

Even still, I don't see it having a huge effect. Due to injuries, the phases of the moon, or acute lackoftalentitis the Jays pitching staff has been lousy this year, largely because of the bullpen.

If we tack on those 3 wins to their one-run record would put them at 13-15. Do you honestly think the Jays bullpen would be above average by just adding one guy? Unless that guy is Mike Marshall and he's throwing 208 innings out there, I don't see it.

I haven't been amused by Tosca's handling of the bullpen, but I don't think all the blame should be placed on him. If the front office didn't want him to make so many pitching changes they wouldn't put so many relief pitchers on the roster. The roster is designed so that there will be a lot of pitching changes and very few pinch hitters and that's precisely what we've seen this year.

Mike

_StephenT - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 10:41 PM EDT (#95326) #

fyi: in-context Jays stats since the All-Star Break. The Jays have had the 3rd-best pitching & defense in the league since the break, but subpar hitting has held them back (not to mention some issues with the pen).

Mike D - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 11:03 PM EDT (#95327) #

I'm much closer to Dave than to Mike on the bullpen question. Regrettably, one-run games don't tell the story of the Jays' bullpen; they've been given leads and gotten hammered to a point where a mere one-run deficit becomes a sad little pipe dream.

The Jays' bullpen is 10-19, but it's a soft 10-19; twice that I can think of (vs Twins and vs Royals), the pen gagged up a starter's lead only to have the offense come back and win it, while only once that I can think of (vs Yankees) did the bullpen rally the team back from an inherited deficit, only to ultimately lose.

More research is needed, but I'd say the Jays pen is a "hard" 8-18. If you have Lopez, Kershner and Miller turning the ball over to Eric Gagne, the absolute worst the pen does is 13-13, which is five games and we're back in the wild card race.

Mike, do you really think that a Jays bullpen that featured Eric Gagne would be a "hard" 11-15? Take the stat for what it's worth, but Gagne has zero of the Dodgers' four(!) blown saves all season.

I wouldn't trust Tosca to use Gagne optimally, but he'd make an enormous difference. As a coach, I'm sure Coach would agree that these late-inning gag jobs have been murder on the club's psyche.

robertdudek - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 11:37 PM EDT (#95328) #

I'd love to see how many games the Jays have lost while leading after 7 innings, versus a normal performance. I think this would go some way towards answering the question I posed.

The value of an ace reliever can be easily underestimated. Tangotigre has shown that an ace reliever's innings may have twice the win value of a starter's innings. In other words, 75 innings can have the same eimpact as 150 innings from a starter.

_Spicol - Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 11:42 PM EDT (#95329) #

Robert, that's really interesting, could you link to that please?

_Lefty - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 12:02 AM EDT (#95330) #

As has been correctly calculated here tonite the Jays should still be in the hunt for a playoff spot if not for neglect of the pen. I suspect the hitters are indeed going through the doldrums of a wasted year now. Doc is now protecting his own leads obviously as a reward, with the blessing of JP and Tosca. He's having a remarkable year and I suppose deserves to call his own shots and not allow his work to be incinerated. As maddening as this season has been its also been really fun. I can't really blame Tosca. He only played the cards he was dealt. Right or wrong. The Jays need to swollow the sword and get themselves at least a Scott Williamson. If not it will be more of the same in 04.

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 01:06 AM EDT (#95331) #

This is an article Tangotigre wrote analysing some relief ace HoF candidates, using his Leveraged Index.

In the discussion, he elucidates the ideas behind his approach. The last line in the discussion is the following:

"If there's anyone still out there, Eric Gagne's LI last year was 1.83, and Smoltzie was 1.79."

LI is leveraged index. Obviously those two fellows were brought in with 3-run leads in the ninth (a relatively low-leverage situation) plenty of times, so their use was definitely sub-optimal.

A closely related issue (when to bring in pinch hitters or 1 or 2 batter relief specialists) is touched upon in this article.

The chart provided is very interesting. The highest-leverage PA (shaded red) are very rare before the 8th inning.

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 01:15 AM EDT (#95332) #

Tango also made some interesting comments about Goose Gossage in this post

Tango notes: "From 1982 to 1985, as he averaged 90 innings, his LI was a shade over 2. That makes those innings worth about 180 innings as a starter."

A very interesting discussion ensued.

_R Billie - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 06:57 AM EDT (#95333) #

I'm sure given a reasonable amount of money ($4 to $6 million) in the off-season to spend on the pen, I'm sure JP can put together a better bullpen than he did this year.

He just has to not have an irrational fear of (a) pitchers who actually have a track record of REAL success (b) pitchers who might cost more than a million each. He also has to ignore his penchant for acquiring pitchers who (a) allow tons of baserunners and have a history of doing so and (b) allow a lot of homers and have a history of doing so. There's an excuse for not spending $15 million on the pen...there's NOT an excuse for spending the limited funds on BAD pitchers. What's the point of acquiring a veteran with a low ceiling? You might as well give a guy like Bowles a job for the minimum.

One Kerry Ligtenberg is easily worth about three or four times what Jeff Tam or Doug Creek are worth, especially since he's better against lefties and righties than either Tam or Creek are.

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 08:41 AM EDT (#95334) #

http://economics.about.com
Mike, do you really think that a Jays bullpen that featured Eric Gagne would be a "hard" 11-15?

Yeah. I can't see them being any better than that.

Even with a Gagne, the Jays pen doesn't have a Quantrill or Mota. Heck it doesn't even have a Shuey.

If Gagne has been worth 7 games, then Quantrill and Mota should each be worth 6 and Shuey should be worth 3. That would put the Jays at about 25 and -5 which clearly doesn't make any sense.

A player like ARod is only worth an extra 7 or 8 games a year. If closers are worth that many games, the market is seriously undervaluing them.

Mike

Craig B - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 08:41 AM EDT (#95335) #

Good post, R Billie. A couple points:

One Kerry Ligtenberg is easily worth about three or four times what Jeff Tam or Doug Creek are worth, especially since he's better against lefties and righties than either Tam or Creek are.

Right, but it's important to disentangle the relievers themselves from the reliever usage. My strong suspicion is that even with a Kerry Ligtenberg on board, Tosca would still be using him in four-pitcher innings, sandwiching him in between Creek and Miller to face medicore righties.

In order to make the Jays significantly better than they are, not only would it take better performances from the pen, but also a better situational application of those pitchers. That might not be possible; i.e. even if the pen were significantly better, I suspect it might not be possible without perfect foresight to make the team significantly better as a result.

At any rate, as StephenT points out, the problem since the All-Star Break is that the Jays haven't scored enough. *However*, even if they had, it wouldn't have mattered; the blown games from before the break put the team so far out that it doesn't matter if they had gone 11-8 instead of 8-11. They were too far behind.

I'm sure JP can put together a better bullpen than he did this year.

He just has to not have an irrational fear of (a) pitchers who actually have a track record of REAL success (b) pitchers who might cost more than a million each. He also has to ignore his penchant for acquiring pitchers who (a) allow tons of baserunners and have a history of doing so and (b) allow a lot of homers and have a history of doing so.

I actually agree with this. It seems to me that what the front office have tried to do, is follow the Cincinnati Reds model for building a pitching staff. That is, sign guys who have struggled but who you have good reasons to believe can turn it around; and then turn them over to a very good pitching coach and let him work with them to help them turn it around.

I think it's a worthwhile strategy to pursue when money is tight and there's nothing in the system. It hasn't worked. The Jays have had some success with the younger and less experienced guys (despite the fact that the farm system's pitching was in terrible shape two years ago), and much less success with turning around veterans. Maybe you need to keep rolling the dice, but from J.P.'s comments I suspect he no longer thinks so and is ready to try to get quality from quality instead of dredging quality from quantity.

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 08:49 AM EDT (#95336) #

http://economics.about.com
A follow-up question: How many wins better do you think the entire Dodgers pen has been compared to the Jays pen?

I'd say 8 or 9.

Mike

Mike D - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:04 AM EDT (#95337) #

The Dodgers bullpen, with the second-worst offense in baseball scoring on their behalf, have given up 81 runs (including unearned) in 323 IP.

The Jays bullpen, with the third-best offense in baseball scoring on their behalf, have given up 194 runs in 328 1/3 IP.

I could have done without those extra 113 runs, that's for sure. There is just no way that the difference is insignificant.

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:08 AM EDT (#95338) #

Mike,

I question your assumptions.

First off, A-Rod is worth how many games compared to whom? I think it's reasonable to estimate that A-Rod is worth something like 12-15 games over a replacement level shortstop - a kid you drag out of AAA or a scrub you sign to a minor league contract.

Second, your logic regarding Gagne/Quantrill/Mota/Shuey doesn't necessarily hold water.

Let's say the Dodgers use them in close to an optimal way. Their LI might look like this:

Gagne = 1.9 LI, Mota 1.4 Shuey 1.3 Quantill 1.1, #5 0.9, #6 0.7

Thus, the difference in value between Gagne and the other relievers isn't merely the difference in their quality multiplied by innings. It is affected by the leverage of the situations they are put in.

In the case of the Blue Jays, adding Gagne would be a huge benefit, as he is much much better than any other reliever we have. But adding subsequent quality relievers is subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns (because you won't find enough high leverage situations for all of them).

I think, with Gagne pushing all the other relievers to slightly lower leverage situations and the worst reliever being cut, I think 5-7 games over the course of a season would be reasonable.

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:10 AM EDT (#95339) #

http://economics.about.com
I could have done without those extra 113 runs, that's for sure. There is just no way that the difference is insignificant.

Well, 113 runs ~ 11-12 wins. Once you account for the fact that the Dodgers play in a lousy hitters park, I think 8 or 9 wins sounds reasonable.

What would you consider to be "significant"?

Mike

_Brent - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:12 AM EDT (#95340) #

Hijack:

Final score from last night's Pulsaki game: 21-17. I guess they got bored and played some football instead.

_Geoff - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:13 AM EDT (#95341) #

I'd love to see how many games the Jays have lost while leading after 7 innings, versus a normal performance. I think this would go some way towards answering the question I posed.

The Globe and Mail article Coach cited this morning states that the Jays are 52-10 when leading after 7 innings, while the Yankees are 59-4...If the Jays could only match the Yankees record in this split, they'd make up 6.5 games in the standings...a significant amount

Moreover, this stat doesn't take into account games the Jays had the offense to come back in after 7 or take the lead in a tie game after 7...but their bullpen gave up more runs in the last two innings than their offense could score

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:13 AM EDT (#95342) #

To answer the question posed, I would say 0.5 wins and above is significant.

_Brent - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:14 AM EDT (#95343) #

Err, that would be Pulaski.

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:15 AM EDT (#95344) #

http://economics.about.com
First off, A-Rod is worth how many games compared to whom? I think it's reasonable to estimate that A-Rod is worth something like 12-15 games over a replacement level shortstop - a kid you drag out of AAA or a scrub you sign to a minor league contract.

Yeah, you're probably right. He can't be worth too much, though, or else the Rangers are worse than the Tigers.

Let's say the Dodgers use them in close to an optimal way.

They don't though. If we assume that we might as well assume that the Jays use their relievers in an optimal way. Then there are less opportunities to improve the performance of the bullpen.

In the case of the Blue Jays, adding Gagne would be a huge benefit, as he is much much better than any other reliever we have. But adding subsequent quality relievers is subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns (because you won't find enough high leverage situations for all of them).

Again, assuming they're used optimally. Which they wouldn't be.

I think, with Gagne pushing all the other relievers to slightly lower leverage situations and the worst reliever being cut, I think 5-7 games over the course of a season would be reasonable.

Which should be about 4 wins with suboptimal usage, or 3 wins to this point of the season.

Mike

_Jordan - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:21 AM EDT (#95345) #

Things that J.P. is more likely to do than to claim Kendall on waivers".

Sign Brian Hunter.
Trade for Neifi Perez.
Give Reed Johnson a three-year, $10M contract.
Renew his subscription to the Star.
Support Barbara Hall for mayor of Toronto.
Replace Colin Mochrie on This Hour Has 22 Minutes.
Appear in the latest PETA "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" billboard campaign.
Join the Idaho Repertory's touring version of A Streetcar Named Desire as Stanley.

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:22 AM EDT (#95346) #

Mike,

If you have bad relievers across the board, it doesn't really matter how you distribute the high-leverage sitautions. Having Gagne (clearly the best reliever on the staff) would mean that most of the high-leverage situations would go to him.

It's easier to (and more likely that Tosca will) use 1 reliever close to optimally than the entire pen optimally.

No, it's still 5-7 wins even if you're using him sub-optimally (as long as he's "the closer". I account for the fact that Gagne wouldn't get all the high-leverage sitautions. Frankly, that estimate is fairly conservative, because the Jays have had a tendency to pitch worse this year when the game has been on the line.

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:29 AM EDT (#95347) #

http://economics.about.com
If you have bad relievers across the board, it doesn't really matter how you distribute the high-leverage sitautions. Having Gagne (clearly the best reliever on the staff) would mean that most of the high-leverage situations would go to him.

No, it wouldn't. Unless we go back into a time machine to 1976.

Do you think Tosca would bring him in with bases loaded in the 7th inning in a tie game? Or with runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs int he 8th?

Tosca would bring him in during the 9th inning. Only when the Jays were ahead. Often when they were ahead by 3.

What would happen is that Tam or Creek or someone else would blow the game in the 7th or the 8th, so there wouldn't be a lead to protect in the 9th.

Unless your definition of a "high-leverage situation" is the same as the baseball definition for a "save". I'm very familiar with Tango's work in the area, so I know that's not it.

Mike

_Jordan - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:37 AM EDT (#95348) #

Final score from last night's Pulsaki game: 21-17.

And what a game it was. The P-Jays banged out 17 hits and received 13 walks, including 3 to Jayce Tingler, who also went 2-for-3 with an RBI and 4 runs scored. The big bat belonged to backup catcher Joe Wolfe, who doubled his season RBI total by driving in 7 runs on a homer and 3 singles. Joey Reiman tripled and singled twice, scored 5 runs and drove in 4. Jeremy Acey also scored 5 times and drove in 3. The pitchers were mostly mediocre, except for reliever Raymon Sanchez, who allowed 7 runs in just 1/3 of an inning.

In better news, solid outings last night from Jason Arnold (7 IP, 4 H, 2 R, 1 BB, 1 K) and David Bush (6 IP, 5 H, 2 R, 1 BB, 3 K).

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:58 AM EDT (#95349) #

A crude calculation.

Estimate Gange at 2.00 runs per 9 IP true ability. Estimate worst pitcher of relief core at 6.20 runs per 9 IP. Gagne pushes everyone into lower leverage situations, pushing the worst reliever off the team.

Let's say the LI roles are as follows:

Ace = 1.9, #2 = 1.4, #3 = 1.2 #4 = 1.0 #5 = 0.8 #6 = 0.7

pre Gagne:

Ace = 4.4 RPG, #2 = 4.7 RPG, #3 = 5.0 RPG, #4 = 5.3 RPG #5 = 5.5 RPG, #6 = 6.2 RPG

post-Gagne:

Ace = 2.0 RPG, #2 = 4.4 RPG, #3 = 4.7 RPG, #4 = 5.0 RPG, #5 = 5.3 RPG, #6 = 5.5 RPG

Note that the pre-Gagne bullpen isn't really that terrible - it's got two above league average relievers.

Assume an inning distribution as follows:

Ace = 75 IP, #2 = 80 IP, #3 = 65 IP, #4 = 70 IP, #5 = 70, #6 - 70 IP

That's about 2.65 relief innings per team game.

Net runs (pre and post Gagne)

Ace = 75IP*1.9LI*(4.4-2.0)/9 = + 38.00 runs
#2 = 80IP*1.4LI*(4.7-4.4)/9 = + 3.73 runs
#3 = 65IP*1.2LI*(5.0-4.7)/9 = + 2.60 runs
#4 = 70IP*1.0LI*(5.3-5.0)/9 = + 2.33 runs
#5 = 70IP*0.8LI*(5.5-5.3)/9 = + 1.24 runs
#6 = 70IP*0.7LI*(6.2-5.5)/9 = + 3.81 runs

Total runs saved = 51.71

Assuming a slight hitters park, 10.2 runs represent 1 win. Therefore 5.07 wins are added.

I believe that the Jays pen has not had the best relievers in the highest leverage situations and has generally performed quite badly in the 9th inning (Escobar, the Politte, the committee, now Politte again). I'm confident that Gagne would have been installed as a more or less traditional closer and thus the poor performance in the 9th inning would not have occurred.

Taking it a step further, suppose we add another quality reliever - let's call him Mota who has a rate of 2.8 RPG into the number two slot. How many more wins can we save?

Ace = unchanged
#2 = 80IP*1.4LI*(4.4-2.8)/9 = 19.91 runs
#3 = 65IP*1.2LI*(4.7-4.4)/9 = 2.60 runs
#4 = 70IP*1.0LI*(5.0-4.7)/9 = 2.33 runs
#5 = 70IP*0.8LI*(5.3-5.0)/9 = 1.87 runs
$6 = 70IP*0.7LI*(5.5-5.3)/9 = 1.09 runs

27.8 runs saved = 2.73 wins added.

Although Gagne is only 29% better than Mota in this example, he adds about 86% more wins because he takes over the highest leverage sitautions.

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:01 AM EDT (#95350) #

Gagne, last year still had an average LI of 1.83. Last year was 2002, not the 1976. It wouldn't take much of a nudge from a sabermetrically aware management for Tosca to bump that up a bit.

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:03 AM EDT (#95351) #

Uh, Mike...

With Gagne, you'd have theoretically better pitchers available for the 7th and 8th than you do now. So, there should be slightly more leads to protect.

Craig B - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:05 AM EDT (#95352) #

This is good stuff.

Of course, the Eric Gagnes of the world aren't exactly *available*. Well, they are, but you'd have to have perfect foresight. Still, five games is significant. (When I say significant, I mean relevant to the Jays' chances of contending as opposed to statistical significance or singificant in the win column)

Craig B - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:07 AM EDT (#95353) #

Gagne, last year still had an average LI of 1.83.

In a pitchers' park with a lousy offense. That'll go down a bit in the Dome with the Jays' offense, I would think.

Still plenty of good use, though.

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:12 AM EDT (#95354) #

http://economics.about.com
1. There's no way Gagne has a 2.00 ERA in the Skydome pitching behind the Jays defense.

2. There's no way a reliever would have a LI of 1.9 given the context of the Jays roster and bullpen usage.

3. The biggest flaw in your model is that the LI's wouldn't change when you change the composition of the bullpen. But it's obvious that they *will* change. It's like saying that Carlos Delgado will have as many RBI situations hitting behind Vernon Wells rather than Dave Berg. You're completely abusing the ceteris paribus asummption.

4. Where the heck do 1.9, 1.4, etc. come from? It's not clear that a typical 2003 bullpen will have that distribution. Will that distribution be the same in a hitters park rather than a pitchers park? If you make arbitrary assumptions, you can come up with any conclusion. It doesn't really prove anything, though.

Mike

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:20 AM EDT (#95355) #

Mike,

Allow me to respectfully disagree. Gagne relies less on his defence than any other pitcher in baseball. I thought I was being very conservative. I could easily have pegged him at 1.7 RPG.

Note - Chavez hasn't played as a strong picther's park this year so far (as it has in the past). I was using park and defence neutral RPGs, otherwise you can bump up all the other numbers by something between 0.3 or 0.7, so it doesn't really matter (the net runs stay the same). Run environment needs to be factored in at the end when you convert runs to wins.

You can come up with better LIs. Those are my best guesses based on Tango's work. It was not my intent to prove anything - simply to make a few assumptions and see what comes out.

I suppose your 3 or 4 win estimate was based on iron-clad logic and rigorous data analysis?

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:26 AM EDT (#95356) #

Mike,

Your point #3 is lost on me. Sure they will change, but the scope of change isn't that great, because every manager tries to give his best relievers the most important sitautions. No one knows exactly how they will change - they may in fact change to show Gagne is even more valuable.

What I do know is that, by definition, the LIs for a team average out to 1. Since Tango has shown that almost all starters LI is very near 1, and that ace relievers are almost always above 1.5, the worst relievers are going to be used mostly in blowouts and thus have LIs of lower than 1.0.

Please provide what you think are more plausible LIs and we'll work through them.

Again, this is jus a simple calculation based on a few reasonable assumptions. To get a more accurate picture, you'd have to build a simulation engine and work through different scenarios.

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:27 AM EDT (#95357) #

http://economics.about.com
You can come up with better LIs. Those are my best guesses based on Tango's work. It was not my intent to prove anything - simply to make a few assumptions and see what comes out.

And I can make a different set of assumptions to show that Gagne would only be woth 1 win. What does that prove?

I suppose your 3 or 4 win estimate was based on iron-clad logic and rigorous data analysis?

Well, it uses a lot less assumptions. I looked at how many wins better the Dodgers bullpen has been relative to the Jays bullpen (around 9-12 wins) then looked at the performance of each member. Simple stuff.

The problem is you're equating "rigorous data analysis" with "a very complex model". But since nobody has any idea what the value of all these new parameters should be, the supposed complexity is just adding noise to the model. It's doing more to obfuscate than illuminate.

Mike

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:29 AM EDT (#95358) #

Craig,

I don't know if it really makes all that much difference,. You can have a high scoring team that allows a lot of runs and still have tons of close games in the late innings.

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:30 AM EDT (#95359) #

http://economics.about.com
Your point #3 is lost on me. Sure they will change, but the scope of change isn't that great, because every manager tries to give his best relievers the most important sitautions.

They don't, though. They do it to maximize the number of one-inning saves that the closer gets. Big, big difference.

The problem I have with all of this is it's all based on dozen of assumptions that nobody knows how realistic they are. I can't provide better LI numbers, because I have no idea how things would change. No one does.

Mike

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:41 AM EDT (#95360) #

Based on this chart produced by Tangotiger, I'm amend the LI distributions to more closely match recent practice.

Ace 1.7, #2 = 1.4, #3 = 1.2, #4 = 0.9, #5 = 0.7, #6 = 0.6

Keeping all the assumptions the same, adding Gagne would be worth 46.79 runs or 4.59 wins. That's without making an effort to copncentrate high-leverage situations in his hands.

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:47 AM EDT (#95361) #

You don't know how many wins better the Dodgers bullpen is, and you certainly don't know how to distribute those wins to the picthers in that pen.

Thanks for your help, anyway.

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:51 AM EDT (#95362) #

It's not the number of assumptions one makes, it's the likelihood of the assumptions coming close to reality that counts. From what you've presented, it sounds like you're just guessing.

I guess you're right: a pure guess requires the fewest assumptions and so must be the superior method.

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:59 AM EDT (#95363) #

http://economics.about.com
You don't know how many wins better the Dodgers bullpen is, and you certainly don't know how to distribute those wins to the picthers in that pen.

It's easy enough to figure it out. They've been 113 runs better. You even used the 10.2 runs = 1 win argument. If you can use it, why can't I? I'm not using a bunch of weird, esoteric assumptions.

Why can't I figure out how to distribute those? We do it all the time when looking at offenses. It's really not difficult.

Look at it this way. If JP got Gagne over the winter, he wouldn't have needed to get Tam or Creek. Creek hasn't pitched much this year, so we'll consider Tam. From ARP, we can estimate that Gagne has been about 21 runs better than Tam (in about 9 more innings). We can add some runs for these trickle-down effects and leveraging. Tam was put in a *lot* of high-leverage situations, though, so I don't see how you'd add too much for leverage. Where are all these extra runs coming from?

Even if you're LI estimates are correct (which I have no reason to believe they are), what is the per-team variance? How do they change when you add/remove a bullpen member?

It seems to me to be a heck of a lot easier to evalutate how much better it is to evaluate an entire bullpen than to answer these more esoteric questions.

Mike

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 11:00 AM EDT (#95364) #

http://economics.about.com
It's not the number of assumptions one makes, it's the likelihood of the assumptions coming close to reality that counts.

Right. But your assumptions are completely arbitrary and have no basis in reality.

Mike

Mike D - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 11:18 AM EDT (#95365) #

Come on, Mike M. If "reality" is our benchmark, do you really think that the replacement of the worst Jays reliever (depending on who's healthy) with a healthy Eric Freakin' Gagne would still result in the bullpen gagging up 15 games thus far this year (instead of 18)? That has to be true if your "three wins" hypothesis is correct.

_John Cleese - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 11:20 AM EDT (#95366) #

Time's up.

That will be five pounds for more arguing please.

Craig B - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 11:21 AM EDT (#95367) #

Gentlemen, please.

Mike D - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 11:21 AM EDT (#95368) #

And this may introduce some unfair variables into the equation, but if you're correct in saying that (a) Tosca would bungle bullpen usage and (b) therefore, the setup men would cough up a bunch of games in the 7th and 8th, don't you think JP would have dealt for additional bullpen help? If the Jays were closer to contention but had the one problem of getting the ball to Eric Gagne with a lead, JP would have surely made a move.

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 11:21 AM EDT (#95369) #

http://economics.about.com
Come on, Mike M. If "reality" is our benchmark, do you really think that the replacement of the worst Jays reliever (depending on who's healthy) with a healthy Eric Freakin' Gagne would still result in the bullpen gagging up 15 games thus far this year (instead of 18)? That has to be true if your "three wins" hypothesis is correct.

Yes I do. Why is that so hard to believe?

Mike

Mike D - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 11:22 AM EDT (#95370) #

(looking at my bloody stumps where my limbs used to be)

Right, we'll call it a draw!

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 11:24 AM EDT (#95371) #

http://economics.about.com
And this may introduce some unfair variables into the equation, but if you're correct in saying that (a) Tosca would bungle bullpen usage and (b) therefore, the setup men would cough up a bunch of games in the 7th and 8th, don't you think JP would have dealt for additional bullpen help? If the Jays were closer to contention but had the one problem of getting the ball to Eric Gagne with a lead, JP would have surely made a move.

I agree with you 100%. He would.

I think we just have to realize that the Jays aren't one pitcher away. Their bullpen needs a complete overhaul, the usage patterns need to be changed, and a couple decent starters wouldn't hurt either.

Mike

robertdudek - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#95372) #

"Why can't I figure out how to distribute those? We do it all the time when looking at offenses. It's really not difficult."

Except all you've done is a back of the envelope calculation estimating how much better Gagne is than Jeff Tam. Give me a break.

Yes, I guess you're right, my assumptions have no basis in reality.

Tango's LI concept has no basis in reality. His chart, showing the average LI of relivers over the past 4 years, has no basis in reality. Pegging Gagne as an elite reliever (2 RPG context neutral is a normal elite reliever performance) has no basis in reality. Noting that he in effect replaces the weakest member of the bullpen (not Tam) has no basis in reality.

Once again, thanks for all the constructive criticism. I now feel that your simple methods have helped me see the light.

Gitz - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 01:14 PM EDT (#95373) #

My head hurts.

_Jonny German - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 01:33 PM EDT (#95374) #

Great discussion guys.

Here's another angle on the value of a good bullpen:
Toronto has scored 646 runs and given up 599, for a Pythagorean winning percentage of .538, or 61-53.
LA has scored 390 runs and given up 373, for a Pythagorean winning percentage of .522, or 59-54.

Now let's swap the Toronto pen (194 runs in 328 1/3 IP, as given by Mike D above) for the LA pen (81 runs in 323). Adjusting for the difference in IP, Toronto now gives up 112 fewer runs and LA gives up 110 more runs.

This gives Toronto a Pythagorean W% of .638, or 73-41, and leads the Wild Card by 5.5 games. LA drops to .395, or 45-68.

Summary: Trading the Toronto bullpen for the LA bullpen would result in 12 more wins for Toronto and 14 more losses for LA. Assuming, of course, that all the many other factors such as ballpark and usage do not result in different net performance.

That's one gigantic assumption. But Mike, without assumptions the world grinds to a halt. Do you want to go for a ride in my airplane that I built without going through an iterative process of making assumptions, building models, testing, refining assumptions?

_Jonny German - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#95375) #

Correction: a record of 73-41 would lead the A.L. East by 3 games.

_DS - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 01:36 PM EDT (#95376) #

A quick hijack.

A small profile of David Bush from BA, along with a surprising announcement from a lesser known prospect.

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 02:16 PM EDT (#95377) #

http://economics.about.com
Except all you've done is a back of the envelope calculation estimating how much better Gagne is than Jeff Tam. Give me a break.

Which is more than making up a bunch of numbers.

Tango's LI concept has no basis in reality.

That has nothing to do with my objections to your method.

His chart, showing the average LI of relivers over the past 4 years, has no basis in reality.

That has nothing to do with my objections to your method.

Pegging Gagne as an elite reliever (2 RPG context neutral is a normal elite reliever performance) has no basis in reality.

That has very little to do with my objections to your method.

Noting that he in effect replaces the weakest member of the bullpen (not Tam) has no basis in reality.

Who would he have replaced at the beginning of the season then?

Once again, thanks for all the constructive criticism. I now feel that your simple methods have helped me see the light.

Complicated does not necessarily equal good.

Here's my criticism:

1. You have nothing that shows what the average bullpen usage patterns LIs are, let alone the variance between teams. This is crucial to your argument.

2. You have nothing that shows how LIs change with the makeup of the bullpen. This is crucial to your argument.

3. You have nothing that shows how LIs change between high offensive teams and low offensive teams. This is crucial to your argument.

4. You have nothing that shows how LIs change between good defensive teams and bad defensive teams. This is crucial to your argument.

Robert, I have absolutely no objections to using LI stats. You seem to miss that. I also have absolutely no objections to complicated methodology. I do have an objection to ad hoc assumptions, and making up numbers because they help make a point and because we don't really know what the numbers are.

Until we can answer these questions, I'd rather use stats like ARP, even if they are simple.

That's one gigantic assumption. But Mike, without assumptions the world grinds to a halt. Do you want to go for a ride in my airplane that I built without going through an iterative process of making assumptions, building models, testing, refining assumptions?

I must not be explaining myself well. I don't object to assumptions per se, I just object to arbitrary and bad ones. I mean, if your airplane assumptions were based on the idea that things fall up instead of down, I don't think I'd want to ride in your plane. :)

Mike

Mike D - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 03:10 PM EDT (#95378) #

Hey, who else thinks Mike Moffatt should ride in Jonny's plane?

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 03:23 PM EDT (#95379) #

http://economics.about.com
Hey, who else thinks Mike Moffatt should ride in Jonny's plane?

Shuddup, Leaf Fan. :)

Mike

_John Neary - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 04:22 PM EDT (#95380) #

If you make arbitrary assumptions, you can come up with any conclusion. It doesn't really prove anything, though.

And I can make a different set of assumptions to show that Gagne would only be worth 1 win. What does that prove?

Right. But your assumptions are completely arbitrary and have no basis in reality.

Which is more than making up a bunch of numbers.

I do have an objection to ad hoc assumptions, and making up numbers because they help make a point and because we don't really know what the numbers are.

I don't object to assumptions per se, I just object to arbitrary and bad ones.

Mike, are you sure you want to suggest that Robert's making up numbers to suit his argument? Do you really think that's what he's doing?

You [Robert] even used the 10.2 runs = 1 win argument.

Not in the sense that you mean. Robert used 10.2 runs = 1 win after adjusting for leverage. That's the whole point of the leverage index; if you ignore leverage, you're always going to underestimate the value of good ace relievers.

From ARP, we can estimate that Gagne has been about 21 runs better than Tam (in about 9 more innings). We can add some runs for these trickle-down effects and leveraging. Tam was put in a *lot* of high-leverage situations, though, so I don't see how you'd add too much for leverage. Where are all these extra runs coming from?

I fail to see what relevance the leverage of Tam's innings has to the argument. Bumping a bad pitcher out of high-leverage innings is going to have even more of an effect than bumping a bad pitcher out of low-leverage innings.

And I can make a different set of assumptions to show that Gagne would only be worth 1 win

I'd like to see those assumptions. I imagine that they would be patently ridiculous, unlike Robert's.

The problem I have with all of this is it's all based on dozen of assumptions that nobody knows how realistic they are. I can't provide better LI numbers, because I have no idea how things would change.

Robert has admitted himself that his assumptions are best estimates using the information available to him. But he's at least trying to grapple with the issues of leverage and trickledown effects. You can always make the case for statistical nihilism, but nihilism won't lead to any research or fruitful debate. Moreover, it's not like ARP is free from assumptions itself. Just because Michael Wolverton has been publishing those numbers for a decade doesn't mean that the mathematical justification for them is watertight. And I'm not arguing against ARP; I'm actually a big fan of it. I just think it's disingenuous to pretend that traditional models of reliever evaluation are built on foundations of stone and that Robert's analysis is a castle in the air. The reality, as I see it, is that there isn't much difference between the two; if you reject one, you should reject the other.

Mike Green - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 04:48 PM EDT (#95381) #

I do minor league updates on the official team site, and I wondered where Spicol had disappeared to. Now I see. Spicol, I'm hurt..

Anyways, I also do a prospect summary about twice a month. It provides an overview of the entire system that I find useful. Here at BB I'm sure that it would start some discussions.

Mike D - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 05:24 PM EDT (#95382) #

Welcome aboard, Mr. Green! We'd love to hear what you have to say -- notwithstanding the excellent work by Messrs. Furlong and Neary, of course.

Pepper Moffatt - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 07:00 PM EDT (#95384) #

http://economics.about.com
Mike, are you sure you want to suggest that Robert's making up numbers to suit his argument? Do you really think that's what he's doing?

If he's not, then why is the LI for his "Ace" reliever so ridiculously high? I mean he had it at 1.9, a level nobody hits. Then he amended it to 1.7, a level which almost nobody hits. The chart which he provided has the LI for a closer a lot lower than that. Why else would these numbers be so ridiculously inflated?

Plus in his assumptions he had the "Ace" pitch 75 innings, whereas Gagne only pitched 55. My 3 win estimate was based on the value of the 115 or so games already played, not over a whole season. So that number was inflated.

Regarding the LI of a closer, you could argue that a great reliever will necessarily have a high LI. But he assumed this out.

I fail to see what relevance the leverage of Tam's innings has to the argument. Bumping a bad pitcher out of high-leverage innings is going to have even more of an effect than bumping a bad pitcher out of low-leverage innings.

Do you think Tam was pitching low-leverage innings?!? They were putting the guy on in situations with multiple guys on base to try and get a double play.

I think if you're going to use LIs, you should have atleast some idea of what reasonable values should be. Why is this asking so much?

Why is 1.7, 1.4, 1.2, 0.9, 0.7, 0.6 any more reasonable than 1.5, 1.3, 1.2, 1.1, 0.6, 0.4? Of course, if you use these figures and assume that Gagne would have an RA of 2.5 (which is a reasonable estimate) and had him pitch 55 innings, you'd get a really small number. What does this prove?

Obviously we'll be at odds, because I don't see anyone doing a study anytime soon that will answer my questions. Without those answered, I'm not going to buy into this methodology, because it looks so ad hoc to me. So I'm going to drop my vocal objections, because I despise flame wars. Anyone else can be free to have the last words. No hard feelings. Honest. :)

Mike

_Jabonoso - Friday, August 08 2003 @ 08:39 PM EDT (#95385) #

Mike, I am your fan, please post in da box!
If Gagne were traded to Toronto ( say instead of that Aussie ) he would have been used as a starter and he would be with an strange ailment, even maybe in the DL...
There has been some talent not being used optimaly and a lot of stubborness about using non talented ones...

Pepper Moffatt - Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:46 AM EDT (#95386) #

http://economics.about.com
I'm not going anywhere. I just don't want to continue this thread. :)

I'd also like to apologize to Robert. While I still have grave objections to his methodology, I got entirely too personal. I've gone to a couple games with him and he's a class act all the way. Sorry Robert.

Mike

_Spicol - Sunday, August 10 2003 @ 05:48 PM EDT (#95387) #

Hey Mike Green! I did stop posting at the MLB site but am glad you found your way here.

Minor-League Update | 107 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.