Who else here thinks Hank Kingsley when he hears Faulds' silly "What do you think about that" catch phrase?

Wells goes deep... hey now.

Unrelated to tonight's game, and perhaps me just talking to myself, but Doug Davis has re-emerged in the "majors", getting the callup from Milwaukee today.

I'll take you up on that tangent Chuck... How do the Blue Jays explain picking up and discarding Acevedo & Service so quickly? A team doing things tools-based could say that they saw something in those pitchers in their brief stints that convinced management they were not worth keeping. But a sabermetric team... did these guys really add such significant data in their short stints as to justify a change in management attitude towards them?

Probably not Jonny, but I think they've officially thrown in the towel on this season and are going to start making evaluations for next year. Neither Avecedo or Service were going to be in the picture next year. Why they didn't just let guys like Bowles have a chance first is beyond me.

Davis got called up by Milwaukee? The sinister plot to keep Pascual Coco from the majors continues.

By the way, did Coco ever explain his actions during Spring Training? His agent said an explanation would be forthcoming when Pascual caught on with a new team but I never heard an explanation when he signed with Milwaukee.

Why they didn't just let guys like Bowles have a chance first is beyond me.

2003: 18 BB in 41 innings
2002: 46 BB in 79 innings
2001: 45 BB in 81 innings

"Hey now" would be an improvement. Rob's already used his other signature call tonight -- "inside, for strike three."

The top of the third was fun to watch. Cat, seeing the ball much better since his trip to the eye doctor, got it started with a one out base hit, then Hinske parted Piniero's hair with a vicious liner. Wells walked, and Delgado ripped a 2-run single up the middle. The Jays got a break when Winn butchered a Myers line drive, then they cashed another unearned run on a Woodward sac fly. Apart from Kevin Cash swinging at every pitch he saw and making two outs in the inning, it was just like the good old days.

Lurch is doing a fine job, and it's 5-1.

On the ball that Rey Sanchez dropped for a single in front of Kielty in right-field (bottom-of-the-3rd), one of the Mariners' radio broadcasters (Dave Henderson I think) argued this was from the Jays not knowing the ball doesn't travel as well in Safeco as it does in other parks. He said Kielty was playing too deep (close to the warning track), like he would at SkyDome. Ichiro plays 10 feet shallower and would have caught that ball. (The Jays later turned a DP so no runs scored.)

a change in management attitude

Jonny, management was auditioning Acevedo and Service, hoping that perhaps the change of scenery or the coaching of Gil Patterson and Bruce Walton would make them worth keeping. Nobody guaranteed that they would be the next Ward and Henke. It was an experiment, nothing more. Because of their past successes, they were each given several opportunities to prove they hadn't become mediocrities; they both failed, so the auditions are over. You don't need reams of data to prove the obvious.

Stephen, I'm listening to the FAN, where Tom Cheek said Kielty's first step was back, then he couldn't recover in time. Nothing wrong with his positioning, just an unfortunate jump. We can't all be Ichiro...

Fair enough Coach. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the sabermetric approach at first glance... i.e. you've got several years worth of data, the most recent 12 innings shouldn't be enough to change your analysis of the data except in extreme cases. I'll buy your hypothesis that they thought maybe they could coach these guys into playing better.

Bottom of the third inning, Safeco Field: Addams Family theme song on the loudspeakers. Usual sounds of the ballpark or subtle reference to Lurch on the mound? You be the judge :)

That's an unfortunate name for a big league pitcher.

Another quibble, Jonny, is that the Jays are neither "tools-based" nor "a sabermetric team" -- I'd call them value-based. J.P. is one of the best scouts ever, open-minded enough to consider new information and brave enough to defy convention. The data may help him find players, but Ricciardi doesn't need a spreadsheet to evaluate them. He will continue to rely on scouts and stats to find potential bargains, via trade, the waiver wire, Rule 5, and the draft. Some will work out, but the ones who don't will move on quickly.

How about that almost-catch by Wells on Edgar's HR? Great elevation and hang time; he just couldn't squeeze it.

Putz is an unfortunate name for anyone, let alone a big league pitcher.

This is slowwwwwwwly slipping away...It's almost like soap, they try to hold on so tightly that it just squirts away.

Cash has been overanxious at the plate, Lurch has shaken him off about fifty times, he was charged with a passed ball and he was unable to get a grip on the ball when Ichiro stole second. I know he's nervous, but he's leaving plenty of room for improvement.

The big lefty threw 107 pitches and got nailed by a comebacker, so it's now in the (soapy?) hands of the bullpen. Reichert's in for two batters; we'll see a lefty for Olerud.

That's an interesting quibble, Coach, and I see what you're saying. J.P. is distinctly different from Beane in that he has the scouting background, and I think that's advantage Riccardi in the long run. I'd still label the Jays as a 'sabermetric' team if for no other reason than how severely sabermetric they are compared to the vast majority of other Major League teams. To call them 'value-based' is a little ambiguous... everybody is value-based, they just have different concepts of value.

Kielty made a couple of nice catches in the bottom of the 8th. He was playing deep for Edgar and caught his line drive to the warning track. Then he ran in for a shallower fly by Cameron.

Congrats to Tosca for leaving Reichert in to face Olerud (who grounded out).

Hey Anonymous, who are you?

I'd be happy to make the case for giving Bowles a chance over some of the other detritus, but I'd like to know who I'm talking to.

I give up trying to predict Tosca's bullpen usage. He stuck with Reichert (who I thought was either his 10th or 11th best pitcher, depending on how he feels about Sturtze today) for the entire eighth inning, and Dan did a great job. Fantasy owners will be watching carefully to see who is given the all-important "three-run-lead-in-the-ninth" role, but as I keep telling them in my ESPN column, it could change tomorrow. Last time I guessed "Lopez or Politte?" on a game thread, it was the final Service call.

On second thought, I'm off to bed, and I won't be near a computer tomorrow, so my "I'd be happy to make the case" is rather hypothetical.

Is it me or does Hinske's glove ALWAYS seem to do these type of things late in the game?

Hinske makes a matador's pass at an easy bouncer, turning a possible double play into a baserunner and bringing the tying run to the plate.

Hey! Good spot for a K. Way to help yourself, Kersh.

Aquilino gets an interesting spot for his homecoming, facing Boone with the game in the balance.

That was rather tame, Coach. I'm inclined to think the suds got in his way ;-).

Outstanding pitches on strikes two and three -- #2 came after shaking Cash off twice, and #3 came after shaking the rookie off once.

Way to be, A-Lo. Jays win!

Lopez is growing in stature every time he succeeds in these spots. He looked almost too calm, and he toyed with a great hitter.

This was was a very entertaining game, and I'm already anticipating tomorrow night. I hope Lurch's arm is OK.

I'd like to propose the following arrangement for bullpen usage when the game is close.

7th/8th vs RHB Politte, vs LHB Kershner or Miller
9th vs RHB Lopez, vs LHB Miller or Kershner

Mop-up men: Sturtze and Reichert

My idea is to give Politte the right-handed set up job (he seems to be good at it) and let (Ice) Lopez face righties in the ninth. The lefties can come in anytime between the 7th and 9th depending on availability.

I'd give this set-up a 4 week trial and re-evaluate it.

Hi John (Neary.),

No, I am not Mr Anonymous (as such), but I'd be interested to hear your case for Mr Bowles. His minor league numbers (nice strikeout rate, not so nice walk rate) seem a little bit insipid for AAA and are likely to get somewhat worse in the majors. Is there something I am missing here which portends other than future mediocrity? Maybe his good K rate?

Or are you just saying his future mediocrity will be better than other flavours of mediocrity (c.f., Creek, D., Service, C, Acevedo, J, etc.)?

Hey Dr B, it doesn't hurt to give a guy a few shots when the season is already over as far as the playoff race is concerned. Some guys get better in the bigs, and some get a whole lot worse. Regardless, it certainly wouldn't be a huge deal to have Bowles come in and get rocked a few times. Experience is experience.

Robert - I like the proposed bullpen usage. You could even put Lopez in in the 8th as well and let him close it out...he seems to have the arm for it.

In the Tacoma News Tribune this morning, Darrin Beene profiles our favourite lefty:

"This year there's a learning curve because I've never pitched this much," Hendrickson said. "I've never been through a major-league spring training and I've never been through a full major-league season.

Bud Withers of the Seattle Times had the same idea:

"Don't be surprised by the numbers," said Toronto pitching coach Gil Patterson. "Each time, he gets a little better."


Neither Hendrickson nor Carlos Tosca thinks the line drive off his triceps will keep Lurch from making his next start, against an even tougher opponent than Piniero -- Tim Hudson, in Oakland.

Maybe his good K rate?

The best predictor of future success is K rate.

Dr. B: My take is essentially the same as Tim's. I don't think Bowles is hot stuff (and his K rate is down this year -- not a good sign), but as Gitz put it a few months ago, he deserves the chance to put up a 6.00 ERA just as much as Sturtze et al do. He hasn't been terrible in his major league cameos, and he's always kept the ball in the park. However, we don't have all the information -- it's entirely possible that the front office is basing their personnel decisions on factors of which we are entirely ignorant.

This isn't really an important issue, for it seems highly unlikely that Sturtze or Tam or Bowles or Service or Linton or anyone of that ilk will still be pitching for this team in a few years -- which was perhaps Anonymous' point.

Incidentally, anyone who's still hoping for Sturtze's release will likely be disappointed. The Jays' upcoming "Dog's Day of Summer" promotion features Tanyon's dog, among others. No, I'm not joking.

Anonymous: I shouldn't have snapped at you; please accept my apologies.

Craig: Do you have evidence that minor league K rate is a good predictor of major league success? I'm not trying to be a statistical nihilist here -- if the evidence is sketchy, I'm not trying to imply that the concept should be thrown out the window; rather, I'm just curious.

John

Yes, John, I have seen studies. I will find them when I have time.

Minor-league numbers for pitchers are not as good prdictors of major league success as the numbers for position players, I do know that.

http://economics.about.com
What the heck is a statistical nihilist, anyway?

Mike

Craig, I'd like to see these studies too if you have time. I did a quick search, and all I found were articles that simply stated that strikeout rates were fine predictors of future performance. Although I did find a couple of interesting articles by Tangotiger that I missed previously. I love that guy.

I seem to remember something from a newsletter, perhaps By The Numbers. Unfortunately, Phil Birnbaum's BTN archives are great, but they only go back to '98 and it's not there.

I'll be at home tonight, if I have time I'll take a look.

I've seen something else on the internet, I'm going to try searching the archive of rec.sport.baseball

Thx, for the answers John, Tim and others.

Mike: If you have a better term, I'd be happy to drop that ugly one. I would define "statistical nihilism" as the refusal to ascribe any practical value to statistics, or the insistence that statistics only have meaning within a very narrow (and hence effectively useless) context. That's a really poor way of putting it. Let me try again with an example.

Suppose that there was in fact no existing study that showed minor league K rate to be a predictor of major league success. (I am not claiming that this is the case.) A statistical nihilist would insist that minor league K rate therefore has no value in the assessment of minor leaguers. A more practically-minded observer might notice that there's a great deal of evidence to show that major league K rate is a good predictor of future success and that it is reasonable to tentatively assume that minor league K rate might have similar value, barring the presence of negative evidence.

The caricature that I draw of the "statistical nihilist" is one end of a continuum. The other end is "Chris Woodward is hitting .571 on turf against left-handed sidearmers in day games, so I had better use him to pinch-hit for Delgado."

By the way, let me know next time you're in town and going to a game.

John

http://economics.about.com
The caricature that I draw of the "statistical nihilist" is one end of a continuum. The other end is "Chris Woodward is hitting .571 on turf against left-handed sidearmers in day games, so I had better use him to pinch-hit for Delgado."

Ahh.. okay. I thought you were implying that a skeptic is a "statistical nihilist". If so, I was going to have a T-shirt with that slogan made up and I'd wear it around the office. As you've probably noticed, I'm skeptical about of a lot of things and "I really have no idea if X exists" is a stock answer of mine.

By the way, let me know next time you're in town and going to a game.

I'd love to go with a game with you (and any other Boxers who want to come along). I'll let you know next time I'm in TO at the same time as the Jays (should be a week or two).

Cheers,

Mike