Wasting no time, Delgado blasts a 2-run HR.

Now that was just huge. 460' maybe? 470'? It's 420 to the wall, and that wall has to be 30' hight. 500'?? Probably not that big, but huge none-the-less.

Doc is dealin' -- they are hitting everything on the ground. With a slightly better throw, Hinske would have got Millar to make it six up, six down, but it pulled Delgado off the bag and was ruled an infield hit. Halladay had to face two extra batters, with no harm done; Eric atoned with a fine play on Mueller's high chopper and it's still 2-zip.

I recall a conversation (OK, it was a disagreement -- wow!) Craig B. and I had earlier about defense, and how I maintained that while improvement was possible, even likely, if you're a bad fielder with slow foot speed, etc., you're simply a bad fielder, and practice will only take you so far, only improve you so much. So ... is Hinske improving at all? What about the other Toronto defenders who are, shall we say, defensively challenged? I ask because I haven't seen many games this year.

You can often see on TV that it's actually just 379 feet to the base of the wall where Delgado hit it out (but 37 feet up).

Despite what Mr. Tosca recently said about Reed Johnson being a good OBP guy, does anyone really buy that? The guy does some nice classic baseball things, what with the nifty bunting and all around hustling look, but getting on base doesn't really seem to be a strength.

His OBP is 341, and in 306 atbats he's only walked 15 times, and if you run the numbers (you, not me -lazy) without those league leading 17 hit-by-pitches, his OBP would look aahhh, not to good.

If he's going to still get a bevy of AB's, well that's excepted, but I wouldn't mind for the final 30plus games a batting order that was similiar to the May/June ones where Wells and Delgado had all those opportunites to get those wacky RBI totals.

On most nights how about having Catalanotto leading off and either Keilty or Hinske (leave him there, maybe it'll jump start him, circa his '02 approach? Or maybe it won't?) hitting two hole?

Either way, like Ricciardi's been preaching all week, this team needs quite a few more runs than the other guy to win most nights, and perhaps a tweaked line-up would help that cause.

Thanks Ortiz, we needed that!

"He's a good baserunner. He has good instincts on the bases."
- John Cerutti discussing Manny Ramirez, proving that he must be playing yahtzee or something during all those Blue Jay-Red Sox games, 'cause he sure as shit ain't watching the game

Great player, glad he's around, but my golly, what a hacker? I think he a Nomar are trying to "out do" one another.

Who'd like some runs? Put your hand down Roy.

...And from out the dog house emerges one Josh Phelps.

Actually it's probably more of a wood shed.

Ya, i'll agree with you there John, if Hinske's read on that pitch was that it was a likely strike, he should have been pinch hit for. Yuk.

I'd have pinch hit for Eric, but J.P. didn't give me the signal.

Very funny, "Carlos" -- almost like something Shane would say.

Impersonations, once in a blue moon, if they are absolutely necessary to make a joke funny, might be acceptable. Doing it just to amuse yourself and annoy everyone else is kind of sad.

The game thread was quiet tonight; even I got distracted, doing a little site maintenance and catching up on e-mails. I did have one ear on the radio, but was unable to watch on TV. Obviously there were some missed opportunities by the Jays hitters, and I guess Doc made a few pitches he would like back. You can't win 'em all.

Shane, that May/June lineup you were so fond of had Reed Johnson leading off. What I really don't understand is why you would discount all his HBP as if they didn't put him on base. That's like saying somebody's slugging average isn't so good if you overlook his doubles and triples.

http://economics.about.com
Coach: Has Wilner (or anyone else) mentioned JPs comments or the Star reaction to them in the post game?

Also do you think the headache this must have caused JP will make the team a lot more reluctant to deal with the ZLC?

Mike

if you're a bad fielder with slow foot speed, etc., you're simply a bad fielder, and practice will only take you so far, only improve you so much. So ... is Hinske improving at all?

I think there are plenty of examples of poor defensive players who eventually became good defenders, especially at third base. Wade Boggs comes to mind immediately, as does Ed Sprague, who was awful his first few years and became quite reliable as his career progressed. There's no question Hinske improved greatly during the second half last year, so I don't know what to make of his regression in 2003. I do think he showed late last year that he has the potential to be respectable in the field.

My theory is probably more valid in speaking about positions at the left end of the defensive spectrum, mind you. A lousy defensive shortstop or centrefielder is not likely to improve much, perhaps partly because range is key at these spots and that's something that's very hard to improve upon.

is Hinske improving at all?

Eric's defensive problems are mostly above the neck. His reaction time is terrific; he snares line drives and takes some doubles away. His range isn't bad, either. An unusual percentage of his errors come on easy plays -- when he fields a routine one-hopper, I'm sure I'm not the only one who cringes in anticipation of the double-clutch and poor throw. Hinske's incredibly intense, and his own worst critic. He'll be fine if he ever learns to relax, but this season, he's trying too hard.

The same applies for one of the other "defensively challenged" Jays, Chris Woodward. He has all the tools, including decent range and a strong arm, but is prone to botching routine plays. I don't believe it's a lack of concentration, more like thinking too much. Carlos Tosca said something, in one of the media scrums I overheard, about your brain being a weapon that can help you defeat the opposition, but it can also hurt you. He explained that when you overthink, the game seems to speed up, which leads to errors.

One of the former liabilities with the glove, Carlos Delgado, worked very hard in spring training this year and is vastly improved in every facet of his defensive game. Orlando Hudson has also become more consistent, to go with his brilliant improvised plays. Brian Butterfield is a great infield coach, on both the mechanics and the psychology, but two of his students are still trying to grasp the mental part.

The other shaky Toronto gloves are being replaced. Kielty is a huge upgrade over Stewart as an outfielder. Frank Catalanotto isn't bad in left; he was a bit overmatched in right. The great-hitting Frankencatcher (Wilson & Myers) didn't exactly shut down the running game, but they are losing at-bats now to Kevin Cash, who is a terrific receiver.

Good points about Hinske (and the other players you mentioned), Coach. Perhaps his offensive and health struggles contribute to the pressing on the defensive side as well. In the long-run I am still optimistic that he will be a decent defender.

do you think the headache this must have caused JP will make the team a lot more reluctant to deal with the ZLC?

No way. J.P. knows that what he said should be obvious to anyone. The manager works for the GM. Hardly earth-shattering news. I'm sure that he reacted to the item in the Star as the latest attempt to make something out of nothing. If it wasn't for the hint of racism, the infamous "White Jays" piece was just another census. The lame attacks on sabermetrics last weekend would have been more easily ignored if they didn't remind us of an apparent anti-Jays agenda, so maybe today was something of a "last straw."

I wouldn't be surprised if J.P. busts my chops a little the next time he sees me, but it will be just kidding; he has too much class to hold a grudge against Batter's Box for accurately reporting what he said.

From what I heard, Mike Wilner called the whole thing much ado about nothing, or words to that effect. He did say the interview was good, and got the URL right, so we're grateful. How the Star reacts remains to be seen.

http://economics.about.com
I heard Wilner's comments at a bit before 5pm. I think he said that the interview was "definitely worth checking out"... something like that, at least. He also said that the Star's reaction to the quote should have been "Well, duh". His point was: Why would any GM hire a manager who wasn't on board with what the front office was trying to do?

I know JP won't hold it against you, particularly given the fact that the Star has been a thorn to him for months. I'm just glad to hear that it won't hurt your relationship with the team, or make them reluctant to deal with the site in the future.

I like the "Exclusive Interviews" box on the side. Are there any plans to do any more? If you're taking suggestions, I'd love to hear from someone in scouting or player development.

Cheers,

Mike

Well guess Roy Halladay is human afer all. Like Coach said u cant win em all. August has been cruel to Doc. I read somewhere that last year he went thru this sort of thing in August but turned it up a notch in Sept. So hopefully Doc will turn it on in Sept. But this August swoon might prove to be important in the Cy Young race cause Loaiza has definetely moved ahead after his stellar performance last nite. And the long ball has done in Halladay all season long which is a surprise cause before this season he was stingy with the long ball. It could also be the fact that he might be going thru a dead arm period which most pitchers do go thru at this time. Anyways not a great outing for Halladay and his fans but Doc will strike back.

I think Doc's Cy Young chances are almost done.
Unless he reaches 20 wins and no one else gets 18, and he can lower his ERA so he's in the top 5 (he's 10th right now), I don't see how he can beat Loaiza if he's more than a full run behind in ERA and tied in wins.

Here is the comparison of the three leading candidates (after tonight):
(bold indicates advantage in category)

Halladay
Ranks 1st in AL in W (17)
Ranks 1st in AL in IP (215.0)
Ranks 4th in AL in SO (162)
Ranks 10th in AL in ERA (3.68)
Ranks 5th in AL in WHIP (1.16)
Ranks 3rd in AL in WPct (.739)
Ranks 3rd in AL in CG (4)
Ranks 12th in AL in OOPS (.704)

Loaiza
Ranks 1st in AL in W (17)
Ranks 7th in AL in IP (182.2)
Ranks 5th in AL in SO (158)
Ranks 3rd in AL in ERA (2.51)
Ranks 4th in AL in WHIP (1.09)
Ranks 3rd in AL in WPct (.739)
Ranks 19th in AL in CG (1)
Ranks 4th in AL in OOPS (.626)

Hudson
Ranks 10th in AL in W (13)
Ranks 2nd in AL in IP (202.1)
Ranks 11th in AL in SO (129)
Ranks 2nd in AL in ERA (2.40)
Ranks 1st in AL in WHIP (1.01)
Ranks 2nd in AL in WPct (.765)
Ranks 6th in AL in CG (3)
Ranks 1st in AL in OOPS (.552)

Pedro Martinez might also slide into the mix if he can win 5 of his last starts (giving him at least 15 wins, which is what you need to even CONSIDER winning the Cy Young as a starting pitcher).

Mike (or anybody else who'd care to help):

Sorry, I'm trying to piece this together from your various posts... did the Star respond to what J.P. said in his interview with Coach, and the Fan is in turn responding to that? What's the story?

Unless Loaiza falls apart (and Pedro doesn't), that spanking on the Yankees pretty much assured Loaiza the Cy Young. Like Tejada's game winning RBIs last year, or Chipper Jones' Mets bashing over two weeks in '99, it's the kind of thing the voters seem to remember and reward. Pedro's still the better pitcher, but he's had so many fewer starts... whether they show up as wins or not. (Win Shares ranks Hudson slightly ahead of Loaiza, but something about Hudson's phenomenally low strikeout rate makes me a little suspicious of what he's doing--although I should be no less suspicious of that than of Loaiza being the Cy Young front runner.)

Interestingly, something similar--albeit much more surprising--is happening in the NL. Everybody not named Phil Rogers (and all those people voting on ESPN's website) knows Bonds is having a better year than Pujols (1.275 OPS v. 1.100 OPS), but the two are actually tied in Win Shares. And with Bonds on the bereavement list again, Pujols is primed to pass him.

As of August 19th, the good people at Major League Baseball Graphs calculate that Bonds has 30.76 hitting WS and 2.32 fielding WS, for a grand total of 33.08 or 33 WS.

Pujols has 31.34 hitting WS and 1.39 fielding WS, good for 32.73 or 33 WS.

Yes, that's right. Despite Bonds' massive advantage in OPS, Pujols actually leads Bonds in hitting WS. In fact, Barry wasn't so far off when he undermined Pujols's candidacy for not playing a regular position. If Pujols where the Cards' everyday LF, he'd likely be ahead of Barry. Here's why. I'm guessing it has a lot to do with the one category other than Batting Average that Pujols has a substantial lead over Barry: playing time. Pujols currently has 538 TPA in 125 games v. 455 TPA in 108 games for Barry.

That the two of them are still tied in WS is staggering. But if Barry keeps missing more and more games due to personal tragedies and nagging injuries (a luxury the Giants can afford to keep him healthy and focused for October and beyond), Pujols might deservedly win the award despite being the inferior player.

Playing time might be the one excuse in which an inferior player might realistically be called "more valuable" than a better player, regardless of how their teams respective perform.

For once, the idiots will be right.

Just a couple of notes, if I may;

-Anyone hear Damian Cox on the FAN intimating that J.P. had best not tussle with the Star -"the biggest paper in Canada". This is becoming too much. Somethings got to give or we could end up with constant bickering back and forth. Like the Leafs front office.

-Watch Hinske's feet next time the ball comes his way; you could swear he's dancing a flamenco. As for Woodward, while he drives me to distraction on some nights, at others he looks positively Ripkenesque.

-I should say the same thing about the team; on some night I pull out my hair over their play. On other nights it is a joy to behold.

-Love the sight; never miss it. Keep up the good work.

Best not tussle with the Star? What's the Star going to do? Give the Jays negative press? Oh no! That is too funny...as if shoddy commentary and journalism from their sports columnists weren't enough, you've got Damien "The Godfather" Fox thinking he works for some kind of Mafioso organization that can make people sorry for crossing them. A newspaper that I once had an ounce of respect for is quickly devolving into a bad joke.

I think it's odd also that Cox never levels such "threats" at the Leafs when they complain about the papers. Maybe he actually fears physical violence from Patt Quinn...which given past events might be a real possibility.

Go Expos!

I was worried that moving to Montreal might preclude me from seeing many more MLB games but I could be watching well into October at this pace.

After this evening, the NL Wildcard Standings show:
Phi 70-62
Fla 70-62
Mtl 70-64
STL 69-63

Montreal's scheduel plays out like this:
Philadelphia - 3 Games
Florida - 4 Games
Chicago - 4 Games
New York - 7 Games
Atlanta - 5 Games
Cincinnati - 3 Games

So the question of the day: Will I see post-season baseball?

Expos go for the 4-game sweep tomorrow with Vazquez (11-8) up against Telemaco (1-1).

Add this to the equation as well...Only SIX of the remaining 26 games take place at home.

On Montreal radio the conspiracy theories run wild (not necessarily unjustified) because the way their schedule has been setup seems like a plot to sink the franchise or the biggest damn coincidence recorded to date. You'd think the stretch of games in Peurto Rico would have been punishment enough.

Any insight into how schedules are drawn up?

Battersbox.ca is awesome. Great work guys. I cannot believe that it took me this long to find it.

I just read the J.P. Ricciardi interview, and noticed that he said something about Josh Phelps' confidence level being an important issue. I have suspected that, for quite some time now. Phelps seems to play against the marginal pitchers, but sit against the good ones. The reason that it seems his PT is down so much in recent weeks is that the Jays have been playing Seattle and Oakland, both of whom are laden with great pitchers. This is great management. It helps Josh' confidence - and - it helps his rate stats by diluting the quality of the pitchers that he faces [thus maximizing his potential trade value].

I love this site. I hereby vow to visit it daily.

Well, Barry is certainly the BEST hitter in baseball, but that doesn't automatically make him the most VALUABLE hitter. I believe that WIn Shares is essentially correct about the value of the performance of Bonds and Pujols this year. A lot of Bonds's value is the intentional and semi-intentional walks he draws, which don't help the team as much as their impact on OPS would imply (because they set up double plays, and force the other hitters on the team to make the opposition pay for those walks).

Robert, I don't think that's necessarily true. WS, remember, uses a team's pythagorean outperformance or underperformance, as well as its outperformance or underperformance at translating runs created into runs scored, to count for or against a player. There are good arguments for doing this, and (I think) good arguments the other way. Also, they judge against a baseline of zero, which we may like or dislike, though the MVP voting guidelines, stating that playing time should be taken into account, seem to explicitly say that you should do.

If we use a "replacement" analysis, Bonds looks much better, obviously.

VORP, which discounts the value of the walks in exactly the way you are discussing, and also assesses the impact of outs made (which WS, I think, does not) has Bonds at +94.0 runs this year and Pujols at +78.1 runs... an edge of about 16 runs for Bonds. VORP adjusts for position but not for positional defense.

Put another way, Bonds has created 123 runs (by EqR) this year while using 216 outs, and Pujols has created 118 runs while using 299 outs. Those extra 83 outs used by Pujols have an impact of about 14 runs vis-a-vis Bonds (the average team would score about 14 runs in 83 outs), so Bonds' relative advantage is about +19 runs.

Both the San Francisco offense and the St. Louis offense have been averagely efficient at concerting their EqR into runs (99% for SF, 100% for StL). The Giants have in fact done better than the Cards vis-a-vis their Pythagorean projection.

On Montreal radio the conspiracy theories run wild (not necessarily unjustified) because the way their schedule has been setup seems like a plot to sink the franchise or the biggest damn coincidence recorded to date. You'd think the stretch of games in Peurto Rico would have been punishment enough.

Any insight into how schedules are drawn up?

Adam, one factor about Montreal's schedule is that Big O crowds usually dive off the cliff in September... they draw even less than usual.

Craig,

I don't trust EqR at all. It doesn't place the player in the context of his own team, so it has no hope of capturing his value accurately.

I think BaseRuns, detremined in a team context and adjusted for the actual number of runs the team scored (after all if real runs don't result from Bonds's contributions, then it isn't valuable).

Robert, I see your point. If you have a guy who goes 2-for-4 like clockwork every day, all singles, and hit him between two guys who hit like Danny Ainge, he'll be the best player in the game outside of Bonds, and have almost zero value.

I would *like* to make my MVP choices mostly independent of how a player is used, but that's not what the criteria seem to get at.

Anyway, Pujols is an eminently defensible selection.

BTW, Robert, do you have the current BaseRuns figures for Bonds and Pujols 2003?

I could calculate them. I worked on a technical formula for Base Runs that included intentional walks. I also decided that the On Base and Advancement factors should not act upon each other if we are assessing an individual batter, but rather each should act on a team average or league average player.

http://economics.about.com
Sorry, I'm trying to piece this together from your various posts... did the Star respond to what J.P. said in his interview with Coach, and the Fan is in turn responding to that? What's the story?

I was in Rochester for most of it, so I may have missed some important details, but here's the major details I know of:

After JPs interview here, the Star published the following (which was posted by Another Scott):

---
Ricciardi confirms he's calling the shots

In a wide-ranging interview published yesterday on Batter's Box, a Toronto-based Website for baseball fans, Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi confirmed a widely held suspicion in the media that it's him calling a lot of the dugout shots and not manager Carlos Tosca.

"I've told Carlos I didn't hire him to implement his plan, I hired him to implement our plan," Ricciardi said.

"Our manager has to be an extension of us ... so we have a big hand in what goes on in the lineup. But he has some say as far as a feel for things, or certain matchups."
---

The Fan 590 picks up on this and eventually ends up interviewing JP over the phone. JP sounds pissed and says that the Star got it wrong as they usually do (or something like that.. I can't remember the exact quote). Pretty much everyone on Fan 590 is then critical of Tosca, particularly Damien Cox. Everyone except Mike Wilner, who thinks the Star completely missed the point.

Does that help? I'm probably missing some details, so if someone knows something else, please help fill in the blanks.

Mike

Yes, thanks Mike.

I keep asking who else holds this "widely held suspicion"?

Oh, wait, that's a trick that a writer will use to shore up their point without having any actual evidence.

Umm,

Last nights game thread goes dead for hours and I pop in making the occasional comment to see if there's a pulse, and I get called "sad" for that? F@*k, tough crowd.

And one other thing, the May/June line-up i'm so "fond of" had Shannon Stewart for 128 official AB's and Johnson occupying 139 official AB's during Stewarts injury absence. During which time Johnson had the greatest boost of performance he's probably ever had anywhere, which for the time being nicely filled in for Stewarts absent production.

Why excuse all the hit-by-pitches? I don't, but his base-on-balls ability is hidden in his suitable OBP. For a truer indication of how effective he is getting on-base, i'd want to be aware that his OBP is made up of more hit-by-pitches (17) than it is walks (15). If he can consistently get hit by this many pitches at this rate, then wonderful, it's like an episode of "Cheers", and he can be the "Coach".